Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening. The Puyallup Planning Commission meeting for August 12th is now called to order at 630. 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. We have a forum for tonight's meeting.

Thank you. Item number two is approval of the agenda. Do I have a motion? So move.

Second.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? Thank you. Third item, approval of the minutes. This is approval of the July 8th, 2026 minutes. Do I have a motion? Motion. Do I have a second?

Second.

All in favor? Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Moving on to 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. And we do have Tom Utterback.

I believe your mic is off. Just hit the button right there. Hit a tap and test it.

Did it? Perfect.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. Tom Mutterbach with the Washington State Fair. We had submitted a letter dated August 11th to the... Planning Commission, and I will not, for sake of time, read from that right now. What I will say is if you read it, you'll see that it addresses a couple of zoning map amendment requests that the fair has, both dealing with this is all areas outside of the main fairgrounds area. Part of it is dealing with just base zone districts in two areas. And then there's also fair parking overlay that affects some other areas. Now the fair parking overlay in the zoning code was established a little over 30 years ago. It was created specifically for areas outside of the main fairgrounds owned by the fair where there was fair activity, particularly parking taking place. Yet today we have a lot of large, long-time fair parking areas that don't have that overlay. For instance, the red lot by Spark Stadium. There's a silver lot that is further west. Those were established in the 60s, 70s. There's others in the 80s, 90s. Our concern is zoning validity. There was a maintenance project on a... A lot a couple of years ago, and there was a real question of is this allowable under zoning, even though it had been there for 40 years. We finally worked through that with staff, but we would like to try to rectify that by extending this fair parking overlay, the very tool we have for this to these other fair lots that have been in continuous existence for quite a while. So the letter, though, deals principally with fair parking code standards, one in particular, and that's RV usage. And if you read the fair parking overlay, RV occupancy is allowed associated with the fair. And I'm principally talking about the west side of the fair along Fairview Drive. If you drive by there, you may notice there's a small RV parking area. It's been there for about 30 years. The fair considers it to be a pretty well maintained. It's owned by the fair. There's an onsite host. The fair keeps an eye on it and we're not aware of it being a real compatibility concern with the community. It's been there for a long time. It can be used by fair patrons and visitors and a lot of vendors and so forth. The fair gets a steady amount of requests from people who are not fair users, maybe Good Samaritan patients, et cetera, of could they also park there? And we are asking if that code could be amended to allow non-fair users in addition to. This would only be within the area of that requirement. Or area. In fact, we propose under option three tailoring it so would only be that area. So anyway, I'll stop at this point, happy to answer any questions later about any of this, but we would ask your consideration of both the amendment and map and text. Thank you.

Thank you. Commissioner to group.

I'd like to ask a question, if I could, to Mr. Urbach.

Yes, it's perfectly fine. And the Planning Commission's rules and procedures, as soon as you are done with your minute, your three minutes, or you yield your time, the Commission, at the permission of the Chair, is allowed to ask questions.

So my question is, if parking is allowed, would it be Only for events that are sort of under the fair sponsorship or you mentioned, for instance, Good Sam Hospital. What happens if you have a certain number of parking spaces taken up, not related to a fair event, and then a fair event comes along and you suddenly need more parking spaces than that lot can handle? Then what do you do then?

Can I ask a clarification, Commissioner DeGroote? Are you speaking about general vehicle parking on some of the- No, I'm sorry, RV parking.

Just RV?

Yeah. Oh, okay. Okay, for that RV area, if it was allowed for, well, there would be a maximum capacity of, I guess the fair would have to say no. For instance, when the Good Guys Auto Show was here a couple of weeks ago, it is just full up with fair visitors. And that would assume be a weekend that there wouldn't be any available for other people. I honestly don't know if there was like, let's say a youth sports tournament in town and a bunch of people wanted to be there. I think the fair would have some consideration. They keep historic records of, oh, this is the weekend of the sportsman show. We typically have 100 people who, this is just totally hypothetical, who want to use the RV space. We better make sure we can accommodate them because they may have some arrangements with vendors and people there. I'm just speaking that as an example. Am I answering, addressing the question?

Well, then I guess what I'm assuming is then you would perhaps block out, if you've got the spring fair coming, as for instance, for the dates of the spring fair, would you then block out the anticipated number of RV spaces for the fair so that those spaces would not be preoccupied by something else?

All right. This is just me speaking as a part-time employee. I would say yes, that seems to make sense. They do have a good sense of how many people come for the fair. They have arrangements, again, with their vendors and a lot of their big suppliers who may request that. So I would think that the fair would want to make sure that their people are taken care of, especially when they have contractual arrangements. And then it would just be if there is some extra somebody else could be done. That's how I would think it would logically be done.

So the grassy field that's right next to the RV parking lot, that's fair property as well, isn't that?

Yeah, most of that area.

Except for that one property out in the corner. So maybe even in advance, if the council approves this and so on and so forth, You might even give us a heads up maybe on if there would happen to be overflow parking, where would that be specifically rather than in just any other spot?

Okay. So Commissioner DeGroote, I'm going to actually address that. A lot of that grassy area is off limits because it's critical area or buffer.

Oh, it is.

So I think that they're limited to a certain amount of spots that they can. There is no overflow option there.

