City Planning Commission

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA WEDNESDAY, APRIL 23, 2025 4 P.M. CITY HALL HELD REMOTELY& IN-PERSON AT CITY HALL To participate remotely, you can: • Sign up to provide Public Comment at the meeting via calling in • Submit Written Public Comment Prior to 2 pm on April 23, 2025 • Join the Zoom Meeting Questions ? Assistance? Please contact Kathy Cummings at kcummings@libertylakewa.gov . 1. Call to Order – 4:00 pm 2. Roll Call 3. Pledge of Allegiance 4. GENERAL BUSINESS • Review of Agenda • Approval of Minutes from April 9, 2025 5. WORKSHOPS: • Sign Code Workshop – Amy Mullerleile • Housing & Community Development Updated Element – Lisa Key • Co-living Housing Amendment – Lisa Key 6. CITIZEN COMMENTS 7. REPORTS • Secretary’s Report o Save the Date: Parks Plan Kickoff Meeting-May 22nd, 4-6 pm at Trailhead o Updated Comp Meeting Calendar • Planning Commissioner Reports 8. Adjournment Next Meeting: May 14th, 2025  PUBLIC COMMENT If you wish to provide oral public comments or testimony during the Planning Commission meeting, please register through this link: https://us02web.zoom.us/s/86818958997 WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS If you wish to provide written public comments for the upcoming council meeting, please email your comments to kcummings@libertylakewa.gov by 2:00 p.m. the day of the Planning Commission meeting and include all of the following information with your comments: 1. The Meeting Date 2. Your First and Last Name 3. If you are a Liberty Lake resident 4. The Agenda Item(s) which you are speaking about JOIN ZOOM MEETING To view the meeting live via Zoom Meeting, join the Zoom web meeting: Meeting Instructions: To join the Zoom web meeting: https://us02web.zoom.us/s/86818958997 Dial In Phone Numbers: • +1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma) • +1 253 205 0468 US Meeting ID: 868 1895 8997  PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES WEDNESDAY, April 9, 2025 HELD VIA ZOOM & IN PERSON AT CITY HALL Planning Commission Members Present: Tom Sahlberg, Jim Baumker, Dg Garcia, Charlie Jencks, and Phil Folyer were in person. Adjunct Member(s) Present: Gene Heuschel and Troy Mullenix Staff Present: Lisa Key, Amy Mullerleile, Kathy Cummings in person and Lance Mueller via Zoom Call to Order: Meeting was called to order at 4:00 p.m. Roll Call: A quorum of members was present. Absences: Commissioner Mann and Commissioner Robbins were unable to attend. A motion to excuse the commissioners, was made by Commissioner Jencks and seconded by Commissioner Baumker. The motion carried unanimously. Commissioner Mann asked that everyone stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. Review of Agenda & Approval of Minutes: Commissioner Jencks motioned to approve the meeting agenda, seconded by Commissioner Baumker. The motion was approved unanimously. Commissioner Jencks motioned to approve the March 26th meeting minutes, seconded by Commissioner Baumker. The motion was approved unanimously. Commissioner Sahlberg asked that everyone stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. Workshops: Economic Development Element Revised Redlines: Senior Planner Amy Mullerleile, presented the background and the revised redlines to this chapter. She explained that following a reduced economic partnership contract, City Council directed staff to explore new development strategies and services. Feedback was collected from the Commissioners on the redlined draft chapter revisions presented and will be incorporated. Staff will present the initial findings to City Council on May 6th. The draft will be brought back for the Commissioners to review once Council’s direction is clearer. Cultural Resource & History Element Revisions: Associate Planner Lance Mueller, via Zoom, presented the edits made as recommended by the commissioners during the March 12th Planning Commission meeting. Comments and suggestions were discussed throughout this second red- lined chapter overview. Staff will revise language as discussed and bring forward an updated draft for the Planning Commission to review just prior to finalizing the entire draft document. Revised Housing & Community Services Goals & Policies: Director Key started with reclarifying the difference between goals and policies, and presented the revisions as recommended by the commissioners at the March 26th Planning Commission meeting. Discussions and suggestions were ongoing regarding density adjustments within residential Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 1|2 April 9, 2025 zones, mixed-use developments within light industrial zones and increased references to childcare access and community support partnerships within the policy areas. Housing & Community Development Updated Element: Director Key provided an overview as to why the housing element has been merged with the community service element and further explained the merged contents within this newly created chapter. Discussion between staff and the commissioners continued with the importance of the strategies for increasing housing availability and affordability as they relate to the changes to state law. She wants to ensure that City Council, as well as the public, are clear as to what strategies are required versus recommended. Citizens Comments: None Secretary’s Report: Director Lisa Key shared that the timeline for the Comprehensive Plan extension to 12/31/2026 is moving forward as it has passed in the Senate and is scheduled on the calendar to go before the House. Extension of time is good for the city as it gives us an opportunity to bring forward the changes made to the Development Code at the same time as the Comprehensive Plan. The additional time also allows for more time, in the event Department of Commerce comes back with any concerns and changes need to be made. The story map for history is being placed on the website and on social media. Lisa, Amy and Lance are starting to prepare materials for community engagement at the Farmers’ Market. The Parks and Recreation Plan is going before the Parks and Arts Commission on Monday and going to the Community Engagement Commission on Wednesday of next week. The Transportation Network Analysis is currently in the data collection process. As soon as a draft is available for the Housing and Community Services chapter, the Commissioners will have the opportunity to review and make any comments. This draft will also be used to develop public engagement materials, and elicit feedback from the public.. The next meeting will include a sign code workshop and an update on what we are doing for public engagement. We may also be able to share the co-housing code amendment. The Comprehensive Plan meeting schedule has again been updated and attached to the Commissioner’s meeting packets. Commissioner Sahlberg asked about a schedule for the Commissioners to participate in public engagement at the Farmers’ market. Director Key stated that there is currently a schedule for staff but that the engagement materials are still being prepared. Commissioner Sahlberg and Director Key agreed that having a staff member and a commissioner participating together is a good idea. The Community Engagement Committee will also be assisting with public engagement. Director Key mentioned that if the Commissioners have ideas on other types of engagement opportunities to please let her know. Commissioner Reports: None Adjournment: Commissioner Folyer motioned to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Commissioner Garcia. The motion carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 5:29 p.m. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 2|2 April 9, 2025 MEMORANDUM DATE: April 23, 2025 TO: Planning Commission, City of Liberty Lake FROM: Ferdouse Oneza AICP, and Michelle Ellsworth RE: Sign Code Update: Broader Issues and Approaches At the last several Planning Commission workshops, we identified topic areas of the sign code that needed to be updated to meet compliance with the latest case laws, as well as apply the best management practices. This memo includes the remaining items in Attachment A. Topics identified in this memo include priorities to meet the legal requirements from case laws, and address concerns discussed with the stakeholders. We have learned about issues and concerns from your stakeholders, analyzed them from a legal point of view, and compared practices from other jurisdictions. In this memo we are recommending approaches that create a balance between the needs of the business community and maintain the objectives and visual characteristics for the entire community. Attachment A: Liberty Lake Sign Code Update: Topics and Approaches April 16, 2025 City of Liberty Lake | Sign Code Updates 1 April 16, 2025 City of Liberty Lake | Sign Code Update 2 Liberty Lake Sign Code Update: Topics and Approaches Key Updates Required by Law Content Neutrality For Non-Commercial signs:  Remove content-based categories from the code. For example, remove political campaign sign as a category, replace them with types of signs such as, non-commercial temporary sign.  Can regulate through size, height, duration, material etc.  Noncommercial signs must be allowed in those portions of the right-of-way which are considered traditional public forums (in many situations this would include the parking strip).1 Federal and State Highway Regulations Comply with I-90 Sign Corridor Scenic Vistas Act, RCW 47.42 Comply with highway standards for safety Public Safety Requirement Sign placement within rights of ways to maintain strict public safety requirements and clearance.  No commercial sign on round-abouts or within street medians.  Overhanging pedestrian-oriented signs (blade or canopy signs) to maintain clearance for safe walking.  A-frame sign to maintain safety clearance on the walkways. 1 In traditional public forums, the government can impose time, place, and manner restrictions on speech, but these restrictions must be content-neutral, narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest, and leave open ample alternative channels of communication. The City will consider what limitations might be placed on signs which will be allowed in the right-of-way. DRAFT April 15, 2025 City of Liberty Lake | Sign Code Update 1 Sign visibility, size and location for public safety.  Standards for pedestrian and vehicular oriented signs Key Issues Identified by the Stakeholders Lack of Visibility - Lots/ Businesses Without Street Frontage Code updates will address two scenarios: 1. Flag lots 2. Multiple/ group of businesses under single ownership 1. Flag Lots  Signage agreement between businesses.  Parcel B sign to be located on parcel A: o Through agreement/sign easement between property owners (A & B)  Code to regulate where the parcel B signage may be located on parcel A (e.g. 30 feet from the edge of right of way) 2. Multiple/ Group of Businesses Multiple businesses developed under one unified ownership (can be under condominiums). Businesses can be developed in phases.  Site plan to show master signage plan including location, type and size for review during the site plan approval process.  Provisions for signage allowances for future parcels or parcels further subdivided.  Provision of agreement between contiguous businesses similar to scenario #1 for one DRAFT April 15, 2025 City of Liberty Lake | Sign Code Update 2  sign easement (e.g. monument or A frame signs).  Assess master sign agreement if a business site is sold or becomes a separate parcel.  Group signs should allocate signage area in for each business. Other Considerations Temporary sign within the group of businesses with businesses agreement:  Some signage types (e.g. A-frame sign) can be allowed on public right-of-way within a certain distance from the business. o Ensure that this provision does not create sign clutter (e.g. may avoid Wenatchee approach). o Keep current code language of the Examples: Zoning Administrator’s review: "no Most codes tie A-frame location with primary further than twelve feet from the business entrance. Exceptions include: entrance to the business, unless otherwise permitted by the Zoning  Issaquah: Allows A-frame up to 50 ft Administrator or designee for from entrance and in ROW if business unique situations." does not have sightline of ROW.  Legal non-conforming status of existing Wenatchee: If a business is in a certain zone, non-street frontage monument signs for they can place a sign on a street corner on the non-street frontage properties same block, provided it’s within 200 ft of a  Define sign visibility from public rights of customer entrance way. This will be based on pedestrian or DRAFT April 15, 2025 City of Liberty Lake | Sign Code Update 3  vehicular traffic and distance for safely viewing the sign. Multiple Phases of Developments to Showcase Projects and Phases This applies to signage for a long term project with phased developments (e.g. mixed use or residential developments).  Real estate signs (temporary) should be phase specific, i.e. signs to promote sales should be located within the phase boundary.  Signs promoting district or subdivision only (not sales) can be located within the undeveloped phase boundary.  Development phases should be clearly identified in the permit application.  Create a long-term real estate sign category for real estate subdivision projects taking longer than one year. Wall Signage for Visibility Wall sign area proportionated to façade area. Examples:  Update the code to allow signage based on the percentage of the facade area with a maximum limit which may be higher than existing 150 ft (see example below). DRAFT April 15, 2025 City of Liberty Lake | Sign Code Update 4 Examples: Issaquah allows wall signs up to 200 sf.; Covington allows wall signs up to 240 sf. Issaquah Table 18.612.080(F) – Primary Sign Maximum Sign Area Façade Area Max Sign Area (Sq. ft) (Sq. Ft) 0 – 100 15 101-199 25 200 – 1,499 The larger of seven percent of the facade to which the sign is attached or 30 square feet, up to a maximum of Height X width = 640 sq-ft 100 square feet Sign area 10% = 64 ft; 7% = 45 sq-ft 1,500 – The larger of five percent of the 2,999 facade to which the sign is attached or Sign size (appx) 12 ft X 4 = 48 sq-ft 100 square feet, up to a maximum of 150 square feet 3,000 or The larger of four percent of the greater facade to which the sign is attached or 150 square feet, up to a maximum of 200 square feet Copy Lines Limitations  Consider eliminating three lines limitation Examples: and regulate by the square footage of the Gig Harbor Municipal Code: sign area.  Regulate line/ text size based on safety No specific mention of copy lines standards for pedestrian and vehicular Defines sign area as the entire area of sign traffic where copy, logos, trademarks, and business colors can be placed. Describes how to calculate sign area, including letters or symbols, graphic symbols, etc. Issaquah Municipal Sign Code: No mention of copy lines Regulating text size for certain pedestrian- oriented signs only Certain sign types (business kiosk) allow larger font size if oriented towards vehicles. Describes maximum letter size for pedestrian oriented signs e.g., window signs. DRAFT April 15, 2025 City of Liberty Lake | Sign Code Update 5 I-90 Corridor and Visibility  Maintain compliance with WSDOT’s Scenic Vistas Act as stated in the current code  Applies to businesses adjacent to I-90 (current code identifies 250 feet on either side and excludes exit and entrance ramps).  