Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Planning and Economic Development Committee - 10/03/1995 CITY OF 1dC'\L2Y I Z5 CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES October 3, 1995, 4:00 PM Jim White, Mayor MIT Committee Members Present Cijy Attorneys Office Leona Orr, Chair Laurie Evezich Jon Johnson Planning Staff Other James P. Harris Fred High, Kent School District Fred Satterstrom Jerry Prouty, W. E. Ruth Real Estate Margaret Porter SCHOOL IMPACT FEES (Master Builders Association -D. Flynn) Mr. Dan Flynn from Master Builders Association was scheduled to speak at the meeting. He was unable to attend and will come to the October 17, 1995 meeting. Assistant City Attorney Laurie Evezich presented the ordinance for the interlocal agreement. The City Attorney's Office is not recommending any drastic changes. City Attorney Roger Lubovich discussed this with Fred High of the Kent School District and Ms. Evezich in regards to making the Impact Fee Program more generic because Federal Way and Renton School Districts have areas that extend into Kent City limits. If the other school districts would submit to the City a Capital Facilities Plan and agree to an ordinance, terms, and conditions similar to the interlocal agreement that we have proposed with the Kent School District The City will consider collecting the fees in the same manner that is proposed for the Kent School District. Federal Way School District was unable to send representation to this meeting. Some proposed changes in the draft ordinance are, the language has been made more generic to incorporate those coextensive boundaries with those two other school districts, and adding it into Chapter 12 of the Kent City Code. Also, the draft ordinance has made the correction to collect the fees at the permit stage. There seemed to be more equity doing it at the permit stage because of the possibility of somebody might plat but not develop. The draft ordinance was distributed to Councilmembers and one will be sent to the Kent School District. Ms. Evezich stated that the City currently does not collect school impact fees. The City has collected fees for impacts on traffic and parks pursuant to a voluntary agreement A voluntary agreement would require that the fee collected was in proportion to the direct impact of a plat, subdivision, or building development on the increased cost of a certain school district. The fees could only be spent in relation to that particular impact. Fees are also allowed to be collected pursuant to SEPA, the impact must be directly in relation to the particular plat, PUD, or building activity that is being permitted and spent only in relation to mitigating the impact of that particular 1 220 4th AVE SO /KENT WASHINGTON 98032-5895/TELEPHONE (206)859-3300/FAX 4 859-3334 CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES October 3, 1995 development. Under the Growth Management Act, and under the plan that the City of Kent is proposing, the fees can be collected at the permitting stage for building activity that reasonably relates to the increased capacity and the adverse impacts of that particular development. With the Growth Management approach and because we have the co-extensive boundaries, the reasonable relationship standard would allow the Kent School District or whichever school district to collect a fee that was not necessarily spent to offset the impacts of that particular development,but to offset district-wide deficiencies. This gives the school district more ability to forecast their needs in relationship with how all of the impacts in an area will impact schools district-wide as opposed to one small area. Committeechair Orr stated that this item would go on the agenda for the next meeting, October 17, 1995, as an information item. Ms. Orr asked that the Master Builders Association be notified again so that they may give their presentation. Jerry Prouty, of W. E. Ruth Real Estate, stated that he is against the School Impact Fee. Mr. Prouty was concerned that housing affordability and the fact that it may cause potential single family home buyers to choose apartment living. Mr. Prouty fears that this will increase multifamily housing. Ms. Evezich added that the draft ordinance is modeled as close to the existing King County ordinance and the fee schedules that are in the Capital Facilities Plan prepared by the Kent School District are the same as the ones that are currently being used by King County. ADULT USE ZONING #ZCA-95-1 - (Laurie Evezich) Assistant Attorney Laurie Evezich said the Planning Commission last heard the Adult Use zoning issue on April 24, 1995. The Adult Use Zoning was being heard because of the Federal District Court order. The Order indicated that although Kent's Adult Use Zoning ordinance was constitutional, it was not constitutional as applied to some particular plaintiffs; therefore, required the City to look at our adult use zoning. Planning Commissioner Kent Morrill sent a memo to the City Council dated May 2, 1995,indicating their inability to come to a decision, and now the issue is before the Planning Committee. Ms.Evezich explained that one recommendation made by the Planning staff is to have the 1,000 foot setbacks not be applied to residential uses as opposed to residential zones or districts. The protected areas would remain intact, the 1,000 foot setbacks would apply