HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit L05-061 - CITY OF TUKWILA - SUBDIVISION CODE AMENDMENTSL05 -061
SUBDIVISION AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
COMPREHENISVE LAND USE AMENDMENT
Cizj' of f TukwZla
Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director
STAFF REPORT
TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Prepared April 12, 2006
•
HEARING DATE: April 27, 2006
NOTIFICATION: Notice of Public Hearing published April 14, 2006.
FILE NUMBERS: L05 -061 Zoning Code Amendments
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
COMPREHENISVE LAND USE AMENDMENT
E06 -002 SEPA Checklist
REQUEST: Hold a public hearing and make a recommendation to the City Council
about the proposed amendments to the Subdivision Code.
LOCATION: City wide
SEPA
DETERMINATION: DNS
STAFF: Nora Gierloff, Planning Supervisor
Jim Morrow, PW Director
ATTACHMENT: A. Draft Ordinance Amending the Subdivision Code
Steven M. Mullet, Mayor
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665
BACKGROUND
DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED CHANGES
• •
Two issues are being addressed in this set of amendments to the Subdivision Code, TMC
Chapter 17. The first is that as part of their review of decision making bodies for quasi-judicial
matters the City Council chose to make subdivision preliminary plats a Type 4 decision made by
the Planning Commission rather than a Type 5 decision made by the City Council. The second
issue is a clarification of what infrastructure improvements may be bonded for completion before
final approval of a short plat, subdivision or binding site improvement plan.
Staff presented these issues to the Community Affairs and Parks (CAP) Committee on March 28,
2006. The Committee discussed the changes and chose to forward them to the City Council.
The COW discussed the changes and sent them to the PC for a recommendation.
Each proposed change is discussed below and the actual changes to the code language are shown
in draft ordinance form at Attachment A.
Planning Commission Review of Preliminary Plats
During their review of the quasi-judicial decision making bodies the COW recommended that
subdivision preliminary plat approvals be decided by the Planning Commission as a Type 4
decision rather than by the Council as a Type 5 decision. The Planning Commission did not
consider the issue of delegating preliminary plat approvals to the Planning Commission, due to a
staff misunderstanding concerning statutory requirements for such decisions. Before passing the
ordinance making this change in the Zoning Code the COW asked staff to informally poll
Planning Commission members on this matter. All members contacted supported delegation of
preliminary plat decisions to the Planning Commission.
The proposed changes to the Subdivision Code are housekeeping needed to implement the
Council's earlier decision.
Infrastructure Bonding Policy
City policy has been to require an applicant to construct any required infrastructure
improvements (roads, sewer, water, surface water drainage, street lights, sidewalks, etc.)
associated with a proposed short plat or subdivision before the approval for the final plat is
granted. The City has allowed the applicant to submit a bond for the completion of certain
improvements (final lift for the roadway, sidewalks, punch list items, etc.) and if the bond is
satisfactory, final plat approval has been granted.
NG - 2 - April 13. 2006
I': \Wynetta \New Folder \Nora PC Rpt 4- 27- 06.1)(X'
HEARING DATE:
NOTIFICATION:
FILE NUMBERS:
REQUEST:
LOCATION:
SEPA
DETERMINATION:
STAFF:
ATTACHMENT:
•
City of Tukwila
Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director
STAFF REPORT
TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
January 26, 2006
Prepared January 13, 2006
Notice of Public Hearing published January 13, 2006.
L05 -061 Code Amendments
E06 -002 SEPA Checklist
Hold a public hearing and make a recommendation to the City Council
about the 4 proposed amendments to the Zoning Code.
City wide
DNS
Nora Gierloff, Planning Supervisor
A. Draft Ordinance Changing Rezone Procedures
B. Draft Ordinance Changing Code Interpretation Procedures
C. Draft Ordinance Changing Design Review Approval Standard
D. Draft Ordinance Changing City Council Review of Land Use
Permits
Steven M. Mullet, Mayor
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665
BACKGROUND
Staff has grouped four proposed amendments to the Zoning Code together for consideration.
The City Attorney has recommended changes in the following areas:
1) Rezone procedures;
2) Code interpretation procedures and fee;
3) Design review approval standard; and
4) City Council involvement in quasi-judicial matters.
Staff presented these issues with various options to the Community Affairs and Parks (CAP)
Committee on October 11, 2005. The Committee discussed each item and chose to forward the
first three to the Planning Commission for a hearing and recommendation. The fourth item,
Council involvement in quasi-judicial matters was forwarded to the COW for additional
discussion on November 14, 2005. The COW recommendations are reflected in the draft
language in Attachment X.
Each proposed change is discussed below and the actual changes to the code language are shown
in draft ordinance form at Attachments A through D.
DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED CHANGES
Q:\CODEAMND\2006AmendPC.DOC
• •
A. Rezones
The proposed changes would replace the existing Chapter 18.84 and add additional criteria and
procedural clarity for rezone applications.
18.84.010 Application Submittal
Application for rezone of property shall be submitted to the Department of
Community Development. The application shall be a Type 5 decision processed in
accordance with the provisions of TMC 18.108.050.
18.84.030 Criteria
Each determination granting a rezone shall be supported by written findings and
conclusions showing specifically wherein all of the following conditions exist:
(1) That the proposed amendment to the zoning map is consistent with the
goals, objectives, and policies of the comprehensive plan;
(2) That the proposed amendment to the zoning map is consistent with the
scope and purpose of this title and the description and purpose of the zone
classification applied for;
(3) That there are changed conditions since the previous zoning became
effective to warrant the proposed amendment to the zoning map; and
(4) That the proposed amendment to the zoning map will be in the interest of
furtherance of the public health, safety, comfort, convenience and general welfare,
Page 2
• •
and will not adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood, nor be injurious to other
properties in the vicinity in which the subject property is located.
18.84.050 Conditions on Rezone Approvals
The City Council shall have the authority to impose conditions and safeguards as it
deems necessary to protect or enhance the health, safety, and welfare of the
surrounding area, and to ensure that the rezone fully meets the findings set forth in
TMC 18.84.030.
18.84.070 Ordinance Required
Action under this chapter which amends the official zoning map shall require the
adoption of an ordinance by the city council pursuant to the municipal code and state
law.
B. Code Interpretations
The changes would clarify that interpretations may be requested (for a fee) by any person and
that the Director's decision would be given substantial weight in an appeal.
TMC 18.96.020 Interpretations
An interpretation of this title by the Director or his or her delegate may be requested in
writing by any person or may be initiated by the Director. A decision by the Director that an
issue is not subject to an interpretation request shall be final and not subject to administrative
appeal. Any request for interpretation shall be a Type 2 Decision filed with the Director
accompanied by a fee according to the most recently adopted Land Use Fee Schedule. The
interpretation of the Director shall be given substantial weight, and the burden of
establishing the contrary shall be upon the appellant.
C. Design Review Approval Standard
This would change the approval standard at TMC 18.60.030 (B) from "clear demonstration of
compliance" to "preponderance of evidence." This was an issue with a recent appeal of a design
review decision and should help create more defensible decisions.
D. City Council Review of Quasi - Judicial Matters
The City Council has recently heard several quasi-judicial matters and Council members
requested that the City Attorney review their involvement in land use decisions. Many cities
have moved to a system where many land use decisions and most land use appeals are heard by a
hearing examiner rather than the City Council. They have done this for several reasons:
1. the complexity of the issues related to land use continue to increase;
Q:\CODEAMND\2006AmendPC.DOC
Page 3
• •
2. the stakes for making errors is higher, with attorney's fees provisions in the Land Use
Petition Act as well as damage claims that can arise from making decisions based on
impermissible criteria; and
3. it removes the Council from politically awkward or difficult situations. The restrictions
placed on Council members in a quasi- judicial setting cut off contact and communication
with citizens.
The COW recommendation is to change the following items from City Council to Hearing
Examiner review:
Type 2
Appeal of a parking standard determination for a use not specified by code
Appeal of a special permission parking determination /modification
Type 4
Appeal of a decision about modifications to certain parking standards
Appeal of a unique sign decision
Appeal of a variance from parking standards greater than 10%
Type 5
Shoreline environment redesignation
The COW also recommended that appeals of decisions about exceptions from the newly enacted
single - family design standards should be heard by the City Council rather than the Planning
Commission.
REQUESTED ACTION
Hold a public hearing on these proposed changes and make a recommendation to the City
Council.
Q: \CODEAMND \2006AmendPC.DOC Page 4
• •
CITY OF TUKWILA
WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO. 0
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA,
WASHINGTON, REPEALING TUKWILA MUNICIPAL
CODE CHAPTER 18.84 REGARDING REQUESTS FOR
CHANGES IN ZONING; AND ADOPTING A NEW
TUKWILA MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 18.84
REGARDING REQUESTS FOR CHANGES IN ZONING;
PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND ESTABLISHING
AN EFFECTIVE DATE
WHEREAS, the City of Tukwila desires to repeal and then adopt a new Tukwila Municipal
Code Chapter 18.84 (Requests for Changes in Zoning) to establish new criteria for granting rezone
applications, consistent with state law;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA,
WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Repealer Tukwila Municipal Code Chapter 18.84 (Requests for Changes in
Zoning) is hereby repealed in its entirety.
Section 2. New TMC 18.84 Adopted A new Tukwila Municipal Code Chapter 18.84
(Requests for Changes in Zoning) is hereby adopted to read as follows:
18.84.010 Application Submittal
Application for rezone of property shall be submitted to the Department of
Community Development. The application shall be a Type decision processed in
accordance with the provisions of TMC 18.108.050.
18.84.030 Criteria
Each determination granting a rezone shall be supported by written findings and
conclusions showing specifically wherein all of the following conditions exist:
(1) That the proposed amendment to the zoning map is consistent with the
goals, objectives, and policies of the comprehensive plan;
(2) That the proposed amendment to the zoning map is consistent with the
scope and purpose of this title and the description and purpose of the zone
classification applied for;
(3) That there are changed conditions since the previous zoning became
effective to warrant the proposed amendment to the zoning map; and
(4) That the proposed amendment to the zoning map will be in the interest of
furtherance of the public health, safety, comfort, convenience and general welfare,
and will not adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood, nor be injurious to other
Q: \CODEAMND \CA Zoning Changcs \Rezone.DOC/NG /01/13/06
- 1 -
Attachment A
properties in the vicinity in which the subject property is located.
18.84.050 Conditions on Rezone Approvals
The City Council shall have the authority to impose conditions and safeguards as it
deems necessary to protect or enhance the health, safety, and welfare of the
surrounding area, and to ensure that the rezone fully meets the findings set forth in
TMC 18.84.030.
18.84.070 Ordinance Required
Action under this chapter which amends the official zoning map shall require the
adoption of an ordinance by the city council pursuant to the municipal code and state
law.
Section 3. Severability Should any section, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this
Ordinance, or its application to any person or circumstance, be declared unconstitutional or
otherwise invalid for any reason, or should any portion of this Ordinance be pre - empted by state or
federal law or regulation, such decision or pre - emption shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portions of this Ordinance or its application to other persons or circumstances.
Section 4 Effective Date This Ordinance shall be published in the official newspaper of
the City, and shall take effect and be in full force five (5) days after the date of publication.
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL AT A REGULAR MEETING THEREOF ON THE
DAY OF , 2005.
ATTEST /AUTHENT1CATED:
Jane Cantu, City Clerk
Approved as to form:
Shelley M. Kerslake, City Attorney
Q: \CODEAMND \CA Zoning Changes \Rezone.DOC /NG /01/13/06
• •
-2
CITY OF TUKWILA
Mayor Steven M. Mullet
• •
CITY OF TUKWILA
WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO. 0
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA,
WASHINGTON, AMENDING TMC 18.96.020 REGARDING
ZONING INTERPRETATIONS; PROVIDING FOR
SEVERABILITY; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE
DATE
WHEREAS, the City has determined that there is a cost associated with a code interpretation
made by the Director that should be paid by the party requesting the interpretation; and
WHEREAS, the City has determined that a code interpretation made by the Director should
be given deference;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA,
WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. TMC 18.96.020, Amended Tukwila Municipal Code Section 18.96.020
(Interpretations) is hereby amended to read as follows:
18.96.020 Interpretations
All iiltcit,letatiolls of tl s t
c
11 e etol
An
interpretation of this title hy the Director or his or her
delegate may he requested in writing hy any person or may he
initiated by the Director. A decision by the Director that an
issue is not subject to an interpretation request shall he final
and not subject to administrative appeal. Any request for
interpretation shall he a Type 2 Decision filed with the
Director accompanied by a fee according to the most recently
adopted band ',Ise Fee Schedule The interpretation of the
Director shall he given substantial weight, and the burden of
establishing the contrary shall he Upon the appellant
Section 7. Severahility Should any section, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this
Ordinance, or its application to any person or circumstance, be declared unconstitutional or
otherwise invalid for any reason, or should any portion of this Ordinance be pre - empted by state or
federal law or regulation, such decision or pre - emption shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portions of this Ordinance or its application to other persons or circumstances.
- 1 -
l) \('UDFAMND\('A 'hanPcs \l)RD- Cocielntcrp.Q(1C' • ' • ' • •' • 1 • •c /NG /1
Attachment B
• •
CITY OF TUKWILA
WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO. 0
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA,
WASHINGTON, AMENDING TUKWILA MUNICIPAL
CODE SUBSECTION 18.60.030(B) RELATING TO THE
SCOPE OF AUTHORITY OF THE BOARD OF
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW AND DCD DIRECTOR TO
APPROVE, APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS, OR DENY
PLANS SUBMITTED; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY;
AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE
WHEREAS, the City of Tukwila desires to amend Tukwila Municipal Code Subsection
18.60.030(B) to provide that the Board of Architectural Review ( "BAR ") and the Department of
Community Development Director have the authority to approve, approve with conditions, or deny
plans submitted based on a demonstration of compliance with all of the guidelines of Tukwila
Municipal Code Chapter 18.60, based on the preponderance of the evidence standard;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA,
WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. TMC 18.60.030(B), Amended Tukwila Municipal Code Subsection
18.60.030(B) is hereby amended to read as follows:
B. Projects meeting the thresholds for administrative design review
will be reviewed by the DCD Director. All other projects requiring
design review approval will be reviewed by the BAR. The Board and
the DCD Director shall have the authority to approve, approve with
conditions, or deny all plans submitted based on a cle
demonstration of compliance with all of the guidelines of this
chapter judged by the preponderance of evidence standard
Section 2. Severahility Should any section, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this
Ordinance, or its application to any person or circumstance, be declared unconstitutional or
otherwise invalid for any reason, or should any portion of this Ordinance be pre - empted by state or
federal law or regulation, such decision or pre - emption shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portions of this Ordinance or its application to other persons or circumstances.
Section 3. Effective Date This Ordinance shall be published in the official newspaper of
the City, and shall take effect and be in full force five (5) days after the date of publication.
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL AT A REGULAR MEETING THEREOF ON THE
DAY OF , 2005.
- 1
Q: \CODEAMND \CA Zoning Changes\ BAR _Standard_Ord.DOC /NG/01/13/06
Attachment C
• •
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA,
WASHINGTON, AMENDING TMC 18.104.010 TO REMOVE THE CITY
COUNCIL FROM CERTAIN QUASI - JUDICIAL DECISION - MAKING
PROCESSES; REPEALING ORDINANCE NOS. 1768 §2 (PART), 1796 §3
(PART), 1841 §2, 1857 §7, 2005 §20, 2066 §2, 2097 §22, AND 2098 §4;
PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to remove itself from certain quasi-judicial
processes;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA,
WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. TMC 18.104.010, Amended. Tukwila Municipal Code Section 18.104.010,
Classification of Project Permit Applications, is hereby amended, to read as follows:
18.104.010 Classification of Project Permit Applications
A. Project permit decisions are classified into five types, based on the degree of
discretion associated with each decision, as set forth in this section. Procedures for the
five different types are distinguished according to who makes the decision, whether
public notice is required, whether a public meeting and /or a public hearing is required
before a decision is made, and whether administrative appeals are provided.
B. Type 1 decisions are made by City administrators who have technical expertise
as designated by ordinance. Type 1 decisions may be appealed to the Hearing
Examiner who will hold a closed record appeal hearing based on the information
presented to the City administrator who made the decision. Public notice is not
required for Type 1 decisions or for the appeals of those decisions.
Q: \CODEAMND \CA Zoning Changes \Quasi - Judicial Decision - Making Revised 1 -6.doc
SK- PB:ksn 1/13/2006
Attachment D
TYPE OF PERMIT
DECISION MAKER
Any land use permit or approval issued by the
City, unless specifically categorized as a Type 2,
3, 4, or 5 decision by this Chapter
As specified by
ordinance
Boundary Line Adjustment, including
Lot Consolidation
Community
Development Director
Development Permit
Building Official
Minor modification to BAR approved design
(TMC 18.60.030)
Community
Development Director
Minor Modification to PRD
(TMC 18.46.130)
Community
Development Director
Sign Permit, except for those sign permits
specifically requiring approval of the Planning
Commission or denials of sign permits which are
appealable
Community
Development Director
Tree Permit (TMC 18.54)
Community
Development Director
TYPE 1 DECISIONS
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 Councilor, in the
case of shoreline permits, an appeal to the State Shorelines Hearings Board pursuant to
RCW 90.58.
Q: \CODEAMND \CA Zoning Changes \Quasi - Judicial Decision- Making Revised 1 -6.doc
SK- PB:ksn 1/13/2006
Page 2 of 2
TYPE OF PERMIT
INITIAL
DECISION MAKER
APPEAL BODY
(open record appeal)
Administrative Design Review
(TMC 18.60.030)
Community
Development Director
Board of
Architectural
Review
Administrative Planned
Residential Development
(TMC 17.08.040)
Short Plat Committee
Hearing
Examiner
Binding Site Improvement Plan
(TMC Chap.17.16)
Short Plat Committee
Hearing
Examiner
Code Interpretation
(TMC 18.90.010)
Community
Development Director
Hearing
Examiner
Decision regarding Sensitive Areas
(except Reasonable Use Exception)
(TMC 18.45)
Community
Development Director
Planning
Commission
Exception from Single - Family
Design Standard
Community
Development Director
City Council
Parking standard for use not
specified (TMC 18.56.100)
Community
Development Director
Hearing
Examiner
Placement of Cargo Container
(TMC 18.50.060)
Community
Develpment Director
Hearing
Examiner
Shoreline Substantial
Development Permit
(TMC Chapter 18.44)
Community
Development Director
State Shorelines
Hearings Board
Short Plat
(TMC 17.12)
Short Plat Committee
Hearing
Examiner
Sign Area Increase
(TMC 19.32.140)
Community
Development Director
Planning
Commission
Sign Permit Denial
(TMC Chapter 19.12)
Community
Development Director
Planning
Commission
Special Permission Parking, and
Modifications to Certain Parking
Standards (TMC 18.56.065 & .070)
Community
Development Director
Hearing
Examiner
Special Permission Sign, except
"unique sign" (various sections of
TMC Title 19)
Community
Development Director
Planning
Commission
TYPE 2 DECISIONS
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
Q: \CODEAMND \CA Zoning Changes \Quasi - Judicial Decision - Making Revised 1 -6.doc
SK- PB:ksn 1/13/2006
Page 3 of 3
TYPE OF PERMIT
INITIAL
DECISION
MAKER
APPEAL BODY
(closed record appeal)
Conditional Use Permit
(TMC Chapter 18.64)
Planning
Commission
City Council
Modifications to Certain Parking
Standards (TMC Chapter 18.56)
Planning
Commission
Hearing Examiner
Public Hearing Design Review (TMC
Chapter 18.60, 18.56.040 and Shoreline
Master Program)
Board of
Architectural
Review
City Council
Reasonable Use Exceptions under
Sensitive Areas Ordinance
(TMC 18.45.180)
Planning
Commission
City Council
Shoreline Conditional Use Permit
(TMC 18.44.050)
Planning
Commission
State Shorelines
Hearings Board
Unique Signs
(TMC 19.28.010)
Planning
Commission
Hearing Examiner
Variance from Parking Standards
Over 10% (TMC 18.56.140)
Planning
Commission
Hearing Examiner
TYPE OF PERMIT
DECISION MAKER
Resolve uncertain zone district boundary
Hearing Examiner
Variance (zoning, shoreline, sidewalk,
land alteration, sign)
Hearing Examiner
Court, except for shoreline variances that may be appealed to the State Shorelines
Hearings Board pursuant to RCW 90.58.
TYPE 3 DECISIONS
E. Type 4 decisions are quasi - judicial decisions made by the Board of Architectural
Review or the Planning Commission, following an open record hearing. Type 4
decisions may be appealed to the Hearing Examiner or the City Council, based on the
record established by the Board of Architectural Review or Planning Commission,
except Shoreline Conditional Use Permits, which are appealable to the State Shorelines
Hearings Board pursuant to RCW 90.58.
TYPE 4 DECISIONS
Q: \CODEAMND \CA Zoning Changes \Quasi - Judicial Decision- Making Revised 1 -6.doc
SK- PB:ksn 1/13/2006
F. Type 5 decisions are quasi - judicial decisions made by the Hearing Examiner or
City Council following an open record hearing. Type 5 decisions may be appealed only
to Superior Court.
