Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Planning and Economic Development Committee - 04/17/1984 aAwa KENT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES April 17, 1984 The Kent Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairman Stoner at 7: 30 p.m. on Tuesday, April 17, 1984 , in the City Council Chambers. COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Carol Stoner, Chairman Nancy Rudy, Vice Chairman James Byrne Douglas Cullen Richard Foslin Chuck Lambert Raymond Ward Robert Anderson, excused PLANNING STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: James P. Harris, Planning Director James Hansen, Principal Planner Fred Satterstrom, Associate Planner Sarah Stiteler, Planning Assistant Lois Ricketts, Recording Secretary APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Chairman Stoner pointed FOR MARCH 27, 1984 out that eight lines from the bottom of page 22 the words "ten-foot acre" appears and suggested this be corrected to read "one-tenth acre. " Commissioner Rudy MOVED and Commissioner Cullen SECONDED the MOTION that the minutes be approved as corrected. Chairman Stoner turned over the chairmanship of the meeting to Vice Chairman Rudy because of a conflict of interest regarding the follow- ing item. BOEING AEROSPACE COMPANY REQUEST TO Mr. Harris pointed out CONSTRUCT A BUILDING 80 FEET HIGH that this is an unusual case in which a request is being made to construct a building of greater height than is allowed in the Zoning Code. The Zoning Code states that two stories in an Ml, Light Manufacturing, are allowed. Two stories are con- sidered to be 35 feet. The Planning Director has the authority to approve one additional story, which would increase the height of the building to 52 . 5 feet. The Planning Commission will have to deal with the additional 27. 5 feet. The proposed 80-foot building would be located in front of a building that is 104 feet tall, and would be next to a building that is 60 feet tall. Commissioner Lambert MOVED that the Boeing request be approved. Commissioner Cullen SECONDED the MOTION. MOTION unanimously APPROVED. Kent Planning Commission Minutes April 17 , 1984 PUBLIC HEARING FOR CONSIDERATION Chairman Stoner opened OF AMENDING KENT ' S ZONING CODE the public hearing by explaining the procedures for the public hearing. Verbatim Minutes Stoner: We are planning this evening to begin with additional pub icl comment on the proposal and hopefully to move on to the rebuttal portion later this evening. We generally run from 7 : 30 to 10 or 10 : 30 with a break at 9 : 00 . If you wish to comment on the proposed zoning alternatives , if you have not commented already at our previous meeting, you need to sign up on the sign-up sheet that Fred Satterstrom has in front. I think he has passed it around. If there is anyone else who has not had a chance to sign up, please do so. When your name is called, please come to the podium and give your name and address for the record. Please adjust the microphone so that you can speak into it. We need to be sure that we can record your comments , because we are recording the proceedings. Please limit your initial statement to ten minutes. We will go on to the rebuttal portion this evening, hopefully, and then you will have an additional three minutes to comment on testimony you have heard, but we have asked all the speakers to limit their presentations to ten minutes . The Planning Commissioners have asked that each speaker who owns property in the area that we are looking at identify the location of your parcel on the map so that we are all clear at the very beginning of your testimony what you are talking about. Be- cause this hearing must address both the zoning proposal and the draft environmental impact statement on that proposal , I will ask each of you if you have comments that are specifically directed to that draft EIS. If you don ' t, that ' s fine. If you do have comments for the draft EIS, then your answer to that question is a flag for the staff when they go back through the minutes to pull out the comments for the final environmental impact statement. I want to also remind you that if you want to submit written testi- mony either during this portion of the hearing or during the rebuttal portion of the hearing, that is appropriate . You may speak as well as write. You may write only. You may expand upon your oral comments in a written submission, but we are accepting a written testimony still . Can I have the sheet and we will begin. There have been questions about how we will handle rebuttal. We will pass around a second sign-up sheet for rebuttal comments . This is not the re- buttal . This is the initial . O.K. If you have signed, and want to speak during rebuttal time, you can just defer to that point when we get to your name. The first name on the list is Edgar Rombauer. Edgar R. Rombauer: Madam Chairman, I am going to pass at this time. I did speak at the last meeting, and I' ll use my time in the rebuttal. Stoner: Mike Powers -2- Kent Planning Commission Minutes April 17 , 1984 Mike Powers: Mike Powers, citizen of Kent, and I am representing the Chamber of Commerce and have no property in this area. At the time of the Comprehensive Plan proposed change, the Chamber spoke against the changesand the stand was that. . .like to have the present zoning or present land use stay the same, which RA and MA and, just to be consistent, we are back here again to speak against the zoning change . We 've had much to say about this land being prime agricultural land. We look at it as if there is ever prime industrial land or prime land for distribution center, it is here in the Kent Valley. We have some major railroads, some major highways . We are located between two major seaports . It really is prime industrial land. By this we don' t mean that it is ready for development this year, or perhaps not even within the next ten years . But as important as it is to have open spaces and farmlands, it is also important to have jobs for our future population. We think this land should be reserved for that purpose. Also, it is interesting to note that cities are formed to urbanize. It is unusual that you see a city forming and getting into the farming business . In fact, I believe staff spoke quite harshly against the County for trying to act like a city, and perhaps Kent is trying to act like a county. If we wanted this land to be farmland, it has no business in the City of Kent. It should be back in the county ' s hand. Also , at the same time it is a little doubtful if there is a crying need for more farmlands . At the time, I believe it was the day we voted on the Comprehensive Plan recommendation to Council that the newspapers announced that the Secretary of Agriculture was quite pleased that he had managed to sign enough contracts to keep 43 million acres of farmland unplanted, roughly the size of the State of Nebraska. So I just don ' t see the crying need for more farmland, especially in this area. It is an industrialized area. The good farmland where the hops were grown, and that is where the Boeing property is now going to build a 80-foot building. That was the high and dry area. We have had talks from the major farming interests in this sphere of interest, and I believe it was Smith, Carpinito, and I can' t remember the name of the representative for the LDS acreage, but they all spoke against the Comprehensive Plan change, and I am sure they would be against the zoning change , also. We had rather humorous remarks . I believe it was the Postmaster General who told us about potato rot and how they grow potatoes in Ireland. Anyway, we just don' t feel that there is a crying need for the citizens . They really don 't want more farmland. If you will remember the agricultural preservation program that the County had, if it had to rely on the Kent vote, it wouldn 't be. Now, per- sonally, I like open spaces. I would like to see us capture some of these lands for open spaces, and I think that is the real issue, more of an open spaces issue than a farmlands issue. But to gain open spaces by changing the land use to farmlands rather than out- right purchase and making a park is confiscatory and it is not proper. Legally the City can downzone and change any of the land uses in this City. But it ' s bodies like this . . .bodies of citizens that are -3- Kent Planning Commission Minutes April 17, 1984 supposed to recommend to the Council what we really want. And I think you have to look more into what are we allowed to do, but what is fair and what is proper. I think everyone of you ought to look at it that the City has the right to limit the industrali- zation of that area and determine when the timing is right, and this is why we have it in a holding zone, and it can remain in that holding zone until which time the City feels it is proper and they can provide the services for that land. But I honestly believe if right now you were changing the zoning not from MA or RA but to Industrial, and change that zoning immediately, darn little of that land would be developed. It ' s Dust the timing isn 't right. It is very expensive to develop that land. There are no services out there. In fact, some of the land there requires fill in excess of ten feet to build on it. Also, it needs fill in excess of ten feet to farm on it properly, too. This is why it was never prime farmland, but I just don' t think the farming industry can support the land use there and the improvements of that land that would be required, the bringing in the top soil , the drainage of that land that would be necessary to support that as a viable farming interest. And, secondly, I don't think more farmlands are needed in the City of Kent. Thank you. Stoner: Are there any questions? Lambert: You referred to a downzone. Would you explain a downzone to me. Why would this be a downzone. Powers: Zoning it to a lower use. O.K. The zoning is the same. I ca13—it a downzone where you have had testimony here that said that when you change the Comprehensive Plan from RA to Agricultural , that it reduced the value of that land. I call that downzoning. This is testimony that was given by the County. Lambert: A zone isn' t a zone until you use it. It is Dust a kind of a guide to be looked at, and if it is quote unquote downzone doesn 't mean that if I have a nursery that I can no longer have a nursery, or if I am raising carrots I can no longer raise carrots. Powers : I think we are getting into semantics there. You might t ink that $10 isn' t worth $10 until you spend it, but I 'd rather have ten than five. Upzoned land is worth considerable more money. Lambert: Oh, I realize that, but I really didn ' t think of this as eing ownzone, what has been proposed. And there is nothing saying that it will be downzoned or even changed. Powers: Well, land appraisers consider it a downzone. Lambert: They do. -4- Kent Planning Commission Minutes April 17 , 1984 Powers: That is correct. Appraisal land goes down, in fact, you had testimony from Gary Volchok who is an appraiser. You had it also from the King County farmlands people, the ones that were appraising the land or getting it to. . . find out the difference in the value was to buy the development rights . They said the same thing. Stoner: I think we have people here who can address that issue. Is that correct? Because I think we are getting into opinion here and I think we have some people here who can address that. Powers: O.K. Stoner: Any other questions? Lauri Johnsen. ti Lauri Johnsen: I 'll defer to the rebuttal . Stoner: Isabel Donafrio. Isabel Donafrio: I am Isabel Donafrio . I live at 4248 South 216th. The property that we own in the valley is there. Stoner: Could you point it out on the map. That map is . . . Donafrio: I don 't know if I can or not. Stoner: That map isn't the very best one to use. Donafrio: We are right about here. I have only one thing to say about this and that. . .outside the letter, and that is, who is going to farm it. No matter how you zone it you can' t make people farm it. And there is some real, good land sitting down there with nothing on it. Stoner: Are there any questions. Ward: Yes. How much land are you talking about that you have here. Donafrio: Ten. Ward: Ten acres . Donafrio: Ten acres. Ward: What is it presently being used for? Donafrio: It is being farmed by Mike Carpinito, part of it, and part of'i my husband farms, and the rest of it is nothing. There is two houses on it. -5- Kent Planning Commission Minutes April 17, 1984 Ward: So it presently has a farm-type usage. Donofrio: Yes. But the money we get. . . Ward: You don' t want to continue. Donofrio: Well, the money that we get for the rent does not pay the taxes . Ward: You want to maintain your option to do what you want to do. . . Donofrio: Yes . Stoner: Are there any other questions? i Rudy: How would you like to see it used? i Donofrio: Well, I don't know. Rudy: But you don' t want to see it continued as farmland. Donofrio: Well, it is all right if it is farmland, but, you know, as long as my husband can farm, he wants to farm a little bit, all he is able to, but I know that when he ' s gone and isn 't able to farm that nobody is going to farm it. Rudy: But it is rented right now. Donofrio: Yes. Rudy: Part of it is . Donofrio: Six acres is. Cullen: What kind of farming is being done on it right now? Donofrio: I don' t know what he is going to do this year. Last year he put cauliflower, broccoli , corn, that type of farming. And my husband puts potatoes , corn, and beans and that sort of thing. Do I give each one of you a letter? Stoner: If you have copies for all of us, or you can give it. . . Wes King. Wes King: My name is Wes King. I own the property at 21839 Frager Road, the corner of 216th and Frager. Right here. I 'd like to just reecho Mr. Donofrio' s sentiments about the land . I am a re- tired person. There is about eight acres and