Loading...
2021, 01-05 Study SessionMINUTES SPOKANE VALLEY COUNCIL RE64+HAR-MBE=F-IN-6 FQR 4AR -Fk RMAT- STUDY SESSION Spokane Valley City Hall Spokane Valley, Washington January 5, 2021 Mayor Wick called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. The meeting was held remotely via Zoom meeting. Attendance: Councilmembers Ben Wick, Mayor Brandi Peetz, Deputy Mayor Pam Haley, Councilmember Tim Hattenburg Councilmember Rod Higgins, Councilmember Linda Thompson, Councilmember Arne Woodard, Councilmember Staff Mark Calhoun, City Manager John Holman, Deputy City Manager Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney Lori Barlow, Senior Planner Carrie Koudelka, Deputy City Clerk ROLL CALL: Deputy City Clerk Koudelka called the roll; all Councilmembers were present. APPROVAL OF AMENDED AGENDA: It was moved by Deputy Mayor Peetz, seconded and unanimously agreed to approve the amended agenda. PROCLAMATION: Mayor Wick read the proclamation for Community Risk Reduction Week, January 18 — 22, 2021. NEW BUSINESS 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Planned Residential Development Moratorium — Lori Barlow, Eric Lamb Mayor Wick opened the hearing at 6:03 p.m. Deputy City Attorney Lamb said that Council adopted Ordinance 20-028 on November 24, 2020 that established a moratorium on the submission, acceptance, processing, modification and approval of Planned Residential Developments (PRDs) and that City staff has begun their review of a city -initiated code text amendment to CH 19.50 SVMC. Senior Planner Barlow said that PRDs are regulated through CH 1 9.50 SVMC and she said these regulations have been in our City code since 2007 and originated from Spokane County when we incorporated in 2003. She said the regulations identify the purpose of PRDs and she said PRDs are allowed in all residential zones and that all types of residential developments are allowed in PRDs. She said CH 19.50 also identifies the applicable development standards for PRDs, including minimum lot size, density, setback, commercial area allowed and open space requirements. She said in 2020, a Comprehensive Plan amendment addressed concerns about the influx of duplexes, added New Housing Policies and associated development regulations and she said in reviewing the PRD regulations they are looking to see that they are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan goals and policies and the needs of the community. Mr. Lamb said the City desires flexibility for alternative development and we also want to protect the existing neighborhoods so we are looking to find a balance between appropriate development flexibility and the appropriate amount of protection. He said the purpose of the moratorium is to prevent incompatible uses and to protect the characteristics of neighborhoods. He said moratoriums are allowed by state law and they preserve the status quo; this moratorium is on new applications only and he said any applications that were in process before the moratorium are not impacted. He said the Planning Commission will establish appropriate modifications or repeal of CH 19.50 SVMC and forward a recommendation to Council. He said staff recommends maintaining the moratorium while the regulations are evaluated and staff is looking for Council direction to prepare the ordinance adopting the findings of fact that will come before Council at a subsequent meeting. Study Session: 01-05-2021 Page 1 of 2 Approved by Council: 01-12-2021 Todd Whipple, Whipple Consulting Engineers, spoke in opposition to the moratorium and asked that it be modified to allow townhouses and duplexes but not apartment complexes. Written public COMBielli.Swere received by the following people and will be attached to the approved minutes: Todd Whipple, Whipple Consulting Engineers — opposed to the moratorium Kim Alexander, Spokane Valley — in favor of the moratorium Marilyn Pearson, Spokane Valley — in favor of the moratorium Rudy Werle, Spokane Valley — in favor of the moratorium Ann Carey, Spokane Valley — in favor of the moratorium Michael Reents, Spokane Valley — in favor of the moratorium Mayor Wick closed the public hearing at 631 p.m. Council consensus 10 maintain the moratorium. 2. Mayoral Appointments: Councilmembers to Committees — Mayor Wick It was movecl by Deputy Mayor Peetz and seconded to confirm the Mayoral appointments of Councihnembers to the committees and hoards as listed on the January 5, 2021 Requestibr Council Action .form. Mayor wick said the appointments are the same as they were in 2020 with the addition of the AWC Scholarship Committee. Vote by acclamation: in favor: tillani117016. Opposed: none. Motion carried 3. Mayoral Appointments: Planning Commission — Mayor Wick It was moved by Deputy Mayor Peet and seconded to confirm the Mayor's nomination of Walt Haneke and Nancy Pete Miller to the Planning Commission for terms beginning immediately and ending December 31, 2023, and Paul .Rieckers to complete the unexpired term ofjj,Johnson, effective ini,neciioiely and ending December 31, 2021. James JJ Johnson, Spokane Valley, thanked Council for the opportunity to serve on the Planning Commission the last five years as both Vice Chair and Chair of the Commission. Vote by acclamation: in favor: Ullani111011.5. Opposed: none. Motion carried. 4. Advance Agenda — Mayor Wick No comments. 5. Council Comments — Mayor Wick No comments. 7. City Manager Comments — Mark Calhoun Mr. Calhoun said the state legislative session begins next week and lobbyist Murray is seeking guidance from Council at to whether they would be in support of easing of some of the marijuana regulations. It was the consensus of Council that they are opposed to easing marijuana regulations. Mr. Calhoun then asked for Council guidance pertaining to whether they would be in support of implementing an income tax and reminded Council that on November 26, 2019 Council approved a resolution opposing income taxes. It was the consensus of Council to stay with the resolution in opposition to income taxes. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Peetz, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 6:45 p.m. ATTEST: Ben Wick, Mayor Carrie Koudelka, Deputy City Clerk Study Session: 01-05-2021 Approved by Council: 01-12-2021 Page 2 of 2 Spokane jUalley WHEREAS, WHEREAS, WHEREAS, WHEREAS, WHEREAS, WHEREAS, WHEREAS, rocCamation City of*volume Varrep, 129a5binqtan Community it5f1 Rebuttion eeft Every 24 seconds a fire department in the United States responds to a fire somewhere in the nation; a fire occurs in a structure at the rate of one every 63 seconds; a home fire occurs every 88 seconds; and in 2018, 74% of all fire deaths occurred in the home; and Home fires were responsible for 11,200 civilian injuries and 74% of all civilian injuries in 2018; and an estimated $25.6 billion in property damage occurred as a result of fire in 2018; and the fire service responds to a growing number of medical calls for service, surpassing 80% of total call volume in some jurisdictions; and Community Risk Reduction is a data -informed process to identify and prioritize local risks, followed by integrated and strategic investment of resources to reduce their occurrence and impact; and The value of community support from local, state, and national partners to address community risks is recognized to meet the demands on paid, combination, and volunteer members of the fire service; and The goal of Community Risk Reduction is to reduce the occurrence and impact of emergency events for community members and emergency responders through deliberate action in the areas of the five E's of Education, Engineering, Enforcement, Emergency response, and Economic incentive; and Most fire -related and many medical calls for service are preventable, with the five E's performed as part of an integrated Community Risk Reduction program; and Monday, January 18, 2021, is Martin Luther King, Jr. Day and is nationally recognized as a National Day of Service and an opportunity for communities to reduce the risk in their community through a series of educational and other programs. THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the week of January 18, 2021, be designated as Community Risk Reduction Week for the City of Spokane Valley, and I urge Spokane Valley citizens to learn about this grassroots initiative of fire service professionals across the nation to raise awareness of the importance of Community Risk Reduction in the fire service community, and an opportunity to make communities safer. Dated this 5th day of January, 2021. Ben Wick, Mayor yi,L191 ummeitt /IWC E Whipple Consulting Engineers Inc. January 4, 2021 Spokane Valley City Council 10210 E. Sprague Ave. Spokane Valley, WA 99206 509-720-5000 RE: Ordinance No. 20-028; Moratorium on Planned Residential Development Permit Applications Dear Mayor Wick, As a Professional Civil Engineer working within the development community of the City of Spokane Valley since it's inception, I am writing to voice my opposition of City Council's intention to place a blanket moratorium on Planned Residential Development Permit Applications. I believe this moratorium would be a disservice to residents and ultimately direct development in our community away from a dwindling but necessary resource for our citizens: affordable housing. Per the Spokane Valley Housing Action Plan Housing Needs Assessment (Exhibit 1), released in October 2020, our greatest housing need is for properties similar in kind to triplexes, cottages and townhomes. These properties provide an affordable option for both Millennials in need of housing and Baby Boomers looking to downsize. The City of Spokane Valley has only 9% of this type of housing, yet, "around 44% of all City of Spokane Valley households in 2018 need housing priced below the median income." Additionally, according to an analysis by AdvisorSmith (Exhibit 2), the City of Spokane Valley was listed as the city with the third highest rent increase in the United States from September 2019 to September 2020, increasing by 1 1.3%. With an underproduction of 1,463 housing units currently and a future need of 5,197, a lack of affordable housing is clearly a growing problem within our community. Passing this moratorium would take the City of Spokane Valley backwards, especially in relation to our neighbors, the City of Spokane and Spokane County. Spokane County has passed File 19-CPA-01 (Exhibit 3) an amendment promoting infill develop within the Urban Growth Area, and the City of Spokane calls our areas, "missing middle," duplexes, triplexes, and townhomes a, "housing availability crisis." (Exhibit 4) In place of the proposed blanket moratorium, I would suggest encouraging Planned Residential Developments and amending this ordinance to only prohibit Apartment development within PRD's, while allowing for the development of duplexes, townhomes, and similar housing type our City is so obviously in desperate need of. I am grateful for you taking the time to read my thoughts on your proposed moratorium. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any further questions. Todd R. Whipple, P.E. President, Whipple Consulting Engineers 21 South Pines Rd, • Spokane Valley, WA 99206 PO Box 1566 • Veradale, WA 99037 Phone 509-893-2617 • Fax 509-926-0227 • WhippleCE.com • Info@WhippleCE.com CMl, Structural, Traffic, Survey, Landscape Architecture and Entitlements SPOKANE VALLEY HOUSING ACTION PLAN MOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT SUMMARY REPORT, OCTOBER 2020 City of Spokane Valley The City of Spokane Valley is developing a Housing Action Plan (HAP) to identify ways to meet housing needs now and into the future. The HAP is made possible due to a Washington State Department of Commerce Housing Bill 1923 Grant. The HAP will include strategies and implementing actions to encourage greater housing diversity and affordability, access to opportunity for residents of all income levels, and should address both affordable and market -rate housing needs. An initial step in the HAP process is to define the range of housing needs by analyzing the best available data that describes the area's housing and associated demographic, workforce, and market trends over the past few decades. This assessment helps answer questions about the availability of different housing types, who lives and works in the Spokane Valley area, and what range of housing is needed for all income levels through 2037, the planning horizon for the HAP which is also aligned with the 20-year growth target for the City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan. Housing analysis is an important exercise since a community's housing needs tend to continually evolve based on changes in the broader economy, local demographics, and regulatory environment. The City of Spokane Valley, like other communities in the Spokane County region, has changed and grown over the years, leading to greater demand for different housing types. Analyzing housing needs is complex because it represents a bundle of services that people are willing to or able to pay for, including shelter and proximity to other attractions (e.g., jobs, shopping, recreation); amenities (e.g., type and quality of home fixtures and appliances, landscaping, views); and access to public services (e.g., quality of schools, parks). Because it is difficult to maximize all of these services while minimizing costs, households muse make decisions about trade-offs and sacrifices between needed services and what they can afford. 