City Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Welcome everyone to the Wednesday July 8th Planning Commission meeting. We'll take a roll call, Kathy, would you?

Tom Solberg.

Here.

Phil Foyer.

I am here.

Joe Mann. Jim Baumker. DG Garcia. Charlie Jenks. Here. Gene Huchel. Abby Sprague. Here. And Troy Molnix.

Here.

Thank you.

Thank you. Let's do it now. I'll take a motion to excuse all four, Joe, DG, Jim, and June. Let us know that they couldn't make it today. Move to approve. Second. Second. Any discussion? All in favor? Aye. Aye. Thank you. And Phil, would you lead us in the pledge term?

Yes.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Good job.

I hope everybody was ready. Does anybody have any changes to the agenda? If not, I'll hear a motion to approve. Move to approve. Thank you.

Second.

Any discussion? All in favor? Aye. Troy and Phil. Abby, you only have four of us today.

I thought you might say you are voting now.

No, I'm not going to do that. But you can do it because you'll be here. Thank you. And everybody had a chance to go through the 68 pages. And then Abby, I'm going to get all the names wrong over there. We were sent all the development codes in a context of whether or not they were recommended or whether or not they were required. So if anybody has a question on that, I've got a copy of them here. And do you have an extra copy by any chance?

I don't, but I can print one for somebody if they need it.

If anybody needs one, I think that this will answer some of our questions.

Thank you for doing that, SCJ and staff. If not, there's any changes to the agenda or to the minutes from June 24th. Hearing none, do I hear a motion to approve?

Move to approve. Second.

Any discussion? All in favor? Aye. All right, on to our workshop.

Good evening, Commissioners. This is Jen Dial with SCJ Alliance, and we are here to kind of walk through this large packet that you all have in front of you. I'm joined by my colleague, Liam. Liam, if you want to introduce yourself.

Yeah, happy to be here again. Liam Taylor, planner with SCJ Alliance. I've been helping with some of the required development code updates.

Welcome, and thanks both of you again.

Thank you. Similar to the format and how we went through this last time, we just have a PowerPoint, and then we'll bring up the red line changes so we can walk through each of the updates one by one. So, Liam, do you want to share your screen?

Yeah.

I'll just introduce that just as a reminder for everyone, if there's anyone else joining the meeting from the public, the context of this update is in regards to Washington state new requirements that have happened since the last time you did your comprehensive plan update and your periodic update. These are required changes to align with primarily new housing laws coming out of state legislature. So back to the next slide, Liam. So again, just the goal of the update is to bring the city's development code into compliance with those state mandates, primarily around housing. We also have one on critical areas this evening and transportation, the primary goals are associated with removing barriers to housing and housing affordability and to implement and align with your comprehensive plan that you've also been working on over the last couple of years. With that, We're just going to jump right into it. I'm going to let Liam guide this conversation. But as you all remember at the last meeting, we discussed that the manufactured home section would need to be updated. We didn't yet have those red light changes ready for you, but we do tonight. And so we're going to start there and just see how far we can get through the packet this evening. Are there any questions or anything before we jump into it?

we'll ask questions as we go, if that's okay.

Wonderful.

Sounds good.

Okay.

Awesome. So, um, I'll jump to the red lines in a little bit, but yeah, the manufactured homes. So we took a closer look and they are allowed where single family homes are and there, there can still be a limited use, which means you can put specific standards on it, uh, such as, uh, And I'll pull up the definitions if it's helpful. But the manufactured home can be required to be a new manufactured home and or a designated manufactured home. And the designated manufactured home, that's where really a lot of the standards come from. The existing code actually did have some of those standards. We just kind of cleaned them up. For example, having that three by 12 foot pitch roof has to meet state energy code. As the current code stands, it had to be a double wide. And that remains true as the specific type of manufactured home with the exception that it's a 12 by 36 foot panel, I believe. And there's the code. Oh, I can see my code up. Perfect. And yeah, so really just wanted to clean up this code and confirm some things, like the two fully enclosed panel sections, each by 12 by 36, energy code. and as mentioned these are allowed where manufacturer homes are allowed on individual lots where those single family homes and uh before we jump into questions i just want to um i'm sure i'm not sure amy or lance mentioned this before the meeting but those highlighted sections on your in your packet are uh uh red lines we've already covered those just Microsoft won't let me change the colors of the red lines, so we may do. So are there any questions on that?

I have a question. How do you differentiate between a mobile home and a manufactured home?

That's a great question. So I believe it's So a manufactured home meets HUD standards. And the RCW is oddly specific, but it has to be constructed before July 1, 1974, I believe. And mobile homes, they don't meet HUD standards. They don't have the same thermal. thermal energy requirements. Yeah. Does that answer your question?

No.

Okay.

Well, like I said, there's certain, so a manufactured home is something that is set on a permanent foundation. At least it's supposed to be. So it's, obviously it's not the same as site-built home, but it's a A home that meets the HUD standards. It has a three by 12 pitch roof. It can be single wide, double wide. It has to be energy codes. Whereas a mobile home is, I mean, it's basically just a shed on a van or a truck, right? So it doesn't have those same federal requirements from HUD on energy standards?

Yeah, essentially it comes down to the date in which it was constructed prior to those HUD regulations that Liam was referring to. The requirements for the structure itself were much less stringent than they are now. So it's really that date in manufacturing that makes the distinction between a mobile home and a manufactured home. And that was, I looked it up just to clarify, Liam. We're super close. It was June 15th, 1976 is when those HUD laws came into effect.

Thank you.

And so the City of Liberty Lake would be able to differentiate between these two different types of homes. They could, when the applicant comes in, the city of Liberty Lake will be asking, okay, so how does this particular structure differentiate, which is a manufactured home, differentiate from a mobile home? And then the applicant should be able to provide what we just heard to certify.

