HomeMy WebLinkAboutO-2913 - Adds Sec. 22G.010.205; amends Sec. 22A.010.160, land use application expiration (22A.010, 22G.010)CITY OF MARYSVILLE
Marysville,Washington
ORDINANCE NO;;.413
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MARYSVILLE,WASHINGTON,AMENDING
THE CITY'S MUNICIPAL CODE AND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS BY
AMENDING TITLE 22G,ADMINISTRATION AND PROCEDURES,BY ADDING
SECTION 22G.Ol0.20S,EXPIRATION OF APPLICATION;AND AMENDING
SECTION 22A.Ol0.160 OF MMC CHAPTER 22A.Ol0,GENERAL
ADMINISTRATION,RELATED TO TRACKING AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY'S
UNIFORM DEVELOPMENT CODE.
WHEREAS,the State Growth Management Act,RCW Chapter 36.70A mandates that cities
periodically review and amend development regulations which include but are not limited to
zoning ordinances and official controls;and
WHEREAS,RCW 36.70A.106 requires the processing of amendments to the City's
development regulations in the same manner as the original adoption of the City's
comprehensive plan and development regulations;and
WHEREAS,the State Growth Management Act requires notice and broad public
participation when adopting or amending the City's comprehensive plan and deveiopment
regulations;and
WHEREAS,the City,in reviewing and amending its development regulations has complied
with the notice,public participation and processing requirements established by the Growth
Management Act,as more fully described below;and
WHEREAS,the City Council of the City of MarySVille finds that from time to time it is
necessary and appropriate to review and revise provisions of the City's municipal code and
development code (MMC Title 22);and
WHEREAS,during public meetings on September 11,2012 and October 9,2012,the
Planning Commission discussed the proposed amendments to MMC Title 22G,Administration and
Proceduresj
WHEREAS,after providing notice to the public as reqUired by law,on October 9,2012,
the Marysville Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on the proposed amendments to the
City's development regulations;and
WHEREAS,on October 9,2012 the Planning Commission made a Recommendation to the
City Council recommending the adoption of the proposed amendments to MMC Title 22G,
Administration and Procedures,by adding MMC Section 22G.01O.205,Expiration of Application;
and
WHEREAS,at a public meeting on NoWI>t!.l7 "2f,,1:CI~the MarySVille City Council reviewed
and considered the Planning Commission's Recommendation and proposed amendments to the
development regulations;and
WHEREAS,the City of MarySVille has submitted the proposed development regulation
revisions to the Washington State Department of Commerce on July 25,2012,as required by
RCW 36.70A.l06;
NOW,THEREFORE,THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MARYSVILLE,WASHINGTON DO
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS,
Section 1.Aooroval of Planning Commission's Recommendation and Adoption of
Findings and Conclusions.The Planning Commission's October 9,2012 Recommendation
regarding the proposed development regulation revisions,including the Findings and Conclusions
contained therein,as set forth in the attached Exhibit "A",is hereby adopted and incorporated
herein by this reference.
Section 2.Required Findings.In accordance with MMC 22G.OI0.500,the following
findings are made regarding the development regulation amendments subject of this ordinance:
(1)The amendments are consistent with the purposes of the comprehensive
plan;
(2)The amendments are consistent with the purpose of Title 22 MMC;
(3)There have been significant changes in the circumstances to warrant a
change;
(4)The benefit or cost to the public health,safety and welfare Is sufficient to
warrant the action.
Section 3.MMC Title 22G,Administration and Procedures,is hereby amended by
adopting new Section 22G.010.205,Expiration of Application,to read as follows:
22G.Ol0.20S Expiration of Application
(1)Any application which has been determined to be complete,and for which the
applicant fails to complete the next application step for a period of one hundred eighty
days after issuance of the determination of completeness,or for a period of one hundred
eighty days after the City of Marysville has requested additional information or studies,
wili expire by limitation and become null and void.The department may grant a one-
hundred-eighty-day extension on a one-time basis per application.In no event shali an
appiication be pending for more than three hundred sixty days from the date the
application is deemed complete.For purposes of this subsection,all time during which the
City is reviewing materials submitted by an applicant wili be excluded.This subsection
shali apply to applications regardless of whether the applications were submitted prior to
the effective date of this section,as amended.
