Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening. The Puyallup Planning Commission meeting for July 8th, 2026 is now called to order. Will the clerk please call the roll?

Commissioner Washburn. Present. Commissioner Barney.

Present.

Commissioner Martin.

Present.

Commissioner Crosby.

Present.

Commissioner Landon.

Present.

Vice Chair DeGroote.

Present.

Chair Taylor.

Present.

Thank you. With seven present, we have a quorum.

Thank you. Item number two, approval of the agenda. Do I have a motion to approve the agenda for this evening?

So move.

Do I have a second?

Second.

All in favor? Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Thank you. Third item on the agenda, approval of the minutes. Do I have a motion for approval of minutes?

So moved.

Do I have a second? Second. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Moving quickly, item number four is citizen comments. The chair will call on those who have provided their names in advance. Then the chair will call for other citizens who wish to speak. For the record, please state your name, address, or city council district in which you reside. Please be advised that each speaker is limited to three minutes. The clerk will provide verbal notice when only 30 seconds remain. As a reminder, this portion of the meeting is the planning commission's opportunity to hear from the community and not a time to engage in debate. From the clerk, we have Rose Pettit Cowan. I apologize. Please stand and approach the mic. The red button, there should be a little red on there.

Hi, I'm Rose Pettit Cowan. I live through 112th Street, Northwest, down by Puyallup High School. I live in the house I was born in. So I'm a longtime resident here, right? I'm the last of 14 kids. The house got too big. My parents sold it. When I had my first son, I thought, you know what? I want my home back. I knocked on the lady's door and said, if you ever want to sell this house, this is my home and I want it back. And she said, perfect timing. So she sold it to me. So we raised our seven children there. I love Puyallup. But, you know, I grew up in Puyallup as an agricultural town, right? And I feel like it breaks my heart, to be honest, to watch the city that I love paving over the best soil in the area next to the Willamette Valley, right? And so I have dedicated the last... 15 years since my kids have gotten older, to bringing back agriculture in our area and trying to teach that from my front yard. So on my corner, I am actually designated USDA urban habitat for animals and also a farm, which I only have 0.25 of an acre, right? So I... want to teach people whether you have a five gallon bucket or five acres that we're an agricultural community and it's time for us to like dig into the ground and start to like you know use some of the resources we have so recently um i am in the process of purchasing a little piece of property about one block from my home it's um it's like 0.53 of an acre i believe and i grew up watching this old guy and his name was mr mcdonald and he um He had all kinds of produce and stuff like there and it was old Mr. McDonald's farm. Well, the property since gone very derelict and it's horrible. It's got like a chicken coop of a house on it that has no redeeming qualities. In fact, it's got a tear down order on it. And so we're supposed to be closing on August 15th about it, but it's been recently brought to my attention that we're not supposed to be, there's some kind of an ordinance in there that we're not supposed to be able to farm property that we don't have a structure, a house on. And so I'm buying it with the sole purpose of making a little urban farm for the people in my community. So, you know, I don't know what I'm going to do exactly. Shane asked me, you know, and I'm like, I don't know right now. I'm just trying to get through the process of purchasing it. But I would like to, you know, raise some crops on it and teach the kids around and maybe have a goat. I don't even know for sure that I want to do that. But it was brought to my attention that you have to be living on it and I don't live on it. So I just think that that's just kind of an oversight that needs to be changed because I'm a longtime resident. I have every intention to take very good care of the property. And I think other people are in the same boat as me. So that is what I want to bring up. Any questions?

I don't think we are allowed to have questions at this point, but we thank you for your time and you definitely came to the right agenda. Thank you. Are there any other folks present that would like to speak this evening? I'm going to take that as a no and we'll move on. Moving on to the public hearing. The next item on the agenda is proposed code amendments. Urban agriculture uses in single family residential zones. First we will open the public hearing for public comment after public comment period has ended. Um, we will close the meeting. So if there are any other comments that are addressing the public hearing, you're free to come up and speak also.

Give me just a minute.

I'm confused. Give me just a sec. Thank you. So the public hearing is now closed and the commission will now have a staff presentation followed by commission discussion.

Hello, everyone. I'm Shane Perrin. I'm the code compliance officer for the city. And it is Yep. Sorry, I'm a Luddite. So it takes me a second to figure this out.

You're just trying to move the embarrassment from me.

I don't even know. Let's see. How do we start the slideshow? Okay. Sorry about that. They had a public records request this week about everyone who loses chat GPT in the city. And I went, what?

What's that?

So this is some minor code revisions to chapter 2020.0106 and 7. I was here last month, and we talked about changing the designation of RS sites that are vacant to have some urban agricultural activities on them. And taking your suggestions and going through legal, we came up with some language on that and it will include um both those properties that are above one acre and uh those properties under one acre um you folks had asked for one eighth of an acre that's 5 400 square feet and there's not that many lots that are actually that small so we just um left it under one eight one half acre and above one acre So currently, agricultural activities, urban agricultural activities are only allowed as an accessory use to a residence. If the lot is vacant, it cannot be used for urban agricultural activity. And so this proposes to change that. So this is the the language that has been proposed. That we change this is for properties that are under one acre in size. And we changed the term from lots to sites. And this would allow contiguous lots that are owned together to be considered as one site. and it is limiting urban agricultural activities can occur on a vacant site provided that the vacant site is owned by one or more natural persons who reside within the city limits of Puyallup and the activity is accessory to the owner's um residential property um essentially that's saying if someone owns the lot within the city they can do urban agricultural activity on that lot um and we added the uh The what constitutes a vacant site means that a site that does not contain a lawfully established residence for the purposes of this chapter. And then also the urban agricultural activities accessory when it's subordinate and incidental to the owner's residential use of their property located within the city and is not operated as a principal commercial use of that vacant site. So those two things solve the Someone coming in and buying a vacant site just to start a farm in Puyallup, it still has to be an accessory use. It can't be the primary use of that property to run a commercial farm. It still has to be an accessory to someone living in Puyallup using that property for their urban agricultural activities. And then... The second part of this is the same thing, except it's for sites over one acre. They have to follow the exact same standards, has to be owned. If it's vacant, it has to be owned by someone who lives within the owner lives within residential property located in the city. And again, the difference between a half acre site and a one acre site is the type of animals you can have on that site. Half acre are small farm animals and over one acre and greater are large farm animals. And you kind of get in your mind with a large farm animals, cows, horses, pigs. Um, things of that nature, small farm animals would be miniature goats, bees, uh, chickens, ducks, turkeys. So, um, We have analyzed the proposed amendments and found consistency with all applicable codes. And based on the findings made, we recommend that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation of approval for the subject zoning code text amendments. And I'm happy to take any questions or have any concerns. This is our next step. So as we take this to council actually next Tuesday.

