City Council - Regular Meeting

Good evening. The Puyall City Council study session of March 31 is called to session. Please join me in the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to

the flag of The United States Of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you. Will the city clerk please call the roll?

Deputy mayor deputy mayor Johnson?

Present.

Council member King?

Present.

Council member Gilliam? Present. Council member Castama?

Present.

Council member Schmilco? Present. Council member Adler? Present. Mayor Witty?

Present. Do I have a motion to approve our agenda tonight?

So moved.

Second.

All those in favor? Aye. Motion passes. So we'll move right into the agenda tonight. We do not have citizen comments in study session. So we'll go on to our first presentation on middle housing code amendments. And planning manager, Katie Baker, will give the presentation. Thank you.

Thank you, Mayor Whiting. Members of counsel, Katie Baker, planning manager. So tonight we have three planning related study session items. You'll get to hear from me for all three of them. We'll start with middle housing code amendments.

This study session item is to provide an update for you on the middle housing code amendments that staff has been working on with the planning commission since adoption of the interim middle housing ordinance last June. The goal is adoption of these permanent regulations before the interim ordinance expires on 06/30/2026. Tonight's presentation will cover what middle housing is, how we got to where we are today, what the planning commission has recommended, and what direction is needed from city council. So first, what is middle housing? We've talked about this, a handful of times over the last couple of years through our comprehensive plan update.

Middle housing is defined in state law as buildings that are compatible in scale, form, and character with single family homes that contain two or more attached, stacked, or clustered units. State law defines nine specific types of middle housing and you can see some images on the PowerPoint slide of what those can look like. These are not large apartment buildings, they're modest house scaled structures that are designed to blend into existing neighborhoods. Many of these types have been part of Puyallup's neighborhoods for decades. What has now changed is where and how many are allowed.

So I wanted to just cover briefly Puyallup's middle housing allowances. There's an error on this slide. I had said 2008 and then in my research, went all the way back to 1994. So ADUs have been allowed in the city in attached form since 1994 and in detached form since 2013. Duplexes have been allowed in RS four and RS six zones since about '94 and triplexes since 1998.

Cottage housing was a style that the city started permitting in all single family zones in 2011. We were one of the earlier cities in the region to do that. Some of the new types that are now required by state law have not been previously permitted in the city's single family zones. That's townhomes, courtyard apartments, four plexes, five plexes, and six plexes. Those have typically been considered a moderate density multifamily style.

So house bill eleven ten was passed in 2023 and takes effect based on a city's comprehensive plan update deadline. So for us, that was 06/30/2025. A city of our size is considered a tier two city. We're required to allow two units per residential lot and up to four units if within a quarter mile of the sounder station or if one unit is an affordable unit. These are minimum standards.

The city has flexibility to allow more but not less than those standards. As a tier two city, Puyallup also must allow six of the nine middle housing types in every residential zone. The city is not allowed to apply standards to middle housing that are more restrictive than those applied to detached single family homes. That's things like setbacks, parking, lot coverage. The state does allow for some exemptions.

Critical areas can be excluded from middle housing application as well as lots under a thousand square feet. The volcanic hazard area in Puyallup represents a local application of the critical area exemption, and we'll discuss that through the next few slides. So to achieve compliance by our 06/30/2025 deadline, the city council adopted interim ordinance thirty three twenty three. This ordinance permitted six middle housing types in all RS zones where the unit density allowed and implemented the state's density and parking requirements as compliant with state law. The city adopted an exception for the volcanic hazard area specifically prohibiting new middle housing allowances within the lahar zone inside a half mile from the lahar zone boundary.

That exception was also applied to accessory dwelling units since those regulations were being amended at that same time. So this map shows volcanic hazard area, which is the entire colored area inside the the dark red boundary. It also shows the half mile kind of reduction area. That's the area in green. And so the remaining pink area through the center of the city is the exclusion area where middle housing is not allowed under the interim ordinance.

As you can see, this covers a fairly substantial portion of the city's residential lots. This map further illustrates the effect of the interim ordinance. The orange areas are the single family parcels where ADUs and the interim middle housing are allowed. The blue lots are areas where ADUs are limited and only prior middle housing allowances apply, but not the interim ordinance. This is 3031% of the residential lots in the city, the single family residential lots that are currently excluded from the new middle housing allowances due to that volcanic hazard exception.

Under state law, a city may exclude up to 25% of lots primarily from middle housing requirements. So as we begin our work with the Planning Commission, we took the council's guidance from the interim regulation and used that as the basis for developing permanent regulations. The proposed permanent regulations are primarily making changes to our definitions chapter 20.15 and our RS zone chapter 20.2. For definitions, we added terms that don't currently exist in the code that are needed to define middle housing, things like cottage housing, stacked flats, and unit density. There are also some minor housekeeping amendments that we took the opportunity to make restructuring the definitions chapter and making some small amendments to existing terms.

The bulk of the changes though are to our RS or single family zone chapter. These changes establish the minimum unit density standards of up to two lots on any or two units on any lot citywide and up to four units near the Sounder station or with an affordable housing component. They also incorporate the cottage housing standards that currently exist in a separate chapter in our code. So we're pulling those directly into the RS zone chapter in an attempt to streamline our code. And we also added the parking regulations consistent with state law as it pertains to middle housing.

The Planning Commission, in their recommendation, also recommended removing the Lahar zone exception for its applicability to middle housing. So this is the kind of primary question for counsel's input tonight. When we submitted the interim ordinance to the Department of Commerce for their review, they responded with some concerns under a certain part of the statute. The state law allows the city to exclude up to 25% of single family lots from middle housing requirements, but our interim zoning, exception covers 31% of the RS zoned lots, which exceeds that threshold. Commerce in their letter to us indicated that the city should identify appropriate locations for all housing, both middle housing and single family homes, as required under state law and noted that the exception as currently drawn may not comply.

So on this slide, we have the map on the left shows our current approach under the interim ordinance with the 31% of lots being excluded from middle housing regulations. And on the right is an alternative approach using updated USGS data on the volcanic hazard area, and that's something that the council heard a presentation about at your last meeting. That was using all of the updated Lahar boundary data. So applying that new data layer and still applying that half mile reduction from it, we have the map on the right which results in a reduction of or an exclusion of 13% of the single family lots in the city. So it's staff's recommendation that this updated data is more current, and it would bring us under that 25% threshold responding to Commerce's comments.

So tonight, we are asking counsel to consider the Planning Commission recommendation and provide direction on this key policy question, specifically how to address the volcanic hazard exception area. Following your direction tonight, staff will go back and finalize the ordinance for your consideration in April. If we need additional time to do additional analysis or further deliberation from the council, we may need to look at extending the interim ordinance as it currently expires June 30. However, it's our attempt to get this in front of you and have it for your consideration to meet that June 30 timeline and not need to extend that. So I'm happy to take any questions, provide any additional information that I can tonight, and look forward to your discussion.

Thank you, Katie. Deputy Mayor Johnson?

Thank you, mayor. Katie, thanks for your presentation, and thanks for the new information, that new map, US whatever map there, it was new. It's the first time I've seen it officially. So I'd like to take a look at that, And I want to just go on the record for stating I'm not in support of the Planning Commission's recommendations yet until I have a chance to kind of go over this myself single handedly. But I do think there's something there, especially with this new map allocation.

And you do say that there is a potential allowance up to 25% exclusion. Could I get some more information to drill down on that? So in other words, we're at 31 now. We the council could continue to move forward. There could be some compliance or challenges on that.

