Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Planning and Economic Development Committee - 02/18/1997 CITY OF ld CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA Jim White, Mayor FEBRUARY 18, 1997 THE CITY COUNCIL PLANMNG COMMITTEE IS HOLDING'A MEETING ON FEBRUARY 18, 1997 AT 4.00 P.M. IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS EAST ROOM OF KENT CITYBALL AT 220 FOURTH AVENUE SOUTH. Committee Members Leona Orr, Chair • Jon Johnson Tim Clark AGENDA 1. Mixed Use Zoning/Zoning Code Amendment ACTION ITEM-20 Minutes #ZCA-96-5 - (K. O'Neill) 2. School Impact Fees - (J. Harris) ACTION ITEM- 5 Minutes 3. Regulatory Review Request - (F. Satterstrom) ACTION ITEM-15 Minutes 4. 1997 Planning Services Division Work Program INFORMATION 15 Minutes - (F. Satterstrom) Added Items: ANY PERSON REQUIRING A DISABILITY ACCOMMODATION SHOULD CONTACT THE CITY IN ADVANCE FOR 10 MORE INFORMATION. FOR TDD RELAY SERVICE, CALL 1-800-635-9993 OR THE CITY OF KENT AT (206)813-2068. rnp:C:\USERS\D0C\PCO21897.AGN 2204th AVF SO I KENT WASHINGTON 98032-5895/TELEPHONE (206)859-33001 FAX#959-3334 A CITY OAF MOT ' Jim White, Mayor February 18, 1997 MEMO TO: Leona Orr, Chair and Planning Committee Members Tim Clark and Jon Johnson FROM: Jim Harris, Planning Director SUBJECT: School Impact Fees The Chamber Of Commerce report on School Impact Fees requested that the City do two things that affect the Planning Department. One was the timing of fee collection and the other was the number of parking stalls required at school sites. The Development Services Division collects impact fees and is aware of problems associated with collecting these fees. Bob Hutchinson, Development Services Manager and Building Official has written a memo to the Committee recommending that there be no change to when fees are collected. I support Bob's position. The parking issue will be reviewed by the Planning staff as we work on the Zoning Code Revision Project which will be underway soon. 220 4th AVE SO /KEN T WASHINGTON 98032-5895/TELEPHONE (206)859-3300 1 FAX#859-3334 c CITY OF KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION (206) 859-3360 MEMORANDUM February 5, 1997 TO: LEONA ORR, CHAIR, AND PLANNING COMMITTEE MEMBERS TIM CLARK AND JON JOHNSON FROM: BOB HUTCHINSON, BUILDING OFFICIAL SUBJECT: CHAMBER OF COMMERCE REPORT ON SCHOOL IMPACT FEES - TIMING OF FEE COLLECTION CC: JIM HARRIS, PLANNING DIRECTOR One recommendation contained in the Chamber of Commerce's October 1996 report "School Impact Fees: The Effect on Housing Costs" is to "Urge the city to develop a process to collect impact fees upon completion of construction before allowing occupancy..." . This communication is to provide you with an analysis of the impacts of . that recommendation, from the perspective of City staff who implement your decisions. In September, 1996, the idea of delaying collection of school impact fees from the time of permit fee collection to later was examined and documented in a memorandum to Brent McFall, Director of Operations. It contained an analysis to quantify the housing cost savings the proposal is intended to create, as well as identification of problems which would be created by the proposal. A copy of that memorandum is attached for your consideration. Since September, progress has been made toward procurement of automation systems which might manage fee information better in the future, after set up and implementation. However, this will not address the other more significant difficulties associated with the postponed collection of school impact fees expressed in the September memo. In fact, overcoming those difficulties (assuming that it can be done) may well require additional collection resources. While revenue to defray the costs of such collection could be obtained through assessment of an "application fee" pursuant to Kent City Code 12.13.090 F, this would increase, rather than reduce, housing costs passed on to residents. In summary, the suggestion proposed by the Chamber of Commerce to delay collection of school impact fees until occupancy appears likely to create a greater magnitude of problems than solutions. Therefore, unless and until these problems can be resolved, it is my recommendation that the proposal NOT be implemented. CITY OF KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION (206) 859-3360 MEMORANDUM September 19, 1996 TO: Brent McFall, Director of Operations FROM: Bob Hutchinson, Building Official SUBJECT: Postponement of School Impact Fee Collection CC: Jim Harris, Planning Director At your request, I have examined the suggestion of postponing collection of school impact