Loading...
Planning Comm MINS 06-06-2001 City of Federal Way PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting June 6, 2001 City Hall 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers MEETING SUMMARY Commissioners present: John Caulfield, Hope Elder, Sophia McNeil, Dini Duclos, and Dave Osaki. Commissioners absent (excused): Bill Drake and Nesbia Lopes. Staff present: Senior Planner Margaret Clark, Contract Senior Planner David Graves, Assistant City Attorney Karen Kirkpatrick, and Administrative Assistant E. Tina Piety. Chairman Caulfield called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. It was m/s/c to amend the agenda to add a special election for chair and vice-chair after the approval of the minutes. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The April 18, 2001, meeting summary was approved as presented. ELECTIONS John Caulfield was nominated for Chair. There were no other nominations. The vote was held and it was unanimous in favor of him. Hope Elder was nominated for Vice-Chair. There were no other nominations. The vote was held and it was unanimous in favor of her. AUDIENCE COMMENT Mark Clirehugh, Federal Way Chamber of Commerce – He presented a letter (attached) and spoke to the proposed 25% Trigger code amendment, which will come to the Planning Commission in the future. He commented that there is a dichotomy over who pays for what (public vs. private). The Chamber’s Economic Vitality Committee studied this issue and is presenting the recommendations outlined in the letter to the city. The chamber feels the private sector bears an unfair amount of the cost of street improvements. Their recommendations are as follows: 1. The 25% trigger should remain unchanged. 2. Currently, the 25% trigger comes into play when improvements are made to the structure itself (i.e. if the structure improvements exceed 25%). This should be broadened to include the total assessed value of both land and improvements. Planning Commission Summary Page 2 June 6, 2001 K:\Planning Commission\2001\Meeting Summary 06-06-01.doc/Last printed 1/10/2005 4:57 PM 3. Interior tenant improvements should be excluded. 4. The business owner’s amount of street frontage improvements should be calculated based on just the city’s proportioned amount, excluding federal, state, and county contributions. 5. Allow landowner to spread out the payment over time. There are mechanisms that can be used for this. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT The Mega-Church code amendment went to the council’s Land Use/Transportation Committee on Monday, June 4, 2001. They continued the topic to June 18. Ms. Clark announced the meeting on June 20 will be a public hearing on Phase II of the Miscellaneous Code Amendments. She asked the commission, since July 4 (our next regular meeting date) is a holiday, would they like to meet on July 11? The commission discussed the issue and decided there was no compelling reason to hold a special meeting and would simply meet on July 18 as scheduled. COMMISSION BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARING – Regulate Nonconformance Created by Government Acquisition of Property for Right-of-Way Expansion Mr. Graves gave the staff report. He started out by giving some corrections to the staff report and ordinance. On page 1 of the staff report, the last sentence of the last paragraph should read, “…as the sign is altered, and or the alteration of the structure exceeds 75 percent….” On page 3 of the staff report, the first sentence of the paragraph under decisional criteria #2 should read, “…upgrade existing structures and replace signs….” And the sentence under decisional criteria #3 should read, “…renovate structures and replace signs….” On page 9 of the ordinance, the third sentence from the top of the page should end, “…designation; and or….” On page 11 of the ordinance, the third sentence from the top of the page should read, “…shall not be counted towards the 50 75 –percent threshold which….” Mr. Graves went on to answer the questions Commissioner Osaki had sent by e-mail. They are as follows: 1. The last sentence in the staff report “Background” on page 1 says “Signs, which become non- conforming due to right-of-way acquisition, will be considered legal non-conforming signs until such time as a sign is altered and the alteration exceeds 75 percent of the assessed value of the structure.” In the draft ordinance, FWCC 22-335 i.3 (proposed) “Loss of legal nonconforming sign status,” I don’t see any provision that states one loses non-conforming status if the sign is altered at 75%. Proposed FWCC 22-335i.3 ties the loss of nonconforming status of a sign, as I read it, to exceeding the 75% threshold to the structure or improvement that houses or supports the use associated with the non-conforming sign and not the sign itself. Is this the intent? Staff Response: The sentence in question should have read, “…as the sign is altered, and or the alteration of the structure exceeds 75 percent….” Planning Commission Summary Page 3 June 6, 2001 K:\Planning Commission\2001\Meeting Summary 06-06-01.doc/Last printed 1/10/2005 4:57 PM 2. Also, proposed FWCC 22-335 i.3.a allows the change in the copy change in a “…center identification or tenant directory sign....” I need clarity on what is meant by “center identification” but it implies that if a sign face is changed out for a single business (i.e. Dave’s Coffee Shop becomes Margaret’s Coffee Shop) that the new sign must be conforming whereas sign face changes to multi-tenant businesses could be done while retaining non-conforming status. Staff Response: It would not trigger the nonconformance. 