Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Planning and Economic Development Committee - 05/21/1990 KENT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES May 21, 1990 The meeting of the Kent Planning Commission was called to order by Chair Martinez at 7:30 p.m. May 21, 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: Greg Greenstreet Raymond Ward PLANNING STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: James P. Harris, Planning Director Lauri Anderson, Senior Planner Lin Ball, Senior Planner Janet Shull, Planner Kevin O'Neill, Planner Lois Ricketts, Recording Secretary KENT CITY STAFF: Carolyn Lake, Assistant City Attorney APPROVAL OF APRIL 30, 1990 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Commissioner Faust MOVED that the minutes of the April 30, 1990 meeting be approved. Commissioner Gregory SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. Chair Martinez expressed appreciation to Commissioner Biteman for serving on the Planning Commission. Commissioner Biteman will be moving out of the area. Kent Planning Commission Minutes May 21, 1990 PARK PLACE RETIREMENT CENTER -- SHORELINE MANAGEMENT VARIANCE (SMV-90-1) Kevin O'Neill presented the request by Dale Johnson/LDG Architects for a variance from the Kent Shoreline Master Program to allow: 1) construction of a building exceeding the 25-foot height limit required for development within 200 feet of the Green River; and 2) encroachment of the building and impervious surface within the required 100-foot setback from the Green River. The subject project is 4 .06 acres in size, is zoned MRM, Medium Density Multifamily Residential, and is located at the east end of Alder Lane (S. 262nd Street) , abutting the east side of Maple Lane (85th Avenue S) . The Green River abuts the property to the northeast. The variance is being requested because of the proposed height and setback of the building. In 1985 a shoreline permit and a shoreline variance were granted for a 77-unit multifamily apartment building. The difference between the two projects is that this current request is for a retirement home strictly for elderly citizens, and the number of units has been increased to 92 . The footprint and height of the current proposal is nearly identical to the project that was previously approved. Most of the site is within 200 feet of the Green River. Approximately 60 percent of the site is within the 100-foot setback area. The site consists of two triangular parcels. Public parking stalls are planned within 15 feet of the ordinary high water mark of the Green River. Staff recommends the parking area be moved at least 50 feet from the riverfront. The Fire Department requested that a fire lane be located along the river front in order to serve the facility in case of emergency. Staff is concerned that the roadway not be paved because of its proximity to the river and suggested that red cinder material be used instead of an impervious surface. The applicant and architect have designed the building with an L- shaped configuration which allows open space in the center and serrated edges along the building. Some parts would encroach into the setback area. The Shoreline Master Program, Use Regulations, Chapter 5, states: 1) No structure shall exceed two stories or twenty-five feet in height; and 2) The applicant must establish and show on the development or subdivision plan a "building setback line" along the Green River. This line will establish the limits of all buildings, fencing, and impervious surfacing along the Green River. The standards for establishing the building limits line shall be as follows: 2 Kent Planning Commission Minutes May 21, 1990 In residential zone, the building setback line shall be a minimum distance of 100 feet from the ordinary high water line, or 60 feet from the R.O.W. of a scenic and recreational drive, or 75 feet from the centerline of a dike, whichever is the greater distance inland from the river. In order for the variance to be granted, the applicant must demonstrate the following: 1. The hardship which serves as the basis for granting a variance is specifically related to the property of the applicant. 2. The hardship results from the application of the requirements of the Act and Master Program and not from, for example, deed restrictions or the applicant's own actions. 3 . The variance granted will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Master Program. 4 . Public welfare and interest will be preserved; if more harm will be done to the area by granting the variance than would be done to the applicant by denying it, the variance will be denied. Mr. O'Neill stated that because of the triangular shape of the site, most of the site is subject to the shoreline jurisdictions. From the public interest standpoint, preserving public access along the river front was a very high priority in reviewing the shoreline permit. The proposed golf area would be within 30 feet of the ordinary high water mark. The shoreline program calls for a 50- foot-public-access easement to be preserved along that area. The applicant would have to move the golf area 20 feet inland. One of the recommended conditions for the shoreline program was that the 50-foot-access easement be preserved, that it continue down to Maple Lane, and that signs be placed so that the public can be aware of the public access. Parks Department has received a bond from King County to develop a linear path which would include this area. Staff felt that, with those conditions, the variance application would meet the public interest, that public access would be preserved, and that there is a hardship on the site due to the triangular shape of the property. A shoreline variance was approved five years ago for a nearly identical site plan. Staff recommends that this variance request be approved. Mr. O'Neill responded to questions regarding the project relating to the request for the conditional use permit and the shoreline permit, which was heard by the Hearing Examiner. 3 Kent Planning Commission Minutes May 21, 1990 Ed Linardic, 1835 Westlake Avenue North #204, Seattle, architect, stated that they have agreed to work with the City of Kent regarding solutions for the 50-foot setback, the golf area, access and parking. He explained that they could fit within the height limit if they used a flatter roof, but the gables were designed to give a more attractive appearance to the development. He presented drawings and pointed out that without the gables, the height would be 24 feet, one foot below the height limit. With the gables, the roof would be 28 1/2 feet. The underground parking, gables and landscaping would give a more residential and aesthetic appearance to the development. Commissioner Gregory asked if the gables would provide a negative effect. Mr. O'Neill responded that it was a trade off because it did increase the height of the structure, but a pitched roof would lend to the residential character of the structure as opposed to a flat roof. It would not increase the height more than three or four feet. John Stipek, 9111 View Avenue N. W. , Seattle, applicant, stated that he was also the applicant for the previous project. He spent one and one-half years researching retirement centers and found that these facilities were very institutionally oriented, very commercially oriented, very imprisoning oriented, lacking in amenities, lacking in landscaping, and included most of the parking on the grounds. He felt these were all negatives and has tried to include enough features that would be the opposite of all of the trends he had observed in the retirement communities. Parking would be under the building with elevators to bring the residents and visitors to the proper level of the facility. He has planned the entire corridor to be attractive and to provide physical activity for the residents. This includes a pond for ducks and ornamental fish, gardens for roses and other types of flowers in addition to a small golfing area and paths for walking. The amenities were meant to be a gift to the residents who would be living there the rest of their lives. Commissioner Gregory MOVED that the public hearing be closed. Commissioner Biteman SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. Commissioner Gregory was impressed with the work the staff had done and with the approach of the architect and applicant to the project. He was in favor of this kind of housing for seniors in Kent. 4 Kent Planning Commission Minutes May 21, 1990 Commissioner Faust commended the applicant for creating a nice- looking project. She had no problem with the height restriction. She would rather give the extra feet to the project and have the attractive gables than less height with an institutional-like appearance. She felt the benefits far outweighed the negatives regarding this request. Commissioner Miller felt that since the neighbors were not concerned, she felt it would be a nice addition to the neighborhood and would not present a formidable wall that would be unpleasant. The public would have access along the front edge with the proposed path. Commissioner Forner agreed with the above comments. Her only concern was the environment and water quality. She felt the proposed project would be a great addition to the community as long as the developer respected the environment. Commissioner Chopp expressed concern about the drainage from the parking area. Commissioner Faust MOVED that the variance be granted. Commissioner Biteman SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. Commissioner Chopp abstained. GROUP HOMES - ZCA 90-2 Verbatim Minutes Chair Martinez: The second hearing this evening will be on group homes. A proposed zoning code amendment to update the definition of family, define group homes and address group homes siting. Again, has the sign-up sheet gone around? James Harris: Who's got the sign-up sheet? Chair Martinez: Once more I would like to reiterate what I had said before about the conduct of a public hearing. We will hear from the staff first. The public will be asked to try to keep their remarks to ten minutes, and we may from time to time clarify with staff some point of information as we go along. We are discussing this evening the group homes. If there is some other issue at hand, I would ask you to please hold off on that. Who this evening. . .and the way a hearing works is that we will send our recommendations ultimately to the City Council. The City Council then either confirms our decision or changes it in some way, or denies it altogether. So. . .yes sir. 5 Kent Planning Commission Minutes May 21, 1990 Mr. Harris: It would beseech all of you when you speak to pull your mikes close to you. It's not real clear. Chair Martinez: I apologize for that. I 'm sorry. Mr. Harris: Sorry to interrupt you. Chair Martinez: Okay. Who from the Planning Commission will speak? Janet Shull: My name is Janet Shull and I am with the Planning Department, and what I am going to do is go over the work of the committee, the Mayor's Advisory Committee on Group Homes, and I will walk you through the report and its content and specific actions that you are being asked to make a recommendation on this evening. I 'll start with a summary of the committee's work. The committee who has drafted this report is the Mayor's Advisory Committee on Group Homes. The committee was appointed in May 1989 and has met through March of this year. They have worked almost a year coming up with these recommendations. The committee was chaired by Rebecca Solomon and had staff support from the Planning and Legal Departments. The committee was charged with reviewing the current zoning code treatment of group homes and proposing revisions which would specifically address the diversity of group homes living arrangement and the proper siting of group homes in the City of Kent. The committee also reviewed the current zoning code in light of recent amendments to Federal Fair Housing Act, and I will get into what those are a little bit further into this discussion. The committee report was presented to the Planning Commission in a workshop session on April 16th. The report has also been through the environmental review process and has been issued a DNS. In their process of going through the zoning code and looking at its treatment of group homes, the committee came up with the following findings. And these are just some of the findings. I don't want to go through all of them, but these are particularly pertinent to what we are doing tonight. In looking at the current zoning code, the committee found that the current definition of family places no limits on the number of unrelated individuals who may reside in the same residence. The current Kent Zoning Code does not define a group home or where one may locate in the city. There are currently no separation or dispersion requirements in the zoning code which regulate the concentration of group homes in any geographic area of the city. The committee. . .their first job was to look at defining group homes since the zoning code does not define group homes, it makes it very difficult to decide where one may locate. We have no definition. In attempting to define group homes, the committee found that they 6 Kent Planning Commission Minutes May 21, 1990 vary in size and level of assistance and/or supervision that is required. They felt there was no all-encompassing definition of group homes. They could not come up with a blanket statement that they felt would adequately do justice to the range of group homes living situations that are possible. Group homes may require licensing to control their operation. This licensing is typically at the state level. It is not something the city does. It is the state licensing. Group homes may include homes for those under the jurisdiction of the criminal justice system, and those undergoing rehabilitation for drug or alcohol dependency. Some living situations that may appear to be group homes are in actuality families and should be treated as such in the zoning code. The committee's response to defining a group home is to propose a revised definition of family along