City Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Thank you. Just a couple of short remarks before we get started. Thank you to Phil, who's not here, for chairing the last meeting. It was a great time in Boston. Secondly, for those of you who haven't seen this, I think, Jim, you've seen it, and I know that Addie has. This is an AI-generated graphic of what the Planning Commission does that I passed around. And we're going to use, if we have HAB-Jacques Juilland, A time at the farmers market or if we have a time at the City Council meeting or if we're doing a town hall of some kind, where The planning commission is describing things. One of the people who's been involved in things for the city said it by looking at that for the first time, they understood what we do. And I think that that's pretty important. It's a graphic. So if you are going someplace, speaking anywhere, anybody who talks to either the Rotary or the Kiwanis or the Lions or any of the service groups and wants to have that, just holler and we'll get that to you. And we may end up If we do a farmer's market, Amy or Cindy Hall may blow that up a little bit so it's a little bit more readable. I just did that at Walgreens.

Do we have handouts?

On that, I can send you the image. Yeah. Yeah. If you're interested in it, I'll send you all the image.

Mr. Schard, does the city have a standing booth at the farmer's market?

We do.

We do.

Yes. And about half of it is sometimes... loaned out to some of the commissions like Parks and Arts has had it. And sometimes the library has been there. So if we're there, then I'll do it. And then another, Amy and I had a good talk when we canceled our first meeting. And then again, when we rescheduled this one, And I'm just going to say thank you all for your, a lot of really good discussion in the last meeting. There's some things that I really afterwards that I was hoping that we could talk about. Our focus is going to be on following the law. And it is not going to be on recommendations or alternatives, okay? And you spent half of the last meeting talking about recommendation. issues. So we're going to try to dispense with as much of that as possible with this caveat. Unless the staff thinks that a recommendation that SCJ or anybody recommends to us, unless they think that it's something that's worthy of our discussion, we're not going to waste any time on it. We don't have the time to waste. We're going to be talking about mandatory elements only And if staff recommends, or if the city council directs us to reconsider things like that are coming up, the data center, then we'll have more discussion on it. Otherwise, we've got enough stuff to do and we have three people to do it. We don't have 150 like Seattle and some of the other places. So hopefully SCJ and Jan and Liam, I understand that message has been accepted and accepted by you anyway to move ahead that way. So- The floor is yours.

Thank you for that. So my name is Liam Taylor. Nice to meet you guys again. And I'll let Jen introduce herself.

Yeah. Good evening, commissioners. My name is Jen Dial. And in Sharifa's absence, who was working with you on a lot of the code update work over the last several months, I'm going to be taking over as Beth. project manager on this project. Some of you may recognize and remember me from the recent parks plan that the city recently adopted and completed. So it's nice to see you again and to be working on another project with you and the city. We have just a brief presentation of a couple of slides just to sort of set the tone and the stage for this conversation this evening. And then we will Promptly jump right into the kind of some of the code update and red line changes specifically We're just both of you and I think genuine you actually got to visit liberty like one time didn't ship with us. Yes, yes. And hopefully in the future, Liam I will be out there in person to do this presentation with all of you, but we couldn't be in person. tonight.

Can you all see the presentation? Yes.

Yes.

Okay, wonderful. So you can go to the next slide.

So, as you all know, the goal of this meeting and subsequent meetings is going to be to update your development regulations and your code, and that is, as was articulated just a moment ago, really to bring the city into alignment with those state mandates coming out of the legislature over the course of the last few years, since the last time you did your periodic update. And we are sticking pretty strictly to just what those legislative requirements are to keep you in compliance with the state. And outside of that, we will take cues from all of you if there's interest in exploring anything beyond that. But for the purposes of this meeting and meeting the goal of completing this for commerce and deadlines by the end of the year, we will be sticking strictly to those requirements. Some of the goals outside of just compliance itself for the code is also just to reorganize, simplify, and update the code so that it is a pragmatic and practical and easy to use tool for both city staff and the public to understand. So we will Have those things in mind when we're looking at the code as well, but primarily this is to align those new goals and policies that came out of your comprehensive plan that were also reflective of commerce requirements and bring everything into alignment with the code. This is really kind of the last piece of your overall periodic update.

Next slide.

