Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutReg 2006-03-20 Item 7 - Public Hearing - Zoning Code Amendments Go UNCIL AGENDA SYNOPSIS ‘14� '9 r y 5 Lnttals ITEi1� INo. o; -.t P G7 I lleeten, Date 1 Prepared by Mayor's recreie' ounaJ {ezaew a 11/14/05 PB 02/27/06 SL -7 I 03/20/06 1 ITEM INFORMATION CAS NUMBER. ( 05-143 ) 06-021 I ORIGINAL AGENDA DAIh. NOVEMBER 14, 2005 AGENDAITEMTITLE Zoning Code Amendments including Administrative Appeals Process CAI LGORY Discussion Motion Resolution Ordinance [113u 1 Award Public Hearing Other AN Date 11/14/05 Altg Date Mtg Date Mtg Date 2/27/06 t Itg Date Mtg Date 3/20/06 AItg Date SPONSOR Council Mayor Atli?' Svcs DCD Finance Fire Legal Pe R Police Plh SPONSOR'S A group of four proposed amendments to the Zoning Code changing rezone procedures, SUMMARY code interpretation procedures, the design review approval standard and hearing bodies for certain adminstrative appeals. REVIEWED BY COW Mtg. CA &P Cmte F &S Cmte Transportation Cmte Utihues Cmte Arts Comm. Parks Comm. Planning Comm. DATE: 10/11/05, 2/14/06 (CAP) 11/14/05, 2/27/06 (COW) 1/26/06 (PC) RECOMMENDATIONS: SPONSOR /ADMIN COMaII I IEE Send to COW for discussion COST IMPACT FUND SOURCE EXPENDITURE REQUIRED AMOUNT BUDGETED APPROPRIATION REQUIRED -0- -0- -0- Fund Source: Comments MTG. DATE 1 RECORD OF COUNCIL ACTION 11/14/05 I Send to the Planning Commission for a hearing and recommendation 2/27/06 Hold a public hearing and place the ordinances on the agenda for adoption 3/20/06 I I MTG. DATE ATTACHMENTS 3/20/06 Staff Memo dated 3/14/06 Existing Chapter 18.84 Draft Ordinances 2/27/06 Memorandum to CA &P Cmte. dated 2/8/06 Draft Ordinances CAP Minutes 2/14/06 PC Minutes 1/26/06 IVIEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Mullet CIty Council Members ~ Steve Lancaster, DCD DIrecto~ Zoning Code Amendments FROM: RE: DATE: March 14,2006 BACKGROUND Staff has grouped four proposed amendments to the Zoning Code together for consideration. The City Attorney has recommended changes in the following areas: A. Rezone procedures; B. Code interpretatIOn procedures and fee; C. DesIgn review approval standard; and D. CIty CouncIl involvement III quasi-judicIal matters. Staff presented these issues wIth various options to the CommunIty AffaIrs and Parks (CAP) Committee on October 11,2005. The Committee dIscussed each Item and chose to forward the first three to the Planning CommIssIon for a heanng and recommendatIOn. The fourth item, Council involvement in quasi-judicial matters was forwarded to the COW for addItIOnal dIscussIOn on November 14,2005. The COW modified several of the proposed appeal body changes and sent the revised ordinance on to the PlannIng Commission. The PlannIng CommissIOn held a heanng on the four items on January 26th. The PC recommendatIOn was presented to the CAP CommIttee on February 14,2006 and COW on February 27,2006. DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED CHANGES Each proposed change IS dIscussed below A. Rezones The proposed changes would replace the existing Chapter 18 84 and add addItIOnal cntena and procedural clarity for rezone applicatIons, see attached for eXIstmg code language. The attached ordmance reflects the Plannmg CommIssIon and CouncIl recommendatIOns. NG Q \CODEAivlND\2006Amend3-20.DOC Page I 03,15;2006 8 42:00 Aivl B. Code Interpretations The changes would clanfy that interpretatIOns may be requested (for a fee) by any person and that the DIrector's decISIon would be gIven substantIal weIght in an appeal The attached ordInance reflects the Planning CommIssIOn and CouncIl recommendatIOns. See 2/27/06 COW packet for strikeout/underlIne verSIOn. C. Design Review Approval Standard This would change the approval standard at TMC 18.60.030 (B) from "clear demonstratIOn of compliance" to "preponderance of e,vidence." This was an issue wIth a recent appeal of a desIgn review declSlon and should help create more defensible decisIOns. The attached ordInance reflects the Planning CommIssion and CouncIl recommendations. See 2/27/06 COW packet for strikeout/underline version. D. City Council Review of Quasi-Judicial lVIatters The City CouncIl has recently heard several quasI-judicial matters and CouncIl