HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Planning and Economic Development Committee - 06/25/1990 KENT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
June 25, 1990
The meeting of the Kent Planning Commission was called to order by
Chair Martinez at 7:30 p.m. June 25, 1990 in the Kent City Hall,
City Council Chambers.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT:
Linda Martinez, Chair
Tracy Faust, Vice Chair
Anne Biteman
Frank Chopp
Elmira Forner
Willie Gregory
Coleen Miller
PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT:
Elmira Forner, excused
Greg Greenstreet, absent
PLANNING STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
James P. Harris, Planning Director
Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager
Lauri Anderson, Senior Planner
Janet Shull, Planner
Lois Ricketts, Recording Secretary
KENT CITY STAFF:
Carolyn Lake, Assistant City Attorney
APPROVAL OF MAY 21, 1990 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Commissioner Faust MOVED that the minutes of the May 21, 1990
meeting be approved as presented. Commissioner Gregory SECONDED
the motion. Motion carried.
GROUP HOMES - ZCA 90-2
Verbatim Minutes
Chair Martinez: This evening we have a continuation of our hearing
on Group Homes. As you are all aware, last month we heard from a
number of people who had concerns and questions that had been
presented to us. We have actually three. . .two. . .three large things
to consider. We have one to amend the current Kent Zoning Code to
implement four different things: the definition of family, the
definition of Class I, II and III Group Homes, the Group Homes
Siting Matrix, and the Separation and Dispersion Requirements for
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
June 25, 1990
Class II and III homes. And then we have three further actions
that will help implement and clarify what would be the result of
action 1. And the first is to establish conditional use permit
criteria for group homes. We can recommend to the City Council
that those conditional use permit criteria be studied and some
recommendations for specific application to group homes, and we can
also recommend to establish that a licensing and monitoring system
be put in place which would include some staffing perhaps from the
Planning Department. So those are the three activities we have to
deal with this evening. Most people I think that we will be
hearing from later will be talking about action item 1 simply
because that is the root and guts of all that is happening. We
will hear first from the Planning Department staff. I have asked
them simply to give us a very brief overlook and catch us up on
exactly what all of these things are, take us a little bit through
what we are supposed to be doing, and then answer some of the
specific questions that were raised at the last hearing. Then I
will, for those of you in the audience, I will reopen the hearing
so that you will have another opportunity to speak to us. We are
very interested in hearing what you have to say. And there is a
sign-up board. I don't know exactly where that is. Please, if
there are people who have not signed in, please do so. We really
do need your input in this. And I will call on you when we reopen
the public meeting. Then after the input from the public, we will
close the public meeting and begin our discussions. Janet.
Janet Shull: This is Janet Shull with the Kent Planning
Department. And I will just get right into the recommendations.
For those of you in the audience who may not have attended the last
meeting, there are copies of the report up front here on the table,
and there is a lot of background information in that report as well
that I won't be going over tonight. So if you are interested in
seeing kind of how these recommendations were formed by the
committee, then I suggest you come and get a copy of the report
because I won't be taking time to go over that this evening. The
first recommended action item is to amend the current definition of
family, so I am going to be putting some overheads up here that are
slightly larger than last time. It was kind of hard to read these
so, hopefully, a little better tonight. I ' ll just read to you what
this says. This is the proposed definition of family which should
replace the current of family in the zoning code, and it reads one
or more individuals related by blood or legal, familial
stat. . .relationship, or a group of not more than six persons who
need not be related by blood or legal familial relationship living
together in a dwelling unit as a single, nonprofit housekeeping
unit. And it specifically would exclude Class II and II Group
Homes as defined in this code. And I will be going over those
definitions. And there is a notation here that says that certain
2
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
June 25, 1990
living situations may appear to be Group Homes Class IA but are
actually families for the purpose of zoning. So when I read to you
the definition of Class IA, you will see that some may seem to fall
in the Class IA category, but they are really covered here under
the definition of family. This is the proposed definition of Class
I Group Homes and it is broken down into three classes, or three
divisions within that class. . .A, B, and C, and the only difference
between A, B and C are the size of the number of people in the
residence. So the definition would read Group Homes Class I
includes groups such as state licensed foster care homes and group
homes for children, not including nursing homes. They are covered
elsewhere in the zoning code, and there was no recommended change
to that. Developmentally disabled, physically disabled, mentally
disabled and other groups that are not considered Class II group
homes. Basically the Class I Group Home. . .people who would reside
in those homes are protected by the Federal Fair Housing Amendments
Act. And so you will see when we get into this siting matrix that
they are permitted in all residential zones. The only times when
they may not be permitted in a particular residential zone, the
reason that they may not be permitted is based on the size, or the
number of people in the facility. . .not the type of people that are
going to live in the facility. This is the proposed definition for
Class II Group Homes. Again, with the proposal for A, B and C
subclassifications and again the only difference here is the size
of the facility. And so this definition would read Group Homes
Class II includes groups that are under the jurisdiction of the
criminal justice system or individuals that are undergoing
intensive drug and/or alcohol addiction rehabilitation. Such
groups include state licensed group care homes or half-way houses
for juveniles providing residences in lieu of institutional
sentencing or incarceration, half-way houses providing residence to
those needing correction and residential rehabilitation centers
voluntary or required for recovering alcohol and drug abusers. And
as I stated, the only differentiation between A, B and C is the
size of the facility. And this group would include. . .these people
would not necessarily be covered by the Federal Fair Housing
Amendments Act, so you can see when we get into the siting matrix
that there are quite a few more restrictions placed on Class II.
And this is a proposed definition of Class III. And it would
essentially read Group Homes Class III, includes individuals that
have been convicted of violent crime against a person, been
convicted of a crime against property with a sexual motivation,
been convicted or charged as a sexual or assaultive violent
predator. These individuals are still under the jurisdiction of
the criminal justice system or have entered a pre or post charging
diversion program. Such groups involve individuals that are
selected to participate in state operated work training release and
pre-release programs or similar programs. The note at the bottom
3
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
June 25, 1990
just states that Class II and III homes will be subject to the
separation and dispersion requirements and any criteria established
for the conditional use permit requirements. And it is important
to note the committee's intent. . .the Group Homes Committee's intent
in creating this Class III designation. . .that initially they had
looked at a two class system and at the same time were looking at
the Governor's Task Force on Community's Protection's results of
that report, and in looking at those results felt that this class
needed. . .that a new class or a third class needed to be designated
that would be even more restrictive than Class II to deal with this
potential group home situation. And this is the proposed siting
matrix that would be used in conjunction with the different
definitions of group homes so that you . so that to actually try
to site a group home in Kent you would first try to determine what
definition it fell under, and then you would look at the siting
matrix and be able to determine whether or not it was permitted or
a conditional use permit would come into play, or it just would not
be permitted at all. And for those of you in the audience who may
have come in late, I know that Lauri did announce earlier that
there is a large zoning map up here to the right with a large
blown-up matrix underneath, so hopefully those of you are
interested can come up and get a good sense of how this would
really work. Would you like me to. . .I can go through this if you
would like as I have before.
Chair Martinez: Commissioners, would you like her to go through
this.
Commissioner Faust: This is what you went through last time.
Janet Shull: Right
Commissioner Faust: I don't feel a need for you to go through it.
Voice: I don't either.
Janet Shull: I would just like to go through separation and
dispersion requirements once again. These would apply to Class II
and III Group Homes only, not to Class I. There again, the reason
they would not apply to Class I is that those group homes would
have individuals residing in them who are protected by the Federal
Fair Housing Amendments Act, which means we cannot regulate them
based on the type of person. . .they are protected groups. The
dispersion requirements do apply to Class II and III and the
proposed way this would work is that a 600-foot dispersion
requirement would apply to all Class II and III Group Homes. And
this distance would be measured by following a straight line
without regard to intervening buildings from the nearest point of
4
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
June 25, 1990
the property or parcel upon which the proposed use is to be located
to the nearest point of the parcel or property or the land use
district boundary lines from which the proposed use is to be
separated. What dispersion requirements basically do are to avoid
the situation where you have two or more Class II or Class III
Group Homes locating within 600 feet of each other. In other
cities in the country they have found that the way their zoning
codes are worded is that you will tend to have all your group
homes locating in one section of town because that seems to be the
place that is the least politically sensitive or for whatever
reason, but that you sort of have a de facto institutional setting
occurring where you have. . . it's not good for the residents who may
already live in that neighborhood. It's not good for those who
live in the group home who are trying to transition to mainstream
society life. So that the purpose of this would be to avoid any
concentration within one geographic area of the city of a Class II
or III Group Home. The separation requirements would also apply,
and the proposed wording is 1, 000 foot separation requirement will
apply to Class II and III Group Homes. To separate such facilities
from sensitive land uses, such as public or private schools,
churches, or other religious facilities or institutions, and other
such uses that are deemed to be sensitive. This distance would be
measured by the same method as that for the dispersion requirements
described above. One thing that came up at the last meeting was
the issue of parks which was shown as an example of sensitive use
but wasn't listed specifically here for some of you were not here
last time. That was an issue that did come up. Just for your
information, the rest of these recommendations are those that
wouldn't be direct amendments to the zoning code but are really
directed at staff for things that the committee thought we should
do in conjunction with all these proposed zoning code changes. The
first one is establishing conditional use criteria specifically for
group homes. We currently have criteria in the zoning code the
cover additional uses, but the committee felt that those needed to
be looked at, and staff should determine whether anything more
specific to group homes needs to be developed. So I don't know if
I need to read this one. The next two kind of go in conjunction
with each other. The first one is establishing a city licensing
program to monitor the location and nature of Class II and III
Group Homes. And this would work in conjunction with the
separation and dispersion requirements that the committee
recommended that in order to implement that you need some way of
knowing where these group homes are. So this would be similar to
our business license program where a record would be kept of the
addresses and nature of the group homes that people could
reference, and that staff would have a sense when a new permit came
in. They could say, well, I 'm sorry there is one located within
600 feet of you, so you' ll have to find another site. But it is
5
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
June 25, 1990
important to point out that this licensing program would not take
the place of state licensing which most Class II or probably all
Class II and III homes would fall under. So it is a
different. . . it's more of a business licensing, not a licensing of
the operation. We are not concerned through zoning with the
operation of the group homes. Then in conjunction with that there
is the recommendation that. . .there is the recommendation that the
city assign a staff person with a social service background to do
the monitoring of group homes in Kent. And again, this is not
meant to take the place of state monitoring. We would not be so
much concerned with the operation of group homes, but we would be
concerned that there be a staff person that could act as a liaison
between the operators of the group homes and the city that as well
as knowing where the homes are, we may know who the director is and
know exactly what the program is offering so that if there is a
potential problem or anything that would come up in the future, a
concern that staff would know who to call and that, hopefully, any
potential problem could be resolved quickly. So, again, this is
not meant to take the place of monitoring that the state would do
of the operation of the group homes. That is really beyond the
city's jurisdiction. And I really wanted to point that out because
that was one of the questions I was asked to respond to at the last
meeting.
Commissioner Ward: Would this be in conjunction with the state
monitoring or separate from. . .
Janet Shull: As I understand the recommendation, this would be
separate.
Voice: Unclear.
Janet Shull: Right. We would be interested in the operation of
the group homes only in that it may potentially violate perhaps
some of the conditional uses that may have been conditioned on the
granting of a permit for a group home. Also, as I said if there
were any concerns people had and they wanted to call the city, that
someone would be aware of the nature of that group who may be the
contact person, so then the city's role would be more to see that
the proper person at the state level was contacted. But it would
not be within our jurisdiction to make any correctional action. We
could, maybe, make. . .as I understand it, we could call whoever the
state. . .
Chair Martinez: Unless they were violating the conditional. . .
Janet Shull: Right, which is what we are concerned with is the
zoing and the proper siting of facilities.
