HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Meeting - Council - Agenda - 10/02/1990 L•, 1.1. I7���� IIIIIIIII�II ;
II' rr;
fllpliill I ii i I i ITV .. I i llll�1,llal�
Y 1 .�IM..n� nus���:����O�w�uu:uu111Y�O�11 IIIIW A& Aft
'i i I IIIIIIII�III �I�''i� I� I�II Illll �l il�llllllillli�lllllllllllllllllllk�� I( Ililhl11111111aillllll�
�Illdl � IlIII III �IIIIIII '` ,I
I �IlgYll � I�� II II I`I
IIII I'
�IIIIFul
I
I
= 3:
I I r 9+
• 1III111 IIIIII ,
IIIII I1
li r, Ir 11 i r I.
Irll
'11 I
II III .I
t
I 11 Iol =
III, � •,. , :;
IIN VIII��Clu�ll'IIf�Al.1 g
II hull iu i ,i
II . ,
• , II ,II ao - -
1 II
�I III I IIQ I IIIII —
I
IIII
• • • fI�I IIII M, Z.-ident
r fi
• NII
Jon JON
Jim
Ali Ih l ,I•.�1i�:
I
l is
L
II
II :,
0 •
fl • • :• �I I��r 1 I � i i
IIII II� I' ii �II II ,
„
I^l fj
Ilh
I 'ierk ,
li�l II I�I ul� (IIII
{
i
le a
I�I�
' �141'' uwiiiiiiiiimil ���iniiiiMii II�IIIIIIIIIII�IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIh OIMIIIIII911111FIIIIYIIIIII 31 =
li, I ('i'f IIW111fu�41liLuiuni.lr:�
II
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
October 2 , 1990
dAW
Summary Agenda
City of Kent Council Chambers
Office of the City Clerk 7 : 00 p.m.
NOTE: An explanation of the agenda format is given on the
back of this page.
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
1. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
A. Employee of the Month
B. Proclamation - United Way
C. Proclamation - Books for Kids Day
2 . PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. LID 335
B. Vacation of Walkway - Parkside Division 2 Plat
3 . CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Minutes
B. Bills
C. Drinking Driver Task Force Donations
D. Street Vacation - Resolution � � v
E. Acceptance of Station 76
F. Interfund LID Loans - Resolution /a(,P1
G. Set Date for Hearing LID 331
H. Arterial Classification Revision - S. 272/277
I. Westbrook Preliminary Plat Time Extension
J. Minshull-Wagner Rezone-Ordinanceq�{ 5
4. OTHER BUSINESS
A. Group Homes Committee Report
B. (,dministrative Restructuring/Mayor's Pay J2I�
5. BIDS
A. LID 335
6. CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS
7 R � RTS•—L_ O �x
(ctrn l)E s L35+c
8 . ADJOURNMENT
PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
Citizens wishing to address the Council will, at this time,
make known the subject of interest, so all may be properly
heard.
A. Employee of the Mo t
utt ILI
B. Proc a ation - We Care The United Way
l
C. Proclamation - Boo s for Kids /Day
f
Kent City Council Meeting
Date October 2 . 1990
Category Public Hearings
1. SUBJECT: LID 335 - 77TH AVENUE IMPROVEMENTS
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: This date has been set for the public
hearing and confirmation of the final assessment roll for
LID 335. The Director of Public Works will discuss the scope of
the project and the manner of assessment.
3 . EXHIBITS: Memorandum from Public Works Director
4 . RECOMMENDED BY:
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
OPEN HEARING:
PUBLIC INPUT:
CLOSE HEARING:
7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
to accept the Public Works Director's memorandum as part of the
record and for the City Attorney to be directed to prepare the
ordinance confirming the final assessment roll for LID 335.
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 2A
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
September 27, 1990
TO: Mayor Kelleher nd City Council
FROM: Don Wickstr( U,
RE: LID 335 - 77th Avenue S. and S . 206th Street Improvement
(S. 212th St. to S. 202nd St. )
GENERAL
October 2nd has been set for the public hearing for confirmation of
the final assessment roll for LID 335 - 77th Avenue South and S. 206th
Street Improvement (S. 212th St. to S. 202nd St. ) .
BACKGROUND
Over the past number of years there has been substantial interest in
development within the project area. However, the area is served by
substandard access roads. Therefore, the City has been working toward
the improvement of the roadways involved.
Since 1980, numerous developments or developmental activities have
taken place which resulted in either actual construction of
improvements or execution of LID covenants.
In the Spring of 1989 , the City developed a preliminary proposal for
the improvement of 77th Avenue S . and S. 206th Street between S. 212th
Street and S. 202nd Street and for the formation of an LID to provide
the funding. A letter was sent to the affected property owners and
a meeting was held.
Various property owners expressed interest in adding a traffic signal
at 77th Avenue and S. 212th Street to the project. The City conducted
a study of the intersection and found that a signal was warranted at
this location. Therefore, the LID includes the traffic signal.
The City Council stated its intention to proceed with the project by
passing Resolution No._ 1223 on December 19, 1989 and scheduling the
formation public hearing. A formation hearing was held at the
February 6, 1990 Council meeting. No protests were received. The
City Council passed Ordinance 2899 at the February 20, 1990 meeting
creating the LID. - --- - -- -- -
SCHEDULED IMPROVEMENTS
The scheduled project is the improvement of 77th Avenue South from S.
212th Street to S. 202nd Stream and S. 206th Street from 77th Avenue
South to the west end at the UPRR railroad tracks.
The project includes the following improvements:
1. Curb and gutter
2 . Cement concrete sidewalks (except along the railroad ROW)
3 . Widened roadway, 36 feet between curbs
4 . Storm drainage system including biofiltration
5. Street lighting (installed on Puget Power poles)
6. Street trees (where possible)
7 . Sanitary sewer and water main stubs to properties as required
8. Channelization and traffic signing
9. Traffic signal at the intersection of S. 212th Street and 77th
Avenue Sou—TE _ -_ _____._--.---__._.------_--
FUNDING
The project is to be funded_ 100% by the Local Improvement District
method. The estimated final total cost is $1,409,510. --Each- property
is assessed a share of this cost.
The preliminary LID total cost estimate was $1, 261, 704 . 09. The final
total cost estimate of �1,409, 510 is $147, T0-5-.--91 or 11.71$ over the
preliminary estimated amount.
The reason for the project cost increase follows:
The original preliminary estimate presumed utilizing the existing
relatively new roadway pavement surface for about 1000 feet in the
vicinity of the S. 206th Street/77th Avenue S. intersection. This
portion of the existing roadway was put in by a developer. A closer
examination of the pavement surface and the underlying roadway
foundation material by the City's geotechnical consultant revealed
that this existing pavement surface is cracking and failing due to
poor foundation material. Thus, the entire roadbed must be excavated
and replaced in this area with the added costs associated.
METHOD OF ASSESSMENT
The costs under each category of assessment are distributed to each
property benefiting as follows: -
1. Street - The assessments are based on square footage within the
assessment boundary. The assessment rate decreases with 120 foot
zones back from the public right-of-way with a maximum of six
zones. The front zone rate is six times the rear zone; the
second zone from the front is five times the rear zone and so on.
Property further than 720 feet from the edge of the right-of-way
is not assessed. The total street assessment is $1, 247 , 167. _
2 . Sanitary Sewer and Water Stubs - The cost for each stub is
assessed to the property being serviced by the stub. The total
-sanitary sewer stub assessment is $13 , 993 . The total waterline
stub assessment is $19, 618 .
3 . Traffic Signal - The assessments are based on square footage
within the assessment boundary. However, several properties
which have an alternate access to S. 212th Street are assessed_ at
a 50% rate. The total traffic signal assessment is $128,732 .
As noted above, the overall assessments have increased 11.71% due
to the existing roadbed problem discussed. Corrections were also
made to the assessment roll parcels to include lot line revisions
made by property owners and to delete right of way acquired for
a bioswale/drainage channel. For these reasons the actual
percent change for each parcel is different from the average
percent increase of 11. 71% overall.
PAYMENT OF ASSESSMENT
Upon Council passing the ordinance confirming the final assessment
roll, there is a 30-day period in which any portion or all of the
assessment can be paid without interest charges. After the 30-day
period the balance is paid over a ten-year period, wherein each year's
payment is one-tenth of the principal plus interest on the unpaid
balance. The interest will be what the market dictates.
EASEMENT AND RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION
The construction of the project will require property acquisition in
some locations to provide necessary right-of-way. Right of way must
also be acquired to provide a bioswale/drainage channel. Each
property involved will be appraised followed by negotiation between
the City and owner. Final settlement can be a direct payment to the
owner or can be a credit toward the assessment thereby reducing the
amount of the yearly payments.
ENVIRONMENTAL
A declaration of non-significance was issued by the Planning
Department on January 5, 1990 . There were no conditions or mitigating
measures specified.
LID COVENANTS
It should be noted that properties representing 48% of the LID
assessment are encumbered by LID no protest covenants.
NEED FOR IMPROVEMENTS/BENEFITS TO PROPERTIES
I A.` Street. The road is substandard and the pavement surface is
deteriorating. Part of 206th Street is gravel . Improvements
such as curbing, sidewalks, lighting, landscaping and full paved
width are required to bring the street up to code to meet both
functional and safety requirements. Therefore, these
improvements are planned into the new road.
( B.J Because the roads are substandard, undeveloped or under developed
properties adjacent thereto would have to fully improve their
frontage themselves in order to develop or upgrade their
property. Some of the properties have already developed and have
executed commitments for the road improvements. Most of the
vacant properties are in the planning stages of development and,
thus, will receive the benefit of having the LID satisfy their
road improvement commitment. —
C. Traffic. Congestion and traffic backups are occurring due to the
congestion at the 212th Street intersection. Since this is the
only way out for this dead end road this is an acute problem.
Installation of the signal will greatly improve the safety at the
intersection.
Widening of the roadway to provide a center continuous left turn
lane is required to provide increased safety and accessibility to
adjoining businesses for drivers making turns from 77th Street.
In addition, through traffic on 77th Street will not suffer extra
delay or congestion due to left-turning traffic. Vehicles
waiting to make left turns will be able to stand completely out
of the through traffic lanes.
Pedestrian improvements are also needed. The project provides
continuous sidewalk with crosswalks.
D. Drainage. There is no drainage system along most of the project
route. Ponding of storm water occurs in places. An adequate
drainage system for the area is needed to provide for disposal of
water.
Kent City Council Meeting
Date October 2 1990
Category Public Hearin as
1. StRrF BECK REQUEST FOR VACATION OF WALKWAY EAST SIDE OF
pARKSIDE DIVISION 2 PLAT
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: An application has been made by Brian C.
and Janice M. Beck to vacate a portion of tract "A" of Parkside
Division No. 2 subdivision. Tract "A" is located between
Military Road and 38th Avenue So. at the north end of Parkside
No. 2 .
3. EXHIBITS: Application, staff report
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Staff
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO---Z _ YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ N/A
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
OPEN HEARING:
PUBLIC INPUT:
CLOSE HEARING:
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION•
seconds
Councilmember
moves Councilmember�--���- �
that action on this application be deferred for additional staff
analysis. �c� {t �G+�% t U�1'vUv��
DISCUSSION•
.. 'war G1C�
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 2B
crry of lend
KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT
September 271_ 1990
MEMO TO: Mayor Dan Kelleher and City Council Members
FROM: James P. Harris, Planning Director
SUBJECT: Report and Recommendation on an application to
vacate a portion of a walkway easement known as
Tract "A" of Parkside Division
RECOMMENDATION: Defer Action until additional analysis
can be made by staff
I. Name of Applicant
Byron and Janice M. Beck
25203 36th Place South
Kent, WA. 98032
II. Reason for Reauestina Vacation
The applicants state, "Security reasons, as this Tract "A" is
an attractive nuisance for local teens, resulting in property
damage to abutting home owners. "
III. Staff Recommendation
After reviewing comments from the following departments and
agencies:
. Public Works Department - Recommends that the walkway
not be vacated.
. Police Department
and conducting our own review, the Planning Department
recommends that the request to vacate a portion of the walkway
as mentioned in Resolution 1257 and shown on the accompanying
map, be Deferred for additional staff analysis.
The walkway was dedicated to the City as part of the original
Parkside subdivision approved in 1976. Tract "A" was
dedicated to the City for use as a pedestrian walkway as well
as for storm drainage and utility purposes. Tract "A" extends
from Military Road to 38th Avenue South. It is the only
pedestrian walkway connection between Military Road and 38th
Avenue South between S. 250th Street and Reith Road (a
distance of 2,700 feet) . S. 252nd Street, which serves as a
Memo To: Mayor Dan Kelleher and City Council Members
September 27, 1990
Page 2
main access street into the Yorkshire and Cherry Park
neighborhoods, on the west side of Military Road, is directly
across the street from the walkway.
For those persons living west of Military Road, the walkway
provides access to 38th Avenue South where sidewalks are
present south to Reith Road near Lake Fenwick Park.
Pedestrians should not be forced to walk along Military Road
to get to the east between S. 250th Street and Reith Road.
Bus stops are situated along Military Road at the intersection
with the walkway (also S. 252nd Street) . The walkway appears
to provide a safer and more convenient walking route for
residents living east of Military Road who want to use the
transit service.
An inspection of the walkway indicates that it is used by a
substantial number of people. At one time there was
apparently a mat surface on the walkway. Two large trees were
in the walkway but have been trimmed back to essentially
stumps. The walkway is not maintained, but should be.
JPH:mp
14AIL TO: T�- � APPLICANT:
Gera OF Kld B, McC h
CITY a ® Name By(�'�N�C`�>�TRr.I��EM `F3FCrC
EN 2
220 So, 4th 1990 Address: zs2,0 365,1 �L- so
?' Kent, IJA 980 AUG 2 0
CITY OF KENT Ilj F N T , (.c)A , 9 g 0 3 Z
TREASURY Phone: zo(o� 94 t -o S
OI` STREET AND/OR ALLEY VACATION APPLICATION AND PETITION
Dear Mayor and Kent City Council:
We, the undersigned abutting property owners, hereby respectfully request that',
-certain TRflCY'A'•' hereby be vacated. (General Location)
Legal Description � , 4
Tlia� �uzriow of ' T �4 ,4s wwn of: {xr<<e
of ru�kr,'�'e O,'v. / .2 PG¢T /ty�„9 twesT LD/c ..
No��hee(y Peoa�uGY,biv
1K sq,'Q' PLQ t
BRIEF'STATEMENT WIIY VACATION IS BEING SOUGHT
SCFCq//zr T y /?ra Soh $ a S >�/'S Teac T /� ^ /f
/¢l�iI�NCYr'vg nu/Sauce ��� loc� P J�crhS ' iZ+Svfh.s : /r(
1�>2o/Opr�L�r ala6, ? P fo ¢64#1'nj w✓7ejZS
PLea.$,P JAt G / acAeQ/ A107�9S
Sufficient proof; copy of deed contract etc. supported by King County
Tax Rolls shall be submitted for verification of signatures. Without
these a "CURRENT" title report shall be required. When Corporations,
Partnerships etc•. are being signed for, then proof of individual's
authority to sign for same shall also be submitted.
Attach a color coded map of a scale of not less than 1" = 200' of the area
sought for vacation. (NOTE) Map must correspond with legal description.
ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNERS TAX LOT N
SIGNATURES AND ADDRESSES LOT, BLOCK & PLAT/SEC. TWN. RG
• •� yr ; ' LOfi /6 PARKS/Dt DIV X
G(37L / /. Pfh'('SIDE lJ1Vz
Le7' 1-7 t>tg K5- 4C I u
x 7 q�A /.d7' 24
.$150.00 Fee Paid Treasurer's Receipt No.
Appraisal Fee Paid Treasurer' s Receipt No. .
Land Value Paid - Treasurer's Receipt No.
Deed.Accepted Date
Trade Accepted Date
5224-33A
RESOLUTION NO. all_
A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the
City of Kent, Washington, regarding vacation of
certain property located near 36th Place South
located as described in attached Exhibit A and
setting the public hearing for October 2, 1990,
on the application of Byron and Janice M. Beck.
WHEREAS, a proper petition has been filed requesting
vacation of certain property near 36th Place South in the City of
Kent as more fully described in Exhibit A, incorporated by
reference herein;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT,
WASHINGTON DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. A Public hearing on the vacation petition
shall be held at a regular meeting of the Kent City Council at
7:00 p.m. , October 2, 1990 in Council Chambers of the City Hall,
Kent, Washington.
Section 2. The City Clerk shall give proper notice of
the hearing and cause of notice to be posted as provided by law.
Section 3. The Planning Director shall obtain the
necessary approval or rejection of whether information from the
Public Works Department or other appropriate departments and shall
transmit information to the Council so that the matter may be
considered by the Kent City Council at its regular meeting on
October 2, 1990.
Passed at a regular me ting oZKELLEHER,
Council of the
City of Kent, Washington this day 1990.
ncurred in by the Ma or of of Kent, this
day of , 1990. D MAYOR
ATTEST: /� p
c &—) 2L C�)Z
BRENDA JACOBER, DEP TY CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
-fOGkj LUBO 'C , ATTORNEY
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of
Resolution No. passed by the City Council of the City of
Kent, Washington, the day of , 1990.
EAL)
BRENDA JACC7 DEPUTY CITY CLERK
8900-310
2 -
Exhibit A
That portion of Tract "A" as shown of face
of Parkside Div . #2 Plat lying west of the
northerly production of the East line of Lot
#14 in said Plat.
'! � 7&C��
Tl�ac -r ..4 w�/,�wu �s avt Q e
li s ce1 ��2 �oc.aL ,��rvS rzrsu/�i ►� �j2.
Shur � � 5
�1�2v�or y (2�0 n4 Ole J4,010e Ow✓ ees
// oh ouSPS �hc�
Is`tic Ll. a.S LL ww�y S 1�-�i,�'Ow✓�'f �,/ �r /�,
,h 5
(I {f1 M.E GUSTAFSON
f DETECTIVE I
i1_NVlCT- Ate!!! I
CITY OF KENT � � (206(859-6834 .
POLICE DEPT. SCAN:527-6834
ROD FREDERIKSEN 2204TH AVE.SO.
li
CHIEF OF POLICE KENT,WA 98032-5896
�I
I
li
i
{II
I
1
II
i
c.��oCYrr� C',�l iov�U o ��e? Cl/uy
ctJcr �S �vo7� tiPe�� Tic
I a n Sc�oOL Cl'I i'17,e� 740 US e r�'!
/v Ca-7eC S'c�oo L /�vS ��r� d✓`iohe
S 839- 0757
+�a-F do Sc hoa L b uS P S S40 p o iv
� IzOQ� l�yv �►�S a,�ea .
i
l
i
I
i
I
�I
i
i
,
II
p� h-Piz Ion d 6 u�ay o act •9
03 � P
,
i
1
,
a
H rtxHm C: H• w a. rt >0 MK C _ c
a• m o w e ° rww m m m H-
H mO00pq, x �l 'o0 tI v
N tt w O' O O m '0 m rt 0 O rt H.n r
a. • rt • O K w w :3 m K H• oli m
H• w m £ 5 a rt F'• rt H TA K
O R Ow 'CC� mEn � On Z
M wH C rt :orw rt Qm �
O wH•'dH• NmKC ::r Co >
m m Z
H-H o o rt PA H r- w "C
N O rt, K ° w H• 01. rtK A y
w £ H• N K m rt i. .. 0 H
o En � w w m ° �. � o :r Xw x 0
wx a � m N ZM - H O
'd £ N < C H-0) O n M �O m
p- aswH•H-wN oow £ x '� oQ
w w � X N a. 0 Mrn $ pj
N K m OwMla.
m K MILtlw N H• 0K
Cr :5 0 O K N m 0 N m m N d
m rt O O rt O m - m I N K O N
m HUI rt :' x • K tON N O
o
IY £ rt O M £ �
w a m H• F3 IN N
R � £ mR' G m0 OHIN � ro m 00 —
m mm mrt m £ KC wr7 Z o �
a m E C K w m m v n
rt 'C C H O 17 0 'd EnA
m v rt
i O
° rt t1i pi
'LS E K G I > N K N O w n
O mHwa. rt, 5ximmH• x'tf m
N - n r- a m '� a ►'�
M N rt - N R7 CrJ H• K o I
H O w £ £ ot:r rt F' °
O O K a m O m O w EnX a
m En H• K E O w AL K m H• a ti > ��
m O m �j CJ C t9 H
o aa & H rt m w m � ;
'd w o Ur a. o N o K rt T o s
a v Sc C9 H w H• K Cs 'C3 w m r k m
xamoMwmKwo rH g
xm m rt rt v
C� :j ww( 5 CyD :/�3 x K '0 0� ] E fD , ot7 y y
a = - aH• mwS] K K OH o �1
- N w 3 M Y �. rt M 010 m
HwrtK tram 0 O "
N 0fiP-5WNcct0 H (D o
oo ' i �` v, mo � � maRaart � o nr 01
�+ m vcr, y rt RH- Nrt F mK ri
•7 N m rt, H• O '0 N m
V C_ m Ct7 w a � N M >✓ tT m y
rf I rt w Fp N O O >
a J C7 w 'd 0 m rt rt H-H• w O
l t In w rt rt w 0 K
m rtH- t:r0 m H 0 m H- a o m >
y H t-bC 1 m O OC O� L CG wn £ NOGmrt � MO
O
7 �7S 10 0 a H-:y N m
O H- K N e O m
(v GN < rt H- F rt rt m O 1 o M
ti m H-'< 0 O O Cf M O
C C I C ri m O H• a w K � `
C g a MW N�4 � � N rt H
rt N rt . O O H m
Q c 0 4 l0 •r K 00 n
p •O w k.O H- rt >
r .. rt N N m
yy
C b.
,i.•
h o
i
r
I e A eel of PI-o pose cL 1 f aca-L-l o f"t
? No:7/ • 7 9.S
D.
Drasty` � 6. rJs ' Tas ;a _J1327.73 .
lo.. n�:f.p,.w f u/• rNts /OS /Q r./S SG!. �b.1.
. �•' 9:r4 lO.dZ hJ:,. OS .= ri9:' /F:Y'i � (Y
/ S B9'PB•JD d b k C; � rS V 47
//3 e.A:. .✓`0'S* 1.4
0I"t
p A
C zo .]J •An �* cn o, 'ir 'i ,af ,o Al 60y'3,.
1 9 a3 09 1' a oa •neon w' 6 *9
.Y.BT• el-2o H^. I ... .v e.r ye v e3 + �0 A - r IV %D f
/�:3.o.s i �' i.J .r 1 .9_9.�1'_r.y c� f• f� 3 9C IE
.: � i ') .18 °.-� O � F) ,!!3 m +3?! u �� !�' �, fi N d%•O,S-..r.4 Ft' �I�
// •� /. . .. �J� a S ,2N` eo N � 'U
i J'°�Z. '� I ;• A ,�. ':'v .Nea owes w rtt it• k.
' ,�j! y 112s 0
I' 19 ° `ti t! �t b�? N I— W ✓e?-os-Qs k/ V,
�1 Ig c'e7•r.axe rv' �' , � N Jp�o
5/7 e c 9 0
9 K 1''
o
N vN �ry h y4 1 10 f
\ 4les y• r02.2 ,� . •3 `� h 32
p20 t 6° `'� O
u
<.
o
3_9. /Z .. Nh� _..i-- hoc 3z �I n
ea S. 253 Rp ST ��'04 w------
210y+Cpo}v /� ! y,o9 / v 'o �o .56� i
., '• o �'0 9 '-� s h q <70b F/_t]1'/�� '
F M jl
h
66 6` o 0 68 0 h 69 ay ��
1!o n I! _ : a 22 s'S �d 65 tr ° E60 ° r,;° v ` 68 . D im
Z0 �. �' 0 ^ 1 0 . D "1 N
._...-___- I� •• JZ !? a6.. Ob £ 6 Hasse- 690 r C
/Z6.?f ` �4° •SS ry N 00
r, AB
6
°op0 X� `41 230Z�0�yO9� h 64 F° A��y z4 5� �Qtv
p
F^. 49
cw 27 w' 52 v. 05 p ♦ 490 4 b l
93 ^
-9 p a y 24 0 0 �,�\Q 52° ` war
A !. p 4 \y 0
6392..,s ti^�! 01 "N . s
b_zqn
o
cy' 32�
^ Ss 253RD"gPL.6 Bs
r✓b /ea:ac`—' �C,
—v 25 OyyO a m^, \O✓,. ? 530J
�.oc-ssh- o ISM `I \\Q 0 62 N5
1.20
26 bo r ^'g'�3 PROPOSED VACATION #AV-90-1
�►
/2a 6� `"'' sr PROPOSED VACATION OF THE WALKWAY
r. 3° o o EASEMENT KNOWN AS TRACT "A" OF
I� n 17,
27,0 0 �q PARKS'IDE DIVISION #2
�7(j PLF6. (a n r°o'2E s" <L !o Area of Vacation
28' 0 �9 �D°
e ��
Kent, Washington
September 18, 1990
Regular meeting of the Kent City Council was called to order at
7 : 00 p.m. by Mayor Kelleher. Present: Councilmembers Dowell,
Houser, Johnson, Mann, Orr, White and Woods, City Administrator
Chow, City Attorney Lubovich, Planning Director Harris, Public
Works Director Wickstrom, Fire Chief Angelo, Police Captain Jim
Miller, Assistant City Administrator Hansen, Personnel Director
Olson, Finance Director McCarthy and Deputy City Clerk Jacober.
Police Chief Frederiksen and Parks Director Wilson were not in
attendance. City Clerk Jensen was on vacation. Approximately 60
people were in attendance. Boy Scout Troop 302 lead the flag
salute.
PUBLIC (PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS - ITEM 1A)
COMMUNICA- Constitution Week. Mayor Kelleher read a procla-
TIONS mation declaring the week of September 17 - 23 as
Constitution Week, and urging all citizens to pay
special attention to our Federal Constitution and
the advantage of American citizenship. A repre-
sentative of the Daughters of the Revolution,
Lakota Chapter, urged everyone to fly their flags
this week in honor of Constitution Week.
(PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS - ITEM 1B)
National Arts Week. Mayor Kelleher read a procla-
mation declaring the week of September 23 - 29 ,
1990 as National Arts Week and an invitation was
extended to all to join in a celebration of the
arts on September 29, 1990 at noon, on First Ave.
and Meeker St.
(PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS - ITEM 1C)
Walk for Health Week. Mayor Kelleher read a proc-
lamation declaring September 17 - 23 , 1990 as Walk
for Health Week in the City of Kent and urging
people of every age, background, ethnic group and
interest to take part in this community event.
Nadine Byers accepted the proclamation and dis-
tributed flyers for this occasion.
CONSENT JOHNSON MOVED that Consent Calendar Items A
CALENDAR through F be approved. Woods seconded and the
motion carried.
MINUTES (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3A)
Approval of Minutes. APPROVAL of the minutes of
the regular Council meeting of September 4, 1990.
1
September 18, 1990
STREETS (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3E)
228th Street Acquisition. AUTHORIZATION to trans-
fer $20, 000 from the West Valley Highway Improve-
ment Fund to the 228-th Street Acquisition Fund for
right-of-way acquisition as recommended by the
IBC, Public Works and Operations Committee.
(CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3F)
LID 331 - 240th Street Improvements. ACCEPT as
complete the contract with R.W. Scott Construction
for LID 331, 240th Street Improvement Project, and
release of the retainage after receipt of the nec-
essary releases from the state.
TRAFFIC (BIDS - ITEM 5A)
CONTROL Signal Modifications - 84th Ave. S. & S. 208th St.
Bid opening was September 7 with two bids receiv-
ed. The low bid was submitted by Totem Electric
in the amount of $43, 258. Staff recommends that
this bid be accepted. WHITE SO MOVED. Woods
seconded and the motion carried.
FAUS (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3D)
FUNDING FAUS Funding Proposed Allocation Method Change.
AUTHORIZATION to support the change in allocation
of FAUS funding to the City from a project prior-
ity basis to an allocation based on current popu-
lation and for the Director of Public Works to
communicate that support to the King County Pub-
lic Works officials and King Subregional Council,
as recommended by the Public Works Committee.
PRELIMINARY (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4A)
SUBDIVISION Harvey Preliminary Subdivision No. SU-90-3 . This
meeting will consider the Hearing Examiner's rec-
ommendation of conditional approval of an appli-
cation by Townsend-Chastain and Associates for a
10-lot single family residential preliminary
subdivision. The property is located north of
S. 252nd St. between 22nd Ave. S. and 25th Ave. S.
Jim Harris, Planning Director, pointed out that
Conditions A.4 .d and A.4e. are incorrectly listed
as notations on the final plat mylor or linen, and
that they should be shown under Condition A. 1 as
Conditions A. i.d. and A. l.e. , which are required
prior to recordation of the final plat. He noted
that these items provide for construction of half-
street improvements on S . 252nd St. and full-
street improvements for 23rd Ct. S. and they need
2
September 18 , 1990
- PRELIMINARY to be listed under A. 1 so that they will be
SUBDIVISION constructed. Harris noted that Condition 4 would
then include only a, b, and c.
JOHNSON MOVED to accept the findings of the Hear-
ing Examiner and to adopt the Hearing Examiner's
recommendation of approval with the corrected con-
ditions of the Harvey No. SU-90-3 10-lot single
family residential preliminary subdivision. White
seconded and the motion carried.
REZONE/ (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4B)
APPEAL Minshull/Wagner Rezone Appeal. On August 21,
1990, the City Council conducted a public hearing
on the Minshull/Wagner Rezone Appeal (RZ-90-5)
from the Hearing Examiner's recommendation for
denial of the applicant's request for R1-7 . 2
zoning. After closing the hearing, the Council
voted to modify the Examiner's recommendation and
to adopt R1-12 (12, 000 square foot minimum lots)
for RZ-90-5. The Council directed staff to pre-
pare conditions to mitigate traffic problems with
the rezone.
Harris noted that the conditions have been pre-
pared for the already adopted rezone on the
Minshull/Wagner application.
Martin Durkan noted that the conditions which the
Planning Department prepared have merit but are
very costly. He listed the conditions as follows:
1. The developer shall reconstruct the west half of 92nd
Avenue South (minimum 18-feet of asphalt pavement)
including the installation of curb and gutter, sidewalk,
street lights, storm drainage, underground utilities and
related appurtenances for the entire property frontage.
On the east side of 92nd Avenue South a 12-foot wide
asphalt paved half-street improvement shall be
constructed.
2. The developer shall widen and improve 92nd Avenue South
to a width of 24-feet with a minimum five-foot paved
shoulder on the west side of the' street from the
southerly property line to the intersection of 92nd
Avenue South/South 208th Street.
3. The developer shall install a minimum five-foot wide
paved shoulder on the north side of South 200th Street
from 92nd Avenue South to 96th Avenue, where an existing
paved shoulder exists.
4. Secure necessary permits and approvals from King County
for all road improvements.
5. If any road grades on the subject property exceed 12
percent, any single family residences constructed on the
site shall be sprinklered.
3
September 18, 1990
REZONE/ Durkan noted that the Minshulls and Wagners
APPEAL feel these conditions are excessive for the 12, 000
square foot lots but could possibly go along with
Minshull/ them if the lot size was 7200 square feet and the
Wagner number of lots was increased to 85. Durkan said
that this would improve the area and make the
streets safer.
Lubovich clarified for Durkan that the rezone and
the appeal were both closed and the Council did
rezone to R1-12, subject to the mitigating
conditions, and that the only thing open for
discussion is the conditions. He also noted that
when the Council took their action, it essentially
resulted in denial of the appeal.
Cal Stewart, 20028 92nd Ave. S. , noted that he
feels all the conditions outlined by the Planning
Department should be met. . White stated that in
order to have the developer pay for improving the
roads, the lot sizes would need to be smaller.
Stewart replied that the neighbors would prefer
the largest lots possible and they could live with
the roads as they are, if the project does not
happen.
Margaret Minshull, 28114 110th Ave. S.E. , express-
ed concern that she did not receive a copy of the
conditions. She noted that the developer on the
east side of 92nd- is responsible for the develop-
ment of the road on that side, which is in the
county, and she is concerned about the cost of
redoing the full length of 92nd Ave.
