HomeMy WebLinkAboutO-2914 - Adds Ch. 22G.120; amends Sec. 22A.010.160, site plan review (22A.010, 22G.120)CITY OF MARYSVILLE
Marysville,Washingtpn
ORDINANCE No.CA'-.'1...cI'-.'f__
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
CHAPTER 22G.120,SITE PLAN REVIEW;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 development
regulations;and
WHEREAS,the City,in reviewing and amending its development regulations has complied
with the notice,pubiic 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
Procedures;
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 Chapter 22G.120,Site Plan Review;and
WHEREAS,at a public meeting on~~2.~l.ol~the Marysville City Council reviewed
and considered the Pianning 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 9,2012,as required by
RCW 36.70A.106;and
WHEREAS,the City has complied with the reqUirements of the State Environmental Policy
Act,Ch.43.21C RCW,(SEPA)by adopting a determination of non-significance for the proposed
revisions to the City's development regulations;
NOW,THEREFORE,THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MARYSVILLE,WASHINGTON DO
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1.Approval 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.Reguired 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 Titie 22G,Administration and Procedures,is hereby amended by
adopting new Chapter 22G.120,Site Plan Review,to read as follows:
Chapter 226.120
SITE PLAN REVIEW
Article 1.General Provisions
226.120.010 Title for citation.
This chapter shall be known as the site plan review ordinance of the city of Marysville,and
the requirements set forth in this chapter are applicable to all new construction,
redevelopment,and exterior expansion of multiple-family,commercial,industrial,utility,
shoreline development,public-Initiated land use proposals,parking,and landscaping site
plan reviews.
226.120.020 Purpose.
(1)The purpose of this chapter is to provide a method for approval of site plans,not
reviewed through Chapters 22G.090 Planned Residential Development or 22G.100 Binding
Site Plan.
(2)It is further the purpose of this chapter to provide for and promote the health,safety
and welfare of the general public,and not to create or otherwise establish or designate any
particular class or group of persons who will or shouid be especially protected or benefited
by the terms of this title.
(3)It is the specific intent of this chapter to place the obligation of complying with its
requirements upon the property owner and applicant,and no provision or term used in this
chapter is intended to impose any duty whatsoever upon the city or any of Its officers,
employees,or agents,for whom the implementation or enforcement of this chapter shall
be discretionary and not mandatory.
(4)Nothing contained in this chapter is intended to be,nor shali be,construed to create or
form the basis for any iiabiiity on the part of the city,or its officers,employees or agents,
for any injury or damage resulting from the failure to comply with this chapter,or by
reason or in consequence of any inspection,notice,order,certificate,permission or
approval authorized or issued or done in connection with the implementation or
enforcement of this chapter,or by reason of any action or inaction on the part of the city
related In any manner to the enforcement of this chapter by its officers,employees,or
agents.
22G.120.030 Scope.
Review and approval is required for ali new construction,redevelopment,and exterior
expansion of multipie-family,commercial,industrial,utility,shoreline development,pubiic-
initiated land use proposals,parking,and iandscaping site pian reviews;or as otherwise
specified in Title 22 MMC Unified Deveiopment Code.Ali of the above projects require the
review and approval of a site plan except for:
(1)Construction activities which do not require a bUilding permit;
(2)Construction of a single famliy residence not located within shoreline jurisdiction or
a regulated critical area or buffer;
(3)Construction or expansion of a residential accessory structure;
(4)Interior remodels of existing structures when not a change of occupancy (such as
converting from a residential use to a commercial use);and
(5)Tenant improvements when the modification or addition does not necessitate an
expansion to the parking area.
22G.120.040 Administration.
The community development director shall have the duty and responsibility of
administering the provisions of this chapter with the authority to promulgate rules and
regulations to Implement and administer this chapter.
Article II.Review Process
22G.120.050 Preappllcation requirements.