members requested that the CIty Attorney review their Involvement In land use decIsIOns. Many cItIes have moved to a system where many land use decIsIOns and most land use appeals are heard by a hearing examiner rather than the City CouncIl. The COW recommendation was to change the folloWIng Items from City CouncIl to HearIng Examiner review: Type 2 Appeal of a parking standard detennination for a use not specIfied by code Appeal of a special pennission parkIng determInatIOn/modIficatIOn Type 4 Appeal of a decision about modIfications to certaIn parkIng standards Appeal of a umque sign declSlon Appeal of a vanance from parking standards greater than 10% Type 5 Shoreline environment redesignatIOn The COW recommended that appeals of decIsions about exceptions from the newly enacted single-famIly design standards should be heard by the CIty CouncIl rather than the Planning Commission. They also proposed that subdIvIsIOn prelImInary plat approvals be decided by the Planning Commission as a Type 4 pennlt rather than by the CouncIl as a Type 5 permIt. The PlannIng CommIssion concurred with the COW recommendatIOn, wIth the folloWIng modificatIOns. 1. That "Umque SIgn" decIsIOns (TMC 19.28.010) be made by the CIty CouncIl rather than the Heanng ExamIner. NG Q'\CODEAivIND\2006Amend3-20 DOC Page 2 G3/15i2006 8 -+2:00 A;",! 2 That "Shorelme EnvIronment RedesIgnatIOns" (Shorelme Master Program) be decIded by the City Council rather than the Hearing Exammer. As dIscussed at the February 27,2006 COW meeting the Plannmg CommIssIOn dId not consIder the issue of delegating prelimmary plat approvals to the Planmng Commission, due to a staff mIsunderstandmg concernmg statutory reqUIrements for such decIsIOns. The COW asked staff to mfonnally poll Plannmg CommIssion members on this matter, WhICh has been done. All members contacted support delegatIon of prehminary plat declSlons to the Planning CommissIOn. The following charts and the attach~d ordinance reflect the Planning CommissIOn's recommendations. . NG Q'\CODEAivIND\2006Amend3-20 DOC Page 3 03'15i2006 8.41:00 Mvl TYPE 2 DECISIONS INITIAL APPEAL BODY TYPE OF PERlVIIT DECISION MAKER (open record appeal) Administrative Design Review Commumty Board of (TMC 18.60.030) Development Director Architectural Review Admmistrative Planned Residential Short Plat Committee Hearing ExamIner Development (TMC 17.08.010 1846.110) \ Binding Site Improvement Plan Short Plat Committee Heanng ExamIner (TMC Chap.17.l6) Code Interpretation Community Heanng ExamIner (TMC 18.90.010) Development Director Decision regardIng Sensitive Areas Community Planmng (except Reasonable Use ExceptIOn) Development Director CommiSSion (TMC 18.45) Exception from Single-Family Community City CouncIl Design Standard (TMC 18.50.050) Development Director Planning CommIssIOn ParkIng standard for use not specified Commumty City Council (TMC 18.56.100) Development Director HearIng- ExamIner Placement of Cargo Container Commumty Heanng Examiner (TMC 18.50.060) Develpment Director Shoreline SubstantIal Development Community State Shorelines Pennit Development Director Heanngs Board (TMC Chapter 18.44) Short Plat Short Plat Committee HearIng ExamIner (TMC 17.12) Sign Area Increase Community PlannIng (TMC 19.32.140) Development Director Commission Sign Pennlt Denial Community Planning (TMC Chapter 19.12) Development Director Commission Special Pennission Parking, and Commumty City Council ModificatIOns to CertaIn Parking Development Director Heanng ExamIner Standards (TMC 1856.065 & .070) Special PermissIOn Sign, except Community PlannIng "unique sIgn" (vanous sectIOns of Development DIrector CommIssIOn TMC Title 19) NG Q'\CODEAMND\2006Amend3-20.DOC Page 4 03/15i20068 -+2:00 Ai\'1 TYPE 4 DECISIONS INITIAL TYPE OF PERMIT DECISION APPEAL BODY MAKER (closed record appeal) Conditional Use Permit Planning CIty CouncIl (TMC Chapter 18.64) CommissIOn ModIficatIOns to Certain Parking Planmng CIty Council Standards (TMC Chapter 18.56) Commission Heanng Exammer PublIc Hearing DesIgn Review (TMC Board of City Council Chapter 18.60, 18.56.010 and Shoreline Archi tectural , c ) Review Reasonable Use Exceptions under Planning City Council SensItive Areas Ordinance Commission (TMC 