Yeah. And if I can just say, Commissioner DeGroote, that the number, what we proposed is in this option three. Right now, the code allows, and I honestly don't know where this number came from, 750 RVs in that area. I'll just say that is crazy high from the fair's perspective. We don't know why there are so many. We're proposing that be taken down to 130, which is the capacity of that area. We're not anticipating overflow somewhere else of RVs. We'd like them to be maintained in a spot where there is electricity or whatever is there. The fair is not interested in turning into a giant RV area outside of that. So I just say that if that's helpful.

All right.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I have one more question or a couple. So now that we're opening it up for more people to use the RV for like the hospital staying and other situations, what is going to be like the timeframe for people staying there? Is it going to be like seven to so many weeks or, I mean... Go ahead.

Yes, Commissioner Crosby. Right now, and I'm reading from the fair parking overlay, there is one section that allows during the fall and spring fair, and let's admit it, September's chaotic and a lot goes on over there then, but there is one section that allows, that doesn't have any duration limits or anything associated with the fair other than it's within the September fair or the spring fair. Then there is a section, the one that we actually are asking to amend, that says for all other events, which is all these other things, it's there is a time duration of right now it says no more than seven days. So we're never talking weeks and weeks. When we say a temporary RV lot, this is a very temporary RV. The fair is asking, could that be up to 14 days? and I'm not an expert on our RV that I was just told by the operations at the fair, that there is some legal issue of 14 days. They don't want to go beyond it because then it's considered a different type of RV park. They don't want to be. So the maximum that the fair is asking for is 14 days duration and the, um, I think staff was actually proposing language that would say that the fair and the onsite host is supposed to enforce that duration, which we totally agree with. We are not interested in this being some long-term. It's just temporary for temporary stays. Thank you.

Anyone else? Commissioner Landon, is your flag up?

There's extra flags. It just came that way.

Commissioner DeGroote?

Okay. If I could ask just one more question. I noticed that in the proposed changes, we have, and given that we're talking about that orange lot there, there are references in terms of both length of stay. And in terms of where's the other I'm looking for its length of say a number of vehicles. And it refers to the overlay for RS or RM. And I'm wondering, since that orange lot or the RV lot right now is entirely within an RS8. I mean, why do we have this or that?

The RM reference, Commissioner DeGroote, I believe was referring to the large, if you know the blue lot and the gold lot, those are the two lots on the side of South Meridian, if you drive along. And that's the RM areas that I believe this was referring to. It was the only fair parking overlay. It's part of those big lots. I'm not sure. That's kind of a remnant that there is a reference there to 100 vehicles being allowed in the RM area.

So forgive me. I feel like this is probably a question better suited to the city.

Okay, very good.

So I think we should move on if that's okay. Anyone else? Okay, so if there are no further comments, we will be moving on to the next agenda item. And that is Work Sessions 5A.

Good evening. My name is Nabila Comstock. I'm an associate planner with development and permitting services. Tonight I'll be presenting the proposed updates to the fair zone and fair parking overlay as part of phase two zoning code and map amendments. So as a quick refresher of the presentation given at the June 30th meeting, as part of the comp plan update, the fair future land use designation was assigned to a number of properties owned by the Washington State Fair. The fair had also requested additional map and code changes as part of the process, and the details of those requests are the topic of the work session tonight. So as covered in previous presentations, the fair has expressed interest in future mixed use development on fair owned properties outside of the fairgrounds boundary. To achieve this goal, staff supports adding additional implementing zones to the fair future land use designation. At the June Council study session, City Council also supported this approach. The proposed implementing zones And associated zoning map amendments would consist of the rezoning of the blue and gold lots along South Meridian to urban center mixed use, as well as the rezoning of the fair-owned parcels on the north side of 9th Avenue Southwest to Central Business District, CBD. The allowed uses of both UCX and CBD are generally consistent with the existing allowed uses of the zones right now, which are CG, general commercial, and RM20, which is one of our multifamily zones. But these other zones, CBD and UCX, would accommodate future mixed-use development. The fair has also expressed interest in amendments to the fair parking overlay. The overlay applies to properties under ownership of the Washington State Fair and allows for certain events associated with and independent of fairground activities largely related to parking. As part of the proposed zoning map amendments, the fair would like to extend the overlay to additional fair-owned parcels that have historically been used for fair parking as a means to bring these lots and their existing uses into conformance. In addition to zoning map amendments and minor code amendments, The fair is requesting that the overlay code be amended so that the use of an existing area within the overlay that has operated as an RV parking area for over 30 years is not restricted to specific fair or event related uses. Currently, the fair parking overlay allows for RV parking and occupancy use that's associated with the fall and spring fair. as well as events held at the fairgrounds subject to standards that restrict the number of vehicles per event as well as maximum time periods the fair is proposing to amend the rv parking section of the overlay code in order to more accurately encapsulate the existing rv parking operations on site and resolve any potential non-conforming issues the intent of the proposed amendment is to meet the needs of the community outside of fair specific or event related uses. The proposed code amendments would not result in the expansion of the RV area beyond its current footprint. And I've outlined that on the screen as well. To reduce the potential of expansion of the RV parking area and reduce issues regarding vehicle parking time limitations, staff would include a map or written physical boundary and has included the requirements for a designated site host to remain on premises as well. In previous meetings, staff received feedback regarding the potential impact of the expansion of the overlay on neighboring residentially zoned properties. Staff did want to note that the fair parking overlay chapter of the zoning code does have existing development and performance standards, such as required landscape setbacks from residentially zoned lots that don't have an overlay designation. It also has restrictions on material storage and vehicle storage in landscape setbacks, and it also has required parking setbacks. In addition to this, almost all parcels included in the expansion of the overlay have been under long-term Washington State Fair ownership and used historically for parking. Lastly, at the previous Planning Commission meeting, there were concerns regarding the application of the overlay to non-contiguous parcels that are located next to residential parcels, namely the Silver Lot, which is up there on the screen. The existing use of the Silver Lot is for fair employee parking, and the application of the overlay to this lot would bring the historic use of this lot into conformance with zoning. But as noted by Commission, it could allow for other permitted parking overlay uses on site as a result of the application of the overlay. In order to address this, it is an option to apply limitations to allowed uses on this lot, specifically if Commission would like to further limit use allowances outside of parking in this area. So next steps. So staff will return to Planning Commission in September for another work session to review phase two zoning map and code amendments prior to the public hearing in October. And that's all for my presentation.