fees from the currently mandated time of building permit issuance to the time of final inspection, perhaps later. I understand that the purpose of the suggestion is to enhance housing affordability by eliminating the carrying costs (interest) on the impact fee amounts during this interval. The following information, analysis, conclusions and recommendations are offered for your consideration. In order to identify and measure the problem this suggestion is intended to solve, research focussed on single-family homes, our most significant source of residential construction activity and related school impact fees in the recent past and predictable future. Between 7/1/95 and 6/30/96, a total of 162 new single-family homes received final inspections in Kent. The average elapsed time from date of permit issuance to date of final inspection was 183 days. However, 59 of these were from one project (Polygon's "Riverplace"), which had significantly longer times for completion (222 days average) due to that developer's plans for timing of the construction. If the significant anomaly of"Riverplace" is excluded, the records show 103 homes built with an average time from permit to final inspection of 160 days in this one-year period. A survey of 3 area banks (First Interstate, Timberland Savings, and Washington Mutual) showed average interest rates at nine percent (9%) as of today for construction loans. The carrying costs for the established fees at 9% for single-family homes carried for 160 days are as follows: In the Kent School District (No. 415), with the largest impact fee of$3,675.42, the carrying cost (interest) is $145.00. This is less than one-tenth of 1% (.0009666) of the cost of a $160,000 home. 10 In the Federal Way School District (No. 210), with an impact fee of $1,707.00, the carrying cost (interest) is $67.34. This is less than one-twentieth of 1% (.0004489) J Brent McFall memo of 9/19/96: Impact Fee Collection Postponement Page 2 of the cost of a $150,000 home. If we apply the 9% interest rate to multi-family development (with it's reduced impact fees per dwelling unit), but assume a longer completion time of 180 days, carrying costs per dwelling unit are calculated at $86.92 in the Kent School District and $63.16 in the Federal Way School District. These data provide a basis to assess and determine the magnitude of the problem this suggestion is attempting to solve. Currently, as mandated by ordinance, the City collects school impact fees at the time a building permit is issued. Calculation and data systems are in place for this timing, as other fees are also collected at that time (building, plumbing, mechanical, zoning and street use permit fees, state surcharges on building permit fees, past due plan review fees, etc.). The incorporation of impact fees into this fee collection system has been relatively easy, but the current mechanism does not maintain fee records after a permit is issued. Experience in attempting to accurately verify payments for radon monitors (now discontinued) with existing systems proved the effort to be time-consuming and difficult. Using the data base for certificates of occupancy, even if it could be adapted, is infeasible, as single-family buildings are exempt from C. of O. requirements. Deferring collection to a later date would necessitate the development of a new, additional system and the staff training and time to implement and use it, unless it could be incorporated into some other existing bill collection system (perhaps in Finance?). Even if this transfer could be done, it would necessitate the collecting department to access the building inspection record system to verify final inspections. This system does not currently generate reports of final inspection approvals by categories of permits subject to impact fees. Considerable effort and costs would be required for development, support, and use of an additional data system. An even more significant obstacle is providing a motive for builders to pay the fees when they have already received their building permit. The legal requirement to obtain a building permit before commencing to build is relatively widely understood, yet violations remain a common occurrence. The legitimacy of school impact fee requirements is, judging by our customers' comments, MUCH less universally accepted. Without the motive of a need for a building permit, collection efforts will be much more difficult and expensive, regardless of when it is done, or by whom. In summary, the "problem", if it is one, appears to be of scant significance in affecting the affordability of housing. Apparent solutions would