HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-24-2008 - Agenda PacketMEDINA, WASHINGTON
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA
MEDINA CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
NOVEMBER 24, 2008
6:30 PM
MAYOR
MARK NELSON
DEPUTY MAYOR
JIM LAWRENCE
COUNCIL MEMBERS
LUCIUS BIGLOW
DREW BLAZEY
BRETJORDAN
BOB RUDOLPH
SHAWN WHITNEY
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA
OTHER BUSINESS
OB-1: City Hall Options
Presentation by facilities committee and council discussion.
OB-2: Construction Mitigation Plans
Council discussion. Council may provide policy direction to staff.
ADJOURNMENT
Next regular meeting: Monday, December 8, 2008; 6:30 pm
CITY MANAGER
DONNA HANSON
CITY ATTORNEY
WAYNE TANAKA
CITY CLERK
RACHELBAKER
6:30 PM
Medina City Hall • 501 Evergreen Point Road • Medina WA 98039
425-233-6400 ph . 425-454-8490 fx • www.medina-wa.govov
Date: November 24, 2008
To: Medina City Council
From: Facilities Subcommittee:
Jordan, Bret; Nelson, Mark; Whitney, Shawn
Overview
The City of Medina has been engaged in the search for a suitable solution to the needs for civic
facilities for some time. A facilities subcommittee was charged with examining several scenarios
proposed. The primary purpose of this study was to assist the City in evaluating and determining
the feasibility of the various scenarios to accommodate a City Hall and Police Department function
within the City.
Rationale
This study demonstrates that a relocation of the two combined functions, while an ideal scenario, is
not feasible within the guidelines and goal criteria established by the Council. Further, the
separation of the two functions would not efficiently serve the citizens of Medina. Housing
administrative and police personnel in separate locations would result in redundant costs and a
drain on productivity.
The Committee acknowledges that there is substantial support for the relocation of City services
and the possible dedication of the historic building for use as a community center. While no idea
should be ruled out over the long term, there does not appear to be a feasible solution due to the
lack of a site on which to relocate in the foreseeable future.
The Subcommittee recommends that all effort in approaching both the design of the building and
the surrounding park landscape focus on what can be given back to the community during the
process and that the result be an added benefit rather than a distraction. For instance, the new
design reflects a "multi -purpose function" for council chambers that utilizes a storable dais and a
convertible wall system to allow flexible space functions. Other examples include the possibility of
re -grading in the park during construction to allow for enhanced open space and designing the
lower floor to allow conversion to public spaces in the case that the police department relocates to
a combined force with Clyde Hill.
Recommendation
Therefore the Facility Subcommittee recommends the upgrade, remodel and expansion of the
current City Hall Building. The current recommendation is a derivative of the 3 original "B" Options
that were presented last summer. It involves a modified expansion of approximately 15 feet to the
north side of the building and approximately 15 feet to the south side of the building. Design
drawings are attached.
Examinations
During the course of this investigation a number of scenarios have been considered and studied.
This effort is summarized below:
I. OPTION A Improve Existing Building with No Expansion Not recommended due to the
following considerations:
■ Does not develop efficient facilities to meet needs of citizens and staff for the
foreseeable future.
2. OPTION C Relocation of Combined Functions to Medina Park. Not recommended due to
the following considerations:
■ Considerable negative impact to park.
■ Added cost of construction
■ Time burden of neighborhood opposition
■ Additional cost to upgrade current building
■ Additional cost to develop and maintain alternative use such as a community center.
3. OPTION C Relocation of Combined Functions to Fairweather Park. Not recommended due
to the following considerations:
■ The Parks official designation of "nature preserve".
4. OPTION C Relocation of Combined Functions to Purchased Property. Not recommended
due to the following considerations:
■ Time burden of acquiring adequate contiguous land
■ Excessive cost of real estate
■ Time burden of neighborhood opposition
■ Time burden of re -zoning property for new use
■ Added cost of construction
■ Cost, over time, of removing property from the City tax base
■ Additional cost to upgrade current building
■ Additional cost to develop and maintain alternative use for current building such as
a community center.
5. OPTION D Relocation of Single Function to Medina Park (City Hall —or- Police but not
both). Not recommended due to the following considerations:
■ Considerable negative impact to park.
■ Added cost of construction
■ Time burden of neighborhood opposition
■ Additional cost to upgrade current building
■ Redundant costs of managing two facilities instead of a single one.
Goal Criteria Previously Established by the City Council
(labeled by number for ease of discussion, not in order by priority or importance)
1. Facilities located on property owned by the City of Medina are preferred over leased
facilities.
2. Facilities should be located within the city limits.
3. Acquisition of new property for the facilities is preferred over consumption or use of
existing park land.
