City Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

we'll bring our meeting to order welcome to the February 26 2025 meeting of the Spokan Planning Commission uh we'll begin with a roll call Joe man here Tom salberg here Jim Bomer here DG Garcia Here Charlie jins here Dale Robbins Phil foyer here Jean huel and Troy Mullen here thank you thank you would you all please stand and join me in the pledge to the flag 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 thank you everyone and I'll entertain a motion to excuse commissioner robton move to excuse is there a second thank you all in favor I I thank you uh looking at our agenda do anyone have additions or changes to the agenda motion to approve move to approve thank you sir second second all in favor I I uh approval of the minutes from February 12th everybody had a chance to look through them any changes additions move to approve the minutes as written thank you commissioner salberg is there a second second thank you commissioner Jinx all in favor I I thank you Workshop is sign code

so I just want to take a moment to introduce our uh our Consulting team from Burke uh Consulting who are working on the on the sign code um you want to come up to the podium and uh so Ana why don't you go ahead and introduce yourselves hi I'm F Ona I go by Ona from B Consulting I will be the project manager for your sign code hello everyone my name is Michelle ellworth for Consulting also supporting the sign code project thank you and uh Evan do you have their presentation or would you like me to pull it up okay thank you go ahead please might want to p microphone closer is it better okay all right thank you um it's a pleasure to be here with with you all in person today we have been um working with your um City staff uh on the on the sign code project and we have been reviewing your sign code we had an initial review that we presented in the past so this afternoon what we will be doing we will be presenting the the sign code for from the purpose of uh looking at the purpose and objective of the sign code and context of the sign code and what are the concerns that we have been hearing from the sign code we also had a discussion with your stakeholders um earlier today so um some of the concerns that we will discuss here as well so main purpose of this presentation is we want to build an understanding and objectives of and context of the signage

and discuss the opportunities and constraints if we go to the next slide um yeah and then next one so right now your sign code is um the purpose of your sign code is um to enhance the visual environment of the city also to protect public health safety and Welfare and um effectively communicate like visual um create a visual communication effectively and then have appropriate signage display for the city if we could go to the next slide uh this talks about objectives uh so definitely your code wants to attract and invite businesses rather than demand for public attention uh also encourage streets to appear orderly and safe so that signage are not cluttered to blog views or compromise safety um enhance the visual environment the same way that it it it is in harmony with buildings um allow business identifications um that is not duly hindered so while you create this balance you want to allow businesses to have their visibility and signage and then also high quality of design that that we have been hearing uh for Liberty league as well so uh let's go to the next slide um so some of the uh so what signage can or cannot how signage can meet or may not meet the objectives so we wanted to bring up this uh the one on the left side cluttering because sometimes you could have a code that and just not having a large sign can always convey the message so that's that's what the image is for um cluttering could could not provide the right message or communicating the businesses properly and then grouping sometimes in a in a nice way can actually have be can be more effective and then some of the the signages that are more pedestrian scaled

so let's go to the next slide uh so we will be talking about context of the signages so um legal context and I'll highlight that um uh we discussed that before in our last presentation um a few few months ago I think but legal context is that it's legally required now that your signage should be content neutral what it means is that when you have a signage you cannot um so if the the code officer has to read the sign to enforce the signage then it's not going to be content neutral so for example political sign so we cannot we don't say political sign anymore under the new law because then you are actually looking at the message of the sign so instead we're looking at content neutrality so what type of sign that is is what's the structure of the sign what's the type of the sign so that that's something your code we will be addressing that and then also the physical context that we are looking at it's like commercial versus non-commercial signage and also to me mention that content neutrality applies applies for non-commercial signages um and physical context will go to that like some signages are more appropriate for pedestrian and some are a vehicle and some would serve both purposes let's go to the next slide and here is the some of the legal context that I was just telling you about that uh we will look into your look at your code from the content neutrality point of view so that um it complies with the the with the um the most recent case laws uh next slide so um talking about commercial and non-commercial signages so um so commercial signages they promote businesses they they promote products and then advertising their branding and

then they're near the stores offices so different types of commercial signages and we just put a few examples of commercial signages blade sign window sign wall awning so all kinds of signages that can be used for for commercial purposes um most of them require permits and then they can be permanent or temporary um let's go to the next slide and what is non-commercial sign so signages that actually convey messages it's it can be messages for um philosophical messages or public information or like I said campaign sign so those are social causes for different institutions organizations but then again like I said before that we don't say political signages we don't say religious signages anymore instead we say um stake sign or we say it's a board sign so we we would address it that way um sence structures would vary for different different non-commercial signages as well and and we will look at the regulations to to be in compliance let's go to the next slide so context is important for signages so if you um if you are building or if you have a very large sign for a pedestrian scale business then it's going to be beyond the visibility or or if you have a very small sign for auto oriented areas then that's not going to help either so pestan Focus signages are scaled and sized to to draw foood traffic um so some some signages would serve both purposes for example um freestanding Monument sign can serve um pedestrian and vehicle or both um awning sign could serve as a as a pedestrian focused but entrance focused as well and some

signages could be creative signages um that that would uh create a sense of place um let's go to the next slide so again context here uh mixed two signages generally when you have a mixed use area the intent of of mixed use is that it's more pedestrian friendly uh it's a Vibrant Community so um it's more geared towards um uh pedestrian and food traffic um so public realm is important so we have some examples where um mixed buildings or pedestrian scale signages are blending with the building design uh even the one on the bottom right corner it's a the corner building and how Corner building is designed with a clog but then the signage is part of the integrated nature of the design let's go to the next slide so we are also looking at some of the um some of the factors for sign code so how how the scale and distance and locations are developed for sign code so it's we're finding some of the some of the institutions who are uh researching on that so it's all is the ey line that that guides like when for pedestrian that that how far you are from the signage so and and how how far up above that you could see from the signage so it's the viewers distance pedestrian height and the traffic speed so all of those to be considered let's go to the next slide so these are some of the signages that uh we think that we will bring this all together so you can see that some of the uh pedestrian scale versus um Auto oriented signages and their scales and uh if you look at the the right side the the the person standing in front of a signage is is balances the the height of

a person compared to the the wave finding signages on the left side so it's viewer distance pedestrian height traffic speed and we are also finding out that standards for auto traffic like at 35 M hour driver can reach 6 to 8 um words so and three lines of text so if if you put more words would that be effective or not I mean those are the things to consider let's go to the next slide uh so generally the rule of thumb is that um I don't know Michelle do you want to add anything to that you Michelle could absolutely so I can speak to this slide essentially we were looking at some other standards such as through the Federal Highway Administration in terms of sign standards and you know these science standards are forming the height of the letters um especially in terms of distance and so again it's really thinking about that context so for examplea talked about the distance or you know it's like the three lines of copy when you're going 35 miles per hour whereas if you are um if there's a sign in a parking lot uh drivers can focus for about four to six seconds and so that's going to affect that font size that you have for that particular sign um it's really important to use that short and clear text some high contrast colors you're going to see that regulated in certain sign standards as well as the placement um asess had spoke to earlier and also in addition uh based off of how fast um some is viewing a sign that's also going to affect the sign area as you can see on the right hand side so for example if you're going 55 miles hour it might make more sense to have a larger sign versus if you're going much slower you might be able to get by and be able to communicate with a smaller sign let's go to the next slide um so these are some of the examples that we wanted to bring in that um this is a pedestrian um scale signage that has all the signages a lot of the signages like blade sign awning sign and then window sign and there is also um a

signage on the public signage on the light pole so some of the examples like this would catch pedestrians um attention and how to catch that so next go to the next slide and and again this is again another pedestrian realm signage where um you see that The Pedestrian walking through the sidewalk and the A-frame signages they should be away from the right away so so that's another area that we would look into in your sign code about RightWay signages um next slide please yeah and then we are moving to to an autofocus signages so this could be um generally like Monument signages uh when they're autofocused they're larger and but um sometimes they can serve both pedestrian and vehicle so let's go to the next slide um some of the signages from your community um so when we are going through the freeway um you need more visibility so some of the freeway signs are busy road signages along the busy roads they um they are generally larger to to have like a higher speed traffic um attention so let's go to the next one yeah so and then we had discussion with your stakeholders and we um disc discussed some of those uh key issues about signage um uh today's discussion we we got really good input from your uh Community um stakeholders today we did discuss about square footage um not not too much about signage typologies we will be looking at sinage typologies but we did discuss about real estate development sign uh we did talk about off premise commercial signages we talked about um sign design regulations in terms of square foot AG copy and logo and then all of those items signage location temporary sign requirements placemaking signage and approach uh for

