The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About09-27-2004 - Agenda PacketMEDINA CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION AGENDA September 27, 2004 501 Evergreen Point Road A. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 p.m. Medina, WA 7:00 p.m. B. ROLL CALL (Adam, Blazey, Nunn, Odermat, Phelps, Rudolph, Vail Spinosa) C. ANNOUNCEMENTS 1. Mayor 2. Council 3. Staff D. DISCUSSION 1. 2005 Budget 2. Permit Process Streamlining 3. Sideyard Setback Regulations 4. 2004 Council Agenda Calendar E. EXECUTIVE SESSION a. Discussion of public employee performance evaluation 7:05 p.m. 10:00 P.M. F. ADJOURNMENT 10:30 p.m. ITEM D -1 MEMORANDUM DATE: September 20, 2004 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Doug Schulze, City Manager RE: 2005 Budget Discussion RECOMMENDATION: Discuss 2005 revenue projections and preliminary expenditure projections. Provide City Manager will direction regarding additional information the Council would like to see to assist with decisions regarding the 2005 budget. POLICY IMPLICATION: RCW establishes time limitations for major steps in the budget preparation process. The time limitations provide deadlines for completion of major steps, which must not be exceeded. The first two major steps have been completed and are administrative tasks. The first major step, which requires involvement of the legislative body, is presentation with current information on estimates of revenues as adopted in the budget for the current year. This step must be completed by the first Monday in October (October 4, 2004). In addition, the legislative body must also receive the proposed preliminary budget setting forth the complete financial program, showing expenditures requested by each department and sources of revenue by October 4, 2004. BACKGROUND: The 2004 Budget adopted by the City Council in December 2003 included a Total All Funds Beginning Balance of $4,420,137.76. The 2004 Revenue Estimates and appropriated expenditures resulted in a December 31, 2004 budgeted Total All Funds Ending Balance of $4,053,429.75. The approved budget Total All Funds Balance reduction was created by the intended spend down of fund balances, which included dedicated or earmarked funds as well as undedicated fund balances. More simply stated, the 2004 Adopted Budget authorized expenditures that exceeded revenue estimates by $366,708. August 31, 2004 YTD Total revenue estimates show revenues are on a pace to exceed adopted budget estimates by approximately $170,000. x 1 , , / / 1 1 /' i ✓�' `L iP F �y."L /& ,d• i f ' A �/ 'Z .# y..LhrF { `i ,y Y`. pg � 3 111 111 11 3 ' The excess revenue is attributable to Real Estate Excise Tax revenue performance, which has generated $394,750 through August 31, 2004. The 2004 adopted budget R.E.E.T. revenue estimate was $300,000. Although this surplus R.E.E.T. revenue is good news, RCW restricts how the City can use the revenues. The R.E.E.T. is imposed in Medina at a rate of 0.50%, which is comprised of R.E.E.T. 1 (0.25%) and R.E.E.T. 2 (0.25%). The first quarter percent of real estate excise tax receipts is restricted to use solely on capital projects that are listed in the capital facilities plan. RCW defines "capital projects" as: those public works projects of a local government for planning, acquisition, construction, reconstruction, repair, replacement, rehabilitation, or improvement of streets; roads; highways; sidewalks; street and road lighting systems; traffic signals; bridges; domestic water systems; storm and sanitary sewer systems; parks; recreational facilities; law enforcement facilities; fire protection facilities; trails; libraries; administrative and judicial facilities. The second quarter percent of real estate excise tax receipts is restricted public works projects of a local government for planning, acquisition, construction, reconstruction, repair, replacement, rehabilitation, or improvement of streets, roads, highways, sidewalks, street and road lighting systems, traffic signals, bridges, domestic water systems, storm and sanitary sewer systems, and planning, construction, reconstruction, repair, rehabilitation, or improvement of parks. The primary difference in the restrictions is that the second quarter percent cannot be used for land acquisition or facilities. None of the real estate excise tax receipts can be used for General Fund operating expenses. $700,000.00 $600,000.00 $500,000.00 $400,000.00 $300,000.00 $200,000.00 $100,000.00 0 Page 2 2004 Capital Projects Fund Revenue • Real Estate Excise Tax ■ Total Capital Project Fund Revenues Unfortunately, General Fund revenues are not meeting budget expectations. The General Fund revenue shortfall is primarily attributable to poor performance from sales tax receipts and development permit fees. Year-end revenue estimates project a General Fund revenue shortfall of approximately $100,000, unless sales tax revenues during the 4"' quarter improve, which the State Revenue Forecast Council recently projected. 2004 General Fund Revenue M2004 Budget ■ YTD Actual 4,500,000.00 4,000,000.00 � Project Year End i 3,500,000.00 3,000,000.00 2,500,000.00 2,000,000.00 1,500,000.00 1 000,000.00 $500,000.00 co CU E a� o Co c o tr) U M O c L1. Ur m +� The estimated $100,000 General Fund revenue shortfall can be addressed through one of several options or combination of options. Option 1 - The 2004 Adopted Budget Beginning Fund Balance is $1,952,265.76, which was projected to be the 2003 Ending Fund Balance for December 31, 2003. The 2003 Actual Ending General Fund Balance was $2,058,975.09, which resulted in an actual 2004 Beginning General Fund Balance of $2,058,975.09. Simply stated, we started 2004 with $106,709.33 more than the 2004 Adopted Budget anticipated. Option 2 — The 2004 Adopted Budget appropriated a transfer from the General Fund to the Capital Projects Fund of $28,000. The performance of the real estate excise tax will provide surplus revenue for Capital Projects, which makes the General Fund transfer unnecessary. The Council could amend the 2004 Budget to eliminate the $28,000 transfer. Option 3 — Sales tax receipts have historically fluctuated significantly from month -to -month as a result of unique purchases and sales tax payments by private individuals. It is possible for sales tax receipts to completely recover and meet the 2004 Budget estimates within a single month. The Council may wish to delay action until November. Option 4 — Take no action. The General Fund revenue shortfall does not require the Council to take corrective action. The General Fund has an adequate fund balance to cover the appropriated expenditures and administrative controls on expenditures have been implemented to restrict expenditures for the remainder of 2004. With the expenditure controls in place, General Fund expenditures are estimated to come in slightly under the 2004 Adopted Budget appropriation. 