Loading...
Planning Commission PKT 03-07-2018City of Federal Way PLANNING COMMISSION March 7, 2018 City Hall 6:30 p.m. Council Chambers AGENDA 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES February 21, 2018 4. AUDIENCE COMMENT — UNRELATED TO COMMISSION BUSINESS 5. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT 6. COMMISSION BUSINESS • Discussion of the Historic Preservation Inter -Local Agreement and Timeline for Completion • Continued Discussion on the Docket Process and Possible Code Amendments to Implement 7. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS 8. ADJOURN Commissioners Wayne Carlson, Chair Tom Medhurst Lawson Bronson, Vice -Chair Hope Elder Dawn Meader McCausland Tim O'Neil Diana Noble-Gulliford Anthony Murrietta, Alternate Dale Couture, Alternate KAPIanning Commission\201 MAgenda\Agenda 03-07-18.doc City Staff Robert "Doc" Hansen, Planning Manager Margaret Clark, Principal Planner E. Tina Piety, Administrative Assistant 253-835-2601 tivwtiv.citvoff ederahva xom CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PLANNING COMMISSION February 21, 2018 City Hall 6:30 p.m. City Council Chambers MEETING MINUTES Commissioners present: Lawson Bronson, Tom Medhurst, Wayne Carlson, Hope Elder, Diana Noble- Gulliford, Tim O'Neil, Dawn Meader McCausland, and Dale Couture. Commissioners absent: Anthony Murrietta (ex). City Staff present: Planning Manager Robert "Doc" Hansen, Principal Planner Margaret Clark, Planning Intern Riley Bushnell, Deputy Public Works/Street Systems Manager Desiree Winkler, City Traffic Engineer Rick Perez, Deputy City Attorney Mark Orthmann, and Administrative Assistant Tina Piety. CALL TO ORDER Chair Carlson called the meeting to order at 6:30 P.M. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of February 7, 2018, were approved as presented. AUDIENCE COMMENT None ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT None COMMISSION BUSINESS City Center Access Study Deputy Public Works/Street Systems Manager Winkler introduced the topic and City Traffic Engineer Perez delivered the staff presentation. The city is re -initiating the City Center Access Study. Traffic Engineer Perez went over the history of the project. The city first addressed city center access by completing an access study in 2004-2006 and then presented a proposal to the City Council. The Council decided to take No Action on the proposal in 2009, in part due to the economy, community opposition to an I-5/312`' interchange, and impacts to Steel Lake Park. Traffic volumes decreased with the recession, but they are increasing and are one reason to re-initiate this project. There have been changes in land use and density which support an increase in housing and jobs, which in turn, generates increased traffic (foot, bike, transit, and vehicles). It is time to consider improving access to/from I-5, reducing queues from South 320"' onto I-5, and improving access for all trips (City Center Core, outlying residential, emergency, transit, etc.). Traffic Engineer Perez briefly went over the previous proposals and how they KAPlanning Commission\2016Weeting Summary 02-21-18.doc Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 February 21, 2018 might change. The past analysis will need to be updated. The City Council approved and funded,a Request for Qualifications in November 2016 to start the project. Traffic Engineer Perez displayed the current project timeline. Parametrix was hired as the consultant and a study team is in place. The city is updating the traffic models. An open house is planned for early April. Staff is in process of determining the stakeholders to be a part of this project. The stakeholders specified to date are: • City of Federal Way • Parametrix • WSDOT • FHWA • South King Fire & Rescue • Puget Sound Regional Council • King County Metro • King County Roads • Muckleshoot Indian Tribe • Sound Transit • City Council • Planning Commission • Social Service Provider Groups: • Federal Way Community Connections • Federal Way Multi -Service Center • Industrial Realty Company • Davita • Belmor Property Owners • Belmor HOA • Supporters of Steel Lake Park • Commons Mall • Federal Way Chamber • Pedestrian and Bicycle Interests • Saint Francis Hospital • Additional Social Service Providers: • Senior center • Catholic Community Services • Consejo Counseling Referral • ElderHealth Northwest • Emergency Feeding Program • Korean Women's Association • Ukrainian Community Center • Federal Way Public Schools • Hillside Shopping Center Owners • EarthCorps (Friends of the Hylebos) • North Lake Residents • East Campus Businesses He asked Commissioners if they have any suggestions of additional agencies and/or people to invite to be a stakeholder. A question the city must consider is since we cannot build our way out of congestion, what are the most cost-effective ways to make positive changes. Staff has developed a public involvement plan to build informed consent for the project. The plan will promote understanding of the purpose and need for the project. Outreach will include: stakeholder interviews; neighborhood briefings; business outreach; summer fairs and festivals; and open houses — in person and online. Discussions were held on using more transit, use of city's complete streets plan, possible routes, routes that are pedestrian and bike friendly for crossing I-5, HOV lanes, restricted traffic, and possible development plans by Belmor Park owners and how the plans might impact the City Center Access Project. Continued Discussion on the Docket Process Planning Manager Hansen delivered the staff presentation. At the last meeting, Chair Carlson had asked Planning Manager Hansen to create a Gantt chart(s) for clarity and to outline the process. Planning Manager Hansen presented two Gantt charts, one with and the other without a public hearing. He stated the main difference between the two is how much time staff will spend researching individual proposals. Discussion was held on the specifics of the process and public involvement. Principal Planner Clark reported that staff intends to develop a webpage for outreach and public involvement. Chair Carlson commented that he thinks the docket procedure Gantt chart should show more time for staff preparation, as most likely will be the case. He feels it is important that the City Council see how much time staff spends on proposed amendments. KAPlanning Commission\2016\Meeting Summary 02-21-18.doc Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 February 21, 2018 Commissioner Meader McCausland inquired that if the proposed docket process is adopted, would staff implement it this year? Planning Manager Hansen replied that staff will implement the process this year if it is adopted. Since it is already February, the timing will be different than what is shown on the chart. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS The next meeting will be March 71h where the docket process discussion will continue and there will be a discussion on the historical preservation process. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 7:40 P.M. KAPlanning Commission\2016\Ivleeting Summary 02-21-18.doc KING COUNTY REGIONAL PRESERVATION PROGRAM Historic Preservation Services Approval Procedures When any person requests King County Historic Preservation Program staff (staff) to conduct work in a city with which the County has an interlocal agreement for historic preservation services the following procedures shall apply: Within five working days of a request for services the county staff person receiving the request shall provide the Historic Preservation Officer (HPO) with the following information: o property address; o name and contact information for person requesting service, and their relationship to the property; o description of service requested (landmarking inquiry; environmental review; Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) application; technical assistance*, etc.); o a copy of any correspondence or information specific to the request; and, o an estimate of time needed to render the service. • The HPO shall forward this information, along with an estimate of cost to complete the work, to the designated City representative for consideration. The City shall provide the HPO with electronic or written notification to proceed or not to proceed within two business days of receipt of notification from the HPO. • The HPO shall provide copies of any information or correspondence generated in the process of providing the service to the City for its files (final reports, formal correspondence, recommendations, research data, etc.) unless otherwise agreed upon by the City and the HPO. • In addition, the City should establish internal administrative rules on how to process a request for historic preservation services including, but not limited to, landmark nominations, COA applications and review, environmental review, and incentive program coordination. • EXCEPTION: For most jurisdictions we will automatically process COA applications without a notice to proceed. If your jurisdiction requires approval before processing COA applications, please let us know. * The City will not be billed nor formally notified per the above process for technical assistance inquiries or questions, or requests for information that can be handled by phone or e-mail in 15 minutes or less. The City representative per the above process must approve any services which will exceed 15 minutes of staff time. Updated 1/18 KING COUNTY Signature Report November 15, 2017 Ordinance 18606 1200 King County Courthouse 516 Third Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 Proposed No. 2017-0336.2 Sponsors von Reichbauer 1 AN ORDINANCE authorizing the county executive to 2 enter into an interlocal agreement with the city of Federal 3 Way to provide landmark designation and protection 4 services. 5 STATEMENT OF FACTS: 6 1. Historic properties are increasingly threatened in cities throughout the 7 county. 8 2. P-216 of the county's Comprehensive Plan (2016) states, "King County 9 shall administer a historic preservation program to identify, protect and 10 enhance historic properties throughout the region." 11 3. P-215 of the county's Comprehensive Plan (2008) states, "King County 12 shall work with cities to protect and enhance historic resources located 13 within city boundaries and annexation areas. The county shall advocate 14 for and actively market its historic preservation services to agencies and 15 cities that could benefit from such services." 16 4. The city of Federal Way recognizes that the economic, aesthetic, and 17 cultural well-being of the city cannot be maintained and enhanced by 18 allowing the unnecessary destruction or demolition of historic properties. 19 5. The city of Federal Way desires to protect and preserve such properties 1 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Ordinance 98606 and wishes to retain the expertise of the county. 6. The county is able and willing to provide landmark designation and protection services to the city, consistent with K.C.C. chapter 20.62, the Comprehensive Plan policies noted in subsection 2 and 3 of this Statement of Facts, and Motion 6174 passed in 1984. 7. Participation in this agreement will benefit the citizens of the city of Federal Way and all of King County. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF KING COUNTY. 