(1)Preapplication Meeting.Prior to submittal of a site plan application for consideration by
the city,the appilcant shall request a preapplicatlon meeting with city staff on the express
conditions that the city,Its officers,and employees shall be heid harmless and released
from any claims for damages arising from discussions at said preappiication meeting.The
city shall provide written comments to the appiicant,and may discuss the general goals
and objectives of the proposal,the overall design possibilities,the general character of the
site,including environmental constraints,and development.The focus of the meeting shall
be general in nature and none ofthe discussions shail be interpreted as a commitment by
the city or appiicant.No statements or assurances made by city representatives shall In
any way relieve the appiicant of his or her duty to submit an application consistent with all
relevant requirements of all pertinent city,state and federal codes,laws,regulations and
land use plans.
(2)Preliminary Drawing.
(a)The applicant shall provide an accurate drawing showing proposed site layout,
building location(s)and size,access,utilities location,open space and adjacent land
use.This drawing must be provided to the city before a preapplication meeting may be
scheduled.
(b)The applicant shall also provide a legal description of the property and a vicinity
map.
22G.120.060 Application submittal.
(1)Application Fees.The applicant shall pay the required fees as established in Chapter
22G.030 MMC Land Use and Development Fees when submitting the land use application
for site plan review.
(2)Application Documents.A site plan review application shall conslst.of the following
documents:land use application form,legal descriptions of parcel(s),vicinity map,title
report/plat certificate,site plan,environmental checklist (if required),building elevations,
landscaping plans,and preliminary drainage plans and drainage report.The following
additional items may need to be submitted if determined to be necessary:traffic impact
analysis,geotechnicai report,and critical areas analysis and preiimlnary mitigation plan.
The city shall provide appropriate forms and application instructions.
(3)Site Plan.The proposed site plan shall contain the folloWing Information:
(a)The name or title of the proposed project;
(b)The date,north arrow and appropriate engineering scale as approved by the
community development department (e.g.,one Inch equals 20 feet;one Inch equals 30
feet;one inch equals 40 feet;one Inch equals 50 feet;one Inch equals 60 feet);
(c)Property lines and dimensions;
(d)Location and name of existing and proposed streets and right-of-way;
(e)Drainage channels,watercourses,marshes,lakes and ponds;
(f)Existing and proposed structures and setbacks;
(g)The location of existing driveways;
(h)All easements and uses including the references to Auditor's File Numbers;
(i)Existing and proposed utilities services;
(j)Fire hydrant location and distance;
(k)Five-foot contour lines;
(I)Preliminary street profile together with a preliminary grading and preliminary storm
drainage plan and report;
(m)A typical cross-section of the proposed street improvements;and
(n)Any regulated sensitive area such as wetlands,steep slopes or wildlife habitat.
(4)AdditlDnal ApplicatlDn Requirements.Ifthe city finds the presence of any of the
following site cDnditions,then the city may require the applicant to provide additional
infDrmation such as detailed studies and site plans.
(a)Site has existing slDpes exceeding 15 percent for mDre than 50 (running)feet;
(b)Site has permanent drainage CDurse Dr wetlands;
(c)CDnditiDns exist on the site or in the area adjacent to the site which may contribute
to or cause erosiDn,drainage prDblems,surface slippage Dr Dther geDIDgical hazards;
(d)Site has Dther unique physical features Dr sensitive features;
(e)The develDpment will result In 10 Dr more peak-hDur vehicular trips onto public
streets,Dr sight distance/safety concern.
(5)Land Use AppiicatiDns PrDcessed Simuitaneously.Unless an applicant for site plan
approval requests otherwise,a site plan applicatlDn shall be prDcessed simultaneDusly with
any applicatlDn fDr rezones,variances,street vacations and similar quasi-judicial Dr
administrative actions tD the extent that procedural reqUirements applicable to these
actiDns permit simultaneous prDcessing.
