Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay. We can begin. Good

morning. Welcome to the 01/27/2026 Planning Commission meeting. I'd call the meeting to order. Roll call, please. K. Chair Dhrkevich? Here. Vice Chair Manley?

Here.

Commissioner Lewis? Here. Commissioner Starf? Let's see. Commissioner Star is currently not present. Commissioner Sonsma? Here. Commissioner Burke?

Here.

And Commissioner O'Leary?

Here.

K. We have a quorum. K.

Thank you. I'd like to start with the approval of the meeting minutes from 11/18/2025. I'm assuming everyone has had a chance to review those minutes. Are there any questions or comments before I call for a vote or a motion? Sorry.

K. I'll entertain a motion.

So moved. Second.

And a motion and a second. Call for the vote, please. Okay. Chair Djurkovic?

Aye. Vice Chair Manning?

Aye.

Commissioner Lewis?

Yes.

Commissioner Sumpa? Aye. Commissioner Burke?

Aye.

And Commissioner O'Leary?

Aye.

K. K. Before we get started with the rest of our agenda, I'd like to say that the Planning Commission is principally an advisory board to the Pierce County Council. Actions taken by the Planning Commission on almost all agenda items will be forwarded to the county council as a recommendation for its consideration and final action. Today on our agenda, we have three three briefings on three separate subjects. We are not taking public comment today. So at this point, I will turn it over to staff.

Good morning, commissioners. Thank you for your attention this morning. My name is Ansley Silva, associate planner with Long Range Planning, and with me is Jorita C. Pence. I think

I should speak until she's. Sure.

Thank you. With me is Jorita C. Pence, senior planner with the office of resiliency climate action. We'll be going through taking you through this briefing on solar energy and battery energy storage systems this morning. The purpose of this amendment package is to help enable Pierce County's transition to more renewable energy while ensuring public safety.

It focuses on two related areas, removing solar removing barriers to solar energy systems and establishing clear regulations for battery energy storage systems or BES for short. Pierce County has adopted an ambitious goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 45% by 2030 from a 2015 baseline. Increasing renewable electricity like solar is a major tool to reach that goal. And because solar is intermittent, battery energy storage systems are necessary to store excess energy when demand is low and release it during peak hours. So this package helps streamline permitting for solar energy systems.

It clarifies development standards so applicants know what to expect and establishes clear land use and safety regulations for battery energy storage systems, which is an area where the code currently lacks local standards. Battery energy storage systems store electricity most commonly in lithium ion batteries. They can back up the grid, support renewable integration, and improve reliability. Best deployment has generally increased pretty rapidly since 2019 driven by several reasons. There are some public safety concerns, which a lot of those concerns are addressed in the International Fire Code and the National Fire Prevention Association Code.

And I believe the fire marshal might join us online to address any questions related to that. Because this technology is new on the scene at Pierce County, we haven't codified anything regulating it, and this is essentially permitted as a right currently. This update stems from sustainability 2030 and comprehensive plan periodic updates, which prioritize renewable energy. Also, early in 2025, Pierce County received SoulSmart technical assistance, which helped shape the energy, the solar energy code changes. We received SoulSmart silver designation in March, and then throughout much of this year, we've been drafting these amendments in collaboration with long range planning, the office of resiliency and climate action, development services, surface water management, and fire prevention staff, including the fire marshal and also West Pierce fire hazmat specialist, as well as with Puget Sound Energy.

We've informed tribes of the proposal and have public facing web page where folks can comment. We've completed SEPA review checklist and public hearing for this, where this commission will be in February.

I'd just like to say for the record, commissioner Star is now online.

I'll pass it over to Eurydice now to walk you through policy direction and the solar changes.

Thanks, Ansley. I'm glad to be here today. So one of the actions in the sustainability 2030 plan 2023 update was for the county to become SoulSmart certified. To receive SoulSmart silver, we needed to review act review and acknowledge potential areas of improvement in our zoning code, and our development services colleagues completed solar permitting and inspection training. So this proposal today directly implements recent policy direction.

The 2024 comprehensive plan update emphasizes renewable energy and streamlined permitting, and sustainability 2030 calls for eliminating barriers to solar. So we did achieve Sole Smart Silver designation last month, just Ansley mentioned. These amendments implement Sole Smart recommendations we received as part of our silver designation and move the county towards Sole Smart Gold designation while aligning with state and regional climate goals. SoulSmart is a national program that provides technical assistance to local governments to reduce barriers to the installation of solar energy projects and to help local governments meet their renewable energy resilience and climate goals. HealthSmart has been funded by the US Department of Energy, the Solar Energy Technologies Office.

So the proposed regulations and changes for solar, the proposed amendments start with consistency. New definitions align with state definitions and with the SoulSmart rec recommendations. Also, you'll see that solar is allowed as an accessory use in all zones. A purpose and intent statement clarifies that the county is encouraging solar while protecting public health, safety, and welfare. Several changes remove unnecessary barriers.

Item setback exceptions are clarified so that they they apply appropriately to roof mounted versus ground mounted systems and maintain minimum safety clearances. Solar energy systems are exempted from certain screening requirements that add cost and can reduce system efficiencies. DAP are working towards over the counter permits for all residential solar energy systems with an online process for that targeted early this year in the development services division. This is required for soul smart gold designation.

Okay. Currently, deaths of any size are regulated as electric facilities and are generally allowed outright across the county with review primarily limited to our local fire code. And while state and national fire code updates address many of the safety issue, the county has little ability under our current code to consider citing, compatibility, or additional mitigation measures. This proposal creates a new section in our code for BESS and establishes a clear regulatory framework. Utility scale BESS would require a conditional use permit and review by the hearing examiner.

This added review is intended to ensure public safety, allow site specific analysis, and reduce conflicts with incompatible land uses. Utility scale beds would not be allowed within 100 feet of sensitive uses like schools, nursing homes, childcare centers, and medical facilities. Setbacks must be cleared of combustible vegetation, and underground utilities are required where practical and emergency signage and contacts are required to support first responders. These amendments are consistent with the Growth Management Act, Vision 2,050, Countywide Planning Policies and the Pierce County Comprehensive Plan. All of them emphasize reducing greenhouse gas emissions, supporting renewable energy, and modernizing infrastructure.

Facilitating renewable energy can benefit all residents through cleaner air and climate resilience and thus can improve grid reliability and backup power. At the same time, the code changes address potential risk by limiting proximity to sensitive uses and requiring safety measures. We're happy to take any questions that the commissioners may have.

Thank you. Are there any questions or comments from planning commission members?

Yes for me, mister Burke. Can I go ahead?

Go ahead.

Okay. My first question is, if a public or community facility installs a large battery system primarily to serve on-site loads and emergency resilience. What criteria will staff use to distinguish that from a utility best facility?

Right now, the code permits utility scale best pretty much in any zone. So what this package does is it requires a conditional use permit. So that would go through all of the letter polls of review and including the fire marshal review.

I wanna so I should clarify this. So this is a single use. This is for a, for example, a community building or a public building that has a large battery just for its own use to to for power for that. What distinguishes that distinguishes that from a utility best?

I think the question is maybe the difference between accessory use and primary use. Yes. So the accessory use would be like one of those Tesla panels that you might have seen a picture of in a garage. So those would be permitted. But a larger scale utility best utility, which we see in, like, the shipping containers, for example, that would then be a primary use.

And there could be even if it was to support the home, I believe that would still continue to be a primary use because you can have more than one primary use on a parcel. Is that right? Does that help answer your question?

So I I yes. It's pretty much it. It's clear. I I just because, for example, in silicon, we're putting in a a large battery system on our public safety building, but it it may be it may be larger than a Tesla. It may be and it may be in a a container and stuff, but it will be probably connected to the building.

