Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Land Use and Planning Board - 07/22/2002 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Fred N Satterstrom, Community Dev Director PLANNING SERVICES Charlene Anderson,AICP, Manager KENT Phone 253-856-5454 WASHINGTON Fax 253-856-6454 Address 220 Fourth Avenue S Kent,WA 98032-5895 LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD MINUTES PUBLIC HEARING July 22, 2002 The meeting of the Kent Land Use and Planning Board was called to order by Vice Chair David Malik at 7 00 p m on Monday, July 22, 2002 in Chambers West of Kent City Hall LUPB MEMBERS PRESENT: STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: David Malik, Vice Chair Charlene Anderson, AICP, Planning Mgr Steve Dowell William Osborne, Planner Ron Harmon Kim Adams-Pratt, Assist City Attorney Jon Johnson Deputy Police Chief, Chuck Miller Deborah Ranniger Pamela Mottram, Admin Secretary Les Thomas LUPB MEMBERS ABSENT h Nicole Fincher, Excused APPROVAL OF MINUTES Les Thomas MOVED and Steve Dowell SECONDED to approve the Minutes of April 8, 2002 Motion CARRIED ADDED ITEMS TO THE AGENDA None COMMUNICATIONS None NOTICE OF UPCOMING MEETINGS Planning Manager Charlene Anderson stated that a Comprehensive Plan Amendment workshop would be held August 12, 2002 at 10 00 a m in City Hall LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD BY-LAWS AMENDMENT Steve Dowell MOVED and Jon Johnson SECONDED to amend the by-laws to provide for special election of officers by incorporating the following statement "In the event of a vacancy of any officer, the Board may, at a convenient time selected by a majority present, hold a special election for that positron Any member of the Board is eligible to fill the vacancy However, if a present officer wins the new position, his present office is considered vacant, as no member can hold two office positions, and, an electron should than take place Immediately to also fill that position being vacated " 00 Motion CARRIED. ELECTION OF LUPB CHAIR Steve Dowell NOMINATED and Jon Johnson SECONDED a motion to appoint Ron Harmon to the currently vacated Chair position. Ron Harmon accepted Motion CARRIED #CPA-2002-1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE — CH 5 COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT Planner William Osborne presented an overview of the proposed updates to Kent's Comprehensive Plan He stated that the process involved in updating the comprehensive plan includes reviewing State and County policies and regulatory documents, then looking at what Kent's issues with consistency would be with Kent's existing comprehensive plan Mr. Osborne stated that staff proceeded to gather information and collect data Mr Osborne announced that workshops would be held on each element of the Comprehensive Plan along with individual hearings on each element to culminate with one final public hearing on all the chapters of the Comprehensive Plan prior to forwarding recommendations to the Mayor and City Council. He stated that if the Council adopts the proposed amendments, they would become part of the Comprehensive Plan Mr Osborne cited this year's meeting dates Mr Osborne presented proposed amendments to the goals and policies of the Community Design Element referring to his staff report and the draft of the Community Design Element He stated that the original element relied heavily on the "Community Forum on Visioning and Growth Management". Mr Osborne discussed the following proposed changes to the Community Design Element: • Revisions to and removal of time-sensitive references, updates to tables, graphics, images and maps, • Strengthening of language to enhance and recognize authority in development review of the community design element as indicated on Page 1, • Addition of residential design types such as multifamily design types, or types of a higher density than what is currently allowed in our development standards Mr Osborne stated that residential design types include. Brownstone buildings with commercial business on the lower level, cottage housing with individual yards and shared parking garages and courtyards, clustered housing, carriage house units, attached town homes with rear garages and shared access points, "grow housing" which allows for vertical or horizontal expansion and live-work units which are both industrial and residential in nature as indicated in Policy CD-8 5 and Goal CD-14. • Historic Preservation as indicated in Goal CD-13 Language has been added to recognize that many historic preservation programs have requirements that address the actual physical preservation of buildings or restoration techniques • Encouraging environmental sensitivity in the design and construction of all projects and participation in environmentally sensitive builder programs such as `Built Green" as indicated in CD-21 This type of construction encourages reusing and recycling budding materials, being conscientious about using materials wisely with less waste and using designs that recognize alternative energy use such as solar radiation and more efficient electrical systems. • Recognition of design needs for automobile and freight vehicles in industrial areas, which was lacking from the industrial use goals and policies of the design element Policies CD- 9 1 and 9 2 strengthen that connection by indicating that freight vehicles, freight rail, and automotive use connect industrial areas Land Use and Planning Board Minutes July 