71,1 r -. b Spokane Valley In addition, housing markets function at a regional scale, which makes it challenging for individual jurisdictions to adequately address issues without regional partnerships. The following summary compares the City of Spokane Valley with Spokane County and the City of Spokane to provide a more complete picture of the county -wide housing landscape while also offering insights on localized versus regional trends, and a more nuanced view of housing market dynamics. Various U.S. Census Bureau, county assessor, and housing market datasets were used to assess the housing stock, workforce, demographics, and expected demand. The housing needs assessment findings are organized in the following topic areas: Executive Summary National Trends Spokane Valley Housing Trends Spokane Valley Demographics Spokane Valley Housing Affordability Spokane Valley Housing Needs Forecast Spokane Valley Workforce Trends Spokane County Trends This document and analyses were produced by: ECONorthwest ECONOMICS • FINANCE • PLANNING 2 City of Spokane Valley I I -lousing Needs Assessment Executive Summary > Spokane Valley's population growth and housing development has remained steady for most of the decade. From 2010 to 2018, Spokane Valley's population grew by 7%, adding 6,055 new residents. (Demographics Section). > The City of Spokane Valley needs about 6,660 new housing units by 2037 when its population is expected to reach about 109,913 people. This includes 1,463 housing units to address housing underproduction over the last decade. Around 351 units per year should be produced through 2037 to meet forecast housing needs which means slightly more would need to be built per year than the average produced from 2010 and 2019 (345 housing units built per year). Spokane Valley should continue to support robust housing growth and advance strategies in support of housing growth for a diversity of housing types and affordability levels. (Housing Forecast Section). > Housing needs change over a person's lifetime. It is important to track shifts among the share of different age groups to better comprehend how housing needs change as community demographics fluctuate. Spokane Valley's millennial population (25-34 years) almost doubled, growing substantially from 10% to 15% of the population total (from 12,148 to 21,144 persons). Millennial population growth could explain the decline in Spokane Valley's median age to 35.2 years by 2018, a rate below the Washington State and Spokane County's median age of almost 38 years. (County Trends Section). > Another growing sector is the senior population (65+). During 2012-2018, seniors grew from 13% to 15% of the total population settling at an estimated total of 20,910 persons, a total similar to the millennial population sector. Spokane County projections from 2020 to 2030 estimate that the 65+ population will expand from 18% to 22% of the total population — a trend that is consistent with other communities across the country. Homeownership rates increase as age increases and younger and older people are more likely to live in single -person households which tend to be smaller in size. The aging of the Baby Boomer generation (born 1946-1964) could generate greater demand for living assistance and low -maintenance middle housing options such as townhomes. (County Trends Section). > Household incomes have increased in Spokane Valley. Spokane Valley's median household incomes for owners grew by nearly 25% between 2012 and 2018 (from $61,873 to $77,299). Renter incomes increased too by almost 12% from $34,417 to $38,498 during the same time period. Overall, these trends indicate increasing pressure on the already limited supplies of moderate and middle -income housing (60-120% AMI) and if they continue, will lead to increased financial hardships for households across the City. (Affordability Section). > Population growth coupled with housing underproduction throughout Spokane Valley and the region has added pressure on an already limited housing supply and contributed to rising housing costs. While rents have grown more than 15% since 2010 in the city, home prices increased by more than 48%. The escalating cost of housing is a top concern for people finding very few options of housing affordable at their income level. Horne -ownership is increasing becoming out of reach and when people cannot find housing fitting within their financial means, they can end up becoming cost burdened, meaning they pay more than one-third of their gross income for housing. > Affordable housing problems have not affected all households evenly. Low and moderate -income households have been disproportionately affected. In fact, over 65% of extremely low-income households renting and owning were severely cost burdened, meaning paying more than 50% of their income on housing. In addition, 83% of low-income renters (30-50%), 56% low-income Housing Needs Assessment I City of Spokane Valley 3 Executive Summary home owners, and over one-third of moderate -income (50-80%) owners and renters were cost burdened, meaning paying more than 30% of their income on housing. Overall, the low -to -moderate income households (less than 80% of AMI) tend to be more cost -burdened, (Affordability Section). Spokane Valley's housing stock mostly consists of single-family detached homes (66%) and lacks housing diversity needed to accommodate future demand particularly associated with aging baby boomers and young households forming. The city has a low supply (9%) of "missing middle" housing (e.g., townhomes, duplexes, quad homes, and cottages) which allows more seniors to downsize and remain in their community, while also providing more options for working families to get a foothold in great neighborhoods. (Housing Section). Between 2012 and 2018, the share of 2 and 4-person households grew in Spokane Valley, while the number of 1-person households fell. In contrast, the City of Spokane's share of 1 to 3-person households grew. This trend shows Spokane Valley's housing tilting towards 2-bedroom housing and larger family -friendly housing with at least 2 bedrooms. (Demographics Section). Spokane Valley's workforce, including around 51,305 workers, increased by 11% from 2010-2017. Growth in industry sectors with salaries below 100% AMI is fueling demand for moderate -to middle -income housing. As a result of the shifting demographics in Spokane Valley, at least 6,660 housing units are needed by 2037. If units are allocated based on recent income distribution trends, the majority of new housing units needed through 2037 would be for households earning over 100% AMI (56% of total units), and one-third of the total should be below 80% AMI. Overall, the findings indicate increased demand for moderate to middle -income housing options (60-120% AMI) that can mostly be met through single- family attached housing (e.g., townhomes and quad homes) and housing serving senior's needs, Median Income Levels* When examining household income levels, the Area Median Income (AMI) and Median Family Income (MFI) are helpful benchmarks for understanding what different households can afford to pay for housing expenses. Since housing needs vary by family size and costs vary by region, HUD produces a median income benchmark for different family sizes and regions on an annual basis. These benchmarks help determine eligibility for HUD housing programs and support the tracking of different housing needs for a range of household incomes. The median income value (100%) primarily used for this analysis s an annual income of $65,200 for a family of four (Spokane County rate for 2018). Below 3C% of AMI is extremely low income (under $19,560) 30 to 50% of AMI is very low income ($19,560- $32,600). 50 to 60% of AMI is low income (S32,600- $39,120). 60 to 80% of AMI is moderate income ($39,120-852,260), 80 to 120% AMI is middle income (852,260-$78,240), and above 120% AMI is high income (above $78,240). To put these numbers into perspective, a dishwasher earns an estimated $26,580 per year on average and would be very low income. A pharmacy tech earns $40,940 annually and would be moderate income in the cities of Spokane and Spokane Valley metropolitan area. Income levels tend to vary throughout a lifetime and homeownership rates tend to increase as income increases. *Source of AMI: Spokane County/US Housing and Urban Development (HUD), 2018, and Occupational Employment Statistics, US Bureau of Labor, 2019, Spokane -Spokane Valley Metropolitan.h ttps://static, spokanecity.org/documents/chhs/ programs/homein vestment/2018-spokane-home-income- and-rent.pdf 4 City of Spokane Volley I Housing Needs Assessment National Housing Trends Key National Demographic Trends Associated with Housing Nuclear family households, the predominant type of household of the mid 20th Century, shrunk from 40% in 1970 to 20% in 2018 while the share of single -person households increased from 15°%o in 1970 to 28% in 2018, to take over as being the most prevalent household type. This trend could lead to fewer persons per household which would increase demand for housing units. In addition, around one-third of Americans between 18-34 years are living in their parent's homes (as of 2018) and the median age for first marriage increased to almost 30 in 2016. This trend could decrease housing demand for 18-34 aged persons or at least delay it. 0 0 America is aging, and the number of seniors will continue to grow over the next few decades to an estimated share of around 22% over age 65 by 2050. This is a big increase since only around 16% of US (and Washington state) residents were over 65 in 2018. Seniors are projected to outnumber children for the first time ever by 2035. Nationwide, the Hispanic/Latino population is predicted to be the fastest growing racial/ethnic group over the next few decades and these households tend to include multiple generations, requiring more housing space. Over the coming decade, minorities will make up a larger share of young households and constitute an important source of demand for both lower -cost rental housing and home -ownership opportunities. Note: The COVID-19 pandemic has affected the production of housing in many regions and the ability to pay for housing consistently which will likely exacerbate housing availability and stability. Parts of this analysis relied on pre-COVID data. Sources: AARP (2018) Making Room for a Changing America, U.S. Census Bureau Annual Social and Economic Supplements 1950 and 1970, 2015 U.S. Census ACS, Washington State Office of Finance and Management, U.S. Census Bureau, 2019. Housing Needs Assessment I City of Spokane Valley 5 Spokane Valley Housing Trends 38,730 Number of total housing units as of mid 2020 Source: Spokane County Assessor, 2020 3,445 Number of housing units built between 2010-2019 Source: Spokane County Assessor, 2020 345 New housing units built on average every year since 2010 Source: Spokane County Assessor, 2020 1.04 City Ratio of Housing Units to Households > Between 2070-2019 Source: Washington State Office of Finance and Management (OFM), 2019, ECONorthwest calculations. Note: The housing units to household ratio should be above one since healthy housing markets should have more housing units to allow for vacancy, demolition, second/vacation homes, and broad absorption trends. Because Wash- ington State does not have a regional approach to planning for housing production, ECONorthwest compared this city ratio to the Spokane County ratio of 1.07 to determine the amount of housing underproduction. Number of Units Number of Housing Units Number of Units Built by Year, 2010-2019 1,000 800 600 400 -286" 200 145 0 ■ 2010 2011 437 119 G25 1 216 ■ 657 474 1 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Source: Spokane County Assessor, 2020 Housing Type Built by Decade, as of Mid-2020 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 NO) 0� �05 �05 Q�e 1 NC') � 1� 1 1C'b 175°5 lO� (1 , 345 Average •1 14.2to4 5to29 r30to49 ■50to99 ■100+ Housing Scale Source: Spokane County Assessor, 2020. Note: Housing with 5 or more units is considered multifamily and housing with 5 or less units is single-family Share of Housing By Type, as of Mid-2020 Housing Type Average Age % of Housing Single-family Detached Apartment/Condo Single-family Attached Mobile/Manufactured Home 46 36 38 38 66% 20% 5% Source: Spokane County Assessor, 2020. Note: Single-family attached includes duplexes, triplexes, and quad homes. 