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.