Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning 2012-01-26 CODE AMENDMENTS - STAFF REPORTr I i STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Prepared January 17, 2012 FILE NUMBERS PL12 -001, L12 -001 Code Amendments E12 -001 SEPA Checklist 'fiat Hui crton, AI(Ivor .Ica'ck Pace, Director REQUEST: Housekeeping Code Amendments. Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on the proposed amendments and make recommendations to the City Council for review and adoption. PUBLIC HEARING: January 26, 2012. The Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Seattle Times on January 13, 2012. LOCATION: City wide STAFF: Minnie Dhaliwal, Planning Supervisor ATTACHMENTS: A. Underline /strikeout version of the code to establish a clear quasi judicial process for site specific rezones. B. Memo to Community Affairs and Parks Committee dated Oct 5, 2011 regarding single family residential development standards, along with all the attachments and the minutes of the October 10, 2011 meeting. C. Map showing the location of manufactured homes in Tukwila D. Photos of some of the manufactured homes in Tukwila E. Underline /strikeout version of the code to allow relief of roof pitch and front door requirements for the replacement of single wide manufactured homes. F. Underline /strikeout version of the code for the remaining miscellaneous code amendments. G. Comparison of building height standards of neighboring jurisdictions. H. Building height exceptions area maps: original map adopted by Ordinance 1758; revised by Ordinance 2186; new corrected map. I. Changes related to categorization of manufacturing uses. n1D Page 1 of 01'23'2112 Z: PC Laserfiche Packet PC Packet 01 -26 -12 Planninu Commi55ion Staff report- 1.docSZ: PC Laserfiche Packet PC Packet 01 -26 -12 Planning Commission Sta report- I_aocS 0300 SolithcenterBoidevcarcl, Suite —100 Tillovilca, TVashinuton 9 188 Phone 206- 431 -36'0 Fax: _06- 431 -3665 3 BACKGROUND Staff has grouped amendments to the Zoning Code Title 18, along with some minor amendments to Title 5, 8 and 21 of the Tukwila Municipal Code for your consideration. The topics range from minor housekeeping or clarification to policy decisions about the review process and development standards. Staff presented these issues to the Community Affairs and Parks (CAP) Committee on January 9, 2012. The Committee discussed each item and chose to forward them to the Planning Commission for a hearing and recommendation.. Included in this memo is a list of the proposed amendments with a brief explanation. The first two amendments involve some policy decisions, whereas the remaining amendments are just correcting inaccuracies or codifying existing code interpretations. Each proposed change is discussed below. DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED CHANGES A. Refine the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and rezone procedures to separate the legislative and associated quasi judicial process. The City Attorney has advised staff that Tukwila needs to revise the way it reviews and processes quasi judicial, site specific rezones to ensure that they are treated distinctly from legislative, area -wide rezones. Tukwila's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning map classifications are identical. Whenever a rezone of any size or type is proposed, changes to both the Comprehensive Plan map and Zoning Map are needed. At this time quasi judicial, site specific rezones follow essentially the same process as legislative decisions, except the Planning Commission and City Council are told that they are acting in a quasi judicial manner, appearance of fairness questions are asked, and members are told to avoid ex parte communication. Site visits are advertised to the public, and done in a group. Under the State Law a quasi judicial project should have only one open record hearing. The current process for rezone requests involves discussion at the Community Affairs and Parks Committee (CAP); public meeting at the Committee of the Whole (COW) meeting; Regular City Council meeting to decide whether to send the item to the Planning Commission for review or not; Planning Commission (PC) public hearing; CAP meeting to review the PC recommendation; public hearing at the COW meeting; and a final decision at the Regular City Council meeting. This process is identical for other legislative comprehensive plan amendments. Our current process results in the strong possibility that the quasi judicial matters will not be handled in compliance with the State Law, leading to potentially costly legal challenges for the City. Staff outlined three options to CAP for processing site specific rezones in a quasi judicial manner. CAP asked staff that the options that did not have a role for the planning commission should be removed from consideration. Per TMC 18.84.010, all rezones are currently Type 5 decisions. 1\1) Page 2 of 7 01 '23 '2012 Z: ,PC Lasertiche Packet PC Packet 01 -26 -12 ,Planning Commission staff report- 1. doe PC Lasertiche Packet PC Packet ol- 26 -12 Planning Commission 4 staffreport- I.docx 1) Option 1 Tyne 5 where staff holds a public meeting with the Planning Commission; City Council holds an open record hearing before making the final decision; and the appeal goes to Superior Court Pro Retains role for Planning Commission City Council has decision making responsibility Con: Meeting, rather than hearing, could be confusing for the Planning Commission 2) Option 2 a) Tvae 4 Decision where the Planning Commission holds an open record hearing before making the decision and the appeals go to the City Council Pro: Basic quasi judicial process with continued Planning Commission involvement Slightly quicker process with less staff time than currently required Con: Less public input No Council involvement or decision unless on appeal Under the State Law comprehensive plan cannot be amended more than once a year. The decision regarding accompanying