HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOW 2021-01-11 Item 4 - Public Hearing - Ordinance Amending Various Ordinances Relating to Subdivisions and Plats
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
City of Tukwila
PLANNING COMMISSION (PC)
PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES
NOVEMBER 12, 2020
Date:
November 12,2020
Time:
6:30 PM -10:45 PM
Location:
Virtual Meeting -Microsoft Teams
Present:
Chair Heidi Watters; Vice-Chair Louise Strander; Commissioners Dennis Martinez, Sharon
Mann, Karen Simmons, Dixie Stark, and AndreaReay
Staff:
Deputy Director Minnie Dhaliwal; Senior Planner Jaimie Reavis; Assistant Planner
Meredith Sampson; Business Relations Manager Brandon Miles and Planning
Commission Secretary Wynetta Bivens
Adopt
Minutes:
Commissioner Strander moved to adopt the November 5, 2020 minutes.Commissioner
Martinez seconded the motion. Motion passed. Commissioners Mann, Stark and Reay were
absent on 11/5/20 and abstained from voting.
CASE NUMBER: L20-0106
PURPOSE: Consider updates to subdivision procedures in Tukwila Municipal Code Title 17 (Subdivisions and
Plats) and Title 18 (Zoning).
LOCATION: City-wide.
Jaimie Reavis
, Senior Planner, Department of Community Development (DCD) gave the presentation for staff. The
intent of the public hearing was to consider amendment to the subdivision regulation within the Tukwila Municipal
Code and Title 17 for subdivisions and plats and Title 18 for zoning. Ms. Reavis provided background information
on the subdivision process; explanationof why the code amendments are being proposed; gave an overview of the
recommendations. She also answered several clarifying questions.
PROPOSED
1. Modification of a preliminary approval
This process is not currently in the code, the process would be added to modify a preliminary approval of any type
of subdivision, after the preliminary approval and before final approval.
whether the modification is a minor
or major modification and can require conditions to ensure conformance with the criteria.
NOTED: The DCD Director will use proposed criteria in determining if the modification is minor. If the
modification is determined to be major the applicant needs to apply for a new application.
2. Final plat approval
3. Phasing of final approval
e Hearing Examiner at the
ɎɎɎ
39
Buubdinfou!C
Page 2of 4
11/12/20
PC Minutes
time of preliminary approval; after preliminary approval if it turns out that it is better to phase subdivisions staff is
recommending that a modification to the preliminary plat be submitted and it be reviewed by the DCD
Director.
NOTE:Concern was expressed in having the Director review and approve phasing proposed after the
preliminary approval has already been issued. There was discussion onhow phasing proposed after preliminary
approval should go back to the Hearing Examiner (or the Planning Commission if there was an associated design
review).
4. Expiration and Extensions (language clean-up for expiration and phasing extensions)
NOTE: Currently the existing code requires the first phase must be recorded within five years.Concern was
expressed that if a subdivision is phased and does not meet the deadline another application needs to be submitted
and the applicant must start over.
s received
phasing approval for up to three additional years, for a total maximum of eight years from the date of preliminary
approval.
NOTE: There was extensive discussion on this proposed amendment, the PC expressed concern that the
recommended extensio
PUBLIC TESTIMONY
Mike Pruett
,for Segale Properties said that it is important for the PC to understand the whole pre-plat final plat
process and that approximately 90% of the effort is in the pre-plat. He explained that it involves preparation of all
sorts of different plans and infrastructure, not just the pre-plat plans. He said it is a time consuming and expensive
process, and all subdivisions are not created equal. He said it will probably take 15 to 20 years to develop the 20
lots, and he would like the pre-plat to stay alive as long as possible. He said all the pre-plats will be built out under
the current regulations, and all the public infrastructure that could change over time is already built. He also
commented on the language and process for minor modifications. He said they are in favor of flexibility for the life
of the pre-plat.
