Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOW 2007-07-09 Item 3D.3 - Ordinance - Expansion of Houses into Non-Conforming Setbacks Restriction COUNCIL AGENDA SYNOPSIS =4./ ip y Initials ITEM No, 1j ;AV 1 Meeting Date Prepan1 Mayor's review cluncil review `o 07/09/07 1 JP 'C'k A I /ITV d (3 1908 I r f -TEM INFORMATIO=N CAS NUMBER: 07-090 1 ORIGINAL AGENDA DATE: JULY 9, 2007 AGENDA ITEM TITLE Zoning Code amendments addressing expansion into non conforming setbacks, retaining wall setbacks, administrative lot area variance in LDR and housekeeping. (3 ORD NcEs 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&2R Police PW 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. DALE: 4/10/07, 6/26/07 (CAP), 5/24/07 (PC) RECOMMENDATIONS: SPONSOR /ADMIN. Hold a public hearing on the draft ordinances COMMITTEE Forward to COW COST IM PACT PFUND= SOURCE EXPENDITURE REQUIRED AMOUNT BUDGETED APPROPRIATION REQUIRED S So $0 Fund Source: N/A Comments: MTG. DATE I RECORD OF_COUNCIL ACTION 7 -9 -07 1 I I I MTG. DATE -ATTACHMENTS 7 -9 -07 1 Information Memo dated 6/28/07 with Attachments 1 1 Minutes from the Community Affairs and Parks Committee meeting of 6/26/07 1 I I I INFORMATIONMEM O RAND UM TO: Mayor Mullet Committee of the Whole FROM: Jack Pace, Acting DCD Direc DATE: June 28, 2007 SUBJECT: Zoning Code Amendments BACKGROUND Staff has grouped four proposed amendments to the Zoning Code together for 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. 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 meeting. Councilmember Robinson suggested some revised language for item 2, it is listed below. There was not consensus among the Committee on item 3. DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS A. Limitation on Additions to Homes that Do Not meet Setbacks TMC 18.70.050 (6) states "single family structures in single or multiple family zone districts, which have legally non conforming building setbacks, shall be allowed to expand along the existing building line(s) if the existing distance from the nearest point of the structure to the property line is not reduced." This provision has been used in ways that significantly increase the area of non conformity and impact upon the neighboring property. The PC recommendation is to allow the structure to be expanded into the setback along the existing building line on the ground floor so long as the existing distance to the property line is not reduced and the square footage of the expansion into the setback does not exceed 50% of the square footage of the current intrusion, see Attachment A for the draft ordinance. Q: \CODEAMND\2007Amend7- 9COW.DOC Page 1 B. Retaining Wall Setbacks There are several different standards for whether retaining walls or rockeries can be located in required setbacks which leads to confusion and in some cases unusable yards. The building code allows most rockeries and retaining walls up to four feet high without a permit, which many people assume is the trigger for meeting setbacks. While the intent may have been to prevent a neighbor from having to look at a tall retaining wall on the property line it sometimes has the effect of creating a yard that is unmaintained and unusable to the property owner because of the grade separation. These rules do not provide for the situations where a retaining wall is perpendicular to a property line across two or more lots or alongside a driveway when the garage is built into the basement of a house on a hillside. Rockeries are rarely allowed to retain more than four feet of earth so their height is less of an issue. The PC recommendation is that retaining walls and rockeries with up to 4 feet of exposed face be allowed in yards to match building code requirements. This could be increased in special circumstances if the property in question is on the lower side of the retaining wall, if the wall benefits the lots on both sides of the property line or if the wall is needed due to R -O -W improvements, see Attachment B for a draft ordinance. The alternate language suggested for item 4 is shown in italics below: 18.50.XXX 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 expansion improvements, When a wall in a front yard is required due to roadway p ansion or i p rovements 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. OR- 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; (a) not visible from adjacent properties, or (b) screened by landscaping, or (c) owners of both properties agree to the wall or walls." C. Administrative Variance for Lot Size The minimum lot size in Low Density Residential, Tukwila's single family zone, is 6,500 sf. There are areas of the City that were platted prior to current zoning regulations with different lot patterns such as 3,000 sf lots. These substandard lots are no longer considered individual Q:\CODEAMV ID\2007Amend7- 9COW.DOC Page 2 building sites since the passage of Ordinance 2097. This means that a property owner might have to aggregate five or more lots totaling 15,000 sf in order to create two building sites as opposed to the 13,000 sf required by code. Another situation is where an owner wishes to subdivide a lot over 13,000 sf but also wants to retain an existing home that is sited near the middle of the lot so that a new lot cannot be created that meets both setbacks from the existing house and the minimum lot size. There was concern expressed at the CAP meeting about the effect that this might have in allowing for short plats in areas of the City with 12 to 13,000 sf lots. See Attachment C for a map of the approximately 160 lots in the City with area in this range. There may be other factors that would prevent these lots from being subdivided such as location of the existing house, presence of sensitive areas (streams, slopes or wetlands), lack of sanitary sewers or disinterest by the current owner in short platting. The PC recommends creation of an administrative variance to the DCD Director for reductions in lot size of up to 500sf 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 being divided equally, see Attachment D for the draft ordinance. Requests for greater reductions through a variance would still require a public hearing before the Hearing Examiner. 