HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOW 2010-01-11 Item 4A - Ordinances - Planning Commission and Board of Architectural Review Roles and ResponsibilitiesCAS NUMBER: 10-001
Fund Source:
Comments:
1 MTG. DATE
01/11/10
EXPENDITURE REQUIRED
MTG. DATE
01/11/10
COUNCIL AGENDA SYNOPSIS
Initials
Meeting Date Prepared by Mayor's review Council review
01/11/10 SK 1 1 (ati. K
01/19/10 SK
ITEM INFORMATION
1 ORIGINAL AGENDA DATE: JANUARY 11, 2010
ITEM No.
4
a
AGENDA ITEM TITLE Ordinances Separating the Planning Commission and Board of Architectural Review
CATEGORY Discussion Motion Resolution Ordinances Bid Award Public Hearing Other
Mtg Date 01 /11 /10 Mtg Date Mtg Date Mtg Date 01/19/10 Mtg Date Mtg Date 01/19/10 Mtg Date
(SPONSOR Council Ma Adm Svcs DCD Finance Fire Legal P&R Police PW/
SPONSOR'S The 3 ordinances would separate the functions of the Planning Commission and Board of
SUMMARY Architectural Review into different bodies that would focus on either legislative or quasi
judicial actions. This would relieve some of the overload on the current volunteers as well
as allow for more specialization and training.
The Council is being asked to hold a public hearing and consider the ordinances creating a
separate Board of Architectural Review.
RIi1'IEWI:D BY COW Mtg. CA &P Cmte F &S Cmte
Transportation Cmte
Utilities Cmte Arts Comm. Parks Comm. Planning Comm.
DA'Z'E: 12/14/09
RECOMMENDATIONS:
SPONSOR /ADMIN. Mayor
COMMITTEE Forward to Committee of the Whole for Discussion
COST:IMPACT SOURCE
AMOUNT BUDGETED
RECORD :OF COUNCIL ACTION
APPROPRIATION REQUIRED
ATTACHMENTS
Informational Memorandum dated 1/4/10
Memorandum from the Community Affairs and Parks Committee meeting of 12/14/09
Ordinances (3) in Draft Form
Minutes from the Community Affairs and Parks Committee meeting of 12/14/09
1
2
City of Tukwila
TO:
INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
Mayor Haggerton
City Council
FROM: Shelley Kerslake, City Attorney
DATE: January 4, 2010
SUBJECT: Separate Planning Commission and Board of Architectural Review
Jim Haggerton, Mayor
ISSUE
In light of the increased long range planning work load, as well as the significant reduction of
quasi judicial matters being heard by the Planning Commission it seems time to re- examine the
role and composition of the Planning Commission (PC) and Board of Architectural Review
(BAR).
BACKGROUND
The Community Affairs and Parks Committee reviewed this issue on December 14, 2009 and
sent it to the Community of the Whole for further discussion (see attached memo and minutes).
While the members were supportive of the concept of creating separate bodies for review of
legislative and quasi-judicial matters, there was not consensus about whether the Planning
Commission should remain at 7 members or be reduced to 5 and whether non residents should
be permitted to serve on the Planning Commission.
DISCUSSION
The original proposal was to create two five member bodies to replace the current seven
member combined PC /BAR. Due to Commissioner Ekberg's vacated seat, this would create
four openings. If the PC were kept at seven members and the new BAR at five this would
require six new volunteers. Staff is actively spreading the word about the possible openings
and hopefully there will be an adequate pool of qualified volunteers to fill either four or six
positions.
There has been a business community representative on the PC since 1997, and that position
has been held by the same volunteer. Whether to continue this opportunity for the business
community or return to an all- resident Commission is a policy decision for the Council.
RECOMMENDATION
The goals for this reorganization (create bodies to focus on either legislative or quasi judicial
actions, relieve some of the overload on the current volunteers as well as allow for more
specialization and training) would still be met regardless of Council decisions on the above
issues. Based on the outcome of these discussions, staff will revise the draft ordinances and
asks the Council to send them to the January 19, 2010 Regular Meeting for a public hearing and
review and approval.