And this is just a reminder of kind of what our process was to identify areas in the code where requirements were needed. This is just to show you sort of on the back end some of the process and deep dive that Liam and others on our team have undertaken to make sure that this is thorough, it's accurate, and you can trust that it will be complete at the end of it. So essentially, we reviewed all of your various processes. Code sections align those with state requirements and identify those areas where there was need of update, and so I just wanted you to kind of just remind you of sort of the process that led us to today to the red line edits that Liam and I will be showing you. And this is just to the point that was made earlier in a staff memo I think provided back in February. We did lay out those required elements for updating the code in compliance with state law. And then we separately put into a matrix those that were optional. Everything you'll be hearing tonight and in subsequent meetings will be coming from that orange required table that you see on the slide here. If at any point, someone has a question about optional guidance from the state related to housing code updates, we can certainly have that conversation. We do have that information, but we'll stick to just the requirements for now. The primary things that we're working on tonight is really related to some of the housing requirements that have come out of the legislature. I mean, we all know the topic of housing affordability, capacity, quantity, you name it, has been a hot topic for many, many years. So most of the statutory changes that have happened over the last several legislative sessions have been related to housing, therefore requiring most of the update in the code. And that those are things around accessory dwelling units, duplexes, and manufactured homes. in particular for kind of tonight's agenda. We have a couple other topics related to housing that we'll work on in a future meeting. But what you'll see before you tonight is really related to new statutory updates for those three types of housing. So that's kind of a general overview of what we're doing and how we got to tonight and what our general approach is. And I'm going to hand it over to Liam to actually dig into the code language updates themselves. Does anybody have any questions or anything you want to bring up before we jump into the actual code?

No, just that, Liam, thank you for, you saved by my count about 12 pages by clarifying and simplifying the ADU portion. And I think that that is very helpful.

Oh yeah. You're welcome. My pleasure.

So I have a question, Mr. Chair, the, the gap analysis that you had on the screen, why didn't we get a copy of that in our package?

That was done many, many months ago as a kind of a preliminary process before the code update to help us orient ourselves to where in your code there were things out of compliance. So it wasn't something in the packet tonight. It was provided to the commission several months ago. We still have that document and we'd be happy to to make sure Amy has access to it if you all would like to see it. It just was to let you know more of kind of the process we've gone through on our end to ensure we were thorough in our review.

And it should match the agenda memo that was presented to Planning Commission with Alicia Ayers and I back the other month. So those line items of recommended and recommended required development regulations should be in that kind of Excel spreadsheet tool that we used.

Mr. Chair, I think it would be helpful if whatever is shown on these screens we have in the package that we get.

And it's not just for us, Liam and Jen. It's also, it's public record of our meetings. And then anybody who does care, to take a look at that could have all that information. So I know it might be repetitive to put it in, but just consider that, please.

Yeah, absolutely. Okay. Well, if there's no further questions, I'd love to jump into the red lines that are in your agenda packet. And I don't know if Amy had mentioned anything earlier, but I just wanted to acknowledge that In the beginning of the zoning matrix, there are some red lines for inconsistencies found between the zoning matrix and the zoning chapters themselves. I just wanted to provide some clarification that we do want to discuss those in greater detail with staff and the planning commission during another meeting. Today, we want to focus strictly on the required housing updates. that are a part of this new state mandates. Sounds good. Yeah. So I'll ask you to flip to page 2-5, which is the page numbers in the bottom right of the agenda packet. And to the zoning matrix, just for those big three ticket items, the ADUs, the duplexes, and the manufactured homes, we just want to add some clarification, such as adding three or more units, the dwelling multifamily, adding manufactured homes to dwelling single family, removing the manufactured home line item on that, and permitting dwelling two-family duplex in the R1, R2, and R3 zones.

And if anybody has questions or comments, just jump in. But otherwise, keep going, Liam.

Well, I... Okay.

Go ahead. Hang on. Jim.

Question. I was trying to understand on the matrix. I'm looking at 2.5. It could be my eyes. I just don't see it. But under prison correctional facility, my handout says NCU. Is something underlined or out or taken away? I can't read it. What is it?

Not conditional use.

I'm sorry?

Not a conditional use.

Not a conditional use.

You see those comments off to the right?

So it's not allowed. So that's it. What is not a conditional use? I didn't see that in the matrix. Could just be me.

Oh, so that that's 1 of the inconsistencies that was found by. City staff and so the end is not allowed and to see you as conditional use, but they're. That's not a combination. That's a scratch out of.

