Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening. The Puyallup Planning Commission meeting for Wednesday, 04/22/2026 is now called to order. Will the clerk please call the roll?

Commissioner Barney?

Present.

Commissioner Martin?

Present.

Commissioner Crosby?

Present.

Commissioner Washburn?

Present.

Commissioner Kyle Landon did say he's running late, but he should be attending.

Thank you.

Vice chair DeGrove?

Present.

And chair Taylor?

Present.

Thank you. We have a quorum.

Item number two on the agenda, approval of the agenda. Do I have a motion to approve?

So move.

Second. Thank you. Item number three. We do we have to vote on if we have the motion and the

Yes. That's correct. Once there's a first and second, we do have to have a vote.

Okay. All those in favor?

Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye. Any opposed? Now we're moving on to item number three, approval of the minutes. Do I have a motion for approval of the minutes of 03/11/2026? So moved. Do I have a second? Second. All those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? Item number four. I understand that there were no citizen comments emailed.

Yes. That's correct.

And would there is no one here present for comments, so I believe we have no citizen comments. We're moving quickly tonight. Item number five is public hearing. No public hearings were scheduled for this meeting, and we will

move on to item number six.

Six a, under work session topics, phase two zoning map, and code policy direction package six of DPS work plan.

Good evening. I'm Kendall Walls with the

planning division, and I can get this PowerPoint.

Alright.

So how's everyone? Thanks for hanging tight while I got that going. Staff has been starting phase two zoning mapping code updates. This is package six of our big work plan for this year. The presentation tonight is one that we gave to counsel at a recent study session to get some policy direction on some specific components and also give them some background and overview.

So we wanted to share that same presentation with you tonight. I may not go into as much detail on certain components, And this was also in the packet, but we've added a few slides in here to inform you of the policy direct direction that we did receive during that work session with them. And that can kind of help as we move forward with code amendments to kinda steer steer the ship on what we're working on. So we wanted to share that with you. It also plays into your next item on the agenda that Katie will present on, and I'll kinda touch on on where those, come into play in the in the presentation.

So, just a quick overview. I will briefly touch on the phase two zoning map changes, basically, the areas that we held off for phase two, and we'll walk through a background of our mixed use zones, our MX zones. We we'll specifically focus on the River Road mixed use zone and community mixed use zone. Those were areas that we asked for policy direction from council. Also give an overview of our commercial zones, our c zones, and then touch on the the key takeaways that we heard from council.

So feel free to ask questions throughout. If there's something that'll come up later, I'll just let you know we can touch on it then. But for just a brief overview, I think everyone understands we are updating the zoning map in a two phase process. We've already gone through phase one, and that was adopted by council in February. It was kind of the more straightforward changes to provide consistency with the updated future land use map of the comprehensive plan.

And phase two were those areas that needed a little more coordination, a little more review time with the planning commission, code development, working with property owners, those types of things. So some examples examples of what those areas are that'll be a part of phase two. One is removal of two existing zones. One's the office professional, and one is the limited commercial, which we'll talk a little bit about, the limited commercial CL. Removing that from the zoning map as well as the code, as kind of just a consolidation effort.

Simplify and streamline has been the motto for the comp plan update as well as our code update. The other is, we may take a look at potential expansion of the CBD core zone downtown, specifically an area that has been kind of briefly talked about is kind of on this, southern southern end of downtown. Currently, it's CBD, potentially could expand CBD core there. So that would be something that we'd, potentially talk about at a future work session. Our new neighborhood serving commercial zone, we are reusing our existing limited mixed use zone LMX, and we'll be updating that code to serve as this neighborhood serving commercial zone.

It needed, obviously, more time for code development, and then we would be applying it for some examples of areas are shown in these blue circles that were identified through the comprehensive plan update process. Also, we have some specific areas actually, on the next slide, here's an example, in town that we postponed applying mixed use zoning to because we needed some additional time. So this is the Shaw Pioneer area. There's, I think, another one in South Hill. There's some key areas that we would be then applying the mixed use, zoning to, be consistent with the underlying land use designations.

The fair through the comp plan process had requested some comp plan, map changes as well as zoning changes. And so this will be an area that we'll also be talking about in the future. Staff will also be presenting, some key policy questions to counsel, at an upcoming meeting. So we'll also share that back with you once we receive some direction from council. Mhmm.

And the last item being the single family zone consolidation. That's something that we did have an intro session with planning commission kinda end of last year. I think we kind of had a little bit of mixed feedback at that point, and we kind of regrouped and thought, you know, maybe we should get some policy direction from council on this before we go too far down the road. So staff did present that at the March to council and received some preliminary direction. My coworker, Chris Beal, is actually working on that component of the code update, and he'll come to the planning commission at a future work session to talk about, the options that were presented to council and feedback that we received at that time, and kind of next steps.

So you'll hear about that more, later. So to dive into our mixed use zones, MX zones, and I'm gonna apologize in advance. I know there's gonna be a lot of acronyms. So if you get lost along the way, ask questions, please. But we typically refer to our mixed use zones as MX zones.

Over

let me back up.

But so mixed use zoning in Puyallup has been implemented incrementally over time, and each zone was adopted through different planning effort and was really kind of more focused on a specific area at the time. And so through that history of creating new zones for specific areas, now we have five mixed use zones in the city. And that's ranging from the limited mixed use zone, which I mentioned earlier, which is kind of our lease, intensity mixed use zone to our CCX, which is the community commercial mixed use sewn, and that applies to our South Hill, mall property. And I have some maps that'll kind of, show where these are applied today. So we have several that we'll kinda talk through in the slides here.

But the periodic update to the comp plan kinda started that process of expanding mixed use zoning from outside of the particular area that they were maybe originally intended for. Example of that is that South Meridian corridor that received the UCX zone where previously was just applied, in the South Hill Regional Growth Center. So we're kind of looking at our mixed use zones and seeing, if there could be some changes made through this process. So, for some more background, the community mixed use zone, CMX, was our first mixed use zone. It was established in 2009, and was very specific to this, Shaw Pioneer area, the North or that'd be Northeast corner of that Shaw Pioneer Intersection.

It's applied to eight parcels, and they're approximately 30 acres in size in total and consists of some agricultural land. The zone was intended to support moderate scale mixed use development that integrates residential and commercial uses and was envisioned to serve as a gateway into the city. And so, there was some sensitivity of how that area would develop in the future with it being considered this gateway into the city. So that was, the original reasoning for why it was established. The and we'll come back to CMX because that was one of our policy questions to counsel and as well with RMX.

