Loading...
Agenda 06/24/2010 Sökne Spokane Valley Planning Commission Agenda City Hall Council Chambers, 11707 E. Sprague Ave. June 24, 6:00 p.m. I. CALL TO ORDER IL PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. ROLL CALL IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes from May 13, 2010 VI. PUBLIC COMMENT: On any subject that is not on the agenda VIL COMMISSION REPORTS VIII. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS OLD BUSINESS: NEW BUSINESS:PUBLIC HEARING—CTA-03-10, CODE AMENDMENTS, ASSISTANT PLANNER CHRISTINA JANSSEN PUBLIC HEARING—CTA-04-10 CODE AMENDMENT— SENIOR PLANNER SCOTT KUHTA X. FOR THE GOOD OF THE ORDER XL ADJOURNMENT COMMISSIONERS CITY STAFF JOHN G.CARROLL,CHAIR KATHY MCCLUNG,CD DIRECTOR CRAIG EGGLESTON GREG MCCORMICK,PLANNING MGR,AICP RUSTIN HALL SCOTT KUHTA,SR.LONG RANGE PLANNER,AICP JOE MANN MIKE BASINGER,SENIOR PLANNER,AICP MARCIA SANDS,VICE CHAIR CARY DRISKELL,DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY ART SHARPE DEANNA GRIFFITH,ADMIN ARNE WOODARD WWW.SPOKANEVALLEY.ORG CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Planning Commission Action Meeting Date: June 24th, 2010 City Manager Sign-off: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ® public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Public hearing to amend Spokane Valley Municipal Code and the Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan as follows: Chapter 19.140 (Administrative Exceptions)- Add language which gives the Community Development Director authority to grant administrative exceptions for minor design changes to the Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan. Chapter 2.2.2 (Building Use) Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan-Allow vehicle sales with the Mixed Use Avenue Retail zone with a Conditional Use permit and allow Full Service Restaurants as a permitted use. Table 2.2.2 Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan-Allow restricted access to "Other Streets" in the Mixed Use Avenue zone. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.70B.170-210 PREVIOUS PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION TAKEN: None BACKGROUND: The Uniform Development Code was adopted in September of 2007 and was effective October 28th, 2007. The Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan was adopted on June 16th, 2009 and became effective on October 15th, 2009. Following the adoption of these codes, a number of items were discovered which were incorrect, impractical, or omitted. Earlier this year, the City Council requested that staff initiate a code amendment for the above referenced items. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Staff's opinion is that the proposed amendments meets the approval criteria for amendments to the Spokane Valley Municipal Code and the Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan and recommend that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation to the Spokane Valley City Council to amend the Municipal Code as stated above. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: NA STAFF CONTACT: Christina Janssen-Assistant Planner ATTACHMENTS: (1)Amended Text Chapter 19.140 ADMINISTRATIVE EXCEPTIONS Sections: 19.140.010 Purpose. 19.140.020 Approval criteria. 19.140.030 Process. 19.140.010 Purpose. An administrative exception may be considered only for adjustments necessary to correct errors resulting from the inadvertent and unintentional placement of structures or incorrect identification of lot boundaries in the following circumstances: A. Any dimensional requirement which does not exceed one foot. B. Under the following conditions: 1. A parcel established prior to March 31, 2003, that does not meet the buildable square footage requirements for a parcel in a particular zoning district; or 2. A legally nonconforming dwelling with respect to setbacks, height and size which otherwise could not be expanded or reconstructed; or 3. A duplex constructed prior to March 31, 2003, that does not meet the minimum parcel size, which could not otherwise be reconstructed. C. Yard setback requirements where the deviation is for 10 percent or less of the required yard. D. Building height requirements where the deviation is for 25 percent or less of the maximum building height. Additional building height may be granted to the equivalent height of adjacent buildings in areas where the maximum building height is generally exceeded. E. Minimum lot area requirements where the deviation is for 25 percent or less of the required lot area. F. Maximum building coverage requirements where the deviation is for 25 percent or less of the maximum building coverage. G. Lot width under the following circumstances: 1. Lot width requirements where the deviation is for 10 percent or less than the required lot width. 2. Lot width requirements where the deviation is greater than 10 percent; provided, that the department may require notice to affected agencies resulting in conditions of approval. H. Up to one-half of a private tower's "impact area" off of the applicant's property. I. Flanking street yard setbacks; provided, that: 1. At the time the subject parcel was legally created the property was zoned under a zoning classification of the pre-January 1, 1991, Spokane County zoning ordinance, and subsequently on January 1, 1991, a new zoning classification from the zoning code of Spokane County, Washington, was assigned to the subject property; and 2. Any flanking yard setback deviation granted under this section shall not exceed the required flanking street setback standards of the pre-January 1, 1991, zoning classification of the subject property. J. Any improved property rendered nonconforming through voluntary dedication of right-of-way, the exercise of eminent domain proceedings or purchase of right-of-way by the City, county, state or federal agency. (Ord. 07-015 § 4, 2007). K. The Community Development Director may approve administrative exceptions for minor desian changes to the Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan 19.140.020 Approval criteria. Criteria for approval or denial of applications shall be established by the director if it is shown that: A. The administrative exception does not detract from the character and nature of the vicinity in which it is proposed; B. The administrative exception enhances or protects the character of the neighborhood or vicinity by protecting natural features, historic sites, open space, or other resources; C. The administrative exception does not interfere with or negatively impact the operations of existing land uses and all legally permitted uses within the zoning district it occupies; D. Granting the administrative exception does not constitute a threat to the public health, safety and welfare within the City. (Ord. 07-015 § 4, 2007). 19.140.030 Process. An administrative exception is classified as a Type I permit and shall be processed pursuant to SVMC 17.80.070. (Ord. 07-015 § 4, 2007). Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan Adopted June 16,2009 Book II—2.2 Site Development Regulations Page 50 of 201 (1)May be free-standing building or incorporated into mixed-use building. (2)Minimum interior height for ground level retail of all types is 14 ft.from floor to ceiling for new buildings. (3)Drive-through business are permitted subject to the following criteria: (a)Drive-through facilities are permitted on sites adjacent to a principal arterial street.Access and stacking lanes serving drive-through businesses shall not be located between a building and any adjacent street,public sidewalk or pedestrian plaza.(See SVMC 22.50.030 for stacking and queuing lane requirements. (b)Stacking lanes shall be physically separated from the parking lot,sidewalk,and pedestrian areas by landscaping and/or architectural element,or any combination therein. c)Mixed Use Avenue Retail i)Permitted Uses: (1)"Medium Box"Commercial Sales&Services including the following: (a)Establishments selling or servicing Large Scale Goods such as party goods,art supplies, sporting goods,auto parts,electronics or appliances,outdoor accessories,furniture,home furnishings,hardware,and home improvements stores. (b)Commercial services such as miscellaneous Repair Service uses with no outdoor storage, including plumbing services,laundry services,cleaning and janitorial service and supplies, vacuum cleaning and sewing repair and rental shops,etc. (c)Print and Graphics Supply and Service,including typesetting,lithography,graphics and art services,etc. (d)Big Box and Medium Box Warehouse retail,restaurant supply retail,and warehouse scale buying club retail. (e)Warehousing is permitted as an accessory to retail or light industrial use.The total area of a building to be used for warehousing may not exceed 30%of the total floor area. (2)Drive-in/Drive-up Fast Food Restaurants and espresso stands. (3)Gas stations and auto repair shops.