6
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
June 25, 1990
Commissioner Ward: In other words this sounds like a continuing
monitoring process of the operation.
Janet Shull: Right. The intent of this was that this person would
make periodic contacts so it would be sort of a checking up just to
make sure that things were going. . .that we would keep in contact.
It wouldn't be that we would meet them once, but that person would
make annual rounds or something. . .staff personnel could change
either at the city or at the facility. We would want to keep a
constant. . .
Commissioner Miller: Would the person if they discovered that they
were continually running under staff, would they make a report to
the state or some other source of violation.
Janet Shull: I don't think the committee got into that level of
detail. This is one of those recommendations that they are asking
staff to act. . .take further action on. They felt it was kind of
beyond their scope as trying to make policy level decisions to
really find detail exactly how that would work, but they felt it
was an important element to have. And that is why they are asking
staff to look into that further and then we would come back to you,
I imagine, with a proposal for how that system would work, but the
details haven't been figured out at this point. I also wanted to
respond to a question that came up regarding schools. For those of
you who were not at the last meeting, staff was asked to look into
the potential impacts on local schools and school programs that may
result in group homes for children locating within a school
district. So in an attempt to answer this question I contacted
several sources. I spoke with representatives from the State
Social and Health Services Juvenile Rehabilitation Division and
the State Superintendent of Public Instruction and people from the
Kent School District. I asked each one of these people whether
there would be any impacts on the local school district resulting
from the special needs that children residing in groups may have.
No one I contacted could cite any evidence that children living in
a group home or group living situation could be expected to require
special services at a rate greater than in the average student
population. Further, the people I spoke with shared the opinion
that the overall number of students served in the distict as
opposed to the small percentage who might reside in a group home
would result in any impact contributed specifically to a group home
living situation being inconsequential. So, in other words, no one
could cite any specific cases where there were great impacts on a
school because of a group home locating in a community and they
felt that even if there were impacts that we could measure. . . if we
could prove, for instance, that these children needed special care
or special treatment somehow at a rate higher than a quote unquote
7
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
June 25, 1990
a normal student coming out perhaps out of a quote unquote normal
family situation. That, for example, the Kent School District has
over 20, 000 children in it, and they felt that any potential number
coming from group homes spread over the money that the school
district gets. They get money from the state on a per-student
basis, and they augment that, of course, with the levies that they
hold every year for new facilities or better programs, or whatever.
They felt that the number of children divided into that 20, 000
total, that it would be really hard to put a measurement on that
impact.
Chair Martinez: Let's say there were 18 children in a group home
and they all went to the same school. Did they respond at all to
that? Eighteen difficult children in a school, even if the school
has 500 children, is not insignificant. Did they have any data. . .
Janet Shull: No one could cite any data or specific example. The
closest thing to get to a real concern was one person I spoke with
did suggest that if a group home for severely disabled children
were to locate within the school district, say they were
handicapped or needed to go to special education classes, they may
impact, for example, double the size of a special education class
in the district, that would be a potential impact.
Chair Martinez: And that we would get additional state funding.
Janet Shull: Children who are handicapped are funded at a
different level through the state than your average student. So,
theoretically anyway, from the state's standpoint and from the
local school district's standpoint, they are being funded at a
higher level that would compensate for the need for a lower
student-to-teacher ratio, for instance. The one woman I talked
with in Kent said there are very strict limitations on the number
of students per teacher in the special education program. So, for
instance, if there were a number of new students coming in, they
may have to hire a new teacher to teach them, but they would also
be getting reimbursed from the state.
Chair Martinez: What if those children were 18 drug-dependent
youth? Are we on shakier ground?
Janet Shull: It would depend on what kind of group home it is.
There are group homes, for instance, for juvenile delinquents.
When I talked to one person from the state they informed me that
they are funded. . .they consider them in two different groups.
There are group homes for juvenile delinquents where they are very
large, institutional settings. They may or may not be attending
public school. They may attend classes within the complex where
8
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
June 25, 1990
they may also stay 24 hours, but in any case they are funded at a
higher level by the state because of the special programs that they
are in. There are, according to the state, some children smaller
group home situations that would be treated as a normal. . .quote
unquote normal student in the school district. So. I don't know
that there would be any responses. . .
Chair Martinez: There may be a whole range of responses as far as
our educational. . .
Janet Shull: Right. There are also some federal programs.
Chair Martinez: Okay. Do you want. . .
Janet Shull: Sure.
Commissioner Chopp: I 'd like to know. . . is there are any of these
problems in the Kent District at this present time that are being
serviced by the city.
Commissioner Faust: Oh sure.
Janet Shull: There may be. Tracy is indicating that there are.
I was not made aware of any, but I didn't ask specifically about
current programs. The specific question I asked was whether people
knew of any impacts that we could consider when siting a group
home. I got a lot of different responses. I really honestly tried
to get someone to say something negative, I really did. One
comment that I did get was the concern that perhaps a number of
handicapped children may impact a special ed program. . .I just lost
my train of thought. . .There was a point I wanted to make.
Commissioner Chopp: Now are these children in one of these homes
now in the City of Kent or not, or are they dispersed all over.
Janet Shull: I don't know of any group homes currently. I know
one did try to site recently and they had to go through the
conditional use process, and it was determined that there too many
juveniles proposed for the size of the home, and there were a lot
of concerns, so the permit was denied. I don't know of any that
currently exists in the City of Kent. How about you.
Commissioner Faust: Can I just add something to what Janet has
said. I worked in Special Education for 11 years before I went to
Law School, and what is completely right about funding following
the students who are classified as handicapped under our state and
federal definition. So it doesn't matter whether six, eight or
twelve of them live in one home, money will follow them from the
9
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
June 25, 1990
State and I agree completely just from my own background about what
you just said about the problems the district might or might not
have. As far as juvenile delinquents go, if a juvenile delinquent
is also classified as handicapped under the state definitions, that
particular boy or girl or adolescent would also have funding that
would follow him or her. So a juvenile delinquent is
treated. . .someone who has been under the court system is treated no
differently by the school system than any other student; however,
if they have also been assessed as having a handicapping condition,
then the additional funding that is allowed for handicapped
children would follow them. Then again it doesn't matter if they
all live in the same household or not. It would require, as Janet
said, perhaps hiring an extra teacher in one building or perhaps
those children would be bussed to various locations within the
district depending on where the programs are for different kinds of
handicapping conditions. But the juvenile. . .children who are under
the jurisdiction of the court system. . . it makes no difference to
the school district, unless they are also handicapped and then
there is additional funding.
Commissioner Miller: I assume we can all make the assumption that
at least some of these children who are termed juvenile delinquents
came from out own community, so they may not be an addition as a
change in residence.
Janet Shull: That's true. Right. One comment in relation to what
Tracy said. . . I 'm sorry. . .
Commissioner Ward: I 'm trying to get the (unclear) commission
clear in my mind. To me the delinquent is the one that got caught,
and he is placed under some type of jurisdiction of the court. If
he is addicted to drugs or something else of the sort, then that
(unclear) in that given environment and possibly if there is
funding designated to give him the special care, this would be
additional funding as far as of the school district is concerned,
and not necessarily would that individual be placed under special
type of circumstance based on his residence at a group.
Chair Martinez: That's right.
Commissioner Ward: So I 'm saying this basically regarding the
group home concept, because I was with the Model Cities Program
back in the late 60's and early 70 's when the concept of group
homes was first started and funded by the Feds. And in that given
case we funded a group home of basically delinquents. The
delinquents were thrown in there where they had been caught in
drugs or some part of the criminal justice system. It's impact was
given (unclear) consideration as nobody wanted a group home to be
10
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
June 25, 1990
near them. . . (unclear) I wanted to clarify that given point as what
I believe and know regarding the school system. They have the same
problems in schools and exist with the same kids. The group home
ones got caught. The other ones are still able to be in the school
system.
Janet Shull: Right. And some of the people I spoke with did try
to point that out to me that really whether or not this is the
case, schools are in the business of teaching reading, writing and
arithmetic. They admitted that they have to deal with some of
these other things before they can get around to the reading,
writing and arithmetic, but their feeling was that some of the
other special needs, particularly in the case of a juvenile
delinquent or half-way home situation, that we should be getting
those needs through another system, not through the school system.
So some people did make that point with me. one woman also made
that particular point. I think she was an elementary principal
and I think she was probably thinking of elementary-aged children
that she felt the opportunity for children to reside in quote
unquote normal living situation as possible. Say in a residential
area next door to other children they attend school with, but that
makes their job that much easier if the children are coming from as
normal a living situation as possible. It just makes it that much
easier. She kind of felt. . .at least coming from the prospective of
an elementary school. I don't know that she would have the whole
prospective on the whole school district, but. . .I don't know that
I have anything else. But the only thing that I wanted to add to
what Tracy said regarding the handicapped children was that in some
of the programs within the Kent School District anyway, they may
only have one or two class locations depending upon the nature of
the disability. So, for instance, whether a home were to locate on
the East or West Hill may make no difference. If it is the Kent
School District, they may be going to this one classroom. So that
was one point that was not mentioned.
Chair Martinez: Are there any other questions that you have of
Janet. Okay, thank you very much. At this time I would like to
reopen the public hearing. We have. . . it looks like perhaps five or
six people that would like to speak. I would like to first remind
everybody that please let us know what part of the changes that we
are addressing that you will be speaking to. And also we would
like to keep this as much as possible to ten minutes or less per
person. So the first person I 'll call is Kathleen Kennelly.
Kathleen Kennelly: I have nothing at this time, but I would like
to reserve my right to speak.
11
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
June 25, 1990
Chair Martinez: Certainly. Linda Fischer. If you' ll step up to
the podium please for the record.
Linda Fischer: I don't have anything. Thanks.
Chair Martinez: Floyd Bacon.
Floyd Bacon: I 'm Floyd Bacon, 24311 35th Avenue South, Kent. I
was here at the last meeting and I have some questions. I don't
see too many changes that we've had from the last time we had on
Group II, Group III homes. I first would like to say that what I
am going to speak on will not be. . .only one question I have would
be in reference to the Group IA and IB and so on down the list.
I' ll ask that later. Now this amendment does not affect local
government. I 'm going to read right from the book. Specify the
types of group homes allowed within a district if found if
legitimate concerns for health, safety and welfare. For example,
groups such as half-way houses, adult rehabilitation centers and
treatment centers may be disallowed in single family districts
since such uses are inherently different from normal family living
arrangements. These groups may also be excluded on the basis that
such groups may constitute a dangerous disruption of the
neighborhood. Now we will go on to the meat of this thing. Why is
it that we have still got to have our Group II and Group III homes.
I would like to have that question answered from somebody.
Chair Martinez: I'm sorry.
Floyd Bacon; : Why are we still having to have Group II and III
homes. . .
Chair Martinez: In our community at all?
Floyd Bacon: And where will they be? This is still a map which is
very hard to understand. These are questions that I would like to
know, and there are a lot of people that are not here tonight who
would like to know.
Chair Martinez: I guess I ' ll answer from what I know, and the
reason that we are proposing Group II and Group III is that the
community produces people who would use those facilities, and we
are proposing that we need a way to control where they go and to
have better siting proposals than we currently have in place.
Floyd Bacon: Let's go to one of our neighbors in Auburn here. . .
Redmond. Let's go to Redmond. Their group homes with greater than
five residents aren't allowed as outright uses in residential
zones. This is Redmond's family. The family is no more than five.