6 City of Spokane Valley Housing Needs Assessment Spokane Valley Housing Trends Age of Housing by Type Single -Family Detached Average Year Built Single -Family Attached MEM Pre-1940 1940-1959 1960-1979 1980-1999 2000-2020 Source: Spokane County Assessor, 2020 Type of Housing Built by Decade, as of Mid-2020 Mobile/manufactured home (n = 1,702) Detached single-family (n = 25,655) Condominium (n = 774) Attached single-family (n = 3,442) Apartment (n = 7,157) 40 41 44 14 25% 50% Share of units Year Built Pre-1940 1940-1959 1960-1979 1980-1999 2000-2020 Source: Spokane County Assessor, 2020. 75% 100% Apartment Housing Needs Assessment I City of Spokane Valley 7 > Overall, Spokane Valley lacks housing diversity particularly due to low supplies of single-family attached housing (comprising 9% of the total housing) such as town homes, triplexes, and cottages in single-family areas. The city could encourage the development of a variety of housing types and sizes to accommodate the diverse needs of residents through their changes in age and family size. Housing Units Built as of Mid-2020 Decade Percent of Units Before 1940 4% 1940's 6% 1950's 11% 1960's 6% 1970's 20% 1980's 11% 1990's 18% 2000's 14% 2010's 1 O% Source: Spokane County Assessor, 2020. 6°r° Change in number of households 2012 2018 Households 36,365 38,478 Source: OFM, retrieved in 2020 Housing Type Source: Spokane County Assessor, 2020 Housing Unit Density Source: Spokane County Assessor, 2020 • Housing Type • Detached s',ngle-family Attached single-family • Mobile/manufactured home Apartment Condominium Unit Count 1 2-4 5-20 c._? 21-60 60+ 8 City of Spokane Valley I Housing Needs Assessment 7% Change in population 2010 2018 Population 89,755 9 5,81 0 Source: OFM, retrieved in 2019. 12% Change in median renter Household income 2012 2018 Median Income $34,417 $38,498 Source: PUMS (2012, 2018). Note: All values are in 2078 inflation -adjusted dollars. 25©7 Change in median owner household income 2012 2018 Median Income $61,873 $77,299 Number of Households Number of Households Change in Household Size, 2012 & 2018 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 -1,000 -2,000 -3,000 ■ -1,903 2,671 418 1 2 3 People per Household Source: PUMS (2012, 2018) 3,876 4 Income Distribution by AMI, 2012 & 2018 60% 56% 50% 46% 40% 30% 19%/o 16 20% 13%° 10%12% ° 8% 10%10% 10i° 0% ®L 0-30% 30-50% 50-80% 80-100% 100%+ Household Income as a % of AMI u 2012 2018 Source: PUMS (2012, 2018). Note: All values Source: PUMS (2012, 2018) are in 2018 inflation -adjusted dollars. 48©' /0 Increase in median home sales price 2010 2020 Median $202,461 $300,000 Sales Price Source: Spokane County Assessor, 2020. Values are in 2020 inflation adjusted dollars. Notes: A household would need to earn over 100% AMI to afford the 2020 median home sales price. The Zillow Horne Valley Index shows a 59% increase between 2070-2020 to 8283,374 for middle price -tiered homes. Income Distribution by AMI and Tenure, 2018 Renter °""1 18�, Owner 6% 13% 10% 67% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Share of Households Household Income as a % of AMI ■ 0-30% 30-50% ■ 50-80% ■ 80-100% ■ > 100% Source: PUMS, 2018 Housing Needs Assessment I City of Spokane Valley 9 Spokane Valley Housing Affordability Cost Burdened > A household who pays more than 30% of their income on housing. Severely Cost Burdened ) A household who pays more than 50% of their income on housing. 1663 Number of income restricted housing units as of mid-2020 Source: ECONorthwest analysis of public affordable housing data. Note: Restricted to low and moderate -household incomes. 15% Increase in average rent for 2-bedroom apartment 2010 Average Rent 2020 $983 $1,131 Source: Costar. All values are in 2020 infla- tion -adjusted dollars. Notes: Average rents for a 2-bedroom apartment in Spokane County increased by 13% during the same time period. This 2020 average rent would be affordable to those earning 65% AMI or more. 5.2% 2-bedroom apartments were vacant as of mid-2020 Source: Costar, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Notes: On average during the last decade, the vacancy rate was 5.4% for 2-bedroom apart- ments. This is a standard rate of vacancy, indicating that the supply for this product type should be adequate to meet demand. This trend is similar to county and state rates. Share of Households Share of Households Number of Units Number of Units Share of Cost Burdened and Severely Cost Burdened Households by Tenure, 2018 Owners 1UD% 75`• . SUk% 25`, (1% 100% 75% 50> 26% 04 i 96%. 83% 0- 3,3'Y;, 91% 41'„ ill 56% 30- 5Cr% ■Cost Burdened c.5r;ErdyCost Burdened 37: I 13%. Renters 66% 6 50-80Z 20Y 1I% 8% 80-112G'7 lama i Household Income as a %-of AMI Source: PUMS, 2018. Notes: Low and moderate -income households below 504 AMI tend to be more cost burdened and higher incomes above 100% AMI less since their larger income go further to cover expenses. Owners tend to be less cost burdened due to mortgage lending stipulations; however it can occur when households with mortgages see income decline. Cost burden does not consider accumulated wealth and assets. Housing Units Affordable by AMI and Tenure, 2018 Owner 15,00u 10000 5,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 805 0 0-30% Source: PUMS, 2018 U.rlbfI I I Renter 8,927 5,059 1.933 I,A /A 30-50% 60.80% 80-100% 3,100% I lousehold Income as a % of AMI 10 City of Spokane Valley I Housing Needs Assessment Spokane Valley Housing Affordability Financially Attainable Housing Types Another way to evaluate housing needs is to consider the different types o= housing generally affordable to different household incomes in comparison to the current housing stock. As shown in the below exhibit, the 2018 area median income was $65,200 for a family of four in Spokane County (100% AMI). Housing types affordable to households below this median annual income tend to be limited to apartments, manufactured homes, multiplexes (duplexes, triplexes, and quad homes) and townhomes. Much of this housing is rented, particularly when priced for lower income households earning below 80% AMI and most of the housing below 50% AMI (extremely low and very low income) tends to be government subsidized. Around 44% of all the City of Spokane Valley households in 2018 need housing priced below the median income (100% AMI), yet this housing is inadequate since only 31 °%o of the current housing stock includes multiplexes, townhomes, apartments, and manufactured homes. Housing above the median income is predominantly newer construction and owner -occupied. This housing typically includes single-family detached homes, higher -priced single-family attached homes, and condominiums. Households earning above the median income tend to have more housing options available to them especially when considering that most of the current housing stock is single-family detached (around 66% in the City of Spokane Valley). Most Spokane Valley residents living in single-family detached housing own their home (86°%e) rather than rent (ACS 1-Year, 2018). If your household earns ... $19,560 $32,600 $52,260 $65,200 $78,240 (30% of AMI) (50% of AMI) (80%ofAMI) (100% of AMI) (120% of AMI) Then you can afford ... $489 $815 $1,304 $1,630 $1,956 P%P. MONTH PEP MONTH �(R M1'' t.TH PtF MlO',I7• FIR 1.1OIlih Housing types generally affordable to these households are ... Single -Family Detached manufactured homes In parks/on Tots cottage cluster small -lot single-family large -lot single-family duplex, tri-plex, quad-plex, townhomes low -amenity apartments (rental) apartments (5+ units) Common characteristics ... LESS EXPENSIVE Predominantly renter occupied & existing construction Government subsidized Single -Family Attached higher -priced products Multifamily condominium MORE EXPENSIVE Predominantly owner occupied & new construction Source: ECONorthwest. Note: All values are in 2019 inflation -adjusted dollars. Housing Needs Assessment I City of Spokane Valley 11 Spokane Valley Housing Needs Forecast, 109,913 Projected population by 2037 (medium projection) Source: *Population Projections Appendix 742 Average annual population growth projected from 2018 to 2037 Source: OFM, 2019; 'Population Projections Appendix; ECONorthwest calculation 6,660 Projected number of units needed by 2037 Source: OFM, 2019; Population Projections Appendix; ECONorthwest Calculation 351 Average number of new units needed to add annually from 2019 to 2037 Source: OFM, 2019; *Population Projections Appendix; ECONorthwest Calculation. This number is higher than the 345 average housing units built from 2010-2019. 2% Increase in annual housing production to reach 2037 housing need forecast -City of Spokane Valley Appendix A: SEPA Analysis 2017-2037 Comprehensive Plan Housing Units Needed Through 2037 Underproduction Future Need Housing Need 1,463 5,197 6,660 Source: PUMS, 2018; *Appe.ndix; ECONorthwest Calculation. Note: Underproduction is the estimated number of housing units needed to satisfy the housing shortfall over the last decade. Future need is the number of housing units needed from 2020 to 2037 (based on the OFM forecast).. Housing Units Needed as a Share of Existing Stock Existing Units Housing Need % of Existing Units 38,730 6,660 17% Source: Spokane County Assessor, 2020; ECONorthwest Calculation Housing Units Needed by AMI Through 2037, Based on 2018 Trends AMI # of Units % of Units 0-30% 30-50% 50-80% 80-100% 550 8% 625 9% 1,039 16% 686 10% 100%+ 3,760 56% Source: PUMS, 2018;*Appendix; ECONorthwest Calculation HUD Affordability Level by Housing Type, 2018 AMI Studio 1-bed 2-bed 3-bed 30% $342 $366 $440 $509 50% $570 $612 $734 $848 80% $912 $978 $1,174 $1,356 100% $1,140 $1,222 $1,468 $1,695 Source: HUD, 2018. Notes: The dollar values are for Spokane County and the AM! values were adjusted to include the family size that would be appropriate for the housing type. These are fair market rent values. 12 City of Spokane Valley I Housing Needs Assessment Spokane Valley Employment Trends Employment Trends Understanding Spokane Valley's workforce profile and commuting trends helps provide insights on the housing needs of workers today and into the future. Factors such as job sector growth and the city's commuting patterns may have implications for how many people are able to both live and work within the city. If such factors indicate many people are commuting into the city for work, it could be possible that the city does not have enough housing to accommodate its workforce or enough housing matching their needs and affordability levels. This employment profile for Spokane Valley highlights trends associated with workforce and wage growth. • As shown in the employment table, an estimated total of 51,305 people are part of the workforce in the City of Spokane Valley as of 2017. Overall jobs grew by around 11 °%o from 2010 - 2017 in the city. • Among this total, the largest share works in retail trade (almost 20% of total), manufacturing (13%), and health care/social assistance sectors (12"%a). • Removing small job sectors (below 5% of the total), the employment sectors experiencing high increases in job growth between 2010-2017 were educational services (120%) and construction sectors (45%), both with an average salary below $50,000, which could indicate increasing demand needed for housing below 100% AMI (such as moderate -income housing). Access to Employment* Transit and auto access to regional employment was derived using 45-minute travel sheds for each mode. ECONorthwest calculated the number of jobs available within these travel sheds in each industrial sector catego- ry for the Spokane County region (2-digit NAICS). The transit travel sheds originated from every transit stop within the city while the auto travel sheds originated from the center of all block groups in the city. LI, Spokane Valley lbDrive time Transit time -Transit and drive time of 45 minutes or less, departing at 7:00 AM, mid -week Source: US Census LODES database, 2017 and census block geometries, 2010; Spokane Transit Authority database; ECONorthwest Calculations. This analysis demonstrates how a large majority of jobs are more accessible by driving an automobile rather than taking public transit. In total, 260,178 jobs are within a 45-minute drive from the City of Spokane Valley while far fewer jobs, estimated at 63,115, are located within the 45-minutes transit shed. One quarter of the jobs are available via transit compared to driving within 45 minutes or less from the original location. The denser urban areas within the small orange area could be analyzed for potential opportunities to include housing development that is more transit -oriented. Mapping out commute sheds can be useful for estimating the extent of the regional housing market since most employed home buyers and renters tend to search for units with their commute in mind. Housing Needs Assessment I City of Spokane Valley 13 Spokane Valley Employment Trends Spokane Valley Employment Numbers Access to Regional Employment Industry (2-digit NAICS Code) Employees % # Change % Change Average Salary % Jobs by % Jobs by (2017) (2010-2017) (2010-2017) (2018) Auto Transit Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting 1.1% 513 777°% $34,444 88% 19% Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Extraction 0.2% 35 69% $31,467 93% 14% Utilities 0.6% 46 19% $69,936 92% 21% Construction 6.1% 978 45% $46,683 93% 15% Manufacturing 13% -172 -3% $46,532 96% 16% Wholesale Trade 7.1% 684 23% $44,029 98% 24% Retail Trade 19.6% -278 -3% $33,904 97% 27% Transportation and Warehousing 3.9% 375 23% $49,020 97% 10% Information 0.8% -127 -23% $40,373 97% 24% Finance and Insurance 4% 343 20% $43,927 99% 36% Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 1.2% 59 10% $31,836 97% 30% Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services 2.8% 289 26% $48,292 97% 31% Management of Companies and Enterprises 1.2% 293 87% $46,964 98% 24% Administrative and Support and Waste Management and 7.8% 600 18% $31,520 97% 29% Remediation services Educational Services 7.1% 1,978 120% $48,057 93% 22% Health Care and Social Assistance 12.2% -409 -6% $41,440 98% 23% Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 0.3% -116 -42% $34,583 71% 9% Accommodation and Food Services 7.5% 299 8% $28,307 97% 26% Other Service 2.5% -102 -7% $31,734 96% 24% Public Administration 0.9% -188 -28% $52,425 97% 13% Source: US Census LODES database, 2017 and census block geometries, 2010; ECONorthwest. Note: Median earnings was sourced from ACS 2018 5-year estimates at the tract level, joined to jurisdictional boundaries and summarized as the median for each industry by jurisdiction. Several estimates are missing, likely due to insufficient numbers of employees within that industry/jurisdiction pair: The estimated total number of Spokane Valley employees in 2017 is 57,305. The 2019 average annual salary for Spokane County was S50,234 (includes all industries) and this means housing below 80% of the AMI would be affordable to those earning this average salary. 14 City of Spokane Valley 1 Housing Needs Assessment Spokane Valley Commuting Trends Approximately 32% of Spokane Valley's workforce lived and worked in Spokane Valley in 2017, This share increased above 2010 levels (26%). Around 40,029 workers (74%) of the total City of Spokane Valley workforce live elsewhere and commute into Spokane Valley for work while 30,476 workers (26%) live in Spokane Valley and commute elsewhere for their work. Among those working outside of Spokane Valley, 37% work in Spokane, 5% work in Liberty Lake, 2% work in Seattle, and 2% work in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho. Around 1 % of the workforce commutes to Airway Heights, Post Falls Idaho, , and Cheney. The remaining 19% commutes to other locations. The high rate of commuting to the City of Spokane Valley could be due to a shortage of affordable housing or suitable housing not meeting the needs of the workforce or it could mean they prefer living elsewhere in the region. Commuting Flow, 2017 Source: US Census LODES database, 2017; Census On the Map. Note: Dark green arrow is showing persons commuting into town (40,029) and the light green arrow (30,476) shows persons commuting out of town. Commuting Trends, 2017 Seattle Spokane Bellingham Yakima Coeur d'Alene, ID Olympia Spokane Valley Tacoma Cheney Post Falls, ID Medical Lake Airway Heights Liberty Lake 64% 56% 52% 48% 46% 36% 32% 30% 21% 20% WIMP MEM i4i' 1 ■ Living and working in city Living in city, working outside 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Source: US Census LODES database, 2017; Census On the Map Housing Needs Assessment 1 City of Spokane Valley 15 Spokane County Trends 8% Change in population ) Between 2070 and 2018 2010 2018 Population 471,221 507,950 Source: OFM, retrieved in 2020 7% Change in number of households > Between 2072 and 2018 2012 2018 Households 196,529 209,897 Source: OFM, retrieved in 2020 21% Number of Householcls Change in Household Size, 2012 & 2018 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,363 2,000 1.982 1,000 0 -1,000 2,000 -1,903 -3.000 4,228 2,671 1863 2,078 1,719 418 4,347 3,876 i -1,296 1 2 3 People per household Spokane County Spokane • Spokane Valley Source: PUMS (2012, 2018) Income Distribution by AMI, 2012 & 2018 book 50% 0 40% to 30% 0 Li 20% 15% 16% 15% - cco o10% 12'%11% i 11%9% look ' � � , � _-, Change in median renter 0% , Household income 0-30% 3C-50% 50-80% 80-100% 100%+ > Between 2072 and 2018 Household Income as a °% of AMI ■2012 r]2018 4 54% 2012 2018 Median $28,726 $34,749 Income Source: Purvis (2012, 2018). Note: All values are in 2018 inflation -adjusted dollars. 9% Change in median owner household income > Between 2072 and 2018 2012 2018 Median $68,833 $74,969 Income Source: PUMS (2012, 2018) Source: PUMS (2012, 2018) 46% Income Distribution by AMI and Tenure, 2018 Renter Owner 19% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Household Income as a % of AMI • 0-30% 30-50% a 50-80% i 80-100% ■ > 100% 16 City of Spokane Valley I Housing Needs Assessment Spokane County Trends 13% Change in average rent for 2-bedroom apartment > Between 207 0 and 2020 2010 2020 Average Rent $968 $1,094 Source: Costar. Note: All values are in 2018 inflation -adjusted dollars. 50% Change in median home sales price > Between 2070 and 2020 2010 2020 Median $184,000 $275,000 Sales Price Source: Spokane County Assessor, 2020. Note: Al! values are in 2018 inflation -adjusted dollars. Housing Units Built by Decade, as of Mid-2020 Decade Percent of Units Before 1940 11% 1940's 5% 1950's 8% 1960's 5% 1970's 15% 1980's 10% 1990's 19% 2000's 17% 2010's 9% Source: Spokane County Assessor, 2020 Share of Households Share of Households Share of Households Population by Age, 2012 & 2018 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Spokane County 12% 2012 2018 2012 Spokane 17% 15% 2018 Spokane Valley 13% 10% 2012 15% 2018 ■ Under 5 years ■ 5 to 18 years o 18 to 24 years 25 to 34 years • 35 to 44 years ■ 45 to 64 years ■ 65 years and older Source: ACS(2012, 2018); PUMS 1-Year Estimates Cost Burdened and Severely Cost Burdened by Tenure, 2018 100% of 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 86% 65% 0-30 % Source: PUMS, 2018 56' 25% 111 Owners o Cost Burdened : Severely Cost Burdened 38% n% - ■ 0 Renters 83% II47 % 39% 3% 30-50% 50-80% 16% 13% ■ 0% 80-100% Household Income as a % of AMI 0% 13% 9% Mom 100%+ Housing Needs Assessment I City of Spokane Valley 17 Spokane County Trends About 82%, or 7 39,770, of Spokane County residents live and work in Spokane County. About 18%, or 37,388 of Spokane County residents work outside Spokane County. Most of Spokane County residents work in City of Spokane or City of Spokane Valley. Commuting Flow, 2017 Source: JS Census LODES database, 2017; Census On the Map. Note: Dark green arrow is showing persons commuting into town (45,333) and the light green arrow (37,388) shows persons commuting out of town. Cities Where Spokane County Residents Work, 2017 Coeur d'Alene, ID 11% Medical Lake, WA I 1 % Cheney, WA ' 2% Airway Heights, WA ' 2% Seattle, WA ' 2% Liberty Lake, WA 1 3% Spokane Valley, WA All Other Locations Spokane, WA 18% 24% 47% 0% 20% 40% 60% Source: US Census LODES database, 2017; Census On the Map 18 City of Spokane Valley I Housing Needs Assessment AdViSOrSiniN5UI��CE COVERAGES • INDUSTRIES • Cities Where Rents Are Rising and Falling the Most Take a look at our deep dive into the largest changes in U.S. rental prices. Adrian Mak October 13, 2020 In this analysis, AdvisorSmith examined the trends in rental prices in over 500 U.S, cities to determine where rents are rising and falling the most. The arrival of the coronavirus pandemic in the year 2020 has created major changes for many Americans in their ways of life, affecting everything from work to school, creating changes in the economy, as well as affecting decisions about where to live. One place where the pandemic has caused major waves is in the residential rental market, with dramatic increases and decreases in rents in certain communities in the country. We examined rent prices for studios, 1-, 2-, 3-, and 4-bedroom rental units in September 2020, and compared these to average rents in 2019 for cities around the country. For each city, we determined the weighted average increase or decrease in rents based upon each city's composition of rental housing units. We then ranked the top 100 cities where rents are rising and falling the most. Among the cities included in our analysis, we found that rents increased an average of 0.9% during the study period. However, the range of rent changes was very wide, with the largest decrease being-34,7%, and the largest increase being 12.5%, as Americans made new choices about where to live based on shifts in the economy. Read on to discover more about the cities where rents are rising and falling the most, C it ,c3 Where Rents Are Rising the Most • 5.1 L _ 12.5 • r •• 46 p • V a• •• !••9 t *t • • • • The cities where rents rose the most in the past nine montns include cities on the outskirts of major metropolitan areas, as well as some midsize cities. In particular, numerous cities on the outskirts of the Atlanta, Phoenix, and Baltimore metropolitan areas were represented among the top 25. Additionally, there were strong rent increases in San Bernardino and Riverside counties in Southern California. Other smaller and midsize cities represented in the top 25 included the Spokane metropolitan area; Huntsville, AL; Jackson, MS: August. GA; and Boise, ID. Rank City Rent Increase o/ 0 Weighted Avg Weighted Avg Rent Rent (2019) (Sep 2020) 1 Stockbridge, GA 12.5% $1,300 $1,396 2 Avondale, AZ 11.6% $1,373 51,481 3 Spokane Valley, 11.3% S1,112 $1,186 WA 4 Chino, CA 10.8% 5 East Point, GA 10.7% $1,915 $2,037 $1,169 $1,239 6 Coeur d'Alene, ID 10.7% $1,048 7 Huntsville, AL 10.5% $1,004 8 Ridgeland, MS 10.4% $1,253 9 Goodyear, AZ 10.0% $1,553 10 Augusta, GA 9.6% $977 $1,1'13 $1,068 $1,332 $1,662 $1,032 Showing 1 to 10 of 100 entries Previous Next Cities Where Rents Are Falling the Most -34.7 -2.6 Rents fell dramatically in some of the nation's most expensive cities for renters. The top three spots were taken by cities in Texas and North Dakota with economies focused on oil and energy. With the price of oil plunging due to a reduction in driving during the coronavirus pandemic, demand for housing in these communities has fallen substantially. Also highly represented in the top 25 were cities in the San Francisco Bay Area, New York City, the Boston metropolitan area, and a few suburbs of Washington, D.C. Many of these cities, which have some of the highest rents in the country, contain professional and technical workers, many of who have been working from home for much of the year. Rank City Rent Weighted Avg Rent Weighted Avg Rent Decrease % (2019) (Sep 2020) 1 Odessa, TX -34.7% $937 $699 2 Midland, TX -30.9% $1,226 $943 3 Williston, ND -24.1% $1,114 $951 4 San Francisco, -19.7% $2,695 $2,270 CA 5 Mountain -17.4% $2,959 $2,606 View, CA 6 Menlo Park, -15.2% $3,311 $2,952 CA 7 Sunnyvale, CA -14.8% $2,737 $2,455 8 Redwood City, -14.1 % $2,820 $2,540 CA 9 Palo Alto, CA -13.3% $3,104 $2,814 10 Coral Gables, -12.9% $1,870 $1,704 FL Showing 1 to 10 of 100 entries Previous Next Methodology AdvisorSmith examined data on rental prices from Zillow and Apartment List from 540 U.S. cities to determine the cities where rents are falling and rising the fastest. In order to construct these lists, we first determined the average rental prices for studios, 1-bedroom, 2- bedroom, 3-bedroom, and 4-bedroom rental housing units in each city during the calendar year 2019. We also found the average rental prices for studios, 1-bedroom, 2-bedroom, 3-bedroom, and 4-bedroom rental housing units in each city for September 2020. We calculated the percentage difference between rental prices for each size housing unit between the 2019 average and September 2020. Next, we used U.S. Census data in order to determine the composition of the rental housing stock in each city. We weighted the percentage difference in rental prices for each housing unit size by the percentage of housing units that comprised each housing unit size to give us a weighted rental price change for each city. We then ranked the cities by this percentage change in order to determine the top 100 cities where rents are rising and falling the most quickly. We also calculated the weighted average rental price in each city by applying the percentage composition of housing units by size to the rents for each housing unit for both the 2019 average period as well as the September 2020 period. Sources 1. Zillow Home Value Index (Data Provided by Zillow Group) 2. Apartment List Data & Rent Estimates 3. U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, Physical Housing Characteristics for Occupied Housing Units Share t,5,5' Tweet in Share 20-0982 BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON IN THE MATTER OF ADOPTING THE SPOKANE COUNTY ) BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FINDINGS