Make wall signage proportionate to Building length- 270 feet (appx); sign area: 106 sq. façade area. ft. Maximum signage allowed: 300 sq ft  Clarify signage allowance and placement location on the primary building vs Examples: secondary building walls. Issaquah Municipal Sign Code: Restricts wall signage parallel to I-90 with exceptions. Gig Harbor Municipal Code: Signage shall not be oriented for SR-16 visibility with exceptions. Wenatchee Municipal Code: Pole, monument and pylon signs are allowed adjacent to highways in certain locations only (north of Wenatchee River). Placemaking Sign  Define placemaking sign  Create standards for type, size, locations etc. (Note: Many cities have sign programs as a way to integrate building and landscape design into a unified architectural statement).  Certain sign types can be larger and placed differently e.g. at a higher level for district identification. Right of Way Sign  Identify signs types that are allowed in the public right-of way  Mostly temporary in nature with exceptions such as awning, canopies etc. for pedestrian visibility  Must not affect public safety, sidewalks for pedestrian etc.  Should maintain rights of way clearance. DRAFT April 15, 2025 City of Liberty Lake | Sign Code Update 6 Note: Policies reflec ng required code changes are highlighted in yellow. HOUSING & COMMUNITY SERVICES INTRODUCTION The City of Liberty Lake is commi ed to fostering a vibrant, livable community by addressing both housing needs and community services. Our vision priori zes strong neighborhoods, high-quality housing, and robust community support systems to enhance the quality of life for all residents. Stable neighborhoods thrive on connec ons, shared values, and well-maintained public and private spaces, while comprehensive community services ensure that essen al human needs are met through collabora on among public and private en es. By integra ng housing strategies with community service programs, Liberty Lake aims to build a sustainable and inclusive environment that supports individuals, families, and the broader community. HOUSING GOALS AND POLICIES Goal 1: Preserve the aesthetics of existing neighborhoods and support high-quality new development. Policies: 1. Encourage infill development within exis ng residen al neighborhoods that is compa ble with surrounding structures and uses and is consistent with neighborhood design. 2. Encourage neighborhood developments that protect the environment, provide usable open space, and exhibit excep onal quality and design. 3. Maintain incen ves to encourage cluster development while preserving open space and protec ng cri cal areas. 4. Maintain architectural design guidelines that provide detailed, human-scale design, while allowing flexibility to use a variety of building styles. Goal 2: Enhance housing availability and affordability for all economic segments of the population. Policies: 1. Allow various types of suitable-scale housing, including co age-style housing, duplexes, and other two-unit housing configura ons, to be built within low-density residen al zones. 2. Periodically review and update development requirements and design standards for accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and manufactured homes. 3. Periodically review and update residen al parking standards. 4. Support more affordable homeownership by streamlining the subdivision and condominium pla ng processes. 1  5. U lize objec ve design review processes to streamline permi ng and approvals of residen al developments. 6. Expand allowable housing op ons, such as ny homes, co age clusters, and co-living developments, in medium-density residen al and mixed-use zoning districts to promote a variety of densi es and housing types. 7. Consider opportuni es for mixed-use development in the light industrial zone. 8. Encourage medium- and high-density development by periodically reviewing and upda ng the standards for mul -family and mixed-use developments. 9. Promote the preserva on of exis ng housing units that provide affordable op ons for households through loans, grants, and other programs. 10. Periodically assess the effects of policies and regula ons on housing affordability and fair housing choice, and reduce regulatory barriers, where necessary. 11. Relax design and development standards for adap ve reuse to support the conversion of exis ng, underu lized non-residen al buildings into housing developments 12. Protect exis ng households from displacement. Commented [LK1]: Recommended by Commerce. Goal 3: Accommodate suppor ve and emergency housing facili es, and support housing for popula ons with special needs. Policies: 1. Periodically review and update development and parking standards for emergency and suppor ve housing projects and facili es. 2. Support ini a ves proposed by affordable-housing advocacy organiza ons. 3. Enable a con nuum of allowable housing op ons for special-needs popula ons through periodic policy reviews. 4. Promote housing development in areas that are accessible to public transporta on for individuals with mobility challenges. 5. Support both rental and ownership forms of affordable housing in a variety of types and sizes. 6. Support a range of housing types for re rees and seniors, including condominiums, assisted living, co- and independent-living communi es near essen al services and transit. 7. Enable emergency and suppor ve housing facili es to include related offices and provide on-site services when located in residen al zones through revisions to zoning regula ons. 8. Consider introducing temporary or short-term rental programs as transi onal housing op ons for specific groups. COMMUNITY SERVICES GOALS & POLICIES Goal 1: Enhance the quality of life for all City of Liberty Lake residents. Goal 2: Facilitate programs addressing the City residents’ basic human needs including food, 2 clothing, shelter, primary health care, transportation, and protection from abuse. Policies: 1. Support human service agencies and not-for-profits specializing in emergency housing, transitional and supportive housing services, and housing subsidies for low-income residents to improve housing affordability. 2. Support the expansion of the public transit system to reduce transportation costs and improve access to essential services. 3. Foster strong community-school rela onships by minimizing travel distances for educa on and facilitate collabora on between City staff and school staff. 4. Enable non-profits and human service providers to use public facili es for community mee ngs, childcare support, and events. 5. Support programs addressing human service needs with public and private resources. 6. Promote programs provided by agencies and non-profits for weatherproofing and housing rehabilitation assistance to senior citizens and lower-income residents living in older housing stock. 7. Support health care access for low income, elderly, and disabled residents. 8. Promote caregiver relief programs, including parenting, childcare and eldercare support. 9. Plan for future needs through regular community trend analyses and stakeholder engagement. HOUSING AND COMMUNITY SERVICES INTEGRATION Affordable and Special-Needs Housing Affordable housing spans various housing types and price points to meet the diverse needs of the community, offering safe, livable, and suitable shelter op ons. Ensuring fairness in housing through compliance with state and federal laws promotes equitable access and choice. Special-needs and suppor ve housing accommodate people of varying ages, income levels, and abili es by integra ng the ability to provide support services and considera ons for a variety of 3 housing types into land use and zoning regula ons to accommodate varied housing needs, while promo ng compliance with fair housing standards. Infrastructure and Services Effec ve housing policies are supported by clear, consistent regula ons that reduce development barriers and align with community goals. Concurrently, addressing basic human needs—such as food security, employment assistance, and social support—requires collabora on among local agencies, civic groups, and businesses. RESIDENTIAL LAND CAPACITY ANALYSIS As a part of the 2026 update process, the City conducted a land capacity analysis (see Appendix XX, Land Capacity Analysis) to determine if there was adequate supply of vacant land suitable for development in order to meet the popula on growth and housing demand projected for the City through the year 2046. This analysis assumed a variety of housing types and densi es consistent with this Comprehensive Plan and the City’s Development Regula ons. The analysis indicates that the City’s popula on at build out will be approximately 22,000 which will meet the popula on targets established for the City. It further indicated that the housing types that are assumed to be affordable for various income levels were allowed under current development regula ons, in quan es that would meet projected housing needs by income level. Projected Popula on Growth Liberty Lake’s Land Capacity Analysis (LCA) is premised on the forecasted growth for the City of Liberty Lake through 2046, the planning horizon for this Comprehensive Plan. The forecasted popula on growth is based upon the projected County-wide popula on growth for this period and then allocated by jurisdic on. The Spokane County Planning Technical Advisory Commi ee (PTAC) and the Steering Commi ee of Elected Officials (SCEO) reviewed Washington States’ Office of Financial Management’s (OFM’s) high, medium, and low popula on projec ons for Spokane County, and based upon a regression analysis of the County’s actual popula on growth since the 2017 Periodic Comprehensive Plan, the medium 2046 popula on projec on of 654,665 for Spokane County was adopted by the Board of County Commissioners as the forecasted growth for planning purposes. Popula on alloca ons for individual jurisdic ons within the Spokane County then went through a similar review and analysis, with a few hand adjustments for the very small jurisdic ons where the regression analysis suggested nega ve growth, and that alloca on was also adopted by the Board of County Commissioners for planning purposes1 (as detailed in Figure 1). 1 Adopted by the Board of County Commissioners Resolu on 24-0348 on June 18, 2024. 4 FIGURE 1. SPOKANE COUNTY POPULATION FORECAST Liberty Lake’s projected 2046 popula on was iden fied as 21,934. Based upon the City’s own regression analysis of actual popula on growth since the 2010 census, the City is projected to reach this popula on in 2042 (see Figure 2). FIGURE 2. LIBERTY LAKE POPULATION PROJECTION 5 To provide a regional context, Kootenai County, Idaho, located to the east of Liberty Lake, is also growing rapidly. From 2020 to 2025, Kootenai County’s popula on grew 9.07%, from 170,628 to 188,450 people. Its popula on is projected to grow to nearly 320,000 in the next 20 years. Exis ng Housing & Projected Housing Needs At the me of 2020 Census, the City of Liberty Lake had 4,916 housing units. As of August of 2024, 902 addi onal housing units had been constructed in the City of Liberty Lake, for a total of 5,818 units. For purposes of planning for future housing needs, Washington State Department of Commerce’s forecast the future housing needs for each County in the State. That housing forecast included not only housing for the projected popula on growth from 2020 through 2026 (accoun ng for approximately 60% of the forecasted future housing need) but also includes housing produc on needed to eliminate renter cost burden (represen ng approximately 30% of future need projects), and housing needed for the homeless popula on (represen ng roughly 10% of future need). The Department of Commerce has forecast that Spokane County would need a total of 75,184 new housing units to be constructed in the period of 2020 through 2046. The Department of Commerce’s alloca on of permanent housing needs by income level for Spokane County is detailed in the first several rows of Figure 3. In order to allocate the projected housing needs by jurisdic on within the County, the PTAC and SCEO u lized the Housing for All Planning Tool (HAPT) Method C, as developed by BERK Consul ng for Washington Department of Commerce, based on a conversion of popula on growth to housing demand. Figure 3 details the County-wide alloca on of housing units. Liberty Lake’s alloca on by income level is notated in red. The City’s total projected housing need between 2020 and 2046 is 5,315 units. In order to evaluate the adequacy of available lands and zoning within the City of Liberty Lake to meet the projected housing needs for all income levels, the City based the “assumed affordability” of housing types by income level as iden fied by Washington State Department of Commerce in their publica on “Guidance for Upda ng Your Housing Element”. Figure 4 summarizes the affordability of housing type by income level. 6 FIGURE 3. SPOKANE COUNTY HOUSING NEEDS BY INCOME LEVEL 7 FIGURE 4. LIBERTY LAKE HOUSING TYPE AFFORDABILITY BY INCOME LEVEL LIBERTY LAKE Housing Type By Income Level Housing Type >120% AMI 80-120% AMI 0-80% AMI SF/Townhomes X Duplex/Triplex/Quad X Mul -Family/ X Condos/Ins tu onal Manufactured Homes X Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) X Based upon Spokane County’s presumed housing alloca on (as detailed in Figure 3), Liberty Lake’s projected housing needs from 2020 to 2046 are summarized by income level in Figure 5. FIGURE 5. LIBERTY LAKE HOUSING ALLOCATION BY INCOME LEVEL LIBERTY LAKE Total Housing Allocation 2020-2046 Housing Allocation for 0-80% AMI 3,557 Housing Allocation for 80-120% AMI 613 Housing Allocation for >120% AMI 1,143 Emergency Housing (Beds) 227 Land Capacity Analysis (LCA) Methodology The LCA u lized a five-step process to determine available land capacity. Step 1: Iden fica on of Housing Units Constructed since 2020 - The City inventoried the total number and type of housing units constructed between 2020 and August of 2024, when the LCA analysis was conducted. A total of 902 new housing units were constructed in this me frame. Step 2: Iden fica on of En tled Housing Units - En tled developments include vacant pla ed residen al lots; mul family residen al projects that are vested through an approved binding site plan, were in permit review or under construc on as of August of 2024; and, the remaining, unpla ed por ons of ac ve, phased subdivisions. At the me of this analysis, there were a total of 4,217 en tled housing units. Step 3: Iden fy of Housing Capacity for Vacant/Not En tled Residen al & Mixed-Use Proper es - Housing capacity was hand-calculated for the nearly 185 acres of vacant and unen tled residen al and mixed-use proper es. Specifically excluded from the analysis were public and private rights-of-way, and pla ed HOA tracts dedicated to parks, open space, u lity corridors and 8  cri cal areas. A market factor of 30% was deducted from this analysis, consistent with County- wide planning policies. A er the market factor adjustment, capacity for a total of 635 dwelling units was iden fied. Step 4: Iden fy Housing Capacity of Underu lized Proper es - In the City of Liberty Lake, the only larger-lot residen al developments are located in topographically challenged areas, so this analysis only focused on underu lized mixed-use proper es. Nearly 45 acres of underu lized mixed-use proper es were iden fied. A er applying the 30% market factor adjustment, it was determined that there was capacity for 173 addi onal dwelling units. Step 5: Comparison of Housing Capacity to Projected Housing Demand Figure 6 summarizes the Available Housing Capacity in Liberty Lake by Housing Type. Figure 7 compares Liberty Lake’s Housing Capacity to its Housing Alloca on (see Figure 5), as based upon the Housing Type by Assumed Affordability (detailed in Figure 4). FIGURE 6. LIBERTY LAKE HOUSING CAPACITY, 2020-2046 Liberty Lake Housing Capacity 2020-2046 SF/ Town Dup/ Tri/ MF/Condos/ Category Total Units Man. Home ADUs Homes Quad Inst Constructed 902 705 28 168 1 0 (as of 8/24) En tled 4,217 732 242 3,243 Vacant/Not 636 21 361 254 En tled1 Underu lized1 173 173 TOTAL ENTITLED 5,928 1,458 631 