probably create greater problems, likely to generate greater administrative costs than the carrying costs • identified. Unless collection responsibilities can be shifted outside the City, It is my recommendation the no changes in timing of collection of school impact fees be made. July 1,1996 iMr. James P. Harris,Planning Director k E C E I V E D City of Kent Pd 0 V 0 41996 220 -4th Avenue South OF KENT Kent, WA 98032 - 5895 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Dear Mr. Harris; Enclosed herewith please find our application for a change in the permitted uses in the CM- 1 zoning district. Pursuant to several discussions with Mr. Hazeltine regarding uses available for our building at 8801 - South 218th Street we find that an addition to the permitted uses in the CM-1 zoning district would be required in order to utilize the building for which it was originally designed and constructed. We trust that the information provided with the application will aid in the required review. If there is anything that we can do to provide additional information or assist in any way in the review process please let us know. We will be forwarding to you in a few days copies of letters from other owners of property in the CM- I zoning district concurring in our application. Ve ly y9urs, T. Sp , o 2220- 82 Avenue S.E. Mercer Island, WA 98040 (206) 232 - 0843 • t RECEIVED I CITY OF KENT No U 4 i996 REGULATORY REVIEW CITY OF KEN7 PLANNING DEPARTMENT • I The Kent city council has determined that ongoing review of the City's regulatory process is in the i public's best interest. The Council wants the public to be able to participate in this review. The outline on this page is Intended to give the public an opportunity to write down those things that they do not like.about an ordinance or regulation. The Council will then review the public's comments JyI, and, when appropriate, make changes to ordinances and regulations. II I 0 What ordinance or regulation do you want the Council to review? I Zor4fdG ORAPlmq/VCE. ' - SECTION /5.04. 120• Ca14meeC/M4 A1,9NUFNCrG+eIA)G-1 DISTQIC'r, CM-1 SUBSECTION A. PRINCIPAILY PERMIT D 45ES, 0 What is it that bothers you about this ordinance/regulation? 5EE ITEM L CW A-r7-ActleO SHEET, 0 What changes do you suggest to this ordinance/regulation? 51^E ITEM 2 O)V ArrACNED Sneer, 0 What significance to the Community will occur with your proposed change? SEE 1TF:M .3 09 A -nfC/fED Sr S(=7-. 0 What effect, if any, will your proposed change have on related ordinances, regulations, plans and policies? TKE PRopaSED C•HRr4c6 : IHOCALD VgYE A[0 jEFIW C- 0 Have you reviewed your concern with a City staff member? YE5, 0 Do you have any general comments you wish to make (can be about the or- dinance/regulation you want changed or about anything else to do.with ordinances/regulations or the permit process)? NAME G/L9 7: SP,4RR(0►^i ADDRESS -OZ96 SeIflIVE. 5Iz. NeXCE415adO, WX 98042 RHONE NO. �Zo<,) 232 -6843 i10/85 RECEIVED NOY 0 CITY 01"KIEN'1 CITY OF KENT REGULATORY REVIEW (Continued) PLANNING DEPARTMENT H'LM l• Subsection A of the current ordinance has no provisions for warehousing and distribution facilities such as those described in paragraph 9 (page 1204) of the M- 3 zoning district. The lack of such a provision now has a substantial negative impact on the property at 8801 South 218th Street. The existing facility at this location was originally designed and constructed specifically for warehousing and distribution purposes. The owner at that time then operated a warehousing and distribution business there for several years until they were subsequently merged into a larger company and moved to a another location. Strict application of the existing CM- 1 zoning now does not permit use of the existing premises for it's intended purpose. This restiction combined with the very high assessment being levied against the property under LID #345 poses a substantial hardship. ITEM 2�. We hereby request that the following described proposed paragraph be incorporated as an additional subparagraph under "Subsection A-Principally permitted uses." of the CM- 1 zoning district : 12. Warehousing and distribution facilities and the storage of goods and products, except for those goods and products specifically described as permitted to be stored as conditional uses." ITEM . The proposed change will have little or no significant impact on the community. Much heavier property use already exists immediately north across South 218th Street at the Trammell Crow warehouse facility. The requested use would be compatible with the existing uses in the district. The substantial street improvement project now under construction on South 218th Street (LID #345)will surely mitigate whatever traffic impact that might occur as a result of the requested change. The existing CM- 1 zoning district has a provision allowing "Heavy commercial uses,- See subparagraph 1 under Subsection A. Uses described therein would certainly generate traffic density and use conditions comparable to the requested change. Thus, there would be no significant impact on the community as a result of the requested change. 