Nicole DeLeon
, Attorney, Cairncross and Hempleman, representing Segale Properties,
went over the highlights of the comment letter submitted on behalf of Segale Properties. She stated what is driving
ount of infrastructure, and work that goes in during the preliminary plat
phase. She reiterated Mr. Pruett
during the preliminary plat phase. She said if the preliminary plat expires, you have done 90% of the work,
expense, time, and investment and suddenly you are just out of luck. She said they are requesting flexibility, and it is
critical to be granted flexibility for an extension up to 12 years on the extension approval process. She said if the
extension. She commented on the discussion pertaining to the department review process, and said she researched
and found code TMC18.104.180, which states the review process is required by all departments. They are proposing
their project is revised to a minor modification, as a Type 1 decision. She provided clarification on why they are
focused on a 10-lot standard. She said that state law does allow for approval of a longer extension. In addition to the
other revisions requested, she suggested that a provision for fewer lots be included to eliminate any ambiguity.
There was no additional public testimony.
Following are some of the clarifying questions raised by the PC.
Commissioner Mann
asked Mr. Pruettconsidering he said that most of the improvements are complete, what are
their concerns with what staff is proposing? Mr. Pruettsaid through the initial pre-plats, he said the risk associated
with providing a longer timeframe is small because the improvements are done. However, the pre-plat underlines all
their future development plans that will expire over and over while they are building out the project over15 to 20
years.
40
Buubdinfou!C
Page 3of 4
11/12/20
PC Minutes
Commissioner Martinez
plat phasing approval? Ms. DeLeon said it captures the concept that they are comfortable with.
Commissioner Stark
asked staff how they came up with the recommended extension period of 3 years, considering
the comment letter mentions a 12-year period. Staff said that the recommendation was based on review of other
city that offers an extension greater than 3-years,
staff noted that one example was found where a total of 11 years was allowed, with extensions provided in
increments of two years.
Commissioner Simmons
asked how many of their current sub-plats are subject to expire? Mr. Pruettresponded
one.
Commissioner Reay
asked if a total of seven-yearsextension would be sufficient,or would additional years be
more prudent? Mr. Pruettsaid they would need more years, and they would need to re-apply at least once, or
multiple times before the project is complete. He said the longer timeframe the City approves the better.
Commissioner Watters
asked staff to clarify where the Tukwila South project is in the subdivision process. Staff
noted that it is not clear why Tukwila South has been set up as such a large subdivision with future development
tracts that will also need to be subdivided. Given that most of the infrastructure has been constructed, Commissioner
Watters asked what would expire if the preliminary plat is not extended? She noted a balance between a developer
having to continually resubmit new applications for preliminary plat approval, and having development be subject to
things like environmental regulations that get updated, since we want to use best available science and fulfill the
City. Mr. Pruettsaid they need additional flexibility for the length of time a
preliminary plat can stay alive.
Commissioner Stander
asked Ms. DeLeon to provide clarification on the language in the comment letter regarding
item #6 on page 2. Ms. DeLeon said they are asking for a revision to the modification criteria to allow a proposal to
modify conditions of the original preliminary plat approval to qualify as a minor modification. Commissioner
Strander asked clarifying questions about the proposed 12-year timeframe, and whether it provides the flexibility for
up to 12 years
the decision-maker to determine how much time the extension would be provided for, . Ms. DeLeon
said that the Director under the various criteria could reduce the amount of time of the extension to be less than the
maximum allowable.
Commissioner Martinez
inquired whether the City Attorney reviewed the comment letter. Staff confirmed the City
recommendationsand
Attorney felt they met the balance of providing flexibility without the vesting period being a concern. Therefore,
DELIBERATIONS
Request:
Commissioner Stander requested to add the proposed revision tothe minor modification #1 language as
listed in the comment letter. Note: (motion #1, first bullet)
Request:
Commissioner Stander requested to add the proposed revision to the minor modification #6 language, as
listed in the comment letter. Note: (motion#1, second bullet)
Request:
Commissioner Mann requested that a statement is included under minor modifications that all
departments (Planning, Building, PW, and Fire) must be part of the review process. Note: (motion #1, third bullet)
Commissioner Watters
said the proposed amendments are a good addition, and she agrees with the City Attorney
and staff, as recommended.