OF FACT ) AND DECISIONS FOR THE 2019 ANNUAL AMENDMENTS ) FINDINGS OF FACT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AND CONCURRENT ) AND ZONE RECLASSIFICATION, IN FILES NO. 18-CPA-05, ) DECISIONS 19-CPA-02, 19-CPA-03, 19-CPA-04, 19-CPA-06, 19-CPA-07, ) AND TEXT AMENDMENT FOR FILE NO. 19-CPA-01 WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Section 36.32.120(6) RCW, the Board of County Commissioners of Spokane County, Washington, hereinafter referred to as the "Board," has the care of County property and the management of County funds and business, and in the name of the County to prosecute and defend all actions for and against the County, and such other powers as are or may be conferred by law; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 36.70 RCW, the Board has created a Department of Building and Planning, hereinafter referred to as the "Department," and a Planning Commission, hereinafter referred to as the "Commission" (Resolution No. 76-698); and WHEREAS, in compliance with RCW Chapter 36.70 the Board adopted a Comprehensive Plan for Spokane County on December 22, 1980, and has subsequently amended said Plan; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Washington Laws, 1993, First Special Session, Chapter 6, effective June 1, 1993, Spokane County is required under RCW 36.70A.040 to conform to the requirements of the Growth Management Act Chapter 36.70A RCW (GMA); and WHEREAS, RCW 36.70A.020 identifies goals to guide the development and adoption of comprehensive plans and development regulations; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Chapters 36.70 and 36.70A RCW, the Board adopted a Comprehensive Plan for Spokane County on November 5, 2001 (Board Resolutions 1-1059 and 1-1060); and WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Chapters 36.70 and 36.70A RCW, the Board on May 25, 2004, under Spokane County Resolution No. 04-0461, adopted a new Zoning Code to implement the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and said regulation becoming effective June 1, 2004; and WHEREAS, Chapters 36.70 and 36.70A RCW, requires the Spokane County Zoning Code to be consistent with the goals and policies of the Spokane County Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, Spokane County plans under Chapter 36.70A RCW, which dictates comprehensive plans are subject to continuing review and evaluation and if needed amended and revised, generally no more frequently than once per year; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the requirements of RCW 36.70A.140, the Board adopted Public Participation Program Guidelines on February 24, 1998 under Resolution 98-0144 and adopted amendments to the policies under Resolution No. 98-0788 and No. 06-0869; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 36.70 RCW, the Board created a Planning Commission, hereinafter referred to as the "Commission," which may make recommendations concerning the adoption, rejection, or revision of comprehensive plans and official controls that implement comprehensive plans; and WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan provides that amendments thereto may be initiated by the Board, the Planning Commission, and the Planning Director based on citizen requests or when changed conditions or emergency circumstances warrant adjustments to the Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, in 2019, the Department received six (6) Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendments and/or four (4) Concurrent Zone Reclassifications requests prior to the deadline of March 29, 2019, for which the Board initiated public review and processing under File No. 18-CPA-05, 19-CPA-02,19-CPA-03, 19-CPA-04, 19-CPA-06, 19-CPA-07. 18-CPA-05 was holdover from the 2018 cycle with delays due to transportation issues; and WHEREAS, in 2019, the Department submitted a request for a Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment to the Urban Land Use Chapter of the Spokane County Comprehensive Plan and to Chapter 14.606 of the Spokane County Zoning Code, for which the Board initiated public review and processing under File No. 19-CPA-01; and WHEREAS, the Department, as detailed in the staff reports and part of the record, circulated proposals for the 2019 Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendments, Concurrent Zone Reclassifications, and Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment to various agencies and departments for review and comment, including the Washington State Department of Commerce on May 16, 2019; and WHEREAS, the Spokane Regional Transportation Council (SRTC) evaluated the 2019 Comprehensive Plan Amendment requests and found them consistent with SRTC's Regional Transportation Plan; and WHEREAS, on or before September 30, 2020, after review of the proposals for compliance with applicable regulations and consideration of agency comments, the Department, pursuant to WAC 197-11 and Section 11.10.230(3) of the Spokane County Environmental Ordinance, issued separate Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) for 19-CPA-01, 19-CPA-02, 19-CPA-04, 19-CPA-06 and Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS) for 18-CPA-05, 19-CPA-03, 19-CPA-07; and WHEREAS, following issuance of the SEPA threshold determinations, the Department provided for the appropriate comment period, at least fifteen days, and provided notice of a public hearing before the Commission for October 15, 2020, to receive public testimony and begin review and consideration of proposed amendment files: 18-CPA-05, 19-CPA-02, 19-CPA- 03, 19-CPA-04, 19-CPA-06, 19-CPA-07, 19-CPA-01 and prepared staff reports for each proposal; and WHEREAS, the Department provided at least a fifteen (15) day comment period following issuance of the Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS) and Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) pursuant to WAC 197-11-340(2), with the comment period ending on October 14, 2020; and WHEREAS, No appeal of the SEPA determination was timely or otherwise filed; and WHEREAS, on December 8, 2020 the Board received, the Commission's Findings of Fact and Recommendations, and set it for consideration on December 15, 2020 at a public meeting; and WHEREAS, the Department Director, at the Board's regular public meeting on December 8, 2020 advised the Commission's Findings of Fact and Recommendations concerning the proposed 2019 Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendments, Concurrent Zone Reclassifications, and Text Amendment has been received and recommended it be noticed for consideration at a public meeting on December 15, 2020; and WHEREAS, on December 15, 2020, the Board having considered the Commission's Findings of Fact and Recommendations, all public testimony and submitted written comments of record, staff reports, information contained in the six (6) Comprehensive Plan Amendments identified as 18-CPA-05, 19-CPA-02, 19-CPA-03, 19-CPA-04, 19-CPA-06, 19-CPA-07, four (4) Concurrent Zone Reclassifications identified as 18-CPA-05, 19-CPA-02, 19-CPA-06, 19-CPA-07, and one (1) Text Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan identified as 19-CPA-01, being fully apprised of the requirements under the Growth Management Act (RCW 36,70A), the Spokane County Comprehensive Plan, the State Environmental Policy Act (Chapter 43.21C RCW), the Spokane County Zoning Code, and other applicable County Development Regulations, the Chair of the Board accepted motions and seconds on each proposal and unanimously determined it in the best interest of the public health, safety, and welfare to adopt the Commission's Findings of Fact and Recommendations and voted as follows: 3-0 to approve 18-CPA-05 as recommended by the Commission; 3-0 to approve 19-CPA-02 as recommended by the Commission; 3-0 to approve 19-CPA-03 as recommended by the Commission; 3-0 to approve 19-CPA-04 as recommended by the Commission; 3-0 to approve 19-CPA-06 as recommended by the Commission; 3-0 to approve 19-CPA-07 as recommended by the Commission; 3-0 to approve 19-CPA-01 as recommended by the Commission; and WHEREAS, a copy of the Commission's Findings of Fact and Recommendations includes a summary of each proposed annual amendment and a map illustrating the location and land use change requested along with the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission for each amendment is attached as Attachment "A" and incorporated herein by reference; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board that in adopting the Commission's Findings of Fact and Recommendations and in further support of approving the amendments file 18-CPA-05, 19-CPA-02, 19-CPA-03, 19-CPA-04, 19-CPA-06, 19-CPA-07, and 19-CPA-01, it does hereby make the following additional Findings of Fact: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Board adopts the preceding recitals as Findings of Fact and incorporates the same by reference as though fully set forth herein to the extent they do not conflict with these below additional Findings of Fact. 2. The applications for six (6) Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendments, four (4) Concurrent Zone Reclassifications, and one (1) Comprehensive Plan Text. Amendment were received prior to March 29, 2019, the application deadline, and properly initiated. 3. The Board has received and considered the Commission's Findings of Fact and Recommendation Report which includes six (6) Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendments, (4) Concurrent Zone Reclassifications, and one (1) Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment. 4. The Commission and the Board have provided for timely notice and continuous review, evaluation and public participation in consideration of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments, Concurrent Zone Reclassifications, and Text Amendment, consistent with Chapter 36.70 RCW, Chapter 36.70A RCW, Chapter 365-195 WAC, Chapter 365-196 WAC, and the County's adopted Public Participation Program Guidelines for the proposed amendments as documented in the staff reports on the Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendments, included a. Legal notice of the public hearing as required by Washington State Law and County ordinance, was published in the official newspaper for Spokane County, the Spokesman Review on September 30, 2020. b. Notice was also published on an interactive website dedicated to land use planning in Spokane County. This website included information and directions on how to provide public comment to the proposals included. c. Public notice mailed to government agencies, neighborhood organizations, business organizations and other interested groups and organizations. d. Notice of intent to adopt sent to the Washington State Department of Commerce on or before July 1, 2020 as required by RCW 36.70.106. e. The Department sent the proposed map amendments and related State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) documents to Spokane County jurisdiction and agencies for coordination, review and comment on or before September 30, 2020. f. Signs describing the proposed amendments, including maps thereof, and providing notice of hearing regarding the proposed amendments at the boundary of the properties subject to the proposed amendments, Notice of Hearings, opportunity for public comment, and maps describing the proposed amendments were sent via USPS Mail to owners of and taxpayers for properties within 400' feet (urban) and 1000' feet (rural) of the boundaries of the properties subject to the proposed amendment area. 5. The proposed Concurrent Zone Reclassifications in the 2019 Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendment Files No. 18-CPA-05, 19-CPA-02, 19-CPA-06, and 19-CPA-07, are consistent requirements of Chapter 14.402 Spokane County Zoning Code relative to the respective Concurrent Comprehensive Plan Amendment. 6. The environmental reviews for proposed amendments in Files No. 18-CPA-05, 19-CPA-02, 19-CPA-03, 19-CPA-04, 19-CPA-06, 19-CPA-07, and 19-CPA-01 are consistent with State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) requirements, pursuant to RCW.70A.100, RCW 36.70A.130 (1), (2), (3), WAC 197-11-340, WAC 197-11-340(2), and Section 11.10.230(3) of the Spokane County Environmental Ordinance and the Board acknowledged and concurs with the Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) and Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS) issued on each. 7. File No. 18-CPA-05, Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Concurrent Zone Reclassification, the Board in further support of its approval specifically makes the following supplemental findings: a. It was subject to public testimony and written comment in opposition to the proposal; and b. Adoption of the proposal is consistent with the text of the Comprehensive Plan and the applicable Goals and Policies cited in the Department of Building and Planning staff report. 