So, what is it for for zones? Is it not allowed or is it a conditional use? What is it?

As the. As the chapter stands, and again, we'd love to dig into this at another meeting, but as the municipal code stands now in the I zone, those correctional facilities are conditionally used. Excuse me, not conditionally used. And in the public zone, it is currently not allowed.

Not allowed? Correct. Okay, well, I'm going to it's the same question flipping back to 23. Under agriculture and 2 was it is it N or L or what? What is it? Against my eyes, so I can't are you talking about?

Oh, yeah. Agricultural 23.

Yeah.

Yes, so currently on the zoning chapter, it is a. a limited use, but in the actual chapter, it's not listed. So it would potentially be not allowed

Liam, if I could just jump in for just a second. So what we found when we were looking through these is that what it says in our matrix and then what it says in the actual zoning code are not consistent. So what you're seeing is us just flagging in there that what it's saying on the land use matrix is that it's permitted, but there are limited use standards that are shown in the zone. So when you look at the matrix and you look at the zone, there's inconsistencies. So what we're going to do is we're going to circle back with you guys at a future meeting to talk about what's right, which one is the right, what's the right answer. And so we just, that wasn't a decision for staff. That's a decision for this body to provide a recommendation to council of, do we want it to be permitted or do we want it to be a limited use? Right now it's kind of both and it can't be.

Kind of a six, seven, huh? Yep.

So if you have this conflict, This is more of a cleanup action than it is anything else.

That's exactly right. And so it just was a bigger discussion. So we wanted to focus just on the housing stuff for this meeting. And then we'll circle back to the ones, the agriculture and the non-housing related ones at a future meeting.

So I should be quiet.

Nope.

No, you keep talking, please.

When you have questions, just make sure you use your microphone so that that's on the record too.

Okay, Liam, go ahead.

Okay. Are you still looking at the agenda item or is this back to the first slide on the screen I'm sharing? We're on page 25. Oh, right. The share button is having little technical difficulties. Are you still looking at the agenda item?

No, we're looking at the matrix.

Okay, awesome. Sorry about that. Yeah, so here's that matrix. And then here are those nuances regarding housing requirements. I just wanted to add a little bit of more clarification to dwelling multifamily. Per your zoning code, multifamily is three units and up. So like a triplex or a small apartment building. Single family, and we'll talk about the nuances at the end, but there's going to be some nuances on the manufactured homes and how they're regulated. The nuances are kind of in the design standards and we'll, as of now, we'll just redact the current manufactured home standards to make sure that they're up to state compliance. And I think, as I said, we'll talk about it in a little bit more detail, but there are things like requiring a permanent foundation, but at the same time, you have to kind of regulate them as single family homes. And then another major item is the duplexes. Per the state statutes for a city of your tier, the two units, middle housing, so duplexes, cannot be regulated more strictly in single, excuse me, where single family homes are allowed in predominantly residential zones. So it doesn't matter for your mixed use zones or anywhere else. It only is an R1, R2, R3. But the bottom line is that per state statute, duplexes will be allowed in those land uses. So if there's any questions, I'd like to jump back to the PowerPoint.

OK. Oops.

OK, so accessory dwelling units. If you look at the page 213, you're going to see a wall of red text. And I hope that didn't intimidate you. It's actually that was done to simplify the code. as well as meet those new state standards. So we figured replacing the existing accessory dwelling unit code and simplifying it was the best way forward. And the new statute does expand where and how accessory dwelling units can be built. So a lot of the existing standards, such as the principal unit of an ADU must be owner occupied. That's not, no, that is not applicable anymore.

Yeah, essentially it was easier to redact and come up with new language because so many of the nuances that were previously a part of the regulation have been stripped. There's so many more allowances. There's like a lot less to actually regulate in the code. And so while you're seeing a lot of red line That's really what's occurring here is that we're just, it was easier rather than to go in and change the language of each of these individual sentences that for the most part aren't applicable anymore to just write new code that was reflective of the state, current state laws.

Amy, did you add A through F or did they add A through F?

They added A through F. Okay.

Okay. Got it.

Yeah.

Okay. So...