18.45.180) Shorelme ConditIOnal Use Permit Plannmg State Shorelmes (TMC 18.44.050) CommIssion Heanngs Board Subdivision - PrelIminary Plat (TMC Planning City CouncIl 17.14.020) Commission Unique SIgnS Plannmg CIty Council (TMC 19.28.010) Commission TT T"' Vanance from Parking Standards Over Planning City Council 10% (TMC 18.56.140) CommIssion HearinQ: Exammer TYPE 5 DECISIONS TYPE OF PERlVIIT DECISION MAKER Planned Residential Development (PRD), including Major CIty CouncIl Modifications (TMC Chapter 18.46) Rezone (TMC Chapter 18.84) CIty Council SensItIve Area Master Plan Overlay (TMC 18.45 160) City Council Shorelme Environment RedesIgnatIOn CIty CouncIl HCJ.ring (Shoreline Master Program) E)(J.mincr SubdIvIsion - Final Plat (TMC 17 14.030) CIty CouncIl SubdIvlSlon Preliminary Plat (TMC 17.11.020) r: r :1 '-~, y UnclassIfied Use (TMC Chapter 18.66) City Council REQUESTED ACTION Hold a publIc hearing and adopt the corrected ordmances. NG Q-\CODEAMND\2006Amend3-20 DOC Page 5 03! 15/2006 8 -n:oo A\! 18.80.050 Council Consideration A The City Council shall consider each reyuest for an amendment to either the comprehensive plan or development regulations at a public meeting at which the applicant will be allowed to make a presentation Any person submitting a written comment on the proposed change shall also be allowed an opportunity to make a responsive oral presentation Such oppor- tunities for oral presentation shall be subject to reason- able time limitations established by the Council B The Council will consider the following in deciding what action to take regarding any proposed amendment 1 Is the issue already adequat.ely addressed in the Comprehensive Plan? \ 2. If the issue is not addressed in the Comprehensive Plan, is there a public need for the proposed change? 3. Is the proposed change the best means for meeting the identified public need? 4. Will the proposed change result in a net benefit to the community? C Following Council consideration as provided by TMC 18 80.050A and 1880 050B. the City Council shall take action as follows: 1 refer the proposed amendment to the Planning Commission for further review and a recommendation to the City Council. 2. defer further Council consideration for one or more years to allow the City further time to evalu- ate the application of the existing plan or regulations, or 3. reject the proposed amendment. fOrd. 185651, 1998; OId. 1770555, 1996. OId. 1758 51 (part). 1995) 18.80.060 Council Decision Following receipt of the Planning Commission's recommendation on a proposed amendment referred to the Commission, the City Council shall hold a public hearing on the proposal. for which public notice has been provided as required under the Public Notice of Hearing chapter of this title Following the public hearing, the City Council may' 1 adopt the amendment as proposed, 2. modify and adopt the proposed amendment. or 3. reject the proposed amendment. (Ord. 1856 52, 1998. Ord. 1758 51 (part). 1995) TITLE 18 - ZONING Chapter 18.84 REQUESTS FOR CHANGES IN ZONING Sections: 18.84.010 Submission to City Council 1884.030 Criteria for Granti~g Zoning tv!ap Reclassifications 18.84.010 Submission to City Council Any request for a change in zoning of any district or area, or of any boundary lines thereof as shown on the zoning maps shall be submitted to the Department. Said requests shall be made on such formal application forms as specified by the Department and filed with the Department, which shall transmit a copy to the City Clerk All applications shall be accompanied by a filing fee as required in the Application Fees chapter of this title All applications for a change of zoning or of any boundary lines shall be a Type 5 decision and shall be processed pursuant to TMC 18 108.050 fOrd. 1770556. 1996. Ord. 175851(part}. 1995) 18.84.030 Criteria for Granting Zoning Map Reclassifications The City Council shall be guided by the following criteria in granting reclassification requests to the zoning map of this title (Figure 18-] 0) 1 The use or change in zoning requested shall be in conformity with the adopted Comprehen- sive Land Use Policy Plan. the provisions of this title. and the public interest, 2. The use or change in zoning requested in the zoning map or this title for the establishment of commercial. industrial. or residential use shall be supported by an architectural site plan showing the proposed development and its relationship to surrounding areas as set forth in the application form, fOrd. 1770 558. 