Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Matrix Design Group presents Longview housing study; recommends zoning changes, land banking and incentives
Summary
Matrix Design Group presented a draft strategic housing plan based on survey and market data: nearly 600 survey responses, an estimated housing shortfall of roughly 560–1,056 units, and recommendations including zoning updates (ADUs, duplexes), development incentives and expansion of the city’s land‑banking work.
Get email alerts on the Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Matrix Design Group presented results of a strategic housing study to the Longview City Council, describing demographic and market trends and offering a set of regulatory and implementation recommendations.
Jennifer Todd Goins, director of planning at Matrix, and Christian Karen, Matrix’s research lead, said the study combined American Community Survey data, local parcel records, market feeds and community engagement. Christian said Longview’s 2024 population was close to 84,000 and that the study found the city’s population is aging; residents 65 and older now make up roughly 16% of the population.
Key figures presented included a median household income near $62,000, per‑capita income around $33,000, an owner/renter split of about 53% owners and 47% renters, and a typical asking rent near $1,200 per month. The firm reported a median home sale price in recent figures of about $268,850 and projected a long‑term median price near $270,000 in constant 2025 dollars by 2040. Matrix estimated Longview’s current net housing need at roughly 560 to 1,056 units after accounting for vacancy and household formation models.
Matrix said renters in Longview face comparatively high cost burdens: about 26% of renters pay 30–50% of income on rent, and about 25% pay more than half of their income on rent. Homeowners with mortgages faced much lower cost‑burden rates, Matrix said.
Recommendations emphasized regulatory changes and incentives to increase “gentle density”: updated development standards (reduced setbacks, altered lot coverage, limited height increases), expanded allowances for accessory dwelling units and duplexes, pre‑approved ADU plans to speed permitting, and non‑monetary incentives such as height bonuses paired with affordability commitments. Matrix also recommended expanding land‑banking, targeted redevelopment of underused or foreclosed parcels, brownfield revitalization where feasible, developer education, and a layered approach to financing affordable housing.
Councilmembers pressed for additional details: Derek asked whether the homeownership rate (about 53%) was low compared with state averages; Matrix confirmed the city sits below the state rate. The mayor and council noted that the city already operates a land bank; Dietrich Johnson, the city’s director of Community Services, said staff is mapping available properties and that Michael Shirley is integrating the study’s findings into planning work. Matrix said the full report runs to roughly 126 pages and that the version presented is a draft with a few pending edits; staff committed to distributing the final draft to council, the housing commission and the task force and to schedule a follow‑up briefing with Matrix.
Council discussion ranged from vacancy questions and the composition of housing stock to implementation mechanics for land banking and sidewalk and permitting costs. No ordinances or zoning text amendments were voted on at the meeting; the presentation was received for review and next steps were identified for staff and the council’s housing stakeholders.

