Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Planning and Economic Development Committee - 05/08/1984 KENT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES May 8, 1984 The Kent Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairman Stoner at 7: 30 p.m. on Tuesday, May 8, 1984 , in the City Council Chambers. COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Carol Stoner, Chairman Nancy Rudy, Vice Chairman Robert Anderson James Byrne Douglas Cullen Richard Foslin Chuck Lambert Raymond Ward PLANNING STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: James Hansen, Principal Planner Fred Satterstrom, Associate Planner Sarah Stiteler, Planning Assistant Lois Ricketts, Recording Secretary APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Commissioner Cullen FOR APRIL 17, 1984 MOVED that the minutes of the April 17, 1984, meeting be approved as presented. Commissioner Byrne SECONDED the MOTION. MOTION approved unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING FOR CONSIDERATION OF AMENDING KENT' S ZONING CODE (Verbatim Minutes) Stoner: The only item on our agenda tonight is the continued pub icl hearing on the proposed agricultural amendment to the zoning code. Before we close the public hearing and begin our deliberations we need to do some housekeeping things . What I am going to ask to happen first is. . .there was a motion at our last meeting to request clarification from King County about their criteria for selection of properties into the PDR Program, and Fred has received an answer to our request. Will you read that so everybody is familiar with it. Hansen: We also have some other letters that we have received. Maybe we can note those after. Satterstrom: As you know, three weeks ago on April 17th the Planning Commission made a motion to send a letter to Randy Revelle' s office and request from his office and from the Office of Agriculture a Kent Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 1984 determination as to whether or not the proposed agricultural zoning in the City of Kent would have any impact on the County' s program. The particular issue that you were concerned about at that time was whether or not the County would be willing to purchase properties or any less willing to purchase properties in the Kent area if the City of Kent went ahead and zoned lands on the west side agricultural. Carol Stoner sent a letter on behalf of the Kent Planning Commission about two weeks ago, and a response came back from the County Execu- tive through the Department of Planning and Community Development signed by Holly Miller, who is the director of that office . As I understand it, the Office of Agriculture helped draft. . .author this letter. It reads. . by the way, you should have a copy of this in your packets tonight. It reads: j Dear Ms . Stoner: i King County Executive Randy Revelle has asked me to respond to your April 20, 1984 , letter requesting information on the selection criteria used in the Farmlands Preservation Program. The County Agriculture Program staff rely on Section 4 .2 of the Farm and Open Space Administrative Guidelines as a basis for developing the Execu- tive recommendations on which development rights to acquire. These recommendations, along with the recommendations of the Selection Committee, are submitted to the King County Council . It is the Council which ultimately determines which offers of development rights to acquire. I 've enclosed a copy of Section 4 of our guide- lines for your review. The last two pages of this letter, by the { way, are those guidelines . Continuing. . . ` I All of the properties purchased to date in the Kent area by the Farmlands Preservation Program are under the County' s A (Agriculture) zone, which requires a minimum lot size of ten acres . The purchases i evidence the County ' s willingness to consider and acquire the develop- ment rights to properties subject to restrictive zone classifications. While the Executive recommendations depend on the merits of the offer- ed properties, available funding and the other offers in a selection round, I believe the City of Kent ' s contemplated rezone would not affect the County' s willingness to consider and purchase offered properties within the City' s jurisdiction. If we can be of any as- sistance in explaining our program to members of the Planning Com- mission or to eligible farmlands owners, please let us know. Thank you again for writing. Signed Holly Miller, Director of the Department of Planning and Community Development. And as I mentioned in the letter, the last two pages here that are appended constitute the. . . specifically Section 4 . 