But if if there was a reasonable way to justify and show that we got up to 25%, there would be less likely for any kind of opposition if we did that. Certainly going to the 13% would fall within that threshold, but I'm not sure why we would drop down to 13% when we're at 30 whatever 1% without at least some study. So I'm I want to go first on the docket to say I'm not prepared to give direction on the Planning Commission's recommendation. I'd like more time and like to hear some of my other colleagues' thoughts on this. But I I would think that the my recommendation would be to take the half mile radius and enlarge it just enough to meet the 25% criteria and call it right there.

I think that would be a starting point that I think is fair and equitable and would make sense to meet the criteria, but still keeping to play the precautions, the real precautions that a lahar potential has. But I certainly wouldn't drop it to 13 at first flush, and I would be open to dropping it down from the 31 to the 25 by setting that boundary however amount of mileage it is from half a mile to three quarter a mile, whatever that ratio is to get us at that 25% and then move forward. So that's where I'm at, and we'll see where my other colleagues land. Thank you.

Council member Castama. Thank you,

mister mayor. Katie, you said that you would integrate in the parking requirements. Can you review what those parking requirements are?

Yes, I can.

Just one moment.

I might have to do this from memory. I believe it is, a, so page 58 of your packet. No off street parking is required for middle housing within one half mile walking distance of a major transit stop. One off street parking space may be required on lots 6,000 square feet or less, and a maximum of two off street parking spaces required on lots greater than 6,000 square feet.

So just so I understand, you could have a six plex, and if the lot size for the six plex was 6,000 feet, you would be required to have one off street parking. Correct?

It's per unit. It's a it's a parking ratio per unit.

There already was a law that was passed though that said for a single family home, you cannot require throughout an entire city more than one, or you cannot require more than one half of a parking place for an apartment unit throughout the city. Does that not apply to this?

We have not made changes to comply with the larger parking law that has taken effect. We don't have to comply with that, I think, until 2027 or 2028. So right now, we are just looking to be in compliance with the middle housing regulations, which is that 6,000 square foot threshold.

So would a six plex, would those be single family residences count under what we will be under, or will they be considered an apartment?

So right now, or under this proposal, a six plex is not allowed in as middle housing.

I I know, but

So if if it were in our multifamily zone, we would still regulate the two parking spaces per

So the six plex did not make it into one of the options

No. It did

not. For any place throughout this. Also, when you went to your buildable lands analysis, did you take into account critical areas?

Yes. We did.

But you didn't take into account the lahar zone in

That's correct. The lahar zone does not apply to single family or multifamily development, and so we did not apply it to the buildable lands analysis.

So it doesn't apply? You you don't take those off? Mm-mm. Okay. Also, the USGS latest numbers. What we're interested in here, as we have learned recently, that there was a one in 10 chance of a lahar taking place, the last one, fifteen o seven, I believe. And we are within that window and trying to keep the density to a more moderate level to handle that. I'm unfamiliar with the 2022 data, but what you're saying is the USGS says these areas in your map option that we're seeing here with a 13% are the vulnerable areas?

So what the data is showing is this dark line, this dark jagged line, that is the edge of the volcanic hazard area. So that is the edge of the area identified for the most imminent threat of a volcanic hazard area.

Okay.

Per the interim ordinance direction that council gave, we are showing you that half mile reduction. That's what we had applied on that original map, and so we carried that over here just as an example for tonight's discussion. But certainly, as deputy mayor Johnson pointed out, we can bring back alternative approaches.

So you kinda combine both of them?

Yes.

Okay. That's fine. Well, as long as we're dealing with the actual vulnerable areas, And I think our original analysis as far as, evacuation were, I I think, fairly, common sense. So no more questions. Thank you.

Councilmember Adler.

Thank you. I just wanted to voice support, Katie, to what you just said in that last bit, which is, and I think it tracks with what deputy mayor Johnson had said just related to bringing back different options. Mhmm. I I would appreciate that. So thank you for asking. And I just wanted to run it back on the parking. Mhmm. Could you could you restate your answer Mhmm. That you gave to council member Castemah, please?

Yes. So the inner the middle housing legislation established certain standards for middle housing specifically, certain parking standards.

Yep.

Since that was adopted, there established minimum standards for parking across the uses. Yep. So it addressed, single family, multi family, commercial, all kinds of uses, and and established new, really maximum standards for parking ratios. That does not take effect for another year or two. And so because of the scope of code amendments that the planning division is dealing with at this time, we've deferred that. And so we're kind of taking things one at a time. We're focused on middle housing compliance right now. Those parking ratios though may change in a year or two once we bring you code that complies with those.

And did I hear correctly when you were explaining with the six plex example, you referenced street parking. Did did I

hear that? No. Our parking requirements are actually for off street parking. Okay.

Yeah. Alright. Just wanted to make sure that that's what I heard. Okay. Thank you. Mhmm.

Council member King, and just for for It's okay. For procedures, I'd like to give council members that first shot before I double dip first others. So councilor King.

Yeah. Just to run it back also, just to Mhmm. Recap what you said. Single family residents and multifamily residents are not prohibited in the lahar zone moving forward?

That is correct.

Just the middle housing?

That's correct. And ADUs? Correct. But yes.

Thank you.

Council member Casper.

Thank you, mister mayor. I'm actually dovetailing off the question that council member Adler asked because we didn't cover that the new parking requirements in the future, which are two years away, will not require more than one parking place per residential unit, single family, half per apartment. However, I think a provision that council member Adler and others need to know that within a half mile of a transit station, it's zero.

That's correct.

That means that from here to the fairgrounds, from here to Fred Meyer, in a circumference roughly, there'll be zero parking requirements. That means if a very large apartment goes in, they will not build any any additional parking whatsoever and leave it up to, in essence, the taxpayers to pay for any additional parking. I mean, because we pay for the streets and that's what will take place at that time. So I just want to make sure that that point is put on, you know, your comments too. Thank you.

Council member Smallco.

Hi, Katie. I may have missed this. So my question is simply, how did the staff team on this get from 31% to 13%? What can you tell me walk us through that process a little bit. What was trimmed out and why?

So it's a change in the essentially, the USGS recommendation for what the Lahar boundary is, what their best estimate as to if the Lahar comes, their best estimate as to the kind of outer edges of the impact area of that. So the data we have been using for, I would say, a couple decades, has that boundary just further south in our city. The new data pulls that up a little bit north here. And what that does when we apply that same half mile reduction area, it just reduces that. And the lots are fairly small, you know, downtown in comparison.

And so just by making that adjustment, it really took out quite a number of lots.

Thank you. Yep.

I'm gonna weigh in at this point, just addressing the the zero parking consideration. Obviously, that's a state mandated thing, and and we don't have much say in that. But I would like to make the observation that that people that are going to live in a in an apartment building that has zero parking are going to self select. And if they've got a couple of vehicles, they're going to choose not to live in that apartment building. So I think there's be a self selection process there.

That's not to say that this isn't gonna aggravate our parking situation, but but I I think that the the likelihood that the city is going to have to to pay a lot of money to to to provide parking because apartment builders are not putting it in is unlikely. The other aspect of this is developers want to be able to sell the rent or sell their units. And they're you know, they they build units with nice bathrooms because they want to be able to sell units with nice bathrooms. They're also gonna build units with parking because they know that parking places help sell the building. So so the idea that all of our future apartment complexes are gonna be zero parking.

I I don't find that very likely. But again, you know, the the concerns that have been expressed here are valid concerns and and things that we need to to look at as a council. But I just kinda wanted to to mitigate the the you know, it's it may not the doom and gloom may not be as quite as dark as we think it might be. Council member Smallko, are you Deputy mayor Johnson.