8. File No. 19-CPA-02, Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Concurrent Zone Reclassification, the Board in further support of its approval specifically makes following supplemental findings: a. It was subject to public testimony and written comment in opposition of the proposal; and b. Adoption of the proposal is consistent with the text of the Comprehensive Plan and applicable Goals and Policies cited in the Department of Building and Planning staff report. 9. File No. 19-CPA-03, Proposed Comprehensive Nan Amendment, the Board in further support of its approval specifically makes the following supplemental findings; a. It was subject to public testimony and written comment in opposition of the proposal; and b. Adoption of the proposal is consistent with the text of the Comprehensive Plan and applicable Goals and Policies cited in the Department of Building and Planning staff report. 10. File No. 19-CPA-04, Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment, the Board in further support of its approval specifically makes the following supplemental findings; a. It was subject to public testimony and written comment in opposition of the proposal; and b. Adoption of the proposal is consistent with the text of the Comprehensive Plan and applicable Goals and Policies cited in the Department of Building and Planning staff report. 11. File No. 19-CPA-06, Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Concurrent Zone Reclassification, the Board in further support of its approval specifically makes the following supplemental findings; a. It was subject to written comment in opposition of the proposal; and b. Adoption of the proposal is consistent with the text of the Comprehensive Plan and applicable Goals and Policies cited in the Department of Building and Planning staff report. 12. File No. 19-CPA-01, Proposed Text Amendment to the Urban Land Use Chapter of the Spokane County Comprehensive Plan and to Chapter 14.606 of the Spokane County Zoning Code, the Board in further support of its approval specifically makes the following supplemental findings; a. It was subject to public testimony in support of the proposal; and b. Adoption of the proposal is consistent with the text of the Comprehensive Plan and applicable Goals and Policies cited in the Department of Building and Planning staff report 13. The Board fully considered the above identified Comprehensive Plan Amendments to the goals and substantive and procedural requirement of all statutes, codes, regulations and all applicable Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies, the State Environmental Policy Act (RCW 43.21C), the Spokane County Comprehensive Plan, Capital Facilities Plan, Countywide Planning Policies, and Spokane County code, and finds merits of granting the amendments as conditioned outweigh any perceived inconsistencies noted in comments and testimony and are in the best interest of county residents. 14. The Board having carefully considered the Commission's Findings of Fact and Recommendations and find the Commission's considerations, deliberations, and actions appropriate to allow full public participation and thorough vetting of the proposed amendments, and adopts them by reference as the Board's factual findings and adopts the recommendations in approving the proposals so far as they are consistent with the Board's findings and the decisions herein and as summarized in Attachment "A". 15. The Board finds adoption of the Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment and Concurrent Zone Reclassification on File No. 18-CPA-05; adoption of the Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment and Concurrent Zone Reclassification on File No. 19-CPA-02; adoption of the Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment for 19-CPA-03; adoption of the Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment for 19-CPA-04; adoption of the Comprehensive Plan Map and Concurrent Zone Reclassification on File No. 19-CPA-06; adoption of the Comprehensive Plan Map and Concurrent Zone Reclassification on File 19-CPA-07; and adoption of the Text Amendment to the Urban Land Use Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan and to Chapter 14.606 of the Spokane County Zoning Code on File 19-CPA-01, are individually and collectively in the best interest of the public's health, safety, and welfare. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Board the proposed 2019 Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Reclassification concurrent therewith under File No. 18-CPA-05 is adopted, as shown in Attachment "A". BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Board the proposed 2019 Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Reclassification concurrent therewith under File No. 19-CPA-02 is adopted, as shown in Attachment "A". BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Board the proposed 2019 Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendment herewith under File No. 19-CPA-03 is adopted, as shown in Attachment "A". BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Board the proposed 2019 Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendment herewith under File No. 19-CPA-04 is adopted, as shown in Attachment "A". BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Board the proposed 2019 Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Reclassification concurrent herewith under File No. 19-CPA-06, as shown in Attachment "A". BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Board the proposed 2019 Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Reclassification concurrent herewith under File No. 19-CPA-07 is adopted, as shown in Attachment "A". BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Board the proposed 2019 Comprehensive Plan Text amendment to the Urban Land Use Chapter and to Chapter 14.606 of the Spokane County Zoning Code herewith under 19-CPA-01 is adopted, as shown in Attachment "B". BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the files in the Spokane County Public Works Department of Building and Planning, Spokane County Planning Commission, and the Board of County Commissioners along with the record of all public hearings related to this matter are incorporated herein by this reference. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Clerk of the Board is directed to publish a notice of adoption pursuant to RCW 36.70.290 (b). BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Clerk of the Board is hereby directed to send a copy of this decision to the Washington State Department of Commerce pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106 within 10 days of adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED this - `day tat c , M r month -2-Ct..2b PGIN144-41 NA VASQUEZ, Clerk of the Boa 2 0 - 0982 year. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON AL FRENCH, CHAIR 70010--Z JOSH KERNS, VICE CHAIR MARY L. U Y, COMMISSIONER Attachment "A" Planning Commission Recommendations and Maps for the following File No. 18-CPA-05, 19-CPA-02,19-CPA-03, 19-CPA-04, 19-CPA-06, 19-CPA-07, 19-CPA-01 BoCC Decision Summary File # Applicant Existing Comp Plan/Zoning Proposed Comp Plan Proposed Zoning Site Size in Acres Planning Commission Recommendation BoCC Decision 18-CPA-05 J.R. Bonnett LDR MDR MDR 25.5 Approved 7-0 Approved 3-0 19-CPA-01 Spokane County Text Amendment Approved 7-0 Approved 3-0 19-CPA-02 Dwight Hume LDR HDR HDR 1.9 Approved 7-0 Approved 3-0 19-CPA-03 CJW Properties RCV ML ML 160 Approved 7-0 Approved 3-0 19-CPA-04 Greg Henning RCV ML ML 20 Approved 6-1 Approved 3-0 19-CPA-06 Melissa Murphy LDR HDR HDR 0.7 Approved 7-0 Approved 3-0 19-CPA-07 Whipple Consulting Engineers LDR HDR HDR 1.7 Approved 7-0 Approved 3-0 Project No. 18-CPA-05: State Highway 291 (Nine Mile Road) Proposal: Low Density Residential (LDR) to Medium Density Residential (MDR) Project No. 19-CPA-02: Hawthorne Road and Waikiki Road Proposal: Low Density Residential (LDR) to High Density Residential (HDR) Project No. 19-CPA-03: Grove Road Proposal: Rural Conservation to Mineral Lands Project No. 19-CPA-04: Austin Road Proposal: Rural Conservation to Mineral Lands Project No. 19-CPA-06: Hawthorne Road Proposal: Low Density Residential (LDR) to High Density Residential (HDR) Project No. 19-CPA-07: Wandermere Road Proposal: Low Density Residential (LDR) to High Density Residential (HDR) IUi'.III ......1 '123 = CA QG1 ,�" E El en 10\ ROI Elp ik= Attachment "B" Text Amendment File No. 19-CPA-01: Urban Land Use Chapter of the Spokane County Comprehensive Plan and to Chapter 14.606 of the Spokane County Zoning Code Proposed Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan Additional wording underlined Deleted wording strikethrough Page UL-1, Comprehensive Plan Urban Land Use Categories Residential Categories Three separate categories for residential use are established, ranging from low to high density, Low density residential includes a density range of 1 to and including b 8 dwelling units per acre. Bonus density in the low density residential category may allow an increase to 10 dwelling units per acre for qualifying infill projects. rMedium density residential includes a range of greater than 6 to and including 15 dwelling units per acre and high density residential shall be greater than 15 dwelling units per acre. Design standards ensure neighborhood character and compatibility with adjacent uses. Commercial uses, with the exception of office use in high -density residential areas and neighborhood centers associated with traditional neighborhood developments, would only be permitted through changing the land use category with a comprehensive plan amendment or through a neighborhood planning process, Page UL-12, Comprehensive Plan Goal UL.9a Create a variety of residential densities within the Urban Growth Area with an emphasis on compact mixed -use development in designated centers and corridors. UL.9b Create efficient use of land and resources by reducing the conversion of land to sprawling, low density development. Policies UL.9.1 Establish low, medium, and high density residential categories to achieve population and economic growth objectives. Low density residential areas shall range from 1 to and including 6 8 dwelling units per acre. Bonus density in the low density residential category may allow an increase to 10 dwelling units per acre for qualifying infill projects.—m Medium density residential shall range from greater than 6 to and including 15 dwelling units per acre and high density residential shall be greater than 15.0 residential units per acre. Mixed residential densities may be established through community -based neighborhood planning, subarea planning, or approval of traditional neighborhood developments. UL.9.2 Spokane County shall seek to achieve an average residential density in new development of at least 4 5 dwelling units per net acre in the Urban Growth Area through a mix of densities and housing types. Proposed Amendments to the Zoning Code Additional wording underlined Deleted wording strikethrough Chapter 14.300 Definitions 14.300.100 Definitions Dwelling, Two -Family (Duplex): A single structure containing 2 dwelling units designed exclusively for occupancy by 2 families living independently of each other, and neither unit is considered an accessory dwelling unit. To be classified as a duplex, the dwelling units must be connected by a common floor/ceiling, a common wall or by a covered carport/breezeway which does not exceed a distance-ef 20 feet between the two dwelling units. To be considered a common wall, at least 50 °%a of the wall shall be physically connected to the wall of the contiguous unit. To be considered a common ceiling, at least 50 % of the ceiling area shall be physically connected to the ceiling of the contiguous unit. Chapter 14.606 Urban Residential Zones 14.606.100 Purpose and Intent The purpose of the Urban Residential Chapter is to implement Comprehensive Plan goals and policies related to urban residential use. Residential zone classifications provide for a range of residential uses within the Urban Growth Area. The Low Density Residential (LDR) zone is primarily for single-family, duplex and row housing residential development that allows a density of 1 to and including 6 8 dwelling units per acre and up to 10 units per acre for qualifying infili projects. Small scale, multi- family development may be permitted, consistent with density standards to provide compatibility with adjacent single-family residences. Zero lot -line housing, bonus density and other incentives are permitted to promote infill, preservation of open space, and a variety of housing types and densities. 