22, 2002 Page 2 of 13 Mr. Osborne addressed revisions proposed by staff as a result of concerns raised by the Board at their workshop of June 10, 2002 and of comments received from the public He stated that these revisions include • Notation of appropriate historic preservation authorities in Goal CD-1 3, • Multifamily design applies to multifamily zones, and not to single family zones, and existing single-family design context. Where multifamily zoning exists in or adjacent to a single family development, the multifamily design would respect the context of the existing single family neighborhood as noted in Policy CD-14.2 and 14 3 • Including the Olympic Mountains as a scenic amenity as noted in Policy CD-20 1 • Design context for live-work units in industrial development as indicated in Policy CD-8 5 and CD-10 3 Mr. Osborne submitted for the record as Exhibit #1, an e-mail letter from Mr David Hoffman concerning bicycle parking, access and amenities. Mr Osborne stated that the existing Community Design Element language along with some of the revisions proposed by staff contain policies to strengthen our commitment to multimodal transportation which includes bicycle transportation as well as pedestrian oriented development Board Member Dowell asked for a clearer definition of the cottage and live-work housing concept, questioning which zones they would be allowed in. Mr. Osborne stated that it is his understanding that a separate zoning district or overlay could be considered for Cottage Housing, not necessarily strictly within single family zoning districts as It would depend on the site He stated to have an expanse of one housing type is not the idea behind any of these alternative-housing designs The intent is to provide for more visual character and a variety of housing for a diverse market population as indicated through the City's census figures Mr. Osborne stated that the Comprehensive Plan encourages variety and creativity in the housing market, which is what these revisions to the Community Design Element are designed to do Mr Osborne stated that by utilizing Cottage Housing, a higher density of residential units might be built in small communities on sites that typically would be difficult to develop at higher densities Mr Osborne stated that Kent's Zoning Code sets minimum standards. It would not be feasible with the City's current lot size or access standards to provide Cottage Housing, even though the market might indicate a demand for this type of housing Mr Dowell stated he believes that upon adoption of this element as part of the comprehensive plan, it would become part of Kent's City Code and would generate requests for cottage housing Ms. Anderson stated that this element is a comprehensive plan goal and policy, Policy CD-14 1 speaking only to cottage housing design elements It is not intended to address site specific location She stated that our zoning code currently allows single family units in multifamily zones or single family districts. Ms Anderson stated that the Comprehensive Plan is intended as a twenty-year vision for the community She stated that the Comprehensive Plan has many goals and policies that are not currently implemented but provide a framework for that implementation should it be desired. Ms Anderson stated that as long as the Zoning Code or other codes and ordinances are not in • conflict with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan, there is not an issue of inconsistency She stated that this does not mean that the Zoning Code and other development regulations have to implement immediately every single goal and policy. Land Use and Planning Board Minutes July 22, 2002 Page 3 of 13 Mr Osborne stated that Policy 8 5 pertains to Live/Work housing which generally would be located in Industrial/Mixed Use zoning districts Chair Harmon stated that the City of Kent Comprehensive Plan contains nine elements, seven of which are now required, two of which were optional under GMA, stating that he believes the Community Design element is optional Mr Osborne stated that both the Community Design element and the other optional element were adopted by the City of Kent, therefore becoming part of the Comprehensive Plan, with full authority as elements of a policy document Mr Osborne defined "Grow-Housing" as modular type construction with characteristics of single family dwellings that would enable a family to expand the size of their residence by adding a second story or expanding the width of their home. Mr Harmon, in referring to the section of the Design Element on "Business and Industrial Development", emphasized the importance of landscaped parking areas that do not impede delivery vehicles, rail access or security Mr. Harmon stated that it is his belief that within the `Residential Development" section of the Design Review element, the intent is to increase the number of housing units in multifamily development Mr Harmon stated that he takes exception to "Stores, restaurants and offices. ." included as part of a residential neighborhood. Mr. Harmon said that the statement to " increase the number of housing units." located within the text of"Residential Development" conflicts with the Goal and Policy CD-18.3 which indicates "Where appropriate, maintain neighborhood scale and density in new multifamily buildings " • Mr Harmon voiced opposition to Policy CD-8.3 encouraging small-scale, pedestrian-oriented - retail in industrial districts He stated that