Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOW 2012-04-23 Item 4B - Informational MemorandumCity of Tukwila Jim Haggerton, Mayor INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Haggerton Community Affairs and Parks Committee FROM: Jack Pace, Community Development Director BY: Minnie Dhaliwal, Planning Supervisor DATE: April 18, 2012 SUBJECT: 2012 Housekeeping Code Amendments ISSUE Should the Tukwila Municipal Code be amended to include some housekeeping code changes that range from code clarification to updating development regulations and permit processes? 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. Staff had previously briefed Community Affairs and Parks Committee on January 9, 2012, regarding a number of housekeeping code amendments. The Committee decided to forward the proposed amendments to Planning Commission for consideration and review. Planning Commission held a public hearing on all the proposed changes on January 26, 2012, and February 23, 2012. The Planning Commission's recommendations are reflected in the attached ordinances in the underline /strikeout format. DISCUSSION OF THE PROPOSED CHANGES Included in this memo is a list of the proposed amendments with a brief explanation. The first two topics involve some policy decisions, whereas the remaining amendments are just correcting inaccuracies or codifying existing code interpretations. Each proposed change is discussed below. There are a total of seven ordinances as advised by the city attorney's office. The first ordinance covers all amendments to the Zoning Code (Title 18) and Title 5. The remaining ordinances are for the following chapters: 8.07, 8.22, 8.25, 8.28, 8.45, and 21.04. 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. E INFORMATIONAL MEMO Page 2 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 the 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 the 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 includes multiple Council meetings. The details of the current process and are included in Attachment B. Our current process could result in a 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 various options to CAP for processing site specific rezones in a quasi judicial manner. CAP asked staff to remove those options from consideration that did not involve Planning Commission review. Planning Commission focused on two options: 1) Staff and the Planning Commission hold a public information meeting in an open house format and the City Council holds an open record hearing before making the final decision; 2) 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. The details of option 1 and option 2 are discussed in Attachment B. Under both these options the City Council makes the final decision and the City Council decision may be appealed to Superior Court. Under option 1 there is no formal recommendation of the Planning Commission to the City Council and the purpose of the public meeting will be only information sharing. Both options meet the State Law requirements of one open record hearing as well as the requirement that the Comprehensive Plan cannot be amended more than once a year unless it qualifies as an emergency. Planning Commission has recommended keeping site specific rezones as Type 5 decision (option 1), unless the City Council wants to delegate the authority to the Planning Commission to hear all site specific rezones as Type 4 decision (option 2). Sections 65 to 71 of the Zoning Code Ordinance incorporate the changes required to consider site specific rezones (along with the accompanying comprehensive plan map amendments) as Type 5 quasi judicial applications. 10 INFORMATIONAL MEMO Page 3 B. Single Family Design Standards: Staff had previously briefed the Community Affairs and Parks Committee in October 2011, regarding some options for regulating the bulk and size of single family dwelling units. See Attachment C for the memo to CAP and the minutes of the 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. Planning Commission reviewed the alternate method of calculating height for sloping lots and recommended amending the building height definition to give the developers two options: 1) measuring from the lowest grade; or 2) to establish different measuring points for different sections of the structure and allow the structure to better respond to the topography. Section 2 of the Title 18 ordinance includes Planning Commission's recommendations on this issue. Also, Attachment D includes comparison of Tukwila's building height standards with some of our neighboring cities. Since October 2011 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 E is the map showing the location of these units in Tukwila. Also, Attachment F includes photos of some of the units. In order to address the issue of replacement of existing single wide manufactured homes staff outlined three options for the CAP committee to consider. At the January 9, 2012, CAP meeting option 3 was removed from consideration: 1. Amend the Single Family Design Standards to allow the Director to modify the roof pitch and front door facing the street requirement if the proposal includes replacement of a single wide mobile home with a newer and larger manufactured home. 2. Do not make any changes and require all new single family dwelling units to meet the existing design standards. 3. Do not have any design standards for single family dwelling units. This option was removed from consideration by CAP. Planning Commission recommended allowing all new single family dwelling units to meet the design standards while still allowing waiver from 5:12 roof pitch or front door facing the street requirement for owners of single wide manufactured homes if the proposal includes a replacement of a single wide with a double wide manufactured home. Additionally, the Planning Commission has recommended that the property owner can apply for this waiver only one time per property and the proposal should result in aesthetic improvement to the neighborhood. Section 53 of the Zoning Code Ordinance includes the Planning Commission's recommendation on this issue. 11 INFORMATIONAL MEMO Page 4 C. Other miscellaneous code amendments: There are a number of code clarifications or updates needed to clean up the code where either the references are outdated or code interpretations need to be codified. A summary of the proposed amendments is listed below. 