4. If land currently used as park space is used for the facility, an attempt to develop
additional park space and or uses will be created to offset the consumption of such land.
5. Minimizing impact to the area surrounding facilities is required.
6. Maintaining the co -location of city hall and police function in the same facility is a priority
to maintain operating efficiencies.
7. A geographically central location is preferred but not required.
8. Minimize barriers to public access of facilities where possible.
9. Develop efficient facilities to meet needs of citizens and staff for the foreseeable future.
10. Provide adequate facilities to continue the use of consultants that supplement existing full
time staff requirements.
11. Develop a facility with adequate life safety and security systems.
12. Minimize short and longterm operating costs.
13. Facilities should be environmentally sustainable when possible to meet operating cost
goals.
14. Develop a facility that is flexible and adaptable for the implementation of cost effective
technological improvements.
15. Preservation of the existing ferry terminal building is required regardless of eventual use.
16. Any facilities plan that does not include the use of the current ferry terminal building must
be accompanied by a plan of what to do with the long term use of the ferry terminal
building.
17. Including Council Chambers in the City Hall is preferred.
18. Prefer funding with existing revenues and avoiding long term fiscal impact to the City.
19. New facilities will reflect the existing character of Medina.
`�y of �Epiy� CITY OF MEDINA
501 Evergreen Point Road, Medina WA 98039
425.233.6400 (phone) 425.454.8490 (fax) www.medina-wa.gov
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: ROBERT J. GRUMBACH, AICP
CC: CITY MANAGER
DATE: OCTOBER 13, 2008
SUBJECT: CITY HALL — COMPREHENSIVE PLAN & ZONING MATTERS
Development of a new city hall requires consistency with the city's comprehensive plan and
compliance with the city's development regulations. The following is a summary of the broader
comprehensive plan and zoning issues as they apply to consideration of the alternatives.
Background Information:
RELEVANT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES:
The comprehensive plan establishes a community vision of Medina as a unique residential
community. To support this vision, the comprehensive plan has several policies relevant to
development of city hall:
Policy LU-P3: Residential use shall not be considered for conversion to nonresidential
use except when clearly supported by the community and when impacts to the
surrounding area can be fully mitigated.
Policy LU-P5: Existing nonresidential uses are encouraged to be maintained. Existing
nonresidential uses include: City Hall...
Policy LU-P6: Existing nonresidential uses within a residential zone may be converted
to residential use, or may be redeveloped with a new non-residential use in a manner
compatible with surrounding properties when allowed through the conditional use
process.
Policy PO-P6: The city should retain the Fairweather Nature Preserve in its natural state
and provide maintenance only when necessary.
In addition, property currently used or designated for residential use is strongly discouraged
from being utilized for additional churches, clubs, fraternal societies, schools, museums,
historic sites, conference centers, or other additional nonresidential facilities.
RELEVANT ZONING CODE REGULATIONS:
Zoning regulations are a part of the city's development regulations and are required by the
Growth Management Act to be consistent with the comprehensive plan.
Use Regulations:
The following are the use regulations on what primary uses are allowed in each zoning
district.
• MMC 17.20.010.G limits uses in the R-16 zone to single-family dwellings and historical
uses. Historical uses are limited to nonresidential uses which were in existence at the
date of incorporation. Historic uses are not allowed on any lot where the use was not
operated at the date of incorporation of the city.
• MMC 17.24.010.H limits uses in the R-20 zone to single-family dwellings.
• MMC 17.28.010.H limits uses in the R-30 zone to single-family dwellings.
• MMC 17.32.010.A allows single-family dwellings and commercial horticulture, truck
gardening and agriculture (not including the raising of animals) in the SR-30 zone.
• MMC 17.36.010.A allows single-family dwellings automobile service and mechanical
repair in the Neighborhood Auto (NA) zone.
• There are no zoning regulations for development of land zoned Parks and Public Places.
Conditional Use Permit:
In addition to the use regulations, chapter 17.56 MMC contains provisions for nonresidential
uses including regulations that affect development of the city hall.
• MMC 17.56.010 requires a Conditional Use Permit for those existing nonresidential uses
(such as city hall) that are expanded, modified or rebuilt where it exceeds 50 percent of
the present value of the structure; and other uses not specifically identified in this code.
Note: It is unclear if the conditional use permit would allow city hall to be expanded or
located on land with a different zoning designation.
Note: MMC 17.56.050.A requires approval of a conditional use permit for the city hall
facility to be compatible with the intent of the comprehensive plan.
SHORELINE MANAGEMENT MASTER PROGRAM:
• A shoreline substantial development permit is required if work is performed within 200
feet of the ordinary high water mark that involves expansion or movement of the city hall
structure.