this policy could discourage retail growth in the downtown area where it is needed. Mr Harmon stated that he believes that Policy CD-8 5 that encourages context-sensitive design for development of live-work units on smaller parcels within or adjacent to industrial districts should include a mixed-use zoning reference Mr. Harmon questioned the definition of "semi-public" spaces as referenced in Policy CD-11.7. Mr Osborne stated his understanding is that a "semi-public" space would be a space that could be generally accessed by the public but is considered to be in private ownership Mr. Harmon questioned the definition of a "small lot" as referenced in the Residential Development Policy CD-14.1, recommending inclusion of text to define "small lot". Mr Osborne stated that a "small lot" is defined in the Development Standards of Kent's Zoning Code He stated that it is not the intent of this policy to create a specific development standard in the Comprehensive Plan Mr Dowell stated that Policy CD-14.1 alludes to the placement of clustered, cottage housing and condominiums within single family neighborhoods. He questioned if the text could be revised to say "Allow single family detached units on small lots in multifamily areas including clustered and cottage " Mr. Harmon voiced concern that Policy CD-14.3 alludes to allowing condominium development within single family neighborhoods Land Use and Planning Board Minutes July 22, 2002 Page 4 of 13 Mr Harmon asked if the intent of Policy CD-14.4, in referring to mixed types of housing, was for PUD types of development Mr Osborne stated that this policy does not specifically refer to Planned Unit Developments. He stated that this policy provides flexibility for a mix of residential types within a large-scale development, creating a better appearance, with the potential to accommodate the City's density issues mandated by the (GMA) Growth Management Act Mr Harmon asked for clarification of accessory living units as referred to in Policy CD-14 6 Ms. Anderson stated that the zoning code currently limits accessory dwelling units to 800 square feet including the garage She stated that City Code specifies that the owners of the property must occupy the principal residence for a period of six months every year Ms. Anderson stated that Policy CD-14 6 clarifies that with a code amendment change, the potential exists where a carriage house unit could be built over a garage and the square footage limitation would include only the dwelling unit not the garage. Mr Harmon voiced concern over Policy CD-15.1. He stated that this policy encourages land use patterns where churches, stores, services, parks, lobs, entertainment, transportation, and schools would be located within walking distance of a person's residence Mr Harmon stated that sufficient commercial development already exists near residential communities. Mr Harmon voiced concern that the terminology of"Where appropriate, "within Policy CD-18 3 was not definitive enough. Mr Osborne responded to Mr. Harmon's concerns over Policy CD-18 5. He stated that language was removed so as not to convey a message that multifamily housing would be developed as a compound within residential development sites. Mr Harmon questioned the intent of Policy CD-18.6. Mr Osborne stated that this policy relates to residential development in general He stated that some of the open space would be semi- public with some private space provided, for example, courtyards. Chair Harmon declared the public hearing open. David Hoffman, 25334 451h Ave. S, Kent, WA 98032 submitted an outline of modifications to Kent's Comprehensive Plan Community Design Element for the record as Exhibit#2. Mr Hoffman recommended revising Policy CD-4.4 by adding the following underlined words to the phrase "Locate motor vehicle parking at the rear of public buildings...", and by adding the following phrase before or after Policy CD-4.4 as a new policy "Policy CD-4._ - Encourage Incorporation of architectural and landscape features that allow for secure locking of bicycles in locations easily observed from inside buildings and which minimize Interference with pedestrian areas, evacuation routes, cargo loading areas, and utilities accesses." Tom Sharp, 24254143rd Ave. SE, Kent, WA 98042 stated that as a maturing city, Kent needs the flexibility to incorporate design elements that would allow for a variety of housing types He stated that cottage housing would not increase density and would lend itself well to difficult development sites where wetlands or streams exist Mr Sharp stated that CD-2 7 indicates that sidewalks should be constructed on both sides of • new streets, stating that it is not possible to have small front yards along with the addition of sidewalks on both sides of a roadway. Land Use and Planning Board Minutes July 22, 2002 Page 5 of 13 Mr. Sharp recommended that "...condominium ownership of common courtyard gardens. ." be changed to reflect" .common ownership of common courtyard gardens " IsMr Sharp stated that he is currently involved with a MR-T project which allows for development of smaller scaled buildings, higher densities with setbacks similar to single family homes He stated that the ability to develop cottage housing in this zone depends on the configuration of the site, environmental and access issues In response to Mr. Harmon, Mr. Sharp stated that the potential exists that with a combination of SR-8 zoning and clustering, he could construct