Vice Chair, I saw your flag go up first.

Okay, thank you. So, A couple of the – this is a verbiage issue. It's a wording issue. It's like it wasn't quite clear to me, and I just want to see. So the vacant site, according to this, should be subordinate and incidental to the owner's residential use. But, of course, the very – HAB-Jacques Juilland, Definition of a vacant site is there's no residents there so right there's no residential use on that lot.

HAB-Jacques Juilland, And that's the residential use of their other property that city limits. That's what it means. So, so someone owns a vacant property next door to them. they can still, or down the street, they can use that for agricultural activities, but it's still subordinate to their residential use. So they can't just open a commercial dairy on the property. A commercial dairy cannot be operated within the city unless it's a agricultural zone or has an agricultural overlay zone, because this is more for urban agricultural uses. So you keep a cow there, And, you know, have your own milk, but you're not going to keep a herd of cattle there. There's not any lots that big anyway, so it wouldn't really matter.

Okay, well, thank you. The other thing that I was curious about in the wording is horticultural activity includes personal use and incidental sales or distribution on site activities. And so could you explain what incidental is, please?

Incidental, again, is not, it's your main focus of your house. For example, right now, I know of at least two places in the city where they grow their own starts and then they can sell that, those starts, or they grow their own produce and they can sell it from a stand in their driveway. It's incidental. It's not a major enterpriser.

But it could be, for instance, I understand incidental could mean seasonal, for instance, if you're growing daffodils, and then that stops. Right. But if you've got chickens, you might have egg sales all year round.

Egg sales all year round, but it's not going to be a huge, you know, you're not going to have people coming every day to buy eggs generally.

So incidental does not mean you can't have, let's say, a farm stand on that site. Right.

You can have a farm stand on the site.

And that could stay there.

Yeah, that's legal now. It's been legal for decades at this point.

OK. All right. Yeah, I was just trying to understand what these terms mean in this instance. Thank you.

You're welcome.

Commissioner?

One of the concerns I

One of the concerns that I keep coming up with is, while I'm somewhat in favor of this, is abuse. Yes. By accepting this, you've got a lot of lots in the city of Puyallup that have potential of abuse. And even a rooster, I mean, if you're next door and somebody puts chickens in there and a rooster is going off at 5 o'clock every morning.

Yes, they do.

And, you know, that kind of thing, or somebody puts too much, puts a bunch of equipment on there and says, well, it's part of my garden, you know, or they don't take care of it. And all of a sudden you've got a bunch of mice around your yard.

Yeah.

I mean, you can ruin a whole neighborhood.

So there are things that address that. For one, public nuisances are prohibited. Rodent harborage is prohibited. So if someone has animals on their property, and when you're keeping them, there's excessive manure, they're not keeping up with standard agricultural practices. I've seen chicken coops with rats in them. what happens is a complaint comes to me and then I go address it as a public nuisance, as a rodent harborage, or as in the case of roosters, a noise ordinance violation. So those violations already exist separately from this. Just because you have a right to grow vegetables doesn't necessarily mean you can make it go fallow and have your grass and weeds four feet tall that are dead and dying. So we address that under grass and weed ordinance. Part of that grass and weed ordinance says it has to be cultivated. And occasionally I'll get a open field and it has the tall hay in it. And someone will complain, hey, it's a fire hazard. Well, they're about to harvest their hay. And it's in an area that's allowed. So we allow them to harvest their hay. But if it's just tall grass and weeds that is fallow, then we make them blow it down.

How long does that process take? So if I call and complain, is this like a six-month process or is it?

It really depends on the reaction to the person. I cannot force anyone to do anything without a warrant. And then I go on the property and do it ourselves. I send a series of notices. After about six weeks, if they have not corrected those notices, they're subject to citations. And those citations are around $513 a day. So they can be pretty steep pretty quickly if they have got, and the vast majority of people clean them up. Sometimes it does take a long time though. They do not want to cooperate and do what they need to do and follow code. And they do get citations. It does happen. Not very often, but it does happen.

Because I was thinking, if I own a property downtown Puyallup and I don't live there, I'm not subject to the smell or any of that other stuff.

And that's why we're requiring that these people live in town, because then we know where they are. And it's obvious if they're using their property that way, it's not someone... I had a rooster case the other day that the owners live in Chicago. And I'm like... great, you know, they're, they don't care if there's a rooster there or not. But if someone lived in town, and it was their property that they're working on themselves, then we would know that that, you know, we could contact them directly and say, it's very obvious you have something going on here that needs to be corrected.

Is it much of a problem in the city of Puyallup? It is not.

I get a few rooster cases a year. I get the occasional chicken coop that's dirty cases a year, but not a huge amount. It's generally one or two cases a year.

That's it?

Yeah.

Thank you. You're welcome.

So I have just a couple of comments and I'm definitely in favor as well. Um, but I just wanted to provide a little, get a little clarification. I was at a, I attended a city council meeting last night at the city of Sammamish and the sort of backwards of what I'm asking now, um, they are granting a one time per owner. remodel and rebuild. But the question was, how do we track an owner? So if they wanted to do a remodel per owner and then the wife wanted to do a remodel, they just do a quick claim and now we have a new owner on the house. So my question is sort of the opposite of that. If we have an owner of a property or two properties, the one they live on and the one that is vacant, then they sell. How do we know that then they're selling to somebody that will live in Puyallup? And how do we make sure that that is continuing instead of just selling to two different people? One maybe is a corporation that lives somewhere else. you know, or both, and they don't understand that rule.

Yeah. If they were to sell it and there was a violation reported on that property, I track down the property owner and they're all recorded with the assessor's office. So if it's an LLC, that LLC goes to a governor, that governor goes somewhere. So I tend to I have to track those owners down because I send that notice to that owner. And so if a company bought the lot, and was just operating it separately as a small farm, and they did not live in the city limits, and that complaint came in, then we would send them notice saying, you're not following the zoning code as it's written. You need to stop doing that use or transfer it to someone who's inside city limits. But we would track that person down.

So basically, though, it would come down to if there's a violation. If there's not a violation, then somebody living outside can continue business as usual.

Correct. I only go by a complaint basis. I don't go and look for these things. So if a complaint comes in, then I go and investigate it. If a complaint never comes in, then I don't even look at it.

