Loading...
Planning Comm MINS 10-04-2000 City of Federal Way PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting October 4, 2000 City Hall 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers MEETING SUMMARY Commissioners present: Robert Vaughan (Chair), Hope Elder, Eric Faison, and John Caulfield. Commissioners absent: Nesbia Lopes, William Drake, and Karen Kirkpatrick. Guests present: Councilmember Michael Hellickson. Staff present: Interim Director of Community Development Services Kathy McClung, and Administrative Assistant E. Tina Piety. Chair Vaughan called the meeting to order at 7:06 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES None. AUDIENCE COMMENT None. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT None. COMMISSION BUSINESS S Cluster Subdivisions The Public Hearing was reconvened at 7:07 p.m. and Public Testimony opened at 7:07 p.m. Alex Klouzal, 20910 3rd Avenue South, Seattle – Owns 13 acres near Lakota. Feels that King County created the wetlands on his property and the City is using them for runoff. Since some 75 percent of his property is wetlands, he needs higher density and clustering in order to develop it. Jerry Klaubon, 32421 Hoyt Road SW – Owns four acres on Hoyt Road with a small wetland. He believes clustering would have a negative impact on his property. Michael Rutter, 36619 6th Avenue SW – He represents the people of his area. He understands that cluster subdivisions make sense, but it would not work in his area of the City. The community has had numerous meetings on this subject. They feel they live in a unique area that is a friendly, long-term community and they do not want to be run over by development. The community is concerned that lot sizes would be too small and further development would cause more flooding problems. He commented that he attended a Hearing Examiner meeting recently and was dismayed that the City staff were supporting the developer. The City is supposed to serve the people of Federal Way, not outside developers. Planning Commission Page 2 October 4, 2000 Bill May, 35341 11th Court SW – He is a member of the Madrona Meadows Homeowners Association. He stated that he struggles with being told by elected officials that development, “will happen.” He is concerned with the Kenwood Pit development. He feels it will bring increased traffic and will heavily impact schools. He sees nothing that deals with these issues in the proposed amendments. Under Lot Size, he supports the staff recommendation of numbers b and c. Under Approval Criteria, he supports d, e, and f. He also concurs with the staff recommendation to prohibit cluster subdivisions that create lots on slopes of 15 percent or greater. Michael Hellickson, Federal Way City Councilmember – He commented that the City needs to protect everyone’s property rights, not just single-family homeowners. He encouraged people to check the comprehensive plan to see what future holds. Cluster zoning does not mean more density, just smaller lots, not more lots. It is not fair for anyone to say, “We were here first, so you can not build here.” Terry Graff, PO Box 3063, Federal Way – He is a homeowner on the north end of town. He thanked staff for the letter informing him of this issue. He is concerned about increasing restrictions in a city that is already very restrictive. Good development can happen with fewer restrictions. He opposes the staff recommendations because they add restrictions. He encouraged the City to base their decisions on the comprehensive plan’s policies and goals rather than specific restrictions. He commented that a 15 percent slope could be built upon using good engineering. Base decisions on a case-by-case basis. He suggested that rather than requiring that the open space be development, it may be best to leave it as it is. Alex Klouzal, 20910 3rd Avenue South, Seattle – He agrees with previous testimony. The City has less land to build on and more wetlands to take care of. He suggests the City leaves cluster subdivisions as they are, or make it case-by-case. Bill May, 35341 11th Court SW – He is concerned that making decisions on a case-by-case basis would erode the City’s oversight. Cecelia Wheeler, 15234 SE 49th, Bellevue – She owns nine acres and worked on the City’s comprehensive plan. She asked, at what price is a house affordable? How can we have affordable housing when we have to pay the City so much to build? She feels more restrictions would be a great burden on providing affordable housing. Michael Hellickson, Federal Way City Councilmember – He asked the audience to keep in mind that the Planning Commission does not make the final decision. He encouraged them to attend the City Council’s Land Use/Transportation Committee and City Council meetings in order to get their opinions heard. Patricia Owen, 926 SW 356th – She has lost property to the City’s retention pond. Her property is being asked to absorb huge amounts of water. The City is overlooking the impact of development on neighbors. The City should preserve the natural land rather than try to improve it. Attempts to improve usually cause more problems that it solves. Lori Dolan, 30614 28th Avenue South – She is a long-term resident and has seen the impacts of development. It now takes some 20 minutes to get to work within the City. She owns property by Steel Lake. The land has been declared to have wetland, but she has not seen any water. Planning Commission Page 3 October 4, 2000 Michael Rutter, 36619 6th Avenue SW – He stated that he is very gratefully to have local government. He noted that the Blackberry Hill development does not fit the proposed purpose statement. The Public Testimony was closed at 8:20 p.m. Ms. McClung read letters from Chris Carrel and Rob Rueber (attached) into the record. The Commission discussed the staff recommendations cited in the Staff Report. C. Subdivision Code Amendment Options 1. Purpose Statement – The Commission requested the words, “…sensitivity to the surrounding environment…” be added to the statement. They support the staff recommendation with this change. 2. Applicability – The Commission supports the staff recommendation. 3. Density – The Commission supports the staff recommendation. 4. Lot Size –The Commission supports options b, c, and e, and the staff recommendation on sloped lots. 5. Open Space – The Commission had requested information about maintenance. The code does require maintenance through a covenant with City review, but does not address what happens when a homeowners association dies off. The Commission discussed the issue and decided to leave it as is. The Commission discussed the requirement that all open space in cluster subdivisions be usable. They requested a change be made that five percent (of the 15 percent required) may be buffer open space, and the remaining 10 percent shall be usable. They support the staff recommendation with this change. 6. Approval Criteria – a. Change the last part of the sentence to read, “…compatibility with single-family housing on adjacent properties.” b. Change 15 percent to 10 percent. c. Should be applied to all subdivisions. d. Add, “…with the approval of the director.” e. Add, “Will not endeavor to result…” f. Already in the subdivison code, strike it. D. Design Criteria a. Strike the words, “…or immediately adjacent to a multi-family zone.” b. Change it to say ‘should’ instead of ‘shall’ and include the City’s goal. c. The Commission accepts this recommendation as is. d. This is not required of regular subdivisions, the Commission says strike it. E. Zero Lot Line Development a. The Commission accepts this recommendation as is. b. The Commission requested this be increased to 30 percent. c. Strike it. d. Strike it. e. The Commission accepts this recommendation as is. f. The Commission accepts this recommendation as is. Planning Commission Page 4 October 4, 2000 The Commission thanked Ms. McClung for her presentation, especially the pictures of current cluster subdivisions, and thanked the citizens for their participation. It was m/s/approved (no nays) to accept the staff recommendation with amendments, and forward them to the Land Use/Transportation Committee. The Public Hearing was closed at 9:50 p.m. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS None. AUDIENCE COMMENT None. ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 9:55 p.m. K:\CD Admin Files\PLANCOM\2000\Meeting Summary 10-04-00.docLast printed 1/11/2005 9:31 AM