Loading...
Planning Comm MINS 12-04-2002K:\Planning Commission\2002\Meeting Summary 12-04-02.doc City of Federal Way PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting December 4, 2002 City Hall 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers MEETING SUMMARY Commissioners present: Hope Elder, Dave Osaki, Dini Duclos, Bill Drake, and Marta Justus Foldi. Commissioners absent (excused): John Caulfield and Grant Newport. Alternate Commissioners present: Merle Pfeifer and Christine Nelson. Alternate Commissioners absent (excused): Lawson Bronson. Alternate Commissioners absent (unexcused): Tony Moore. Staff present: Community Development Director Kathy McClung, Senior Planner Margaret Clark, Traffic Engineer Rick Perez, Assistant City Attorney Karen Kirkpatrick, and Administrative Assistant E. Tina Piety. Acting Chair Elder called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. APPROVAL OF SUMMARY It was m/s/c to adopt the summary of November 20, 2002, as presented. AUDIENCE COMMENT None. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT None. COMMISSION BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARING – 2002 Comprehensive Plan Update, Site-Specific Requests Ms. Clark delivered the staff report and gave a background of the process for the benefit of those in the audience. She explained that the Commission had been given copies of updated maps and a text change they had requested. There are four site-specific requests for the commission to consider tonight. Request #1 – Request to change the comprehensive plan designation and zoning from Single Family High Density Residential and RS 7.2 to Community Business and BC of four parcels located south of South 304th Street adjacent to Military Road South. The original request consisted of three parcels. As part of their review, City staff performed noise readings in the area and because of the results, suggested the fourth parcel be added (Shirlene Olsen’s property). The noise in the area is high because of the proximity to I-5 and Military Road. Trees in the area have been removed to construct an HOV lane and a stormwater Planning Commission Summary Page 2 December 4, 2002 K:\Planning Commission\2002\Meeting Summary 12-04-02.doc/Last printed 1/10/2005 3:58 PM detention facility. This request includes two businesses, Vilma’s Signs and Pat’s Plumbing, both of which are uses that are not allowed in the Community Business (BC) zone. They are allowed in the Business Park (BP) zone. Ms. Clark noted that the BC and BP zones are not appropriate for this area because of the residential surroundings. Therefore, staff’s recommendation is that the properties be given a comprehensive plan designation and zoning of Neighborhood Business and BN. This would allow Vilma’s Signs and Pat’s Plumbing to continue as legal nonconforming uses. As such, they would not be able to expand or make structural changes. However, the properties could be sold and redeveloped for uses allowed in the Neighborhood Business (BN) zone. This would be a better use of the properties than the current zoning of residential. Commissioner Duclos asked why change to BN since it means the businesses would not be able to expand or make structural changes? Commissioner Osaki noted that requested change to BC would also make the businesses nonconforming. The Commission would like to know Ms. Olsen’s response to her property being included in the request. Ms. Clark replied Ms. Olsen has been notified and Ms. Olsen had no response. The public testimony was opened at 7:25 p.m. Wayne Carlson – He is here for Pat’s Plumbing. He stated that the business dispenses vans for routine repair and maintenance and they want to expand the office building. The vans are not on- site during the day. He commended the staff for recognizing the noise problem. He is concerned that Pat’s Plumbing does not meet the criteria for the BC zone; they had understood it did meet the criteria. He understands the staff’s concerns about the locations of the BC zones [currently located along Pacific Highway South], but feels this is a unique situation because of the noise problem. Tim Hickel – He is an attorney here to represent Vilma’s Signs. He gave the Commission a comment sheet and synopsis of the BN and BP zones. Vilma’s makes and sells signs for end use customers, as opposed to wholesale. It noted the area is an isolated triangular area between Military Road and I-5. One has to travel down 304th to find residences. Vilma’s has five employees and has been there for approximately 20 years with no complaints. This request is about more than making sure we have so much BP, BN, and BP zoned land in the community; it affects real people and real jobs. He feels that the staff recommendation fails to address the problem and ignores the history of the area. It is his understanding that BN is for office and retail establishments, while BP is for fabrication/ assembly/distribution establishments. As such, why is Vilma’s Signs not conforming under BN, but does conform to BP? The overall goal, and most common sense solution, is not only a zone change, but to also ensure the businesses are conforming. Michael Klingman – He is a neighbor of Ms. Olsen. He had talked to Ms Olsen’s son, Mr. Smith, and was upset he was not informed of this meeting until today. There are three other private properties that would be affected by this change. They have been concerned with the noise level and have spoken with the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). He attended the meeting hosted by WSDOT where it was stated that a concrete wall along I-5 had been proposed, but was lost due to Referendum 51. WSDOT has placed walls to the north and south of the area, and a wall