Spokane Development Code Assessment
STAFF DRAFT
May 2026
[Page 2]
Table of Contents
PART 1: INTRODUCTION........................................................................... 3
Why Undertake this Project?...................................................................................................... 3
Project Overview............................................................................................................................ 3
About the Process.......................................................................................................................... 4
Timeline................................................................................................................................................. 4
Opportunities for Input................................................................................................................... 4
About the Land Development Code Assessment................................................................ 5
Organization of this Report........................................................................................................... 5
Focus Areas......................................................................................................................................... 5
Summary of Key Recommendations........................................................................................ 6
PART 2: SPOKANE GUIDING PLANS AND POLICIES...................... 11
Overview............................................................................................................................................ 11
Related Plans and Policies........................................................................................................... 11
PlanSpokane 2046 Comprehensive Plan (under development).................................... 11
Shaping Spokane Comprehensive Plan (2017).................................................................... 15
Housing Action Plan....................................................................................................................... 17
Sustainability Action Plan............................................................................................................ 19
Transit-Oriented Development Framework Study............................................................ 23
Bicycle Master Plan........................................................................................................................ 26
Centers and Corridors Update Study..................................................................................... 26
PART 3: ANALYSIS OF CURRENT LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE
........................................................................................................................ 28
Focus Area 1: Establish Clear and Predictable Development Review Procedures. 28
Establish Common Review Procedures................................................................................. 28
Create Complete and Consistent Specific Review Procedures................................... 33
Fill the Gap – Create a New Site Plan/Land Use Permit Application......................... 36
Pursue Opportunities for Streamlining Development Review...................................... 40
Revise Approach for Urban Design Review......................................................................... 45
Clarify Extent and Applicability of LDC Rules for Nonconformities.......................... 46
Incorporate More Opportunities for Design Flexibility.................................................... 50
Focus Area 2: Fine-Tune Zoning Districts and Allowed Uses......................................... 51
Land Use and Zoning Districts.................................................................................................. 52
Overview of Current Zoning Districts.................................................................................... 52
Consolidate and Adjust Land Use Allowances................................................................... 65
Focus Area 3: Refine Development Standards................................................................... 69
Tailor Design Standards to Context........................................................................................ 70
Ensure Applicable Standards Are Proportional to Complexity of Infill and
Redevelopment Requests........................................................................................................... 70
Add Detail to Landscaping and Expand Tree Preservation Incentives...................... 71
[Page 3]
Carry Forward Signs Standards Subject to Minor Revision as Needed.................... 75
Draft Citywide Outdoor Lighting Standards....................................................................... 75
Focus Area 4: Create a More User-Friendly Code............................................................. 76
Adopt New On-Line Platform for Easier Access to the SDC........................................ 76
Reorganize Land Development Regulations....................................................................... 77
Standardize and Simplify the Numbering Hierarchy........................................................ 77
Ensure LDC Updates and Revisions are Drafted Using Plain Language................... 78
Improve Graphic and Photo Illustrations.............................................................................. 79
PART 4: DETAILED OUTLINE................................................................ 83
[Page 4]
PART 1: INTRODUCTION
WHY UNDERTAKE THIS PROJECT?
The City of Spokane is initiating a project to update its zoning code, with the
objective of modernizing its development regulations to address major community
needs such as housing, economic growth, and sustainability. Called BUILDSpokane,
the project also aims to align zoning regulations with the comprehensive plan,
(PLANSpokane), which is being updated concurrently, so that the revised code helps
to implement the plan’s goals and visions. The new code will come into compliance
with recent state laws, including the mandate in the Growth Management Act that
requires implementation of regulations that address and begin to undo racially
disparate impacts, displacement, and exclusion in housing. In particular, the city
hopes the changes will:
• Reduce barriers to development and redevelopment
• Encourage more housing options
• Improve affordability
• Begin to redress historically disparate impacts and minimize displacement risk
• Support mixed-use and higher-density development in some areas
Key to supporting streamlined development is revision of some of the City’s review
and approval procedures to be more efficient and results-oriented. Overall, the
zoning update will result in clear and easier to understand regulations that help
Spokane manage growth and meet future community goals.
PROJECT OVERVIEW
The City of Spokane, in collaboration with Clarion Associates and Kimley Horn
(“project team”), has initiated a process to complete the first comprehensive update
of the City’s land development regulations in many decades. This process, called
BUILDSpokane (“BUILDSpokane” or “project”), involves a detailed analysis and
update of the City’s land development regulations, including:
• Title 17A Administration
• Title 17B Comprehensive Plan and Sub-area Plans
• Title 17C Land Use Standards
• Title 17D City -wide Standards
• Title 17E Environmental Standards
• Title 17F Construction Standards
• Title 17G Administration and Procedures
• Title 17H Engineering Standards
• Title 17I Enforcement
[Page 5]
The goal of this project is to comply with state -mandated timelines for both
comprehensive plan and land development code (LDC) updates. The updated
development code will be written to align with and support implementation of the
updated comprehensive plan, PlanSpokane 2046, that is occurring concurrently.
Further goals for the BUILDSpokane project are to modernize Spokane’s
development code to encourage construction of the City’s preferred development
types, incorporate statutory review requirements, and focus on implementing
measures to reduce historical racially disparate impacts and produce more equitable
outcomes. This project will also place significant emphasis on making the resulting
LDC significantly more straightforward to use, incorporating user-friendly elements
such as tables, graphics, photos, and illustrations to help users grasp the concepts
and regulations contained in the code.
ABOUT THE PROCESS
Timeline
The BUILDSpokane project began in December 2025 and is anticipated to conclude
by December 2026. The project includes five phases, as depi cted below. This
Development Code Assessment Report is the basis of Phase 2 and will be followed
by drafting significant updates to the existing Title 17 Land Development Code.
Proposed changes to the code are described in this Report.
Figure 1: LDC Modernization Timeline
Opportunities for Input
This Assessment is informed by discussions with staff across multiple departments,
stakeholder interviews with developers, architects, designers, and other groups who
regularly use the current LDC, a tour of the community, and the project team’s
review of Spokane’s current land development regulations and supporting
[Page 6]
background materials. These activities took place in December 2025 and included
brief presentations about the project to the Mayor, the City Council, and the Planning
Commission.
ABOUT THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE ASSESSMENT
This Assessment is intended to serve as a roadmap for the proposed changes to
Spokane’s LDC by identifying strengths and weaknesses of the current land
development regulations and building consensus on the general scope of the issues
to be addressed, as well as recommendations for addressing them.
Organization of this Report
In addition to this Introduction (Part 1), this report is organized into three additional
sections:
Part 2: Spokane Guiding Plans and Policies
• Includes a summary of the plans and policies that guide development in Spokane,
including the City’s 2017 comprehensive plan, Shaping Spokane, and the updated
comprehensive plan that is currently under development, PlanSpokane 2046. The
contents of these a nd other plans helped inform proposed changes to the City’s
land development regulations.
Part 3: Analysis of Current Land Development Regulations
• Provides a detailed analysis of the current land development regulations, and
includes recommendations for improvements to be implemented as part of the
code update process. This section is further divided into Focus Areas related to
improvements for usability; zone districts and uses; development standards; and
administration and procedures. These are described in more detail below.
Part 4: Detailed Outline
• Proposes the new organization al structure for the code, and shows where Titles,
Chapters, and Sections of Title 17 fit within the new organizational order.
Focus Areas
Based upon the project team’s review of the City’s regulations and initial project
interviews, we propose the following Focus Areas for structur ing groups of related
issues that will be addressed as part of the project update. The discussion of these
Focus Areas in this report includes recommendations for how the regulations should
be improved to address the underlying issues and concerns associated with each
major focus area.
[Page 7]
Focus Area 1: Establish Clear and Predictable Development Review
Procedures
• Update review procedures with focus on efficiency, transparency, and
predictability of both process and outcomes
Focus Area 2: Fine-Tune Zoning Districts and Allowed Uses
• Align zoning districts and allowed uses with updated Land Use Plan Map
(“LUPM”)
• Implement regulations to address racially disparate impacts, and reduce the
risk of displacement and exclusion in housing development
Focus Area 3: Refine Development Standards
• Review and revise development standards – design standards in particular –
to make sure they are practical and achievable
Focus Area 4: Create a More User-Friendly Code
• Reorganize content in logical outline, ensure language is plain and
comprehensible, include graphics and illustrations
SUMMARY OF KEY RECOMMENDATIONS
Commentary
The left column of the table contains active links. If a user Ctrl+clicks the text, it leads to
that section of the report.
Table 1 captures the full list of recommendations for improving Spokane’s land
development regulations outlined in this Assessment.
Table 1: BUILDSpokane Project Recommendations
Focus Area Recommendation
Establish Clear and Predictable Development Review Procedures
Establish Common Review • Consolidate and clarify common review procedures
Procedures that apply to most development review applications
Create Complete and Consistent • Reformat all specific review procedures to explicitly
Specific Review Procedures address each step in the application and review
process
• Incorporate process -specific flow charts for each
land development review process
Fill the Gap – Create a New Site • Create a new site plan application and review
Plan/Land Use Permit process to consolidate existing land use reviews and
Application coordinate and clearly record compliance with
zoning, urban design, conditional use, environmental
protection, and related land use final decisions,
deviations/adjustments/variances, and conditions of
approval
[Page 8]
Table 1: BUILDSpokane Project Recommendations
Focus Area Recommendation
Pursue Opportunities for • Expand the types of development and permits
Streamlining Development exempt from SEPA review, as allowed by state law
Review • Eliminate public notice requirements for all short
plats
• Evaluate alternatives to in -person community
meetings
• Clarify Purpose /Intent of unit lot subdivision tool
Revise Approach for Urban • Consolidate and clarify existing Title 17 provisions
Design Review describing the make -up, authority, and decision -
making and appeal jurisdiction of the administrators
and elected/appointed bodies charged with
reviewing and deciding land development
applications and permits
Clarify Extent and Applicability • Evaluate whether the current approach in the LDC
of LDC Rules for for establishing nonconforming status aligns with
Nonconformities the City’s current approach to nonconformities and
best practices.
• Provide clear standards for determining when a
nonconformity is discontinued (abandoned), thereby
terminating its right to continue in a nonconforming
manner.
• Revise the definitions of “nonconforming
development” and “nonconforming use” in Title 17 to
narrow the range of code violations that make a
structure, site, or use nonconforming and therefore
subject to more restrictive standards.
• Identify the decision -maker with authority to make
all determinations regarding the existence of a
nonconformity and the factual discontinuance of
such use/structure.
• Clarify current standards for when modifications to
nonconforming structures, uses, and improvements
will trigger full code compliance.
• Consolidate and clarify a property owner’s
entitlement to rebuild a damaged or destroyed
nonconforming structure or re -establish a
nonconforming use when the structure housing the
nonconforming use is damaged or destroyed.
Incorporate More Opportunities • Clarify the zoning variance process by consolidating
for Design Flexibility procedural information in the LDC
• Revise the current Minor Adjustment process to
more clearly and expansively allow minor deviations
from objective development and design standards
• Clarify and revise the code interpretation process to
allow Director s and their delegees to navigate
insufficiently clear provisions and account for
unanticipated development scenarios
Fine-Tune the City’s Zoning Districts and Allowed Uses
[Page 9]
Table 1: BUILDSpokane Project Recommendations
Focus Area Recommendation
Align Zoning Districts with Land • Ensure zoning districts align with land use
Use Designations designations in the updated Comprehensive P lan;
refine final district lineup once the final plan is
available
Create, Rename, or Delete • Adjust residential districts to focus on scale of
Districts development rather than density
• Revise Centers and Corridors; generally, emphasize
mixed use at varying scales. Detail to be determined
as Plan update progresses
• Carry forward industrial and Downtown zones
• Create new districts for parks & open space, and
civic & institutional uses
• Delete districts that are not in use (NMU, Planned
Industrial)
Adjust Centers & Corridors • Creating tailoring mixed use districts, of varying
Concept to Enhance intensity as described in Table 5.
Implementation and Outcomes • Allow flexibility within the base districts by focusing
more on scale, built form, and multimodal
accessibility than allowed/prohibited uses
• Adjust standards based on intensity of development,
and extent of change from existing development
(for example, consider the different standards
needed to transform a strip mall versus maintain an
exiting neighborhood commercial strip)
• Clarify triggers for applicability of other code
standards (for example, should a simple change of
use require upgrades to curb, gutter, and sidewalk if
those are substandard)
Create a Mixed -Use, Transit - • Support the realization of Spokane’s TOD plans with
Oriented Development district a TOD mixed-use district centered around the
station areas
• Include residential at a density that is capable of
supporting high -frequency transit
• Tailor development and design standards to support
TOD corridor
Emphasize Revitalization in • Prohibit creation of new surface parking
Downtown Districts • Offer incentives for re -occupying vacant downtown
storefronts
• Emphasize creation of residential development, both
affordable and market -rate
Relocate and Update Existing • Move some of the PUD information from 17G
Planned Unit Development including the “what is it?” information such as
Regulations purpose, uses, density, and dimensional
requirements, while the “how to do it” content can
remain in the Administration and Procedures
Chapter.
[Page 10]
Table 1: BUILDSpokane Project Recommendations
Focus Area Recommendation
• Revisit what PUDs are created for
Consolidate and Adjust Land Use Allowances
Reorganize into a Single, Central • Consolidate all five separate land use tables into a
Land Use Table single consolidated table for all allowed uses
Retain Land Use Category • Carry forward reliance on use categories, subject to
Approach, with Refinement & revisions and refinement of categories and what
Reorganization specific uses they include
Define Land Uses • Ensure that each allowed land use has a definition
Create Use Specific Standards • Consolidate use-specific standards into a single
(USS) Section; Update Existing location.
USS • Eliminate “limited uses,” which are just use-specific
standards
Review & Update Use • Review use permissions to increase the number of
Permissions uses allowed by right, subject to use-specific
standards to mitigate impacts
Refine Development Standards
Ensure Applicable Standards • Clarify what requirements apply to infill and
Are Proportional to Complexity redevelopment requests, to ensure applicable
of Infill and Redevelopment requirements are not overly complex, or functioning
Requests as a deterrent
Add Detail to Landscaping and • Create specific and measurable landscaping
Expand Tree Preservation requirements, to clarify applicant responsibilities and
Incentives allow decision -making at the administrative level
leading to shortened review times
• Increase the overall limit for site landscaping
• Replace vague and ill -defined standards with
specific requirements
• Focus on tree planting to enhance environmental
benefits and property values
• Expand incentives for tree preservation
• Promote the “Spokanescape” incentive program,
and look at ways to codify this as desired
landscaping
Carry Forward Signs Standards • Carry forward existing Signs Chapter content,
Subject to Minor Revision as subject to minor edits and reorganization
Needed • Work with staff to identify any problems with
existing standards – do standard regulations not
work well in certain areas, for example, historic
districts? Are there sign types or standards that
consistently cause issues; for example, standards for
brightness are too low, or size allowance for wall
signs is too low?
• Include a temporary signs section.
Draft Citywide Outdoor Lighting • Draft a new citywide lighting section that includes
Standards standard elements such as brightness allowance by
zone, type and temperature of allowed lighting,
[Page 11]
Table 1: BUILDSpokane Project Recommendations
Focus Area Recommendation
prohibited lighting, common exceptions (holiday
lighting), and exemptions (sports fields).
Create a More User-Friendly Code
Adopt New On-Line Platform for • Relocate the code from the City’s website to an
Easier Access to the SDC online codifier to improve access, layout, and
usability
• Include a searchable Table of Contents for the
complete SDC, or its component Titles and Chapters
• Improve search function
Reorganize Land Development • Consolidate similar information into a single location
Regulations to reduce the hundreds of Chapters in Title 17, and
thousands of sections, many of which are only one
sentence long (see Part 4: Detailed Outline for
further information on proposed reorganization)
Standardize and Simplify the • Revise numbering to be logical and sequential, and
Numbering Hierarchy more aligned with the numbering scheme used by
other chapters of the SMC
Ensure LDC Updates and • Review and revise code to eliminate convoluted,
Revisions are Drafted Using Plain opaque, or legalistic writing
Language
Improve Graphic and Photo • Add graphics and photos to illustrate complex
Illustrations concepts
• Ensure all graphics are sized to be legible
[Page 12]
PART 2: SPOKANE GUIDING PLANS AND POLICIES
OVERVIEW
This section includes a summary of some plans and policies that will be used to help
guide proposed changes to Spokane’s land use and subdivision codes – it is not
meant to be an exhaustive list of t he guiding documents that will be consulted during
the code update process. The community’s vision, goals, and objectives, as
expressed through City plans, studies and policies, are important for providing
guidance and direction in drafting regulations that support policy implementation.
RELATED PLANS AND POLICIES
PlanSpokane 2046 Comprehensive Plan (under development)
Spokane is currently updating its Comprehensive Plan, the City’s primary guiding
document for future growth and policy direction. This plan update, known as
PlanSpokane 2046, establishes the visions, policies, and regulatory framework that
will guide Spokane over the next 20 years. Draft sections of PlanSpokane 2046 are
posted on the City’s website for public review as they become available.
BUILDSpokane revises the City’s zoning and development standards to ensure they
guide development patterns, locations, and land uses that are consistent with
PlanSpokane 2046. The project focuses on regulatory changes needed to implement
the plan’s vision statements and goals. The chapters and goals identified below
represent the elements of the Comprehensive Plan that can be most directly
implemented through the land use code update.
Community Health
CH-2.1 - Accommodate development of care and support facilities in all
neighborhoods and parts of the city through inclusive development standards,
codes, and zones.
CH-2.2 - Accommodate the development and operation of temporary housing for all
populations in need, including opportunities for those requiring direct care and
treatment services, throughout all parts of the city and the region, to allow those in
need to remain in close proximity to their community and social circle.
CH-2.3 - Establish and enforce development regulations that allow for construction
of care facilities in every neighborhood while considering the context and
environment in which they are placed.
CH-2.4 - Allow residential dwellings to be used as approved childcare facilities and
adult day centers where housing is permitted to expand access to social service
facilities.
[Page 13]
CH-2.6 - Regulate land uses and zoning requirements such that child and adult care
services, health services, libraries, schools, recreational, educational, and cultural
programs can be clustered to minimize the need for users and patients to travel long
distanc es between care and facilities.
CH-2.7 - Regulate institutional housing consistent with State and Federal laws and
requirements for the location of housing, treatment, and support services for higher
risk populations, while ensuring that these necessary services, such as substance
abuse care facilities, can be provided in the city where needed.
CH-7.3 - Design sites and activities such that users of the space are visible from the
outside and can see out from the inside, to foster a greater sense of connection and
activation, avoiding visual isolation to ensure community safety.
CH-9.4 - Incentivize and enable uses that provide fresh food to neighborhoods by
amending zoning and code requirements to ensure food access for parts of the city
where affordable, healthy food is not currently available.
Economic Prosperity
EP-3.5 - Encourage opportunities for creating and expanding home-based
businesses while minimizing impacts on the surrounding community.
EP-9.1 - Promote the region’s outdoor amenities, recreational opportunities, and
agritourism as features of both social benefit and economic growth, while protecting
the natural resources for the future.
Natural Environment
NE-1.2 - Encourage the use of evolving best practices for stormwater, including
solutions like rain gardens, Wastewater Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) tanks, and
other low -impact mitigation tools that protect ground and surface water from
contamination and pollution.
NE-1.5 - Prohibit or severely limit open pit mining throughout the city, as it exposes
the aquifer or ground water to potential contamination.
NE-1.7 - Allow only non -polluting land uses to be developed and operated within the
water recharge zones of the public water wells, as guided by development
regulations and land use limitations within critical areas.
NE-1.9 - Ensure that newly developed property in the city and within the City’s sewer
service area is connected to municipal sewer service, minimizing aquifer
contamination.
NE-3.3 - Reduce impervious surface in the city, understanding that there are
locations where impervious surfaces have less benefit to surface runoff and
absorption, such as areas of drainage concern mapped by the City.
[Page 14]
NE-4.3 - Plant, preserve, and encourage the use of vegetation known to benefit local
air quality, considering both urban trees and landscaping incorporated into facilities
and development.
NE-6.2 - Preserve lands that contain natural landforms through purchase, incentives,
clustering, or the transfer of development rights.
NE-8.2 - Allow agricultural activities adjacent to urban uses without compromising
farmers’ rights to farm their land.
NE-8.3 - Allow urban agriculture within more typical urban uses where appropriate,
ensuring impacts to more intense urban uses are minimized, to allow for evolving
best practices in local food production and security.
NE-12.1 - Identify, prioritize, and connect natural places in the city with a walkway or
bicycle path system that includes connections to regional trails, natural areas, soft
path networks, community parks, cultural resources and historic sites, schools, the
downtown area, and community and neighborhood centers.
NE-17.5 - Discourage development and redevelopment within the 100 -year
floodplain.
Neighborhoods
N-1.1 - Provide a variety of housing, recreation, and daily service opportunities within
the downtown neighborhood that attract and retain neighborhood residents at all
income levels who support downtown and surrounding neighborhoods, recognizing
the value that the downtown neighborhood holds for all residents, visitors, and
employees in the city.
N-2.3 - Ensure that neighborhood -based services are available and accessible to
residents of all ages and abilities, such as being in proximity to public transit routes,
bicycle infrastructure, or robust amenities for people walking and rolling.
N-2.6 - Expand the diversity of housing options for neighborhood residents of all
income levels by preserving existing housing and allowing for the development of
moderate density housing options in all neighborhoods.
N-4.3 - Ensure that the size of a neighborhood business is appropriate for the size of
the neighborhood it serves so that trips generated by non -local traffic through the
neighborhood are minimized.
Parks & Recreation
PR-1.5 - Implement and maintain development standards calling for required natural
open space and parks dedication and development within new developments while
working cooperatively with property owners and developers to secure and preserve
open spaces between developments where possible.
[Page 15]
PR-1.6 - Establish standards for and encourage the use of both developed and
undeveloped open space buffers between conflicting land uses and infrastructure,
including provisions and incentives for clustering of development.
Urban Design & Historic Preservation
DP-1.6 - Apply design guidelines to significant projects through a review process,
such as the Design Review Board, that relies on community input and the expertise
of design professionals to achieve design performance that meets or exceeds
citizens’ quality of life expectations.
DP-1.7 - Craft development regulations and design requirements that recognize the
influence design regulations have on meeting the needs and wants of Spokane’s
residents, while ensuring appropriate flexibility to avoid unnecessary and negative
effects on overall development feasibility and creativity.
DP-1.13 - Orient building entrances and building facades toward sidewalks, pathways,
and public rights -of-way rather than towards parking lots or internal spaces,
prioritizing the human experience of structures rather than cars. Likewise, orient
elements serving drivers, such as driveways and garages, away from the public realm
when possible or minimize their impacts when unavoidable.
DP-1.14 - Facilitate improvements to sidewalks, streetscapes, street trees, sewers and
drains, and parks in all neighborhoods and commercial areas designated for higher
density development on an ongoing basis, including upgrades to the City’s oldest
infrastructure.
DP-1.19 - Ensure that on -premises signs are of a size, number, quality, and style to
provide identification of the business they support while contributing to the visual
interest of the community and enhancing the style of development in Spokane.
DP-1.20 - Prohibit construction of new advertising billboards and develop rules to
phase out existing billboards over time. Regulate off -premises advertising overall,
with the intent of reducing visual clutter and distraction, and enhancing safety
throughout the city.
DP-1.21 - Minimize the visual impact of telecommunication facilities such as cell and
microwave towers by encouraging their placement on existing structures in a manner
that reduces facility visibility without impacting signal strength and coverage.
DP-1.22 - Support human -scaled lighting that increases visibility and safety while
regulating display, flood, and light direction to minimize off -site impacts, including
controls against signage and lighting that distracts drivers.
DP-2.4 - Utilize zoning provisions, building regulations, and design standards that
foster preservation, rehabilitation, and enhancement appropriate for historic districts,
sites, and structures.
[Page 16]
Shaping Spokane Comprehensive Plan (2017)
PlanSpokane 2046 is still being developed, and some chapters, including the Land
Use and Housing chapters, were not yet available at the time of this assessment. The
policies in these two chapters in particular will be critical to meeting state -mandated
requirements to plan for meeting the housing needs of the community, and
addressing potential responses to racially disparate impacts, areas at high risk of
displacement, and reducing exclusionary barriers in the community.
To keep the code update aligned with the City’s long -term vision, the Land Use
policies from Spokane’s current Comprehensive Plan, Shaping Spokane, were used to
guide the assessment. While the policies identified below highlight those that can be
most directly implemented through updates to the land use code, we recognize that
the recommendations of this report may need revision and adjustment to focus more
closely on implementing new policy direction identified in the updated land use and
housing chapters of the plan.
Land Use
As Spokane continues to grow, it is essential to guide land use in a way that supports
livability, remediation of historical inequities, and economic vitality while protecting
natural areas and existing neighborhoods. The Land Use chapter establishes a
framework that directs most new growth to designated Centers and Corridors, where
higher-intensity housing, jobs, services, and transit ca n be efficiently coordinated. By
promoting mixed-use development, walkable and bikeable street patterns, access to
amenities for residents of all ages and abilities, and a balance between neighborhood
stability and flexibility over time, this chapter provides the policy foundation for
managing future growth. The BUILDSpokane project can help implement the
following policies.
LU 1.3 - LOWER INTENSITY RESIDENTIAL AREAS: Focus a range of lower intensity
residential uses in every neighborhood while ensuring that new development
complements existing development and the form and function of the area in which it
is located.
LU 1.4 - HIGHER INTENSITY RESIDENTIAL AREAS: Direct new higher intensity
residential uses to areas in and around Centers and Corridors designated on the Land
Use Plan Map and to areas where existing development intensity is already
consistent with development of this type.
LU 1.5 - OFFICE USES: Direct new office uses to Centers and Corridors designated
on the Land Use Plan Map.
LU 1.6 - NEIGHBORHOOD RETAIL USE: Direct new neighborhood retail use to
Neighborhood Centers designated on the Land Use Plan Map.
[Page 17]
LU 1.8 - GENERAL COMMERCIAL USES: Direct new General Commercial uses to
Centers and Corridors designated on the Land Use Plan Map.
LU 1.10 - INDUSTRY: Provide a variety of industrial locations and site sizes for a
variety of light and heavy industrial development and safeguard them from
competing land uses.
LU 1.11 - AGRICULTURE: Designate areas for Agriculture lands that are suited for
long-term agricultural production.
LU 1.12 - PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES: Ensure that public facilities and
services systems are adequate to accommodate proposed development before
permitting development to occur.
LU 1.14 - NONCONFORMING USES: Avoid the creation of large areas of
nonconforming uses at the time of adoption of new development regulations.
LU 1.15 - AIRFIELD INFLUENCE AREAS: Prohibit the siting of land uses that are
incompatible with aviation operations in the Airfield Influence Areas designated on
Comprehensive Plan maps, and contain residential Comprehensive Plan designations
and zoning in the Airfield Influence Areas to their existing locations not allowing for
expansion or increases in residential density.
LU 1.16 - MOBILE HOME PARKS: Designate appropriate areas for the preservation of
mobile and manufactured home parks.
LU 3.5 - MIX OF USES IN CENTERS: Achieve a proportion of uses in Centers that
will stimulate pedestrian activity and create mutually reinforcing land uses.
LU 3.6 - COMPACT RESIDENTIAL PATTERNS: Allow more compact and affordable
housing in all neighborhoods, in accordance with design guidelines.
LU 3.7 - MAXIMUM AND MINIMUM LOT SIZES: Prescribe maximum, as well as
minimum, lot size standards to achieve the desired residential density for all areas of
the city.
LU 4.4 - CONNECTIONS: Form a well -connected network which provides safe, direct
and convenient access for all users, including pedestrians, bicycles, and automobiles,
through site design for new development and redevelopment.
LU 4.5 - BLOCK LENGTH: Create a network of streets that is generally laid out in a
grid pattern that features more street intersections and shorter block lengths in
order to increase street connectivity and access.
LU 5.1 - BUILT AND NATURAL ENVIRONMENT: Ensure that developments are
sensitive to the built and natural environment (for example, air and water quality,
noise, traffic congestion, and public utilities and services), by providing adequate
impact mitigation to maintain and enhance quality of life.
[Page 18]
LU 5.3 - OFF -SITE IMPACTS: Ensure that off -street parking, access, and loading
facilities do not adversely impact the surrounding area.
LU 7.3 - HISTORIC REUSE: Allow compatible residential or commercial use of
historic properties when necessary to promote preservation of these resources.
LU 10.2 - CONSISTENT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: Require utilities, roads, and
services in the adjacent Urban Growth Area to be built to city standards
Future Land Use
In addition to the vision and goals of the Shaping Spokane and PlanSpokane 2046
Comprehensive Plans, the Land Use Plan Map provides a graphic tool to help guide
development throughout Spokane. The updated code will align zoning districts with
the land use category designations on the Land Use Plan Map to support
implementation of the regulations.
Figure 2: Land Use Plan Map (2017)
Housing Action Plan
The Spokane Housing Action Plan (HAP) is a data -driven, community -informed
roadmap to increase housing diversity, affordability, and access in Spokane. The plan
identifies strategies to encourage the construction of additional affordable and
market-rate housing that meets Spokane’s current and future housing needs. The
[Page 19]
HAP also identifies the following priorities, which will be incorporated into the code
updates as applicable:
Increase housing supply, options, and affordability for all incomes.
Supporting the availability of housing options and encouraging the construction of
both affordable and market -rate housing.
• Allow duplexes (two units per lot) in RSF and RSF-C zones, on each parcel or
each corner lot; suggested action in RCW 36.70A.600.
• Increase the allowed number of attached units on individual lots in RSF, RSF-C
and RTF zones outright, without the requirement of a planned unit development
(PUD) process.
• Allow additional housing types in RSF, RSF-C and RTF zones, and adapt zoning
with design standards consistent with current Comprehensive Plan policies,
considering triplexes, fourplexes, townhomes, courtyard apartments on each
parcel.
• Continue to revise development regulations to address lot size transitions, PUD
options, small lot options, and development standards complementary to energy
codes.
• Monitor recent parking reductions and reduce off -street parking requirements as
when warranted for residential uses.
• Continue reviewing permitting processes to shorten permit review times and
scalable application fees when possible.
• Consider creating one or more zoning districts of medium density in which
individual lots may be no larger than three thousand five hundred square feet and
single-family residences may be no larger than one thousand two hundred square
feet.
• Explore development code changes for accessory dwelling units, such as
removing minimum residential parking requirements, allowing more square
footage, or removing the requirement that the owner occupy one of the units.
Preserve housing affordability and quality to help people thrive where they
live.
Highlighting the connections between housing affordability and quality to preserve
and enhance existing housing throughout Spokane and supporting residents in every
neighborhood.
• Consider short-term rental zones allowing tourist accommodations.
• Consider caps on the number of short-term rentals allowed per host.
• In a residential zone, explore limits on the number of nights a short-term rental
can be rented to guests annually.
• In a residential zone, permit short-term rentals within an owner -occupied
residence.
[Page 20]
Enhance equitable access to housing and homeownership.
Understanding and considering the historic context that ha s contributed to patterns
of inequity and encouraging the City to break down barriers to accessing housing.
• Support land use and development code regulations that allow diverse housing
types and support mixed -income communities
• Promote universal design in residential development to support all people
regardless of their age, size, and ability in accessing housing to the greatest
extent possible, without the need for adaptation or specialization
Leverage and grow partnerships to support housing initiatives across the
region.
Encouraging local and regional partnerships to tackle the full scale of housing
challenges faced by the community, and across the greater region.
• Link housing and transportation in higher density zones to connect communities
with affordable housing options, walkable neighborhoods, and public
transportation.
Housing Needs Assessment
The Housing Access Plan includes a needs assessment, with an analysis of Spokane’s
housing, demographic, workforce, and market trends over the last few decades, as
well as housing market trends for the larger region. Some key findings from the
assessment are as follows:
• The City of Spokane and greater region is seeing steady population and job
growth.
• As a result of the City of Spokane’s growth allocation and projected growth, at
least 6,800 housing units are needed by 2037.
• Overall, these findings indicate increased demand for housing for households in
the moderate and middle -income options (80 -120% Area Median Income (AMI)),
that can mostly be met through single -family attached housing units.
• Housing prices have outpaced household incomes.
• Changing household characteristics result in changing housing needs.
• Nearly 2 in 5 households in the City are cost -burdened.
• Homeownership is increasingly out of reach for a growing proportion of residents.
• Housing within the City of Spokane remains relatively affordable compared to the
region and other cities, but many residents now fear being priced out.
Climate Planning and Sustainability Action Plan
Climate change is a global issue and action in every community is needed. The
Sustainability Action Plan (SAP) is Spokane’s roadmap to become a more
environmentally responsible and resilien t city in the face of a changing climate.
[Page 21]
Initially adopted in 2009 and updated in 2021, the SAP provides several strategies to
enable the City to meet its 100 percent renewable energy goal by 2030 and satisfy
state regulatory requirements for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. These
strategies are dispersed across seven key action areas: Buildings and Energy,
Transportation and Land Use, Waste Diversion and Material Conservation, Water
Resources, Economic Prosperity, Natural Environment, and Health and Wellbeing.
Each SAP strategy provides a method to reduce greenhouse gases and provide
social and long -term economic benefits through reasonable upfront costs.
Spokane’s built environment, and the land use regulations that produce it, are a
critical component of the city’s ability to address climate change and resiliency.
Through BUILDSpokane, and through climate planning work that has occurred since
the SAP’s adoption in 2021, including the Spokane Climate Risk and Vulnerability
Assessment, and the Spokane Policy Audit, the updated LDC will establish the
necessary regulatory framework to address the built environment, hazard
vulnerability and resilience, and climate justice concerns.
Buildings and Energy
BE-GOAL 1 - Encourage efficient, renewable energy buildings that meet WA Clean
Buildings Act Energy Use Intensity targets.
BE-Strategy 1 - Ensure new construction is as efficient as possible and ready to
utilize renewable energy.
BE-1.1 - The City will take a leadership role in providing direction and facilitating
building decarbonization by working with local partners to implement the State
energy code.
BE-1.3 - Require installed electric hookup options for all appliances in new
construction.
BE-1.4 - Incentivize electrification of all new construction (residential and
commercial) including incentivizing electrification and renewable energy sources
through City permitting process.
BE-1.5 - Require all new commercial buildings to install conduit and roof support for
a future solar system if the building is in an appropriate location to utilize solar.
BE-1.6 - Encourage and incentivize renewable, low-carbon materials, such as cross -
laminated timber, in construction.
BE-1.7 - Encourage the re -use of existing buildings, including efficiency retrofits,
rather than demolishing and starting new.
Transportation and Land Use
TL-GOAL 1 - Encourage land use policies that support walkable, livable, sustainable
communities for all.
[Page 22]
TL-Strategy 1 - Advance land use planning to minimize vehicle miles traveled.
TL-1.1 - Increase the supply of attainable housing in proximity to employment
opportunities, activity centers and the high -frequency transit network.
TL-1.2 - Review and revise parking requirements for all types of development,
including provisions and credit for bike parking.
TL-1.3 - Ensure new developments and major redevelopments maintain and enhance
connectivity of the pedestrian, bicycle, and street networks.
TL-1.4 - Increase parking lot tree coverage requirements (alt: solar panel).
TL-1.5 - Create and implement bicycle parking plan.
TL-1.6 - Facilitate mixed use development by allowing appropriately scaled
commercial and multi -family use in residential zones to promote active
transportation and provide varied housing options as identified in the 2021 Housing
Action Plan.
TL-1.7 - Prioritize development of people -centered neighborhoods that promote safe
walking, biking, and transit, i.e. 15 -minute neighborhood.
TL-1.8 - Identify commercial areas where it is appropriate to limit or restrict
automobiles and prioritize walking, biking, and micromobility.
TL 1.9 - Encourage transit-oriented development (TOD) in City planning.
TL-Strategy 2 - Encourage sustainable land use that promotes varied housing
options and infill development.
TL-2.1 - Revise land use and zoning regulations to allow a variety of housing types in
every neighborhood.
TL-2.3 - Audit City development code to identify and eliminate constraints and
conditions to promote varied housing and infill development.
TL-2.4 - Revise land use and zoning to allow increased density in residential zones
around high -frequency transit corridors.
TL-2.5 - Reduce required parcel sizes in new developments to increase density in
new construction. Encourage clustered development on appropriate sites.
TL-GOAL 2 - Reduce motor vehicle miles traveled and promote active transportation
modes.
TL-Strategy 4 - Increase adoption of walking, cycling, and micromobility.
TL-4.2 - Build out bike network according to Bike Master Plan.
TL-4.3 - Plan and buildout an all ages and abilities network of neighborhood
greenways, shared use paths, and protected bike lanes.
[Page 23]
TL-4.4 - Plan and prioritize construction of downtown protected "micromobility"
lanes.
TL-4.8 - Identify commercial areas where it is appropriate to limit or restrict
automobiles and prioritize people walking, biking, and using other forms of
micromobility.
TL-GOAL 3 - Advance alternative and low carbon fuel in regional transportation.
TL-Strategy 7 - Increase adoption rate of Zero Emission Vehicles including electric
bicycles.
TL-7.8 - Evaluate and update City code to encourage electric vehicle charging
infrastructure in new development.
TL-GOAL 4 - Integrate Sustainability Action Plan goals, strategies, and actions into
City planning.
TL-Strategy 8 - Update comprehensive plan to incorporate climate action and
updated sustainability goals.
TL-8.5 - Review and update City code to preserve urban forest and mitigate urban
heat island impacts.
TL-Strategy 9 - Ensure the City’s process for approving development and service
extensions addresses and prevents impacts to prime agricultural lands, critical
wildlife habitats, and other natural areas in and around the city.
TL-9.2 - Review land use planning and zoning policies that protect natural resources
within City owned properties and revise, if necessary, to prioritize undeveloped
natural areas.
Water Resources
WR-GOAL 1 - Protect the Spokane River and natural aquatic ecosystems (wetlands,
shorelines, aquatic ecosystems biodiversity, streams, floodplains, aquifer recharge
areas).
WR-Strategy 1 - Protect water quality, fish, wildlife, ecosystem function, and no -
impact recreational opportunities in the Spokane River through responsible, long -
term watershed planning and management
WR-1.4 - Protect aquatic ecosystem biodiversity, native species, and their habitats.
WR-Strategy 2 - Build climate resilience in natural water systems through
responsible watershed planning.
WR-2.2 – Prioritize preventing ecolo gically -damaging actions during development
permitting process over post -development mitigation strategies, including
restoration or habitat creation.
[Page 24]
WR-2.5 - Enforce protection of wetlands, including exploring wetland
restoration/creation options, updating wetland delineation maps, and enforcing
wetland buffer requirements.
Natural Environment
NE-GOAL 3 - Increase urban tree canopy and climate -adapted plant landscapes
within the built environment.
NE-Strategy 6 - Expand urban tree canopy to capture more carbon and moderate
neighborhood microclimate.
NE-6.2 - Review and revise the approved street tree list (following adoption of
Master Planting Plan) and update tree list regularly to provide more information on
drought and heat tolerance; water requirements; and resistance and resilience to
disease, pests, a nd storm damage.
NE-Strategy 7 - Establish diverse, future -climate-adapted landscaping within the
built environment.
NE-7.3 - Incentivize establishment of native, climate -adapted plant landscaping for
private landowners and developers, and enlist help from landscape designers and
plant nurseries to promote City strategies.
NE-GOAL 4 - Protect and build climate resilience in natural spaces within Spokane.
NE-Strategy 9 - Prevent negative impacts to natural resources and build climate
resilience.
NE-9.2 - Address and prevent potential impacts to natural resources during planning
phases of land development rather than relying on mitigation as a post -development
strategy.
To learn more: Sustainability Action Plan project page
Racially Disparate Impacts (RDI) in Spokane Housing Report
The RDI Report was created in response to HB 1220, which amended the state’s
Growth Management Act related to housing. One of four pillars covered in the bill,
the RDI component mandates that jurisdictions “ Identify … racially disparate impacts,
displacement, and exclusion ” as a result of current or historic policies and
regulations.
More specifically, the Housing Element in the City’s updated comprehensive plan
must address:
1. Local policies and regulations that result in racially disparate impacts,
displacement, and exclusion in housing, including:
(a) Zoning that may have a discriminatory effect;
(b) Disinvestment; and
[Page 25]
(c) Infrastructure availability
2. Implementation of policies and regulations to address and begin to undo racially
disparate impacts, displacement, and exclusion in housing caused by local
policies, plans, and actions;
3. Identification of areas that may be at higher risk of displacement from market
forces that occur with changes to zoning development regulations and capital
investments.
4. Anti-displacement policies.
The report determines that the impacts of redlining in the 1930s and 1940s persist to
this day. Among the findings:
• Exclusionary zoning enacted by the City of Spokane reinforced the impacts
of redlining and racially restrictive covenants
• Environmental health disparities reflect systemic disparities of historic
disinvestment … including higher levels of exposure to environmental hazards
and lower life expectancy.
• Patterns of segregation are reflected in the concentration of BIPOC
households and uneven distribution of racial groups among neighborhoods
within Spokane.
• While Spokane has grown consistently over the last decade, growth has not
been spread equally across the city, with both areas of increasing integration
and areas experiencing displacement.
• Housing patterns and policies concentrate multi -family subsidized housing
primarily into Central Spokane and Northeast Spokane, which limits access
and choice for low -income households, excluding them from large parts of
the city.
• Higher displacement risk exists in Central and Northeast Spokane, areas that
have higher proportions of BIPOC and lower income households.
While the City has already begun taking steps to mitigate or reverse racially
disparate impacts from historic policies and practices, updated policies in the
comprehensive plan’s Housing element will provide additional guidance on further
steps to take in that effort, and the updated LDC can propose regulations that
support implementation of those policies.
Transit-Oriented Development Framework Study
The Transit -Oriented Development (TOD) Framework Study provides a guide for
aligning land use regulations, transportation investments, and development patterns
along Spokane’s high -frequency transit corridors, particularly the City Line BRT. The
study emphasizes integrating land use and transportation to support mixed-use,
higher-density, walkable development within a ¼ -mile of transit stations. The TOD
Study also identified the specific modifications to the land use code to help facilitate
transit-oriented development in Spokane, which can be found in Appendix 2 of the
study.