Donna Williamson, 20211 92nd Ave. S. , noted that
traffic is a problem, and stated that lots should
not be smaller than 12 , 000 square feet. .
Al Minshull, Prosser, WA. , noted that with im-
provements and 12, 000 square foot size, the lots
will cost $50, 000-$60, 000 and that in order to
build affordable housing, the lots should be
smaller.
JOHNSON MOVED to deny the appeal, Houser seconded.
Motion carried.
Johnson asked whether the City or the County re-
quires the 12-foot wide asphalt paved half-street
4
September 18, 1990
�r REZONE/ on 92nd Ave. S. in Condition No. 1. Wickstrom
APPEAL replied that the standard minimum lane is 12 feet
wide and that the total pavement in this area
Minshull/ ranges from 19 •- 20 feet. He stated that the City
Wagner requires the street be widened to a full 12 foot
lane, so there would be minimum lane size in both
directions.
Regarding Condition No. 2, Wickstrom noted for
Johnson that in a plat within the City where the
road is substandard, the City has typically
required the developer to provide two 12 foot
lanes, so there are adequate driving lanes for
two-way traffic and there is a shoulder for school
children to walk on.
JOHNSON MOVED to approve staff proposed mitigating
conditions that support Council 's action to zone
the Minshull/Wagner application to R1-12 and
direct the City Attorney to prepare the necessary
ordinance.
Wickstrom noted for Dowell that there are only two
outlets, at 92nd Ave. S. and S. 200th, both of
which are County roads. He also noted that S .
208th St. and E. Valley Highway are both signal-
ized. White expressed concerns that the project
will not occur with the strict conditions at this
lot size.
The motion then carried.
SENIOR (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3C)
HOUSING Senior Housing Technical Assistance. ACCEPTANCE
of the establishment of a pre-bond issue budget of
$40, 000 for technical assistance to the Senior
Housing Program.
The Planning Department requires technical assis-
tance to carry out the direction of the Mayor and
City Council in moving forward with the Senior
Housing Bond Program. The expenditure of Senior
Housing Bond proceeds for this technical assis-
tance is a legitimate expense of the bond money.
The IBC, Planning and Operations Committees recom-
mend establishing a pre-bond issue budget of
$40, 000 to cover consultant expenditures incurred
since voter approval of the bond issue in
February.
5
September 18, 1990
COMMUNITY (PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM 2B)
DEVELOPMENT 1991 Community Development Block Grant Program
BLOCK GRANT -CDB(;) . This public hearing will consider adop-
PROGRAM tion of the 1991 Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) Program as recommended by the City Coun-
cil's Planning Committee.
Alice Shobe of the Planning Department noted that
this program comes to the Council as a recommenda-
tion from the Planning Committee and the Human
Services Committee. She noted that the County has
estimated that the recommended funding level for
the year will be $219, 719, and listed the eight
projects as follows:
I Protect Tvbe Funding Level
I. Planning & Administration Administration $926
2. City of Kent Housing
Repair Service Program Housing Rehab $134,055
3. Kent community clinic
Facility Expansion** Construction $5,000
4. KVYS Transitional Housing
for Homeless Teen:.Farents Rehab/Relocation $25,000
5. Children's Therapy Center
Handicap Accessibility Construction $11,100
6. .SKCMSC Transitional Housing
Rehabilitation** Housing Rehab $14,000
7.... Kent Community Clinic
Health Services Human Services $12,178
8. YWCA Emergency Housing
Program Human Services $17,460
TOTAL $219,719
The Mayor declared the public hearing open. M.L.
Peterson, 27537 43rd Ave. S. , Auburn, President of
Kent Valley Youth Services, stated that they have
started a program within the Kent School District,
funded by U.S. West, in which they counsel and
train teen parents. He noted that they currently
have over 50 teen parents, and that they are
between 13 and 17 years old. Peterson noted that
in order to continue the program, housing is need-
ed for some of the teens, and that they have lo-
cated an apartment in Kent which could accommodate
up to 15 parents and infants. He urged the
Council to approve their request for funding, so
that housing can be provided.
6
September 18, 1990
COMMUNITY Linda Wheatman, representing YWCA of Seattle-King
DEVELOPMENT County, noted that they provide emergency
BLOCK GRANT shelter services and that the funds requested
PROGRAM would be used for three units of emergency shelter
for facilities in the city of Kent. She thanked
the Council for consideration of their request.
Curtis Thom, Financial Manager for the Community
Health Center, thanked the Council for their
support, so that low cost health care can be pro-
vided to low income people.
There were no further comments and WHITE MOVED
that the hearing be closed. Woods seconded and
the motion carried. Peterson noted for Dowell
that the teen parents come to Kent Valley Youth
Services through the Kent School District, and
that some of the infants are under a year old.
JOHNSON THEN MOVED to approve the 1991 Community
Development Block Grant Program as presented.
White seconded and the motion carried.
GROWTH (PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM 2C)
MANAGEMENT Growth Management Advisory Ballot. The Mayor' s
Growth Management Committee has recommended that
the Council pass a resolution to pass an advisory
ballot before the voters on November 6. The Plan-
ning Committee dealt with this issue at its last
meeting of September 4 and the consensus was that
it be placed before the full City Council as a
public hearing item. The advisory ballot wording
approved by the Growth Management Committee is as
follows: "Should Kent immediately adopt interim
growth management measures--pending implementation
of state-directed growth management measures--
which would require installation of public facil-
ities (schools, roads, parks, etc. ) before or
during construction of new multi-family, indus-
trial or commercial developments; control the rate
of development; and control conditions for multi-
family rezones?"
Laurie Anderson of the Planning Department noted
that the Responsible Urban Growth Group had re-
ferred a petition containing approximately 1600
signatures to the Council, and that the petition
was referred by the Council to the Mayors Growth
Management Committee, who considered it and also
looked at the issue of an advisory ballot.
September 18, 1990 _.
GROWTH The Mayor declared the public hearing open. Chris
MANAGEMENT Grant, 26302 Woodland Way South, Presidentof
R.U.G.G. , urged the Council to authorize the
advisory ballot concerning improved growth
controls in Kent. He noted that earlier this
year, their efforts to place an initiative before
the voters on growth management issues failed
because the initiative process is not permitted
due to the code city status of Kent. He noted
that an advisory ballot would enable the Council
to hear from the entire community.
Arnold Hamilton, 25410 113th Ave. S.E. , stated
that this issue needs to go before the public, and
pointed out traffic problems.
Upon a question from Suzette Cooke of the Chamber
of Commerce, Laurie Anderson listed the members of
the Growth Management Committee and noted that the
vote was 5-2 , with the two developers on the com-
mittee voting against the advisory ballot. Cooke
noted that the Chamber is concerned with the cost
of the advisory ballot. She pointed out that
Initiative 547 is very similar and is already on
the ballot, and that the Council could get an idea
of the citizens feelings by looking at the results
of Initiative 547 .
Cooke then asked how the public would be educated
if this issue were put on the ballot and the Mayor
noted that he would be required to advertise for
people who could offer statements for and against
this measure for inclusion in the voters pamphlet,
and that in addition, the Council could authorize
funds to do a mailing to residents. Cooke recom-
mended that the advisory ballot not be part of the
November ballot measures.
Gilbert Sanders, 10925 S.E. 244th, noted that the
growth issue is getting out of hand, and recom-
mended that this be on the ballot in November.
Sherry Grant, 26302 Woodland Way South, voiced
concern about traffic, crowded schools and poor
emergency vehicle response time. She urged the
Council to make this issue an advisory ballot in
November.
8
September 18, 1990
GROWTH Jack Cosby, 525 Van de Vanter, of the Growth
MANAGEMENT Management Committee, pointed out that the Council
has had direction from citizens regarding multi-
family housing for the past two years, .and that if
they cannot act on this issue tonight, then it
should be placed on the November ballot.
Cathy Myers, 26537 S.E. 224th, Maple Valley, noted
that she had helped gather signatures on the
R.U.G.G. petition, and that people were eager to
sign. She disagreed that the results of
Initiative 547 would give an indication of how
people feel about this issue. She stated that the
advisory ballot is not really necessary, that the
Council has the information necessary to act, but
if they do not act, the advisory ballot would be
the next best thing.
Susie Mallot, 818 Ellis Place, noted that growth
needs to be controlled and directed.
Dee Eklund, 524 W. Meeker, stated that there is
more to this issue than multi-family dwellings.
She pointed out that multi-family dwellings are
affordable, and that if they are close to places
of employment, traffic is reduced.
There were no further comments and WOODS MOVED to
close the public hearing. White seconded and the
motion carried. White pointed out that when this
petition came to the Council, he had asked that it
go to the Planning Commission as well as the
Growth Management Committee in order to speed up
the process. Harris noted that the Planning Com-
mission has received the information but has not
yet discussed this subject. White said the
Planning Commission could hold public hearings and
make a recommendation to the Council on this. Orr
noted that an advisory ballot would give the
Council the opinions of Kent residents fairly
quickly and that the Planning commission process
could be a lengthy one. ORR THEN MOVED to adopt
Resolution No. 1259 placing the Growth Management
Advisory Ballot on the November 6 election. Woods
seconded. Woods noted that growth has been an
issue for some time and that is time to get a
sense of what the citizens feel on this issue.
She urged Councilmembers to pass this motion to
place the issue on an advisory ballot. Mann
9
September 18, 1990
GROWTH voiced concern regarding the wording of the
MANAGEMENT advisory ballot. He noted that the City has no
control over the school system, that roads are
already the #1 target issue for the City, and that
Kent has the best parks system in the U.S. for a
city of this size. He noted that the wording is
misleading and unclear, and that it implies the
Council is doing nothing with regard to growth,
which is not true. He also said he is against
spending $13, 000 of the taxpayers money to put
this on the ballot. Orr noted that infrastruc-
ture and public facilities are now taking place at
the same time as growth is happening and that the
solution would be to require improvements before
development begins. White voiced concern regarding
property tax assessments, saying that if the
ballot is passed, it will not cure the problems.
He noted that public hearings would still have to
be held and measures adopted.
Chris Grant noted for Dowell that R.U.G.G. is
incorporated as a non-profit organization, and
that there is no relationship at all between the
advisory ballot and the lawsuit pending against
the City. Upon Dowell ' s question, Grant noted
that an example of an interim growth control would
be improving a Grade F intersection so that it is
possible for a fire engine to get through it. He
also stated for Dowell that R.U.G.G. would
consider the possibility of a bond issue to pay
for these improvements. Orr noted that the Growth
Management Committee has worked out the wording of
the advisory ballot to address the entire issue,
not just interim growth controls. She reiterated
that services would need to be in place during or
before a project could proceed. The Mayor noted
that if the voters approved the advisory ballot,
the issue would come back to the Council to work
out the details. Johnson stated that he is not in
favor of any advisory ballot because they did not
accomplish anything. He stated that even if an
advisory ballot passed, hearings would still have
to be conducted, and that it could be a lengthy
process. He suggested that the Planning
Commission consider the items requested by
R.U.G.G. Harris requested that if this is sent to
the Planning Commission, it come with specific
guidelines, and suggested that the Growth Manage-
ment Group recommendations be given to the
10
September 18, 1990
GROWTH Planning Commission. Houser asked that this issue
MANAGEMENT be on the Planning Committee's agenda as soon as
possible. White stated that the Council should
make recommendations to the Planning Commission
rather than going through with the advisory
ballot. Dowell said the only way to solve this
problem is to have a bond issue, and urged the
Council to consider that option.
The motion to adopt Resolution No. 1259 placing
the Growth Management Advisory Ballot on the
November 6 election failed, with only Orr and
Woods in favor. WOODS MOVED that the Council send
the proposals of the Growth Management Committee
to the Planning Commission for immediate consid-
eration. Johnson seconded and the motion carried.
Steve Burpee, Vice President of Economic
Development for the Chamber of Commerce, noted
that the Chamber would like to work with the City
on this issue.
ECONOMIC (PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM 2A)
DEVELOPMENT Economic Development Corporation - Resolution.
CORPORATION The Baer Family Partnership has applied for indus-
trial development bond financing through the City
of Kent Economic Development Corporation in the
amount of $3, 000, 000 to be used for the acquisi-
tion, construction and equipping of manufacturing
facilities for the processing of meat products, to
be located at 7622 S. 188th St. in Kent.
The Baer Family Partnership application for in-
dustrial revenue bonds was approved by the EDC at
a special meeting held at 5: 30 p.m. this date.
The Mayor declared the public hearing open. There
were no comments from the audience and WHITE MOVED
that the hearing be closed. Woods seconded and
the motion carried. WHITE MOVED to adopt City of
Kent Resolution 1258 approving the issuance of in-
dustrial revenue bonds in the amount of $3, 000, 000
and approving Resolution 1990-50 of the EDC au-
thorizing the sale of the bonds to provide funds
for the project. Woods seconded. Finance Direc-
tor McCarthy pointed out that these are industrial
development bonds, not City of Kent bonds. He
noted that securing these bonds improves the
economy and is allowed under IRS regulations. The
motion then carried.
11
September 18, 1990
LIBRARY (PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS - ITEM 1D)
King county Library system. Bill Ptacek, Director
of King County Library Systems gave a slide pre-
sentation on the King County• Library 2000 Plan,
including expansion and renovation. He indicated
the library system enables residents to access
over one million volumes. He noted that the new
Kent Library will be the first regional library
that will have extensive business resource mate-
rials, and that the new library will attract
people to the downtown area.
Ptacek noted that a presentation from the Georg-
ette Group has been made and that the local
library board will respond to the issues raised.
Dowell noted the main concern of the Georgette
Group is the method by which the payment for
services is collected.
Ptacek clarified for Dowell that the payment is
based on property taxes and the City' s contractual
fee, with City and County residents paying the
same, and that the contractual fee is arranged at
such a rate that it would equal that in the
annexed or unincorporated areas, based on property
taxes. Ptacek noted that the contract for this
year for Kent was about $770, 000, and that next
year it will be up to about $1. 1 million. Dowell
stated that he feels there might be a discrepancy
in the method by which cities pay, and hopes that
Kent citizens are not penalized. Dowell noted
that the Georgette Group has indicated that it is
more economically feasible for Kent to pull out of
the county system. Ptacek agreed, but noted that
Kent citizens have come to expect library services
far greater than a Kent-owned library could
provide, and that one goal of the new Kent Library
is to bring people into downtown Kent, not to
close people out. Mann asked why Kent has no
member on the Board of Directors. Ptacek
responded that the city is currently contracting
with the library for a service, and that the
Library District Board of Trustees exists to
represent the people in the unincorporated areas
of the county.
Joe Street, 849 Tilden, pointed out that contract-
ing with Kent would be a distinct advantage for
the Library System, and as such, Kent ' s rates
12
September 18, 1990
LIBRARY should be as low as others. Street pointed out
that citizens use the library, not businesses such
as Boeing, and that the cost of taxes has nothing
to do with library services.
Laura Whitehurst, Chairman of the Library Board,
noted that they have received the Georgette Group
Study and have a number of unanswered questions.
She noted that they will be investigating the
possibility of Kent starting their own library and
that they will bring the results of their study,
and the costs involved, back to the Council.
Dowell asked Whitehurst to include the per capita
cost, City vs. County, in the study.
White also voiced concern about equity, stating
that over 70% of Kent' s tax base is non-resi-
dential.
Mayor Kelleher noted that no action is to be taken
at this meeting.
PERSONNEL (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4C)
Prosecutor Services Staffing. The Council is be-
ing asked to authorize an additional City Attorney
position to handle growth in the number of cases
and double set calendars established by the Aukeen
Court. The Public Safety Committee and Operations
Committee have heard staff presentations on the
workload and need. Action has been deferred until
this date pending the hiring of a new City Attor-
ney. At its September 11, 1990 meeting, the
Operations Committee considered the City Attor-
ney's request to add one additional attorney and
one additional support staff to the Law Depart-
ment's present staff. The Committee approved the
addition of one prosecutor to the Law Department
prior to the 1991 budget year, but deferred its
decision on the office support position until
1991. Funds for the additional position will come
from currently authorized salary and contract bud-
gets.
Upon White' s question, Lubovich clarified that the
funds used for the attorneys currently on staff
will be used for the permanent positions, and that
he is requesting a prosecutor to replace a con-
tracted position on staff.
13
September 18, 1990
PERSONNEL HOUSER MOVED to authorize the establishment of an
additional attorney position in the Law Department
as Prosecutor. Orr seconded. Motion carried.
FINANCE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3B)
Approval of Bills. APPROVAL of payment of the
bills received through September 19 after auditing
by the Operations Committee at its meeting at 4 : 30
p.m. on September 25, 1990.
Approval of checks issued for vouchers:
Date Check Numbers Amount
9/1 - 9/13/90 96161 - 96181 $ 402 , 179. 67
9/14/90 96182 - 96542 1, 904 , 665. 62
$2 , 306, 845. 29
Approval of checks issued for payroll:
Date Check Numbers Amount
9-5-90 140948 - 141691 $ 836, 278 .32
REPORTS (REPORTS - ITEM 7F)
Parks Committee. Dowell noted that the Parks
Committee will meet at 4 : 00 p.m. on Wednesday,
September 19, 1990.
ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9: 50 p.m.
Brenda Jacober', CMC
Deputy City C1 /
14
September 18, 1990
M LIBRARY should be as low as others. Street pointed out
that citizens use the library, not businesses such
as Boeing, and that the cost of taxes has nothing
to do with library services.
Laura Whitehurst, Chairman of the Library Board,
noted that they have received the Georgette Group
Study and have a number of unanswered questions.
She noted that they will be investigating the
possibility of Kent starting their own library and
that they will bring the results of their study,
and the costs involved, back to the Council.
Dowell asked Whitehurst to include the per capita
cost, City vs. County, in the study.
White also voiced concern about equity, stating
that over 70% of Kent's tax base is non-resi-
dential.
Mayor Kelleher noted that no action is to be taken
at this meeting.
PERSONNEL (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4C)
Prosecutor Services Staffing. The Council is be-
ing asked to authorize an additional City Attorney
position to handle growth in the number of cases
and double set calendars established by the Aukeen
Court. The Public Safety Committee and Operations
Committee have heard staff presentations on the
workload and need. Action has been deferred until
this date pending the hiring of a new City Attor-
ney. At its September 11, 1990 meeting, the
Operations Committee considered the City Attor-
ney' s request to add one additional attorney and
one additional support staff to the Law Depart-
ment's present staff. The Committee approved the
addition of one prosecutor to the Law Department
prior to the 1991 budget year, but deferred its
decision on the office support position until
1991. Funds for the additional position will come
from currently authorized salary and contract bud-
gets.
Upon White' s question, Lubovich clarified that the
funds used for the attorneys currently on staff
will be used for the permanent positions, and that
he is requesting a prosecutor to replace a con-
tracted position on staff.
13
September 18, 1990
PERSONNEL HOUSER MOVED to authorize the establishment of an
additional attorney position in the Law Department
as Prosecutor. Orr seconded. Motion carried.
FINANCE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3B)
Approval of Bills. APPROVAL of payment of the
bills received through September 19 after auditing
by the Operations Committee at its meeting at 4 : 30
p.m. on September 25, 1990.
Approval of checks issued for vouchers:
Date Check Numbers Amount
9/1 - 9/13/90 96161 - 96181 $ 402 , 179. 67
9/14/90 96182 - 96542 1, 904 , 665. 62
$2 , 3061845. 29
Approval of checks issued for payroll:
Date Check Numbers Amount
9-5-90 140948 - 141691 $ 836, 278. 32
REPORTS (REPORTS - ITEM 7F)
Parks Committee. Dowell noted that the Parks
Committee will meet at 4 : 00 p.m. on Wednesday,
September 19, 1990.
ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9: 50 p.m..
J
Ae'14 c t
Brenda Jacober�I CMC
Deputy City C1�/
14
CONSENT CALENDAR
3 . city council Action:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember
seconds that Consent Calendar Items A through J be approved.
Discussion
Action
3A. Approval of Minutes.
Approval of the minutes of the regular Council meeting of
September 18, 1990 with the following correction: Information
Services Director Spang arrived late and was therefore not
listed ng those present. �•iy
p3BJAA,2DDRr al of Bills.
Approval of payment of the bills received through October 3 ,
1990 after auditing by the Operations Committee at its meeting
at 2 :00 p.m. on October 9, 1990.
Approval of checks issued for vouchers:
ate Check umbers Amou t
3 �'Z" '7
Approval of checks issued for payroll:
Date Check Numbers Amount
9/20/90 141691 - 142398 830F838 .24
Council Agenda
Item No. 3 A-B
...............
CONSENT CALENDAR
3 . Citv Council Action:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember
seconds that Consent Calendar Items A through J be roved.
Discussion y� v
Action
3A. Approval of Minutes.
Approval of the minutes of the regular Council meeting of
September 18, 1990 with the following correction: Information
Services Director Spang arrived late and was therefore not
listed among those present.
3B. Approval of Bills.
Approval of payment of the bills received through October 3 ,
1990 after auditing by the Operations Committee at its meeting
at 2 :00 p.m. on October 9, 1990.
A� Approval of checks issued for vouchers:
Date Check Numbers Amount
Approval of checks issued for payroll:
Date Check Numbers Amount
9/20/90 141691 - 142398 830F838.24
Council Agenda
Item No. 3 A-B
Kent City Council Meeting
Date October 2 . 1990
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: DRINKING DRIVER TASK FORCE
2. SUIDIARY STATEMENT: Acknowledgment of donations to the Task
Force for support of the Parent Education Program activities as
follows:
Bell Anderson Agency Inc. - $100
Mountain High Burger Company - $50
Scenic Hill PTA - $100
3 . EXHIBITS• None
4 . RECOMMENDED BY:
(Committee Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FIS PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES
FISCAL PERSONNE NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE REOUIjtED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: `,
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION•
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 3C
Kent City Council Meeting
Date October 2, 1990
Category Consent Calendar
I. SUBJECT: STREET VACATION
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adoption of Resolution 00 setting a
public hearing for November 6, on the application of Kelly's
Cafe Americana, Inc. for vacation of a portion of South Central
Place.
3 . EXHIBITS: Resolution
4. RECOMMENDED BY: Staff
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FI CAL PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO_x___ YES
FISCAL PERSO L NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE UIRED: $
SOURCE OF F 1DS•
7. CITY COUNCIL, ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION•
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 3D
3�
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the
City of Kent, Washington, regarding vacation of
certain property located at 1734 So. Central
Ave. , Kent, Washington, legally described in
Exhibit A incorporated by reference herein,
setting a public hearing for November 6, 1990
on the application of Kelly's Cafe American,
Inc.
WHEREAS, a proper petition has been filed requesting
vacation of certain property located at 1734 So. Central Ave. ,
Kent, Washington as more fully described in Exhibit A attached and
incorporated by reference herein; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES
HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. A public hearing on the aforesaid vacation
petition shall be at a regular meeting of the Kent City Council to
be held at 7 : 00 p.m. , Tuesday, November 6, 1990 in the Council
Chambers of City Hall located at 220 4th Ave. So. , Kent,
Washington, 98032 .
Section 2 . The City Clerk shall give proper notice of
hearing and cause the notice to be posted as provided by law.
Section 3 . The Planning Director shall obtain the
necessary approval or rejection of or other information from the
Public Works Department and other appropriate departments and
shall transmit information to the Council so that the matter may
be considered by the City Council at such regular meeting on
November 6, 1990.
Passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the
City of Kent, Washington this day of 1990.
Concurred in by the Mayor of the City of Kent, this
day of , 1990.
DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR
ATTEST:
MARIE JENSEN, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ROGER LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of
Resolution No. passed by the City Council of the City of
Kent, Washington, the day of , 1990.
(SEAL)
MARIE JENSEN, CITY CLERK
8970-320
2 -
Legal Description
That portion of South Central Place (also known as 84th Place South
and Kent-Thomas Road) described as follows:
Beginning at the Southwest corner of Tract 30, Horseshoe Acre Tracts
to Kent, according to the plat recorded in Volume 15 of Plats on
page 10, Records of King County, Washington;
Thence N 88034100" E along the North line of South 266th Street for
a distance of 21. 19 feet to a point on the Westerly line of said
South Central Place and The True Point of Beginning;
Thence continuing N 88034'00" E along said North line of South 266th
Street for a distance of 70. 54 feet to a point on the Easterly line
of said South Central Place;
Thence N 33009149" W along said Easterly line for a distance of
36. 60 feet to a point on the South line of that portion of South
Central Place vacated by The City of Kent through Ordinance No. 2015
approved on February 23, 1977;
Thence S 88034,100" W along said South line for a distance of
66.26 feet to a point on a line 36. 00 feet Easterly of and parallel
to the centerline of South Central Avenue;
Thence S O1001130" E along said parallel line for a distance of 6. 84
feet to a point on the Westerly line of said South Central Place;
Thence S 33009149" E along said Westerly line for a distance of
28. 55 feet to The True Point of Beginning.
3 -
...............
Kent City Council Meeting
Date October 2. 1990
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: STATION 76 k&APOMEBE3'E
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Acceptance of the contract with Mar Jon
Contractors for the completion of Fire Station 76.
3. EXHIBITS: Executive summary
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Safety Committee, Fire Administration
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISgWPERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
FISCALIPERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE REOUIRED: Final payment has yet to be made.
Retainage is being held.
SOURCE OF FUNDS: Public Safety Bond Levy.
7. CITY COUNCXL ACTION:
Councilmekber moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 3E
3 `
C
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
OCTOBER 2 , 1990
TO: MAYOR KELLEHER, COUNCIL PRESIDENT WOODS,
COUNCILMEMBERS WHITE, JOHNSON, DOWELL, HOUSER,
MANN, ORR
FROM: NORM ANGELO, FIRE CHIEF 0 4a,
SUBJECT: ACCEPTANCE OF STATION 76
---------------------------------------------------------------
INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND
Contract for construction was signed with Mar Jon Contractors,
Inc. of Tacoma on the 15th of July, 1988 . The contract sum was
$1, 668, 690. 66 with tax.
The Fire Department took occupancy of this station on June 26,
1989 . It was only until August, 1990 that all punch list items
were corrected.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
The Fire Department is recommending processing the paperwork to
notify the Department of Labor and Industries and Department of
Revenue that work has been completed. Upon receipt of the
necessary certificates, we will then be able to release retainage
to the Contractor.
SIGNIFICANCE
The Fire Department is accepting the construction of this fire
station as complete. This action will complete the construction
phase of the north end fire station and maintenance building.
BUDGET/ECOMONIC IMPACT
This project has been budgeted through the bond levy with no
impact on the general operating budget of the department.
ALTERNATIVES/CONSEQUENCES
None
ti
Kent City Council Meeting
Date October 2 . 1990
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: RESOLUTION FOR INTERFUND LID LOANS
2. G and-cTaTFlrtR As recommended by the IBC and thee_'
Operations Committee t of n o eso ution pproving
interfund oans—for- LIDs 329, 331, 333 and 335
The Council has previously approved interfund loans for LIDS but
no formal documentation was incorporated in ordinances creating
LID No. 329, 331, 333 and 335. Bond Counsel has prepared this
resolution to formally authorize interfund loans when borrowing
money to perform local improvement district construction prior
to the issuance of bonds and receipt of the bond proceeds.
Future interfund loan authorizations will be included in the
specific ordinance creating LIDs.
i
3 . EXHIBITS: Resolution prepared by Bond Counsel
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Finance Staff. IBC and Operations Committee
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL, IMPACT: NO >� YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION•
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 3F
3F
CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of
Kent, Washington, relating to various local
improvement districts of the City and authorizing and
ratifying interfund loans.
WHEREAS, the City of Kent, Washington (the "City") , has
created Local Improvement Districts Nos. 329, 331, 333 and 335
(the "Districts") for the purpose of making various improvements
within those Districts; and
WHEREAS, it is the intention of the City Council to
construct the improvements in each of those Districts and to
authorize, issue and sell its local improvement district bonds
(the "Bonds") or, pending the receipt of the proceeds of those
Bonds, to issue and sell its local improvement district bond
anticipation notes (the "Notes") to pay all or part of the cost
of carrying out those improvements in those Districts; NOW,
THEREFORE,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT,
WASHINGTON, as follows:
Section 1. Authorization and Ratification of Interfund
Loans for LIDs Nos. 329, 331, 333 and 335. For the purpose of
paying all or a part of the costs of carrying out the
improvements within each of the Districts pending the receipt of
the proceeds of the issuance and sale of the Bonds and/or Notes
or of prepaid special benefit assessments, the following
interfund loans are authorized and approved:
From the General Fund to the Local Improvement Fund,
District No. 329, in the maximum aggregate amount of
$182,325;
From the General Fund and/or the Sewer Fund to the
Local Improvement Fund, District No. 331, in the maximum
aggregate amount of $540,900;
From the General Fund to the Local Improvement Fund,
District No. 333, in the maximum aggregate amount of
$130,000;
From the General Fund, Water Fund and/or Sewer Fund to
the Local Improvement Fund, District No. 335, in the maximum
aggregate amount of $1,261,704,
each of those interfund loans to be repaid on or before issuance
of the respective Bonds and/or Notes, from the proceeds of those
Bonds and/or Notes or from prepaid special benefit assessments.
Any interfund loans made prior to the date of adoption of this
resolution are ratified and affirmed.
Section 2. Interest Rates. Each of the interfund loans
authorized by Section 1 shall bear interest at a variable rate,
adjusted the fifteenth and last day of each month, equal to the
interest rate of the State of Washington Local Government
Investment Pool on the fifteenth and last day of each month.
The initial interest rate on the date of each interfund loan
shall be determined as of the last preceding interest payment
adjustment date.
The foregoing resolution was ADOPTED by the City Council of
the City of Kent, Washington, at a regular open public meeting
thereof this 2nd day of October, 1990.
DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR
ATTEST:
MARIE JENSEN, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
4iFRal Counsel a d and Counsel
JHO-116-
_2_
Kent City Council Meeting
Date October 2 , 1990
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: LI D 3 31 2 4 �SE MP 1 f�3QT,S�
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorization to set November 6 as the
date for a public hearing on the final assessment roll for
LID 331 - S.E. 240th Street improvements.
3 . EXHIBITS: None
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Staff
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO \ YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: ./Recommended Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED,; $
SOURCE OF FUNDS*
7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION•
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 3G
Kent City Council Meeting
Date October 2 . 1990
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: . =C ARTERIAL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM Off
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Approval of the County's revision of the
arterial classification of South 272nd/South 277th Street from
urban minor to urban principal arterial.
3 . EXHIBITS: Letter from King County
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Staff
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL4, PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO_X,_ YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUND$:
7. CITY COUNCIL-ACTION:
Councilmembkr moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION•
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 3H
374
O
King County
Division of Roads and Engineering
Department of Public Works
956 King County Administration Bldg.
500 Fourth Avenue July ll, 1990
Seattle,Washington 98104
Mr. Marty Nizlek Cif' Qe f .
Transportation Engineer �g90
City of Kent ,►►�►. 1
Department of Public Works
220 Fourth Avenue South EGt: rE 1t�G �iL4's.
Kent, WA 98032-5895
RE: Request for a Revision to the Arterial Classificuburnati n
System of Roadways in Federal Way, ,
King Count
Dear Mr. Nizlek:
The King County Department of Public Works is proposing the
following revisions to the "Statewide/federal functional
classification system" of federal-aid arterials. The
specific arterial is located in Federal Way, Kent, Auburn
and in unincorporated King County. The concurrence of your
jurisdictions with this revision is required.
Proposed revision:
1. (In Federal Way, Kent, Auburn and unincorporated King
County)
* Reclassify South 272nd Street/south 277treet
(State Route 99 to East Valley Highway) from
an
urban minor to an urban principal arterial; and
2 . (In unincorporated King County)
* Classify Proposed south 2774,-h Street Extension
(East Valley Highway to State Route 18) as follows:
A. As a proposed urban principal arterial, from
East Valley Highway to 132nd Avenue Southeast;
and
B. As a proposed rural minor collector, from 132nd
Avenue Southeast to State Route 18.
