Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-29-2009 - Agenda PacketMEDINA, WASHINGTON CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION AGENDA MEDINA CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS MONDAY, JUNE 29, 2009 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 OTHER BUSINESS OB-1: Traffic Study Status Report from Transpo Group 013-2: CIP/TIP Discussion 013-3: Comprehensive Plan/Public Participation Discussion 013-4: Zoning and Permitting Study Discussion 013-5: 2009 Revenue/Expenditure Projections ADJOURNMENT Next Regular Meeting: Monday, July 13, 2009; 6:30 pm. CITY MANAGER DONNA HANSON CITY ATTORNEY WAYNE TANAKA CITY CLERK RACHELBAKER Medina City Hall • 501 Evergreen Point Road • Medina WA 98039 425-233-6400 phone • 425-454-8490 fax • www.medina-vva.gov ITEM OB-2 CITY OF MEDINA Office of the City Manager DATE: June 29, 2009 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Donna Hanson, City Manager SUBJECT: 2010 — 2015 Six Year CIP/TIP Joe provided the attached information related to the CIP/TIP for the Study Session before he left on vacation. Council members may have questions on the format and funding which we couldn't address while he was gone. The purpose of the study session discussion is to become familiar with the projects that are on the proposed plans and to brainstorm ideas for future parks and street projects. We don't have to have the CIP budget finalized. It is just a plan to determine priorities and we have to have the plan to be eligible for outside funding sources. ITEM OB-2 CITY OF MEDINA Office of the City Manager June 17, 2009 TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: Director of Public Works SUBJECT: 2010 — 2015 Six Year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) and Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council approve the attached Six Year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) and Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) for the period 2010 — 2015. POLICY IMPLICATION This action is consistent with past fiscal policy to limit the annual CIP/TIP expenditure to $ 638,000 with one exception; City Hall renovation and additions funding will exceed revenue projections and will require allocation from City Reserves. BACKGROUND State law requires all municipalities to prepare and submit their planned six year transportation improvement plans to the State Department of Transportation by July of each year and in addition, to qualify for transportation grant funding, each project for which funding is requested must appear on the adopted City TIP. In order to provide an overall fiscal plan, I have included all proposed Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) into one six -year plan. DISCUSSION The proposed 2010-2015 CIP was created by reviewing the approved 2009-2014 CIP and making adjustments and modifications to the plan based on updated street pavement conditions and the condition of other city assets. The proposed near term projects (next three years) are the most critical as identified by current conditions and needs. The out -year projects are programmed based on projected needs. This CIP proposal is supported by site investigations and professional judgment. As additional needs are identified and evaluated, adjustments to the CIP can be anticipated. As a matter of City policy, the plan has been adjusted to spread out the City's Capital Improvement investment so that the program in any given year does not exceed $638,000. ITEM OB-2 The CIP is divided into five (5) categories: I. Street Improvement Projects II. Storm Drainage Projects III. Sidewalks/Paths Projects IV. Building Restoration and Improvements V. Parks Projects Categories I through III constitute the City's Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP). Category IV projects are Facility Improvements and Category V projects are Park Projects. All categories combined constitute the City's Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). The TIP portion of the CIP must be reported to the State DOT by July of each year. Additionally, the City shares a copy of the complete CIP with neighboring cities as well as with each primary utility serving Medina to facilitate joint planning efforts. 2010 Projects I — 1. 80th Ave NE (NE 24th to NE 28t' Street) overlay and storm drainage repairs is a preservation asphalt street overlay project proposed to restore the deteriorating surface condition of the road surface and to address drainage problems. 1 — 2. 77th Ave NE (NE 22nd to 500 feet south of NE 22nd) overlay and storm drainage improvements is a preservation asphalt street overlay with minimal improvements to the storm drainage system. 1 — 3. Evergreen Point Road (Overtake Drive West to NE 8th Street) overlay, storm drainage and all-weather pathway construction project is a preservation asphalt street overlay coupled with drainage and pathway reconstruction along the west margin of the right-of-way. 1 — 4. Overlake Drive East (Lake Washington Blvd to 84th Ave NE) crack sealing is to seal the pavement surface cracking to prevent moisture intrusion into the roadway subbase to prolong the life of the existing surface until year 2015 when a pavement overlay is planned. IV — 1. City Hall Renovation and Additions include building additions of 15- feet to each end of the existing building and redesign of each floor of the building to provide additional room to support City functions. Renovations include siding and deck repairs, structural upgrades, roof replacement, mechanical, electrical, and plumbing system upgrades, fire alarm and security systems, and ADA access improvements to comply with building codes. V — 1. Lake Lane street end park improvements include storm drain repair, new bench, table, and dog ramp as recommended by the Parks Board. V — 3. Medina Beach Park improvements are scheduled to be accomplished in concert with the City Hall Renovation and Additions Project. The improvements include minor grading, new landscaping, irrigation system, and pathways to improve the park. ITEM OB-2 2011 Proiects II — 2 Storm Drainage System improvements for Overlake Drive and Medina Heights are needed to convey storm water runoff through public easements on private properties to prevent flooding and to provide for adequate maintenance of the storm system. IV — 2 Public Safety Enhancement Camera System is the completion of the camera system installations at the City entrance street intersections at Lake Washington Blvd, NE 10th Street, and the park & ride lot for improved public safety. IV-3 Public Works Shop facility study is to address building deficiencies such as emergency power and seismic upgrades and to design the facility improvements that are scheduled for construction in year 2012. 2012 Proiects 1 — 5. NE 32nd Street (Evergreen Point Road to 80th Ave NE) is in need of an overlay to restore the deteriorated surface of the roadway that also includes storm drainage improvements. 1 — 6. NE 28th Street (Evergreen Point Road to 80th Ave NE) is a street pavement overlay with storm drain improvements. III — 1. NE 32nd Street Pathway (Evergreen Point Road to 80th Ave NE) is the construction of a pathway on the south side of NE 32nd Street along the frontage of Fairweather Preserve to provide for pedestrian access and linkage to the pathways within the Preserve. IV — 3 Public Works Shop Improvements include emergency power and seismic upgrades to the facility. 2013 through 2015 Projects include street restoration overlays, sidewalk and storm system repairs and improvements, and an irrigation system for the east half of Medina Park. x x x x x i F- x x _ x x LU w W W txC x x W W W x x W~ A x W F x Z m 0 W F F F O W W O W F F o w F F O W F W: O¢ F F F O¢ 0¢ F F O¢ F O ¢ F > 0 0)W U W W W w W i m i m W W m W t y W W C N 00 Cc¢ cc¢ C Q 2 0 m¢ O m m m 0 m !h m t0 c+1 COCj t0 N m W rf co(+f (O m O 1- F. ,QN O O p O O O 0 O O O 0 O 0 U W OQ o p g$ o O 0 8 O 0 o g o O p 0 O O O 0 O 0 O cc O C m O N N �j n N R r n O O w q tp c0 N O O M O N � CO O N O N m a F Z Z WO a f � G W � M M M N M M Cl) M Cl) M M M N > > Q O O n « w C U Q O tr N C E > d m m m m m N m N m d m m m 0 m m m m m lA c O E m aEi m m m m m m m > m m m m w m o c o 0 o m o o E U E O m c E m E E E E E E E > 0 to F " v m a o a mrn mrn a a a E U w m E m c a n m c m c_ m c m c m c m c m GE m m m m m m m IL m � > > 0 > 0 > o O E a E > o > o T m > o > 0 > 0 > 0 > 0 U U U c O U U L U U U U d Q Q Q > Ul Q Q d Q Q Q Q Q m .0 O c0 W m W a A m a m a m p a ro m 6 m a m >, m a m a d a m a m m m m m m m m 9m m m > (0 N` m ami N `o( N m N Y O a N of A a > N A A t90 a v 0 m a > a > m �a> > U Q > > > > > to N N O N w !n to (n (n to to 2 _ N C7 E W- m O O O O n O N O N O O O n O N O O .- O m O n O J tb N m N W m C N O N y W Z w cc O 0 O m W m w z N O 0 O m a F 0 (nC L m to Z > Z > m m ILC n N W Z N@~ o�. C N r � N m 5 co ¢ > ¢ ¢ a t a N m w m N m F L > Q Z Y O L L L « t a Z ' z m z 00 m m n z w z w z w a F i d Z t- j y m m 0 ¢ 0 ¢ 0 ¢ y m a W Q 3 0 o i F > Vg WW W cO cO a m Z -Om> taC( ycc > C L C > Q Y C O? a N N N A m m m 0) W F CC Z W CL O (.) Q W Z W Z > O A J > W > W > W W Z W Z W 2 '> m O F W Z 6 Z o z C Q m dig a 0 ¢ U p w w J J g¢Z (f1 O G d 'o 0 m ? m m` m at Z w W m w m N p F W Z W Z a m m m > Z Z m W Z > N > > m > Q ccO W cc W Q m Y G L L > > O_ Q L Q m U F 2 > F LU L of m N aD W W W N � m Y r w O Z Z Z .0m t4 Z a0 O Q } >.