[Page 26]
Guiding Principles
• Establish a multi -modal transportation corridor by linking stations with a
continuous biking and walking facility.
• Increase potential ridership with development supporting an active station
environment and walking and biking improvements providing direct access
between transit and destinations.
• Enable station areas to achieve their development potential by supporting transit
oriented infill or redevelopment opportunities for people to live and promote
businesses near transit.
Code Update Considerations
Building height
• Allowing building heights of at least 55 to 70 feet in areas served by frequent
transit. A building height of 55 feet allows for “four over one,” which can be
accomplished with wood frame construction. Taller buildings typically require a
ground floor concrete podium and more expensive but durable construction
methods.
• Increasing maximum height allowances to 70 feet or greater for the CA1 and CA2
designations will expand the range of building types that can be constructed and
potentially reduce average construction costs. The height limitations in the form -
based code zones CA1, CA2, and CA3 are generally supportive of TOD.
• For development adjacent to a RSF zone, limit height to 55 feet abutting the
zone, with a height transition line allowing for increased height further from
single-family development.
Setbacks and Sidewalks
• Reducing the minimum street lot line requirement for Commercial zones abutting
a single-family or two-family residential zone to 10 -feet consistent with the CC
zone.
• Address inconsistencies for the dimensional requirements of the sidewalk’s
pedestrian and landscape zones (e.g., FBC, CC, and Commercial zones) and
consider a base standard consisting of a minimum 12’ sidewalk (minimum 7’ clear
sidewalk and 5’ buffer) from back of curb to front lot line.
Allowed residential uses
• Modifying maximum Density Standards for the 17C.110 Residential zones’ Table
17C.110-3 to allow for “middle ” housing types.
• In the FBC zone, requiring a minimum residential density for all lots, or only those
fronting on Street Type.
• In the CC, GC, NR and NMU zones, require a minimum density for residential uses
on all lots when dwelling units are proposed for new development.
[Page 27]
Vehicle and bicycle parking requirements
Vehicle parking requirements have a significant impact on the ability to achieve
desired levels of density and also have a potentially significant impact on the cost of
development. Decreasing the amount of off -street parking required near stations
supports the success of TOD areas by improving pedestrian circulation, decreasing
development costs, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions. To support compact,
walkable development, the City could consider further reducing minimum parking
requirements either for a ll uses or for specific uses through an incentives -based
approach.
Bicycle Master Plan
The vision of the Bicycle Master Plan is for riding a bicycle to be a comfortable and
integral part of daily life in Spokane for people of all ages and abilities. The plan
outlines the following five policies to accomplish this vision:
1. Continually increase the bicycle mode share for all trips.
2. Complete and maintain connected bikeways that provide safe transportation for Spokane cyclists throughout the City.
3. Provide convenient and secure short-term and long -term bike parking to
connect people to popular destinations and transit throughout Spokane
and encourage employers to provide shower and locker facilities.
4. Increase bicycling by educating people using all transportation modes
about the benefits of bicycling to the entire community. Enhance the safety
of people riding bicycles through effective law enforcement, education and
detailed crash analysis.
5. Develop a collaborative program between a variety of city departments an
d agencies and several outside organizations to secure funding and implement the Bike Master Plan through capital project delivery as well as community planning processes.
Centers and Corridors Update Study
Following the public outreach for the City’s 2001 Comprehensive Plan (Spokane
Horizon s), the City adopted the Centers and Corridors land use policy as a path to
achieve one of the comprehensive plan’s growth alternatives: Focused Growth:
Mixed-Use Center and Corridor. Under this growth alternative, the City’s land use
codes would direct growth along “corridors” and to “centers” with adequate services
and facilities using sustainable urban planning practices. These practices
incorporat ed a mix of uses and densities and promoted compactness, walkability,
and transit-oriented development. This policy was implemented at the end of 2005.
In 2023, the City examined the Centers and Corridors land use policy to assess how
well this approach produced the type of development and growth Spokane
envisioned. This examination produced the Centers and Corridors Update Study,
which acknowledged the value of this land use policy and found opportunities to
[Page 28]
improve the ability of the City’s land use plans and the SMC to produce desired
development.
This study provided four key recommendations, included below, and proposed policy
changes to the City’s Comprehensive Plan based on a detailed policy assessment,
public outreach, market analysis, and concept developments. The BUILDSpokane
project intends to incorporate e ach of these recommendations into the LDC, as each
plays a critical role in producing mixed use, walkable, and attractive development in
Spokane.
Recommendation 1: Establish a new set of mixed-use zones
• A new family of mixed-use zones would complement the policy changes
proposed for the City’s comprehensive plan to provide for a mix of uses that
areas could “evolve into.”
Recommendation 2: Address allowed building height
• This recommendation emphasizes a maximum height, contextually appropriate to
a property’s new mixed-use zone designation.
Recommendation 3: Update block frontage standards
• New and improved standards refine the City’s current block frontage standards to
enhance “character, function, and economic viability, ” while being flexible enough
to accommodate site - and project -specific needs.
Recommendation 4: Increase connectivity
• Addresses an essential component of truly “pedestrian -friendly and dynamic”
development: internal connectivity.
To learn more: Centers and Corridors Study Engage Spokane project page
[Page 29]
PART 3: ANALYSIS OF CURRENT LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE
FOCUS AREA 1: ESTABLISH CLEAR AND PREDICTABLE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
PROCEDURES
Staff and stakeholder feedback on Spokane’s development review regulations and
procedures, which are found predominantly in Titles 17A and 17G of the LDC, agree
that the procedures are frequently confusing and cumbersome. This sometimes leads
to reliance on “workarounds ” that can lead to an inconsistent application of
regulations. The LDC includes redundant and overlapping provisions, gaps in the
review of land use and project permit applications, and procedural drag 1 that makes
the process long, unpredictable, and hard to navigate for both applicants and staff.
The recommendations provided in this section are intended to address these
concerns and simplify and streamline the City’s development review procedures.
TOPICS COVERED
1. Establish Common Review Procedures
2. Create Complete and Consistent Specific Review Procedures
3. Fill the Gap – Create a New Site Plan/Land Use Permit Application
4. Pursue Opportunities for Streamlining Development Review
5. Revise Approach for Urban Design Review
6. Clarify Extent and Applicability of LDC Rules for Nonconformities
7. Incorporate More Opportunities for Design Flexibility
Establish Common Review Procedures
Most of the land use and subdivision application requests described in the LDC are
subject to many of the same, if not very similar, procedural steps, or “common”
review procedures. Currently, these common procedures are listed, and repeated,
within individual application types (i.e., Preliminary Subdivision Plat or Conditional
Use Permit or Variance) or referred to in a summary table without reference to a
more detailed explanation (e.g., notice requirements found in Table 17G. 061.010).
Repeating these steps in multiple locations can create confusion for applicants and
staff, especially when there are slight inconsistencies across requirements that arise
out of years of text amendments or changes in state statutes. Creating a single,
standard set of common review procedures can cut down on the presence of
1 “Procedural drag” is a 21st century term referring to the delay or inefficiency that arises when a system or process is
not structured or optimized. Evidence of procedural drag highlights the importance of streamlining processes to avoid
unnecessary delays.
[Page 30]
overlapping or conflicting provisions in the LDC and serve as a starting point for
anyone looking to learn more about the steps that apply to most land development
applications under Title 17.
We recommend simplifying the Code by consolidating and relocating all common
review procedures into a single chapter or section and organizing the content as
follows:
• Summary Table of Review Procedures. This table lists every application type in
the City, explains who reviews the application, who makes the final decision on
the application, and the venue for the decision (public hearing, or administrative
decision). It can also include public notice requirements, as shown in the excerpt
below, from another community. The column to the right links the user to the
section of code that addresses the requirements for that particular application
type.
• Pre-Development Conferences. As a standard practice, Spokane already offers
pre-development conferences as an optional step for most Title 17 applications.
Pre-development conferences provide an opportunity for the prospective
applicant to meet with City staff to discuss their proposed project, explore site-
[Page 31]
specific constraints, and learn about general application requirements before
submitting their application. We heard from staff and applicants that while the
idea of a pre-development conference is good in theory, outcomes from these
meetings in Spokane vary widely: some stakeholders sai d they were useful, while
others disagreed.
On one hand, we heard that Spokane applicants fill the few limited weekly slots
for scheduling pre-development conferences, indicating customer interest and
perhaps greater demand for the service. On the other hand, some more seasoned
developer applicants voiced concern about not getting the pre-development
feedback or information they needed most, such as whether all submittal items
would be required, or what a “complete application” really looks like for their type
of project. Some staff brought up the current arduous practice of providing
detailed staff remarks / comments after a pre-development conference, which
takes extensive time and can be premature or too detailed at this early stage of
project development. Additionally, there is debate about which city employees
should attend pre-development conferences, and whether the value to the
customer would be increased by having a more experienced, senior level staff in
attendance. Finally, it is possible that some requests for pre-development
meetings do not actually warrant the time that is spent preparing for the
meetings, either because not enough information is provided, or because the
questions that applicant wants to address are simple enough that they can be
resolved without a full pre-development meeting.
The project team recommends that Spokane continue offering pre-development
conferences as an option in the LDC 2 but the code should specify a more narrow
purpose for these meetings: to provide guidance on the applicable review
procedures, identify any potential red flag compliance issues based on the
concept or narrative provided by the applicant, and assist the customer in
compiling a complete application for submittal. These meetings are not, and
should not be, an attempt by staff to cover every eventuality a project might
encounter on its way to approval – in fact, they need look no further than the first
primary step of approval, which is submitting a complete application.
Submittal requirements for a pre-development conference should be proportional
to its purpose and intent, and be as minimal as possible. For most pre -
development conferences, the current submittal requirement for a fleshed-out
2 Spokane chose to make pre-development conferences optional to avoid the possibility of 10-20% application fee
refunds under RCW 36.70B.160 for late completion of project reviews. After the recommended revisions to the purpose
and scope of pre-development conferences described here, the city might be interested in making some pre-
development conferences mandatory for more complex LDC applications such as rezonings, conditional uses, non-
residential site plans, variances, and projects triggering Design Review or substantial inter-agency review.
[Page 32]
site plan is too detailed for this early stage in a potential project. At most, a
sketch plan could be required, and in many instances – especially for conditional
use and similar zoning applications – a narrative description of the proposed
development may be enough. Staff should view pre-development conference as a
“one-and-done" interaction between applicants and staff. Sharing a meeting
summary with the applicant is great customer service and could be reduced to a
standard form/template with links to relevant submittal checklists, written
confirmation of waived submittal items if applicable, and other standard
application tips and aids.
(See also the project team’s recommendation below for creation of a new site
plan review process, which typically includes a concept plan review step prior to
final site plan decisions. The current effort of completing detailed site-specific
review and written comments after a pre-development conference would be
shifted to a later step, once there is an actual application for a project.) This
change allows the pre-development conference to serve the above -described
narrower purpose more easily because staff don’t have to load as many
expectations upon, or spend as much review time, at the pre -application stage of
a project.
• Pre-Application Community Meetings. These common provisions would
consolidate all procedural requirements related to mandatory pre -application
community meetings in one central location. This makes it easier for applicants
and the public to understand the purpose and intent of this step, its applicability
to specific types of applications, and for staff to offer clarity regarding the effect
of such meetings on the remainder of the development review process.
• Application Submittal and Completeness Determination. This section includes
information regarding who can initiate an application, generally what information
is required to be considered a complete application, and how the city may
process multiple permits or requests concurrently. Spokane should codify its
“counter complete ” requirements to provide greater clarity about the
completeness review and what the finding of “counter complete” means vs.
“complete application,” considering mandatory time frames for completing city
project reviews under state law.
We recommend this section explicitly authorize the city to draft and adopt
detailed submittal requirements for applications and plans but have those
submittal details and checklists located outside the LDC (as an adopted rule or
policy posted on-line for customers) so they can be more easily updated and
amended over time. Finally, adding an explanatory flow -chart of the
completeness determination process steps would be helpful for code users.
[Page 33]
• Application Referral and Review. This section describe s who controls the overall
flow of development review across multiple agencies (i.e., the Director of
Planning and Economic Development and their designees) and when and how
staff and outside agencies will review and comment on complete applications,
including required turn-around times for internal and external agency reviews
(typically 14 -30 days depending on the complexity of the application, if Spokane
wants to put such timeframe in the code). Failure of a department or city agency
to return a review will result in automatic “no comment” or “approved” in the
absence of state mandates to the contrary. Basic information on how SEPA
review and traffic review interact with overall application review should also be
covered in this section.
• Public Notice and Scheduling Public Hearings. This section will consolidate and
clarify general rules for the various types of public notification mandated by state
law and otherwise required by the LDC, including which Title 17 applications (not
just project permit applications) require notification of application receipt,
community meetings, or public hearings and appeals. Provisions will address
combining required notices (for concurrent or consolidated applications, the
longest notice periods / process will apply), and make clear who is responsible for
preparing, paying, and providing the various types of required notices (written,
published, and posted).
Provisions will clearly identify the types of public hearings under Title 17, which
applications require public hearings and which body conducts the public hearing
(hearing examiner, planning commission, or city council), authority to combine
public hearings currently in Title 17 and allowed by state law, the general conduct
of a public hearing, and noticing requirements (e.g., published vs. posted vs.
mailed vs. website). Currently this information is displayed in Table 17.061.010 -1,
which we recommend reworking into a more comprehensive summary table to
include review - and decision -making authorities for all Title 17 applications. See
Summary Review Table example above.
• Final Decisions - Allowances/Limitations. Provisions should clearly state the
“approve ”, “approve with conditions ”, and “deny” options for all final decisions.
Specific allowances for attaching reasonable conditions should include a general
statement of intent/purpose for conditions, generally allowed/prohibited
conditions (including examples), authority of the decision -making body to amend
conditions upon written request post -decision, and general rules for compliance
with conditions of approval. Provisions should include general requirements for
written findings of fact and final decisions, and distribution/posting of final
decisions consistent with state law.
[Page 34]
• Post-Decision Actions and Limitations. These provisions will clearly describe
actions that occur after a final decision has been rendered, including appeals,
vested rights, general provisions about approval time limits, expirations and
extensions, and modifications to approved permits and requests. Rules will
provide a time frame in which appeals must be filed following a final decision.
While this information is currently summarized in Table 17G.061.010-1, it may be
helpful to break out its permit expiration information and create a new summary
table in this common procedural section to show all Title 17 permit and approval
expiration times.
Create Complete and Consistent Specific Review Procedures
A key piece of establishing clear expectations around the City’s development review
procedures is to make sure all the information needed to review and process a
specific application is explicitly listed and easy to find and understand. Currently, this
information is found in both Titles 17A and 17G of the LDC and summarized at a very
general level of detail in Table 17G.061.010-1. The substantial reorganization of the
LDC suggested in this assessment will also make it easier to find the specific review
procedures for each type of Title 17 application/review.
A new chapter in the updated LDC will reorganize sections currently found in Titles
17A, 17D, 17E, and 17G to consolidate in one location the specific application
requirements, review process steps, and review criteria for the following broad
categories or groupings of development applications and reviews:
1. Land Development Entitlements and Comprehensive Plan /Code
Amendments: This procedures category includes city council legislative
actions to amend the text of Title 17 or the official zoning map (rezonings)
including PUD approvals, Comprehensive Plan amendments, and development
agreements.
2. SEPA Analysis and Review: The unique attributes about how land
development in the city complies with SEPA may merit putting all the triggers,
procedures, and review criteria related to SEPA (now found in Chapter
17E.050 and cross -referenced throughout Title 17) in its own section/ chapter
in the reorganized administration and procedures chapter of the LDC. This
could make it easier to describe and illustrate how SEPA analysis dovetails
with all other land development procedures in the LDC, and how the norm is
concurrent SEPA/land development review to the maximum extent possible.
Also noted were many stakeholders’ requests that the city explore expanding
project exemptions from SEPA to the maximum extent possible under state
law. See below for related discussion on opportunities for streamlining
development review. Accordingly, the project team will work closely with city
staff, particularly as the EIS for the comprehensive plan progresses, to identify
[Page 35]
opportunities to expand the exemptions and clarify the overlap between SEPA
and other LDC procedures.
3. Environmental Reviews: This procedures category draws from content
currently found in Title 17E and would include procedures for review of
development in designated critical areas and shorelines including critical
aquifer recharge areas, preparation of habitat management plans, floodplain
development permits/variances, development in geologically hazardous areas,
shoreline development and use permits, and wetland development review.
4. Concurrency Review and Impact Fees (Adequacy of Public Infrastructure):
The current provisions found in Chapter 17D.010, Concurrency Certification,
would be carried forward in this section, with a clearer statement of the
section’s intent/purpose to ensure adequacy of public infrastructure facilities
concurrent with completion of proposed land and project development.
Provisions in current Title 17 authorizing and detailing impact fees, such as
Transportation Impact Fees found in Chapter 17D.075, will also be moved here.
5. Subdivision and Preparation of Land for Development: This procedures
category includes preliminary and final short and long plat review, including
modifications and amendments to approved plats; unit lot subdivisions;
addressing and street naming; street vacations; and lot line or boundary line
adjustments. The recent ly adopted state law (RCW Sec. 58.17.145) that
requires larger cities to adopt a “Residential Lot Split” process will also be
implemented as part of this LDC update.
Another area of additional research and code revisions will be application of
the city’s subdivision/concurrency procedures and infrastructure requirements
to “old plats” – i.e., development in residential subdivisions approved before
the city’s adoption of by -right residential density at 4-6 dwelling units per any
single residential legal lot. This scenario raises questions identified by staff and
stakeholders about possible new thresholds for re -subdivision in such
scenarios and clearer applicability of concurrency review and development -
related public infrastructure improvements at time of development of more -
than-originally -platted densities.
6. Land Use and Project Permit Reviews: This procedures category, primarily
covered in Title 17G, includes the procedures for reviewing conditional land
uses, binding site plans, urban design review, sign permits, and special wireless
communication facility review. This category could be expanded to also
include procedures for the following related areas:
a. Site Development Plan Review and Approval: If the City agrees to this
assessment’s recommendation to add a new site plan review and
approval process (see the detailed recommendation below), the
[Page 36]
intent/purpose, applicability, review and approval bodies, process
steps, and review criteria would be provided here.
b. Relief from LDC Provisions: Procedures for minor adjustments (found
in Section 17A.050.030), design departures, street design deviations (or
this could be included with the Subdivision category), variances, and
administrative exemptions for land use applications.
c. Historic Preservation: Procedures found currently in Title 17D for
designation of historic districts or individual landmarks, certificates of
appropriateness, demolition of historic resources, and change of use in
historic structures.
7. Building and Construction Permits: Sequentially in the land development
process, building and construction permits are processed only after the
necessary development review or subdivision approval has been granted,
although concurrent review is possible in some cases. This category includes
procedures for reviewing building construction permits and certificate of
occupancy; and procedures governing more specific activities regulated under
Spokane’s building and fire code such as for permits for signs, fences, grading,
building moving, demolition and blasting, sewers, street obstruction and
storage tanks.
8. Special Permit Applications or Reviews: There may also be a need for a
“catch-all” category of procedures in the updated LDC to present a variety of
current Title 17 reviews that don’t clearly fall into one of the broader
categories listed above. This may include procedures for, among other things:
administrative interpretations and determinations 3; designation of projects as
planned actions (Sec. 17C.420.015-020); ROW encroachment permits (Sec.
17G.010.160); LID formation; obstruction permits; road closures; sidewalk
permits; skywalk permits; and stormwater design acceptance procedures.
9. Procedures/Permits that Can Be Moved Outside the LDC: Finally, the LDC
currently contains specific provisions in Title 17G for contractor and worker
licensing (see Chapter 17G.010). While these licenses are regulated under the
city’s uniform building code, we recommend these not -really-land-
development -related provisions move to a different and more appropriate
part of the SMC with other business and professional licensing standards.
Regardless of which category a specific process might fall into, the level of
procedural information provided for each application type should be consistent
across all types to avoid confusion around which steps are required for each
application request, and which review criteria each application will be reviewed
3 The LDC update will consolidate and cross reference, where necessary, code determination and interpretation
procedures under Title 17 to provide a standard interpretation process and greater clarity on timeframes, referrals, and
criteria.
[Page 37]
against. The organization of current procedures could be better standardized to
ensure that all steps of a specific procedure are identified, which would help staff and
applicants navigate the requirements of specific application types. At a minimum,
each procedure should describe:
• Purpose. What is this procedure used for or what is it intended to achieve?
• Applicability. When is this specific process required – what types of land
development activities or land uses trigger this procedure?
• Process. What are the steps for approval (cross -referencing applicable
common review procedures described above, and then describing any
procedures specific to the given application type)?
• Review Criteria. What requirements must be satisfied for decision -making
bodies to approve the application?
• Post-Decision Actions. Can the final decision be appealed, and to what body?
Is there a time limit on a permit or approval during which certain steps or
actions must be taken, and can that time limit be extended?
Additionally, the project team will remove substantive standards/process steps from
definitions of related terms, such as “Community Meeting,” “Counter Complete”,
“Technically Complete”, and the like, and incorporate them into this new chapter(s)
in the applicable section. Finally, process -specific flowcharts will be added to
graphically depict the steps required for each type of LDC application or approval,
from submittal through final decision.
Fill the Gap – Create a New Site Plan/Land Use Permit Application
Title 17, and specifically Title 17G, establishes the different types of development
permits and review procedures. After basic zoning district entitlements are in place,
the major types of permits or approvals for horizontal and vertical land development
established in Title 17G are:
• Subdivision Plat review and approval (including related actions such as binding
site plans, unit lot subdivisions, and boundary line adjustments), resulting in the
creation of legally described blocks, lots, and tracts; and enabling the legal sale or
transfer of the subdivided lots and tracts. Chapter 17G.080.
• Specific Land Use Permits and approvals for conditional uses, floodplain
development, shoreline development, and skywalks. These specific land use
permits include review and approval of detailed site plans. Chapter 17G.061 and
Section 17G.061.010.
• PUD Preliminary and Final Development Plans. The preliminary PUD plan
specifies the deviations and exceptions from the base zone standards and other
applicable design standards and includes plans showing conceptual level site and
building design and development details. After the Hearing Examiner approves
the preliminary PUD plan, the request goes to the City Council to approve the
[Page 38]
final PUD overlay zone. The final PUD development plan includes a fully detailed
site plan, landscape plan, building design elevations, and erosion control and
stormwater management plans. Chapter 17G.070.
• Design Review of project plans by an independent Design Review Board with
authority to make recommendations to the final decision -making body. Chapter
17G.040.
• Design Deviations and Variances from land use, floodplain, shoreline, and
development or design standards. Section 17C.061.310.
• Building and Construction Permits and Miscellaneous Site Preparation Permits.
Review and approval of detailed construction plans and specifications for building
construction and renovations, building demolition, grading, and new or change of
building occupancies. Chapter 17G.010.
Surprisingly missing from the above menu of project development permits and
application types is a separate application review and resulting permit for project
development that is submitted before building and construction permitting and not
associated with a conditional use or specifically listed land use, PUD, floodplain or
shoreline development, or skywalk. In other words, we could not identify a general
procedure in Title 17 that ensures, for all development types, a coordinated, multi -
agency city review of site development plans and building designs for compliance
with Title 17 C’s land use standards and general development standards such as
landscaping, outdoor lighting, building design, and environmental protection
standards.
The absence of comprehensive site development plan review ahead of more specific
building and construction permit reviews can lead to “late hits,” which happen when
staff’s plan reviews result in expectation of sometimes significant project design
changes in response at a time when most applicants’ project decisions are fairly
cemented in place. In most large cities, detailed land use and development/design
review comes at an earlier time in the life of a project, when its components are more
malleable, design options are not locked in, and alternative approaches to
compliance with land use, building design, and site design standards can reasonably
be expected and considered. This code gap in Spokane’s LDC is very unusual based
not only on comparisons with other large Washington cities but with comparable
cities nationally.
Accordingly, we recommend that a new site development plan/land use permit
review procedure be added to Title 17, and that the project team identify where other
stand-alone procedures in Title 17 could be absorbed or combined with the new site
plan/land use permit procedure to streamline land use review and approval. To
summarize, t he advantages of creating a new site plan/land use permit application
and review process include:
[Page 39]
• Align the city’s detailed site and building design review with earlier stages of a
project’s timeline so that changes identified to comply with city codes are
easier for an applicant to consider and implement (saves applicants time and
money).
• Create one uniform process for multi -agency review for compliance with Title
17’s land use and environmental protection standards that clearly identifies
applicability, process steps, timelines, review criteria, and decision -making
authority. The latter will include specific authority to interpret Title 17 code
provisions, provide minor relief from applicable standards, and resolve inter -
agency conflicts consistent with adopted city plans.
• Assess and formalize the building permit process as the vehicle to coordinate
multiple and concurrent development reviews and create a clear record of
interim staff decisions and determinations. For example, concurrent historic
preservation, environmental, transportation, zoning relief or minor adjustment,
or urban design tasks can be assigned after intake of a site plan/land use
permit application or after a first round of land use review comments and the
applicant’s resubmittal.
What does filling this gap look like for Spokane? There are various potential
approaches, but essentially the new specific procedure/permit type would be an
inter-agency review and Planning & Economic Development Director administrative
approval (Type I or II) of a detailed development or site plan that shows how the
proposed site and building development will comply with those Title 17 regulations
that are not standards for subdivision or building and fire code compliance. Typically,
site development plan review occurs after preliminary plat approval and before
building permits, although current practice allows developers to pull limited site
preparation permits (grading permits, for example) prior to final approval. Review
criteria for approval of a land use permit/site development plan generally boil down
to whether the plan meets all the applicable standards in the LDC, and that the
developer has obtained all related or precedent approvals and permits. Approval of a
land use permit/site development plan is required before application for building
construction permits.
As comparisons, Seattle requires a “master land use permit” that fill s this
development review function ahead of building permits. Tacoma calls it s
development review approval a “land use permit.” In other jurisdictions nationally,
the process is often referred to as “site plan” or “site development plan” approval. In
Spokane, review and approval of such a site development plan could result in a
similar “land use permit” that signals a specific project’s compliance with all of Title
17C’s land use standards, as well as Title 17’s parking, landscaping, parks/open
space/natural areas standards, environmental, and urban design standards. A land
use permit would be the vehicle by which the city would refer a project to other
[Page 40]
review/decision -making bodies and maintain a clear and written record of action on
all the component review parts of the project, such as final decisions on urban design
review, conditional use permit review, design deviations, variances and minor
adjustments. If the project is BUILDSpokane ules, the land use permit review would
be coordinated and sequenced appropriately with the Landmark Commission
reviews and decisions. SEPA review of a specific project and related
decisions /exemptions could also be integrated with a land use permit review, as
required by state law.
Often, the full review and approval of a site development plan is broken into separate
applications that offer city review/ feedback/decisions for an increasingly detailed
progression of project plans (very similar to how review of a PUD development
occurs in Spokane under Chapter 17G.070). Many cities will mandate or offer a first
step “concept plan review,” which may be one or more rounds of early project review
to identify fatal flaws or begin to work out any complexities in application of the
city’s rules and standards. The concept plan review could assist in setting up a
developer for greater success in any subsequent requirement for community
meetings, if needed.
The second step would be submittal of a preliminary site development plan for inter -
agency review and approval – the critical “all details” stage of project design and
compliance check (but not including construction specifications for building permit
issuance yet). This could also be the final process step before building permits (in
which case the word “preliminary” would go away), but many communities find it
helpful to require a separate “final site development plan” review and approval step
to confirm and cement that all conditions /comments on the preliminary plan have
been addressed and are cemented in a ready -to-record final site development plan.
Because the concept, preliminary, and final site development plan review steps are
separate applications, state-law mandated maximum times for completion of city
project permit review would apply separately to each application.
Most communities apply the site development plan/land use permit requirement to
all new developments, including low -density and middle -density residential
development. As applied to single -unit or lower-density multi-unit (2-9 units)
residential development, many communities will create a simplified submittal list of
site plan requirements and eliminate many of the more technical reports required for
commercial and other non-residential development projects. Often, the review of site
plans for these lower-density residential developments’ compliance with land use
regulations can run concurrently with the city’s review of building/construction plans
– resulting in a simultaneous issuance of both land use and building permits.
In all cases, a new land use permit or site development plan approval would be a
clear and public record authorizing establishment of new zoning uses and changes of
zoning use (where Title 17 triggers city review of changes of use), including clearly
[Page 41]
stating and recording conditions of approval that remain in action post-
permit/approval (which can assist in future code enforcement actions).
Pursue Opportunities for Streamlining Development Review
Searching for opportunities in Title 17 to shorten permitting review times, reduce or
combine distinct steps in a specific procedure, or reduce the number of different
permits/procedures applied to a single project respond s to internal and external
stakeholder concerns about overall processing time frames and efficiencies in
Spokane. Best practice is to apply the least amount of process to achieve desired
development outcomes, while ensuring protection of natural and community assets
and advancing comprehensive plan policy goals and objectives. While state law
mandates around permit processing must be met, Spokane enjoys ample discretion
to decide:
• Which projects can be exempt from SEPA consistent with state law
• Which specific review procedures and public participation opportunities
apply to different types of development proposals
• Whether and when to allow concurrent processing of related development
applications, offer combined public notices, and conduct combined public
hearings
• Whether to create expedited or simplified reviews for favored or critically
needed development (e.g., affordable housing)
• Whether to have an independent design review board and whether and when
to apply additional design review with public input to a project
• Whether and how appeals of final decisions are made
• How detailed or substantial permit and plan submittal requirements should be
for different types of applications
In our assessment of the administrative and procedural provisions in Title 17, we
recommend that Spokane consider the following opportunities for streamlining and
efficiency gains, most of which were identified through stakeholder interviews. Note
that there are likely additional opportunities that the project team will identify and
seek the city’s input as the project moves into the drafting stage.
Expand the types of development and permits exempt from SEPA review,
as allowed by state law.
Currently, Spokane must and does carry forward the categorical exemptions from
SEPA environmental review required under state law and rules. The first opportunity
to streamline development review could come from Spokane revisiting the flexible
thresholds for these categorical exemptions and increasing them closer to or
[Page 42]
matching the maximum levels allowed under state law. As shown in the table below,
the LDC’s Section 17E.050.070, “Flexible Thresholds for Categorical Exemptions ”,
sets several types of SEPA categorical exemption thresholds below the levels the
statutes deem “minor construction” and therefore eligible for exemption (see WAC
197-11-800). Given critical citywide land use and housing policy objectives, we
recommend the City consider raising the thresholds for exempt residential
developments to match state allowances.
Table 2: EXPANSION OF SEPA EXEMPTION OPPORTUNITIES
Project or Spokane RCW Maximum Opportunity to
Development Threshold for Allowed Increase
Type SEQA Exemption Threshold for Exemption
in Chapter 17E SEPA Exemption Threshold
Attached or Up to 20 dwelling Up to 30 dwelling
detached single- units units, or up to 100
family residential dwelling units when YES
units – any size unit unit size is less than
1,500 sf.
Multi-family Up to 4 dwelling Up to 200 dwelling
YES
residential units units units
Office, school, Up to 12,000 square Up to 30,000
commercial, feet and up to 40 square feet and up
YES
recreational, service parking spaces to 90 parking
or storage buildings spaces
Agricultural Up to 20,000 Up to 40,000
YES
structures square feet square feet
Stand-alone parking Up to 40 parking Up to 90 parking
NO
lots spaces spaces
Fill or excavation Up to 500 cubic Up to 1,000 cubic
YES
yards yards
There are additional optional exemptions the state allows that many stakeholders
would like Spokane to consider. These optional exemptions only take effect when
specifically adopted by a local government, usually for certain portions of a
jurisdiction (i.e., subareas) after a public process to consider area -wide impacts.
Spokane has done this with its adoption of a planned action ordinance for the South
Logan TOD district (see RCW 43.21C.440) and should continue to add planned
action areas to the LDC as the comprehensive plan is updated, including adoption of
new subarea plans.
State law also allows additional SEPA categorical exemptions if a city adopts them
based on the findings and criteria stated in RCW 43.21.229, including when a city’s
comprehensive plan was already subjected to environmental analysis under SEPA.
One of the optional exemptions covers infill and housing development within the
urban growth area where current density and intensity of use in the area is equal to
[Page 43]
or lower than called for in the city’s comprehensive plan. Another optional exemption
is for residential or mixed-use development within a transit station area. Spokane
should consider adopting both additional SEP A exemptions upon completion of the
updates to its comprehensive plan now in progress.
Eliminate public notice requirements for all short plats.
Currently, Spokane requires all short plats creating 5 -9 lots to provide public notice
of receipt of the application, triggering a public comment period of at 14 days prior
to the city’s final decision on the plat application. Short plats creating fewer 1 -4 lots
are exempt from this same notice and public comment requirements, as are a short
plat that meets the criteria for “minor engineering review.” See Section 17G.080.040,
Short Subdivisions. To encourage more infill development in the city by streamlining
project review, we recommend Spokane consider exempting all short
plats/subdivisions from requirements for public notice and public comment. 4
Evaluate Alternatives to In -Person Community Meetings.
Currently, Spokane requires a pre-application “community meeting” (defined in
Section 17A.020.030.Z) for all Type III land use applications, including applications
for conditional uses, variances, preliminary long plats, and preliminary PUDs, skywalk
permits, and rezonings. (See Table in Section 17G.061.010, Summary of Land Use
Application Procedures.)
While pre -application community meetings can be useful for making interested
members of the public aware of potential development projects in their
neighborhood, or further afield in Spokane, there should be clear guidance on what
participants may expect as an outcome of the meeting. If there is no expectation for
development professionals to respond to community concerns about a project,
community members can feel disappointed in participation, as though their concerns
have not been heard, or have been ign ored. If the purpose of the meeting is solely to
share information, other methods of sharing project information and soliciting public
feedback may be considered in lieu of public meetings.
Currently, Type III land use applications that trigger a required community meeting
also trigger public notice of receipt of application with an attend ant public comment
period to solicit information or concerns about a specific project’s design or potential
external effects. Based on experience, and given the shortcomings of a mandatory
pre-development public meeting mentioned above, we recommend reducing
instances when a community meeting is a requirement. There may be other means
the City can use to disseminate information about potential projects, and public input
on a project can still be solicited immediately after submittal (using the current
4 This is based on the project team’s early reconnaissance that indicates most short plats are approved by the city
unconditionally provided compliance with all applicable LDC standards is found.
[Page 44]
notice of application procedures) when the more concrete details of the project have
been finalized.
In sum, because there will still be opportunities for members of the public to
comment on proposed development projects within the city, we recommend
Spokane reduce instances of required community meetings for some Type III actions.
The project team sees opportunities to eliminate mandatory community meetings
for variances, some or all conditional uses, rezonings, some or all preliminary plats,
some or all preliminary PUDs, skywalks, and some or all floodplain permits and
variances. If the recommendation to reduce community meetings is implemented, we
will work with staff to determine when and what other means (aside from required
public notice) of publicizing projects can be used.
Change Some Conditional Uses and Preliminary Plats to Type II Reviews.
Based on input from staff, developers, consultants, and the hearing examiner’s office,
there appear to be opportunities for Spokane to remove some land uses from the
“conditional use” category of Type III applications. Stakeholder experience with
certain conditional uses reveals some types are typically approved, either with no
conditions of approval, or with the same staff-recommended conditions attached to
address potential off -site impacts. Very rarely is the final decision -maker adding site -
specific conditions based on public comment /input that are different than what
professional planning staff recommends. Conditional uses that produce these
standard conditions and consistent approvals provide an opportunity to substantially
streamline review by shifting them from Type III review to Type I or Type I I
administrative director/staff review only. Alternately, conditions that are consistently
repeated for certain uses may instead become use-specific standards, enabling the
use to be allowed by right, provided the use-specific standards are met. Accordingly,
we will work with staff to identify conditional uses that could fall into one of these
categories, and update the process and permissions that apply to them.
Similarly, we will work with staff to identify alternative thresholds that might reduce
the type and number of preliminary long plats that go through the Type III review
process. For example, state law allows long plats for SEPA -exempt project actions to
bypass the otherwise mandated notice of application. If SEPA exemptions are
expanded, as recommended above, the City should additionally consider removing
the accompanying notice of application/public comment period from preliminary
long plats for the newly-exempt types of projects. Additionally, the project team will
work with staff and conduct additional research to identify any general criteria or
conditions for when a preliminary plat could be administratively reviewed and
approved by the director/staff, without substantial risk of adverse community
impacts or other external effects that would otherwise more likely come from a
public hearing process.
[Page 45]
Clarify Purpose/ Intent of the Unit Lot Subdivision Tool and Ensure
Appropriate Standards and Review Criteria.
Both applicants and city staff expressed some confusion about the purpose and
intent of the new state -mandated "unit lot subdivision,” as well as how standards and
criteria should be different from those applicable to standard subdivisions. Spokane
has had a version of unit lot subdivision in the code since 2014, when it was called
Alternative Residential Subdivision. The more recent state mandate to allow unit lot
subdivisions is in Section 17G.080.065, applying the short plat or long plat process to
review and approval of unit lot subdivisions, based on the number of resulting “unit
lots”. In other words, unit lot subdivisions resulting in 1-9 unit lots are reviewed using
the short plat procedure and criteria, and 10 or more resulting unit lots are reviewed
using the long plat procedure and criteria. What is not as clear in Section
17G.080.065 is exactly how and why a “unit lot subdivision” differs from a standard
subdivision, and what the advantages there may be to using this tool compared to
standard subdivision plat.
We recommend revisions to these provisions to
clarify the purpose and intent, which is primarily to
provide an ownership alternative to creating a
condominium, especially for detached residential
units in multiple buildings constructed on a single
development site, as in a cottage house
development, where the detached dwelling units
share common access, parking areas, and open
spaces. The purpose statement in Sec.
17G.080.065 should be revised to offer this
alternative path to unit home ownership more
clearly and provide some graphic examples of what
a “unit lot subdivision” and its components look Figure 2: Example of Cottage Court Development
like.
Unit lot subdivision, importantly, does provide flexibility in the development’s
compliance with zoning standards (compared to compliance in a standard
subdivision) by applying lot and dimensional standards only to the overall
development site (the “parent lot” referenced in Sec. 17G.080.065) rather than to
each of the internal “unit lots” where the individual buildings are located. Currently,
the code specifies that unit lots do not have to meet building setbacks, building
coverage, street frontage and density, but it also states there may be other
unspecified standards that may not apply (by prefacing the 4 listed standards with
“including but not limited to”). If there are other standards that commonly are not
applied to unit lots, these should be specified in the code, rather than relying on a
case-by-case interpretation by staff, which can lead to inconsistencies in application
of standards and exemptions. To further reduce code user confusion, we also
[Page 46]
recommend use of the terms “parent lot” and “unit lot” only, and delete reference to
“child lots”, which are the same thing as “unit lots”.
We also recommend that either in the LDC itself, or for insertion into a companion
LDC Administrative/Procedures Manual, city attorneys and planning staff draft a
standardized disclaimer and notice provision for insertion on the cover sheet for all
approved unit lot subdivisions (including all the requirements currently stated in Sec.
17G.080.065.F) and perhaps in a stand-alone affidavit that is recorded against the
property’s master parcel address. This will ensure this important notice to future
owners about the unit lot subdivision’s unique limitations and constraints on future
development are consistently communicated across the city.
Specify Exemptions from Title 17 Review for Certain State and City Public
Facilities.
Some stakeholders identified inefficiencies in applying Title 17 land use project
review, most notably public participation opportunities and variances, to the
construction of certain public facilities, including but not limited to city parks, public
schools, and essential public infrastructure such as sewers and water towers.
Rationales for further inquiry include the redundancy of Title 17 requirements with
parallel and substantial public outreach and participation undertaken by the City for
substantial capital projects like new parks, and the need for flexibility or exceptions
in application of Title 17 development standards to expedite construction of essential
public infrastructure. The project team will work with the City to explore
incorporating such flexibility into both Title 17’s procedural requirements and its
substantive standards, to the extent allowed by law.
Revise Approach for Urban Design Review
We heard from both internal and external stakeholders that Spokane’s current
regulatory framework for urban design review by the Design Review Board is not
very useful. Currently, Chapter 17G.040 currently establishes a design review board
in and authorizes it to review and make urban design recommendations to final
decision -making bodies for projects in the downtown zones, all public projects or
structures not otherwise exempt, skywalks, requests for certain design deviations,
referrals by the Planning Director, some mini -storage facilities, and certain projects
within the centers and corridors zones.
Some of the simpler projects in the preceding list – such as mini -storage facilities --
can be controlled through application of use-specific standards. For other projects
with more extensive design requirements, we believe that the updates to the existing
design standards (see Tailor Design Standards to Context) should yield simplified,
more straightforward standards that can be part of overall staff review of the project.
Clarifying the standards to the extent that the review step of appearing before a
[Page 47]
Design Review Board can be eliminated will also contribute to streamlining the
project review and approval process.
Clarify Extent and Applicability of LDC Rules for Nonconformities
The reorganized and updated LDC will also tackle the subject of nonconformities. We
heard from both internal and external stakeholders that the city should take a hard
look at how it defines and regulates nonconformities. Stakeholders expressed a need
for the city to adopt a more generous approach that allows owners to more easily
invest in these pre -existing land uses and structures and ensures the city can
effectively address nonconformities in a manner supportive of this approach.
Additionally, current adopted plans encourage amortization (eventual elimination) of
nonconforming billboards in the city, and some stakeholders have suggested
elimination of nonconforming surface parking lots in the downtown to encourage
redevelopment and reinvestment.