14.606.220 Residential Lands Matrix Table 606-1, Residential Zones Matrix Residential Uses LDR LDR-P MDR HDR Dwelling, multi -family, small scale infill L N N N development Dwelling, multi -family N N P L Dwelling, multi -family, greater than 30 units per acre N N N CU Dwelling, single-family P P P P Dwelling, row housing L N P P Dwelling, two-family duplex P N P P Dwelling, two-family duplex - comer lot bonus L N N N density 14.606.230 Limited Uses with Specific Standards Uses that are categorized with an "L" in table 606-1, Residential Zones Matrix, are subject to the corresponding standards of this section. In the case of inconsistencies between section 14.606.220 (Residential Zones Matrix) and section 14.606.230, section 14.606.230 shall govern. x. Dwelling, Two-family Duplex with corner lot bonus density (CDR zone) a. A two-family duplex dwelling located on a corner lot shall be considered as a single-family dwelling for the purposes of calculating density provided the front door and driveway for each unit face opposite streets to give the appearance of a single-family residence from the street view, as illustrated below. x. Dwelling, Multi -family, small scale infill development (LDR zone) a. Multifamily development shall be limited to triplex or fourplex dwellings located on a single parcel/lot not smaller than 13,000 sq. ft. b. A bonus density of 2 dwelling units per acre is provided allowing a maximum density of 10 units per acre. c. Rear or side lot lines abutting an existing single-family development shall require installation of a 6-foot sight obscuring fence along the rear/side property lines. d. Landscaping shall be required consistent with Chapter 14.806, Landscaping and Screening Standards Landscaping type and width of plantings shall be consistent with Section 14.806.130. e. Parking shall be required consistent with Chapter 14.802, Off -Street Parking and Loading Standards, and shall comply with the standards for a multi -family dwelling. f. Permit applications shall require a technical review meeting following submittal of a detailed site plan, consistent with Chapter 14.410, Building Permit Review. x.4-6. Row housing (LDR zone) a- Row -housing -development req ires-appli&atiea-an4- evicw as a -gunned- eveletment under-C-hapter 14.704. a. Row housing shall comply with the requirements for Zero Lot Line Development under Section 14.606.300(4). b. Preliminary plats in which 25% or more of dwellings are row houses shall be allowed a bonus density of 2 units per acre within the Low Density Residential zone for a maximum density of 10 units per acre. If the preliminary plat is completed in phases, each phase of the development must include at least 25% of the units as row housing units until the total number of row housing units required to receive the bonus density has been reached. This requirement shall be included in the plat dedicatory wording. c. Row housing lots with rear/side lot lines abutting an existing single-family neighborhood shall require installation of a 6-foot sight obscuring fence and 5 feet of Type 1 landscaping along the rear/side property line. Street frontage shall require five feet of Type 3 landscaping which includes installation of street trees. The fencing and landscaping improvements shall be installed prior to final plat approval. In the case of delays caused by weather conditions, appropriate arrangements with the Department shall be made to ensure construction. 14.606.300 Development Standards Permitted uses in the Urban Residential zones shall comply with the following development standards. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, evidence of compliance with provisions of this section shall be provided. 40, Density Standards: Table 606-2, Density Standards for Residential Zones 2. Low Density Residential Low Density Residential Plus Medium Density Residential High Density Residential Density: 1 to 6 8 units/acre" 1 unit/acre Over 6 to 15 units/acre Over 15 units/acre "Bonus densities may be allowed for planned unit developments and other infill developments as identified herein. Lot Standards: Table 606-3, Lot Standards for Residential Zones Low Density Residential Low Density Residential Plus Medium Density Residential High Density Residential Max. Building Coverage 55 % of lot area 55 % of lot area 65 % of lot area 70% of lot area Max. Height 35 feet 65 feet for a college/university 35 feet 65 feet for a college/university 40 feet 65 feet for a college/university 50 feet 65 feet for a college/university Permitted uses: Minimum lot area 6,000 sq. ft. 6,000 sq. ft. 6,000 sq. ft. 6,000 sq. ft. Minimum frontage 50 feet 60 feet 60 feet 60 feet Single family: Minimum lot area 4,000 5,000-sq. 43,560 sq. ft. 41200 2,500 sq. ft. 1,600 sq. ft. ft. Minimum frontage 5040 feet 90 feet 60 36 feet 20 feet Duplex: Minimum lot area 10 000 4.000 sq. Not applicable. 8;400 2,500 sq. ft. 3;200 1,300 sq. ft. ft. Minimum frontage 50 40 feet Not applicable 50 40 feet 40 30 feet Row Housing: Minimum lot 2,500 sq. ft. Not applicable. 1,300 sq. ft. 1,300 sq. ft. area Minimum 36 feet Not applicable 36 feet 36 feet frontage Minimum 20 feet Not applicable 16 feet 16 feet frontage w/ vehicle access from alley Minimum Yard Setback: Front/flanking street 15 feet — residence 20 feet — garage 15 feet — residence 20 feet — garage 15 feet — residence 20 feet — garage 15 feet — residence 20 feet — garage Side 5 feet 5 feet Fve feet plus 1 additional foot for each additional foot of structure height over 25 feet to a maximum of 15 feet. Rear (all residential zones) Five feet plus 1 additional foot for each additional foot of structure height over 25 feet to a maximum of 15 feet. Notes: 1 Setbacks are measured from the property the setback shall be measured from line unless there is a border easement, in which case, the back of the sidewalk. structures 2. Zero -foot setbacks for side lot lines may be allowed consistent with 14.606.300(4). 3. Front/flanking street setbacks for garages include both attached and detached Amend Chapter 14.806, Landscaping and Screening Standards as follows: 14.806.130 Landscaping Requirements for Multi -family, Small Scale Infill Development Landscaping provisions for infill multi -family development (Chapter 14.606) are intended to ensure an environmental quality that complements the objectives of the residential development and to provide screening to adjacent uses. 1. A multi -family infill development project shall not be approved until the Department approves a landscape plan, consistent with this chapter. 2. Required landscaping shall be consistent with the requirements for a clear view triangle. 3. Rear/side lot lines shall require installation of a 6-foot sight obscuring fence and 5 feet of Type 1 landscaping. Street frontage shall require five feet of Type 3 landscaping which includes installation of street trees. The fencing and landscaping improvements shall be installed prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. In the case of delays caused by weather conditions, appropriate arrangements with the Department shall be made to ensure construction of landscape improvements. 4. Modifications to protect drainage features, easements, or facilities shall be allowed in accordance with Section 14.806.040. Ati Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) Preparedness Update - Learn more about local preparation prevention, quick tips & additional resources, latest nevus on Coronavirus, canceled or postponed event information, and more. 11 spokanecity i 7-11 live v work v enjoy v engage v C� What is the "missing middle" in housing options? Maren Murphy, AICP — Assistant Planner, 509.625.6737 Tuesday, December 22, 2020 at 12:46 p.m. Detached Single-family IIOuse5 ■ Missing Middle Housing F ■, ■ •■: ii DOS o Don Dup ex: Fourplex: Cottage Side•BySide Stacked Court Townhouse Stacked Triplex: Stacked Live•Work o■ oo■ aao oao, aao aoo Mid-nse A buzzword has surfaced to describe the challenges many cities are experiencing and Spokane is one of them. What does it mean when yo.a hear the term "missing middle" in reference to housing? The term was coined by Daniel Parolek in 2010. The Opticos Design founder defines the term as "house -scale buildings with multiple units in walkable neighborhoods." To define these units visually think of building types such as duplexes, triplexes, courtyard buildings and cottage courts. What is the "missing middle" in hou City of Spokane - Mur 15,507 likes Like Page r.. .. .rr GOVERNR Court C Would yo 6 Comment 9 What does this mean for current housing options in Spokane? Single-family detached homes make up 69 percent of housing in the City of Spokane. Duplexes, triplexes and other house -scale buildings with less than five units make up 9 percent of housing inventory. Multi -family housing includes apartments and condominiums and accounts for 21 percent of housing in the City. The Draft Housing Needs Assessment Fact Packet provides data on housing trends and the types of housing built since before the 1940s, The nine percent of single family attached housing units represents the "missing middle," and includes housing types such as duplexes, fourplexes, cottage courts, and multiplexes. Explained by Opticos Design founder Parolek, they are called "Missing" because they have typically been illegal to build since the mid-1940s in many cities around the country: and "Middle" because they sit in the middle of a spectrum between detached single-family homes and mid -rise to high-rise apartment buildings, in terms of form and scale, as well as number of units and often, affordability. But none of the types of Missing Middle Housing is new. In the City of Spokane, duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes, cottage housing, and other types of house -scale buildings were more commonly built pre-1940s, and still exist in neighborhoods all over the city today. In many cases, these types are beloved buildings that are part of our culture heritage and add to Spokane's historic charm. However, development of attached single-family housing has slowed down since the 1980s. Parolek explains that the rise of local zoning regulations and demand for detached single-family housing after WWII accelerated the trend away from Missing Middle Housing. How does this impact current housing needs in the City of Spokane? The obvious impact Is the current housing availability crisis. Additionally, one could consider it a housing identity crisis. It's the age-old question of "what comes first, the chicken or the egg?" If there aren't many examples of single- family attached housing opportunities, it's no surprise that they aren't sought after in planning or zoning discussions. Duplexes, triplexes and other examples of Missing Middle Housing units often appeal financially to homes with median household incomes. These housing types are typically smaller than single-family detached houses or suburban houses, and they also can cost less. The Missing Middle Housing concept looks at these house -scale buildings as an opportunity to provide solutions along a spectrum of affordability. It also helps address a lack of these housing types that could deliver modestly priced homes in existing residential neighborhoods, and support walkability, locally -serving retail, and public transportat:on options. If you would like to learn more about housing in the City of Spokane visit the Housing Action Plan page. More Information: • Missing Middle Housing • Opticos Design Presents,.. You're Too Dense • AARP California o Part 1: An Introduction to Missing Middle Housing o Part 2: How to Implement Missing Middle Housing o Part 3: How Missing Middle Housing Can Be Applied Universally • Missing Middle Housing Book Review • Planetizen - Missing Middle Housing: Thinking Big and Building Small to Respond to Today's Housing Crisis • The Architect's Newspaper: Opinion: The answer to America's housing crisis might be hiding in plain sight • Lincoln Institute of Land Policy — Gentle Infill • CityLab: How Portland's Landmark Zoning Reform Could Work More About... • Affordable Housing • Apartments • Community • Condominium • Duplex • Homes • Houses • Live • Neighborhoods • Planning • Rent • Rental • Townhouse Older ALSO ON SPOKANECITY <: year's a;iu 1 corm nEr it Test Your Water- We Need Your Saving Skills by Input on Entering ... Creating C2 Recommend Comments Community i Privacy Policy Login 0 Sort by Best f spokanecity You Tube .47 • City of Spokane • Washington iTerms of Use • Your Privacy • Legal Notices v IM Carrie Koudelka From: K.Alex. <sinnie4u@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 5, 2021 12:56 PM To: Council Meeting Public Comment Subject: City Meeting on Planned Residential Developments or PRDs Comments As per your web site located at https://www.spokanevalley.org/content/6836/6890/17829.aspx: Written public comments must be received by 4:00 p.m. on the day of the Council meeting. To submit your written comments, send an email to councilmeetingpubliccomment(a)spokanevallev.orq and include the following information: • Date of the meeting which you are providing comment:: 5 January, 2020 • Agenda Item Topic:: Mixed use in Planned Residential Developments Moratorium • Your First and Last Name:: Kim Alexander • City of Residence:: Spokane Valley • Your Comment:: See below. It is now 12.54 PM 