Planning Comm MINS 10-19-2011
K:\Planning Commission\2011\Meeting Summary 10-19-11.doc
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
PLANNING COMMISSION
October 19, 2011 City Hall
7:00 p.m. Council Chambers
MEETING MINUTES
Commissioners present: Merle Pfeifer, Hope Elder, Wayne Carlson, Tom Medhurst, and Tim O’Neil.
Commissioners absent: Lawson Bronson and Sarady Long. Staff present: Planning Manager Isaac
Conlen, Contract Planner Jim Harris, Senior Planner Deb Barker, Assistant City Attorney Peter Beckwith,
and Administrative Assistant II Tina Piety.
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Pfeifer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of September 7, 2011, were approved as presented.
AUDIENCE COMMENT
None
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
None
COMMISSION BUSINESS
PUBLIC HEARING – SEPA Exemptions in Critical Areas in all Zoning Districts
Contract Planner Harris delivered the staff report. State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) environmental
review is required for any proposal which involves a government “action,” and is not categorically
exempt. Project actions involve an agency decision on a specific project, such as a construction project or
timber harvest. Non-project actions involve decisions on policies, plans, or programs, such as the
adoption of a comprehensive plan, development regulations, or a six-year road plan. The city’s Growth
Management Act (GMA) plan and current development regulations has rendered SEPA review redundant
for many proposals. Proposals such as a home addition, small office building, short plat, eight inch sewer
line, etc., typically do not require (trigger) SEPA review. However, if these improvements/actions are
proposed in a critical area—then SEPA review is required. The proposed code amendments would allow
the standard SEPA exemptions for projects in critical areas. As a result, projects in critical areas will be
treated no differently than projects outside of a critical area. The city will rely on its critical area code to
address impacts of development and require mitigation, as appropriate. The city’s codes are more than
adequate to protect and preserve critical areas. Modification of the code will streamline the development
review process; with less cost and shorter review time for applicants.
There was no public comment.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 October 19, 2011
K:\Planning Commission\2011\Meeting Summary 10-19-11.doc
Commissioner Carlson complimented staff on their work. He stated that the proposed amendments will
not lessen protection and will remove redundancies. Commissioner O’Neil asked what regulations the city
has for displacing wetlands. Contract Planner Harris stated that the city’s critical areas codes have
substantial regulations for displacing wetlands. Commissioner Carlson noted that anyone seeking to
displace a wetland must also apply for a separate permit from the Army Corps of Engineers.
Commissioner Carlson moved (and it was seconded) to recommend adoption of the amendments as
proposed by staff. The motion carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING – Temporary Uses, FWRC 19.275
Senior Planner Barker delivered the staff presentation. She noted a change that should be made to Exhibit
A. On page 2 of 5, 19.275.030(1)(c)(ii), the sentence should end as follows: “…shall not be required to
obtain a temporary use permit,” not “business registration.”
The existing temporary use code: duplicates much of the temporary business license code; is not
consistent with the temporary business license code; places unnecessary limitations on temporary uses
within certain zones; and hampers economic development. The changes proposed to the temporary use
regulations are inter-related to the temporary business regulations. In fact, temporary uses really are the
same as temporary businesses. The proposed amendments to the temporary business regulations are
relevant to consideration of the proposed amendments to the temporary use code. However, Planning
Commission purview does not extend to the temporary business codes because they are not zoning and
development regulations (Federal Way Revised Code [FWRC] Title 19). Only the City Council reviews
changes to business provisions (FWRC Title 12). The proposed temporary business amendments are
discussed in the staff report and presentation, even though the Planning Commission will not act on them.
