Loading...
Planning Comm MINS 02-18-2009 K:\Planning Commission\2009\Meeting Summary 02-18-09.doc CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PLANNING COMMISSION February 28, 2009 City Hall Dinner 6:00 p.m. Hylebos Conference Room Meeting 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, Planning Manager Isaac Conlen, Senior Planner Margaret Clark, Contract Senior Planner Jim Harris, Contract Senior Planner Lori Michaelson, Law Deputy Director Aaron Walls, Street Systems Project Engineer Brian Roberts, Planning Intern Becky Chapin, and Administrative Assistant E. Tina Piety. Commissioners and staff enjoyed the Planning Commission Appreciation Dinner from 6:00 to 7:00. Chair Pfeifer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of February 4, 2009, were approved as written. AUDIENCE COMMENT None ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT Mr. Fewins gave the Commissioners a copy of the summary of the results of the City Council January retreat. He stated the Council named 31 accomplishments and Community Development Services played a role in a number of them. COMMISSION BUSINESS ELECTIONS – Chair & Vice-Chair Commissioner Bronson nominated Hope Elder as Vice-Chair. The vote was held and she was elected unanimously. Commissioner O’Neil nominated Merle Pfeifer as Chair. The vote was held and he was elected unanimously. Commissioner Carlson moved (and it was seconded) to change the agenda by moving the public hearing on Construction Hours before the public hearing on RV’s in Residential Areas. The motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING – Construction Hours Code Amendments Mr. Fewins commented that the Planning Commission held a pubic hearing on construction hours on October 15, 2008. At that time, there were only four Commissioners in attendance. Of those four, three voted yes for the proposed amendments and one voted no. According to the code, a majority of the entire Commission (or four of seven) must vote yes on the proposed amendments for them to move forward with Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 February 18, 2009 K:\Planning Commission\2009\Meeting Summary 02-18-09.doc a recommendation to adopt. (A majority of Commissioners present at a meeting [or three of four] must vote no for the proposed amendments to move forward with recommendation to not adopt.) Since a majority of the entire Commission did not vote yes, the proposed amendments went to the Land Use/ Transportation Committee (LUTC) without a recommendation. The LUTC felt this issue needed a clear recommendation (either yes or no) from the Planning Commission and therefore; the LUTC sent it back to the Commission for a second public hearing. Ms. Michaelson delivered the staff report. She commented that staff has received comments from the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) and addressed them as reflected in a revised February 18, 2009, Exhibit A that was given to Commissioners. It is this revised Exhibit A that staff recommends be adopted. She noted that the proposed amendments deal with construction activity, not noise. Noise levels are regulated in the Nuisance chapter of the code, where the City adopts the state noise regulations. The proposed amendments do not change the hours of construction currently permitted outright. The proposed amendments establish a review process and decision criteria whereby the director can grant an exception to any hours that are not permitted outright. The proposed amendments also establish criteria that allow the director to revoke an exception and responsibilities for applicants. The proposed amendments allow for emergency exemptions necessary to ensure the immediate safety, health, or welfare of the community or individuals of the community. In addition, emergency exemptions are allowed to restore property to a safe condition following a natural or manmade disaster or other emergency. The staff reviewed other city codes and while they are not consistent, generally, administrative exceptions to work hours are allowed. Commissioner Carlson stated his support for the proposed code amendments. In the revised Exhibit A, on the first page, number 22-1006(b)(1)(a), the word “permanent” in reference to adverse impacts has been added. It is his understanding that the construction process is intended to be temporary, so what would be permanent? Ms. Michaelson responded that WSDOT requested the word “permanent” be added in case there are unintended permanent adverse impacts. Commissioner O’Neil asked staff to explain the process for an exception. Ms. Michaelson replied that if it is known that an exception will be wanted, it could be part of the land use process. Otherwise, the applicant would write a letter to the director describing the request and addressing the decision criteria. There is no fee. Mr. Fewins stated that depending upon the complexity of the request, an answer would be provided in a day or two. Commissioner Long asked why staff included notification to nearby property owners. Is it because of noise? Ms. Michaelson replied that it is not because of noise. The applicant must meet the state requirements for noise levels as adopted by the City. The notification is to inform nearby property owners that construction activity will be occurring during times other than