Loading...
Planning Comm MINS 09-17-2008 K:\Planning Commission\2008\Meeting Summary 09-17-08.doc CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PLANNING COMMISSION September 17, 2008 City Hall 7:00 p.m. 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: Tim O’Neil and Kevin King. Alternate Commissioners absent: none. Staff present: Traffic Engineer Rick Perez, Senior Planner Margaret Clark, Contract Senior Planner Lori Michaelson, Deputy City Attorney Aaron Walls, and Administrative Assistant E. Tina Piety. Chairman Pfeifer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of September 3, 2008, were approved. AUDIENCE COMMENT None ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT Ms. Clark gave the Commission a handout on the revised Planning Commission Work Program Timeline. COMMISSION BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARING – Federal Way Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) Plan Commissioner Long recused himself because he administers this plan for City of Federal Way employees. Mr. Perez delivered the staff report. The Commute Trip Reduction (CRT) program is a state mandated program, the purpose of which is to improve air quality and reduce energy consumption through employer-based programs. The CTR requires all major employers to make a good faith effort to develop plans and programs to reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and Single Occupant Vehicle (SOV) commute trips. Major employers are those employing 100 or more full-time employees who are scheduled to arrive at a single worksite between 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. In March 2006, the legislature adopted changes to the CTR program. This plan implements those changes. The changes include requiring major employers to further reduce the number of SOV commute trips and the number of vehicle miles traveled. The elements of successful CTR worksites are: management support; active Employee Transportation Coordinator (ETC); incentives; transit services and facilities; parking costs; commute distances and congestion; and low employee turnover. Major employers in Federal Way implement these elements, with the exception of parking costs (or charging a fee for parking). Parking costs is something the City could consider encouraging employers to adopt; however, the City Council considered parking costs in 2004 and concluded that it should be market driven. There was no public comment on this topic. Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 September 17, 2008 K:\Planning Commission\2008\Meeting Summary 09-17-08.doc Commissioner Carlson thanked the staff for their good work on the CTR plan. He agrees with the Council that parking costs should be market driven. He stated that Utah went to a four-day work week for city employees. Has the City of Federal Way considered a four-day work week and if so, would it help us meet the reduced SOV commute trips and vehicle miles traveled goals? Mr. Perez responded that the City Manager’s office has asked City staff to monitor Utah’s program. Commissioner King asked if the staff has studied other cities with different programs. Mr. Perez responded that staff does monitor what is happening in other cities. He noted that Federal Way is a great transit market and we are doing well compared to other cities. Chairman Pfeifer commented that as a business owner he finds all of these state mandates to be expensive. For the CTR plan, it is like they are putting people against each other; for example, those who carpool can park closer than those in a SOV. It is negatively focused. He asked if all these mandates are really necessary. On a different note, he commented that he has found errors in the plan. For example, on page 34 there is a paragraph that refers to the light-rail link that is inappropriate because the vote it refers to has happened. Mr. Perez responded that the plan was prepared by a consultant before the elections. Staff is aware of a number of errors and will update the plan. Chairman Pfeifer commented that if we reduce the number of cars on the road that will reduce the gasoline tax which pays for road improvements. Has anyone thought of where the funds will come from if not from the gasoline tax? He asked what happens if an employer does not meet the requirements of CTR plan? Mr. Perez replied that this is not intended to be punitive. The only time a penalty might be incurred is if an employer does not make a good faith effort to implement the plan. Commissioner Elder expressed concern over the emissions of school buses (and buses in general). Is the school district required to follow the CTR plan? Mr. Perez replied that the school district does not meet the CTR definition of a major employer because there is not a concentration of employees at one site, but they and METRO are researching the use of low-sulfur fuels and/or bio-diesel. Commissioner Bronson asked if there are any incentives to employers. Mr. Perez replied that there is an award program. The only type of monetary incentive is B&O tax credits, but the City does not have a B&O tax. Commissioner O’Neil asked how did the City arrive at the percentages for the drive alone rate. Mr. Perez replied the percentages come from employer surveys. Commissioner asked if a cost was charged for parking, who would get the money. Mr. Perez responding that he is not advocating charging for parking, but if it were to be done, then the employer would get the money and it could be used for maintenance. Commissioner Carlson moved (and it was seconded) that the Commute Trip Reduction Plan be adopted as presented. There was no further discussion. The motion passed unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING – Outdoor Storage Containers Code Amendment Ms. Michaelson delivered the staff presentation. The city has received increased interest in storage containers. Storage containers are not addressed in the current code, with the expectation of allowing them at schools for storage of emergency supplies and allowing them by interpretation at construction sites for construction-related storage. The city prepared a survey of storage containers currently located in the city and sent the property owners a letter about the proposed code amendment. The principal purpose of the amendment is to establish zoning regulations for permanent outdoor storage containers, such as cargo containers, and portable moving containers, such as “PODS.” The code amendment Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 September 17, 2008 K:\Planning Commission\2008\Meeting Summary 09-17-08.doc addresses definitions for storage containers, where containers are appropriate, how they should be placed on a site, and related