Loading...
Planning Comm MINS 02-14-2007 K:\Planning Commission\2007\Meeting Summary 02-14-07.doc CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PLANNING COMMISSION February 14, 2007 City Hall 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers MEETING MINUTES Commissioners present: Hope Elder, Dave Osaki, Dini Duclos, Bill Drake, Merle Pfeifer, Lawson Bronson, and Wayne Carlson. Commissioners absent: none. Alternate Commissioners present: Richard Agnew, Kevin King and Caleb Allen. Alternate Commissioners absent: none. Staff present: Community Development Services Director Kathy McClung, Senior Planner Isaac Conlen, and Administrative Assistant E. Tina Piety. Chairwoman Elder called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Duclos moved and it was seconded to adopt the December 20, 2006, minutes. The motion carried. AUDIENCE COMMENT None ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT None COMMISSION BUSINESS STUDY SESSION – Proposed Amendments to the City’s Shoreline Master Program Isaac Conlen introduced Teresa Vandenberg and Kent Hale of ESA Adolfson,, who delivered the staff report (a copy of the PowerPoint presentation was included with the agenda packet). The state has mandated that all jurisdictions must update their Shoreline Master Program to be consistent with the state’s updated program. The state’s updated program is more restrictive. The city is proposing changes that will hopefully meet the state’s requirements, but that will maintain the status quo where possible and be the least burdensome to our property owners as possible. Chairwoman Elder expressed concern about the Potential Annexation Area (PAA) and the difference in requirements between Federal Way and King County. Ms. Vandernberg stated that they have received comments from King County. The county and city do have different regulations and view shorelands differently, but staff is working with the county on this issue. Mr. Conlen commented that King County is on a four year timeline for preparation of their Shoreline Master Program and so, the city can review their current regulations, but do not know what their new regulations will be. Commissioner Duclos asked if the proposed changes will make it more difficult to develop residential properties. Will it be too cost prohibitive? Mr. Conlen replied that the marine shoreline is largely developed. The revised code clarifies the need to setback from geologically hazardous areas, something that is currently required. Commissioner Pfeifer asked if any of the Citizen’s Advisory Committee (CAC) where in attendance. Since none were, he asked if at least the chairperson could be invited to the Planning Commission public hearing on this issue. He would like to know what the CAC found good about the proposal and what concerns they may have. Mr. Conlen replied that he would invite the CAC. Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 February 14, 2007 K:\Planning Commission\2007\Meeting Summary 02-14-07.doc Commissioner Bronson asked how the proposal would affect those who have a tram. Mr. Conlen replied that the proposal may not allow a new tram, but would allow maintenance of an existing tram. Commissioner Lawson asked what is the definition of maintenance. At some point, a tram would need to be replaced. Mr. Conlen acknowledged that the definition of maintenance needs to be clarified. Commissioner Bronson and Chairwoman Elder expressed their concern that this could mean a property is made nonconforming. Chairwoman Elder commented that it needs to be stated in black and white what can and cannot be done. Commissioner Duclos agreed. She stated that properties should be allowed to replace a tram if it is with something that is basically the same. Commissioner Drake shares this concern; an item should be allowed to be replaced if it serves the same purpose. He also stated that he has the same concern in regards to bulkheads. He also stated that over time, knowledge and materials change (i.e., from wooden to concrete bulkheads) and this should also be considered. Commissioner Carlson asked for a clarification of the difference between the Restoration Plan and the Cumulative Impact Analysis. Ms. Vandenberg replied that the Restoration Plan is a voluntary, citywide plan for ecological restoration; improvement of areas that have degraded. The Cumulative Impact Analysis deals with regulatory issues. Commissioner Carlson asked if there was a threshold for the critical areas in the Cumulative Impact Analysis table that lists the city’s parcels. Ms. Vandenberg replied that there was no threshold. Commissioner Carlson asked for an explanation of the stringline setback method for highly eroding bluffs. Mr. Conlen replied that there is no stringline setback method for highly eroding bluffs and that staff needs to review the documents and make sure this is clear. Commissioner Drake noted that some regulations