Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Land Use and Planning Board - 03/27/1984 KENT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 27, 1984 The Kent Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairman Stoner at 7: 30 p.m. on Tuesday, March 27, 1984 , in the City Council Chambers. COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Carol Stoner, Chairman Nancy Rudy, Vice Chaiman Robert Anderson James Byrne Douglas Cullen Richard Foslin Chuck Lambert Raymond Ward l Helen Brooks, absent CITY 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 Commissioner Rudy MOVED FOR FEBRUARY 28, 1984 that the minutes for the February 28, 1984, meeting be approved as written. Commissioner Byrne SECONDED the MOTION. MOTION CARRIED. CERTIFICATE OF APPOINTMENT AWARDED Commissioner Raymond Ward was awarded his Certificate of Appointment to the Planning Commission by Carol Stoner. PUBLIC HEARING FOR CONSIDERATION OF Chairman Stoner opened the AMENDING KENT' S ZONING CODE public hearing by stating that the hearing would consist of three sections : the first would be statements by both the staff and those citizens present who wish to comment on the proposals; the second would be rebuttal statements by both staff and those present in the audience; the third would be the public meeting at which time the Planning Commission would deliberate the issue and agree on the recommendation that would be presented to the City Council. All of these meetings will be held from x Kent Planning Commission Minutes March 27, 1984 7: 30 p.m. until approximately 10: 30 p.m. There is a sign-up sheet for those who wish to speak. The speakers will be called in the order in which they appear on this sheet, but the person may defer or decline when called. There will be another opportunity to speak at the end of the hearing. The initial statement must be expressed in ten or less minutes. There will be a three-minute rebuttal at a subsequent public hearing. Only one person should speak on behalf of a specific piece of property. Written and oral testimony are both acceptable. Chairman Stoner requested that each speaker identify himself by giving his address, stating which piece of property is involved and point to it on the map, and state if the r person is speaking to the zoning proposal, the draft EIS, or both. Mr. Harris submitted into the record two letters addressed to the Planning Commission from John C. O'Rourke, one dated March 17 , 1984 , and the other, February 8 , 1983. Commissioner Rudy MOVED and Com- missioner Ward SECONDED a motion that the two pieces of correspon- dence be accepted into the record. MOTION CARRIED. Mr. Harris explained that the City Council approximately three years ago asked the Planning staff to make a study of agriculture on the west and south sides of the Green River, and the Draft Environmental Impact Statement is now available for perusal. On August 16 , 1982, the Council selected Alternative 4 as their choice and directed the Planning Commission and Planning staff to move forward with the alternative and the six additional actions outlined on page ii of the Agricultural Lands Study. On page 11 and 12 the Council clearly stated the circumstances under which the staff and Planning Commission were to consider any compensation to property owners. This issue has been presented in the staff report and will be discussed in this hearing. One year ago the Planning Commission completed the comprehensive plan element which had been requested_ by the Council. This resulted in a comprehensive plan change to pure agricultural land use designation for both the City and the County. The staff and Commission are holding off before sending this change to Council until the zoning implementing ordinance change can be included. Fred Satterstrom will present the details regarding the zoning proposals. Mr. Satterstrom stated that the two items to be discussed at this hearing were the zoning alternatives and the compensation issue, the King County program for purchasing development rights to farm- lands. The Planning Commission made a recommendation to the compre- hensive plan amendment to show approximately 1,500 acres on the west and south sides of the Green River for agriculture. The City of Kent plans beyond its corporate limits, so two thirds, 1050 acres, is outside the city limits and one third, 560 acres , is inside the city limits. Mr. Satterstrom pointed out that copies of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Economic Analysis of Agricultural Zoning Alternatives are available for inspection. -2- Kent Planning Commission Minutes March 27, 1984 The area involved is divided into the west and south sides. The area south of the Central Business District is referred to as the south side. The area north of the Des Moines Road is referred to as the west side. The entire area between the Green River and the toe of the slope is proposed for agricultural zoning between the Kent-Des Moines Road up to 204th. This includes four or five pieces of property south of Kent-Des Moines Road down to the southerly city limits, as well as a single piece of property at ? the intersection of South 277th Street and West Valley Highway, Smith Dairy. This 40-acre parcel appears to be spot zoned, but there are 1, 200 acres of agricultural land in the county that surrounds the Smith Dairy. The