ATTACHMENTS
Memorandum from the Community Affairs and Parks Committee meeting of 12/14/09
Draft Ordinances
Minutes from the Community Affairs and Parks Committee meeting of 12/14/09
3
4
TO:
ISSUE
BACKGROUND
DISCUSSION
City of Tukwila
INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
Mayor Haggerton
Community Affairs and Parks Committee
FROM: Shelley Kerslake, City Attorney
DATE: December 9, 2009
SUBJECT: Separate Planning Commission and Board of Architectural Review
Jim Haggerton, Mayor
In light of the increased long range planning work load, as well as the significant reduction of
quasi judicial matters being heard by the Planning Commission it may be time to reexamine the
role and composition of the Planning Commission and Board of Architectural Review.
Currently the City's Planning Commission (PC) and Board of Architectural Review (BAR) are
composed of the same group of seven volunteers. They meet as the BAR to hear design
review applications and until the recent set of code amendments as the PC to hear a variety of
quasi judicial permits such as conditional uses and special permission code exceptions. Due to
liability concerns raised by our insurance carrier all except three of the quasi judicial PC
decisions were shifted to the Hearing Examiner or DCD Director.
The PC also makes recommendations on legislative items such as Zoning Code amendments,
Comprehensive Plan Amendments, sub -area plans (such as the Southcenter Plan) and other
land use regulations sent to them by the City Council. DCD has an intensive work plan for the
next few years that will require continuous PC involvement.
The combination of legislative and quasi judicial actions currently heard by the PC and BAR can
lead to confusion about proper procedures and legal requirements. As you know, the quasi
judicial role is very different from the policy making role and requires a different approach.
Although we have conducted training sessions for the PC members their dual roles can be
confusing. This confusion has the potential to lead to expensive appeals. Therefore it seems
appropriate to reexamine the role and composition of the PC.
While combining the legislative and quasi judicial functions of this volunteer board was
appropriate when Tukwila was smaller and had fewer items under review the legislative
workload has grown to often require multiple meetings per month. The backlog of long range
items such as the Southcenter Plan, Sign Code Update, and Tree Ordinance as well as the
upcoming Comprehensive Plan update would be more efficiently handled by a dedicated long
range planning body. Due to the current slowdown in permit volumes the legislative work load
has not created delays for design review applicants, however when we return to historical
development activity levels it will be very difficult to process both types of actions in a timely
manner.
INFORMATIONAL MEMO
Page 2
In addition to a long -range planning body, a separate BAR could be created. The BAR would
have dedicated seats for local design professionals and developers as well as residents, to
ensure that a broad range of viewpoints and experience is brought to the decision making
process. Additional training in both design and quasi judicial procedures could be provided to
this newly constituted group to ensure that decisions are clearly linked to the review criteria and
are defensible if appealed.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the functions of the PC and BAR be separated into different bodies that
would focus on either legislative or quasi judicial actions. This would relieve some of the
overload on the current volunteers as well as allow for more specialization and training. The
current members of the PC /BAR would move to one of the new bodies to continue their terms.
The remaining seats would be filled through the normal appointment process.
Under this scenario the PC would:
Serve as the review body for Zoning, Subdivision and Sign Code changes;
Serve as the review body for the Comprehensive Plan and sub -area plans;
Be comprised of five members, each serving a four -year term, and
Meet 1 -4 times per month, depending on workload.
Three members of the PC would be at -large Tukwila residents, a fourth member would be a
business community representative, and the fifth member would be a resident or business
community representative with education or professional experience in city planning,
transportation planning, transportation engineering, or environmental engineering
As a separate body the BAR would:
Serve as the review body for decisions on design review applications and administrative
design review appeals;
Be comprised of five members each serving a four -year term; and
Meet 1 -2 times per month depending on permit volume.
Three members of the BAR would be at -large Tukwila residents, and two members would be
residents or business community representatives with education or professional experience in
architecture, urban design, landscape architecture or land development.
To make changes to the City's current PC system will require changes to the Tukwila Municipal
Code as well as revised rules of procedure for the two bodies, see attached draft language.
