Loading...
Planning Comm MINS 01-21-2009 K:\Planning Commission\2009\Meeting Summary 01-21-09.doc CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PLANNING COMMISSION January 21, 2009 City Hall 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers MEETING MINUTES Commissioners present: Merle Pfeifer, Hope Elder, Lawson Bronson, Wayne Carlson, Tom Medhurst, Sarady Long, and Tim O’Neil. Commissioners absent: none. Staff present: Community Development Services Director Greg Fewins, Senior Planner Margaret Clark, Senior Planner Janet Shull, 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 Commissioner Bronson moved (and it was seconded) that in order to correct a number of errors, staff should be given time to correct the errors and the minutes should be brought back to the next meeting. The motion carried unanimously. AUDIENCE COMMENT None ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT None COMMISSION BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARING Continued – Clearing, Grading, and Tree Retention Code Amendments Ms. Shull delivered the staff report. Ms. Shull reviewed the process to date, explained the reasons for the proposed code amendments, explained the overall goals for the proposed code amendments, and listed the highlights of the proposed code amendments. Ms Shull also mentioned that staff had met with representatives from the Master Builders Association on December 2, 2008. Subsequent to that meeting, staff prepared a second draft of the code amendments and sent it to interested parties for comments. Ms. Shull gave a summary of what changes were made in the second draft and what was not changed and why (a detailed explanation is given in the agenda packet staff report). At the beginning of the meeting, staff distributed the Master Builders comments on the second draft. Ms. Clark informed the audience that while comments from the Master Builders Association were made available, the comments had not been received in time for staff to review them. Therefore, staff will only be presenting the proposed code amendments attached as Exhibit A to the staff report found in the agenda packet (which was also made available). The proposed code amendments with yellow highlights are from the Master Builders Association will not be presented this evening. The public hearing was opened for public comment. Peter Townsend – He commented that his landscape architect sent the City a fax that is attached to the staff report. He spoke to the Twin Lakes Homeowners Association and they feel there has not Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 January 21, 2009 K:\Planning Commission\2009\Meeting Summary 01-21-09.doc been enough input from property owners. It is difficult to understand the code amendments; specifically what the old law is and what is new. Marty Cannon – He built his own home in Federal Way six years ago. He also found the proposed code amendments difficult to understand, but the staff presentation helped. He only recently found out about the proposed code amendments. The City needs to provide a clear explanation of what the code amendments are about and who they apply to. The proposed amendments seem to say that no one will be allowed to cut down trees. The proposed amendments seem negative. Mike Behn, Quadrant – He thanked the staff for their efforts. He encouraged the Commission to continue the public hearing so they can consider additional comments. He asked the City to consider a “sliding scale” based on the size of the tree for trees planted to meet the tree canopy requirement. It would be helpful to have flexibility for the size of trees that are planted. Staff’s purpose to improve the urban tree canopy is a reasonable goal, but they are asking the developer to pay for it. Given the current economic climate and real estate market, he suggested the City consider waiting until the economy improves. Paul Lymberis, Quadrant – He stated that the proposed amendments have a common theme of reducing the number of retaining walls. He feels a maximum required slope of 3:1 would mean more retaining walls would be needed, as opposed to a 2:1 slope (which is widely accepted throughout the Puget Sound area). While 3:1 slope is considered “usable,” it is not usable for active space, such as a picnic or to play catch. Quadrant has homes that are built side-by-side with no more than 18 inches [vertical relief?] between them, which does not require a wall. A 3:1 slope would run into the foundation of one of the homes and the homeowner would not be able to walk around the home. A 2:1 slope would give a two foot walkway between the homes. In a backyard with six feet of elevation change, a 3:1 slope would take 18 feet and a 2:1 slope would take only 12 feet, leaving an additional 6 feet of flat space in the backyard. Garrett Huffman, Master Builders Association – He complimented staff with having a healthy process with input from many and where questions are being asked and answered. He agrees the proposed code amendments are confusing. The Master Builders Association does propose significant changes to the proposed language. He offered to provide a document with City and Master Builder comments side-by-side, with the reasons for the Master Builders’ proposed changes. Chair Pfeifer commented that staff has made nine significant changes due to input from the Master Builders Association and 13 changes overall. He asked why the Master Builders Association did not submit their current comments before Friday. Garrett Huffman, Master Builders Association – He responded that it was his fault the comments did not come sooner. It was difficult to obtain comments from the members. He commented that one member said that 75% of his concerns were addressed in the second code amendment draft. Christopher Stone – He is a Federal Way landowner. He does not want to stop the process, but asked that it be extended so that those who have just learned about the proposed code amendments can comment. He asked what is the implication of these amendments to those who own a fifth of an acre or two acres. Bob Roper – He noted that there are no requirements for RS zones. The requirement of 20 to 25 tree units seems inadequate; if the trees are only one inch that would not be enough trees. He stated that citizens