0 Page 3 2005 Budget Preliminary Report The City Council previously agreed on a process for the 2005 budget, which eliminated the line item review of General Fund expenditures and added an expenditure category review. The information provided has been formatted to facilitate the categorical expenditure review. At this point, the 2005 Budget is at the departmental request level and has not been adjusted beyond the requested expenditures submitted to the City Manager. General Fund revenue estimates for 2005 are anticipated to increase by approximately $340,000 or less than ten (10%) above the 2004 Estimated Year End revenues. The revenue increase is attributable to the following: Property Taxes $ 30,000 Sales Tax Revenue $100,000 Building Permit Fees $100,000 Emergency Prep. Grant $150,000 Total: $380,000 Growth in property tax revenues includes the maximum one percent (1 %) levy increase and a one-half percent (0.5%) increase in assessed valuation from new construction. These estimates are very conservative because the City has not received the 2005 Preliminary Tax Levy Worksheet from the King County Assessor's Office, which will provide more accurate assessed valuation and new construction data. Sales tax and building permit revenue increases are expected to increase slightly as a result of modest improvement in the economy and known new construction planned for 2005. Slightly more than $150,000 of the revenue increase is attributable to the grant proceeds the City has been awarded for a mobile emergency command vehicle. Some revenue sources are expected to decline slightly, which results in a net revenue increase of approximately $340,000. * Page 4 General Fund expenditure requests are $500,000 above the 2004 Adopted Budget. The requested increases are attributable to the following: Police Department $185,000 Emergency Preparedness $150,000 Planning 60,000 Total $395,000 2005 Requested 2004 Budgeted $ +/- +/- alaries & Wages $ 1,404,874.00 $ 1,270,722.00 $ 134,152.00 11 % Personnel Benefits $ 406,995.00 $ 321,234.00 $ 85,761.00 27% Supplies $ 107,200.00 $ 96,100.00 $ 11,100.00 12% Professional Services $ 870,000.00 $ 815,000.00 $ 55,000.00 7% Other Services & Charges $ 407,170.00 $ 318,654.00 $ 88,516.00 28% Intergovernmental Services $ 851,772.58 $ 824,115.00 $ 27,657.58 3% Capital Outla $ 156,750.00 $ 53,967.00 $ 102,783.00 190% Tota $ 4,204,761.58 $ 3,699,792.00 $ 504,969.58 1 14% The Salaries and Wages category only includes step increases or cost of living adjustments for Police Department personnel, which has been previously approved by the City Council through the collective bargaining agreement with the Police Officers. The City Council will be asked to consider adoption of the 2005 compensation plan at a future meeting. The Capital Outlay increase is attributable to the mobile emergency command vehicle, which will be funded solely through Federal grant proceeds. The Summary Budget Worksheet is attached and provides additional information regarding individual funds and Total All Funds. As previously stated, this is very preliminary information intended to provide the City Council will a glimpse of how the 2004 Actual and 2005 Preliminary Budgets are shaping up. The Council is asked to provide staff with input regarding additional information that may be helpful in the decision making process and any questions, which will need to be answered. 0 Page 5 2005 Budget - Version A DESCRIPTION GENERAL_FUND BEGINNING FUND BAT.ANC.F. 2002 _ 2003 ACTUAL ACTUAL 7 767 Sf 1 7R 1 0. 7 ARA A 7 no REVENUES 4,685,721.64 4,057,387.73 OPERATING TRANSFERS -IN 41,000.00 - EXPENDITURES 3,684,395.83 3,802,404.84 OPERATING TRANSFERS -OUT 1,325,460.00 679,875.00 ENDING FUND BALANCE $ 2,484,427.09 $ 2,059,534.98 EQUIPMENT FUND REVENUES OPERATING TRANSFERS -IN - 77,000.00 4,140.00 77,000.00 EXPENDITURES 34,422.08 107,045.26 OPERATING TRANSFERS -OUT ENDING FUND BALANCE $ 102,168.77 $ 76,263.51 STREET FUND BEGINNING FUND BALANCE $ 486,985.40 $ 476,862.92 REVENUES 91,434.66 63,514.55 OPERATING TRANSFERS -IN 348,460.00 - EXPENDITURES 450,017.14 366,545.33 OPERATING TRANSFERS -OUT - - ENDING FUND BALANCE $ 476,862.92 $ 173,832.14 RESERVE FUND BEGINNING FUND BALANCE $ 917,380.33 $ 1,776,380.33 REVENUES - OPERATING TRANSFERS -IN 900,000.00 - EXPENDITURES - OPERATING TRANSFERS -OUT 41,000.00 - ENDING FUND BALANCE $ 1,776,380.33 $ 1,776,380.33 TREE FUND BEGINNING FUND BALANCE $ 710.00 REVENUES $ 2,571.00 $ 47,240.97 OPERATING TRANSFERS -IN EXPENDITURES $ 1,861.00 28,860.72 OPERATING TRANSFERS -OUT ENDING FUND BALANCE $ 710.00 $ 19,090.25 PARK PROPERTY DEBT FUND BEGINNING FUND BALANCE $ 211,460.00 $ 175,072.40 REVENUES - - OPERATING TRANSFERS -IN - - EXPENDITURES 36,387.60 36,387.60 OPERATING TRANSFERS -OUT - - ENDING FUND BALANCE CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND $ 175,072.40 $ 138,684.80 REVENUES 187,726.18 288,735.64 OPERATING TRANSFERS -IN - 602,875.00 EXPENDITURES 176,113.19 470,662.54 OPERATING TRANSFERS -OUT ENDING FUND BALANCE S 117,770.70 $ 538,718.80 TOTAL ALL FUNDS BUDGET 2004 2004 2005 2005 2005 BUDGET PROJECTED PRELIMINARY $ % YEAREND BUDGET $ 2,059,534.98 $ 1,859,538.17 $ (92,727.59) -5% 4,248,375.00 4,100,419.11 4,441,086.00 $ 192,711.00 5% - - - $ - 0% 3,699,792.13 3,795,415.92 4,204,761.34 $ 504,969.21 14% 505,000.00 505,000.00 197,000.00 $ (308,000.00) -61% $ 1,995,848.63 $ 12859,538.17 IS 1,898,862.83 1 $ (96,985.80) -5% :..........:.:...:.......:.... 