with definitions for three classes of group homes. And they are proposing that these be amended and implemented in the current zoning code. The committee looked at the Federal Fair Housing Amendments Act. The Fair Housing Amendments Act went into effect in March of 1989. So it has already been in effect for a full year. It played an important role in the committee's work. What the Fair Housing Amendments Act does is expand the coverage of the civil rights Fair Housing Act to protect people from discrimination in housing opportunities on the basis of handicap or familial status. The original fair housing act dealt with the issues of race, religion, sex, etc. So this adds language to that to include persons who may have a physical or mental handicap or saying that you can't discriminate on the basis of familial status. So, for instance, a single mother cannot be discriminated against, etc. What this means in terms of land use law and zoning is that cities cannot regulate where a person lives if based on that person's physical or mental disability or familial status. Local government still may have the ability to specify where people may live if legitimately grounded in concerns for health, safety and welfare. So it still means that we can regulate where people live but can't be based on the type of person or the physical nature. It would have to be based on general concerns for public health, safety and welfare. The committee, as I said, looked at the current zoning code treatment of group homes and, I said earlier, they found that the current zoning code does not address group homes in any specific way. So, you may ask what would happen if a group home wants to locate today in the City of Kent. If a group home were to locate in Kent today, it's siting would dictated by one of three classifications that we do have in the zoning code. It may meet the current definition of family, or it may meet the current definition of motel, hotel or a welfare facility. If the group home meets the definition of family, or motel/hotel, it may locate anywhere in the city that that land use is allowed. If it meets the definition of a welfare facility, it may locate in any zoning district, but it is subject 7 Kent Planning Commission Minutes May 21, 1990 to receiving a conditional use permit. Then the committee looked at neighboring jurisdictions' treatment of group homes to compare them to what we do currently. In doing so the committee looked at the zoning code treatment of group homes in Auburn, Bellevue, King County and Redmond and Renton. Of the five jurisdictions studied, Auburn and Bellevue have more specific definitions than Kent currently does and are able to locate group homes in zoning districts which are most compatible with the specific land use proposed. The remaining jurisdictions had zoning code treatments similar to Kent's current zoning code treatment which is to say they had no specific treatment. Either group homes weren't mentioned and they would fall again under either family, hotel/motel or welfare facility, and so they were cited not always in a manner that was most consistent with the land use proposed. The City of Bellevue uses a siting matrix similar to the one that is presented in the committee report. I 'll be going over the matrix with you in a little bit. The committee liked the clarity of the matrix system. One distinct difference between the Kent and the Bellevue matrix is that Bellevue has only two class distinctions for group homes, and the Kent proposal has three, and I will explain why that is. Another thing that the committee looked at was the Governor's Task Force on community protection and the final report which that task force issued. The Governor's Task Force looked at how the state law treats predatory sex offenders and made recommendations which have been incorporated into changes in state law this past year. Some of these recommendations include a recommendation for increased jail terms, recommendations for extended terms of post prison supervision, that post release supervision decisions be based on public safety risk assessment rather than on a sentence's legal category. The report also recommended that for community programs, environmental variables which are so shaded with the commission of acts of violence, for instance, opportunity, access to victims, drug, alcohol uses, etc. , must be accounted for. These items the committee felt had some bearing on the siting of group home in Kent. These issues that were raised in the task force report and subsequent changes in state law prompted the committee to recommend that a Class III group homes category be adopted specifically to regulate the location of this type of group home. Now I am just going to walk through the recommendations and get into them further with some overheads. There are essentially four recommendations for zoning code amendments that the Planning Commission is being asked to address this evening. The first one is to amend the current zoning code definition of family, and that is illustrated on page 11 of the report. And I guess it might be easier if I just go through them with the overhead instead of going through them essentially twice. This is the first recommended action and the text. . .what you see here is. . .strike out the current definition of family in 8 Kent Planning Commission Minutes May 21, 1990 the Kent Zoning Code which reads a person living alone, or two or more persons customarily living together as a single housekeeping unit and using common cooking facilities, as distinguished from a group occupancy. . .I 'm sorry. . .occupying a hotel, club, boarding or lodging house. The proposed definition would read one or more individuals related by blood or legal familial relationship or a group of not more than six 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) . So the intent of this definition is to place a limit on families for unrelated persons that there be a limit of six or more, and then afterwards you would no longer be considered for the purpose of zoning and you would kick into the Class I Group Homes which I will describe next. What it also does is make clear that even if you had six or fewer persons, that if you were really more clearly defined by a Class II or III Group Home, that you could not be considered as family. So it is attempting to do those two things. The next recommended zoning code amendment is to add the definitions for the Class 1, II and III Group Homes. And these definitions are on page 12. So the way the definition would read is that Group Homes Class I includes groups such as state-licensed foster homes and group homes for children (not including nursing homes) . . .and the reason they are not included is that they are covered elsewhere in the zoning code specifically. . .developmentally disabled, physically disabled, mentally disabled, and other groups that are not considered Class II group homes. So, essentially what the Class I group homes definition does is recognize those who may reside in a group home living arrangement who are none the less protected by the Fair Housing Amendment Act and that they do not have a criminal history, that they are people who are living together for either financial reasons or reasons that they need assistance with daily living, etc. , but that they are more than six residents. So, for instance a Class IA states here a maximum of ten residents. These maximums and numbers of residents are proposed for purposes of zoning and that when I get into the matrix you will see in some cases they will be allowed in a single family residence and in other cases not, and that is depending upon the number of people in the unit, not dependent upon their physical disability or any other personal reason. It is just a numbers issue. And then Class IB goes up to a maximum of 14, and these all include residents and staff. And then Class IC. . . it states that the number of residents will be based on the density of the underlying zoning district. But it is important to note that in Class IC we are talking about group homes for 15 or more residents, and they would be regulated by the underlying zoning. And I believe this question came up in workshop as to what that would mean. And what it means is that we would look at the underlying zoning density, which is usually related in 9 Kent Planning Commission Minutes May 21, 1990 dwelling units per acre, and that would need to be translated into number of living units and number of people in the facility. So it would either be dictated by the building that is going to be purchased and perhaps renovated, or if it is new construction, we may have to make some determination as to what does number of units translate into in living units when there may be some shared facilities. . .cooking or meeting facilities. When we get into the Class II homes, and this is still, I believe, on page 12, we are talking about group homes for persons who are under the jurisdiction of the criminal justice system or individuals that are undergoing intensive drug and/or alcohol addiction rehabilitation. These groups include state-licensed group-care licensed homes or half-way homes for juveniles providing residence 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 here again we have broken down into Class IIA, IIB and IIC again depending upon the number of residents who will be in the facility for the purposes of zoning. And when I get into the matrix, you'll see how as we move through the classes of group homes, it becomes more restrictive for the classes to locate in the city. The Class III Group Homes 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. This class of group homes was essentially broken out from the Class II. Initially when the committee looked at the Bellevue matrix, they had only two classes of group homes. The committee felt strongly that this segment of group homes should be singled out and dealt with more stringently in the zoning code, and that the location be more strictly controlled. And you will see that again when we look at the siting matrix. And the Class II and Class III Group Homes will be subject to separation and dispersion requirements, which I will describe to you in a minute, and any criteria that might be established for the conditional use permit requirements in those cases when one is required. I think it would be helpful to go over the matrix. Lauri is passing out a revised matrix. When we were going through it again here before the public hearing, we noticed that in the areas where you are looking at comparison there were some areas where we found errors. So there were no errors in what's proposed as far as group homes go, but as far as comparison, we wanted to clarify some issues. So I will go into the matrix and first start out with that. 10 Kent Planning Commission Minutes May 21, 1990 Lauri Anderson: (voice unclear) Janet Shull: What I've done here on the overhead is to highlight the portion of the matrix which deals with group homes which is what we are concerned with tonight. These are the areas where we are proposing changes to the zoning code. What the matrix essentially does is illustrate in a graphic form where this report is recommending group homes could locate and what types of conditions. . .whether or not they would be subject to a conditional use permit. And I 'd just like to point out the areas where we have made some changes. . .that we've noticed some errors in the other areas that were used for comparison. When we were looking at two units per structure, the second line down, which were essential duplexes, in the case when you go across the top of the matrix and you see where it says commercial and office designations, we've amended that to say conditional in the CC and DC zones. I believe before it had been blank. It is actually allowed as. . .not allowed. . .it may be allowed if it can get a conditional use permit. So we have made that clarification. When you go down below to Group Home Class III where you see Detoxification Centers, there are a number of areas where it is actually a conditional. . .detoxification center can locate as a conditional use, if it can receive a conditional use permit. So, essentially, under the Agricultural and Single Family designations, we have added a C there to indicate that this facility may locate there under the current zoning code if it receives a conditional use permit. Also, if you look under for detoxification centers under the commercial and office designation in the case of NC, CC, and DC zoning designations, we revised this to say C or conditional and before it said permitted. And also in the case of Office designation, the old matrix said P as a permitted use, when in fact the current zoning code treats it as conditional. The final changes have to do with the hotel/motel classification, which is also used as comparison. In the case of the M1 zone it read conditional when it is actually subject to Planning Director approval. And in the case of M3 it was listed as conditional when in fact it is not allowed in M3. And so those are the revisions, and the rest of the matrix will go through which has not been changed since the last time you saw it, but I 'd like to go through it anyway. I apologize that this is very small. So you may need to refer to your own copy. But in the case of the Class IA homes, as you can see they are permitted in the Agricultural zones Al and RA. They are also permitted in Single Family Residential zone and also in all the Multifamily Residential zones, the Mobile Home Park and PUD. That would be dependent upon going through the process of for instance of obtaining a PUD which is a different type of. . .additional public hearings, etc. , to get that. They are also 11 Kent Planning Commission Minutes May 21, 1990 permitted in the NCC, CC and DC commercial zones. Conditional in the CM and GC zones, and permitted in Office. The main reason the Group Homes Class IA are conditional in the CM and the GC zones is that they are more intensive commercial-type designations and usually have higher traffic counts. They are not seen as being areas where residential uses