HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Land Use and Planning Board - 08/12/2013 (3) ECONOMIC and COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Ben Wolters, Director
PLANNING DIVISION
Fred N. Satterstrom, AICP, Planning Director
Charlene Anderson, AICP, Manager
•
L KENT Phone: 253-856-5454
WA511FGTON Fax: 253-856-6454
220 Fourth Avenue S, Kent, WA
98032-5895
AGENDA
LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD
REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 12, 2013
7:00 P.M.
LUPB MEMBERS: Jack Ottini, Chair; Barbara Phillips, Vice Chair; Frank Cornelius, Steve
Dowell, Navdeep Gill, Alan Gray, and Randall Smith
CITY STAFF: Ben Wolters, Economic & Community Development Director; Fred
Satterstrom, AICP, Planning Director; Charlene Anderson, AICP, Planning Manager; Gloria
Gould-Wessen, GIS Coordinator/Long-Range Planner; Assistant City Attorney David Galazin
This is to notify you that the Land Use and Planning Board will hold a Regular Meeting on
MONDAY, AUGUST 12, 2013 in Kent City Hall, City Council Chambers East and West, 220
4th Avenue South, Kent, WA at 7:00 P.M. The public is welcome to attend. As the public
hearing closed on July 22, 2013; there will be no testimony taken at the Regular Meeting.
The Agenda will include the following item(s):
1. Call to order
2. Roll call
3. Approval of the July 22, 2013 Minutes
4. Added Items to Agenda
5. Communications
6. Notice of Upcoming Meetings
rCPZ/CPA-2012-11 Downtown Subarea Action Plan, Land Use Plan and Zoning
Districts Map Amendments, and rZCA-2013-21 Mixed Use Overlay Regulations
Code Amendment
Address a series of comments and questions raised by the LUPB at the July 22,
2013 Public Hearing:
1. How would the Downtown Design Review Guidelines be implemented in the
General Commercial Mixed Use (GC-MU) zoning district?
2. What mitigating measures can be applied to lessen the impact of development
on the surrounding single-family residential neighborhood in North Park as a result
of the proposed rezone of MRT-16 to DCE?
3. What would be the impact to the DSAP if the proposed rezone of Multifamily
Residential Townhouse (MRT-16) to Downtown Commercial Enterprise (DCE) was
not completed?
For further information or to obtain copies of staff reports or the Agenda for the proposed
amendment(s) contact the Planning Division office at (253) 856-5454. You may access the City's
website for documents pertaining to the Land Use and Planning Board at:
h tto:Ilkentwa.iom2.com/citizensIDefau/L asox?Det)artm entl D=1004.
Any person requiring a disability accommodation should contact the City Clerk's Office at 253-856-
5725 in advance. For TDD relay service call 1-800-833-6388 or call the City of Kent Planning Services
directly at(253) 856-5499 (TDD).
This page intentionally left blank.
1
LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD
MINUTES
•
KE T JULY 22, 2013
W� �T.l
Land Use & Plannina Board Members: Chair Jack Ottini, Vice Chair Barbara Phillips,
Frank Cornelius, Steve Dowell, Navdeep Gill, Alan Gray, and Randall Smith. Ottini called the
meeting to order at 7:00 pm.
City Staff: Planning Director Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager Charlene Anderson, Long-
Range Planner Gloria Gould-Wessen, Assistant City Attorney David Galazin
3. Approval of Minutes
Board member Gray Moved and Board member Phillips Seconded a Motion to
approve the July 8, 2013 Minutes. Motion CARRIED 7-0.
4. Added Items - None
S. Communications in the form of comments received will be submitted for the record
by Gould-Wessen.
6. Notice of Upcoming Meetings - None
7. Public Hearing
7.1 ZCA-2013-1 Residential Facilities Regulations Code Amendment
Graves reported that these amendments relate to residential facilities, group care, and
group living facilities in Kent City Code (KCC) Title 15, Zoning. Amendments include
clarifying definitions for different types of residential facilities, removing ambiguity, and
updating the residential land use table and KCC for consistency with state laws and
regulations. A new definitions have been added for "assisted living facility", "family",
"residential facility with health care", and "transitional housing." .
Chair Ottini opened the Public Hearing. Seeing no speakers Ottini closed the public hearing.
After brief deliberations, Dowell MOVED and Smith SECONDED a Motion to approve
ZCA-2013-1 residential, group care, and group living facilities amendments as
recommended by staff. Motion PASSED 7-0 without opposition.