placemaking in specific areas um and then uh we also discussed that way finding will be um will be not part of this scope but we but we will be looking at the other um aspects of the sign code right now so um let's go to the next slide so we want to just highlight some of the concern that we will be working on so uh Monument sign so your code has uh um generally you have a code for campus Monument sign and the multi- business Monument sign so there are two different uh different ways but they're they're practically the same so maybe we will have more clarity and we will Marge them together so that it's more clear so bring Clarity would be one of the the components uh let's go to the next slide um real estate devel development sence so that's something um that uh that we have been hearing a lot um that how when the multiphase development takes place then where do the developers put their signages and how long they do put signages so we have looked at your code where uh so you have a a real estate development sign and then also there's construction signages so different ways to handle but then we are hearing that large and long-term developers don't have enough capability to have their signages to show the multiphase development so that's that's something we will be uh looking at as well and uh we uh Lisa please feel free to jump in if you want to add anything yeah just I would just say that one of the things that we heard is that um when you look at the longer phase subdivisions the concept of having a a development sign related to that it's not we do allow for Monument signs for the development but

it's really that's a more permanent type of sign as you enter it you know signs related to um uh the lots that were available for sale or the fact that they're developing or this is the next phase or there's going to be a park here Etc and we talked about kind of the concept of maybe coming up with different from a construction sign which is a temporary sign that is for a period of one year that we might look at more of a midterm like a long range uh temporary sign that would maybe we would we would have would require renewal every three years or something like that so to try and address those sorts of things so we we're we're going to be looking more at what some other communities are doing in this Arena and um bring something back to you to kind of um resolve the tension between those two concepts let's go go to the next slide so then off- premise commercial signage so that's another thing we would like to address on your code that if there's a public works um project going on on construction and businesses don't have visibility can they actually provide off premise sign so that's something we want to um address or clarify in the code as well uh let's go to the next slide and then um copy and logo in the sign design regulations so this is where um right now your code has um certain standards about um how the total area is measured and um and there's a three line limitations in the copy and and logo sign so there are some some clarity needed in that code so we are going to look into that as well um so next let's go to the next slide uh uh some of the concerns that we

have about heard about square footage about window sign uh we also during our review We felt that your window signage um needs more clarity um and and it's uh so what's the percentage there's a 20% bonus but then how big the the sign can be those those are unclear so we're looking at at those issues as well um let's go to the next slide um square footage again it's the same um same concern that if if you have a large um facade large wall area but then um there's a cap of how big your wall sign can be so that's so the challenge is that a big business may not have a a proportionate uh signage uh area so that's that's something we're looking into in other jurisdictions codes as well let's go to the next slide so then uh this is another concern that we're finding that how how the code defines the the the wall signs so right now it it defines or it it um talks about primary building wall and secondary building wall and your signage is based on the primary building wall size uh but then it doesn't say exactly where uh it doesn't say that it has to be on the primary building wall so the challenge is that you could have a large Square footage allowed based on your primary building wall then you could put that large signage on the secondary building wall which may not be appropriate so we we can look into that for certain clarity as well uh and defining primary building wall that would be another um goal for us let's go to the next slide um again we are bringing up some of the context of the sign like how uh some other jurisdictions are working on their sign

code um how to not put certain signages on the public right away and then on the on the right side city of Enumclaw um that example shows how some of the blade signs what's the visibility standards and where to put so some of the standards that we're looking into as well next slide so temporary sign requirements so that's another area that we have heard that real estate signages like like sales signages like you see on the on the photos right now your permit require your code requires that that they get temporary permit but we're looking into that it's like is it really worth it that you would need every single sale of real estate to get permit from the city or is it more efficient not to not to have that permit um so we're looking at those in the permit process as well um next slide and then last few slides we want to discuss about way finding although we will be discussing w uh we will not be discussing wave finding as part of this code update but I wanted to bring it up that our finding of our finding that generally wayf finding is more uh more geared towards Special Districts and more public uses and more public purpose signages so um so so that's something that other jurisdictions are working as well so that could be reserved for the for those purposes uh but there are some other ways of placemaking in the next slide um if we could go to the next slide um yeah so so creative ways of placemaking so there there could be different ways of of uh signages that could be part of the placemaking as well um so yeah we wanted to bring it up for for your attention as well so there is there are different ways to to do that

um was there another slide or in between yeah yeah um so this is another another um slide where we want to highlight the placemaking for different uh different ways to use signage for placemaking uh the one on the top right that's in Vani pus market so that's that's uh one place making signage but then again the one on the on the left side you see that Blake sign and some of the signages can also contribute to the placemaking so um the the overall idea is that what what Liberty Lake uh holds um strongly is the car direct of the community and how signage actually could support that and enhance that so that's it anyone have questions thank you thank you guys for coming over thank you we had a very robust conversation with our stakeholders today and it provided a lot of uh ther for direction that we can explore further we are um basing this on research of what has worked in other communities and uh um our sign code is pretty far out of date and so look Lisa who are the major stakeholders so we have some Liberty Lake businesses um we have a developer we have a sign company we have the Hub we have male Stevens who's representing public events um we have a couple of our uh design review uh um uh committee members uh Tom and Joe sitting on that to provide for that aesthetic balance

okay Lisa what are the deliverables on this El so they they will actually be preparing a draft sign code for us and so we're we're not there yet we're talking through it we're we're we're still gathering information and so um we will be we will be kind of noodling through that a little later in uh the spring and early summer so so we'll be bringing back some dra some Redline drafts to you and um it's it's going to be a lot of pretty significant changes we have we when um uh Burke uh presented last time we talked a lot about the different structure um staff is strongly recommending that we um divide it by commercial and non-commercial signage and the reason why we want to do it that way is because there's two different legal standards for commercial versus non-commercial signage and um and then within those categories there'll be different types of signs including temporary signs so um so more to come on that but we're um uh like I said we got great feedback today and uh on and Michelle did a great job of leading a facilitated discussion this afternoon so that was super great thank you very much thank you I have one one question yes good presentation very informative from standpoint of there are so many nuances SS but I didn't see anything in regards to federal or state laws um I'm sure there are federal or state laws that apply the Constitution well of course but

um when we have a federal or a state law that applies do they apply to commercial only or do they apply to they do not apply there are not state and federal regulations related to signs it's a community by Community standpoint the only place where you're going to find uh um state or federal regulations have to do with the highway system and that they they will regulate so wash do does have standards within the highway Corridor there's nothing for a realtor sign there's no federal laws or well there there is case law that says that signs uh non-commercial signs must be content neutral right there's also case law that says that we can limit off- premise commercial signage uh so there's quite a bit of case law around signage in fact um but it all really relates back to constitutional issues thank you so that's that's the tight rope we're walking with this any other questions thank you shall we move on to housing policy can I can I jump in yes sir yeah I know over the years this has been a really kind of a moving Target and I know you're in the early stages of doing an overhaul on this sign code how do you anticipate Lisa that it may positively or negatively impact what's existing well so it wouldn't have any impact necessarily on what's existing because anything that is existing today that might not be permitted in the

future would be would would fall within a category of legal nonconforming and if you take a look at our development code chapter five deals with uh legal non-conforming land uses and it does also address legal non-conforming signs so so it wouldn't necessarily impact anything today what I think that one of the things that I think will be an outcome of this or that I hope will be an outcome of this is that our sign code is more approachable it's more context sensitive and Anda talked a lot about context um we have a lot of areas where we have businesses that um do not front on public right of way so they don't have the so they have a different visibility challenge than those that have Frontage on the public right of way and so coming up with some standards to deal with those kind of challenges um again the size of um ana talked about this a little bit we do have we do look at building facade a percentage of building facade to determine the size of sign but we're very very limited um when it comes we have a cap on it so for larger scale buildings um the signage really ends up looking like a little postage stamp um along the wall of it and so so having more uh having a little bit more flexibility again we want it it's a balancing act it is a balancing act we really want to be sensitive to the Aesthetics that this Community Values and we want to um make sure that we don't end up with a Division Street but

the flip side of it is that we do have to balance the need for um The public's ability to find our businesses and our businesses need to promote that they're there and uh one of the one of the stakeholders on our stakeholder committee is actually Ace Hardware which is a a great example of somebody a rather substantial uh retail establishment that's so far off the right of way and doesn't have the ability to have signage right on Liberty Lake Road and so um again we we heard some good brainstorming about how we might approach it and am and Michelle are going to be doing some additional research for how others have approached that but that is probably one of the larger challenges we have here in our Community particularly on Liberty Lake Road and on Country Vista where we have a lot of commercial development that is off the public right way other questions anyone all right we'll move on now to housing policy so um so Evan uh sharifa is in the wings and I wonder if you can promote her and I think she's going to be running her own Pres presentation so if we can let her share her screen hi I'm here uh can everyone hear me all right yes yep all right okay let me share my screen and we'll get right into it um so the last time we met can everyone see my screen yes okay uh the last time we met we talked about a set of policies some of of them were

