Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Planning and Economic Development Committee - 04/29/1986 KENT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES April 29, 1986 The meeting of the Kent Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Raymond Ward at 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, April 29, 1986, in the Council Chambers. COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Raymond Ward, Chairman James Byrne Robert Badger Richard Foslin Chuck Lambert Linda Martinez Jill Spier COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: Robert Anderson Nancy Rudy PLANNING STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: James P. Harris, Planning Director James Hansen, Principal Planner Fred Satterstrom, Project Planner Will Wolfert, Associate Planner Ed Heiser, Assistant Planner Lois Ricketts, Recording Secretary APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Commissioner Lambert MOVED and FOR FEBRUARY 25, 1986 Commissioner Badger SECONDED a motion to approve the February 25, 1986, Planning Commission minutes as presented. Motion carried. ADDED ITEM TO AGENDA Commissioner Lambert MOVED that the Commission write a letter to Mayor Kelleher requesting that a committee composed of of City Council members, Planning and Building Department staff, Planning Commission members and volunteer citizens form a task force for the purpose of encouraging good design and consideration of incentives for design alterna- tives. Commissioner Martinez SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. EAST HILL PLAN Mr. Harris requested time to present the City Council 's posi- tion on the East Hill Plan which has been returned to the Planning Commission for further considera- tion. Kent Planning Commission Minutes April 29, 1986 SHORELINE MANAGEMENT VARIANCE Mr. Heiser presented the request #SMV-86-1 RIVERS EDGE for a Shoreline Management variance from the rear yard setback required by the Kent Shoreline Master Program. The required rear yard setback is 20 feet. The proposed develop- ment would allow building encroachments into the setback area of from one to three feet. The site is located between the Green River and 62nd Avenue South just south of 190th Street (if extended) , covers approximately 3.55 acres and is zoned M1 , Industrial Park. The proposed development consists of a three-building complex totaling 49,560 square feet. It is anticipated that the buildings will be leased to light industrial , manufacturing, and service-type businesses. The buildings will be placed along the banks of the Green River. The Kent Shoreline Master Program requires a 20-foot setback from the side and rear property lines. However, due to site constraints, the applicant is proposing minor encroachments into the setback area of from one to three feet. The buildings have been sited to insure that the average distance from the build- ing line to the property line is greater than the minimum yard requirement of 20 feet. Unique modulations in the building walls also insure that the total landscaped area between the buildings and the river is greater than the amount that would be provided if the development met the minimum setback. The maximum height of the buildings will be 17 feet. The buildings flank the flood control dike along the Green River which is approximately seven feet above the finished floor elevation of the proposed buildings. In essence, only ten feet of the building will rise above the flood control dike which affords primary access for the public to the river. The placement of the buildings on the site will establish approximately 460 feet of building wall along the shoreline. The buildings will be separated by two truck loading and maneuvering areas which will be screened by concrete walls. In addition, building walls will be modulated so that no one wall exceeds 84 feet. The western portion of the site (between the buildings and the Green River) will be heavily landscaped. The applicant also intends to grow ivy on the building walls facing the river. Ample off-street parking will be provided. The developer also intends to construct a 30-stall parking lot to the north to serve the needs of the public. Access to the Green River will be provided on the north and south sides of the site. The Shoreline Master Program designates the shoreline area adjacent to the subject property as a "Rural " environment. The purpose of the Rural environ- ment is stated in the Master Program as follows: -2- Kent Planning Commission Minutes April 29, 1986 J "The purpose of the rural environment is to restrict intensive development along undeveloped shorelines of the Green River, function as a buffer between urban areas, and maintain open spaces and opportunities for recreational uses along the Green River by providing adequate setbacks from the river." The dike area will remain open for public access to the river as well as the future City park to the north of the subject property. The applicant will provide significant landscape between the dike and the proposed development. This landscape plan submitted by the applicant will include a mixture of trees and groundcover which will provide an adequate buffer between the river and the development. The request to allow the proposed buildings to encroach up to three feet into the required setback will have minimum impact on the river environment. The maintenance of open space and the opportunity for recreational use along the Green River will not be affected by the proposed development. A final Declaration of Nonsignificance was issued on May 30, 1985. This approval was granted with the following conditions: 1 . Construct sidewalks along entire property frontage where they do not currently exist. 2. Participate in the future construction of the traffic signal and inter- section improvements at the intersection of South 190th Street and West Valley Highway. 