Loading...
Planning Comm PKT 09-03-2008 September 3,2008 7:00 p.m. City of F ederal Way PLANNING COMMISSION City Hall Council Chambers AGENDA 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES April 23, 2008, and June 18,2008 4. AUDIENCE COMMENT 5. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT 6. COMMISSION BUSINESS . PUBLIC HEARING Portable Signs Code Amendment 7. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS 8. AUDIENCE COMMENT 9. ADJOURN Commissioners Merle Pfeifer, Chair William Drake Wayne Carlson Sarady Long Tim 0 'Neil (? Alternate) Hope Elder, Vice-Chair Lawson Bronson Tom Medhurst Kevin King (lsl Alternate) K:\Planning Commission\2008\Agenda 09-03-08.doc City Staff Greg Fewins, CDS Director Margaret Clark, Senior Planner E. Tina Piety, Administrative Assistant 253-835-2601 www.citvoffedera/wav.com CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PLANNING COMMISSION April 23, 2008 7 :00 p.m. City Hall Council Chambers MEETING MINUTES Commissioners present: Merle Pfeifer, Hope Elder, Lawson Bronson, Wayne Carlson, Tom Medhurst, and Sarady Long. Commissioners absent: Bill Drake (excused). Alternate Commissioners present: Kevin King. Alternate Commissioners absent: Tim O'Neal. Staff present: Senior Planner Margaret Clark, Associate Planner David Lee, and Administrative Assistant E. Tina Piety. Chairman Pfeifer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ApPROVAL OF MINUTES It was moved and seconded to approve the minutes of March 19,2008, as presented. The motion passed; no nays. AUDIENCE COMMENT None ADMINISTRATIVE REpORT None COMMISSION BUSINESS STUDY SESSION - Height Increases in Commercial Zones Ms. Clark introduced Associate Planner David Lee, who is also working on this issue. Ms. Clark delivered the staff presentation. The purpose of this study session is to brief the Commission on the issue and obtain direction. The 2008 Planning Commission Work Program contains 11 proposed code amendments. Once staff started researching these amendments, it became apparent that some could be combined. It was decided to combine the following proposed code amendments: . Increase the maximum allowable height in the City Center-Core (CC-C) and City Center-Frame (CC-F). . Increase building height in the Community Business (BC) and Neighborhood Business (BN) zones. . Amend regulations related to the maximum 120-foot facade length. . Delete the maximum allowable density for senior housing in the Community Business (BC) zone. (No maximum in other commercial zones that allow senior housing [CC-C & CC-F].) Ms. Clark noted that she reviewed all of the nonresidential zones in preparation for this proposal and found a number of inconsistencies among the chart notes. She will use this proposed amendment to clean up as many of those inconsistencies as possible. One reason for combining the proposed amendments is that if a change is made to heights in the BC zone without considering the CC-C & CC-F zones, then heights in the BC zone would exceed the CC-C & CC-F base height of 70 feet. K:\Planning Commission\2008\Meeting Summary 04-23-08.doc Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 April 23, 2008 A more flexible requirement for fas;ade length is needed because as buildings become taller, they frequently become wider. The proposal looks at not only increasing the fas;ade length, but breaking up the fas;ade to add visual interest. There is no maximum density in other commercial zones for senior housing. Density should be governed by the maximum allowable height and other development regulations such as required landscaping, parking, and provision of detention facilities. If units are smaller or underground detention facilities are provided, the total number of units could be increased. The proposal would also delete the maximum allowable density for mixed use in the BC and BN zones. A question before the Planning Commission and City Council is should the city increase heights in the CC-C and CC-F zones and if yes, by how much. The city has received many inquiries for taller building heights in the CC-C zone. As part of the proposal to increase heights, staff will study whether we should amend the provisions for limiting height adjacent to residential zones. Allowing additional height in the CC-C zone would require additional SEPA review. The current Planned Action SEPA did not take into consideration the increased density additional height would bring. One possible way to avoid additional SEPA review would be to allow increased height without higher density. This could result in fewer total buildings or taller, skinnier buildings. Inquires for taller building heights in the CC-F zone has been for east of Pacific Highway South. A potential solution is an overlay zone with increased heights in the area between 316th and 312th. The City could require decreased heights as you go north closer to the residential zones. Another option for increased heights would be to allow building height increase without higher density. There has been interest among the Council to increase heights in the BC zoned area along the northern portion of Pacific Highway to take advantage of views of the Sound and Mt Rainier. Staff is doing some view analysis to determine at what height views become available. One suggestion is to increase heights just on the east side of Pacific Highway. Commissioner Elder expressed concern about increased heights possible obstructing neighbors' views