The Council is being asked to consider this item at the January 11, 2010 Committee of the
Whole meeting and subsequent January 19, 2009 Regular Meeting.
ATTACHMENTS
Draft Ordinances (3)
2010 DCD Work Plan
W:12009 InfoMemos \PC &BAR_CAP.doc
5
6
W: \Word Processing \Ordinances \Establishing BAR Review.doc
NG:ksn 01/05/2010
DRAFT
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA,
WASHINGTON, ESTABLISHING NEW REGULATIONS REGARDING THE
BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW, PRESCRIBING ITS DUTIES AND
AUTHORITY; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND ESTABLISHING
AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City's Board of Architectural Review reviews and approves the
design of new development or substantial changes in existing development; and
WHEREAS, the goal of the Board of Architectural Review is to provide review by
public officials of land development and building design in order to promote the public
health, safety and welfare; and
WHEREAS, the number and complexity of issues brought to Tukwila's combined
Board of Architectural Review and Planning Commission has risen significantly over
the years since it was first established; and
WHEREAS, separating Tukwila's Board of Architectural Review from the Planning
Commission would allow it to focus on only quasi judicial actions; and
WHEREAS, separating Tukwila's Board of Architectural Review from the Planning
Commission would prevent project review times from being affected by the volume of
long -range planning efforts, therefore promoting quality customer service; and
WHEREAS, on January 19, 2010, following adequate public notice, the Tukwila City
Council held a public hearing to receive testimony concerning the establishment of the
Board of Architectural Review;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA,
WASHINGTON, HEREBY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Created. Pursuant to the authority conferred by Chapter 35A.63.110 RCW
there is created a City Board of Architectural Review (BAR), consisting of five members
who shall be appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by the City Council.
Section 2. Membership. A minimum of three Board of Architectural Review
members shall reside within the limits of the City of Tukwila on the day of that
member's appointment to said position. Members shall be selected from a cross section
of the community representing different trades, occupations, activities and geographical
areas to provide a balanced community spirit. Two Board of Architectural Review
members may be residents or business community members with education or
professional experience in architecture, urban design, landscape architecture or land
development. All members shall be of voting age and shall have lived or worked, if a
non resident member, in the City for at least one year.
Section 3. Powers and Duties. The Board of Architectural Review shall review
quasi judicial applications as listed in Tukwila Municipal Code Section 18.104.10. They
shall have such other powers and duties as enumerated by ordinance and codified in
the Tukwila Municipal Code.
Page 1 of 2
7
8
Section 4. Terms of Office.
A. Members shall be appointed to staggered four -year terms that shall expire at
midnight on the date of the completion of the respective terms. When a vacancy occurs,
appointment for that position shall be for four years or the remainder of the unexpired
term, whichever is shorter. Any member may have their term of office extended for a
period of time not to exceed six months to complete a special project, when such
extension is nominated by the Mayor and approved by the City Council.
B. Members who become non residents during their term of office shall remain on
the Board no more than 90 days unless granted a special project extension by the Mayor
and the City Council.
C. If a member who represents the business community is no longer employed
within the City or his or her business relocates out of the City, that member shall remain
on the Board no more than 90 days unless granted a special project extension by the
Mayor and the City Council.
Section 5. Vacancies, Removal and Selection.
A. Vacancy occurring otherwise than through the expiration of term shall be filled
for the unexpired term.
B. Members may be removed after public hearing by the Mayor with the approval
of the City Council for inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance in office. Notice of
the charge and pendency of the hearing with respect to the removal of a member of the
Board of Architectural Review shall be given by mail addressed to the residence of the
accused member at least five days before the date of such hearing.
C. Members shall be selected without respect to political affiliations and they shall
serve without compensation; provided, however, they may be reimbursed for expenses
necessarily incurred in performing their official duties.
Section 6. Organization. The Board of Architectural Review shall adopt rules of
procedure that are consistent with state laws.
Section 7. 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 8. 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 2010.