Okay. Isn't the basic difference that one is laid on a foundation and the other one is laid on the axles?

Yeah, I was just going to say that. A mobile home is mobile. Manufacturer home, per this paragraph right here, says it has to be on a permanent foundation. So that would be factor number one. Factor number two, the biggest one here, is probably that it has to meet the state energy code. So when you talk about that, it's window new values, it's insulation values, it's heating equipment, it's all the fun stuff.

So these folks are going to be able to look at all that. and say, this is not a mobile home, this is a manufactured home.

Yes. Well, if it's going to pull onto a lot on wheels, then it's mobile.

Well, I mean, mobile homes I've seen, you can put on a foundation.

I understand, but you have to make...

They pull off the wheels and they lower onto a foundation.

My interpretation, I'll let them do it, but my interpretation would be you have to check all the boxes, not just a few.

Okay.

That's how I would interpret it. Sure. And one of the differentiations too is it's multi-sectional, so it's two pieces being put together. which is a question we wanted to bring up. As far as affordability goes, there have been people who have inquired where there was a manufactured home that's been removed a lot. And people have called me asking me, you know, what are the requirements? And I told them it has to be multisectional. As soon as they find that out, they say it's no longer affordable. So that's a question we're kind of posing here is do we want to keep that multi-sectional requirement or allow a single wide to go to be placed in the city?

Well, doesn't that kind of go to the issue of small homes, how we want to deal with those? Because most of the small homes are no different than the manufactured homes.

Yeah. And, but they're single, they're a single piece. They are.

And they're not, there's no section in the middle.

Yeah. 864 square feet is what I'm,

getting out of this. And I think we talked about less than a thousand is a small home. I don't know that there is. That's how you define it. No, it's just what we're allowing and what we're calling it.

The other question I have is on the first screen that we had up today, you talked about breaking down the barriers to affordability. And I'm just curious, How does all of these changes that we're making to the code break down that barrier? Other than cost control and rent control, which is a horrible thing, how are we supposed to accomplish breaking down the barriers to affordability by making all these changes?

This is allowing manufactured homes where single-family homes are currently zoned. And previously, you could restrict manufactured homes to only certain zones. So this is taking away that restriction and allowing it in more areas as a means for more flexibility and options and home ownership and affordability.

Okay. I think the single biggest factor, if you look at home builders breaking down costs, the cost of land and the cost of improving that parcel of land to be able to accommodate a residence are major factors to affordability. But that's not being addressed here. It's just the ADU concept. and these manufactured homes, I still don't, I mean, I hear what you're saying, but how do we get there from here? We're not addressing, in my mind, the key issue to affordability. We're, and please pardon the term, but this is kind of like putting lipstick on a pig. It's not really getting to the core of the matter, which is more product in the marketplace, reducing the cost to build, which includes land. And we're maybe 75% built out in the city of Liberty Lake. How is this going to break down the barrier to affordability?

I just don't get it. Well, the industry says that it's 40% to 70% less than a traditional site built same size home. So that's what they're saying.

That's fine. But how does that translate into, you know, Phil, buying a piece of land, buying one of these manufactured homes and putting it on the property? How do we regulate the price, what you sell it for? Because it gets back to the affordability question. How are we addressing the value of this property? abode on this piece of land.

Phil?

How I would interpret it is the barrier they're reducing is where you can do the product. So again, don't forget this is a mandate. This is not an option.

No, I understand.

So the state is saying that we are now required to allow manufactured homes, whatever that looks like in your eyes or the city's eyes, you're allowed to do it in multiple areas within the boundaries of your city. So that's the barrier. There's no other barriers. Yes, they cost less, so on and so on. But somebody's still going to sell that to somebody. Well, that's the market. It'll fix itself.

Exactly.

I don't think that that's our issue.

But we have all these words on these screens, breaking down the barriers to affordability.

The question that you asked was, how is it more affordable? By the industry standards, it's 40% to 70% less cost than a stick-built home. So that doesn't answer your question.

There's no discussion on tying the cost of this unit to median income. And I'm not saying that we need to do that, because a lot of times, that's a disaster. OK.

Well, these are the kind of homes that you're going to see over in my side that are going to be replacing the homes that are there, too. And most of those homes are mobile homes, not bank-backed homes.

Can I just bring up that? So when those are being replaced, we're requiring them to do multi-sectional now, and that is a little more expensive than if we were to require just a single section. That is why I kind of posed that question to you.

And your question is whether or not we want to have single-wide manufactured homes.

Yeah, allow that or keep the multi-sectional requirement.

Is that an option under this mandate? Is that a discussion worth having?

I believe so.

Then I'm for it's got to be a two-piece, no singles.

I would say that's probably a small move.

I agree. If that's the only thing we get to talk about that has any bearing of this discussion, then let's move on.

So that's the feedback we're looking for.

Yeah. The single white. There are manufactured homes that are right now, Viceroy homes used to do pre-fab and they were doing them single or double, so. Go ahead. Thanks.

Did that answer your question?

Yeah, no, it did.

Yeah. Okay.

Did I go to the next subject, Liam?

Yeah, I'm just pulling up the... I have three screens, but there's like 20 tabs. So doing a little juggling.

Yeah.

So... Yeah, next up is the adaptive reuse section. And this is found in the large-scale retail establishment sections of certain zoning chapters. And it's kind of a small section that doesn't really discuss.

Liam, what did you read? 27.

Thanks. Oh, yeah.

25, that's all.

Yeah, page 27. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah. Before you move on then, I'm assuming the same topic on manufactured homes on page 17, on page 23, those are all of this.