0 , the Offer Review and Recommendations Criteria. Anyway, I thought the County was much more clear and direct in their response to us than I thought they would be. So, I thank them for getting this letter to us so quickly. -2- Kent Planning Commission Minutes May 81 1984 Stoner: We need to accept the other letters that have not been made a part of the record, and you should all have a memo in your packets. I think we start with 8, Ben Yamada, 4/15; Julius Rosso, 4/17; Ruth and E. L. Maddox, 4/15; Candi McKay, 4/16; Edgar R. Rombauer, 4/18; Julius Rosso Wholesale Nursery, 4/24; and then the King County letter from Holly Miller dated May 7. Can I have a motion to accept those letters into the record. Cullen: I MOVE we accept the letters into the record. Ward: SECOND. Stoner: Doug has moved and Ray has seconded that we make these letters a part of the record. All in favor. Voices: Aye. Stoner: Opposed. (No response) I asked Steve DiJulio tonight to clar fy any issues that you may need to have clarified from his point of view. He is not here yet. He was planning to be here by quarter of eight. But since he isn' t here, I think we can proceed with beginning with our deliberations, and if you have any questions, we can ask them of him when he arrives. As I thought about how we could approach this . . . I am proposing to you that we do this in three steps, and if anyone objects, please feel free to suggest an alternative. It seems logical to me that we first deliberate on the zone to apply to that area. . .one of the four alternatives, or a combination of whatever seems appropriate to us. After we have made a motion and passed it on that portion of it, I suggest that we go back and look at the language in that zone for any recommended changes or clarifications that we might want to have for that. And then a final motion addressing the issue of com- pensation, the adequacy of compensation under the King County PDR Program. Those seem to be the three areas that we need to make recommendations on tonight. If you all agree that this is the way we want to proceed, then we need a motion on the floor regard- ing the zoning in that area that we can then discuss. Cullen: I MOVE we recommend Alternative Number 2 . Stoner: It has been moved by Doug Cullen. Is there a second. Rudy: SECOND. Stoner: And seconded by Nancy Rudy that we recommend Alternative 2 to the City Council . That is the A-1 zoning that the staff recom- mended in their staff report. Is there any discussion. Anyone who would like to speak in favor or in opposition. Byrne: I' ll speak in favor of it. -3- Kent Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 1984 Stoner: Jim. Byrne: By zoning A-1, I think people who have more than one acre, have two or three, they could possibly sell an acre to someone for something or other. Also, it clarifies, . .it puts everything under Alternative 1 which we have MR-1� which is only six acres. In RA it clarifies the whole area . It makes it all one, which I think simplifies it. I also feel with the letter we got from King County we are not going to jeopardize the rights of the property holders as far as getting developmental . . . zoned developmental rights. So by going to straight agriculture, I think we are not going to jeo- pardize anything, plus we are going to have a more defined area for zoning. Stoner: Anyone else. Chuck. I Lambert: I'd like to speak in favor of. . . I feel that I have really done my homework . I have driven it three times. I 've ridden my bicycle once. I have ridden on the tour that we took, and in the background I really hear people saying we really want to keep it agricultural, but we want somebody to buy our rights to develop, although we don' t want to develop. And that seems to be what the majority have said, and I just feel that the only thing that we can do is go with Alternative 2. All I hear is dollar signs, and I don' t feel that as a Planning Commission or the City of Kent. . .to zone something to better one person' s financial status . We 've got to look at the entire City of Kent, and I think the only thing that we can do is take Alternative Number 2. Stoner: Anyone else. Anyone in opposition. If you are ready to vote, the motion states that we would recommend to the City Council the second alternative, the A-1 zoning for the area. Doug, may I clarify that you mean both the area west of the river and the small parcel part of the river, those being the two study areas . Cullen: As is written. Stoner: All right. As is written. All in favor. Voices: Aye. Stoner: Opposed. (No response) unanimous. The next area that we need to look at is the specific language changes or recommenda- tions for further study in terms of that A-1 zoning. Rudy: Yes, I have one area. In Alternative 2 under. . . Stoner: Why don' t you give the page. Rudy: Page iii of the Kent Planning Agency Staff Report--Proposed Agricultural Zoning Alternatives . Alternative 2, Letter B, Special -4- Kent Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 1984 Permit Uses . . .as it is stated now, the following uses are permitted providing that they conform to the development standards listed in Section 15 .08 .020 . . .and it says churches, nursery schools and day care centers. I think we should somehow change that wording so that nursery schools and day care centers are for the use of local area residents only. So, I would move that we reword item 2 to read nursery schools and day care centers for local area use, no, excuse me, for use by local area. Stoner: Jim. Byrne: Is something like that legal? Can we restrict the residents. . . business to deal strictly with one group of people. . .or one area of people. Stoner: That would be a good