required uh by state law and some of them were merely recommendations so what we're going to focus on today is just the recommendations since the requirements are given we know we must adopt them into the code we're not going to focus on those today we went over them the last time we met a couple weeks ago today we're going to focus on the recommendations which we have listed 16 different policy recommendations so we'll go through them one by one and discuss them and see what you all think about applying those into the Liberty Lake code or not so before we dive into it are there any questions okay hearing none we'll get right into it um so these recommendations came from either the um the commerce's housing action plan or from commerce's guide to developing the housing element so I'm referencing in the Bold text you'll see which specific strategy this came from so this first one relates to the hap strategy about increasing the allowed housing types within existing zones and what we're proposing for Liberty Lake is to expand allowable housing options such as tiny homes Cottage housing clusters and co- living developments in certain residential and mixed use districts in order to increase diversity of housing options s Citywide so I'll open that for discussion and hear from you what your thoughts are about introducing these three different housing types uh into the Liberty Lake code so to the extent that you have existing HOAs that do not allow these housing types those are still going to be in effect that is correct new HOAs would

have to allow or that's what we have to decide no new if so so there is some of these changes that we need to do um there are some of these changes or that we need to do part way not the full meal deal as we get through here um and some of these that are really options again if I thought we were just going to talk about the optional ones yeah we are we are talking about the optional ones but there's parts and pieces of it that may need to happen for different reasons than just because it's outright called out for and and when we get to those I'll I will point those out we talked a little bit about the permanent and Supportive Housing that's one where I I think we need to do some things there um but in this particular case this is really focusing on some things now first of all we have Cottage housing already identified we we we Define it in our code but we don't have any regulations around it there um in my personal opinion the code does not preclude Cottage housing right right now but I think it would be beneficial for us to provide um some standards and actually Commerce has suggested some very good standards you can do condo developments right now within the city you could do multiple single family homes on a common lot and condominium ising we have some of we have that already in parts of our city we have some Town Homes like that have um duplexes like that where it's on commonly owned ground but I assume currently we have no co-living developments we currently have no co-living developments but I want to except for the with the exception of guardian angels that's okay there's an example and that's one of the reasons

that it may be valuable to consider uh co- living arrangements as a possibility because it does provide for supportive housing um and we do have we do have um some goals related to permanent Supportive Housing um we provide the types of housing that would be affordable to them as you saw with the land Capacity Analysis but this would actually be more effective and efficient because it would provide a means to also perhaps provide some supportive services with the housing gotcha okay right and to add to uh what Lisa said these requirements for example when it comes to HOAs they are not obligated to offer them it's just the city code would provide an expanded optionality but certain HOAs may choose not to develop these specific types of housing uh developments and I want to underscore this again that every single one of these housing types that we're talking about the question is whether or not we alone allow it in our zoning and development code private sector will make decisions about if it makes sense or not okay but one of the other things I want to point out is um with the with the tiny homes is that that they are potentially so they're they're typically manufactured homes that are in a much smaller footprint print they may be um a great option for adus they may be a great option even for some affordable housing in um or some replacement housing in uh the mobile

home subdivision in the River District and right now our standards for manufactured housing are that it's got to be um a minimum of a th000 square feet feet double wide um and there's some additional standards that don't even apply to single family homes we've already removed one of those which had to do with garages we don't require garages anywhere except for mobile homes and so that's that we we did change that but right my point is that my point is that um by providing a little bit more flexibility and opportunity in the manufactured home sector which this is where certainly homes fall within that category it may create some opportunities for the boomerang generation as an example Lisa couple of questions how do you define Cottage housing so actually Commerce has a pretty good definition um and uh it it's on commonly open space you could have separate parking for each unit or you could have or you could have centralized parking typically it's around a common open space um the standards that apply in we are not we are not of a population that is require that we're required to provide it but they do provide some sideboards as to what that looks like in those communities that do and it requires a minimum of 20% common open space Etc and so there are some standards there are some sideboards and it provides for really um in fact um if you look at some of how trutina has developed and some of Rocky Hill um uh neighborhoods there is a little bit of

that already in there we played we've dabbled in it and so where you have uh smaller homes around a common open space this this do this Matrix says expand allowable housing options such as tiny homes and co- living develop ments in certain residential and mixed use zoning districts yeah what what do you mean by certain residential well that my friends is up to you are there certain zones where that would what that where that make sense does it make sense in an R2 Zone does it make sense in a mixed juice Zone well I would offer from the GetGo that you cannot you should not we should not allow this overlay over the existing rwin District in Li lake period okay if you want to sign it to the R2 District fine even if you want to take some of the industrial district we've got and modify the zoning to allow some of this type of product like stack Flats at 16 per acre fine even in the River District fine undeveloped fine but I don't think overlaying this idea on on the R1 District in Liberty Lake it makes any sense and and that's a fine statement by the way some of this can already be done in the the River District Cottage housing for sure can be done there um it would be considered multif family when you do it but they have the ability to do that in all zones um so so again I think that I your point is very well taken and that is the question is do we do this and if so what zones would we do it in um I would be I would caution I would caution the idea of of doing that in changing zoning um because down zoning could create a um a legal

challenge for us and we do not have tons of light Industrial and Commercial lands left to develop so so again I'm not and that's quite a big bit bigger of a lift than saying maybe an R2 and R3 it might make sense to allow these things um and and those by the way or maybe in a mixed use Zone um so that so so that but that that's the question before you what makes what makes sense for Liberty Lake and where Lisa can I TR go ahead F yeah thank you so as you've well pointed out we already have zones that allow mixed use um Cottage whatever you want to call them but uh I Court yard housing is called out in our zoning Matrix um and I believe it's an M2 I forget now but uh so to me those to already have a home within our zoning um as I think about allowable housing options tiny homes um it was even uh said earlier it's similar to manufactured home when I look at our zoning M Matrix manufactured homes are allowed limited use are 1 through three so uh and I believe years ago we've had a discussion about that uh uh that portion of our zoning and how little space uh within the city boundaries that even applies to so for me when I think about tiny homes they're no different than a manufactured home um uh uh uh I'm I'm I don't think it's in the City's best interest to consider that

given that we have mixed use zones for other different types of product with within the the zoning Matrix and I asked I highlighted the same question as it says uh developments in certain residential areas what does that exactly that mean I get the mixed use zoning districts but certain residential areas is that limited use in R1 through3 like you just said I think that's that's the answer so so and and that absolutely is but and that would be the question limited use in R1 limited use in R2 and again my suggestion is that even with the um Cottage housing which is the um we do have provide for that in some of the River District zones it's in our code but it's but it's not defined anywhere and it we have no standards I would respectfully suggest that um it's something we could consider it is a single family form of housing but with that that's just oriented a little bit differently with the streets around the back and the and rear loaded with uh with the homes facing on common open space Etc um it would be nice if we added at least some standards to that concept Lisa if I may interject for tier three cities which lake is a tier three city um as part of the two unit per lot that is required for Middle housing um Cottage housing is a required type because Commerce considers that you can reasonably do a cottage housing configuration with a two unit development so you can have two separate small homes that share an open space and then that's a Cottage House traditionally cottage homes are more

like six and eight units potentially four units that share an open space but Commerce considers that you can reasonably create them with two units which means Liberty Lake is required to allow for a 2unit cottage housing configuration everywhere that is residential this is more about do we want to allow you know on larger lots for you to develop instead of doing a multi-unit apartment building do you do six Standalone homes that share an open space and that has more have a single family lower profile residential feeli so that's where the certain residential zones are so you know beyond the R1 zones do we want to look at like the R2 and R3 to allow for more than just two cottage homes next to each other absolutely and I want to make this point again I want to underscore this it was a great question Charlie the reality is or and it could have been you Jim the reality is that the HOAs and their CC cnrs are not going to change um new HOAs they could change and we do have we don't have tons of land but we do have we do have some R2 we've got about 35 Acres um that is west of the high school that will that um where there we may want to allow a little bit more creativity and development there we may and again the concept of smaller homes we have to allow for a range of homes in the Adu Arena that would in include um uh tiny homes potentially um I think that it would be there would be um as we look to an aging population and increasing housing cost the opportunities to provide adus not just

for um Grandma but maybe also for our returning college students um there's going to be more and more of a de demand for it and having a variety of options for how that can happen um in our zoning code again not stepping on any cc&rs but the zoning code yeah and I think your the key word here Lisa is that you all are allowing these you are not requiring them you are merely allowing them so just opening the options for folks who are interested in such kinds of development I just I I just heard that we have we have to allow multiple aduse in the city of Liberty Lake we do have to that's in the required so the follow question that is at what point if if we just say as a commission we don't think that's a good idea when you go into the Aran District in Liberty Lake to Overlay that requirement on Liberty like and we say we're not going to do that where do we run a foul of the Department of Commerce in the state of Washington a little bit or are are we totally in or totally so here's how here's how the legislation is written just to be clear um we have to adopt the required regulations we have to adopt by for the housing by December 31st of 2026 if we do not adopt our own standards and provide our own limited use standards for how to make it Liberty Lake Centric guess what commerce's rules go into effect and that becomes our zoning ordinance those become the regulations for that so we