But for RMX, we adopted the River Road corridor plan for kind of the whole corridor of River Road in this area in 2011 and then the RMX zone at the same time. It applies to these properties that are shown here on the North Side of River Road. It's approximately 54 acres North of River Road and then South of the Puyallup River here. And it was designed to encourage higher dense higher intensity mixed use re to encourage redevelopment along the corridor and support a more urban pedestrian oriented environment over time with special considerations of the interface with, the Riverwalk Trail as well as the Puyallup River. And then the South Hill neighborhood plan, which was adopted in 2017, created three additional mixed use zones.

So we have the CCX, which is, that one that applies to the South Hill Mall property. It's the highest intensity mixed use zone in the city. Then there's the Urban Center mixed use or UCX, which was designed kind of as a mid tier in this three levels of mixed use zones for this area. And then LMX was that lower tier and kind of intended to serve as a transition zone between higher intensity uses, and other residential neighborhoods. So for a visual, again, South Hill Mall property for the CCX zone.

UCX used to only apply within the regional growth center, but with the comp plan, update. And then the phase one changes, it was extended down this South Meridian corridor essentially south of that overpass, of 512 kind of at fifteenth, south, kinda to the regional growth center. And then LMX, this map is not actually showing where LMX is applied currently in the city because a lot of the rezoning that we were doing as part of phase one kind of eliminated it from the map because it was in the South Hill Regional Growth Center, and a lot of those were converted to, like, a UCX zoning in preparation for us moving towards LMX being our neighborhood serving commercial zoning designation. So this map is actually showing where the neighborhood serving commercial land use is already applied on the future land use map and where we intend to apply LMX in the city once we make those code updates. And this phase two, the phase two changes would then implement the zoning change.

So there's a lot of small parcels you'll see in kind of spotted. The intent is for it to be within neighborhoods. A lot of especially the areas kinda downtown were identified by established commercial zones that have or not commercial zones, but commercial properties that have been there over time and nonconforming to the code at at currently. So it would allow for those uses to continue or to convert to this low scale, commercial use that then serves the surrounding neighborhood. And it could be applied to future properties, but we were kind of starting this was our starting point for implementing it in the city.

To look at a comparison of these zones, again, Elemex is on the lower scale. It and is kind of being reworked at the at the moment. Our so I'm gonna kinda move to CMX, which is that one in the Shop Pioneer area. It's definitely a very low density for a mixed use zone. It has 10 dwelling units per acre and has a lower height maximum of 40 feet.

RMX and UCX are very similar. They're in the eight to 22 dwelling units per acre range and have a similar height allowance of 68 to 90 feet depending on bonuses, height bonuses. And then the, CCX zone is that highest intensity zone. It has no, maximum density, and the height allowances are 75 feet up to a 125 feet, and that would be with, height bonuses. So for just general amendments that we've identified for, the MX code, the ones with asterisks are the ones that are gonna come up actually in, well, in some capacity in the next item.

So just kinda flagging those there. So allowances for stand alone residential in mixed use zones, this was something that really we identified before the comp plan update, and then it was discussed during the the periodic update. Right now, how our code is structured for mixed use zones, you have to in order to do residential, you have to have a commercial component. But if you wanted to do commercial, you could do that outright. You wouldn't have to have a residential component. And, really, this is looking to just create some more flexibility, to allow residential as a stand alone use. It wouldn't have to have a commercial, component. Do you wanna

So would this be an instance where you would be able to have a live work unit if it was a single family home, but you had a business running out of it?

If it was existing, yes, an existing single family home and a mixed use zone. You wouldn't be able to establish a new single family home per se.

Even as a live work unit because it does have a commercial aspect then.

I think there's a right now, there's at least a minimum density requirement for residential that you would have to meet. Okay. So as long as you can meet that threshold, then yes.

Thank you. Mhmm.

And also on that note, with the zoning change to mixed use along that South Meridian corridor, it converted a lot of multifamily zoned property and a lot of apartment buildings. And so, really, this is being seen as kind of a cleanup item in respect to the phase one changes because it's creating a nonconforming use for a lot of those properties. Because right now, they wouldn't have that commercial component. So it's we've already kind of seen that there's some some issues there. So this is kind of, like, been identified as a cleanup.

Increase in density has also been something that we've just heard from the development community, both density and height. There's both of them together can can limit development capacity for a property, but also not make projects viable. And so that's what we're looking at. Potential increases to those to not have the zoning be in the way of development. We wanna make sure that it's gauged right so that we can still see development through.

And increased density is something that will come up in that package, that Katie will present later. Use allowances is also something, we have a few considerations. There's one component that's related to the RMX, policy discussion that was in, that's in this PowerPoint and that we heard from counsel. There's also some other use considerations related to, like, battery energy storage and some other things that are are newer uses that our code just doesn't really deal with that we're going to kinda need to deal with from not necessarily just mixed use zones, but other zones for the city as well. And then, obviously, I've talked a lot about LMX, and we just need to modify that code so that it can address these neighborhood scale serving commercial uses.

So more to come on that. So for the policy discussion we had with council on the River Road mixed use zone or RMX, This was something that kinda came up towards the end two of the comp plan update of just there's this tension between our our vision that's in the corridor plan that's really the vision was for it to be more of a mixed use pedestrian oriented area, but there's market conditions that are really more auto centric for auto sales, that type of thing in that area. The plan has been I think it's been fifteen years since, the plan and the zone were established, and we really haven't seen redevelopment occur in that area. So we're kind of paying attention to that. And also just hearing from property owners and developers that maybe this isn't quite the right fit as far as not allowing for certain road service uses in the RMX zone.

So this has been something that's kind of come up over time and why we brought it as a question because we've it's been coming up more more recently as well. So the main policy question is just should RMX allow for additional road service uses, and should the corridor plan be modified or removed was kind of our main policy question. Then we posed three different options for council to consider. Consider. The first would be to repeal the corridor plan altogether and then amend the zoning, however necessary, to allow the uses that are desired for that area.

And then we walked through some different pros and cons for each of these. Option two is to revise the corridor plan to, kind of remove policies that discourage auto oriented development and then also amend RMX zoning to allow those types of uses as well. And then option three would be to do more of a comprehensive review, do an update to the corridor plan, have more public engagement process, see that vision is still the correct vision for that area, and kinda revisit that and see if we need to kind of refresh that planning framework that was done fifteen years ago. The downside with this one is it would take more time and may not address these kind of more immediate needs that we're hearing from the development community.

Yes.

Commissioner Crosby, your mic's off. Sorry.

I'm sorry. When you say more time with the staff on phase three, what do you mean by that?

Typically, with revising a it's a sub area plan to our comprehensive plan. There would be more robust public outreach as part of that process. We'd be doing, you know, stakeholder meetings, open houses, that type of thing. We would be as part of that to really get a gauge of do the existing policies still make sense? What does the community want to see for that area?

And then also with that, if we're revising the comp plan element, there's a time frame associated with that. We can only amend the comp plan once a year, so that puts a time frame on on that component. And then also, there there's a funding aspect to it. We would need to potentially hire consultants, or we'd need to take a look at our work plan and make adjustments so that we have capacity to take on that effort.