Page 4 of 4
TYPE OF PERMIT
DECISION MAKER
Planned Residential Development (PRD), including
Major Modifications (TMC Chapter 18.46)
City Council
Rezone (TMC Chapter 18.84)
City Council
Sensitive Area Master Plan Overlay (TMC 18.45.160)
City Council
Shoreline Environment Redesignation
(Shoreline Master Program)
Hearing Examiner
Subdivision - Final Plat (TMC 17.14.030)
City Council
Subdivision - Preliminary Plat (TMC 17.14.020)
City Council
Unclassified Use (TMC Chapter 18.66)
City Council
Section 2. Repealer. Ordinance Nos. 1768 §2 (part), 1796 §3 (part), 1841 §2, 1857 §7,
2005 §20, 2066 §2, 2097 §22, and 2098 §4 are hereby repealed.
Section 3. Severability. If any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause or
phrase of this ordinance or its application to any person or situation should be held to
be invalid or unconstitutional for any reason by a court of competent jurisdiction, such
invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the
remaining portions of this ordinance or its application to any other person or situation.
Section 4. Effective Date. This ordinance or a summary thereof shall be published
in the official newspaper of the City, and shall take effect and be in full force five days
after passage and publication as provided by law.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON,
at a Regular Meeting thereof this day of , 2006.
ATTEST/ AUTHENTICATED:
Jane E. Cantu, CMC, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM BY:
Office of the City Attorney
TYPE 5 DECISIONS
Steven M. Mullet, Mayor
Q: \CODEAMND \CA Zoning Changes \Quasi - Judicial Decision- Making Revised 1 -6.doc
SK- PB:ksn 1/13/2006
Filed with the City Clerk:
Passed by the City Council:
Published:
Effective Date:
Ordinance Number:
Page 5 of 5
City of Tukwila
NOTICE OF
PUBLIC HEARING
Notice is hereby given that the Tukwila City Council will hold a public hearing on
Monday, March 20, 2006, beginning at 7 PM in the Council Chambers at Tukwila
City Hall, 6200 Southcenter Blvd, Tukwila, Washington, to consider the following:
Amendments to the Zoning Code in the following areas:
• Rezone procedures;
♦ Code interpretation procedures and fees;
• Design review approval standard; and
• City Council involvement in quasi- judicial matters.
All interested persons are invited to be present to voice approval, disapproval, or
opinions on this issue. Those unable to attend in person may submit written testimony to
the City Clerk's office until 5 PM on the day of the hearing.
Tukwila City Hall is wheelchair accessible. The City strives to accommodate people
with disabilities. Reasonable accommodations are available at Public Hearings with
advance notice. This notice is available in alternate formats for individuals with
disabilities. Please contact the City Clerk's Office at (206) 433 -1800 or TDD (206) 248 -2933 if
we can be of assistance.
Dated this c7
Published: Seattle Times, 3 - - 06
Cantu, CIVIC, City Clerk
•
City of Tukwila
Washington
Ordinance No.
•
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA,
WASHINGTON, AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS OF TMC TITLE 17,
"SUBDIVISIONS AND PLATS," TO CLARIFY ACCEPTANCE OF
INFRASTRUCTURE BONDS, AND CHANGE PRELIMINARY PLATS FROM
A TYPE 5 TO A TYPE ,4 LAND USE DECISION; PROVIDING FOR
SEVERABILITY; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, it is City policy to have all infrastructure improvements required by a
subdivision, short plat, or binding site improvement plan completed prior to final
approval; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to have the Planning Commission serve as the
hearing body for preliminary plats; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to be the appeal body for preliminary plats;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUICWILA,
WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Ordinance #1833, as codified at Tukwila Municipal Code 17.14.020,
"Detailed Procedures for Subdivisions, Preliminary Plat," is hereby amended to read as
follows:
17.14.020 Preliminary plat
A. DECISION PROCESS: Applications for preliminary plat approval" shall be
processed as a Type 4 decision subject to the provisions of TMC 18.108.050.
B. APPLICATION: The following items' are required, in quantities specified by
DCD, for a complete application for preliminary plat approval. Items may be waived if,
in the judgment of the DCD Director, the items are not applicable to the particular
proposal:
1. Completed Preliminary Plat Application Form and fee, as identified in
TMC Chapter 18.88.
2. Completed Application Checklist.
3. A complete SEPA Checklist application if project is not exempt from SEPA.
4. Complete applications for other required land use approvals.
5. A vicinity map showing location of the site.
6. A survey prepared to the standards identified in TMC 17.04.060.
7. All existing conditions shall be delineated. Site and development plans
shall provide the following information:
a. Owners of adjacent land and the names of any adjacent subdivisions.
C:\Documents and Settings\All Users\ Desktop\ elly \MSDATA \Ordinances\Subdivision Codc.doc
NG:ksn 5252006
Page 1 of 7
b. Lines marking the boundaries of the existing lot(s). (Any existing lot to
be eliminated should be a dashed line and so noted.)
c. Approximate names, locations, widths and dimensions of existing and
proposed public street rights -of -way and easements and private access easements,
parks and other open spaces, reservations, and utilities.
d. Location, floor area and setbacks of all existing structures on the site.
e. Lot area, dimensions and average widths for each lot.
f. Location of proposed new property lines and numbering of each lot.
g. Location, dimension and purpose of existing and proposed easements.
Provide recorded documents that identify the nature and extent of existing easements.
h. Location of an4 proposed dedications.
i. Existing and proposed topography at two -foot contour intervals
extending to five feet beyond project boundaries.
j. Location of any sensitive areas and sensitive area buffers (slopes 15%
or greater, wetlands or watercourses) on the site.
k. Location, size and species of any trees located within a sensitive area
or its buffer or the shoreline zone unless none of these trees are to be removed and their
location is not likely to create undue hardship on individual lots with respect to TMC
Chapter 18.54, "Tree Regulations."
1. Source of water supply, method of sewage disposal, and manner of
surface runoff control.
m. Location of existing and proposed fire hydrants to serve the project.
n. Description, location and size of existing and proposed utilities, storm
drainage facilities and roads to serve the lots.
o. A survey of existing trees and vegetation with a retention /removal
plan for the preservation of significant trees aid vegetation.
p. Expected location of new buildings, their - driveways and finished floor
elevations.
8. Letter of water and sewer availability if the provider is other than the City
of Tukwila. ■
9. Two sets of mailing labels for all property owners and tenants (residents or
businesses) within 500 feet of the subdivision.
10. Items required by TMC 18.104.060 not already listed above.
C. REVIEW PROCEDURES:
1. Referral to Other Offices: Upon receipt of a complete preliminary plat
application, the Department of Community Development shall transmit a notice of
application and one copy of the preliminary plat to each of the following offices, where
appropriate: Public Works, Building Division, Fire Department, Police Department,
King County Health Department, the appropriate school district, and each public utility
agency serving the area in which the property proposed for subdivision is located.
C: \Documents and Settings\All Users \ Desktop\ ell MSDATA \Ordinances\Subdivision Code.doc
NG:ksn 5/25/2006
Page 2 of 7
• •
2. Public Notice and Public Hearing: The process for public notice, hearings,
decisions and appeals shall be as provided for Type 4 decisions as identified in TMC
Title 18, Zoning Code.
D. CRITERIA FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL: The Planning Commission
shall base its decision on an application for preliminary plat approval on the following
criteria:
1. The proposed subdivision is in conformance with the Tukwila
Comprehensive Plan and any other City adopted plans.
2. Appropriate provisions have been made for water, storm drainage, erosion
control and sanitary sewage disposal for the subdivision that are consistent with current
standards and plans.
3. Appropriate provisions have been made for road, utilities and other
improvements that are consistent with current standards and plans.
4. Appropriate provisions have been made for dedications, easements and
reservations.
5. The design, shape and orientation of the proposed lots are appropriate to
the proposed use for which the lots are intended and are compatible with the area in
which they are located.
6. The subdivision complies with the relevant requirements of the Tukwila
Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances, and all other relevant local regulations.
7. Appropriate provisions for maintenance of privately owned common
facilities have been made.
8. The subdivision complies with RCW 58.17.110.
Section 2. Ordinance #1833 §1 (part) as codified at Tukwila Municipal Code
17.14.050, "Detailed Procedures for Subdivisions, Expiration," is hereby amended to read
as follows:
17.14.050 Expiration
The preliminary plat approval for subdivision shall expire unless a complete
application for final plat approval is submitted within five years from the date of
preliminary plat approval. The Planning Commission may approve one extension not
to exceed one year.
Section 3. Tukwila Municipal Code Chapter 17.24, "Procedures for Public
Improvements," is hereby amended to read as follows:
17.24.005 Purpose
It is the intent to have all infrastructure improvements required by a subdivision,
short plat, binding site improvement plan, or boundary line adjustment completed
prior to final approval of the proposed land action. The City realizes that there may be
instances where the completion of the improvement may not be the best course of
action, including, but not limited to: final lift for the roadway, completing sidewalks
while development construction is ongoing, minor punch list items, etc. In those
instances, the Director of Public Works may accept a bond or other financial security in
lieu of the completion of the infrastructure improvements.
C:\Documents and Settings\AII users \ DesktopU: etiy \MSDATA \Ordinances\Subdivision Code.doc
NG:ksn 5/252006
Page 3 of 7
31
17.24.010 Plans and permits required for public improvements
A. Approval of a preliminary plat, short plat, binding site improvement plan or
boundary line adjustment shall constitute approval for the applicant to develop
construction plans and specifications, for all facilities and improvements, in substantial
conformance to the preliminary approval, design standards, and any special conditions
required by the Short Subdivision Committee, Planning Commission or City Council; to
obtain permits and complete installation for said improvements; and to prepare a final
plat, plans, surveys and other documents for recording.
B. Prior to installing improvements, the developer shall apply for all required
permits for those improvements. The applications shall include development plans as
specified on the application form. [Note: See TMC 11.08 and 11.12 for additional guidance
on standards and permit requirements for improvements in the public right -of -may.)
17.24.020 Process for installingtpublic improvements
Improvements installed by the developer of the subdivision or short plat, either as a
requirement or of the subdividers own option, shall conform to the requirements of this
title and improvement standards, specifications, inspections and procedures as set forth
by the Department of Public Works, and shall be installed in accordance with the
following procedures:
1. Work shall not be commenced until plans have been checked for adequacy and
approved by Public Works to the extent necessary for the evaluation of the subdivision
or short plat proposal. Plans shall be prepared in accordance with the requirements of
the City.
2. Work shall not commence until Public Works has been notified in advance and,
if work has been discontinued for any reason, it shall not be resumed until Public
Works has been notified.
3. Public improvements shall be constructed under the inspection and to the
satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. The City may require changes in typical
sections and details if unusual conditions arise during construction to warrant the
change.
4. All underground utilities, sanitary sewers and storm drains installed in the
streets by the developer of the subdivision or short plat shall be constructed prior to the
surfacing of streets. Stubs for service connections and underground utilities and
sanitary sewers shall be placed to a length obviating the necessity for disturbing the
street improvements when surface connections are made.
5. Plans showing all improvements as built shall be filed with the City upon
completion of the improvements.
17.24.030 Improvement agreements and financial guarantees
A. REQUIRED IMPROVEMENTS: Before any final subdivision, short plat,
binding site improvement plan or boundary line adjustment is finally approved, the
subdivider shall install required improvements and replace or repair any such
improvements which are damaged in the development of the subdivision. In lieu of the
completion of the actual construction of all required improvements (public and private)
and prior to the approval of a final plat, the Public Works Director may accept a bond in
an amount and with surety and conditions satisfactory to the Director, or other secure
method, providing for and securing to the City the actual construction and installation
of all required improvements. This is in addition to the requirements of TMC 11.08
requiring a performance bond for all work being done in the public right -of -way. If the
Public Works Director accepts a bond for the completion of the work, the subdivider
C:\Documents and Scttings\All Users \ Desktop\ Kelly \MSDATA \Ordinances\Subdivision Code.doc
NG:ksn 5252006
Page 4of7
• •
shall execute and file with the City an agreement guaranteeing completion of such
improvements together with any needed replacement or repair. The agreement shall:
1. Specify the period of time within which all work required shall be
completed. The time for completion shall not exceed one year from the date of final
approval of the subdivision. The agreement may provide for reasonable extensions of
time for completion of work. Extensions must be requested, approved by the Public
Works Director, and properly secured in advance of the required initial completion
date.
2. Require notice by the subdivider to the Public Works Director promptly
upon completion of all required improvements.
3. Provide for notice of approval or disapproval by the Public Works Director
of the improvement within a reasonable time after receiving notice of completion.
4. Require financial security to be provided by the subdivider pursuant to
TMC 17.24.030C.
5. Provide that, if the subdivider fails to complete all required work within
the period specified, the City may take steps to demand performance of the developer's
obligation within a reasonable time not to exceed 90 days from the date of demand.
6. Provide that, if the required improvements are not completed within that
time, the City may take action to require the subdivider to forfeit the financial security.
7. Provide that the City shall be entitled to recover all costs of such action
including reasonable attorney's fees.
8. Provide that, following recovery of the proceeds of the financial security,
those proceeds shall be used to complete the required improvements and pay the costs
incurred.
9. Provide that, should the proceeds of the financial security be insufficient
for completion of the work and payment of the costs, the City shall be entitled to
recover the deficiency from the subdivider.
B. MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT: Regardless of whether all required improve-
ments are completed prior to final approval of any subdivision of land, as a condition of
such approval the subdivider shall execute an agreement to assure successful operation
of said improvements. [Note: See TMC 11.08.110 for details.] The agreement shall:
1. Require the subdivider to post a bond or other financial security to secure
successful operation of all required improvements and full performance of the
developer's maintenance obligation. Such financial security shall be effective for a two -
year period following approval of installation of all required improvements.
2. Require the subdivider to perform maintenance functions on drainage
improvements for a period of time not to exceed two years from approval of their
completion or final plat approval, whichever is later. Such maintenance functions shall
be specified by the Public Works Director, and shall be reasonably related to the
burdens that the subdivision will impose on drainage facilities during the time mainten-
ance is required. The City Council may agree to accept and perform maintenance of the
improvements, in which case the subdivider's obligation to perform maintenance
functions shall terminate.
3. Not relieve the subdivider of liability for the defective condition of any
required improvements discovered following the effective term of the security given.
C:\Documents and Settings\All Users\ Desktop\ KelIy \MSDATA10rdinanceaubdivisian Code.doc
N0:ksn 5/25/2006
Page 5 of 7
39
C:\Documenls and Settings\AII Uscrs\ Desktop\ KcUy\tdSDATA \OrdinanceeSubdivision Code.doc
NG:ksn 5252006
4. Provide a waiver by the subdivider of all claims for damages against any
governmental authority, which may occur to the adjacent land as a result of
construction, drainage, and maintenance of the streets and other improvements.
C. PERFORMANCE BOND: To assure full performance of the agreements
required herein, the subdivider shall provide one or more of the following in a form
approved by the City Attorney:
1. A surety bond executed by a surety company authorized to transact
business in the State of Washington.
2. An irrevocable letter of credit from a financial institution stating that the
money is held for the purpose of development of the stated project.
3. An assignment of account with a financial institution which holds the
money in an account until such Vine the City signs a written release. The assignment of
account will allow the City to withdraw the funds in the event the provisions of the
agreement are not met.
4. A cash deposit made with the City of Tukwila.
D. Amount of Financial Security: The financial security provided shall be 150% of
the estimated cost of the improvements to be completed and all related engineering and
incidental expenses, final survey monumentation and preparation of reproducible
Mylar or electronic records in a format approved by Public Works and meeting current
Public Works drawing standards of the "as- built" improvements. The subdivider shall
provide an estimate of these costs for acceptance by the Public Works Director.
E. Defective Work: The acceptance of improvements by the City shall not prevent
the City from making a claim against the developer for any defective work if such is
discovered within two years after the date of completion of the work.
Section 4. TMC 17.28.010, Amended. Tukwila Municipal Code Section 17.28.010,
"Exceptions, is hereby amended to read as follows:
17.28.010 Exceptions
A. EXCEPTION CRITERIA: Exceptions from the requirements of this code may be
granted when undue hardship may be created as a result of strict compliance with the
provisions of this code. Any authorization for exception may prescribe conditions
deemed necessary or desirable for the public interest.
An exception shall not be granted unless:
1. There are special physical circumstances or conditions affecting said
property, such that the strict application of the provisions of this code would deprive
the applicant of the reasonable use or development of his land; and
2. The exception is necessary to insure such property rights and privileges as
are enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under similar circumstances; and
3. The granting of the exception will not be detrimental to the public welfare
or injurious to other property in the vicinity.
B. PROCEDURES: An application for any exception from this code shall be
submitted in writing by the subdivider, as part of the application for short subdivision,
binding site improvement plan, or preliminary plat. Such application shall fully state all
substantiating facts and evidence pertinent to the request.
Page 6 of 7
1. Short subdivision: A short subdivision or binding site improvement plan
exception shall be reviewed by the Short Subdivision Committee in conjunction with
review of the short subdivision or binding site improvement plan application. The
decision of the Short Subdivision Committee shall be final and conclusive unless
appealed in accordance with the appeal procedure for Type 2 decisions set forth in TMC
18.108.020.
2. Preliminary plat: A preliminary plat exception shall be considered by the
Planning Commission at the same time the public hearing is conducted for the
preliminary plat.
Section 5. 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 6. Effective Date. This ordinance or a summary thereof shall be published
in the official newspaper of the City, and shall take effect and be in full force five days
after passage and publication as provided by law.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON,
at a Regular Meeting thereof this day of , 2006.
ATTEST/ AUTHENTICATED:
Jane E. Cantu, CMC, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM BY:
Office of the City Attorney
•
Steven M. Mullet, Mayor
C :\Documents and Settings\All Users lDesktop\ Kelly \MSDATA \Ordinanccs\Subdivision Code.doc
NG:ksn 5/25/2006
Filed with the City Clerk:
Passed by the City Council:
Published:
Effective Date:
Ordinance Number.
Page 7 of 7
1fl
/ Shel* O'Keefe - tukwila bonding authorri6- 5- 2006.doc
From: "Garrett Huffman" <ghuffman @mbaks.com>
To: <scarlson @segaleproperties.com >, <tukmayor @ci.tukwila.wa.us >,
<mhancock @segalebp.com >, <bwillison @ci.tukwila.wa.us >, <tukclerk @ci.tukwila.wa.us >,
<duffiej @tukwila.wednet.edu >, <cmjoanh @aol.com >, <pmcarter @jps.net >, <jimhagg @comcast.net >,
<pslinder @comcast.net >, <tukcouncil @ci.tukwila.wa.us >, <VSGRIFF @comcast.net>
Date: 6/5/06 4:17PM
Subject: tukwila bonding authority 6- 5- 2006.doc
For Tonight's City Council meeting. Hard copy is in the mail.
I regret I will be unable to attend, but am vey interested in the issue
and would like to discuss further.
June 5, 2006
Mayor Steve Mullet
City of Tukwila
Tukwila City Hall
6200 Southcenter Blvd
Tukwila, WA 98188
RE: Infrastructure Bonding Policy
Dear Mayor Mullet,
MMA
On behalf of the more than 4,300 members of the Master Builders
Association of King and Snohomish Counties (MBA), I am writing you
regarding Tukwila's proposed Infrastructure Bonding Policy changes.
Although the city of Tukwila is not known for its residential
development due to its large retail district, there are opportunities
for home building remaining within the City. Unfortunately, the
proposed changes will only make Tukwila less attractive for perspective
home builders and developers. In effect, the proposed changes will
raise the cost of any project in the city.
Simply mandating the home builder and developer absorb all costs
involved is not the answer and only makes a jurisdiction unattractive
when doing a project. Regrettably, it is not the home builder and /or
developer who absorbs the cost, but the consumer.
If Tukwila is truly interested in residential development, the
•
Page 1
Sheiiey O'Keefe - tukwila bonding autho 6- 5- 2006.doc
discussion should focus how the City and home building industry can work
together to make a quality project while keeping costs low. Rather than
make it more difficult to provide affordable housing, Tukwila may want
to review what other cities do and why they are more successful at
attracting housing projects.
Other options are available and the MBA is interested in working with
Tukwila to create a strong and affordable housing market while
addressing growth issues. The proposed changes to the Tukwila's
Infrastructure Bonding Policy should not be adopted and should be
further discussed with those who it affects.
Should you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact
me at (206) 605 -8877 or ghuffman @mbaks.com <mailto:ghuffman @mbaks.com> .
Sincerely,
Garrett J. Huffman
South King County Manager
•
Page 2
• •
At the March 7 meeting of the Community Affairs and Parks Committee, Mr. David Tully of
Tully Homes raised an issue of possible conflict between the City's code, specifically TMC
17.24.030, and the aforementioned policy for bonding of subdivision plat improvements. Mr.
Tully felt that the TMC 17.24.030 would allow him to bond for all of the actual construction
work in lieu of actually performing the work. When apprised of City policy, Mr. Tully requested
a review of the code and the policy to ensure that both are in alignment.
The proposed changes to the existing language are shown at Attachment A. This clarifying
language comes from RCW 58.17.130 and has been endorsed by the City Attorney. The City's
existing policy follows the options provided by the RCW and the proposed clarifying language
should clear up any ambiguity.
REQUESTED ACTION
Hold a public hearing on these proposed changes and make a recommendation to the City
Council.
NG
I': \Wynetta\New Folder \Nora PC Rpt 4- 27- 06.DOC
- 3 - April 13.2006
To: Mayor Mullet
From: Public Works Directo
Date: March 22, 2006
RECOMMENDATION:
• •
INFORMATION MEMORANDUM
Subject: Clarification of Tukwila Municipal Code — Public Improvements
ISSUE:
Clarification of Tukwila Municipal Code 17.24 to more clearly define City policy.
DISCUSSION:
City policy has been to require an applicant to construct any required infrastructure
improvements (roads, sewer, water, surface water drainage, street lights, sidewalks, etc.)
associated with a proposed short plat or subdivision before the approval for the final plat
is granted. The City has allowed the applicant to submit a bond for the completion of
certain improvements (final lift for the roadway, sidewalks, punch list items, etc.) and if
the bond is satisfactory, final plat approval has been granted.
