Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening. This is Puyallup Planning meeting for Wednesday, October 22nd, 2025. Calling it to order. Will the clerk please call the roll?

Commissioner Seeley?

Here.

Commissioner DeGroote?

Here.

Commissioner Martin?

Here.

Commissioner Landon?

Here.

Commissioner Taylor? Excused. Vice Chair Kilsgard?

Here.

Chair Jones-Lill? Here. Thank you. I have a quorum.

Thank you. First item on the agenda is the approval of the agenda. I'll entertain the motion to approve the agenda.

So move.

Second.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? Motion passes. To that we have the approval of the minutes. These are the minutes for September 24, 2025. I'll entertain a motion to approve the minutes.

Motion to approve.

Second.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

I'm going to abstain since I wasn't at the meeting.

Okay. We will mark down Commissioner Seeley as abstaining. The motion has passed. We have the next item up on the agenda is citizen comments. During the section of the meeting, I will call on those who have provided their names in advance, and then I 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 allowed three minutes. The clerk will give a verbal notice at 30 seconds, and this portion of the meeting is for the public to come and engage with the Planning Commission and not a time to engage in debate. Seeing no one here to approach the dais, I'm going to go ahead and close public comment at 6.32. We have a work session topic on our agenda tonight, and it is dealing with the zoning map and code updates. Kendall? Kendall's going to give us this presentation. Thank you.

Oh, and Miss Kate.

Yes, thank you. Kendall Walls with the planning division. We also have Kate Rogers online with MIG and she will kind of take over the last half of the presentation and discussion portion tonight. So I will start us off. So let me get the presentation going. Okay. Alright, so tonight we're talking about the zoning map in code updates that we're going to be working on for your next several.

work sessions.

For just an overview of the presentation tonight, I wanted to give just a brief overview of why we're doing these updates and give a high level overview of the updates related to the map and code that will be coming before you in future meetings, but then have more of a focused look and discussion on potential changes for our single family residential zones and our mixed use zones. So Kate will kind of take over when we switch to the mixed use zones. So as you know, we've adopted a periodic update to our comprehensive plan. This is kind of seen as phase two of that process. You know, we made a lot of policy changes as well as changes to our future land use map. And so we need to account for that and make sure that our code and our zoning map are consistent. So that's a big driver for why we're doing these updates. We also, as part of the changes, need to make sure that we're addressing changes in state law. So if we're opening a chapter that impacts some of those changes that we need to incorporate into the code, we'll deal with that as we go through the code changes. So you may see that at different times in the process. And then also, as implementation for our adopted housing action plan. So this was something that was adopted in 2021. Prior to some of the state mandates and our comp plan update, that kind of gave us some direction for some changes related to housing. So I'll touch a little bit more on the housing action plan when we get into the discussion about single family residential zones. So That's kind of why we're doing this. And then just a reminder of how these things work together. The graphic on here on your screen shows this side is kind of the comprehensive plan side. It's advisory, you know, it's our Our goals and policies for how we want to see the city develop over the next 20 years. And so it gives us that direction. The future land use map or on here, it's the flu map is adopted as part of the comprehensive plan. It's still high level. It establishes land uses throughout the city and our urban growth area and And it directs us to how the land should be developed over time. And then there's land use categories that give some more guidance there as well. But on the regulatory aspects, so kind of going to the other side, is our zoning ordinance. And so that's what our regulations are. And that's needs to be consistent with our comprehensive plan to implement the vision and the goals of our comp plan. So we need to make sure that we're updating those standards and our procedures And also our zoning map. So the zoning map is more specific. There could be multiple zones that implement one future land use designation on the future land use map. So it's more specific. It sets those different standards. It tells you how you can develop a property in the city, what uses are permitted, what are the building height setbacks, those types of things. So that's kind of how these two things play together. and then kind of go through these upcoming changes. So for the zoning map updates, What I have here on the screen is actually the adopted future land use map, just kind of as a visual. It's not the best, and I apologize because I feel like the parcel lines kind of overtake the map, but that's what the light gray is showing. But really trying to show kind of those areas that have that darker black outline, we're showing parcels that changed in this process to a different land use designation. So some different areas that were modified were mixed use centers and corridors. So a big change was this South Meridian corridor change to mixed use, where previously it was kind of a mix of commercial and high density residential. So that's a change that we need to then make sure is implemented on our zoning map, for example. There were also some minor changes in our regional growth centers. There are some areas that were still low density residential in our downtown regional growth center that went to a moderate or I think most of them went to a moderate density residential. So we need to rezone those properties. We also had different changes in the city related to residential areas. So there's some pockets, kind of nodes that were identified through the process over here at Fruitland and 31st is an example of it used to be low density residential, but it was redesignated to moderate density residential. So we need to rezone those properties. Similarly, down here off of East Pioneer, they were low density residential. They went to moderate density and high density residential. So just trying to give a picture of kind of how we need to then implement those changes that were made on the future land use map and then make those on our zoning map. um and then single family rs zone consolidation has been something that was identified in our housing action plan which i'll touch on on here in a future slide so that's something that we need to take into consideration and then there's just going to be some miscellaneous cleanup items that we need to do if we're eliminating zones um Or reusing zones, we need to make sure that the map is cleaned up so that it's consistent with our future land use map, as well as the code changes that are made. As far as zoning code updates, this was a table that was provided in your packet i'm not planning to go one by one just wanted to give you guys kind of a high level snapshot of. where we're going with these code updates, some kind of preliminary things that we've identified that need updating for the single family residential zones and mixed use. We're obviously going to talk about those tonight, so I'm not going to spend time on those for this slide in particular. but um some other areas i wanted to highlight um our cl zone a limited commercial and our op zone were ones that we op is our professional office it's used pretty sparingly in the city and so those were areas that we in Lisa Smith- Light of trying to streamline and simplify our regulations. Those were two areas where we identified removal of those zoning designation. So we need to clean up Lisa Smith- The code in that regard, but also the map. um for our manufacturing zones we made some changes to our future land use designations as part of the comp plan process we also through the process had discussions about applying manufacturing zones in our south hill regional growth center so that's something we want to think through do we want to maybe consider some different allowances in our existing zones, modify them in some way. So that's something that we're working through internally right now. And I would plan to bring something back to you for more discussion on that one in particular. So just know that more, more is to come on the manufacturing piece. We're kind of working through that, the details on that right now. We hoped that we could talk about it tonight, but I didn't, didn't make it. So yeah, That's another area. Our public facility zones, this is something that we've had started work on previously but had to switch gears. We know that there's a challenge for properties that have public facility zoning because there's a requirement that you have a master plan in order to do any building permit. So when the properties have just a small building permit that they need to do, they're stuck to having a full master plan in order to do it. So we've been looking at maybe some options for lower level, small scale, you know, they're putting a smaller shed like structure. Do they need a master plan to do that on the site? Those types of things. So looking through some different options that way. Um, and then the fair fair, um, zoning designation, but also our Washington State Fair obviously applies in that zone. I know we had discussions with the Planning Commission through the comp plan update process. So we'll be working on updates to the zoning code chapter. CoB, Cindy Spence, specifically looking at use allowances for those properties that would have the fair zoning outside of the main fairgrounds what are those use allowances, but also, I know that there were concerns about the application of the. CoB, Cindy Spence, The parking. CoB, Cindy Spence, measurement the kind of they have an allowance for parking 2000 feet from. the fair zone, but modifying that to be from the main fairgrounds. Now that the fair zoning will be kind of increasing out beyond the main fairgrounds with the changes. So that's something that we're working through when we plan to come back and have more discussion with the Planning Commission on at a future work session. And then zoning overlays also relates to the Washington State Fair because they have a fair parking overlay. So looking to some modifications to properties that are used for fair parking. We also need some potential elimination of some existing overlays related to um a limited manufacturing down in the shaw east pioneer area but also we have a design review mixed use design review overlay that's applied to river road area and south hill but with the standards update that we're doing for design review those will likely go away so there's kind of a timing with those that we'll need to consider and then just ensuring that our overlays are cleaned up and applied appropriately to properties with all the changes that have been made through the comp plan update process and these changes that we're making to the zoning map any questions on on that kind of just have a little area there before i move on to the next part on the fairgrounds um we've had this discussions with the fair about