two houses. It is called Residential Agricultural . . . to farm eight acres and make a living is an impossibility nowadays , unless you cover it with glass -6- Kent Planning Commission Minutes April 17 , 1984 and that is rather expensive. And when you reach retirement age, of course you don't invest this way. If the land is zoned Agricul- tural only, it will downzone it, and it will take away a great deal of the value of the property. I am also in real estate and I know this for a fact. So, I would be losing a great deal of what I consider my retirement nest egg were the property to be downzoned, and I think the property staying just the way it is . If somebody wants to come in and pay me what it is worth now, and I feel like selling it to them, that ' s great. That ' s my option, but I hate to have half of my option taken away from me. When I bought the property as residential agricultural at the value that I thought it was worth , . , And so, I think changing the land for any reason right now is just a waste of the property owner ' s money, and it is already taxed so highly as agricultural that it is really not even worth leasing out, because farmers can't afford to pay the taxes on the land that it takes to pay it from year to year just to rent it from you. And that is my position on the property. Stoner: Are there any questions from Mr. King? Rudy: Which corner of that intersecton is your land? You said Frager Road and 216th. Is it north or south? King: South. Rudy: What is the use of the land right now? King: Nothing. It sits there and I get out once a year with a tractor and disk and knock the weeds down and sit in my kitchen and look out over it and enjoy it, and that is about what it is good for. But as far as really commercially farming it at all , it is not that valuable and nobody can afford to pay me enough to cover coming in and farming it and making themselves a living on it, and I can't afford to farm it and make a living on it, either so. . . Rudy: Have you leased it out before? King: Yes, I have. Rudy: When was the last time it was leased? King: I leased it out two years ago to Mr. Rosso who has also spoken to you people, and he paid me I think $600 a year for the use of the back acreage and $600 a year did not cover the taxes. So, it was kind of a losing battle, and then I thought I had a sale for the property, so I asked him to move his nursery stock off the property. Rudy: Is it available for lease now if someone wanted to lease it? -7- Kent Planning Commission Minutes April 17 , 1984 King: If they were willing to pay what I have to pay in taxes, I 'd be very interested in leasing, but I 'm afraid that at that, they wouldn' t make any profit themselves by farming it , because it has to be a pretty specific type of crop, and the crops have to be in for more than one, two or three years. They have to be more long- term crops, and I can ' t let anybody lease the property that way just on the off chance that if I were hospitalized and needed to sell the property or something to pay my bills , I would have to have the property available for sale and I would have to ask them to move, so I can't long-term lease it that way. Stoner: Anyone else . Lambert: Is this the place with the Ford tractor in the shed? No, 3u tt ss o I got it right. Is this the one where you have a Ford tractor in the red building. F , King: The red barn on the corner, and it has a blue Ford setting. . Lambert: Just so I got the right place. O.K. King: That's it. Stoner: Mr. King, do you have your land in open space taxation currently? And the reason that I 'm asking you that is that the current use taxation program, the open space taxation would give you a lower rate, and I am asking if you have it in that program or. . . King: Unfortunately, no, because there is a conflict of interest with my wife and some businesses we own, and so forth, so it kind of takes us out of that category, so I can't get a reduced rate on taxes, not at this time. Stoner: O.K. Thank you. Tom McCann. Tom McCann: My name is Tom McCann. I live at 10115 S. E. 200th on the East Hill, and myself and two partners own what is left of 32 acres . We )ust recently sold 11 acres, but we still own 21 acres and I will point it out. It is right next to the Donofrio property. It is on the south side of 212th. . .between 212th and 216th, and I would lake to summarize a letter that I would like to submit , and kind of cover most of the points in the letter. I had reviewed the draft environmental impact statement and the staff report and would like to present the following observations . First of all, as regards the environmental impact statement, I think that the comments there are that it is kind of a very positive document that has some con- clusions that it wants to forward at the end. I would like to cite some examples . Now, it does in fact touch all the right bases , but when I go through there and look, it just seems like there are some exaqqerations or they play up certain points , play down certain -8- Kent Planning Commission Minutes April 17 , 1984 points, and I'd just like to offer up a few of those. Now I went through the document in a couple of hours , and if I had more time , I 'd probably be able to do a better job . For example, it indicates a 54 percent of the subject land is in fact agriculture. Now in that 54 percent is our land. Now our land doesn't fit the agricul- tural criteria by the County. Our land is , in fact, storing piles of fertilizer, top soil . We have no fences on it. The only thing we do is get a few hundred dollars worth of hay a year, which is about $30 an acre. Now we 've already talked to the County about if we could even get in for a bid on the new farmland basis . But we don' t apply to the farmlands criteria. We are, in fact, open space. But again in here we are classified as pasture land, there- fore, as agriculture. Again, it is all in a definition. It depicts all the subject lands as eligible for the King County agricultural compensation, even though most of it is not currently eligible. Again, land like our own doesn' t fit the criteria. You don 't make a hundred dollars per acre per year or you can 't prove that it is farmland. Therefore you have to submit under open space, and again they can accept you or reject you. So again, when it depicts that all of us are eligible, you are eligible but in a remote sense. There is no certainty to that. It in fact emphasizes the prime soil in the area. It plays up the prime soil . There are some mans in there that try to designate which lands have prime soil , which ones don' t. Our land each time prior to this has been described to people have come back several times , but each time they told us that we had prime soil. All the top soil on ours was either hauled away or it was taken away by a flood about twenty years ago before we owned it. Now they have gone back and made a correction, but they they corrected only 19 out of 32 acres. The other 13 acres are still classified on the maps as having prime soil . It is not true . Again, as I go on, there are just little points all through here that seem to play up that this is a happy agricultural area. It plays down the problems and the lack of productivity related to the drainage problems. It does point out that this is a classification 2 soil and that is pretty good. It also points out that it doesn ' t drain worth a darn and that affects productivity. But it leavesit right there. It doesn't address the fortune that it would cost to go in. . .Mike Powers talked about hauling in more top soil . You could go in to do some sort of storm drain or some drainage, but it would be very, very expensive to take that soil and make it any good for farming. It includes statements on precluding costly sewer systems in the environmental impact statement. Well , that subject has been addressed I don ' t know how many times in the last five or six years , and by ground rule, each development, whether it was the Highlands up on the hill, by ground rule they would have to absorb 100 percent of the cost of the utilities . So, again, I don ' t understand the statement because you have control over that. It does, in fact, clear down the transportation problems . It talks about the very little transportation, density and the interior . Well, we have property on 212th and 216th, and I travel from Boeing along the River Road there, and I want to tell you that' s just. . . -9- Kent Planning Commission Minutes April 17, 1984 there 's a hell of a lot of traffic and there ' s a lot of traffic goinggoing south to 212th and 2nd that ' s not, in fact east and west along 212th and com- pensation in the EnvironmentvImpactgriculture In the issue of g Statement it leaves it hanging. It says, after it goes through some sort of analysis they say, I believe that it is adequate or at least it is not inadequate, what- ever that means . It just leavesit hanging YOU can 't prove it is not inadequate, g g right there, like since Well, if you owned the land q ' therefore it must be adequate. that. you don ' t get too warm a feeling about Again, that is all the comments . There are a few more in here, but if you read that thin inyou can tell that when you wrote that thing the people were sell them dishonest, but I think that statementaisln that a �littled less ' thanke thlarepresented. I 'd like to read some more p the last five years I have arts of the letter. meetings participated in approximatelyIn on various studies to eliminate deveopmentprssu0resbfor and the land in question. Although the response from the resident farmers and landowners a doommrsshas been rs hasoneverehar the acceptance by the planners out that the agricultural income happened . The testimony has 0 to 100 dollars agricultural annuallyfrom the subject land ranges fromjust close dollars 0. per acre. Again the income off ours is You can reduce that by taxes are up to $100 per acre or more. y getting into open space to a fraction of that. But, again, there is l return on it. Only the best of the land can provide a marginal income for people working 70 to 100 hours per week. The worst, in an agricultural sense, cannot support property taxes and can only provide open space. The fact is that the land east of the river may have been the only land worth saving. Now you have heard the farmers worth saving. Now you have heard the farmers say that, that the good land was over there. some sort of living on it. The people on the west side neverymadee a good living. Now the east lands are good money again sellin going up and people are making Picking on the. . , g that for something else, but why do we keep never Youknow, the marginal lands west of the river. The lands here never have, nor ever will be, good for agriculture despite all the reminiscg and wishful thinking in the world. If you go back and review the testimony, you will either accept the above statements or you must conclude that the farmers Providing the testimony are either incompetent or they are not telling withus0 if you go back to the hearing where we brought in people truth, , 40. . .of experience. They point out that they never have made a living, and none of the studies that we do. ants, they go off and get . .we hire consult- studies somewhere else, but they never include any of this data from the City of Kent residents . we don' t trust them or we must feel they are incompetent. Ildidn't know I was taking so much time, because I 'm not getting half way if through it. I guess I 'd like to conclude it isn 't farmland, but YOU twowant the open choices are : space, then 2 'd say you 've got two choices With the farmers to obt(1) YOU work with ain the compensation efrom gthe uKing. work * County Program and defer the downzoning until you do so, because I don 't -10- t Kent Planning Commission Minutes April 17, 1984 think you can get the money you are talking about for our land. Or the second thing is make a commitment that qualifies the downzoning that, if in fact, that if we offer in good faith to sell this land that shouldn' t be sold for farming, and if the County won 't provide the compensation , that Kent will subsidize the program to the same values . Stoner: Are there any questions . Foslin: Mr. McCann, how long have you had the property? McCann: Six years . Foslin: And your initial intent for buying the land was for invest- ment? McCann: Yes, we bought the land for a long-term investment, five, ten years down the road. When we did that, by the way, we went to the SCS I believe it was and had a soil analysis done to see if there is any interim use we could have for it. They pointed out that there was no practical crop values that we could use the land for. Foslin: Although I believe you did say you have raised some crops on that land. McCann: There are funny stories about hay when it doesn't rain. Yeah. We have raised hay, and last year we lost money, but two or three other years we made five or six hundred dollars on the 32 acres. Foslin: Is yours a very wet piece of property, poor drainage. McCann: Seasonably wet. No, it's got a couple of spots in it that Fiord water in the winter. The rest of the time it is real low. . .I guess you would describe it as seasonably wet . Foslin: Thank you. Rudy: Has the land ever been leased to farmers? McCann: No, but if you know any that would let loose, of course the d be crazy, but, yes , it is for sale, it ' s for lease. Ward: But not for downzoning. Lambert: When you bought the property what did you pay for it? Do you remember? McCann: Yes. We paid $8 , 000 an acre six years ago. Lambert: When you sold the eleven acres, what did you get for it? -11- Kent Planning Commission Minutes April 17 , 1964 McCann: We got about 90 cents on the dollar what we had in it. We got about a little over $11, 000 an acre. And again, we took about a ten percent loss on that. Lambert: Eleven thousand per acre and you paid eight in six years . McCann: Yeah. That is what we netted, there was a little more for commission and that sort of thing. Lambert: Typical. Stoner: Could I ask you what you sold that 11 acres for? McCann: What we sold it for. Stoner: No, the potential user had in mind, or do you know. n McCann: Yes, it' s a whole-retail greenhouse operation . I sure don't want to tell any tales out of school . He has more of a retail appli- cation in mind, but it is something that works in the current RA zoning. So, he wants to use it for more of a commercial sense, I am sure. i Stoner: O.K. Byrne: Is it currently being used as that operation. McCann: No, that would be. . . I don't know if it would be one, two, five years in the future . Stoner: Are there any other questions. McCann: Could I submit. Stoner: Yes, please do, and we will read what you didn't read to US . I promise. Walter Drasow. Walter Drasow: My name is Walter Drasow and I live at 5221 South 212th Street. I am talking more for my boys than myself. I am retired. I think we got the best land down there and we are farm- ing it, and we figure on keeping on farming it. Farming between 212th and 216th off the Frager Road. And I 'd like to see it stay in agriculture. Stoner: Are there any questions for Mr. Drasow. Rudy: Yes , do you have any problemsfarming it now: Drasow: No, we haven't, but we would like to be left alone, you know, not too many restrictions on it or anything like that. -12- Kent Planning Commission Minutes April 17 , 1984 Rudy: How many acres do you have? Drasow: The boys have about 30 acres . They own some of it and some of it they have rented. Rudy: What do you grow there? Drasow: Garden vegetables . Rudy: Where do you sell them? Drasow: Mostly to Pacific Fruit, Safeway, and another thing, I heard some guy say that they don' t have people working. We put quite a few girls started working for college during the summer. A good many of them. They got a good start. Rudy: Working on the farmland. Drasow: That's right. Rudy: How long have you been farming it? Drasow: The boys have been farming it about 22 years now altogether. Ward: Did you farm it yourself before that time? Drasow: What' s that. Ward: Did you farm the land yourself prior to that time? Drasow: No, I have never farmed. I -helped them once in a while, but I come off a farm back is Wisconsin, though. Ward: Oh, I see. Drasow: I 'm eighty years old already. Ward: It' s remarkable to hear someone speaking for the farm. Drasow: Well , I 've been an old farmer, and I 'd like see everything stay as a farm. Ward: But you'd like to maintain an option, though, as to what. . . (unclear) Stoner: Mr. Lambert. Lambert: Are you the gentlemen that I see washing carrots down there by the river? -13- Kent Planning Commission Minutes April 17, 1984 Drasow: That' s my boy, yeah. He's out planting right now. Stoner: Mr. Drasow, I wanted to make sure exactly where your property was. You are between 212th and 216th and on the Frager. Are you the north corner then or Frager and 216th? Drasow: South of 212th. . . i Stoner: But north of 216th. So he' s the north corner of 216th and Frager. Any other questions for Mr. Drasow. Tnank you. Sylvia Langdon. Sylvia Langdon: My name is Sylvia Langdon. I lived all my life in the valley. My father before me travelled up and down the valley. I currently live in Renton. Stoner: Could you give us your address, please. r Langdon: 212 S. W. Langston Road, Renton. I think I speak for the larger community. I just want to make some comments. I don' t have any technical expertise here or answers, and I have been through all of the hearings in the two or three years, listened to it all. I feel very strongly that we must have Alternative 2 , that we must hold the agricultural land in the valley as much as we possibly can. I noticed that all these people who have been here were heard beforef and there were answers given. There were a tremendous number of experts who came who spoke positively. There were answers for every- thing. Many, many more community groups were all here, and the con- sensus of all of it was, we must save some part of the valley for agriculture. This is our historical role here and for future genera- tions, anyway, we must save some of it. And the Planning Department was directed in this way to make plans so that this can happen, that we can save agriculture. I remember arguments, for instance, the man who lost, who has all the top soil gone from his land. Well, it was said that there are agriculture uses for that kind of land, like greenhouses , chicken farm, all kinds of nursery, etc. That land could be used for agriculture. There is concern about a patchwork kind of a pattern that would go on if this land was not saved in a agricultural zoning capacity. That is , you' d have a warehouse here and a farm there and the water from the warehouse would go over into the farm and you have to save the whole area and not have it into a patchwork thing. I remember people saying about land specu- lation that the City. . .citizens of the City of Kent do not have any responsibility to those who took a gamble and bought some land. It is like buying some lottery tickets or WHOOPS bonds or whatever, it is your own responsibility. And if they do lose, it is sad. I think also that there was a consensus that the landowners should be compensated in some way. I remember the County agriculture experts saying that they were making plans. As soon as all the issues of -14- Kent Planning Commission Minutes April 17, 1984 land development were settled, that they had plans for developing a lot of helps in terms of what crops to grow, what works best, help- ing to form cooperatives, marketing helps, all kinds of things . Plans were ready, but these other issues had to be settled first. We've had a lot of testimony about refugees and the church groups helping in regard to the. . .helping them to get some land through lease arrange- ments and sponsoring of churches, and so forth, that' s held in abey- ance, too. There was testimony about the tremendous loss of farmland throughout the entire country. It is a very sad fact. I remember people talking about how many jobs are there really in a warehouse. Seems to me mostly boxes. And when we lose all this beautiful farm- land for a very few jobs. . . I think that if you would go back through a lot of that testimony you would find answers for many of the things that are being said. And I could go on, but I do feel that the Greater Valley Community wants some farmland to be preserved in an area, and that answers can be found for many of the problems. Thank you for listening to me. Stoner: Are there any questions? Rudy: I have one. You mentioned the refugees and that they want land to farm. Langdon: Yes. Rudy: How would you put the refugees and the land together. Langdon: There was a good deal of testimony on that. There is an experiment going to in the Woodinville area. . . up in that part of the County right now, and the Council of Churches group have been talk- ing about all of this and trying to work on it to find the answers so that these people who want jobs, and want to be a part of our total community can find work through cooperative efforts out on the farms. Rudy: How can that help the landowner now who owns the potential farmland. Langdon: It would have to be a leasing kind of an arrangement. I'm not an expert on it, but with the churches getting donations and so forth, and leasing the land for them and with a great many helps, if we could perhaps get that testimony back again and you could see it. Rudy: Thank you. Stoner: Anyone else. Don Baer, you wanted to speak. Baer: (Unclear) Rebuttal. -15- Kent Planning Commission Minutes April 17, 1984 Stoner: John T. John. O.K. Mr. John, your predecessor at the last meeting spoke for four minutes, so. . . John T. John: Oh, he already spoke. He does speak a lot. He didn' t tell me that. He told me. . . Stoner: But, if you have a statement. . .he felt, I remember that he was unprepared. If you have a statement that you would like to present at this point, there are six minutes left of your time, or if you want to wait until rebuttal and speak for three minutes at that point. John: Since I don' t know what he said, I' ll use the six minutes. John: I represent St. Demetrius Greek Orthodox Church and I am the parish council president. We, as of October of last year, inherited from one of our parishoners approximately 68 acres which is located on Prager Road and 212th, and I think it is the second property to the north next to the Mormon property. Basically, we aren' t long-term residents and we don' t pretend to speak from that basis, but it appears to us that what you are doing, you are attempting. . .the City of Kent is attempting to balance the interest of the landowners against the interests of the community. And it appears that at the present time and with the present zoning you are, on behalf of the community, holding certain options , and I think it is our position, or we believe you should continue in that present posture, to rezone it agricultural, even according to the economic analysis here, might be precipitous in the sense that there is presently the King County Agricultural Preservation Act which from what is said here is in the process of developing the purchase of certain agricultural rights. It would be our position that as time goes on and as this preservation act is allowed to implement itself, the picture may become clearer. Even in the economic analysis it says that 17 to 21 years is the estimate before there would be any conversion of use to industrial or other use. The economic analysis indicates additionally that to zone it agriculture or one of the other alternatives , in estimating the loss of value it estimates it will be again converted to indus- trial and you are only postponing it three years . So instead of 17 to 21 years, it would be 20 to 23 years. I think there are a lot of assumptions built into all of these things, and it would be our position that by adopting one of these other alternatives you may indeed be foreclosing some options that may be open to the City to better serve both the interests of the owners and the interests of the community, and that by maintaining the present posture you may be able to act more informed and make it a better decision as time goes by. So we would speak and ask that you maintain the present zoning. Presently our property, we have a house on it, and it is being leased. There is a person there who raises some livestock and uses a little bit of farming. But from the erratic payments that come in, it is not a very large amount of money and the effort we put in trying to get the payments, it doesn' t seem that he' s being very profitable at -16- Rent Planning Commission Minutes April 17, 1984 it. We, ourselves, hope to. . .wanted to do some kind of analysis as to what the best use of the property would be in the future . But, hopefully, our options will also be open and that we won't be in a more limited position in the future. Stoner: Are there any questions. Lambert: Yes, was the property appraised when you inherited it? John: Yes, it was. You are going to ask me how much. Lambert: You' re correct. How much. John: I'd hate to tell you an inaccurate. . .we used the assessed value. Lambert: What is the assessed value. John: I believe it was around $300 , 000, I believe, but I will submit that to you in writing to be accurate. I 'm taking a guess. Lambert: Do you know who appraised it? Was it a MAI appraisal? John: No, we didn' t get a separate appraisal. We just used the assessed valuation from the County and it was accepted since there was no estate tax since we are not a profitable organization, but I' ll submit that to you. Lambert: Now how many acres is that? John: Sixty-eight acres. Stoner: Any other questions? Jack Martz . Jack Martz: Am I to be the last speaker on this portion of the program here. Stoner: That' s right. I have a question, though, because I realize that you and Mr. McCann own the property that we are talking about. . . that Mr. McCann talked about in common, and he did use his full ten minutes, and I am concerned about the issue of fairness here, because we have asked each property owner to. . . Martz: May I leave that to the Commission then Carol. I asked to speak last intentionally so we could leave this portion of the hearing on a positive note and, although I have an interest in the piece of property spoke to, I don' t intend to speak to that interest. I merely wanted to read into the record an editorial opinion that was in our own Kent News Journal, and I think that perhaps the editor- ial comment not more eloquent than myself, but certainly that it reflects the sentiments of your community. -17- Kent Planning Commission Minutes April 17 , 1984 Stoner: All right. Let' s poll the Commission. Would you be willing to hear the editorial . (Commission responded. ) Martz : Thank you. This is from the Kent News Journal dated Friday, March 30, 1984, and it is the lead editorial opinion. The headline is Downzoning and Proper Way to Preserve Land. The Kent Planning Commission is holding hearings on a proposal to downzone 564 acres on the west and south sides of the Green River. The stated reason is to preserve agricultural lands . The properties are now zoned a combination known as agricultural/residential . Apparently the downzoning would be legal, but there is also no doubt in our minds that it would be wrong. That is without compensation to the property owners it would be wrong to downzone the property from its current combination status to simply agricultural use. We have also said this over the years in regard to any idea of downzoning the Kent area zoning combination known as agricultural/manufacturing into just agricultural . It is, of course, tempting to try to find a way to preserve farmland, open space, in still rural sections of the Kent Valley, especially