Planning staff propose major rewrite of nonconforming rules to allow repairs, discourage expansion

Planning staff presented a comprehensive rewrite of the Land Development Code’s nonconforming provisions on March 5, proposing changes intended to allow safety repairs and routine rebuilding while limiting expansions of nonconforming uses.

Why it matters: The proposed code changes affect long‑established small lots and nonconforming businesses and structures in older corridors. Staff said the current code — last fully overhauled in 1987 — prevents routine repairs, includes an amortization schedule that staff recommends removing, and has produced unclear administrative outcomes for owners, lenders and insurers.

Key proposals and thresholds. Staff proposed: - Allowing routine repairs and maintenance to preserve safety and habitability rather than forcing demolition. - Removing the amortization clause (which staff said could require a city purchase of property and has been the subject of lawsuits in other jurisdictions). - Recognizing legally platted small lots established before the 1987 code so they can be sold without an administrative delay, instead of forcing owners into a variance process. - Distinguishing nonconforming uses from nonconforming structures: nonconforming uses could not expand and could be discontinued after 18 months of vacancy; nonconforming structures that are allowable uses could be rebuilt in place if they meet health and safety codes and do not increase intensity, subject to limits described in the draft (examples: not larger, not taller, not increasing parking impacts). - For commercial and industrial nonconformities, if damage exceeds 50% (per the draft), reconstruction would be required to meet current standards; staff proposed that residential nonconformities be allowed to rebuild in place to limit displacement (staff tied this to pending HB 1500 at the state level).

Examples and concerns. Commissioners used local examples to probe impacts. The Red Pepper restaurant — located in a residential district — was discussed as a case study: under the proposed draft, the business could not expand and, if damaged more than 50%, would not be permitted to rebuild in its current use without a zoning change. Staff said the city would work with affected property owners on options, including rezoning, conditional uses, or PUD amendments, and that proposed code changes are intended to make routine financing and insurance simpler by clarifying status in code rather than relying on ad hoc administrative approvals.

Requests for follow up and process. Staff asked for guidance from the commission on several points, including an enforceability question about a proposed provision that would count adjacent lots under single ownership as one for zoning purposes; staff said the city attorney would be asked for an opinion on enforceability. Commissioners asked staff to form a subcommittee to review residential corridor cases and property lists before staff sends notices to owners; staff identified 43 single‑family properties the city flagged as potentially affected on corridors such as Gateway Drive, North and South Washington and parts of Demers Avenue.

Subcommittee and next steps. Commissioners agreed to a three‑member subcommittee (Commissioners Eichert, Budkey and Holt volunteered) to review the residential nonconforming parcel list and to refine draft code language. Staff said changes and city attorney feedback will return to the full commission before any notices to property owners and prior to final ordinance action.

Ending

Staff requested direction on whether to bring the consolidated draft forward for preliminary action; commissioners asked that the subcommittee review the draft and return recommended language and procedures before preliminary or final action.