At the March 7 meeting of the Community Affairs and Parks Committee, Mr. David
Tully of Tully Homes raised an issue of possible conflict between the City's code,
specifically TMC 17.24.030, and the aforementioned policy for bonding of subdivision
plat improvements. Mr. Tully felt that the TMC 17.24.030 would allow him to bond for
all of the actual construction work in lieu of actually performing the work. When
apprised of City policy, Mr. Tully requested a review of the code and the policy to ensure
that both are in alignment.
The proposed change to the existing language is attached and highlighted in red. This
clarifying language comes from RCW 58.17.130 and has been endorsed by the City
Attorney. The City's existing policy follows the options provided by the RCW and the
proposed clarifying language should clear up any ambiguity.
Endorse the proposed change to TMC 17.24.030 and forward to the Committee of the
Whole for further discussion.
c�
• •
Chapter 17.24
PROCEDURES FOR
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS
Sections:
17.24.010 Plans and permits required for public improvements
17.24.020 Process for installing public improvements
17.24.030 Improvement agreements and financial guarantees
17.24.010Plans and ❑permits required for public improvements
A. Approval of a preliminary plat, short plat, binding site improvement plan or boundary line
adjustment shall constitute approval for the applicant to develop construction plans and
specifications, for all facilities and improvements, in substantial conformance to the preliminary
approval, design standards, and any special conditions required by the City Council; to obtain
permits and complete installation for said improvements; and to prepare a final plat, plans,
surveys and other documents for recording.
B. Prior to installing improvements, the developer shall apply for all required permits for those
improvements. The applications shall include development plans as specified on the application
form. See TMC 11.08 and 11.12 for additional guidance on standards and permit requirements for
Improvements In the public right -of -way.
(Ord. 1833 §1(part), 1998)
17.24.020Process for installing public improvements
Improvements installed by the developer of the subdivision or short plat, either as a requirement or
of the subdividers own option, shall conform to the requirements of this title and improvement
standards, specifications, inspections and procedures as set forth by the Department of Public Works,
and shall be installed in accordance with the following procedures:
1. Work shall not be commenced until plans have been checked for adequacy and approved by
Public Works to the extent necessary for the evaluation of the subdivision or short plat proposal. The
Plans shall
be prepared in accordance with the requirements of the City.
2. Work shall not commence until Public Works has been notified in advance and if work has
been discontinued for any reason, it shall not be resumed until Public Works has been notified.
3. Public improvements shall be constructed under the inspection and to the satisfaction of the
Director of Public Works. The City may require changes in typical sections and details if unusual
conditions arise during construction to warrant the change.
4. All underground utilities, sanitary sewers and storm drains installed in the streets by the
developer of the subdivision or short plat shall be constructed prior to the surfacing of streets. Stubs for
service connections and underground utilities and sanitary sewers shall be placed to a length obviating
the necessity for disturbing the street improvements when surface connections are made.
5. Plans showing all improvements as built shall be filed with the City upon completion of the
improvements.
(Ord. 1833 § 1(part), 1998)
17.24.030Improvement agreements and financial guarantees
A. REQUIRED IMPROVEMENTS - Before any final subdivision, short plat, binding site
improvement plan or boundary line adjustment is finally approved, the subdivider shall install
required improvements and replace or repair any such improvements which are damaged in the
• •
development of the subdivision. In lieu of the completion of the actual construction installation-of
all required improvements (public and private) and prior to the approval of a final plat, the Public
Works Director may accept a bond In an amount and with surety and conditions satisfactory to the
Director, or other secure method, providing for and securing to the City the actual construction and
Installation of all required Improvements. Note: TMC 11.08 requirgt performance bond for all
work being done In the public right -of -way. If the Public Works Director accepts the bond for the
completion of the work, the subdivider shall may- execute and file with the City an agreement
guaranteeing completion of such improvements together with any needed replacement or repair. The
agreement shall:
1. Specify the period of time within which all work required shall be completed. The time for
completion shall not exceed one year from the date of final approval of the subdivision. The agreement
may provide for reasonable extensions of time for completion of work. Extensions must be requested,
approved by the Public Works Director City-- Council, and properly secured in advance of the required
initial completion date.
2. Require notice by the subdivider to the Public Works Director promptly upon completion of
all required improvements.
3. Provide for notice of approval or disapproval by the Public Works Director of the
improvement within a reasonable time after receiving notice of completion.
4, Require financial security to be provided by the subdivider pursuant to TMC 17.24.030C.
5. Provide that if the subdivider fails to complete all required work within the period specified,
the City may take steps to demand performance of the developer's obligation within a reasonable time
not to exceed 90 days from the date of demand.
6. Provide that if the required improvements are not completed within that time, the City may
take action to require the subdivider forfeit the financial security.
7. Provide that the City shall be entitled to recover all costs of such action including reasonable
attorney's fees.
8. Provide that following recovery of the proceeds of the financial security, those proceeds shall
be used to complete the required improvements and pay the costs incurred.
9. Provide that should the proceeds of the financial security be insufficient for completion of
the work and payment of the costs, the City shall be entitled to recover the deficiency from the
subdivider.
B. MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT - Regardless of whether all required improvements are
completed prior to final approval of any subdivision of land, as a condition of such approval the
subdivider shall execute an agreement to assure successful operation of said improvements. See
TMC 11.08.110 for details. The agreement shall:
1. Require the subdivider to post a bond or other financial security to en successful
operation of all required improvements and full performance of the developer's maintena e obligation.
Such financial security shall be effective for a two -year period following approval of installation of all
required improvements.
2. Require the subdivider to perform maintenance functions on drainage improvements for a
period of time not to exceed two years from approval of their completion or final plat approval,
whichever is later. Such maintenance functions shall be specified by the Public Works Director and shall
be reasonably related to the burdens which the subdivision will impose on drainage facilities during the
time maintenance is required. The City Council may agree to accept and perform maintenance of the
improvements, in which case the subdivider's obligation to perform maintenance functions shall
terminate.
3. Not relieve the subdivider of liability for the defective condition of any required
improvements discovered following the effective term of the security given.
4. Provide a waiver by the subdivider of all claims for damages against any governmental
authority which may occur to the adjacent land as a result of construction, drainage and maintenance of
the streets and other improvements.
• •
C. PERFORMANCE BOND - To assure full performance of the agreements required herein, the
subdivider shall provide one or more of the following in a form approved by the City Attorney:
1. A surety bond executed by a surety company authorized to transact business in the State of
Washington.
2. An irrevocable letter of credit from a financial institution stating that the money is held for
the purpose of development of the stated project.
3. An assignment of account with a financial institution which holds the money in an account
until such time the City signs a written release. The assignment of account will allow the City to
withdraw the funds in the event the provisions of the agreement are not met.
4. A cash deposit made with the City of Tukwila.
D. Amount of Financial Security: The financial security provided shall be 150% of the estimated
cost of the improvements to be completed and all related engineering and incidental expenses, final
survey monumentation and preparation of reproducible mylar or electronic records in a format
approved by Public Works and meeting current Public Works drawing standards of the "as- built"
improvements. The subdivider shall provide an estimate of these costs for acceptance by the Public
Works Director.
E. Defective Work: The acceptance of improvements by the City shall not prevent the City from
making a claim against the developer for any defective work if such is discovered within two years
after the date of completion of the work. - •
(Ord. 1833 §1(part), 1998)
C7)
TO: Mayor Mullet
City Council Members
FROM: Steve Lancaster, DCD Director
RE: Zoning Code Amendments
DATE: March 14, 2006
DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED CHANGES
Each proposed change is discussed below.
NG
Q: \CODEAMND \2006Amend 20 .DOC
• •
MEMORANDUM
BACKGROUND
Staff has grouped four proposed amendments to the Zoning Code together for consideration.
The City Attorney has recommended changes in the following areas:
A. Rezone procedures;
B. Code interpretation procedures and fee;
C. Design review approval standard; and
D. City Council involvement in quasi-judicial matters.
Staff presented these issues with various options to the Community Affairs and Parks (CAP)
Committee on October 11, 2005. The Committee discussed each item and chose to forward the
first three to the Planning Commission for a hearing and recommendation. The fourth item,
Council involvement in quasi-judicial matters was forwarded to the COW for additional
discussion on November 14, 2005. The COW modified several of the proposed appeal body
changes and sent the revised ordinance on to the Planning Commission.
The Planning Commission held a hearing on the four items on January 26` The PC
recommendation was presented to the CAP Committee on February 14, 2006 and COW on
February 27, 2006.
A. Rezones
The proposed changes would replace the existing Chapter 18.84 and add additional criteria and
procedural clarity for rezone applications, see attached for existing code language. The attached
ordinance reflects the Planning Commission and Council recommendations.
Page 1 03/15/2006 8:42:00 AM
IT
•
B. Code Interpretations
The changes would clarify that interpretations may be requested (for a fee) by any person and
that the Director's decision would be given substantial weight in an appeal. The attached
ordinance reflects the Planning Commission and Council recommendations. See 2/27/06 COW
packet for strikeout/underline version.
C. Design Review Approval Standard
This would change the approval standard at TMC 18.60.030 (B) from "clear demonstration of
compliance" to `preponderance of evidence." This was an issue with a recent appeal of a design
review decision and should help create more defensible decisions. The attached ordinance
reflects the Planning Commission and Council recommendations. See 2/27/06 COW packet for
strikeout/underline version.
D. City Council Review of Quasi - Judicial Matters
The City Council has recently heard several quasi-judicial matters and Council members
requested that the City Attorney review their involvement in land use decisions. Many cities
have moved to a system where many land use decisions and most land use appeals are heard by a
hearing examiner rather than the City Council.
The COW recommendation was to change the following items from City Council to Hearing
Examiner review:
Type 2
Appeal of a parking standard determination for a use not specified by code
Appeal of a special permission parking determination/modification
Type 4
Appeal of a decision about modifications to certain parking standards
Appeal of a unique sign decision
Appeal of a variance from parking standards greater than 10%
Type 5
Shoreline environment redesignation
The COW recommended that appeals of decisions about exceptions from the newly enacted
single- family design standards should be heard by the City Council rather than the Planning
Commission. They also proposed that subdivision preliminary plat approvals be decided by the
Planning Commission as a Type 4 permit rather than by the Council as a Type 5 permit.
The Planning Commission concurred with the COW recommendation, with the following
modifications:
1. That "Unique Sign" decisions (TMC 19.28.010) be made by the City Council rather than
the Hearing Examiner.
NG
Q:ICODEANIN D\2006Amend3- 20 .DOC
Page 2 63/15 /2006 8:42:00 AM
•
2. That "Shoreline Environment Redesignations" (Shoreline Master Program) be decided by
the City Council rather than the Hearing Examiner.
As discussed at the February 27, 2006 COW meeting the Planning Commission did not consider
the issue of delegating preliminary plat approvals to the Planning Commission, due to a staff
misunderstanding concerning statutory requirements for such decisions. The COW asked staff to
informally poll Planning Commission members on this matter, which has been done. All
members contacted support delegation of preliminary plat decisions to the Planning
Commission.
The following charts and the attach6 ordinance reflect the Planning Commission's
recommendations.
NG Page 3
Q : \CODEANMN D \2006Amend 20 .DOC
03/15/2006 8:42:00 AM
TYPE OF PERMIT
Administrative Design Review
(TMC 18.60.030)
Administrative Planned Residential
Development
jTMC 17.08.040 18.46.110)
Binding Site Improvement Plan
(TMC Chap.17.16)
Code Interpretation
(TMC 18.90.010
Decision regarding Sensitive Areas
(except Reasonable Use Exception)
(TMC 18.45)
Exception from Single - Family
Design Standard (TMC 18.50.050)
Parking standard for use not specified
(TMC 18.56.100)
Placement of Cargo Container
C 18.50.060
Shoreline Substantial Development.
Permit
(TMC Chapter 18.44)
Short Plat
(TMC 17.12)
Sign Area Increase
(TMC 19.32.140)
Sign Permit Denial
(TMC Chapter 19.12)
Special Permission Parking, and
Modifications to Certain Parking
Standards (TMC 18.56.065 & .070)
Special Permission Sign, except
"unique sign" (various sections of
TMC Title 19)
INITIAL
DECISION MAKER
Community
Development Director
Short Plat Committee
Short Plat Committee
Community
Development Director
Community
Development Director
Community
Development Director
Community
Development Director
Community
Devel • ment Director
Community
Development Director
Short Plat Committee
Community
Development Director
Community
Development Director
Community
Development Director
Community
Development Director
APPEAL BODY
(open record appeal)
Board of
Architectural
Review
Hearing Examiner
Hearing Examiner
Hearing Examiner
Planning
Commission
City Council
Planning
Eemriseien
City- Ceuneil
Hearing Examiner
Hearing Examiner
State Shorelines
Hearings Board
Hearing Examiner
Planning
Commission
Planning
Commission
Hearing Examiner
Planning
Commission
' NG
Q:\CODEAMND\2006Amend
TYPE 2 DECISIONS
Page 4
03/15/2006 8:42:00 AM
TYPE OF PERMIT
Conditional Use Permit
(TMC Chapter 18.64)
Modifications to Certain Parking
Standards (TMC Chapter 18.56)
Public Hearing Design Review (TMC
Chapter 18.60-1-856.O10 ,
Reasonable Use Exceptions under
Sensitive Areas Ordinance
(TMC 18.45.180)
Shoreline Conditional Use Permit
(TMC 18.44.050)
Subdivision - Preliminary Plat (TMC
17.14.020)
Unique Signs
(TMC 19.28.010)
Variance from Parking Standards Over
10% (TMC 18.56.140)
TYPE 4 DECISIONS
Unclassified Use (TMC Chapter 18.66)
NG
Q: \CODEAMND \2006Amend 20 .DOC
Page 5
INITIAL
DECISION
MAKER
Planning
Commission
Planning
Commission
Board of
Architectural
Review
Planning
Commission
Planning
Commission
Planning
Commission
Planning
Commission
Planning
Commission
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 18.45.160)
go Shoreline Environment Redesignation
(Shoreline Master Program)
Subdivision - Final Plat (TMC 17.14.030)
REQUESTED ACTION
Hold a public hearing and adopt the corrected ordinances.
APPEAL BODY
(closed record appeal)
City Council
City Council
Hearing Examiner
City Council
City Council
State Shorelines
Hearings Board
City Council
City Council
City Council
Hearing Examiner
DECISION MAKER
City Council
City Council
City Council
City Council icing
City Council
Qty- Counc -il
City Council
03/15/2006 8:42:00 AM
■
18.80.050 Council Consideration
A. The City Council shall consider each request
for an amendment to either the comprehensive plan or
development regulations at a public meeting, at which
the applicant will be allowed to make a presentation.
Any person submitting a written comment on the
proposed change shall also be allowed an opportunity
to make a responsive oral presentation. Such oppor-
tunities for oral presentation shall be subject to reason-
able time limitations established by the Council.
B. The Council will consider the following in
deciding what action to take regarding any proposed
amendment:
1. Is the issue already adequately addressed
in the Comprehensive Plan?
2. If the issue is not addressed in the
Comprehensive Plan, is there a public need for the
proposed change?
3. Is the proposed change the best means for
meeting the identified public need?
4. Will the proposed change result in a net
benefit to the community?
C. Following Council consideration as provided
by TMC 18.80.050A and 18.80.050B, the City Council
shall take action as follows:
1. refer the proposed amendment to the
Planning Commission for further review and a
recommendation to the City Council;
2. defer further Council consideration for one
or more years to allow the City further time to evalu -
ate the application of the existing plan or regulations; or
3. reject the proposed amendment.
(Ord. 1856 §l , 1998; 1758 §1(part), 1995)
18.80.060 Council Decision
Following receipt of the Planning Commission's
recommendation on a proposed amendment referred
to the Commission, the City Council shall hold a
public hearing on the proposal, for which public notice
has been provided as required under the Public Notice
of Hearing chapter of this title. Following the public
hearing, the City Council may: •
1. adopt the amendment as proposed;
2. modify and adopt the proposed amendment; or
3. reject the proposed amendment.
(Ord. 1856 §2. 1998; Ord. 1758 §1(part), 1995)
, Printed February 2005
Chapter 18.84
REQUESTS FOR CHANGES IN ZONING
Sections:
18.84.010 Submission to City Council
18.84.030 Criteria for Granting Zoning Map
Reclassifications
18.84.010 Submission to City Council
Any request for a change in zoning of any district
or area, or of any boundary lines thereof as shown on
the zoning maps, shall be submitted to the
Department. Said requests shall be made on such
formal application forms as specified by the Department
and filed with the Department, which shall transmit a
copy to the City Clerk. All applications shall be
acco mpanied by a filing fee as required in the
Application Fees chapter of this title. All applications for
a change of zoning or of any boundary lines shall be a
Type 5 decision and shall be processed pursuant to
TMC 18.108.050.
(Ord. 1770 §56, 1996; Ord. 1758 §1(part), 1995)
18.84.030 Criteria for Granting Zoning Map
Reclassifications
The City Council shall be guided by the following
criteria in granting reclassification requests to the zoning
map of this title (Figure 18 -10) :
1. The use or change in zoning requested
shall be in conformity with the adopted Comprehen-
sive Land Use Policy Plan, the provisions of this title,
and the public interest;
2. The use or change in zoning requested in
the zoning map or this title for the establishment of
commercial, industrial, or residential use shall be
supported by an architectural site plan showing the
proposed development and its relationship to
surrounding areas as set forth in the application form;
(Ord. 1770 §58, 1996; Ord. 1758 §1(part), 1995)
TITLE 18 — ZONING
Page 18 -133
•
City of Tukwila
Washington
Ordinance No.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA,
WASHINGTON, AMENDING TMC CHAPTER 18.84, ESTABLISHING
NEW REGULATIONS REGARDING REQUESTS FOR CHANGES IN
ZONING; REPEALING ORDINANCE NOS. 1758 §1 (PART) AND 1770 §56
AND §58; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND ESTABLISHING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City of Tukwila desires to establish more specific criteria for
evaluation and granting of rezone applications, consistent with State law;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA,
WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Regulations Amended. TMC 18.84, Requests for Changes in Zoning, is
hereby amended to read as follows:
18.84.010 Application Submittal
Application for rezone of property shall be submitted to the Department of
Community Development. The application shall be a Type 5 decision processed in
accordance with the provisions of TMC 18.108.050.
18.84.020 Criteria
Each determination granting a rezone shall be supported by written findings and
conclusions, showing specifically that all of the following conditions exist:
1. The proposed amendment to the Zoning Map is consistent with the goals,
objectives, and policies of the Comprehensive Plan;
2. The proposed amendment to the Zoning Map is consistent with the scope and
purpose of TMC Title 18, "Zoning Code," and the description and purpose of the zone
classification applied for;
3. There are changed . conditions since the previous zoning became effective to
warrant the proposed amendment to the Zoning Map; and
4. The proposed amendment to the Zoning Map will be in the interest of
furtherance of the public health, safety, comfort, convenience and general welfare, and
will not adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood, nor be injurious to other
properties in the vicinity in which the subject property is located.
18.84.030 Conditions on Rezone Approvals
The City Council shall have the authority to impose conditions and safeguards as it
deems necessary to protect or enhance the health, safety and welfare of the surrounding
area, and to ensure that the rezone fully meets the findings set forth in TMC 18.84.020.
18.84.040 Ordinance Required
Action under TMC Chapter 18.84, which amends the official Zoning Map, shall
require the adoption of an ordinance by the City Council pursuant to the Tukwila
Municipal Code and State law.
C;\Documents and Settings\All Users\ Desktop\ Kelly \MSDATA \Ordin"nceMezoning.doc
Parse 1 of
(. 3,
1 •
Section 2. Repealer. Ordinance Nos. 1758 §1 (part), and 1770 §56 and §58, as
codified at TMC 18.84, are hereby repealed.
Section 3. Severability. If any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause or
phrase of this ordinance or its application to any person or situation should be held to
be invalid or unconstitutional for any reason by a court of competent jurisdiction, such
invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the
remaining portions of this ordinance or its application to any other person or situation.
Section 4. Effective Date. This ordinance or a summary thereof shall be published
in the official newspaper of the City, and shall take effect and be in full force five days
after passage and publication as provided by law.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON,
at a Regular Meeting thereof this day of , 2006.
ATTEST/ AUTHENTICATED:
Steven M. Mullet, Mayor
Jane E. Cantu, CMC, City Clerk
Filed with the City Clerks
APPROVED AS TO FORM BY: Passed by the City Council
Published
Effective Date.
Office of the City Attorney Ordinance Number:
__..0 .___”—_,..__ ivaGaMSflATA \(hdinaneeiUtvLnina.dOC
•
Washington
Ordinance No.
C;\Documents and Settings WI Users\ Desktop \KcIIMSDATA \ordinances\Zoning lnterprctations.doc
City of Tukwila
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA,
WASHINGTON, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 1758 §1 (PART), AS
CODIFIED AT TMC 18.96.020, REGARDING ZONING INTERPRETATION
REGULATIONS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND
ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that Zoning Code interpretations shall
be made by the DCD Director; and
WHEREAS, the City has determined that there is an expense associated with a
Zoning Code interpretation made by the Director, which should be borne by the party
requesting the interpretation;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA,
WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Regulations Amended. Ordinance No. 1758 §1 (part), as codified at TMC
18.96.020 (Interpretations), is hereby amended to read as follows:
18.96.020 Interpretations
An interpretation of this title by the Director or the Director's delegate may be
requested in writing by any person or may be initiated by the Director. A decision by the
Director that an issue is not subject to an interpretation request shall be final and not
subject to administrative appeal. Any request for interpretation shall be a Type 2 Decision
filed with the Director, accompanied by a fee according to the most recently adopted
Land Use Fee Schedule. The interpretation of the Director shall be given substantial
weight, and the burden of establishing the contrary shall be upon the appellant.
