Loading...
Agenda 04/28/2016 Spokane Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting Agenda Amended City Hall Council Chambers, 11707 E. Sprague Ave. April 28, 2016 6:00 p.m. I.CALL TO ORDER II.PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III.ROLL CALL IV.APPROVAL OF AGENDA V.APPROVAL OF MINUTES: April 14, 2016 minutes VI.COMMISSION REPORTS VII.ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT VIII.PUBLIC COMMENT: On any subject which is not on the agenda. IX.COMMISSION BUSINESS: a) Study Session: Comprehensive Plan Existing Conditions Report b) Study Session: Comprehensive Plan Focus Area Report X.FOR THE GOOD OF THE ORDER XI.ADJOURNMENT Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers City Hall, April 14, 2016 Chair Graham called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance. Administrative Assistant Deanna Horton took roll and the following members and staff were present: Kevin Anderson Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney Heather Graham Lori Barlow, Senior Planner James Johnson Christina Janssen, Planner Tim Kelley Jenny Nickerson, Senior Plans Examiner Mike Phillips Suzanne Stathos Elisha Heath, Office Assistant Joe Stoy Deanna Horton, Secretary of the Commission Commissioner Stoy moved to accept the April 14, 2016 agenda as presented. The vote on the motion was seven in favor, zero against and the motion passed. Commissioner Johnson moved to approve the March 10, 2016 minutes as they were presented. The vote on the motion was seven in favor, zero against, and the motion passed. COMMISSION REPORTS: The Commissioners had no reports. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: Senior Planner Lori Barlow reported there is a joint study session schedule for May 3, 2016 between the City Council and the Planning Commission to discuss draft goals PUBLIC COMMENT: There were no public comments. COMMISSION BUSINESS: Public Hearing: CTA-2015-0006 proposed amendments to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 19.85 Marijuana Uses, 19.120.050 Permitted Use Matrix and Appendix A, Definitions After reading the rules for a public hearing Chair Graham opened the public hearing at 6:08 p.m. for CTA-2015-0006: proposed amendments to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 19.85 Marijuana Uses, 19.120.050 Permitted Use Matrix and Appendix A, Definitions. Deputy City Attorney Erik Lamb gave the Commission and audience a presentation outlining the process of amending the current marijuana regulations and the current moratoriums which are in place. Recreational marijuana is legal in the state of Washington and uses are licensed by the Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board (WSLCB), Marijuana use is governed by numerous laws and codes: Federal, State and City. The passage of I-502 did not address how the State would regulate the medical marijuana side of industry. In 2015 the State Legislature passed bills to reconcile medical and recreational marijuana markets Maintains the same licensing system through the WSLCB o o Eliminates collective gardens effective July 1, 2016 o Establishes cooperatives for up to four patients o Cities may reduce the state buffers to 100 feet, except around schools and o playgrounds Establishes a transportation license o Establishes a research license o Allows qualified patients to grow up to 15 plants per housing unit o WSLCB must increase the number of allocated retail locations to accommodate o medical marijuana needs Emergency Rules in Oct. of 2015 28 04-14-16 Planning Commission Minutes Page of Proposed final rules should be complete by mid-2016 Sets the number of retails stores statewide at 556. Still three for Spokane Valley, but if the moratorium were lifted, would likely go to six. No limit on number of producers and processors Sets rules for cooperatives, which must register with the WSLCB Mr. Lamb explained the Dept. of Since marijuana is still a controlled substance it cannot be tested for medicinal qualities. Emergency rules in 2015 Proposed final rules should be complete in mid-2016 related to testing levels of CBC/THC Tax exempt for qualified patients Anyone over 21, and certain minor patients, may purchase compliant marijuana. Only qualified patients may purchase: High THC compliant marijuana o Higher volumes of marijuana o Receive a tax exemption o Mr. Lamb covered the current status of the marijuana moratoriums in the City: A Moratorium on new medical marijuana uses, unlicensed marijuana uses, was established December 9, 2014 A moratorium on new marijuana uses licensed by the licensed by the WSLCB was established October 6, 2015 Both moratoriums require the City to develop appropriate local regulations giving effect to 2015 State legislative amendments. Prior to the moratoriums: The City had established zoning and buffer restrictions on recreational marijuana which were adopted in July of 2014 The adopted regulations applied to licensed retailers, producers, and processors Marijuana production is permitted in the Heavy Industrial and the Light Industrial zones outright and is permitted in a limited manner in the Regional Commercial and Community Commercial zones Marijuana processing is permitted in the Heavy Industrial and the Light Industrial zones outright and is permitted in a limited manner in the Regional Commercial and Community Commercial zones The local buffers for both production and processing are these facilities cannot be located within 1,000 feet of City Hall, CenterPlace, any vacant City property (other than stormwater and public rights-of-way), vacant library property and vacant school property Marijuana retails sales are permitted in the Mixed Use Center, Corridor Mixed Use, Regional Commercial and Community Commercial zones. The local buffers for retails sales are these facilities cannot be located within 1,000 feet of City Hall, CenterPlace, any vacant City property (other than stormwater and public rights-of-way), vacant library property and vacant school property, the Appleway Trail and the Centennial Trail Mr. Lamb explained the Planning Commission had been through an extensive process to develop the proposed draft changes to the SVMC regarding the marijuana regulations. There had been meetings on September 17, October 22, November 12, December 10, 2015, February 25 and March 10, 2016. The Planning Commission took a field trip in which they: 38 04-14-16 Planning Commission Minutes Page of Did a , where it was noted this is the highest-producing facility in dollar value in Washington but very nondescript from the exterior Toured Driftboat production/processing facility located at 18101 E Euclid Avenue. Manager Stan Fong and property owner Paul Bielec discussed the operations located at this facility Visited Locals Canna House retail facility located at 9616 E Sprague Avenue where staff and Commissioners spoke to shop owner Doug Pederson about his operations Mr. Lamb commented the Planning Commission has also received information from staff, from the public, from the police and fire departments. Based on previous discussions with the Planning Commission staff drafted proposed amendments to the marijuana regulations which in short: Do not allow for any new marijuana processors Do not allow for any new marijuana producers Do not allow for any new marijuana retail stores Do not allow for any cooperatives Appendix A, the definitions have been amended to be updated with the correct language. A new definition for a marijuana club or lounge has been added and a line in the Permitted Use Matrix has been added showing it is n The Permitted Use Matrix has been Supplemental regulations, to being struck out meaning that use is not allowed in any zone. Home grows are allowed in all low density residential zones, but the residence must comply with all local building codes, the grow must be indoors in a permanent structure, no smell, no ability to see it from outside. Language has been added regarding rental property and disclosure