76,263.51 $ 5,000.00 9,045.70 77,000.00 77,000.00 102,138.00 94,819.15 $ 50,530.77 $ 67,490.06 $ '• $ 173,832.14 $ 63,250.00 59,794.00 400,000.00 400,000.00 494,962.00 460,262.00 $ 80,354.12 $ 173,364.14 $ 67,490.06 $ (3,178.71) 4% 4,000.00 $ (1,000.00) -20% 77,000.00 $ - 0% 56,000.00 $ (46,138.00) 45% 92,490.06 1 S 41,959.29 1 83% 173,364.14 $ 61,298.02 55% 62,700.00 $ (550.00) -1% 120,000.00 $ (280,000.00) -70% 317,500.00 $ (177,462.00) - - I $ - _-36% 0% 38,564.14 1 $ (41,789.98) -52% $ 1,776,380.33 $ 1,776,380.33 $ 1,776,380.33 $ - 0% - - - $ - 0% - - - $ - 0% - - - $ - 0% - - - $ - 0% $ 1,776,380.33 $ 1,776,380.33 $ 1,776,380.33 $ - 0% 19,090.25 $ 62,964.85 $ (9,088.43) -13% 10,000.00 53,874.60 - $ (10,000.00) -100% $ - 0% 82,053.28 10,000.00 - $ (82,053.28) -100% $ - 0% $ - $ 62,964.85 $ 62,964.85 $ 62,964.85 0% $ 138,684.80 $ 138,684.80 $ 102,297.20 $ (36,387.60) -26%' - - - $ - 0% - - - $ - 0% 36,387.60 36,387.60 36,387.60 $ - 0% - T $ - 0% $ 102,297.20 1 $ 102,297.20 1 $ 65,909.60 1 $ (36,387.60) -36% :............:............... $ 538,718.80 $ 863,807.83 $ 565,789.13 190% 300,000.00 575,000.00 575,000.00 $ 275,000.00 92% 28,000.00 28,000.00 - $ (28,000.00) -100% 568,000.00 277,910.97 798,000.00 $ 230,000.00 40% $ -1 0% $ 58,018.70 $ 863,807.83 1 $ 640,807.83 1 $ 582,789.13 1 1004% ,135.57 5,133,392.21 :: ;::;;:;: $ 4,782,504.81 $ 4,851,967.98 $ 431,830.22 10% REVENUES 4,967,453.48 4,461,018.89 4,616,625.00 4,744,258.81 5,082,786.00 $ 466,161.00 10% OPERATING TRANSFERS -IN 1,366,460.00 679,875.00 505,000.00 505,000.00 197,000.00 $ (308,000.00) -61% EXPENDITURES 4,383,196.84 4,811,906.29 4,983,333.01 4,674,795.64 5,412,648.94 S 429,315.93 9% OPERATING TRANSFERS-OUT___j 1,366,460.00 679,875.00 505,000.00 505,000.00 197,000.00 S (308,000.00) -61% ENDING FUND BALANCE $ 5,133,392.21 S 4,782,504.81 $ 4,053,429.75 $ 4,851,967.98 $ 4,522,105.04 S 468,675.29 12% ITEM D - 2 CITY OF MEDINA Development Services 501 Evergreen Point Road, Medina, WA 98039 425.454.9222 www.medlina-wa.gov DATE: September 22, 2004 M. Mayor and City Council FROM: Joseph Gellings, AICP, Director of Development Services Bob Rohrbach, CBO, Building Official RE: Permit Process Streamlining RECOMMENDATION: No recommendation — informational only. POLICY IMPLICATION: Proper administration of a building department involves balancing the rights of applicants for expedient service with staffs obligations to ensure that building design will protect the public welfare as prescribed in the building- and land use -related codes. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Shortly after the May 2004 Study Session presentation on the building permit process, the City Council requested a follow-up discussion item and this was scheduled for the September Study Session. The presentation in May was an overview of all of the major permit -related tasks faced by a citizen seeking to build a new home in Medina. Staff have not received a great deal of direction on the desired content of this follow-up discussion but we have detected a concern amongst council members about the long length of time that some permit application reviews have taken and about the extensiveness of submittal requirements. As a result, we have prepared for this follow-up discussion in two ways. First, we have selected a representative cross section of recent permit applications and summarized the plan review involved with each one. Hopefully this will provide the City Council with greater insight into the kinds of issues that typically delay permitting for Medina projects. The second aspect to this overview was to outline some of the measures that could streamline permit processing from our perspective. REGULATORY CONTEXT: It may be a fair statement to say that the overall burden of obtaining a building permit in Medina has slowly and steadily increased in recent decades. However, much of the current burden comes from conscious decisions Medina has made. Good examples of this include enacting a tree code, enacting a construction mitigation program, and changing zoning code standards in a way that creates widespread nonconformity for existing homes. Another consideration is that simply enforcing state or national codes can become a complicated matter given the innovative design proposals sometimes encountered in Medina. A good example of this is applying the Washington State Energy Cale to a home proposed to have a heated garage. The clear ITEM D - 2 policy direction of the energy code is for building designs to support efficient use of energy in heating and cooling. However, the authors of the code didn't contemplate what requirements should apply to a heated garage and staff don't feel like they're being responsible if they don't consider the intentions of the code authors. RECENT PERMITS: Six permits have been selected for this review. A narrative overview and a timeline graphic is provided for each as attachments to this report. These permits have either been recently issued or are about to be issued. They include permits that were the subject of council member questions during their review of a permit review time report at the August City Council meeting. The narrative sections highlight several different kinds of issues that can delay plan review, which staff can elaborate on at the September study session. We believe these six projects constitute a representative cross section of Medina permit applications. The graphical permit timelines show activity on the building permit only for clarity. Each building permit is routed to the Planning Consultant for land use review and then to the Building Official for building code review. While grading and drainage and landscape permits are usually reviewed on a parallel track to the building permit review, there are instances where inter- related issues cause staff to "orchestrate" the different reviews. For reference, the typical permit review flowchart presented to the council in April is also attached. A review time tally is provided with each timeline using the terms "days clock on" and "days clock off." The distinction is drawn from the fact that the responsibility for review progress at any given point in the review is either with the applicant or the City. Staff and consultants ensure this is communicated through correction letters — whenever review progress depends on additional information or submittals from the applicant, the exact requirements are provided to the applicant in writing. STREAMLINING: There are some streamlining opportunities entirely within the control of staff and consultants. These include rethinking forms and submittal procedures as well as coordination of the reviewers. Staff is