6/18/96 • July 13, 1966 • Mr. James P. Harris, Planning Director RECEIVED City of Kent 220 - 4th avenue South N Q V Q � 1996 Kent, WA 98032 - 5895 CITY OF KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT Ref: Regulatory Review, CM- 1 Zoning District Dear Mr. Hams; Enclosed herewith please find copies of two letters received from owners of other land near our property (8721 and 8801 South 218th Street) in the CM- 1 Zoning District. During our discussions with them concerning the request for a "Regulatory Review" and an addition to the CM- 1 Zoning District which we have previously submitted to you, they both indicated that they approve the terms of our requested addition to the ordinance. Very truly yo s, I� zZ G. T. Spa o 2220 - 82nd Avenue, S.E. Mercer Island, WA 98040 • (206) 232 - 0843 • y . t RECEIVED NO V 0 4 1996 CITY OF KENT June 20, 1996 PLANNING-DEPARTMENT Glen Sparrow 2220 82nd Ave SE Mercer Island, WA 98040 Dear Glen, I have read your proposal to revise the CM-1 zoning and I agree with your request. The proposed chance will have little or no significant impact on my property on 88th Place South my property is at 21823-29 88th Place South, Kent, Washington. Sincerely, arl R. Anderson ' i r t _ i { iDBERG CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. GENERAL CONTRACTORS 3420 13TH Avg. S.W. SEATTLE. WASHINGTON GS134 TELEPHONE 623-1YOY July 8,1996 Mr . Glen T. Sparrow 2220 82 nd Avenue S.E. Mercer Island, Wa. Dear Glen, I have received your letter , dated June 201996, relative to your plan to submit a request to the ity of Kent Planning Dept. for a "Regulatory Review" of the permitted uses under the current CM-1 zonitaj� . You are asking the department to consider a change in the existing ordinance, that will permit warehousing a-nd distributionfacilities as a new principally permitted use within the CM-1 zoning. . I understand that if the City Planning Dept. approves of such a change , this changewilll become permanant and will apply properties cated in this CM-1 Zoning District. I own all of Tract #8 and the north half of Tract #7 in this CM-1 Zoning District. I have no objections to such a change being made in the per- - mitted uses under the CM-1 zoning. Very truly yours , Lundberg Construction Co . Don Lundberg DRAFT KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT For Discussion Purposes drily 1997 WORK PROGRAM PLANNING SERVICES DIVISION 1997 J F M A M J J A S O N D CURRENT PLANNING Public Information/Zoning Counter Code Enforcement — — — — — —— -- —— Development Plan Review Minor Development Major Development Design Review Subdivision Administration Land Use Permits Environmental Review Procedural Updates Permit Automation Project J F M A M J J A S O N D LONG RANGE PLANNING Comprehensive Plan Amendments 1996 Amendments 1997 Amendments Interlocal Agreement/Agriculture P&E Target Monitoring Benchmarks Project Comprehensive Plan Implementation Mixed Use Zoning Zoning Code Revision Project Shoreline Master Program Update Annexation Zoning Meridian Valley Del Mar Other Downtown Strategic Plan 'RTA Subelement — ------ Plan Implementation KDP Support GIS Expansion Code Amendments/Regulatory Review Special Studies Telecommunications Project School Impact Fees P81 OLLOWING INDIVIDUALSCEIVED A COPY OF THE Florence Lien '" Jason Cooper97 PLANNING COMMITTEE 10611 SE Kent Kangley U 11002 SE 176th Street, Unit G-102 -�WTES*-•-& Kent, WA 98031 Renton, WA 98055 RODGERS & DEUTSCH John Turner Robert Goodwin Fred High, Director of Finance Three Lake Bellevue Drive 14715 SE 234th Place Kent School District Suite 100 Kent, WA 98042 12033 SE 256th Street Bellevue, WA 98005 Kent, WA 98031 Daniel Moberly Kent School District 12033 SE 256th Street Kent, WA 98031 CITY OF 1 V\2 Jim White, Mayor February 18, 1997 MEMO TO: Leona Orr, Chair and Planning Committee Members Tim Clark and Jon Johnson ' FROM: Jim Harris, Planning Director SUBJECT: School Impact Fees The Chamber Of Commerce report on School Impact Fees requested that the City do two things that affect the Planning Department. One was the timing of fee collection and the other was the number