near the Green River. Noone readily wants to see scenic landscapes sprout with condos instead of cows, but fair is fair, and without compensation it simply isn' t fair to change someone' s property value to a less lucrative potential. An analogy would be to grant a permit for someone to build super market and rule it had to be used as a school. So, although we have consis- tently supported farmland preservation, it is only been via fair zoning and adequate compensation, as in the King County' s voter- approved Farmland Preservation Program. Under that program landowners who agree to keep their land in farm use are given cash payments meant to cover the difference between the value of the property as farmland and its value in residential or commercial development. As readers may recall, this newspaper has backed the idea of preservation of at least a strip along the Green River with the eventual hope for a trail and park system running along that waterway from Northwest Renton to Southeast Auburn. But our support has always been conditioned upon payments to acquire the property, not simple condemnation of the land or a rezone to make it impossible for the owners to put the prop- erty to use. We hope the Kent Planning Commission and the Kent City Council will realize downzoning would be a mistake. At the same time we hope civic leaders will pursue essential preservation of a strip along the Green River with compensation, zoning tradeoffs or land swaps with the property owners as appropriate. That' s all. Thank you. Stoner: Any questions. Lambert: I have one. I think that in condemnation you are required by law to reimburse the person for the land you take. Martz: If that is the intent, that is correct. Again you can get i tnoa kind of a semantic discussion here about condemnation is. . . what constitutes condemnation, but clearly the point is made, that the downzone, and they use that term also, is going to take some _lg_ Kent Planning Commission Minutes April 17 , 1984 value from the property; therefore there should be some compensation in order. I don' t think anybody that you have heard testimony from would disagree that it would be nice to have farmlands preserved. It would be nice to have open space or a green belt along there . I think all their concern is that there be adequate compensation for that. Lambert: Well, we can' t get into that, as you probably know that as the Planning Commission,we cannot get into that. Martz : I think I understand that, but it doesn ' t seem right, I guess , that you address one issue without the other . Lambert: We can't get into compensation. Stoner: We can make recommendations. Lambert: Right. But we can't. . . Martz : Your strength, then, would be in the recommendation. And perhaps you recognize that, because you can ' t deal with compensation, you really can' t adequately deal with the downzoning issue. I guess that would be my submission. Ward: You think we should remove ourselves from voting on this. Martz: No, No. I think the vote should be simple preservation of the current zoning. Ward: But you were saying that the two should go together. Martz: Yes sir. Ward: By compensation we shouldn' t be talking basically about. . . Lambert: I don' t know how anybody can use the word downzone when I don' t think any of us know what is going to happen. Martz: Well, except downzone is just, I believe, to simply say there isgoing to be removal of some value from the property without really describing. . . It' s just a simple economic issue. Ward: Is the public feeling that because. . .that one class of zoning is being proposed as compared to an existing two-class zoning, when one is removed, that is basically a downzone. Martz: That' s basically correct. If there has been a limitation placed or a restriction placed on what you can do with the land, what your options are. . . Ward: If you remove some of the options , then by the same token you remove some of the value, then you are taking money out of people' s pocket. -19- Kent Planning Commission Minutes April 17, 1984 Martz: That' s correct. It's curious, when you look at the Environ- mental Impact Statement and some of the issues that they try to resolve, and I believe it was on page 26, the things you are trying to accomplish with the agricultural zoning you essentially have with the existing zoning. And you don' t see anything in there that is going to offer up any great leverage to change the zoning, so you almost submit that you have essentially what you want with the current zoning, and it doesn't really require change. Stoner: Well, those are issues that we can address in the rebuttal. Lambert: One more . Do you know of any of your neighbors who have had an MAI appraisal down in there, or is everybody going on assessed value? Martz: I don't know of anybody that has had an MAI appraisal. I also don ' t know that everybody is going on assessed value. Lambert: I wonder who has made the appraisal to do this quote down- zone unquote. Martz: I don' t think it has been done. Lambert: I am wondering how people have arrived at that. Martz: That is an excellent point, because I don't think that a proper economic analysis has been made. Voice: I think the reason that everybody is talking about downzoning Stoner: Wait a minute. We have to. . . Harris: We have someone at the podium talking to the Planning Commission and we can ' t have people in the audience. . . voice: I pointed to him, I'm sorry. Stoner: Let' s get into this in the rebuttal portion. Thank you. We usually take our breaks at 9 :00 , and because we have some staff people and some guests who might like to go home, I 'd like to start with that portion of the rebuttal now. Harris: Madam Chairman, before we get that far, we have letters that we need to get into the record now, because we are into that part of the hearing, and I ' d like to go over them very fast. We have Cate, Walter Gray, Isabel Donofrio and Tom McCann. Tom McCann's letter, there aren' t enough to go around. We will make copies of that for you at the next meeting. But those could be put into the record, then and we will have that taken care of. -20- Kent Planning Commission Minutes April 17 , 1984 Stoner: May we have a motion. Ward: So moved. Cullen: Second Stoner: Jim has MOVED and Doug has SECONDED that we accept those letters for the record. Rosso: Madam Chairman. In the letter that I presented to you, I 3ust gave you one copy. Do I have to make a copy for each one of you. Stoner: No, that will be done. We need to. . . Can we have a motion to ncinci Jude Mr. Rosso' s letter? Rudy: I so move. Lambert: Seconded Stoner: Nancy has MOVED and Chuck has SECONDED. Let me ask. Fred what was the order of presentation for staff rebuttal. Satterstrom: It is going to be myself and Mr. Easton followed by Don. Stoner: And the approximate amount of time. Satterstrom: It could be as much as 45 minute to sixty. Stoner: Let' s take a break. Let' s be back at five minutes of. The rebuttal sign up is here and I will put it down in front for those of you who would like to sign up. If you signed up and deferred, would you please sign up again, and I will just call off the rebuttal sheet. (Break) (8: 40 p.m. ) Stoner: We are now going to move on to the rebuttal portion of our Baring. Lambert: May I say something before we get started to clarify some- th ni g I knew that I had read it in the staff report, and it says that the Planning Commission may consider such compensation proposals only if the King County Council re3ects the County' s Farmlands Imple- mentation Task Force recommendation on the Farmlands Preservation Bonds program, or the Planning Commission determines that the County' s Farmlands implementation Task Force recommendation on Farmlands Preservation Bonds program provided inadequate level of compensation to property owners. -21- Kent Planning Commission Minutes April 17, 1984 St--°nT= So, we are talking talking about compensation inatwotdifferentsforms . outline the rebuttal problem. fVe are portion of the alprocedures so that ever �'K• I want to sheet for hearing operates . everyone understands how this making a rebuttal statement should have signed the signup Please come to the podium and state When Your name is called, record. We need you to use the micate our name and address for the statements on tape. You will have threenminuutese so atoWe can be very helpful both to get Your in to y you and to the Commissionerss who kare llistena concerneduaboutou will identify the specific issues that your previous standd state your view. This is not a You are that have been raised in other ntestmon . time to summarize Opportunity to comment on the issues issues and avoid personalities. y Your comments should address written rebuttal either as a You also have the option of submitting addition to your oral r as a susstitute for your oral comments with a staff presentation. We are going to begin the rebuttal Satterstrom: Chairman and Planning or the recr my name is Fred Satterstrom and I ni g Commission. Project managerFon the agricultural zoning project. There have been lot of issues raised from both the opt of speakers the agricultural zoning f there have been a g issue PPonents and the proponents on sues that they have raised b , and I have tried to t I have seven issue by areas thatcategory and generalizedup tthem he ssomewhat I would first like to say would like to address . Will be a presentation ay that following my own presentaticnefore I do charge with Williams-KuebelbeckGand Assocregg iates is associate in ing firm that worked on the Agricultural Economic Analysis , You should have a co They are the consult- the Public Works Director, isl here nand rhegwilPraddress1someDof the utility and some of the Wickstrom, ing services on the westpand1southservsidesice sofethehat have comever. u With, it is not theP regard- some of the really an issue area, but I would reallyTo start positive suggestions that one of the speakers hasmto ade nre- garding easing some of the development oposed A zone. For example, P standards within the Alternative 2 that has it has been suggested that the A-1 zone underAlwhen comes to some of the been agr proposedral isessomewhat harsh under speakers pointed out that roadside stands are olimitedltoe400 square feet under current regulations P one of the sed A zone. That the , which are also those of the stands and some Ofp the lagriculturalguses nma bdards for these harsh for agricultural uses as well . And also 1 be a little harsh for exempting barns and silos from height limits mightalso be a way of easing the burden on uses as a suggestion that culture but which might commonly which are endemic to ag ri- culture might a exceed the height standard that1 is that apply to a single-family zoning district. The bottom line You cant expect agriculture uses to conform to the same standards as urban development. That in andof itself is an implicit statement that you are discouraging agriculture rather than promoting it. I -22- Kent Planning Commission Minutes x{ April 17, 1984 think that some of the testimony that has been submitted shows that it is difficult to make a profit, not impossible, but difficult to make a profit in agriculture, and there is no need, or there shouldn' t be a need, to burden that profit-making enterprise by regulations that discourage farming rather than encouraging it. So I endorse some of those suggestions , and if the Planning Commission does as well, as we will find out later on, we should explore specific language that might back off somewhat on those standards . The first issue that I would like to respond to is the issue dealing with the difficulty of rezoning from an A designation. It has been alleged that if the land is zoned RA, then there is a chance that it can be rezoned to industrial or commercial. But on the other hand if the land is zoned A, there will be no change at all. My response to that is that there really isn' t any guarantee of a rezone no matter what your zoning is, be it RA, be it A, be it Rl , be it Ml, there is no guarantee that you can get that rezone to M2 or M3. Rezoning is a legislative and political process and decision that is based on the facts in each case. One cannot make a blanket statement that rezoning from one class to another is more or less difficult. I know that I have never heard that sort of rule or rule of thumb espoused in any of the planning classes that I have taken, and my experience indicates that it is also not true that you can make blanket statements concerning the difficulty of rezoning. They really do depend on the individual circumstances with each individual case. In the study area I do not believe it would be as easy to rezone one site from RA to another classification by moving next door to the next site. Each site would be considered on its own merits , and one may not be as easy as the other. In fact, one may be impossible. The second issue is the County' s willingness to buy A-zoned land. It has been stated that if the land on the west side is zoned A in the City of Kent, then the County will be reluctant to buy the development rights to those properties, because it will perceive those properties or that land as locked into agriculture. That allegation is simply not supported by the evidence. In Round I, for example, of the King County' s program, all of the Kent area properties that were purchased, which totalled over 225 acres , I think it was 229 to be exact, were zoned A. They were zoned A in King County. The jurisdiction that was buying them had jurisdiction over the zoning. Their director was quoted, the Gene Duvernoy, the Director of the King County Office of Agriculture, was quoted in the newspaper this week as saying that he realized that zoning is not permanent, and the only way to lock in that land was actually to buy the development rights. That' s what their program is all about. Heard it stated by several speakers that