(Note: The current federal-aid urban area
boundary is at 132nd Avenue Southeast. Should
that boundary be moved in the future, which is
likely, to some point east of State Route 18 ,
the rural classification of South 277th will be
Mr. Marty Nizlek
July 11, 1990
Page Two
automatically upgraded to the same classifi-
cation that exists for the segment from East
Valley Highway to 132nd Avenue Southeast.
The arterial is currently classified on the federal-aid
arterial system as an urban minor arterial from State Route
99 to East Valley Highway and is unclassified for the
remainder. As you may be aware, the King County Council has
recently changed its classification for the arterial to make
it an urban principal arterial for the entire distance
between State Route 99 and State Route 18 . An enclosure
explains this reclassification request in more detail .
Concurrence from Federal Way, Kent, and Auburn on the
classification listed above is required under Puget Sound
Council of Governments (PSCOG) and Washington State
Department of Transportation (WSDOT) procedures in order for
King County's classification request to be considered as a
revision to the federal-aid arterial system. Your agency's
response to this letter will be included in the submittal of
King County's request to PSCOG and WSDOT for approval by
those agencies.
If you have any questions or require additional information
on this reclassification request, please contact Senior
Engineer Johnnie Walker at 296-6596.
Sincerely,
t
110
Bui Haff, P.E.
County Road Engineer
LJH:BB: fq
Enclosures
cc: Bill Hoffman, Manager, Transportation Planning Section
ATTN: David Mark, Transportation Planner
John Logan, Traffic Engineer
ATTN: Johnnie Walker, Programming Engineer
Rex H Knight, Manager, Engineering Services section
ATTN: Ben Brantley, Senior Engineer
Pete Ringen, Senior Engineer, Consultant
Liaison
FEDERAL FUNCTIONAL
al'R
all/ DepsounamCLASSIFICATION REQUESTS
IM form has been developed for use in all future requests for Federal Functional classification changes.
One form should be completed and submitted for each requested classification,change.
Upon completion of the requested.forms, they should be submitted to the District State Aid Engineer with a transmittal letter signed by
the Mayor,Chairman of the Board or other responsible official of the agency.
COUNTY or CITY NO.
1.COUNTY or CITY NAME
(refer to Local Agency Guidelines)
King County 17
2. LOCAL AGENCY CONTACT PERSON TELEPHONE NO.
Louis J . Haff, P. E. , County Road Engineer 2 6-6590
ROUTE NO.
3. LOCAL NAME OF ROUTE (if State Route use SR No.)
S . 272nd St . /S . 272nd Way/S . 277th St . 1160
4. TERMINI OF ROUTE (milepost or other identification) ($3rd ave . S . ) 4 . 0
FROM SR 99 TO East Valley Hwy. S . LENGTH:Miles
5. TYPE OF AREA (mark appropriatespacel: ICJ URBAN ❑ RURAL
6. EXISTING FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION I PROPOSED FEDERAL FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION '
(major collector,minor collector,principal arterial,minor arterial collector,local system!
Urban Minor Urban Principal
.•�, SPACING (distance to parallel Federal functionally classified route) Mi 1 5
B. DOES ROUTE EXTEND INTO ANOTHER JURISDICTION? 11 YES []NO Federal Way, Kent, Auburn
(if yes•concurrence from the other affected agency is required.unless the functional classification can iogically be changed between agencies.)
9. EXISTING ROAD CHARACTERISTICS
Roadway Width (incl.shoulders) 44 n•
Surfacing Type (mark appropriate specel ❑ Gravel ❑ ACP ❑ BST ❑ Earth ❑ Other
10. TRAFFIC GENERATORS (whet generator does route serve?)
3000 6000 SHIPPING POINTS:Annual Tons 4, 000, 000
INDUSTRIAL: Employees VPD —
AIRPORTS: Annual Flights RECREATIONAL: Annual Visitors
(parks,ski resorts,lakes,beaches,arc.)
MILITARY INSTALLATIONS: Type AGRICULTURE AREAS:
SHOPPING CENTER: No.Stores __Z 5 or more COLLEGE OR UNIVERSITY: Enrollment
OTHER:Type — VPD - GOV. INSTITUTION: VPD —
11. Are there zoning ordinances which can restrict growth or encourage growth of any of the above generators? Please indicate below.
No growth restrictions ; high rate of forecasted population growth- is
expected .
DOT FORM /aa-OaaA Ovan
1/ae
12. TRAFFIC tat significant volume change locations)
My. SR 9 9 EXISTING TRAFFIC 21 565 VPD MP SR 181 EXISTING TRAFFIC 14247 VPD
Percent through traffic 75 Percent through traffic 75
Future Traffic[is years) 30450 VPD Future traffic (15 years) 20000 VPD
13. Written description of route (genera/characteristics including alignment,speed limit and how it relates to the surrounding area in terms
of importance.)
Existing alignment has four lanes , provides major east-west connections .
14. A brief description why the proposed change is requested and justification for the change.
King County Council upgraded calssification to principal
per Ordinance #9153 on September 25, 1989 . King County classification
change reflects increased demand on facility; Federal conciirrance with
classification change is appropriate .
15. Additional remarks to more fully explain the situation.
16. Attach a vicinity map showing the proposed changes,and existing Federal Functional Classifications.
FEDERAL FUNCTIONAL
-" CLASSIFICATION REQUESTS
This form has been developed for use in all future requests for Federal Functional classification changes.
One form should be completed and submitted for each requested classification change.
Upon completion of the requested.forms, they should be submitted to the District State Aid Engineer with a transmittal letter signed by
the Mayor,Chairman of the Board or other responsible official of the agency.
1.COUNTY or CITY NAME COUNTY or CITY NO.
(refer to Local Agency Guidelines/
King County 17
2. LOCAL AGENCY CONTACT PERSON TELEPHONE NO.
Louis J . Haff, P. E. , County Road Engineer 296-6590
3. LOCAL NAME OF ROUTE ROUTE NO.
(if State Route use SR Nod
S. 277th St . /S. 277th St . Extension 1160 (proposed)
4. TERMINI OF ROUTE (milepostorot ridentification)
�a rd Ave . S . )
FROM East Valley Hwv. TO SR 18 LENGTH:Miles . 5
5. TYPE OF AREA (mark appropriate space): ® URBAN ® RURAL East of 132nd Ave . SE to SR 18
6. EXISTING FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION I PROPOSED FEDERAL FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION
(maior ,collector,minor collector,principal arterial,minor arterial collector,local system)
Proposed
Not classified urban principal, rural minor collector
``'SPACING (distance to parallel federal functionally classified route) Mi 1 . 0
B. DOES ROUTE EXTEND INTO ANOTHER JURISDICTION? ❑ YES ❑NO
(If yes•concurrence from the other effected agency is required.unless the functional classification can logically be changed between agencies.)
9. EXISTING ROAD CHARACTERISTICS
Roadway Width (incl.shoulders) Not a.pplic4le
Surfacing Type (mark approprietespace) ❑ Gravel ❑ ACP ❑ BST ❑ Earth ❑ Other
10, TRAFFIC GENERATORS (what generator does route serve?)
INDUSTRIAL: Employees 3000 VPD 6000 SHIPPING POINTS:Annual Tons 4 , 000 , 000
AIRPORTS: Annual Flights RECREATIONAL: Annual Visitors —
(parks,ski resorts,lakes,beaches,etc.)
MILITARY INSTALLATIONS: Type AGRICULTURE AREAS:
SHOPPING CENTER: No.Stores 75 or more COLLEGE OR UNIVERSITY: Enrollment —
OTHER: Type — VPD — GOV. INSTITUTION: VPD —
11. Are there zoning ordinances which can restrict growth or encourage growth of any of the above generators? Please indicate below.
No growth restriction; high rate of forecasted population growth I expected .
DOT FORM 140469A oV[R
11a4
12. TRAFFIC (at significant.volume change locations) Est .
st .
M.P. SR 181 EXISTING TRAFFIC 16000 VPD Mp SR 18 EXISTING TRAFFIC 12000 VPD
Percent through traffic 75 Percent through traffic 75
Future Traffic (is years) 22600 VPD Future traffic (15 years) 17000 VPD
13. Written description of route (general characteristics including alignment,speed limit and how it relates to the surrounding area in terms
of importance.)
New arterial likely to be constructed in the near to mid-term future .
The proposed arterial will provide an east-west connection _between SR 18
and to points west to SR 99 . Proposed arterial is expected to have four
lanes, to be consistence with proposed widening of SR 18 to four lanes .
14. A brief description why the proposed change is requested and justification for the change.
King County Council established a classification for this-proposed
arterial as urban principal in Ordinance #,9153 on September 25, 1989 •
This County classification reflects the expected travel demand in this
area . Federal concurrance with classification request is appropriate .
15. Additional remarks to more fully explain the situation.
u
16. Attach a vicinity map showing the proposed changes,and existing Federal Functional Classifications.
DOT •owra taoosa■
s/aa
Aw
L4M.
Ir
T-4
It
A.ve
Nv•+. S
A
\r 11
�11'11MVVK
—r7.7 t4
'A' Atw
.'Y. �� -,n+a.� .:-. "1T. x: '�. �' '^" _ tT. .-.... q'�f.2�^x't t..-'s. �_ .,. ...-- sr�e^ - �p uv
fr
124
"E
NP, ;wr-
132
JAI; Ub
rl
H48
zq,
Av�
r 80
Kent City Council Meeting
Date October 2 . 1990
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: WESTBROOK COMMERCE CENTER
TIME EXTENSION
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: 'As recommended by staff Approval of a
one-year time extension a est�ro-ok—Commerce Center
Preliminary Plat. F
3. EXHIBITS: Memo, letter by KPFF Consulting Engineers dated
July 25, 1990 and a map
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Planning Department
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO,�_ YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE REOUIRED: $ N/A
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION•
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 3I
3�
arrofItnQ
KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT
September 27, 1990
MEMO TO: MAYOR DAN KELLEHER AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: JAMES P. HARRIS, PLANNING DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF WESTBROOK COMMERCE
CENTER PRELIMINARY PLAT (SU-86-2)
As noted in the letter from Mark W. Stiefel, progress is being made
to accomplish the conditions which were part of the approval of the
Preliminary Plat. However, more time is needed to finish work on
the remaining conditions.
Staff recommends an extension for one year; the extension is to
expire on October 6, 1991.
y JPH:mp '
kpff
JA2600
consulting engineers
DEPARTMENT
July 25, 1990 FKENT
Mr. James Harris
Planning Director
City of Kent
220 Fourth Avenue S.
Kent, WA 98032-5895
Subject: Westbrook Commerce Center
SU-86-2 Preliminary Plat
Request for Time Extension
Dear Mr. Harris:
On behalf of Glacier Park Company, we are requesting that the City of Kent grant.a one-year
time extension for completing the final plat requirements. We understand that the existing
approved preliminary plat will expire in October 1990, unless an extension is approved.
Because a one-time'extension has already been granted, the next extension must be considered
by the City Council.
A. Significant progress has been made by Glacier Park Company toward completing the
final plat requirements. This includes:
1 . Received permission from the City of Kent to revise the preliminary plat to respond
to changing environmental policies and market conditions.
2. Received approval to modify certain conditions of SEPA compliance to reflect the
revised preliminary plat.
3. Prepared a Preliminary Final Mitigation Plan for wetland fill permit process.
4. Obtained Section 401 Water QualitJ Certification from Department of Ecology.
5. Obtained Hydraulic Project Approval concurrence for work adjacent to Springbrook
Creek.
6. Completed Practicable Alternatives Analysis for proposed wetland fill and mitigation
program which is in the final review phase by the Seattle District Corps of
Engineers Regulatory Branch. Their decision document is expected to be released in
the next 60 days for resource agency review. The final decision should be reached
30 days thereafter.
7. Site boundary and topographic surveys have been completed for use in final design
and plat preparation.
1201 third avenue,suite 900,seattle,wa 98101 (206)622-5822 fax: 622-8130
Mr. James Harris
July 29, 1990
Page 2
8. A traffic study has been completed to determine project impacts and roadway lane
configurations.
B. The following activities are yet to be completed. Glacier Park Company is waiting for
the Corps of Engineers, Section 404(b)1 authorization 'prior to finalizing the
engineering and final plat documents for City approval.
1 . Final engineering of improvements within the road right-of-way.
2. Final engineering and design of mitigation areas.
3. Final plat surveying including calculations; map and certifications.
4. Bonding of improvements prior to recording the plat.
5. Construction of mitigation, plat improvements and general site fill operations.
Our current schedule allows for completing final engineering and surveying in late 1990 or
early 1991. City review and approvals are expected in spring 1991, which would allow for
start of construction in spring or summer 1991.
-~ In summary, because of the regulatory process imposed on projects impacted by wetlands, the
time needed to complete the final plat activities has expanded. It is appropriate for the City
Council to authorize a time extension to allow Glacier Park Company to complete their
development of the Westbrook Commerce Center to provide high-quality industrial facilities to
meet the needs of the marketplace.
Please confirm the process and schedule for responding to this request. Should you have
questions, please call.
Sincerely,
1
Mark W. Stiefel, P. .
Project Manager
MWS:cjs
cc: Scott William, Kent Planning
Don Wickstrom, Kent Public Works
Bill Pontius, Glacier Park Company
Don Marcy, Foster Pepper Shefelman
89713.2
` Z'ON NOISIAIo t'QN 101alS1a 1L I VdFJ
Mal
if
- - 0.
LU
MOCL
co
II 3SlHd
i .�^✓ - __
d, I a • �I n _ 1 IN
_ 81 O `s (l
N 0 t
■ 3p: lja 0 O1 C��
•I I x_ Z
p ovvcs sa t� ��
CL
I I
nZ 9 'PIn
�I c m _. QI r• e L Fi i
w w03
,rsa w
,ors -- .crt 947
¢
i
• �' i•O iowiSIa iviHisnGNI O'ddaON �a
�— tJi YY I�= '4 3�=lJ=�ILL [f� i �. • / 1`
• a. i p!! � ; ifi }�{�t ,7Pit ,�� lT � �1 it
I'• 1•., �4,� '✓IA Et2� �Yi f !!L Lii ��t i�jt��1 )S , JI 'I F
• t�( ,:ell: t 1 4� d
•I t g = 1F i �_�r fifia L77
J rJ fl f
3SI:S tail I,:it
'iSM 31iSOI.C�
01 nYlYJnO
M33Y�f •
Kent City Council Meeting
Date October 2 , 1990
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: MINSHULL-WAGNER REZONEt6P^ AN0M-
i
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adoption of Ordinance approving
this rezone in accordance with Council action on September 18
and August 21.
3. EXHIBITS: Ordinance
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Council
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL, IMPACT: NO X YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ N/A
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION•
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 3J
I
i
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City of Kent,
Washington, relating to and amending the
Official Zoning Map of the City of Kent,
Ordinance 1827, to rezone approximately 18 . 5
acres of property located at 20227 and
20129-92nd Avenue South from RA to R1-12
zoning, subject to mitigating conditions.
(Application of Minshull/Wagner #RZ-90-5. )
WHEREAS, an application (#RZ-90-5) was filed with the
City to rezone certain property located at 20227 and 20129 - 92nd
Avenue South from Residential Agricultural (RA) to Single Family
- I Residential with 7, 200 square foot minimum lot size (R1-7 . 2) ,
pursuant to the provisions of the Kent Zoning Ordinance (1827) ; and
WHEREAS, the Hearing Examiner having held a hearing on
said matter and having recommended denial of the applicant's
request for R1-7 .2 zoning; and
WHEREAS, the Kent City Council held a hearing on the
proposed rezone and a hearing on the appeal of the Hearing
Examiner's decision on the rezone appeal and voted to deny the
jappeal and to modify the Examiner's recommendation and to adopt
Single Family Residential with 12 , 000 square foot lot size (R1-12)
zoning for the property, subject to certain mitigating conditions )
to ameliorate the adverse impact of uses and developments not
otherwise permitted in an R1-12 zone; NOW, THEREFORE,
I THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES
HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
I
i
i
Section 1. That, subject to Section 3 below, the
Official Zoning Map of the City of Kent as adopted by Ordinance
1827 is further amended to rezone from Residential Agricultural
(RA) to Single Family Residential with 12 ,000 square foot minimum
(R1-12) , subject to mitigating conditions set forth below, on the
following property:
Parcel #1 S 1/2 of NE 1/4 of SW 1/4 lying easterly
of Primary State Highway #5 Less S 130 feet of N
160 feet of E 170 feet less S 125 feet of E 230
feet less County Road;
Parcel #2 NE 1/4 of NE 1/4 of SW 1/4 of Section 61
Twn 22 N, Range 5 E, W.M. , in King County, WA,
lying E of the E line of Primary State Highway #5,
EXCEPT the E 30 feet thereof conveyed to King
County for road;
All as recorded in the records of the King County
Auditor, King County, Washington.
Section 2 . That as a condition to the R1-12 Zone, the
following development conditions are imposed on any development
permit approved for the Property, and will complete said
conditions prior to approval of a final rezone plat in conjunctio
with any such development:
1. The Owners shall reconstruct the west half of 92nd
Avenue South (minimum 18-feet of asphalt pavement) including the
installation of curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, storm
drainage, underground utilities and related appurtenances for the
entire property frontage. On the east side of 92nd Avenue South a
12-foot wide asphalt paved half-street improvement shall be
constructed.
2 -
2. The owners shall widen and improve 92nd Avenue Sout
to a width of 24-feet with a minimum five-foot paved shoulder on
the west side of the street from the southerly property line to
the intersection of 92nd Avenue South/South 208th Street.
3 . The Owners shall install a minimum five-foot wide
paved shoulder on the northside of South 200th Street from 92nd
Avenue South to 96th Avenue, where an existing paved shoulder
exists.
4 . The Owners shall secure necessary permits and
approvals from King County for all road improvements.
5. If any road grades on the subject property exceed 12
percent, the Owners agree to install sprinkling systems on any
single family residences constructed on the site.
Section 3 . This rezone is conditioned upon the owners o8
the above described property executing an agreement setting forth
and agreeing to the above noted mitigating conditions, which
agreement shall be recorded in the records of the King County
Auditor and filed with the City Clerk. The conditions contained
therein shall be deemed to attach to and run with the Property and
shall be binding upon the Owners, their heirs, successors and
assigns, and shall apply to after-acquired title of the Owners of
the Property.
Section 4 . Effective Date. This ordinance shall take
effect and be in force thirty (30) days from the time of its fina
approval and passage as provided by law.
DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR
- 3 -
ATTEST:
MARIE JENSEN, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ROGER LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY
PASSED the day of , 1990.
APPROVED the day of , 1990.
PUBLISHED the day of , 1990.
I hereby certify that this is a true copy of Ordinance'
No. , passed by the City Council of the City of Kent,
Washington, and approved by the Mayor of the City of Kent as hereon
indicated.
(SEAL)
MARIE JENSEN, CITY CLERK
I
8950-320
4 -
I
Kent City Council Meeting
Date October 2 . 1990
(VN
Category Other Business
v1 1. SUBJECT: GROUP HOMES - PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: This public meeting will consider
recommendations made by the Planning Commission to the City
Council concerning zoning code changes for group homes. The
Planning Commission made their recommendations after considering
the Group Homes Committee's final report.
3 . EXHIBITS: Memo, summary of Planning Commission's final
actions called Exhibit A, Group Homes Final Report and Planning
Commission minutes dated June 25, 1990 and August 27, 1990
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Committee
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO_ YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ N/A
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
to accept/modify/reject the Planning Commission's recommenda-
tions on proposed zoning changes for group homes.
DISCUSSION•
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 4A
arr of TA=d
M E M O R A N D U M
KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT
September 26, 1990
MEMO TO: Mayor Dan Kelleher and City Council Members
FROM: James P. Harris, Planning Director
SUBJECT: Kent Planning Commission recommendations on proposed
zoning changes for Group Homes.
On June 25 and August 27, 1990, the Planning Commission voted to
recommend certain zoning amendments to the City Council pertaining
to the regulation of group homes.
Attached as Exhibit "A" are the details of those recommendations,
including:
o Recommendations to add definitions in the zoning code for
family and Class I, II, and III group homes, including a
siting matrix and dispersion/separation requirements.
o A proposed licensing and monitoring program and
conditional use permit criteria for Class II and III
group homes, and,
o background information on the proposed licensing,
monitoring and condition use permit criteria.
It is important to acknowledge the diversity of group homes living
situations possible in any City. The action items contained in the
Planning Commission's recommendation respond openly to this issue.
Both the Group Homes Committee and the Planning Commission deserve
recognition of successfully tackling this difficult task.
JPH:mp
EXHIBIT "A"
DETAILS OF PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION ON GROUP HOMES
RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION
JUNE 25 AND AUGUST 271 1990.
Following are the details of the actions taken by the Kent Planning
Commission with regard to the recommendations of the Mayor's
Advisory Committee on Group Homes. To assist you with your
deliberations at the October 2 hearing on the Group Home
recommendations, you are being provided with the following
information:
A. Actions taken by the Planning Commission on the Group
Homes Report related to zoning changes (definition for
family, and Class I, II and III Group Homes, includes a
siting matrix and dispersion/separation requirements) .
B. Action taken on (monitoring, licensing and conditional
use permit criteria for Class II and III Group Homes) .
C. Background information on B. (monitoring, licensing and
conditional use permit criteria) .
A. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS ZONING CHANGES:
1. Amend the Current Definition of Family as it appears in
the Zoning Code
Th Definition of Family ould be amended as follows:
(Pro -te fisting text are shown in bold-
faced type and are underlined. Proposed deletions are
shown with a line running through them. )
A-persen 11-ving aleme __ twe er mere pers ._.. _stem.,__,y
r
r elub, One
or more individuals related by blood or legal familial
relationship or a group of not more than six (6) persons
who need not be related by blood or a legal familial
relationship, living together in a dwelling unit as a
single, nonprofit housekeeping unit: excluding Class II
and III Group Homes (as defined in this code) .
Note: Certain living situations may appear to be Group
Homes Class 1-A, but are actually Families for purposes
of zoning.
Proposed Zoning changes for Group Homes
September 26, 1990
Page 3
2. Amend the Rent Zoning Code to add the following
definition of Class I, Class II and Class III Group
Homes:
Class I Group Home
�e Class includes groups such as state-
licensed foster homes and group homes for children (not
including nursing homes) , developmentally disabled,
physically disabled, mentally disabled, and other groups
that are not considered Class II group homes.
a. ) Group Home, Class 1-A - a maximum of 10 residents
including resident staff.
b. ) Group Home, Class 1-B - a maximum of 14 residents
including resident staff.
c. ) Group Home, Class 1-C - the number of residents
will be based on the density of the underlying
zoning district.
Class II Group Homes:
" Group Homes, Class II includes groups that are under the
�� jurisdiction of the criminal justice system or
individuals that are undergoing intensive drug and/or
alcohol addiction rehabilitation. Such groups include
" s-ate-license--group-care licensed homes or half-way
houses for juveniles providing residence in lieu of
institutional sentencing. or incarceration;—half--way--
IJ� --houses providing residence to those needing correction,
and residential rehabilitation centers (voluntary or
r p9� required) for recovering alcohol and drug abusers.
a) . Group Home, Class II-A - a maximum of 8 residents
including resident staff.
b) . Group Home, Class II-B - a maximum of 12 residents
including resident staff.
c) . Group Home, Class II-C - a maximum of 18 residents
including resident staff.
Class III Group Homes:
Group Homes, Class III includes individuals that have
tlw'' been convicted of violent crime against a person, been
yW convicted of a crime against property with a sexual
pn motivation, been convicted or charged as a sexual or
9 e assaultive violent predator. These individuals are still
under the jurisdiction of the criminal justice system or
4
Proposed zoning changes for Group Homes
September 26, 1990
Page 4
have entered a pre-or post-charging diversion program.
Such groups involve individuals that are selected to
participate in state operated Work/Training Release and
Pre-Release Programs or similar programs.
Class II and Class III group homes will be subject to the
separation and dispersion, requirements and criteria
- established for the conditional use permit-requirements.
3 Amend the Zoning Code to add the Group Homes Siting
Matrix. (Approved with modification)
(� The Group Homes Siting Matrix is intended to indicate
v clearly where the group homes classes defined above may
locate in regard to existing zoning districts. The
matrix also indicates whether the group home will be
permitted outright or will require a conditional use
permit.
The Siting Matrix was modified by the Planning Commission
so that all Class II group homes would be subject to
_ obtaining a conditional use permit and so that Class I-C
group homes would be conditional in the MRG zoning
i district.
�p 4 Amend the Zoning Code to Establish Separation and
V Dispersion Requirements.
Dispersion Requirements
A 600 foot dispersion requirement will apply to all Class
II and Class III group homes. This distance will be
measured by following a straight line, without regard to
intervening buildings, from the nearest point of the
property or parcel upon which the proposed use is to be
located, to the nearest point of the parcel or property
or the land use district boundary line from which the
proposed use is to be separated.
Separation Requirements
A 1, 000 foot separation requirement will apply to Class
II and Class III group homes to separate such facilities
from sensitive land uses such as public or private
schools, churches or other religious facilities or
institutions, parks and playgrounds, and other such uses
that are deemed to be sensitive. This distance would be
measured by the same method as that for the dispersion
requirements described above.
y p y A A A A A A A A O S T
i o n m m
N S 1 n
n C T T r T N N N N N N Ate`
y T A n W } y A n
m S y
y m
A m A
z mo m
It I I
4 C
p A
s m
W
Q
r
ti
n n D C
A
m
n n v v
�y.N
fY n 9 9 T
A
m
n n v v N
0
m
z
y
n n v v j
r
n n n n n n v v v v
x r
}
n n n
A C
n n n n n v v v < v a
� vmi m
o p
m
z �
r A
N
C
r-
N x
N n v
a
O n v
4
G
p
N
r pnp
tD n n v o v n n g
tp n v n n n inn
O A
n
p• p n n n n n n n n �
k �
o
Nn v n n n n n n n n r
n
o .
o
N N
N -�
O
rt
O VIP 3JVd p ..
Proposed Zoning changes for Group Homes
September 26, 1990
Page 5
B) PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS ON CLASS II AND III GROUP
ONES LICENSING AND MONITORING SYSTEMS AND CONDITIONAL USE
RMIT CRITERIA
1) . Amend the Zoning Code to provide for annual monitoring
and licensing requirements for Class II and Class III
Group Homes.
The suggested modification is indicated below in bold and
underlined typeface (reference page 12 of the Group
Homes Report) .
Class II and Class III group homes will be subject to the
separation and dispersion requirements, City of Rent
annual monitoring, and any criteria established for the
conditional use permit requirements. Class II and Class
III group homes will also be required to obtain a license
to operate from the appropriate licensing agency or
agencies, including the City of Rent. -.
(The administrative guidelines developed by Planning
Department--staff for the licensing and monitoring
programs along with information on enforcement
mechanisms -- are included in Section C. Background
Information. )
c� )2) Amend the Rent Zoning Code to add the following three
conditional use permit criteria to be applied to Class II
and Class III group homes only:
- Applicant must provide copies of the appropriate
licensing criteria and rules they will operate
under for City review.
The proposed Class II or III group home must meet
the City's separation and dispersion requirements.
The operating characteristics of the proposed Class
II or III group home must be such as to ensure a
means for ongoing communication with the City.
This includes identification of appropriate
contacts for establishing 24-hour contact
availability.
Proposed Zoning changes for Group Homes
September 26, 1990
Page 6
C) . BACKGROUND INFORMATION PRESENTED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON
THE PROPOSED LICENSING,, NONITORINGO, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
CRXTERIA AND CITY CODE ENFORCEMENT POLICY. (For information
only - Wo,". ction by the City Council is required. )
,,.._.LICENSING:
T ose of the licensing program is to aid the City in
implementing the separation and dispersion requirements which apply
to Class II and III group homes. The licensing procedure will be
similar to that used in the City' s business licensing program.
The Class II or III Group Home will apply for a license as part of
the permit approval process.
The license will be renewed annually so as to update the City on
any change in contact persons, number of persons in the home, etc.
The following information will be required on the license
application:
- King County Property Parcel # (s)
- WA State Tax ID #
- Date the group home will begin operating
- Population served (ex: Alcohol rehabilitation, juvenile
home. . . )
- Total number of employees
- Total number of resident clients
- Name of the group home (if applicable)
- Address of group home location
- Group home phone number
- Name of contact person on site
- Name of sponsoring agency
- Address of sponsoring agency
- Sponsoring agency phone number
- Name of contact person at sponsoring agency
- Licensing agency(ies) under which the group home is
operating (agency, address, contact person, phone #)
- License # (s)
- Two emergency contact names and phone numbers
Proposed Zoning changes for Group Homes
September 26, 1990
Page 7
- Any change in the above information requires immediate
notification to the Kent Planning Department. Failure to
do so is a violation of the licensing requirement and may
result in revocation of license and/or conditional use
permit.
Proposed Zoning changes for Group Homes
September 26, 1990
Page 8
ONITORING:
Manitarfng will be an ongoing process with a staff site visit
occurring once a year.
The staff role in the monitoring program is to act as a liaison
between the citizens of Kent and the Group Home operator and
residents.
Annual Site Visit
The following are the specific items that the City Staff person
will review with the Group Home contact person during an annual
site visit:
Check that the Group Home is still operating under a valid
license.
Check the number of residents and staff to ensure that this
number is within the parameters established for the
conditional use permit issuance.
Review criteria for resident client selection to ensure there
is no change in the type of residents being admitted into the
home.
For a Class II group home, ensure that the clients are
Class II and that no Class III individuals are residing
in the home.
- Request an updated list of the Board of Directors of the
agency sponsoring the group home.
- Request an updated list of contact persons (on-site,
sponsoring agency and appropriate licensing agencies) .
- Review appropriate licensing agencies reports of compliance
with licensing contract standards.
- Review complaint record. (If there have been legitimate
complaints, they should have been satisfactorily resolved. )
The monitoring session should validate that the home is operating
as indicated on the current conditional use permit, has passed the
monitoring of the appropriate licensing agencies and maintains a
current license(s) to operate.
Proposed Zoning changes for Group Homes
September 26, 1990
Page 9
CITY POLICY REGARDING COMPLAINTS:
The staff person assigned to the monitoring of Class II and III
group homes will also serve as the contact person to whom
nonemergency complaints the City may receive regarding a Class II
or III group home should be directed.
When the staff contact receives a complaint regarding a Class II or
III group home the procedure will be as follows:
- Notify the Police Department if the complaint regards a police
matter.
- Notify the appropriate code enforcement division if the
complaint is a code enforcement matter.
- In all cases, notify the designated contact person at the
group home.
- If necessary, notify the appropriate licensing agencies.
- Log the complaint, date, name and phone number of person _.
making the complaint for departmental records.
- Follow up on the complaint to determine whether the complaint
was legitimate and if so, what was done to resolve it.
To insure that the Planning Department contact is notified of
complaints made to the Police Department:
The Police Department will be provided with a copy of the
license for each Class II and III group home in the City. The
Police Department will be instructed to notify the Planning
Department staff contact of any complaint or other incident
which occurs at any Class II or III group home to the extent
permissible under privacy laws.
Proposed Zoning changes for Group Homes
_. September 26, 1990
Page 10
CITY POLICY REGARDING CODE ENFORCEMENT:
The following outlines the procedure for enforcing zoning code
violations or violations of conditions established by a conditional
use permit.
Only violations of a zoning permit, or any law or ordinance in
connection therewith, may be enforced by the Planning Department.
This may include; parking, signage, landscaping maintenance
violations or violations of any condition placed upon a land use by
a conditional use permit.
Section 15. 09. 100 of the Kent Zoning Code outlines a procedure for
enforcing zoning code violations. Zoning Code violations are
considered a misdemeanor and are subject to the fine of up to $100
for each day the violation continues and/or imprisonment of the
person or persons who participate, assist, or maintain such a
violation.
Section 15. 09. 080 of the Kent Zoning Code allows for the revocation
of permits if any of the conditions or terms of such permit are
violated or if any law or ordinance is violated in connection
therewith.