I think that was all I had. Anyone else? I believe that is going to take us to, we have had a request to approve this. So do I have a motion to approve the proposed code amendments, urban agricultural uses in single family residential zones?

I'll move to approve.

Do I have a second?

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye. Any opposed? We have a unanimous pass. So the next item on the agenda is item number six, work session topics. Starting with 6A, phase two zoning code and map amendments package six and senior planner Kendall Walls.

Thank you. Good evening. Kendall walls with the planning division. Going here. Right. There we go. All right, so staff presented several different policy questions to Council. I know that we have given you some briefing on some of the policy direction we had received previously. Um, but we did go back to council on June 30th, um, to confirm the policy direction that we heard from them previously on some of those components, as well as touch on some other components that are all associated with this package. Um, so this is package six of our work plan. Um, it's technically phase two of our zoning map and code amendments that were identified for this year. So a lot of the map changes are, again, making our zoning map consistent with our future land use map that was adopted in the comprehensive plan. But some of these areas that were postponed, we needed some additional time to work with property owners as well as develop code, which is part of what we'll be talking about tonight. We wanted to just give you all essentially a briefing of what was presented to Council at the June 30th presentation. as well as the policy direction to help guide the work that you'll be doing over the next few months. So to jump right in, mixed use zones, which is the next item on your agenda tonight. So I won't spend too much time on this, but we'll dive into that code here tonight. But in general, we had presented some updates to all mixed use zones generally. for allowance for standalone residential. And that was actually something that you all already worked on, as well as some increase to density and use allowance considerations as part of that housekeeping package of amendments that was associated with phase one and more recently adopted by council. And so really as part of kind of general updates, we'll be looking at changes to height and height bonuses in that package of amendments tonight. Some of those other policy questions were regarding some specific zones. So in the Shaw Pioneer area, we have the community mixed use designation that was one of our first mixed use designations that was implemented in the city. We were asking whether or not that should be retained as an area specific zone or if that could be consolidated, essentially eliminated, and we rezone the area to an existing mixed use zone. That policy direction was essentially confirmed to move forward with elimination of the CMX zone and applying the UCX zone to that area. So you'll see that in the package of amendment tonight, taking forward that policy direction from council. Just to touch on some of, I know we put the map series into the packet as well. Wanted to just give you a preview of what would be coming forward as part of this package for implementing those zoning map changes. So some examples for mixed use changes are implementing UCX for these three or four parcels. Essentially the old JSON site. This was um the property owner requesting us to postpone application of ucx as they were evaluating feasibility for a specific project that came forward through the public hearing process with phase one so we would essentially just be implementing it there as we did for that south meridian corridor And then also out in the Shaw Pioneer area, these areas were already modified to a mixed use land use designation as part of the future land use map changes. And so we would be implementing UCX here. And then also, as mentioned, eliminating CMX and applying UCX to those parcels in that area. There's also one area which is, The South Hill Business and Technology Center up on South Hill that will also be applying some mixed use for implementing the future land use map. And I'll touch on that when we're talking about the manufacturing zone changes. The other area for policy direction was related to LMX zone. And I'll spend some more time talking through a little more background because I think We have some new planning commissioners that weren't a part of our prior presentations on these changes, but essentially we have an existing LMX zone that was previously applied in the South Hill area. It's being proposed to be modified and reused for implementing our neighborhood serving commercial land use designation. So it needs some cleaning up. And so we had identified some general changes for implementing it as our neighborhood commercial designation. Generally, council was supportive. We have heard caution to be very careful about what types of uses would be permitting in these because they will be in or near residential areas. And so just being cognizant of that and also doing some outreach. So we intend to do that within this timeframe as well to get some input from property owners, at least adjacent to where these areas are going to be rezoned. And then also had a request to, If possible, do some sort of notification when these new uses go into effect. So that's something that staff still needs to evaluate. I don't know if it would necessarily be a code change. It might be more of a procedural policy type change. So you might see some of that in the future. But just to touch on LMX. Any questions on the mx at this point, do you want me to just kind of going I can pause in between these you let me know.

we'll be discussing later after okay.

So for our commercial C zones and office professional zones, these are very sparsely applied now in the city. So we have the CL zone, which is limited commercial and office professional is the OP. All of these areas that are identified here will be rezoned to LMX as part of the changes that we're doing, the map changes. So prior policy direction was to confirm that council was supportive of elimination of these existing zones with the intent of streamlining the code and kind of reducing the number of zones to make it easier for application for both staff, but also for the public when they're looking at our code and understanding what's allowed. So that was still supported. For our residential zones, our single family residential, we had previously, I think, in the fall of last year, had an initial discussion with Planning Commission and kind of received some mixed feedback. We also had some mixed feedback from council. So we had kind of laid out some additional options for council in this presentation, but essentially the housing action plan that was adopted by council in 2021 included a strategy of consolidating our single family residential zones. Through the process of the comprehensive plan update and implementing Those changes on our zoning map, we already eliminated one of our single family residential zones. So the original direction that was in the housing action plan wasn't as easy to implement because we had already gone from four low density residential zones to three. And the direction previously was giving direction on how to consolidate the four to two zones. So we... again, received mixed feedback previously. We brought this forward to council and just kind of further fleshed out some different options, but also identifying some considerations within those options. So option one is no change. We just retained the existing three RS zones, single family residential zones. Option two is to consolidate to two zones. And there's kind of two options that were laid out of just to show that there's different ways that we could do that consolidation and option three is to go down to one zone and we also wanted to note that both options two and three will require public engagement and so um again option one kind of keep things status quo we would have rs10 rs8 and rs6 And then option two, there's a lot of information here, but essentially option 2A, we're calling the hybrid option, it would do a combination of RS-10 and RS-8. If you're not familiar with the naming conventions, the number at the end is indicating the lot size. RS-10 has a 10,000 square foot minimum lot size. RS-8 has an 8,000 square foot minimum lot size. And RS-6 is a 6,000 minimum lot size. So with option 2A, it would be combining these two and retaining that RS-6. Option 2B would kind of just strike the middle zone. So you just have RS-10 and RS-6. This is more detailed than we need to go tonight, but just showing that these would be considered as part of this. And then option three is the very streamlined option, and that's going to one zone. And that would essentially eliminate RS-10 and RS-8 and go to an RS-6 zone, 6,000 minimum lot size for all of our low density residential areas. With this one in particular, this was not something that staff had identified as an option while we were going through the periodic update process. This wasn't direction that we had heard from council at that point, but has been something that we've heard from some council members. And so we did... Look at this a little bit further prior to the June 30 presentation and just noted that this one in particular will likely require some additional environmental analysis, just because our EIS our environmental impact statement that was done with the periodic update did not anticipate this much of a change, so we That would be in the form of an addendum or a supplement, but that adds additional time and potential funds necessary in order to implement option three. So again, we received some mixed feedback. We heard from generally, I'd say about two council members in support of option two, about two council members in support of option three and one was supportive of just a no change. That was kind of just what we heard at the last meeting. This item in particular, which you'll see on future slides, we're kind of postponing this work from this package of amendments just due to the nature of the outreach that's necessary and additional analysis that will be needed for implementing it. So this would be likely something that you would start work on early next year.