and suggested regulations to protect neighbors' views. Commissioner Medhurst asked how the word "views" is defined. There is no definition in the Federal Way City Code. Commissioner Bronson suggested that rather than stating a height in the code, we allow developers tell us what height they want and use other criteria to decide if the height they want would be appropriate or not. Commissioner Medhurst commented that ifhe were a developer, he would want to know the height requirement before applying. Commissioner Carlson asked how does height vary. Ms. Clark responded that height varies by zone, but it is inconsistent in that a use may have a different height limit in a different zone. Chair Pfeifer commented that he can agree to staff researching varying the heights along Pacific Highway South for views, but the city should consider the entire corridor. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS None AUDIENCE COMMENT None ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 7:53 p.m. K:\Planning Commission\2008\Meeting Summary 04-23-08.doc CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PLANNING COMMISSION June 18,2008 7:00 p.m. City Hall Council Chambers MEETING MINUTES Commissioners present: Merle Pfeifer, Hope Elder, Lawson Bronson, Wayne Carlson, Tom Medhurst, and Sarady Long. Commissioners absent: Bill Drake (unexcused). Alternate Commissioners present: Tim O'Neil. Alternate Commissioners absent: Kevin King (excused). Staff present: Senior Planner Margaret Clark, Senior Planner Janet Shull, Senior Planner Lori Michaelson, Development Services Manager Will Appleton, City Staff Attorney Monica Buck, and Administrative Assistant E. Tina Piety. Chairman Pfeifer called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. Commissioner Carlson moved and it was seconded to move the public hearing on the Federal Way Village Rezone Ordinance to the beginning of the meeting. The motion passed unanimously. COMMISSION BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARING - Federal Way Village Rezone Ordinance Amendment Commissioner Long recused himself because he is working on this project as city staff. Ms. Shull delivered the staff presentation. The applicant is requesting to modify condition number 3 ofthe conditions of rezone for Federal Way Village in order to allow for phased construction of required interior roadway network. Chair Pfeifer opened the meeting to public testimony. Jon Potter, Federal Way Village LLC - He told the Commission that the request is motivated by infrastructure costs. In the residential section, a large portion of the roadway does not have housing on both sides, which leads to a greater cost to construct the roadway. They would also like to avoid mass grading and grade the site in phases closer to the point when they expect to be able to build in each. Commissioner Carlson asked why the choice was made to end the road at lot 34 instead of lot 31. Mr. Appleton responded that the city has a maximum dead-end length and ending at lot 34 meets that maximum. Commissioner Bronson asked how the fire department feels about the cul-de-sac. Ms. Shull replied the fire department was involved in the review process. They are satisfied as long as there is room for their vehicles to turn around. Chair Pfeifer asked if allowing the work to be done in phases would delay the project. Mr. Potter replied they do not anticipate it will delay the project; rather it should allow them to move quicker. Chair Pfeifer asked if they have carefully considered all aspects of the project so that further amendments will not arise. Mr. Potter answered that it is not possible to foresee all contingencies (they did not expect the downturn of the residential market, which led to this amendment request), but have done their best and do not anticipate further amendment requests. He did mention they had submitted for a comprehensive plan amendment to change the boundary between the Community Business and Multi-Family zones. Commissioner Elder expressed concern about mass grading (a concern shared by other Commissioners). She does not want to see a large area cleared of all trees sitting for an unknown number of years waiting for houses to be built. Mr. Potter responded that the city staffhas expressed this concern a number of times. They want to keep the city and citizens happy and do not plan to mass grade. They expect grading to be phased with the development and will work out the details with the builder. K:\Planning Commission\2008\Meeting Summary 06-18-08.doc Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 June 18, 2008 Commissioner Elder moved (and it was seconded) to amend the proposal as recommended by staff. Commissioner Bronson expressed his concern that there is no time-line. Specifically, he is concerned that the area may be graded and sits for years with nothing happening, and then someone comes in with more changes. Commissioner Carlson commented that plats have a five year deadline and asked if the applicant has requested to extend that deadline. Ms. Shull replied that staffhas discussed this issue with the applicant and the applicant feels there will be progress on the project and they will not need to extend the deadline. Commissioner Elder commented that she feels obligated to allow the applicant to make amendments because the city allowed a church to make amendments to their master plan to allow development in phases. The vote was held and the motion