And we did that last time. Okay. We went through them all. Perfect. They applied them to five different sections.

Roger, roger. Yep. Thank you.

Okay, I'm quiet now. Okay. Okay, awesome. Well, yeah, it's just... Yeah, the purpose and intent of this section is just to encourage the conversion of existing buildings into housing. And when I say encourage, I more so mean set up certain standards for those conversion types. One of them, which is the comment in blue, the first comment in blue on page 27 is density. So per the state mandate, you you have to provide up to a 50% residential density increase on adaptive reuses. And that's dependent on the underlying zone. So zoning codes usually have density standards like units per acre. And another big one is parking. So we looked at the state mandate and it's kind of a interesting code section so the kitty this the kitty the city cannot impose additional parking for these adaptive reuse dwelling units however the city can require that any existing parking be retained so if um If a small shopping center gets turned into apartments or townhomes for whatever reason, you can mandate that those parking stalls within the small grocery store adaptive reuse project site be retained. And there's also some sections on allowing nonconformities. Those are kind of the big ones that I felt we should address. And nonconformities are things like parking height, building setbacks. So if an older existing building is encroaching on whatever the zone's building setback has to be, you could still allow that building to be turned into housing.

David Ensign, A question on the parking.

David Ensign, Like Troy yeah.

David Ensign, Maybe maybe it'll seem the same thing, but. David Ensign, Can you refresh is the parking requirement that we can't impose any additional parking you said that was state mandated right, so we we can't per the state impose any additional parking than what's already in code. Is that right? Okay. So my question is, what about some of these properties that were maybe built up here before we were a city that were grandfathered in and that their parking standards were either nothing or they're not up to what our current parking standards are? How do we deal with that as a city? And I know that that's probably not something we can go against state law, but is there anything that we can do that would be within state law that would allow the city to take a look at that a little bit closer?

Doesn't this only apply to new builds?

No, this is for existing buildings. They have to be at least three years old.

So saying that an existing building that was permitted back in the 70s under Spokane County, now we're going to convert it into residential units. Well, the county either didn't have parking standards or their parking standards were not up to what they should be now or what we've determined as a city. How do we manage that? Because we can't impose any additional off-street parking standards.

My understanding is that we cannot require them to add additional parking, but we can make them, what is currently there, we can make them keep and not convert into something else.

That's how I'm reading it too.

My understanding is that we are not allowed to require them to add additional parking stalls, regardless of the change of use.

So then on the flip side, can we, because then I go back to density. And we look at the density. And so can we tweak that if needed to not allow as many units in there since we were not going to have the adequate parking? And this may be a case-by-case basis, obviously, depending on which property might at some point decide to do this. But is there opportunity for us to take a look at that on the flip side since we can't touch parking now?

You mean, like, reduce the density allowances in each of the underlying zones?

For conversion to housing.

Just for... Actually, it's... You can grant a bonus density. And that's a state mandate, again, that... The code cities may not impose a restriction on housing unit density that prevents the additional housing of units at a density up to 50% more than what is allowed in the underlying zone if constructed entirely within an existing building envelope.

Oh, no, so no to that question. So then if this were to become an issue, then the city would have to. Take a look at their density for these certain zones. Assuming that this could happen again case by case basis. But you look at these giant buildings that we have out here that at some point could go to this route and. maybe they had adequate parking for what they were intended for at the time that was not permitted under the City of Liberty Lake. But now we're throwing in the required density by the state and now no changes to parking. How does that look? It doesn't look good. i would agree with that just trying to get creative and think outside of the box on this the way that i'm reading it and the way it's being explained um we're our hands are tied in a lot of places with the state yes so now as a city we're going to have to find the proper route to take if there is one that doesn't go around that but that is more advantageous to i don't know yeah or the flip side of that coin

What if Huntwood wants to transition to, sorry, flip side of that coin, what if Huntwood wants to transition to living quarters and they have a ton of parking and semi capacity, so on and so on. That says, thanks to our wonderful legislature, it's a mandate, don't forget, that says you can't change it.

Can't change.

You can't change the existing parking.

We can require them to retain their existing parking.

But it doesn't say that you can. It says you could reuse it. Then you can repurpose it. Exactly.

True. And they can't change the building envelope. So they wouldn't be able to actually expand their building to be bigger to add more units to that because the building envelope itself has to stay the same.

But the question I think we're getting is, and we've already talked about this before, if some of our bigger buildings are going to be recycled repurposed repurposed and their repurposing means that we need to have more parking it's the same thing as adding a whole other adu to every single um single dwelling house is that we have enough parking for the houses that we have kind of provided that people actually use their garages for parking but yeah

It follows the trend of all of these mandates and the legislature didn't care about parking. That's pretty obvious. Yeah. So anyways, it's a mandate. I'm not wasting more time on that. For me. You all talk about it amongst yourselves.

So Liam, when you said that this was something that you wanted, did you just want to make us aware of this? Knowing that you're coming into a harness nest?

Yeah. Uh, uh, yeah, this is something we wanted to, of course, bring to your attention because it's mandated and, uh, so, yeah.

Okay. Well, we've been aware of it for about three and a half years that I know of.

So I just have one question on that, on that, on that whole section, if I can, and that's on a nonconformity. Um, it's talked, it talks here that the city shall not deny a building permit application. Um, And I read that I don't know how many times to help myself understand what a nonconformity means to the city. So does that section say you're now required to take the application

Regardless of whether it has parking for it.

Regardless of the parking, the height, the setbacks, so on and so on. Regardless, is that all that means? Or does that mean that the city has to take the application and they can't take into consideration any non-conformities?