1-*C*lj0N 1 The county executive is authorized to execute an interlocal 2 PT -11 30 31 Ordinance 18606 agreement, substantially in the form of Attachment A to this ordinance, with the city of Federal Way, for the purpose of providing landmark designation and protection services. Ordinance 18606 was introduced on 8/21/2017 and passed by the Metropolitan King County Council on 11/13/2017, by the following vote: Yes: 7 - Mr. von Reichbauer, Mr. Gossett, Ms. Lambert, Mr. Dunn, Mr. McDermott, Mr. Dembowski and Mr. Upthegrove No: 0 Excused: 2 - Ms. Kohl -Welles and Ms. Balducci KING COUNTY COUNCIL KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON J..14se ATTEST:*" � Y '.2u R i�R11 R X (] a �119�tri Melani Pedroza, Clerk of the Council APPROVED this 2-( day ol° f�e'2017, B Dow Constantine, County Executive Attachments: A. Interlocal Agreement for Landmark Services, dated September I5, 2017 3 Attachment A dated September 15, 2017-18606 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR LANDMARK SERVICES AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN KING COUNTY AND THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY RELATING TO LANDMARK DESIGNATION AND PROTECTION SERVICES THIS IS AN AGREEMENT between King County, a home rule charter county and a political subdivision of the State of Washington, hereinafter referred to as the "County," and the City of Federal Way, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington, hereinafter referred to as the "City," and hereinafter referred to jointly as the "Parties." WHEREAS, the City is an optional municipal code city incorporated pursuant to Title 35A RCW; and WHEREAS, local governmental authority and jurisdiction with respect to the designation and protection of landmarks within the City limits resides with the City; and WHEREAS, the City desires to protect and preserve the historic buildings, structures, districts, sites, objects, and archaeological sites within the City for the benefit of present and future generations; and WHEREAS, the County is able to provide landmark designation and protection services for the City; and WHEREAS, the City has elected to contract with the County to provide such services; and WHEREAS, it is in the public interest that the jurisdictions cooperate to provide efficient and cost effective landmark designation and protection; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 39.34 RCW, the Interlocal Cooperation Act, the Parties are each authorized to enter into an agreement for cooperative action; NOW THEREFORE, the County and the City hereby agree: 1. Services. At the request of the City, the County shall provide landmark designation and protection services using the criteria and procedures adopted in King County Ordinance 10474 King County Code (KCC), Chapter 20.62 and Chapter 19.285, Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) within the City limits. 2. City' laceoits l litic�sa A. The City adopts an ordinance establishing regulations and procedures for the designation of historic buildings, structures, objects, districts, sites, objects, and archaeological sites Interlocal Agreement for Landmark Services revised 091517 Page 1 of 5 as landmarks and for the protection of landmarks. The regulations and procedures are substantially the same as the regulations and procedures set forth in Chapter 20.62 KCC. The ordinance provides that the King County Landmarks Commission, with the addition of a special member, acting as the City of Federal Way Landmarks Commission (Commission) shall have the authority to designate and protect landmarks within the City limits in accordance with the City ordinance. The ordinance includes: 1) Provision for the appointment of a special member to the Commission as provided by Chapter 20.62.030 KCC. 2) A provision that appeals from decisions of the Commission pertaining to real property within the City limits shall be taken to the City's Bearing Examiner. 3) A provision for penalties for violation of the certificate of appropriateness procedures (Chapter 20.62.080 KCC). 4) A provision that the official responsible for the issuance of building and related permits shall promptly refer applications for permits which affect historic buildings, structures, objects, sites, districts, or archaeological sites to the King County Historic Preservation Officer (HPO) for review and comment. The responsible official shall seek and take into consideration the comments of the HPO regarding mitigation of any adverse effects affecting historic buildings, structures, objects, sites, districts or archaeological sites. B. Appoint a Special Member to the Commission in accordance with the ordinance adopted by the City. Pursuant to Chapter 20.62 KCC such Special Member shall be a voting member of the Commission on all matters relating to or affecting landmarks within the City, except review of applications to the Special Valuation Tax Program, and the Current Use Taxation Program. C. Collect applications and application fees for landmark nominations and Certificates of Appropriateness, and forward applications to the County for processing. D. Distribute public hearing notices for Landmarks Commission meetings. E. Except as to Section 5, the services provided by the County pursuant to this agreement do not include legal services. 3.'ounty l , cibi itis. A. Process all landmark nomination applications and conduct planning, training, and public information tasks necessary to support landmarking activities in the City. Such tasks shall be defined by mutual agreement of both parties on an annual basis. B. Process all Certificate of Appropriateness applications to alter, demolish, or move any significant feature of a landmark property within the City limits. Interlocal Agreement for Landmark Services revised 091517 Page 2 of 5 C. Act as the "Local Review Board" for the purposes related to Chapter 221, 1986 Laws of Washington, (Chapter 84.26 RCW and Chapter 254.20 WAC) for the special valuation of historic properties within the City limits. D. Review and comment on applications for permits that affect historic buildings, structures, objects, sites, districts, and archaeological sites. Continents shall be forwarded to the City official responsible for the issuance of building and related permits. 4, �"catnttitt, A. Costs. The City shall reimburse the County fully for all costs incurred in providing services under this contract, including overhead and indirect administrativc costs. Costs charged to the City may be reduced by special appropriations, grants, or other supplemental funds, by mutual agreement of both parties. The rate of reimbursement to the County for labor costs shall be revised annually. B. Billing. The County shall bill the City quarterly. The quarterly bill shall reflect actual costs plus the annual administrative overhead rate. Payments are due within 30 days of invoicing by the County. 