The URL can be used to link to this page

LUTC PKT 11-07-2011City of Federai Way City Council Land Use/Transportation Committee November 7, 2011 City Hall 6:00 .m. Council Chambers MEETING AGENDA 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. PUBLIC COMMENT (3 minutes) 3. COMMITTEE BUSINESS Topic Title/Description A. Approval of Minutes: October 3, 2011 B. Village Green — Tract X Relinquishment C. Transportation Impact Fee Code Amendment to Temporarily Suspend Impact Fees for Changes in Use D. S 344"' St at Weyerhaeuser Way Roundabout — 30% Design Status Report E. Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) — Proposed Amendments to SEPA Exemptions in Critical Areas 4. OTHER Action Presenter Page or Info LeMaster 2 Action Miller 6 Action Perez 10 Action Mulkey 15 Action Harris 17 Action Council Date N/A Consent Nov. 15, 2011 Ordinance Nov. 15, 2011 First Reading Consent Nov. 15, 2011 Ordinance Nov. 15, 2011 First Reading Time 5 min. 5 min. 5 min. 5 min. 15 min. 5. FUTURE MEETTNGS/AGENDA ITEMS: The next LUTC meeting will be held on Monday, November 21, 2011 at 6:00 PM in City Hall Council Chambers. 6. ADJOURN Committee Members �Y �� Linda Kochmar, Chai� Cary M. Roe, P.E., Director ofParks, Public Works and Emergen�y Management Jim Ferre/% Membe� Da�lene LeMaster, AdministraGve Assistant II lack Dovey, Member 253-835-2701 G.• I LUTC�LUTCAgenaas aad Summaries7011 �II-7-1011 LUT'CAgenda.abc City of Federal Way City Council Land Use and Transportation Committee September 12, 2011 , City Hall 6:00 PM ' City Council Chambers MEETING SUMMARY Committee members in Attendance: Committee Chair Linda Kochmar, Committee member Jim Ferrell and Committee member Jack Dovey; Council members in attendance: Councilmember Jeanne Burbidge Staff in Attendance: Director of Parks, Public Works and Emergency Management Cary Roe, Public Works Director Marwan Salloum, City Traffic Engineer Rick Perez, Street Systems Project Engineer John Mulkey, Street Systems Engineer � Jeff Huynh, Planning Manager Isaac Conien, Principal Planner Margaret Clazk, Senior Planner Janet Shull, Planning Intem Alexa Heidrich, Assistant City Attorney Peter Beckwith, and Administrative Assistant II Dazlene LeMaster. 1. CALL TO ORDER Committee Chair Kochmar called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM. 2. PUBLIC COMMENT There was no public comment. 3. BUSINESS ITEMS Forward Topic Title/Description to Council A. Approval of the September 12, 2011 LUTC Minutes N/A B. Committee approved the September 12, 2011 LUTC minutes as presented. Moved: Dovey Seconded: Ferr�eil Passed: Uuanimously, 3-0 Shorline Master Program — Final Approval and Adoption Ordinance Senior Planner Janet Shull presented information on this item. Ms. Shull gave a brief review of the Shoreline Master Program update from a document and procedural standpoint. Ms. Shull highlighted the two requested changes from WA State department of Ecology (DOE). Committee Member povey asked for a recap on stringline setbacks and marine bluffs. Ms. Shull gave a brief explanation of what changes had been made by staff and approved by Council (by resolution) when staff responded to the initial revisions requested by DOE to the City's intial SMP submittal. DOE has approved the City's second submittal and has made no further requests regarding stringline setbacks and marine bluffs. Committee Member povey quesrioned the process where the developer goes through a process for development in a wetland buffer and has it ruled on by the F�earing Examiner. Why must DOE further review it further if it exceeds a 25% reduction? David Pater from DOE was present to respond to this question and stated that statistically, DOE approves approx. 80% of variances. A maximum 25% reduction to a buffer is consistent throughout many cities and counties in the Puget Sound azea. Greater than a 25% reduction triggers a shoreline variance. DOE, in most Oct. 18, 2011 Ordinance 1 Reading Land Use/Transportation Committee Page 2 September 12, 2011 C. cases, doesn't change the hearing examiner's ruling; DOE just wants the opporiunity to be able to review the variance. For consistency, DOE feels it reasonable to request this revision to be equitable with other jurisdictions' procedures. Committee Member povey asked how many times a developer has requested a wetland buffer be greater than 25%. Planning Manager Conlen stated that within the shoreline jurisdiction, staff has had no requests. This revision may affect less than 50 parcels. Most areas are already built out. Councilmember Burbidge requested clarification between a marine bluff and the marine shoreline. Ms. Shull read the definition of "bluff' as it applies to Puget Sound in the SMP. Councilmember Burbidge is interested in receiving more information or illustrations for Federal Way's marine bluffs. Given the definition, marine bluff could apply to both low and high bank properties. Councilmember Burbidge asked for clarification and to make sure that Mr. and Mrs. Kutcha's requests have been addressed and incorporated into the SMP. Ms. Shull referenced Ex. B, page 28 or 71 under Residential Environment (c), Setbacks, (1). Ms. Shull reviewed setbacks as it applies to single family residential development and the Kutcha's request. Committee Members spoke of whether or not the committee would want to make additional revisions to the SMP. Ms. Shull advised the committee/council members of the process and time involved if Council chooses to make additional changes at this stage of the review/approval process. Mr. and Mrs. Kutcha were present at the meeting and acknowledged that they are satisfied with the verbage on the SMP. Committee member povey was concerned with how the increase in native vegetable within the 50 ft setback will be received. Ms. Shull talked more about how the increased native vegetation within the setback would look. Neighboring jurisdictions have more stringent requirements (Des