Planning Comm MINS 11-19-2008
K:\Planning Commission\2008\Meeting Summary 11-19-08.doc
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
PLANNING COMMISSION
November 19, 2008 City Hall
7:00 p.m. Council Chambers
MEETING MINUTES
Commissioners present: Merle Pfeifer, Hope Elder, Lawson Bronson, Wayne Carlson, Sarady Long, Tom
Medhurst, and Tim O’Neil. Commissioners absent: none. Alternate Commissioner present: Kevin King.
Alternate Commissioners absent: none. Staff present: Community Development Services Director Greg
Fewins, Planning Manager Isaac Conlen, Senior Planner Margaret Clark, City Traffic Engineer Rick Perez,
Assistant City Attorney Peter Beckwith, and Administrative Assistant E. Tina Piety. Also in attendance:
City Council Member Dini Duclos.
Chair Pfeifer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of November 5, 2008, were approved.
AUDIENCE COMMENT
None
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
Mr. Fewins announced that former City Manager Ken Nyberg passed away last night. He also announced
that the City Council has reached a consensus on the 2009 – 2010 budget and it will go to the December 2,
2008, City Council meeting for final approval.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
STUDY SESSION – Traffic Impact Fees
Mr. Perez delivered the staff presentation. The city is considering a traffic impact fee in order to provide a
fairer and more consistent manner of mitigating the impacts of new development. The traffic impact fee
would be based upon the amount of weekday PM peak trips. Currently, the city uses a concurrency system
with code authority to collect transportation mitigation pro-rata shares. Under this system, fees assessed on
new development are calculated on a case-by-case basis, which means some development pay no fee while
others pay over $5,000 per trip. The proposal is to retain concurrency provisions to ensure developments
meet adopted Level of Service (LOS) standards and replace concurrency mitigation with a new
Transportation Impact Fee Program. The city uses and would continue to utilize the State Environmental
Policy Act (SEPA) as a tool for development-specific impacts on safety, access, neighborhoods, non-peak
hours, etc. In addition, the City Center Planned Action area is subject to a Planned Action SEPA fee.
The advantages of a traffic impact fee is that it provides predictability whereby developers can estimate
potential traffic mitigation early in the process and consistency/fairness in that all development would pay
the same impact fees at a per trip cost. In addition, they bring about “system improvements” rather than
Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 November 19, 2008
K:\Planning Commission\2008\Meeting Summary 11-19-08.doc
“project improvements” because impact fees may be “pooled” to complete priority projects within six
years. Currently, transportation mitigation fees may only be used for specific projects within five years.
Impact fees may not be used for existing deficiencies; operating or maintenance expenses; non-capacity
improvements (i.e., pavement preservation); stand-alone multi-modal projects such as transit, park & ride,
bike lane/trail, and pedestrian path; and development ‘site-specific’ impacts (SEPA will be used for site-
specific impacts).
Commissioner Long recused himself because he is the project manager for the traffic impact fee program.
Commissioner Bronson noted that the concurrency system assumes at least one pm trip. What development
would not have at least one pm trip? Mr. Perez replied that a development could be a restaurant that serves
only breakfast or lunch. In addition, Personal Wireless Service Facilities and similar developments likely
would not have a pm trip. Commissioner Elder expressed concern that a majority of people in a
development may use another form of transportation. Mr. Perez replied that if a developer informs the city,
the city will take into consideration unique circumstances. Commissioner O’Neil asked for residential
developments, would the fee be assessed per lot or the development as a whole. Mr. Perez responded that
currently fees are assessed to the developer at the time of final plat, so the traffic impact fee would also be
collected at that time from the developer and would be based on the size of the entire development.
Commissioner Carlson asked what about lots on current final plats that have not yet been developed.
Would they have to pay this fee at the time of development? Mr. Perez replied that if the final plat went
through SEPA, they have been vested and would not have to pay the traffic impact fee. Commissioner
Carlson asked what about development that generate trips at times other than pm (churches for example).
Mr. Perez replied the city would use the SEPA process to mitigate such developments.
Since this was a study session, no motion was made. Chair Pfeifer closed the study session.
Chair Pfeifer welcomed the Boy Scouts.
PUBLIC HEARING Continued – Clearing, Grading, and Tree Retention Code Amendments
Ms. Clark delivered that staff presentation that consisted of answers and responses to questions and
comments raised by citizens, developers, and Commissioners, which may be found in the November 19,
2008, memorandum. She noted that staff misunderstood the first question regarding invasive species raised
by Dave Kaplan. He would like the city to provide incentives to remove invasive species. She commented
that staff will research this issue.
Chair Pfeifer opened the hearing to public comment.
Dave Kaplan – He commented that staff’s response to his question was opposite of what he
intended. He suggested that developers be required to remove invasive species.
Garrett Huffman, Master Builders Association – He commented that the Master Builders
Association leadership would like to defeat these proposed amendments as currently written. He
provided the Commissioners with a two page list of concerns from a professional engineer
(attached). The process is not what he was led to expect 10 months ago. He expected a
stakeholders group of those with knowledge on the issues to together develop workable
amendments. He went over some of the issues raised in the engineer’s list. He stated that: it is
problematic to survey trees on adjacent properties; measuring slopes at 2:1 is standard in other
jurisdictions; and cluster subdivisions are not always workable.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 November 19, 2008
K:\Planning Commission\2008\Meeting Summary 11-19-08.doc
Commissioner Long asked if other city departments were involved with the development of the proposed
amendments. Ms. Clark replied that the Public Works and Law Departments were involved. Commissioner
Long asked if the Master Builders Association is a part of the city’s Permit Stakeholders group. Mr.
Fewins replied that they are members of the city’s Permit Stakeholders group. That group has an annual
meeting and that meeting was held recently (Mr. Huffman was at that meeting). The proposed amendments
were mentioned, but were not discussed in detail. Commissioner Long suggested that staff meet with the
Master Builders Association. Mr. Fewins replied that staff has a meeting scheduled with them the first
week of December. The Commission discussed attending the meeting with the Master Builders and
decided that Chair Pfeiffer and Commissioners Elder and O’Neil would attend.
Commissioner Carlson stated that he is under the impression that a stakeholders group was assembled for
the proposed amendments. Some attended and participated in a study session on the proposed
amendments. He does share Mr. Huffman’s concerns regarding surveying trees on adjacent properties and
measuring slopes at 2:1. He is more inclined to accept the staff’s recommendation for four-foot retaining
walls. Retaining walls not only protect from slides, but also have an aesthetic component. Tall walls can be
unappealing. He has had time to review the handout Mr. Norris provided at the last meeting on the
Northlake Rim plat and the number and placement of tree units. He wondered if Mr. Norris understood the
proposal because Commissioner Carlson felt his handout was inaccurate.
Commissioner O’Neil commented that it is his understanding that trees in common areas can apply to the
total required tree units. Ms. Clark replied that is correct and Mr. Norris’ handout did not take into account
the Tract A common area. Commissioner Carlson commented it appears that a developer could meet the
required tree units in a common area and would not have to plant more trees. Ms. Clark responded that is
correct. Commissioner O’Neil commented that the calculation for the urban canopy depends on the size of
the trees and so a development would need fewer large trees.
The public hearing on the Clearing, Grading, and Tree Retention Code Amendments was continued to the
Planning Commission meeting on Wednesday, January 7, 2009, in the City Hall Council Chambers.
ADDITIONAL BUSINESS
The next regular Planning Commission meeting is December 17, 2008.
AUDIENCE COMMENT
None
ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at 8:40 p.m.