12
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
June 25, 1990
We have six, and we say that we are following everybody. We are
supposed to be following Bellevue. The things that I can't
understand is that we have come in with the Group II and Group III
homes, and I see it not listed anywhere else in this proposal that
I see herewith Redmond, King County or Bellevue. Group homes, as
I stated last time, in the category II and III. . .they state that
they only place they would have the category III or the class III
home would be in a prison site, which to me tells me that they
don't want them. But we are saying that Kent has got to accept
this, we've got to accept that. And one other thing and I will
repeat this again. We do not have to do this. This is something
that has come around, and I don't feel as some of the people who
are advisory to the mayor stated that they are our brothers and our
sisters. They are under God our brothers and sisters, I agree, but
I don't think that in this case. . .we don't have any controls
stipulated whatsoever in here. We say we have a monitoring
system, which is fine if one person can monitor through all these
situations. Who is going to monitor the two in Class II and Class
III? Is there going to be constant monitoring of this. Are we
going to have a safeguard that these people do not go off the deep
end after they have been released from the prison. I see no
controls at all in this. I would like to know from somebody what
type of controls we would have. And I don't know how we could
ever. . .you could vote on something until we get some controls on
this. There are no controls at all in here. I 'm for helping
people. It's been a shame that so many people in the paper have
said that we are hard-hearted people. We are not. We love people.
I 'm not against helping the mentally handicapped, the physically
handicapped. Lord knows there's a lot of people that need help
that way, but this is my issue tonight, but I 'm asking why do we
come up with a figure of ten when other places come out with a
figure of five. I don't that either. There are a lot of things
here to be answered and I haven't found the answers to them yet.
I feel that a community has a right. . .you know we hear one side of
the story of what is going on that we need to help these people,
but there are residents, children, especially, could be in danger
from the Class II and Class III people. They have been
released. . .here right out of the paper where one of the members
that were on the advisory committee said that. . .IIve got a copy
that is a little better I can have it marked up here. . .It says that
for instance the committee suggested that most of Class I and Class
II Group Homes be allowed outright or under conditional permits in
family areas but be banned entirely in single zones. I knew
nothing of what she said in the paper. Maybe the committee had to
change it because she was head of the committee. I don't know. It
says right in here that the committee members . . . controversial,
but (unclear) felt the community should make a place even for half-
way homes where people who enter the work release programs
13
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
June 25, 1990
according to the report, the occupants would include people
convicted of charged as sexual or assaultive, violent predator.
And yet we have not one thing in here to tell us how. . .I don't care
if it were a thousand feet or 4, 000 feet, what is a thousand feet
to a person who has run the ropes and proven himself not to be let
loose. And the governor himself and his task force says very much,
and I can read it. . .it is in the front of your book if ;you would
like to read it. And I am sure you have, I hope you have. We are
very concerned about these people. Now juveniles. . .I 've talked to
people,they have asked me questions and I have asked them. You
know what is also a large concern is, unfortunately, the young
juveniles. It is not always their fault, but they have run the
gauntlet and I say we need to help them, but you can't completely
throw them out into society. I don't think they need to be
incarcerated all their life. But again we are not our brothers'
keeper as taking care of people of people who have proven that they
are not safe in the neighborhood. And I am asking tonight that
you people certainly give this certain thought, because there is no
content in this that tells me what type of protection we have
against. . .I m saying that basically a human being himself, a big
person can usually protect himself, but we have a lot of children
out there. We've got a lot of older people out there, and they are
very subject to this kind of behavior. You pick up a newspaper
every day of the world and you see these things happening. I
realize that there are a lot of times in residential area,
unfortunately we have problems. But we've got to help these
people. We've got to get them off drugs. I realize it, but the
situation that we are facing here in Kent. . .how are we going to
take care of these Class II and Class III. We have no system at
all in here that tell them. . .I don't even know. . .according to this
that doesn't tell me at all where they are going to be located.
I 've heard that they are going to be in the factory areas. There
will be certain areas downtown. Also, while I 'm on the schools, I
heard the lady here, Miss Tracy Faust, discussing mostly about
Kent. But you know there will be some group homes up on the West
Hill. What about the Federal Way School District. They also have
something to say about it, because we are kind of a split. . .between
east and west of the valley splitting, we are kind of like two
cities, actually. So, I have no answers tonight yet, and I respect
the work and the people who have come up with things. I am just
going (unclear) . . .I just don't feel that we have anything yet to
tell the citizens. We are the citizens. All of us. You are part
of the citizens. You are part of the city just as much as we are.
You are here to look out for our interest. too. I 'm not even
talking about Class IA. I 'm talking about. . .but I do want an
answer why you have come up with a figure six as designated as the
family, and then we came up with a figure of ten for the Class IA.
And then we go down to the next one down here is IB, maximum 14.
14
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
June 25, 1990
This is. . .to an average person who reads this, maximum 14 residents
including resident staff. That would be a total of 12 people,
wouldn't it. Where would these people be located? Fourteen. . .you
take a large house. Take somebody in speculation now. I' ll speak
for the West Hill now. We have the dump over there and there are
a lot of houses for rent over there, some large houses. Could they
go ahead and move in here with 14 or 15 people in a group home?
I don't know. Is this true? Could you answer this question for
me?
Chair Martinez: It depends on the zoning.
Floyd Bacon: Okay, the zoning.
Chair Martinez: It depends how those are zoned and whether they
would be an outright for 14 or 15 people. If it were a single
family residential area, no.
Floyd Bacon: Are you saying that this would not be a normal
residential area, this 14 residence. Is that correct as I hear
you?
Chair Martinez: That would be a Class IB, 14 residents, and they
are not permitted in any single family residential area. That is
correct.
Floyd Bacon: Then what we would have is the Class IA. . .
Chair Martinez: Class IA which would be a maximum of eight
residents (unclear) . . .
Floyd Bacon: Where would those be located?
Chair Martinez: Those are outright permitted in either single
family residential areas or multifamily residential areas.
Floyd Bacon: Okay. That's fine. I 'm not quibbling about that, I
just wanted the answers.
Chair Martinez: That's the answer to that according to our matrix.
Floyd Bacon: That's fine. We did have some new matrix last time.
There wasn't very many of them. If we could have had a full matrix
for the people here. . .there isn't too many.
Lauri Anderson: The revised matrix is in the report.
15
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
June 25, 1990
Floyd Bacon: Oh, is it. That is the new report. So the type of
things that we have to discuss tonight. . . I don't want to take up
the whole evening, because there are other people who have
something to say, but we are very concerned about it. I feel. . .I
hope that the people that represent us here on this Planning
Commission would give it a lot of thought. Again, we are not
against what the government says, and we are happy to help those
people who need it, because those people cannot help how they were
born. They are great. They are God's people and I am 100 percent
for that. When we come to these people in Category II and III,
we've got some problems, because it dictates where they will be,
what will we do. We have one monitor that is a, I believe on the
last page we have here, we have one monitor that states that they
will. . . let's see action to. . .one . . . assign a staff person with a
social services background to periodically monitor group homes in
Kent. Now this group homes in Kent does not specify I, II or III.
To me this means all of them. Are you going to have one person
monitoring Class II and Class III homes?
Chair Martinez: Did you. . . I think Miss Shull referred to
that. . .you understood what we meant by monitoring in that the City
of Kent is not going to be responsible but that we will give
conditional use for specific agencies to site homes, and those
agencies will be responsible for the monitoring.
Floyd Bacon: If you want my honest to goodness. . .I don't have any
faith in the monitoring of the various agencies, but. . .
Chair Martinez: Do you have faith in Kent's monitoring agencies?
Floyd Bacon; I 'm saying that monitoring II and III, how are they
going to monitor those people?
Chair Martinez: They're not.
Floyd Bacon: All right. This is what I mean. I don't know why we
even have a Class II or Class III. I don't see anything here or
anything else. It says right in here, we are following the book as
far as the federal government tells us to do, and it has filtered
down from the governor, and the governor is very concerned, and I
am sure everybody has read this. I 've read it two or three times.
I 'm real proud of our governor. He came out and says what we are
going to do with these people. He tells what should be done.
Apparently we are going to put him right in the middle of a
smaller city and we are going to say, hey, here we are. I would
recommend that we get more study on how we are going to monitor
these people. To what extend. . .how long. . .what happens if one of
these people decide to do something. Are we going to do something
16
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
June 25, 1990
about it. Are they going to close it down or what are they going
to do? Gee whiz. We can't do a thing about it, because it is
being monitored by the state, monitored by somebody else. This is
our city. This is one time. . .I' ll just mention it once. . .we could
not have much to say about certain areas that is going in on the
West Hill of Kent, but at this I think we should have some input.
I am serious about it, and it is Class II and Class III, and I am
very serious. That is not covered, and the federal
government. . .that we should accept those kinds of people. Thank
you.
Chair Martinez: Thank you. Any questions. Okay, thank you.
Commissioner Gregory: In answer to your question, one of them, is
that zoning can go only so far. I think that was stated at the
last hearing. Zoning, for example, can't tell people what to do.
It can only dictate what you can do with the land. So we can't go
in and tell them what to do, but we can tell them where to place
certain houses or homes in Kent. That is as far as zoning can go,
but in terms of telling somebody how to treat their residents, that
is pretty tough for zoning to do. That is my understanding. Am I
right.
Floyd Bacon: Mr. Gregory, I don't understand exactly what you
mean. I 'm speaking of. . .I don't care where they would place
a. . .Kent has put provisions to have a Class II and Class III. I'm
not speaking of Class I home, because that is a whole different
ball game as far as I am concerned. But I am speaking about the
two ones that I just spoke about, and yet why do we have to accept
those people in the city limits of Kent. That was my question. Is
that clear?
Commissioner Gregory: Oh, yes. It's clear to me.
Commissioner Ward: It's because we produce those kinds of people.
If we produce them, if our society is less than perfect, which it
is, and our children have a tendency to do certain things . . . if we
can correct that situation, if we can stop producing those people,
then by the same token then we won't have to make any provision for
housing them. If we could do another holocaust and wipe them all
out. . .
Floyd Bacon: We are all a product of the system. All of us are.
I realize that. And I realize that there are people that are in
the system and they can't get out of it. I 'm not fighting that.
If we do need to help them, then where is the protection, because
these people have had a rough go, and you know. . .human beings to
them sometimes is the ones to them that caused this problem, and I
17
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
June 25, 1990
just don't feel that the City of Kent should be that or other
cities have (unclear) . . .I say that if it is monitored, but there's
no control. . .there's got to be some control on these individuals,
right. And I 'm speaking specifically of people released out of
institutions that are in situation that is bad as far as their
minds, their control of themselves, and I am speaking especially of
people. . .assault and do bodily harm. Those kinds of people are
listed in this thing. And I think we should. . .and I recommend
strongly that the Commission look at it real good, and again I say
I want to help people, too, but there is always two sides of the
coin. I 'm not trying to single out any group at all whatsoever.
Chair Martinez: Thank you. I am going to mispronounce the next
name because I can't quite read your writing. Nasreen Mall. If
you'd please step to the podium. Please correct my pronunciation.
Nasreen Mall: You know shopping mall.
Chair Martinez: Oh, that's an M. Thank you. Sorry.
Nasreen Mall: Okay. That's all right. My name is Nasreen Mall,
and I live on 3506 South 244th, and I have two questions that I
would like to ask. One is that in Class II and III homes, why
cannot we just leave a provision that they are always under a
conditional permit so that the community can get together and give
their input as to what kind of use that particular facility or
particular area is going to get, and then clarify some of the
misconceptions and clarify some of the fears, if there are any. I
don't think that will be discriminating against them if we say that
conditional use is required. And then my question is that why did
we adopt Bellevue's definition of classes, why not Auburn and
Renton?
Chair Martinez: We' ll get clarification on that.
Nasreen Mall: Okay, and another question is that something like
that in Class II and III in the multifamily situation, don't you
think that is unfair to the multifamily. After all, they are a
family too. They might be a set up that is not single family,
nonetheless they are family and they will be affected by behaviors.