some of the ideas that they are thinking about doing to make it a little bit easier for the rest of us to know what's going on at the fair. Have you had any further conversations with the fair on some of their proposals and all? Is that going to be brought up so we have an idea?

We are talking with the fair as we work on the zoning updates. I know that they're considering some different paths forward for kind of having a more formal plan for how that they operate. I don't know where they're at in that process. We're still kind of working through our work on it. So we have a follow-up meeting coming up with them on it. I know that consideration of a master plan was also something that came up through that comp plan update process. And so we'll be looking at where that should appropriately be required in the code. So we are in conversation with them. I know that they will likely be a part of the meetings where we talk about these updates. So I think they'll be able to help answer questions too on that end.

Okay. Thank you.

I sure kills card.

Kendall could you help me understand on this page to where has the RS zoning's have you talked about that are we going to talk about that in a minute.

I'm going to talk about that here.

Okay, I'm good. I didn't know and I don't want to miss this.

We could to move forward that. There it is. single family residential zones. You didn't miss it.

All right.

I wanted to provide, which I didn't do a very good job of in the packet, but I wanted to provide a little bit more background of kind of where these questions are coming from and why we're talking about it. So as I mentioned earlier, city council adopted a housing action plan in 2021. This was kind of something that was done prior to a lot of these state mandates and was something that we were looking at related to middle housing options in the city and different housing options in general. So it identified different strategies to help support affordable housing options for the community. um and this was something that also was put into the comprehensive plan as a policy that we implement the housing action plan so that's also why this is being brought forward there were several strategies that were identified in the housing action plan some were identified as high priority strategies, and some were kind of that second priority strategies. This is what this table is just kind of hard to see, I understand. But it's just to give you a snapshot of what was in that housing action plan. Some of them we've already worked on, for example, updating and expanding the MFT program, rezoning areas to facilitate higher density You know that's something that we looked at with the comprehensive plan process doing that on the future land use map that will obviously then do on the zoning map so. This is something that had been identified early on and we're just working on implementation at this point, so one of those items is to revise existing zoning provisions, this was something that was identified as a high priority strategy. which I will, I have another slide that kind of gets into that a little bit more, but just for a high-level kind of overview, if you're not familiar with what our existing RS, single-family residential zones are, we have an RS-35, which is our very low density single family residential zone minimum lot size of 35 000 square feet and one dwelling unit per gross acre rs10 is a minimum lot size of 10 000 square feet and up four dwelling units per acre rs8 has about five dwelling units per acre And then RS six and four kind of are on our more dense. zoning designations are six has a density range of four to six and dwelling units per acre and then RS four has six to eight dwelling units per acre. So as part of the housing action plan, this recommendation of consolidating our single family residential zones was something that came out of the plan. And so that's why We're talking about it here tonight. Specifically at that time, it identified combining RS-4 and RS-6 and utilizing RS-4 use permissions and property standards, but applying the RS-6 FAR floor area ratio provisions. Floor area ratio looks at not just a lot coverage measurement, but accounts for multiple floors. in calculating the size of the structure compared to the lot. And then I also recommended combining RS8 and RS10 to utilize the RS8 use permissions and property development standards, but apply the RS10 FAR provisions. So This map here is showing our existing zoning map the areas that are have this dark kind of solid outline. Or this kind of orange colored outline are showing areas. that will change based on the changes that were made to the future land use map. So I just wanted to kind of give you an idea of which areas would be changing to more moderate or high density residential or a different zone in general. But it kind of gives you a snapshot of where our existing single family residential zones are in the city. And our initial approach when we started to think about this was eliminating the RS4 zone because we've already actually kind of got rid of most of it with the changes that were made in the comp plan update. You can see, for example, this area here is RS4, but it was identified to go to MDR, moderate density residential, or high density residential in this portion. There's just a little bit left here that could go to a different single family residential zone. So our initial thought was to Do you want me to? Okay. Was to eliminate RS4 and similarly RS10 kind of do what the housing action plan recommended by having somewhere around RS6 and RS8 zoning designations in the end, but adjust the standards accordingly, kind of following the recommendations of the housing action plan. And then we would likely rename these they would kind of probably be like our one or two that kind of thing would kind of go away from the current numbering pattern. But then we'd also retain RS 35 RS 35 has a different future land use designation, so it is a little bit different when we're talking. about these zones so. In the with the intent of also streamline and simplifying the code going to two, as opposed to the four main single family residential zones.

Can we get a copy of this map? Absolutely. Okay, thank you.

I just made it today. So I didn't have a chance to get it out to you.

Oh, my show goes on.

Thank you. You said you're going to combine RS8 and 10. And the reason is that there's different rules for SN8 besides the square footage.

Um, the reason for consolidating is they're very similar. Um, there's, you know, one is obviously has a slightly smaller, um, let's go back to where footage where footage and also density. is slightly different um you know one dwelling unit difference there um so they're they're pretty similar in in nature and so the the thought is to just kind of make it more simplified what's the difference between eight and ten as far as what needs to be simplified Well, one, we would remap where it is in the city. And two, some of the things that were identified were using the RS-8 property development standards. They are slightly different. And the permitted uses do differ slightly between the two zones. And floor area ratio is different. So there are different standards between the two, but they are similar enough that it seemed like those could be a logical area to consolidate.

So you're asking the people with RS-10 designation to take a hit for the team to go down to R-8 standards?

That would be part of the process, yes.

Okay, so is the public going to be able to weigh in on this? Are they going to know about it?

Yes.

So every RS-10 owner is going to be notified that their lot is going to be changed to R-8 and they have a chance to come up and talk about it?