3. Construct the public parking lot and landscaping to the north of the subject to the city standards. As part of this parking lot construction, there shall be a handicapped accessible ramp, four (4) feet wide with one foot shoulder on each side, constructed from the parking lot to the dike trail ; the slope of the ramp shall not exceed eight percent. 4. Provide emergency vehicle access across the south end of the site to the dike. 5. Construct a pathway of gravel or other suitable material through the landscaped buffer on the south end of the site from the sidewalk to the dike trail . 6. Applicant shall sign an environmental mitigation agreement to participate in the future construction of the South 196th Street corridor roadway and bridge improvement project, in accordance with the adopted City Transportation Plan. Mr. Heiser pointed out that variances from the Shoreline Master Program may be granted only under certain circumstances. The following is an excerpt from the Kent Shoreline Master Program: -3- Kent Planning Commission Minutes April 29, 1986 The property owner must show that if he complies with the provisions of the Shoreline Master Program, he cannot mate any reasonable use of his property. The fact that he might make a greater profit by using his property in a manner contrary to the intent of the program is not a sufficient reason for variance. A variance will be granted only after the applicant can demonstrate the following: 1. The hardship which serves as a basis for granting of a variance is specifically related to the property of the applicant. 2. The hardship results from the application of the requirements of the Act and Master Program and not from, for example, deed restric- tions or the applicant's own actions. 3. The variance granted will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Master Prugram. 4. Public welfare and interest will be preserved; if more harm will be done to the area by granting the variance than would be done to the applicant by denying it, the variance will be denied. The Planning Department has reviewed each of the above statements and the following findings are quoted from the staff report presented to the Commission: i. The hardship which serves as the basis for granting of a variance is specifically related to the property of the applicant. Planning Department Finding The development of the site will be impacted by the depth and width 1 of the lot. The lot is approximately 160 feet in depth and over 700 feet in width. The lot configuration makes the development of the lot more difficult than a standard industrial lot. The hardship which serves as a basis for this variance is related to the lot size and configuration. 2. The hardship results from the application of the requirements of the Act and Master Program and not from, for example, deed ` restrictions or the applicant's own actions. Planning Department Finding The Kent Shoreline Master Program requires a rear-yard setback of 20 feet. When this standard is applied to the irregular rear lot line which abuts the river, a setback is created that makes conventional development of the property difficult. When these condi- tions are combined with the shallow depth and unusual configuration of the lot, a variance is necessary. The variance is necessary because the strict application of the Master Program (i.e. 20-foot setback) would be an undue hardship for the applicant. 3. The variance granted will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Master Program. Planning Department Finding The proposed buildings have been designed to insure that the average distance from the property line to the building wall exceeds 20 feet. -4- Kent Planning Commission Minutes April 29, 1986 Only minor encroachments into the setback occur. These encroachments range from one to three feet. The buildings have been modulated to create additional open space and interest along the shoreline. In addition, the applicant intends to grow ivy on the building walls to further screen the development. The proposed development will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Master Program. 4. Public welfare and interest will be preserved; if more harm will be done to an area by granting the variance than would be done to the applicant by denying it, the variance will be denied. Planning Department Finding Public welfare and interest in this area is related to the future recreational activities along the Green River. The shoreline area immediately west of the proposed development will be used for passive recreational activities--primarily walking and viewing the river. The City of Kent will eventually develop a park to the north on property known as Briscoe Meander site. The land west of the subject property will be used by pedestrians to walk to this future park. While the developer has chosen to orient the development away from the river, the project will not create a significant impact on the river environment. The minor setback encroachments will have negli- gable impact and as such, public welfare and interest will be pre- served. The staff recommends that the variance application be approved. Commissioner Badger asked whether the 30-car parking lot on the north side was required by the City or provided voluntarily by the applicant. Mr. Heiser responded that the applicant volunteered to construct this parking lot. When Southcenter Corporate Park plat was platted, there was a condition in the approval that there would be a parking lot to sustain 30-35 cars provided at some point in the future. The construction of this parking lot has been tied to the construction of the three buildings. Mr. Harris added that during the time of the platting, the plat required that some off-street parking be provided at some place along the river. This is the site that was finally selected which would implement the requirements of the subdivision. When we did the State Environmental Protection Act check- list, we were specific regarding the design and construction of the parking lot. Commissioner Badger responded that he remembered this condition in reference to the Meteor Communications Building. Mr. Harris responded that this was