question. Byrne: I understand with the churches, people go to the church of their choice and I think we would be getting into. . . Rudy: This is only the second item, only the nursery schools and day care centers . Byrne: Can we restrict business? Rudy: I understood that it was. That is a good one to question. Stoner: Mr . Hansen. Hansen: Ah, Steve just walked in. Perfect timing. I think there may be some difficulty in making limitation like that, but Steve, since he just walked in, would be excellent. Byrne: Another question. How could we enforce that? Stoner: And now you know what we've done and where we are. Right. Lambert: And will murials. . .murals be allowed on the end of this . . . Stoner: A question was raised during the public hearing process as to whether permit uses, nursery schools and day care centers, could be restricted to local area use only. And we have a question about the legality of that. It is a specially permitted use under the A-1 zone. DiJulio: The regulation. . .I guess I should introduce myself for the record to please the chair and the rest of the Planning Commission. c I am Steve DiJulio, the City Attorney. The issue that you raised is not one that I was prepared to address, but let me outline the issues that would be involved in that. Normally restrictions, such as that which limit geographically the use of anything, is not -5- Kent Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 1984 challenged on the issue that you are most familiar with, the taking issue, denying value without paying just compensation. That would be a constitutional issue arising under the right to travel. One ? of the central freedoms we had at the commencement of this republic was that all the states constitute a union and that the citizens of every state are entitled to the rights of every other citizen in the right to travel and be free to move between states and juris- dictions. And most recently you have regulations that have been challenged that require residency or limit the availability of jobs or other opportunities because of residency or geographical ` location, excuse me . The cases have been mixed. For example, re- quirement that an individual be a resident of New York in order to i be a police officer in New York, and a similar requirement for Portland Oregon or Multnomah County Oregon, had been sustained. In this state residence requirements have been upheld. Probably one of the most familiar cases is when the Bellevue City Attorney attempted to run for the Seattle City Attorney position and was denied that oppor- tunity, because she was not a resident of Seattle at the time. I think if this issue came forward, the interests of the City of Kent in such a limitation would be balanced against the constitutional the potential constitutional infringement that would result, and you are asking me to give an opinion, so I would hazard an opinion that the City' s interest would not prevail against such a challenge, that the freedom to move between jurisdictions would not prevail . . . would be more of an interest if the City' s interests could be pre- served by less onerous means , by means that would not have a con- stitutional basis as an issue. You could limit the number of students participating. You could limit the number of traffic starts and vehicle trips . .trip generations from the facility. You could limit the size of the facility, the educational opportunities of the facility, all limiting the impact on land use that that facility would cause. But those would be constitutional means and to achieve a result you would seek, just hazarding a guess, again without having researched the issue, that such a restriction would be of doubtful validity. Lambert: Can I ask a question. Would that apply if it was operated by th e City, too. If it was privately operated, I could see that. But if it was operated by the City for City residents, would that make any difference. DiJulio: If it was City owned and operated, then the City would have a leqitimate interest. . .more of an interest in restricting those enrollees in the program or school, whatever you have, the City would have more of an interest. And in that case the balanc- ing would weigh more in favor of the restriction than of any constitutional issues that might be involved. Weighing it that way, you know, it weighs a little heavier. I don' t know which side of the balance the scale would come down on. -6- Kent Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 1984 Lambert: But basically you are saying that if it is privately operated, it would be the same as the store. You can' t shop in here unless you live in the City. DiJulio: That' s right. Rudy: Since the answer to our question is apparently no, I will withdraw my motion. Byrne: Considering the area and the roads around it, I don' t think you have to worry too much about the day care. Stoner: Move on to the next item here . Ward: Could you, before you move on, explain. . .obviously I did my homework. Why did you make the motion in the first place? What was the reason for that? Rudy: Some of us had discussed the idea that such a thing as a nursery school or day care center could become