comprehensive plan map change cannot be coordinated with other comprehensive plan amendments. b)Tvae 4 Decision (Alternate) where the Planning Commission holds an open record hearing before making a recommendation to the City Council; City Council holds a closed record hearing before making a final decision; and the appeals go to Superior Court Pro: Retains both Planning Commission Council involvement Similar to current process Con: Possible confusion between legislative and quasi judicial roles Staff recommends option 1, as it retains the decision making authority with the City Council and retains a role for the Planning Commission. Under this option any site specific rezones along with the accompanying comprehensive plan map change would not be discussed initially at the CAP, COW and the City Council meeting, where a threshold decision is made regarding other comprehensive plan amendments. Instead the Planning Commission will hold a public meeting and the City Council will hold a public hearing at their Regular Meeting before making a decision the same night. Additionally, the State Law requires that the cities do not amend their Comprehensive Plans more than once a year. In order to meet this requirement the City Council 1\1) Page 3 of 7 01 '23 '2012 Z: ,PC Lasertiche Packet PC Packet 01 -26 -12 ,Planning Commission staff report- 1.doexZ: PC Lasertiche Packet PC Packet ol- 26 -12 Planning Commission staff report-1. docx 5 hearing on any site specific rezone along with the accompanying Comprehensive Plan map change will be scheduled the same night that the Council will be adopting other Comprehensive Plan amendments. The code language needed to accomplish option 1 is attached to this memo as Attachment A. B. Single Family Design Standards: Staff had previously briefed the Community Affairs and Parks Committee in October 2010, regarding some options for regulating the bulk and size of single family dwelling units. See Attachment B for the memo to CAP and minutes of the CAP meeting. At that time the Committee gave direction to staff to amend the method of calculating building height for sloping sites and to not make any other changes to the building footprint or setback regulations. An amendment to the method of calculating building height on sloping lots is discussed under subsection C later in this report. Since October 2010 an issue related to manufactured homes and the existing design standards of minimum roof pitch requirements and front door facing the street was raised by a Tukwila citizen at a City Council meeting. Based on the King County Assessor's data there are a total of 70 manufactured homes in the Low Density Residential zone in Tukwila. Attachment C is the map showing the location of these units in Tukwila. Also, Attachment D includes photos of some of the units. In order to address the issue of replacement of existing single wide manufactured homes staff had outlined three options for the CAP committee to consider. CAP removed the option where there would have been no design standards for single family homes. The remaining two options are discussed below: Amend the Single Family Design Standards to allow the Director to modify the roof pitch and front door facing the street requirement if the proposal includes replacement of a single wide mobile home with a newer and larger manufactured home. 2. Do not make any changes and require all new single family dwelling units to meet the existing design standards. Staff recommends option 1 as this requires all new single family dwelling units to meet the design standards while still allowing owners of single wide manufactured homes to replace the existing structure with a higher quality unit even if it does not meet the 5:12 roof pitch or front door facing the street requirement. The code language needed to accomplish option 1 is attached to this memo as Attachment E. C. Other miscellaneous code amendments: There are a number of code clarifications or updates needed to clean up the code where either the references are outdated or code interpretations need to be codified. A summary of the proposed amendments is listed below. See attachment 1. Amendments to Title 5 are proposed to correct the inaccurate references to zoning designations. 2. Title 8 is proposed to be amended to address the following: 1\1) Page 4 of 7 01'23'2012 Z: ,PC Lasertiche Packet PC Packet 01 -26 -12 ,Planning Commission staff report- 1. doe PC Lasertiche Packet PC Packet ol- 26 -12 Planning Commission 6 staffreport- I.docx a) A list of schools and parks for the designated drug free zones has to be updated to include the new schools and parks that have been built since the code was adopted. b) Clarification is provided regarding when public notice is required for noise variances. c) Violations section of Title 8 needs to be updated to reference the correct sections. d) Parking limitations on single family lots is included in Title 8. A reference is added to Title 18 Residential Parking Requirements section to cross reference. Also, a discretionary approval process is added for properties that cannot meet the requirement for maximum paved area due to the shape of the lots. 3. The following changes are proposed to the Zoning Code Title 18: a) The definitions section is amended to: i) Building Height definition is amended to include a different method of determining the height on sloping lots. See Attachment B for detailed discussion of single family development standards in LDR zone including building height. Also, Attachment G compares the building heights standards in the neighboring jurisdictions with Tukwila. ii) A definition of tow truck operations is added. iii) Definition of regulated and isolated wetlands is updated to reflect the changes that were adopted as part of the Sensitive Areas code update. b) Family child care homes are regulated by Department of Early Learning and not DSHS. This change is needed in the accessory uses section of