So, first of all, I will admit that the nonconformity section is a little messy and in a future update, we might clean that up, but essentially, yes. So zoning, you know, changes all the time or not all the time, but it changes, it would change us within a building's lifetime. And so if there is a, commercial building with a zero lot setback, meaning it's on the property line. And some years later, after it was built, the zoning code changes to something a little more restrictive, like a front and side yard setback, but the property owner of that particular structure wants to do housing there, then yes, the city would accept that the existing building is non-conforming with the current underlying zone building setbacks. And that's just one example. As you said, there's also height or parking, I believe.

There's quite a list. I guess the root of my question is the language here says building permit application. That's different than a permit. So the city has to take the application, but it doesn't say you have to Issue a permit because there's nonconformities.

I believe what they're trying to say is that we can't deny the permit because of these not going to say that it says the application. Yeah, yes. And I think that there's some language cleanup that we probably need to do here. I believe the intent of state law was that if a building is nonconforming right now, our code says that if you have a nonconforming building, it is allowed to stay how it is. We don't have to change it. It's nonconform. It's illegal nonconforming, but you can't do anything to it to increase its nonconformity. And so that could be the grounds to deny a building permit if what you were doing was going to increase its nonconformity. And so what they're saying is that these non-conformities are not grounds for us to deny that, even if they are increasing the non-conformity by, you know, because the building is not meeting our current standards and adding these dwelling units could be considered adding to that non-conformity. We aren't allowed to consider that in the permit in denying or accepting the permit.

Exactly. That's not what that says.

I don't disagree with you.

And that I believe that there's also a means that a legislature would say, Oh, it's okay to do it. Issue permits that are nonconforming to our building codes.

I believe that that was the intent. So there is, there is a, there's an opportunity for some language clean up there, but that is the intent of that mandate.

Well, it's not the language cleanup. It's the. We're going to the intent of it, so, but it is confusing. There's some way to simplify that.

Yeah, I agree.

Yeah, crazy.

Thank you.

I do have a question. Just section K, the very end, safety standards, I know that's throughout this section. Could you just define that?

The life safety?

Yeah, well, just safety standards specifically. Is that in the RCW?

I believe it is, yeah. Yeah, so... cannot restrict provided that generally applicable health and safety standards, including but not limited building code standards and fire and life safety standards. So I think it's that kind of like fire standards. So if my read of that is that an existing building doesn't meet fire standards or fire and life safety standards, then that probably could be grounds for denial or at least some kind of improvement to bring it up to those building code and fire safety standards.

Well, you can make a parking and a density argument there too. That's where it gets a little where the city might have some more power for decision making.

The life and safety standards are defined in the building code, the state building code. So I don't know, Liam and I are definitions updates that we're making, we could further define that if that would be helpful.

I'll just give you some examples. It's going to be your smoke detectors, your carbon monoxide detectors, your egress window sizes, how far windows are off the floor line, are they tempered glass? Those are all safety issues that I would think no matter what they have to conform to. handicap access, ramps, railings, you name it. There's many, many things, even all the way down to childproof outlets. Right? That's safety. Yeah. So there's a long list there. So that might be the get out of jail almost card.

Yeah.

I have one thing to add to that, because I had the same question come up later on in the packet here. Is there opportunity, you said, to maybe further define that? And so can we just reference the RCW? Because reading through that just myself, I was like, okay, well, that could mean so many different things. Where is that? And if I have the RCW, I can go look it up on my own without having to make this document any longer than it needs to be.

Good suggestion.

Yeah. So, and actually Lance and I were discussing this, sorry to drag you in on this Lance, but just, I think, yes, kind of, I would recommend probably saying life safety standards as defined by the current state statute instead of a specific RCW just because there's potential that RCWs could revise or the numbers could change.

That was maybe the thought process there.

These topics.

The Building Code Act.

Yeah, these items you're talking about are going to be found in many different documents. They're going to be found in the building code, the electrical code, the plumbing code, even the HVAC code. So it's going to be all over the place. Which I'll change. Well, it changes over three years. Yeah. Thank you very much. Yeah. Sorry. So, yeah, it's going to be difficult unless you call out those code enforcement documents. uh, documents, I guess, or lack of better term. I don't know how else you would capture it.

Yeah. So then maybe, yeah, more, more of a generic term instead of referencing a specific RCW or code.

Maybe current state law and the current building code.

Something like that. Yeah. Just instead of listing some of the things in here, because you're not going to be able to list them all. And again, if it changes, you might leave something out or something's not applicable anymore. So, um, yeah, I think that'll work.

So I'm going to move on to parking. So this is actually kind of a simple update. The relaxed standards that we could update in the actual parking matrix is only really in regards to middle housing. So that's your duplexes, your ADUs, your triplexes. And the requirements are, as discussed, always back with the meeting with Alicia based on proximity to a major transit stop and the size of the lot or parcel. And we will add the definition to Major transit stop in the definitions or reference the state mandate, but because the Liberty Lake Park and Ride has an express route, it is considered a major transit stop. So let me just pull up the page number. That'd be helpful.

I think it's 50.

Page 50, yep.