Generally, nonconformities are existing land uses and structures that were legal and
code-compliant when originally established or constructed, but today no longer
comply with the full range of LDC rules. 5 For example, an industrial land use allowed
and established in a business zone district 25 years ago might no longer be a
permitted use in the mixed-use zone district now applicable to the property, where
new standards seek greater compatibility of non-residential and residential uses. That
industrial land use is now “nonconforming” with the LDC and is substantially more
restricted in its ability to change, expand, and grow. Similarly, a structure that was
perfectly legal when originally constructed on its site may no longer comply with the
LDC’s site development standards, such as setbacks or building height, building
design standards, such as requirements for ground -floor entrances and transparency
(windows), or site design standards, such as providing internal walkways or
landscaping. That structure is now “nonconforming” and sharply limited as to future
physical expansions or alterations, or reconstruction in the event of damage or
calamity.
Modern zoning best practice is to explicitly recognize the high value nonconformities
often continue to provide to a community, particularly in terms of economic
development opportunities and the sustainability of reusing and reinvesting in
existing buildings (rather than encouraging demolition). Additionally, best practices
recognize the right of an individual property owner to continue to use property in a
nonconforming manner, whether that be through the use itself or the structure.
Sharply curtailing the change or expansion of nonconformities often comes at costs
far greater than the marginal benefit. Regardless of the extent of the nonconformity
at issue (e.g., a building 2 feet too tall or a heavy industrial use abutting a multifamily
dwelling), the nonconforming building or use is often “stuck” in time and place with
5 The LDC defines nonconforming development and uses at Section 17A.020.140.
[Page 48]
limited recourse to capital for reinvestment and growth (banks don’t want to lend
against a building that cannot be rebuilt “as was” if destroyed).
On the other hand, some cities are willing to go the other direction and curtail the
continued existence of a specific type of nonconforming use or structure, to advance
priority aesthetic or land use development goals. In this realm, the LDC could be
revised to provide specific amortization periods that allow the owner of the
nonconformity enough time to reasonably recoup their initial financial investment in
the nonconforming land, structure, or use, but thereafter the owner must halt the use
or remove the nonconforming structure and make the property or building available
for new development and opportunities.
Accordingly, we recommend the following improvements and revisions to Title 17’s
nonconformity rules, currently found primarily in Chapter 17C.210, Nonconforming
Situations, and Chapter 17A. 020, Definitions.
• Evaluate whether the current approach in the LDC for establishing
nonconforming status aligns with the City’s current approach to
nonconformities and best practices.
o For example, consider relaxing the mandate that a certificate of
occupancy be produced as the only method of establishing a
nonconformity (See Section 17C.210.020.B.). Instead, allow the Director
to determine the status of a nonconformity based on an accumulation
of valid documents, including but not limited to certificates of
occupancy, land use or building construction permits, evidence of
active and continuous use/activity without record of enforcement
activity, evidence of continuous property tax payments, proper business
licensing, and other similar records, that could support a finding that the
use or structure was legally established at the time it became
nonconforming and has been continuously active and maintained.
• Provide clear standards for determining when a nonconformity is
discontinued (abandoned), thereby terminating its right to continue in a
nonconforming manner.
o A nonconforming use loses its right to continue under Sec.
17C.210.030(A) after two years of “discontinuance.” The term
“discontinuance ” is not defined nor does the current LDC establish the
benchmarks for what constitutes discontinuance. A definition of
“discontinuance” should be added to the LDC to ensure a consistent
and clear process for making these important determinations. The
definition of “discontinuance ” could include specific elements in the
City’s determination, such as the owner indicating in writing the intent
to abandon the nonconforming use, a nonconforming use being
[Page 49]
replaced by a conforming use, or the termination of water or sewer
service.
o If the City directs, and upon further research and analysis, the LDC
could be revised to halt the right to continue a specific type of
nonconformity, such as billboards or surface parking lots in the
Downtown zoning district, after a reasonable time for amortization.
• Revise the definitions of “nonconforming development” and
“nonconforming use” in Title 17 to narrow the range of code violations that
make a structure, site, or use nonconforming and therefore subject to more
restrictive standards.
o This will NOT exempt such use or structure from complying with current
use and development standards i f redevelopment or expansion occurs;
the expanded or redeveloped portion of the use/structure will still have
to meet applicable standards of the LDC. What the change would do is
allow that redevelopment or expansion in the first place by removing
the “nonconforming” status that currently makes such development an
absolute “no go.”
o For example, given recent LDC amendments to advance middle housing
and affordable housing, consider revising the definition of
“nonconforming development” to exempt residential structures
containing 1 -4 units from the definition, or limit the triggers to only a
few violations of specific development standards (e.g., height but not
density or all setbacks) or violations that exceed a specific threshold
(e.g., structure is “nonconforming” only if it violates a current
dimensional standard by more than 25-50%).
o For example, reconsider whether violation of certain site design
standards should trigger application of “nonconforming” status in the
first place, such as all or only some violations of current parking or
landscaping standards.
• Identify the decision -maker with authority to make all determinations
regarding the existence of a nonconformity and the factual discontinuance
of such use/structure.
o Currently, Section 17C.210.030 gives the Hearing Examiner limited
authority to determine discontinuance when a case before the Examiner
raises the issue but leaves unaddressed who makes such decisions in all
other situations. We recommend that the Director of Planning and
Economic Development be granted this authority, with appeals
available to the Hearing Examiner.
[Page 50]
• Clarify current standards for when modifications to nonconforming
structures, uses, and improvements will trigger full code compliance.
o For example, to what extent should building additions or a change in
primary use of the nonconforming building trigger full compliance, and
what limitations or additional conditions should apply to authorized
modifications, such as no increase in the number of dwelling units or
requiring noise attenuation measures for habitable but nonconforming
structures in airfield noise zones.
o Facilitate upgrading and reinvesting in nonconforming development by
clearly stating the specific changes that trigger full code compliance
and identifying to what degree the nonconforming development must
comply with applicable design and development standards in the LDC.
Clearly address when modifications to a nonconforming development
will trigger full or partial construction of public improvements (or
payment of fees in -lieu), such as paving or improving the right-of-way
or installing new sidewalks.
• Consolidate and clarify a property owner’s entitlement to rebuild a
damaged or destroyed nonconforming structure or re -establish a
nonconforming use when the structure housing the nonconforming use is
damaged or destroyed.
o Ensuring the standards are tailored to further the city’s comprehensive
plan goals and account for specific uses and zone districts as needed.
o Consider expanding the allowance in Section 17C.210.040.D, which
allows the rebuild of buildings containing nonconforming multi-unit
residential uses after damage or destruction over 60% but only in the R -
1 and R-2 zones, to all zone districts that allow residential household
use.
o More specifically and strategically, and depending on revisions to key
definitions, specify the development standards that nonconformities
must comply with upon repair, reconstruction, or re -establishment (e.g.,
parking standards).
o Clarify relevant thresholds, such as the cost of damage to a
nonconforming structure or structure housing a nonconforming use
that, once exceeded, would prohibit the nonconforming structure from
being rebuilt or the nonconforming use from being re-established, and
how those thresholds are determined (for instance, if cost is used as a
threshold metric, it should be based on the market value of the
structure and a cost to repair provided by a licensed contractor).
[Page 51]
o Establish any limitations that apply to the nonconforming building being
reconstructed or the nonconforming use being re -established, such as
not expanding the use or structure onto a different parcel or the
structure being constructed within the same foot print.
o
Alternatively, consider establishing a process where the Hearing
Examiner determines whether re -establishment of the nonconforming
use or structure should be permitted without 100% compliance with
standards based on factors such as potential adverse impacts or harm
to the surrounding community.
Incorporate More Opportunities for Design Flexibility
In all land development codes, there is tension in their application between
prescriptiveness and flexibility. The former lends itself to more certainty and
predictability in administering the code and consistency in built outcomes. Flexibility,
on the other hand, is necessary because regulations can never fully be “one size fits
all” and they must account not only for unique conditions and circumstances but also
creative and different approaches to achieving desired built outcomes. Spokane
accommodates significant flexibility in the application of its Title 17 regulations, with
various provisions and procedures for design standard deviations (see Chapter
17G.030, Design Departures), administrative approvals for minor exceptions (See
Sec. 17A.050.030), and variances (See Section 17E.030.090 for floodplain variances,
Section 17G.061.310.D for shoreline variances, and Section 17G.061.310.E for zoning
variances).
In this area, our recommendation for Spokane is that the project team continue to
look for and incorporate more opportunities – at the margin – for design flexibility,
particularly as new and updated design standards are added to the LDC. We also
recommend that all flavors of “relief” available under Title 17 be organized and
presented in a single section to provide greater clarity for code uses. We will also
standardize the process steps and review criteria across the different types of relief
available to the extent possible.
Some early opportunities the project team identified in its assessment of the LDC
include:
• Allow developers of smaller-scale infill and middle housing development to
request alternative compliance with applicable building and site design
standards, where they can show an alternative to 100% compliance will still
meet or exceed the intent/purpose of the standard(s) at issue. This would be
an administrative (either excluded or a Type I or II) review and decision,
typically without triggering public notice, with an appeal to the Hearing
Examiner or to the Design Review Board, as desired.
[Page 52]
• After further discussion with staff around current practice and experience, the
project team may recommend revising the LDC to be more specific about
which development and design standards may be adjusted by staff as a “minor
adjustment”, and to what extent or degree, beyond the general authorization
in Section 17A.050.030, “Minor Adjustments.” These types of administrative
exceptions to the LDC reflect best practice and can reduce total development
review times by avoiding the more lengthy and complicated design deviation
or variance review process. An example of permitted minor adjustments from
another city’s ordinance is shown below; note that it also specifies the extent
or degree to which staff may adjust a specific land use standard, which
provides a clear limitation for staff’s authority:
Table 10.07 -3: Permitted Adjustments
Sq Ft = Square Feet
Standard Allowable Adjustment
Lot area, minimum 10%
Lots > 5,000 sq ft: 10%
Accessory structure setback, minimum
Lots < 5,000 sq ft: 15%
Accessory structure height, maximum 10%
Fence height, maximum 15% (up to one foot)
Residential driveway width, maximum 10%
Sign area, maximum 10%
Notes:
Engineering standards and specifications man not be varied through the Adjustment
process
The project team will also continue to research variance case outcomes in
Spokane, to look for specific variances that are regularly granted, which may
signal a need to change the substantive rule at issue or an opportunity to re -
delegate the authority to vary to staff rather than the Hearing Examiner.
• Explore whether there should be additional grounds for approval of a variance,
beyond a strict showing that unique physical conditions/circumstances
necessitate relief, which Section 17.061.310.E now requires. Some cities have
explored other grounds for variances, especially variances from zoning and
land use (not life/safety) standards, which favor production of more
affordable housing units, or that cede land use/ zoning standard compliance to
historic preservation design or other specific codes compliance in cases of
conflict, or that provide relief from certain enforcement (often post -
construction) violations.
FOCUS AREA 2: FINE-TUNE ZONING DISTRICTS AND ALLOWED USES
TOPICS COVERED
1. Align Zoning Districts with Land Use Designations
[Page 53]
2. Create, Rename, or Delete Districts
3. Adjust Centers & Corridors Concept to Enhance Implementation and Outcomes
4. Create a Mixed -Use, Transit -Oriented Development district
5. Emphasize Revitalization in Downtown Districts
6. Relocate and Update Existing Planned Unit Development Regulations
7. Consolidate and Adjust Land Use Allowances
8. Reorganize into a Single, Central Land Use Table
9. Retain Land Use Category Approach, with Refinement & Reorganization
10. Define Land Uses
11. Create Use Specific Standards (USS) Section; Update Existing USS
12. Review & Update Use Permissions
Land Use and Zoning Districts
In most locations, the comprehensive plan has a section devoted to future land use,
where the plan specifies, following extensive community input, what is the best use
for land throughout the jurisdiction. Often, this land use classification system is the
basis for zoning being legally permitted in a jurisdiction, but even in locations where
a comprehensive plan including future land use is not a formal legal requirement,
comprehensive plan land use designations are critical to creating and applying
zoning districts that produce the kind of development the community desires.
Shaping Spokane, the adopted 2017 version of the comprehensive plan, has such
land use classifications, and the current effort to update the comprehensive plan,
PlanSpokane 2046, includes an effort to update the land use classifications. Because
of their importance to creating the right zoning districts for the city, the consultant
team has studied closely both the existing land use classifications, as described in
Shaping Spokane Section 3.4, Description of Land Use Designations, along with what
information is so far available regarding the updates to the land use designations
that will be part of PlanSpokane 2046. The recommendations we make in this section
related to potential updates and adjustments to Spokane’s roster of zoning districts
is informed by our review of the plan’s land use designations. 6
Overview of Current Zoning Districts
Beyond land use designations, our review of the City’s zoning districts also considers
these questions:
6 When the final land use designations are available upon the release of a full draft of PlanSpokane, we will revisit these
recommendations, and make any changes necessary to align our zoning district recommendations with the land uses.
[Page 54]
• Is the intent of each district clear, and does the district name match the
intent?
• Is each district currently in use? Are there districts that are obsolete and/or
unnecessary?
• Are new districts needed?
• Are there districts in place to implement the comprehensive plan’s land use
designations? Do the districts support implementation of topic -specific plans
such as Housing Action, Sustainability, and Transportation plans? Do the
districts address the objectives of reversing or reducing historic racially
discriminatory impacts?
• Are any districts so similar in purpose and standards that they could be
consolidated?
Recommendations are incorporated below based on the answers to these questions.
The current LDC includes 22 base zoning districts, which establish the primary rules
for how land can be used and developed (such as allowed uses and maximum
building height). The extent of zoned land in each district of the city is shown in the
chart below.
Extent of Zoned Land (Percent)
70
59.2
60
50
40
30
19.1
20
10
4 4.4
0.4 1.7 2.6 0.20.10.4 1 0.6 1 0 0.1 1.2 0.300.60.7 2.1 0
0
A
R
1R2
R
F
M R
D
H R
C
T D
S
T D
U
T D
G
T D
1C
C
2
C C
3
C C
4
C C
B
C
C
G
R
N
U
M N
OR
O
ILIHIP
The three zoning districts that account for the greatest amount of zoned land in the
city are:
[Page 55]
• R1 Residential: 59.2 percent
• Light Industrial: 19.1 percent
• General Commercial: 4.4 percent
Conversely, Planned Industrial, Neighborhood Mixed Use and Centers & Corridors
Type 3 account for no actual zoned land within the city, while most other districts
account for 2 percent or less.
It is common for residential districts to account for roughly two-thirds to three -
fourths of all zoned land in a given jurisdiction, with commercial and industrial
accounting for the remainder. Spokane’s prevalence of Light Industrial zoning as the
second most extensive district by zoned area is somewhat unusual, but this can be
explained by the land-consuming uses it includes, such as the airport.
Centers & Corridors
The current LDC includes a centers and
corridors concept, which establishes
specific areas designated by the LUPM
for mixed-use development of varying
intensities (types 1 -4), spread along
important roadways and neighborhood
centers throughout the city. The excerpt
of the LUPM below shows the centers as
circles, and the corridors as strips. Many
stakeholders expressed concern that the
centers and corridors were not producing
the kind of development they were
intended for, and our review suggests
numerous reasons for that. However, the
City intends to maintain an adjusted
version of this concept in the updated
comprehensive plan, so our
recommendations center around
removing some of the barriers that
constricted center and corridor Figure 3: LUPM Centers & Corridors Excerpt
development up to now, and making the
updated centers and corridor concept work for the City. Because this component of
the plan is not finalized at time of writing, our recommendations remain general, and
subject to refinement once the final updated concept is adopted as part of the plan.
[Page 56]
Overlay Zones
The LDC includes four overlay districts, which add extra requirements on top of the
base zoning district to address specific conditions or goals (such as view shed
preservation by means of height limits). See Table 3 below.
Table 3: Current Overlay Zoning Districts
Overlay Zone District Description
Regulates visual and pedestrian access standards and guidelines
to ensure that buildings and other constructed objects do not
North River
create barriers that wall off the Spokane River Gorge, Riverfront
Park, or the Downtown Core.
Regulates uses in the Cathedral District and the Cliff Drive
Special Height District, where controlling building heights is intended to
preserve the public view.
Regulations are intended to protect the viability of the Spokane
International Airport and Felts Field by modifying the density
and land use standards of the underlying zoning districts.
Airfield
These modifications provide protection to the public, health,
safety, and general welfare of the community, airport users, and
citizens working and residing within the airfield overlay zones.
Regulations are intended to prevent incompatible land uses in
Fairchild
the vicinity of Fairchild Air Force Base.
Hamilton Form -Based Code Zone
The LDC includes one form-based code
district, along the Hamilton Street corridor,
intended to foster an economically vibrant,
walkable, mixed-use environment by
controlling building form, as well as applying
performance -based parameters relative to
building use and intensity. The subject area is
shown to the right.
Stakeholders made no mention of this
district, either positive or negative, perhaps
because it encompasses such a small area.
Our review, however, indicates that the
standards in this zone are appropriate. While
Figure 3: Hamilton Corridor FBC Area
a full form -based approach is not favored
elsewhere in the city, we nevertheless believe
that adapting some of the standards in the FBC district would help in other areas; in
particular, some of the existing neighborhood centers. We expect that some of the
[Page 57]
Hamilton standards will be more widely applied in areas of the city that will be
subject to the updated center and corridor concept in the new plan.
After reviewing the current land use designations, zoning districts, overlays, and
extent of actual zoned land within the City, we make the following recommendations
regarding the City’s zoning district lineup.
Align Zoning Districts with Land Use Designations
The existing zoning districts align fairly well with the land use designations in the
2017 plan, as shown in Table 4. Because some changes are likely in the updated plan,
our recommendations anticipate those changes, and will be refined as necessary
once the final plan is available.
Table 4: 2017 LAND USE DESIGNATIONS AND CURRENT ZONING DISTRICTS
Shaping Spokane Description of Typical Land Use Corresponding
Land Use Zoning District
Designation
Residential
Residential Low Attached or detached residences and middle
housing types. R1
Residential Plus Middle housing types of greater scale or
intensity than in lower intensity areas, with
R2
potential for mixed-use, neighborhood scale
retail and services.
Residential Moderate A mix of more intense middle housing types and
moderate -sized apartment, condo, townhome RMF
developments.
Residential High Large apartment, condominium, townhouse
developments, potentially on multiple sites with RHD
site planning and features.
Agriculture Agricultural lands of local importance. RA
Centers & Corridors
Neighborhood Mini - Same uses as Neighborhood Retail. CC1 and 2
Center NR, OR
Neighborhood Neighborhood -oriented commercial uses,
CC1 - 4
Center offices, mixed -type housing, parks, civic uses in a
NMU
master-planned, mixed-use setting.
District Center Community -oriented commercial uses, offices,
mixed-type housing, parks, civic uses in a CC1 - 4
master-planned, mixed-use setting.
Regional Center Variety of goods, services, cultural,
(Downtown) governmental, hospitality, and residential uses. Downtown: DTC,
Downtown plan provides detail of planning for DTG, DTS, DTU
this area.
[Page 58]
Table 4: 2017 LAND USE DESIGNATIONS AND CURRENT ZONING DISTRICTS
Shaping Spokane Description of Typical Land Use Corresponding
Land Use Zoning District
Designation
Employment Center Major employment uses, community oriented Could be all CC,
commercial uses, mixed -type housing in a NMU, GC, and
master-planned, mixed-use setting. other districts
Corridor Community -oriented commercial uses, mixed -
type housing in a master -planned, mixed-use CC1 - 4
setting.
Center & Corridor Commercial, office and residential uses
Core consistent with type of designated Center and CC1 and 2
Corridor.
Center & Corridor Office, small retail, and multi -family residential
Transition uses. Office and retail uses are required to have CC4
residential uses on the same site.
Commercial and Industrial
Heavy Industrial Heavier Industrial uses. No residential uses. HI
Light Industrial Light industrial uses, limited commercial and
LI
residential uses.
General Commercial Commercial and residential uses, warehouses. GC
Neighborhood Retail Neighborhood -Serving Business and residential
NR, CB
use. Maximum containment area of two acres.
Office Offices and residential use. O, OR
No Existing District Correspondence
Institutional Includes uses such as middle and high schools,
colleges, universities, and large governmental
facilities.
Conservation Open Areas that are publicly owned, not developed
Space and designated to remain in a natural state.
Potential Open Areas that are not currently publicly owned, not
Space developed and expected to remain in a natural
state.
Open Space Major publicly or privately owned open space
areas such as golf courses, major parks and open
space areas, and cemeteries.
Create, Rename, or Delete Districts
Table 5 below summarizes our initial recommendations for updates to the City’s
zoning districts lineup, pending further changes that will be based on updated land
use in the comprehensive plan. The left column in Table 5 identifies the current
zoning districts; where a new district is proposed, the left column will read “[NEW].”
The center column identifies the proposed district or notes if the recommendation is
to carry forward an existing district without change. Where name changes are
proposed, (to make the district names slightly more descriptive, particularly in
residential zones such as R1 and R2) the center column includes them. The right
[Page 59]
column provides a brief explanation of the reason for the change, or why no change
is proposed.
Table 5: Proposed Zoning District Lineup
Current District Proposed District Explanation
Residential Districts
RA Residential RA – Carry forward There is not a great deal of this district on
Agricultural without change the ground in Spokane (less than 1%), nor is
it likely that more land will be added to this
district.
However, since it appears to serve the
purpose for which it was created, it can be
carried forward without change.
R1 Residential RS Small -Scale Combine R1 and R2, change name to focus
R2 Residential Residential desired scale of development.
The current difference between Spokane’s
R1 and R2 districts comes down to density,
with the R1 min/m ax range extending from 4
dua minimum up to 10 dua maximum, while
R2 (of which there is relatively little actual
zoned land) allows up to 20 dua maximum.
Combining these districts allows less of a
focus on density, and more on the scale and
type of housing that is allowed; specifically,
this residential district will emphasize
allowing all specified middle housing types
in the hope of expanding their proliferation,
especially in areas that historically
prohibited most housing types other than
detached single -family dwellings.
RMF Residential RMF – Carry forward We would like to find a way to combine
Multifamily RMF and RHD; however we do see a need to
differentiate between a 9 unit building,
versus a 9 story building.
Final recommendation for this district will
depend on updated future land use, and
further discussion with staff.
RHD Residential RML Medium - to This change is to give a more descriptive
High-Density Large Scale name to the district focused on scale.
Residential As with RMF, final recommendation for this
district will depend on updated future land
use, and further discussion with staff.
Form-Based Code District
Hamilton FBC Do not carry forward The area contained within this district can
be accommodated in one of the mixed-use
zones (likely MU -Neighborhood) but
maintain the form -based standards that
currently define it.
Mixed-Use Districts
[Page 60]
Table 5: Proposed Zoning District Lineup
Current District Proposed District Explanation
CC1 through CC4 Replace with mixed - Our initial idea is to create mixed use zones
use Hub concept and of varying intensity, a mixed use transition
TOD Corridor zones; zone, and one for TOD corridors. Those
names TBD based on could be
Plan update Mixed use neighborhood – small scale,
existing neighborhood commercial
corridors, including Hamilton FBC zone
Mixed use general – medium scale, new
development
Mixed use regional center – areas with b ig
box commercial and other large scale
business. Least focused on residential, and
more auto -oriented.
Mixed use TOD – Division BRT, other TOD
focused corridors
These will focus on maintaining the positive
elements of the center and corridor concept,
while making it more functional for
development in the City.
DT Core, General, DT - Carry forward The land use designations for downtown
South, and appear unlikely to change. These districts
University can be carried forward, subject to
adjustments as discussed below. (See
Emphasize Revitalization in Downtown
Districts)
GC General GC – Carry forward Because there is a relatively high amount of
Commercial without change land zoned GC (4%), and realistically, a
demand for auto-oriented commercial, we
propose to carry this forward. We do
believe areas currently zoned GC that will be
part of transit corridors should be
reclassified.
O Office O – Carry forward Some cities see a need for a single -purpose
office zone, though this is more common in
suburban areas, with single -purpose office
campus developments. If the City sees a
need for this, it can be maintained, but
generally, offices of varying scale can fit in
downtown or mixed-use zones.
CB Community Retire or eliminate All of these should be accommodated by
Business one of the proposed mixed-use districts
NR Neighborhood
Retail
NMU Neighborhood
Mixed Use
OR Office Retail
[Page 61]
Table 5: Proposed Zoning District Lineup
Current District Proposed District Explanation
Industrial Districts
HI Heavy Industrial HI - Carry forward Implements the Industrial land use
without change designation.
LI Light Industrial LI – Carry forward Implements the Industrial land use
designation, and accounts for substantial
area of zoned land in the city. Carry forward,
but consider adjusting to allow modern
mixed industrial and commercial campuses
(as may have been the intent of PI).
Planned Industrial Eliminate This does not exist on the ground. If there is
a demand for this kind of development, it
can be accommodated in LI or the new PI,
without the need of a dedicated master
plan.
New Districts
[NEW] PRO Parks, This district aligns with the three land use
Recreation, and Open categories that are concerned with Open
Space Space.
[NEW] PI: Public and This district aligns with the Institutional land
Institutional use category.
Overlay Districts
Airfield Airfield Carry forward subject to revisions
Fairchild Fairchild Carry forward subject to revisions
Special Height Special Height Carry forward subject to revisions
North River Eliminate We have heard that this overlay has served
its purpose and is not longer needed.
Adjust Centers & Corridors Concept to Enhance Implementation and
Outcomes
Both staff and stakeholders commented that the centers and corridors have not
always had the desired outcome of producing walkable, mixed-use development for
the City. There are likely numerous reasons for this, several of which may have little
to do with the regulations themselves, such as misalignment with market demand,
and existing properties that are not at the end of their life span, so no demand for
redevelopment. However, it is also possible that aspects of the regulations
themselves have constrained conforming development and redevelopment as well.
The 2024 Centers and Corridors Study focuses on changes to make centers and
corridors more “workable.” We largely agree with the recommendations in the
report, and understand that the adjusted approach will be reflected in the updated
comprehensive plan. As a result, our recommendations reflect those in the study, but
will need to be revisited and further detail added as the new centers and corridors
concept is finalized in the plan. In the meantime, our preliminary recommendations
focus on:
[Page 62]
• Creating tailoring mixed use districts, of varying intensity as described in Table 5.
• Allow flexibility within the base districts by focusing more o n scale, built form,
and multimodal accessibility than allowed/prohibited uses
• Adjust standards based on intensity of development, and extent of change from
existing development (for example, consider the different standards needed to
transform a strip mall versus maintain an exiting neighborhood commercial strip)
• Clarify triggers for applicability of other code standards (for example, should a
simple change of use require upgrades to curb, gutter, and sidewalk if those are
substandard)
Create a Mixed-Use, Transit -Oriented Development district
Spokane has existing transit-oriented development (TOD) areas, including the City
Line, that runs from the Community College, through downtown, and west through
Browne’s Addition (yellow on map), and South Logan (purple circle). A new TOD
corridor is envisioned along Division Street (blue hatching), running north from
Downtown until it terminates at Hastin gs and Perry (outside city limits). There may
be additional TOD corridors in the future.
Because thriving TOD corridors do not come about
by chance, we recommend the creation of a mixed
use transit-oriented zoning district to support the
realization of Spokane’s TOD plans. This district will
allow mixed-use developments centered around the
station areas, and include residential at a density that
is capable of supporting high -frequency transit.
Standards for the district should include ways to
ensure that housing produced meets the needs of
residents from a diversity of income levels, to ensure
that lower -income residents who rely more on transit
are not closed out of new development in close
proximity to it. Further, if there are neighborhoods
where redevelopment pressure near the corridor
increases the risk of residential displacement, the
district can propose measures to reduce that risk.
Tailored development and design standards are
especially important to functional transit-oriented
development, with buildings at the street, active
ground floor uses, and a connected sidewalk network
that prioritizes pedestrian safety and access, as well
as integrated or nearby residential to support use of
the lines. This TOD District will focus on creating
Figure 5: Existing and Potential TOD Areas in Spokane
standards to support successful transit corridors.
[Page 63]
Like other development transit corridors often encompass a range of development
intensity, with more dense, walkable development closer to station areas and the
city’s downtown, and more suburban -style development towards the farther ends of
the corridors. The district’s standard will be designed to accommodate that range.
Below is an image from the city’s website, which neatly conveys the idea behind the
mix of development that supports a dense, urban node along a TOD corridor.
Figure 6: TOD-Supportive Development
Emphasize Revitalization in Downtown Districts
The Downtown districts did not come up very much in stakeholder interviews. While
we take this to mean they are basically functional and producing the intended
development, we are also aware from conversations with staff that certain
adjustments could help improve Downtown development in light of current
conditions. One issue is that, following the pandemic, there are m any vacancies in
Downtown that have been slow to find new tenants. Over time, persistent vacancy
can begin to impact the offices, businesses, and storefronts that do remain, which is
where Spokane finds itself now.
When we update the Downtown districts, we will propose ways to catalyze
occupancy and decrease vacancies. One way to do this is to create a use category
for properties that have been vacant for two years or more (for example), allowing
an expanded range of uses, even if temporarily, to encourage renewed occupancy.
Because downtown businesses depend on nearby residents even more since many
office uses are not requiring workers to return Downtown full-time as was common
pre-pandemic, we should also consider incentives to encourage development of both
market rate and affordable housing units in the Downtown.
Staff have also expressed some concern about the extent and impact of surface
parking lots in the Downtown. Extensive surface lots are not uncommon in cities
[Page 64]
where old buildings have been removed without new structures replacing them. The
yellow highlights in Figure 7 demonstrate the extent of the lots in the core of
downtown. While the blocks on the western edge of downtown are largely intact,
that is not so east of Howard Street, with some surface lots occupying half of entire
blocks. There are also two large parcels adjacent to Riverfront Park that could offer
prime river views and park access to potential residential development.
We can work with staff on strategies to address the extent of surface lots, including
prohibition of new ones, and the amortization of existing ones. As mentioned above,
such measures could also be accompanied by incentives to encourage development
of both market rate and affordable housing units (or other desired development) in
the Downtown.
Figure 7: Downtown Surface Parking
Relocate and Update Existing Planned Unit Development Regulations
Currently, Spokane’s information on Planned Unit Developments is in Title 17G,
Administration and Procedures. While some of this information should remain in the
procedures section, given the purpose of a PUD and its function, we believe some
sections would be better situated in the Land Use Standards (current Title 17C). This
includes the “what is it?” information such as purpose, uses, density, and dimensional
[Page 65]
requirements, while the “how to do it” content can remain in the Administration and
Procedures Chapter.
Spokane defines a planned unit development as “a project permit for an overlay
zone…”. However, while there is a layer for PUDs on the internal zoning map, this
layer is not available for public view. As such, we are not sure what the current
prevalence of existing PUDs is, or how frequently they are used in Spokane. A couple
of stakeholders offered the opinion that they used to be useful, but were less so after
recent changes, indicating that perhaps their prevalence is declining.
We believe that cities should have a PUD process, but that most development should
occur using standard zoning districts. This can occur when the standard zoning
districts are both functional and flexible enough to accommodate modern forms of
development without the persistent need for exceptions to standards that lead to
PUDs. The Purpose (Section 17G.070.010) for PUDs in Spokane specifies that they are
intended to “ encourage innovative planning and flexible design standards that results
in more infill and mixed use development; economically diverse and affordable
housing options; improved protection of open space and critical areas, and
transportation options and preserve the existing landscape and amenities that may
not otherwise be protected through conventional development. ” (Highlighting ours.)
The existing standards for PUDs focus heavily on development of mixed use, while at
the same time placing impractical and potentially unworkable standards on that kind
of development. For example, including any retail in RA, R1, and R2 zones requires at
least 20 acres for development, and is allowed only on five percent of the site.
Individual non-residential uses are limited to 5,000 square feet. This combination of
limitations - requiring too large a land are a for the project, and then limiting the
business’ potential market area – is potentially too strict for functional mixed use.
This may also be true for the minimum 10 acres required in the higher density zones.
In both cases, fixed, inflexible standards do not consider the varying scales and
contexts that can support mixed use development.
Regardless of the specific use and size limits in the current PUD requirements, since
our focus is on creating standard mixed-use zoning districts, PUDs should no longer
be necessary for that. They may still be necessary for truly unusual projects that
standard districts cannot really anticipate, such as a large new stadium or outdoor
concert venue. They can also be used as the Purpose statement indicates: for the
opportunity they offer to receiv e public benefits in exchange for the flexibility that is
offered to the developer. Affordable housing is one frequent use for PUDs, as is
preservation of open space or the development of gated communities, but they can
also be allowed for developments that support other city goals such as historic
preservation, or sustainable or “green” development.
As we begin to draft updates to this section, we will work with City staff to finalize
direction related to the following considerations and recommendations:
[Page 66]
• Specify the extent to which PUDs should be used: freely, or in limited
circumstances?
• If limited to projects that offer public benefit in exchange for flexibility, what
are those public benefits?
• Decide how PUDs are recorded on a zoning map or otherwise so they can be
tracked over time
• Require that PUDs specify a base district, so that any standard not
specifically modified by the PUD proposal default s to the base district
standards (this helps to simplify administration of PUDs over time)
• Eliminate standard minimum acreage requirements and predetermined use
limitations
Consolidate and Adjust Land Use Allowances
Reorganize into a Single, Central Land Use Table
Title 17C currently has at least five separate land use tables: one for residential, one
for commercial, one for industrial, another for centers & corridors, and yet another
for Downtown. While it is convenient for code users to find uses among all the other
standards related to a certain category of uses, this organization into separate tables
has risks that updates to uses are not completed across all tables, leading to
inconsistencies and confusion over time. We think there is little sacrifice to
conveni ence, but significant enhancements to efficiency, in consolidating allowed
uses for base districts into a single table. Below is an image of a use table from
another community, showing how a consolidated table of allowed uses looks.
[Page 67]
Figure 8: Example Consolidated Use Table
Retain Land Use Category Approach, with Refinement & Reorganization
In Chapter 17C.190, Spokane defines a category approach to classify uses. Table 6
below shows the current categories and subcategories of uses. Each subcategory
has a description of the Characteristics of the uses in the subcategory, examples of
the uses in the subcategory, typical Accessory uses, and Exceptions.
This is an efficient approach to allowed uses, as it avoids a use table that tries – and
typically fails – to list separately every possible permutation of a given use. By
describing characteristics of a category, along with some common example uses,
there is some flexibility for assigning an unlisted use without the need to bring a text
amendment to the hearing examiner.
While our recommendation is to carry forward this structural approach to classifying
allowed uses, we do recommend some updates to the categories and subcategories.
These are noted as NEW in Table 6 below. We also recommend that any use subject
to use-specific standards be listed separately, and linked directly to the applicable
standards (see right column in Example Consolidated Use Table). This approach may
allow for elimination of Limited uses, since these are basically uses subject to specific
standards in certain contexts, which in turn would simplify tables by reducing the
reliance on Table Notes.
[Page 68]
TABLE 6: TITLE 17 USE CATEGORIES AND SUBCATEGORIES
CATEGORY SUBCATEGORIES NOTES ON USES
Residential Group Living
Household Living
Civic, Public, and Community Facilities Includes Community Services,
Institutional Daycare, Detention Center,
(NEW) Essential Public Facilities, Parks
and Open Areas, Religious
Institutions
Cultural Facilities Museums, Libraries
Educational Facilities Schools and Colleges become
uses, rather than subcategories
Health Care Facilities Medical Center uses are included
here
Commercial Adult Business
Food and Beverage Uses (NEW) Removes from Retail Sales and
Service.
Includes restaurants, bars, Mobile
Food Vending, and other related
uses such as catering and
commercial kitchens
Commercial Lodging (NEW) Removes uses like hotels and
short-term rentals from Retail
Sales and Service
Professional Services Removes Repair Services from
Retail Sales and Service
Includes Office uses
Personal Service and Instruction Removed from Retail Sales and
(NEW) Service
Recreation & Entertainment Includes Commercial Outdoor
Recreation and Major Event
Entertainment, along with other
recreation -related uses that were
included in
Retail Sales and Service Limited more narrowly to retail
sales of goods
Vehicle Repair Minor Vehicle Repair (replaces
Quick Vehicle Servicing)
Major Vehicle Repair
Transportation Aviation and Surface Passenger
and Utilities Terminals
(NEW) Basic Utilities
Commercial Parking
Public Parking Lot
Rail Lines and Utility Corridors
Railroad Yards
Wireless Communication
Facilities
[Page 69]
TABLE 6: TITLE 17 USE CATEGORIES AND SUBCATEGORIES
CATEGORY SUBCATEGORIES NOTES ON USES
Industrial High Impact Use The uses this encompasses could
be split among the other
categories, and approved by CU
Industrial Service The uses this encompasses could
be split among the other
categories, and approved by CU
Manufacturing and Production Mining could be included here, or
in there are other natural
resource extraction activities,
that can be a subcategory
Warehousing and Storage Includes Freight Movement and
Mini-storage Facilities
Waste and Salvage
Wholesale Sales
Other Accessory Uses Includes Drive -through Facility
Temporary Uses New
Agriculture and Aquaculture
Define Land Uses
Categories can be useful for consolidating similar uses, and giving representative
examples, but we still believe it is important to have definitions for specific uses. This
can help staff administering the code to explain why a doggie day care is permitted
in certain areas where a kennel is not. Precise definitions enable differentiation
between daycare centers and daycare homes, or accessory dwelling units versus
short-term rentals, and the difference between major and minor vehicle repair.
Essentially, clarity in definitions can eliminate confusion in permissions.
Create Use Specific Standards (USS) Section; Update Existing USS
Spokane currently has use-specific standards for a handful of existing uses, though
there is no dedicated section of the code for these. They generally start in Chapter
17C300, and run through 17C355A. When the code is reorganized, a section devoted
to use-specific standards will accompany the consolidated use table. This
consolidates all use -related information in one place, making it easy to find and
navigate.
The code update will involve a review of all existing use-specific standards, with
updates as necessary. Though few stakeholders mentioned issues with use-specific
standards, staff have indicated there maybe some possibility for adjustments and
edits to the existing standards. As one example, limiting home occupations to 25
percent of floor area or 200 square feet seems arbitrary, while completely
prohibiting it in an accessory structure is likely unnecessary.
[Page 70]
We also propose that Limited uses can be eliminated. These uses are noted as “L” in
the use tables, which then reference a section in each category of uses (Residential,
Commercial, Industrial, etc.) that contains the standards for the uses. The regulations
related to Limited uses are, effectively, use-specific standards, though in the current
organization, they are very far removed from where the other use-specific standards
are found. The current structure is both unnecessarily complicated, and repetitive.
These standards should be incorporated into the proposed use-specific standards
section, and linked using a standard cross -reference, which should eliminate the need
the “L” designation in the use table.
Finally, new use-specific standards should be drafted to allow more uses to be
permitted by -right, rather than undergoing a conditional use review. The point of
use-specific standards is effectively the same as a conditional use review: to
acknowledg e that a given use has the potential to impact neighboring development,
and to create conditions – or standards – that control for those impacts. While we
recognize that some uses will always require a higher-level review, some are subject
to fairly standard conditions that can be designated as requirements up front rather
than addressing them during a review process. Where we have seen use-specific
standards succeed for certain uses, we will propose for staff consideration some
options to reduce reliance on those more extensive reviews. This exercise also
facilitates the review of permissions in the use table, discussed next.
Review & Update Use Permissions
As described above, one focus of this task is to see whether some of the Conditional
Use approvals can be changed to by right use permissions. However, the reverse
may also be true, where existing permissions should change to be more limited. For
example, this could be changing distribution centers from P to C in certain districts.
Given the recent tendency for huge increases in the size of these facilities, and the
fact that, to reduce delivery times, they now often prefer to locate in or near
populated areas rather than in remote industrial zones, a distribution center may no
longer seem a good neighbor in some commercial zones. In such areas, they could
benefit from a conditional use review to control for the large amount of truck traffic
they generate, and their extended hours (not to mention their architectural
preferences for window-free featureless boxes).
FOCUS AREA 3: REFINE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
TOPICS COVERED
1. Tailor Design Standards to Context
2. Error! Reference source not found.
3. Add Detail to Landscaping and Expand Tree Preservation Incentives
4. Add Detail to Landscaping and Expand Tree Preservation Incentives
5. Landscaping is one of the primary ways a zoning code can promote
sustainability goals and objectives, in addition to the many other positive
[Page 71]
benefits related to privacy and aesthetics it can bring. An adequately
detailed landscaping section can speed up staff review time, while also
improving the predictability of landscaping outcomes. This is done by
focusing on the creation of specific and measurable landscaping
requirements, to clarify applicant responsibilities and allow decision -
making at the administrative level leading to shortened review times.
The following improvements should be considered when updating the LDC:
• Increase the overall limit for site landscaping.
• Replace vague and ill-defined standards with specific requirements.
• Focus on tree planting to enhance environmental benefits and property values.
• Expand incentives for tree preservation.
• Promote the “Spokanescape” incentive program, and look at ways to codify this as
desired landscaping.
Increase the overall limit for site landscaping
Section 17C.200.080, Maximum Landscaping Requirements. states that “In no case
shall these provisions require more than fifteen percent (15%) of the total site area to
be landscaped.” In our experience fifteen percent is a low threshold, particularly for
residential development in less urban contexts. We more often see requirements like
those specified in the table below from another community. In the City of Spokane,
small-scale residential (comprised of single dwellings up to and including all types of
middle housing) would be subject to the requirement that 100 percent of lot area not
covered by improvements (buildings, driveways, walkways) has to be landscaped,
which can be as simple as installing lawn, or other living ground cover.
Table 14-142: Minimum Percent Landscape Cover by Zoning District
Zoning District Minimum Percent Site Coverage
RM Residential Multi-Family 20
CX Commercial Mixed-Use 15
OX Office Mixed-Use 15
CG Commercial General 10
PCI Public, Civic, and Institutional 15
IX and IG Industrial Mixed-Use and Industrial General 5
Replace vague and ill -defined standards with specific requirements
A significant portion of the City’s current landscaping regulations are devoted to
screening requirements between differing zoning districts. While we think landscape
buffers used for screening is a good practice, the current regulations are both too
specific, and too general. We believe the description of what should be included in
the different levels of buffers should be more detailed, while the requirements for
when these screening buffers are installed should be simplified.