So I know that you're looking just for some conversation around this and feedback. I feel like this is a good place because that was a lot of information so far, maybe separating out the residential element would be a good time to just sort of get a little feedback. Personally, I just have a couple of questions. Do we have any idea how prevalent the RS-8 is?

And flip back, I had a map here at the beginning. So RSA is this kind of... Quite a bit.

So, I mean, it looks, I mean, it's kind of sparse, right? I mean, not horribly. I would definitely be looking at option two. I don't know if it's A or B yet, though. What am I doing? Yeah, go ahead.

You were first.

Commissioner Washburn.

Has anybody thought about the option of just going to six and eight and eliminating 10? That's also an option we can. Yeah, because where I live, I was a 10. And then we got changed down to eight, I don't know, eight or nine years ago.

So it's certainly not off the table. Yeah, we're just examples of different ways we could approach it and be something I would say that or just make everybody six.

Vice chair.

Yeah, my opinion is I would like to see this not changed. And the reasons are, number one, the state has now decided that we can have lot splits. Okay. Number two, the state has mandated that every house can have two ADUs. And number three, we have... I would say six different kinds of housing, middle housing allowed in any residential zone. That is a lot of density that's being mandated for us. And I know there are some people who are perfectly happy with their small lot and maybe don't do a lot outdoors. Other people have children. They'd like a place for them to play. They have pets. Maybe they have gardens. Maybe they use that outdoor space and treasure it. And they've earned it. And I don't like to see... that sort of thing with existing neighborhoods where people have earned and paid for their homes and see those neighborhoods changed to be possibly less safe, certainly more crowded. I would like to the talk in favor of, as you can tell, not changing this. We've got three zones now, and I see no harm to the city with all of the mandated changes from the state. Thank you.

I think I saw yours again first, Commissioner Washburn.

I'm a little on the other side from Mr. DeGroote. I see that property owners, first of all, nobody has to do it, right? It's a choice. It's a choice. And secondly, if a property owner has maintained the property for decades and they want to realize more income from it, they should have that right, the right to do it. And the second thing I wanted to make sure I'm understanding is that not every lot in the city can do the ADUs because you have to be out of the hazard zone, right? And we have 24% hazard zone.

That actually was modified more recently as part of the middle housing update. So the limitation in the Lahar zone was eliminated. So anybody now?

Well, but in the Lahar zone, it's allowed one.

It's not the Lahar zone. It's based on the minimum lot size. So if the lot meets the minimum lot size of the zone, they're allowed two. If it's not meeting the minimum lot size of the zone, they're allowed one ADU. That changed more recently.

And what is that lot size?

It depends on what the zoning is. So if it's zoned RS8, it would be an 8,000 minimum lot size. Okay, thank you.

Commissioner Parney?

I've lived in Puyallup for almost 40 years, and I remember a long time ago the daffodils and everything else down in the valley. And RS-10 has to stay. I mean, we're getting it in the city of Puyallup. We're just cramming everything down to the smallest denominator that we can. And what it means is more people, more traffic, more problems with sewer. I mean, everything. And so I think you definitely need to keep the RS-10 along.

Any other thoughts? So for me, from a permitting standpoint, I love the idea of streamlining. All of our zones, I think when you get too many, it just gets too convoluted and it makes it harder for a homeowner to understand what the restraints are. And it also makes the review timelines much larger for staff. But that's just from a logistics standpoint, not from a human standpoint always. So I think that's all I have.

all right so moving to manufacturing zone um so the south hill business and technology center is up on south hill off of 39th avenue southeast kind of next to um lowe's and wesley homes is right next door here you have the Kaiser Permanente on the site as well. And then Pierce College is over here. So it is this whole site that is zoned MP currently, which is a business park zone. It's actually the only area in the city with that zoning currently. The property owner during the periodic update process had requested that the front portion of the site be redesignated and eventually rezoned to a mixed use designation. And so that was implemented on the future land use map. So this map change here is just showing implementation of that to the UCX zone. The property owner had also requested some changes to the business park zone as far as allowable uses. And so that's what we wanted to preview tonight, but that's something that we will continue to work on and bring forward at a future meeting date. So within this zone, data centers and daycare centers were to, they're in bold because those were kind of the main desired uses uses outright for the zone. Currently, data centers aren't explicitly listed as a permitted use. However, I believe there's an existing one already on the site. And daycare centers are allowed as an accessory use to a primary use on the site. The zone does have an allowance for independent daycares, but it requires a conditional use permit. The request is that they be permitted outright in the zone. And then some other use allowances related to warehouse and distribution, contractor shops with outdoor storage option, equipment sale or rental, accessory retail of products, as well as a consideration for multifamily residential. And staff was noting here that that could be something that we allow outright in the zone, or we could consider doing it via a zoning overlay for a certain portion of the site. There's different ways you could approach that. And the property owner just also noted that if residential uses are an option for the zone, if that is supported, they'd also request an allowance for increased height for residential use. So that's something that we'll bring forward at a future date. As far as the policy direction, there were concerns expressed by some council members regarding data centers and just impacts of them, as well as warehouse distribution uses, warehouse more so from a traffic standpoint and data centers from more of an environmental and utility standpoint. And then the other uses were generally supported from council. So residential, multifamily residential included. Do you like me to keep going?

Does anybody have any comments? Vice Chair?