Yes, page 50. Thank you. So as I mentioned, this particular parking relaxation is only in regards to middle housing. So we have accessory dwelling units, two and three family housing, which is duplexes and triplexes. So currently for the PDU, so it's just one space per unit. And now it's And also with the two and three family housing, it was 1.75 spaces per dwelling unit. And both of them have been revised so that if the development is within half a mile walking distance of a major transit stop, then there are no parking space requirements. And if the particular parcel or lot is smaller than 6,000 square feet. It is one space per unit. And for lots over 6,000 square feet, it's two spaces per unit. And there was some discourse last time on what if the lot is exactly 6,000 feet. And I did some digging on the commerce guidance and Basically, it's left up to the jurisdiction. So if you're subdividing a new lot or your lot just happens to be exactly 6,000 square feet, the city can choose in the codified parking matrix whether to require one or two. So in this particular example, I just chose that if a lot is 6,000 feet or larger, then it has that higher parking requirement. Any questions? I'm not seeing any. Okay. Okay, transportation design management. This is kind of a weird one, but it really just ties into the upcoming comprehensive plan draft. The RCW does specifically exempt highways of state significance from project concurrency review. And this adds what's called multimodal levels of service. So multimodal just means Um, you know, everything that's not just cars, you got, uh, pedestrians and cyclists and transit, and I'm going to pull up the agenda packet. So on page 54, you can see where the, the following are exempt for concurrency review. And those are projects for transportation facilities and services of highways of state significance. And there's that specific RCW for that. And then on chapter page 55, there's just a little bit of text edit right there on the transportation concurrency test procedures. And then next page 54, the proposal shall pass the concurrency test if the impact from the project do not decrease the level of service of affected intersections below the adopted vehicle, LOS standards, and bicycle and pedestrian facilities on affected corridors and arterials meet the adopted multimodal standards And you might be asking yourself, well, what are the multimodal standards for Liberty Lake? And I understand this is just a draft for now, but the next comp plan iteration does have that required multimodal level of service, sometimes called MMLOS. And as of now, it is proposed that Liberty Lake's multi-level level of service for all collectors and arterials be the provisions of the sidewalks and bicycle facilities meeting the engineering design standards on both sides of a collector street. So that was kind of a long way of saying it has to meet the current engineering design standards for those arterials and collector streets. for bicycle and pedestrian facilities. And then another concurrency test we added actually implements a climate policy as part of a new climate resilience chapter or element. Yeah, it's kind of the same thing. Any efficient bicycle and pedestrian facilities on those corridors and arterials should be brought into conformance with the adopted multi-modal level standard of service. So I know that was kind of a lot of talking. Are there any questions on that? Hearing none. So unit lot subdivisions, this is a new type of subdivision that's supposed to allow flexibility for ownership of your lot or your unit of a, typically they are middle housing units such as ADUs or town homes, but it allows the, uh, the subdivider to, um, take a large parcel with multiple homes on it. So long as they're not stacked on top of each other. So you can't do this for what's called stacks flats. This has to be, you know, your real estate from the sky to the center of the earth, but it allows them to, um, subdivide out those different types of housing and smaller lots and it's not a new it's a new type of subdivision but it still follows the preliminary subdivision process that require public improvements in the final subdividing standards which I'm not sure if anyone's ever dealt with subdivisions, but that's the general process. So those zoning standards still apply. And one point of distinction between this and other units is that after you subdivide out all those lots for the houses, the remainder area is owned under a common ownership. So usually like an HOA or something. Okay, I'm not hearing questions. So okay, and then the PB, Harmon Zuckerman, As Jen mentioned PB, Harmon Zuckerman, One question. Okay.

If you can back up to the unit lot subdivisions PB, Harmon Zuckerman, The first sentence on that section says a lot may be divided PB, Harmon Zuckerman, But the rest of all this talks about subdivisions PB, Harmon Zuckerman, So am I missing. PB, Harmon Zuckerman, The intent of the first line. PB, Harmon Zuckerman, Is a lot means My lot, your lot, one lot, or all the rest of this appears.

Oh, yeah. So a lot is kind of just another word for a subdivision. So that lot, or I think, you know, good point. I think parcel might be a more appropriate term, but that lot or parcel can be divided into those separate owned unit lots. So a lot is I don't know if you've ever looked at a title report or a subdivision, but they're, of course they're defined by meets and bounds. And, um, uh, I used to work for a surveyor and I'm having a brain fart, but, uh, once you get the final plat done, uh, those lots or parcels are described as like Liberty Lake subdivision lot five of block two. and that's how other surveyors can locate your parcel and get the meats and bearings of your property lines. So a lot is just another word for a parcel.

This does not apply for existing lots that have already been final platted. This does. This would. It does?

Yeah. Aren't we, Mr. Chair, may I? You know, you keep calling this a subdivision, but it's really, it's a condominiumization of a parcel where you're talking about percentage common interest. You're not physically subdividing a parcel. You're creating different interests on that parcel without submitting a plat and creating another parcel per se. We're talking about a condominium, are we not?

Uh, no, it's a type of subdivision. You're describing the, the fee real estate. And that's the big thing. It, it's not just like, um, you're renting this lot or this lot you're, this becomes fee real estate. And yes, there are some, absolutely some similarities with a condominium. Um, but this is, uh, This is different because you can't have, for example, stacked, because with a condominium, you know, you got three floors and each person owns that airspace. That's not what this is doing.

But it is if you have a three quarter acre lot. That's already been established and you could cut it in half. Is there, I don't see anything here, but you must, you must refer back to the minimum lot size for the city. And I guess.

Yeah. How can you take, if you have a three quarter acre lot that's zoned and that is the minimum lot size. What?

Well, now this says I can, they can subdivide that. Right.

So is this, is this another way to, If it's subdivided, will the county treasurer then break up the lot into individual text? I'm sorry, parcel into different.

Yeah, you would have to do a property line adjustment. You would have to do all of that, wouldn't you? A zone change? You'd have to rezone it? I don't think you'd have to rezone it.

Well, if you're going to end up with smaller lots than what the zoning says, somewhere along the line, you'd have to reconcile What the zoning says a lot is it's 10,000 square feet. And if you want to create two 5,000 square foot lots, that's a different zoning district. Is it not? It could be.

It could be. That's what I'm after.

I mean, this creates. I'm not sure how this makes affordability a possibility.