is required if the owner asks for it. Processing is allowed at home, but no chemical processing is allowed in a residence. The SEPA Determination of Nonsignificance for this amendment will be issued April 15, 2016. Mr. Lamb wanted to address the questions from the last meeting. The first question was regarding how the tax exemption applies to qualified patients. Marijuana sales are charged a state excise tax of 37%, along with applicable state sales and use tax. All of these taxes would be exempt to a qualified patient. Mr. Lamb clarified that only patients who had been to a doctor, get an authorization card and register with the state system. The next question was if there were regulations regarding prohibiting the selling of marijuana to impaired purchasers. There is currently no law which prohibits selling marijuana to a marijuana impaired purchaser. Commissioner Anderson clarified only 15 plants are allowed per housing unit, but they are not allowed in a multi-family zone. Commissioner Graham regulations. Mr. Lamb confirmed it being part of the proposed deleted language based on Commission discussion and was in the draft regulations sent in the most recent packet. Commissioner Anderson asked how the nonconforming regulations would work if the lease of one of the retail shops should not continue to work well for the owner. Mr. Lamb said based on the current nonconforming regulations, a retail store would not be able to move from their current location. The provision for abandonment is 12- are allowed to be able to change locations. restrict the number of other businesses. Commissioner Stathos asked if another business of the same type could move into the same location. Mr. Lamb responded if it was done within a 12-month period. Commissioner Johnson asked if the license was in a joint name and the partnership dissolved, could one of the partners then move the business. Mr. Lamb said the nonconforming regulations go with the use and are not tied to an owner. Commissioner Stathos asked how a smell would be enforced. Mr. Lamb said it currently is difficult to enforce, and explained the process. Under the new provisions, enforcement would be easier. Current nuisance ordinance states a smell to a reasonable person. The proposed changes would make any smell a code enforcement issue. Commissioner Phillips asked how the nonconforming rules could be changed to allow the retail shops to move. Mr. Lamb said the 48 04-14-16 Planning Commission Minutes Page of Planning Commission could make that request, but he would need to confer with staff to determine if the change was substantial enough to require an additional public hearing. Chair Graham confirmed the Commissioners had no other questions for staff and turned to accept public testimony. Paul Bielec, 911 S Valley View, Post Falls: Mr. Bielec is the President of Bielec Properties Inc. which owns the northwest corner of Euclid and Eden, the place which the Commissioners toured. After getting a blessing from the City for I-502 production and processing in 2014, Mr. Bielec said he was able to lease a good amount of his property to a few licensees with the idea they would add infrastructure in the future to obtain more tenants. Since then he and his tenants have added hundreds of thousands of dollars for tenant improvements. Mr. Bielec said the Commissioners saw what was inside the building but there is more that is not seen. Due to the moratoriums, he is no longer able to obtain any new tenants for his vacant space. He said this may seem trivial to the Commission, however to him it is devastating. He said they are now restricted from leasing any additional space to any processors/growers, and more important we are not able to replace any of the tenants. If a tenant goes out of business, if they change business plans he cannot replace these tenants. In recent months he has turned away several potential tenants who wanted to lease from him, which could have resulted in 20- 100 jobs for the City. He asks the Commission to please consider separating the growing/processors from the retail. He said he realized this had not been brought up before and he feels they are two different animals. He said he has attended many of the planning meetings and most of the discussion has been about retailers. Growers in the Spokane Valley sell their product either to existing retailers in the City or to any other retailer across the state. The product will be grown regardless of the location through any licensed I-502 grower any place in the state. Prohibiting additional growers in the City does not accomplish anything other than moving jobs out of the Spokane Valley to another taxing jurisdiction. Mr. Bielec offered that licensed growers have a huge amount invested in their businesses. The product is tracked from seed to sale. The product is tested for quality, mold, fungus, bugs and hopefully soon pesticides. If mold, fungus or pesticides are found it will not pass testing and cannot be sold as is. It built out facilities such as his site, it is a controlled environment which helps to eliminate the mold, bugs and fungus. Many growers are even starting to utilize organic methods of controlling the bugs. He believes this will continue into the future because of the pesticides. He offered the Black Market does not care if they sell to minors, if they use pesticides, fungicides, they do not pay L&I, or payroll taxes for employees. They do not track their product from seed to sale, they do not test their product for mold, fungus or quality. They do not pay sales or excise tax to educate the public. He said doing. He reiterated his request to separate the grower/processor from the retailers when making the recommendation to the City Council. They are completely different with different concerns. He said he could understand the concerns with additional retailers in the City. However growers ship product outside the area as well as selling it in the area. He asked what harm is there to support employees who work hard to support their families in a legitimate business in the City of Spokane Valley in a first class secure environment. Commissioner Stoy asked if there were limits on producers and processors. Mr. Lamb said there was a total canopy limit statewide. There is a limit on how big each production facility can be in terms of how much canopy they are allowed. There are three different levels with a max of 30,000 square feet of canopy. The state max is 8,000,000 square feet of canopy space, he thought. There could come a time when they start to limit the production but the state is nowhere near that at this time. Commissioner Anderson asked if Mr. Bierrent tenants could expand under the moratorium, if their license allowed more canopy space. There was discussion with Mr. Bielec regarding his unrented space, how he can only expand the tenants he already has if they have a license which allows for more canopy space, how the moratorium is for the growers/processors as well, he is a property owner not a license holder. Having no one else who wished to testify Chair Graham closed the public hearing at 6:51 p.m. Commissioner Graham confirmed the taxes are only collected at the point of sale. Mr. Lamb reminded the Commission because the producing and processing are wholesale businesses, no taxes are gained from the producers/processors. Commissioner Graham confirmed there would be income collected on 58 04-14-16 Planning Commission Minutes Page of the property used by the growers/processors but secondary income would be from the employees working in the facilities. Commissioner Johnson discussed some information he shared with the Commission. He said page 1 of his handout states that in 2009 the American Medical Association (AMA) requested that cannabis be removed from the Schedule I controlled substances, in order for it to be studied properly. Without e no support. So . Without it being removed from the list of Schedule I drugs, the AMA medical professionals