of parking stalls required at school sites. The Development Services Division collects impact fees and is aware of problems associated with collecting these fees. Bob Hutchinson, Development Services Manager and Building Official has written a memo to the Committee recommending that there be no change to when fees are collected. I support Bob's position. The parking issue will be reviewed by the Planning staff as we work on the Zoning Code Revision Project which will be underway soon. i 2204th AVE.SO.. /KENT WASHINGTON 98032-5895/TELEPHONE (206)859-33001 FAX#859-3334 CITY OF KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT . DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION (206) 859-3360 MEMORANDUM February 5, 1997 TO: LEONA ORR, CHAIR, AND PLANNING COMMITTEE MEMBERS TIM CLARK AND JON JOHNSON FROM: BOB HUTCHINSON, BUILDING OFFICIAL SUBJECT: CHAMBER OF COMMERCE REPORT ON SCHOOL IMPACT FEES - TIMING OF FEE COLLECTION CC: JIM HARRIS, PLANNING DIRECTOR One recommendation contained in the Chamber of Commerce's October 1996 report "School Impact Fees: The Effect on Housing Costs" is to "Urge the city to develop a process to collect impact fees upon completion of construction before allowing occupancy..." . This communication is to provide you with an analysis of the impacts of that recommendation, from the perspective of City staff who implement your decisions. In September, 1996, the idea of delaying collection of school impact fees from the time of permit fee collection to later was examined and documented in a memorandum to Brent McFall, Director of Operations. It contained an analysis to quantify the housing cost savings the proposal is intended to create, as well as identification of problems which would be created by the proposal. A copy of that memorandum is attached for your consideration. Since September, progress has been made toward procurement of automation systems which might manage fee information better in the future, after set up and implementation. However, this will not address the other more significant difficulties associated with the postponed collection of school impact fees expressed in the September memo. In fact, overcoming those difficulties (assuming that it can be done) may well require additional collection resources. While revenue to defray the costs of such collection could be obtained through assessment of an "application fee" pursuant to Kent City Code 12.13.090 F, this would increase, rather than reduce, housing costs passed on to residents. In summary, the suggestion proposed by the Chamber of Commerce to delay collection of school impact fees until occupancy appears likely to create a greater magnitude of problems than solutions. Therefore, unless and until these problems can be resolved, it • is my recommendation that the proposal NOT be implemented. CITY OF KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION (206) 859-3360 MEMORANDUM September 19, 1996 TO: Brent McFall, Director of Operations FROM: Bob Hutchinson, Building Official SUBJECT: Postponement of School Impact Fee Collection CC: Jim Harris, Planning Director At your request, I have examined the suggestion of postponing collection of school impact fees from the currently mandated time of building permit issuance to the time of final inspection, perhaps later. I understand that the purpose of the suggestion is to enhance housing affordability by eliminating the carrying costs (interest) on the impact fee amounts during this interval. The following information, analysis, conclusions and recommendations are offered for your consideration. . In order to identify and measure the problem this suggestion is intended to solve, research focussed on single-family homes, our most significant source of residential construction activity and related school impact fees in the recent past and predictable future. Between 7/1/95 and 6/30/96, a total of 162 new single-family homes received final inspections in Kent. The average elapsed time from date of permit issuance to date of final inspection was 183 days. However, 59 of these were from one project (Polygon's "Riverplace"), which had significantly longer times for completion (222 days average) due to that developer's plans for timing of the construction. If the significant anomaly of "Riverplace" is excluded, the records show 103 homes built with an average time from permit to final inspection of 160 days in this one-year period. A survey of 3 area banks (First Interstate, Timberland Savings, and Washington Mutual) showed average interest rates at nine percent (9%) as of today for construction loans. The carrying costs