a receiving area for a large number of small local day care centers that need a large play area, and all the kids could be brought down to this from other facilities . Ward: Privately owned. Rudy: A large dumping ground of kids . I don' t know that that i tsoo practical, but it could happen. Byrne: There are so many other public parks around, I don' t think. . . Rudy: I 'm not promoting it. Byrne: I know, I'm just saying. . . Rudy: I 'm perfectly willing to go along with the no. . .lovely,, succinct no. Thank you for your answer. Next, I ' ll get this one right. Page iii, Alternative 2, Letter C. Accessory Uses, item 3 . With regard to this item and some similar items , I would like to request that the staff look at this restriction on the size of roadside stands and the amount of floor area, sale area, parking area, condition of the parking area whether it has to be paved or not, and see if such things can be handled in a less restrictive way to promote the small local agricultural use of the land. Stoner: Is there a second. Ward: I SECOND it. Stoner: Any discussion. The motion, if I understand it correctly, is that with respect to the roadside stand limitation and the -7- Kent Planning Commission Minutes May 8 , 1984 off-street parking that you wish the staff to study and make recommen- dation to come up with less restrictive alternatives. Correct? Rudy: Correct. Stoner: I' ll call for the question. All in favor. Voices: Aye. Stoner: Opposed. (No response) Satterstrom: If you will before you move on to the next item, try to clarify for me what particular things you are looking at when you say making the regulations less restrictive so that when we do sit down to draft up something that we have an idea of what you want. Rudy: This says roadside stands not exceeding 400 square feet in floor area and not over 20. . . I guess I have a question. Isn' t there in here, didn' t I remember reading that there was something about a certain size area of stand per number of acres . j i Satterstrom: I don' t remember. j } Stoner: That was a suggestion that came in testimony as to the re- vision of this item. . . that should be tied to the number of acres being farmed. If Rudy: That perhaps if there is a large farm they would need nec- essarily to have a roadside stand a little larger than that, but maybe a smaller farmer wouldn' t have to have, for instance, a parking lot of a certain size, or have to meet certain conditions. Cullen: You are talking about some kind of ratio involved there, as far as the size . Rudy: Well, I hate to see a farmer be restricted from setting up his roadside stand if he can. . .because it isn' t quite big enough or it is a little too large to meet City requirements. We are not dealing with someone who has a store front on Meeker Street and has to meet certain code requirements . I think a farmer who sets up a roadside stand, if it is safe and doesn' t obviously break any laws, should not be subject to severe zoning restrictions which could discourage him. Satterstrom: I interpret then your concern to be to allow for some larger-size roadside stands in certain circumstances. Rudy: Be generally less restrictive on roadside stands. -8- Kent Planning Commission Minutes Ray 8, 1984 Lambert: Less restrictions on seasonal-type stands than on permanent is what you are saying. Rudy: Right. Satterstrom: O.K. That' s another consideration. Hansen: Yes, and also the only improvements this speaks to actually aren' t improvements so much as delineation of the size. As far as any other improvement which I think would be rather impractical that we might require or do require on other types of businesses in the City, unless those are specifically listed under this particular zone or make reference to uses or improvement requirements in another zone, they wouldn' t be required. So if they are not listed, in other words, they wouldn' t apply. But on the size thing, I am not sure where that came from exactly, but I don' t think that would be a problem. But I did have one other question in relationship to this and that is for the person that wishes to sell products, and I could see this happening, that has a stand and his neighbor has a field of whatever and the other neighbor has something else, and the stand, of course, is selling far more than 3ust from that particular property. That' s why I think that size limitation is there so you wouldn' t end up with a Yakima Fruit Stand that is as large as some of those that are on the Naches side of Yakima. So I think that ' s generally perhaps the thought; it is there for the property owner, but some size limitation to prevent the unique situation arising. It gives us a little handle on extraordinary situations. Rudy: Perhaps just a statement that the City is making an effort to have as few limitations on the farmers' efforts as possible. Hansen: We could, but that is inherent in the fact that it says slittle. If you go through the various other sections in the code where you've got paragraph after paragraph of requirements, when you come to this, it is. . . in that perspective there is very little at all . I don' t want to argue the point, but it is from the perspective