Meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission held July 25, 2023, 6:00 P.M. in the Council Chambers of City Hall.
Members present:
Mike Cook – Chairman
Kevin Asker – Vice Chair
Dan Gautney
Yolanda Stout
Brian Perry
Members absent: Lee Spencer
Graydon Galloway
City Staff: City Administrator Kennedy
Public Works Director Bob Mager
The meeting was called to order by Mike Cook at 6:00 p.m.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: On motion by Dan Gautney, second by Kevin Asker to approve the minutes of May 23, 2023 as presented. Motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING #1: City Administrator Kennedy stated the applicant, Bonnie Austin, did not finish her notifications, so the application is not complete and no hearing would be held.
PUBLIC HEARING #2: The public hearing was opened at 6:01 pm. No public present.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION: Lance McColloch explained the property at 1005 Hwy 13 has a gravel lot between Mountain View Dentistry and Jungle Gym. He would like to split his current parcel into two parcels so he can build a building on the new parcel. The current parcel has a lot of restrictions on it between water, sewer and electrical lines which is why the proposed building isn’t bigger. It will be a wood structure with the same rooflines as the existing structure. He plans to build a climate-controlled storage unit that will basically be a shell with closets in it that would stay about 69 degrees year-round. It will have security around it. The building is designed with lot lines for drainage, and the roof is designed so it won’t drain on the neighbor’s property. He is trying to figure out how to utilize the property he has. The proposed property is 180’ x 45’ and has truck route access. He has looked into power and it is available on the truck route and will be run underground to the building. At this time, there is no water and sewer to the building. He is providing a deed easement from the storage unit to the vault so the proposed new property would have water and sewer available for the future.
Brian Perry questioned if this is Lance’s business. Lance stated it will be a joint venture with Pete Bruzas, which is why they are trying to split the land.
Mike Cook asked where the property will drain. Lance stated it will drain toward the east and west. The building will be about 3’ from property line on the Mountain View side.
Kevin Asker questioned why the plans in the application say 6” to the property line? Lance stated they are trying to work with Mountain View, so they shifted the building so it’s 3’ away from the property line, which changes the building to 42’ x 75’ in size. Kevin also asked about the Avista power and Lance stated it will be underground and it will all be on the proposed property.
Brian Perry questioned what’s the downfall of going through the subdivision process. Lance stated because he’s going into partnership with someone else, he’d like to have it split so it has its own tax number.
STAFF PRESENTATION: City Administrator Kennedy reported all notices of hearing were delivered and published as required.
Public Works Director Mager stated with the possibility of a new parcel and possibly selling in the future, the City wanted to make sure there is water and sewer available to the property. Because this was originally forest service property, it is a private sewer line. Water is available, but the sewer is a private system. The City was questioning if the property sells in the future, how can they get services. Because Lance is providing a deed to the sewer vault that should allow a future connection.
Kevin Asker asked if there a grinder and pump station. Mager stated it’s in the vault on the existing property. Mountain View has their own vault too. Lance will provide a deeded easement to the vault on his property. With that easement, staff concerns are addressed.
WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE: None
SUPPORTERS: None
NEUTRALS: Tyler Harrington, Mountain View Dentistry felt they were doing due diligence by attending. He questioned what happens if there is a future water drainage issue.
Kennedy stated the building code prohibits drainage onto the neighboring property. This could be a future civil issue if it occurs. Mager stated this happened with another structure in town and the situation was corrected. Peter Bruzas stated the intent is to pipe any drainage to the ditch along the truck route.
Kevin Asker asked that the minutes address this concern and state drainage is not allowed to flow onto neighboring properties so it would be documented for the future, that it’s a valid concern.
OPPONENTS: None
APPLICANT REBUTTAL: Lance stated that was part of the reason for moving the building, so a leach line could be down the side of the building, gutter drains will land on his side and run to the ditch at the truck route. There should be no future drainage issue on the Mountain View property. The slope is to north, so it should help at this time by collecting drainage.
Mike Cook asked if the drawings reflect the drainage. Lance stated the footing drains are in the building plans along with roof drains and leach rock. Pete Bruzas stated they could make sure it’s noted on the plans for the drainage of footing and roof drains for final plans submitted to the city.
Kevin Asker asked if Extreme Auto is the lessor and is the chain link fence the boundary? Lance stated they own their own property. They currently have a 14’ easement through his property and it’s specifically for buyer use.
Brian Perry questioned where the snow will be plowed? Lance plans to plow the snow along the storage unit and in the green area along truck route. He does have the ability to haul it off if needed. Brian stated snow can sometimes be more of an issue than rain.
Kevin Asker asked if Mountain View will have access to the door on the backside of their building which the structure in place. Tyler Harrington stated they have their own access on the north side of their building.
Hearing closed 6:27 p.m.
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION: Brian Perry felt they made a good presentation dealing with run off and snow removal and not conflicting with neighbors. They did their due diligence with utilities for the property.
