Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening. The Puyallup Planning Commission meeting for 05/13/2026 is now called to order. Will the clerk please call the roll?

Commissioner Washburn? Present. Commissioner Barney?

Present.

Commissioner Martin?

Excused.

Commissioner Crosby?

Present.

Commissioner Landon? Excused. Vice chair DeGroat?

Present.

Chair Taylor?

Present.

Thank you. With five out of seven present, we do have a quorum.

Thank you. Our next item on the agenda is approval of the agenda. Do I have a motion?

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye. Any opposed? Approval of the minutes again. Do I have a motion? So move. Do I have a second?

Second.

All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? And that brings us to item number four, citizen comments. Do we have anyone in the audience that would like to speak? We did have one comment come in via email this afternoon. I can summarize or I can read the email. Any preference? I will summarize. There is a proposal in front of the city to develop the corner where I forgot the name of the restaurant where Jason's restaurant used to reside.

It is adjacent to the 512 exit. And the current owners are urging the commission to either continue the zoning that is there now, or if we do change the zoning to the UCX zone, that we make some kind of consideration for lots or parcels adjacent to freeways to be able to include car related services. And it went on to detail that. So please do read that in your free time, and we can bring that up next meeting if anyone had comments. And now we are on to new business.

We had commissioner Washburn request that we added an item to our agenda. I spoke with commissioner Washburn earlier. And I believe I need to have a motion to add that to the agenda. Do I have a motion?

I motion.

Do I have a second?

Second.

All in favor, aye. Aye. Any opposed? Commissioner Washburn, would you like to say a few words about the map that you provided? I

was out poking around on the USGS website, and I happened to run upon this purely by serendipity. And it was perfect timing, I thought. So I sent a copy to the city council as well, and I suggested that we might want to mail this out to every address inside the city so people at least had some information because I've been here thirty years, and I've never gotten any information about the Lahar or evacuation or anything. So that was just my idea, and it's recent. It was just published April fifteenth this year. So that's all I wanted to do is just point this out.

Thank you, commissioner. And that actually makes me think. Should we also, move to add the additional item from the city to the agenda at this point?

Are you speaking to the additional code amendment? Yeah. It's not an actual separate item. It's going to be introduced with the public hearing item.

Yeah. It's just at the very back. Right? Because it's sort of, like, the last numerically, it seems like it comes at the end. Is that true?

It's a different item on the agenda. It'll be with the public hearing even though the code section comes later. Is that what you were implying? They're two different separate items.

Okay. But we don't need to have it added to the agenda because it's already there. Okay.

Understood. We'll address it during the the public hearing presentation.

Then we are on to public hearing, phase one zoning housekeeping amendments.

Good evening, chair, commissioners. I'm Rachel Brown, associate planner here at the city. Here to present to you, what we're calling the phase one kind of housekeeping. This will be a public hearing to review the proposed code amendments. So with that, I will, get up my presentation here.

Okay. And I'm just gonna check-in and make sure that I've done it correctly. Is it shared on our Zoom? And it is okay. Just wanna make sure. Alright. Okay. So as I said, we're calling this, kind of phase one zoning code, kind of housekeeping items. So this will be, a public hearing, to review those code sections that are proposed to be amended. So the reason we're bringing forward these kind of housekeeping code amendments is we wanna implement some of the city's comprehensive plan period up update items.

There are a couple of items that we thought were small enough that we could kind of do a kind of quick implementation of those comprehensive plan changes that have made with the recent update, kind of start moving forward some of those things that we've already planned to make some of those changes. So kind of, you know, move them through a little more quickly on the agenda. Again, these are meant to be kind of more minor things. Some of them, the things we've identified are just kind of inconsistencies we've counted in the code, places where we kinda wanna clarify or maybe make minor adjustments to our standards. We've also identified a couple of procedural gaps that we thought this would be a good opportunity to address.

So the first item is simply a list of our zones. We've got a list we've always had, and this is just our chance to update that, making it consistent with the actual zoning map. So we're deleting a couple of zones that we no longer use and adding zones that we have added on our map. The next item is to change what the a little bit the what uses that are allowed in some of our MX zones. So this would allow motor vehicle sales and auto service uses in the RMX and CCX zones.

So that's the zone that is CCX is at the South Hill Mall, and the RMX zone is Long River Road corridor. So this would allow motor vehicle sales and auto service uses, and they're currently prohibited in those zones. So this amendment, again, is also to our MX zones. This would allow standalone residential, in our MX zones. Right now, it's required that some of our our residential uses are required to have a commercial component, so this will remove that requirement to have a commercial component.

This is a map here of the area between the mall and the hospital that recently got rezoned to our UCX, again one of our mixed use zones. There are a couple of projects that were rezoned and were proposed as just stand alone apartments. They don't have a commercial component. They were rezoned. So since we were already planning to make this change anyway, we thought this was a good opportunity to go ahead and make this change so we can move those projects forward since, again, this was already part of the plan for those comprehensive plan changes.

Yeah. Excuse me. Could I ask a question, please? On the UCX, since we had some definitions at our last meeting of what that could be, that could include buildings up to a 125 feet, I understand, with no limit on dwelling units. Is that correct?

One second.

Here is a table I actually put had put together. So looks like the height is 68 to 90 feet with the current density range of 80 to 22 dwelling units an acre.

Okay. It's I'm sorry. I was thinking of CCX. So Sure. 90 feet.

That's pretty tall. And I guess my only question was some of that area abuts single family residential zones, and that would seem to be blocking light and and so on. And yeah. There we go. So my my question is, if this is not a done deal, what if we did an LMX on the East Side Of Meridian, at least where it's adjacent to single family residences because I I am concerned about what effect that would have on on people's property.

