Planning Commission Meeting Date: April 17, 2008 Agenda Item: 8.a
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM
AGENDA TITLE: 2008 Annual Consideration of Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and Associated Development Code Amendments
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Development Services
PRESENTED BY: Rachael Markle, AICP
Asst. Director of Planning and Development Services
PROBLEM/ISSUE STATEMENT:
The State Growth Management Act permits amendments to a city’s Comprehensive Plan, but the review cannot occur more than once a year with a few exceptions such as the adoption of a subarea plan. The Planning Commission, during its review, looks at the proposed amendments as a package, in order to consider the combined impacts of the proposal.
For the year 2007, the City received no public initiated amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. Staff have proposed several amendments to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use chapter for inclusion on the 2008 “docket” (the list of amendments to be considered by the Planning Commission). These amendments are proposed in order to:
Þ Create a definition for Planned Areas;
Þ Differentiate Planned Areas from Subareas;
Þ Create a definition and complete the development of a process for Master Plan permits;
Þ Enable those entities that the Comprehensive Plan calls out as being encouraged to Master Plan to be able apply for and receive Master Plan permits outside of the annual review cycle (proposed to be referred to as Master Plan permits because in essence these plans do not alter the Comprehensive Plan goals and policies, but focus on use and development standards); and
Þ Require Shoreline Community College to apply for a Master Plan permit.
Staff recommends the approval of the proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and Development Code.
Approved By: City Manager ____ City Attorney ___
INTRODUCTION
The proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments include:
· Amending the subarea plan definition;
· Adding a definition for Master plan permit;
· Amending land use Figure LU-1 (Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map) to designate future Planned Areas;
· Replacing the term Master Plan with Planned Area when Master Plan refers to information in the Comprehensive Plan and master plan permit when the term refers to specific development standards;
· Clarifying that if a parcel(s) is identified as a Planned Area or Essential Public Facility in the Comprehensive Plan then a master plan permit can be approved without amending the Comprehensive Plan;
· Adding a definition of Planned Area; and
· Deleting Land Use Policies 76 and 77 regarding the general requirements of a master plan and the process for permitting a master plan. Insert this type of information in the Development Code.
The proposed Development Code Amendments include:
· Adding a definition for Master Plan Permit in SMC Chapter 20.20;
· Amending Planned Area (PA) in SMC Chapter 20.40;
· Adding Planned Area as a type of Special District under 20.40.050;
· Adding Master Plan Permit as a Type C permit to Table 20.30.060;
· Creating a purpose statement, decision criteria and vesting rules for Master Plan Permits in SMC Chapter 20.30;
· Adding Shoreline Community College on the zoning map as Planned Area 1 with a limited scope and permitted uses section;
· Moving Ridgecrest Planned Area 2 from 20.91 to 20.100 Special Districts;
· Adding CRISTA as Planned Area 3 on the zoning map with a limited scope and permitted use section; and
· Adding Fircrest Planned Area 4 on the zoning map with a limited scope and permitted use section.
BACKGROUND
Discussion of Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments
Please see Attachment A Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments for specific changes. Attachment C Amendment Matrix also provides information on each amendment.
The main purposes for the amendments proposed to the Comprehensive Plan in this report are as follows:
A. Define and differentiate subarea plans and planned areas.
The City has employed the use of subarea planning and planned areas to develop site specific policies and regulations for designated areas. Although subarea plans are defined in the Comprehensive Plan, planned areas are not. Amendments have been proposed in order to define and differentiate subarea plans from planned areas. The main differences as proposed are: subarea plans can only be initiated by the City and can occur at any time during the year; planned areas can be initiated by the City or private property owner(s) and can only be considered as part of an annual review of the Comprehensive Plan. Also, a planned area may be a subset of a subarea plan. Please see Attachment D: Planning Tools and Processes Table.
B. Streamlining Master Planning for Essential Public Facilities
The Comprehensive Plan encourages Single Family Institutions and Essential Public Facilities to develop Master Plans. However, the Comprehensive Plan states that the Comprehensive Plan needs to be amended to approve a Master Plan. This is problematic due to the fact that the GMA limits Comprehensive Plan amendments to once a year. The annual review may not coincide with desired timing of a Single Family Institution or Essential Public Facility to adopt a Master Plan.
Since the Comprehensive Plan encourages Master Planning for essential public facilities, it is appropriate to facilitate changes to the Comprehensive Plan and Development Code to streamline the process. By streamlining the process, these sites may be encouraged to apply for Master Plan permits ending the piecemeal approach of allowing expansion, development and redevelopment through the Conditional Use and/or Special Use process. This practice does not holistically address such facets of development as parking, traffic and environmental systems.