Temporary uses are divided into two types. Class I (which requires Process I approval) includes: seasonal
retail sales; farmers markets; festivals, fairs, and carnivals; and similar uses of a transitory nature. Class II
(which requires Process III approval) includes: critical and essential human services like food banks or
clothing banks. It does not include homeless shelters
The existing requirements for temporary uses and temporary business are duplicative; there are dual
reviews, dual fees, and similar requirements. What this means for a temporary flower stand use/business
is that they would have to apply for a temporary use approval AND a temporary business license. There
would be two fees and approval timelines that are different. It is confusing and there is no reason for it to
be so complicated. The City is here to foster business—not discourage it.
Most of the time, temporary uses and temporary businesses are essentially the same thing. We only need
one permit to review and approve a temporary business. With this proposed code amendment, when a
business license is obtained, that is all the approval that a temporary use needs. This concept is addressed
in the temporary use code amendment by referencing temporary business license provisions, and vice
versa with temporary licenses. Staff made the approval time consistent (90 days), and every business gets
one opportunity for one 90 day extension. After that it is no longer a temporary use but a permanent use,
and zoning approval is required. Another proposed change is to allow temporary uses to operate in any
zone. Current code limits them only to zones where they are not allowed. All of the performance
standards apply to temporary uses, even though an applicant will not be obtaining a temporary use permit.
The standards are again referenced in the license chapter. In addition, director discretion will be allowed.
With the proposed code amendments, the flower stand that originally had to obtain two separate approvals
now only has to obtain one license, has an opportunity for an extension, and will still need to meet the
performance standards. In addition, they will be able to operate in any zone, as long as the performance
standards are met.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 October 19, 2011
K:\Planning Commission\2011\Meeting Summary 10-19-11.doc
Commissioner feedback from the September 7, 2011, study session is incorporated into the proposed
amendments. One of the topics was about temporary and permanent use competition. Commissioner
feedback was not to discourage temporary businesses from competing with brick and mortars. To that
end, the code amendment does not limit temporary businesses or uses. It does have maximum timelines
for temporary businesses. Another topic was about restricting temporary uses to zones in which they are
not allowed. That is what the current code prescribes. Commissioner feedback was not to restrict
temporary uses. The code amendment allows temporary uses in all zones, subject to criteria. Another
topic was an exemption to businesses that operate for less than three days. The city’s city clerk was not
comfortable exempting all temporary businesses operating less than three days from license requirements,
so the proposed amendments require businesses to get a license regardless of duration. However, the
proposed amendments include outright exemptions for smaller businesses such as cookies sales, car
washes, residential garage sales, and lemonade stands. In addition, the city clerk and director are given
exemption discretion and clear authority.
At the study session, we discussed mobile food trucks. Mobile foot units, as King County refers to mobile
food trucks, are not called out with specific code language in the proposed amendments, yet they are
addressed within the code amendments as temporary uses and temporary businesses. If they exceed the
180 day window in a calendar year, they become permanent, just as any other temporary use would
become permanent. Lastly, we discussed tax collection. The state indicated that the tax is to be collected
in the jurisdiction that the car is picked up. We propose to address this issue through implementation of
the temporary business code, which the council must amend.
The hearing was opened for public comment.
John Tsakonas, CEO & Owner, Evergreen Sales and Lease, Inc., 33216 Pacific Highway South –
He has been doing business in Federal Way for over ten years. He had submitted a letter via email
to the Commission. He is concerned about allowing temporary care sales. The last one in July
almost put him out of business; he is only just now recovering. They come into our city and take
away our buyers and money. Not only for the sale of the car, but the maintenance as well. He has
spoken to other car dealers who feel the same. Brick and mortar businesses are the backbone of
the city. They provide the tax revenue that keeps the city running. He is concerned about staying
in business and keeping his employees out of the unemployment line. He is also concerned about
the loss of revenue to our growing community.
Sam Tsakonas, 33216 Pacific Highway South – He also works for Evergreen Sales and Lease and
is concerned about how temporary car sales have adversely affected their business. Off-site sales
have killed businesses in Federal Way and put their employees out of work. The city needs to
support its people and businesses. We cannot afford to lose any more people or businesses.
