Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Planning and Economic Development Committee - 05/20/1986 i • KENT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES May 20, 1986 The meeting of the Kent Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Raymond Ward at 7:50 p.m. on Tuesday, May 20, 1986, in the Council Chambers. COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Raymond Ward, Chairman James Byrne Richard Foslin Linda Martinez Nancy Rudy Judy Spier COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: Robert Anderson Robert Badger, excused Chuck Lambert, excused PLANNING STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: James Hansen, Principal Planner • Fred Satterstrom, Project Planner Will Wolfert, Associate Planner Ed Heiser, Assistant Planner Lois Ricketts, Recording Secretary APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION Jan Northam Grams asked to MINUTES FOR APRIL 29, 1986 have the minutes corrected to state that she operated her massage therapy for a period of four months in a home in King County. Commissioner Spier MOVED and Commissioner Byrne SECONDED a motion to approve the April 29, 1986, minutes as corrected. Motion carried. ADDED ITEM TO AGENDA Commissioner Rudy pointed out that the Planning Commission adopted a rule several years ago that in matters of contro- versy, the Commission would leave a one-week minimum time span between the public hearing in which testimony is heard and the final vote on the issue. She would like to see the one-week time limit reinstated because it would allow the Commission time to consider the issues, review the testimony, reread the • discussion summarized in the minutes and reread their own notes in order to more thoroughly consider the matter before voting on the issue. Kent Planning Commission Minutes • May 20, 1986 Commissioner Spier felt that this would present a problem to her since she would be unable to attend the meetings on the designated meeting dates, the fourth Tuesday of each month, and she wished to be able to attend the meetings. Mr. Hansen suggested that there should be two meetings each month in order to keep current with all of the issues. Since the hearing date had been changed to the third Tuesday, he suggested that the Commission hold a work- shop on the fourth Tuesday in order to keep up with pending issues. Chairman Ward recommended that the workshop and public hearings be combined. Mr. Hansen responded that the workshops could be held in advance of the public hearings, but it would not allow for time to assimilate the informa- tion. This was the reason that time was allowed for consideration between the workshop and the public hearing. Chairman Ward asked if a separate workshop would be needed for each session. Mr. Hansen responded that ideally a workshop will be needed each month. Chairman Ward suggested a workshop on the second Tuesday and a hearing on the third Tuesday. • Commissioner Spier responded that she could not be present on the second Tuesday of each month. Mr. Hansen explained that the availability of the room for meetings, and the time frame for completing the needed materials for the meeting had orig- inally been scheduled around the fourth Tuesday of each month. He suggested that a longer meeting on the third Tuesday might be a possible alternative. Discussion followed regarding the time limitation of the meetings. Chairman Ward stated that the hearings and workshop would be held the same evening, and that the Commission would be willing to come early in order to have a workshop prior to the public hearing. The meetings could also be extended. Chairman Ward announced that the Zero Lot Line Zoning Code Amendment would be on the agenda for the June 17, 1986, public hearing. TEMPORARY USE REGULATIONS Mr. Wolfert referred to the draft ordinance regarding temporary use regulations. Zoning Code Section 15.08.205 Temporary Use Regulations A.5 currently reads as follows: • A.5. Christmas tree sales lots, fireworks and flower stands. -2- Kent Planning Commission Minutes • May 20, 1986 The Planning Department recommends the following addition to A.S: Limited to locations on lots not used for residential purposes in commercial or industrial zoning districts. Commissioner Rudy MOVED that the hearing be closed. Commissioner Byrne SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. Commissioner Foslin MOVED that the proposed addition to the Temporary Use Regulation be approved as recommended by the Planning staff. Commissioner Rudy SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. PROPOSED A-G AND A-1 ZONE Mr. Heiser presented the proposed AMENDMENTS A-G and A-1 amendments which were continued from the hearing held on April 29, 1986. The Planning Department recommends the following addition to Zoning Code Section 15.04.015 Agricultural - General (A-G) Zone: 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 be approved as needed to construct buildings or structures as outlined in KCC 15.04.015 A, B, and C. b. No subsurface activities, including excavation for under- ground utilities, pipelines, or other underground installa- tions, shall be permitted that cause permanent disruption of the suface of the land. Temporarily disrupted soil 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 conservation management practices shall be permitted. Mr. Heiser explained that the Planning Department had been requested to present justification for the above 10d. He felt that this was needed because it added to the general standards that supported agricultural use in both A-G and A-1 zones. He suggested that an example would be the desire to construct a storm drainage system in the agricultural zone which would help to alleviate flooding problems. The regulation would encourage looking at the construction wa of the device. Some devices may have a tendency to carry away potential -3- ry„T; Kent Planning Commission Minutes • May 20, 1986 agricultural soils. Another example might be the mining or drilling for extraction of oil or gas, which might be disruptive in this zone. Another example of a type of activity might be a gasoline or diesel pump for filling tractors which would be used on the land. The Planning Department recommends the following addition to Zoning Code Section 15.04.005 Agricultural - A-1 : 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 D. 