acceptable to the owner of the plat, and that it is the responsibility of the developer to help to build it in agreement with the Parks Department. -5- Kent Planning Commission Minutes April 29, 1986 Chairman Ward asked how the code was written to take into account the curvature of the river. Mr. Heiser responded that the code was precisely written to require a 20-foot setback from the property line to the building front. In this case the prop- erty line isn 't a curve necessarily, but the straight lines meet at inter - secting points. Chairman Ward asked if there would be more than an access road. Mr. Heiser replied that the only planned access to the building would be from 62nd Avenue South. Ted Knapp, Upland Industries, 16400 Southcenter Parkway, Tukwila, the owner and developer of the Southcenter Corporate Park, felt that a variance should not be required for this site. Prior to the Southcenter Plat, Southcenter Corporate Park, including the old Briscoe School property, was part of unincor- porated King County. In 1978 annexation proceedings were initiated to bring this area into the City. Shortly after this the City amended their shoreline program to include this property, they set up designations of urban, rural or conservancy. He men- tioned that the conservancy easement that has been recorded against all the riverfront lots in Southcenter Corporate Park has been signed by Mayor Hogan. No buildings can come closer than 75 feet from the ordinary high water mark. In addition 15 feet must be landscaped. He explained that the Uplands donated all the property between the ordinary high water mark and the dike and ten feet beyond the toe of the dike to Kent prior to the recording of the plat. Beyond this point there would be a 15-foot rear yard setback that must be land scaped. There would be a 25-foot setback from the toe of the dike landward. Since he has eight additional lots to be developed, he was hoping that it would not be necessary to bring each case to the Planning Commission as they are developed. Commissioner Byrne felt that the decision at this hearing would not have any bearing on the lots that would be developed at a later time. Each one must be analyzed independently at the time of development. Commissioner Lambert asked if a railroad spur would serve the site. Mr. Knapp responded that there were no lots along the river that would be served by a rail spur. J Robert Fadden, Lance Mueller and Associates, 130 Lakeside, Seattle, project architect for Rivers Edge, suggested that the Commission take a careful look at the scale of the buildings. He pointed out that Coast Construction Supply Building to the south of the site is nearly one third higher than the proposed structures. The Meteor Communications Building to the north is nearly twice the height of the proposed structure. He added that the modulation at the rear of the buildings was designed to produce a strong visual relief in an attempt to mitigate some of the effects that the Coast Construction Supply Building project has had to the south of this project. -6- i Kent Planning Commission Minutes April 29, 1986 Mr. Fadden explained that the landscaping is designed to produce a rural effect and a random soft appearance. In addition, the rear of the building will be planted with ivy which will grow up the concrete wall . Commissioner Lambert MOVED that the public hearing be closed. Commissioner Byrne SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. Commissioner Byrne MOVED that the request be approved as recommended by the Planning staff. Commissioner Lambert SECONDED the motion. Motion carried unanimously. PROPOSED A-1 and A-G Zone Fred Satterstrom presented the AMENDMENTS proposed A-1 and A-G amendments. In 1984 the City Council adopted A-1 , Agricultural , zoning for over 550 acres in the Kent Valley.• The A-1 , formerly the RA zone, was located on the west side of the Green River, basically from the north City limits between ; the toe of the slope and the Green River. Early in 1985 the City Council adopted the A-G, Agricultural General, zoning for about 150-170 acres located primarily on the south side of the Green River. A-G zoning was formerly the MA zone, Manufacturing Agricultural "transitional zone. The purpose of the action was to attempt to convey the idea to the land- owners and to those who would wish to speculate on land on the west and south sides of the Green River that the long-term zoning intention of the City was for this land to be used for agricultural purposes. This was an attempt to preserve farming as a viable use so that it would not be expelled prematurely based on inflated land values and speculation about its future use. Since the City of Kent adopted agricultural zoning, the King County Office of Agriculture has purchased approximately 730 acres of development rights-- the Smith Farm, Monk farm and the Wembley properties. These will remain in some form of open space, hopefully in agricultural use in perpetuity. The County also owns development rights to the O'Connell and Heritage farms and Consolidated Beverages property located inside the City limits of Kent. Mr. Satterstrom pointed out that the Mayor has been a proponent of the farmlands and farmland preservation on the west and south sides of the Green River. He wishes to protect either the existing use of agricultural land or the poten- tial use of agricultural land as long as that land is zoned for agricultural purposes. Mr. Satterstrom asked for the Planning Commission to continue the public hearing after the staff presentation in order to give the SEPA Committee time to pass judgment on the environmental checklist. This would also give additional time for public input and exposure on this issue. -7- Kent Planning Commission Minutes April 29, 1986 Mr. Heiser explained the uses in the A-1 zone. The following is from 15.04.005 AGRICULTURAL - A-1 of the Kent Zoning Code: A. Princi all Permitted Uses 1. Agr cu tura uses, including any customary agricultural building or structure, such as planting, cultivation and harvesting of crops, animal husbandry, nurseries and greenhouses and other agricultural occupations. 