Loading...
Planning Comm MINS 09-19-2001K:\Planning Commission\2001\Meeting Summary 09-19-01.doc City of Federal Way PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting September 19, 2001 City Hall 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers MEETING SUMMARY Commissioners present: John Caulfield, Hope Elder, Nesbia Lopes, Bill Drake, Dini Duclos, and Dave Osaki. Commissioners absent (excused): Sophia McNeil. Staff present: Community Development Services Director Kathy McClung, Senior Planner Margaret Clark, Public Works Director Cary Roe, Traffic Engineer Rick Perez, Assistant City Attorney Karen Kirkpatrick, and Administrative Assistant E. Tina Piety. Chair Caulfield called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. APPROVAL OF SUMMARY It was m/s/c to accept the summary of August 15, 2001, as presented. AUDIENCE COMMENT None. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT Ms. McClung asked to wait until the Additional Business section at the end of the meeting. COMMISSION BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARING – 2001 Comprehensive Plan Update, continued It was m/s/c to reconvene the public hearing at 7:02 p.m. Ms. Clark presented the staff report. She gave a brief explanation of Site Specific Requests #1, 2, 3, 5, 7, and 8, which were discussed at the public hearing of July 18, 2001. At that hearing, the commission gave recommendations for Site Specific Requests #1, 2, 3, 7, and 8. They waited on Site Specific Request #5 in order to discuss all projects pertaining to Business Park (BP) zoned land at the same time. Ms. Clark stated that there has been a change to Site Specific Request #4, Kitts Corner. In the original request, as stated in the staff report included in the Planning Commission packet, the applicant had requested that the comprehensive plan designation and zoning be changed to Multiple Family/RM 2400 for the parcels west of the wetlands. This request has been withdrawn. They are still requesting that the comprehensive plan designation and zoning be changed to Community Business/BC for the areas east of the wetlands. The city has received an application for a U-Haul facility with self-storage on one of the parcels included in Site Specific Request #4. This use is permitted in the current zoning and the proposed zoning. Planning Commission Summary Page 2 September 19, 2001 K:\Planning Commission\2001\Meeting Summary 09-19-01.doc/Last printed 1/10/2005 4:53 PM There has been much discussion and concern over whether the city has enough BP zoned land to meet future needs. In light of this, Ms. Clark spoke to a developer who has a new warehouse/office building in the vicinity of Site Specific Request #4. The developer has not been able to locate tenants for this building. This developer also has building permits for two other buildings in this area. He does not plan to construct them until tenants are found. The staff has recommended approval of Request #4 with a Development Agreement. (Ms. Clark reminded the commission that development agreements are approved by the city council at a public hearing and the planning commission is not usually involved in that process.) Since the staff report, staff has made changes to scope of the development agreement. Staff has concluded it is unlikely there would be competition between the uses in this area and those in the city center (it is unlikely a use looking for a city center would be drawn to BC and vice versa). Therefore, the scope of the development agreement has changed from restricting uses that would compete with the downtown to encouraging a “village” concept. A village concept would be a mix of housing and retail in smaller buildings. The development agreement would restrict the size of buildings rather than uses, with the exception of gas stations. Gas stations would be restricted due to the environmental constraints of the site. The commission discussed traffic issues. If the site develops as proposed, there probably would be a couple of signal access. One commissioner asked if this would mean more changes to South 336th and Pacific Highway South, which was recently improved. Mr. Perez replied that the improvements were expected to last 10 years, but this proposal would increase peak hour trips and possible require further improvements. Ms. Clark moved on to discuss Site Specific Request #6, Christian Faith Center. She stated that neighboring residents have expressed many concerns, especially about traffic. In addition to other traffic issues, the Cedar Creek Homeowners have expressed concern over a road being extended through their neighborhood (the road would pass through the golf course). Ms. Clark stated that this would happen only if the owners should decide to redevelop. She went on to read a letter from Barbara Reid into the record and said that all the letters the city received in response to the recent mega-church code amendment have been provided to the commission and are available to the public upon request. Ms. Clark remarked that she has read in the newspaper recently that interest in industrial land (which is zoned BP in Federal Way) is down. Another aspect of this request is that the church is searching for a large parcel of land and there are very few available in the city. The staff has recommended approval of Request #6 with a Development Agreement. This agreement would have a clauses stating that only a church could be developed on the site and that within a certain time line. If this does not happen, the