Here is an example of the current description for L1 screening buffer, the most
intense Spokane requires (we have highlighted provision that are vague and open to
interpretation):
[Page 72]
“L1 plantings are intended to provide a continuous visual screen between different
types of uses. … The planting strip shall include shrubs that will provide a continuous
screen at a minimum height of six feet within three years of planting. Trees shall be
included as necessary to provide continuous canopy and shall be spaced at intervals
resulting in touching of branches after ten years of normal growth.”
Here is how these requirements are phrased in another community, followed by a
typical illustration showing an overhead view of planting requirements for different
buffer intensities:
“A Level 3 Strong buffer shall be a minimum width of 25 feet. For every 100 feet of
buffer length, there shall be planted: 6 canopy plantings spaced a minimum of 15 feet
apart, interspersed with 5 understory plantings, and 20 shrubs. Trees shall be planted
on center, unless clustering or other arrangements are reviewed and approved by
the City Forester.”
Finally, we believe that buffers between nearly every district, as shown in Spokane’s
current table related to buffers between adjacent properties in Section
17C.200.040.B, Other Property Perimeters, are not always necessary. They probably
are not needed between districts of similar intensity, as in CB next to NR or OR.
Buffers should instead be focused on more incompatible juxtapositions, such as an
industrial zone adjacent to a multifamily zone. There should also be specified
exemptions, such as when GC i s abutting downtown, or when zones are separated
by a right-of-way, including an alley. In the course of the project, once the lineup of
zoning districts is updated, we will propose specific changes to this buffering section
that focus on simplifying or reducing instances when it is applied, while being more
precise in what live plantings different buffer levels entail.
Focus on tree planting to enhance environmental benefits
Spokane’s hottest summer on record occurred in 2021, with one day in July reaching
a record -breaking 109 degrees. In 2023, the city experienced the seventh hottest
summer on record, while 2024 was the fourth warmest. Over 36 percent of the city’s
top hottest years have occurred in the last decade, and the number of 100+ degree
days is also increasing. These increases are common in cities throughout the country,
and tend to be exacerbated in urban areas, due to the prevalence of hardscape such
as buildings, exposed parking areas, roads and sidewalks.
Increasing shade canopy is one of the most effective ways to mitigate such heat -
concentrating effects, and for that reason, the project team focuses on drafting
landscaping regulations that emphasize tree planting, rather than the planting of
shrubs and other ground covers that will not generate shade. We think this emphasis
is particularly important in parking lots, which are among the most p owerful
contributors to urban heat island effects. This will be a main focus for us in updating
both parking lot and general landscaping, accompanied by considerations of plants
that can withstand heat and drought, diversifying species planted to withstand mass
blight and die -off, and appropriate irrigation requirements, so that trees which are
planted to satisfy these regulations have a decent chance of survival.
Expand incentives for tree preservation
Mature, healthy trees provide both more immediate and much greater environmental
benefits than new plantings, and for that reason, we think it is important to offer
[Page 73]
incentives to maintain mature plantings (yes, including shrubs and groundcover too)
rather than always replacing them when there is new or redevelopment on a site.
Spokane has incentives for preservation of existing mature trees, and we think this is
a good start. We would like to expand the applicability of these regulations, as well
as increasing the extent of incentive offered for preservation. We think it is also
important to add more detailed standards for tree preservation during construction
activities than are currently included in Section 17C.200.130, Guarding against
Damage from Construction Work. Rather than referring to an Arboricultural Manual
which may or may not apply, it is common for codes to include requirements for
fencing that protects the tree area drip line, which in turn protects the roots.
6. Carry Forward Signs Standards Subject to Minor Revision as Needed
7. Draft Citywide Outdoor Lighting
Tailor Design Standards to Context
• Consolidate standards for all types of development into one section, rather than
spreading out in different chapters according to zoning district.
• Simplify: eliminate distinction between requirement, presumption, and
consideration. Generally, a zoning code contains requirements – what is a matter
of policy or preference (e.g., a guideline) belongs outside the code. While
Spokane’s presumptions offer flexibility for a developer or applicant in meeting a
standard – a very good practice – they do not need to be called out b y a separate
name. These are still requirements, and can be labeled as such. Considerations
should not be included in the code, but can be incorporated into the various
guidelines documents the City maintains.
• Revisit extent of requirements in some districts, and focus on “high impact” areas.
In our experience, it is uncommon to apply any but basic standards to single -
family and middle housing units. Requirements for these types of structures are
generally limited to an entrance facing the street, basic landscaping standards,
and limitations o n extent of garage door facing the street. Likewise, smaller
multifamily and industrial development often have limited requirements as well.
After discussion with staff, we would like to focus on refining standards in the
highest impact areas: downtown, along gateways or entrance corridors to the
city, in historic areas, along TOD corridors, and in centers. Limited and less
restrictive standards can be maintained in other areas. While we think this is a
workable idea for Spokane, we are concerned that such a change may provoke
opposition from staff or the community, and would like to discuss further before
moving ahead with this recommendation.
[Page 74]
Ensure Applicable Standards Are Proportional to Complexity of Infill and
Redevelopment Requests
Stakeholders spoke frequently about infill and redevelopment in the City. They did
not, however, focus on particular impediments to making this kind of development
happen. In our own review, we find that Spokane’s small lot sizes and fairly
permissive dimensional standards should function well for this type of development.
However, we have heard that application of certain other requirements can pose a
problem. For instance, if a change of use wants to remodel and occupy an existing
structure, there is a qu estion of what level of compliance with other regulations
should be required for this relatively simple request. Should such a request have to
bring substandard landscaping into compliance, remove or replace nonconforming
signs, and update access, potentially including replacing curb, gutter, and sidewalk?
We say no: such overreaching requirements can ensure properties that otherwise
might be attractive for re -use remain vacant. We will work with staff to understand
where such issues arise, and revise applicable infill and redevelopment requirements
to be more in proportion to the extent of change being proposed on a lot.
Add Detail to Landscaping and Expand Tree Preservation Incentives
Landscaping is one of the primary ways a zoning code can promote sustainability
goals and objectives, in addition to the many other positive benefits related to
privacy and aesthetics it can bring. An adequately detailed landscaping section can
speed up staff review time, while also improving the predictability of landscaping
outcomes. This is done by focusing on the creation of specific and measurable
landscaping requirements, to clarify applicant responsibilities and allow decision -
making at the administrative level leading to shortened review times.
The following improvements should be considered when updating the LDC:
• Increase the overall limit for site landscaping.
• Replace vague and ill-defined standards with specific requirements.
• Focus on tree planting to enhance environmental benefits and property values.
• Expand incentives for tree preservation.
• Promote the “Spokanescape” incentive program, and look at ways to codify this as
desired landscaping.
Increase the overall limit for site landscaping
Section 17C.200.080, Maximum Landscaping Requirements. states that “In no case
shall these provisions require more than fifteen percent (15%) of the total site area to
be landscaped.” In our experience fifteen percent is a low threshold, particularly for
residential development in less urban contexts. We more often see requirements like
those specified in the table below from another community. In the City of Spokane,
small-scale residential (comprised of single dwellings up to and including all types of
middle housing) would be subject to the requirement that 100 percent of lot area not
[Page 75]
covered by improvements (buildings, driveways, walkways) has to be landscaped,
which can be as simple as installing lawn, or other living ground cover.
Table 14-142: Minimum Percent Landscape Cover by Zoning District
Zoning District Minimum Percent Site Coverage
RM Residential Multi-Family 20
CX Commercial Mixed-Use 15
OX Office Mixed-Use 15
CG Commercial General 10
PCI Public, Civic, and Institutional 15
IX and IG Industrial Mixed-Use and Industrial General 5
Replace vague and ill -defined standards with specific requirements
A significant portion of the City’s current landscaping regulations are devoted to
screening requirements between differing zoning districts. While we think landscape
buffers used for screening is a good practice, the current regulations are both too
specific, and too general. We believe the description of what should be included in
the different levels of buffers should be more detailed, while the requirements for
when these screening buffers are installed should be simplified.
Here is an example of the current description for L1 screening buffer, the most
intense Spokane requires (we have highlighted provision that are vague and open to
interpretation):
“L1 plantings are intended to provide a continuous visual screen between different
types of uses. … The planting strip shall include shrubs that will provide a continuous
screen at a minimum height of six feet within three years of planting. Trees shall be
included as necessary to provide continuous canopy and shall be spaced at intervals
resulting in touching of branches after ten years of normal growth.”
Here is how these requirements are phrased in another community, followed by a
typical illustration showing an overhead view of planting requirements for different
buffer intensities:
[Page 76]
“A Level 3 Strong buffer shall be a minimum width of 25 feet. For every 100 feet of
buffer length, there shall be planted: 6 canopy plantings spaced a minimum of 15 feet
apart, interspersed with 5 understory plantings, and 20 shrubs. Trees shall be planted
on center, unless clustering or other arrangements are reviewed and approved by the
City Forester.”
Figure 9: Sample Buffer Intensity Illustration
Finally, we believe that buffers between nearly every district, as shown in Spokane’s
current table related to buffers between adjacent properties in Section
17C.200.040.B, Other Property Perimeters, are not always necessary. They probably
are not needed between districts of similar intensity, as in CB next to NR or OR.
Buffers should instead be focused on more incompatible juxtapositions, such as an
industrial zone adjacent to a multifamily zone. There should also be specified
exemptions, such as when GC i s abutting downtown, or when zones are separated by
a right-of-way, including an alley. In the course of the project, once the lineup of
zoning districts is updated, we will propose specific changes to this buffering section
that focus on simplifying or reducing instances when it is applied, while being more
precise in what live plantings different buffer levels entail.
Focus on tree planting to enhance environmental benefits
Spokane’s hottest summer on record occurred in 2021, with one day in July reaching
a record -breaking 109 degrees. In 2023, the city experienced the seventh hottest
[Page 77]
summer on record, while 2024 was the fourth warmest. Over 36 percent of the city’s
top hottest years have occurred in the last decade, and the number of 100+ degree
days is also increasing. These increases are common in cities throughout the country,
and tend to be exacerbated in urban areas, due to the prevalence of hardscape such
as buildings, exposed parking areas, roads and sidewalks.
Figure 10: Parking Lot Landscaping Example Graphic
Increasing shade canopy is one of the most effective ways to mitigate such heat -
concentrating effects, and for that reason, the project team focuses on drafting
landscaping regulations that emphasize tree planting, rather than the planting of
shrubs and other ground covers that will not generate shade. We think this emphasis
is particularly important in parking lots, which are among the most p owerful
contributors to urban heat island effects. This will be a main focus for us in updating
both parking lot and general landscaping, accompanied by considerations of plants
that can withstand heat and drought, diversifying species planted to withstand mass
blight and die -off, and appropriate irrigation requirements, so that trees which are
planted to satisfy these regulations have a decent chance of survival.
[Page 78]
Expand incentives for tree preservation
Mature, healthy trees provide both more immediate and much greater environmental
benefits than new plantings, and for that reason, we think it is
important to offer incentives to maintain mature plantings (yes,
including shrubs and groundcover too) rather than always
replacing them when there is new or redevelopment on a site.
Spokane has incentives for preservation of existing mature
trees, and we think this is a good start. We would like to expand
the applicability of these regulations, as well as increasing the
extent of incentive offered for preservation. We think it is also
important to add more detailed standards for tree preservation
during construction activities than are currently included in
Section 17C.200.130, Guarding against Damage from
Construction Work. Rather than referring to an Arboricultural
Manual which may or may not apply, it is common for codes to
Figure 11: Drip Line
include requirements for fencing that protects the tree area drip
line, which in turn protects the roots.
Carry Forward Signs Standards Subject to Minor Revision as Needed
Spokane’s sign standards have clearly been revised to comply with federal court
decisions regarding content neutrality; thus the regulations focus on “time, place, and
manner,” as is still permitted by law. This essentially means the City is focusing its
regulations on the type of sign that is allowed, how large it can be and how many are
allowed, and where as well as how long it may be displayed. There are also tables
and illustrations throughout the section to help users understand what is allowed for
properties in various zoning districts. Further, the section includes standards for
newer, more modern sign types, including electronic message display.
Altogether, we generally find that this section already complies with many of the
recommendations we would make in terms of best practices. Therefore, we propose
the following approach:
• Carry forward existing Signs Chapter content, subject to minor edits and
reorganization
• Work with staff to identify any problems with existing standards – do standard
regulations not work well in certain areas, for example, historic districts? Are
there sign types or standards that consistently cause issues; for example,
standards for brightness are too low, or size allowance for wall signs is too low?
• Include a temporary signs section.
Draft Citywide Outdoor Lighting Standards
We find that lighting is addressed in two locations in the current code: first, as part of
Chapter 17G.070 Planned Unit Developments, Section 17G.070.150 Lighting; and then
[Page 79]
as part of design standards for the Great Gorge district. In our experience, it is more
common to have lighting standards that are applicable citywide, and then tailored for
certain district areas, such as along the Spokane River Gorge. We would thus suggest
a new lighting section that includes standard elements such as brightness allowance
by zone, type and temperature of allowed lighting, as well as any light types that are
prohibited, common exceptions (holiday lighting), and exemptions (sports fields).
Lighting standards can be very detailed and complicated, and require substantial
staff knowledge and time for reviewing detailed photometric plans. However, basic
standards can go a long way to ensuring that lighting provides adequate illumination
for safety at the ground level, while preventing light pollution into the sky. It is this
extent of basic regulation that we recommend for Spokane.
FOCUS AREA 4: CREATE A MORE USER-FRIENDLY CODE
Many of the recommendations provided so far in this Assessment focus on clarifying
the City’s existing procedures, zoning districts and allowed uses, and development
standards. In addition to content-related changes, this section offers several
recommendations to improve the overall usability of the code by making it easier to
understand, navigate, and administer.
TOPICS COVERED
1. Adopt New On-Line Platform for Easier Access to the SDC
2. Reorganize Land Development Regulations
3. Standardize and Simplify the Numbering Hierarchy
4. Ensure LDC Updates and Revisions are Drafted Using Plain Language
5. Improve Graphic and Photo Illustrations
Adopt New On-Line Platform for Easier Access to the SDC
For the average code -user, Title 17 is particularly difficult to use because of the way
its content is currently accessed through the City’s website. There are several
reasons for this:
• The online version does not include a searchable Table of Contents for the
complete SDC, or its component Titles and Chapters
• Results fr om the search function are very often not helpful
• There are no clear instructions for how to view an entire Chapter, or even
more than one Section at a time -- the user must figure out on their own to
“Select All ” then “View Selected ”
• There are nearly a hundred Chapters in Title 17, and literally thousands of
sections, many of which are only one sentence long
[Page 80]
Spokane staff are aware of these shortcomings and researching the possibility of
transferring the code to an online codifi cation site. Whether the City proceeds with
that step or not, this assessment’s recommendations to reorganize and consolidate
much of the LDC’s current content will also greatly improve the code’s on-line
navigability and user -friendliness.
Reorganize Land Development Regulations
Given the large number of Chapters and Sections in Title 17, the current organization
can be overwhelming and very difficult to navigate, especially for the average
homeowner, property owner, or business owner who needs to access the code
infrequently.
The project team proposes a substantial LDC reorganization that will consolidate
Chapters and Sections by common subject, reducing the overall number of chapters
and sections under higher-level headings. This should help to streamline the
hierarchical structure of information and make it more logical. Once the revised LDC
is uploaded to the new codifier, a functional search option will also be valuable in
helping users find information.
The current LDC lists broad subject areas at the “Title” level, and then dives into a
mix of regulations, procedures, definitions, and standards spread across multiple
Chapters and Sections, which again makes the code difficult to navigate. For
example, one chapter in the LDC is devoted to sign regulations; however, additional
sign regulations are found in each of the chapters on zoning districts. This is
confusing at best and could result in someone missing applicable regulations in their
sign permit application. Having similar or related provisions in different parts of the
LDC also increases the potential for generating conflicting provisions, when
information is in one code location is updated, but not updated in other locations.
We believe reorganiz ing the LDC into a more condensed and logical s equence and
hierarchy of title, chapter, and sections will improve its readability and overall user-
friendliness. For more detailed information on t he proposed LDC reorganization, with
user comprehension and navigation top of mind, refer to the Detailed Outline in Part
4 of this assessment.
Standardize and Simplify the Numbering Hierarchy
The current content outline and numbering scheme in Title 17 and its sub -parts is
internally inconsistent and departs from the numbering scheme used in the other
titles of the Spokane Municipal Code (SMC). The outline/ numbering scheme in Title
17 does not even follow Spokane’s own ordinance on how content should be
organized and numbered in the municipal code. This code update will prioritize a
consistent numbering scheme that is logical, sequential, and matches title and
section organization and numbering in other SMC chapters.
[Page 81]
The table below provides an example of how proposed changes in the LDC
numbering hierarchy are different from the current scheme. The proposed scheme
changes numbering to better align with other SMC chapters and simplifies
numbering to be more sequential and logical.
Table 7: Current and Proposed Numbering Schemes
Current Numbering Scheme in Title 17
TITLE 17A- I UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE
Title 17A - Administration
Chapter 17A.010 – General Administration
Section 17A.010.002 – Intent and Purpose
Section 17A.010.004 – Title
Section 17A.010.010 – Source
Section 17A.010.020 – General Purpose
Proposed Numbering Scheme in LDC
TITLE 17 LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE
Chapter 17.01 Administration
Section 17.01.010 Title
Section 17.01.0 20 – Purpose and Intent
Section 17.01.0 20.A Purpose
Section 17.01.0 20.B Intent
Chapter 17.02 Zoning Districts
Section 17.02.010 Residential Zoning Districts
Section 17.02.020 Mixed -Use Zoning Districts
Ensure LDC Updates and Revisions are Drafted Using Plain Language
Both Washington State policy and best zoning practice converge on the
responsibility of government to ensure public information, including the content of
complex land development and zoning laws, is accessible and easy to understand.
Using “plain language” in the Spokane LDC, rather than using jargon, convoluted
sentence structure or run-on sentences, or legalese comes with a host of benefits,
including:
• Creating a more efficient, positive and inclusive customer experience with the
LDC.
• Ensuring the code is easy to understand and minimizes confusion, errors, and
disputes; i.e., improving compliance with the code.
[Page 82]
• Easing translation of the code for non-English readers and more easily
supporting screen-readers, captions, and other language access tools.
• Demonstrat ing respect for the code -user and their time.
The current LDC does a good job of using fairly simple and straightforward language
in its rules (much better than many codes this project team has seen!). In all revisions
and updates to the LDC, the project team will carry forward this good practice with
drafting all new content and will seek additional opportunities to improve current
code provisions using plain language techniques and best practices.
Improve Graphic and Photo Illustrations
Spokane’s current code has numerous photos and illustrations to help users
understand the concepts in the text. This is good practice; however, the size of the
images is very small, and the resolution is often so poor that it is not possible to
discern what the image seeks to convey. It is often not possible to make these
images larger – for example, by clicking on them – and if they are enlarged the image
quality often declines further into illegibility. Below are some examples.
There is great value in using photos, illustrations, and tables to help code users
understand complicated and often technical content and requirements. Therefore,
we will work on replacing the current images and adding new ones of higher quality,
along with adding or updating existing tables as necessary. Here are some examples
of how tables and illustrations are used in other the project team codes.
Illustrating Zoning District Standards
District diagrams can communicate the intended scale and form of a zoning district
while also including key information related to lot and building standards, such as lot
area, lot width, building setbacks, and height requirements. Below is a zoning district
graphic, and the accompanying district dimensional table. The letters on the graphic
correspond to table rows.
[Page 83]
[Page 84]
Illustrating Development Standards
Development standards graphics may include tables for parking requirements,
illustrations of outdoor lighting requirements, and diagrams depicting rules of
measurement and site layout standards.
[Page 85]
Illustrating Administration and Procedures
Process -related flowcharts can clarify (and visually
communicate) the specific review process steps for
approval of different development applications required
under the LDC. See example at right.
[Page 86]
PART 4: DETAILED OUTLINE
The following table provides an overview of the proposed structure of the new
Spokane Development Code and demonstrates where the current standards under
Title 17 will be relocated. At the bottom of the table is a list of existing sections not
intended to be carried forward. This outline addresses the issues identified in Focus
Area 4 of this Assessment. It is an important tool that provides us with a framework
to draft the new development regulations and establishes an organizing framework
for continued discussion with the City.
Table 8: Detailed Outline of Proposed Code Organization
PROPOSED CURRENT
Chapter 17.01 Administration Title 17A.010 General Administration
01.010 Title Section 17A.010.004 Title
01.020 Authority Section 17A.010.010 Source of the Code
01.030 Applicability Section 17A.010.025 Scope and Application
Section 17A.010.002 Intent and Purpose
01.040 Purpose
Section 17A.010.020 General Purpose
01.050 Compliance Required 17A.010.030 Responsibility of Owners
01.060 Minimum Standards Section 17A.010.025 Scope and Application
01.070 Conflicting Provisions Section 17A.010.050 Conflict between
Chapters
01.080 Transition Rules
080.A Repeal of Title 17A through I
080.B Replacement
Chapter 17A.030 Transition to Title 17 Land
080.C Adoption of Existing Conditions
Use Regulations
of Approval
080.D Prior Development Approvals
080.E Pending Applications
080.F Prior Violations
01.090 Savings and Severability Section 17A.010.120 Saving
Section 17A.010.110 Severability
01.100 Violations, Enforcement, and Penalties Title 17I Enforcement
Section 17C.010.010 Penalty
Section 17C.305.030 Enforcement
Section 17C.310.170 Penalty
17.02 Nonconformities
02.010 Purpose
02.020 Applicability
Section 17C.240.280 Nonconforming Signs
02.030 Nonconforming Structures
Section 17C.315.160 Pre-established Bed &
02.040 Nonconforming Lots
Breakfast Facilities
02.050 Nonconforming Uses
Section 17C.320.030 Automatic Conditional
02.060 Nonconforming Site Features
Use Status
060A Landscaping
060B Lighting
[Page 87]
060C Parking
060D Other Site Features
02.070 Nonconforming Signs
Chapter 17.03 Zoning Districts
03.010 General Zoning District Standards Section 17A.040.010 Classification of Zoning
010.A Zoning Districts Established Districts
010.B Official Zoning Map Section 17A.040.020 Establishment of Map
010.C Interpretation of Zoning Map and Text
010.D Adjustments and Exceptions Section 17A.040.040 Amendments to Map and
Text
Section 17A.040.050 Interpretation of the
Zoning Map
03.020 Residential Zoning Districts
Section 17C.111.010 Purpose
Section 17C.111.020 List of the Residential
Zones
Section 17C.111.030 Characteristics of
Residential Zones
Section 17C.111.040 Other Zoning Standards
Section 17C.111.200 Lot Size and Dimensions
Section 17C.111.125 Nuisance -related Impacts
Section 17C.111.205 Development Standards
Tables
Section 17C.111.210 Density
Section 17C.111.220 Building Coverage &
Impervious Coverage
Section 17C.111.230 Height
Section 17C.111.235 Setbacks
Section 17C.111.240 Accessory Structures
Section 17C.111.255 Parking, Demolitions, Signs,
& Other Applicable Standards
Section 17C.111.225 Development Bonuses
Section 17C.111.310 Open Space
Section 17C.111.420 Open Spaces
03.030 Mixed -Use Zoning Districts
Chapter 17C.122 Center and Corridor Zones
Section 17C.122.010 Intent
Section 17C.122.020 Types of
Centers/Corridors
Section 17C.122.030 Pedestrian Street
Designations
Section 17C.122.040 Historic Special Valuation
Tax Incentive
Section 17C.122.090 Public Amenities Allowing
Bonus Height
Section 17C.122.200 Development Standards
Table
Section 17C.122.210 Height
Section 17C.122.230 Floor Area Ratio
Section 17C.122.240 Setbacks
Chapter 17C.123 Form -Based Code Zones
Section 17C.123.010 Purpose
[Page 88]
Section 17C.123.020 Context Area and Store
Front Designations
Section 17C.123.030 Building Form
Section 17C.123.040 Permitted Uses
Section 17C.123.050 Parking and Pedestrian
Connectivity
Section 17C.123.060 Streetscape
Requirements
Section 17C.123.070 Design Standards
Section 17C.123.080 Additional Requirements
Chapter 17C.124 Downtown Zones
Section 17C.124.010 Purpose
Section 17C.124.020 List of the Downtown
Zones
Section 17C.124.030 Characteristics of
Downtown Zones
Section 17C.124.035 Characteristics of
Downtown Complete Street Designations
Section 17C.124.040 Other Zoning Standards
Section 17C.124.130 Nuisance -related Impacts
Section 17C.124.200 Dimensional Standards
Section 17C.124.210 Floor to Area Ratio
Section 17C.124.220 Height & Massing
Section 17C.124.230 Structure Setbacks,
Sidewalks, and Street Trees
03.040 Commercial and Industrial Zoning
Districts
Section 17C.120.010 Purpose
Section 17C.120.020 List of the Commercial
Zones
Section 17C.120.030 Characteristics of
Commercial Zones
Section 17C.120.040 Other Zoning Standards
Section 17C.120.130 Nuisance -related Impacts
Section 17C.120.200 Lot Size
Section 17C.120.210 Floor Area Ratio
Section 17C.120.220 Height
Section 17C.120.230 Setbacks and Sidewalks
Section 17C.120.280 Additional Requirements
in the NMU Zone
03.050 Special Zoning Districts
New
03.060 Overlay Zoning Districts
060.A Airfield Overlay Section 17C.180.010 Purpose and Intent
Section 17C.180.020 Applicability
Section 17C.180.040 Airfield Overlay Zone
Boundaries
Section 17C.180.060 Height Restrictions
Section 17C.180.100 Development Standards
[Page 89]
North River Overlay DO NOT CARRY FORWARD:
Section 17C.160.010 North River Overlay
(NRO)
Section 17C.160.020 Views, Vistas and Site
Coverage Design
Section 17C.160.030 Pedestrian Views and
Access Design
060.B Special Height Overlay Section 17C.170.010 Purpose
Section 17C.170.100 Location
Section 17C.170.110 Maximum Height
060.C Military Airspace Overlay Section 17C.170.010 Purpose
Section 17C.170.100 Location
Section 17C.170.110 Maximum Height
Section 17C.182.010 Purpose and Intent
Section 17C.182.020 Applicability
Section 17C.182.030 Declaration – Appropriate
Protection
Section 17C.182.100 Military Airspace
Established
Section 17C.182.110 Height Restrictions
Section 17C.182.120 Administrative Height
Exceptions
Section 17C.182.200 Military Influence Areas
(MIA) Established
Section 17C.182.210 MIA 3/4 Regulations Based
on Washington State Airport Compatibility
Guidelines
Section 17C.182.230 Review of Permitted Uses
and Conditional Use Permits Locating in MIA
3/4 – Application of Reasonable Conditions
Section 17C.182.260 Conflict with Underlying
Zone Requirements
Section 17C.182.300 Noise Impact Area
Established
Section 17C.182.310 Application to New,
Existing Structures, Additions and Changes of
Use
Section 17C.182.320 Noise Reduction Features
and Materials Required
Section 17C.182.330 Details for Plans and
Specifications
Section 17C.182.400 Accident Potential Zones
Established
Section 17C.182.410 APZ Permitted and
Prohibited Uses
Section 17C.182.430 Review of Permitted Uses
Locating in the Clear Zone, APZ -I and APZ -II –
Application of Reasonable Conditions
Section 17C.182.440 General Use Restrictions –
Clear Zone, APZ -I and APZ -II
Section 17C.182.450 Clear Zone Special
Considerations
[Page 90]
Section 17C.182.500 Bird – Aircraft Strike
Hazard Requirement
Section 17C.182.600 Fairchild AFB Review
Required in the MIA 2 and 3/4
Section 17C.182.700 Avigation Easement
Required in MIA 2 and 3/4
Section 17C.182.800 Notification of Military
Aircraft Activity Required in MIA 2 and 3/4
Section 17C.182.810 Real Estate Lease Notice
Required
Section 17C.182.900 Exemptions
03.070 Planned Unit Development Chapter 17G.070 Planned Unit Developments
Section 17G.070.010 Purpose
Section 17G.070.020 Applicability
Section 17G.070.030 Development Standards
Section 17G.070.100 Design Standards
Section 17G.070.115 Plan and Code
Conformance
Section 17G.070.120 Significant Features
Section 17G.070.125 Site Preparation
Section 17G.070.130 Landscaping
Section 17G.070.135 Compatibility with
Surrounding Areas
Section 17G.070.140 Community Environment
Section 17G.070.145 Circulation
Section 17G.070.150 Lighting
Section 17G.070.200 Application Process
Section 17G.070.210 Time Limits
Section 17G.070.220 Vesting
17.04 Allowed Uses
Section 17C.111.100 Residential Zone Primary
Uses
Section 17C.111.115 Housing Types Allowed
Section 17C.111.120 Accessory Uses
Section 17C.120.100 Commercial Zones
Primary Uses
Section 17C.120.120 Accessory Uses
Section 17C.122.070 Center and Corridor Zone
Allowed Uses
Section 17C.123.040 Permitted Uses
Section 17C.124.100 Downtown Zones Primary
Uses
Section 17C.124.120 Accessory Uses
Section 17C.180.030 Exemptions
Section 17C.180.050 General Use Restrictions
Section 17C.180.070 Compatibility Use
Categories
Section 17C.180.080 Airfield Overlay
Compatible Uses
Section 17C.182.220 Compatible Uses and
Densities – MIA 3/4
Section 17C.182.240 General Use Restrictions –
MIA 3/4
[Page 91]
Section 17C.182.250 Exemptions – MIA 3/4
Section 17C.182.410 APZ Permitted and
Prohibited Uses
Section 17C.182.440 General Use Restrictions –
Clear Zone, APZ -I and APZ -II
Chapter 17C.190 Use Category Descriptions
17.05 Use-Specific Standards
Limited Uses will not be carried forward as a DO NOT CARRY FORWARD:
category; however; each limited use will be Section 17C.120.110 Limited Use Standards
accounted for in general use-specific Section 17C.124.110 Limited Use Standards
standards, categorized as shown below. Section 17C.180.090 Limited Use Standards
Section 17C.182.420 Limited Use Standards
05.010 Residential Use -Specific Standards Section 17C.111.250 Exterior Storage –
010. A Household Living Residential Zones
010.B Group Living Chapter 17C.300 Accessory Dwelling Units
Chapter 17C.345 Manufactured Homes and
Mobile Home Parks (except 17C.345.130)
05.020 Public, Civic, and Institutional Use -
Specific Standards
Section 17C.120.270 Outdoor Activities
Section 17C.120.290 Drive-through Facilities
Section 17C.120.300 Detached Accessory
Structures
Section 17C.122.160 Drive-through Facilities
Section 17C.124.270 Outdoor Activities
Section 17C.124.290 Drive-through Facilities
Section 17C.124.300 Detached Accessory
Structures
Section 17C.182.450 Clear Zone Special
Considerations
Section 17C.220.090 Vehicle Repair, Quick
Vehicle Servicing and Drive -through Facilities
Section 17C.240.260 Additional Standards for
Specific Uses
Chapter 17C.305 Adult Business (except
17C.305.030)
Chapter 17C.310 Animal Keeping (except
17C.310.170)
Chapter 17C.315 Bed and Breakfast (except
17C.315.160)
Chapter 17C.316 Short Term Rentals (except
17C.316.020 and 0.08)
Chapter 17C.319 Commercial Vehicle Use and
Recreational Camping (except 17C.319.100)
Chapter 17C.320 Conditional Uses (except
17C.320.030, 0.070 and.080)
Chapter 17C.325 Drive-through Facilities
(except 17C.325.050)
Chapter 17C.340 Home Occupations (except
17C.340.100 and 120)
[Page 92]
Chapter 17C.347 Regulations for State -
Licensed Marijuana Producers, Processors and
Retailers (except 17C.347.020)
Chapter 17C.348 Zoning Standards for Off -
Premises Alcohol Outlets (except
17C.348.020)
Chapter 17C.350 Mini-storage Facilities
Section 17C.355A.030 Towers
Section 17C.355A.040 Collocation of
Antennas, DAS, and Small Cells
Section 17C.355A.050 Tower Sharing,
Collocation and Preferred Tower Locations
Section 17C.355A.070 General Development
Standards Applicable to WCFs
Section 17C.355A.110 Maintenance
Section 17C.355A.120 Discontinuation of Use
Section 17C.355A.140 Exempt Facilities
Section 17C.370.020 Applicability
Section 17C.380.010 Market Garden Pilot
Program
17.06 Design Standards
Section 17C.111.015 Design Standards
Administration
Section 17C.111.300 Single -Unit Residential and
Middle Housing Design Standards
Section 17C.230.310 Exterior Design of Parking
Structures – Building Design
Chapter 17C.250 Tall Building Standards
Section 17C.250.010 Purpose of Tall Building
Standards
Section 17C.250.030 Treatment of Blank Walls
on Tall Buildings – Building Design
Section 17C.250.040 Roof Forms for Tall
Buildings – Building Design
Chapter 17C.255 Skywalks
Section 17C.255.510 Windows – Building
Design
Section 17C.255.515 Enclosure – Building
Design
Section 17C.255.520 Articulation – Building
Design
Section 17C.255.010 Purpose
Section 17C.255.525 Angulation and Slope
Section 17C.255.530 Dimensions
17.07 Historic Preservation
Chapter 17D.100 Historic Preservation
17.08 Development Standards
08.010 Purpose Section 17A.060.030 Pre-existing Agreements
08.020 Applicability Section 17C.111.545 Transition Between
08.030 Development Agreements Institutional and Residential Development
08.040 Residential Adjacency Section 17C.122.220 Height Transition
[Page 93]
08.020 Access, Mobility, and Circulation Section 17C.111.340 Pedestrian Connectivity
Section 17C.111.410 Sidewalks
Section 17C.111.415 Pedestrian Connections
Section 17C.111.535 Curb Cut Limitations
Section 17C.111.540 Pedestrian Connections in
Parking Lots
Section 17C.120.260 Pedestrian Standards
Section 17C.122.250 Sidewalks
Section 17C.124.280 Site Access and Curb
Cuts
08.030 Off-Street Parking and Loading Section 17C.111.335 Parking Facilities
Section 17C.111.465 Parking Structures
Section 17C.120.340 Parking and Loading
Section 17C.122.120 Parking and Loading
Section 17C.124.340 Parking and Loading
Section 17C.230.010 Introduction
Section 17C.230.020 Vehicle Parking Summary
Table
Section 17C.230.100 General Standards
Section 17C.230.110 Minimum Required Parking
Spaces
Section 17C.230.120 Maximum Required
Parking Spaces
Section 17C.230.130 Parking Exceptions
Section 17C.230.140 Development Standards
Section 17C.230.145 Development Standards
for Residential Uses
Section 17C.230.200 Bicycle Parking
Section 17C.230.300 Loading
Section 17C.319.100 Commercial Use of
Residential Streets
Section 17C.325.050 Stacking Lane Standards
08.040 Landscaping, Screening, and Section 17C.111.305 Landscaping
Fences Section 17C.111.330 Screening
Section 17C.111.425 Screening
Section 17C.111.430 Landscaped Areas
Section 17C.111.435 Street Trees
Section 17C.111.525 Landscaped Areas
Section 17C.111.530 Street Trees
Section 17C.111.575 Screening
Section 17C.120.240 Landscaped Areas
Section 17C.120.250 Screening
Section 17C.122.130 Landscaping and
Screening
Section 17C.124.240 Landscaped Areas
Section 17C.124.250 Screening
Chapter 17C.200 Landscaping and Screening
Section 17C.111.245 Fences
Section 17C.120.310 Fences
Section 17C.124.310 Fences
Section 17C.122.135 Fences
08.050 Outdoor Lighting Section 17C.111.520 Lighting
08.060 Performance Standards Chapter 17C.220 Off -site Impacts
[Page 94]
Section 17C.220.010 Purpose
Section 17C.220.020 Documentation in
Advance
Section 17C.220.030 Applying These
Standards
Section 17C.220.040 Exemptions
Section 17C.220.050 Relationship to Other
Standards
Section 17C.220.060 Noise
Section 17C.220.070 Odor
Section 17C.220.080 Glare
17.09 Signs
Section 17C.120.350 Signs
Section 17C.122.150 Signs
Section 17C.124.350 Signs
Section 17C.240.010 Intent and Purpose
Section 17C.240.025 Applicability and
Interpretations
Section 17C.240.030 Hierarchy of Regulations
Section 17C.240.060 Exemptions
Section 17C.240.070 Prohibitions
Section 17C.240.120 Measurements
Section 17C.240.130 Primary Building Walls
Section 17C.240.140 Sign Face Area
Section 17C.240.150 Sign Heights and
Clearances
Section 17C.240.180 Diagonal Corner Signs
Section 17C.240.210 Uses, Use Categories, and
Structure Types
Section 17C.240.220 Standards in Residential
Zones
Section 17C.240.230 Standards in the
Commercial and Industrial Zones
Section 17C.240.240 Sign Placement and
Location Restrictions
Section 17C.240.241 Building Mounted Wall
Signs
Section 17C.240.242 Roof-Mounted Signs
Section 17C.240.243 Freestanding Signs
Section 17C.240.244 Temporary Signs
Section 17C.240.245 Sandwich Board Signs
Section 17C.240.246 Community Banners
Section 17C.240.247 Electronic Message
Center Signs
Section 17C.240.250 Off-premises Signs
Section 17C.240.270 Additional Standards in
Shoreline Districts
17.10 Environmental Standards
Chapter 17E.010 Critical Aquifer Recharge
Areas – Aquifer Protection
Chapter 17E.020 Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Areas
Chapter 17E.030 Floodplain Management
[Page 95]
Chapter 17E.040 Spokane Geologically
Hazardous Areas
Chapter 17E.050 SEPA
Chapter 17E.060 Shoreline Regulations
Chapter 17E.070 Wetlands Protection
17.11 Subdivision Design Standards
Section 17G.080.070 Subdivision Design
Standards
Chapter 17D.050A Roadway Naming and
Addressing
17.12 Construction Standards
Title 17F Construction Standards
17.13 Engineering Standards
Chapter 17D.020 Financial Guarantees
Chapter 17D.060 Stormwater Facilities
Chapter 17D.075 Transportation Impact Fees
Chapter 17D.080 Voluntary Impact Fees
Chapter 17D.090 Erosion and Sediment
Control
Title 17H Engineering Standards
17.14 Development Review Procedures
14.010 Common Review Procedures Chapter 17D.010 Concurrency Certification
Chapter 17G.061 Land Use Application
Procedures
Chapter 17G.010 Building and Construction
Permits
Section 17G.040.020 Development and
Applications Subject to Design Review
Section 17G.040.030 Projects Exempt from
Design Review
Section 17G.040.040 Design Review Criteria
Section 17G.040.050 Design Review Process
Section 17G.040.070 Neighborhood
Notification
Section 17G.040.080 Design Review Board
Recommendations
Section 17G.040.090 Vesting
Section 17G.040.100 Expiration of Application
Chapter 17G.050 Hearing Examiner Article II
Procedures
Section 17G.050.310 Right of Appeal
14.020 Application -Specific Review Chapter 17A.050 Interpretations and Minor
Procedures Adjustments
020A Administrative Decisions Section 17A.060.010 Development
O20B Public Hearing Decisions Agreements Authorized
020C Subdivision Plat Procedures Section 17A.060.020 Purpose
020D Flexibility and Relief Procedures
Section 17A.060.040 Effect and Vesting
Section 17A.060.050 Procedure
Section 17A.060.060 Recording
Chapter 17G.020 Comprehensive Plan
Amendment Procedure
[Page 96]
Chapter 17G.025 Unified Development Code
Amendment Procedure
Section 17G.070.020 Applicability
Section 17G.070.200 Application Process
Section 17G.070.210 Time Limits
Section 17G.070.220 Vesting
Chapter 17G.030 Design Departures
Section 17G.050.320 Action on Appeal to
Hearing Examiner
Section 17G.050.330 Timing of Appeals to the
City Council
Section 17G.050.340 Rules of Procedure for
Appeals to the City Council
Section 17G.050.350 Council Action on
Appeal
Section 17G.080.000 Purpose and
Administration
Section 17G.080.020 General Provisions
Section 17G.080.025 Decision Criteria
Section 17G.080.030 Boundary Line
Adjustment
Section 17G.080.040 Short Subdivisions
Section 17G.080.050 Subdivisions
Section 17G.080.060 Binding Site Plan
Section 17G.080.065 Unit Lot Subdivisions
Section 17C.345.130 Manufactured Home
Subdivisions
Section 17C.240.040 Relationship to Approved
Land Use Reviews
Section 17C.240.050 Authority
Section 17C.240.090 Sign Permit Required
Section 17C.240.310 Exceptions
Section 17C.255.015 Design Standards
Administration
Section 17C.255.500 Design Standards
Implementation
Section 17C.316.080 Waiver of Permit Fees for
Short Term Rentals
Section 17C.320.070 Approval Process
Section 17C.320.080 Decision Criteria
Chapter 17C.335 Historic Structures – Change
of Use
Section 17C.355A.060 Application Submittal
Requirements
Section 17C.355A.080 Regulations for
Facilities Subject to a Conditional Use Permit
Section 17C.355A.090 Exception from
Standards
Section 17C.355A.100 Final Inspection
Section 17C.355A.130 Independent Technical
Review
Section 17C.355A.150 Indemnification
[Page 97]
Chapter 17C.356 Eligible Facilities
Modifications (except 17C.356.020)
Section 17C.370.010 Purpose
Section 17C.370.030 Procedure
Chapter 17C.420 South Logan TOD Planned
Action
12.030 Review and Decision -Making Bodies Section 17A.040.030 Maintenance of the Map
Section 17G.040.010 Design Review Board
Authority
Section 17G.040.060 Design Review Board
Meetings
Chapter 17G.050 Hearing Examiner Article I
Office of Hearing Examiner
17.15 Methods of Measurement
17.16 Definitions
Chapter 17A.020 Definitions
Section 17C.240.015 Definitions
Section 17C.316.020 Definitions
Chapter 17C.340 Home Occupations (except
17C.340.100 and 120)
Section 17C.347.020 Description
Section 17C.348.020 Definitions
Section 17C.355A.020 Definitions
Section 17C.356.020 Definitions
[Page 1]
Spokane Development Code Assessment
STAFF DRAFT
May 2026
[Page 2]
Table of Contents
PART 1: INTRODUCTION........................................................................... 3
Why Undertake this Project?...................................................................................................... 3
Project Overview............................................................................................................................ 3
About the Process.......................................................................................................................... 4
Timeline................................................................................................................................................. 4
Opportunities for Input................................................................................................................... 4
About the Land Development Code Assessment................................................................ 5
Organization of this Report........................................................................................................... 5
Focus Areas......................................................................................................................................... 5
Summary of Key Recommendations........................................................................................ 6
PART 2: SPOKANE GUIDING PLANS AND POLICIES...................... 11
Overview............................................................................................................................................ 11
Related Plans and Policies........................................................................................................... 11
PlanSpokane 2046 Comprehensive Plan (under development).................................... 11
Shaping Spokane Comprehensive Plan (2017).................................................................... 15
Housing Action Plan....................................................................................................................... 17
Sustainability Action Plan............................................................................................................ 19
Transit-Oriented Development Framework Study............................................................ 23
Bicycle Master Plan........................................................................................................................ 26
Centers and Corridors Update Study..................................................................................... 26
PART 3: ANALYSIS OF CURRENT LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE
........................................................................................................................ 28
Focus Area 1: Establish Clear and Predictable Development Review Procedures. 28
Establish Common Review Procedures................................................................................. 28
Create Complete and Consistent Specific Review Procedures................................... 33
Fill the Gap – Create a New Site Plan/Land Use Permit Application......................... 36
Pursue Opportunities for Streamlining Development Review...................................... 40
Revise Approach for Urban Design Review......................................................................... 45
Clarify Extent and Applicability of LDC Rules for Nonconformities.......................... 46
Incorporate More Opportunities for Design Flexibility.................................................... 50
Focus Area 2: Fine-Tune Zoning Districts and Allowed Uses......................................... 51
Land Use and Zoning Districts.................................................................................................. 52
Overview of Current Zoning Districts.................................................................................... 52
Consolidate and Adjust Land Use Allowances................................................................... 65
Focus Area 3: Refine Development Standards................................................................... 69
Tailor Design Standards to Context........................................................................................ 70
Ensure Applicable Standards Are Proportional to Complexity of Infill and
Redevelopment Requests........................................................................................................... 70
Add Detail to Landscaping and Expand Tree Preservation Incentives...................... 71
[Page 3]
Carry Forward Signs Standards Subject to Minor Revision as Needed.................... 75
Draft Citywide Outdoor Lighting Standards....................................................................... 75
Focus Area 4: Create a More User-Friendly Code............................................................. 76
Adopt New On-Line Platform for Easier Access to the SDC........................................ 76
Reorganize Land Development Regulations....................................................................... 77
Standardize and Simplify the Numbering Hierarchy........................................................ 77
Ensure LDC Updates and Revisions are Drafted Using Plain Language................... 78
Improve Graphic and Photo Illustrations.............................................................................. 79
PART 4: DETAILED OUTLINE................................................................ 83
[Page 4]
PART 1: INTRODUCTION
WHY UNDERTAKE THIS PROJECT?