Commissioner Barney?

So when you say auto oriented uses, could you explain?

Yeah. So I think more we do allow we allow some road service uses. I'm blanking. There's road service uses are a defined use in our zoning code, and it has different types. There could be, you know, hotel motel.

There could be fast food. There could be auto repair, auto sales. Things that are more reliant on a vehicle, really, is the intent. And we we have some zones where we allow for certain road service uses, but not all. And in the zone in particular, we don't allow for new auto dealerships, new auto sales to be established.

And so that's where we've seen a lot of kinda conflict because the plan itself is really envisioning that it's pedestrian oriented. Auto sales kind of take up a lot of land and don't really you know, you're not interacting with it's a different interaction than you would have in your in your downtown where you have storefronts and that type of thing. So they don't completely mesh, and so that was the intent originally was kinda limiting those types of uses, allowing for certain things, but not others. On the South Side Of River Road, that area is actually zoned general commercial, which allows for road service uses. So that was done with intent to kinda preserve those existing auto dealers in the area, but we've just kind of, over time, have heard more conflict with wanting to see that use on the North Side, but the zoning not allowing for it.

Vice chair?

Thank you. So there are a couple of issues here, I think. One of them is that this area is a major the major gateway into the city, certainly when the new highway and the interchange is completed and so on and so forth. And as of right now, half of those properties on there are vacant. They're just big empty parking lots.

And as an entry point to the city or as a gateway, certainly doesn't look good. And there's always a lot of turnover in the auto industry. I mean, there's dealers come in, dealers go out and so on and so forth. So my question is given that we need them, but also given that some have relocated now over to Valley Avenue where they're actually going to be more visible from the highway, let's say. Would there be any sense in saying having a corridor along Meridian that's maybe up to 3rd Street where we would try to have that kind of development, the kind of development that's envisioned, the mixed use where you would have some residential and so forth.

And then say, beyond that, that's out of this and then maybe we choose to do nothing about that or come up with some other one of these plans that will address that. Obviously, we've got some very important dealers entrenched who have just invested a lot of money in charging stations and so on. Probably wouldn't wanna move right away, but could could auto dealerships in a narrow band along Meridian be say be called nonconforming uses at present that would be allowed to stay until that property is sold or redeveloped. So just a thought just a thought of trying to keep the corridor of the entry point to the city looking a little bit better than an empty car lot. Okay.

Thank you.

So I've been able to think about this a lot as well. I just remember moving up here about twenty years ago and coming in for the first time. We came down the hill on Meridian and then past Fred Meyer and into Puyallup. And it felt incredibly different to me than the first time we came in from River Road. And I don't feel like River Road is who we are.

You know? I mean, I feel like there's gotta be something better and a better plan. And I feel like the River Road corridor plan was attempting that, and I don't feel like we should just give up on it. I I don't know that it's exactly the plan we need right now, but I do feel like just saying, okay. You can do car uses.

You can you know, we'll just because there's always been car dealers there, that's just what it is, is giving in, and I'm not willing to do that. Part of the River Road Corridor plan, talks about work with Pierce County to designate the River Road Corridor as a countywide growth center. Is that still possible? Has anything moved on that front?

That's something so that's kind of, like, an action item thing that we plan to do in the future. However, I would say we kind of are getting mixed messages on kind of the future for this area as it's not to say that we couldn't apply for that in the future. I think that's still a goal. But whether or not council would want us to move forward with that is something that we would still need to get

Okay. From

them. But it's I

just feel

like giving up is what it would be if we just say, okay. This is car dealers, and you can put in a, you know, little motel here that's just car oriented for the night, and you and it it it just doesn't feel right to me. There are a lot of places where all that stuff can go. I mean, Valley Ave certainly is becoming more of the car dealership center than River Road is. River Road is now the lower end car dealers for the most part. Nothing against that. It's a solid business, but it just doesn't have the sense of pride of ownership or the money to sink into it to make it look pretty. You know? I was really surprised in some of the slides that it shows how far the Riverwalk goes. I had no idea.

I've sort of taken it as far as the skate park on 4th Ave, 4th Or 5th. And the only time I've done that is when there was the River Road Art Walk or the River Walk Art Walk. And I would love to see something happen there because I think we're missing a huge potential. You know, it's just a shame that that sort of is the dregs of Puyallup in some ways, back behind buildings that have nothing interesting. We do really well with public art in Puyallup.

I don't see why we can't have murals painted on the back of some of those buildings as part of our public art or make it more attractive and feel safe. So I don't agree that we need to add more car businesses.

Well, segue option two, which is to revise the plan and also amend the RMX zoning to kind of remove those policies, discouraging auto oriented uses, but still allowing for mixed use in that area. Some other input that we heard was at least four council members expressed support for increased density and height as well as flexibility and development in this area. One council member made the comment that they just had concerns as to resident residential development not being viable in this area just based on market conditions and the fact that it hasn't redeveloped. We didn't really hear a lot of support for option three, which would be revisiting the plan and kind of doing an update that way. And then there was one council member that expressed concerns regarding displacement of existing renters and small businesses in the area.

So that's the information that we received from council regarding the RMX policy question.

Commissioner Crosby? I'm getting there.

So if we do two in Fast Track, how do we know things aren't gonna start looking generic kinda like in some of the Tacoma areas and their roads? I mean, how do we

What do you mean by generic? Like, building style, that type of thing?

Right. Like, building style and even stores.

We do have design standards. Right now, we're in the process of updating those design standards. I don't think our new commissioners have received a presentation on that, but we have I think we presented it to planning commission last time in January. Right now, the mixed use zones have a design review. Well, no.

That's correct. Well, RMX and the MX zones on South Hill have the mixed use design review overlay, which stipulates design standards for new construction or for certain projects over a certain size that they have to meet that or no. Sorry. A certain size, I believe, is what goes to our design review and historic preservation board for review, but the all projects would have to comply with with the design standards. But we are going through a big update that's kinda consolidating all design standards into one chapter of our code that applies to the city comprehensively.

But all that to say, we do have design standards. They're more architectural, but we also do have some site design standard requirements as well as part of that. So future development would have to comply with that or major renovations. If they exceeded thresholds, they would have to comply with those design standards.

Thank you.

So I'm looking at the density and height flexibility for development. And the proposed on a previous slide, I think, for this zone goes up to, like, 70 something feet in height.

I think

There. Oh, 90 feet.

So with bonuses. So I think the 68 feet is kinda your base height.

I mean, we're sort of at 68 feet here. Right? Because we're five stories, but we have tall. So we're roughly 70 feet. Well, depending. But yeah. But, I mean, still. So even saying we're roughly 70 feet here, I don't think I want anything on River Road that's this tall. I don't I I'm not against development. I mean, this is what I do for a living, but I just feel like that is a misuse of that corridor.

