Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening. The PLA Planning Commission meeting for September 9th, 2026 is now called to order.

Number one, roll call. Will the clerk please call the roll? Commissioner Washburn? Present. Commissioner Barney?

Present.

Commissioner Martin is excused. Commissioner Crosby.

Present.

Commissioner Landon.

Present.

Vice Chair DeGroote.

Present.

Chair Taylor.

Present. We have a quorum. Thank you. Next item is approval of the agenda. Do I have a motion to approve?

So move.

Do I have a second?

Second.

All in favor? Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? Next item, item number three is approval of the minutes. Again, do I have a motion? So move. Do I have a second?

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? Moving on, citizen comments. Seeing no one present today, and I understand we have nothing online or entered the clerk's office, we'll be moving on to item number five, work sessions. 5A is phase two zoning map amendments, package six of DPS work plan and associate planner, Rachel Brown.

Thank you, Chair, Planning Commission. Rachel Brown with the Planning Division here to present to you actually a couple of items. So I've actually consolidated them into one presentation. I'm so sorry, it's not logged in anymore. I'm sorry, it was logged in just a moment ago. So just give me a minute. All right. The rescue. Thank you. Okay. All right. So as I mentioned, I've consolidated all of our items for tonight into one presentation. So those include phase two items. It's part of our work program for this year. So that's phase two of our zoning changes to implement our comp plan that was adopted last year. So be looking at proposed zoning maps future land use maps and various text amendments to both the comp plan and our zoning code tonight. So i'm going to do a little little bit out of order from what's the list in your agenda packet just to keep the maps together and then to go over the text amendments together. So first we'll go and we'll look over the zoning map amendments. Then we'll go to the future land use map amendments, their associated code text or comp plan text amendments. That'll be to the land use element and the river road corridor plan. And then we'll look over the zoning code amendments that you have not seen yet throughout this year. So those will be the mixed use zones, manufacturing zones, commercial zones, and changes to our definitions chapter. And then we'll go over next steps for your next couple of meetings. So first we'll be looking at the zoning map amendments. So you have already reviewed at a couple of your meetings proposed changes to the zoning maps. Most of them implement direction from our comp plan process last year. So tonight we're just going to focus on some changes since your last meeting. But I just wanted to give an overview of kind of the overall project or what the rezones attempt to do, most of the things you've already seen, as I pointed out. So generally speaking, the zoning map amendments aim to rezone several areas to limited mixed use, rezone an area of the Shaw Pioneer area, rezone the South Hill Business and Technology Park, mostly the frontage of that site, eliminate limited commercial and office professional zone from the zoning map and rezone several parcels that are owned by the Western Washington fair and adjust the fair parking overlay. So first we'll just briefly go over the maps that are not changing that you've already seen. So this is the area of Shaw Pioneer. There are a couple of parcels to the north there of Pioneer that are slated to be rezoned to UCX, which is a mixed use zone. These are a couple of the parcels that are owned by the fair that are slated to be rezoned to either mixed use or central business district. And the next couple of slides are several parcels that have been identified to be rezoned to limited mixed use. Several of these you'll note are being rezoned in order to eliminate the CL and OP zones from the zoning maps. So now we'll focus on the changes to the zoning maps, since the July 8 planning Commission meeting when we last brought these to you. So one of the first changes is we've identified three additional existing neighborhood businesses that staff is proposing to rezone to LMX. We also have identified several parcels along 3rd Street Southeast and 2nd Street Southeast between 7th Avenue Southeast and 4th Avenue Southeast to be rezoned to a single family zone, RS6, instead of LMX, which was previously proposed. And we've also identified a couple of existing utility parcels that we would instead propose to rezone to the public facility zone, rather than rezone them to UCX, which was previously proposed. So I've circled on the maps the new sites that we have identified. So here are the three sites we've identified. Again, these are sites that are existing commercial businesses that serve a neighborhood use. And so we think this would be an appropriate rezone to LMX. This is the site that we have identified that has existing single-family use, so we propose to rezone that to a single-family zone, RS6. And then the area of the South Hill Business and Technology Center is already slated to be rezoned to UCX. However, we did identify a couple of parcels that were going to be rezoned to UCX, but since they are existing utilities, we thought it more appropriate to rezone them to a public facility zone. So that's the zoning map changes. So the next item is the future land use map amendments. They're associated comp plan text amendments, which include amendments to the land use element and the river road corridor plan.

Thank you.

My question is these alterations of land use map The comp plan, do those have to go to the city council for approval?

