Loading...
Planning Comm MINS 01-07-2009 K:\Planning Commission\2009\Meeting Summary 01-07-09.doc CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PLANNING COMMISSION January 7, 2009 City Hall 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers MEETING MINUTES Commissioners present: Merle Pfeifer, Lawson Bronson, Wayne Carlson, Sarady Long, and Tim O’Neil. Commissioners absent: Hope Elder and Tom Medhurst (both excused). Staff present: Community Development Services Director Greg Fewins, Planning Manager Isaac Conlen, Senior Planner Margaret Clark, Senior Planner Janet Shull, Contract Planner Jim Harris, Contract Planner Lori Michaelson, Interim Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Services Director Steve Ikerd, Assistant City Attorney Peter Beckwith, and Administrative Assistant E. Tina Piety. Chair Pfeifer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of November 19, 2008, were approved. AUDIENCE COMMENT None ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT Mr. Fewins informed the Commission that the City Council as adopted the 2009/2010 budget. The Department will not know until February if we will have funds for contract planners, which would affect the Planning Commission Work Program. Staff plans to have the Work Program ready in February. This may be a two year Work Program because of the state mandated review/update of the comprehensive plan. COMMISSION BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARING Continued – Clearing, Grading, and Tree Retention Code Amendments Ms. Shull delivered the staff report. Staff met with the Master Builders Association on December 2, 2008, and received written public comments that were passed on to the Commissioners. Recently, staff distributed a second draft of the code amendments to interested parties for further review and comment. Staff requested that the public hearing be continued to January 21, 2009, in order to incorporate any comments on the second draft. The hearing was opened to public comment. Peter Townsend – He received a copy of the second draft of the code amendments, but is not sure why. He is not sure if the proposed amendments apply to property owners or developers. He does have concerns about trees and view corridors. What can a property owner do if a neighbor plants a tree that grows up to impede a view? Brant Schweikl, Schweikl and Associates, PLLC – He has reviewed the second draft. He is still concerned about the 3:1 slope issue. On his project, they have significant slopes. He stated that a Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 January 7, 2009 K:\Planning Commission\2009\Meeting Summary 01-07-09.doc 3:1 slope would require a rockery while a 2:1 slope would not. A 3:1 slope would not leave any flat, usable land in a home’s back yard. This is a significant issue because there is little flat land left in Federal Way. Otherwise, he applauds the staff for the proposal to allow mass grading. Commissioner O’Neil commented that it is his understanding that the proposed amendments would not be retroactive and are intended for undeveloped lots. Ms. Shull agreed that the proposed amendments are intended for new development. She also stated that the proposed amendments do not deal with view corridors and the city does not currently have any regulated view corridors. Commissioner O’Neil asked if there is a process for projects with unique circumstances. Ms. Shull replied that the proposed amendments include a modification process that projects with unique circumstances could utilize. Modification requests are typically done at the same time as the rest of the review process. Commissioner Carlson asked if the 3:1 slope was chosen for aesthetic or stability reasons. Ms. Shull it is mainly for aesthetic and not necessarily for stability reasons. A 3:1 slope can be landscaped more easily than a 2:1 slope. The public hearing on the Clearing, Grading, and Tree Retention Code Amendments was continued to the Planning Commission meeting on Wednesday, January 21, 2009, in the City Hall Council Chambers. PUBLIC HEARING – Churches & Façade Modulation Code Amendments Mr. Harris delivered the staff report. There are five proposed amendments relating to: church use and development standards; height in the Suburban Estates (SE) zone; and design guidelines, including façade modulation. There are also some housekeeping amendments to make text consistent and clarify church parking regulations. The proposed amendments include a change of the maximum permissible height in the SE zone from 35 to 30 feet. This would make the height in the SE zone consistent with the maximum permissible height for single-family residences in other residential zones. The proposed amendments would allow churches in all zones. Currently they are not allowed in Commercial Enterprise (CE), Office Park (OP), or Professional Office (PO) zones. The City received one comment from Brooklake Church stating they are in support of the proposed amendments. The City has been receiving requests to allow churches in existing tenant spaces, many of them in the OP and PO zoning districts where the use is not currently permitted. Churches are compatible with other permissible uses in the CE, OP, and PO zoning districts. They generate traffic at different times than retail and commercial uses, which results in better utilization of shared parking areas. Staff is also proposing some housekeeping amendments that would make regulations for churches consistent in all zones. The proposed amendments would require significant structural modulation (offset) for certain building facades which exceed 120 feet in length and are subject to the City’s Community Design Guidelines. These are consistent with a previous code amendment adopted for institutional uses. As buildings become taller, building facades need to be longer. The hearing was opened to public comment. Kathryn Kleber, Keller Williams Realty – She is the real estate agent for The Center (former King County Courthouse). She has had a number of inquires and over 50 percent have come from churches. This would be an excellent place for a church because it has a large event hall and over 54 parking spaces. However, the OP zone does not allow churches. For this reason, she supports the proposed amendments. Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 January 7, 2009 K:\Planning Commission\2009\Meeting Summary 01-07-09.doc Commissioner Long asked if a parking analysis will be required for churches in the office zones. Mr. Harris replied that a transportation management plan will be required. Commissioner Bronson moved (and it was seconded) to adopt the amendments as proposed. The motion passed unanimously. The public hearing on Churches and Façade Modulation Code Amendments was closed. PUBLIC HEARING – Adult Family Homes, Social Service Transitional Housing, Day Care, Home Occupation Occupations, and Other Code Amendments Ms. Michaelson delivered the staff report. The proposed amendments address the following: • A request to amend regulations pertaining to social services transitional housing; • Regulations pertaining to adult family homes and family day care, for consistency with federal and state law related to these disabled populations; • Related changes and updates pertaining to commercial day care, home occupations, certain group homes; and • Other minor, non-substantive text amendments, in order to clarify, simplify, and improve readability. Adult family homes are not addressed in current code, but are allowed in practice. The proposed amendments are modeled after the current codes related to in-home day care. The proposal will codify City practice, clarify procedures, and comply with applicable laws. Adult family homes must be operated as part of a principal residential use. They must meet all state and local licensing, zoning, building, housing, and fire regulations that apply to the underlying type of housing. If the lot/structure is legally nonconforming, the adult family home may be approved through Process III (otherwise no zoning process). City business license and state license applies. No more than two non-resident employees or workers are allowed and one off-street parking space is required for each worker. No exterior alterations related to the adult family home are allowed and any interior alterations must be customary to the residential use. Social Service Transitional Housing is temporary housing provided by non-profit social service agencies (i.e. emergency shelters, homeless shelters, domestic violence shelters, etc.). In the current code there are two “types.” Type A where the maximum number of residents is consistent with the family definition and Type B where the number of residents is not consistent with family definition. Under the proposed amendments, this use will be permitted outright in all zones where residential use is permitted, if the number of residents does not exceed the maximum allowed under the FWCC definition of “family.” If the number of residents exceeds the family definition, then the use must be approved under Chapter 22, Article XI, “District Regulations” (use zone charts). References to Type A and B would be deleted as subcategories because they would no longer be necessary. Regulations would be tailored for density and separation requirements to address mixed-use as well as stand-alone developments. Mixed-use would include the same density limit as applies in multi-family residential zones. Stand-alone would include a determination of the number of residents as part of the existing case-by-case determination of density. The proposed amendments clarify that separation requirements apply only to stand-alone facilities, as it is not necessary between mixed-use developments. A note on the multi-family residential zone chart would state that the Social Service Transitional Housing must be in a multifamily complex (not a stand alone). The proposed amendments for day care would allow adults as well as children to be served in an in-home day care for some part of the 24-hour day. The proposed amendments would allow in-home day care serving up to 12 children or adults as an outright permitted use in any zoning district in conjunction with a permitted residential use. The proposed amendments clarify that the operator (owner or renter) must be a resident of the subject property where day care is located and they remove requirements pertaining to off- Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 January 7, 2009 K:\Planning Commission\2009\Meeting Summary 01-07-09.doc street passenger loading area, fencing, and traffic mitigation for consistency with state regulations. The use zone charts pertaining to in-home day care facilities for 12 or fewer attendees would be deleted and the remaining charts that pertain to facilities for 12 or more attendees would be retitled “Day Care Facilities, Commercial.” Use process III would apply to all commercial day care facilities (those with 12 or more attendees) and a requirement would be added that the site be designed to reduce impacts on residential areas. In the proposed amendments, the existing “Class I” and “Class II” for home occupations are deleted from the definitions since Class II is superseded by family day care and Class I becomes basic “Home Occupations.” Changes to regulations include clarification that the dwelling unit where the business is located must be the business owner’s primary residence and the business must be carried on by a resident family member. The proposed amendments allow deliveries by commercial vehicles weighing up to 26,000 lbs. gross vehicle weight rating (from the state definition) in place of the current 10,000 lb limit. The subcategories “IIA” and “IIB” have no clear purpose, as the regulations are the same for both, so they are deleted, leaving “Type II.” A criterion is added to all charts for determining the number of residents and dwelling units. Process I is established for determining the appropriate group home classification in certain cases (currently “director’s discretion”). The proposed amendments state that the maximum number of group home residents is determined through the applicable review process. The hearing was opened for public comment and the following letter was read into the record: Planning Commissioners: 1/7/09 I am sorry for not being able to stay for public comment as I have another meeting to attend this evening. I would like to thank you for reviewing the Federal Way city codes for Transitional Housing and ask that you approve the suggested amendments to the code as presented. FUSION’s transitional housing program has been serving homeless women and children since 1994. We hope that you will make the proposed changes to the city code to allow us to continue providing the services for those in need within our community. Thank you so much for your time and efforts on our behalf. Peggy LaPorte FUSION, Founder