} Z x x x w ccO_ N N N w O O O O O O O O N O N O Mcc O M O M O a a a O LU C O O O Ca ui ) N N N y W o 0 0 z— 2 N M a w (p n m m o N M �W- U N N N O 3 ITEM OB-2 c 0 o� c o - U y D1 U � m � O 7 D - Q m m N o n U U a y > m e « > v E x -y m `o m a m p M F 0 d a a a ¢ a o v h c m o O O c m a m a E w p « m m N m C O m m N O > H m n a x m E a � F o m 2 •� to V m > w N «O C G C a 0 3 = > m m M 0 N m m N ax a a m Ol m m 0 w Em m a m c o a c u0 a y y « m m U = U N > m' m � m m m U a m yyj m O L 0 > O f 3 ~ ¢ 2 } - m d N 6 O m 2 m C n q r E r 3 m a A � o 0 9 0 0 Y ry C C U m C N Vi m O m > C U m m m U 220 o a>i O y "a Ex 00 w a > II II II II II Om. �N M QN 8 8 ci 0 a_ M N N m to N M N 1 N fN2 ®R F W 0 0 5F a W Y a a a O U � C U m m O � D � d E m c' o a m x H m m D 2 d p D d 0 m 8 U y O ? m m � s c c E d � U m a O > m O N x A m 0 F C C D E ro c N m N O m o d O m m m D y a L C > d y i m d y m G m X O m D O v drn E v m m m n o• � > m m d m O y O J m a m > 5 W 0 3 N M O ym 2 N y d cc m 8 8 Vl N m y J J n n 8a$I o m ooc00000W co to 0w t010 m Pf e W m W N O O m —7 LL) O 0000 O O O O N H W z o Q m W � x F y O � � Q ¢ O N ITEM OB-2 ITEM OB-3 CITY OF MEDINA 501 Evergreen Point Road, Medina WA 98039 425.233.6400 (phone) 425.454.8490 (fax) www.medina-vva.aov TO: Medina City Council FROM: Robert Grumbach, AICP CC: Donna Hanson, City Manager DATE: June 29, 2009 SUBJECT: Comprehensive Plan Public Participation Program Citizen participation provides a critical communication link among officials, community members and planning staff. Good citizen participation in a decision -making process helps: • Demonstrate open and transparent government • Engages citizens to share ownership in local challenges and solutions • Educates and empowers citizens • Encourages good planning and citizen support of decisions It is important to match the public participation program to the level of review being performed on the comprehensive plan. During the discussions with the strategic planning focus groups, a paradox arose in that group members expressed general satisfaction with the comprehensive plan, but dissatisfaction with the zoning regulations. Since zoning regulations are required to be consistent with and implement the comprehensive plan, it is not clear whether the existing plan adequately reflects all of the values of the community today. To develop a public participation program that matches the desired level of review, it is suggested that the public participation program be divided up as follows: Phase 1: Early Public Outreach • Determine where public involvement is needed and for what purpose Phase 2: Public Participation Implementation • Conduct workshops/ meetings, etc Phase 3: Adoption • Public hearings 11 ITEM OB-3 We are in the first phase of trying to determine where public involvement is needed. Because of the paradox, it is recommended that an early effort be made for public outreach to help lay a foundation for future public participation as we review the comprehensive plan for possible revisions. The focus of the early public outreach would be to: • Identify what Medina residents like and dislike about the existing comprehensive plan. • Ascertain public input about whether the strategic goals and the goals and policies in the comprehensive plan adequately reflect each other. To help with early public outreach, staff would like to utilize some of the expertise that our consultants have to offer in facilitating public meetings. Otak Inc. has considerable experience in public meetings and our current agreement allows for such services to be provided. Early public outreach would consist of the following: • On-line survey and paper survey as appropriate. The survey would be conducted July through September with notices to the community. • One or two public meetings/ workshops in late September and/ or October. The need for a second meeting/ workshop will depend on a need for such. Otak can provide assistance with graphics, presentation boards, survey preparation, website coordination, survey data collection and analysis, and facilitating meetings. Estimated expenditures for each meeting, including coordination with staff and prep work, are between $3,000 and $5,000; and for assistance with the survey between $3,000 and $4,000. The amount of expenditures depends on what we ask for. If presentation materials are kept to a minimal, the budget for early public outreach is anticipated to be between $7,000 and $10,000. The expenditures for Phase 2 Public Participation Implementation will depend on the level of public participation determined by Phase 1. Expenditures would be primarily for assistance in facilitating meetings/ workshops. We do not anticipate requesting consultant assistance in Phase 3. Note: The state has indicated some funding will be made available to smaller cities and towns to conduct comprehensive plan review for the 2011 update. More information will be available at a later date. 2 ITEM OB-4 CITY OF MEDINA 501 Evergreen Point Road, Medina WA 98039 425.233.6400 (phone) 425.454.8490 (fax) www.medina-wa.gov MEMORANDUM DATE: June 29, 2009 TO: City Council CC: Donna Hanson FROM: Robert J. Grumbach, AICP RE: Summary of 2009 Zoning and Permitting Study The Medina zoning code was initially adopted in 1955. Since this time, the same code has remained in effect with about 93 amendments approved over the years. While the overall vision of Medina as a residential community has remained constant, people's views and expectations about the particulars of the zoning code have changed. The context of regulations adopted in the 1950s, 60s, etc are usually lost over time and do not necessarily fit with today. The result is that some property owners feel that the zoning code places an unfair burden on them while others wonder if the regulations provide enough protection. The zoning and permitting study contains an analysis of the existing code and includes policy questions and recommendations. Most of the recommendations involve formatting examples and filling in the blanks. However, there are several key policy questions that need addressing before moving forward on the project. These key policy questions are: 1. Should other residential properties be allowed to convert to "nonresidential uses" or should nonresidential uses be limited to their existing locations? Note: city hall, schools, police and parks are considered nonresidential uses. 2. Should accessory uses/ buildings be allowed to stand alone on a single parcel of land without a single-family dwelling on the same parcel? Note: this issue arises primary when a single ownership has adjoining parcels with a house on one parcel and the other parcel vacant. 3. Should we update the regulations on home occupation? Should the rules be more restrictive or less restrictive? ITEM OB-4 4. Does the city want to continue using original grade as currently defined by a memo that requires geotechnical analysis as the means for establishing the grade from which height is measured? 5. What is the overall philosophy for addressing nonconformity? Should nonconforming rights be narrowly limited or expanded more broadly? 6. Should we continue to use pre -alteration valuation as the measuring stick to determine when a nonconforming right has been abandoned? 7. Are the general recommendations for permitting regulations acceptable? 8. Should we narrow down who is a party of record for administrative appeals and the number of decision points at which a party can file an administrative appeal? Note: a party can still file a petition in superior court if an administrative appeal is not available. 9. Does the approach of creating a Unified Development Code make sense? 2 Final Version ITEM O B — 4 CITY OF MEDINA 501 Evergreen Point Road, Medina WA 98M 425.233.6400 (phone) 425.454.8490 (fax) www.medina-wa.sov 2009 ZONING AND PERMITTING STUDY City of Medina INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this report is to provide a comprehensive examination of collection of regulations that constitutes the city's zoning code. The intent is to: • Provide some basic background information about why we regulate; • Identify various regulatory and policy issues; and • Provide recommendations and examples. The desired outcome of this report is to create a document from which meaningful input can be obtained to develop comprehensive updates to the zoning regulations that achieve the following goals: GOALS 1. Create a more user-friendly code that is more easily understood by people who are not land use professionals; 2. Maintain consistency with state and federal law, including consistency with Medina's comprehensive plan; 3. Clarify confusing and ambiguous language, and correct conflicting regulations; 4. Eliminate redundancy whenever possible; 5. Maintain flexibility to address individual circumstances by better defined discretionary decision -making authority; 6. Include clear intent language and performance standards; 7. Ensure permitting processes include meaningful opportunities for public input as appropriate; and 8. Look for opportunities to streamline permit processes to achieve better efficiencies by reducing time, cost and effort while