Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Land Use and Planning Board - 02/28/1984 KENT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 28, 1984 The Kent Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairman Stoner at 7 : 30 p.m. on Tuesday, February 28, 1984 , in the City Council Chambers. COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: M Carol Stoner, Chairman Nancy Rudy, Vice-Chairman Robert Anderson James Byrne Douglas Cullen Richard Foslin Chuck Lambert Helen Brooks, excused Raymond Ward, excused CITY STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: i James P. Harris, Planning Director j Will Wolfert, Associate Planner Lin Ball, Assistant Planner Lois Ricketts, Recording Secretary APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION Commissioner Rudy MOVED that I MINUTES FOR NOVEMBER 29 , 1983 the minutes for the November 29 , 1983 , meeting be approved as written. Commissioner Foslin SECONDED the MOTION. MOTION CARRIED. PROPOSED NONCONFORMING DEVELOPMENT Mr. Harris stated that the ORDINANCE--AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING nonconforming ordinance was CODE drafted by Will Wolfert, but the ordinance would be pre- sented by Lin Ball since she had presented this issue at the Planning Commission workshop. Ms. Ball explained that a few changes had been incorporated into the draft ordinance. The word "notwithstanding" which was to have been corrected (page 5, paragraph 5) would be corrected on the final copy. The Letter "A" should have been included on page 2 in front of the title "PURPOSE: The intent and purpose of these pro- visions are. " Ms. Ball continued to explain that the need for a change to the nonconforming use regulations became more noticeably apparent during the past year as an increasing number of situations came before the Planning Department. A number of older buildings, which had been established legally before the existing code went into effect, became vacant. The Planning Department has had difficulty Kent Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 1984 with the existing regulations which were found insufficiently flexible to cover every type of situation. It was found that the ordinance only addressed nonconforming uses and did not address development standards and site features in the nonconforming situations . It was these types of situations that were being brought to the Planning Department. There were a number of buildings which had nonconformity as far as develop- ment standards were concerned, i.e. , parking, site coverage, setbacks, etc. Ms. Ball mentioned that when the committee was drafting the new regulations, the Planning staff and the Zoning Code Advisory Committee worked for several months on this ordinance which is now broader to cover all the situations that the staff expects to be brought to the Planning Department. This new ordi- nance seems to be broad enough for the staff to deal with these situations without having to go through the costly and time-consuming variance procedure in every situation. The new code separates the nonconforming uses and then addresses the nonconforming structure development standards that we now have. It also gives a mechanism whereby a nonconforming use can expand where the existing regula- tions do not allow any type of mechanism for that purpose. The new regulations would permit this with control through the hearing procedure. The other main change is that the new regulations would i establish an administrative procedure which would give the Planning Director some authority to waive certain development standards in a nonconforming situation as long as certain criteria have been met. All references to nonconforming situations existing in the present code have been brought into one section of the code which now deals with all nonconforming developments , not just uses. Ms. Ball briefly listed the four main sections of the ordinance. The first section clarifies nonconforming uses, which are uses that were legally established at the time of adoption of the existing zoning code but which now do not meet current use regulations. The second section deals with nonconforming buildings/structures which are nonconforming due to building structures and site develop- ment features. This would clear up the issue of a building which was legally established at the time of adoption of the code but now does not meet current regulations due to the current development standards. The third section deals with nonconforming lots; lots that were legally existing at the time of adoption of the code but which now do not meet the current standards for lot development. The fourth section involves nonconforming signs which is presently in the sign section of the code but would become part of the Nonconforming Use section. Gary Volchok, 1600 Park Place, Seattle, Washington, 98101, has worked with members of the Kent Zoning Advisory Committee for approximately one year. He felt that the committee had looked at this issue from a number of different prospectives regarding types -2- Kent Planning Commission Minutes February 24, 1984 of uses and buildings in the area that may have problems for continued use of the facilities, as well as some of the uses that are in exis- tence, and felt that the ordinance would fit approximately 99 percent of the issues which may occur. He felt this ordinance would enhance the City of Kent in the long run. Commissioner Rudy MOVED that the public hearing be closed. Commissioner Cullen SECONDED the MOTION. Commissioner Cullen MOVED that the Commission accept the ordinance as presented. Commissioner Rudy SECONDED the MOTION. MOTION CARRIED unanimously. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Rudy MOVED to close the meeting. Commissioner Cullen SECONDED the MOTION. MOTION CARRIED unanimously. Chairman Stoner adjourned the meeting at 7 :45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Ja es P. Har it s, Secretary -3-