pursuing these opportunities through independent efforts by staff and consultants and through coordination and discussion in our monthly meetings. We'are also offering the following list of potentially streamlining efforts that require City Council action, in no particular order. Nonconforming envelopes -- A majority of Medina homes are now nonconforming and past policy statements identified remodeling as preferred over teardown development. Should a certain amount of enlargement be allowed to the nonconforming portion of nonconforming homes? MMC 17.60.030-D Reconstruction threshold — The purpose of defining a reconstruction threshold is to stipulate that when remodeling projects become very large in scope and budget, they can constitute a level of investment comparable to construction of a new home and should, therefore, face the same requirement for full Zoning Code compliance. The Planning Commission has developed a recommended redefinition of reconstruction. Legal substandard building sites — The "separate ownership" regulation in the zoning code was a good tool for requiring lot consolidation to achieve lot size minimums under certain circumstances shortly after City incorporation. Today it probably creates more hassle than it's worth. MMC 17.40.025. Illegal nonconforming structures — The hearing examiner has recently interpreted MMC 17.60.030- A to say that old structures not compliant with code at the time they were originally built may not be altered at all unless they are brought into full compliance. This is a small subset of all nonconforming structures but the code provisions for them may need to be revisited. Home occupations — Changing patterns in home -based work may suggest a revisiting of MMC 17.64. There may be a solution to the boarding house problem through such an effort. Page 2 ITEM D - 2 Permit renewal — By local amendment, the council adopted a policy of charging 100% fees for renewal of expired permits. This was one means of managing the large and / or disruptive projects. Now, with the adoption of the Construction Mitigation Ordinance, it may be appropriate to adjust the renewal fee to more accurately reflect progress on the project and reduce a major source of conflict. Stand-alone accessory uses — Should there be restrictions on using vacant parcels for accessory uses such as parking lots? CONCLUSION: The burden of permitting in Medina has gradually evolved. Streamlining is an important topic that should always be in the minds of the City Council and staff. At the same time, Medina is a very unique community with unique development forces at play. In the past two years, numerous streamlining measures have been accomplished without any major policy reversals. They include: • Enacting an administrative variance program • Enacting a minor deviation permit for older homes • Switching special use permit decisions for pools and sport courts to staff • Simplification of the nonconforming structures regulations • Zoning Code Housekeeping ordinance • Tree Code Housekeeping ordinance • Establishing a procedure for rezone applications • Rewriting the variance decision criteria (clearer language, if more restrictive) • Hiring a more predictable hearing examiner • Making a practice of copying property owners on permit correction letters to their agents • Maintaining the "Review Status Snapshot'— an email tool developed by staff to better coordinate permit reviews Page 3 sV N Qt'a i 'J Ln 7: o Nd O L N > N LJd Oth a� •O o �=� �N 0U> Eo aCU w w •cO� 3 fa U C 4-1 — C O O •C a..+ to Ln N c �03V cu'0VOa�p p Nm`t " v-.� - a��+ VZ ac a>� V I L O _ O O O ca > '� �:~� a �� O i m ,cQ -vim (U L E ra o N L:�.� � a� u a� �mE a 4-1 f- M o.-f-4i OV o� N c��> 3 70 L i O "- N � � •� p O cn p1 i Zn O +f9 L N ��a0 .0 E po 0(U rn m W Z vo- -= -�M ca >a �' uoCL o�.0a) a a) N oQ -0CDr_0 0uW �� •> i.N GmM*a.cn.s:5 + �N=�3�Mg�,u�; c cn N > 0 a a oo VVi Lnn 'a 'D �� cn :P � •— 2- N m�+:�'D.��DN v C • � 0CL u o * m E i m 2 m C to * m om 0 O .0 O C N L E 4-J 4w m N c c o rn c ro � v � E -v J 0 �` v .n o� ZA W Q' o q E = �f- o u c o _W � �� u L 0 Z J L- �_ o 3� v� a, a c _ an c cn a� au :a E Z ch m— (UEn Q. � c aU cv � +., (N c�0. �L„c�cE 9 o ra to cn E-0 o N 'macc Q a) c L c yi C .� .� c O1 t4.. � O ,-i ; � off, N O N N � •� � C 5 UEn �; ,� !V4 Q. 'Q o. � o _ ry i o U L c .Q C m G 0.y Ij .-' o N :-+ O O In :iiE �a.� a��a� oo �•c -� . 0 c�� C �io a:p v, L QM ry aCL O O N L E 2 N Ln 4w m .. O N� O o o cn O m V C E � E c 2 c v�0 8 'c c�v 3°° � °-�000 -a of +� � E ° C N C L E c a= N o C 0� c�a1 m E }' ��Eam �� vn O Mrn �o n0 4ro y o � wcm M %� V to ° L ° m C° a �.+ a) �+-- p M� > i- C C 'C t 'a C c Q D '� ° 'U W W C cA ° p) 4-0 E � -� - Ln to '0 ° N (A � ,� -v a o °- °'> N o� a c a) rn3 V EM��-0 o Ec �c�� CU °L 'a V N C L a ° -p a N �� ° o ° �.�. a .p1L'an. Qua z��0�� a�oro 0*1 Ln C O O O N V V O O [o U U a fo fo fo p O O N N L E ( aU N O O � cn .� � N c ro L An ca u O CLO �' OV � , '� �' V=" O V-0 oa �Ln cor o �m�000 4-1 a1 C .0 '� .� 79 N N i N 01 N V N �'' Va.,, (A 'i '� O O to `0 C ' L� 4-1 O�aC mC 'C +a:V im 'i O N o a � c CL CUCCoVm „► N O O L O N CL '(n W -0 -0 CL Vf N 0 M L fo Ln N L &= O 0� L V m v O7 L-� O T� Jcca ra�(n C' Qo c��H'vo=3u o0 1 CUrnWm= -v 3 ccM0c C- m W-0m E :`= cs u E act 24 -c tea-.► c m c a a L�Q ocaa avi�•o 'nra '�� Z o� °cc c��4-'Da�•cia -0c ZW •Ln aL O c-0— u c O (u ��- >uc -J(o ac�E V Ec Mc cE =m L s= O O N L E O m 0 0 O O .a 0 0 co a U U E Ln .61 W fp r �O 4) L M . C .�•' ' V O E 4- c O C: a) p > c O m O L _v �O uz E�c o �' E _ a' E Q iQ �, � 'a..� L �. •'� L L• ' i _� N d a) Ocu +� N I� W o a L L an Z CO L L O a"' � � E O dCD ca ' 'u O U a) Ln a) r 0 9 4-J ;w+N E mE o�_ON� E Ln O .0 _ f'V V LL L a) C E M �'�� Q N �o O i .00 0i rl ai cn (AN : O i cn -bq- c 0� V- O N N E LJ TI c � O O V V �' j- O U O V 0 fp 0 V M 0 M 0 fo �-- �2r FL id :3 C ra � C. C� L Q O O 4 O o� r-++ ► O - O . C O U'O 'oW ZE v v )fu u a CUL L O O C 'L C L N C- i O �►-+ �-+ � C .0� ," O N 4 J C. to C "- 'C cn C C 'x O Z C C �' w C cn ' (� cm s N N N C„ C C O O� -a N cn Q .