can customize our own ordinance to meet our own needs without being crosswise with the Department of com as long as we're meeting the minimum requirements yes and the minimum requirements so we have to allow for and I believe given our city size we have to allow for at least 180u per lot or I can it's actually with a if it's a single so let's say the first layer is you have to allow um two unit middle housing on all residential zones and then for the adus if you have a single family home you must allow up to two adus if you have a two unit middle Housing Development say cottage homes or a duplex you can you must allow up to one Adu you have the option to allow to but that's one of the optionality that Lisa is talking about if your code by that specific deadline is not compliant commerce's code says even if you do middle housing you have to allow two adus so that these are your options the minimum requirements are the one Adu with middle housing or two adus with single family home minimum require requirement if I heard if I'm listening correctly minimum requirement is two adus for a single family that's correct much of Liberty Lake is R1 and even in the R1 Zone we allow for and I want to be clear on this we allow for zero lot line right in Even in our one zone we allow a zero lot line of town homes up to three units R2 goes up to four units or five units excuse

me so you already have this in your code something a similar form sure you just so again keep in mind what the zoning allows and what the market will build are two different things so if you go in if you if you go into Scout which I did and I just picked Lots in the Arwin District in Liberty Lake and just I just randomly picked lots to see what size the lot is the majority of the lots are over 8,000 squet there are quite a few lots that are in the 13,000 15,000 square foot L range so we could see based upon this minimum requirement a whole lot of additional adus in the oran District but for the cc&rs and the other thing I want to caution you on is that and you know this um we do have larger lot subdivisions where we have larger lot subdivisions they're larger lot because they are topographically challenged they have 30 they have a lot of slope a lot of uh rockout crops okay and so so the smaller Lots if you look at what we have in Rocky Hill and you look at what we have in the River District um those tend to be much smaller lots more common open space but smaller lots and we do have all of those housing types can we move forward I'm sorry so um I am not hearing any consensus uh on this but I and that was the hope Hope was that we we would come to um some

decisions on these um in terms of what we think and then we once we have what the Planning Commission recommends then we can push it out to the public was the thought and maybe maybe we need to do something different maybe we need to ask the public opinion on letting them know what is required versus what might be optional but uh but I thought that it would be valuable to have give you all a first crack at kind of deciding what makes sense um if we if we're committed to trying [Music] to reduce barriers to housing affordability here in the city of Liberty Lake these are some things that we might we really might want to look at and um so that's that kind of that's the Spirit of this conversation is does it make sense here I know that and and again the things that are required are just required so let's not spend tons of time on that let's focus on these other items that might have provide the ability to move the needle in some areas not a lot of areas honestly because a lot of them are already under CC andrs but in some areas within the city so do we go through this at vote on every item on the commitments well we could or we could go through and talk about it today and just have a general conversation and then come back to it and and maybe kind of go through and see after thinking about it after reviewing it after looking at the code what are your thoughts well I I don't know about anyone else but I've been looking through this and I'm in no way ready to make any kind a decision on this

personally I I've looked at it and looked at it and I still I I I can't make a decision yet okay well let's walk through and let's have sharifo go through this talk about it what the pro what the benefits are potentially how IT addresses the needs we can talk about how it may or may not be appropriate in Liberty Lake and by the way this is just this is just a first round straw pool that I'm talking about so that we can kind of maybe start to shape what the housing looks like so that we can get it out to the public and ask for their input I'm not asking for decisions but I am asking where where are the C- living developments allowed currently I'm sorry C- living developments in what zones are they currently allowed or are they restricted well so in all zones so we do have an allowance for Supportive Housing um and in all res resdential zones and we have some standards associated with that and so that is something that's allowed right now we we we have some separation distances that are problematic we have for the same reasons that we talked about emergency housing but I wasn't required to do that to get the LCA across the Finish Line we will it will be a problem um for us to meet the housing needs for permanent Supportive Housing unless we change some of those and that's in this list down the down the pike so um but um but we do allow for that in all zones because all residential zones because it was a requirement back in 2021 we made the change to our our code Lisa can I add something sure yeah just just food for thought

um um I guess in my op I I don't see this as a a top priority in in this discussion um simply because the other required legislative mandates are forcing us into a lot of things that we probably don't want either uh so for this small piece of the big pie here I I I I don't think it's worth um consideration that's just my opinion the the first one the the first one yep the first one so Sol based on everything else that we're going to discuss thank you does anybody else have any other thoughts on this or we or should we move on to the next one move on so sharifa all right so so the next one is about increasing density limits so it refers to the hap strategy z7 so the recommendation that we're making based on the existing Liberty Lake Zone uh Liberty Lake zoning code is to increase the maximum density for attached housing in the R2 zones currently it's 12 units per acre we recommend increasing it to 16 units per acre because that is more common with the types that is um anticipated to be allowed or currently allowed in the R2 zone so just the density itself that the types are allowed but the density is limiting so we're saying let's just increase the density instead of 12 uh du per acre to 16 duse per acre so it's more appropriate with the types that are currently allowed any objections to

that good idea so that 16 per acre would get you stacked Flats twostory stack class yes okay and that's a good product for either rent or sale can I add to this part of it sure thank you so uh I guess my thought on this is um uh to date we continually get substantial negative push back from our residents on any anytime a new high density project is approved or is built as I re refer back to the Strategic plan summary of 2023 one of the questions on there was what is the most unsatisfied what what are one of the things that are you're most unsatisfied about Liberty Lake the first one was lack of amenities pool dog park so on so on the second one was the Town Center the third one was the way growth and development are managed and I can't when I read this I couldn't help but think of all the push back that we've received over the different projects the high density projects within the city and now we're just going to encourage more so if I may Phil this these are densities that uh greenstone's already realizing in the in in their uh River District so say that again I'm sorry uh greenstone's already realizing these densities in the River District in the RDR and the RDM zones I'm just saying if we get on board with this it's we're not we're not paying attention to the the the the feedback that we've gotten from the community

that's all that no that and that's a fair comment um also another just just to give you a context where this would apply since it already applies in the River District it would apply to the R2 Zone to the west of Ridgeline High School uh 35 acres and it would apply to the mobile home subdivision on the south side of Mission Avenue in the River District which 35 acres is a considerable am considerable amount of land that this is exposed to so appreciate the comments Right Moving On yeah I think we are okay so regarding Adu standards we know we talked about the requirements that are like if we're doing a single family home we have to allow two adus if we're doing middle housing we have to allow one Adu these are additional requirements to consider additional recommendations sorry to consider so it's to allow more adus so the allowing the two adus to be built with duplex or middle housing configurations is that something that we want to allow or are we considering that the one Adu with middle housing is sufficient um and then second is removing the existing Adu standards um that require a certain number like a maximum number of bedrooms or you have to put a fence that is six foot tall if you're building an Adu and if you have an Adu you have to have a certain roof slope for that so just design considerations well and those design standards sharifa if I may the uh rcws actually say that we can't apply those standards if we don't apply them to the

to uh the single family house so we do not have those standards for the single family home right now so we can either apply those standards to all of our single family homes or we can remove the standards and make them consistent with uh with uh standards for the rest of the housing thoughts any thoughts any thoughts on the first item like do we want to allow two adus with two unit midal housing like duplexes or two cottage homes or the other configuration stacked Flats like two units on top of each other from the discussion that we've had I don't think that anybody in here has an appetite to have it to per per unit sounds more like it should be one I would agree I would yeah I would agree with that um and are you are you again I I kind of saw some heads nod that it makes more sense to remove this these design standards from the adus okay okay thank you I'm sorry I didn't hear that what was the what what did Tom say about the allowing adus on duplexes again so um that nobody has an appetite for require allowing for additional um adus beyond what is we're already required to do which is one which is one for on a duplex site two on a single family home site thank you I won't have to share my long-winded response appreciate it I thought that that's what I heard you say Phil all right and just okay just a comment on the adus because I don't know if if Phil heard that from our last meeting but the reality is that all adus are going to require a u utility hookup and a water and sewer