5. Indemnification. A. The County shall indemnify and hold harmless the City and its officers, agents and employees or any of them from any and all claims, actions, suits, liability, loss, costs, expenses, and damages of any nature whatsoever, by reason or arising out of any negligent act or omission of the County, its officers, agents, and employees, or any of them, in providing services pursuant to this agreement. In the event that any suit based upon such a claim, action, loss, or damage is brought against the City, the County shall defend the same at its sole cost and expense; provided, that the City retains the right to participate in said suit if any principle of governmental or public law is involved; and if final judgment be rendered against the City and its officers, agents, employees, or any of them, or jointly against the City and the County and their respective officers, agents and employees, or any of them, the County shall satisfy the same. B. In executing this agreement, the County does not assume liability or responsibility for or in any way release the City from any liability or responsibility which arises in whole or in part from the existence or effect of City ordinances, rules or regulations, polices or procedures. If any cause, claim, suit, actions or administrative proceeding is commenced regarding the enforceability and/or validity of any ordinance, rule or regulation of either party, said party shall defend the same at its sole expense and if judgment is entered or damages are awarded against said party, said party shall satisfy the same, including all chargeable costs and attorneys' fees. Interlocal Agreement for Landmark services revised 091517 Page 3 of 5 C. The City shall indemnify and hold harmless the County and its officers, agents, and employees, or any of them from any and all claims, actions, suits, liability, loss, costs, expenses and damages of any nature whatsoever, by reason of or arising out of any negligent act or omission of the City, its officers, agents, and employees, or any of them. In the event that any suit based upon such a claim, action, loss or damage is brought against the County, the City shall defend the same at its sole cost and expense; provided that the County retains the right to participate in said suit if any principle of governmental or public laws is involved; and if final judgment be rendered against the County, and its officers, agents, and employees, or any of them, the City shall satisfy the same. D. The City and the County acknowledge and agree that if such claims, actions, suits, liability, loss, costs, expenses, and damages are caused by or result from the concurrent negligence of the City, its agents, employees, and/or officers and the County, its agents, employees, and/or officers, this Article shall be valid and enforceable only to the extent of the negligence of each party, its agents, employees and/or officers. 6. 1nt�erlocal"ctpxiic�r c. A. lout° os ,; The purpose of this agreement is for the City of Federal Way and Icing County to partner to provide historic preservation services within the corporate boundaries of the City. B. Adminstrtitne. This agreement shall be administered for the County by the Director of the Department of Natural Resources and Parks, or the director's designee, and for the City by the Mayor or the Mayor's designee. C. llud nt No special budget or funds are anticipated, nor will the parties jointly acquire, hold or dispose of real or personal property. D. l attm— This agreement is effective beginning upon execution, and shalt continue until terminated pursuant to the terms of this agreement. E. l ecortC t ;1`his Agreement will be recorded by the County or otherwise be made public by it in conformance with the Interlocal Cooperation Act. 7.1 tar linatittn. Either party may terminate this agreement by providing forty-five (45) days' written notice to the other party. 8. A endmenta. This Agreement may be amended at any time by mutual written agreement of the Parties. Interlocal Agreement for Landmark Services revised 091517 Page 4 of 5 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this agreement this day of .2017. CITY OF FEDERAL WAY: 0 Jim Ferrell Mayor By: Dow Constantine King County Executive LIM King County Prosecutor Interlocal Agreement for Landmark Services revised 091517 Page 5 of 5 Draft Proposed Code Amendments for Amended Docket Procedure 19.80.030 Docket. ............................................................... The department shall maintain a docket of all proposals to amend the comprehensive plan or development regulations submitted by any interested persons, the Mayor, the Department of Community Development, the Planning Commission or the City Council. (Ord. No. 09-594, § 133, 1-6-09; Ord. No. 02-426, § 3, 10-15-02; Ord. No. 99-337, § 2, 3-2-99. Code 2001 § 22-518.) 19.80.040 Compliance with State Environmental Policy Act. .................................................... The State Environmental Policy Act applies to some of the decisions that will be made using this chapter. The director shall evaluate each proposal and, where applicable, comply with the State Environmental Policy Act and with state regulations and city ordinances issued under authority of the State Environmental Policy Act. (Ord. No. 09-594, § 134, 1-6-09; Ord. No. 02-426, § 3, 10-15-02; Ord. No. 99-337, § 2, 3-2-99. Code 2001 § 22-519.) 