HomeMy WebLinkAboutReg 2007-07-16 Item 4B.3 - Public Hearing - Retaining Walls Up to 4 Feet High in Setbacks COUNCIL AGENDA SYNOPSIS
wq Initials
t ITEMNO.
5 t i Meeting Date 1 PrepareN 1 Mayor's review Council review 1
fu a i E +os 07/09/07 1 JP 1 I I 4. b y)
07/16/07 1
I l I�
d -5
1TEMII NFO RMATION
CAS NUMBER: 07-090 ORIGINAL AGENDA DATE: JULY 9, 2007
AGENDA I1'EM TITLE Zoning Code amendments addressing expansion into non conforming setbacks,
retaining wall setbacks, administrative lot area variance in LDR and housekeeping.
(3 ordinances)
CATEGORY Discussion Motion Resolution Ordinance Bid Award Public Hearing Other
Mtg Date 7/9/07 Mtg Date Mtg Date Mtg Date 07/16/07 Mtg Date Mtg Date 07/16/07 Mtg Date
SPONSOR Council Mayor Adm Svcs DCD Finance Fire Legal P&R Police PIS
SPONSOR'S Staff has grouped four proposed amendments to the Zoning Code together for
SUMMARY consideration:
1) Limitation on single family expansions within non conforming setbacks;
2) Retaining wall setback changes;
3) Administrative variance for single family lot size; and
4) Update to Permit Application Table at TMC 18.104.010.
REVIEWED BY COW Mtg. CA &P Cmte F &S Cmte Transportation Cmte
Utilities Cmte Arts Comm. Parks Comm. Planning Comm.
DA'I'F: 4/10/07, 6/26/07 (CAP), 5/24/07 (PC)
RECOMMENDATIONS:
SPONSOR /ADm N. Hold a public hearing on the draft ordinances
COAL Pl 1'EE Forward to COW
COST AM PACTTFU NO SOURCE
EXPENDITURE REQUIRED AMOUNT BUDGETED APPROPRIATION REQUIRED
$0 $0 $0
Fund Source: N/A
Comments:
I-MTGr DATE== RECORD ACTION
7 -9 -07 Forward to next Regular Meeting
MTTACH VENTS
�VITG, DATA
7 -9 -07 Information Memo dated 6/28/07 with Attachments
Minutes from the Community Affairs and Parks Committee meeting of 6/26/07
7 -16 -07 Information Memo dated 7/10/07, with Administrative Lot Variance examples
Ordinances in final form
INFORMATION MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Mullet
Tukwila City Council
FROM: Jack Pace, Acting DCD Director
DATE: July 10, 2007
SUBJECT: Retaining Wall and Administrative Lot Variance Code Amendments
BACKGROUND
Staff has grouped four proposed amendments to the Zoning Code together for consideration:
A. Limitation on single family expansions within non conforming setbacks;
B. Retaining wall setback changes;
C. Administrative variance for single family lot size; and
D. Update to Permit Application Table at TMC 18.104.010.
Staff presented these issues with various options to the Community Affairs and Parks (CAP)
Committee on April 10, 2007. The Committee discussed each item and chose to forward them to
the Planning Commission for a hearing and recommendation. The PC made only minor changes
and their recommendations are reflected in the strikeout/underline language listed in the attached
draft ordinances. The CAP reviewed the issues again on June 26 and recommended forwarding
all items to the July 9 COW meeting. At that meeting no changes were made to item A. The
Council reviewed revised language for item B, some alternatives are listed below. There was not
consensus among the Council on item C and no recommendation was made. Item D is
housekeeping and is dependant on the decision made on item C.
DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
A. Limitation on single family expansions within non conforming setbacks
No additional analysis provided.
Q: \CODEAMND\2007Amend7- 16.DOC Page 1
B. Retaining Wall Setbacks
The Council agreed to align the definition of structure in the Zoning and Building Codes to avoid
confusion. There were several different ideas for the wording of item 4 of the proposed Retaining
Wall Setback Waiver. The alternate language suggested for item 4 is shown below:
18.50.150 Retaining Wall Setback Waiver
Retaining walls with an exposed height greater than four feet may be allowed in required front,
side or rear yard setbacks under the following circumstances:
1. When the applicant's property is on the lower side of the retaining wall so that it is not visible
from the adjacent property or is screened by landscaping, or
2. When a wall built on a property line or perpendicular to it benefits the lots on both sides and
the owners of both properties agree to jointly maintain the wall, or
3. When a wall in a front yard is required due to roadway expansion or improvements, or
PC Recommended Wording
4. When a wall or walls are needed to create a vehicular access road that meets Fire Depaitinent
slope requirements and the exposed face either has a decorative /textured treatment or is screened
with landscaping.