The problem is behaviors on people, not entirely what class. And
those people can behave adversely for multifamily kind of set up
than for the single. And then I just have a little bit of concern
about the dispersion/segregation requirement on page 14 of the blue
book. To my understanding that is. . . 1, 000 feet doesn't mean
anything away from school or a church. . .of people who can probably
escape from jails. And keeping them just 1, 000 feet away from the
children who go to school or to a park or Sunday school or
18
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
June 25, 1990
whatever, and luckily most of the Sunday schools and churches are
usually during the daytime which would be a little safer, but parks
people stay out late. I would suggest that these kinds of things
when we talk about. . .I have thought about it for a long time now.
Why do we look only at one side of the equation, the people who
need help. How about the children or the people who are on the
other side of the equation who have not been there or who will not
be there if given the right kind of protection. An example is like
this. If my children, for example. . .hypothetical. . .have not gone
to the point where they are on drugs, why give them a greater
chance by putting so many people here who will affect this group of
people. And the only time we can help, or you or the state or
government, can help them when they have gone ahead and reached
this group, whereas all the children have got. . .the use of drug and
all that, and I don't know if that is up to the zoning committee to
consider things like those, but at least give a thought for the
people who will be affected. A lot of them are children first, and
then senior citizens. Not that the senior citizens will go on the
drugs or anything like that, but the property crimes and the
personal crimes against them.
Chair Martinez: Have you thought about. . .because this was
discussed at our last meeting about the separation and dispersal.
Have you thought about a distance that seems acceptable given the
size of our city.
Nasreen Mall: There is one city over here that is saying 35, 000
acres, a minimum. That is Auburn and Renton. . .this paper.
Chair Martinez: I think that is a typo.
Nasreen Mall: That sounds very good.
Chair Martinez: I don't know what that is. Can you share it with
us, please.
Commissioner Faust: This is the problem with relying on the
newspaper.
Chair Martinez: We never know where some of the stuff comes from.
Commissioner Faust: This is from the local paper and I have no
idea where they came up with some of the stuff, but I doubt that
Auburn has a dispersal requirement of 35, 000 acres, and who know,
we may see some sort of correction in the paper.
Voice: I doubt it.
19
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
June 25, 1990
Commissioner Faust: I 'd like to address one thing that she said,
though. That is. . . looking at this matrix it looks like all Class
II and Class III homes are conditional use permits, except, of
course, in the commercial and office. I 'm assuming that there
aren't too many children in the commercial and office area who will
be polluted by the kids who might be in the Class II. But in all
the neighborhoods, including the multifamily, those Class II homes
are all conditional use permits. If it weren't, I'd share your
concern. That's another problem with relying on the newspaper
rather than on what we've got here.
Nasreen Mall: Like Mr. Bacon said earlier, whatever we have heard
so far from Ms. Shull, it seems like there isn't much distinction
from II and III, and where can they go. My suggestion would be
that they should always be kept in conditional use and the input of
the community should be considered.
Commissioner Faust: That is the way it has been proposed to us,
that the only type of group home that isn't a conditional use is
most of Class I. But the Class II and III, that's all conditional
according to this latest matrix that we are operating under. So I
just wanted to assure you that had been done.
Nasreen Mall: What some of the (unclear) created because some of
the. . .
Commissioner Faust: I 'm afraid so.
Nasreen Mall: What if the papers are right. What do we do. By
that time the thing has been passed.
Chair Martinez: We will be operating. Rest assured. What is
recommended by this Commission will be either in this book or in
the minutes of our meeting coming out of our discussion either from
tonight, if we decide to pass it tonight, or the next time we which
you will be informed of. The minutes will show exactly what our
intent is. Right now we are working on what is in the blue book.
There is no hearsay. It is either there or not there. You will
either agree with what is there or you don't agree with what is
there. You can see where conditional use is permitted, where no
home is permitted, where it is permitted outright. I think you
ought to get the blue book and study it very carefully, because I
truly believe that is where we should be speaking from, not from
what the newspaper said, but from what we are actually proposing.
Because you may still disagree with us, but we just need to be
speaking from what we are really going to be doing.
Nasreen Mall: Okay.
20
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
June 25, 1990
Chair Martinez: And I do appreciate your comments, everyone,
truly.
Voice: Is there something that is popping up in here?
Janet Shull: This is Janet Shull, Planning Department. I just
wanted to clarify one thing that Tracy just said. In the case of
Class II, there are some instances where it is permitted outright.
Commissioner Faust: I corrected myself the first time. . .
Janet Shull: I believe you said that the first time, but I think
the second time you said they're always conditional. So I just
wanted to point that out.
Commissioner Faust: They are permitted in some of the commercial
areas. But Ms. Mall's remark was that she seemed to think that
some of the Group II and III homes were permitted in residential
neighborhoods, multifamily. And I just wanted to correct that.
You're right. . . . (unclear) further clarification.
Chair Martinez: Thank you. Did anyone have further questions of
Ms. Mall. I sort of cut her off. I 'm sorry. Okay. Mr. and Mrs.
Jarvis, did you have anything you wanted to say. OK fine. James
Wright.
James Wright: My name is James Wright. I live at 3605 South 241st
Street in Kent. Good evening. Once again I am back. I still have
a few comments to make about this on some of the things I 've heard
tonight and some of the concerns I have about this zoning. I think
that the answers we got on the impact on schools and needed special
helps for children from these homes is very well done. I think
they should be complimented on their diligence on getting those
answers for us. Appreciate that very much. What I have to say is
that people from our community are our responsibility. People from
other communities are not our responsibility. When a member of our
community has a problem, that's our responsibility to help that
member of our community. When a member of our community commits a
criminal act, it is our responsibility to deal with that criminal
act and to deal with that member of our community in a lawful
manner, and to take care of that member of the community however
the law directs. When a member of one of our families. . .our member
of the community's families is released from an institution after
the commission of a criminal act, then he should be integrated back
into our community in a good manner that shows that person has
either paid their debt to society. . .which seems to be rather
ignored by our legal profession is that people should pay for the
crimes that they commit. Once they've paid their dues, they should
21
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
June 25, 1990
be integrated back into their community, back into their
neighborhood where they came from. One person in the neighborhood
is part of that neighborhood. A problem person in a neighborhood
is part of a neighborhood. Five, six or ten people integrated into
a community from some other community or into a neighborhood from
some other community are not part of that community. They are not
part of that neighborhood. They are a problem. The criminal acts
go up, and drug abuse in that neighborhood increases simply because
of the number of people in the neighborhood that are committing
these criminal acts, using drugs, whatever. I am kind of using
general sense there. I can't say they would definitely. Many
group homes are very well supervised and things like this don't
happen. I was in a group home, personally. I think it was one of
the most horrible things that ever happened to me in my life. I am
still traumatized by the thought of something like that. Scares
the dickens out of me that any child that I would know would be
committed to a group home. Group homes are impersonal. Group
homes don't give the child the love they need. They don't give the
child the attention they need. They just don't. Governments don't
provide love and attention. Families do. And a group home that is
made up of people from different places are not a family no matter
what you call it. It is still a group of people put together by
the law or put together by the state. States don't make families.
The monitoring issue. . .I think we should be very concerned about
that. It is our community and we should monitor the system. We
should monitor these group homes. A Roman named Cassius, the
general, he said about the Roman guard. Who should watch these
self-same watchers? Who is going to monitor these monitors from
the state to see that they are doing their job? Obviously they
don't do their job many of the times, because criminal acts are
committed by people from these group homes all the time. There are
abuses of children in group homes all the time. There are people
who run away from group homes all the time. Obviously they are not
doing their job. Who is going to watch these self-same watchers.
Chair Martinez: Do you have some proposals for monitoring?
James Wright: Yes.
Chair Martinez: What.
James Wright: I think that a person from the community or an
office from the community should be directed to monitor these
homes. And if they are not obeying the letter of the law, their
permit to operate should be withdrawn and they should have to get
out of the community period. And they shouldn't. . .
22
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
June 25, 1990
Chair Martinez: That should be part of the conditional use permit,
exactly.
Commissioner Faust: How are you defining community? Are you
defining community as the three square blocks around where the
group home is?
James Wright: I 'm calling the City of Kent our community, our
city, the place where we live, where we have chosen to make our
homes and earn our livelihood.
Chair Martinez: Okay, thank you.
James Wright: I 'd like to go back to page number 5 of the blue
book. On paragraph 3 it says that the amendments to the Fair
Housing Act respond to misundstandings and prejudice on a legal
basis. They give local government the legal framework permitting
group homes to locate in residential areas. They protect certain
types of group homes, particularly homes for the disabled, and they
protect them from unfounded community fears. Now if we go up to
the paragraph directly above that, it says that the amendment does
not affect local government's ability to specify the types of group
homes allowed within a district if founded in legitimate concerns
for health, safety and welfare. I think that we have some
legitimate concerns for health, safety and welfare of our community
members when it comes to Group II and Group III homes. I think
that Group II and Group III homes should not be permitted in our
community period.
Chair Martinez: May I ask whose community they should be allowed
in.
James Wright: If you look at the definition of the people from
Group II and III homes, these people are under the law, they are
supposed to be under the supervision of the criminal justice
system. These are people that have been committed. . .that have
committed violent crimes or sexual perverts who have committed
various perverse sexual crimes. The (unclear) convicted or charged
as a sexual or assaulted violent predators. These are people with
drug and alcohol problems that are not dealt with in a normal
community setting. Definitely not dealt with in a group home.
These are dealt with best in a clinical atmosphere. Those
convicted of violent crimes, violent behavior, are best dealt with
in prisons, not in group homes.
Coleen Miller: May I ask you a question. What can or ought we to
do with people who have been released by the prisons but may not be
ready to . . . or may not be fully released. The prisons have
23
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
June 25, 1990
released them back to the community. It is going to happen.
James Wright: I know it happens. It is the fault of our criminal
justice system. It should not happen. A person should not be
released to the community to become . . .to prey upon us further. We
suffer enough from these criminals the first time they are out
until they are ready to come back to the community as a viable
citizen, as a valuable citizen, as something other than a drone and
a drain upon our resources, they should not be permitted back in
our community.
Coleen Miller: But you and I don't get to make up the rules. The
fact is that they do come back to our community.
James Wright: Yes, and we should be doing something about that.
And that is why we are here. We are trying to do something about
this.
Coleen Miller: We cannot change that fact, all we can do is deal
with the reality of them being released.
James Wright: Yes, ma'am, we can't deal with the fact of them
being released right now.
Coleen Miller: Not through this forum.
James Wright: We can deal with the problem of siting group homes
of people of the Class II and Class III type as described in this
booklet. We can deal with that and say that they are not
permitted, because the Federal Fair Housing Act is to deal with
people who are disabled, people who are mentally retarded, and
those that are not able to defend themselves. Criminals are very
well able to defend themselves. Drug addicts are very well able to
defend themselves. They do it to us all the time. They break
into our homes, they steal our goods. They rob us of our
livelihoods, they attack our children and we continuously allow
them back in our community. I think it is time for us to say no.
It is time for each and every one us to say no, we don't want these
people in our community any longer. Thank you very much.
Chair Martinez: Are there any questions? Some people reserved the
right to speak. Ms. Kennelly.
Kathleen Kennelly: I am Kathleen Kennelly. I live off of 239th in
Kent. You spoke about the newspaper comments and how unfair the
newspaper comments are. Eric Lucas, is that the correct spelling
. . . pronunciation of this last name, do you recall his comments on
the families in the communities, the families in the community in
24
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
June 25, 1990
Midway, Nike Manor, area. He spoke in a vitriolic way about our
lack of compassion and our hatred, and he was very satirical of how
we didn't want quote unquote those people quote unquote again those
people of color in our neighborhood. We are those people in this
community where I come from. We are people of color. We are Black,
Hispanic and Asian people. I have a Brownie troop of 12 children,
three of whom are children of color. Three of the families live at
this time in Nike Manor.
Chair Martinez: I hate to interrupt you, but we have nothing to do
with Nike Manor. We don't have anything to do with it. We are
dealing with. . .