cottage houses consisting in size from 1,000 to 1600 square feet. Mr. Sharp stated that clustering is allowed only in SR-1 zoning districts, but would be beneficial if allowed in all residential zoning districts Jon Johnson MOVED and Les Thomas SECONDED to close the public hearing. Motion CARRIED. Steve Dowell MOVED and Jon Johnson SECONDED to refer CPA-2002-2 Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Chapter Five, Community Design Element back to workshop Motion CARRIED #ZCA-2002-1 Secure Community Transition Facilities Planning Manager Charlene Anderson stated that the Growth Management Act requires the City to provide a process for identifying and siting essential public facilities She stated that those facilities are typically hard to site stating that some of these types of facilities are airports, state education facilities, solid waste handling facilities and mental health facilities Ms Anderson stated that the Secure Community Transition Facilities (SCTFs) were added to the list of essential public facilities within the past year or two She stated that according to the (GMA) Growth Management Act, the process for siting these facilities needs to be completed by September 1, 2002 Ms. Anderson stated that Secure Community Transition Facilities provide living arrangements for sexual offenders who are ready for conditional release from a total confinement facility such as the one on McNeil Island. The living arrangements are less restrictive but the facilities do have supervision, security and provide for treatment services Ms Anderson stated that the City of Kent regulations currently exist for various types of Group Homes Class III Group Homes are listed as "residential facilities for adults who have committed a crime with a sexual motivation or who have been convicted or charged as a sexual predator" She stated that our current regulations would list Secure Community Transition Facilities as Class III Group Homes and these types of group homes are allowed with a conditional use permit in most of Kent's commercial areas with the exception of the Gateway Commercial zoning district Ms Anderson stated that Class III Group Homes are allowed also in the Professional & Office zoning district Ms Anderson stated that the Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) is charged with locating the SCTFs Ms Anderson stated that the criteria used by DSHS for siting these facilities include "Equitable Distribution" which is defined as "avoiding a disproportionate grouping of similar facilities in any one jurisdiction " She stated that DSHS looks at the number and location of existing residential facilities operated by the Department of Corrections or the mental health division of DSHS. Ms. Anderson stated that DSHS looks at the City's number of registered sex offenders classified • as Level II or III and the City's number of sex offenders registered as homeless Ms. Anderson said that DSHS has siting criteria that address not locating these facilities within the line-of-sight Land Use and Planning Board Minutes July 22, 2002 Page 6 of 13 of risk potential activities and facilities, using 600 feet as their guideline She stated that line of sight is where it is possible to visually distinguish and recognize individuals Ms Anderson stated that SCTF's cannot be located within the line of sight of risk potential activities or facilities such as public or private schools, public parks, dedicated trails, playgrounds and sports fields to name a few. Ms Anderson stated that there is a provision in the State regulations for developing policy to balance the average response time of emergency services against the proximity of any proposed site to risk potential activities and facilities. She stated that one criterion to keep in mind is that the zones, areas or sites that the City identifies for locating these facilities must include potential sites that are buildable or where there is an existing facility for lease or purchase at a reasonable fair market value. Ms Anderson stated that there is no penalty for doing nothing - penalty as defined by fiscal sanctions, appeals to the Growth Management Hearings Board or private causes of action She stated that by not doing anything, the State has the opportunity to preempt local regulations and select where they want to locate in our city Ms Anderson stated that facilities are required to meet minimum size requirements, citing that a three bed facility could require a 2100 square foot budding located on a two acre site with a well and septic system She stated that a six-bed facility could require a 3,000 to 4,000 square feet building with a twelve-bed facility requiring a site of approximately three acres Option One: Ms Anderson said that Option One proposes "no change". She indicated that existing regulations talk about siting Class III Group Homes in Commercial districts, excluding GWC, and in the Office district. There is a 1000-foot separation requirement from residential areas and from other sensitive land uses. Ms Anderson stated that staff's concerns about this option relate to the ability of the State to preempt local regulations She stated that by not taking any action, there are limited numbers of parcels outside the 1000 square foot buffer that would be able to accommodate a SCTF Ms Anderson stated that there are two sites in the northern part of the City in the GC zoning district. Ms Anderson stated that one of the comments that other cities