of the size and type we are looking at in Class IA, which is ten or fewer, which is actually between six and ten residents. That would need to be conditional, because we are not sure we could find many areas where it would really work. And so again in the case of Class IA Group Homes we are talking about individuals who are protected by the Federal Fair Housing Amendments Act, and so therefore they are allowed in all the residential zones just as anyone else would be. When we get into the Class IB and C Group Homes they are no longer permitted outright in Single Family because the size is larger than the committee felt would be able to be accommodated in a typical single family residence. So, essentially that is the change you see when you look at the Class IB, that they are no longer permitted in Single Family, but the rest of the matrix treats them the same the rest of the way across. And when you look at the Class IC, the only change here from the Class IB is that they are conditional . . . recommended to be conditional in a Duplex zone. That's because we are talking about group homes for 15 or more residents, where again the committee felt that it would be difficult to find a duplex where 15 or more people could comfortably reside. The Class II Group Homes again we are talking about those under the jurisdiction of the criminal justice system or those undergoing drug or alcohol rehabilitation. They are not permitted in Single Family all the way across. They are conditional in Multifamily zones. One question that has come up is why are they conditional in Multifamily and not allowed at all in Single Family. The reason for that is that the committee felt that the Multifamily zoning or the typical building structures in Multifamily might be more appropriate for this type of facility that has more of an institutional setting. And that also historically the Multifamily zoning districts have been dealt with more as a business-type zone, so that they are more accessible to public transportation and other facilities that may be necessary. Those are the primary reasons, but also the committee would like to point out that it is still subject to a conditional use permit. So that if there are other reasons, it was felt this type of group home would not be appropriate, for instance sensitive land uses in the proximity of the proposed site, then a permit may not be granted. So it is important to know that they are not allowed outright. It is conditional in those cases. They are permitted in the commercial zones of NCC, CC and DC, and also permitted in Office zones, and conditional in the CM and the GC zones as the Class I Group Homes are. In the case of the Class III Group Homes, which the committee 12 Kent Planning Commission Minutes May 21, 1990 felt deserved the most concern as far as siting went, they are not allowed at all in any of our current residential districts, and they are always conditional. In the cases where you see they are. . .potentially can locate, they would be subject to going through the conditional use permit process. The Class II and Class III Group Homes are also subject to separation and dispersion requirements. Did you have a question on the matrix? Commissioner Forner: On the conditional use permit for the Group Home Class III, will that follow the guidelines outlined for the work release facilities from the sex predator bill? Janet Shull: Yes, the committee has reviewed that document and they've tried to take that into account when they were proposing the Class III homes category. Commissioner Biteman: I have a question. Janet Shull: Okay. Commissioner Biteman: Under Class III Group Homes there is no number specified as there is in the Class I and Class II. Janet Shull: I was going to point that out and I'm glad you brought that up. The main reason that wasn't brought up is that. . .or wasn't specified I should say in the report, was that the Class III is always subject to conditional use permit. So the size of the facility would always come under close scrutiny by the Planning Department when a project was coming in to locate. And also that these facilities are always under the jurisdiction of the state. They will be state licensed, and I understand that the state has some very strict requirements as far as size and operation. And they are also very strictly limited in where they can locate in the city. If I get into the sensitive land use issue, you would see that there are very limited areas where they can locate. So the committee felt they are very strictly regulated with the proposals that are embodied in this report. Commissioner Biteman: I do have another question, also. Under Class I Group Homes, they specify developmentally disabled, physically disabled and other groups. What other groups are there? Janet Shull: Well, basically we are talking about other groups who would not fall under the category of Class II and Class III. Commissioner Biteman: Could you give me an example? 13 Kent Planning Commission Minutes May 21, 1990 Janet Shull: Sure. I can think of an example perhaps ten senior citizens who want to live together to share living expenses. Four single mothers and perhaps between them they have six children so they have ten people, but they may not be a state license facility. They may have found a large home and they are living there for the purpose of sharing in expenses, sharing in child care, etc. So here we are talking about issues of familial status that are protected by the Federal Fair Housing Act. And until you get up to over ten where you kick into a Class IB, the committee has felt that up to ten people could comfortably fit into a single family home. But more than ten would be impossible to find any single family home in the city that would work. But, see, I guess the point is that there is so many different combinations that it would be impossible to list them, so that is why the Class IA states, and also the definition of family states, that if they are Class II and Class III, they are definitely not this to make that distinction. I 'd just like to go over separation. Did you have a question? Commissioner Chopp: Yes. Would these homes be. . if a person wanted to find out where these homes are, are there ways of finding out where they are at? Janet Shull: In the case of the Class I Group Homes, again these are people who are protected by the Fair Housing Amendments Act, so it would be inappropriate to say. . .generate a listing of where a group of handicapped people live, etc. It would just be like saying here we have a single mother living here and we have a list so that you could single them out. In the case of Class II and Class III Group Homes, the committee is recommending that the city implement a licensing program that would in fact work like our business license program where, when a group home is to locate in the city, one condition would be that you'd have to register with the Planning Department so that we could keep a running track of where these group homes are. That would serve one purpose when we talk about separation and dispersion requirements. If we are going to enforce that, we need to know where for Class II and Class III Group Homes we need to know where they are in order to know whether they are within 600 feet of each other for instance. So in the case of Class II and III, the committee is recommending that the city adopt a licensing program. But in the case of Class I Group Homes, it would not be appropriate, and we could probably get into some serious legal trouble if the city wanted to try to do that. Commissioner Chopp: Why I asked that question was I was familiar with group homes in Seattle and that was mostly for people who had been released from prison and they were well supervised. But now a group of people can get together now and apply for this, and how do you know it don't end up as a crack house. 14 Kent Planning Commission Minutes May 21, 1990 Janet Shull: I guess my only response to that is how do you know anywhere in the city there is a crack house until the Police Department is called. I don't know how to answer that. Those are issues that zoning cannot address. We cannot through zoning make people obey the law I guess is what I am trying to say. Commissioner Forner: Are you going to adopt guidelines not just for licensing and keeping track where Class III Group Homes are but also community notification of where those are? Janet Shull: In the case of Class III, since they are always required to go through the conditional use permit process, just that requirement alone kicks in the public notification they need to go through. I believe they need to go through environmental review. They'd be subject to public hearings. So we'd need to post the site and anyone within 200 feet of the proposed facility would need to be notified by mail. And, of course, you'd also need to be notified by newspaper as always. So in all cases Class III people would know if one was proposed. Commissioner Gregory: I have a comment. Wouldn't the letter G be a social services person with a background, wouldn't they be able to give the citizens of Kent that kind of notification? Do you understand what I 'm saying. I think we discussed that in a workshop. That person. . . if someone came and wanted notification about a Class III Group Home, that the person with the social services background be able to tell them where that home is located. Janet Shull: I 'm not sure if I understand the question. Do you mean if they are concerned about some may exist? Commissioner Gregory: Right. Janet Shull: That's a good question. Lauri Anderson: This is Lauri Anderson with the Kent Planning Department. The purpose for the social services persons to monitor group homes. That was something that the committee wanted the Planning Department to look into. . .monitoring in terms of making sure that the home met the conditional use criteria if a permit was granted. The information about where a Class III home was located, that would be part of the record through the hearing process. So they wouldn't have to go to the social monitoring person specifically, they could contact the Planning Department to see if there had been a conditional use permit hearing for a proposed location, or ask where those locations were. 15 Kent Planning Commission Minutes May 21, 1990 Janet Shull: I still wanted to go over the separation and dispersion requirements, and I can take questions after I am done. Does anyone have questions on the matrix itself? Okay. These separation dispersion requirements are proposed only to apply to the Class II and Class III Group Homes. The dispersion requirements essentially address group homes locating in the proximity to one another. That's what dispersion talks about. The proposal that the committee has come up with is that no Class II or Class III shall locate within 600 feet of one another. What this addresses is a concern that in some cases when some cities regulate the siting of group home what in event happens is that all the group homes end up in one neighborhood and that essentially have an institutionalized neighborhood. And it works against the community and it also works against those who reside in the group homes that are trying to adjust to a transition from a problem experience to a normal living experience. So those are the main reasons behind the dispersion requirements. The 600 feet came from looking at typical city blocks, and the committee was concerned that no group home be located on the same block. And that 600 feet took into account most of our largest city blocks, but in some cases city blocks may only be 200 feet, but they have chosen 600 as being one that seems to take into account most city blocks in our city. Separation requirements are addressing particularly sensitive uses and the feeling that Class II and III Group Homes not locate within a thousand feet of any identified sensitive land use, which includes parks oriented to children, churches, and I 'm thrown off now, schools. It just came to me. And I know the last time in workshop came up what about the case where a church wanted to sponsor a group home. Wouldn't that thousand foot separation requirement be a problem. And we've talked about that with committee members and also among staff. The feeling is that the separation requirement should also apply. In the case where a church wanted to site a group home on property within 100, I 'm sorry, 1, 000 feet of a church use, they could always apply for a variance. The other concern was that typically, or often times when a church wants to sponsor a group home, it may be on a site that's not even adjacent to the actual church use. It may just be a piece of property that they own elsewhere in the city. And so they would be subject to conforming with the same requirements. So, if they were, for instance, adjacent to another sensitive land use, that may preclude them operating a Class II or III Group Home. The other thought was that would churches really be in the business, I guess, of operating, for instance, a Class III Group Home which are typically state license operated. The feeling was that they would be more interested in operating Class I Group Homes. There would not be as many potential conflicts as there may be benefits by including them in the requirements. And I just have 16 Kent Planning Commission Minutes May 21, 1990 some overheads that illustrate the 1, 000-foot barriers drawn around existing parks, schools and churches so you get a sense of areas where group home would be precluded, Class II and III Group Homes. The purple outline designates the city limits, and this first overhead shows 1,000-foot boundaries drawn around all churches in the City of Kent. This next one shows the same 1, 000 foot boundaries drawn around all elementary and secondary schools in the city. The third one illustrates parks oriented to children in the city. So what you see happening is larger and larger areas blacking out in the city, and these would be areas where Class II and III Group Homes could not locate. What this illustration doesn't take into account are single family zoned areas where they would also not be able to locate, and also large expanses of industrially-zoned land where Class II and III Group Homes would not be allowed to locate, because it is not seen as an appropriate zone. In actuality the area of the city where Class II and Class Group Homes may not locate is much greater than shown here, but this illustrates sensitive land uses that are currently identified. Did you need to see this? Okay. So essentially, to summarize the proposed actions are written up here on this stand over here on your left. To summarize, they are to number 1 adopt the proposed definition of family; adopt the proposed definition of Class I, II and III Group Homes; adopt the proposed group homes siting matrix; and adopt the proposed separation and dispersion requirements for Class II and III Group Homes. There are three remaining actions that the study or the report also includes, and these are recommendations for further action by Planning Department staff. And I'd like to just go over those quickly. So I guess the action that is being asked of you by the committee and staff is to recommend that these be looked into further. But they are not amendments to the zoning code that we can implement right away. And those deal with establishing a licensing program which I have outlined for group homes for Class II and III Group Homes, and concurrently to establish a staff position in the Planning Department to go over monitoring, which Lauri has explained a little bit what that would entail. Basically, making sure that the group homes are keeping up with the conditions if they are granted a conditional use permit. And the third item being to identify conditional use permit criteria in those cases where conditional use permits are required for group homes. That the committee in looking at the zoning code felt that the general conditions that are described in the zoning code were not specific enough to perhaps address all the siting issues in groups. So they feel that staff needs to look further and come back with some recommendations. 