So I this this amendment is not to look at the map changes, but we certainly can take those comments into account for any map amendments. I'm not sure how much we can. I'll let Kendall maybe address that question. But this is just for the text changes.

Very good. Okay. Thank you.

Yes. Any other questions before I move on? Alright. So the next standard that is proposed to be changed is an increase to the maximum density that is the dwelling units per acre. So in this case, the maximum density for the RMX and UCX zones would be increased from the current maximum which is 22 dwelling units per acre to have no maximum density limit.

Now there would still be the height limits as we've just discussed and other setbacks, development standards that would limit development to potential but not the dwelling units per acre. The next item is a minor change to the signs that are exempt from the sign code. So this is a section that just lists the signs that are small enough, minor enough that the city doesn't see a value to requiring sign permits or regulations for these minor incidental signs. So we for a very long time had one of these exempted signs listed as small permanent signs that are very small. Right now we have it listed as two square feet in area that are visible from the right of way but again are so small that we don't see the value in having them get a permit or something like that for them.

We have the text amendment here, which increases that exempt size to six square feet, again, because we still don't see that six square feet is is very large. But it does also add a height limit so that even if it was over six square feet, but it was over four feet in height, they may then have some sign standards that they would have to meet.

I have

a adds a little clarity to those standards.

I have a question about that also. Is there something in the sign standards whether or not there is a permit required to state where it can be on a property so it doesn't impair site visibility when you're driving around a corner? Or Mhmm. You know, you're walking around a corner and somebody else is walking the other way? I mean, are there things like that in the code that that specify where sites can be?

Yes. There are. And, actually, this even actually goes on to say, these signs shall be no taller than four feet in height and shall be placed on a site in a manner that does not impact sight distance areas or obstruct traffic control devices anyway.

So how many areas around Puyallup do we have that? Because, I mean, we're seeing residents starting to put signs up on telephone poles, all kinds of stuff. So in what areas I mean, are is this mean it's gonna go up in residential areas if they have a business?

That's a great question. So business signs are regulated under a different section of the code. It's called the home occupation section. They are permitted assigned, but it has to be also very small, and they're only, I think, allowed one. That would be a different, like, section.

In terms of signs on street poles, I actually believe that might not be allowed. I can get back to you on that, but I I wanna say that's actually already not allowed. So that may already be addressed in our sign code. This sign regulation was put together more thinking of signs that are, like, the signs you see that are for, like, menu signs for, a coffee shop that's near the road. It has a lot of text on it, and they want it to be visible from the road, but it's they're all pretty small or no parking signs, things of that nature.

Okay. Based around mostly businesses then?

Yeah. Although it's it could, in theory, apply to other other places, like a no parking sign, no private property, because it doesn't have to do with a home occupation.

Okay. Thanks. Any other question? I would feel better since I was just raised. I mean, I was I'm I'm comfortable with the home occupation, that part being separate.

But if if a a homeowner wants to put a sign in his front yard saying no trespassing and no solicitors and don't make this weird. Instead of having a little sign by their front door, they wanna post that in their front yard, I don't think I'd be in favor of that. A six foot square sign that's two feet by three feet. It's pretty substantial. So I assumed from our last meeting that the this was referring to signs in commercial areas and and that was not referring to signs that would be in residential areas.

And so I'd like some some clarification on that, really really kinda get that straight about what we're talking about here.

I believe it would apply to residential areas. The sign you just described, I do think this would be exempt. Something like a no parking sign, a no solicitor sign. But a business sign, that is what qualifies under occupation. They aren't allowed to have a business sign somewhere else on their property. They're they're limited to what a business sign can be.

Could you repeat that? Because I I just don't think I quite got how you described it. Say please say it once more.

So if they have a a home based business

Yes.

Aren't allowed to advertise it outside of their home with the

Yes.

With the express limit of one minor sign.

And yeah. I understand.

But if they are not advertising a business, if instead they simply want to put out a no solicitor sign or something like that, that that could be allowed, I think, under this standard.

Okay. I don't like that. Okay. Thank you.

So you're saying residents, if they wanna put some kind of sign out there, they can put a six foot sign?

A six square foot sign.

A six square foot sign in in their yard to whatever. Depends on what it is. Yeah.

I don't agree with that either.

Does this apply just to permanent signs if a person were to have a that they bring in their house every night and then put it out in the morning again, does it apply to that?

No. It's permanent signs on private property is explicitly what it's talking about. Temporary signs have a separate section.

Separate section. Okay. Thank you.

Any other questions?

I would just like to see an exclusion on this for residential zones.

Did you want an exclusion or did you just want them smaller?

I think even we've already accounted for a permanent size for home businesses. Mhmm. I don't think that people I don't think that's in the character of a residential community to have people posting permanent signs for whatever reason on in their yard. I just don't agree with that in principle and certainly not at that size.

Okay.

But isn't there some legal aspects if somebody goes on your property and they injure themselves? If you don't have if you had a sign, it it benefits you. It's like no trespassing or whatever. I I think six feet's too high too large of a square footage, but I'm not against having some small very small signs because of legal aspects or just notifying the public. I mean, if you got a dog that's you know, there's dog signs, there's solicitors, there's all kinds of signs that people use that are helpful. If I was a mailman, I'd appreciate it. So

Yeah. I I I agree with you. I'd have to you know, a little sign that says, please curb your pet. I mean yeah. Yeah. You're right. I I do I do agree with that. I don't it's it gets very hard to when you start saying six square feet to to go with that.

So I think the general consensus from what I'm hearing is we think the size is too large for residential areas.

In that case, the existing size is already at two feet. Is that what as a suggestion, just keep it as it is?

I believe two feet is adequate.

Or two feet in residential zones, six feet in commercial zones, or other

I think that's fine. So we are recommending, I believe, two feet in residential zones, six feet in commercial zones. Do we need a vote?