for the established fees at 9% for single-family homes carried for 160 days are as follows: In the Kent School District(No. 415), with the largest impact fee of$3,675.42, the carrying cost (interest) is $145.00. This is less than one-tenth of 1% (.0009666) of the cost of a $160,000 home. In the Federal Way School District (No. 210), with an impact fee of$1,707.00, the • carrying cost (interest) is $67.34. This is less than one-twentieth of 1% (.0004489) Brent McFall memo of 9/19/96: Impact Fee Collection Postponement Page 2 of the cost of a $150,000 home. If we apply the 9% interest rate to multi-family development (with it's reduced impact fees per dwelling unit), but assume a longer completion time of 180 days, carrying costs per dwelling unit are calculated at $85.92 in the Kent School District and $63.16 in the Federal Way School District. These data provide a basis to assess and determine the magnitude of the problem this suggestion is attempting to solve. Currently, as mandated by ordinance, the City collects school impact fees at the time a building permit is issued. Calculation and data systems are in place for this timing, as other fees are also collected at that time (building, plumbing, mechanical, zoning and street use permit fees, state surcharges on building permit fees, past due plan review fees, etc.). The incorporation of impact fees into this fee collection system has been relatively easy, but the current mechanism does not maintain fee records after a permit is issued. Experience in attempting to accurately verify payments for radon monitors (now discontinued) with existing systems proved the effort to be time-consuming and difficult. Using the data base for certificates of occupancy, even if it could be adapted, is infeasible, as single-family buildings are exempt from C. of O. requirements. Deferring collection to a later date would necessitate the development of a new, additional system and the staff training and time to implement and use it, unless it could be incorporated into some other existing bill collection system (perhaps in Finance?). Even if this transfer could be done, it would necessitate the collecting department to access the building inspection record system to verify final inspections. This system does not currently generate reports of final inspection approvals by categories of permits subject to impact fees. Considerable effort and costs would be required for development, support, and use of an additional data system. An even more significant obstacle is providing a motive for builders to pay the fees when they have already received their building permit. The legal requirement to obtain a building permit before commencing to build is relatively widely understood, yet violations remain a common occurrence. The legitimacy of school impact fee requirements is, judging by our customers' comments, MUCH less universally accepted. Without the motive of a need for a building permit, collection efforts will be much more difficult and expensive, regardless of when it is done, or by whom. In summary, the "problem", if it is one, appears to be of scant significance in affecting the affordability of housing. Apparent solutions would probably create greater problems, likely to generate greater administrative costs than the carrying costs identified. Unless collection responsibilities can be shifted outside the City, It is my . recommendation the no changes in timing of collection of school impact fees be made. CITY OF )ILE!2 � Jim White, Mayor Planning Department (206)859-3390/FAX(206)850-2544 James P.Harris,Planning Director CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES February 18, 1997 Planning Committee Members Present: City Attorney's Office Leona Orr, Chair Roger Lubovich Tim Clark Jon Johnson Other Mark Hinshaw Planning Staff Daniel Moberly Jim Harris, Planning Director John Turner Kevin O'Neill, Senior Planner Jason Cooper Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager Florence Lien Margaret Porter, Administrative Assistant III Robert Goodwin Teresa Beener, Administrative Secretary Fred High • # ZCA-96-5 MIXED USE ZONING - (K. O'Neill) Senior Planner Kevin O'Neill explained that this item was continued from the February 4, 1997 special meeting. Mr. O'Neill and Consultant Mark Hinshaw presented the Land Use and Planning Board recommendation for Mixed Use Zoning at that time. Committee member Tim Clark questioned whether there was any known resistance to adopting mixed use zoning. Mr. ONeill explained that the property owners in the areas designated as mixed use in the Comprehensive Plan were notified of the Land