� N 16 � Ot tU C N 46 0 �-' C O ._ (n C- L jo co C _x'j E 'N L cLo �,O rn � > > ,c L - 41 E(A • 0 V 0 L �. rl ° > � 0 -p -Q) o o a -o C- M Q : ._ I —a . M a0 QC�C a� 0 O O N N E Ln 0 0 Ln *-4 c tF 0 0 �- 0 0 U = U o U 0 to F CITY OF MEDINA Development Services 501 Evergreen Point Road, Medina, WA 98039 425.454.9222 www.medina-wa.gov MEMORANDUM DATE: May 18, 2004 M. Mayor and City Council FROM: Joseph Gellings, AICP, Planning Director RE: Building Permit Process RECOMMENDATION: No recommendation — discussion item only. POLICY IMPLICATION: This item deals with administrative procedures only. BACKGROUND: Staff appreciates the opportunity to discuss the details of the building permit process with the City Council. We envision this agenda item proceeding very differently than most development -related council agenda items in that the discussion will be open-ended. We are not requesting or anticipating any council action at this time. The format of the discussion we have planned for is to have myself and Building Official Bob Rohrbach trace the steps of a typical building permit applicant as depicted in the attached flowchart. We are planning for this to take one and one half to two hours with the assumption and hope that council members will frequently ask questions. There are several ways that one could present building permit procedures. In an effort to make the topic interesting and relevant, we have decided to develop a flowchart depicting the entire process from the perspective of a homeowner seeking to build a new large house in Medina. The attached flowchart depicts the major tasks that the owner (or, most commonly, the owner's architect) must execute to obtain the building permit. It should be noted that using this "owner's perspective" system means that the flow chart displays many tasks beyond the authority of the City of Medina such as an electrical permit (issued by State of Washington Dept. of Labor and Industries) or even the task of designing a heating /ventilation / air conditioning system to the Washington State Energy Code (the plans are reviewed by Medina but the regulations are entirely set by State of Washington). Tasks of this nature are depicted in white boxes with red outlines. In developing the flowchart, staff had to struggle with the question of what is a typical plan review. Not only is there great variance in the size and shape of new Medina homes but also there is also great variance in how the technical aspects of a project can complicate the process. For this reason, we have outlined what "complicating aspects" are assumed and are not assumed in the flow chart. Complicating Aspects Assumed: • The applicant requests a variance from maximum building height. • The property's access does meet private lane turnaround requirements. • The property is substandard in size and must be proven to be legal. • Storm water detention is required where the property is located. • The intensity of construction requires a level 2 construction mitigation plan. Complicating Aspects Not Assumed: • The project requires a Shorelines Management permit. • The project includes a swimming pool requiring a special use permit. • The project is a remodel retaining nonconformities and is subject to a limited scope. • The project encroaches on a steep slope and requires a technical variance. • The project requires a 2nd electrical permit for landscape lighting. As a result of these assumptions, the project depicted here is a very plausible project for Medina. The project aspects listed under the "not assumed" heading are aspects that are frequently seen with Medina projects. Indeed, it is not inconceivable that a project would be proposed in Medina having a complexity commensurate with all of the aspects contained in both lists. However, in an effort to depict a more "typical project" we are only discussing the aspects in the first list. Graphical techniques have been used in the flowchart to depict the most logical process for executing all of the tasks. After reviewing this process though, staff will spend some time discussing instances where the ideal path is not followed and typical scenarios where applicants end up frustrated with the process or otherwise upset with the Development Services Department. We hope that this presentation is beneficial for the council and we look forward to an open-ended discussion. Page 2 vi a v � v = C > bn i. L CL N C Q 'C ev coal •� C. tp N W a+ ba C c € L L. •— O •0 , C O C! Q C A € V i V �► 1L •p C C — Q a H C L ro �aocCL a+� N fp �+ w E V1 N N N C-4 ey R ro L aL+ a yf Y1 �i OIV C L N o dN � N 0! �_ y '° C c bQ L .�.�% C m 0 �OiJ #jL/! Nz ='-E000 L L Lo L a•aaaaa, a.+ E a a o► ai ar a, a ��5a u°�t�--��tL--• a c i 0 •'3 f0 A = C •O C e��}o� Edo0V A m O.N • 4 W -6 � 9A= -5> E_Ew2 4 t C N 41 V E •N L > R L v tr v� C C h O R � aA aa3 a, cEQvaa !C r a% .O L o,`� s+ _ C !i tea, O = �; +r o o = u � CL 0 V E .. +„0 O CL L N y V O C V L V 12 c a p G to aui 0� O M v ev as = C A L O Ewj Wa' uEv� •06 v ,9A _ > Go t bon c o s a>% W A a La .0 :Ea �L�L c �� W E O a z W Ta O r .O V i O U O y.. O W..m.s 0 W O ITEM D - 3 CITY OF MEDINA Development Services 501 Evergreen Point Road, Medina, WA 98039 425.454.9222 www.medina-wa.gov MEMORANDUM DATE: September 22, 2004 M. Mayor and City Council FROM: Joseph Gellings, AICP, Director of Development Services RE: Sideyard Setback Regulation RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council review the Planning Commission's recommendations for addressing side setback -related problems on large and small lots and consider Zoning Code changes based on both recommendations. POLICY IMPLICATION: Side yard setbacks are one type of setback used in the Medina Zoning Code. Others include front yards, rear yards, private lane setbacks, and Lake Washington shoreline setbacks. The common goals underlying side setback requirements include: 1) community character, 2) access to light, 3) air circulation, and 4) preventing the spread of fires. Setbacks, together with building heights and coverage controls, comprise the primary types of bulk restrictions in a zoning code. BACKGROUND: During two meetings in the summer of 2003 the City Council received and discussed a recommendation from the Planning Commission to modify the side setback rules for all three zoning districts. The recommendation was focused on an examination of large lot development and contained formulas that would increase the side setback requirements but only on R-16 lots wider than 125 feet and R-20/R-30 lots wider than 133 feet. The original staff report introducing these changes is attached. There were mixed opinions on the council at that