hookup which almost makes them prohibitively expensive it is true it is true and and if if we were the water and sewer purveyor we would not be able to do that but because uh the Water and Sewer districts are not regulated by the growth management act so the reality of adus is that they're prohibitive within the uh uh Liberty Lake Water and Sewer District so okay they're cost prohibitive cost prohib cost prohibitive yes yes and thanks for checking up on me I did my homework before this meeting thank you all right so so the half strategy R2 says to relax ground floor retail requirements so when we looked at the Liberty Lake code we are suggesting to allow more flexibility in commercial space requirements for housing developments in neighborhood oriented mixed Ed zones so there are certain mixed Ed zones that you want to maintain continuous commercial or retail uh availability on the ground floor but we're saying for mixed use districts that are more residental IAL oriented more neighborhood oriented could we relax some of the requirements to make developments more feasible if there is not such high demand on commercial space yeah and so so let me give you the example and I think I've brought this up before we have a onetoone uh requirement commercial to to residential regardless of whether it is a vertical or a horizontal mixed use so a vertical mixed use would be like Jakes toown homes or Stanley apartments or something like that where you have certain lots that are commercial and certain that are multif family that's

horizontal vertical is what is actually you're building a building and typically when you see mixed juuse buildings um and they're doing some right now in um in the River District typically what you see is a single floor commercial and two possibly three if the height limits allow for it residential floors above the commercial it doesn't it doesn't pencil to do one floor commercial and one floor residential and it probably is going to be it's and again we're not Urban enough that to make second floor commercial work very well yeah so is that Ono One requirement yeah it's that Ono One requirement that we're think we're talking about relaxing and just changing that uh to make it a little more flexible maybe only ground floor retail as opposed to that ratio re uh requirement and only for ver vertically mixed use so if building a vertically mixed use structure you're only required to have one floor of uh commercial or to to uh to justify the uh residential in the upper floors okay does that make sense yeah and you're not limiting you're just changing the requirement right question yes so do we have any existing product that you're referring to to date anywhere we haven't had any built because everybody who's come in to kick the tires said that doesn't work okay so it's but we have but we have a couple um a couple right now that are under construction in the River

District that are ground floor commercial with a couple floors one is two floors and one is three floors of residential above and in the Meadowwood tech center area that we rezoned we were promised that we were going to see one ground floor commercial and a maximum of two residential except and what and that hasn't started yet it hasn't started yet and it couldn't happen under our curtain Zone zoning code because our zoning code limits it to one floor and one floor just saying that was what was pitched to us you yeah ABS no it absolutely was and there actually are areas where the only way they can do Residential is if they do a mixed use building but we're not going to see it until we allow for at least two floors of residential above that single floor of commercial the so what's the success rate out in River District are they rental or are they be simple units above commercial so they they are are right now they're under construction they haven't even been built how they do it in um Kendall Yards I think I think they have a mix of both some are condos and well no let me take that back um because the condo laws haven't changed yet but he's talking about some being condos but right now he's got right now it's rental up above the uh commercial but again that's that's the big push even this even this session they're pushing to get the reforms they need to make Condominiums um more uh economically feasible does that mean they're going to reduce the state regulations on that's what the the liability issues around condos and if we're going in that direction you if I heard you correctly you said that the city of Liberty Lake does not review the CPR applications the ccnr condominium property regime so so actually there's another requirement we

don't we don't but we haven't seen a lot of that right now everything's been zero lot line uh Town Homes we are going to see more of that but what we're also required to do as part of the a as part of this is we do also we are also required to allow for what they call unit lot subdivision which includes both subdivisions uh like short clats for any you have uh uh a duplex with a res with an Adu and we have to allow those to be divided we also have to allow for condominium development so then so so that will be part ofion doing some of that review we we have to under the code so so we're going to have to so they have some model ordinances out there that will be part of the the the regulations that change with this comp plan who other questions if I can sure so the purpose of my earlier question was uh I just wanted to in verify that we're not really changing the rules of of uh engagement for anybody existing this would just encourage right yes and then my second question is when I read the term relax ground floor retail requirements I kind of read that as something was going to be suggested to change as it re pertains to retail requirements but what you're suggesting is the square foot requirement is that fair in the mixed use zones yeah okay and so what would that suggestion be one to two one to three one to five I think that it would be um it would be single floor commercial with the number of floors dependent upon the height limits in that zone so then

we have different yeah so it won't be yeah it won't be based on a ratio it would be just ground floor retail and then the other uses on top based on the height limit as Lisa's saying so we would we would give up the ratio requirement of one to one so if you had a main floor structure that was 10,000 square F feet that's what the requirement would be for the residential I I I I'm not sure I mean yes if that's what you were if that's what you were proposing to do but I think that typically I I don't know Phil I mean you're the developer I'm not but I think typically you would structure your building proposal based upon what makes sense for the use I'm not sure that 10,000 square feet of commercial um would necessarily lay out very well for um the residential up above that sounds like a pretty I I I don't know it would you'd have to you'd have I totally agree I totally agree I'm just using that as an example if you're G if it's going to be floor for floor and not a a ratio of square footage um how does that how does that work out I guess is my question well how it works out is that it would be so if you could if you you could if you have a in a mixed use Zone where you're building a vertically mixed use building would be commercial and you probably could um in most mixed juice zones you could get two floors maybe three floors um and and that that would be it for residential that's what it would look like not unlike what you see in Kendall Yards not unlike what greenstone is

building right now in um in the River District right across from the coffee shop yeah right across from the coffee shop do the floors have to be the same square footage not necessarily so you could in Phil's case or example you could build a 10,000 square foot commercial or retail and then have a 600 foot penthouse for floor too residential yes you still have to get through design review right but I'm just saying like just using the example right yes you could do that and actually they I mean you see this a lot in Spokan where they have the stepped design so the and that creates some um private indoor outdoor space and whatnot um so yeah right and sometimes you have that obviously depending on the size of the lot you can have the lower floor is retail and then you can have the doughnut shape residential on top with a courtyard in the middle so there are variations you don't NE you know adding a requirement that says you know for this area you have to have as much area of something else or trying to equate the floors to each other just makes it a little more uh stringent and we're trying to make the codes a little more flexible to allow flexibility and design yep okay so what I'm hearing though is that there's a consensus that generally that direction makes some sense correct Phil I can't see your head nodding I'm seeing everybody else's head nod that explanation was great thank you all right okay next T strategy now we're talking about the manufactured homes and the tiny house communities do we do we miss the all street parking requirements yes the hapr

R1 um I think that's coming up we haven't covered it just yet the parking okay um okay so regarding the manufactured homes uh one thing that we touched upon a little earlier is removing the design requirements currently uh for used for manufactured homes like they have to be multi-sectional and they have to have like a certain roof slope roof slope and these are not required for other housing types so just removing these design requirements and then the second one that we also touched upon is that currently the code requires the minimum uh size of a manufactured home to be a thousand square feet and this prohibits us from developing tiny house communities in manufactured home areas so removing that requirement of a minimum size would allow us to develop more of the tiny home communities are we getting push back from folks who are doing manufacturing manufactured homes now in Liberty Lake on these issues so right now those the Lots where we have manufactured homes are a little bit smaller so um it's a little bit more challenging for them to do ad use um and um so what more often than that happens is we have issues with people living for extended periods in our these because that's what they have the room for or the one trailer that you ended up having to remove that's right down street from us right and so it becomes a Code Enforcement issue but if we had an allowance for somebody to a away for somebody to get there which I think this would allow and the other

thing is some of these uh some of these tiny homes are quite nice if anybody's seen them yeah and and to add to that is that sometimes a, square foot or 1200 foot manufactured home may be Out Of Reach in terms of maintenance cost and everything for someone with very low income so tiny homes would allow something smaller and uh less expensive to maintain so it's just expanding these options by removing this minimum requirement can I comment yeah thank you so like I said earlier for me tiny homes are no different than manufactured homes regardless of the size as I read our zoning Matrix manufactured homes are limited use uh and it states uh on individual Lots uh which kind of tells me where did it go uh yeah on individual Lots which tells me that's spot Lots that's not a a a coordinated um group of lots nor a um I don't even know what the proper term is a a manufactured home park no it's we don't have any manufactured home parks here in the city of Liberty Lake but we do have a manufactured home subdivision there you go thank you so a a similar type subdivision um product if that was what we were talking about uh fine as a limited use but the way I read this this for our Matrix that says on individual Lots so that means any lot anywhere within R1 through3 and for that reason I well so so we haven't developed the standards yet these are these are just for discussion purposes I would why would respectfully suggest that we'd

still have limited use standards for these but first we have to decide if it even makes sense right now manufactured homes require 1,000 square feet minimum and they have these other design standards not saying that we wouldn't do design standards and actually um if with the cottage housing um concept that that might also be something that could potentially be um a tiny homes Cottage housing uh development potentially again not a lot of land in the city that's not already entitled so I don't see there's a lot of room for that but there could be some smaller opport opport Unity sites so do manufacturer homes go through design review no they do not no and actually one of the things we're going to but they but we review The Limited use standards when we're permitting them so that's that that's an administerial review actually we have to get away from design review and that's one of the required changes for residential and so um so just just just saying but that doesn't mean that we wouldn't still have our limited use standards that are reviewed administer through by staff and getting out of design riew for residential is to make the Department of Commerce happy it's a requirement under the rcws so we we don't we never required it for single family uh homes and I think it was anything more more than we require it for anything over five units now but we cannot we can no longer be doing that so that's another change that's in the required table so we weren't

didn't yeah and my my understanding Lisa is that requirement to eliminate design reviews is uh applicable to adus and middle housing but I'm not sure if which is all we apply it too yeah but like uh larger developments I think you cities are still able to uh have design reviews that are not administrative design review large scale development which we have the better Define yeah right okay are we ready to move on from this one do we say like we have an opportunity to explore design stand standards for um tiny home communities but we can start by eliminating the somewhat unnecessary design requirements for uh manufactured homes like the area the minimum footprint or the roof slope I think that I'm seeing heads nod and Phil I still can't see your head so can you give us a thumbs up or a thumbs down yeah I'm good with that one I'm not interested in changing the square footage okay so I think we're yeah so the next one is about that um the design review process so Pap P6 recommends um to eliminate design review in certain residential zones so we're looking at potentially eliminating any design review in R1 R2 and R3 zones for moderate density and multif family house housing so as we said uh for the um middle housing so the two unit middle housing that's going to go in the R1