it is too late to save agriculture, that we should have thought about that twenty years ago. As a matter of fact, the matter of preserving agriculture has been in front of th Planning Commission and and City Council here in Kent since it started disappearing. But specifically, in 1969 and -23- Kent Planning Commission Minutes April 17, 1984 1970 it was before the Planning Commission on a proposal from the Planning Department dealing with an ecological analysis of the Kent Lowland, and the proposal in that document was to save agri- culture. So, fifteen years ago we were looking at that issue, and it was thought at that time to be too late . Boeing was already up on the east side of the river, there were a lot of warehouse uses , commercial uses demanding a Kent location, and I agree that Kent does have some very good warehouse and commercial sites . It is a very attractive location. In fact, we have around 4 , 000 acres that are presently zoned industrial, and about half of that, 2,000, over or nearly three square miles , are already developed. But it may be too late on the east side of the river where all of these 4 , 000 acres are presently located. But it may not be on the west side and parts of the south side. On the east side, as I said, you have 2, 000 acres that are developed, 2,000 acres that are vacant, that are already zoned for industrial uses, that most of the sites already have utility services to them. The roads are much more adequate than on the west side. On the west side you've got 560 acres, most of those acres are actively farmed. They are RA zoned, not manufacturing zoned, there is no sewer, there is inadequate water, unimproved drain- age system, and narrow roads . It is about like it was 20 years ago, and so I don' t think it is too late to at least save parts of the valley. Fourth issue is farmlands and open space. I heard that three weeks ago and I heard it said a number of times tonight. That saving farmlands is nothing but an effort to preserve open space . I really don 't want to get into that in depth, but I would like to say that open space is a benefit of preserving agriculture, but it is not the purpose . we have stated several times in the staff report and environmental impact statement and in previous public hearings what the purposes of agricultural zoning, trying to preserve agriculture, are. They include management of growth. They include recreational opportunities. They include trying to reduce the costs of public services on the remaining portions of the City and other purposes. But I would like to say that if you use the logic that saving farm- lands is nothing but preserving open space, then following that same line of logic, then zoning for industry is nothing but an attempt to pave the valley. Both are necessary and logical results from legiti- mate processes. But those are not the purposes of either one of those scenarios. The fifth issue is the elimination of residential growth areas, and that is, it has been alleged that the classification of these 564 acres for agriculture will severely limit future residential growth in the City. I need say that the proposed A zone does not reduce the allowable density of the RA zone. I think you are aware of that. Statistically, 564 acres of the minimum lot size is one acre per dwelling unit. Theoretically, you can get 564 home sites . Approxi- mately 25 percent of that area is already developed in the residential use, so you would have to subtract that out to figure out what the -24- Kent Planning Commission Minutes April 17, 1984 total number of potential units could be. The study by Williams- Kuebelbeck on the Economic Analysis states that the ultimate develop- ment of the valley down the west side wouldn ' t be economical if you developed it as single-family residential anyway, so it is unlikely that it would develop in that scenario anyway . I did a check of some of the existing vacant residential zoning in Kent in a preliminary analysis netted approximately 7 , 000 units , including existing single family and multifamily zoning that could be built on vacant land. If you go beyond the City limits a little bit and include that area of the East Hill planning area out in unincorporated King County, the ; numbers really balloon. There are approximately 11, 000 existing dwelling units in the East Hill Planning area, and under the existing zoning of that area you could provide up to 25, 000 to 23, 600 additional units . Looking back at the study area if we are dealing with 560 or 500 potential units, we are looking at less than one and one-half percent of that total. I don' t think that the argument of providing additional residential on this area has much ground in reality. The sixth issue is the cost of urban growth. It has been alleged that the cost of urban growth is paid for by developers when they build and that the public is not affected. The public is involved and the public is affected. The developer pays for the initial installation of utilities. I will agree to that. But that ongoing maintenance once those utilities, once those roadways have been dedicated and accepted by the public, it is the broader community that ends up maintaining those systems , as well . . . and pays for their fair share of the expanded system should any capital equipment ever be required to expand the service. F ' The final issue deals with the downzoning aspect. It seems to be kind of a theme this evening. The suspicion is that rezoning lands on the west and south sides amounts to downzoning. After all, we are going from RA to A. I 've never seen a true definition of down- zoning, but I have always been led to believe that downzoning is from a more intensive district to a less intensive zoning district. For example, industrial, if you might have industrial zoning and a down- zone might mean that you could only use it for single family residential. A more intensive zoning district, industrial, down to a less intensive zoning district, which might be single family. There is the idea of monetary value, but I have always heard it defined of more intensive uses allowed in one district versus less intensive uses in another district. Using that definition we are dealing with a zoning district that is about the same, only the name has been changed. By implementing the proposed Alternative 2...the A-1 zoning district we are maintaining the same regulations, the same permitted uses are allowed. We are using the same development regulations, the same setbacks , the same height limits, the same conditional uses . We are using the same density requirements, it's still one unit per acre in the existing RA zone as well as the proposed zone. The difference is in the name and in the purpose statement. The name deletes the residential -25- Kent Planning Commission Minutes April 17, 1984 aspect of it. It still gives residential the status of one unit per acre. It still remains a permitted use, but the shift is in the emphasis of the title, the name of the zoning district. If that amounts to a downzone, then I guess it is a downzone, but I doubt if that has any meaning beyond changing a name . I guess if I change my name tomorrow to John Satterstrom, I may have a different name, but I guess I stay pretty much the same. In conclusion I would agree with the person who said that the artist uses many brushes to paint a painting. I agree with that statement. I forget the exact reference that he made with that metaphor, but I would agree with what he says, and I think that with 2,000 vacant acres on the east side of the Green River that are presently zoned for industry, there is no reason to paint the west side gray. I' ll take questions. Stoner: Are there any questions? Lambert: As usual I have a question. The zoning that is now on the property RA was established in 1973 . Correct? Satterstrom: I believe it was. Lambert: Eleven years later weare looking at it possibly for a titT le change. Eleven years from now or twenty years from now when that property might possibly be used for industrial use , they will be going through this same thing all over again. Right? Satterstrom: You mean. . . Lambert: We are going through it in eleven years. The people get to Thinking different down the road, so really, if there is any change, which I don' t know there will be, because I don ' t think anybody knows how it is going to go, eleven years from now it can be changed to maybe MR, who knows what the City growth might need. Because of a title change, it really shouldn' t be a lot of concern right now, because people have said that the property will not be used for anything differ- ent than it is being used for right now for at least twenty years . Stoner: I have a corollary question that I will just insert right here. How often does the City review comprehensive planning for an area? What is the cycle? Satterstrom: I don' t know if there is a standard answer to that and I don' t know the history of this City, but it really depends on what the issues are. An area may be reviewed on a comprehensive planning basis more often than other areas because of changing areas. But if an area is in a static condition, there is probably less likelihood of it being reviewed. But at such time as conditions would change or -26- Kent Planning Commission Minutes April 17, 1983 4 there would be some compelling reason to get in and take a look at that land use because it no longer is current thinking, that process would begin. If you are looking for a general type of an answer, it varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. But the history of this City is that about every five to ten years you are into a comprehen- sive look at your overall land use plan. Lambert: There was an article in the paper that by the year 2000 there will be 12 , 000 more people living in the City of Kent. Has anybody come up with the projection on the existing 2 , 000 acres that are not being used now that are zoned industrial How long will it take to use those up? Satterstrom: We have projections that the industrial reserve that we have now is good for approximately 20 years at a certain assumed absorption rate . It really depends on the absorption rate. And if it increases it will be less , if it slows down, that horizon will be longer. Stoner: Any other questions? Ray. Ward: Is there any assurance on your second rebuttal item that you give a . . . in this designated area . . . reluctant to purchase a A zone type of piece of property, purchase that as the development rights , which is what I assume you were referring to, is there any assurance that you can give to the owners that the zoning change will not affect the County' s willingness to purchase these development rights? Satterstrom: Well, I don' t think that I would theorize about it, but I would give them some facts , and that is the facts that I did introduce, and that was that all three properties in the Kent area were A zoned, that all of the 229 acres that were purchased. Further- more, in Round II all of the applications that have been made for the County are A zoned, and they will be looking at those recommendations on May 11, and I have every reason to believe that they are going to recommend them very highly. There is really no assurances that you can give at this time on the County' s willingness to buy certain properties. I mean you can' t be 100 percent right. They may not buy all the properties in a certain round. They now defer certain decisions to another Round. I believe it is their thinking that they want to obtain a number of certain properties in a certain area rather than isolated pockets of lands . So there is really a greater percentage or greater opportunity that you will be purchased by the County if you can get together with your neighbors and try to come in as a block of property. The County is more willing to do that. Stoner: I think I need to clarify. You said that all Round II app iclicl ants are A zoned. -27- Kent Planning Commission Minutes April 17 , 1984 Satterstrom: Or RA zoned. I guess there are two in the City. Stoner: That was my concern. Satterstrom: All of them in the County are A zoned. Stoner: The County lands are all A zoned, and there are some RA zoned lands in Kent. Satterstrom: Right. There are two. Ward: Is there some question as to whether the County will be able to get the additional funds . . . (unclear) Satterstrom: Unfortunately, we do not know the answer to that right now. I talked with. . . I have an almost daily conversation with people out there. They are sitting on needles and pins waiting for the decision of the prosecuting attorney, which I understand is the last hurdle that has to be passed, as to where the additonal 35 million will be coming from. The prosecuting attorney will be rendering a decision any day now on the legality of a thing called a mutual fund that they would sell bonds to, and any day now has been the last month. So we may be waiting a little bit longer, but their expecta- tion is that it will be legal, but they are looking at, I believe, four different proposals now from different financial corporations. i Stoner: Nancy. Rudy: I'd like to clarify something from the last hearing notes. The differences to a landowner between RA and A are none. Is that right? Satterstrom: Give that to me once more. Rudy: I think I left something out. Are there any specific differences to a landowner who wants to sell his property between RA and A zoning? Satterstrom: I can't testify, as I am not a property owner, so I don't know how a property owner would perceive that . I perceive that the existing RA and the proposed A zone are very similar inasmuch as they allow the same uses, they have the same development regulations. But that is my perception, and I am not a property owner in the study area, so you would have to ask them. Stoner: Any other questions? Mr. Easton. Voice: (Question unclear) Stoner: I think you need to bring that up at rebuttal during your rebuttal time. Voice: Are we going to have time? -28- Kent Planning Commission Minutes April 17 , 1984 a Stoner: I am assuming that we are going to be able to start rebuttal by 10 : 00 , and at three minutes down the list, we should be able to get through everybody by 10 : 30 . We will try. Mr. Easton. Gregg Easton: Chairman, Planning Commission, I'm Gregg Easton with Williams-Kuebelbeck Associates . I am here tonight to follow up on material presented by Fred Dong, associate of mine, at the last meeting. I would like to limit my remarks to two topics. First, again address the subject of the adequacy of the King County Farmlands Program, and second, to answer some questions that were raised on the profitability analysis of agricultural uses within the study area. With respect to the adequacy question, again the question is whether there are suffi- cient funds within that program to purchase the development rights of properties within the study area. The only experience we have to go on in addressing this issue is the experience of the first round of offers. As Fred Dong presented at the last meeting, $5 ,000 ,000 were spent in Round I, 2 . 