time as to the merits of this recommendation. The council resolved to request that the Planning Commission re-examine side setbacks and address problems occurring with small lots at the same time. The Planning Commission discussed this broadened scope for side setback examination at six meetings. Early in the discussion it was identified that small lots may have the opposite problem with side setbacks that large lots do. With small lots the comment complaint is that Medina has an enormous stock of small lot houses that are presently rendered nonconforming because they pre -date the present 10-foot setback requirement. With large lots the comment complaint is that the recent tear -down redevelopment trend has resulted in large houses that are very imposing from the perspective of the older homes when only located 10 feet from the property line. Essentially, the feedback seems to say that side setbacks are too big on small lots and too small on large lots. For this reason, the Planning Commission felt that a unified code change addressing small and lots was not appropriate. The Planning Commission also recognized that, in 2001, an "R-16 Committee" had devoted a great deal of energy to resolving the problem of side setbacks on small lots and it was unsuccessful. Through a case ITEM D - 3 study review of recent small lot projects the commission came to the conclusion that the best relief for small lot owners would be to reformulate the reconstruction threshold — the "remodeling limit" placed on nonconforming homes (usually because of side setbacks) and defined in MMC 17.60.010-D. They adopted the following problem statement: Problem Statement — Small Lot Side Yard Setbacks / Reconstruction Threshold Proper regulation of side setbacks is key to community character and other important goals. The City has found it necessary to increase side yard setback standards in the past. A further revision to these standards has been recommended for large lots —lots wider than 125' in R-16 and lots wider than 133' in R-20 and R-30. However, the current standards appear to be adequate for new construction on lots smaller than this. As a direct outgrowth of examining side yard setback rules for small lots, the Planning Commission has identified a code issue for the remodeling of homes — the reconstruction threshold. Its current formulation appears to be too low because many modest - scope remodel projects are reaching the threshold and facing the burden of full Zoning Code compliance. Staff concur that there has been substantial feedback from the development community the present code definition of reconstruction is flawed such that very modest remodeling projects are classified as reconstruction. The intent of the reconstruction threshold is to only prevent those projects that involve such extensive remodeling that the cost is comparable to the cost of a new house and full code compliance should therefore be achieved through the project. The commission had staff survey the reconstruction thresholds in 10 peer communities. They explored alternative approaches including definitions based on the extent of floor area being altered through a remodel project. They also discussed the fact that, while the value ratio approach used in Medina is common, our code reference to using the RS Means Residential Cost Data publication to assign a benchmark value to a structure is flawed in that it consistently undervalues the structure. As a result, the Planning Commission's final recommendation side setbacks is to retain their earlier recommendation for large lots and to recommend the following with respect to small lots. Recommendation The Zoning Code's definition (MMC 17.60.010-D) of reconstruction is problematic because the RS Means method prescribed for valuing existing structures consistently undervalues the structures. The reference to RS Means should be replaced with a benchmark per -square -foot cost of $336, which is based on a review of the final valuations with a recent and representative set of new home construction projects. The code change should allow for an annual adjustment to this figure by staff based on updated valuation data. Page 2 To: Medina City Council From: Joseph Gellings, AICP, Planning Consultant Re: Zoning Code Regulation of Side Yard Setbacks Date: July 7, 2003 Recommendation The Planning Commission has recently recommended changes to the Zoning Code's regulation of side yard setbacks. I recommend that the City Council review the proposed changes and their rationale and either request the City Attorney to draft an ordinance or provide different policy direction to staff. Policy Implication Side yard setbacks are one type of setback used in the Medina Zoning Code. Others include front yards, rear yards, private lane setbacks, and Lake Washington shoreline setbacks. The common goals underlying side setback requirements include: 1) community character, 2) access to light, 3) air circulation, and 4) preventing the spread of fires. Setbacks, together with building heights and coverage controls, comprise the primary types of bulk restrictions in a zoning code. Background Side yard setback requirements have been a part of the Zoning Code since City incorporation in 1955. The size of the setback was 10 feet for all lots from that time until Ordinance 614 of 1999. In developing Ordinance 614, it was recognized that, while appropriate for modest -sized lots, the 10-foot standard was an insufficient buffer next to the very large homes that started to be built in Medina in the 80's and 90's. Large homes can be particularly problematic when their size is achieved through the consolidation of several smaller lots and the remaining neighbors have older homes on small lots. The response to this with Ordinance 614 was to established a 15% side -setback -rule for the R-20 and R-30 zones. This rule dictates that the side setback should be equal to 15% of the lot width but not less than 10 feet and not (required to be) greater than 20 feet. This results in a larger setback than the previous 10 feet for all lots greater than 67 feet in width. It is my understanding that side setbacks have never changed in R-16 because those working on Ordinance 614 assumed that the a separate ordinance with corresponding changes for R-16 would be passed shortly after Ordinance 614. In addition, the