22G.120.070 Review process -City department action
(1)If the site plan applicatlDn meets all the requirements specified in MMC 22G.120.060,
then the applicatiDn shall be deemed cDmplete and the cDmmunity develDpment
department shall circulate copies of the site plan applicatlDn tD relevant city departments
whD shall review the applicatiDn and furnish the cDmmunity develDpment department with
a repDrt as tD the effect Df the prDpDsed development upDn the public health,safety and
general welfare,and cDntaining their recDmmendatiDns as tD the approvai Df the
application.The report submitted shall include recDmmendatiDns as tD the extent and
types Df imprDvements to be prDvlded.
(2)Site pian review is exempt from the public notice requirements set fDrth in MMC
Section 22G.010.090 unless a cDncurrent review prDcess such as State Environmental
PDilcy Act (SEPA),rezDne,variance,etc.reqUires public nDtice.
22G.120.080 Approval.
(1)Standards fDr Site Plans.The standards set fDrth In this chapter are tD be used for site
plan review.
(2)ProvisiDns fDr Approval.ND site plan shall be approved unless appropriate provisiDns
are made for,but nDt limited tD,the public health,safety,and general welfare.
22G.120.090 Public use reservations.
Street Rlght-Df-Way Realignment,DedicatlDn or Widening.If the city cDncludes that the
street right-Df-way adjacent tD a propDsed develDpment is inadequate fDr Widening,and
realignment Df the eXisting street Is necessary as a direct result Df the prDpDsed
develDpment,then the city may reqUire a dedicatiDn Df necessary right-Df-way and
imprDvement Df that right-Df-way,in accordance with Chapter 12.02A MMC Street
Department CDde.
226.120.100 Design with environment.
Information generated through the environmental review process,if applicable,will be
used in designing the development in such a way as to mitigate potential adverse
envlronmentai impacts.
226.120.110 Development with existing structures.
In reviewing any project,all existing structures shall comply with the standards of this
chapter and the requirements ofTitle 22 MMC.However,if the structures are
nonconforming,the applicant shall bring the project into compliance with the standards set
forth in Title 22 MMC to the maximum extent possible.This chapter does not allow the
applicant to increase or intensify the nonconforming nature of the structure.
226.120.120 Site-specific energy conservation.
The use of site-specific energy schemes shall be encouraged that best offer opportunities
for maximum use of southern exposures and the use of natural climate conditions.
Consideration should be given to design which preserves opportunities for potential future
installments of solar energy systems as allowed for in Chapter 22C.270
226.120.130 Landscaping.
Landscaping shall be reqUired on all projects in accordance with Chapter 22C.120 MMC
Landscaping and Screening and all other applicable landscaping design standards outlined
in Title 22 MMC.
226.120.140 Off-street Parking.
Off-street parking shall be provided in accordance with Chapter 22C.130 MMC Parking and
Loading.All parking iots shall be hard-surfaced and designed per city standards.
226.120.150 Loading areas.
Loading areas,when required,shall be prOVided per Chapter 22C.130 MMC Parking and
Loading.
226.120.160 Outdoor storage.
Outdoor storage areas that contain material not for sale,rent or lease to the public shall be
fully screened from view from all streets and residential zoning boundary in accordance
with MMC Chapter 22C.120,Landscaping and Screening,and all other applicable screening
standards outlined in Title 22 MMC.
226.120.170 Signs.
All signs shall be per MMC Title 22 and Chapter 22C.160 MMC Signs.All signing shall be
approved by the city and integrated into the bUilding design and the overall site plan.
226.120.180 Building setbacks.
All setbacks for structures shall comply with Title 22C MMC Land Use Standards.
22G.120.190 Fire hydrants.
(1)Fire hydrants shall be installed in accordance with Title 9 MMC Fire.
(2)Fire hydrants must be approved and operating prior to wood framing of bUlidings.
22G.120.200 Access and circulation.
Ingress,egress and general clrcuiation shall be approved by the city engineer.
22G.120.210 Street frontage.