Yeah, so I'm sure you've all read this and the notes, but basically the accessory dwelling units are now regulated by a 1,000 square foot maximum. That's the maximum you can, or that's the minimum maximum you can regulate an accessory dwelling unit. If the lot, residential lot meets the minimum lot standards, up to two accessory dwelling units are allowed Um, section C is, um, there's already a height limit established for accessory structures, but, uh, accessory dwelling units can be up to that height limit, regardless of that primary unit building. So I just want to add some clarification there. And then the. Accessory dwelling units, they can still have the same building setbacks as typical single family units, except for the alley. So on public alleys, they can have a zero lot line. And I did want to point out on that last section, per the RCW, this exception does not apply where the city routinely plows snow. So I don't know if that's something the Public Works Department can address, but that's going to be probably a case-by-case basis, I would say, if I were reviewing accessory dwelling units. And then the next one, and thanks for bearing with me, the next one is this in regards to converting accessory dwelling units. You can convert a garage or any kind of structure to an accessory dwelling unit regardless of the building setbacks where the existing structure is. And we kind of touched on this last meeting. So accessory dwelling units can also be conveyed or sold as a separate condominium unit. And that can be done through the subdivision process or probably a series of lease agreements between property owners. And then for some of the redacted ones, the first one, A, is regard to parking. We're going to take care of that in the development standards where some of the parking, it's pretty nuanced. If you'll recall, there was Um, kind of a question on the 6,000 square feet. So, um, you know, if the lot is less than 6,000 square feet, you can only require one space. So things like that will come in that respective portion of the code. And then there's some other ones like the principal unit. of the ADU shall be owner-occupied, that gets struck in the way due to the state statute.

Yeah. It's no longer applicable. You can no longer regulate it in that way.

Yeah. And then for simplicity's sake, because ADUs aren't in the new statute, they're not regulated differently between attached and detached. We decided it was the simplest way forward to just make this one simple accessory dwelling unit section.

Yeah, in other words, you no longer regulate detached or attached differently. Previously, you could have different regulations, depending on whether it was attached or not. You can no longer do that. All the same allowances apply. So we didn't feel that you need the two separate sections going forward.

So I know that was a lot, but are there any questions or clarifications for accessory draw rules?

Nope. And you shouldn't have to explain that again, because I think it's in four different places. So thank you.

You're absolutely correct. Yeah, so this will be the same in the R1, R2, R3. Yeah, all the mixed use zones. So where's my mouse? There it is.

Mr.

Chair? Yes, hang on a second.

Go ahead. I have maybe more of a fundamental question. The state law says we must allow these ADUs in any district that allows single family, duplex, residential housing. Is that correct? Yes, I believe so. Well, when you look at the matrix, a lot of these districts allow different types of housing as a limited use, not a permitted use, but limited. In your mind, Lance and Amy, is limited the same thing as allowed or permitted for the purposes of interpreting the state law? Good question.

In this case, I would say yes.

You would say yes.

Most of the, I mean, the limited use conditions that we had on accessory dwelling units were based on design. They weren't based on a lot, like whether or not the use was allowed. It was just what it needed to look like. And so, you know, they were, they are allowed. They just need to look this way. And so I would consider a limited use in this context to be a permitted use with a few caveats. And they're basically telling us what our caveats are allowed to be.

But you have to make application.

Yes.

So does that... Go by the wayside then? No, they'll still have to apply. Do you still need to apply? Yes. If you have a limited designation, there's still performance standards.

Yes. Even permitted uses still have to apply.

Yeah.

Okay.

Even though the state is saying they don't want any of that influence, they're focused on the provision of housing.

Mm-hmm. There are still standards that could make it to where they can't do that. I would have to look at specific cases, but just because it's allowed in the zone doesn't mean that your lot specifically is allowed to have that for a variety of different reasons.

Well, and I just mentioned HOAs. I'm pretty sure they can limit that in a neighborhood. Yes. Yes.

I'm curious. Has anybody... Now that you bring that up... The way I read the law, I tried to read, my eyes were nearly bleeding by the time I got through this. I didn't see anywhere in the law that says specifically that HOAs can preclude ADUs. It's not even addressed. It hasn't been addressed. HOAs are...

My understanding was that new CCRs were not allowed to prohibit that, but existing CCRs would still hold. I think that's going to be something that's probably going to have to go through a court process in order to adjudicate whether or not existing CCRs can be amended that way. or compelled to be amended that way. But for my understanding right now is that only new CC&Rs are required to comply with this.