protecting neighboring property owners and the preservation of community character. NOTE: It is not the goal of this report to propose substantive changes to long-standing zoning standards such as setbacks, structural coverage, height, lot size, etc. If substantive changes to these regulations are thought to be appropriate, they should be examined after the next state -mandated update to the comprehensive plan is completed. Zoning and Permitting Study 1 Final Version ITEM OB-4 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS: This study was prepared at the direction of the Medina City Council and contains analysis and recommendations performed by planning staff with input from the planning commission. The following summarizes the big -picture recommendations prescribed by this study: • Reformulate and reorganize titles 14 and 17 of the Medina Municipal Code (MMC) with the overarching goal of eventually consolidating all development regulations under a single Unified Development Code. • Similar regulations should be consolidated together and cross-referencing should be utilized whenever possible. Reduce and avoid redundancy whenever possible. Additionally, reformatting should include greater use of tables and diagrams to provide easier reading of standards. • Add fill -in -the -blank regulations for better clarity and eliminate conflicting regulations. • Overhaul the chapter and sections containing zoning definitions. Update out-of-date definitions, add new definitions that support the regulations, and delete obsolete definitions. • Establish a consistent approach to addressing nonconformity and revise the code accordingly. Reconsider the use of valuation as a threshold for maintaining nonconformity. • Update the Official Zoning Map by consolidating and creating a digital Official Zoning Map. • Move regulations governing the shoreline areas out of the zoning code and place them in a separate section of the code with regulations that support the shoreline master program. BACKGROUND: The City first adopted permanent zoning regulation on December 11, 1955, by Ordinance 16, the title of which described the following: `An Ordinance regulating land use within the City of Medina; establishing land use districts; adopting standards and regulations for the use of land therein and use of buildings; prescribing penalties.' Since initial adoption, the zoning code has been amended about 93 times over the years. Historically, these amendments have dealt with incremental changes that focused on an issue important at the time. None of the amendments appeared to have involved a comprehensive review or update of the code. The outcome has been a collection of regulations that control development but that does not always follow a coherent pattern. While the early built -out nature of the community provided some logic to the context of incremental changes, the lack of a comprehensive update has resulted in regulations remaining on the book from every decade. This poses a problem because, while the overall vision of the community has remained the same, people's views and overall expectations about their built environment are different today than 50 years ago. Changes in views and expectations have affected the regulatory setting as new case law sets new standards and new state legislation influenced by the changing views and expectations has made the setting more complex. Additionally, the context of why a particular regulation was adopted 10 to 50 years ago becomes somewhat lost over time, which adds to the perception of complexity. The consequence is that some property owners feel there is an unfair burden placed upon them by the zoning code while others wonder if the regulations provide enough protection from unintended consequences. Zoning and Permitting Study 2 Final Version ITEM OB-4 AUTHORITY TO ZONE: Zoning has its roots in the nuisance avoidance police powers delegated to the states by the Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. In turn, states delegate this authority to local jurisdictions through enabling legislation (Revised Code of Washington (RCW)). Medina is classified as a non -charter code city incorporated under the provisions of RCW Title 35A. Under state law, the city council has authority to divide the municipality, or portions thereof, into appropriate zones within which specific standards, requirements, and conditions may be provided for regulating the use of public and private land, buildings, and structures, and the location, height, bulk, number of stories, and size of buildings and structures, size of yards, courts, open spaces, density of population, ratio of land area to the area of buildings and structures, setbacks, area required for off-street parking, protection of access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems, and such other standards, requirements, regulations, and procedures as are appropriately related thereto. ZONING MUST HAVE A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE: The basic purpose of zoning is to promote the general development of a community and to put into practice the goals and policies of a community's comprehensive plan. The very nature of zoning affects property rights. Accordingly, there are constitutional constraints on zoning. When considering code amendments, it is very important to understand these constitutional constraints. A key legal test to consider whenever adopting new zoning regulations is: When considering a zoning regulation, the principle test is whether the action bears "a substantial relation to the public health, safety, morals or general welfare. " Simply said, a zoning regulation must have a valid public purpose. Typically, courts have found valid public purposes to include the protection of air, light, aesthetics, and the protection from nuisances such as avoiding incompatible uses being located together. Ultimately, to be valid the regulation must not place an unnecessary or unreasonable restriction on private property or the pursuit of useful activities. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Comprehensive plans must be consistent with the Growth Management Act set forth in RCW 36.70A. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.130, zoning must be consistent with and implement the comprehensive plan. The comprehensive plan represents the vision of Medina residents on the city's development as a unique residential community and as part of the Seattle/ Bellevue metropolitan region. As such, the goals and policies in the plan are the outcome of extensive public participation and citizen input. While the comprehensive plan is not intended to prescribe standards, it provides the principles from which those standards are derived. The city last updated its comprehensive plan on March 14, 2005. Comprehensive review and possible updates to the plan are required by state law every seven years. The next complete review of the Medina comprehensive plan is due December 1, 2011. Some important goals and policies from the Medina comprehensive plan that shape review of the zoning code: Zoning and Permitting Study 3 Final Version ITEM OB-4 GOALS: LU-G1 Maintain Medina's high -quality residential setting and character. LU-G4 Preserve community treasures, including, but not limited to, those structures and uses that reflect the City's heritage and history. CD-G1 Retain Medina's distinctive and informal neighborhood development pattern. POLICIES: LU-P1 The City shall minimize changes to existing zoning and land use patterns except as to meet above goals when deemed necessary by its citizens. LU-P3 Residential uses shall not be considered for conversion to non-residential use except when clearly supported by the community and when impacts to the surrounding area can be fully mitigated. LU-P9 The City shall afford due consideration to all stakeholders prior to any land use decision. ZONING 101: Because zoning ordinances are based on a common set of enabling statutes, they generally are composed of the same basic seven elements. These elements are: ELEMENT 1: Regulations regarding the uses of land and their segregation into zones. An example of a use is the allowance of a single-family dwelling in a residential zone. ELEMENT 2: Development standards relating to the size and shape of lots and buildings. These are often referenced as lot standards and bulk regulations. ELEMENT 3: Regulations related to nonconformities. These establish vesting property rights of a use that was legal when it was established, but subsequent changes to the zoning code now make it prohibited. ELEMENT 4: Evaluation criteria used to judge the merit of permit applications for things that are not permitted automatically by the zoning ordinance. ELEMENT 5: Procedures for processing permits. Many jurisdictions now separate procedural regulations from other zoning regulations in the State of Washington because of a different enabling act related to permitting adopted by the State Legislature in 1995. ELEMENT 6: Definitions of terms that have specific meaning in the zoning ordinance. ELEMENT 7: A zoning map that displays the different areas where different uses and development regulations apply. WHY ZONING CODES BECOME COMPLICATED: As mentioned previously, zoning codes universally contain seven