all zones that list family child care homes as an accessory use. c) Design Review Thresholds: i) Per the recently adopted Shoreline Master Program design review is required for all projects within the shoreline jurisdiction. This language needs to be added under Chapter 18.60 and the design review section of all zones. ii) Additional clarification is needed for the design review thresholds for non residential development in the Low Density Residential Zone. Specifically, any new non- residential construction or exterior repairs that exceed 25 percent of the building's assessed value should be subject to design review by the Board of Architectural Review and any exterior repairs that are more than 10 percent but less than 25 percent should be subject to administrative design review. Additionally, there is no the criteria for design review in single family zones. The design review criteria for multifamily, hotel, motel development addresses sensitivity to neighborhood building scale; therefore multifamily, hotel, motel criteria should be used for reviewing institutional uses in single family zones. iii) Language is added to provide clarification that if an existing site had gone through design review then any modification within 10 years will be subject to a minor or a major modification of the design review approval. d) Permit application types and procedures: i) TMC 18.104 lists conditional uses as Type 3 permits while 18.44.130 lists shoreline conditional use as Type 4. 1\1) Page 5 of 01'23'2012 Z: ,PC Lasertiche Packet PC Packet 01 -26 -12 ,Planning Commission staff report- 1. doe PC Lasertiche Packet PC Packet 01- 26 -12 Planning Commission staff report-1. docx 7 ii) Reasonable Use Exception is listed as a Type 3 permit under 18.104, but is listed as Type 4 under 18.45.180. iii) Type 4 process is required for modifications to the loading space requirements while the decision for the number of parking spaces is made by the Director. Staff is proposing that a Type 1 Director's approval be used for deviations from loading space requirements. iv) Parking lot restriping approval is being proposed as Type 2 Director's approval. v) Modifications to bicycle parking requirements are proposed to be approved by the Director as a Type 1 process. vi) TMC 18.104 references variances from parking standards as Hearing Examiner's decision, however 18.56.140 lists it as Planning Commission approval. vii) Process for approving different sign permits is deleted from Title 18 as it was covered under Title 19. viii) The process for approving proposals under the Housing Options Program is amended to be consistent with 18.104.010. e) TMC 18.45.120 references incorrect section. It should be 18.45.040C and not B. f) The regulations for removal of trees from the required landscaped area need to be clarified. A process for approving changes to the approved landscaping, replacement and penalty for violations is proposed. In order to meet the legislative intent of the landscape chapter any required landscaping should be retained and maintained for the life of the project. Additionally, topping or removal of required trees should be prohibited. Only trees that pose a danger or are diseased should be all allowed to be removed. Any illegal removal of required trees should be subject to obtaining a tree permit and should be replaced with trees that meet or exceed the functional value of the removed trees. g) TMC 18.66.120 is amended to reference the term `shoreline buffer' instead of river /low impact environment, in order to be consistent with the recently adopted Shoreline Master Program. h) Language is proposed so that the notice of decision can be emailed instead of the requirement to mail it by first class. i) Building Heights Exception areas map needs to be corrected as it inadvertently changed the shading for one area when it was amended by Ordinance 2186. See Attachment H, which includes the original map that was adopted by Ordinance 1758; the revised map adopted by Ordinance 2186; and the new corrected map. j) Changes to the allowed uses in the MIC /L and MIC /H zones were made as part of the Comprehensive Plan update of the Manufacturing Industrial Center. Primarily all the different uses listed under manufacturing were categorized under two sub categories: i) Manufacturing and industrial uses that have little potential for creating off -site noise, smoke, dust vibration or other external environmental impacts or pollution, including 1\1) Page 6 of 01'23'2012 Z: ,PC Lasertiche Packet PC Packet 01 -26 -12 ,Planning Commission staff report- 1. doe PC Lasertiche Packet PC Packet ol- 26 -12 Planning Commission 8 staffreport- I.docx but not limited to manufacturing, processing, assembling, packaging and /or repairing of... ii) Manufacturing and industrial uses that have moderate to substantial potential for creating off -site noise, smoke, dust, vibration and other external environmental impacts, including but not limited to manufacturing, processing, assembly, packaging and /or repair of... Similar changes will need to be incorporated into the other zones that list manufacturing uses to be consistent with the format in MIC /L and MIC /H. Also, one of the uses (vehicle, boat and airplane manufacturing) was incorrectly categorized under uses that have little impact. It is proposed to be moved under uses that have moderate to substantial impact category in MIC /L and MIC /H zone. See Attachment I for changes related to this section. 4. Title 21 is amended to clarify public notice requirements for SEPA applications and decisions. REQUESTED ACTION Hold the public hearing on the proposed changes, review each proposed change, choose an option if multiple choices are given, and make recommendations to the City Council. 1\1) Page 7 of 01'23'2012 Z: ,PC Lasertiche Packet PC Packet 01 -26 -12 ,Planning Commission staff report- 1. doe PC Lasertiche Packet PC Packet ol- 26 -12 Planning Commission staff report-1. docx 9