OR-
Council Wording Options
4. When a wall or walls are needed to create a vehicular access road to meet Fire Department
slope requirements and the exposed face is either facing the applicant's property, has a
decorative /textured treatment or is screened by landscaping.
OR-
Additional Option
Delete 4 since the situation would already be covered by 1.
A final option would be to keep the current prohibition on retaining walls over 4 feet high in yard
setbacks. This would likely constrain development on some steeply sloping sites or require
property owner(s) to apply for a variance.
C. Administrative Variance for Lot Size
The PC recommended creation of an administrative variance to the DCD Director for reductions
in lot size of up to 500 sf per lot for up to two lots to streamline the process for lots that are just
under the threshold for subdivision or where there is an existing house that prevents the lots from
Q: \CODEAMND\2007Amend7- 16.DOC Page 2
being divided equally. Requests for greater reductions through a variance would still require a
public hearing before the Hearing Examiner.
At the COW meeting additional analysis of the number of lots that may be able to take advantage
of the proposed administrative lot variance was requested by the Council, see Attachment A.
Alternatives to the PC draft ordinance are:
1. Make no change to Tukwila's variance procedures and criteria. This would mean that
division of lots under 13,000 sf would only be allowed under exceptional and unique
circumstances. The City has never approved such a variance under the current
Comprehensive Plan.
2. Review minimum lot sizes in single family areas throughout the City during the annual
Comprehensive Plan amendment process.
3. Modify the proposed variance criteria or create additional criteria.
D. Permit Processing Housekeeping
There are a few decisions called out in the body of the Zoning Code that are not listed in the table
at TMC 18.104.010 Classification of Project Permit Applications. In addition the proposed
changes above, if adopted, would add a new decision to the code. For clarity all of the types of
decisions should be listed along with the decision maker and appeal body.
REOUES 1ED ACTION
Adopt the ordinances as written or amended.
Attachment A Administrative Lot Variance Examples
Q:\CODEAWID\2007Amend7-16.DOC Page 3
Administrative Lot Variance Examples
A search of Tukwila parcels shows 146 LDR zoned lots between 12,000 and 13,000 square
feet in size. Of those 8 could not be subdivided due to the presence of wetlands or streams.
Another 63 could clearly not be subdivided unless the existing house was removed because
of its location or size. 5 of these were listed as duplexes by the King County Assessor and
therefore ineligible for the variance. The remaining 75 may have other constraints that
were not apparent.
The two lots below are examples of sites that could accommodate a second house under the
variance provisions.
--1:_-.:=75_,---j_7* p' t
a 1 i I [Q e-RS"
a
r
,,,,__J--: -_E:=s--.-L.,-----1 it -_-:=1--___- iti-:,-------. ----It--'_---4---_,--AINNem -i
t
j
The house below has sensitive area constraints that would prevent subdivision. The orange
hatching and line shows a wetland and wetland buffer edge.
t— rr-
t
Attachment A
The lots below cannot be subdivided because the houses are centered on their lots. In
addition the houses are likely too large to meet the 26% lot coverage limitation for that size
lot.
Ul L_ q
t j r- =-_,;-:t7=4,_-`
�F
t
The house below is too wide to allow for an access road to the rear o the lot.
J
_014 Y om
a'
�r_ o
A
C ity of Tukwila
Washington
Ordinance No.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA,
WASHINGTON, AMENDING ORDINANCE NOS. 1819 AND 2077, AS
COD11t1ED AT CHAPTER 18.70 OF THE TUKWILA MUNICIPAL CODE, TO
RESTRICT EXPANSION OF HOUSES INTO NON CONFORMING
SETBACKS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND ESTABLISHING AN
Et DATE.
