The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLUTC MINS 09-20-2010 City of Federal Way City Council Land Use/Transportation Committee September 20, 2010 City Hall 5:30 PM City Council Chambers MEETING SUMMARY Committee Members in Attendance: Committee Chair Dini Duclos, Committee Member Jack Dovey and Committee Member Jim Ferrell. Council Members in Attendance: Mayor Linda Kochmar and Council Member Burbidge Staff Members in Attendance: Director of Community Development Services Greg Fewins, Deputy Public Works Director Marwan Salloum, Deputy Public Works Director Ken Miller, City Traffic Engineer Rick Perez, Senior Planner Deb Barker, Senior Planner Janet Shull, Principal Planner Margaret Clark, Building Official Lee Bailey, Street Systems Engineer Jeff Huynh, Planning Manager Isaac Conlen, Associate Planner Matt Herrera, Assistant City Attorney Peter Beckwith, and Administrative Assistant II Darlene LeMaster. 1. CALL TO ORDER Committee Chair Duclos called the meeting to order at 5:30 PM. 2. PUBLIC COMMENT There was no public comment. 3. BUSINESS ITEMS Forward Topic Title/Description to Council A. Approval of the August 2, 2010, LUTC Minutes Committee approved August 2, 2010, LUTC minutes as presented. Moved: Ferrell Seconded: Dovey Passed: Unanimously, 3-0 N/A B. 2010 Asphalt Overlay Project – Project Acceptance Street Systems Engineer Jeff Huynh presented information on this item. There was no public comment or discussion. Committee forwarded Option #1 as presented. Moved: Dovey Seconded: Ferrell Passed: Unanimously, 3-0 10/5/2010 Consent C. Interlocal Agreement with WSDOT for Fiber Optic Installation City Traffic Engineer Rick Perez presented information on this item. There was no public comment or discussion. Committee forwarded Option #1 as presented. Moved: Dovey Seconded: Ferrell Passed: Unanimously, 3-0 10/5/2010 Consent Land Use/Transportation Committee Page 2 September 20, 2010 G:\LUTC\LUTC Agendas and Summaries 2010\9-20-10 Minutes.doc D. E. Amendments to the Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) – Submittal Requirements for Plats and Commercial Projects; and Amendments to the Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) – Clarifying Complete Application and Review Standards and Housekeeping Amendment Senior Planner Deb Barker presented information on these items together. There was one public comment. A letter from Sam Pace of Seattle King County Realtors was acknowledged into the record during Ms. Barker’s presentation. Mr. Pace’s and the Planning Commission’s comments were consistent with each other. There was no other discussion. Committee forwarded Option #1 from agenda item A and Option #1 from agenda item B as presented. Moved: Dovey Seconded: Ferrell Passed: Unanimously, 3-0 10/5/2010 1st Reading Ordinance 10/5/2010 1st Reading Ordinance F. Shoreline Master Program Update - Revisions Senior Planner Janet Shull presented information on this item and highlighted the changes requested by WA State DOE as well as one staff proposed change. There was one public comment. Norm Kustcha, 33021 38th Avenue S (Northlake resident) – Mr. Kutscha is proposing an addition to the SMP revisions and is advocating to preserve the views of existing lakefront homes by utilizing the stringline setback rule for new construction, where new construction would have to be set back according to the stringline guideline, but no more than 100 feet. Mr. Kutscha also requested the committee to acknowledge the differences between marine setbacks and lakefront setbacks and treat each separately. Councilmember Burbidge spoke in favor of Mr. Kutscha’s proposal and noted that if approved, would result in the stringline guideline being even more effective than it already is. It would preserve views for existing homes. This proposal would be very accommodating to both lakefront and marine shoreline homes. Committee Member Dovey asked staff for a visual aide to help illustrate what the stringline setbacks look like compared to what the Kutscha’s have proposed. What are the effects and what would happen if a home owner wanted to rebuild. Ms. Shull further explained that currently the minimum setback for single-family residences is 50 feet, and how the Kutscha’s are requesting this to be modified. New construction would be subject to new setback guidelines. Ms. Shull said the Kutscha’s proposal applies only to lakefront. Committee Member Dovey also asked exactly how many parcels may be affected by this change. Ms. Shull shared information on vacant and underdeveloped parcels that had potential redevelopment or subdivision activity includes 14 from North Lake and 18 from Steel Lake. Lakefront parcels within the PAA include 21 parcels from Lake Killarney, 37 from Lake Dollaff, 23 from Five Mile Lake, 16 from Lake Geneva and 18 from Star Lake. Chair Duclos inquired as to when the Kutscha’s home was built. Why were homes set back so far to begin with? Chair Duclos was concerned