Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Planning and Economic Development Committee - 10/17/1995 CITY OF dltl\,� TT City Council Planning Committee Minutes October 17, 1995, 4:00 PM Jim White, Mayor Committee Members Present City Attorneys Office Leona Orr, Chair Laurie Evezich Jon Johnson Roger Lubovich Tim Clark Planning Staff Other James P. Harris Tom Heller, Regional Analytic Linda Phillips Sciences Betsy Czark Roger Anderson, Seattle/King County Margaret Porter Association of Realtors Cyndi Wells Jill Goodwin, Master Builders Association Dan Flynn, Masters Builders Association Gary Frentess, Highline School District SCHOOL IMPACT FEES (Master Builders Association - D. Flynn) Dan Flynn, Public Affairs Director for the Master Builders Association, introduced Tom Heller of Regional Analytic Sciences. Mr. Flynn stated concerns about what school impact fees mean for housing affordability, and that they are not solving the school's problems because of the minimal amount of fees. Mr. Flynn handed out three documents: 1. Median Income/Monthly Payments/Affordability 2. Rethinking School Impact Fees 3. The Truth About Regulations and The Cost of Housing Mr. Tom Heller, of Regional Analytic Sciences, spoke about a study he was contracted to do for The Master Builders Association in Pierce County. The study focused on the amount that builders and developers pay in taxes during the course of constructing a home. Mr. Heller pointed out that the amount collected by school impact fees is not enough to pay for the construction of a new school. Gary Frentress of the Highline School District pointed of:t that school impact fees are not necessarily intended only for new construction of a school. These fees may cover the cost of an 1 220 4th AVE SO /KENT WASHINGTON 98032-5895/TELEPHONE. (206)859-3300/FAX#859-3334 City Council Planning Committee Minutes October 17, 1995 addition. Only a portion of that growth is attributed to new homes. There is a direct cost to the school districts from increased students. Schools may not receive the other sources of taxes that Mr. Heller mentioned. Part of the reason that the school impact fees came about was a lot of the tax-payers that have been in their areas for 30 to 40 years paid for the existing facilities and feel that the new home owners are using these facilities without contribution. Chair Orr asked Mr. Frentress if the Highline School District was interested in pursuing the impact fees for the part that lies within the City of Kent. Mr. Frentress said he was trying to give a school district perspective. The City of Kent would have a minimal impact on the Highline School District because the area is small. Highline has pursued impact fees in the cities of Tukwila, Seatac, Des Moines, Burien, and King County. They all have areas in the Highline School District. None of these cities have adopted these school impact fees except King County. Highline has collected fees from King County. Chair Orr said that the information handed out today would be reviewed and action will probably be taken at the November 7, 1995 Planning Committee meeting. Ms. Orr invited all parties to come back at that time. Assistant City Attorney Laurie Evezich asked Mr. Heller about his report for Pierce County and if it was an impact fee report. Mr. Heller stated that it was to identify the amount of taxes that are generated in the course of constructing a home and where they flow in our government. This report was completed in April 1995. ACCESSORY HOUSING ZONING CODE AMENDMENT #ZCA-95-3 Betsy Czark) Chair Orr addressed the main concerns about accessory housing and the recommendation as presented by the Planning Department. The clarification about the one year grace period for existing accessory housing units was discussed with the conclusion that any accessory housing units that exist have a one year grace period to come in and apply for an accessory housing unit permit. Chair Orr was concerned about the size of the unit within the original dwelling and the possibility that it may create a duplex. Citizens are concerned that duplexes would be built in single family zones. The Planning Department recommendation indicated that the one of the units has to be occupied by the owner for at least six months out of the year. Chair Orr questioned how this would be enforced, and how the City could monitor these actions. Planner, Betsy Czark, brought 2 City Council Planning Committee Minutes October 17, 1995 to the Committee's attention that there will be a notification process. The adjacent neighbors will be notified of the procedures and invited to keep the City informed. Planner Betsy Czark stated that a detached accessory unit limit is thirty-three percent of the original dwelling or 800 square feet, whichever is smaller. The Planning Commission had suggested no size limitations on an accessory unit within the principal dwelling because of the possibility of a basement conversion. The basement can be fifty percent of the whole dwelling, if the size of an accessory unit is limited to less than fifty percent, such an easily done accessory unit could not be done. Planning Director, James P. Harris, stated that if a permit application were taken into the Planning Department and it appeared to be a duplex, then the City should not issue that permit. An accessory unit should be classified as an addition on or conversion to part of an existing dwelling. Ms. Czark stated that presently the City allows building accessory units on new or existing buildings. Chair Orr stated that accessory units should be limited on new buildings to ensure that new duplexes will not be built. Ms. Orr, again, addressed concern regarding the Cities ability to monitor accessory units and enforce the regulations. Ms. Czark suggested that the City limit the accessory housing to existing dwellings. Mr. Harris suggested trying that for one year. Planner, Linda Phillips, indicated that there is a need to allow this in new construction. She used the example of people who are legitimately saving space for their parents to use when they become dependant on them. Chair Orr suggested putting a size limit on the accessory units for new construction. She suggested no less than sixty percent for the principal unit and no more than forty percent for the accessory unit in new construction. There was some discussion regarding availability of parking for accessory housing units. In the recommendation from the Planning Department, one off street parking space must be provided for the accessory unit. If there is adequate street parking; street parking may be allowed if authorized by the Engineering Department. 3 City Council Planning Committee Minutes October 17, 1995 Committee member Johnson MOVED and Committee member Clark SECONDED the motion to limit the size of an accessory unit that is being built at the same time as new construction of the original dwelling. In new construction the accessory unit will be limited to forty percent of the principal unit, with no limits on existing dwellings, Motion carried. SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS (ZCA-95-8) (Linda Phillips) Chair Orr discussed her concerns regarding building setbacks from property lines. If a building is being built on a busy street and has a ten foot setback, the street may need to be widened in the future, and the City may become unable to widen the street. Ms. Orr indicated that there are areas in the City now where the street needs to be widened, but there is no room to do so. Mr. Harris suggested that the Public Works Department devise an official plan line for streets that may need widening in the future without having to condemn homes Assistant City Attorney Ms. Evezich pointed out the need to establish strict guidelines that are carefully defined to make the regulations fair to all citizens Chair Orr was concerned about impervious surfaces. Ms. Phillips pointed out that the City currently has no limits on the percentage of residential lots that can be paved. This would be the beginning of regulating this impervious service coverage The percentage could be changed in the future, if needed. The Committee decided to continue the discussion regarding single family development standards at the November 7, 1995, Planning Committee meeting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 5:05 pm. 4