I see. In that case, it I'm not sure if that would be considered an accessory use or a primary use.

Okay. Well, it would it's primarily to to to drive the building. A second question, what's the minimum lot size put in a ground mount solar system?

We

have three levels in our code for solar as a primary use. And so the first level would be one acre, I believe. I can double check for you, though.

So the the idea is that could a could a individual in his own home area if he had a large let's say he had a a quarter acre lot and he has space on it. Can they put in a ground mount?

For primary uses, you can install ground mounted solar on an area of less than one acre.

Okay. Thank you.

We can also use ground mounted solar as a accessory use.

Thank you.

Going back to mister Burt's first question regarding the the application he was speaking of from Stillcombe, is there going to would there be a 100 foot distance requirement between the the facility and the batteries?

Right now, the 100 foot requirement is for just for those sensitive uses, like, such as a school and nursing home and certain medical facilities and playgrounds. So so why why is there that separation? That, was determined. We looked at best practices and fire marshal and the hazmat recommendation as well as, Puget Sound Energy, and that was the recommendation.

I'll just add one thing to that. That it's it's a question of evacuation. If they catch the larger ones. Right? Think again, think shipping container.

If they catch on fire, and they do, but that's improving, but they do catch on fire. If they catch on fire, being lithium ion batteries, you can't put the fire out. You have to let it burn out. And so the concern, is that particularly for people who might be in a inpatient facility that are in beds, but also people that are more difficult to move. So think young children who are difficult to follow directions quickly or, you know, people in wheelchairs and some people who are more difficult to move than capable adults that easily evacuate, but you would need some buffer to allow emergency personnel to get in there and evacuate them because they burn.

We've had conversations, and we've seen buffers go up to a thousand feet, 1,200 feet. And through conversations with the fire marshal, we brought it down through the smallest buffer that we could come up with that would allow for that life safety consideration for and and really primarily for people in bed.

Aren't there different types of batteries?

So lithium is one that's highly volatile, I guess. But what about sodium batteries that could take higher heat and less? What what about those applications? It it seems like we're making a real kind of a blanket policy here instead of talking about, you know, the different applications with different types of of battery, different types of storage. And the distance between the facility that's serving and the battery package itself, you know, there's loss of of not a whole lot in a 100 feet, probably, but there is some loss of power in that distance.

So I was just curious. Maybe the fire marshal has some more that he could give in on because that seems that's the primary concern is fire. Right? It is. And maybe there's no fire suppression systems that could handle that. I don't I don't know.

There are not. That that's what we've heard from the fire marshal.

Yeah. Is is he still on?

Ken He is.

Yeah. Ken, is there a difference between lithium ion lithium and sodium batteries with respect to fire?

Yeah. I mean, the lithium ion batteries are the ones that are really concerning right now, and it's really the technology and the quality of how they're built and designed. Some of the cheaper knock off ones are we see catch on fire all the time. Some of the good brand name ones, we don't. The spacing we put in there, this this is all this technology is evolving, like, rapidly fast. And we have had fires. I mean, do we have a lot of fires in these? No. But the ones we have are very dangerous, not only to firefighters because you really can't put them out. They gotta burn their self out.

But surrounding places, like, longer range spoke of nursing homes, schools, We really wanted to set a buffer so we could get those people out or at least come up with a keep in place, way to keep them safe if they're in air intake can be changed. There's so many things to think about, And that's why we brought in Chris Rafe from West Pierce. He's a hazmat guru and he's a battery guru. Knows much more than me and I'm not ashamed to admit that. The nano air particles and there's just a ton of things.

So the safer we can keep them away from people and right now, there is not an extinguishing system to put them out. We let them burn out. The follow-up problem is ground contamination. So there's a big concern about that. So as if technology evolves, I mean, there's a huge demand for it. So there's a lot of people in the business that are gonna make them, sell them, and then they're out of here. So we really need to make sure that we're not stuck with that if and when something happens. So the review, it was I was really pleased that Long Range reached out to me right off the bat. I got Patricia, one of my experts, and then Chris in there. So we're really working hard to understand these things, where they need to go, where they shouldn't go, what happens when they burn.

So the review process is gonna be the key, I think, and our input is gonna be critical on where these can go and where they shouldn't go. Or is this a new thing that it's got a really cool suppression system that we can we can keep it closer? So I think get getting the review getting the application, the review process is gonna be the key to figure out. It it it's new. So a 100 feet, we thought was pretty fair. Maybe we figure out that there's newer technology that'll let us put them a lot closer that'll self extinguish to be determined. But I think right now, it's a pretty good start for it.

I I guess my question referred more to having a hard distance. Maybe a 101 feet might be better. But, you know, that they should be, regulated through a conditional use and and not just a hard number.

Yeah. The conditional use, I think, is is probably key because then we all get to look at it and figure out as a team of subject matter experts. Is it gonna work there? Is it not gonna work there? What are the so I I like having the conditional use permit for the for

the You mentioned it might be safer to be a thousand feet away. So if you have a an ordinance that says 100 feet, I mean, that's even though it might be better, you know, for public safety to have it further away, we're stuck with that 100. So I guess the the language, the hard language of having a a distance, whatever it might be, is, something that I I don't think should be in the ordinance. I think we should just have conditional use, and then, the experts can come in and and make their case, and the hearing examiner can decide.

Yeah. I mean, I I don't write the policy. I think it's probably a good it doesn't seem like an unreasonable idea to have. Maybe just as an error is determined through a conditional use permit, the spacing on it. Because, you know, with the lots now, we have to reconfigure some stuff. But, I mean, that would as long as we get a look at it and we can talk to people and understand what's going in there because next year, there might be a super cool one that self extinguishes and doesn't do anything wrong. So

It just it just comes down to public safety, and I'd I'd like to to to see us not put some hard number language in there because it may be that one application might be for 10 feet, and that's safe. And then one might be for a thousand, and that's still borderline.

Yeah.

But, Chuck, what I would say to that is I I think that applicants need to have some sort of a guideline as to a distance to at least start with. Because if if that's an unknown, then they're trying to place this you know, the facility. It it just I I think there needs to be something that will give them some kind

Most people that do this are gonna be pretty sophisticated, and they're also probably gonna have a customer meeting or something like that with the fire marshal and also with, you know, principal planners that their senior planners that probably have been down this road before. So I I think I think it's just if you have a hard number, then you're gonna then what has we have a tendency to do is to come in and they say, well, we made application. We spent all this money. We took all this time because it was a 100 feet. Now you're telling us at at the at the hearing that it because they their call could issue use anyway that that it has to be more than a 100 feet?

I don't know. That just seems like it's gonna cause conflict to me when there could be a negotiation initially up front, and then that followed through with the staff recommendation from both fire marshal and from planning to the hearing examiner saying that this is safe at this distance and that we should if there's a consensus to move forward. I just in a deal like this, I know I'm usually a hard numbers guy, but this is this is not one of them. Because the technology is changing so rapidly, the fair marshal said we could have a new system tomorrow, literally, that, you know, we we can place right on the building that's safe. So I don't know. That's just my thought on it.

I think the other entity that needs to be included in these decisions is the utility that service in that area just so they can opine on it too because they have a lot of knowledge on this type of stuff. So I I think conditioning them is probably a a great way to go because we might figure out that one's never gonna work where they want it and maybe another one's gonna work well. As long as we get all the subject matter experts to reveal them and agree that yes or no, it's not gonna work. But we we definitely need eyes on them because, like I said, this technology is rapidly evolving, and we don't know all the players in the industry. So we we wanna make sure we're getting a really good product to bring into Pierce County.