17 Kent Planning Commission Minutes May 21, 1990 Chair Martinez: Thank you. Are there any questions? Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone from the committee who has signed up to speak? Would you mind speaking? Rebecca Solomon: My name is Rebecca Solomon and I am the chair person of the Group Homes Committee. The Kent Group Homes Committee was assembled by Mayoral appointment and met for one year to discuss the issues surrounding the development of housing for persons with special needs. Prior to our study, the zoning regulations for the City of Kent were silent on this topic leading to misunderstanding and misinformation and a lack of process. The Group Homes Committee sought to end that confusion and develop regulations that would better serve the needs of the community. As chairperson of the committee, I believe that our proposal meets that mandate. This proposal, for instance, sets limits for the first time on the number of persons residing in the different classifications of homes. This is now consistent with overall zoning policy which seeks to deal with the effects of the various sizes and types of housing and facilities on a community. Our proposal also sets up separation and dispersion requirements which will regulate the concentration of group homes that may exist in a geographic area. This will serve to alleviate the pressures on some areas while it encourages each community to accept it's fair share of special needs housing. Finally, the members of the group homes committee feel that our proposal carefully balances the needs of the community to control growth, with the rights of the disabled as guaranteed by the Fair Housing Act of 1988 which prohibits discriminatory practices based on handicap. I thank you for your review of this proposal, and I encourage you to adopt it. Thank you. Chair Martinez: Are there any questions? Commissioner Biteman: Were all the members of the committee social workers or with a social background? Rebecca Solomon: A majority of them in fact were, but not all of them, no. We did have private citizens. Chair Martinez: Other questions. Commissioner Chopp: I'd like to know whether. . . Chair Martinez: Can you speak into the mike. I think the people in the back can't hear you at all. Thank you. Commissioner Chopp: I 'd like to know whether . . . how good will this program be for the unemployed and the homeless. 18 Kent Planning Commission Minutes May 21, 1990 Rebecca Solomon: Hopefully it will be good for the homeless by helping establish special needs housing that has a service entity so that people can move into transitional-type housing and then back into the community. They can spend a couple of years in federally-funded transitional housing and receive services and employment training and other types of programs, and then, hopefully, rejoin the community as a full member after a couple of years. Commissioner Chopp: It doesn't mention the unemployed here, though. Rebecca Solomon: Well, it's implied. Commissioner Chopp: Well, okay. Chair Martinez: Sharon, I think you didn't sign up. Would you mind. . .have you signed up yet? Sharon Atkin: Yes. Do you want me to speak now? Chair Martinez: Why don't you hold off and we will have you a little later. Okay. Everyone who signed up marked "x" to be on the mailing list, but nobody marked it to speak. Is that your intention? voices: (Unclear) . Chair Martinez: okay, fine. I will call your name. . .excuse me, please. voices: (Unclear) . Chair Martinez: I will call each of your names. If you want to speak, please come to the podium. We want to hear what you have to say, okay. The first person I have is Sharon Gehring. Oh, that is the end. I apologize. I got the last of the list instead of the beginning of the list. Floyd Bacon. We have hundreds of people, so keep it to the point, please, so we can understand. Floyd Bacon: First of all, I believe if I am correct. . .I 'm Floyd T. Bacon. I am a resident of Kent, 24311 35th Avenue South. And if I am correct, I believe all of you people are members of the community. You are appointed to these various positions. That's right. Can I ask you a second question. Is this the first time you have heard this proposal tonight? 19 Kent Planning Commission Minutes May 21, 1990 Voices• No. Floyd Bacon: Okay. We have a lot of people here tonight. It took 18 months to get the proposal out. It took the federal government probably three years to get it to the state. The state took another year. And we sitting back here as concerned citizens, we've had about two hours and we couldn't hear half of it, but I 'd like to go through. . . I know through the period. . . if I sound unhappy it's just that I want to put my point across to the committee. Now I would like to go through this thing real quickly, because I didn't hear a thing that went on at the other. . .I wasn't too concerned anyway, so I went through this and I picked out some items. First of all I don't believe. . .the young lady had a good presentation from the Director Harris' office. . .Bellevue has two categories. Is that right Solomon. Two categories. Rebecca Solomon: (Unclear) . Floyd Bacon: They failed to mention that Category III in Bellevue, which I will find here. . .well, I 'll get it out of the paper, because everything is in the paper here also. In Bellevue, do you know what they say about Category III? They tell this. Right here in Bellevue is . however Bellevue . . . a city did not have a specific classification for group homes with sexual predators and hence would allow them only in areas zoned for jails. The committee, I believe, has followed pretty well the Bellevue part of the plan or the proposal. So I suggest that we tonight go over these things that I am going to go over and whoever else wants to speak, but I don't think we have had a fair shake on this one. We had the same thing with the Nike Manor. All of a sudden bang it came up. So, therefore, I think we all should have a little something to say. But I hope tonight the committee will think this over and give us a chance to read it and have another meeting after all of us have spoken. I only have ten minutes so I shall go back. The main thing the committee came up with that was any worthwhile, and I 'll say amend the current definition of family as it appears in the zoning code. That is fine. Also, I 'd like to direct this to the advisory. . . Chair Martinez: Excuse me. Would you address your comments to this body. Floyd Bacon: All right. I'll do that. Sorry. So therefore I would like to say that that's the only thing I see so far that the committee could actually vote on tonight, because we have not had a chance to go over the matrix. The matrix was changed. I went over one part of it. It was very hard to hear. I realize you are the committee. You have to go ahead and make your decision on 20 Kent Planning Commission Minutes May 21, 1990 this. But I don't know how anybody. . .you have to go through this. I think we have a say. . .I think we have something to say about. . .I think we should have a chance to go over this and schedule another meeting and . I 've seen it happen many times here when things are not clear, and a lot of things aren't clear. This is a lot of stuff here. Another thing is, we have the Category III, which you've got in your books. These people here . we found it in Tacoma . . . they were in a home and what happened. He was picked up yesterday for attempted assault. You say 600 feet. . . 600 feet or 1, 000 feet, that doesn't make any difference to a person who has a problem. And as the chairwoman of the advisory group stated that most of the people on this program were social workers. That's fine. Here is another thing that I think. On the licensing of Group II and Group III homes, I feel there should be more than just. . .I think the Planning Committee has a lot to do in the City of Kent, but there should be somebody from the concerned citizens East Hill and the Valley, to more or less. . .they don't have to sit right next to the director, but I think we should know sometimes with these very serious problems where they are going to put these places. We should have something to say about it. The same with right here on the back page. Assign a staff person with a social services background to the periodic monitoring homes in Kent. One person is going to monitor this? A social worker. Let's have somebody else on the program. Nothing against social workers. We need them. But also, we need the other side of the story. So, this is what I feel. Is my ten minutes up yet? All right. I ' ll go on. Chair Martinez: May I ask you about. . .you made a point about licensing, would you please reiterate that. Floyd Bacon: Licensing. Now we have here established a licensing program and location and nature of Class II and Class III Group Homes. The committee recommends that the Planning Department set up a system as part of the permit application process whereby a Class II or Class III Group Home would have to register as one would for a business license. Say I have a Category II and III in my place. I'd like to register for it. Now this sounds really simple in writing. But is it going to be that simple with the Planning Department. This is my question. What type . . . it doesn't tell us what they do to check into these things. We know they've got a problem. The city has to take their proportion as stated in the advisory committee's report. But I think also the main thing we must remember, the city does not have to accept everything the state and federal government tells us that we have to accept. We still should give some thought to the Category II and III. Now back to the homes. Right today we have people who have mentally and physically disabled persons in their homes. 21 Kent Planning Commission Minutes May 21, 1990 Think it's great. This is fine. This is not what we are talking about. We are talking about people that have got problems. They are released on to society and we cannot stand and see this go on in the community of Kent. And I just didn't come here yesterday. I 've been here 27 years. So consequently I feel that many of us who are here tonight have been here for many years. There are people here who own businesses here that are very concerned. I don't think. . .I would recommend. . .let us study this. You people look at it some more and what other people have to say before we make any decision on passing this plan. And I thank you very much, and I 'm sorry I didn't address all my questions to you instead of. . .my head. I'm sorry. Any questions that anybody wants to ask me. I 'd be glad to try and answer them. That's fine. Commissioner Miller: I wouldn't mind just clarifying one thing. Floyd Bacon: All right. Commissioner Miller: You made reference to the arrest of the young man in Tacoma yesterday. He lived within his own family and the group home settings would have nothing to do with that situation. Floyd Bacon: I believe it says in here that one person per ten people in a home, one supervisor. Commissioner Miller: No, but he lived within his own family and that would not be regulated by this change. Floyd Bacon: We have enough problems with people in the homes that do this. This. . . first of all we do not have a monitoring system for even that. I agree. Why ask for more problems. Why ask for more. City of Kent Police Department can only do so much. And I know every time there is a cut, they are going to cut the Police Department. So this is. . .does that answer your question. This is the way we feel about it. I am sure that I do. The fact that we have these problems that we cannot always help. And one of the committee members mentioned about drugs, and he asked the young lady and with a short time had a very good presentation. Nothing wrong with it. But she had to direct it to the committee. I agree and I want to thank you very much and I 'll keep quiet and hope that somebody else has something else to say from my group. Thank you very much. Commissioner Forner: One quick question. Chair Martinez: Please, that is really inappropriate. James Harris: Let's not have any clapping this evening, please. 