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, see Attachment C for the draft ordinance. REOUESTED ACTION Send the PC endorsed changes to a fmal public hearing and adoption of the ordinances as written or amended. Attachment A Draft Non conforming Single Family Expansion Ordinance Attachment B Draft Retaining Wall Ordinance Attachment C Map of Lot Sizes between 12,000 and 13,000 sf Attachment D Draft Administrative Lot Area Variance Ordinance Q: \CODEAMNDL007Amend7- 9COW.DOC Page 3 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, AMENDING ORDINANCE NOS. 1819 AND 2077, AS CODIFIED AT CHAPTER 18.70 OF THE TUKWILA MUNICIPAL CODE, TO RESTRICT EXPANSION OF HOUSES INTO NON CONFORMING SETBACKS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE 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 PIanning 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 CITY 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. C5Documents and Salinas All Users\Desktop Kelly1MSDATA .OrdinancesWon- conforming Setbacks.don NO:ksn 7/5/2007 Page 1 of 3 rr acl„nc A 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 souare footage of new intrusion into the setback does not exceed 50% of the souare 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. C1Documents and Settings\A1I UserslDesktop \Kelly\MSDATA \Ordinances'Non- conforming Setbacks.doc NG:ksn 7/5/2007 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 CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, at a Regular Meeting thereof this day of 2007. A Tl'EST/ AUTHENTICA IED: 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 Senna:51 I] Users' Desktop \Kell}WSDATA \OrdinancesWon-conforming Setbacls.doc NG:ksn 7/52007 Page 3 of 3 ET AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 1758, AS CODIFIED 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 uu to six feet in height. retaining walls or rockeries with uu to four feet of exposed face. and similar improvements of minor character. Section 2. TIvMC Chapter 18.50, "Supplemental Development Standards," is hereby amended to add the following section: C:'Documents and Setnn0All UserssDesl top` Kell }AMSDATA',Ordinances'Retaining Vialls.doc GL:ksn 7/5/2007 Page 1 of 2 J���C J J� TMC 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 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 reauired 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 CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY 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 Settings\All Users\ Desktop\ Kelly \MSDATA \Ordinances\Retaining \Valts.doc GL:ksn 7/5/2007 Page 2 of 2 S .La FCh S i r r k c ren e st 7n r 1`a6th Sti E i 3 i z -4 1- Tilt.,_ x r; y t 1 i� 1U 7,t Sk �r 0 2 ,c f_; t 5` F sr .CC ti it 5 t3an s 4 'ra r t 42 -3 E�3C.V d ry Ab s_ f t 4!r„ s L-4.-,1-: m ich k} 4t�Y mo t'- o it i 1 y s 4 F 11 5[ e 118kh'S' tit 9 -6 r ,Y Sam a h St t etk v f l Ili -i 5i21t!PC 3 t C Ns„---__,--,,,„_,,,,,,,,,, K add 5 a r•. w p-- *Ei 7 2 '-6ChSt -d? fix O -6:;: e: +wry r i- 9t_ Y i In S ;77[h St_ 4 ;z rrt 7515 1 e11.1.-f ."P t �9 Fp s e t- i�9ih Pl S �r� '3 .Y .c P met n�so n?t a Q1 `3 °re�,f �-r ss a -.r te w e ms s_ cur 5 ti t r I 3 Fl 3 t 9 SP ft'.n %r 7 h L rt� F tr [h ,t t i rh9 Y G °a 1. 4_13. a 5' t?. fi r v r i-'s f Q1.1.' m {1i1sF`� s- a' s f f S1�t2dd 5 leg, g e s` q 4 71- k r r=-•- r 1 ,1 .11 A�- tF S ty x rnit. is 4, 1A -i t -le- Da t�dal A 'Y k q to -b r e_ f i t e o ,t t s i s 4 Ei sr 2 t 1 8� r .1` 3- T t u i 513 t sa 1-1': fit -t---.. J Y fi r =-s -a 3 t- t i g 23 ,1-_ s c.,_-_--_ 'r` -tea ".7£ At r s I 1 t G Sl .11N 15- iy'. 'S .}II --L =s issy z 0. k►v l la Pkvry r hlo Er �frg Dr o t ice/ id 'F m -s e r L` t trerdet Bldd r S t t i s t sett- T t 3- I- i! T.._ g rc b F1 1-F F E y r_ f t 3 °,--0.„5-'---f,, I'70kh S i u- e-;,..,,' P. 4 ?11tk14.�tlt r 72eid 5 te z LDR Lots 12 to 13,000 s 0.6mi t,; CityGIS N X sao Copyright d 2006 All Rights Reserved. The information contained herein is the propri property of the contributor supplied under license and may not be approved except as licensed by Digital Map Products. Attachment C C 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 EFFECTIVE 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. 20051. 