We will be working on outreach. We wanted to get a general idea of a direction that we should go before we go out and send the message out. So we wanted to have something more fleshed out before we do that. Okay. Commissioner DeGroote. I don't think your mic's on. Your mic's not on.

We have addressed this a couple times before at least, and I hear it referred to as a future land use designation, but the RS-35 that gets a pass has a buffer zone, especially the ones on the east side and the west side of the town that don't really buffer anything at all. And I know that the reason that they are kept one house per acre is because the sewer service has not been run. On the other hand, the city has run all of the utilities. In other words, they have gas, they have electricity that has been run out there. The cable companies are able to run cable service out there. And it strikes me as being just odd that we can't provide sewer service to that neighborhood. And I guess what I'm getting at is if that were consolidated into the RS-10, for instance, as we're consolidating RS-10 into RS-8, that would give, at some point in the future, probably before 20 years is up, There will be sewer service out there, because you know those are a lot of septic systems and we are conscious of our aquifer and so on, so the question is. If we're doing these other changes in designations, why would we not change that. In other words, it wouldn't be acted upon as long as there isn't sewer service, obviously, but at least the designation could be there.

Point well taken. This has been something that we've talked about internally of, you know, we have this existing RS-35. Obviously, they're very large lot. There's the utility aspect to it all. The council did put a action item into the comprehensive plan to reevaluate RBR, Rural Buffer Residential, which is the future land use designation that implements RS-35. um they put an action item to reevaluate it and how it's applied in the city or how it's used um that wasn't something that we had identified up front to work on but that is something that um i think council will be considering as we work on our work plan and take that forward to them very soon to get their direction on priorities we have a lot of areas that we need to touch for various reasons in the code and our zoning map. So we will be presenting the different options to Council for their consideration and direction of what they want us to work on. So that was actually something that we'd put in here as a consideration of you know, recognizing that we have RS 35 already for areas with critical areas and that type of thing. Because we were talking internally about, well, should we retain an RS 10 type zone for areas with critical areas, but we already have this RS 35. They have different future land use designation, so we can't just go apply it to these areas that are currently RS-10 or whatever zone. So it is kind of a challenge of what are our goals with this update is kind of what we wanted to have the conversation tonight. We also wanted to recognize that on the critical area front, properties that are in a regulated floodplain could use additional land area for redeveloping because a lot of the challenges we see is the requirement for compensatory storage, which requires more land area so you can dig out the ground that you have somewhere for floodwater to go to offset the impacts of the development.

And that's why we have the R35 over by, for instance, Clark's Creek.

I think... For that area in particular is probably just more just because of the stream.

Yeah. You know, that's a critical area issue.

What I'm talking about is more kind of floodplain valley floor, which is similar.

But there are no RS 35s in the valley floor.

Correct. So that's something that we're just recognizing. As you know, more properties are trying to be developed that are in the floodplain and the challenges we see if they're a small lot, the actual reality of being able to develop it when it's in the floodplain. because of the small size, they're not able to do compensatory storage to get redevelopment. So that was just a consideration that we were raising of, should we retain an RS-10 for that factor, or should we be really looking at RS-35 for application in these situations?

Which would be in expanding it while the rest of it is being shrunk.

expanding RS-35. You're right. Yeah. These are all the questions. Yep. Part of the discussion, for sure.

All right.

And then also we have just our general critical area code for, you know,

managing development near our general all of our critical areas so our streams you know you guys are very well which doesn't apply very much to most of what's on the east side of town or the west hills kind of thing yeah all right i just i just think that's something you know if we talk about consolidating and as vice chair of kills guard just brought up you know somebody i mean i'm for, you know, kind of everybody gets equally treated here. And this seems like a very big, not equally treated kind of approach. So that's my comment.

Thank you.

Thank you. Kendall, from the citizen comments, I'd like to read something and then ask you a question. So the citizen comments, what we hear is, when the city updated the comprehensive plan and land use map, both the public and the city council gave very clear direction. Puyallup does not wish to increase residential density beyond what the state of Washington requires. By eliminating RS-10 and converting those areas to eight or six areas, the city would be raising base density and allowing smaller lot sizes. And then in italics, nothing in state law compels Puyallup to remove RS-10, and doing so would be a discretionary policy choice that conflicts with prior council and community guidance. The citizen then requests that we retain the RS-10 zone for existing low density neighborhoods. why wouldn't we be able to retain RS 10 for those neighborhoods?

We could, I'm just giving you what the housing action plan direction was that council adopted and we received buy-off from them when that was adopted. And this was the concept moving forward. I want to also for just clarification on that comment in general, um, The commenter's neighborhood was identified as potentially going to a moderate density residential during the comp plan update. We received several comments from property owners in that area against that change. And so that area was left as low density residential LDR. So from that standpoint, it did remain as LDR, but that didn't mean that we wouldn't still be considering this consolidation of single family residential zones that was already identified and something that we were working towards through this process. So just wanted to kind of clarify some context.

That is helpful, Kendall. Thank you.

um did you also kendall want to talk about as we're talking about these rs zones the difference between our moderate density zones and our low density zones in what respect and the respect that these are all rs zones that are considered low density even if some of them have um Higher density. Yeah. Sure.

Yes. So all of these RS zones are considered low density residential. LDR is the future land use designation. So when we have a future land use designation, That's more general than we can have multiple zones that implement it. So RS 35, as I kind of mentioned, has a different land use designation. It's the rural buffer residential. So it's kind of in a different category. But RS 4, 6, 8, and 10 are all considered low density residential. Does that help?

Not real well, but both.

It can get very technical and jargony. Commissioner Arcelia.

Yeah, I have a question on, it's actually on the next page, but you mentioned it. It's the implementing action, the LU 1.9.1. Did that come out of the planning commission or did that come out of somebody else?

That came from council.

Okay. Because I know they made, or it appears they made some other changes other than the ones that have been the big topics, but have been some other, considering some of the other items on here. Can we get notification of what those were? Because as I'm reading through some of the critical area stuff and a couple of the other ones, there appears to be some things that are different than what we had or added on that we hadn't had. So it'd be nice to know without having to reread the entire comp plan again.

There were several changes that were made. There are marked up versions on the city's website still.

Okay.

That I can get you as a link to and kind of tell you where they're located. A lot of them are in markup version and then there's some others that are separate documents that give the change separately from the actual version. call plan documents. So I can kind of back you up.

Yeah, because it looks like I'm seeing a potential trend that I'm concerned about, that some of this was being developer and really driven instead of what we were looking at in the way of the public side. And I just want to make sure before I start talking a little bit more about, you know, why are these, what are they trying, what's trying to be accomplished? What's the agenda on it? So that I'm prepared to talk with neighbors about the same thing. Is that possible?

We can get you the changes that were made, yes.

Okay. Thank you.