have received from DSHS is that if a buffer or separation is required for these facilities, then it would be potentially more restrictive than State law and this would allow some preemption from the State Option Two: Ms Anderson stated that Option Two proposes adding the Gateway Commercial District to the list of commercial zoning districts where Class I II Group Homes are allowed She stated that this option would expand the number of available parcels. However, with the 1000 foot buffer there is the possibility that the State would find that more restrictive than State regulations Ms Anderson stated that one of the criteria for deciding where to site is that the regulations cannot be more restrictive than the State regulations. Option Three: Ms Anderson stated that Option Three provides for text amendments and can be included in either Option One or Two She said that this option adds a note to the land use table where Class III Group Homes are listed, stating that these facilities need to comply with the State siting and permitting requirements Ms Anderson stated that the Secure Community Transition Facilities are not subject to the 1000-foot buffer or separation requirement from residential areas, parks and sensitive land use siting criteria of Kent City Code Section 15 08 280 for Class III Group Homes. She stated that these facilities would be subject to a 600- foot separation from any other Class II or III Group Home. Ms. Anderson stated that Option Three identifies and defines how to measure that distance. Land Use and Planning Board Minutes July 22, 2002 Page 7 of 13 Ms Anderson stated that this option adds to the definition section of the Zoning Code a definition taken directly from the State regulations for "Secure Community Transition Facility". • This option adds a definition of"less restrictive alternative" taken from State regulation and adds a definition of "equitable distribution" from the State regulations. Ms Anderson stated that with the definition of "Class III Group Homes" it adds to that "that the maximum number of residents including resident staff shall be limited to 18". Ms Anderson stated that Option Three adds those sensitive land uses that are in the State regulations She stated that our previous list for these Class III Group Homes was not as comprehensive as the State regulations are. Ms. Anderson stated that this option further amends Kent City Code 15 09 030-D8 that talks about conditional uses She stated that one of the criteria for conditional uses is that any other similar considerations may be applied that are appropriate to a particular case. Ms Anderson stated that the proposed addition to that regulation states, "For example, Secure Community Transition Facilities shall comply with applicable state siting and permitting requirements (Reference Chapter 71 09 RCW). Great weight shall be given to equitable distribution and the City shall not be subject to a disproportionate grouping of essential public facilities of a state- wide, regional or county-wide nature " Option Four: Ms. Anderson stated staff recommends this option along with the verbiage from Option Three Secure Community Transition Facilities would be listed as Class III Group Homes, however, they would be allowed only in the Gateway Commercial zoning district She stated that other Class III Group Homes would be permitted in the Commercial districts other than Gateway Commercial and in the Office district Ms. Anderson stated that these other group homes would be subject to the separation requirements listed under Kent City Code 15 08 280C. She stated that the Secure Community Transition Facilities limited to the Gateway • Commercial zoning district would not have a separation requirement other than the line-of-sight criteria that the State has in their regulations Board member Ranniger asked Ms Anderson to elaborate on the uses in the GWC zoning district Ms. Anderson stated that the purpose of the Gateway Commercial District is to "...provide retail commercial uses appropriate along major vehicular corridors while encouraging appropriate and unified development among the properties within the district.. " Ms Anderson stated that the definition of Gateway Commercial zoning district recognizes streetscapes that are unified and recognizable while ensuring land use compatibility and the exclusion of inappropriate uses. Ms Anderson stated that the types of uses consist of commercial which includes bakeries and confectioneries, hardware, paint, the and wallpaper retail, general merchandise retail; food and convenience stores; and automotive, aircraft, motorcycle, and marine accessories Gasoline service stations require a conditional use permit Ms Anderson stated that some residential uses are allowed via a conditional use permit only when included in a mixed-use development Service land uses also are allowed, such as financial, insurance, real estate services, mortuaries, home day cares; day care centers; and business services such as duplicating and blueprinting. Auto repair and washing services require a conditional use permit Ms Anderson stated that the Gateway Commercial zoning district does not allow outdoor display or storage. Ms Ranniger questioned allowing home day cares and day care centers in this district Ms. Anderson stated that day care would be allowed as a stand alone day care facility Ms Anderson stated that the State siting criteria address sensitive land uses in existence at the • time an SCTF