You still need to open the public hearing. I don't think she went through all of her slides if you'd like her to finish the presentation.

Yeah.

Go to two feet, then your your four feet in height doesn't I mean, that's gonna be reduced as well.

Unnecessarily, you can have it

up. Up four feet?

Well, no. I mean, if you if it's it was a sign, you could still have it up to four feet tall.

Off the ground? Mhmm. Okay.

It's, yeah, it's from the ground to the top of the sign.

K.

I

think your mic's off to madam chair, your microphone's off.

So, commissioner DeGroote, you just wanted, like, the size of your nameplate.

That's not correct. But I

think we should move on.

Yeah. That's good.

Okay. So the next section is just addressing a procedural gap we had to have identified for a while. Preliminary site plans are the permit that we use for larger projects to review their zoning. It's more of a a the conceptual first step. It's kind of the first entry point into a project.

It's introduced to the, development review team, the city staff who review it, to make sure it meets all the zoning codes, height standards, storm water. Basically, it's like a feasibility stage. But that then once they complete that stage, we also do environmental review, the SEPA review at that point. We add any conditions, things like that that need to be added to mitigate any possible environmental impacts with the SEPA. Once they're completed with that stage, then they move on to the construction permit.

So they get their building permits, civil permits, and then they construct their building. So the preliminary site plan is a really important process. We get a fair number of these permits. But at this point, there isn't a appeal mechanism for a preliminary plan. Now this hasn't been too much of an issue recently because we always had a SEPA process, so it's our environmental review process, and that does have an appeal period.

But since our processes are changing, now not all preliminary site plans may have an appeal or a a SIPA. And so there is concern that the absence of having an appeal process for plenary site plan doesn't doesn't allow the public to have a due process or an ability to appeal a decision they may not like from our community review or development review team. So this just adds that appeal process, and this is where that additional item that's at the end of your packet comes in. Late late after we had already issued the staff report, we received from our city attorney some additional language to the same section and for the same purpose, just offering that clarity about what is the process for appealing that preliminary site plan permit and the conditions, and how do we add conditions, and how should they work. So that's that's what that is there.

So the next steps, we've, we're doing the public hearing now. If planning commission decides to forward a, some kind of recommendation on the city council, we attentively scheduled the first reading of this ordinance for June 2 and then the second reading for June 16. So city staff, we have analyzed the proposed amendments before you and found they are consistent with the adopted comprehensive plan, which meets the applicable review criteria for updating title 20, which is our zoning code. So based on these findings, we CSAP does recommend approval of the text amendments before you. And that is all. Thank you.

Thank you, Rachel. We'll now open the public hearing. Do we have any comments from the floor? Can can you approach the podium, please, so we can hear you? That's okay.

Any can is your microphone on? Just push the button in the middle.

Okay. Valerie Dent, District 2.

Thank you, ma'am.

And over this housekeeping for the zoning, for businesses that are starting to, as some feel, encroach into residential areas and stuff, have you expanded the footprint in in wanting to get, the hospital. The footprint only stops at 13th And 12th, Meridian, and then, 15th running up the hill. That's that's kinda the infrastructure kinda just stops right there. Have have the they have you cleaned that up to expand the footprint even further to possibly incorporate up to maybe a 15 block area around large projects like that? Because what happens up here deteriorates down here.

So this is a a a time for you to bring your concerns to the commission. We we don't respond. Correct?

No. But I I understand, but this is

Absolutely a concern.

I'm just wondering if in the cleanup as you're looking at certain things to clean

up.

When you do the when when proposals come up for new builds or expanded builds, has the criteria for that widened, or is it staying the same?

I'm not sure I'm understanding. Let let me try and paraphrase what you're saying. Are you or ask a few I'm going to ask a few questions because I would like to get what you're saying clear to the city staff as well. Are you talking about the infrastructure as far as power, sewer, all of those things and it being

Roadway abuse, increased traffic, pedestrian safety, as as whatever the future holds for Jason and what it turns into, that's impacting that area, but it's not just that area. It goes beyond. It's like a 10 block area that's going to be impacted, including the fairgrounds. So as as you clean up and start

So are you talking about the city cleans up and and streamlines the zoning?

The zoning requirements, permitting, and stuff like that. Are you looking at the expansion of a larger footprint in that area as you're cleaning up going, you know, we should have thought about this a while back. Let's put it in now. You I

think a lot is going into everything the city is doing and bringing in front of us to discuss and and give back and forth. And I think your concerns are all valid. As a person that in my private life, I do plant permitting as well and feasibility analysis. I know looking at larger projects or projects in general, there are so many things that come into it that I think people in general don't understand from a layman's point of view. Because people may do it once if they're doing an addition on their home.

Or they may do it once if they're opening a business. But a lot goes into it. There are traffic impact fees. Those fees go towards helping our roads. The you have to get sewer and water availability letters, which triggers our infrastructure in those areas and our public works to make sure what's being proposed we can handle without it being a drain on those surrounding elements.

To a point, And I get that it it it seems like it should be at a much broader level zone by zone. You know, there every project has a drainage control plan. So if we're putting more impervious surface surface in one area, we're making sure it's not draining onto the neighbor's property. Yeah. So all of these things do come into play.

So traffic impact study is slightly different than a traffic impact fee. Larger projects have the option of conducting a traffic impact study at times or just paying the fee. And the fee is is based on what the city determines if you don't do your own traffic report, how many trips are generated that weren't generated before the development was going to occur. For instance, I have a project on 100 or on 39th. We're doing an addition to a commercial building.

We brought in a traffic engineer because we wanted to bring our fees down a little bit because we didn't think that it was gonna incur as much as the city did. But it's based on trips generated, and there's a real science behind it. And I agree. Things slip sometimes. But in all honesty, I feel like moving in the direction the city is and combining zones, it is gonna be impactful in a positive way.