7.2 Downtown Subarea Action Plan (DSAP) (CPZ/CPA-2012-1) and DSAP Zoning
Districts & Comprehensive Plan Map Amendments; Draft DSAP Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS)
Gould-Wessen stated that the first public hearing was held on July 81h with the Board's
concurrence to continue the hearing to July 22"'. Gould-Wessen submitted six comments
for the record defined as Exhibit Numbers 4-9: (4) from Joseph Bento, North Park resident
voicing opposition to any zoning changes.; (5) from Len McCaughan, supportive of changes
and would like the city to raise height limits; (6) from Michelle & Gerald Warren North Park
property owners supportive of redevelopment changes; (7) from Ryan Czaplinski opposes
rezoning and spoke about traffic issues along First Avenue; (8) from Washington State
Department of Tra nsportation(WS DOT) speaking to concerns regarding Levels of Service
(LOS) Standards; (9) from Roderick McPhee on behalf of North Park Residents with '13'
signatures of residents who wish to preserve the integrity of their existing single family
homes by leaving the zoning in North Park unchanged.
Gray MOVED and Dowell Seconded a Motion to accept the '6' exhibits into the
record. Motion PASSED 7-0.
2
In response to questions raised during the July 81h Hearing, Gould-Wessen defined
Affordable Housing" as most often referring to home sales prices and rent payments
affordable to household income levels 80% or less of Area Median Income. In 2012, the
AMI for a family of 2.4 persons in King County was $73,920.
Gould-Wessen described the zoning history for the DSAP Study Area (the Area) which
includes areas of the North Park Neighborhood. She stated that in 1984 property located
north of James street was zoned Duplex Multifamily Residential (MRD); in 1990 the Area
was down-zoned to Residential 5,000 sq. ft. (R1-5.0); in 1997 the Area was zoned Single
Family 8 (SR-8); and in 2005 parcels located on the northern side and along James Street
was zoned Downtown Commercial Enterprise (DCE) with a buffer zone of Multifamily
Residential Townhouse (MRT-16) separating properties in the SR-8 single-family zoning
district from the DCE by approximately 360 feet.
Gould-Wessen presented proposed code amendments defined as ZCA-2013-2 Mixed-Use
Overlay Regulations Code Amendment proposals for the Board's consideration related to
KCC Title 15, Zoning; Chapter 15.02 Definitions, as well as 15.04.190, 195, 200, 205, and
15.09.046 related to the General Commercial (GC) zoning district, and correcting a code
reference to design guidelines within downtown.
Gould-Wessen spoke about the impacts of rezoning General Commercial (GC) to General
Commercial Mixed Use (GC-MU). She stated that the amendments maintain allowable uses
in the GC-MU zone, increases allowable building height, and adds design review. Regulatory
changes will affect areas outside the downtown area and will apply city-wide. She pointed
out that the amendments change the mixed-use development definition, increases building
height to 65 feet, amends the mixed-use development standards by removing the Floor
Area Ratio language and Off-Street Parking points to KCC 15.05 off-street parking
standards.
Gould-Wessen stated that the Actions are guidance for implementing the DSAP. She stated
that the DSEIS evaluates 3 Land Use Alternatives, new Land Use Plan and Zoning Districts
Maps, new development regulations, expanded Downtown Design Guidelines, and the SEIS
will be used to develop the Planned Action & Infill Exemption Ordinances.
Board members questioned how many rental units exist north of James Street, why the City
feels it necessary to rezone property to DCE at this time which will eventually erode North
Park (a viable residential neighborhood). In response Gould-Wessen stated that these
changes have been generated by Economic & Community Development staff and the
Downtown Steering Committee as part of a team.
Satterstrom stated that although no North Park residents were represented on the Steering
Committee, they have been kept informed throughout this DSAP update process. He stated
that given the DCE regulations and zoning on the site near North Park, the potential for
large commercial development would likely be something of five-stories or less and would
maximize the building environment in downtown. Satterstrom stated that any building
development will be required to go through the design review process. Staff is proposing
DCE due to market pressures, and that this zoning provides more flexibility with the
potential to draw developers and investors to Kent.
Ottini Opened the Public Hearing.
Len McCaughan, 623 E. Titus St., Kent, WA 98030 stated that he supports changes in
downtown Kent and that Kent needs more high rises, apartments and a parking garage.
Ralph LoPriore, 1819 West Meeker St., Kent, WA 98030 stated he opposes any zoning
changes and wants Kent to retain the GC zone. He opined that Kent should focus on
revitalizing mobile home parks and limit their usage.
LUPB Minutes
July 22,2013
Page 2 of 3
3
Tina Budell, 323 W. Cloudy St., Kent, WA 98032 stated she is the president of the North
Park Neighborhood Council. She painted a visual picture of those residents who live in her
community and of those who live in the rental properties emphasizing the need to protect
their community and not rezone.
Chuck Maduell, 1201 3`d Ave #2200, Seattle, WA 98101 stated that he represents K-Mart
Corporation. He stated that a rezone to GC-MU would restrict K-Mart's ability to redevelop.