Whenever a project is proposed on an existing public street,frontage shall be improved to
current city standards in accordance with Chapter 12.02A Street Department Code.
22G.120.220 Sewer improvements.
All sewer improvements shall be required as specified in Title 14 MMC Water and Sewers.
22G.120.230 Water improvements.
Ali water improvements shall be required as specified In Title 14 MMC Water and Sewers.
22G.120.240 Drainage improvements.
Drainage improvements shall be required as specified in Title 14 MMC Water and Sewers.
22G.120.250 Clearing and grading.
(1)Before any site modification where existing natural features would be disturbed or
removed,a grading plan must be submitted to the city and approved by the city showing
the extent of the proposed modification.
(2)Debris,waste,trees,timber,junk,rubbish or other materials of any kind shall not be
burled In any land or deposited in any surface water.
(3)All erosion control plans must be in compliance with city standards and MMC Chapter
14.15 ,Controlling Storm Water Runoff From New Development,Redevelopment,and
Construction Sites.
22G.120.260 Easements.
Permanent easements shall be provided,as necessary,for utilities and other public
services identified prior to certificate of occupancy being granted.
22G.120.270 Underground wiring.
(1)It is the intent of this provision to eliminate insofar as possible the installation of
overhead wires and of wire-carrying poles being henceforth developed under this chapter.
(2)All projects shall have all power lines,telephone Wires,television cables,fire alarm
systems and other communication Wires,cables or lines placed in underground location
either by direct burial or by means of condUit or ducts and,with the exception of the city
fire alarm system,providing service to each building site.
(3)All such underground installations or systems shall be approved by the appropriate
utility company and shall adhere to all governing applicable regulations including but not
limited to the city and state applicable regulations and specific requirements of the
appropriate utility.
(4)Ifthe appropriate utility company will not approve an underground installation or
system because it cannot reasonably be installed according to accepted engineering
practices,applicant may request a waiver of the requirement of underground installations
or systems to the city engineer.Ifthe city engineer concurs that under accepted
engineering practices underground installations or systems cannot reasonably be installed,
a waiver shall be granted.Ifthe city engineer does not concur,recommendations shall be
made relating to the undergrounding of electrical service to the applicant for transmittal to
the appropriate utility company.
(5)All utility easements within a proposed development shall be approved by the
appropriate utility company before a certificate of occupancy is granted and shall be shown
in their exact location on the final record drawing of said development.
(6)Nothing in this section Or any other section of this title in relation to underground
wiring shall be construed to prohibit the placement of pad mounted transformers,terminal
pedestals or other electrical and communications devices above ground,as determined by
the appropriate utility involved.
22G.120.280 Improvements -Smooth transition required.
All improvements required by this title shall be extended as necessary to provide a smooth
transition with existing improvements,both laterally across the street and longitudinally up
and down the street,for utilities,vehicular and pedestrian traffic.
22G.120.290 Utility improvement plans.
All street and utility improvement plans shall be prepared by a state of Washington
licensed civil engineer.All plans shall be prepared on reproducible Mylar material and
presented to the city for approvaI.
22G.120.300 Acceptance of improvements.
The city engineer is authorized to accept all improvements and/or right-of-way dedications
required in this title on behalfof the city.
22G.120.310 Performance guarantee requirements.
(1)Site improvements shall be completed prior to a certificate of occupancy being granted,
or at the discretion of the city engineer,or his designee,security for performance in
accordance with the provisions of Chapter 22G.040 MMC may be supplied.The duration for
any such security for performance shall not be longer than one year.
(2)Security for performance shall not be released until all applicable departments
responsible for acceptance and maintenance of improvements have approved said release.
22G.120.320.Site improvements designated.
Site Improvements shall include,but are not limited to:grading of entire width of street
rights-of-way,asphalt/concrete surfacing of roadways (as per city standards contained in
the street code),curbs,gutters and sidewalks constructed according to the street code and
construction Df drainage facilities.The developer Shall request inspection of the
improvements by theeity engineer or his designee at the following times:
(1)ErDsion control measures are Installed;
(2)RDugh grading is complete and prlDr to placing pit run;
(3)Storm sewer completion;
(4)RDadway including curb and gutter completion;
(5)When all improvements,including monuments,have been placed.