MOTIONS
1. Modification of a preliminary approval
Commissioner Mann
moved to approve and forward to the City Council with the additional modification language
in bullets 1-3.
41
Buubdinfou!C
Page 4of 4
11/12/20
PC Minutes
Minor modifications do not increase the number of lots in the subdivision beyond the number previously
approved or which maintain the number of lotsor decrease the number of lots in the subdivision below the
Minor modifications are consistent with the conditions of the preliminary approval, provided that a minor
modification may revise conditions of the preliminary approval so long as the revisions are consistent with the
minor modification limitations set by TMC 17.14.020.E.1-5.
All departments must be part of the minor modification review process (Planning, Building, PW, and Fire).
Commissioner Stark
seconded the motion.Motion Passed. Commissioners Watters and Simmons opposed.
2. Final plat approval
Commissioner Mann
moved to approve and forward to the City Council as recommended by staff, Option A.
Commissioner Watters seconded the motion. Motion passed. Commissioner Martinez opposed.
3. Phasing of final approval
Commissioner Watters
moved to approve and forward to the City Council as recommended by staff.
Commissioner Simmons seconded the motion. Motion failed. Commissioners Martinez, Strander, Mann, and Stark
opposed.
Commissioner Mann
moved to approve and forward to the City Council, Option B as listed in the staff report, for
approval by Hearing Examiner or Planning Commission. Commissioner Martinez seconded the motion.
Motion passed. Commissioners Watters, Simmons, and Reay opposed.
Chair Watters called for a two-minute recess.
4. Expiration and extensions (language clean-up for expiration and phasing extensions)
The PC asked staff to type and show on the screen their proposed language of several revised options of
recommendationsin additionrecommendations, and then they voted on the options.
Commissioner Strander
moved to approve and forward to the City Council the following recommendation as
amended, TheDCDDirectormayextendapreliminaryplatthat has up to 2 phases
threeadditionalyearsbeyondtheperiodprovidedinTMC17.14.050,A.For plats that have more than 2 phases
approved as part of the preliminary plat the DCD Director may extend a preliminary plat for a total of 9 years with
the first extension of 3 years and two subsequent extensions of three years each.
Innocaseshallthetotaltimebetweenthedateofpreliminaryapprovalandthedateofrecordingofthefinal
phaseofaphaseddevelopmentexceed14years. Commissioner Stark seconded the motion. Motion passed.
Commissioners Simmons and Watters opposed.
The public hearing was closed.
th
The briefing on the housing plan was continued to December 10.
Adjourned:10:45 p.m.
Submitted by:Wynetta Bivens
Planning Commission Secretary
42
Buubdinfou!C
1
43
Buubdinfou!C
2
2
Buubdinfou!C
44
3
Buubdinfou!C
3
45
4
Buubdinfou!C
46
5
Buubdinfou!C
47
6
48
7
49
Buubdinfou!C
6
8
Buubdinfou!C
50
7
9
51
Buubdinfou!C
10
52
Buubdinfou!C
(Ord. 1833 §1(part), 1998)
FINAL PLAT REVIEW PROCEDURES:
Referral to Other Departments and Agencies
Departmental Approval -
Filing Final Plat -
(Ord. 1833 §1(part), 1998)
CRITERIA FOR FINAL PLAT APPROVAL:
(Ord. 2499 §1, 2016; Ord. 2124 §2, 2006;
Ord. 1833 §1 (part), 1998)
Buubdinfou!B!up!QD!tubgg!sfqpsu
11
53
Buubdinfou!C
54
nrogers@cairncross.com
direct: (206) 254-4417
Buubdinfou!D
55
Rationale:
We recommend a minor modification be processed as a Type 1 decision, not a Type 2 decision.