WHEREAS, limiting the expansion of single family structures that have legally non-
conforming building setbacks will reduce the impact upon neighboring properties; and
WHEREAS, on May 24, 2007, the City of Tukwila Planning Commission held a
public hearing on proposed amendments that address non conforming residential
setbacks, and has recommended the adoption of certain Zoning Code changes; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on these proposed amendments
July 16, 2007, after proper notice; and
WHEREAS, after having received and studied staff analysis, the City Council
believes that certain amendments to the City's development regulations are desirable;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CTTY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA,
WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Ordinance Nos. 1819 §1 (part) and 2077 §1, as codified at TMC 18.70.050,
are hereby amended to read as follows:
18.70.050 Nonconforming Structures
Where a lawful structure exists at the effective date of adoption of this title that
could not be built under the terms of this title by reason of restrictions on area, lot
coverage, height, yards or other characteristics of the structure, it may be continued so
long as the structure remains otherwise lawful subject to the following provisions:
1. No such structure may be enlarged or altered in such a way that increases its
degree of nonconformity. Ordinary maintenance of a nonconforming structure is
permitted, pursuant to TMC 18.70.060, including but not limited to painting, roof repair
and replacement, plumbing, wiring, mechanical equipment repair /replacement and
weatherization. These and other alterations, additions or enlargements may be allowed
as long as the work done does not extend further into any required yard or violate any
other portion of this title. Complete plans shall be required of all work contemplated
under this section.
2. Should such structure be destroyed by any means to an extent of more than 50%
of its replacement cost at time of destruction, in the judgment of the City's Building
Official, it shall not be reconstructed except in conformity with provisions of this title,
except that in the LDR zone, structures that are nonconforming in regard to yard
setbacks or sensitive area buffers, but were in conformance at the time of construction
may be reconstructed to their original dimensions and location on the lot.
C:\DocurnenO and SettingaWl User\ Deskt op\ Kellyl MSDATA \OrdinancesVon- confomung Setbacks.doc
NG. ksm 7/12/2007 Page 1 of 3
3. Should such structure be moved for any reason or any distance whatsoever, it
shall thereafter conform to the regulations for the zone in which it is located after it is
moved.
4. When a nonconforming structure, or structure and premises in combination, is
vacated or abandoned for 24 consecutive months, the structure, or structure and
premises in combination, shall thereafter be required to be in conformance with the
regulations of the zone in which it is located. Upon request of the owner, the City
Council may grant an extension of time beyond the 24 consecutive months.
5. Residential structures and uses located in any single- family or multiple family
residential zoning district and in existence at the time of adoption of this title shall not
be deemed nonconforming in terms of bulk, use, or density provisions of this title. Such
buildings may be rebuilt after a fire or other natural disaster to their original
dimensions and bulk, but may not be changed except as provided in the non
conforming uses section of this chapter.
6. Single family structures in single- or multiple- family residential zone districts,
which have legally nonconforming building setbacks, shall be allowed to expand the
ground floor only along the existing building line(s), so long as the existing distance
from the nearest point of the structure to the property line is not reduced, and the
square footage of new intrusion into the setback does not exceed 50% of the square
footage of the current intrusion.
7. In wetlands, watercourses and their buffers, existing structures that do not meet
the requirements of the Sensitive Areas Overlay District chapter of this title may be
remodeled, reconstructed or replaced, provided that:
a. The new construction does not further intrude into or adversely impact an
undeveloped sensitive area or the required buffer;
b. The new construction does not threaten the public health, safety or welfare;
and
c. The structure otherwise meets the requirements of this chapter.
8. In areas of potential geologic instability, coal mine hazard areas, and buffers, as
defined in the Sensitive Areas Overlay District chapter of this title, existing structures
may be remodeled, reconstructed or replaced, provided that
a. The new construction is subject to the geotechnical report requirements and
standards of Section 18.45.080E and .080F;
b. The new construction does not threaten the public health, safety or welfare;
c. The new construction does not increase the potential for soil erosion or result
in unacceptable risk or damage to existing or potential development or to neighboring
properties; and
d. The structure otherwise meets the requirements of this chapter.
9. A nonconforming use, within a nonconforming structure, shall not be allowed to
expand into any other portion of the nonconforming structure.
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.
C:1Documents and Settings\All UsaslD esk[op\ Kelly \MSDATAArdinanceNon- conforming Setbacks.doc
NG:ksn 7/12/2007 Page 2 of 3
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 CIIY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON,
at a Regular Meeting thereof this day of 2007.