Section 2. Severability. If any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause or
phrase of this ordinance or its application to any person or situation should be held to
be invalid or unconstitutional for any reason by a court of competent jurisdiction, such
invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the
remaining portions of this ordinance or its application to any other person or situation.
Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance or a summary thereof shall be published
in the official newspaper of the City, and shall take effect and be in full force five days
after passage and publication as provided by law.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON,
at a Regular Meeting thereof this day of , 2006.
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:
Page 1 of 1
City of Tukwila
Washington
Ordinance No.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA,
WASHINGTON, AMENDING ORDINANCE NOS. 1758 §1 (PART), 1865 §50,
AND 2005 §17, AS CODIFIED AT TUKWILA MUNICIPAL CODE 18.60.030,
RELATING TO THE REVIEW STANDARD OF THE BOARD OF
ARCHITECTURAL REVIW AND DCD DIRECTOR TO APPROVE, APPROVE
WITH CONDITIONS, OR DENY PLANS SUBMITTED; PROVIDING FOR
SEVERABILITY; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Tukwila has determined that the Board
of Architectural Review ("BAR") and the Department of Community Development
Director shall have the authority to approve, approve with conditions, or deny plans
submitted based on a demonstration of compliance with all of the guidelines of Tukwila
Municipal Code Chapter 18.60, based on the preponderance of the evidence standard;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA,
WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Regulations Amended. Ordinance Nos. 1758 §1 (part), 1865 §50, and
2005 §17, as codified at Tukwila Municipal Code 18.60.030, are hereby amended to read
as follows:
18.60.030 Scope of Authority
A. The rules and regulations of the Board of Architectural Review shall be the
same as those stated for the Planning Commission in the bylaws of the Tukwila
Planning Commission.
B. The DCD Director will review projects meeting the thresholds for
administrative design review. The BAR will review all other projects requiring design
review approval. The Board and the DCD Director shall have the authority to approve,
approve with conditions, or deny all plans submitted based on a demonstration of
compliance with all of the guidelines of this chapter, as judged by the preponderance of
evidence standard.
C. Design review is required for the following described land use actions:
1. All developments will be subject to design review with the following
exceptions:
a. Developments exempted in the various districts,
b. Developments in LI, HI, MIC /L, MIC /H and TVS Districts, except
when within 300 feet of residential districts or within 200 feet of the Green /Duwamish
River or that require a shoreline permit;
2. Any exterior repair, reconstruction, cosmetic alterations or improvements,
if the cost of that work equals or exceeds 10% of the building's assessed valuation (for
costs between 10% and 25 %, the changes will be reviewed administratively);
a. for sites whose gross building square footage exceeds 10,000 square
feet in MUO, 0, RCC, NCC, RC, RCM, TUC and C/ LI zoning districts; and
C:lncuments and Settings All Users \ Desktop\ e11y1 ISDATA \Ordinances\BAR Standard.doc
b. for arty site in the NCC, MUO or RC zoning districts in the Tukwila
International Boulevard corridor (see TMC Figure 18 -9).
3. Development applications using the procedures of 18.60.60, Commercial
Redevelopment Area.
D. For development in the NCC, RC, and MUO zones within the Tukwila
International Boulevard corridor, identified in TMC Figure 18 -9, certain landscaping
and setback standards may be waived and conditioned, upon approval of plans by the
BAR, in accordance with criteria and guidelines in the Tukwila International Boulevard
Design Manual, as amended. Landscaping and setback standards may not be waived on
commercial property sides adjacent to residential districts.
E. No changes shall be made to approved designs without further BAR or
Director approval and consideration of the change in the context of the entire project;
except that the Director is atthorized to approve minor, insignificant modifications
which have no impact on the project design.
Section 2. Severability. If any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause or
phrase of this ordinance or its application to any person or situation should be held to
be invalid or unconstitutional for any reason by a court of competent jurisdiction, such
invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the
remaining portions of this ordinance or its application to any other person or situation.
Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance or a summary thereof shall be published
in the official newspaper of the City, and shall take effect and be in full force five days
after passage and publication as provided by law.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON,
at a Regular Meeting thereof this day of , 2006.
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:
r4t]ncuments and Settings■AU Users lDes taoplKelly\MSDATAWrdinancalBAR Standard.doc
Washington
Ordinance No.
City of Tukwila
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA,
WASHINGTON, AMENDING TMC 18.104.010 AND 18.108.040, TO
CHANGE THE APPEAL BODIES FOR CERTAIN LAND USE DECISIONS;
REPEALING ORDINAN NOS. 1768 §3 (PART), 1796 §3 (PART), 1841 §2,
1857 §7, 2005 §20, 2066 §2, 2097 §22, AND 2098 §4; PROVIDING FOR
SEVERABILITY; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to remove itself from certain quasi-judicial
appeals; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires that the Planning Commission be the hearing
body for preliminary plats; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to be the appeal body for exceptions from the
single - family design standards;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA,
WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. TMC 18.104.010, Amended. Tukwila Municipal Code Section 18.104.010,
Classification of Project Permit Applications, is hereby amended to read as follows:
18.104.010 Classification of Project Permit Applications
A. Project permit decisions are classified into five types, based on the degree of
discretion associated with each decision, as set forth in this section. Procedures for the
five different types are distinguished according to who makes the decision, whether
public notice is required, whether a public meeting and /or a public hearing is required
before a decision is made, and whether administrative appeals are provided.
B. Type 1 decisions are made by City administrators who have technical expertise
as designated by ordinance. Type 1 decisions may be appealed to the Hearing
Examiner who will hold a closed- record appeal hearing based on the information
presented to the City administrator who made the decision. Public notice is not
required for Type 1 decisions or for the appeals of those decisions.
TYPE 1 DECISIONS
TYPE OF PERMIT
Any land use permit or approval issued by the City, unless
specifically categorized as a Type 2, 3, 4, or 5 decision by this
Chapter
Boundary Line Adjustment, including Lot Consolidation
Development Permit
Minor modification to BAR approved design
(TMC 18.60.030)
DECISION MAKER
As specified by
ordinance
Community
Development Director
Building Official
Community
Development Director
. _ .. .. 1_1 .. - .. - ,.:.,e
30
TYPE 1 DECISIONS (Continued)
TYPE 2 DECISIONS
TYPE OF PERMIT
Minor Modification to PRD (TMC 18.46.130)
Sign Perrnit, except for those sign permits specifically
requiring approval of the Planning Commission, or denials of
sign permits, that are appealable
Tree Permit (TMC 18.54)
DECISION MAKER
Community
Development Director
Community
Development Director
Community
Development Director
C. Type 2 decisions are decisions that are initially made by the Director or, in
certain cases, other City Administrators or Committees, but that are subject to an open
record appeal to the Hearing examiner, Planning Commission, City Council, or in the
case of shoreline permits, an appeal to the State Shorelines Hearings Board pursuant to
RCW 90.58.
INITIAL
DECISION MAKER
Community
Development Director
Short Plat Committee
Short Plat Committee
TYPE OF PERMIT
Administrative Design Review
(TMC 18.60.030)
Administrative Planned Residential
Development (TMC 18.46.110)
Binding Site Improvement Plan
(TMC Chapter 17.16)
Code Interpretation (TMC 18.90.010)
Derision regarding Sensitive Areas
(except Reasonable Use Exception)
(TMC Chapter 18.45)
Community
Development Director
Community
Development Director
Community
Develo • ment Director
Community
Development Director
Short Plat Committee
Exception from Single - Family Design
Standard (TMC 18.50.050)
Parking standard for use not specified
(TMC 18.56.100)
Placement of Cargo Container
C 18.50.060)
Shoreline Substantial Development
Permit (TMC Chapter 18.441_
Short Plat (TMC Chapter 17.12)
Sign Area Increase (TMC 1932.140)
Sign Permit Denial (TMC Chapter 19.12)
Special Permission Parking, and
Modifications to Certain Parking
Standards (TMC 18.56.065 & .070)
Special Permission Sign, except "unique
sign" (various sections of TMC Title 19)
Community
Development Director
Community
Development Director
Community
Development Director
Community
Development Director
Community
Development Director
Community
Development Director
APPEAL BODY
(open record appeal)
Board of
Architectural
Review
Hearing Examiner
Hearing Examiner
Hearing Examiner
Planning
Commission
City Council
Hearing Examiner
Hearing Examiner
State Shorelines
Hearings Board
Hearing Examiner
Planning
Commission
Planning
Commission
Hearing Examiner
Planning
Commission
D. Type 3 decisions are quasi - judicial decisions made by the Hearing Examiner
following an open record hearing. Type 3 decisions may be appealed only to Superior
Court, except for shoreline variances that may be appealed to the State Shorelines
Hearings Board pursuant to RCW 90.58.
TYPE OF PERMIT
DECISION
MAKER
Resolve uncertain zone district boundary
Hearing Examiner
Variance (zoning, shoreline, sidewalk, land alteration, sign)
Hearing Examiner
TYPE 3 DECISIONS
E. Type 4 decisions are quasi - judicial decisions made by the Board of Architectural
Review or the Planning Commission, following an open record hearing. Type 4
decisions may be appealed to the Hearing Examiner or the City Council, based on the
record established by the Board of Architectural Review or Planning Commission,
except Shoreline Conditional Use Permits, that are appealable to the State Shorelines
Hearings Board pursuant to RCW 90.58.
1
TYPE 4 DECISIONS
TYPE OF PERMIT
Conditional Use Permit
(TMC Chapter 18.64)
Modifications to Certain Parking
Standards (TMC Chapter 18.56)
Public Hearing Design Review
(TMC Chapter 18.60)
Reasonable Use Exceptions under
Sensitive Areas Ordinance
(TMC 18.45.180)
Shoreline Conditional Use Permit
(TMC 18.44.050)
Subdivision - Preliminary Plat
(TMC 17.14.020)
Unique Signs (TMC 19.28.010)
Variance from Parking Standards Over
10% (TMC 1856.140)
INITIAL
DECISION
MAKER
Planning Commission
Planning Commission
Board of Architectural
Review
Planning Commission
Planning Commission
Planning Commission
Planning Commission
Planning Commission
APPEAL BODY
(closed record
appeal)
City Council
Hearing Examiner
City Council
City Council
State Shorelines
Hearings Board
City Council
City Council
Hearing Examiner
F. Type 5 decisions are quasi - judicial decisions made by the Hearing Examiner or
City Council following an open record hearing. Type 5 decisions may be appealed only
to Superior Court.
TYPE 5 DECISIONS
TYPE OF PERMIT
Planned Residential Development (PRD), including Major
Modifications (TMC Chapter 18.46)
Rezone (TMC Chapter 18.84)
Sensitive Area Master Plan Overlay (TMC 18.45.160)
Shoreline Environment Redesignation (Shoreline Master Program)
Subdivision - Final Plat (TMC 17.14.030)
Undassified Use (TMC Chapter 18.66)
DECISION
MAKER
City Council
City Council
City Council
City Council
City Council
City Council
Section 2. Ordinance 1768 §3 (part), as codified at TMC 18.108.040, is hereby
amended to read as follows:
18.108.040 Type 4 Decision Process
A. The Board of Architectural Review or Planning Commission shall make Type 4
Decisions, as appropriate, following an open record public hearing.
B. Type 4 decisions by the Board of Architectural Review or Planning
Commission, except shoreline conditional use permits, shall be final unless an appeal is
filed to the City Council or Hearing Examiner pursuant to TMC Chapter 18.116.
C. Following a public hearing on a Type 4 decision, the Board of Architectural
Review or Planning Commission shall render a written decision, including findings of
fact and conclusions, and the Department shall promptly issue a Notice of Decision
pursuant to TMC 18.104.170.
D. All appeals of Type 4.decisions shall be filed with the Department within the
time limits specified in TMC 10.116.010, except Shoreline Conditional Use Permits, that
shall be appealable only to the State Shorelines Hearings Board pursuant to RCW 90.58.
The Department shall coordinate scheduling of any City appeal hearing with the City
Council.
E. All appeals of Type 4 decisions, except Shoreline Conditional Use Permits, shall
be closed- record appeals, and processed pursuant to the time limits for such appeals
specified in TMC 18.104.130.
F. Following a dosed-record appeal hearing on a Type 4 decision, the City
Council or Hearing Examiner shall render a written decision, including findings of fact
and conclusions, and the Department shall promptly issue a Revised Notice of Decision
pursuant to TMC 18.104.170.
G. The decision of the City Council or Hearing Examiner regarding a Type 4
decision shall be final and shall be appealable only to Superior Court pursuant to RCW
36.70C.
Section 3. Repealer. Ordinance Nos. 1768 §3 (part), 1796 §3 (part), 1841 §2, 1857 §7,
2005 §20, 2066 §2, 2097 § and 2098 §4 are hereby repealed.
Section 4. Severability. If any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause or
phrase of this ordinance or its application to any person or situation should be held to
be invalid or unconstitutional for any reason by a court of competent jurisdiction, such
invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the
remaining portions of this ordinance or its application to any other person or situation.
Section 5. Effective Date. This ordinance or a summary thereof shall be published
in the official newspaper of the City, and shall take effect and be in full force five days
after passage and publication as provided by law.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTOON,
at a Regular Meeting thereof this day
ATTEST/ AUTHENTICATED:
Jane E. Cantu, CMC, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM BY
Office of the City Attorney
Steven M. Mullet, Mayor
Filed with the City Clerk:_
Passed by the City Council:
Published:
Effective Date:
Ordinance Number:
III 4 01-A, 0
�y, IA/7
1908
City of Tukwila
Washington
Resolution No.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING A LAND
USE FEE SCHEDULE.
WHEREAS, Tukwila s land use fees have remained unchanged since 2002; and
Type 1 Appeal of Type 1 Decision
Boundary Line Adjustment
Lot Consolidation
Permanent Sign Permit
Temporary Sign Permit
Tree Permit and Exceptions (TMC 18.54.140)
Type 2 Administrative Design Review
Administrative Planned Residential
Development
Appeal of Type 2 Decision
Appeal of Sign Code Decision
Binding Site Improvement Plan
Code Interpretation
Environmentally Sensitive Areas Deviation
(TMC 18.45.080 and .100)
Exception from Single Family Design
Standard
Shoreline Substantial Development Permit
Short Plat (2-4 lots)
Short Plat 5-9 lots
with increased City expenses to process
WHEREAS, the fees have not kept pace
permits and provide services; and
WHEREAS, the City intends to update
increases tied to growth in City expenses; and
WHEREAS, the City intends to periodically review the fees in comparison to those
charged by neighboring jurisdictions;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA,
WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
Land use permit and processing fees will be charged according to the following
schedule:
these fees on an annual basis with any
All other
LDR Zones
$100 $200
$285 $510
$85 $170
$115 $115
$55 $55
$25 $25
$455 $455
$570 $570
$100 $200
$100 $200
$1,135 $1,135
$100 $100
$225 $340
$225 NA
$2,270 $2,270
$570 $1,135
$1,135 $1,135
Special Permission Cargo Container (TMC $ $340
18.50.060)
..a SeltinaekA11 Users \ Desktoo1Kelly \MSDATAUtesolutions\Land Use Fee Schedule.doc
r ___ 1 _r
CM. :..aaeu I ! mRtoesktoo\(eil MSDATAUtesolutionaand Use Fee Sehedule.doc
Special Permission Landscape Requirement
Deviations C 18.52.020
Special Permission Parking and
Modifications to Certain Parking Standards
C 18.56.065 & .070
Special Permission Sign and Sign Area
Increase, except "unique sign" (various
sections of TMC title 19
Variance
A • • eal of T • e 4 Decision
Conditional Use Permit
Shoreline Conditional Use Permit
Public Hearin; Desi Review
Desi : Review Ma'or Modification
Parking Variance, Modification or Waiver
C 18.56.130, .140
Reasonable Use Exce • tion C 18.45.180
Subdivision Pr - ' - Plat 0+ lots
Uni • ue Si i Determination C 19.28.010
Com • rehensive Plan Amendment
planned Residential Develo • ment
Rezone (Map Change) or Zoning Code Text
Amendment
Subdivision Final Plat 10+ lots
Sensitive Area Master Plan Overla
Shoreline Environment Redesi • tion
$1,135 +
$60 per
new unit
$1,135 +
$60 per
new unit
Unclassified Use Permit
Accessory Dwelling Unit
A.. •val Ins•ection
Pre-a • • lication.Meetin
Public Notice Mailin: Labels
SEPA Checklist
SEPA EIS Administrative Fee
SEPA MDNS A • • eal
SEPA Planned Action
Shoreline Permit Exem • tion Letter
Zonin:. Verification Letter
$2,270
$3,375 +
$115 per
new unit
$1,135
$2815 +
$115 per
new unit
$1,135
$100 2
All other
Zones
$1,135
$1,135
$2,270
$2,270
$1,135
$3,375 +
$115 per
new unit
$2815 +
$115 per
new unit
$1,135
$2,270
$1,135
1 Pre- application fee credited toward applications submitted within
90 days.
2 Fee would be waived through 6/1/2007 and not charged for new
units created with a building permit because they would not require
any additional inspections.
Done 9 of
. •
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON,
at a Regular Meeting thereof this day of , 2006.
ATTEST/ AUTHENTICATED:
Jane E. Cantu, CMC, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM BY:
Office of the City Attorney
Dennis Robertson, Council President
Filed with the City Clerk:
Passed by the City Council:
Resolution Number:
C:\Documents and SetingsWl Users\ Desktop \Kelly\MSDATA\Rcsolutions\L and Use Fee Schedule.doc
Page 3 of 3
Issue
'10: Mayor Mullet
Committee of the Whole
FROM: Steve Lancaster, DCD Director
DATE: March 1, 2006
RE: Appeal Fees
CITY OF TUKWILA
MEMORANDUM
Q: \CODEANIND \CA Zoning Changes \Appeal tees to CC.doc /r /03 /I4/06
l�
Number of appeals in 2005: Business License:
Code Enforcement:
Land Use:
Zoning Code Interpretation:
Whether the City should adopt fee provisions for appeals of business license denials, code
enforcement appeals and certain land use decisions.
Background
Tukwila Municipal Code provides that a party may appeal an administrative decision to either the
hearing examiner or the City. Currently the City pays for all administrative costs associated with the
appeal including staff time, examiner fees and, when applicable, the City's legal representation.
Hearing examiner appeals cost approximately $500 depending on the complexity of the case. The
law allows cities to defray administrative costs by imposing appeal fees.
These changes were reviewed by the Community Affairs and Parks Committee on February 14,
2006. The Committee asked for additional information about other cities' appeal fees and
proposed that for successful code enforcement appeals only the fee would be refunded to the
appellant. The COW reviewed the proposed ordinance on February 27, 2006 and placed it on the
March 6, 2006 agenda for adoption (this was later delayed to the March 20 meeting).
Discussion
Attached please find a proposed ordinance, which includes fee provisions for appeals of business
license denials, code enforcement actions and land use decisions. The business license appeal
fee is $250. This amount represents a portion of the City's administrative costs, as estimated by
the City Clerk. The code enforcement appeal fee is $100 in the LDR zone and $200 in all other
zones. The reason for the difference in amounts is that generally more administrative costs are
involved in non - residential code enforcement actions. The land use appeal fees are specified in
the Department of Community Development's Land Use Fee Schedule.
1
7 (1 settled prior to hearing)
1 settled prior to hearing
3 (1 withdrawn)
Appeal fees charged by other south county jurisdictions:
Appeal Type
Appeal of
Administrative Decision
Code
Enforcement/Building
Code Appeal
SEPA Appeals
Short Plat Appeal
Appeal Hearing
Cancellation Fee
Burien
$100
Kent
$200
$200
$200
Federal
Way
$75
$75
$148.50
$104
$10
Renton
SeaTac
$100
$ 1 0 0
$100
Average
$124.70
$100.00
$119.75
$200.00
$10.00
Recommendation
Adoption of the ordinance.
•
5O _2
nArnnIAMND \Cr1 Zoning Changes\Appeai fees to CC-tloc /T /03l 14/06
•
TO: Mayor Mullet
City Councilmembers
FROM: Jane Cantu, City Clerk
DATE: March 14, 2006
RE: Appeal Fees
Discussion:
CITY OF TUKWILA
MEMORANDUM
Issue:
Should the City adopt fee provisions for appeals of business license denials.
Background:
Each year approximately 2200 business licenses are issued to businesses located
within the corporate limits of the City. In addition to a general business license,
some businesses, such as adult entertainers, adult entertainer managers, adult
entertainment establishments, cabarets, tow trucks, amusement centers are also
required to obtain a specialty license. The fee for a general business license is
based upon the number of employees and ranges from $50 - $200. Fees for
specialty licenses vary and are based upon the nature of the business. All
licenses are issued based upon a calendar year and expire on December 31st.
The proposed appeals fee ordinance includes fee provisions for appeals of
business license denials along with code enforcement actions and land use
decisions. The proposed business license appeal fee is $250 and is sought to
defray some of the administrative costs involved in an appeal procedure. Most
hearings involve the presence of the hearing officer, one or more staff persons,
the appellant and /or a representative(s). Copies of all city paperwork related to
the license denial and appeal is provided to those present. Appeal hearings may
last 30 minutes to several hours. For a typical appeal hearing regarding a
business license denial (1/2 to 1 hr.), the hearing officer fees alone average
5a,
Mayor Mullet
City Councilmembers
March 14, 2006
Page 2
approximately $200 -$300. Staff time and city attorney time varies depending
upon the issue.