If a Class II or Class III group home were to violate one of the
conditions established in a conditional use permit, (for example:
more people residing in the home than specified in the conditional
use permit) , the permit would be subject to revocation. To
determine whether a permit should be revoked, a hearing in front of
the Hearing Examiner would be held. Each party would present its
case and the Hearing Examiner would decide whether revocation was
justified, or whether other mitigating actions were appropriate.
It is important to clarify that violations of criminal law and
violations of state laws governing the licensing of the operation
of a Class II or III group home are not subject to City Planning
Department enforcement. Any incident regarding a criminal action
or operational problem would be investigated and acted upon by the
appropriate enforcement agency.
To the extent that a violation of criminal law or laws governing
the operation of a Class II or III group home is tied to a zoning
permit, such violation may result in Planning Department action.
For example, Class II and III group homes are required to be
licensed by the appropriate agency(ies) . If they were to lose
their license, yet continue to operate in the City, the Planning
Department could take action by initiating revocation of their
conditional use permit and/or by citing the use for violations of
their permit.
Proposed Zoning changes for Group Homes
September 26, 1990
Page 11
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CRITERIA:
The following are the current general conditional use permit
criteria which the City of Kent utilizes to determined whether a
proposed land use may be issued a conditional use permit.
1. The proposed use in the proposed location will not be
detrimental to other uses legally existing or permitted
outright in the zoning district.
2 . The size of the site is adequate for the proposed use.
3 . The traffic generated by the proposed use will not unduly
burden the traffic circulation system in the vicinity.
4. The other performance characteristics of the proposed use are
compatible with those of other uses in the neighborhood or
vicinity.
5. ' Adequate buffering devices such as fencing, landscaping, or
topographic characteristics protect adjacent properties from
adverse effects of the proposed use, including adverse visual
or auditory effects.
6. The other uses in the vicinity of the proposed site are such
as to permit the proposed use to function effectively.
7. The proposed use complies with the performance standards,
parking requirements and other applicable provisions of this
code.
8. Any other similar considerations that may be appropriate to a
particular case.
The following are additional criteria which will be utilized in
determining whether or not a proposed Class II or Class III group
home is to be granted a conditional use permit. (As detailed in
Section B. of this report) :
Applicant must provide copies of the appropriate licensing
criteria and rules they will operate under for City review.
The proposed Class II or III group home must meet the City's
separation and dispersion requirements.
Proposed Zoning changes for Group Homes
September 26, 1990
Page 12
The operating characteristics of the proposed Class II or III
group home must be such as to ensure a means for ongoing
communication with the City. This includes identification of
appropriate contacts for establishing 24-hour contact
availability.
i KENT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
June 25, 1990
The meeting of the Kent Planning Commission was called to order by
Chair Martinez at 7: 30 p.m. June 25, 1990 in the Kent City Hall,
City Council Chambers.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT:
Linda Martinez, Chair
Tracy Faust, Vice Chair
Anne Biteman
Frank Chopp
Elmira .Forner
Willie Gregory
Coleen Miller
PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT:
Elmira Forner, excused
Greg Greenstreet, absent
PLANNING STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
James P. Harris, Planning Director
Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager
Lauri Anderson, Senior Planner
Janet Shull, Planner
Lois Ricketts, Recording Secretary
KENT CITY STAFF:
Carolyn Lake, Assistant City Attorney
APPROVAL OF MAY 21, 1990 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Commissioner Faust MOVED that the minutes of the May 21, 1990
meeting be approved as presented. Commissioner Gregory SECONDED
the motion. Motion carried.
GROUP HOMES - ZCA 90-2
Verbatim Minutes
Chair Martinez: This evening we have a continuation of our hearing
on Group Homes. As you are all aware, last month we heard from a
number of people who had concerns and questions that had been
presented to us. We have actually three. . .two. . .three large things
to consider. We have one to amend the current Kent Zoning Code to
implement four different things: the definition of family, the
-.- definition of Class I, II and III Group Homes, the Group Homes
Siting Matrix, and the Separation and Dispersion Requirements for
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
June 25, 1990
Class II and III homes. And then we have three further actions
that will help implement and clarify what would be the result of
action 1. And the first is to establish conditional use permit
criteria for group homes. We can recommend to the City Council
that those conditional use permit criteria be studied and some
recommendations for specific application to group homes, and we can
also recommend to establish that a licensing and monitoring system
be put in place which would include some staffing perhaps from the
Planning Department. So those are the three activities we have to
deal with this evening. Most people I think that we will be
hearing from later will be talking about action item 1 simply
because that is the root and guts of all that is happening. We
will hear first from the Planning Department staff. I have asked
them simply to give us a very brief overlook and catch us up on
exactly what all of these things are, take us a little bit through
what we are supposed to be doing, and then answer some of the
specific questions that were raised at the last hearing. Then I
will, for those of you. in the audience, I will reopen the hearing
so that you will have another opportunity to speak to us. We are
very interested in hearing what you have to say. And there is a
sign-up board. I don't know exactly where that is. Please, if
there are people who have not signed in, please do so. We really
do need your input in this. And I will call on you when we reopen
the public meeting. Then after the input from the public, we will
close the public meeting and begin our discussions. Janet.
Janet Shull: This is Janet Shull with the Kent Planning
Department. And I will just get right into the recommendations.
For those of you in the audience who may not have attended the last
meeting, there are copies of the report up front here on the table,
and there is a lot of background information in that report as well
that I won't be going over tonight. So if you are interested in
seeing kind of how these recommendations were formed by the
committee, then I suggest you come and get a copy of the report
because I won't be taking time to go over that this evening. The
first recommended action item is to amend the current definition of
family, so I am going to be putting some overheads up here that are
slightly larger than last time. It was kind of hard to read these
so, hopefully, a little better tonight. I ' ll just read to you what
this says. This is the proposed definition of family which should
replace the current of family in the zoning code, and it reads one
or more individuals related by blood or legal, familial
stat. . .relationship, or a group of not more than six persons who
need not be related by blood or legal familial relationship living
together in a dwelling unit as a single, nonprofit housekeeping
unit. And it specifically would exclude Class II and II Group
Homes as defined in this code. And I will be going over those
definitions. And there is a notation here that says that certain
2
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
June 25, 1990
living situations may appear to be Group Homes Class IA but are .
actually families for the purpose of zoning. So when I read to you
the definition of C1ass 'IA, you will see that some may seem to fall
in the Class IA category, but they are really covered here under
the definition of family. This is the proposed definition of Class
I Group Homes and it is broken down into three classes, or three
divisions within that class. . .A, B, and C, and the only difference
between A, B and C are the size of the number of people in the
residence. So the definition would read Group Homes Class I
includes groups such as state licensed foster care homes and group
homes for children, not including nursing homes. They are covered
elsewhere in the zoning code, and there w4s no recommended change
to that. Developmentally disabled, physically disabled, mentally
disabled and other groups that are not considered Class II group
homes. Basically the Class I Group Home. . .people who would reside
in those homes are protected by the Federal Fair Housing Amendments
Act. And so you will see when we get into this siting matrix that
they are permitted in all residential zones. The only times when
they may not be permitted in a particular residential zone, the
reason that they may not be permitted is based on the size, or the
number of people in the facility. . .not the type of people that are
going to live in the facility. This is the proposed definition for
Class 'II Group Homes. Again, with the proposal for A, B and C
subclassifications and again the only difference here is the size
of the facility. And so this definition would read Group Homes
Class II includes groups that are under the jurisdiction of the
criminal justice system or individuals that are undergoing
intensive drug and/or alcohol addiction rehabilitation. Such
groups include state licensed group care homes or half-way houses
for juveniles providing residences in lieu of institutional
sentencing or incarceration, half-way houses providing residence to
those needing correction and residential rehabilitation centers
voluntary or required for recovering alcohol and drug abusers. And
as I stated, the only differentiation between A, B and C is the
size of the facility. And this group would include. . .these people
would not necessarily be covered by the Federal Fair Housing
Amendments Act, so you can see when we get into the siting matrix
that there are quite a few more restrictions placed on Class II.
And this is a proposed definition of Class III. And it would
essentially read Group Homes Class III, includes individuals that
have been convicted of violent crime against a person, been
convicted of a crime against property with a sexual motivation,
been convicted or charged as a sexual or assaultive violent
predator. These individuals are still under the jurisdiction of
the criminal justice system or have entered a pre or post charging
diversion program. Such groups involve individuals that are
selected to participate in state operated work training release and
pre-release programs or similar programs. The note at the bottom
3
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
June 25, 1990
just states that Class II and III homes will be subject to the
separation and dispersion requirements and any criteria established
for the conditional use permit requirements. And it is important
to note the committee's intent. . .the Group Homes Committee's intent
in creating this Class III designation. . .that initially they had
looked at a two class system and at the same time were looking at
the Governor' s Task Force on Community's Protection's results of
that report, and in looking at those results felt that this class
needed. . .that a new class or a third class needed to be designated
that would be even more restrictive than Class II to deal with this
potential group home situation. And this is the proposed siting
matrix ,that would be used in conjunction with the different
definitions of group homes so that you . so that to actually try
to site a group home in Kent you would first try to determine what
definition it fell under, and then you would look at the siting
matrix and be able to determine whether or not it was permitted or
a conditional use permit would come into play, or it just would not
be permitted at all. And for those of you in the audience who .may
have come in late, I know that Lauri did announce earlier that
there is a large zoning map up here to the right with a large
blown-up matrix underneath, so hopefully those of you are
interested can come up and get a good sense of how this would
really work. Would you like me to. . .I can go through this if you
would like as I have before.
Chair Martinez: Commissioners, would you like her to go through
this.
Commissioner Faust: This is what you went through last time.
Janet Shull: Right
Commissioner Faust: I don't feel a need for you to go through it.
Voice: I don't either.
Janet Shull: I would just like to go through separation and
dispersion requirements once again. These would apply to Class II
and III Group Homes only, not to Class I. There again, the reason
they would not apply to Class I is that those group homes would
have individuals residing in them who are protected by the Federal
Fair Housing Amendments Act, which means we cannot regulate them
based on the type of person. . .they are protected groups. The
dispersion requirements do apply to Class II and III and the
proposed way this would work is that a 600-foot dispersion
requirement would apply to all Class II and III Group Homes. And
this distance would be measured by following a straight line
without regard to intervening buildings from the nearest point of
4
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
June 25, 1990
the property or parcel upon which the proposed use is to be located
to the nearest point of the parcel or property or the land use
district boundary lines from which the proposed use is to be
separated. What dispersion requirements basically do are to avoid
the situation where you have two or more Class II or Class III
Group Homes locating within 600 feet of each other. In other
cities in the country they have found that the way their zoning
codes are worded is that you will tend to have all your group
homes locating in one section of town because that seems to be the
place that is the least politically sensitive or for whatever
reason, but that you sort of have a de facto institutional setting
occurring where you have. . . it's not good for the residents who may
already live in that neighborhood. It' s not good for those who
live in the group home who are trying to transition to mainstream
society life. So that the purpose of this would be to avoid any
concentration within one geographic area of the city of a Class II
or III Group Home. The separation requirements would also apply,
and the proposed wording is l, 000 foot separation requirement will
apply to Class II and III Group Homes. To separate such facilities
from sensitive land uses, such as public or private schools,
churches, or other religious facilities or institutions, and other
such uses that are deemed to be sensitive. This distance would be
measured by the same method as that for the dispersion requirements
described above. One thing that came up at the last meeting was
the issue of parks which was shown as an example of sensitive use
but wasn't listed specifically here for some of you were not here
last time. That was an issue that did come up. Just for your
information, the rest of these recommendations are those that
wouldn't be direct amendments to the zoning code but are really
directed at staff for things that the committee thought we should
do in conjunction with all these proposed zoning code changes. The
first one is establishing conditional use criteria specifically for
group homes. We currently have criteria in the zoning code the
cover additional uses, but the committee felt that those needed to
be looked at, and staff should determine whether anything more
specific to group homes needs to be developed. So I don't know if
I need to read this one. The next two kind of go in conjunction
with each other. The first one is establishing a city licensing
program to monitor the location and nature of Class II and III
Group Homes. And this would work in conjunction with the
separation and dispersion requirements that the committee
recommended that in order to implement that you need some way of
knowing where these group homes are. So this would be similar to
our business license program where a record would be kept of the
addresses and nature of the group homes that people could
reference, and that staff would have a sense when a new permit came
in. They could say, well, I'm sorry there is one located within
600 feet of you, so you' ll have to find another site. But it is
5
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
June 25, 1990
important to point out that this licensing program would not take•
the place of state licensing which most Class II or probably all
Class II and III homes would fall under. So it is a
different. . . it's more of a business licensing, not a licensing of
the operation. We are not concerned through zoning with the
operation of the group homes. Then in conjunction with that there
is the recommendation that. . .there is the recommendation that the
city assign a staff person with a social service background to do
the monitoring of group homes in Kent. And again, this is not
meant to take the place of state monitoring. We would not be so
much concerned with the operation of group homes, but we would be
concerned that there be a staff person that could act as a liaison
between the operators of the group homes and the city that as well
as knowing where the homes are, we may know who the director is and
know exactly what the program is offering so that if there is a
potential problem or anything that would come up in the future, a
concern that staff would know who to call and that, hopefully, any
potential problem could be resolved quickly. So, again, this is
not meant to take the place of monitoring that the state would do
of the operation of the group homes. That is really beyond the
city's jurisdiction. And I really wanted to point that out because
that was one of the questions I was asked to respond to at the last
meeting.
Commissioner Ward: Would this be in conjunction with the state
monitoring or separate from. . .
Janet Shull: As I understand the recommendation, this would be
separate.
Voice: Unclear.
Janet Shull: Right. We would be interested in the operation of
the group homes only in that it may potentially violate perhaps
some of the conditional uses that may have been conditioned on the
granting of a permit for a group home. Also, as I said if there
were any concerns people had and they wanted to call the city, that
someone would be aware of the nature of that group who may be the
contact person, so then the city's role would be more to see that
the proper person at the state level was contacted. But it would
not be within our jurisdiction to make any correctional action. We
could, maybe, make. . .as I understand it, we could call whoever the
state. . .
Chair Martinez: Unless they were violating the conditional. . .
Janet Shull: Right, which is what we are concerned with is the
zoing and the proper siting of facilities.
6
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
June 25, 1990
Commissioner Ward: In other words this sounds like a continuing
monitoring process of the operation.
Janet Shull: Right. The intent of this was that this person would
make periodic contacts so it would be sort of a checking up just to
make sure that things were going. . .that we would keep in contact.
It wouldn't be that we would meet them once, but that person would
make annual rounds or something. . .staff personnel could change
either at the city or at the facility. We would want to keep a
constant. . .
Commissioner Miller: Would the person if they discovered that they
were continually running under staff, would they make a report to
the state or some other source of violation.
Janet Shull: I don't think the committee got into that level of
detail. This is one of those recommendations that they are asking
staff to act. . .take further action on. They felt it was kind of
beyond their scope as trying to make policy level decisions to
really find detail exactly how that would work, but they felt it
was an important element to have. And that is why they are asking
staff to look into that further and then we would come back to you,
I imagine, with a proposal for how that system would work, but the
details haven't been figured out at this point. I also wanted to
respond to a question that came up regarding schools. For those of
you who were not at the last meeting, staff was asked to look into
the potential impacts on local schools and school programs that may
result in group homes for children locating within a school
district. So in an attempt to answer this question I contacted
several sources. I spoke with representatives from the State
Social and Health Services Juvenile Rehabilitation Division and
the State Superintendent of Public Instruction and people from the
Kent School District. I asked each one of these people whether
there would be any impacts on the local school district resulting
from the special needs that children residing in groups may have.
No one I contacted could cite any evidence that children living in
a group home or group living situation could be expected to require
special services at a rate greater than in the average student
population. Further, the people I spoke with shared the opinion
that the overall number of students served in the distict as
opposed to the small percentage who might reside in a group home
would result in any impact contributed specifically to a group home
living situation being inconsequential. So, in other words, no one
could cite any specific cases where there were great impacts on a
school because of a group home locating in a community and they
felt that even if there were impacts that we could measure. . . if we
could prove, for instance, that these children needed special care
or special treatment somehow at a rate higher than a quote unquote
7
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
June 25, 1990.
a normal student coming out perhaps out of a quote unquote normal
family situation. That, for example, the Kent School District has
over 20, 000 children in it, and they felt that any potential number
coming from group homes spread over the money that the school
district gets. They get money from the state on a per-student
basis, and they augment that, of course, with the levies that they
hold every year for new facilities or better programs, or whatever.
They felt that the number of children divided into that 20, 000
total, that it would be really hard to put a measurement on that
impact.
Chair Martinez: Let's say there were 18 children in a group home
and they all went to the same school. Did they respond at all to
that? Eighteen difficult children in a school, even if the school
has 500 children, is not insignificant. Did they have any data. . .
Janet Shull: No one could cite any data or specific example. The
closest thing to get to a real concern was one person I spoke with
did suggest that if a group home for severely disabled children
were to locate within the school district, say they were
handicapped or needed to go to special education classes, they may
impact, for example, double the size of a special education class
in the district, that would be a potential impact.
Chair Martinez: And that we would get additional state funding.
Janet Shull: Children who are handicapped are funded at a
different level through the state than your average student. So,
theoretically anyway, from the state' s standpoint and from the
local school district's standpoint, they are being funded at a
higher level that would compensate for the need for a lower
student-to-teacher ratio, for instance. The one woman I talked
with in Kent said there are very strict limitations on the number
of students per teacher in the special education program. So, for
instance, if there were a number of new students coming in, they
may have to hire a new teacher to teach them, but they would also
be getting reimbursed from the state.
Chair Martinez : What if those children were 18 drug-dependent
youth? Are we on shakier ground?
Janet Shull: It would depend on what kind of group home it is.
There are group homes, for instance, for juvenile delinquents.
When I talked to one person from the state they informed me that
they are funded. . .they consider them in two different groups.
There are group homes for juvenile delinquents where they are very
large, institutional settings. They may or may not be attending
public school. They may attend classes within the complex where
8
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
June 25, 1990
they may also stay 24 hours, but in any case they are funded at a
higher level by the state because of the special programs that they
are in. There are, according to the state, some children smaller
group home situations that would be treated as a normal. . .quote
unquote normal student in the school district. So. I don't know
that there would be any responses. . .
Chair Martinez: There may be a whole range of responses as far as
our educational. . .
Janet Shull: Right. There are also some federal programs.
Chair Martinez: Okay. Do you want. . .
Janet Shull: Sure.
Commissioner Chopp: I 'd like to know. . . is there are any of these
problems in the Kent District at this present time that are being
serviced by the city.
Commissioner Faust: Oh sure.
Janet Shull: There may be. Tracy is indicating that there are.
I was not made aware of any, but I didn't ask specifically about
current programs. The specific question I asked was whether people
knew of any impacts that we could consider when siting a group
home. I got a lot of different responses. I really honestly tried
to get someone to say something negative, I really did. One
comment that I did get was the concern that perhaps a number of
handicapped children may impact a special ed program. . .I just lost
my train of thought. . .There was a point I wanted to make.
Commissioner Chopp: Now are these children in one of these homes
now in the City of Kent or not, or are they dispersed all over.
Janet Shull: I don't know of any group homes currently. I know
one did try to site recently and they had to go through the
conditional use process, and it was determined that there too many
juveniles proposed for the size of the home, and there were a lot
of concerns, so the permit was denied. I don't know of any that
currently exists in the City of Kent. How about you.
Commissioner Faust: Can I just add something to what Janet has
said. I worked in Special Education for 11 years before I went to
Law School, and what is completely right about funding following
the students who are classified as handicapped under our state and
federal definition. So it doesn't matter whether six, eight or
twelve of them live in one home, money will follow them from the
9
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
June 25, 1990
State and I agree completely just from my own background about what
you just said about the problems the district might or might not
have. As far as juvenile delinquents go, if a juvenile delinquent
is also classified as handicapped under the state definitions, that
particular boy or girl or adolescent would also have funding that
would follow him or her. So a juvenile delinquent is
treated. . .someone who has been under the court system is treated no
differently by the school system than any other student; however,
if they have also been assessed as having a handicapping condition,
then the additional funding that is allowed for handicapped
children would follow them. Then again it doesn't matter if they
all live in the same household or not. It would require, as Janet
said, perhaps hiring an extra teacher in one building or perhaps
those children would be bussed to various locations within the
district depending on where the programs are for different kinds of
handicapping conditions. But the juvenile. . .children who are under
the jurisdiction of the court system. . . it makes no difference to
the school district, unless they are also handicapped and then
there is additional funding.
Commissioner Miller: I assume we can all make the assumption that
at least some of these children who are termed juvenile delinquents
came from out own community, so they may not be an addition as a
change in residence.
Janet Shull: That's true. Right. One comment in relation to what
Tracy said. . .I 'm sorry. . .
Commissioner Ward: I 'm trying to get the (unclear) commission
clear in my mind. To me the delinquent is the one that got caught,
and he is placed under some type of jurisdiction of the court. If
he is addicted to drugs or something else of the sort, then that
(unclear) in that given environment and possibly if there is
funding designated to give him the special care, this would be
additional funding as far as of the school district is concerned,
and not necessarily would that individual be placed under special
type of circumstance based on his residence at a group.
Chair Martinez: That's right.
Commissioner Ward: So I 'm saying this basically regarding the
group home concept, because I was with the Model Cities Program
back in the late 60 's and early 70's when the concept of group
homes was first started and funded by the Feds. And in that given
case we funded a group home of basically delinquents. The
delinquents were thrown in there where they had been caught in
drugs or some part of the criminal justice system. It' s impact was
given (unclear) consideration as nobody wanted a group home to be
10
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
June 25, 1990
near them. . . (unclear) I wanted to clarify that given point as what
I believe and know regarding the school system. They have the same
problems in schools and exist with the same kids. The group home
ones got caught. The other ones are still able to be in the school
system.
Janet Shull: Right. And some of the people I spoke with did try
to point that out to me that really whether or not this is the
case, schools are in the business of teaching reading, writing and
arithmetic. They admitted that they have to deal with some of
these other things before they can get around to the reading,
writing and arithmetic, but their .feeling was that some of the
other special needs, particularly in the case of a juvenile
delinquent or half-way home situation, that we should be getting
those needs through another system, not through the school system.
So some people did make that point with me. One woman also made
that particular point. I think she was an elementary principal
and I think she was probably thinking of elementary-aged children
that she felt the opportunity for children to reside in quote
unquote normal living situation as possible. Say in a residential
area next door to other children they attend school with, but that
makes their job that much easier if the children are coming from as
normal a living situation as possible. It just makes it that much
easier. She kind of felt. . .at least coming from the prospective of
an elementary school. I don't know that she would have the whole
prospective on the whole school district, but. . .I don't know that
I have anything else. But the only thing that I wanted to add to
what Tracy said regarding the handicapped children was that in some
of the programs within the Kent School District anyway, they may
only have one or two class locations depending upon the nature of
the disability. So, for instance, whether a home were to locate on
the East or West Hill may make no difference. If it is the Kent
School District, they may be going to this one classroom. So that
was one point that was not mentioned.
Chair Martinez: Are there any other questions that you have of
Janet. Okay, thank you very much. At this time I would like to
reopen the public hearing. We have. . . it looks like perhaps five or
six people that would like to speak. I would like to first remind
everybody that please let us know what part of the changes that we
are addressing that you will be speaking to. And also we would
like to keep this as much as possible to ten minutes or less per
person. So the first person I ' ll call is Kathleen Kennelly.
Kathleen Kennelly: I have nothing at this time, but I would like
to reserve my right to speak.
11
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
June 25, 1990
.Chair Martinez: Certainly. Linda Fischer. If you' ll step up to
the podium please for the record.
Linda Fischer: I don't have anything. Thanks.
Chair Martinez: Floyd Bacon.
Floyd Bacon: I'm Floyd Bacon, 24311 35th Avenue South, Kent. I
was here at the last meeting and I have some questions. I don't
see too many changes that we've had from the last time we had on
Group II, Group III homes. I first would like to say that what I
am going to speak on will not be. . .only one question I have would
be in reference to the Group IA and IB and so on down the list.
I ' ll ask that later. Now this amendment does not affect local
government. I 'm going to read right from the book. Specify the
types of group homes allowed within a district if found if
legitimate concerns for health, safety and welfare. For example,
groups such as half-way houses, adult rehabilitation centers and
treatment centers may be disallowed in single family districts
since such uses are inherently different from normal family living
arrangements. These groups may also be excluded on the basis that
such groups may constitute a dangerous disruption of the
neighborhood. Now we will go on to the meat of this thing. Why is
it that we have still got to have our Group II and Group III homes.
I would like to have that question answered from somebody.
Chair Martinez: I 'm sorry.
Floyd Bacon: : Why are we still having to have Group II and III
homes. . .
Chair Martinez : In our community at all?
Floyd Bacon: And where will they be? This is still a map which is
very hard to understand. These are questions that I would like to
know, and there are a lot of people that are not here tonight who
would like to know.
Chair Martinez: I guess I' ll answer from what I know, and the
reason that we are proposing Group II and Group III is that the
community produces people who would use those facilities, and we
are proposing that we need a way to control where they go and to
have better siting proposals than we currently have in place.
Floyd Bacon: Let's go to one of our neighbors in Auburn here. . .
Redmond. Let's go to Redmond. Their group homes with greater than
five residents aren't allowed as outright uses in residential
zones. This is Redmond's family. The family is no more than five.
12
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
June 25, 1990
We have six, and we say that we are following everybody. We are
supposed to be following Bellevue. The things that I can't
understand is that we have come in with the Group II and Group III
homes, and I see it not listed anywhere else in this proposal that
I see herewith Redmond, King County or Bellevue. Group homes, as
I stated last time, in the category II and III. . .they state that
they only place they would have the category III or the class III
home would be in a prison site, which to me tells me that they
don't want them. But we are saying that Kent has got to accept
this, we've got to accept that. And one other thing and I will
repeat this again. We do not have to do this. This is something
that has come around, and I don't feel as some of the people who
are advisory to the mayor stated that they are our brothers and our
sisters. They are under God our brothers and sisters, I agree, but
I don't think that in this case. . .we don't have any controls
stipulated whatsoever in here. We say we have a monitoring
system, which is fine if one person can monitor through all these
situations. Who is going to monitor the two in Class II and Class
III? Is there going to be constant monitoring of this. Are we
going to have a safeguard that these people do not go off the deep
end after they have been released from the prison. I see no
controls at all in this. I would like to know from somebody what
-. type of controls we would have. And I don't know how we could
ever. . .you could vote on something until we get some controls on
this. There are no controls at all in here. I 'm for helping
people. It's been a shame that so many people in the paper have
said that we are hard-hearted people. We are not. We love people.
I 'm not against helping the mentally handicapped, the physically
handicapped. Lord knows there's a lot of people that need help
that way, but this is my issue tonight, but I 'm asking why do we
come up with a figure of ten when other places come out with a
figure of five. I don't that either. There are a lot of things
here to be answered and I haven't found the answers to them yet.
I feel that a community has a right. . .you know we hear one side of
the story of what is going on that we need to help these people,
but there are residents, children, especially, could be in danger
from the Class II and Class III people. They have been
released. . .here right out of the paper where one of the members
that were on the advisory committee said that. . .I 've got a copy
that is a little better I can have it marked up here. . . It says that
for instance the committee suggested that most of Class I and Class
II Group Homes be allowed outright or under conditional permits in
family areas but be banned entirely in single zones. I knew
nothing of what she said in the paper. Maybe the committee had to
change it because she was head of the committee. I don't know. It
says right in here that the committee members . . . controversial,
but (unclear) felt the community should make a place even for half-
way homes where people who enter the work release programs
13
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
June 25, 1990
according to the report, the occupants would include people
convicted of charged as sexual or assaultive, violent predator.
And yet we have not one thing in here to tell us how. . .I don't care
if it were a thousand feet or 4,000 feet, what is a thousand feet
to a person who has run the ropes and proven himself not to be let
loose. And the governor himself and his task force says very much,
and I can read it. . . it is in the front of your book if ;you would
like to read it. And I am sure you have, I hope you have. We are
very concerned about these people. Now juveniles. . .I 've talked to
people,they have asked me questions and I have asked them. You
know what is also a large concern is, unfortunately, the young
juveniles. ' It is not always their fault, but they have run the
gauntlet and I say we need to help them, but you can't completely
throw them out into society. I don't think they need to be
incarcerated all their life. But again we are not our brothers'
keeper as taking care of people of people who have proven that they
are not safe in the neighborhood. And I am asking tonight that
you people certainly give this certain thought, because there is no
content in this that tells me what type of protection we have
against. . .I m saying that basically a human being himself, a big
person can usually protect himself, but we have a lot of children
out there. We've got a lot of older people out there, and they are
very subject to this kind of behavior. You pick up a newspaper
every day of the world and you see these things happening. I
realize that there are a lot of times in residential area,
unfortunately we have problems. But we've got to help these
people. We've got to get them off drugs. I realize it, but the
situation that we are facing here in Kent. . .how are we going to
take care of these Class II and Class III. We have no system at
all in here that tell them. . .I don't even know. . .according to this
that doesn't tell me at all where they are going to be located.
I 've heard that they are going to be in the factory areas. There
will be certain areas downtown. Also, while I 'm on the schools, I
heard the lady here, Miss Tracy Faust, discussing mostly about
Kent. But you know there will be some group homes up on the West
Hill. What about the Federal Way School District. They also have
something to say about it, because we are kind of a split. . .between
east and west of the valley splitting, we are kind of like two
cities, actually. So, I have no answers tonight yet, and I respect
the work and the people who have come up with things. I am just
going (unclear) . . .I just don't feel that we have anything yet to
tell the citizens. We are the citizens. All of us. You are part
of the citizens. You are part of the city just as much as we are.
You are here to look out for our interest. too. I 'm not even
talking about Class IA. I 'm talking about. . .but I do want an
answer why you have come up with a figure six as designated as the
family, and then we came up with a figure of ten for the Class IA.
And then we go down to the next one down here is IB, maximum 14 .
14
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
June 25, 1990 .
This is. . .to an average person who reads this, maximum 14 residents
including resident staff. That would be a total of 12 people,
wouldn't it. Where would these people be located? Fourteen. . .you
take a large house. Take somebody in speculation now. I 'll speak
for the West Hill now. We have the dump over there and there are
a lot of houses for rent over there, some large houses. Could they
go ahead and move in here with 14 or 15 people in a group home?
I don't know. Is this true? Could you answer this question for
me?
Chair Martinez: It depends on the zoning.
Floyd Bacon: Okay, the zoning.
Chair Martinez: It depends how those are zoned and whether they
would be an outright for 14 or 15 people. If it were a single
family residential area, no.
Floyd Bacon: Are you saying that this would not be a normal
residential area, this 14 residence. Is that correct as I hear
you?
Chair Martinez: That would be a Class IB, 14 residents, and they
are not permitted in any single family residential area. That is
correct.
Floyd Bacon: Then what we would have is the Class IA. . .
Chair Martinez: Class IA which would be a maximum of eight
residents (unclear) . . .
Floyd Bacon: Where would those be located?
Chair Martinez : Those are outright permitted in either single
family residential areas or multifamily residential areas.
Floyd Bacon: okay. That's fine. I 'm not quibbling about that, I
just wanted the answers.
Chair Martinez: That's the answer to that according to our matrix.
Floyd Bacon: That's fine. We did have some new matrix last time.
There wasn't very many of them. If we could have had a full matrix
for the people here. . .there isn't too many.
Lauri Anderson: The revised matrix is in the report.
15
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
June 25, 1990
Floyd Bacon: Oh, is it. • That is the new report. So the type of
things that we have to discuss tonight. . .I don't want to take up
the whole evening, because there are other people who have
something to say, but we are very concerned about it. I feel. . .I
hope that the people that represent us here on this Planning
Commission would give it a lot of thought. Again, we are not
against what the government says, and we are happy to help those
people who need it, because those people cannot help how they were
born. They are great. They are God's people and I am 100 percent
for that. When we come to these people in Category II and III,
we've got some problems, because it dictates where they will be,
what will we do. We have one monitor that is a, I believe on the
last page we have here, we have one monitor that states that they
will. . . let's see action to. . .one . . . assign a staff person with a
social services background to periodically monitor group homes in
Kent. Now this group homes in Kent does not specify I, II or III.