Thank you, mister mayor. The the USGS revised maps are got got got a 13%. Do you recall what the old map was? What the percentage was there? I don't think that was listed here. I don't think it was 31, was it? That was that was something?

No. The 31 is based

on the old map. Okay. So the old was 31. Okay. Didn't know if I didn't know if the 31 was the half mile radius.

It's it's the old map minus the half mile reduction Alright. Versus the new map minus the Alright. Half mile

So the old map was 31 according to USGS, and the new map is 13%. They've they've shrunk the exposure of potential concern. You know, the USGS is they're responsible for the whole nation. Right? So they cover everything in the nation. So they're very high level, and I'm sure fairly accurate, but they're not micro level. And so I think their numbers are certainly have some data behind it, I'm sure. But I would think that micro local entities might have a little better handle on the details of that. So I think with the state's allowance of 25% And what was that? I thought I heard some conversations or comments here.

With the state's allowance up to 25%, my recommendation is that we'd look at that compromise of taking taking whatever that half mile radius is, get it to 25%. That will put us a little over what the USGS states and but also gets us well under what they were standing at 31, might be a good compromise at that. So thank you. Yeah.

Okay. Seeing no further council member Kastema.

Thank you, mister mayor. I would just second those recommendations.

Okay. Thank you.

Just to to close this out, I I you know, we're we've got a lot of property owners in the in the city, and and, you know, we're we're basically telling some of them that they can't do things with their property that that they might like to. I I think we wanna consider that carefully before we we make these exclusions. So I'm not ready to jump to the to the 25% recommendation that we put in the quarter mile buffer zone because the lahar was we were concerned about people getting out in the lahar. I think the logic behind that quarter mile limit still makes good sense. So I'm leaning towards the 13% myself.

Thank you. Councilmember Kane.

Thank you. Just to weigh in, I too would like to see us stay at the proposed 13%. I understand the thoughts behind the 25%, but I think by using the new USGS recommendation here and to Deputy Mayor Johnson's remarks that they are national. I respect that comment. However, they do have many local entities within the state that are USGS that are overseen nationally, I will say.

But I think reducing the barrier to the middle housing and squeezing that down to the recommendation. I think we'll be okay with the 13% there in my observation, and I'd be okay with the 13%.

Council member Gilliam.

Thank you, mister mayor. I've actually talked with at least two residents who said that they would like permission to build ADU on their property. So I understand the concern. I myself am concerned, but I also recognize that people do want the freedom to do what they need to do with the property and for their own retirement purposes or whatever. And I also recognize people don't want cars cluttering up their streets, and I think that we can police that a little bit. So I also recommend the 13%. Thank you.

Deputy Mayor Johnson.

Thank you. I just want to follow-up. So Katie, let's just say that the council stays at the 25% or whatever, just hypothetical. That wouldn't preclude the the initial zones that are on on place to have ADUs in these systems. We're not outlawing ADUs in the exempt areas. There there's current laws right now that just wouldn't be the expanded ADUs. Is that correct?

No. The way that the council gave us the direction with the with the ADU ordinance was a prohibition on accessory dwelling units in the exception area. So council could modify that to allow one ADU, but just not two.

It was my understanding that all the current ADU allowances would continue, but that but this new lahar zone would would not would would minimize the added one. So that's not the direction I remember giving at the existing again, the existing provisions that happened before the state laws were passed would remain for those folks hypothetically in that sensitive area. But the additional burden of additional ADUs would be implemented. So that was my understanding. And if that wasn't the direction I was giving or misunderstood, I would like to see a comeback, maybe a compromise that would say in those desceppted areas, you could still develop pre state new state law, but the additional units would be off the table potentially as an added density.

So allow some density, but not the the extreme density the state law is allowing. So that's how I understood it. So

I will say that was the case for middle housing during the interim ordinance period where our old middle housing standards were still in effect. But because ADUs were being adopted as permanent changes, there was no fallback option in the code. But we certainly can bring that back. Absolutely.

I'd like to see that option. Council

member Castemma. Thank you, mister mayor. Again, a clarifying point on this. We've had ADUs. We've allowed ADUs now ever since I have been here. In fact, we have allowed reduced impact fees for ADUs. The new state requirement though came along and it said you would put two ADUs per unit and all we said is you can't apply that to the Lahar zone. Now that in doing that, our intent and my understanding, please correct me and and verify this, was that basically you could still build one ADU. Is that correct? That's correct. We said none.

There was no longer a standard in the code for allowing one ADU, so that was not our understanding.

So impact fees, all of that went away? All of that we had worked on?

It still exists for the areas where property owners can build ADUs.

Okay. Alright. Well, I agree with council member Johnson.

Yeah. Let's bring that back.

So some again, I I focus on what council member Kassam was saying. Historically, we've allowed ADUs any place in the city, but just one. And my suggestion is that we we even in the in the limited area that we're describing here, that we we allow that one there. So the other observation I'd like to make is is, you know, we don't have local authorities on Lahar stuff. The USGS is the begin all and end all of Lahar's study.

And and they Mount Rainier is the most monitored mountain any place in the country. They they are well aware of of of our situation here. And I think their revised lahar the updated lahar zone that they put forth is makes sense. And I look at the lahar zone, and there's an area where the fair is that was considered part of the Lahar zone previously, but not now. And as I think about that, there's a big freeway embankment there, which is going to divert Lahar into other areas.

So I think the study that they've done takes in, reflects that kind of local knowledge that they may not have included in their study previously. So, that's a surmise on my part. But I think that's the reason why that lahar zone has shrunk a little bit is is they've done they fine tuned their analysis. So, that concludes my comments. Council member Smallco.

Thank you, mister mayor. As I'm thinking this through, it just sometimes it takes me a minute to process. So the 13% on its face sounds awesome to me, but then I just wanna make sure I'm considering who is this potentially displaced. So if my first question is, who lives in these new areas demographically? Maybe we don't know that exactly today. Mhmm. Two, have those people been notified in order to have the opportunity for public comment more more invitationally? And thirdly, what about the pressure for the the existing homeowners to to deal with the people who wanna develop that property to get these bigger units in? I worry about displacement.

Mhmm.

If a landlord for renters, for example, says, oh, now I get to sell my property to somebody who can put in more units. See you later, alligator. That concerns me. So displacements, demographics, just making sure we aren't disproportionately negatively affecting a certain demographic. That's all. Thank you.

I I was gonna bring the map back up just to speak to a couple things. So we can certainly do our best to provide some demographic information when we bring this back. I also just wanted to point out that

Sorry. Amit and I are both

here. Oops. So when we bring alternative options back for you, all of our maps will use this jagged edge. This is the Lahar boundary as now recommended by USGS, and so that will be kind of the baseline for any further maps that we bring you. This half mile reduction that resulted in the 13%, that was council policy direction in the interim middle housing ordinance.

So, certainly, it's, you know, it's very within your ability to give direction for that to only be a half mile reduction area or, you know, a different number. But everything will use this outer edge as the lahar boundary as that is the newest data that we're now using. And we will provide you with some different options that show different reduction area and that's simply based on your policy direction, not necessarily on the USGS. That boundary will stay the same. Okay.

And just appreciation for your comment about displacement, council member Smolko. Displacement is always a concern when we when we address zoning changes. And and but in the in this instance, the the new co the new directives from the from the state allowing ADUs are are expected to provide additional low cost housing in the area. So so the the likelihood that displacement is gonna take place in those areas is is gonna be reduced in my mind as opposed to being being a a bigger problem. So so I just wanted to weigh in on that a little bit.

You're still up, council member Smolko. Okay. Seeing no further things, I think we're ready to move on to our next presentation.

Thank you.

And we'll call up, Katie Baker. Thank you, Katie, for doing triple duty tonight.

