Loading...
Planning Comm MINS 09-18-2002K:\Planning Commission\2002\Meeting Summary 09-18-02.doc City of Federal Way PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting September 18, 2002 City Hall 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers MEETING SUMMARY Commissioners present: John Caulfield, Dave Osaki, Bill Drake, Dini Duclos, Nesbia Lopes, and Grant Newport. Commissioners absent (excused): Hope Elder. Alternate Commissioners present: Marta Justus Foldi and Christine Nelson. Alternate Commissioners absent (unexcused): Tony Moore. Staff present: Community Development Director Kathy McClung, Community Development Deputy Director Patrick Doherty, Associate Planner Rox Burhans, 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 approve the September 4, 2002, meeting summary. AUDIENCE COMMENT None. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT Moved to the end of the meeting. COMMISSION BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARING – City Center-Core Supplementary Development Standards Code Amendment Mr. Doherty gave the background on the proposed amendment. The Federal Way City Center has an image defined by a predominant retail presence, inefficient land use patterns, and lack of pedestrian scale or orientation. A survey of residents, business leaders, and City employees concluded that the City Center has a weak presence and more should be done to strengthen its image. To strengthen the image of the City Center, the City may use two approaches: a market-driven approach and/or a regulatory tools approach. The proposed amendment falls within the regulatory tools approach. It is felt the City Center-Core Supplementary Development Standards will: • Consume less land through multistory development • Increase feasibility of office and residential development • Improve City center character and image • Promote pedestrian scale development • Provide housing opportunities close to employment Planning Commission Summary Page 2 September 18 2002 K:\Planning Commission\2002\Meeting Summary 09-18-02.doc/Last printed 1/10/2005 3:55 PM Mr. Burhans explained the specifics of the proposed amendment. It is important to note that existing development would not be considered nonconforming; the amendment is applicable to structures with more than 75,000 square feet of gross floor area; and the amendment is applicable to retail, office, and entertainment uses only. A proposed structure over 75,000 square feet, or an increase in existing gross floor area over 75,000 square feet would be subject to one of the following options: Option I – The cumulative building footprint shall not exceed 75,000 square feet and the structure shall have a minimum of three stories; or Option II – One unit of housing shall be provided for every 1,000 square feet of proposed gross floor area over 75,000 square feet, and the housing shall be constructed above the ground floor. For proposed increases of less than 75,000 square feet that will be added to property defined as a “subject property,” one of the following options may be used: Option I – The structure containing the proposed gross floor area expansion shall have a minimum of two stories; or Option II – One unit of housing shall be provided for every 1,000 square feet of proposed gross floor area over 75,000 square feet, and the housing shall be constructed above the ground floor. For structures in the City Center-Core that house retail, office, and/or entertainment uses, “subject property” shall include all lots or parcels that contain existing and/or proposed retail, office, and/or entertainment uses that are physically and functionally interconnected. Mr. Doherty commented that he has spoken to developers throughout the region and they have said that the proposed code amendment would lower costs for, and spur, new housing development. It would encourage housing and commercial developers to work together. The commission asked if a comparison of the proposed code amendment has been done with other cities in Washington. Mr. Doherty replied that this proposed amendment is more aggressive than the codes of other, “smaller” cities. The Commission asked if we already have a process for mixed-use development, why do we need this code amendment? Mr. Doherty replied that with the current code, nothing compels commercial developers to partner with housing developers. The proposed code amendment would encourage them to consider a partnership. The Commission also asked how do you know that, with the proposed amendment, you are forcing a market that does not exist, in regards to housing and height? The Downtown Market Study indicates that there is a need for housing in the City Center, and the developers Mr. Doherty contacted agreed. The problem is that current land prices do not make housing worthwhile. Public Testimony was opened at 7:45 p.m. R. Gerard Lutz, Perkins Coie – He is representing SeaTac Village and presented the Commission with written comments. SeaTac Village opposes the proposed code amendment and feels that it is a move away from the City’s market base, which is retail. They are concerned that it is a piecemeal approach, as opposed to a master plan. They feel it will cause disruption and confusion to existing businesses. They suggest the City consult with retail owners for something less coercive. They are also concerned that the proposed amendment will make businesses nonconforming and lenders and insurance will be reluctant to lend and insure because of this. There will be a loss in property values and the ability to move property quickly. Planning Commission Summary Page 3 September 18 2002 K:\Planning Commission\2002\Meeting Summary 09-18-02.doc/Last printed 1/10/2005 3:55 PM Rob Reuber, KC Investments – He spoke regarding the proposed change to the definition of subject property. The defining criteria is that two or more lots abut each other, if they only share access, will they be affected by the proposed code amendments? The and/or’s in this proposed definition are confusing. If there are two separate parcels, not owned by another, will shared access make them one? The part about two or more abutting lots with development activities proposed by the same applicant or under review, is also confusing. Mr. Doherty commented that no one aspect (i.e., shared access) would determine if abutting lots meet the proposed amendment of subject property. The Public Testimony was closed at 8:00 p.m. The Commission asked if this proposed amendment is putting the cart in front of the horse? Would it be better to develop a master plan for the City Center-Core? The City should work with citizens and developers to get a feel for what this community really wants. Mr. Doherty replied that the City will do a planned action SEPA (State Environmental Policy Act), which is basically a master plan with a lot of flexibility. The problem is that the City has recently been approached by retailers to place “big box” retail in the core and it will be more than a year before the planned action SEPA could be implemented. The City is concerned about development that does not achieve our vision of our City Center, as developed in the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan. We need the regulatory approach in order to avoid what we do not want in our City Center. The Commission asked why not include the City Center-Frame in this code amendment? Mr. Doherty replied that the Frame is more appropriate for stand-alone retail, and therefore, is not included in the proposed amendment. Has the City considered a moratorium on “big box” development? Ms. Kirkpatrick replied that the City would need a serious, logically feasible reason to place a moratorium. In addition, the City wants to be business friendly. Mr. Doherty commented that we do not want to say no to “big box” retailers, but rather, influence them so that they would fit within our City center vision. The Commission had further discussion and asked the staff to follow-up on the following items/issues: Pictures of what a 75,000 mixed-use would look like What is the density of the core area? Address the looseness of the definition of subject property Impact of the proposed amendment on existing buildings and other options Consider a sunset clause on the proposed amendment Punch list of what current incentives are in the code and what is in the works Explain the logic behind 75,000 square feet; could it be 30,000 square feet? It was m/s/c to continue the Public Hearing to Wednesday, October 2, 2002, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. After discussion of who would be in attendance, it was m/s/c to reconsider the motion and continue the Public Hearing to Wednesday, October 23, 2002, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. Planning Commission Summary Page 4 September 18 2002 K:\Planning Commission\2002\Meeting Summary 09-18-02.doc/Last printed 1/10/2005 3:55 PM ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT Ms. McClung commented that she has been working with the Permit Review Committee. The consultant has surveyed City building/planning permit customers from the last two years, and has had meetings with various interest groups (City employees, developers, citizens, etc.). One conclusion the have arrived at is that the City’s process is not broken, but can be improved. The consultant has researched “best practices,” fees, and staffing levels at other cities. The consultant has arrived at about 40 improvements and is currently working on an implementation plan to be sent to the City Council. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS Nesbia Lopes announced her resignation. She has enjoyed her time on the Planning Commission and is thankful for the opportunity. She intends to continue her involvement with the City. AUDIENCE COMMENT R. Gerard Lutz, Perkins Coie – He thanked the Commission for their time and for continuing the hearing. He hopes to have more dialogue with staff. ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m.