following is a general description of the four zoning alterna- tives being considered: Alternative #1 (No Action) - This alternative involves leaving the existing zoning as it is; it is the "No Action" alternative. Existing zoning consists of primarily RA (558 acres) and MR-M (6 acres) . The RA zone is a transi- tional or "holding" zone which allows low-density residential and agricultural uses, but recognizes its long-term purpose as a holding area for future urban development. The MR-M district is a multifamily residential classification. Alternative #2 (A-1 zoning) - This alternative would maintain the existing RA regulations but would change the name of the zone to "A-Agricultural" and the purpose statement. The purpose of the A-1 zone would acknowledge the long-term status of agricultural use. This alternative is called A-1 because the minimum lot size would be one acre (same as the existing RA district) . Alternative #3 (A-5 zoning) - This alternative proposes a larger minimum lot size requirement of five acres . Some of the development standards would be more restrictive than the first two alternatives to ensure the pre-eminence of agricul- tural use. Alternative #4 (A-10 zoning) - This alternative proposes a 10-acre minimum lot size requirement and conforms closely to the existing King County "A-Agricultural" zone classification. Development standards would permit no more than five percent lot coverage . Mr. Satterstrom continued by saying that these are not the only alternatives possible but could be used as a beginning for the discussion. -3- Kent Planning Commission Minutes March 27, 1984 The King County Farmlands Bond Program, as explained on pages 11 and 12 of the staff report, was held up in the Supreme Court in August 1982 because of the eight percent limit on bonds . The County did come up with $15 ,000 , 000 in Councilmanic Bonds to implement the first part of the program, but they delayed their decision regarding the source of the additional $35, 000, 000. The County has held two rounds of applications . In Round I there were five applications , 250 acres and in Round II there were nine additional applications , 395, acres. Some of the acres in Round I have been purchased by King County, and Round II will i be determined by approximately the middle of April. This could involve 400 more acres in the Kent sphere of interest. The Kent City Council made their decision before the King County Council had reached their decision, so they have asked the Planning Commission to determine whether or not the County compensation program is adequate. The development rights of any parcel of property are appraised by the County through an independent appraisal, and the farm, or the restricted use value, is also evaluated by a separate appraisal. The difference between the market value and the restricted value is the value of the development rights which the County then offers to the property owner. The property owner then decides whether or not he wishes to offer the land for that price. Judging by the fourteen applicants in the Kent area, and the decision of thirteen to actually offer their property, the offers seemed to be fairly high, but it may be too early to judge the program as adequate or inadequate. Mr. Satterstrom stated that the Planning staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt Alternative #2 which would establish the A-1 zone; it would maintain the existing RA regulations; it would change the existing district name into an agricultural rather than a residential agricultural zone, and change the purpose for which that district is established. The purpose would be to preserve agricultural uses. The Planning staff feels that the program is adequate and hopes that the availability of the $35, 000 , 000 in mutual funds will be known before the end of these hearings . Mr. Satterstrom introduced Frederick Dong, the project manager for Williams-Kuebelbeck and Associates, who completed an economic analysis of the alternative zoning proposals. Mr. Dong stated that he was present to summarize two key points in the report and to clarify any issues contained in the report. The first issue involves profitability, because if the land is restricted to farming use, there is still the question of the people staying in farming. If farming is truly unprofitable and the land is zoned for farming, then the land would be vacant. For the issue of profitability, Williams-Kuebelbeck Associates -4- Kent Planning Commission Minutes March 27 , 1984 were assisted by another consulting company called Stuart Turner, Incorporated. They found that there were basically five different categories of farm use that are potentially possible in the Kent area: raspberry farms, strawberry farms , mixed vegetable crops, nursery greenhouse operations and dairy operations. They analyzed the information available to them from the Puyallup Experimental Station as well as the King County Farm Extension Program to determine the average or typical yields for farms in the King a County area. Questions such as how much does the typical farm achieve per acre, what is the price of a unit of measure , how many hours does it take to operate the farms and the costs for each farm, what would be an adequate return. For example, a y; ten-acre raspberry farm is considered to be profitable under this form of