Kathleen Kennelly: I am only speaking from my own experience. I
realize that the overall question is the City of Kent, and our
community is within the City of Kent, and the best that I can do to
convey my thoughts, ideas and feelings from my own particular
viewpoint, and it happens to be in the West Hill, but, again, my
heart goes out to the homeless in our whole community within the
City of Kent. In my church community, which again is in the West
Hill, I a member of a church community and I have taken food on
more than one occasion to the homeless people who are stuck in the
Three Bears Motel and the New West Motel. We have been helping.
I drive these homeless people, the mother with five children and
others, to pull them out of one school and into another school. I
know a little bit about what I am speaking of when you are talking
about, for instance, Class I, anyway. Also, the prayer group that
I belong to, eight couples supply food on a regular basis, not just
Thanksgiving, Christmas and Easter, but on a regular basis to
people in need. We are not heartless. We are, as a matter of
fact, within our own community doing the very best we can to make
our community to continually improve it. So as far as welcoming
the low income, elderly, the handicapped, even the mentally
disturbed, the mentally ill, the mentally handicapped, this kind of
thing, Class I, I think that we are people of compassion and I
think we could welcome that kind of group into our community.
Again, I have real concern also about the Class II and the Class
III groupings. I will say that I agree with Mr. Wright. I think
I agree with just about everything he had to say about the
monitoring and his recommendations of monitoring for group Class II
and III. It is just inconceivable to me that we would try and
incorporate this kind of person into the community. There is a
place for them. I really do think that as members of this
community, Mr. Ward, Mr. Gregory, Ms. Martinez, Mr. Chopp, Ms.
Miller, Ms. Faust, that we just need to work together and use our
brains to solve the problems that are before us. I think that if
we think long and hard and really study the problems, we can come
25
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
June 25, 1990
up with some humane solutions that will improve and enhance our
entire community and our entire city.
Commissioner Faust: Where do you think that we ought to site Group
II and Group III:
Kathleen Kennelly: As it so happens, I am working on a Master's
Degree in Reading Specialist and though it may sound strange as an
educator, one of the classes that we are offered in the Education
program happens to be along with child abuse and things like that.
I just was. . .entitled the. . .the class I just finished. . .one of the
many classes that I just finished in January was called the sex
offender. I must tell you that for three months, unpleasant as it
was, we really, really studied this problem. And I wrote back and
forth to Olympia, went down to Olympia, met with people in the
legislature. I have to tell you that at this time for one thing we
all know there is lack of funding. . .
Commissioner Faust: Excuse me. Could you just tell me where you
think we ought to site. . .
Kathleen Kennelly: I 'm going to tell you that right now if you' ll
. lack of funding for both treatments and incarceration. The
only place from three months of study on the problem of the sex
offender. . .the only place at this time is incarceration and
possibly there is hope for very young sex offenders, but there has
to be funding from the legislature. There is no treatment. We
think there is treatment. There is no treatment at this time. To
answer your question, the only place for these people is in an
incarcerated position at this time. It is absolutely inconceivable
that these people would be welcomed into a community situation
within a city.
Commissioner Faust: How about Group II.
Kathleen Kennelly: Again, I think there are places and centers
outside of the community that have got to answer the problem of the
drug and alcohol problems. It is a major problem throughout our
country. There is just too much danger, and I know you have to
agree. . .you must agree with us of the danger to small children and
the elderly because of all of the ramifications that go along with
the drug and alcohol problem. I am sure that in our hearts we have
to agree on that, and that welcoming these people into our
community unless you are absolutely sure of their rehabilitation
and recovery process, at least advanced rehabilitation, advanced
recovery process. . .I can't imagine trying to incorporate, as much
as we love them and wish them well, I can't imagine trying to
incorporate them into our community. I think they need to
26
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
June 25, 1990
have. . .and it's our job to get the funding, to have treatment
centers for them. I hope that does answer your questions. I do
thank you.
Chair Martinez: Thank you. Miss Fischer.
Linda Fischer: My name is Linda Fischer. I live at 846 Hilltop
here in Kent. Briefly for what it is worth. I am the parent of a
handicapped child and my interest is Group I, which doesn't look to
be a major problem, though we don't have very many group homes for
children as severely disabled as my child. But then, that is a
little different than what we are looking at. But as a possible
parallel, when my daughter's school was disbanded and they put all
the handicapped children in various schools around the district, a
lot of the parents were extremely upset and concerned about what
was going to happen to our kids when they were in there with the
normal kids who were going to point at all those retarded kids.
And the Kent School District amazed me and surprised me with the
kind of thoughtful consideration in letting the normal population
know the kinds of things they could expect out of these abnormal,
handicapped, disabled individuals, and they managed it in such a
way so that that existing community, if you will, knew what was
coming, the kinds of things to expect, the disabilities, the
strengths. It was a process of education. I think there is a
possibility that that could be worked in this situation. I think
the concerns expressed here are very real. My only real concern is
I get a little bit scared when people start talking about not in my
backyard, because the next thing. . .they may not want my kid in
their backyard either. Thank you.
Chair Martinez: Excuse me. Are you suggesting. . .I think that we
should build into our . . . something, I 'm not sure what. . .some
guidelines for letting the community know about the various homes
that we are going to site there so that they can . . .other than
perhaps we do have a conditional use which will be a hearing
situation, but you're suggesting some other sorts of things. Do
you have any other ideas.
Linda Fischer: No, not very specific (unclear) . . .I think the best
thing for people to be aware of, you know, the possibility of a
group home being sited in their community. If a group home of this
kind should be introduced in your community, what would you want
done, how would you want it handled, what are your concerns. This
is what you are doing here. But, obviously, we are a very small
group of people that are here. A lot of those people are going to
wait until it is down the street from them and then they are going
to be concerned about it.
27
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
June 25, 1990
Chair Martinez: Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else in the
audience who did not sign up who wishes to speak? I would
entertain a motion to close the hearing.
Commissioner Faust: Before we do that though, I'd like to ask a
question of staff.
Chair Martinez: Certainly.
Commissioner Faust: Just a clarification, staff, please, ten-point
toss up, could somebody talk to us about. . .a lot of the people we
have heard tonight have expressed a particular concern about
monitoring. They want to make sure that somebody is monitoring
these. Could you all. . .somebody discuss one, what kind of
monitoring is done by the residents, I mean by the people who
actually live in the group homes; two, what kind of monitoring is
done by the social service agency that funds the group home. I am
really most concerned about those two. Also, is monitoring
something that in the past has been brought up and has been
incorporated into a conditional use permit for a group home in the
City of Kent, or anything you know about some of the other cities
around here, in ten words or less.
Fred Satterstrom: I don't know if I can answer any of your
questions specifically about what kinds of monitoring that is done
by the agencies themselves. I sure the requirements vary according
to what the stipulations are in the monitoring if they are licensed
by the state or some other agency. I know that there are certain
requirements for monitoring, particularly DSHS. I am aware of some
of the regulations that apply and how frequently DSHS enters the
facilities. I think if you were to ask a normal person about how
much monitoring DSHS does, they would probably tell you not enough.
The city's monitoring here is not necessarily meant to replace the
monitoring that is done by any of the agencies over any of the
group homes, but merely to augment the monitoring that the city
would do in terms of knowing where these uses are, of knowing what
the conditions would be for any conditional use permit that would
be issued subsequent to the development and implementation of the
criteria, as well as any, you know, requirements such as fencing,
parking, any other normal zoning-type requirements that would go
along with that use. That is the kind of monitoring that the
Planning Department would do in addition to making sure that the
dispersion and separation requirements were met. But we wouldn't
be trying to replace the DSHS concerns.
Commissioner Faust: To paraphrase what you are saying is that in
the conditional use permitting process, which is really what we are
talking about here, we are talking about Group II and III homes, in
28
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
June 25, 1990
the permitting process, public safety that is insuring that whoever
is running the group homes takes that into consideration and has
some plan, is part of the permitting process, the conditional use
permitting process.
Fred Satterstrom: Well it could be recommended, both the licensing
and a monitoring program, to you. We haven't really gotten into
the precise application or precise details of these programs, but
some of that short of specifying total operational characteristics,
I don't think. . . like Willie was referring to before, we want to
make sure the place. . .the land use is properly conducted, but I
don't think we want to get in there and start telling them how to
run their program, for instance. That is an operational thing that
I think DSHS and other funding agencies would be telling them to
do.
Commissioner Faust: At least it is assuring that somebody is
monitoring it. . .would be something that the city would be inquiring
into.
Fred Satterstrom: Yes, one of the speakers asked who would be
watching the watch dogs. And actually the monitoring of the city
would be watching the monitoring of the state to make sure that the
it looked like it was being monitored appropriately. I don't know,
a lot of this is just speculation at this point because we haven't
gotten to those types of details, but, obviously, here the goal is
to ensure the general welfare of the neighborhoods where these uses
are going in. The only comment I would add in addition to the
question is that this proposal may not be the world's best
proposal. It's darn close, though. I think Janet and Lin and the
committee have done an enormous amount of work on this and there
may be some fine tuning as there would be with any proposal, but I
believe it is a heck of a lot better than what we've got now,
because there aren't any regulations now per Class IA, or Class II
or Class III. They are all mental health facilities, and they are
allowed willy nilly. This proposal really starts to grab hold of
the situation. And, certainly, as time goes on, we may fine tune
it. But it is a darn site better than the wide-open situation that
we've got right now which was developed back in 173 and long before
the concept of group homes ever really came into this community.
James Harris: Madam Chair, could I make one comment.
Chair Martinez: Certainly.
James Harris: I think what I've heard here this evening over and
over again is on page 14 in the blue book under E, Establish
Conditional Use Criteria Which Specifically Addresses the Nature Of
Such Land Use. This is what is being asked of you over and over
29
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
June 25, 1990
again. That is getting down to the knitty gritty, the specific.
What is it that a person or group that comes to the city and asks
for a group home, Group II, or Class II and Class III, is going to
be, right from the starting blocks, required to adhere to, plus
whatever else the hearing examiner may pull out of the air and say
these are additional conditions. It just seems that it is very
crucial that somewhere along the line those questions be answered
through the criteria, the conditional use permit, because that may
not alleviate all the fears, but it may help go a long way to show
what it is that these group homes are going to be expected to
adhere to in a way of some standards.
Chair Martinez: I have another question of the staff, and that is
in the layout for Class II homes where in some commercial zones
there are outright permitted uses. I recall particularly when we
were doing East Hill there were some office zones. . .there are some
commercial zones that are very close to some residential. I didn't
study the map and I meant to. . .can you answer the question are any
of these within a significant distance, closeness, to either
multifamily or single family so that we should change that to
conditional use rather than outright permitted. Did I make that
too long?
Lauri Anderson: This is Lauri Anderson with the Planning
Department. The question is not as simple as that. The way the
zoning map works is that there are always boundaries between
districts. The office zone is often used as a buffer zone between
a commercial district and a residential district. So, undoubtedly
at some point there would be office zones that butted up against
residential zones. There may be commercial zones that butt up
again residential zones. So yes, there would be some fringes that
would touch.
Chair Martinez: So consider conditional use for that entire class
of group homes, that is Group II for all places that might be
permitted. It seems like it would not be an unreasonable thing for
us to do.
Lauri Anderson: I think that is your decision. We were thinking
of the core of a commercial area where typically there is not
residential.
Chair Martinez: Okay. Okay. Any other things you want to say
before.
Commissioner Faust: Madam Chair, I would move that we close the
public hearing on this issue.
30
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
June 25, 1990
Commissioner Gregory: Second.
Chair Martinez: All in favor.
Voices• Aye.
Chair Martinez: Opposed. (silence) What is the pleasure of the
Commission. I would like to hear as much discussion as we can
generate . I think we are talking about some fairly serious
things that people are concerned about.
Commissioner Faust: I would suggest, Madam Chair, that we go down
the list of things. In fact, do we still have, staff. . .do we still
have that lovely graphic from last time about the things we are
going to be voting on so that we can just go down. . .
