Planning Comm MINS 05-03-2006
K:\Planning Commission\2006\Meeting Summary 05-03-06.doc
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
PLANNING COMMISSION
May 3, 2006 City Hall
7:00 p.m. Council Chambers
MEETING MINUTES
Commissioners present: Hope Elder, Dave Osaki, Merle Pfeifer, Bill Drake, Lawson Bronson, and Pam Duncan-
Pierce. Commissioners absent: Dini Duclos (excused). Alternate Commissioners present: Richard Agnew. Alternate
Commissioners absent: none. Staff present: Director of Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Services Donna Hanson,
Parks, Planning, and Development Services Coordinator Betty Sanders, John Hutton, Assistant City Attorney Amy
Jo Pearsall, Senior Planner Margaret Clark, and Administrative Assistant E. Tina Piety.
Chair Elder called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Commissioner Bronson moved (and it was seconded) to adopt the April 19, 2006, minutes with a correction (it is
Chair Elder, not Vice-Chair). The motion carried.
AUDIENCE COMMENT
None
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
Ms. Clark informed the Commission that a public hearing on the zero lot line code amendment is scheduled for
June 21, 2006. A public hearing on cottage housing will be held either June 7th or June 21st.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
PUBLIC HEARING – 2006 Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan Update
Ms. Clark introduced Director of Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Services Donna Hanson and Parks, Planning, and
Development Services Coordinator Betty Sanders. Ms. Sanders delivered the staff report. The City’s Parks,
Recreation, and Open Space Plan (Parks Plan), which is part of the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan (FWCP), is
updated every six years in compliance with the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA). The process
has included an extensive assessment of the City’s existing parks, open spaces, and recreation programs. It also
included efforts to determine the needs and desires of the community. There were public opinion surveys, open
house meetings, stakeholders group (made up of individuals representing organizations that have an interest in the
future of the City’s park system) meetings, and working sessions with the Parks and Recreation Commission and
the Parks, Recreation, and Public Safety Committee of the City Council.
The 2006 Parks Plan has:
• Less emphasis on acquiring land for neighborhood parks; more emphasis on improving existing
facilities
• Less emphasis on quantity of park land (and a numeric level of service standard), and more
emphasis on their future development
• A detailed assessment of each individual park and open space site
• A focus on meeting a variety of social and recreational needs, including the need for community
gathering spaces and for a diverse community
Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 May 3, 2006
K:\Planning Commission\2006\Meeting Summary 05-03-06.doc
Five “Core Values” emerged from a consensus of ideas and opinions expressed through the public outreach efforts.
These core values have been used to guide the concepts and proposals developed throughout the planning process.
1. Improve existing facilities and provide multiple functions in parks
2. Develop a walking and biking community through an integrated trail and sidewalk network
3. Retain and improve our open spaces
4. Create community gathering places and destinations
5. Provide a balance of services for a diverse population
The Commission asked how these core values differ from six years ago. Ms. Sanders replied that the last plan
focused on neighborhood parks. Through their research the parks department has found that the use of
neighborhood parks is low, while that of community-wide parks (such as Steel Lake) is higher. In addition, there is
a new focus on quality. Also, this Parks Plan has detailed information about each park and open space. The plan
six years ago had only two lines about each park and open space.
The Commission asked about the financial impact of this plan. Ms. Sanders referred them to Attachment A
(handed out this evening) which is a detailed financial plan. The Commission asked where is the funding coming
from. Ms. Sanders replied that potential funding sources are listed and that grants would be a big part of the
funding sources. The Commission expressed their concern that if they recommend adoption of the Parks Plan, they
are also recommending the financial plan, which only has potential funding sources.
Commissioner Osaki asked for an explanation of the phased maintenance plan. Ms. Sanders stated that the parks
department has staffing issues. For many parks all they can do is mow and clean up trash. They are not able to
perform the little extras (such as planting annuals) that would add to atmosphere of the park. In addition, they have
a large graffiti and vandalism problem. Phased maintenance address how often larger tasks must be done and fits in
the day-to-day tasks.
There was no public testimony.
Commissioner Pfeifer moved (and it was seconded) to recommend adoption of the Parks, Recreation, and Open
Space Plan as presented. It was moved (and seconded) to amend the main motion by including a comment that the
Planning Commission is aware that financial challenges exist with this plan. The amendment was carried (five yes,
one no). The main motion as amended was carried (six yes).
The public hearing was closed.
ADDITIONAL BUSINESS
None
AUDIENCE COMMENT
P. T. Purdom, Chair of the Parks Commission – He has been on the Parks Commission for the last nine
years. He appreciated the comments from the Planning Commission. The Parks Commission knows that
what they do impacts others and they do not have the final word (that is the City Council). They want the
best for Federal Way. When the City Council held interviews for the Parks Commission, they asked where
the interviewee stands on a special levy for parks. Mr. Purdom asked the Planning Commissioners to also
consider this question.
ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at 8:26 p.m.