analysis , also strawberry crops , mixed vegetables and nursery greenhouse operations . Dairy operations cannot compete with dairy operations in eastern Washington. The major consideration in this analysis is land values . As the land costs go up over time, profitability for the farm would probably go down, assuming that the inflation rate on the price of crops is less than the inflation on farm land. Another possible difference is that each piece of property may or may not have soil equal to the average that was considered in the study. Therefore, some farmers would have yields higher than normal and some would have yields below normal . There is also a difference in the abilities of the various farmers , not just ' in potential average yield, but also in the ability to market the crops . Mr. Dong used the comparison of a u-pick strawberry or raspberry operation and marketing directly to a processor. The second issue is the adequacy of the King County Farm Preservation Program. Mr. Dong stated that he felt that the program is ade- quate in principle because the appraiser was trying to determine the value of the land if it were not restricted to agriculture, and the value of the land if it were restricted to agriculture and the King County Farm Preservation Program were willing to pay the difference. Mr. Dong felt that it was adequate in the sense of a fair market price, but the individual landowner or farmer may not consider this to be adequate. The only measure of this would be the number of farmers or landowners who were willing to offer their land for sale to the program. Since there were a large number of people willing to offer their land to the program, it was considered to be at least a fair price. The second issue of adequacy was the amount of money available to offer to all the farmers and landowners involved. If there is only $13, 000, 000 available, it is unlikely that there would be sufficient funds for the purchase of all the lands that are potentially eligible in the King County sphere of influence, that is the entire region within the City of Kent as well as the area which is south and west of the study area. The information was not available at the time the study was printed, but information has been released. -5- i Kent Planning Commission Minutes March 27 , 1984 s Under Round I the King County Farm Preservation Program spent about five million dollars. In the Kent area they spent about 42 percent of the total money available . The average price per acre for r development rights in the Kent area had an appraised value of about $12 , 000 per acre . If the King County Council is able to obtain the additional $35 , 000 , 000, that would mean that after the cost of administering the program is subtracted, $47 , 500, 000 would be available for the purchase of development rights . Mr. Dong felt that if Rounds II and III followed the pattern of Round I . there would be enough money available in the Kent area for the purchase of 1, 655 acres at $12, 100 per acre. Mr. Dong emphasized that he was assuming that the average cost of development rights remained at $12 , 100 per acre and that the 42 percent remained the same in future rounds, there would then be enough money to purchase 1,655 acres within the Kent sphere of influence. Chairman Stoner called speakers from the sign-up sheet. Jim Goldsmith, with Hugh Goldsmith and Associates, 501 Lyon Build- ing, Seattle, Washington, 98104 , owner of 350 acres west of the Green River, east of Military Road, north of Highway 516 and south of 216th, asked to reserve the right to submit in writing comments on the draft EIS. He read into the record the following letter: City of Kent Planning Commission Re: Kent Highlands Inc. /Proposed Agricultural Zoning Dear Commission Members: i We represent Kent Highlands, Inc. , owners of approximately 355 acres on the West Hill/Valley Floor. Portions of their ownership lies within the boundaries of the area proposed for agricultural zoning. Kent Highlands ob]ects to this reclassification of a portion of their ownership on the basis of an overlay designated by virtue of a "toe of the slope" . Testimony has been entered into the record on several previous occasions through the many hearings involving this area, i.e. , 1) Specific rezone request by Kent Highlands for their property. 2) E. I.S. for the above referenced application. 3) The Valley Floor Plan. 4) The West Hill Plan 5) Pre,, ious hearings on the Agricul- tural Plan. As pointed out at many of these previous hearings the "toe of the slope" as it physically exists on the Kent Highlands ownership, is the result of the gravel extraction which has occurred in the past and, in fact, is still occurring at present. The soils (except for approximately 20 acres being farmed by Mr. Dela Cruz) are not conducive to agricultural use. Mr. Jon Koloski, soil geolo- gist with GeoEngineers, Inc. , has testified previously at the above- referenced hearings regarding this matter. It is respectfully requested that the records of these previous hearings be made a part of these proceedings and a part of the records in this matter. -6- Kent Planning Commission Minutes March 27, 1984 Our recommendation is that the Commission establish a set of criteria that would be used for establishing the eligibility of a parcel of land to be considered for reclassification to