3,838 1 - 1Market Factor Adjusted FIGURE 7. LIBERY LAKE COMPARISON OF HOUSING CAPACITY TO ALLOCATION LIBERTY LAKE Comparison Of Housing Capacity To Allocation Income Category Housing Unit Alloca on Housing Unit Capacity 0 -80% AMI1 3,557 3,838 80 -120% AMI 613 632 >120% AMI 1,143 1,458 Total Housing Units 5,313 5,928 1Area Median Income 9 Based upon this analysis, it appears Liberty Lake has the capacity, under its current zoning regula ons, to meet its projected housing demand through 2046. Appendix X of this document contains the detailed Liberty Lake Land Capacity Analysis. Popula on Capacity Based on Housing Type In order to bring the analysis full circle, the City of Liberty Lake projected popula on capacity based upon housing type, using housing capacity projec ons from this analysis, and OFM per capita household size and vacancy rates by housing type. The results are summarized in Figure 8, which demonstrated that the City of Liberty Lake has the capacity to support is popula on alloca on of 21,934. FIGURE 8. POPULATION CAPACITY BASED ON HOUSING TYPE HOUSING AFFORDABILITY & RACIALLY DISPARATE IMPACTS ASSESSMENT In 2021, the Washington State Legislature passed House Bill 1220 (HB 1220) as an amendment to the state Growth Management Act (GMA). HB 1220 requires that local governments plan housing at all income levels and assess the racially disparate impacts (RDI) of exis ng housing policies. Condi ons that indicate that policies have racially disparate impacts can include segrega on, cost burden, displacement, educa onal opportuni es, and health dispari es. The City of Liberty completed the Liberty Lake Racially Disparate Impact Analysis as part of this Comprehensive Plan Periodic Update. The full analysis is a ached to this document as Appendix X. The following is a summary of those findings. Throughout the history of the United States, a combina on of laws and prac ces have impacted where specific groups of people live, what opportuni es they have access to, and their ability to build wealth through stable housing. Unfortunately, many of these policies explicitly or implicitly benefited white residents at the expense of all others. The legacy of policies like redlining, which used racial criteria in determining which neighborhoods were suitable for government-backed loans, highway development through predominantly Black neighborhoods, and racial covenants explicitly excluding certain groups from owning specific proper es con nues to impact non-white communi es today. Historical Context While many ci es have acknowledged the harms of these policies, many of which are no longer legal, there are s ll policies in effect today that hold ci es back from rec fying systemic harms. 10 These can include policies that reference vague concepts like “neighborhood character,” as well as those that permit only the most expensive homes to be built, thus shu ng lower-income residents out of high-opportunity areas. Throughout the United States, racial covenants were used to exclude certain races and religious groups from residing in specific neighborhoods, crea ng exclusive areas for white, Chris an residents. These deed restric ons were legally enforceable from 1927 to 1968. Unlike neighboring Spokane Valley, the Washington State Racial Restric ve Covenants Project does not show any known racially restricted parcels or subdivisions in Liberty Lake as shown in Figure 9. This is largely because most of Liberty Lake’s subdivisions were not built un l the 1970s and 1980s, when these covenants were illegal. FIGURE 9. RACIALLY RESTRICTED PARCELS IN EASTERN SPOKANE COUNTY Source: Washington State Racial Restrictive Covenants Project. However, as of 2023 Liberty Lake is less diverse than Spokane County overall. Liberty Lake today lacks the diversity of other parts of the county and state – 93 percent of city residents are white as of 2023, with no significant geographic concentra ons of BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, and People of Color) households. The area east of N Liberty Lake Road, which has small clusters of Hispanic/La no and Na ve American/Pacific Islander households, has a rela vely high concentra on of mul family housing as shown in Figure 10. 11 FIGURE 10. RACE & ETHNICITY BY CENSUS BLOCK GROUP (2023) Source: US Census Bureau 2023 5-Year ACS; LCG. Assessing Racially Disparate Impacts Between 2018 and 2023, Liberty Lake became slightly less diverse. The city grew by more than 3,000 residents over that period but lost Asian and other race residents. The city went from 90 percent white to 93 percent white over the course of five years. Over the same period, Spokane County’s popula on went from 88 percent white to 84 percent white, with Hispanic or La no and mul racial residents seeing the biggest countywide gains (reference Figures 11 & 12). Liberty Lake is home to 2,575 homeowner households and 1,375 renter households. Of the homeowner households, just seven percent are cost burdened (spending more than 30 percent of their income on housing costs), compared with 46 percent of renter households. While just four percent of homeowners spend between 30 and 50 percent of their income on rent, the same is true for 31 percent of renters. In addi on, 15 percent of renters are severely cost-burdened, spending more than half of their income on rent. This sharp divide in stability between renters and owners can result in racially disparate impacts when renters are more likely to be people of color. 12 FIGURE 11. CHANGE IN POPULATION BY RACE/ETHNICITY, LIBERTY LAKE & SPOKANE COUNTY Liberty Lake Spokane County 2018 2023 Change 2018 2023 Change American Indian and Alaska Native 27 125 98 7,248 5,624 (1,624) Asian 398 130 (268) 11,117 12,438 1,321 Black or African American 0 43 43 8,009 10,866 2,857 Hispanic or Latino (any race) 252 497 245 27,693 37,356 9,663 Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 0 9 9 2,507 3,673 1,166 Other Race 62 12 (50) 7,063 10,357 3,294 Two or more races 428 511 83 23,093 45,201 22,108 White 8,467 11,605 3,138 438,838 456,164 17,326 Total Population 9,382 12,435 3,053 497,875 544,323 46,448 Source: US Census Bureau 2023 5-Year ACS (Table DP05). FIGURE 12. NON-WHITE POPULATION OF LIBERTY LAKE & SPOKANE COUNTY, 2018-2023 20% 18% 16% 16% Two or more races 14% 12% 12% Other Race 10% 10% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific 8% 7% Islander 6% Black or African American 4% 2% Asian 0% 2018 2023 2018 2023 Liberty Lake Spokane County Source: US Census Bureau 5-Year ACS (Table DP05). In Liberty Lake, 100 percent of American Indian/Alaska Na ve households and 42 percent of Asian households rent their homes, compared with 35 percent of white households and 22 percent of Hispanic/La no households. However, in Liberty Lake the cost barriers impact both white residents and residents of color. Among white households, 23 percent spend at least 30 percent of their incomes on rent, compared with 16 percent of Asian and 17 percent of American Indian/Alaska Na ve households. All of the Asian households experiencing cost burden spend more than 50 percent of their incomes on housing. None of the city’s 90 Hispanic/La no households are cost burdened (see Figure 13). Figure 14 indicates that the percentage of cost burdened households trended downward in the City of Liberty Lake as whole from 2016 to 2021, as well as across all ethnici es and races. Spokane County as a whole also trended downward to 13 a lesser degree in the same period, but notably, the percentage of cost burdened Na ve Americans, Hispanic and La no households increased by 7% respec vely. FIGURE 13. COST BURDENED HOUSEHOLDS IN LIBERTY LAKE (2021) American Indian or Hispanic or Alaska Latino White Asian Native Other Race (of any race) Total Owner Households Not Cost Burdened 2,380 55 - 45 70 2,550 Total Cost-Burdened 200 - - - - 200 Cost-Burdened (30-50%) 105 - - - - 105 Severely Cost-Burdened (>50%) 95 - - - - 95 Not Calculated - - - - - - Total 2,575 55 - 45 70 2,745 Renter Households Not Cost Burdened 695 25 75 20 20 835 Total Cost-Burdened 680 15 15 - - 710 Cost-Burdened (30-50%) 470 - 15 - - 485 Severely Cost-Burdened (>50%) 210 15 - - - 225 Not Calculated - - - - - - Total 1,375 40 90 20 20 1,545 Total Households 3,950 95 90 65 90 4,290 Source: US HUD, 2017-2021 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) (Table 9). Note: CHAS data for Liberty Lake does not include Black/African American or Pacific Islander households FIGURE 14. SHARE OF COST BURDENED HOUSEHOLDS BY RACE & ETHNICITY, 2016-2021 Liberty Lake Spokane County 2016 2021 2016 2021 American Indian and Alaska Native - 17% 42% 49% Asian 52% 16% 36% 29% Black or African American - - 50% 45% Hispanic or Latino (any race) - - 35% 42% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander - - 57% 51% Other Race 30% - 35% 33% White 28% 22% 32% 28% Total Cost Burdened 28% 21% 32% 29% Source: US HUD, 2012-2016 & 2017-2021 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) The renter cost burden in Liberty Lake is driven by a shortage of rental units at the high and low ends of the market (greater than 80 percent AMI and less than 30 percent AMI). Figure 15 below Deleted: 14 shows the percentage of owners and renters by ethnicity. Figure 16 shows the current number Deleted: 15 of rented households compared with the number of rental units affordable to households at each income level. When there are shortages of units corresponding to a given income level, those households will rent units affordable to a different income level. For instance, the lack of housing 14 at greater than 80 percent AMI indicates that there are likely renters at that income level ren ng units in the 50 to 80 percent range, making it harder for households in that income range to find housing. Alterna vely, the shortage of housing units at the less than 30 percent AMI range indicates that households at that income level are likely cost burdened. FIGURE 15. LIBERTY LAKE OWNER & RENTER HOUSEHOLDS BY ETHNICITY (2021) Deleted: 14 Percent Owner Percent Renter White 65% 35% Other Race 69% 31% Hispanic or Latino (of any race) 78% 22% Asian 58% 42% American Indian or Alaska Native 100% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Source: US HUD, 2017-2021 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) (Table 9). FIGURE 16. LIBERTY LAKE RENTERS BY INCOME Deleted: 15 1,000 895 -175 unit 900 deficit 800 720 700 600 65 unit 500 surplus 430 400 25 unit 365 300 -55 unit surplus 170 200 140 deficit 145 85 100 - <30% AMI 30-50% AMI 50-80% AMI >80% AMI Households at Income Level Rental Housing Units Affordable to Income Level Sources: US HUD, 2017-2021 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) (Table 15C & Table 14B). The Washington Department of Commerce has created displacement risk maps for communi es based on Census tracts. A variety of factors can create a risk that residents may be displaced from their homes, including displacements due to climate change, natural disasters, or economic factors (i.e. the cost of maintaining older housing stock, conversion of mobile home parks, or gentrifica on). While Liberty Lake has no mobile home parks and extremely limited flood plains, because Liberty Lake is such a small community, the tract-level map does not provide the nuance 15 needed to assess displacement risk created by economic factors within the community. The maps below u lize similar methodology to the Department of Commerce maps using data at the Census block group level. Figure 17 below shows the social vulnerability score by Census block group for Deleted: 16 the city. “Social vulnerability” is the suscep bility of social groups to the adverse impacts of hazards and stressors, o en due to factors like poverty, lack of resources, and limited access to services. Overall, Liberty Lake has a lower social vulnerability score than many of its neighborhoods in Spokane and Spokane Valley. However, the Census block that contains most of the City’s mul family housing east of N Liberty Lake Road has a higher social vulnerability score than other parts of the city. The adjacent block group to the west also has a rela vely high social vulnerability score, but most of the housing in that block group is located outside of Liberty Lake in Spokane Valley. The median income varies considerably by block group in Liberty Lake (see Figure 18 below), with Deleted: 17 the lowest-income block groups corresponding to those with the highest social vulnerability scores. This indicates that these block groups have the highest risk of displacement. FIGURE 17. SOCIAL VULNERABILITY SCORE FOR LIBERTY LAKE (2020) Deleted: 16 Source: US Census Bureau 5-year ACS 2013 & 2023 (Table B19013); 2020 Decennial Census (Table DP01); 2010 Decennial Census (Table H11); Washington Department of Commerce. 16 FIGURE 18. MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME IN LIBERTY LAKE BY BLOCK GROUP Commented [LK2]: Census Block Group is the smallest census unit for which this data is available Deleted: 17 Source: US Census Bureau 2023 5-year ACS (Table B19013). Figure 19 provides data on Liberty Lake households by income and race. Citywide, 84 percent of Deleted: 18 households make above 100 percent AMI – this includes 88 percent of Hispanic/La no households, 83 percent of American Indian/Alaska Na ve households, 73 percent of white households, and 56 percent of Asian households. According to HUD data, all of the households making less than 30 percent of AMI are white. FIGURE 19. LIBERTY LAKE COUNT OF HOUSEHOLDS BY INCOME & RACE, 2021 American Hispanic or Indian or Latino (of Not Alaska Native Asian any race) White Reported* All Income Category (% of AMI) Number Extremely Low-Income (≤30% AMI) - - - 215 - 215 Very Low-Income (30-50%) 15 15 - 135 - 165 Low-Income (50-80%) - 25 - 605 - 630 Moderate Income (80-100%) - - 10 95 25 130 Above Median Income (>100%) 75 50 75 2,905 45 3,150 Total for published estimates 90 90 85 3,955 70 4,290 Percentage Not Reported Extremely Low-Income (≤30% AMI) 0% 0% 0% 5% 0% Very Low-Income (30-50%) 17% 17% 0% 3% 0% Low-Income (50-80%) 0% 28% 0% 15% 0% Moderate Income (80-100%) 0% 0% 12% 2% 36% Above Median Income (>100%) 83% 56% 88% 73% 64% 17 Findings & Conclusions  Liberty Lake was less diverse in 2023 than in 2018. Between 2017 and 2021 the share of non-white residents decreased in Liberty Lake while increasing in Spokane County.  Between 2017 and 2021, Liberty Lake added a significant number of white and Hispanic/La no residents while losing Asian and other race residents.  White households in Liberty Lake are more likely to be cost-burdened (defined as spending more than 30 percent of their income on housing costs) than other racial and ethnic groups. However, 16 percent of Asian and 17 percent of American Indian/Alaska Na ve households spend more than 30 percent of their incomes on rent.  Liberty Lake has rental housing shortages at the high and low end of the market. The city needs 55 rental units for households making less than 30 percent AMI and 175 rental units for those making more than 80 percent AMI to meet current demand.  Displacement risk is generally low in Liberty Lake, but as the popula on con nues to grow, the City should consider strategies that might reduce that risk for vulnerable and cost-burdened renter households.  While white households are the most likely of any racial group to make less than 30 percent of AMI, Asian households have the highest share of households making less than the median income.  