Any comments or questions from the dais? I think we're good to continue.

Thank you.

Was that both A and B?

Oh, that was that was just that was just a thank you.

Did you want to have some? Okay, so Commissioner degree would like to have a comment.

So this is for my clarification. So I understand that this is, we're talking about two kinds of parking. One is general vehicle parking. Okay. So and that's where when we mentioned the hospital, I think we're talking about like the blue lot or something like that, that could be used, I'm assuming for that kind of thing.

So that is regarding the RV parking that Tom was talking about.

No, I'm talking about if it's non RV parking that that that would be allowed. not connected to an event in some of these other lots. That's what it looked like during your presentation. Am I correct?

Are you, I'm sorry, are you asking about vehicle parking?

Yes, yes, non-RV vehicle parking.

Okay, yes, so currently the fare parking overlay does allow for vehicle parking. It would, it's currently, I believe, applied to the blue and gold lot, and that expansion of the overlay would basically just be covering other fare lots, as shown on the screen here, like the green lot, the silver lot, just bring those into conformance.

Okay, yeah, I'm a big fan of not having those lots at empty. The other issue that comes to mind is the silver lot and the idea of using that for things other than parking, like for events or something. And I think that the residents living around that property should get fair warning about of what can be coming down the pike, because that's like a zoning change. And that could have a significant effect on some people's quality of life, let's say. So I would strongly urge that before that kind of step is taken, that there is a real communication with the community about that. Thank you.

Thank you.

I concur.

And I just have a couple of picky things. On page eight, under 2047-005, description and purpose. The last sentence... Where does it start? Wow, that's a run-on sentence. The FPO overlay... Can we just take out overlay and all of those? There's a few of them in there. ...are intended to allow certain events... Uses are no more disruptive to existing residential uses than is necessary as consistent with the comprehensive... Who decides what's necessary? I'm very... stressed by those kind of vague words. So I don't know if there's a better way to put that. I certainly don't have a suggestion. I just think that leaves it open to individual interpretation if necessary. Oh, and then I also just had a question about moving vehicles versus motor vehicle sales activities, but I think that I answered it in my own head, so... I think that's all I had. Commissioner DeGroote, were you showing something else?

One other thing that there seems to be an inconsistency about setbacks. So if you look at PMC 20.37, establishes required development performance standards. Number one under that is landscaped setbacks saying there shall be a 25 foot landscape yard setback along all fair zone boundaries that are common with any RSRM or PDR. And I know that's been taken out zoned property. Now on the other hand, in 2047, Um, uh, it says that the, uh, uh, boundary shall be 15 feet and, uh, landscape set back. This is 20 47, 0 2 0. Um, number one, and it comes up back again at number three. And so the, it seems that those two things aren't in alignment. Um, 37 says all. This says specific to parking areas, so I don't know if that language needs to be adjusted or what.

Can you cite the 2037 code section for me, please?

The 37? Yeah. Yeah, 37 is, I don't have the big number. The following uses are permitted in the fare zone is one heading. That's not going to be in your packet. Our packet. It's not in our packet. It's in the.

In just the general code. Yeah.

Yeah.

So I don't have that in front of me, but that's something I will make sure to take a look at.

Okay.

They are different code sections though. So the fair zone is the actual underlying base zone and then the overlays, anything applied on top of that. But I'll make sure to take a look at what you're referencing and make sure that there aren't inconsistencies there with setbacks.

Yeah. Thank you. Appreciate it.

Commissioner Barney?

Just a question. As we increase more use of these off-site parking, it has the potential of having a lot more events going on with the fair. So I'm a little concerned about the residents that live around there, like lighting, parking for the neighborhood that lives there. Also, increased traffic on a continuous basis. I think it's pretty annoying when you're used to one level and all of a sudden it increases. So I'm just curious what's going to be done so that every night or all through the winter or whatever, I'm exaggerating, I know, but that the neighbors don't have to deal with this extreme lighting going on all the time that's over the parking lots.

Right. So we do have in the property development and performance standards in 2047020 for the overlay. It does have standards and regulations for outdoor lighting and parking. I do acknowledge that applying the true overlay zoning to these lots will allow for different uses so that's something we can take a look at if like much like the silver lot if commission does want to see limited uses um for special events and whatnot on these other lots that's something we can look into um i don't have the map in front of me of which fair parking overlay or which parcels already have the fair parking overlay applied to currently so those do currently exist um But yeah, we can definitely look into the difference in those maps and bring that to the next meeting as well.