It could be the dead horse. But do we have any idea how many of these associations could affect the provision of ADUs presently in Liberty Lake? Because we have a huge single-family district, a very large one. I have not looked through. Does anybody know how many of these associations that exist today would say no?

I do not know the answer to that.

Shouldn't we have the answer to that?

I mean, CCNRs, we require them to exist and be recorded, but those are a civil agreement. Those aren't someplace where the city comes in. So we do have a copy of them to make sure that they exist for the maintenance of the facilities as it relates to the final flat. But I don't read them all. I read them when I need them for a specific question, but I haven't looked through every group of CCNRs to say, oh, this HOA would allow this, this HOA wouldn't allow this.

I think we're a little bit off track too. Let's discuss that when and if we come to a place where we know of an HOA that's not in compliance with the state law. But that's not our job right now. HOAs, as she said, are civil. What we're doing here, we're following law. And court cases are going to determine that. Do you personally know you're involved in an HOA? I'm involved in an HOA. I know ours does not have any, doesn't even address it.

I don't think ours addresses it specifically. However, there is a maximum dwelling count for the project, which would inherently say you cannot have more than X number of dwelling units. If you want to increase that by 30% with ADUs, you can't do that.

my HOA is the one that's grown the most and adding the most people. And so far those, the CCNRs and bylaws have not been changed. So that's not, that's not, that's not.

Okay. Okay.

Thank you. Well, yeah, no, thank you. So the next big item would be duplexes. And this didn't actually change a lot in your zoning code. If you flip to page 232, that would probably be the easiest to explain the nuances. So you'll see two different sections. Again, I kind of wanted to clarify that dwelling multifamily per year zoning code means three or more units. that dwelling single family attached town homes does not apply to duplexes. And yeah, like I said, you know, the big thing was really from the zoning matrix because those duplexes are allowed or single family units are allowed in predominantly zoned residential areas. So not your mixed use areas, but really when you, when you look through your R1, R2, R3 chapters, nothing really changes for duplexes.

Does that make sense? No questions.

Okay. Sounds good. And then quick tidbit on manufactured homes. So as I mentioned earlier, we're going to do A little bit more research because some of the new state standard, I apologize, there's an ambulance. I don't know if you guys heard that.

Our office is downtown Spokane. We get a lot of noise.

Yeah. Anyway, so the long and short of it, through all these RCWs, that manufactured homes must be allowed or single family homes are allowed. And there are some specific development standards that you can still enact on manufactured homes, such as requiring a permanent foundation. So you can't just have it on the wheels. And so we're going to take a look at the existing code section and the limited uses to make sure that those are in compliance with the new state standards?

For now, what we thought was just the simplest approach, similar to what we did with the ADUs, was to basically strike out the existing manufactured housing section that you have because so much of it has changed. and to rewrite the section that's specific to those allowances and standards you can have that Lena mentioned, like requiring a permanent foundation. And so what we're hoping is that the next meeting is to have that new language related to manufactured housing to present to all of you. But just to keep some momentum going, we thought we would at least show you this evening that we're going to be making changes to this section and for now have redacted their existing language.

Sounds good.

Okay. And I think that was, that was it for the mandated housing types. Pretty much.

Do you guys have any, do you want to stop sharing real quick? Do you, Do you have any other questions for us? If we went through this pretty quickly tonight, we didn't know how much discussion we would have. I know it looked like a lot of changes because the ADU language in particular, you know, it was repetitive and multiple chapters. So it looked like a lot of content and we wanted to allow plenty of time for conversation, but Given that we've made it through all this in 40 minutes, we could talk to you just briefly about a couple of the other code updates that we're going to be working on with all of you over the course of the next several months, just to give you a sense of what's coming, if that would be helpful, or we're happy to let you discuss other items or if you have questions for us.

No, Jen, I think that sounds good. And I think Phil's not here right now, but he's the one that has said to you over and over again, how much we appreciate the red line version so that we can see what you're changing. It would be a lot easier for us just to have a whole new document in front of us and discuss that. But I think that there are some people here that have very fine pencils and they do notice the differences. And so I think it's worth discussing. I just appreciate the way that you guys are doing it so that We can have a discussion, but when we get the final draft, then we're really going to be having more discussion, more decision-making, I should say, instead of discussion.

Okay, wonderful. Yeah, I'm glad it's helpful.

Just one second. We've got one question. You can't see it. Go ahead, Jim. It could be more than one question. Well, we have one question. We have one hand at a time.