1996, Ord. 1758 51 (part). 1995) Printed February 2005 Page 18-133 ------ City of Tukwila Washington Ordinance No. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, AMENDING TMC CHAPTER 18.84, ESTABLISHING NEW REGULATIONS REGARDING REQUESTS FOR CHANGES IN ZONING; REPEALING ORDINANCE NOS. 1758 ~1 (PART) AND 1770 ~56 AND ~58; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. \ WHEREAS, the City of Tukwila desires to establish more specific criteria for evaluation and granting of rezone applications, consistent with State law; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Regulations Amended. TMC 18.84, Requests for Changes in Zoning, is hereby amended to read as follows: 18.84.010 Application Submittal Application for rezone of property shall be submitted to the Department of Community Development. The application shall be a Type 5 decision processed in accordance with the provisions of TMC 18.108.050 18.84.020 Criteria Each determination granting a rezone shall be supported by written findings and conclusions, showing specifically that all of the following conditions exist: 1. The proposed amendment to the Zoning Map is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Comprehensive Plan, 2. The proposed amendment to the Zoning Map is consistent with the scope and purpose of TMC Title 18, "Zoning Code," and the description and purpose of the zone classification applied for; 3. There are changed conditions since the previous zoning became effective to warrant the proposed amendment to the Zoning Map, and 4. The proposed amendment to the Zoning Map will be in the interest of furtherance of the public health, safety, comfort, convenience and general welfare, and will not adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood, nor be injurious to other properties in the vicinity in which the subject property is located. 18.84.030 Conditions on Rezone Approvals The City Council shall have the authority to impose conditions and safeguards as it deems necessary to protect or enhance the health, safety and welfare of the surrounding area, and to ensure that the rezone fully meets the findings set forth in TMC 18.84.020 18.84.040 Ordinance Required Action under TMC Chapter 18.84, which amends the official Zoning Map, shall require the adoption of an ordinance by the City Council pursuant to the Tukwila Municipal Code and State law C:\Documenls and SetlingsWI Users\DeskloplKelly\.MSDATAIOrdinanceslRezoning.doc NG:kn 3/1712006 Page 1 of2 Section 2. Repealer. Ordinance Nos. 1758 gl (part), and 1770 g56 and g58, as codified at TMC 18.84, are hereby repealed. Section 3. Severability. If any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance or its application to any person or situation should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional for any reason by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this ordinance or its application to any other person or situation. Section 4. Effective Date. This ordinance or a summary thereof shall be published in the official newspaper of the City, and shall take effect and be in full force five days after passage and publication as provided by law PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, at a Regular Meeting thereof this day of ,2006. A ITEST / AUTHENTICATED: Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Jane E. Cantu, CMC, City Clerk Filed with the City Clerk: Passed by the City Council: Published. Effective Date: Ordinance Number: APPROVED AS TO FORM BY Office of the City Attorney C:lDo<:uments and SettingslAll UsersIDesktopIKelly\MSDA T A\Ordinanees\Rezoning.doc NG:kn 3/1612006 Page 2 of2 City of Tukwila Washington Ordinance No. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 1758 ~1 (PART), AS CODIFIED AT TMC 18.96.020, REGARDING ZONING INTERPRETATION REGULATIONS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that Zoning Code interpretations shall be made by the DCD Director; and WHEREAS, the City has determined that there is an expense associated with a Zoning Code interpretation made by the Director, which should be borne by the party requesting the interpretation; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Regulations Amended. Ordinance No. 1758 ~1 (part), as codified at TMC 18.96.020 (Interpretations), is hereby amended to read as follows: 18.96.020 Interpretations An interpretation of this title by the Director or the Director's delegate may be requested in writing by any person or may be initiated by the Director A decision by the Director that an issue is not subject to an interpretation request shall be final and not subject to administrative appeal. Any request for interpretation shall be a Type 2 Decision filed with the Director, accompanied by a fee according to the most recently adopted Land Use Fee Schedule. The interpretation of the Director shall be given substantial weight, and the burden of establishing the contrary shall be upon the appellant. Section 2. Severability. If any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance or its application to any person or situation should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional for any reason by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this ordinance or its application to any other person or situation. Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance or a summary thereof shall be published in the official newspaper of the City, and shall take effect and be in full force five days after passage and publication as provided by law PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA WASHINGTON, at a Regular Meeting thereof this day of , 2006 ATIEST/ AUTHENTICATED' Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Jane E. Cantu, CMC, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM BY. Filed with the City Clerk: Passed by the City Council. Published. Effective Date: Ordinance Number: Office of the City Attorney C:\Documents and Settings\A1I UserslDesktoplKell}\MSDA T AIOrdinances\Zoning Interpretations.doc NG:1m 3/1612006 Page 1 of 1 City of Tukwila Washington Ordinance No. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, AMENDING ORDINANCE NOS. 1758 ~1 (PART), 1865 ~50, AND 2005 ~17, AS CODIFIED AT TUKWILA MUNICIPAL CODE 18.60.030, RELATING TO THE REVIEW STANDARD OF THE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW AND DCD DIRECTOR TO APPROVE, APPROVE WITH CONDmONS, OR DENY PLANS SUBMITTED; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Tukwila has determined that the Board of Architectural Review ("BAR") and the Department of Community Development Director shall have the authority to approve, approve with conditions, or deny plans submitted based on a demonstration of compliance with all of the guidelines of Tukwila Municipal Code Chapter 18.60, based on the preponderance of the evidence standard, NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Regulations Amended. Ordinance Nos. 1758 91 (part), 1865 950, and 2005917, as codified at Tukwila Municipal Code 18.60 030, are hereby amended to read as follows: 18.60.030 Scope of Authority A. The rules and regulations of the Board of Architectural Review shall be the same as those stated for the Planning Commission in the bylaws of the Tukwila Planning Commission. B. The DCD Director will review projects meeting the thresholds for administrative design review The BAR will review all other projects requiring design review approval. The Board and the DCD Director shall have the authority to approve, approve with conditions, or deny all plans submitted based on a demonstration of compliance with all of the guidelines of this chapter, as judged by the preponderance of evidence standard. C. Design review is required for the following described land use actions: 1 All developments will be subject to design review with the following exceptions: a. Developments exempted in the various districts, b. Developments in LI, HI, MICjL, MICjH and TVS Districts, except when within 300 feet of residential districts or within 200 feet of the GreenjDuwamish River or that require a shoreline permit; 2. Any exterior repair, reconstruction, cosmetic alterations or improvements, if the cost of that work equals or exceeds 10% of the building's assessed valuation (for costs between 10% and 25%, the changes will be reviewed administratively), a. for sites whose gross building square footage exceeds 10,000 square feet in MUO, 0, RCC, NCC, RC, RCM, TUC and CjU zoning districts; and C:\Documents and SettingsWI Users\Desk!opIKelly\lvfSDA T A\OrdinancesIBAR Standard.doc NG:kn 3/1612006 Page 1 of2 b. for any site in the NCC, MUO or RC zoning districts in the Tukwila International Boulevard corridor (see TMC Figure 18-9). 