Affordability of housing stock and availability of rental housing within the City of Liberty Lake likely represent the most significant housing barriers to more inclusive housing. Taking a proac ve approach in shaping policies to address these challenges will benefit all Liberty Lake households. Policy Evalua on To begin to address challenges iden fied, the Liberty Lake Racially Disparate Impact Analysis (Appendix X) included a policy evalua on, u lizing Wahington State Department of Commerce’s evalua on framework (reference page 14 of Appendix X). The results of that analysis were u lized in shaping revised goals and policies contained within this Chapter. STRATEGIES FOR INCREASING HOUSING AVAILABILITY & AFFORDABILITY While the City of Liberty Lake’s exis ng development regula ons permit a variety of mixed-use, middle housing, and other medium-density housing opportuni es, demand for housing outpaced availability, and affordability is challenging, throughout the state. The Washington State Legislature has enacted mul ple bills in an effort to address the housing shortage and ameliorate the affordability gap across the state. Washington State Department of Commerce has also iden fied a number of strategies to guide communi es in upda ng their housing policies. 18 Some of the iden fied barriers to affordability include areas with severe topography (which limits the density as well as the affordability of development), zoning and density restric ons, some residen al design and development standards, residen al parking standards, and spacing requirements and capacity for Permanent Suppor ve Housing (PSH). A er careful considera on of revisions to City development code that have been mandated by recent legisla on, as well as other poten al tools and strategies that have the poten al to increase supply and reduce barriers to affordability, Figure 19 summarizes mandated strategies (see pages 19 and 20), while Figure 20 summarizes strategies that are recommended for Liberty Lake for implementa on (see pages 21 and 22). For addi onal details, please refer to Appendix X of this document, containing the Liberty Lake Housing Policy Analysis, Implementa on Strategies & Programs Technical Assistance Memo. 19 FIGURE 19. MANDATED STRATEGIES TO INCREASE HOUSING SUPPY & REDUCE BARRIERS TO AFFORDABILITY 20 21 FIGURE 20. RECOMMENDED STRATEGIES TO INCREASE HOUSING SUPPY & REDUCE BARRIERS TO AFFORDABILITY 22 23 HOUSING IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES Following the comple on of this Comprehensive Plan, the City of Liberty Lake will undertake amendments to its development codes to reflect the goals, policies, and strategies detailed in this Chapter. Understanding and responding to the evolving needs of Liberty Lake residents is central to this plan. Through ongoing reviews, public engagement, and strategic policy adjustments, the City will con nue to promote housing stability and provide essen al community services, fostering a thriving, inclusive, and sustainable future. The City will monitor and evaluate the progress of the development of the projected pipeline of housing types affordable to the all-income levels within the City, and our progress in reducing the percentage of cost-burdened households within the City within five years of the adop on of this plan. 24  CO-LIVING HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 10-1C Definitions Clustered housing - a group of attached or detached dwelling units, consisting of permitted uses in the underlying zone, designed in such a manner as to make efficient use of existing or planned facilities and whereby the amount of resultant common open space per dwelling unit is equal to or greater than the open space requirements for conventional development under the pertinent zone and zoning standards. Co-living housing – a residential development with sleeping units that are independently rented and lockable and provide living and sleeping space, and residents share kitchen facilities with other units in the building. Also commonly referred to as congregate living facilities, single room occupancy, rooming house, boarding house, and lodging house. Code - Development Code of the City of Liberty Lake, Washington. 10-2A-4 Zoning Districts Matrix Comprehensive Plan Category Implementation - Zoning District Single Family Residential R-1 (Single Family Residential) Mixed Residential R-2 (Mixed Residential) Multi-Family Residential R-3 (Multi-Family Residential) Neighborhood Center M-1 (Neighborhood Center) Community Center M-2 (Community Center) Central Business District M-3 (Central Business District) Community Commercial C-1 (Community Commercial) Freeway Commercial C-2 (Freeway Commercial) Light Industrial I (Light Industrial) Public / Semi-Public Institutional P (Public / Semi-Public Institutional) Open Space / Recreation O (Open Space / Recreation) Mixed Residential RD-R (River District-Mixed Residential) Community Center Mixed Use RD-M (River District-Community Center) Freeway Commercial RD-C (River District-Freeway Commercial) Types of Uses  Permitted Uses (P): Permitted uses are designated in matrix (10-2A-4) with the letter “P”. These uses may occur without special action by the Hearing Body, subject to development standards of the zone in which it is located, and other applicable portions of this Code.   Limited Uses (L): Limited uses are designated in matrix (10-2A-4) with the letter “L”. These uses are allowed if they comply with the development standards of the zone in which it is located, and other applicable portions of this Code, including meeting the requirements for the necessary permits or approvals. These uses include accessory uses, temporary uses, home occupations, special uses, etc.  Conditional Uses (CU): Conditional uses are designated in matrix (10-2A-4) with the letters “CU”. Conditional uses are permitted to locate only after a public hearing and the decision to grant a permit (conditional use permit) imposing such performance standards as will make the use compatible with other permitted uses in the same vicinity and zone and ensure against excessive interference with other permitted uses or imposing excessive demands upon public utilities and facilities as determined by the Hearing Body. Conditional use permits require a public hearing before the Hearing Examiner.  Not Permitted (N): Uses designated in matrix (10-2A-4) with the letter “N” are not permitted. All uses not specifically authorized by this Code are prohibited.  Use Determinations: It is recognized that all possible uses and variations of uses cannot be reasonably listed in a use matrix. The Zoning Administrator may classify uses not specifically addressed in the matrix consistent with similar uses. Classifications shall also be consistent with Comprehensive Plan policies.  Essential Public Facilities (EPF's): Facilities that may have statewide or regional/countywide significance are listed in the Facilities and Uses column as EPF and shall additionally be evaluated to determine applicability with the “Spokane County Regional Siting Process for Essential Public Facilities”, as amended. Facilities and Uses R-1 R-2 R-3 M-1 M-2 M-3 C-1 C-2 I P O Housing Accessory caretaker's residence N N N N N N N L L N L Accessory dwelling unit (ADU), L L L L L L N N N N N attached or detached Adult family home P P P P P P P P N N N Co-living housing N L L L L L N N N N N Dwelling, multi-family N L L L L L N N N N N Dwelling, single family P P P N N N N N N N N Dwelling, single family attached L L L L L L N N N N N townhome Dwelling, two-family duplex N L L N N N N N N N N Emergency housing & shelters N N N L L L L L N N N Manufactured homes (on L L L N N N N N N N N individual lots) Manufactured home park N L L N N N N N N N N Transitional & Supportive L L L L L L L L N N N Housing, 8 beds or less Transitional & Supportive N N L L L L L L N N N Housing, more than 8 beds Zero lot line (single family N L L L L N N N N N N courtyard home)  Amendments to §10-2C-3(C)(7);§10-2D-3(C)(8); §10-2E-3(C)(16); §10-2F-3(C)(22); and, §10-2G- 3(C)(21), Limited Use Standards in the R-2, R-3, M-1, M-2, and M-3 Zones: C. Requirements for Specific Limited Uses. x. Co-living housing a. Co-living housing shall be subject to a provision of .25 parking spaces per sleeping unit, unless located within