(2)Applications which have been determined to be complete by the effective date of
the ordinance codified in this title shall have one hundred twenty days to complete the
project review,receive a decision,and complete any appeal provisions of this chapter.
The department will notify any applicants in writing that are subject to this provision
within thirty days of the effective date of the ordinance codified in this title.For purposes
of this subsection,all time during which the City is reviewing materials submitted by an
applicant wili be excluded.
Section 4.Section 22A.OIO.160,Amendments,of MMC Chapter 22A.01O,General
Administration,is hereby amended as follows by adding reference to this adopted ordinance in
order to track amendments to the City's Unified Development Code:
"22A.010.160 Amendments.
The following amendments have been made to the UDC subsequent to its adoption:
Ordinance Title (description)
Expiration of Application
Effective Date
VI .~,2012"
Section 5.Severablilty.If any section,subsection,sentence,clause,phrase or work of
this ordinance should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent
jurisdiction,such invalidity or unconstitutionality thereof shaH not affect the validity or
constitutionality of any other section,sUbsection,sentence,clause,phrase or word of this
ordinance.
Section 6.Effective Date.This ordinance shall become effective five days after the
date of its publication by summary.
. .M
PASSED by the City Council and APPROVED by the Mayor this z.fo day of
b-JtPL,emkr ,2012.
CIlY OF MARYSVILLE
By:
Attest:~-;~
By:Ih~
QI'"1 C~ERK
Approved as to form:IJ
By:~«()J.VC)/~WEED,CITY ATTORNEY
Date of Publication:
Effective Date:
'0ml.~»,3D\d..-i'Uz-e ~,LDI'2-
(5 days after publication)
CITY OF MARYSVILLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR ACTION
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE-November 26 2012-".
AGENDA ITEM:AGENDA SECTION:
PA12022 -Expiration ofApplication New business
PREPARED BY:APPROVED BY:
Angela Gemmer,Associate Planner
ATTACHMENTS:
1.PC Minutes,dated 9/11/12 and 10/9112
2.PC recommendation MAYOR CAO
3.Memo to PC dated 7/24/12
4.Inventory of land use projects subject to code
5.Adopting Ordinance
BUDOET CODE:AMOUNT:
DESCRiPTION:
The Planning Commission (PC)held a Public Hearing on October 9,2012 to review a proposed
amendment to MMC Chapter 22G.01O,Land Use Application Procedures,consisting of a new
section entitled Expiration ofApplication.RCW 36.70B.080 requires establishing time peliods
for local government actions for each type of project pennit application.Currently there is no
language codified in the MMC related to the expiration ofan application if an applicant does not
respond to review comments or requests for additional information in a timely manner.The
proposed amendment,MMC Section 220.010.205 Expiration ofApplication,would require
applicants to respond in a timely manner and keep the application status current,ensuring that
projects are not allowed to be shelved and vested to outdated code requirements.
The PC held a public workshop on September 11,2012 and a duly advertised public hearing on
October 9,2012 to review the proposal,and received testimony from staff.There was no public
testimony at the public hearing.Following the public hearing,the PC made a motion to
recommend the proposed amendment to Marysville City Council for adoption by ordinance.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Affinn the PC's Recommendation and adopt the amendment to MMC Chapter 220.010,
Land Use Application Procedures,by adding MMC Section 220.010.205,Expiration of
Application,by Ordinance.
COUNClL ACTION:
Mary~ytl;~~j
r"-T"'"-;:"'"C-
September 11,2012
MARYSVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
7:00 p.m.City Hall
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Leifer called the September 11,2012 meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.noiing the
excused absence ofSteve Lebo.