Zoning issues, failure to obtain proper permits, home occupation issues, failure
to disclose convictions, givin false information on the application form, are
examples of typical non - compliance issues that result in a license denial.
During 2005, we received four appeals; however, in three of the four cases, DCD
staff was able to help the appellant come into compliance prior to the date of the
hearing.
Recommendation
Adoption of the ordinance.
City of Tukwila
Washington
Ordinance No.
C:'Documents and ScttingsWl Users \Desktop XelIy\MSDATAIOrdinances\Appeal Fees.doc
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA,
WASHINGTON, AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS OF THE TUKWILA
MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING APPEAL FEES; PROVIDING FOR
SEVERABILITY; AND E`TABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City has determined that there is an administrative cost associated
with appeals; and
WHEREAS, the City has determined that the appealing party should pay this cost;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA,
WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Ordinance No. 1788 §1 (part), as codified at TMC 5.04.112, is hereby
amended to read as follows:
5.04.112 Appeal of Notice of Denial, Suspension or Revocation
A. Appeals from a Notice of Denial, Suspension or Revocation under this chapter
shall be conducted in the same manner as appeals from a "Notice and Order" under
Tukwila Municipal Code Chapter 8.45.
B. The appeal shall be filed with the City Clerk's Office along with an appeal fee of
$250.00.
Section 2. Ordinance No. 1838 §2 (part), as codified at TMC 8.45.090, is hereby
amended to read as follows:
8.45.090 Appeal to Hearing Examiner
A. The person incurring the penalty described in a Notice of Violation issued by the
Code Enforcement Officer, pursuant to TMC 8.45.050C, may obtain an appeal of the
Notice by requesting such appeal within ten calendar days after receiving or otherwise
being served with the Notice pursuant to TMC 8.45.050. When the last day of the period
so computed is a Saturday or Sunday, or a Federal or City holiday, the period shall nun
until 4:30 PM the next business day. The request shall be in writing and include the
applicable appeal fee. Upon receipt of the appeal request, the Code Enforcement Office
shall schedule an appeal hearing before the Hearing Examiner. Notice of the hearing
shall be sent to the appellant and /or the person(s) named on the Notice of Violation
under the procedures described in TMC 8.45.050D, or as may be otherwise requested by
the appealing party.
B. The appeal fee for a Notice of Violation in an LDR zone shall be $100.00, and in
all other zones shall be $200.00.
C. At or after the appeal hearing, the Hearing Examiner may:
1. Sustain the Notice of Violation;
2. Withdraw the Notice of Violation;
3. Continue the review to a date certain for receipt of additional information; or
Page 1 of 3
4. Modify the Notice of Violation, which may include an extension of the
compliance date.
D. The Hearing Examiner shall issue a written decision within 14 days of the date of
the completion of the review and shall cause the same to be sent to the person(s) named
on the Notice of Violation under the same procedures described in TMC 8.45.0500 or as
otherwise directed by the appealing party.
E. The decision of the Hearing Examiner shall be final and conclusive unless
appealed. In order to appeal the decision of the Hearing Examiner, a person with
standing to appeal must file a land use petition, as provided in RCW 36.70C, within 21
days of the issuance of the Hearing Examiner's decision. The cost for transcription of all
records ordered certified by the superior court for such review shall be borne by the
appellant.
Section 3. Ordinance Nos!' 1758 0. (part), 1770 §62, and 1796 §3 (part), as codified at
TMC 18.90.010, are hereby amended to read as follows:
18.90.010 Appeals From Decisions or Interpretations of the Director
A. Any person aggrieved by any interpretation of this title by the Director may
appeal the Director's interpretation to the Hearing Examiner. Any such appeal shall be a
Type 2 decision and shall be processed pursuant to TMC 18.108.020.
B. At the time the appeal is filed, the appealing party shall pay an appeal fee
pursuant to the fee schedule.
Section 4. Ordinance Nos. 1768 §5 (part) and 1847 §4, as codified at TMC 18.116.010,
are hereby amended to read as follows:
18.116.010 Time for Filing Appeal
A. Except for shoreline permits that are appealable to the State Shorelines Hearings
Board, all notice of appeal of Type 2 land use decisions and Type 4 decisions made by the
Board of Architectural Review or Planning Commission shall be filed within 14 calendar
days from the date of issuance of the Notice of Decision; provided that the appeal period
shall be extended for an additional seven calendar days if the project involves any one or
more of the following situations:
1. There is another agency with jurisdiction as defined in WAC 197 -11- 714(3).
2. The project involves the demolition of any structure or facility that is not
categorically exempt under WAC 197- 11- 800(2)(f) or 197 -11 -880.
3. The project involves a clearing or grading permit not categorically exempt
under WAC 197 -11- 800 through 197 -11 -880.
4. A Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance was issued for the project
pursuant to WAC 197-11 -350.
5. A Declaration of Significance for the project has been withdrawn pursuant to
WAC 197 -11 -360(4) and replaced by a Declaration of Nonsignificance.
B. All notices of appeal shall be submitted along with an appeal fee pursuant to the
fee schedule.
C. Any appeal from a code interpretation issued by the Director shall be filed within
14 days of the date of issuance of a final code interpretation by the Director.
D. All notices of appeal of Type 1 decisions issued by City administrators shall be
filed within 14 days of the date of the issuance of a final decision of a City administrator.
E. Except as specifically provided in this chapter, no administrative appeals are
permitted or required for Type 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 land use decisions.
C :\Documeeu and Scttings\All Users\Desktop\KellpMSDATA\OrdinancalAppesl Fees.doc
n....e '3 ..F 1
1 •
Section 5. Ordinance Nos. 1331 §25, 1344 §11 and 1770 §85, as codified at TMC
21.04.280 are hereby amended to read as follows:
21.04.280 Appeals
A. In the event that the Department issues a Mitigated Determination of Non -
Significance (MDNS), any party of record may file an appeal challenging either the
conditions, which were imposed, or the failure of the Department to impose additional
conditions. No other administrative SEPA appeal shall be allowed.
B. At the time the appeal is filed, the appealing party shall pay an appeal fee
pursuant to the fee schedule.
C. All appeals filed pursuant to this section must be filed in writing with the
Department within 14 calendar days of the date of the decision appealed from.
D. All appeals pursuant to this section shall be consolidated with the public hearing
on the merits of a Type 3, 4 or 5 decision. In the event that an appeal related to a Type 2
decision is filed pursuant to this section, such appeal shall be consolidated with an appeal
on the merits of the application. No appeals pursuant to this section shall be permitted
for proposals which involve only Type 1 decisions.
E. The substantive and procedural determination by the City's responsible official
shall carry substantial weight in any appeal proceeding.
Section 6. 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 7. 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
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
Effective Date.
Office of the City Attorney Ordinance Number
.t.,__.__ ... a c.tN ,'.Alt Users\ Desktop \Kelly\MSDATA \OrdinanceS\Appeal Fees.doc
Minutes, 2/27/06
SPECIAL PRESENTATION
•
TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL
February 27, 2006 7:00 p.m.
Tukwila City Hall - Council Chambers
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Council President, Dennis Robertson, called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. and led the audience in
the Pledge of Allegiance.
OFFICIALS
Present were Dennis Robertson, Council President; Councilmembers Joe Duffle, Joan Hernandez, Pam
Carter, Jim Haggerton, and Verna Griffin.
Council President Robertson announced that Councilmember Pam Linder would be absent from the
meeting due to illness.
ATTENDANCE
Steven M. Mullet, Mayor; Rhonda Berry, City Administrator; Jane Cantu, City Clerk; Christy
O'Flaherty, Deputy City Clerk; Jim Morrow; Public Works Director; Frank Iriarte, Public Works
Deputy Director; Pat Brodin, Operations Manager; Steve Lancaster, Department of Community
Development Director, Bob Benedicto, Building Official; David Haynes, Police Chief.
Pat Brodin, Operations Manager, provided an overview of significant flooding events occurring to date
in 2006. He provided a Powerpoint demonstration to illustrate photos and information regarding areas of
the City impacted by flooding. He explained the interaction between Tukwila, King County, and the
Army Corp of Engineers with regard to flooding related issues.
The Surface Water Management Plan and Small Drainage Program have been very instrumental in the
areas of flood prevention and management. The Councilmembers expressed appreciation to the staff for
the progress and diligence exercised in managing flood control issues. It was suggested that an article be
placed in the Hazelnut and that information on flood management be provided during Tukwila Days.
CITIZEN COMMENT
There were no citizen comments.
SPECIAL ISSUES
a. Zoning Code Amendments, including administrative appeals process (four ordinances)
Councilmember Hernandez stated this item was discussed at the Community Affairs and Parks
Committee meeting on February 14, 2006. The committee recommends approval. The four ordinances to
the Zoning Code change rezone procedures, code interpretation procedures, the design review approval
standard, and hearing bodies for certain administrative appeals.
httn•/ /aaiaanar ni fiil,unlo n,o /Anne l 17 1,t
Page 1 of 8
Al 11 A /1!1!14
Minutes, 2/27/06
• 0
Councilmember Hernandez noted a change should be made in the first ordinance of the agenda packet
dealing with rezone procedures. On page 11 of the packet, under 18.84.010, the second sentence should
reference "Type 5 decision." The number, 5, is missing from the draft ordinance. Steve Lancaster,
Department of Community Development, concurred.
Mr. Lancaster suggested the Council conduct a public hearing and forward the ordinances to a regular
meeting for approval. He also pointed out the following corrections will be made before the final
ordinances are presented to the Council:
• There are multiple citations in the tables that list decision types that are incorrect or
confusing. While these do not change the current TMC, corrections will be made in
the final ordinances.
• On page 8 in the agenda packet, under Type 2 Decisions Table, the second entry in
the "Administrative Planned Residential Development," section, there is a problem
with the citation. Mr. Lancaster ensured a correction will be made prior to a final
version.
• On page 8, under "Exception from Single- Family Design Standard," the citation of
TMC 18.50.050 will be added.
The most significant potential change is on page 9 under Type 4 and Type 5 decisions. The minutes
from November 14, 2005 indicate the council suggested that "Preliminary Plat" decisions be made by
the Planning Commission with an appeal available to the City Council. This would move "Subdivision —
Preliminary Plat" (on page 9) from the Type 5 decision table to the Type 4 decision table.
Councilmember Haggerton inquired as to the findings of the Planning Commission with regard
"Preliminary Plat" decisions being made by the Planning Commission with an appeal available to the
City Council.
Allen Ekberg, 4920 South 161st Street, Planning Commission Chairman, stated the Planning
Commission did not focus on that section of the ordinance as they did not realize it was a change.
It was determined that an informal poll of the Planning Commissioners would be conducted to
determine their view on "Subdivision — Preliminary Plat" decisions being made by the Planning
Commission with an appeal available to the City Council.
Page 2 of 8
Councilmember Hernandez noted that on page 17 of the agenda packet, Item C, Type 2 decisions, the
text should read City Council or as opposed to Councilor. Mr. Lancaster concurred.
Due to lack of a quorum for the March 13 Committee of the Whole meeting, it was determined a public
hearing on this issue would be held at the regular meeting on March 20, 2006. The ordinances would
also be on the agenda for possible approval at the March 20 meeting.
COUNCIL CONSENSUS EXISTED THAT AN INFORMAL POLL OF PLANNING
COMMISSIONERS BE CONDUCTED REGARDING "SUBDIVISION — PRELIMINARY
PLAT DECISIONS." IF NO ISSUES EXIST, A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD ON
MARCH 20, 2006. THE FOUR ORDINANCES WILL BE PLACED ON THE AGENDA FOR
CONSIDERATION AFTER THE PUBLIC HEARING AT THE MARCH 20, 2006 MEETING.
b. Appeal fee ordinance
httn•/ /aananar ' t diwila aria nc /olarlr /rinoc(lA /('c, ,')_1 htn Al 11 A l'") 1111A
Minutes, 2/27/06
• 0
Page 3 of 8
Councilmember Hernandez stated this item was discussed at the Community Affairs and Parks
Committee meeting on February 14, 2006. The committee recommends approval. Currently the City
pays all administrative costs associated with appeals. This ordinance would allow the city to charge fees
for appeals of business license denials, code enforcement appeals, and certain land use decisions.
Councilman Haggerton commented that in the case of a homeowner who is charged an appeal fee and
subsequently wins the appeal, the fee would be refunded. Mr. Lancaster clarified that is only for appeals
to the Hearing Examiner on Code Enforcement issues.
Councilmember Carter referenced the table of fees in the packet delineating the amount other
jurisdictions charge for appeals. She asked if the fees cover all of the administrative costs or just a
portion. Mr. Lancaster indicated a portion of the costs are covered in the fee. Councilmember Carter
clarified this is not an attempt to discourage rightful appeals, and Mr. Lancaster concurred.
Mayor Mullet explained that monetary fines are not issued until all other avenues have been utilized to
resolve an issue. The Code Enforcement staff works diligently to find solutions that do not involve
invoking monetary penalties.
Council President Robertson reported that Councilmember Linder asked him to convey that she is in
favor of charging fees. It is unfair for tax payers to subsidize those who are in violation of the City's
laws. Mr. Lancaster was asked to provide an estimate of administrative costs based on the text on page
29 of the agenda packet as follows: "This amount represents a portion of the City's administrative costs,
as estimated by the City Clerk." Mr. Lancaster indicated the average cost of an appeal that goes before
the Hearing Examiner is approximately $700.
Councilmember Hernandez stated that there had been discussions regarding senior citizens receiving a
waiver to the appeal fees. There is no statutory authority to justify a waiver for senior citizens.
Councilmember Carter asked how many appeals occur each year. Mr. Lancaster stated there are
approximately six code enforcement appeals per year. The City Clerk will provide information to the
Council, prior to the next regular meeting, on how many business license denial appeals occur annually.
COUNCIL CONSENSUS EXISTED TO FORWARD THIS ITEM TO THE NEXT REGULAR
MEETING.
c. Land Use Permit Fee Schedule
Councilmember Hernandez stated this item was discussed at the Community Affairs and Parks
Committee meeting on February 14, 2006. The committee recommends approval. Some cities increase
their land use fees annually by a certain percentage. Tukwila has not increased its fees since 2002. The
staff is requesting the fees be updated to reflect the city's increased cost of processing permits. The
current fee schedule shows a 4% annual increase.
Mr. Lancaster noted some of the fees suggested here are related to the new decision procedures in the
first ordinance discussed this evening. Both ordinances would need to be sent to the same regular
meeting for final approval.
Councilmember Griffin stated the 4% annual increase is fair.
Councilmember Haggerton asked for clarification as to the first bulleted item on page 38 of the agenda
in ttra / / unxnx, n i fi� u,i 10 uro „c /n IArL /rnncnli /nnn,')_ htm
111 11 A /111(14
Minutes, 2/27/06
• 0
Page 4 of 8
packet that states in part: "Reducing the fee for an appeal of a sign code decision from $500 in all zones
to the $100 or $200 fee charged for other types of appeals." Mr. Lancaster indicated the $500 amount
was being charged when the City had a complex program for amortizing non - conforming signs.
Complex formulas and procedures were required in the process, justifying a higher processing fee.
Supreme Court decisions have now limited the City's ability to utilize that prerogative, making the
process simpler and less expensive to administer.
Council President Robertson asked the council for input regarding the statement on page 39 of the
packet that reads: "The Council may want to consider an automatic fee increase tied to the City budget,
rounded to the nearest $5." Discussion ensued regarding automatic annual fee increases, and the need for
justification prior to changes. Mr. Lancaster indicated any annual increases would be brought before the
Council for approval. The Council agreed to a policy of updating fees annually based upon overall
budget increases, suggesting a comparison with fees of neighboring jurisdictions be provided
periodically, for example every five years. Any potential fee changes would be approved by the Council
prior to becoming effective.
COUNCIL CONSENSUS EXISTED TO FORWARD THIS ITEM TO THE MARCH 20, 2006
REGULAR MEETING (ALONG WITH THE ORDINANCE FROM ITEM 4A, ZONING CODE
AMENDMENTS). THE RESOLUTION SETTING FEES WILL INCLUDE A STATEMENT
THAT THE CITY WILL REVIEW THE FEES ANNUALLY BASED UPON INCREASES IN
ACTUAL COSTS.
d. Uniform Plumbing Code
Councilmember Hernandez stated this item was discussed at the Community Affairs and Parks
Committee meeting on January 10, 2006. The committee recommends approval. The proposal would
replace Public Health - Seattle/King County as the authority having jurisdiction for enforcement,
permitting and inspections of plumbing and fuel gas installations within the City of Tukwila.
Mr. Lancaster stated this action will move the City forward toward the goal of one -stop permitting. He
provided background information as to why this is a good time for this change in the Building Division.
This issue was last reviewed in the early 2000's. Tukwila was experiencing a building boom, and the
staff was extremely busy. The fees that would have been collected at that time would not have offset the
actual costs. Construction in the City right now is not as robust as in past years, and the resources are
available to take on the additional responsibility.
Councilmember Carter inquired as to how the fees were established. Bob Benedicto, Building Official,
stated the fees are similar to those that King County is charging. The fees have been reduced in some
instances to be less impactful for single family residential owners. Discussion ensued between the
Council, Mayor and staff regarding the benefits of handling these functions in- house.
COUNCIL CONSENSUS EXISTED TO FORWARD THIS ITEM TO THE NEXT REGULAR
MEETING.
e. 2006 Overlay and Repair Consultant Agreement
Councilmember Duffle stated this item was discussed at the Transportation Committee meeting on
February 13, 2006. The committee recommends approval. The proposed contract with W & 1-1 Pacific is
for design of the 2006 Annual Overlay and Repair Program.
hurl• //u /lulu ri tiilrixii1 uia rrc /rlr.rl! /r'lnrcnA kir„
n'2 11 A 11 nnF.
RE: Zoning Code Amendments
DATE: February 8, 2006
BACKGROUND
• •
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Mullet
Community Affairs and Parks Committee
FROM: Steve Lancaster, DCD Director
Staff has grouped four proposed amendments to the Zoning Code together for consideration.
The City Attorney has recommended changes in the following areas:
A. Rezone procedures;
B. Code interpretation procedures and fee;
C. Design review approval standard; and
D. City Council involvement in quasi-judicial matters.
Staff presented these issues with various options to the Community Affairs and Parks (CAP)
Committee on October 11, 2005. The Committee discussed each item and chose to forward the
first three to the Planning Commission for a hearing and recommendation. The fourth item,
Council involvement in quasi-judicial matters was forwarded to the COW for additional
discussion on November 14, 2005. The COW modified several of the proposed appeal body
changes and sent the revised ordinance on to the Planning Commission.
The Planning Commission held a hearing on the four items on January 26
DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED CHANGES
Each proposed change to the code language is shown and discussed below.
A. Rezones
The proposed changes would replace the existing Chapter 18.84 and add additional criteria and
procedural clarity for rezone applications.
NG Page 1 02/08/2006 1:43 PM
Q: \CODEAMND \2006AmendCAP.DOC
• •
18.84.010 Application Submittal
Application for rezone of property shall be submitted to the Department of
Community Development. The application shall be a Type 5 decision processed in
accordance with the provisions of TMC 18.108.050.
18.84.030 Criteria
Each determination granting a rezone shall be supported by written findings and
conclusions showing specifically wherein all of the following conditions exist:
(1) That the proposed amendment to the zoning map is consistent with the
goals, objectives, and policies of the comprehensive plan;
(2) That the proposed amendment to the zoning map is consistent with the
scope and purpose of this title and the description and purpose of the zone
classification applied for;
(3) That there are changed conditions since the previous zoning became
effective to warrant the proposed amendment to the zoning map; and
(4) That the proposed amendment to the zoning map will be in the interest of
furtherance of the public health, safety, comfort, convenience and general welfare,
and will not adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood, nor be injurious to other
properties in the vicinity in which the subject property is located.
18.84.050 Conditions on Rezone Approvals
The City Council shall have the authority to impose conditions and safeguards as it
deems necessary to protect or enhance the health, safety, and welfare of the
surrounding area, and to ensure that the rezone fully meets the findings set forth in
TMC 18.84.030.
18.84.070 Ordinance Required
Action under this chapter which amends the official zoning map shall require the
adoption of an ordinance by the city council pursuant to the municipal code and state
law.
The Planning Commission concurred with these changes.
B. Code Interpretations
The changes would clarify that interpretations may be requested (for a fee) by any person and
that the Director's decision would be given substantial weight in an appeal.
TMC 18.96.020 Interpretations
An interpretation of this title by the Director or his or her delegate may be requested in
writing by any person or may be initiated by the Director. A decision by the Director that an
issue is not subject to an interpretation request shall be final and not subject to administrative
appeal. Any request for interpretation shall be a Type 2 Decision filed with the Director
accompanied by a fee according to the most recently adopted Land Use Fee Schedule. The
interpretation of the Director shall be given substantial weight, and the burden of
establishing the contrary shall be upon the appellant. All interpretations of this title shall be
made by the Director or his delegate. If requested, interpretations
NG Page 2 02/08/2006 1:43 PM
Q:ICODEAMND12006AmendCAP.DOC
The Planning Commission concurred with these changes.
The Planning Commission concurred with this change.
D. City Council Review of Quasi - Judicial Matters
C. Design Review Approval Standard
This would change the approval standard at TMC 18.60.030 (B) from "clear demonstration of
compliance" to "preponderance of evidence." This was an issue with a recent appeal of a design
review decision and should help create more defensible decisions.
