Loading...
2012, 05-08 Regular Meeting Minutes MINUTES City of Spokane Valley City Council Regular Meetings Formal Meeting Format Tuesday,May 8,2012 Mayor Towey called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Attendance: City Staff Torn Towey, Mayor Mike Jackson, City Manager Gary Schimmels,Deputy Mayor Cary Driskell, City Attorney Dean Grafos, Councilmember Mark Calhoun,Finance Director Brenda Grassel, Councihmember John Hohman, Community Dev, Director Chuck Hafner, Councilmember Mike Stone,Parks&Recreation Director Ben Wick, Councilmember Mike Basinger, Senior Planner Arne Woodard, Councilmember Christina Janssen,Assistant Planner Morgan Koudelka, Sr.Administrative Analyst Carrie Koudelka,Deputy City Clerk INVOCATION: In the absence of Pastor Steve Williams,Mayor Towey asked for a moment of silence. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Towey led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL: Deputy City Clerk Koudelka called the roll; all Councilmembers were present. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: It was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels, seconded and unanimously agreed to approve the agenda. INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS: N/A COMMITTEE,BOARD,LIAISON SUMMARY REPORTS: Councilmember Woodard: attended the Chamber Board of Directors meeting at Valley Hospital where he explained who the Economic Development committee members are and who the Council contacts are. He also attended the Chamber Government Action committee meeting where Commissioner Mark Richard talked about a couple issues and why he is not running for County Commissioner again. He also attended the Planning Commission special meeting and went to the Law Officers Memorial meeting where three officers were memorialized. Councilmember Wick: attended SNAP meetings and Planning Commission meetings. Councilmember Grafos: attended the State of the City address at Spokane Valley Mall, the Labor Council ceremony for the state of Washington, the Growth Management Steering committee and reported it is moving ahead on the UGA updates. He also attended a portion of the Planning Commission meeting. Deputy Mayor Schimmels: attended a Solid Waste Task Force meeting and he reported they are working to get information to hire a consultant. He also attended a Spokane Transit committee meeting. Councilmember Grassel: didn't have any board meetings but she attended the State of the City Address at Spokane Valley Mall and the Washington Police Memorial that was attended by many elected officials. Councilmember Hafner: attended the Spokane Transit Authority(STA) Operation committee meeting and toured the STA facility. He attended the Valley Chamber meeting where Commissioner Mark Richard spoke about a few areas of concern that he said he hopes to take care of prior to leaving office. He also attended the Planning Commission meeting, the State of the City Address at Spokane Valley Mall and said he was pleased that it was well attended. He gave a proclamation relative to the Labor Union and attended the Growth Management Act meeting and said next week they will get involved with individual requests and make recommendations to the County Commissioners who will make the final decision. Council Regular Meeting 05-08-2012 Page 1 of 9 Approved by Council:05-22-2012 MAYOR'S REPORT: Mayor Towey said he attended the Government Action committee meeting, the opening of Junior Livestock at the Fairgrounds and he said this was the 77th year of this event and they had over 600 exhibitors. He attended the AWC State and Federal Policy committee meeting in Seattle made up of mayors and council members throughout Washington to work on a document outlining issues important to cities that is the basis for proposals for the next legislative session. He said they should complete the final document sometime next week. He also attended the Special Olympics opening ceremonies for the eastern regional games and reported that the top athletes will move on to the state games. He said he is one of a group of thirteen individuals who will early the torch from the Idaho state line to Seattle. He also went to the Planning Commission meeting, the Law Enforcement Appreciation Breakfast as well as the Law Enforcement ceremony at the Courthouse. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mayor Towey invited public comments; no comments were offered. 1. CONSENT AGENDA: Consists of items considered routine which are approved as a group. Any member of Council may ask that an item be removed from the Consent Agenda to be considered separately. a.Approval of the following claim vouchers: VOUCHER LIST DATE VOUCHER NUMBERS; TOTAL AMOUNT 04/24/2012 25771-25801 $438,393.47 05/01/2012 25802-25834(-25803 and 25815) $125,479.37 GRAND TOTAL $563,872.84 b.Approval of Payroll for period ending April 30: $384,262.42 c. Approval of Minutes of April 17,2012 Study Session Format Council Meeting d. Approval of Minutes of April 19, 2012 Joint Spokane Valley/Spokane City Council Meeting e.Approval of Minutes of April 24, 2012 Formal Format Council Meeting f.Approval of Minutes of May 1,2012 Study Session Format Council Meeting It was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels, seconded and unanimously agreed to approve the consent agenda. NEW BUSINESS: 2.First Reading Proposed Ordinance 12-014 Amending Comp Plan—Mike Basinger After Deputy City Clerk Koudelka read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels and seconded to advance Ordinance 12-014 to a second reading. Senior Planner Basinger said we received seven site-specific map amendments for this year and introduced Assistant Planner Janssen to provide an overview of the first four proposed amendments. CPA-01-12: Ms. Janssen explained this is a privately initiated map amendment to change from Low Density Residential to High Density Residential and a zone change to MF-2 as recommended by the Planning Commission. She said the property is Iocated at Holland Avenue and Collins Road and the current zoning is R-3. She invited questions from Council;no questions or comments. CPA-02-12: Ms. Janssen said this is also a privately initiated map amendment to change from Low Density Residential to Mixed Use Center and a zone change to Mixed Use Center as recommended by the Planning Commission. She said the property is located just west of the corner of Flora Road and Mission Avenue and is currently zoned R-3. She invited questions from Council; no questions or comments. CPA-04-12: She said this is a privately initiated map amendment to change Low Density Residential to Neighborhood Commercial as recommended by the Planning Commission. She said this property is located on Broadway Avenue and Park Road and currently zoned as R-3. She invited questions from Council. Councilmember Grasse] asked if the property across the street is a school. Assistant Planner Janssen pointed out that Centennial Middle School playfields are not directly across the street, but are actually west of Park Road Pool. CPA-06-12: Ms. Janssen said this is a privately initiated map amendment to change Low Density Residential to Office with a zoning change to Garden Office as recommended by the Planning Commission. She said the property is located north of Broadway Avenue on Vercler and southeast of Council Regular Meeting 05-08-2012 Page 2 of 9 Approved by Council:05-22-2012 Valley Hospital and is currently zoned R-3. She invited questions from Council; no questions or comments. Senior Planner Basinger said the remaining site-specific amendments are located between Conklin Road and Sullivan Road south of Broadway and gave a brief overview of each. CPA-03-12: Mr. Basinger said this is a privately initiated map amendment to change the Comprehensive Plan designation from Office to Community Commercial and a zone change to Community Commercial as recommended by the Planning Commission. He said the property is generally located on Broadway Avenue east of Moore Road and currently zoned Garden Office. He invited questions from Council; no questions or comments, CPA-05-12: Mr. Basinger said this is a privately initiated map amendment to change from Medium Density Residential to High Density Residential. The Planning Commission recommends the change to High Density Residential and zone MF-2 with a development agreement to mitigate the impact to adjacent single-family uses. He said the property is generally