Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCAP 2012-01-09 Item 2A - Amendments - Housekeeping Code AmendmentsCity of Tukwila Jim Haggerton, Mayor INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Haggerton Community Affairs and Parks Committee FROM: Jack Pace, Community Development Director DATE: January 4, 2012 SUBJECT: Proposed Housekeeping Code Amendments ISSUE Should the Zoning Code and other sections of the TMC be amended to make housekeeping changes? BACKGROUND Staff has grouped amendments to the Zoning Code along with some minor amendments to Title 5, 8 and 21 of the Tukwila Municipal Code for your consideration. The topics range from minor housekeeping or clarification to policy decisions about the review process and development standards. The process for these code amendments includes a briefing to the Community Affairs and Parks (CAP) Committee who would then forward some or all of the amendments to the Planning Commission to review in detail. Staff would then bring the Planning Commission's recommendations back to CAP and then the full Council. Included in this memo is a list of the proposed amendments with a brief explanation. The first two amendments involve some policy decisions, whereas the remaining amendments are just correcting inaccuracies or codifying existing code interpretations. DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED CHANGES A. Refine the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and rezone procedures to separate the legislative and associated quasi judicial process. The City Attorney has advised staff that Tukwila needs to revise the way it reviews and processes quasi judicial, site specific rezones to ensure that they are treated distinctly from legislative, area -wide rezones. Tukwila's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning map classifications are identical. Whenever a rezone of any size or type is proposed, changes to both the Comprehensive Plan map and Zoning Map are needed. At this time quasi judicial, site specific rezones follow essentially the same process as legislative decisions, except the Planning Commission and City Council are told that they are acting in a quasi judicial manner, appearance of fairness questions are asked, and members are told to avoid ex parte communication. Site visits are advertised to the public, and done in a group. Under the State Law a quasi judicial project should have only one open record hearing. The current process for rezone requests involves discussion at the Community Affairs and Parks Committee (CAP); public meeting at the Committee of the Whole (COW) meeting; Regular City Council meeting to decide whether to send the item to the Planning Commission for review or not; Planning Commission (PC) public hearing; CAP meeting to review the PC recommendation; INFORMATIONAL MEMO Page 2 public hearing at the COW meeting; and a final decision at the Regular City Council meeting. This process is identical for other legislative comprehensive plan amendments. Our current process results in the strong possibility that the quasi judicial matters will not be handled in compliance with the State Law, leading to potentially costly legal challenges for the City. Staff has outlined three options for processing site specific rezones in a quasi judicial manner. Per TMC 18.84.010, all rezones are currently Type 5 decisions. 1) Option 1 a) Tvpe 5 Decision where staff holds a public meeting to provide information and gather citizen comments; City Council holds an open record hearing and makes a decision; and the appeals go to Superior Court. Pro: Con: Already in code Simplifies rezone review process Two opportunities for public comment No "official" Planning Commission role b)Tvpe 5 (Variation) where staff holds a public meeting with the Planning Commission; City Council holds an open record hearing before making the final decision; and the appeal goes to Superior Court Pro Con: Retains role for Planning Commission City Council has decision making responsibility Meeting, rather than hearing, could be confusing for the Planning Commission 2) Option 2 a) Tvne 3 Decision where the Hearing Examiner holds the open record hearing and makes the decision and the appeal goes to Superior Court. Pro we"A Clear distinction between quasi judicial and legislative. Quicker process with less staff time required than current process Simple process Much less public input. No Planning Commission or City Council involvement "Outsider" makes decision Under the State Law comprehensive plan cannot be amended more than once a year. The decision regarding accompanying comprehensive plan map change cannot be coordinated with other comprehensive plan amendments. MD W:\2012 Info Memos Council \HousekeepingCodeAmendments.DOC 6 INFORMATIONAL MEMO Page 3 b)Tvpe 3 (Variation) where the Hearing Examiner holds an open record hearing, with recommendation to the City Council; City Council holds a closed record hearing, with a final decision by ordinance; and the appeals go to Superior Court. Pro: Con: Clear distinction between quasi judicial and legislative. Hearing Examiner prepares legally defensible findings for the record before making a recommendation to the City Council. Less staff time required than current process City Council makes decision Less public input. No Planning Commission involvement City Council holds a closed record hearing where no new information can be entered in the record. 