I consider RS-10 low urban density single family residential zone a really offensive oxymoron when you've taken four units per acre, but you're allowing three units for every unit. So that term of low urban density is out the window. And for you or the city, I should say, not you, excuse me, for the city to try to say that we wanna bring down 10, RS-10 down to R-8 standards is just an additional slap in the face for everybody that's RS-10. They've already been being hit with multiple units, 80 units and all that kind of stuff per lot. So why hit them again with taking RS-10 standards down to R-8 standards? So I'm against any kind of adding together of eight and 10. They've already taken enough hit.

I'm can you. Confirm what you're saying about adding together a attempt.

Kendall said that the city wants to take our s 10 standards and put it down to rsa standards.

Okay.

And I'm saying that RS 10 has already been hit with enough in filling up with a to use the stuff that the low urban density designation is out the window because you're adding the ability to have 3 units for every lot and 4 lots per acre you're talking to hypothetically 12 lots per acre now are 12 homes excuse the residents is I think that's that's enough I don't think you need to take it down to our 8 standards.

Commissioner Seeley?

Yeah, I do. With, you know, I know that that single family is going to go away since the state really doesn't recognize single family anymore at all. But at the same time, I have the same concerns is that when we're allowing potentially on an RS-10 four units to the lot, that type of thing, we really are growing the base population of Puyallup. And if we say we're going to have RS8, well, now you're creating four more lots, five more lots per acre. And then you put four units on, that's 20. That's 20 additional homes in that same area that used to have eight or five. So I think we need to be very careful. on how we do this. I know that those areas of Puyallup that do not have an HOA, they're the ones that are going to be repurchased and duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, that type of stuff going in. Because most of the HOAs that I know that are still active, all basically still say a single lot, a single family per lot. You're going to have a bunch of those, especially up on the big RS-10 there on the right-hand side, just by the number of HOAs in there. So I would, I prefer to try to keep those lots that are RS-10, the people bought them for that purpose. And if they sign a document that they're going to follow the HOA rules. So unless your HOA goes under, then those rules still stay in effect. So you may want to check out where that's going to be so you can get a better idea of where you're going to be able to see some increased density, potential density there. So I'm not sure getting rid of those is With all the other changes we're allowing to happen, it's gonna create some angst from people out that way.

When are we revisiting splitting in our schedule?

November 12th.

Okay, so that's the next meeting. Correct. Okay.

Thank you, I I think my question would be. What is given the state mandates that have just been enumerated here that are going to increase density potentially and and almost certainly in the future, at least by by a lot? Is streamlining and simplifying the standards. I mean, how important is that, let's say, versus ensuring that the code allows for appropriate safety and services for all residents? So in other words, how, you know, how does streamlining the standards, given the comments you've heard here tonight, how is that a kind of a compelling reason for doing this?

we're asking for direction tonight you know is that still the goal for single family residential zones should we be aiming to have three um instead of four should we be aiming for two instead of three we're kind of looking for that direction tonight okay thank you

Looks like we're ready to move on. I think usually we would finish the presentation.

I really don't have much more on this presentation. I have the discussion items, which we've already been discussing. Okay. And then after this, we'll switch to the mixed use portion, but looking for any direction for how we should proceed in drafting code and providing draft maps for you when we come back on single family residential zones.

I sure can start.

Yes, I can make a motion that we accept the city's plan of eliminating our s 4. And we keep our s 10.

Do we have a second.

I'll second.

We have a motion on floor. Does anyone like to discuss that? I'll just say that maybe that's a little bit ahead of where we are in the discussion process, it seems. Maybe I'm the only one that feels that way.

I didn't think we were looking for a motion yet. We were just looking for direction.

Sorry, I thought I cut just the opposite.

Okay. My intent here is that you asked for direction from us. And when I heard our chair say, well, let's move on, I thought the time might be right to say, well, if you want direction from us, maybe now is the time for that direction.

Okay. Okay. So are we looking at making a motion then and taking a vote on it? Or are we just looking at kind of stating our are preferences at this point, so they have direction that way.

My intention was to eliminate RS4 and maintain RS10. If you want to use that as a guideline for the city to move forward, that's fine too, but I think that's going to take an amendment to do that, in my opinion.

I don't think so. That's up to you. We're not going to move anything that I know of.

You can make a motion though. Yeah, he did.

Then mine went with it. We're still discussing. Does anyone else have any?

Oh, just some discussion at this point then. So we're going to basically eliminate RS first of all, right? Are you planning on keeping RS for some reason? Because we don't have single family dwellings anymore.

Correct. We would likely go to like a R12, however many.

Okay. And then for the RS35, because that truly is still single family, are you looking at keeping at that or making that like R5 or something?

We haven't gotten to that level of detail.

Apologies. Okay.

But the intent would be that it would be retained at this point and maybe have a new number associated with it or new name.

Because that way, if it does change in the future, we don't have to do too much to change that sign. I did know that back in the day when that was developed, running sewers out there to RS-35 was going to be extremely expensive. And so they put everybody on septics out there and they expected them all with one acre lots and the soil type that they would still be able to do that for decades. So they didn't spend their sewer money at that point there. They sent it in town and that type of thing. But that may, as time goes on, that may need to get changed again. Or if the city sides were no longer have an RS-35 and allow that area to develop like it probably could be. And I agree with commissioner Kiel's guard that we could probably combine six and four, 10 and eight is a little more different because you're, you're basically being able to add heavier density there, uh, without increasing lot sizes. So that would be my only concern.

Currently, I just feel like we're writing off RS-10 or maybe it's just me because I'm new and I wasn't a part of the comp plan. But currently, I feel like we're writing off this proposal to combine RS-10 with 8 without really considering their original reasons for the suggestion fully. And instead just responding currently to what was shown. So I mean, I would like to hear more about what the thought process was, or maybe some time to actually look at the housing action plan. Now, if the I mean, I think there's some valid points that the housing action plan was written before these 80 use, um, were implemented. And so maybe, you know, I think that's a reasonable justification for then stating that we don't need to now combine eight and 10 into eight. Um, but I just feel like I haven't heard enough of the reasonings besides it to make a decision tonight.

Are there any other discussions on the motion?

There is a second on the motion of this month.

I asked if there were any more discussion or any more discussion sorry. Technically we have a motion on the floor that requires a vote so I'm going to open that all those in favor. Would you might would would you restate that would you restate the motion the motion was to eliminate our s 4 and keep our s 10. And it is technically a motion on the floor. So all those opposed, they may.

Sorry about that with a three three vote. That'd be a tie. So the motion would fail, technically in according to Robert's Rules of Orders.

Thank you.

And It terrified my way in. I think we have what we do have clarity on is that there's still quite a divergence in opinion. And so we'll work to bring back probably at least two options. Yeah. To consider in more detail.

Yes. And when I just for clarification, when I was saying that we could continue, I met with the presentation of what we were talking about.

I have a question. Because some of them, you know, we have a couple commissioners that weren't around when the HAP presentation was done. Can we, can you kind of come back and give us a synopsis when you come back the next time on what their recommendation, why they made that?

We can go through more detail on that.