located south of Broadway Avenue and west of Conklin Road and currently designated Low Density Residential and Medium Density Residential, and zoned R-3 and ME-1. He invited questions from Council. Mayor Towey asked what the difference is between medium and high density residential. To help answer the question, Mr. Basinger discussed the history of the property. He said the property owners bought the property to develop as affordable housing and the City included a provision to allow the twelve units per acre in medium density and a density bonus that increases it up to twenty-two units per acre, which is high density residential. The owners worked to get financing for affordable housing with the density bonus but were unable to get that financing. The owners came back during this round of amendments asking for high density residential of twenty-two units per acre. Councilmember Grafos said the zoning they requested would be the same as they would be entitled to if they were building affordable housing. Mr. Basinger confirmed that if they were developing affordable housing they would be able to get density bonuses that could achieve the zoning for which they are asking. Councilmember Woodard asked for the maximum unit per acre regardless of development type. Mr. Basinger said twelve units per acre without the density bonus. Councilmember Woodard asked if the difference between ME-1 and ME-2 is double. Mr. Basinger said it would essentially allow them to double the density. Councilmember Hafner asked Mr. Basinger to explain the conditions of the development agreement the Planning Commission recommended, Mr, Basinger referenced the Planning Commission March 8 minutes, Tab 5 of their yellow book. He said, "The Planning Commission made a motion to amend the original motion that recommended that parcel#45133.0109. be changed to Community Commercial."He said another recommendation of the Planning Commission was "The successful negotiation of the development agreement that includes an expanded landscape buffer between the proposed development and the adjacent residences on Moore, Alki and Senora Street and appropriate restrictions on density and height to better blend the two neighborhoods." Mr. Basinger said his belief is the Planning Commission wanted an extra buffer around the perimeter of the development. He said development agreements require the City negotiate the agreement in conjunction with the Comp. Plan amendments at Council's discretion. Councilmember Woodard asked if this is when Council should consider school capacity,traffic, and other improvements needed to accommodate development. Senior Planner Basinger said they are only looking at the designation change at this stage and said there are provisions in the code and state mandates for traffic concutrency and they would need to make improvements if that is a mitigated impact. He said at this stage we can't determine where growth will occur. Councilmember Hafner asked if his question was answered regarding the development agreement and if this is passed to a second reading if that means Council approves whatever the development agreement states. Mr. Basinger said they could forward this to a second reading with the idea of entering into a development agreement or they could forward it to a second reading with the idea that our existing provisions are adequate to buffer High Density Residential to Low Density Residential. He said they would have to pull that development agreement out to work on it and that all the Comp Plan amendments have to be heard at the same time. He said the staff report included gives staff's recommendation to change to High Density Residential without the development agreement. Council Regular Meeting 05-08-2012 Page 3 of 9 Approved by Council:05-22-2012 Mayor Towey said if they want to change this amendment, Council would have to amend the motion to set aside this amendment for further development agreement consideration and then bring it back. City Attorney Driskell said it has been the practice of the City and is consistent with state law to pull a particular CPA out of the group as it has met the state requirement of being considered as a group,but we can act on one amendment as a separate motion if needed. He said if Council is considering a development agreement they should not move this CPA forward to a second reading until they have more information,but it will still go through two readings. Councilmember Grassel asked what the Planning Commission was hoping the development agreement would state. Mr. Basinger said he thinks they wanted additional buffering between the high density residential development and the surrounding low density developments and that how that is accomplished would be up to Council. Mr. Basinger said he advised the Planning Commission that the current code requirements have been used for many years to buffer the two uses. Councilmember Hafner said he recommends they go with what has been done in the past and in accordance with our requirements. Councilmember Grafos asked if the current motion is to approve the CPA with a development agreement. Mayor Towey said the motion is to advance the CPA without a development agreement. Councilmember Woodard asked the number of stories and setback allowed in MF-2. Mr. Basinger said MF-2 allows a fifty foot height, with no mention of number of stories, and a fifteen foot setback for front and flanking streets and five feet for side yards with five feet of landscaping and a six foot high sight obscuring fence. Mr. Woodard said a six foot sight obscuring fence does not screen from the second or third floors of a building. Councilmember Grafos said the height restriction in MF-1 is forty-three feet so there is a difference of just seven feet. Mr. Basinger said he believes the height restriction in MF-1 is closer to forty feet. Councilmember Grassel asked about road requirements and said this development looks like it has one exit, Mr. Basinger said the property owner intends primary access to be off Broadway but there could be access off Conklin or any other side street. He said they will have to meet transportation concurrency and they may need to make improvements based on a traffic study provided to the City by the developer. CPA-07-12: Mr. Basinger said this is a privately initiated map amendment change from Office to Community Commercial and a zone change to Community Commercial as recommended by the Planning Commission. He said the property is generally located on Broadway Avenue, west of Moore Road and east of Sullivan Road, it is currently designated Office and there are several property owners submitting the amendment under one application.He invited questions from Council; no questions or continents. CPA-08-12: Mr. Basinger said this is a City initiated text amendment to Chapter 2: Land Use, updating population estimates, Figure 2.1 Land Use by Comp. Plan category, revising potential annexation area language and updating Map 2.1 to reflect approved changes. CPA-09-12: Mr. Basinger said this is a City initiated text amendment proposing changes to Chapter 3: Transportation, deleting the non-motorized component, referencing Chapter 11: Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan, and updating Map 3.1. CPA-10-12: Mr. Basinger said this is a City initiated text amendment proposing changes to Chapter 4: Capital Facilities and Public Services, updating the six year TIP, population projections in Table 4.4, facility and service data in Tables 4.6, 4.11,4.13, 4.15, 4.17 and in the six year sewer CIF. CPA-11-12: Mr. Basinger said this is a City initiated text amendment proposing changes to Chapter 7: Economic Development, updating the entire chapter and Map 7.1 and including economic goals and policies for forecasted conditions. He invited questions from Council; no further questions. Mayor Towey invited public comment: Dwight Hume - 9101 N.Mountain View Lane, Spokane 99218: gave a letter to Council to discuss CPA- 05-12, the Arger apartments and the CPA on Vercler near the hospital. He said renters occupy that residence and the owner is in a nursing home and he represents the owner through the daughter who has Council Regular Meeting 05-08-2012 Page 4 of 9 Approved by Council:05-22-2012 power of attorney.He said the intent is to go to Garden Office and allow for additional inventory near the hospital for future office or medical facility use. With regard to the