Okay. It's going to increase, I'm sure. I mean, I'm sure that the fair footprint and the fair employees want to increase it. That's just more revenue for them. But again, you've got to take care of the people that are there right now, the residents, because they're going to have concerns.

Thank you.

Commissioner Crosby.

So have we done an outreach in these certain areas that since we want to change these to the neighbors and everything, like kind of what he was saying?

We haven't done outreach yet, but that is definitely something that I'm planning to work on. So after this, taking your feedback, doing outreach to neighboring parcels. So I realize that you have the map on here and it is also in your packet. It's the map that has the orange. So it has where the overlay currently applies and then the new lots that the overlay is applying to, we would do outreach to neighboring property owners, especially those in residentially zoned areas to let them know what the implications of applying the fair parking overlay to a neighboring parcel would mean and also what it wouldn't mean and also invite them to the public hearing as well to give their feedback.

Anyone else? Okay, now I think we're good to go.

Thank you.

By my account, We should now be to five B and that's phase two zoning code and map amendments, please.

Oh, I think I'm sharing. Rachel Brown, Associate Planner with the Plane Division. Am I sharing on the Zoom meeting? I believe I am. No, it's not. Oh, it says sharing. Okay. It's not sharing. It's okay. That's all right. Okay. All right, we got it working. All right. All right, here to present to the Planning Commission yet another item for our Phase 2 Zoning Map and Code Amendments. These are kind of a couple of miscellaneous items. So first, we're going to go through an expansion of the Mixed Use Design Review Overlay. deleting the chapter for our professional office zone, and then a general overview of some upcoming changes to our commercial zones and then some next steps for our next couple of work sessions this year. So yet another overlay we're gonna talk about tonight. So we have a design review overlay called our mixed use design review overlay, and we are proposing an expansion to that overlay area. So why expand this mixed use design review overlay? So the overlay itself ensures a higher architectural and site design quality for development projects. And we're just proposing to extend and expand this overlay to mixed-use zones that were already expanded last year as part of the Phase 1 zoning or are proposed to be expanding this year as part of as part of our phase two zoning. So we typically apply this design review overlay to our mixed use zones. So that's why we think it's appropriate to apply it to these newly rezoned parcels that have been zoned mixed use. The only parcels we'd exclude would be our limited mixed use zones. And that's because we're planning to apply those or that zoning to kind of really small parcels, they wouldn't meet the threshold to have this level of architectural design done to them. It's really more for bigger development projects, so we didn't think that would really be appropriate in those areas. So this map was included in your packet. It just shows the areas that the mixed use design review overlay already applies to. That's in that black hashed marking. That's in the generally the South Hill area. And then the green hash marking shows the areas it would be expanded to within the city. And then the next item, you've seen this before, the proposal is just to repeal the entire chapter that makes our professional office zone. The reason we're repealing the chapter is because the plan is to remove the zone itself from the zoning map. And so we don't wanna have a ghost code out there, if you will, of a zoning chapter that isn't actually implemented on the zoning map. So these next couple of slides just show the areas that are proposed to be rezoned from professional office to some other zone, which again would result in no zones in the city having OP zoning. And now I'm gonna invite our planning manager, Chris Beale, up to talk about commercial zone amendments.