• The shoreline designation of the current city hall parcel is Recreational Conservancy.
The following shoreline management master program policy is relevant:
RIA
II.F Policy: Medina should preserve or allow preservation of shoreline buildings and
sites with historic or architectural value, such as the old ferry ticket office (City Hall), and
certain boathouses.
Note: This policy would be involved as part of the review for the shoreline permit and
does not prevent expansion of the city hall building provided the existing historical
architectural values are given consideration in the design of the building.
Analysis of Options:
The following are short summary analysis of the comprehensive plan and zoning issues
related to the different city hall scenarios being considered:
OPTION 1 - CITY HALL REMAINS ON THE EXISTING PARCEL:
This approach involves the fewest comprehensive plan and zoning issues. The property is
currently zoned Public Parks and Places and expansion of the existing city hall facility is not
incompatible with the policies in the comprehensive plan. A conditional use permit and
substantial development permit would be required for expansion.
OPTION 2 - CITY HALL EXPANDS TO THE CITY -OWNED PARCEL TO THE EAST:
The Medina Beach Park parcel east of city hall is zoned R-30 and has a comprehensive
plan designation of residential. The clearest regulatory approach for expanding city hall
onto this parcel would be to amend the comprehensive plan land use map and rezone the
property to Parks and Public Places.
It may be possible to amend the language of the code to allow the city hall to expand onto
this parcel through the conditional use permit process. However, compatibility with the
comprehensive plan policies and land use map would have to be addressed in order to get
approval from the hearing examiner. A conditional use permit and substantial development
permit would be required.
OPTION 3 - CITY HALL IS LOCATED ON ANOTHER PARCEL ZONED PUBLIC PARKS
AND PLACES:
If the city hall was located in Medina Park or another parcel zoned for Public Parks and
Places, except for Fairweather Nature Preserve, no changes to the zoning or
comprehensive plan would be necessary. The comprehensive plan and zoning issues
would be the same as Option 1, except no shoreline substantial development permit would
be required.
If the city hall facility was located at the Fairweather Nature Preserve, an amendment to the
comprehensive plan Policy PO-P6 may be necessary, or compatibility with this
comprehensive plan policy would need to be addressed with the Hearing Examiner. A
conditional use permit would be required.
3
OPTION 4 - CITY HALL IS LOCATED ON A PARCEL NOT ZONED PUBLIC PARKS AND
PLACES:
The clearest regulatory approach under this option would be to amend the comprehensive
plan land use map and rezone the property to Public Parks and Places. A conditional use
permit would be required.
The option of amending the text of the comprehensive plan and the zoning code is also
available rather than amending the comprehensive plan land use and zoning maps. The
text amendments could allow the city hall facility in other zoning districts either outright, or by
a conditional use permit process.
It may also be possible to simply amend the existing text of the zoning code to allow the city
hall facility to be located on property not zoned Public Parks and Places by a conditional use
permit, without amending the comprehensive plan. However, compatibility with the
comprehensive plan policies and land use map would have to be addressed before the
Hearing Examiner.
Procedural Considerations:
The following is a summary of important procedural considerations for amending the
comprehensive plan, and/or the zoning map:
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
Comprehensive plan amendments can be considered only once a year (exceptions: initial
adoption of a sub -area plan, adoption of a shoreline master program, amendment of the
capital facilities element when concurrent with adoption of the budget, and amendments
necessary to enact a SEPA planned action). The Medina Municipal Code does not have
adopted procedures for comprehensive plan amendments so state law would serve as the
primary guide. The key procedural issue is creating a program that ensures broad public
participation is adequately incorporated into the review process before the city council takes
any final actions. The planning commission must consider all comprehensive plan
amendments and make a recommendation to the city council.
The adoption of an updated 6-Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) constitutes an
amendment to the comprehensive plan (RCW 36.70A.070(3)). The city council adopted the
2009 — 2014 CIP in June; which means new amendments to the comprehensive plan can
not be considered until next year (2009). The planning commission must consider all
comprehensive plan amendments and make a recommendation to the city council.
REZONES:
Rezones require the planning commission to hold a public hearing and make a
recommendation to the city council. The rezone may be processed concurrently with a
comprehensive plan amendment
4
°tM�O�y9 CITY OF MEDINA
501 Evergreen Point Road, Medina WA 98039
425.233.6400 (phone) 425.454.8490 (fax) www.medina-wagov
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: ROBERT J. GRUMBACH, AICP
CC: CITY MANAGER
DATE: OCTOBER 13, 2008
SUBJECT: CONSTRUCTION MITIGATION PLANS (CMP)
Backdrop to Memorandum:
The city council recently received a concern from a citizen about the adequacy of the
CMP program. In the particular incident, a contractor applied over-the-counter sealant
to seal the concrete driveway, patio and rock veneer of a newly constructed residence.