K.

So

But we love that you're here and and talking about your concerns.

Yeah. So so when you start combining these different codes to to make it simpler, it will actually enhance the footprint on the different builds and the zones requirements then at that point?

It will. And there are a ton of requirements that aren't just part of the language tonight. The height requirement is a very small part of it in some ways or the density requirement. There's also setback requirements. There's glazing requirements.

There's you know, everything that comes in in your design standards is very well thought out. Back to what commissioner DeGroote mentioned earlier, and I agree. When you're talking about putting a commercial zone or a mixed use zone right up against a residential zone, you don't want a six story building behind a one story house and blocking out all of their, you know, their sunlight and their exposure. So those things do come into play. And and the city staff has been incredibly good at at considering many different elements.

And then commissioners that are here on the dais bring up other things as citizens and concerns. But I love when the public comes, and I know the city staff does as well. You know, when you're here telling us what your concerns are because it may bring up something we haven't thought of and should be.

Alright.

Well, I thank you for your time.

And I apologize if I wasn't supposed to talk, but I feel like sometimes it it should be

No. That's perfectly fine. With your rules and regulations, if those three minutes are surrendered back to the commission, you're more than welcome to ask questions.

Does anybody else have anything they would like to add? Does it do any of the commissioners have any questions or comments that we sort of started with signage? Is there any other comment from a commissioner? Shock shock oh, you do. If you would like to go back to the sign issue, commissioner DeGroote, you are welcome to.

Yeah. I think what I'd like to do is sometimes speak without listening. So the first thing I'd like to do is ask staff what what would drive a suggestion that we have a six foot square sign permanent in the residential zone? What would what would be the driver for that?

Rachel Brown with the planning division. I think the, motivation was actually primarily for commercial uses, but it is a section that applies in any zone. It doesn't say a specific zone, so that's why I wanted to make sure you knew that it definitely could apply. And people, I believe, do use the exemption for things like dog as you suggested. I think in residential I don't think there was a particular does necessary desire to have it increase in residential zones, but we didn't see a concern in having it increase in size in residential zones, again, because six square feet is still a limit, and the height size is also still a limit.

So to that for just a little more context too. The reason for the number, the six square feet, we believe that's what was in our code previously before we did a big update to the sign code, and that changed within that process. And we've just found that with commercial development, this continues to be a challenge. And it's more for directional signage for the site and that type of thing to just have an exemption to kinda streamline that. So as Rachel was saying, we weren't really thinking about it in the context of residential.

That's how the code was initially, and it didn't seem to be an issue. So we kinda carried that forward. But there could be you could make a motion to specify a size difference between residential and commercial zones.

I I seem to remember the six square feet as but but it was applied to, as as far as I can recall, commercial. So I think the simplest thing to do might be to simply make a specification that this applies to commercial zones. Would there be any reason why we couldn't do that?

No. I think we we can make a motion.

Prior to the motion, we do have to close the public hearing before voting.

Okay. I and I think we will do that, but I think that there might be another comment about something else first.

Go ahead.

So I wanted to go back and and revisit our

Just point of order. If you close the public hearing, that doesn't mean you can't continue discussion. It just closes the public hearing portion for comment, and then you can move into deliberation.

Okay. Just And I move to close the public hearing. Second.

I second.

All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Okay. So the public comment section is closed. Would you like to make your motion? Would you like to make a motion for?

I would like to move that the six square feet designation for signs for permanent signs apply to commercial zones. That that does not apply to residential zones.

Do we need to then make a motion that includes what it would be for residential zones?

I I would suggest that perhaps the simplest would just be to say it does not apply in residential zones and then specify what does apply in residential zones. That way we have a a size residential zones so that we can if you would like to, so we can specify that in residential zones, they can do two feet or, you know, what have you. And then that way in all other zones because we have other than commercial. That's kinda just the words we've been using, but we have industrial zones. We have mixed use zones.

Mhmm.

I think that might be the simplest if that makes sense.

Okay. So in in recognizing what other comments have come from our commission here, I would I would say that when I see no trespassing signs and I see dog walking signs and I see solicitation signs, they're usually actually less than a square foot. They're usually not as big as 12 by 12 or or 10 by 14 or or whatever you wanna put it.

So I think that's true in urban residential zones, but I think in more rural zones, signs are larger.

Yeah. But we're not in a rural zone. We're I mean, we're in

But we're we're if we're if but we're designating but we're designating in what they could be in residential zones that includes urban residential zones that we do have in Puyallup also.

Okay. Okay. What if my tooth. I'm going to try Okay. Then a new tack.

I would like to say that permanent signs that do not designate home occupation in residential zone shall be limited to two square feet. Would we be okay with that? If I propose it, will I get a second? Okay. I'd like to move that permanent signs in residential zones that are not home occupation signs be limited to two square feet.

I second.

All those in favor? I. I. All opposed? I believe the ayes have it. She's so empty. Oh. And one impostent. That doesn't seem to be making sense. Okay. I think we're gonna we're gonna continue. Commissioner Washburn?

One silly question. I just wanna make sure this is total signage. Right? It's not you can have 10 signs of that size. It's total or lot.

There's not a number limit. You could have as many as you want. Mhmm.

So then a person could cover their whole front yard with these little signs.

Apparently. No. Kendall, you seem to be working something out. Do you have a better wording? I mean, I I think you understand our gist.

I think we do. And if you're okay with staff working on the wording, we can do that for the package that goes to council.

I think that

would good. Thing that we need clarity on is the motion seemed to only cover residential, the limit for residential signs, and it wasn't clear if you were still also recommending approval of the text as was presented for other zones. Correct. You were intending for that to Yes.

Move forward. That is correct.

Okay. Thank you for that clarification.