Thanks, Rachel. Hi, my name's Chris Beale. I'm a planning manager here with the city of Puyallup. So I just wanted to go through a couple of the future amendments. These are not in your packet, but you will see these in an immediately upcoming agenda in September. But we wanted to preview these now. There are some supporting amendments to our commercial zones. Again, this is part of the package six of the workbook program items. The C zone amendments would relate to the deletion of the references to the limited commercial zone. Again, just as a recap, if you guys will remember when Kendall presented in July, the LMX rezone project is to rezone the properties that were zoned office professional, what Rachel just mentioned, and the limited commercial zone. Those two zones are being sunset. That was part of the comp plan process. The future land use map changes would support rezoning those parcels to LMX. We'll be coming back to you in September with the full map on that. I think Kendall also showed that to you in July as well. So there would be deletions of references to limited commercial as part of that cleanup. There are two conflicting code sections in our C zones that we've known about for a while related to auxiliary and accessory dwelling units, and they seem to duplicate some of our standards. Some of the recent changes, both in our municipal code and state law around ADUs, necessitates that we try to reconcile some of those requirements and streamline those two code sections. We're also looking at streamlining our EV infrastructure code, which was established about 15 or 16 years ago, some of which is out of date now with the building code. There's some references in the EV infrastructure chapter in the C-Zones code that we're preemptively removing in anticipation that that EV infrastructure code chapter will be deleted eventually because we frankly just rely on the building code at this point. We're also streamlining some of the duplication of our design review requirements. So there's repeats of code regulations for downtown design guidelines and the design review board's role in that that's duplicated in the authority chapter under the design review board that just doesn't need to be in the C-zones. It's a cleanup essentially. We also have site plan design principle setbacks. This is kind of our site organization standards for any kind of new commercial development. We're doing some cleanups on that. We've got that actually in a few different code sections in our design review, in our mixed use code, and in our commercial zone code. There's some options in there that just need to be cleaned up. We implemented that about 10 years ago. It's worked well for our site design requirements, but there's some things in there just in terms of ease of implementation and explaining how it works to customers that frankly, is a little bit complicated and we need to simplify that. So we'll be showing those actual code text amendments again in September. The other things are related to state laws. So again, the state seems to continue to churn through preemptive requirements for local jurisdictions, we'll say. One of which in 2025 was Senate Bill 5509. This is related to daycare centers. So cities must allow daycare centers. Those are daycare facilities that are 13 and above are licensed by the state. So these are not family daycare providers. People live in home and provide daycare. These are the larger centers that are licensed for commercial purposes. Cities must allow these permitted outright so they can't be conditionally permitted. Within all commercial zones, there's some exceptions for industrial zones that we're not dealing with in this code chapter. We'll be dealing with it actually in our M zones chapter that we will be previewing with you in September. And the city may impose reasonable restrictions including pickup and drop off areas. The nice thing is we already basically do allow these. We have some restrictions in some of our zones that require that they be accessory to a principal employer that the state law seems to be indicating we need to delete. So it's fairly minor changes on the edges, but it is something we need to do for cleanup with the state law changes. And then in the most recent legislative session, Senate Bill 6026, this is requiring that cities allow residential land uses in commercial zones and they cannot require mixed use or ground floor commercial as a condition of permitting in general. And what the legislation says is the cities can actually restrict permitting place those type of mixed use restrictions on up to 40% of our zoning. We have started to work on this. Planning Commission may remember an amendment package from earlier this year that Kendall worked on that moved our mixed use chapter to allow residential as either standalone or as an option as mixed use so it doesn't require mixed use anymore like it used to. The C zones chapter would basically do the same thing. Right now in our C zones we've always allowed residential or for a very long time, probably since the 90s. But we do require in all of our commercial zones that there's a 50-50 floor square footage mix. So if you built like 3,000 square feet of commercial on a ground floor, the maximum amount of residential is 3,000. It doesn't relate back to the dwelling unit. So it's kind of confusing, to be honest. We would need to get rid of that to essentially clean this up. And that's kind of the main cleanup there. There is a requirement for commercial street frontages in limited instances on Meridian and the intervening one block off of Meridian. And because that's a small percentage of our commercial zones, we would keep that as a requirement. Okay, so that is the commercial code. I want to walk through next steps, but also respect the fact that Rachel did go through her item. And if there are questions on that, we can tag team on responding to that. We do have microphones at the table. But just for next steps. So as you guys know, this is part of package six. Package six is part of the work plan. We've done quite a few of the work plan items already, I think. four of the six we have already worked on, including an add-on was the urban agriculture stuff that our code enforcement officer came and spoke to you about recently. So we're working through the items that council directed us to work on in 2026. We do have pretty hefty agenda coming up in September on September 9th. No, we did move the planning commission to once a month. I think we're going to pull the planning commission on having a second meeting in September, just to make sure that all of these packages of amendments are clear before we go into a public hearing in October. We do have a short window to get these to city council because this is a budget year. So their agendas are very full in September and October with budget. But we do have a couple of meetings in November and only one meeting in December to get the code package to them. As the Planning Commission may be familiar, we only can amend the comp plan once a year. So we do need to amend that by the end of the year. We have more minor amendments than if you compare them to the code amendment package. We have some text amendments and a few map amendments for the comp plan that we'll be reviewing on September 9th. So the zoning map, the future land use map amendments, most of which you've already seen. Again, Kendall did a really good job of previewing that, those amendments in July. Rachel mentioned some of that tonight with the mixed use designer view overlay extensions. We also have some draft comp plan text amendment to the land use element and the river road sub area plan or river road element to support some of the code work that council did earlier this year on auto related uses in the RMX or the river road mixed use zone. We do have some zoning code updates. Kendall again previewed some of this. I don't know to what level, but we do have the LMX rezones, which are part of the zoning map updates. We do need to change some of the allowances in LMX to be more neighborhood scale. That was part of the neighborhood commercial or the NC lane use designation. process in the comp plan. We want to limit what uses can go into these neighborhood nodes to be very specific and very small scale and not scary. So we have some amendments in our mixed use chapter there. In the manufacturing zone, again, this was referenced in the meeting in July, we'll be making some amendments kind of similar to the fair where we have a large property owner, Ben Arroyo, who owns the business park campus that the public safety building is now currently on, where they've requested some changes to the business park zone to facilitate their future use on that property that we'll be previewing with you. And then the commercial zones, the stuff that we just reviewed, will bring the actual text to you on September 9th. We're hoping on September 23rd that we can have that second meeting. Hopefully it will be a short meeting. I think we just want to make sure that we wrap all of this up, right? So from June and July all the way to September, we don't want you guys to feel fragmented that we reviewed these all in different meetings and we didn't necessarily see one consolidated package before the hearing. So we just want to do sort of out of an abundance of caution in working with the commission to give you guys one sort of last look and review on the complete package by the end of September. The October meeting is going to be at the end of October, again because Council has a budget. They actually have this room tied down for that first Wednesday in October, so we do need to shift to October 28th for the public hearing. Hopefully we'll be able to get out the packet a little bit early so you'll have it in advance. As Nabila mentioned, we are going to be doing public engagement. We're going to be doing quite a bit of public engagement, probably more than we have in the past. With the rezones, we have a number of parcels that are going to be rezoned. We've actually started working on that public engagement right now, a survey, a mailer. We're going to actually have some signs that we're going to post probably out in the community to let people know this is going on. So a little bit more than usual. In the past, we've done fairly minimal public outreach on some of these map amendments. We had some code that said that if they were area-wide rezones, there were some exemptions for mailing properties if it exceeded a very large number of mailers. So I think we could see a more robust public hearing as a result of that and more community engagement, which will be really good. We'll also be doing a survey as part of those mailers. So hopefully people will engage with the survey and we'll get some feedback, particularly on the LMX rezones is what we're particularly interested in. that's kind of our next steps and just a preview of the next couple months just so you guys know we're in a our division is in a state of transition I know you guys have probably seen me occasionally a few faces here I haven't seen before I'm not a new hire I've been here at the city for 18 years I was more in the current planning role for the last 18 years when Katie was here and When Katie moved to Sumner and Kendall also moved over to Sumner a few weeks ago, there's been some reshuffling. So we're pretty short. This is basically almost the entire planning department at the moment. We have one other person we're hiring for a couple of new people, but we're working really hard to work through these items to get to this end goal. And hopefully we can continue to work with you guys closely on these amendments. I'm happy to answer any questions on the actual amendments. I didn't mean to fly through this and ignore if you have any questions about the code items. We can go backwards or answer any questions.