R-16 Zoning Committee was unable to reach consensus on a holistic set of changes to R-16 zoning provisions. City of Medina 1 otak At their April 1, 2003 meeting, the Planning Commission adopted the following problem statement for examining the Zoning Code's side setback regulations: Problem Statement - Side Setbacks Side setback requirements play a critical role in the zoning code by 1) contributing to neighborhood character, 2) ensuring access to light and air for every home, and 3) mitigating the scale problem created by very large houses closely adjacent to modest -sized houses. The trends towards larger house sizes and lot consolidation over the past two decades raises the question of whether current side setback requirements are sufficient for the large lots in Medina. Code provisions that better match side setback requirements to the lot size and configuration should be explored. Any code changes should focus only on large lots and minimize the number of presently developed properties that are rendered nonconforming as a result of the changes. At the bottom of this memo is draft ordinance text for new side setback rules approved by the Planning Commission on May 7, 2003. The proposed regulation is summarized by the following graph: Existing and Proposed Side Setbacks 35 30 CO 25 d U" 20 --- —Existing R-20 / R-30 —Existing R-16 - - -Proposed R-16 „ ♦ 1 d :° 15 ♦ - Proposed R-20 / R-30 cn E 10 0 E .� 5 0 * All substandard -sized lots and lots with structural coverage not exceeding 4,000 s.f. have 0 100 200 300 400 a 10 ft. side setback Lot Width (M) City of Medina 2 otak The proposed changes are two-part: 1. Raising the cap on the present R-20 / R-30 15%-rule from 20 feet to 30 feet. 2. Introducing an increase to the R-16 side setback requirement that involves a linear increase in setback requirement from 10 feet to 30 feet across the lot width range of 125 feet to 325 feet. This curve can also be described as 10 feet plus 10% of the lot width greater than 125 feet. Side setbacks on all substandard -sized lots would be exempt from in the increase — the setback would be fixed at 10 feet. The side setbacks would also be fixed at 10 feet for all properties with a total structural coverage not exceeding 4,000 square feet. The change to R-20 and R-30 has been previously approved by the Planning Commission and is a relatively minor adjustment of the current rule. It is probably warranted given that we have seen a few immense lots created through consolidation in recent years. Only lots greater than 133 feet in width will be affected by this change and there are very few lots of this width in Medina. Therefore, imposition of this rule change will create very few nonconformities. The proposed change to the R-16 setback requirements are warranted and create minimal nonconformities for the same reasons as listed for R-20 and R-30 above. When considering an appropriate side setback requirement, experience has shown that it is necessary to envision the "worst case scenario' for a given setback rule. Before the 15%-setback-rule was added to R-20 and R-30 there were a few instances of large lot owners constructing 30- foot-tall vertical blank walls that followed their 10-foot side setback line for a considerable distance. Unless the City adopts a discretionary architectural design review process, property owners will always have the right to concentrate all of their allowed bulk against a side property line like this. Proposed Ordinance Text 17.20.010 B. The minimum setback of any part of any building or structure shall be 30 feet from the front property line and 30 feet from the rear property line. [, and sh84 be n feet; rrr,rr, „a„1, Aide 4 The minimum setback from each side line shall be a distance equal to 10 feet plus 10 percent of any amount of the lot width that exceeds 125 feet, but not more than 30 feet. This provision for increasing side setbacks in excess of 10 feet shall not apply to lots having a size less than 16,000 square feet provided that the separate ownership exception of MMC 17.40.025 has been met. The provision shall also not apples the total structural coverage does not exceed 4,000 square feet in area. The minimum setback of an approved parking space (nondriveway) in the front yard shall be 15 feet. The minimum setback from the Lake Washington shoreline shall be as established in Chapter 17.38 MMC. 17.24.010 B. The minimum setback of any part of any building or structure shall be 30 feet from the front property line and 30 feet from the rear property line, and shall be 10 feet, or 15 percent of the site width at any location of the structure on the building site, City of Medina 3 otak whichever is greater, but not more than [29]30 feet from each side line. The minimum setback from the Lake Washington shoreline shall be as established in Chapter 17.38 MMC. The minimum setback of an improved parking space (nondriveway) in the front yard shall be 15 feet. 17.28.010 B. The minimum setback of any part of any building or structure shall be 30 feet from the rear property line, and shall be 10 feet or 15 percent of the site width at any location of the structure on the building site, whichever is greater, but not more than [-20] 30 feet from each side line. The minimum setback from the Lake Washington shoreline shall be as established in Chapter 17.38 MMC. The minimum setback of an improved parking space (nondriveway) in the front yard shall be 15 feet. City of Medina 4 otak ITEM D - 4 CITY OF MEDINA City Manager's Office 501 Evergreen Point Road, Medina, WA 98039 425.454.9222 www.medina-wa.gov MEMORANDUM DATE: September 20, 2004 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Doug Schulze, City Manager RE: City Council Agenda Calendar RECOMMENDATION: After review and adjustment, if any, approve Council Agenda Calendar for October — December 2004 meetings. POLICY IMPLICATION: The agenda calendar is intended for use by the City Council as a tool to determine priorities for use of Council meeting time. BACKGROUND: Changes to the Calendar include movement of the City Council discussion of Site Plan Review to 2005, which is necessary because the Planning Commission recommendation has not been completed. The remaining 2004 meeting agendas will require a significant amount of time for 2005 budget discussions. 