The City of Spokane is initiating a project to update its zoning code, with the
objective of modernizing its development regulations to address major community
needs such as housing, economic growth, and sustainability. Called BUILDSpokane,
the project also aims to align zoning regulations with the comprehensive plan,
(PLANSpokane), which is being updated concurrently, so that the revised code helps
to implement the plan’s goals and visions. The new code will come into compliance
with recent state laws, including the mandate in the Growth Management Act that
requires implementation of regulations that address and begin to undo racially
disparate impacts, displacement, and exclusion in housing. In particular, the city
hopes the changes will:
• Reduce barriers to development and redevelopment
• Encourage more housing options
• Improve affordability
• Begin to redress historically disparate impacts and minimize displacement risk
• Support mixed-use and higher-density development in some areas
Key to supporting streamlined development is revision of some of the City’s review
and approval procedures to be more efficient and results-oriented. Overall, the
zoning update will result in clear and easier to understand regulations that help
Spokane manage growth and meet future community goals.
PROJECT OVERVIEW
The City of Spokane, in collaboration with Clarion Associates and Kimley Horn
(“project team”), has initiated a process to complete the first comprehensive update
of the City’s land development regulations in many decades. This process, called
BUILDSpokane (“BUILDSpokane” or “project”), involves a detailed analysis and
update of the City’s land development regulations, including:
• Title 17A Administration
• Title 17B Comprehensive Plan and Sub-area Plans
• Title 17C Land Use Standards
• Title 17D City -wide Standards
• Title 17E Environmental Standards
• Title 17F Construction Standards
• Title 17G Administration and Procedures
• Title 17H Engineering Standards
• Title 17I Enforcement
[Page 5]
The goal of this project is to comply with state -mandated timelines for both
comprehensive plan and land development code (LDC) updates. The updated
development code will be written to align with and support implementation of the
updated comprehensive plan, PlanSpokane 2046, that is occurring concurrently.
Further goals for the BUILDSpokane project are to modernize Spokane’s
development code to encourage construction of the City’s preferred development
types, incorporate statutory review requirements, and focus on implementing
measures to reduce historical racially disparate impacts and produce more equitable
outcomes. This project will also place significant emphasis on making the resulting
LDC significantly more straightforward to use, incorporating user-friendly elements
such as tables, graphics, photos, and illustrations to help users grasp the concepts
and regulations contained in the code.
ABOUT THE PROCESS
Timeline
The BUILDSpokane project began in December 2025 and is anticipated to conclude
by December 2026. The project includes five phases, as depi cted below. This
Development Code Assessment Report is the basis of Phase 2 and will be followed
by drafting significant updates to the existing Title 17 Land Development Code.
Proposed changes to the code are described in this Report.
Figure 1: LDC Modernization Timeline
Opportunities for Input
This Assessment is informed by discussions with staff across multiple departments,
stakeholder interviews with developers, architects, designers, and other groups who
regularly use the current LDC, a tour of the community, and the project team’s
review of Spokane’s current land development regulations and supporting
[Page 6]
background materials. These activities took place in December 2025 and included
brief presentations about the project to the Mayor, the City Council, and the Planning
Commission.
ABOUT THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE ASSESSMENT
This Assessment is intended to serve as a roadmap for the proposed changes to
Spokane’s LDC by identifying strengths and weaknesses of the current land
development regulations and building consensus on the general scope of the issues
to be addressed, as well as recommendations for addressing them.
Organization of this Report
In addition to this Introduction (Part 1), this report is organized into three additional
sections:
Part 2: Spokane Guiding Plans and Policies
• Includes a summary of the plans and policies that guide development in Spokane,
including the City’s 2017 comprehensive plan, Shaping Spokane, and the updated
comprehensive plan that is currently under development, PlanSpokane 2046. The
contents of these a nd other plans helped inform proposed changes to the City’s
land development regulations.
Part 3: Analysis of Current Land Development Regulations
• Provides a detailed analysis of the current land development regulations, and
includes recommendations for improvements to be implemented as part of the
code update process. This section is further divided into Focus Areas related to
improvements for usability; zone districts and uses; development standards; and
administration and procedures. These are described in more detail below.
Part 4: Detailed Outline
• Proposes the new organization al structure for the code, and shows where Titles,
Chapters, and Sections of Title 17 fit within the new organizational order.
Focus Areas
Based upon the project team’s review of the City’s regulations and initial project
interviews, we propose the following Focus Areas for structur ing groups of related
issues that will be addressed as part of the project update. The discussion of these
Focus Areas in this report includes recommendations for how the regulations should
be improved to address the underlying issues and concerns associated with each
major focus area.
[Page 7]
Focus Area 1: Establish Clear and Predictable Development Review
Procedures
• Update review procedures with focus on efficiency, transparency, and
predictability of both process and outcomes
Focus Area 2: Fine-Tune Zoning Districts and Allowed Uses
• Align zoning districts and allowed uses with updated Land Use Plan Map
(“LUPM”)
• Implement regulations to address racially disparate impacts, and reduce the
risk of displacement and exclusion in housing development
Focus Area 3: Refine Development Standards
• Review and revise development standards – design standards in particular –
to make sure they are practical and achievable
Focus Area 4: Create a More User-Friendly Code
• Reorganize content in logical outline, ensure language is plain and
comprehensible, include graphics and illustrations
SUMMARY OF KEY RECOMMENDATIONS
Commentary
The left column of the table contains active links. If a user Ctrl+clicks the text, it leads to
that section of the report.
Table 1 captures the full list of recommendations for improving Spokane’s land
development regulations outlined in this Assessment.
Table 1: BUILDSpokane Project Recommendations
Focus Area Recommendation
Establish Clear and Predictable Development Review Procedures
Establish Common Review • Consolidate and clarify common review procedures
Procedures that apply to most development review applications
Create Complete and Consistent • Reformat all specific review procedures to explicitly
Specific Review Procedures address each step in the application and review
process
• Incorporate process -specific flow charts for each
land development review process
Fill the Gap – Create a New Site • Create a new site plan application and review
Plan/Land Use Permit process to consolidate existing land use reviews and
Application coordinate and clearly record compliance with
zoning, urban design, conditional use, environmental
protection, and related land use final decisions,
deviations/adjustments/variances, and conditions of
approval
[Page 8]
Table 1: BUILDSpokane Project Recommendations
Focus Area Recommendation
Pursue Opportunities for • Expand the types of development and permits
Streamlining Development exempt from SEPA review, as allowed by state law
Review • Eliminate public notice requirements for all short
plats
• Evaluate alternatives to in -person community
meetings
• Clarify Purpose /Intent of unit lot subdivision tool
Revise Approach for Urban • Consolidate and clarify existing Title 17 provisions
Design Review describing the make -up, authority, and decision -
making and appeal jurisdiction of the administrators
and elected/appointed bodies charged with
reviewing and deciding land development
applications and permits
Clarify Extent and Applicability • Evaluate whether the current approach in the LDC
of LDC Rules for for establishing nonconforming status aligns with
Nonconformities the City’s current approach to nonconformities and
best practices.
• Provide clear standards for determining when a
nonconformity is discontinued (abandoned), thereby
terminating its right to continue in a nonconforming
manner.
• Revise the definitions of “nonconforming
development” and “nonconforming use” in Title 17 to
narrow the range of code violations that make a
structure, site, or use nonconforming and therefore
subject to more restrictive standards.
• Identify the decision -maker with authority to make
all determinations regarding the existence of a
nonconformity and the factual discontinuance of
such use/structure.
• Clarify current standards for when modifications to
nonconforming structures, uses, and improvements
will trigger full code compliance.
• Consolidate and clarify a property owner’s
entitlement to rebuild a damaged or destroyed
nonconforming structure or re -establish a
nonconforming use when the structure housing the
nonconforming use is damaged or destroyed.
Incorporate More Opportunities • Clarify the zoning variance process by consolidating
for Design Flexibility procedural information in the LDC
• Revise the current Minor Adjustment process to
more clearly and expansively allow minor deviations
from objective development and design standards
• Clarify and revise the code interpretation process to
allow Director s and their delegees to navigate
insufficiently clear provisions and account for
unanticipated development scenarios
Fine-Tune the City’s Zoning Districts and Allowed Uses
[Page 9]
Table 1: BUILDSpokane Project Recommendations
Focus Area Recommendation
Align Zoning Districts with Land • Ensure zoning districts align with land use
Use Designations designations in the updated Comprehensive P lan;
refine final district lineup once the final plan is
available
Create, Rename, or Delete • Adjust residential districts to focus on scale of
Districts development rather than density
• Revise Centers and Corridors; generally, emphasize
mixed use at varying scales. Detail to be determined
as Plan update progresses
• Carry forward industrial and Downtown zones
• Create new districts for parks & open space, and
civic & institutional uses
• Delete districts that are not in use (NMU, Planned
Industrial)
Adjust Centers & Corridors • Creating tailoring mixed use districts, of varying
Concept to Enhance intensity as described in Table 5.
Implementation and Outcomes • Allow flexibility within the base districts by focusing
more on scale, built form, and multimodal
accessibility than allowed/prohibited uses
• Adjust standards based on intensity of development,
and extent of change from existing development
(for example, consider the different standards
needed to transform a strip mall versus maintain an
exiting neighborhood commercial strip)
• Clarify triggers for applicability of other code
standards (for example, should a simple change of
use require upgrades to curb, gutter, and sidewalk if
those are substandard)
Create a Mixed -Use, Transit - • Support the realization of Spokane’s TOD plans with
Oriented Development district a TOD mixed-use district centered around the
station areas
• Include residential at a density that is capable of
supporting high -frequency transit
• Tailor development and design standards to support
TOD corridor
Emphasize Revitalization in • Prohibit creation of new surface parking
Downtown Districts • Offer incentives for re -occupying vacant downtown
storefronts
• Emphasize creation of residential development, both
affordable and market -rate
Relocate and Update Existing • Move some of the PUD information from 17G
Planned Unit Development including the “what is it?” information such as
Regulations purpose, uses, density, and dimensional
requirements, while the “how to do it” content can
remain in the Administration and Procedures
Chapter.
[Page 10]
Table 1: BUILDSpokane Project Recommendations
Focus Area Recommendation
• Revisit what PUDs are created for
Consolidate and Adjust Land Use Allowances
Reorganize into a Single, Central • Consolidate all five separate land use tables into a
Land Use Table single consolidated table for all allowed uses
Retain Land Use Category • Carry forward reliance on use categories, subject to
Approach, with Refinement & revisions and refinement of categories and what
Reorganization specific uses they include
Define Land Uses • Ensure that each allowed land use has a definition
Create Use Specific Standards • Consolidate use-specific standards into a single
(USS) Section; Update Existing location.
USS • Eliminate “limited uses,” which are just use-specific
standards
Review & Update Use • Review use permissions to increase the number of
Permissions uses allowed by right, subject to use-specific
standards to mitigate impacts
Refine Development Standards
Ensure Applicable Standards • Clarify what requirements apply to infill and
Are Proportional to Complexity redevelopment requests, to ensure applicable
of Infill and Redevelopment requirements are not overly complex, or functioning
Requests as a deterrent
Add Detail to Landscaping and • Create specific and measurable landscaping
Expand Tree Preservation requirements, to clarify applicant responsibilities and
Incentives allow decision -making at the administrative level
leading to shortened review times
• Increase the overall limit for site landscaping
• Replace vague and ill -defined standards with
specific requirements
• Focus on tree planting to enhance environmental
benefits and property values
• Expand incentives for tree preservation
• Promote the “Spokanescape” incentive program,
and look at ways to codify this as desired
landscaping
Carry Forward Signs Standards • Carry forward existing Signs Chapter content,
Subject to Minor Revision as subject to minor edits and reorganization
Needed • Work with staff to identify any problems with
existing standards – do standard regulations not
work well in certain areas, for example, historic
districts? Are there sign types or standards that
consistently cause issues; for example, standards for
brightness are too low, or size allowance for wall
signs is too low?
• Include a temporary signs section.
Draft Citywide Outdoor Lighting • Draft a new citywide lighting section that includes
Standards standard elements such as brightness allowance by
zone, type and temperature of allowed lighting,
[Page 11]
Table 1: BUILDSpokane Project Recommendations
Focus Area Recommendation
prohibited lighting, common exceptions (holiday
lighting), and exemptions (sports fields).
Create a More User-Friendly Code
Adopt New On-Line Platform for • Relocate the code from the City’s website to an
Easier Access to the SDC online codifier to improve access, layout, and
usability
• Include a searchable Table of Contents for the
complete SDC, or its component Titles and Chapters
• Improve search function
Reorganize Land Development • Consolidate similar information into a single location
Regulations to reduce the hundreds of Chapters in Title 17, and
thousands of sections, many of which are only one
sentence long (see Part 4: Detailed Outline for
further information on proposed reorganization)
Standardize and Simplify the • Revise numbering to be logical and sequential, and
Numbering Hierarchy more aligned with the numbering scheme used by
other chapters of the SMC
Ensure LDC Updates and • Review and revise code to eliminate convoluted,
Revisions are Drafted Using Plain opaque, or legalistic writing
Language
Improve Graphic and Photo • Add graphics and photos to illustrate complex
Illustrations concepts
• Ensure all graphics are sized to be legible
[Page 12]
PART 2: SPOKANE GUIDING PLANS AND POLICIES
OVERVIEW
This section includes a summary of some plans and policies that will be used to help
guide proposed changes to Spokane’s land use and subdivision codes – it is not
meant to be an exhaustive list of t he guiding documents that will be consulted during
the code update process. The community’s vision, goals, and objectives, as
expressed through City plans, studies and policies, are important for providing
guidance and direction in drafting regulations that support policy implementation.
RELATED PLANS AND POLICIES
PlanSpokane 2046 Comprehensive Plan (under development)
Spokane is currently updating its Comprehensive Plan, the City’s primary guiding
document for future growth and policy direction. This plan update, known as
PlanSpokane 2046, establishes the visions, policies, and regulatory framework that
will guide Spokane over the next 20 years. Draft sections of PlanSpokane 2046 are
posted on the City’s website for public review as they become available.
BUILDSpokane revises the City’s zoning and development standards to ensure they
guide development patterns, locations, and land uses that are consistent with
PlanSpokane 2046. The project focuses on regulatory changes needed to implement
the plan’s vision statements and goals. The chapters and goals identified below
represent the elements of the Comprehensive Plan that can be most directly
implemented through the land use code update.
Community Health
CH-2.1 - Accommodate development of care and support facilities in all
neighborhoods and parts of the city through inclusive development standards,
codes, and zones.
CH-2.2 - Accommodate the development and operation of temporary housing for all
populations in need, including opportunities for those requiring direct care and
treatment services, throughout all parts of the city and the region, to allow those in
need to remain in close proximity to their community and social circle.
CH-2.3 - Establish and enforce development regulations that allow for construction
of care facilities in every neighborhood while considering the context and
environment in which they are placed.
CH-2.4 - Allow residential dwellings to be used as approved childcare facilities and
adult day centers where housing is permitted to expand access to social service
facilities.
[Page 13]
CH-2.6 - Regulate land uses and zoning requirements such that child and adult care
services, health services, libraries, schools, recreational, educational, and cultural
programs can be clustered to minimize the need for users and patients to travel long
distanc es between care and facilities.
CH-2.7 - Regulate institutional housing consistent with State and Federal laws and
requirements for the location of housing, treatment, and support services for higher
risk populations, while ensuring that these necessary services, such as substance
abuse care facilities, can be provided in the city where needed.
CH-7.3 - Design sites and activities such that users of the space are visible from the
outside and can see out from the inside, to foster a greater sense of connection and
activation, avoiding visual isolation to ensure community safety.
CH-9.4 - Incentivize and enable uses that provide fresh food to neighborhoods by
amending zoning and code requirements to ensure food access for parts of the city
where affordable, healthy food is not currently available.
Economic Prosperity
EP-3.5 - Encourage opportunities for creating and expanding home-based
businesses while minimizing impacts on the surrounding community.
EP-9.1 - Promote the region’s outdoor amenities, recreational opportunities, and
agritourism as features of both social benefit and economic growth, while protecting
the natural resources for the future.
Natural Environment
NE-1.2 - Encourage the use of evolving best practices for stormwater, including
solutions like rain gardens, Wastewater Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) tanks, and
other low -impact mitigation tools that protect ground and surface water from
contamination and pollution.
NE-1.5 - Prohibit or severely limit open pit mining throughout the city, as it exposes
the aquifer or ground water to potential contamination.
NE-1.7 - Allow only non -polluting land uses to be developed and operated within the
water recharge zones of the public water wells, as guided by development
regulations and land use limitations within critical areas.
NE-1.9 - Ensure that newly developed property in the city and within the City’s sewer
service area is connected to municipal sewer service, minimizing aquifer
contamination.
NE-3.3 - Reduce impervious surface in the city, understanding that there are
locations where impervious surfaces have less benefit to surface runoff and
absorption, such as areas of drainage concern mapped by the City.
[Page 14]
NE-4.3 - Plant, preserve, and encourage the use of vegetation known to benefit local
air quality, considering both urban trees and landscaping incorporated into facilities
and development.
NE-6.2 - Preserve lands that contain natural landforms through purchase, incentives,
clustering, or the transfer of development rights.
NE-8.2 - Allow agricultural activities adjacent to urban uses without compromising
farmers’ rights to farm their land.
NE-8.3 - Allow urban agriculture within more typical urban uses where appropriate,
ensuring impacts to more intense urban uses are minimized, to allow for evolving
best practices in local food production and security.
NE-12.1 - Identify, prioritize, and connect natural places in the city with a walkway or
bicycle path system that includes connections to regional trails, natural areas, soft
path networks, community parks, cultural resources and historic sites, schools, the
downtown area, and community and neighborhood centers.
NE-17.5 - Discourage development and redevelopment within the 100 -year
floodplain.
Neighborhoods
N-1.1 - Provide a variety of housing, recreation, and daily service opportunities within
the downtown neighborhood that attract and retain neighborhood residents at all
income levels who support downtown and surrounding neighborhoods, recognizing
the value that the downtown neighborhood holds for all residents, visitors, and
employees in the city.
N-2.3 - Ensure that neighborhood -based services are available and accessible to
residents of all ages and abilities, such as being in proximity to public transit routes,
bicycle infrastructure, or robust amenities for people walking and rolling.
N-2.6 - Expand the diversity of housing options for neighborhood residents of all
income levels by preserving existing housing and allowing for the development of
moderate density housing options in all neighborhoods.
N-4.3 - Ensure that the size of a neighborhood business is appropriate for the size of
the neighborhood it serves so that trips generated by non -local traffic through the
neighborhood are minimized.
Parks & Recreation
PR-1.5 - Implement and maintain development standards calling for required natural
open space and parks dedication and development within new developments while
working cooperatively with property owners and developers to secure and preserve
open spaces between developments where possible.
[Page 15]
PR-1.6 - Establish standards for and encourage the use of both developed and
undeveloped open space buffers between conflicting land uses and infrastructure,
including provisions and incentives for clustering of development.
Urban Design & Historic Preservation
DP-1.6 - Apply design guidelines to significant projects through a review process,
such as the Design Review Board, that relies on community input and the expertise
of design professionals to achieve design performance that meets or exceeds
citizens’ quality of life expectations.
DP-1.7 - Craft development regulations and design requirements that recognize the
influence design regulations have on meeting the needs and wants of Spokane’s
residents, while ensuring appropriate flexibility to avoid unnecessary and negative
effects on overall development feasibility and creativity.
DP-1.13 - Orient building entrances and building facades toward sidewalks, pathways,
and public rights -of-way rather than towards parking lots or internal spaces,
prioritizing the human experience of structures rather than cars. Likewise, orient
elements serving drivers, such as driveways and garages, away from the public realm
when possible or minimize their impacts when unavoidable.
DP-1.14 - Facilitate improvements to sidewalks, streetscapes, street trees, sewers and
drains, and parks in all neighborhoods and commercial areas designated for higher
density development on an ongoing basis, including upgrades to the City’s oldest
infrastructure.
DP-1.19 - Ensure that on -premises signs are of a size, number, quality, and style to
provide identification of the business they support while contributing to the visual
interest of the community and enhancing the style of development in Spokane.
DP-1.20 - Prohibit construction of new advertising billboards and develop rules to
phase out existing billboards over time. Regulate off -premises advertising overall,
with the intent of reducing visual clutter and distraction, and enhancing safety
throughout the city.
DP-1.21 - Minimize the visual impact of telecommunication facilities such as cell and
microwave towers by encouraging their placement on existing structures in a manner
that reduces facility visibility without impacting signal strength and coverage.
DP-1.22 - Support human -scaled lighting that increases visibility and safety while
regulating display, flood, and light direction to minimize off -site impacts, including
controls against signage and lighting that distracts drivers.
DP-2.4 - Utilize zoning provisions, building regulations, and design standards that
foster preservation, rehabilitation, and enhancement appropriate for historic districts,
sites, and structures.
[Page 16]
Shaping Spokane Comprehensive Plan (2017)
PlanSpokane 2046 is still being developed, and some chapters, including the Land
Use and Housing chapters, were not yet available at the time of this assessment. The
policies in these two chapters in particular will be critical to meeting state -mandated
requirements to plan for meeting the housing needs of the community, and
addressing potential responses to racially disparate impacts, areas at high risk of
displacement, and reducing exclusionary barriers in the community.
To keep the code update aligned with the City’s long -term vision, the Land Use
policies from Spokane’s current Comprehensive Plan, Shaping Spokane, were used to
guide the assessment. While the policies identified below highlight those that can be
most directly implemented through updates to the land use code, we recognize that
the recommendations of this report may need revision and adjustment to focus more
closely on implementing new policy direction identified in the updated land use and
housing chapters of the plan.
Land Use
As Spokane continues to grow, it is essential to guide land use in a way that supports
livability, remediation of historical inequities, and economic vitality while protecting
natural areas and existing neighborhoods. The Land Use chapter establishes a
framework that directs most new growth to designated Centers and Corridors, where
higher-intensity housing, jobs, services, and transit ca n be efficiently coordinated. By
promoting mixed-use development, walkable and bikeable street patterns, access to
amenities for residents of all ages and abilities, and a balance between neighborhood
stability and flexibility over time, this chapter provides the policy foundation for
managing future growth. The BUILDSpokane project can help implement the
following policies.
LU 1.3 - LOWER INTENSITY RESIDENTIAL AREAS: Focus a range of lower intensity
residential uses in every neighborhood while ensuring that new development
complements existing development and the form and function of the area in which it
is located.
LU 1.4 - HIGHER INTENSITY RESIDENTIAL AREAS: Direct new higher intensity
residential uses to areas in and around Centers and Corridors designated on the Land
Use Plan Map and to areas where existing development intensity is already
consistent with development of this type.
LU 1.5 - OFFICE USES: Direct new office uses to Centers and Corridors designated
on the Land Use Plan Map.
LU 1.6 - NEIGHBORHOOD RETAIL USE: Direct new neighborhood retail use to
Neighborhood Centers designated on the Land Use Plan Map.
[Page 17]
LU 1.8 - GENERAL COMMERCIAL USES: Direct new General Commercial uses to
Centers and Corridors designated on the Land Use Plan Map.
LU 1.10 - INDUSTRY: Provide a variety of industrial locations and site sizes for a
variety of light and heavy industrial development and safeguard them from
competing land uses.
LU 1.11 - AGRICULTURE: Designate areas for Agriculture lands that are suited for
long-term agricultural production.
LU 1.12 - PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES: Ensure that public facilities and
services systems are adequate to accommodate proposed development before
permitting development to occur.
LU 1.14 - NONCONFORMING USES: Avoid the creation of large areas of
nonconforming uses at the time of adoption of new development regulations.
LU 1.15 - AIRFIELD INFLUENCE AREAS: Prohibit the siting of land uses that are
incompatible with aviation operations in the Airfield Influence Areas designated on
Comprehensive Plan maps, and contain residential Comprehensive Plan designations
and zoning in the Airfield Influence Areas to their existing locations not allowing for
expansion or increases in residential density.
LU 1.16 - MOBILE HOME PARKS: Designate appropriate areas for the preservation of
mobile and manufactured home parks.
LU 3.5 - MIX OF USES IN CENTERS: Achieve a proportion of uses in Centers that
will stimulate pedestrian activity and create mutually reinforcing land uses.
LU 3.6 - COMPACT RESIDENTIAL PATTERNS: Allow more compact and affordable
housing in all neighborhoods, in accordance with design guidelines.
LU 3.7 - MAXIMUM AND MINIMUM LOT SIZES: Prescribe maximum, as well as
minimum, lot size standards to achieve the desired residential density for all areas of
the city.
LU 4.4 - CONNECTIONS: Form a well -connected network which provides safe, direct
and convenient access for all users, including pedestrians, bicycles, and automobiles,
through site design for new development and redevelopment.
LU 4.5 - BLOCK LENGTH: Create a network of streets that is generally laid out in a
grid pattern that features more street intersections and shorter block lengths in
order to increase street connectivity and access.
LU 5.1 - BUILT AND NATURAL ENVIRONMENT: Ensure that developments are
sensitive to the built and natural environment (for example, air and water quality,
noise, traffic congestion, and public utilities and services), by providing adequate
impact mitigation to maintain and enhance quality of life.
[Page 18]
LU 5.3 - OFF -SITE IMPACTS: Ensure that off -street parking, access, and loading
facilities do not adversely impact the surrounding area.
LU 7.3 - HISTORIC REUSE: Allow compatible residential or commercial use of
historic properties when necessary to promote preservation of these resources.
LU 10.2 - CONSISTENT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: Require utilities, roads, and
services in the adjacent Urban Growth Area to be built to city standards
Future Land Use
In addition to the vision and goals of the Shaping Spokane and PlanSpokane 2046
Comprehensive Plans, the Land Use Plan Map provides a graphic tool to help guide
development throughout Spokane. The updated code will align zoning districts with
the land use category designations on the Land Use Plan Map to support
implementation of the regulations.
Figure 2: Land Use Plan Map (2017)
Housing Action Plan
The Spokane Housing Action Plan (HAP) is a data -driven, community -informed
roadmap to increase housing diversity, affordability, and access in Spokane. The plan
identifies strategies to encourage the construction of additional affordable and
market-rate housing that meets Spokane’s current and future housing needs. The
[Page 19]
HAP also identifies the following priorities, which will be incorporated into the code
updates as applicable:
Increase housing supply, options, and affordability for all incomes.
Supporting the availability of housing options and encouraging the construction of
both affordable and market -rate housing.
• Allow duplexes (two units per lot) in RSF and RSF-C zones, on each parcel or
each corner lot; suggested action in RCW 36.70A.600.
• Increase the allowed number of attached units on individual lots in RSF, RSF-C
and RTF zones outright, without the requirement of a planned unit development
(PUD) process.
• Allow additional housing types in RSF, RSF-C and RTF zones, and adapt zoning
with design standards consistent with current Comprehensive Plan policies,
considering triplexes, fourplexes, townhomes, courtyard apartments on each
parcel.
• Continue to revise development regulations to address lot size transitions, PUD
options, small lot options, and development standards complementary to energy
codes.
• Monitor recent parking reductions and reduce off -street parking requirements as
when warranted for residential uses.
• Continue reviewing permitting processes to shorten permit review times and
scalable application fees when possible.
• Consider creating one or more zoning districts of medium density in which
individual lots may be no larger than three thousand five hundred square feet and
single-family residences may be no larger than one thousand two hundred square
feet.
• Explore development code changes for accessory dwelling units, such as
removing minimum residential parking requirements, allowing more square
footage, or removing the requirement that the owner occupy one of the units.
Preserve housing affordability and quality to help people thrive where they
live.
Highlighting the connections between housing affordability and quality to preserve
and enhance existing housing throughout Spokane and supporting residents in every
neighborhood.
• Consider short-term rental zones allowing tourist accommodations.
• Consider caps on the number of short-term rentals allowed per host.
• In a residential zone, explore limits on the number of nights a short-term rental
can be rented to guests annually.
• In a residential zone, permit short-term rentals within an owner -occupied
residence.
[Page 20]
Enhance equitable access to housing and homeownership.
Understanding and considering the historic context that ha s contributed to patterns
of inequity and encouraging the City to break down barriers to accessing housing.
• Support land use and development code regulations that allow diverse housing
types and support mixed -income communities
• Promote universal design in residential development to support all people
regardless of their age, size, and ability in accessing housing to the greatest
extent possible, without the need for adaptation or specialization
Leverage and grow partnerships to support housing initiatives across the
region.
Encouraging local and regional partnerships to tackle the full scale of housing
challenges faced by the community, and across the greater region.
• Link housing and transportation in higher density zones to connect communities
with affordable housing options, walkable neighborhoods, and public
transportation.
Housing Needs Assessment
The Housing Access Plan includes a needs assessment, with an analysis of Spokane’s
housing, demographic, workforce, and market trends over the last few decades, as
well as housing market trends for the larger region. Some key findings from the
assessment are as follows:
• The City of Spokane and greater region is seeing steady population and job
growth.
• As a result of the City of Spokane’s growth allocation and projected growth, at
least 6,800 housing units are needed by 2037.
• Overall, these findings indicate increased demand for housing for households in
the moderate and middle -income options (80 -120% Area Median Income (AMI)),
that can mostly be met through single -family attached housing units.
• Housing prices have outpaced household incomes.
• Changing household characteristics result in changing housing needs.
• Nearly 2 in 5 households in the City are cost -burdened.
• Homeownership is increasingly out of reach for a growing proportion of residents.
• Housing within the City of Spokane remains relatively affordable compared to the
region and other cities, but many residents now fear being priced out.
Climate Planning and Sustainability Action Plan
Climate change is a global issue and action in every community is needed. The
Sustainability Action Plan (SAP) is Spokane’s roadmap to become a more
environmentally responsible and resilien t city in the face of a changing climate.
[Page 21]
Initially adopted in 2009 and updated in 2021, the SAP provides several strategies to
enable the City to meet its 100 percent renewable energy goal by 2030 and satisfy
state regulatory requirements for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. These
strategies are dispersed across seven key action areas: Buildings and Energy,
Transportation and Land Use, Waste Diversion and Material Conservation, Water
Resources, Economic Prosperity, Natural Environment, and Health and Wellbeing.
Each SAP strategy provides a method to reduce greenhouse gases and provide
social and long -term economic benefits through reasonable upfront costs.
Spokane’s built environment, and the land use regulations that produce it, are a
critical component of the city’s ability to address climate change and resiliency.
Through BUILDSpokane, and through climate planning work that has occurred since
the SAP’s adoption in 2021, including the Spokane Climate Risk and Vulnerability
Assessment, and the Spokane Policy Audit, the updated LDC will establish the
necessary regulatory framework to address the built environment, hazard
vulnerability and resilience, and climate justice concerns.
Buildings and Energy
BE-GOAL 1 - Encourage efficient, renewable energy buildings that meet WA Clean
Buildings Act Energy Use Intensity targets.
BE-Strategy 1 - Ensure new construction is as efficient as possible and ready to
utilize renewable energy.
BE-1.1 - The City will take a leadership role in providing direction and facilitating
building decarbonization by working with local partners to implement the State
energy code.
BE-1.3 - Require installed electric hookup options for all appliances in new
construction.
BE-1.4 - Incentivize electrification of all new construction (residential and
commercial) including incentivizing electrification and renewable energy sources
through City permitting process.
BE-1.5 - Require all new commercial buildings to install conduit and roof support for
a future solar system if the building is in an appropriate location to utilize solar.
BE-1.6 - Encourage and incentivize renewable, low-carbon materials, such as cross -
laminated timber, in construction.
BE-1.7 - Encourage the re -use of existing buildings, including efficiency retrofits,
rather than demolishing and starting new.
Transportation and Land Use
TL-GOAL 1 - Encourage land use policies that support walkable, livable, sustainable
communities for all.
[Page 22]
TL-Strategy 1 - Advance land use planning to minimize vehicle miles traveled.
TL-1.1 - Increase the supply of attainable housing in proximity to employment
opportunities, activity centers and the high -frequency transit network.
TL-1.2 - Review and revise parking requirements for all types of development,
including provisions and credit for bike parking.
TL-1.3 - Ensure new developments and major redevelopments maintain and enhance
connectivity of the pedestrian, bicycle, and street networks.
TL-1.4 - Increase parking lot tree coverage requirements (alt: solar panel).
TL-1.5 - Create and implement bicycle parking plan.
TL-1.6 - Facilitate mixed use development by allowing appropriately scaled
commercial and multi -family use in residential zones to promote active
transportation and provide varied housing options as identified in the 2021 Housing
Action Plan.
TL-1.7 - Prioritize development of people -centered neighborhoods that promote safe
walking, biking, and transit, i.e. 15 -minute neighborhood.
TL-1.8 - Identify commercial areas where it is appropriate to limit or restrict
automobiles and prioritize walking, biking, and micromobility.
TL 1.9 - Encourage transit-oriented development (TOD) in City planning.
TL-Strategy 2 - Encourage sustainable land use that promotes varied housing
options and infill development.
TL-2.1 - Revise land use and zoning regulations to allow a variety of housing types in
every neighborhood.
TL-2.3 - Audit City development code to identify and eliminate constraints and
conditions to promote varied housing and infill development.
TL-2.4 - Revise land use and zoning to allow increased density in residential zones
around high -frequency transit corridors.
TL-2.5 - Reduce required parcel sizes in new developments to increase density in
new construction. Encourage clustered development on appropriate sites.
TL-GOAL 2 - Reduce motor vehicle miles traveled and promote active transportation
modes.
TL-Strategy 4 - Increase adoption of walking, cycling, and micromobility.
TL-4.2 - Build out bike network according to Bike Master Plan.
TL-4.3 - Plan and buildout an all ages and abilities network of neighborhood
greenways, shared use paths, and protected bike lanes.
[Page 23]
TL-4.4 - Plan and prioritize construction of downtown protected "micromobility"
lanes.
TL-4.8 - Identify commercial areas where it is appropriate to limit or restrict
automobiles and prioritize people walking, biking, and using other forms of
micromobility.
TL-GOAL 3 - Advance alternative and low carbon fuel in regional transportation.
TL-Strategy 7 - Increase adoption rate of Zero Emission Vehicles including electric
bicycles.
TL-7.8 - Evaluate and update City code to encourage electric vehicle charging
infrastructure in new development.
TL-GOAL 4 - Integrate Sustainability Action Plan goals, strategies, and actions into
City planning.
TL-Strategy 8 - Update comprehensive plan to incorporate climate action and
updated sustainability goals.
TL-8.5 - Review and update City code to preserve urban forest and mitigate urban
heat island impacts.
TL-Strategy 9 - Ensure the City’s process for approving development and service
extensions addresses and prevents impacts to prime agricultural lands, critical
wildlife habitats, and other natural areas in and around the city.
TL-9.2 - Review land use planning and zoning policies that protect natural resources
within City owned properties and revise, if necessary, to prioritize undeveloped
natural areas.
Water Resources
WR-GOAL 1 - Protect the Spokane River and natural aquatic ecosystems (wetlands,
shorelines, aquatic ecosystems biodiversity, streams, floodplains, aquifer recharge
areas).
WR-Strategy 1 - Protect water quality, fish, wildlife, ecosystem function, and no -
impact recreational opportunities in the Spokane River through responsible, long -
term watershed planning and management
WR-1.4 - Protect aquatic ecosystem biodiversity, native species, and their habitats.
WR-Strategy 2 - Build climate resilience in natural water systems through
responsible watershed planning.
WR-2.2 – Prioritize preventing ecolo gically -damaging actions during development
permitting process over post -development mitigation strategies, including
restoration or habitat creation.
[Page 24]
WR-2.5 - Enforce protection of wetlands, including exploring wetland
restoration/creation options, updating wetland delineation maps, and enforcing
wetland buffer requirements.
Natural Environment
NE-GOAL 3 - Increase urban tree canopy and climate -adapted plant landscapes
within the built environment.
NE-Strategy 6 - Expand urban tree canopy to capture more carbon and moderate
neighborhood microclimate.
NE-6.2 - Review and revise the approved street tree list (following adoption of
Master Planting Plan) and update tree list regularly to provide more information on
drought and heat tolerance; water requirements; and resistance and resilience to
disease, pests, a nd storm damage.
NE-Strategy 7 - Establish diverse, future -climate-adapted landscaping within the
built environment.
NE-7.3 - Incentivize establishment of native, climate -adapted plant landscaping for
private landowners and developers, and enlist help from landscape designers and
plant nurseries to promote City strategies.
NE-GOAL 4 - Protect and build climate resilience in natural spaces within Spokane.
NE-Strategy 9 - Prevent negative impacts to natural resources and build climate
resilience.
NE-9.2 - Address and prevent potential impacts to natural resources during planning
phases of land development rather than relying on mitigation as a post -development
strategy.
To learn more: Sustainability Action Plan project page
Racially Disparate Impacts (RDI) in Spokane Housing Report
The RDI Report was created in response to HB 1220, which amended the state’s
Growth Management Act related to housing. One of four pillars covered in the bill,
the RDI component mandates that jurisdictions “ Identify … racially disparate impacts,
displacement, and exclusion ” as a result of current or historic policies and
regulations.
More specifically, the Housing Element in the City’s updated comprehensive plan
must address:
1. Local policies and regulations that result in racially disparate impacts,
displacement, and exclusion in housing, including:
(a) Zoning that may have a discriminatory effect;
(b) Disinvestment; and
[Page 25]
(c) Infrastructure availability
2. Implementation of policies and regulations to address and begin to undo racially
disparate impacts, displacement, and exclusion in housing caused by local
policies, plans, and actions;
3. Identification of areas that may be at higher risk of displacement from market
forces that occur with changes to zoning development regulations and capital
investments.
4. Anti-displacement policies.
The report determines that the impacts of redlining in the 1930s and 1940s persist to
this day. Among the findings:
• Exclusionary zoning enacted by the City of Spokane reinforced the impacts
of redlining and racially restrictive covenants
• Environmental health disparities reflect systemic disparities of historic
disinvestment … including higher levels of exposure to environmental hazards
and lower life expectancy.
• Patterns of segregation are reflected in the concentration of BIPOC
households and uneven distribution of racial groups among neighborhoods
within Spokane.
• While Spokane has grown consistently over the last decade, growth has not
been spread equally across the city, with both areas of increasing integration
and areas experiencing displacement.
• Housing patterns and policies concentrate multi -family subsidized housing
primarily into Central Spokane and Northeast Spokane, which limits access
and choice for low -income households, excluding them from large parts of
the city.
• Higher displacement risk exists in Central and Northeast Spokane, areas that
have higher proportions of BIPOC and lower income households.
While the City has already begun taking steps to mitigate or reverse racially
disparate impacts from historic policies and practices, updated policies in the
comprehensive plan’s Housing element will provide additional guidance on further
steps to take in that effort, and the updated LDC can propose regulations that
support implementation of those policies.
Transit-Oriented Development Framework Study
The Transit -Oriented Development (TOD) Framework Study provides a guide for
aligning land use regulations, transportation investments, and development patterns
along Spokane’s high -frequency transit corridors, particularly the City Line BRT. The
study emphasizes integrating land use and transportation to support mixed-use,
higher-density, walkable development within a ¼ -mile of transit stations. The TOD
Study also identified the specific modifications to the land use code to help facilitate
transit-oriented development in Spokane, which can be found in Appendix 2 of the
study.