passed unanimously. ApPROVAL OF MINUTES None AUDIENCE COMMENT None ADMINISTRATIVE REpORT Ms. Clark informed the Commission that the next meeting probably will not be until August. Staffwill inform the Commission of actual dates when they are known. COMMISSION BUSINESS STUDY SESSION - Code Amendment to Allow Cargo Containers in Commercial and/or Residential Zones Ms. Michaelson delivered the staff presentation. There has been an increase in the number of inquiries and applications for cargo containers. Cargo containers are not specifically addressed in current codes, with some exceptions, such as temporary construction trailer and schools are allowed to use them to store emergency supplies. They are sometimes placed inappropriately and can impede traffic circulation, parking, sight distance, etc. In addition, they are not typically designed for aesthetics and can rust and become unsightly over time. The proposed code amendment will address concerns about placement, bulk and scale, design, screening, and ensure compatibility with adjacent properties, particularly residential areas. Cargo containers come in a variety of shapes and sizes and may include custom modifications, like windows, doors, vents, etc. Most containers are eight feet wide by eight feet tall, but can go as large as 24 to 40 feet in length. They were developed to hold and transport cargo via ships, trains, or trucks and have typically been found in industriallheavy commercial areas. They are increasingly found in non-industrial areas where they are used for a broad range of temporary or permanent uses. Temporary uses include moving and storage operations, active construction sites, emergency management sites, etc. Permanent uses include accessory storage of equipment, supplies, inventory, and other property. In addition, they can be customized for used as non-residential habitable space for offices, work areas, booths, or stands. One type of container that is becoming increasingly popular in residential areas are Portable On Demand Storage or PODS. PODS are delivered to the property by the container company, retrieved when loaded, and delivered to the company's storage warehouse or other destination as specified. K:\Planning Commission\2008\Meeting Summary 06-18-08.doc Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 June 18, 2008 There are a number of containers in Federal Way; temporary and permanent. Some, but not all, have received city approval. Many would be nonconforming under the current code. Staff's preliminary recommendations include prohibiting storage of containers on a permanent basis in residential zones, except as accessory to school and possibly other institutional and quasi-institutional uses, like government facilities, churches, hospitals, and community facilities. Staff recommends continuing to allow containers in non- residential zones if accessory to an approved use, subject to administrative approval criteria. Such criteria would include, but not necessarily be limited to: the same design and screening requirements that apply to the principal use; outdoor storage areas; design guidelines; etc. Staff recommends that containers that are located in, or visible from, residential zones be fully enclosed within an approved stick-built structure, and/or solidly screened, and be limited by size and/or number. In addition, staff recommends considering other zone-specific restrictions such as, containers may not be habitable, may not be refrigerated, may not be stacked, etc. Finally, staff recommends continuing to allow and clarify provisions for temporary uses and address PODS and similar units. Commissioner O'Neil asked if PODS go through a permit process. Ms. Michaelson replied that currently there is no permit process for PODS and no regulations. Staff suggests that regulations be developed, such as how long they may placed in an area and where they may be placed (if placed on a driveway, want to ensure they are not blocking and have good sight distance). They could be allowed outright, with the understanding they must meet code, or the city could impose a simple permit process that would require a small fee. Regulations for such uses should not be overly restrictive, but the minimum necessary to ensure public health and safety. Commissioner Elder is opposed to regulating PODS. She commented that the city already has too many regulations telling people what they can and cannot do on their own property. She asked if there have been many complaints. Ms. Michaelson replied that to her knowledge, the city has not received any complaints about PODS and few for other containers, but as more of these units appear, concerns can be expected. Commissioner Carlson commented that he thinks the staff is heading in the right direction. Provisions for temporary containers should be simple and more exacting for permanent containers. The city should distinguish between the uses for containers. He agrees with the staff recommendations for containers near or in residential areas. Commissioner Long also thinks the staff is heading in the right direction. However, he does not see a difference between PODS and U-Hauls and therefore, sees no reason to have a permit process for PODS. Commissioner Bronson is concerned about requiring a stick-built structure (and therefore flammable) around fire- proof containers. He is concerned the stick-built structure could catch fire and damage the container. He would prefer paint to