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