Zone and for adus we can't do uh subjective design reviews but um we're saying that applying to all residential zones we would only follow an administrative design review and the bottom you have the definition by Commerce so it's a develop it's a development permit process whereby the application is reviewed approved or denied by the planning director or planning director's designate based solely on objective design and development standards so it doesn't have like a something that's more subjective do you like the design or not so the code would be specific these are your requirement doesn't comply or not so it's very objective so the suggestion here is to apply this type of design review solely objective on all residential development in the three R zones I think yes other thoughts I I'm getting a no and a yes we don't have a consensus I think yes anyone I I think yes I'm see I will go I will go yes if we're going to commissioner fer yeah I'm still trying to wrap my mind around the how this improves housing so it's not necessarily that it's aimed at improving housing it's aimed at reducing barriers to affordability and I think that and I think one of the things I will say for what it's worth we we only with multif

family do the with larger than five units um is the only time that we do um any mixed use zones uh do we do multif family review or or the architectural design review ours is as close to an administrative process but still involving um the Planning Commission design Review Committee as it could be we don't have public hearings we don't have we try and keep it we do have to tighten our design standards but we know that but um we do have some somewhat somewhat um objective uh design criteria that we go through and you guys and you guys on the design review hear me banging on the drum the human scale the articulation the uh etc etc etc we do have some very specific going to have the administrative design review Y which is pretty much where you're at right now anyway it's it it doesn't quite meet the definition but it's close to and um so but at the but at the same time at at the same time if we can stream streamline it I know that these recommendations are geared more towards um I know you all know the story about Seattle and the 18 months to two years to get through their design Review Committee um when I used to be with the city of Spokan I was working very hard to try and reduce the um bureaucracy of our design review and even that was pretty that required no less than two meetings with the design Review Committee and took several months to get through it and was still pretty was still less than objective and that was they were still working on that when I left so this would eliminate the design

review there is the design review right now well for five units or more correct so it it wouldn't necessarily have to we could refine what our rules are so it's more objective than subjective correct and we could decide I mean we could go all the way from no we don't do any design review period to we just um four or five units or more we want to make sure that we're just hitting these very specific targets as it relates to housing less bureaucracy but it is but it's this is less bureaucratic and and frankly um I I I don't know given the standards that we have right now for housing we've looked at a lot of multif family and I haven't seen us push back on any of those designs because we're explicit about it in our design standards and the designers are meeting it so I don't think it's particularly onerous but it's certainly our volunteers time coming in to look at these and say say yep it meets the standards when staff could do the same thing without having you travel to City Hall to uh and uh to spend 20 minutes looking at it it's but it's up to you again I I I think that that but where we can show that we're doing some things to reduce the bureaucracy that's a really good thing which right and then it just it removes the it or it proves predictability if someone is designing something they know it meet the code requirements they know they're they're not worried about it going to a committee and the committee not liking it for a not a clear reason it's a matter of does it comply or does it not comply a comment if I

can I guess I'm with Charlie when you put in there eliminate the design review okay the one time out of 500 that somebody goes off the deep end how is it addressed so well don't you have the administrative design review sets the standard yes so if we're if we're explicit in our code about what the standards are which I think we already are and we've gone through some we've gone through some challenging design reviews as of late where the code didn't even really address that particular type of development and we were still able to draw it out of our comp plan policies and purpose statements and general language in the zone and so yeah that is and by the way all the things that don't go to design review staff is still doing those reviews we review everything to make sure that it meets The Limited use standards so and so whether a committee of the Planning Commission looks at it or whether staff looks at it we're still going to hold their feet to the fire and whatever design standards are within the code thank you I just add one thing to that too even if design review comes back and says we're all against this it can still go anyways which we found out recently so and yet we still we still successfully we prevailed right so this that's what I'm saying just adds more to eliminating that isn't going to eliminate design review all together because it's staff anyways so and this is housing not commercial right y yeah so for I'm I'm hearing that for all Housing Development we would follow an administrative design review process so this way we just streamline everything but ensure that it follows

the requirements okay let's move on to parking all right H strategy R1 says to reduce off street parking requirements so we look we have two potential recommendations for Liberty Lake the first one is to revise parking requirements for multi-unit housing so apartment buildings and so on based on the unit size or number of bedrooms so right now you have like per unit you need to require 1.75 uh parking spaces whether it's a two-bedroom apartment or whether it's a studio apartment so we're saying to revise the code to align it better with either the number of bedrooms or the square feet and so on so that's the first recommendation the second recommendation relating to parking is goes to the uh permanent Supportive Housing and emergency housing is to adjust the parking mandates over there and so let me speak to the first one uh first we just changed our parking standards a couple years ago and one of the reasons why and we used to be have it structured like this but one of the things that we saw is that um site improvements for a multif family apartment complex are done up front and then the buildings are phased and one of the things that we saw is depending upon what the market looks like uh the very often the last buildings and we've had some pretty large ones where the the last buildings end up up being revised and are now of different but it's a little late for us to um adjust the parking because the site's already developed so then what do you do so that was the that so that was the that was

the point and we try and figure out how we resolve that or we have to do something to give them there is an administrative variants for parking or they have to provide some off street parking and we're we're we're now in a almost in a a a difficult code enforcement situation and so that is one of the reasons why it was we said it was simpler to Simply um do an average based upon the average of the bedrooms that we're seeing in terms of what the parking requirements are so that was kind of the thought process um I I don't I very much agree with adjusting parking mandates for permanent Supportive Housing and emergency housing because that's kind of a different beast but I'm hearing you say that you'd prefer leaving it to the 1.75 per if it's overly restrictive I would if it's overly restrictive to do it the way we're doing it then you know I would defer to you Planning Commission if that makes sense to you well this Planning Commission agreed with you a couple of years ago and changed it yeah so is there a reason to revise it again I I I heard you say no I don't think we want to be over restricted I mean whatever we can do I don't for myself from an administrative standpoint this was a this was simplifying the administration of this code what the intent of it but I don't want to in simply Ying the administration of the code we don't want to create obstacles for housing either and so you know

I I I'm deferring to all of you I mean sharifa do we have any kind of do we have any kind of um and maybe this is what we need to do maybe we need to go back and look at our um the the multifamilies that we've done and kind of figure out what the average would be for and I believe we did that um based upon a couple developments we have more devel so right now it's 1.75 parking spaces regardless of the size of the unit or the number of bedrooms and we were see very few we see almost no and that's just a I mean the developer can allow for more parking should the developer want to that's just the yes yes and I will say that what we see is almost exclusively two and three bedroom occasionally we'll see one bedroom we almost never see the studios almost never and that ratio is working uh it is in fact it is it's it's working then why change it that's my question okay because uh if I may interject it could be that because the reason you don't see Studios is because of that requirement it just makes developing Studios yeah say that again we didn't see Studios before that requirement that was one of the reasons why we were um when we looked at what we were what was coming in and it was and what we were seeing at the end was people saying oh I need more three bedrooms oh I need more three bedrooms okay so it wasn't it actually was working against us so that's why we changed it yes we

should leave it the way it is all right I agree Phil agreed okay so the second point is about parking requirements for permanent Supportive Housing and emergency housing uh just reducing the requirements that are in place right now because a lot of the residents in those communities do not own a car so it is um it becomes burdensome to try to provide so much off street parking for communities that are likely that are not likely to own a car in the first place agreed agreed okay I I hope they don't own cars so we're talking about bullet two we're talking about bullet number two yes okay some jokes all right so I'm hearing no to number one and then yes to number two okay we have a few more slides here so more on the emergency housing and permanent Supportive Housing facilities themselves so the first one is removing the spacing between shelters um and psh Facilities is that something that Lisa you all have done already yeah so right now our code requires that they be uh separated by 3/4 of a mile so technically Guardian Angels is a permanent Supportive Housing so we might be able to have one other one in the city if you do the draw the radius around it we might have be able to have one other one and um it's that's not going to meet our needs in terms of permanent Supportive Housing for any population um I mean the fact of the matter is we have an aging population