3) Option 3 a) Tvpe 4 Decision where the Planning Commission holds an open record hearing before making the decision and the appeals go to the City Council Pro: Basic quasi judicial process with continued Planning Commission involvement Slightly quicker process with less staff time than currently required Con: Less public input No Council involvement or decision unless on appeal Under the State Law comprehensive plan cannot be amended more than once a year. The decision regarding accompanying comprehensive plan map change cannot be coordinated with other comprehensive plan amendments. b)Tvpe 4 Decision (Alternate) where the Planning Commission holds an open record hearing before making a recommendation to the City Council; City Council holds a closed record hearing before making a final decision; and the appeals go to Superior Court Pro: Con: Retains both Planning Commission Council involvement Similar to current process Possible confusion between legislative and quasi judicial roles Staff recommends option 1 b, as it retains the decision making authority with the City Council and retains a role for the Planning Commission. Under this option any site specific rezone along with the accompanying comprehensive map change would not be discussed initially at the CAP, COW and the City Council meeting, where a threshold decision is made regarding other comprehensive plan amendments. Instead the Planning Commission will hold a public meeting and the City Council will hold a public hearing at their Regular Meeting before making a decision the same night. MD W: \2012 Info Memos Council \HousekeepingCodeAmendments.DOC 3 INFORMATIONAL MEMO Page 4 B. Single Family Design Standards: Staff had previously briefed the Community Affairs and Parks Committee regarding some options for regulating the bulk and size of single family dwelling units. At that time the Committee gave direction to staff to amend the method of calculating building height for sloping sites and to not make any other changes to the building footprint or setback regulations. Since then an issue related to manufactured homes and the existing design standards of minimum roof pitch requirements and front door facing the street was raised by a Tukwila citizen. See Attachment A for detailed code language. In order to address the issue of replacement of existing single wide manufactured homes staff has outlined three options for the committee to consider: Amend the Single Family Design Standards to allow the Director to modify the roof pitch and front door facing the street requirement if the proposal includes replacement of a single wide mobile home with a newer and larger manufactured home. 2. Do not make any changes and require all new single family dwelling units to meet the existing design standards. 3. Do not have any design standards for single family dwelling units. Staff recommends option 1 as this requires all new single family dwelling units to meet the design standards while still allowing owners of single wide manufactured homes to replace the existing structure with a higher quality unit even if it does not meet the 5:12 roof pitch or front door facing the street requirement. C. Other miscellaneous code amendments: There are a number of code clarifications or updates needed to clean up the code where either the references are outdated or code interpretations need to be codified. A summary of the proposed amendments is listed below. 1. Amendments to Title 5 are proposed to correct the inaccurate references to zoning designations. 2. Title 8 is proposed to be amended to address the following: a) A list of schools and parks for the designated drug free zones has to be updated to include the new schools and parks that have been built since the code was adopted. b) Clarification is provided regarding when public notice is required for noise variances. c) Violations section of Title 8 needs to be updated to reference the correct sections. d) Parking limitations on single family lots is included in Title 8. A reference is added to Title 18 Residential Parking Requirements section to cross reference. Also, a discretionary approval process is added for properties that cannot meet the requirement for maximum paved area due to the shape of the lots. 3. The following changes are proposed to the Zoning Code Title 18: a) The definitions section is amended to: i) Building Height definition is amended to include a different method of determining the height on sloping lots. ii) A definition of tow truck operations is added. MD W: \2012 Info Memos Council \HousekeepingCodeAmendments.DOC El INFORMATIONAL MEMO Page 5 iii) Definition of regulated and isolated wetlands is updated to reflect the changes that were adopted as part of Sensitive Areas code update. b) Family child care homes are regulated by Department of Early Learning and not DSHS. This change is needed in the accessory uses section of all zones that list family child care homes an accessory use. c) Design Review Thresholds: i) Per the recently adopted Shoreline Master Program design review is required for all projects within the shoreline jurisdiction. This language needs to be added under the design review section of all zones. ii) Additional clarification is needed for the design review thresholds for non residential development in the Low Density Residential Zone. iii) Language is added to provide clarification that if an existing site