Laserfiche WebLink
6 | P a g e <br /> <br />HB 2001 section 2 will take away from the time and staff capacity on these ongoing projects. The <br />efforts mentioned above are often just underway in the last couple of years, and this new <br />mandate will slow them down or put them on pause. This can prevent more robust work of <br />removing locally identified barriers from while they focus staff capacity on changing zoning codes <br />and land use regulations to ensure it is clear what may be built based on lot dimensions. <br /> <br />No guarantee units will be built or affordable <br />Finally, if the purpose is to increase housing choice for moderate income families, there is no <br />guarantee that any new units will be produced or that they will be sold or rented at prices <br />affordable to moderate incomes. Nothing provides cities with the ability to control for these <br />needs, only that they allow duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes and cottage clusters be built. Without <br />any assurance that the market is going to produce these units at moderate prices, many officials <br />question if the work is worth the result. <br /> <br />Cities that have recently adopted similar provisions within their code are still too early in the <br />process to see if there is a change in developer behavior. One of the reasons to support local <br />control of land use is that allows cities to experiment with these concepts and see what changes <br />actually move the needle on housing type diversity. For example, it appears that zoning is not the <br />only impediment to triplex and quadplex development. There are many proposed reasons that <br />these units are not being developed where they are currently allows including: cost to build based <br />on building code requirements; limited number of developers familiar with construction – <br />particularly outside of the Metro area; and risk adverse financial markets limiting funding for <br />construction of these units. More needs to be done to address the variety of issues around the <br />difficulty to get these particular unit types developed. <br /> <br />Section 3: Model Code Development <br />While model codes have been used to provide guidance for local jurisdictions as they implement <br />land use planning codes. In fact, guidance for cities that try to help conversations and analysis <br />related to land use planning are often welcomed by cities as a strong starting point for local <br />implementation. Having this type of product provided by the state is often exactly what cities are <br />asking for. <br /> <br />However, they are often not suited to direct implementation. A model code developed to apply to <br />all cities cannot properly account for natural hazards, serviceability, and other vital pieces of the <br />land use system as they apply on the ground. The purpose of this section is clearly to ensure <br />that cities enact local codes or else find themselves implementing another code, but it fails to <br />account for the ability of the appeals process from being used to delay implementation. It leaves <br />March 6, 2019, Work Session – Item 1