ATTEST/ AUTHENTICATED:
Jim Haggerton, Mayor
Christy O'Flaherty, 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:
W: \Word Processing Ordinances \Establishing BAR Review.doc
NG:ksn 12/29/2009
Page 2 of 2
F 1
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA,
WASHINGTON, AMENDING VARIOUS ORDINANCES, AS CODIFIED AT
TUKWILA MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE 18, "ZONING CODE," DESIGNATING THE
BOARD OF ARCHI1ICTURAL REVIEW AS THE DECISION MAKING BODY FOR
CERTAIN TYPES OF PERMITS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND
ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the Zoning Code of the City of Tukwila lists permit application types and
procedures and the City has received recommendations from Washington Cities Insurance
Authority (WCIA) for amendments regarding decision makers and appeal bodies and the City
wishes to update its permit types and procedures based on WCIA's recommendations; and
WHEREAS, due to the significant number of projects and complex issues that have come
before the City, the City has determined that separating the Board of Architectural Review from
the Planning Commission would allow the Board of Architectural Review to focus on only
quasi judicial actions; and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Code of the City of Tukwila establishes procedures for design
review and the City wishes to update the language to reflect its creation of a Board of
Architectural Review separate from the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, on August 27, 2009 the Tukwila Planning Commission, following adequate
public notice, held a public hearing to receive testimony concerning amending the zoning and
subdivision code and adopted a motion recommending the proposed changes; and
WHEREAS, on January 19, 2010, following adequate public notice, the Tukwila City
Council held a public hearing to receive testimony concerning the recommendations of the
Board of Architectural Review;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA,
WASHINGTON, HEREBY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Ordinance Amended. Ordinance No. 1758 §1 (part), as codified at TMC Section
18.60.020, is amended to read as follows:
18.60.020 Membership
The Board of Architectural Review (BAR) shall consist of members appointed by the
Tukwila City Council, to be codified at Tukwila Municipal Code Chapter 2.37.
Section 2. Ordinances Amended. Ordinance Nos. 2251 §73, 2235 §15, 2118 §1, 2005 §17, 1865
§50 and 1758 §1 (part), as codified at TMC Section 18.60.030, are amended to read as follows:
18.60.030 Scope of Authority
A. The rules and regulations of the Board of Architectural Review (BAR) shall be stated in
their bylaws.
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 BAR 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, MIC /L, and MIC /H districts, except when within 300
feet of residential districts or within 200 feet of the Green /Duwamish River or that require a
shoreline permit.
W:\ Word Processing Ordinances Board of Architectural Review Title 18.doc
SK:ksn 01/05/2010
Page 1 of 5
9
10
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 C /LI zoning districts;
b. for any site in the NCC, MUO or RC zoning districts in the Tukwila International
Boulevard corridor (see TMC Figure 18 -9); and
c. for any multi- family structures in MDR and HDR zones.
3. Development applications using the procedures of TMC Section 18.60.060,
"Commercial Redevelopment Areas."
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. Minor
amendments to an approved project may be permitted upon request to the Director where they
do not substantially change the appearance, intensity or impacts of the project. Major
amendments to an approved project will require submittal of a new design review application.
A major amendment is a substantial change to elements of the approved plans, including
substantially revised building design, alteration of circulation patterns or intensification of
development on the site.
Section 3. Ordinances Amended. Ordinance Nos. 2251 §75, 2235 §19, 2135 §19 and 2119 §1,
as codified at TMC Section 18.104.010, are amended to read as follows:
18.104.010 Classification of Project Permit Applications
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.
1. 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
1 TYPE OF PERMIT 1 DECISION MAKER
Any land use permit or approval issued As specified by ordinance
by the 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 Chapter 17.08)
Development Permit 1 Building Official 1
Minor modification to design review Community Development Director
approval (TMC Section 18.60.030)
Minor Modification to PRD Community Development Director
(TMC Section 18.46.130)
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 Chapter 18.54) 1 Community Development Director
Wireless Communication Facility, Minor Community Development Director
(TMC Chapter 18.58)
W: \Word Processing \Ordinances \Board of Architectural Review Tide 18.doc
SK:ksn 01/04/2010
Page 2 of 5
2. 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, Board of Architectural Review, or, in the case of shoreline permits, an
appeal to the State Shorelines Hearings Board pursuant to RCW 90.58.