around the globe are coming out in support. Even the Food and Drug another misconception of cannabis is that it is a gateway drug. He quoted from the oldest report he could find in his research, which was from 1999, but other reports he found were similar. He said that the report said that while most people who use harder drugs usually used cannabis first, there is nothing which links cannabis to moving on to stronger drugs. It is more of a middle step, in a progression which commonly starts with tobacco, then alcohol, then cannabis and then whatever the harder drugs are that someone would experiment with. Cannabis when not available, is more often replaced with Commissioner Johnson said so cannabis being labeled a gateway drug is often inaccurate. He said another argument everyone has heard is that legalizing cannabis sends the wrong message to youth. He said page 3 of his handout shows an excerpt from a study which says that legalizing cannabis does not increase use in adolescents. He said his impression was that the age group we are talking about does not listen to adults. They listen to their ending, or any government body for is considered an anti-message by the teenager. There was a study that showed in states which legalized cannabis use by adolescents, that it was higher before and after passage. There are other factors at play and those factors need to be discovered and addressed and blaming cannabis is actually a red herring. Mr. Johnson discussed the tax revenues which would be gained by the City from the sale of cannabis. He offered the $75,000, which had been mentioned in a previous meeting, did not seem like a lot, however there are news reports about the growth of the industry. Mr. Johnson said he felt that last ld be $150,000 next year, and $300,000 the next. He said you can look at the graph in a year. By the time the state fiscal year ends it will have doubled. Also on the WSLCB website there was research on how the legal sales are impending on the illegal sales. He last referenced an article from Time magazine, from April 2015, which states there has been a 25% drop of cannabis confiscated by US Border Patrols and a 32% drop by Mexican authorities, relating this to the legalization in some US states. Commissioner Johnson said he did not think the Commissioners would drop the moratorium on retail, but he hoped the other Commissioners would consider dropping it for the producers and processors. He said the City is looking at the loss of jobs, wages, and millions of dollars a year. He said there is one property owner who is here, and another property owner, which the Commission drove by that business, which had 200 full time jobs, which is a lot of wages. He said he hoped the Commission would take a serious look at the proposed amendment as it was written. Commissioner Anderson stated he never considered the moratorium on the producers/processors since most of the conversations had centered on the retail. He said the best outcome would probably be produce it here and sell it someplace else and he would consider that over selling to locals. Commissioner Anderson said the producing/processing was not a problem in his mind over the three retail outlets. He said he did not remember having a conversation about how many acres should be allowed, he thought it was State controlled. He would allow the production/processing. Commissioner Kelley said the discussion is about how fast the City moves forward. Commissioner Kelley said there are a lot of businesses in the State of Washington which have trouble with regulations. He said there are a lot of associations which spend a lot of time fighting on capital hill to get rid of regulations, welcome to the small business world in the State of Washington. He continued saying there are associations like the Home Builders Association, the Association of General Contractors, the Associated Builders and Contractors Association that are getting regulated every day. Every one of 68 04-14-16 Planning Commission Minutes Page of them has invested a great deal of money, maybe not the millions you have, but a great deal of money to them. They are getting regulated out of business and they are moving out of state all the time. This is a challenge, this is something that needs to be addressed, but he did not see where the marijuana industry should get special privilege just because they are a drug operation. Join the other associations that are fighting the regulations. Find people who are on your side, that have common causes and get involved in them and stop asking for the king to anoint your industry. Commissioner Phillips said he felt that the nonconforming regulations should be changed to allow the retailers to move. He said he did not like placing anyone at the mercy of a landlord. He said the ld be able to raise the rent. He feels we should craft the regulations to allow for the movement of the three retail shops. Commissioner Phillips said he was not opposed to allowing more production/processors. Commissioner Graham said she felt that some of the information was from a time when marijuana still is. Commissioner Graham said she thought about the producers/processors, where they are located and what little impact they had on the surrounding areas. Her thoughts are more in line with lifting the moratorium on the producers/processors. She thinks it could bring as many jobs as Commissioner Johnson hopes, which is always good. She has some concerns about the Department of Health and how they are going to enforce pesticides. She also agrees with allowing the current licensed retailers to move under nonconforming rules. Commissioners Stoy agreed that the retailers should be allowed to move. He also agreed with allowing the moratorium producers and processors to be lifted. Commissioner Stathos said in all the discussions she did not realize the moratorium was affecting the producer/processors. She commented on the visit, said the site was secure, there was no smell on the fighting to create less regulations and she said we are creating another layer of it because of our moratorium. She said his options now are so narrow there is no room for growth, even for someone who has already created a facility. She said she felt that the regulations needed to be reviewed. Commissioner Kelley said he agreed a retailer should be allowed to move and not be bound to a location if they could not work out a good lease with a property owner. He also felt the City should not allow for more than the three which had already been established. Commissioner Kelley said regarding the production facilities, he said he felt the City should move cautiously. There was no data on what would happen to the employees working in the facilities now, there is no data on what kinds of challenges the industry would face, he is more in favor of putting the brakes on a little bit, letting people operate as they are, but he is not in favor of opening the flood gates. Chair Graham stated she felt the Commission had a consensus on the following items: Lifting the moratorium on the producers/processors Draft regulations which would allow the three currently conforming retail shops to change locations Commissioner Kelley requested an informal vote on the two items. Commissioner Stoy asked if there was consensus to limit the number of producer/processors in order to allow Commissioner Kelley to be more comfortable. Mr. Lamb responded the State controls how those licenses are distributed and they are not given out based on a number of outlets, but on amount of canopy space. Commissioner Anderson discussed how the State is controlling the canopy space and it is a statewide number, and this could be a floodgate in Spokane Valley, however this is occurring all over the state. He felt the restrictions and challenges to starting this type of business would not allow for just anyone to be able to do it. Commissioner Kelley commented that just because everyone else in the State is