Chair Martinez: It is on page 15 and it is quite clear. And we
can bop back and forth between that and page 11-12 .
Commissioner Faust: Anyway, that is my recommendation that we go
down action items one at a time.
Chair Martinez: Fine, and within Action Item 1 we have four things
to consider. And I would like to act in each case on a motion, and
then we can go from there. So Action Item 1, Part A is amend the
current definition of family as it appears in the zoning code.
Commissioner Miller: Madam Chair, I move that we consider the
definition of family as proposed on page 11 in the recommendations
in the final report.
Commissioner Ward: Second.
Chair Martinez: Discussion
Commissioner Faust: I think this simply bring us in line with what
is being done elsewhere. I'm not concerned about the six that was
explained to us last month by council, and six seems to be a very
reasonable number. I don't think it is out of line with what is
being done. I 'm quite willing to accept it
Commissioner Miller: I think six is more realistic than some of
the communities that have four or five in their definition. And I
think six is a more realistic definition and is certainly in line
with traditional family size in the community.
Chair Martinez: And we probably already have a number of adults
living together in homes, unrelated adults, at that level. I don't
31
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
June 25, 1990
have any trouble at all with six. Is there anyone on the
Commission that wishes to speak against that?
Commissioner Faust: Question.
Chair Martinez: All in favor of recommending this proposal to the
Council.
Voices• Aye.
Chair Martinez: Opposed. (silence) Part 1B is to amend the Kent
Zoning Code to add the definitions of Class I, II and III which we
are all aware of by now. They all have, with the exception of
Class III, they all have numbers of people attached to them.
Commissioner Ward: So moved, Madam Chair.
Commissioner Miller: Second.
Commissioner Ward: Question.
Chair Martinez: All in favor.
Voices• Aye.
Chair Martinez: Opposed. (silence) We will recommend that. To
amend the Zoning Code to add the Group Homes Siting Matrix.
Commissioner Gregory: So moved.
Chair Martinez: There is a motion.
Commissioner Faust: Second.
Chair Martinez: Discussion.
Commissioner Miller: All I could say is I think the Planning
Department and the Mayor's Commission that did the proposal put a
lot of work into it, and I think it gives the greatest amount of
protection to the community and the greatest amount of discretion
back to the community by leaving most of Group II and all of Group
III as conditional use permits. There are a few areas where Group
II homes would be a permitted use, but they are only in commercial
areas; therefore I think a lot of study went into this to be sure
that the community has the greatest protection that would be
available, and I would therefore recommend that we adopt.
32
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
June 25, 1990
Commissioner Ward: There was one concern that was brought up that
sort of struck home with me was that we should have some assurance
that it would be in the center of the commercial area as compared
to abutting and the possibility. . .someone brought that up.
Voices• (unclear)
Commissioner Faust: I have something that I would like to say
about that, too, but I think that I would probably. . .I was going to
wait and bring it up under D, Separation and Dispersion
Requirements because I was going to suggest that we add an
additional separation and dispersion requirement for Group Home
Class II in the permitted areas of the commercial office to include
a distance so that we would be assured that in the areas, like up
at the Benson where you have a small commercial strip and then
housing, that you wouldn't end up having de facto placement in a
single family neighborhood of say a Class II site.
Chair Martinez: What if we would make it a conditional use
in. . .Class II would be completely conditional use, and then when we
get to working on the conditional use rules and regs for this
particular thing, then build that into the. . .at that point.
Commissioner Miller: I could accept that.
Commissioner Faust: I think that the way it is now really
streamlines things. I don't see any reason. . .I would prefer to
leave it as permissive use, but I would like to add a separation
and dispersement requirement to insure that it didn't abut onto
single family or even multifamily homes without a conditional use.
Voice: Any residential.
Commissioner Miller: How far are you going to suggest that they be
sited from a residential area? I 'm not clear, I guess.
Chair Martinez: At least 1, 600.
Commissioner Faust: I would say at least that.
Commissioner Miller: That is what I was thinking. . .that separation
and dispersement rather takes care of that.
Chair Martinez: Well, it doesn't now, because it is just sensitive
areas and it doesn't include residential, so we need to put. . .need
to be considered, we need to put it in.
Commissioner Ward: In other words you'd combine both of those
33
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
June 25, 1990
distances, the 1, 000 and the 600. . .
Chair Martinez: Well, in the 600 you'd include residential areas
under the dispersion and you'd also put in the thousand under the
whatever distance. . .
Commissioner Ward: Suppose there is a commercial area that is not
quite 1, 600 and then we've totally eliminated . . .
Chair Martinez: No it is 1,000.
Commissioner Faust: See, the 600 is the distance between two group
homes. You can't have two group homes closer than 600 feet.
Commissioner Ward: Oh, I thought you were suggesting that you
combine both those distances. . .
Commissioner Faust: No, I was just saying that the existing
separation and dispersion requirements be applied to the NCC, CC,
and DC areas under commercial and office for Group II, so that
would . . .
Voice: Approximately how far is a block?
Voice• 600 feet
Commissioner Ward: Approximately 300 feet
Commissioner Faust: So we are talking. . .
Commissioner Ward: Two blocks.
Commissioner Faust: Three to four blocks for a thousand feet.
Voice• Well, yes.
Voice: A regular city.
Voice: Two to four.
James Harris: Cities vary. There is no standard.
Commissioner Faust: Which would effectively preclude siting of any
of these Class II 's up at the Benson where it is only one block
wide. I just think that if we amend the separation and dispersion
requirements to Class II to insure that the commercial areas that
we are talking about aren't strip commercial, like up at the
Benson. I 'm just using that as an example. I think that I would
34
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
June 25, 1990
prefer to leave it as permissive. I think that we would get the
same place.
Commissioner Chopp: (unclear) . . .How far away from the dividing
line.
Commissioner Miller: I think she is suggesting we look at that
under the separation and dispersion
Voices: (unclear)
Commissioner Faust: The property line with a radius from the edges
of that property line 1, 000 feet. So if there were any homes,
single or multifamily residential homes, within that 1, 000 foot
radius, it could not be sited there period. I suppose it could
come in as a conditional use, but it certainly couldn't be the
permissive use the way it is listed here.
Commissioner Ward: Even though it is commercial.
Commissioner Faust: I'm concerned, Ray, about it, too, but I would
rather deal with it by leaving the matrix as is and then doing
Action Item ID.
Commissioner Ward: That would cover it. . . (unclear)
Commissioner Faust: I think so, because it is going to cut out an
awful lot of commercial office space in the city that is close to
houses.
Commissioner Ward: Okay.
Commissioner Faust: It would cut out a lot of the stuff even up on
99, because that is only two blocks wide. It would even preclude
siting in a lot of the 99 area.
Commissioner Ward: I will withdraw my concern. We can call for
the question.
Chair Martinez: Wait. I have another one. Don't call for the
question.
Voices• (unclear)
Chair Martinez: I have another place that I am concerned about and
that is in the Class IC. I think that MRG should be a conditional
use simply because of the size of most MRG and the size of a Class
IC. It is just that it could be very intrusive into that
35
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
June 25, 1990
particular neighborhood. Making it a conditional use
doesn't. . . just puts that extra leap to make sure that the Planning
Department take a little closer look at it before okaying it.
Commissioner Faust: But Linda, on page 12 up under Class I Group
Homes under C. . .
Chair Martinez: Hold it. I am sorry.
Commissioner Faust: It says that the number. . .
Chair Martinez: Yes, I understand.
Commissioner Faust: It says that the number of residents will be
based on the density of the underlying zoning district. How many
does that actually mean when we are talking about an MRG.
Chair Martinez: Sixteen units per acre.
Commissioner Faust: How many people does that actually translate
into. . .
Voice• Twelve.
Commissioner Miller: Sixteen times five would be eighty.
Lauri Anderson: This is Lauri Anderson. The rationale behind that
was that the 16 would translate into number of units per acre. It
doesn't transfer into people. It transfers into units. However, in
group homes more typically you are talking about bedrooms or
individual sleeping areas that may share a common kitchen. So what
we are saying is that if you had an acre of land, you could
presumably site a facility that had 16 bedrooms. If they were
individual units, 16 individual units. Then as your acreage
decreased, the number of bedrooms and the number of units you could
have would also decrease. So the size is regulated by the density
allowed by the zoning district.
Commissioner Miller: Well, but a unit would presumably house three
to five people frequently. And a bedroom would frequently house. . .
Lauri Anderson: Probably two, maybe. One or two.
Commissioner Miller: So they really don't translate.
Lauri Anderson: Well it is the same translation that we use in our
multifamily zoning districts. We don't regulate by number of
people. We regulate by number of bedrooms or numbers of units.
36
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
June 25, 1990
Commissioner Miller: Okay.
Chair Martinez: That's why I 'd like to have a conditional use on
that one. I just think it has the potential for causing a problem
we don't need to build into the system.
Commissioner Chopp: Change it from P to C.
Chair Martinez: Change it from P to C.
Commissioner Miller: I guess I 'm satisfied with the limitation
being controlled by the zoning limitations, that a half an acre
would be limited to eight bedrooms, essentially a whole acre, 16.
Voice: That's houses.
Commissioner Miller: Well, but she said units translate to
bedrooms.
Chair Martinez: And if it is only one bedroom, they can only be
within 600 feet of each other.
Commissioner Miller: But if it is only one facility. . .
Voices: Right, Right, Right.
Voices: (unclear)
Chair Martinez: I 'm talking about MRG, which is suggested to be an
outright permitted. And I am suggesting a conditional use for that
one.
Voice: (unclear)
Chair Martinez: That would be only if they were built as little,
tiny units. Then the separation and dispersal comes into it.
Commissioner Miller: Well, except that it wouldn't if it was the
same facility that happened to build little, tiny units. If it was
one facility, they would still only be limited to 16.
Chair Martinez: Wouldn't they be limited to one?
Lauri Anderson: If a single piece of property were to decide that
in their group home facility they were desiring to have 16 units,
like in a multifamily type of an arrangement, the separation
requirements are not within the property itself. And you will see
in the definition of how you calculate the dispersion and the
37
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
June 25, 1990
separation requirements that it is from the edge of the property
line that is being affected. So it is from the boundaries of the
property. So if you had 16 cottages or whatever, that's typically
not a group home arrangement. But if that is the arrangement that
you are thinking about, the individual cottages would not have to
be separated by 600 feet. The whole development would be separated
from another group home. Does that make sense?
Commissioner Gregory: The dispersion and separation requirements
do not apply to Group I.
Lauri Anderson: Right. Are you talking about. . .
Voices: (unclear)
Commissioner Faust: I guess I 'm not really as bothered about that.
Commissioner Miller: I 'm not either.
Chair Martinez: I feel that in an MRG which frequently actually in
our city is not great, big plots of land, but in fact are small
plots of land (unclear) . . . it has the potential to have a more
significant impact at that density than if those same folks were
dispersed in either an MRM or over in single family where there in
a four bedroom house with only four or six people in it, something
like that.
Commissioner Miller: But for an MRG we are looking at C, which
would be 15 or more residents for an MRG that is already limited to
a density not greater than 16 units per acre. I think that is
limiting in itself in that you couldn't put a 1C home on a third of
an acre, because a IC by definition would have 15 or greater. Am
I. . .
Chair Martinez: Yeah.
Commissioner Miller: So I think it limits itself.
Commissioner Ward: Fifteen or greater people as compared. . .I don't
understand how you are correlating people with units.
Chair Martinez: You can't.
Commissioner Miller: You just assume that in a certain unit. . .
Commissioner Ward: But you are not saying that. . .
38
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
June 25, 1990
Commissioner Miller: I assume that. . .she says that bedroom equals
unit. I guess I am assuming that they are all going to be generous
and have separate bedrooms. That may be too generous an assumption
on my part.