Yes, all of this will have to go to city council for approval.

Okay, very good. Thank you.

So the map changes to the future land use map. So we will be modifying the land use element map to create a new fan future land use designation called mixed employment business park designation me dash BP. which will be exclusive to the implementing business park or MP zone district. The plan is to reverse the future land use designation of a collection of properties at the corner of 15th Avenue and South Meridian back from MUC to CG per the property owner's preference. And a couple of minor changes to the future land use designation to harmonize them with those three parcels I pointed out that we've identified to rezone to LMX. In order to rezone them to LMX, we need to change their future land use designation on the future land use map as well. So the first one I I mentioned, which is creating a new future land use designation called me BP this would be applied to this one parcel, which is at the South hill business and technology Center site. We would also do a very minor adjustment to the muc border of that site that's just adjust for a shift in parcel lines related to a subdivision that was done.

I believe Vice Chair has a question.

I'd like to ask if you could give us a complete definition or description of what is allowed in the MEBP zone. Yes, exactly what businesses are allowed, what kinds of businesses are allowed in that zone.

Do you want me to look at the code, Rachel? Vice Chairman, my name is Chris Beal with the Planning Division. Let me pull up the code for you.

Some of these things have not yet made it into the city's definitions page.

So there's a number of land uses that are allowed in the manufacturing zones. The MP zone, and some of these are land use categories, so you have to read the definitions to ferret out what land uses are allowed within them. But right now, and this is the current code, we actually do have draft code language in the packet, which will add some land uses to it. But public service uses, business park uses, auxiliary dwelling units, hazardous waste treatment and storage as a conditional use permit, research and development, administrative offices, accessory daycare facilities, independent daycare facilities or CUP, although that's changing because of state law. on-premises, employee cafeterias and auditoriums, offices, corporate in general, electric vehicle infrastructure, and that's it. And then there are, do you know what page that's on, Rachel?

I'm trying to find it. Okay.

There are draft amendments under 5B for the M zones, which will include some requested land uses from the property owner.

Yeah, I remember. So a couple of meetings ago, we had discussions about what would be, excuse me, in that mixed employment part of it. And apparently we gave some opinions about what we liked or didn't like in that. And one of those things that had come up a few times is warehouses. And warehouses seem, although they're in the definition, seems not very appropriate for that particular area. And so I'd like to see if we can go back as a commission and review some of these uses. Yeah.

I concur. I feel like there's been a pretty broad brush on what's allowed in some of these zones. And I'd like to get that a little bit more pinpointed if possible.

And by the way, the draft amendments to that table on pages 37 and 38, PDF pages 37 and 38 of the packet. And warehouse and distribution is proposed to be permitted at the property owner's request. We did get mixed feedback from council on this too. Some council members indicated some concern about warehousing and distribution. So it definitely wasn't unanimous support for either allowing it or disallowing it from council.

I mean, I also feel like part of, especially with warehousing and distribution, since you bring that up, you know, trucks take up a lot of room. Not just being there, but backing in, driving around. That's a lot of paved surfaces. It just seems prohibitive in some ways to what the feel should be in a business park, I think. So, just a thought. But yes, I think it bears revisiting.

Would that require...

I'm sorry, commissioners, your microphones were off.

We're talking amongst ourselves for a minute about strategy, potentially, but thank you for the reminder. So what we're discussing is whether or not this can be a motion that we remove some of the language, or if we should actually have another presentation and talk through it again.

So there'll be another opportunity to revisit, we can bring it back to the next meeting, which is on the 23rd. And the hearing is on October 28. We have two more chances.

I think that'll work. Thank you.

I also have a thought about the usage. I mean, I concur with the warehouses. I also think that we should perhaps set a limit to the usage of data centers on that property to match what's already there as the limit. So I wouldn't want to exclude that or make it a non-allowed, what's the term for that? But yeah, a non-conforming use. But I think if we could limit the usage to that square footage, perhaps, so that this whole park's not taken over with the server farms.

So I'll just mention, commissioners, that the data center portion of the proposal we discussed before is not part of the packet anymore.

It's not part of the packet, but it's not going to be ignored. Right. It's not omitted so it'll slide through. I know that's not the intent, but I just want to make sure that data centers are addressed at some point.

At some point, yeah. It's just at the direction of our management. It's not part of this proposal at this point. Okay.

Understood. Okay. Okay.