doing it is ridiculous. In response to Commissioner Stathos about the requirements for licensing a producer/processor, Mr. Lamb explained the State requires they have a property in mind, however he was unsure to the extent they must demonstrate they have a lease; then the applicant must have an operating plan for that location, which must include all the necessary security features, the quarantine 78 04-14-16 Planning Commission Minutes Page of area, cameras, how many employees. Until the applicant has a site pinned down, which includes zoning at the local level, any tenant improvements which might be necessary, they must conform to all building code requirements. All of this must occur before they are allowed to have a WSLCB license. Sr. Plans Examiner Jenny Nickerson discussed she had been working with some applicants for possibly a year and a half or more as they work through identifying a location, securing a lease, identifying what type of modifications would be necessary, applying for the permits, complying with the permits, following the inspection process, applying for a business license and moving forward with WSLCB. She said some applicants have no problems with the process when they find property which is zoned properly, approve a business license without them having applied for a building permit completed. The WSLCB would look to make sure that the building and fire codes have been met before issuing a processing license. She noted she has had applicants who have done work, invested money only to learn they will not be approved. The Commissioners had a consensus vote to modify the proposed draft language to allow: Marijuana Production Permitted in heavy and light industrial zones outright (indoor and outdoor); permitted in limited manner (indoor growing only) in Regional Commercial and Community Commercial zones. Marijuana Processing Permitted in heavy and light industrial zones outright (packaging and extraction); permitted in limited manner (packaging and labeling of useable marijuana only) in Regional Commercial and Community Commercial zones. Local buffers for both marijuana production and processing Cannot be located within 1,000 feet of City Hall, CenterPlace, vacant City property (other than stormwater and public rights-of-way), vacant library property, and vacant school property. Commissioner Kelley noted once this was done, there would be no limit on the number of production facilities which could open in the City. Vote on this proposal, was six in favor, one against, Commissioner Kelley dissenting. The Commissioners has a consensus vote to modify the proposed draft language to : Allow only the three retail marijuana stores, but to modify the nonconforming rules to allow the three stores to change locations as long as they maintain all the previous requirements. Permitted in the Mixed Use Center, Corridor Mixed Use, Regional Commercial, and Community Commercial zones. Local buffers for retail sales: Cannot be located within 1,000 feet of City Hall, CenterPlace, vacant City property (other than stormwater and public rights-of-way), vacant library property, vacant school property, the Appleway Trail, and the Centennial Trail. Commissioner Kelley asked if the language could be crafted to only allow the stores to move, if they were experiencing lease negotiation issues. There was discussion about how the City would not be able to accomplish this. Commissioner Johnson wanted it noted his vote on this would reflect his desire to not restrict the retail stores to only three in the City. The vote on this proposal was six in favor, one against, with Commissioner Johnson dissenting. Mr. Lamb noted staff would draft up a new proposal and notice a new public hearing. This would not be happening at the next meeting based on statutory requirements. 88 04-14-16 Planning Commission Minutes Page of GOOD OF THE ORDER : Ms. Barlow explained how the new goals and polices for the new/updated Comprehensive Plan had been developed and there was a possibility that there would not be a direct comparison to the old Comprehensive Plan. ADJOURNMENT: There being no other business the meeting was adjourned at 7:02 p.m. _______________________________ __________________________________ Chair Heather Graham Date signed ____________________________________ Secretary Deanna Horton CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Planning Commission Action Meeting Date: April 28, 2016 File Number: Comprehensive Plan 2016 Legislative Update Item: Study Session old business new business Public Hearing AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Comprehensive Plan Existing Conditions Report Overview DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Growth Management Act (GMA) RCW 36.70A BACKGROUND: Per RCW 36.70A.130(1), every county and city in the state is required to conduct an update of its comprehensive plan and development regulations every 8 years. The City of Spokane Staff and consultants are preparing for the May 3 rd Planning Commission City Council joint workshop to discuss the draft goals and policies and land use alternatives concepts. The Existing Conditions Housing and Economic Trends Report and Transportation System Existing Conditions Report will provide background information relative to the workshop. Staff will provide an overview of the population forecast process, and the Existing Conditions Reports as a precursor to the workshop. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION : N/A STAFF CONTACT: Lori Barlow, AICP, Senior Planner Attachments: Existing Conditions Housing and Economic Trends Transportation System Existing Conditions Report Power Point Presentation Existing Conditions Housing and Economic Trends September, 2015 Prepared for: City of Spokane Valley The Seattle Tower 1218 Third Avenue Suite 1709 Seattle, WA 98101 206.388.0079 This page intentionally blank ECONorthwest ii Acknowledgments Morgan Shook shook@econw.com The Seattle Tower 1218 Third Avenue Suite 1709 Seattle, WA 98101 206.388.0079 ECONorthwest iii This page intentionally blank ECONorthwest iv Table of Contents 1INTRODUCTION 1 1.1O 1 VERVIEW 1.2RO 1 EPORT RGANIZATION 2EXISTING CONDITIONS SUMMARY 2 2.1PDT 2 OPULATION AND EMOGRAPHIC RENDS 2.2HT 3 OUSING RENDS 2.3ET 3 CONOMIC RENDS 2.4LB 3 AND ASE Present Land Use 3 Present Land Capacity 4 2.5DT 6 EVELOPMENT RENDS Residential Development6 Commercial Development 6 Industrial Development 7 3FOCUSED ANALYSIS OF ZONING ISSUES 8 3.1MDRZ 8 EDIUM ENSITY ESIDENTIAL ONING Results 8 Policy Considerations 9 3.2MUZ 10 IXED SE ONING Results 10 Policy Considerations 11 3.3OZ 12 FFICE ONING Results 12 Policy Considerations 14 3.4NCZ 15 EIGHBORHOOD OMMERCIAL ONING Results 15 Policy Considerations 15 4TECHNICAL APPENDIX 17 4.1PDT 18 OPULATION AND EMOGRAPHIC RENDS 4.1.1Population Growth 18 4.1.2Demographics 19 4.1.3Educational Attainment 20 4.1.4Income 21 4.2HT 22 OUSING RENDS 4.2.1Housing Tenure 22 4.2.2Household Size 22 4.2.3Households with Children 23 4.2.4Housing Affordability 23 4.3ET 25 CONOMIC RENDS 4.3.1Gross Domestic Product 25 4.3.2Employment 25 4.3.3Taxable Retail Sales 27 4.3.4Commute Patterns 28 4.4LB 29 AND ASE 4.4.1Present Land Use 29 ECONorthwest v 4.4.2Residential Land Quantity 30 4.4.3Commercial and Industrial Land Quantity 31 4.5DT 32 EVELOPMENT RENDS 4.5.1Residential Development 32 4.5.2Commercial and Industrial Development 36 Office36 Retail 39 Industrial 41 4.6PFAS43 RO ORMA NALYSIS UMMARY Apartment in MF-1 Zone 43 Mixed Use in the CMU Zone 45 ECONorthwest vi 1Introduction 1.1Overview 1.2Report Organization ECONorthwest | Portland | Seattle | Eugene | Boise | econw.com 1 1 2Existing Conditions Summary 2.1Population and Demographic Trends ECONorthwest Existing Conditions: Economic and Housing Trends 2 2.2Housing Trends 2.3Economic Trends 2.4Land Base Present Land Use ECONorthwest Existing Conditions: Economic and Housing Trends 3 Exhibit 1. Land Use by Acreage Land Use CategoryAcresPercent Single-family 10,021 49.7% General