Spokane County lays out three growth alternatives and a new "neighborhood" zoning to absorb projected growth

Spokane County planning staff presented three alternatives for accommodating roughly 100,000 new residents over the next two decades at a community workshop, proposing a mix of regulatory reforms, denser neighborhood zoning and, if needed, expansion of the county’s urban growth area (UGA).

At the start of the meeting, Spokane County planning staff said, “We’re here tonight to talk about growth alternatives, generally speaking,” and then walked through an environmental impact analysis process the county is using to compare: (1) a no-action or limited-change approach, (2) an infill/regulatory-reform approach to allow denser development inside current boundaries, and (3) a mixed strategy that combines new neighborhood-style zoning with selective UGA expansion.

Why it matters: the county expects major growth and must show how it can accommodate housing while protecting groundwater, wetlands and habitat. Planning staff said Spokane County is projected to grow by about 100,000 people and that roughly 35,000 of the additional households are expected to be in the unincorporated county; the city of Spokane and Spokane Valley are forecasted for about 24,000 and 22,000 residents respectively. The county must either fit those households inside existing UGAs through denser development or amend UGA boundaries under state rules.

Planning staff described how the alternatives differ. The infill option tests whether updated development regulations — for example permitting duplexes, triplexes, cottage homes and small multifamily buildings by right — could accommodate most projected growth without changing the UGA. The neighborhood zoning concept would create a blended category allowing a mix of single-family, attached homes, townhomes, small apartments and neighborhood-scale retail and offices designed with street trees and sidewalks. The UGA-expansion approach would add land adjacent to existing UGAs where sewer capacity, road access and lower critical-area constraints make development feasible.

County staff walked attendees through specific assumptions and design examples tied to assumed densities: for example, modest increases to low-density residential (roughly six units per acre assumed in some modeling), higher-density townhome or stacked-flat types at 9–15 units per acre, and three-story walk-up apartments at about 18 units per acre. Staff noted current local zoning typically allows up to 8 units per acre but effectively builds closer to 4.5 units per acre in single-family areas.

Environmental and infrastructure constraints figured prominently in the discussion. Staff said the county is updating its critical areas ordinance (CAO) to reflect aquifer recharge areas, wetlands, steep slopes and flood hazard zones, and emphasized aquifer sensitivity in northern parts of the county. “Once they’re damaged, they’re hard to fix. Once they’re gone, they’re gone,” Spokane County planning staff said of wetlands. The presentation also noted differing soil and stormwater conditions across the county — sandy soils in the northern study areas that drain to aquifers, poor drainage on the West Plains, and basalt-derived soils on the South Hill — and said those factors influence where development is feasible.

The presentation covered how the state’s Growth Management Act and implementing Washington Administrative Code (WAC) define criteria for UGA changes, including a starting target parcel size (10 acres or more) and proximity to sewer and roads. Staff said the county was previously found out of compliance for its 2015 UGA exercise but is “back in compliance as of March.”

On climate and resiliency, staff noted a new Growth Management Act element requires counties to consider greenhouse gas impacts and disaster resilience when planning land use patterns—linking denser, mixed-use neighborhoods with potential reductions in vehicle miles traveled.

Attendees asked about transit access, parking and public services for higher-density areas. Scott (identified in the meeting as a questioner) asked whether neighborhood zoning would be allowed under alternatives 1 or 2; county planning staff said yes. Amber (audience member) asked about transit access to the three north-side study areas; staff said two of the study areas have planned transit improvements and that the county is coordinating with Spokane Transit and local cities. County staff said the Mead/Costco corridor and Rockwood/clinic area are expected to see new transit and a park-and-ride or station as developments proceed.

The meeting addressed affordable housing obligations added to state planning requirements. County planning staff said the Legislature recently added an affordable-housing element to the Growth Management Act and that counties must show how they will make housing available across income bands. Staff said this is a major challenge for counties historically organized for suburban, not urban, development and noted recent legal decisions requiring jurisdictions to show how they will implement affordability, not just express support for it.

Industry and implementation notes: staff said they have met with local builders including the Home Builders Association and heard a generally positive response to neighborhood zoning as a way to reduce the number of separate plan amendments developers must pursue. Staff also discussed regulatory tools under consideration, such as removing minimum lot sizes, modifying dimensional standards (including the 35-foot typical height limit), and removing floor-area-ratio (FAR) rules in suburban contexts.

On condominium law, a resident identified as Pete asked whether changes to condo liability rules might unlock more ownership housing; staff said current liability and insurance rules make developers reluctant to build condos and that changing those laws would be a larger legal and state-level issue.

Next steps: staff said the county aims to publish a draft environmental impact statement (EIS) around December 1 (the date is a goal and could shift), is collecting public comments through maps and materials posted at spokanecounty.gov/bp, will bring recommendations to the county Planning Commission (the presentation referenced an October 30 Planning Commission meeting), and expects an early summary to the Board of County Commissioners on November 3. Planning staff encouraged attendees to submit written comments and use sticky-note maps available at the event.

Funding sources and detailed implementation programs were not specified during the presentation; staff said many implementation choices will depend on coordination with cities, sewer capacity and transportation analyses required for particular parcels.

The county’s materials and the draft EIS (when published) will provide the formal record for any future comprehensive plan or UGA amendments.