basic elements. These elements when considered individually are fairly simple and straightforward. However, zoning codes are dynamic and forever changing. When change to a zoning code occurs, the Zoning and Permitting Study 4 Final Version ITEM OB-4 distinction between the different elements is often overlooked and the elements of use, standards, nonconformity, criteria, procedures and definitions often become mixed up causing confusion when the context of the regulation is lost. In the case of the Medina zoning code, the 93 amendments have mixed the different zoning elements resulting in regulations confusing to everyone. WHAT IS A UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE? A Unified Development Code is a single ("unified") document containing existing zoning and subdivision regulations, along with any other development -related regulations found elsewhere in a city code or ordinances. The idea is to consolidate all regulations pertaining to land development into one integrated code. The primary purpose of a Unified Development Code is to create a "single path" for development application and review. Many jurisdictions are adopting Unified Development Codes in order to create a more simple user-friendly code that is more cohesive and easier to understand. Examples include City of Renton's development regulations and Snohomish County. ANALYSIS OF THE CODE: The following is a broad -stroked analysis of the Medina zoning and permitting regulations. The recommendations contained in the analysis are not intended to focus on code -specific changes, but rather provide a suggested framework on how the change would occur after incorporating meaningful input. Recommendations for code -specific changes would occur as proposed ordinances are developed in the next phase of this project. The analysis is divided into a review of each of the basic zoning elements discussed above. To help provide some context, references to code sections and examples are provided. An attachment of titles 14 and 17 of the Medina Municipal Code is included with staff comments to help provide additional context for meaningful input. ZONING ELEMENT 1: THE USES OF LAND AND THEIR SEGREGATION INTO ZONES Relevant Sections of Code: Chapter 17.16 Section 17.20.010.G Section 17.24.010.G Section 17.30.010.G Important Concepts: Section 17.32.010.A Section 17.36.010.A Section 17.56.010 Chapter 17.64 Chapter 17.68 Permitted Uses: The permitted uses listed for the zoning district are generally referred to as uses permitted by right or outright; that is, they are allowed without requiring a zoning permit. Principal Use v. Accessory Uses: Principal use is a prime allowed use of a property. Medina's zoning code lists detached single-family dwellings as the principal use for all zoning districts with additional principal uses listed for commercial horticulture in the SR-30 zoning district, and automobile services in the N-A zoning district. Accessory uses are those uses that are subservient or secondary and accompany the principal use. Medina's zoning code requires accessory uses to be related to the principal use. In Medina, the majority of accessory uses accompany single-family homes. Zoning and Permitting Study 5 Final Version ITEM OB-4 Special Uses: These are uses that do not exactly fit anywhere in the zoning district because they generate impacts such as traffic or create other things that may not be compatible with other uses. Before these uses are permitted, where they are being proposed and how they are designed, must be individually considered. Medina's zoning code treats all nonresidential uses, except those noted in the SR-30 and N-A zoning districts and home occupations as special or conditional uses. • Home Occupations: Many ordinances allow home occupations as an accessory use provided they do not involve employment of more than one person who does not live at the residence, and there are limits on parking, storage, etc. Typical home occupations include beauty shops, small business offices and various small repair shops. Medina's regulations are vague on what qualifies as a home occupation. Key Policy Questions: Nonresidential Uses: Clarification is required whether other residential properties may be converted to "nonresidential uses," or whether these facilities should be limited to their existing location. The comprehensive plan and zoning code indicate that the establishment of new nonresidential uses might be prohibited, but this is not made definitively clear. Additionally, there are some nonresidential uses like public parks that zoning concepts generally consider compatible with residential uses, but are not addressed in Medina's zoning code. • Accessory Uses: Clarification is necessary as to whether an accessory building/ use must be on the same parcel as the principal single-family dwelling use, or if the building or use may be on an adjoining parcel under the same ownership. • Home Occupations: Where and under what conditions should home occupations be allowed? Section 17.64.010 requires these to be customarily incidental and secondary to the use of the dwelling. The meaning of the term "customarily incidental" is vague and too subjective. Other Important Issues: Adult Family Homes: RCW 70.128.140 requires zoning, building and housing codes to apply to Adult Family Homes in the same way as they would apply to single-family residences. The prohibition on Adult Family Homes in the Medina zoning code may be inconsistent with state law. The key concept here is that under the Fair Housing Act an Adult Family Home is the same as any other single-family home. NOTE: RCW 70.128, defines an Adult Family Home as: "a residential home in which a person or persons provide personal care, special care, room, and board to more than one but not more than six adults who are not related by blood or marriage to the person or persons providing the services." It is not clear how the city's definition of Adult Family Home in MMC 17.12.010 reconciles with this law as the city's definition appears to allow for unlicensed Adult Family Homes with four or fewer persons. • Parks and Public Places Zoning District: The zoning code lacks regulations for the Parks and Public Places zoning district. Accessory Buildings: Section 17.48.010 is titled "Accessory Buildings," but subsections B and C are not consistent with the term accessory. If both buildings contain a detached Zoning and Permitting Study 6 Final Version ITEM OB-4 single-family dwelling and neither is subject to the accessory dwelling unit provisions in chapter 17.50, then they are both primary buildings and neither one is accessory. Redundancy. Section 17.04.040 contains authority for condemnation power that is not derived from the same authority as that for adopting zoning. The power to condemn property is covered in chapter 8.12 RCW instead of 35A.63 RCW. This section should be removed from the zoning an placed elsewhere in the Medina Municipal Code, or might be deleted entirely. General Recommendations: Intent statements should be created for each zoning district that are consistent with the comprehensive plan. This would provide a clearer understanding of the public purpose behind the development standards and use restrictions. 2. Regulations for the Parks and Public Places zoning district need to be added with a list of the types of uses allowed. 3. The regulations regarding the use of land are a prime example of how reformatting can help reduce redundancy and make the regulations more user friendly. The following is an example of the use of a table that consolidates and presents the uses allowed in each zoning district: Example of Use Table: Use R-16 R-20 R-30 SR-30 NA Parks & Public Places Detached Single Family Dwelling P P P P P P Accessory Dwelling Unit P1 P1 P1 P1 Historical Uses HUP Automobile Service Station CUP Sports Court A/SUP A/SUP A/SUP A/SUP A/SUP P Swimming Pool A/SUP A/SUP A/SUP A/SUP A/SUP Public/ Private K-12 Schools CUP Government Facilities CUP Underground Utilities P P P P P P Electric Power Stations CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP Commercial Horticulture P Detached Garage A A A A A Religious Facilities I SUP Wireless Facilities See Chapter MMC 17.90 Golf Course CUP Clubs SUP SUP SUP SUP SUP Single Family Accessory Uses A A A A A A Home Occupation I P3 P3 P3 P3 P3 Public and Private Parks I I CUP CUP CUP P Zoning and Permitting Study Final Version ITEM OB-4 P = Permitted Use P1 = Permitted Use subject to MMC 17.50 P2 = See MMC XX P3 = Permitted Use subject to MMC 17.64 P4 = Permitted per design standards in MMC XX HUP = Historical Use Permit required pursuant to MMC 17.56.A CUP = Conditional Use Permit required pursuant to 17.56 SUP = Special Use Permit required pursuant to 17.52 A = Accessory Use 4. As noted earlier, the term "customarily incidental" needs to be better defined for home occupations. 