Yes. Okay. So one thing I wanted to point out, we all, I think anyone who reads the paper or whatever knows about power consumption and water use for data centers, especially serving AI. Right now, the data center that's on that site is a 24 megawatt data center. It's already there. AI serving data centers, according to what I've read, can range in size from 100,000 square feet to 1 million square feet. The entire Benaroya property is 86 acres. And if the proportions in the map are correct, that parcel is about 18 acres or over 786,000 square feet, even with 85% lot coverage. the site could accommodate an AI data center of almost 69,000 square feet. So that would be pretty big if you wanted to devote it entirely to that. And so once you make a change, you can't go back, right? So my recommendation personally would say that data center is not a great idea. The other things that I would like to see not in here is warehouse and distribution. That's a busy street right now. And it's serving a lot of areas that are growing. There's still a lot of undeveloped areas in the Willows Pond area. And the other thing would be outdoor storage, which does not seem appropriate to the area. If you look at the other developments that are there. So those are the big one is a data center, but the other ones are warehouse and outdoor storage. Thank you.

Any other comments.

I'm going to concur. I also made a note that data centers, warehouses, equipment sales and rentals and storage yards seem excruciatingly out of place in that area. I remember when the Lowe's was across the street and that was all just open land. The first few times after the Lowe's opened, there were deer in the parking lot all the time. Because we keep encroaching on that space. And I would be highly against all of it at this point. I think that daycare centers are completely fine. Accessory retail, depending on what it is. So I don't know that we can stipulate that. Multifamily residential I'm fine with as well. There's definitely some residential units going into that area. However, I don't understand why we would have to extend a height there. Allowance. I mean, that just doesn't make sense to me. When we already have codes in place, why give an allowance here and there? Why have a code at all if you're just going to continue to give allowances? Those are my thoughts.

So moving on then to the fair zone and fair parking overlay updates. So as part of the comp plan update process, several properties, many of them long standing properties that have been owned by washington state fair were re-designated to the fair land use designation and the map that's shown here is our existing zoning for fair and the fair parking overlay um so just want to make that clear that the the land use map looks a little bit different um as part of that process the washington state fair did have some requested changes to um as far as rezoning some of those properties that they own as well as modifications to the existing fair parking overlay so we wanted to touch on that tonight again that will be at a future work session but i wanted to preview that for you Currently, the implementing zones for the fair land use designation are limited to the fair zone and public facilities. Excuse me. And current zoning for some of these outlying lots outside of the main fairgrounds are RM20, high density multifamily, SCG, which is our general commercial zone, and RS8, which is a single family residential zone. um so there's been interest for mixed use options for some of these properties not all of them you'll see the some examples being called out here on the draft map so some of the properties north of 9th at the corner of 9th and south meridian as well as some of the existing parking lot areas And the request then is, or the consideration that staff has presented is instead of creating new additional zones to implement this, and we did try to do it within Lisa Smith – The existing fair zone, but it got very complicated. And so our proposal is to essentially modify the designation criteria table to allow additional implementing zones for the fair land use designation that's in our comprehensive plan. to also list, for example, the UCX zone. I know that fair representatives are also considering whether CBD, the Central Business District, which is this pink color here, might be an option for these parcels that are north of 9th. So there could be additional zones potentially proposed to be added to that list. And then they would just follow the existing zoning requirements under that zone if that were applied to the parcels. So that is the direction that we and the proposed direction we presented to Council and that was generally supported at the June 30th study session. We also went over just some general updates to the fair parking overlay. So there's I have another slide here that just shows general potential changes to the overlay of where it's applied in the city. That's something that's a part of this effort, but also looking at what uses are allowed. Currently, it's pretty limited to specific events, motor vehicle sales, that type of thing. But maybe we broaden it to be more of a fair overlay and we relook at what those types of uses are allowed under the overlay. Okay. It hasn't really been touched I think since 1997 so that's something that we thought we could take a look at as part of this, and that was also generally supported. As far as the fair parking overlay zone changes the areas that are highlighted in yellow are where it's currently applied and. The hatching is showing where it's proposed to be applied. These are largely long-term, under long-term ownership from the fair, as well as they already have a parking use. So from their standpoint, in some cases, it helps from a non-conforming standpoint. If they want to make improvements to an existing parking lot, it provides more opportunity for that. It doesn't alter the underlying zoning or uses. Those would be allowed to continue or redevelop even into a new use based on the zoning. And wanted to just know that there is this area that's currently applied within the existing fairgrounds. It's kind of an old remnant one that we proposed for removal as part of this process. So it would not be applied in this location. These proposed changes were also generally supported. We did hear from at least one council member that they'd like us to do some more analysis of just potential impacts of neighboring properties by applying this overlay to consider that as part of the process. So that's something that we will also be doing and bringing forward to you. I think that's all I have for those.

Vice Chair. Okay, my first concern is about approving an overlay with no master plan and no concise or complete list of permitted actions. The use of IE, which is something like, or for instance, but it doesn't actually, unlike some of our other zone designations, it's very nonspecific, and it's extremely broad. And

Are you speaking to the overlay?

Yeah, yeah, yeah. That allows, yeah. The other thing that I'm concerned about is the non-contiguous parcels in particular that are surrounded by residential areas. And so if that very broad spectrum overlay is placed on those sites. You know, we don't know at this point how that would affect neighboring residential... You know, I'm very... I'm very always in favor of the homeowners who are around there, who live there, who have their homes there, and possibly their economic futures in those homes. And I just hate to see – you know, the fair is a big organization. I know it's nonprofit, but – They're looking to make a lot of profit on this, and I'm just very cautious about it. The one thing that stuck out to me was auto sales, occasional. I thought the UMX... prohibited auto sales.

So this is the overlay zone. If we were to allow that zoning, there's certain uses. But if you add an overlay that allows Yeah, then that that Yeah, an additional allowance. And we can look at different ways of how we approach the overlay, we haven't really dived into that yet. But this is kind of just the general concept. And I definitely hear your concerns.

Yeah.

All right. Thank you.

I believe that's it.

So just from kind of next steps, I kind of alluded to some of this earlier when it came to the single family residential zones, but that is something that we've essentially are going to decouple from this package of amendments since it's just a bigger undertaking, what needs additional time and outreach and analysis. So we see you all working on these other components that are a part of this package over the next few meetings and are targeting kind of a public hearing in, I believe, October timeframe and then taking it through the council process for their review and adoption of that package of amendments. You may recall we had started work on package five, which is the clear and objective design review standards update. There's also some other code amendments involved in that package. That is kind of being, we kind of put that on hold while we tackle package six, as that was a priority for this year. So we'll bring that back to you kind of end of fourth quarter this year or maybe even early next year as we work through the rest of the code work. And then package five again will roll into next year and likely adopted in early 2027. And this was just a table to kind of show when things had gone to Council what stuff has been completed on our work plan this year. And when we anticipate some of this coming forward to them so That's all I have for this presentation. I do have another PowerPoint for our next topic.