Kendall and Katie, can I also request that the newer commissioners be provided with their copy of the HAP plan. The rest of us have ours or we should. I don't believe that they have received one. The rest of us got binders and I don't think that they have theirs. I have another question that wasn't in that whole motion thing. Again, this language that was added from council on land use, not zoning, but land use, the LU 1.9.1, did they give a reasoning as to why this language was added?

There was public comments related to it, requesting that it be kind of eliminated entirely and re looked at. And so where we were in the process, it wasn't a realistic option at that point in time. And so council wanted it to be studied further post comp plan adoption.

But they did include it in the actual complaint.

They included the action item for it to be reviewed and looked at. Yes. But the comments that they were receiving were about that RS-35 is not appropriate in an urban environment. It shouldn't exist. And that type of thing, which

Yeah, I understand.

We had not studied as part of the EIS and other work. So it was a bigger change to the plan at that point in the process that Yeah, we were already.

Thank you. Okay.

If you're ready for the next section, I'm going to pass it off to Kate Rogers with MIG, and she will kind of walk through the proposed changes for our mixed-use zones.

Thank you so much, Kendall, and good evening, everyone. I'm going to get the presentation that I put together up on the screen. All right, so we're going to switch gears and talk about some mixed-use zone updates. So starting with kind of on the smaller scale with the neighborhood commercial designation and the limited mixed use or LMX zone. So kind of looking back to the comprehensive plan process, I know not all of you were there for all of that process. So I'm gonna do a little bit of kind of background information, but there was this idea of supporting new and sort of strengthening existing neighborhood commercial nodes. So this was kind of a key component of the updated growth concept for future growth in Puyallup. And what we're talking about are really kind of small scale commercial areas that bring, again, sort of smaller scale, lower impact retail and services, restaurants, coffee shops, things like that, closer to residential neighborhoods. So this can allow more folks living in neighborhoods to meet their daily needs with shorter trips to those areas. And they can also kind of create a sense of place within a neighborhood and create community by kind of bringing folks together and having kind of a landmark and a special area within a neighborhood. So this concept received generally very strong support from the community through the comprehensive plan engagement process. So first of all, looking all the way back to winter of 2023, which it's hard to believe that it was that long ago, almost two years ago, we looked at three different alternatives for how the city could grow in the future. And alternative three was this kind of distributed growth concept, which looked at instead of just trying to focus all or most of the future growth in the city in downtown and South Hill and other sort of existing mixed use areas, trying to think about spreading that growth out just a little bit more. So looking at growth along other corridors like South Meridian, And then also this idea of looking at these small-scale neighborhood nodes along streets like West Steward and West Pioneer. So again, this is looking back two years ago. These were very sort of early concepts. The future land use map that was eventually approved and adopted was kind of refined from this very early version. But this was kind of where this idea kind of took hold and got started. And then we did a couple of kind of surveys and online engagement opportunities to ask about some policy concepts. And one of them was supporting new neighborhood commercial nodes. And that concept received mostly very strong support from community members. And that was back in 2024. And then a little bit later when we had kind of more concrete proposals for changes to the future land use map, kind of brought that question back. So specifically looking at where those changes were proposed on the map. And again, there was general support from the community through that survey as well. So then that led us to, again, that adoption of that future land use map. And so the neighborhood commercial Future land use designation is the designation where these new commercial nodes are applied. And I mentioned that these are mostly along key intersections and corridors like Steward and Pioneer. And most of the properties that were redesignated as neighborhood commercial have existing non-conforming commercial uses. So these are businesses that have been there for a long time. And then over the years, the land use was designated as mostly they were designated as low density residential. So that's why the business, the commercial use is considered non conforming. So it doesn't meet the standards of that designation. So by updating the designation to kind of match the use. It will enable those existing commercial uses to maybe expand or redevelop over time and kind of utilize their site more fully than they would be able to under the current regulations. And, you know, in addition to those sort of pre-existing commercial areas, a small number of new commercial areas could form to create these kind of small scale mixed use nodes and to serve surrounding residential areas. So I did want to, I just put this slide together because I figured it would be helpful to see on the map kind of where these areas are. So this is just west of downtown. And also to point out that these properties that were designated as neighborhood commercial are mostly pretty small. We're talking about sort of residential lot size properties. And some of them are kind of surrounded by moderate density residential designations to kind of form a little bit or enable a little bit of a higher density kind of nearby those commercial areas. So then thinking about zoning, so that's the future land use designation is neighborhood commercial. And then the zoning map will use the LMX or limited mixed use zone to implement the neighborhood commercial designation. And that's an existing zone in the city's map and code, but it kind of serves a different purpose right now. It's kind of more of a... sort of a scaled down version of some of the other mixed use zones for example in South Hill. But a lot of the places where the LMX zone is currently applied have the future land use map has changed so those areas will no longer be LMX. So the idea is to kind of repurpose the LMX zone to kind of work a little bit better for this neighborhood commercial concept. and to align with that concept and those policies. So as part of that, we will be considering the types of uses and scale of development and the form of development that is appropriate for that kind of more neighborhood scale context. And so the code standards need some revisions related to land uses and development standards to kind of make those better aligned. So looking at potential concepts for changes, so in terms of permitted uses, today in the LMX zone, most commercial uses are currently allowed. There are some that are specifically prohibited, including things like drive-through uses and retail that has outdoor storage. So things that are really, certainly would not be compatible with the neighborhood context. But right now, neighborhood, or excuse me, commercial uses are limited to 50,000 square feet in any one building. That's a pretty large commercial space. So that's one thing that we'll be looking at changing. But also thinking about maybe limiting the types of commercial uses that are allowed in that zone. So thinking about maybe drinking establishments that don't have a restaurant component, that might be something that you want to prohibit. Thinking about, you know, kind of things that would have higher impacts on surrounding residential homes and areas. potentially things like self-storage facilities, which currently would be allowed as a commercial use in that zone. Maybe that's not appropriate. I don't know how likely that would be to be developed on those very small properties, but you never know. And there might be other uses that are sort of incompatible with that neighborhood scale. In addition, I mentioned the existing limitation The limit for 50,000 square feet of commercial space. I think we might want to scale that down. So typically retail spaces often range from 1,000 square feet to around 10,000 square feet. You know, we're not thinking about big box retail, of course, but kind of more your typical maybe downtown style retail space. So you could look at maybe reducing the maximum size allowed in any one building. Maybe 10,000 square feet would be appropriate. The other potential way to do that is to make the limit, instead of kind of a flat limit of 10,000 square feet, you could make it kind of proportional to the site size, something similar to the floor area ratio concept. So the limits kind of scales up if you have a larger site or scales down for a smaller site. Um, you also might consider limiting further limiting outdoor uses. Um, so things again, that could have more kind of noise or lighting impacts on neighboring properties, and also maybe thinking about limit, uh, limiting nighttime operating hours beyond what the current code would allow. So those are some thoughts about commercial uses and thinking about residential uses. So again, this is a mixed use designation. Um, and currently, uh, apartments and townhouses are allowed, but only as a part of a mixed use site. Um, so some potential updates are to allow, um, standalone residential uses. So maybe a small apartment building or, um, you know, smaller scale townhouses, um, to allow those uses on their own and by rights are not requiring, um, a commercial component to be, to be, um, developed as part of that. Um, and part of the thinking behind that is, um, you know, we know that the city needs needs housing and, um, of course you need commercial as well, but commercial retail spaces are. Often more challenging. Um, they often don't pencil out because it's harder to get the right tenant to fill retail spaces. Um, whereas residential is kind of more straightforward and there's kind of a known market for that use. So that's one of the considerations. Um, and then just kind of a minor clarification, um, that live work uses, which is, it's kind of a, um, a special type of mixed use where, um, you might have some sort of office space, um, on the ground floor or in kind of fronting the street, but then you might have, um, kind of living space either behind that or above that. And that's currently allowed in the, in the code, but it's, um, not necessarily clear that that's the case. So maybe just making that more explicitly clear. And then thinking about employment uses, this is not something that's currently allowed in the LMX zone, but this idea of kind of craft manufacturing or artisan manufacturing, it's sometimes called, uses that are small scale, low impact, they wouldn't have any greater impact than a commercial use. And that would also have a retail component. So thinking about maybe like a furniture maker that sells their furniture out of their location, but they also have kind of a workshop on site. I think a brewery is kind of a classic example of this as well. I don't know about a brewery. That might be a larger scale operation than what would kind of fit on those smaller sites. But that kind of concept to support more kind of small scale makers and small businesses and offer kind of more opportunities for those folks. And then looking at development standards, thinking about residential density. So currently the maximum density is 12 units per acre. which is a pretty low to moderate density, I would say. And there might be opportunities to increase what's allowed in terms of density, or potentially just to rely on the site controls rather than limiting density, just establishing, you know, making sure your kind of height, lot coverage, potentially floor area ratio is another tool. those could kind of control the overall size of a building and not worry as much about the sort of density, which density depends on number of units, of course. So if you have really small units that might have kind of the same scale and sort of same impact as the same size building that has larger units. So it's not always a really meaningful thing outcome to regulate. And then in terms of setbacks, so that's kind of the space between the building and the property lines, the front, side, rear property lines. And currently the code requires what's called a build to area. So it says that buildings have to be placed somewhere between 12 and 20 feet from the street. So it has to be no closer than 12 feet, but no further back than 20 feet. And that's kind of a strict kind of inflexible standard that may not be necessary in this area. And as part of the design standards, design review updates that are being worked on kind of in parallel with other zoning code changes, Those are looking at block frontage requirements, which is kind of more of a form-based approach to regulating kind of the space between the street and the building. So I won't go into much detail on that, but I think there are some good approaches that could be considered as sort of a replacement to that build two area standard. So to offer more flexibility. And then, in terms of side and rear setbacks the existing setbacks are relatively modest and I don't think we would recommend changing those necessarily but might want to. Consider more dense landscape buffering, especially when you know commercial use is a budding a lower density residential use so kind of ensure that sort of separation and kind of screening of that use. You could also look at varying the buffer intensity or width based on building height. So a single-story building may not require as much buffering and screening compared to a three-story building. All right. I think let's maybe get through, unless there are clarifying questions, maybe we can get through the South Hill mixed use zones, and then we can open it up to discussion after that.

