Public reacts to key changes in the draft zoning code

ZCC Public Outreach

The ZCC organized four community outreach sessions to gather feedback on proposed administrative procedures in draft chapters 1 and 2 of the new zoning. Eleven key changes were presented for discussion. Participants were asked whether they think the changes would improve the code and if there are issues that still need attention. New requirements for use variances, design review, non-conforming uses, and public notice generated the most interest.

ZCC executive director Eva Gladstein described how the draft zoning code differs from the existing code in the following areas:

1. Who can testify at ZBA hearings. New language in the draft code states that any individual or organization is permitted to offer testimony, even if that individual or organization would not have standing to appeal a decision by the ZBA following that testimony.
2. How does the code relate to adopted plans. The draft code makes a distinction between formally “adopted” plans, which serve as a policy guide for the administration of the code, and “accepted” plans, which would be used to inform further city planning activities. 
3. Requirements for public notice. The draft code includes new language related to notification with requirements for the content, number, location, type, and duration of public notices for each application process.
4. Design review. The draft code includes a proposal for a design review committee and procedures with an advisory role, although the language may be refined based on the results of the facilitated dialogue workshops between neighborhood and development interests.
5. Variances for dimensions. New language limits dimensional variances to 25%.
6. Administrative decision-making. The draft code proposes that minor adjustments to specific dimensional standards under certain conditions be approved by L&I staff.
7. Conditional uses. The new code proposes to merge certificated and special uses into “conditional uses,” which would require a planning department judgment.
8. Use variances. New language limits the granting of use variances to properties where no other reasonable economic use is possible.
9. Minor amendments in planned development districts. The draft code proposes new language that allows the planning commission to approve minor amendments to plans of development, provided the proposed amendment meets specific criteria.
10. Replacement of discontinued uses in nonconforming properties. New language states that nonconforming uses discontinued less than 3 years can be restarted, or can be replaced with another nonconforming use with no greater adverse impacts on the surrounding area without a hearing before the ZBA.
11. Conforming adjustments on nonconforming properties. The draft code would allow nonconforming buildings to be expanded or extended under certain conditions, provided that the extended or expanded area complies with all applicable dimensional standards and does not increase the nonconformity.

Participants at each meeting were divided into groups to select and discuss two or three of the changes in more detail. The importance of more timely and effective public notification was a primary concern at every session. Participants want the new code to ensure notices will be more widely dispersed, easier to read and understand, provide more details about the project, and allow more time for the community to get informed and organized. They think the city should make information readily available on a website using zip codes or a geographic sort, so that communities do not have to rely on third-party providers to learn more about proposed projects in their neighborhoods. Recommendations included thoughts on how to provide access to project plans and images, provisions requiring the submission of contextual/neighborhood information, improvements to notification on continuances, and an extension to the 12-day notice requirement currently in place. Most thought 30 days notice is more reasonable, while some want information on a development proposal available on a city website as soon as the application is submitted. Prompt, adequate notice and easily accessible information was described as “a no-brainer request.”

Draft provisions governing use variances raised concern about how “reasonable economic use” is defined and who makes that determination. Although some participants acknowledged that the draft language may make the process more predictable and limit councilmanic privilege, they emphasized that the remapping is central to this issue. Evaluating the usefulness of administrative changes without knowing the new zoning classifications was described as “academic.”

Reaction to the proposed design review committee was generally positive, but participants expressed concern that an external group would be making decisions for a neighborhood. They want the code to ensure local groups are included in the process before it is a “fait accompli.” And they want design review to address the concentration of uses in any given area and to include smaller development proposals. “Even small projects can impact the neighborhood,” they said.

Discussions related to non-conforming uses and how and when they should be replaced, if at all, were complicated. The new code would allow a discontinued non-conforming use to be replaced, provided there is no greater adverse impact on the surrounding area. Participants were concerned about that determination and want the language related to impacts clarified. Although many were uncertain about how this change would really work on the ground, there seemed to be consensus that L&I staff should not be alone in making the decisions. Participants want the public to have an opportunity to weigh in on how the new use would impact a neighborhood.

Download Module 1 – Administration and Procedures.
View the PowerPoint presentation.

Take ZCC survey on module 1.