So as I mentioned, another proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan designation is to reverse the Comprehensive Plan designation for this collection of parcels that are at the corner here on South Meridian. Originally, the entirety of this corridor was proposed to be rezone to see X and that did happen at the time of the comprehensive plan amendment, but we held off on rezoning this collection of parcels at the request of the property owner. Since then, it has been reevaluated. And the proposal now is to keep the existing zoning. It's zoned general commercial now. And staff proposes to keep that zoning there. So this would just keep that the zoning as it exists. And then this. This map here shows those same parcels you saw that are existing single family proposed to be rezone to our six, and this would harmonize those zone that rezone with the future land use map. And then these three parcels same story, the three parcels identified to be reasoned LM X, this would convert their future land use map designation to match their new zoning. So that's the future land use map changes.

Commissioner Landon.

PB Harmon Zuckerman, Yeah, I have a question about that collection of homes being rezoned RS six Um, there isn't some more flexible zoning that we could apply there. It seems like it's it is in the middle or close to our, you know, downtown core and would be to me, it looks a little out of place to have that low density strip through that whole area. And so I'm just kind of wondering what what was the process behind this switch from what we had before and what we had reviewed at previous meetings?

I think the analysis was that there already had been an increase to the zoning there in the past, but we haven't seen development proposals there in the years since. So there doesn't seem to be an appetite in that area for that level of development. And so since there neither is a want necessarily in that area to have that kind of development, and there's already pre-existing single family there, that this seemed like the more appropriate zoning.

And I'll add to that too, because Rachel and I worked on this together. You know, these parcels behind, these are right behind Safeway if you're out here in the back part and you could see them. We haven't really even had any kind of redevelopment here. I don't even think we've even had anybody build an ADU. Most of them are pretty urban scale, single family. They're alley loaded. We don't have a lot of driveways there. So they're pretty decent single family in our downtown core. And we usually do tend to not... do LDR and RS zoning in the downtown core. But we did analyze the lot sizes on most of these and they hover right around 4,900 to 5,000 square feet. So we looked at a couple alternatives. We looked at potentially doing like RM10, which is our lower density multifamily. The distinction really between RS6 and RM10 now that middle housing is allowed in LDR is pretty minimal when you get to a lot size this large. Really the capacity for this based on the likelihood that there's going to be parking on each site, maybe a duplex, maybe a triplex if you could make it work. It's a little hard to imagine how that might work. Some of the lots do have maybe a shape that could allow that. But it is, I mean, it's a good question of Like, why pick LDR when it is in our downtown core? I think what Rachel said is absolutely correct, that we just haven't seen any kind of proposal for that. And the original proposal, this was actually, it's been zoned CL since I've worked here at the city, which is close to 20 years, and we've never had a commercial land use on this. The original proposal was to then switch that to LMX because most everything that was CL is going to LMX. But to us, I think in communicating with the property owners, we struggled also with how do we communicate to those property owners that clearly have never indicated that they want to do commercial, but we're now going to zone them to a different commercial designation when it's pretty clear that most of this has been urban scale, alley-loaded, single-family, long-term, and is likely to be that in the future. So we did pick this. It's probably not a perfect solution, but we did think about it and talk about it quite a bit.

Yeah.

So what's the downside in just keeping it LMX then?

Well, it's not LMX now. It was proposed to move to LMX. We re-evaluated that before we sent out the notices to the property owners and chose LDR. The downside to going to LMX is we will make all of the single family properties non-conforming.

OK, yeah, that explanation makes more sense.

Are folks tracking, by the way, on that last map, which businesses these are? I know Rachel pointed these out. The three that we added here were what, when we started to review these maps, we feel like these are sort of in keeping with that idea that there are these existing commercial land uses in neighborhoods. And these three parcels, I wouldn't say got missed, but just weren't somehow included in the comp plan analysis. So the two that are up on Stewart one is the is it this is it called sunrise HVAC. It's like a small HVAC office that it's mainly an office use as a contractor garage to it but it's mainly a contractor use. The other one to the right of that closer to the sounder parking lot is surveyor company. It's kind of was a single family house that was converted to a surveyor. Sadler Bernard. And then the one that is further to the middle here it's across the street from the high school is the three coffee place. They also have, it's a mixed use development basically because they have a commercial land use on the ground floor and multifamily above it, the church and the folks that have owned it. would like to start converting some of that to some additional flexible use space. It's pretty complicated when it stays LDR to do that. And because the coffee shop's been pretty popular and has been there for probably 15 years now, we felt like it was appropriate to look at that also for a neighborhood designation, so.