one-half mile walking distance from a major transit stop, in which case no parking shall be required. For this purpose, “major transit stop” shall be defined as a transit stop providing fixed route service at intervals of at least 15 minutes for at least five hours during the peak hours of operation on weekdays or a transit stop on a bus rapid transit route. b. Co-living housing shall be subject to the architectural design review requirements Formatted: Numbered + Level: 1 + Numbering Style: a, b, applicable to multi-family developments within this zone. c, … + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0.75" + Indent at: 1" CO-LIVING HOUSING RIVER DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS AMENDMENT 4.1 River District Zoning District Matrix Comprehensive Plan Category Implementation - Zoning District Mixed Residential RD-R (Mixed Residential) Community Center Mixed Use RD-M (Community Center) Freeway Commercial RD-C (Freeway Commercial) Types of Uses Permitted Uses (P): Permitted uses are designated in the following matrix with the letter “P”. These uses may occur without special action by the Hearing Body, subject to development standards of the zone in which it is located, and other applicable portions of this Code. Limited Uses (L): Limited uses are designated in the following matrix with the letter “L”. These uses are allowed if they comply with the development standards of the zone in which it is located, and other applicable portions of this Code, including meeting the requirements for the necessary permits or approvals. These uses include accessory uses, temporary uses, home occupations, special uses, etc. Conditional Uses (CU): Conditional uses are designated in the following matrix with the letters “CU”. Conditional uses are permitted to locate only after a public hearing and the decision to grant a permit (conditional use permit) imposing such performance standards as will make the use compatible with other permitted uses in the same vicinity and zone and ensure against excessive interference with other permitted uses or imposing excessive demands upon public utilities and facilities as determined by the Hearing Body. Conditional use permits require a public hearing before the Hearing Examiner. Not Applicable (N/A): Neighborhood Retail Clusters include uses that are Permitted in RD-M, and RD- C Zones, however as defined, Neighborhood Retail Clusters are specific to the RD-R Zone. Not Permitted (N): Uses designated in the following matrix with the letter “N” are not permitted. All uses not specifically authorized by this Code are prohibited. Use Determinations: It is recognized that all possible uses and variations of uses cannot be reasonably listed in a use matrix. The Director or Designee may classify uses not specifically addressed in the matrix consistent with similar uses. Classifications shall also be consistent with Comprehensive Plan policies. Accessory Uses (as defined by this Code and determined by the Director or Designee) are allowed in conjunction with a permitted, limited, or conditional use only. Essential Public Facilities (EPF's): Facilities that may have statewide or regional/countywide significance are listed in the Facilities and Uses column as EPF and shall additionally be evaluated to determine applicability with the “Spokane County Regional Siting Process for Essential Public Facilities”, as amended. River District SAP Zoning Districts Matrix Facilities and Uses RD-R RD-M RD-C Housing Accessory caretaker's residence N N L Accessory dwelling unit (ADU), attached or detached L L N Adult family home P P P Co-living housing L L L Dwelling, multi-family P L P Dwelling, single family P P N Dwelling, single family attached townhome P P N Dwelling, two-family duplex P P N Amendments to §10-2C-3(C)(15); §10-2E-3(C)(12); and, §10-2I-3(C)(10), Limited Use Standards in the RD-R, RD-M, and RD-C Zones: C. Requirements for Specific Limited Uses. a. Co-living housing shall be subject to a provision of .25 parking spaces per sleeping unit, unless located within one-half mile walking distance from a major transit stop, in which case no parking shall be required. For this purpose, “major transit stop” shall be defined as a transit stop providing fixed route service at intervals of at least 15 minutes for at least five hours during the peak hours of operation on weekdays or a transit stop on a bus rapid transit route. b. Co-living housing shall be subject to the architectural design review requirements applicable to multi-family developments within this zone.  PLANNING COMMISSION TENTATIVE COMP PLAN MEETING SCHEDULE January 8, 2025 June 25, 2025  Population & Housing Workshop -LCA  GHG Sub-element /Goals & Policy  Update & Schedule on Climate Element  Review Urban Design Revisions January 22, 2025 July 9, 2025  LCA Summary  Draft Sign Code Revisions & Redlines  Critical Area Review  Resiliency Sub-Element/Goals & Policies  Update & Schedule on Housing Element July 23, 2025 February 12, 2025  Utilities & Essential Public Facilities -  Housing Policy Workshop Workshop re Public Safety  Update & Schedule on Other Elements:  Utilities & Essential Public Facilities - February 26, 2025 Workshop re Utilities  Sign Code Workshop with PC & CEC August 13, 2025  Housing Policy Workshop  Sign Code Public Hearing  Network analysis -Scope & Timeline  Co-living Housing Public Hearing March 12, 2025  Utilities & Essential Public Facilities –  Econ Development – Redlines & Policies Redlines & Policies  Cultural & Historical - Redlines & Policies GHG SUB-ELEMENT SUBMITTAL TO March 26, 2025 COMMERCE – AUGUST 15 – JANUARY 15  Recap of Housing Policy Workshop  Housing & Community Service – Goals August 27, 2025 & Policies  Network Analysis Workshop  Co-living Housing Workshop September 10, 2025 April 9, 2025  Parks Plan Update  Housing & Community Service –  Review Revisions – Utilities & Essential Revised Policies & Redlines Public Facilities  Economic Development Revised September 24, 2025 Redlines  Outline of Required Development Code  Review Cultural & Historic Revisions Amendments April 23, 2025  Review Natural Environment Chapter  Sign Code Workshop October 8, 2025  Housing & Community Service –  Capital Facilities Plan Overview Updated Chapter  Preliminary Draft of Climate Element  Co-living Housing Amendment October 22, 2025 May 14, 2025  Transportation - Redlines & Policies  GHG Priority Actions and Emissions  Review Introduction & Governance Targets Chapters  Climate Vulnerability & Risk Assessment November 12, 2025 Report  Final Review- Introduction & May 28, 2025 Governance Chapters (if needed)  Development Code Checklist  Implementation Plan Workshop  Land Use – Redlines & Policies, Map December 10, 2025  Review Econ Development Revisions  Review Revisions to Transportation June 11, 2025 Element  Parks, Recreation & Open Space Update  Capital Facilities Plan Workshop  Urban Design – Redlines & Policies January 14, 2026  Parks, Arts & Recreation Plan Presentation  Parks & Recreation Chapter Review January 28, 2026  Final Climate & Natural Environment Chapter & Policy Review  Finalize Capital Facilities Plan February 11, 2026  Review Full Draft Document DRAFT TO COMMERCE FOR REVIEW, FEBRUARY 15 – APRIL 15 SEPA, FEBRUARY 15 -APRIL 15 February 25, 2026  Workshop on Required Development Code Amendments March 11, 2026  Workshop on Required Development Code Amendment March 25, 2026  Workshop on Required Development Code Amendments April 8, 2026  Public Hearing on Required Development Code Amendments April 22, 2026  Public Hearing on the Periodic Comp Plan Update COMP PLAN & DEVELOPMENT CODE PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE CITY COUNCIL MAY 5 1ST & 2ND ORDINANCE READING, MAY 19 & JUNE 2ND RESOLUTION FINDING FINAL COMP PLAN PERIODIC UPDATE IN COMPLIANCE WITH RCW 36.70A.130(1), JUNE 2ND ADOPTED COMP PLAN WITH RESOLUTION DUE TO COMMERCE BY JUNE12,2026 (FOR GRANT REIMBURSEMENT PURPOSES)