those permitted outright. Commissioner Long noted that in the revised Exhibit A, page two, 22-1600(f), it states that the exception may be revoked, “…based on verified complaints….” How many verified complaints would revocation take? One? Two? Three? Ms. Michaelson responded that staff wanted to leave the number of complaints open for flexibility. Since the word “complaints” is plural, it means more than one, but even one compliant would be reviewed and could lead to revocation. Commissioner Carlson noted that the notice for the exception is required to be mailed seven days in advance of the approved work. How does this fit with an appeal? Mr. Fewins replied that it does not coincide with appeal timelines. This section does not have a specific appeal process. According to the code, if a procedure does not have a specific appeal process, it may be appealed using the general appeal process found in Chapter 1. Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 February 18, 2009 K:\Planning Commission\2009\Meeting Summary 02-18-09.doc Commissioner Bronson is concerned these proposed code amendments will encourage contractors to routinely seek an exception to the construction hours and will lead to more noise in residential areas during the weekend. Ms. Michaelson commented that the City anticipates this exception will be mainly sought for major road projects, such as WSDOT projects, and that most will not be in residential areas. In addition, there is a process to revoke the exception. The meeting was opened for public comment. Laura Escude, WSDOT, Acoustics, Air Quality, and Energy Specialist – She had sent the City a letter that was given to Commissioners. She works closely with the City requesting noise variances for WSDOT projects. WSDOT supports the proposed amendments with a few proposed changes as reflected in the revised Exhibit A. WSDOT has worked with the City on highway projects on exceptions to the currently permitted outright construction hours where daytime closure of lanes is impractical due to traffic congestion and safety issues. The proposed amendments would allow WSDOT and the City to efficiently schedule lane closures and create reliable construction schedules with the least impact to traffic and safety. Due to traffic, weekend closures can be the most effective and fastest way to complete projects. WSDOT requested the word “permanent” be added to 22-1006(b)(1)(a), because a project may leave a permanent adverse impact. For example, if a pump that makes a permanent noise is placed in a retention pond. Commissioner Carlson commented that the section deals with construction activity, not noise (which is dealt with elsewhere in the code). Commissioners found 22-1006(b)(1)(a) to be confusing and felt it could be interpreted in different ways. Mr. Fewins suggested the word “permanent” could be replaced with “substantial.” Brian Roberts, City of Federal Way Street Systems Project Engineer – He supports the proposed amendments. They would allow flexibility for Public Works projects, especially in commercial areas. Road closures are less problematic when they are done during a time of less traffic. When done during high traffic times, road closures lead to congestion and danger to drivers and workers. At night, with less traffic more lanes can be closed, which makes it easier to move large, heavy equipment around and can lead to the work being completed sooner. Commissioner Long asked what the cost estimate is for daytime versus nighttime construction. Mr. Roberts responded that it depends upon a number of factors (including whether the contractor pays overtime or not). Working at night can cut down the number of hours or even days work must be done and thereby save money. Commissioner Bronson commented that according to his calculations, allowing work during weekend and holiday evenings would only save one day of work time. The City needs to protect neighborhoods from adverse activity and noise and a savings of one day is not enough to justify more nighttime noise and activity in neighborhoods. Commissioner O’Neil commented that the proposed amendments give the City flexibility and can be revoked if there is a verifiable disruption. Commissioner Carlson moved (and it was seconded) to recommend adoption of the revised Exhibit A as presented with the word “permanent” in section 22-1006(b)(1)(a) to be changed to “substantial.” Chair Pfeifer commented he feels these proposed amendments will help the business community in that projects will be done quicker. The vote was held with one no and six yes; the motion carried. Hearing no objection, the public hearing was closed. Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 February 18, 2009 K:\Planning Commission\2009\Meeting Summary 02-18-09.doc PUBLIC HEARING – RV’s in Residential Areas Code Amendments Mr. Harris delivered the staff presentation. These amendments were initiated by the City Manager at the request of a citizen. The proposed amendments would allow RV’s to be used as temporary dwelling units in residential zones when the primary dwelling unit (house) is unsafe to occupy due to disaster or accident such as fire, wind, earthquake, or similar incident. Currently, the code allows an RV in a residential area to be temporarily occupied for two 14-day periods in one year. Under the circumstances stated above, these proposed amendments would allow an RV to be occupied for a 12-month period with a possible extension. The occupancy must cease with 30 days of when a Certificate of Occupancy (CO) is issued for the house. Approval must be sought from the Department of Community Development Services, the RV may not be placed in side or rear yard setbacks, no generators are allowed, a copy of the approval must be given to adjoining neighbors, and the approval may be revoked if the requirements are not met. There was no public comment on this issue. Commissioner Medhurst asked if currently an RV may be occupied for only 14 days, why allow 30 days after issuance of a CO. Why not 14 days? Mr. Harris replied that a CO means the house meets the life and safety requirements of the building code, but the house may not be ready for actual occupancy. The owner may need to place carpet, buy furniture, etc. Commissioner Medhurst asked if the RV does not have any facilities (kitchen, shower, etc.) can the owner use the house for these? Even for an RV with facilities, what about waste disposal? Mr. Harris replied that staff is assuming the RV will have facilities. Staff checked with Lakehaven Utility District and was told an RV should be able to hook up to the sewer system. Mr. Fewins commented that until the house receives its CO, the residents may not use the facilities in the house. Mr. Medhurst suggested the verbiage in the proposed code amendments be changed to make this clear. Commissioner O’Neil asked staff to explain the process. Mr. Harris replied that a permit would not be required. The resident would submit a written request to occupy an RV on a temporary basis and include the reason. There is no fee. Staff will review the request to be sure it meets the requirements and the response will be quick (a couple of days). Commissioner O’Neil asked why the RV is not allowed in the setbacks. Mr. Harris replied it is consistent with the code requirement of no buildings allowed in the side and rear setback, but in many cases, the RV would likely need to be placed within the front setback. Commissioner O’Neil noted that the proposed definition for recreational vehicle includes truck camper and camper trailer, which typically do not have facilities. Would allowing RVs without facilities as temporary dwelling units (since they are in the definition) be a liability issue? Mr. Fewins replied that staff does not feel it would be an issue. Commissioner Bronson commented that before he heard the reason for the proposed code amendments, he thought the City was planning ahead in case of a natural disaster, which he believes is good thing. He feels if necessary, a resident can use off-site facilities. He suggests that generators be allowed if no permanent power is available; this way the proposed amendments would be very useful in the case of a disaster. Commissioner Elder commented that she has survived a couple of tornados and knows that in a disaster, people want to be on their property to protect it. The Red Cross and other relief agencies would no doubt bring in food and water. She encouraged staff not to make the proposed amendments too restrictive. Commissioner Medhurst is concerned that this could lead to people living in unsanitary conditions. The proposed amendments are not intended to address a major disaster. The proposed amendments are for one- on-one events, like a fire. Commissioner Long commented that if people are living in unsanitary conditions, the City will receive complaints from the neighbors. Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 February 18, 2009 K:\Planning Commission\2009\Meeting Summary 02-18-09.doc Commissioner Bronson moved (and it was seconded) to recommend adoption of the proposed code amendments as written. The motion carried unanimously. Hearing no objection, the public hearing was closed. STUDY SESSION – 2009 Planning Commission and Long Range Work Program Ms. Clark delivered the staff presentation. She provided an update on the 2008 Planning Commission Work Program and discussed potential items for the 2009 Planning Commission Work Program. She asked the Commissioners if they have any code amendments they would like staff to work on. In addition she discussed the other duties of the Long Range Planners, which includes many reports, some which are required by state law and others that are requested by other agencies. Mr. Fewins explained that the City has 1½ Long Range Planning staff. In the past, the department has been given funds by the City Council to hire consultants to help with the Work Program. Given the economy and the state of the City’s budget, the department does not have additional funds this year. This year, he expects that the 1½ Long Range Planning staff will be focused on the seven-year update of the comprehensive plan and finishing the Shoreline Master Program. We will be seeking help from the Current Planning staff on four to eight of the “easier” code amendments. Hearing no objection, the study session was closed. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS The Commission will be meeting March 3rd for a study session on the City Center Access Study and March 18th for a public hearing of the Traffic Impact Fee. AUDIENCE COMMENT None. ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m.