Loading...
2020-08-13 PC APPROVED SIGNED minutes Regular Meeting Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers—City Hall August 13,2020 I. Chair Johnson called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. The meeting was held remotely via ZOOM meeting. IL Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance. III. Administrative Assistant Taylor Dillard took roll and the following members and staff were present: Fred Beaulac Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney Walt Haneke Jenny Nickerson, Building Official James Johnson Lori Barlow, Senior Planner Danielle Kaschmitter, absent Connor Lange, Planner Tim Kelley Taylor Dillard, Administrative Assistant Bob McKinley Marianne Lemons, Office Assistant Sherri Robinson There was a consensus from the Planning Commission to excuse Commissioner Kaschmitter from the meeting, IV. AGENDA: Commissioner Beaulac moved to approve the August 13, 2020 agenda as presented. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was six in favor, zero against and the motion passed V. MINUTES: Commissioner McKinley moved to approve the amended July 23, 2020 minutes as presented with one change to page 3 paragraph 7 sentence 2 to read: "It's substantially less expensive to expand than relocate and relocation could be outside of the City limits. " There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was six in favor, zero against and the motion passed VI. COMMISSION REPORTS: Chair Johnson reported that he continues to attend the Human Rights Task Force meetings. He also informed the Planning Commission that he attended the City Council meeting on August 4, 2020 and they came to a consensus to approve all of the Comprehensive Plan amendments that were submitted. VII. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: There was no administrative report. VIII. PUBLIC COMMENT: There was no public comment. IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS: 1 08-13-2020 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 5 a. Public Hearing: CTA-2020-0003, Proposed amendment to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) Chapter 19.25,Nonconforming Uses and Structures The Public Hearing was opened at 6:09 pm. Senior Planner Lori Barlow gave the Commission a presentation explaining that Chapter 19.25 of the SVMC regulates nonconforming uses and structures and defines what is considered a legal nonconforming use or structure. According to the municipal code, nonconforming uses are uses or structures that were legally permitted under the applicable regulations at the time the use or structure came into existence and began lawful operations but subsequent changes or amendments to the zoning regulations occurred and made the use or structure nonconforming. Under this section of the municipal code, these nonconforming uses are allowed to continue and are subject to regulations of this chapter. The chapter also outlines the circumstances that a nonconforming use can be expanded. This item was presented to the Commission as an administrative report on July 23, 2020 and proper noticing has been done for the public hearing. An environmental review has been conducted and it concluded that there would be no environmental impacts if this code text amendment were approved. Ms. Barlow explained that there are two reasons that the City has been prompted to look at this item. The first reason is regarding single family residential structures in a non- residential zoning district. The applicability section of SVMC 19.25.010(4) states that existing legally established single-family residential structures located in a nonresidential zoning district are defined as a legal nonconforming use or structure. According to SVMC 19.25.030(E), "if a structure is damaged by fire,flood, neglect, or act of nature more than eighty percent of the market value, it may not be rebuilt. " This notation in the municipal code causes problems for residents to get financing to either refinance a current mortgage or get a new mortgage. Banks want to make sure that they can retain their value in the event of a disaster. Staff is proposing to make a change to item four of the applicability regulation that states "existing legally established single-family residential structures located in a nonresidential zoning district shall not be deemed nonconforming and shall be permitted as a legal use." This change to the language removes these homes from being reviewed and regulated under the nonconforming use regulations. Ms. Barlow noted that there is a change in this language from the last meeting. Previously, the language read single-family residential "uses". That language has been updated to single-family residential"structures"to prevent additional nonconforrnities within zoning districts. A damaged single-family home cannot be replaced with a multifamily dwelling and cannot be subdivided for residential purposes. According to the City's GIS Department, there are approximately 190 single-family residential structures identified that will be affected by this change. Ms. Barlow continued that the second item that has prompted this code text amendment is regarding the ability for property owners to expand nonconforming uses. The current regulations state that nonconforming uses can be expanded within the boundaries of the original lot and any lot adjacent to the original lot if they meet all criteria laid out in the municipal code. Staff is proposing to remove the language from the municipal code allowing expansion onto adjacent lots. Nonconforming uses will continue to be allowed to expand within the confines of the boundaries of the original lot only. Commissioner Haneke asked if a property owner owns a lot adjacent to a nonconforming use prior to it being deemed nonconforming, would this change stop the business from being allowed to expand onto the second lot. Ms. Barlow answered that this change would prohibit 2 08-13-2020 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 5 that expansion. Commissioner Haneke expressed that he would like the municipal code to allow expansion on adjacent properties that were owned by the same property owner prior to the nonconforming designation. Ms. Barlow explained that currently the municipal code defines the ability to expand into two categories: nonconforming uses in residential zones and nonconforming uses in non- residential zones. The existing language regarding residential zones states that property owners can expand to an adjacent lot if both lots were owned prior to the nonconforming designation. The language pertaining to nonresidential zones states that expansion could happen on an adjacent lot subject to