Use and Planning Board public hearing. He explained that there was no negative testimony given at the Land Use and Planning Board public hearings and no opposition has been expressed to his knowledge. Committee member Clark questioned whether this item had been screened through Public Safety. Planning Director Jim Harris revealed that items from the Land Use and Planning Board are not normally brought to Public Safety. Clark questioned whether mixed use zoning would bring additional stress to law enforcement. Mr. Harris explained that he didn't see how it could add any additional stress to law enforcement as it is just another use. The notion of locating residential and commercial uses clustered is not a new idea. Mr. O'Neill • explained that the areas in the overlay were selected because they are in close proximity of other residential uses. He stated that additional problems are not anticipated. 1' 220 4th AVE.SO., /KENT,WASHINGTON 98032-5895/TELEPHONE (206)859-33001 FAX#859-3334 City Council Planning Committee Minutes February 18, 1997 Mr. O'Neill explained that the zoning code does not clarify what mixed use means in terms of the amount of space in relation to one use versus the other. This concept is particularly applicable for East hill because the only way to develop multifamily is within a mixed use development. Mr. O'Neill explained that one way to define a mixed use development is to designate a certain percentage to each type of development. He suggested the use of 25% commercial and 75% residential. He explained that other jurisdictions have defined mixed use buildings as having twenty percent (20%) of the total floor area ratio in the commercial development. This would establish a clear definition of mixed use development. Mr. O'Neill explained that the current zoning code allows mixed use development in the Community Commercial and Office zoning districts by a conditional use permit. He explained that staff is recommending eliminating the allowance of mixed use developments through the conditional use process. Mr. ONeill discussed the need to work with the City Attorney's office to establish a procedure for future amendments of the overlay area. He explained that it may be necessary to change the overlay area over time. The overlay area could be amended in a manner similar to the rezone process and would require holding a public hearing. • Chair Leona Orr questioned the reasoning behind establishing the twenty-five percent (25%). She asked if there was any historical information to justify that twenty-five percent (25%) is a good mix. She stated that 25% seemed low. Consultant Mark Hinshaw illustrated some examples of the 25% for mixed uses. Mr. Hinshaw explained that a small amount of commercial development related to the neighborhood is workable. He.explained that the number chosen has to be workable and desirable. Committee member Tim Clark questioned the idea of eliminating some of the parking requirements. Mr. O'Neill explained that the enclosed interior parking would not be eliminated however, it would be excluded in the calculation for floor area ratio to determine the 25% mix. Committee member Clark questioned if there is something that can be done to ensure compatible integration with the neighborhood. Mr. O'Neill explained that the recommendation of the Land Use and Planning Board includes an administrative design review process. O'Neill explained that the design review process is the closest thing that staff has in the current regulatory framework to ensure that new development projects are done in a thoughtful way and to try to integrate the development with the surrounding area. O'Neill stated that one of the reasons the Planning Board recommended the overlay areas rather than a blanket change is that the areas designated are already established as commercial entities. He • 2 P City Council Planning Committee Minutes • February 18, 1997 explained that part of the criteria that the Board developed for the overlay areas were close proximity to existing public facilities and residential areas. Planning Director Jim Harris explained that Clark's concerns go a step further than what is being established. Harris stated that it is an important step and staff hasn't looked at these angles. Chair Leona Orr explained that the Board received a letter from Mr. and Mrs. Fred Lien regarding a piece of property on East hill. The property owners would like to be considered as part of the mixed use overlay area. Mr. O'Neill indicated where the property was located and explained that this parcel is adjacent to the existing boundaries of one of the overlay