19.80.050 City council review. (1) Docketed proposals. The city council shall review docketed proposals concurrently, on an annual basis and consistent with RCW 36.70A.1K(2). As part of such annual review, the council shall review docketed proposals received prior to September 30th of the previous calendar year.., and determine through Council business in March of each year, those items to be heard by the Planning Commission for annual docket Docketed proposals submitted after September 30th shall be considered during the following annual review. (2) Other amendments. The city -initiated amendments of the comprehensive plan shall be reviewed concurrently with docketed proposals. The city council may also review or amend the comprehensive plan: (a) If an emergency exists, which is defined as an issue of community -wide significance that promotes the public health, safety, and general welfare; (b) To resolve an appeal of a comprehensive plan filed with a growth management hearings board or with the court; (c) To adopt or amend a shoreline master program under the procedures set forth in Chapter RCW; (d) The initial adoption of a subarea plan that does not modify the comprehensive plan policies and designations applicable to the subarea; (e) The amendment of the capital facilities element of the comprehensive plan that occurs concurrently with the adoption or amendment of the city budget. The city council will hold the public hearing on this matter rather than the planning commission; and (f) In other circumstances as provided for by RCW 36.70A. 1 30(2)(a). The city council may review city -initiated changes to development regulations or to the city's zoning map concurrently with the docketed proposals or at the council's discretion. (3) Additional information. The city council may request, through the mayor, that the department or any other department of the city provide any information or material on a proposal(s), consistent with FWRC 19.80.160. (Ord. No. 10-669, § 69, 9-21-10; Ord. No. 09-594, § 135, 1-6-09; Ord. No. 02-426, § 3, 10-15-02; Ord. No. 99-337, § 2, 3-2-99. Code 2001 § 22-520.) Cross reference: City council, Chapter 2.10 FWRC. 19.80.060 Timing of filing — Notice. Sixty days prior to September 30th in each calendar year, the city shall notify all persons who submitted docket forms after September 30th of the previous calendar year. Notice shall also be given as follows: (1) Public notice notifying the public that the amendment process has begun shall be published in the city's official newspaper. (2) Notice shall be posted on the official city public notice boards. (3) A copy of the notice shall be mailed to other local newspapers. (4) All agencies, organizations, and adjacent jurisdictions with an interest, and all persons, who in the judgment of the director may be directly affected by changes to the comprehensive plan or development regulations shall be sent a copy of the notice. In determining who may be affected by changes to the comprehensive plan or development regulations, the director may rely on written correspondence indicating an interest and received after September 30th of the previous year. (Ord. No. 09-594, § 136, 1-6-09; Ord. No. 02-426, § 3, 10-15-02; Ord. No. 99-337, § 2, 3-2-99. Code 2001 § 22-521.) 19.80.070 Application. (1) Who may apply. Any person may, personally or through an agent, apply for a site-specific comprehensive plan designation change with respect to property he or she owns. In addition, the Mayor, the Department of Community Development, the Planning Commission, the City Council or any person may, personally or through an agent, request amendments to the comprehensive plan or development regulations. (2) How to apply. AR app"Gaat A person or private party seeking a change in comprehensive plan designation and/o zoning for a specific parce, or change to the development regulations must complete an application form prepared by the city. An applicant seeking a chaRge ;^ GGFRprehe^c;Ve plvn des;gnatieR and Zer,;T,g fer a SpeGifl^ pare' shall also file the information specified in FWRC I with the department. (3) The director shall have the authority to waive any of the requirements of this section if, in the director's discretion, such information is not relevant or would not be useful to consideration of the proposed amendment. (4) Fee. There 06 RG fee for this 'Ritial appliGation. After the prioritizatiGn precess, appliGatiGRS to be GORsider during the a...eRdrne^t Yrececc shall subYeit the fee established by the o:ty.Fees for prioritizing docketed proposals _amendinq development regulation, and amendinq the comprehensive plan are set forth in the fee schedule (Ord. No. 09-594, § 137, 1-6-09; Ord. No. 02-426, § 3, 10-15-02; Ord. No. 99-337, § 2, 3-2-99. Code 2001 § 22-522.) 19.80.080 Prioritizing docketed proposals. .............................. _ ------ (1) Within a city council meeting held in the first quarter of each year -the city council will select those docketed proposals it wishes to further consider for adoption and for staff +^ re^ear^" further research. (2) The city council shall consider the following criteria fellowing a publiG hearing in selecting the docketed proposals to be considered during the upcoming cycle: (a) Whether the same area or issue was studied during the last amendment process and _.___conditions have significantly changed so as to make the requested change within the public interest. (b) Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the overall vision of the comprehensive plan. (c) Whether the proposed amendment meets existing state and local laws, including the Growth Management Act. (d) In the case of text amendments or other amendments to goals and policies, whether the request benefits the city as a whole versus a selected group. (3) If the request meets the criteria set forth in subsections (2)(a) through (d) of this section, it s#all may be further evaluated according to the following criteria: (a) Whether the proposed amendment can be incorporated into planned or active projects. (b) Amount of analysis necessary to reach a recommendation on the request. If a large scale study is required, a request may have to be delayed until the following year due to work loads, staffing levels, ets. (c) Volume of requests received. A large volume of requests may necessitate that some requests be reviewed in a subsequent year. (d) The 9order ef-at which the _requests was received. (4) Based on its review of the docketed proposals according to the criteria in subsections (2) and (3) of this section, the council shall determine which docketed proposals shall be further considered for adoption, and shall forward those requests to the planning commission for its review and recommendation to the Council through public hearing. (5) The council's decision to consider a docketed proposal shall not constitute a decision or recommendation that the proposal should be adopted nor does it preclude later council action to add or delete an amendment for consideration. (Ord. No. 09-594, § 138, 1-6-09; Ord. No. 02-426, § 3, 10-15-02; Ord. No. 99-337, § 2, 3-2-99. Code 2001 § 22-523.) 