apartment project, he said it has the capability of having 240 dwelling units, at two people per unit that comes to 480 people. He said the City is obligated to put 1600 new people in the city within the next twenty years and if we don't do it in high density on ten acres but instead do it in single family homes with six units per acre, it would take approximately thirty-eight acres to accommodate that growth. He said this project saves the City money because there are no additional costs for roads and infrastructure and it meets the requirements of the Comp. Plan for goals and policies. He said regarding the development agreement, testimony showed a concern by neighbors as to the encroachment and bulk and height but he said this project with parking on the perimeter places buildings further from the property line and creates a buffer and so he said the current standards are adequate. Greg Arger -300 N. Mullan Road: said he is the property owner of the proposed project relating to CPA- 05-12 and he has been a commercial developer in Spokane for thirty years. He said his company owns and operates all their projects and considered a leader with their site designs and state of the art facilities. He said originally they designed the project for HUD affordable housing consisting of about 192 units including the bonus density. They submitted for a tax-free bond for funding but were not able to achieve so they proceeded to design a luxury project requiring an MF-2 designation. He said the location supports higher density and they purchased an adjacent parcel on Broadway Avenue to make an additional entrance so it would not be necessary to enter the project from the neighborhood side streets. He said the project location is close to shopping,jobs, I-90, Sprague and Sullivan, and he said this site is considered an A site for developing.He said he would like to proceed to do the project this year. Cheryl MeManamon - 504 N. Conklin: said she lives across the street from the project and has seen development such as Kohls, Lowes and Walmart that has increased the traffic in front of her house. She said she has to lock her doors because of the increase in crime in the area because of what she said she assumes to be the development of apartments down the street and she is not looking forward to more apartments across the street. She said there are no streetlights on Conklin to deter crime in the area and there are still deer and wildlife in the area that are hit by cars and she doesn't know where wildlife will go when the development comes in. She said she doesn't understand why big development is coming into the middle of a residential neighborhood and development is encroaching all around. Jan Wold - 503 N. Conklin Rd: said she doesn't want an apartment building there and said she lives on the same side of the street as the project and residents will be looking into her back yard. She said in the project they made provisions for Moore and other streets but made no provisions for Conklin. She said houses on Broadway and Conklin will be affected by noise and lights and said it was asked at a previous meeting why custom-built homes couldn't be developed in that area rather than apartments. She said the neighborhood is a combination of old and young people and farm animals are still allowed there. Cars and school buses speed down Valleyway and Conklin and she said it is scary and not safe to walk. She says traffic will likely use Conklin to leave the project property and that means at least 400 extra cars and that affects all the people around there. She said they have invested their lives in their homes and it hurts their investment. Linda Rockhold-423 N. Conklin: said she agrees with her neighbors and she doesn't want a tall building behind her but another concern is that if traffic picks up they will have to upgrade Conklin Road. She said their front yards are not very deep so if Conklin is widened and turn lanes installed, they will not have any front yards. She said nobody wants to buy a property with a street right up to the front porch. She said her house is a big part of her retirement investment and she has invested thirty to fifty years there. She said traffic went from approximately 150 to 900 cars per day with the development of Walmart and Lowes. Councilmember Woodard said everybody has property rights to protect, both the current residents and the project property owners and he said he understands the investment of both. He said he doesn't know how he will vote on it but the highest and best use should probably rule, but doesn't always. Councilmember Council Regular Meeting 05-08-2012 Page 5 of 9 Approved by Council:05-22-2012 Grafos disclosed that the Arger's contributed to his campaign but the issue is what is reasonable for the neighborhood and he said he agrees with staff and that the buffer going from MF-1 to MF-2 is sufficient. He said he sympathizes with the homeowners on Conklin because that road will be expanded and he said he hopes added bike lanes and sidewalks will be an upgrade to homeowners. He said he thinks a developer agreement is a detriment to the project, Councilmember Grassel said moving forward to a second reading provides another opportunity for input from neighbors at the public testimony and she asked if Council would still have the option to consider a developers agreement at that time. City Manager Jackson said they would still have that option. Vote by acclamation: In Favor: Mayor Towey, Deputy Mayor Schimmels, Coimcilmembers Grafos, Grassel, Hafiie3' and Wick. Opposed: Councilmember Woodard. Motion carried. City Attorney Driskell said in moving forward and with Council approval, staff will include and identify Council findings stating that existing development regulations relating to building height, setback, fencing and current zoning elements are sufficient so Council will see a minor revision in the draft ordinance when it comes back for a second reading. No objections from Council, Mayor Towey called for a recess at 7:40 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 7:55 p.m. 3. First Reading Proposed Ordinance 12-015,Zoning Map Amendments—Mike Basinger After Deputy City Clerk Koudelka read the ordinance title it was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels and seconded to advance Ordinance 12-015 to a second reading, Senior Planner Basinger said this ordinance takes the site-specific map amendments that are changing the Comprehensive Plan designations and implements them into the zoning map so both are consistent. Mayor Towey invited public comment; no comments offered. Vote by acclamation: In Favor: Mayor Towey, Deputy Mayor Schimmels, Councilmembers Grafos, Grassel, Hafrrer and Wick. Opposed: Councilmember Woodard. Motion carried. 4. Motion Consideration: Justice Assistance Grant(JAG)—Morgan Koudelka It was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels and seconded to authorize the City Manager to submit the 2012 Justice Assistance Grant Application. Senior Administrative Analyst Koudelka explained the JAG is an annual grant awarded by the Department of justice and this year's Spokane Valley allocation is $24,328. He said the grant is for criminal justice and we rely on the recommendations of Police Chief VanLeuven to identify appropriate expenditures which this year have been identified as mobile data computers at $23,381,32 and office chairs at $946.68. He said it does not require a City match of funds and if authorized by Council tonight, he will have the application submitted immediately thereafter. Mayor Towey invited public comment; no comments offered. Vote by acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed. None. Motion carried PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mayor Towey invited public comment; no comments offered. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS: 5.Animal Control—Mike Jackson/Morgan Koudelka Senior Administrative Analyst Koudelka said Council expressed the desire to look into SpokAnimal as an option for providing animal control services. He said he and City Manager Jackson visited SpokAnimal and met with Director Gail Mackey for preliminary information. He said he does not have a full comparison to SCRAPS but a report expressing SpokAnimal's desire to provide animal control services to Spokane Valley. He said SCRAPS provides services to several jurisdictions in the County and have identified that a new facility is necessary and they hope to vacate their current facility by 2013, He said they hope to finance the cost of a new facility at $4.5 million through existing revenue sources and with City of Spokane's participation, He said SpokAnimal is a nonprofit organization that has operated for twenty-nine years offering services to Spokane for most of that time. He said SpokAnimal indicated they have the capacity to provide services to Spokane Valley and will respond to an RFP if that is Council's desire and they will provide any other information requested. He said they don't foresee any expansions in the future and they do plan to stay in the animal care business as a provider of humane services for Council Regular Meeting 05-08-2012 Page 6 of 9 Approved by Council:05-22-2012 animals regardless of whether they are providing animal control services. He said they are located at 710 N. Napa in Spokane, ten miles from City Hall. He said they recently acquired an adjacent property that includes an event center and Comcast provided them with new kennels, they have a full on-site clinic and they utilize 400 volunteers and inmates to provide some of their services. Councilmember Woodard asked how many kennels SpokAnimaI has.Mr.Koudelka said they have fifty-two cat and fifty-two dog kennels. Mr. Koudelka then explained the capital costs for Spokane Valley for the cost of a new facility and the operating costs under the options for SCRAPS. He said Option 1 is joint ownership with the County and potentially the City of Spokane and our annual capital cost would be $66,900 and our share of the total cost is 22.3 percent. He said Option 2 is County ownership where the building cost is amortized over fifty years and the improvement costs are amortized over twenty years so our annual cost for years 1-20 would be $50,580 and for years 21-50 would be $10,648. Mayor Towey asked if the costs are realistic. Mr. Koudelka said the County has indicated a ceiling of$4.5 million and the properties they are looking at are subject to negotiation, but his understanding is this is the high end and the numbers could go down. He said Option 3 is County ownership where the County pays for half of the building cost and splits the remaining building cost between Spokane County, Spokane, and Spokane Valley amortized over fifty years at a cost to Spokane Valley of 22.3 percent of half of the building cost and our share of improvement costs amortized over twenty years. He said our annual capital costs for years 1-20 would be just over $45,000 and for years 21-50 just over $5,000. He said Option 4a and 4b are City ownership, with 4a amortizing the cost over twenty years and 4b paying $4,5 million upfront. Mr. Koudelka said Council should draw their own conclusions,but said Option 3 is a financially favorable option for us. Mayor Towey asked if these options are assuming that the City of Spokane participates. Mr. Koudelka said that is correct. He said that our costs for animal control have been going down the last four years by about 4 percent and overall numbers are decreasing due to public education and spay and neuter vouchers. He said SCRAPS and SpokAnimal are both making efforts to reduce the feral cat population. He said the projected annual operating costs under Option 3 would be just over $242,000 and annual capital costs of $45,000 taking the total to just over $287,000 annually for years 1-20. He said the County is projecting estimates based on participation of Spokane in a regional plan and if they pull out, we would need to step back and recalculate the numbers and the County would likely do new site searches. Councilmember Grafos asked if Spokane uses SpokAnimal or SCRAPS. Mr. Koudelka said they use SpokAnimal. Councilmember Grafos asked why Spokane would be interested in going with SCRAPS and asked what our costs would be with SpokAnimal based on our usage. Mr. Koudelka said we don't know what our costs would be with SpokAnimal, he said he has run the numbers but is hesitant to throw out numbers when we haven't identified a level of service or additional economies of scale and that hasn't been provided by SpokAnimal. Councilmember Grafos said he wants to know the numbers. City Manager Jackson said we have looked at the numbers, but we need to qualify the numbers with the level of service and we will do that if it is the desire of Council. Councilmember Woodard asked if SpokAnimal has the same authority as the SCRAPS officers who enforce animal control ordinances. Mr. Koudelka said SRAPS officers go to two-week training provided through the state. He said they have some law enforcement capabilities allowing them to issue misdemeanor violations and they are designated a commissioned deputy with limited law enforcement capabilities. He said they don't know what SpokAnimal officers are fully able to do and that would be part of the information we need to gather, but they go to a 40-hour training provided by the Spokane Police Department. City Manager Jackson said he met with Commissioner Mielke who said they are willing to negotiate a fixed rate rather than a rate that has a settle and adjust each year. Councilmember Grassel asked why there are two entities. Mr. Koudelka said SpokAnimal started as a humane service provider, not at the impetus of Spokane, and that they did not originally intend to get into animal control service but did soon thereafter providing that service to the City of Spokane. He said the County decided to provide the services internally. He confirmed that SCRAPS is a government-run office and SpokAnimal is a non-profit agency. Councilmember Grassel said she wants to tour the SpokAnimal facility and have staff look at doing our own RFP, doing an RFP jointly with Spokane, and to look at the possibility of combining the two entities to reduce cost. Mr. Koudelka said the joint entity idea was addressed with the ballot measure and his understanding is the Council Regular Meeting 05.08-2012 Page 7 of 9 Approved by Council:05-22-2012 board of SpokAnimal was not interested in operating jointly because their main goal and primary function is providing humane service outside of animal control. He said they are interested in providing animal control service long term if we are interested, but they feel with their available space and accommodations it doesn't make sense for them to join force with a public entity. He said they think there is enough space available to handle animals in all of Spokane County and he thinks SpokAnimal is not interested in a new facility. He said SpokAnimal recognizes SCRAPS as doing a good job and a good provider of services, but they don't understand why SCRAPS is pursuing a new facility when SpokAnimal believes there are already enough accommodations for animals in the community. Mr. Koudelka said the County has said that staying in their current facility is not an option even if Spokane pulls out because of all the requirements necessary to stay in their current location they don't think it warrants the investment. Councilmember Hafner asked what SpokAnimal would do for business without Spokane. Mr. Koudelka explained that animal control is not the only service that SpokAnimal provides and again said their primary function is as a humane provider just like the Humane Society that exists. They have a vet clinic that serves low-income people and they have a very strong adoption campaign where they send animals to different agencies throughout the state to help the animals find a home. SpokAnimal has stated that losing Spokane would not be a detriment to their business, they have donations and other sources of revenue to keep them operating if Spokane chooses to leave. Mayor Towey said the question is whether to continue to focus on SCRAPS or to seek other options. He said he doesn't think we can make a decision at this time without the numbers and said he thinks we need to wait to see what Spokane does because we can't compare costs without knowing what Spokane is doing. Councilmember Woodard said he agrees with the Mayor and asked Mr. Jackson if we can even go to the two entities and know what to put in the RFQ. Mr. Jackson said the County wouldn't necessarily respond to an RFP but would give us their information. He said he spoke with Gerry Gemmill at the City of Spokane who said he could talk to their Council for approval to work jointly on an RFP as an option, He said both entities would determine the qualifications and levels of service for both SCRAPS and SpokAnimal.He said that process would take at least a couple of months. Councilmember Hafner said he would like to get numbers from SpokAnimal because we can get that information now. Councilmember Grafos said the starting point is determining the level of service and then compare the two. Councilmember Wick asked if the County has a "Plan B" should this other fall through and if we can ask Commissioner Mielke to share that plan with us. Mr. Jackson said it has been discussed and if Spokane doesn't participate, the County will start over and look at the size of the facility and other aspects. Mr. Jackson asked if it is the direction of Council for staff to research both options. He said we can also ask the County to provide a draft interlocal agreement as has been provided to Spokane. No objection from Council. Mr. Koudelka said that there are other things to consider beyond the financial aspect such as levels of service received and perceived, the ability to provide the service over time, and interactions between jurisdictions. He recommends that as we go forward, Council consider holding a public hearing for dialogue with all interested parties. 