The City Council has recently heard several quasi-judicial matters and Council members
requested that the City Attorney review their involvement in land use decisions. Many cities
have moved to a system where many land use decisions and most land use appeals are heard by a
hearing examiner rather than the City Council. They have done this for several reasons:
1. quasi-judicial matters apply existing City Council policy decisions (as reflected in the
Comprehensive Plan and development ordinances) to specific factual situations;
2. the legal complexity of the issues related to land use continue to increase;
3. the stakes for making errors is higher, with attorney's fees provisions in the Land Use
Petition Act as well as damage claims that can arise from making decisions based on
impermissible criteria; and
4. it removes the Council from politically awkward or difficult situations. The restrictions
placed on Council members in a quasi-judicial setting cut off contact and communication
with citizens.
The COW recommendation was to change the following items from City Council to hearing
examiner review:
Type 2
Appeal of a parking standard determination for a use not specified by code
Appeal of a special permission parking determination /modification
Type 4
Appeal of a decision about modifications to certain parking standards
Appeal of a unique sign decision
Appeal of a variance from parking standards greater than 10%
Type 5
Shoreline environment redesignation
The COW also recommended that appeals of decisions about exceptions from the newly enacted
single - family design standards should be heard by the City Council rather than the Planning
Commission.
NG Page 3 02/08/2006 1:43 PM
Q: \CODEAMND \2006AmendCAP.DOC y
TYPE OF PERMIT
INITIAL
DECISION MAKER
APPEAL BODY
(open record appeal)
Administrative Design Review
(TMC 18.60.030)
Community
Development Director
Board of
Architectural
Review
Administrative Planned Residential
Development
(TMC 17.08.040)
Short Plat Committee
Hearing Examiner
Binding Site Improvement Plan
(TMC Chap.17.16)
Short Plat Committee
Hearing Examiner
Code Interpretation
(TMC 18.90.010)
Community
Development Director
Hearing Examiner
Decision regarding Sensitive Areas
(except Reasonable Use Exception)
(TMC 18.45)
Community
Development Director
Planning
Commission
Exception from Single- Family
Design Standard
Community
Development Director
City Council
i • ' ..1: _
Parking standard for use not specified
(TMC 18.56.100)
Community
Development Director
.:., ,.''.,,., --
Hearing Examiner
Placement of Cargo Container
(TMC 18.50.060)
Community
Develpment Director
Hearing Examiner
Shoreline Substantial Development
Permit
(TMC Chapter 18.44)
Community
Development Director
State Shorelines
Hearings Board
Short Plat
(TMC 17.12)
Short Plat Committee
Hearing Examiner
Sign Area Increase
(TMC 19.32.140) •�
Community
Development Director
Planning
Commission
Sign Permit Denial
(TMC Chapter 19.12)
Community
Development Director
Planning
Commission
Special Permission Parking, and
Modifications to Certain Parking
Standards (TMC 18.56.065 & .070)
Community
Development Director
Hearing Examiner
Special Permission Sign, except
"unique sign" (various sections of
TMC Title 19)
Community
Development Director
Planning
Commission
•
The Planning Commission recommended that the unique sign and shoreline environment
redesignation decisions be retained by the City Council rather than moved to the hearing
examiner. The Commissioners expressed the opinion that these decisions involved considerable
judgment and should be based on a knowledge of local conditions and as such were most
appropriately made by an elected body. Following are the Planning Commission recommended
changes.
NG Page 4
Q: \CODEAMND \2006AmendCAP.DOC
TYPE 2 DECISIONS
02/08/2006 1:43 PM
TYPE OF PERMIT
INITIAL
DECISION
MAKER
APPEAL BODY
(closed record appeal)
Conditional Use Permit
(TMC Chapter 18.64)
Planning
Commission
City Council
Modifications to Certain Parking
Standards (TMC Chapter 18.56)
Planning
Commission
Hearing Examiner
Public Hearing Design Review (TMC
Chapter 18.60, 18.56.040 and Shoreline
Master Program)
Board of
Architectural
Review
City Council
Reasonable Use Exceptions under
Sensitive Areas Ordinance
(TMC 18.45.180)
Planning
Commission
City Council
Shoreline Conditional Use Permit
(TMC 18.44.050)
Planning
Commission
State Shorelines
Hearings Board
Unique Signs
(TMC 19.28.010)
Planning
Commission
City Council
Variance from Parking Standards Over
10% (TMC 18.56.140)
Planning
Commission
Hearing Examiner
TYPE OF PERMIT
DECISION MAKER
Planned Residential Development (PRD), including Major
Modifications (TMC Chapter 18.46)
City Council
Rezone (TMC Chapter 18.84)
City Council
Sensitive Area Master Plan Overlay (TMC 18.45.160)
City Council
Shoreline Environment Redesignation
(Shoreline Master Program)
City Council
Subdivision - Final Plat (TMC 17.14.030)
City Council
Subdivision - Preliminary Plat (TMC 17.14.020)
City Council
Unclassified Use (TMC Chapter 18.66)
City Council
aZ - j\9
OIG --
TYPE 4 DECISIONS
REQUESTED ACTION
TYPE 5 DECISIONS
Forward these proposed changes to the COW for a public hearing.
�G AA , vi ✓ kS
NG Page 5 02/08/2006 1:43 PM
Q: \CODEAMND \2006AmendCAP.DOC
Nora Gierloff - Subdivision preliminary issue
From: Peter Beckwith
To: Gierloff, Nora
Date: 2/9/06 8:51 AM
Subject: Subdivision preliminary plat issue
Nora,
As a follow -up to our conversation on Tuesday regarding the subdivision preliminary plat decision issue,
for now let's tell Council that RCW 58.17.100 does not allow the City to make this a Type 4 Decision as
requested by Council.
If you have any questions please let me know.
Peter
Peter B. Beckwith
Kenyon Disend, PLLC
The Municipal Law Firm
11 Front Street South
Issaquah, Washington 98027
425/392 -7090 - phone
425/392 -7071 - fax
Peter @KenyonDisend.com
•
Page 1
Nora Gierloff - Re: Shoreline Environm Redesignation
From: Peter Beckwith
To: Gierloff, Nora
Date: 2/6/06 3:36PM
Subject: Re: Shoreline Environment Redesignation
Nora,
o
I did not attend the Council meeting where this ordinance was discussed so, like you, all of my
information is coming from the COW minutes. When presented at the COW, the Unique Sign and
Environment Redesignation decisions had been amended to the Hearing Examiner and it appears that
Council did not take issue with these changes. However, Council may not have noticed these changes
either.
I did not change the Subdivision - Preliminary Plat to a Type 4 Decision because it would conflict with
RCW 58.17.100. If you are available, I would like to go over this issue with you at our meeting tomorrow.
Peter
»> Nora Gierloff 02/03/06 12:03PM »>
Hi Peter,
At last week's Planning Commission hearing on the Zoning Code amendments the proposed change
from City Council to Hearing Examiner review of shoreline environment designations was controversial. I
looked up the COW minutes to find Council's reasoning on that but did not see it mentioned as one of the
changes. Did you put it in the draft ordinance from your own notes? Can you recall what they said about
it?
Also they wanted to change preliminary plats to Planning Commission review, but that was not changed
in the draft ordinance.
Nora
Page 1
TO: Mayor Mullet
Community Affairs and Parks Committee
FROM: Steve Lancaster, DCD Director
RE: Proposed Land Use Fee Update
DATE: February 3, 2006
BACKGROUND
FINDINGS
Q: \CODEA MN D \Pecs \FecUpdateCA P. DOC
• •
MEMORANDUM
The Council adopted a Land Use Fee Schedule in 2002. Staff has since identified some
additional items that should be added to the list and is recommending that the fees be updated to
reflect increased City costs.
Tukwila's land use permit fees have not increased since 2002. At that point we set our fees to be
at or below the average charged by our south King County neighbors: Burien, Kent, Federal
Way, Renton and SeaTac. Since then Federal Way, which increases all of its fees by a certain
percentage each year, is the only jurisdiction to have raised its fees.
In calculating this average we tried to compare "apples to apples," but we also found that there
were many different approaches to fee calculation. Most jurisdictions used systems more
complex than Tukwila's flat fee approach, for example:
❑ Burien's flat fee acts as a retainer with any staff time over a certain number of hours
charged back to the applicant at $65 per hour. The cost of any special studies is also
passed through to the applicant.
❑ Many of SeaTac and Federal Way's fees are calculated on a sliding scale based on either
square footage or value of construction.
❑ When two or more applications for a project are processed together Kirkland and Renton
charge the full amount for the highest fee and reduce the associated permit fees by 50 %.
However on average Kirkland's fees were significantly higher than those charged in the
south County.
Page ► 02/03/2006 1 1:43 AM
l/
l�
PROPOSED FEE CHANGES
Discussion of Specific Changes
FUTURE UPDATES
REQUESTED ACTION
Q:\CODEAMND\ Fees\ Fee U pdatcC A P. DOC
Staff is recommending that Tukwila's permit fees be increased by the amount Tukwila's overall
budget has grown in the past three years, approximately 4% annually, rounded to the nearest $5.
This would still be at or near the average of our neighboring jurisdictions. Staff is also
recommending that we start charging fees for accessory dwelling unit approvals, appeals of Type
2 and 4 permits, appeals of mitigated SEPA determinations, code interpretations, shoreline
exemption letters, public notice mailings and major modifications of design review approvals.
Currently we do not charge a fee for most appeals even though they require a considerable
amount of staff time, postage fees and in some cases hearing examiner fees, see separate
ordinance. The average cost for a h examiner meeting is $400 -500, while we are only
proposing fees of $100 for LDR and $200 for all other zones. This is a nominal charge but may
help to discourage frivolous appeals.
• Reducing the fee for an appeal of a sign code decision from $500 in all zones to the $100
or $200 fee charged for other types of appeals.
• Adding a $455 fee for a major modification to a design review approval because it
requires public notice and a new Board of Architectural Review hearing.
• Increasing the fee for a reasonable use exception, to make it comparable in cost to a
variance that also requires notice and a public hearing. 4 J a
• Changes to the zoning of a parcel or area require an accompanying change to the
Comprehensive Plan. In the past we have only char end theig r ($1,500) rezone fee for
both applications. Since we actually treat these as two separate app i� ca ons we propose
to lower the rezone fee to $570 and also charge the Comprehensive Plan Amendment fee
of $1,135.
• Adding a one -time fee for approval of an accessory dwelling unit (mother -in -law
apartment). This will allow us to track legal units for code enforcement purposes.
• Giving applicants the option to have the City generate their public notice mailing labels -
for a fee. We can use the new CityGIS program to create these.
2L L L. ,:.e.A- Redmond, Kirkland and Federal Way update their fees on an annual basis so that they stay
current with City expenses. The Council may want to consider an automatic fee increase tied to
the City budget, rounded to the nearest $5.
Review the proposed fee schedule, provide Staff with policy direction about the fee changes and
forward the proposal to the COW for review.
Page 2 02/03/2006 1 1:43 AM
Appeal Type 1 .,".t
Existing Permit
Fees
4% Annual
Increase
Proposed Fees
LDR
All
other
Zones
LDR
All
other
Zones
LDR
All
other
Zones
$50
$100
57
114
$100
$200
of e
Decision
Boundary Line Adjustment
$250
$450
284
511
$285
$510
Lot Consolidation
$75
$150
85
170
$85
$170
Permanent Sign Permit
$100
$100
114
114
$115
$115
Temporary Sign Permit
$50
$50
57
57
$55
$55
Tree Permit and Exceptions (TMC
18.54.140)
$25
$25
Fee is specified at
TMC 18.54.100
$25
$25
Administrative Design Review
$400
$400
454
454
$455
$455
Administrative Planned
Residential Development
$500
New
568
$570
$570
Appeal of Type 2 Decision
New
New
$100
$200
Appeal of Sign Code Decision
$500
$500
568
568
$100
$200
Binding Site Improvement Plan
NA
$1,000
1136
$1,135
$1,135
Code Interpretation
New
New
$100
$100
Environmentally Sensitive Areas
Deviation (TMC 18.45.080 and
.100)
$200
$300
227
341
$225 ,
$340
Exception from Single Family
New
NA
$225
NA
Design Standard
Shoreline Substantial
Development Permit
$2,000
$2,000
2271
2271
$2,270
$2,270
Short Plat (2 -4 lots)
$500
$1,000
568
1136
$570
$1,135
Short Plat (5 -9 lots)
$1,000
$1,000
1136
1136
$1,135
$1,135
Special Permission Cargo
Container (TMC 18.50.060)
$200
$300
227
341
$225
$340
Special Permission Landscape
Requirement Deviations (TMC
18.52.020)
$200
$300
227
341
$225
$340
Special Permission Parking and
Modifications to Certain Parking
Standards (TMC 18.56.065 &
.070)
$200
$300
227
341
$225
$340
Type 1
Type 2
NG 2006 Fee_Updates
02/03/2006
/3
Type 3
Type 4
Type 5
Other
NG 2006 Fee_Updates
02/03/2006
Existing Permit
Fees
4% Annual
Increase
Proposed Fees
LDR
All
other
Zones
LDR
All
other
Zones
LDR
All
other
Zones
Special Permission Sign and Sign
Area Increase, except "unique
sign" (various sections of TMC
title 19)
$200
$300
227
341
$225
$340
Variance
$600
$1,000
681
1136
$680
$1,135
Appeal of Type 4 Decision '
New
New
$100
$200
Conditional Use Permit (including
Shoreline CUP)
$2,000
$2,000
2271
2271
$2,270
$2,270
Public Hearing Design Review
$1,400
$1,400
1590
1590
$1,590
$1,590
Design Review Major
New I
New
$455
$455
Modification I
Parking Variance, Modification or
Waiver (TMC 18.56.130, .140)
$200
$300
227
341
$225
$340
Reasonable Use Exception (TMC
18.45.180)
$200
$300 '
227
341
$680
$1,135
Unique Sign Determination (TMC
19.28.010)
$200
$300
227
341
$225
$340
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
$1,000
$1,000
1136
- $2815
1136
$1,135
$1,135
$2815 +
$115 /new
unit
Planned Residential Development
$2,500 +
$100 /new
unit
$2,500 +
$100/new
unit
+
$115 /ne
w unit
$2815 +
$115/new
unit
$2815 +
$115 /new
unit
Rezone (Map Change) or Zoning
Code Text Amendment
$1,500
$1,500
1704
1704
$570
$570
Subdivision Preliminary Plat(10+
Tots)
$3,000 +
$100/new
unit
$3,000 +
$100 /new
unit
$3,375 +
$115 /ne
w unit
$3,375 +
$115 /new
unit
$3,375 +
$115 /new
unit
$3,375 +
$115 /new
unit
Subdivision Final Plat (10+ lots)
$1,000+
$50 /new
unit
$1,000+
$50/new
unit
$1,135+
60 /New
unit
$1,135+
60 /New
unit
$1,135+
60 /New
unit
$1,135+
60 /New
unit
Sensitive Area Master Plan
New
New
$1,135
$1,135
Overlay
Shoreline Environment
New
New
$1,135
$1,135
Redesignation
Unclassified Use Permit
$2,000
$2,000
2271
2271
$2,270
$2,270
Accessory [Dwelling Unit Approval
New
NA
$100
NA
Preapplication Meeting
$200 1
$200 1
227
227
225 1
225 1
Public Notice Mailing
New
New
$100
$100
Type 3
Type 4
Type 5
Other
NG 2006 Fee_Updates
02/03/2006
1 Preapplication fee credited toward applications submitted within 90 days.
15
NG 2006 Fee_Updates 02/03/2006
Existing Permit
Fees
4% Annual
Increase
•
Proposed Fees
LDR
All
other
Zones
LDR
All
other
Zones
LDR
All
other
Zones
SEPA Checklist
$500
$500
568
568
$570
$570
SEPA EIS Administrative Fee
$1,000
$1,000
1136
1136
$1,135
$1,135
SEPA MDNS Appeal
New
New
$100
$200
SEPA Planned Action '
NA
$250
284
NA
$285
Shoreline Permit Exemption
New
New
$0
$115
Letter
Zoning Letter
$0
$100
0
114
$0
$115
1 Preapplication fee credited toward applications submitted within 90 days.
15
NG 2006 Fee_Updates 02/03/2006
• •
CITY OF TUKWILA
MEMORANDUM
TO: Community Affairs and Parks Committee
FROM: Shelley Kerslake
DATE: February 2, 2006
RE: Appeal Fees
Issue
Whether the City should adopt fee provisions for appeals of business license denials and land use
decisions.
Background
Tukwila Municipal Code provides that a party may appeal an administrative decision to either the
hearing examiner or the City. Currently the City pays for all administrative costs associated with the
appeal including staff time, examiner fees and, when applicable, the City's legal representation.
The law allows cities to defray administrative costs by imposing appeal fees.
Discussion
Attached please find a proposed ordinance, which includes fee provisions for appeals of business
license denials, code enforcement actions and land use decisions. The business license appeal
fee is $250. This amount represents a portion of the City's administrative costs, as estimated by
the City Clerk. The code enforcement appeal fee is $100 in the LDR zone and $200 in all other
zones. The reason for the difference in amounts is that generally more administrative costs are
involved in non - residential code enforcement actions. The land use appeal fees are specified in
the Department of Community Development's Land Use Fee Schedule.
Recommendation
Adoption of the ordinance.
Win°— 1 r, 4 ( 73
.cnJ .; O,Q?e.(tG. pc Jc, �S ( C S C r^
Q: \CODIiAiMND \CA Zoning Changes \Information Memo Regarding Business and land Use Appeal lees.doc /NG /02/02/06
•
CITY OF TUKWILA
WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO. 0
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA,
WASHINGTON, AMENDING TUKWILA MUNICIPAL
CODE SECTIONS 5.04.112, 8.45.090, 18.90.010, 18.116.010,
AND 21.04.280 REGARDING APPEAL FEES; PROVIDING
FOR SEVERABILITY; AND ESTABLISHING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE
WHEREAS, the City has determined that there is an administrative cost associated with
appeals; and
WHEREAS, the City has determined that the appealing party should pay this cost;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA,
WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1_ Amended TMC 5.04.112 Adopted Amended Tukwila Municipal Code Section
5.04.112 (Appeal of Notice of Denial, Suspension or Revocation) is hereby adopted to read as
follows:
Appeals from a Notice of Denial, Suspension or Revocation under this chapter shall be
conducted in the same manner as appeals from a "Notice and Order" under Tukwila
Municipal Code Chapter 8.45 In addition, the appeal shall he filed with the Clerks office
along with an appeal fee of $250 dollars
Section 2. Amended TMC 8.45.090(A) Adopted Amended Tukwila Municipal Code
Section 8.45.090(A) (Appeal to Hearing Examiner) is hereby adopted to read as follows:
A. The person incurring the penalty described in a Notice of Violation issued by the Code
Enforcement Officer pursuant to TMC 8.45.050C may obtain an appeal of the Notice by
requesting such appeal within ten calendar days after receiving or otherwise being served
with the Notice pursuant to TIVMC 8.45.050. When the last day of the period so computed
is a Saturday, Sunday or federal or City holiday, the period shall run until 4:30PM on the
next business day. The request shall be in writing and include the applicable appeal fee,
and upon receipt of the appeal request, the Code Enforcement Office shall schedule an
appeal hearing before the Hearing Examiner The appeal fee for a Notice of Violation in
an T.T)R zone shall he S 100 and in all other Tones shall 5900, Notice of the hearing shall
be sent to the appellant and /or the person(s) named on the Notice of Violation under the
procedures described in TMC 8.45.050D or as may be otherwise requested by the
appealing party.
-1-
Q:\CODEAMND \CA Zoning Changes \Ordinance re appeal fees.DOC/NG /02/02/06
• •
Section 3. Amended TMC l8 90.010 Adopted Amended Tukwila Municipal Code Section
18.90.010 (Appeals from the Decision or Interpretations of the Director) is hereby adopted to read as
follows:
Any person aggrieved by any interpretation of this title by the Director may appeal the
Director's interpretation to the Hearing Examiner. Any such appeal shall be a Type 2
decision and shall be processed pursuant to TMC 18.108.020 At the time the appeal is
filed, the appealing party shall pay an appeal fee pursuant to the fee schedule
Section 4. Amended TMC 1 X.116.010(A) Adopted Amended Tukwila Municipal Code
Section 18.116.010(A) (Time for Filing Appeal) is hereby adopted to read as follows:
A. Except for shoreline permits which are appealable to the state Shorelines Hearings
Board, all notice of appeal of Type 2 land use decisions and Type 4 decisions made by
the Board of Architectural Review or Planning Commission shall be filed within 14
calendar days from the date of issuance of the Notice of Decision along with an appeal
fee pursuant to the fee schedule; provided that the appeal period shall be extended for an
additional seven calendar days if the project involves any one or more of the following
situations:
1. There is another agency with jurisdiction as defined in WAC 197 -11- 714(3).
2. The project involves the demolition of any structure or facility that is not categorically
exempt under WAC 197- 11- 800(2)(f) or 197 -11 -880.
3. The project involves a clearing or grading permit not categorically exempt under WAC
197 -11 - 800 through 197 -11 -880.
4. A Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance was issued for the project pursuant to
WAC 197- 11 -350.
5. A Declaration of Significance for the project has been withdrawn pursuant to WAC
197 -11- 360(4) and replaced by a Declaration of Nonsignificance.