is still proposed for the area, but there is no funding. What does commercial zoning have to do with the noise problem? He stated he was not able to get an appraisal because of the noise problem. Planning Commission Summary Page 3 December 4, 2002 K:\Planning Commission\2002\Meeting Summary 12-04-02.doc/Last printed 1/10/2005 3:58 PM Public Testimony was closed at 7:45 p.m. The Commission expressed their concern that the rezoning would lead to nonconforming uses. The staff offered to research further what exactly the uses are for Vilma’s Signs and Pat’s Plumbing to ascertain if the might meet the criteria for BN. In addition, as part of their workplan next year, staff will be reviewing the uses for BN and BP zones. Requests #2 & #3 – These requests are for two adjacent parcels, which although under different ownership, are presently being used as a truck terminal; therefore, they are being reviewed together. Request is to change the comprehensive plan designation and zoning from Business Park and BC to Community Business and BC of two parcels located north of South 336th Street and west of Enchanted Parkway South. The owners believe that the BC designation and zoning is consistent with surrounding zoning and land uses. The staff recommendation is that these requests not be approved because the City has enough land zoned BC. It is further suggested that the City explore potential changes to the allowable uses in the BP zone in order to meet changing market conditions. The Public Testimony was opened at 8:25 p.m. Anthony Starkovich – He represents STRS Associates. He stated it is difficult to compete as an industrial use with the Port of Tacoma and Auburn valley. An idea has arisen that this area is trying to compete with the City Center-Core area. This isn’t true. This area is looking for a different type of retail. The properties currently have a trucking business, but don’t have the infrastructure to compete. Rob Rueber – He represents Clerget Industries and gave the Commission copies of a letter. He stated that the one thing that drove the request is that since Home Depot went in, they have had many requests for retail on the property, but no requests or interest in BP uses. Nothing has happened with industrial zoning in some 20 to 30 years. More retail wants to move into the area and when the truck stop moves out, any industrial uses in the area will also leave. Public Testimony was closed at 8:35 p.m. Other than a couple of clarifying questions, there was no discussion. Request #4 – For the record, Commissioner Duclos stated she is employed by the Multi-Service Center, who owns Glenwood Place, which is adjacent to this request. Request is to change the comprehensive plan designation and zoning from Business Park to Multiple Family and RM 2400 for parcels located west of the on-site wetlands south of South 336th Street and west of Pacific Highway South. City staff is currently working on a development agreement for Kitts Corner (of which this request is a part of). The applicants had made this request once before but withdrew it when the staff recommend it not be approved because it would have created an island of multiple family use surrounded by commercial designations. Since that time, a boundary line adjustment has increased the size of one of the parcels and Glenwood Place, a 50- unit senior citizen housing complex, was constructed adjacent to the request. Staff recommends that this request be approved and included in the Kitts Corner Development Agreement. Public Testimony was opened at 8:50 p.m. Leonard Schaadt – He represents Campus Gateway and Gene Merlino. He stated that he has experiered a lack of demand for BP zoned land. He feels BP would be inappropriate in this area because of the wetlands. He is working with the property owners on a plan for the other part of Kitts Corner that would complement mutiple family. Residential uses would be less invasive of the wetlands and would compliment the retail on the other part of Kitts Corner. Planning Commission Summary Page 4 December 4, 2002 K:\Planning Commission\2002\Meeting Summary 12-04-02.doc/Last printed 1/10/2005 3:58 PM Public Testimony was closed at 8:55 p.m. and being no further discussion, the Public Hearing was closed at 8:55 p.m. It was m/s/c to consider each request independently. It was m/s/failed (one yes, four no) to adopt the staff recommendation for Request #1. It was m/s/f (two yes, three no) to adopt the staff recommendation on Request #1, but to not include the Olsen property (a friendly amendment was made that Ms. Olsen be contacted to be sure of her position). It was m/s/f (one yes, three no) to bring back information on Ms. Olsen and Vilma’s Signs. It was m/s/c (three yes, two no) to approve the staff recommendation for Request #1, but to not include the Olsen property. Ms. Kirkpatrick stated that Request #1 will go forward to the Land Use/Transportation Committee as “no recommendation” because according to the Planning Commission By-Laws, a majority vote of the full Planning Commission (four votes) is necessary to recommend approval of an item referred to the Commission for Process IV review. It was m/s/c (four yes, one no) to adopt the staff recommendation for Request #2. It was m/s/c (four yes, one no) to adopt the staff recommendation for Request #3. It was m/s/c (unanimous) to adopt the staff recommendation for Request #4. It was m/s/c (unanimous) to adopt the 2002 Comprehensive Plan text amendments, as amended by the Planning Commission. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS The next Planning Commission meeting will not be until the second regular meeting of January. AUDIENCE COMMENT None. ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m.