All improvements which do not meet city standards shall be immediately replaced or
repaired prior to proceeding.The city engineer,or his designee,will inform the develDper
in writing of any improvements which are nDt acceptable.
22G.120.330 Warranty requirements for acceptance of final improvements.
(1)After satlsfactDry cDmpletlon of roadway improvements,Including streets,curbs,
gutters and sidewalks,and storm water drainage improvements,and after satisfactory
completion of on-site retention facilities,if any,the owner and/or developer shall provide
the city with security for maintenance in accordance with the provisiDns Df Chapter
22G.040 MMC.The warranty period fDr the security for maintenance shall be a minimum of
tWD years.
(2)For the purpDse of this title,final approval shall nDt be given until such time as all of
the reqUired improvements have been satisfactorily Installed in accordance with the
requirements of preliminary approval or security for performance and security fDr
maintenance have been provided and accepted by the city.
22G.120.340 Survey.
A survey cDnducted by or under the supervision of a registered land surveyor licensed In
the state of WashingtDn must be submitted;provided,that the community development
director may waive this requirement for minor projects,additiDns,or other proposals
where property boundaries are knDwn.Where a survey Is waived,an agreement shall be
executed with the city saving and holding it harmless from any damages,direct Dr indirect,
as a result of the apprDval Df the site plan.
226.120.350 Dedication.
Any dedication,donation or grant as shDwn on a site plan shall be completed and recorded
with the auditor's office prior to a certificate of occupancy being granted.
226.120.360 Review process -Decision by city.
(1)If the city engineer and community deveiopment director find that appropriate
provisions have been made according to the requirements of this title,then the site pian
may be granted preliminary approval.If the city engineer and community development
director find that the site plan does not make the appropriate provisions according to the
requirements of this title,the city may disapprove or return It to the applicant for
modification and conditions for approval.
(2)The site plan approval decision shall be in writing and shall include findings of fact and
conclusions.
(3)Approval of the site plan by the community deveiopment director and city engineer
shall constitute authorization for the applicant to deveiop the site plan facilities and
improvements as required In the site plan approval.
(4)Administrative decisions may be appealed in accordance with MMC 22G.Ol0.S30
22G.120.370 Application time limits.
(1)A decision on site plan applications subject to this chapter shall be made within one
hundred twenty days of submission of a complete application as set forth in MMC
22G.Ol0.0S0.
(2)The following shall be excluded when calculating this time period:
(a)Any period during which the applicant has been requested by the department to
correct plans,perform required studies,or provide additional required information
due to the applicant's inaccurate or insufficient information.
(b)Any period during which an environmental impact statement is being prepared.
(c)Any period for administrative appeals.
(d)Any extension for any reasonable period mutually agreed upon in writing between
the applicant and the department (RCW 36.70B.080(1)).
22G.120.380 Termination of Approval.
(1)Approval of the application shall expire five years from the date the approval was final.
(2)The period may be extended by the director for up to one year upon showing a good
faith effort to complete the project and proper justification.Proper justification consists
of one or more of the following conditions:
(a)Economic hardship;
(b)Change of ownership;
(c)Unanticipated construction and/or site design problems;
(d)Other circumstances beyond the control of the applicant determined acceptable by the
community deveiopment director.
Exception:Due to current economic conditions,projects which receive preliminary
approval on or before December 31,2012 may appiy to the director for a one-time,36
month time extension.
(3)The applicant must file a written request with the director requesting the extension at
least 30 days before expiration.
(4)Once the time period and any extensions have expired,preliminary approval shall
terminate and the application is void and deemed withdrawn.
Section 4.Section 22A.010.160,Amendments,of MMC Chapter 22A.010,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.OIO.160 Amendments.