So this next presentation is regarding our phase two zoning map and code updates. This is package six of the, DPS work plan that we presented you with, I think, back in January. As you'll recall, well, I'll get to that in a moment, but we'll go over what is included in the phase two zoning map changes, kind of a background of our mixed use zones. That's what this presentation is specifically focused on. And we'll get into two of the five zones, specifically the River Road mixed use and community mixed use zones.

So with that, our zoning map updates, we are taking a two phase approach with this. Phase one was implemented by city council last month. These were very straightforward changes to implement future land use map changes that were adopted with the comprehensive plan update. We were needing to make zoning cleanups to be consistent with those amendments. These were things that were discussed during the comp plan update and relatively minor cleanup items.

But now we're focusing on phase two. These are areas that require a bit more detailed analysis, will require additional and kind of deeper planning commission review, as well as in many cases more extensive property owner coordination. So I'll walk through a few examples of some items involved in the phase two process, and then we'll get into the mixed use zone districts. So some of the things we'll be looking at are removal of our office professional and limited commercial zones, and you'll hear about the commercial removal a little bit more in the next presentation. We'll be looking at application of our CBD core, which is our central core downtown zoning, considering maybe some expansion to that zoning designation, and establishing our new neighborhood serving commercial zone, which is our limited mixed use or LMX zone to some of the target targeted areas that we identified in that comp plan update.

Other changes include looking at our remaining mixed use areas and updating our code standards. This is what we'll be focusing on in this presentation tonight. And we'll also be taking a look at the fair and the fair overlay zone. These are some changes that were discussed during the comprehensive plan update. The planning commission raised some questions for consideration in looking at the zoning code as well as some request directly from the Washington State Fair.

Staff will come back to council soon for some policy guidance on those fair related changes. We'll also be looking at single family residential zone consolidation, which we presented on earlier this month and received council direction. So phase two is a big one, and so we're trying to bring these in kind of smaller pieces to you for early policy direction before we really dig in with the planning commission, and we'll be able to find a few other touch points throughout the process to be sure that we're hearing the council direction clearly and working with the planning commission in that intent. So now to get into some background on our mixed use zoning designations. And forgive me, I'm probably going to use a lot of acronyms here, so just stop me if there are any questions.

Mixed use zoning in Puyallup has been implemented incrementally over time with each zone being adopted through various planning efforts in the city as we evaluated growth, redevelopment opportunities, and market conditions. We now have five mixed use zones ranging from a limited mixed use or the LMX to a community commercial mixed use zone or CCX, and that's applied to the South Hill Mall. Mixed use zones have historically been created for very specific areas of the city and not really used on a citywide scale. But we're reevaluating that at this time following our comprehensive plan update to apply mixed use zoning to other areas of the city such as the South Meridian Corridor. So I'll briefly walk through each of the five zones and then we'll get into the focus areas on the two specific zones tonight.

So CMX, the community mixed use zone was established in 2009 and was the city's first mixed use zone. It was applied to eight parcels off the Northeast corner of Shaw Road and East Pioneer. The area is approximately 30 acres in size and can consists of agricultural land. The zone was intended to support moderate scale mixed use development that integrated residential and commercial uses, and it was envisioned to serve as a gateway to the city. The city then adopted the River Road corridor plan in 2011, and along with that, the River Road mixed use zone or R m x zone.

The zone applies to approximately 54 acres North of River Road and South of the Puyallup River. The RMX zone was designed to encourage higher intensity mixed use redevelopment along the river corridor and support a more urban pedestrian oriented development over time with special considerations for the interface of that development with the Riverwalk Trail and Puyallup River. When the South Hill neighborhood plan was adopted in 2017, council established three additional mixed use zones with varying development intensities. There is the CCX zone which applies to the South Hill Mall Mall property and is the city's highest intensity mixed use zone. The Urban Center Mixed Use Zone, UCX, was designated as kind of that middle tier designation also used in the South Hill area.

And the limited mixed use or LMX zone was intended to be the least intensive mixed use designation and serve as more of a transitional zone between higher intensity commercial and lower intensity residential. So just very quickly through these maps, this is a visual of where CCX is applied. That's the mall property itself. The UCX has been expanded under council's zoning phase one work. So it used to only be applied in the South Hill Regional Growth Center, and now it's been expanded down South Meridian to the 512 Overpass near 15th.

The LMX zone used to only be applied in South Hill, but after the phase one zoning map changes, those areas have largely been rezoned to UCX, so a little more density and intensity in South Hill. LMX is now intended to be reused as the new neighborhood commercial zone. Staff will be coming back to council later this year for more discussion on that zone development and to get your direction and and concerns and questions answered. This map, I realize is very hard to see, but it's because it's just sprinkled throughout the city now. This is based on the comprehensive plan update land use designations.

And again, this is really intended to apply to kind of small areas or even single parcels that maybe have historic commercial uses in a residential area, but to really address properties that have that interface, you know, with limited commercial uses but largely surrounded by residential. So this table just again shows a comparison of the five zones that I just went through. You can see how the different zones compare from the descriptions, the density ranges, as well as the height. CMX is a very low density zone at 10 dwelling units per acre and has a lower building height maximum. RMX and UCX are very similar.

They have the same density allowance and height allowances. And CCX is that highest intensity zone. There's no maximum density and height allowances range from 75 to a 125 feet and that's with density bonuses. So I wanted to touch on kind of the amendments that staff is considering to apply to all of the mixed use zones. One of the things that we've identified during the comp plan update process is allowing development that is standalone residential in the mixed use zone.

When mixed use was first developed, we were rezoning a lot of previously commercial areas and so we wanted to make sure we retained a strong commercial component. But there have been market changes since that time. We've also we know just from having landlocked parcels or parcels that don't front on our on an arterial. Some of them just are not appropriate for requiring commercial. So one of the things that we're looking at is allowing standalone residential developments in the mixed use zone.

We don't think that will have a negative impact on commercial. There's still plenty of commercial opportunity. It just gives a little more flexibility as to how that looks and where it's applied. We'll also be taking a look at increases to density ranges and height allowances. That's something that we've heard a lot of feedback from developers and applicants as kind of a hurdle when they're looking at, you know, a proposed project on a particular site.

We'll also be taking a look at use considerations in the mixed use zones. We've had some questions pop up about battery storage systems. That's something our code is silent on and we need to make sure those things are identified and regulated properly. We've all had other requests to consider broader allowances for road service uses. Things like gas stations, car washes, auto sales. So we'll be touching on some of that in the River Road mixed use slides and can consider that more broadly as we move forward. I'm happy to pause for questions.

Okay. Council member Castamet. Thank you,

mister mayor. Regarding the R M X zone on River Road, I think at one time, there was a vision of a mixed use area. But as it's become more important, I think, for us to have designated commercial corridors, I think that is one of those areas that I think they have tried to put the flag up the flagpole numerous times, and no one will salute it. And I think that there may be a very good reason why the residential is not a component that is that viable in that area. My question to you is is that I I actually think that should be a commercial area.

But having an r m x, does that in fact hinder that in any way from being a primarily if not Does that in fact hinder that in any way from being a primarily if not exclusively commercial zone?

That's a great question. I think it certainly doesn't, it doesn't prohibit commercial, but what it does do is prohibit certain commercial uses that tend to be more land intensive. So things like auto sales, outdoor storage, those things have been prohibited in the RMX zone.

But aren't there car dealers in the actual RMX zone?

There is one, yes. Maybe two. So mostly the RMX was applied on the North Side of River Road and that was intentional because there were not historically car dealerships on that side. We left the South Side where the majority of car dealerships are general commercial.

