Plan Commission discusses flexibility, site‑permits and zoning approaches in development code update

Spokane’s Plan Commission used a workshop on April 22 to drill into how the city should rewrite development rules to encourage predictable, feasible development while meeting state law.

The discussion centered on three interrelated themes: how prescriptive the code should be, whether to create an early site development permit that vests projects to a code snapshot, and how to treat existing nonconforming properties and the relationship between the comp plan and zoning map. Tim Thompson, who led the discussion, framed the session around six big questions staff wants the commission to answer ahead of drafting the new code.

Commissioners and staff repeatedly returned to the tradeoff between predictability and flexibility. Several members argued that highly prescriptive design checklists can produce perverse outcomes: one commissioner cited a 50% glazing requirement that led applicants to make design choices that worsened pedestrian experience rather than improved it. Commissioners proposed outcome‑oriented approaches and a points or credit system that would require applicants to meet a set number of meaningful options rather than a single prescriptive solution. At the same time, members emphasized the need for objective, measurable criteria to satisfy state law’s ‘‘clear and objective’’ requirement; staff read the relevant RCW definition, noting standards must include ascertainable, measurable guidelines and may not reduce entitlement or density.

On process, staff proposed a site development permit as an early, binding step for certain project types (examples discussed included commercial projects and residential developments above a unit threshold). That permit would front‑load studies such as preliminary geotechnical or hydrology reports, provide vesting so developers can take plans to lenders, and reduce costly rework later. Staff said the program could be scoped so only certain project sizes or types are required to use it, and that applicants should be allowed to file concurrent building permits at their risk. Commissioners pressed staff on thresholds, administrative timeframes and the potential for added workload; staff described the proposal as a reallocation of existing pre‑development resources rather than a net staffing increase.

Commissioners also addressed nonconforming uses. Staff asked whether the code should continue to require full site upgrades when a business relocates or whether monetary or percent‑of‑value triggers should limit when costly improvements are required. Several commissioners favored incremental compliance plans or thresholds so small businesses can operate without prohibitive upfront costs while still assuring life‑safety upgrades when necessary.

The workshop closed with a debate about the relationship between the comprehensive plan and zoning map: whether to rezone citywide to match new land‑use designations (which risks creating many nonconforming parcels) or to create a glide path that keeps existing zoning in place until property owners choose to rezone. Staff signaled they will draft process and procedure code and return with a formal draft for commission review, and the consultant Clarion will return to lead code process discussions.

The commission did not take formal votes on policy changes at the workshop; staff said the session’s input will inform the next draft and schedule.