Type 2 Decisions
INITIAL DECISION APPEAL BODY
TYPE OF PERMIT MAKER (open record appeal)
Administrative Design Review Community Development Board of Architectural
(TMC Section 18.60.030) Director Review
Administrative Planned Short Plat Committee Hearing Examiner
Residential Development
(TMC Section 18.46.110)
Binding Site Improvement Short Plat Committee Hearing Examiner
Plan (TMC Chapter 17.16)
Cargo Container Placement Community Development Hearing Examiner
(TMC Section 18.50.060) Director
Code Interpretation Community Development Hearing Examiner
(TMC Section 18.90.010) Director
Exception from Single Family Community Development Hearing Examiner
Design Standard (TMC Section Director
18.50.050)
Modification to Development Community Development Hearing Examiner
Standards (TMC Section Director
18.41.100)
Parking standard for use not Community Development Hearing Examiner
specified (TMC Section Director
18.56.100)
Sensitive Areas Community Development Hearing Examiner
(except Reasonable Use Director
Exception) (TMC Chapter
18.45)
Shoreline Substantial Community Development State Shorelines
Development Permit (TMC Director Hearings Board
Chapter 18.44)
Short Plat (TMC Chapter Short Plat Committee Hearing Examiner
17.12)
Sign Area Increase Community Development Hearing Examiner
(TMC Section 19.32.140) Director
Sign Permit Denial Community Development Hearing Examiner
(TMC Chapter 19.12) Director
Special Permission Parking, Community Development Hearing Examiner
and Modifications to Certain Director
Parking Standards (TMC
Sections 18.56.065 and .070)
Special Permission Sign, Community Development Hearing Examiner
except "unique sign" (various Director
sections of TMC Title 19)
Wireless Communication Community Development Hearing Examiner
Facility, Minor (TMC Chapter Director
18.58)
3. 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 and shoreline conditional uses that may be appealed to the State
Shorelines Hearings Board pursuant to RCW 90.58.
W: \Word Processing Ordinances \Board of Architectural Review.doc
SK:ksn 12/17/2009
Page 3 of 5
11
12
Type 3 Decisions
TYPE OF PERMIT
Resolve uncertain zone district boundary
Variance (zoning, shoreline, sidewalk,
land alteration, sign)
TSO Special Permission Use (TMC
Section 18.41.060)
Conditional Use Permit
Modifications to Certain Parking
Standards (TMC Chapter 18.56)
Reasonable Use Exceptions under
Sensitive Areas Ordinance (TMC Section
18.45.180)
Variance from Parking Standards over
10% (TMC Section 18.56.140)
Shoreline Conditional Use Permit (TMC
Section 18.44.130 C)
Subdivision Preliminary Plat with no
associated Design Review application
(TMC Section 17.14.020)
Wireless Communication Facility, Major
or Waiver Request (TMC Chapter 18.58)
4. Type 4 decisions are quasi judicial decisions made by the Board of Architectural
Review following an open record hearing. Type 4 decisions may be appealed to the Hearing
Examiner based on the record established by the Board of Architectural Review, except
Shoreline Conditional Use Permits, which are appealable to the State Shorelines Hearings Board
pursuant to RCW 90.58.
Type 4 Decisions
TYPE OF PERMIT
Public Hearing Design Review
(TMC Chapter 18.60)
Subdivision Preliminary Plat
with an associated Design Review
application (TMC Section
17.14.020)
Unique Signs (TMC Section
19.28.010)
Type 5 Decisions
TYPE OF PERMIT
Planned Residential Development (PRD),
including Major Modifications (TMC Chapter
18.46)
Rezone (TMC Chapter 18.84)
Sensitive Area Master Plan Overlay (TMC Section
18.45.160)
Shoreline Environment Re- designation (Shoreline
Master Program)
Subdivision Final Plat (TMC Section 17.12.030)
Unclassified Use (TMC Chapter 18.66)
W: \Word Processing\ Ordinances Board of Architectural Review.doc
SK:ksn 12/17/2009
DECISION MAKER APPEAL BODY
Hearing Examiner Superior Court
Hearing Examiner Superior Court
Hearing Examiner
Hearing Examiner
Hearing Examiner
Hearing Examiner
Hearing Examiner
Hearing Examiner
Hearing Examiner
Hearing Examiner
INITIAL DECISION
MAKER
Board of Architectural
Review
Board of Architectural
Review
Board of Architectural
Review
DECISION
MAKER
City Council
1 City Council
City Council
City Council
1 City Council
1 City Council
Superior Court
Superior Court
Superior Court
Superior Court
Superior Court
State Shorelines
Hearings Board
Superior Court
Superior Court
APPEAL BODY
(closed record appeal)
Hearing Examiner
Hearing Examiner
Hearing Examiner
5. 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.