6.Advance Agenda—Mayor Towey: City Manager Jackson said he would like to move the stormwater projects for next week to pending, but give an update now. He said public works has completed the surveys on the swales from Park to the interchange and once we get the costs from a landscape architect we can determine how great the cost is. We won't receive a grant from the Department of Ecology until the end of June so we won't be reimbursed for money spent prior to that but depending on the cost,we may want to move forward due to a time issue. He said he will come back to Council with that information. He said they are considering adding the Appleway swales to the same contract. Mr. Grafos asked if he anticipates a problem getting the stormwater projects completed this year. Mr. Jackson said it depends on whether they move ahead using City funds that can't be recovered. He said it will be tight, but we are moving forward with the intent to complete then. Councilmember Grasse] asked if it is possible to have one of the Planning Commissioners attend the meeting on May 22nd for the second reading of the Comp. Plan amendments to help answer some Council Regular Meeting 05-08-2012 Page 8 of 9 Approved by Council:05-22-2012 questions. She said she was disappointed with the meeting notes and thought they were slim as far as the dialogue that took place. Mr. Jackson said the best practice is to have a joint work session with the Council and the Commission and we will do a better job taking minutes. He said ideally the minutes of the Planning Commission and an explanation by staff is the best practice. He said as a practice, Council should maintain autonomy with the Commission so they feel free to make a decision that may be inconsistent with the Planning Commission recommendations. Mr. Jackson said he will provide a transcript of the notes. Mayor Towey asked that if there is a split vote, a summary of the negative vote be provided in the minutes.Mr. Jackson said we can do that. Councilmember Grafos asked that we separate street preservation projects from street maintenance projects. He said our contract with Poe is a maintenance contract and asked at what point projects go to bid for other contractors. Mr. Jackson said there are some large preservation projects included in the Poe contract that was approved by Council. He said the money spent on Dishman and University used the money from the street fund that is part of the Poe contract. Staff will bring a list of projects to Council to discuss the projects to use the additional money that Council set aside for preservation and those projects will go to bid. He said as they draft the budget for 2013, they are considering creating a separate preservation fund to see how we spend the money and measure the impact to see how successful we are in meeting our street preservation goals. Mr. Jackson said with regard to street preservation, staff is working on signs to put at each preservation project that states "Spokane Valley Street Preservation Project, Your Tax Dollars at Work"or something in that regard so citizens can see the work that they are paying for. Councilmember Woodard asked why ADA ramps were replaced on the University Road project but not on Appleway, which were both preservation projects. Mr. Jackson said we don't necessarily upgrade every ADA ramp. He said we evaluate the ramps and consider if they are no longer in compliance with ADA rules.He said we can bring information back for discussion as to how that is determined. INFORMATION ONLY:N/A CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: N/A It was moved by Deputy Mayor Schirrrmels, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 8:53 p.m. . ATTEST. Thomas E. Towey, Mayor --f; `Christine Bainbridge, City CIerk g � t3' Council Regular Meeting 05-08-2012 Page 9 of 9 Approved by Council:05-22-2012 GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT SIGN-IN SHEET SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE:May 8, 2012 GENERAL CITIZEN COMMENTS YOUR SPEAKING TIME WILL GENERALLY BE LIMITED TO THREE MINUTE: Please sign in if you wish to make public comments. NAME TOPIC OF CONCERN YOUR COMPLETE TELEPHONE PLEASE PRINT YOU WILL SPEAK ADDRESS ABOUT Y-v G -.• f '1,- c - 60,_ I 3 e9 c)A v"cv l I. cj?4 i �1 _ s- #4-) Cow!</� e_k( I me 1�2 tic< _ c ~' f tit rti� V Q-l le_y U(oVc\- c)% c,N.-(aket1e_. VT\ crlYr) ciaq - 6 4 Sv 6 Please note that once information is entered on this form, it becomes a public record subject to public disclosure, \'\to o`< i 03,%C.\` `I\Q\l Q)t Dear€o ission When the city wanted to let Walmart, Lowes & Kohls in on Broadway everyone went to the meeting and voiced their opinions and reasons for not allowing it. That was on property unused, with no houses encircling it, so I can see why that was put through. After the Planning Commissioners listened to all of our suggestions and complaints, the one commissioner made the statement that putting in this apartment building is "a natural progression'considering we already have the big box stores already here". We were highly offended to think how it was forced on us as this apartment building is also. If you look at the map you will notice that our neighborhood is still a neighborhood with houses and duplexes. Our City Commissioners are gradually taking that away from us. Why can't this property be put into houses or duplexes to comply with the neighborhood? We ride dirt bikes in the field adjoining this 10.64 acres. How will the renters in the apartment building respond to that and all the animals around them? Will we also be made to get rid of them? These apts. will be looking right into all of our backyards on Conklin as well as Moore & Valleyway taking away our privacy. The man proposing this apt. bldg. made it known that he did not feel that he needed to put barriers around the bldg. giving us privacy from noise, lights, etc. There are four apartment buildings already in this area with many vacancies. Progress & Greenacres schools are overflowing and unable to handle more students. These are serious matters? Everyone suggested maybe building duplexes or houses which wouldn't be taking our privacy away. It would be less invasive and would not increase the traffic problems. I am pleading with you all to please respect our investments here in the neighborhood and our desire to keep it a neighborhood. The traffic is so bad right now that people can hardly walk anywhere or pull in or out of their own driveways. The almighty dollar seems to be running the show, and yet no one seems to care about how we feel. It was a huge turnout at the planning committee meeting and yet only one committee person showed empathy for us as a neighborhood. Please think of it as your own neighborhood. How you would feel looking at the map and see how big business is seeping into our little neighborhood. It cuts right in from Broadway, a major chunk. Thank you for your time. I do hope you will consider our suggestions and concerns. Sincerely, Jan Wold 503 N. Conklin Rd. Veradale, WA. 99037 Butterflyjan5 @comcast.net Land Use Solutions & Entitlement Land Use Planning Services 9101 N. MT. VIEW LANE Spokane, WA 99218 509-935_3108 (V) 509-967-0229 (F) 5-08-12 Mayor Towey and Council Members 11707 E Sprague Avenue Spokane Valley WA 99206 Ref: CPA 05-12 Arger MF-1 to MF-2 Mayor Towey and Members of the Council The following is a bullet format of facts supporting the proposed amendment. 