agricultural use. The reclassification should be voluntary on the part of the landowner and not mandatory or arbitrary. The following is a suggestion of some criteria to consider : I . History: Properties must have been actively farmed and operated as a business for three out of the last (previous) five years. II . Feasibility: Income generated from said business operation must provide at least a median level as es- tablished by acceptable standards (i.e. Puget Sound Council of Governments , etc. ) III . Soils : Ratings and/or classifications of soils should be established for each parcel (in five acre increments) by on-site soil/samples/report, using U. S. Department of Agriculture a Ratings/Classification or other acceptable standard. IV. Rights of Property Owners : Any reclassification to agricultural zoning must be voluntary on the part of the property owner. It is respectfully requested, therefore , that any designated reclassification of the Kent Highland ownership to agricultural use be deleted from the plan. Thank you for your consideration. Hugh G. Goldsmith and Associates, Inc . , James D. Goldsmith, Associate . Mr. Goldsmith pointed out that the properties had been affected by gravel removal and/or grading operations and that there were holding ponds and facilitation ponds that were part of the original gravel construction operation. The cost of construction of sewer, water and power lines, etc . , would be born entirely by the developer and that there would be no undue burden on the residents of the city or a the revenues of the city. Referring to the staff report on page 10 a and 11 dealing with the economic impact , he pointed out that there are 2, 000 acres currently zoned for commercial/industrial develop- ment in the Kent Valley, so therefore the lands west of the river should not be considered for development at this time because there are adequate properties available. His suggestion was that with that many acres zoned commercial/industrial and the RA zones are a holding zone for residential use and not for commercial/ industrial, that the city should provide a base for housing for the people who will work in the 2 , 000 acres . He also pointed out that the King County' s agricultural lands program is voluntary, and he felt that anyone attempting to determine a land value today and to compensate an individual for his rights in perpetuity would probably be wrong, and that the program should be based on a ten-year reevalua- tion cycle. He felt that the City of Kent should consider purchasing the lands that they feel have the ability to produce farm products and go into the farm business to find out if farming is viable in the area. Commissioner Rudy asked how many of Kent Highland ' s 352 were on the Valley Floor. Mr. Goldsmith responded with the estimate of 80 or 90. -7- t Kent Planning Commission Minutes March 27 , 198: Commissioner Ward asked at what period of time his client's holdings had been used for gravel extraction and holding ponds. Mr. Goldsmith responded that it was the the early sixties . Commissioner Ward asked if it had ever been terraced for agricult»ral Purposes. ' i Mr. Goldsmith responded that it had not been. Commissioner Lambert asked when the land was acquired by Kent High- lands and what was the zoning. Mr. Goldsmith answered that he felt it was in the late fifties or early sixties . He believed that it was not within the city limits at that time, at least part of it may not have been , and he felt it was probably residential/agricultural . Chairman Stoner asked if this information was in the Kent Highlands EIS. Mr. Goldsmith thought that it probably was . Chairman Stoner called Julius Rosso to the podium and asked for the address of his property. Julius Rosso pointed to his property on the map and referred to it as nursery bend or nursery corner. He felt that it was wrong to consider changing the status of the land in that area, and that current desig- nation of RA he felt was adequate for the use of the property in the future. He did not consider the nursery business to be lucrative, and that he had been "losing his shirt" for the past four or five years . He felt that it is too late to save a chunk of land west of the river when all the good farmland on the east side of the river is already gone. Since many of the farmers had been chased from the east side of the river, he felt that they should not be penalized by designating their land agricultural, since this type of land has the least value. He felt that King County would have no incentive to purchase the land if Kent designated it as agricultural land. The people who were selling their rights were doing this for monetary reasons, he felt. Chairman Stoner asked him if he were prepared to direct any comments toward the environmental impact statement . Mr. Rosso responded that he would study it and may send in a written response at a later time. Commissioner Rudy asked what precise difference would a change in classification from RA to A-1 have on his property. -8- Kent Planning Commission Minutes March 27 , 1984 Mr. Rosso responded that it would have no difference at the present time because he did not intend to make any changes in his business , but he did not wish to have A-1 as a restriction for him in the future . Commissioner Rudy explained that the two zonings are the same . Mr. Rosso said that he understood, but wanted to be certain that it was left as it is so that he could be able to appear before the proper city officials to have it changed, if needed. He emphasized again that he felt King County would not nay for any rights if this land were designated straight agriculture . Commissioner Lambert asked how much property was involved. s Mr . Rosso responded that there were 36 acres . Commissioner Ward asked how long he had been in the nursery business , Mr. Rosso answered that he had been in the nursery business for about thirty years, but only 12 years on this particular property. Commissioner Ward asked if he had found it to be profitable. Mr. Rosso emphasized no. Chairman Stoner called for Mrs. E. L. Maddox. Mrs . E. L. Maddox and her husband, both 93 , moved to Kent in the 30 's and 40 ' s , have worked hard in farming with the Japanese and have been able to care for themselves and their family without the aid of wel- fare. She expressed disappointment about the freeway that was built in front of their home and the sewer which cost them $18 , 000 and taxes on 45 acres of property. She mentioned that there were some prospects who were interested in buying their property for a trailer court . Chairman Stoner called for Edgar R. Rombauer. Edgar R. Rombauer, business address 7310 East Green Lake Drive North, an attorney, spoke in behalf of Andrew G. Matelich who owns approxi- mately ten acres north and west of the nursery bulge . He described the property as being much like the Kent Highlands area. He assumed that this property was a gravel pit approximately 30 or 40 years ago, and was purchased in 1955 . For the past 15 years it has been used for hard material, non-toxic fill . The City of Kent has dumped broken concrete at times and other persons have dumped without charge . He felt that it was ridiculous to consider this as agricultural property because it would be costly to put topsoil on the land. He wished to go on record for Alternative 41 which would leave the the designation as it is . He did not anticipate development within -9- F Kent Planning Commission Minutes March 27 , 1984 the next 15 or 20 years, but there could be uses that would not require sewage, such as outside storage which would not delete it from the standpoint of a tax base. Chairman Stoner asked if he were planning to address the adequacy of the environmental impact statement. Mr. Rombauer responded that he was not at this time but may do so in the future. Commissioner Byrne asked why Mr. Matelich had purchased the property originally if it were not suitable for development or for Farming. « Mr. Rombauer responded that he did not know, but he thought it was for a long-term investment . s, Commissioner Anderson asked him to explain what he meant by 15 feet below the roadway. Mr. Rombauer responded that it appeared to be below the crest of the road, and that where it had been fielded, it appeared to be eight to ten feet higher. Commissioner Rudy asked how he felt the property could be used in the future . Mr. Rombauer responded that he did not know except for a storage or warehouse facility. Commissioner Rudy mentioned that the area would then be largely paved with impervious surfaces . Mr. Rombauer agreed that would be the situation. He emphasized that the property was not usable for agricultural purposes . Chairman Stoner called for Bill Miskell. Mr. Miskell stated that he had Dust received the document and would submit his thoughts in writing. Chairman Stoner called for Tim Matelich. Mr. Matelich wished to waive his rights to speak and may respond in a letter at a later time . Chairman Stoner called for Tom O'Connell. Tom O'Connell, 20439 Frager Road, pointed to his property on the map and stated that he owned approximately 30 acres . His property has been in open Space for approximately seven years and he has applied -10- Kent Planning Commission Minutes March 27 , 1984 to be in the Farmlands Preservation Program, first round. His son is farming on the property at the present time . He didn 't feel that the valley could all be painted with one brush. He said he had watched the mining operation on the Kent Highlands property as they pumped the water up the hill and washing it down and putting the waste in the valley. He agreed that this property would never be able to be used for farming. Chairman Stoner called the next speaker, Tom McCann. Tom McCann deferred until a later time. Chairman Stoner called the next speaker, Mary Williams . Mary Williams, 25331 68th Avenue South, expressed concern about wasting valley soil . She has lived in this area since 1942 , has found the soil to be rich and irrigation unneeded. She hopes never to see blacktop or cement on the land. Chairman Stoner called a 15-minute recess. Leslie Poon, 16431 S. E. 235th, Kent , is not a property owner in the area under discussion but spoke as a community member of Kent . She pointed out that the lands under discussion are ad3acent to King County lands, and she suggested that the RA designation be changed to A-1 which would be consistent with the total area . She felt that development next to farmlands would not work, because of drainage and other problems . She pointed out that in the future, twenty-fifty years away, Kent would need industry, shopping centers , residential areas, parks for recreation