Section 5. Amended TMC 71.04.780(A) Adopted Amended Tukwila Municipal Code
Section 21.04.280(A) (Appeals) is hereby adopted to read as follows:
A. In the event that the Department issues a Mitigated Determination of Non -
Significance (MDNS), any party of record may file an appeal challenging either the
conditions which were imposed or the failure of the Department to impose additional
conditions At the time the appeal is filed, the appealing party shall pay an appeal fee
pursuant to the fee schedule No other administrative SEPA appeal shall be allowed.
Section 6. Severahility Should any section, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this
Ordinance, or its application to any person or circumstance, be declared unconstitutional or
otherwise invalid for any reason, or should any portion of this Ordinance be pre - empted by state or
federal law or regulation, such decision or pre - emption shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portions of this Ordinance or its application to other persons or circumstances.
Q: \CODEAMND \CA Zoning Changes \Ordinance re appeal fees.DOC/NG /02 /02/06
9
Section 7 Effective Date This Ordinance shall be published in the official newspaper of
the City, and shall take effect and be in full force five (5) days after the date of publication.
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL AT A REGULAR MEETING THEREOF ON THE
DAY OF , 2006.
ATTEST /AUTHENTICATED:
Jane Cantu, City Clerk
Approved as to form:
Shelley M. Kerslake, City Attorney
Filed with the City Clerk:
Passed by the City Council:
Date of Publication:
Effective Date:
1 0
• •
3
Q: \CODEAMND \CA Zoning Changes\Ordinanee re appeal Iees.DOC /NG /02/02/06
CITY OF TUKWILA
Mayor Steven M. Mullet
November 4, 2005
Dear Ms. Gierloff:
Nora Gierloff
Planning Supervisor
City of Tukwila
6300 Southcenter Boulevard Suite #100
Tukwila, Washington 98188
Ike Nwankwo
Technical & Financial Assistance Manager
Growth Management Services
Enclosure
STATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY, TRADE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
128 - 1e Avenue SW • PO Box 42525 •• Olympia. Washington 98504 -2525 • (360) 7254000
Thank you for sending the Washington State Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development
(CTED) the following materials as required under RCW 36.70A.106. Please keep this letter as documentation
that you have met this procedural requirement.
City of Tukwila - Proposed zoning code amendments clarifying rezones, and other administrative
actions regarding appeals. These materials were received on 11/04/2005 and processed with the
Material ID # 9704.
We have forwarded a copy of this notice to other state agencies. If this is a draft amendment, adopted
amendments should be sent to CTED within ten days of adoption and to any other state agencies who
commented on the draft.
If you have any questions, please call me at (360) 725 -3056.
Sincerely,
atria we
Elizabeth McNagny
Department of Social and Health Services
Post Office Box 45848
Olympia, Washington 98504 -5848
(360) 902 -8164 Fax: 902 -7889
Email: mcnagec @dshs.wa.gov
Steve Penland
Department of Fish and Wildlife
Post Office Box 43155
Olympia, Washington 98504 -3155
(360) 902 -2598 Fax: (360) 902 -2946
Email: penlastp @dfw.wa.gov
Review Team
Department of Community, Trade and
Economic Development
Growth Management Services
Post Office Box 42525
Olympia, Washington 98504 -2525
(360) 725 -3000 Fax: (360) 753 -2950
Email: reviewteam @cted.wa.gov
Anne Sharar
Department of Natural Resources
Post Office Box 47001
Olympia, Washington 98504 -7001
(360) 902 -1739 Fax: (360) 902 -1776
Email: anne.sharar @wadnr.gov
John Aden
Department of Health
Division of Drinking Water
Post Office Box 47822
Olympia, Washington 98504 -7822
(360) 236 -3157 Fax: (360) 236 -2252
Email: John.Aden @doh.wa.gov
• •
STATE AGENCIES REVIEWING DEV REGS
Revised August 9, 2005
Cities and counties need to send their development regulations to the agencies'
representatives, as listed below, at least 60 days ahead of adoption. Adopted development
regulations should be sent to Washington State Department of Community, Trade and
Economic Development (CTED) immediately upon publication, as well as to any state
agencies that commented on the draft regulation. A jurisdiction does not need to send its
regulation to the agencies which have been called ahead and that have indicated the local
plan will not be reviewed. The jurisdiction should keep a record of this contact with state
agencies and the state agencies response.
SEPA /GMA Coordinator
Department of Ecology
Post Office Box 47600
Olympia, Washington 98504 -7600
(360) 407 -6960 Fax: (360) 407 -6904
Email: gmacoordination @ecy.wa.gov
Harriet Beale
Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team
Post Office Box 40900
Olympia, Washington 98504 -0900
(360) 725 -5442 Fax: (360) 407 -7333
Email: hbeale @psat.wa.gov
Bill Wiebe
Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 47300
Olympia, Washington 98504 -7370
(360) 705 -7965 Fax: 705 -6813
Email: wiebeb @wsdot.wa.gov
Rebecca Barney
Department of Corrections
Post Office Box 41112
Olympia, Washington 98504-1112
(360) 753 -3973 Fax: (360) 586 -8723
Email: rmbarney @docl.wa.gov
S: \Gmu \ADMIN \Lists \State Agencies Reviewing Dev Regs 8- 05.doc
Maintained by Linda Weyl
Nora Gierloff - City of Tukwila Propose.de Amendments
From: Nora Gierloff
To: reviewteam @CTED.WA.GOV
Date: 11/4/05 9:49AM
Subject: City of Tukwila Proposed Code Amendments
November 4, 2005
Growth Management Services
Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development
PO Box 42525
906 Columbia St. SW
Olympia, WA 98504 -8350
Attn: Review Team:
In accordance with the RCW 36.70A.106 the City of Tukwila notifies Department of Community, Trade
and Economic Development of the intent to adopt amendments to its development regulations.
Public Testimony will be taken on this item until December 15, 2005. A public hearing before the Planning
Commission has been scheduled for December 8, 2005.
We are providing you an electronic copy of the proposed amendments to the Zoning Code in three areas
that would:
1) Add additional criteria and procedural clarity for rezone applications;
2) Clarify that interpretations may be requested (for a fee) by any person and that the Director's
decision would be given substantial weight in an appeal;
3) Change the Design review approval standard from "clear demonstration of compliance" to
"preponderance of evidence;" and
4) Remove the City Council from certain quasi - judicial approvals and appeals in favor of sending
those items to the hearing examiner.
If you have any questions concerning these amendments, please call me at (206)433 -7141.
Sincerely,
Nora Gierloff
Planning Supervisor
Enclosures
CC: anne.sharar @wadnr.gov; gmacoordination @ecy.wa.gov; hbeale @psat.wa.gov;
John.Aden @doh.wa.gov; mcnagec @dshs.wa.gov; nlwinters @doc1.wa.gov; penlastp @dfw.wa.gov;
wiebeb @wsdot.wa.gov
Page 1
Minutes, 11/14/05
•
Steven M. Mullet, Mayor; Rhonda Berry, City Administrator; Shelley Kerslake, City Attorney; Lucy
Lauterbach, Legislative Analyst; Bruce Fletcher and Rick Still, Director and Deputy Director, Parks and
Recreation; Tracy Gallaway, Recreation Superintendent, Marlus Larsen, Recreation Coordinator; Jack
Pace, Deputy Director, Community Development; Jim Morrow, Director, Public Works; Gail Labanara,
Public Works Analyst; Kevin Fuhrer, Finance Director; Derek Speck, Economic Development
Administrator; Katherine Kertzman, Tourism and Marketing Program Manager; Acting Assistant Chief
Don Lincoln, Police; and Bob Baker, Deputy City Clerk.
TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL
November 14, 2005 7:00 p.m.
Tukwila City Hall - Council Chambers
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
Calling the meeting to order and leading the Pledge of Allegiance at 7:02 p.m. was Pamela Linder,
Council President.
OFFICIALS:
Present were Pamela Linder, Council President; and Councilmembers Joe Duffle, Joan Hernandez, Pam
Carter, Jim Haggerton, and Dennis Robertson.
Councilmember David Fenton was absent.
ATTENDANCE:
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS:
a. Tukwila Youth Council - Marlus Larsen, Recreation Coordinator, Parks & Recreation
Department
He reported membership on the Council is open to all. No interested student will be turned away.
Members are not elected, selected or nominated for involvement.
1,++ „•U...,..,,, ..; 1-1.1,-.17;1., .,,, 1 1 n t.....
Page 1 of 11
Marlus. Larsen, Program Coordinator /Youth /Teens, was present with two (of nine) members of the
Tukwila Youth Council. Busy students at area schools, those unable to be present were participating in
previously scheduled commitments.
Tukwila's Youth Council began their work in spring of 2004. To assist the students in becoming the best
possible leaders, grant funds were obtained from the Tukwila Childrens' Foundation to send five of the
members to an out -of -State leadership conference in the summer of 2005. From that conference, the
students came back with a vision of having a voice in the community.
Joe Farnsworth (youth — address intentionally omitted) serves as President of the Council. Showing they
have put into practice what they learned, Mr. Farnsworth reported the Council has been involved with
community projects sponsored by the Tukwila Food Pantry, Tukwila Elementary and Thorndyke
Elementary Schools (clothing drive /give- away), concession sales and the donation of funds from the
Autumn Harvest event at the Tukwila Community Center to charity.
1'1P10N1nnf
Minutes, 11/14/05
• •
Page 2 of 11
Yonus Woldemichael (youth — address intentionally omitted) is a member of the Council who spoke of
enjoying his participation in the summer leadership conference. There, he was able to learn and enhance
his leadership skills.
Upon return from the conference, members of the Youth Council formulated several goals to ensure the
youth have a voice in and for the community. Such goals include serving as a sounding board for adults
in the community who are concerned with youth- related issues, getting (and staying) involved with City
Council boards and commissions, creating positive activities for area youth and making sure they know
about those opportunities, and participating in civil service projects to help make Tukwila a better place
to live.
Councilmembers praised the Youth Councilmembers for having an "aggressive list" of goals. They
encouraged the Council to attract and retain members.
Councilmember Duffle introduced Katie Bartley, a young lady in the audience, who wanted to
participate in the Youth Council and was here for this evening's presentation to get started.
Pamela Linder, Council President, encouraged the students to stay in touch via e -mail and telephone,
with members of the City Council. She also invited them to attend Council meetings as time and
schedules permit.
b. Proclamation — SGI DAY
Mayor Mullet reported it is the Soka Gakkai International (SGI) 75 birthday internationally, and 35
birthday in the United States. Located at 3438 South 148 Street, in Tukwila, SGI is a culturally diverse
Buddhist association whose community -based activities foster world citizens and an awareness of
humanity's relationship to the environment.
Dr. Daisaku Ikeda, SGI Leader, and his wife, Kaneko, have devoted over 50 years to human well -being
on a global scale; founded several educational, peace and cultural institutions, and engaged in worldwide
activities for peace, understanding and education. With that, Mayor Mullet read and proclaimed Friday,
November 18, 2005, SGI Day in the City of Tukwila, Washington.
Present to receive the proclamation were David Harris and Tom Eddy.
CITIZEN COMMENT:
Joanne McManus, 5610 South 133 Street, reported an inordinate number of cars are parking on both
sides of the road on Bremmer's Hill. Citing potential risks, Ms. McManus spoke in favor of erecting a
sign to allow parking on just one side of the street — not both.
SPECIAL ISSUES:
a. An ordinance to remove the City Council from certain quasi - judicial decision - making
processes (Administrative Appeals process)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON,
AMENDING TMC 18.104.010 TO REMOVE THE
Minutes, 11/14/05
• •
CITY COUNCIL FROM CERTAIN QUASI -
JUDICIAL DECISION - MAKING PROCESSES;
REPEALING ORDINANCE NOS. 1768 §2 (PART),
1796 §3 (PART), 1841 §2, 1857 §, 2005 §20, 2066 §2,
2097 §22, AND 2098 §4; PROVIDING FOR
SEVERABILITY; AND ESTABLISHING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
Shelley Kerslake, City Attorney, noted that after Council adjudicated an appeal earlier in 2005,
informal discussions led to a review of the administrative appeals process and the possibility of
streamlining the process for those appeals — specifically related to matters of land use.
As a result of that review, the newly proposed ordinance is presented for consideration. In short, under
the proposed ordinance, administrative decisions would be appealed to the City's Hearing Examiner,
instead of the City Council. Depending upon the Type (1 — 5) of appeal, the Hearing Examiner will hold
a hearing, create the official record and render a decision.
In cases of closed- record hearings, the Hearing Examiner will review the record and render a decision
based on the law, as applied to the record. In cases where an appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decision
is desired, such cases are filed and adjudicated in King County Superior Court.
The City Attorney noted the proposed ordinance is consistent with larger cities on matters of land use,
and takes the City Council out of most quasi-judicial matters. As the currently proposed ordinance is
written, the City Council will retain jurisdiction over matters of re- zones, final plat approvals and
shoreline environment re- designations.
The quasi-judicial matters are few (two since Ms. Kerslake has been with the City) and Hearing
Examiner costs are reasonable. She spoke in favor of the proposed ordinance.
Page 3 of 11
Pamela Linder, Council President, reported review of the proposed ordinance in the October 11, 2005
Community Affairs and Parks Committee. The only recommendation from the Committee was to
forward it to a Committee of Whole for discussion and consideration.
Councilmember Robertson noted the table in the proposed ordinance in this evening's packet doesn't
show who the current decision makers are. He then pointed out differences between the current
ordinance and that which is proposed.
Further, Mr. Robertson spoke in favor of the City Council retaining jurisdiction of some matters.
Specifically, he began with (Type 4) — Reasonable Use Exceptions under Sensitive Area Ordinance; and
(Type 5) Unclassified Use Permits. Such words as "materially detrimental to public welfare" and
"injurious" and "compatible generally" appear within related sections of the Tukwila Municipal Code,
and he stated his opinion that such words are subjective and require judgment calls.
Councilmember Carter suggested review of the proposed ordinance Type by Type. Where concerns
exist, they may be raised. Otherwise, there is no need to spend time within one section Type.
Councilmember Hernandez is interested in the City Council retaining jurisdiction over several matters
that are proposed to be appealed to the Hearing Examiner. She said the process should change gradually
as an issue of trust exists when change occurs. As the Councilmembers know the community members
better than the Hearing Examiner does, Ms. Hernandez encouraged the Council to "start slowly," in
t,tt.,• / /..,.,, 1, 1 1
1'1 /"10 Pln11G
Minutes, 11/14/05
• •
Page 4 of 11
releasing their control over matters until such time that we've had an opportunity to review results of the
Hearing Examiner's decisions.
Councilmembers Carter and Haggerton each noted they would also like to discuss at least one change.
Ms. Carter asked staff to review the various Types of decisions for clarity.
Jack Pace, Deputy Director, Community Development, explained the various decision Types, gave
examples of each and reminded Council who heard the appeals on those Types.
Type 1 decisions are made by the Director of Community Development and are appealable to the
Hearing Examiner. Little to no discretion exists when making these decisions.
Type 2 decisions are also made by the Director of Community Development and are appealable to the
Hearing Examiner, Planning Commission, or in cases of shoreline permits, the State Shorelines
Hearings Board.
Type 3 decisions are made by the City's Hearing Examiner.
Type 4 decisions are made by the City's Planning Commission or Board of Architectural Review and
are appealable to the State Shorelines Hearings Board, Hearing Examiner or City Council.
Type 5 decisions are quasi-judicial issues decided by the Hearing Examiner or City Council after an
open record hearing. Currently, these matters are appealable only to the King County Superior Court.
With that understanding, Council began a review of each of the section of the proposed ordinance to
determine who would hear appeals on each decision Type.
Consensus existed to leave Type 1 decisions as they appear in the proposed ordinance.
Consensus existed to leave Type 3 decisions as they appear in the proposed ordinance.
Type 2 decisions:
Council discussed a sense of "giving up control" on appeal hearings in two Type 2 decision areas: 1)
Special Permissions Parking & Modifications to Certain Parking Standards Permits, and 2) Parking
standards for use not specified. As presented in the proposed ordinance these items will be appealable to
the City's Hearing Examiner. Brief discussions were held and Councilmembers spoke in favor of
allowing those matters to be appealed to the Hearing Examiner as presented in the proposed ordinance.
Consensus existed to leave those decisions as they appear in the proposed ordinance.
Family Design Standards was discussed. Mr. Pace provided an example and Councilmember Carter
spoke in opposition to changing something newly created. This is relative to the City's newly created
ordinance allowing a demonstration project to include cottage housing. Councilmember Robertson
spoke in favor of such decisions being made by the City Council. Consensus existed to strike the
words "Planning Commission" from the proposed ordinance. The words "City Council" will be
inserted.
Type 4 decisions:
Reasonable Use Exceptions under Sensitive Areas Ordinance — Councilmembers Robertson and Carter
1,1-4..,•ll,,,,,.,,, 4.11,1,,;1., ,,., /,.,,•,,1 1 1 A
1 1 /10 /•AAG
Minutes, 11/14/05
spoke in favor of the City Council remaining the appeal body. After discussions consensus existed for
Council to maintain control of these appeals. The words "Hearing Examiner" shall be stricken
from the proposed ordinance. The words "City Council" will be inserted.
Conditional Use Permits — Councilmember Carter spoke in favor of the City Council remaining the
appeal body. Consensus existed for Council to maintain control of these appeals. The words
"Hearing Examiner" shall be stricken from the proposed ordinance. The words "City Council"
will be inserted.
Public Hearing Design Review — Councilmember Carter spoke in favor of the City Council remaining
the appeal body until "we see how these work." Consensus existed for Council to maintain control of
these appeals. The words "Hearing Examiner" shall be stricken from the proposed ordinance.
The words "City Council" will be inserted.
Modifications to Certain Parking Standards — Questioned by Councilmember Carter, Mr. Pace gave an
example of this decision. Such decisions are made by the City's Planning Commission and appealable to
the Hearing Examiner. Consensus existed to accept that portion as presented.
Variance from Parking_Standards Over 10% - Little discussion was held. Consensus existed to allow
the Hearing Examiner to consider appeals of these issues. The words "City Council" will be
stricken from the proposed ordinance. The words "Hearing Examiner" will be inserted.
Type 5 decisions:
• •
Page 5 of 11
Unclassified Use Permits — With little discussion, consensus existed for Council to maintain control
of these appeals. The words "Hearing Examiner" shall be stricken from the proposed ordinance.
The words "City Council" will be inserted.
Subdivision - Preliminary Plat — Brief discussion was held. Consensus existed to make this a Type 4
decision. The initial decision maker will be the City's Planning Commission. The appeal body will
be the City Council.
Subdivision — Final Plat — Mr. Pace described an example of final plat approval. Discussion was held.
Consensus existed to accept that portion as presented.
Planned Residential Development — Mr. Pace described a planned residential development permit. After
little discussion, consensus existed for Council to maintain control of these appeals. The words
"Hearing Examiner" shall be stricken from the proposed ordinance. The words "City Council"
will be inserted.
With the foregoing policy direction from Council, Mr. Pace noted changes would be made to the final
draft ordinance and presented to Council. That version will also include correct citations of and within
the Tukwila Municipal Code.
FOR ACTION, CONSENSUS EXISTED TO FORWARD THIS ITEM TO THE NOVEMBER 21,
2005 REGULAR AGENDA.
b. Amendment #2 to AG 04- 063,with Commercial Development Solutions
Jack Pace, Deputy Director, Community Development, noted just two minor amendments to the contract
L,rr..• / /....,.., r..l...,;1 ..�,, ..-L lo.•1.LJ,,,...hG /,.,...,1 1 1 A L,+...
1'1 /'lQ /^111/1G
TYPE OF PERMIT
DECISION
MAKER
Building Permit
Building Official
Utility Permit
Public Works
Director
Sign Permit, except for those
sign permits specifically
requiring approval of the
Planning Commission or denials
of sign permits which are
appealable
Community
Development
Director
Land Alteration
Public Works
Director
Boundary Line Adjustment,
including Lot Consolidation
Community
Development
Director
Minor Modification to PRD
(TMC 18.46.130)
Community
Development
Director
Minor modification to BAR
approved design (TMC
18.60.030)
Community
Development
Director
Any land use permit or approval
issued by the City, unless
specifically categorized as a Type
2, 3, 4, or 5 decision by this
Chapter
As specified by
Ordinance
TYPE 1 DECISIONS
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 Cuumil, or, in the case of shoreline permits,
an appeal to the State Shorelines Hearings Board pursuant to RCW 90.58.
TYPE OF
PERMIT
INITIAL
DECISION
MAKER
APPEAL BODY
(open record
appeal)
Administrative
Design Review
(TMC 18.60.030)
Community
Development
Director
Board of
Architectural
Review
Administrative
Planned
Residential
Development
(TMC 17.08.040)
Short Plat
Committee
Hearing
Examiner
Short Plat
(TMC 17.08.060)
Short Plat
Committee
Hearing
Examiner
Binding Site
Improvement
Plan (TMC
Chap.17.16)
Short Plat
Committee
Hearing
Examiner
Shoreline
Substantial
Development
Permit (TMC
Chapter 18.44)
Community
Development
Director
State Shoreline
Hearings Board
Decision
regarding
Sensitive Areas
(except
Reasonable Use
Exception) (TMC
18.45.125)
Community
Development
Director
Planning
Commission
Special
Permission
Parking, and
Modifications to
Certain Parking
Standards (TMC
18.56.060 and
.070)
Community
Development
Director
C ity Cvw It'll
Hearing
Examiner
•
TYPE 2 DECISIONS
•
Parking standard
for use not
specified (TMC
18.56.100)
Community
Development
Director
Variance (zoning, shoreline,
sidewalk, land alteration,
sign)
City Cuumi1
Hearing
Examiner
Resolve uncertain zone
district boundary
Code
Interpretation
(TMC 18.90.010)
Community
Development
Director
Hearing
Examiner
Special
Permission Sign,
except "unique
sign" (various
sections of TMC
Title 19)
Community
Development
Director
Planning
Commission
Sign Permit
Denial (TMC
Chapter 19.12
Community
Development
Director
Planning
Commission
Sign Area
Increase (TMC
19.32.140)
Community
Development
Director
Planning
Commission
Placement of
Cargo Container
(TMC 18.50.060)
Community
Development
Director
Hearing
Examiner
TYPE OF PERMIT
DECISION
MAKER
Variance (zoning, shoreline,
sidewalk, land alteration,
sign)
Hearing Examiner
Resolve uncertain zone
district boundary
Hearing Examiner
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.