ATTEST /AUTHENTICATED:
Steven M. Mullet, Mayor
Jane E. Cantu, CMC, City Clerk
Filed with the City Clerk:
APPROVED AS TO FORM BY: Passed by the City Council:
Published:
Effective Date:
Office of the City Attorney Ordinance Number:
C:\Documents and Setlings\All UseTADesktop \Kelly‘MSDATA\Ordinances4Non- conforming Setba ks doc
NG:ksn 7/1212007 Page 3 of 3
C ity of Tukwila
Washington
Ordinance No.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA,
WASHINGTON, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 1758, AS CODIFIEll AT
TUKWILA MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTERS 18.06 AND 18.50, TO ALLOW
RETAINING WALLS UP TO FOUR FEET HIGH IN SETBACKS, AND
ALLOW RETAINING WALLS OVER FOUR FEET HIGH IN SETBACKS
UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND
ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, several different standards exist for determining whether retaining
walls can be located in required setbacks, which leads to confusion and in some cases
unusable yards; and
WHEREAS, allowing retaining walls and rockeries with up to four feet of exposed
face in setbacks would align zoning and building code requirements; and
WHEREAS, allowing retaining walls higher than four feet in setbacks may be
appropriate in certain circumstances; and
WHEREAS, on May 24, 2007, the City of Tukwila Planning Commission held a
public hearing on proposed amendments addressing the retaining wall issue and has
recommended the adoption of certain Zoning Code changes; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on these proposed amendments
July 16, 2007, after proper notice; and
WHEREAS, the City Council, after having received and studied staff analysis and
comments from members of the public, believes that certain amendments to the City's
development regulations are desirable;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA,
WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Ordinance 1758 §1 (part), as codified at TMC 18.06.800, is hereby
amended to read as follows:
18.06.800 Structure
"Structure" means a combination of materials constructed and erected permanently
on the ground or attached to something having a permanent location on the ground,
but excluding all forms of vehicles even though immobilized. Not included are
residential fences up to six feet in height, retaining walls or rockeries with up to four
feet of exposed face, and similar improvements of minor character.
Section 2. TMC Chapter 18.50, "Supplemental Development Standards," is hereby
amended to add the following section:
C:1Documents and SettingsWl U_ sersssDesktop' 1CellyMSDATA \Ordinances\Retaining Walls.doc
OL:ksn iiuoo07 Page 1 of 2
TMC 1850.150 Retaining Wall Setback Waiver
Retaining walls with an exposed height greater than four feet may be allowed in
required front, side or rear yard setbacks under the following circumstances:
1. When the applicant's property is on the lower side of the retaining wall and it is
not visible from adjacent properties or is screened by landscaping; or
2. When a wall built on a property line or perpendicular to it benefits the lots on
both sides, and the owners of both properties agree to jointly maintain the wall; or
3. When a wall in a front yard is required due to roadway expansion or
improvements; or
4. When a wall or walls are needed to create a vehicular access road that meets Fire
Department slope requirements, and the exposed face either has a decorative /textured
treatment or is screened with landscaping.
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 QTY COUNCIL OF THE QTY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON,
at a Regular Meeting thereof this day of 2007.
ATTEST /AUTHENTICATED:
Steven M. Mullet, Mayor
Jane E. Cantu, CMC, City Qerk
Filed with the City Clerk:
APPROVED AS TO FORM BY: Passed by the City Council:
Published:
Effective Date:
Office of the City Attorney Ordinance Number:
C:\Dowmen1s and SetingsWl Users\Desktop5Kel1)' 5 DATA,Ordinances\Resaining Walls.doe
GL:ksn 7n2/2097 Page 2 of 2
ki
;Oer 3 2,
ice,
1 r
City of Tukwila
Washington
Ordinance No.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA,
WASHINGTON, AMENDING ORDINANCE NOS. 2119 AND 2135, AND
CHAPTERS 18.50 AND 18.104 OF THE TUKWILA MUNICIPAL CODE, TO
PROVIDE AN ADMINISTRATIVE LOT AREA VARIANCE IN THE LDR
ZONE THAT WOULD BE PROCESSED AS A TYPE 2 DECISION;
PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND ESTABLISHING AN Eltik.ef1VE
DATE.