(Gas station maybe exempt from 2.2.3.Minimum Building Height Regulations and 2.2.12.Frontage Coverage Regulations.) (4)Convenience Stores (5)Veterinary clinics and"doggy day care"facilities. (6)Pawn shops,check cashing stores and casinos. (7)Funeral homes. (81 Full Service Restaurants Conditional Uses (I)Vehicle Sales - Formatted:Font:(Default)Times New Roman, 10 pt i _ - (L {Deleted:1)Full service restaurants j {Deleted:(2)Used vehicle sales. Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan Adopted June 16,2009 Legend: —:Not Permitted U:Upper Floors Only G:Ground Floor Only • Full 5e ice Rescdur n11+1gJst Required:These are Required elements of all new development as Permitted:These elements are allowed by right unless otherwise specified in Section 2.2.2.Building Use indicated. Limited:These frontages may only be applied to access lobbies for upper floor uses that are different from the ground floor use (A):For Anchor Stores: (Al):larger than 25,000 sq.ft.,1 floor/20 ft.is permitted, (A2):larger than 50,000 sq.ft,regulation does not apply,(A3):larger than 50,000 sq.ft,parking type is permitted 2.1.3 Mixed Use Avenue District 2.2.Site Development Standards 2.3.Street and Sprague Other Open.Space Standards Ave. Streets Street/Street Category Sprague Ave. Other Streets 2.3.1.Street Standards 2.2.1.Building Orientation to Streets and Public 1)Street Provision required required •Open Spaces , required or not required required I required 2)Pre-Located Street MITIMEM required 2.2.2.Building Use 3)Maximum Block Size =MK 5acres 1)Retail4)Street Configuration required a)City Center Retail — — 5)Street Type -- b)Neighborhood Center Retail — — a)Core Street N/A — c)Mixed-Use Avenue Retail permitted restricted• b)City Street =111=.1111M d)Corner Store Retail -- — c)Neighborhood Street MEG=Ifpermitted e)Gateway Commercial Avenue Retail -- -- d)Neighborhood Green Street =NM .ermitted f)Gateway Commercial Center Retail -- — e)Service Street ® -- 2)Civic,Quasi-Civic,&Cultural permitted permitted f)Alley N/A -- 3)Office permitted permitted g)Passage N/A — 4)Licht Industrial permitted permitted 2.3.2.Open Space Standards 5)Lodging(w/common permitted permitted see section 2.3.3 6)Live-Work permitted permitted 7)Residential Sprague Other 2.4.Parking Standards Ave. Streets a)Multi-Family w/Common Entry permitted permitted 2.4.1.Parking Types . b)Attached Single-Family w/Individual Entry — permitted 1)Surface Parking c)Detached Single-Family Housing — — a)Front lot — permitted 2.2.3.Building Height b)Side lot permitted permitted minimum height 1 floor/20 ft I floor/20 ft c)Rear lot permitted permitted maximum height 4 floors/53 ft 4 floors/53 ft 2)Parking Structure 2.2.4.Relation to Single Family Homes a)Exposed permitted permitted required or not applicable required I required b)Wrapped-Ground Level permitted permitted 2.2.5.Public Frontage Improvements c)Wrapped-All Levels permitted permitted required or not required required I not required d)Partially Submerged Podium permitted permitted 2.2.6.Private Frontage e)Underground Parking permitted permitted 1)Shopfront permitted permitted 2.4.2.Parking Standards 2)Corner Entry permitted permitted see section 2.4.2 3)Arcade permitted — 4)Grand Portico permitted permitted 2.S.Architectural Sprague Other Standards Ave. Streets 5)Forecourt permitted permitted 2.5.2.Height Massing 8 Composition 6)Grand Entry permitted permitted Top required required 7)Common Lobby Entry limited limited Base required required 8)Stoop permitted permitted 2.5.3.Length Massing&Composition 9)Porch — — Streetwall Increment 150ft 80ft 10)Front Door — — Sidewall&Rearwall Increment N/A 11)Parking Structure Entry permitted permitted 12)Vehicle Display:Option 1 — — 2.6.Signage Standards Sprague Other Ave. Streets 13)Vehicle Display:Option 2 — — 2.6.2.Slgnage Types 14)Edge Treatment:Fenced — permitted see section 2.6 13)Edge Treatment:Terraced — permitted 14)Edge Treatment:Flush permitted permitted 2.2.7.Front Street Setback minimum/maximum 20ft/25 ft I l0ft/20ft 2.2.8.Side Street Setback minimum/maximum 5ft/15ft I l0ft/20ft 2.2.9.SIde Yard Setback minimum w/living space windows 10 ft 10 ft minimum w/out living space windows 5 ft 5 ft 2.2.10.Rear Yard Setback minimum setback 10 ft I 10 ft 2.2.11.Alley Setback minimum setback 5 ft I 5 ft 2.2.12.Frontage Coverage minimum percentage covered 60% I no mill 22.l3,Bu i ld-to-Corner required or not required required I required 2.2.14.Maximum Building Length • Book II-2.1 District Zone Regulations Page 40 of 201 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION S�iol ane STAFF REPORT AND RECOrsIMENDATION TO THE Valley PLANNING COMMISSION CTA-03-10 STAFF REPORT DATE:JUNE 17,2010 HEARING DATE AND LOCATION: June 24,2010,beginning at 6:00 p.m., Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers, 11707 East Sprague Avenue, Suite 101, Spokane Valley,Washington 99206. PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: Zoning code text amendments to the following sections of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code and the Sprague Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan: 1)Chapter 19.140(Administrative Exceptions)Add language which gives the Community Development Director authority to grant administrative exceptions for minor design changes to the Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan;2)Chapter 2.2.2(Building Use)Allow vehicles sales within the Mixed Use Avenue Retail zone subject to a Conditional Use Permit and allow Full Service Restaurants as a permitted use; 3)Table 2.2.2 Allow restricted access to"Other Streets"in the Mixed Use Avenue zone. This proposal is considered a non-project action under RCW 43.21C. PROPOSAL LOCATION: The proposal affects the entire City of Spokane Valley. APPLICANT: City of Spokane Valley APPROVAL CRITERIA: Title 17(General Provisions)and Title 21 (Environmental Controls)of the SVMC. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Division recommends that the Planning Commission approve the proposed text amendment to the SVMC and the Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan. STAFF PLANNER: CHRISTINA JANSSEN,Assistant Planner, Community Development Department ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit 1: Draft Amendments Exhibit 2: SEPA Determination BACKGROUND INFORMATION A. BACKGROUND INFO The City Council has requested that the staff review the Sprague and Appleway Revitalization Plan(SARP)and propose changes based on public input. The proposed changes will be processed in one of two ways. If the amendment does not conflict with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan(PLAN)it will be sent to the Planning Commission for a public hearing and recommended code change. If the proposed change would be in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan,then the issue will be held until the city processes all the proposed changes to the PLAN during the annual Comprehensive Plan Amendment process. The reason for this is that the PLAN can be changed no more than once a year by state law. Prior to engaging in the zone by zone review,the City Council heard from two citizens with problems with SARP. The first was a citizen who opened a boat sales operation in the Mixed Use Zone and had been contacted by city staff that vehicle sales are not permitted in the Mixed Use Avenue zone. The second citizen wished to open a small cafe/coffee shop but was advised that coffee shops are only permitted in the Mixed Use Center with direct access to Sprague Avenue. Staff Report to Planning Commission CTA-03-10 Page 1 of 5 The City Council directed staff to bring these two issues be sent to the Planning Commission in advance of the larger study of SARP. Additionally,the Community Development Director asked the council to consider an amendment that would give discretion to the Director to approve minor deviations to the design and architectural standards that would allow approval of a project,but not jeopardize the intent of SARP. The council agreed to add this item to the other two issues for proposed code amendments. B. APPLICATION PROCESSING Chapter 17.80 Permit Processing Procedures in the SVMC. The following summarizes key application procedures for the proposal. Date of Published Notice of Public Hearing: June 4,2010 Issuance of an Determination of Non-Significance(DNS): June 4,2010 End of Appeal Period for DNS: June 18,2010 C. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO SEPA Findings: Pursuant to Title 21 (Environmental Controls) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC), the lead agency has determined that this proposal does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement(EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030 (2) (c). The Planning Division issued a Determination of Non-Significance(DNS)on June 18, 2010, for the proposal. This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. Conclusion(s): The procedural requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act and Title 21 of the SVMC have been fulfilled by the submittal of the required SEPA Checklist, and the issuance of the City's threshold determination consisting of a Determination of Non-Significance (DNS). No appeals have been received at the time of this report. The appeal period will close June 18,2010. D. INTENT OF THE SPRAGUE AND APPLEWAY CORRIDORS SUBAREA PLAN(SARP) Book I: Community Intent Book I sets forth what the community aspires to achieve and describes the physical outcomes that the SARP is intended to orchestrate as new investment creates change. Book I is essentially the comprehensive plan policy basis for the SARP and is considered a part of the PLAN. Book II: Development Regulations Book II is the implementation of the policy direction established in Book I and contains the Development Regulations that govern all future public and private development actions in the area covered by the SARP. Book III: City Actions Book III outlines the City's role in the redevelopment of the Sprague and Appleway corridor by identifying strategic public investments within the SARP area the implement policy direction from Book I of the SARP Prior to the adoption of SARP, a market analysis was conducted that concluded that the Sprague Appleway corridor had a surplus of commercial property. One of the strategies to address the surplus was change the commercial strip to create centers and segments. The City Center and Neighborhood Center Retail zones would serve the needs of neighborhoods within a short drive and create a dynamic pedestrian oriented city center. The segments portion would be distinguished by cohesive building types. Specifically,the Mixed Use Avenue would focus on a mix of workplace, commercial and high density residential uses. Two of the code amendments are proposed within the Mixed Use Avenue zone. Staff Report to Planning Commission CTA-03-10 Page 2 of 5 The Vehicle Sales use was not included in the Mixed Use Avenue primarily because the original thanking was that by concentrating the vehicle and related sales to the Gateway Commercial areas, car and other vehicle sales would become a destination area for consumers looking for that product. The proposed amendment would allow Vehicle Sales in the Mixed Use Avenue zone with a Conditional Use Permit. The Conditional Use Permit process, which includes a public hearing, ensures that the proposed use is compatible with the zoning and will not interfere with the use of adjacent properties. Full Service Restaurants were limited to the City Center and Neighborhood Centers so that the City Center could get a jump start. The Mixed Use Avenue Zone permits drive-in and drive-up restaurants and espresso stands with direct access to Sprague Avenue and Full Service Restaurants are prohibited. E. STAFF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO THE CODE TEXT AMENDMENT 1. COMPLIANCE WITH TITLE 17(GENERAL PROVISIONS)OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE Findings: Section 17.80.150(F) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) provides approval criteria that must be considered when the City amends the SVMC or the Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan. The criteria are listed below along with staff comments. 1. The proposed text amendments are consistent with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan; Staff Response: The City of Spokane Valley has adopted goals and policies consistent with the GMA and the City of Spokane Valley's Comprehensive Plan. The proposed text amendments are consistent with the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan. a. Goal LUG-3: Transform various commercial business areas into vital, attractive, easily accessible mixed use areas that appeal to investors, consumers and residents and enhance the community image and economic vitality. b. Goal EDG-7: Maintain a regulatory environment that offers flexibility, consistency, predictability,and clear direction. The amendment to add vehicle sales to the Mixed Use Avenue zone is in conflict with the original idea of locating all vehicle sales to the Gateway area.The original draft of the SARP proposed all new vehicle sales in the Gateway area and used vehicle sales in the Mixed Use Avenue. During deliberations,the legal department advised the staff that we could not differentiate between the two. If it was allowed for new vehicles,then used vehicles also have to be permitted. The Planning Commission recommended that the vehicle sales be removed from the Mixed Use Avenue zone. By requiring a conditional use permit,the public will have the opportunity to comment on any proposal and the staff can recommend conditions to mitigate any aesthetic impacts. Restaurants were excluded from the Mixed Use Avenue to give the City Center the opportunity to develop a city center core before considering them for other districts. Since that time,the economy has changed and the City Council has discontinued the focus on the City Center. Therefore,the exclusion of restaurants from other zoning districts is not a high priority. The third amendment for the director discretion is to cover situations where a project is proposed and a minor adjustment is not contemplated in the scope of the SARP. This provision will be used sparingly where the proposal meets the intent of the SARP but can't satisfy the rigid application of the regulations. 2. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to public health, safety,welfare, and protection of the environment; Staff Response: The amendments bear substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare and protection of the environment. The proposed amendments will expand the uses within the Mixed Use Avenue Retail zone, allow Full Service Restaurants more options for access, and gives greater flexibility to Staff Report to Planning Commission CTA-03-10 Page 3 of 5 new businesses locating in the Sprague and Appleway corridor through the use of Administrative Exceptions. Conclusion(s): The proposed text amendments to the SVMC and the Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan are consistent with the approval criteria contained in the SVMC. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Planning Division after review and consideration of the proposed text amendment and applicable approval criteria recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of CTA-03-10. V. PLANNING COMMISSION FINDINGS The Planning Commission is required to adopt findings of fact(Sections 17.80.140& 17.80.150)when recommending changes to the SVMC and the Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan. At the conclusion of the hearing for the text amendments to the SVMC and the Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan,the Planning Commission,by separate motion,should adopt findings of fact. Background: A. The Uniform Development Code was adopted in September 2007 and became effective on October 28, 2007. B. The Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan was adopted on June 16th,2009 and became effective on October 15th,2009. C. Chapter 19.30.040 SVMC allows code text amendments to be submitted at any time. D. Following the adoption of the code a number of items were found to be either incorrect,impractical,or omitted. E. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on June 24th,2010. The Planning Commission approved the following amendments to the Spokane Valley Municipal Code,Title 19: 1. Chapter 19.140(Administrative Exceptions)Add language with gives the Community Development Director authority to grant administrative exceptions for minor design changes to the Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan 2. Chapter 2.2.2(Building Use)Allow vehicles sales with the Mixed Use Avenue Retail zone subject to the conditional use permit requirements and allow Full Service Restaurants as a permitted use 3. Table 2.2.2—Allow restricted access to"Other Streets"in the Mixed Use Avenue zone. Findings: SVMC 17.80.150(F)states that the City may approve amendments to the UDC if it finds that: (A)the proposed amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan;and (B)the proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to the public health, safety,welfare,and protection of the environment. 1. Goal LUG-3: Transform various commercial business areas into vital, attractive, easily accessible mixed use areas that appeal to investors, consumers and residents and enhance the community image and economic vitality. The Planning Commission finds that the code amendments are consistent with this provision. 2. Goal EDG-7: Maintain a regulatory environment that offers flexibility, consistency, predictability, and clear direction. The Planning Commission finds that the code amendments are consistent with this provision. Staff Report to Planning Commission CTA-03-10 Page 4 of 5 Conclusions: The proposed amendments meet the applicable provisions of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code and are consistent with appropriate goals and policies of the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Recommendations: The Spokane Valley Planning Commission therefore recommends approval to the City Council of proposed amendments to the Spokane Valley Municipal Code. Staff Report to Planning Commission CTA-03-10 Page 5 of 5 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Ij PLANNING DIVISION S(I'I\o jl pokane STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE .-Valley PLANNING COMMISSION CTA-04-10—NONCONFORMING USE EXPANSION TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES STAFF REPORT DATE:JUNE 17,2010 HEARING DATE AND LOCATION: June 24, 2010, beginning at 6:00 p.m., Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers, 11707 East Sprague Avenue, Suite 101, Spokane Valley, Washington 99206. PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: A privately initiated amendment to Section 19.20.060 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) proposing to allow the expansion of nonconforming uses onto adjoining property not under the same ownership at the time the use became nonconforming. This proposal is considered a non-project action under RCW 43.21C. PROPOSAL LOCATION: The proposal affects the entire City of Spokane Valley. APPLICANT: Dwight J. Hume APPROVAL CRITERIA: Title 17 (General Provisions) and Title 21 (Environmental Controls) of the SVMC. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Division recommends that the Planning Commission disapprove the proposed text amendment to the SVMC. STAFF PLANNER: SCOTT KUI-ITA, AICP, Senior Planner, Community Development Department ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit 1: Draft Amendments Exhibit 2: SEPA Determination Exhibit 3: Nonconforming Use Comparison Chart BACKGROUND INFORMATION A. APPLICATION PROCESSING Chapter 17.80 Permit Processing Procedures in the SVMC. The following summarizes key application procedures for the proposal. Notice of Application Issue Date May 28, 2010 Date of Published Notice of Public Hearing: June 4, 2010 Issuance of an Optional Determination of Non-Significance (DNS): June 18,2010 End of Appeal Period for DNS: July 2, 2010 B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO SEPA Findings: Pursuant to Title 21 (Environmental Controls) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC), the lead agency has determined that this proposal does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030 (2) (c). The Planning Division issued Staff Report to Planning Commission CTA-04-10 Page 1 of a Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) on June 18, 2010, for the proposal. This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. Conclusion(s): The procedural requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act and Title 21 of the SVMC have been fulfilled by the submittal of the required SEPA Checklist, and the issuance of the City's threshold determination consisting of a Determination of Non-Significance (DNS). No appeals have been received at the time of this report. The appeal period will close July 2, 2010. C. STAFF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO THE CODE TEXT AMENDMENT 1. COMPLIANCE WITH TITLE 17(GENERAL PROVISIONS)OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE Findings: Section 17.80.150(F) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) provides approval criteria that must be considered when the City amends the SVMC. The criteria are listed below along with staff comments. 1. The proposed text amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan; Staff Response: The Comprehensive Plan does not provide specific policy direction towards the treatment of nonconforming uses. However, the most basic principle of land use planning is to separate incompatible uses, such as industrial from residential, by locating them in different parts of the community or buffering them from each other. The following policies relate to this principal. LUP-1.1 - Maintain the character of existing and future residential neighborhoods through the development and enforcement of the City's land use regulations and joint planning. LUP-1.2 - Protect residential areas from impacts of adjacent non-residential uses and/or higher intensity uses through the development and enforcement of the City's land use regulations and joint planning. LUP-11.1 - Commercial, residential and recreational uses should be limited or not allowed in areas designated for industry, except for small-scale ancillary commercial and recreational uses intended to primarily serve the industrial area. LUP-11.3 - Provide appropriate buffering, landscaping and other development standards for industrial areas. NP-2.1 - Maintain and protect the character of existing and future residential neighborhoods through the development and enforcement of the City's land use regulations and joint planning. NP-2.6 - Establish appropriate design guidelines with buffer zones and transition requirements to protect residential neighborhoods from incompatible land uses and adverse impacts associated with arterials, freeways and rail corridors. Allowing nonconforming uses to expand onto adjacent properties without restriction is not consistent with the overall intent of the Comprehensive Plan to protect neighborhoods from incompatible uses. 2. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment; Staff Report to Planning Commission CTA-04-10 Page 2 of 5 Staff Response: Zoning is a police power that allows the City to exercise reasonable control over the use of property in the interest of the health, safety and welfare of the community at large. Zoning is also the regulatory means to implement the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan. Zoning separates uses that are incompatible,thereby protecting the general health, safety and welfare of the community. Chapter 19.20.060B (4), SVMC, currently allows the expansion of nonconforming uses to adjacent property under the same ownership when the use became nonconforming, subject to certain criteria. Compared to many other jurisdictions, this allowance is uncommon and extraordinary. This provision is provided in the SVMC to avoid economic hardship to property owners who may have made plans to expand a legal use onto adjacent property purchased for that purpose but was made nonconforming by new zoning regulations. The proposed amendment would expand this provision to land not under ownership at the time the use became nonconforming. It would apply to existing nonconforming uses and nonconforming uses that replace another nonconforming use. The concern is that if the proposed amendment is adopted, incompatible uses may expanded to adjacent properties without limit, thereby rendering the zoning