He stated that he supports the majority of the proposed changes with one exception; some
of the design guidelines which regulate the area along the street would require that the
entire parking lot be replaced in order to convert it into a more pedestrian-oriented space
and would trigger design review. Maduell voiced opposition to applying the GC-MU zone
west of SR-167.
Discussion between Maduell and the Board ensued over the merits of the Design Guidelines
with Gould-Wessen stating that the Design Guidelines Update is Phase II of this process
with staff's intent to make the Design Guidelines more applicable to the GC-MU.
Satterstrom stated that essentially the design guidelines are intended for use with Class A
and Class B Streets which is essentially the historic downtown where businesses front on
the street and where pedestrians can walk along a continuous walled building.
In response to concerns raised by the Board Members; Satterstrom stated that there is no
indication that K-Mart would lose their parking lot. He stated that design review is a
collaborative effort where the City strives to be flexible, conducting meetings where
discussions are held between City staff, builders and developers to determine what they are
striving to do. When design review is extended west of SR-167 all those streets will likely be
considered as unclassified. Any area in the GC-MU zone that is redeveloped would require
design review and would include architectural review.
Kathi Jones, Realtor with John L Scott, 5405 S 2371h PI, Federal Way, WA spoke in support
of zoning changes. The proposed zoning changes are not a deterrent to progress, rather
they provide the City with opportunities for positive change by giving us design guidelines
and additional choices rather than creating barriers to development. She referred to
successful developments such as High Point Development in Seattle, and the Richmond
American Home Developers who have built single family homes, integrating all levels of
housing. She stated that people need to consider that much of Kent's housing stock was
built over 50 years ago, has become obsolete, and can no longer meet certain thresholds
such as handicap accessibility. The zoning should be in place for those who wish to sell for
opportunistic reasons to developers. Jones emphasized that no one is being pushed out of
their homes and spoke about a program that offers free down payment money for those
people who meet certain criteria for homeownership.
Gerald Peterson, 924 3r' Ave N, Kent, WA 98030 stated that he supports development of
modest affordable housing in downtown Kent, and that he would prefer stores be developed
along First Avenue rather than downtown. He stated that he does not consider downtown
Kent to be historic in nature.
Rita Lo Priore, 1819 W Meeker, Kent, WA 98030 stated that she opposes rezoning to GC-MU
as it could erode property value and increase taxation for residents. She asked that the city
not rezone west of 167 and leave K-Mart alone.
Bruce Malcolm, 944 3r' Avenue N, Kent, WA 98032 stated that he is a North Park resident
opposed to implementing zoning changes for specific parcels near the North Park
Neighborhood. He spoke in opposition to increasing building heights and stated that the
North Park Community had not received notification when the 2005 DSAP was updated.
Upon seeing no further speakers, Ottini Declared the Public Hearing Closed.
LUPB Minutes
July 22,2013
Page 3 of 3
4
The Board deliberated at length posing questions and voicing their concerns related to; rules
and regulation changes, impacts to the K-Mart property if rezoned to GC-MU, impacts to the
Cloudy Street area if not rezoned. Gray asked that staff look at what type of mitigating
measures the city could provide the North Park Neighborhood if rezoned to GC-MU to
address that communities concerns. Phillips stated that she wants to hear from the
Economic Development Staff and would like clarification on what K-Mart would be allowed to
redevelop on their site.
Upon concluding deliberations, Ottini MOVED and Phillips SECONDED a Motion to
move CPZ/CPA-2012-1 DSAP; Zoning Districts Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendments and the DSEIS to a Workshop followed by a Regular Meeting on
August 12, 2013. Motion CARRIED 7-0.
Adiournment
Ottini adjourned the meeting at 9:00 pm
Charlene Anderson, AICP, Planning Manager/Board Secretary
LUPB Minutes
July 22,2013
Page 4 of 3
5
ECONOMIC and COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Ben Wolters, Director
PLANNING DIVISION
Fred N Satterstrom, AICP, Planning Director
KEN T Charlene Anderson, AICP, Planning Manager
Wnsu INGTON
Phone: 253-856-5454
Fax: 253-856-6454
Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S.
Kent, WA 98032-5895
August 5, 2013
To: Jack Ottini, Chair and Land Use and Planning Board Members
From: Gloria Gould-Wessen, AICP, GIS Coordinator/Long Range Planner
Subject: Downtown Subarea Action Plan (CPZ/CPA-2012-1) (KIVA-2120882),
Land Use Plan and Zoning Districts Map Amendments, and Mixed Use
Overlay Regulations Code Amendment (ZCA2013-2(KIVA-RPP6-2132552)
Regular Meeting — August 12, 2013
INTRODUCTION: On July 8, 2013 and July 22, 2013, the Land Use & Planning
Board (LU&PB) held public hearings on the Downtown Subarea Action Plan (DSAP),
associated actions that would implement the plan, as well as an accompanying draft
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS). The LU&PB closed the
public hearing after public testimony was received on July 22nd. The LU&PB had
three general questions for staff follow-up and they are addressed in this memo. A
copy of the current Downtown Design Review Guidelines was emailed to the LU&PB
on July 24, 2013.