5. Section 17.04.040 should be deleted from the zoning ordinance. (Note: removing this from the zoning ordinance will not affect the city council's authority to use condemnation powers.) ZONING ELEMENT 2: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Relevant Sections of Code: Chapter 17.12 Section 17.20.010 Section 17.21.030 & Section 17.24.010 & Section 17.28.010 Section 17.32.020 Section 17.26.020 Chapter 17.40 Chapter 17.49 Important Concepts: Section 17.50.030 Sections 17.52.020 - .060 040 Section 17.56.052 020 Section 17.64.010 Chapter 17.76 Chapter 17.80 Sections 17.84.030 & .040 Chapter 17.90 Types of Standards: Development standards can be divided into two broad categories — area -wide/ general development standards and use -specific/ special development standards. Area -wide/ general development standards are those that are applied to all development within the zone such as the setbacks, height, and structural coverage. Use - specific/ special development standards are those that are applied to a specific use such as signs, wireless facilities, fences and walls, swimming pools, etc. • Importance of Methodology: The methodology for implementing standards is often as important as the standards themselves. For example, the method on how original grade is determined is a critical factor in the final height of a building. Methodology also influences the difficulty of the review process for permits. • Nonconforming Lots: About 55 percent of the R-16 lots do not meet minimum lot size requirements. The problem with nonconforming lots is that development standards are designed for conforming lots and therefore the development standards often seem to be a barrier in allowing property development consistent with the intent of the zoning. While some of this is addressed with substandard lot development standards, consistency between lot size and development standards is important if zoning regulations are to make sense. Zoning and Permitting Study 8 Final Version ITEM OB-4 Key Policy Questions: • Adequacy: Key policy issues regarding specific adequacy of the standards are not included in the analysis set forth in this report. More information about nonconforming lots can be found under Element 3 of this report. • Original Grade: If original grade continues to be used for measuring height, the method for determining original grade should be added to the code. Other Important Issues: • Manufactured Homes: Federal and state law requires that jurisdictions must regulate manufactured homes built to federal construction standards no differently than other types of homes. However, RCW 35A.63.145 provides minimum standards the city can require a manufactured home to meet. General Recommendations: 1. Add provisions that clarify the methods for determining compliance with various development standards such as height and structural coverage. 2. Consolidate similar types of standards together and use cross-referencing whenever possible. 3. Reformatting and use of tables should be utilized to make the code more user-friendly. The following offers some examples of how the land uses, lot standards and bulk regulations might be consolidated for improved user -friendliness. Example of table containing lot and building development standards: Parks & Zoning District R-16 R-20 R-30 SR-30 N-A Public Places Minimum Lot Area 16,000 20,000 sq 30,000 sq ft 16,500 sq None sq ft ft ft Maximum Density 2.73 2.18 1.46 2.64 N/A Minimum length of Street Frontage 70 ft 90 ft 135 ft None Low 25 ft* 36 ft 30 ft None EZ From High N/A 30 ft N/A None From Low 28 ft* 36 ft N/A None Finished High N/A 30 ft N/A None Grade H From a Front Lot Line 30 ft None Y cc From a Rear Lot Line 30 ft None d v� E 15% of the lot width at the building 15 ft except E From a Side Lot Line 10 ft envelope with a minimum of 10 ft and a 30 ft when None maximum of 20 ft abutting a R zone Maximum Impervious Surface 55% 52.5% 50% None None Structural Maximum 25% 13% Coverage None None Bonus See MMC 17.XX.XXX Zoning and Permitting Study 9 Final Version ITEM OB-4 *Neighborhood Character Preservation District — Medina Heights maximum height is 20 feet from the lowest point of original grade and 23 feet from the lowest point of finished grade N/A = Not applicable ELEMENT 3: REGULATIONS RELATED TO NONCONFORMITIES "NOTE: The regulations on nonconformity are perhaps the most important and confusing for property owners because the majority of properties in Medina appear to have nonconforming conditions. Nonconforming conditions create a tremendous amount of difficulty for the homeowner hoping to make changes to a property and to city staff attempting to ensure compliance with city codes and regulations. As such, compliance with the regulations adds burdensome and expensive requirements to even simple projects. Relevant Sections of Code: Section 14.08.020.A & D Chapter 17.12 Section 17.21.050 Section 17.48.010.0 Section 17.49.030 Important Concepts: Section 17.50.020 Chapter 17.60 Section 17.80.110 Section 17.88.140 Zoning Principle: The theory of zoning ordinances is that nonconforming conditions are detrimental to the public interest. The purpose for making something nonconforming is to eventually terminate the nonconformity. Vested Right: Nonconforming conditions are allowed to continue based on a belief that it would be unfair and perhaps unconstitutional to require an immediate cessation of the nonconformity. Property owners have a vested protection that prevents a city from immediately terminating the nonconforming condition. However, the protection from termination is not unlimited. The city has flexibility in adopting regulations that allows for the termination of a nonconforming use, provided the issues of fairness and "a government taking" are resolved. Compliance with New Regulations: A nonconforming right does not protect the homeowner from complying with later enacted regulations, such as licenses or special permit requirements. The protection simply does not require the immediate cessation of the nonconformity. Once the nonconformity is abandoned, however, any development of the property must conform to codes and regulations in effect at the time of the new development. Burden of Proof: The burden of proof of the existence of a legal nonconforming right falls on the property owner. Once this burden is met, the burden of proof for abandonment shifts to the city. • Types of Nonconformity: It is important to separate the concepts of nonconforming lots, structures and uses. Generally, nonconforming lot size has little impact on the homeowner (except as noted regarding the development standards) while nonconforming structures affects demolition and construction activity, and nonconforming uses affect occupancy. Zoning and Permitting Study 10 Final Version ITEM OB-4 Key Policy Questions: Philosophy: What should be the overall philosophy for addressing nonconformity? Should nonconforming rights be limited to not having the condition immediately ceased, or should greater flexibility be allowed when remodeling or altering buildings that have existing nonconforming conditions? Nonconformity Thresholds: What should be the threshold for eliminating a nonconforming condition? Should valuation continue to be used as the method for establishing that threshold? Other Important Issues: • Expansion of Nonconformity: The minor deviation process conflicts with the city's stated intent to bring nonconforming conditions into compliance with existing regulations because it allows property owners to expand an existing nonconforming condition. • Pre -alteration Valuation: Nonconformity can place a great burden on property owners whether they want to perform a simple remodel or completely redevelop their property. The approach of using a per -square -foot cost of construction (defined as pre -alteration value) for remodeling creates requirements that are difficult to apply in a consistent manner. In summary: The per -square -foot cost of construction approach causes unpredictability. An analysis of data from 2008 showed construction costs varied greatly project -to -project from $165 to $362 per square foot. The 2008 average was $249 per square foot, which is a 24 percent reduction from the $336 per square foot used in 2006 and 2007. This means a property owner potentially has a 24 percent reduction in nonconforming rights for reconstruction this year than from the previous year. - The cost of construction entails the total value of work, including materials and labor. The use of total value penalizes property owners who use more expensive finishing materials, which are more cosmetic rather than structural. The city's method for determining value, while compliant with state law, is somewhat of an art form. We rely on the applicant to provide a value at the beginning of the project and again at the end. The building official must use his best judgment regarding the correctness of the end value. When the end value bumps up against the valuation limitations, it increases the potential for disagreement and magnifies the consequences from the decision. Why so Much Nonconformity: According to King County Assessor records, approximately 46.1 percent of the total lots in Medina are nonconforming. About 13.8 percent of the total lots are 10,000 square feet or less. In the R-16 zone, approximately 55 percent of the lots are below 16,000 square feet or substandard. Another factor is that standards have become more restrictive over the years. The following table shows the progression of changes that have occurred since the first permanent zoning was adopted. Zoning and Permitting Study 11 Final Version ITEM OB-4 Changes in Development