APPEAL
BODY
Superior Court
1 Superior Court
Superior Court
Superior Court
1 Superior Court
1 Superior Court
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.
Page 4 of 5
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 2010.
ATTEST/ AUTHENTICATED:
Christy O'Flaherty, CMC, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM BY:
Office of the City Attorney
W: \Word Processing Ordinances \Board of Architectural Review Title 1S.doc
SK:ksn 01/04/2010
Jim Haggerton, Mayor
Filed with the City Clerk:
Passed by the City Council:
Published:
Effective Date:
Ordinance Number:
Page5of5
13
14
nin
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA,
WASHINGTON, ESTABLISHING NEW REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
PLANNING COMMISSION, SEPARATING THE BOARD OF
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW FUNCTIONS, AND MODIFYING THE
PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERSHIP REQUIREMENTS;
REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 1802; PROVIDING FOR
SEVERABILITY; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the State of Washington has authorized code cities to create a Planning
Commission; and
WHEREAS, RCW 35A.63.020 provides that a Planning Commission shall serve in an
advisory capacity to the Mayor, City Council or both with regard to the orderly and
coordinated development of land and building uses of the City and its environs, and shall have
such other duties as shall be provided by ordinance; and
WHEREAS, in June 1997, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1802 establishing the
Planning Commission membership, duties and authority; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission members and Board of Architectural Review (BAR)
are composed of the same group of volunteers; and
WHEREAS, the City wishes to separate the Planning Commission and Board of
Architectural Review into two different bodies; and
WHEREAS, the City's Board of Architectural Review reviews and approves the design of
new development or substantial changes in existing development; and
WHEREAS, the number and complexity of issues brought to Tukwila's combined Board of
Architectural Review and Planning Commission have risen significantly over the years since it
was first established; and
WHEREAS, separating Tukwila's Board of Architectural Review from the Planning
Commission would allow the Board of Architectural Review to focus on only quasi judicial
actions; and
WHEREAS, separating Tukwila's Board of Architectural Review from the Planning
Commission would prevent project review times from being affected by the volume of long
range planning efforts and therefore promote quality customer service; and
WHEREAS, revisions to Chapter 2.36 of the Tukwila Municipal Code are needed to
eliminate references to the Board of Architectural Review; and
WHEREAS, a new chapter of the Tukwila Municipal Code will be created to include rules
for a Board of Architectural Review separate from the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, on January 19, 2010, following adequate public notice, the Tukwila City
Council held a public hearing to receive testimony concerning the establishment of the Board of
Architectural Review;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA,
WASHINGTON, HEREBY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Created. Pursuant to the authority conferred by RCW Chapter 35A.63 of Ch.
119, Laws of 1967, Ex. Sess., as amended by Ch. 81, Laws of 1969 Ex. Sess., there is created a
City Planning Commission, consisting of five members, who shall be appointed by the Mayor
and confirmed by the City Council.
Section 2. Membership. A minimum of three Planning Commission members shall reside
within the corporate limits of the City of Tukwila on the day of that member's appointment to
said position. Members shall be selected from a cross section of the community representing
different trades, occupations, activities and geographical areas to provide a balanced
community spirit. One member of the Planning Commission may be a business owner,
operator or management level employee, or qualified representative, who is not a resident of
W:\ Word Processing Ordinances \Planning Commission Separation.docx
NG:ksn 01/05/2010
Page 1 of 2
15
16
the City. One member may be a resident or business community member with education or
professional experience in city planning, transportation engineering or environmental
processes. All members shall be of voting age and shall have lived or worked, if a non resident
member, in the City for at least one year.