I feel like we need to be cleaning up our river and and celebrating it instead of hiding it with, you know, seven foot seven story buildings. Unless there's enough breakage in it where you still get the access. I love driving River Road going towards Tacoma and looking at the height of the river and, you know, seeing if there are eagles in the trees and what's happening, or during fishing season, seeing how many people are out there doing combat fishing and just you know, it it's part of who we are, and I feel like by doing buildings this size, it's gonna completely cover it up. And then what's left is the parts that I already don't like about River Road.

Okay. No. No problem at all. We'll move on to the community mixed use zone, CMX. So this is that mixed use zone, our first mixed use zone that was applied to the Shop Pioneer area.

It was excuse me.

My notes here.

So it was obviously developed for a specific context for that area, to allow redevelopment on formerly formerly or still operational agricultural land, and it was seen as this key gateway into the city. Over time, the city has grown. We've also added these new zoning designations and standards. And so the question has come up as to whether the CMX still is the right fit for this area. Also, the fact that the area has not redeveloped since that zoning has been in place, and we've heard challenges from developers to be able to meet those standards and make the development happen, make it viable, has also been something that we wanted to revisit.

So our question to counsel was, you know, should we continue to have this very area specific mixed use zone? Is there value in that? Or should we consider rezoning it to, like, our UCX zone was the example that we provided? This kind of lists at the bottom of the slide are kinda showing the key differences between these two zones. Obviously, the density is a bit more in the UCX zone.

Also, these asterisks are to also signify that these are also subject to change as part of our code updates, so they could increase a little bit, as well as the building height. Another key difference is the fact that the CMX zone actually requires a master site plan review and a hearing examiner process. So a public hearing with the hearing examiner for approval, which adds additional time to and process to development project. Whereas in our UCX zone, it kinda just has the standard review process. So that's something that is different between those two zones.

I have a question. What is right across the street? What is the zone there again where the apartments are now?

That's an yes. The R M.

It's R M 20. East Towne Crossing is the apartments that are across the street.

Mhmm.

Those are R M 20, which is a multifamily residential zone.

And then the Safeway complex?

It's a CB, community business. Right? I

just feel like that entire corner should be zoned the same. Having something different on every corner feels really weird and and confusing to a developer.

I will say with our in our proposal to UCX, it would be the same on the opposite corner to the west. Those two sides would

The other undeveloped side.

Mhmm.

Okay. The Northwest.

Mhmm.

So, I mean, that that to me makes more sense than having lots of different zones just at that intersection.

And we are hearing a desire for both residential and commercial, so that's why we've kind of looked at mixed use.

So so I think my other question is, as we're talking about zones, and this is a much bigger umbrella question. And I think it's come about in part because of the hard conversation that we've had recently and was just in front of the city council with the presentation. Can our roads handle this? You know, we're asking for pretty big development if we're, you know, increasing density allowances, height allowances. That Shaw Road Pioneer Intersection is already a nightmare, and it doesn't get easier. And Shaw Road looks really pretty, but it would have been better if they had added another lane or two.

Mhmm.

So I just feel like not only do we have to be cognizant of what people are asking for that we need more more residents, we need mixed I mean, I think it's the way we should be going. I love mixed complexes, but I just don't know that we can handle it.

I will say for this in particular, the area has been already identified through the comp plan process as mixed use. So that was studied as part of the environmental impact analysis, and we did do transportation modeling and that type of thing, which informed our project list and our transportation element that then goes into our well, just our general project list for our CIP, but it also then goes into play with our TIF, our traffic impact fees. So there's specific projects that are derived from that information so that when projects come in and they trigger traffic impact fees, those fees go into that, and they go towards those projects. So that has something

to do. Infrastructure for these projects. Right. Correct? Okay.

Mhmm.

Okay. Commissioner Barney.

Commissioner Barney or Microsoft? Sorry about that.

I'd I'd like to second the item about transportation, having someone who travels Shaw Road all the time. At rush hour, it can back up all the way from Main Street all up to the first lot up to the light at the top of the hill. You get a little bit of a break up to Manorwood, and then it's bumper to bumper from there all the way to Pope Elementary. And I know that because my, grandchildren live out in Graham and we go to their games, and it takes an hour to get from my house up there. Now it's not all Puyallup residents, granted.

I know that. But there's a big concern by increasing the density that's gonna make that area much worse. And the traffic impact fees I question, will we get enough money from traffic impact fees to be paid to make that corridor, you know, so that transportation will work well? It it's a nightmare down there at certain times of the day. And, again, increasing density is just gonna be it's gonna be make it worse.

And I don't wanna promise that traffic impact fees are gonna solve all of our problems. I know our CIP staff are always trying to find ways to fund improvements to Shaw Road. They're always looking for grant opportunities and other ways to help fund those projects as well. Just wanted to give an example of ways that those studies then help, provide funds towards making those improvements.

But down by

point well taken.

But but but down by Safeway, you can't make it any wider. It's as wide as it's gonna get right now because you've got businesses right up there. I mean, you're gonna tell, some of these businesses you we're gonna widen, you're gone. They just put them in. So you're kinda stuck right through that little corridor right there. So thank you.

Vice chair?

Thank you. We're going to be repeating each other. You know, we hear a lot about, in fact, numerous times tonight about what developers want or developers need and so forth. I think what you've heard in the comments from us is what about the community? What does a community need?

And I think that should be first and foremost. Now, unless the city wants to buy that property and turn it into open space, development certainly has to occur. But in terms of transportation, there are two issues. One is that I would like to know if the city before approving development asks to have right of ways as a requirement for roads. In other words, we want an easement.

If you're gonna get this, we we want an easement. Okay. That's one thing. But the other thing in this particular area, and we brought that up when in the discussion about the warehouses. And is that area is an island, it's between the river, two railroad lines and overpass and there's basically, there are only two roads that you can access.

You can go east and west on Shaw, I mean on Pioneer or north and south on Shaw, But that's it. I mean, it's an island, the ingress and egress, it's very awful. And as everybody's mentioned so far, Shaw Pioneer is already an f rated intersection. It's now an f, you know. So I I have a couple questions kind of if we feel compelled to have more density in there, could we make amendments to the zoning requirement or maybe even have an s SMX zone, mix zone.

And what I'm talking about is maybe eight to 14 DUA and a maximum height of 50 feet for residential structures that would be five stories for instance. You could probably make it build some extra in there for a ground floor commercial and make it 55 or 60 or something and no requirement for a master plan. So in other words, if we either put a Shaw Road overlay, let like there used to be, but a different one or say we're going to amend the requirements for this to allow a little more density, a little more height and ditch the master plan. You know, maybe something like that would work. I'm just tossing that out.