Standards: R-16 Zone 1955 1976 1986 1993 1994 2004 Setback 30 ft Front/ 30 ft Front/ 30 ft Front/ 30 ft Front/ 30 ft Front/ 30 ft Front/ Rear Rear Rear Rear Rear Rear 10 ft Side 10 ft Side 10 ft Side 10 ft Side 10 ft Side 10 ft Side Height 30 ft high point 30 ft high point 25 ft low point 25 ft low point 25 ft low point 25 ft low point finished grade original grade original grade original/ original grade original/ 28 ft 36 ft from low finished grade low point point whichever is finished grade lower Coverage 30% 30% 25% 1 25% 25% 25% R-20 Zone 1999 2004 Setback Same as R-16 Same as R-16 Same as R-16 Same as R-16 30 ft Front/ 30 ft Front/ Rear Rear 15% of width 15% of width Side Side Height Same as R-16 Same as R-16 30 ft high point 30 ft high point 30 ft high point 30 ft high point 36 ft from low 36 ft from low 36 ft from low 36 ft low point point original point original/ point original/ original/ grade finished grade finished grade finished grade whichever is whichever is whichever is lower lower lower Coverage I Same as R-16 Same as R-16 17.5% 17.5% 13% 13% Coverage No No 25% if height 25% if height 21 % if height 21 % if height Bonus 20/26 ft high/ 25/26 ft high/ 25 ft low point 25 ft low point low point low point original grade original grade/ original grade original grade 28 ft low point finished grade R-30 Zone Setback Same as R-16 Same as R-16 Same as R-20 Same as R-20 Same as R-20 Same as R-20 Height Same as R-16 Same as R-16 Same as R-20 Same as R-20 Same as R-20 Same as R-20 Coverage Same as R-16 Same as R-16 15% 15% Same as R-20 Same as R-20 Coverage No No Same as R-20 Same as R-20 Same as R-20 Same as R-20 Bonus General Recommendations: 1. An overall philosophy to establish policy direction on nonconformity is necessary. The philosophy should address nonconforming lots, structures and uses as each being a separate item. 2. The following are some possible approaches that could help reduce some of the current burdens property owners feel: - Create a new zoning district in areas with smaller lot sizes. This suggestion may be controversial as this would be a significant change to the code and could result in the creation of additional lots due to the smaller lot size. This approach focuses on eliminating nonconforming conditions by changing the standards. - Create a consolidated set of development standards for substandard lots. This approach also focuses on eliminating nonconforming conditions by changing standards. This would expand the existing code by consolidating substandard lot development Zoning and Permitting Study 12 Final Version ITEM OB-4 standards and reviewing these standards in a more comprehensive manner. The continuation of the practice of carving out exceptions, however, would make the code more difficult to understand and create less certainty for homeowners. Keep the nonconforming conditions, but provide less burdensome regulations where conditions exist that warrant more leniency in terms of strict compliance with the zoning standards. This approach bestows additional property rights beyond the protection of not requiring the nonconforming condition to immediately cease. This fundamentally conflicts with the principle of creating nonconformity in the first place and it also continues the practice of carving out exceptions that make codes more difficult to understand. Any combination of the above could also be applied depending on whether the philosophy toward nonconformity includes a variation in approach based on individual circumstances. 3. Regulations for nonconforming lots, structures and uses should be distinguished from each other and the philosophies carefully applied. ZONING ELEMENT 4 & 5: EVALUATION CRITERIA AND PROCEDURES FOR PROCESSING PERMITS *NOTE: these two elements are evaluated together as they are fundamentally integrated with each other. Relevant Sections of Code: Section 2.78.065 Chapter 17.56 Title 14 Chapter 17.56A Chapter 17.44 & Section 3.64.010 Section 17.80.100 Section 17.50.040 Chapter 17.90 Chapter 17.52 Chapter 17.94 *NOTE: Other related sections to the permitting process, but are not zoning, include chapters 8.06, 12.08, 12.16, 12.28, 12.32, 15.04, 15.20, title 16, and chapters 18.04, 18.08 and 18.12. Important Concepts: • Permit Review Process 101: In simple terms, a permit review process is the gathering and evaluation of information in order to render a decision. Key components are: - Permits: A permit is an official document that grants permission to do something that is regulated by law. A permit application serves as the written request that initiates a review process and contains the applicant's documentation to support approval of the request. - Procedures: Procedures are the steps for conducting the review process. Permitting procedures consist of formal (code based) and informal (policies, forms, checklists, etc) procedures. Ideally, formal procedures should create the overall framework under which review occurs and establishes the procedural protections that will be afforded interested parties, while informal procedures establish the how to administer the review. Legal Notices: Legal notice is the required notice to interested parties about an action. Ideally, the requirements for legal notice(s) should correlate with the degree of potential Zoning and Permitting Study 13 Final Version ITEM OB-4 consequences the action will have on various parties and the amount of discretionary judgment that may be exercised by the decision -maker. - Evaluation Criteria: Evaluation criteria are the standards upon which an application is judged. Clarity is very important as the approval criteria establish the level of discretion that may be exercised in making a decision. - Decision: A decision is the outcome of a permit review process, also sometimes referred to as a government action. • Administrative, Quasi-judicial and Leaislative Decisions. The decision and the decision - making process can be sorted into categories that reflect the decision -making body and the amount of discretionary judgment that may be exercised. While there are no statutory definitions of the different categories, some common terms have emerged to described them: Administrative: These involve staff decisions on project -related applications and code interpretations. Administrative decisions can be ministerial in nature where approval is judged on yes/ no standards, or they can be limited -discretionary in nature where the scope of judgment is narrowly defined. Administrative decisions are made by designated staff and are based on clearly established standards and clearly identified approval criteria. Quasi-Judiciat. These involve decisions that are of a judicial nature generally made by a neutral third -party, such as a hearing examiner or board of adjustment. The term is applied to decision -making processes involving a significant amount of discretion through the ascertaining of facts, weighing of evidence and drawing of conclusions. The primary distinguishing characteristics of quasi-judicial decisions are that they involve a hearing and apply to a specific site. - Legislative: These involve decisions that are of a community -wide interest and do not apply to a site -specific proposal. They are made by the city council under its authority to establish policies and regulations regarding future private and public development, and management of public lands. • Appeals: These are protective measures for reviewing the appropriateness of a government decision. Appeals can be administrative, which is adjudicated by an appointed body, such as the hearing examiner, or they can be judicial, which are adjudicated by a court of law. Administrative appeals are quasi-judicial actions, but are differentiated here by the scope of the action. Procedurally, administrative appeals require a hearing that is either: Open -record: This is where a record is created through testimony and submission of evidence and information. Only a single open -record hearing is allowed per project so if a pre -decision hearing was held, a closed record appeal would be the only option for an administrative appeal. - Closed -record: This is where no or limited new evidence or information is allowed to be entered into the record and only appeal arguments are allowed. The record created by the pre -decision hearing serves as the basis for adjudicating the appeal. Each jurisdiction has the option to allow for administrative appeals and if allowed, what decisions will have an administrative appeal. If a permit has no administrative appeal, a Zoning and Permitting Study 14 Final Version ITEM OB-4 judicial appeal is available and can be filed in accordance with the Land Use Petition Act (LUPA) set forth in chapter 36.70C RCW. DIAGRAM OF A GENERAL PERMIT REVIEW PROCESS: Intake Meeting/ Pre -application Application Received Preliminary Review Determination of Complete Application Notice of Application MINISTERIAL ADMINISTRATIVE/ t OUASI- DISCRENTIONARY JUDICIAL Review Zoning and Permitting Study 15 NOTE: This diagram is intended to show that all permit review processes share the same basic steps. What differentiates a ministerial, administrative discretionary and a quasi-judicial process is the amount of discretion that may be exercised to reach a decision. Notice of Hearing