1) The proposal is consistent with the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan as a transitional use from regional Commercial and Community Commercial zones adjacent thereto. 2) This is a more efficient means of accommodating 480 residents and 240 dwelling units, a. Whereas, conventional subdivision requires i. 38 acres for the same populations ii. City gets to maintain the roads after they are built and dedicated iii. Displaces the same number of units over several in-fill sites, since there are no 38 acre parcels inside the city ready to subdivide. 3) The site will provide adequate mitigation for setbacks and traffic: a. The main entrance will be Broadway and secondary access will be Conklin. No other local access streets are needed for this site. b. The scale of project affords amenities and these will be centrally located with apartments surrounding these amenities. All traffic related functions will be on the perimeter of the site to avoid interference with the courtyard amenities. This then ensures the displacement of apartment units away from the property lines by at least 40 ft. to accommodate onsite traffic isle ways and required landscaping. Even more dimensional setbacks where garages, carports and open stalls are provided against the perimeter. 4) The Planning Commission recommended the consideration of a Development Agreement in-lieu-of relying upon the zone code performance standards. I would urge the Council to use this mechanism only as a last resort to ensure land use compatibility. The aforementioned development scenario is a pretty safe bet and the adopted development standards are to be interpreted as sufficient mitigation for land use compatibility. I'm certain case law would echo this fact as well. 5) There is no evidence submitted on the record that high density adversely affects the home values of low density. Nor is there any evidence that apartments bring along a criminal element. In fact to the contrary, the National Multifamily Housing Council has numerous reports to the contrary. See attached Excerpte from NMHC White Papers attached hereto. Based upon the above, I would urge the Council to approve this map amendment from MF-1 to MF-2 without further need for a Development Agreement. espectfull, Submitted, iNIP Dwight J Hume Land Use Solutions and Entitlement Enclosure: Supplement of NMHC Excerpt from NMHC White papers "Overcoming Opposition to Multi-family Rental Housing" (Property Values and Crime) Mark Obrinsky,PhD and Debra Stein January 10,21107 studies that have tried to quantify the impact of geography on this, it seems evident that there is an important property-type effect. Consider the reverse situation, namely residential development near a transportation node such as a subway station. The number of single-family detached houses that can be built within walking distance of the station is clearly much less than the number of multifamily residences — whether for-rent or for-sale — that can be built there. To take advantage of the transit nodes, it simply makes sense to take advantage of the fact that compact, higher-density housing is inherently better suited to such development. Property Values . Concerns that multifamily rental housing will lower the value of their single-family houses has driven many residents to oppose new apartment developments in or near their neighborhoods. Proposals for low-income apartments are especially likely to trigger property value concerns, but even market rate rental housing can give rise to arguments that apartments lower property values and damage the community's reputation. Local officials often echo these property value claims, either because they believe lower property values will injure their community's tax base or reputation or because they want to sound responsive to constituent concerns. The fear that housing density will hurt property values seems to be primarily based on anecdotes. By contrast, most research has come to a different conclusion: in general, neither multifamily rental housing, nor low-income housing, causes neighboring property values to decline. Two studies have taken a macro look at home values and house appreciation near multifamily hous- ing properties. One study focused on "working communities"throughout the nation— neighborhoods of predominantly low- and moderate-income working households. The study looked at data from the 2000 US Census and compared house values in those communities with the share of multifamily housing in those communities. The conclusion: working communities with multifamily dwellings ac- tually have higher property values than other types of working communities. in other words, the av- erage value of owner-occupied houses was highest in working communities with the most multifam- ily units. In fact, among working communities, "the high multifamily areas had the highest home val- ues, the mixed-stock areas the next highest, and the single-family areas had the lowest.n15 The study also noted a similar phenomenon with respect to income: among working communities, higher household income was positively associated with the share of multifamily housing.15 The other macro analysis compared the rate of property value appreciation for houses with multifam- ily housing nearby with the appreciation rate for houses with no multifamily housing nearby. Houses with apartments nearby actually enjoy a slightly higher appreciation rate than houses that don't have apartments nearby. Homes that are not located in multifamily areas appreciated at an average an- nual rate of 3.59 percent between 1987 and 1997, compared with a higher appreciation rate of 3.96 percent for houses near multifamily buildings. For the 1997-1999 period, the figures were 2.66 per- cent and 2.90 percent, respectively.17 Case studies examining individual sites and metro areas have been used in six recent research works to get a more detailed picture of the effects of multifamily and/or subsidized single-family properties. These studies measured the possible impact of a range of property types on surrounding property values, including the potential impacts of conventional apartments, mixed-income multifam- ily rentals, low-income housing tax credit developments, and federally-assisted rental housing pro- jects. Researchers measured a variety of relevant characteristics, including house price, price per 15 Alexander von Hoffman, Eric Belsky, James DeNormandi, and Rachel Brett, "America's Working Communi- ties and the Impact of Multifamily Housing,"Cambridge, MA: Joint Center for Housing Studies, 2004, p. 17. 16 Ibid., p. 16. 17 National Association of Home Builders, "Multifamily Market Outlook,"Washington, DC, November 2001, pp. 3-4. Overcoming Opposition to Multifamily Rental Housing 7 square foot, house price appreciation, time on the market, and the ratio of sales price to asking price in order to assess "the worst-case scenarios of multi-family intrusion into a single-family neighbor- hood." Their conclusions: "We find that large, dense, multi-family rental developments...do not negatively impact the sales price of nearby single-family homes.i i8 "We find that if located properly with attractive landscaping and entranceways, adverse price . effects can be minimized and sometimes can add value. In the long term, such apartment complexes probably raise the overall value of detached homes relative to their absences 19 "To this point, our results for Wisconsin are generally consistent with results In other studies: we have not been able to find evidence that Section 42 developments cause property values to deteriorate. The exception is Milwaukee County, where properties that are distant from the developments seem to appreciate more rapidly, although the magnitude of the effect is small. We have found no evidence of an impact in Waukesha and Ozaukee, and find evidence that properties in Madison near Section 42 developments appreciate more rapidly." 