areas and, she felt, some farming area . She felt it should be saved for agriculture because it has prime soil in comparison to the clay on the other hill. She pointed out that she gardens in an area south of the border of the land under discussion and she found the land productive for many different types of vegetables . She felt that access to fresh produce is important because the vitamin quality is much higher in the fresh produce than it is in the produce that is shipped a great distance. Florida and California are both losing their prime soil and their farmlands . She believes that there will be a point in time when each community will be responsible for taking care of some of its own food needs . Commissioner Lambert asked if she would favor a blanket A-1 designa- tion, including the 89 or 90 acres that Mr . Goldsmith claimed were unusable on the Valley Floor. Ms . Poon responded yes, because if there is development in some of the area, it would have an adverse impact on the farming operations . -11- Kent Planning Commission Minutes March 27 , 1984 Gary Volchok, 2013 13th West, Seattle, is a property owner in the City of Kent but not in the area under discussion. He wished to speak as a citizen rather than an industrial realtor who has specialized in the development of land in Kent since 1967 with expertise in the cost of sewer and water extensions , fill, roads, etc . The probability of King County raising the additional 35 million dollars to purchase farmland rights he felt was question- able . Most of the lands under discussion would probably remain in their present state for the next twenty years , because Metro had adopted an ordinance that would not allow sewers to be brought into the area . Since the ground doesn' t perk, septic tanks are not allowed, and the City of Kent will not issue building permits . Farmers cannot borrow money easily from banks . The economic report did not take into consideration the mortgage and taxes on the property. The assessed valuation of the properties in this area is several years behind in reevaluation. He felt that the actual issue in this discussion was open space, not agricultural lands . M Chairman Stoner asked if he were talking about sensitive areas. Mr . Volchok responded that the Metro's ordinance involved everything south of the Green River and west of West Valley Highway. Michael Panteleakos, representing St. Demetrios Greek Orthodox Church lives at 4020 46th Avenue South. The church owns the property i north of 212th and north of the LDS farm. This property involves approximately 68 acres, the eastern section being leased for truck farming. A majority of this acreage has been under water. The return on this property in the last one and one-half years has not been sufficient to pay the taxes on the land. His main concern is to preserve the value of the property, and if the change were made to Alternative 44 , King County would have no reason to offer top value for developmental rights and this would cause a loss in value to the church, the property owner. Mark Huntsman, speaking for Mark Chugg, is farm manager for 50 acres located on the corner of Frager Road and 212th owned by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints . Fe opposes the zoning change even if there are no plans to sell the land at this time, because they felt that the value of the land would be greatly reduced. He wished to reserve the right to be able to submit a letter at a later date . Commissioner Ward asked when the church purchased the land. Mr. Huntsman replied that this will be their fourth season on the farm and they have yet to make any money. Commissioner Ward asked about the payment of the real estate taxes . Mr. Huntsman responded that they paid taxes like other farmers . -12- Kent Planning Commission Minutes March 27 , 1984 Commissioner Ward asked if they were eligible for tax relief because of church ownership of the property. Mr. Huntsman understood that they paid all the taxes associated with farming, but wished to hold the answer to this question until he could obtain additional information. Chairman Stoner asked if they were under current use taxation. Mr. Huntsman responded that he was not certain. Commissioner Ward asked if the land was beinq used for farming. 3 Mr . Huntsman stated that they were currently raising strawberries and vegetables on the farm. Commissioner ward asked if it were for the church. Mr. Huntsman responded that the majority of it goes to the church. i Commissioner Ward asked who worked for him on the farm. Mr. Huntsman replied that he did most of the work, but some of the church members assist him with some of the labor . Commissioner Rudy asked if they sold to the public. Mr. Huntsman remarked that they have an on-farm stand but hope to get out of the business . i Lauri Johnson, P. 0. Box 772, Kent, 98032, spoke for the Green River Study Group, a group of citizens in the area who have been following land use on the valley floor for several years. She expressed support of the Planning staff 's recommendation to create the A-1 zoning stating that the group felt that this was good community planning because it helped to give a balance of land uses on the valley floor . It would protect farmers who still wish to use the land for farming by minimizing land use conflicts, drainage problems that occur when