Commercial 3,667 18.2% Vacant Land 2,97914.8% Industrial 1,306 6.5% Multi-family 1,1235.6% Exempt/Utilities 1,054 5.2% Total 20,150 100.0% Source: Spokane County Assessor Present Land Capacity ECONorthwest Existing Conditions: Economic and Housing Trends 4 Exhibit 2. Residential Land Capacity Net Share of Buildable UnitPopulation Population AcresCapacityCapacityCapacity Zone Total1,2979,07619,980100.0% Source: City of Spokane Valley Exhibit 3. Buildable Commercial and Industrial Land Net Net Underutilized Net Buildable Vacant AcresAcresAcresShare Zone Total8314191,250100.0% Source: City of Spokane Valley ECONorthwest Existing Conditions: Economic and Housing Trends 5 2.5Development Trends Residential Development Commercial Development ECONorthwest Existing Conditions: Economic and Housing Trends 6 Industrial Development ECONorthwest Existing Conditions: Economic and Housing Trends 7 3Focused Analysis of Zoning Issues 3.1Medium Density Residential Zoning Results ECONorthwest Existing Conditions: Economic and Housing Trends 8 Policy Considerations ECONorthwest Existing Conditions: Economic and Housing Trends 9 3.2Mixed Use Zoning Results ECONorthwest Existing Conditions: Economic and Housing Trends 10 Exhibit 4. Assessed Land Value per Square Foot Br oadway Assessed Land Value/SF < $2.00 $2.01 - $4.00 $4.01 - $6.00 $6.01 - $8.00 012mi > $8.00 Source: City of Spokane Valley, Spokane County Policy Considerations ECONorthwest Existing Conditions: Economic and Housing Trends 11 3.3Office Zoning Results ECONorthwest Existing Conditions: Economic and Housing Trends 12 Exhibit 5. Office Development in Spokane Valley Office Development Rentable Building Area < 10,000 10,000 - 25,000 25,000 - 50,000 50,000 - 100,000 > 100,000 Built before 2004 ! Built between 2004 and 2014 ! Source: CoStar ECONorthwest Existing Conditions: Economic and Housing Trends 13 Exhibit 6. Developable O and GO Zoned Sites Millwood Spokane Broadw ay Spokane Valley Office Site Potential Good Potential Zoning Type O & GO Policy Considerations ECONorthwest Existing Conditions: Economic and Housing Trends 14 3.4Neighborhood Commercial Zoning Results Policy Considerations ECONorthwest Existing Conditions: Economic and Housing Trends 15 ECONorthwest Existing Conditions: Economic and Housing Trends 16 4Technical Appendix ECONorthwest | Portland | Seattle | Eugene | Boise | econw.com 17 17 4.1Population and Demographic Trends 4.1.1Population Growth Exhibit 7. Population growth, Spokane Valley, Spokane County, and Washington State, 2003-2014 PopulationChange 2003 to 2014 Area20032014NumberPercentAAGR Spokane Valley 82,985 92,050 9,06510.9% 0.9% Spokane County 428,889 484,500 55,611 13.0% 1.1% Washington 6,126,885 6,968,170 841,285 13.7% 1.2% Source: Washington Office of Financial Management April 1 Population Estimates. ECONorthwest Existing Conditions: Economic and Housing Trends 18 4.1.2Demographics Exhibit8. Population distribution by age, Spokane Valley and Spokane County, 2005-2013 100% 10% 12% 13% 14% 80% 60% 59% 61% 61% 65+ 60% 20-64 0-19 40% 20% 30% 27% 26% 26% 0% 2005 2013 2005 2013 Spokane Valley Spokane County Source: US Census ACS 1 year estimates, 2005 Table S0101 and ACS 5 year estimates, 2009-2013 Table S0101 ECONorthwest Existing Conditions: Economic and Housing Trends 19 4.1.3Educational Attainment Exhibit 9. Educational attainment of the population age 25 and older, Spokane Valley and Spokane County, 2005-2013 100% 21% 23% 26% 28% 80% Bachelor's Degree or higher 60% High School, Associate's Degree, or Some College 67% 71% 65% 40% 64% Less than a High School Degree 20% 11% 9% 8% 7% 0% 2005 2013 2005 2013 Spokane Valley Spokane County Source: US Census ACS 1 year estimates, 2005 Table S1501 and ACS 5 year estimates, 2009-2013 Table S1501 ECONorthwest Existing Conditions: Economic and Housing Trends 20 4.1.4Income Exhibit 10. Median Household Income, Spokane Valley and Spokane County, 2005-2013 $60,000 $49,233 $47,897 $50,000 $41,667 $37,178 $40,000 $30,000 $20,000 $10,000 $0 Spokane Valley Spokane County Source: US Census ACS 1 year estimates, 2005 Table S0101 and ACS 5 year estimates, 2009-2013 Table S0101 Exhibit 11. Income distribution of households, Spokane Valley and Spokane County, 2005-2013 2005 25% 28% 21% 12% 14% 2013 25% 26% 19% 13% 17% Less than $25,000 $25,000 - $50,000 $50,000 - $75,000 $75,000 - $100,000 2005 36% 26% 18% 9% 11% $100,000+ 2013 31% 28% 20% 9% 12% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% ECONorthwest Existing Conditions: Economic and Housing Trends 21 Source: US Census ACS 1 year estimates, 2005 Table B19001 and ACS 5 year estimates, 2009-2013 Table DP03. 4.2Housing Trends 4.2.1Housing Tenure Exhibit 12. Housing Tenure, Spokane Valley and Spokane County, 2005-2013 2005 35% 65% 2013 36% 64% Renter Occupied Housing 2005 34% 66% Owner Occupied Housing 2013 38% 62% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Source: US Census ACS 1 year estimates, 2005 Table B25003 and ACS 5 year estimates, 2009-2013 Table B25003. 4.2.2Household Size Exhibit 13. Average Household Size, Spokane Valley and Spokane County, 2005-2013 Average Household Size Area20052013 Spokane Valley 2.47 2.43 Spokane County 2.39 2.44 ECONorthwest Existing Conditions: Economic and Housing Trends 22 Source: US Census ACS 1 year estimates, 2005 Table S1101 and ACS 5 year estimates, 2009-2013 Table S1101. 4.2.3Households with Children Exhibit 14. Percent of households with children, Spokane Valley and Spokane County, 2005-2013 40.0% 35.6% 31.3% 30.7% 30.6% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% 2005 2013 2005 2013 Spokane Valley Spokane County Source: US Census ACS 1 year estimates, 2005 Table S1101 and ACS 5 year estimates, 2009-2013 Table S1101. 4.2.4Housing Affordability ECONorthwest Existing Conditions: Economic and Housing Trends 23 Exhibit 15. Housing Affordability (Mortgage Payment to Median income) Index 225 200 175 150 125 100 75 50 25 0 Spokane County Statewide Median Price Source: Runstad Center for Real Estate, University of Washington Exhibit 16. Cost-burdened households by type, Spokane Valley and Spokane County, 2005-2013 2005 26% 54% 2013 35% Overall 52% Owners with mortgage 2005 22% 50% Renters 2013 34% 54% 0% 20% 40% 60% ECONorthwest Existing Conditions: Economic and Housing Trends 24 Source: US Census ACS 1 year estimates, 2005 Table B25106 and ACS 5 year estimates, 2009-2013 Table B25106. 4.3Economic Trends 4.3.1Gross Domestic Product Exhibit 17. Spokane Metropolitan Statistical Area, Real Gross Domestic Product (2005$) $45,000 Total GDP Per Capita $40,000 $35,000 $30,000 Private services- providing $25,000 industries $20,000 $15,000 Private goods- producing $10,000 industries $5,000 Government $0 Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis 4.3.2Employment ECONorthwest Existing Conditions: Economic and Housing Trends 25 Exhibit 18. Number of jobs by sector, Spokane County, 2002-2014 250,000 200,000 FIRE Construction 150,000 Manufacturing WTU Retail 100,000 Government Ag/Resources Services 50,000 0 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014* Source: Washington Employment Security Department, Quarterly Census of Employment and wages 2002-2014 Note: At the time this chart was made, fourth quarter estimates for 2014 were unavailable. Employment numbers for 2014 are the average of quarters 1-3. Exhibit 19. Home Employment Permits, Spokane Valley, 2008-2015 ECONorthwest Existing Conditions: Economic and Housing Trends 26 Source: City of Spokane Valley 4.3.3Taxable Retail Sales Exhibit 20. Inflation-adjusted taxable retail sales by sector, Spokane Valley, 2004-2014 Source: Washington Department of Revenue, Taxable Retail Sales, 2000-2014 ECONorthwest Existing Conditions: Economic and Housing Trends 27 Exhibit 21. Inflation-adjusted taxable retail sales by zone, Spokane Valley, 2004-2013 Source: Washington Department of Revenue, Taxable Retail Sales, 2000-2014 4.3.4Commute Patterns ECONorthwest Existing Conditions: Economic and Housing Trends 28 WHERE SPOKANE VALLEY RESIDENTS WORK Number of Jobs High : 5Urban Growth Area Boundary City Boundary Low : 1 Millwood Liberty Spokane Lake Spokane %'& 90 Valley Airway Heights Miles 024 Source: US Census On The Map Data, 2011. 