a flammable curtain. He sees no problem with requiring containers to be screened. He does have some concern that screening the container could hide it from those looking for a container with emergency supplies. He would be willing to have regulations for PODS, but does not feel there should be a permit process. Commissioner Carlson asked what percentage of permanent containers is used for emergency supplies. Ms. Michaelson replied that she does not have the number, but the current code specifically allows schools to have containers for storing emergency supplies. Commissioner Medhurst commented that as staff develops the regulations, they should be aware that some retailers use containers to store seasonal goods and supplies. He also asked ifthere is compliance issues staff should consider, such as if a store uses parking for a container, will it mean they do not meet the parking requirements? Commissioner Long asked if the city has a restriction for how many temporary containers a site may have. Ms. Michaelson replied that issue is not addressed in the current code. K:\Planning Commission\2008\Meeting Summary 06-18-08.doc Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 June 18, 2008 In her PowerPoint presentation, Ms. Michaelson had pictures of containers currently found in Federal Way. Commissioner Long noted that one of the pictures showed a container with merchandise alongside and on top of the container. He suggested that no external storage be allowed, all material must be inside the container. Commissioner O'Neil asked how much of a problem are cargo containers? Ms. Michaelson replied that the city is receiving questions about whether a container can be brought on-site and since the code does not directly address them, it requires an interpretation to address such questions. Ms. Clark added that people are locating them without asking the city first. Since cargo containers are becoming more common, and code interpretations more frequent, the city feels we should amend the code to address the issue. Commissioner Bronson requested that churches and community agencies be added to the regulations that allow cargo containers that hold emergency supplies, since some of them do store emergency supplies. Commissioner Medhurst asked staff to consider, if a site is allowed outside storage, would having a cargo container change that. Chair Pfeifer commented that the Commission has a consensus that the city should take a "soft" approach when dealing with PODS. In addition, large permanent containers should not be allowed in residential areas, with the exception for storing emergency supplies. Currently, containers that are used at construction sites are to be removed when the construction is complete. This does not always happen. Chair Pfeifer suggested the staff consider requiring a bond for construction containers that can be used if the container is not removed. Ms. Michaelson noted that the current code allows the city to require a bond in such cases. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS Commissioner Elder asked at what point a building would be too high for our fire department to successfully fight. Ms. Clark responded that she will ask the fire department and will let the Commission know. AUDIENCE COMMENT None ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 8:50 p.m. K:\PJanning Commission\2008\Meeting Summary 06- J8-08.doc ~ CITY OF' ~ Federal Way STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Amendments to Federal Way City Code (FWCC) Chapter 22, Article XVIII, "Signs" File No. 08-103762-UP Planning Commission Meeting of September 3, 2008 I. BACKGROUND On August 5, 2008, the City Council gave staff direction to prepare a code amendment to allow portable signs in the right-of-way. II. DISCUSSION Pursuant to Federal Way City Code (FWCC) Section 22-1599, portable signs are presently prohibited in the public right-of-way. This code amendment would allow for portable signs while protecting public infrastructure and property and promoting traffic and traveler safety. The draft code amendment is enclosed as Exhibit A. Language proposed to be deleted is shown as strikeout and proposed new language is shown as underline. Signs would be allowed in the right-of- way based on the following conditions: 1. Signs may not be affixed to the ground, by stakes or other means, nor attached to objects, such as stop signs or utility poles. 2. No more than two signs are allowed per person, event, or business. 3. Signs may not exceed six square feet per sign face. 4. Signs may not exceed 36 inches in height. 5. Signs are only allowed between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3 :00 p.m. and must be removed every day. 6. Signs shall not be located on the travelled portion of a roadway, in parking lanes, on sidewalks, in bicycle lanes, or placed in a manner that interferes with vehicle, bicycle, wheelchair, or pedestrian travel or views. 7. Signs shall not be located in street medians or in street side planter strips. III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the code amendment as outlined in Section II above and enclosed as Exhibit A be recommended for approval to the City Council. IV. REASON FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION FWCC Chapter 22, "Zoning," Article IX, "Process VI Review," establishes a process and criteria for zoning code text amendments. Consistent with Process VI review, the role of the Planning Commission is as follows: 1. To review and evaluate the zoning code text regarding any proposed amendments. 