But certainly we've got to really be cognizant of how this impacts everyone else. It's not just the developers who would like to see something happen, it's the community that pays basically pays for it. And we don't have alternate routes up the hill. Once again, that Shaw Road traffic is not being dispersed over to 21st because the city for some reason is just refusing to go forward with with reengineering that and making that a safe route. We're not doing it. And so what you're gonna do is you're gonna put all the stress on Shaw once again. Okay. Thank you.

Commissioner Landon?

I was wondering if the planning team could just, update us on the plans for the Shaw Road Hill. I believe that it is being studied for expansion just so or where are you guys not aware?

I believe so, but I am not well in tuned with its current where they currently are in the process because that is other staff that deals with that. I

don't know. Yeah. But I believe they're adding lane, right, going up the hill, which should help a little bit.

That is my understanding. I know that the the part that hasn't been improved that's south of sorry, north of the area that was already expanded.

At 23rd.

It's kind of been put into, like, multiple phases because of the complexity of critical areas and just that portion going down the hill. Yeah. So I know that they were looking at kind of chopping it up into segments to make it more viable.

But it but it's at least signs that we're working on it.

Yes. I know that that is definitely in the plans for improvements.

Is it possible to get an update?

Yes. Okay.

I'll have to talk with our engineers.

And then along those lines, I echo what commissioner DeGroote is saying about alternative routes up the hill, and improving the access through there. I think that could help alleviate some traffic and help with our Lahar evacuation. I'm not sure how many people would even think about walking up twenty first because you can. You just can't drive up it. Perhaps that'd be better for our evacuation times anyway. But yeah. That's it.

Next year?

Yeah. I just wanna point out that in terms of the extra lanes on Shaw Road, those there's a merge lane that goes up to 25th from 23rd. But otherwise, those lanes end at 23rd, which means that you're gonna take the backup and move it from twelfth up to 23rd. But it's it's not actually gonna fix anything by if you if you depend on Shaw Road. Because what the neighborhoods in Deer Creek is not gonna, you know, take enough traffic off, and, Janelle Estates is not gonna take that's not gonna happen.

You know? So you're you're gonna move the bottleneck from 12th to 23rd, basically.

Commissioner Crosby or I'm sorry. Commissioner Barney.

Just for for me just for your information, the comprehensive plan, it does address widening Shaw Road. And one part talks about it going to four lanes going up the hill. Other one is going to five lanes. Two, going up the hill, one coming down, then a turn lane. So it's it's being addressed. I don't know where it is actually right now, but

Right.

It's in the comprehensive plan.

Would you like me to

Well, I have one more question. As we're talking about growth and density, is anybody talking to mass transit and what that looks like? Because I don't even know where the closest bus stop at Shaw and Pioneer is and where it goes and how often it runs. But if we're thinking about doing apartment buildings, adding shopping, making it somewhere where people want to go pedestrian happy, then we need to be thinking about mass transit Mhmm. To get people there instead of just adding more cars. So are we talking with Pierce Transit?

We are. They also were very involved in our periodic update. They were part of our we have a big what we called the group, but our stakeholder group that we presented to. And we've also been involved in their planning efforts as well, so we do communicate with them.

Okay.

Yeah.

So we asked council, should we retain CMX as an area specific zone, or should we consider rezoning it to, UCX? And, there was general support for rezoning the area to UCX. There was some discussion. One council member wanted to make it clear that they didn't think auto sales would be appropriate in this area. There there were also concerns regarding traffic, but also wanting to not be overly restrictive, but wanting essentially to keep traffic in mind.

And then some concern was expressed about impacts to small businesses in the area as well. K. So we're to the last portion of this presentation, and this is covering our commercial zones. We did not really have specific policy questions to ask counsel on this one, but we're more so providing some background information on our commercial zones and, our plan forward on it, on the update. So we'll we'll touch on that here.

So, Puyallup municipal code PMC chapter 20.3 is our chapter for our commercial zones or c zones is what we also refer to those ones. It has governed commercial land use in the city since the mid nineteen nineties. The chapter currently contains five commercial zones that were established between 1994 and 2006. So it has not been largely assessed in over twenty years. So that was a reason for us to just take a peek at it.

The zones differ in their intensity, building height limits, and the types of of businesses or uses that are allowed in within those zones. The comprehensive plan update didn't make vast changes to our commercial land use designations, but this does still give us the opportunity to kinda revisit and see if there's, any potential changes that we should make here. So this table gives a breakdown and comparison of our existing zones. The CBD core zone is our most intensive zone downtown. It allows for ground floor retail and residential with no density maximum.

It prohibits land intensive road service uses like auto sales. It has height limits, at a base of 40 feet with bonuses up to 65 feet. The CBD core or excuse me. The CBD zone is kind of, similar to our CBD core zone and that it has, similar use allowances, but it has a slightly lower scale. So it has a 35 foot base height that can go up to 55 feet.

Vice chair?

Yes. Thank you. Can you refresh us on the bonus issue? What triggers it? And

triggers a

bonus height? Yeah. Bonus height.

Applicant can choose to opt to request bonus height, and there's different criteria in getting there. For c zones, I don't know that I have it fully committed to memory, but it looks like Katie might be pulling it up. I believe that there's, like, a bonus for structured parking.

That's specific to CBD.

Yeah. So this one is specific for CBD and then where parking is provided within the building, so structured parking. There's a bonus height if projects have residential uses created. There's a bonus height for establishing hotels. There's one related to plaza space, which we

might need to take a look at.

High bonuses have generally been structured as incentives for things that the community wants to get out of development, particularly in the downtown, but I think that's

pretty good Mhmm. For all of

Okay. So the community business or CB zone covers more of a full range of retail, professional, and service uses, and it allows for limited road service uses, like gas stations, fast food, hotels, but it does also prohibit auto sales. It has the building heights of a base of 50 feet that can go up to 75 feet with bonuses. Our general commercial is our broadest commercial zone. It allows for more of those auto oriented uses and more land intensive uses like outdoor storage as well as all of our road service uses.

And it has limited residential allowances and has the same heights as our CB zone. And then CL or limited commercial is our lowest intensity commercial zone. It allows for office and retail but prohibits road service uses. It has a height limit of 40 feet or four stories. And so through the comp plan update process, we were kind of seeing that there may not be as much of a need for this CL zone to remain, and it's largely I think I'm excited.

Well, maybe I'll wait until I get to that when we talk about CL. But just to kinda give an idea of where these zones currently are applied in the city, our CG, general commercial zone, is applied. This is kinda North Puyallup. So this is the Puyallup River here, and this is Valley. So we have some general commercial out there and along North Meridian.