Okay. Let's move on. I wanted to revisit our is it it's the river area. I still feel like we had we had touched on this last week or last last meeting about how many car lots are empty there, and is there a better use for it? Do we need to make a recommendation or vote on what is allowed on the River Road corridor right now, or can we continue our discussion?

Because I don't feel like we came to a resolution except for that we don't like what's there now, and we don't feel like it represents Puyallup and a gateway to Puyallup. It's sort of the ugliest part of Puyallup in my mind, which I don't think we want.

So this is something that I think was asked to be brought forward from council direction at this time. So we would be asking that you provide a recommendation on it. It's okay if you, you know, piece that one out separate and say you're not recommending it for approval at this time and would like to bring it back for further study. Okay. You can have that be a motion and part of your recommendation. I think we talked about this previously of, like, you could do each one individually and decide how you wanna make your recommendation for each section.

Are there any other comments from the dais? So so I would like to move that we recommend the changes made and proposed in the zones except for the River Corridor. And that we hold that one off for now.

River Road corridor, you're talking about? Mhmm. What about this the Shaw Road core?

Did you have concerns you wanted to bring up still about Shaw Road?

Yeah. I I wouldn't Might I mean, we are we gonna talk about Shaw Road as well, corridor?

Shaw Shaw Road corridor is not a part of this packet.

K. So that takes care of that. Thank you.

Could I ask a question of staff? So right now, the RMX allows for car dealerships. Is that correct? It does not. And that's the issue that you're you're saying, why don't we allow that in the RMX? That's what the issue is. Okay. And you're asking for our feedback on that. Mhmm. K.

Question. Does it so it doesn't allow or does it allow for, like, hotels, motels, things like that?

Yes.

Just the only thing that's not allowed is car dealerships anytime.

If you read, just because it'll I think it'll be easier. If you read through, your packet page four, there's the twenty thirty one zero one five that had prohibited the uses. Anything in this list is prohibited based on, again, the list of mixed use items. It's oh, I'm I apologize. It's page 17. I'm so sorry.

Okay. It's

17. I am so sorry. Bye bye. So if it's not in this list, it is allowed, an allowed use. Or there may be a conditional use permit not to get, but otherwise allowed.

So, basically, right now, anything's allowed except for car lots. Or

Well, it it's car lots, motor vehicle sales, rental storage, service and repair, body shops, gasoline or diesel service stations, and recreational vehicle parks. K. Prohibited.

Okay.

Any business with a drive through window, including limited service restaurants.

K. It's I

guess manufacturing. Yep. You see.

I found it. Thank you.

Okay. Okay.

Can I ask a question? No. Can you re reiterate what you were talking about about why you wanna table this till

I don't feel like we have come to terms with the RMX zone and what we feel should be allowed and how that should look. I am fine with the revisions to the CMX, LMX, UCX zones and move to recommend that that those move forward, but not the RMX.

So the RMX still doesn't allow vehicles. Right?

Correct.

Okay. So, okay. I I just want

But but what they're asking for is to change that.

To oh, to change it oh, okay. To Correct.

They're asking for that to be allowed in the River Road corridor.

Okay. Okay. Now okay. Thank you.

And I don't feel we've come to terms with that yet, but I feel fine with the other ones.

I agree. Okay. Thanks.

Commissioner DeGroote?

So I understand even if the if let's say we said we don't want to have that exclusion that that we we don't want we wanted to stay the RMX to stay, that does not allow auto sales and so on and so forth. Nevertheless, there are, in fact, auto dealers there here and now on three sides, actually, of the intersection between 3rd River Road Meridian. Would those not be sort of grandfathered in? And, you know, the same as as long as that property is not sold or redeveloped, that it would not have an impact on existing businesses. Is is that true?

Most of the car dealerships are actually not within the RMX zone. They're already allowed because they're in a different zoning.

Right. Right. Right. Because

Actually, most of them. Mhmm. So this would actually only affect a very small number of the car dealerships. I believe there's actually only two that are currently within the RMX zone.

Mhmm.

Because so your question about the grandfathering, yes, that is how it would work for those few that are currently in the RMX zone. They could remain as they are. However, there are limits adding additions and things like that, I believe. And if they ever left, they may not be able to reestablish the leaves. Mhmm. Mhmm.

So my con my personal concern would be more less with the entire zone as with the areas immediately abutting Meridian, which which is a major gateway to the city. And the problem that I expressed at the last meeting was that these dealerships aren't they change ownership. They change where they decide to put inventory. And I I think what our chair has mentioned is the idea that you see these empty expanses of asphalt. This when you that's the first thing you see when you enter the city is is these these car lots that may be empty or half empty or and that it's it's not a great view to present to the public as they enter the city.

So I I certainly understand that concern. And I that's why I'm thinking of the the grandfathering because I don't think that we're gonna kick businesses out. But

well, for now, if it's necessary Are you recommending that we just don't add that to the RMX?

Doesn't allow Well, we'd have to we'd have to split up we'd have to split this up into two different sections otherwise if if we did that. Yeah. I think the question in my mind is is how many dealerships could you reasonably put in there? I mean, we've got Fred Meyer is in there and the the Where the Kmart was.

Sorry. The whole thing where the Kmart was and the Tractor Supply is now and all that

stuff there. Okay. So that's what you're concerned about. Yeah.

I don't know that I'm specifically concerned about one parcel. I mean, it doesn't have to change. That's not what we're saying. I just so I think my recommendation would be that that that we move to approve the the changes to the CMX, LMX, UCX, but we still limit car related businesses in the RMX zone.

Can I offer a clarifying question? Just to be clear, it what it's saying is they would the motor vehicle sales rental, all of that would continue to be not allowed in CMX, LMX, UCX. Not allowed. And the change would be they would now be allowed in RMX and CCX, CCX being the mall.

I think allowed in CCX is fine, but I'm still opposed to them being allowed in RMX.