QUESTIONS & RESPONSES:
1. How would the Downtown Design Review Guidelines be implemented in the
General Commercial Mixed Use (GC-MU) zoning district?
An update of the Downtown Design Review Guidelines (DDRG) is part of Phase
II of this project. At that time, development regulations will be amended to
include the expanded downtown study area and address other issues that have
been identified in Phase I of this project. The review of the DDRG is in its early
stages, making answering this question difficult. However, below are some
background of the downtown design review process, an overview of the DDRG
and how it is implemented, discussion of the pedestrian overlay map, and an
overview of Kent's nonconforming regulations.
An update of the DDRG is intended to follow adoption of the DSAP. The impetus
for the update is found in the draft DSAP where the Urban Design Element
contains goals, policies, and action items that direct staff to update the DDRG
(see UD-1.1, UD-1.2, UD-2.1, UD-2.2, and UD-2.3 in the DSAP). The first
downtown design review criteria and process were adopted in 1992. In 1999,
the mixed use overlay was created and required mixed use design review. At the
6
July 22nd Public Hearing, staff recommended applying downtown design review,
mixed use design review and multifamily design review to areas zoned GC-MU
(see July 22, 2013 LU&PB staff report for more detail on KCC 15.04.200, 205,
and 15.09.045, 046). Downtown design review is typically conducted by an
administrative committee, or by staff when projects cost less than $100,000 or
do not modify the exterior of a building. These administrative decisions can be
appealed to the hearing examiner.
The content of the DDRG includes site planning, landscape and site design, and
building design. The Downtown Design Review Goals illustrate the importance of
the pedestrian in design consideration and are intended to provide clear
objectives for developers (see pg. 1 of the DDRG). The section How to Use the
Design Guidelines sets parameters for design, but also emphasizes the need to
allow for design flexibility and encourages creative design solutions (see DDRG
pg. 3). The DDRG is written to place a minimum burden on projects whenever
possible by providing a variety of options to fulfill a requirement, limiting the
location where requirements are applied, offering incentives, and encouraging
designers to suggest alternatives to meet the intent of the guidelines.
The Pedestrian Plan Overlay Map will be a critical piece of the DDRG update in
Phase II (see DDRG pg. 6). This map identifies where particular design
guidelines are applicable. For example, it addresses the minimum percentage of
street frontage that should be occupied by buildings, where parking access
should be located or applies particular design guidelines such as building
setback, treatment of street corners, and pedestrian weather protection to name
a few. At present, the Pedestrian Plan Overlay Map does not extend to the larger
downtown subarea (i.e., west of SR-167). However, there are other guidelines
that apply more generally. The classification of Washington (SR-181), and other
principal and minor arterials within the downtown subarea, will be considered in
the update of the DDRG as part of Phase II.
At the July 8th and 22nd public hearings, a property owner's representative
voiced concern with the application of development regulations to GC-MU. The
representative was also concerned that the application of the DDRG would
create a nonconforming development and would be burdensome to future
improvements. Kent City Code 15.08.100 allows flexibility for nonconforming
properties (or uses) while providing a path forward for bringing nonconforming
properties (or uses) into compliance with Kent City Code (see Attachment A).
KCC 15.08.100(D)(3) allows property owners to rebuild if the nonconforming
structure is "...damaged by fire, flood, explosion, wind, earthquake, war, riot, or
other natural disaster' or maintain the structure to keep it in sound condition.
However, no nonconforming structure may be expanded, enlarged,
reconstructed, or structurally altered without bringing said building into
compliance with minimum development standards of the district. KCC
15.08.100(D)(4) provides authority to the planning director to waive specific
0L4i0 lUI I I mid IN,i & If W II II uil 111)411 I:i-f)ulu Moo I111fid
I k,v In I I,vIri I d J4 I Od AC li,I I I f W I II i_If, I(I w"IJMI V(Id INn f(fIW/ o q I I 1 dJ 111,E 1 l , .dOAI I (flid I I I(I III
„fzuI f
7
development standards or impose additional requirements based on specific
criteria. The Downtown Subarea Action Plan, if adopted, expands downtown to
the area west of SR-167 and considers design review critical for shaping the
area into the attractive, pedestrian-friendly, livable community envisioned in the
plan.
2. What mitigating measures can be applied to lessen the impact of development
on the surrounding single-family residential neighborhood in North Park as a
result of the proposed rezone of MRT-16 to DICE?