It's placed appropriately. It doesn't become the disaster that we on the TV about, like, with the plumes of smoke and the battery energy burn. As long as we can review it and make sure it's safe, take a look at it.

Commissioner O'Leary? Thank you. I'd like to just echo what Chuck is saying. And from a application standpoint, I'm a commercial real estate broker. We have been approached to place these kind of facilities on a land lease in a variety of areas, including excess parking areas and shopping centers together with more rural undeveloped areas.

And I think with the variation in product type that Ken alluded to, that the spec sheets on these need to be evaluated before we do have a hard date or pardon me, a hard set of separation guidelines. I think it should be very product specific, and I think it would be to the benefit of the community overall to have that.

Any other questions? I

I also agree with commissioner Sunswell.

I think it should be

reviewed per case without having just because we do want to consider the safety of the public. And I I guess I have one other question. Letters were sent to the tribes, and have those have we re have we received answers?

We didn't receive any answers.

How long ago were the letters sent out?

That would have been probably in December, but I will double check that. And I did want to just clarify that 100 foot buffer was only for elementary and secondary schools, playgrounds, childcare centers, and nursing homes. That wouldn't apply to shopping centers. It's only those sensitive uses.

It it doesn't really matter.

Okay. Just clarify and put the note.

I I get that. I'm just I'm just saying that but what what matters is, like, the the fire marshal said, the technology is evolving so fast. It we'd hate to see someone wanna bring in a a care facility, for example, that has an opportunity to use solar because they've used it other places. They say, oh, well, we've got this 100 foot. We can't get it on the lot. What are we gonna have to do? Let's just pass on this. You know? If if you have a conditional use permit, that gets all taken care of, and there's not a there's not a restriction other than physicality and practicality.

Right. We have seen images of, like, a BES facility inside a playground, for example, and I think that's the kind of thing we would like to avoid for safety reasons.

Sure. That's that's understandable. But you've also seen a horse and and a buggy, you know, before cars. I'm just saying this this technology is evolving so rapidly that to to to restrict it any way right now other than, you know, in a public forum with experts is, I I I think, it's counterproductive.

Any other questions or comments?

I just wanna go back and clarify. Batteries used for secondary use for for individual buildings don't do not fall under this new code. Only That's correct. Standalone utility ones that supply the utility or the the grid do. Is that correct?

That's correct.

Would wouldn't wouldn't the goal be kinda to come off grid so that in situations where we have, you know, grid outages, that type of thing, these places don't have to have, you know, backup generation by, you know, diesel or natural gas, that they can have their own battery storage and be self contained units rather than being on the grid. And the grid is really susceptible to to failure through through inclement weather and that type of thing, whereas these storage facilities, if they're safe, would provide all of power for hours and hours and hours on end.

That's correct. Maybe I misunderstood commissioner Burke's question. So accessory uses would is not what's included in this section of the new for for BEST, like the 100 foot from sensitive uses. That type of accessory use isn't include that's permitted. What is conditional and what is the 100 foot foot buffer would be what is considered an electrical utility. So that could be a stand alone system with solar and BESS, or

it could

be to support the grid.

So you're saying that if something if if like, going back to mister Burke's question about the the, I don't some kind of public facility that they're they're they're proposing. If there's a 150, 200 people, some of them young, some of them elderly, using lithium lithium ion battery to power this, generate this off grid, the it it there's no 100 foot setback there. I mean, that that's that's okay. Is that what you're saying? There's a little ambiguity there. I'm just trying to figure it out.

The 100 foot as it's written in the draft is just for sensitive uses.

So so let me let me clarify. So what so the difference between secondary works uses for building like in Silicon, we won't have a 100 foot requirement. But for grid for example, somebody sets up a solar field and has a battery backup to go with that that that fit then feeds the grid, that would be considered a grid level battery thing. So these are battery systems that supply to the grid generally, but not to they're not for an individual building or an individual cluster of buildings.

That's correct. I would think that, you know, you're talking about sensitive areas, and a safety zone. You would think that shopping centers would be included in that because you could have large amounts of people of varying degrees of age in ambulatory. You know? Yeah. That's true as well. So you would think that if you're gonna have a safety zone, shopping centers should be included in that or places where churches where there's large people that will congregate in those areas because, I mean, they're just as much at risk as nursing home or day care or school.

That's right. Yeah. Oh, go ahead.

So my comment, based on what we're hearing here today and my experience with a very limited amount of this is that I don't believe there is a standard for a safety zone because you have varying product type, you have varying conditions, And I really I would strongly recommend that this be evaluated on a case by case basis based on the technology and the product being proposed together with the setting that's being put in and together with the experts that are available to the county to advise. This today is today and a year from now is gonna look a lot different in this particular arena. And I'm not only concerned about the safety zone from fire, but also the containment and contamination. Even if you're in a rural setting, the impact to the land, as a result of a failure could be very, very costly and somewhat catastrophic in in some respects. So I would I would really appreciate it if the staff could consider that.

Second.

I'll just that just made me think of something else when we're talking about out in the rural areas. Is there any provisions in the code for protections from critical areas like wetlands?

For battery energy storage, it's permitted across. It is not permitted, however, in agricultural resource lands and rural farms to protect those areas.

But you could still have a large piece of property that's neither of those classifications.

You could. I just forgot didn't mention that, so I wanted to mention that. But you're right. And that's why we're doing the conditional use permit.

Because I would think if there's a risk for contamination in the ground, we're risking critical areas of that as well.

And are we gonna talk about that real farm? I mean, there's a lot of really super positive use for solar out there in the and they're they call it agri Baltic. Is there is there any is there any reason why we can't look at these on a case by case basis too rather than just have this wholesale, oh, it's not allowed there? That that mean seems, again, a little bit ridiculous, especially if you have farming, this vertical farming in agricultural areas or where or greenhouse farming, where there one side of the greenhouse is solar, the other side is is open to sunlight. I mean, there's so many applications, but just to go wholesale and say, no.

We're we're not having that out in the air. That that just doesn't make sense to me.

On rural farm, you said solar, so that's still that is a conditional use for rural farm. It's about the battery energy storage system when we collectively decided to prohibit that in rural farm. But Who's we? The review that we went through. So that was Oh, services yeah. And yeah.

Again, in a situation To cut it, this is the direction we received after staff reviewed and made a recommendation. The direction you're seeing today is what came from the executive's office. It's not staff recommendation. This is

Thank you. Appreciate that. I just wondered if that was ever gonna come out. One other thing is the as far as those again, if you're in farming areas where you're off grid, there's there's there's opportunities there, especially if we're gonna be you most of this is truck dependent. They haul produce with trucks.

Trucks now are evolving so that they're electric, And to to be able to recharge some of the, trucks out there in the actual farm area where the the produce originates, might be an advantage to a farmer. It might be advantage to commerce. I'm just saying that, again, these things should be looked at as conditioned use, not as just wholesale. We're we're gonna take them out because, I don't know, somebody had a thought about doing it.

Also, just a comment on agriculture. We are seeing an evolution to a certain degree in agriculture with hydroponic growing and other types of growing that are not the conventional use of the land. And, consequently, a loss of power when you have a a pond, internal pond full of you know, in a enclosed building with grow lights, full of product, a loss of power would be catastrophic to that crop for that particular cycle. And so having the ability to have some form of backup power that wasn't generated by fossil fossil fuel to me would be more consistent with the plan that I hear being talked about as far as especially here in the state. So I do I agree that just to have a categoric elimination of this type of use regardless of where it came from might be a bit of an overreach, and and we might be missing an opportunity here.

Because this, in my opinion, is going to be agriculture of the future for a variety of reasons because of the cost of production in the conventional sense, especially here in the county where we don't have mass pieces of land and we don't have the weather system that allows for multiple harvest. We typically get one harvest if we're a vegetable row cropper, for instance, where inside a building, you might get four in a in the same twelve month period. Thank you.