Vice Chair. Thank you much. Um, yeah, my question is, could you dive a little more deeply into design review overlay. In other words, what does that mean, what are the consequences, maybe a little more detail on that. Why, why have a design review overlay, for instance.

Yeah, so obviously I don't have the code in front of me, so I'm not going to go into too much detail. But in the case of the mixed-use design review overlay, like I mentioned in my slide, it's intended to provide architectural and site design that's more robust and the idea is higher standard for kind of bigger projects. If I remember correctly, in the case of the mixed-use design review overlay, the threshold for requiring that more robust design review is a project that's over 4,000 square feet in structural area. The hope is to have a more urban design that is more robust. pedestrian-friendly and meets the aesthetic qualities that the city likes to see. More windows, a facade that's a little more interesting at the streetscape, and kind of features like that. So the way that we achieve that goal in is by having these these tools like for example this design review overlay so that we select specific areas in the city where the city would like to have these higher standards of architecture applied to the streetscape or to the architecture and apply those to these areas

Just to jump in just for, thanks. Do you mind if I jump in? Is that okay? Not at all. I wanted to display the map too, just to talk about the sequencing and why these amendments specifically are proceeding now. So the overlay exists, I think as Rachel mentioned during the presentation, the overlay applies to our mixed use zones. It does have a little bit of a higher standard if you compare it to like our commercial zone design requirements like Rachel detailed really well there. So the the map amendments that are shown here are twofold. So one, the council in the final adoption process of the comp plan rezoned the green portion of meridian uh from basically the edge of the south hill center all the way up to the meridian and 512 interchange most of that was a council policy decision during the final comp plan adoption process and during that process because it was a zoning map amendment we didn't We just basically didn't catch the overlay. It wasn't part of the amendment the council moved to rezone those areas. The motion or the amendment from council was to rezone them and the overlay was not part of that. So it's simply cleaning up that, I wouldn't call it a mistake. It just was an oversight when council made that policy decision to rezone those. The other parcels that are shown here, Nabila talked about the fair parcels that are going to be going to UCX. So those are the parcels, if my cursor shows up there, ones that are north of 512 that are fair owned. So that's consistent with what Nabil is working on for the fair rezones. And then if you can remember, and we will preview this again, these ones out here near Shaw and Pioneer, the CMX zone, I know that Kendall presented on this in July, the CMX zone is being sunset as part of the LMX rezones. So those parcels on the east side of Shaw Road, north of Pioneer, that are near the park. Those will be going from CMX to UCX. CMX has a very interesting design requirement. We wrote that code in about 2009-2010 to sort of be a master plan requirement because it's undeveloped farmland. We had an idea that it basically would be sort of a design review by master plan as opposed to like an overlay. So once you delete the CMX zone and the master plan overlay requirements, you need to apply the standard overlay The parcels on the west side of the Charlotte overpass. Some of those are zoned arrow in general commercial, those will be rezoned UCX as well as part of this process and the overlay would apply there. So just to supplement with Rachel. Well explained.

Commissioner Barney.

The question to follow up on what was asked. So, Is it going to be criteria for the developer's architect to know exactly what a design is and their standards?

Yeah, and I would say that MXD already exists. We're not proposing a change at this time, the design review standards in that code section. They're pretty explicit about what the standards are. There are other design, I know we've previewed with you guys, changes to our design review standards, which we've put that project on hold for now. It's probably going to be coming back next year. So for now we're keeping actually our design standards as they are. I, in my opinion, the design review standards for the design review overlay are actually pretty clear and objective compared to some of our other standards.

And Commissioner, just so you know, this is in every jurisdiction, every single jurisdiction and specifically like historic districts and things like that have very specific elevation requirements, variations in elevations, how many different materials you have to have on a facade. You know, there are a lot of things that doesn't specifically it's not like an HOA that says you can only paint in these colors, but it definitely provides very clear guidelines when you're designing. Commissioner Crosby. Oh, I'm sorry. Go ahead.

Another question, different topic. On the professional office zone.

Commissioner Barney, I think your mic's off. I'm sorry for the interruption.

Thank you. The professional office zone that's being eliminated, that category, just following up from before I asked the question, are the businesses in that area going to be notified that that's been changed? Yeah. Okay. That's all. Thank you.

Commissioner Crosby.

So as we're talking about the Shaw Road, is there going to be any infrastructure planning that comes with any of this if we're changing any to the UCX and all that? Because it's going to get more bottlenecked once we start putting more stuff in there. So that is a major problem with Puyallup with all our intersections. So I still would like to see some plans that go with all these zoning changes as we build more.

