Loading...
Planning Comm MINS 12-05-2001K:\Planning Commission\2001\Meeting Summary 12-05-01.doc City of Federal Way PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting December 5, 2001 City Hall 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers MEETING SUMMARY Commissioners present: John Caulfield, Hope Elder, Nesbia Lopes, Bill Drake, Dini Duclos, Dave Osaki, and Grant Newport. Commissioners absent (excused): None. Alternate Commissioners present: Christine Nelson and Marta Justus Foldi. Alternate Commissioners absent (excused): Tony Moore. Staff present: Community Development Services Director Kathy McClung, Contract Planner Rick Sepler, Public Works Director Cary Roe, 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 The September 19, October 17, and November 28, 2001, meeting summaries were approved as presented. AUDIENCE COMMENT None. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT Ms. McClung will prepare a departmental year-end report to be distributed to the commission at a later date. The City Council held Planning Commission interviews were held last night. Welcome to our new Commissioner Grant Newport and Alternate Commissioners Christine Nelson, Marta Justus Foldi, and Tony Moore. The Commission congratulated Commissioner Duclos, Federal Way’s Citizen of the Year. COMMISSION BUSINESS Commissioner Duclos excused herself. PUBLIC HEARING – 25% Threshold for Frontage Improvements Code Amendment Ms. McClung explained that the Federal Way Chamber of Commerce had requested the City review the 25 percent threshold issue. The Commission held a Study Session on the issue in August. Ms. McClung and Mr. Roe met with the Chamber to provide technical assistance. A public hearing was scheduled for October 17, 2001, but was extended at the request of the Chamber to give them more time to review the City’s proposal. Ms. McClung and Mr. Roe again met with the Chamber to provide further technical assistance. They also met with the City Council to be sure they are following the Council’s direction on the issue. Planning Commission Summary Page 2 December 5, 2001 K:\Planning Commission\2001\Meeting Summary 12-05-01.doc/Last printed 1/10/2005 4:51 PM Mr. Sepler presented the staff report. Substandard streets pose functional and public safety related risks to a community. Streetscape improvements that aesthetically enhance the community and contribute to economic vitality are often not present. The absence of street improvements can also contribute to a negative impression of the community. The challenge is to find a fair means of addressing the problem that is cost-effective for both the jurisdiction and the adjacent property owners. The Chamber has requested the city review existing code policies associated with street improvements and the cost allocation required for pre-existing uses. In a March 2001 memorandum, the Chamber presented the city with the following recommendations: 1. The 25 percent trigger shall be unchanged. 2. The total assessed value of both land and improvements shall determine the thresholds. 3. Interior tenant improvements shall be excluded from the trigger. 4. All street frontage improvements, to be absorbed by the landowner, shall be calculated based on the City’s proportioned amount excluding federal, state, and county contributions. 5. The landowner shall be given the opportunity to spread the cost of the assessment over time, when practical. Through the process discussed above, and with the concurrence of the Chamber, City staff makes the following recommendations: 1. The 25 percent trigger shall be unchanged. 2. The total assessed value of both land and improvements shall determine the threshold. Excepting that if the property is less than 100,000 square feet in size, the assessed or appraised value of structures and property shall be used to determine the 25 percent of the assessed or appraised value. If the property is greater than 100,000 square feet in size, the assessed or appraised value of the structures only shall be used. 3. Tenant improvements are exempted, excepting those improvements that increase the floor area. 4. All street frontage improvements, to be absorbed by the landowner, shall be calculated based on the City’s proportioned amount excluding federal, state, and county contributions. 5. The law does not permit that the landowner shall be given the opportunity to spread the cost of the assessment over time, when practical. 6. Staff is recommending an additional exemption of façade improvements. Ms. Kirkpatrick requested that the Law Department be allowed to make small wordsmith changes to the ordinance. Ms. McClung requested that the following statement be added to the end of paragraph (2) on page 2 of Attachment A of the proposed ordinance: “…then the applicant will only pay their proportionate share of the city’s cost.” The Commission expressed its concern that empty buildings would stay vacant because of improvement requirements. What would happen if someone wanted to locate in a vacant building and change the use from what was there previously? This situation would not trigger the street improvements, as long as the building is not enlarged, but it might trigger the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and thereby, might be required to make improvements. The City Council is also concerned with vacant buildings. Economic development is a priority for them. It is possible this could lead to further code amendments. Planning Commission Summary Page 3 December 5, 2001 K:\Planning Commission\2001\Meeting Summary 12-05-01.doc/Last printed 1/10/2005 4:51 PM Public Testimony was opened at 7:45 p.m. Bob Couper, Federal Way Chamber of Commerce Economic Vitality Committee Chair – This document is the result of countless hours by City staff and the Chamber. It was a difficult task. City staff should be recognized for their openness. The Chamber was not originally in agreement with the City staff. The Chamber identified numerous properties and requested the City staff to evaluate them. The results show that this amendment will help small business owners. This package will be an incentive for small businesses to move forward with improvements. The Chamber and City Council have both moved from their positions to the middle of the road. This will show small businesses that we are inventive. Dolores Shull, Federal Way Chamber of Commerce President – City staff has been very helpful. The amendment is fair and equitable. It is an improvement on current code and will reverse the current disincentive for small business to improve their property. It will allow for redevelopment, upgrade, and expansion. Local Improvement Districts and Transportation Benefit Districts are good ideas and merit further discussion. Pastor Doug Chamberlain, Calvary Lutheran Church – He is concerned with how the amendment will affect the proposed changes to Calvary Lutheran Church. They are not a commercial entity and those who attend the church fund all improvements. The building is larger than 100,000 square feet in size. They have already made improvements to the street frontage and are concerned that the City requirements would mean replacing what has been done. The amendment would not benefit them. He asked that the City consider exempting non-commercial entities. Steve Hammer, Browelett, Peterson, & Hammer Architects – He is the architect for Calvary Lutheran Church. He stated that the 25% code amendment has been discussed in regards to businesses and while it would benefit businesses, it would be detrimental to churches (because of their size and because churches rely on donations to fund projects). The point is not to burden taxpayers, but this would burden churchgoers. It also goes against the significant tree ordinance. He would like the Commission to consider exempting non-profit entities. He would also like the Commission to consider changing the amount from 25 to 50 percent (which according to the table on page 4 of the staff report, more jurisdictions use) and to change the 100,000 square feet because it is arbitrary. Russell Wolf, CPA – Ms. Shull read his statement. He agrees with the change. It applies to all properties, including residential. The city is fighting the idea that they are anti-business, this will help fight that idea. The Public Hearing was closed at 8:40 p.m. Discussion ensued. It was m/s/c (no nays, one excused) to accept the staff recommendation as written with the change from Ms. McClung as noted above, and to allow for the Law Department to wordsmith. Planning Commission Summary Page 4 December 5, 2001 K:\Planning Commission\2001\Meeting Summary 12-05-01.doc/Last printed 1/10/2005 4:51 PM ADDITIONAL BUSINESS Staff will be meeting with the Calvary Lutheran Church to discuss their issues. There will be no Planning Commission meeting the third week of December or the first week of January. We will meet the third week of January for the Annual Dinner. At the dinner we will talk about accomplishments and the 2002 Work Program. AUDIENCE COMMENT None. ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m.