OK. So now on to the text amendments to the comprehensive plan. So the first text amendments we'll review are the amendments to the land use element. So since we'll be hoping to change the map again to add that new future land use type, We also have to do a corresponding text amendment to add that land use type and make it available in the land use element. So we'll establish that new mixed employment business park MEP map designation in the land use element. We'll also be proposing to modify the MDR designation in recognition of the elimination of the RS4 zone, which we've previously completed and passed rezones earlier this year. And we'll also be modifying other comprehensive land use designations to reflect, you know, the elimination of the CL and OP zones. We also proposed some changes to the river road element to support and recognize the area as originally important auto dealership corridor in response to city council direction. So that brings me to phase two zoning code amendments. So the mixed use chapter zoning code.

Sorry. Do we have the language on the previous slide where you say that there will be modified language and supportive recognition of the area as a regionally important audit? I've got to say, I'm still just not happy about that at all. And the fact that none of us, I think, or the majority of the commissioners really felt like River Road was It's a disservice to have it look so crappy when it's the entry to our city. Now to highlight that it's dealerships when none of us love that it's dealerships is just a kick in the face. I mean, so I would like to hear the language if possible.

Commissioner Washburn.

I'm afraid I have to disagree because I remember growing up and hearing cars cost less than Puyallup like for decades. That's kind of like what we're known for. So it seems like that would be a good place to put car dealers for people coming off the freeway.

Commissioner Landon?

Yeah, I think there's enough car dealership space. And what came up to me as I'm looking at the comp plan and the countywide center, and that designation or the goal of making a designation for a countywide center and looking for some funding through that and what that could mean if these properties are turned into dealerships instead of the original vision for this River Road network, if there's any implications to that. But yeah, I'm against it. I think there's enough space for cars empty pavement. I think we got enough of that.

Vice Chair?

My suggestion originally, and I think I would go back to it, is that is to differentiate car dealerships on River, actually on River Road, from the mostly empty lots that occupy Meridian. So going up Meridian for a couple blocks are, you know, apart from the Ford dealership on the corner, all these other smaller lots basically just sit empty. And to our chair's comments about this is the major entry point to our city. And it is not trying to get rid of the car dealerships. Obviously, as Commissioner Landon pointed out, the whole River Road is being used and is available for use, and that's great. But I think if we could differentiate between River Road and Meridian, we could maybe... draw kind of a compromise between those two ideas that we could still have the car dealerships, but not necessarily as the entry point to the city. It's a major entry point to the city. So I would be in favor of alternate zoning along Meridian. Thank you.

I helped Rachel work on these amendments. And some of this is a little bit of reverse engineering because council did make some decisions about land uses in the River Road zone. Mainly the big shift was that we do allow car dealerships now in the RMX zone. I will say, if you look at the plan, the fundamental changes, and they start on page 93 of the packet, of the PDF packet, Um, the changes largely are meant to support kind of what council has told us that they would like to, they, they don't want to flush the vision that this is going to be a mixed use district. They don't want to flush that. Uh, the zoning does allow for it, but we have had issues over time with, um. Existing dealerships that are on the north side of River Road, which was zoned to RMX, the south side of River Road has always stayed general commercial, and most of the car dealers on River Road are on the south side, and those have been allowed to remain, even though they're within the plan, which has sort of a different idea or vision for that. So the changes in the policies, if you kind of look on page 113, that's where the goals and policy amendments start to occur. It's largely to kind of reflect what the policy direction of council has given staff on this to kind of make sure that the plan supports some of the changes that have already been made to our land use regulations. So if commissioners want to take a look at this, give us feedback on those red lines. That would be great. We can, we can definitely take a look at tweaking any of those, but I would, I will say, I don't think that there's fundamental significant fundamental shifts in the vision, but it does reflect a couple of things. The, the allowance in RMX for car dealers now, also some of the allowances that are just holistically applied now to the MX districts where we don't require mixed use anymore. We allow mixed use as either a standalone on one site or residential for completely residential allowed without a commercial component. So some of the policy shifts and the goals and policy sections is meant to support that too. So take a look at the at the text, let us know. I mean, again, I don't know that it's a fundamental sort of deconstruction of the plan, but it does do things that support the direction that council is given to staff. So yeah.

So that would not include partial redraw boundaries.

No, no, the amendments are largely just text, not boundaries or maps.

Thank you.