Just just the economic feasibility of it all should be reviewed on a case by case basis rather than just this, you know, blanket saying that we're not going to allow these facilities in the rural area.

Thank you for those comments.

Any other questions or comments on this topic my new mission members? I don't see any. Thank you for your presentation. When will this be coming back to us for recommendation? At the February. February. Okay. Thank you. So the next item on our agenda is the child's care code update.

Staff will just need a moment to switch over. Okay. Perfect.

Can

we take a minute break? Five minutes. You wanna call for a recess? I'd to call for recess for

the next five minutes. Thank you. We will return at 10:15.

Oh, what the fuck you got? Would you

like a water? Feel any good. Thanks.

A meeting on that on February 9.

Okay. Commissioner is online. If you turn on your camera so we know you have returned, please turn on the camera. Okay. We have enough, clinicians, online and leaving the room. I'm ready to start, the meeting again.

Alright. I'll call the meeting to order, pick up where we left off with staff presentation on the child care code update.

Morning, everyone. My name is Sydney Smith. I'm an associate planner with Long Range Planning. Today, I will be brief you on the child care code update. The purpose of this code update is to remove zoning barriers to the day care use.

The county is one of many jurisdictions that regulate child care facilities. And by removing zoning barriers, the county can make the code sections on day care centers more precise and consistent. I will begin with going over the timeline of this project. This project was put in motion initially with the work that federal development did on the child care report in February 2025. Project initiation began in May using feedback received from economic developments report and the comprehensive plan process.

Over the summer, the work plan was established and the current code was reviewed. It was at this time the executive was given an initial brief of the scope of the project. Then our first draft regulations were made within a general review by an interdepartmental team consisting of development services and economic development staff. And at the 2025, there was a final review by the executive team, and then the draft finalization began, which included initiating the single process for determination. And then the legislative process is still ongoing.

There will be three guiding documents that help shape the scope of this project, and I will briefly go over each of them and how they influence the direction of this code update. Economic development produced their childcare report in February. This report was acquired by county council through ordinance number twenty twenty three dash 65 s two as part of the 2024 and 2025 county budget. The council requested that economic development department identify best practices, regulatory options, and incentives that can be used to support the provision of infant and child friendly workplaces and on-site childcare within businesses and multifamily housing developments. During this study, economic development sent surveys to approximately 400 email addresses and conducted phone interviews with business owners of childcare facilities.

These owners reported navigating the permanent process and regulatory process to be very difficult with some business owners being regulated by as many as 10 different jurisdictions. Regulations were inconsistent and confusing to navigate for some business owners. Additionally, fighting staff personnel was another commonly reported burden, and this report ultimately recommended some changes to the county code. The next document that influenced policy direction of this project is senate bill fifty five zero nine. This bill was made effective in July 2025 and requires cities, towns, and code cities to allow childcare centers as an outright permitted use in all zones except industrial.

This law is not currently required of counties. However, the county maintains the goal to remain consistent with its cities and towns whenever possible to encourage annexation of its cities in the future. Lastly, during the 2024 comprehensive plan engagement process, there were was extensive feedback from the public on the small number of child care facilities in Pierce County. Many members of the public reported having difficult time finding childcare centers that were not already at capacity or at a price that they could afford. This here is an overview of the proposed code changes to the use tables for the daycare use type.

Facilities in rural zones at level one, which is a facility with fewer than 25 children, will be permitted as an administrative use, and facilities at level two, which is 25 children or more, will be permitted as a conditional use. All childcare facilities in the urban area will be permitted outright with those in industrial zones being conditionally permitted. These changes significantly reduce discrepancies across community plan areas and different zoning designations. And I wanted to be transparent and address a change that was made last minute to the stat report on this code package. During IDT, there were changes that were proposed the changes that were proposed to the RAC zone and the RNC zone were flagged as a concern during IDT.

Staff has conducted a further review on these areas, and the changes currently proposed to these these zones would take the most intensive zoning designations for the rural area, which are currently app permitted to more restrictive permits of administrative and conditional. And this conflicts with our descriptions for these zones, and it conflicts with the comprehensive plan. So staff is going back and reviewing these areas, and we will have updated use tables for both of those zones by our February hearing. There was a small portion of the code update that included some technical edits surrounding home based daycare. These include clarifying that home based daycare centers are not subject to home occupation standards, and they are allowed in all zones.

Additionally, the prohibition of play equipment within the interior and front yard setback areas has been removed. And lastly, with these changes, play equipment and structures will not be regulated by county code and instead are going to be regulated by the license licensing requirements of building code, fire code, and the Department of Children, Youth, and Families. With this code update, we aim to increase clarity and ease of use when navigating the childcare code Due to the fact that childcare centers are regulated by many different jurisdictions, including the health department, state of Washington, the Department of Youth and Families, and the US Department of Health and Human Services, to name a few, The county is only one of many steps prospective owners must take in order to be compliant with regulations concerning childcare. Our goal is to update these regulations to make them more concise. We are currently in the middle of the legislative process with this meeting and another with the commission in February.

You will have an opportunity to make a recommendation to council before they meet in April, and we will then move on to council committee and then the Pierce County Council and lastly, the county executive. And if you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them, and I will return in February with any more details you might require.

Thank you. Any questions or comments from planning? Yes.

I have one. I just wanna make a clarification. Home based childcare is allowed in all zones, including industrial. Is that correct?

Yes. That is the accessory use.

And my second question is, for a level two childcare facility in rural areas and rural activity centers, how will staff ensure that conditional use permits requirements function as a site specific compatibility review rather than a deterrent to establishing a needed child care capacity?

So that's one of the things we're going back to look at. Initially, we had come to the conclusion that those larger facilities in rural areas should be conditional. But because the RIC and the RNC zones are our most intense rural uses, it kind of doesn't make sense to restrict childcare as aggressively in those areas because that's where they're needed most in the rural areas. So we haven't gone back to do that work, but that's what we're going to work on next because it it just conflicts with the way we describe those zones.

Thank you. Mhmm.

In in the urban area, it's permitted outright. That's any size day care

is permitted outright. Correct. Okay.

What what about traffic in in those areas? I mean, there there's a threshold that we've established at 25 for for rural. And else but is there any kind of stacking plan or something that comes with this this permitting inside the urban area? I mean, that it's usually a problem. I mean, some of these cars twice a day are stacked up into the public right of ways, and there's not enough place. There's not a shoulder to pull off even in the urban areas. Not enough shoulder pull off to stack these cars that are going to pick up or drop off.

Mhmm. So we've had that concern brought up before. The what we expect with this update, because we're only removing zoning barriers, there's still many other steps that facilities need to go to to become regulate or to become built like a new facility. So just with this update by making the urban use permitted outright, we don't expect to have an explosion of childcare facilities in these residential areas because people are still having to go through every step other than just us. There's so much regulation along the way for them to come into contact with.

So there are parking requirements for some child care facilities currently in our code. It's two loading spots and then one spot for each employee.

I'm not talking about parking. I'm talking about circulation, the pick and drop off, and in residential areas, even there's schools even have these challenges, you know, where people are dropping off, picking up their children, that type of thing. So I was just I guess what I would like to see is a circulation type drawing. We have them for coffee kiosks. We have them for all you know, several other applications. But this type of application, I think you need to have some kind of certainty that they're not gonna be blocking traffic and that type of thing in these residential areas.

Alright. Thank you for that.

I can give you addresses if you want. Okay. Okay.

Go ahead.