The Type 1 categorization for a minor modification is consistent with other examples of Type 1 decisions
in the Code. See TMC 18.104.010. Examples of other Type 1 decisions are minor modifications to
design review approvals and minor modifications to a Planned Residential Development (ÐPRDÑ). Type
1 decisions are generally made by the DCD Director and subject to a closed record appeal before the
Hearing Examiner. Type 2 decisions are generally made by the DCD Director and subject to an open
record appeal before the Hearing Examiner. Examples of a Type 2 decision are administrative design
review, code interpretations, modification to development standards, and short plats. Type 2 decisions
are, therefore, clearly intended for more complex entitlement issues whereas the framework for Type 1
decisions is proportionate to the scale of a minor modification.
Next, we recommend inserting language to clarify that while a minor modification cannot
increase the number of planned lots, a minor modification may either retain or decrease the number of
lots in a plat. This flexibility is appropriate and the Subsection 5 requirement that minor modifications
be consistent with applicable development standards guards against any other concerns.
We also recommend adding language to clarify that a minor modification may revise a condition
of a preliminary plat approval, but only so long as it is consistent with the limitations set by the
preceding subsections. For example, plat conditions typically set a specific amount of open space.
Pursuant to Subsection 2, a minor modification may change the amount of open space so long as the
change is by less than 10%. Therefore, the minor modification may change the related plat condition,
Buubdinfou!D
56
but only within the stated 10% limit. We think this was City StaffÓs intent, but suggest adding the
proposed language to clarify.
Rationale:
We recommend revisions to allow the City to grant extensions to a preliminary plat for up to 12
years, rather than the City Staff proposal for just eight years. Twelve years provides larger projects, like
SegaleÓs Tukwila South project, the needed certainty to develop large and complex projects over a
longer period of time. We support the City StaffÓs recommended criteria for discretionary approval of
such an extension and note that these criteria and the CityÓs discretionary authority guard against
potential issues that could arise in the course of an extended term. For example, an extension may only
be granted if it Ðwill not cause substantial detriment to existing uses in the immediate vicinity of the
subject property or to the community as a whole.Ñ See Criterion 4. Through these criteria, the City
retains broad discretionary authority to grant, or not grant, an extension. The request to make
available the possibility of securing up to four additional years for the life of a complex phased
preliminary plat provides significant benefits to large scale projects, which is balanced by the
discretionary nature of the extension process.
Buubdinfou!D
57
58
December 7, 2020
VIA EMAIL
Planning & Economic Development Committee,City of Tukwila
c/oBrandon Miles
6200 Southcenter Blvd.
Tukwila, WA 98188
Email: Brandon.Miles@TukwilaWA.gov
Re:Written Commentsin Support of Additional Amendments to Title 17 and Title 18
Planning and Economic DevelopmentCommittee Meeting,December 7, 2020
DearCouncilmembers:
Segale
On behalf ofSegale Properties LLC, we write to support the proposed amendments to
CodeTMC
provisions governing subdivisions in . AlthoughSegale
agrees withthe majority of City Staff
Development Committee to advance the amendments to allow a preliminary plat approval term of up to 14
.
years, as recommended by the Planning Commission
As you know, Segale is the developer of the large Tukwila South project. Tukwila South
previously obtained preliminary plat approval, including approval of required primary infrastructure to
FDT
eliminary
plat approval confirmed adequate provisions for utilities, roads, parks and recreation, transit, etc., are
provided in connection with Tukwila South. See RCW 58.17.110 (statutory requirement for approval of
all preliminary plats).