Section 3. Powers and Duties. The Planning Commission shall advise the Mayor and
Council on legislative matters relating to land use, comprehensive planning and zoning. They
shall have such other powers and duties as enumerated by ordinance and codified in the
Tukwila Municipal Code.
Section 4. Terms of Office.
A. Present appointed members of the Planning Commission shall remain in office for the
balance of their current terms. Terms of office will be for a period of four years and shall expire
at midnight on the date of the completion of the respective terms. When a vacancy occurs,
appointment for that position shall be for four years, or the remainder of the unexpired tern,
whichever is shorter. Any member may have their term of office extended for a period of time
not to exceed six months to complete a special project, when such extension is nominated by
the Mayor and approved by the City Council.
B. Members who become non residents during their term of office shall remain on the
Commission no more than 90 days unless granted a special project extension by the Mayor and
City Council.
C. If a member who represents the business community is no longer employed within the
City, or his or her business relocates out of the City, that member shall remain on the
Commission no more than 90 days unless granted a special project extension by the Mayor and
the City Council.
Section 5. Vacancies, Removal, Selection.
A. Vacancy occurring other than through the expiration of terms shall be filled for the
unexpired terms.
B. Members may be removed after public hearing by the Mayor with the approval of the
City Council for inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance in office. Notice of the charge and
pendency of the hearing with respect to the removal of a member of the Planning Commission
shall be given by mail addressed to the residence of the accused member at least five days
before the date of such hearing.
C. The members shall be selected without respect to political affiliations and they shall
serve without compensation; provided, however, they may be reimbursed for expenses
necessarily incurred in performing their official duties.
Section 6. Organization. The Planning Commission shall adopt rules of procedure that are
consistent with State laws.
Section 7. Minutes. Minutes of Planning Commission meetings shall be distributed to the
City Council not more than ten days after formal approval of such minutes by the Commission.
Further, when items are to be discussed by the Council and the Commission minutes are
pertinent, those minutes should be supplied to the Council in time to be read before Council
consideration.
Section 8. Repealer. Ordinance No. 1802 is hereby repealed.
Section 9. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance should
be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or
unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section,
sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance.
Section 10. 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 2010.
ATTEST/ AUTHENTICATED:
Christy O'Flaherty, CMC, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM BY:
Office of the City Attorney
W: \Word Processing \Ordinances \Planning Commission Separation.docx
NG:ksn 01/04/2010
Jim Haggerton, Mayor
Filed with the City Clerk:
Passed by the City Council:
Published:
Effective Date:
Ordinance Number:
Page 2 of 2
Sounder Station
A� September October November Decembe'
orkplan
Special Projects W May June July
pC p 2010 p April C Action
March Fi C City Council review
January February R review
Department of Ecology planning Commissi pp o eCt lemental OS
SMS Update r �endatronslSuPp
dralNor recom
Staff CaroUSan ‘Stakeholders redraft and entation
i Stakeh E d u cation/imp lementation
TUG plan CC Review
Adoption
Staff LynnlNora mission h 2010
Planning Com chf Staff work through Code Upd to Commun'ty Outrea
Sign l a C C a dopt work plan
Staff ndonlNora
mendme
Comp Plan A Overlay
a) 'TO-Transit Oriented pev enter
b) Manufacturing industrial Center
c) 7 year update-topics could Capital Facilities,
all the elements ods,Utilities,
Housing, Neighborho
Economic pev etc.