Well, I'm not sure how. My concern is when somebody submits an application for this, Is it going to create a whole other tax structure? Because I know you guys are talking about the building, but I'm thinking this is another way to get different taxes.

Based on the ownership and easements and all the other language, you would have to make it his own lot. You'd have to create another lot. on an existing lot and then it's going to be put on the plats that he was talking about on the county treasurer's lot i guess that's that's my point with this whole section is i'm trying to understand the intent of it and how it applies because there's there's some lots up at legacy ridge right now that are one acre lots so i could buy one of those and divide it into is there a minimum and Size? I think the minimum lot size right now is 5,000 square feet for the city. I could be wrong, but whatever that number is. So you're telling me I could go buy that lot and divide it into 5,000 square foot lots?

I think that's what it's saying.

That's what I think it's saying.

I don't think it's going to help Liam to change lot to parcel. I think it's... It's the whole legislative mandate.

I guess what I would ask is for a little more clarity on... how it applies to the scenario I just said. Because if that's the case, I'm going to file off.

I wonder if we don't already distinguish between the underlying zoning, like density, dimensional requirements apply to the entire parent lot, but not to the individual unit lot that is created through the subdivision process. I wonder if we need to clarify that in the language somewhere.

And go a step further, you're allowed to do duplex on any residential zoned lot existence. Right.

By mandate.

By mandate.

There's that word again.

Hang on. Troy has a question. You mentioned Legacy Ridge, buying a lot up there, putting multiple things on it. Does the HOA supersede, precede, whatever, trump the state mandate in cases like this? Because I know that oftentimes HOAs overrule cities. How are we dealing with this at a state level? Because then... if I'm an owner in an HOA, which thankfully I'm not, I'm going to my HOA board and saying, get this on there immediately.

We'll take it a step further. Legacy Ridge has a maximum unit count. Okay. 400, whatever the number is, X number of units. When you start re-subdividing lots, you're creating more units. That goes, that violates the zoning. We're going to address that.

I mean, there's a, It's a huge oil's nest, no matter which way you shake it.

There's going to be a lawsuit at some point for something.

But I guess my question was, does the HOA, are they going to be able to overrule these?

I don't know about this one. I can look into it. I know when we were talking about the ADUs and allowing two ADUs on each lot, that... existing CCRs were not required to be changed. So if it was, if those types of developments or those standards that are within them, that would preclude that from your existing CCRs, they were not required to change them, but new CCNRs had to apply for that.

I would, it,

It seems logical that that would apply to this, but whether or not it does is a different question.

So I can certainly add to the grandfather issue again.

And they change it before. What's the what's the date they can change? Well, when you adopt it or is it when the state said that this has to be.

But in general, HOA does not supersede state law. There you go. at least not an RHO.

I know ours inside and out. The thing it talks about is acquisition or selling of HOA common property. It says nothing about block counts or zoning or splitting the parcels. So maybe it shouldn't.

All that's subservient to the zoning.

You're right.

It's all subservient to the zoning.

Back to your comment, Troy, about the HOAs can not follow all the rules of the city. It's only because they're private roads, private properties. You have to follow the laws of the city, but it's very minimal on what you don't follow. So everything else is state law, city law.

Yeah, and I agree. My point being is that sometimes the HOAs are more restrictive. Right. Not less restrictive, so they don't have to follow the law.

So I think what we talked about last time is that even if they're more restrictive, if that CC&R was already in existence, then this won't apply.

So I guess I don't know how we answer this question because you're absolutely right. If, if that is the case and it applies to every HOA in the city, then there's all many HOAs in the city. Not all of them have large enough parcels or even the physical room to divide, but there's a bunch of Legacy Ridge that do. So, and even the future ones coming online. They're all, some of those are going to be one acre parcels. So I don't know how we, how we get a better definition of this paragraph.

I will do more research.

What about our experts online?

Are you following this at all, Jen and Liam?

Yeah.

Yes. When we've had the conversation, we can provide a little more clarity. I think particularly around like the underlying parent lot, um, information that that still holds but doesn't apply to the subdivided new unit.

We've got a parent lot and a grandparent lot.

Yeah.

As we continue to subdivide. It's not a bad way of saying it.

Yeah. The next lot can just be its own.

So as I think more about this, if you look in the Spokane Valley, there are some big two, three acre parcels. But in green acres. That this would fall in line nicely. I understand that. Because they have the room to do it. And that's where the lot subdivisions, because he even talks about short plats in here somewhere, which makes total sense. But when, but it does say a lot may be divided. That's where it is. My short hair is up a little bit.

We talked about other agencies as well, as far as response, emergency services, that sort of thing. Do they get to comment on this as any other application? And if they do, and they comment and say, we can't serve this because now there's four things on a lot that was designed for one, can they put a stop to it? I would think the fire department could. That's what I'm getting at. Can the fire department then say, well, screw state law. We can't service that if it's going to have these...

I don't know if they'd say that necessarily, but I think that they can say that we can't provide the life safety coverage in that. And so they could... I think what they would be more likely to be able to do would be to require them to do something additional to bring it up to that standard to make sure that they could meet fire flow and they could meet accessibility standards and things. They would probably be able to require additional things rather than deny the project. But I think ultimately, if they can't meet certain standards in the fire code, then that would be grounds for them to not be able to move forward. But I don't know that. Again, that's an assumption. There's a lot more research that we need to do on this particular topic.

PB, Harmon Zuckerman, Well, and I think Charlie brought it up before. What about sewer and water. Yeah. Water Utilities PB, Harmon Zuckerman, Same thing. If the pipe is only so big service. PB, Harmon Zuckerman, Can they require them to put a bigger pipe in the entire neighborhood now. PB, Harmon Zuckerman, So, all right.