ad3acent lands are zoned differently, end it would give the residents of Kent an opportunity to purchase quality, fresh produce in season. A concern of the group was that pressure to develop lands that are not served by utilities would create a pressure for public-financed urban services. These costs would not all be borne by the property developers. The entire city has to par- ticipate in off-site improvements that are required when a large area is developed. She did not feel that the majority of Kent' s residents supported the County' s agricultural preservation program when the bond issue was on the ballot. A survey was taken in 1981 which indicated that 72 percent of the respondents favored tax incentive programs and special zoning to protect agricultural lands. -13- Kent Planning Commission Minutes March 27, 1984 Sixty-five percent of those surveyed also felt that their way of life was being threatened by development in real estate speculation. The group approves of the type of planning that is being considered for this area because they feel it will help create the balance that most citizens are looking for when they look for a good quality community in which to live. Commissioner ward asked if she felt that there were prior land usages that should have been changed to agricultural zoning, and was she taking this approach because this is the only land that is left to change to agricultural. Ms. Johnson responded that they were interested in preserving some of the other areas not only for agricultural uses but also for wildlife and wetland values, particularly around the old sewage lagoons on the east side. The agricultural value was a big consideration on the west and south side. Commissioner Lambert asked if the group would be in favor of reimbursing the landowner for the loss of the use of land if it were zoned for agricultural purposes even if the land couldn't grow anything . Ms . Johnson responded that the group had not taken a position on , this issue. Elaine Conlon, representing the Conlon Farm, has rented their property since 1938 and been able to support their family. In 1983 the profit on her 25 acres was $573 . Fifty acres is used for vegetables, and fifty acres is used by Smith for silage. According to the King County Assessor her 25 acres is worth $130 , 000 . She would like the zoning to remain RA, because she felt that a change in the zoning might jeopardize the County from buying their development rights. Commissioner Lambert asked if she were actively trying to sell her property. Ms. Conlon responded that she was holding off hoping that King County would purchase their development rights . She expressed feeling that if the zoning would be changed to A-1, the property would be worth practically nothing. She explained that there were four of them, each with 25 acres . Chairman Stoner pointed out that since the Conlon property is outside the city limits, the zoning would not affect their property. Donald Baer, 918 East Laurel, former Planning Commission member, spoke in favor of the farmland preservation program and the zoning change recommended by the Planing staff . He pointed out that if the property owner could borrow the money to improve the property -14- Kent Planning Commission Minutes March 27 , 1984 with sewer, water, streets and grade elevations to the point that development could take place, most likely the loan could never be paid off . Mr. Baer referred to the staff report page iii, Alternative #2, B Special Permit Uses "2) Nursery schools and day care centers, " by suggesting that the Commission consider being more restrictive by adding the words "for the use of the local area only. " He felt that nursery schools and day care centers were incompatible with the agricultural zoning unless it was stated that this was specifically for local use. On page iii, C Accessory Uses "3) Roadside stands not exceeding four hundred (400) square feet in floor area. . . " he felt that the Commission should consider ' whether a 20 x 20 space would be appropriate for farms of different sizes . He did not state how large he felt the area should be, but questioned the broad-blanket limitation of a simple 400 square feet. On page iv he felt there was a typographical error under E Development Standards "5) Height limitation. . .35 feet. " On page vi under "5) Height limitation. . .35 feet, except barns and other specialized structures used for agricultural purposes may exceed the height limit." On page iv G Off Street Parking, "The off-street parking requirements of Chapter 15 .05 shall apply. " He suggested that the words "for a distance of 20 feet from the road edge be paved" be added so that persons driving off the gravel area have sufficient space in which the tires could spin off before reaching the main arterial. Commissioner Lambert asked if he felt that the A-1 zoning classi- fication would take away from the saleability of the development rights that the County might offer. Mr. Baer responded that he was not prepared to answer the question, but felt that in general the economic elements were not the primary concern of the Planning Commission. AD,_ OURNMENT Commissioner Cullen MOVED and Commissioner Rudy SECONDED the MOTION to continue the public hearing until Tuesday, April 17, at 7 : 3 0 . MOTION CAF.RIED. Respectfully submitted, James P. Harris, Secretary -15-