And next topic will be 6B, Phase 2 Zoning Code Amendments, Chapter 20.31, Mixed-Use MX Zones.

Okay. So diving right into the work as part of this package of amendments, I realized I never updated the front cover of this PowerPoint. But this is not just LMX as we will spend a lot of time on it. As part of this package. These are just the general changes to mixed use zones as well. So um, I will kind of start with just general updates for largely all of the mixed use zones. But LMX, since it is pretty focused on what we're trying to achieve with that, I did kind of leave it as a separate section to kind of walk through what that would look like for that zone in particular. And then we kind of touched on next steps already, but I do have a slide on that if needed. So for general mixed use updates, we just talked about a lot of this, but just as a reminder for implementing that policy direction from council, you'll see in that draft code, strikeouts of references to the Shaw Pioneer Community Mixed Use Zone, the CMX zone. There's also some proposed updates to definitions, which I'll talk about here on some future slides, as well as use allowances. Milo Strnadt, general updates to property development standards and then again. Milo Strnadt, The LM X zone so. Milo Strnadt, For definitions. Milo Strnadt, We proposed this new use of craft manufacturing when looking at. use allowances in the new LMX zone, but then thought that this should just be something that we could allow more generally. So craft manufacturing, as a reminder, is intended to be small scale, indoor processing of goods and materials, not really have any impacts outside of the structure. Some examples are craftsman studios instructional classes or retail with retail sales. They could be painting photography specialty foods or catering was kind of a mix there. But not your your average limited manufacturing type of use it's it's more of a small scale. So you'll see that there's been a definition proposed for that new use, as well as live work unit it's just not currently defined in our code, so we are proposing to have a new definition and then also clarify that as a permitted use. nightclub and live music venue is also. a new definition being added within the context of it being a prohibited use for our LMX zones with it being in these neighborhoods. So that's kind of the general intent by that. We do have some definition revisions related to general commercial use because there's a portion of it that seemed to be in conflict with the new craft manufacturing use. So we wanted to City Council Chambers, Make sure that we didn't have a conflict that way. City Council Chambers, lot coverage has some minor changes essentially changing the name to building coverage, instead of lock coverage, this is something that often gets confused by applicants other jurisdictions. The definition of block coverage includes any impervious surface, whereas in the city, our definition and how it's been applied is really looking at structural coverage on the site. So our intent is just to clarify it as a building coverage instead. And then road service use had a very minor impact. Lisa Smith – Modification to eliminate taverns as those could be a general commercial use and it doesn't need to be listed under road service use Lisa Smith – So, Lisa Smith – Use allowances for kind of just our general mixed use zones. We are proposing to add middle housing as an allowed housing type for these zones just keeping in mind that. We do have some smaller sites that, like the ucx zone is now being applied to so wanting to provide some other housing opportunities, but then. You could have a larger site that wants to do a mix of housing types, so we wanted to provide some flexibility that way I already mentioned just excuse me a clarification that live work units would be permitted. Under the prohibited uses section, this code reads differently than our others. And our other codes just kind of list what's permitted and what's conditionally permitted. This one's a little bit the opposite in that it lists what's prohibited, what's conditionally permitted, and then specific like residential use allowances. So if it's covered there, then anything else can be allowed. So it reads different. So in our prohibited use section, It has some limitations on road service uses currently within our mixed use zones. This is a new allowances proposed to allow road service uses within the UCX zone if located within 500 feet of a controlled access highway. This is really being driven from an applicant. We've been working with them. They are actually a property owner that asked us to postpone Um, the map changed to UCX on that old Jason site. Um, they're looking at the potential of a car wash there and worried about use allowances. Um, and so in working with them, we also thought that this wasn't a bad option to allow for these types of uses within proximity to the freeway in general. So that is what, why that is being proposed there. And then under conditionally permitted uses, there is an allowance for craft manufacturing uses if they exceed the size allowances to request a conditional use permit for a larger size. So craft manufacturing uses, I've kind of tailored this to not really touch on the LMX components for this slide in particular. I'll touch on it more in the next section. But for craft manufacturing uses, there's a new section proposed in the code that lists out specific kind of performance standards for this type of use. So craft manufacturing uses are required to be located within the building. They're size restricted to 7,500 square feet. If it's accessory to a primary use, it could exceed that size threshold provided it does not exceed floor area standards. And in the RMX, UCX, and CCX zones, they could apply again for a CUP to exceed that size limit. If it's not an accessory use, it must have a commercial component so that it's not just the craft manufacturing use that we want to have some level of storefront. And if it's located within 100 feet of a residential zone, could be limitations on hours of operation. It's being proposed as 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. for this use. Do you want me to stop here? I've been seeing some looks and I can, okay. Regarding property development standards, so density, we previously had it in a separate section and have moved it into the general table of property development standards to make it easier to share with applicants. So it looks like maybe a major change, but some of that is just being carried over into that table. The minimum density is currently proposed to stay the same for the different zones. No max density already applies to CCX, RMX, and UCX. Some of that was more recent changes. And then some height changes are also proposed in particular for the UCX zone. It's been increased to essentially meet what the max height was previously and just eliminating the bonus options. So it's just a max height standard. In CCX, There are some other modifications, one related to a height restriction near single-family residential. It's just not applicable where it's applied, so we didn't think it was necessary to retain. If you'd like it to be retained, we can keep it. It just seems like a cleanup item. For height bonuses, we just did a minor amendment to the one for affordable housing because the number, the value of the height bonus Hella Pannewig – Assistant City Attorney. : Exceeded the Max height so just aligning that so that it didn't create confusion and then lastly there's currently a line on the table. Hella Pannewig – Assistant City Attorney. : Regarding vertical mixed use requirements and ground floor residential with the changes that we've made to allow standalone residential, this is no longer necessary so that's why it's proposed to be eliminated people could still do. vertical mixed use but it's an option not a requirement in this case would you like me to stop there before i go to lmx are we good to go okay okay so for a little bit of background a neighborhood commercial. This was a key component of our periodic update, our growth concept that was presented. It essentially, the intent is to provide some small scale retail services in residential neighborhoods so you don't have to go as far for some of these things. And it can also help create a sense of place and community within these neighborhoods And it was something that was supported as part of that process. So we created the neighborhood commercial land use designation. It's currently applied to mostly properties that are existing nonconforming commercial uses within kind of residential neighborhoods. Now, I have a map on a future slide that generally shows where that is located. But they are mainly along West Dewar and Pioneer Avenue. By going to neighborhood commercial and rezoning those sites, it allows for those existing commercial uses to redevelop and expand over time, assuming that their use is a proposed use under the new zoning. If it were not, they would still be limited to our non-conforming use code. So to touch on, again, LMX is an existing zone in our code. It was primarily applied in the South Hill area, but those sites have been rezoned through the phase one process. So this would be a full revamp of this zone in particular. And I'll walk through, This was, again, a slide from our prior presentation. Generally, the concepts were supported by council. This map shows the general locations of these sites. They're pretty small sites. But they are kind of down here on the Pioneer-Stewart areas. But there are a couple in the South Hill area. so for permitted residential uses it's the same essentially for other mixed-use zones under the draft code multi-family dwellings co-living middle housing types live work units and retirement apartments or senior housing complexes would be permitted uses and then for prohibited uses it's a bit more um so it would Prohibit motor vehicle sales type uses, repair, body shops, gas stations, RV parks, any business with a drive-through window, limited manufacturing except for that craft manufacturing use, outdoor storage. So there's a long list here. Some of these were already prohibited in LMX. So kind of towards the bottom, looking at limiting Drinking establishments where their primary use on-site consumption of alcoholic beverages without food service, so kind of more of your tavern style that didn't have much of a restaurant aspect is kind of what that's intending. Nightclubs and live music venues, hotels and motels, and congregate emergency shelters and emergency housing were listed as prohibited for this specific zone. Regarding kind of limitations to commercial uses in this zone, looking at outdoor activities and potential impacts to adjacent properties, we've drafted some code to require outdoor activities to be located between the building and the street. Or if they have some outdoor dining areas, they could be permitted elsewhere on the property, provided that they meet these standards of requiring That the outdoor dining area does not exceed 600 square feet there's a 15 foot minimum rear yard setback, as well as a five foot side yard setback and some site obscuring fencing requirements of five to six feet. If that interfaces with a single family residential zone. there's also a limit to hours of operation from. 7am to 10pm for this commercial use in LMX.

