Spokane to implement state‑mandated co‑living rules; sleeping units counted as 0.25 dwelling units
Loading...
Summary
City staff presented code language to implement HB 1998: allow co‑living where 6+ residential units are permitted, count sleeping units as 0.25 dwellings for density, and limit city standards to what building code allows; council raised habitability and land‑capacity concerns.
Brandon Whitmarsh told the council Spokane must adopt standards to implement House Bill 1998, which requires jurisdictions to allow co‑living developments (rentable sleeping units that share kitchen facilities) where the city permits six or more residential units on a lot. "Co‑living is a residential style of development in which sleeping units share kitchen facilities," Whitmarsh said.
Under the draft code, sleeping units are counted as one‑quarter of a dwelling unit for density calculations, with the effect that sleeping‑unit density can equate to higher occupant counts than conventional dwelling units. The draft prevents the city from imposing minimum unit‑size standards beyond the building code (which sets 70 square feet as a technical minimum for some sleeping spaces); Whitmarsh said typical sleeping units observed in other jurisdictions run closer to 200–300 square feet.
Council member Bingle raised practical concerns about habitability and land‑capacity implications, asking whether the change would allow "up to 24 people" to reside on a standard single‑family lot. Whitmarsh responded that while such densities are theoretically possible under zoning math, they are impractical on standard lots once setbacks, lot coverage and other development standards are applied. "A lot of this is already allowed in all zones," Whitmarsh said, noting Gonzaga University‑area houses with many bedrooms as an example of similar configurations in practice.
The plan commission recommended approval and added one modest change — a no‑minimum open‑space requirement — to preserve flexibility and affordability, Whitmarsh said. The city must adopt standards by the state deadline (noted in the packet) and staff flagged that the broader Title 17 modernization could revisit or refine standards if needed.