20 There is "little or no evidence to support the claim that tax-credit rental housing for families has a negative impact on the market for owner-occupied housing in the surrounding area...Rather than negative impact, the evidence suggests to us that the various housing submarkets surrounding the tax-credit properties in our study performed normally, exhibiting similar levels of variability before and after tax-credit construction, and responding to supply and demand forces in similar fashion as the larger market."21 "In sum, assisted housing of various types: (i) had positive or insignificant effects on residen- tial property values nearby in higher-value, less vulnerable neighborhoods, unless it ex- ceeded thresholds of spatial concentration or facility scale; (ii) evinced more modest pros- pects for positive property value impacts in lower-value, more vulnerable neighborhoods, and strength of frequently negative impacts was directly related to the concentration of sites and scale of the facilities."22 in sum, the presence or proximity of subsidized housing made no difference in housing val- ues as measured by relative price behavior in a dynamic market."23 Some of these studies find examples where single-family houses located near apartments either ex- perienced lower prices or lower appreciation rates than houses located further away. But for resi- dents in neighborhoods near proposed apartment developments — and for local officials who repre- sent them — it is important to understand that multifamily housing rental developments do not gener- ally lower property values in surrounding areas. 18 Henry O. Pollakowski, David Ritchey, and Zoe Weinrobe, "Effects of Mixed-Income, Multi-family Housing Developments on Single-family Housing Values,"Cambridge, MA: MIT Center For Real Estate,April 2005, p. xiii. 1°Arthur C. Nelson and Mitch Moody, "Apartments and Detached Home Values,"On Common Ground, Na- tional Association of Realtors, 2003. See also: Nelson and Moody, "Price Effects of Apartments on Nearby Single-family Detached Residential Homes,"Virginia Tech University, 2003. 20 Richard K. Green, Stephen Malpezzi, and Kiat-Ying Seah, "Low Income Housing Tax Credit Housing Devel- opments and Property Values," Madison, Wl: The Center for Urban Land Economics Research: 2002, p.4. Maxfield Research Inc., "A Study of the Relationship Between Affordable Family Rental Housing and Home Values in the Twin Cities," Minneapolis, MN: Family Housing Fund, September 2000, p. 102. 22 George Galster, "A Review of Existing Research On the Effects of Federally Assisted Housing Programs on Neighboring Residential Property Values,' Detroit, MI: Wayne State University: September 2002, p. 26. 23 Joyce Siegel, The House Next Door, innovative Housing Institute, 1999. www.inhousing.orglhousel.htm. Overcoming Opposition to Multifamily Rental blousing 8 Social Interaction and Crime Opponents of rental housing often argue that while people who own their homes are invested in the long-term success and safety of a community, people who rent apartments are merely short-term transients and therefore less desirable neighbors. That view has a long history and probably seems so unremarkable, so obvious, that proof is unnecessary. Nonetheless, some researchers have tried to discover whether homeownership creates a positive social benefit compared to rental housing. While the scope of their research is rather broad, for present purposes we focus on two aspects: (i) renters vs. owners as neighbors (citizens); and (ii) renters and crime.24 The view that renters are not as engaged in their communities as owners seems to arise from the two apparent characteristics of renters: (i) by definition, they don't own their own residence, hence are thought to have less of a "stake" in the community; and (ii) they tend to move more often. These characteristics are seen as making them transitory residents, perhaps more akin to visitors than to long-term residents. But there are also countervailing forces. For example, single-family renters do not tear down old houses and replace them with "McMansions," a phenomenon that can greatly alter neighborhoods, in ways that are not always desired by the existing residents. In addition, it is important to recognize that housing tenure is different from residential stability. Housing tenure refers to how long an individual has lived in one place, while neighborhood stability reflects the quality, cohesion and safety of a community. It is the latter that may be the key factor: "Between 4 and 92 percent of the effect of homeownership and citizenship Is operating primarily be- cause homeownership is associated with lower mobility rates."25 Stability itself is relative: in Western Europe, for example, many renters have lower turnover rates than U.S. homeowners. To the degree that there may be positive benefits from lower turnover, then the focus ought to be on increasing residential stability rather than trying to restrict choice of tenure,26 Neighborhood residents may be less interested in distinguishing the exact cause than in ensuring the best outcome, and for many, promoting homeownership rather than renting seems an effective way to do so. In fact, that turns out not to be the case: • Apartment residents are almost twice as likely to socialize with their neighbors as owners of single-family houses (33 percent vs. 17 percent). • Apartment residents are just as likely as house owners to be involved in structured social groups like sports teams, book clubs, and the like (22 percent for sports groups, 10-11 percent for other groups). • Apartment residents are only slightly less likely to attend religious services at least once a month (44 percent vs. 55 percent). • Just like single-family owners, apartment residents identify closely with the town or city they live in (60 percent for apartment residents vs. 64 percent for single-family owners). 24 For a good, critical summary of the scope of such research, see William M. Rohe, Shannon Van Zandt, and George McCarthy, "The Social Benefits and Costs of Home Ownership:A Critical Assessment of the Re- search," in Nicolas P. Retsinas and Eric S. Belsky, eds., Low-Income Homeownership:Examining the Unex- amined Goal(Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 2002). 25 Denise DiPasquale and Edward L. Glaeser, "Incentives and Social Capital: Are Homeowners Better Citi- zens?"Journal of Urban Economics,Vol. 45, Nr. 2 (March 1999). 26 Apgar notes that disentangling the many factors that influence behavior in order to isolate the impact of ten- ure alone is exceedingly complex. See: William Apgar, Rethinking Rental Housing: Expanding the Ability of Rental Housing to Serve as a Pathway to Economic and Social Opportunity,"Joint Center for Housing Studies Working Paper W04-11, December 2004, Overcoming Opposition to Multifamily Rental Housing 9 • Almost half (46 percent) of apartment residents feel close to the neighborhood they live in. This is not as high a share as for single-family owners (65 percent), but still sizable. • Apartment residents are virtually as interested in politics and national affairs as house owners are (66 percent vs. 70 percent). The one area in which apartment residents noticeably lag house owners is in local elections: 47 per- cent of apartment residents say they "always vote" or"sometimes miss one," compared with 78 per- cent of single-family owners.27 Put simply, these objective measures undermine the notion that apartment residents somehow don't care much about, and don't involve themselves in, the communities in which they live. On the con- trary, they tend to be at least as socially engaged as other Americans. As important as these things are in helping to shape the character of a neighborhood, it stands to reason that they can easily be negated by an increase in criminal activity. Is there any truth to the idea that crime follows in the wake of apartment development? It turns out that there have been very few studies that address this issue. A study conducted for the Arizona Multihousing Association concluded that the perception of higher crime associated with mul- tifamily housing results from counting police calls by address. Hence an apartment property with 100 or more units at the same address may be wrongly compared to one single-family residence. "In ac- tuality, when police data is analyzed on a per unit basis, the rate of police activity in apartment communities is no worse than in single family subdivisions, and in many cases, is lower than in sin- gle family areas." 