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:1Documents and Settins'AR Users\ Desktopl Kell}WISDATA\OrdinanceslAdmin Lot Variance.doc NUaan 7/5/2007 Page 1 of 5 it with use rights and privileges permitted to other properties in the vicinity and in the zone in which the subiect 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 TIvIC 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 1 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) 1 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 1 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:\Documents and Settinas\All Users1Deslc top \KelIydv1SDATA\OrdinancestAdmin Lot Variance.doc NG 7/5/2007 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 Hearin 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 PIat 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 City Council 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 (TIvIC Chapter 18.44) 1 Short Plat (TMC 17.12) 1 Short Plat Committee 1 Hearing Examiner 1 Sign Area Increase Community Planning Commission (TMC 19.32.140) Development Director Sign Permit Denial Community Planning Commission (TMC Chapter 19.12.020) Development Director Special Permission Parking, and Community Hearing Examiner Shared, Covenant or Development Director Complimentary Parking (TMC 18.56.065 and .070) Special Permission Landscape Community Board of Architectural Approvals (TMC 18.52.020) Development Director Review Special Permission Sign, except Community Planning Commission "unique sign" (various sections Development Director of TMC Title 19) Structures over public R -O -W Community 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:\Documents and Settings■All Users Desktop \Kelly W1SDATA \Ordinance \Admin Lot Variance.doc NG:ksn 7/5/2007 Page 3 of 5 TYPE 3 DECISIONS TYPE OF PERMIT 1 DECISION MAKER J 1 Resolve uncertain zone district boundary 1 Hearing Examiner Variance (zoning, shoreline, sidewalk, land alteration, sign) 1 Hearing Examiner 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 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 INITTIAL 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 City Council 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) City Council Sensitive Area Master Plan Overlay (TMC 18.45.160) 1 City Council Shoreline Environment Re- designation (Shoreline Master City Council Program) Subdivision Final Plat (TMC 17.14.030) City Council Unclassified Use (TMC Chapter 18.66) City Council C:\Documents and Settings \All Users Desktop \Kelly\MSDATA` Ordinances \Admin Lot Variance.doc NG:Isn 7158007 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 CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY 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: C5Doeuments and Setting: Mil User\ Deskt op \Kelly'MSDATA \OrdinancesNAdmin Lot Variance.doc NG:ksn 7/5/2007 Page 5 of 5 Communitv Affairs Parks Committee Minutes June 26, 2007 Pace 2 thresholds and an optional DNS process. After the Planning Commission held a public hearing, they recommended approval of the proposed amendment of increasing the residential construction threshold to nine dwelling units from four dwelling units; increasing the commercial/industrial threshold to 12,000 square feet and 40 parking spaces from 4,000 square feet and 20 parking spaces; and exercising the optional determination of non significance (DNS) process to run concurrent comment periods for the project and SEPA. Staff commented that when the City originally implemented SEPA, we did not yet have an SAO in place. The Committee supports the Planning Commission recommendation. UNANIMOUS APPROVAL. FORWARD TO JULY 9 COW. C. Zoning Code Amendments Staff brought forth four proposed Zoning Code amendments. 1. Limitation on single family expansions with non conforming setbacks 2. Retaining wall setback changes 3. Administrative variance for single family lot size 4. Update to Permit Application Table at TMC 18.104.010 These amendments were originally introduced at the April 10, 2007, Community Affairs and Parks Committee meeting. They were then forwarded to COW for discussion, and from there to the Planning Commission for a public hearing and subsequent recommendation. After a lengthy discussion, the Committee agreed to forward Amendments 1 and 4 to the COW for discussion, and they are in support of the Planning Commission's recommendations for those amendments. UNANIMOUS APPROVAL FOR AMENDMENTS 1 and 4. FORWARD TO JULY 9 COW. In regards to Amendment 2, Retaining Wall Setback Changes, Dennis expressed concern with the wording of number four of the setback waiver. His concern is that number four will nullify the parameters set forth in numbers one through three if the applicant can attribute their need for a retaining wall to fire access requirements. Dennis would like to draft a proposed wording change for number four that staff can submit for consideration along with the Planning Commission recommendation when the amendment moves forward to the COW for further discussion. FORWARD TO JULY 9 COW. The Committee is not in consensus with Amendment 3, Administrative Variance for Single Family Lot Size. Both Pam Linder and Pam Carter feel that the changes proposed by the amendment do not create provisions that would substantially affect the quality of life for Tukwila's single family home residents; and that the 500 square foot variance will allow for flexibility assisting interested property owners who are minimally under the threshold for subdivision. In contrast, Dennis shared his concern for property owners who bought in a particular location as a result of spatial housing and lot sizes. He does not support this amendment because he feels implementation of such variances for lot subdivisions has the potential to disturb the well -being of neighborhoods with the consideration that the majority of homeowners purchased their home because of the lot size layout and prefer for the lot sizes to be maintained as such. COMMITTEE IS NOT IN CONSENSUS. FORWARD TO JULY 9 COW.