WHEREAS, creating an administrative variance for lot size for up to 500 square feet
could relieve material hardship in specific circumstances; and
WHEREAS, on May 24, 2007, the City of Tukwila Planning Commission held a
public hearing on proposed amendments to regulate applications for these variances
and has recommended the adoption of certain Zoning Code changes; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on the proposed amendments
July 16, 2007, after proper notice; and
WHEREAS, after having received and studied staff analysis and comments from
members of the public, the City Council believes that certain amendments to the City's
development regulations are desirable;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA,
WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. TMC Chapter 18.50, "Supplemental Development Standards," is hereby
amended to add the following section:
TMC 18.50.140 Administrative Lot Area Variance in LDR
A property owner in the LDR zone may apply for a reduction in lot size of up to 500
square feet per lot for up to two lots. This shall be processed as a Type 2 decision
concurrent with the short plat or boundary line adjustment application and approved
only if all of the following criteria would be met:
1. The current or past property owner has not reduced the area of the lot in
question by BLA, short plat or sale of adjacent lots under common ownership, after the
effective date of Ordinance No. 2097 (August 6, 2005).
2. The new lots would be able to meet all other development standards including
setbacks, maximum building footprint, and parking.
3. Lots that have received a reduction in size through the PRD process are not
eligible for further reductions through this variance process.
4. The lot must not contain a multi- family structure or an accessory dwelling unit.
5. The variance is necessary because of special circumstances relating to the size,
shape, topography, location or surrounding of the subject property, in order to provide
C:1D"cuments and Settings All Use` sdk toplKelly MSDATAIOrdinanceslAdmin Lot Variance.doc
Nnksn 7/121200 Page 1 of 5
it with use rights and privileges permitted to other properties in the vicinity and in the
zone in which the subject property is located.
6. The variance permitted is the minimum variance necessary to relieve a hardship
which cannot be relieved by any other means.
7. The granting of the variance will not cause a substantial detrimental effect to the
public interest
8. The lot size reduction approved must result in a development that is compatible
with and meets the spirit of Tukwila's Comprehensive Plan, and will not adversely
affect the character of the neighborhood and the rights of the neighboring property
owners.
Section 2. Ordinance Nos. 2119 §1 and 2135 §19, as codified at TMC 18.104.010, are
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 1 DECISION MAKER
Any land use permit or approval issued by the As specified by Ordinance
City, unless specifically categorized as a Type 2,
3, 4, or 5 decision by this Chapter
Boundary Line Adjustment, including Lot Community Development Director
Consolidation (TMC 17.08)
1 Development Permit Building Official
Minor modification to BAR- approved design Community Development Director
(TMC 18.60.030)
Minor Modification to PRD (TMC 18.46.130) Community Development Director 1
Sign Permit, except for those sign permits Community Development Director
specifically requiring approval of the Planning
Commission, or denials of sign permits that are
appealable
Tree Permit (TMC 18.54) 1 Community Development Director 1
Wireless Communication Facility, Minor Community Development Director
(TMC 18.58)
C. TYPE 2 DECISIONS are decisions which are initially made by the Director or, in
certain cases, other City administrators or committees, but which 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 Shoreline Hearings Board pursuant to
RCW 90.58.
C:1Dowments and Settings1A11UsetsMesktop1Kelly Lot Variance.doo
Naitsn 7/12/2007 Page 2 of 5
TYPE 2 DECISIONS
INITIAL APPEAL BODY
TYPE OF PERMIT DECISION MAKER (open record appeal)
Administrative Design Review Community Board of
(TMC 18.60.030) Development Director Architectural Review
Administrative Lot Area Community Hearing Examiner
Variance in LDR Development
(TMC 18.50.140) Director
Administrative Planned Short Plat Committee Hearing Examiner
Residential Development
(TMC 18.46)
Binding Site Improvement Plan Short Plat Committee Hearing Examiner
(TMC Chapter 17.16)
Cargo Container Placement Community Hearing Examiner
(TMC 18.50.060) Development Director
Code Interpretation Community Hearing Examiner
(TMC 18.90.010) Development Director
Commercial Redevelopment Community Board of Architectural
Area waiver of certain setback Development Director Review
and landscape standards (TMC
18.16.080, 18.22.080, 18.24.080)
Exception from Single Family Community City Council
Design Standard (TMC 18.50.050) Development Director
Parking standard for use not Community Hearing Examiner
specified (TMC 18.56.100) Development Director
Sensitive Area decision (except Community Planning Commission
Reasonable Use Exception) Development Director
(TMC 18.45)
Shoreline Substantial Community State Shoreline
Development Permit Development Director Hearings Board
(TMC Chapter 18.44)
Short Plat (TMC 17.12) Short Plat Committee Hearing Examiner
Sign Area Increase Community Planning Commission
(TMC 19.32.140) Development Director
Sign Permit Denial Community I Planning Commission
(TMC Chapter 19.12.020) Development Director
Special Permission Landscape Community Board of Architectural
Approvals (TMC 18.52.020) Development Director Review
Special Permission Parking, and Community Hearing Examiner
Shared, Covenant or Development Director
Complimentary Parking
(TMC 18.56.065 and .070)
Special Permission Sign, except Community Planning Commission
"unique sign" (various sections Development Director
of TMC Title 19)
Structures over public R-O -W Community I Hearing Examiner
(TMC 18.50.130) Development Director
Variance from Parking Standards Community Hearing Examiner
less than 10% (TMC 18.56.140) Development Director
Wireless Communication Community Hearing Examiner
Facility, Minor (TMC 18.58) Development Director
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 Shoreline
Hearings Board pursuant to RCW 90.58.