Well, to answer your question about infrastructure planning, so that's what the conference of plan process is, particularly for transportation. So when we do the transportation element, we hire a consultant. The consultant gathers traffic data, current traffic data, and determines the level of service delay at every intersection in the city, particularly large ones. Pioneered Shaw, particularly large, near capacity, as probably everybody knows.

Thanks.

That intersection obviously does need to be monitored because it is near level of service capacity under both the current zoning, which is mixed use, and then the future zoning, which is mixed use. There's some slight variations in the amount of density that's allowed in each of those zones, but that generally is reviewed during our comprehensive plan update process when they develop the traffic model. And then they assign capital projects to that that are adopted in the capital facility element and the transportation improvement plan. And then the city engineer works on implementing those projects when council budgets for them.

Okay. Well, that kind of doesn't help, but I just feel like that we're not paying any attention to our infrastructure when it comes to all this. And that's what I hear everywhere is all our failing intersections. And we don't, we are always playing catch up and, I don't want to play catch up in 2044 when we're totally bottlenecked and then we have to rush and get things fixed. So I'd rather do it now and think about that so we don't have to answer these questions back in the day. Yeah.

So, and to answer the other thing too, and I'm sure Tracy knows this as well, but, you know, when we do development review, we also require developers to make improvements to offset their impacts. That's a requirement as part of SEPA environmental review. So, for example, let's say that area, when you're coming up over the Shawward Overpass, you've got the wing wall that comes down near the warehouse building that's already there. So that intersection is not signalized. If any development went in there, we would require a traffic report. They would have to build the signal intersection, put in probably turnpockets, and they'd have to do all that at their own expense, not the public's expense or anything like that. So it's layered. We require things of developers based on the level of service standard that's adopted in the comp plan, but also larger capital projects are put into the TIP and we do apply for grants and work on those. You're right though, and I'm not trying to make excuses like, Over time, and particularly because we have other sources of input into the city like county development beyond that. There is degradation of level of service. There's traffic impacts. So there's a combination of both. Development has to offset their impacts to meet the level of service standards, and that's done through SEPA. And then the city tries to do the larger capital projects where we need to acquire new right-of-way or make significant major improvements that can't be applied to development. So I get what you're saying, and I'm not trying to make excuses. I'm just explaining how we look at it from the development review and the

Developers also are on the hook for traffic impact fees, and a lot of that goes direct, I mean, all of it goes directly back into the community. And also street improvements, not just the streets, but the entire frontage improvement usually is on the developer as well, putting in curbs, putting in landscape strips, doing all of that lighting, the whole bit is part of that package. So it's not just our budget that's on the hook. And believe me, I don't always agree with the traffic impact fees. I think that they are incredibly prohibitive for small projects. But I mean, there are funds there that go directly towards infrastructure.

Yeah, even though I hear from the constituents all the time, I think the city can concentrate a little bit better on our infrastructure problem because that is the only major thing I keep hearing especially in that area, is our infrastructure. Are we gonna do anything about our infrastructure as we build?

Well, and I think also the parking overlay and opening up these lots on items that are not specifically fair adjacent does then, I think as was mentioned already, we're used to the traffic. I mean, I live a block from the fair now. I'm used to it during September. I'm used to it during February and the odd days when graduation is going on or whatever else. I don't want it all year round because all these other parking lots are now open and the fair can be doing other things. So, I mean, I do think that's a concern.

And I think, too, what we could think about doing as a future item for the Planning Commission is we could have our city engineer come and explain the process of applying for grants, design work. I mean, Shaw Road, we've been applying for grants for years for Shaw Road. We just can't seem to get the grants because... Frankly, we don't have an urban center that connects the portions of Shaw Road. A lot of it's low-density residential, and a lot of the grant programs are tied to, does the roadway connect to an urban growth center? Does it connect to a regional growth center? Does it connect to countywide growth centers? And In the large part, we just have a lot of congestion on Shaw Road. Not to make that as one example, but we have a lot of congestion out there, and it's difficult to apply for grants because of the criteria. Hans, our city engineer, I think it would be informative if you guys are interested in learning more about that. We could line that presentation up.

I think that would be a great idea. But probably not in September.

No, not in September. Maybe later.

Commissioner Varney.

Thank you. I keep forgetting to do that. So Shaw Road from Maine all the way to the top of the hill is backed up. And so if you're going to add new development there, there's just, he's not going to be able to pay, any developer's not going to be able to pay for widening Shaw Road all the way up to the top of the hill. So it's a timing thing. And so if it's approved, it's just going to get worse. So if the development is approved in those lots, he's not going to pay for everything. And now you're stuck with even more traffic. And if you put a light where you're talking about putting a light there, it's even going to make it worse. So somebody needs to sit down and look at that area and really think about what needs to be done. Because you travel on it from, what, about 9 o'clock in the morning till about 2 o'clock, you're good. After that, you're done. I would just encourage the city to take a serious look at that area and development in that area to try and improve that some way. Because, I mean, even right now, when you're going toward south on Shaw Road, that new apartment building, you can't turn left off of Shaw Road under there. It's not allowed. There's only one entrance going, and that's going down Pioneer. It's just, it's a mess right now.

Brett KenCairn, yeah I mean, I think the city engineer in the city council all know that the Council could adopt a moratorium, but they I don't think they're going to do that.

Brett KenCairn, Mr Martin.