site is selected, although these sensitive land uses could locate in the area after the SCTF site is selected. Ms. Anderson stated that she has looked at some of the sites in the Land Use and Planning Board Minutes July 22, 2002 Page 8 of 13 GWC district where residential uses exist, indicating that the areas which would be precluded from an SCTF site are from about 222"d to 228th because of an existing mobile home park and • some multifamily development Ms Anderson used 600 feet in determining the precluded area Ms. Anderson submitted for the record as Exhibit#1, a letter dated 7/22/02 from John Reynolds, Director, Division of Lands and Building with DSHS concerning proposed City of Kent zoning code amendments relating to Juvenile Community Facilities She stated that these types of facilities are Class II Group Homes, stating that the Board is not looking at amending anything ,4 but the Secure Community Transition Facility section of the code. Ms Anderson submitted a letter dated 7/22/02 from Beverly Wilson, Associate Superintendent for Community Programs with DSHS concerning amendments to Chapter 15 of the Kent City Code regarding the siting of Secure Community Transition Facilities Jon Johnson MOVED and Steve Dowell SECONDED to accept the exhibits into the record. Motion CARRIED. t Mr Johnson stated that around the vicinity of 228th and the Valley Freeway there are a number of motels He questioned if the setback parameters from Secure Community Transition Facilities for these types of homes would be the same as for residential. Ms. Anderson stated that motels are not on the list under State law and that adding those to the list might be more restrictive She stated that siting Secure Community Transition Facilities would require a public hearing, whether through a City of Kent Conditional Use Permit or through preemption by the State The concern about proximity to motels could be brought up at the hearing Ms Anderson stated that there are no existing State residential facilities in Kent.• Ms. Anderson stated that the equitable distribution siting criteria address avoiding a disproportionate amount of similar facilities She stated that these siting criteria do not specifically ate State facilities but reiterated that the regulations indicate that great weight shall be given to consideration of State facilities only. Mr Dowell questioned if the State would consider similar facilities existing in Kent such as the County Jail Ms Anderson stated that other facilities do not count in terms of the State's siting criteria even though the State's definition of equitable distribution talks about similar facilities. In response to Ron Harmon, Ms Anderson stated that a provision in the State regulations indicates that "line-of-sight" buffer requirements can be reduced to less than 600 feet if a barrier exists that would remove the SCTF from the line of sight. She stated that based on her 500-foot buffer evaluation, more areas would open up closer to residential areas in the Commercial districts where Class III Group Homes are currently allowed Ms. Anderson stated that staff is recommending that Secure Community Transition Facilities be allowed only in the Gateway Commercial zoning district because that district is located next to commercial manufacturing and industrial uses for the most part i Mr Harmon questioned which regulations could be changed in order to site Secure Community Transition Facilities within the same zoning district as Class III Group Homes Ms. Anderson acknowledged the limited availability of potential sites with the existing 1000-foot buffer. Deputy Chief Chuck Miller stated that he favors placing Secure Community Transition Facilities in the Gateway Commercial zoning district on 84th Avenue from approximately 212th to the . Valley Freeway. He stated that this area concentrates the offenders in a central location that Land Use and Planning Board Minutes July 22, 2002 Page 9 of 13 allows the Police Department to respond more effectively and expediently in an emergency situation Miller referred to a report, which indicated that Kent has 206 registered sex offenders stating that this figure fluctuates with a low of 185 at times He indicated that at this time Kent has "6" Level 2 and "Y Level 3 sex offenders which could deter the State from selecting Kent for siting SCTFs Miller stated that Level 3 sexual offenders are at the highest risk for re-offending He stated that one of these offenders resides in the North Park area, one two blocks west of City Hall and one by Pine Tree Elementary School Ron Harmon declared the Public Hearing open. Beverly Wilson, Post Office Box 45322, Olympia, WA stated that she is Associate Superintendent for the Community Programs at the Department of Social and Health Services Special Commitment Center Ms. Wilson stated that State law has intensive components in place for security and public safety in association with SCTFs Ms Wilson stated that facilities with six or fewer residences must maintain a one to one staff to resident ratio for the sixteen hours of the waking day and a two to three staff to resident ratio during the night hours Ms Wilson stated that a resident is escorted and monitored while away from the facility She stated that the law requires electronic monitoring devices for individuals. Ms Wilson stated those facilities such as McNeil Island use video technology and other detection devices for security and monitoring purposes. Ms. Wilson stated