[Page 26]
Guiding Principles
• Establish a multi -modal transportation corridor by linking stations with a
continuous biking and walking facility.
• Increase potential ridership with development supporting an active station
environment and walking and biking improvements providing direct access
between transit and destinations.
• Enable station areas to achieve their development potential by supporting transit
oriented infill or redevelopment opportunities for people to live and promote
businesses near transit.
Code Update Considerations
Building height
• Allowing building heights of at least 55 to 70 feet in areas served by frequent
transit. A building height of 55 feet allows for “four over one,” which can be
accomplished with wood frame construction. Taller buildings typically require a
ground floor concrete podium and more expensive but durable construction
methods.
• Increasing maximum height allowances to 70 feet or greater for the CA1 and CA2
designations will expand the range of building types that can be constructed and
potentially reduce average construction costs. The height limitations in the form -
based code zones CA1, CA2, and CA3 are generally supportive of TOD.
• For development adjacent to a RSF zone, limit height to 55 feet abutting the
zone, with a height transition line allowing for increased height further from
single-family development.
Setbacks and Sidewalks
• Reducing the minimum street lot line requirement for Commercial zones abutting
a single-family or two-family residential zone to 10 -feet consistent with the CC
zone.
• Address inconsistencies for the dimensional requirements of the sidewalk’s
pedestrian and landscape zones (e.g., FBC, CC, and Commercial zones) and
consider a base standard consisting of a minimum 12’ sidewalk (minimum 7’ clear
sidewalk and 5’ buffer) from back of curb to front lot line.
Allowed residential uses
• Modifying maximum Density Standards for the 17C.110 Residential zones’ Table
17C.110-3 to allow for “middle ” housing types.
• In the FBC zone, requiring a minimum residential density for all lots, or only those
fronting on Street Type.
• In the CC, GC, NR and NMU zones, require a minimum density for residential uses
on all lots when dwelling units are proposed for new development.
[Page 27]
Vehicle and bicycle parking requirements
Vehicle parking requirements have a significant impact on the ability to achieve
desired levels of density and also have a potentially significant impact on the cost of
development. Decreasing the amount of off -street parking required near stations
supports the success of TOD areas by improving pedestrian circulation, decreasing
development costs, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions. To support compact,
walkable development, the City could consider further reducing minimum parking
requirements either for a ll uses or for specific uses through an incentives -based
approach.
Bicycle Master Plan
The vision of the Bicycle Master Plan is for riding a bicycle to be a comfortable and
integral part of daily life in Spokane for people of all ages and abilities. The plan
outlines the following five policies to accomplish this vision:
1. Continually increase the bicycle mode share for all trips.
2. Complete and maintain connected bikeways that provide safe transportation for Spokane cyclists throughout the City.
3. Provide convenient and secure short-term and long -term bike parking to
connect people to popular destinations and transit throughout Spokane
and encourage employers to provide shower and locker facilities.
4. Increase bicycling by educating people using all transportation modes
about the benefits of bicycling to the entire community. Enhance the safety
of people riding bicycles through effective law enforcement, education and
detailed crash analysis.
5. Develop a collaborative program between a variety of city departments an
d agencies and several outside organizations to secure funding and implement the Bike Master Plan through capital project delivery as well as community planning processes.
Centers and Corridors Update Study
Following the public outreach for the City’s 2001 Comprehensive Plan (Spokane
Horizon s), the City adopted the Centers and Corridors land use policy as a path to
achieve one of the comprehensive plan’s growth alternatives: Focused Growth:
Mixed-Use Center and Corridor. Under this growth alternative, the City’s land use
codes would direct growth along “corridors” and to “centers” with adequate services
and facilities using sustainable urban planning practices. These practices
incorporat ed a mix of uses and densities and promoted compactness, walkability,
and transit-oriented development. This policy was implemented at the end of 2005.
In 2023, the City examined the Centers and Corridors land use policy to assess how
well this approach produced the type of development and growth Spokane
envisioned. This examination produced the Centers and Corridors Update Study,
which acknowledged the value of this land use policy and found opportunities to
[Page 28]
improve the ability of the City’s land use plans and the SMC to produce desired
development.
This study provided four key recommendations, included below, and proposed policy
changes to the City’s Comprehensive Plan based on a detailed policy assessment,
public outreach, market analysis, and concept developments. The BUILDSpokane
project intends to incorporate e ach of these recommendations into the LDC, as each
plays a critical role in producing mixed use, walkable, and attractive development in
Spokane.
Recommendation 1: Establish a new set of mixed-use zones
• A new family of mixed-use zones would complement the policy changes
proposed for the City’s comprehensive plan to provide for a mix of uses that
areas could “evolve into.”
Recommendation 2: Address allowed building height
• This recommendation emphasizes a maximum height, contextually appropriate to
a property’s new mixed-use zone designation.
Recommendation 3: Update block frontage standards
• New and improved standards refine the City’s current block frontage standards to
enhance “character, function, and economic viability, ” while being flexible enough
to accommodate site - and project -specific needs.
Recommendation 4: Increase connectivity
• Addresses an essential component of truly “pedestrian -friendly and dynamic”
development: internal connectivity.
To learn more: Centers and Corridors Study Engage Spokane project page
[Page 29]
PART 3: ANALYSIS OF CURRENT LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE
FOCUS AREA 1: ESTABLISH CLEAR AND PREDICTABLE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
PROCEDURES
Staff and stakeholder feedback on Spokane’s development review regulations and
procedures, which are found predominantly in Titles 17A and 17G of the LDC, agree
that the procedures are frequently confusing and cumbersome. This sometimes leads
to reliance on “workarounds ” that can lead to an inconsistent application of
regulations. The LDC includes redundant and overlapping provisions, gaps in the
review of land use and project permit applications, and procedural drag 1 that makes
the process long, unpredictable, and hard to navigate for both applicants and staff.
The recommendations provided in this section are intended to address these
concerns and simplify and streamline the City’s development review procedures.
TOPICS COVERED
1. Establish Common Review Procedures
2. Create Complete and Consistent Specific Review Procedures
3. Fill the Gap – Create a New Site Plan/Land Use Permit Application
4. Pursue Opportunities for Streamlining Development Review
5. Revise Approach for Urban Design Review
6. Clarify Extent and Applicability of LDC Rules for Nonconformities
7. Incorporate More Opportunities for Design Flexibility
Establish Common Review Procedures
Most of the land use and subdivision application requests described in the LDC are
subject to many of the same, if not very similar, procedural steps, or “common”
review procedures. Currently, these common procedures are listed, and repeated,
within individual application types (i.e., Preliminary Subdivision Plat or Conditional
Use Permit or Variance) or referred to in a summary table without reference to a
more detailed explanation (e.g., notice requirements found in Table 17G. 061.010).
Repeating these steps in multiple locations can create confusion for applicants and
staff, especially when there are slight inconsistencies across requirements that arise
out of years of text amendments or changes in state statutes. Creating a single,
standard set of common review procedures can cut down on the presence of
1 “Procedural drag” is a 21st century term referring to the delay or inefficiency that arises when a system or process is
not structured or optimized. Evidence of procedural drag highlights the importance of streamlining processes to avoid
unnecessary delays.
[Page 30]
overlapping or conflicting provisions in the LDC and serve as a starting point for
anyone looking to learn more about the steps that apply to most land development
applications under Title 17.
We recommend simplifying the Code by consolidating and relocating all common
review procedures into a single chapter or section and organizing the content as
follows:
• Summary Table of Review Procedures. This table lists every application type in
the City, explains who reviews the application, who makes the final decision on
the application, and the venue for the decision (public hearing, or administrative
decision). It can also include public notice requirements, as shown in the excerpt
below, from another community. The column to the right links the user to the
section of code that addresses the requirements for that particular application
type.
• Pre-Development Conferences. As a standard practice, Spokane already offers
pre-development conferences as an optional step for most Title 17 applications.
Pre-development conferences provide an opportunity for the prospective
applicant to meet with City staff to discuss their proposed project, explore site-
[Page 31]
specific constraints, and learn about general application requirements before
submitting their application. We heard from staff and applicants that while the
idea of a pre-development conference is good in theory, outcomes from these
meetings in Spokane vary widely: some stakeholders sai d they were useful, while
others disagreed.
On one hand, we heard that Spokane applicants fill the few limited weekly slots
for scheduling pre-development conferences, indicating customer interest and
perhaps greater demand for the service. On the other hand, some more seasoned
developer applicants voiced concern about not getting the pre-development
feedback or information they needed most, such as whether all submittal items
would be required, or what a “complete application” really looks like for their type
of project. Some staff brought up the current arduous practice of providing
detailed staff remarks / comments after a pre-development conference, which
takes extensive time and can be premature or too detailed at this early stage of
project development. Additionally, there is debate about which city employees
should attend pre-development conferences, and whether the value to the
customer would be increased by having a more experienced, senior level staff in
attendance. Finally, it is possible that some requests for pre-development
meetings do not actually warrant the time that is spent preparing for the
meetings, either because not enough information is provided, or because the
questions that applicant wants to address are simple enough that they can be
resolved without a full pre-development meeting.
The project team recommends that Spokane continue offering pre-development
conferences as an option in the LDC 2 but the code should specify a more narrow
purpose for these meetings: to provide guidance on the applicable review
procedures, identify any potential red flag compliance issues based on the
concept or narrative provided by the applicant, and assist the customer in
compiling a complete application for submittal. These meetings are not, and
should not be, an attempt by staff to cover every eventuality a project might
encounter on its way to approval – in fact, they need look no further than the first
primary step of approval, which is submitting a complete application.
Submittal requirements for a pre-development conference should be proportional
to its purpose and intent, and be as minimal as possible. For most pre -
development conferences, the current submittal requirement for a fleshed-out
2 Spokane chose to make pre-development conferences optional to avoid the possibility of 10-20% application fee
refunds under RCW 36.70B.160 for late completion of project reviews. After the recommended revisions to the purpose
and scope of pre-development conferences described here, the city might be interested in making some pre-
development conferences mandatory for more complex LDC applications such as rezonings, conditional uses, non-
residential site plans, variances, and projects triggering Design Review or substantial inter-agency review.
[Page 32]
site plan is too detailed for this early stage in a potential project. At most, a
sketch plan could be required, and in many instances – especially for conditional
use and similar zoning applications – a narrative description of the proposed
development may be enough. Staff should view pre-development conference as a
“one-and-done" interaction between applicants and staff. Sharing a meeting
summary with the applicant is great customer service and could be reduced to a
standard form/template with links to relevant submittal checklists, written
confirmation of waived submittal items if applicable, and other standard
application tips and aids.
(See also the project team’s recommendation below for creation of a new site
plan review process, which typically includes a concept plan review step prior to
final site plan decisions. The current effort of completing detailed site-specific
review and written comments after a pre-development conference would be
shifted to a later step, once there is an actual application for a project.) This
change allows the pre-development conference to serve the above -described
narrower purpose more easily because staff don’t have to load as many
expectations upon, or spend as much review time, at the pre -application stage of
a project.
• Pre-Application Community Meetings. These common provisions would
consolidate all procedural requirements related to mandatory pre -application
community meetings in one central location. This makes it easier for applicants
and the public to understand the purpose and intent of this step, its applicability
to specific types of applications, and for staff to offer clarity regarding the effect
of such meetings on the remainder of the development review process.
• Application Submittal and Completeness Determination. This section includes
information regarding who can initiate an application, generally what information
is required to be considered a complete application, and how the city may
process multiple permits or requests concurrently. Spokane should codify its
“counter complete ” requirements to provide greater clarity about the
completeness review and what the finding of “counter complete” means vs.
“complete application,” considering mandatory time frames for completing city
project reviews under state law.
We recommend this section explicitly authorize the city to draft and adopt
detailed submittal requirements for applications and plans but have those
submittal details and checklists located outside the LDC (as an adopted rule or
policy posted on-line for customers) so they can be more easily updated and
amended over time. Finally, adding an explanatory flow -chart of the
completeness determination process steps would be helpful for code users.
[Page 33]
• Application Referral and Review. This section describe s who controls the overall
flow of development review across multiple agencies (i.e., the Director of
Planning and Economic Development and their designees) and when and how
staff and outside agencies will review and comment on complete applications,
including required turn-around times for internal and external agency reviews
(typically 14 -30 days depending on the complexity of the application, if Spokane
wants to put such timeframe in the code). Failure of a department or city agency
to return a review will result in automatic “no comment” or “approved” in the
absence of state mandates to the contrary. Basic information on how SEPA
review and traffic review interact with overall application review should also be
covered in this section.
• Public Notice and Scheduling Public Hearings. This section will consolidate and
clarify general rules for the various types of public notification mandated by state
law and otherwise required by the LDC, including which Title 17 applications (not
just project permit applications) require notification of application receipt,
community meetings, or public hearings and appeals. Provisions will address
combining required notices (for concurrent or consolidated applications, the
longest notice periods / process will apply), and make clear who is responsible for
preparing, paying, and providing the various types of required notices (written,
published, and posted).
Provisions will clearly identify the types of public hearings under Title 17, which
applications require public hearings and which body conducts the public hearing
(hearing examiner, planning commission, or city council), authority to combine
public hearings currently in Title 17 and allowed by state law, the general conduct
of a public hearing, and noticing requirements (e.g., published vs. posted vs.
mailed vs. website). Currently this information is displayed in Table 17.061.010 -1,
which we recommend reworking into a more comprehensive summary table to
include review - and decision -making authorities for all Title 17 applications. See
Summary Review Table example above.
• Final Decisions - Allowances/Limitations. Provisions should clearly state the
“approve ”, “approve with conditions ”, and “deny” options for all final decisions.
Specific allowances for attaching reasonable conditions should include a general
statement of intent/purpose for conditions, generally allowed/prohibited
conditions (including examples), authority of the decision -making body to amend
conditions upon written request post -decision, and general rules for compliance
with conditions of approval. Provisions should include general requirements for
written findings of fact and final decisions, and distribution/posting of final
decisions consistent with state law.
[Page 34]
• Post-Decision Actions and Limitations. These provisions will clearly describe
actions that occur after a final decision has been rendered, including appeals,
vested rights, general provisions about approval time limits, expirations and
extensions, and modifications to approved permits and requests. Rules will
provide a time frame in which appeals must be filed following a final decision.
While this information is currently summarized in Table 17G.061.010-1, it may be
helpful to break out its permit expiration information and create a new summary
table in this common procedural section to show all Title 17 permit and approval
expiration times.
Create Complete and Consistent Specific Review Procedures
A key piece of establishing clear expectations around the City’s development review
procedures is to make sure all the information needed to review and process a
specific application is explicitly listed and easy to find and understand. Currently, this
information is found in both Titles 17A and 17G of the LDC and summarized at a very
general level of detail in Table 17G.061.010-1. The substantial reorganization of the
LDC suggested in this assessment will also make it easier to find the specific review
procedures for each type of Title 17 application/review.
A new chapter in the updated LDC will reorganize sections currently found in Titles
17A, 17D, 17E, and 17G to consolidate in one location the specific application
requirements, review process steps, and review criteria for the following broad
categories or groupings of development applications and reviews:
1. Land Development Entitlements and Comprehensive Plan /Code
Amendments: This procedures category includes city council legislative
actions to amend the text of Title 17 or the official zoning map (rezonings)
including PUD approvals, Comprehensive Plan amendments, and development
agreements.
2. SEPA Analysis and Review: The unique attributes about how land
development in the city complies with SEPA may merit putting all the triggers,
procedures, and review criteria related to SEPA (now found in Chapter
17E.050 and cross -referenced throughout Title 17) in its own section/ chapter
in the reorganized administration and procedures chapter of the LDC. This
could make it easier to describe and illustrate how SEPA analysis dovetails
with all other land development procedures in the LDC, and how the norm is
concurrent SEPA/land development review to the maximum extent possible.
Also noted were many stakeholders’ requests that the city explore expanding
project exemptions from SEPA to the maximum extent possible under state
law. See below for related discussion on opportunities for streamlining
development review. Accordingly, the project team will work closely with city
staff, particularly as the EIS for the comprehensive plan progresses, to identify
[Page 35]
opportunities to expand the exemptions and clarify the overlap between SEPA
and other LDC procedures.
3. Environmental Reviews: This procedures category draws from content
currently found in Title 17E and would include procedures for review of
development in designated critical areas and shorelines including critical
aquifer recharge areas, preparation of habitat management plans, floodplain
development permits/variances, development in geologically hazardous areas,
shoreline development and use permits, and wetland development review.
4. Concurrency Review and Impact Fees (Adequacy of Public Infrastructure):
The current provisions found in Chapter 17D.010, Concurrency Certification,
would be carried forward in this section, with a clearer statement of the
section’s intent/purpose to ensure adequacy of public infrastructure facilities
concurrent with completion of proposed land and project development.
Provisions in current Title 17 authorizing and detailing impact fees, such as
Transportation Impact Fees found in Chapter 17D.075, will also be moved here.
5. Subdivision and Preparation of Land for Development: This procedures
category includes preliminary and final short and long plat review, including
modifications and amendments to approved plats; unit lot subdivisions;
addressing and street naming; street vacations; and lot line or boundary line
adjustments. The recent ly adopted state law (RCW Sec. 58.17.145) that
requires larger cities to adopt a “Residential Lot Split” process will also be
implemented as part of this LDC update.
Another area of additional research and code revisions will be application of
the city’s subdivision/concurrency procedures and infrastructure requirements
to “old plats” – i.e., development in residential subdivisions approved before
the city’s adoption of by -right residential density at 4-6 dwelling units per any
single residential legal lot. This scenario raises questions identified by staff and
stakeholders about possible new thresholds for re -subdivision in such
scenarios and clearer applicability of concurrency review and development -
related public infrastructure improvements at time of development of more -
than-originally -platted densities.
6. Land Use and Project Permit Reviews: This procedures category, primarily
covered in Title 17G, includes the procedures for reviewing conditional land
uses, binding site plans, urban design review, sign permits, and special wireless
communication facility review. This category could be expanded to also
include procedures for the following related areas:
a. Site Development Plan Review and Approval: If the City agrees to this
assessment’s recommendation to add a new site plan review and
approval process (see the detailed recommendation below), the
[Page 36]
intent/purpose, applicability, review and approval bodies, process
steps, and review criteria would be provided here.
b. Relief from LDC Provisions: Procedures for minor adjustments (found
in Section 17A.050.030), design departures, street design deviations (or
this could be included with the Subdivision category), variances, and
administrative exemptions for land use applications.
c. Historic Preservation: Procedures found currently in Title 17D for
designation of historic districts or individual landmarks, certificates of
appropriateness, demolition of historic resources, and change of use in
historic structures.
7. Building and Construction Permits: Sequentially in the land development
process, building and construction permits are processed only after the
necessary development review or subdivision approval has been granted,
although concurrent review is possible in some cases. This category includes
procedures for reviewing building construction permits and certificate of
occupancy; and procedures governing more specific activities regulated under
Spokane’s building and fire code such as for permits for signs, fences, grading,
building moving, demolition and blasting, sewers, street obstruction and
storage tanks.
8. Special Permit Applications or Reviews: There may also be a need for a
“catch-all” category of procedures in the updated LDC to present a variety of
current Title 17 reviews that don’t clearly fall into one of the broader
categories listed above. This may include procedures for, among other things:
administrative interpretations and determinations 3; designation of projects as
planned actions (Sec. 17C.420.015-020); ROW encroachment permits (Sec.
17G.010.160); LID formation; obstruction permits; road closures; sidewalk
permits; skywalk permits; and stormwater design acceptance procedures.
9. Procedures/Permits that Can Be Moved Outside the LDC: Finally, the LDC
currently contains specific provisions in Title 17G for contractor and worker
licensing (see Chapter 17G.010). While these licenses are regulated under the
city’s uniform building code, we recommend these not -really-land-
development -related provisions move to a different and more appropriate
part of the SMC with other business and professional licensing standards.
Regardless of which category a specific process might fall into, the level of
procedural information provided for each application type should be consistent
across all types to avoid confusion around which steps are required for each
application request, and which review criteria each application will be reviewed
3 The LDC update will consolidate and cross reference, where necessary, code determination and interpretation
procedures under Title 17 to provide a standard interpretation process and greater clarity on timeframes, referrals, and
criteria.
[Page 37]
against. The organization of current procedures could be better standardized to
ensure that all steps of a specific procedure are identified, which would help staff and
applicants navigate the requirements of specific application types. At a minimum,
each procedure should describe:
• Purpose. What is this procedure used for or what is it intended to achieve?
• Applicability. When is this specific process required – what types of land
development activities or land uses trigger this procedure?
• Process. What are the steps for approval (cross -referencing applicable
common review procedures described above, and then describing any
procedures specific to the given application type)?
• Review Criteria. What requirements must be satisfied for decision -making
bodies to approve the application?
• Post-Decision Actions. Can the final decision be appealed, and to what body?
Is there a time limit on a permit or approval during which certain steps or
actions must be taken, and can that time limit be extended?
Additionally, the project team will remove substantive standards/process steps from
definitions of related terms, such as “Community Meeting,” “Counter Complete”,
“Technically Complete”, and the like, and incorporate them into this new chapter(s)
in the applicable section. Finally, process -specific flowcharts will be added to
graphically depict the steps required for each type of LDC application or approval,
from submittal through final decision.
Fill the Gap – Create a New Site Plan/Land Use Permit Application
Title 17, and specifically Title 17G, establishes the different types of development
permits and review procedures. After basic zoning district entitlements are in place,
the major types of permits or approvals for horizontal and vertical land development
established in Title 17G are:
• Subdivision Plat review and approval (including related actions such as binding
site plans, unit lot subdivisions, and boundary line adjustments), resulting in the
creation of legally described blocks, lots, and tracts; and enabling the legal sale or
transfer of the subdivided lots and tracts. Chapter 17G.080.
• Specific Land Use Permits and approvals for conditional uses, floodplain
development, shoreline development, and skywalks. These specific land use
permits include review and approval of detailed site plans. Chapter 17G.061 and
Section 17G.061.010.
• PUD Preliminary and Final Development Plans. The preliminary PUD plan
specifies the deviations and exceptions from the base zone standards and other
applicable design standards and includes plans showing conceptual level site and
building design and development details. After the Hearing Examiner approves
the preliminary PUD plan, the request goes to the City Council to approve the
[Page 38]
final PUD overlay zone. The final PUD development plan includes a fully detailed
site plan, landscape plan, building design elevations, and erosion control and
stormwater management plans. Chapter 17G.070.
• Design Review of project plans by an independent Design Review Board with
authority to make recommendations to the final decision -making body. Chapter
17G.040.
• Design Deviations and Variances from land use, floodplain, shoreline, and
development or design standards. Section 17C.061.310.
• Building and Construction Permits and Miscellaneous Site Preparation Permits.
Review and approval of detailed construction plans and specifications for building
construction and renovations, building demolition, grading, and new or change of
building occupancies. Chapter 17G.010.
Surprisingly missing from the above menu of project development permits and
application types is a separate application review and resulting permit for project
development that is submitted before building and construction permitting and not
associated with a conditional use or specifically listed land use, PUD, floodplain or
shoreline development, or skywalk. In other words, we could not identify a general
procedure in Title 17 that ensures, for all development types, a coordinated, multi -
agency city review of site development plans and building designs for compliance
with Title 17 C’s land use standards and general development standards such as
landscaping, outdoor lighting, building design, and environmental protection
standards.
The absence of comprehensive site development plan review ahead of more specific
building and construction permit reviews can lead to “late hits,” which happen when
staff’s plan reviews result in expectation of sometimes significant project design
changes in response at a time when most applicants’ project decisions are fairly
cemented in place. In most large cities, detailed land use and development/design
review comes at an earlier time in the life of a project, when its components are more
malleable, design options are not locked in, and alternative approaches to
compliance with land use, building design, and site design standards can reasonably
be expected and considered. This code gap in Spokane’s LDC is very unusual based
not only on comparisons with other large Washington cities but with comparable
cities nationally.
Accordingly, we recommend that a new site development plan/land use permit
review procedure be added to Title 17, and that the project team identify where other
stand-alone procedures in Title 17 could be absorbed or combined with the new site
plan/land use permit procedure to streamline land use review and approval. To
summarize, t he advantages of creating a new site plan/land use permit application
and review process include:
[Page 39]
• Align the city’s detailed site and building design review with earlier stages of a
project’s timeline so that changes identified to comply with city codes are
easier for an applicant to consider and implement (saves applicants time and
money).
• Create one uniform process for multi -agency review for compliance with Title
17’s land use and environmental protection standards that clearly identifies
applicability, process steps, timelines, review criteria, and decision -making
authority. The latter will include specific authority to interpret Title 17 code
provisions, provide minor relief from applicable standards, and resolve inter -
agency conflicts consistent with adopted city plans.
• Assess and formalize the building permit process as the vehicle to coordinate
multiple and concurrent development reviews and create a clear record of
interim staff decisions and determinations. For example, concurrent historic
preservation, environmental, transportation, zoning relief or minor adjustment,
or urban design tasks can be assigned after intake of a site plan/land use
permit application or after a first round of land use review comments and the
applicant’s resubmittal.
What does filling this gap look like for Spokane? There are various potential
approaches, but essentially the new specific procedure/permit type would be an
inter-agency review and Planning & Economic Development Director administrative
approval (Type I or II) of a detailed development or site plan that shows how the
proposed site and building development will comply with those Title 17 regulations
that are not standards for subdivision or building and fire code compliance. Typically,
site development plan review occurs after preliminary plat approval and before
building permits, although current practice allows developers to pull limited site
preparation permits (grading permits, for example) prior to final approval. Review
criteria for approval of a land use permit/site development plan generally boil down
to whether the plan meets all the applicable standards in the LDC, and that the
developer has obtained all related or precedent approvals and permits. Approval of a
land use permit/site development plan is required before application for building
construction permits.
As comparisons, Seattle requires a “master land use permit” that fill s this
development review function ahead of building permits. Tacoma calls it s
development review approval a “land use permit.” In other jurisdictions nationally,
the process is often referred to as “site plan” or “site development plan” approval. In
Spokane, review and approval of such a site development plan could result in a
similar “land use permit” that signals a specific project’s compliance with all of Title
17C’s land use standards, as well as Title 17’s parking, landscaping, parks/open
space/natural areas standards, environmental, and urban design standards. A land
use permit would be the vehicle by which the city would refer a project to other
[Page 40]
review/decision -making bodies and maintain a clear and written record of action on
all the component review parts of the project, such as final decisions on urban design
review, conditional use permit review, design deviations, variances and minor
adjustments. If the project is BUILDSpokane ules, the land use permit review would
be coordinated and sequenced appropriately with the Landmark Commission
reviews and decisions. SEPA review of a specific project and related
decisions /exemptions could also be integrated with a land use permit review, as
required by state law.
Often, the full review and approval of a site development plan is broken into separate
applications that offer city review/ feedback/decisions for an increasingly detailed
progression of project plans (very similar to how review of a PUD development
occurs in Spokane under Chapter 17G.070). Many cities will mandate or offer a first
step “concept plan review,” which may be one or more rounds of early project review
to identify fatal flaws or begin to work out any complexities in application of the
city’s rules and standards. The concept plan review could assist in setting up a
developer for greater success in any subsequent requirement for community
meetings, if needed.
The second step would be submittal of a preliminary site development plan for inter -
agency review and approval – the critical “all details” stage of project design and
compliance check (but not including construction specifications for building permit
issuance yet). This could also be the final process step before building permits (in
which case the word “preliminary” would go away), but many communities find it
helpful to require a separate “final site development plan” review and approval step
to confirm and cement that all conditions /comments on the preliminary plan have
been addressed and are cemented in a ready -to-record final site development plan.
Because the concept, preliminary, and final site development plan review steps are
separate applications, state-law mandated maximum times for completion of city
project permit review would apply separately to each application.
Most communities apply the site development plan/land use permit requirement to
all new developments, including low -density and middle -density residential
development. As applied to single -unit or lower-density multi-unit (2-9 units)
residential development, many communities will create a simplified submittal list of
site plan requirements and eliminate many of the more technical reports required for
commercial and other non-residential development projects. Often, the review of site
plans for these lower-density residential developments’ compliance with land use
regulations can run concurrently with the city’s review of building/construction plans
– resulting in a simultaneous issuance of both land use and building permits.
In all cases, a new land use permit or site development plan approval would be a
clear and public record authorizing establishment of new zoning uses and changes of
zoning use (where Title 17 triggers city review of changes of use), including clearly
[Page 41]
stating and recording conditions of approval that remain in action post-
permit/approval (which can assist in future code enforcement actions).
Pursue Opportunities for Streamlining Development Review
Searching for opportunities in Title 17 to shorten permitting review times, reduce or
combine distinct steps in a specific procedure, or reduce the number of different
permits/procedures applied to a single project respond s to internal and external
stakeholder concerns about overall processing time frames and efficiencies in
Spokane. Best practice is to apply the least amount of process to achieve desired
development outcomes, while ensuring protection of natural and community assets
and advancing comprehensive plan policy goals and objectives. While state law
mandates around permit processing must be met, Spokane enjoys ample discretion
to decide:
• Which projects can be exempt from SEPA consistent with state law
• Which specific review procedures and public participation opportunities
apply to different types of development proposals
• Whether and when to allow concurrent processing of related development
applications, offer combined public notices, and conduct combined public
hearings
• Whether to create expedited or simplified reviews for favored or critically
needed development (e.g., affordable housing)
• Whether to have an independent design review board and whether and when
to apply additional design review with public input to a project
• Whether and how appeals of final decisions are made
• How detailed or substantial permit and plan submittal requirements should be
for different types of applications
In our assessment of the administrative and procedural provisions in Title 17, we
recommend that Spokane consider the following opportunities for streamlining and
efficiency gains, most of which were identified through stakeholder interviews. Note
that there are likely additional opportunities that the project team will identify and
seek the city’s input as the project moves into the drafting stage.
Expand the types of development and permits exempt from SEPA review,
as allowed by state law.
Currently, Spokane must and does carry forward the categorical exemptions from
SEPA environmental review required under state law and rules. The first opportunity
to streamline development review could come from Spokane revisiting the flexible
thresholds for these categorical exemptions and increasing them closer to or
[Page 42]
matching the maximum levels allowed under state law. As shown in the table below,
the LDC’s Section 17E.050.070, “Flexible Thresholds for Categorical Exemptions ”,
sets several types of SEPA categorical exemption thresholds below the levels the
statutes deem “minor construction” and therefore eligible for exemption (see WAC
197-11-800). Given critical citywide land use and housing policy objectives, we
recommend the City consider raising the thresholds for exempt residential
developments to match state allowances.
Table 2: EXPANSION OF SEPA EXEMPTION OPPORTUNITIES
Project or Spokane RCW Maximum Opportunity to
Development Threshold for Allowed Increase
Type SEQA Exemption Threshold for Exemption
in Chapter 17E SEPA Exemption Threshold
Attached or Up to 20 dwelling Up to 30 dwelling
detached single- units units, or up to 100
family residential dwelling units when YES
units – any size unit unit size is less than
1,500 sf.
Multi-family Up to 4 dwelling Up to 200 dwelling
YES
residential units units units
Office, school, Up to 12,000 square Up to 30,000
commercial, feet and up to 40 square feet and up
YES
recreational, service parking spaces to 90 parking
or storage buildings spaces
Agricultural Up to 20,000 Up to 40,000
YES
structures square feet square feet
Stand-alone parking Up to 40 parking Up to 90 parking
NO
lots spaces spaces
Fill or excavation Up to 500 cubic Up to 1,000 cubic
YES
yards yards
There are additional optional exemptions the state allows that many stakeholders
would like Spokane to consider. These optional exemptions only take effect when
specifically adopted by a local government, usually for certain portions of a
jurisdiction (i.e., subareas) after a public process to consider area -wide impacts.
Spokane has done this with its adoption of a planned action ordinance for the South
Logan TOD district (see RCW 43.21C.440) and should continue to add planned
action areas to the LDC as the comprehensive plan is updated, including adoption of
new subarea plans.
State law also allows additional SEPA categorical exemptions if a city adopts them
based on the findings and criteria stated in RCW 43.21.229, including when a city’s
comprehensive plan was already subjected to environmental analysis under SEPA.
One of the optional exemptions covers infill and housing development within the
urban growth area where current density and intensity of use in the area is equal to
[Page 43]
or lower than called for in the city’s comprehensive plan. Another optional exemption
is for residential or mixed-use development within a transit station area. Spokane
should consider adopting both additional SEP A exemptions upon completion of the
updates to its comprehensive plan now in progress.
Eliminate public notice requirements for all short plats.
Currently, Spokane requires all short plats creating 5 -9 lots to provide public notice
of receipt of the application, triggering a public comment period of at 14 days prior
to the city’s final decision on the plat application. Short plats creating fewer 1 -4 lots
are exempt from this same notice and public comment requirements, as are a short
plat that meets the criteria for “minor engineering review.” See Section 17G.080.040,
Short Subdivisions. To encourage more infill development in the city by streamlining
project review, we recommend Spokane consider exempting all short
plats/subdivisions from requirements for public notice and public comment. 4
Evaluate Alternatives to In -Person Community Meetings.
Currently, Spokane requires a pre-application “community meeting” (defined in
Section 17A.020.030.Z) for all Type III land use applications, including applications
for conditional uses, variances, preliminary long plats, and preliminary PUDs, skywalk
permits, and rezonings. (See Table in Section 17G.061.010, Summary of Land Use
Application Procedures.)
While pre -application community meetings can be useful for making interested
members of the public aware of potential development projects in their
neighborhood, or further afield in Spokane, there should be clear guidance on what
participants may expect as an outcome of the meeting. If there is no expectation for
development professionals to respond to community concerns about a project,
community members can feel disappointed in participation, as though their concerns
have not been heard, or have been ign ored. If the purpose of the meeting is solely to
share information, other methods of sharing project information and soliciting public
feedback may be considered in lieu of public meetings.
Currently, Type III land use applications that trigger a required community meeting
also trigger public notice of receipt of application with an attend ant public comment
period to solicit information or concerns about a specific project’s design or potential
external effects. Based on experience, and given the shortcomings of a mandatory
pre-development public meeting mentioned above, we recommend reducing
instances when a community meeting is a requirement. There may be other means
the City can use to disseminate information about potential projects, and public input
on a project can still be solicited immediately after submittal (using the current
4 This is based on the project team’s early reconnaissance that indicates most short plats are approved by the city
unconditionally provided compliance with all applicable LDC standards is found.
[Page 44]
notice of application procedures) when the more concrete details of the project have
been finalized.
In sum, because there will still be opportunities for members of the public to
comment on proposed development projects within the city, we recommend
Spokane reduce instances of required community meetings for some Type III actions.
The project team sees opportunities to eliminate mandatory community meetings
for variances, some or all conditional uses, rezonings, some or all preliminary plats,
some or all preliminary PUDs, skywalks, and some or all floodplain permits and
variances. If the recommendation to reduce community meetings is implemented, we
will work with staff to determine when and what other means (aside from required
public notice) of publicizing projects can be used.
Change Some Conditional Uses and Preliminary Plats to Type II Reviews.
Based on input from staff, developers, consultants, and the hearing examiner’s office,
there appear to be opportunities for Spokane to remove some land uses from the
“conditional use” category of Type III applications. Stakeholder experience with
certain conditional uses reveals some types are typically approved, either with no
conditions of approval, or with the same staff-recommended conditions attached to
address potential off -site impacts. Very rarely is the final decision -maker adding site -
specific conditions based on public comment /input that are different than what
professional planning staff recommends. Conditional uses that produce these
standard conditions and consistent approvals provide an opportunity to substantially
streamline review by shifting them from Type III review to Type I or Type I I
administrative director/staff review only. Alternately, conditions that are consistently
repeated for certain uses may instead become use-specific standards, enabling the
use to be allowed by right, provided the use-specific standards are met. Accordingly,
we will work with staff to identify conditional uses that could fall into one of these
categories, and update the process and permissions that apply to them.
Similarly, we will work with staff to identify alternative thresholds that might reduce
the type and number of preliminary long plats that go through the Type III review
process. For example, state law allows long plats for SEPA -exempt project actions to
bypass the otherwise mandated notice of application. If SEPA exemptions are
expanded, as recommended above, the City should additionally consider removing
the accompanying notice of application/public comment period from preliminary
long plats for the newly-exempt types of projects. Additionally, the project team will
work with staff and conduct additional research to identify any general criteria or
conditions for when a preliminary plat could be administratively reviewed and
approved by the director/staff, without substantial risk of adverse community
impacts or other external effects that would otherwise more likely come from a
public hearing process.
[Page 45]
Clarify Purpose/ Intent of the Unit Lot Subdivision Tool and Ensure
Appropriate Standards and Review Criteria.
Both applicants and city staff expressed some confusion about the purpose and
intent of the new state -mandated "unit lot subdivision,” as well as how standards and
criteria should be different from those applicable to standard subdivisions. Spokane
has had a version of unit lot subdivision in the code since 2014, when it was called
Alternative Residential Subdivision. The more recent state mandate to allow unit lot
subdivisions is in Section 17G.080.065, applying the short plat or long plat process to
review and approval of unit lot subdivisions, based on the number of resulting “unit
lots”. In other words, unit lot subdivisions resulting in 1-9 unit lots are reviewed using
the short plat procedure and criteria, and 10 or more resulting unit lots are reviewed
using the long plat procedure and criteria. What is not as clear in Section
17G.080.065 is exactly how and why a “unit lot subdivision” differs from a standard
subdivision, and what the advantages there may be to using this tool compared to
standard subdivision plat.
We recommend revisions to these provisions to
clarify the purpose and intent, which is primarily to
provide an ownership alternative to creating a
condominium, especially for detached residential
units in multiple buildings constructed on a single
development site, as in a cottage house
development, where the detached dwelling units
share common access, parking areas, and open
spaces. The purpose statement in Sec.
17G.080.065 should be revised to offer this
alternative path to unit home ownership more
clearly and provide some graphic examples of what
a “unit lot subdivision” and its components look Figure 2: Example of Cottage Court Development
like.
Unit lot subdivision, importantly, does provide flexibility in the development’s
compliance with zoning standards (compared to compliance in a standard
subdivision) by applying lot and dimensional standards only to the overall
development site (the “parent lot” referenced in Sec. 17G.080.065) rather than to
each of the internal “unit lots” where the individual buildings are located. Currently,
the code specifies that unit lots do not have to meet building setbacks, building
coverage, street frontage and density, but it also states there may be other
unspecified standards that may not apply (by prefacing the 4 listed standards with
“including but not limited to”). If there are other standards that commonly are not
applied to unit lots, these should be specified in the code, rather than relying on a
case-by-case interpretation by staff, which can lead to inconsistencies in application
of standards and exemptions. To further reduce code user confusion, we also
[Page 46]
recommend use of the terms “parent lot” and “unit lot” only, and delete reference to
“child lots”, which are the same thing as “unit lots”.
We also recommend that either in the LDC itself, or for insertion into a companion
LDC Administrative/Procedures Manual, city attorneys and planning staff draft a
standardized disclaimer and notice provision for insertion on the cover sheet for all
approved unit lot subdivisions (including all the requirements currently stated in Sec.
17G.080.065.F) and perhaps in a stand-alone affidavit that is recorded against the
property’s master parcel address. This will ensure this important notice to future
owners about the unit lot subdivision’s unique limitations and constraints on future
development are consistently communicated across the city.
Specify Exemptions from Title 17 Review for Certain State and City Public
Facilities.
Some stakeholders identified inefficiencies in applying Title 17 land use project
review, most notably public participation opportunities and variances, to the
construction of certain public facilities, including but not limited to city parks, public
schools, and essential public infrastructure such as sewers and water towers.
Rationales for further inquiry include the redundancy of Title 17 requirements with
parallel and substantial public outreach and participation undertaken by the City for
substantial capital projects like new parks, and the need for flexibility or exceptions
in application of Title 17 development standards to expedite construction of essential
public infrastructure. The project team will work with the City to explore
incorporating such flexibility into both Title 17’s procedural requirements and its
substantive standards, to the extent allowed by law.
Revise Approach for Urban Design Review
We heard from both internal and external stakeholders that Spokane’s current
regulatory framework for urban design review by the Design Review Board is not
very useful. Currently, Chapter 17G.040 currently establishes a design review board
in and authorizes it to review and make urban design recommendations to final
decision -making bodies for projects in the downtown zones, all public projects or
structures not otherwise exempt, skywalks, requests for certain design deviations,
referrals by the Planning Director, some mini -storage facilities, and certain projects
within the centers and corridors zones.
Some of the simpler projects in the preceding list – such as mini -storage facilities --
can be controlled through application of use-specific standards. For other projects
with more extensive design requirements, we believe that the updates to the existing
design standards (see Tailor Design Standards to Context) should yield simplified,
more straightforward standards that can be part of overall staff review of the project.
Clarifying the standards to the extent that the review step of appearing before a
[Page 47]
Design Review Board can be eliminated will also contribute to streamlining the
project review and approval process.
Clarify Extent and Applicability of LDC Rules for Nonconformities
The reorganized and updated LDC will also tackle the subject of nonconformities. We
heard from both internal and external stakeholders that the city should take a hard
look at how it defines and regulates nonconformities. Stakeholders expressed a need
for the city to adopt a more generous approach that allows owners to more easily
invest in these pre -existing land uses and structures and ensures the city can
effectively address nonconformities in a manner supportive of this approach.
Additionally, current adopted plans encourage amortization (eventual elimination) of
nonconforming billboards in the city, and some stakeholders have suggested
elimination of nonconforming surface parking lots in the downtown to encourage
redevelopment and reinvestment.