C:1Documents and Settings Vill UseolDesldnp \Ke11y1MSDATAIOrdinances Admin Lot Vanance.doc
NO:lan 7/1212007 Page 3 of 5
r
TYPE 3 DECISIONS
TYPE OF PERMIT DECISION MAKER I
Resolve uncertain zone district boundary I Hearing Examiner 1
Variance (zoning, shoreline, sidewalk, land alteration, sign) I Hearing Examiner I
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 City Council, which will
hold a closed record appeal hearing based on the record established by the Board of
Architectural Review or Planning Commission, except Shoreline Conditional Use
Permits, which are appealable to the State Shoreline Hearings Board pursuant to RCW
90.58.
TYPE 4 DECISIONS
INITIAL DECISION APPEAL BODY
TYPE OF PERMIT MAKER (closed record appeal)
Commercial Redevelopment Area Board of Architectural Hearing Examiner
waiver of certain setback and Review
landscape standards (TMC
18.16.080, 18.22.080, 18.24.080)
Conditional Use Permit Planning Commission City Council
(TMC Chapter 18.64)
Modification or Waiver to Loading Planning Commission Hearing Examiner
Zone or Bicycle Parking
Requirements (TMC 18.56.060 or
.130)
Public Hearing Design Review Board of Architectural City Council
(TMC Chapter 18.60, 18.56.040 and Review
Shoreline Master Program)
Reasonable Use Exceptions under Planning Commission City Council
Sensitive Areas Ordinance (TMC
18.45.180)
Shoreline Conditional Use Permit Planning Commission State Shoreline
(TMC 18.44.050) Hearings Board
Subdivision Preliminary Plat (Planning City Council
(TMC 17.14.020) Commission
Unique Signs Planning Commission City Council
(TMC 19.28.010)
Variance from Parking Standards Planning Commission Hearing Examiner
Over 10% (TMC 18.56.140)
Wireless Communication Planning City Council
Facility, Major or Waiver Request Commission
(TMC 18.58)
F. TYPE 5 DECISIONS are quasi judicial decisions made by the 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
Planned Residential Development (PRD), including Major City Council
Modifications (TMC Chapter 18.46)
Rezone (TMC Chapter 18.84) I City Council
Sensitive Area Master Plan Overlay (TMC 18.45.160) City Council
Shoreline Environment Re- designation (Shoreline Master City Council ll
Program)
Subdivision Final Plat (TMC 17.14.030) City Council
Unclassified Use (TMC Chapter 18.66) I City Council
C:'Documents and Settings All Users lDesktnp\ lly\MSDATA \Ordinances\Admin Lot Variancn.doc
NO:ksn 7/1212007 Page 4 of 5
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 C11 Y COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON,
at a Regular Meeting thereof this day of 2007.
ATTEST AUTHENTICA
Steven M. Mullet, Mayor
Jane E. Cantu, CMC, City Clerk
Filed with the City Clerk:
APPROVED AS TO FORM BY: Passed by the City Council:
Published:
Effective Date:
Office of the City Attorney Ordinance Number:
C:1Doamients and Settings \All Users\Desk toplKelly )MSDATAIOrdinancnslAdmin Lot Variance.doc
NG:kn 7/12/2007 Page 5 of 5