22 Kent Planning Commission Minutes May 21, 1990 Commissioner Forner: Is your main concern the Class III sex predator? Floyd Bacon: I an saying we need to look at all of it. The only thing I said that I agree with is the changing of the family unit or the family group or the family dwelling. That is where you have the six people over and above the neutral family, the (unclear) children, etc. That would include maybe a mother, father-in-law or whoever it is. I think this is fine. We establish it so that they can't have 30 people in there. I agree with that. Is that Okay. Does that answer your question? Commissioner Forner: Your comments kind of indicated that you were very concerned about the Class III criminal. . . Floyd Bacon: I think any of us are. . .there are so many different aspects of this proposal that if we say gee, it looks great here, okay, but some of it down here may not be so good. I think basically that the II and III, basically the III. . .and we must look. . .I don't think it would be possible to (unclear) . I cannot tell the committee what to do, only just hope that you do the right thing. Thank you. James Wright: Ladies and gentlemen, my name is James L. Wright Jr. I am a resident of Kent. I live at 3605 South 241st Street. Recently I retired from the Army and came home to Washington State after an absence of twenty-two years, and I am a little appalled at some of the things that have happened here. For instance, I don't really know if what the people have to say is really going to affect too much the decisions of this committee. I 've testified before a committee down in Olympia and what the people had to say before that committee didn't affect in the least what they had to do. They went ahead and did what they were going to do in the first place anyway. I feel a little bit better qualified than most people to speak about this. My last assignment in the United States Army was as the drug and alcohol NCO for a military community in Germany of 25,000 uniformed personnel plus their dependents, for a total of about 56,000 people. My wife and I sponsored a group home for abused children and abused wives, so we understand the problems of group homes. I think there were some mistakes made right off the bat with this. First of all, social workers on the advisory committee to the mayor. There should have been some ordinary citizens on that committee so that the ideas and the input of the citizens were in this advice to be given to the mayor right off the bat. 23 Kent Planning Commission Minutes May 21, 1990 Commissioner Faust: Excuse me. It was my understanding from the chair of that committee that there were people who were from the community who did not have backgrounds in social work. James Wright: I understood her to say that there were only social workers. Commissioner Faust: No, that was not my understanding. My understanding was that she said that a lot of the people on the committee have social work background but that there were also people on the committee who did not have social work background and who were on the committee because they were simply citizens of Kent. James Wright: Is that true? Rebecca Solomon: Yes. James Wright: All right. I stand corrected. Under Class I Group Homes it says and other group homes that are not considered Class II Group Homes. It was very nice of the young lady to say that it could be the elderly grouping together to handle the expenses better, or unwed mothers. What about six or eight people with aids getting together and sharing the expenses of a group home in a multiple family setting. Under Class II I 'm really disturbed about the half-way houses for juveniles providing residence in lieu of institutional sentencing or incarceration. There is a large amount of crime, violent crime, committed by juveniles. And just because we put them into a group home doesn't mean they are going to quit doing that. Generally they just keep on doing it. I know whereof I speak on that also, because I was in a group home. I grew up in one from the age of 13 until I was 16, and when I joined the Marines I was in a group home. And let me tell you, folks, we don't want them. I wouldn't want to be in one and I wouldn't want one near my home. In Class III Group Homes I agree with Bellevue on that one. They only belong in areas reserved for jails, preferably we will reserve these areas about 50 miles from any residential facility at all. Those folks have done a whole lot to US. Witness what happened to the work release center down in Pioneer Square with Ms. Ballashoguts. I would like to see a change in there that says that group home not be permitted within one mile of single family zoned areas. And before they are granted variance, which they could be granted, that all families within five miles of the proposed site be notified and be allowed to speak their minds before the committee that would grant the variance. I was looking over this matrix and it shows that multiple family residential, that Class II Group Homes could be in a multifamily residential area. Well, the area that I live in just about 50 24 Kent Planning Commission Minutes May 21, 1990 yards from my home there is a set of duplexes. That means that these Class II group homes could be in that area. There is also a commercially zoned place about the same distance from my home, which means that a Class III could possibly go in there or a detoxification center could possibly go in there. I don't want to deal with them any more. I am tired of them. They cause a lot of problems not only to themselves, but for the people who have to work with them and have to associate with them. Thank you very much. Chair Martinez: Thank you. Any questions? Thank you. Sharon Atkin. Sharon Atkin: I am Sharon Atkin and I am a member of the committee. I just wanted to say that this work was not put together lightly. It was done over a long period of time with a lot of thought given to both sides of the question, both to the protection of the community and to the protection of the residents that might be living in these group homes. It is difficult to site the type of group homes when there is not community support. And yet we do have laws in this country that say we must site these people. But I think beyond that that we as a community have a responsibility to care for our own. We talk about those people and I am wondering where those people came from. Did they come from any of our homes or come from any of our families? And does it become different when they are part of other people's families and they are not part of our own families? Is it acceptable to help people, to support people, to allow people to be a part of our community when they are our family, but it is not okay to help people, to support people and to give people an opportunity to live a normal life because they are not part of our community, they are not part of our family but they are part of someone else's family. Thank you. Chair Martinez: Are there any questions? The next person is Frances Turrell. Would you like to speak. Frances Turrell: No. Chair Martinez: Leonard Gregg. Leonard Greg• No. Chair Martinez: Marilyn Almquist. Marilyn Almquist: No. 25 Kent Planning Commission Minutes May 21, 1990 Chair Martinez: Don J. Knapp. Don J. Knapp. Al McCulloch. Tom Phillips. Amiel Forshee. Amiel Forshee: Yes. I would like to say something. My name is Amiel Forshee. I live on the Kent West Hill 4109 South 243rd Place. In looking at this separation requirement I don't think we should use language such as other such uses that are deemed to be sensitive. I think we should spell a few things out. And I think in here specifically we should state existing or proposed parks. Parks are congregation places for children. Having a couple of children of our own I don't want these Class III people or probably even the Class II people near those parks where our children might be. And I am specifically referring to the Kent Highlands dump up there which in future years is planned to be a nice, big park area as I understand it, and which is going to attract many, many children. And that Nike facilitate up there on Military is about two block from there. So I don't think that that has any business having a Class II or Class III type code possibility with the fact that the . . .yes go ahead. Chair Martinez: (unclear) . . .the park. . . (unclear) and I 'm not finding the language. . . Amiel Forshee: On page 14 Separation Requirements it says such as public or private schools, churches or other religious facilities or institutions and other such uses that are deemed to be sensitive. Chair Martinez: So you are absolutely correct. You were talking about parks and you have shown the parks. Can I get clarification. . . (unclear) . Amiel Forshee: Sure. Okay. Janet Shull: This is Janet Shull, Kent Planning Department. The parks are not specifically listed, but they would be included. Where those overheads came from is the adult use zoning study which was done a year or so ago, and they are shown as examples of . . . those are sensitive land uses, so it is shown as an example, but they would be included. It only showed existing parks. Chair Martinez: Thank you. I wanted to clarify. . . (Unclear) Amiel Forshee: I would like to see the language of the existing or proposed parks. Specifically, I am thinking of that Kent Highlands Landfill which will be a very large park and attract many children in the future. Thank you. 26 Kent Planning Commission Minutes May 21, 1990 Chair Martinez: (Unclear) . . . Richard O Reeder. I 'm murdering people's names tonight. Erma Veighey. Robert Bacon. . . . (unclear) Voice: I sure made a sad mistake. I'm sorry. Chair Martinez: Ann Burdick. David Knapp. Flora Knapp. Allen Burdick. Lyle Rasmussen. Mr. Mall. Gary Hoover. Brian Boyle. Susan Camancho. Charlet Carnagey. Jefrie Jenkins. Jefrie Jenkins: I 'm Jefrie Jenkins. The question that I have is would this proposal affect areas in the City of Kent that belong to the state or the government, the U. S. Government, such as Nike Manor. Chair Martinez: It applies to all areas because it is. . . it applies to the Zoning Code of the City of Kent all areas, as I understand it, under our jurisdiction as far as zoning. Is that correct? Yes it does apply to every place in the City of Kent. Jefrie Jenkins: Okay, thank you. Voice: (unclear) Does the federal government have to comply with our zoning requirements. . . Chair Martinez: No, they don't. Jefrie Jenkins: Yes, that was my question. So they wouldn't. Voice: (unclear) . . . federal and state as you go up the hierarchy, they are exempt from the . . . (unclear) . Jefrie Jenkins: So we could pass these resolutions or amendments, but if there was an area that belonged to the federal government, they wouldn't have to comply to them. Voice: They may not necessarily . . . (unclear) . Jefrie Jenkins: They could put. . .thank you. Chair Martinez: Also in that same line Leona Adams. Okay. Ernie Nelson. Okay. Josie Creager. Frank Pepper. Eunice Pearson. Sharon Gehring. Oh, I 'm sorry. Eunice Pearson: I 'm Eunice Pearson and I live up on the West Hill of Kent. I 've never been to a City Council meeting before and I don't think I 'll ever come again. I 'm really appalled at the attitude of our elected, I assume you are elected, officials. Voice: No, we are citizens. 27 Kent Planning Commission Minutes May 21, 1990 Eunice Pearson: Citizens, yeah, well, if you are citizens you aren't acting like citizens. Voice• Appointed. Eunice Pearson: Appointed citizens. I don't know who appointed you, but I 'm really disgusted with the whole situation. I am sorry I came, and if I was recommending you for anything, I wouldn't do it, because I don't see any kind of. . .where do you live. It is hard to understand. You must not live where I live. So, I 'm sorry I'm here. Chair Martinez: Excuse me. I don't understand what you would like us to be doing. Eunice Pearson: Well, I come from a community who works together instead of fighting one another. It looks like tonight all we are doing is bickering and arguing and things and that doesn't sound right to me. It looks like we have come for no reason, because all the decisions have already been made. Why are we here. . .as citizens. . . You have already made the decisions, evidently. So it doesn't make sense to me. Commissioner Faust: What makes you think that we have made up our minds about this subject? Eunice Pearson: Well, that 's what I 've heard. Commissioner Faust: What makes you think that we have made up our minds about this group home subject? Eunice Pearson: Well, that's just the opinion I have been given. It is the only idea I have been given that you have already made up your mind. Is that correct? Commissioner Chopp: This came about only about two months ago that I remember that it came up, and this is what the public hearing is for, so that the people can bring all their information to us. There is a lot of good information that I received tonight on what our decision might be. And I think this is a step in the right direction. And as far as I think, this city and the whole State of Washington would be a better state if we had these homes where we knew where these people were at, we could control them better, and we could probably have better citizens from that. That's the whole thing behind that. These people got to be educated and someone's got to take care of it. If we know where they are at, if we know their needs and try to help them, they might become good citizens. 