I have one quick question. Parking, what are you anticipating for parking space in those areas?

Parking is actually regulated based on the use rather than based on the zone. So it really depends on what use is being proposed.

So will you use the traffic guide then based upon what the building's doing?

I mean, the parking standards are in the city's code, just in a different chapter of the code. Um, I don't know that we would necessarily look at changing those.

Okay. All right. Yeah. Cause you could have very flexible Lori building being commercial and then two stories of residential sitting on top. So.

All right. Um, so Southville mixed use zones. Um, So again, a little bit, just a reminder that a large portion of Puyallup's future growth is expected to take place in both of the regional growth centers, but in particular South Hill, because it's got a lot of land, a lot of potential capacity, Some redevelopment would need to take place, but that certainly is, I think, possible over the next 20 years. And, you know, the existing land use designations and zoning really kind of already are geared towards supporting that future growth. In particular, the mixed-use commercial designation, which applies throughout most of the South Hill neighborhood. But I think... some changes are needed to align with some of the policies in the comprehensive plan. So in terms of implementing zones, this is actually the future land use map, not the zoning map. I think the next slide shows the zoning map, but just as a reminder of where that mixed use commercial or MUC designation applies with the new map. Again, throughout most of South Hill, as well as along South Meridian, as Kendall pointed out earlier. And in the kind of the core of the South Hill area, the South Hill Mall area, that is community commercial mixed use or CCX area. And then the urban center mixed use designation applies throughout most of these other MUC parts of South Hill. And the idea is also to extend the UCX zone in this portion of South Meridian. So kind of creating that sort of continuity. And UCX is also being considered for other properties near Shaw Road and Pioneer Ave. We're not going to really get into that today. I think we'll be talking more about that at a future work session. So this is the current zoning map. So you can see the CCX and the UCX areas. So as I mentioned, these zones already allow for fairly high intensity and higher density development. But some key changes are needed related to permitted uses, in particular, this concept of mixed use versus standalone residential density and height allowances. So looking at permitted uses, So currently, apartments and townhouses, kind of similar to the LMX zone, they are allowed, but they're only allowed as part of a mixed use site. And that applies throughout all of the mixed use areas of South Hill. And as I mentioned, mixed use development is a lot more challenging than just pure residential development. And it doesn't always make sense to require a commercial space in all parts of those mixed use areas. And it might be better to kind of focus the mixed use requirement on kind of key frontages, maybe the streets where people are expected to be traveling and want to stop and shop. Or even, you know, key intersections where you might have kind of a cluster of commercial uses that are required, but then to kind of support that those commercial spaces, allowing more just kind of standalone housing in other areas. And this was a policy that was included in the updated. Land use element of the comprehensive plan. And so that's something that we would like to carry through into the zoning update. And then, similar to the LMX zone for employment uses, considering that kind of craft manufacturing use allowance, maybe you might allow a slightly different scale of that type of development in South Hill. That's something that we can we can talk about, you know, adding some nuance if that's helpful. And then in terms of development standards for a residential density in CCX or that kind of core area or on the mall, there's no maximum density limit there. But then in the UCX areas, it's limited to 22 units per acre. Again, that's kind of a, I would say for a high intensity zone, that's a pretty low density area. That's kind of more like garden apartment kind of level of density, whereas the South Hill neighborhood is really envisioned as, in the future at least, sort of a high-density, high-intensity neighborhood. So looking at potential changes in the UCX zone, You could increase the maximum density to something more like 40 or 50 units per acre. Or you could, again, rely on site controls like height, lot coverage, floor area ratio to limit intensity. So not relying on density. And then there is kind of a nominal minimum density requirement. for residential uses in both zones. It's not really doing a whole lot. You could consider removing that just to support more flexibility. You wouldn't necessarily want to preclude, say, a business with a couple of housing units above it from happening if it didn't meet the minimum density requirement. So that's something else to consider. And then with setbacks, There's slightly different approaches in the CCX versus the UCX zones. So in CCX, there's actually a minimum setback of 20 feet from the front, from the street. Whereas the UCX zone has that same build to area requirement for the front. And similar to what we talked about with LMX, thinking about maybe replacing that build to area standard with the kind of block frontage approach, which really kind of varies the setback and the sort of style of development along the street frontages, depending on what streets you're looking at. So thinking about thinking more about kind of context and what makes sense along different streets. And then looking at building height. So both zones allow relatively tall buildings currently but then they have particular the ccx zone has all these bonus options so you could get up to 75 feet without needing any bonuses but then you could get up to 125 feet um if you use you know some combination of bonuses so the the base height allowance is somewhere between six or seven stories most likely and then up to maybe around 10 stories with bonuses. The UCX zone is a little bit more limited. The maximum height is 68 feet currently, which is around six stories. It could go up to around eight stories with bonuses. There's really only one bonus that's available for UCX, which is you get a bonus if you have structured parking. So you kind of get a discount on floors of structured parking. But just to point out that there is a lower height limit if for properties that were better within I think 300 feet of single family residential or the RS zones. So. And this list here on the right just shows what the various height bonus options are. So. I think staff has pointed out that some of the bonus options are really kind of out of date and aren't really aligned with, for example, their sort of green building or efficient building requirements, which really the building codes have been updated quite a bit since those bonuses were put in place. And the bonuses may not really be adding a whole lot in that regard. so some potential updates to think about is to just go ahead and allow that maximum height by right so kind of removing the bonuses and just saying you can get up to 125 feet which is you know it's a height that's not likely to be achieved by kind of current market uh conditions but it might be something that could be achievable in the future um the other approach would be to kind of focus in on the bonuses that are really more impactful. So affordable housing is an important one, but maybe removing some of the things related to green building or what are the other ones? Go back to our list. Transfer of development rights. That's kind of a concept of moving density allowances from one property to another. So the you could receive kind of transferred density onto your site and you could get bonus height from that. I think we would need to do some thinking about how effective any of these are or how effective they might be and whether they're worth retaining. But things like solar energy collection, energy efficiency, maybe those aren't needed anymore. OK, so those are kind of initial ideas. We really would love to get your input on these. And if there's more information that you would like about some of these concepts that would help you kind of have an informed discussion, then that would be good to know as well. But feel free to weigh in on any of these that we've talked about.