To me this means all of them. Are you going to have one person
monitoring Class II and Class III homes?
Chair Martinez: Did you. . .I think Miss Shull referred to
that. . .you understood what we meant by monitoring in that the City
of Kent is not going to be responsible but that we will give
conditional use for specific agencies to site homes, and those
agencies will be responsible for the monitoring.
Floyd Bacon: If you want my honest to goodness. . . I don't have any
faith in the monitoring of the various agencies, but. . .
Chair Martinez: Do you have faith in Kent's monitoring agencies?
Floyd Bacon; I 'm saying that monitoring II and III, how are they
going to monitor those people?
Chair Martinez: They're not.
Floyd Bacon: All right. This is what I mean. I don't know why we
even have a Class II or Class III. I don't see anything here or
anything else. It says right in here, we are following the book as
far as the federal government tells us to do, and it has filtered
down from the governor, and the governor is very concerned, and I
am sure everybody has read this. I 've read it two or three times.
I 'm real proud of our governor. He came out and says what we are
going to do with these people. He tells what should be done.
Apparently we are going to put him right in the middle of a
smaller city and we are going to say, hey, here we are. I would
recommend that we get more study on how we are going to monitor
these people. To what extend. . .how long. . .what happens if one of
these people decide to do something. Are we going to do something
16
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
June 25, 1990
about it. Are they going to close it down or what are they going
to do? Gee whiz. We can't do a thing about it, because it is
being monitored by the state, monitored by somebody else. This is
our city. This is one time. . .I' ll just mention it once. . .we could
not have much to say about certain areas that is going in on the
West Hill of Kent, but at this I think we should have some input.
I an serious about it, and it is Class II and Class III, and I am
very serious. That is not covered, and the federal
government. . .that we should accept those kinds of people. Thank
you.
Chair Martinez: Thank you. Any questions. Okay, thank you.
Commissioner Gregory: In answer to your question, one of them, is
that zoning can go only so far. I think that was stated at the
last hearing. Zoning, for example, can't tell people what to do.
It can only dictate what you can do with the land. So we can't go
in and tell them what to do, but we can tell them where to place
certain houses or homes in Kent. That is as far as zoning can go,
but in terms of telling somebody how to treat their residents, that
is pretty tough for zoning to do. That is my understanding. Am I
right.
Floyd Bacon: Mr. Gregory, I don't understand exactly what you
mean. I'm speaking of. . .I don't care where they would place
a. . .Kent has put provisions to have a Class II and Class III. I 'm
not speaking of Class I home, because that is a whole different
ball game as far as I am concerned. But I an speaking about the
two ones that I just spoke about, and yet why do we have to accept
those people in the city limits of Kent. That was my question. Is
that clear?
Commissioner Gregory: Oh, yes. It' s clear to me.
Commissioner Ward: It's because we produce those kinds of people.
If we produce them, if our society is less than perfect, which it
is, and our children have a tendency to do certain things . . . if we
can correct that situation, if we can stop producing those people,
then by the same token then we won't have to make any provision for
housing them. If we could do another holocaust and wipe them all
out. . .
Floyd Bacon: We are all a product of the system. All of us are.
I realize that. And I realize that there are people that are in
the system and they can't get out of it. I 'm not fighting that.
If we do need to help them, then where is the protection, because
these people have had a rough go, and you know. . .human beings to
them sometimes is the ones to them that caused this problem, and I
17
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
June 25, 1990
just don't feel that the City of Kent should be that or other
cities have (unclear) . . .I say that if it is monitored, but there's
no control. . .there's got to be some control on these individuals,
right. And I'm speaking specifically of people released out of
institutions that are in situation that is bad as far as their
minds, their control of themselves, and I am speaking especially of
people. . .assault and do bodily harm. Those kinds of people are
listed in this thing. And I think we should. . .and I recommend
strongly that the Commission look at it real good, and again I say
I want to help people, too, but there is always two sides of the
coin. I'm not trying to single out any group at all whatsoever.
Chair Martinez: Thank you. I am going to mispronounce the next
name because I can't quite read your writing. Nasreen Mall. If
you'd please step to the podium. Please correct my pronunciation.
Nasreen Mall: You know shopping mall.
Chair Martinez: Oh, that's an M. Thank you. Sorry.
Nasreen Mall: Okay. That's all right. My name is Nasreen Mall,
and I live on 3506 South 244th, and I have two questions that I
would like to ask. One is that in Class II and III homes, why
cannot we just leave a provision that they are always under a
conditional permit so that the community can get together and give
their input as to what kind of use that particular facility or
particular area is going to get, and then clarify some of the
misconceptions and clarify some of the fears, if there are any. I
don't think that will be discriminating against them if we say that
conditional use is required. And then my question is that why did
we adopt Bellevue's definition of classes, why not Auburn and
Renton?
Chair Martinez: We' ll get clarification on that.
Nasreen Mall: Okay, and another question is that something like
that in Class II and III in the multifamily situation, don't you
think that is unfair to the multifamily. After all, they are a
family too. They might be a set up that is not single family,
nonetheless they are family and they will be affected by behaviors.
The problem is behaviors on people, not entirely what class. And
those people can behave adversely for multifamily kind of set up
than for the single. And then I just have a little bit of concern
about the dispersion/segregation requirement on page 14 of the blue
book. To my understanding that is. . . 1, 000 feet doesn't mean
anything away from school or a church. . .of people who can probably
escape from jails. And keeping them just 1, 000 feet away from the
children who go to school or to a park or Sunday school or
18
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
June 25, 1990
whatever, and luckily most of the Sunday schools and churches are
usually during the daytime which would be a little safer, but parks
people stay out late. I would suggest that these kinds of things
when we talk about. . .I have thought about it for a long time now.
Why do we look only at one side of the equation, the people who
need help. How about the children or the people who are on the
other side of the equation who have not been there or who will not
be there if given the right kind of protection. An example is like
this. If my children, for example. . .hypothetical. . .have not gone
to the point where they are on drugs, why give them a greater
chance by putting so many people here who will affect this group of
people. And the only time we can help, or you or the state or
government, can help them when they have gone ahead and reached
this group, whereas all the children have got. . .the use of drug and
all that, and I don't know if that is up to the zoning committee to
consider things like those, but at least give a thought for the
people who will be affected. A lot of them are children first, and
then senior citizens. Not that the senior citizens will go on the
drugs or anything like that, but the property crimes and the
personal crimes against them.
Chair Martinez: Have you thought about. . .because this was
discussed at our last meeting about the separation and dispersal.
Have you thought about a distance that seems acceptable given the
size of our city.
Nasreen Mall: There is one city over here that is saying 35, 000
acres, a minimum. That is Auburn and Renton. . .this paper.
Chair Martinez: I think that is a typo.
Nasreen Mall: That sounds very good.
Chair Martinez: I don't know what that is. Can you share it with
us, please.
Commissioner Faust: This is the problem with relying on the
newspaper.
Chair Martinez: We never know where some of the stuff comes from.
Commissioner Faust: This is from the local paper and I have no
idea where they came up with some of the stuff, but I doubt that
Auburn has a dispersal requirement of 35, 000 acres, and who know,
we may see some sort of correction in the paper.
Voice: I doubt it.
19
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
June 25, 1990
Commissioner Faust: I 'd like to address one thing that she said,
though. That is. . . looking at this matrix it looks like all Class
II and Class III homes are conditional use permits, except, of
course, in the commercial and office. I 'm assuming that there
aren't too many children in the commercial and office area who will
be polluted by the kids who might be in the Class II. But in all
the neighborhoods, including the multifamily, those Class II homes
are all conditional use permits. If it weren't, I 'd share your
concern. That's another problem with relying on the newspaper
rather than on what we've got here.
Nasreen Mall: Like Mr. Bacon said earlier, whatever we have heard
so far from Ms. Shull, it seems like there isn't much distinction
from II and III, and where can they go. My suggestion would be
that they should always be kept in conditional use and the input of
the community should be considered.
Commissioner Faust: That is the way it has been proposed to us,
that the only type of group home that isn't a conditional use is
most of Class I. But the Class II and III, that's all conditional
according to this latest matrix that we are operating under. So I
just wanted to assure you that had been done.
Nasreen Mall: What some of the (unclear) created because some of
the. . .
Commissioner Faust: I 'm afraid so.
Nasreen Mall: What if the papers are right. What do we do. By
that time the thing has been passed.
Chair Martinez: We will be operating. Rest assured. What is
recommended by this Commission will be either in this book or in
the minutes of our meeting coming out of our discussion either from
tonight, if we decide to pass it tonight, or the next time we which
you will be informed of. The minutes will show exactly what our
intent is. Right now we are working on what is in the blue book.
There is no hearsay. It is either there or not there. You will
either agree with what is there or you don't agree with what is
there. You can see where conditional use is permitted, where no
home is permitted, where it is permitted outright. I think you
ought to get the blue book and study it very carefully, because I
truly believe that is where we should be speaking from, not from
what the newspaper said, but from what we are actually proposing.
Because you may still disagree with us, but we just need to be
speaking from what we are really going to be doing.
Nasreen Mall: Okay. -
20
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
June 25, 1990
Chair Martinez : And I do appreciate your comments, everyone,
truly.
Voice: Is there something that is popping up in here?
Janet Shull: This is Janet Shull, Planning Department. I just
wanted to clarify one thing that Tracy just said. In the case of
Class II, there are some instances where it is permitted outright.
Commissioner Faust: I corrected myself the first time. . .
Janet Shull: I believe you said that the first time, but I think
the second time you said they're always conditional. So I just
wanted to point that out.
Commissioner Faust: They are permitted in some of the commercial
areas. But Ms. Mall's remark was that she seemed to think that
some of the Group II and III homes were permitted in residential
neighborhoods, multifamily. And I just wanted to correct that.
You're right. . . . (unclear) further clarification.
Chair Martinez: Thank you. Did anyone have further questions of
Ms. Mall. I sort of cut her off. I 'm sorry. Okay. Mr. and Mrs.
Jarvis, did you have anything you wanted to say. OK fine. James
Wright.
James Wright: My name is James Wright. I live at 3605 South 241st
Street in Kent. Good evening. Once again I am back. I still have
a few comments to make about this on some of the things I 've heard
tonight and some of the concerns I have about this zoning. I think
that the answers we got on the impact on schools and needed special
helps for children from these homes is very well done. I think
they should be complimented on their diligence on getting those
answers for us. Appreciate that very much. What I have to say is
that people from our community are our responsibility. People from
other communities are not our responsibility. When a member of our
community has a problem, that's our responsibility to help that
member of our community. When a member of our community commits a
criminal act, it is our responsibility to deal with that criminal
act and to deal with that member of our community in a lawful
manner, and to take care of that member of the community however
the law directs. When a member of one of our families. . .our member
of the community's families is released from an institution after
the commission of a criminal act, then he should be integrated back
into our community in a good manner that shows that person has
either paid their debt to society. . .which seems to be rather
ignored by our legal profession is that people should pay for the
crimes that they commit. Once they've paid their dues, they should
21
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
June 25, 1990
be integrated back into their community, back into their
neighborhood where they came from. One person in the neighborhood
is part of that neighborhood. A problem person in a neighborhood
is part of a neighborhood. Five, six or ten people integrated into
a community from some other community or into a neighborhood from
some other community are not part of that community. They are not
part of that neighborhood. They are a problem. The criminal acts
go up, and drug abuse in that neighborhood increases simply because
of the number of people in the neighborhood that are committing
these criminal acts, using drugs, whatever. I am kind of using
general sense there. I can't say they would definitely. Many
group homes are very well supervised and things like this don't
happen. I was in a group home, personally. I think it was one of
the most horrible things that ever happened to me in my life. I am
still traumatized by the thought of something like that. Scares
the dickens out of me that any child that I would know would be
committed to a group home. Group homes are impersonal. Group
homes don't give the child the love they need. They don't give the
child the attention they need. They just don't. Governments don't
provide love and attention. Families do. And a group home that is
made up of people from different places are not a family no matter
what you call it. It is still a group of people put together by
the law or put together by the state. States don't make families.
The monitoring issue. . .I think we should be very concerned about
that. It is our community and we should monitor the system. We
should monitor these group homes. A Roman named Cassius, the
general, he said about the Roman guard. Who should watch these
self-same watchers? Who is going to monitor these monitors from
the state to see that they are doing their job? Obviously they
don't do their job many of the times, because criminal acts are
committed by people from these group homes all the time. There are
abuses of children in group homes all the time. There are people
who run away from group homes all the time. Obviously they are not
doing their job. Who is going to watch these self-same watchers.
Chair Martinez : Do you have some proposals for monitoring?
James Wright: Yes.
Chair Martinez: What.
James Wright: I think that a person from the community or an
office from the community should be directed to monitor these
homes. And if they are not obeying the letter of the law, their
permit to operate should be withdrawn and they should have to get
out of the community period. And they shouldn't. . .
22
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
June 25, 1990
Chair Martinez: That should be part of the conditional use permit,
exactly.
Commissioner Faust: How are you defining community? Are you
defining community as the three square blocks around where the
group home is?
James Wright: I 'm calling the City of Kent our community, our
city, the place where we live, where we have chosen to make our
homes and earn our livelihood.
Chair Martinez: Okay, thank you.
James Wright: I 'd like to go back to page number 5 of the blue
book. On paragraph 3 it says that the amendments to the Fair
Housing Act respond to misundstandings and prejudice on a legal
basis. They give local government the legal framework permitting
group homes to locate in residential areas. They protect certain
types of group homes, particularly homes for the disabled, and they
protect them from unfounded community fears. Now if we go up to
the paragraph directly above that, it says that the amendment does
not affect local government' s ability to specify the types of group
homes allowed within a district if founded in legitimate concerns
for health, safety and welfare. I think that we have some
legitimate concerns for health, safety and welfare of our community
members when it comes to Group II and Group III homes. I think
that Group II and Group III homes should not be permitted in our
community period.
Chair Martinez : May I ask whose community they should be allowed
in.
James Wright: If you look at the definition of the people from
Group II and III homes, these people are under the law, they are
supposed to be under the supervision of the criminal justice
system. These are people that have been committed. . .that have
committed violent crimes or sexual perverts who have committed
various perverse sexual crimes. The (unclear) convicted or charged
as a sexual or assaulted violent predators. These are people with
drug and alcohol problems that are not dealt with in a normal
community setting. Definitely not dealt with in a group home.
These are dealt with best in a clinical atmosphere. Those
convicted of violent crimes, violent behavior, are best dealt with
in prisons, not in group homes.
Coleen Miller: May I ask you a question. What can or ought we to
do with people who have been released by the prisons but may not be
ready to . . . or may not be fully released. The prisons have
23
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
June 25, 1990
released them back to the community. It is going to happen.
James Wright: I know it happens. It is the fault of our criminal
justice system. It should not happen. A person should not be
-released to the community to become . . .to prey upon us further. We
suffer enough from these criminals the first time they are out
until they are ready to come back to the community as a viable
citizen, as a valuable citizen, as something other than a drone and
a drain upon our resources, they should not be permitted back in
our community.
Coleen Miller: But you and I don't get to make up the rules. The
fact is that they do come back to our community.
James Wright: Yes, and we should be doing something about that.
And that is why we are here. We are trying to do something about
this.
Coleen Miller: We cannot change that fact, all we can do is deal
with the reality of them being released.
James Wright: Yes, ma'am, we can't deal with the fact of them
being released right now.
Coleen Miller: Not through this forum.
James Wright: We can deal with the problem of siting group homes
of people of the Class II and Class III type as described in this
booklet. We can deal with that and say that they are not
permitted, because the Federal Fair Housing Act is to deal with
people who are disabled, people who are mentally retarded, and
those that are not able to defend themselves. Criminals are very
well able to defend themselves. Drug addicts are very well able to
defend themselves. They do it to us all the time. They break
into our homes, they steal our goods. They rob us of our
livelihoods, they attack our children and we continuously allow
them back in our community. I think it is time for us to say no.
It is time for each and every one us to say no, we don't want these
people in our community any longer. Thank you very much.
Chair Martinez: Are there any questions? Some people reserved the
right to speak. Ms. Kennelly.
Kathleen Kennelly: I am Kathleen Kennelly. I live off of 239th in
Kent. You spoke about the newspaper comments and how unfair the
newspaper comments are. Eric Lucas, is that the correct spelling
pronunciation of this last name, do you recall his comments on
the families in the communities, the families in the community in
24
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
June 25, 1990
Midway, Nike Manor, area. He spoke in a vitriolic way about our
lack of compassion and our hatred, and he was very satirical of how
we didn't want quote unquote those people quote unquote again those
people of color in our neighborhood. We are those people in this
community where I come from. We are people of color. We are Black,
Hispanic and Asian people. I have a Brownie troop of 12 children,
three of whom are children of color. Three of the families live at
this time in Nike Manor.
Chair Martinez: I hate to interrupt you, but we have nothing to do
with Nike Manor. We don't have anything to do with it. We are
dealing with. . .
Kathleen Kennelly: I am only speaking from my own experience. I
realize that the overall question is the City of Kent, and our
community is within the City of Kent, and the best that I can do to
convey my thoughts, ideas and feelings from my own particular
viewpoint, and it happens to be in the West Hill, but, again, my
heart goes out to the homeless in our whole community within the
City of Kent. In my church community, which again is in the West
Hill, I a member of a church community and I have taken food on
more than one occasion to the homeless people who are stuck in the
Three Bears Motel and the New West Motel. We have been helping.
I drive these homeless people, the mother with five children and
others, to pull them out of one school and into another school. I
know a little bit about what I am speaking of when you are talking
about, for instance, Class I. anyway. Also, the prayer group that
I belong to, eight couples supply food on a regular basis, not just
Thanksgiving, Christmas and Easter, but on a regular basis to
people in need. We are not heartless. We are, as a matter of
fact, within our own community doing the very best we can to make
our community to continually improve it. So as far as welcoming
the low income, elderly, the handicapped, even the mentally
disturbed, the mentally ill, the mentally handicapped, this kind of
thing, Class I, I think that we are people of compassion and I
think we could welcome that kind of group into our community.
Again, I have real concern also about the Class II and the Class
III groupings. I will say that I agree with Mr. Wright. I think
I agree with just about everything he had to say about the
monitoring and his recommendations of monitoring for group Class II
and III. It is just inconceivable to me that we would try and
incorporate this kind of person into the community. There is a
place for them. I really do think that as members of this
community, Mr. Ward, Mr. Gregory, Ms. Martinez, Mr. Chopp, Ms.
Miller, Ms. Faust, that we just need to work together and use our
brains to solve the problems that are before us. I think that if
we think long and hard and really study the problems, we can come
25
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
June 25, 1990
up with some humane solutions that will improve and enhance our
entire community and our entire city.
Commissioner Faust: Where do you think that we ought to site Group
II and Group III:
Kathleen Kennelly: As it so happens, I am working on a Master's
Degree in Reading Specialist and though it may sound strange as an
educator, one of the classes that we are offered in the Education
program happens to be along with child abuse and things like that.
I just was. . .entitled the. . .the class I just finished. . .one of the
many classes that I just finished in January was called the sex
offender. I must tell you that for three months, unpleasant as it
was, we really, really studied this problem. And I wrote back and
forth to Olympia, went down to Olympia, met with people in the
legislature. I have to tell you that at this time for one thing we
all know there is lack of funding. . .
Commissioner Faust: Excuse me. Could you just tell me where you
think we ought to site. . .
Kathleen Kennelly: I'm going to tell you that right now if you' ll _
. . . lack of funding for both treatments and incarceration. The
only place from three months of study on the problem of the sex
offender. . .the only place at this time is incarceration and
possibly there is hope for very young sex offenders, but there has
to be funding from the legislature. There is no treatment. We
think there is treatment. There is no treatment at this time. To
answer your question, the only place for these people is in an
incarcerated position at this time. It is absolutely inconceivable
that these people would be welcomed into a community situation
within a city.
Commissioner Faust: How about Group II.
Kathleen Kennelly: Again, I think there are places and centers
outside of the community that have got to answer the problem of the
drug and alcohol problems. It is a major problem throughout our
country. There is just too much danger, and I know you have to
agree. . .you must agree with us of the danger to small children and
the elderly because of all of the ramifications that go along with
the drug and alcohol problem. I am sure that in our hearts we have
to agree on that, and that welcoming these people into our
community unless you are absolutely sure of their . rehabilitation
and recovery process, at least advanced rehabilitation, advanced
recovery process. . .I can't imagine trying to incorporate, as much
as we love them and wish them well, I can't imagine trying to
incorporate them into our community. I think they need to
26
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
June 25, 1990
have. . .and it's our job to get the funding, to have treatment
centers for them. I hope that does answer your questions. I do
thank you.
Chair Martinez: Thank you. Miss Fischer.
Linda Fischer: My name is Linda Fischer. I live at 846 Hilltop
here in Kent. Briefly for what it is worth. I am the parent of a
handicapped child and my interest is Group I, which doesn't look to
be a major problem, though we don't have very many group homes for
children as severely disabled as my child. But then, that is a
little different than what we are looking at. But as a possible
parallel, when my daughter's school was disbanded and they put all
the handicapped children in various schools around the district, a
lot of the parents were extremely upset and concerned about what
was going to happen to our kids when they were in there with the
normal kids who were going to point at all those retarded kids.
And the Kent School District amazed me and surprised me with the
kind of thoughtful consideration in letting the normal population
know the kinds of things they could expect out of these abnormal,
handicapped, disabled individuals, and they managed it in such a
way so that that existing community, if you will, knew what was
coming, the kinds of things to expect, the disabilities, the
strengths. It was a process of education. I think there is a
possibility that that could be worked in this situation. I think
the concerns expressed here are very real. My only real concern is
I get a little bit scared when people start talking about not in my
backyard, because the next thing. . .they may not want my kid in
their backyard either. Thank you.
Chair Martinez : Excuse me. Are you suggesting. . .I think that we
should build into our . . . something, I 'm not sure what. . .some
guidelines for letting the community know about the various homes
that we are going to site there so that they can . . .other than
perhaps we do have a conditional use which will be a hearing
situation, but you're suggesting some other sorts of things. Do
you have any other ideas.
Linda Fischer: No, not very specific (unclear) . . . I think the best
thing for people to be aware of, you know, the possibility of a
group home being sited in their community. If a group home of this
kind should be introduced in your community, what would you want
done, how would you want it handled, what are your concerns. This
is what you are doing here. But, obviously, we are a very small
group of people that are here. A lot of those people are going to
wait until it is down the street from them and then they are going
to be concerned about it.
27
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
June 25, 1990
Chair Martinez: Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else in the
audience who did not sign up who wishes to speak? I would
entertain a motion to close the hearing.
Commissioner Faust: Before we do that though, I 'd like to ask a
question of staff.
Chair Martinez: Certainly.
Commissioner Faust: Just a clarification, staff, please, ten-point
toss up, could somebody talk to us about. . .a lot of the people we
have heard tonight have expressed a particular concern about
monitoring. They want to make sure that somebody is monitoring
these. Could you all. . .somebody discuss one, what kind of
monitoring is done by the residents, I mean by the people who
actually live in the group homes; two, what kind of monitoring is
done by the social service agency that funds the group home. I am
really most concerned about those two. Also, is monitoring
something that in the past has been brought up and has been
incorporated into a conditional use permit for a group home in the
City of Kent, or anything you know about some of the other cities
around here, in ten words or less.
Fred Satterstrom: I don't know if I can answer any of your
questions specifically about what kinds of monitoring that is done
by the agencies themselves. I sure the requirements vary according
to what the stipulations are in the monitoring if they are licensed
by the state or some other agency. I know that there are certain
requirements for monitoring, particularly DSHS. I am aware of some
of the regulations that apply and how frequently DSHS enters the
facilities. I think if you were to ask a normal person about how
much monitoring DSHS does, they would probably tell you not enough.
The city's monitoring here is not necessarily meant to replace the
monitoring that is done by any of the agencies over any of the
group homes, but merely to augment the monitoring that the city
would do in terms of knowing where these uses are, of knowing what
the conditions would be for any conditional use permit that would
be issued subsequent to the development and implementation of the
criteria, as well as any, you know, requirements such as fencing,
parking, any other normal zoning-type requirements that would go
along with that use. That is the kind of monitoring that the
Planning Department would do in addition to making sure that the
dispersion and separation requirements were met. But we wouldn't
be trying to replace the DSHS concerns.
Commissioner Faust: To paraphrase what you are saying is that in
the conditional use permitting process, which is really what we are
talking about here, we are talking about Group II and III homes, in
28
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
June 25, 1990
the permitting process, public safety that is insuring that whoever
is running the group homes takes that into consideration and has
some plan, is part of the permitting process, the conditional use
permitting process.
Fred Satterstrom: Well it could be recommended, both the licensing
and a monitoring program, to you. We haven't really gotten into
the precise application or precise details of these programs, but
some of that short of specifying total operational characteristics,
I don't think. . .like Willie was referring to before, we want to
make sure the place. . .the land use is properly conducted, but I
don't think we want to get in there and start telling them how to
run their program, for instance. That is an operational thing that
I think DSHS and other funding agencies would be telling them to
do.
Commissioner Faust: At least it is assuring that somebody is
monitoring it. . .would be something that the city would be inquiring
into.
Fred Satterstrom: Yes, one of the speakers asked who would be
watching the watch dogs. And actually the monitoring of the city
would be watching the monitoring of the state to make sure that the
it looked like it was being monitored appropriately. I don't know,
a lot of this is just speculation at this point because we haven't
gotten to those types of details, but, obviously, here the goal is
to ensure the general welfare of the neighborhoods where these uses
are going in. The only comment I would add in addition to the
question is that this proposal may not be the world's best
proposal. It' s darn close, though. I think Janet and Lin and the
committee have done an enormous amount of work on this and there
may be some fine tuning as there would be with any proposal, but I
believe it is a heck of a lot better than what we've got now,
because there aren't any regulations now per Class IA, or Class II
or Class III. They are all mental health facilities, and they are
allowed Willy nilly. This proposal really starts to grab hold of
the situation. And, certainly, as time goes on, we may fine tune
it. But it is a darn site better than the wide-open situation that
we've got right now which was developed back in 173 and long before
the concept of group homes ever really came into this community.
James Harris: Madam Chair, could I make one comment.
Chair Martinez : Certainly.
James Harris: I think what I 've heard here this evening over and
over again is on page 14 in the blue book under E, Establish
Conditional Use Criteria Which Specifically Addresses the Nature Of
Such Land Use. This is what is being asked of you over and over
29
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
June 25, 1990
again. That is getting down to the knitty gritty, the specific.
What is it that a person or group that comes to the city and asks
for a group home, Group II, or Class II and Class III, is going to
be, right from the starting blocks, required to adhere to, plus
whatever else the hearing examiner may pull out of the air and say
these are additional conditions. It just seems that it is very
crucial that somewhere along the line those questions be answered
through the criteria, the conditional use permit, because that may
not alleviate all the fears, but it may help go a long way to show
what it is that these group homes are going to be expected to
adhere to in a way of some standards.
Chair Martinez: I have another question of the staff, and that is
in the layout for Class II homes where in some commercial zones
there are outright permitted uses. I recall particularly when we
were doing East Hill there were some office zones. . .there are some
commercial zones that are very close to some residential. I didn't
study the map and I meant to. . .can you answer the question are any
of these within a significant distance, closeness, to either
multifamily or single family so that we should change that to
conditional use rather than outright permitted. Did I make that
too long?
Lauri Anderson: This is Lauri Anderson with the Planning
Department. The question is not as simple as that. The way the
zoning map works is that there are always boundaries between
districts. The office zone is often used as a buffer zone between
a commercial district and a residential district. So, undoubtedly
at some point there would be office zones that butted up against
residential zones. There may be commercial zones that butt up
again residential zones. So yes, there would be some fringes that
would touch.
Chair Martinez: So consider conditional use for that entire class
of group homes, that is Group II for all places that might be
permitted. It seems like it would not be an unreasonable thing for
us to do.
Lauri Anderson: I think that is your decision. We were thinking
of the core of a commercial area where typically there is not
residential.
Chair Martinez : Okay. Okay. Any other things you want to say
before.
Commissioner Faust: Madam Chair, I would move that we close the
public hearing on this issue.
30
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
June 25, 1990
Commissioner Gregory: Second.
Chair Martinez : All in favor.
Voices• Aye.
Chair Martinez: Opposed. (silence) What is the pleasure of the
Commission. I would like to hear as much discussion as we can
generate . . . I think we are talking about some fairly serious
things that people are concerned about.
Commissioner Faust: I would suggest, Madam Chair, that we go down
the list of things. In fact, do we still have, staff. . .do we still
have that lovely graphic from last time about the things we are
going to be voting on so that we can just go down. . .
Chair Martinez: It is on page 15 and it is quite clear. And we
can bop back and forth between that and page 11-12 .
Commissioner Faust: Anyway, that is my recommendation that we go
down action items one at a time.
Chair Martinez: Fine, and within Action Item 1 we have four things
to consider. And I would like to act in each case on a motion, and
then we can go from there. So Action Item 1, Part A is amend the
current definition of family as it appears in the zoning code.
Commissioner Miller: Madam Chair, I move that we consider the
definition of family as proposed on page 11 in the recommendations
in the final report.
Commissioner Ward: Second.
Chair Martinez : Discussion
Commissioner Faust: I think this simply bring us in line with what
is being done elsewhere. I 'm not concerned about the six that was
explained to us last month by council, and six seems to be a very
reasonable number. I don't think it is out of line with what is
being done. I 'm quite willing to accept it
Commissioner Miller: I think six is more realistic than some of
the communities that have four or five in their definition. And I
think six is a more realistic definition and is certainly in line
with traditional family size in the community.
Chair Martinez: And we probably already have a number of adults
living together in homes, unrelated adults, at that level. I don't
31
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
June 25, 1990
have any -trouble at all with six. Is there anyone on the
Commission that wishes to speak against that?
Commissioner Faust: Question.
Chair Martinez: All in favor of recommending this proposal to the
Council.
Voices: Aye.
Chair Martinez: Opposed. (silence) Part 1B is to amend the Kent
Zoning Code to add the definitions of Class I, II and III which we
are all aware of by now. They all have, with the exception of
Class III, they all have numbers of people attached to them.
Commissioner Ward: So moved, Madam Chair.
Commissioner Miller: Second.
Commissioner Ward: Question.
Chair Martinez: All in favor.
Voices: Aye.
Chair Martinez: Opposed. (silence) We will recommend that. To
amend the Zoning Code to add the Group Homes Siting Matrix.
Commissioner Gregory: So moved.
Chair Martinez: There is a motion.
Commissioner Faust: Second.
Chair Martinez: Discussion.
Commissioner Miller: All I could say is I think the Planning
Department and the Mayor's Commission that did the proposal put a
lot of work into it, and I think it gives the greatest amount of
protection to the community and the greatest amount of discretion
back to the community by leaving most of Group II and all of Group
III as conditional use permits. There are a few areas where Group
II homes would be a permitted use, but they are only in commercial
areas; therefore I think a lot of study went into this to be sure
that the community has the greatest protection that would be
available, and I would therefore recommend that we adopt.
32
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
June 25, 1990
Commissioner Ward: There was one concern that was brought up that
sort of struck home with me was that we should have some assurance
that it would be in the center of the commercial area as compared
to abutting and the possibility. . .someone brought that up.
Voices• (unclear)
Commissioner Faust: I have something that I would like to say
about that, too, but I think that I would probably. . .I was going to
wait and bring it up under D, Separation and Dispersion
Requirements because I was going to suggest that we add an
additional separation and dispersion requirement for Group Home
Class II in the permitted areas of the commercial *office ,to include
a distance so that we would be assured that in the areas, like up
at the Benson where you have a small commercial strip and then
housing, that you wouldn't end up having de facto placement in a
single family neighborhood of say a Class II site.
Chair Martinez: What if we would make it a conditional use
in. . .Class II would be completely conditional use, and then when we
get to working on the conditional use rules and regs for this
particular thing, then build that into the. . .at that point.