28 Kent Planning Commission Minutes May 21, 1990 Eunice Pearson: Okay, but who is going to monitor them. Commissioner Chong: There will be monitors. Eunice Pearson: I 'm a social worker and I know what goes on in the system. Monitoring doesn't happen very often. Commissioner Chopp: Give us a chance. Eunice Pearson: I don't have any choice. I 'm going to have to give you a chance. I mean, I live here and I 'm not going to move for a while anyhow, until I can afford to. I live up by Nike Manor and we have already been inundated. Our land values have already gone down because of what the City of Seattle did to us with the landfills, and now what kind of things are going to happen with this kind of stuff coming in. You know, so that's just how am approaching it. It's disturbing to me to see that there is so much dissension and problems. I agree with you. Where are you going to put these people, but. . .put them on an island someplace, I don't know. I 've worked with them. I know what they are like. It's not real exciting to think of them being in our communities. Commissioner Forner: I 'd like to make a comment. First of all I'm sorry that you think that we come in with our minds made up, because I don't think we do. We aren't that organized for one thing. We don't talk to each other. And I 'm sorry that you are disappointed in the public process, but I think we do the best we can with the public process. But the comment I do want to make is that I know a fair amount about what is happening in our prison system, and unless we do something really drastic to build more prisons, these people are going to be released into the community. And I would just as soon know where they are, and I think the public would just as soon know where they are than to have them released and not know where they are. So that may not be a great consolation to you, but we all have the "nimy" syndrome. . .not in my backyard, but we have got to face the fact that they are going to be there and to try to provide some sort of regulation and community notification and some sort of an assessment of who these people are and who the dangerous ones are, and I think it is a step in the right direction rather than just releasing them and saying, I 'm sorry your sentence is up. We can't do anything more. You are still a threat to society, but goodbye and not knowing where they are going. It's not the best, but I believe it is a step in the right direction, and it is a tough step to have to take both for the public and for us. It is, but don't ever think we don't listen to your comments. We have to present something to you so that you can respond back. That is the public process. We have staff 29 Kent Planning Commission Minutes May 21, 1990 develop a program maybe that you weren't instrumental in, but we hope that we had a committee that there were people from the public, all sectors of the public, and that is a good basis for it. Then we present it to you, and now is your opportunity to say. Perhaps we don't give you enough time, then we need to give you more. Eunice Pearson: Well, I 'm glad that you explained that to me. It is important for us to understand, but also I think there needs to be more input by the citizens. It seems that everything just all of a sudden appears, and then things have already been done, and then all of a sudden everything is voted on, and that is all there is to it, you know. I don't think that anything that is said here tonight is going to make a difference, but I would hope that it would. So that is why I am up here saying. . .you know, I 'm really kind of disturbed and upset about the whole thing. I didn't want to come here and see this happen. So, thank you. Commissioner Gregory: I always respect people like you being a rebel myself, and so I have a question for you. What do you think we could do to make this more. . .to make this better, more accessible to a person like yourself. Because I am a little upset that someone like you is upset about our procedure. I want to know how can we work with you on something like this. We have not voted on this at all. It is my understanding. . . I have not made up my mind one way or the other. I was looking forward to this tonight to hear what the citizens have to say. That is my understanding about the hearing. We get input from staff and we get input from our fellow citizens. . .a little more feedback about this. Eunice Pearson: Well, to address your question, what else can you do. When you have a group like this, why can't you, you know, have people either sign up who would be interested in talking to you about it, or pick out people who are here, they show an interest in being here, and then pick out a person from the East Hill, West Hill, and get them together to join you in your discussion. Like I said, I am unaware of where you all were, who picked you or whatever, I don't know where you come from, but it seems to me like there's got to be a more equal way to do it where more people get input into it, because up on our hill we've passed our flyers and done all kinds of things, and yet I come tonight and there are only a few of us from up there, and those that I thought would be here aren't here, maybe because they have other things, but, you know, but I know several who would be a good person to be here to talk. They have the facts more than I do. Chair Martinez: I'm going to call this to a halt. I just wanted to make the comment that everyone, and you have said it yourself, 30 Kent Planning Commission Minutes May 21, 1990 was notified of this meeting, and we are here to listen to whatever people have to say. We are more than willing to listen. We cannot force people to come, and, in fact it wouldn't be a very interesting democracy if we could. So the people that are interested come and speak to us, and certainly over the period of time I've been on the Planning Commission what we get from our audience has nine time out of ten gone directly into amending in some way the decisions that we finally made. To be quite honest I resent the fact that you are criticizing us and not giving us one iota of a suggestion of how we can make this plan, the plan we are here to hear about tonight, better. Thank you. Sharon Gehring, please. Patricia Rommick. Kris and Vic Case. Okay. Linda Godwin. Linda Godwin: My name is Linda Godwin. Do you need my address. It's on the paper. Chair Martinez: No, we have it, thank you. Linda Godwin: I have a couple of questions. I live in the Nike Manor community. I also am very active in the school in that community, and my question is that we get these people into our community who have children, that poses another situation in our schools for the school counselors, nurses, psychologists, etc. , if these children of these other families are dysfunctional in some manner if that's the case. Do we as a school receive any help in this situation? Chair Martinez: I don't know. . .I honestly don't know the answer to that question. Linda Godwin: Because they are a drain, and this is a fact of life, a drain on our school system and on the community workers, but we need support. Chair Martinez: And what are you proposing? Linda Godwin: Well, I am proposing that the school districts that are affected by this be it Federal Way or Kent, receive some consideration on helping these families in the school communities as well. Chair Martinez: I think that. . .now that is beyond the scope of what we can do. Right now all we can do is. . .we are considering the proposals to the zoning code. I think you have a point that is well taken, and that is when a group home or some sort of an organization comes into our community, we have to do something. It has to come with some funding to take care of it. But that is 31 Kent Planning Commission Minutes May 21, 1990 quite a long way beyond what we can do as a zoning amendment. My question is are you speaking for or against any part of the zoning. . .of the things that we have in our power to do something about. Linda Godwin: Well, as far as the zoning, I don't know. I guess. . .I 'm not sure. I had more of a question to you than really an answer. . . if this went through, the effect on schools. Chair Martinez: I have no idea, do you? Commissioner Forner: Maybe I can try and answer that one. I don't think specifically. . .and I think your question is a very good one, and your concern is well taken. Many of the programs for children, like WICK and FIP, are based on the numbers of certain categories of those types of children within that school. So, they would fall under that same criteria for being eligible for those programs. And I would hope that the social workers or whoever is working with them would plug those people into those federal or state programs as they would for any child in that particular group. So if you had an inordinate number of children in your school, you would receive aid in proportion to those children. That's what happens right now. Linda Godwin: I see that now, and I see it under rated. I see a struggling now. Commissioner Forner: That's true, but I don't see children coming from that home or from anywhere else in the community. It is still treated fairly. I don't think it solves all the problems, but I think those programs are available to those people as they are to any other in the community. I think your point is well taken that those people do be counted, or those children do be counted in your school so that you can receive additional funding if you have a very high percentage of those children in school. Linda Godwin: We do. Thank you. Chair Martinez: Charles Olson. Okay. Charles McFarland. Charles McFarland: I'm Charles McFarland, live up on the West Hill. In reading over the definition here on page 12 of Class III Group Homes, the last sentence: Such groups involve individuals that are selected to participate in state operated Work/Training Release and Pre-Release Programs or similar programs. I 'd like to comment that we'd better be darn careful about where we put any Class III homes, speaking from personal experience. Several years where we live up there, one of our daughters was picked up and 32 Kent Planning Commission Minutes May 21, 1990 molested by a man. Fortunately she came out of it all right. she was taken down to the prosecutor's office a few days later and they started showing her mug shots down there to see if she could identify the individual. She went along and said yeah that's him. The prosecutor said no, it can't be. He's in jail. But further investigation showed that he had been out on work release that particular weekend that he picked her up. So I don't have any great respect for work release myself. Thank you. Chair Martinez: Judi or Paul Dexter. Okay. Thank you. Peggy Rhodes. Bill or Pat Jarvis. Margaret Warren. Margaret Warren: Mine are more of the kind of things I 'd like a little clarification on. The first thing I'd like to know is, we saw a map of where they would not be allowed. We saw a bunch of black dots. I would like to see a map of where they would be allowed. In other words, in our community we have to have some places, because we have to bear our fair share, even if we don't like it. So I would like to see a map of. . .this is where they are allowed. This is where we feel the zoning is possible. Chair Martinez: May I clarify, would you like to see that for Class I, Class II and Class III. Margaret Warren: That would be wonderful if it would be possible without an awful lot of work. But my idea is not. . .now Class I was a group home which was nursing home, foster homes, developmentally disabled, which would be multifamily zoning. Correct? Chair Martinez: Depending on what size it was. Margaret Warren: I think it would really be very helpful to those of us who are saying Okay, this is where we feel these people can be. This is where. . .this kind of thing. . .Do we have that or is it just where they are excluded. Chair Martinez: We have a large map. Right. Margaret Warren: Sure. That's what I 'm here for. Lauri Anderson: We have a large map, and what we would be able to show is where they could locate. The clarification there is that if you have a conditional use permit, that doesn't mean you can go there, and I'm thinking specifically of Group Homes, Class III. I couldn't point on a map and say it could go here, because it is tied to a specific application and we have to know how many people were involved, etc. We could show you an overall zoning district 33 Kent Planning Commission Minutes May 21, 1990 where it was potentially possible. Okay. We could get a large map. Chair Martinez: I think that's fair. There's a large audience here and we could just show it to people and people could see that, and we have one other person to testify, and I think we have some more questions. Lauri Anderson: I think that I have to run upstairs and it's locked in a storage room. Chair Martinez: Okay. Margaret Warren: My next question was how they arrived at some of the numbers as far as their definitions go. Because when I was looking at what Bellevue had and what Redmond had, why did we go for six instead of five, including (unclear) . I 'm sure they had some reasoning behind what their numbers were, but why aren't we adopting the least number instead of a most number? I'm sure there is some reason why we have this particular thing. I know they tried to make their presentation reasonably short, and I thought she did a really nice job, but I'm still feeling like if I was up there trying to decide like you are, I'm not sure I 'd have enough information to say oh, yes, this is what I want to go for, because it should be ten and under, it should be ten and over. This is the places it should go. And so that was my only comments. I did not plan on speaking, but I felt like these were the things were in my mind as questions. Chair Martinez: Janet, can you respond to that last question, please. Janet Shull: I am going to attempt to answer the question about the number for the definition of family, and I'd invite a committee member to correct me if I misrepresent the committee's intention, but when they looked at neighboring jurisdictions they did range from five, I believe as the lowest, and I know some cities allow up to eight. I believe Seattle allows eight in their definition of family. And I don't know enough about other cities in King County to cite them. But really, in all honesty, the committee just felt comfortable with six. I don't know how to make it any more specific than that. They looked at the range and felt that six was a good, round number. I wish I had more reasoning behind it, but it was within the range that was considered appropriate in other jurisdictions in the county. 