19.80.090 Preapplications required. .................................................................. _.............. _........ All applicants seeking an amendment to comprehensive land use designations of the official comprehensive plan _ _ . _(site-specific requests) must apply for a preapplication conference with the city's development review committee (GDRC). (Ord. No. 02-426, § 3, 10-15-02; Ord. No. 99-337, § 2, 3-2-99. Code 2001 § 22-524.) 19.80.100 Legislative rezones. ............ ...................... ........... . A legislative rezone is a rezone that meets the following criteria: (1) It is initiated by the city; and (2) It includes a large number of properties which would be similarly affected by the proposed rezone. All other rezones not meeting the above criteria are treated as quasi-judicial rezones and are reviewed and decided upon using process V. (Ord. No. 02-426, § 3, 10-15-02; Ord. No. 99-337, § 2, 3-2-99. Code 2001 § 22-525.) 19.80.110 Criteria for approving a legislative rezone. .................................................................................._.........................................._.._................._..............................._.........._................................................................................................................. The city may decide to approve a legislative rezone only if it finds that: (1) The proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan; (2) The proposal bears a substantial relation to public health, safety, or welfare; and (3) The proposal is in the best interest of the residents of the city. (Ord. No. 02-426, § 3, 10-15-02; Ord. No. 99-337, § 2, 3-2-99. Code 2001 § 22-526.) 19.80.120 Map cha If the city approves a legislative rezone, or a change in a comprehensive plan map designation, it will give effect to this decision by making the necessary amendment to the zoning map of the city. (Ord. No. 02-426, § 3, 10-15-02; Ord. No. 99-337, § 2, 3-2-99. Code 2001 § 22-527.) 19.80.130 Development regulation amendment criteria. ...... .. ___. The city may amend development regulations only if it finds that: (1) The proposed amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; (2) The proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to public health, safety, or welfare; and (3) The proposed amendment is in the best interest of the residents of the city. (Ord. No. 09-594, § 139, 1-6-09; Ord. No. 02-426, § 3, 10-15-02; Ord. No. 99-337, § 2, 3-2-99. Code 2001 § 22-528.) 19.80.140 Factors to be considered in a comprehensive plan amendment. ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................1..1...11................ The city may consider, but is not limited to, the following factors when considering a proposed amendment to the comprehensive plan: (1) The effect upon the physical environment. (2) The effect on open space, streams, and lakes. (3) The compatibility with and impact on adjacent land uses and surrounding neighborhoods. (4) The adequacy of and impact on community facilities including utilities, roads, public transportation, parks, recreation, and schools. (5) The benefit to the neighborhood, city, and region. (6) The quantity and location of land planned for the proposed land use type and density and the demand for such land. (7) The current and projected population density in the area. (8) The effect upon other aspects of the comprehensive plan. In order to encourage efficient and desired development and redevelopment of existing land designated and zoned for various types of commercial uses, when considering proposals for comprehensive plan amendments and rezones from one commercial designation to another, the city will consider development trends in commercially zones areas, market demand for various types of commercial land, and amount of vacant commercial land. For site-specific comprehensive plan amendments, the following provisions shall also apply. 1) The proposed comprehensive plan amendment is appropriate because either (a) Conditions in the immediate vicinity of the subiect property have so significantly changed since the property was given its present zoning and that under those changed conditions a rezone is within the public interest: or (b) The rezone will correct a zone classification or zone boundary that was inappropriate when established. 2) It is consistent with the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan; and 3) It is constent with all applicable provisions of the Title 19, of the Municipal Code. 19.80.150 Criteria for amending the comprehensive plan ...................... .............................................................. ...................................... The city may amend the comprehensive plan only if it finds that: (1) The proposed amendment bears a substantial relationship to public health, safety, or welfare; and (2) The proposed amendment is in the best interest of the residents of the city; and (3) The proposed amendment is consistent with the requirements of Chapter RCW and with the portion of the city's adopted plan not affected by the amendment. (Ord. No. 02-426, § 3, 10-15-02; Ord. No. 99-337, § 2, 3-2-99. Code 2001 § 22-530.) 19.80.160 Official file. ........ _............................................................. ............................................... ............................... ............................._....................-.......................................................................................... (1) Contents. The director shall compile an official file containing all information and materials relevant to the __;__ proposal to amend the comprehensive plan or development regulations and to the city's consideration of t#e __proposal. (2) Availability. The official file is a public record. It is available for inspection and copying in the department of community development during regular business hours. (Ord. No. 09-594, § 140, 1-6-09; Ord. No. 02-426, § 3, 10-15-02; Ord. No. 99-337, § 2, 3-2-99. Code 2001 § 22-531.) 