2. One single-family dwelling per lot. B. S ecial Permit Uses T e o ow ng uses are permitted provided that they conform to the de- velopment standards listed in Section 15.08.020. 1. Churches. 2. Nursery schools and day care centers. C. Acce�ssor,U ses GT uest cottages, not rented or otherwise conducted as a business. 2. Accommodations for farm operators and employees, but not accommoda- tions for transient labor. 3. Roadside stands not exceeding four hundred (400) square feet in floor area. and not over twenty (20) lineal feet on any side, primarily for the sale of agricultural products on the premises. 4. Customary incidential home occupations subject to the provisions of Section 15.08.040. 5. Other accessory uses and buildings customarily appurtenant to a permitted use. 0. Conditional Uses General conditiinal uses as listed in Section 15.08.030. E. 0evelo meat Standds M n mum o ar t. I acre. 2. n�1at width. 100 feet. 3, Maximum site covera e. 30 percent. 4. in mum ar re u rements a. rant yard. ZU feet b. Side yard. 15 feet c. Rear yard. 20 feet d. Side yard on flanking strekt of corner lot. 20 feet. 5. Hei ht limitation. Two and one-half (2-1/2) stories, not exceeding thirty-five feet. The height limitations shall not apply to barns and silos provided that they are not located within fifty (50) feet of any lot line. 6. Additional standards a. Structures for feeding, housing- and cane of animals except household pets, shall be set back fifty (50) feet from any property line. b. See Chapter 15.08 General and Supplementary Provisions, for requirements concerning accessory building and additional standards. The following is proposed as an addition to 6. Additional standards: c. The following uses are prohibited: i . The removal of topsoil for any purpose. ii . Grade and fill operations provided that limited grade and fill may be approved as needed to construct buildings or structures as outlined in KCC 15.04.005 A, B, C, and 0. -8- Kent Planning Commission Minutes April 29, 1986 d. No subsurface activities, including excavation for underground utilities, pipelines, or other underground installations, shall be permitted that cause permanent disruption of the surface of the land. Temporarily disrupted soil surfaces shall be restored in a manner consistent with agricultural uses. e. No dumping or storage of nonagricultural solid or liquid waste, or of trash, rubbish, or noxious materials shall be permitted. f. No activities that violate sound agricultural soil and water conservation management practices shall be permitted. Mr. Heiser presented the uses in the A-G zone. The following from 15.04.015 AGRICULTURAL - GENERAL (A-G) ZONE of the Kent Zoning Code: A. Princi all Permitted Uses 1. Agr cu tural uses, ncluding any customary agricultural building and structure, and such uses as livestock ranges, animal husbandry, field crops, tree crops, nurseries, greenhouses, and other agricultural occupations. 2. Storage, warehousing, processing and conversion of agricultural, dairy and horticultural products, but not including slaughtering or meat packing. Existing dwellings may be rebuilt, repaired and otherwise changed for human occupancy. Accessory uses for existing dwellings may be constructed. Such uses are garages, carports, storage sheds and fences. 8. Accessory Uses Accessory uses and buildings customarily appurtenant to a permitted uses, such as: 1. Farm dwellings appurtenant to a principal agricultural use for the housing of farm owners, operations or employees, but not accommodations for transient labor. 2. Guest houses, not rented or otherwise conducted as a business. 3. Roadside stands not exceeding four hundred (400) square feet in floor area exclusively for agricultural products grown on the premise. C. Conditional Uses 1. General uses as listed in Section 15.08.030. 2. Boarding kennels, breeding establishments. 3. Veterinary clinics and veterinary hospitals. D. Development Standards 1. Minimum lot. One (1) acre. 2. Maximum site coverage. Fifty (50) percent. 3. Fron yar ere shall be a front yard of at least thirty (30) feet depth. a. For properties abutting on West Valley Highway, the frontage on West Valley Highway shall be considered the front yard. 4. Side Yard. An aggregate side yard of thirty (30) feet shall be mi of provided. A min ten (10) feet shall be provided for each side yard. On a corner lot the side yard setback shall be a minimum of twenty (20) feet from the property line. 5. Maximum height. Two (2) stories or thirty-five (35) feet. Beyond this height, to a helg t not greater than either four (4) stories or sixty (60) feet, there shall be added one additional foot of yard for each additional foot of building height. The Planning Director shall be authorized to approve a height greater than four (4) stories or sixty (60) feet, prov?ied such height does not detract from the continuity of the area. When a request is made to exceed the building height limit, the Planning Director may impose such conditions, within a reasonable amount of time, as may be necessary to reduce any incompatibilities with surrounding uses. -9- Kent Planning Commission Minutes April 29, 1986 6. Additional Setbacks a. Structures for feeding, housing, and care of animals shall be set back fifty (50) feet from any property line. b. Transitional conditions shall exist when an A-G district ad- joins a residential district containing a density of two (2) dwelling units or more per acre or aproposed residential area indicated on the Kent Comprehen- sive Plan. Such transitional conditions shall not exist where the separation includes an intervening use such as river, railroad mainline, major topographic differential or other similar conditions; or where the'industrial properties face on a limited access surface street on which the housing does not face. When transitional conditions exist as herein defined, a yard of not less than fifty (50) feet shall be provided. 