One of the implementation measures associated with the DSAP update is a
Planned Action Ordinance (PAO), and the aforementioned rezone is located
within the proposed PAO area. There are SEPA environmental mitigation
measures that would be adopted with the PAO (see Attachment B) and some
would apply to the North Park Neighborhood. In the SEIS, there are measures
for ensuring solar access is preserved for a variety of public spaces. Also listed
are pedestrian improvement measures for the North Park Neighborhood (i.e.,
installation of curb/gutter/sidewalks) and bicycle improvement measures for
adjacent roadways. Until the PAO or other development regulations are adopted
to mitigate impacts of development, site-specific environmental review will be
required to address impacts from proposed development.
3. What would be the impact to the DSAP if the proposed rezone of Multifamily
Residential Townhouse (MRT-16) to Downtown Commercial Enterprise (DICE)
was not completed?
Economic and Community Development Director Ben Wolters will present the
rationale for the proposed rezone at the August 12th meeting. The following
information summarizes the existing zoning, home-ownership within the
proposed rezone area, and responses to public comments.
The 2005 rezone in the North Park Neighborhood created Downtown Commercial
Enterprise (DICE) and Multifamily Residential Townhouse (MRT-16) zoning
districts for the city blocks located primarily between James and Cloudy Streets
and Railroad and 5th Avenues. DICE extends north of James Street approximately
300 feet, allows uses that mirror the commercial uses at Kent Station, as well as
allows residential uses, and acts as a buffer from the traffic-intensive nature of
James Street. The MRT-16 zoning district (i.e., townhouse zoning) extends
approximately 300 feet south of Cloudy Street to provide a buffer for the single-
family neighborhood (i.e., SR-8).
The proposed DSAP rezone includes an area located between 5th and 4th Avenues
and south of Cloudy (see June 24, 2013 LU&PB Workshop staff memo for
detailed map). There are ten (10) affected parcels that would be rezoned, of
which eight (8) are rentals. The number of rental properties has increased since
080r lUI I I mid IN,i & If W II II uil 111)411 I:i_f)ulu Moo I111fid
I k,v In I I,vI ri Id J4IOd ACIli,II IfWIIr i_If, I(I III J MIV(Id IN,n f(fIW/ oq I I W 11, 1l , .dOAII lid III(III�
wf s% uI I
8
an analysis was conducted in mid-2012 that found six (6) properties were
rentals. The block extends south to James Street and already is zoned DCE.
Within this existing DCE area there are ten (10) parcels, of which four (4) are
rentals.
The proposed rezone would not force condemnation or sale of properties, nor is
the City proposing to sell existing parks in the neighborhood.
If there are any questions prior to the August 12th regular meeting, please contact
Gloria Gould-Wessen at 253.856.5441.
GGW/pm S:\Permit\Plan\COMP_PLAN_AMENDMENTS\2012\CPA-2012-1 Downtown\LUP13\08-12-13\Memo.docx
Enc: Attach A — DRAFT KCC 15.08.100 Nonconforming development; Attach B — DSAP Update: SEPA Mitigation Measure for
Adaptation into Planned Action Ordinance;
cc: Ben Wolters, ECD Director
Fred Satterstrom,AICP, Planning Director
Charlene Anderson,AICP, Planning Manager
David Galazin and Kathy Hardy,Assistant City Attorneys
Files CPZ/CPA-2012-1 and ZCA-2013-2
0811'1.) lUI I Imid I Nn & PlId I"II"I III ) lmII d IY4)Id II Moo IIIY{i)
Ikwn lrirrrl ulJui,^„ACI mii h'Idm''�Ii_xirtlo jild Mixord IN,i :'Pm113/ ,r)uldu'I'.Ii'II Urdu.Ad"rloil ilioIII t::aA " JUI. I ! "I_/ JV:I10
9
ATTACHMENT A — LUPB August 12th meeting
15.08.100 Nonconforming development.
A. Purpose. The intent and purpose of this section is to:
1. Ensure reasonable opportunity for use of legally created lots which do not meet
current minimum requirements for the district in which they are located.
2. Ensure reasonable opportunity for use, maintenance, and improvement of
legally constructed buildings, structures, and site development features which do
not comply with current minimum requirements for the district in which they are
located.
3. Ensure reasonable opportunity for continuation of legally established uses which
do not conform to use regulations for the district in which they are located.
4. Encourage the eventual replacement of nonconforming uses having potentially
undesirable impacts on conforming uses.
5. Encourage the eventual upgrading of nonconforming buildings, structures, and
site development features which do not comply with current minimum
requirements for the district in which they are located.
B. Applicability. Nonconforming uses, structures, lots, or signs are not favored by law and this
title, and it is to avoid injustice that this title accepts such elements. To benefit from the
protection given to nonconforming development, such use, structure, or sign must have been
lawfully established pursuant to a county resolution in effect at the time of annexation which
rendered it nonconforming, or it must have been lawfully established prior to the effective
date of the ordinance codified in this chapter or subsequent amendments thereto, or lawfully
established prior to the purchase or condemnation of right-of-way by the city of Kent. This
section distinguishes between and defines nonconforming uses, major nonconforming
buildings and structures, minor nonconforming buildings and structures, nonconforming lots of
record and nonconforming signs. Different requirements are made applicable to each of these
categories. The degree of restriction made applicable to each separate category is dependent
upon the degree to which that category of nonconformance is a nuisance or incompatible with
the purpose and requirements of this title.