use the words “should be” and “would.” These seem to be only advisory as opposed to firm regulations. Why use this language? Mr. Conlen replied the language is typically used for regulations the city would like to have happen, but does not have the authority to require, when a policy may be appropriate, depending on circumstances, which allows discretion. Commissioner Drake urged the staff to review such regulations to see if they can be a firm requirement. Commissioner Duclos asked what kind of notification went to property owners. Mr. Conlen replied that all affected property owners in the city and PAA were notified by mail of the first public open house. After that, only those who expressed an interest were mailed notification of the meetings. Commissioner Duclos suggested that a notice that the draft plan is available be sent out to all affected property owners in the city and PAA. The notice should be in plain language, letting property owners know that the proposal could affect their property. It should also state that this is by state mandate. Commissioner Pfeifer asked what is bio-engineered shore protection. Mr. Hale replied that it refers to design techniques for a more natural design that still protects. He will bring some illustrations to the next meeting. Commissioner Bronson asked how one can tell where is the ordinary high water mark (OHWM). Mr. Hale replied that the OHWM is approximate on maps and needs to be looked at in the field. Commissioner Osaki asked if there is a parcel based map showing the proposed. Mr. Conlen replied that staff will provide one. Commissioner Osaki asked if all the land proposed for the natural designation publicly owned. Mr. Conlen replied that is correct, none of the land proposed for the natural designation is privately owned. It is all public land. Commissioner Agnew asked what percentage of property owners would have their designation changed. Mr. Hale replied that this is not easy to answer because the titles of all the designations will be changed, but the allowed uses may change slightly, or not at all. Commissioner Agnew replied that it would be a good idea to have the percentage in order to know which properties may change. Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 February 14, 2007 K:\Planning Commission\2007\Meeting Summary 02-14-07.doc Commissioner Agnew asked if the city could grandfather existing uses. Ms. McClung replied that this question has some legal issues and staff will discuss it. The state does not have to accept what we propose. We will be one of the first cities to adopt these new regulations, so it will be interesting to see the state’s response to our proposal. The schedule for follow-up Planning Commission meetings and the public hearing on this issue was discussed. Staff will update the Commission on a revised schedule. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS Ms. McClung stated that the city is scheduling many of the big projects to come to the Planning Commission in March. Currently, there will be a meeting every Wednesday in March. Next Wednesday, February 21st, will be a training session focused on the basics for the newer Commissioners. The Planning Commission Work Program has been to the Land Use/Transportation Committee (LUTC). Ms. McClung is prioritizing items and will take it back to the LUTC in March. She will email the Commissioners the list of proposed projects and asked them to let her know of any proposed additions. Certificates of Occupancies have been issued for Lowes, Walmart, and all the buildings in the Federal Way Crossings development. The city has received three applications for cottage housing demonstration projects. Public meeting on the projects have been held and the next step is for the applicants to refine their projects based on the comments at the meetings. The City Council will approve up to two cottage housing demonstration projects. During the study session on the Business Park (BP) and Community Business (BC) proposed code amendments, concern was expressed over Mitchell Place and the possibility of it becoming nonconforming. The Commission had expressed the desire that it be rezoned with the current comprehensive plan update, but staff thought this would not be possible. After talks with the legal staff, it was determined that a rezone of Mitchell Place can, and will, occur as part of the current comprehensive plan update. AUDIENCE COMMENT John Ribary, 29018 8th Avenue South – He lives in the PAA and expressed his concern that the proposed Shoreline Master Program may have a detrimental effect on his property. If this is the case, he would be opopsed to annexation to the city. The Commissioners encouraged Mr. Ribary to talk to city staff about his concerns. They also encouraged him to read the proposal and to attend any meetings and make comments as appropriate. ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m.