OK. Zoning code amendments. So the amendments to the mixed use zone. First, to revise the use allowances and prohibit prohibitions under the LMX zone district. You know, we've talked a lot about the LMX zone tonight. So there's several areas of the city that are being rezoned LMX. It's kind of being retooled. as a neighborhood commercial zone. And so to support that effort, an analysis was done to analyze what uses and prohibited uses would be most appropriate to have neighborhood serving commercial uses in those areas. So those revisions are in the draft code. There's also various modifications to other permitted uses and other MX zones. They're streamlining to the property development standards, some changes to the River Road mixed use zone. Again, as we discussed, meant to support previous council direction on those auto-oriented or auto-related land uses. And then elimination of CMX community mixed-use zone district, since that's being limited to implement the comp plan update.

Please, Chair.

Yeah, so could you please give... I noticed that one of the prohibitions was major recreational uses, major commercial recreational uses. Could you tell me what those are?

Those are uses that have outdoor hobbies like tennis courts, outdoor things that have like flying balls, things that the idea being like they're loud, they have a lot of activity outside, but they're recreational in nature. So like sports fields, things like that.

Okay, thank you. Because, you know, I had to look for some of these things online and major recreational uses are, Online included things like bowling alleys, movie theaters, things that would seem to be perfectly fine. So you're specifying that this is like outdoor activities.

We have another definition of code called minor recreational uses, which are things like bowling alleys and things that are indoor.

Okay. Very good. Thank you.

All right. So...

I'm sorry, one more. This has come up in the discussion of UCX and so on. I am, and I apologize if this is just me, but I am not clear when you give examples of either eight dwelling units per acre or 22 dwelling units per acre. And you say, for instance, in the UCX zone, you can have a building up to 75 feet tall, which would be like seven stories. And if I had a seven-story building on a quarter acre lot, I could assume, I think, at least 10 units per floor. And I'm having a lot of trouble understanding If we can have a building that large, what's in it?

Oh, how many dwelling units are in?

Yeah.

So in the case where we have multiple criteria, they have to meet all of them. So even if they wanted to have a building that tall, if they didn't have a site that was large enough to allow for all the units they wanted, they could only fit so many.

but a quarter acre is probably large enough. I mean, that's the question in my mind is how are these things resolved?

So, I mean, in that case, you know, the zoning code does allow them to have a building that tall. So they could have it that tall. And as long as they met the dwelling unit standard, they can't exceed the dwelling unit standard. So it limits how many units they can have. But they're allowed to have as many units as are allowed on their site. That's 20. They can have 20. And then the height limit is the height limit.

I'm going to weigh in for just a sec. So just because something is allowed, it doesn't mean that it's a given, right? It's allowed if you have a site that is large enough, flat enough, doesn't have buffers that you have to pay attention to. So just because something is allowed, like... I might sit on a very tiny lot and technically an ADU is allowed, but I don't have space for it. It doesn't mean I get to do it. Same thing in a much larger scale. Just because it's allowed doesn't mean that it'll work. You still have to have all of your street frontage improvements. You have to pay attention to your setbacks. You have to pay attention to buffers. You have to pay attention to drainage if that's an issue. I mean, there's all sorts of things that come into play. It's just saying... If everything meets the criteria, then you can make it work. And unit can be a studio, a two-bedroom, a one-bedroom, a combination, you know, whatever, however the developer configures it to have a pencil best or how it'll work.

But one of these things has to be an absolute, I assume. So is it 22 units per acre? Is that an absolute as will not exceed? Correct.

Well, in the MX, there is no maximum.

There is no maximum there, yeah, actually.

But there are enough things in play that there is a maximum. It just isn't stated in the code.

Right. There is also a maximum lot coverage of 65%. Right, right. So that's another limiting factor.

And parking is really a big limiting factor. I mean, parking is always provided. We don't have developers come in Puyallup that don't want to put parking in. Even though the state is going to mandate lower parking ratios, we're going to have to deal with that probably next year. The market still just demands that there's parking on all of these sites. So parking is usually one of the biggest issues that just limits... The amount of units, because it's either going to be garage and they're super expensive to build, or if they're surface, they just take up a lot of room and you can't build a lot of building.

Or if you go down. I mean, that is incredibly pricey also and very difficult logistically on a site to figure out how you have the grade and the depth and the angles to do that.

And speaking of which, I noticed that you did eliminate the height bonus for parking. It looks like that's been crossed out.

I think that's for CMX because CMX is being eliminated.

I thought that was UCX.

Under parking facilities on page 33, it's CMX is eliminated.

So, yeah, I'd like to make sure that it's a CMX and not a UCX because I Pretty sure I saw it under UC exit. In other words, what I'm trying to determine is whether that bonus is in play or not in play.