Consistent with this preliminary plat approval, the majority of the infrastructure that will serve
Tukwila South has been constructed, including Southcenter Parkway and public sanitary sewer, water,
public and private stormwater improvements, and other utilities. This is significant because the primary
policy reason for providing a limited term for a preliminary plat approval is to guard against negative
impacts resulting from delays in the buildout of infrastructure. With Tukwila South, the vast majority of
the infrastructure is already in place, and this concern is, therefore, moot. The remaining required
infrastructure largely consists of private utility and road connections that will be addressed at the site
development permit phase as each FDT is built out.
ndeleon@cairncross.com
direct: (206) 254-4472
{04119391.DOCX;4 }
59
Planning and Economic Development Committee
December 7, 2020
Page2
Additionally, and as previously explained in our comment letter dated November 10, 2020
(included in your packet as AttachmentC),City Staffcriteria for discretionary approval
ofan extended term provide theCitythediscretionary authoritytoguard against potential issues that
existing uses in the immediate vicinity of the subject property or to the community a
TMC 17.14.050.D. Through these criteria, the City retains broad discretionary authority to grant, or not
grant, an extension. The request to make available the possibility of securing up to14yearsfor the life
of a complex phased preliminary plat provides significant benefits to large scale projects, which is
balanced by the discretionary nature of the extension process.
a
14-year term for a preliminary plat approval, we respectfully disagree. While it is true the statute
regarding subdivisions contains a general purpose statement encouraging the uniform subdivision of
land through the state, there is also a morespecific provision that expressly grantsthe Citythe flexibility
to allow extensions without any limitations.
statute goes on to state that nothing prohibits a city from adopting an ordinance that allows extensions of
time that may
Planning Commission and Segale urge the City to do allow reasonable extensions, granted at the
We also note that local
jurisdictions in fact allow a broad range of extension frameworks, for example,the City of Issaquah sets
a baseline preliminary plat approval term of 7 years and offers an unlimited number of 1-year
extensions. See IMC18.13.170.B.The up to14-year term recommended by the Planning Commission
flexible and reasonable.
Segale
and Economic Development Committee to advance the proposed amendments as recommended by the
Planning Commission.We also appreciate the opportunityto engage on these important issues with
City Staff and we will continue to participate and make ourselves available to assist with this effort.
Thank you in advance for your time and consideration and we look forward to our continued work
together.
Very truly yours,
Nicole E. De Leon
{04119391.DOCX;4 }
60
MEMORANDUM
DATE:December 1, 2020
TO:City of Tukwila Planning & Economic Development Committee
FROM: Assistant City Attorney Emily Miner
CC:Mayor Allan Ekberg
Community Development Director Jack Pace
RE:Updates to Subdivision Code
I.Background
City staff have proposed amendments to Title 17 of the Tukwila Municipal Code that are intended to
address approval procedures for subdivisions. City staff’s recommendations include: (1) amending the
code to have the Community Development Director approve final plats, (2) allowing an extension period
up to three years, (3) establishing a preliminary plat modification process, and (4) revising the subdivision
phasing procedure approval. The City Attorney’s Office was asked by the Planning and Economic
Development Committee at their October 19, 2020 meeting to explain the legal justification for these
amendments.
II.Discussion
Chapter 58.17 RCW sets out the procedures related to the subdivision of land. In the purpose section, the
state legislature finds as follows: “the process by which land is divided is a matter of state concern and
should be administered in a uniform manner by cities, towns, and counties throughout the state.” RCW
58.17.010. In other words, the City’s subdivision process should mirror the process established by state
law as closely as possible to ensure uniformity in the subdivision of land.
The key statutory provisions at issue are RCW 58.17.100 and RCW 58.17.140 regarding the time limitations
and decisionmakers for approval of preliminary and final plats. Additionally, the statute is silent with
regards to modifications of preliminary plats and phasing of plats; however, local jurisdictions have
authority to establish processes by which a preliminary plat can be modified or phased.
1
The State constitution allows cities to exercise all the police powers possessed by the state government so long as
1
local regulations do not conflict with general laws. WASH. CONST. art. XI, § 11.