3 Development applications using the procedures of 18.60.60, Commercial Redevelopment Area. D. For development in the NCC, RC, and MUO zones within the Tukwila International Boulevard corridor, identified in TMC Figure 18-9, certain landscaping and setback standards may be waived and conditioned, upon approval of plans by the BAR, in accordance with criteria and guidelines in the Tukwila International Boulevard Design Manual, as amended. Landscaping and setback standards may not be waived on commercial property sides adjacent to residential districts. E. No changes shall be made to approved designs without further BAR or Director approval and consideration of the change in the context of the entire project; except that the Director is at+thorized to approve minor, insignificant modifications which have no impact on the project design. Section 2. Severability. If any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance or its application to any person or situation should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional for any reason by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this ordinance or its application to any other person or situation. Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance or a summary thereof shall be published in the official newspaper of the City, and shall take effect and be in full force five days after passage and publication as provided by law. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, at a Regular Meeting thereof this day of , 2006. ATIESTj AUTHENTICATED' Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Jane E. Cantu, CMC, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORi\1 BY. Office of the City Attorney Filed with the City Clerk: Passed by the City Council. Published. Effective Date: Ordinance Number: C:\Documents and SettingslAlI Users\Des~.top\Kelly\,,"ISDATA\Ordinan=\BAR Standard.doc NG:kn 3/1612006 Page 2 of2 City of Tukwila Washington Ordinance No. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, AMENDING TMC 18.104.010 AND 18.108.040, TO CHANGE THE APPEAL BODIES FOR CERTAIN LAND USE DECISIONS; REPEALING ORDINAN~E NOS. 1768 ~3 (PART), 1796 ~3 (PART), 1841 ~2, 1857 ~7, 2005 ~20, 2066 ~2, 2097 ~22, AND 2098 ~4; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City Council desires to remove itself from certain quasi-judicial appeals; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires that the Planning Commission be the hearing body for preliminary plats; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to be the appeal body for exceptions from the single-family design standards, NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. TMC 18.104.010, Amended. Tukwila Municipal Code Section 18.104.010, Classification of Project Permit Applications, is hereby amended to read as follows: 18.104.010 Classification of Project Permit Applications A. Project permit decisions are classified into five types, based on the degree of discretion associated with each decision, as set forth in this section. Procedures for the five different types are distinguished according to who makes the decision, whether public notice is required, whether a public meeting and/ or a public hearing is required before a decision is made, and whether administrative appeals are provided. B. Type 1 decisions are made by City administrators who have technical expertise as designated by ordinance. Type 1 decisions may be appealed to the Hearing Examiner who will hold a closed-record appeal hearing based on the information presented to the City administrator who made the decision. Public notice is not required for