So now you have the Hyundai and then you have Larsen's?

Yes, those are the two.

Okay. And I can't imagine along there we have the old, well Larsen's I think goes across the street from their main place there with all the garages and with Fred Meyer. I just can't think of other possible residential areas in there. Again, I know how valuable commercial development is to the city and I do not want to hinder that. So think about that, okay? How we in fact make that viable because cities need healthy areas for their viability. Anyway, thank you.

Deputy Mayor Johnson?

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I want to chime in with Council Member Kastam. I agree. I think we need to look at expanding commercial use in that River Road corridor. I would just simply add another caveat to that, not either or I would say look at expanding it, but why couldn't we have an overlay so that some developer wanted to develop residential there and they could certainly do that. The market would dictate what it is rather than eliminate that vision, add an overlay or something to that nature that expands commercial usage, but less the market dictate what will be developed there. So, I think it would open up the gamut more than limit it. And I would certainly support that concept on it. But I do think that commercial is they've already proven that in the whole quarter has already proven to be very provide great services for our city, for residents that want to purchase and repair cars or whatever.

And it's providing great tax revenue for us. And so if they're able to expand that area and business, provide more services and more tax revenue, we should do it. However, I wouldn't eliminate that prior one. I would just add that in there with an overlay or however you do that. So it's kind of both and not just one or the other.

So I think it's a win win that way. Market will dictate where it's going to go. It likely will go to expanded commercial because precedence has kind of shown that. But there are some pieces I think that are down the road that still may be great for some residential because you got the Riverwalk Trail right there. So yes, there might be some really high density, especially if we start talking about increasing height capacity, it might begin to make sense to put in something down in that area at a kind of a this kind of big urban high rise or whatever with the Riverwalk Trail. So I would like to see an expansion, not a reduction or a change, but have both. And then I want to touch on height. This is a big apple that you're giving us in this presentation. It's a big apple. So I don't even know how much we're going to get to.

But I just want to go on the record to say I really support higher density. So, if you're looking for direction, are you asking for direction to kind of signal allowances for higher densities we have already? Or are you just giving us a statement that these are the height densities that are already in place?

That was really just information for you all to kind of get a sense for the scope of the mixed use uses and where we'll be going with forthcoming code changes. But I do appreciate any specific opinions direction that you have as we start to look at that with the Planning Commission is very helpful.

Sure. Well, again, where appropriate, I'd like raising it up. I we're looking at again, there's only so much land, right? So if you can't spread out so much of it to go up, makes sense, especially when you start looking at effectiveness of cost of development, right? Then go up higher, it makes more sense, it pencils out.

And I love, I just want to get a reiterate, I love that the changes that the council did and the planning commission did and the staff did for that Meridian Corridor, expanding the whole thing, which just made so much sense. You got this regional growth center up here, you got one down here and that whole part, what you call it, juggler vein of economic boom just makes total sense. So I love that. Yes, and I do remember the South Hill project we worked on, it was about ten years ago when I got elected. And I do remember that 75 to 100 feet to 125 feet height with bonus densities.

And so, you could theoretically have 125 foot high rise there. And the view up there would be phenomenal, because you're I mean, you look up there and you could have a view of the Port Of Tacoma and Mount Rainier, you'd have spectacular views over the city, just an amazing view. So I hope that some developers catch wind of that and really begin to take a look at that because I think it's fantastic. So but comments on height, if there are responsible areas that the Planning Commission believes that we could add height where we currently have limited in, we should be looking at that even if we don't do it, we should have options. Thank you.

Thank you.

Just speaking to the River Road mixed use, that zone was kind of created to try and encourage the nice river walk with housing along there and a really nice thing that you see in many cities. I'm correct in that. That was kind of the intent there,

That

was, yeah. And we have not seen any of that kind of development. So, when the market doesn't respond to that sort of thing, I come to the conclusion that we got it wrong the first time and we need to change it a little bit. And we've got a proliferation of these mixed use zones. Would you what's your thoughts about eliminating some of them and combining some of them?

That's what we're hoping to do. So I do have a few more slides on the River Road zone specifically that I would like to kind of set the table and ask maybe a few more specific questions about the zone and the plan itself. But we I think we are headed in a direction where that RMX zone is likely to be consolidated with the UCX zone because they are so similar. And then we have another zone that we'll be asking about towards the end of the presentation.

Okay. Let's proceed.

All right. So you've identified some of the challenges with the River Road RMX zoning designation. There's this tension between the pedestrian oriented vision that we've had for about the last fifteen years and the reality of market conditions and what we really want to see there and what developers are looking to do in that area. So as you all have noted, we haven't seen the development that we were hoping for under that corridor plan. So we're here to revisit whether that plan and that policy direction is really still where we want to be going, the direction we want to be going. If we were to simply make the zoning change to allow for auto sales, that

would

be inconsistent with the vision and the policy direction of the River Road Corridor Plan. So there's kind of this inherent conflict that we can't just change the code without also addressing the plan in some way. So we have a couple options for council to consider and weigh in on tonight. Option one is repealing the River Road corridor plan in its entirety and then following up with that amendment to the RMX zoning to either consolidate with UCX and or allow for those auto oriented uses. This would remove that comprehensive plan policy conflict and just establish a more general mixed use zoning designation in that area or a more general commercial designation that also allows for residential.

And so allowing the city to move forward with the development direction that we're hearing interest in and eliminating that policy conflict. It would eliminate our long term vision for that corridor and what we had been thinking it might look like. Option two would be to revise the River Road Corridor plan but retain it, but remove the policies that discourage the auto oriented development. So there are a number of policies that we identified that was included in the council packet. Just a good handful of policies that really specifically talk about pedestrian orientation and that prohibition of auto oriented uses.

We would look at removing those policies. It maintains the long term planning framework and vision for that area, but really allows more market driven uses. The difficulty with this is internal consistency. You have a plan that still promotes pedestrian friendly development and not pedestrian orientation while permitting these kind of large land intensive uses. So there may be an inherent conflict there in use allowances.

The third option would be to update the plan, go through a new community planning process for the River Road corridor area. That would be a public engagement process to really hear from the community what their vision for the area is. Again, we can still explore potentially allowing those auto oriented uses, but doing it as a more concerted community planning effort. This allows for kind of a reset button on that River Road corridor plan, gets up public engagement, but does certainly add time to this process and may delay kind of those zoning amendments that I think what we're hearing from the community, the development community that they want in the near future. So those are the three kind of basic options that staff has developed for your consideration.

I've certainly heard your interest tonight in us exploring the addition of these auto sales uses in the zone. So I think what I'd be interested in hearing from counsel is if your preference is to revisit and update the plan to simply remove the policies that prohibit those auto uses or to repeal the plan in its entirety.

Councilmember Castiva. Thank you Mr. Mayor. Katie, doesn't number two, option number two in essence do what Councilmember Johnson had requested?

Yes, I would say so.

Okay. I'm fine with that. Thank you.

Deputy Mayor Johnson.

Thank you. Yes, if two is closer to what I'm talking about, get both, even though there shows some inconsistencies, there's all kinds of nuances. We're okay with nuances. I think there's areas where we can have that. Some things are just that way. If that's the closest to giving us both, allowing for car allowances, but also allowing for industry if they come with some high rises, that could merge very nicely on there. And I think it could be helpful. And some of these high density developers that come in could help the car dealerships in terms of customer potential, but also people living there, watching there at night create some safety issues that might protect some of that area. So, I would support to, again, as long as it accomplishes both options and not just limiting one. So I'm totally against three completely.

I just think time is of essence. We haven't got time to study it and all this input. I mean, this land has been here for a long time and I just don't think we need to go back to start to page one on that. So I'd be against three.