C. Assign a new land use designation called Planned Area to replace Single Family Institution
The Comprehensive Plan designates three sites as Single Family Institutions: Shoreline Community College, CRISTA and Fircrest. This designation does not accurately address the current and likely future uses for the sites. The vast majority of the property at all three locations is zoned low density residential (single family), but the existing and future uses are not single family. All of the sites are surrounded by or adjacent to single family uses. This warrants master planning as encouraged by the Comprehensive Plan to holistically address such issues as transition between the campuses and adjacent low density uses, traffic, critical areas and stormwater.
The proposed definition for planned area land use designation is designed to encompass the intent of the single family institution land use designation and the planned area concept to other areas that the City Council may approve as part of an annual review of the Comprehensive Plan. As proposed, planned areas are specific geographic areas that are unique based on natural, economic or historic attributes; subject to problems from transition in land uses; or contain essential public facilities. This level of planning seeks to engage area residents, property owners and businesses to clarify and apply existing Comprehensive Plan policies to better reflect changing circumstances, problems, and opportunities. Planned Area designations may be initiated by property owner(s) or the City. Staff proposes the use of the planned area tool instead of creating a new process to streamline master planning for essential public facilities.
D. Identify a Public Process for Private Property Owners to Prepare Comprehensive Long Range Plans
The question has arisen on several occasions, “what if a private property owner (or owners) was interested in developing a master plan or development agreement with the City to facilitate development or redevelopment of a property in a way that is not specifically permitted?” One answer to this question is – NO, that proposal is not permitted. However, this answer could be short sighted. Sometimes the property owner(s) wants to do something that responds to important goals and policies in the Comprehensive Plan, but does not meet all of the standards in the Development Code. Staff would like the public to have the opportunity to hear about these proposals and the City Council to be able to determine if additional planning and perhaps a change in the regulations would be beneficial.
Staff recommends the planned area process to consider these requests. The planned area process would allow either the City or a private property owner to initiate a site specific Comprehensive Plan amendment during the annual review of the Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Commission would then be able to review the merits of the proposal and make a recommendation to the City Council as to whether a Planned Area land use designation should be approved. If a Planned Area land use designation and zoning is approved, a private property owner(s) can apply for a Master Plan permit. The Master Plan permit is the tool the property owner(s) would use to seek Council approval of site specific development regulations.
E. Relocate Master Plan processes from Comprehensive Plan to Development Code
The Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1998. By 1998, the City had not yet adopted its own Development Code. When the City incorporated it adopted King County’s Development Code. As a result, the Comprehensive Plan includes some policies that are very specific perhaps in an effort to ensure that the future City of Shoreline development regulations reflected the citizens longer range vision for development and redevelopment.
The City adopted its locally drafted Development Code in 2000. Many of the policies in the Comprehensive Plan were then converted to development standards. A few of the policies, including those regarding master planning, have not yet been translated from the policy document to the Development Code.
The Development Code does not include any provisions for master planning. The only references to master planning are in the Comprehensive Plan. Comprehensive Plan Land Use policies LU 76 and LU 77 outline the basic content of a master plan application and general application processing procedures. It is more appropriate to have such standards in the Development Code. LU 76 and LU 77 are more akin to development standards than policy statements.
Discussion of Proposed Development Code Amendments
Please see Attachment B Proposed Development Code Amendments for specific changes. Attachment C Amendment Matrix also provides information on each amendment.
1. Adding a definition for Master Plan Permit in SMC Chapter 20.20
Master Plan is not defined in the Comprehensive Plan or the Development Code. The proposed definition is: A permit issued by the City that establishes site specific permitted uses and development standards for certain planned areas or essential public facilities. Master Plan permits incorporate proposed new development, redevelopment and/or expansion of an existing development.
2. Amending the description of a Planned Area (PA) zone in SMC Chapter 20.40
The current description for Planned Area was adopted with the amendments for the Ridgecrest Planned Area 2. Staff is proposing to change the description of a Planned Area zone to also apply to essential public facilities.
3. Adding Planned Area as a type of Special District under 20.40.050
In terms of organization, it seemed intuitive to locate Planned Areas in the Special District section of the Code.
4. Adding Master Plan Permit as a Type C permit to Table 20.30.060 and Creating a purpose statement, decision criteria and vesting rules for Master Plan Permits in SMC Chapter 20.30
The Comprehensive Plan states that essential public facilities are encouraged to Master Plan. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Polices 76 and 77 outline what a Master Plan should address. The Development Code does not contain provisions for Master Planning.