So question for you, please. Was there any discussion about the economics and regulatory impact fees, things of that nature? You you it's one thing to allow a use. It's another thing to encourage a use. And my question is, as it relates to impact fees, we've seen that be very detrimental to various businesses that do generate a fair amount of traffic when they have if they have to have a traffic study done or something. Was there any discussion or any allowance for that considered?

I don't think that we considered the the fees that would be included in this process because we aren't changing them.

And if that's a possibility, I'd just like to put that on the table for you guys to possibly look at. Because, again, there's one thing it's one thing to allow. It's another thing to encourage. And I feel that this particular use is definitely needed. And those impact fees would hopefully, if reduced, would also reduce the fee structure for the children that are there and the impacts to the parents. And all parents seem to be struggling with this right now from an economic standpoint.

The

other question that I had on the administrative versus the conditional

use, Why the difference?

Mostly because those smaller facilities have less of an impact, and so we wanted to lessen the process for those smaller facilities in the rural area because 25 or more could be quite a large facility because it's just 25 or more. At least with the under 25, we have, like, an idea of the square footage that those buildings can be because that's regulated by the Department of Children and Youth and Families. So mostly just to lessen the impact on the rural area by keeping multiple facilities on the smaller side.

Okay. Thank you for that. And then on the streamlining of permitting, was there a discussion about how best to help facilitate that so that we can get these these type of businesses up and running in a reasonable time frame and not a year or more down the road?

So it's not a part of this code update, but we've been asked to create, like, either a one page or a double sided guide on all the steps. Because just looking into this with

It's done.

Enough, there's so many steps along the way. Yep. They have to go through a bunch of different jurisdictions. And so we're trying to make a flyer that can break down a little easier how this process actually works because we do want people to be successful. We don't want people to be creating fines and making mistakes. So that's something that's on our radar is to make us a guide, basically, to make this process a little easier.

I think that's fabulous. Okay. If just as a recommendation, if you could also incorporate the various jurisdictions and a contract and contact information for those jurisdictions as part of that guide, I think that would really help relieve some of the pressure from people that wanna do this. Thank you.

I just might add one thing in response to your impact fee question. We are over the next couple of years, we'll be doing a fair bit of work on impact fees. We've got a little bit of cleanup left to do this calendar year related to school and park impact fees to respond to a state law forcing them to not be by building type single family, multifamily, and instead be more graduated, if you will. So there's a working group led by a council that included both builders as well as the school districts. And the conclusion of that group was to get to moving to by number of bedrooms rather than by unit type, which we're no longer allowed to do under state law.

So that will apply to school and park impact fees. So that work will be coming later this year. The other bit of work is that we definitely have to visit the entirety of the transportation impact fee program, mostly because the last time a study was done was in 2018. And, well, some time has passed, and things have changed, and it's ideal to update them at least every ten years, so we're getting towards that. So we'll be starting that work and thinking hard about it.

We don't have to have the same update done to conform to state law there because the traffic impact fees are already based on trip generation, which was one of the three things allowed under state law. But we'll be starting that work later this year and expect it to come near here early twenty seven '27. Thank you.

Commissioner Star, you got your hand up. Oh, we can't hear you.

She's undetected.

Could your microphone source be the incorrect one by chance?

She did say she was having.

Unfortunately, we still cannot hear you, Commissioner Starr. If you'd like to type your question in chat, we can read it that way as well.

She's not muted on our end, is she? No. No.

Can I roll with the question real quick while she's waiting? Sure.

Go ahead.

On on the back to the rural, you made mention the RAC and that type of thing. Will that do you think that will reflect closer to the urban?

Currently, right now in the code, it's permitted in RAC, and the goal of this update is to make this process more concise. And it kinda feels against the the goal of this update to make it from permitted to more restrictive. So we are still gonna go back and and, like, talk about it and do our research, but I imagine that it won't stay at a one and C 2 just because that's our most dense area for the rural area.

Yeah. It just it looks like it fits. Those are more urbanized than Yeah.

We have

our lamards in those zones, so they can behave like urban sometimes.

Yeah.

Yeah. But we're gonna do some work on that because it's not correct how it is now.

Yeah. Go to Graham Town Center. Yeah. South Hill. I

I think it was last year we had code code revision in front of us that limited child care centers in the industrial zone to being within a business. Does this change that so you can have a stand alone childcare facility in industrial now? It's a conditional use now in

the industrial area. Is it? But it could be its own facility. I'm sorry? It could be its own facility.

It's okay. Because when we made our recommendation last year, when this came before us last year

Mhmm.

It had to be with a with a business. Yes. It couldn't be standalone.

Yeah. So now it can't be separate. It's just conditional in the industrial area.

Is it I I can't remember. Is it conditional if it's associated with the business?

I am not sure. I don't think so. Okay. So Yeah. Go ahead.

Hi. Ben and Court records, your planner for the record. The accessory use for childcare attached to a business would need an accessory use permit on its own in order to achieve that, but the the change here is making it so that the principal use could be a child care center in the industrial area.

And why require a conditional use permit in the industrial area for child care?

Because some industrial uses may not be appropriate to be directly adjacent to a child care center, like an oil refinery or something like that may not be appropriate. And so that extra level of oversight is just to make sure that we have appropriate kind of space and considerations.

Could you not get that same oversight with an administrative use permit?

It would be similar, but the level of a review for a conditional use permit tends to fit better for between industrial uses and and sensitive uses like a childcare. That was the the direction that we were given. Thank you.

So I have a question. Thank you for that clarification. I have a question as it relates to your classification of industrial. Is that encompassing manufacturing, assemblage, warehouse, distribution, or is industrial, as you mentioned, just more of the industrial type heavy industrial type uses?

So the three zones that we are using for industrial is EC, CE, and ECORE. So it's just those three zones.

So, again, along maybe your line, within those zones, you have much more cleaner uses than what you illustrated as an example. Warehouse. And I think that warehouse distribution, for instance, of premanufactured product is a relatively clean use, while it may generate some additional traffic with larger vehicles, there's there's no assemblage. There's no manufacturing. There's no refinement or anything of that nature.

So I'd ask maybe for you to reconsider maybe a breakdown of that. And quite frankly, what we're seeing in the industrial sector of commercial real estate, that is the majority of what is being built throughout Eastern Pierce County anyway, are larger distribution warehouses, not so much more prototypical dirty industrial, if you wanna call it that. So just a con something to consider, please.

Are there diff forgive me when I asked this question. Are there different definitions or levels of industrial?

I believe so. I believe that's based on the intensity of those zones. So it seems

like you could lessen the permitting requirements for level one industrial that might just be warehouse distribution. Right? But if you get into something that's more heavier industrial where it's manufacturing, refining, and that kind of stuff, then I could see a conditional use permit. But it just it just seems onerous in an area where it it doesn't make sense, but you have a high number of employ a high higher employment in those warehouse discretionary areas where childcare would be desperately needed.

Yeah. Thank you for that. Could we do Kendra Starr's comment? I'll just read

it into the record. Commissioner Starr said her questions were already answered for the most part, so her statement is, we desperately need childcare in all parts of Pierce County, waiving impact fees, technical assistance, anything to get that done. Thank you for that.

I I just got one comment. I I agree with Star on that. Get rid of the impact fees on this. Also, I I was just curious about a conditional use opposed to administrative use. Someone made mention here about a possibility of administrative use rather conditional use.

Is there too much discretion in this for for staff to be able to make a determination on the, you know, potential, you know, hazards or or impacts to the public on this? I mean, is that why we have a conditional use on this instead of administrative use? It seems like administrative use with the staff that I know that's here really, you know, qualified, smart, could, you know, figure out what the impacts might be or these health safety issues that we've come up they could address. And I'm working on some projects now that that where staff is really great at that. You know? The conditional use isn't gonna make any difference. Still gonna be the same regulation.