should be given a chance to comment on the Master Builders Association comments. He also encouraged the Commission to extend the process. He asked what the deadline is for Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 January 21, 2009 K:\Planning Commission\2009\Meeting Summary 01-21-09.doc written comments. Ms. Piety responded that written comments may be given until the City Council makes a decision. For staff to comment on them, it is best to get comments in as soon as possible. Brant Schweikl, Schweikl and Associates, PLLC – He is a civil engineer who is concerned with the 3:1 slope requirement and agrees with Mr. Lymberis’ comments. He encouraged Commissioners to look at projects in the City with 2:1 slopes and they will see that there are no problems with them. Shorter tiered rockeries would mean homeowners would lose usable open space. He encouraged the Commission to review the Master Builders comments. He appreciates that the proposed amendments will allow for mass grading. There are single-family homeowners who will be affected by the proposed amendments. If they add 500 feet to their house, they will have to plant trees if they don’t have them. Commissioner Elder asked Mr. Lymberis about the difference of 18 inches between homes; is there not a way of planting trees that would help this issue? Paul Lymberis, Quadrant – He commented that he assumes Commissioner Elder means planting trees between homes. Shrubs might work but not trees. Homes in Federal Way have a five-foot setback from the property line and usually have eaves of two feet. This leaves approximately six feet of usable space, which would be too small for trees, but shrubs could work and can (depending upon the species) stabilize a slope between the homes. Commissioner O’Neil asked how the tree canopy requirements would affect a homeowner. Ms. Shull first wanted to clarify the tree retention requirement as it relates to expansion of a single-family home. Mr. Schweikl misunderstood the proposed amendments when he stated that if single-family homeowner was to expand their home by 500 feet they would have to follow the tree retention standards and plant trees. This expansion standard (tree units per acre) applies to commercial, industrial, and multi-family development, not single-family homes. In response to how the tree units per acre standard apply to single-family homeowners; it applies as it does today, but the standard is different. The City is not adding a process, but replacing the focus on retaining significant trees with a tree unit per acre standard. The issue is addressed in the exemption section of the proposed amendments. There are steps that need to be evaluated in order to know if one can remove trees on an existing developed site. One of the steps is to evaluate if there are any critical areas (such as streams, wetlands, etc.) on the site. If yes, director approval is needed to remove vegetation. Another step that could trigger tree retention is to evaluate if there will be anything done that will affect stormwater as it enters or leaves the site. If it is an undeveloped property, the tree retention standard would apply; just as the significant tree standard applies today. Also be aware that some older plats may have statements on them that trees cannot be removed. Commissioner O’Neil asked staff to confirm that there is a “sliding scale” for replacement trees (to maintain the tree canopy) based on diameter. Ms. Shull replied that the tree unit credit table on page 22 of Exhibit A has two categories: replacement tree and existing tree. In the second draft of the proposed amendments, staff recommended a minimum size for replacement trees. The chart on page 22 determines how many credits is available depending upon the mature tree canopy. There will be a chart available (it will not be in the code because it could change as staff learns new information about trees) that will give credits depending upon the type of tree selected. As she recalled, Quadrant requested additional credits if a tree larger than the minimum size is planted. Staff is willing to consider this request, but is not prepared tonight to comment upon it; further study is needed. One concern is whether a larger tree is likely to survive. Commissioner O’Neil asked how long it would take if a developer were to request a modification for retaining wall height. Ms. Shull replied that the City receives a number of different types of modification requests (parking, right-of-way, etc.) and they typically arise during the preapplication process. The Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 January 21, 2009 K:\Planning Commission\2009\Meeting Summary 01-21-09.doc process is typically a request letter with supporting documentation. After review by staff, a decision letter is issued by the director. The length of time it takes will depend upon the complexity of the modification and if it needs to be reviewed by staff in different departments, but it is a relatively quick process. The developer does not need to wait for a decision on the overall project to request a modification. Commissioner Bronson has concerns about lot size averaging. Do the requirements state how small the smallest lot can be? He is concerned a future code change could make the smallest lot nonconforming. The proposed amendments could lead to a development with similar sized houses, but different sized lots where much of the lot is unusable, but is taxed on the total amount of land. So could someone with a larger lot, but less usable land, be taxed the same or more than someone with a smaller lot but more usable land? Ms. Shull responded that on page 19 of Exhibit A, for lot averaging, the site must have some relatively flat as well as steep portions. The steeper portions of the site should have the larger lots. In no case may any lot with a slope of 15% or greater be created at a size smaller than the minimum lot size of the underlying zoning district. Reduced lot sizes up to 50% of the minimum lot size of the underlying zoning designation, but in no case less than 5000 square feet for each single-family residential building lot or no less than 1800 square feet for each lot for zero-lot line townhouse lot, may be allowed on potions of the site with less than a 15% slope. In regards