Yeah, on page 31, and you'll have to give Rachel and I a little bit of time to assume some of this. Some of these amendments, because we've had staffing changes, started with our consultant, and Kendall worked on them. I know that this was part of the original package that went to Council, was to try to simplify The building height measurements and the building height allowances, particularly in ucx on page thirty one there. There is some cross out language around height bonuses for structured parking, and I believe, and if you read the commentary box, which was written by our consultant when they prepared this essentially the policy direction that Council gave us was they wanted to simplify. those height allowances in rmx and ucx so they're not dependent on some of those height bonuses so they don't there's not sort of a a lower threshold and then they have to provide something to get to a higher building height it just simplifies it by allowing it outright so there is some strikeout language in there on that there there are there is a height bonus you're saying no it's being deleted i couldn't hear what you said oh it's being deleted

It's been deleted.

Yeah, it's being deleted. So if you look at three, the building height may be increased by 28 feet in height beyond the height established by the table to accommodate for the provision of equivalent number of stories of structured parking. So those bonuses would essentially go away.

Okay, very good. Thank you.

All right. Amendments to the manufacturing zone. So updates to permitted and conditionally permitted land uses, including those related to warehouses, as we've noted, equipment sale and rental, retail sales, multifamily residential and daycare centers. Other changes include adding some fencing standards, which we're missing. Largely based on requests from property owners and previous direction from council. Commercial zone amendments. Deletion of the limited commercial zone text since the CL zone is being eliminated on the zoning maps as an implementation step of the comp plan update. Other changes related to residential development and daycare facility allowances. This is for consistency with changes to state law and other minor cleanups of site plan design principles, EV standard references, and other kind of minor cleanup items. And then definition amendments, a couple of new definition additions, live work units, nightclubs, live music venues, smoke, bake tobacco uses. Um, and then a minor amendment to was defined as a road service use just to add car washes, clarified that that's always been included the definition, um, just for again, clarity's sake. And then the next steps.

Any comments, questions, discussion points we should do before we move on? Alrighty then. Do we have a staff report?

Just to say that your next meeting, September 23rd, we are planning to bring you kind of a final review of all the map comp plan zoning amendments, final review of the code amendments, kind of a consolidated package to look at, get final comments on in preparation for an October 28 public hearing and a recommendation to city council on the whole package is necessary at that meeting. Then we'll be proceeding with the whole package for review with city council in November and December of this year.

Thank you.

I'll also add too that interspersed within this on sort of the back end of our process is public outreach. I know we talked about that at the last meeting. Just to loop back on that, we did the first phase of that. We've essentially got three phases of public outreach for if you include physical posting of signs. But what you'll see leading up to the October timeline is we have sent a mailer. We sent a mailer a week ago. Before Labor Day, we sent a mailer to all of the 97 properties that are subject to rezone. It's not 97 different owners. Some of them are owned by the same people. But there's 97 different parcels that are subject to the rezone. So we sent them kind of a two-page letter. We also sent them these maps. We consolidated a table that I think has helped with property owners understanding what's going on. So in that table, when those property owners received it, it shows what their current zoning is, what their current known use of the land is, what zone they're going to go to, and whether it's going to, is there a land use going to be allowed in the new zoning? In which case, the majority of these are, the majority of them are clean up. A few of the LMX parcels, I will say, do include auto-related uses, and auto-related uses would not be allowed in LMX. So there's a few repair shops. I think there's a detailing shop in there. And so those are noted as you're kind of non-conforming. You can remain, but you're not going to be able to expand over time. But I think that's helped because we sent those out we thought maybe we'd get a pretty large response and I think we've had maybe three or four property owners call us but largely I think people have appreciated the outreach that we've done and the table we put together that kind of indicates whether they're going to be allowed or not as a result of the reason. So that was the first phase our second phase at the direction of city council. There was some city council concern about just the scope of the LMX rezone process and some of these neighborhood commercial uses. So we've put together a pretty informative, pretty well visually designed one pager front and back that kind of explains to people that live near these. So a 500 foot radius from those LMX parcels that, hey, a lot of these neighborhood serving land uses in your neighborhood are zoned residential. and are kind of non-conforming, but you clearly use them because they exist and they're corner stores or professional services like a mortgage place or a barber shop or a nail shop or a coffee shop. We are trying to basically clean those up as part of the comp plan amendment so those things are allowed to remain in your neighborhood because that was a significant you know, strategy in the comp plan update. So we're going to be sending that out to 500 feet around those. I don't know what the parcel count is, but it's probably going to be large. Just explaining what's going on there and then inviting folks to provide feedback, take a survey that we're putting together with our public information officer. So we'll have a little bit more of that information. Maybe by September 23rd, we'll have some of that feedback, but we'll have probably more of a consolidated look at that at the October 28th hearing. And then the third phase is we're going to be doing a mailing, basically a super mailing. Everybody within 500 feet of all of the rezone parcels, letting them know that there's a public hearing occurring with Planning Commission and giving them an opportunity to attend that, provide written comment, provide verbal comment at the hearing. You'll also probably see some signs we're going to put out some neighborhood signs in the vicinity of those rezone areas that will have a QR code on it so people can scan that and learn more if they don't, maybe they're outside of the mailing radius or maybe they just frequent that neighborhood want to know what's going on. So you might see some of those around, but that's kind of our, our approach. It'll also include the fair parking overlay zones. So folks will understand what's going on there too. But that's kind of our, as we approach the October 28th hearing, which is important. We're on a pretty tight timeline because as I think planning commissioners know, we've got one opportunity to change the comp plan per year. And council only has one meeting in December. So if you kind of count between October 28th and December, we've only really got three council meetings for them to receive the planning commission recommendation from October 28th, work through those amendments and pass them by the meeting in December. Um, if we miss that deadline and, you know, I think the planning commission is working off of the October 28th deadline, but it'll just mess up with the cadence of our amendment cycle for the comp plan, which is going to be a little bit more regular as we move into 2027. And we're kind of back in more of a, um, a normal mode as opposed to the major update and periodic update cycle that we've been in. So yeah, that's kind of moving forward. Could I, um,