No warning to the neighbors had been provided and application of the sealant caused a
strong odor that impacted the neighbors. After receiving a complaint, the city followed
up by contacting the contractor and he agreed to finish the sealing job after the neighbor
left for work. City staff left a message with the neighbor notifying of such.
Purpose of the CMP Program:
The purpose of the CMP program is to minimize construction nuisances that affect
neighboring properties. The basis of the program is to develop customized construction
mitigation plans that contain detailed measures that are incorporated into a project to
minimize construction impacts. The regulations governing the program were last
updated in January 2007 in response to complaints that the CMP program was
cumbersome and imposing unreasonable burdens on applicants.
Evaluating the CMP Program:
The primary success of the CMP program has been its usefulness in notifying neighbors
about larger construction projects. It has also been successful in making contractors
more accountable for the construction impacts being generated by their projects.
However, the program's ability to fully address impacts has some limitations. There are
practical limitations such as the ability of an 8-foot high temporary construction fence to
screen a 25-foot high building located 10 feet from a property line. Additionally, state
law requires city -imposed mitigation measures to be reasonable and have a nexus to
the impacts being created. As the community seeks means for lessening the effects of
construction, a certain amount of information and analysis is required to justify city -
imposed mitigation measures.
Generally, the city receives the majority of CMP related complaints at the beginning of a
project and/or near the end. This is probably due to the fact that at the beginning heavy
equipment is operating and framing is occurring. At the end of a project, we generally
see multiple contractors on site performing finishing work.
Evaluating the Adequacy of the CMP Program:
The adequacy of the current program in meeting its purpose is difficult to measure. As
mentioned above, there are limitations. Chapter 15.20 MMC establishes a regulatory
framework from which the CMP program operates. However, equally important to the
program's success are the policies that guide how we administer the program. These
policies are important because these establish the benchmarks that guide staffs
administration of the program. Some key policy questions are:
• To what level of detail should the city regulate construction activity?
If greater scrutiny of projects is desired, the standardized CMP the city currently
uses can be revised to obtain greater details and analysis. However, the more
detailed and complex a CMP becomes, the higher the costs for review.
What is the policy on code enforcement— complaint driven or pro -active?
Currently, code enforcement is complaint -driven with regulations that focus on
voluntary compliance. Citizens have viewed this approach as not very effective
because by the time they file a complaint their frustration with the construction is
boiling over. Also, with voluntary compliance the focus, citizens have expressed that
there is no disincentive to prevent some of the violations that create the greatest
frustration such as blocking drive lanes and construction parking from occurring.
Pro -active enforcement requires monitoring.
To what extent should the city be committing resources to monitor construction
projects?
Monitoring allows the city to be more pro -active in preventing or resolving conflicts
before neighbor frustration boils over. However, monitoring programs require time,
money and people. If a monitoring program was implemented, 'how is it paid for'
needs to be answered. Currently, the city collects a $200 fee for a Level 1 CMP
(notice required) and a $2,500 fee for a Level 2 CMP (hearing). There are no pass -
through fees or other fees collected to off -set the cost of the program per city
policies.
E
Recommendations:
Subject to policy direction, changes to the CMP program can be implemented
administratively to make it more effective if the current program is not meeting the
council's intent. Some changes to the code may also be necessary in order to provide
staff with the tools necessary to make the program more effective. The following are
some possible code changes listed in the order of priority:
1. The code enforcement provisions in chapter 1.15 MMC need to be updated to add
civil citations. The existing notice of violation process is time-consuming and
cumbersome and is not a very effective tool to address most violations of a CMP.
The police department's authority to issue tickets when work occurs after 7:00 pm
has been a very effective method for compliance. The same authority for
Development Services staff to issue tickets on CMP violations would improve the
effectiveness of the program.
2. Revise MMC 15.20.060 to allow greater flexibility for staff to make minor revisions to
an approved CMP. The current CMP revision regulations act as a disincentive to
revise a plan even if the revision would make the CMP more effective.
3. Add code language to identify clear construction standards and approval criteria for
mitigation. This would help both staff and applicants more clearly understand what
needs to be done to mitigate construction impacts.
4. Revise the criteria for determining if a project falls under the code of conduct, a
Level 1 CMP, or a Level 2 CMP. The criteria should be based on construction
impacts, such as construction parking, length of project, existing screening, hours of
certain equipment operations, trips being generated, amount of grading activity,
separation of construction activity from nearby homes, etc.
5. Non -substantive changes to edit and reformat the chapter to make it more user-
friendly.
3