1. Zoning Code Ordinance: The following changes are proposed to Title 5 and Title 18: a) Amendments to Title 5 are proposed to correct the inaccurate references to zoning designations. (Section 1 and Section 74) b) The definitions section of Title 18 is amended: i) A definition of tow truck operations is added. (Section 3) ii) Definition of a 'regulated' and an 'isolated wetland' is deleted as recommended by the Department of Ecology (DOE). Zoning Code was amended in 2004 to include a definition of a 'wetland' and the definitions a 'regulated' and an 'isolated wetland' are outdated. Additionally, the references to 1987 Delineation Manual are deleted as recommended by DOE. (Section 4, 48, 49, 75,76) c) Family child care homes are regulated by the 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. (Section 5,7,9,11,13,15,17,20,27,43,47) d) Design Review Thresholds: i) Per the recently adopted Shoreline Master Program design review is required for all projects within the shoreline jurisdiction. This language needs to be added under the design review section of all zones. (Sections 6,8,10,12,14,16 ,18,22,25,29,32,35,37,39,41,45) 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. (Section 62, 63) 12 INFORMATIONAL MEMO Page 5 iii) Language is added to provide clarification that if an existing site had gone through design review then any modification within 10 years will be subject to minor or major mod if ication.(Section 62) e) Permit application types and procedures: i) Reasonable Use Exception is listed as a Type 3 permit under 18.104, but is listed as Type 4 under 18.45.180. TMC 18.45.180 is proposed to be amended to be consistent with 18.104(Section 51) ii) Ingress /egress design decision is proposed to be made by the Director instead of the Planning Commission (Section 55) iii) The parking requirements for uses not listed in the code are determined by the Director and the table lists some decisions to be made by the Planning Commission. However there is no process or criteria for approval, therefore those uses are deleted and the decision is deferred to the Director. (Section 56) iv) 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. Also, the requirement for the number of loading spaces is deleted (Section 57) v) Parking lot restriping approval is being proposed as Type 2 Director's approval. (Section 59) vi) Modifications to bicycle parking requirements are proposed to be approved by the Director as a Type 1 process. (Section 60) vii) TMC 18.104 references variances from parking standards as Hearing Examiner's decision, however 18.56.140 lists it as Planning Commission approval. TMC 18.56.140 is proposed to be amended to be consistent with 18.104 (Section 61) viii) TMC 18.104 lists conditional uses as Type 3 permits while 18.44.130 lists shoreline conditional use as Type 4. TMC 18.104 is amended to be consistent with 18.44. Also, shoreline tree permit application is added as a Type 2 process to be consistent with 18.44(Section 71) ix) Process for approving different sign permits is deleted from Title 18 as it was covered under Title 19 (Section 71) x) The process for approving proposals under the Housing Options Program is amended to be consistent with 18.104.010(Section 73) f) TMC 18.45.120 references incorrect section. It should be 18.45.040C and not B. (Section 50) g) 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. Exhibit A of the Title 18 Ordinance includes the corrected map. (Section 52) l� INFORMATIONAL MEMO Page 6 h) 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. (Section 54) i) 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. (Section 64) j) Language is proposed so that the notice of decision can be emailed instead of the requirement to mail it by first class. (Section 72) k) 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 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 Staff proposed adding similar sub headings in the other zones that list manufacturing uses to be consistent with the format in MIC /L and MIC /H. At the Planning Commission hearing in January there was discussion regarding manufacturing uses in C /LI zone. It was decided to notify the property owners of C /LI zone and the hearing was continued to February. At the February meeting the Planning Commission decided to not make any substantive changes to the allowed uses in C /LI, but to add the subheading similar to MIC /L and MIC /H zones to all the other zones that allow manufacturing uses. (Section 19,21,23,24,26,28 ,30,31,33,34,36,38,40,42,44,46) 2. Title 8 is proposed to be amended to address the following: a) A list of schools and parks for the designated drug free zones has to be updated to include the new schools and parks that have been built since the code was adopted. The Community Affairs and Parks (CAP) Committee at 14 INFORMATIONAL MEMO Page 7 April 9, 2012, meeting asked staff to look into keeping the Tukwila Heritage and Culture Center as a drug free zone, if the State Law allowed it, and also find out if only K thru 12 schools are eligible. Per RCW 69.50.435, a civic center that is publically owned or operated can be designated as a drug free zone. Also, only K -12 (public and private) schools are eligible to be designated as a drug free zone. The changes requested by CAP are included in the draft ordinance. (Chapter 8.07 Ordinance) b) Clarification is provided regarding when public notice is required for noise variances. (Chapter 8.22 Ordinance) c) Parking limitations on single family lots are included in Title 8. Discretionary approval process is added for properties that cannot meet the requirement for maximum paved area due to the shape of the lots. (Chapter 8.25 Ordinance). Also, a reference is added to Title 18 Residential Parking Requirements section to cross reference. (Section 58 of the Zoning Code Ordinance). d) Incorrect references to zoning designations are corrected (Chapter 8.28 Ordinance) e) Violations section of Title 8 needs to be updated to reference the correct sections. (Chapter 8.45 Ordinance) 3. Title 21 is amended to clarify public notice requirements for SEPA applications and decisions. (Chapter 21.04 Ordinance) RECOMMENDATION The Committee of the Whole is being asked to hold a public hearing on April 23, 2012, and schedule the adoption of the proposed changes on May 7, 2012, Regular Meeting. ATTACHMENTS Draft Ordinances: Zoning Code(Title 18 &5), 8.07, 8.22, 8.25, 8.28, 8.45, 21.04 A. Planning Commission meeting minutes from January 26, 2012 and February 23, 2012. B. Table outlining the current rezone process and the Planning Commission's recommended option 1&2. C. Memo to Community Affairs and Parks Committee dated October 5, 2011, regarding single family residential development standards, along with the attachments and the minutes of the meeting. D. Comparison of building height standards of Tukwila and some neighboring cities E. Map showing the location of manufactured homes in Tukwila F. Photos of some of the manufactured homes in Tukwila W11