Moines). DOE felt that Federal Way's SMP needed to be more consistent with Des Moines'. Committee forwarded the WA State Department of Ecology proposed changes to the Shoreline Master Program that was approved by Resolution 10-597 as presented. Moved: Dovey. Seconded: Ferrell Passed: Unanimously; 3-0 Grant Funding for Transportation Improvement Projects Oct 18, 2011 Consent D. City Traffic Engineer Rick Perez presented information on this item. There was no public comment. Committee member povey asked how much this grant would cost the City. Mr. Perez said that the only cost would be the staff time to put the proposal together. Committee forwarded Option #1 as presentedo Moved: Ferreli. • Seconded: Dovey WSDOT Traffic Busters — Project Acceptance Passed: Unanimously; 3-0 Oct 18, 2011 Consent City Traffic Engineer Rick Perez presented information on this item. There was no public comment or discussion. Committee forrvarded Option #1 as presented. Mov�d: Ferrell, Seconded: Dovey Passed: Unanimously; 3-0 G:\LUTC�LIJTC Agendas and Summaries 2011U0.3-1 I Minutes.doc Land Use/Transportation Committee Page 3 September 12, 2011 E. 10` Ave SW at SW Campus Drive Intersection Improvements — 30% Design Status Report Oct 18, 2011 Consent F. G. Street Systems Project Engineer John Mulkey presented information on this item. There was no public comment. Committee member Ferrell asked for some clarification on the project plans and if this project was on the list for TIB (Transportation Improvement Board) funding. Mr. Mulkey reviewed the illustration of the project and stated that once design is complete, the project will be more funding friendly at the 100% design level. Committee Dovey asked for the shelf life of the project design. Mr. Mulkey stated the project design has an approximate three year shelf life. Committee member povey also inquired about federal funding for this project. Deputy Public Works Director Salloum stated that this project needs to be federalized to qualify for federal funding. In order to make that possible would be a NEPA ($50-$70K) vs. a SEPA ($SK). Committee forwarded Option #1 as presented. Moved: Ferrell. Seconded: Dovey 2012 Asphalt Overlay Program Preliminary Project List Passed: Unanimously; 3-0 Street Systems Engineer Jeff Huynh presented informarion on this item. There was no public comment. Committee member povey commented that the preliminary project list and anticipated project costs exceeded the available project funding. Deputy Public Works Director Salloum stated that it has been past practice to go out to bid, knowing that project costs may exceed the available budget. At the time of awarding the bid, staff can choose to modify or eliminate schedules based upon need, priority and budget. Staff can also choose to add schedules if the project is below budget or as part of the contingency. Staff hopes for a favorable bidding climate and will, regardless, award the various schedules within the available budget. Councilmember Burbidge asked if accommodations for the bike and pedestrian plan were considered as part of the asphalt overlay project. Deputy Director Salloum responded that the bike and pedestrian plan have not been part of the asphalt overlay program in the past, but could be evaluated with Council's direction and recommendation. The asphalt overlay program rebuilds roads. Bike and pedestrian accommodations are typically considered during conshuction of new roads. Committee forwarded Option #1 as presented. Moved: Dovey. Seconded: Ferrell Passed: Unanimously; 3-0 Amendments to the Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC� related to accessory uses and convention centers in the Office Park (OP) zone Principal Planner Margazet Clazk was prepared to present information on this item. Committee member povey stated that the committee was very familiar with this topic and since the last presentation on this item, the Committee is confident the code revisions have been made correctly. There was no public comment or further discussion. Committee forwarded Option #t as presented in the Draft Adoption Ordinance. Moved: Ferrell. Seconded: Dovey Passed: Unanimously; 3-0 Oct 18, 2011 Consent Oct. 18, 2011 Ordinance 1 s` Reading G:\LUTG�LIJTC Agendas and Summaries 2011\10.3-I1 Minutes.doc Land UselTransportation Committee 4. OTHER None 5. FUTURE MEETING The next LUTC meering will be Monday, October 17, 2011 at 6:00 PM in City Hall Council Chambers. 6. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 7:05 PM. Attest: COMMITTEE APPROVAL: 12, 2011 Darlene LeMaster, Administrarive Assistant II Linda Kochmar, Chair Jim Ferrell, Member Jack Dovey, Member 5 G:�I,UTCILUTC Agendas and Summaries 2011\10.3-11 Minutes.doc COUNCIL MEETING DATE: November 15, 2011 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL ITEM #: SUB.TECT: Village Green —Tract X Relinquishment POLICY QUESTION Based on the City's findings during the Village Green phased development review process that there was no need to extend 2° Ave SW onto the subject property as a public roadway, and due to the existing structural development constructed within Tract X, should the Council authorize the Mayor to relinquish the City's interest in Tract X? COMMITTEE Land Use and Transportation Committee CATEGORY: � Consent ❑ Ordinance ❑ City Council Business ❑ Resolution MEE'rnvG DATE: November 7, 2011 ■ �_ Public Hearing Other STAFF REPORT BY: Ken Miller, P.E., Deputy Public Works Director � DEp'r: Public Works Attachments: Memorandum to the Land Use and Transportation Committee dated November 7, 2011. Options Considered: L Authorize the Mayor to relinquish the City's interest in Tract X. 2. Do not authorize the Mayor to relinquish the City's interest in Tract X and provide direction to staff. MAYOR'S RECOMMENDATION Forward Option 1 to the November 15 , 2011 City Council consent agenda for approval. MAYOR APPROVAL: DIRECTOR APPROVAL: co ittee councit Council COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION I move to forward Option 1 to the November 1 S, 2011 City Council consent agenda for approval. Linda Kochmar, Chair Jim Fenell, Member Jack Dovery, Member PROPOSED COiJNCIL MOTION "I move to authorize the Mayor to relinquish the Ciry's interest in TractX. " (BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY C1TY CLERKS OFFICE) COUNCIL ACTION: ❑ APPROVED ❑ DENIED ❑ TABLED/DEFERRED/NO ACT[ON ❑ MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only) REVISED — 08/12/2010 COUNCIL BILL # 1 reading Enactment reading ORDINANCE # RESOLUTION # 6 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY MEMORANDUM DATE: November 7, 2011 TO: Land Use and Transportation Committee VIA: Skip Priest, Mayor ��+ FROM• Cary M. Roe, P.E., Director of Parks, Public Works and Emergency Managemen�✓ "' �. ' Ken Miller, P.E., Deputy Public Works Director �, i- � ,�_.�., - SUBJECT: Vildage Green — Tract X Reliinquishment BACKGROUND: The Village Green project is an existing senior housing facility located on the northwest corner of 1�` Ave S and S 356`� St that includes apartment-, cottage- and duplex-style housing units for senior citizens contained in multiple buildings over a 22-acre site. Review, permitting and construction of this site have occurred through several phases over the past 16 years. The plat of Tuscany Woods, a single-family residential subdivision lies to the west of the Cottages West development (formally known as Village Green Phase III). T'he underlying land of Tuscany Woods was under the same ownership anc� part of the original undeveloped parcels that now make up Village Green, Cottages West and Tuscany Woods. Tuscany Woods and Cottages West share stormwater facilities; however, no portion of the Tuscany Woods plat will be impacted by the tract relinquishment issue that is currently before this committee and Council. In 1977, King County approved a four(4) — lot plat that consisted of a parcel of land that, today, would encompass the plat of Tuscany Woods, a majority of the Cottages West development, and the plat known as John Roe Add, as viewed on a current map of the area (attached as Exhibit A). As a condition of approval of the short plat, the County required a 30-foot wide Tract X be designated along a portion of the east boundary of the short plat. Tract X aligns with what would now be the northerly extension of 2 Ave SW. The Tract X condition stipulates that the `owner...hereby agrees to dedicate Tract X to King County for right of way and street purposes, at such time as (the Tract) is needed for road purposes...'. As successor jurisdiction to King County, the City now possesses the right to enforce the Tract X condition and, if necessary, require the dedication of the tract for road purposes. The only section of the original Tract X to be dedicated for road purposes was with the subdivision and development of the John Roe Add, which occurred under King County jurisdiction. Throughout the development of Village Green, Cottages West and Tuscany Woods, the owner has, for various reasons, reconfigured the underlying property lines through the City's Boundary Line Adjustment (BLA) process. Although there have been four BLA's approved to date, the number of lots remains the same. During the review and approval process for the Village Green phases, it was determined by staff that the internal roadways serving the development could be private. More specifically, in regard to the potential extension of 2 Ave SW as a public street: any northerly extension of 2" Ave SW would tertninate at the November 7, 2011 Land Use and Transportation Committee Village Green - Tract X Relinquishment Page 2 Heights at West Campus (multi-family housing north of Tuscany Woods and Cottages West developments); it was not feasible to connect 2 Ave to the west, due to steep topographic constraints; and, and an easterly public roadway connection to l Ave S was unnecessary as the internal Village Green driveway connects to 1 S ` Ave. Currently the Village Green/Cottages West owner has applied to the City for another Boundary Line Adjustment. Upon review of the BLA, it was determined that Tract X from the 1977 King County short plat still encumbers the property and the City maintains jurisdictional rights to require the tract to be dedicated for street purposes. T'he attached e�chibit shows that portions of three residential buildings were constructed within Tract X, as well as portions of the private roadways and private utilities associated with Cottages West. In order for the property to be free and clear of the Tract X encumbrance, the owners are requesting to have the City relinquish our interest in Tract X. Based on stafPs findings during the Village Crreen phased development review process that there was no need to extend 2° Ave SW onto the subject property as a public roadway, and due to the existing structural development constructed within Tract X, staffrecommends the City Council authorize the Mayor to relinquish the City's interest in Tract X. cc: Project File Day File 8 Cit of Village Green MapDate:October2011 y City of Federal Way Federal Way Federai Way, Wa. 98033 Tract X (P) 253-835-7000 (V1� www.cityoffederalway.com � CITY OF This map is intended for use E��r�' \/�/� 0 250 500 as a graphical representation. � ° � �� Feet The City of Federal Way makes N , . , ,�. � � ,.. ,. ,.,, � _ ., no warranty as to its accuracy. COUNCIL MEETING DATE: November 15, 2011 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL ITEM #: SUB.TECT: Transportation Impact Fee Code Amendment to Temporarily Suspend Impact Fees for Changes in Use POLICY QUESTION Should the City amend the Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC), Section 19.91, to allow a three-year temporary suspend transportation impact fees for changes in use that do not add square footage? COMMITTEE Land Use and Transportation Committee CATEGORY: ❑ Consent � Ordinance MEETING DATE: November 7, 2011 ❑ Public Hearing ❑ City Council Business ❑ Resolution ❑ Other STAFF REPORT Rick P. E_, City Traffic,Engineer � DEPT: Public Works Attachments: Memorandum to the Land Use Transportation Committee dated I�ovember 7, 2011. Options Considered: 1. Adopt the Mayor's recommendation, allowing a three-year temporary suspension of transportation impact fees for changes in use that do not add square footage per the attached draft ordinance. Do not adopt the Mayor's recommendation, which allows for a three-year temporary suspension of transportation impact fees for changes in use that do not add square footage and provide direction to staff. MAYOR'S RECOMMENDATION Forward Option 1 to the November 15, 2011 City Council ordinance agenda for first reading. MAYOR APPROVAL: DIRECTOR APPROVAL: � , Com ttee Council oC mrtuttea Council COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATTON: I move to forward the proposed ordinance to First Reading on November 1 S, 2011. Linda Kochmar, Chair Jim Ferrell, Member Jack Dovey, Member PROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION(S): 1�` READING OF ORDINANCE (11/15/2011): "I move to forward approval of the ordinance to the December 6, 2011 Council Meeting for adoption. " 2 READING OF ORDINANCE (12/6/2011) "1 move approval of the proposed ordinance. " ' (BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFIC�) � COUNCIL ACTION: ❑ APPROVED COUNCIL BILL # ❑ DENIED i reading • ❑ TABLED/DEFERRED/NO ACTION Enactment reading ❑ MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only) ORDINANCE # REVISED - 08/12/2010 1 O RESOL[JTION # CITY OF FEDERAL WAY MEMORANDUM DATE: TO; VIA: FROM: SUBJECT: September 12, 2011 Land Use and Transportation Committee Skip Priest, Mayor Cary M. Roe, P.E., Director of Parks, Public Works and Emergency Management (� Rick Perez, City Traffic Engineer ;� Transportation Impact Fee Code Amendment to Temporary Suspend Impact Fee for Changes in Use BACKGROUND: On July l, 2010, the City implemented the Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) program rec�uiring new development to pay their proportionate share of the cost of new facilities to serve new development consistent with RCW 82.02. Under the impact fee program, all development projects pay the same per trip fee. This provides predictability, simplicity and generally results in a lower traffic fee than the SEPA- based pro-rata mitigation system. Current code (FWRC 19.91) allows the city to collect impact fees on all new development including redevelopment of an existing building from one use to another use if the change increases the number of trips generated. For example, a redevelopnnent of an existing restaurant to a drive-in bank would pay the net difference between the two uses due to higher trip generation. Below is an example of change in use and resultant traffic impact fee. ;xample: Convert an ex Land Use VVi►i �� I� � ��Y Drive-in Bank - (Proposec Restaurant - (Existinq Us� 2,500 SF Restaurant to a Dive-in Bank ITE Land Unit of I New Trip I Impact I Total Fee Use Code Measure Rate Fee Rate sl 912 sf/GFA � i4 4.49 Total impact fee 517,525 Due to the economic downturn, developmentlredevelopment activity within the city over the last couple years has been slow. Vacancy rates for office use are up to 35% and 15% for retaiUcommercial. To encourage and promote development activity, the Mayor proposes a three-year temporary suspension of transportation impact fees charged for changes in use that do not add new square footage. Essentially, the City would not charge an impact fee for a business to occupy an existing building when the use of that building is changed such that higher trip generation would result in a higher fee. In the example above, under the temporary suspension this redevelopment would not pay the $17,525 impact fee. The temporary suspension will not apply to new development or redevelopment that increases or expands the gross floor area of an existing building and would automatically expire on December 31, 2014. The temporary suspension may also help to attract new businesses to fill vacant buildings thus generating needed tax revenue for the City. If this temporary suspension is successful, higher traffic volumes may result, with less financial capacity to fund roadway improvements needed to accommodate the new development. cc: Project File 11 Day File K.'�TR�APPIC��ZOQK ilF I��h� ;Vtoratorium� ll!-17 LUTC Clt� Su;�ension vlemo 9-;0-I ;.doc ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City of Federal Way, Washington, relating to Transportation Impact Fee (TIF); and adding new sections to chapter 19.91 FWRC. (Amending Ordinance Nos. 09-62� WHEREAS, the City established chapter 19.91 FWRC authorized by Chapter 82.02 RCW to require development within the City to pay a proportionate share of the cost of new facilities to serve new development activity 'through the assessment of impact fees; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that due to the current economic conditions development within the City has been slow creating vacancy rate of up to 35%; and WHEREAS, the Council finds that it is in the public interest to amend the FWRC establishing a temporary suspension of the transportation impact fee for changes in use to encourage and promote development activity; and NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 19.91 of the Federal Way Revised Code is hereby amended to add a new section 19.91.065 to read as follows: 19.91.065 Temporary suspension of transportation impact fees relating to change in use Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the City temporarily suspends the imposition of transportation impact fees to the extent the assessment of the fee is the result of a change to a land use category that results in a higher fee. This Section shall not apply to a project that expand the gross floor area of an existing