Loading...
Planning Comm MINS 05-06-2009 K:\Planning Commission\2009\Meeting Summary 05-06-09.doc CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PLANNING COMMISSION May 6, 2009 City Hall 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers MEETING MINUTES Commissioners present: Merle Pfeifer, Hope Elder, Lawson Bronson, Wayne Carlson, and Sarady Long. Commissioners absent: Tom Medhurst and Tim O’Neil (both excused). Staff present: Senior Planner Margaret Clark, Public Works Deputy Director Ken Miller, ESA & NPDES Coordinator Don Robinett, SWM Project Engineer Fei Tang, Assistant City Attorney Peter Beckwith, and Administrative Assistant Tina Piety. Chair Pfeifer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of April 15, 2009, were approved as written. AUDIENCE COMMENT None ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT None COMMISSION BUSINESS STUDY SESSION – FWRC Amendments Related to Adoption of the Current Surface Water Design Manual Mr. Robinett delivered the staff report. The city is required by the federal government to meet the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) The goal of the NPDES is to reduce point source and non-point source pollution carried by stormwater. The Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE) regulates this federal permit. The NPDES Phase II went into effect on February 15, 2007. The permit requires that all affected cities create and implement a series of programmatic and/or regulatory changes. The permit phases implementation requirements through 2012. The proposed amendments will bring the city into compliance with the NPDES Permit requirements that take effect August 16, 2009. These permit requirements include: 1) adopt a stormwater ordinance consistent with the NPDES Permit that effectively prohibits non-stormwater and illegal discharges to the municipal storm system; 2) adopt a surface water design manual (2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual [KCSWDM]) as protective as (a.k.a. equivalent to) identified sections of the 2005 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (DOE Manual); 3) removing barriers to allow for Low Impact Development (LID) Projects; and 4) adopt subsequent manuals, including the 2005 Low Impact Technical Guidance Manual, the 2008 King County Pollution Prevention Manual, and the City of Federal Way Addendum to the KCSWDM.. In addition, the proposed amendments will create a clear link between clearing and grading requirements and stormwater review requirements. Mr. Robinett explained that, “Low impact development (LID) is a stormwater management strategy that emphasizes conservation and use of existing features integrated with distributed, small-scale stormwater controls to more closely mimic natural hydrologic patterns in residential, commercial, and industrial Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 May 6, 2009 K:\Planning Commission\2009\Meeting Summary 05-06-09.doc settings.” LID focuses on on-site infiltration, treatment, and natural processes and can provide greater protection to natural waterways in terms of both water quality and quantity impacts. He then gave some examples, such as green roofs, rain gardens, pervious paving, street design, etc. Chair Pfeifer asked who would be required to maintain LID street systems. Mr. Robinett replied that it would depend on if the system is in the city right-of-way or on private property. He noted that it is important that the system be maintained in order to work properly. Vice-Chair Elder asked if there are any green roofs in Federal Way. Mr. Robinett replied that the only one he is aware of is the Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters. Commissioner Bronson asked if pervious paving included cobblestones; noting that when he lived in an area with cobblestone a lot of people tripped on them. Mr. Robinett replied that cobblestones are one type of pervious paving. There is also pervious concrete and asphalt. Commissioner Bronson noted that the picture shown of a LID street system had no curbs. What protects pedestrians if there is no curb? Mr. Robinett replied that safety is taken into consideration when designing an LID street system. One way sidewalks can be separated from the street and pedestrians protected are through the use of a biofiltration swale. In addition, an LID street system can be designed with curbs that have breaks for water to flow through. Commissioner Long asked if an LID system, such as a rain garden, fails, who will be responsible to restore the system? Mr. Robinett replied that staff is still in the process of developing maintenance requirements. The homeowners’ association or the city could be required to maintain the system. Commissioner Long is concerned that it could be very costly for the owner to maintain the system. Vice- Chair Elder asked for a ballpark figure of the cost difference between regular asphalt and pervious asphalt. Mr. Robinett replied that he does not have the figures, but pervious asphalt is more expensive, but it should be considered that an LID street system would not have the costs of curbs, gutters, catch basins, stormpipe, etc. Vice-Chair Elder asked if the city is using LID? Mr. Robinett replied that the city does have a couple of LID Pilot Projects. One problem is that the city code is a barrier to LID; one must have a variance to use LID. Mr. Robinett continued his staff report and explained the proposed amendments. Some of the proposed amendments are in regards to Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination (IDDE). IDDE regulations detect, investigate, and remove prohibited discharges to the City’s stormwater system or natural waterways. The city employs voluntary compliance and civil enforcement techniques as necessary to eliminate illicit discharges. Commissioner Long asked if washing his car in his driveway is an illicit discharge. Mr. Robinett replied that it is an illicit discharge if the runoff goes into the storm system. Washing one’s car on the lawn would not be an illicit discharge because the runoff would go into the ground and not the storm system. If the city were to receive a complaint about a person washing their car in their driveway, city staff would use education as opposed to enforcement to seek compliance. Vice-Chair Elder asked what about charity car washes. Mr. Robinett replied that the city has a program (called “Fish Friendly Car Wash”) for charity car washes that uses a kit that captures the runoff. Alternatively, the commercial car washes will sell charities car wash tickets at a reduced price that can be used to raise funds. The program is very successful with the highest use in the state and is a model for other jurisdictions. Commissioner Long asked how is the $100,000 threshold in FWRC 16.15.010(2)(i) calculated? Mr. Tang replied that the amount is derived from the 2009 KCSWDM and is explained by the following footnote to the manual: “This is the “project valuation” as declared on the permit application submitted to DDES. The dollar amount of this threshold is considered to be as of January 8, 2001 and may be adjusted on an annual basis using the local consumer price index (CPI).” Chair Pfeifer asked since the threshold was done in 2001, should it not now be higher since home values have risen? Mr. Robinett replied that the threshold amount could be changed; however, the 2009 KCSWDM is currently going through a review by the DOE to determine if it is equivalent to the DOE’s Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 May 6, 2009 K:\Planning Commission\2009\Meeting Summary 05-06-09.doc manual. If the city were to change this threshold amount, we would have to maintain the equivalent status. Chair Pfeifer stated the city should consider changing the threshold amount. Commissioner Carlson agreed and stated that a worksheet for the public would be helpful. Mr. Robinett will research this issue. Commissioner Long commented that for section 18.60.50(1), there are additional cross sections that may be used for private tracts. Mr. Robinett replied that is beyond the scope of these proposed amendments, but he will let the Traffic Division know. One of the proposed amendments (section 19.130.120[2]) would establish a maximum number of parking stalls and would allow for exemptions above the maximum if additional parking stalls are mitigated by LID techniques (the parking ratio would stay the same). One of the purposes of this proposed amendment is to encourage developers to consider LID techniques. It is not intended to be restrictive and staff believes use of LID techniques may save developers money. Chair Pfeifer is concerned that a maximum number of parking stalls may discourage a developer. Vice-Chair Elder agrees that it may put too much of a burden on developers and they may go elsewhere. Commissioner Carlson commented that the flow from parking needs to be managed and this proposed amendment is simply a different way of doing that. Ms. Clark commented that the city will be implementing LID techniques next year and staff could wait on this proposed amendment until that time. The Commission’s consensus is to leave the current proposed maximum parking as is and discuss it further at the public hearing. Commissioner Bronson commented that he would not discourage the proposed amendments. Commissioner Long asked how much would an analysis of LID techniques cost? Mr. Robinett replied that any LID analysis would not require more work than any other type of analysis the city may require and staff does not foresee any additional cost for an LID analysis. Commissioner Carlson stated that as an employee of AHBL he participated in development of these amendments and asked for legal advice as to whether he should recuse himself. Mr. Beckwith responded that since his participation was minor, as long as Commissioner Carlson discloses that participation at the public hearing and no one in the audience objects, Mr. Beckwith sees no conflict of interest and Commissioner Carlson may participate fully in the public hearing. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS Ms. Clark announced that the 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendments went to LUTC on May 4th and the LUTC recommended they be forwarded to the City Council with no changes. They are on the May 19th City Council Agenda for first reading. AUDIENCE COMMENT None. ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m.