Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
not be required if the thirty percent (30%) of the development upon the "receiving site" provides <br />housing for families making less than eighty percent (80%) of established median income. The <br />Board of County Commissioners proposes amendment to KCC Chapter 17.13 to exempt affordable <br />housing development from Transfer of Development Rights requirements. <br />The Board of County Commissioners held a public hearing on November 28, 2016 to receive <br />any public testimony to the proposal. After deliberation of the proposal, the Board of County <br />Commissioners approved the request as presented with a 2-1 vote finding that: <br />I. The Planning Commission recommended approval to the Board of County Commissioners with a <br />vote of 4-0. <br />II. Public testimony for this proposal was received objecting to the proposal since it would <br />allow for low cost housing in an area not suitable for such development. <br />III. The amendment would encourage development upon land eligible for increased density that <br />could result in provision of affordable housing. <br />IV. The change meets the Growth Management Act and the objectives of the Comprehensive <br />Plan. <br />16-06 Kittitas County Proposal: <br />Amend KCC Chapter 17.70 to remove Political and Real Estate Signs from Being Exempt from <br />a Necessary Sign Permit, Exhibit F. <br />The Kittitas County Prosecutor proposes amending KCC Chapter 17.70 to remove the section that <br />exempts political and real estate signs from obtaining a sign permit. This proposal is suggested in <br />response to the U. S. Supreme Court ruling in Reed v. Town of Gilbert nUllifying the exemption of a <br />sign to meeting an ordinance on the basis of the content message of the sign. <br />The Board of County Commissioners held a public hearing on November 28, 2016, and after <br />deliberation, the Board of County Commissioners approved the request as amendeded with a 3-0 <br />vote finding that: <br />I. The Planning Commission recommended denial of the proposal to the Board of County <br />Commissioners with a vote of 4-0. <br />II. Public testimony for this proposal was received against the proposal indicating it is an infringement <br />on free speech. <br />III. The proposed amendment removes signs being exempt solely because of their message content <br />addressing the issues ruled upon by the United States Supreme Court. <br />IV. The amended proposal allows exemption based upon its temporary nature instead of its content. <br />V. The change meets the Growth Management Act and the objectives of the Comprehensive <br />Plan. <br />2016 Docket Enabling Ordinance <br />Ord. # 2016·023 <br />Page 7 <br />December 6, 2016