1 million, or 42 percent of the five million was spent for properties within the larger Kent area, and the average price of those development rights was $12, 100 per acre. If we extra- polate from those results, we can draw some conclusions about the adequacy of the program. It does require several assumptions . The first assump- tion is that the full $50 , 000, 000 funding would be available for the purchase of those rights. The second assumption is that the same 42 percent of total properties within the County would occur within the Kent area. And finally, we assume that the average price in subsequent rounds is the $12,100 that was found in the first round we can conclude the following. That money , the portion then that would be spent on Kent would be sufficient to purchase the development rights for 1, 655 acres. That exceeds the total number of acres of 1, 610 within the Kent area. So, given those assumptions , there would be sufficient funds to purchase all those development rights. Now obviously those are three very signi- ficant assumptions. At this point I would say that they are not unreal istic assumptions. Now, in the first place as Fred Satterstrom said, the County is pursuing methods to gain the use of the full fifty million dollars . The question hasn ' t been answered yet, but as Fred mentioned, they are optimistic and they have several alternatives that they are considering. Secondly, Kent lands are subject to urban development pressures and as such they are priority lands for consideration within the program. It is likely that they will continue to be priority lands , and thus it is likely that the same percentage, if not higher, is likely to occur in the future as it occurred in the first round. And finally, with respect to the average value of development rights, again it is hard to speculate, but it is quite likely that the properties in subsequent rounds may well be somewhat lower priority lands or sub- ject to somewhat less pressure, in which case it is quite possible that they would have lower development values per acre -29- Kent Planning Commission Minutes April 17 , 1984 Y In summary our analysis is based on several assumptions. As I said, I think those are not unrealistic assumptions and they are the best information that we have to go on at this point. Returning to the second point the question of the profitability of agricultural uses within the study area, two questions were raised about the analysis that we presented in our report. Those two ques- tions were raised at the last meeting. First question was whether mortgage payments were considered in the profitability analysis . The second question was whether property taxes were properly estimated in that analysis. Let me take the second question first because I think it is the simpler one to answer. We estimated property taxes based on open space designation. We assume the value of $600 per acre under that designation, and that was the value that we were given by personnel in the County Assessor' s office. The first ques- tion is a little more complicated but I ' ll try to make it simple. There are two ways to measure rate of return on any type of enterprise. The first way is to look at the return on the total project, the second way is to simply look at the equity investment in the total project. For the total project what we do is we calculate the total cash flow generated by the project and we divide that by the total investment in the project. And that is what the analysis in our economic report did. It looked at the total project. The second way to look at return on investment is to consider return on equity investment. In that case we calculate the same cash flow we did for the total project, but then we subtract out financing costs , annual or monthly mortgage payments. We take that number in this case and divide it by the equity investment, which is really the down payment on the portion that is financed. So the two different ways. . but those two rates of return can be compared as follows . If the rate of return on the total project is greater than the cost of borrowing, then the return on equity will be higher than the rate of return for the total project. If the rate of return on the total project is less than the interest rate for the financing, then after you borrow you will find your return on equity is less than the rate for the total project. In this particular case given the rates of return we calculated, some of those are higher than prevailing interest rates today. Several of them. . .couple of them are lower than that, but generally our calculation, or the possible calculation of return on equity investment, is unlikely to allow you to draw any different conclusions than the calculation of return on total investment. But I'd like to emphasize, finally, that all of these results are based on average conditions, average assumptions for the area. They did not necessarily reflect specific conditions on any individual Piece of property. And I' d like to emphasize again that the profit perform- ance of any of these individual properties could vary based on several factors, from the actual soil conditions on that property to the scale of operations there, and finally to some of the specifics of how crops are marketed or actually harvested. So, again the results -30- Kent Planning Commission Minutes April 17, 1984 are not intended to apply to any and all properties in the study area. Thank you. Stoner: Are there any questions for Mr. Easton. Foslin: Just one point of clarification. You said that the cost per acre, what was it the value of the (unclear) was it $600? Easton: That was the average. . . figure given to us by the Assessor' s office for the average value under current use as applied in the Open Space Taxation Program. Foslin: Open Space Taxation Program versus pure agricultural use. Easton: Well, that is the figure that the County Assessor uses in calculating taxes on properties that have the agricultural designation. Stoner: So, if a property owner did not have his property in Open Space Taxation, then his tax burden would be more. Easton: Yes, it would. Stoner: Any other questions? Mr. Wickstrom. Don Wickstrom: I'm Don Wickstrom, Kent Public Works Director . I don't really have a prepared presentation. I think all I can tell you is some of the thought that I have or the knowledge that I have about the technical problems of developing some of these properties. If you want to consider, them are . . .the properties can be broken into two categories, the prime and it all depends what you call prime. None of these properties is what you would want to run out and buy, but prime. . . If you look at this map, we are talking about technical problems. From here north and on the west side of the river is what would be considered more prime property than that to the south and west of the river. Stoner: Can I ask you what your dividing line is, approximately. Wickstrom: It would be about Taylor Road extended west across the river or 228th. The distinction there is primarily related to hydraulics or drainage. Those properties lying south and west of that point have no control of river flow. When the river is high, it back-water flows into those properties and floods them. While those properties to the north, they are protected by the existing Frager Road. It is high enough now that it acts as a dike against high river flows. And I should point out that is a temporary situa- tion with upstream development; the long-range plans is that both dikes on the east side and on the west side will eventually need raising. So you would still have problems with river flow. And -31- Y Kent Planning Commission Minutes April 17, 1984 one of the problems that that will have to be addressed with development of the properties is the river or protection from the river. But the ones to the south and west involve extensive diking to protect them from the river, and then you have another question. Because they are acting as a storage space and when the river is flowing at 12, 000 , which its maximum capacity, that backwater flows into those properties and some of the river flows are actually stored in there. If that storage is lost, then the river actually has to go up higher to move the same amount of water. So simply diking off that property to protect it from river back flow could cause another problem downstream by raising the river height and cause overtopping downstream. So it is a significant hydraulic problem and analysis would have to be done before any of that stuff to the south and west could be developed. That stuff northerly € doesn't have that problem. It is primarily an internal drainage problem like on the east side where . . .we are not talking about flooding from the river, we are talking about the drainage created within the basin itself. And that because the land is vacant and there ' s a lot of available land there for storage, it could be solved in that sense, versus the one in the south. As a lot of analysis and a lot of. . . there isn' t any real solution at this point. As far as utility services are, sewer, I heard there was a question raised whether sewer would be available in andof these properties because of the King County' s adoption. . .or Metro' s adoption of King County sewerage general plan. That only applies to properties within the County. Since you are just addressing properties within the City limits, that plan does not apply and the sewer would be avail- able. . .sewer service would be available to those properties. it would be up to them to pay for those services . First of all sewer to each of those areas whether it is west and north of Taylor Road or whether it is south of the river, they all have significant initial cost problems about getting sewer to the respective properties. Sewer, there is sewer available say to the properties around 212th and west of the river. We have a 30-inch line at 212th. . .at 212th bridge which is capable of servicing that whole area. So there is no problem with capacity of our system. We also have a 16-inch water main that would be capable of being extended across the bridge and servic- ing that area. There is no problem with line capacity to service it. As far as demand, creation of additional demand for water. . . We recently updated our Comprehensive Plan and looked at our ultimate needs and included this area. We anticipated that they would be agricultural use. I don' t think they could afford to pay for the water at the price we charge, but we did consider them as an agricul- ture use. And they had one. . .developed one level of need for that area. Commercial or industrial use would double that need for addi- tional supply. But in terms of total percentage you are only talking about two and one-half percent of our total needs . Ultimately we are looking at 32 million gallons a day for peak demand. This area would generate an additional need over and above what we use for RA of about less than a million gallons a day. Though it is not a big significant -32- s5 Kent Planning Commission Minutes April 17, 1984 factor. As far as the areas to the . . . let's say between the Meeker Street Bridge and the Taylor Road, that area has equally difficult problem in being sewer serviced. It would require a major pump station, and then there needs to be some lines on the east side of the river where it could tie into. Right now there aren' t any at the moment. As far as the properties to the south, there is a major freeway crossing, which is comparable to a river crossing when you talk about over 200 foot of right-of-way, you'd have to bore, and you' ve got groundwater problems , so you've got. . . each one of the areas has comparable major problems in providing sewer service to, but they all can be sewer serviced. Again for water service the area between Meeker Street and Taylor Road on the West side of the river, the water is available there. We have a 12-inch main on Meeker Street which could be extended and service that area adequately. The area south of the river, though, down by 272nd, is the weakest system that we have. It is not capable of providing adequate fire flow even to the industrial developments that you see along the railroad tracks now. They already have to provide their own storage reservoirs on site which would provide the added fire flow capability, so the system is very weak in that area. And to make it adequate we have estimated that it would require a large-size main all the way from Meeker Street down to 277th on West Valley Highway. You are talking 900, 000 dollars . So, you are only talking about a small piece of property down there which would be cost prohibitive to develop it. As far as our long-range