Also, kind of the southern portion of River Road is all general commercial and some on the northern part when you move farther down River Road. Up on the hill, so this CCX is showing you where the South Hill Mall is located. So on the other side of 512, we have some general commercial, some community business, some limited commercial. Costco is zoned our CB community business. I think there's some more here.

So then downtown, we have kind of, more of a concentric application of this, CBD core and CBD. So our most intense is kind of in the center of our downtown area, and then it kind of tapers out to the CBD and then kind of our residential, zones. And then out here on East Main, we have some general commercial as well as community business, just East of 512. And then we kind of already touched on this earlier, but, the corner where we have the new Safeway is, CB as well at Sean Pioneer. So for the removal of CL, Our comp plan is kinda directing us to more of a mixed use zoning.

Not really a need for this stand alone limited commercial for transition areas. We're so we're kind of seeing our LMX or neighborhood serving commercial serving as that transitional zone between these areas. So it's kinda duplicative with LMX at this point, and so that was kind of why we identified it as an area that we could remove and kind of, consolidate zoning as well. So any properties that currently have the CL zoning will likely be transitioned to this LMX or if appropriate to another commercial zoning designation, which we would get to as part of our phase two work and talk through options. Oh, and then this is just showing some examples of where CL is applied.

This is at a corner of 31st And 9th. We also have some downtown that kind of buffers between when you're going into the neighborhood area, from our, CBD main downtown area. There's also a little bit over here, again, serving as that transitional buffer. So, again, we weren't asking specific questions to counsel, but we generally received support for this direction that we're going of removing CL and likely rezoning to LMX. And then we also just heard general interest in eliminating sparsely applied zoning designations.

If there's areas that we can kind of consolidate, that was supported, and just general, streamlining and simplifying of the code, that we also heard from council at that meeting. So the key takeaways that we heard were, pursuing changes to the River Road corridor plan as well as the RMX zone, removing the CMX zone and replacing it with UCX, and then continuing with the removal of the CL zone, and then continued explore exploration of increased heights as well as density and considering commercial viability, and housing balance with the updates that we're working on this year.

And I think that's my presentation. Any other questions before we move on? I think we're good. Thank you. Thank you.

Moving on to six b.

Okay.

Great. So, Katie Baker, planning manager. I will be giving I can get it set up. Right? A brief presentation, to walk you through some housekeeping code changes. I think some of these will, insight some good discussion based on our last item. So I'm excited to walk through this if I can get this PowerPoint

going. Where's mouse? Okay. I can see that there. It's shared.

I need it Well, I

that. I can't see the mouse. It goes away? Yeah. What if you go up here?

Maybe you can share it there. I did to the window. Did you do the window? Uh-huh. There

you go.

We'll get there eventually. Thank you. So some of these things in this housekeeping presentation, housekeeping code amendments tie back to what Kendall just presented on. Some are a little different. So I I have a brief presentation for us to just walk through them one at a time.

I have a next step slides at the end, but I will just start off by saying this is intended to be a package of pretty succinct code amendments. We're not looking at whole chapters. We're looking at individual sections, and that's based on some things that staff has noticed in the code either recently or maybe not so recently, but this is a good opportunity to include them or from some of this council direction that we've gotten lately or recently. So we've put this kind of small package together to move through the process pretty quickly. With that, we're intending for tonight to be the the one and only work session and then move into a public hearing and then your consideration and recommendation at that point, and then we'd take it to counsel.

I will say I am presenting this on behalf of Rachel Brown. She is at a conference this week, and because of the timing, we needed to have this on this Planning Commission agenda. But you'll see her before you with this item for the public hearing. So you'll get both of us. So, again, you've, you know, you've been involved in kind of our phase one, zoning map cleanups, and, you know, the work that we're doing.

Kendall just talked about a lot of it that's coming before you in phase two of the zoning map and code work. Again, we noticed a couple of we ran into a couple of issues with some of our recent rezones that brought some code issues to light. So that was what kind of precipitated doing this right now. And then we took that opportunity, like I said, to add in a couple of things that staff had identified as being a little bit troublesome and then incorporate some things that we've heard just very strong support from city council for. Those, I think, are some things that we'll talk about how we approach those.

So you've seen the ordinance, the draft ordinance in your packet. I have just one slide for each topic area. So I'll give kind of a brief overview of that particular amendment and then pause for any questions or comments. So this first amendment is right at the top of our zoning chapter, zoning title. It's just a list of the zones in the code.

This is something that consistently overlook updating every time we add or subtract zones from the map. So we're taking this opportunity to get this a little cleaned up or a lot cleaned up. And then you'll probably see it again as part of the phase two code amendments because there'll be other zone changes that need to be reflected. This, I would say, is probably the least controversial and simplest code amendment as part of this package. But are there any questions?

Okay. And so we'll move into the meatier ones. So there are, I think, three amendments proposed to chapter 20.31, which is our mixed use code chapter. So I'll take these one at a time. The first is what Kendall had talked about in her presentation regarding the the prohibition or allowance for particularly motor vehicle sales and, I said auto service uses, what I meant by that was things like gas stations, service stations, auto body shops, those kind of things.

So we have heard in our last few presentations with counsel, we've heard very strong support for allowances for these road serving road service uses in the River Road zone, mixed use zone. So based on that direction, that, that very strong support, we are proposing this amendment. Kendall may have talked about this or touched on this, but our mixed use zone is is structured with prohibited uses. And if it's not on the prohibited list, it is generally considered an allowed use. So the structure is a little different than you see in our other zoning chapters.

So what we are proposing here is an amendment to the prohibition Instead of saying that motor vehicle sales and all of those related uses are prohibited in all mixed use zones, we are specifying the mixed use zones in which it's prohibited, which would be the CMX, LMX, and UCX zones. Therefore, the flip side of that is that it would be an allowed use in the RMX River Road mixed use zone as well as the CCX. And we can talk a little bit more about that if there are questions. CCX is the South Hill Mall essentially, and there was already a carve out for certain types of auto sales on the mall property. So we haven't included that in the prohibited list, although we certainly could.

Very open to discussion on that if there's a desire to prohibit auto sales at the mall property. But the primary focus here is based on that council direction to allow it in River Road. I am very open to continuing the conversation that you had a little bit under Kendall's item. And I guess I'll generally say, as you move forward in this process and go to a public hearing, I think it's perfectly fine if the commission makes a decision at that time to vote on each amendment topic, and then, you know, maybe present a whole package that does not include certain amendments. Those, I think we would still need to present those to counsel as something that the commission had considered but opted not to include.

So just kind of giving you an idea of what that could look like if there is a consensus on the commission that you do not want to allow auto sales in the River Road mixed use zone.

So just for clarification, we're not voting tonight.

No. You are

But this is providing us options as we move forward to consider. Okay.

That's right. Yes. This is informational. It's a chance for discussion. If you have any more questions that you've thought of since counsel since Kendall presented, I'm happy to answer. Your vote will take place after the public hearing at your May 13 meeting.