we see it as we are familiar with the other re- quirements in the various other zones. Satterstrom: Can I ask what your concerns are under the off-street parking, for instance. Rudy: Well, I would like to know what Chapter 15.05 says. Satterstrom: It lists all of the parking requirements for all of the different uses in the City. Rudy: I have a note here to see what that says. -9- k Kent Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 1984 Satterstrom: O.K. I know that there were a couple of them mentioned by the president of the Kent Saturday Market that, under rebuttal, the staff supported that dealt with some of the paving requirements at roadside stands, and certain parking requirements for nursery and greenhouses. And the basis upon which we treat those uses under the existing parking code can be somewhat abusive when they are applied to agricultural uses rather than something that might have originally been intended to be a kind of a commercial-agricultural use. Even a general statement on your behalf to us as staff to make the parking requirements somewhat less restrictive as applied to certain agricultural uses that normally require parking might be sufficient. If you don' t have any more direct concerns, we can leave it at that for the moment. + , Hansen: Also, a suggestion is that as it is in some other portions of the code it can be left to an administrative interpretation, because the range of potential uses is vast here from a person with something a little larger than a lemonade stand that your child , might have where it is a very small use for a short period of time, to something that is done seasonally and is rather profitable . We could draft some language and run it by Steve that speaks to adminis- trative interpretation and rather than getting too much detail here . I 'm thinking particularly of the area required for parking, not that it would be paved or gravelled or that sort of thing, because it could be a seasonal use, but I just see such a range of possibilities and the intent of the City, obviously, in establishing the A zone is to promote the use of agriculture in the City. So, with that intent, perhaps maybe we could tie in an administrative interpretation. Stoner: I think the issue that I heard in testimony was, why ask for urban requirements in an agricultural setting, and I think that is the kind of issue that Nancy ' s motion is addressing. Ward: And why do anything to prevent free enterprise of an individ- ual who has a. small garden in back and decides he wants to sell his goods. And all of a sudden you have an administration who is telling that individual that you have to have off-street parking. They can' t pull up on the road and block the street. . .or whatever necessary for him to sell his apples, pears, or whatever the case might be . That' s my concern. That' s why I seconded this given motion. . .it' s because of the fact that we are . . . sort of like comparing, both fruits, but by the same token it' s like comparing a large permanent type of facility with the small individual who decides on a seasonal basis to sell a given product. In some way we will have to make a deter- mination as to whether he has to have gravel out there or pavement, or whether it has to be a given dimension, whether there has to be certain structural requirements and other things, that are possibly all built into this code, which I am not totally aware of. I thought someone would say, if this question was raised, that these are the basic restrictions . This is what you have to deal with. But no one has said that, so I am going to talk off the too of my head anyway. -10- Kent Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 1984 But, by the same token. . .because that is my concern, because we have so many restrictions as it is . . . We would. . . to enforce opinions on a lot of things. . .of course by the. . .not agreed to by that given public who will be faced with that given regulation or what have you. And so we are just trying here with this given motion, at least that is my intent, to see that we are not overburdened with restrictions. And I quite agree that there should be verbiage in there that indi- cates the difference between a permanent type or a large-scale, multi- million dollar type of facility compared to the small individual. . . got to have them categorized or something of sorts, something to define this particular. . . Stoner: Does that give you enough. Satterstrom: Yes. That is sufficient. Thank you. Chuck. Lambert: Couldn' t it, in item 3 instead of roadside stands , couldn' t it say something like fruit and vegetable stand which is used season- ally to maintain a usable parking area, which would still give the City a little clout but also would not require the more expensive type parking areas where they only use it like from June to Septem- ber when it really isn' t all that wet. If they can maintain a usable parking area without surfacing and specify fruit and vege- tables so that. . .here it just says roadside stands which could be selling pottery. Satterstrom: Right. As the code reads now, it obviously restricts roadside stands to 400 square feet. There is