and we're going to need more of those types of of units just for our seniors but we also have other um Supportive Housing needs that um for developmentally dis disabled people Etc and um anyhow so long story short is that the the spacing requirement um uh really hinders when we look at what the housing allocation says we're supposed to be providing for permanent Supportive Housing I don't see how it happens and the same is true for the um for uh the second bullet yeah for the for the third bullet for sure or for the second bullet yeah the removing the uh Transit proximity again because many of these populations may not be they may if they're Transit capable it's likely going to be Paratransit and Spokan Transit is increasing their their supply of that so yes they are and and just and they're also expanding their Roots here so that so that we're going to have more coverage with Paratransit um so it just it it it that's the reason why I think the the the spacing or the proximity to Transit maybe doesn't make so much sense right cing that offices are allowed in conjunction with permanent support of housing and emergency housing across all residential zones I think that's a really good point I I I would consider the offices for like guardian angels as an example to be accessory to the to to the unit the to the function but having said that it would be way better to be explicit in the code about that yeah and if Ohana ever came here

we'd have to allow that too absolutely we in trouble if we just eliminate AC all residential zones yeah I think that I think that that's just tie it to permanent Supportive Housing period yeah so I'm hearing yes to all three okay next is short-term rental regulations so we're not proposing here an Airbnb type short rental but just another form of temporary uh Supportive Housing or emergency housing so it would be a temporary short-term rental program just as a transitional housing solution aren't we addressing this in emergency housing so emergency housing can be um emergency housing would not necessarily be this this would be uh temporary Supportive Housing um it which sounds like aemergency house well it kind of is but they have different definitions so somebody so trying to transition somebody to um very often the transitional housing does have uh uh transitional housing very often does have a lease associated with it so so we we already decided that we need to be very explicit about we don't allow short-term rentals Allah Airbnb Etc which is a 30-day rental but I I think that we probably want to have a an allowance specifically for uh shortterm leases for transitional

housing and that just just a thought well like let's take Guardian Angel as an example uh where they do have units for rents and I don't know what the uh what the uh the lease requirements are for those units are you suggesting that right now by code they have to be a minimum of some duration um well so so how do you have the fund short term yeah 30 days it's in it's 30 days 30 days so um uh less than 30 days is is considered short term in the condo Community where I live we do have shortterm leases 30 days and um even though we have about five they can still be made available for this type of situation and aren't those oftentimes used by the people that come to visit families that come to visit the residents no they are actually leases and it's uh are they used pretty are they used pretty frequently yes the times I'm thinking of is when somebody's trying to build a house and they're looking for a short-term rental and we see those all the time right and so so we want to differentiate between Airbnb type of vacation short-term rentals and um other types of short-term rentals and so um and again definition for uh short-term rental rental in the rcws is less than 30 days so if it's 30 days or more you know it's it's not a shortterm yes the reason we have it is we we came through you make sure we had good so we already have it well

so it's a little bit of Co with an administrative review we have it that's what I'm hearing you say yes yes you want to just allow it without any kind of administrative review and then find out it's turn into a no what I'm proposing is that we have a very narrow category for the short-term rentals that and and that we because we also want to specifically in exclude Airbnb so you want to Def find it in such a way as to exclude Airbnb yes and and vacation short-term vacation rentals let's look at the language right then we can make a decision it's I just wanted to I wanted to bring this up this is one that I wanted to bring to your attention because in making explicit the prohibition against vacation short-term vacation rentals I wanted to also make certain that we didn't we didn't preclude other types of short-term rals that make sense yeah okay so so yeah okay but I just wanted to raise this question because because it had occurred to me that it it could become it could become an obstacle right and then what we're providing here because this is part of the comprehensive plan housing element this will be written as a policy but not as a code not not as code language just yet but we'll propose it as policy we'll put all the caveat that were discussing here to ensure that the message is clear and the document that we go with policy is more flexible okay two more slides or actually this is the last one um so a couple other items that didn't fall neatly into any of the specific category uh strategies that are identified in the documents and the

Commerce documents but we did talk about them as barriers to affordability right now is for example the a requirement for balconies that have to be a minimum of 30 5 ft per each unit uh so just removing that requirement for the balconies because right now for multi-unit uh apartment buildings all ground floor units must have outdoor space that is 35 square feet or larger and 75% of the upper units Upper Floor units must have that so that's the first point that we're saying to remove that from the code the second one is not something that's currently discussed in the code but just to prod uh introduce it is talking about the um development standards for adaptive reuse so if you end up having buildings in certain districts that used to be office uses or anything else that you want to convert into residential that you provide some relaxed requirements for those because they weren't built for that intention intentionally so they wouldn't need to go through through the hurdles to comply with the requirements that are in place for residential buildings so just putting some um notes about those buildings not having to comply with a certain level of requirements and there's some model ordinances related to this um it that because other jurisdictions of higher populations are required to implement this um one of the things and so I would give a context to you um something that could potentially happen in the Meadowood technology campus as an example where they've got a lot of vacancies and whatnot I will say a couple things so

some of the standards relate to the fact that you have to um if we were a larger City we would have to um increase the density that was allowed in this Zone well we do allow multif family in the mixed use zones and and um and uh and commercials there's no density limits so there's no commercial doesn't allow it uh mixed use does allow it but there's no density limits there's some things about related to parking and um not requiring any more parking than is already available for the use that was in the building I think there's a lot more challenges we also have some uh stuff related to building code that has to do with like requiring elevators and whatnot um but again long story short um this is something that's that the legislature came out with um I know I'm really dating myself but back in the 1980s this was originally the concept for puds oh we can take an old schoolhouse and we can turn it into senior housing because the classrooms were about the right size for that it turned out to be outrageously expensive outrageously inefficient and um just was not it's it's more costly to retrofit a building than it is to try and um build from ground up and so that that was in fact I I actually was involved in a couple of those failed projects so I remember them cheaper to tear it down and build it again huh basically very often yeah yeah well let's talk about the first one the the

requirement so the the developer obviously can put in balconies or they can put in uh patios and they can charge accordingly what you're suggesting here is removing the requirement that they must yes and then price according to the market they will build whatever the market desires I have no problem with that uh thoughts I have a little bit of an issue with it because uh the city is known for it's focus on outdoor activity and people that live in multif family housing that have neither a balcony nor a patio have no access from their dwellings to the outdoors unless they go physically outside um and I just see that as a concern that doesn't in my mind fit with the community well let me let me respond to that because the the minimum size is pretty small anyway it's basically 35 square feet go out there and smoke a cigarette that's about all it's good for or open the window I I don't know uh it's a it um it's expensive I guess there's a cost associated with uh having that requirement and I don't know what that requirement really provides in terms of an outdoor experience other comments yeah as as a as a recovering developer I would say I wouldn't I mean for me I'd rather have the requirement and deal with it as a cost issue in the

development of the structure and then not have to do it and then have to play the game with prospective buyers or renters on what they want or don't want um I and I think it speaks to better fenestration of the building and better design to have that requirement in place okay I also think that it adds to the quality of mind yeah certainly that's a bottom line we have a beautiful area that we live in and why not be able to enjoy it from the outside standpoint rather than standing outside your house so I would object to removing that good yeah I I understand the issue of it would be less expensive to build multif family without doing that no question I mean there's an expense with providing those Open Spaces but I think there's a tradeoff with what goes on for quality of life with uh so people have a decent place to live that they can enjoy the outdoors if they just want to go out and sit in a chair smoke a cigarette so what's the the current requirement is uh one balcony per how many units 75% 75% have to okay yeah it's for all the ground floor units must have them and then 75% of the Upper Floor units okay so the ground floor units have patios upper units have balconies 75% right because around here this whole area is that way Troy I haven't heard from you I think I honestly I think on this one it's such Small Potatoes I I get both sides of it but um if if you remove the requirements the developer going to decide if they want to build balconies or not but Bill what do you think huh I thought you'd never

ask uh this is suggested as a cost-saving measure for construction uh which is intended to reduce rental housing cost to the consumer it's really a pretty small modification that could potentially impact the quality of life as it relates to outdoor living space as has already been identified in my opinion in a already crowded footprint um there are so many other ways that I could offer anybody could offer anybody in this room could offer to control building costs that have a real impact on the consumer um and and that's the part of this whole discussion that's disappointing for me is there's we're we're completely missing the cost of housing um driven by uh our state energy codes forced by legislative mandates and the State Building Code Council unelected State Building Code Council by the way um and how that impacts the cost so I I agree with Troy this is peenuts compared to what we really should be talking about as it relates to cost for rental housing yeah leave it as is agree wonder I I can't help but I want to ask the question and maybe there's not an answer and I'm not trying to be a smarty pants here why do do you think it is that we we steer clear or we don't want to shine a light on that piece of this puzzle as it relates to construction cost is that is that coming from somewhere that I'm not aware of so I I think it's a great point and I think I I feel like there's a lot of things that