Public comment was closed.
Commissioner Medhurst commented that he is sympathetic to the concerns raised. In addition, he is
concerned that a temporary business can do business in any zone. Commissioner Carlson expressed
concern over the length of time a temporary business can do business in residential zones (90 days with a
90 day extension, for a total of 180 days). That is too long for a flower stand to be located on the corner
outside your house. He suggested Class I temporary uses be limited to 15 days, with a 15 day extension.
He asked what is meant by significant impact and stated the decisional criteria need more definition.
Commissioner Elder commented that she is finding the decision whether to allow temporary uses in all
zones difficult to make. She is a strong believer in free enterprise, but is also very concerned over the
effect they have on the city’s brick and mortar businesses. Many Commissioners agree. Commissioner
Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 October 19, 2011
K:\Planning Commission\2011\Meeting Summary 10-19-11.doc
O’Neil commented that a brick and mortar business could always do their own temporary car sales.
Commissioners would like to know what regulations other cities have. Planning Manager Conlen
responded that staff has been researching this issue, and to date, have not found any cities that regulate
temporary car sales.
Commissioner Medhurst commented that if he understands correctly, if he has a vacant lot he can rent
that to any temporary use for a total of 180 days without having to worry if the lot is zoned for the use.
That is half a year. Planning Manager Conlen said that is correct. Chair Pfeifer suggested that all
temporary uses be granted 15 days with one 15 day extension. He asked if temporary car sales could have
different regulations that would allow them, but would also protect the brick and mortar businesses.
Commissioner Elder commented that a total of 30 days is too long for the car sales. The last sale in July
lasted 14 or fewer days and we’ve heard from a business that is just now recovering its losses.
Commissioner Carlson commented that he can see car dealerships/sales as a fundamentally different type
of business and therefore, would be willing to accept different regulations for them. Senior Planner
Barker commented that some cities do make distinctions between temporary businesses.
The Commission discussed mobile food trucks. Commissioner Carlson said that he views dining at a food
truck as a different experience from dining at a restaurant and sees no reason to restrict a food truck from
parking in front of a restaurant. Chair Pfeifer thinks it would be detrimental to a restaurant to have a food
truck parked in front of (or near) it. Commissioner Medhurst asked if the city is currently licensing mobile
food trucks. Senior Planner Barker commented that to our knowledge, the city does not have any food
trucks that serve meals operating in the city. We do have ice cream vendors and trucks that serve meals at
events. Planner Manager Conlen commented that the city does not have a large workforce to support a
food truck, but if we had any, we would license it. There are different types of food trucks and the
Commission discussed which type is temporary and which (if any) is permanent.
Chair Pfeifer commented that at the study session we discussed limiting temporary food trucks to three
days. What happened with that idea? Senior Planner Barker responded that the city clerk wants every
business to be registered no matter how long they operate in the city. However, an outright exemption of
three days is allowed for smaller businesses such as cookies sales, car washes, residential garage sales,
and lemonade stands.
City Attorney Beckwith suggested that staff further research the issues raised and return with more
information that may help the Commissioners formulate a decision. Commissioner Carlson moved (and it
was seconded) to continue the public hearing on Temporary Uses, FWRC 19.275, to the December 7,
2011, Planning Commission meeting at 7:00 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers. The motion carried
unanimously.
ADDITIONAL BUSINESS
Administrative Assistant II Piety commented that the city is attempting to save money wherever possible.
In light of this, she asked the Commissioners if they would object if she no longer mailed them an agenda
packet. She would continue to email them the agenda packet and would provide a hard copy at the
meeting. The Commissioners had no objection. She also noted that Commissioners drink little of the
provided coffee; she asked if they would object if she only made one container of either regular or
decaffeinated. The Commissioners discussed it and decided they would bring their own coffee if they want
it and she no longer needs to provide them with coffee. They did request she provide them with water.
ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at 8:50 p.m.