Resources staff
Staff Rebeccalplannrn9 1 v iew p action
Submitted Permit Review
Work
South
Permits Subm Ongoing or later after final Council S
Tukwila So review DOE re view time for SNiP)
Permit intake and year (during
2n d an nexation in they
�Either early W ork
ends Ongoing Staff
SAC m &text amends
Carol/San
Q evelop a Tracking
Staff Nlit g tlon
•Monitoring of Sensitive Area
Staff- Sandra Plan by first quart
Work P Com mission
f'"` Team tr reek restoration Planning
Stream rant for Cot C
King Cog CAP
Staff Sandra w ork
Staff it
e Rewrite U perm
Ordinanc A Hearing of Unclassified
Tree SandraICarol
Staff
Project; Workplan
Special Pr °1 June
020 0sp May_
April
March
February
January Committee
'T Pro' pct potation 1
lem t Agreement
�alk an d Roll Design Report peveloprne
Bike Lanes p
Staff Moiral,laimie
Village CpOrdination petition
Tukwila C C review
Staff Minnielperek CAP briefing
North Annexatio
Ongoing
Recycling ExPans►on
Staff- Minnie Conservancy
u R ilityl ing Reduction
Cascade 1 -and Cons
S Staff work
Re Ongoing
e Recycling briefing
Green Team e becca T
Staff Brandonl
1_ for Parks
Transit Center consultation
Staff-Lynn, Pw
Ongoing cons
Pond-water quality
Tukwila Pond" consultation
landscape design Ongoing staff work Staff work
Flood Preparation
,Residential In% Standards
'Res Nora Stacy,
Staff for FAN
Current Planning consulting
development agreement
Riverton mixed use
CC review
CC acceptance
anage
Gr R e tc y cl ng grants- Rebecca
Energy grant- Brandon
forcempnt ection
Code En licensing insP
oontal Housing
Ongoing staff work
November tuber
September ber
August
July
lete Annexation process
Comp
COMMUNITY AFFAIRS AND PARKS COMMITTEE
Meeting Minutes
December 14, 2009 5:00 p.m.; Conference Room #3
I. PRESENTATIONS
No presentations.
City of Tukwila
Community Affairs and Parks Committee
PRESENT
Councilmembers: Verna Griffin, Chair; Joe Duffle and Kathy Hougardy
Staff: Shawn Hunstock, Jack Pace, Kathy Stetson, Shelley Kerslake, Christy O'Flaherty, Mary Hulvey
Stacy MacGregor and Kimberly Matej
Guests: Chuck Parrish
CALL TO ORDER: Committee Chair Griffin called the meeting to order at 5:04 p.m.
In the interest of time, the agenda items below were discussed in an order d fferent than what was listed on the
Committee Agenda cover sheet.
II. BUSINESS AGENDA
A. Planning Commission and Board of Architectural Review (BART Roles Responsibilities
Staff is seeking full Council approval to separate the functions of the Planning Commission and Board of
Architectural Review into two distinct commissions /boards. Separating these functions will require
ordinances changes.
Currently, the seven member volunteer Planning Commission also serves as the Board of Architectural
Review. This dual role causes the Commission to practice two separate decision making/recommending
authorities legislative and quasi-judicial. This dual role can often be confusing as volunteer members
determine their appropriate roles as decision makers and /or an advisory Commission to the City Council.
Separate bodies carrying out legislative or quasi-judicial roles will allow for and encourage the specialty
function of each; make workloads more manageable; and reduce liability concerns raised by the City's
insurance carrier.
Committee members asked several questions regarding the separation of Commission duties including the
appointment process and timing for this item coming forward to Committee. Staff replied that the current
appointment process for boards and commissions would remain in effect, where as commissioners and /or
board members are recommended by the Mayor and confirmed by the Council. Additionally, in January a
current Planning Commissioner will leave his seat to accept a position on the City Council. As
applications are being received to fill this vacancy, it seems to be the most appropriate time to move
forward with such a separation of duties.
In summary, the Committee is supportive of the separation of duties into a Planning Commission and
Board of Architectural Review, agreeing that it is in the best interest of the City to consider this
separation of duties. However, the members were not in agreement of the details of this separation
including, but not limited to, the number of members on each commission/board; requirements for
appointment (resident/business), and conditions of re- appointment/application. The Committee
recommends forwarding this item to full Council in support of the separation of the Planning Commission
into two bodies, but recommends further discussion on specific details. FORWARD TO JANUARY 11
COW FOR DISCUSSION.
19