We we could have hoped that the council will still do what the council No. Do. So So Do

I have a motion?

I'd be willing to move forward with the motion. Yes. Okay. That we add the prohibited uses of automotive dealerships at the RMXO. Second? Second.

All in favor? Aye. Aye. All opposed? Any abstain?

I believe we have an the ayes have it. And I think we can move on. Do we have something else, or was that it on that one? Oh,

did they vote on the rest of the amendments?

They took but it

Yep. I didn't think they did. Okay. So so so far, you have voted I did you vote on section six, the exempt signs, or did you still have discussion?

I only have two on record as of right now. The first one made by commissioner DeGroote, seconded by commissioner Crosby regarding the two square feet signs for residential zones. And then the second one that we have was made by vice chair DeGroote, second in by vice chair Taylor, and that one was regarding the RX zone elimination for

Okay.

The yeah. Those are the only two that we have on record as of right now.

Okay. So for this ordinance, they you have successfully voted on section six and section three. There is still remaining section two, section four, section five, and section seven.

Give us the location of those, please. Yeah. We're all floundering up here.

I was just going to say if there's not concerns with those sections, you could just make a motion on all of them as well. You don't have to do them individually, but we can direct you to where they are.

I I think that we don't have issues with the remainders. Do you wanna know what they are anyways?

Okay. I make sure

the group would like to go through them.

Three times, and I I don't recall having any objections.

Starting with section two, which is the first amendment on listed in the ordinance. It's on page 15. Section

Is is this big 15?

Yes. Okay. Yes. Big 15. I know there's a lot of page numbers on it.

Pardon? Okay.

Mhmm. Section four on page 18 of your packet. And then section five is on page 19. Section seven is on page 21. And note that section seven also includes the amendment at the end of your packet.

Yeah. The the one thing I had highlighted that I would like some more explanation about is the no maximum density limits. And I know there have been some sort of qualifying statements about that as in restrictions on building height, open space, setbacks, and so forth. Is is this intended to allow for co living? The no dent no I mean, give me a little background on this, please.

So this amendment was added at the request of one of the council members

K.

Who is interested in allowing more density, I believe, in response to our housing crisis. Adding more density in our mixed use zones was contemplated in our comprehensive plan. So the the environmental analysis has already been done, and this was one of the directions we were moving, again, as part of the comprehensive plan, which is why we thought to move it forward as part of this these housekeeping amendments. In terms of the coliving question, this amendment itself does not have an any bearing on that in particular. It just excessively has to do with number of dwelling units in a building in per acre.

Okay. Thank you. So it went from 22 to unlimited?

Yes. In this case, that's what's proposed. Okay.

But it still has to meet all the requirements, setbacks, height limitations, design standards, everything else. So I think that puts enough limits on it that it should be okay.

Yeah. I understand. Yeah. Thank you.

Any other questions? Comments? Do I have a motion to approve the remaining agenda items as stated?

I motion.

Do I

have a second? Second. All in favor?

Aye. Aye.

Any opposed? Any abstain? There you go. Are we moving on to work sessions now?

Great work, everyone. We made it through. Okay. You have a short PowerPoint. Okay.

Okay. Here we go. Alright. I'm Kendall Walls with the planning division for the record and here tonight to present on some corresponding code amendments related to our design standards update. So my presentation tonight, I'll do a very high level background on this project.

The planning commission has received, prior presentations on the design standards update itself. So I'm not planning to do a a deep dive on that. These are the corresponding amendments, which I will touch on some components as to why we're proposing, some of the amendments that we are and how it correlates with the design standards. I did put links in your packet, so hopefully, some of our our newer folks could catch up. But we will be back before you for another presentation on on both the standards themselves as well as corresponding codes.

So don't think that this is your only bite at the apple. This is just our first work session on the corresponding code amendment. So I will, again, give a a quick overview of that. We'll walk through some of these amendments that are provided in your packet and then talk about next steps. So for a little bit of background, there was a state law change, house bill twelve ninety three that requires jurisdictions to have clear and objective design standards.

It also limits design reviews to one public meeting. So that is a big driver for this change as well as, you know, we adopted a a big periodic update to our comprehensive plan, so also bringing code into alignment with those changes. So the updates affect three major design standards, either chapters or documents that we have that are existing. So currently, we have chapter twenty twenty six, which is our, general design review standards and procedures code section, and this applies to development, citywide based on, the type of development. We also have specific design standards in our mixed use design review overlay, which is chapter twenty fifty two.

We also refer to that as our MXDRO. As you know, we like to use our acronyms. So the mixed use design review overlay currently applies to, the South Hill Regional Road Center area, as well as, RMX, the River Road corridor area. And then we have our downtown design standards, which which are a separate document. So what this update is intending to do is to consolidate all of these into one code chapter so that everything is in one place, make it easier, for both staff and applicants, to navigate, know where to go for these standards.

So these would these standards would apply to commercial, mixed use, multifamily, and it will also apply to middle housing. Our prior our initial draft didn't cover middle housing. We were still kinda navigating what direction to go on that, but that will be included as part of this code package as well. It also includes downtown. It would exclude the fairgrounds, manufacturing zones, and public facility zones as well as single family development.

So, obviously, our approach is to be clear and objective, to be compliant with those changes in state law. It also integrates what, we're calling strategic voluntary guidelines and strategic departures. So there are some components where they they read more like guidelines as opposed to shall statements, but they're for specific types of uses, types of buildings in that case. With the strategic departures, it's similar to a variance process or an adjustment process, but it's really more specific to a design review. And it would have a voluntary path to the design review board for review.

So they would largely be, reviewed administratively, for just basic compliance with the design standards. The design review board would have an advisory role in specific situations. So if, the director requested, that we have input from the design review board or if there's specific types of applications that the director would be requesting for their input. But, ultimately, the director would be making that determination. And, again, it would be limited to one public meeting if required.