site would revert to BP zoning. The development agreement would also require that a traffic impact analysis be done. Ms. Clark moved on to Site Specific Request #5, Chong Nam Yi. This request had been discussed at the commission’s public hearing of July 18, 2001. The staff recommended denial of the request because there are industrial uses on the site that are functioning well and they would become nonconforming if the comprehensive plan designation and zoning change. The Public Testimony was opened at 7:49 p.m. Leonard Schaadt – He represented Campus Gateway Associates and is speaking for 157 partners in favor of Site Specific Request #4, Kitts Corner. When the city incorporated the zoning of the properties was changed to BP and they have been trying to develop the parcels Planning Commission Summary Page 3 September 19, 2001 K:\Planning Commission\2001\Meeting Summary 09-19-01.doc/Last printed 1/10/2005 4:53 PM ever since with no success. There have been many developers who have researched developing the site, but none have proceeded because there is no demand for BP uses. Campus Gateway Associates had commissioned a study a few years ago (when they also sought a comprehensive plan and zoning change) that looked at the demand for BP land. This study concluded that the city has a 62-year supply of BP land. He stated that retail in this area would not compete with the city center because they are different types of retail. In regards to traffic, a supermarket in this area would likely intercept traffic headed to the city center for groceries, and hence, improve traffic in the area. In addition, the additional retail would generate tax dollars for the city. He has no opposition to a development agreement, but noted there are 10 property owners and it might be difficult to get them all together to agree on a “village” concept. When asked about the inclusion of residential and exclusion of a gas station, he stated that placing residential on the west side would make sense, but it would mean pulling the area back into the request since they have withdrawn the original request to change the comprehensive plan designation and zoning on the west side. He is not sure residential would work on the east side since it is so close to Pacific Highway South. He stated that he has a hard time grasping why a gas station would be excluded since there are good environmental protections now in place (i.e. underground gas tanks are much less prone to leakage). Commissioner Elder stated that the environmental concerns are more over groundwater contamination from oil leaking from cars then leakage from underground gas tanks. Shirley Gulbraa – She lives across the street from Site Specific Request #6, Christian Faith Center, and stated there has been confusion over who owns the site, Christian Faith Center or Weyerhaeuser, because sometimes the request is referred to as Christian Faith Center and sometimes as Weyerhaeuser. She stated that seeking a site specific comprehensive plan designation and zoning change seems the tactic of a spoiled child. The neighborhood’s concerns and questions have not changed. Traffic is still a big concern. The city does not seem to be concerned. The neighborhood has been waiting for traffic bumps, and now she hears there is no more money available for them. Barbara Reid’s letter stated that placing four-way stops in the area would help. But there are already four-way stops in the area and they do not help. She also expressed concern that there was little notice on this issue when it was first proposed back in February. Gladys Fraser – She commented on Request #6. She agrees with the previous testimony. They have current traffic problems. She asked what revenues would the city receive from a church? Ms. Clark replied that there would be some revenue from retail sales at the church, but a BP use would generate more revenue. Ms. Fraser stated that it is hard to get out onto 336th with a car, and very difficult to walk across the street. This is the wrong place for the church. There would be traffic all the time due to church uses. She has no argument with the church, just not here. Phyllis Bowman – She lives in Cedar Creek Park and commented on Request #6. She was a resident of SeaTac and said the church created many problems there. They did not patronize SeaTac, Tukwila, or the surrounding areas, and will not patronize Federal Way. There is nothing wrong with the people or the church; it is that they will be using roads that are already overburdened. It is currently difficult to get onto 324th northbound. Many people use 20th Avenue to avoid Pacific Highway South. Some people go 50 to 60 mph in a 25 mph zone. Ms. Clark commented there are different traffic calming devises the city can use, such as roundabouts and speed humps, and she would send Ms. Bowman some information on these. Morgan Llewellyn – He represented Christian Faith Center. He stated that the core of the Planning Commission Summary Page 4 September 19, 2001 K:\Planning Commission\2001\Meeting Summary 09-19-01.doc/Last printed 1/10/2005 4:53 PM church’s mission is to help the community and in light of recent events, this is more important than ever. Concern has been expressed that 5,000 people attended the church. He stated that not all 5,000 would be present at any one time. They hold two Sunday services that average 2,000 each. They had commissioned a traffic study and he presented a graph that showed that weekday traffic from a BP use would be much greater that the church