When this first came up, the idea of converting the non-conforming properties to LMX, there was some discussion about that these might form the core of a, like adjoining properties might end up also becoming part of that. Uh, neighborhood at first they were called nodes. Uh, then they, they were called something else, but anyway, uh, neighborhood commercial and so on and so forth. So I guess my question is, uh, what is the philosophy? behind this, and I've said this months ago, but I'll say it again, in other large cities, well, large cities in which I've lived, these nodal points were usually a collection of businesses, of small businesses. You might have an attorney's office and a grocery store and maybe a mom and pop hardware store, something like that, but serving the neighborhood. But a collection, so you can go there and park once and then move about to a collection. These things that are just sort of scattered randomly throughout the cityscape seem to be not that useful on the one hand. On the other hand, the question is, if they do start to grow, it seems to me there are too many of them to close together. what's the thinking or the philosophy or whatever behind establishing these in the code as commercial zones?

Yeah, it's a good question. I mean, we've talked about this for a long time. I mean, I think staff views this as a honestly a really big step forward to just legalize what we have now. Um, there obviously was an idea that there were going to be nodes in the comp plan. And in fact, I can think of one in particular near Maplewood on pioneer, where I think we did actually, the planning commission did actually propose sort of a node. We've got a, a barbershop, we've got a school, um, We've got a mortgage company building and I think we actually proposed because we have some middle housing in there to some courtyard apartments and low lower density multifamily so there was sort of an idea of having a node. We had some council members push back on that idea that there should just be residential and some of the things should just be isolated to what's there currently. So I would say that this is sort of a hybrid approach. I mean, it is a big step forward in terms of our relationship with those property owners, because oftentimes the tension that we have is we'll have somebody come in. They want to maybe do an expansion or they want to do an addition or reciting. And it's always this question of, well, you're nonconforming. So we've got to look into it. We don't have a straight answer for people at the counter when they call. it creates a lot of uncertainty with the property owners when they're told, yeah, I know that you're Golden Rule Grocery and you've been there for like 50 years, but the zoning code really just doesn't view you as part of the city. You're zoned single family residential, which a lot of those property owners are, They're confused why that is. And so I think right now the first step in the approach has been to try to legalize what is existing and that maybe there is a secondary approach because the comp plan still does talk about nodes. It's just in terms of the future land use. It wasn't implemented that way. In terms of the adjoining property owners, there's not going to be any allowance for this to spread unless there are future land use designation changes to some of those properties around it. The other tension that we've had over time that we've talked about is, could you designate I'm thinking like the hair salon south of the high school, which is just, it's smack mid-block and it's got single family and some middle housing around it. So like the idea of maybe zoning a handful of those parcels instead of just one parcel mid-block has been an idea. Although I think we've had some concerns about how do we communicate that to property owners that maybe have bought that property and now the city is zoning them mixed use. And it's like, well, I own a single family home. Why would I want that? So, I mean, there's definitely a policy approach to that, that council could reconsider over time. But I think we view this as a big positive for our interaction with those businesses and to try to recognize them as allowed. You know, we're not a non-conforming land use. It doesn't affect your property, what you can do with it, but also protecting some of those other properties around it and making sure that we're communicating to them that, you know, we do want these things to exist in neighborhoods to serve the people that live within them. So.