The following amendments have been made to the UDC subsequent to its adoption:
Ordinance Title (description)
Site Plan Review Code
Effective Date
~S-,2012"
Section 5.Severability.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 shail 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.
.~ASSED by the City Councii and APPROVED by the Mayor this Z10 fh day of
iJ..:XJJM~r'-----'-,2012.
CTIY OF MARYSVILLE
By:
Attest:"If}()
By:tJJI3~
J)l/Ju'J CI CLERK
Approved as to form:()
By:A~~
GRANT K.WEED,CITY ATIORNEY
Date of Publication:NDv.;,1,f(aD!J-
Effective Date:'De [,?>2or 1.--
(S days after publication)
CITY OF MARYSVILLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR ACTION
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE'November 26 2012,,
AGENDA ITEM:AGENDA SECTION:
PAl2022 -Site Plan Review Code New business
PREPARED BY:APPROVED BY:
Angela Gemmer,Associate Planner
--ATTACHMENTS:
1.PC Minutes,dated 9/11/[2 and 10/9112
2.PC recommendation MAYOR CAO
3.Inventory of site plan projects subject to code
4.Adopting Ordinance
BUDGET CODE:AMOUNT:
DESCRIPTION:
The Planning Commission (PC)held a Public Hearing on October 9,2012 to review a proposed
new chapter to MMC Title 22G,Administration and Procedures,entitled Site Plan Review.
Presently the review process for commercial and multi-family site plans not reviewed through
Chapter 22G.080,Planned Residential Development,and Chapter 22G.100,Binding Site Plan is
not outlined.The proposed site plan review chapter is modeled after the chapters that outline the
submittal requirements and review and approval process for subdivisions,binding site plans,and
planned residential developments.The proposed site plan review chapter is intended to provide
applicants with a consolidated location for development requirement,.In addition,presently a
term for expiration of site plan approvals is not specified in code;an approval term valid for five
years from the date of approval is proposed.The approval term could be extended by the director
for one year upon showing properjustificatiou.Due to current economic conditions,projects
which receive preliminary approval on Or before December 31,2012 could apply to the director
for a one-time,36 month time extension.
The PC held a public workshop on September II,2012 and a duly advertised public hearing on
October 9,2012 to review the proposal,and received testimony from staff.There wa,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:
Affirm the PC's Recommendation and adopt a new chapter,Site Plan Review,to MMC
Title 22G,Administration andProcedures,by Ordinance.
CCOUNCIL ACTION:
September 11,2012
MARYSVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
7:00 p.m.City Hall
CALL TO ORDER
Cilair Leifer called tile September 11,2012 meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.noting tile
excused absence of Steve Lebo.
Chairman:
Commissioners:
Staff:
Absent:
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Steve Chair Leifer
Jerry Andes,Marvella Toler,Roger Hoen,Eric Emery
Senior Planner Cileryl Dungan,Associate Pianner 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,witll 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 wllat 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.Under the 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 witll other codes.Ms.Gemmer
responded tilat it was intended to stream line the process and codify it.Commissioner
Andes questioned the Pre Application requirements.Hefelt that the Pre App could be a
little more nailed down in some cases to prevent unforeseen costs in particular situations.
Senior Planner Dungan responded that tllere is now language included in letters regarding
Pre App stating that a Pre App approval does not vest a developer in current codes and are
Marysville 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 Leifer questioned 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 staff would 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 ofsetting 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 be accepted 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 Commission
Seplember 11,2012 Meeting Minutes
Page 2 of3
NEXT MEETING:
September 25,2012
,/j>,/~"//!...:'--ll'Z.;·j/JJ-P.~.,.-,_._~'
Amy He~,Recording"k-cretary
Marysville Pia/wing Commission
September 11,2012Meeting Minutes
Page 3 013
-<""-'''1 .",,..,Mary~y,t!1~;MARYSVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
I""':;_.""'''~''~'''''k'~',,(~~~~,:;,~~~::,:.~;".(,l
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
Motion 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
wouid 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 well as to establish a time limit to ensure projects remain current.Chair
Leifer questioned ifthere was any further discussion regarding what comes out of a pre-
application meeting .and whether or not any language 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 1 of3
pre-app.The issue is whether or not an appiicant 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 of the 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 materials
provided and have questions prepared forthe 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 developers;both with
CUiTent 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 ofthe Council recognizing
the Commission for their efforts in and dedication to Community Planning.