Chairman:
Commissioners:
Staff:
Absent:
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Steve Chair Leifer
Jerry Andes,Marvelta Toler,Roger Hoen,Eric Emery
Senior Planner Cheryl Dungan,Associate Planner Angela
Gemmer and Recording Secretary Amy Hess
Steve Lebo
June 12,2012 and July 24,2012
Motion made by Commissioner Toler,seconded by Commissioner Andes to approve the
June 12,2012 meeting minutes as presented,Motion carries,with Commissioner Hoen
abstaining as he was not present (4-0).
NEW BUSINESS:
Site Plan Review Standards
Ms,Gemmer gave an overview of the proposed revisions to the Site Plan Review Process.
She described what was currently In place and what the differences would be in the
proposed revisions.Additionally,an expiration term was being proposed to be established
for Site Plan Reviews.Underthe current economic situation,a 36 month extension could
be granted.Ms.Gemmer gave some examples of how the proposed revisions could be
applied in actual situations.
Commissioner Andes questioned if this was consistent with other codes.Ms.Gemmer
responded that it was intended to stream line the process and codify it.Commissioner
Andes questioned the Pre Application requirements.He felt that the Pre App could be a
little more naiied down in some cases to prevent unforeseen costs in particular situations.
Senior Planner Dungan responded that tilere is now language included in lelters regarding
Pre App stating that a Pre App approval does not vest a developer in current codes and are
MarysviJIe Planning Commission
September 11,2012 Meeting Minutes
Page 1 of3
subject to change.She added that the comments staff provides are quite comprehensive
and try to point out any foreseeable code changes.
Chair Leiferquestioned the exceptions of necessity of a site plan approval,He didn't feel
that this provision was necessary if interior Improvements don't require land use change,
Ms.Gemmer replied that it was intended to be applied in situations where an addition was
proposed,She noted that she would clarify the language to be clearer.
Commissioner Toler questioned the projects and applications that were currently unfinished.
Ms.Gemmer responded that staffwould make contact with the appropriate parties that
would be affected by the revisions if they were adopted.The goal was to allow for an end
pointfor projects that really will not be continued.
Ms.Gemmer noted that if the Commission was in support,it would be set for public hearing.
Commissioner Emery stated he was in support of setting a Public Hearing.
FEMA Biological Opinion Response
Senior Planner Dungan stated that this was more of an informative item which didn't require
any action by the Commission,She described the 3 choices cities were given for projects
within flood plains.She also described the standards in place by the City and how fish
within the flood plains are protected by these standards.The hope was that the
documentation prOVided to FEMA would beaccepted and current City Codes and standards
would be sufficient.
Chair Leifer questioned when the Shoreline Master Program would be reviewed again.
Senior Planner Dungan replied that it had been most recently updated in 2006,with some
administrative changes proposed a few months back.It was scheduled for review every 7
years.Senior Planner Dungan was glad that the 2006 Plan was approved when it was,as
the process seems to be a cumbersome and slow one.
There was discussion regarding requirements for traffic mitigation of cofFee stands,gas
stations and the like.There was also discussion regarding the new Walmart being
constructed on Hwy.9.
Commissioner Hoen wanted to take a moment to remember 9/11.Chair Leifer thought that
it was too easy for people to become complacent and forget about what happened and let
our guard down.It was a good reminder to stay vigilant.
ADJOURNMENT:
Motion made by Commissioner Emery,seconded by Commissioner Toler to adjourn the
meeting at 7:54 p.m.Motion carries,(5-0).
Marysville Planning Commjsslon
September 11,2012 Meeting Minutes
Page 2013
NEXT MEETING:
Sepiember 25,2012
Marysville Planning Commission
September 11,2012 Meeting Minutes
Page 30'3
October 9,2012 7:00 p.m.City Hall
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Leifer called the October 9,2012 meeting to order at 7:03 p.m.