plans, you probably read in the paper where they developed a transportation study and it has been going through Council at this point. That looked at these areas under the existing land use designation in the Comprehensive Plan, the RA-type use. I can' t tell you what additional impact would be on that plan if these were to go to a heavier use, multifamily or industrial-type use. We have a microcomputer to do this, but we don't have the time to tell you what the impact would be. Stoner: What is the cost at this point. Wickstrom: The transportation plan. . .the total jurisdictional-wide costs are 88 million, I think. That' s Kent, King County and adjacent jurisdictions , like Auburn, Renton and the State. Our share was 22 million, which is a significant amount itself. And that is basically the cost associated with providing the existing level of service as you see it today for the existing land-use plan. Stoner: What is the existing level of service? Wickstrom: The level of service is classified as a D-type service. F is totally failure . lake I indicated on our water plan, we've -33- f I Kent Planning Commission Minutes April 17, 1984 developed a plan that hasn' t gone to Council yet, but it shows that our ultimate need for saturation development within our own juris- dictional area, because we now serve Water District 111 . If we exclude them, we are looking at ultimately 32 million gallons a day. Plan shows . . .we do have solutions to providing that water, so it is not that we are at an impasse point that the supply of water is goinq to have to dictate the growth in the area. It is going to be expen- sive water, but we do have solutions to solving those problems. I guess I am open to questions at this point. Stoner: Could I ask you to cover storm drainage utility. Wickstrom: O.K. the storm drainage utility. . .we are working towards the storm drainage utility. We started back in ' 80 , and we are in the process of developing the master plan. And it does involve a. . . it will . . . if it is implemented by the Council involve a utilities rate charge similar to a water rate or a sewer rate, except it will be based on impervious surfaces at least for the industrial/commercial type developments, and single family will have essentially a flat fee per month type charge. We don't know if that is going to be adopted. We have several. . .three more major public meetings involved in that, and we haven' t finalized the master plan or established the rate at this point, because we are still trying to determine what level of impervious surface presently exists throughout our industrial/ com- mercial areas. That emphasis plan addresses these areas and, like I indicated, some of the problems that we see . . . are working towards are the levy problem, the Green River levy problem. We will have in the future. We do not address problems with overtopping of the river. As the upstream between the Howard Hansen Dam and the Kent Valley develops, it will cause the river to rise during that hundred year flood to overtop certain points along the levy system. And we know from the Corps analysis that in the cost benefit areas, which are all on the east side now, because when you are talking about agricultural, there are no damages. The damages don' t outweigh or even come close to the cost of improvements. We are looking at a million and one-half dollar project, which is a fairly minor project when you are talking about trying to protect a 600 million dollar investment in terms of the development. As far as the in- ternal drainage, the master plan has developed. . . concentrated on the east side, because that is where we think the problems are imminent. . . they are imminent now and can be solved. So we think we have a plan to solve those problems as is financially feasible. We look on the west side, like I said, the north side or the north of Taylor Road, the west side of the river. That is an area we consider solvable, or potentially solvable, and it doesn' t mean it is cheap, but it is potentially solvable versus the area south because of the problem associated with the river flows and the magnitude of the project you are talking about. Stoner: Are there any other questions? Thank you for coming. We -34- Kent Planning Commission Minutes April 17, 1984 will start with the list of rebuttal here. Julius Rosso. I want to remind you that you need to address specific issues that you have heard in testimony that you take issue with. Julius Rosso: Thank you for reminding me. My name is Julius Rosso. First of all I think the majority of us landowners are against any land changes, for the Planning Commission to make any changes, for the simple reason that every time a Planning change is made, and even though you are talking about an RA and A-1, there always seems to be specific words added in there that makes it harder to get whatever you are able to get on your old rezoning. And I for one am very much in favor of keeping the zoning as it is and not changing it at all, because when you change it to what you are having a proposal there, the words seem to get in there that it is all the same, they tell us . But still it is always changed around to where it is harder to come before you people later, before the Council and try to get it changed to building or doing whatever it is . Secondly I would like to take issue with Fred, I believe it was, who made the remark that, and he was kind of evasive, I believe, because they all talk in gener- alities , but King County purchasing rights . I happen to call them quite often because I think I am quite interested in what is going on down there . No one is making any statements of what it is , but word has gotten out to me that they are looking to see what is going to happen as far as the City of Kent is concerned before they will even consider even looking at any of the properties here, because they know that if the things is tied up, like I mentioned before and I knew this before the first time I came here talking to you folks, that they are in turn are looking at it, why should we pay building rights when we don' t have to. You can't do anything with your land anyway. Yes, possibly like Mr. Lambert mentioned, maybe twelve years from or twenty-two years from now, the picture may change. Anyway, the specific idea is that we are looking to what we are going to do down here to find out whether they are going to pick up our property or whose property they are. In fact they are looking at two of them that are on the agenda that they don' t know what to do with. Secondly. . . I think as far as our property owners . . . myself as a property owner is concerned, and like I said before, I am not interested in selling our land right now. All I want the idea that tomorrow I have to sell it that I can be compensated for for whatever the thing is worth. And I don' t necessarily mean the price of building property, but at least for what it is actually ; worth, and it is because any time that you keep the property in agriculture, it is definitely downzoning. You are telling me my time is up. I would like to spend another three minutes explaining my version of downzoning. . .grading on agriculture . Stoner: We are going to leave the record open, and if you would like to submit a letter, that might be the appropriate place to do that. Mary Williams. -35- Kent Planning Commission Minutes April 17, 1984 Mary Williams : I am Mary Williams and we own a place at 25331 68th Avenue South on the West Highway south of the bridge, second place. And my plea is that we leave things so that our land will be safe. There is nothing worse than to have big development. That is what happened in the north. The taxes were fierce, the assessments were impossible and the farmers just couldn' t afford to keep the places, so they had to sell them. And the word confiscatory was used here tonight, and that is exactly what would happen to me if that happened south of the bridge. If we have big water mains, big sewer system comes in, it would be everything from $20 , 000 to $30 , 000 for each one of them for the frontage. I am sure of that. And there is no way I could manage to do that, and I don' t want to lose our place. So I am just saying, please consider the little fellow. I wonder about all this investment of money. I have often wondered who it is that is spending all of that to take up our land. And I have no way of ever knowing, but it' s a question in my mind. And I hope that you will consider that when you think about the land. Thank you. Stoner: Jim Goldsmith. Jim Goldsmith: Madam Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, my name is Jim Goldsmith. I 'm with Hugh Goldsmith and Associates, 501 Lyon Building, Seattle, 96104 . I represent the Kent Highlands ownership. That property is. . . I' ll point it out to you on the map. Basically it is that area that is south of 216th, comes all the way down to approximately this point 'right here. . .east of Highway 516. I ' d call your attention to the second map on the right here. The eligible farmlands for the program. If you would look at those properties that are eligible and how that overlays our property all of which has been designated as part of the farmland, you will see significant amount of white area that is not eligible for that. That is the second map there to your right. I'd like to address some points that Mr. Satterstrom made which dealt with the economics of land development and so forth. I think that those decisions as it relates to a property owner fall properly in the private enterprise system to evaluate what it takes to bring their property to a standard for development and the cost associated therewith and what is available in the market place. When you talk again of having 4, 000 acres of commercial and industrial land in the valley and then look immediately to the west and talk about one-acre tracts or five or ten-acre tracts , no where in terms land use and the zoning concepts does that make sense. When you talk about one house per one acre, per five acres or ten acres, and you tell me that is an efficient way for a City to function in terms of operation and maintenance, when instead of 30 to 50 or 75 feet of road per house, you are telling me to put in 300 to 600 feet per house, where there is a sewer line, water line, you've got your firemen that have to travel those distances. You have your police, you have your meter reader for your water, you have your postman and on down the line. It is not the way to run any municipality and it would pretty quickly make -36- Kent Planning Commission Minutes April 17, 1984 you bankrupt. As it related to Mr. Wickstrom' s comments on the river flow problems , if the river flow problems are going to exist, they would not only wipe out developed property, they would wipe out agricultural land and farmlands . You will find that developed property or the potential of developing property has the opportunity to mitigate those and address those problems while your agricultural uses. . . there just wouldn' t be the economic base to handle that. Transportation costs, Mr. Wickstrom mentioned that there was a 22 million dollar cost to the City of Kent as it related to their particular study at this time. If you would just take the 4 ,000 acres of commercial/industrial land and assume that all of the impact were there, that is $ . 13 per square foot. You have to look at the stuff in proper perspective as it relates to the cost of runninq a city. That is all I have to say. Stoner: Thank you Mr. Goldsmith. Tom McCann. Tom McCann: Carol, at the end I 'd like to ask a couple of questions, so I am hoping that will not eat into my three minutes . . .the answer. If the questions are appropriate, maybe I could get an answer and that wouldn' t eat into my three minutes is my request. Stoner: Do your three minutes and. . . McCann: First of all the issue came up about inadequate compensation. Well, my question is, is 0 compensation adequate or inadequate. Now if 80 to 90 percent of the people in this open space apply for compen- sation and 10 to 20 percent get some form of adequate compensation, my question to the Commission is , is that adequate compensation. And I think that is exactly where we are headed. My second point of rebuttal, I believe Chuck Lambert asked does any- body know anybody who has gone through an M.A. I. recently. Two on the west side, I won' t give specific values , $16, 000 to $32,000 per acre for their market values appraised at. The gentlemen who did the consulting on the compensation said that there were three significant assumptions. Fifty million dollars gets okayed.32 percent go toward Kent, and the average price doesn' t change. The average price of the areas over around 212th will change it. . . $20, 000 to $30, 000 an acre. Carol and I were at the last in December, and one of the Commissioners said I am afraid we can' t afford this , when they addressed a whole bunch of property like O' Connells. And that is a quote. I 'm afraid that we may not be able to afford this. Carol was at the same meeting I was . Their point I ' d like to ask Fred Satterstrom, was he speaking as an individual or was he represent- ing the planners when he said I perceive when he answered the question j RA versus R. Was he representing the Planning Commission or an indi- vidual? -37- I� i Kent Planning Commission Minutes April 17, 1984 Harris: Representing the Planning Department and the Planning staff. Stoner: Staff rather than Commission. McCann: I get five seconds here. . . the reason being is that because RA is defined, not in terms of what you can do with it today, but it is an interim and transitional zoning that is going to a higher and more intensive use. So it isn' t exactly what you allow today, but it is defined in those terms. And that is the way we look at it and anybody who is willing to purchase that. The last thing was the issue on the dollars about the mortgage values and all that. I' m in finance at Boeing. I've got a finance depart- ment. I didn' t understand a thing he said. I understood that he said for taxes he figured the values at $600 an acre and that is not too far wrong for agricultural land. It is worth $600 to $1, 500 per acre. I never did understand, did he have mortgages in there for 10, 20 or 25, 000 per acre and 12 to 14 percent interest. I am assum- ing the answer is no , but I didn' t answer anything he said. Stoner: Mr. Easton, let' s clarify that. Easton: Let me just say in the simplest of terms. No, we did not include mortgage payments in the calculation for return on investment. And to amplify that, I said there are two ways to look at return on investment. We looked at return on total investment, and that is one proper approach to that consideration. It is also proper to look at return on equity investment. Under that type of calculation you do look at cash flow after the mortgage is subtracted. But then you actually compare that to your equity investment, which is your down payment. So your cash flow is less and your investment is less, and so you will have a return on investment that may be somewhat similar to the return on investment on the total project. Stoner: All right. Any other questions of Mr. Easton on the issue. All fight. You have like 30 seconds. McCann: We kicked this downzoning around. Now it is simple. We can use a lot of words. Industrial , you can read it in yesterday' s paper today. You are talking $4 to $5 a foot $160 to 200 , 000 an acre in the Kent area. Commercial , you are talking $2 to $4 . You are talk- inq $80 to $150 , 000 an acre. Residential , you can fiqure on $. 