Mr.Holland also updated the Commission on the CDBG meeting that had taken 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
Doleshel 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 getting
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 agreement that itwas 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
//i '//,"-',7iO'~;0:?~>71:),.."j
Amy Hess,Recording Secretary
Marysville Planning Commission
October 9,2012 Meeting Minutes
Page 3 of3
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
80 Columbia Avenue.Marysvilie,WA 98270
(360)363-8100 •(360)651-5099 FAX
PC Recommendation -Site Plan Review Code
The Planning Commission (PC)of the City of Marysville,having held a public hearing on October 9,
2012 in review of a NON-PROJECT action amendment of the Mal)'sville Municipal Code,proposing
amendments to the Maiysville Municipal Code,Title 22G,Administratioll Clud Procedures,adopting a
new chapter 22G.120,Site Plan Re1JieJv,and having considered the exhibits and testimony presented,PC
does hereby enter the folloVJing findings,conclusions and .recolIuTIendat1011 for consideration by the
Mal)'sville City Council:
FINDINGS:
1.111e Community Development Department held a public meeting to introduce tlte NON-
PROJECT action Site Plan Review Code to tbe community onSeptember 11,2012.
2.The proposal was submitted to the State ofWashington Department of Commerce for 3D-day
expedited reviewonJuly 9,2012,in accordance with RCW 36.70A.l06.
3.The PC beld a public wack session to review the NON-PROJECT action amendmL"llts
proposing adoption of the NON-PROJECT action Site Plan Review Code amendments as
described above,on September 11,2012.
5.Thc PC held a duly-advertised public heating on October 9,2012 and received testimony from
city staffand the public.
6.At the public hearing,the PC reviewed and considered the Site Plan Review Code.
CONCLUSION:
At the public hearing,held on October 9,2012,the PC recommended APPROVING the Site Plan
Review Code.
RECOMMENDATION:
"!s'sion Chair
SITE PLANS SUBMITTED FROM 2003 -2012 WITH SITE PLAN APPROVAL
WHICH WILL BE IMPACTED BY IMPLEMENTATION Of SITE PLAN EXPIRATION TERM
File Project Name Filing Date Preliminary Civil Construction Expiration Project Location and
Number Approval Date Plan Approval Date if Description
Date Expiration
Term Adootedi'.....'i ,,.i ·"·...,·,·..·"..i,,..,.,.......",....,i .....,..;··U,,·,,·!,"·'.'.·,""!'!!I ,'!ii:!!"·."!';!"·:'!··'·:!"'·!i''i'""ii'
PA06024 Leifer Dev.Lot 2 3/15/06 4/27/06 11/3/06 4/27/11;13101 41"Avenue NE/
4/27/14 if 37,363 SF industrial
extension warehouse building
applied for and comprised of 21,163 SF
granted.(Bldg.A)and 16,200
SF (Elldo.B1
PA07067 Tran Commercial Site 11/20/07 2/28/08 7/30/08 2/28/13;17033 28'h Drive NE/
Plan 2/28/16 if 10,476 SF retail
extension development.
applied for and
aranted.
PA07068 MarySVille Ford 12/30/07 12/15/08 -12/15/13;15900 Smokey Point
12/15/16 If 8oulevard/35,000 SF
,extension car dealership.
applied for and
aranted.