Decision Final Version ITEM OB-4 DIAGRAM OF MEDINA PERMIT REVIEW PROCESSES: Pre -application Meeting Intake Meeting Construction Permit - Minor Deviation Administrative - Admin Variance Discretionary - Admin SUP Notice - SEPA LAND USE PERMITS - Shoreline Permits - Variance -CUP/ SUP Notice Hearing - Historical Use -Rezone Quasi -Judicial Decision Appeal CONSTRUCTION PERMITS Code of Ministerial Conduct Administrative Level Notice Discretionary CMP CMP Decision Level Notice Hearing CMP Quasi -Judicial Appeal Permit. Decision Permit Certificate of Issuance Inspections HPermit Final Occupancy NOTE: This is a simplified diagram showing the most significant steps. Consolidated land use and building permit review is encouraged whenever practical. In consolidated review, permits are reviewed concurrently. However, permits authorizing construction cannot be issued until all other land use and mitigation plans for major construction activities are completed. Zoning and Permitting Study 16 Appeal Final Version ITEM OB-4 Key Policy Questions: • Roles. What is the role of the city council in the project permit review? One of the primary advantages of a council removed from the permit decision -making process is that council members can be more involved with citizens concerns about a project (removes the problem of ex-parte communications or appearance of fairness). It also allows controversial projects to be resolved by a third party who is an expert on land use law. Appeals. When should an administrative appeal be allowed? The city code currently allows not only final decisions on building permits to be appealed, but revisions as well. There is little clarity in the code regarding what revisions trigger the right to appeal. Some consideration should be given to determining whether minor (defined) revisions should be appealable as any appeal will slow down the building process and lead to additional costs for the applicant. Additionally, who should be allowed as a party of record on a decision? Notification. Who should get notice? Currently, property owners within a 300-foot radius receive written notice. With the larger lots in Medina, it may be prudent to have notice provided to property owners within 300 feet of the property borders or three lots distance, whichever is greater. Other Important Issues: Procedural Due Process: Procedural due process affords people with a property interest in a government action, such as a decision, the opportunity to be heard in a meaningful time and manner. It has its foundation in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, and in Article 1, Section 3, of the Washington State Constitution. The courts have recognized that individual property interests in a government action can vary and that jurisdictions have latitude in adopting different procedures as particular situations demand. Generally, the level of discretion authorized to the decision -maker and the potential for consequences to nearby properties are the key considerations when deciding the level of procedural protections that should be afforded to various parties. Variances: A variance is a relaxation of a rule or law. A party seeking a variance must demonstrate that their property is subject to special circumstances that do not apply generally to other properties in the zone area and that a variance is required to permit the exercise of property rights by the owner similar to those exercised by other owners in the area. It is important to understand that special circumstances are derived from conditions such as an irregular shape to the lot or environmental constraints. Special circumstances are not derived from a desire for a certain design or because of personal hardship. It is also important to note that property rights are derived from the code and not the conditions on neighboring properties. The purpose of a variance is to protect property rights as prescribed by the zoning and not to provide a tool for flexible standards. If flexibility is desired, flexibility should be written into the code as being permitted outright or flexibility can be obtained through a process, such as a special use permit or design review. A basic principle of good zoning regulations is that when applying rules that implement the community's vision equally to property owners, it is a rare situation in which a property requires a variance. Zoning and Permitting Study 17 Final Version ITEM OB-4 Quasi-judicial v. Leaislative Rezones: Rezones involving a site -specific property are usually quasi-judicial and are subject to the same procedural restrictions as other project -permit applications involving a hearing, such as appearance of fairness, prohibition from ex-parte communication, one open -record hearing, etc. Legislative rezones affect a wider number of properties and are usually initiated by the city. The same rules relating to adoption of a code amendment generally apply. General Recommendations: A chapter containing procedures for legislative actions such as code amendments and comprehensive plan amendments should be added. 2. Consolidate land use permits and procedural requirements and clarify language. Additionally, consolidate all administrative appeal provisions under a single chapter and use cross referencing as necessary. 3. Categorized permits by Type 1, Type 2 or Type 3 decisions. The following is an example of the category descriptions: Type 1 decisions are administrative actions that are categorically exempt from environmental review prescribed in chapter X (SEPA) or have had environmental review completed in connection with another application or permit. These decisions do not require public notice or a pre -decision hearing. - Type 2 decisions are administrative actions that require public notice and may require environmental review, but do not require a pre -decision hearing. Type 3 decisions are quasi-judicial actions that require public notice, may require environmental review, and do require a pre -decision hearing. 4. To make it the code more user-friendly, a table is suggested to establish the category of a project permit decision and the decision -making procedures and notice requirements. The following is an example of how this might be formatted: Example of Permit Review Table Project permit Decision Decision Notice Re uirements Type Authority Appeal - DOC NOA NOH NOD Building Permits not 1 BO Yes No No No Yes subject to SEPA Minor Deviation 2 D Yes Yes No Yes Yes Shoreline Permit 3 HE Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes DOC = Determination of Completeness per x required NOA = Notice of Application per x required NOH = Pre -decision hearing and notice per x required NOD = Notice of decision per x required APPEAL = Administrative appeal per x allowed BO = Building Official D = Director of Development Services HE = Hearing Examiner Zoning and Permitting Study 18 Final Version ITEM OB-4 5. The chapter on permit fees should have the language cleaned up and minor tweaking to better coordinate it with chapter 3.64 MMC. Permit fees that are spelled out by ordinance rather than by the city manager as prescribed in MMC 3.64.010 should be consolidated into this chapter. 6. Each land use permit should be separated into its own section or chapter. Each type of permit would have its own provisions with a general outline as follows: Example of what a chapter or section on a permit might look like: 17.xx.xxx Conditional Use Permit. A. Applicability. Uses listed as a conditional use in MMC Use Table X may be permitted if a conditional use permit (CUP) is approved. B. Applicant. The City, federal, state or local agencies, property owner(s), or their designated agents may initiate a request for a CUP. C. Procedure. A CUP application is processed as a Type 3 Hearing Examiner decision pursuant to the provisions set forth in X. D. Criteria for Approval. The Hearing Examiner shall approve a CUP only if it is found that: 1. The use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan goals and policies; 2. The use complies with all applicable zoning and development standards and requirements; 3. The design of the proposal and conditions of approval has mitigated all identifiable adverse impacts; 4. The use is compatible with nearby land uses and the surrounding neighborhood in terms of the level of light and glare, noise and parking demand, hours of operation and air quality; and 5. Stipulations are made for the availability of adequate water, sewer, storm water, utilities and urban governmental services. E. Conditions of Approval. Conditions such as site orientation, fencing, buffering, parking location, lighting, access, hours of operation, and others may be imposed as a condition of approval if it is found they are necessary to mitigate identifiable adverse impacts and ensure compatibility with nearby uses. F. Lapse of Approval. If the CUP is not acted on within one (1) year from the date the decision became final, it shall expire. Expiration is automatic and notice is not required. The Director may grant a single six (6) month extension if the applicant makes such a request in writing prior to the expiration date and can show good cause for granting the extension. G. Minor amendments to an approved site plan may be approved by the Director where... ZONING ELEMENT 6: Definitions Relevant Sections of Code: Section 14.04.010 Section 17.80.020 Chapter 17.12 Section 17.90.020 General Recommendations: Chapter 17.12 requires a complete overhaul, including formatting changes, revising existing definitions for consistency with their use in the code, and adding missing definitions. Zoning and Permitting Study 19 Final Version ITEM OB-4 Additionally, some of the definitions contain standards, which should be moved to the sections of code that contain standards. NOTE: The definitions are perhaps the most important component of a zoning ordinance as they are the key to bring clarity to the overall code and allowing regulations to be written in an easier to understand format. • Examples: FORMAT EXAMPLE: 17.12.010 Accessory Dwelling Unit "Accessory Dwelling Unit" means... 