C. Nonconforming uses.
1. Applicability of restrictions. Regulations applicable to nonconforming uses are in
addition to regulations applicable to nonconforming structures, lots, and signs, and
in the event of any conflict the most restrictive provisions shall apply.
10
2. Expansion of nonconforming uses. No existing building, structure, or land
devoted to a nonconforming use shall be expanded, enlarged, extended,
reconstructed, intensified, or structurally altered unless the use thereof is changed
to a use permitted in the district in which such building, structure, or land is
located except as follows: When authorized by conditional use permit, a
nonconforming use may be expanded, enlarged, extended, reconstructed,
intensified, or structurally altered.
3. Change of nonconforming use. When authorized by the planning manager, a
nonconforming use may be changed to a use of a like or more restrictive nature.
4. Extension of nonconforming use. When authorized by the planning manager, a
nonconforming use may be extended throughout those parts of a building which
were manifestly designed or arranged for such use prior to the date when such use
of such building became nonconforming, if no structural alterations except those
required by law are made therein.
5. Discontinuance of nonconforming use. When a nonconforming use of land or a
nonconforming use of all or part of a structure is discontinued or abandoned for a
period of six (6) months, such use shall not be resumed, notwithstanding any
reserved intent not to abandon such use. Normal seasonal cessation of use, or
temporary discontinuance for purposes of maintenance or improvements, shall not
be included in determination of the six (6) month period of discontinuance.
6. Reversion to nonconforming use. If a nonconforming use is changed to a
permitted use, the nonconforming use shall not be resumed.
7. Residential exception to nonconforming use status. Legally established
residential uses located in any residential zoning district shall not be deemed
nonconforming in terms of density provisions and shall be a legal use.
8. Exception for certain drive-through banking facilities. Legally established bank
buildings with drive-through facilities in the downtown commercial zoning district
that existed prior to August 9, 1992, shall not be nonconforming; however, these
drive-through facilities may not be expanded beyond that which existed on August
9, 1992, when the city prohibited bank drive-through facilities in DC zones.
D. Nonconforming buildings and structures.
1. Applicability of restrictions. Regulations applicable to nonconforming structures
are in addition to regulations applicable to nonconforming uses, lots, and signs,
and in the event of any conflict the most restrictive provisions shall apply.
11
2. Major nonconforming buildings and structures. Except as allowed in KCC
15.04.030(6), no major nonconforming structure may be expanded, enlarged,
extended, reconstructed, or structurally altered or changed, nor may any major
nonconforming building, structure, or lot be occupied after discontinuance of
change in use, unless the structure, use, and associated grounds and development
are brought into compliance with use and minimum development standards of the
district in which such structure is located, except as follows:
a. Any major nonconforming structure damaged by fire, flood, explosion,
wind, earthquake, war, riot, or other natural disaster may be restored,
reconstructed, and used as before; provided, that the work be vested by
permit application within one (1) year of such happening; any restoration or
reconstruction not vested by permit application within twelve (12) months
from the date of the fire or other casualty shall be deemed abandoned and not
allowed to be restored.
b. Such repairs and maintenance work as required to keep the structure in
sound condition may be made to a major nonconforming structure, provided
no such structural alterations shall be made except such as are required by
law or ordinance or authorized by the planning manager.
3. Minor nonconforming buildings and structures. No minor nonconforming
structure may be expanded, enlarged, extended, reconstructed or otherwise
structurally altered or changed, nor may any minor nonconforming building,
structure, or lot be occupied after discontinuance or change in use, unless the
structure and associated grounds and development are brought into compliance
with the minimum development standards of the district in which such structure is
located, except as follows:
a. Any minor nonconforming structure damaged by fire, flood, explosion,
wind, earthquake, war, riot, or other natural disaster may be restored,
reconstructed and used as before; provided, that the work be vested by
permit application be completed within one (1) year of such happening; any
restoration or reconstruction vested by permit application twelve (12) months
from the date of the fire or other casualty shall be deemed abandoned and not
allowed to be restored.
b. Such repairs and maintenance work as required to keep the structure in
sound condition may be made to a minor nonconforming structure, provided
no such structural alterations shall be made except such as are required by
law or ordinance or authorized by the planning manager.