had gone through design review then any modification within 10 years will be subject to minor or major modification design review process. d) Permit application types and procedures: i) TMC 18.104 lists conditional uses as Type 3 permits while 18.44.130 lists shoreline conditional use as Type 4. ii) Reasonable Use Exception is listed as a Type 3 permit under 18.104, but is listed as Type 4 under 18.45.180. iii) Type 4 process is required for modifications to the loading space requirements while the decision for the number of parking spaces is made by the Director. Staff is proposing that a Type 1 Director's approval be used for deviations from loading space requirements. iv) Parking lot restriping approval is being proposed as Type 2 Director's approval. v) Modifications to bicycle parking requirements are proposed to be approved by the Director as a Type 1 process. vi) TMC 18.104 references variances from parking standards as Hearing Examiner's decision, however 18.56.140 lists it as Planning Commission approval. vii) Process for approving different sign permits is deleted from Title 18 as it was covered under Title 19. viii) The process for approving proposals under the Housing Options Program is amended to be consistent with 18.104.010. e) TMC 18.45.120 references incorrect section. It should be 18.45.040C and not B. f) The regulations for removal of trees from the required landscaped area need to be clarified. A process for approving changes to the approved landscaping, replacement and penalty for violations is proposed. g) TMC 18.66.120 is amended to reference the term `shoreline buffer' instead of river /low impact environment, in order to be consistent with the recently adopted Shoreline Master Program. h) Language is proposed so that the notice of decision can be emailed instead of the requirement to mail it by first class. i) Building Heights Exception areas map needs to be corrected as it inadvertently dropped one area when it was amended by Ordinance 2186. MD W: \2012 Info Memos Council \HousekeepingCodeAmendments.DOC 5 INFORMATIONAL MEMO Page 6 j) Changes to the allowed uses in the MIC /L and MIC /H zones were made as part of the Comprehensive Plan update of the Manufacturing Industrial Center. Similar changes will need to be incorporated into the LI and HI zones. Also, some additional changes may also be desired to reorganize manufacturing uses in RC, RCM, TUC, TVS and C /LI to make them consistent with the format in MIC /L and MIC /H. 4. Title 21 is amended to clarify public notice requirements for SEPA applications and decisions. RECOMMENDATION Forward the proposed changes to the Planning Commission for consideration and review. After Planning Commission review and a public hearing, staff will return to the Community Affairs and Parks Committee with the Planning Commission's recommendations. ATTACHMENTS A. Single Family Design Standards MD W: \2012 Info Memos Council \HousekeepingCodeAmendments.DOC !•J Attachment A 18.50.050 Single- Family Dwelling Design Standards All new single- family dwellings, except those that are part of an approved Housing Options Demonstration Program, constructed under building permits submitted to the City after August 19, 2005, must: 1. be set upon a permanent foundation, with the space from the bottom of the home to the ground enclosed by concrete or an approved concrete product that can be either load bearing or decorative; 2. if a manufactured home, be comprised of at least two fully- enclosed parallel sections, each of not less than 12 feet wide by 36 feet long; 3. be thermally equivalent to the State's energy code; 4. have exterior siding that is residential in appearance including, but not limited to, wood clapboards, shingles or shakes, brick, conventional vinyl siding, fiber- cement siding, wood composite panels, aluminum siding or similar materials. Materials such as smooth, ribbed or corrugated metal or plastic panels are not acceptable; 5. have the front door facing the front or second front yard, if the lot is at least 40 feet wide; and 6. have a roofing material that is residential in appearance including, but not limited to, wood shakes or shingles, standing seam metal, asphalt composition shingles or tile, with a minimum roof pitch of 5:12. (Ord. 20 98 §2, 200 5) 18.50.0.55 Single- Family Design Standard Exceptions The design standards required at 18.50.050 (5) and (6) may be modified by the DCD Director as a Type 2 Special Permission decision. 1. The criteria for approval of a roof pitch flatter than 5:12 are as follows: a. The proposed roof pitch is consistent with the style of the house (for example modern, southwestern); b. If a flat roof is proposed, the top of the parapet may not exceed 25 feet in height; c. If a sloped roof is proposed, it must have at least 24 -inch eaves; and d. The house exhibits a high degree of design quality, including a mix of exterior materials, detailing, articulation and modulation. 2. The criteria for approval of a house with a front door that faces the side or rear yard are as follows: a. The topography of the lot is such that pedestrian access is safer or more convenient from the side or rear yard; b. The house will be set back at least twice the minimum front yard setback; c. The entrance is oriented to take advantage of a site condition such as a significant view; or d. The entry feature is integral to a unique architectural design. (Ord0 2098§3. 200.5) 7