Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay, we are ready to go. Thank you. We'll call the July 28th Planning Commission meeting to order. And before we begin, I'd like to read this. I want to remind everybody that the Planning Commission is principally an advisory board for the Pierce County Council. Action taken by the Planning Commission on almost every agenda item will be forwarded to the Council as a recommendation for its consideration and final action. So if we could call the roll, please.

Thank you. I entertain approval of the minutes. A motion to approve. So vote. I second it. First and second. Any comments? All in favor of approval of the minutes, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? OK. Minutes from the previous meeting is approved. So any staff updates? Please.

Is it, would it be appropriate to do it now? That's entirely up to you. How do you guys feel?

Let's do it now and put folks in place. So we'll entertain a nomination for vice chair first?

I make a motion to put it on the end of the agenda.

Okay. So let's say. I'll second that. Okay. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Any opposed? That'll give you time to think of your campaign strategy. Good idea, Sarah. Thank you for keeping us on track. Thank you. Good. Thank you very much. OK, so we'll move on to agenda item number five, multiple unit housing initiative, areas regulations. and we have a staff presentation.

Excuse me. Do you want us to hold questions till the end? Yes, please.

Okay. I have two questions on the exemptions you're removing. One, the staff report says the effects of removing the parking exemption were not analyzed because the current residential target area is too small to draw conclusions from. But this proposal expands the residential target area to roughly seven miles of transit corridor, which takes away that reason. Will the materials for the 25th hearing include analysis of these changes under the expanded boundaries? So the commission has something to base its recommendation on?

But you're dropping this exemption for parking from the new proposal. And you said you couldn't analyze that because it was too small. Now you're expanding the area. So, I mean, it has an effect on vehicle miles driven, right, which is one of the new standards. So you're going to provide more parking. They have to meet the new parking requirements. So are you going to analyze what that effect is?

So you'll have that information for us next meeting? Yes. Okay, great. And the second part is the trees. One part of this package I want to make sure works as intended. Removing the waiver restores the significant tree retention requirement, the first 100 feet of lot depth for mixed-use buildings in the residential target area. I support keeping the tree canopy in these corridors. It stores carbon, cools the streets, and manages storm alerts. but the same corridors have streetscape standards that ask buildings to come up to the sidewalk. When the August material comes back, can staff address h

Well, what happens is Tree retention, what happens is you've got two different standards here. The street scape standard and the standard of how many trees are supposed to retain because you've taken the waiver. How are you going to balance those and work those together? Yeah, I can, as part of the August hearing, I can bring... As a room for equivalent canopy options like streets where retaining existing trees to the street can happen. So there's a little conflict in the two standards. So I want to see how those are going to work together. And the important part is the trees. The retention of

I have a few questions. Thanks for the presentation. And I'm really glad transit was here. Pierce Transfer was here to help buffer this a little bit because I see those interwoven quite importantly. Regarding the ratios that are called out in the modifications to the code, Was there any research done or is this an RCW carryover as far as the ratios of low-income housing in an overall complex? Did you do any research with local developers or is this a carryover in code?

Okay. Thank you for that. And then clarification on density. What is our max density.

Dave Kuntz, The date stories, you might as well sit the seven so yeah no that was exactly the reason for the question and then also coordination with central Paris and West pierce fire as far as their abilities to manage these types of buildings in the event of emergency or fire. Dave Kuntz, With that extra elevation those are heights that we've never seen in those targeted areas. Um, another issue that I had, and it's a, it's a concern more than anything is on the South field plan, uh, south of 128 running out to 144th. There's areas in that sector that lack in infrastructure beyond just side

Yeah, I think it's great. I mean, 10,000 foot level, the silo aspect of this kind of thing, well-intended, but I think we have to look at the impacts of the infrastructure. I use sewer because I'm familiar with that, but I would say the same about power. I would say the same about water because you're buffering off of, on the Southfield market, you're buffering off of incorporated PUL up at 120th and going directly into unincorporated areas. And there's maybe some collaboration that could happen that would be beneficial. to getting this kind of thing built for the citizens. If that's the need,

And especially in that Parkland Spanaway area, you have got a couple small Parkland Light and Water, Bird Grow, Bird, Fruitland? There's a couple of them up there that are very small. Been around a long time.

They're intertied. Great deal. And the collaboration with Pierce Transit, just expand on that if you can. Yeah.

Ben, I have one last question. Is this going to go out to the public at any point or are we past that in the process? And the reason I ask that, I just put this away, but especially, well, in almost every instance, when you get off of the main corridor, off of the state highway, a lot of that obviously is already commercial and high density. But when you get off of that, In some areas, it's a substantial amount, distance wise. You get into primarily single family residents. And the impact of this on the owner of those single family residents, has that been considered? Have you gone out for pub

Yeah, I guess that's- So there was, and I'm not trying to beat anybody up here. I'm just saying, so there was no direct public outreach regarding this. It was basically posted and was part of meeting schedules and agendas, but no formal notification that this zoning change may be coming.

Chuck just asked about the LUACs. Have they been contacted? No, we have not.

Okay. That's a good clarification. Thank you for that. And the extension off of the main highway or that distance, so that zoning, so what we're dealing with here is all within That's correct. Thank you.

Any other questions from commissioners? And Sarah, we don't have anybody online, it doesn't appear.