Council Member King.

Thank you. Regarding the UCX zone, it says allows for higher density and height. What exactly does that look like? Could you refresh my memory on that? How many homes per acre or how many units per acre for high density, that type of thing?

It's a range of a minimum of at least eight units per acre if you're proposing residential to a maximum of 22. We are finding that that's still fairly limited. Most developers who are developing in that type of area in a more mixed use fashion want a higher density. So that's something we'd be bringing back to you as part of the overall mixed use zoning changes.

22 per acre is the same as RMX right now, correct?

That is correct.

And what is our downtown core set for?

No maximum in our downtown core. We only limit based on height. But density, I mean, you could have 100 tiny units or 20 larger units.

It would seem to me that, that area of Puyallup being so close to freeway access and River Road 167 there, that will soon probably go away once 167 goes out to I-five there. It would be interesting to how they phrase that or number that. But with that said, being that there is so much throughput available there, it would seem like it would make more sense to put a higher density than the 22 per acre or like our downtown have no number attached to it. With the housing issues that we do have, it would seem like that would make the most sense for that particular area out of really any area in our city. So I would encourage my colleagues to consider that just because there is so much available throughput and freeway access there.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Oh, and I will add, the auto situation, that should all be included as well. And frankly, it is my belief that that whole area should be wide open for development with very limited restrictions. Thank you.

Councilmember Adler.

Thank you. Thank you, Katie. Appreciate your hard work and the clear slides that you are providing to us. I will say that I support option two. I think that it's been a long time coming to see or reimagine the corridor in the area, and I think that option two gets gets there.

But I will say that while I definitely believe and understand time is money, I do expect that option two will include elements of option three to engage with the public and property owners, etcetera, in the area. It doesn't have to be a full blown outreach operation, but I do expect that the city will be engaging with property owners and businesses in the area. Housing is housing. I support going vertical. And I think that that's where I'm at right now.

And again, appreciate the very clear slides.

Councilmember Gilliam. Thank you, mister mayor.

So after listening to my colleagues, I'm also in support of Option two. But instead of going with the UCX, I'd like us to see us go with the CCX, if I'm getting that correctly. Higher density, taller buildings, mixed use for commercial as well as residential. So I just thought I'd add some clarity to our thoughts, what I think I'm hearing, but just kind of define it in words that we need for the planning commission to help steer and guide that. So thank you.

Thank you.

Deputy Mayor Johnson?

Yes. Again, is study session. This is kind of why I get a couple of bites because I'm hearing and get stimulated from other conversations. So I want to weigh in with several comments. I do think there should be no density maximums. I think we should open that up like we do at Downtown Core. There's no reason for that. I also think we do know what the current height options are? And if so, can we look at what we do with the South Hill Mall and go up? I mean, I don't know why we couldn't go up there.

Absolutely.

Anyway, so we don't need to go there, but I would say I would really encourage increased height allowances. Again, no maximum density in that area and just create this really high commercial area with potential high density housing. But let's get away from this eight to 22 units per acre. That's just to me not maximize the potential of that. And if we get some good high rises down there and some commercial, it could be a really special place to kind of cruise and walk and live. So thank you for that.

Councilmember Smolko.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Again, on its face, all of this sounds awesome to me. I know that the auto industry in particular is a super important part of our economic landscape, but I will continue to push for anti displacement policies to be part of the conversation. Reason being, when cities up zone corridors like this, property values often rise quickly, which can displace renters and small businesses, which disproportionately can affect immigrant owned businesses and community serving retail, so before even new places materialize.

So my question then is, has staff done any analysis of the current tenant and business composition along the River Road corridor? And is there any policy mechanism being considered? For example, community benefit agreements, ground floor commercial preservation and affordable commercial space requirements.

Yes. So we have not done any of that analysis yet at this point, but certainly we can use this direction as we're bringing options through the planning commission and back to city council to make those considerations. We do have some of that policy direction in the comprehensive plan, and so this is an opportunity to implement that. Thank you.

Okay. It looks like we're winding down. I haven't weighed in, but I heard a lot of good things. I appreciate the comments of Councilmember King and Gilliam, you know, going high, going dense, that's a good area for it. I think if we it would kind of get back to what we were shooting for with the original River Road corridor plan if we were able to get some residential down there and giving higher height capability might attract some interest in that area.

So that's my input. And with that, let's move on to the next presentation. Thank you.

If I may.

I have just

a couple more slides in this one. This should be quick. We wanted to have a brief conversation about the community mixed use zone. This is the zone that is specific to the Shaw Pioneer neighborhood. Again, it applies to, I think, eight parcels, 30 acres.

This was our very first mixed use zone. Chris Beale and I wrote this zone when we were just baby planners here at the city, and we've learned a lot since that time. So it was developed for a very specific context. This is seen as a gateway to the city, longtime agriculture land that we knew would be redeveloped at some point. It was very important to the community, to the city council at that time that we had pretty high standards in that area and that the development wasn't too big.

There really was kind of a village node type of a concept. Well, as the city has grown and grown up around in that area especially, we're reevaluating and looking at whether the CMX zone is still the right fit. The property has remained undeveloped. Again, we're talking about seventeen years, I think, since that zone was adopted. And so it's time to consider whether we're doing more harm to what the market and the community wants to see in that area.

If CMX were to be eliminated, we would recommend that the properties be rezoned to the UCX zone that we were just talking about. However, it's important to caveat this with the fact that we're looking at changes to the UCX zone. So what I've presented on the slide in front of you is the current density and height, but that is subject to change. So a couple of options for your consideration and input tonight as well on the CMX zone. Should this zone, CMX, the Shaw Pioneer area be retained as a very area specific zone or rezoned?

Again, we'd be looking at RRMX or UCX. I'm sorry. Too many acronyms tonight. So the argument for keeping it CMX is about retaining that gateway character, keeping a distinct identity in that area. There were design standards that are specific kind of the agricultural heritage.

But there is an added procedural requirement in the code. So development in that area is required to submit a master site plan that goes through the hearing examiner. That's a more onerous process than the average commercial development needs to go through. So that is a reason to maybe remove that zone. Option two is to rezone the area to UCX.

This is a more straightforward process, allows greater flexibility. We've already utilized this zone throughout the city. It would improve the experience for the applicant and for city staff to administer the code. We lose that customization though of a very specific zone for a very unique area of the city. So if the council feels that the characteristics of that area are worthy of additional protection and additional process, we'd want to hear that tonight. So I'll leave it there.

So question, Katie. Have you heard any input from the property owners there and step by step?

Yes. Thank you. We have reached out to the property owners. There's a couple of main landowners in that area. We've had at least preliminary conversations with each of them. They are again, there's a density limitation in this area that's been quite prohibitive as we've talked with prospective developers. Step by step and others feel that the UCX zone just more greatly accommodates what they're looking to do.

And do you just correct me if I'm wrong, that UCX does not require going before the hearing exam?

That's correct. It does not.

Okay. Deputy Mayor Johnson.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I support at least going to the UCX. I'd like to get some added thoughts. Hypothetically with the UCX scenario, does that allow for increased density? Is that right?

Yes, it would.

Does it also allow if we're looking at market conditions, if nobody necessarily wants to live there, does it open up other business opportunities that might qualify to develop in that areas with the UCX?

It's a variety of primarily commercial uses. So again, it would not necessarily I think we would want some direction on whether counsel would be comfortable with a wide open set of commercial uses, things like auto sales and auto oriented uses may not be appropriate for that area and we'd like to hear that tonight. But certainly the variety of retail service, professional service and office type uses would be allowed, hotels would be allowed, again, unless we hear direction otherwise.