code somewhat meaningless. For example, if a use that would otherwise be permitted only in the Heavy Industrial zone is allowed to expand in the Corridor Mixed Use (CMU) zone, then it has the potential to negatively impact adjacent uses, such as schools, residences and retail shops, all permitted uses in the CMU zone. If the use is compatible with the zoning and does not interfere with the use of adjacent property, then the appropriate mechanism to address the situation is to either allow the use outright, or require a Conditional Use Permit, which then allows public scrutiny via a public hearing process. Upon review of random zoning codes from cities and counties around Washington State and Idaho, staff has found only one other jurisdiction that allows expansion onto adjacent property not under ownership at the time the use became nonconforming (see Exhibit 3, Nonconforming Comparison Chart) by administrative approval. That jurisdiction, the City of Spokane, allows expansion of nonconforming uses onto adjacent properties only in industrial and higher intensity commercial zones. Spokane County allows expansion of nonconforming uses onto adjacent property with a conditional use permit, subject to a public hearing before the Hearing Examiner. Some jurisdictions only allow nonconforming uses only to expand within the structure it occupies; most other jurisdictions allow expansion on the parcel the nonconforming use occupies. Conclusion(s): The proposed text amendment to the SVMC is not consistent with the approval criteria contained in the SVMC. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Planning Division, after review and consideration of the proposed text amendment and applicable approval criteria, recommends that the Planning Commission recommend denial of CTA-04-10. V. PLANNING COMMISSION FINDINGS The Planning Commission is required to adopt findings of fact(Sections 17.80.140 & 17.80.150)when making recommendations to the City Council. At the conclusion of the hearing for the text amendment to the SVMC,the Planning Commission, by separate motion, should adopt findings of fact. Background: A. The Spokane Valley Municipal Code(SVMC) was adopted in September 2007 and became effective on October 28, 2007. B. Chapter 19.30.040 of the SVMC allows code text amendments to be submitted at any time. Staff Report to Planning Commission CTA-04-I 0 Page 3 of C. The SVMC is permissive in its treatment of nonconforming uses by allowing nonconforming uses to be replaced with another nonconforming use and by allowing expansion of nonconforming uses to adjacent parcels under the same ownership at the time the use became nonconforming. D. Allowing nonconforming uses to expand to any adjacent property in any zone is an extremely uncommon zoning practice. E. The text amendment is intended to address a site specific issue. The Planning Commission must consider the text amendments potential affect on the entire community. F. The Planning Commission conducted a study session on June 24, 2010, prior to the public hearing. Findings: Staff has prepared the following findings for the Planning Commission in the event there is concurrence with the recommended approval. 1. The Planning Commission finds the proposed text amendment to be consistent with the applicable provisions of the Growth Management Act, Countywide Planning Policies (CWPP) and the City's Comprehensive Plan; GMA Policies a. The Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) provides the following guidance applicable to the Environment and Property Rights: i. Protect the environment and enhance the state's high quality of life, including air and water quality and the availability of water. ii. Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation having been made. The property rights of landowners shall be protected from arbitrary and discriminatory actions pursuant to state and federal law. b. The County Wide Planning Policies provide the following guidance applicable to the Environment and services: i. Policy Topic 3 — Promotion of contiguous and Orderly Development and Provisions of Urban Services. — Policy 5 All jurisdictions shall coordinate plans that classify, designate and protect natural resource lands and critical areas. City of Spokane Valley Goals and Policies c. The City of Spokane Valley has adopted goals and policies consistent with the GMA and adopted CWPP. i. LUP-1.1 - Maintain and character of existing and future residential neighborhoods through the development and enforcement of the City's land use regulations and joint planning. ii. LUP-1.2 - Protect residential areas from impacts of adjacent non-residential uses and/or higher intensity uses through the development and enforcement of the City's land use regulations and joint planning. iii. LUP-11.1 - Commercial, residential and recreational uses should be limited or not allowed in areas designated for industry, except for small-scale ancillary commercial and recreational uses intended to primarily serve the industrial area. iv. LUP-I 1.3 - Provide appropriate buffering, landscaping and other development standards for industrial areas. v. NP-2.I - Maintain and protect the character of existing and future residential neighborhoods through the development and enforcement of the City's land use regulations and joint planning. Staff Report to Planning Commission CTA-04-10 Page 4 of 5 vi. NP-2.6 - Establish appropriate design guidelines with buffer zones and transition requirements to protect residential neighborhoods from incompatible land uses and adverse impacts associated with arterials, freeways and rail corridors. 2. The Planning Commission finds the proposed text amendment is detrimental to public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment; Supporting Statements a. It is clear that the SVMC is exceptionally accommodating in its treatment of nonconforming uses. The intent of zoning is to separate incompatible uses. Over time, nonconforming uses would ideally relocate to appropriately zoned property. This code amendment allows nonconforming situations to expand without restriction if certain criteria are met. Zoning must be administered to protect the community at large. This amendment is not consistent with the intent of zoning to separate incompatible uses and is therefore considered detrimental to public health, safety, welfare and the protection of the environment. Recommended Motion: The Planning Commission adopts the findings in the staff report and recommends denial of CTA-04-I0, a code text amendments to allow nonconforming uses to expand onto adjacent property not under same ownership at the time the use became nonconforming. Staff Report to Planning Commission CTA-04-I 0 Page 5 of Exhibit 4: Nonconforming Use Expansion Comparison Chart Expanding Nonconforming Use Provisions Cheney May not expand nonconforming use. Clark County Only within existing structure Kennewick No provision to expand nonconforming use. May not expand use or structure. No additional structures. Liberty Lake May not move use to a portion of lot other than that occupied by such use. May not enlarge, relocate or rearrange nonconforming uses Omak unless CUP is granted by Hearing Examiner. Post Falls May not be expanded or extended in any way. May not expand use in any way, even in building where use Richland occupies a portion of the building. Spokane Some allowance for expanding onto adjacent property not under ownership, limited to some commercial/industrial zones Expansion discouraged but is possible with CUP approved by Spokane County Hearing Examiner. Vancouver Cannot expand Use outside existing building May expand noncoforming use one time not to exceed 20% of floor area or land area which it occupied when use became Walla Walla nonconforming with CUP. Expansion of an enclosed nonconforming use to land outside the building is not permitted. May expand nonconforming use outside of structure on existing Yakima lot w/admin approval if strict criteria are met. � CoU � ' mission SCITY OTkapone Gr-' Sheet Valley DATE: NAME (PLEASE PRINT) ADDRESS WISH TO SUBJECT E-MAIL SPEAK? ICA/ 2.SZ r l✓ $Ga//`v4 L C TJO 3-10 Ah ja.c o+ l /4i��jb/CCc.e,-. ' II ( 17 k �e� cl 1/O S P wp Plyeviar Dit`e Su Ag c�r c��/�i 0.6 ve �°'s ► w Söke p Valley 11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106 ♦ Spokane Valley WA 99206 509.921.1000 ♦ Fax: 509.921.1008 ♦ cityhall@spokanevalley.org Memorandum To: Mayor and City Council From: John Carroll, Chair-Spokane Valley Planning Commission Date: July 8, 2010 Re: Planning Commission Findings and Recommendation: CTA-04-10 BACKGROUND On June 24, 2010, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to consider a privately initiated text amendment to Section 19.20.060 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC)which addresses the expansion of nonconforming uses. The current code allows expansion of nonconforming uses onto adjacent parcels but the parcel must be under the same ownership at the time the use became nonconforming. The proposed text amendment would allow the expansion of nonconforming uses onto adjoining property without regard to ownership. After considering public testimony and reviewing the staff report, the Planning Commission voted 5-2 to recommend disapproval of the proposed text amendment. The Planning Commission's findings and recommendation on CTA-04-10 are summarized below: FINDINGS 1. Notice for the proposed text amendment was placed in the Spokane Valley News Herald on June 2, 2010. 2. Pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act(SEPA—RCW 43.21 C) an environmental checklist was required for the proposed text amendment. 3. Staff reviewed the environmental checklist and a threshold determination was made for the proposed text amendment. An Optional Determination of Non-significance (DNS)was issued for the proposed text amendment on June 18, 2010. 4. The DNS was published in the city's official newspaper consistent with the City of Spokane Valley Environmental Ordinance. 5. The Spokane Valley Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on June 24, 2010, to consider the proposed text amendment. After hearing public testimony, the Commission made a recommendation on CTA-04-10. Section 17.80.150(F) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code(SVMC) provides approval criteria that must be considered when the City amends the SVMC. Planning Commission Findings: Section 17.80.150(F) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) provides approval criteria that must be considered when the City amends the SVMC. 1 of 3 1. The proposed text amendment must be consistent with applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan; Planning Commission Response: The Comprehensive Plan does not provide specific policy direction toward the treatment of nonconforming uses. However, the most basic principle of land use planning is to separate incompatible uses, such as industrial from residential, by locating them in different parts of the community or buffering them from each other. The following policies relate to this principal. LUP-1.1 - Maintain the character of existing and future residential neighborhoods through the development and enforcement of the City's land use regulations and joint planning. LUP-1.2 - Protect residential areas from impacts of adjacent non-residential uses and/or higher intensity uses through the development and enforcement of the City's land use regulations and joint planning. LUP-11.1 - Commercial, residential and recreational uses should be limited or not allowed in areas designated for industry, except for small-scale ancillary commercial and recreational uses intended to primarily serve the industrial area. LUP-11.3 - Provide appropriate buffering, landscaping and other development standards for industrial areas. NP-2.1 - Maintain and protect the character of existing and future residential neighborhoods through the development and enforcement of the City's land use regulations and joint planning. NP-2.6 - Establish appropriate design guidelines with buffer zones and transition requirements to protect residential neighborhoods from incompatible land uses and adverse impacts associated with arterials, freeways and rail corridors. Allowing nonconforming uses to expand onto adjacent properties without restriction is not consistent with the overall intent of the Comprehensive Plan to protect neighborhoods from incompatible uses. 2. The proposed amendment must bear a substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment; Planning Commission Response: Zoning is a police power that allows the City to exercise reasonable control over the use of property in the interest of the health, safety and welfare of the community at large. Zoning is also the regulatory means to implement the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan. Zoning separates uses that are incompatible, thereby protecting the general health, safety and welfare of the community. Chapter 19.20.060B (4), SVMC, currently allows the expansion of nonconforming uses to adjacent property under the same ownership when the use became nonconforming, subject to certain criteria. Compared to many other jurisdictions, this allowance is uncommon and extraordinary. This provision is provided in the SVMC to avoid economic hardship to property owners who may have made plans to expand a legal use onto adjacent property purchased for that purpose but was made nonconforming by new zoning regulations. The proposed amendment would expand this provision to land not under ownership at the time the use became nonconforming. It would apply to existing nonconforming uses and nonconforming uses that replace another nonconforming use. The concern is that if the proposed amendment is adopted, incompatible uses may expand to adjacent properties without limit, thereby rendering the zoning code somewhat meaningless. For example, if a use that would otherwise be permitted only in the Heavy Industrial zone is allowed to expand in the Corridor Mixed Use (CMU) zone, then it has the potential to negatively impact adjacent uses, such as schools, residences and retail shops, all permitted uses in the CMU zone. If 2 of 3 the use is compatible with the zoning and does not interfere with the use of adjacent property, then the appropriate mechanism to address the situation is to either allow the use outright, or require a Conditional Use Permit, which then allows public scrutiny via a public hearing process. A review of random zoning codes from cities and counties around Washington State and Idaho found only one other jurisdiction that allows expansion onto adjacent property not under ownership at the time the use became nonconforming by administrative approval. That jurisdiction, the City of Spokane, allows expansion of nonconforming uses onto adjacent properties only in industrial and higher intensity commercial zones. Spokane County allows expansion of nonconforming uses onto adjacent property with a conditional use permit, subject to a public hearing before the Hearing Examiner. Some jurisdictions only allow nonconforming uses only to expand within the structure it occupies; most other jurisdictions allow that expansion restricts the expansion to the parcel the nonconforming use occupies. ADOPTION OF FINDINGS: The Planning Commission is required to adopt findings of fact when recommending changes to the Spokane Valley Municipal Code. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Planning Commission, by motion to disapprove the proposal, adopted the findings of fact for CTA-04-010. Approved this July 8,2010 fir iy) +. n G. Carroll, Cha r •ity of Spokane Valley Planning Commission 3 of 3 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: June 24, 2010 City Manager Sign-off: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing on proposed Development Code Text Amendment to Section 19.20.060 the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC). GOVERNING LEGISLATION: SVMC 19.30.040 - Development regulation text amendments. PREVIOUS COMMISSION ACTION TAKEN: None. BACKGROUND: The Applicant proposes to amend the nonconforming use provisions contained in Section 19.20.060 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code. Current regulations allow nonconforming uses to expand to adjacent properties under the same ownership at the time the use became nonconforming. The proposed amendment would allow nonconforming uses to expand to adjacent properties without regard to ownership. OPTIONS: Recommend approval; recommend denial or direct staff further. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Move to deny CTA-04-10. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None. STAFF CONTACT: Scott Kuhta, AICP, Senior Planner ATTACHMENTS: 1. Exhibit 1: Proposed Amendments; 2. Staff report RCA Public Hearing for CTA-04-10 1 of 1 DEVELOPMENT CODE TEXT Slitikar ENDMENT APPLICATION .0000Vall ley SVIV1C 17.80.150 Hf ! ddmmunity Development®Planning Division SPOKANE VAL 11703 E Sprague Ave Suite B-3 0 Spokane Valley WA 99206 SDP DEPAAflAEN x 9.720.5026 0 Fax: 509.688.0037 0 planning®spakanevalley,org COMMUNITY L1L`VELOPMEN T STAFF USE ONLY 7) a Date Submitted: f��, 1 Received by: Fee: r) � PLUS #: File#: Cl;C "01_..-) F L\- PART I — REQUIRED MATERIAL •.1 'THE PLANNING DIVISION WILL NOT ACCEPT YOUR APPLICATION IF THE REQUIRED MATERIALS ARE NOT PROVIDED" U'J , \w. `. El ,Pre-Application Meeting Request(include copy of staff worksheet from meeting) L.1 Completed Application Form � Application Fee El SEPA Checklist:One(1)copy of completed State Environmental Policy Act(SEPA) Environmental Checklist, including option Non-Project Action supplemental form. (Note: Any previous environmental documents that are relevant to this project should be included and may be adopted by reference.) PART II —APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT NAME: Dwight J Hume MAILING ADDRESS: 9101 N Mt. View Lane Cr,: Spokane STATE:WA ZIP:99218 PHONE:435-310.8 FAx_467-0229 CELL:435-3108 EMAIL:dhume@spokane-landuse.com SECTION(S)OF CODE PROPOSED TO BE AMENDED(INCLUDE CODE CITATION): See Attached SUMMARY OF REQUESTED CODE AMENDMENT(S): See Attached REVISED 2126110 Page 1 of 2 Siiiikan'` e _. Valley TEXT AMENDMENT APPLICATION REASON(S)FOR CODE AMENDMENT(S):See attached IS THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT CONSISTENT WITH THE APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Yes, see attached DOES THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT BEAR A SUBSTANTIAL RELATION TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH,SAFETY,WELFARE, AND PROTECTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT: Yes, see attached PART III AUTHORIZATION (Signature of applicant) 1, Dwight J Hume (print name) swear or affirm that the above responses are made t thf Ily and to`the best of my owledge. i - /-4../.,4 , - - .-e-I-11---e--_____— Signature) (Date) NOTARY STATE OF WASHINGTON) ss: COUNTY OF SPOKANE ) SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this i day Of ,20 I NOTARY SEAL do / ib.�i ; 1) �) , , .�A������+`‘ 111I 1 NOTARY SIGNATURE fl �� A't`Y'py� I�. Notary Pu•lic in and for the State of Washington yh OR l' i 2 1 /lA (��l 's,o 2', ,u s 1- 5 Residing at: i 'P Puw5SI. ---- ,/, 0 ; :. . .. .... .. . . ,lhli,4rE OF P�- (3, (1 1111\k\v����,, My appointment expires: —L—`I I REVISED 2126110 Page 2 ail Land Use Planning Services 9101 N. MT. VIEW LANE Spokane, WA 99218 ,,, 509-435-3108 (V) 509-467-0229 (S) HAY .1 3 2g-la SPOKANE‘.1,41_LEY BITAR!WEN OF 5-13-10 Greg McCormick AICP Community Development Department E. 11707 Sprague Avenue Suite 106 Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Ref: Text Amendment Non-conforming Use Dear Greg: Enclosed herewith is the completed Development Code text amendment for the non-conforming use expansion. As you will see, it is changing the language of the code to allow expansion onto adjacent property regardless of when it was purchased. As you or staff will see, there are several ways this can be written and/or administered for protection against impacts. Personally, I feel that Spokane Valley has the best approach to have it as an administrative review and approval vs. a CUP process, since there is little benefit form holding public hearings just to determine what the criteria already requires. •£Iw" i cer ly, 4/1 'e 'fie ?Z Dwight J Hum- Enclosure: um-Enclosure: Application, Fee, SEPA Checklist ut:i vvL. Text Amendment Non-Conforming Use Supplement sPOKA��!EVAL Y' PP 1.:E1.Aill.EN f OF _ COMMUNITY DIVE'OF;ENT Sections of code to be amended: Chapter 19.20.060 B 4 Non-Conforming Use Expansion Adjoining Parcel Summary of Requested Code Amendment: The current language restricts the expansion onto an adjoining parcel only when that parcel was of the same ownership at the time non-conformity occurred.This request would allow expansion under the same criteria on an adjacent property whenever it is purchased,regardless of ownerships status at the time of non-conformity. Accordingly,Chapter 19.20.060 B (4)would be amended as follows: Existing: 4.A non-conforming use may be expanded only within the boundaries of the original lot or tract and any adjacent lot or tract,that was under the same ownership as the lot or tract at the time of the use on the original lot or tract became non-conforming if a)The expanded use does not degrade the transportation level of service greater than the original:use;and b)The expanded use does not adversely affect or interfere with the use of neighboring property;and c)Any transfer of ownership or interest on adjacent lots or tracts was made contemporaneously with the transfer of ownership of the lot or tract on which the non- conforming use is located as part of the single transaction; and d)The expansion does not create additional development opportunities on adjacent tracts that would not otherwise exist. Proposed: 4.A non-conforming use may be expanded only within the boundaries of the original lot or tract and any adjacent lot or tract,if: a)The expanded use does not degrade the transportation level of service greater than the original use;and b)The expanded use does not adversely affect or interfere with the use of neighboring property;and c) The expansion does not create additional development opportunities on adjacent tracts that would not otherwise exist. Reasons for Code amendment: The Code currently allows expansion onto adjacent property within criteria.intended to protect neighboring property owners and does not lessen the transportation level,what difference does it make when that property was purchased? Spokane County allows expansion of non-conforming uses by Conditional Use Permit and has, since 1986 without regard to purchase or ownership date,presumably without adverse consequences since it remains as a zoning provision to this date. The City of Spokane allows non-conforming use expansion within the commercial and industrial zones but not the more restrictive office and residential zones. Liberty Lake does not allow expansion onto other property. As stated above,there are a variety of ways to regulate non-conforming uses within this region. Either it becomes extremely restrictive so as to force the use into extinction, or the regulations become generous in their accommodating the use. Spokane Valley chose the latter approach of being somewhat accommodating and yet has language that only allows one kind of ownership pattern the opportunity to expand,that being the one where the owner of the non-conforming use somehow,had the foresight to purchase an adjoing parcel for his future expansion and that is discriminating at best. I believe it is the legislative will of this city to loosen the shackles on non-conformity and allow it a fair chance to survive, so long as it doesn't create an adverse impact upon roads and surrounding land use. Is the proposed amendment consistent with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan?: To the extent that existing non-conforming use language is consistent with the comprehensive plan, so is this: The amendment merely eliminates when you purchased the adjoining property. To the extent that current language expansions are consistent, so will these be. Does the proposed amendment beat a substantial relation to the public health,safety, welfare and protection of the environment? Yes, the criteria for expansion requires adherence to the following criteria: a)The expanded use does not degrade the transportation level of service greater than the original use; and b)The expanded use does not adversely affect or interfere with the use of neighboring property;and c) The expansion does not create additional development opportunities on adjacent tracts that would riot otherwise exist. End of supplement Behm ' Center 9405 E. Sprague Ave. Suite "E" Spokane Valley WA. 99206 (509) 924 7800 John Carroll - Chair 06/24/10 City of Spokane Valley Planning Commission Members of the Planning Commission, The discussion on allowing auto sales in the Mixed Use Zoning began as an effort to resolve the problem with the Elephant Boys Marine and Boat Sales lot being Non- Compliant under the new Mixed Use Zoning. At the present time the City has Auto Sales and Boat Sales under the same