PB, Harmon Zuckerman, I have to answer. May I, um, Amy, where would we go to get some more color or granularity on this issue relative to HOAs and zoning? Would the department be able to provide that information or would you go to the consultant?

I am going to, well, I'll probably, I mean, Liam and Jen and I will talk about this when we get offline. We talked about some of the questions, the entitlement questions that you guys asked earlier. My first resource is going to be going to our department because they've worked in other areas in the state. There's other places that have had to do this. And so kind of asking how have some of those things played out where they've already done that and what guidance have we gotten from the state on how they want to see this implemented? So- my first that that's my first thought is to go to our commerce rep and ask for some resources on how those how these things how do these things interact with reality but none of these mandates are law yet um i believe yes from the last yeah it i believe the way this was written is that we had to do this when we do our comp plan update okay so it is a law so there should be a senate bill or house bill or

And there will be, there will be revisions because any unfunded mandate goes through several iterations. Try reading it.

I know.

Just the formatting will get you.

Okay. Thank you for letting me back up there. Anything else?

Just to support what Amy was saying, we can certainly confirm that the HOA component uh with commerce happy to support you on that amy but i i think your understanding um is is probably accurate and that and that what's grandfathered in will hold but any new hoa requirements would probably need to comply but we will confirm that for sure yeah i have a couple other questions about that one too once we once we get melissa on the phone and we're asking questions thanks okay

Okay. And this is our last section section. Thanks for bearing with us. Uh, we appreciate your dialogue and, uh, uh, questions. So this is, um, yeah. Uh, so as we mentioned earlier, this is, this isn't just about housing. There's also some other, um, factors such as the critical area ordinance, which is, um, The ordinance, which establishes specific development regulations for building near or on critical areas, such as near wetland or floodplains or aquifer recharge areas. And Jen, feel free to jump in whenever you want, because I know you're a little bit more knowledgeable on this. Essentially, we added this section on what's called no net loss to meet the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. That's the WDFW review comments. And we also expanded the section on the riparian buffer area, also in regards to the WDFW's comments. And I think these are on probably the last couple of pages. 61. This is the no net loss.

And then- Yeah, just to support what Liam's saying, you all supplied your critical area ordinance draft through the 60-day review process earlier. Some comments were received from the Department of Fish and Wildlife that we wanted to address as part of this series of updates we're doing. The no net loss section previously was only found under the wetlands section. and was missing some of the required elements associated with no net loss. So the recommendation from DFW was to pull it out of wetlands and apply it more generally to all of the critical areas, which is what this new section seeks to do. And the language here, the new language aligns with those RCW requirements associated with mitigation and best available science.

Thank you, Jen. And last two pages, just a revision of this repairing buffer area. I believe this is also from the WDFW's review of the critical area ordinance.

Do we have any repairing areas in the city? Within the city limits?

I don't think so.

The only ones that we have is along the Centennial Trail, isn't it? And then, of course, the lake.

We don't have, yeah. There's a little piece up in the Trutina area that's within, I think it's 200 feet of the ordinary high water. There's like two little reaches that are part of, that would be considered part of that. But they're small and they're in tracts.

which is probably why you all didn't have this section in there previously and DFW flagged it because this is a common piece that they would require applying to your critical area ordinance. So it's probably very unlikely you'll need to apply any of this best available science, but because there are a couple of tracks, like Amy said, it's probably wise to go ahead and include this.

I don't know that anybody has the appetite to annex any of that area. However, we did get another email.

Yeah, I guess if I can. I guess as I look at this other handout, there's 2 new sections that are called out and their suggestions by the. Department of Fish and Wildlife. So as I'm hearing this conversation, the slide that we first saw as we rolled into this section said it was a mandate, but is it really a mandate? Or are these just recommendations by Fish and Wildlife?

Good question.

So my understanding that these are mandates, there's several sections of the RCWs and Washington Administrative Code requiring regulated activities in or affecting critical areas and buffers to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts as necessary to achieve no net loss of critical area function and values.

The only one on here that's not required is item four, the critical area report. That's a carryover from your previous code reference to providing a critical area report. And the way we added the language here, it says the city may require. So it gives you that flexibility, but it's not necessarily required. So if you wanted to remove That one, it's not necessarily a requirement, although it would be considered a best practice. And because you have the flexibility to require it or not, I would suggest leaving it so you have that flexibility.

Thank you for the explanation. I was just trying to understand the difference between what was required by the state and versus what is required by non-elected officials.

Well, these are policies, not laws that are cited here. So, yeah, that's a good question.

Um, because as we talked about earlier power over reducing barriers to the cost of. Of housing, this is not a good way to reduce barriers. All it's doing is increasing barriers by more regulation more regulation. So. That's the reason for my question. Yeah. And does it even apply? We just previously said there's five feet of wetland somewhere over by Trutina that's dry 90% of the year, I'm going to guess. We're not within 100 feet of a shoreline, a stream, or a riverbed. It's within our city boundaries today. So I even wonder why we need any of it, but that's just me.

So when we have, and I think you guys know, we have a PTAC, the Planning Technical Advisory Committee, which is a regional planning thing. All of the planners from all the different agencies come together and talk about these things. We had a representative from Department of Fish and Wildlife come to our PTAC meeting and say, we updated our guidance and we have new requirements that you guys will be subject to. If you would like an early review, let me know. And I said, yes, please. I would like you to review this early. now that you have new guidance because we had already done our critical areas ordinance and that was a piece of this plan that was already done and so I sent it to her and these were this was the feedback that she sent back based on her new guidance that she would like us to incorporate so it the guidance still is referencing policies not laws I don't believe that these will have a high level of impact on what we're doing.

It's not the content of this section. It's the principle of it.

Understood. The process of it was not pleasant either.