to churches, schools, parks and libraries, residential zones and districts. The only difference would be that the 1,000 foot setback would not apply to residential uses. This would, hopefully, create additional sites for adult use 2 CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES October 3, 1995 businesses to be located within the City of Kent(without opening up an inordinate amount of area) and still make it consistent with the zoning of those particular businesses in commercial areas. A check would be made for negative secondary effects on the residential uses which are legal nonconforming uses in the commercial areas. The staff recommendation for the Planning Committee is to consider that as a possibility for Adult Use Zoning. The staff would assist on a presentation on the amount of sites available based on that language being eliminated from the existing adult use ordinance. Planning Manager Fred Satterstrom went over the four(4) alternatives considered by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission could not reach a consensus on any of the proposed Adult Use ordinance. The Commission,after the February 1995 public hearing, decided that it should go back to the Planning Department until Planning staff could come up with proposals for 20 sites for adult use. The item went back to the Commission in April 1995 with the following alternatives: 1. No change to existing regulations,keeping the 1,000 setback from all five protected uses which included the 1,000 foot buffer from existing residences even though they might be in Commercial and Industrial zones. 2. A reduction of the 1,000 buffer around nonconforming residential uses to 250 feet, without the addition of the M1 C zone. This would create 12 eligible sites. 3. A 250 foot buffer for nonconforming residential uses and adding Adult Use to the M I C zoning district,a reduction of the 1,000 foot setback, and there is only one area in the City that is zoned M 1 C and it is in the middle of a industrial area. This created the most eligible sites out of all four alternatives, about 32 sites. 4. A zero foot buffer for nonconforming residential uses. It would be deleting the protective buffer for those residences in the Commercial or Industrial zones but maintaining the 1,000 buffer for all the other protected uses. That would be single family zoned areas,churches,schools, libraries,and public parks. This created about 19 sites eligible for adult use. Assistant City Attorney Laurie Evezich pointed out that the amount of appropriate sites depends on factors such as the size of the city and the number of available sites in relation to the number of square acres city-wide. Committeechair Orr raised the concern that the Meridian Annexation may change the number of sites required. Ms. Evezich stated that it is a determination by the court to as to whether or not there is an avenue of access to this type of information. If the Court finds that the 3 CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES October 3, 1995 numbers are small in comparison to a very large population, that seems to be more incriminating a number of sites where there is availability for this type of business to move around. Ms.Evezich went on to say the City should not be concerned with the right number of sites, but with how the city finds a way to preserve the ordinance which has been found to be constitutional without opening it up unreasonably to a large number of sites. One way to do that is to review the ordinance and the way it is written now, and determine those areas that are protected, and how they are negatively impacted by this type of business. Upon doing that it was found that there were no findings to support a conclusion of negative secondary effects in relationship to nonconforming residential uses. There were negative secondary effects associated with this type of business on residential zones and residential districts. City Attorney Roger Lubovich added that the courts look at a particular pattern that is given and make a decision. In a particular case, 12-18 sites were not sufficient. In another case 22 sites were sufficient, but we cannot make a judgment because each case has different factors (population, acreage). In our case, the city has a potential of seven sites. The Court stated the seven sites were not enough. Planning Manager Fred Satterstrom indicated that there are no eligible sites in the annexation area.. Assistant City Attorney Ms. Evezich brought to the Committee's attention the fact that the court requires,when trying to come up with the findings to support the basis for the decision to "zone" in a certain manner,is whether or not the areas that are being protected have been negatively impacted by these secondary effects. There was a study prepared by the Planning Department and findings in support of the negative secondary effects on the protected uses aforementioned. At the time the analysis was done,the record was deficient in indicating that there was a negative secondary impact on nonconforming residential uses within a commercial, manufacturing, and/or industrial area. Whatever direction is taken,the findings will need to support the conclusion. Committeechair Orr suggested that this item go before the Planning Committee the November 7, 1995, and action be taken. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 4:55 p.m. 4