category. Which does create this problem. Therefore it would seem to be a simple solution to separate Auto and Boat Sales into separate categories and allow Boat Sales in Mixed Use Zoning and not have to change the zoning requirements for Auto Sales in the whole City. That might defeat the purpose of the Auto Row Zoning. I was confused as to why the City had put Boat and Auto Sales in the same category. One of my tenants is the Spokane Valley Licensing Agency. I asked if the State of Washington considered Autos and Boats in the same category. The State of Washington Dept. of Licensing does have separate licenses for Dealers of Vessels (Boats), Autos and Trailers. The State does consider them to be in completely different categories as are Motorcycles and ORV's An Auto Dealer can take in a boat on trade and sell it, but is limited to 5 such transactions a year or they must apply for a Boat Dealers License. I would assume the same would be true for a Boat Dealer, but is not as likely. Sometimes a hasty decision to resolve one problem results in many more down the road. I have no interest in any Auto or Boat Sales businesses. My only concern is the reasonable implementation of the new zoning requirements. Richard C Behm —Owner Behm's Center Deanna Griffith From: Deanna Griffith on behalf of Planning Commission Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2010 4:10 PM To: Christina Janssen Subject: FW: Mixed Use Zoning Christina, for your file. I will, or you can, read this into the record for the hearing tonight. Let me know. De a wwa From: Dick Behm [mailto:dick@divasales.com] Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2010 3:40 PM To: Planning Commission Subject: Mixed Use Zoning Behm ' Center 9405 E. Sprague Ave. Suite "E" Spokane Valley WA. 99206 (509) 924 7800 John Carroll - Chair 06/24/10 City of Spokane Valley Planning Commission Members of the Planning Commission, The discussion on allowing auto sales in the Mixed Use Zoning began as an effort to resolve the problem with the Elephant Boys Marine and Boat Sales lot being Non-Compliant under the new Mixed Use Zoning. At the present time the City has Auto Sales and Boat Sales under the same category. Which does create this problem. Therefore it would seem to be a simple solution to separate Auto and Boat Sales into separate categories and allow Boat Sales in Mixed Use Zoning and not have to change the zoning requirements for Auto Sales in the whole City. That might defeat the purpose of the Auto Row Zoning. I was confused as to why the City had put Boat and Auto Sales in the same category. One of my tenants is the Spokane Valley Licensing Agency. I asked if the State of Washington considered Autos and Boats in the same category. The State of Washington Dept. of Licensing does have separate licenses for Dealers of Vessels (Boats),Autos and Trailers. The State does consider them to be in completely different categories as are Motorcycles and ORV's An Auto Dealer can take in a boat on trade and sell it, but is limited to 5 such transactions a year or they must apply for a Boat Dealers License.I would assume the same would be true for a Boat Dealer,but is not as likely. Sometimes a hasty decision to resolve one problem results in many more down the road. 1 I have no interest in any Auto or Boat Sales businesses. My only concern is the reasonable implementation of the new zoning requirements. Richard C Behm—Owner Behm's Center 2 Deanna Griffith From: Bunten, Donna (ECY) [DBUN461@ECY.WA.GOV] Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2010 3:11 PM To: Deanna Griffith; Greg McCormick Cc: Sikes, Jeremy(ECY); Hunt, Bruce(COM); Caputo, Dee (COM) Subject: RE: Spokane Valley code amendment Hello Deanna and Greg, Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the amendment regarding the expansion of non-conforming uses. Our main concern is whether wetlands adjacent to the non-conforming use will be adequately protected if an expansion is allowed. We recommend that any expansion of a non-conforming use be required to comply with the provisions of Chapter 21.40 in order to ensure that the functions and values of critical areas are protected and that any unavoidable impacts are mitigated. Please contact me or Jeremy Sikes (509-329-3426) if you have any questions. Donna J.Bunten CAO Review Coordinator Dept. of Ecology PO Box 46700 Olympia, WA 98504 (360)407-7172 donna.bunten@ecy.wa.gov 1 Deanna Griffith From: Caputo, Dee (COM) [dee.caputo@commerce.wa.gov] Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2010 1:00 PM To: Hunt, Bruce (COM); Bunten, Donna (ECY); Sikes, Jeremy(ECY) Cc: Greg McCormick; Deanna Griffith; Caputo, Dee (COM) Subject: RE: Spokane Valley code amendment Attachments: text amendment Donna, Thanks for the chat about the amendment; I think your point is well taken, and should be shared with Spokane Valley. I am certain staff will understand your concerns and help convey them to their officials when they decide upon this application. Great to chat! Thanks for the inquiry, Dee From: Hunt, Bruce (COM) Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2010 12:09 PM To: Bunten, Donna (ECY) Cc: Sikes, Jeremy (ECY); Caputo, Dee (COM) Subject: RE: Spokane Valley code amendment Hi Donna, My co-worker Dee Caputo covers Spokane county and its cities and we did chat this morning about this Code amendment. I'll let Dee weigh in on this. There are a couple issues with this amendment and Dee can give you a sense of what we talked about. Bruce Bruce Hunt, Senior Planner Department of Commerce Growth Management Services 10 N. Post St. Suite 447 Spokane WA 99201 509-280-3602 From: Bunten, Donna (ECY) Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2010 10:03 AM To: Hunt, Bruce (COM) Cc: Sikes, Jeremy (ECY) Subject: Spokane Valley code amendment Hi, Bruce, This is a little deep into the planning world for me, but does this provide any protection for critical areas on adjacent lots that would be under threat from the expansion of the non-conforming use? Do you have any scoop on this amendment? Donna J. Bunten CAO Review Coordinator 1 Dept. of Ecology PO Box 46700 Olympia, WA 98504 (360)407-7172 donna.bunten@ ecy.wa.gov Jurisdiction: City of Spokane Valley Date Received: 06/16/2010 Date Processed: 06/16/2010 Contact: Scott Kuhta 509.688.0049 Draft Amendment Development Regulation A privately initiated text amendment to the City of Spokane Valley's municipal code to allow nonconforming uses to expand onto adjacent property without regard to ownership when the use became nonconforming, subject to criteria. Tracking ID: 15794 2 spOkan'�`'` [IT'/HAIIrDSPQK;.Nf`; Department of Community Development - ' Valle Planning Division Current NonconformingExpansion Rules Chapter 19.20.060 B (4) 4. A non-conforming use may be expanded only within the boundaries of the original lot or tract and any adjacent lot or tract, that was under the same ownership as the lot or tract at the time of the use on the original lot or tract became non-conforming if: a) The expanded use does not degrade the transportation level of service greater than the original use; and b) The expanded use does not adversely affect or interfere with the use of neighboring property; and c) Any transfer of ownership or interest on adjacent lots or tracts was made contemporaneously with the transfer of ownership of the lot or tract on which the non- conforming use is located as part of the single transaction; and d) The expansion does not create additional development opportunities on adjacent tracts that would not otherwise exist. � n•�"�. ` '" ' Department of Community Development IMPVPII.IIrlr , Valle Planning Division g Proposed Nonconformin Expansion Rules Chapter 19.20.060 B (4) 4. A non-conforming use may be expanded only within the boundaries of the original lot or tract and any adjacent lot or tract, : - - - - - • - - - -- - - - - . - - a) The expanded use does not degrade the transportation level of service greater than the original use; and b) The expanded use does not adversely affect or interfere with the use of neighboring property; and c) Any transfer of ownership or interest on adjacent lots or tracts was made contemporaneously with the transfer of ownership of the lot or tract on which the non- conforming use is located as part of the single transaction; and d) The expansion does not create additional development opportunities on adjacent tracts that would not otherwise exist.