no, at that size limit, there is no building permit required. I checked this out with the Building Department, and that is their threshold. Were it to be 401, it would require a building permit; therefore, there is no City review of a roadside stand that is 400 square feet or smaller. Lambert: Is the size of the stand the problem, Nancy. Rudy Hmmm. Lambert: Is the size of the stand the problem, too, or just the parking. Rudy: I did have a note here that someone had said that a limitation of 400 square feet might be too small for 30 or 50 acre plot. That I don' t know, but that was a comment that someone made. Lambert: Four hundred square feet is a lot of room, and especially if ou' ve got eight-foot ceilings. That is 3, 200 cubic feet. . .a lot of storage. Rudy: I don' t know how high the ceilings are in a roadside stand. . . Ward: But 400 square feet is 10 by 40 or 20 by 20 . -11- Kent Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 1984 Lambert: That would be 400, and then eight-foot ceilings, that gives es you 31200 cubic square feet. That' s a lot of storage. Satterstrom: Well, if you are talking, I feel that that may be a lot of storage for a one-acre farm, but if you are talking about an operation like Carpinito' s that has approximately 80 acres that they own or lease, then 400 square feet is simply not going to do it for them. Lambert: I can' t see Carpinitd s putting up a roadside stand out n the country someplace. Satterstrom: Well, this would allow accessory uses. O.K. So, you' re going to have a principal use on that piece of property as agriculture . If that owner wants to establish a roadside stand or a. . I don't know, I guess Carpinitds is not a good example of a roadside stand because it borders. . . Stoner: But the LDS Church might be a good example. Satterstrom: LDS is a good example, but imagine Carpinito' s opera- tion without the gravel and the landscape bark-type of an operation. Theoretically, I could see a need for more than 400 square feet for a roadside stand once you get above a certain threshold of acres. I don' t know what that is, because I am talking off the top of my ; head, but certainly 400 square feet becomes inadequate at some threshold of acreage, and it' s got to be somewhere between one acre and a Carpinito outfit of 80 or more, but. . . Lambert: Do they have 80 acres at one site, any one place. Satterstrom: Not one site. Lambert: I say the clue is products grown on the premise. It says n here. Satterstrom: Could be. Lambert: So you couldn' t truck it in from elsewhere. Satterstrom: They own the adjoining property on the rear, and I'm not sure how many acres it is, but it is substantial. I heard him say in public hearing that they own and lease approximately 80 acres , and I think that about 20 or those are over on the west side on property that is within the study area. In any case my point being that at some point 400 square feet becomes inefficient or inadequate and the only thing magic about the 400 square feet is that this doesn' t require a building permit. It certainly is legiti- mate for the Planning Commission to recommend some greater figure. The only difference is that it would require a building permit. -12- i Kent Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 1984 But it would still be allowed. Stoner: And the motion in both instances, Nancy' s motion, as I recall, are that we want to look at those four less restrictive options. In other words, we are not saying whether we should or shouldn' t, but we are looking at options that promote farming and agricultural use rather than restrictions. Are there any other concerns in terms of the language of this zoning. . . Rudy: Carol, I have one more note. Stoner: All right. Rudy: Do you really want me to say it. Anderson: Is that on another subject? I have one more comment on this one before we leave. My concern on the roadway stands, espec- ially if there is not a permit for less than 400 square feet, would be that at least the City Engineering Department have a chance to review the location of the stand from the position of safety. You have a 45-mile an hour roadway and you put a stand up on a curb. You get Sunday drivers that are driving along at 35 miles an hour suddenly hit their brakes, because they have seen this roadside stand. It could cause some problems . I think that regardless of the size of the stand that there should be some City review, and I don't mean that the owner would have to submit a set of plans, but just perhaps ask the City Engineer or someone on staff to go out and look where he wants to put the stand and have them consider it from the standpoint of safety, traffic safety. Hansen: That would be a normal procedure when we review development, even as one of this sort, but your point is well taken. We turn to our traffic engineer for input, even on casual situations that don' t require a permit. Rudy: There was just such a situation a couple of years ago, or a few years ago, at the bend on Meeker near the golf course, and it disappeared. Satterstrom: If you sell produce in the City of Kent, it requires a business license, so we are going to see that operation before it ever