TYPE 3 DECISIONS
BACKGROUND
• 1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Mullet
Community Affairs and Parks Committee
FROM: Steve Lancaster, DCD Director
RE: Zoning Code Updates
DATE: October 4, 2005
The City Attorney has recommended changes to the Zoning Code in three areas:
1) Rezone procedures;
2) Code interpretation procedures and fee;
3) Design review approval standard; and
PROPOSED CHANGES
Rezones
The proposed changes would replace the existing Chapter 18.84 and add additional criteria and
procedural clarity for rezone applications.
18.84.010 Application Submittal
Application for rezone of property shall be submitted to the Department of
Community Development. The application shall be a Type 5 decision processed in
accordance with the provisions of TMC 18.108.050.
18.84.030 Criteria
Each determination granting a rezone shall be supported by written findings and
conclusions showing specifically wherein all of the following conditions exist:
(1) That the proposed amendment to the zoning map is consistent with the
goals, objectives, and policies of the comprehensive plan;
(2) That the proposed amendment to the zoning map is consistent with the
scope and purpose of this title and the description and purpose of the zone
classification applied for;
(3) That there are changed conditions since the previous zoning became
effective to warrant the proposed amendment to the zoning map; and
(4) That the proposed amendment to the zoning map will be in the interest of
furtherance of the public health, safety, comfort, convenience and general welfare,
NG
Q: \CODEAMND \CA Zoning Changes \CA_CodeCAP.DOC
- 1 -
10/05/2005 10:56 AM
and will not adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood, nor be injurious to other
properties in the vicinity in which the subject property is located.
18.84.050 Conditions on Rezone Approvals
The City Council shall have the authority to impose conditions and safeguards as it
deems necessary to protect or enhance the health, safety, and welfare of the
surrounding area, and to ensure that the rezone fully meets the findings set forth in
TMC 18.84.030.
18.84.070 Ordinance Required
Action under this chapter which amends the official zoning map shall require the
adoption of an ordinance by the city council pursuant to the municipal code and state
law.
Code Interpretations
The changes would clarify that interpretations may be requested (for a fee) by any person and
That the Director's decision would be given substantial weight in an appeal.
Design Review Approval Standard
This would change the approval standard at TMC 18.60.030 (B) from "clear demonstration of
compliance" to "preponderance of evidence." This was an issue with a recent appeal of a design
review decision and should help create more defensible decisions.
REQUESTED ACTION
• •
TMC 18.96.020 Interpretations
An interpretation of this title by the Director or his or her
delegate may be requested in writing by any person or may he
initiated by the Director. A decision by the Director that an
issue is not subject to an interpretation request shall be final
and not subject to administrative appeal. Any request for
interpretation shall be a Type 2 Decision filed with the
Director accompanied by a fee according to the most recently
adopted Land Use Fee Schedule. The interpretation of the
Director shall be given substantial weight, and the burden of
establishing the contrary shall be upon the appellant.
Review the proposed changes, provide Staff with policy direction and forward the proposal to
the Planning Commission for a public hearing.
Q: \CODEAMND \CA Zoning Changes \CA_CodeCAP.DOC Page 2
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
Community Affairs and Parks Committee
Shelley
October 6, 2005
RE: Administrative Appeals
Issue
Whether the City should streamline the process for appeals of various administrative matters and
send more land use matters to the hearing examiner for adjudication.
Background
CITY OF TUKWILA
MEMORANDUM
rney
As you know, the City has recently had several quasi- judicial proceedings that have come before
the council. Following the most recent appeal hearing, it was suggested by several council
members that we explore the process that we use to adjudicate land use matters.
Discussion
Attached please find a draft ordinance, which removes the City Council from the quasi-judicial
land use appeal process in all but a few circumstances. Under this proposed ordinance,
administrative decisions would be appealed to the City's hearing examiner. Depending on the
type of appeal, the examiner will hold a hearing and create the record and make a decision. If it
is a closed record hearing, the examiner will review the record and make a decision based on the
law as applied to the record developed below. Appeals from the examiner will go directly to
Superior Court.
Most cities have long ago moved to this system of land use appeals. They have done this for
several reasons: (1) the complexity of the issues related to land use continue to increase; (2) the
stakes for making errors is higher, with attorney's fees provisions in the Land Use Petition Act as
well as damage claims that can arise from making decisions based on impermissible criteria; and
(3) it removes the council from politically awkward or difficult situations. The restrictions placed
on council members in a quasi-judicial setting cut off contact and communication with citizens.
This ordinance increases the opportunity for council members to interact with their constituents
on vital land use issues.
G: \City Attorney \Tukwila \CAS REPORTS \Information Memo Re Administrative Appeals.doc/P /10/06/05
Recommendation
Adoption of the ordinance.
• •
Options
After discussion of this issue last spring with the Finance and Safety Committee, it was
recommended that we explore moving the majority of land use hearings to the examiner.
However, the Council certainly has the option of determining which matters it would like to
retain jurisdiction over and the draft ordinance can be modified accordingly.
-2-
G. \City Attomey \Tukwila \CAS REPORTS\Infomiation Memo Re Administrative Appeals.doc/P /10/06/05
• •
CITY OF TUKWILA
WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO. 0
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA,
WASHINGTON, AMENDING TMC 18.104.010 TO
REMOVE THE CITY COUNCIL FROM CERTAIN
QUASI- JUDICIAL DECISION MAKING
PROCESSES; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY;
AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to remove itself from certain quasi-judicial
processes;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA,
WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1 TMC 1 8.104 010, Amended Tukwila Municipal Code Section
18.104.010 (Classification of Project Permit Applications) is hereby amended to read as
follows:
18.104.010 Classification of Project Permit Applications
A. Project permit decisions are classified into five types, based on the
degree of discretion associated with each decision, as set forth in this
section. Procedures for the five different types are distinguished according
to who makes the decision, whether public notice is required, whether a
public meeting and/or a public hearing is required before a decision is
made, and whether administrative appeals are provided.
B. Type 1 decisions are made by City administrators who have
technical expertise as designated by ordinance. Type 1 decisions may be
appealed to the Hearing Examiner who will hold a closed record appeal
hearing based on the information presented to the City administrator who
made the decision. Public notice is not required for Type 1 decisions or for
the appeals of those decisions.
3
TYPE OF PERMIT
DECISION
MAKER
Building Permit
Building Official
Utility Permit
Public Works
Director
Sign Permit, except for those
sign permits specifically
requiring approval of the
Planning Commission or denials
of sign permits which are
appealable
Community
Development
Director
Land Alteration
Public Works
Director
Boundary Line Adjustment,
including Lot Consolidation
_
Community
Development
Director
Minor Modification to PRD
(TMC 18.46.130)
Community
Development
Director
Minor modification to BAR
approved design (TMC
18.60.030)
Community
Development
Director
Any land use permit or approval
issued by the City, unless
specifically categorized as a Type
2, 3, 4, or 5 decision by this
Chapter
As specified by
Ordinance
TYPE 1 DECISIONS
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 Cuuiic,il, or, in the case of shoreline permits,
an appeal to the State Shorelines Hearings Board pursuant to RCW 90.58.
TYPE OF
PERMIT
INITIAL
DECISION
MAKER
APPEAL BODY
(open record
appeal)
Administrative
Design Review
(TMC 18.60.030)
Community
Development
Director
Board of
Architectural
Review
Administrative
Planned
Residential
Development
(TMC 17.08.040)
Short Plat
Committee
Hearing
Examiner
Short Plat
(TMC 17.08.060)
Short Plat
Committee
Hearing
Examiner
Binding Site
Improvement
Plan (TMC
Chap.17.16)
Short Plat
Committee
Hearing
Examiner
Shoreline
Substantial
Development
Permit (TMC
Chapter 18.44)
Community
Development
Director
State Shoreline
Hearings Board
Decision
regarding
Sensitive Areas
(except
Reasonable Use
Exception) (TMC
18.45.125)
Community
Development
Director
Planning
Commission
Special
Permission
Parking, and
Modifications to
Certain Parking
Standards (TMC
18.56.060 and
.070)
Community
Development
Director
City Coauc.i
Hearing
Fxaminer
•
TYPE 2 DECISIONS
•
5
Parking standard
for use not
specified (TMC
18.56.100
Community
Development
Director
Variance (zoning, shoreline,
sidewalk, land alteration,
sign)
C ily CUuu�i
Hearing
Examiner
Resolve uncertain zone
district boundary
Code
Interpretation
(TMC 18.90 .010)
Community
Development
Director
Hearing
Examiner
Special
Permission Sign,
except "unique
sign" (various
sections of TMC
Title 19)
Community
Development
Director
Planning
Commission
Sign Permit
Denial (TMC
Chapter 19.12
Community
Development
Director
Planning
Commission
Sign Area
Increase (TMC
19.32.140)
Community
Development
Director
Planning
Commission
Placement of
Cargo Container
(TMC 18.50.060)
Community
Development
Director
Hearing
Examiner
TYPE OF PERMIT
DECISION
MAKER
Variance (zoning, shoreline,
sidewalk, land alteration,
sign)
Hearing Examiner
Resolve uncertain zone
district boundary
_
Hearing Examiner
TYPE 3 DECISIONS
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.
TYPE OF PERMIT
INITIAL
DECISION
MAKER
APPEAL
BODY
(closed record
appeal)
State
Shorelines
Hearings
Board
Shoreline
Conditional Use
Permit (TMC
18.44.050)
Planning
Commission
Reasonable Use
Exceptions under
Sensitive Areas
Ordinance (TMC
18.45.115)
Planning
Commission
City'
Hearing
Examiner
Public Hearing
Design Review
(TMC Chapter
18.60, 18.56.040
and Shoreline
Master Program)
Board of
Architectural
Review
Cit C uu11Li1
Hearing
Examiner
Modifications to
Certain Parking
Standards (TMC
Chapter 18.56)
Planning
Commission
C ity Cuu11Li
Hearing
Examiner
Conditional Use
Permit (TMC
Chapter 18.64)
Planning
Commission
City Cuu11ui1
Hearing
Examiner
Unique Signs
(TMC 19.28.010)
Planning
Commission
City Cuumi1
Hearing
Examiner
E. Type 4 d•ions are quasi-judicial decisions mil by the Board of
Architectural Review or the Planning Commission, following an open record
hearing. _Type 4 decisions may be appealed to the Hearing Examiner haled on the
record established by the Board of Architectural Review or the Planning
Commission, tl2e - Cit y Cuuiit il, w will l iu vJuc icLvi appeal mating
. 1 •
• • . •
•
C U1111111JJ1U11, except Shoreline Conditional Use Permits, which are appealable to
the State Shoreline Hearings Board pursuant to RCW 90.58.
TYPE 4 DECISIONS
F. Type 5 decisions are quasi-judicial decisions made by the Hearing
Examiner or City Council following an open record hearing. _Type 5 decisions
may be appealed only to Superior Court.
1
C:\Documents and Settings\Pamela-O\Local Settings \Temp \Ordinance Class of Project Permit Apps.DOC /P /10/04/05
TYPE OF PERMIT
DECISION
MAKER
Subdivision - Preliminary
Plat (TMC 17.12.020)
Cit C vutt.,i l
Hearing
Examiner
Subdivision - Final Plat
(TMC 17.12.030)
City Council
Planned Residential
Development (PRD),
including Major
Modifications (TMC Chapter
18.46)
Hearing
Examinereity
Cvuii..i
Unclassified Use
(TMC Chapter 18.66)
Hearing
Examinereity
anima
Rezone (TMC Chapter 18.84)
City Council
Shoreline Environment
Redesignation (Shoreline
Master Program)
Hearing
Examinereity
Cvutic,il
TYPE 5 DECISIONS
Section 7 Severahility. Should any section, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this
Ordinance, or its application to any person or circumstance, be declared unconstitutional or
otherwise invalid for any reason, or should any portion of this Ordinance be pre - empted by state or
federal law or regulation, such decision or pre - emption shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portions of this Ordinance or its application to other persons or circumstances.
,Section 3 Effective Date This Ordinance shall be published in the official newspaper of
the City, and shall take effect and be in full force five (5) days after the date of publication.
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL AT A REGULAR MEETING THEREOF ON
THE DAY OF , 2005.
CITY OF TUKWILA
Mayor Steven M. Mullet
-2
C: \Documents and Settings\Pamela- O\Local Settings \Temp \Ordinance Class of Project Permit Apps.DOC/P /10/04/05
ATTEST /AUTHENTICA.:
Jane Cantu, City Clerk
Approved as to form:
Shelley M. Kerslake, City Attorney
Filed with the City Clerk:
Passed by the City Council:
Date of Publication:
Effective Date:
3
C: \Documents and Settings\Pamela -O \Local Settings \Temp \Ordinance Class of Project Permit Apps.DOC/P /10/04/05
9
Issue
Background
Discussion
Recommendation
Adoption of the ordinance.
• •
CITY OF TUKWILA
MEMORANDUM
TO: Community Affairs and Parks Committee
FROM: Shelley Kerslake
DATE: October 5, 2005
RE: Administrative Appeals
Whether the City should streamline the process for appeals of various administrative matters and
send more land use matters to the hearing examiner for adjudication.
As you know, the City has recently had several quasi- judicial proceedings that have come before
the council. Following the most recent appeal hearing, it was suggested by several council
members that we explore the process that we use to adjudicate land use matters.
Attached please find a draft ordinance, which removes the City Council from the land use appeal
process in all but a few circumstances. Under this proposed ordinance, administrative decisions
would be appealed to the City's hearing examiner. Depending on the type of appeal, the
examiner will hold a hearing and create the record and make a decision. If it is a closed record
hearing, the examiner will review the record and make a decision based on the law as applied to
the record developed below. Appeals from the examiner will go directly to Superior Court.
Most cities have long ago moved to this system of land use appeals. They have done this for
several reasons: (1) the complexity of the issues related to land use continue to increase; (2) the
stakes for making errors is higher, with attorney's fees provisions in the Land Use Petition Act as
well as damage claims that can arise from making decisions based on impermissible criteria; and
(3) it removes the council from politically awkward or difficult situations. The restrictions placed
on council members in a quasi-judicial setting cut off contact and communication with citizens.
This ordinance increases the opportunity for council members to interact with their constituents
on vital land use issues.
G: \City Attorney \Tukwila \CAS REPORTSUnformation Memo Re Administrative Appeals.doc/P /10/05/05
Q: \CODEAMND \Fees \2005 Update. DOCMG /09/26/05
• •
CITY OF TUKWILA
MEMORANDUM
TO: Nora Gierloff, Senior Planner
FROM: Shelley M. Kerslake, City Attorney
DATE: September 26, 2005
RE: Defensible Fee Structure
I. ISSUE
I understand that you are considering setting an appeal fee for various land use matters.
The following is the analysis that should guide your determination in this regard.
II. ANALYSIS
Local governments have the authority to require payment of fees that are akin to charges
for services rendered. See Covell v. City of Seattle, 127 Wn.2d 874, 884 (1995). These types of
fees, often referred to as "regulatory fees," include utility connection fees, garbage collection
fees, local storm water facility fees, user fees, permit fees, parking fees, registration fees, filing
fees and license fees. Samis Land Co. v. City of Soap Lake, 143 Wn.2d 798, 805 (2001).
(Emphasis added). These fees are not taxes and are exempt from fundamental constitutional
constraints on governmental taxation authority. Id. For example, a fee does not require the
express statutory or constitutional authority required for a tax; rather, a fee may be imposed
pursuant to a local government's police power. Okeson v. City of Seattle, 150 Wn.2d 540, 551-
52 (2003).
Due to the inherent danger that a city may unknowingly circumvent constitutional
constraints by levying charges that, while officially labeled "regulatory fees," are in fact a tax,
the court has employed a three part test, outlined in Covell v. City of Seattle, to determine
Q: \CODEAMND \Fees\2005 Update. DOC/NG /09/26/05
• •
whether a charge is a fee or a tax. Okeson, 150 Wn.2d at 552. The first consideration is whether
the primary purpose of the city is to raise revenue for general governmental purposes or to
regulate a service for which the cost is imposed. Id. Whereas a tax raises revenue for general
public welfare, a fee raises revenue to either regulate the service that those who pay enjoy or
regulate the burden that those who pay have created. Id. at 553.
The second consideration is whether the revenue collected is allocated for an authorized
purpose. Id. Fees must by segregated and allocated exclusively to regulate the purpose for
which they were collected. Carrillo v. City of Ocean Shores, 122 Wn. App. 592, 606 (2004).
Although depositing revenue into a special account indicates a fee, the revenue must also be used
to regulate an authorized activity; otherwise, the revenue is viewed as a clever device to disguise
a tax as a fee. Okeson, 150 Wn.2d at 553.
The third factor is whether there is a direct relationship between the revenue and the
services received, or the burdens produced, by the payer. Id. at 553 -54. A fee requires a "direct
relationship" to the benefits received or the burdens produced. Id (Emphasis added). In Samis
Land Co. v. City of Soap Lake, the court examined the relationship between the revenue and the
benefit or burden in various cases:
[I]n Morse v. Wise, [37 Wn.2d 806 (1951)], we held that ... Chelan had police
power authority to force current sewer customers to pay for improvements to its
sewer system, even though new customers were the primary beneficiaries of the
improvements. In Teter [104 Wn.2d 227 (1985)] we ruled that charges collected
from lands shown to be contributing to an increase in surface water runoff were
"tools of regulation" rather than taxes because, even though no service was being
provided to every fee payer, the rate schedule [bore] a reasonable [albeit
imprecise] relation to the contribution of each lot to the shared burden being
alleviated by the storm and surface water control facilities. In Thurston County
Rental Owners Ass'n v. Thurston County, [85 Wn. App. 171 (1997)], the court
deemed a septic system permit fee charged to finance efforts to reduce ground and
surface water contamination in the area to be a valid regulatory fee since it was
reasonably related to the pollution burden created by new septic systems. In
Smith v. Spokane County, [89 Wn. App. 340 (1997)], additional fees were
-2-
Therefore, a fee does not need to be individualized according to the exact benefit accruing to, or
burden produced by, the payer. Okeson, 150 Wn.2d at 554. Only a practical basis for the fee is
required, not mathematical precision. Id.
III. APPLICATION
For Tukwila's appeal fees to pass the Covell test, the following must be shown:
1) The purpose of the fee is to regulate or serve the payer and not for generating general
revenue;
2) The fee is used for purposes for which it was assessed;
3) There is a practical basis for the fee charged. ng tfalfi . MIMPro h
Q: \CODEAMND \Fees \2005 Updatc. DOC/NG /09/26/OS
imposed on water and sewer customers in an Aquifer Protection Area to pay for
the protection, preservation and rehabilitation of their subterranean water source.
While the rates in Smith were fixed and unrelated to the amount of water used, or
whether the household is served by a septic system or a municipal sewer line, the
court held that [e]nsuring a clean source of drinking water provides a direct
benefit to everyone who receives water from the aquifer. In each of these cases, it
was clear that ... a direct relationship existed between the charge and either a
service received or a burden to which the payers were contributing. Samis, 143
Wn.2d at 811 -813. (Internal quotation marks and footnotes omitted, underline
added).
basis for establishing the fee.
• •
jai natreeMSZ I Thus, it is suggested that the City determine, on
average, what the cost is for the services received or the burdens produced by the payer as the
IV. CONCLUSION
The issue of whether a charge is a fee or a tax is a topic of much debate in municipal
litigation. Due to this environment, it is encouraged that the City review its regulatory fee
structure to determine compliance with the Covell test as set forth above. Any increase in
However, this information will likely be of benefit to the legislative body when passing the fee structure.
-3-
Q: \CODER MND \Fees \2005 Update. DOC/NG /09/26/05
• •
regulatory rates should also go through the above analysis. If you have any questions do not
hesitate to contact me at 425.392.7090.
cc: Jack Pace, Deputy Director, DCD
-4-
• •
CITY OF TUKWILA
WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO. 0
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA,
WASHINGTON, AMENDING TMC 18.104.010 TO
REMOVE THE CITY COUNCIL FROM CERTAIN
QUASI - JUDICIAL DECISION MAKING
PROCESSES; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY;
AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to remove itself from certain quasi-judicial
processes;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA,
WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1 TMC 18 104 010, Amended Tukwila Municipal Code Section
18.104.010 (Classification of Project Permit Applications) is hereby amended to read as
follows:
18.104.010 Classification of Project Permit Applications
A. Project permit decisions are classified into five types, based on the
degree of discretion associated with each decision, as set forth in this
section. Procedures for the five different types are distinguished according
to who makes the decision, whether public notice is required, whether a
public meeting and/or a public hearing is required before a decision is
made, and whether administrative appeals are provided.
B. Type 1 decisions are made by City administrators who have
technical expertise as designated by ordinance. Type 1 decisions may be
appealed to the Hearing Examiner who will hold a closed record appeal
hearing based on the information presented to the City administrator who
made the decision. Public notice is not required for Type 1 decisions or for
the appeals of those decisions.