So the basic design standards organization have these four articles. So kind of an introduction, applicability, process is in that section. Article two touches on block frontage standards. So it's a different approach where we designate, blocks throughout the city, and they either have a storefront block frontage, a landscape, a mixed, which could be a storefront or landscape, or an undesignated, which is a lot more flexible. And so it kinda depends on the proposal, where they're placing the building as to what standards apply.

Site planning touches on just that, how the site is planned and how, it interacts with and functions internally as well as externally. And then the building design, is very specific to the building and architectural features. So just to kinda give a snapshot of where we are in the process, we started work on this May. We have a consultant, on board that's been helping us with this, very complex update. We did do an introduction with planning commission in August.

We did hold stakeholder meetings in October. We then took some time to do some internal staff review on the draft to further refine it before bringing it forward for, a public review draft. And that was presented, in January to the planning commission and also shared out to folks that have been interested in the process. And then also in March, we presented the draft to the design review board for their input. So what we have here tonight are other amendments to other code chapters that are necessary to bring this all together.

So with us making all these changes to our existing code chapter of 2026, there's, references to those different code sections already in other code chapters, or there's just kinda cleanup that needs to be done, within the different code chapters so that they're consistent. We don't wanna have a standard in our design review chapter not work with what's in this zone specific chapters. So on the list here, we have identified, I think, 12 sections. And so we have a handful of them that are identified, as a future draft. So they're not a part of this, agenda packet tonight, but we will continue working on those and bring them to you at a future date.

So

summary of amendments. I didn't go, too in-depth on the, majority, I would say, of the different sections, but I do wanna spend a little bit of time talking about the RM multifamily residential code section and give a little more, context as to what's being proposed. But to first, there's the definition section. So twenty fifteen of the zoning code, this is addressing some different modifications to existing definitions or adding new ones. You know, previously, we had a separate, downtown design guidelines document, so we didn't address we addressed the definition separately, so it's kind of carrying that over into our zoning code chapter.

There's also, some definitions related to open space that need to be cleaned up as well as affordable housing because we do have some adjustments that can be made based on a project, that is bringing forward affordable housing. So we wanted to provide some def some definitions in our code. So our designer our existing design review chapters of twenty twenty six and twenty fifty two, I know this was a question that came up before the meeting of what happens with these sections that are shown as a full strikeout. So twenty fifty two would go away. That is the point.

Twenty twenty six would be replaced with that other draft code. I believe I linked it in the staff memo, but that's that other working document that we've been working on. It would essentially replace the twenty twenty six chapter altogether. But for the purposes of bringing forward the code changes, that's why they're provided in the packet as a full strikeout currently. Our Freeman Road overlay, this is, a specific overlay for properties along Freeman Road kind of, North West area of town.

We processed a comp plan map amendment few years ago. And as part of the environmental analysis, as part of that application, there were mitigation measures that were identified that specifically called out sections in our existing 2026 design code chapter. And so because that is an environmental determination that carries forward, we wanted to make sure that those code sections were then carried into that overlay itself instead of a reference point.

Miss Judy, could I ask a question, please? And and I'm going away from completely away from this subject, but it reminded me of something, and I wanna ask the question before it goes away. The Freeman Road overlay is really well explained. However, in our packet, we also had something called the fair parking overlay and I have no idea what the fair parking overlay is. So I just I just wanted to ask that question.

Okay. I'm not familiar with where it is in the packet Uh-huh. Context, but I can explain what the fare parking overlay is generally.

It's it's listed on it says three of nine. There's not a big it must be big number 16. Yeah. It's right before the Freeman Road overlay. And I I highlighted it because I didn't understand it.

I see. You're talking about the zone list that was a part of the public hearing. Yes. Okay. Yeah. So it's an existing overlay that so I know it's a little bit confusing to explain some of these changes that were already in the public hearing. The the section itself, staff has not been good updating it over the years. So it's just largely out of date. So it looks like we're establishing a new overlay, but we're really recognizing an existing overlay. So this is not a new thing.

Okay. It's been in existence for a long time. It's essentially recognizing some of the surface lots that the fair has and uses that's, like, adjacent to the fairgrounds. So it's allowing that use for fair parking

Okay. Adjacent to the fair. Okay. Thank you. Sorry. That's okay.

Alright. Shall I keep going?

Please.

Okay.

Our landscaping code, it's a very both the landscaping and adjustment section are pretty minor, more clarifying amendments. For the landscaping specifically, we're adjusting that minimum landscape buffer with to align with the design standards so that we don't have right now, they'd be off by a foot. So we're just trying to bring some standardization of these setbacks and landscape buffers. Also, clarifying building encroachment allowances within landscape buffers if the zone allows for a lesser setback than the landscape buffer. I also wanna note that I think in a future iteration, I'll probably be adding a note about allowing pedestrian plaza space to also encroach within that area.

This is something that oftentimes gets a little bit confusing when it's not explicitly explained, so we just wanted to clarify that in the code. And then the adjustment section, another very minor change, just making it clear that the design departures are handled separately from adjustments. So it's handled in the 2026 chapter as far as the process and what that goes through. Just pointing back to that instead of so there is no confusion That's the main goal. Okay.

So RN zones. This is one that has a little more change involved. So this is our multifamily zones. It's chapter twenty twenty five of our code. We're proposing a five foot minimum setback.

I just also wanna clarify that that is not a build to area. Somebody could set the building farther back than that. But, really, it's bringing it into alignment with some of the standards that are being proposed in our design standards document. So some examples, a new unit there's new unit and elevation standards within our design code that has specific requirements if the building is built at a five foot setback. So it has a five foot setback from public or semi public realm.