Mhmm. You Right. But it's it's lesser. I mean, it's

less it's a less less hearing and Yeah. All that all that. I mean, it's it's it's a process that's more streamlined.

Right. It's and it's still there's still a level of scrutiny.

Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah. There's a high level of scrutiny because because of they they take a look at all of the potential impacts and public safety issues, so that's part of administrative use permit.

Yeah. Although, you should be looking into the the benefits of having

That would be that would be, I think, more appropriate to do it that way than to go to a conditional Yeah.

Approval number. I would agree with that. Other questions or comments from planning commission? Seeing none, thank you for your presentation. We'll see you back Thank you. February.

Good to

see you. Yeah.

And the next item on our agenda is the cottage housing code amendment. Hello. The Planning Commission.

My name is Beth Rebecca. I'm a senior planner in the long range planning division of Pierce County Planning and Public Works, and I'm here to provide a briefing on the proposed cottage housing development regulations package. Today, we will briefly go over the drivers for why we're developing the proposed package, highlight a few key topics associated with it, and then take a few minutes to discuss any questions you may have. I'd like to start by looking at the levels of government that shape the development of our communities and how that shapes our development regulation packages. So first, at the state level, the Growth Management Act sets the stage for local and regional policies that establishes the requirements for the urban growth area, as well as manage the development within our urban, rural and resource lands.

Next, the Puget Sound Regional Council has developed vision 2,050, which contains policies that form the regional growth strategy for four counties in the Puget Sound region, including Pierce. Increasing in geographical specificity, we then have the Pierce County Regional Council, which creates the countywide planning policies that act as a framework for coordinated development in Pierce County as well as its 23 cities and towns. The Pierce County comprehensive plan addresses twenty years of future growth for unincorporated Pierce County, so it's our policy goals. And then the most specific at the county level, we have our community plans, which represent the unique characteristics of each community planning area while remaining consistent with the comprehensive plan at the other levels of government. For the cottage housing code package, staff are directed to implement middle housing types, including cottage housing by the comprehensive plan, are utilizing recent updates to state law to implement preferred practice that encourage the development of middle housing types.

So I'd like to start by providing just a quick overview of the the timeline for this project. Scoping began in May 2025 during the legislative process for org. That's twenty twenty five five one six s, which was the implementing regulations for the comprehensive plan update. Staff conducted scoping engagement by attending community events and through an online survey requesting public perspective on what characteristics of smaller homes were appealing to them. The this survey included questions about opportunities for homeownership, midsize community feel, particular amenities, and parking.

And based on staff research and public perspective, Regulations were drafted and reviewed by our interdepartmental team. This led to a second round of engagement where we shared our draft regulations and asked for feedback from the public by again attending community meetings and via online survey. This winter, we're in the process of finalizing these regulations and beginning the legislative process by presenting here today. I'd like to also spend a moment discussing the guiding documents and directed staff to the approach that was taken. So policies from the land use housing and design and character elements of the comprehensive plan all encourage the implementation of cottage housing to increase the diversity of housing types in the urban area and to create more opportunities for home ownership in Pierce County.

These policies encourage more housing development or diversity of housing that allow for higher densities beyond detached single family and create units that are more affordable than detached single family housing. During scoping, staff conducted a regulatory review of other Washington jurisdictions based on the recency of adoption of cottage housing, as well as recent projects conducted within those jurisdictions. Additionally, staff reviewed all of the Pierce County cities and town development regulations for cottage housing to look for local examples and to maximize our compatibility with the of our proposed regulations with already adopted regulations within our cities and towns. For reference, there are nine cities and towns that have cottage housing regulations already. Staff also utilized recent updates to state law to introduce unit law subdivision regulations as a way to support homeownership within cottage housing communities.

The scope of the changes for this package fall into three categories. The first is related to the actual cottage housing use, the company development and design standards to appropriately regulate the new use. The second is the creation of the unit lot subdivision regulations, which allow for division of a single parcel into multiple sub lots for private ownership. And then the third is universal design guidelines, which provide additional options for residential building design principles, which prioritize accessible building design. So a few definitions have been added to provide clarity on what unit lot subdivisions are, as well as define the cottage housing use.

So first, unit lot subdivisions divide a single parcel to sub lots called unit lots, which hold the dwelling unit and may also include a section of yard or parking. These unit lots are within the original lot, which is called the parent lot in this case. The the parent lot contains all of the unit lots and any remaining property that is not included within the the unit lots that have been subdivided. And then these boundaries are recorded on the plat with any additional required information. And then the proposed cottage housing use, we've set the parameters of four to 16 dwelling units surrounding an area of open space.

And one thing I wanna connect between the unit lot subdivisions and cottage housing use is that the unit lot subdivision process would allow for private ownership of a single cottage house in a small area of private yard, while the remainder of the parcel would be shared through a binding shared use or maintenance agreement. And this would mean that owners have control over their individual property of the dwelling unit and immediately surrounding yard, but the common area would be owned in common through something like a homeowners association or a condominium style development. From a use perspective, staff have proposed to allow the cottage housing or staff have proposed regulations that allow the cottage housing use to be flexible based on the intensity of the zone. So cottage housing is considered a single family use, which means that it fits within our urban residential zones. And our design regulations will limit the size of the individual units by square footage in exchange for allowing additional density above the base density of the underlying zone by up to a 100%.

So, for example, in the suburban residential zone, our base density is four dwelling units per acre. However, for the cottage housing use, by setting a more restrictive size limitation of the individual dwelling units, we would allow that development to go up to eight dwelling units per acre. However, for example, in the middle housing zone where our base density is 10 dwelling units per acre, this would allow an achievable density of up to 20 dwelling units per acre. And for those more intense urban zones, we've set a provision to allow some attached housing. And so this would allow row homes in the cottage development so long as they met both the size restrictions set by the cottage housing use and the design standards set by our townhome single family use, our attached single family use.

Okay.

So I wanna spend a minute going over a few details related to the development and design standards to give an idea of what these might actually look like. So first, as I mentioned, in more intense residential zones, average housing is allowed to have a cash flow housing. It'll allow for a more dense development. Our parking standards are meant to be flexible so that there's any combination of individualized or separated parking with a shared parking use just to provide more flexibility for the individual site. And the minimum parking is proposed to be one or 1.5 parking spaces per unit depending on the individual site's proximity to our high capacity transit areas.

And then the individual unit size is set to be a maximum of a thousand habitable square feet per unit with a maximum height of 25 feet unless an attached garage is built on the 1st Floor. And the reduced roof height is meant to make the cottages smaller in scale and be compatible with the regulations of other Pierce County cities and towns. So this this height restriction is really common in our other nine cities and towns. One of the core characteristics of the cottage housing use both within our cities and towns and statewide are the common open space areas. So these are areas that are required to be set aside on a per unit basis.

They usually fall within the center of the property with the cottages being built around the perimeter. These areas are a minimum size standard per unit and usually are between three hundred and six hundred square feet per unit depending on the municipality. So based on staff review of statewide preferred practice as well as our surrounding cities and towns, The county's proposed a minimum threshold of 400 square feet per unit or per cottage unit. However, to make this more flexible and to allow an incentive system to propose developments that are at a higher density than could be achievable with 400 square feet of open space per unit. Staff has proposed a incentive table with a common open space areas to allow the provision of less total open space if the area has particular improvements.

So the proposed amenities would be improvements beyond the the provision of a common yard, And this is really meant to benefit both of the residents in the long term, but also developers in trying to get further density onto their properties. So, for example, a sheltered area, a covered area, could be a covered Porsche or gazebo, and the benefit in providing that would be that that area would count towards twice the amount of the provision of square footage than a traditional common yard. So a 400 square foot sheltered area would contribute towards 800 square feet of the required common area.