Commissioner Landon?

I just wanna put enough space between what you had said and I had said. But, anyways, I I echo a lot of what you were saying about the River Road uses, and I'm not in support of changing out the car. I think there's plenty of space for car dealerships in this city. And, instead of hiding the river, I think we should look for new uses where people might kinda try and flip that around a little bit. So let's just say you don't want a bunch of apartments focused on River Road. Well, you could kinda turn that around perhaps. And just because we haven't had anybody yet, I don't think is reason to really give up on kind of the goals we've set out in the comp plan and other areas. So

Okay.

The next topic area in the mixed use chapter is, Kendall touched on this one as well, this is to make some modifications to allow stand alone residential uses. So essentially, the way we're modifying this language is to make it clear that multifamily uses can be allowed if they're a stand alone component of a site or if they're on a mixed use site. So it doesn't take away the commercial the ability to include commercial. It takes away the requirement to include commercial. And this became a particular, hurdle for us after the phase one zoning amendments took place, particularly this Meridian Corridor that was rezoned to UCX.

We had a couple of projects in the works that had been submitted under the RM20 zone, so a strictly multifamily zone, had no commercial component. And they're getting ready to now submit their building permits. And this zoning change or the map change now requires commercial with something that had not previously been envisioned. So that was kind of what immediately brought this to our attention and not really wanting to have pulled the rug out from under property owners in that way. And then I'll also say there has been state legislation that it doesn't require us to comply until, I think, next year, 2027, if I remember.

But it actually requires that cities or it it prohibits cities from requiring commercial. So it essentially requires us to amend our code the way we're proposing to do right now. So I'll pop back to that particular language. Are there any questions or concerns with this one?

Commissioner Landon?

I think just to echo what you said, I think that makes a lot of sense. I think some of those properties just due to the slope and might be hard to get commercial in there. It's gonna be really hard to see it, especially if it's on the Ground Floor. Just if you just look at how those apartments are all set up. So I think that makes sense.

Yeah. And, again, it's certainly if if, the property is in the right place where commercial is viable, the property owner can still do that. So we think it's a good balance. Great. Okay.

And then the third proposed amendment for the use for the mixed use zone chapter, this is something we didn't actually propose draft language for you in this packet. We'll be working on that prior to the public hearing. This is something that we kind of got we heard some direction or some definite support from city councils. We've presented to them for significantly increasing the maximum density in mixed use zones, particularly the RMX and UCX zones. This is something we've long heard from developers that it's just extremely limiting to do anything that's really in the style that's envisioned by the rest of the property development standards of those zones with that low density of 22 units.

Council was I I can't even express enough how strongly they were in support of vastly increasing that maximum density, even potentially suggesting there be no maximum units per acre, but simply relying on height, setbacks, and lot coverage and FAR as the limiting factors for development size. So again, we have not developed the specific language of this code section yet. We'll do that before this comes to for the hearing. But that is the intent. Again, this is something I think council will will reckon with, at some point, very soon.

Commissioner Landon.

So the council's policy on density is fine in the LR zone for the RMX, but not with other?

The council

In single family zone areas?

Yeah. Okay. The council position on the Lahar has been, the higher density zones that are, in more close proximity to evacuation routes they are comfortable with.

But the limiting factor on the residential I don't know if we should turn this into a Lahar discussion again. But the our maps that was presented at council that limit potential ways to limit those developments are based on buffers, on walk times or times it takes to escape that zone, which isn't necessarily the same either. But

Yeah.

Okay.

And I appreciate I do appreciate the comments on the LAR. Are there the one thing I wanna point out is this is this does include the River Road mixed use zone, but also the UCX zone as a whole. So this would be a change in density to a pretty big swath of mixed use as it applies to the city. Any concerns about that? Or

I mean, I think that I'm I'm gonna echo the sentiment. I just feel like if you're telling a homeowner that they can only have one ADU, and that's from pulling teeth to get it there. Before they were told they couldn't do any for the interim. But yet people see apartment buildings going in, and now they're gonna see things right up on the River Road. And it it it feels not community community motivated.

It it just doesn't. It seems developer motivated, and it it feels like a slap in the face for for the city council to continue to push projects that are high density, higher, you know, going up to a 100 feet or whatever height limits, but not allowing a homeowner to do, you know, simply 2,000 square foot units and using the lahars, you know, their basis for that doesn't feel right. It it just doesn't.

K. I will move on to leaving the mixed use chapter. This is quite a minor tweak to our sign chapter. This is something some probably none of you on the commission currently actually will remember this. But a handful of years ago, maybe 2017 or 2018, we did a pretty big update to our sign code and made some various changes.

And we lost an ability to allow very small signs on private property. Things like we get it a lot with commercial businesses. They want a drive through, enter here, or exit this way. Those types of small signs, they are legible from the right of way, so they would typically fall into something that's regulated. We wanted to just clarify that they are exempt signs, raise the size just a little bit to six square feet, so still pretty small, and put some height and sight distance parameters in there.

Those were previously existing in the code, and I think we lost that in the update. So just something we deal with a lot with our those commercial businesses that are often coming in and out of properties.

Yes, chair. It's not specified here, but I understand this would apply to home businesses as well.

I believe we have separate a separate standard for home businesses in our home occupation code. Yeah.

So this is different than

This is

different than that. Yep. K.

Mhmm. And it's not strictly for commercial properties, but that's where we see it the most often. That's where we need to apply it most frequently. And

if it's a nonconforming business in a residential zone

then it would apply to this. If it's a nonconforming commercial use

Mhmm.

This code would apply.

Okay. Okay.

Yeah. It would exempt it. Yeah. So your first question was just about businesses located in homes, and that has its own regulating code chapter. Everything else, though, would fall under this sign chapter.

Alright. Thank you. Mhmm.

Yeah. Okay. And then the last item has to do with our preliminary site plan process. For those of you who may not be familiar, this is the process by which most new commercial, new multifamily projects come through the city for initial review, preliminary review. The planning division, engineering, fire building, they all take a look at the preliminary proposal of a project, make established conditions.

That's when we do our SEPA environmental analysis, if that's required. And we've long had in the code this highlighted section that's on the screen that there's no formal appeal process for the preliminary site plan itself. Any appeals are associated solely with the SEPA determination. This has become a little more of an issue because SEPA thresholds are are increasing, and the city is considering increasing some of them. So fewer things require SEPA review, but still may trigger preliminary site plan.

We also now have a downtown planned action, so that CEPA review is essentially done, but projects still come in for that preliminary site plan review and there's often a need to add a condition or two to those projects. It's unsettling and doesn't feel like a good process to add conditions to something that doesn't have an appeal mechanism. An applicant or an interested party, if they make a comment, should have that appeal process as they do for all other permit types. So we've talked with our legal department about this. They support us going in this direction.