Chairman:
CoMmissioners:
Staff:
Absent:
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Steve Chair Leifer
Jerry Andes,Marvella Toler,Roger Hoen,Eric Emery,Steve
Lebo,Kelly Richards
Senior Planner Chris Holland,Associate Planner Angela
Gemmer,CAOICD Director Gloria Hirashima,Recording
Secretary Amy Hess
None
September 11,2012
Malian made by Commissioner Andes,seconded by Commissioner Toler to approve the
September 11,2012 meeting minutes as presented.Motion carries,with Commissioner
Richards abstaining as he was not present (6-0).
PUBLIC HEARING:
Site Plan Review Standards
Ms,Gemmer described the 2 proposed ordinances in front of the Commission for approval
tonight and the intent behind them.Commissioner Hoen questioned whether the
ordinances were completely neW or modifications of existing ones.Ms.Gemmer responded
that both ordinances were entirely new and went into further detail ofwhat each ordinance
would accomplish if adopted.Chair Leifer requested clarification of references of what
wasn't captured in 22G.What was not included?Ms.Gemmer described what was
included in each section of Code and what was being proposed in the ordinances in front of
the commission,Mr.Holland added that the intent was to codify the process that had been
being followed since about 1995 adding that this would give the applicant some certainty of
the process as weli as to establish a time limit to ensure projects remain current.Chair
Leifer questioned if there was any further discussion regarding what comes out of a pre-
application meeting and whether or not any ianguage had been included.Ms,Gemmer
responded that staff does their best to give the most pertinent comments and anticipate any
potential code changes,but that only current information could be prOVided at the time of
Marysville Planning Commission
October 9,2012 Meeting Minutes
Page 10f3
pre-app.The issue is whether or not an applicant is vested at the time of pre-app or final
application.
Motion made by Commissioner Emery to approve ordinances as written and forward to
Council for approval,seconded by Commissioner Toler.Motion carries,(7-0).Public
Hearing closed at 7:21 p.m.
NEW BUSINESS:
School District Capital Facilities Plans
Mr.Holland went over the bi-annual process that was ahead ofthe City.Mr.Holland added
that all fees,except for one,would all be going down significantly.There was further
discussion regarding current multi-family housing projects.Commissioner Hoen had some
questions related to how projected student counts were figured.Mr.Holland replied that he
would have to refer those types of questions to the School District,as the City does not
come up with these numbers.He recommended the Commission look over the materiais
provided and have questions prepared for the Public Hearing which would be held in 2
weeks.
Mr.Holland informed the Commission that the impact fee deferral ordinances had been
approved by Council and seemed to be being well accepted by deveiopers;both with
current projects as well as prospective projects.
Ms.Hirashima introduced a Proclamation passed at City Council last night regarding
National Community Planning Month.She echoed the sentiment of the Council recognizing
the Commission for their efforts in and dedication to Community Planning.
Mr.Holland also updated the Commission on the CDSG meeting that had takon place
earlier tonight and the presentation the applicants had given.Ms.Hirashima added that it
was a valuable experience hearing the different groups present and that it really gives the
City a better idea of the groups and organizations working within the Community.
COMMENTS FROM COMMISSIONERS:
Chair Leifer welcomed the new Commissioner,Kelly Richards.Commissioner Richards
introduced himself and gave a brief biography of his life in Snohomish County.
Commissioner Emery announced that the next meeting would be his last,and he was giving
his official resignation tonight.He added that he had very much enjoyed his time on the
Commission.
Commissioner Lebo questioned whether there had been any discussion regarding the
DolesheJ Tree Farm Property and if would be becoming a park.Ms.Hirashima described
that recent conversations and events regarding this project,but that it seemed to be gelling
closer.Commissioner Lebo added that he felt it would be a great benefit to the community
and offered his services in any aspect needed.There was agreementthat it was important
Marysville Planning Commission
October 9,2012 Meeting Minutes
Page 2 of3
to follow through with this project,especially given the amount of volunteer time that had
been dedicated to this as well as the benefit to the City and Community.