Generally, nonconformities are existing land uses and structures that were legal and
code-compliant when originally established or constructed, but today no longer
comply with the full range of LDC rules. 5 For example, an industrial land use allowed
and established in a business zone district 25 years ago might no longer be a
permitted use in the mixed-use zone district now applicable to the property, where
new standards seek greater compatibility of non-residential and residential uses. That
industrial land use is now “nonconforming” with the LDC and is substantially more
restricted in its ability to change, expand, and grow. Similarly, a structure that was
perfectly legal when originally constructed on its site may no longer comply with the
LDC’s site development standards, such as setbacks or building height, building
design standards, such as requirements for ground -floor entrances and transparency
(windows), or site design standards, such as providing internal walkways or
landscaping. That structure is now “nonconforming” and sharply limited as to future
physical expansions or alterations, or reconstruction in the event of damage or
calamity.
Modern zoning best practice is to explicitly recognize the high value nonconformities
often continue to provide to a community, particularly in terms of economic
development opportunities and the sustainability of reusing and reinvesting in
existing buildings (rather than encouraging demolition). Additionally, best practices
recognize the right of an individual property owner to continue to use property in a
nonconforming manner, whether that be through the use itself or the structure.
Sharply curtailing the change or expansion of nonconformities often comes at costs
far greater than the marginal benefit. Regardless of the extent of the nonconformity
at issue (e.g., a building 2 feet too tall or a heavy industrial use abutting a multifamily
dwelling), the nonconforming building or use is often “stuck” in time and place with
5 The LDC defines nonconforming development and uses at Section 17A.020.140.
[Page 48]
limited recourse to capital for reinvestment and growth (banks don’t want to lend
against a building that cannot be rebuilt “as was” if destroyed).
On the other hand, some cities are willing to go the other direction and curtail the
continued existence of a specific type of nonconforming use or structure, to advance
priority aesthetic or land use development goals. In this realm, the LDC could be
revised to provide specific amortization periods that allow the owner of the
nonconformity enough time to reasonably recoup their initial financial investment in
the nonconforming land, structure, or use, but thereafter the owner must halt the use
or remove the nonconforming structure and make the property or building available
for new development and opportunities.
Accordingly, we recommend the following improvements and revisions to Title 17’s
nonconformity rules, currently found primarily in Chapter 17C.210, Nonconforming
Situations, and Chapter 17A. 020, Definitions.
• Evaluate whether the current approach in the LDC for establishing
nonconforming status aligns with the City’s current approach to
nonconformities and best practices.
o For example, consider relaxing the mandate that a certificate of
occupancy be produced as the only method of establishing a
nonconformity (See Section 17C.210.020.B.). Instead, allow the Director
to determine the status of a nonconformity based on an accumulation
of valid documents, including but not limited to certificates of
occupancy, land use or building construction permits, evidence of
active and continuous use/activity without record of enforcement
activity, evidence of continuous property tax payments, proper business
licensing, and other similar records, that could support a finding that the
use or structure was legally established at the time it became
nonconforming and has been continuously active and maintained.
• Provide clear standards for determining when a nonconformity is
discontinued (abandoned), thereby terminating its right to continue in a
nonconforming manner.
o A nonconforming use loses its right to continue under Sec.
17C.210.030(A) after two years of “discontinuance.” The term
“discontinuance ” is not defined nor does the current LDC establish the
benchmarks for what constitutes discontinuance. A definition of
“discontinuance” should be added to the LDC to ensure a consistent
and clear process for making these important determinations. The
definition of “discontinuance ” could include specific elements in the
City’s determination, such as the owner indicating in writing the intent
to abandon the nonconforming use, a nonconforming use being
[Page 49]
replaced by a conforming use, or the termination of water or sewer
service.
o If the City directs, and upon further research and analysis, the LDC
could be revised to halt the right to continue a specific type of
nonconformity, such as billboards or surface parking lots in the
Downtown zoning district, after a reasonable time for amortization.
• Revise the definitions of “nonconforming development” and
“nonconforming use” in Title 17 to narrow the range of code violations that
make a structure, site, or use nonconforming and therefore subject to more
restrictive standards.
o This will NOT exempt such use or structure from complying with current
use and development standards i f redevelopment or expansion occurs;
the expanded or redeveloped portion of the use/structure will still have
to meet applicable standards of the LDC. What the change would do is
allow that redevelopment or expansion in the first place by removing
the “nonconforming” status that currently makes such development an
absolute “no go.”
o For example, given recent LDC amendments to advance middle housing
and affordable housing, consider revising the definition of
“nonconforming development” to exempt residential structures
containing 1 -4 units from the definition, or limit the triggers to only a
few violations of specific development standards (e.g., height but not
density or all setbacks) or violations that exceed a specific threshold
(e.g., structure is “nonconforming” only if it violates a current
dimensional standard by more than 25-50%).
o For example, reconsider whether violation of certain site design
standards should trigger application of “nonconforming” status in the
first place, such as all or only some violations of current parking or
landscaping standards.
• Identify the decision -maker with authority to make all determinations
regarding the existence of a nonconformity and the factual discontinuance
of such use/structure.
o Currently, Section 17C.210.030 gives the Hearing Examiner limited
authority to determine discontinuance when a case before the Examiner
raises the issue but leaves unaddressed who makes such decisions in all
other situations. We recommend that the Director of Planning and
Economic Development be granted this authority, with appeals
available to the Hearing Examiner.
[Page 50]
• Clarify current standards for when modifications to nonconforming
structures, uses, and improvements will trigger full code compliance.
o For example, to what extent should building additions or a change in
primary use of the nonconforming building trigger full compliance, and
what limitations or additional conditions should apply to authorized
modifications, such as no increase in the number of dwelling units or
requiring noise attenuation measures for habitable but nonconforming
structures in airfield noise zones.
o Facilitate upgrading and reinvesting in nonconforming development by
clearly stating the specific changes that trigger full code compliance
and identifying to what degree the nonconforming development must
comply with applicable design and development standards in the LDC.
Clearly address when modifications to a nonconforming development
will trigger full or partial construction of public improvements (or
payment of fees in -lieu), such as paving or improving the right-of-way
or installing new sidewalks.
• Consolidate and clarify a property owner’s entitlement to rebuild a
damaged or destroyed nonconforming structure or re -establish a
nonconforming use when the structure housing the nonconforming use is
damaged or destroyed.
o Ensuring the standards are tailored to further the city’s comprehensive
plan goals and account for specific uses and zone districts as needed.
o Consider expanding the allowance in Section 17C.210.040.D, which
allows the rebuild of buildings containing nonconforming multi-unit
residential uses after damage or destruction over 60% but only in the R -
1 and R-2 zones, to all zone districts that allow residential household
use.
o More specifically and strategically, and depending on revisions to key
definitions, specify the development standards that nonconformities
must comply with upon repair, reconstruction, or re -establishment (e.g.,
parking standards).
o Clarify relevant thresholds, such as the cost of damage to a
nonconforming structure or structure housing a nonconforming use
that, once exceeded, would prohibit the nonconforming structure from
being rebuilt or the nonconforming use from being re-established, and
how those thresholds are determined (for instance, if cost is used as a
threshold metric, it should be based on the market value of the
structure and a cost to repair provided by a licensed contractor).
[Page 51]
o Establish any limitations that apply to the nonconforming building being
reconstructed or the nonconforming use being re -established, such as
not expanding the use or structure onto a different parcel or the
structure being constructed within the same foot print.
o
Alternatively, consider establishing a process where the Hearing
Examiner determines whether re -establishment of the nonconforming
use or structure should be permitted without 100% compliance with
standards based on factors such as potential adverse impacts or harm
to the surrounding community.
Incorporate More Opportunities for Design Flexibility
In all land development codes, there is tension in their application between
prescriptiveness and flexibility. The former lends itself to more certainty and
predictability in administering the code and consistency in built outcomes. Flexibility,
on the other hand, is necessary because regulations can never fully be “one size fits
all” and they must account not only for unique conditions and circumstances but also
creative and different approaches to achieving desired built outcomes. Spokane
accommodates significant flexibility in the application of its Title 17 regulations, with
various provisions and procedures for design standard deviations (see Chapter
17G.030, Design Departures), administrative approvals for minor exceptions (See
Sec. 17A.050.030), and variances (See Section 17E.030.090 for floodplain variances,
Section 17G.061.310.D for shoreline variances, and Section 17G.061.310.E for zoning
variances).
In this area, our recommendation for Spokane is that the project team continue to
look for and incorporate more opportunities – at the margin – for design flexibility,
particularly as new and updated design standards are added to the LDC. We also
recommend that all flavors of “relief” available under Title 17 be organized and
presented in a single section to provide greater clarity for code uses. We will also
standardize the process steps and review criteria across the different types of relief
available to the extent possible.
Some early opportunities the project team identified in its assessment of the LDC
include:
• Allow developers of smaller-scale infill and middle housing development to
request alternative compliance with applicable building and site design
standards, where they can show an alternative to 100% compliance will still
meet or exceed the intent/purpose of the standard(s) at issue. This would be
an administrative (either excluded or a Type I or II) review and decision,
typically without triggering public notice, with an appeal to the Hearing
Examiner or to the Design Review Board, as desired.
[Page 52]
• After further discussion with staff around current practice and experience, the
project team may recommend revising the LDC to be more specific about
which development and design standards may be adjusted by staff as a “minor
adjustment”, and to what extent or degree, beyond the general authorization
in Section 17A.050.030, “Minor Adjustments.” These types of administrative
exceptions to the LDC reflect best practice and can reduce total development
review times by avoiding the more lengthy and complicated design deviation
or variance review process. An example of permitted minor adjustments from
another city’s ordinance is shown below; note that it also specifies the extent
or degree to which staff may adjust a specific land use standard, which
provides a clear limitation for staff’s authority:
Table 10.07 -3: Permitted Adjustments
Sq Ft = Square Feet
Standard Allowable Adjustment
Lot area, minimum 10%
Lots > 5,000 sq ft: 10%
Accessory structure setback, minimum
Lots < 5,000 sq ft: 15%
Accessory structure height, maximum 10%
Fence height, maximum 15% (up to one foot)
Residential driveway width, maximum 10%
Sign area, maximum 10%
Notes:
Engineering standards and specifications man not be varied through the Adjustment
process
The project team will also continue to research variance case outcomes in
Spokane, to look for specific variances that are regularly granted, which may
signal a need to change the substantive rule at issue or an opportunity to re -
delegate the authority to vary to staff rather than the Hearing Examiner.
• Explore whether there should be additional grounds for approval of a variance,
beyond a strict showing that unique physical conditions/circumstances
necessitate relief, which Section 17.061.310.E now requires. Some cities have
explored other grounds for variances, especially variances from zoning and
land use (not life/safety) standards, which favor production of more
affordable housing units, or that cede land use/ zoning standard compliance to
historic preservation design or other specific codes compliance in cases of
conflict, or that provide relief from certain enforcement (often post -
construction) violations.
FOCUS AREA 2: FINE-TUNE ZONING DISTRICTS AND ALLOWED USES
TOPICS COVERED
1. Align Zoning Districts with Land Use Designations
[Page 53]
2. Create, Rename, or Delete Districts
3. Adjust Centers & Corridors Concept to Enhance Implementation and Outcomes
4. Create a Mixed -Use, Transit -Oriented Development district
5. Emphasize Revitalization in Downtown Districts
6. Relocate and Update Existing Planned Unit Development Regulations
7. Consolidate and Adjust Land Use Allowances
8. Reorganize into a Single, Central Land Use Table
9. Retain Land Use Category Approach, with Refinement & Reorganization
10. Define Land Uses
11. Create Use Specific Standards (USS) Section; Update Existing USS
12. Review & Update Use Permissions
Land Use and Zoning Districts
In most locations, the comprehensive plan has a section devoted to future land use,
where the plan specifies, following extensive community input, what is the best use
for land throughout the jurisdiction. Often, this land use classification system is the
basis for zoning being legally permitted in a jurisdiction, but even in locations where
a comprehensive plan including future land use is not a formal legal requirement,
comprehensive plan land use designations are critical to creating and applying
zoning districts that produce the kind of development the community desires.
Shaping Spokane, the adopted 2017 version of the comprehensive plan, has such
land use classifications, and the current effort to update the comprehensive plan,
PlanSpokane 2046, includes an effort to update the land use classifications. Because
of their importance to creating the right zoning districts for the city, the consultant
team has studied closely both the existing land use classifications, as described in
Shaping Spokane Section 3.4, Description of Land Use Designations, along with what
information is so far available regarding the updates to the land use designations
that will be part of PlanSpokane 2046. The recommendations we make in this section
related to potential updates and adjustments to Spokane’s roster of zoning districts
is informed by our review of the plan’s land use designations. 6
Overview of Current Zoning Districts
Beyond land use designations, our review of the City’s zoning districts also considers
these questions:
6 When the final land use designations are available upon the release of a full draft of PlanSpokane, we will revisit these
recommendations, and make any changes necessary to align our zoning district recommendations with the land uses.
[Page 54]
• Is the intent of each district clear, and does the district name match the
intent?
• Is each district currently in use? Are there districts that are obsolete and/or
unnecessary?
• Are new districts needed?
• Are there districts in place to implement the comprehensive plan’s land use
designations? Do the districts support implementation of topic -specific plans
such as Housing Action, Sustainability, and Transportation plans? Do the
districts address the objectives of reversing or reducing historic racially
discriminatory impacts?
• Are any districts so similar in purpose and standards that they could be
consolidated?
Recommendations are incorporated below based on the answers to these questions.
The current LDC includes 22 base zoning districts, which establish the primary rules
for how land can be used and developed (such as allowed uses and maximum
building height). The extent of zoned land in each district of the city is shown in the
chart below.
Extent of Zoned Land (Percent)
70
59.2
60
50
40
30
19.1
20
10
4 4.4
0.4 1.7 2.6 0.20.10.4 1 0.6 1 0 0.1 1.2 0.300.60.7 2.1 0
0
A
R
1R2
R
F
M R
D
H R
C
T D
S
T D
U
T D
G
T D
1C
C
2
C C
3
C C
4
C C
B
C
C
G
R
N
U
M N
OR
O
ILIHIP
The three zoning districts that account for the greatest amount of zoned land in the
city are:
[Page 55]
• R1 Residential: 59.2 percent
• Light Industrial: 19.1 percent
• General Commercial: 4.4 percent
Conversely, Planned Industrial, Neighborhood Mixed Use and Centers & Corridors
Type 3 account for no actual zoned land within the city, while most other districts
account for 2 percent or less.
It is common for residential districts to account for roughly two-thirds to three -
fourths of all zoned land in a given jurisdiction, with commercial and industrial
accounting for the remainder. Spokane’s prevalence of Light Industrial zoning as the
second most extensive district by zoned area is somewhat unusual, but this can be
explained by the land-consuming uses it includes, such as the airport.
Centers & Corridors
The current LDC includes a centers and
corridors concept, which establishes
specific areas designated by the LUPM
for mixed-use development of varying
intensities (types 1 -4), spread along
important roadways and neighborhood
centers throughout the city. The excerpt
of the LUPM below shows the centers as
circles, and the corridors as strips. Many
stakeholders expressed concern that the
centers and corridors were not producing
the kind of development they were
intended for, and our review suggests
numerous reasons for that. However, the
City intends to maintain an adjusted
version of this concept in the updated
comprehensive plan, so our
recommendations center around
removing some of the barriers that
constricted center and corridor Figure 3: LUPM Centers & Corridors Excerpt
development up to now, and making the
updated centers and corridor concept work for the City. Because this component of
the plan is not finalized at time of writing, our recommendations remain general, and
subject to refinement once the final updated concept is adopted as part of the plan.
[Page 56]
Overlay Zones
The LDC includes four overlay districts, which add extra requirements on top of the
base zoning district to address specific conditions or goals (such as view shed
preservation by means of height limits). See Table 3 below.
Table 3: Current Overlay Zoning Districts
Overlay Zone District Description
Regulates visual and pedestrian access standards and guidelines
to ensure that buildings and other constructed objects do not
North River
create barriers that wall off the Spokane River Gorge, Riverfront
Park, or the Downtown Core.
Regulates uses in the Cathedral District and the Cliff Drive
Special Height District, where controlling building heights is intended to
preserve the public view.
Regulations are intended to protect the viability of the Spokane
International Airport and Felts Field by modifying the density
and land use standards of the underlying zoning districts.
Airfield
These modifications provide protection to the public, health,
safety, and general welfare of the community, airport users, and
citizens working and residing within the airfield overlay zones.
Regulations are intended to prevent incompatible land uses in
Fairchild
the vicinity of Fairchild Air Force Base.
Hamilton Form -Based Code Zone
The LDC includes one form-based code
district, along the Hamilton Street corridor,
intended to foster an economically vibrant,
walkable, mixed-use environment by
controlling building form, as well as applying
performance -based parameters relative to
building use and intensity. The subject area is
shown to the right.
Stakeholders made no mention of this
district, either positive or negative, perhaps
because it encompasses such a small area.
Our review, however, indicates that the
standards in this zone are appropriate. While
Figure 3: Hamilton Corridor FBC Area
a full form -based approach is not favored
elsewhere in the city, we nevertheless believe
that adapting some of the standards in the FBC district would help in other areas; in
particular, some of the existing neighborhood centers. We expect that some of the
[Page 57]
Hamilton standards will be more widely applied in areas of the city that will be
subject to the updated center and corridor concept in the new plan.
After reviewing the current land use designations, zoning districts, overlays, and
extent of actual zoned land within the City, we make the following recommendations
regarding the City’s zoning district lineup.
Align Zoning Districts with Land Use Designations
The existing zoning districts align fairly well with the land use designations in the
2017 plan, as shown in Table 4. Because some changes are likely in the updated plan,
our recommendations anticipate those changes, and will be refined as necessary
once the final plan is available.
Table 4: 2017 LAND USE DESIGNATIONS AND CURRENT ZONING DISTRICTS
Shaping Spokane Description of Typical Land Use Corresponding
Land Use Zoning District
Designation
Residential
Residential Low Attached or detached residences and middle
housing types. R1
Residential Plus Middle housing types of greater scale or
intensity than in lower intensity areas, with
R2
potential for mixed-use, neighborhood scale
retail and services.
Residential Moderate A mix of more intense middle housing types and
moderate -sized apartment, condo, townhome RMF
developments.
Residential High Large apartment, condominium, townhouse
developments, potentially on multiple sites with RHD
site planning and features.
Agriculture Agricultural lands of local importance. RA
Centers & Corridors
Neighborhood Mini - Same uses as Neighborhood Retail. CC1 and 2
Center NR, OR
Neighborhood Neighborhood -oriented commercial uses,
CC1 - 4
Center offices, mixed -type housing, parks, civic uses in a
NMU
master-planned, mixed-use setting.
District Center Community -oriented commercial uses, offices,
mixed-type housing, parks, civic uses in a CC1 - 4
master-planned, mixed-use setting.
Regional Center Variety of goods, services, cultural,
(Downtown) governmental, hospitality, and residential uses. Downtown: DTC,
Downtown plan provides detail of planning for DTG, DTS, DTU
this area.
[Page 58]
Table 4: 2017 LAND USE DESIGNATIONS AND CURRENT ZONING DISTRICTS
Shaping Spokane Description of Typical Land Use Corresponding
Land Use Zoning District
Designation
Employment Center Major employment uses, community oriented Could be all CC,
commercial uses, mixed -type housing in a NMU, GC, and
master-planned, mixed-use setting. other districts
Corridor Community -oriented commercial uses, mixed -
type housing in a master -planned, mixed-use CC1 - 4
setting.
Center & Corridor Commercial, office and residential uses
Core consistent with type of designated Center and CC1 and 2
Corridor.
Center & Corridor Office, small retail, and multi -family residential
Transition uses. Office and retail uses are required to have CC4
residential uses on the same site.
Commercial and Industrial
Heavy Industrial Heavier Industrial uses. No residential uses. HI
Light Industrial Light industrial uses, limited commercial and
LI
residential uses.
General Commercial Commercial and residential uses, warehouses. GC
Neighborhood Retail Neighborhood -Serving Business and residential
NR, CB
use. Maximum containment area of two acres.
Office Offices and residential use. O, OR
No Existing District Correspondence
Institutional Includes uses such as middle and high schools,
colleges, universities, and large governmental
facilities.
Conservation Open Areas that are publicly owned, not developed
Space and designated to remain in a natural state.
Potential Open Areas that are not currently publicly owned, not
Space developed and expected to remain in a natural
state.
Open Space Major publicly or privately owned open space
areas such as golf courses, major parks and open
space areas, and cemeteries.
Create, Rename, or Delete Districts
Table 5 below summarizes our initial recommendations for updates to the City’s
zoning districts lineup, pending further changes that will be based on updated land
use in the comprehensive plan. The left column in Table 5 identifies the current
zoning districts; where a new district is proposed, the left column will read “[NEW].”
The center column identifies the proposed district or notes if the recommendation is
to carry forward an existing district without change. Where name changes are
proposed, (to make the district names slightly more descriptive, particularly in
residential zones such as R1 and R2) the center column includes them. The right
[Page 59]
column provides a brief explanation of the reason for the change, or why no change
is proposed.
Table 5: Proposed Zoning District Lineup
Current District Proposed District Explanation
Residential Districts
RA Residential RA – Carry forward There is not a great deal of this district on
Agricultural without change the ground in Spokane (less than 1%), nor is
it likely that more land will be added to this
district.
However, since it appears to serve the
purpose for which it was created, it can be
carried forward without change.
R1 Residential RS Small -Scale Combine R1 and R2, change name to focus
R2 Residential Residential desired scale of development.
The current difference between Spokane’s
R1 and R2 districts comes down to density,
with the R1 min/m ax range extending from 4
dua minimum up to 10 dua maximum, while
R2 (of which there is relatively little actual
zoned land) allows up to 20 dua maximum.
Combining these districts allows less of a
focus on density, and more on the scale and
type of housing that is allowed; specifically,
this residential district will emphasize
allowing all specified middle housing types
in the hope of expanding their proliferation,
especially in areas that historically
prohibited most housing types other than
detached single -family dwellings.
RMF Residential RMF – Carry forward We would like to find a way to combine
Multifamily RMF and RHD; however we do see a need to
differentiate between a 9 unit building,
versus a 9 story building.
Final recommendation for this district will
depend on updated future land use, and
further discussion with staff.
RHD Residential RML Medium - to This change is to give a more descriptive
High-Density Large Scale name to the district focused on scale.
Residential As with RMF, final recommendation for this
district will depend on updated future land
use, and further discussion with staff.
Form-Based Code District
Hamilton FBC Do not carry forward The area contained within this district can
be accommodated in one of the mixed-use
zones (likely MU -Neighborhood) but
maintain the form -based standards that
currently define it.
Mixed-Use Districts
[Page 60]
Table 5: Proposed Zoning District Lineup
Current District Proposed District Explanation
CC1 through CC4 Replace with mixed - Our initial idea is to create mixed use zones
use Hub concept and of varying intensity, a mixed use transition
TOD Corridor zones; zone, and one for TOD corridors. Those
names TBD based on could be
Plan update Mixed use neighborhood – small scale,
existing neighborhood commercial
corridors, including Hamilton FBC zone
Mixed use general – medium scale, new
development
Mixed use regional center – areas with b ig
box commercial and other large scale
business. Least focused on residential, and
more auto -oriented.
Mixed use TOD – Division BRT, other TOD
focused corridors
These will focus on maintaining the positive
elements of the center and corridor concept,
while making it more functional for
development in the City.
DT Core, General, DT - Carry forward The land use designations for downtown
South, and appear unlikely to change. These districts
University can be carried forward, subject to
adjustments as discussed below. (See
Emphasize Revitalization in Downtown
Districts)
GC General GC – Carry forward Because there is a relatively high amount of
Commercial without change land zoned GC (4%), and realistically, a
demand for auto-oriented commercial, we
propose to carry this forward. We do
believe areas currently zoned GC that will be
part of transit corridors should be
reclassified.
O Office O – Carry forward Some cities see a need for a single -purpose
office zone, though this is more common in
suburban areas, with single -purpose office
campus developments. If the City sees a
need for this, it can be maintained, but
generally, offices of varying scale can fit in
downtown or mixed-use zones.
CB Community Retire or eliminate All of these should be accommodated by
Business one of the proposed mixed-use districts
NR Neighborhood
Retail
NMU Neighborhood
Mixed Use
OR Office Retail
[Page 61]
Table 5: Proposed Zoning District Lineup
Current District Proposed District Explanation
Industrial Districts
HI Heavy Industrial HI - Carry forward Implements the Industrial land use
without change designation.
LI Light Industrial LI – Carry forward Implements the Industrial land use
designation, and accounts for substantial
area of zoned land in the city. Carry forward,
but consider adjusting to allow modern
mixed industrial and commercial campuses
(as may have been the intent of PI).
Planned Industrial Eliminate This does not exist on the ground. If there is
a demand for this kind of development, it
can be accommodated in LI or the new PI,
without the need of a dedicated master
plan.
New Districts
[NEW] PRO Parks, This district aligns with the three land use
Recreation, and Open categories that are concerned with Open
Space Space.
[NEW] PI: Public and This district aligns with the Institutional land
Institutional use category.
Overlay Districts
Airfield Airfield Carry forward subject to revisions
Fairchild Fairchild Carry forward subject to revisions
Special Height Special Height Carry forward subject to revisions
North River Eliminate We have heard that this overlay has served
its purpose and is not longer needed.
Adjust Centers & Corridors Concept to Enhance Implementation and
Outcomes
Both staff and stakeholders commented that the centers and corridors have not
always had the desired outcome of producing walkable, mixed-use development for
the City. There are likely numerous reasons for this, several of which may have little
to do with the regulations themselves, such as misalignment with market demand,
and existing properties that are not at the end of their life span, so no demand for
redevelopment. However, it is also possible that aspects of the regulations
themselves have constrained conforming development and redevelopment as well.
The 2024 Centers and Corridors Study focuses on changes to make centers and
corridors more “workable.” We largely agree with the recommendations in the
report, and understand that the adjusted approach will be reflected in the updated
comprehensive plan. As a result, our recommendations reflect those in the study, but
will need to be revisited and further detail added as the new centers and corridors
concept is finalized in the plan. In the meantime, our preliminary recommendations
focus on:
[Page 62]
• Creating tailoring mixed use districts, of varying intensity as described in Table 5.
• Allow flexibility within the base districts by focusing more o n scale, built form,
and multimodal accessibility than allowed/prohibited uses
• Adjust standards based on intensity of development, and extent of change from
existing development (for example, consider the different standards needed to
transform a strip mall versus maintain an exiting neighborhood commercial strip)
• Clarify triggers for applicability of other code standards (for example, should a
simple change of use require upgrades to curb, gutter, and sidewalk if those are
substandard)
Create a Mixed-Use, Transit -Oriented Development district
Spokane has existing transit-oriented development (TOD) areas, including the City
Line, that runs from the Community College, through downtown, and west through
Browne’s Addition (yellow on map), and South Logan (purple circle). A new TOD
corridor is envisioned along Division Street (blue hatching), running north from
Downtown until it terminates at Hastin gs and Perry (outside city limits). There may
be additional TOD corridors in the future.
Because thriving TOD corridors do not come about
by chance, we recommend the creation of a mixed
use transit-oriented zoning district to support the
realization of Spokane’s TOD plans. This district will
allow mixed-use developments centered around the
station areas, and include residential at a density that
is capable of supporting high -frequency transit.
Standards for the district should include ways to
ensure that housing produced meets the needs of
residents from a diversity of income levels, to ensure
that lower -income residents who rely more on transit
are not closed out of new development in close
proximity to it. Further, if there are neighborhoods
where redevelopment pressure near the corridor
increases the risk of residential displacement, the
district can propose measures to reduce that risk.
Tailored development and design standards are
especially important to functional transit-oriented
development, with buildings at the street, active
ground floor uses, and a connected sidewalk network
that prioritizes pedestrian safety and access, as well
as integrated or nearby residential to support use of
the lines. This TOD District will focus on creating
Figure 5: Existing and Potential TOD Areas in Spokane
standards to support successful transit corridors.
[Page 63]
Like other development transit corridors often encompass a range of development
intensity, with more dense, walkable development closer to station areas and the
city’s downtown, and more suburban -style development towards the farther ends of
the corridors. The district’s standard will be designed to accommodate that range.
Below is an image from the city’s website, which neatly conveys the idea behind the
mix of development that supports a dense, urban node along a TOD corridor.
Figure 6: TOD-Supportive Development
Emphasize Revitalization in Downtown Districts
The Downtown districts did not come up very much in stakeholder interviews. While
we take this to mean they are basically functional and producing the intended
development, we are also aware from conversations with staff that certain
adjustments could help improve Downtown development in light of current
conditions. One issue is that, following the pandemic, there are m any vacancies in
Downtown that have been slow to find new tenants. Over time, persistent vacancy
can begin to impact the offices, businesses, and storefronts that do remain, which is
where Spokane finds itself now.
When we update the Downtown districts, we will propose ways to catalyze
occupancy and decrease vacancies. One way to do this is to create a use category
for properties that have been vacant for two years or more (for example), allowing
an expanded range of uses, even if temporarily, to encourage renewed occupancy.
Because downtown businesses depend on nearby residents even more since many
office uses are not requiring workers to return Downtown full-time as was common
pre-pandemic, we should also consider incentives to encourage development of both
market rate and affordable housing units in the Downtown.
Staff have also expressed some concern about the extent and impact of surface
parking lots in the Downtown. Extensive surface lots are not uncommon in cities
[Page 64]
where old buildings have been removed without new structures replacing them. The
yellow highlights in Figure 7 demonstrate the extent of the lots in the core of
downtown. While the blocks on the western edge of downtown are largely intact,
that is not so east of Howard Street, with some surface lots occupying half of entire
blocks. There are also two large parcels adjacent to Riverfront Park that could offer
prime river views and park access to potential residential development.
We can work with staff on strategies to address the extent of surface lots, including
prohibition of new ones, and the amortization of existing ones. As mentioned above,
such measures could also be accompanied by incentives to encourage development
of both market rate and affordable housing units (or other desired development) in
the Downtown.
Figure 7: Downtown Surface Parking
Relocate and Update Existing Planned Unit Development Regulations
Currently, Spokane’s information on Planned Unit Developments is in Title 17G,
Administration and Procedures. While some of this information should remain in the
procedures section, given the purpose of a PUD and its function, we believe some
sections would be better situated in the Land Use Standards (current Title 17C). This
includes the “what is it?” information such as purpose, uses, density, and dimensional
[Page 65]
requirements, while the “how to do it” content can remain in the Administration and
Procedures Chapter.
Spokane defines a planned unit development as “a project permit for an overlay
zone…”. However, while there is a layer for PUDs on the internal zoning map, this
layer is not available for public view. As such, we are not sure what the current
prevalence of existing PUDs is, or how frequently they are used in Spokane. A couple
of stakeholders offered the opinion that they used to be useful, but were less so after
recent changes, indicating that perhaps their prevalence is declining.
We believe that cities should have a PUD process, but that most development should
occur using standard zoning districts. This can occur when the standard zoning
districts are both functional and flexible enough to accommodate modern forms of
development without the persistent need for exceptions to standards that lead to
PUDs. The Purpose (Section 17G.070.010) for PUDs in Spokane specifies that they are
intended to “ encourage innovative planning and flexible design standards that results
in more infill and mixed use development; economically diverse and affordable
housing options; improved protection of open space and critical areas, and
transportation options and preserve the existing landscape and amenities that may
not otherwise be protected through conventional development. ” (Highlighting ours.)
The existing standards for PUDs focus heavily on development of mixed use, while at
the same time placing impractical and potentially unworkable standards on that kind
of development. For example, including any retail in RA, R1, and R2 zones requires at
least 20 acres for development, and is allowed only on five percent of the site.
Individual non-residential uses are limited to 5,000 square feet. This combination of
limitations - requiring too large a land are a for the project, and then limiting the
business’ potential market area – is potentially too strict for functional mixed use.
This may also be true for the minimum 10 acres required in the higher density zones.
In both cases, fixed, inflexible standards do not consider the varying scales and
contexts that can support mixed use development.
Regardless of the specific use and size limits in the current PUD requirements, since
our focus is on creating standard mixed-use zoning districts, PUDs should no longer
be necessary for that. They may still be necessary for truly unusual projects that
standard districts cannot really anticipate, such as a large new stadium or outdoor
concert venue. They can also be used as the Purpose statement indicates: for the
opportunity they offer to receiv e public benefits in exchange for the flexibility that is
offered to the developer. Affordable housing is one frequent use for PUDs, as is
preservation of open space or the development of gated communities, but they can
also be allowed for developments that support other city goals such as historic
preservation, or sustainable or “green” development.
As we begin to draft updates to this section, we will work with City staff to finalize
direction related to the following considerations and recommendations:
[Page 66]
• Specify the extent to which PUDs should be used: freely, or in limited
circumstances?
• If limited to projects that offer public benefit in exchange for flexibility, what
are those public benefits?
• Decide how PUDs are recorded on a zoning map or otherwise so they can be
tracked over time
• Require that PUDs specify a base district, so that any standard not
specifically modified by the PUD proposal default s to the base district
standards (this helps to simplify administration of PUDs over time)
• Eliminate standard minimum acreage requirements and predetermined use
limitations
Consolidate and Adjust Land Use Allowances
Reorganize into a Single, Central Land Use Table
Title 17C currently has at least five separate land use tables: one for residential, one
for commercial, one for industrial, another for centers & corridors, and yet another
for Downtown. While it is convenient for code users to find uses among all the other
standards related to a certain category of uses, this organization into separate tables
has risks that updates to uses are not completed across all tables, leading to
inconsistencies and confusion over time. We think there is little sacrifice to
conveni ence, but significant enhancements to efficiency, in consolidating allowed
uses for base districts into a single table. Below is an image of a use table from
another community, showing how a consolidated table of allowed uses looks.
[Page 67]
Figure 8: Example Consolidated Use Table
Retain Land Use Category Approach, with Refinement & Reorganization
In Chapter 17C.190, Spokane defines a category approach to classify uses. Table 6
below shows the current categories and subcategories of uses. Each subcategory
has a description of the Characteristics of the uses in the subcategory, examples of
the uses in the subcategory, typical Accessory uses, and Exceptions.
This is an efficient approach to allowed uses, as it avoids a use table that tries – and
typically fails – to list separately every possible permutation of a given use. By
describing characteristics of a category, along with some common example uses,
there is some flexibility for assigning an unlisted use without the need to bring a text
amendment to the hearing examiner.
While our recommendation is to carry forward this structural approach to classifying
allowed uses, we do recommend some updates to the categories and subcategories.
These are noted as NEW in Table 6 below. We also recommend that any use subject
to use-specific standards be listed separately, and linked directly to the applicable
standards (see right column in Example Consolidated Use Table). This approach may
allow for elimination of Limited uses, since these are basically uses subject to specific
standards in certain contexts, which in turn would simplify tables by reducing the
reliance on Table Notes.
[Page 68]
TABLE 6: TITLE 17 USE CATEGORIES AND SUBCATEGORIES
CATEGORY SUBCATEGORIES NOTES ON USES
Residential Group Living
Household Living
Civic, Public, and Community Facilities Includes Community Services,
Institutional Daycare, Detention Center,
(NEW) Essential Public Facilities, Parks
and Open Areas, Religious
Institutions
Cultural Facilities Museums, Libraries
Educational Facilities Schools and Colleges become
uses, rather than subcategories
Health Care Facilities Medical Center uses are included
here
Commercial Adult Business
Food and Beverage Uses (NEW) Removes from Retail Sales and
Service.
Includes restaurants, bars, Mobile
Food Vending, and other related
uses such as catering and
commercial kitchens
Commercial Lodging (NEW) Removes uses like hotels and
short-term rentals from Retail
Sales and Service
Professional Services Removes Repair Services from
Retail Sales and Service
Includes Office uses
Personal Service and Instruction Removed from Retail Sales and
(NEW) Service
Recreation & Entertainment Includes Commercial Outdoor
Recreation and Major Event
Entertainment, along with other
recreation -related uses that were
included in
Retail Sales and Service Limited more narrowly to retail
sales of goods
Vehicle Repair Minor Vehicle Repair (replaces
Quick Vehicle Servicing)
Major Vehicle Repair
Transportation Aviation and Surface Passenger
and Utilities Terminals
(NEW) Basic Utilities
Commercial Parking
Public Parking Lot
Rail Lines and Utility Corridors
Railroad Yards
Wireless Communication
Facilities
[Page 69]
TABLE 6: TITLE 17 USE CATEGORIES AND SUBCATEGORIES
CATEGORY SUBCATEGORIES NOTES ON USES
Industrial High Impact Use The uses this encompasses could
be split among the other
categories, and approved by CU
Industrial Service The uses this encompasses could
be split among the other
categories, and approved by CU
Manufacturing and Production Mining could be included here, or
in there are other natural
resource extraction activities,
that can be a subcategory
Warehousing and Storage Includes Freight Movement and
Mini-storage Facilities
Waste and Salvage
Wholesale Sales
Other Accessory Uses Includes Drive -through Facility
Temporary Uses New
Agriculture and Aquaculture
Define Land Uses
Categories can be useful for consolidating similar uses, and giving representative
examples, but we still believe it is important to have definitions for specific uses. This
can help staff administering the code to explain why a doggie day care is permitted
in certain areas where a kennel is not. Precise definitions enable differentiation
between daycare centers and daycare homes, or accessory dwelling units versus
short-term rentals, and the difference between major and minor vehicle repair.
Essentially, clarity in definitions can eliminate confusion in permissions.
Create Use Specific Standards (USS) Section; Update Existing USS
Spokane currently has use-specific standards for a handful of existing uses, though
there is no dedicated section of the code for these. They generally start in Chapter
17C300, and run through 17C355A. When the code is reorganized, a section devoted
to use-specific standards will accompany the consolidated use table. This
consolidates all use -related information in one place, making it easy to find and
navigate.
The code update will involve a review of all existing use-specific standards, with
updates as necessary. Though few stakeholders mentioned issues with use-specific
standards, staff have indicated there maybe some possibility for adjustments and
edits to the existing standards. As one example, limiting home occupations to 25
percent of floor area or 200 square feet seems arbitrary, while completely
prohibiting it in an accessory structure is likely unnecessary.
[Page 70]
We also propose that Limited uses can be eliminated. These uses are noted as “L” in
the use tables, which then reference a section in each category of uses (Residential,
Commercial, Industrial, etc.) that contains the standards for the uses. The regulations
related to Limited uses are, effectively, use-specific standards, though in the current
organization, they are very far removed from where the other use-specific standards
are found. The current structure is both unnecessarily complicated, and repetitive.
These standards should be incorporated into the proposed use-specific standards
section, and linked using a standard cross -reference, which should eliminate the need
the “L” designation in the use table.
Finally, new use-specific standards should be drafted to allow more uses to be
permitted by -right, rather than undergoing a conditional use review. The point of
use-specific standards is effectively the same as a conditional use review: to
acknowledg e that a given use has the potential to impact neighboring development,
and to create conditions – or standards – that control for those impacts. While we
recognize that some uses will always require a higher-level review, some are subject
to fairly standard conditions that can be designated as requirements up front rather
than addressing them during a review process. Where we have seen use-specific
standards succeed for certain uses, we will propose for staff consideration some
options to reduce reliance on those more extensive reviews. This exercise also
facilitates the review of permissions in the use table, discussed next.
Review & Update Use Permissions
As described above, one focus of this task is to see whether some of the Conditional
Use approvals can be changed to by right use permissions. However, the reverse
may also be true, where existing permissions should change to be more limited. For
example, this could be changing distribution centers from P to C in certain districts.
Given the recent tendency for huge increases in the size of these facilities, and the
fact that, to reduce delivery times, they now often prefer to locate in or near
populated areas rather than in remote industrial zones, a distribution center may no
longer seem a good neighbor in some commercial zones. In such areas, they could
benefit from a conditional use review to control for the large amount of truck traffic
they generate, and their extended hours (not to mention their architectural
preferences for window-free featureless boxes).
FOCUS AREA 3: REFINE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
TOPICS COVERED
1. Tailor Design Standards to Context
2. Error! Reference source not found.
3. Add Detail to Landscaping and Expand Tree Preservation Incentives
4. Add Detail to Landscaping and Expand Tree Preservation Incentives
5. Landscaping is one of the primary ways a zoning code can promote
sustainability goals and objectives, in addition to the many other positive
[Page 71]
benefits related to privacy and aesthetics it can bring. An adequately
detailed landscaping section can speed up staff review time, while also
improving the predictability of landscaping outcomes. This is done by
focusing on the creation of specific and measurable landscaping
requirements, to clarify applicant responsibilities and allow decision -
making at the administrative level leading to shortened review times.
The following improvements should be considered when updating the LDC:
• Increase the overall limit for site landscaping.
• Replace vague and ill-defined standards with specific requirements.
• Focus on tree planting to enhance environmental benefits and property values.
• Expand incentives for tree preservation.
• Promote the “Spokanescape” incentive program, and look at ways to codify this as
desired landscaping.
Increase the overall limit for site landscaping
Section 17C.200.080, Maximum Landscaping Requirements. states that “In no case
shall these provisions require more than fifteen percent (15%) of the total site area to
be landscaped.” In our experience fifteen percent is a low threshold, particularly for
residential development in less urban contexts. We more often see requirements like
those specified in the table below from another community. In the City of Spokane,
small-scale residential (comprised of single dwellings up to and including all types of
middle housing) would be subject to the requirement that 100 percent of lot area not
covered by improvements (buildings, driveways, walkways) has to be landscaped,
which can be as simple as installing lawn, or other living ground cover.
Table 14-142: Minimum Percent Landscape Cover by Zoning District
Zoning District Minimum Percent Site Coverage
RM Residential Multi-Family 20
CX Commercial Mixed-Use 15
OX Office Mixed-Use 15
CG Commercial General 10
PCI Public, Civic, and Institutional 15
IX and IG Industrial Mixed-Use and Industrial General 5
Replace vague and ill -defined standards with specific requirements
A significant portion of the City’s current landscaping regulations are devoted to
screening requirements between differing zoning districts. While we think landscape
buffers used for screening is a good practice, the current regulations are both too
specific, and too general. We believe the description of what should be included in
the different levels of buffers should be more detailed, while the requirements for
when these screening buffers are installed should be simplified.