Commissioner Miller: I could accept that.
Commissioner Faust: I think that the way it is now really
streamlines things. I don't see any reason. . .I would prefer to
leave it as permissive use, but I would like to add a separation
and dispersement requirement to insure that it didn't abut onto
single family or even multifamily homes without a conditional use.
Voice: Any residential.
Commissioner Miller: How far are you going to suggest that they be
sited from a residential area? I 'm not clear, I guess.
Chair Martinez: At least 1, 600.
Commissioner Faust: I would say at least that.
Commissioner Miller: That is what I was thinking. . .that separation
and dispersement rather takes care of that.
Chair Martinez: Well, it doesn't now, because it is just sensitive
areas and it doesn't include residential, so we need to put. . .need
to be considered, we need to put it in.
Commissioner Ward: In other words you'd combine both of those
33
Kent Planning Commission Minutes _.
June 25, 1990
distances, the 1,000 and the 600. . .
Chair Martinez: Well, in the 600 you'd include residential areas
under the dispersion and you'd also put in the thousand under the
whatever distance. . .
Commissioner Ward: Suppose there is a commercial area that is not
quite 1, 600 and then we've totally eliminated . . .
Chair Martinez: No it is 1, 000.
Commissioner Faust: See, the 600 is the distance between two group
homes. You can't have two group homes closer than 600 feet.
Commissioner Ward: Oh, I thought you were suggesting that you
combine both those distances. . .
Commissioner Faust: No, I was just saying that the existing
separation and dispersion requirements be applied to the NCC, CC,
and DC areas under commercial and office for Group II, so that
would . . .
Voice: Approximately how far is a block?
Voice• 600 feet
Commissioner Ward: Approximately 300 feet
Commissioner Faust: So we are talking. . .
Commissioner Ward: Two blocks.
Commissioner Faust: Three to four blocks for a thousand feet.
Voice• Well, yes.
Voice: A regular city.
Voice: Two to four.
James Harris: Cities vary. There is no standard.
Commissioner Faust: Which would effectively preclude siting of any
of these Class II 's up at the Benson where it is only one block
wide. I just think that if we amend the separation and dispersion
requirements to Class II to insure that the commercial areas that
we are talking about aren't strip commercial, like up at the
Benson. I 'm just using that as an example. I think that I would
34
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
June 25, 1990
prefer to leave it as permissive. I think that we would get the
same place.
Commissioner Chopp: (unclear) . . .How far away from the dividing
line.
Commissioner Miller: I think she is suggesting we look at that
under the separation and dispersion
Voices• (unclear)
Commissioner Faust: The property line with a radius from the edges
of that property line 1, 000 feet. So if there were any homes,
single or multifamily residential homes, within that 1,000 foot
radius, it could not be sited there period. I suppose it could
come in as a conditional use, but it certainly couldn't be the
permissive use the way it is listed here.
Commissioner Ward: Even though it is commercial.
Commissioner Faust: I'm concerned, Ray, about it, too, but I would
rather deal with it by leaving the matrix as is and then doing
Action Item 1D.
Commissioner Ward: That would cover it. . . (unclear)
Commissioner Faust: I think so, because it is going to cut out an
awful lot of commercial office space in the city that is close to
houses.
Commissioner Ward: Okay.
Commissioner Faust: It would cut out a lot of the stuff even up on
99, because that is only two blocks wide. It would even preclude
siting in a lot of the 99 area.
Commissioner Ward: I will withdraw my concern. We can call for
the question.
Chair Martinez: Wait. I have another one. Don't call for the
question.
Voices• (unclear)
Chair Martinez: I have another place that I am concerned about and
that is in the Class IC. I think that MRG should be a conditional
use simply because of the size of most MRG and the size of a Class
IC. It is just that it could be very intrusive into that
35
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
June 25, 1990
particular neighborhood. Making it a conditional use
doesn't. . .just puts that extra leap to make sure that the Planning
Department take a little closer look at it before okaying it.
Commissioner Faust: But Linda, on page 12 up under Class I Group
Homes under C. . .
Chair Martinez: Hold it. I am sorry.
Commissioner Faust: It says that the number. . .
Chair Martinez: Yes, I understand.
Commissioner Faust: It says that the number of residents will be
based on the density of the underlying zoning district. How many
does that actually mean when we are talking about an MRG.
Chair Martinez: Sixteen units per acre.
Commissioner Faust: How many people does that actually translate
into. . .
Voice: Twelve.
Commissioner Miller: Sixteen times five would be eighty.
Lauri Anderson: This is Lauri Anderson. The rationale behind that
was that the 16 would translate into number of units per acre. It
doesn't transfer into people. It transfers into units. However, in
group homes more typically you are talking about bedrooms or
individual sleeping areas that may share a common kitchen. So what
we are saying is that if you had an acre of land, you could
presumably site a facility that had 16 bedrooms. If they were
individual units, 16 individual units. Then as your acreage
decreased, the number of bedrooms and the number of units you could
have would also decrease. So the size is regulated by the density
allowed by the zoning district.
Commissioner Miller: Well, but a unit would presumably house three
to five people frequently. And a bedroom would frequently house. . .
Lauri Anderson: Probably two, maybe. One or two.
Commissioner Miller: So they really don't translate.
Lauri Anderson: Well it is the same translation that we use in our
multifamily zoning districts. We don't regulate by number of
people. We regulate by number of bedrooms or numbers of units.
36
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
June 25, 1990
Commissioner Miller: Okay.
Chair Martinez: That's why I'd like to have a conditional use on
that one. I just think it has the potential for causing a problem
we don't need to build into the system.
Commissioner Chopp: Change it from P to C.
Chair Martinez: Change it from P to C.
Commissioner Miller: I guess I'm satisfied with the limitation
being controlled by the zoning limitations, that a half an acre
would be limited to eight bedrooms, essentially a whole acre, 16.
Voice: That's houses.
Commissioner Miller: Well, but she said units translate to
bedrooms.
Chair Martinez: And if it is only one bedroom, they can only be
within 600 feet of each other.
Commissioner Miller: But if it is only one facility. . .
Voices: Right, Right, Right.
Voices• (unclear)
Chair Martinez: I 'm talking about MRG, which is suggested to be an
outright permitted. And I am suggesting a conditional use for that
one.
Voice: (unclear)
Chair Martinez: That would be only if they were built as little,
tiny units. Then the separation and dispersal comes into it.
Commissioner Miller: Well, except that it wouldn't if it was the
same facility that happened to build little, tiny units. If it was
one facility, they would still only be limited to 16.
Chair Martinez: Wouldn't they be limited to one?
Lauri Anderson: If a single piece of property were to decide that
in their group home facility they were desiring to have 16 units,
like in a multifamily type of an arrangement, the separation
requirements are not within the property itself. And you will see
in the definition of how you calculate the dispersion and the
37
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
June 25, 1990
separation requirements that it is from the edge of the property
line that is being affected. So it is from the boundaries of the
property. So if you had 16 cottages or whatever, that's typically
not a group home arrangement. But if that is the arrangement that
you are thinking about, the individual cottages would not have to
be separated by 600 feet. The whole development would be separated
from another group home. Does that make sense?
Commissioner Gregory: The dispersion and separation requirements
do not apply to Group I.
Lauri Anderson: Right. Are you talking about.. .
Voices• (unclear)
Commissioner Faust: I guess I 'm not really as bothered about that.
Commissioner Miller: I 'm not either.
Chair Martinez: I feel that in an MRG which frequently actually in
our city is not great, big plots of land, but in fact are small
plots of land (unclear) . . . it has the potential to have a more
significant impact at that density than if those same folks were
dispersed in either an MRM or over in single family where there in
a four bedroom house with only four or six people in it, something
like that.
Commissioner Miller: But for an MRG we are looking at C. which
would be 15 or more residents for an MRG that is already limited to
a density not greater than 16 units per acre. I think that is
limiting in itself in that you couldn't put a 1C home on a third of
an acre, because a 1C by definition would have 15 or greater. An
I. . .
Chair Martinez: Yeah.
Commissioner Miller: So I think it limits itself.
Commissioner Ward: Fifteen or greater people as compared. . .I don't
understand how you are correlating people with units.
Chair Martinez: You can't.
Commissioner Miller: You just assume that in a certain unit. . .
Commissioner Ward: But you are not saying that. . .
38
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
June 25, 1990
Commissioner Miller: I assume that. . .she says that bedroom equals
unfit. I guess I am assuming that they are all going to be generous
and have separate bedrooms. That may be too generous an assumption
on my part.
Commissioner Ward: I don't think they are going to plug these
people into separate bedrooms.
Commissioner Miller: Even if there are two in a bedroom. and you
have to have at least a half an acre to do a permitted use under an
MRG, and a half an acre is a pretty good-sized lot.
Commissioner Faust: Can I add something, too. In group homes that
have to deal with handicapped individuals, they have to have their
own bedrooms. That's the rule. They have to have their own
bedrooms.
Commissioner Ward: Handicapped people have to have (unclear)
Commissioner Faust: In group homes, handicapped people have to
have their own bedrooms. You don't share. And that is what we are
talking about here.
_. Voice: And is that foster homes, too?
Commissioner Faust: That' s foster homes as well. You have to have
your own bedroom. If you have a foster child in your home, that
kid has to have its own bedroom. I haven't worked in a group home
but lord knows I 've been to enough of them. Every one of those
kids has to have his or her own bedroom. So it does end up
limiting the size of these facilities because the kids have to have
their own rooms. They don't have to be very big, but they have to
have their own rooms. And as well as having their own rooms, I
frankly. . .why we have included 1C because if you are talking about
the handicapped children, physically, mentally disabled, which is
what we are talking about basically with a Class 1, logistically
you just can't deal with that many handicapped or retarded
individuals. You just can't. . . 16, 18, 20 sharing a common kitchen
and all of that, you can't do it. Even if you are talking about
disabled adults who are living in a group situation, you just don't
have 20 of them living in a single home. The staffing requirements
would be impossible.
Commissioner Miller: Then why would we make it an outright
permitted use.
Commissioner Faust: Well, I 'm just saying that I think it is mute.
39
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
June 25, 1990
Chair Martinez: I think any time we put something in,. we have the
potential for it to be used. And I would rather, and if in fact it
is. . .sort of an outrageous thing. . . I 'd rather either take it out
and make it conditional use or something, for sure as sin if we put
it in, it will happen.
Commissioner Miller: I would like to take a small bit of issue
with Tracy in that foster homes, state licensed foster homes not
dealing with special needs children, just state licensed foster
homes, they don't have to have a separate bedroom but a separate
bed. In some group homes . . .
Commissioner Faust: You're right. I was talking about handicapped
foster children.
Voices• (unclear)
Commissioner Miller: Well, you know that sometimes kids do share
a bed in our own homes.
Chair Martinez: I was going to say that my kids have been deprived
all their lives.
Commissioner Miller: And the other thing is that there are some
group homes where children do share a room, but probably not more
than two to a room. So for consideration purposes, there are
circumstances where they are allowed to share a room, but I believe
that Tracy is correct that it is not handicapped children.
Commissioner Faust: Well, I 'm willing to go along with Linda and
make it a conditional use. I don't think that it is going to end
up being that much of a problem, but I think your point is well
taken.
Commissioner Miller: I ' ll go along with that.
Commissioner Ward: Let's go along with that
Chair Martinez: Okay, but do we want to leave then the permitted
uses for the Class II and deal with that at the area in separation.
Commissioner Faust: I would rather.
Commissioner Miller: Help me out for a minute and tell me what NCC
is.
Chair Martinez : Neighborhood Community Commercial.
40
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
June 25, 1990
Commissioner Miller: So that is basically the Benson strip.
Chair Martinez: Is that correct?
James Harris: There's only one in the city and it is where the
fire station (unclear) . . .I don't think we have any other.
Chair Martinez: Community Commercial is the Benson. DC is
Downtown Commercial, and O is office. And there is a lot of those
over on. . .in the Benson area, but they are about a block deep, and
they are close to. . .
Voices: (unclear)
Commissioner Gregory: I wonder if it would be a lot easier for us
to make all of this conditional, or to go ahead and put it in the
separation and dispersion.
Commissioner Miller: I would be willing to make strip malls
conditional, because those are the ones that really are in the
neighborhood.
Chair Martinez: Downtown Commercial. . .how many people live
downtown? A lot of people.
Commissioner Miller: Besides you.
Chair Martinez : I wasn't going to make any. . .
Commissioner Faust: I 'm not sure if there is any place in downtown
that you can get 1,000 feet away from a home, church or park. I 'm
not sure that they can.
Chair Martinez: It would be difficult, I think. I don't know if
it is impossible.
Commissioner Miller: I don't want to throw in something new, but
I am also concerned and more appropriately at separation and
dispersement about bars. I'm not interested in protecting bars as
I am the kind of people that are going to be housed very nearby.
I 'm not sure that we should not include bars as a sensitive area.
Voices• (unclear)
Chair Martinez: Okay, let's get back. I would like to talk about
the commercial office, the outright permitted for twos. What
would you want to do about that
41
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
June 25, 1990
Commissioner Miller: I would suggest that we change strip malls,
which is CC, under Group Home Class II to a conditional use on
Group Homes Class A, B and C.
Commissioner Faust: And I'd rather just deal with it under D,
Separation and Dispersion.
Commissioner Ward: I 'm sort of reluctant about changing the matrix
itself when these people have put so much time, effort and
(unclear) and investigative process putting together this thing and
saying that this is possibly where we have made the determination.
I 'm kind .of skeptical of that. Perhaps we can deal with it . . .
Commissioner Miller: I can appreciate that, but I am also trying
to be sensitive to all the community members we have heard from,
and I think they are very concerned about them, and I think that is
the remaining area that would potentially them in the area that
would put them within a one or two block radius of their homes. I
think their kids go to the neighborhood strip malls, and I think
that is one of my things. Kids traditionally, if you live in the
Benson, they hop on their bike they and go down, because they don't
have to cross busy streets to let your kids go down there, and I
think that, trying to look at it from a community prospective, that
would be my concern that it would have extra scrutiny that they
could technically meet the separation and dispersement
requirements.
Commissioner Gregory: I think we listened to the concerns of the
community and we should make it all conditional use permit. At
least we have the scrutiny of the Planning Department in looking at
it and bring it to a hearing when a conditional use permit. . .and
members of the community could come and voice their opinions about
whether or not it should be allowed in a certain area.
Commissioner Miller: Well, I guess. . . in the commercial office, DC,
CM1, CM. . . DC I guess is the other one that would not be
conditional, I'm not as concerned about that, because I think
you're not dealing with the neighborhood. I 'm concerned when you
are dealing with the neighborhood. Because I don't want to make it
so restrictive that realistically. . .everyone is made to jump
through so many hoops that it becomes crazy. I am concerned,
though, about protecting neighborhoods.
Commissioner Ward: Do we have people living in -DC.
Voices: (unclear)
Commissioner Faust: That' s downtown.
42
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
June 25, 1990
Commissioner Miller: Okay. I 'm . sorry. I was thinking of
that. . .well, I guess the NCC, CC and DC all potentially.
Commissioner Ward: Is there any designation here that we don't
have people living that is commercial?
Commissioner Miller: Those are the only ones that are remaining as
permitted except office.
Chair Martinez: And I think we can conditional use the other
commercials simply because it may be inappropriate to site a home
there rather than they will have any undue influence on the homes.
You can imagine what places you don't want people to. . . I tell you
what. We have had a lot of discussion. There is a motion on the
floor. I would entertain a motion to amend that motion if someone
wants to do that.
Commissioner Faust: I 've forgotten what the motion was.
Chair Martinez: The motion was to accept this siting matrix as
presented to us.
~ Commissioner Miller: I move that we amend the Group Homes Siting
Matrix for Class II A, B, and C under NCC, CC and DC and Office,
changing them from permitted uses to conditional uses.
Commissioner Ward: Is that a friendly amendment?
Commissioner Miller: That is a friendly amendment.
Chair Martinez : Is there a second to that amendment?
Commissioner Chopp: I ' ll second it.
Chair Martinez: Okay, there is a. . . is there further discussion on
the amendment? And the amendment is to change from outright
permitted to conditional use for Group Home Class II A, B and C to
conditional use in all four cases.
Voice: That's correct.
Chair Martinez: Further discussion.
Commissioner Chopp: They can still change that if the conditions
(unclear) with the Council.
Chair Martinez: That's right. They can do anything.
43
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
June 25, 1990
Voice: What's that Frank?
Commissioner Chopp: They can still change that back to P.
Chair Martinez: The Council can change it back. They can undo
this whole thing, but they don't usually.
Commissioner Ward: You said Class II.
Chair Martinez: Class II A, B and C. Is there further discussion
on the amendment?
Commissioner Ward: Question.
Chair Martinez: The question has been called. All in favor of the
amendment.
Voices: Aye.
Chair Martinez: Opposed. (silence) Okay is there a motion about
Class IC.
Commissioner Faust: Yes. Madam Chair, I would like to add a
further amendment that under Group Homes Class IC that in the MRG
residential area we change permitted to conditional use.
Chair Martinez : Is there a second.
Commissioner Miller: I would second it.
Chair Martinez: Is there further discussion?
Voice: Question.
Chair Martinez: The question has been called. All in favor.
Voices: Aye.
Chair Martinez : Okay. We have not talked at all about Class III.
Is there any discussion before we. . .
Commissioner Ward: Nobody wants it.
Commissioner Miller: My feeling was that all of Group Home Class
III are conditional use. And that is as it should be. So I
didn't feel that I needed to discuss it.
Chair Martinez: The only thing I had is that I think that in terms
44
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
June 25, 1990
of. . .particularly O, we might want to go to the separation from
residential.
Commissioner Miller: Where offices are near. . .
Chair Martinez: Where offices are near homes.
Commissioner Miller: Then we could take care of that issue under
the separation. . .
Chair Martinez : Right. Under D when we get to it.
Commissioner Faust: Are you talking about. . .right now we have left
Class II under commercial office. . . office, the O, we've left that
as a permissive use.
Chair Martinez: No.
Commissioner Faust: We've made it as a conditional use.
Chair Martinez: Yes.
Commissioner Faust: That' s what I thought.
Chair Martinez: I 'm talking about III, which is. . .they are all
conditional uses. We have two choices. We can either, we have
lots of choices, the two obvious ones or we can do separation, I
mean dispersal from residential areas in that condition or when we
get to conditional uses we can further. . .yes. . .
Lauri Anderson: Just a point of clarification. The office zone is
often used, as I stated earlier, as a buffer between a residential
zone and a commercial zone. Probably the most significant piece of
office zone is in a strip along 104th up on the East Hill. I guess
our recommendation might be that if you are concerned about a
separation from residential zones even with a conditional use
permit in place, that you might just want to eliminate the office
zone from consideration.
Chair Martinez: Oh.
Commissioner Faust: That is just what I was going to suggest we
do. Would you like a motion.
Chair Martinez: Yes, it is so much easier, yes.
Commissioner Faust: I move that in the Group Homes Class III that
we remove from even conditional use the following categories: NCC,
45
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
June 25, 1990
CC, DC and O, leaving the conditional use possible only in CM1, CM2
and GC.
Commissioner Ward: Why is that?
Chair Martinez: Just a second. Is there second to that even for
discussion purpose.
Commissioner Miller: For the sake of discussion I will second it.
Chair Martinez: Ok, now, Ray. Go ahead.
Commissioner Ward: Why are you making that suggestion?
Commissioner Faust: Well, because I can't help thinking back to
what we did when we decided where pornographic theaters could go.
And I think we ended up with three little tensy areas marked in
yellow all of which seemed to be very near very large warehouses,
and lots of very large warehouses, so I 'm thinking that perhaps
this is not to say that a Class III home will ever be sited in the
City of Kent anyway. But I think that if it is why don't we limit
it even farther down to first of all conditional use permit,yes,
but also narrow it down further so that it is strictly in the zone
that we have already said is a zone that we consider safe quote
unquote for certain kinds of activities.
Commissioner Ward: Why couldn't it be extended on to industrial.
Commissioner Faust: That' s what this is.
Voice: No this is commercial. Industrial is M. . .
Commissioner Faust: Oh, I 'm sorry.
Chair Martinez: This seems inappropriate for health and safety for
the people who would be in the group home. They could die of toxic
poisoning and sue us. Their family would.
Commissioner Miller: I guess my view is that conditional use
permits give sufficient community as well as policy scrutiny that
I am willing to accept it as it is proposed, because as long as it
is going to be scrutinized and the community surrounding it has a
great opportunity to be heard, then I guess I don't object to it
being as the matrix is laid out. I just don't want to leave it
where. . .and there is nothing here that would be a permitted use.
My concern is Class II, where permitted uses are right next to a
neighborhood. As long as they bear scrutiny, then I think I am
46
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
June 25, 1990
willing to leave it to the people who will be scrutinizing it to
make proper decisions with community input.
Chair Martinez: I 'd like to speak in favor of the amendment simply
because for these particular types of homes we are dealing with
people who are very difficult people. They are not people we
really want in any case. But since we raise them, some of them,
and probably at some point we will probably we asked at some point
to take some of them back. And I guess these neighborhoods, or
these zoning districts, are close enough to where we conduct our
own business that I think I could support just eliminating them.
I'm not sure if that is wise, and we are not privy, unfortunately,
to why people put a C there. Are we?
Commissioner Miller: One of my concerns is that as long as it is
going to bear full scrutiny, I was willing to accept the
conditional use. I don't know. . .
Chair Martinez: The problem with conditional use is that. . . it is
in the newspaper and stuff. . . if you don't read the newspaper this
week. . .
Commissioner Miller: It's a close one.
Chair Martinez : I'd kind of like to have. . .some folks have not
spoken on this at all. I think we need.
Commissioner Gregory: Well, I have a comment. I 'm in favor of
leaving it as it is and just check it under the Section E when we
can establish conditional use criteria.
Commissioner Chopp: That's the way I feel.
Commissioner Gregory: I don't remember exact points, but when we
had our workshop we talked to the people from the committee and
they had certain reasons for doing this. I can't remember the
reasons now. I go back to what Ray was saying. They have done a
lot of reasoning to support this. Maybe we can (unclear) when we
go back to Section E very tough, that it can't be allowed in these
three areas anyway.
Commissioner Faust: Question.
Chair Martinez: The question has been called for. We are
considering an amendment to eliminate the possibility of siting a
Group Home Class III in the commercial zones, NCC, CC, DC or O.
All in favor.
47
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
June 25, 1990
Voices• Aye.
Chair Martinez: Opposed
Voices• No
Chair Martinez: Please hold up your hands. Okay, it is two to
four. The amendment failed. Linda and Tracy voted for the
amendment, and the others against it. So the conditional use
maintains for Class III.
Commissioner Ward: We' ll take care of it in another section.
Chair Martinez: Are there any other amendments to the major
motion?
Voice: (unclear)
Chair Martinez: That has been changed to conditional use.
Commissioner Faust: Madam Chair, I move that we accept the matrix
as it has now been amended.
Commissioner Gregory: Second.
Chair Martinez: Further discussion.
Commissioner Faust: Question.
Chair Martinez: All in favor.
Voices: Aye.
Chair Martinez : Opposed. (silence) Now we have some hard work
ahead of us.
Commissioner Miller: Madam Chair, I move that we adopt the
separation and dispersion requirements for Class II and Class III
Group Homes.
Chair Martinez: Discussion.
Commissioner Faust: Question.
Chair Martinez: I have discussion. I would like to have parks in
separation requirements. I would like to have parks added after
religious facilities or institutions.
48
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
June 25, 1990
Commissioner Miller: Could we say parks and playgrounds, because
some of the little neighborhood playgrounds. . .
Chair Martinez: I am also. . .would you like to. . .I think I would
like to at least discuss adding residential areas.
James Harris: Madam Chair, we know that Coleen Miller made the
motion to approve separation. Who seconded it.
Commissioner Faust: I did, Tracy.
Chair Martinez: Is there anything that should be mentioned.
Commissioner Ward: I missed the part where you want to put parks.
Chair Martinez: In separation requirements after religious
facilities or institutions add parks and playgrounds and other such
uses that are deemed to be sensitive. And, as a result of the
other discussion, we are going to put the residential areas, we are
going to discuss that under conditional uses.
Voices: I don't see any point to that right now.
Commissioner Miller: I 'm back into bars and taverns, I guess. I 'm
not sure that I think it is wise to place Group II or IIIs. Now I
realize that they are primarily going to be governed by conditional
use and they would consider it there, but I 'm not sure that we
don't want a separation requirement from bars, taverns, lounges.
Commissioner Faust: Well, how about liquor stores, too.
Commissioner Miller: Well, I think that is taken care of by. . .
Voice• zoning
Voices• (unclear)
Chair Martinez: (unclear) and I can't remember where, but I think
it is in the. . .
Commissioner Miller: Although all of them would be conditional
use, now if I remember correctly. So maybe that becomes more mute
with it all being conditional use, Its and IIIs now.
Chair Martinez: We may get so muddled up in our. . .
Voice: definitions. . .
49
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
June 25, 1990
Chair Martinez: And the thing is we could come back to this when
we are talking about the conditional use. . .
Commissioner Miller: A good place for it.
Chair Martinez: (unclear) and if we start spreading this out and
see what the results. . .
Commissioner Miller: But I do agree with adding parks and
playgrounds.
Chair Martinez: Would you make the motion.
Commissioner Miller: I move that we amend the separation
requirements such that on the third line after religious facilities
or institutions comma, we insert parks and playgrounds before and
other such uses that are deemed to be sensitive.
Commissioner Faust: Second.
Chair Martinez: Is there discussion on that issue? All in favor.
Voices: Aye.
Chair Martinez: Opposed. (silence) Okay. Is there further
discussion on the separation and dispersion requirements?
Commissioner Faust: Madam Chair, I move that we adopt the
separation and dispersion requirements as amended.
Chair Martinez: Is there a second?
Commissioner Gregory: Second.
Chair Martinez: Discussion.
Commissioner Faust: Question.
Chair Martinez: The question has been called. All in favor of
adopting the amended separation and dispersion requirements.
Voices: Aye.
Chair Martinez: Opposed. (silence) We have the next two items,
actually the next three, we can choose to do them in a number of
ways. . .establish conditional use criteria which specifically
addresses the nature of such land uses. We can do that any way we
want. (unclear) So I would entertain a motion to implement that.
50
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
June 25, 1990
Commissioner Faust: Madam Chair I move that we implement Action
Item Two--Establish Conditional Use Permit Criteria for Group
Homes.
Chair Martinez: How would you propose that we do that.
James Harris: You need a second.
Chair Martinez: Coleen seconded it.
Chair Martinez : How would propose that we do that?
Commissioner Faust: Well, I propose that the Planning Commission
do it and that we direct the staff to develop some sample criteria
based on what we have done in the city and what is being done in
surrounding cities and then make a presentation to us at which
point we will take some public testimony and then come up with
conditional use permit criteria.
Chair Martinez: That we can recommend to the Council.
Commissioner Miller: I could accept that.
Commissioner Ward: I could buy that, too.
Chair Martinez: Okay. Can we add to the implement by . . .
Commissioner Faust: Shall I try again.
Chair Martinez: Yeah. If the second will be withdrawn.
Commissioner Miller: I will certainly consider her new suggestion.
Commissioner Faust: I have to phrase this somehow. Madam Chair,
I move that we, the Planning Commission, establish conditional use
permit criteria for group homes and that we direct Planning
Department staff to develop sample criteria for our consideration
at a public hearing, and that the Planning Commission establish
conditional use criteria and present them to the City Council for
its approval.
Commissioner Miller: I would second that.
Chair Martinez: Will you withdraw your other second. Do we have
that motion.
Voice: I have it on the tape.
~ 51
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
June 25, 1990
Commissioner Faust: I was trying to speak distinctly for Lois.
Commissioner Ward: How are we pressed for timing. Don't you think
we should ask staff.
Commissioner Miller: I certainly would want their suggestions as
to when this can actually happen.
Commissioner Ward: Can that be part of the motion?
Voices• (unclear)
Commissioner Faust: I would like this to be presented at a
workshop.
Chair Martinez: My personal feeling is that this is something that
we really need to work at.
James Harris: We could get it to you at a workshop in August.
Voices• (unclear)
James Harris: Third Monday, the 20th of August.
Chair Martinez: That is a reasonable time for me. Then we would
spend that workshop working on it and then have the public hearing
after that. Okay. And I would suggest that we at least notify the
folks that worked on this so that all of the stuff that they
collected can be available so that we don't have to reinvent
anything. Is the question called.
Commissioner Faust: Question.
Chair Martinez: You all understand what we are doing here.
Commissioner Ward: I don't understand your last statement. You
said we notify the people, the committee that worked on this. . .
Chair Martinez: To invite them to come to our workshop.
Commissioner Ward: That's a very good idea.
Chair Martinez: The question has been called. All in favor.
Voices• Aye.
Chair Martinez: Opposed. (silence) More work for the staff. Our
next action item is to establish a city licensing program to
52
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
June 25, 1990
monitor the location and nature of Class II and III Group Homes in
Kent. It is closely tied to G, assign a staff person with a social
services background to the periodic monitoring of group homes in
Kent. Again these will come as recommendations, or they can come
as recommendations from this body.
Commissioner Miller: Do we need to address that today, or can we
deal with Action Item 2 first?
Commissioner Faust: I think I would prefer to either deal with it
simultaneously. In other words either keep it for ourselves or
release it to somebody else to deal with.
Chair Martinez: I want to make sure that when we send this up,
that this goes with it. However we do that.
Commissioner Gregory: You want to make sure that the matrix
(unclear) .
Chair Martinez : With the monitoring and the conditional use and
the parks. . .
Commissioner Miller: We want to send a package.
Chair Martinez: I don't want to send loose ends hanging out there.
Commissioner Faust: Madam Chair, since we are already going to be
taking the central position on Action Item Two upon ourselves as
the Planning Commission, I think it makes perfect sense for the
Planning Commission also to take the lead position on establishing
the licensing and monitoring systems as well. Therefore I would
like to make a parallel motion and it is this. I move that the
Planning Commission authorize. . .sorry, strike that. I move that
the Planning Commission establish licensing and monitoring systems
and to that end that they direct the Planning Department and staff
to develop licensing and monitoring guidelines that will be
presented to us at the same workshop which we will be considering
Action Item Number Two, and that the following week, August 28th I
guess it is or 27th, that we will hold a public hearing on this as
well, and that our recommendations, I 'm not done yet Willie, and
that our recommendations will be forwarded to the City Council.
Commissioner Gregory: Second.
Chair Martinez : I have to say is there discussion of this item?
Commissioner Ward: Question.
53
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
June 25, 1990
Chair Martinez: All in favor.
Voices: Aye.
Chair Martinez: Opposed. (silence) Do we want to take up G or do
we want to leave that. Oh, is that. . .I apologize.
Commissioner Faust: Sounds like a good idea to me.
Chair Martinez: Okay. We have dealt with this. We have actually
dealt with half of this. The other half we will deal with at a
further hearing. I need direction on this, Jim. I would like this
to go as a package, so though we have made definite recommendations
on Action Item One, you can hold it as far as the Council is
concerned until we have prepared.
James Harris: This is all one thing. . . (unclear)
Chair Martinez: Is there any other business to come before this
body?
(End of Verbatim Minutes)
Mr. Harris announced that the City Council has received a petition
of 1, 600 signatures requesting the further reduction of densities
in the multifamily areas. The Mayor's Growth Management Committee
is being formed to consider this issue, and the Planning Commission
will also be discussing this issue within 30 days after the
committee has been formed.
Chair Martinez suggested that the group homes issue be completed
before hearing the density issue.
ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Faust MOVED to adjourn the meeting Commissioner Miller
SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at--
10:10 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
0ames . Harr , Secretary
54
KENT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
August 27, 1990
The meeting of the Kent Planning Commission was called to order by
Chair Martinez at 7:30 p.m. August 27, 1990 in the Kent City Hall,
City Council Chambers.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT:
Linda Martinez, Chair
Tracy Faust, Vice Chair
Frank Chopp
Coleen Miller
Raymond Ward
PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT:
Elmira Forner, excused
Greg Greenstreet, absent
Willie Gregory, absent
PLANNING STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
James P. Harris, Planning Director
Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager
Lauri Anderson, Senior Planner
Janet Shull, Planner
Lois Ricketts, Recording Secretary
KENT CITY STAFF:
Carolyn Lake, Assistant City Attorney
APPROVAL OF JULY 23, 1990 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Commissioner Faust MOVED that the minutes of the July 23, 1990
meeting be approved as presented. Commissioner Miller SECONDED the
motion. Motion carried.
GROUP HOMES - ZCA 90-2
(Verbatim Minutes)
Chair Martinez: I would like to reopen the public hearing. Is
there (unclear) from staff.
Janet Shull: This is Janet Shull of the Planning Department. Good
evening. What I 'd like to do is go over three or four things
tonight. The first thing is just to give everyone here an overview
of what has happened to date, and, basically, if you want to follow
along, there is a packet you have in front of you that, basically,
Kent Planning Commission
August 27, 1990
I will be following along. You could practically read along with
me. I won't be totally reading it, but it 'goes in that order and
I' ll be talking about what has happened to date, the Planning
Commission's actions to date, some new information that the
Planning Commission has in front of them tonight that was also . . .
most of it you looked at last week in your workshop. And there are
a few additional items that you had requested of us for tonight.
And the third thing is going over what is left to act on this
evening. So that is the order of my presentation. The last
hearing on this item, that is the Group Homes report
recommendations of the Group Homes Committee, the last hearing on
this was two months ago. It took place on June 25th. That evening
the Planning Commission made four recommendations or four actions
on that report. The first one was to modify the current definition
of family in the zoning code. Basically what that would do would
put limits on the number of unrelated individuals in a family. It
does other things as well, but that is the primary difference
between what we have now in the zoning code and what has been
recommended to date. The second item is to amend the zoning code
to add definitions of Class I, II and III group homes. The third
item being adding a siting matrix that would go along with those
defined three classes of group homes. So for each class the matrix
will specify whether that class of group homes is permitted, or
conditional or not permitted at all. The Planning Commission did
modify that matrix, and the modified matrix is contained in the
packet that you have this evening. And basically those
modifications were to make Class II group homes conditional in all
cases where the committee had recommended in some cases Class II be
permitted in certain zones. The Planning Commission has modified
that so that in all cases they will now be conditional. And the
fourth action taken was to adopt separation and dispersion
requirements which would apply only to Class II and III group
homes. And, again, there was a recommended modification that would
add to the list of sensitive uses, parks and playgrounds. So the
separation requirements would relate to those sensitive land uses
and that Class II and III group homes would need to be at least
1, 000 feet from those listed sensitive land uses. And in the
dispersion requirements being 600 feet, that any two group homes
that are Class II or III must be at least 600 feet from one
another. So, those four items have been acted upon by the Planning
Commission. Tonight we are going to be looking at some other items
that the Planning Commission directed staff to research in these
last two months, and we've gone over these in workshop last week
and so I ' ll briefly touch on what was presented last time.
Essentially, what those items were that we've been looking at the
last couple of months did come out of the group home report. They
were recommended for further study of staff. But the Group Homes
Committee themselves did not develop these items. They felt it was
2
Kent Planning Commission
August 27, 1990
beyond their capability as an advisory committee, but they felt
strongly about these items. The first one of those was to develop
a licensing program for Class II and III group homes. The second
was in conjunction to that to develop a monitoring program for
Class II and III group homes. And then also to develop specific
criteria that would be utilized for the conditional use permitting
; process of Class II and III group homes. The committee felt that
our current list of eight criteria in the zoning code was not . . .
maybe not enough and we needed to look at whether we need
additional criteria to apply just to the Class II and III group
homes. So these items we have done some research on, and I'd like
to just briefly go over that tonight for those people who may not
have been at the 20th, August 20th meeting. The first item is the
licensing program. It is clear to understand that the purpose of
the licensing program is not to take the place of state licensing
which all Class II and III group homes would need some sort of
license to operate. The city is not going to be giving out
licenses to operate group homes. That is not our job. What we
would be doing is using the licensing program primarily to
implement the separation and dispersion requirements that would
apply to Class II and III group homes. That procedure would be
similar to that used in the city's business license program in that
the applicants would need to come in, fill out a form that would
ask questions such as where the group home would be located, who
the contact persons are, who the appropriate licensing agencies
are, etc. That would be kept on file and that would be required of
the group homes. If they were to be permitted to be located in
the city, they must fill out these forms. The license would be
renewed annually, and the purpose of that renewal would be
primarily to update the city on any changes that may take place in
either the nature of the group home, the number of persons, names
of the contact persons or agencies if they were to change within a
year's time. So that is primarily how the licensing program would
work. And it would serve the city as a quick reference form, sort
of a one-page summary of where a group home is, who the contacts
are, who is living in the group home, etc. If there is any need
to do any quick referencing as to what was happening at a
particular site, we would have that all summarized on one sheet,
and appropriate contacts for the group home. And as I mentioned
earlier, this would be useful once we get a few group homes that
may be located in the city and we wanted to determine for the
purpose of siting a new group home whether it was at least 600 feet
from the others. This listing of group homes would all be in one
place so it would be that much easier for staff to determine
whether a group was meeting that dispersion requirement. The
monitoring program that we have been proposing would be an ongoing
process, and it would also have a staff site visit occurring at
least once a year. But it would be seen as ongoing in that there
3
Kent Planning Commission
August 27, 1990
may be times during the year that we would need to contact the
group person . . . appropriate contact person or they may need to
contact us. For instance, if there has been a change in who the
contact person is or proposing some change to the group home,
either the number of persons or something as a city in enforcing
zoning code may be concerned with. And, again, monitoring by the
city is not meant to take place of any monitoring that would occur
by the state licensing agencies. We are not necessarily monitoring
the operation of the group home, but we would be monitoring the
group homes just to make sure that they have the same number of
people that we permitted, that the type of people in the group
homes are the same as those permitted, etc. Really what we would
like to get across is that the staff role as we see it is to be a
liaison between the citizens of Kent and the people that would
operate the group home as well as the people who would live in the
group home. That we see our role as that of trying to get better
communication between the city and the group homes and see
ourselves acting as liaisons. The staff person conducting the site
visit would during that site visit be able to determine the
following things: whether or not the home is operating as
indicated on any conditional use permit that has been applied to
them; whether it has passed the monitoring by the appropriate
licensing agencies. We would not monitor them to see that they are
meeting all their requirements. That is not anything that we would
even try to pretend to know how to do, but what we would want to do
is look at the report that the appropriate agencies have submitted
to make sure that they have not found any problems. We would want
to see that. And then we would also want to double check that they
still maintain a current license to operate. If there is any
chance that they could have had their license pulled and still be
operating, it is probably very slim, but we would want to know for
some reason that they had lost their license to operate. And the
only other things that we would want to look at would be whether
they had any complaint record, whether there had been any
complaints during the year, and if so, had they been resolved. We
would be interested in knowing that. From that we felt that we
needed to develop a city policy regarding complaints. We hope
there won't be a lot of complaints, but I think we need to be
prepared for any that may occur if we have group homes II and III
in the city. What we would like to do is assign the same person
who would be doing the monitoring as the contact for complaints
that the Planning Department may receive so that all complaints and
all records could go pretty much through one person who would be
coordinating all the records and information on Class II and III
group homes. So, if and when staff does receive a complaint on a
Class II or III group home, they would have to conform to the
following procedure. It would be very important to notify the
police if for some reason we would happen to be notified of a
4
Kent Planning Commission
August 27, 1990
matter that would really be a police matter. I would hope that if
someone was concerned with an emergency issue they would call the
police, but if for some reason they called the Planning Department,
we would need to make sure that we notified the appropriate agency.
We would notify the appropriate code enforcement division if it
were a code enforcement matter. If someone was calling because the
landscaping of the group home was looking kind of grungy or there
was a problem, maybe it was a parking situation, that would be
something that the monitoring person wouldn't necessarily enforce.
But someone in our department or perhaps the Building Department,
if it was sort of a building code or a fire code issue, we would
need to notify the appropriate person. And in all cases we would
want to notify the contact person at the group home whether or not
the complaint was a legitimate complaint. We would feel that that
person would have the right to know that someone was unhappy with
something that was happening on their site, so they would want to
make sure that they were aware of any complaints that were
occurring. And, if necessary, the staff person would make sure to
notify the appropriate licensing agency. The reason I say if
necessary, it may be that if someone is complaining about a
landscaping issue, that may not be something that the licensing
agency would be concerned about. If it had something to do with
operational safety kinds of things, then the licensing agency would
certainly need to be notified. The staff person would then log the
complaint, the date, the name, etc, phone number of the contact
person to keep in their records, and also would try to follow up
and determine whether the complaint was resolved, whether or not it
was legitimate, and if so was it resolved. What happened? And
then the final item that we were concerned with in our issue of
trying to deal with complaints and trying think of all the possible
scenarios, one that developed was the concern that in some cases
the Police Department may be notified but the Planning Department
may not have any notification for whatever reason. That is
something we are working with the Police Department on in order to
receive notification of any complaints so that we can keep those in
our records and be able to review those with the group homes at the
time of the annual review or if more serious, before the annual
review. What we have worked out thus far. . .this is something that
we talked about last time and there was some question as to how far
we can go as far as a person's right to privacy, and some records
of the Police Department may not be . . . they may not be able to
give them to just anyone if they are not a law enforcement agency.
So what we are proposing to do is work with the Police Department
so that we can be notified to the extent permissible under the laws
that govern the individual 's right to privacy. The notification
process may create a voluntary waiver which could be signed by an
individual in a Class II or III group home saying that they are
willing to participate in our notification process. I must stress,
5
Kent Planning Commission
August 27, 1990
though, that would be voluntary. You could not force someone to
sign a waiver, but I believe that in the case of Class III
individuals, there are some rules that govern them as far as
notification to the community that this individual may be in your
community. - But in the case of Class II, I don't know that that is
true. So, we would like to put that into place as well as work
with the Police Department and see what they can tell us if not the
person's name, at least that maybe an incident took place on a day
so that we could keep that in our records in case these for some
reason accumulate and become a problem. The other item that we
talked about was conditional use permit criteria. And I 'd like to
go over those real quickly. Basically, what we have proposed as
staff is to add three criteria to apply to the Class II and III
group homes when determining whether or not to issue a conditional
use permit. And we need to stress that these are criteria, they
are not the actual conditions. Conditions that may be applied to
a group would relate to these criteria or they could relate to
these criteria, but they would be very individualistic depending on
the nature and the site of the group home and would be applied at
the time a permit was issued. And I 'd just like to show this
overhead that sort of puts these additional criteria into the
framework of what we have currently in the zoning code. If you
find this kind of hard to read, it is on page six of the handout,
or it starts on page six. Basically the first eight are currently
in our zoning code. They apply to any conditional use, not just
group homes but any use that is either listed as a conditional use
or subject to this criteria. And so, very quickly, the first one
is that the proposed use and the proposed location will not be
detrimental to other uses legally existing or permitted outright in
the zoning district. Second item. Is the size of the site
adequate for the proposed use. The traffic generated by the
proposed use will not unduly burden the traffic circulation system
in the vicinity. The other performance characteristics of the
proposed use are compatible with those of other uses in the
neighborhood or vicinity. Adequate buffering devices, such as
fencing, landscaping, topographic characteristics, protect adjacent
properties from adverse effects of the proposed use, including
adverse visual or auditory effects. You can see that some of these
are rather generic. Others may apply more specifically to group
homes. Excuse me. Other uses in the vicinity of the proposed
site are such as. . . (unclear) . . .at the proposed use to function
effectively. This was an important item to the Commission because
it was something you actually asked to see and indeed it already
exists. So we sort of met that. . .that request. Number seven.
Proposed request complies with the performance standards, parking
standards and other applicable provisions of the code, and then any
other similar considerations that may be appropriate to that
particular case. That sort of leaves things a little bit open just
6
Kent Planning Commission
August 27, 1990
because we can't even guess as to all the uses that may come under
conditional use permit requirement. The following three are
criteria that staff is recommending be added to the zoning code and
only apply to Class II and III group homes. It is important to
understand that these would not apply to Class I, only II and III.
But there are some cases where Class IC would be conditional. They
would need to meet the first eight, but not the last three. So
that is one way of seeing how you might use this if it were in
effect. The first one is that the applicant must provide copies of
the appropriate licensing criteria and rules they will operate
under for city review. So that is an additional set of criteria in
that one requirement that the city could look at to see if there
was any special condition that we might need to place on a permit
or whether or not we should even grant a conditional permit. That
would be one other criteria that we could look at. The proposed
Class II and III group home must meet the separation and dispersion
requirements. That ties through this requirement our requirement
to make Class II and III subject to separation and dispersion. And
the final requirement being that the operating characteristics of
the proposed II and III group homes be such as to ensure a means
for ongoing communication with the city. This includes
identification of appropriate contacts for establishing 24-hour
contact availability. This criteria would deal with being able
to. . .the proposed group home being able to meet our licensing and
monitoring criteria, and we need to see that just because we have
this program The framework within which the group home would
operate would allow us to make a site visit annually and have some
kind of communication with them. We would want to make sure that
someone was there and was going to talk with us if it was
necessary. So that is what we would need to see. So those are the
three that we are recommending be added to the zoning code for II
and III. When we were talking about. . .well, I guess first I 'd like
to talk about code enforcement, and then I will get into the
licensing language. When we were talking about conditional use
permit criteria, there was a lot of questioning and concern about
where we could put the requirement for licensing in the group
homes. I guess I ' ll go ahead and mention that now. It is
mentioned on page nine, and it is part of the recommended action
for this evening to adopt this language and add it to the zoning
code, but basically what we are recommending is to place that in
the zoning code under the definition section where the definitions
of the group homes and the requirement for separation and
dispersion are clearly listed to. . .along with that list the
requirement that license be obtained by the appropriate agency and
include the city licensing requirement as well. So we felt that in
looking through this material that this was the most appropriate
and clearest place to put them, and then a condition could be
applied as well that would tie in to that formally through the
7
Kent Planning Commission
August 27, 1990
conditional use permit process. But this way it clearly states
that it is required in the zoning code. We have also prepared some
information on code enforcement that was something people wanted to
see exactly how code enforcement would work if it was necessitated,
and that is on page seven in the handout. Again, as a Planning
Department we can only be concerned where violations of zoning law,
of our zoning code, of the zoning permit. We cannot be concerned
with. . .we can be concerned, but we cannot enforce violations of
criminal law or violations of license to operate. If they are
operational violations, we, as a Planning Department, cannot
enforce that legally. I just wanted to make that clear right off
the bat. Examples of things that we may need to enforce that are
zoning issues are issues such as parking violations, signage,
landscaping maintenance, or violations of any condition that may be
placed on a group home through our conditional use permit process.
Section 15 dash 09 100 of the zoning code outlines the procedure
for enforcing zoning code violations. And zoning code violations
are considered a misdemeanor and are subject to a fine of up to
$100 for each day the violation remains in place. Individuals can
be subject to imprisonment if they participate, assist or maintain
such a violation. So that is legally what we could do if there is
an enforcement issue or violation that exists. Section 15.09. 080
of the Kent Zoning Code allows for revocation of permits if any of
the conditions or terms of a permit are violated. So, if for some
reason a Class II or III group home were to violate one of its
conditions established in a conditional use permit, for example,
more people residing in a group home than we've permitted, so if we
say and through our zoning code you are allowed up to ten and for
some reason we are aware that there are fifteen people living in
this home could attempt to revoke the group home' s permit if they
do not resolve this problem. So the process for revoking a permit
would be to hold the hearing in front of the Hearing Examiner for
both sides would have the opportunity to present the case, and then
the Hearing Examiner would make the determination whether the
permit needs to be revoked or whether other mitigating actions may
be necessary.
Commissioner Miller: Janet, may I ask a question.
Janet Shull: Umhmm.
Commissioner Miller: I think the harder question is if they are
allowed ten and then consistently have eleven. Fifteen is pretty
clear. What if it is eleven or maybe occasionally twelve. Do you
have any feeling about how strongly it is going to be enforced and
what the Hearing Examiner is likely to do if it is a slight
infraction rather than a major infraction.
8
Kent Planning Commission
August 27, 1990
Janet Shull: I don't know. Personally I do not have a lot of
contact with the Hearing Examiner to really feel that I know how
that person would view it. I assume it would go to the Hearing
Examiner and I would be guess, but say it is a lesser violation, I
don't know how you would make that determination that maybe in the
eyes of the Hearing Examiner it may be a lesser violation, maybe
they would say. . .try to impose mitigating rather than revoking the
permit. They may say you have six months to. . .I 'm just guessing,
I have no idea, but, for example, they may say we'll give you six
months to find this person another home. If not, your permit is
revoked. That may be a reasonable type. . .maybe someone from staff
can jump up here if they have any better ideas, but. . .
Lauri Anderson: Lauri Anderson with the Planning Department. I
think that's really hard question to answer. . .certainly if they are
over, they have a number of people that's over the requirements in
the permit, they are in violation. And I don't think there is a
lot of room for interpretation. There would need to be some
decision made. What the Hearing Examiner will do is not something
we can predict.
Commissioner Miller: But the referral would be made.
Lauri Anderson: I 'm sure that it would.
Commissioner Faust: That' s sort of what I was going to say,
Coleen. I know you couldn't attend last week, but we've set out
these classes. If it is a Class IA or IB and they are over the
limit, they are no longer that particular Class IA, and so
something would have to be done whether they were one person over
or five people over.
James Harris: Can I make a comment that is relevant to the Near
East situation. You would just say get out, and we wouldn't
mediate too much. You know, the head of the UN is going to try to
talk to the head of Iraq. We may do some minimal talking and say
that you have a month to get this person out of there, but then
we'd take it to the Hearing Examiner. Now when it goes to the
Hearing Examiner, you are in a different form. All we can do is
present our side. They present their side, and it is kind of a
judicial, quasi-judicial situation so we can't sway things, maybe,
as much there. But here is possibility of appeal on from anything
the Hearing Examiner does to City Council. That's the way I think
we would treat it. . . (unclear) .
Chair Martinez : But if our code says ten and there are eleven, it
seems to me a whole person's violation. It's not like. . .
9
Kent Planning Commission
August 27, 1990
James Harris: Move that person out is what we would say.
Chair Martinez: I think where it becomes sticky is where you have
ten people, one of whom is ,getting ready to move out and you are
moving the replacement in and there is going to be an overlap.
Those are the kinds of icky ones. If we say ten and there are
eleven, that' s a violation. Right.
Commissioner Chopp: My question is how do we find out if we can't
go over there and say we want to inspect your place.
James Harris: We may get a complaint from a neighbor. We may get
the state licensing agency looking into it and as they do sometimes
in day care facilities. They will say it's closer to you, you
take care of it. And let us know what the problem is, although I
think the state licensing agency is more likely to come down harder
on them earlier and quicker than anybody else would.
Commissioner Chopp: But there is nobody monitoring them to find
out if they are. . .
James Harris: We' ll be monitoring them once a year, so that's one
way of looking at it. If something is getting out of hand in that
one year, we' ll catch it sometime.
Commissioner Miller: Then there will be an agency, I would very
strongly presume, that will be paying per resident. And if you are
very often paying for more residents than they are licensed for,
they may be a source of violation not to us but will eventually
come to our attention. That may be one of the sources that it will
come from.
Chair Martinez: One thing we haven't included, I don't know if
it's relevant or not, but it seems to me that as part of the code
enforcement that there should be a way of almost instant and
automatic revocation of their permit. They lose their operational
license. I mean, it seems like it should just be instantaneous
particularly that they lose their operating, because we are
depending on the operational license. . .or the operational. . .the
organization that licenses them to do the actual monitoring of that
operation. And if we use that monitoring .device, I think we are in
a very odd situation. I think we should have some provision to
instantly revoke their permit. Is that legal?
Voices• (unclear)
Chair Martinez: Absolutely.
10
Kent Planning Commission
August 27 , 1990
o through all these
Fred Satterstrom: (unclear) couldn't we g quest
when you
presentations and then come back to all these q
are in the deliberation of the ordinance itself. . . (unclear) . . .
Chair Martinez: Okay. Thank you.
Commissioner Ward• But we only have one. . . (unclear) . . .
le of one case where
a ermit. It is also important
Janet Shull: I wanted to use that as an exam
we may need to look into revoking because I think in that case the
lace was
to see it as another layer, that the p
licensing agency would be foremost lhe enceeingrevoking the license
shut down. I would think that teo le moved out if they took away
th took away their funding as well. I
would want to ensure that the P p operate
What this
their license and Supposedlylayer of
think it would be very difficult for uirements panother lay on to
does is tie in through zoning agencycalled up
enforcement. . .that we wouldnIt be requirement the lwecould tie into that
enforce. Through a zoning
licensing requirement. I just wanted to use that as an example-
was for some
it would immediately stop operation,
Commissioner Ward: I would think that if licensing agencies,
reason stopped or revoked, of these
because there would be no money
uld opera o and most
the basis g of the
particularly a group home,
allocation of funds for its operation.
Janet Shull: Right. But it is imp
ortant, I think, for the
that is what this does. And basically that leads
community to feel that there is a mechanism for us to be overseeing
that as well, so goes in that just
into the closing remarks as far as enforcement
wanting to clarify again that violations of criminal
operation and
violations of state laws governing the licensing P
Class II and III group homes are not subject to City Planning
Department enforcement unless they are something that we can
specifically relate to a
specifically tie in with a condition or sP a criminal
zoning code requirel problem beainvest gated and incident actedupon by the
action or operational p we would make
appropriate agency. If the complaint came to us,
of to the right person, and they would be the agency that
sure it g problem if it existed. And then just
would enforce that particular p criminal law or
to clarify to the extend that a violation roup home is tied tog
II group
governing the operation of Class II or I
can
zoning permit. Such violaenforced through gong
over be
licensing langu geaaslto
Department action. And I did g so basically I 'd like to
where we are suggesting implementing a that, actions you have before
close with the recommendations for p
you tonight. And there is basically two actions that remain. The
11
Kent Planning Commission
August 27, 1990
first one being to amend the previously approved definition of
Class II and III group homes to add the language which concerns the
monitoring and licensing requirements that are shown on page nine
in bold face and underlined type. That's what we are recommending
be amended to what you have already approved. And then the second
item being to amend the zoning code to the three additional
conditional use permit criteria which again would apply to Class II
and III group homes. And those are shown on page nine as well:
So, those are essentially the two actions you have before you
tonight. And if there aren't any more questions for me, I guess
it's yours.
Chair Martinez: I have one. When you log a complaint, where do
you log it and how does it get in the history of the agency that we
would be tracking. How does that get connected?
Janet Shull: Each agency would have its own file, and then there
would be a staff person in our human services department that would
have a social services background that would be assigned to the
monitoring. So that person, as I see it, and someone else may have
a different. . .but as I have been seeing this as developing is that
person would have charge of those files, and all the information on
each particular group home would go into that file. Again, we are
talking only about Class II and III, not all group homes in the
city, just II and III. And currently we don't have any, I believe.
Chair Martinez : It wouldn't be a log of all the complaints we've
had about II and III, but it would in fact be a log of all the
complaints we've. . .
Janet Shull: No, and that would work in conjunction with the
monitoring system so that when you go to that site you take that
file and have the history of what happened last year and this year.
Maybe they are doing better this year or not so good this year, and
so you would have the history for each group home.
Commissioner Chopp: I 'd like to add something to that, when you
mentioned having the authority to close them down, and I think that
is rather (unclear) to closing a home like that, because these
people are depending on the home. I don't think we should have to
close it, but correct the problem rather than close them. Because
if you close them, where are these people going to go.
Janet Shull: That's a very good point, and I think our hope is
that it very rarely would come to that, but that issue would be
resolved before it came. . . I think the people that are running the
group home would tend to be cooperative because they are dependent
on state money, perhaps private money as well through donations.
12
Kent Planning Commission
August 27, 1990
I would think they would want to cooperate. I don't think they
would want to be shut down, and I would be very surprised if it
came to that, but we do need to have these mechanisms in case for
some reason people were uncooperative and there were problems. I
think people in the community want to see that, but on the other
hand I think your point is very important that we don't necessarily
want to be running people out of town on the least little thing.
That we would want to work with people, that we do want to have
some mechanism if we need it, so. . .
Chair Martinez: Are there any other questions? Do we have a sign-
up sheet?
Janet Shull: There is one right up here.
Chair Martinez: Did any one sign up?
Voice: (Unclear)
Chair Martinez : But we have someone who would like to speak. If
you will step to the microphone.
w Jack Cosby: I 'm Jack Cosby. I live at 525 VanDeVanter in Kent.
A number of questions are in my mind. I guess I ' ll start off by
saying that on the face of it I am against Group Homes I, II and
III. There is a petition before the City Council right now
complaining about multi units, and what is being proposed here is
something like putting up multi units, but not multi units by
definition. I hear you people and I don't know all of you, but the
ones I do know I certainly respect. I hear you guys saying we' ll
close them down. Can we do this? You don't know. I know you
don't know. Nobody knows. So you get some problems and you're
going to have citizens screaming and yelling even before the
problems come up, so I 'd say on group homes II and III, I 'm trying
to keep this short. What ' s in it? What are we doing? Why are we
doing this? It is nice that group homes are needed, certainly,
probably true. I 'm sure it is true. But what is in it for the
City of Kent? Okay. Then going to group homes I, opening a group
home in a neighborhood of single family residences. Maybe you
should think about allowing mother-in-law apartments in single
family residences, maybe you should think about allowing duplexes,
because that is what you are doing. You are saying you can have a
group home and you can have ten people in it, but no you can't have
a duplex there and you can't have a mother-in-law apartment there.
Think this thing out. I really don't want a group home in my
neighborhood I, II or III. I don't want it. And I think there are
a lot of people out there who won't.
13
Kent Planning Commission
August 27, 1990
Chair Martinez : Before you go are there questions. I have some if
you don't.
Commissioner Faust: Go ahead. I don't have a question, just a
comment.
Chair Martinez: You do understand that we are not, for Class II
and III, we are not approving any Class II or III at this time. We
are just putting the conditions in should someone approach us that
we would have some conditions whereby we would have some control.
As I understand, it right now there is very little control over
what would happen should an organization like a group II or III
comes in. They are conditional permits. We don't have all this
apparatus in place to make sure that the city is not harmed. You do
understand that.
Jack Cosby: If you are saying that. . .okay, what I am saying is
that I am against them in Kent. And if you are saying, well right
now there could be some and we don't have any apparatus, then I 'm
saying I 'm against them.
James Harris: May I interject something, Madam Chair. I think
there may be some confusion because Mr. Cosby's discussion or
dialogue goes along the line that we are allowing a kind of a quasi
multifamily, which would indicate that we are allowing these in R1
or single family. The only ones we allow in single family are the
Class IA, which are kind of controlled by the Federal Fair Housing
Act, and every Class IB, IC, Class II and Class III, none of those
are permitted in single family residential. First time they show
up is in multifamily. And then some of them start showing up as
conditional use permits multifamily, which makes it even tougher.
I just wanted to clarify that.
Chair Martinez : Thank you.
Commissioner Faust: That was the clarification that I wanted to
make, Jack, is that the only group homes that are going to be
allowed in single family areas are going to be group homes in Class
I that are six people or fewer. And by definition of family, we
have decided that that is a family. Six people, only now they
don't have to be related any more, but it is six people. And on
the other thing, and I know this is one of many reasons why we are
doing this, but as far as what is in it for the City of Kent, a lot
of these people will be Kent citizens, so it is our citizens, and
it is not necessarily somebody else' s citizens, it is our citizens
who happen to need a different kind of home arrangement. So, as
far as what is in it for Kent, one answer to that at least is that
it is Kent's way of dealing with its own citizens.
14
Kent Planning Commission
August 27, 1990
Jack Cosby: There's no guarantee that they would be Kent's
citizens.
Commissioner Faust: Absolutely none, but we do know that there are
people in our community out there who fit these three. . .certainly
the first two classifications. I don't know about the third.
Jack Cosby: Sure
Commissioner Faust: And I 'd just like to reiterate what Linda has
said and that is that II 's and III 's as conditional use permit, and
I, as an attorney, would rather. . . I 'd feel a lot more comfortable
having these conditional use criteria in place and having the City
of Kent be prepared in case something comes up than having us not
be prepared and suffer the consequences of not being prepared. And
you probably know what happens, Jack, about what happened with the
City of Renton trying to regulate after the fact where an x-rated
movie theater went, and they ended up going all the way to the
Supreme Court on that one. And they lost. And one of the reasons
they lost was because they didn't have the criteria in effect ahead
of time. I consider this insurance. Whether we ever have a Group
II or Group III home in this city, this is insurance. And I feel
real comfortable about that kind of insurance for the city.
Jack Cosby: Great. I appreciate that.
Chair Martinez : Questions.
Commissioner Miller: Madam Chair, I just want to make a brief
comment to the question of what is in it for the City of Kent. All
of the children, all of the young people will not be from Kent.
Right now the kids from Kent are going elsewhere and another
community is taking care of them. But it is simply taking care of
our own kids. Not all of these kids are violent. Not all of these
kids are dreadful. Some of these kids need some place to live, and
they are going to come back to our community. And I think we need
to give them as loving and positive an environment to live in as we
can, because they are our kids, whether they are from Renton or
whether they are from Auburn. We may get some Seattle kids, but
right now some of our kids are going to Seattle and Tacoma. I
can't think of all of the places that there are group homes. They
are our kids. I would not turn away one of my children who was ill
or sick. I presume you wouldn't. I wouldn't turn away my parent
or someone else who had a problem, and I think the community of
Kent is very much like a family with the same responsibilities. We
need to take care of our own people, our own citizens. Some of
them will be from someplace else, but our kids are also going
elsewhere, so I think on balance it will work out.
15
Kent Planning Commission
August 27, 1990
Chair Martinez: Other questions, comments. Thank you.
Jack Cosby: Thank you.
Chair Martinez: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak. Sir.
Identify yourself, and then come up and sign in.
Leon Adams: I am Leon Adams. I live at 244th and 35th. Tracy,
you were mentioning maximum of six in Class IA, which would be
single, and now I see a maximum of ten residents, including
resident staff. Now is that. . .
Commissioner Faust: What page are you on?
Leon Adams: I 'm on page two. Am I on the wrong spot or. . .
Commissioner Faust: No, you are on the right spot. I correct
myself. It was a maximum of eight, not six. Thanks.
Leon Adams: Now that is in a single, how do you classify that. A
single dwelling, which would be what. . .a three-bedroom house or how
is that classified. I am not totally sure.
Commissioner Faust: There is no classification. It is just a
single family dwelling.
Leon Adams: A single family dwelling. Okay. Is there any
maximum, I mean, does it have any stipulations two bedrooms, or
that type of situation. I see that like a three bedroom house with
ten people in it. I see that as being overcrowded.
Commissioner Ward: Oh, it may be, but someone corrected me before
in the sense that if the kid or the person that is handicapped,
they only allow one per room. Isn't it, therefore, the state's
regulation and what have you would determine how many bedrooms.
If they were handicapped, if there were six people there, there
would be six bedrooms.
Leon Adams: Right, and that' s a handicapped situation. But what
about . . .
Commissioner Ward: Some other situation. . .by the same token I
would assume they would probably (unclear) .
Leon Adams: Okay. All right. Are there any guidelines to that,
I mean are there "x" amount of bedrooms that you only can have.
Can they get five people in a bedroom or something like that, I
16
M Kent Planning Commission
August 27, 1990
guess that is my question. If the house has only three bedrooms,
what's to stop them from putting ten people in that house?
Commissioner Faust: What's to stop them from doing that now?
What's to stop a family with a whole bunch of kids having a three-
bedroom house and having all the boys in one room and all the girls
in another. It can be done right now in any single family area in
the city.
Leon Adams: I agree with you.
Commissioner Faust: There's no restriction now. What we are doing
is simply saying this is going to be considered a family unit. And
as Ray was saying, a lot of licensing places do have restrictions,
but there is nothing to stop anybody right now from doing that in
the City of Kent.