that local municipalities are not allowed to add to the State's list of "risk potential" facilities She stated that public hearings are required when consideration is to be made to define specific locations for addition to the list of risk potential locations. • Ms. Wilson stated that the State Legislature implemented preemption requirements, as the State is required to maintain and provide constitutionally adequate mental health treatment through the State's Civil Commitment Program for sexual offenders. Ms. Wilson stated that the Secure Community Transition Facilities provide opportunities for less restrictive placement for somebody who has participated and made progress in treatment and whom the court has determined can be safely placed in the community and continue their treatment. At the same time the community can be protected. Ms Wilson stated that the Legislature enacted a preemption provision to be used when local jurisdictions do not provide for changes consistent with the law Ms Wilson stated that if the State should want or need to site a facility in Kent, they would take the initiative in the siting process Ms Wilson stated that State law clearly defines those facilities that are considered for equitable distribution She stated that the facilities currently operated by the Department of Social and Health Services Mental Health Division consist of Western and Eastern Washington State Hospitals, Department of Corrections Facilities, Prisons and Work Release Programs. Ms Wilson stated that the law does not reference local or regional facilities such as jails or regional centers, but these could be taken into account when attempting to site SCTFs She stated that the State has projected a need for five to fifteen beds in King County through 2007. Ms Wilson said the State plans to site one twelve-bed facility, phased in as two six-bed units. • Ms Wilson stated that 600 feet was selected as a reasonable distance for line of sight separation requirements. After that one loses the ability to recognize and distinguish individuals Land Use and Planning Board Minutes July 22, 2002 Page 10 of 13 Ms Wilson stated that the law prohibits SCTFs from being sited adjacent to, across the street of a parking lot from, or within the line-of-sight of any risk potential facilities such as schools, childcare centers or churches Mr Harmon stated that citizens of Kent have indicated that they believe Kent already has its share of criminal offenders in the community, due to the local correctional facility and the Regional Justice Center He stated that it would be not be equitable to site Secure Community Transition Facilities in Kent Ms Wilson stated that State law requires all cities and counties to be on the same footing. Although Kent is obligated by law to plan for siting these facilities, this does not imply that Kent will have a facility placed in their community Ms Wilson pointed out that the State would look at property options throughout King County Ms Wilson stated that the law indicates that buildable land has to be available for lease or purchase at a reasonable fair market value David Malik MOVED and Steve Dowell SECONDED to close the Public Hearing Motion CARRIED. Asst. City Attorney Kim Adams-Pratt stated that Ms Anderson gathered information from other South County cities that showed that they also believed that equitable distribution should take into consideration local, regional and state facilities. Ms. Pratt voiced agreement with this interpretation of State law stating that the Regional Justice Center should be included in reference to equitable distribution. She said the State's interpretation of considering only State facilities is at odds with the City's interpretation Ms Pratt stated that if the Board were to support Option 4, the city could argue equitable distribution indicating that we have taken our share of these facilities. In response to Mr. Dowell, Deputy Chief Miller stated that the county system houses an average of 2200 inmates per day, 500 in the north rehab facility in Shoreline with the other inmates split between Seattle and the Regional Justice Center ("RJC") He stated that the inmate population at the RJC is approximately 800 with a capacity for 1200 Ms Anderson stated that Ms. Wilson with DSHS recommends that the City of Kent amend their ordinance concerning "line of sight" with the following wording `In no case shall a secure community transition facility be sited adjacent to, immediately across the street or parking lot from, or within the line of sight of risk potential activities or facilities in existence at the time a site is listed for consideration "Within line of sight" means that it is possible to reasonably visually distinguish and recognize individuals. For the purposes of granting a conditional use permit for siting a secure community transition facility, the Hearing Examiner shall consider an unobstructed visual distance of 600 feet to be "within line of sight." Through the Secure Community Transition Facility — Special Use Permit process, `line of sight" may be considered to be less than 600 feet if the applicant can demonstrate that visual barriers exist or can be created that would reduce the line of sight to less than 600 feet " Ms Anderson stated that staff is amenable to adding the aforementioned paragraph to Page 4 of 5 of the staff report under 3A. This paragraph would be added after the sentence that ends . with "...subject to a 600-foot separation