So public sidewalk versus kind of interior space that's more publicly or centrally used in a development is recognizing that and that how that can impact someone on a main level or ground level unit. So there is essentially, this image is showing, you know, if it's at a five foot setback, it either needs to be elevated, like having steps to elevate it, or there's a a landscape buffer to provide some buffering in between. If it were to be set back 10 feet, then it 10 feet from a sidewalk or five feet from these other public semi public realms, the Ground Floor is supposed to be elevated. So that, essentially, if someone's walking down the sidewalk, you're not looking straight into someone's window. It's allowing for a little more privacy and a little more separation while still allowing for those ground floor units.

So with that in mind, we are proposing that five foot setback. There's also some other design feature requirements if the unit has direct access, and there's kind of a whole list of them in the design standards. So we're just bringing it in alignment with that. Also, for setbacks, kind of interior side yard setbacks or rear yard setbacks. The design standards do talk to or reference light and air access and privacy standards for those interior and side yard property lines.

So portions of buildings that contain multifamily residential units whose only solar access, so if it only has one window on that area, then this the building is required to be set back 15 feet from the property line. So it takes into account what's developed on the other side of the property to determine what that setback is to ensure that there would be still some solar access and air access between the units or the between the properties. Otherwise, there if there wasn't a building there with how the code is currently drafted, there could be a five foot setback Unless it were next to a single family residential zone, there's a landscape setback that would have a 10 foot dense landscape buffer along that abutting property line. Any questions on that before I touch on these other things?

The only thing that jumps out at me so far is if you just go back to this I think it was two slides, but it doesn't really matter. Having the 24 inch elevation, I remember we had discussed this as it relates to ADA requirements. Mhmm. Did that come into play at all still? I mean, I just don't because there's no way to do a ramp.

You know, they take up too much room. But if you're requiring two feet, most jurisdictions that I work in in any kind of multifamily housing, you now have to have a class b for your bottom units, which is a d a ADA ready. But how can you have an ADA ready unit if you can't access it? Mhmm. So I'm just concerned about the legalities of that as well as making sure that our community is taken care of.

Sure. And I will say, when I'm referencing the code right now, it's the current draft. I know that we did receive input from the planning commission, and that's still being worked into the draft. So point well taken. I think these are kind of hard when it depends on what the unit is and what the you know, what they're planning for. Someone could set it back to allow for a ramp. It's not saying it has to be built at five feet. There's allowances for that to be adjusted. So I don't know if that is enough. I I would appreciate any input from your point of view of, okay.

It needs to meet that for future. Will that run into issues if we're not requiring a distance for a ramp by zoning code to accommodate that in the future? It's kind of a building code versus zoning code and how do those play together, especially with it being a a future accommodation. So if you have any suggestions or things that we should be thinking about, I I do appreciate that. You can send that to me offline or during the meeting.

So earlier, at our first go round, I seem to remember some illustrations that showed, for instance, like, a a walkway parallel with the front of the building that was serviced by a ramp, let's say, from one one end or one side. And then so that instead of having a ramp directly from the sidewalk into the front door, it would yeah. So my question is if if if the setback this this always shows plantings in front of the building. So if you in fact ended up having, let's say to have that kind of ramp that would run parallel, would there also be a requirement? In other words, would that require a wider setback if you also have to have plantings?

So and and what what counts as setback? Does the ramp

Can a ramp be in a setback?

Become part of can it be in the setback, or or is it part of the building in

a No. I mean, I think these are things to consider.

Yeah. We can look into that. I know that these standards are definitely saying if the building is at the five foot, then these cut things come into play. So that's something that we can think about if we need to tweak that or put in an exemption, for these ADA ramps, or how does that all play together?

Mhmm. Mhmm.

Okay. I have just a couple other notes. So, we did modifications to the open space standards because it's becoming a little more standardized within the design review chapter. So we have what's called usable open space. So we essentially just plugged in a reference to that code section.

And then there's just other cleanups, of potential conflicts with the twenty twenty six twenty twenty six updates as well as removing old references to the old code chapter. So, just kind of bringing it all together. So I think next steps. So we have those remaining chapters in, that have corresponding amendments that are necessary. So we'll be working on that.

We're also working on refining that draft of the 2026 design standards. We have identified other housekeeping items as part of this code package that are still in development. So all of this would be coming back again before the planning commission before we go to a public hearing. We are currently reevaluate reevaluating our project schedule. I think we might be shifting gears to complete the phase two zoning map and code work in advance of the design work that we've been working on.

We have people that are property owners and folks waiting on the phase two, and we think that there's not an issue with us moving that forward versus the design standards, and we'll just catch up with that following that work. So we'll talk about that a little bit more at a future meeting. It's kind of how we're progressing. But just keeping that in mind that there might be a gap between this, but we'll we'll bring you back on board and catch you up to speed when we dive back into it. And if there's any more feedback on this, package of code, I'm here for that tonight.

Thank you, Kendall. Do you have a staff report for us tonight?

My staff report is I your next meeting is likely going to be canceled because we're doing a lot of shifting of gears right now. Mhmm. But we are planning to have your meeting in June to kinda go over the next few months of work and the direction that we're going. But other than that, I don't think we have anything else for a staff update.

Thank you. And that brings I think that brings us to item number nine. Do we have any commissioner comments? Commissioner Barney, any comments this evening?

Basically, just a question. When how do do we find out a way that the city council approves or rejects whatever we submit? And if so, do you let me know?

Yes. We'll give you updates during the staff updates

Okay.

Of the project that you're take that are being pushed forward to council and let you know the outcomes.

Okay. Thank you.

Commissioner Crosby, any comments?

Not tonight. Nope.

Commissioner Washburn, any comments? Vice Chair DeGroote? No, thank you. Not tonight. And I don't believe I have any comments either this evening. And with that, we are adjourned at 07:55.