On motion by Kevin Asker, second by Yolanda Stout recommend to the City council to approve the variance submitted by Lance and Stephanie McColloch, 1005 Hwy 13. ROLL CALL VOTE YES: Cook, Perry, Asker, Stout, Gautney, NO: None. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARING #3: The public hearing was opened at 6:30 pm. No public present.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION: Emily Schacher, 323 N B, stated her property is in resident zone A and is a 480 square foot structure with 1 bedroom and 1 bathroom. She will only serve one person at a time, so it will be the same activity as a residential home. There are several commercial businesses across the street and in the neighborhood, including Meadowlark, Syringa Webb building and Patrick’s trucking building and this would allow her to utilize the space she already owns. She proposed to offer an aesthetic skin care business to men and women offering advanced treatment options for skin rejuvenation and improved appearance. The existing Residential Zone A causes unnecessary hardship restrictions preventing a commercial use to be located in the residential zone without a fulltime tenant. The variance will not alter the essential character of the surrounding neighborhood.
STAFF PRESENTATION: City Administrator Kennedy reported all notices of hearing were delivered and published as required. Kennedy explained the reason for the variance and conditional use applications. When a conditional use is applied for under a general use, one of the requirements prior to approval is that there needs to be a fulltime resident in the home. Emily is asking for a variance to the fulltime resident in the home.
WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE: None
SUPPORTERS: None
NEUTRALS: None
OPPONENTS: None
Hearing closed 6:43 p.m.
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION: Kevin Asker had an objection to some of the language, on whether a fulltime resident is burdensome to the property owner. The zoning definition is to protect the residents. In a similar case, Greg Winkler had a problem with people not living in the structure with the business in his neighborhood because a resident tends to have better upkeep on the property.
Brian Perry stated he felt we struggle in all our zones. For everyone that says commercial is hard to acquire, it’s the same for someone finding a place to rent. He felt P&Z needed to represent all the zones. He is a large advocate for a residential zone. If you look at the zoning map, he feels like we need to keep the lines between zones but also likes to see entrepreneurs. On a variance, he has always looked as a home business as a business incubator and hopes to see it grow and do well. He sees passion in doing your own thing. Sometimes P&Z has to look way down the road to see how it could affect the future. Sometimes if we say yes to one person, it could open another gate and P&Z needs to slow down and see what could happen in the future.
Yolanda Stout stated as a property owner, she wouldn’t want a business next door. There are plenty of in-home businesses that already exist.
Dan Gautney has no complaints with the application. Is it livable with less than 500 square feet? Emily stated it’s being remodeled but it’s very small.
Mike Cook re-opened the hearing at 6:49 p.m. to allow for additional clarification and information.
Kevin Asker questioned if her plans for the building were to upgrade the building for the business. Emily stated yes.
Dan Gautney asked since she owns the property next door if she’d want to add onto it.
Brian Perry asked if she planned to hang signage. Emily stated she planned on a simple sign on house.
The hearing closed at 6:51 p.m.
Dan Gautney made a motion to recommend that Emily Schacher be allowed a variance to the fulltime resident. Motion died for lack of second.
On motion by Brian Perry, second by Yolanda Stout to recommend to the city council to deny the variance because of the clause that she doesn’t have a fulltime resident. ROLL CALL VOTE YES: Cook, Perry, Asker, Stout NO: Gautney. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARING #4: The public hearing was opened at 6:54 pm. No public present.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION: Emily Schacher provided all her information in the applicant presentation during Public Hearing #3.
STAFF PRESENTATION: City Administrator Kennedy reported all notices of hearing were delivered and published as required.
WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE: None
SUPPORTERS: None
NEUTRALS: None
OPPONENTS: None
Hearing closed 6:55 p.m.
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION:
Brian Perry stated he’s not against the conditional use. He felt like he has to bend more rules than what he wants to. We have conditional uses we’ve approved with little conflict. He felt this request is getting too far outside the boundary of the rules and not sure what could come in the future. On the past approved conditional use with a variance to the fulltime resident, there are issues and it does nothing for the neighborhood it’s in now.
Chairman Cook discussed findings of fact with the commission as discussed for conditional uses.
a. The conditional use does not unreasonable impact public health, general welfare or general interest in the community. Introduction of a business in residential zone with an unoccupied house would change the impact to the neighborhood.
b. The proposed conditional use of property or structures will be appropriately located with respect to transportation facilities, water supply, fire and police protection, waste disposal and other similar facilities which might be needed for the proposed use. No issues.
c. The general neighborhood character and surrounding property values will not be unreasonably negatively impacted. Current regulations apply which would require an in home resident to have with the business.
d. The proposed conditional use will not cause an undue traffic hazard or unreasonable parking problem in the use district in which the conditional use is proposed. No issues with size of business.
e. There is no substantial community objection and the terms of section 10-10-3 of this chapter are incorporated herein as an additional condition to the granting of a conditional use. No community objection.
D2: Any proposed conditional use that is requested under subsection B of the definition of conditional use in section 10-2-1 of this title, that is a general use, shall additionally provide that there be a full time resident within a structure where the conditional use is proposed to be located. Under current proposal there is not a fulltime resident.
On motion by Yolanda Stout, second by Brian Perry to recommend to the council to approve the conditional use if there is a fulltime resident at the home. Motion carried.
Kevin Asker felt it was a unique business for the community and encouraged Emily to have the business in a commercial zone where there is no restriction.
NEXT MEETING: The next meeting is August 22, 2023 at 6:00 pm.
Adjourned by Mike Cook at 7:07 p.m.
Tonya Kennedy – City Clerk