19.80.170 Notice. Notice provisions under this section shall be fA"AWAd observed for both the publiG heaFiRg during whiGh all dE)Gketed rn owls a prioritized by the rte'+ 'I a II -. p� �p��w,.. are p. �, the public discussion and the hearing held by the planning commission. These notices, as well as other required notices related to the proposal may be done concurrently. (1) Contents. The director shall prepare a notice of each proposal, for which a public meeting or a public hearing will be held, containing the following information: (a) The citation, if any, of the provision that would be changed by the proposal along with a brief description of that provision. (b) A statement of how the proposal would change the affected provision. (c) A statement of what areas, comprehensive plan designations, zones, or locations will be directly affected or changed by the proposal. (d) The date, time, and place of the public meeting or hearing. (e) A statement of the availability of the official file. (f) A statement of the right of any person to submit written comments to the planning commission and to appear at the public meeting or public hearing of the planning commission to give comments orally. (2) Distribution. The director shall distribute this notice at least 14 calendar days before the public meeting and at least 14 calendar days before the public hearing following the procedures of FWRC 19.80.060. In addition, the procedures of FWRC 19.75.060 shall be followed for site-specific requests regarding notification of adjacent property owners posting of the site. (Ord. No. 09-594, § 141, 1-6-09; Ord. No. 02-426, § 3, 10-15-02; Ord. No. 99-337, § 2, 3-2-99. Code 2001 § 22-532.) 19.80.180 Staff report. (1) General. The director shall prepare a staff report for the Planning Commission containing: (a) An analysis of the proposal and a recommendation on the proposal; and (b) Any other information the director determines is necessary for consideration of the proposal, consistent with FWRC 19.80.110, 19.80.130, 19.80.140, and 19.80.150. For site-specific comprehensive plan amendments, the provisions of FWRC 19.75.130(3) shall also apply. (2) Distribution. The director shall distribute the staff report as follows: (a) A copy will be sent to each member of the planning commission prior to the hearing. (b) A copy will be sent promptly to any person requesting it. (Ord. No. 09-594, § 142, 1-6-09; Ord. No. 02-426, § 3, 10-15-02; Ord. No. 99-337, § 2, 3-2-99. Code 2001 § 22-533.) 19.80.190 Public hearing. ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. (1) Generally. The planning commission shall hold public hearings on each proposal, consistent with FWRC 19.80.200, unless the city council elects to hold its own hearings on the proposal, in which case planning commission review pursuant to this chapter shall not be required. The planning commission will hold its hearing for the docket items in the fourth quarter of each year. (2) Open to public. The hearings of the planning commission are open to the public. (3) Pursuant to FWRC 19.85.150, when a development agreement and plan have been prepared, the city council shall hold a public hearing. (4) Effect. Except as provided in subsection (1) of this section, the hearing of the planning commission is the hearing for city council. City council need not hold another hearing on the proposal. (Ord. No. 09-594, § 143, 1-6-09; Ord. No. 02-426, § 3, 10-15-02; Ord. No. 99-337, § 2, 3-2-99. Code 2001 § 22-534.) 19.80.200 Material to be considered. ................... _ _.........................................................................................- .......................................................................................... (1) Generally. Except as specified in subsections (2), (3), and (4) of this section, the planning commission and city council may consider any pertinent information or materials in reviewing and deciding upon a proposal under this chapter. (2) Exclusion. Except as specified in subsections (3) and (4) of this section, the city may not consider a specific site plan or project in reviewing and deciding upon a proposal under this process. (3) In the case of development agreements, the director may require the applicant to submit any additional information or material that is reasonably necessary for a decision on the matter, including a site development plan associated with a site-specific request. (4) Exception for environment information. If a proposal that will be decided upon using this chapter is part of a specific project, the city may consider all information pertaining to SEPA environmental review and submitted under FWRC 19.80.040 in deciding upon that proposal. (Ord. No. 09-594, § 144, 1-6-09; Ord. No. 02-426, § 3, 10-15-02; Ord. No. 99-337, § 2, 3-2-99. Code 2001 § 22-535.) 19.80.210 Electronic sound recordings. .............. _.......................................................................... ....................... The planning commission shall make a complete electronic sound recording of each public hearing. (Ord. No. 02-426, § 3, 10-15-02; Ord. No. 99-337, § 2, 3-2-99. Code 2001 § 22-536.) 19.80.220. Public comment and participation at the hearing. Any interested person may participate in the public hearing in either or both of the following ways: (1) By submitting written comments to the planning commission either by delivering these comments to the department prior to the hearing or by giving them directly to the planning commission at the hearing. (2) By appearing in person, or through a representative, at the hearing and making oral comments. The planning commission may reasonably limit the extent of oral comments to facilitate the orderly and timely conduct of the hearing. (Ord. No. 09-594, § 145, 1-6-09; Ord. No. 02-426, § 3, 10-15-02; Ord. No. 99-337, § 2, 3-2-99. Code 2001 § 22-537.) 19.80.230 Continuation of the hearing. The planning commission may, for any reason, continue the hearing on the proposal. If, during the hearing, the planning commission announces the time and place of the next public hearing on the proposal and a notice thereof is posted on the door of the hearing room, no further notice of that hearing need be given. (Ord. No. 02-426, § 3, 10-15-02; Ord. No. 99-337, § 2, 3-2-99. Code 2001 § 22-538.) 