Loading...
Planning Comm MINS 09-19-2007 K:\Planning Commission\2007\Meeting Summary 09-19-07.doc CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PLANNING COMMISSION September 19, 2007 City Hall 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers MEETING MINUTES Commissioners present: Dini Duclos, Bill Drake, Merle Pfeifer, Lawson Bronson, and Dave Osaki. Commissioners absent: Hope Elder and Wayne Carlson (both excused). Alternate Commissioners present: Kevin King. Alternate Commissioners absent: None. Staff present: Senior Planner Margaret Clark, City Attorney Monica Buck, Contract Planner Janet Shull, and Administrative Assistant E. Tina Piety. Vice-Chairwoman Duclos called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Vice-Chairwoman Duclos requested that if a member was not in attendance, they abstain voting for the minutes. Approval of the minutes for March 28, 2007 were moved and seconded. They passed with one abstain. Approval of the minutes for April 4, 2007 were moved and seconded. They passed unanimously. Approval of the minutes for April 18, 2007 was tabled because not enough members who attended were present. Approval of the minutes for May 2, 2007 were moved and seconded. They passed with one abstain. AUDIENCE COMMENT None ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT Ms. Clark announced the Community Development Director Kathy McClung’s last day was September 17, 2007. Deputy Director Greg Fewins will be interim director until a successor is chosen. In addition, Ms. Clark announced that Janet Shull has accepted a permanent position with the City as a Senior Planner and Ms. Clark introduced the City’s new staff attorney, Monica Buck. The next Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for October 17th, at which time; the Law Department will introduce a proposed Federal Way City Code (FWCC) reorganization. In addition, staff will begin to prepare the 2008 Planning Commission Work Program and Ms. Clark asked that Commissioners be prepared to present suggestions for the work program at the next meeting. COMMISSION BUSINESS STUDY SESSION – Clearing & Grading/Tree Retention Code Amendment Ms. Shull delivered the staff report. Staff is seeking input and direction from the Commission for proceeding with research and development of specific code amendments. The issues under discussion include significant tree and grading retention, site clearing and grading, appropriate use/design of retaining walls, and minimum lot size. The City is receiving more requests for mass grading. This is allowed with review and permission by the Public Works Director, but the City code does not provide much guidance for determining when mass grading should be allowed. In addition, the state Department of Natural Resources (DNR) may grant a developer a permit to “log” a Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 September 19, 2007 K:\Planning Commission\2007\Meeting Summary 09-19-07.doc site (effectively mass grading it) and the City has little to no input on the decision by DNR to grant or deny a permit. Commissioner Bronson encouraged the staff to work on coordinating with DNR. The Commission discussed penalties and code enforcement for site clearing. Commission Drake asked if other cities have specific language for site clearing. Ms. Shull replied staff would have to research it. In addition to increased mass grading, there is increasing development on sloped sites with increased number and size of retaining walls. Small lots on sloped sites tend to result in a greater number of retaining walls as developers desire to maximize the site. Staff is considering requiring larger lots on sloped portions of a site, which should encourage fewer retaining walls. Commissioner Drake asked if the need for change on these issues is coming from developers or staff. Ms. Shull replied that both sides have expressed a need for change. Many of these issues have come from staff observations of confusion on the part of developers and staff on how these issues should be handled. Ms. Clark stated that part of the problem is that there are different parts of the city code that deals with these issues. The city is in the process of reorganizing the city code and that should help, but will not solve all the confusion. Planning Commissioners suggested the staff seek the help of experts (such as engineers and tree experts) and developers (of commercial and residential projects) while developing the potential code amendments. The Commissioners also asked the staff to invite these experts and developers to the Planning Commission meeting on this topic so they may be available if the Commissioners have questions for them. Ms. Clark commented that these potential code amendments could mean more specific information (and a higher cost) could be required from developers at the preliminary plat stage. Commissioner Bronson commented that all firms have Auto-Cad and requiring more specific information should not cost a lot more. Commissioner Pfeifer commented that staff needs to be careful not to require the developer to replace significant trees that homeowners will want to remove in order to protect their roof or for other safety reasons. Commissioner Osaki commented that he would rather see a group of trees that are to be maintained by the homeowner’s association, as opposed to individual trees to be maintained by homeowners. Commissioner Duclos suggested the staff seek the advice of an expert for what constitutes a “significant” tree and what kinds of trees should replace significant trees. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS Commissioner Pfeifer suggested that future agenda packets be sent by email, as well as regular mail. AUDIENCE COMMENT None ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 8:15 p.m.