In terms of the, could you back up the slides just a moment for the, yeah, okay, here. The UCX, and I'm looking for the one that says five stories near single family residences, which is, yes, the, yeah, you just had it. that's still pretty tall for being adjacent to a single family residential neighborhood. And would that include a step back feature, something that would kind of mitigate the appearance of the, instead of having just a big five-story block sitting there across the street from people's homes?

That's a great question. I might, look to Kendall and Katie and see if there are sections of the code that require that type, some type of either a larger setback if you're building as tall or kind of a step back requirement.

I know that they exist in some cases. I think it was when we talked about design review earlier, we talked about that issue. Anyway, it's a question. I'm just thinking about that transition. There was another one that one of these things in here that said something about a dense vegetative screen. But that's not going to help with the five story building. So I think there probably should be some kind of provision that. For something that's adjacent to actual residential neighborhoods Especially if they're single-family as this is SFR is what it says here, right? So I'd be concerned about that The other one is in the Let's back up to the LM X issue Would we also, since we are talking about possibly prohibiting self-storage areas, I know in the light manufacturing currently, we have warehouses allowed. And one of my concerns has been that that ends up on South Hill, which is... Yeah, so we could look at that too.

Are you saying in UCX zones?

The limited manufacturing zone, which we were talking about, shifting that so that those allowances would be in the LMX, if I'm not mistaken now. No. No.

We will talk about those separately.

Light manufacturing.

We'll talk about light manufacturing separately. We have flagged that for discussion.

You have flagged that. Yes. Okay. Last thing, going back, I'd like to go back to commercial nodes again because this has come up before. First of all, I've lived in several large cities and have very much appreciated having a commercial node where I lived. Those are in large cities where downtown is far away. It's a big trip. You have to get on the streetcar or the subway or the drive to get somewhere. And having that in the neighborhood is a big plus. I think the way it's being proposed for along West Stewart, it doesn't make any sense to me. I mean, I'm going to just read the AI definition here. A commercial node is a location where commercial activity is concentrated, forming a central point or hub for retail, dining, office spaces, and other business services. These areas are often located at major transportation intersections and so on. So the point being, we have taken several non-conforming parcels that are along West Pioneer and West Stewart and said, these are a commercial node. Yeah, thank you for the screen. And they've been enlarged since previous screens. They've gone from one parcel to include more. There's two things that, in my experience, argue against some of that. And one is that they're pretty small. And they're way too close to downtown. In other words, generally speaking, we can walk six blocks. And these are sort of clustered close together. The reason for my concern about that is that in the same cities where I've lived, where I have appreciated defined commercial nodes that offer a variety of services, I have seen where single residences on a residential street have been converted to commercial use. one by one. What it does is when that gets converted, it means that the adjoining properties will not be as attractive as residences. And then those start to change. And so you have a creeping commercialization of the whole street. I've witnessed this with my own eyes in a couple of large cities where I've lived. And I don't know if that's the kind of thing we want to do to the folks on West Pioneer and West Stewart. I would be much more in favor of saying we have a few commercial nodes that are large enough to serve their purpose and that are well spaced. So, basically, I'm speaking against having just this collection of small things that are very close to our city center. Anyway, that's what I have to say about that.

Just one thing to clarify regarding that sort of commercialization, kind of conversion of residential properties to commercial. I mean, I think because of the limited extent of the neighborhood commercial designation, And I don't know if it's really visible on your screen, but it's this kind of pinkish color. So there's one right here, one here, one here, and then just one corner parcel in this kind of larger. This is moderate density residential for these other properties. So that would prevent that kind of sequential change to commercial use because the commercial uses wouldn't be allowed on the residential, the LDR properties. But I think you make a fair point about wanting more of a cluster of commercial uses. And I think that certainly would be a desirable outcome. I think that's part of what we kind of tried to think about where those nodes might make sense where, you know, right now they might just have one business, but could potentially form like a little cluster of businesses. But I think other than that, Other than those kind of existing businesses, there's not much of a sort of a pre-existing commercial node outside of, you know, downtown and some other kind of commercial areas in the city. So it's a hard thing to kind of create out of nothing without a larger planning effort that would really take a more kind of comprehensive look at, you know, like a sub area plan type of thing could do. But that might be something that you all want to consider for a future future effort.