Type 1 decisions or for the appeals of those decisions. TYPE 1 DECISIONS TYPE OF PERMIT DECISION MAKER Any land use permit or approval issued by the City, unless As specified by specifically categorized as a Type 2, 3, 4, or 5 decision by this ordinance Chapter Boundary Line Adjustment, including Lot Consolidation Community Development Director Development Permit Building Official Minor modification to BAR approved design Community (TMC 18.60.030) Development Director C:\Documents and Settings\All Users\Desktop\Kelly\MSDATA \Ordinances\Quasi-]udicial Decision-Making.doc SK-PB:ksn 3/17/2006 Page 1 of 4 TYPE 1 DECISIONS (Continued) TYPE OF PERMIT Minor Modification to PRD (TMC 18.46.130) DECISION MAKER Community Develo ment Director Community Development Director Sign Permit, except for those sign permits specifically requiring approval of the Planning Commission, or denials of si ermits, that are a ealable Tree Permit (TMC 18.54) Community Develo ment Director C. Type 2 decisions are decisions that are initially made by the Director or, in certain cases, other City Administrators or Committees, but that are subject to an open record appeal to the Hearing Examiner, Planning Commission, City Council, or in the case of shoreline permits, an appeal to the State Shorelines Hearings Board pursuant to RCW 90.58. TYPE 2 DECISIONS TYPE OF PERMIT INmAL APPEAL BODY DECISION MAKER (open record appeal) Administrative Design Review Community Board of (TMC 18.60.030) Development Director Archi tectural Review Administrative Planned Residential Short Plat Committee Hearing Examiner Development (TMC 18.46.110) Binding Site Improvement Plan Short Plat Committee Hearing Examiner (TMC Chapter 17.16) Code Interpretation (TMC 18.90.010) Community Hearing Examiner Development Director Decision regarding Sensitive Areas Community Planning (except Reasonable Use Exception) Development Director Commission (TMC Chapter 18.45) Exception from Single-Family Design Community City Council Standard (TMC 18.50.050) Development Director Parking standard for use not specified Community Hearing Examiner (TMC 18.56.100) Development Director Placement of Cargo Container Community Hearing Examiner (TMC 18.50.060) Development Director Shoreline Substantial Development Community State Shorelines Permit (TMC Chapter 18.44) Development Director Hearings Board Short Plat (TMC Chapter 17.12) Short Plat Committee Hearing Examiner Sign Area Increase (TMC 19.32.140) Community Planning Development Director Commission Sign Permit Denial (TMC Chapter 19.12) Community Planning Development Director Commission Special Permission Parking, and Community Hearing Examiner Modifications to Certain Parking Development Director Standards (TMC 18.56.065 & .070) Special Permission Sign, except "unique Community Planning sign" (various sections of TMC Title 19) Development Director Commission D. Type 3 decisions are quasi-judicial decisions made by the Hearing Examiner following an open record hearing. Type 3 decisions may be appealed only to Superior Court, except for shoreline variances that may be appealed to the State Shorelines Hearings Board pursuant to RCW 90.58. C:\Documents and Settings\All Users\Desktop\Kelly\MSDATA \Ordinances\Quasi-]udicial Decision-Making.doc SK-PB:ksn 3 17 2006 Page 2 of 4 TYPE 3 DECISIONS TYPE OF PERMIT DECISION MAKER Hearin Examiner Hearin Examiner Resolve uncertain zone district boundar Variance (zorun ,shoreline, sidewalk, land alteration, si E. Type 4 decisions are quasi-judicial decisions made by the Board of Architectural Review or the Planning Commission, following an open record hearing. Type 4 decisions may be appealed to the Hearing Examiner or the City Council, based on the record established by the Board of Architectural Review or Planning Commission, except Shoreline Conditional Use Permits, that are appealable to the State Shorelines Hearings Board pursuant to RCW 90.58. TYPE 4 DECISIONS INITIAL APPEAL BODY TYPE OF PERMIT DECISION (closed record MAKER appeal) Conditional Use Permit Planning Commission City Council (TMC Chapter 18.64) Modifications to Certain Parking Planning Commission Hearing Examiner Standards (TMC Chapter 18.56) Public Hearing Design Review Board