19.80.240 Planning commission — Recommendation. ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... (1) Generally. Following the public hearing, the planning commission shall consider the proposal in light of the decisional criteria in FWRC __9.75.130(3), 19.80.110, 19.80.130, 19.80.140 and 19.80.150, and take one of the following actions: (a) If the planning commission determines that the proposal should be adopted, it may, by a majority vote of the entire membership, recommend that city council adopt the proposal. (b) If the planning commission determines that the proposal should not be adopted, it may, by a majority vote of the members present, recommend that city council not adopt the proposal. (c) If the planning commission is unable to take either of the actions specified in subsection (1)(a) or (b) of this section, the proposal will be sent to city council with the notation that the planning commission makes no recommendation. (2) Modification of proposal. The planning commission may modify the proposal in any way and to any degree prior to recommending the proposal to city council for adoption. A proposal is not fundamentally modified if: (a) An environmental impact statement has been prepared under Chapter 43.21 C RCW for the proposal and the proposed change is within the range of alternatives considered in the environmental impact statement; (b) The proposed change is within the scope of the alternatives available for public comment; or (c) The proposed change only corrects typographical errors, corrects cross-references, makes address or name changes, or clarifies language of a proposal without changing its effect. (Ord. No. 09-594, § 146, 1-6-09; Ord. No. 02-426, § 3, 10-15-02; Ord. No. 99-337, § 2, 3-2-99. Code 2001 § 22-539.) 19.80.250 Planning commission - Report to city council: SHARE ....................... ....................... ...................... _...............:::................... I (1) Generally. The director shall prepare a planning commission report on the proposal containing a copy of the proposal, along with any explanatory information, and the planning commission recommendation, if any, on the proposal. (2) Transmittal to city council. The director shall transmit the planning commission report to the mayor for consideration by city council. (3) Distribution. The director shall promptly send a copy of the planning commission report to any person requesting it. (Ord. No. 11-684, § 13, 1-18-11; Ord. No. 09-594, § 147, 1-6-09; Ord. No. 02-426, § 3, 10-15-02; Ord. No. 99-337, § 2, 3-2-99. Code 2001 § 22-540.) 19.80.260 City council action. (1) General. Within 90 days of receipt of the planning commission report by the mayor, the city council shall consider the proposal along with a draft ordinance prepared by the city attorney. (2) Decisional criteria. In deciding upon the proposal, the city council shall use the decisional criteria listed in the provisions of this title describing the proposal. (3) City council action. After consideration of the planning commission report and, at its discretion, holding its own public hearing on the proposal, the city council shall by majority vote of its total membership.- (a) embership: (a) Approve the proposal by adopting an appropriate ordinance; (b) Modify and approve the proposal by adopting an appropriate ordinance. If the council chooses to modify an amendment to the comprehensive plan or a development regulation, and the change is proposed after the opportunity for review and comment has passed, an opportunity for review and comment on the proposed change shall be provided before council on the proposed change unless: (i) An environmental impact statement has been prepared for the pending resolution or ordinance and the proposed change is within the range of alternatives considered in the environmental impact statement; (ii) The proposed change is within the scope of the alternatives available for public comment; (iii) The proposed change only corrects typographical errors, corrects cross-references, makes address or name changes, or clarifies language of a proposed ordinance or resolution without changing its effect; (iv) The proposed change is to a resolution or ordinance making a capital budget decision that is consistent with the comprehensive plan; or (v) The proposed change is to a resolution or ordinance enacting a moratorium or interim control and the council schedules a public hearing on the adopted moratorium or interim control within at least 60 days of its adoption, and the council adopts findings of fact before or immediately after this public hearing; (c) Disapprove the proposal by resolution; or (d) Refer the proposal back to the planning commission for further proceedings. If this occurs, the city council shall specify reasons for the request for consideration and the new, previously unprovided information which creates the need for further review. (e) If the city council determines that a development agreement should be prepared for a site-specific request, the city council shall recommend further analysis based on Chapter ______ FWRC, Development Agreements. (Ord. No. 11-684, § 14, 1-18-11; Ord. No. 09-594, § 148, 1-6-09; Ord. No. 02-426, § 3, 10-15-02; Ord. No. 99-337, § 2, 3-2-99. Code 2001 § 22-541.) 19.80.270 Transmittal to state. At least 60 days prior to final action being taken by the city council, the State Department of Commerce and other interested affected local and state agencies, the county and surrounding jurisdictions shall be provided with a copy of therp oposed amendments during the public review period in order to initiate the 60 -day comment period per RCW 36.70A.106. All other parties previously notified shall be again notified that the draft amendments of the comprehensive plan are available on request on a cost recovery basis. No later than 10 days after adoption of the comprehensive plan, a copy of the adopted comprehensive plan shall be forwarded to 9SD-the Department of Commerce and others who submitted written comments on the draft comprehensive plan.