building; and provided that this Section applies only to the use, renovation or remodeling of existing structures and does not apply to redevelopment projects in which existing structures are replaced. This Section shall apply to projects for which complete building applications are filed with the City between December 1, 2011 and December 31, 2014. This Section shall automatically expire on December 31, 2014. Ordinance No. 11- Page 1 of 3 Rev 1/10 12 Section 2. Severabilitv. Should any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase of this chapter, or its application to any person or situation, be declared unconstitutional or invalid for any reason, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this chapter or its application to any other person or situation. T'he City Council of the City of Federal Way hereby declares that it would have adopted this chapter and each section, subsection, sentence, clauses, phrase, or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions be declared invalid or unconstitutional. Section 3. Corrections. The City Clerk and the codifiers of this ordinance are authorized to make necessary corrections to this ordinance including, but not limited to, the correction of scrivener/clerical errors, references, ordinance numbering, section/subsection numbers and any references thereto. Section 4. Ratification. Any act consistent with the authority and prior to the effective date of this ordinance is hereby ratified and affirmed. Section 5. Effective Date This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from and after its passage and publication, as provided by law. Ordinance No. 11- Page 2 of 3 Rev 1/10 13 PASSED by the City Council of the City of Federal Way this day of , 20 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY MAYOR, SKIP PRIEST ATTEST: CITY CLERK, CAROL MCNEILLY, CMC APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATTORNEY, PATRICIA A. RICHARDSON FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO.: Ordinance No. I1- Page 3 of 3 Rev 1/10 14 COUNCIL MEETING DATE: November 15, 2011 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL ITEM #: SUB.TECT: S 344` Way @ Weyerhaeuser Way S Intersection Improvements — 30% Design Status Report POLICY QUESTION Should the Council authorize staff to proceed with design of the S 344�' Way @ Weyerhaeuser Way S Intersection Improvements Project and return to the LUTC and Council at the 85% design completion for further reports and authorization? COMMITTEE Land Use and Transportation Committee CATEGORY: � Consent ❑ Ordinance MEETt1vG DATE: November 7, 2011 ❑ Public Hearing ❑ City Council Business ❑ Resolution ❑ Other STAFF REPORT BY: John Mulke� .P__ E.,. Street_ Systems Pro� ect En�ineer JI�'�"n DEPT: Public Works Attachments: Land Use and Transportation Committee memorandum dated November 7, 2011. Options Considered: 1. Authorize staff to proceed with the design of the S 344`� Way @ Weyerhaeuser Way S Intersection Improvements Project and return to the LUTC and Council at the 85% design completion stage for further reports and authorization. 2. Do not authorize staff to proceed with finalizing the present design of this project and provide direction to staff. MAYOR'S RECOMMENDATION Mayor recommends forwarding Option 1 to the November 15, 2011 City Council Consent Agenda for approval. MAYOR APPROVAL: !�� DIRECTOR APPROVAL: '�_ '! � ___ ___.._. Co ee Council Committee Council COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION Forward Option 1 to the November 15, 2011 City Council Consent Agenda for approvaL Linda Kochxnar, Chair Jim Ferrell, Member Jack Dovey, Member PROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION "I move to authorize staff to proceed with the design of the S 344`" Way @ Weyerhaeuser Way S Intersection Improvements Project and return to the LUTC and Council at the 85% design completion stage for further reports and authorization. " (BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFlCE) COUNCIL ACTION: ❑ APPROVED COUNCIL BILL # ❑ DENIED l�` reading ❑ TABLED/DEFERRED/Pi0 ACTION Enactment reading ❑ MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances on[y) ORDINANCE # REVISED — 02/06/2006 RESOLUTION # 15 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: November 7, 2011 Land Use and Transportation Committee VIA: Skip Priest, Mayor FROM: Cary M. Roe, P.E., Director of Parks, Public Works and Emergency Management �� John Mulkey, Street Systems Project Engineer �l� SUBJECT• S 344�' Way @ Weyerhaeuser Way S Intersection Improvements — 30% Design Status ' Report BACKGROUND T'his project will construct a two-lane roundabout at this intersection. The purpose of the project is to improve traffic safety and capacity and reduce accidents by eliminating conflicts. The following provides a brief synopsis of the progress on this project to date. Currently, the project design is approximately 30% complete, which includes the following completed tasks: • The Topographical Surveys • Right of Way Plan � Channelization Plans • Project Design to 30% Ongoing Tasks Include: • SEPA Submittals • Right of Way Requirements (Property Appraisals, Review Appraisals, Negotiation and Acquisition) • Preliminary Contract Specifications • Project Design to 85% PROJECT ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES: Design ROW Acquisition 2012 Construction Cost 10% Construction Contingency Construction Management TOTAL PROJECT COSTS AVAILABLE FUNDING: Budgeted City Funds Mitigation Interest Earning TOTAL AVAILABLE BUDGET $ 269,000 40,000 1,200,000 120,000 120,000 $1,749,000 $1,034,000 $0 0 $1,034,000 At this time the project budget has a funding shortfall of $715,000. As we proceed with the project design and right of way acquisition process, the total project costs will be refined and presented to the Committee and Council at the 85% desig�completion status report for further action. COUNCIL MEETING DATE: November 