K.

A little bit about, you know, a lot of subdivision regulations. These are required for cities in the state of Washington. They're not required for counties currently. However, these regulations allow for a parcel with more than one dwelling unit to be further subdivided into these unit lots. These unit lots are then able to be owned individually, but are recorded as part of the the parent lot at the time of subdivision.

And this process accounts for ingress, egress, utilities, parking for these individual lots being provided either within the unit lot itself or on the parent lot and requires all of these things to be formally recorded on the plat as part of the permit submittal. The core regulatory constraints for this are that the overall parcel must still meet all of the development and design regulations of the zones as well as for whatever proposed uses are on there, and that the unit lot must be also meeting all of those design requirements as well. And so frequently what happens is that there will be additional development constraints on the individual unit lot as well as on the parent lot in order to maintain compliance with all of our development standards. And these would get recorded on the the plat in order to avoid any creation or increase in nonconformity of the baron lot. And then universal design is a priority outlined in both the design and character and housing elements of the comprehensive plan.

The four principles of universal design are equitable use, which means that all users should be able to move into, about, and out of the space. Simple and intuitive use, meaning that the paths to and between units should be direct and lead to the primary entrance. Low physical effort, including things like accessible fixtures, like lever door handles, and then size and spacing where there should be adequate fit space for both standing CT users to be able to turn around and navigate corners. Staff approach implementing the universal design policy by implementing guidelines into the residential design section just to provide a baseline of directed direction for both developers and permit staff. These guidelines are not required for development, but are available to allow different design priorities to be utilized and to allow for further implementation of design standards in the future based on how these get used to it in the coming years.

So

just like to cover some of the upcoming meetings for this coded package where community members can engage and provide their comments. So the planning commission hearing on this package will be on February 24 where the commission will provide a recommendation to council. And then on May 4, the community development and environment committee will make recommendations on this package to council. And on some time in q three, this will go for council for action and then go to the executive assuming passed. Thank you so much. I'd love to take any questions that you have here.

I have a question. Is there anything is a developer allowed to develop one of these cottage home parcels and then make them rental units rather than sell them individually?

Yeah. Absolutely. So if, for example, a developer produced a series of cottage homes and retained ownership of them, they could rent them like they would any other single family home.

Thank you.

What's what's the difference between an ADU and a cottage?

The ADU requires a single family home on the property.

Well, cottage could be a single family home.

Yeah. So this is a great question. So the cottage housing development regulations have an additional provision that specify that you can't also have an ADU associated with a cottage home, specifically because the size constraint for the cottage house for cottage housing units is a thousand square feet, which is the same as what it would be for an ADU in association with and so we've put that additional prohibition there because we're allowing additional density above base density for cottage units, stating, basically, these are smaller individual dwelling units, but we're allowing a significantly higher underlying density. And so there's there there would be conflicts in if I'm having all accessory units would interact with a cottage use. So walk me through this for

a second. It's like a primary use, you say, single family home, and I had accessory dwelling on it. However, there is additional it's own appropriate. There's additional room for cottage. So I go in there, and I can add a a cottage because we're not counting the density of the ADU. I could add additional density for cottage same as the ADU not being there. Right? Pick up one additional unit? So Are you actually with the primary? Yeah. So

please correct me if I if I'm not following your example correctly. But if we have a a single family principal structure and two accessory dwelling units associated with that, and then we have a remainder of the property where we wanna develop cottage housing. Is that correct? So the we allow for more than one primary use. However, the the introduction of the cottage housing use on the remainder of the property would still have to follow all of the regulations.

Sure. But it wouldn't count. I mean, the density would be would the the allows the the existing structures would be not counted against the density in the in the in

the cottage h three use. Right? Correct. Yeah. So the remainder of that property would be the available acreage that we would be considering as far as the

the density at a wholesale piece of property because there wouldn't be any lot lines required for the two ADUs.

Yes. I think I'm following. Yes. Okay.

Do you anticipate these higher density cottage developments to occur only in urban zones or throughout the county?

So this would be strictly in the urban area. Yeah. So would

this be areas where they would be served by public water and sewer only? Our underlying

density regulations set additional provisions for whether or not it's connected to sewer. And so they would either need adequate septic to meet all of the needs of the the proposed development or be connected to to public water and sewer. And and what if public water isn't available? Then our density provisions prohibit going above. I I'll make a note to bring the exact number for the hearing, but we we have an additional provision that prohibits going above what can be achieved by whatever water service and septic is available.

Yeah. Because the the issue with water is is that if you have to have an individual well or if you have to have a well to serve it, it's if it's serving more than one dwelling unit, would be considered a group B well, which is which is, quote, unquote, public. And that there are, development restrictions within that 100 foot well protection zone. So you would have to have adequate property area in order to avoid that. And then depending on the number of dwelling units, the minimum numb the minimum bedroom size for septic with the health department is currently two bedrooms.

So if you have a smaller lot but you have more density, it's, I mean, it's it's gonna be hard to to accommodate both septic and water on something like that.

Yeah. Absolutely. The the intent of the the new use is to be sitting in the middle housing range of between eight and sixteen dwelling units per acre, which when we are developing the regulations is intended to to be connected to public power and sewer. And so what we have as the county density exemptions that allow below our minimum density in some areas if we don't have the provision of water and sewer, like you said. And so I can bring the specific provisions. I don't know them off the top of my head so that I can I can reference them specifically for the hearing?

And and the health department actually has minimum lot sizes. Have you coordinated with them?

I can also bring information about how we've been in contact with the health department. Right.

Because I know that the minimum loss size standard actually increased with the state code change in last April.

Okay. I'll take a look at that. And because it's I mean,

you might end up with a conflict between what they require and what you allow. So I I would appreciate some to know what that coordination has been. For sure. Thank you. Thank you.

Ben, I've got a couple questions for you when you have a minute. It

might be a little fantastic. It's okay. Yeah. Thanks for that. It's okay. You know,

we are we are in dire need of more housing and certainly more affordable housing, not only in the county, the state, but nationally. But we're dealing with the economy here. And I appreciate the effort of this, and I appreciate the incentive table that's here. But I've really found that when jurisdictions incorporate more incentive based code, they get greater participation from the private sector to come and really embrace the opportunities to do development within that given jurisdiction. And I just wonder if there are any other incentive based elements that you've seen in the nine jurisdictions that currently have cottage housing that you may wanna review and try to bring back in the final draft of this because I've really seen the incentive based elements work.

And as opposed to having maximums and minimums and hard set situations, if, again, if you tie it to an incentive, you wind up getting quite a good product in many cases. Talking about affordability, I just noticed one thing in here that the roof pitch is is denoted as six and twelve. That can be a more expensive element, and I just wonder, you know, who decided that and why. The design element is one thing. The curb appeal is one thing.

But, again, from an affordability standpoint, is it really necessary? Does it really give us a better product for the affordable element that's missing in our housing structure in this county right now today? That'd be a question that I'd like to pose. And for clarification, I see a minimum parking requirement. Did you or not you. But is there a maximum parking element incorporated in this?

So there's several good questions that I wanna I wanna get to, some of which I can answer now and some of which I'll I'll come back to for the the February hearing. But to start with the the maximum parking, you know, we don't set a maximum parking provision here. The intent is if we set a minimum threshold that developers can ultimately build a product that they know will sell. And if that means that they get to build above them in a month, that's at their discretion.

I I just wanna really commend you on that because we have seen apartment units being built with no parking requirement or we they heavily influenced by regulatory issues regarding the parking and to the detriment of the development because people need parking. They're not getting out of their cars. And so I I really commend you for not having a maximum on that.