that an existing home’s view may be compromised due to new construction, resulting in the existing home being devalued. Conversation between staff and the Committee suggested that in 1927, when the Kutscha’s home was built, there may have been septic regulations, dictating the required setback for homes. N/A Land Use/Transportation Committee Page 3 September 20, 2010 G:\LUTC\LUTC Agendas and Summaries 2010\9-20-10 Minutes.doc Mayor Kochmar asked staff for the setback requirement in King County. Ms. Shull responded that the current setback requirement in unincorporated King County is 20 feet for lakefront homes. Ms. Shull also noted there may have been many variables contributing to the historical setback requirements, the major one being a designated wetland. Mayor Kochmar also made note that she would like to bring back the 200 foot setback for Category 1 Wetlands at a future time. Chair Duclos talked about respecting the boundaries of homes that sit close to the lakefront, but what about the homes that sit further back? Staff noted that three years ago and after much comment both for and against, Council approved doing away with the greater setback. The Kutscha are bringing new testimony to this prior topic. Councilmember Burbidge asked if in the existing guideline, are there exceptions to the rule. Ms. Shull explained that residents may apply for a shoreline variance and gave a brief synopsis of that process. Committee Member Dovey asked for a bit of clarification on the marine bluff 50 foot setback. Ms. Shull responded that the 50 foot setback for marine bluff is in response to comments from the WA State Dept. of Ecology, suggesting greater than the current 25 foot setback in regard to safety, ecological functions of the Sound, and erosion. Mr. Pater from the WA State Dept. of Ecology reiterated Ms. Shull’s response. Committee Member Ferrell asked if at the time these SMP updates went through Planning Commission, was the Commission aware of the Kutscha’s proposal? Ms. Shull noted that Planning Commission was aware of the Kutscha’s request and voted not to include it into their recommendation to the Land Use and Transportation Committee. Committee Member Dovey asked for the Kutscha’s interest in this issue. Mr. Kutscha stated that there is vacant land on one side of their home, and an older home on the other side, which will likely be torn down and rebuilt in the future. Chair Duclos asked Ms. Shull which takes precedence, “no net loss” or “best available science”? Ms. Shull answered that for the Shoreline Master Plan, “no net loss” takes precedence and best available science may be used to determine net loss. No net loss is the goal. Committee Member Dovey doesn’t agree with changing marine bluff setbacks from 25 feet to 50 feet. He feels that 25 feet has been working just fine. Committee Member Burbidge stated that there is lots of wisdom in trying to anticipate future erosion. She is in support of a 50 foot marine bluff setback. Mayor Kochmar asked what King County is establishing for their marine bluff setbacks. Mr. Pater responded that King County is currently doing their own SMP update and are incorporating many of their critical areas into their shorelines and is not sure about lakefronts. King County’s SMP updates are currently at the State for review and have not yet received comment. Mayor Kochmar suggested finding out what King County is implementing prior to making any decision. Committee deferred item to October 4, 2010 Land Use and Transportation Committee meeting. Staff will get additional information on what King County is doing. Staff will also provide more visuals of how the proposed changes compare to the existing requirements of both lakefront and marine bluff setbacks. Moved: Ferrell Seconded: Dovey Passed: Unanimously, 3-0 Land Use/Transportation Committee Page 4 September 20, 2010 G:\LUTC\LUTC Agendas and Summaries 2010\9-20-10 Minutes.doc G. Residential Off-Street Parking Associate Planner Matt Herrera presented information on this item. Collectively, there were four public comments. Diana Noble-Gulliford, 2754 SW 314th St – Thanked staff for revisiting this topic. Ms. Noble- Gulliford still opposes increased impervious surfaces and added costs to the homeowner, especially in our current economy. H. David Kaplan, 30240 27th Ave S – Mr. Kaplan feels unsure how to solve this issue but agrees with the existing code not allowing parking on the grass. Let’s keep it that way. Julie Vance, 31003 22nd Ave S – Ms. Vance opposes this code amendment and feels that if one resident needs to pave, everyone should be held to the same standard. Clara McArthur, Federal Way – Ms. McArthur feels that the City is meddling in people’s rights too much. Unless a resident is clearly in violation, the City should mind their own business. Mayor Kochmar stated she had three words to say…”KILL THE BILL.” Chair Duclos noted many areas in Federal Way that need parking restrictions, while