I think the designation that's been given to the Fruitland is that Fruitland and 104th or where is that up there? Yeah, that's that's for instance, that's all presently residential, but that designation has been applied to it. And where there are two intersecting arterials, I guess that kind of thing can make sense. It does make sense. Let me put it that way.

That area in particular ended up being moderate density residential. It didn't go to neighborhood commercial as part of the update. That was an initial proposal, but what was adopted was moderate density residential first.

Right, but is it not designated as a place where that would be a commercial node?

Originally, it was identified as that, but what was adopted is it's just moderate density residential.

Okay. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Anyway, that would make sense.

The ones that are currently we're looking at changing to NC are neighborhood-like grocery stores. They're small and serves the neighborhood. Right now they're nonconforming. So if there's any issues that they have about trying to remodel and that kind of thing, we have to go through the nonconforming process with them. And so you're talking about potentially taking like the corner of Shaw and Pioneer, where you're going to have, I think, some McDonald's and something else going in there. But that's way too big for what these people want. If you go hit that one on Pioneer, kids pack that all the time. And so that same one over on Stewart, that's the grocery store, they're very small. They don't need to go through a whole bunch of steps to try to do their work. And so they need to have a designation of a commercial instead of what they are now, in my opinion.

Well, I think that's something the legislature is dealing with at this point, actually, the state legislature. And in terms of the scale that you're talking about, Shaw Pioneers is not what I would consider a commercial node the way you would see in your neighborhood. If you want to look at something that I think is a good example, it would be at the end of... Oh, my gosh. Now I'm going to fall down on this. Madison Street on the lakeside where there's a wonderful little commercial node that serves the residential neighborhoods around it.

Very nice scale. Where we're talking about, that's already been built out. And so these little stores are existing. There's no place to actually go in unless someone wants to go and buy several residential homes, tear them down and put something else in. I mean, it's basically just a local area for people to stop, grab something to take home for dinner and that type of thing. And so I think we need the ability to have those exist without saying, no, you're too small. Because that's what we're basically trying to say now.

Yeah, and I think that's coming down the pike from the state, actually.

The state always surprises, so who knows?

Can I ask you to just clarify what you, are you suggesting a change in the approach or are you expressing support for the approach?

I'm in support of being able to take these small local retail shops and not make them go through all these hoops to become something else that they're not. They're just, they've been out there, you know, the ones that you've identified have been out there for decades. And have just operated, as you say, the problem was they were non-conforming. Right. So they've been operating as, you know, that way. So it'd be better to get them into the system in the right classification so they can continue to operate.

Okay, great. Yeah, I think we're on the same page there. Any other comments on the LMX concepts or the CCX or UCX?

Doesn't look like we have any answers on the dais.

Okay. I'm going to zoom back to the end, if I can. Oops, too far. Just kind of next steps. So we did not talk about the two other mixed-use zones, the River Road mixed-use zone RMX and the Shaw Pioneer. community mixed use zone, CMX. We are also working on these. In particular, the River Road RMX zone, city council provided direction to staff to have a change to allow new auto dealerships where they're currently not allowed, but maybe, you know, create some sort of sideboards and limitations on that. So that's, we're looking at kind of different concepts for how to address that. So we will come back to you all with some options at a future work session. And then for the CMX or Shaw Pioneer area, looking at just kind of simplifying the city's approach to zoning um across mixed use areas so that you know that it's kind of a specialized um zone was was implemented there many years ago um and the thought is to kind of try to unify um the mixed use areas and maybe change it to ucx so kind of that same designation that applies in most of south hill And also rethinking some of the master plan requirements for the CMX zone. So again, that's something that we're kind of working on behind the scenes and we'll come back to you with some options and recommendations in the future. But just so you know, we didn't forget about those mixed use zones. And then, yeah, so we expect to come back to you sometime in early 2026 to talk about draft amendments and recommendations. So with that, I'm going to stop sharing and just want to say thank you so much.

Thank you, Kate. Move on with our agenda. The next item on our agenda is staff reports. Katie, Kendall, do you have anything?

Yes, I will give a brief update. City Council this month has considered the co-living code amendments that the Planning Commission recommended to them. A couple of weeks ago, they passed first reading with a split vote and asked for some analysis on multifamily residential uses in the various zone districts. So we came back at second reading last night and provided that to them. um and they passed um the co-living amendments unanimously um no you know they appreciated the information on the multi-family residential but made no um recommendations or requests for reconsideration of that so um and they did adopt the planning commission recommendation unanimously with no changes so that was very exciting big win um one code amendment we can check off our list Um, so just appreciate the work of the planning commission. Um, and, and they acknowledge that and we're appreciative of it. So thank you for that. Um, I don't think I don't have any other council updates. Is there anything else Kendall you can think of? Oh, yes, I will mention Courtney. So we officially have a new DPS director. She started last Thursday. So she's been here just about a week. Courtney Burnell is from most recently from the city of Buckley previously has worked for the city of Lakewood and I believe briefly the city of Tacoma. a few other places so we're excited to have her we'll invite her to a planning commission meeting soon so you all can meet her but she is accessible if you want to reach out to her at all that's fine too but we'll make sure that she comes and we can introduce you all but we're very excited to have her on board so I think that's it from planning

Last item on our agenda is commissioner comments commissioner Celia first.

No, I think I once we get some documentation back I can continue from that thank you. I should go.

Yeah, so recently a member of Arts Downtown made a large donation to that organization for the purchase of Tranquility II, which is a large red sculpture that's in the spray pad area. and that's probably the most interactive piece of art we've got. There are people on that constantly. Anyway, this will allow Arts Downtown to purchase it and donate it to the city so that it can become among our permanent pieces of art.

Commissioner Martin.

Rather embarrassing story, but a few weeks ago, I dropped my keys down a storm drain The good news is I contacted the, uh, department of public works and, uh, they sent out just about everybody in their crew and they were able to rescue my keys. And, um, I think that, um, the care and time that they put into doing that for me was just amazing. Um, they were not going to leave until they got my keys back and, uh, It was incredible seeing the city at work, and I really appreciate what that team did.

Thank you. Commissioner Lantham?

No comments tonight.

Vice Chair Kilscard.

The only thing I have is Puyallup football team is number one in the state in 4A. They're 7-0. So keep an eye on them. Thank you.

I will close us out. I know that we didn't talk about it, but we did have the pleasure of hosting the APA conference in Tacoma that I think that the planning department went to. It'll be great to see if you guys have anything back from that for us. I also wanted to let you guys know that one of our recent projects that my firm that had opened up is Quincy Square. It's a festival street behind our office in Bremerton. This, well, next month, the 13th, we'll be showing as part of a film series that we're doing a film from a bunch of different planners and architects. It's called From Earth to Sky, so if anybody wanted to come out and see our festival street and to see our film is going to happen on November 13th. I think that's it for me. Good. So that brings our meeting to a close at 8.13 p.m. Thank you. Thanks.