screening standards to ensure compatibility with adjacent properties, particularly residential areas. The hearing was opened to public comment. Donald Barovic, Pacific Highway South – He has lived at this address for at least 28 years. It is located on Hylebos Creek. Over the years he has noted fewer and fewer salmon in the creek. He believes the creek is polluted by stormwater drainage and he is determined that his property will not be polluted and the creek will be cleaned up. He owns a herd of goats that he uses to eradicate blackberry bushes. His neighbor is the Brooklake Community Church. His property is up against the church’s playground, ballfield, and pond. The decibel level when the children are at recess is very loud. He would like to place a number of containers along this property line as a noise and sight barrier. He would use the containers for farm equipment and supplies (and maybe even for the goats). He figures he would need four to five containers. They would be on a suitable foundation and screened. Public comment was closed. Commissioner King asked if what Mr. Barovic asks is permissible under the current code and is there anything under the code that allows for exemptions. Ms. Michaelson replied that it is not addressed under the current code and since it is residentially zoned property, cargo containers would not be allowed under the proposed amendments. Commissioner Bronson commented that according to the PowerPoint presentation, units located in the Commercial Enterprise (CE) zone may not be stacked, what is the reason for this? Ms. Michaelson replied that it is for aesthetic reasons and is similar to existing regulations for other outdoor storage uses in the code. Commissioner O’Neil asked for a clarification of a note in the PowerPoint presentation having to do with building codes. Ms. Michaelson replied that the note was intended to clarify that if a storage container is modified in a such a way that it is to be used for a building or structure (for example as a construction office) and not solely for storage, it will be subject to building codes. Commissioner Carlson commented that Section 22-1133(10), which deals with temporary storage containers in residential zones, states, “…may be temporarily placed in the required front yard of an occupied single-family residential lot….” It could be that work may be done on a residential lot that is not occupied. He suggests changing the word ‘occupied’ to ‘improved’. Commissioner Medhurst asked about the 90-day threshold for abandoned storage containers. It seems to be fewer days than the threshold for other uses. Ms. Michaelson deferred to Mr. Walls who commented that the 90-day limit is consistent with some other nonconformance thresholds, such as accessory dwelling units. Commissioner Medhurst asked about temporary storage containers, or “PODS.” Is there a permit process for them? If it is only a written notice (which seems to be the case according to Section 22-964), how can it be enforced? How can it be communicated to the public that they need to send a written notice? Ms. Michaelson replied that having a written notice will allow the city to keep track of “PODS,” inform citizens of the regulations (including they may not be placed in critical area setbacks, etc. and may remain no longer than 60 days in any 180-day period), and allows enforcement of those in place longer than 60 days. Commissioner O’Neil commented that in the study session, it was suggested the city request the “PODS” owners inform the city when someone in Federal Way contracts with them for a “PODS.” It was noted that this may be a good idea; however, many times the “PODS” come from outside of the city by someone moving into the area. Ms. Clark commented that the letter to the city could be as simple as an email. Commissioner Elder commented that there have been no complaints about “PODS” and so it does not make sense to place more regulations on people when there is no problem. Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 September 17, 2008 K:\Planning Commission\2008\Meeting Summary 09-17-08.doc Commissioner Medhurst asked why are dry-cargo trailers excluded from this code amendment? What would prevent a person from using a dry-cargo trailer rather than a storage container? Ms. Michaelson replied that dry- cargo trailers would be dealt with in other existing codes. Commissioner Bronson commented that Section 22-964 states that the director will issue a written confirmation in response to a person’s written request for a “POD.” What if a person sends in a letter or email and does not receive a reply from the city? Do they have to wait for a reply? Ms. Michaelson commented that staff will clarify this issue. The intent is not that anyone would have to wait for a reply from the city; the intent of the written notice is for the city to have a record of where “PODS” are located in the city. Commissioner Carlson moved (and it was seconded) to approve the staff recommendation with the change in Section 22-1133(10) of the word “occupied” to “improved.” Commissioner Bronson commented that he feels these code amendments are all issues that are already addressed in other areas of the code and are not needed. Commissioner Medhurst moved (and it was seconded) to amend the motion by striking out the following sentences from Section 22-964: “…and (4) Containers may remain on a property no longer than 60 days in any 180-day period, unless permitted in writing by the director of community development services. Persons wishing to place such a container must provide advance written notice to the director, specifying the address of the property where the container will be placed, dimensions of the container, anticipated dates of delivery and removal, and the name and contact information for the responsible party. The director will issue written confirmation and maintain a record of all such notices. The applicant may request in writing an extension to the specified timeframe of up to an additional 60 days, and the director may approve such request if the applicant explains why the extension is necessary and the city determines that the extension will not create a nuisance for adjacent property owners or be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare. The city may also require a bond, under FWCC 22-146 et seq., to cover the cost of removing the container, if necessary.” The vote was held on the amendment with one abstain, one no, and four yes; amendment passed. The vote was held on the main motion as amended with two no and four yes; motion as amended passed. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS None AUDIENCE COMMENT None ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 9:25 p.m.