Yes. Well, I love our auto dealers, yes, I certainly wouldn't want to see that there. But other businesses I think shouldn't have options there. We have that beautiful Plaza there, Kitty Corner over in that area with the Safeway and all the office or all the various businesses there, I think should be added. Again, I think it should increase options for residential density.

It should increase the types of businesses, increased types of businesses that may want to go in there, because right now I've looked at that area down there, it seems like it's pretty limited on what you can put there. And even the housing allowances are so small on density that doesn't pencil out. So I'd love to see this opened up. Right now, I'm leaning toward the UCX. I'd like to study it a little bit more and get back with specifics on maybe some business commercial options that would be allowable and get behind it more at face value.

Yes, let's open this thing up. Let's open the gates up. Let's let development happen. This is responsible development, right? But if it's not working, we have to realize as mentioned, let market kind of direct us, but also we're still in some sense good stewards of the area without throwing it open to just cheap development, right? So thank you.

Councilmember Smolco.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. My husband is a small business owner in that area, and I also know there are many others. So I just want to ask a couple of questions. Does the code update or would the code update include any analysis of small business vulnerability in that transition? In other words, are there notice requirements or similar things for existing commercial tenants when properties might be rezoned? I don't want them to get priced out basically is my concern.

Sure. We would certainly do noticing to the property owners to make them aware of the zoning change. Further analysis, I'm not sure if it gets into kind of economic analysis. We may have limited capabilities of doing that, but certainly engagement with the property owners is part of that process.

So we're on the thank you. Oh, council member Adler, you snuck in on me.

Sorry. Thank you. Just very quick. I I like option two, you know, where immediately my mind goes, and I'm sure many folks when talking about this area is about traffic, and that's that's outside of your purview and what we're we're here to talk about tonight. But that is present on my mind when talking about this. And so, you know, I I certainly don't wanna be prohibitive Mhmm. Prohibitive, but I'm very concerned about that and what what in the future that looks like. But again, that's not you. So thank you for allowing us to engage.

Yeah. Thank you.

Okay. How do we get to move on to number three? Thank you.

Okay. Last presentation of the night is also part of our Package six, Zoning Map and Code Phase two updates. This is specific to the commercial zones. So similar to our mixed use discussion, we're also looking at our commercial or c zones as part of phase two. This presentation is pretty short and sweet.

I'll give you an overview of the five c zones that we currently have, show some examples of where they're applied in the city, and touch on comp plan policy direction for one particular zone. So we don't really have any specific policy questions for you tonight. Just wanting to provide an overview and open the door to any conversations about application of the zones. We can come back at a later date with more detailed maps if that's something council's interested in. So again, two phased approach to the zoning map update.

This is part of phase two. Chapter 20.3 in the code has governed commercial land use in the city since the mid 1990s. The five zones were established between 1994 and 2006, so it has not been largely assessed or overhauled in twenty years. The zones differ in their intensity of use, building height limits and what types of businesses are allowed. Our 2044 comprehensive plan update did not make vast changes to the commercial land use designations.

But of course, with so many things, we're taking the opportunity to reassess how they're applied and see if all five zones are still necessary and serving distinct purposes. So again, a comparison table here of the five C zones. We have CBD core, which is our most intense downtown oriented zone. It really promotes economic activity, allows for commercial, particularly ground floor retail and residential uses. As we discussed, no density maximum.

Auto oriented uses, auto service uses are prohibited in the downtown area. There's also the CBD zone, which is very similar in terms of uses, just a bit of a step down in terms of height. So whereas CBD Core is four to six stories, CBD is three to five stories. And when I show a map in a couple of slides, you'll see it's kind of a concentric circle approach. So the Meridian core is CBD core and then kind of outside of that is CBD.

We also have the community business zone. This allows kind of the full range of retail professional service uses. It allows limited road service uses. So things like gas stations, fast food and hotels, but not auto sales. So kind of not those larger land intensive uses, but still auto oriented auto serving uses.

General commercial is the broadest commercial zone. It is much more auto oriented, allows more land intensive uses like outdoor storage, all road service uses, and has limited residential allowances. In terms of height, it's more similar to the CB zone. And then the final zone is the limited commercial or CL zone. This is our lowest intensity commercial zone.

It allows office and retail but prohibits road service uses. Heights are limited at 40 feet. And during the comprehensive plan update, there were already only a handful of areas in the city zoned CL. Many of those land uses were changed to either the neighborhood commercial or a general commercial land use. And because it's so sparsely applied and I'll get into some more details about that, but we are proposing to remove that zone following this update.

So just touching on kind of throughout the city where are these commercial zones applied. River Road, we've talked a bit about. You can see on the North side of River Road is that RMX zone that we discussed in the last presentation. But then along the south side extending from really from the bypass to the outer edge of the city, that whole corridor is general commercial. We also have general commercial zoning up at the Valley And Meridian Intersection.

And then on South Hill, this other map shows South Hill, we have general commercial zoning on the other side of 512 from the mall. And then there's also that community business designation. So this is Costco that's zoned CB. And then we also have a small area on 31st that's zoned CB. And then you see just a couple of little parcels here that have that CL designation.

Maps on this page, the map on the left shows downtown. So I know it's a bit hard to distinguish, but this bright pink in the middle kind of you think of our core downtown streets, Meridian and a block or two off in either direction, that's our CBD core. And then the outer ring, that lighter pink is CBD. So that's again where we're allowing still that mix of uses as pedestrian oriented ground floor retail, upper story residential, but just at a slightly lower height and intensity. The other map gives you a snapshot of the East side of the city, so East Main and East Pioneer, where again we see the CG and CB zoning designations.

This down here is the Safeway, the new Safeway parcel and all of its outbuildings and that's that community business zone. So just to touch a little more on the proposed removal of the CL zone. This was something that we discussed during the comprehensive plan update. That direction just gave us more direction for mixed use zoning at a lower intensity being that transitional use between higher intensity commercial and surrounding residential areas. The CL zone profile is very similar to the limited mixed use zone that we already have.

So again, in an attempt to just simplify how we apply the code, what developers need to understand about regulations, we are proposing this simplification and removal of this zone. Any remaining parcels zone CL would be transitioned to an appropriate zoning designation based on their land use, most likely limited mixed use. Maybe in a few cases it would be a more general commercial zone. And so again, just to point out where the CL is applied, the corner of 31st Ave and 9th Street Southwest up on the hill. Got a couple of parcels there, ZCL.

And then downtown, we've got, again, just a few parcels on the West side of downtown. And then the stretch of they're mostly homes still just behind the Downtown Safeway. So between the Safeway and the bypass, those have been zoned limited commercial for years, probably two decades at least. We've seen, I think, little to no redevelopment in that area. The limited mixed use would actually be, I think, more appropriate because it would better facilitate the existing residential while still allowing for low scale commercial uses.

So again, these next steps applied about this presentation and the previous presentation on mixed use zoning. Tonight, we're looking for your policy direction. Then we'll begin work with the planning commission through the spring and the summer. We anticipate we're hopeful to have a public hearing with the planning commission in the fall and be back before city council for final ordinance in November, December. And I should say there can also be, and we do anticipate touch points with council throughout, but those are kind

of the big

benchmarks. So I'm happy to take any questions or input about commercial zones.

I'll jump in the that area along the across the street from the junior high school there behind Safeway. Think that limited mixed use makes a lot of sense to me. So I'd be in favor of that. There's a lot to digest. I'll take it in bite sized pieces.

That's fine.

Deputy Mayor Johnson?