Brett KenCairn, Since we're speaking about Shaw road i'll take it back to one of my common comments we still live next to a active volcano, that is, was our zone, and that is one of the few evacuation routes out of the city. maybe we can't get grants for improving due to residential traffic. But if we looked at it as a community safety issue, we're not going to be able to get up that hill. There are very few ways out of downtown. And at that end, well, if you're trying to make it up there, it just won't happen. So we have that going on. But I think the rest, it could be said that's true for many of our other routes out of the city. No.

That's a very good point. Vice Chair?

I think one of the things to think about is the very expensive project of adding lanes to Shaw Road down the hill. is realistically, it's going to move the bottleneck from 12th Avenue South to 23rd Avenue South. It's just going to move it. It's a huge amount of money to be spending on not really solving the problem the same way that turnpockets and traffic lights don't solve the problem. The problem is number of cars on a road. And the problem is there aren't enough roads. It's a very simple idea. It's really simple. Instead of adding more lanes, you need to disperse the traffic. You need more roads. And nobody's talking about that. Nobody's talking about that yet. But at some point, at some point, in regard to what all of our other commissioners are saying, You know, it's going to take a major disaster, just like it's going to take a major fire burning half the city before we do something about outlawing fireworks in the city in this climate. And with the standing dead timber in our parks, there's lots of things that really need to be improved now, not put off. Anyway, thank you.

Commissioner Crosby, is your flag up?

Yes. On that note, what Dave was talking about, just like that cul-de-sac thing that you have project up there on this side of Shaw Road where you're building two cul-de-sacs and you're extending it and you're making a walkway, which that would be a good access emergency route, just like he was saying, to where we're only making that a three-quarters where we could make that a whole street go through. I know some of the neighborhoods probably don't like it, but I think that would be a good planning to the east and west roads, like Dave was talking, that we can work on that even better to get our roads, at least for the residents that are around that area, that could help them out too, and possibly a little bit farther. But some of the plans going east and west, I think we could do better.

Anyone else? Well, thank you all. And that is moving us to staff report, if you had already given it.

Well, I think, yeah, probably just in covering these next steps, I think we've kind of covered our bases in terms of where we're going from here. So yeah, happy to answer any questions. If you guys need anything, just call or email and we can help out.

Thank you. Yes.

So now that Kendall's gone, we do have questions. Who do we address them to?

If it's a specific agenda item on a published agenda, look for the staff person that's listed. If not, you can contact me. You can contact Yesenia. The clerk's office generally, if it's a general question about commission scheduling or something like that, Yesenia or the clerk's office would be the person. But if it's a specific item, try to reach out to the planner that's listed in the agenda item.

Would it be appropriate now to take a poll and see about a second meeting in September then?

Oh.

Anybody thoughts? I feel like it's a great idea instead of doing one super long one. Anyone else?

I second it.

I think we're all in agreement then that we would like to add that second meeting. Does it need to be an official motion?

We don't need an official motion since it's in our rules of procedure. We could be flexible with that and we'll communicate with you all once we have that established agenda.

Perfect. And then I believe that moves us on to Commissioner comments. Commissioner Barney, anything today?

Nothing today.

Commissioner Crosby?

Well, the same thing. I'm just on this infrastructure everybody's talking about, so we don't play catch-up mode with our roads and capacity with all our failing intersections. We need help on our infrastructure planning.

Thank you. Commissioner Landon?

Well, if we're going to talk infrastructure, I think, you know, it goes both ways. I think we have streets that need calming measures and specifically when I think about like 23rd that I live off of. But, you know, I think connectivity is the key, not necessarily capacity. There's lots of, there's very limited ways up and down or across a lot of these areas. I think that's probably the constraint. I'm not sure what the planning commission's role will be in any of that, if anything. But yeah, those are interesting topics. So thanks for people bringing them up.

Thank you. Commissioner Merton, anything this evening?

Just one last. I was with the Fredrickson Planning Commission, I don't know, about nine, ten years ago. And what we were told was develop, develop, develop. We're going to put in all these industrial areas. It's going to bring awesome jobs. And, you know, this is the way to go. What we got instead were warehouses and awful traffic. If you've tried to drive on Canyon in the last three or four years, you know what I'm talking about. That's what I don't want to see happen with Puyallup. Zoning has a lot to do with it, and we're seeing more and more, as you said, the state getting in front of things and telling us how to do what they want. without the necessary funds to support that either. And I really appreciate Commissioner Crosby bringing that up. And, you know, our infrastructure definitely got to get in front of it.

Thank you. Commissioner Washburn?

Nothing for me.

Vice Chair? Nothing at this time. And I'm going to take us completely away from all of this. On August 30th, the last Sunday of the month, at Old Town Dock, which is the first dock as you enter Reston Way, from 9.15 until 12.15, there is a dive cleanup, a group of divers from... I believe it's underwater sports in Tacoma as well as some of their other chapters. We'll be diving in the Sound and bringing up a whole bunch of bottles and PVC pipe and anything else that doesn't belong in the Sound. We need volunteers for the ground crew because when they bring that up there's a lot of critters in there and we help them back into the Sound. It's a great opportunity to see what lives in our Sound. We did the last one on Earth Day. And we got to see baby octopus and shrimp and squids and all sorts of fun stuff. And it's just a great cause. So if anybody's interested, again, that is the 30th from 9.15 to noon about. And with that, we are adjourned at 7.40.