Okay. 279, page 279. It's not a red line. But I was just wondering that whole thing about spectator sports facilities and stames, arenas, or water amusement parks are prohibited. And so that ties into a question with respect to what's happening over at the tech center.

Mm-hmm.

Just asking we had an administrative interpretation and we had a, an appeal of that administrative interpretation and we had a hearing on that appeal, but we have not received a decision.

You have not made the decision. Okay. Um. The other question I had is on, uh, 281. Page 281. I was a little bit confused because it says you've got the whole thing about the ADUs, but ADUs aren't even allowed in this zone. So why did we do that?

This is the M1, M2, M3 zone. Is that correct? Yeah.

Unless I misunderstood, you said the ADUs aren't allowed. Why are we going to the description about ADUs?

So great question. So You don't have to put duplexes in your mixed use zones because those are not predominantly residential zones. With the accessory dwelling unit, those are a little different as they're already, if you look at the zoning matrix, they are all getting tongue-tied. They are already a limited use. Oh, they are? Yeah, that is correct. Yeah, yeah. So we just updated the three mixed use codes just to be consistent across the board. Gotcha.

OK. Let me see if I had anything in this. I think that might have been it.

Kathy, change of minutes. There were two questions. That was it. You can ask as many as you want. Anything else?

All right.

Go ahead, Jen, if you have some more things you want to discuss.

Yeah, I guess just letting you guys know what's coming. Obviously, we'll go back and you'll see a final version of this like you've requested. There are still a few of state mandated requirements that we need to update the code to reflect. So to give you an idea, we still need to look at unit lot subdivisions. We need to look at vehicle parking standards. We need to look at impact fees. What am I missing, Liam? We need to look at a couple of kind of unusual categories called transportation demand management, adaptive reuse. So some of those are a light touch. Some of those are a little more involved. Parking standards, for example. It just gets very nuanced, like Liam was talking about earlier. So we'll probably set aside a topic like that for one meeting and Our hope is to have most of the code updates ready. And then if we're in an evening like tonight and we're moving along and we're going fast, we can just keep going through them as you guys are ready to do that. But those are some of the topics that you'll see on the docket coming up outside of those housing related topics. new state requirements. There's a couple of amendments we need to make to your critical area ordinance that came out of state agency feedback from the Department of Fish and Wildlife. It's a pretty small change, but you'll see that coming forward from us. We also need to update some of the definitions in the code to match some of the state requirement language. Some of the things are more like administrative cleanup kind of things, but we're putting that after the more substantive, content-rich state requirement language. But over the course of the next couple of meetings, that's kind of what you can anticipate seeing from us. I just wanted to give you some idea of that so you can feel prepared when we come at it.

Sounds good. When might we start getting feedback from commerce?

On which piece?

On the... On our draft.

the comp plan um so we submitted for the 60-day review so they have 60 days to review it our the the deadline for that is august 14th um but they i've communicated with commerce several times and they plan to have it they plan to have us comments before that and also what they'll do is they'll kind of sit down with us and walk through some of their changes before they issue a formal letter of what they need to what kind of changes they'd like to see but i anticipate that happening probably closer to end of july early august

Okay, so that leaves us potentially with a couple of meetings that we could have, Jen, if you want to discuss those things with us. And otherwise, we'll probably stick with our one more meeting, and then we'll probably be back to two meetings after August.

That is kind of what I would, that is something I wanted to talk about and float was keeping it at one meeting for the summer, because I know it's difficult in the summertime, but once fall time hits, if we can pick back up to two meetings to help us get through all of this, I think that that will be important to our timeline.

And if you make the portions edible in shorter meetings, Jen, then that would be helpful as well. I would rather not have a four-hour meeting.

Yes, we all concur. Yeah. Thank you, everyone. Yeah, we've been working with Amy on a work plan for all of the requirements and the various things you all have going on and how to make that happen between now and December. And a two-medium-month cadence will certainly support that effort. So we appreciate you being amenable to that and available to have these conversations.

Thank you.

Okay. Well, if there's nothing else, I guess that wraps up the part from Liam and I. So thank you all for your time, and we look forward to seeing you at the next meeting.

Thank you. Thank you, guys. Thank you. We have some action items to discuss.

This one is actually for Lance.