We're continuing to work with them to just refine the language of this code. But our recommendation here is to essentially strike the sentence that says that there's no formal appeal process and just point to our appeal standards under our hearing examiner chapter. So it would indicate something to the effect of within I think it'd be fourteen or twenty one days from the date of a decision that there's an opportunity for an appeal, here's how you do that process. Any questions or concerns with this one? Okay.

I think that's it. So again, this is your work session tonight. I'll certainly convey to Rachel the areas where there was strong planning commission discussion and input and give her a heads up about that. She has already done the sixty day notice to commerce that's required, so they're reviewing the draft that was in your packet here. We can still make some modifications to that. There will be a SEPA determination issued for these amendments and then planning commission public hearing, May 13. And then our intent is to take it to city council for their June meetings. So, yeah, with that, I'll I'll pass these notes on to her, and you'll see this back next month. Thank you.

Thank you both. Moving on to item number seven, staff report. Next item on the agenda is staff reports. Do staff have anything to report to the commission at this time?

We're on staff report. Yes.

Okay. Sorry. We were chitchatting while you were talking. Just wanted to give you a preview of what we're, planning for your May 13 meeting. I know Katie already alluded to.

We're planning to hold the public hearing on those code amendments that she just presented on. We're also working on what we're calling consistency code cleanup or corresponding code updates that are necessary that will go a lot in alignment with the clear and objective design standards update that we're working on. So these are amendments to the different zone chapters. Think, like, setbacks, those types of things. We're working through that, and we're hoping that we can have at least a portion of those corresponding draft code before you at that meeting as well for discussion.

We're we're probably going to break that one up. We have several sections that we need to amend, so we'll probably try and break that up. And I think towards the end, I think your second meeting in May, we're looking at having a discussion on the single family zone, RS zone consolidation as well. So that's what we have coming for you in May.

And then I think Katie has And I just have one quick item.

This is my last planning commission meeting with you all. I am leaving the city of Puyallup at the end of next week. I've been here for I mean, some of you are so new to me. I've been here for eighteen years and have recently taken a position with the city of Sumner. So I'm not moving far, but I am moving away from Puyallup. So I leave you in good hands with Kendall and Rachel and the rest of the team, and I will greatly miss you all, even even those I'm just getting to know. You are a great commission. You're already doing such good work, and I'm very thankful for you all and glad that you'll continue that good work beyond me.

Thanks. Best of luck. You will be missed. Wow. Moving on. Item number eight, commissioner comments. Commissioner Barney, any comments?

I had a long term resident, asked me to bring this up, and he's brought it up with city council before, about the train whistles in the middle of the night. And he's, he said he's put up for that for a long, long time. He also mentioned that, I think you said the city of Sumner and some other communities have used alternate ways instead of whistles at night, to broadcast that they're coming through town. So, if you take a look at that, I would I'm sure you would appreciate that.

Thank you for that.

Thank you.

Commissioner Crosby?

So I'm also a longtime resident in the infrastructure. I feel like jobs just keeps falling behind and behind when we start building stuff, and and I don't believe we catch up. So the infrastructure and all that needs to be addressed before we start making all these new changes and just to make sure we're all safe about it, especially with the Shaw Road. I mean, they just put up a a school zone, you know, 20 so it kinda slowed it down just a little more even though it didn't move that much faster. But I just think in the safety aspect of it and, finding alternative roads going up that hill would be because it seems like there's all a lot of unfinished roads, cul de sacs up there that could be connected.

So, that's what I got to say. And thank you very much. And I don't know if Sumner's are gonna be any easier than Puyallup. Thank

you. Commissioner Landon.

I don't have any extra comments tonight. Thanks.

Commissioner Martin, you've been quiet tonight. Do have any comments?

I have. Thank you. Katie, so happy for you. And, you know, wish you could stick around too. And, man, the, most recent, city council meeting, was quite interesting.

Their, Lahar discussion was was quite engaging. There have been, comments from the, commission previously that that suggested that Lahar was a scapegoat and a reason why not to do middle housing. But if you watch the, if you watch the discussion, there's been a lot of conversation and a lot of, thought that has gone into that. Councilman Castama is the reason we got the funding to have the outdoor warning system alarms, and he's been working on this for twenty plus years. Highly engaged in it.

And the the decisions that the council, seems to be making seem to be, well thought out and definitely risk reduction. And I think that, how that plays into the River Road discussion is also important. There is a little bit of a difference with the middle housing, and councilman, Castama really, really outlined that well. Without the without the requirement for parking, what we do is we clog our roads with parked cars and then of an evacuation. We have that much, we have so much less capacity to get out.

But then we start talking about putting more density, more people, more businesses down in River Road, which wouldn't be a great way to evacuate, but definitely, one way to get out of the the hazard zone. So just to close, if you haven't, watched watched the April 14, was it the fourteenth? Was it the

The fourteenth, they talked about middle housing specifically, and then the Lahar presentation was, I think

It was before

It was in March. It was before that.

Yeah. But the

I can't remember again.

The the fourteenth was middle housing and that discussion.

March 24, I think.

Okay. If you haven't watched that, take the time. There's a a lot of good information in there.

Thank you.

Commissioner Washburn, anything to add?

I do. And you all know my position. I'm concerned that we're getting a two tier system, socioeconomic system in the city of Puyallup between people who are allowed to maximize the, profit off of a piece of land and people who are not allowed to maximize profit off of their piece of land. And we have developers coming in who don't even live here who can buy land and maximize the profit, but the people who have been here for decades are not allowed to do the same with theirs. And I just really like to think of this in a broader scope of the whole socioeconomic thing that's going on in first class and second class citizens, and I just like to put forth my opinion that the way they present everything is very arbitrary capricious, and the laws are not being applied consistently.

So that's all I have to say for tonight.

Thank you. Vice chair?

Thank you. I'd I would just like to remind people that one of our favorite things about living in Puyallup just started last weekend. That's a farmer's market. And the reason we like it so much is it it brings farmers and craftspeople in direct contact with their customers. No middle peers no middlemen involved.

It's good for them. It's good for us in the community, and it's good for the many people who come here for the farmers market, and it's great for other businesses that are in town that benefit from it. So the quality of life, I think, is is ratcheted up notch by us having that. So support it. Thank you.

Completely agree. Another event that I absolutely cherish and and try to hit every year is the Master Gardeners sales event, which in the past has always been held out at the Wazoo facility out at the end of Pioneer. This year, it's actually gonna be at the fairgrounds, and it is free. And it is not this coming weekend, but yes. Yeah. It's the the weekend after and well worth going to, and you can learn a lot. And I believe that is all I have. Thank you so much for everything. And we are now adjourned at ten after eight.