ADJOURNMENT:
Motion made by Commissioner Lebo,seconded by Commissioner Richards to adjourn the
meeting at 7:53 p.m.Motion carries,(7-0).
NEXT MEETING:
October 23,2012
Amy Hess,Recording Secretary
Marysville Planning Commission
October 9,2012 Meeting Minutes
Page 3 of3
N,aH,sviUe
(~,~!:"~!i'!~T~j
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
80 Columbia Avenue ~Marysville,WA 98270
(360)363-8100 •(360)651-5099 FAX
PC Recommendation -Expiration ofApplication Code
The Planning Commission (PC)of the City of Maqsville,having held a pnblic heating on October 9,
2012 in review of a NON-PROJECT action amendment of the Marysville Municipal Code,proposing
amendments to the Marysville Municipal Code,Title 22G,Administratio1l and ProcedNres,adopting a
new section 22G.OI0205,Expiration ifApplicati011,and having considered the exhibits and testimony
presented,PC does hereby enter the following findings,conclusions and recommendation for
consideration by the Marysville City Council:
FINDINGS:
1.The Community Development Department held a public meeting to introduce the NON-
PROJECT action Expiration ofApplication Code to the community on September 11,2012.
2.The proposal was submitted to the State ofWashlngton Department of Commerce for 30-day
ccxpcdlted review onJulyJ5,2012,in accord~!1ce~,j~hRCW 36,70A.10~.
3.The PC held a public work session to review the NON-PROJECT action amendment
proposing adoption of the NON-PROJECT action Expiration of Application code
amendment as described above,on September 11,2012.
5.The PC held a duly-advertised pnblic hearing on October 9,2012 and received testimony from
city staffand the public.
6.At the public hcar-lng,the PC reviewed and considered the Expiration ofApplication code.
CONCLUSION:
At the public hearing,held on October 9,2012,the PC recommended APPROVING the Expiration of
Application code.
RECOMMENDATION:,
r~V A/~';\AarJsviUe \(~~:'GT~
MEMORANDUM
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
80 Columbia Avenue.Marysville,WA 98270
(360)363-8100 •(360)651-5099 FAX
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
RE:
July 24,2012
Planning Commission
Angela Gemmer,Associate Planner
Application Expiration
PA 12022
RCW 36.708.080 requires establishing time periods for local government actiohs for each
type of project permit application and provide timely and predictabie procedures to
determine whether a completed project permit application complies with adopted
development regulations.This time period shouid not exceed 120-days,unless written
findings are made that specifies the amount of additional time is needed to process specific
complete project permit applications or project types.
The 120-day review requirement and exceptions are codified in MMC 22G.010.200 Final
decisIon.The 120-day clock is only running when the project is being reviewed by the City.
The 120-day clock is not ruMing when the City asks for additional information from the
applicant,or requests revisions to the application.In some cases applicants fail to respond
in a timely manner and the status of an application is simply put on hold.Currently there is
no language codified in the MMC related to the expiration of an application if an applicant
does not respond in a timely manner.
The following language,if adopted,would require applicants to respond in a timely manner
and keep the application status current,ensuring that projects are not allowed to be shelved
and vested to outdated code requirements:
226.010.205 Expiration of Application
(1)Any application which has been determined to be complete,and for which the
applicant fails to complete the next application step for a period of one hundred eighty days
after issuance of the determination of completeness,or for a period of one hundred eighty
days after the City of Marysville has requested additional infcrmation or studies,will expire by
limitation and become null and void.The department may grant a one-hundred-eighty-day
extension on a one,..time basis per application.In no event shall an application be pending for
more than three hundred sixty days from the date the application Is deemed complete.For
purposes of this section,all time during which the City is reviewing materials submitted by an
applicant will be excluded.This subsection shaii apply to applications regardless whether the
applications were submitted prior to the effective date of this section,as amended.
(2)Applications which have been determined to be complete by the effective date of the
ordinance codified in this title shall have one hundred twenty days to complete the project
review,receive a decision,and complete any appeal provisions of this chapter.The
department will notify any applicants in writing that are subject to this provision within thirty
days of the effective date ofthe ordinance codified in this title.
A iist of projects that would be affected by this code provision,if adopted,will be provided
to the Planning Commission,prior to holding a public heal"ing.
LAND USE PROJECfS SUBMITTED FROM 2003 -2012 THAT DID NOT OBTAIN PREUMINARY APPROVAL AND
WILL EXPIRE UPON IMPLEMENTATION OF EXPIRATION TERM FOR INACTIVE LAND USE PROJECTS
File Number Project Name Filing Date Preliminary Expiration Date Project Description/Units
Aooroval Date...•i •.,
••••••••••H:···•••••.ii'.'!'HU:.·'·H,·.:·:Wlli.il',::iW,·!,'i'••i·ii.,i.:,.'i:·"••PA06036 Third Street Center 4/18/06 Not obtained.120-days from 1625Third Street/4,338 SF retail and 4 multi-
date of adoption familV units
PA07020 Josten's Addition 3/27/07 Not obtained.120-days from 1716 4th Street/Commercial addition and change
date of adoption of use,
PA08032 Mid-City Investments 6/26/08 Not obtained.120-daysfrom West side of 36th Drive NE approXimately 900 feet
date of adoption south of 136th StreetNEI T~~new 13A32 SF
bulldlnqs (total of 26 864 SF .
PA08040 Quilceda Crossing 7/29/08 Not obtained.120-days from Northwest corner of 88th Street NE and 36th Avenue
date of adoption NE/15,064 SF retail complex comprised of two
buildinqs (one 9 184 SF and the other 5 880 SF),
PA08046 Northwest Baptist Church 9/12/08 Not obtained.120-days from 114 Beach Avenue/4,168 SF fellowship hall
Fellowshio date of adoDtion
~'.,',\""b','..'..···············a~bsl1ort;;.'··;..•.•..••••.,.,•.••••.•••••••..•.••••,.••.•••.•.•'••,.•.••'•••.•:•....••.••.•••••••..••'.••••.•••.•.•...•.,,'•.,•.•..••••..•../'•••••••••"..•..!.,..•
PA06027 Smokey Point 3/22/06 Not obtained.120-days from North of 152fio Street,east ofSmokey Point
Subdivision date of adoption Boulevard,and west of the Smokey Point
Channel/256-lot subdiVision
SP07005 Linscott Short Plat 7/11/07 Not obtained.120-days from 9622 48th Drive NE/4·lot short subdivision
date ofadootion
$P07007 Roberts Short Plat 9/14/07 Not obtained.120-days from I 7723 60th Drive NE/2-1ot shortsubdivision
date ofadootiori
PA07008 AUdobon Ridge "Navy 2/11/07 Not obtained.120-days from South of 98th Street NE and west of 83rd Avenue
Housina"date ofadootion NE/141-lotsubdiVision
PA07013 King's Court at the Ridge 3/9/07 Not obtained.120-days from 5515 83rd Avenue NE/24-lot subdivision
date ofadootion
PA07014 Estates at Whiskey Ridge 3/15/07 Not obtained.120-days from 7318 83rd Avenue NE/14·lot subdivision
date ofactoation
PA07034 The Firs at Twin Lakes 4/25/07 Not obtained.120-days from 16900 block of 25th Avenue NEt 69 unit Planned
date of adoption Residential Development (PRO)consisting of
detached SFRs.
PA08028 1310 Cedar A artments 5 13/08 Not obtained.120-davs 1310 Cedar Avenue/30 unit a artment comDlex
PA09027 StoneY Ridqe 7/17/09 Not obtained.120-da s 7014 61st Place NE 12-lot subdivision
Site Plans Submitted from 2003-2012 which will Expire Upon Implementation of Expiration Term for Inactive Land Use Projects Pagel