other neighborhoods put the restrictions on themselves. There are those homes on larger parcels and much older and more established areas. These various areas need to be treated differently in her opinion. One size doesn’t fit all in this case. Committee Member Ferrell talked about the uniform application of code regulations and how it sometimes can be problematic. Enforcing the code is complaint driven and that becomes a resource issue....equal treatment under the law for all residents, regardless of who picks up the phone and calls. Committee Member Dovey feels that staff needs to compromise due to all of the controversy over parking on grass and trying to treat everyone equally. Mr. Herrera commented that the purpose of this amendment is to try to make this parking ordinance less ambiguous. The proposed ordinance is less restrictive than the existing ordinance. Conversation continued back and forth between Committee Members and Ms. Vance. Ms. Vance explained in detail how she has established a gravel parking pad in her back yard for her RV and her boat. Ms. Vance said it was very expensive ($2,000 - $3,000) to level and gravel the parking area for her boat and RV. More conversation continued as to whether or not Ms. Vance would be currently in compliance with her current RV and boat parking, using Ms. Vance’s situation as an example to illustrate the complexity of this issue and the repercussions to the property owner. A regulation for residents wanting to park in their back yards and what that requires for a driveway to get to their backyards was also discussed. Mayor Kochmar asked for clarification as to what “impervious surface” means. Mr. Herrera reiterated what staff is trying to do with this amendment. Mayor Kochmar was not in favor of more impervious surfaces. Committee Member Dovey summarized that the real issue at hand in this amendment is whether or not residents will be allowed to park on grass, something that is not allowed today. Committee Member Ferrell asked if this amendment does not pass, would it be legal for people to park on the grass. Mr. Herrera stated that if this amendment does not pass, it will continue to be illegal for residents to park on either the grass or gravel and they can be sited for it. 10/5/2010 1st Reading Ordinance Land Use/Transportation Committee Page 5 September 20, 2010 G:\LUTC\LUTC Agendas and Summaries 2010\9-20-10 Minutes.doc Committee Member Dovey stated the majority of the complaints received are about residents parking in their front yards and suggested allowing residents to park on the grass in either their side or back yards. There was conversation between the Committee members regarding what the goal should be. How does Council want our city to appear? What will be the public’s perception? Mr. Herrera reviewed that staff did not recommend that parking be allowed in grass is because parking in grass eventually turns the grass to dirt. Dirt then gets tracked onto the roads and washes down into the stormwater system. Chair Duclos asked if the proposed ordinance was okay with people - residents in the audience and fellow council members. Chair Duclos also asked if residents would need approval for any of the items listed in the proposed amendment (asphalt, cement, gravel, pavers, LID). Driving from the street to the backyard over grass and whether or not that is considered a driveway is another issue and would be dealt with as a different code amendment at another time. Committee Member Ferrell stated parking should be acceptable without any extra staff approval, contrary to staff’s recommendation for gravel, pavers and LID options. Committee forwarded Option #2 as amended to include asphalt, cement, gravel, pavers, LID with approval, and grass, provided it is not in the front yard. Moved: Ferrell Seconded: Dovey Passed: Unanimously, 3-0 H. 2010 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Principal Planner Margaret Clark presented information on this item. There was no public comment. Committee Member Dovey commented that he would like to pull the portion of Chapter 6 that outlines the Performing Arts Center, Conference Center and the Recreational Facility. Staff still needs to work out some details as far as the Comprehensive Plan is concerned. Ms. Clark clarified that language in Chapter 6 will not be modified at this time except for the recommendations regarding Camp Kilworth and SCORE. Chair Duclos concurred. Committee forwarded Option #2 as amended to keep Chapter 6 the way it was for the Performing Arts Center. Moved: Dovey Seconded: Ferrell Passed: Unanimously, 3-0 10/5/2010 1st Reading Ordinance 4. OTHER None 5. FUTURE MEETING The next LUTC meeting will be held Monday, 10/4/10 at 5:30 PM in City Hall Council Chambers. 6. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 7:53 PM. Attest: Darlene LeMaster, Administrative Assistant II COMMITTEE APPROVAL: Dini Duclos, Chair Jim Ferrell, Member Jack Dovey, Member