2. To determine whether the proposed zoning code text amendment meets the criteria provided by FWCC Section 22-528. 3. To forward a recommendation to City Council regarding adoption of the proposed zoning code text amendment. V. DECISIONAL CRITERIA FWCC Section 22-528 provides criteria for zoning text amendments. The following section analyzes the compliance of the proposed zoning text amendments with the criteria provided by FWCC Section 22-528. The City may amend the text ofthe FWCC only if it finds that: 1. The proposed amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan. The proposed FWCC text amendment is consistent with the following Federal Way Comprehensive Plan (FWCP) goal: EDG-6 The City will encourage and support existing businesses to remain and/or expand their facilities within Federal Way. The comprehensive plan encourages success of business in Federal Way as a general concept. The success of business has a direct impact to the City's tax base, which provides the money to provide City services and amenities. 2. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relationship to public health, safety, or welfare. The proposed FWCC text amendments bear a relationship to the public health, safety, and welfare because the amendments will assist businesses in attracting customers, but will not interfere with pedestrian or vehicle travel. In addition, limiting the number of signs and hours during which they be displayed will continue to promote a positive visual image of the City. Portable Signs Planning Commission Staff Report File #08-103762-UP I Doc ill 46576 Page 2 3. The proposed amendment is in the best interest of the residents of the City. The proposed FWCC text amendments are in the best interest of the residents of the City because portable signs will help to attract customers to business, sales, and other events thus supporting the City's vision of its economic development future. VI. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Consistent with the provisions ofFWCC Section 22-539, the Planning Commission may take the following actions regarding the proposed zoning code text amendments: 1. Recommend to City Council adoption of the FWCC text amendments as proposed; 2. Modify the proposed FWCC text amendments and recommend to City Council adoption of the FWCC text amendments as modified; 3. Recommend to City Council that the proposed FWCC text amendments not be adopted; or 4. Forward the proposed FWCC text amendments to City Council without a recommendation. EXHIBIT Exhibit A - Federal Way City Code Chapter 22, Article XVIII, "Signs," with Proposed New Language " K:\2008 Code Amendments\Portable Signs\Planning Commission\Planning Commission StaffReport.doc Portable Signs Planning Commission Staff Report File #08-103762-UP / Doc ID 46576 Page 3 , Exhibit A Amendments to Federal Way City Code (FWCC) Chapter 22, Article XVIII, "Signs" 22-1596 Purpose. (8) Provide controls on sign proliferation to preserve community scenic, economic, and aesthetic values; aad (9) Provide for the elimination of billboard signs after a reasonable amortization period recognizing that billboards affect the aesthetic value of the community thereby reducing property values and impacting traffic safety because of the distraction that is created by large signage along public rights-of- way:-,;, (10) Protect public infrastructure and property within public rights-of-way: and (II) Promote traffic and traveler safety. including by reducing the number of visual distractions. visual competition. and visual obstructions. 22-1600 Prohibited signs. The following signs or displays are prohibited in all zones within the city. Prohibited signs are subject to removal by the city at the owner's or user's expense pursuant to FWCC 22-1604: (14) Right of way sigas iBeh:H:iing ~flY sigH ~in a public right-of-way except governmental signs. and except portable signs that follow the requirements of FWCC 22-1 599(d)(2)(cc). 22-1599 Permits. (d) Permit exceptions. (2) Exempt signs. A sign permit is not required for the following signs or modifications to signs; provided, however, that such signs shall comply with all of the following requirements: cc. Portable signs located in the public right-of-way subiect to the following standards: 1. Signs shall not be affixed to the ground. including through the use of stakes or other means that may damage property: 11. No more than two signs shall be allowed per business or event. and no person (including any agent thereof) may have more than two signs at anyone time: lll. Sign area shall not exceed six square feet per sign face or 36 inches in height: IV. Signs shall be allowed only between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. and must be removed each day: v. Signs shall not be placed on or attached to other obiects. including but not limited to buildings. structures: trees. plants. utility poles. utility boxes. utility equipment. or other signs of any type: VI. Signs shall not be located on the travelled portion of a roadway. in parking lanes. on sidewalks. in bicycle lanes. or placed in a manner that interferes with vehicle. bicycle. wheelchair. or pedestrian travel or views: and VB. Signs shall not be placed in street medians or street side planter strips. K:\2008 Code Amendments\Portable Signs\Planning Commission\080608 Draft Language.doc