Commissioner Ward: I don't think they are going to plug these
people into separate bedrooms.
Commissioner Miller: Even if there are two in a bedroom. and you
have to have at least a half an acre to do a permitted use under an
MRG, and a half an acre is a pretty good-sized lot.
Commissioner Faust: Can I add something, too. In group homes that
have to deal with handicapped individuals, they have to have their
own bedrooms. That's the rule. They have to have their own
bedrooms.
Commissioner Ward: Handicapped people have to have (unclear)
Commissioner Faust: In group homes, handicapped people have to
have their own bedrooms. You don't share. And that is what we are
talking about here.
Voice: And is that foster homes, too?
Commissioner Faust: That's foster homes as well. You have to have
your own bedroom. If you have a foster child in your home, that
kid has to have its own bedroom. I haven't worked in a group home
but lord knows I 've been to enough of them. Every one of those
kids has to have his or her own bedroom. So it does end up
limiting the size of these facilities because the kids have to have
their own rooms. They don't have to be very big, but they have to
have their own rooms. And as well as having their own rooms, I
frankly. . .why we have included 1C because if you are talking about
the handicapped children, physically, mentally disabled, which is
what we are talking about basically with a Class 1, logistically
you just can't deal with that many handicapped or retarded
individuals. You just can't. . . 16, 18, 20 sharing a common kitchen
and all of that, you can't do it. Even if you are talking about
disabled adults who are living in a group situation, you just don't
have 20 of them living in a single home. The staffing requirements
would be impossible.
Commissioner Miller: Then why would we make it an outright
permitted use.
Commissioner Faust: Well, I 'm just saying that I think it is mute.
39
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
June 25, 1990
Chair Martinez: I think any time we put something in, we have the
potential for it to be used. And I would rather, and if in fact it
is. . .sort of an outrageous thing. . .I 'd rather either take it out
and make it conditional use or something, for sure as sin if we put
it in, it will happen.
Commissioner Miller: I would like to take a small bit of issue
with Tracy in that foster homes, state licensed foster homes not
dealing with special needs children, just state licensed foster
homes, they don't have to have a separate bedroom but a separate
bed. In some group homes . . .
Commissioner Faust: You're right. I was talking about handicapped
foster children.
voices• (unclear)
Commissioner Miller: Well, you know that sometimes kids do share
a bed in our own homes.
Chair Martinez: I was going to say that my kids have been deprived
all their lives.
Commissioner Miller: And the other thing is that there are some
group homes where children do share a room, but probably not more
than two to a room. So for consideration purposes, there are
circumstances where they are allowed to share a room, but I believe
that Tracy is correct that it is not handicapped children.
Commissioner Faust: Well, I 'm willing to go along with Linda and
make it a conditional use. I don't think that it is going to end
up being that much of a problem, but I think your point is well
taken.
Commissioner Miller: I ' ll go along with that.
Commissioner Ward: Let's go along with that
Chair Martinez: Okay, but do we want to leave then the permitted
uses for the Class II and deal with that at the area in separation.
Commissioner Faust: I would rather.
Commissioner Miller: Help me out for a minute and tell me what NCC
is.
Chair Martinez: Neighborhood Community Commercial.
40
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
June 25, 1990
Commissioner Miller: so that is basically the Benson strip.
Chair Martinez: Is that correct?
James Harris: There's only one in the city and it is where the
fire station (unclear) . . . I don't think we have any other.
Chair Martinez: Community Commercial is the Benson. DC is
Downtown Commercial, and 0 is office. And there is a lot of those
over on. . . in the Benson area, but they are about a block deep, and
they are close to. . .
Voices• (unclear)
Commissioner Gregory: I wonder if it would be a lot easier for us
to make all of this conditional, or to go ahead and put it in the
separation and dispersion.
Commissioner Miller: I would be willing to make strip malls
conditional, because those are the ones that really are in the
neighborhood.
Chair Martinez: Downtown Commercial. . .how many people live
downtown? A lot of people.
Commissioner Miller: Besides you.
Chair Martinez: I wasn't going to make any. . .
Commissioner Faust: I 'm not sure if there is any place in downtown
that you can get 1, 000 feet away from a home, church or park. I'm
not sure that they can.
Chair Martinez: It would be difficult, I think. I don't know if
it is impossible.
Commissioner Miller: I don't want to throw in something new, but
I am also concerned and more appropriately at separation and
dispersement about bars. I 'm not interested in protecting bars as
I am the kind of people that are going to be housed very nearby.
I 'm not sure that we should not include bars as a sensitive area.
Voices• (unclear)
Chair Martinez: Okay, let's get back. I would like to talk about
the commercial office, the outright permitted for twos. What
would you want to do about that
41
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
June 25, 1990
Commissioner Miller: I would suggest that we change strip malls,
which is CC, under Group Home Class II to a conditional use on
Group Homes Class A, B and C.
Commissioner Faust: And I'd rather just deal with it under D,
Separation and Dispersion.
Commissioner Ward: I 'm sort of reluctant about changing the matrix
itself when these people have put so much time, effort and
(unclear) and investigative process putting together this thing and
saying that this is possibly where we have made the determination.
I 'm kind of skeptical of that. Perhaps we can deal with it . . .
Commissioner Miller: I can appreciate that, but I am also trying
to be sensitive to all the community members we have heard from,
and I think they are very concerned about them, and I think that is
the remaining area that would potentially them in the area that
would put them within a one or two block radius of their homes. I
think their kids go to the neighborhood strip malls, and I think
that is one of my things. Kids traditionally, if you live in the
Benson, they hop on their bike they and go down, because they don't
have to cross busy streets to let your kids go down there, and I
think that, trying to look at it from a community prospective, that
would be my concern that it would have extra scrutiny that they
could technically meet the separation and dispersement
requirements.
Commissioner Gregory: I think we listened to the concerns of the
community and we should make it all conditional use permit. At
least we have the scrutiny of the Planning Department in looking at
it and bring it to a hearing when a conditional use permit. . .and
members of the community could come and voice their opinions about
whether or not it should be allowed in a certain area.
Commissioner Miller: Well, I guess. . . in the commercial office, DC,
CM1, CM. . . DC I guess is the other one that would not be
conditional, I 'm not as concerned about that, because I think
you're not dealing with the neighborhood. I 'm concerned when you
are dealing with the neighborhood. Because I don't want to make it
so restrictive that realistically. . .everyone is made to jump
through so many hoops that it becomes crazy. I am concerned,
though, about protecting neighborhoods.
Commissioner Ward: Do we have people living in DC.
voices: (unclear)
Commissioner Faust: That's downtown.
42
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
June 25, 1990
Commissioner Miller: Okay. I 'm sorry. I was thinking of
that. . .well, I guess the NCC, CC and DC all potentially.
Commissioner Ward: Is there any designation here that we don't
have people living that is commercial?
Commissioner Miller: Those are the only ones that are remaining as
permitted except office.
Chair Martinez: And I think we can conditional use the other
commercials simply because it may be inappropriate to site a home
there rather than they will have any undue influence on the homes.
You can imagine what places you don't want people to. . . I tell you
what. We have had a lot of discussion. There is a motion on the
floor. I would entertain a motion to amend that motion if someone
wants to do that.
Commissioner Faust: I 've forgotten what the motion was.
Chair Martinez: The motion was to accept this siting matrix as
presented to us.
Commissioner Miller: I move that we amend the Group Homes Siting
Matrix for Class II A, B, and C under NCC, CC and DC and Office,
changing them from permitted uses to conditional uses.
Commissioner Ward: Is that a friendly amendment?
Commissioner Miller: That is a friendly amendment.
Chair Martinez: Is there a second to that amendment?
Commissioner Chopp: I ' ll second it.
Chair Martinez: Okay, there is a. . . is there further discussion on
the amendment? And the amendment is to change from outright
permitted to conditional use for Group Home Class II A, B and C to
conditional use in all four cases.
Voice: That's correct.
Chair Martinez: Further discussion.
Commissioner Chopp: They can still change that if the conditions
(unclear) with the Council.
Chair Martinez: That's right. They can do anything.
43
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
June 25, 1990
Voice: What's that Frank?
Commissioner Chopp: They can still change that back to P.
Chair Martinez: The Council can change it back. They can undo
this whole thing, but they don't usually.
Commissioner Ward: You said Class II.
Chair Martinez: Class II A, B and C. Is there further discussion
on the amendment?
Commissioner Ward: Question.
Chair Martinez: The question has been called. All in favor of the
amendment.
Voices• Aye.
Chair Martinez: Opposed. (silence) Okay is there a motion about
Class IC.
Commissioner Faust: Yes. Madam Chair, I would like to add a
further amendment that under Group Homes Class IC that in the MRG
residential area we change permitted to conditional use.
Chair Martinez: Is there a second.
Commissioner Miller: I would second it.
Chair Martinez: Is there further discussion?
Voice: Question.
Chair Martinez: The question has been called. All in favor.
Voices• Aye.
Chair Martinez: Okay. We have not talked at all about Class III.
Is there any discussion before we. . .
Commissioner Ward: Nobody wants it.
Commissioner Miller: My feeling was that all of Group Home Class
III are conditional use. And that is as it should be. So I
didn't feel that I needed to discuss it.
Chair Martinez: The only thing I had is that I think that in terms
44
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
June 25, 1990
of. . .particularly O, we might want to go to the separation from
residential.
Commissioner Miller: Where offices are near. . .
Chair Martinez: Where offices are near homes.
Commissioner Miller: Then we could take care of that issue under
the separation. . .
Chair Martinez: Right. Under D when we get to it.
Commissioner Faust: Are you talking about. . .right now we have left
Class II under commercial office. . .office, the O, we've left that
as a permissive use.
Chair Martinez: No.
Commissioner Faust: We've made it as a conditional use.
Chair Martinez: Yes.
Commissioner Faust: That's what I thought.
Chair Martinez: I 'm talking about III, which is. . .they are all
conditional uses. We have two choices. We can either, we have
lots of choices, the two obvious ones or we can do separation, I
mean dispersal from residential areas in that condition or when we
get to conditional uses we can further. . .yes. . .
Lauri Anderson: Just a point of clarification. The office zone is
often used, as I stated earlier, as a buffer between a residential
zone and a commercial zone. Probably the most significant piece of
office zone is in a strip along 104th up on the East Hill. I guess
our recommendation might be that if you are concerned about a
separation from residential zones even with a conditional use
permit in place, that you might just want to eliminate the office
zone from consideration.
Chair Martinez: Oh.
Commissioner Faust: That is just what I was going to suggest we
do. Would you like a motion.
Chair Martinez: Yes, it is so much easier, yes.
Commissioner Faust: I move that in the Group Homes Class III that
we remove from even conditional use the following categories: NCC,
45
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
June 25, 1990
CC, DC and O, leaving the conditional use possible only in CM1, CM2
and GC.
Commissioner Ward: Why is that?
Chair Martinez: Just a second. Is there second to that even for
discussion purpose.
Commissioner Miller: For the sake of discussion I will second it.
Chair Martinez: Ok, now, Ray. Go ahead.
Commissioner Ward: Why are you making that suggestion?
Commissioner Faust: Well, because I can't help thinking back to
what we did when we decided where pornographic theaters could go.
And I think we ended up with three little tensy areas marked in
yellow all of which seemed to be very near very large warehouses,
and lots of very large warehouses, so I 'm thinking that perhaps
this is not to say that a Class III home will ever be sited in the
City of Kent anyway. But I think that if it is why don't we limit
it even farther down to first of all conditional use permit,yes,
but also narrow it down further so that it is strictly in the zone
that we have already said is a zone that we consider safe quote
unquote for certain kinds of activities.
Commissioner Ward: Why couldn't it be extended on to industrial.
Commissioner Faust: That's what this is.
Voice: No this is commercial. Industrial is M. . .
Commissioner Faust: Oh, I 'm sorry.