5 January, 2021 I am sending this email for the Tuesday January 5th 2021 meeting of the public comment period regarding the Public Residential Development Moratorium in Spokane Valley Washington where I survive, and the proposed Newport Silicon Smelter which is also a PRD issue for us albeit north of us as an example of MIXED USE. "Planned Residential Developments is a category the city of Spokane Valley adopted into its code in 2016," and I believe it is a bad decision, one made by those in the city who were invested in real estate and the money it generates for locals and out of state companies as long term investments. It allows multiple types of housing, including apartments, single family houses and commercial stores, to be built in one project; such developments are technically allowed in any part of the city. Show me where this has been happening? -- (https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2021/jan/05/city-of-spokane-valley-to-hold-public-hearing-for-/) It's not just about MONEY is it? Or is it? What happened to our QUALITY OF LIFE HERE? Every INCH of empty property lately in our city (coughs) has been used to build apartments and storage units, many by out of state LLC's with monthly leases too expensive for the average worker to afford, so they need room mates which increases density. Has this helped the homeless population? Has this helped our workers? Has this helped our poverty levels? I don't think it has. In fact, it's made real estate companies and construction companies and probably many on our zoning boards and committees filthy rich in the process. How many of the people involved in the code changes in 2016 had/have a vested interest in real estate or construction companies in or out of the valley? And that also includes ROADS and SEWERS and all the other infrastructure people use to create your so called "planned residential developments" which are just glorified strip malls with NO GREEN SPACE and in many places they are blocking out our views of our valley and surrounding mountains as well as reducing our quality of life. "Spokane Valley Mayor Ben Wick said the original intent behind that category was to allow developers to create functional communities and offer flexibility. He said the City Council adopted several other changes in 2020 including creating a new zone, but did not include any changes to Planned Residential Developments (PRD) that limited where they could go, or what was included." - - https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2021 /jan/05/city-of-spokane-valley-to-hold-public-hearing-for-/ So do you all actually LIVE near any of these so called "planned residential developments"? Do you have to deal with the NON STOP CONSTRUCTION NOISE, i DUST AND ACTIVITY? I think not. I can tell you now that many of us do not like living around 24/7 construction, increased traffic congestion, increased population density, longer waits at lights, no plowing or deicing of our roads in winter, no traffic safety or enforcement, having to organize to stop apartments from being built in our single family residential areas, having stores built in or near our residential communities, lack of bus line access for those without vehicles, lack of sidewalks on city roads for pedestrians, increases in schools being built which brings more traffic and congestion, I mean I could go ON AND ON AND ON just like your PRD is doing to destroy our community with urban sprawl. Not to mention the load on our electricity, energy in general, air pollution, larger heat sinks from impervious surfaces, increased water supply/aquifer, increased run off to sewer lines and water reclamation and the list just goes on ad infitum. At some point, it has to involve more about our "quality of life" here rather than how much money can be made off a parcel of land zoned for some rich person to make off others rent or lease payments in a huge apartment complex being built next door. Did you know these people go door to door to our HOMES wanting us to sell our property to them so they can subdivide it and build apartments on it next door to single family homes???? Seriously do you even realize how many houses or apartments can be put on ONE ACRE OF LAND IN OUR CITY? You're treating this land as if it's out in the country but it isn't. It is becoming a super urbanized area every day with more undesirable characteristics for a healthy peaceful life, which I believe are two main reasons people want to live or remain here. I think you the city who represents US the residents needs to revise (Plan codes) OUR PRD and exclude multi -use in our residential areas, take us back to R3(?)where only single family areas remain that way instead of a mixed use where everything is the same or could be homogenized into a big blur of a strip mall interspersed with houses, or as it looks now, apartment complexes that are over priced for the middle class, and storage units. That idea deletes residential areas into yes, mini communities with any type of business in the immediate areas and dilutes our quality of life as residents. I think you need to continue with the moratorium on all real estate construction that is not single family use until you can figure out how to better PLAN FOR OUR COMMUNITY by changing the Mixed Use code in our long term plan for the city. Seriously I'm about ready to get a petition together to annex parts of the city areas to stop you from destroying our open green space with apartments, storage units and more business strip malls. Dare I remind you who would pay for those elections? And you must also work more with the county who is encroaching on our city boundaries with even MORE developments that causes our city more congestion etc. I'd also like to mention that we have a Canadian company coming in in Newport trying to force in a Silicon smelter using COAL to fire their furnaces to melt rocks. 2 We'll also get that air and dust pollution in our community and I think the city needs to take a stand on stopping this from happening to our community. The winds Now out of the north to us and I think it's something you could discuss and look in to in terms of helping to stop the destruction of NE Washington state and all areas downwind from the Silicon Smelter in Newport. Below is a link to the data on this project. https://canss.org Please let me know you received this email and If it will be read at the meeting? I'd like it to be read and entered into the record. Thank you. CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. 3 L*zat 1 Carrie Koudelka From: Marilyn Pearson <marilynpearson2002@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 5, 2021 1:02 PM To: Council Meeting Public Comment Subject: Planned Residential Development Moratorium public comment Meeting date 1/5/21 Marilyn Pearson Spokane Valley WA I want to add my voice to those of my Spokane Valley neighbors who are disturbed by the invasion of huge apartment complexes into our neighborhoods. I feel like all you care about is that more tax more tax money will be paid to the city but no regard is being given to quality of life or esthetics. Please keep the apartments and multi family dwellings out our residential neighborhoods. We do not want our city to be one another Seattle!! We want out hills to still be covered with beautiful trees and still see open spaces. What has happened at mission & flora is horrible and they're still building!! There is nowhere for the apt. Dwelling children to play. No green spaces anywhere. Our new Riverbend school will be overcrowded very soon. Why must they build so many units? The multi family development on Adams and 28th is horrible and the once large lot rural feel of that neighborhood destroyed!They don't other than for greedy developers to make more money and greedy city management. Stop building so many apartments & fourplexes! ! ! PLEASE Thank you for reading my comment. Marilyn Pearson Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. i letrn f (..41ILfltuat Carrie Koudelka From: Rudy <rudyw4700@aol.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 5, 2021 2:00 PM To: Council Meeting Public Comment Subject: PRD Moratorium ® Date of the meeting which you are providing comment - January 5, 2021 ® Agenda Item Topic - PRD Moratorium • Your First and Last Name Rudy Werle 6 City of Residence - City of Spokane Valley • Thank you for the opportunity to comment. ® I applaud the City Council for issuing a temporary moratorium on Planned Residential Developments. While I believe we all agree more housing is needed for the public, but not in residential neighborhoods. I live in the Ponderosa area and moved here to be in a residential community of single family homes. Checking Police records there is an increase in crime with apartment complexes, including parking issues where streets are clogged with vehicles affecting ingress and egress for homeowners and emergency vehicles. There is plenty of land available outside of residential neighborhoods that could accommodate apartment or multi family structures to be built without destroying the tranquility of residential developments. ® Please allow residential neighborhoods to remain without towering apartments taking away privacy, home values and the security of families who have relied on zoning to ensure the safe and secure single family homes they have lived in for years. • Sent from Mail for Windows 10 CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. i cciamott Carrie Koudelka From: Ann Carey <bobandann03@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 5, 2021 1:21 PM To: Council Meeting Public Comment Subject: Public Hearing on PRD Moratorium • Date of the meeting which you are providing comment - January 5, 2021 • Agenda Item Topic - PRD Moratorium • Your First and Last Name - Ann Carey • City of Residence - City of Spokane Valley • Your Comment I believe the City Council acted in the best interests of the City of Spokane Valley neighborhoods and residents when they issued the moratorium on Planned Residential Developments. Not only did the code for PRDs allow loopholes for developers, but it also created issues because increased density does not always match the character of single family neighborhoods. Additionally, multi -family developments would be better placed in areas that can support that housing type. For example, areas with established transit systems and the services necessary to support those housing types. While growth within a city is necessary, it is important that it be done thoughtfully and with the interests of everyone, including possibly impacted existing neighborhoods, etc. One only needs to drive past a few apartment complexes that have been crammed into single family neighborhoods to see that they don't fit -- figuratively (because it changes the look and feel of a neighborhood, usually in a negative way) and literally (cars overflowing from apartments parked on side streets, etc). Please allow the beauty of the City of Spokane Valley to remain, with existing single family neighborhoods kept intact and denser housing options put where they make the most sense. Otherwise the City logo will need to change to an outline of apartment buildings. Thank you for allowing me to provide comments regarding this issue. Ann Carey. CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. i �k,191, ;c- alti101411 Carrie Koudelka From: Mike Reents <Mike.Reents@nationalbeef.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 5, 2021 3:18 PM To: Council Meeting Public Comment Subject: FW: PRD Moratorium To Spokane Valley Council: 6 Date of the meeting which you are providing comment - January 5, 2021 6 Agenda Item Topic - PRD Moratorium ® Your First and Last Name Michael Reents • City of Residence - City of Spokane Valley • Thank you for the opportunity to comment. • I applaud the City Council for issuing a temporary moratorium on Planned Residential Developments. While I believe we all agree more housing is needed for the public, but not in residential neighborhoods. I live in the Ponderosa area and moved here to be in a residential community of single family homes. Checking Police records there is an increase in crime with apartment complexes, including parking issues where streets are clogged with vehicles affecting ingress and egress for homeowners and emergency vehicles. There is plenty of land available outside of residential neighborhoods that could accommodate apartment or multi family structures to be built without destroying the tranquility of residential developments. • Please allow residential neighborhoods to remain without towering apartments taking away privacy, home values and the security of families who have relied on zoning to ensure the safe and secure single family homes they have lived in for years. Thanks, Michael Reents Sent from Mail for Windows 10 arnirig� Do not.click on (inks br open attachments unless you' recognizetheksenderand:know the content is safe': CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. i