PA07069 Nyhus Office Addition 12/3/07 3/7/08 -3/7/13;3/7/16 1423 6"Stl'eet and
if extension 601 State Avenue/
applied for and 1,832 SF office
aranted.addition.
PA08007 Emerald Hills Estates 5 2/7/08 10/17/08 10/27/08 10/17/13;14727 43"Avenue NE/
10/17/16 if 4-unit mobile home
extension park expansion
applied for and
aranted.
Site Plans Submitted from 2003-2012 With Site Plan Approval Which Will Be Impacted by Implementation ofSite Plan Expiration Term Page 1
!File Project Name Filing Date Preliminary Civil Construction Expiration Project Location and
Number Approval Date Plan Approvel Date if Description
Date Expiration
Term Adopted
..L •••••<',i.,t>i ,,,'.......:',."'!,'.,ijii,.!:ji!,,j,.,,),,!,i...".i,
PA08013 Tran State Avenue 2/28/08 8/21/08 -8/21/13;1085 Stete Avenue/
Plaza 8/21/16 if 17,145 SF retail strip
extension mall and 4,080 SF
applied for and restaurant.
oranted.
PA08033 State Avenue Plaza 7/9/08 8/20/08 1/21/09 8/20/13;1023 State Avenue/
8/20/16 if 5,560 SF commercial
extension bUilding consisting of
applied for and 4,261 SF office and
oranted.1 298 SF aDartment
PA10029 I Zorzi Mixed Use Project 11/28/10;4/7/11 9/27/11 2/27/12 9/27/16;2810 164th Street NE/
I revised application 9/27/19 if Ph.1-18,098 SF
submitted.extension warehouse/showroom
applied for and with 2,000 SF
granted.incidental stone
fabrication;Ph.2-
37,679 SF warehouse/
showroom;4,873 SF
retail,3,959 SF cafe,4
residential sosrtments.
PA11006 Lam Commercial Site 4/1/11 7/13/11 Under review.7/13/16;17033 28th Drive NE/
Plan Modification 7/13/19 iF Change of use from a
extension church to a furniture
applied for and store.
aranted.
Site Plans Submitted from 2003-2012 with Site Plan Approval Which Will Be Impacted by Implementation ofSite Plan Expiration Term Page 2
File Project Name Filing Date Preliminary Civil Construction Expiration Project Location anll
Number Approval Date Plan Approval Date if Description
Date Expiration
Term Adopted,i(>i.·.·..·..···>......................................................•.................:..................................,..'.......,.......'j......•'....'....•.······,··U·,.··.·.····
PA06039 Brickyard Commons 5/5/06 6/15/06 3/5/07 6/15/11;1222 Ash Avenue/19
6/15/14 if multi-family units.
extension
applied for and
aranted.
PA06085 Sagewood 11/07/06 7/8/08 8/10/09 7/8/13;7/8/16 6227,6309 and 6315
if extension 83rd Avenue NE/138
applied for and unit townhouse
aranted.develoDment.
PA07015 47th Ave Condos 03/19/07 08/10/07 -8/10/12;711047'"Avenue NE/
8/10/15 If 6 unit condominium
extension consisting of 2 3-unit
applied for and buildings.
aranted.
PA07057 Sterley MUltifamily 09/05/07 8/21/08 -8/21/13;811647'"Avenue NE/
8/21/16 if 16 unit multi-family
extension consisting of 3
applied for and buildings.
aranted.
PA07061 Balbir Townhomes 09/28/07 11/28/07 12/2/08 11/28/12;4731 100'"Street NE/
11/28/15 if 12 unit townhouse.
extension
applied for and
aranted.
PA09008 Armar Road 3/11/09 6/26/09 9/9/09 6/26/14;682851"Avenue NE/9
Townhomes 6/26/17 If unit multi-family
extension apartment.
applied for and
aranted.
&liJ mmmmmm'O"'llll
Site Plans Submitted from 2003-2012 with Site Plan Approval Which Will Be Impacted by Implementation of Site Plan Expiration Term Page 3