Chair Martinez: This seems inappropriate for health and safety for
the people who would be in the group home. They could die of toxic
poisoning and sue us. Their family would.
Commissioner Miller: I guess my view is that conditional use
permits give sufficient community as well as policy scrutiny that
I am willing to accept it as it is proposed, because as long as it
is going to be scrutinized and the community surrounding it has a
great opportunity to be heard, then I guess I don't object to it
being as the matrix is laid out. I just don't want to leave it
where. . .and there is nothing here that would be a permitted use.
My concern is Class II, where permitted uses are right next to a
neighborhood. As long as they bear scrutiny, then I think I am
46
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
June 25, 1990
willing to leave it to the people who will be scrutinizing it to
make proper decisions with community input.
Chair Martinez: I 'd like to speak in favor of the amendment simply
because for these particular types of homes we are dealing with
people who are very difficult people. They are not people we
really want in any case. But since we raise them, some of them,
and probably at some point we will probably we asked at some point
to take some of them back. And I guess these neighborhoods, or
these zoning districts, are close enough to where we conduct our
own business that I think I could support just eliminating them.
I 'm not sure if that is wise, and we are not privy, unfortunately,
to why people put a C there. Are we?
Commissioner Miller: One of my concerns is that as long as it is
going to bear full scrutiny, I was willing to accept the
conditional use. I don't know. . .
Chair Martinez: The problem with conditional use is that. . . it is
in the newspaper and stuff. . . if you don't read the newspaper this
week. . .
Commissioner Miller: It's a close one.
Chair Martinez: I 'd kind of like to have. . .some folks have not
spoken on this at all. I think we need.
Commissioner Gregory: Well, I have a comment. I 'm in favor of
leaving it as it is and just check it under the Section E when we
can establish conditional use criteria.
Commissioner Chopp: That's the way I feel.
Commissioner Gregory: I don't remember exact points, but when we
had our workshop we talked to the people from the committee and
they had certain reasons for doing this. I can't remember the
reasons now. I go back to what Ray was saying. They have done a
lot of reasoning to support this. Maybe we can (unclear) when we
go back to Section E very tough, that it can't be allowed in these
three areas anyway.
Commissioner Faust: Question.
Chair Martinez: The question has been called for. We are
considering an amendment to eliminate the possibility of siting a
Group Home Class III in the commercial zones, NCC, CC, DC or O.
All in favor.
47
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
June 25, 1990
Voices• Aye.
Chair Martinez: Opposed
Voices• No
Chair Martinez: Please hold up your hands. Okay, it is two to
four. The amendment failed. Linda and Tracy voted for the
amendment, and the others against it. So the conditional use
maintains for Class III.
Commissioner Ward: We' ll take care of it in another section.
Chair Martinez: Are there any other amendments to the major
motion?
Voice• (unclear)
Chair Martinez: That has been changed to conditional use.
Commissioner Faust: Madam Chair, I move that we accept the matrix
as it has now been amended.
Commissioner Gregory: Second.
Chair Martinez: Further discussion.
Commissioner Faust: Question.
Chair Martinez: All in favor.
Voices• Aye.
Chair Martinez: Opposed. (silence) Now we have some hard work
ahead of us.
Commissioner Miller: Madam Chair, I move that we adopt the
separation and dispersion requirements for Class II and Class III
Group Homes.
Chair Martinez: Discussion.
Commissioner Faust: Question.
Chair Martinez: I have discussion. I would like to have parks in
separation requirements. I would like to have parks added after
religious facilities or institutions.
48
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
June 25, 1990
Commissioner Miller: Could we say parks and playgrounds, because
some of the little neighborhood playgrounds. . .
Chair Martinez: I am also. . .would you like to. . .I think I would
like to at least discuss adding residential areas.
James Harris: Madam Chair, we know that Coleen Miller made the
motion to approve separation. Who seconded it.
Commissioner Faust: I did, Tracy.
Chair Martinez: Is there anything that should be mentioned.
Commissioner Ward: I missed the part where you want to put parks.
Chair Martinez: In separation requirements after religious
facilities or institutions add parks and playgrounds and other such
uses that are deemed to be sensitive. And, as a result of the
other discussion, we are going to put the residential areas, we are
going to discuss that under conditional uses.
Voices: I don't see any point to that right now.
Commissioner Miller: I 'm back into bars and taverns, I guess. I 'm
not sure that I think it is wise to place Group II or IIIs. Now I
realize that they are primarily going to be governed by conditional
use and they would consider it there, but I'm not sure that we
don't want a separation requirement from bars, taverns, lounges.
Commissioner Faust: Well, how about liquor stores, too.
Commissioner Miller: Well, I think that is taken care of by. . .
Voice: zoning
Voices: (unclear)
Chair Martinez: (unclear) and I can't remember where, but I think
it is in the. . .
Commissioner Miller: Although all of them would be conditional
use, now if I remember correctly. So maybe that becomes more mute
with it all being conditional use, Its and IIIs now.
Chair Martinez: We may get so muddled up in our. . .
Voice: definitions. . .
49
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
June 25, 1990
Chair Martinez: And the thing is we could come back to this when
we are talking about the conditional use. . .
Commissioner Miller: A good place for it.
Chair Martinez: (unclear) and if we start spreading this out and
see what the results. . .
Commissioner Miller: But I do agree with adding parks and
playgrounds.
Chair Martinez: Would you make the motion.
Commissioner Miller: I move that we amend the separation
requirements such that on the third line after religious facilities
or institutions comma, we insert parks and playgrounds before and
other such uses that are deemed to be sensitive.
Commissioner Faust: Second.
Chair Martinez: Is there discussion on that issue? All in favor.
Voices: Aye.
Chair Martinez: Opposed. (silence) Okay. Is there further
discussion on the separation and dispersion requirements?
Commissioner Faust: Madam Chair, I move that we adopt the
separation and dispersion requirements as amended.
Chair Martinez: Is there a second?
Commissioner Gregory: Second.
Chair Martinez: Discussion.
Commissioner Faust: Question.
Chair Martinez: The question has been called. All in favor of
adopting the amended separation and dispersion requirements.
Voices: Aye.
Chair Martinez: Opposed. (silence) We have the next two items,
actually the next three, we can choose to do them in a number of
ways. . .establish conditional use criteria which specifically
addresses the nature of such land uses. We can do that any way we
want. (unclear) So I would entertain a motion to implement that.
50
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
June 25, 1990
Commissioner Faust: Madam Chair I move that we implement Action
Item Two--Establish Conditional Use Permit Criteria for Group
Homes.
Chair Martinez: How would you propose that we do that.
James Harris: You need a second.
Chair Martinez: Coleen seconded it.
Chair Martinez: How would propose that we do that?
Commissioner Faust: Well, I propose that the Planning Commission
do it and that we direct the staff to develop some sample criteria
based on what we have done in the city and what is being done in
surrounding cities and then make a presentation to us at which
point we will take some public testimony and then come up with
conditional use permit criteria.
Chair Martinez: That we can recommend to the Council.
Commissioner Miller: I could accept that.
Commissioner Ward: I could buy that, too.
Chair Martinez: Okay. Can we add to the implement by . . .
Commissioner Faust: Shall I try again.
Chair Martinez: Yeah. If the second will be withdrawn.
Commissioner Miller: I will certainly consider her new suggestion.
Commissioner Faust: I have to phrase this somehow. Madam Chair,
I move that we, the Planning Commission, establish conditional use
permit criteria for group homes and that we direct Planning
Department staff to develop sample criteria for our consideration
at a public hearing, and that the Planning Commission establish
conditional use criteria and present them to the City Council for
its approval.
Commissioner Miller: I would second that.
Chair Martinez: Will you withdraw your other second. Do we have
that motion.
Voice: I have it on the tape.
51
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
June 25, 1990
Commissioner Faust: I was trying to speak distinctly for Lois.
Commissioner Ward: How are we pressed for timing. Don't you think
we should ask staff.
Commissioner Miller: I certainly would want their suggestions as
to when this can actually happen.
Commissioner Ward: Can that be part of the motion?
voices: (unclear)
Commissioner Faust: I would like this to be presented at a
workshop.
Chair Martinez: My personal feeling is that this is something that
we really need to work at.
James Harris: We could get it to you at a workshop in August.
voices: (unclear)
James Harris: Third Monday, the 20th of August.
Chair Martinez: That is a reasonable time for me. Then we would
spend that workshop working on it and then have the public hearing
after that. Okay. And I would suggest that we at least notify the
folks that worked on this so that all of the stuff that they
collected can be available so that we don't have to reinvent
anything. Is the question called.
Commissioner Faust: Question.
Chair Martinez: You all understand what we are doing here.
Commissioner Ward: I don't understand your last statement. You
said we notify the people, the committee that worked on this. . .
Chair Martinez: To invite them to come to our workshop.
Commissioner Ward: That's a very good idea.
Chair Martinez: The question has been called. All in favor.
voices: Aye.
Chair Martinez: Opposed. (silence) More work for the staff. Our
next action item is to establish a city licensing program to
52
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
June 25, 1990
monitor the location and nature of Class II and III Group Homes in
Kent. It is closely tied to G, assign a staff person with a social
services background to the periodic monitoring of group homes in
Kent. Again these will come as recommendations, or they can come
as recommendations from this body.
Commissioner Miller: Do we need to address that today, or can we
deal with Action Item 2 first?
Commissioner Faust: I think I would prefer to either deal with it
simultaneously. In other words either keep it for ourselves or
release it to somebody else to deal with.
Chair Martinez: I want to make sure that when we send this up,
that this goes with it. However we do that.
Commissioner Gregory: You want to make sure that the matrix
(unclear) .
Chair Martinez: With the monitoring and the conditional use and
the parks. . .
Commissioner Miller: We want to send a package.
Chair Martinez: I don't want to send loose ends hanging out there.
Commissioner Faust: Madam Chair, since we are already going to be
taking the central position on Action Item Two upon ourselves as
the Planning Commission, I think it makes perfect sense for the
Planning Commission also to take the lead position on establishing
the licensing and monitoring systems as well. Therefore I would
like to make a parallel motion and it is this. I move that the
Planning Commission authorize. . .sorry, strike that. I move that
the Planning Commission establish licensing and monitoring systems
and to that end that they direct the Planning Department and staff
to develop licensing and monitoring guidelines that will be
presented to us at the same workshop which we will be considering
Action Item Number Two, and that the following week, August 28th I
guess it is or 27th, that we will hold a public hearing on this as
well, and that our recommendations, I'm not done yet Willie, and
that our recommendations will be forwarded to the City Council.
Commissioner Gregory: Second.
Chair Martinez: I have to say is there discussion of this item?
Commissioner Ward: Question.
53
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
June 25, 1990
Chair Martinez: All in favor.
Voices: Aye.
Chair Martinez: Opposed. (silence) Do we want to take up G or do
we want to leave that. Oh, is that. . .I apologize.
Commissioner Faust: Sounds like a good idea to me.
Chair Martinez: Okay. We have dealt with this. We have actually
dealt with half of this. The other half we will deal with at a
further hearing. I need direction on this, Jim. I would like this
to go as a package, so though we have made definite recommendations
on Action Item One, you can hold it as far as the Council is
concerned until we have prepared.
James Harris: This is all one thing. . . (unclear)
Chair Martinez: Is there any other business to come before this
body?
(End of Verbatim Minutes)
Mr. Harris announced that the City Council has received a petition
of 1, 600 signatures requesting the further reduction of densities
in the multifamily areas. The Mayor's Growth Management Committee
is being formed to consider this issue, and the Planning Commission
will also be discussing this issue within 30 days after the
committee has been formed.
Chair Martinez suggested that the group homes issue be completed
before hearing the density issue.
QDJOURNMENT
commissioner Faust MOVED to adjourn the meeting Commissioner Miller
ECONDED the motion. Motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at
10:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
ames . Harr , Secretary
54