The First Northeast Transfer Station is the only approved Master Plan in the City. This Master Plan was reviewed as a legislative item. There were no changes made to the Comprehensive Plan. The approval of this Master Plan only required changes to the Development Code. The City attorney advises that future Master Plan permits be processed as quasi-judicial actions.
The City has been working with CRISTA, Fircrest and Shoreline Community College on the development of Master Plans for many years. During this time we have identified the need to further define the process for Master Planning and develop more detailed review criteria.
Staff is proposing seven criteria to be used in the review of Master Plan permit applications. If the applicant meets the criteria, then a Master Plan permit can be recommended by staff and the Planning Commission for approval by the City Council. (Remember, only those areas designated as Planned Areas during the annual review of the Comprehensive Plan can apply for Master Plan permits). The criteria is designed to ensure that the Master Plan permit identifies and addresses on and off site impacts. Note: currently there is no criteria by which to review a Master Plan permit. Master Plan permits would be reviewed using the Comprehensive Plan and/or Development Code Amendment criteria.
Over the years there has been a lot of confusion as to whether a Master Plan should be a policy document or a regulatory document. Staff is proposing that a Master Plan as described in the Comprehensive Plan is more regulatory in nature. Therefore, Master Plans should take the form of a permit, as opposed to a policy document. Through the permitting process, specific development standards, mitigation and design can be established.
5. Moving Ridgecrest Planned Area 2 from 20.91 to 20.100 Special Districts
This is an administrative change. In terms of organizing information in the Development Code, it seemed intuitive to locate all Planned Areas in the Special Districts section of the Code.
6. Adding Shoreline Community College, CRISTA, and Fircrest as Planned Areas 1, 3 and 4 on the zoning map with a limited scope and permitted uses section;
The Development Code does not require Master Planning (Master Plan permitting) for development or redevelopment on any of the three areas designated as Single Family Institutions: Shoreline Community College, CRISTA and Fircrest. The sites all contain nonconforming uses and the code allows expansion through the Conditional Use permit process. The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Policy 43 states:
The Single Family Institution land use designation applies to a number of institutions within the community that serve a regional clientele on a large campus. It is anticipated that the underlying zoning for this designation shall remain the same unless a master plan is adopted as an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan creating a special district.
The proposed amendments are designed to facilitate master planning and end the piecemeal, incremental development at Shoreline Community College, CRISTA and Fircrest. The purpose of a Master Plan permit is to incorporate and illustrate all proposed new development, redevelopment and/or expansion of an existing institutional campus into a comprehensive long range site plan that identifies and addresses both onsite and offsite impacts. The Master Plan may also include narrative and timetables to guide and phase growth and development in a way that serves the facility and benefits the community.
This City- initiated action seeks to change Shoreline Community College’s land use and zoning to Planned Area 1: Shoreline Community College; CRISTA’s land use and zoning designation to Planned Area 3: CRISTA; and Fircrest’s land use and zoning designation to Planned Area 4: Fircrest.
Also proposed is text for the new Planned Areas in SMC Chapter 20.100. The purpose of this new Section is to:
· define the permitted and prohibited uses in each Planned Area; and
· limit expansion or redevelopment of existing nonconforming uses and development of any uses that are not permitted in a Planned Area unless the expansion, redevelopment or development is allowed through the nonconforming use process or a Master Plan permit process.
Note: CRISTA submitted a Master Plan application for City review in February 2008. This application is currently being reviewed for completeness.
7. Specific to Planned Area 1: Shoreline Community College
Staff recommends that a Master Plan permit be obtained prior to any further expansion, development or redevelopment at Shoreline Community College. This is consistent with the Planning Commission’s and City Council’s expressed desires. In addition, since 2000 the City has been expecting the submission of a Master Plan permit to address expansion, development and redevelopment at Shoreline Community College.
Shoreline Community College has not yet applied for a Master Plan permit and has instead been using the Conditional Use and Special Use processes for expansion, development and redevelopment. Therefore, in the proposed text for Planned Area 1, Shoreline Community College is prohibited from expanding nonconforming uses under 20.30.80(d) whereas the same restriction is not proposed for CRISTA and Fircrest.
Shoreline Community College has been kept informed about the proposed changes.
Staff recommends the approval of the proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and Development Code.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments
Attachment B Proposed Development Code Amendments
Attachment C Matrix of Amendments
Attachment D Planning Tools Process Table