7. Setbacks Green River. Industrial development in the A-G district abutting the Green River or Russell or Franger Roads where such roads follow the river bank) shall set back from the ordinary high water mark of said river a minimum of two hundred (200) feet. Such setbacks are in accordance with the Kent Comprehensive Plan and are in accordance with the high quality of site development typically required for the industrial parks areas of the City, and in accordance with the State Shoreline Management Act of 1971, and shall be no more restrictive than, but as restrictive as, said Shoreline Management Act. 8. The landscaping requirements of Chapter 15.07 shall apply. 9. Outdoor storage. (Industrial uses) Outdoor storage shall be at the rear of a principallY permitted structure and shall be completely fenced. The following is proposed as an addition: 10. Additional standards. a. The following uses are prohibited: i . The removal of topsoil for any purpose. ii . Grade and fill operations, provided that limited grade and fill may be approved as needed to construct buildings or structures as outlined in KCC 15.04.015 A, B, C, b. No subsurface activities, including excavation for underground utilities, pipelines, or other underground installations, shall be permitted that cause permanent disruption of the Surface of the land. Temporarily disrupted sail surfaces shall be restored in a manner consistent with agricultural uses. c- No dumping or storage of nonagricultural solid or liquid waste, or of trash, rubbish, or noxious materials shall be permitted. d. No activities that violate sound agricultural soil and water con- servation management practices shall be permitted. Mr. Heiser pointed out the list of principally permitted uses for both zones. If a situation does not clearly fit, it would not be permitted in the agricul- tural zone. Mr. Harris suggested that a list of some of the activities could be presented at the next hearing. -10- Kent Planning Commission Minutes April 29, 1986 Mr. Badger asked if these amendments were designed to prevent the land from being used in any manner that would prohibit future inclusion in the farmland purchasing program by the county. Mr. Satterstrom responded that if these regulations were followed, it would allow the properties to be eligible. Some of the language that was used was taken from the covenants that the county has adopted. Commissioner Badger recalled that there was a site off 212th where the topsoil had been removed and that the land had been deemed unacceptable for purchasing by the county. Mr. Satterstrom responded that this land was eligible but had never been properly offered to the county. Commissioner Lambert MOVED that the public hearing be closed. Commissioner Byrne SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. Commissioner Badger MOVED that the hearing on the proposed A-1 and A-G zone amendments be continued to the next meeting. Commissioner Byrne SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. LETTERS SUBMITTED Mr. Harris submitted a letter from Jan Northam Grams and Henry Towne. Chairman Ward read a third letter from Pam Stevens to be included in the record. Mr. Harris expressed disappointment that the letters had been received too late to be included in the packets that had been mailed to the commissioners in advance of the public hearing. HOME OCCUPATIONS Mr. Wolfert referred to the memorandum dated March 25, 1986, which included current home occupation standards as set forth in the Kent Zoning Code, application in use at the present time and six possible alternatives. In addition to this he referred to a memorandum dated April 17, 1986, which in- cluded a number of ordinances from other jurisdictions regarding home occupa- tions which had been requested by the Chairman. This documentation was produced by the American Planning Association which has done research on this topic. The City of Kent adopted regulations regarding home occupations in 1973 when it initially adopted its new Zoning Code. At that time the ordinance spoke to specific uses as being permitted and others being prohibited, and it spelled out some specific criteria for those activities to meet. Over the years of enforcement and administration of this particular section, a number of problems have arisen. He attributed this to the fact that the home computer was being -11- Kent Planning Commission Minutes April 29, 1986 popularized and a number of other technological advances were made in communica- tions which enable people to operate businesses in their homes. This increased the number and types of businesses which were being brought to the City for approval . The original ordinance did not anticipate this type of activity for the home at the time it was created; therefore, a number of problems have arisen while dealing with these types of activities. The ordinance at that time was very traditional in its approach and in the uses it listed as permitted. Because of the administrative problems with this ordinance, the Planning Depart- ment approached the Planning Commission and the City Council in 1983 to amend this ordinance. Instead of listing specific types of uses which were permitted and those which were not permitted, this section listed criteria and standards by which a business could be operated in a home. The problem that brought this issue before the Commission is Section 15.080.40 D.3, "The sale of goods and services directly to the customer is prohibited." This limited the type of activities in which the customer could come to the home. The types of activi- ties that the ordinance originally projected were those which used the telephone,, or went to other locations to sell the product, or utilized the computer in transferring goods. The ordinance before 1983 and the new ordinance after 1983 prohibited the actual customer sales relationship at the residence. There were a number of factors taken into consideration--noise, traffic congestion and maintaining the general character of the residential neighborhoods. Review of the current and