15, 2011 ITEM #: CITY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL SUBdECT: SEPA exemptions for projects located in critical areas. POLICY QUESTION Should the City amend the Feclerad Way Revised Code (FWRC) to make all standard State Environxnental Policy Act (SEPA) exemptions applicable to projects located in critical areas? COMMITTEE LandUse/T'ransportation Committee CATEGORY: ❑ Consent ❑ City Council Business /1 ■ Ordinance Resolution STAFF REPORT BY: Contract Planner Jim Harris MEETING DATE: November 7, 2011 ❑ Public Hearing ❑ Other DEPT Community & Economic Development Summary: The proposed amendment to the Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) Title 14, "Environmental Policy," would make all State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) exemptions applicable to projects located in critical areas (wetlands and their buffers, stream buffers, steep slopes, etc.). C�rrently, the adopted SEPA rules state that a number of the standard SEPA exemptions are not applicable, if the proposed project is located within or in close proximity to crirical areas. The effect of the current language is that many smaller projects (of the type that would normally be exempt from SEPA review) located within or in close proximity to critical areas must go through the SEPA review process prior to project approval. The proposed amendment would have the effect of exempting those projects from SEPA review. The provision establishing inapplicable SEPA exemptions in FWRC 14.30.030 is no longer necessary for these types of proposals, as the critical areas regulations contained in FWRC Title 19, Division V, provide adequate regulation and mitigation of potenrial impacts to crirical areas &om these types of proposals. The proposed code amendment would eliminate a regulation that unnecessarily burdens many small scale development projects. Attachments: 1) Draft Adoption Ordinance; 2) Staff Report to the Planning Commission with Exhibit A; 3) Draft minutes of the October 19, 2011, Planning Commission Public Hearing. Options Considered: 1) Adopt the Planning Comxnission's recommendation as shown in the Draft Adoption Ordinance; 2) Adopt the Planning Commission's recommendation as further amended by the LUTC; 3) Do not adopt the Planning Commission's recommendation . _ __�. __.___ PLANNING COMMISSIOIV'S RECOMMENDATION The Planning Coxnxnission recommends adoprion of the proposed amendments as written in the Draft Adoption Ordinance. MAYOR APPROVAL: Council DIRECTOR APPROVAL: / ommittee Council COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION I move to forward the proposed ordinance to First Reading on November 1 S, 2011. Linda Kochmar, Committee Chai Jack Dovey, Committee Member Jim Ferreil, Committee Member PROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION(S�: 1 READING OF ORDINANCE (November 15 2011): I move to forward approval of the ordinance to the December 20, 2011, Council Meeting for adoption. 2 r1D READING OF ORDINANCE �DeCembel' 2O 2011): "I m approval of the proposed ordinance. " (BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE) COUNCIL ACTION: ❑ APPROVED COUNCIL BILL # ❑ DENIED IsT reading ❑ TABLED/DEFERRED/NO ACTION Enactment reading ❑ MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only) ORDINANCE # REVISED - 08/12/2010 1'] RESOLUTION # K:�2011 Code Amendments\SEPA Critical Area Inapplicable Exemptions\COUNCIL Agenda Bill.doc CITY OF FEDERAL WAY QRDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City of Federal Way, Washington, relating to SEPA Exemptions in Critical Areas; amending FWRC 14.30.030 and 14.30.040. (Amending Ordinance Nos. 04-468; 91-105; and 90-40) WHEREAS, the City recognizes the need to periodically modify Title 14 of the Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC), "Environmental Policy," in order to conform to state and federal law, codify administrative practices, clarify and update development regulations as deemed necessary, and improve the efficiency of the regulations and the development review process; and WHEREAS, this ordinance, containing amendments to development regulations and the text of Title 14 FWRC, has complied with Process VI review, chapter 19.80 FWRC, pursuant to chapter 19.35 FWRC; and WHEREAS, it is in the public interest for the City Council to adopt amended regulations pertaining to State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) exemptions in critical areas within the City of Federal Way; and WHEREAS, the adopted FWRC SEPA rules state that a number of the standard SEPA exemptions are not applicable if the proposed project is located within or in close proximity to critical areas. The effect of the current language is that many smaller projects (of the type that would normally be exempt from SEPA review) located within or in close proximity to critical areas must go through the SEPA review process prior to project approval; and WHEREAS, the proposed code amendment would have the effect of exempting those projects from SEPA review, and the proposed code amendment would eliminate a regulation that unnecessarily burdens many small scale development projects; and WHEREAS, the provision establishing inapplicable SEPA exemptions in FWRC 14.30.030 is no longer necessary, as the critical areas regulations contained in FWRC Title 19, Division V, Ordinance No. 11- Page 1 of 5 Rev 1/10 LU 18 provide adequate regulation and mitigation of potential impacts to critical areas from these types of proposals; and WHEREAS, the proposed code amendment action is categorically exempt from SEPA review pursuant to Washington Administrative Code (WAC) Section 197-11-800(19); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission properly conducted a duly noticed public hearing on these code amendments on October 19, 2011, and forwarded a recommendation of approval to the City Council; and WHEREAS, the Land Use/Transportation Committee of the Federal Way City Council considered these code amendments on November 7, 2011, and recommended adoption of the text amendments as recommended by the Planning Commission. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Findin�s. The City Council of the City of Federal Way makes the following findings with respect to the proposed amendments. (a) These code amendments are in the best interest of the residents of the City and will benefit the City as a whole as the provision establishing inapplicable SEPA exemptions in FWRC 14.30.030 is no longer necessary, as the critical areas regulations contained in FWRC Title 19, Division V, provide adequate regulation and mitigation of potential impacts to critical areas. (b) These code amendments comply with Chapter 36.70A RCW, Growth Management. (c) These code amendments are consistent with the intent and purpose of Title 14 FWRC and will implement and are consistent with the applicable provisions of the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan. Ordinance No. 11- Page 2 of S Rev 1/10 LU 19 (d) These code amendments bear a substantial relationship to, and will protect and not adversely affect, the public health, safety, and welfare. (e) These code amendments have followed the proper procedure required under the FWRC. Section 2. Conclusions. Pursuant to chapter 19.80 FWRC and chapter 19.35 FWRC, and based upon the recitals and the findings set forth in Section 1, the Federal Way City Council makes the following Conclusions of Law with respect to the decisional criteria necessary for the adoption of the proposed amendments: (a) The proposed FWRC amendments are consistent with, and substantially implement, the following Federal Way Comprehensive Plan goals and policies: LUG2 Develop an efficient and timely development review process based on a public/private partnership. LUG4 Maximize efficiency of the development review process. LUP6 Conduct regular reviews of development regulations to determine how to improve upon the pernut review process. EDP15 The City will continue to implement a streamlined pernutting process consistent with state and federal regulations to reduce the upfront costs of locating businesses in the City. EDP18 The City will periodically monitor local and regional trends to be able to adjust plans, policies, and programs. (b) The proposed FWRC amendment bears a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, and welfare because it will allow a streamlined development review process for projects. The critical area code provisions within FWRC Title 19, Division V, will provide adequate protection of the environment and critical areas. Eliminating the SEPA inapplicable exemptions will simplify the development review process for proposals, with less cost and a shorter review time for the applicant. Any potential impacts that are identified for these projects will be Ordinance No. 11- Page 3 of S Rev 1/10 LU 2� addressed through existing codes or mitigated through the land use process approval as conditions of approval for the project. (c) The proposed amendments are in the best interest of the public and the residents of the City of Federal Way because it provides for the opportunity for a shorter and less costly review process for proposed development and/or redevelopment of structures. In addition the proposed code amendments identify and eliminate regulatory redundancy in the municipal code. Section 3. FWRC 14.30.030 is hereby repealed in its entirety as follows: . �r7i i � � •�� • :�� _ �- - • •�� . • •�� „ • •�� Section 4. Chapter 14.30.040 FWRC is hereby amended to read as follows: 14.30.040 Treatment of proposals. The city shall treat proposals located wholly or partially within a critical area no differently than other proposals under this title, �F��Eed-�r�-� r' , n�n nzn n ��„-e�i,,.7a ao�e,.y...: *' t, tt �, a c .,tt ,,.�. „ .,�� rr�,e ,.;��. �t,.,tt ,..,.� oa � ,. �,,,..,�;,,� : ,.;�;,..,� ., Section 5. Severabilitv. The provisions of this ordinance are declared separate and severable. The invalidity of any clause, sentence, paragraph, subdivision, section, or portion of this ordinance, or the invalidity of the application thereof to any person or circumstance, shall not affect the validity of the remainder of the ordinance, or the validity of its application to any other persons or circumstances. Ordinance No. 1 /- Page 4 of 5 Rev Uf0 LU ZZ Section 6. Corrections. The City Clerk and the codifiers of this ordinance are authorized to make necessary corrections to this ordinance including, but not limited to, the correction of scrivener/clerical errors, references, ordinance numbering, section/subsection numbers, and any references thereto. Section 7. Ratification. Any act consistent with the authority and prior to the effective date of this ordinance is hereby ratified and affirmed. Section 8. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be effective five (5) days after passage and publication as provided by law. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Federal Way this day of , 20 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY ATTEST: MAYOR, SKIP PRIEST CITY CLERK, CAROL MCNEILLY, CMC APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATTORNEY, PATRICIA A. RICHARDSON FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO.: Ordinance No. 1 !