Why the 600 square feet? I mean, if you got the business, wouldn't you want more? Or is this to keep it?

I think it's supposed to just try to keep it contained. Keep it contained. Okay. Our consultants did prepare and do more of the research. So I could dig into that a little bit more to figure out if that was of taken from a similar type code as far as the best practice or anything like that but i don't think so i think i understand the reasoning it's to keep it contained okay thank you So craft manufacturing uses some of those standards again are the same for LMX that they would be for other mixed-use zones Except for the size limit is a little more restricted for these this type of zone in that They could be 5,000 square feet in size. They could apply for a conditional use permit But it is limited to 10,000 square feet under that conditional use permit allowance if it were approved and The size of the craft manufacturing use would count towards the total commercial square footage that's listed for that zone. I think the rest of it is the same as what I already presented for the other zone. For conditionally permitted uses, it would continue to allow public service uses proposed as a standalone project through a conditional use permit. Commercial uses that don't meet the standards could apply for a conditional use permit to exceed those limits, and similarly with the craft manufacturing with the max size of 10,000 square feet. Lisa Smith – Regarding property development standards. Lisa Smith – Currently the max density for this zone is 12 units per acre staff is proposing that there be no max density and rather use just height and building coverage to control the intensity Lisa Smith – Height and building coverage. Again, what they would remain the same. So currently it's up 40 feet for height and 50% for the building coverage. And then front yard setbacks would remain the same as they are currently for that zone. There's a build-to area where structures would be placed between 12 and 20 feet from the front property line, retaining the existing six-foot side yard setback, 10-foot rear yard setback, but require a 15-foot dense landscape buffer when it abuts low-density residential, so an RS zone.

So I have a question about going back to outdoor dining specifically. Because if we're requiring a 15-foot dense landscape buffer for this type of development, it seems like it should carry through for that as well. I mean, it's sort of a noise buffer. on things so I just feel like five feet on the side for outdoor dining is pretty darn close when you're saying that a typical setback and I realize there are different things for structure versus activity but if we're retaining a six foot side Just as a setback, then having five foot side for dining and no landscape buffer just seems intrusive. I mean, I wouldn't want to live next door to a cafe where people are there till 10 at night. You know, there's glassware and then there's people clearing tables. So even if you say it can only be used until nine at night, there's going to be cleanup. There's going to be a lot of activity. It just seems intrusive to me. And I would recommend doing the 15 foot dense landscape buffer on those.

think that is the intent of how it's written is that the if it were adjacent to low density residential in the side yard it would still have that 15 foot buffer but if it were a different zone then it could go down to the five foot okay well that's the end of my presentation so um Want to open it up for discussion questions on the draft mixed use code.

Vice chair. I just have a few questions actually. Regarding from page 55 regarding uses prohibited uses in UCX zones. I just wanted to make sure that I understand this correctly, that road service uses do not include auto sales, rental or storage. Others that they can like repair shops or whatever, but not for UCXO. Yes.

That's correct. It's not permitted.

Oh, right. Yeah. I just wanted to make that distinction. On page 57 of our booklets, there was a paragraph that had been added and then crossed out and it had to do with the discontinuation of use for auto dealers. Can you just kind of tell us about that a little bit?

Yes. So with the more recent package of amendments that were like a housekeeping package, this was something that came to the Planning Commission. Planning Commission had recommended that the auto sales use not be permitted in RMX. However, Council did approve that change, that those types of uses would be allowed in RMX. So this is essentially a cleanup item because if it's allowed, there's not really a need to speak to pre-existing.

Yeah, thank you. I did have a question on page 61, and this is 2031-021-1. It says, one half stall may be provided. may be provided. And I'm wondering, shouldn't that be one half stall shall be provided? And an earlier meeting had it, oh, I'm on, this is page 61. Yeah, we had some discussions at an earlier meeting about the difference between may and shall. And this one seems like it's leaving it as an option.

And I think it is intended to be because this is the affordable housing incentives. And so there's, I think they may be options. I'm not familiar.

They could put maybe nothing in if they chose.

Well, there's different and affordable housing covenant shall be recorded to ensure compliance with the requirements. Maybe I'm wrong. So yeah, we can change that to shall.

It seems like it should be, yeah.

Is that supposed to be a minimum? Shall be allowed? I think is that what they're getting at?

No, it's shall be provided.

Yeah, but I think they meant to say that you have that option to do less than what is otherwise required. Potential for that, yeah.