34 Kent Planning Commission Minutes May 21, 1990 Chair Martinez: I think of the questions that have been raised and if the other two people who are here from the committee have any more to say. voice: I think that other things that should be taken into consideration when coming up with (unclear) how many people it would take to make one of these (unclear) financially feasible. . . if you would only let two or three, then people who have received Social Security (unclear) . . . who still cannot afford the (unclear) of a house that size. Looking at past projects that have been (unclear) social service agencies (unclear) it seems to have been very workable (unclear) depending on what they are capable (unclear) . So we looked into what the agencies would be able to do (unclear) . But there is also a minimum (unclear) to make these projects financially feasible. Carolyn Lake: Carolyn Lake, Assistant City Attorney. Additional reasons for the number six would be that the whole intent of the Fair Housing Act Amendment was to differentiate as little as possible between the traditional, nuclear family situation and a handicapped situation that does fit within the definition of family. The smaller the number, the more susceptible it is to legal challenge that the differentiation (unclear) not on the number alone, but also on the characterization (unclear) handicapped. So you want to make that number as close the normal living situation as possible. (unclear) normal range for being an acceptable (unclear) . . .Right. Chair Martinez: We will come back to the answer to your question on the map. We will just forge on ahead. I have actually forged to the end, but are there other people in the audience that would wish to say something. Yes sir. Please, and state your name and address, please. Ted Smith: My name is Ted Smith and I live at 3911 South 242nd. The roll didn't get to the front, but, actually I just wanted to mention. . .I see that regulations are being drafted that would possibly be to the benefit of Kent on a long-term basis. I am here with sort of a vested interest concern with the Nike Manor area, and I think many people here also have that concern, but I think that to the extent that we can use these regulations as a tool to help us, then this is very beneficial to us, and I think that's probably why the majority of the people are here. I live very close to the area of Nike Manor and I have a young family, three girls, and we probably want if something were to go in like that, we would probably prefer to move,and I don't know that we have the financial resources to do that, so I would like your help to the extent that you represent the community, and I think the majority 35 Kent Planning Commission Minutes May 21, 1990 of the people here, if you represent the community, you would want to help us with this question, this problem that has come up. Chair Martinez: Excuse me. The only problem is in the public hearing that we are in we have four things to do, and that is all. Can your testimony please touch on those items. We'd appreciate it. Ted Smith: Like I said, to the extent that this can be used as a tool for us and future people in the City of Kent, I think it has been beneficial. My personal opinion is that I would share my community with the Category I type of people, but I would not with Category II and Category III. Hopefully, this can be worded as such that it can protect the majority of the people and, in our instance, our community close to Nike Manor. I also come here as someone a little bit ignorant, because I just found out about this. Because someone was kind enough to walk down our street and let us know, and I am asking for your help because you know the system to tell us what to do so that we can be most effective, because we are willing to do whatever it takes, and we want to be able to use the regulations to our benefit. And that's it. Okay. Chair Martinez: I have some suggestions for you, actually. Ted Smith: And I don't know that as proposed, maybe we are okay. But maybe we do have to change some things, like one gentleman, a few have noted. Go ahead. Chair Martinez: Because. . .I think you are right. I think that you do want to be part of the system, and to do that there are some things that in fact you can do. On June 5th at Sunnycrest at six o'clock there is a public meeting of the City Council. And that will address specifically the issue that you are concerned with. Ted Smith: Where's that. Chair Martinez: It's at Sunnycrest Elementary. Ted Smith• Okay. Chair Martinez: Now there's one other thing. Those of you who find that you do not like what comes out of this body, the body of appeal is that this will come before the City Council. Again you will have opportunity to comment to the Council people about what you think we have decided. Our decision I suspect may or may not come this evening. I 'm not sure. We're getting a little groggy here, but I will tell you at the end of this meeting whether we are going to make a decision or when and where the next discussion will 36 Kent Planning Commission Minutes May 21, 1990 occur so that you can be here again, you and your neighbors, to hear our discussion. Okay. Ted Smith: One more question on any grandfather provisions that this might contain. I didn't see any, but I am just wondering about effective dates. Maybe. . . it has apparently taken a long time to get to just this point. Maybe even if this is good regulation, it may not help us out if it takes too long to get implemented. Chair Martinez: The City Council is the body that brings the regulation forward, and it normally takes. . . James Harris: Well, it will take. . .I assume that you aren't going to finish this evening, so it is going to take another month at least, and then this will not go to the City Council probably before some time in July or August. Then if an ordinance is passed, it has a 30-day waiting period, so that is maybe September. That is the kind of time lines that I would be looking at. Ted Smith: Would it be retroactive or only prospective? Chair Martinez: It would only go forward. James Harris: Go forward from that date that the ordinance becomes effective. Commissioner Forner: I have a question before you leave. Group III are not allowed in the area that you are talking about. Ted Smith: Yes, I realize that. Commissioner Forner: So that is out. So your concern is a conditional use . . . Ted Smith: Of Category II. Commissioner Forner: Of Class II, but you are saying that you wouldn't mind Group I or Class I in that area. Ted Smith: No, not me personally. Commissioner Forner: Okay. Chair Martinez: We have another question I think over here. Commissioner Miller: Well, no I just wanted to make a comment that I feared that people were going to be very frustrated tonight because they want us to be able to do something and it is not what 37 Kent Planning Commission Minutes May 21, 1990 we were here to do. And I understand people from the community feeling very frustrated that the process isn't working for them. And I do hope that you will pursue it, and there are many steps and there are many places, and this is only one piece of what the puzzle is. And, unfortunately, it is a puzzle for many of us in the community. So I guess all I can do is encourage you to hang in there and to make your voices known. But, unfortunately, many of your concerns we simply won't be able to address. It simply is not in the purview of what we are going to be able to do. We will adopt or refuse to adopt or amend what is before us as far as definitions are concerned, but we can't say, for instance, that groups can't be any place. The state has a say over some of these kinds of things. Class III won't be in residential areas. They will only be in limited areas and then subject to a conditional use permit, and I would suggest that you stay aware of the public notices in the newspaper because they are always published, and then there will be hearings at any time somebody applies for a conditional use permit. So, it is not a process that can be done in one night or in one meeting. Ted Smith: Okay. Chair Martinez: But the next one is June 5th. Thank you. Now I 'll get back to you, but we do have a map and we need to see it, but the audience needs to see it, so can you repeat it twice. You show it to us so we'll know what you are talking about, and then show it to them. I 'd appreciate that. Lauri Anderson: First of all I need to (unclear) generalized zoning districts (unclear) . . .the borders might not be (unclear) . . . Chair Martinez: Okay. Janet Shull: To start, would you like to go through all (unclear) . . . Chair Martinez: I think we are concerned most with two's and three's. Let's just address that. It is getting kind of late and people are going to have to go home. Janet Shull: Right. Fine. In the case of industrial zoning, which is M1, M2 and M3 as shown here, is grayish beige color. We could basically eliminate those areas because we were saying that those weren't appropriate (unclear) for group homes (unclear) . That already eliminates a large area. In the case of both Class II and III we can look at all the yellow areas that are zoned single family and they are not going to be permitted there, so we have another large chunk on primarily the East and West Hill that fall 38 Kent Planning Commission Minutes May 21, 1990 out there. In the case of Class II, they would be conditional in multifamily, which is (unclear) . . .so there is quite a bit of area where (unclear) Lauri Anderson: (Unclear) . Commissioner Faust: Which pretty much knocks out most of what you've got over here on the East Hill area, because of all the various spheres you showed us on the overhead. That pretty much knocks out the whole area. Chair Martinez: And how about on this side. . .on the west side. Janet Shull: The brown. . .here. The West Hill has. . . Chair Martinez: Mostly residential. . . Janet Shull: . . .and on the other side of Pacific Highway we have quite a bit of GC zoning, which indicates both Class II and Class III could be allowed subject to a conditional use permit. So anywhere you see red will not. . .anywhere. . .This is where it gets a little difficult. . . (unclear) . Chair Martinez: Because of the overlays. . . Janet Shull: Because of the (unclear) Class II when you talk about Neighborhood Commercial, Community Commercial, Downtown Commercial, Class II are permitted, but there again. . . Chair Martinez: We've got churches. . . Janet Shull: (Unclear) . . .are not permitted. . . (unclear) still subject to the (unclear) requirements. . . (unclear) downtown area (unclear) . . .start to get a picture. You put all these elements together, you end up with. . . (unclear) . Chair Martinez: Can you turn around and repeat that please. Lauri Anderson: Okay, I 'll get as close as I can and some (unclear) . . . Janet Shull: Can you hear without the mike? Voices• (Unclear) Lauri Anderson: What I just told you is that the colored area is outside the City of Kent. All of this. . . (unclear) jurisdiction. .this is the West Hill area over here, the Valley 39 Kent Planning Commission Minutes May 21, 1990 Floor and Downtown sits right here, and this is up on the East Hill plateau. It might help to orient. . .this is the river that runs along here, and this is the agricultural land that sits over on the other side. . . (unclear) . This might just help you figure out where we are on the map. Chair Martinez: Okay. Lauri Anderson: I-5 runs right here. Voice: Where is that Nike facility on there. Put your finger on it. Lauri Anderson: It would be right. . .where is Military Road. . . Voice: 241st and Military Road. Voices: (unclear) . . .What's the zoning on that one? Lauri Anderson: We show the zoning right here as being Single Family. Now, again, we would have to look. . .since this is a general overlay map. My assumption is that it is single family. Voice: The houses in Nike Manor are duplexes. Lauri Anderson: That's possible. There are nonconforming. . .When were those built? Voices: That's federal property land it doesn't have to conform. . . Lauri Anderson: To the zoning. Voice: That's multifamily residential or duplex. Lauri Anderson: No, it still would be zoned whatever the City of Kent says it is zoned. If someone were to purchase the property for example, it would have to follow (unclear) . . . Voice: Then they would have to tear it down and put something else there. Lauri Anderson: No, no there are many apartments in single family that were built either before there was a zoning code or. . . Voice: You are saying that basically a single family area with duplexes in it, the duplexes do not dictate what that area will be. 40 Kent Planning Commission Minutes May 21, 1990 Lauri Anderson: Right. Voice• Okay. Chair Martinez: Have you finished? Janet Shull: No, we haven't started. We orienting. . . I 'll start like I did for the Planning Commission in talking about the industrial areas, which are these tan-grayish areas, where in no case are group homes proposed by this committee to locate. Industrial land uses are not seen as appropriate to locate any type of residential facility. Because the land uses are very intense, you have a lot of trucks, there's not normally public transportation, maybe along major corridors, but not into the sites. Chair Martinez: You would have potentially metal smelting, very intense, very noisy operations. It is not a situation that you would want anyone to be living next to. Voice: You should be up on the West Hill when the airplanes. . . (unclear) . . .garbage dump. Voice: East Valley Highway that runs over here. Lauri Anderson: East Valley would be over here. This is actually 167 over here. Voice: No, I'm talking about East Hill. . . (unclear) . Lauri Anderson: East Valley would be over here. Central, which runs right up here. Now are you talking about West Valley/Washington. Voice: No, I 'm talking about. . . (unclear) . . . Janet Shull: Okay. Right. So that is one large portion of the city where they would not be allowed. The next largest portion we could probably point out would probably be these areas shown in yellow, which are the single-family zoned area in Kent, and the proposal is that