from any other Class II or III Group Home," with the Land Use and Planning Board Minutes July 22, 2002 Page 11 of 13 exception of changing the reference from "Special Use Permit" to "Conditional Use Permit" process • Ms. Anderson recommended amending the definition of Class III Group Homes to include SCTFs Ms. Anderson stated that notes would be included under those zoning districts allowing Class III Group Homes to indicate that SCTFs are permitted only in the Gateway Commercial zoning district A reverse note would be added in the GWC district stating other Class III Group Homes are not allowed in the GWC zoning district In response to Mr Malik's concerns that he wants the best protection possible for Kent's citizens, Ms Anderson stated that one could argue that allowing the state to preempt might not provide the best protection She stated that the best protection might be to decide where Kent wants to site this type of facility considering the best location for police response and locational criteria. Ms. Anderson responded to Mr. Harmon's concern that the State has the authority to place SCTFs in Kent without consulting the city Ms. Anderson stated that Ms Wilson testified that the State would work with the City to address everyone's concerns and that there would be a public hearing process required either by the City or by the State themselves if they were to preempt Ms Anderson stated that she understood Ms. Wilson to say the State would not act in a heavy-handed manner with Kent Mr. Dowell questioned if the State had the right of eminent domain. Ms Pratt concurred that the State has the right of eminent domain defined to mean that the State could purchase from an unwilling seller The State would be required to meet the City's zoning requirements unless the City had been preempted Ms. Pratt stated that State law indicates that they can preempt the City's development regulations and choose where to site the facilities in the City. • Ms Pratt stated that if the State were to preempt Kent, DSHS would discuss and negotiate safety issues with the City. She stated that the State has a process where the City provides their comments to the State If the City is not in agreement with the State, the issue goes to the Governor's office Board member Ranniger stated that she concurred with Deputy Chief Miller that the City should take a proactive position by limiting the State to a specific zoning district to site SCTFs rather than allowing the State to choose from nine different zoning districts. Board member Johnson voiced support for staff's recommendation of Option 4. Board members Thomas, Malik, Dowell and Harmon voiced support for Option 1, a "No Change"position Harmon stated that he would like to see this issue return to the Board for one more hearing where Kent's citizenry would be notified and have opportunity for input. Mr Harmon asked for clarification of "no change" He stated that Class III Group homes are allowed via conditional use permits in O, Professional and Office zoning district and in all commercial zoning districts (NCC, CC, DC, DCE, CM-1, CM-2 and GC) Mr Harmon asked why only two parcels are available that meet the criteria for siting Secure Community Transition Facilities as Class III Group Homes at this time. Ms Anderson stated that Zoning Code Section 15 08 020 states "for Class II and III Group Homes, there is a separation requirement of 1000 feet from various sensitive land uses, residential, parks, playgrounds, public and private schools Ms. Anderson stated that in • analyzing the zoning districts where SCTFs are allowed, and by creating a 1000-foot buffer around those uses listed in Section 15.08 020, two parcels in the northern part of the city met the siting criteria. Land Use and Planning Board Minutes July 22, 2002 Page 12 of 13 Ms. Ranniger voiced concern with Option 1 "No Change" in that the number of available parcels is limited Ms Ranniger questioned the implications of supporting "no change". Ms. Anderson deferred to Ms Wilson's statement in stating that to assess parcels, they need to be available for lease or purchase at a reasonable fair market value She stated that one parcel had lust been developed in 1991 as an AM/PM Mini-Mart and the other parcel was permitted last month for a commercial building. One could argue that perhaps this means there are no parcels that meet those criteria. Ms. Anderson pointed out that by reducing the line-of-sight limitation to 500 feet, more areas are opened up in those zoning districts mentioned earlier such as NCC, CC etc, although these parcels may not be located in areas where the City would want to place these SCTF facilities. In response to Ms Ranniger, Ms Anderson stated that if the Board elects to support "Option 1, No Change", this could open all of the City's development regulations to State preemption Preemption is not limited to specific zones or buffer requirements Mr Thomas stated that he believes that Kent will not be considered for siting of SCTFs for years due to the equalization of distribution Les Thomas MOVED and David Malik SECONDED to recommend forwarding Option 1 — "No Change" on to City Council Motion CARRIED 5 to 1 with Johnson opposed ADJOURNMENT Chair Harmon adjourned the meeting at 10:15 pm Respectfully Submitted, Charlene Anderson AICP Planning Manager er Secretary, Land Use and Planning Board pm S 1PermdlPlanILUPB1200ZMinutes1020722mm tloc Land Use and Planning Board Minutes July 22, 2002 Page 13 of 13