That's how I interpreted may. Okay.

Yeah, I think that's why they say maze, because you could still do, because otherwise you'd be held to more stalls per unit. So the incentives then, you may choose to go as low as a half. Maybe that's what they meant, but it's still not clear.

Yeah, not clear to me. I didn't understand it that way. So yeah, but we've got smart people who can take care of that. I have a last question. And on page 68. And this is 20.31.031. Off street parking bonus palette. I am not familiar with that term. So does a bonus mean that fewer parking places are required? I just don't. I never heard that phrase before that term.

Yes. So in our mixed use zones, we have a reduction for parking. So there's the minimum parking spaces required or 85% of what's typically required for those uses based on our parking standards. And then there's a maximum of 100%. So this section is essentially allowing for additional parking if you do these things.

Additional parking reductions. Additional... That's what I was trying to understand because it uses the word bonus, which sounds like more, but it's maybe a bonus to the builder.

I think it is.

But it's because it's a reduction in the required parking spaces. I mean, I'm just trying to understand it.

I believe it's to allow additional because there is a max, whereas our other... zones, you have a minimum that you're supposed to meet, but you could go beyond it, whereas this has a cap. But I can look into it more and clarify.

Yeah, I didn't quite get that. Yeah. Thank you. I appreciate it.

Any other discussion?

Commissioner Martin? I've got a question from the Zoom audience. Hello?

Hi, I do apologize, but we do not take comments over via Zoom.

Ah, okay. Thank you.

Kendall, similar to Commissioner DeGroote on the off-street parking bonuses, how does green roofs and solar energy collection tie into parking bonuses?

These were items that, you know, it's pre-existing code. It was looking at, if you wanted to add additional parking, additional surface area, here are some ways. These were essentially things that the city identified as important. So wanting to have more green roofs and those, you know, affordable housing, I think was also a part of that, um, Those were policy things that were important at the time when it was created, and so, if you wanted to add those additional stalls additional paved space, we wanted to see that some offset for kind of a Community. benefit, if you will. or environmental benefit.

Anyone else?

We got it right?

I think so.

Thanks, everyone.

I think you're still up with a staff report. You can't sit down yet.

It's just the Kendall show tonight. So for a staff report, I do want to inform you all that I have accepted a position elsewhere. So this is my last planning commission meeting with you. I know we covered a lot of work that's ahead, but we do have other staff in our office that are perfectly capable of carrying that forward. So you'll be seeing more of Rachel Brown that's in our office. Also, I don't know, probably not, as of last week, Chris Beal, who you all have probably had a presentation by in the past. He has been promoted to planning manager. So we are excited to have him lead the team. So we're going through a lot of transitions in the planning division. But you guys will be in good hands moving forward.

Where are you going?

I am going to the city of Sumner. I am following Katie.

She grabbed you. That's so unfair.

There was an opportunity that I couldn't pass up. So good for you.

Congratulations.

Thank you very much. And I think we've already covered your kind of work plan for the next few months. So I won't belabor that further at this point.

And that brings us to Commissioner comments. Commissioner Barney.

Just a question. As I drive around Puyallup, a thought came as I look at all the power lines and telephone lines and all the trees that are intermixed between all those, is there a program in the city of Puyallup to kind of clean that up a little bit so when winter storms come, we don't lose power?

as far as power lines go can you hear me okay down here um it's my understanding that that's largely managed by pse and so to do anything near power lines they will come out and do it i think you can request it even but i don't know that the city has a specific program where we work with them it's it would be more of a public works function so i'm just not as in tune with like what our streets department public works does. So there may be some coordination that occurs with PSE on that. But if there are specific areas of concern, I think that they will come out and do maintenance that way or because they don't want people working around power lines.

Of course not. If I may add upon that as well, if you utilize, I don't know if any of you are familiar, SeeClickFix. It's online through our website and it's an app. So if you take a picture with your phone and send it through that portal, our streets division will see it. They'll go ahead and evaluate that situation, see if it's something that the city can take care of. And they are very fast at responding at things like that, not just with trees, but potholes, things in that nature. They are very quick at responding to that as well.

You repeat that?

It's called C-Click Fix.

Thank you.

Of course. Great addition, Yesenia.

Commissioner Crosby?

Thank you, Chair. With all this zoning changing that we're doing in Puyallup, I'm still not seeing any strategy of infrastructure with all our failing streets. And it seems like we're doing things backwards. I kind of mentioned this the first day I spoke, but I'm not seeing any infrastructure on strategies with all the density that we're trying to increase. We're trying to get to 60,000 by 2044. And I don't want to go back to 2044 and have to go in some kind of deficit because we're in an emergency. So I would like to see more strategy on the infrastructure, the lighting, some street cul-de-sacs that have never been completed. So many different ways to help the traffic community to get to the residents. So infrastructure is a big thing for me. I'm all about supportive zoning, but if I don't see a strategy for infrastructure, I really don't want to change anything till we see something like that.

Commissioner Landon?

Nothing to add tonight.

Commissioner Martin?

I think Commissioner Crosby hit it on the head there. Got a lot of plans, but if we don't have the infrastructure to support it, um, 24, 2044 is going to look a little ugly. Um, but with that being said, Kendall, congratulations. And, uh, man couldn't work for somebody or with somebody better.

Commissioner Washburn.

Nothing for me.

Vice chair.

Thank you. I, um, I'm also really, uh, in fully support of, of, uh, of the comments about density and infrastructure and so forth that Commissioner Crosby made. That bit of seriousness aside, tomorrow evening is the first of the summer concerts. And for people who like pop music or jazz, I'm not the best one to ask. It's a great community gathering, and we've certainly gone down and enjoyed it, and so I encourage everyone to do so.

Stole what I was going to say. I was going to mention the night concerts as well starting tomorrow. Thank you for all you've done. I also concur that I really wish the state before passing this bill had implemented some sort of infrastructure alignment with density. That's one of my frustrations also. um one last item and just because it hit me was i was walking here i was crossing the street right at the crosswalk and there's a big construction sign just to the left of the crosswalk if you're crossing from the park so just to the north which blocks any pedestrian visibility whatsoever so i'd love to see that sign moved just to south of the crosswalk Right here on the crosswalk, right in front of the building, if you're on the park side, there's a big, you know, just construction, orange construction sign right on the sidewalk to the north of the crosswalk. So those driving can see the flashing lights, but they can't see if anybody's there. And as the person crossing, being short, you can't see if people are coming. So just a thought. And with that, it is 8.07, and we are adjourned.