Loading...
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