Commissioner Bronson noted that the proposed amendments for adult family homes state no exterior alterations, but what if they need to add a ramp for a wheelchair? Ms. Michaelson replied that alterations and improvements to comply with ADA needs would be allowed the same as any residential structure. Commissioner Carlson asked what if neighborhood covenants go against the Federal Fair Housing Act. Mr. Beckwith replied that would be between the covenant holders and the federal government and the court would decide. The City would not become involved in such a dispute. Commissioner Long asked in regards to traffic impact fees, would a family day care be exempt from traffic mitigation? Ms. Michaelson replied that she will have to check the RCW, but she believes the City cannot require traffic mitigation specifically for in-home family day cares, although it may apply to the underlying use. Commissioner Carlson moved (and it was seconded) to adopt the amendments as proposed. The motion passed unanimously. The public hearing on Adult Family Homes, Social Service Transitional Housing, Day Care, Home Occupations, and Other Code Amendments was closed. Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 January 7, 2009 K:\Planning Commission\2009\Meeting Summary 01-07-09.doc STUDY SESSION – Park Impact Fee Ms. Clark delivered the staff report. A Park Impact Fee is paid by new development for park-related facilities to serve new development and for “system improvements.” System improvements are park land acquisition; site improvement; park planning, design, and engineering; and/or a facility/park outside the development that provides services to the community at large (e.g., community center or community park). The fee can be spent only for public facilities included in the City’s capital facilities plan and comprehensive plan. In general all residential development is required to provide open space, with senior housing either exempt or on a case-by-case basis. Should all current open space requirements be replaced by a park impact fee (note that landscaping and required trees are not considered open space)? If the City wants open space required on-site, how much and what kind? Ms. Clark asked Commissioners if they think it is important to require some kind of open space on-site. Currently, City open space regulations vary depending upon the type of project (i.e. subdivisions, multi-family development, mixed-use development, etc.). There are different kinds of open space (i.e. recreational, passive, critical [environmental] areas, etc.). A park impact fee could be used as a stand-alone fee and/or combined with required on-site open space. Commissioner Bronson recalled seeing a parks study not too long ago. He asked how much land the City has to develop new parks. Does the City need more land or should we develop what we have and how much would it cost and who would pay. He does not think it would be fair to require a developer to pay a fee for a park that may be miles away from the development. Ms. Clark replied the City could require the park impact fee to be used in the park planning area the development is located in. Commissioner O’Neil asked regarding standard plats, they are required to provide 15 percent open space or a fee-in-lieu. Is the water retention pond included? Ms. Clark replied the water retention pond is normally not part of open space. Commissioner O’Neil asked how would the fee-in-lieu impact the tree canopy requirement. Ms. Clark replied the tree canopy requirement is different, but trees can be placed in the open space. Commissioner O’Neil asked how the amount of the 15 percent is determined. Ms. Clark replied it could be a calculation based upon the appraised or assessed value of the property. Commissioner Carlson commented that he would like to see a distinction between recreational space and open space. He believes all residential projects should have some open space (for aesthetics and to ‘soften’ the appearance of the project), but it does not have to be recreational space. The City has a number of neighborhood and regional parks residents can use for recreation. He feels the recreational open space should be calculated per dwelling unit. Commissioner Bronson commented that he had lived in neighborhoods in San Francisco where the homes had no, or tiny, yards, but plenty of neighborhood parks. He understands the desire for aesthetic open space, but if children cannot play in the open space, the funds would be better spent on a park children can play in. Commission Long asked if the park impact fee could be used to pay for improvements at existing parks. Ms. Clark replied that she believes it can. He then commented that he would rather have a well maintained, safe park that children can play in as opposed to “just” open space. Commissioner Carlson stated that the definition for open space should include stormwater projects that use low impact development, such as a rain garden. Ms. Clark agreed. Chair Pfeifer how did the City arrive at the 15 percent open space requirement; is it a standard? Ms. Clark replied that the City adopted the code from another jurisdiction at the time of incorporation and the 15 percent open space requirement was in that code and has not been changed. Chair Pfeifer asked what are Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 January 7, 2009 K:\Planning Commission\2009\Meeting Summary 01-07-09.doc other jurisdictions doing in regards to a park impact fee. Ms. Clark replied that a number of cities are going to the park impact fee system. There is a distinction between “system improvements” and “on-site improvements.” Developers would provide on-site improvements (some greenery, some buffers) and then would pay towards the park impact fee. Chair Pfeifer asked how the park impact fee will be calculated. Ms. Clark replied that the Parks consultant is researching two calculation methods. Chair Pfeifer asked if current projects (such as the Federal Way Village and Symphony projects) would be grandfathered. Mr. Fewins replied that Federal Way Village is vested and would not be affected and the Symphony project is not vested and could be affected. The study session on the Park Impact Fee was closed. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS Chair Pfeifer announced that Alternate Commissioner King resigned from the Commission in order to pursue other interests. AUDIENCE COMMENT None ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m.