Hi. So Sue and I have been working on updating the sign code since we had the consultant on board. We developed a draft and had a meeting with our stakeholders to get some input. We've since revised the draft copy. and we're looking for um you guys to create a subcommittee to kind of help us go over some of the details and decide on a few um we'll decide on the details from the feedback that we were given so we're looking for three volunteers to hopefully only meet once or twice um to discuss the sign code so the preliminary meeting that we had um i'm the only one that attended um everybody is was invited to attend that um we had

maybe four businesses weigh in during that time and the predominant feedback came from Joe Frank with Greenstone and they were very good suggestions. So for those who, I know that there's a couple of people that think that we've gone through sign code discussions, I've only been on here for about nine years, and we've gone through it now four different times. And I think if you're tired of it, then don't volunteer. But otherwise, it's a good – we need to do this. The hub has some time-sensitive things that we need to get discussed. And the other businesses and the issues with the signed codes, I think we need to have some volunteers. So whoever would like to do it. Eugene?

I want to do it.

Okay. Anybody else? I know that Phil isn't probably going to volunteer, but if he does, he has a lot of good feedback. Joe?

I can't take on anything else.

Well, that means we're going to reduce the amount of realtor signs down to two. I'll do it. Let's check and see. Troy likes to do that.

Yeah, I'll check with Troy. I'll let him know. I'll send him a email. Okay. Yeah, that'd be great. And we're getting near the end. It's been refined down, but we just want to make sure we kind of go over everything with you guys and with the details before we bring it to Planning Commission for their approval.

And if we get three, I still might just zoom in. Sure. Because it's really helpful to hear the context of the discussion. Sure. That's okay? Yeah, great. Thank you. Yeah, thank you. That was a good meeting too. Citizen comments. Do we have anybody online? Kathy, is there anything you'd like to add to our discussion today since you're the only other one here? Okay. Amy, it's all yours.

Well, we covered schedule. So that was that one. And if there was anybody that was interested in giving a report to council in this, the upcoming meeting or the meeting after, then I can make sure that we get it on the agenda. I don't know. I don't know if there's interest. I don't know that there's content to do that, but I just wanted to provide the opportunity and get it on the agenda if somebody's interested.

Abby gave the last report and it was very well received. They were well presented too.

All right.

All right. Anybody interested?

What day is it? The next one's on July 7th.

And that's when they want to report?

It's not on the agenda yet.

I would say that we should wait until the next time since we're not going to be having another meeting.

Okay.

There's nothing really to report. And if nobody else will do it, then... All right.

That's all I have.

Okay. When is the next meeting?

The next...

Our meeting? Our next meeting?

July 8th is our next meeting. July 8th is the next. July 8th is our next.

It says right at the bottom of our little sheet here. July 8th. Oh, 2026. There it is. Okay. Okay, anybody have any reports from the commission? Did you want to?

Talk about the yard sale?

You could talk about the yard sale, but that's probably not.

Is anybody in? Just a quick comment. Two things. I won't be here on July the 8th. I'll be fly fishing in Montana. And this is not exactly planning related, but I won't take any opportunity to make people aware. I've gotten very involved in veteran suicide prevention. We're losing somewhere between 22 and 27 veterans a day to suicide. And so we are really focusing on different ways to try to do better at how we manage people that potentially are thinking about ending their lives. So I went to a seminar in Post Falls two weeks ago, and there is a number of doctors in the United States now that have reached what they call being a suicidologist. And that's all they focus on. And it is the fact that we have not been treating suicide at all for the last 50 years. All we do is confine people to try to protect them from themselves without trying to figure out why. And 100% of the people that attempted to commit suicide and failed said the same thing. No one ever asked me. No one ever asked me. So if you see someone that is just, you can tell, are depressed or down, not positive about things, ask the question, how are you doing? What's bothering you? Are you thinking about ending your life? And that needs to be asked early in the conversation. Because people, once they hear that somebody cares and bring it up, it is, we're finding we're getting much better success with that. And I say, my focus is primarily on veterans. But I suspect there's more than one of us who have been infected by suicide in this room. So just something for you to think about and understand. Thank you. Well, thank you, Joe.

And I've read your posts. And if you are on Facebook, Joe's put some pretty good information out there. And I appreciate that.

Thank you, Joe.

Any other reports? Charlie? Motion to adjourn.

I certainly, Mr. Chair, would move to adjourn this meeting.

And a second. Gene, all in favor? Aye. We're done.

Good job.