Appreciate that. To return to the the six to 12 roof pitch, this is a extremely common design standard set for specific to cottage housing. And so we saw it throughout many of our other jurisdictions, but I will take the feedback that it's, yeah, perhaps onerous or unnecessary.

And, again, yeah, the free market will tell you. And and that's what I'm saying. You know, it depending on the piece of land that you're developing, how many units someone's trying to get on, the curb appeal they wanna have, I I think that's really dialing down into the weeds on the part of the of the county.

Well, the the struggle too is that you've mentioned manufactured homes as, could be a component of cottage housing. Though the typical roof pitch on a manufactured home is a three and twelve. And there's I mean, a lot of those homes are manufactured outside of this state. They're not necessarily manufactured in our state where, you know, a six and twelve pitch on a manufactured home is is not possible. So I think that I I agree with Commissioner O'Leary.

I I think a six and twelve heart as a hard line is is just too too much, especially if you're trying to encourage this type of development. And my other comment would be about impact fees because the higher the density, the more the impacts are gonna be. And with these smaller cottage homes, I mean, there may or may not be children in there. You know, it could be a senior development or you know, so if they're paying higher impact fees for each one of these sub lots, I mean, that's that becomes very onerous, and I think it would be a limitation on whether or not a development would happen.

Thank you for the comments.

Just have a quick question. It it may be a little abstract, but I I've seen this happen in neighborhoods with certain types of recreation because it rains so much here in the wintertime, but people are opening up their garages for recreation, for, like, the community and stuff, weight rooms, all kinds of things like that. Is there any kind of any kind of opportunity for a a flex type recreation area that someone could, you know, use their own private facility as a recreational facility? People have garage bands. I mean, things like that when the neighborhoods come.

Seriously, they do. And I I'm just saying that one of the challenges that we have for design is trying to create enough in areas where we don't have schools or or or parks, that type of thing close by, is creating that recreational space. And so I was just wondering if there's a possibility for greater flexibility in that.

Yeah. So part of the intent thank you for the question. Part of the part of the intent of the the community open space area and our approach to providing incentives and options for what can go there is to provide more flexibility around what can go on those areas where whether it's a a community building that has a kitchen or to your point to your point, like, it could be a an open space area that's covered that could be used for a playground or a band practice or a wake room or something like that. And so that's part of the intent of staff is to is to create as much flexibility there as possible.

Yeah. We're we're using I mean, I've seen applications where they have emergency vehicle access turnarounds Yep. As pickleball ball courts and stuff like that. You know? We're it's just our space is inside the human mouth, right, is really limited. It's getting more and more limited with every regulation. So just looking for opportunities to use it better.

Lucia Lewis, you have your hand up.

Thank you. So I think what I read is that these cottage styles single family homes would be permitted in urban unincorporated Pierce County, but not within city limits. I could be wrong.

That is correct. We can't set development regulations for cities. So this is for the Urban Unincorporated area. So

And then what would what particularly makes these would make these affordable?

Yeah. It's a it's a good question. So in cottage housing, it would be more affordable in that it is smaller than the alternative. So I don't have readily available the average square foot size of a detached single family home in Pierce County, but I'm I feel pretty confident that it's more than a thousand. And so they're more affordable in that respect that they are smaller dwelling units, But the provisions associated with, college housing is not setting specific, financial incentives or specific, incentives that would drive the the home price down below new built development.

So does that answer your question, commissioner?

So it wouldn't necessarily be affordable to people earning or purchasing at 80% AMI?

That is correct. We have not set a median income goal associated with this development.

And I guess so these could be sold as fee simple with the land as subdivision, and then also within that have common areas?

Yes.

So Okay. That that yes. Yeah.

Ben, just one thing. The type of construction that we're talking about here, in my opinion, commissioner Lewis lends itself to more affordable construction rather than a stand alone four sided dwelling. You're having a common wall type, high density, maximizing the land use for the cost of the land scenario. So I can't quantify that sitting here right now today, but I think the type of the type of construction itself lends itself to be more affordable for more people because of the density and the configuration.

Except for that six twelve pitch.

Except for that six

twelve pitch. Absolutely. Well, maybe that's an incentive. If you would like that, put it in the incentive bucket. Affordability factor. Well, but going back

to the whole affordability issue, you know, if you've ever gotten a permit from a for a house from Pierce County, you know, but 75% of the fees are impact fees. And so that gets passed on, you know, by the developer to the purchaser of the home. So to help with the affordability that I think that the county needs to look at those fees for this college or this cottage development or housing in general.

That's a

One quick one quick question. When looking at these other areas that have the cottage homes, do you have any sense what the price points of the of the the individual units were in those? Any sense?

I don't have that available with me now, but I can do some some research and look and look bring that back for the figure.

Yeah. Plus there's a lot of factors that go into the price point anyway. Cost of the land, cost of construction, cost of fees, where it's at.

Fees and permitting are about 25% or or or more. Yeah. Yeah.

But it's helpful to look at the cost in general for these type of products versus what we've seen previously as an average or median.

Plus what

we're comparing it to.

There's also the potential for off-site improvement requirements, which could be very expensive.

That's not That's

killing that's killing that was one of the unintended consequences of this density increase the density increases in the last comp plan is that the off-site road improvements are are murderous.

Right. Depending on cities where

since they're getting killed because their infrastructure's sold. Right. And I wasn't prepared to

Well, there is no infrastructure, so you're putting up

the structure again. Yeah. That's a little easier almost.

Also, also the financing cost.

Oh, yeah. That's a big one too. Good point. The the challenge of growth management was we were supposed to lower our our our cost of housing because we were gonna put more houses in a 100 feet than we were than a single family home. But the reality is that bumped up the off-site need for more greater utilities, oh, well, we'll fix that. We'll use impact fees. Right. So, I mean, it's a contradiction, the whole thing, you know, in a sense. But

Oh, then your land the land costs have gone way up too.

Oh, yeah. It imports this land way up because you limit the commodity inside your growth boundary. And then you add critical areas. Exactly. You know, triple the buffers and or double them. Takes more land out of the buildable land inventory.

Any other questions or comments from planning commission members? Thank you for your presentation. And when will we see you also on February?

Yeah. February 24. We'll be back for a hearing. Okay.

So I would advise my planning commission members that February 24 could be a longer than normal meeting. K. So the next item on our agenda is we need to elect a new secretary for the remainder of 2026. It's our last secretary. Her term ended. So we now have a vacant vacancy for secretary. Do have any nominations?

And the role of the secretary is?

The role of the secretary would be to hear the meeting. Both the chair and vice chair are absent.

Thank you.

Any any nominations for, like, the new psychopath?

I nominate Jerome Mulberry. A second.

John?

I wish you were here.

Follow-up. Follow-up. Are you are you willing to assume that role as

The role of the secretary again is just to stand in for the chair or vice chair. Nope. Nothing else. I accept the nomination.

Any other nominations before I call for a vote? Seeing none. Call for the vote. Okay. Commissioner O'Leary. Abstain.

Commissioner Manley?

Aye.

Commissioner Sansma?

Aye. Sorry.

Missionary Lewis?

Yes.

Missionary Star? Thumbs up if you don't have audio. Okay. Thank you. That's a yes. Commissioner Burke?

Aye.

And Chair Chukwitsch?

Aye. Okay. Congratulations.

I'm I'm thrilled. Thank you.

As for our other business, our next planning commission meeting, as we've said a few times already today, is February 24. Please let Sarah know if you were not able to make it, because we will need it warm for that, because we need to make recommendations on these three items. And, currently, our quorum is now five. Correct. So we need to have at least five members present. With that, I'll adjourn the meeting. Thank you, everybody.

No. Thank you. Okay. I was just