are in Conflict um uh between what we have to do on the climate side and what we have to do and you're you're right the energy code it's not within our control and it's not part of this particular requirement um we are required to adopt the building code there it really in there are conversations happening about that but it's not within the realm of this undertaking I I I think your point is I I I I I I can't I I can't help but recognize the truth that it is increasing the cost the other thing is that and one of the things why I think it makes some sense to look at smaller Footprints like the tiny homes Etc is because smaller home sizes also can reduce the energy cost and also can help with the and and so so that's the the other side of it I I I understand what you're saying Phil um uh but kind of like the whole the whole list of orange I need to interrupt just a minute we're coming up on the six o'clock hour and we either have to extend the meeting uh and I need a move a motion to Extended 15 minutes please move to extend is there a second second I'll in favor I thank you thank you thank you um yeah yeah we're we're just about done here but this but the point that you rais Phil Falls within the same category as all the orange uh changes that we some of which we really we really feel don't work in a small City some of which are just really we really have problems with but we don't have have a choice

about so we're trying to focus our energy on except the things you cannot change right now change the things you can right now so um anyhow I but I appreciate the comment I it's it's it's a valid one and it's one that that that I I do agree that that we've kind of got to get these two competing goals in Balance thanks for explanation appreciate it so what I heard on that first bullet point is that we prefer the added quality of life with these personal outdoor spaces over removing them for the little cost that it may remove from the construction so we'll keep it as it is we will not change it correct yes okay um adaptive reuse do we want to talk about any standards for the Adaptive reuse that we want to adopt or language in the code that we want to introduce again I what we could do if you're interested in seeing more I kind of covered it when we were going over all the various legislative changes I can share with you some of what those some of what those standards might look like if you want to consider it um again I do think that that may be a direction at some point we want to go um or that it may make some sense I just I'm just just not sure that the economics are there even if we change some of the regulations yeah well based on your experience and are all of us in here well most of us in here remember the 80s well and hug was aisal failure I'm getting nose here okay all right how many no do we have

all for the same reason the reason question reason that I'm focusing on this is there's so many of these tyght buildings in the Spokan region in Spokan Valley and there's uh so many people on the street and there are going to be many more many more based on what's happening in America right now so if we have the opportunity to enhance our community by um converting and uh converting in such a way where they may mirror condos then I think we should take every opportunity we don't have the building structures like I'm talking about that they have but we have a couple things at play we can if we have the opportunity to we can convert along the way or as I said we're looking at uh detrimental things getting ready to happen and that includes hate to say this here that includes suicides for the loss of jobs the um immediate loss of jobs the unexpected loss of jobs and now we're going to put thousands of people on the street who are not who may not be there today but they got there yesterday and they're coming so if Liberty Lake has uh the spirit and the will to uh do it once to see what that looks like how successful a builder developer can convert it and I'd say I I would not like to see it off the table I'd like to see it to stay on the table remain on the table so that's something we consider

not you know so if I might suggest maybe it would be helpful on this one for me to send out a little an email with kind of a summary of what are the kind what are the kinds of um pieces that we can relax and what the what that model ordinance looks like and your real world world experience with it yeah that's a good idea so this is a maybe sharifa yeah I made a note that you will send out a model ordinance for everyone to review okay yeah with that we covered everything that's AES thank you so much so for some of them where we didn't get consensus or need more time which I think some of the early ones I think that for now maybe as we summarize them um we just indicate that they're just Mayes right and I think Leisa like we can develop the language that is more specific to Liberty Lake and then we'll have a better idea and in reviewing them and hopefully reaching consensus that sounds really good and I do feel like I wanted to use this as a springboard to kind of get through a discussion about these as policies I think we need to kind of develop the language of the policies then um and do this again um I I almost feel like before we do any engagement with the public public on this I feel like we have to have the language of the policies and the what what barrier it's intended to and something like that so that we set it up that way so that just my thought right so um sharifa thank you so much you're welcome believe we really

got through that all that yeah I'm so glad I'm so glad we got to cover it so we'll get into developing policy language now awesome thank you okay yeah thank you all so much talk to you soon by bye anything further on housing policy Workshop we move to Citizen comments we have anyone online Evan okay then hearing no citizen comments we move to report secretary's report I'm going to be very quick I provided you with a copy of the scope of the network and analysis for the transportation piece that is going to City Council on Tuesday and I just wanted you to see that we are continuing to put together the parts and pieces that are going to give us the information we need to bring this across the Finish Line the timeline May slip on this a little bit um but they understand that that is kind of foundational to several elements and so and in not just the transportation piece but in terms of but in terms of our Capital facilities plan and in fact in in terms of the climate uh element as well so um anyhow long story short um that's there for just uh for your edification and um uh updated comp uh plan meeting schedule yes it's changed again and it will continue to change I shared a copy with you um this is a running this is a running trying to fit things in as the pieces are done also I wanted to let you know that uh gen Camp is going to be back on March 3D and so we're going to be having a kickoff meeting for uh with staff to try and the consultant for the parks uh Recreation and open space PL so that's exciting that piece is happening it's going to pretty much be handled through

the parks and arts commission but there are some they will be coming back to you we're also looking to engage um Community engagement on that one as well um we're going to be keeping them fairly busy um the last thing uh so we have a meeting on March 12th and Mark mcaboy is going to be presenting the economic development chapter and Lance is going to be sharing with you where we're at with cultural and historic resources and he's been working on a story map for the history of Liberty Lake which is kind of cool and so be able to share some of that with you um uh we are talking about from an engagement perspective we met with the community engagement commission this last uh week and we are going to be developing surveys around story Maps we already have a story map on annexation we're waiting until we we had a scavenger hunt with the uh with uh the junior high you um I think it went pretty well um so it was part of the part of the career fair so we handed out a little online scavenger hunt um and we're going to we're raffling off um VIP seats for the Fourth of July fireworks and when that those are due on MAR speci piece of grass now come on we're gonna off and we're think beautiful we're gonna cordin off an area and um uh the um the rotary is going to be not not the road re theat juanas is going to be comping us some uh uh vouchers for soda and popcorn not the beer um we're also but following following the close of that we are going

to start um a survey starting with the annexation story map because it's very approachable get some feedback from the community everybody who finish who fills out one of these surveys is going to be entered into a raffle for VIP seats at Symphony and the park and so we're going to keep those going up so we're going to do that we're going to do that with the once we do uh annexation we're going to do uh the historical story map then we're going to probably proceed on to um we going to proceed on to um uh the climate uh story map which is a little bit more intensive and so I we want to kind of get people used to kind of going through these before we get before we get too heavy um and then we're hoping to do something and I'm not sure yet until I see how this comes out we'll talk some more but we're thinking about doing either a survey or um either a survey or um a story map related to housing to get people's feedback on these drafty draft polic IES that we're going to be putting before you and that you're going to be kind of giving thumbs up or thumbs down to um so that's kind of that's kind of the thought process there um the last piece if I could just remind everybody that we that Amy sent out a little survey related to Urban design standards and I'm going to ask you all to if you could get your your uh yes Joe's already done so where was it sent to I didn't get it I didn't get it I don't go into my you should because

work gotcha okay and I don't mind you touching my personal email but the system Liberty Lake and I it um denies every email that I send to Liberty Lake wall it anything I've send is denied so I get a hold of the folks and say hey why is this denied and they look into it and so um until until and that's what I was told when until someone says it's fixed and it's ready I I will I I will forward okay anybody else who needs it needs it in that format um okay we're looking for five to seven words or phrases that best describe this city of Liberty legs Community character and we're going to use that we've sent it to you to to community engagement commission and to our city council and we're going to use those words to craft a survey related to Urban Design and ask people to rate kind of we're going to put them into buckets and we're going to ask them to rate it and that's going to help get us where we need to go in terms of our the design chat okay we have two minutes commissioner reports I've done the climate policy advisory team um had our second meeting and I think that um if seven of the kids this time we had seven young people that were involved and if you don't get a chance to meet them I hope that we can invite them to this they are planners already they are part of the AP environmental science so they actually plan a city as part of their project and they ask us to come around and review their work and talk about whether it's got elements that are realistic to a city as so um maybe one of these times we can invite them if you guys are so IND they're they're wonderful group very impressive young

people seriously and their future is a rock star in my eyes I toured the U you Packard building conver whoever did that whoever allowed that planning to go through did a superb job any other reports motion for adjournment move to adjourn moved and seconded all in favor I great thank you next Planning Commission meeting I'm on vacation so