75 a foot to $2 . 00. You are talkinq $30 to $80, 000 an acre. Aqriculture, $600 an acre, $1, 500 , that figures out at one and a half cents to two and a half cents a foot. And I don' t know why we are quarrelling with the word downzoning, when, I mean, you just think of those values and think of an RA, which is defined as something transitional to a higher and more intensive use. Stoner: All right. Do you have a question? -38- Kent Planning Commission Minutes April 17, 1984 Lambert: Agricultural you say is valued at $600 per acre. McCann: I am quoting what the consultant said that the appraised value by the appraisers department under the open space . I am assuming that same value not in open space would be two or three times that much. Lambert: But in fact, it is worth 16 to 32 thousand dollars per acre according to the M". A. I. appraisal. McCann: No, maybe I didn' t communicate . That's the market value, that' s the difference between a thousand dollars an acre as agricul- ture and the difference being what his market rights are worth. Harris : Those are the development rights. McCann: Development rights Lambert: Then this is not an M.A.I . appraisal. McCann: Maybe I didn' t understand what an M.A.I . is. M. . .market. Lambert: Appraisal Institute. They are the people who charge you beaucoup bucks to make an appraisal and 'it stands for Made As Instructed, I believe. McCann: The answer is we can't afford it when we are west of the river and I assumed when you said M you meant market appraisal. Lambert: It is group that professionally. . .they do it by the swag method and scientific wild S guess. McCann: That is the same thing they use at Boeing, but we can't afford it on the west side. If we were on the east side, we might be able to. Stoner: Mr. Rombauer . (Unclear response) Stoner: O.K. Lauri Johnsen. Lauri Johnsen: I am Lauri Johnsen speaking for Green River Study Group, P. O. Box 772, Kent, 98032. I do have some written testi- mony which I will submit, and I will try to summarize quickly some of the concerns regarding the issue of the change in the A designa- tion reducing the incentive for the County to purchase development rights. The outcome of future PDR choices by the County is a matter conjecture. We suggest that the zoning change could as easily as not improve the County' s interest in the properties if more chose to -39- F Kent Planning Commission Minutes April 17, 1484 apply in the future. Based on our conversations with the Ag office, it appears that any hesitation that the County has now in purchasing lands within the City is due to the isolation of those properties . The proposed zoning change could be a statement of the City' s intent to maintain agricultural uses in the area, and a commitment by the property owners there as well, and we think that could encourage the County to continue to look very favorably at the area in future rounds . First Round purchases they did show a great deal of interest in the Kent area. Reservation of large blocks of farmlands rather than isolated parcels we should think would be very attractive to the County. Regarding the. . .well , let' s see. Areas also that were purchased had County zoning designations of agriculture, and accord- ing to our conversation with the Ag Department people, the appraisals were done by the County on the basis of what the future use would be , and they didn' t consider the current zoning at all since the County does feel that zoning is transitory. Therefore they suggested to us that in future PDR appraisals the appraiser would probably . . . would not see any effect on the A zoning change and the market value of the property. Regarding the issue of land being unsuitable for agricultural use because of a variety of physical characteristics, I ' d just like to point out that many of those same properties are limited in their development potential; the drainage situation has already been dis- cussed. Much of the property that is ineligible on the PDR mapping . . . there has some other development restrictions on it, unique and fragile areas, some Green River Corridor regulations, and those conditions exist regardless of the zoning. Also, regarding the issue of land being unsuitable for agricultural uses because nothing can be grown on it, the definition of agricul- ture used by the City doesn' t preclude non-soil related farming activity. O.K. I' ll conclude my comments and submit the rest in writing. Stoner: Thank you. Don Baer. -40- Kent Planning Commission Minutes n April 17, 1984 Donald F. Baer: 918 East Laurel, Kent. The primary responsibility the City has relative to all of these matters, as my recollection on being on the Planning Commission, was to be concerned with the health, safety and the general welfare of the community. And in this regard you' re dealing with these things and we have made state- ments here that imply dollars and land use and so forth. And I 'm just going to run through several of the things that reference that. The statement was made that implied all farmers were marginal, worked 70 to 100 hours a week. And I say here that there has been farming in this area for many years. There is farming here now, and there will be farming to a greater or lesser extent in the future. Reference was made to the amount of traffic on the Frager Road. And I was out there this afternoon. The bulk of that traffic was exiting Boeing, moving west on 212th, moving left down the Frager Road, then up to 216th. It wasn' t the farmers that were doing that. . .travelling on the road. In reference to the land west of the Green River, the implication was made that this was prime industrial land--not served, I might add, however, it was not served by rail, by sewer. It does not have the water mains, the storm drains, water retention basin, or all the other amenities that are going to be needed to make it prime industrial land. Another item was just commented a minute ago. Agricultural enter- prise is not limited only to dairy farming, crop farming, nurseries, exercise tracts , greenhouses, animal husbandry, and on from there. The last item I have in this respect is the statement that there was going to be a big change in the land. And I say that there is no change in the land use. It is designated one dwelling unit to the acre now, and with an A-1 designation, it will still be one acre, one unit to the acre. The options haven' t been removed that would designate. . . in fact, some other use could be made in the future. This can be determined by any legislative body at some point, at any time. And so I urge you to consider these things and consider the A designation. Are there any questions? Stoner: Thank you. All right. That concludes the people I have on the list for rebuttal. Is there anyone else who wants to make a rebuttal statement at this time? I would suggest that we continue the public hearing until May 8th, at which point we would close the public hearing and begin our deliberations. And I would also suggest to you if it is agreeable to the other members of the Commission, that we leave the record open for written comments for specific time, and I would suggest to you that the time be one week, and that at the close of the business day on Tuesday, the 24th of April, might be the appropriate time to close the written comments. Mr. Lambert. -41- Kent Planning Commission Minutes April 17 , 1984 Lambert : No, I want something else . Address another . . . .Some- thing different brought up . Stoner: Okay, do you want to address an issue here rather than close this meeting? Lambert : Yes . Stoner: Okay. Lambert : What I would like to do is , how can we, it has been stated that the County is holding up waiting to see what Kent is going to do . Why don ' t we flat out write them a letter to Revelle . And say, hey, what ' s the scoop? Are you holding up waiting to hear what we are going to do? That might answer some questions . Stoner: Fred, did you hear Chuck ' s comment? He is interested in knowing and asking King County directly and getting a letter from them stating what their. , .if they are really holding up their decisions on Kent land based on what we are doing. We have com- ments from several people tonight about what they feel King County is or is not doing based on the actions we are looking at right now. Can we get a written statement from them? Satterstrom: Most people can ' t get permits out of King County. I don ' t know if we can get a letter out of them. I can certainly send a letter and request that information from them. I mean their discussion of the deferral of the O' Connell property, which is the only indication that they are hesitant about buying any City of Kent properties , is a matter of public record. So if I can ' t get their request in writing from the Office of Agricul- ture, I can at least get the County' s record of deliberations on that and give you a report back on what their thinking was . But I can ' t promise you a letter, but I can promise you that I ' ll investigate what the public record on it . Harris : Madam Chairman, let me inter3ect here . It would be more clout if the letter went out under your signature, that the Planning Commission is reouesting it . The staff, you know, we work with the staff every day and they can stonewall us . They are not likely to stonewall an official body. Stoner: Right . Lambert: Okay, I would like to make a motion. Is that proper? At this time. Stoner: Yes . -42- Kent Planning Commission Minutes April 17 , 1984 Lambert : I make the motion that we draft a letter to the County Executive and let him delegate whoever he wants to find the answer. And state in there that we would like an answer on or before May 5th, which then we could have it for May 8th meeting. Stoner: . . . in our hands . All right . Lambert : I think that would be . . . Stoner: Is there a second to that motion? Foslin : Second. Stoner: Thank you. Chuck has made the motion and Dick Foslin has seconded. All in favor? Commissioners : Aye. t Stoner: Opposed? Okay. All right . Hopefully that will clarify that point because we have heard conflicting testimony on that . Again, I would suggest . . .well in that case maybe we need to hold the written record open . All right , until what May 5th? May 8th? Lambert : Well, when are we going to have the next public hearing? Stoner: May 8th is our next public hearing. i Harris : Hold the record open for letters until May 8th, then you have to deal with those letters that night . We can' t . . . . . .hand them to you, but we need at least to have a week to get them to you in the mail. So if you could cut it off one week prior to the May 8th . . . . Stoner: Okay. The 24th is the following Tuesday, and the Tuesday after that is May 1st , isn ' t it? Yeah, because the following Tuesday then would be the 8th. So can we ask to have comments in the written record by May 1st? Close of the business day on May lst? Voice: Not the 24th. Stoner: Not the 24th. May lst . We will give everybody an extra week. Okay, at this point I need a motion to continue with the stipulation about . . . Cullen:_ I move we continue the meeting on May 8th. The hearing. . . Stoner: Okay, the hearing. . . -43- Kent Planning Commission Minutes April 17 , 1984 Stoner: The hearing. On May 8th. And with the stipulation about the record being open until May 1st . Cullen : Yes . Stoner: Okay, is there a second? Ward: I second it. Stoner: All right . Doug has moved and Ray has seconded. Is there any discussion? All in favor? Commissioners : Aye. f Stoner: Opposed? Okay, that concludes our work on agricultural for tonight . We have one final item on the agenda, however, and that is we need to acknowledge the fact that we have received a letter of resignation from Helen Brooks . It is real unfortunate that her commitments currently do not allow her to continue on the Planning Commission . But this is what she has stated at this point , and her presence is a real loss . Okay. A motion to adjourn so we can go home . 1 Commissioner: So move. Commissioner: Second it . Stoner: All in favor . Commissioners : Aye. (End of verbatim minutes. ) i The meeting was adjourned at 10:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jam P. Har1risr, Secretary -44-