I understand. I just wanted to know for the next section. Okay, with that, we're going to close this section. Thank you very much for the presentation, both of you, and answering all the questions. Appreciate it. Look forward to seeing you in the next round. Thank you, guys, too, even though you didn't say anything. I thought you were leaving. One moment. Well, Stafford, you're right.

Detention facilities code update and definitions. This will include a presentation, some commission email, and then also a public comment. Excellent.

We're going to go online. We're going to go to public comment first. You can have a couple, if you have just a couple questions, that's

Just tell me if one of the things, the definition covering juvenile detention, I don't see that up there. Is there, if not, why not?

But the question is, what was the decision not to include juvenile? Why was that decided not to go into it?

Okay. So at this point, we're going to open up for public comment here in the room. Are there any members of the public here that would like to speak? Any members of the public that would like to speak? Seeing none, we'll close the public comment here in the room and we'll go online. Are there any members of the public online that would like to speak to this agenda item?

Okay, no one online. So at this point, we will close public comment on this agenda item.

So we'll open it up for the commissioners for any in-depth conversation or comments.

So I have a question. First, does anyone else have any further questions? Okay, so I have a question. On detention facility, you said that there was, if I remember correctly, there was no time bound limit. The others had a year. And I know that we have to follow the RCWs. But my understanding is that's the minimum. Could we put a time-bound limit on that element on a detention facility?

There's been motion and a second. Any discussions? With that, Sarah, would you call the vote, please?

Okay, how about a 10-minute recess? Is that good for everybody? 1054 AM. 1054. Thank you. Great. Thank you. July, Pierce County Planning Commission meeting. And we are on agenda item number seven, agritourism.

So I'd just like to make a couple quick statements as we go into this. I have chaired the Ag Commission for many years. I've served on it for many years as when it was a committee and then also now as a commission. So just You guys know where I'm coming from as far as my background on this subject. I think Justin did a good job of a general overview. A couple of things that I think are critical that maybe wasn't mentioned that we should keep in mind as we go through this is that these are, for the most part, these are seasonal operations. So when we're looking at code, when we're looking at ex

You spoke about the known that loss only applying to 1 verification method.

So in other words, if you expand your operation somehow, you still need to keep that certain amount of percentage of land for it.

So the no losses that apply to all those other ones?

Great. Is there a clarification? And this isn't your language, but I just want to... On the thousand dollars, is there a clarification gross versus net?

Oh, please. That, if I remember the code correctly, that does not allow any housing component

I have a question about the site plan. I heard what the chair said about burdening these birds with things with more stuff. But under the site plan, for example, allows developed campgrounds primarily high capacity seasonal events. Now, the site plan really covers impact. Yes. And I don't know if this is appropriate to go into site plan, but what about risks to the attendees? For example, I would consider something like wildfire, extreme heat, or flooding. Two of the projects on engagement events were canceled in December 2025 plus.

So as part of the site plan, is there a potential fire risk or something that we need to do if fire develops. I know on the west side, we're less likely than the east side, but we're seeing what's going on in Spain and France right now. Also, shade and water for large gatherings if we have a heat event. And then also flood hazard locations with evacuation routing. I mean, when we look at the site plan, should we include things like that? Is there any wildfire risk? Is there any risk for heat events? Is there any risk for flooding? And I don't want to really burden them with that, but is it som

TAB, Mark McIntyre:" or like. TAB, Mark McIntyre:" A case of a flood.

Right. I mean, the insurance that covers the event, they ask those same questions given the climate acts we're seeing around the world right now.

Thank you. As far as the liability goes, I would strongly agree with you. falls upon the individual landowner and operator to assess their own liability. I think engaging the county to make some kind of a requirement or limitation, I just think there's too many variables there.

part of our code and that element, which we have also looked at briefly and maybe need to revisit.

I think the limitations on time, how long can they be set up and limitations that, for example, I mean, is it just for this event or is it during the whole season? And the danger is that We see homelessness is still here. That could be easily a gateway to people who don't have places to stay or residence.

Yeah. The question of oversight is, I think, critical here.

You're talking about a barn door that could potentially be abused. Yeah.

One thing I just want to reiterate is that the Ag Commission is heavily engaged in this. We do have a special session on August 12th. If anybody wants to attend that, that's certainly something, an option together with our regular Ag meeting the end of August. This is a livelihood issue for the farmers in Pierce County. together with a necessity to get this right. So there's going to be additional modifications to this for the Planning Commission to look at. And I think I would encourage everybody's engagement at whatever level you have time.

Thank you. So with that, we will close the agritourism section. We're going to move on to other business. We will have the election as part of this. But prior to that, is there any other business that any of the commissioners have that they want to bring up? Good. Okay, so let's move on to the election. We'll start with Vice Chair. I believe you had a nominee.

Any other nominations for Vice Chair? Okay, with that, Chris, you accept the nomination. All right, well, all in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Congratulations. Thank you. And now we'll open nominations for secretary. Nominations for secretary. Bob Wyman, secretary.

All in favor of Bob Wyman for secretary, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Congratulations. Thanks, Bob. We are now officially restocked. And thank you for being willing to take on the responsibility. Appreciate that. No other good in the order? Other business, I should say?

And you'll be getting as many of those out to us ahead of time so we can do our homework?

Appreciate that, Sarah. Thank you. With that, thanks, everybody. We are adjourned.