use. He also admitted that the Sunday traffic from the church would be much greater than a BP use and the church would need to mitigate for that traffic. He announced that the church is proposing to phase the project. Phase one would be extending 20th Avenue South. Phase two would be the storm drainage and wetlands. Phase three would be the sanctuary (which would also be done in stages). Phase four would be the school. Other items, such as the ball fields, would be done in later phases. He stated that they are listening to the residents’ and city’s concerns and are working on mitigating the impacts the church would have. One of the benefits of the development agreement would be the traffic plan. He said the church helped control traffic in SeaTac by such things as asking people not to use specific overburdened roads. This is an environmentally friendly development that would be a benefit to the community. When asked what the time line is for the phased development, he responded that the major work would be completed within a five-year window. Peter Orser – He also represented Christian Faith Center. He commented that Weyerhaeuser’s vision is the same as the city’s, and their relationship with the city and its residents is very important. They view this as an extension of Weyerhaeuser’s East Campus. They believe this is a complementary use. Gil Hulsman – He also represented Christian Faith Center. He stated that the church provided the city with traffic information that compared the church use to that of a distribution center, which is a low intensity BP use. This is what the city’s traffic analysis is based upon. The traffic comparison graph that Mr. Llewellyn presented compares the church to all types of BP uses; hence the differences between them. He stated that if the church waited 20 years, they would not have to deal with the traffic problems because the city would have dealt with them. The question is do we do the work now and save the city money by the developer paying for the work, or wait the 20 years and have the city pay for the work. They have worked with the Friends of the Hylebos on environmental issues and have reached a compromise. They want to be the first low- impact development in Federal Way. He said that much of the land will not be developed with buildings: 11 percent will go to the widening of 20th, 27 percent to wetlands, and 8 percent to sport fields. In regards to generating revenue, the church will pay utility taxes and some retail tax. In addition, there will be no discount on city permit fees. The church is making sacrifices for this project. They did not want to extend 20th Avenue, but are doing so because it is a city requirement. Commissioner Duclos asked if the Friends of the Hylebos Board had taken a position on this project? He replied they have not because, as yet, there is no formal application. Gary Robertson – He commented on Request #6. He lives across the street from the site and commented that there as been a lot of talk about guesses and estimates. The fact is that problems remain. The church would generate no property taxes and traffic is bad. He stated 336th is very narrow. What kind of traffic plan could the church propose that would deal with the traffic? With two services, 2,000 people would be leaving the first service while 2,000 people are arriving for the second. He does not believe any plan could help. Nearby streets will turn into parking lots and property values will go down. We have been here before with Overlake Church, which was first in a residential area and was forced to move. The commission should place more weight on resident’s comments because they deal with the traffic every day. Planning Commission Summary Page 5 September 19, 2001 K:\Planning Commission\2001\Meeting Summary 09-19-01.doc/Last printed 1/10/2005 4:53 PM Glen Sawyer – He commented on Request #6. He does not object to changing the zoning, but does object to placing such a large facility here. He noted that the traffic figures have come from the church. He inquired where would traffic calming devices go and how could they address the volume of traffic? He is concerned over the impact to seniors in the area. This request has far- reaching impacts, not just within the immediate perimeter. Commissioner Elder asked the staff if they had obtained an Overlake Church traffic study. Mr. Perez replied that no follow-up study has been done because the City of Redmond feels the traffic impacts are as expected. Commissioner Drake inquired if the site is developed in pieces, would developers take on the cost of traffic mitigation? Mr. Perez answered that it would depend on the timing of projects and the ranking of the traffic projects. If a traffic project ranked high enough, the city would take on the cost of constructing it rather than wait for an applicant to develop the site. Bernice Kari – She commented on Request #6. She stated the most interesting thing is that there would be 2,000 people twice a day on Sundays and people who pick up school kids twice a day during the week. The area cannot handle the traffic. Elizabeth Kari – She commented on Request #6. She said that she has not seen the protests she raised during the mega-church code amendment addressed. Traffic calming devices do not address volume. People will be trapped in their homes on Sunday. She has not heard anything about how the church would help the neighborhood. Their quality of life will go down and property values will drop. Saying that the church is better than a chemical plant is scare tactics. She does not want five years of construction. Martin Drukan – He commented on Request #6. He commented that in accepting this proposal, there would be two immediate savings to the city, the widening of 336th and signalization at 336th and 20th. He believes that the church would patronize Federal Way. The bulk of their parishioners live in Federal Way. The Mayor of SeaTac said the church was a great neighbor. The 2,000 people per service does not mean 2,000 cars. They would come as families, which means about 500 cars. In addition, there will be three ways in and out, which means that the traffic would not all be on one street. In addition, there is about one hour between services. He stated that this is the best and probably only spot in Federal Way the church could be located. Elizabeth Kari – She commented on Request #6. She asked if there will only be about 500 cars, why do they need a parking lot for 2,000 cars? Ms. Clark commented that the staff has not reviewed the church’s phasing plan. They would be concerned about the length of time for the construction. She also said that the proposal the city has seen shows 1,944 parking stalls. The Public Testimony was closed at 9:15 p.m. It was m/s/c to close the Public Hearing at 9:17 p.m. It was m/s/c (one nay) to approve Site Specific Request #4, Kitts Corner, to change the comprehensive plan designation and zoning from Business Park/BP to Community Business/BC, for the areas east of the wetlands, based upon a Development Agreement. Planning Commission Summary Page 6 September 19, 2001 K:\Planning Commission\2001\Meeting Summary 09-19-01.doc/Last printed 1/10/2005 4:53 PM It was m/s/c (unanimous) to deny Site Specific Request #5, Chong Nam Yi, to change the comprehensive plan designation and zoning from Business Park/BP to Community Business/BC. Commissioners Lopes and Duclos excused themselves from discussion and voting on Site Specific Request #6, Christian Faith Center, due to possible conflict of interest. It was m/s/c (unanimous) to deny Site Specific Request #6, Christian Faith Center, to change the comprehensive plan designation and zoning from Business Park to Multiple Family – RM 3600 zoning, based upon a Development Agreement. Commissioner Elder commented that she feels the questions that have come up leave too many concerns over traffic. Regardless of the city’s plans for 20 years from now, traffic would be a mess. She believes the church would be a good neighbor, but the traffic would be too much of a mess. There are problems on Pacific Highway South (drugs, etc.) but the church is not the way to solve them, it needs police intervention. In addition, the city should not require the church to allow the public to use their facilities. Commissioner Osaki said that he supported the mega-church text amendment because is would have required a public hearing before the city’s hearing examiner and traffic issues could be dealt with. The burden of proof of how traffic problems would be mitigated would have been on the applicant. A development agreement could be drafted that would address his concerns, but the commission is in the position of making a decision without seeing the development agreement. He is not comfortable making a decision without knowing the specifics of what is being recommended. Commissioner Drake stated that he is concerned about traffic. To do a project as a whole on the site would have advantages, but the residents’ traffic concerns do have merit. He is also concerned about the loss of revenue. He suggested the church look for a site in the city’s Potential Annexation Area because he feels the church would be a good neighbor, just not at this site. Commissioner Caulfield thanked the staff and everyone who attended the public hearing. He agrees with Commissioner Drake about the traffic. The phasing of the project raises some red flags (it does not sound like the project is fully financed), especially with construction lasting five years. He said that he was originally under the impression that BP land was needed in Federal Way, but today’s testimony shows that is probably not the case. He does not feel comfortable with the traffic impacts. The church would be a tremendous addition to the community, but the commission needs to side with the neighbors and their traffic concerns. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS Ms. McClung announced that the deadline for the Planning Commission vacancy has been extended. The city has hired a consultant to study the Potential Annexation Area and she is looking for a commissioner to serve on an oversight committee. The meetings would most likely be held in the evening. The commission selected Commissioners Elder and Drake. The draft downtown study is due next week. There will be a developers’ forum focusing on the downtown on October 10. The city has sent out over 100 invitations. The appeal on the new high school has been heard and the hearing examiner’s decision should come out next week. Federal Way has been selected for a Washington State Planning Association Award for the sign program. There will be no Planning Commission meeting the first week of October. Planning Commission Summary Page 7 September 19, 2001 K:\Planning Commission\2001\Meeting Summary 09-19-01.doc/Last printed 1/10/2005 4:53 PM Commissioner Duclos stated she will be on vacation for the second Planning Commission meeting in October. AUDIENCE COMMENT None. ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m.