of Architectural City Council (TMC Chapter 18.60) Review Reasonable Use Exceptions under Planning Commission City Council Sensitive Areas Ordinance (TMC 18.45.180) Shoreline Conditional Use Permit Planning Commission State Shorelines (TMC 18.44.050) Hearings Board Subdivision - Preliminary Plat Planning Commission City Council (TMC 17.14.020) Unique Signs (TMC 19.28.010) Planning Commission City Council Variance from Parking Standards Over Planning Commission Hearing Examiner 10% (TMC 18.56.140) F Type 5 decisions are quasi-judicial decisions made by the Hearing Examiner or City Council following an open record hearing. Type 5 decisions may be appealed only to Superior Court. TYPE 5 DECISIONS TYPE OF PERMIT DECISION MAKER City Council Planned Residential Development (PRD), including Major Modifications (TMC Cha ter 18.46) Rezone (TMC Cha ter 18.84) Sensitive Area Master Plan Overla (TMC 18.45.160) Shoreline Environment Redesi ation (Shoreline Master Pro Subdivision - Final Plat (TMC 17.14.030) Unclassified Use (TMC Cha ter 18.66) Council Council Council Council Council Section 2. Ordinance 1768 S3 (part), as codified at TMC 18.108.040, is hereby amended to read as follows: C:\Documents and Settings\All Users\Desklop\Kelly\MSDATA \Ordinances\Quasi-Judicial Decision-Making.doc SK-PB:ksn 3/17/2006 Pa go!" .1 n f 4 18.108.040 Type 4 Decision Process A. The Board of Architectural Review or Planning Commission shall make Type 4 Decisions, as appropriate, following an open record public hearing. B. Type 4 decisions by the Board of Architectural Review or Planning Commission, except shoreline conditional use permits, shall be final unless an appeal is filed to the City Council or Hearing Examiner pursuant to TMC Chapter 18 116. C. Following a public hearing on a Type 4 decision, the Board of Architectural Review or Planning Commission shall render a written decision, including findings of fact and conclusions, and the Deparhnent shall promptly issue a Notice of Decision pursuant to TMC 18.104.170. D All appeals of Type 4 decisions shall be filed with the Deparhnent within the time limits specified in TMC 18.116.010, except Shoreline Conditional Use Permits, that shall be appealable only to the State Shorelines Hearings Board pursuant to RCW 90.58. The Deparhnent shall coordinate scheduling of any City appeal hearing with the City Council. E. All appeals of Type 4 decisions, except Shoreline Conditional Use Permits, shall be closed-record appeals, and processed pursuant to the time limits for such appeals specified in TMC 18.104.130. F. Following a closed-record appeal hearing on a Type 4 decision, the City Council or Hearing Examiner shall render a written decision, including findings of fact and conclusions, and the Deparhnent shall promptly issue a Revised Notice of Decision pursuant to TMC 18.104.170. G. The decision of the City Council or Hearing Examiner regarding a Type 4 decision shall be final and shall be appealable only to Superior Court pursuant to RCW 36.70C. Section 3. Repealer. Ordinance Nos. 1768 g3 (part), 1796 g3 (part), 1841 g2, 1857 g7, 2005 g20, 2066 g2, 2097 g22, and 2098 g4 are hereby repealed. Section 4. Severability. If any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance or its application to any person or situation should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional for any reason by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this ordinance or its application to any other person or situation. Section 5. Effective Date. This ordinance or a summary thereof shall be published in the official newspaper of the City, and shall take effect and be in full force five days after passage and publication as provided by law PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, at a Regular Meeting thereof this day of . 2006. ATIEST / AUTHENTICATED' Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Jane E. Cantu, CMC, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM BY Filed with the City Clerk: Passed by the City Council. Published. Effective Date: Ordinance Number' Office of the City Attorney C:\Documenls and Settings\All Users\Desktop\Kelly\MSDATA \Ordinances\Quasi-Judicial Decision-Making.doc D~~~ A ~t A