3. I’m assuming that any businesses that have not yet complied with the city’s sign amortization program are still illegal and would not benefit from this proposal (i.e. pole sign that should have come down by now won’t get legal non-conforming status by virtue of this code change since it’s not legal to begin with). Staff Response: The assumption is correct in that this code amendment applies only to legal signs that are made nonconforming due to the city acquiring property for right-of-way. 4. I’m assuming there is no ten year amortization period for non-conforming signs resulting from right- of-way acquisition. Staff Response: This is correct; there is no 10-year amortization period. 5. In proposed FWCC 22.335i.3.b and 22.339 2.q. there is reference to the 75% threshold. Does the city want to specify the 12 month period for this threshold as it seems you do for other non-conforming situations or is there a specific reason the reference to 12 months is left out. Staff Response: No period is specified. This code amendment raises the nonconformance trigger from 50 to 75 percent in those cases when, as a result of acquisition of property by a governmental agency for right-of-way, existing building(s) on the subject property become nonconforming as to the development regulations such as front yard setback or landscape screening width and/or a sign becomes nonconforming because it is now too close to the edge of the right-of-way. The commission asked what options would a business owner have if the acquisition of right-of-way left him or her without enough room to legally erect a new sign. Assistant City Attorney Kirkpatrick replied that the business owner could apply for a Process I, which would allow placement of a new sign in the required setback if the required criteria are met (see #2 on page 8 of the proposed ordinance). This would save them the time and expense of requesting a variance. The commission requested clarification. If a business owner did 70 percent improvements (thereby staying under the 75 percent trigger), and then six-months later did 70 percent more, would the amendment allow this? The staff replied that since the amendment does not have a time period associated with it, the described situation could happen. The commission asked for clarification of the meaning of tenant directory sign and center identification sign. Ms. Cark read the definitions from the Federal Way City Code. They are as follows: Planning Commission Summary Page 4 June 6, 2001 K:\Planning Commission\2001\Meeting Summary 06-06-01.doc/Last printed 1/10/2005 4:57 PM Tenant Directory Sign means a sign for listing the tenants or occupants and then suite numbers of a building or center. Center Identification Sign means a building mounted or freestanding sign that identifies the name and/or logo of a development containing more than one office, retail, institutional or industrial use or tenant and which may separately identify the tenants. Public Testimony was opened at 7:30 p.m. Bob Cooper, Federal Way Chamber of Commerce – He asked for clarification that improvements to the building that exceed 75 percent of the assessed value would trigger the requirement to upgrade the sign. Assistant City Attorney Kirkpatrick replied that is correct. He than asked what is the difference between the 25 percent trigger and the 75 percent trigger. Ms. Clark responded that the 25 percent trigger applies to when the business owner or property owner decide to make improvements. The 75 percent applies in cases where a government entity has caused the building and/or sign to become nonconforming due to acquisition of right-of-way. Mr. Cooper asked why is it 25 percent for the business owner and 75 percent for the city? He requested the commission consider this issue. The Public Testimony was closed at 7:32 p.m. The public hearing was closed at 7:33 p.m. The commission discussed the proposed code amendment. It was m/s to recommend the adoption of the proposed code amendment. A friendly amendment was made to include the corrections made to the ordinance as stated by Mr. Graves at the beginning of his staff report. The motion carried (unanimous). ADDITIONAL BUSINESS Chairman Caulfield stated that he was at the LUTC meeting and presented the Planning Commission’s report on the Mega-Church code amendment. Hope Elder and Nesbia Lopes also attended. AUDIENCE COMMENT None. ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 7:40 p.m.