Leon Adams: Do you consider that safe?
Commissioner Faust: It is not up to me to decide whether it' s
safe. The City of Kent doesn't have, at least it is my
understanding and I see the staff here jumping up and down, it my
- understanding that the City of Kent doesn't have any authority
whatsoever to tell a family how many people they can put into a
bedroom. There might be regulations that the Fire Department can
impose for safety reasons, but the City of Kent looks into people 's
houses and say whoops, you have got one person too many in that
bedroom.
Leon Adams: We 're discussing this, right.
Commissioner Faust: It's like anybody else who moves into that
neighborhood.
Lauri Anderson: May I make a comment.
Chair Martinez: Yes.
Lauri Anderson: This is Lauri Anderson with the Planning
Department. Tracy is correct in terms. . . if a family were to move
into a single family home, certainly we, as a Planning Department,
don't tell them how many people they can have in a given bedroom.
I really want to reiterate the fact that there are for (unclear)
Class IA's there are fire safety requirements, particularly for
handicapped, children, and that kind of a situation, when we are
not talking about unrelated, able-bodied people living in the same
house. There are restrictions, and your concern is very valid, and
there are health/safety requirements that would have to be met.
17
Kent Planning Commission
August 27, 1990
You couldn't cram six handicapped persons into a bedroom in a group
home Class IA.
Chair Martinez: And you can't be a foster home and put. . .there is
a limit. . .there is an amount of per square footage that one has to
have to be permitted to be a foster home.
Leon Adams: I was just thinking about numerous amounts of cars or
that type of situation if they get a lot of people. Just something
to think about. What. . .also, is there a. . .what am I trying to say
here, in a Class II and III there was a process if there was
continuing complaints or something that was done, is that not
affected in Class I. That's just a question. . .
Chair Martinez: No. My understanding is, correct me if I am
wrong, we are the jurisdiction for. . .Class I is like a protected
class in the same way that those of us who are in a certain age
group are a protected class.
Voices• (unclear)
Chair Martinez: And so group IA is indeed out of the jurisdiction
of Kent in terms of those sorts of things. The fact that we
include them sort of acknowledges that we have included them, if I
am not. . .have I stated that correctly?
Voice: They are protected, handicapped and etc. are protected by
the Fair Housing Act and are to be given the same rights and
privileges to live where they chose in the city. . . (unclear)
Chair Martinez: Actually, we have said that a nonhandicapped
person living in a family, six persons not related by blood could
live there so. . .
Leon Adams: Is there any way to give priority to Kent individuals?
Is that at all possible?
Chair Martinez: I don't think so.
Voice• No.
Commissioner Ward: The state regulations would make the
determinations of assignment and what have you. And I don't know
whether they would separate. . .Kent residents are going somewhere
else now because we don't have any. All of this is about preparing
for the eventuality that a sponsoring agency does make application
in order to bring a Class II or Class III group home into Kent and
whether that happens, and if it happens then by the same token we
18
Kent Planning Commission
August 27, 1990
have some regulation in place within our code requirements in order
to govern, at least to some degree over what we have presently.
That is what this is all about.
Leon Adams: Are there other Class I groups in Kent?
Commissioner Ward: Class I groups can go just anywhere. I 'm sure
we do.
Chair Martinez: We don't know. Basically, we don't know.
Commissioner Miller: To answer a little bit your question, it is
somewhat self limiting because families generally want to visit
their children, so you generally get kids from a common area. They
won't all be Kent, I would strongly guess, but they may be South
King County kids. And the further away they are, you may
occasionally get some because there won't be space available
someplace else. We may get kids from Pierce County or from North
King County just like if homes were full here, they may go to these
other jurisdictions. But you want to keep kids as close to their
family as you can, so I think that it is a little bit self
Y limiting, but it won't work perfectly just by nature of when beds
are available and what is available.
Leon Adams: Thank you.
Chair Martinez: Thank you. Please come up and sign in. Thanks.
Bureaucracy. Thanks. Is there anyone else who wishes to say
anything. I would entertain a motion to close the public hearing.
Commissioner Ward: So moved.
Commissioner Faust: Second.
Chair Martinez : All in favor.
Voices• Aye.
Chair Martinez: Okay. I would like some discussion. I assume
there will be some of what. . .of the suggestions that have been
brought to us for entering the definition. . .changing. . .amending the
definition that we have already accepted. That would be the first
one. And then some of the additional conditions. So. . .
Commissioner Faust: I don't have any, Madam Chair, I don't have
any discussion on the definition. I do have some. . .a comment on
some of the things that Janet went over tonight, so if there is
discussion on the definition, I ' ll hold off.
19
Kent Planning Commission
August 27, 1990
Chair Martinez: Okay. Does 4Lnyone have any problem with the
definition or want to clarify anything? I think this is the spirit
that we talked about that, you've met the spirit of what we were
talking about in workshop, that is making sure that our license is
right in line with making sure that the organization is licensed to
do whatever they are going to do. Any other comments about this
one? Okay. You're on, Tracy.
Commissioner Faust: Great. I want to say that I feel a whole lot
better after hearing what Janet has said about how we are going to
add additional conditional uses and how we are going to monitor and
enforce the group II and III homes. That was. . .anybody who was
here for the first public hearing knows how serious those issues
were to the people who were here at the meeting that night, and I 'm
sorry that some of those people aren't here tonight, because I
think that some of their fears would have been allayed, and I am
really pleased to see the information in here on monitoring and the
kinds of at least limited controls that Kent can place on these
homes have indeed been placed. And I feel real good about that and
I have every expectation that Mr. Price will duly report that in
his article so that the people who couldn't be here tonight are at
least given some assurances, because I know that was a big deal.
I feel better about it, and I feel a lot more comfortable about
voting for the rest of this knowing that we do have some monitoring
procedures in place, and that we do have a procedure that, if
necessary, can actually yank a conditional permit if it comes to
that. So I am prepared to vote for them now that I know that.
Chair Martinez: I did have a question, and that was is there . . .we
said that as an ongoing monitoring process and one would expect
that they would. . .you talked about the 24-hour communication which
would mean that when the contact changed, they should let you know.
Those sorts of things. Did you think of it. . . Am I doing that?
James Harris: No, it' s the (unclear) .
Chair Martinez : I thought I was doing something. Sorry. Just
because I 'm not paranoid doesn't mean I couldn't do it. Did you
consider that there was any time when we should build into this
business license "thingy" that they should immediately contact us.
I mean, that would be built into this whole thing. They should
immediately contact us when. . .perhaps the population served has
been changed, or the licensing. . .sponsoring agent has changed.
Because I imagine that could happen, not usually, but it could
happen and it could happen between monitoring visits. And then
that the contact names could change. Did you consider that and
what did you think about that.
20
Kent Planning Commission
August 27, 1990
Lauri Anderson: This is Lauri Anderson with the Planning
Department. We discussed this at the workshop last week. By
making one of the criteria for reviewing a conditional use permit,
they provide a sort of a system to ensure that we have 24-hour
contact availability. What we are doing is putting the burden on
them to think about how they are going to do that, and they are
going to present to us with their application some kind of a means
for doing that. In other words what we are asking them for is a
plan of action. How are we going to know that we will have 24-hour
contact availability? Is that. . . In other words, if they come to
us and say well, we are going to fill out your license and that way
you will always know how you can reach us, that doesn't ensure. . .
Chair Martinez: Right.
Lauri Anderson: . . . it has to be more comprehensive than that.
They have to ensure a means so that we would always know. And of
course that would entail notifying us if the contact changes. Now
we could, I mean if what you are asking is that we add a phrase,
for example, to the licensing form that says that if there is a
change in any of this information, your responsibility is to
immediately notify the Planning Department at 859-3390.
Commissioner Ward: Sounds like application (unclear) . And you
could have certain questions on the licensing application, an
asterisk or something of sort, and a footnote to say any change to
any of the above requires immediate notification to the city. Then
you basically cover it.
Lauri Anderson: We could easily do that.
Commissioner Ward: And if they don't, then it is a violation and
we could complain like anyone else and go through our conditional
use process in order to do something about it.
Lauri Anderson: Okay.
Chair Martinez: I guess the problem I 'm having is ensuring a means
for ongoing communication with the city is one thing to me. But if
you said ensure a means to identify appropriate contact, the
appropriate contact, the appropriate 24-hour contact so this is
really clear what one wants there, which is we want to know all the
time who that person is. We don't necessarily. . . it is not to. . .yes
it is, I was going to say it is not to ensure communication. What
we really want here, unless I am badly mistaken, is we want to
ensure that we know who the responsible party is at all times.
Isn't that what we want? Communication is lovely, but we want to
21
Kent Planning Commission
August 27, 1990
know who is responsible. And I wish we'd say that. Is that too
straightforward for some reason.
Lauri Anderson: We come back to the issue of criteria versus
conditions.
Chair Martinez: I know that.
Lauri Anderson: Okay. And as a criteria, I guess what we were
looking at is how we could word that to ensure that they would put
before us a system to guarantee that we would always know that
person. And by putting it in a criteria telling us who the person
is, by telling us who the person is doesn't solve the problem. We
need to hear about the system. How are they going to keep us
notified who the person is? Maybe I am getting confused.
Chair Martinez: Maybe you should say that. Maybe you have and I 'm
just reading it. It seems to be a little turgid. Now what it
seems to me, it seems to me it has a potential for being
misunderstood.
Lauri Anderson: Okay, so your suggested change is. . .
Chair Martinez : Is that. . .precisely what you just said.
Fred Satterstrom: Some legalese here for you. Carolyn Lake has
been kind enough to come up with some language that might help to
go on our license, not that you have to adopt it. But she has
suggested that any change in the above information requires
immediate notification to the Kent Planning Department. Failure to
do so is a violation of licensing requirements and may result in
revocation of license or conditional use permit.
Chair Martinez : Yes. Yes. Yes.
Commissioner Ward: Isn't that what I said earlier, though.
Chair Martinez : You said it so plainly. She said it so elegantly.
voices: (unclear)
Lauri Anderson: Okay, so that deals with the license issue, but in
terms of the criteria. . .
Chair Martinez : Then I am very happy with this language, because
that issue then. . .communication then is the issue here, not that
one particular. . . and that satisfies me a great deal then.
22
Kent Planning Commission
August 27, 1990
Lauri Anderson: Okay.
Chair Martinez: Is there any other discussion?
Commissioner Chopp: I 'd like to make a comment here because I
think the way this is written up is pretty forward about everything
and I don't think they have left anything out. But did we ask some
other people who are familiar with group II and III homes, did you
see what they had written up. Is there any guidelines that you
used to write up these here so we don't lose out on something.
Should we check with somebody, or did we leave anybody out.
Janet Shull: This is Janet Shull of the Planning Department. As
far as I know, this system that is being proposed is the first, at
least in this area. I mean I don't know of any other cities that
do anything like this. Now there may be some and we are just not
aware of it, but when we did look at neighboring jurisdictions, to
our knowledge none of them. They may apply conditions through the
conditional use permit process that would get at some of these
things, so some of the things we've looked at. . . We've looked at
conditions on existing group homes to get some ideas as to how we
W may want to write up some criteria, but to my knowledge there are
no other cities around Kent. There may be some in the nation
somewhere that have a special system of monitoring and licensing
and special conditional uses, so we may be a first. So, there are
some good things and bad things about it, maybe, but it is
something that our committee, and our commission and our public
seems to think it is important to have.
Commissioner ward: Group homes have been in existence for a long
time, and I am assuming that Class II and Class III I know were in
existence in the early seventies in Seattle. But the question, I
gather, is whether Seattle had anything in place to cover
themselves as far as the location is concerned. Perhaps we could
ask the Planning Department at Seattle as to whether they
(unclear) . The Model Cities funded group homes and they were Class
II and III type. They were for criminals and for people that did
(unclear) and the whole basic smear. And I was with the program at
the time.
Fred Satterstrom: We've definitely plowed some new soil on this
one, because not only have we gone to the distinction between the
different classes of uses which we 've seen other jurisdictions use,
but you have also added separation and dispersion requirements on
top of that. That is kind of a new wrinkle. And the licensing and
monitoring and special conditional use permit criteria definitely
is some new ground. So I have a hunch that other cities will be
23
Kent Planning Commission
August 27, 1990
looking to the City of Kent as a model here, perhaps in terms of
the job that you and your staff have done. . .
Chair Martinez: And the original committee, don't forget them.
Fred Satterstrom: The committee on group homes. Carolyn Lake just
gave me a publication that she got just today. It is a publication
from the Association of Washington Cities, and what it is, it is a
model ordinance for siting residential care facilities. - And I just
looked at it very briefly and in Carolyn Lake's opinion it was much
the same. I have much the same opinion as Carolyn does in that it
is really oversimplified. I think we have gone well beyond this
model ordinance here, and it certainly would not serve our purposes
at all. It doesn't even distinguish between the different classes
of group homes. So, I guess, to make a long story short, we are
breaking some new ground. I think others will be looking to us on
this. I say that in a positive way, too. We are plowing new
ground. " I think these crops are going to grow.
Commissioner Ward: We're pioneers in the industry.
Chair Martinez: I think that there are going to be citizens that
believe that we have not listened to them, but I feel that we are
responsible to the whole community, not just part of it, and that
I think we did listen to them. I personally understood that people
are very uncomfortable in having group homes in their community,
and I 'm hoping that indeed that we have put these protections in
place, that both protect our community while also making sure that
we live up to the responsibility that we have when we raise people
who don't quite fit into our community. So, I don't normally make
a speech, but I feel pretty passionately about this one. Is there
other discussion?
Voice: Question.
Chair Martinez: We don't have a motion on the floor. I would
entertain a motion.
Commissioner Faust: Madam Chair, I move that we adopt the
recommendations for pending .action as stated on pages eight and
nine of the document that we have been working from this evening.
Commissioner Ward: Second.
Chair Martinez: Is there further discussion? Question. All in
favor.
Voices: Aye.
24
Kent Planning Commission
August 27, 1990
Chair Martinez: Opposed. (silence) Motion carries. Before we
leave, do we need to do anything about this license application,
this asterisk thing that you will be. . .that the license will be
immediately revoked. Or is that something that you all take care
of. Excellent. You know that is our intent.
Lauri Anderson: I might comment that these then would be adopted
as our administrative procedures for handling group homes.
Chair Martinez : Excellent. So these will be drawn up and the
entire package will be sent to the City Council for their
consideration. It would behoove us all to be there when these are
considered, because I believe that because of the concern of the
community, that we will all want to talk about how we responded to
this.
(End of Verbatim Minutes)
Discussion followed regarding the City Council hearing date on this
issue.
ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Miller MOVED to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner
Faust SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. The meeting was
adjourned at 9 : 05 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
i
o--yT-S�
Jam P. H rris, Secretary
25
r^(�, Kent City Council Meeting
v\� Date October 2, 1990
I v Category Other Business
SUBJECT: ADMINISTRATIVE RESTRUCTURING/MAYOR'S PAY
SUMMARY STATEMENT: At the Council meeting on Aug. 21, 1990
Councilman Johnson proposed that the structure of the City' s
administrative section be changed$
the oxh bits��. Councilman Johnson moved that his proposal
be referred by the City Council to the City's Management Study
Committee. Councilman Mann stated that he would have an alternate
proposal and MOVED to table Councilman Johnson's motion until he
(Mr. Mann) could present his alternate proposal. Councilman Mann's
proposal is in the form of a Resolution which leaves the Mayor's
position part-time and increases the annual compensation. When the
Council reconvenes Mr. Johnson's original motion to refer the
matter for further study will be removed from the table and will
therefore be before the City Council.
EXHIBITS : Aug: 21, 1990 Council Minutes; Aug. 14 Councilman
Johnson's memo; Councilman Mann' s Resolution; Fiscal note.
RECOMMENDED BY: Operations Committee: Passed 2-0
UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: Yes
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Yes
EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: 11933 . 00 (1990) or $311. 00 per month
SOURCE OF FUNDS: Administration/Mayor's Budget
CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
I move that Councilman Johnson's motion to restructure
administration and change the Mayor' s position to full time be
removed from the table for action.
Two alternatives exist:
ALTERNATE 1
Approve Councilman Johnson' s motion to refer his proposal to the
City's Management Study Committee. (No motion is necessary in this
alternate because Councilman Johnson' s motion is already on the
floor) .
ALTERNATE 2 Approve Councilman Mann' s substitute proposal
I move the following substitute motion: that the Council consider
Councilman Mann! s substitute proposal -- Resolution instead
of Councilman Johnson's proposal.
If this motion to substitute passes then Councilman Mann's motion
will be on the floor, if this motion to substitute fails Councilman
Johnson's motion will be on the floor. In either case, the
preceding motions will only determine which motion the Council is
considering. A final vote affirming one or the other of the
motions will still be required.
Council Agenda
Item No. 4B
MCCARTHY,TONY / KENT70/FN - HPDesk print.
-----------------------------------------
I)ject: MAYOR'S SALARY - FISCAL NOTE
C.Y`eator: Tony MCCARTHY / KENT70/FN Dated: 09/26/90 at 1556.
COUNCILMEMBER MANN HAS ASKED THAT THE MAYOR'S SALARY BE ADJUSTED TO REFLECT
THE COST OF LIVING CHANGES SINCE THE LAST TIME THE SALARY WAS ADJUSTED, IN MID
1983 IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE PREPARATION OF THE 1984 BUDGET. AT THAT TIME
MAYOR'S SALARY WAS RAISED FROM $1, 000 PER MONTH PLUS $150 FOR MEETINGS TO $1,200
PER MONTH PLUS $150 FOR MEETINGS. THE CONSUMER PRICE INDEX FROM THE PERIOD
JULY 1983 TO JUNE 1990 HAS INCREASED 23 . 5%. ADJUSTING THE SALARY BY THE CPI
WOULD COST $311 PER MONTH.
IF THIS INCREASE TOOK EFFECT ON 10/l/90 THE COST TO THE CITY IN 1990 WOULD BE
$933. THIS INCREASE WOULD BE COVERED IN THE EXECUTIVE/ADMINISTRATION BUDGET AS
HAVE RECENTLY ENACTED CITY WIDE RECLASSIFICATIONS AND SALARY SURVEY STUDIES.
BASED ON EXISTING SALARY ADJUSTMENT PRACTICES, THE IBC RECOMMENDS IMPLEMENTATION
OF THIS SALARY ADJUSTMENT.
�g
r _ August 21, 1990
PERSONNEL would be raised to cover the salaries. Hansen
noted that he did not have figures but that the
Chamber of Commerce had supported the idea of
raising fees. He determined that the time
required to process permits would be reduced. It
was clarified that this was not a Permit Coordina-
tor position but a Customer Services II position.
MANN MOVED that the Fire Department be authorized
to hire one and one half persons to staff the
Customer Services Assistant position for the
Permit Center. Orr seconded.
White asked how many people would staff the permit
center and it was estimated by McCarthy at 15 or
16 in 1991 but the cost was not available. White
objected to approving for 1990, that which has not
been approved yet for 1991. Orr stated that she
did not favor adding to the budget but thought the
office should have staff ready when the new facil-
ity opened. Dowell suggested that the people
hired early could be used for other tasks. White
stated that he had been trying to find out how
much quicker permits could be processed through
the new office and with additional employees and
Wickstrom explained the duties which the new
people would cover. Hansen noted that the quality
of the service was also of prime concern. The
Mayor suggested that staff prepare a written memo
for White giving alternatives: if none of the
budget requests were implemented what the slowdown
would be and what staffing would be required to
make a substantial reduction in the processing
time for permits. Houser noted that the Chamber
had specifically stated that they would not
support anything that did not go through the
regular budget process . White noted he would not
support this item and pointed out that no opening
date had been proposed for the new center. It was
determined that the Finance Department could not
spare a cashier for the new center. Mann 's motion
carried with White and Houser voting against.
(OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4F)
Mayor's Position to Full Time. Councilmember
Johnson has proposed making a change in the
MAYOR'S structure of the City' s administrative section,
POSITION including a stipulation that the Mayor would serve
on a full-time basis. , His proposal was not
endorsed by the Operations Committee on August 14 .
15
1
1
ff'�� August 21, 1990
PERSONNEL fJOHNSON MOVED that the entire proposal of the
issue of making the Mayor' s position full time be
MAYOR'S made a part of the Management Study and to con-
POSITION sider it again upon completion of the study.
White seconded. Mann stated that he would have an
alternate proposal and MOVED to table the motion
until he could present his alternate Houser
seconded and the motion carried with Johnson and
White voting nay.
FIRE DEPT. (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3E)
Interlocal Agreement for Purchase, Use and Mainte-
nance of Ladder Testing Equipment. APPROVAL of
the interlocal agreement with Auburn, Renton and
Tukwila for purchase, use and maintenance of
ladder testing equipment, and authorization for
the Mayor to sign same. Funds were identified in
the 1990 budget to allow for the joint purchase,
usage and maintenance of ground ladder testing
equipment.
(CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3H)
Underground Tank at Kherson Park. AUTHORIZATION
to remove an underground fuel tank at Kherson
Park, as recommended by the Public Safety and
Operations Committees.
An underground heating fuel tank was uncovered
during the preparation of Kherson Park. The prop-
erty owner is allowing the City to use his
property as part of the park. With new laws
regarding use of underground storage tanks, the
City could possibly be responsible for having the
tank tested, future monitoring of the tank and
later replacement of the tank. Due to the
previous and current relationship with use of the
site, the City has the opportunity to move forward
in a leadership role to protect the environment
and to project a positive image for the park by
having the tank removed now using City funds.
PARKS AND (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3P)
RECREATION Master Plan Design for Lake Fenwick Phase III.
AUTHORIZATION to approve the Master Plan Design
for Lake Fenwick Phase III, as recommended by the
Parks Committee.
16
M E M O R A N D U M
To: DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR
JUDY WOODS, COUNCIL PRESIDENT
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
ED CHOW, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
From: JON JOHNSON, COUNCILMEMBER
Date: August 14, 1990
Subject: PROPOSAL FOR FULL-TIME MAYOR
I AM SUGGESTING THAT WE GO TO A FULL-TIME MAYOR OPERATION FOR OUR
CITY. THE TYPE OF GOVERNMENT THAT WE SHOULD HAVE HAS BEEN DEBATED
FOR MORE THAN TWENTY YEARS. IF WE CONTINUE WITH OUR PRESENT SYSTEM
THAT DEBATE WILL CONTINUE. I KNOW THERE IS NO SUPPORT ON THE
COUNCIL TO CHANGE OUR FORM OF GOVERNMENT TO A COUNCIL-MANAGER FORM
OF GOVERNMENT. THIS IS WHY I AM PROPOSING WE KEEP THE
MAYOR/COUNCIL FORM OF GOVERNMENT WE HAVE AND MAKE THE MAYOR' S
POSITION FULL-TIME.
THERE ARE SEVERAL GOOD REASONS TO DO THIS. THE COST IS ONE OF
THEM. I WOULD PROPOSE THAT WE HAVE A FULL-TIME MAYOR, AN ASSISTANT
TO THE MAYOR, AND SECRETARY, FOR A TOTAL OF THREE POSITIONS. THE
COST IN SALARIES WOULD BE APPROXIMATELY $145,000. IN THE PRESENT
SYSTEM THERE IS A TOTAL OF FOUR FULL-TIME AND THREE PART-TIME FOR
A TOTAL COST IN SALARIES OF $235,000 . THIS IS A SAVINGS OF MORE
THAN $90,000 A YEAR! THE SAVINGS IS EVEN MORE WHEN ONE ADDS THE
COSTS OF BENEFITS, SUPPLIES AND FURNITURE TO THIS.
ONE OF THE REASONS, WHY WE NEED ALL THE PEOPLE WE DO IS BECAUSE OF
ALL THE PEOPLE IN THE MAYOR/ADMIN AREA. IN ADDITION TO THE ABOVE
POSITIONS WE HAVE A COMMUNITY INFORMATION OFFICER, DRINKING DRIVER
TASK FORCE, AND COMMUNITY EVENTS. IN MY PROPOSAL THE COMMUNITY
INFORMATION OFFICER WOULD REMAIN. I DO FEEL HOWEVER THAT THE
DRINKING DRIVER TASK FORCE SHOULD BE TRANSFERRED TO POLICE, AND
COMMUNITY EVENTS TRANSFERRED TO CULTURAL ARTS. THE LESS PEOPLE IN
ADMINISTRATION THE LESS NEED FOR SUPERVISION AND CLERICAL SUPPORT.
1 - .
ANOTHER REASON IS DECISION-MAKING. CURRENTLY THE MAYOR' S POSITION
IS PART-TIME AND NEEDS TO HAVE A FULL-TIME JOB OUTSIDE OF THE CITY.
BECAUSE OF THIS, THE MAYOR CANNOT BE THERE WHEN SOME DECISIONS
NEED TO BE MADE. THE PRESENT SYSTEM DOES NOT ALLOW THE CITY
ADMINISTRATOR TO MAKE CERTAIN DECISIONS ON THE MAYOR' S BEHALF
WITHOUT CONSULTING WITH THE MAYOR FIRST. A FULL-TIME MAYOR WOULD
NOT HAVE THIS PROBLEM. IN THE PAST THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR HAS MADE
DECISIONS WITHOUT CONSULTING WITH THE MAYOR OR THOUGHT HE HAD THE
AUTHORITY TO ACT, ONLY TO FIND OUT LATER THAT WAS NOT THE CASE.
AGAIN WITH A FULL-TIME MAYOR THIS WOULD NOT HAPPEN.
ALSO A MAYOR NEEDS TO BE FULL-TIME TO HAVE SUCH THINGS AS
DEPARTMENT HEAD MEETINGS TO MAKE SOME OF ROUTINE AND NOT SO ROUTINE
DECISIONS THAT NEED TO MADE SUCH AS QUESTIONS REGARDING COUNCIL
POLICY AND DIRECTION, AND PERSONNEL DECISIONS THAT A CITY
ADMINISTRATOR CANNOT MAKE WITHOUT CHECKING WITH THE MAYOR FIRST.
WHILE THE IBC AND IPC MAY SERVE SOME PURPOSE, A FULL-TIME MAYOR
WOULD NOT NEED TO MAKE DECISIONS BY COMMITTEE.
REGIONAL INVOLVEMENT. A PART-TIME MAYOR CANNOT BE AS ACTIVE OR
INVOLVED IN REGIONAL AFFAIRS AS A FULL-TIME MAYOR. BOTH AUBURN AND
RENTON HAVE FULL-TIME MAYORS AND BOTH OF THOSE MAYORS ARE INVOLVED
IN MANY ORGANIZATIONS THAT AFFECT THEIR CITIES ON REGIONAL ISSUES.
WHILE OUR MAYOR IS INVOLVED IN SOME, KENT IS NOT GETTING ENOUGH
INVOLVEMENT NOR ARE WE ADDRESSING SOME OF THE REGIONAL ISSUES THAT
INVOLVE METRO, PUGET SOUND COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS, SUBURBAN CITIES,
ETC. THIS IS IMPORTANT AND THE BOTTOM LINE IS THE CITIZENS OF OUR
COMMUNITY ARE NOT BEING REPRESENTED.
FINALLY, BECAUSE IT JUST MAKES COMMON SENSE. WE ARE DEALING WITH
A LARGE ORGANIZATION, A LOT OF COMPLEX ISSUES, WE SIMPLY CANNOT BE
EFFECTIVE IN SERVING THE PUBLIC AS WE CONTINUE TO GROW AS A CITY.
MY COMMENTS ARE NOT MEANT TO BE A PERSONAL ATTACK. I THINK
EVERYONE IS GOING A GOOD JOB WITH THE RESOURCES GIVEN THEM. I DO
KNOW WE CAN DO BETTER WITH A FULL-TIME MAYOR SYSTEM AS I HAVE
PROPOSED.
JJ:wp
Resolution No.
A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of
Kent, Washington, reaffirming Mayor-Council form
of government and providing for cost of living increase
to Mayor Dan Kelleher.
WHEREAS, the Mayor of the City of Kent, Dan Kelleher
began his service with the City of Kent as a Councilman in 1981 and
was elected Mayor of Kent on a part-time basis in November, 1986
and thereafter re-elected in November, 1990; serving within a
system of government for a non-charter Code City and a strong
Mayor/Council form of government; and
WHEREAS, throughout the period of public service as
Councilmember and Mayor, the Mayor has taken a leading role , in
achieving City goals such as protecting Kent farmland; protecting
water quality in streams, creeks, the Green River and areas of
wetlands; the closing of landfills; renewing and revitalizing
Kent' s downtown; developing reasonable limitations on new apartment
construction while promoting single-family home construction;
developing the funding basis necessary to construct the 272-277th
road project; and providing housing opportunities to Kent's low
income elderly; and
WHEREAS, the Council wishes to reaffirm its satisfaction
with our present form of government which has been highly
productive and successful; and
WHEREAS, the Mayor's salary when expressed in real
dollars has decreased steadily since the day he assumed office due
to inflation and;
WHEREAS, the Mayor is the only employee of the City
(including Councilmembers) who has received no Cost of Living
Adjustment to his salary since 1984 ; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES
HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The Council extends its sincerest thanks and
appreciation to the Mayor for his personal interest, excellence in
performance, hard work and achievements for the benefit of the Kent
community throughout his period of elective office.
Section 2 . The Council reaffirms and expresses its
desire to continue the present Mayor/Council form of government as
a Code City providing for an effective part-time Mayor with
adequate support staff and City Administrator.
Section 3 . The Council directs the City Attorney to
prepare the necessary amending ordinance to raise the Mayor's
salary to a level which would account for the Cost of Living
Adjustment increases which have occurred since the salary was last
set in 1984 .
Passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the
City of Kent, Washington this day of 1990.
Concurred in by the Mayor of the City of Kent, this
day of , 1990.
Dan Kelleher
ATTEST:
MARIE JENSEN, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ROGER LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of
Resolution No. passed by the City Council of the City
of Kent, Washington, the day of , 1990.
SEAL
MARIE JENSEN, CITY CLERK
1✓II /V I� OG��+S
Irk � l�u cam., S- 1Ji,ca-.w�a�
Kent City Council Meeting
Date October 2 . 1990
Category Bids
1. SUBJECT: LID 335 - 77TH AVE IMPROVEMENTS
�p e
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Bid opening was August 24 . Active
Construction submitted the low bid sir the amount of
$1, 056,979.44, and it is recommendattLs bid be accepted.
t
�tt so
3. EXHIBITS: Memorandum from Director of lic Works and bid
summary
4. RECOMMENDED BY: Staff
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAWPERSONNEL IMPACT: NO__k_ YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember JU' seconds
the bid submitted by Active Construction in the amount of
$1,056, 979.44 be accepted for LID 335.
DISCUSSION•
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 5A
S�
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
September 27, 1990
TO: Mayor Kelleher and City Council
FROM: Don Wickstrom
RE: LID 335 - 77th Avenue Improvements
Bid opening was August 24 with eight bidders responding. The low bid
was submitted by Active Construction in the amount of $1, 056, 979 . 44 .
The project will improve storm, sewer, and water systems and will
provide a new three lane roadway on 77th Avenue from S. 212th to S .
202nd Street and a traffic signal at the 77th and S . 212th Street
intersection. It is estimated the construction costs will be
$1, 162 , 677. We recommend accepting the bid by Active construction
in the amount of $1, 056, 979 . 44 .
BID SUMMARY
Active Construction $lf056, 979 . 44
R.L. Alia $1, 086, 894 . 40
Gary Merlino Construction $1, 126, 088 . 80
Robison Construction $1, 127 , 491. 20
Tri-State Construction $1, 166, 4ll. 00
West Coast Construction $1, 176/ 459 . 74
R.W. Scott $1, 232 , 176. 44
Scoccolo Construction $1, 408 ,749 . 44
Engineer's Estimate $1, 289, 827 . 85
CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS
A.
R E P O R T,Pl1 S�,
A. COUNCIL PRESIDENT U�-Yk LL`U
B. OPERATIONS COMMITTEE
(l
C. PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
D. PLANNING COMMITTEE
E. PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE
alrvw c l
F. PARKS COMMITTEE
G. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS