Loading...
Planning Comm MINS 09-16-2009 K:\Planning Commission\2009\Meeting Summary 09-16-09.doc CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PLANNING COMMISSION September 16, 2009 City Hall 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers MEETING MINUTES Commissioners present: Merle Pfeifer, Hope Elder, Sarady Long, Wayne Carlson, Tom Medhurst, and Tim O’Neil. Commissioners absent: Lawson Bronson (excused). Staff present: Senior Planner Margaret Clark, Senior Planner Joanne Long-Woods, Planning Manager Isaac Conlen, 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 July 22, 2009, were approved as written. AUDIENCE COMMENT None ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT Mr. Conlen announced that one Commissioner’s term expires this month (Lawson Bronson). The deadline for Planning Commissioner applications was last Friday and we have received one application; from Lawson Bronson. The next Planning Commission meeting will be October 7, 2009, when we will have a public hearing on proposed amendments to the Personal Wireless Service Facilities (PWSF) regulations. COMMISSION BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARING – Code Amendments to SEPA Exemption & Use Processes Ms. Long-Woods delivered the staff presentation. The proposed code amendments will raise some of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) exempt level thresholds and mitigate for onsite or offsite traffic safety impacts to the transportation system, for all modes of transportation. The proposed amendments are part of the “Economic Stimulus Package,” intended to encourage development. The proposed SEPA exemption amendments will raise the number of dwelling units exempt from SEPA from 9 to 20. It will raise the exempt gross floor area for office, commercial, recreation, service, or storage buildings to 12,000 square feet from 4,000 square feet and raise the parking spaces to 40 from 20. In addition, the exempt number of parking spaces in parking lots will be raised from 20 to 40. When the proposed SEPA exemption amendments were given to the Traffic Division for review, they expressed concern that raising the exempt levels may impact traffic safety. Therefore, a new decisional criterion is proposed for Use Processes II, III, IV, and V to require traffic safety impacts (such as pedestrian pathways, stop lights, etc.) be mitigated. The meeting was opened for public comment. Ms. Piety read the following comment into the record. Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 September 16, 2009 K:\Planning Commission\2009\Meeting Summary 09-16-09.doc “Mr. O’neill Thank you so much and I would like to submit to you for reading into tonight’s record that the Master Builder Assoc strongly supports raising SEPA thresholds and encourages the Planning Commission to pass the draft ordinance before you. Thank you and my apologies for not being able to attend. Garrett J. Huffman, South King & Seattle Manager Master Builders Association for King and Snohomish Counties” There was no other public comment. Commissioner Long commented that he believes the proposed amendments are a step forward and will make it less costly for smaller developers. He asked if the amendments will apply to multi-family development. Ms. Long-Woods replied that the amendments will apply to multi-family development. Mr. Conlen commented that the proposed amendments will not apply to subdivisions as they are regulated elsewhere in the code. For subdivisions, the SEPA exemption will remain at nine lots. Commissioner Carlson asked if the proposed traffic impact amendments are more of a housekeeping amendment and will they have any bearing on the proposed Traffic Impact Fee (TIF)? Mr. Beckwith replied they will not have a bearing on the proposed TIF because the proposed TIF is an overall, city-wide issue while these proposed amendments deal with site-specific developments. Commissioner Medhurst commented that while reading the proposed amendments he noted places where different words (endeavor to, shall, and must) are used for the same issue. Mr. Beckwith commented that this issue is outside the purview of the proposed amendments, but staff will make note of these in order to review for a possible future amendment. Commissioner Long commented that in Exhibit A, he noted that the square feet for agricultural structure (14.15.030[1][b]) is not proposed to be changed. Why is this not included? Ms. Long-Woods commented that the city rarely receives an application for an agricultural structure and therefore, staff decided the square footage did not need to be changed. Commissioner Carlson moved (and it was seconded) to recommend adoption of the proposed amendments as presented by staff. The motion carried unanimously. The public hearing was closed. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS None AUDIENCE COMMENT None ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 7:30 p.m.