28 In a similar vein, studies of Irving, Texas, and Anchorage, Alaska, found no connection between crime and housing density. The former used geographic information systems (GIS) analysis to sup- plement more conventional approaches, and determined that "high density and multi-family devel- opment are not necessarily associated with high crime rate, but socioeconomic status is." 28 The lat- ter study reached a similar conclusion: "These data show no relationship between housing density and delinquency....The observed correlation coefficients between housing density and the six crimi- nological measures were all small in magnitude (very close to "0"), statistically significant...and in some cases in the opposite direction predicted by the hypothesis of a direct relationship between housing density and crime.i38 The Multifamily Record: Conclusion Further research would certainly be welcome. Even so, we think the available research is fairly strong that multifamily rental housing: (1) does not impose greater costs on local governments; (2) does not increase traffic and parking problems; (3) when well-designed and appropriate to the neighborhood, does not reduce (and may even enhance) property values; and (4) does not inher- ently attract residents who are less neighborly or more apt to engage in (or attract) criminal activity. 27 NMHC tabulations of rnicrodata from the General Social Survey. See: Jack Goodman, "Apartment Residents As Neighbors and Citizens,"Research Notes, Washington, DC: National Multi Housing Council, June 1999. 28 Elliott D. Pollack and Company, "Economic& Fiscal Impact of Multi-family Housing," Phoenix: Arizona Multi- housing Association, 1996, Part 11. zs Jianling Li and Jack Rainwater, "The Real Picture of Land-Use Density and Crime: A GIS Application," available at: http://gis.esri.comllibrary/userconf/proc00/professional/papers/PAP508/p508.him 30 University of Alaska Justice Center, "The Strength of Association: Housing Density and Delinquency,"An- chorage Community Indicators, series 3A, No. 1, available at: http:lliustice uaa.alaska.edulindicators fseries03/aciO3a1.housinct.pdf Overcoming Opposition to Multifamily Rental Housing 10 This evidence may be sufficient for planners and many public officials— particularly those who have already come to understand the benefits of greater housing choice, mixed-use and mixed-income residences, transit-oriented development, and pedestrian-friendly communities. Two obstacles re- main: codified restrictions on multifamily developments and individual opposition to specific multi- family projects. Experience suggests that opponents who live near apartment developments are often hard to con- vince. For some, opposition to apartments may be more emotional than analytical. As one opponent put it: "We don't want renters. We just don't want them..."3' For many, anecdotes trump statistics: For this reason, marshalling statistics is a necessary step, but not usually a sufficient one, Instead, proponents need to overcome opposition to individual proposed developments. Before turning to this, we take a brief look at how opposition to multifamily rental housing in general has been codi- fied, thereby adding another hurdle for proponents. REGULATORY RESTRICTION ON MULTIFAMILY HOUSING IN GENERAL Opposition to multifamily rental housing has a long history. More than a century ago, the notoriously poor living conditions associated with tenement houses led not only to a movement to reform and improve such dwellings, it also led to a movement to prevent further apartment construction. Oppo- nents drew on two key tools to block new multifamily buildings: restrictive building codes that made multifamily construction uneconomic; and zoning -- in particular, the creation of single-family-only districts.3 These and other tools are still being used.33 The most common regulations involve zoning and/or comprehensive land use planning. More recently, policies to restrict, manage, or even prevent fur- ther growth -- from impact fees to "urban containment" to outright moratoria — have been added to the mix. Given the sheer number of local land use areas, even collecting comprehensive data on residential development restrictions is difficult. Assessing the impact of these regulations is even more difficult for at least two reasons, First, the devil may indeed be in the details, so that any over- view or summary analysis is likely to be flawed. Second, some jurisdictions may, on a fairly routine basis, grant waivers or exemptions for certain kinds of developments, with the result that the regula- tion on the books is not the de facto regulation. Recent research analyzing density restrictions in local jurisdictions making up the 50 largest metro- politan areas concluded that a hypothetical 2-story, 40-unit apartment property on five acres of land would be prohibited outright in about 30 percent of such jurisdictions. Residential developments with densities of more than 30 units per acre are prohibited in all but 12 percent of local jurisdictions. To be sure, these jurisdictions encompass 48 percent of the population of these metro areas. Even so, it is clearly a significant restriction.34 Such restrictions not only reduce the range of housing options available to local residents — in particular, most restrictions tend to favor lower-density over higher- density developments—they also make housing more expensive.35 31 See"From Parking to Mixed-Use," Montgomery Gazette, September, 28, 2005, at: www.gazette.netlstoriesl092805/bethnew205622 31894.shtml 52 Kenneth Baer, "The National Movement to Halt the Spread of Multifamily Housing, 1890-1926'Journal of the American Planning Association, Chicago: Winter 1992. 33 A good compendium of such restrictions is contained in: "Regulatory Barriers to Affordable Housing," City- scape, Vol. 8, Nr. 1 (2005). 34 Rolf Pendell, Robert Puentes, and Jonathan Martin, "From Traditional to Reformed: A Review of the Land Use Regulations in the Nation's 50 Largest Metropolitan Areas." Metropolitan Policy Program, The Brookings Institution, Washington, DC: August 2006. http://www.brookings.edu/metro/pubs/20060802 Pendall.pdf 35 See for example: John M. Quigley and Larry A. Rosenthal, "The Effects of Land Use Regulation on the Price of Housing: What Do We Know?What Can We Learn?", Cityscape, Vol. 8, Nr. 1 (2005)and Edward L. Giae- Overcoming Opposition to Multifamily Rental Housing 11 518112 Gregory Arger, President ArRer Companies (Owner of 10 Acre Conklin ParcelA Commercial Developers in Spokane Valley for 30+years Our most recent project is Evergreen Fountains Senior Living Community We own and operate all our projects We are leaders in the industry with our site designs and state of the art facilities History of Property: Originally, we designed a HUD affordable housing project consisting of 192 units which is allowed under the existing zoning today. The tax free bond financing became unattainable, and not lender feasible. We then proceeded to plan a luxury state of the art project which necessitated the MF-2 Higher Density to meet Feasibility. The location supports higher density. Recently, we purchased an adjoining property fronting Broadway for our Main Entrance along with our Conklin Road frontage. Therefore: making it not necessary to enter the project from a neighboring side street (Alki Road) Benefits of Higher Density: • More Units Available • Project Amenities would become feasible, making the project more Marketable • Financing options available • Make the project economically feasible • There is a demand for Class A High Density apartment projects, that would feature amenities to support family needs The 10 plus acre site allows for generous amenities such as picnic pavilion, water park, recreational center, sports court and playground areas. The project amenities would exceed the city requirement in place, meeting our standards for a luxury apartment project and ensure success in the market place and considered the best. The site location is close to: • Shopping • Jobs • 1-90 Access • Sprague Ave • Sullivan Road Access Closing: The current zoning classification does not work, we have explored all avenues. The property is has limited utility in today's market place. The costs exceed the project feasibility with the current zoning classification. In Real Estate terms the site location is considered an A+ SITE candidate for a high density project. The high density classification will gain the greatest utility for the site based on the location. This is the MOST Premier multi-family site available in the City of Spokane Valley.