specific criteria. The proposal is to eliminate the expansion criteria onto adjacent lots and limit expansion to the confines of the existing lot regardless of whether the property is residential or nonresidential. The public hearing was closed at 6:48 PM Commissioner McKinley expressed concern that this change could cause businesses to leave the City limits if they are unable to expand in their current location and need additional space. He feels that businesses should be allowed to expand rather than forcing them to relocate. Commissioner Kelley expressed that he feels that residential and nonresidential should be treated equally within the code. Ms. Barlow responded that residential and nonresidential are reviewed differently. The proposed change to residential would allow legal nonconforming single-family residences to continue and expand under the regulations. Businesses would need to comply and expansion would only be allowed within the confines of their existing lot or they would have to relocate their business to a location that is zoned properly for their business use. The logic for this difference is based on the market dictating when those residential uses will become more valuable as commercial or industrial. A pocket of residences isn't going to change until the market creates an opportunity where there is a significant value in making adjustment to the property. Staff wants to make sure that the municipal code does not create a burden on the single-family home property owners causing them to be unable to refinance or sell their property. There was consensus from the Commission regarding approval of the change to the residential portion of the municipal code that protects homeowners of legal nonconforming structures. Chairman Johnson clarified that the primary concern of the Commission is that this change will limit a property owner that owns an adjacent property to a nonconforming use to utilize that property as expansion for the nonconforming business. He asked if there should be a time limitation on their ability to expand onto that property. Commissioner Haneke responded that he feels the property owners should be allowed to maintain the expansion ability for as long as they own the property (if the property was purchased prior to the nonconforming designation). However, if the property is sold it would lose that possibility. He would like to see this change apply to both residential and nonresidential. There was lengthy discussion regarding how to make these changes to the code text. Deputy City Attorney Erik Lamb presented an updated draft code based on the conversation updating Chapter 19.25.020(D)to state the following: 3 08-13-2020 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 5 D. A nonconforming use in residential zones may be expanded only within the boundaries of the original lot and any adjacent lot having the same ownership as the lot at the time the use on the original lot became conforming, if 1. The expanded use does not degrade the transportation level of service greater than the original use; 2. The expanded use does not adversely impact the use of neighboring property; 3. Any transfer of ownership on adjacent lots was made concurrently with the transfer of ownership of the lot on which the nonconforming use is locates as part of a single transaction; erwd 4. The expansion does not create additional development opportunities on adjacent lots that would not otherwise exist; and 5. The use is not a single-family residential use. Section 19,25.020(E) will be removed from the code in its entirety. The Commission came to a consensus regarding these changes. Chairman Johnson moved to recommend approval of CTA-2020-0003 including the changes to Section 19.25,010(4) regarding single-family residential structures, the addition of line item five in Chapter 19.25.020(D) and removing Chapter 19.25.020(E). There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was six in favor, zero against and the motion passed. Chairman Johnson moved to take a ten-minute break. The vote on the motion was six in favor, zero against and the motion passed. b. Study Session: STV-2020-0001, A proposed street vacation of a portion of Desmet Court between Indiana and Flora Planner Connor Lange gave the Commission a presentation regarding STV-2020-0001, a privately initiated street vacation for a portion of Desmet Court. He explained that the City received the application on May 28, 2020 from Hanson Industries requesting to vacate 220 feet of Desmet Court. The proposed vacation in located between Indiana Avenue (west), Flora Road(east), I-90 (north) and adjacent to three parcels. The total area to be vacated is approximately 12,847 square feet. The proposed vacation will reduce the length of Desmet Court by 220 feet and dedicate a new cul-de-sac to serve the public. The reduced length of Desmet Court will reduce City maintenance costs of snow removal and repaving. The vacation will allow maximum use of abutting properties because parcels 45131.0507, 45131.0509 and 45131.0510 owned by Hanson Industries, which accounts for the majority of ownership along Desmet Court. Commissioner Beaulac asked about comments received from the utility companies. Mr. Lange answered that there are utilities located in the border easement and rights-of-way. The applicant is aware they will have to pay to have all of these relocated to the new cul-de-sac. This will be a condition of approval for the street vacation. Commissioner Haneke expressed that his company is working on the construction on Desmet and he has been involved in discussions regarding possible future development. He asked if he needed to recuse himself from discussion on this matter. Chairman Johnson answered that he should recuse himself if he feels that his involvement in the project would cause him not to consider this matter equably and fairly. Commissioner Haneke responded that he feels he 4 08-13-2020 Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 5 can consider this matter fairly and equably but he did want to make sure that the Commission was aware of the possible conflict. X. GOOD OF THE ORDER: Commissioner Beaulac stated that he works for the US Census Bureau and encouraged everyone to send in their census reports and to be helpful to any of the Census agents. Commissioner Robinson thanked the staff and the Commission for all their work on these matters. XI. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Kelley moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:12 p. m. The vote on the motion was six in favor, zero against, and the motion passed. /007Gf�8Z.a James son, Chair Date signed Deanna Horton, Secretary - 5