past ordinances showed that the administrative procedures have been working well since 1983. After analyzing the American Planning Association documents, the Planning Department came to three basic conclusions. (1 ) The current section is flexible and adaptable to a wide variety of use requests. (2) It has substance and protects the residential character of neighborhoods. (3) It is generally enforceable. The Planning Department receives three to five requests each week. Less than 10 percent of these requests are denied. Mr. Wolfert stated that at the previous workshop he had presented six alterna- tives for the Planning Commission to consider which might make the ordinance acceptable to a wider range of uses: Alternative 1 List permitted uses (all or some) and possibly expand from present realm of uses allowed. Mr. Wolfert added that every time a list is made, someone will come to the counter who is not on that list. Alternative 2 List prohibited uses (all of some) . He mentioned again that there always seems to be a request that is not included on the list. -12- Kent Planning Commission Minutes April 29, 19B6 Alternative 3 Permit, but limit, customer visits to the residence. He pointed out that this would necessitate some sort of arbitrary standard. Alternative 4 Limit on-site sales to products produced on the site. Mr. Wolfert commented that the current ordinance does not permit the sale of goods or services at the residence. This alternative would allow only the sale of product that is produced on the site. Alternative 5 Permit service activities, limit to one customer at a time. Alternative 6 Combine alternatives 1 through 5 as necessary. The Planning Department reviewed the Home Occupations section in light of the issues and concerns discussed at the Planning Commission workshop and recommends the following two amendments. 1 . The first proposed amendment would add "Home teaching, one student at a time, " to paragraph B. Home Occupations Permitted. This amendment would elimin- ate this use from the need for Home Occupations approval . 2. The second amendment would create a limited list of activities which would be expressly prohibited as Home Occupations. This list would include the follow- ing activities: 1 . Vehicle Repair 2. Welding and Machine Shops 3. Vehicle Painting 4. Vehicle Parts Sales Mr. Wolfert concluded by stating that these four are expressly prohibited. All other activities and uses shall be approved or disapproved based upon their operational characteristics and the criteria of the Home Occupations development and performance standards. Under performance standards, the key to the type of home occupations permitted remains prohibition of the sale of goods and services directly to the customer from the dwelling. Commissioner Spier asked which types. of uses were denied most frequently. Mr. Wolfert responded that the largest category is vehicle repair-machine shop or auto repair businesses. The other most commonly denied is the sale of goods from the home, such as shoes. Beauty shops and barber shops are common denials. - 13- Kent Planning Commission Minutes April 29, 1986 Commissioner Lambert asked if the shoe sale was denied. Mr. Wolfert replied that the shoe sales from the home was denied, but there is one shoe operation that is permitted in which the customer orders by phone and the shoes are delivered by United Parcel Service. Commissioner Lambert asked about shoe repair. Mr. Wolfert explained that if the person is going out to pick up the shoes and he brings them to his house, repairs them, and then delivers them back to the shoe store, this is permitted. There are some dry cleaner operations and tailors who operate out of their home. They also go out of the home to pick up the items, complete the task needed, and then deliver them back to their original destination. Commissioner Lambert asked about dressmaking in the home. Mr. Wolfert responded that if the business were brought to the home, there would be a traffic impact at the location. If the code were going to be modified, how many customer-client relationships would be permitted at the residence. Mr. Harris pointed out the difference between friends coming to a party or a meeting in a home and a tailor who might have clientele coming and going from his home daily. Commissioner Martinez asked why they have included the prohibited list. Mr. Wolfert replied that these are commonly denied. This would save processing and permit time if the applicant knew that a specific use was not allowed. Commissioner Lambert asked if a person had a car repair business in his home before this ordinance was written, would he be able to continue this activity. Mr. Wolfert answered that if he was operating under a City of Kent business license and if this activity was a legal operation, it would be permitted. Commissioner Badger asked if a person wished to pursue a home occupation and it had been denied, what recourse would that person have. Mr. Wolfert responded that a variance is only appropriate when dealing with development standards, such as setbacks, height limits, etc. This would be an appeal of administrative interpretation. There is a section in the Zoning Code which addresses this situation, but it does not point out that there is a right to appeal . Commissioner Badger felt that this information should be available to the appli- cants. Commissioner Badger expressed concern about the person who wishes to give one permanent per day as a source of extra income. -14- Kent Planning Commission Minutes April 29, 1986 Mr. Wolfert responded that if this beauty operator were operating a business as a commercial establishment which requires a business license, he would have no choice but to consider this a business. This person could appeal to the Board of Adjustment only if it were a matter of interpretation and not directly denied in the Zoning Code. Commissioner Spier failed to see any difference between the request to change the height or setback and the request to have a home business when the neighbors concur with the request. Mr. Harris pointed out that the Board of Adjustment can only say that the Planning Department either did or did not interpret the Zoning Code properly. A change in the Zoning Code must be addressed to the City Council . Commissioner Martinez asked if there ►vas more than one kind of residential area in the City of Kent. Mr. Wolfert responded that there are a number of residential zones which are based upon different density factors. Commissioner Martinez asked if Kent had a transitional zone or any zone where certain commercial activities are permitted. Mr. Wolfert replied that the transition area in Kent is between industrial and residential zoning districts or commercial and residential zoning districts. The transition area provides both a physical and visual buffer between residen- tial districts and other land uses. This would include building height, setback, length, sight screening, parking, noise, etc. Chairman Ward asked what the staff was recommending to the Commission. Mr. Wolfert responded that home teaching, one student at a time, is one of the two proposed amendments. This activity would be exempt from a business license or a home occupation agreement. There would be no limit on the number of stu- dents that could be taught in the home. He explained that this is a traditional activity that takes place in the home-music lessons and tutorin4. The other suggested amendment was to expressly prohibit the following activities: (1 ) vehicle repair; (2) welding and machine shops; (3) vehicle painting; (4) vehicle parts sales. Commissioner Badger asked why the request for a permit to provide massages was denied. Mr. Wolfert explained that the denial was based on the fact that the service was being provided directly to the customer in the residence. Mr. Harris added that barber shops and beauty shops are found downtown and in shopping centers . They are not traditionally found in homes. Tutoring is an activity that has always been found in a home. -15- Kent Planning Commission Minutes April 29, 1986 Sandra Allen, 26225 108th Avenue SE, Kent, stated that her home is located two blocks short of the future commercial district. She explained in a letter to the Planning Department in February that she had studied the Kent Zoning Code paragraph by paragraph and showed that there are some businesses which, when restricted to a one-person operation and limited to one customer at a time, can cooperate in the home and meet all of the zoning ordinances. She explained that she wished to work by herself and wanted to be able to schedule her time so that she could be involved with her children, their school and the community. She felt that because of the economic conditions at the present time, life was not as traditional as it has been. Most homes require two incomes to keep up with the cost of children, mortgage payments, food, etc. She explained that she could not afford to obtain the necessary space in a commercial area by herself. She stated that she is currently working on East Hill in a commercial development in which 90 percent of the space is empty because people cannot afford the overhead charges. She was alarmed last week to find out that a woman who is interested in buying her home, if she should decide to sell it, would be allowed to operate a day care center in her home. She said there would be no residential use of the property whatsoever. She felt that her one-chair shop would have less impact on the neighborhood than this day care center. She wanted the flexibility of working in her home so that she could assist the teacher in her son 's school . There were only three parents out of 50 students who would have any time to help the teacher. She felt this would be a definite benefit to the school and the community. She did not feel that there would be a problem with enforcement. She did not feel that the Planning Department would need to check frequently. She felt that if there were no complaints from the neighbors, there would be no problems with the situation. She felt that instead of $12.50 for a home occupation license, a charge of $35 or $40 should be made, and that part of this amount should be set aside for a half-hour inspec- tion of the site before the license was issued. Ms. Allen proposed that instead of prohibiting the sale of goods and services directly to the consumer that this be changed to state that goods and services to one client at a time be allowed and restricted to a one-person operation. Jan Northam Grams Valle Mobile Manor, 856 South Central suggested that a Y 99 change be made to the Zoning Code, specifically, the clause that does not allow patrons to visit a home business. She felt that massage was as traditional as music. She felt that the client flow should not exceed available parking spots, or that a home business should serve only one client at a time. She did not feel that the regulations of other cities should have any effect on Kent. She felt that every United States citizen is guaranteed freedom and liberty in every home. She felt discriminated against because her home busi- ness is service oriented. She did not feel that it was right to allow day care and piano lesson in the home when her service was just as valuable. Commissioner Lambert asked her if she could teach massage therapy. -16- Kent Planning Commission Minutes April 29, 1986 Ms . Grams responded that she would be required to take another test to obtain a teaching certificate. Teaching was not her choice of occupation. She pre- viously operated the same type of business in unincorporated King County for 11 years and felt that there were no problems with the neighbors or the County. She was not aware of any complaints from the neighbors. Pam Stephens, 743 North Fourth Avenue, Kent, felt that the needs of the people were not being met, and that Kent has an opportunity to be a leader in changing the regulations for home occupations. She felt the current laws were antiquated, inflexible and were not working for the public. She felt that the Planning Department did not wish to increase home businesses because they might have difficulty in enforcement. In a previous meeting she stated that she had asked the Planning Department for specific cases of enforcement problems. None had been named that were licensed. Two cases were mentioned that were not licensed. Ms. Stephens proposed that Zoning Code Section 15.08.040 be amended to include one patron at a time, which she felt would be one person per hour. She felt that the traffic situation could be analyzed in order to make a determination about the business, and that the City could shut down any business if complaints were received. Commissioner Lambert asked what type of business she would like to start in her home. Ms. Stephens replied that she sews teddy bears and would like one person at a time to be able to come to the residence to pick up the teddy bears. Jim Bond, 23226 113th Place SE, Kent spoke in behalf of his wife. He expressed dismay at the logic of allowing a business which would have a large influx of automobiles in the early and late part of the day, such as a day care center, and not allowing a business which would have a much lesser flow of traffic during the day, such as one customer per hour. He felt that our country was built on change, and that this ordinance needs to be altered to allow private indi- viduals to pursue their chosen occupations providing, of course, that it does not disrupt the general residential attitude of the community and cause a disrup- tion. He would like to see it changed to allow a beauty salon. Commissioner Badger asked how many trips the beauty salon would generate. Mr. Bond explained that the normal amount of time a person would be in a home in the hairdresser business would be one hour. A single operator can service only one person at a time. He did not feel that this could create a traffic problem or disruption to his neighborhood. Many people have visitors during the day. Mr. Wolfert explained that a day care center was not covered under the Home Occupation section of the Zoning Code. It is a separate entity under Special Permit Use. This includes only the commercial facilities. The state has a number of classifications for day care involving the number of children that are to be accommodated. They are usually operated in homes that are actively -17- Kent Planning Commission Minutes April 29, 1986 used as a residence. The state has the total responsibility for licensing these facilities. This responsibility was given to the state approximately six years ago. The Planning Department still has the responsibility of administering the regulations for the commercial day care centers. Mr. Wolfert commented about the ordinances from various places around the United States. Chairman Ward requested that the ordinances from the immediate area and also from other places around the United States be provided for the Commission for comparison purposes. Commissioner Byrne asked if commercial day care centers were limited to commer- cially-zoned areas. Mr. Wolfert responded that the development standards for commercial day centers include strict setbacks, landscaping, buffering, etc. Most residential areas do not have the necessary land area. The typical house would not meet those requirements. Commissioner Badger asked if a permitted child care facility in a residential area had restrictions regarding the number of vehicles permitted per day. Mr. Wolfert thought that they were limited to the number of children. Commissioner Spier MOVED to close the public hearing. Commissioner Lambert SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. Commissioner Spier felt that more time was needed for consideration. Commissioner Martinez felt that the ordinance was very pointed and without exception. The staff had presented sufficient background material for the Commission to make a decision, she felt. Commissioner Foslin commented that from his perspective he wished to make sure that there is a balance kept between what he felt was the entrepreneurial spirit of the country and of the city and preserving the residential life we all choose to have. He suggested that the Commissioners note the language used in the Rockford Illinois Occupational Ordinance, specifically the four points regarding a residential community. He felt that the task of the Commission was to blend this into something that would allow the entrepre- neurial spirit to be fostered rather than be killed. Chairman Ward felt that people should be allowed within limits to be self employed within their residences as long as they do not change the given scope of their neighborhood environment nor cause unusual traffic patterns or unusual activity that would cause some inconvenience to their neighbors or the neighborhood environment. He also felt that if a person is restricted from operating a business in his home, there should be some given recourse. Commissioner Spier MOVED to continue the hearing to the next meeting, the third Tuesday in May, May 20, 1986. Commissioner Lambert SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. -18- Kent Planning Commission Minutes April 29, 1986 Mr. Harris stated that the East Hill Plan recommendation was taken to the City Council and is being returned to the Planning Commission. They will be review- ing the impacts of their decision, the transportation system and the environ- mental review. Commissioner Badger added that the Council wished to have the Roads Task Force report available for consideration. The decision must be made before October 21 , 1986, through the public hearing process. Commissioner Spier requested that the Planning Commission public meetings be held on the third Tuesday instead of the fourth Tuesday for the next six months. Commissioner Lambert SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Spier MOVED that the Planning Commission meeting be adjourned. Commissioner Lambert . SECONDED the motion. Motion carried The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ames P. Harr Is, Secretary I -19-