Well, thank you for asking for that too. Okay, Liam. Jan, anything else? Nope.

No, just to validate what the last commissioner said, this is an example of conflicting state priorities. There's housing priorities, there's environmental protection priorities. And like you pointed out, sometimes those priorities come into conflict with one another and the critical area ordinance is an example of that. So I hear what you're saying.

I did have one last note, page 57 of 64, there's a typo on the last line. 57. 64, paragraph H, the last sentence. All developments shall be subject to any conditions imposed by the, on the preliminary approval.

Thank you for making note of that.

Yes. Nice sharp pencil, Phil. What's that? I said nice sharp pencil.

Well, with that, that concludes the development regulation updates we had for you this evening for review. I'd be happy, Amy, if you'd like me just to share kind of what the next topics will be in terms of development regulation updates.

Sure. That'd be great.

We've made it through like two-thirds already, so we're making great momentum here, great progress. The next topics are related to impact fees, condominization, and definitions. We have already begun quite a bit of work on definitions, but we decided to move that to one of the last things we discussed because it feels like with each topic we bring forward, there's a need to add something to the definition section. So it felt prudent to put that as one of the last things we bring forward to you. So with the speed that we've been going through things, I'm optimistic we can probably do those three in the next meeting.

That's the spirit. Thanks, Jen. Did you say impact fees? Impact fees, condominiums?

Yes, and then just definitions.

How many impact fees do we have? One?

It's not an impact fee. It's a SEPA mitigation fee.

So we have no impact.

Not to my knowledge.

So that'll be a really short conversation. There you go. All right.

Okay, thank you.

Thanks, Jen.

As always. Yep.

Thank you, everyone.

Do we have anybody online? Okay, we're going to go right past citizen comments. Amy. And is there anything from last night that we need to discuss?

Um, no, I couldn't believe so. Um, just trying to bring this back up. I don't know why. Cause there's not much left.

We're here.

This is where we're at. We're at Secretary's Report. I don't have a lot. Our SEPA comment period has passed. Our SEPA appeal period for the Comprehensive Plan draft ends on next Monday. Our agency comment period for the public agencies ends August 14th. So far, we have received comments from Department of Natural Resources, Department of Fish and Wildlife, WSDOT, and STA. They've been pretty... There's a couple from WSDOT that are going to require some changes to our transportation chapter, but they have come back manageable and feeling reasonable for us to be able to get through.

If I may, Mr. Chair. Is it safe to assume that the utilities got... A request to comment as well. Water, sewer. Yes.

Yes. They all received our SEPA.

Fire department.

Yes. And we actually met with them last year, Lisa, and I met with them all individually when we wrote the utilities.

And did you get responses back?

That's one of those cases where no news is good news. So they are on our SEPA distribution list. They do get a copy of that. They are aware that that's out there and available for them. But I have not received comments from them.

Okay. And there's no timeframe. In other words, here's a document, you've got 30 days to respond.

Yes. So that's why I was, the SEPA comment period, so to comment on the period, on the SEPA of the document ended last week. And then there's a two-week appeal period for that. And we are in that period right now. It ends on Monday.

Could we see their responses?

I haven't received anything from them. They have not provided comment.

So none of these agencies responded to this document. Water, sewer.

None of our local utilities have responded to the SEPA notification. But again, they were really involved in their pieces of it in the early part. Lisa did a really good job communicating with them early in the process to make sure that their needs were baked into this. So I would be surprised if they had objections.

They're on their own island anyways. They're what? They're on the cold island.

They are kind of their own entities, but they're usually really good if they have a concern or they see something, they do reach out and let us know. And I haven't, like I said, no news is good news in that particular instance, and I haven't heard from them.

Thank you.

Is that it?

Does anybody have any reports? I just have a question. Sir? So did I hear... I'm sorry. What's the gal's name? Jen. I wanted to say Meg. I knew that wasn't right. Did she say that we were going to have three topics at our next meeting, which means the 22nd? Is she prepared for that?

I've got the 12th down for our next meeting.

August. Yeah, August 12th. So not the 22nd. Not the 22nd.

Correct. So we decided for the sake of everyone's sanity that we would not increase two meetings a month during summertime. But once we get into the fall, then we will. I believe the schedule that we're putting together only has one month where we have to have two meetings in one month.

If you want to have a meeting, Phil, I'm having root canal that day.

I have all kinds of things that I can bring forward if you're looking for more.

I didn't have an HOA board meeting at 10 that day, so I'll be in a good mood. Me too.

Sure, I have a question. Amy, do you develop the agenda for the meeting?

Yes.

Have you ever... One of the things I noticed is like when we have a workshop or we have a discussion item, there's no statement with regard to requested action on the part of the commission.

Yes.

Have you ever done that before on an agenda noted action is recommendation for approval or...

Yes. So we have done that on other things when there is action to take. Okay. I will, you know, a recommended action or asking for a motion to do something specific.

I think that would be good for the public so they know more about what's going on.

Sure.

What we're being asked to do. We haven't had any for a while.

But I can, I mean, I could just add it to the agenda and if it's blank, then there's no action taken. So yeah, I can add that. It's easy.

Did you want to give a report on your sidekick today?

Well, being summertime, I didn't have a need or want to leave my daughter home today. So she is with me and asked a lot of good questions on the way here, which is great. And asked about when she can join planning commission potentially in the future.

So good.

Maybe the next generation coming on board here in a few years.

Welcome. What's your requirement? 18 years of age and a resident for one year?

Well, non-adjunct or adjunct member order was my official term.

She'd be an adjunct substitute.

Maybe replacing her elderly father at that point.

Okay. There is nothing else. I hear a motion. Move to adjourn. Second. And a second. All in favor? Aye. We're adjourned. Thank you.