12
4. Planning manager's authority. The planning manager may waive specific
development standard requirements or impose additional requirements when all
the following criteria are met:
a. When owing to special circumstances a literal enforcement of the provisions
of this title or other land use regulatory ordinances of the city will result in
unnecessary hardship.
b. When the waiver of development requirements is in harmony with the
purpose and intent of city ordinances and the comprehensive plan.
c. When the proposed use, building, and development will function without
adverse impact upon adjacent property, development in the area or the city
as a whole.
d. When a conditional use permit is not required.
E. Nonconforming lots.
1. Applicability of restrictions. Regulations applicable to nonconforming lots are in
addition to the regulations applicable to nonconforming uses, structures, and
signs, and, in the event of conflict, the most restrictive provisions shall apply.
2. Nonconforming lots of record.
a. Residential districts.
i. In any district in which single-family dwellings are permitted, a single-
family dwelling and customary accessory buildings may be erected on any
single lot of record as of June 20, 1973, notwithstanding limitations
imposed by other provisions of this title. Such lot must be in separate
ownership and not of continuous frontage with other lots in the same
ownership. This provision shall apply even though such lot fails to meet
the requirements for area or width that are generally applicable in the
district; provided, that yard dimensions and requirements other than
those applying to area or width of the lot shall conform to the regulations
for the district in which such lot is located.
ii. In all single-family zoning districts, with the exception of the SR-8
zoning district, if two (2) or more lots or combinations of lots and portions
of lots with continuous frontage in single ownership are of record prior to
June 20, 1973, and if all or part of the lots do not meet the minimum
requirements established for lot width and area, the land involved shall be
13
considered to be an undivided parcel for the purposes of this title, and no
portion of the parcel shall be used or sold in a manner which diminishes
compliance with lot width and area requirements established by this title,
nor shall any division of any parcel be made which creates a lot with width
or area below the requirements stated in this title.
iii. In the SR-8 zoning district, if two (2) or more single-family zoned lots
or combination of lots and portions of lots with continuous frontage in
single ownership are of record prior to June 20, 1973, and if all or part of
the lots do not meet the following minimum requirements established for
lot width, lot area, and topography, the land involved shall be considered
to be an undivided parcel for the purposes of this title, and no portion of
the parcel shall be used or sold in a manner which diminishes compliance
with lot width and area requirements established by this title, nor shall
any division of any parcel be made which creates a lot with width or area
below the requirements stated in this title.
(A) Minimum lot area: Four thousand six hundred (4,600) square
feet.
(B) Minimum lot width: Forty (40) feet.
(C) Maximum site slope: Fifteen (15) percent.
iv. In any district in which duplex dwellings are permitted, a duplex
dwelling and customary accessory buildings may be erected on any single
lot of record as of June 20, 1973, with a minimum area of seven thousand
two hundred (7,200) square feet, notwithstanding limitations imposed by
other provisions of this title. Such lot must be in separate ownership and
not of continuous frontage with other lots in the same ownership. This
provision shall apply even though such lot fails to meet the requirements
for area or width that are generally applicable in the district; provided,
that yard dimensions and requirements other than those applying to area
or width of the lot shall conform to the regulations for the district in which
such lot is located.
b. Other districts. In any other district, permitted building and structures may
be constructed on a nonconforming lot of record, provided site coverage, yard,
landscaping, and off-street parking requirements are met. Such lots must be
in separate ownership and not of continuous frontage with other lots in the
same ownership prior to June 20, 1973, and if all or part of the lots do not
meet the minimum requirements established for lot width and area, the land
14
involved shall be considered to be an undivided parcel for the purposes of this
title, and no portion of the parcel shall be used or sold in a manner which
diminishes compliance with lot width and area requirements established by
this title, nor shall any division of any parcel be made which creates a lot with
width or area below the requirements stated in this title.
F. Nonconforming signs.
1. Applicability of restrictions. Regulations applicable to nonconforming signs are in
addition to regulations applicable to nonconforming uses, structures, and lots, and
in the event of conflict the most restrictive provisions shall apply.
2. Continuation of nonconforming signs.
a. Signs that were legally existing as of the effective date of this title or
subsequent amendments thereto that do not conform to the regulations of this
title shall be considered nonconforming signs. Nonconforming signs may not
be moved, relocated, altered, or added to without receiving approval from the
planning services office.
b. No sign permit shall be issued to allow legal signs on property having an
illegal or nonconforming sign until such time as the nonconforming or illegal
sign is modified to conform to this title.
3. Amortization period.
a. Abandoned signs. Abandoned signs must be removed within ninety (90)
days.
b. Number and type of signs. The number and type of allowable signs for each
occupancy must conform to the regulations of this title.
(Ord. No. 2905, § 1, 2-20-90; Ord. No. 3122, § 1, 6-15-93; Ord. No. 3409, § 50, 7-7-
98; Ord. No. 3439, § 7, 2-2-99; Ord. No. 3521, § 2, 8-15-00; Ord. No. 3600, § 5, 5-
7-02; Ord. No. 3665, § 1, 10-7-03; Ord. No. 4003, § 7, 9-20-11)
S:\Permit\P/an\COMP PLAN AMENDMENTS\2012\CPA-2012-1 Downtown\LUPB\08-12-13\Attcha_KM5.08.100.Doc
N
m ti
C
m �
F
WE
2�!