2004 City Council Calendar Description January 12, 2004 Regular Meeting January 26, 2004 Study Session February 9, 2004 Regular Meeting February 23, 2004 Study Session Oath of Office Completed 2004 — 2005 Mayor Completed 2004 — 2005 Deputy Mayor Completed 2004 Study Sessions Completed 2004 Committees Completed 2004 City Work Plan Council Policy Manual Tabled Intersection Sight Dist Building Code Update Discussion 84 Ave NE Trees Discussion Parking Regulations Tabled Completed Site Plan Review Tabled Discussion M.I. Marine Patrol Completed 2004 Fee Schedule Adopted Resolution Health Care Completed Zoning Code Housekeeping Moved forward Adopted NE 12 th Street Project Discussion 2003 — 2005 Police Labor Agreement Moved forward 2003 — 2005 PW Labor Agreement Moved forward ARCH Budget & Work Plan Approved Fairweather Park & Preserve Name Approved 2003 Year End Financial Report Completed School Zoning Issues Moved forward Discussion 2004 Leg Action Plan Moved forward Approved School SUP Hearings Adopted -Boarding Houses Discussion Mgmt Employment Agreements Discussion Discussion Approved 09/22/2004 Page 1 of 6 P:\2004 Agenda Packets\09272004 Agenda Packet\Item D-4a, 2004 Council Calendar.doc 2004 City Council Calendar March 8, 2004 Regular Meeting March 22, 2004 Study Session April 12, 2004 Regular Meeting April 26, 2004 Study Session 84 th Ave Trees Completed Action Boarding Houses Discussion Code Update Moved forward -Building CIP/TIP — 2005 - 2010 Moved to June 14th Citizen Request for Refund Moved to May 10th City Facilities City Mgr P.I.P. Moved forward Moved to Special Mt. Compensation Study Moved to June 14th Council Annual Retreat Completed Council Policy Manual Moved forward Adopted Financial Report — 1 s Quarter Completed Health Insurance Costs Moved to November Intersection Sight Distance Tabled Moved forward Jail Assembly Appointment Approved Medina Beach Project Completed Mgmt Employment Agreements Moved forward NE 12 Project Approved Park Board Appointments Completed Park Board Ord Amend Adopted Park Property Acquisition Authorized Police Labor Agreement Tabled Moved forward Approved Pool/Spa Locations Public Works Labor Agreement Approved Approved -Regional Comm JPA Approved School Zoning Adopted Side and Setbacks Site Plan Review Moved forward Weymouth Rezone Denied 09/22/2004 Page 2of6 P:\2004 Agenda Packets\09272004 Agenda Packet\Item D-4a, 2004 Council Calendar.doc 2004 City Council Calendar Description May 10, 2004 Regular Meeting May 24, 2004 Study Session June 14, 2004 Regular Meeting June 28, 2004 Study Session Budget Goals - 2005 Completed Building Code Update Moved to 6/14 Adopted -Building Permit Process Completed Cable TV Franchise ILA Authorized C I P/T I P — 2005 - 2010 Adopted Citizen Request for Refund Completed City Hall Summer Hours Moved to 6/14 Completed City Facilities/Parking Completed City Manager Authority Ordinance Moved to 8/9 City Manager Performance Review Not Completed Compensation Study Not Completed Emergency Preparedness Completed Intersection Sight Dist Moved to Sept. for hearing Management Employment Agreements Not Completed Medina Elementary Project Approved SUP CAD Presentation Medina Park Dog Control Moved to Public Hearin Park Board Appointment Completed Park Commission Ord. Amendments Adopted Planning Commission Appointments Completed Pool/Spa Locations Property Acquisition Moved to 6/14 Moved to 6/21 Retreat Agreements Completed School Sig na a Completed Side and Setbacks Site Plan Review SR-520 Project Partially Completed SR-520 Roundtable Representation Not Completed Work Plans — 2004-05 09/22/2004 Page 3of6 P:12004 Agenda Packetst09272004 Agenda Packetlltem D-4a, 2004 Council Calendar.doc 2004 City Council Calendar Description July 12, 2004 Regular Meeting July 26, 2004 Study Session August 9, 2004 Regular Meeting August 23, 2004 Study Session Cable TV Franchise Approved City Manager Authority Ordinance Adopted City Manager Performance Review X 00. Move to 8/9 Moved to 8/23 Moved to Special Mt City.Facilities/Parkin Compensation Study Moved to 9/13 Financial Report — Mid Year Completed Jet Noise Update Completed King County Library Ballot Measure No Action Management Employment Agreements Moved to 8/9 Moved to 9/13 Medina Beach Project Concept Approved Medina Elementary S.U.P. Reconsideration Approved w/ changes Medina Park Dog Control Adopted Ord Meeting Minutes Content Completed Pool/Spa Locations Move to 9/13 Side and Setbacks Site Plan Review SR 520 Position Move to 8/9 Deferred SR 520 Roundtable Representation Completed Tree Replacement — 84th Avenue NE Work Plans — 2004-05 Move to 10/11 09/22/2004 Page 4 of 6 P:12004 Agenda Packets109272004 Agenda Packetlltem D-4a, 2004 Council Calendar.doc 2004 City Council Calendar September 13, 2004 Regular Meeting.Session September 27, 2004 Study October 11, 2004 Regular Meeting October 25, 2004 Study Session ARCH Funding Request Discussion/Action Budget - 2005 Discussion Discussion Cable TV Franchise Moved City Facilities City Mgr Employment Agreement Moved City Manager Performance Eval Continued to 9/20 Special Mt Discussion Community Design Inventory Discussion Compensation Plan Include in budget discussion Financial Report — 3rd Quarter Discussion Intersection Sight Distance Management Employment Agreements Moved Include in budget discussion Meeting Space Alternatives Completed Ordinance No. 768 Amendment Adopted Permitting Discussion Pool &' Spa Locations Adopted Property Tax Levy Discussion Side and Setbacks Discussion Site Plan Review Moved to 2005 Tree Code Amend. Moved to 10/11 Hearing/Action Tree Replacement — 841h Avenue NE Utility Undergrounding — Development Related Completed WCIA Risk M mt Discussion Work Plans — 2004-05 Discussion 09/22/2004 Page 5of6 PA2004 Agenda Packets\09272004 Agenda Packet\Item D-4a, 2004 Council Calendar.doc 2004 City Council Calendar Description November 8, 2004 Regular Meeting November 22, 2004 Study Session December 13, 2004 Regular Meeting December 27, 2004 Study Session Budget - 2005 Hearing Discussion Hearing/Action Cable TV Franchise Discussion Facilities -City City Manager Performance Review Health Insurance Costs Discussion Intersection Sight Distance Discussion Public Hearing Property Tax Levy Hearing/Action Tree Replacement — 84t`' Avenue NE Discussion 09/22/2004 Page 6of6 P:\2004 Agenda Packets\09272004 Agenda Packet\Item D-4a, 2004 Council Calendar.doc