4.4Land Base 4.4.1Present Land Use ECONorthwest Existing Conditions: Economic and Housing Trends 29 Exhibit 22. Present Land Use, Spokane Valley, 2015 Land Use Other Single-family Multi-family General Commercial Industrial Vacant Land Exempt/Utilities 012mi Source: City of Spokane Valley GIS. Exhibit 23. Land Use by Acreage, Spokane Valley, 2015 Land Use CategoryAcresPercent Single-family 10,021 49.7% General Commercial 3,667 18.2% Vacant Land 2,97914.8% Industrial 1,306 6.5% Multi-family 1,1235.6% Exempt/Utilities 1,054 5.2% Total 20,150 100.0% Source: City of Spokane Valley GIS. 4.4.2Residential Land Quantity ECONorthwest Existing Conditions: Economic and Housing Trends 30 Exhibit 24. Residential Land Capacity Net Share of Partially Used Underutilized Buildable UnitPopulation Population Vacant AcresAcresAcresAcresCapacityCapacityCapacity ZoneParcels Total2,476669608201,2979,07619,980100.0% Source: City ofSpokane Valley 4.4.3Commercial and Industrial Land Quantity Exhibit 25. Buildable Commercial and Industrial Land Net Net Underutilized Net Buildable Vacant AcresAcresAcresShare Zone Total8314191,250100.0% Source: City of Spokane Valley ECONorthwest Existing Conditions: Economic and Housing Trends 31 4.5Development Trends 4.5.1Residential Development Exhibit 26. Total housing units by type, Spokane Valley, 2004-2014 Source: Washington Office of Financial Management, Housing Units by Type with Annexations Added, 2004-2014 ECONorthwest Existing Conditions: Economic and Housing Trends 32 Exhibit 27. Housing Units by Type and Year Built, Spokane Valley, 2013 14,000 12,000 10,000 Mobile Homes 2+ Units 8,000 1 Unit 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 Built before Built 1960 to Built 1980 to Built 2000 or 1959 1979 1999 later Source: US Census ACS 5 year estimates, 2009-2013 Table B25127 ECONorthwest Existing Conditions: Economic and Housing Trends 33 Exhibit 28. Apartment Rents and Vacancy Rates, Spokane Valley, 2000-2015 $900 16% Spokane Valley Rent $800 14% Countywide Rent Spokane Valley Vacancy $700 12% Countywide Vacancy $600 10% $500 8% $400 6% $300 4% $200 2% $100 $0 0% AAAAAAAAAAAAAA AA 44444444444444 44 4 44444444444 4444 4444444 4444444 44 44444444 444444 44 Source: CoStar ECONorthwest Existing Conditions: Economic and Housing Trends 34 ECON Source: CoStar.Exhibit orthwest 29 . Multi - family Developmen Existing Conditions: t in the Spokane Valley Area, 2014 Economic and Housing Trends 35 4.5.2Commercial and Industrial Development Exhibit 30. Commercial and Industrial Building Square Feet, Spokane Valley, 2008-2015 10,000,000 9,000,000 Office 8,000,000 Industrial 7,000,000 Retail 6,000,000 5,000,000 4,000,000 3,000,000 2,000,000 1,000,000 0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Source: CoStar Office ECONorthwest Existing Conditions: Economic and Housing Trends 36 Exhibit 31. Spokane Valley Office Rents and Vacancy Rates, 2008-2015 $20.00 40.0% $18.00 35.0% $16.00 30.0% $14.00 25.0% $12.00 $10.00 20.0% $8.00 15.0% $6.00 10.0% $4.00 Spokane Valley Rent Countywide Rent 5.0% $2.00 Spokane Valley Vacancy Countwide Vacancy $0.00 0.0% 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Source: CoStar ECONorthwest Existing Conditions: Economic and Housing Trends 37 ECON Source: CoStar Exhibit orthwest 32 . Office Development in the Spokane Valley Area, 2014 Existing Conditions: Economic and Housing Trends 38 Retail Exhibit 33. Spokane Valley Retail Rents and Vacancy Rates, 2008-2015 $14.00 12.0% $12.00 10.0% $10.00 8.0% $8.00 6.0% $6.00 Spokane Valley Rent 4.0% $4.00 Countywide Rent 2.0% Spokane Valley Vacancy $2.00 Countwide Vacancy $0.00 0.0% 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Source: CoStar ECONorthwest Existing Conditions: Economic and Housing Trends 39 ECON Source: CoStar Exhibit orthwest 34 . Retail Development in the Spokane Valley Area, 2014 Existing Conditions: Economic and Housing Trends 40 Industrial Exhibit 35. Spokane Valley Industrial Rents and Vacancy Rates, 2008-2015 $6.00 25.0% Spokane Valley Rent Countywide Rent $5.00 Spokane Valley Vacancy 20.0% Countwide Vacancy $4.00 15.0% $3.00 10.0% $2.00 5.0% $1.00 $0.00 0.0% 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Source: CoStar ECONorthwest Existing Conditions: Economic and Housing Trends 41 ECON Source: CoStar Exhibit orthwest 36 . Industrial Development Existing Conditions: in the Spokane Valley Area, 2014 Economic and Housing Trends 42 4.6Pro Forma Analysis Summary Apartment in MF-1 Zone ECONorthwest Existing Conditions: Economic and Housing Trends 43 Exhibit 37. Apartment Financial Performance Summary MF-1 Apartment Lot Size43,560 Total Building Area10,890 Floor Area Ratio0.25 Units12 Parking Spots14 Fianacial SummaryTotalPer Unit Total Cost$1,488,123$136.65sf Building Cost$1,417,783$130.19sf Parking Costs$70,000$5,000space NOI$91,347$9.81sf Total Value$1,304,962$119.83 Residual Land Value-$313,317-$7.19 Source: ECONorthwest, RS Means, CoStar, City of Spokane Valley Exhibit 38. Apartment Financial Performance Summary, Lower Cost MF-1 Apartment Lot Size43,560 Total Building Area10,890 Floor Area Ratio0.25 Units12 Parking Spots14 Fianacial SummaryTotalPer Unit Total Cost$1,080,597$99.23sf Building Cost$1,010,257$92.77sf Parking Costs$70,000$5,000space NOI$91,347$9.81sf Total Value$1,304,962$119.83 Residual Land Value$94,208$2.16 Source: ECONorthwest, RS Means, CoStar, City of Spokane Valley ECONorthwest Existing Conditions: Economic and Housing Trends 44 Mixed Use in the CMU Zone Exhibit 39. Mixed Use Financial Performance Summary CMU Mixed-Use Lot Size43,560 Total Building Area39,518 Floor Area Ratio0.91 Units22 Parking Spots67 Fianacial SummaryTotalPer Unit Total Cost$5,748,023$145.45sf Building Cost$5,338,518$135.09sf Parking Costs$409,166$6,153space NOI$355,344$11.25sf Total Value$5,076,340$128.46 Residual Land Value-$1,178,977-$27.07 Source: ECONorthwest, RS Means, CoStar, City of Spokane Valley ECONorthwest Existing Conditions: Economic and Housing Trends 45 Exhibit 40. Mixed Use Financial Performance Summary, Higher Rents CMU Mixed-Use Lot Size43,560 Total Building Area39,518 Floor Area Ratio0.91 Units22 Parking Spots67 Fianacial SummaryTotalPer Unit Total Cost$5,748,023$145.45sf Building Cost$5,338,518$135.09sf Parking Costs$409,166$6,153space NOI$455,126$14.41sf Total Value$6,501,801$164.53 Residual Land Value$103,938$2.39 Source: ECONorthwest, RS Means, CoStar, City of Spokane Valley ECONorthwest Existing Conditions: Economic and Housing Trends 46 Planning Commission Meeting April 28, 2016 Existing Conditions Report Summary Comprehensive Plan Update Existing Conditions Reports Population Forecast Comp Plan Update Next Steps Overview 1.2.3.4. d © d ¶ » © ¬ ³ ¶ » d ° « d ° ­ d ½ » ¸ ² ­ d ¥ ² · § ¹ d © ¸ ¶ · · ³ © · ­ ° ´ © ­ ´ ² ± ­ ³ · ¥ d ª ¹ ª d ³ ¦ ¨ d d ½ ¨ ² ¸ ­ ¥ ² d ² ¥ · d ¹ ° p ± ¥ ½ ¹ ¥ ± ° ¨ ­ ´ ³ d º ­ § ¨ d ¨ ² … ² ¥ ­ Community Vision Report be subject but only once to continuing review and evaluation by the county land use Periodic update required by June 2017 shall plan and development regulations Annual update process allowed per year (with some exceptions) Authority to Plan or city that adopted Compared OFM forecasts to actual growth Analysis Population Forecast forecast = 14,650 additional 3 forecasts considered with OFM 2037 medium forecast between March Meeting November 4, 2015 PTAC Recommendation: SCEO Recommendation: Spokane Valley 20 year variable numbers for SV 19 and October 1 6 meetings population 2013 - Population Distribution by age: 2005 Housing And Economic Trends Existing Conditions Summary trends the 1% income than County ($48,000 Population /Demographic Trends influencing over age 65 than County and City has higher % of persons higher education levels than older median age (39.8 