to the tax rate, appraisal is a complicated process and each site is unique. Sometimes if a lot is considered less “usable,” it may not be appraised as high as a more “usable” lot. However, if the site has a view, it could be appraised higher. In the first proposed code amendments, lot size averaging was a requirement, but staff has changed that for the second proposed amendments and now lot size averaging is an option. Commissioner Bronson asked if someone purchases an existing developed property and wants to rebuild the house on the current foundation, would they have to meet the proposed requirements if they have existing slopes that do not meet the proposed requirements. Ms. Shull replied that if it is an existing slope, the City would not require the owner to re-grade the property to make it a 3:1 slope. The requirements would apply only if someone is creating a slope. Commissioner Long is concerned that there are no established criteria for approving a modification for a retaining wall or slope and suggested that some be included. Ms. Shull replied there are some recommended criteria on page 16 of Exhibit A. They are in the beginning general section under the purpose language and would apply to clearing, grading, and tree retention. Commissioner Long replied that it was not clear enough to him and what about health and safety. Commissioner Long asked for clarification regarding fence height. A fence up to six feet in height is currently allowed in any building setback without a building permit. Ms Shull replied that staff envisions that many retaining walls will be placed near or on property lines and expects that the homeowner on the uphill side will want a six-foot high fence for safety. The four-foot wall and six-foot fence will create a ten-foot barrier that staff believes is high, but acceptable. Staff anticipates there will be higher walls allowed due to the modification process and so if the wall is higher than four feet, a fence on the uphill side is limited to 42 inches. The 42 inches is a standard height for safety railing and staff does not want to go higher because it could mean a barrier higher than ten feet. Commissioner Long stated he is concerned that the 42 inches would not be high enough to keep kids from jumping over it. He is also concerned that most citizens do not know they need a permit for some fences. Ms. Shull agreed that public education will be needed. Commissioner Carlson had questions about preparation of the tree survey. One thing it asks for is the general location of trees within 50 feet of the site. Since it would likely be difficult to actually survey the trees off site, he is requesting staff to clarify that by general location the intent is to not impact the root zone of any off site trees. Ms. Shull agreed that is the intent. To be consistent he asked staff to use the language from page 16 regarding general location on page 1, in item 20-83(b)(8). He agreed with Commissioner Long that more criteria are needed for approving a modification. Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 January 21, 2009 K:\Planning Commission\2009\Meeting Summary 01-21-09.doc Commissioner Medhurst asked if the 42 inch fence height would pertain to retention ponds. Ms. Shull replied the intention of this fence requirement is not for retention ponds but between residential properties. Staff may need to modify the language to make this clear. Commissioner Carlson commented that on page 21 it specifies how may trees units per acre based on zone and then on the following page there are credits for replacement trees and existing trees. If the site is fully wooded and one can establish one meets the thresholds through timber cruising methods, or something similar, does a surveyor need to physically locate all of the trees on the site? If a surveyor can locate trees in one area to meet the thresholds, does a tree survey need to be done on the entire site? Ms. Shull responded the City would accept both suggested methods for determining if the site meets the thresholds and a tree survey of the entire site would not have to be performed. Commissioner Carlson asked that this be made clear in the proposed amendments. Commissioner Bronson moved (and it was seconded) to continue the public hearing to the next meeting [February 4, 2009, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers] with the intent to finish the public hearing at that meeting. He commented that this is a complex issue that staff and the Commission have been working on for over a year and since we have comments from a number of different sources, it is time to move the issue on to the City Council. Commissioner Carlson moved (and it was seconded) to amend the motion to state that the deadline for written comments is today [January 21, 2009] and that verbal comments will be accepted at the next meeting. The Commissioners discussed this issue. The intent behind the amendment is to free staff from having to review and comment on additional comments. Commissioner Medhurst expressed concern that someone may have comments but would be unable to attend the next meeting. Commissioner O’Neil commented that the Commission is effectively creating a deadline for comments if they vote on this issue at the next meeting. Commissioner Long suggested leaving the record open with the understanding that staff does not have to review or comment on written comments. Commissioner Bronson commented we need to move this issue forward and written comments can be read into the record at the next meeting. Commissioner Elder commented that we want a well-done product, but we also need to move the issue forward to the City Council. Chair Pfeifer and Commissioner Medhurst expressed concern over restricting public comment. Commissioner Carlson withdrew his amendment. The vote was held on the main motion to continue the public hearing to the next meeting [February 4, 2009, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers] with the intent to finish the public hearing at that meeting and it carried. Ms. Clark asked that any written comments be delivered by noon on Monday to give staff time to review and comment. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS None AUDIENCE COMMENT None ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m.