Class II and III not be allowed in those areas as well. In the case of Class II the committee's recommending that with a conditional use permit Class II may locate in multifamily which are shown in the brown areas. This is the Lakes development, and here is the Green River, and this is the East Hill area. It is important to point out that in these cases Class II would still be subject to conditional use permit requirements and also separation and dispersion requirements, so they are not permitted 41 Kent Planning Commission Minutes May 21, 1990 outright in multifamily. And in the case of Class III the committee is recommending that they not be allowed at all in the multifamiy areas, so those areas drop out as well in the case of Class III. And in every case Class III, I mentioned, would be conditional. So the areas that the committee felt it may be appropriate for them to locate are the commercial designations and office, which are indicated in red for the Commercial and orange for the Office designation. So those were the only areas that the committee felt may be appropriate but still subject to conditional use requirements and separation and dispersion. One thing that we pointed out to the Planning Commission was in the instance of downtown, which is essentially here, there are quite a few existing churches and parks, etc. , in which those 1, 000-foot boundaries do fall around, so even though it does look like a large area, in reality a lot of the downtown area would fall out because of its proximity to churches or schools, etc. So you kind of need to envision all of them overlaying, and we didn't prepare that diagram. It might have been helpful. Let's see if I have forgotten anything. In the case of the Class II homes, Neighborhood Commercial, Community Commercial and the Downtown Commercial areas which are some but not all of the red areas, for instance, this would not be the case in General Commercial, which is a rather large area here. The committee has recommended that Class II be a permitted use but still subject to in any case separation and disperion requirements as well. Chair Martinez: Okay, thank you very much. Now. . . voice: I still have something else to say ma'm. (unclear) . . .a lot of time. . . (unclear) . . .a few minutes. Chair Martinez: You may have two minutes, sir, because we are getting incoherent. Floyd Bacon: First I want to you to tell me where you got notification. I 'm Floyd Bacon, 24311 35th Avenue South. Please tell me where you notified us. Chair Martinez: It was in the paper. Is that correct? Floyd Bacon: That is not notification. Everybody does not get the paper. There are certain people here now. . .there is one good citizen. . .one good citizen. . .one good citizen give us a paper, said maybe you'd like to go to this meeting. Many people walked the streets to let us know this or you wouldn't have gotten them in here tonight. I just want to make that plain. Second, it is an oversight which happens with everybody in the city. There is no notification where we can attend these meetings, even the Council 42 Kent Planning Commission Minutes May 21, 1990 meetings. It costs 25 cents for each person to get a letter, bring a stamp self. . .costs 25 cents if I want to know when they have a meeting. Is that right? I was told by the secretary to find out when you are having. . . James Harris: To get on the mailing list. Floyd Bacon: Twenty-five cents to get on the list, and I did not know that until I called up, so that is something else that we didn't know. So the only notification was in the newspaper, and I don't think that everybody gets the newspaper. We don't. So, consequently I don't think we should have to get a newspaper to . . .one minute . and I would beg of you people tonight was the best that could be, but how many people could see the map? I mean, we need an opaque projector like everything where everybody can sit back and look at it. I am going to say that they did the best with the time alotted, but I think the committee. . .please we beg of you, to think of it, to give it more time and more thought because there would have been a lot more people. . .but notification was somebody's failing. Thank you for your extra time. Chair Martinez: What is the legal notification for public meeting? James Harris: The newspaper. When you have something city wide. Chair Martinez: And the other requirements are. . . James Harris: If you have a specific hearing, such as we had on the variance tonight, then you notify everyone within 200 feet, plus the newspaper, plus you post it with a public notice posting. Chair Martinez: Okay, thank you. James Harris: And I think that whether the people take the paper, that's their choice. That's not somehting we can force on them. Chair Martinez: Yes. Lauri Anderson: I might also add that we did issue a press release to all the radio stations and all the newspapers and other media in the region hoping that they would advertise it, and I know that some of them picked up on it. Chair Martinez: I have one other person who would wish to speak. Voice: Just a second. One more thing. James Wright: Once again my name is Jim Wright. I live at. . . 43 Kent Planning Commission Minutes May 21, 1990 Chair Martinez: That's fine. Jim Wright: I think that you folks should turn this back to the advisory committee to rework this a little bit. I think they need to narrow their definitions a little bit on those classes and perhaps expand the number of classes to four or possibly even six different classes. I don't think nonviolent offenders belong in with violent offenders. A guy that robs a bank at gunpoint doesn't belong in the same place as a guy that does shoplifting, or someone that is out there. . .absconds with the bank's funds through use of his computer. . .I think their definitions are a little broad on this. I think you should turn it back to them and have them work it over just a little bit more on those points. And I don't have any objection to the mentally disabled or the physically disabled having a group home right next door to my house. We have a responsibility to citizens to care for our disabled, but I don't think we have a responsibility to live next door to someone who is going to break into my home and steal my goods, and trash my home. I thought that you folks could rework those definitions a little bit to expand them a little. Thank you. Chair Martinez: Thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience who has not spoken that would like to address us? Bill Jarvis: My name is Bill Jarvis. I live at 3926 South 242nd. When you look under conditional permit, that's not the exact words, do you take into consideration the number of juveniles instead of just single dwelling or multiple dwelling families, do you take into consideration the number of juveniles per house or per unit of measure? James Harris: Maybe I could answer or make a stab at that. Yes and no. We don't have a definition for that. Recently south of Willis, and I mentioned this at the City Council meeting when the bunches of folks were at that Council meeting, we had conditional use for a group home for juvenile offenders who were in a half- way-house situation. They wanted to put 15 kids in that single family home. We recommended denial of that because there were 15, which, with the counselors, would mean three or four cars would be parked on the site. It was also close to an elementary school, close to a route that kids took to school, and we felt that the 15 was far, too large a number for a single family dwelling. The Hearing Examiner also denied that conditional use permit based on that fact. I think that it is kind of open for interpretation, though, right now from the Planning staff. We take a look at, say if it is a single family home, although in this proposal that would be a Group III Home and would not be allowed in a single family or in a multifamily, so we wouldn't even be having that hearing. 44 Kent Planning Commission Minutes May 21, 1990 Bill Jarvis: The question I had I think I phrased it a bit wrong. If you have your single dwelling that is going into. . .a Class I Group Home that is going into a single family area. James Harris: Class I, yes. . . Bill Jarvis: Do you take into consideration the number of kids per house in that area? That is what I was trying to say. James Harris: In the area. No. Bill Jarvis: so you just go that it is single family and you don't look at what kind of a family is in there. James Harris: We wouldn't care if a family from Nebraska had 12 kids and moved into the neighborhood and their 12 kids are suddenly living next door to me or somebody, and they came from wherever they came from. Well, we might care after while, but they are a family and they came from wherever they came from, and . . . Bill Jarvis: It seems to me like it is a non-caring of. . . it's just like a group, just a number. . .just a single family or multifamily not a given number of people per area so that you can get a little more consideration. Chair Martinez: I think you are missing. . .I 'm on the track but would you try to tell what you mean. You mean the number of people and the number of kids that are in the area of the Group I. II and III Group Homes. Bill Jarvis: Yeah, like if you are going to put in a group home into an area that has only got adult people, that's different than if it had three kids per house. Is that a consideration, or am I completely off track? Chair Martinez: I think that according to the Fair Housing Act it is a permitted use, and I 'm not sure that we have any right to say. . . meddle at all in where they live. . . in the Class I. Anyone else. I would entertain a motion to close the public hearing. Commissioner Gregory: So moved. Chair Martinez: Is there a second? Commisioner Faust: Second. Chair Martinez: All in favor. 45 Kent Planning Commission Minutes May 21, 1990 Voices: Aye. Chair Martinez: What is the wish of this Commission. Commissioner Faust: Go home. Commissioner Gregory: Madam Chair, I 'd like to make a motion that we hold action on this until the next meeting. Maybe that way we can give more people a chance to come to the meeting and give us their feedback. Chair Martinez: Except the only problem is that we've closed the public hearing. We'd have to reopen it. Commissioner Faust: I'd suggest that we hold until next month for deliberations and hold off on whether we are going to reopen it. What I seconded was to close the public meeting. What I would suggest along with what you suggested is that we not do any of our deliberating tonight. . . (unclear) . . .I want to go home and read my rather extensive notes that I have taken, and I will be prepared to do something about this next month. James Harris: That would be June 25th. Chair Martinez: Okay. I still have a motion on the floor. I do not have a second. . .or do I. Discussion. Commissioner Miller: Jim just suggested that the date would be June 25th, and I am wondering if we were going to set aside part of our workshop time to deal with this, or if we are going to wait until. . . Voices: (Unclear) James Harris: I would like to suggest that you just simply continue your public hearing of this evening to the June 25th. Don't close the hearing tonight. Just continue the whole thing. Commissioner Miller: We already did. We'd have to set that aside. Chair Martinez: We can do that, too. Voices: (Unclear) Commissioner Miller: I would then move that we set aside the vote that we just did that we may have done it prematurely, and that we continue the public meeting that we started here this evening until June 25th. 46 Kent Planning Commission Minutes May 21, 1990 Chair Martinez: Is there a second to that? Commissioner Forner: I ' ll second that. Chair Martinez: Discussion. All in favor. Voices: Aye. Chair Martinez: We have continued the public hearing until June 25th at the same time and place, 7:30. Commissioner Forner: Regarding some of the questions that have come up tonight, will we have an opportunity to have an answer to them. Specifically, I was interested and concerned (unclear) about the impact on schools if you had a great number of children (unclear) . . .If we are going to create this class, then we should think about consequences even though that is not in our realm of responsibility in creating the class, but it is in the realm of our decision making to understand what happens. Lauri Anderson: Let me clarify. What you are asking for is information on siting of group homes whose residents or who may themselves be children and the impact of either those children or those children as a resident on the school system. Commissioner Forner: Is there any (unclear) on the help they will get, will they be eligible for benefits of programs other than the normal process. Lauri Anderson: I don't believe so through the City of Kent, but we can certainly investigate and see what information we can bring back to you on other. . . Commissioner Miller: There is one other thing I would like to ask if the Planning Department can possibly do for us. I think that the public would appreciate having that zoning map available so they can compare it with their matrix and start getting a sense before the meeting. Is there any possibility that that map could be made available for people to look at, and maybe even a half hour before the meeting, so they have a sense of where it is possible to locate the group homes. It may answer some of their questions and concerns. And then they can look at it up close and not in a group. Thank you. Chair Martinez: Thank you. (End of Verbatim Minutes) 47 Kent Planning Commission Minutes May 21, 1990 Discussion followed regarding attendance at City Council meetings and Planning Committee meetings. Sunnycrest Elementary School will be the site for the June 5 City Council meeting. The Nike home site will be discussed at 6 p.m. and the regular Council meeting will commence at 7 p.m. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Miller MOVED to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Gregory SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, 7 ex7 4-��' - Jam s P. Harris, Planning Director 48