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 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. Commissioner Rudy asked if the Planning Department was opposed to flood drainage. Mr. Heiser responded that they were not opposed but that this standard provided criteria to judge this type of construction which must be consistent with Engineering standards. Commissioner Rudy MOVED and Commissioner Byrne SECONDED the motion to close the public hearing. Motion carried. Commissioner Spier MOVED that the request regarding the A-G and A-1 proposed amendments be approved as recommended by the Planning Department. Commissioner Foslin SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. • -4- Kent Planning Commission Minutes • May 20, 1986 HOME OCCUPATIONS CONTINUED This hearing was continued from the April 29, 1985, public hearing. Ms. Becky Baughan, 23226 113th Place SE, asked if tutoring were an allowable home occupation, would a beauty school geared with a curriculum towards tutoring be allowed. Mr. Wolfert responded that this would be a matter of interpretation. A commercial activity teaching beautitians a trade may be more encompassing and be on both a broader and more continuous scale than would be true of a teacher who would be teaching students after school either in academic subjects or on musical instruments. He felt there would be different types of impacts on the neighborhood. He felt that instead of labeling there should be standards such as the number of students at a time or the number of students per day. Commissioner Martinez asked why one student at a time was included and one customer at a time was rejected. Mr. Wolfert asked if she were referring to retail sales on an appointment basis. Commissioner Martinez responded that she was referring to an appointment on the same basis that home tutoring was included. • Mr. Wolfert explained the staff 's position was not in favor of a change regard- ing the customer-client relationship at the home. By including tutoring, the City would be recognizing that there are certain traditional activities that are carried on in the home that have always been in the home. It was not the intention of the Planning Department to take a broad interpretation of the issue. He felt that they could provide the Commission with a proposal which would address those concerns, if this were to be requested. Commissioner Rudy asked if every type of engagement for pay required a city business license. Mr. Wolfert responded that the business license procedure was handled through the City Clerk ' s office. Ms. Rudy asked if a beauty shop would be required to obtain a business license. Mr. Wolfert responded that it would be required. Ms. Sharon Thompson, 25035 108th SE, expressed support of Jan Northam Grams in her effort to open a massage therapy business in her home. She expected to have her massage therapy license later this year and hoped she would be _ able to operate a business out of her home. She felt that the home massage business would not create a nuisance in the residential area. She joined Ms. Grams in suggesting that D3, which prohibits the sale of goods and services . to clients directly in the dwelling unit be changed or deleted to accommodate massage therapy. _ -5- Kent Planning Commission Minutes • May 20, 1986 Walter Flue, 1105 Seattle Street, Kent, pointed out that doctors started their businesses in their homes many years ago. He quoted from the Kent News Journal of May 4, "Today many women are finding a new role in the home work- ing from their basement, back porch or kitchen table to make money. A recent study shows that there are more home businesses than ever before, and that the cottage industry has grown 25 percent since 1982. A closer look just shows that most of these businesses are just one person, and many are women." Mr. Flue expressed his personal support of home businesses with some restric- tions. Commissioner Rudy asked what restrictions he had in mind. Mr. Flue felt that the aesthetic need of the neighborhoods should not be diminished. Mr. Wolfert felt that there was an underlying feeling that the City of Kent does not permit home businesses. This is far from the truth. The City prohibits and restricts the activities of certain types of home businesses, but does not prohibit home businesses. The staff looks at those types of home businesses that are compatible with residential neighborhoods. He emphasized that the intent of the ordinance is to look at that particular issue and the impacts on residential neighborhoods so that permits are not allowed for the types of activities that have adverse or potentially adverse impacts. This is for the . protection of the environment. Ninety percent of the applications for a business license are approved by the Planning Department. Commissioner Spier felt that it was discriminatory to allow some businesses and not allow others. Mr. Wolfert explained that the current code does not list any specific uses. He explained that the current ordinance is self administering. It takes little time to administer. Why have an applicant apply for license when he knows that he will be rejected. Commissioner Spier wondered why the same criteria could not be used as was suggested for tutoring--one car at a time. Commissioner Rudy asked for uses that were specifically prohibited. Mr. Wolfert responded that the current ordinance has no specifically permitted nor specifically prohibited uses. Home child care and agricultural uses are discussed in another section of the code. He reminded the Commission that the City of Kent currently has an ordinance that functions reasonably well and one that deals with a wide variety of uses. It protects neighborhoods and resi- dential areas, and in most cases it allows the types of activities that are presented to the Plannin_9 Department for approval . Commissioner Foslin felt that the sale of goods or services directly to the • consumer in the dwelling seemed to be the underlying issue, and that this hearing should focus on this issue. He felt, after studying the cities that were presented in the report, that the majority did not not prohibit by name types of businesses. -6- Kent Planning Commission Minutes • May 20, 1986 Sandra Allen, 26225 108th SE, Kent, felt that if they could meet the required criteria, they should be allowed to have a business in their homes, even if they provided goods or services. Jim Baughan, 23226 113th Place SE, Kent, expressed support of Commissioner Spier's comments. A commercial activity involves the exchange of goods or services for something monetary. He felt that as long as the activity did not go outside the moral confines of the neighborhood and society, it should not be restricted. He suggested that section D3 be changed to allow the sale of goods or services in the home. Jan Northam Grams, 856 South Central , Kent, agreed with Sandra Allen and requested that section D3 be deleted from the home occupations section of the ordinance. She did not feel that there was any difference between clients coming into the home for massage therapy, or students coming into the home for piano lessons, or ladies coming into the home for haircuts, or children coming into the home for day care as long as the residential area is preserved. She felt that if all the criteria of the Zoning Code were met, then D3 could be deleted because it would not be needed. She explained that the practice of massage therapy is a time-honored method of assisting the body to heal itself. With the ever-increasing move toward more natural methods of health care, the massage therapist is very much in demand. She pointed out that the Washington State Department of Labor and Industry and private insurance • companies now reimburse their clients for massage services. She concluded by reminding the Commission that D3 is keeping some of Kent' s residents from doing what they want to do in their homes. She also pointed out that there were no persons present who opposed this issue. Pam Stevens, 743 North Fourth Avenue, Kent, stated that she is a professional artist but wished to point out some of the language used in codes of other cities. She felt that use of a dwelling for income-producing activity was different from a commercial use because it is on a small scale that is acceptable in a residential area. The purpose of the home occupation permit is to allow for a broad range of business activities to occur within the home and to assure that the surrounding neighborhood is not affected. She felt that the activity should occur in no more than 25 percent of the floor area. She suggested that there might be no outward appearance of a business except for one flush-mounted sign. One city code suggested two square feet and another code suggested four square feet. One code suggested that the activity not include more than one non-residential employee. Another suggestion was to provide at least two parking spaces in addition to the owner's space. She mentioned that parking was not usually mentioned except that the street should not be cluttered. She stated that Des Moines requires that you obtain a license, but you can sell from condominiums and apartments in that city. Another requirement is that the construction of the house could not be changed. Commissioner Spier MOVED that the public hearing be closed. Commissioner Rudy SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. • Commissioner Foslin felt that the sale of goods or services directly to the e, consumer should be discussed with emphasis on the word "services." -7- Kent Planning Commission Minutes • May 20, 1986 Commissioner Spier expressed a desire to retain the old ordinance with the performance and development standards, but she wished to see D3 deleted. She felt that if the proposed home occupation was a legal business and met the criteria listed, the business should be allowed. Commissioner Rudy commented that in the 13 different ordinances provided for the Commissioners to study, nearly all had numerous pages of detailed information regarding the required standards that must be met. She felt that the Kent Zoning Code was very brief, and that additional standards should be considered by the Commission. She was concerned about the home- owners who had purchased homes in Kent expecting certain conditions to exist in the neighborhoods. Commissioner Spier asked for specific criteria that might be added to the ordinance. Commissioner Byrne responded that he felt that no signage should be allowed, no advertising of any kind, only word of mouth, no additional employees, and there should be no structural change to the residence. He felt that restric- tions would be necessary in order to maintain the integrity of the neighborhood. Commissioner Martinez felt that there would be no point in operating a busi- ness if the owner could not advertise it. She thought it would be impossible to administer the ordinance if section D3 were eliminated. She felt the parking issue should be addressed. Commissioner Rudy agreed that without standards the ordinance would be totally unenforceable. Commissioner Spier felt that if section D3 were deleted and the home business had no sign on the front of the residence, there was little traffic change, and no extra space was needed for the business, she did not feel that there would be significant change in the residential character of the neighborhood. She compared the situation with the person who had numerous friends who visited frequently. Commissioner Byrne felt that no additional employees should work at the site. This would limit the commercial activity at the residence. He felt that there should be no evidence of a business in the windows or a sign on the house. He pointed out that if there were covenants in the particular area, these must be met. The ordinances of the City cannot supersede these. Mr. Wolfert commented that the City does not enforce covenants. Commissioner Rudy MOVED that the staff prepare alternatives to Section D3 with the view in mind of protecting with standards the integrity of the neighbor- hood and also protecting the intent of the private enterpreneur to do business in his own home. Commissioner Martinez SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. -8- Kent Planning Commission Minutes • May 20, 1986 ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Spier MOVED that the hearing be continued until June 17, 1986. The meeting was adjourned at 9:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ?ames . Harris, Se retary • -9-