happens on the ground, and so at least the Planning Department would be tipped off. Hansen: Assuming that they come in for a business license but, as is often the case, they are unaware of that, and so we become aware of their business and ask for a license and we work it out. And sometimes it' s a little after the fact and it could be located in a hazardous location, but once we are aware of it, usually the prob- lem is rectified pretty quickly. As we had in a case up on the West -13- Kent Planning Commission Minutes May 8 , 1984 Hill, though, they would just move across the line into the County when we were having some problems there; but in most cases we are trying not to discourage it in any way. I think your point is really well taken and, as in any case with regulations and interpretation we make and administration of them, I think the intent is clear by the action you are taking assuming the Council follows suit. I think you can have confidence in the staff that we' ll take into consideration all these sorts of factors. Lambert: All vendors must have a business license in the City of Kent if you are selling produce. I thought I read someplace that Saturday Market is not required to have a business license. DiJulio: Saturday Market raises its head again. Want me to add that to my list? Rudy: I'm going to make one more stab here. Maybe that is a poor choice of words. . .one more attempt, page iv, item 5 under E Develop- ment Standards, item 5, Height limitation. Two and one-half stories, not exceeding 35 feet. It was mentioned that barns and silos for instance can be. There is also section 15 .08 . 190 of the Zoning Code states Exceptions To Height Regulations , the height limitations shall not extend to barns and silos provided that they are not located within 50 feet of any lot line. Could we on that item 3ust to have it in this document either a reference to Section 15 .08 .190 of the Zoning Code or the quotation of that item about barns and silos. Voice: (Unclear) Rudy: That' s general and supplementary positions. Voice: (Unclear) Rudy: This is a specific one, .190 barns and silos. ` Cullen: Nancy, I have a note down here to see page 6, vi. Rudy: That' s right. And that is under Alternative 3, Height Rulimitations , it says except barns and other specialized structures. Perhaps that exception could be put in, but some reference in item 5 to indicate that barns and silos are exempt. Satterstrom: Could I make a suggestion at this point. I think that perhaps a reference to Section 15 . 08.190 might be better, because it does have the additional wording . .that provided that barns and silos are not located within 50 feet of any lot line, and that might be a practical requirement. Stoner: Thank you. Can you make a motion. Rudy: Oh, I so move. -14- Kent Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 1984 Stoner: O.K. So we are citing the specific portion of the Zoning Code, and I don' t have the numbers before me that refers to that exception 15 .08 .190 . (tape changed) Cullen: I' ll SECOND the MOTION. Stoner: So the motion has been made and seconded to add that excep- tion to the height limitation number 5 under Development Standards on page iv. All in favor. i Voices : Aye Ward: Point of order, Mrs . Chairman. Have we already had a motion on the floor. Stoner: We have voted on all our previous motions . The motion on the floor now is to include a reference to that section of the Zoning Code that has the exceptions on height limitations, and that citation would be put on. . .added to the wording in the Zoning Code . Ward: I thought there was another motion. . . Stoner: I think we have voted on that one. All in favor. Voices: Aye. Stoner: Opposed. (No response) Are there any suggested language corrections . The final item that we need to consider tonight is to . .a make a recommendation to the City Council as to the adequacy of the compensation of the King County PDR Program, The final item that we need to consider is a recommendation to the City Council as to the adequacy of compensation under King County' s Purchase of Development Rights Program. That is something that they speci- fically asked us to make a determination on, and it has to be part of our report, I feel . Is there a motion? Adequacy or inadequacy. Byrne: That we take a look at the adequacy of the program to deter- mithat it is adequate . Stoner: O.K. The motion that Jim has made is that, am I phrasing it, that it is adequate . That compensation offered to landowners under the King County PDR Program is adequate. Lambert: I SECOND it. Stoner: Chuck has SECONDED it. Is there any discussion. O.K. I' ll call for the vote. All in favor. Voices : Aye. -15- 5 �.9 Kent Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 1984 Stoner: Opposed. (No response) That is all the business I see on the agenda for this evening. May I have a motion to adjourn. Cullen: I MOVE we adjourn. Rudy: SECOND. Stoner: Doug has moved and Nancy has seconded. All in favor. Voices: Aye. Stoner: Opposed. (No response) (End of verbatim minutes. ) The meeting was adjourned at 8: 30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, James P. Harris, Secretary I I I -16-