U
Q �
F �
QQ
m
a
J
2
a v m vE
vE
.°I E
Z a o i Q 3 0 - -
3
W a � 9Eq 3e
3 a vElw
i $Z p > c 5
� 3
Q a v3lwvve
a = E _
-039
o
0 0 6
9 9 p -
a _ 3 m
lw
ow
E
3 -
y
E o E a b
3
�0 3
E
3 �
r 3 3 oE 3 '
3 c ry
—
3 —
c
s E _
_ E a o f
v y o v Q o E
3
0 3 E 0 E 0
rc 8 0 0
6 36
o �9
o
o o ow
f E E
wEo o —
ww
V 0 3 —
3 3 c 3 oo .� x
o w O q O a O O v
3 E v 6
3� 3 a 3 'w a Si pa Si
E 9 3 w w w E o E c o N 0lw
c `3
o
E q R
o -om or s f r -
o so
� w
lw
lo
3v Via' � 3 a a
o pEow o
m 8
o
m ��
3 S E
o E E
_ z
o
E
E „ 3
8o _o
- W
o
¢ a o L E _ O
o
o
o `3 E v E - -6 :3 E E v
oE 3 ¢ O
o
Q b._mr w
o
9 Bo
Eo
o
o
N a 3 o
o
6 ¢ E
mE o V
B i .o _ o o o g E m a
E V E E E E
Yn 3 .E E Q E-o - E E E j Y o 3 9 E -o
o
E - - - - - - - E
¢" a E E Ea - E E
o
E v — - _ _
o
s En E E - - E
0.3 N d w E E o - E w 3 9 E E E
- o
o o o
v E
E v - _ v a E - 3
m 3 q - v E c c u
o
v o _ - E .3 .3 9 Eo
o
E 3 - 9 - _ `o - G E ¢ E -
3 o
_ E 3 E oo
9 3 �
E " E G9 ?
E c _ _ q 3 mo
o m m = m m q mo
p O
v Eo - - - 0 9 3 E 'E 'E - G E-o ¢ ?
o
o
3 v r O w wE v O
O
o
x E
o
¢ ov
w
O
3 —
3 _
E > E E E _
E _
E �
_ \_ lo lo loE
—
E
U -1 E = G _ v G G G G G
o a 6 q .E
w9 —
o V V V V V - V `o `o
o
o v E o 0 0 o o _ o - E E E
c _ c c _ _ &- _ _ _ E V `V -
m o o of w o \ E q o
o V 3
V a a V v E 2 E a v 3 a a a a a _ V a a a v E a a
a - _
o
jw
- = E
E
3
p
q
E m3 E
E E —
p
o — — w 9 3 E E
E
E 3_ E _ y. ` E 3
m
z
o
E E
E '
c E m — - `w
% E v
E
E
E E q - V_ 3 E_ 'V0
89 9
_ E Zi _ - ¢ E m
.E .- _ - o
j o
o
o
oo
o
o _
o _ o
` E
o
E E m 3 _ Eo
9 9 v v w o _ n Vo
E q _ E E .� E 'm
o o ?
._ � .. w, _ EE.�
Ewo w oo
o
O �
o
E r E E .3 E E .3 _ E 9 0 3
_ mE E
E 3 _ E
E 3 " E .E — o 3 _
c o 0 01 c o0 3 'o° o u Vw —
E0 E '3 i 9 3' _o
E —o
3 c c `o i9 q _E 'E m
w E - E E E o E w qo
- -
P1 m — c _ - E
Ev wE E E� e mEv E - wv of
o
o
w _ v c - E - '3 E o - .3 E ry
3j_ E E m 3 ¢ — .E w E o Ea
E E5 BP ooa a E 00 _ - E w
o E E i 'o w w w E .. _ _ w W E O c
- E9 _ - _ � � R �33g _ E .E o 0 0 0 0
o o
5 o E 3 q o .3 ry 3
E o c° a -o E ry
¢w ¢
E Q
_o
O
o
E
o
E 8
Z w w
O
N
2
E 3oq
— 3
= E
E
a E r E q
3 .3
Ev — Ea
E 9 —
q3o w
u o ¢9
¢ E mE — _
m E ,3 v
G
o
3 - o
Q 3o
E m E E o
_ _ 3 —
E
�m _
— 9
o
➢ _ -
�E
E— E
w <
m E - q — m E
c _ w oo
o
o
6_ 6_ 3 •. m — _
o f 6 0 w
�mb
I c 6E
-mo 3 E G ry — - E_ ' - -
u ow
ow
¢ £ o
o
m
o