areas. He stated that staff has no objection to including this parcel in the overlay area. Committee member Jon Johnson explained that he was concerned with the percentage and questioned whether multifamily was limited enough. Johnson was concerned with a developers ability to build only a small commercial element (25%) and then being able to establish a large multifamily development(75%). Mr. O'Neill explained that the restriction is based on the overall floor area. He explained that if someone built a 3,000 square foot commercial development they could only build 9,000 square foot of residential (which would be less than ten units). O'Neill explained that it is important that the City establish a threshold that has a reasonable amount of commercial but one that is not too restrictive. Clark clarified that the enclosed interior parking would be excluded from the twenty-five percent calculation. Mr. O'Neill explained that the City of Kent is unusual in that parking is part of the building calculation. He stated that the floor area calculation for 25/75 would not include the parking areas just the usable areas of the building. Chair Leona Orr asked for staff to put all the information together for the Committee and bring this item back to the March 18, 1997 meeting for action. Planning Director Jim Harris confirmed that staff could bring this item back for action. SCHOOL IMPACT FEES - (J. Harris) Chair Leona Orr explained that Building Official Bob Hutchinson was unable to attend today's meeting and therefore the Committee would not be discussing the collection of school impact fees. Chair Orr asked the Committee if they would feel comfortable making a recommendation to renew the School Impact Fee Ordinance for additional year. She explained that this ordinance will expire shortly. She stated that the Chamber of Commerce Task Force recommendations are being considered through separate Committees but meanwhile there is a need to make a recommendation to the full Council as to whether to extend the fees for another year. • r City Council Planning Committee Minutes • February 18, 1997 Committee member Tim Clark MOVED and Jon Johnson SECONDED a motion to continue the school impact fees for another year. Clark stated that it is best to continue the school impact fees at this time. He explained that the bulk of the Task Force's recommendations were aimed at the State Legislature and their actions; therefore,the City has no control over those actions. He recommends to go forward at this time with the renewal of the school impact fees. City Attorney Roger Lubovich explained that the school impact fees will expire at the end of March and therefore the Council would need to have something in place before then. He questioned when the school districts would be ready to present the Capital Facilities Plan for the adoption of the new fee schedule. Mr. Lubovich explained that there is a tight time frame to work with because of the thirty day effective date. Planning Director Jim Harris questioned why we would have to review the Capital Facilities Elements at this time. Mr. Lubovich explained that there are two ordinances in place; one establishing the school impact fees and the other establishing the fee schedule. He explained that the two could be adopted separately. • Committee member Tim Clark questioned whether the extension of the school impact fees could be adopted tonight. City Attorney stated that he could have an ordinance ready for adoption at tonight's City Council meeting. Clark explained that he did not want to create a lapse in the collection of school impact fees. Mr. Harris explained that if the ordinance is extended the fees would remain as they are today. Mr. Lubovich concurred and stated that he isn't sure if the fee schedule has an expiration. He explained that the City is supposed to review the Capital Facilities Plan annually and the fees are adopted by a separate ordinance. Chair Leona Orr asked Kent School District representative Fred High to clarify the process. Fred High explained that the County process is on a different time schedule. He stated that the fees being proposed with the County's process are actually going down. Orr questioned if the City is able to extend the ability to collect the fees and then adopt the new fee schedule in a timely fashion. Mr. High stated that this would be appropriate. Mr. Lubovich explained that he would prefer that the extension be done tonight. Committee member Tim Clark MOVED to amend the motion to add that this should be brought to tonight's City Council Meeting. Johnson SECONDED the motion. The motion carried as amended. 4