Yes, was going say the same thing. I think out of all the three presentations, there's a lot of you're jumping all over and there's all these kind of inter. I would just say, I think you've heard a theme from the council and the other two and the technical aspects of staff to kind of translate that into this area might be a good starting point because it's just too much to bite off for me to touch on all those three to four different areas. But I think you've heard a pretty good theme. And I think if you were able to translate that into this, it might be helpful to bring back some suggestions and options.

But yes, there's a lot to chew up here. But it is kind of interesting. I think the staff and I think customer customer mentioned staff in the minutiae of what you do because you're professionals is what you do. I think you used the word, I don't think I'm taking out the context, but some common sense. If you look and you see some of these spotty zone areas and at one point they were fine, but not maybe really appropriate now. You might just say this might be better served with some higher density or better uses there to maximize development in an area that's already developed, but maybe not zoned for the continuation of that similar development surrounding properties. So that would be kind of my thoughts on that. But yes, there's lot to chew on this one.

Councilmember Gilliam.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Katie, I just have a quick question and clarity to help me understand.

On

I don't even know what slide number this is, but the existing C zone comparisons slide.

The table.

Yes. Thank The very bottom where it says limited commercial, there is a proposal to remove per the comp plan update direction. If we were to remove that and we just said we liked that over by Callis Junior High and behind Safeway, how would that affect the businesses in that area if we were to remove that zone?

So our proposal is to remove that zone and rezone it limited mixed use. That would be consistent with the direction that we took in the comprehensive plan update. It would allow essentially the existing homes to remain. They could transition to small scale commercial uses if desired.

So if I'm hearing you correctly and if I'm like comprehending, we you circled those on the that current zone maps CL zone slide because we just want to identify those. Yes. We're I'm just highlighting all in. Let's do that. Great. Thank you.

Councilmember Smolko.

Thank you. I think I'm in agreement with councilmember Gilliam. This is all like I admire you all so much. The language it's a whole foreign language and a set of skills I do not possess. So I have a lot of questions. But so my key question was, and I think you just answered it, but I wanna be sure, is where do the CL zone properties go? And I just wanted to make sure that they weren't gonna go back into sort of general zone. But it sounds like limited mixed use. Mhmm. And I think that's a good thing. I support that. I just don't want them to be absorbed back into general commercial. That would be definitely a step backward for neighborhood character and small businesses. So am I understanding that Yes,

you are understanding Okay.

And that was it on that. Thank you. Great.

Okay. It looks like we're quiet again. So let me just ask, we've given you a lot of direction. Is there areas that aren't clear that we could do a better job of giving you a little more? And maybe I should direct this to director

I'm confident.

Grinnell, see if she's seen something that she would like further clarification.

No. I really appreciate all of the direction and conversation that we've had tonight. I think that you've highlighted a lot of the problems that we've reviewed over the last couple of months, which is that we have a lot of redundancy in our zones right now. And so the effort that we're making at the staff level is, again, to bring those forward in bite sized pieces to get this conversation prompted so that when you see this, again, likely at your June study session with just a synthesized document that reviews everything we've talked about and the direction we understand that you've given us, you'll have some background and some context. So I don't have any specific questions right now. I just wanna thank you all again for that direction. In the conversation, I think that we've gotten a lot of great direction tonight. So thank you counsel.

Okay. Well, my one last comment is I'm a streamline simplify kind of guy. So if you come up against things that you'd there's two options and one is simpler and more expeditious. That's the one I hope for. Thank you. Okay. And so we've gotten through our three presentations. We're we've now got a citizen comment section. So, city clerk, will you provide the instructions?

Yes. Thank you, mister mayor. This time is reserved for a public comment on tonight's agenda topics only. The mayor will call on those who have provided their names in advance. Then the mayor will call for those other citizens who wish to speak. For the record, please state your name and council, district, or address in which you reside. Please direct your comments to the council as a whole, not individual council members. All comments are limited to two minutes. The clerk will provide a verbal notice when only thirty seconds remain. As a reminder, this portion of the meeting is council's opportunity to hear from the public and not a time to engage in debate.

Lastly, per state law, this public comment period cannot be used to speak in support of or in opposition to a ballot measure or individual candidacy, and no such comments will be allowed.

Okay. And I just have one citizen comment tonight. Androlyn Escuardo. Am I getting it close?

Yeah. A little closer. Isquiredo.

Isquiredo. Yes. I'll keep trying.

That's okay. You can always keep trying. Good evening council members. My name is Angelie Isquiredo from Pierce County District 2. My topic tonight is on the map of interim middle housing applicability area in regards to boundary lines from another perspective.

So as per the area of the mapping of the interim, as I am formally requesting that there be consideration of expanding the option of including the population of unincorporated South Hill, which is roughly estimated to be about 70,000 people since most frequently referred to this area as Puyallup as stated in our residential addresses. There's also the reason of bypassing limitations that may be barriers of this project as well as increase the likelihood of success by providing an option that is much feasible with the inclusion of this population. As opposed to South Hill only having a very distant and costly last resort of finding alternative housing in Tacoma, Washington. So this can present such hardship on individuals and families that the probability of them contemplating on moving downtown rather than the latter can be better not just for them but for Puyallup's economy as well. Please consider editing the boundary lines to the housing applicability map to include South Hills citizens as housing is still the hardest resource to acquire in our entire state of Washington.

Thank you.

Thank you. Is there any other members present who would like to speak? Please provide your address or council district.

My name is Art Sillia. I'm District 3, and I'd like to talk to you about the Lahar Zone. La Hara zone for many years in the city has been ignored. I've served as a planning commission member from early two thousand to 2010 and again from 2016 to 2026. And we've mentioned several times about the impacts and they've been ignored by the city.

The city has basically said it's a low risk factor. People who live in Puyallup know that it's a factor. With all the new technology, we'll have early warning so we can get out. And all of a sudden, this has come up twice. One with the jail, the jail police, and then on this.

That's the only time I've ever heard and now all that time the HAR being a critical component. So I don't understand quite how that's supposed to work when you've ignored it all these years. We've allowed municipal building, is our critical building, which under the comp plan, the old comp plan, critical buildings were not supposed to be in the lahar zone and yet we sit in one. We talked about apartment complexes being big and not being able to get people out. And yet, many of you on this council approved everything on East Main, on the ones that are going up on Shaw Road, on the Cornford Campbell lot, on the police, Crosswood Police Station, all high unit multifamily housing.

Same problem that you're gonna have is try to get people out.

Thirty seconds.

Thank you. So the other thing is with this, you're removing an economic development factor for all the people in downtown here that don't have a large lot that can put a multi housing establishment on it. Anybody that wants to do, now you're going to allow one ADU, that's fine. But if they want to do a triplex, a duplex, any of the other combinations of middle housing, they can't because you're not allowing it in that zone. And that's why they

owe you huge equity. Speaker has reached two minutes.

Thank you. Between The Valley and the South Hill. You're now pushing all the middle housing up to South Hill. If that's equality and equity, you're wrong. You need to spread this out to the city so that every resident has this opportunity.

Thank you. Okay. I think that brings us to our conclusion of our meeting tonight. Mr. Mayor, point of privilege. Yes. Councilmember Castamer.

Yes. Thank you. Last week, I responded to public comments regarding the threatening letter that was sent last year to the chair of the Planning Commission. I did not have the police report with me last week, but to add precision to my previous comments, I wish to cite the actual police report and that is as follows. The FBI BAU behavioral analysis unit analysis concluded that the letter was most likely generated by her, Kenya Jones Lowell, or someone acting on her behalf.

Mr. Mayor, thank you for allowing me to cite the actual police report this evening. Thank you. Thank

you. With that, I think our meeting stands adjourned.