Here is an example of the current description for L1 screening buffer, the most
intense Spokane requires (we have highlighted provision that are vague and open to
interpretation):
[Page 72]
“L1 plantings are intended to provide a continuous visual screen between different
types of uses. … The planting strip shall include shrubs that will provide a continuous
screen at a minimum height of six feet within three years of planting. Trees shall be
included as necessary to provide continuous canopy and shall be spaced at intervals
resulting in touching of branches after ten years of normal growth.”
Here is how these requirements are phrased in another community, followed by a
typical illustration showing an overhead view of planting requirements for different
buffer intensities:
“A Level 3 Strong buffer shall be a minimum width of 25 feet. For every 100 feet of
buffer length, there shall be planted: 6 canopy plantings spaced a minimum of 15 feet
apart, interspersed with 5 understory plantings, and 20 shrubs. Trees shall be planted
on center, unless clustering or other arrangements are reviewed and approved by
the City Forester.”
Finally, we believe that buffers between nearly every district, as shown in Spokane’s
current table related to buffers between adjacent properties in Section
17C.200.040.B, Other Property Perimeters, are not always necessary. They probably
are not needed between districts of similar intensity, as in CB next to NR or OR.
Buffers should instead be focused on more incompatible juxtapositions, such as an
industrial zone adjacent to a multifamily zone. There should also be specified
exemptions, such as when GC i s abutting downtown, or when zones are separated
by a right-of-way, including an alley. In the course of the project, once the lineup of
zoning districts is updated, we will propose specific changes to this buffering section
that focus on simplifying or reducing instances when it is applied, while being more
precise in what live plantings different buffer levels entail.
Focus on tree planting to enhance environmental benefits
Spokane’s hottest summer on record occurred in 2021, with one day in July reaching
a record -breaking 109 degrees. In 2023, the city experienced the seventh hottest
summer on record, while 2024 was the fourth warmest. Over 36 percent of the city’s
top hottest years have occurred in the last decade, and the number of 100+ degree
days is also increasing. These increases are common in cities throughout the country,
and tend to be exacerbated in urban areas, due to the prevalence of hardscape such
as buildings, exposed parking areas, roads and sidewalks.
Increasing shade canopy is one of the most effective ways to mitigate such heat -
concentrating effects, and for that reason, the project team focuses on drafting
landscaping regulations that emphasize tree planting, rather than the planting of
shrubs and other ground covers that will not generate shade. We think this emphasis
is particularly important in parking lots, which are among the most p owerful
contributors to urban heat island effects. This will be a main focus for us in updating
both parking lot and general landscaping, accompanied by considerations of plants
that can withstand heat and drought, diversifying species planted to withstand mass
blight and die -off, and appropriate irrigation requirements, so that trees which are
planted to satisfy these regulations have a decent chance of survival.
Expand incentives for tree preservation
Mature, healthy trees provide both more immediate and much greater environmental
benefits than new plantings, and for that reason, we think it is important to offer
[Page 73]
incentives to maintain mature plantings (yes, including shrubs and groundcover too)
rather than always replacing them when there is new or redevelopment on a site.
Spokane has incentives for preservation of existing mature trees, and we think this is
a good start. We would like to expand the applicability of these regulations, as well
as increasing the extent of incentive offered for preservation. We think it is also
important to add more detailed standards for tree preservation during construction
activities than are currently included in Section 17C.200.130, Guarding against
Damage from Construction Work. Rather than referring to an Arboricultural Manual
which may or may not apply, it is common for codes to include requirements for
fencing that protects the tree area drip line, which in turn protects the roots.
6. Carry Forward Signs Standards Subject to Minor Revision as Needed
7. Draft Citywide Outdoor Lighting
Tailor Design Standards to Context
• Consolidate standards for all types of development into one section, rather than
spreading out in different chapters according to zoning district.
• Simplify: eliminate distinction between requirement, presumption, and
consideration. Generally, a zoning code contains requirements – what is a matter
of policy or preference (e.g., a guideline) belongs outside the code. While
Spokane’s presumptions offer flexibility for a developer or applicant in meeting a
standard – a very good practice – they do not need to be called out b y a separate
name. These are still requirements, and can be labeled as such. Considerations
should not be included in the code, but can be incorporated into the various
guidelines documents the City maintains.
• Revisit extent of requirements in some districts, and focus on “high impact” areas.
In our experience, it is uncommon to apply any but basic standards to single -
family and middle housing units. Requirements for these types of structures are
generally limited to an entrance facing the street, basic landscaping standards,
and limitations o n extent of garage door facing the street. Likewise, smaller
multifamily and industrial development often have limited requirements as well.
After discussion with staff, we would like to focus on refining standards in the
highest impact areas: downtown, along gateways or entrance corridors to the
city, in historic areas, along TOD corridors, and in centers. Limited and less
restrictive standards can be maintained in other areas. While we think this is a
workable idea for Spokane, we are concerned that such a change may provoke
opposition from staff or the community, and would like to discuss further before
moving ahead with this recommendation.
[Page 74]
Ensure Applicable Standards Are Proportional to Complexity of Infill and
Redevelopment Requests
Stakeholders spoke frequently about infill and redevelopment in the City. They did
not, however, focus on particular impediments to making this kind of development
happen. In our own review, we find that Spokane’s small lot sizes and fairly
permissive dimensional standards should function well for this type of development.
However, we have heard that application of certain other requirements can pose a
problem. For instance, if a change of use wants to remodel and occupy an existing
structure, there is a qu estion of what level of compliance with other regulations
should be required for this relatively simple request. Should such a request have to
bring substandard landscaping into compliance, remove or replace nonconforming
signs, and update access, potentially including replacing curb, gutter, and sidewalk?
We say no: such overreaching requirements can ensure properties that otherwise
might be attractive for re -use remain vacant. We will work with staff to understand
where such issues arise, and revise applicable infill and redevelopment requirements
to be more in proportion to the extent of change being proposed on a lot.
Add Detail to Landscaping and Expand Tree Preservation Incentives
Landscaping is one of the primary ways a zoning code can promote sustainability
goals and objectives, in addition to the many other positive benefits related to
privacy and aesthetics it can bring. An adequately detailed landscaping section can
speed up staff review time, while also improving the predictability of landscaping
outcomes. This is done by focusing on the creation of specific and measurable
landscaping requirements, to clarify applicant responsibilities and allow decision -
making at the administrative level leading to shortened review times.
The following improvements should be considered when updating the LDC:
• Increase the overall limit for site landscaping.
• Replace vague and ill-defined standards with specific requirements.
• Focus on tree planting to enhance environmental benefits and property values.
• Expand incentives for tree preservation.
• Promote the “Spokanescape” incentive program, and look at ways to codify this as
desired landscaping.
Increase the overall limit for site landscaping
Section 17C.200.080, Maximum Landscaping Requirements. states that “In no case
shall these provisions require more than fifteen percent (15%) of the total site area to
be landscaped.” In our experience fifteen percent is a low threshold, particularly for
residential development in less urban contexts. We more often see requirements like
those specified in the table below from another community. In the City of Spokane,
small-scale residential (comprised of single dwellings up to and including all types of
middle housing) would be subject to the requirement that 100 percent of lot area not
[Page 75]
covered by improvements (buildings, driveways, walkways) has to be landscaped,
which can be as simple as installing lawn, or other living ground cover.
Table 14-142: Minimum Percent Landscape Cover by Zoning District
Zoning District Minimum Percent Site Coverage
RM Residential Multi-Family 20
CX Commercial Mixed-Use 15
OX Office Mixed-Use 15
CG Commercial General 10
PCI Public, Civic, and Institutional 15
IX and IG Industrial Mixed-Use and Industrial General 5
Replace vague and ill -defined standards with specific requirements
A significant portion of the City’s current landscaping regulations are devoted to
screening requirements between differing zoning districts. While we think landscape
buffers used for screening is a good practice, the current regulations are both too
specific, and too general. We believe the description of what should be included in
the different levels of buffers should be more detailed, while the requirements for
when these screening buffers are installed should be simplified.
Here is an example of the current description for L1 screening buffer, the most
intense Spokane requires (we have highlighted provision that are vague and open to
interpretation):
“L1 plantings are intended to provide a continuous visual screen between different
types of uses. … The planting strip shall include shrubs that will provide a continuous
screen at a minimum height of six feet within three years of planting. Trees shall be
included as necessary to provide continuous canopy and shall be spaced at intervals
resulting in touching of branches after ten years of normal growth.”
Here is how these requirements are phrased in another community, followed by a
typical illustration showing an overhead view of planting requirements for different
buffer intensities:
[Page 76]
“A Level 3 Strong buffer shall be a minimum width of 25 feet. For every 100 feet of
buffer length, there shall be planted: 6 canopy plantings spaced a minimum of 15 feet
apart, interspersed with 5 understory plantings, and 20 shrubs. Trees shall be planted
on center, unless clustering or other arrangements are reviewed and approved by the
City Forester.”
Figure 9: Sample Buffer Intensity Illustration
Finally, we believe that buffers between nearly every district, as shown in Spokane’s
current table related to buffers between adjacent properties in Section
17C.200.040.B, Other Property Perimeters, are not always necessary. They probably
are not needed between districts of similar intensity, as in CB next to NR or OR.
Buffers should instead be focused on more incompatible juxtapositions, such as an
industrial zone adjacent to a multifamily zone. There should also be specified
exemptions, such as when GC i s abutting downtown, or when zones are separated by
a right-of-way, including an alley. In the course of the project, once the lineup of
zoning districts is updated, we will propose specific changes to this buffering section
that focus on simplifying or reducing instances when it is applied, while being more
precise in what live plantings different buffer levels entail.
Focus on tree planting to enhance environmental benefits
Spokane’s hottest summer on record occurred in 2021, with one day in July reaching
a record -breaking 109 degrees. In 2023, the city experienced the seventh hottest
[Page 77]
summer on record, while 2024 was the fourth warmest. Over 36 percent of the city’s
top hottest years have occurred in the last decade, and the number of 100+ degree
days is also increasing. These increases are common in cities throughout the country,
and tend to be exacerbated in urban areas, due to the prevalence of hardscape such
as buildings, exposed parking areas, roads and sidewalks.
Figure 10: Parking Lot Landscaping Example Graphic
Increasing shade canopy is one of the most effective ways to mitigate such heat -
concentrating effects, and for that reason, the project team focuses on drafting
landscaping regulations that emphasize tree planting, rather than the planting of
shrubs and other ground covers that will not generate shade. We think this emphasis
is particularly important in parking lots, which are among the most p owerful
contributors to urban heat island effects. This will be a main focus for us in updating
both parking lot and general landscaping, accompanied by considerations of plants
that can withstand heat and drought, diversifying species planted to withstand mass
blight and die -off, and appropriate irrigation requirements, so that trees which are
planted to satisfy these regulations have a decent chance of survival.
[Page 78]
Expand incentives for tree preservation
Mature, healthy trees provide both more immediate and much greater environmental
benefits than new plantings, and for that reason, we think it is
important to offer incentives to maintain mature plantings (yes,
including shrubs and groundcover too) rather than always
replacing them when there is new or redevelopment on a site.
Spokane has incentives for preservation of existing mature
trees, and we think this is a good start. We would like to expand
the applicability of these regulations, as well as increasing the
extent of incentive offered for preservation. We think it is also
important to add more detailed standards for tree preservation
during construction activities than are currently included in
Section 17C.200.130, Guarding against Damage from
Construction Work. Rather than referring to an Arboricultural
Manual which may or may not apply, it is common for codes to
Figure 11: Drip Line
include requirements for fencing that protects the tree area drip
line, which in turn protects the roots.
Carry Forward Signs Standards Subject to Minor Revision as Needed
Spokane’s sign standards have clearly been revised to comply with federal court
decisions regarding content neutrality; thus the regulations focus on “time, place, and
manner,” as is still permitted by law. This essentially means the City is focusing its
regulations on the type of sign that is allowed, how large it can be and how many are
allowed, and where as well as how long it may be displayed. There are also tables
and illustrations throughout the section to help users understand what is allowed for
properties in various zoning districts. Further, the section includes standards for
newer, more modern sign types, including electronic message display.
Altogether, we generally find that this section already complies with many of the
recommendations we would make in terms of best practices. Therefore, we propose
the following approach:
• Carry forward existing Signs Chapter content, subject to minor edits and
reorganization
• Work with staff to identify any problems with existing standards – do standard
regulations not work well in certain areas, for example, historic districts? Are
there sign types or standards that consistently cause issues; for example,
standards for brightness are too low, or size allowance for wall signs is too low?
• Include a temporary signs section.
Draft Citywide Outdoor Lighting Standards
We find that lighting is addressed in two locations in the current code: first, as part of
Chapter 17G.070 Planned Unit Developments, Section 17G.070.150 Lighting; and then
[Page 79]
as part of design standards for the Great Gorge district. In our experience, it is more
common to have lighting standards that are applicable citywide, and then tailored for
certain district areas, such as along the Spokane River Gorge. We would thus suggest
a new lighting section that includes standard elements such as brightness allowance
by zone, type and temperature of allowed lighting, as well as any light types that are
prohibited, common exceptions (holiday lighting), and exemptions (sports fields).
Lighting standards can be very detailed and complicated, and require substantial
staff knowledge and time for reviewing detailed photometric plans. However, basic
standards can go a long way to ensuring that lighting provides adequate illumination
for safety at the ground level, while preventing light pollution into the sky. It is this
extent of basic regulation that we recommend for Spokane.
FOCUS AREA 4: CREATE A MORE USER-FRIENDLY CODE
Many of the recommendations provided so far in this Assessment focus on clarifying
the City’s existing procedures, zoning districts and allowed uses, and development
standards. In addition to content-related changes, this section offers several
recommendations to improve the overall usability of the code by making it easier to
understand, navigate, and administer.
TOPICS COVERED
1. Adopt New On-Line Platform for Easier Access to the SDC
2. Reorganize Land Development Regulations
3. Standardize and Simplify the Numbering Hierarchy
4. Ensure LDC Updates and Revisions are Drafted Using Plain Language
5. Improve Graphic and Photo Illustrations
Adopt New On-Line Platform for Easier Access to the SDC
For the average code -user, Title 17 is particularly difficult to use because of the way
its content is currently accessed through the City’s website. There are several
reasons for this:
• The online version does not include a searchable Table of Contents for the
complete SDC, or its component Titles and Chapters
• Results fr om the search function are very often not helpful
• There are no clear instructions for how to view an entire Chapter, or even
more than one Section at a time -- the user must figure out on their own to
“Select All ” then “View Selected ”
• There are nearly a hundred Chapters in Title 17, and literally thousands of
sections, many of which are only one sentence long
[Page 80]
Spokane staff are aware of these shortcomings and researching the possibility of
transferring the code to an online codifi cation site. Whether the City proceeds with
that step or not, this assessment’s recommendations to reorganize and consolidate
much of the LDC’s current content will also greatly improve the code’s on-line
navigability and user -friendliness.
Reorganize Land Development Regulations
Given the large number of Chapters and Sections in Title 17, the current organization
can be overwhelming and very difficult to navigate, especially for the average
homeowner, property owner, or business owner who needs to access the code
infrequently.
The project team proposes a substantial LDC reorganization that will consolidate
Chapters and Sections by common subject, reducing the overall number of chapters
and sections under higher-level headings. This should help to streamline the
hierarchical structure of information and make it more logical. Once the revised LDC
is uploaded to the new codifier, a functional search option will also be valuable in
helping users find information.
The current LDC lists broad subject areas at the “Title” level, and then dives into a
mix of regulations, procedures, definitions, and standards spread across multiple
Chapters and Sections, which again makes the code difficult to navigate. For
example, one chapter in the LDC is devoted to sign regulations; however, additional
sign regulations are found in each of the chapters on zoning districts. This is
confusing at best and could result in someone missing applicable regulations in their
sign permit application. Having similar or related provisions in different parts of the
LDC also increases the potential for generating conflicting provisions, when
information is in one code location is updated, but not updated in other locations.
We believe reorganiz ing the LDC into a more condensed and logical s equence and
hierarchy of title, chapter, and sections will improve its readability and overall user-
friendliness. For more detailed information on t he proposed LDC reorganization, with
user comprehension and navigation top of mind, refer to the Detailed Outline in Part
4 of this assessment.
Standardize and Simplify the Numbering Hierarchy
The current content outline and numbering scheme in Title 17 and its sub -parts is
internally inconsistent and departs from the numbering scheme used in the other
titles of the Spokane Municipal Code (SMC). The outline/ numbering scheme in Title
17 does not even follow Spokane’s own ordinance on how content should be
organized and numbered in the municipal code. This code update will prioritize a
consistent numbering scheme that is logical, sequential, and matches title and
section organization and numbering in other SMC chapters.
[Page 81]
The table below provides an example of how proposed changes in the LDC
numbering hierarchy are different from the current scheme. The proposed scheme
changes numbering to better align with other SMC chapters and simplifies
numbering to be more sequential and logical.
Table 7: Current and Proposed Numbering Schemes
Current Numbering Scheme in Title 17
TITLE 17A- I UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE
Title 17A - Administration
Chapter 17A.010 – General Administration
Section 17A.010.002 – Intent and Purpose
Section 17A.010.004 – Title
Section 17A.010.010 – Source
Section 17A.010.020 – General Purpose
Proposed Numbering Scheme in LDC
TITLE 17 LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE
Chapter 17.01 Administration
Section 17.01.010 Title
Section 17.01.0 20 – Purpose and Intent
Section 17.01.0 20.A Purpose
Section 17.01.0 20.B Intent
Chapter 17.02 Zoning Districts
Section 17.02.010 Residential Zoning Districts
Section 17.02.020 Mixed -Use Zoning Districts
Ensure LDC Updates and Revisions are Drafted Using Plain Language
Both Washington State policy and best zoning practice converge on the
responsibility of government to ensure public information, including the content of
complex land development and zoning laws, is accessible and easy to understand.
Using “plain language” in the Spokane LDC, rather than using jargon, convoluted
sentence structure or run-on sentences, or legalese comes with a host of benefits,
including:
• Creating a more efficient, positive and inclusive customer experience with the
LDC.
• Ensuring the code is easy to understand and minimizes confusion, errors, and
disputes; i.e., improving compliance with the code.
[Page 82]
• Easing translation of the code for non-English readers and more easily
supporting screen-readers, captions, and other language access tools.
• Demonstrat ing respect for the code -user and their time.
The current LDC does a good job of using fairly simple and straightforward language
in its rules (much better than many codes this project team has seen!). In all revisions
and updates to the LDC, the project team will carry forward this good practice with
drafting all new content and will seek additional opportunities to improve current
code provisions using plain language techniques and best practices.
Improve Graphic and Photo Illustrations
Spokane’s current code has numerous photos and illustrations to help users
understand the concepts in the text. This is good practice; however, the size of the
images is very small, and the resolution is often so poor that it is not possible to
discern what the image seeks to convey. It is often not possible to make these
images larger – for example, by clicking on them – and if they are enlarged the image
quality often declines further into illegibility. Below are some examples.
There is great value in using photos, illustrations, and tables to help code users
understand complicated and often technical content and requirements. Therefore,
we will work on replacing the current images and adding new ones of higher quality,
along with adding or updating existing tables as necessary. Here are some examples
of how tables and illustrations are used in other the project team codes.
Illustrating Zoning District Standards
District diagrams can communicate the intended scale and form of a zoning district
while also including key information related to lot and building standards, such as lot
area, lot width, building setbacks, and height requirements. Below is a zoning district
graphic, and the accompanying district dimensional table. The letters on the graphic
correspond to table rows.
[Page 83]
[Page 84]
Illustrating Development Standards
Development standards graphics may include tables for parking requirements,
illustrations of outdoor lighting requirements, and diagrams depicting rules of
measurement and site layout standards.
[Page 85]
Illustrating Administration and Procedures
Process -related flowcharts can clarify (and visually
communicate) the specific review process steps for
approval of different development applications required
under the LDC. See example at right.
[Page 86]
PART 4: DETAILED OUTLINE
The following table provides an overview of the proposed structure of the new
Spokane Development Code and demonstrates where the current standards under
Title 17 will be relocated. At the bottom of the table is a list of existing sections not
intended to be carried forward. This outline addresses the issues identified in Focus
Area 4 of this Assessment. It is an important tool that provides us with a framework
to draft the new development regulations and establishes an organizing framework
for continued discussion with the City.
Table 8: Detailed Outline of Proposed Code Organization
PROPOSED CURRENT
Chapter 17.01 Administration Title 17A.010 General Administration
01.010 Title Section 17A.010.004 Title
01.020 Authority Section 17A.010.010 Source of the Code
01.030 Applicability Section 17A.010.025 Scope and Application
Section 17A.010.002 Intent and Purpose
01.040 Purpose
Section 17A.010.020 General Purpose
01.050 Compliance Required 17A.010.030 Responsibility of Owners
01.060 Minimum Standards Section 17A.010.025 Scope and Application
01.070 Conflicting Provisions Section 17A.010.050 Conflict between
Chapters
01.080 Transition Rules
080.A Repeal of Title 17A through I
080.B Replacement
Chapter 17A.030 Transition to Title 17 Land
080.C Adoption of Existing Conditions
Use Regulations
of Approval
080.D Prior Development Approvals
080.E Pending Applications
080.F Prior Violations
01.090 Savings and Severability Section 17A.010.120 Saving
Section 17A.010.110 Severability
01.100 Violations, Enforcement, and Penalties Title 17I Enforcement
Section 17C.010.010 Penalty
Section 17C.305.030 Enforcement
Section 17C.310.170 Penalty
17.02 Nonconformities
02.010 Purpose
02.020 Applicability
Section 17C.240.280 Nonconforming Signs
02.030 Nonconforming Structures
Section 17C.315.160 Pre-established Bed &
02.040 Nonconforming Lots
Breakfast Facilities
02.050 Nonconforming Uses
Section 17C.320.030 Automatic Conditional
02.060 Nonconforming Site Features
Use Status
060A Landscaping
060B Lighting
[Page 87]
060C Parking
060D Other Site Features
02.070 Nonconforming Signs
Chapter 17.03 Zoning Districts
03.010 General Zoning District Standards Section 17A.040.010 Classification of Zoning
010.A Zoning Districts Established Districts
010.B Official Zoning Map Section 17A.040.020 Establishment of Map
010.C Interpretation of Zoning Map and Text
010.D Adjustments and Exceptions Section 17A.040.040 Amendments to Map and
Text
Section 17A.040.050 Interpretation of the
Zoning Map
03.020 Residential Zoning Districts
Section 17C.111.010 Purpose
Section 17C.111.020 List of the Residential
Zones
Section 17C.111.030 Characteristics of
Residential Zones
Section 17C.111.040 Other Zoning Standards
Section 17C.111.200 Lot Size and Dimensions
Section 17C.111.125 Nuisance -related Impacts
Section 17C.111.205 Development Standards
Tables
Section 17C.111.210 Density
Section 17C.111.220 Building Coverage &
Impervious Coverage
Section 17C.111.230 Height
Section 17C.111.235 Setbacks
Section 17C.111.240 Accessory Structures
Section 17C.111.255 Parking, Demolitions, Signs,
& Other Applicable Standards
Section 17C.111.225 Development Bonuses
Section 17C.111.310 Open Space
Section 17C.111.420 Open Spaces
03.030 Mixed -Use Zoning Districts
Chapter 17C.122 Center and Corridor Zones
Section 17C.122.010 Intent
Section 17C.122.020 Types of
Centers/Corridors
Section 17C.122.030 Pedestrian Street
Designations
Section 17C.122.040 Historic Special Valuation
Tax Incentive
Section 17C.122.090 Public Amenities Allowing
Bonus Height
Section 17C.122.200 Development Standards
Table
Section 17C.122.210 Height
Section 17C.122.230 Floor Area Ratio
Section 17C.122.240 Setbacks
Chapter 17C.123 Form -Based Code Zones
Section 17C.123.010 Purpose
[Page 88]
Section 17C.123.020 Context Area and Store
Front Designations
Section 17C.123.030 Building Form
Section 17C.123.040 Permitted Uses
Section 17C.123.050 Parking and Pedestrian
Connectivity
Section 17C.123.060 Streetscape
Requirements
Section 17C.123.070 Design Standards
Section 17C.123.080 Additional Requirements
Chapter 17C.124 Downtown Zones
Section 17C.124.010 Purpose
Section 17C.124.020 List of the Downtown
Zones
Section 17C.124.030 Characteristics of
Downtown Zones
Section 17C.124.035 Characteristics of
Downtown Complete Street Designations
Section 17C.124.040 Other Zoning Standards
Section 17C.124.130 Nuisance -related Impacts
Section 17C.124.200 Dimensional Standards
Section 17C.124.210 Floor to Area Ratio
Section 17C.124.220 Height & Massing
Section 17C.124.230 Structure Setbacks,
Sidewalks, and Street Trees
03.040 Commercial and Industrial Zoning
Districts
Section 17C.120.010 Purpose
Section 17C.120.020 List of the Commercial
Zones
Section 17C.120.030 Characteristics of
Commercial Zones
Section 17C.120.040 Other Zoning Standards
Section 17C.120.130 Nuisance -related Impacts
Section 17C.120.200 Lot Size
Section 17C.120.210 Floor Area Ratio
Section 17C.120.220 Height
Section 17C.120.230 Setbacks and Sidewalks
Section 17C.120.280 Additional Requirements
in the NMU Zone
03.050 Special Zoning Districts
New
03.060 Overlay Zoning Districts
060.A Airfield Overlay Section 17C.180.010 Purpose and Intent
Section 17C.180.020 Applicability
Section 17C.180.040 Airfield Overlay Zone
Boundaries
Section 17C.180.060 Height Restrictions
Section 17C.180.100 Development Standards
[Page 89]
North River Overlay DO NOT CARRY FORWARD:
Section 17C.160.010 North River Overlay
(NRO)
Section 17C.160.020 Views, Vistas and Site
Coverage Design
Section 17C.160.030 Pedestrian Views and
Access Design
060.B Special Height Overlay Section 17C.170.010 Purpose
Section 17C.170.100 Location
Section 17C.170.110 Maximum Height
060.C Military Airspace Overlay Section 17C.170.010 Purpose
Section 17C.170.100 Location
Section 17C.170.110 Maximum Height
Section 17C.182.010 Purpose and Intent
Section 17C.182.020 Applicability
Section 17C.182.030 Declaration – Appropriate
Protection
Section 17C.182.100 Military Airspace
Established
Section 17C.182.110 Height Restrictions
Section 17C.182.120 Administrative Height
Exceptions
Section 17C.182.200 Military Influence Areas
(MIA) Established
Section 17C.182.210 MIA 3/4 Regulations Based
on Washington State Airport Compatibility
Guidelines
Section 17C.182.230 Review of Permitted Uses
and Conditional Use Permits Locating in MIA
3/4 – Application of Reasonable Conditions
Section 17C.182.260 Conflict with Underlying
Zone Requirements
Section 17C.182.300 Noise Impact Area
Established
Section 17C.182.310 Application to New,
Existing Structures, Additions and Changes of
Use
Section 17C.182.320 Noise Reduction Features
and Materials Required
Section 17C.182.330 Details for Plans and
Specifications
Section 17C.182.400 Accident Potential Zones
Established
Section 17C.182.410 APZ Permitted and
Prohibited Uses
Section 17C.182.430 Review of Permitted Uses
Locating in the Clear Zone, APZ -I and APZ -II –
Application of Reasonable Conditions
Section 17C.182.440 General Use Restrictions –
Clear Zone, APZ -I and APZ -II
Section 17C.182.450 Clear Zone Special
Considerations
[Page 90]
Section 17C.182.500 Bird – Aircraft Strike
Hazard Requirement
Section 17C.182.600 Fairchild AFB Review
Required in the MIA 2 and 3/4
Section 17C.182.700 Avigation Easement
Required in MIA 2 and 3/4
Section 17C.182.800 Notification of Military
Aircraft Activity Required in MIA 2 and 3/4
Section 17C.182.810 Real Estate Lease Notice
Required
Section 17C.182.900 Exemptions
03.070 Planned Unit Development Chapter 17G.070 Planned Unit Developments
Section 17G.070.010 Purpose
Section 17G.070.020 Applicability
Section 17G.070.030 Development Standards
Section 17G.070.100 Design Standards
Section 17G.070.115 Plan and Code
Conformance
Section 17G.070.120 Significant Features
Section 17G.070.125 Site Preparation
Section 17G.070.130 Landscaping
Section 17G.070.135 Compatibility with
Surrounding Areas
Section 17G.070.140 Community Environment
Section 17G.070.145 Circulation
Section 17G.070.150 Lighting
Section 17G.070.200 Application Process
Section 17G.070.210 Time Limits
Section 17G.070.220 Vesting
17.04 Allowed Uses
Section 17C.111.100 Residential Zone Primary
Uses
Section 17C.111.115 Housing Types Allowed
Section 17C.111.120 Accessory Uses
Section 17C.120.100 Commercial Zones
Primary Uses
Section 17C.120.120 Accessory Uses
Section 17C.122.070 Center and Corridor Zone
Allowed Uses
Section 17C.123.040 Permitted Uses
Section 17C.124.100 Downtown Zones Primary
Uses
Section 17C.124.120 Accessory Uses
Section 17C.180.030 Exemptions
Section 17C.180.050 General Use Restrictions
Section 17C.180.070 Compatibility Use
Categories
Section 17C.180.080 Airfield Overlay
Compatible Uses
Section 17C.182.220 Compatible Uses and
Densities – MIA 3/4
Section 17C.182.240 General Use Restrictions –
MIA 3/4
[Page 91]
Section 17C.182.250 Exemptions – MIA 3/4
Section 17C.182.410 APZ Permitted and
Prohibited Uses
Section 17C.182.440 General Use Restrictions –
Clear Zone, APZ -I and APZ -II
Chapter 17C.190 Use Category Descriptions
17.05 Use-Specific Standards
Limited Uses will not be carried forward as a DO NOT CARRY FORWARD:
category; however; each limited use will be Section 17C.120.110 Limited Use Standards
accounted for in general use-specific Section 17C.124.110 Limited Use Standards
standards, categorized as shown below. Section 17C.180.090 Limited Use Standards
Section 17C.182.420 Limited Use Standards
05.010 Residential Use -Specific Standards Section 17C.111.250 Exterior Storage –
010. A Household Living Residential Zones
010.B Group Living Chapter 17C.300 Accessory Dwelling Units
Chapter 17C.345 Manufactured Homes and
Mobile Home Parks (except 17C.345.130)
05.020 Public, Civic, and Institutional Use -
Specific Standards
Section 17C.120.270 Outdoor Activities
Section 17C.120.290 Drive-through Facilities
Section 17C.120.300 Detached Accessory
Structures
Section 17C.122.160 Drive-through Facilities
Section 17C.124.270 Outdoor Activities
Section 17C.124.290 Drive-through Facilities
Section 17C.124.300 Detached Accessory
Structures
Section 17C.182.450 Clear Zone Special
Considerations
Section 17C.220.090 Vehicle Repair, Quick
Vehicle Servicing and Drive -through Facilities
Section 17C.240.260 Additional Standards for
Specific Uses
Chapter 17C.305 Adult Business (except
17C.305.030)
Chapter 17C.310 Animal Keeping (except
17C.310.170)
Chapter 17C.315 Bed and Breakfast (except
17C.315.160)
Chapter 17C.316 Short Term Rentals (except
17C.316.020 and 0.08)
Chapter 17C.319 Commercial Vehicle Use and
Recreational Camping (except 17C.319.100)
Chapter 17C.320 Conditional Uses (except
17C.320.030, 0.070 and.080)
Chapter 17C.325 Drive-through Facilities
(except 17C.325.050)
Chapter 17C.340 Home Occupations (except
17C.340.100 and 120)
[Page 92]
Chapter 17C.347 Regulations for State -
Licensed Marijuana Producers, Processors and
Retailers (except 17C.347.020)
Chapter 17C.348 Zoning Standards for Off -
Premises Alcohol Outlets (except
17C.348.020)
Chapter 17C.350 Mini-storage Facilities
Section 17C.355A.030 Towers
Section 17C.355A.040 Collocation of
Antennas, DAS, and Small Cells
Section 17C.355A.050 Tower Sharing,
Collocation and Preferred Tower Locations
Section 17C.355A.070 General Development
Standards Applicable to WCFs
Section 17C.355A.110 Maintenance
Section 17C.355A.120 Discontinuation of Use
Section 17C.355A.140 Exempt Facilities
Section 17C.370.020 Applicability
Section 17C.380.010 Market Garden Pilot
Program
17.06 Design Standards
Section 17C.111.015 Design Standards
Administration
Section 17C.111.300 Single -Unit Residential and
Middle Housing Design Standards
Section 17C.230.310 Exterior Design of Parking
Structures – Building Design
Chapter 17C.250 Tall Building Standards
Section 17C.250.010 Purpose of Tall Building
Standards
Section 17C.250.030 Treatment of Blank Walls
on Tall Buildings – Building Design
Section 17C.250.040 Roof Forms for Tall
Buildings – Building Design
Chapter 17C.255 Skywalks
Section 17C.255.510 Windows – Building
Design
Section 17C.255.515 Enclosure – Building
Design
Section 17C.255.520 Articulation – Building
Design
Section 17C.255.010 Purpose
Section 17C.255.525 Angulation and Slope
Section 17C.255.530 Dimensions
17.07 Historic Preservation
Chapter 17D.100 Historic Preservation
17.08 Development Standards
08.010 Purpose Section 17A.060.030 Pre-existing Agreements
08.020 Applicability Section 17C.111.545 Transition Between
08.030 Development Agreements Institutional and Residential Development
08.040 Residential Adjacency Section 17C.122.220 Height Transition
[Page 93]
08.020 Access, Mobility, and Circulation Section 17C.111.340 Pedestrian Connectivity
Section 17C.111.410 Sidewalks
Section 17C.111.415 Pedestrian Connections
Section 17C.111.535 Curb Cut Limitations
Section 17C.111.540 Pedestrian Connections in
Parking Lots
Section 17C.120.260 Pedestrian Standards
Section 17C.122.250 Sidewalks
Section 17C.124.280 Site Access and Curb
Cuts
08.030 Off-Street Parking and Loading Section 17C.111.335 Parking Facilities
Section 17C.111.465 Parking Structures
Section 17C.120.340 Parking and Loading
Section 17C.122.120 Parking and Loading
Section 17C.124.340 Parking and Loading
Section 17C.230.010 Introduction
Section 17C.230.020 Vehicle Parking Summary
Table
Section 17C.230.100 General Standards
Section 17C.230.110 Minimum Required Parking
Spaces
Section 17C.230.120 Maximum Required
Parking Spaces
Section 17C.230.130 Parking Exceptions
Section 17C.230.140 Development Standards
Section 17C.230.145 Development Standards
for Residential Uses
Section 17C.230.200 Bicycle Parking
Section 17C.230.300 Loading
Section 17C.319.100 Commercial Use of
Residential Streets
Section 17C.325.050 Stacking Lane Standards
08.040 Landscaping, Screening, and Section 17C.111.305 Landscaping
Fences Section 17C.111.330 Screening
Section 17C.111.425 Screening
Section 17C.111.430 Landscaped Areas
Section 17C.111.435 Street Trees
Section 17C.111.525 Landscaped Areas
Section 17C.111.530 Street Trees
Section 17C.111.575 Screening
Section 17C.120.240 Landscaped Areas
Section 17C.120.250 Screening
Section 17C.122.130 Landscaping and
Screening
Section 17C.124.240 Landscaped Areas
Section 17C.124.250 Screening
Chapter 17C.200 Landscaping and Screening
Section 17C.111.245 Fences
Section 17C.120.310 Fences
Section 17C.124.310 Fences
Section 17C.122.135 Fences
08.050 Outdoor Lighting Section 17C.111.520 Lighting
08.060 Performance Standards Chapter 17C.220 Off -site Impacts
[Page 94]
Section 17C.220.010 Purpose
Section 17C.220.020 Documentation in
Advance
Section 17C.220.030 Applying These
Standards
Section 17C.220.040 Exemptions
Section 17C.220.050 Relationship to Other
Standards
Section 17C.220.060 Noise
Section 17C.220.070 Odor
Section 17C.220.080 Glare
17.09 Signs
Section 17C.120.350 Signs
Section 17C.122.150 Signs
Section 17C.124.350 Signs
Section 17C.240.010 Intent and Purpose
Section 17C.240.025 Applicability and
Interpretations
Section 17C.240.030 Hierarchy of Regulations
Section 17C.240.060 Exemptions
Section 17C.240.070 Prohibitions
Section 17C.240.120 Measurements
Section 17C.240.130 Primary Building Walls
Section 17C.240.140 Sign Face Area
Section 17C.240.150 Sign Heights and
Clearances
Section 17C.240.180 Diagonal Corner Signs
Section 17C.240.210 Uses, Use Categories, and
Structure Types
Section 17C.240.220 Standards in Residential
Zones
Section 17C.240.230 Standards in the
Commercial and Industrial Zones
Section 17C.240.240 Sign Placement and
Location Restrictions
Section 17C.240.241 Building Mounted Wall
Signs
Section 17C.240.242 Roof-Mounted Signs
Section 17C.240.243 Freestanding Signs
Section 17C.240.244 Temporary Signs
Section 17C.240.245 Sandwich Board Signs
Section 17C.240.246 Community Banners
Section 17C.240.247 Electronic Message
Center Signs
Section 17C.240.250 Off-premises Signs
Section 17C.240.270 Additional Standards in
Shoreline Districts
17.10 Environmental Standards
Chapter 17E.010 Critical Aquifer Recharge
Areas – Aquifer Protection
Chapter 17E.020 Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Areas
Chapter 17E.030 Floodplain Management
[Page 95]
Chapter 17E.040 Spokane Geologically
Hazardous Areas
Chapter 17E.050 SEPA
Chapter 17E.060 Shoreline Regulations
Chapter 17E.070 Wetlands Protection
17.11 Subdivision Design Standards
Section 17G.080.070 Subdivision Design
Standards
Chapter 17D.050A Roadway Naming and
Addressing
17.12 Construction Standards
Title 17F Construction Standards
17.13 Engineering Standards
Chapter 17D.020 Financial Guarantees
Chapter 17D.060 Stormwater Facilities
Chapter 17D.075 Transportation Impact Fees
Chapter 17D.080 Voluntary Impact Fees
Chapter 17D.090 Erosion and Sediment
Control
Title 17H Engineering Standards
17.14 Development Review Procedures
14.010 Common Review Procedures Chapter 17D.010 Concurrency Certification
Chapter 17G.061 Land Use Application
Procedures
Chapter 17G.010 Building and Construction
Permits
Section 17G.040.020 Development and
Applications Subject to Design Review
Section 17G.040.030 Projects Exempt from
Design Review
Section 17G.040.040 Design Review Criteria
Section 17G.040.050 Design Review Process
Section 17G.040.070 Neighborhood
Notification
Section 17G.040.080 Design Review Board
Recommendations
Section 17G.040.090 Vesting
Section 17G.040.100 Expiration of Application
Chapter 17G.050 Hearing Examiner Article II
Procedures
Section 17G.050.310 Right of Appeal
14.020 Application -Specific Review Chapter 17A.050 Interpretations and Minor
Procedures Adjustments
020A Administrative Decisions Section 17A.060.010 Development
O20B Public Hearing Decisions Agreements Authorized
020C Subdivision Plat Procedures Section 17A.060.020 Purpose
020D Flexibility and Relief Procedures
Section 17A.060.040 Effect and Vesting
Section 17A.060.050 Procedure
Section 17A.060.060 Recording
Chapter 17G.020 Comprehensive Plan
Amendment Procedure
[Page 96]
Chapter 17G.025 Unified Development Code
Amendment Procedure
Section 17G.070.020 Applicability
Section 17G.070.200 Application Process
Section 17G.070.210 Time Limits
Section 17G.070.220 Vesting
Chapter 17G.030 Design Departures
Section 17G.050.320 Action on Appeal to
Hearing Examiner
Section 17G.050.330 Timing of Appeals to the
City Council
Section 17G.050.340 Rules of Procedure for
Appeals to the City Council
Section 17G.050.350 Council Action on
Appeal
Section 17G.080.000 Purpose and
Administration
Section 17G.080.020 General Provisions
Section 17G.080.025 Decision Criteria
Section 17G.080.030 Boundary Line
Adjustment
Section 17G.080.040 Short Subdivisions
Section 17G.080.050 Subdivisions
Section 17G.080.060 Binding Site Plan
Section 17G.080.065 Unit Lot Subdivisions
Section 17C.345.130 Manufactured Home
Subdivisions
Section 17C.240.040 Relationship to Approved
Land Use Reviews
Section 17C.240.050 Authority
Section 17C.240.090 Sign Permit Required
Section 17C.240.310 Exceptions
Section 17C.255.015 Design Standards
Administration
Section 17C.255.500 Design Standards
Implementation
Section 17C.316.080 Waiver of Permit Fees for
Short Term Rentals
Section 17C.320.070 Approval Process
Section 17C.320.080 Decision Criteria
Chapter 17C.335 Historic Structures – Change
of Use
Section 17C.355A.060 Application Submittal
Requirements
Section 17C.355A.080 Regulations for
Facilities Subject to a Conditional Use Permit
Section 17C.355A.090 Exception from
Standards
Section 17C.355A.100 Final Inspection
Section 17C.355A.130 Independent Technical
Review
Section 17C.355A.150 Indemnification
[Page 97]
Chapter 17C.356 Eligible Facilities
Modifications (except 17C.356.020)
Section 17C.370.010 Purpose
Section 17C.370.030 Procedure
Chapter 17C.420 South Logan TOD Planned
Action
12.030 Review and Decision -Making Bodies Section 17A.040.030 Maintenance of the Map
Section 17G.040.010 Design Review Board
Authority
Section 17G.040.060 Design Review Board
Meetings
Chapter 17G.050 Hearing Examiner Article I
Office of Hearing Examiner
17.15 Methods of Measurement
17.16 Definitions
Chapter 17A.020 Definitions
Section 17C.240.015 Definitions
Section 17C.316.020 Definitions
Chapter 17C.340 Home Occupations (except
17C.340.100 and 120)
Section 17C.347.020 Description
Section 17C.348.020 Definitions
Section 17C.355A.020 Definitions
Section 17C.356.020 Definitions