vs. Steady population growth Lower median household Less City residents have County (21% vs 28%) population is vs. $49,200) annually 37.2) Renter and Owner Occupied Housing Share Housing And Economic Trends Existing Conditions Summary % of households with children 1% more than 30% of income for family built than of all households pay Characteristics changing - Modest housing growth # of renters is increasing Avg. household size is single family, is decreasing decreasing, Housing Trends - More Multi annually housing 36% In 2013 the RC zones produced 40% of TRS. 2014 TRS in MUC zone have doubled. In 2007 the RC zones produced 43% of TRS; Number of jobs by sector for Spokane Region Housing And Economic Trends - 2004 Corridor Mixed Use zones Regional Commercial and Existing Conditions decrease in sales during based economy City economy has been professional, and retail providing commercial, realized the largest Economic Trends slow to recover the recession - services Service Commercial Development Trends Retail vacancy rate is improving Office space vacancy rate is recession Indicates an oversupply of from 10% in 2012 to 6% Demand for Commercial The Significant Changes Since Recession Retail Sales recently properties is weak - recovered to pre over 20% office space presently levels Most MF construction located in - Housing construction to meet Development Trends Residential Development Trends demand for housing types is Vacancy Rate Low No MF projects on Sprague 1 zone family Generally indicates the MUC and CMU zones; - Only 1 project in MF - Increase in Multi - demand changing 36% households overall (2170 of 30.7% with children and 69.3% Over 65: 14%; Under 19: 26% Cost Burdened Households: Renters vs Home Owners: the 6029 new households) 50% of renter households with Children Rent / 3738 Own Age of Population: without children Households 2291 Demographics of 20 2.43 14,650 6029 year Population . Household Size: : New Population: Households Forecast persons New Avg Looking for a picture. The Significant Changes Since Recession - Development Trends Industrial Development Trends new space may need to decreased from 20% to Indicates at some point Limited new industrial Vacancies have less than 10% developmentbe developed development feasible at current Density limit is too low to make MF tax exemptions for medium are less expensive to construct Allow other housing types that development standards, etc. rent levels and development Adjust setbacks, lot width, density housing types Policy Considerations forma Analysis Focused Analysis of Zoning Issues Conclusions Conclusions Medium Density Residential Zoning costs - Pro projects are not feasible 1 zone has not 300 units built per year 1 permit in zone since 2012 for MF; almost development since City has heard MF had Multifamily in other zones in this zone - The MF 2012 2 Zones - 1 and MF - MF uses and railroad tracks, and distance from Not as competitive relative to other Trent more affected than Sprague due to open lower land values, proximity to industrial Lack of redevelopment is due to project Can It Work in the CMU zones? anticipated rents do not space standards, parking standards to setbacks, Not an issue with zone regulations forma Analysis Conclusions support vertical development Focused Analysis of Zoning Issues djustments Policy Considerations MF tax exemptions Conclusions - economies a Consider locations. - 90 - I - Pro along Sprague and Trent. units on upper story and retail realized adequate levels vertical development with MF The Corridor Mixed Use Mixed Use Zoning (CMU) zone has not of new development is typically a on the ground floor. Mixed Use Sprague and Trent Zoning Parcel sizes less than .75 acres Argonne, Pines and Evergreen ƚŅŅźĭĻ ķĻǝĻƌƚƦƒĻƓƷ ƭźƓĭĻ ЋЉЉЍ Zones have a mixture of uses (hard to assemble for sizable ŷğǝĻ ƭĻĻƓ ƌźƷƷƌĻ Zones concentrated along (retail and single family) Existing Conditions? new development) Focused Analysis of Zoning Issues hŅŅźĭĻ ǩƚƓĻƭ Corridors ВЉ ğƓķ ŷğƦƦĻƓźƓŭ ƚǒƷƭźķĻ ƚŅ visibility and large Areas with good źƓ ƷŷĻ a…/ œƚƓĻ ķĻǝĻƌƚƦƒĻƓƷ źƭ Ώ ǩƚƓĻƭ ğƩƚǒƓķ L Office Zone vacant tracts wĻĭĻƓƷ ƚŅŅźĭĻ Recent Office Development Office Zones major corridors with good transit and Vacant areas in O and GO are along 90 better suited to Office development demand linked to aging population - MUC and other areas close to I Medical office uses may see a Consider more opportunity for Consider Rezones accordingly Policy Considerations Focused Analysis of Zoning Issues suitable for MF residential uses Generally requires minimum sq. ft. or more for new office Typical small office building O and GO zones have few 20,000 sq. ft. and parking; development site ~35,000 ) redevelopable at least Analysis Conclusions adequate sized sites since 2004 had Office Zoning (vacant or project. not enough population to support retail use Rezone intersections as NC for redevelopment Can we develop small scale Limited vacant sites at major intersections to Residential areas surrounding sites are low - forma analysis indicated vertical mixed Review parking requirements for NC uses support small scale retail development forma Analysis Conclusions Consider Rezones Accordingly Rezone vacant parcels NC Focused Analysis of Zoning Issues Policy Considerations Conclusions Neighborhood Commercial Zoning not feasible density - Pro - Pro oriented support a vibrant retail ? distance of residential scale retail uses in neighborhoods Small local business community character market and creates commercial areas - City lacks small within walking -neighborhoods neighborhood Residential Zoned Land Transportation System Land Uses and Key Destinations - Existing Conditions travel the Work commute choices largely of Live, work, and play areas are impacted by how a city guides , and use accommodate future modes Land Use Element provides where development occurs. on where they live, Understanding how people the transportation options in Spokane Valley. framework for future land where their job is located to work is important to . transportation available. depend growth 90 and east of Sullivan areas undeveloped land, leading to lower with dense include parcels of wide. in these - area also have areas tracts population density larger and housing. Census - north of I Road are Areas busy higher the , people are generally uncomfortable Road. , housing of people walking and retail results in some traffic congestion around along between Argonne and Sullivan or - Population densities - shopping is limited Population and biking to work biking of jobs 90 interchanges 90 Density Separation walking or - south of I Viability . streets - I Traffic Counts & Freight Corridors Bicycle Facilities - Other Items Movement and Motor Vehicles Public Transit Considered Pedestrian FacilitiesFacilities Goods LOS Strong pedestrian/bicycle plan that opportunities to invest in other city railway network support economic is expanding the trail network with considerable amount of additional Good connections to freeway and allow regional and federal funding. Good Traffic Level of Service Grid system can support a development opportunities economic development Streets in good repair Opportunities priorities The regions position on major freight gateway features, and public spaces Many residential streets do not have Transit service is minimal in parts of Long blocks and high traffic speeds Existing Conditions could Unattractive streetscape, lack of rail corridor increase risk of train the Valley, requiring that people make it difficult to cross major impedes transit use, - benefit from enhancements grade curb, gutter, or sidewalks drive to reach destination - delays caused by at walking/biking, etc. on side of streets Challenges crossings streets / / / / / / / / / / / / Upcoming Discussion Focus Areas / Retail and Tourism Study Update / / / / / / / / / / / Water Resource Inventory / / / / / Tiny Houses Overview / / / / / / / / / / / CC/PC Workshop / / - -June 16 May 12 May 26 May 3 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Planning Commission Action Meeting Date: April 28, 2016 Item: Study Session old business new business Public Hearing AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Comprehensive Plan Update: Element Focus Areas Overview GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Growth Management Act (GMA) RCW 36.70A BACKGROUND: Per RCW 36.70A.130(1), every county and city in the state is required to conduct an update of its comprehensive plan and development regulations every 8 years. The City of Spokane Staff and consultants are preparing to move forward with the development of the Draft Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies. The presentation tonight will summarize the focus areas for each draft element of the Comprehensive Plan. On May 3rd, the consultant team will present draft goal and policy language and discuss alternatives at a City Council and Planning Commission joint workshop. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION : N/A STAFF CONTACT: Mike Basinger, AICP, Economic Development Coordinator Attachments: Power Point Presentation 2 Plan. An example would be affordable housing accomplished through the allowance of a broader range of the handout were an initial effort to create an organizing framework to guide the further to update This presentation is a summary of the focus areas for each element, divided into the following categories: of this exercise, “focus areas” refer to specific issues that the City wants to analyze Focus areas can be addressed through either goal or policy language, or a combination of both. Economic development priorities th identified priorities Focus areas presented in the March 29 Required by GMA or state law creation of goals and policies GMA recommended Best practices - Community purpose Comprehensive Overview housing types. For the ooooo >>>> 3 Do the suggested focus areas adequately reflect the community’s stated priorities? Questions to consider while evaluating the focus areas Are there any focus areas missing? Guiding Questions >> Focus Areas by Element ) density development 5 supportive development (i.e. align higher - i.e. areas targeted for higher Infill opportunities with vacant properties densities with existing transit) Electric vehicle infrastructure Green building incentivesLow impact development Essential public facilities Networked open spaces Historic preservation Annexation areas Growth centers ( d e d r i e u d q n e e R s m- e eTransit t c m i a ot t c c S e a r r R o P A t A s M M e G> G>>>>>B>>>> use lands (incentivize Neighborhood/area specific (e.g. area near proposed (related to improved access to amenities Small scale retail uses in Neighborhood Commercial new housing typologies, local Residential character and quality of life use) - - ndustrial and mixed mixed Flexible parking requirements vertical s e i t i r o Streamline processes centers ) iuses (e.g. r from neighborhoods “production” uses, Land Use P t n e s i Commercial, eEmployment m Connectivity new city hall) and support) i t p i Expanded ro l o e i r v Pe y D t i c i n u m o m n m o o c C>>>E>>>>>> 6 Public safety (i.e. “Target/Vision Zero”) Transportation demand management Intergovernmental coordination Level of service standards performance reduction d e r i u Concurrency q e Pollution R System s Funding e e t c i a t t c S a r r o P t A s M e G>>>>>>> B> draws (i.e. connect the Financing plan, emphasizing financial sustainability and Community character (e.g. streetscapes) Separate railroad and roadway grades of amenities and visitor Transportation Wayfinding and signage standards facilities s Multimodal level of service Trail with retail) e i t i Pedestrian and bicycle r o i r P t standards n Freight mobility e s d e Accessibility m i e maintenance t p id ro n l Appleway o e e i r v Design m Pe y m D t i o c i c n ue m R o m n A m o o M c C>>>E>>>> G>> 10 (i.e. facilitate delivery of city services and Workforce development Business environment Fiscal Responsibility ) Economic growth communications d e r s i e Future needs u i Technology t q i r e Prosperity o R i s r e e Growth P t c i a y t tt i c S n a r r u o P m t A s m M e o G>>B>>> C>>> Implement strategies to improve the retail and tourism environment ) Economic Development community character, enhance curb appeal and attract investment private partnerships (i.e. Visitor Center or Farmer’s Market) Leverage technology to support economic development (i.e. SEO Certify Sites to promote industrial and commercial development brand/image (should leverage community assets, create Attracting recreational hobbyists and competitive athletes to Develop an Economic Development Strategic Plan ) projects (e.g. City Hall; Mirabeau Point Business retention, expansion and attraction events, facilities and natural amenities Prioritization of investment s Infrastructure coordination e i t i r o i r P t n e m p o l Catalytic eand GIS) v - e Public D City c i m o n o c E>>>>>>>>>>> 7 agency/jurisdiction coordination (e.g. libraries, schools) Meeting regional level of service standards for sewer Timeframe for facilities to maintain concurrency Capital Facilities and Public Services s e c - i Inter t c a r P t s e B>>> Invest in capital improvements to beautify commercial corridor services to promote growth and support business plan infrastructure to create public space, provide and financing use for growth and enhance community identity land Coordination and consistency with Parks and recreation facilities Financing and funding plan s emanagement i t i r o i r P t d n Multifunctional e e Sewer facilities s r i e m development i u Provision of t p Stormwater i q ro l e o e i R r v e Pe t y D a t t i c i nS ur m o o m n A m o M o c C>G>>>>> E>> 8 owned surplus land for affordable housing Affordable housing development incentives, Family Tax Exemption Single family residential Accessory dwelling units Multifamily residential Special populations Affordable housing d e r i - u such as Multi q e R s ee t c i a t t c - S City a r r o P t A s M e B>> G>>>>> location of jobs and housing units with Dedicated funding for affordable housing Additional housing options (e.g. cottages) s e i t projects and/or programs i r o i r transit and amenities Clustering of housing P t n e s e m i t p i Housing ro l o e i r v P e y D t i c i n - u m Co o m n m o o c C>>>E> 9 Efficient and equitable service delivery Conservation/demand management Coordinated construction in ROW s e c i t c a r P t s e B>>> General location and capacity of existing and Coordinate with utility providers to ensure utilities are available for growth s Facilitating business growth e i t i r o i r P t d n proposed utilities e e r i m u p q o Utilities l e e R v e e t D a t c i S r m o o n A o M c E>>G> 10 Multifunctional infrastructure and low impact development Equitable distribution of parks and facilities Intergovernmental regional coordination Consistency with Capital Facilities Plan d e r i u q e R e s Parks, Recreation and the Arts t e a c t i t S c r a o r P A t M s e G>> B>> space corridors and linkages between different open spaces scale interventions (e.g. pocket parks) Facilities for performing arts and community events land Creative reuse of vacant and underutilized Athletic facilities and recreation amenities Temporary parks and art installations Expansion of the art community s e i t i r o i Place for an Art Walk r P t Design standards n -e s NeighborhoodLocal artisans e m i Placemaking t p i ro l parks o e i r v Pe Open y D and t i c i n u m o m n m o o c C>>>>E>>>>>>> 11 Consistency with Critical Areas ordinance and Shoreline Master Program Mineral Resource Lands Natural resource lands d e r i u q e R e t a t S r o A M G>>> Protection of Spokane River and other natural amenities as a recreational and aesthetic Natural Environment s e i t i r o i r Community character P t n e s e m i t p i ro l o e i r v resource P e y D t i c i n u m o m n m o o c C> E>