Spokane Valley planning commission recommends keeping current tower-height limits, denies code amendment
October 23, 2025 | Spokane Valley, Spokane County, Washington
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
The Spokane Valley Planning Commission voted 4-1 on Oct. 23 to recommend denying a city-initiated code text amendment (CTA2025-0002) that would have made permanent an interim increase to allowable wireless communication tower heights for regional emergency providers.
The commission’s action preserves the existing height limits in residential zones and keeps the temporary emergency ordinance in place only until the City Council acts or it expires. Commissioner Weatherman moved to retain the current regulations and deny the code text amendment; Commissioner Kelly seconded the motion. The motion passed on a voice vote with four in favor and one opposed; individual roll-call votes were not recorded in the public discussion.
The amendment under consideration would have codified a temporary exception that allows towers used by regional providers for first-responder communications to reach up to 100 feet for the support tower plus up to 20 additional feet for antenna arrays (120 feet total) in certain zones. Staff described the interim ordinance (Ordinance No. 25-13), adopted July 29 as an emergency measure, and presented three options for the commission: (1) adopt the interim language as a permanent exception across zones but require a demonstrated network need through the conditional use permit (CUP) process in residential zones; (2) allow the increased height only in nonresidential zones; or (3) retain the pre-interim-code limits and require applicants to pursue a CUP and, if necessary, a variance. The commission selected option 3.
Senior planner Lori Barlow told commissioners the interim ordinance was adopted to respond to a specific relocation request from Spokane Regional Emergency Communications (SREC), which reported the need for a roughly 100-foot tower at the Spokane Valley site. Barlow said SREC submitted a building permit application last week that the city determined complete; that application vests SREC under the interim regulations, meaning the applicant may proceed under the interim standard even if the city later reverts the code.
Staff and commissioners discussed the tradeoffs between creating a permanent exception and handling rare, site-specific needs through existing discretionary processes. Commissioners who supported retaining the current code said the request appears exceptional — tied to SREC’s relocation rather than to a broader demand that will recur frequently — and expressed concern about allowing higher towers in residential neighborhoods even if a CUP remains required. Commissioners also noted that industrial and regional-commercial zones already have higher height limits than many residential zones and that nearby jurisdictions have similar or, in some cases, higher limits in nonresidential districts.
Planning staff said the code currently limits support-tower heights in residential zones to 60 feet (with an additional antenna allowance under certain circumstances) and up to 80 feet in some nonresidential or industrial districts; the interim ordinance temporarily raised those residential-zone limits to 100 feet. Staff emphasized that the interim language did not eliminate conditional use review or other design and siting standards; a tower proposed in a residential zone would still require a CUP with public notice to nearby property owners.
Before voting, commissioners were reminded that the planning commission’s role is advisory: if the commission recommends denial, the matter (including findings of fact) will be forwarded to City Council for final action. Staff said formal findings of fact will be returned to the commission for review at the Nov. 13 meeting; Barlow said the council’s consideration would include multiple readings and that a council-adopted ordinance could be effective in December (staff gave Dec. 16 as a tentative adoption date, subject to the council’s schedule).
The commission’s recommendation preserves the existing permitting path for any future requests: applicants would use the CUP process in residential zones and could pursue a variance where needed. Staff estimated a variance route to the hearing examiner typically takes several weeks (six to ten) and carries no guaranteed outcome.
Next steps: staff will prepare formal findings of fact and return them to the commission at the Nov. 13 meeting; the commission’s recommendation and findings will then be forwarded to the City Council for final action.
The commission’s action preserves the existing height limits in residential zones and keeps the temporary emergency ordinance in place only until the City Council acts or it expires. Commissioner Weatherman moved to retain the current regulations and deny the code text amendment; Commissioner Kelly seconded the motion. The motion passed on a voice vote with four in favor and one opposed; individual roll-call votes were not recorded in the public discussion.
The amendment under consideration would have codified a temporary exception that allows towers used by regional providers for first-responder communications to reach up to 100 feet for the support tower plus up to 20 additional feet for antenna arrays (120 feet total) in certain zones. Staff described the interim ordinance (Ordinance No. 25-13), adopted July 29 as an emergency measure, and presented three options for the commission: (1) adopt the interim language as a permanent exception across zones but require a demonstrated network need through the conditional use permit (CUP) process in residential zones; (2) allow the increased height only in nonresidential zones; or (3) retain the pre-interim-code limits and require applicants to pursue a CUP and, if necessary, a variance. The commission selected option 3.
Senior planner Lori Barlow told commissioners the interim ordinance was adopted to respond to a specific relocation request from Spokane Regional Emergency Communications (SREC), which reported the need for a roughly 100-foot tower at the Spokane Valley site. Barlow said SREC submitted a building permit application last week that the city determined complete; that application vests SREC under the interim regulations, meaning the applicant may proceed under the interim standard even if the city later reverts the code.
Staff and commissioners discussed the tradeoffs between creating a permanent exception and handling rare, site-specific needs through existing discretionary processes. Commissioners who supported retaining the current code said the request appears exceptional — tied to SREC’s relocation rather than to a broader demand that will recur frequently — and expressed concern about allowing higher towers in residential neighborhoods even if a CUP remains required. Commissioners also noted that industrial and regional-commercial zones already have higher height limits than many residential zones and that nearby jurisdictions have similar or, in some cases, higher limits in nonresidential districts.
Planning staff said the code currently limits support-tower heights in residential zones to 60 feet (with an additional antenna allowance under certain circumstances) and up to 80 feet in some nonresidential or industrial districts; the interim ordinance temporarily raised those residential-zone limits to 100 feet. Staff emphasized that the interim language did not eliminate conditional use review or other design and siting standards; a tower proposed in a residential zone would still require a CUP with public notice to nearby property owners.
Before voting, commissioners were reminded that the planning commission’s role is advisory: if the commission recommends denial, the matter (including findings of fact) will be forwarded to City Council for final action. Staff said formal findings of fact will be returned to the commission for review at the Nov. 13 meeting; Barlow said the council’s consideration would include multiple readings and that a council-adopted ordinance could be effective in December (staff gave Dec. 16 as a tentative adoption date, subject to the council’s schedule).
The commission’s recommendation preserves the existing permitting path for any future requests: applicants would use the CUP process in residential zones and could pursue a variance where needed. Staff estimated a variance route to the hearing examiner typically takes several weeks (six to ten) and carries no guaranteed outcome.
Next steps: staff will prepare formal findings of fact and return them to the commission at the Nov. 13 meeting; the commission’s recommendation and findings will then be forwarded to the City Council for final action.
View the Full Meeting & All Its Details
This article offers just a summary. Unlock complete video, transcripts, and insights as a Founder Member.
✓
Watch full, unedited meeting videos
✓
Search every word spoken in unlimited transcripts
✓
AI summaries & real-time alerts (all government levels)
✓
Permanent access to expanding government content
30-day money-back guarantee