Page 1 of 3
61
Buubdinfou!E
A. Extensions for Phased Subdivision Approval.
RCW 58.17.140 establishes the time limitation for approval of final plats. For all preliminary plats filed
after January 1, 2015, a final plat shall be submitted for approval within five years from the date of the
preliminary plat approval. The statute goes to on state that nothing prohibits a city from adopting an
2
ordinance that allows extensions of time that may contain additional or altered conditions or
requirements. RCW 58.17.140. Accordingly, cities are free to establish their own extension periods.
The City’s current code is silent with regards to an extension period for phased subdivisions but does
permit a one-year extension for preliminary plats. TMC 17.14.050(B).
City staff’s recommendation is to amend the extension period to three years, and in no case would the
total time between the preliminary plat approval and the date of the final plat recording exceed eight
years.
The Planning Commission proposed a different recommendation. Their recommendation turns on how
many phases the applicant has proposed: if the applicant proposes two phases, the applicant could seek
a three year extension; if the applicant proposes three or more phases, the applicant could seek to a
combination of extensions not to exceed 14 years.
The additional time for the extension period recommended by Staff is reasonable, given the reasons
outlined in their staff memo; however, the City Attorney’s Office does not recommend the longer
timelines for extension proposed by the Planning Commission as they far exceed the initial approval
timelines that state law establishes. Further, such recommendation does not serve the purpose of
uniformity as set out by the State Legislature.
B. Phasing Plan Approval
As noted above, cities have discretion to establish their own phasing procedures. The City’s current code
states that phasing must be approved by City Council at the time at which a final plat for the first phase is
submitted. TMC 17.14.040. This does not account for the possibility to amend the phasing plan or to
propose a phasing plan after a preliminary plat has been approved. The City Attorney’s Office supports
the recommendation that amendments to a phasing plan already approved can be reviewed under the
proposed plat modification procedure while phasing proposed after a preliminary plat has been approved
requires a new plat application. This amendment supports the goal of streamlining and clarifying the
City’s subdivision procedures.
C. Administrative Final Plat Approval
RCW 58.17.100 permits “the legislative authorities of cities…\[to\]…delegate…\[via ordinance\]…final plat
approval to an established planning commission or agency, or to such other administrative personnel in
accordance with state law or local charter.” This change was made in 2017 when the legislature
acknowledged that by the time a preliminary plat reaches the final plat approval stage, all building and
environmental issues are resolved. As there are no outstanding issues to resolve, there is no need for
further discretionary review by a legislative body. The City’s current code states that a final plat approval
Per RCW 58.17.140, if a plat was submitted prior to December 31, 2014, the final approval timeline is seven
2
years, and if submitted prior to December 31, 2007, the approval timeline is ten years. To our knowledge, there
are no plats in Tukwila that fall into these longer exceptions.
Page 2 of 3
62
Buubdinfou!E
is subject to a Type 5 decision by City Council. Staff’s recommendation is to revise this code requirement
so that the final plat approval is made by the Community Development Director, and the City Attorney’s
Office supports this recommendation.
D. Plat Modification Process
There are no procedures for modifications to a preliminary plat established in state law and the City’s
current code contains no plat modification procedures. However, from a practical standpoint, it is
important for the City to have procedures in place to address requests to modify a preliminary plat.
Without a process to amend a preliminary plat for minor modifications, the applicant is required to
withdraw their application and re-apply. This resubmittal process is time intensive and resource
consuming for both the applicant and the City. Establishing a process to determine what types of
modifications are permitted creates a framework for City staff to analyze whether the modification is
“minor” and can be approved administratively or is “major” and requires a new application. The City
Attorney’s Office supports the recommended change, along with the Planning Commission’s minor
revision to ensure other departments have an opportunity to review the proposed modification.
EFM:efm
Page 3 of 3
Buubdinfou!E
63
64
65