Yeah, my thought is just that in many cases next to a business, you're going to find that the residential value of the property declines. Not as many people want to live next to a business where there are customers coming in and out or whatever. And so due to that, I've seen this other places. Then the neighbor says, I'm going to lose money on this, you know, selling it as a house. So I'd like to turn it into apartments or I'd like to turn this into my own hair salon. or something like that. So when you have these scattered sites, it tends to degrade the neighborhood, the street as a residential street. And that's kind of what I'm thinking. I'm thinking of the people who are living next door, who just saw the property value, you know, potentially go down as well. Not too much because it's there already, right? But then if the next person does something and puts in an application for a change next year to the comp plan to allow this and then so on and so forth. So I've always looked at that with a jaundiced eye. that kind of nodal formation. But I guess that would be up to the council to say, you guys need to, this is it. This is one non-conforming structure.

Yeah, I think if there was a proposal to expand those because the success of an existing use once it becomes zoned, I'm not really sure that zoning these things appropriately is going to somehow change their land use radically. I think we tried to look at what was there currently and determine whether those things could be legalized or not. I think in the case of the auto shops, I mean, some of them actually do serve a you know, having an auto shop near you when you drive a car is not all that of a bad thing, but some of them can, you know, the operators can change their patterns and there's a lot more vehicles. So yeah, I mean, your point's well taken. I think there's, there's a backstop. I mean, people have to apply for the comp plan amendment in the rezone and planning commission and council get to review that and say yes or no. So yeah. I think it's a measured approach. I think we've just tried to focus on the scattered sites that we have. Not a lot of them are nodes there. They are scattered for sure. And council members have said that to us as well, but I think our approach as a first step was to try to legalize those and as an implementation step from the comp plan. Yeah.

All right. Thank you.

Anything else from the city?

I don't think so.

Okay.

We'll be back on the 23rd.

Fantastic. All right. Commissioner comments, commissioner Barney, anything this evening? I have nothing. Thank you. Commissioner Crosby.

I do with, since we only have till December and to change anything on the comp plan. You mentioned something about the transportation kind of explaining our failing infrastructure with all this rezoning changing. So I'm still on the infrastructure part of this whole thing. So I didn't hear if we, I thought possibly we're going to get somebody for today, but is there anything planned in terms of that or.

We do plan to have Hans, our city engineer, give a presentation. I think we're trying to get through this package of amendments first. To address the comments about the transportation infrastructure, just so we're clear, there are some minor map amendments, particularly with the LMX, or, for example, the Shaw Pioneer area. Most of that is going from one mixed-use designation or commercial designation to another mixed-use designation. We do have about, how many acres is the ARO?

2.8.

We have 2.8 acres of land that is essentially zoned agriculture, recreation, open space that would go to mixed use. So that is technically an up zone, but it's pretty fractional when you look at that total area. So most of this stuff was analyzed already in the comp plan. This is implementing the changes in the comp plan. There was an environmental impact statement completed for the changes that are already contemplated here. So we will definitely make sure that's included both in our SEPA determination for this and we'll include it in the staff report that comes to you guys moving forward.

Commissioner Landon.

Nothing for me.

Commissioner Washburn.

Nothing for me.

Vice Chair.

I would just say that regardless of what happens in the Shaw Pioneer Development District, we, I think, need to hold someone's feet to the fire in terms of doing something meaningful with transportation, which is particularly bad on the east side. There's a difference between the west side of Meridian and the east side of Meridian. in terms of access. And one reason why Shaw Road is the mess it is, is because there are no alternatives, period. I mean, there could be, but there aren't. And I know we're going to get resistance from the person who will give the presentation, as well as some others. That doesn't change the fact that it's something that we badly need. And we really need to get on it. So that's my spiel for today.

Thank you. I have a couple of different items. One, the 19th, which is next Saturday, not this Saturday, the Meeker Mansion has their Cider Squeeze, which is super fun if anybody is interested. And then the Main Street Association is holding Dolly Day on 925 or nine to five. And I believe that it still is in the planning stage, but they're doing a lot of food and library associated items. So that's all I have. And at 730, we are officially adjourned.