17.12.015 Adult Family Home "Adult Family Home" means... TERM EXAMPLE: Outdated definition - Building Site of Record and Building Site Legal; instead, consider a definition of lot or parcel (this is more consistent with legal terms used for subdividing property and Assessor records). This term should then be used consistently throughout the code. ZONING ELEMENT 7: Official Zoning Map Relevant Sections of Code: Chapter 17.04 Section 17.38 — Figure 1 Section 17.21.010 Important Concepts: • Original Zoninq Map: The first official zoning map was adopted in October 1963 by Ordinance 151. Prior to the adoption of the map, the zoning district boundaries were established using metes and bounds to describe them. Since the adoption of the map, only minor revisions have been approved. • Last Amended: MMC 17.04.010 cites the zoning map being last amended in 1992. However, technically the map was amended in 1997 by Ordinance 624, which added the Neighborhood Character Preservation District — Medina Heights overlay to the zoning map. The two maps have not been consolidated. Official Zoning Map not Used: The zoning map in the comprehensive plan and the map used by the public are not official zoning maps and contain several errors. The 1992 Official Zoning Map is only available as a hand drawing. General Recommendations: 1. Consolidate the Medina Heights overlay into the official zoning map and generally update the map so that a digital map can be utilized as the official zoning map. Zoning and Permitting Study 20 Final Version ITEM OB-4 OTHER MEDINA ZONING ELEMENTS 1. SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM: • Regulations related to development occurring in Lake Washington or within 200 feet of its shoreline fall under the review of the shoreline master program. The Medina zoning code has integrated shoreline regulations in chapters 17.38 (shoreline setbacks) and 17.88 (waterfront structures) with the zoning code. • While shoreline and zoning regulations can be integrated, a difficulty arises because code amendments affecting the shoreline jurisdiction are required to be approved by the Department of Ecology. State agency approval is a complex and difficult process and is best limited to the minimum necessary. RECOMMENDATION: The zoning regulations affecting the shoreline should be removed and consolidated under the shoreline master program as part of the program updates due December 1, 2011. 2. ADMINISTRATION PROVISIONS. Chapter 17.08 on administrative provisions is incomplete. Provisions that should be added include the following: - Title - Authority for the zoning - Intent and purpose statements - Who has authority for administering the chapter — recommend the term "Director" be used, to mean city manager or designee - A statement that these are the minimum requirements - Conflict of provisions resolution - Comp plan and zoning consistency - Enforcement authority - Severability 3. VIOLATIONS/ ENFORCEMENT: RELEVANT SECTIONS OF CODE: Chapter 1.15 Section 17.80.130 Sections 14.12.070 and .080 Chapter 17.92 Section 17.04.060 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that enforcement provisions, including violations and penalties, be consolidated under a single chapter. Updates to the enforcement provisions are also necessary to make them more effective. 4. NON -ZONING STANDARDS: RELEVANT SECTIONS OF CODE: Section 17.40.080 Chapter 17.72 RECOMMENDATION: These sections of code deal with private lane access. Section 503 of the International Fire Code requires access roads to within 150 feet of a building (this can be increased when an automatic sprinkler system is installed). Minimum standards include: Zoning and Permitting Study 21 Final Version ITEM O B — 4 20 feet of unobstructed width (except for a code -compliant security gate); 13.5 feet of unobstructed vertical clearance; - Designed with an all-weather surface that can support the load of the fire apparatus; Turnarounds for dead-end roads greater than 150 feet in length. Current private lane standards are not consistent with the fire code and should be modified for consistency. END OF REPORT Zoning and Permitting Study 22 ITEM OB-4 °{'. CITY OF MEDINA 501 Evergreen Point Road, Medina WA 98039 425.233.6400 (phone) 425.454.8490 (fax) www.medina-wa.g EXAMPLE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE TABLE OF CONTENT Subtitle 20.1 Introduction and Administration 20.10 General Provisions 20.12 Definitions 20.14 Fees 20.16 Enforcement Subtitle 20.2 Land Use 20.20 General Provisions 20.21 Zoning Classifications 20.22 Use Regulations 20.23 Lot Development Standards 20.24 Bulk Standards 20.25 Accessory Use/ Buildings 20.26 Nonconformity Subtitle 20.3 Use Specific Standards 20.30 Special Uses 20.31 Conditional Uses 20.32 Home Business 20.33 Accessory Dwelling Units 20.34 Manufacture Homes/ Trailers 20.35 Fences, Walls & Gates 20.36 Signs 20.37 Wireless Communication Facilities 20.38 Renewal Energy Devices Subtitle 20.4 Building and Construction Codes 20.40 General Provisions 20.41 International Building Code 20.42 International Residential Code 20.43 International Mechanical Code 20.44 International Fire Code 20.45 Uniform Plumbing Code 20.46 Grading and Drainage Code ITEM OB-4 Subtitle 20.5 Environment 20.50 Critical Areas 20.50A General Provisions 20.5013 Geologically Hazardous Areas 20.50C Wetlands 20.50D Fish & Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas 20.51 Medina Tree Code 20.52 State Environmental Policy Act Subtitle 20.6 Shoreline Master Program 20.60 Policies 20.61 General Provisions 20.62 Shoreline Designations 20.63 Shoreline Use Regulations 20.64 Shoreline General Development Standards 20.65 Development Standards for Moorage Piers and Shoreline Structures 20.66 Shoreline Protective Measures 20.67 Shoreline Restoration Provisions 20.68 Shoreline Environmentally Sensitive Areas Subtitle 20.7 Permits 20.70 Administrative Discretionary 20.70A Administrative SUP 20.70B Administrative Variance 20.70C Minor Deviation 20.70D Original Grade Determination 20.71 Discretionary - Hearing Examiner 20.71 A Conditional Use Permit 20.71 B Non -administrative SUP 20.71 C Variance 20.71 D Historical Use Permit 20.71 E Substantial Development Permit 20.71 F Shoreline Conditional Use Permit 20.71 G Shoreline Variance 20.72 Discretionary - Planning Commission 20.71A Site Plan Review 20.71 B Site -Specific Rezone 20.73 Land Division 20.73A Lot Line Adjustment 20.74E Short Subdivision 20.75C Subdivision 20.74 Construction Mitigation Plan 20.75 Critical Areas 20.75A Critical Areas Administrative Review 20.7513 Reasonable Use Exception ITEM OB-4 Subtitle 20.8 Procedures 20.80 Permitting Procedures 20.81 Text Amendments 20.82 Zoning Map Amendments 20.83 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Subtitle 20.9 Infrastructure Improvements 20.90 Private Lanes 20.91 Structures in Unimproved Public Rights -of -Way 20.92 Construction in Streets ITEM OB-5 CITY OF MEDINA Office of the City Manager DATE: June 29, 2009 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Donna Hanson, City Manager SUBJECT: Revenue and Expenditure projections We are working with Mike Bailey, Finance and IT Director for the City of Redmond and Tracy Dunlap, Finance Director for the City of Kirkland to review our the revenue and expenditure projections. They are not available on June 29th because they are attending the GFOA Conference in Seattle that week. We have provided draft reports to them, but don't have any feedback at the time that packets need to be distributed. Both Mike and Tracy will be attending our July 13th meeting to present a thorough analysis and answer questions. c)6/14 (2,W� DELIVERY DEADLINE DOCUMENT TYPE 4�S1V;j CITY OF MEDINA 501 Evergreen Point Road; PO Box 144 Medina, WA 98039 City Hall 425-233-6400; Police 425-233-6420 G� �'✓!�(. LC L DOCUMENT DISTRIBUTION RECORD FOR COUNCIUBOARDS/COMMISSIONS Date Officer CITY COUNCIL DATE PLANNING TIME COMMISSION C_� C Serial No 7 - 7 DATE TIME Biglow, Lucius (F/ " Z4 0� Beardsley, Kirk Blazey, Drew Boyd, Pat Jordan, Bret I Frank, Jim Lawrence, Jim Goudy, Molly a� Nelson, Mark 9 O'Brien, Judie Rudolph, Robert Price, Jeff Shawn Sparks, Karen Whitney, CIVIL SE VICE PARK BOARD DATE TIME COMMIS ION DATE ° TIME Dern-Palmer, John Dickmann, Gabriel ; ' Jorgen n, Pete Flag_Susan Shapiro, An ony Greenberg; Susan Kochel, Matt Nunn, Heija / Please return completed form to " y Clerk's Office. Thank you. P.tFormslCity Council Formslcouncil doc delivery2-2009.doc