- K:�2011 Code AmendmentsVSEPA Critical Area Inapplicable ExemptionsV,UTC�Ordinance SEPA Critical Aroa Exemption.doc Page S of 5 Rev 1/10 LU 22 C61`'I �7F ��' ��,'" � � STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Amendments to Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) Title 14, "Environmental Policy" Exemptions in Critical Areas Federal Way File No. 11 Public Hearing of October 19, 2011 I. BACKGROUND AND PROPOSED AMENDMENTS The proposed amendment to the Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) Title 14, "Environmental Policy," would make all State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) exemptions applicable to projects located in critical areas (wetlands and their buffers, stream buffers, steep slopes, etc.). Currently, the adopted SEPA rules state that a number of the standard SEPA exemptions are not applicable, if the proposed project is located within or in close proximity to critical areas. The effect of the current language is that many smaller projects (of the type that would normally be exempt from SEPA review) located within or in close proximity to critical areas must go through the SEPA review process prior to project approval. The proposed amendment would have the effect of exempting those projects from SEPA review. The proposed code amendment would eliminate a regulation that unnecessarily burdens many small scale development projects. Specifically, this proposed amendment would eliminate FWRC 1430.030 and modify FWRC 14.30.040. The Planning Commission is being asked to review the proposed changes to FWRC Title 14 (attached as Exhibit A), and forward a recommendation to the City Council's Land Use/Transportation Committee (LUTC) and City Council. This proposed code revision is part of the 2011 Planning Commission Work Program as adopted by the City Council. II . ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENTS A. Proposed Code Amendments 1. Recommended elimination of FWRC Section 14.30.030 "Exemptions" as follows: �1► . � 1 1 1 • �1 � � � � � � � ' - - � � � �� - • � � _ - � '11 ` r-..� c 23 [�� r r,,:ao��;�;oa ..�: �t, ii �•., o �,. „�< ,:�t,; ..«.,ii< °. .�..��..� �o„�;+;.,o ., „4'�I,o ,.:+., » 2. Recommended modifications to FWRC Section 14.30.040 "Treatment of Proposals" If the inapplicable exemptions of FWRC 1430.030 are eliminated as recommended, then FWRC 14.30.040 must be revised to eliminate the reference to section FWRC 1430.030, and the unnecessary last sentence as identified below and in Ezhibit A. "14.30.040 Treatment of proposals. The city shall treat proposals located wholly or partially within a critical area no differently than other proposals under this title_ .. . n+i,,. ��.,.ia ao+e .,+• �, ii �, a� ii ,.�. .. ,.�� ri,o ,.:+., ri.,.ii ,.+ ,,.,..., ,. «:,.., i �.. .. .,+., � ; ,.� �«,,.e..., e..+ c .. ., ,, i .,.. ,.ei. , 1"0...,,,�o.;+; e.7 F .. 1......+;...,. ; ..:+;...,1 ., ., » . B. Rationale for Proposed Change SEPA was adopted in 1971 and is considered to be one of the landmark pieces of environmental legislation in Washington State. At that time, many cities and counties did not have a comprehensive set of development regulations to address and mitigate the wide range of impacts associated with land development. SEPA was viewed as a tool to ensure that minimum standards of environmental protection and impact mitigation were imposed in the development review process. Forty years later, the regulatory landscape has changed dramatically. All cities that plan under the Growth Management Act (GMA) are required to adopt comprehensive sets of development regulations, including zoning codes, subdivision codes, critical areas codes, shoreline regulations, traffic mitigation standards, stormwater regulations, etc. These codes are in place to address the impacts of development and require mitigation as appropriate. The advent of this more robust regulatory environment has rendered SEPA review redundant for the most part. Despite a growing consensus that SEPA review has become redundant and unnecessary in many instances, it is mandated by state law and must be implemented. The state law however, gives local jurisdictions the option of either: a) applying standard SEPA exemptions to all projects, or b) not allowing the standard SEPA exemptions for projects located in or near critical axeas. Current city code requires option b), the more restrictive of the two. City staff recommends that the standard SEPA exemptions apply to all projects (option a, above), including those within or in close proximity to critical areas. The provision establishing inapplicable SEPA exemptions in FWRC 14.30.030 is no longer necessary for these types of proposals, as the critical areas regulations contained in FWRC Title 19, Division V, provide adequate regulation and mitigation of potential impacts to critical areas from these types of proposals. C. Research of Other Cities Regulations As part of tl�e background research, staff reviewed codes of the cities of Kent, Auburn, Tukwila, Sea-Tac, and Kirkland to see how these cities address SEPA exemptions within and outside of critical areas. The cities of Auburn and Tukwila allow standard SEPA exemptions within (and outside o� critical areas (the same approach we are recommending for Federal FWRC Code Amendments, Exemptions in Critical Areas October 19, 2011, Planning Commission Pubiic Hearing File 11-103919-00-UP Page 2 of 5 24 Way). Both of these cities rely on their critical area codes, rather than SEPA review to mitigate impacts to critical areas. Conversely, the cities of Sea-Tac, Kent, and Kirkland all state that a number of the standard SEPA exemptions are not applicable if the proposed project is located in close proximity to critical areas, as the FWRC currently does. III. PROCEDURAL SUMMARY Public notice of the October 19, 2011, Planning Commission public hearing was published on October l, 201 l, and posted on September 30, 2011, in accordance with the city's procedural reyuirements. As of this date, no comments have been received from the public on this proposal. IV. DECISIONAL CRITERIA FWRC Chapter 19.80.130 provides criteria for zoning text amendments. The following section analyzes compliance of the proposed zoning text amendments with the criteria provided by this chapter. The city may amend the text of the FWRC only if it finds that: l. The proposed amendments are consistent with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan. The proposed FWRC text amendments are consistent with the following Federal Way Comprehensive Pdan (FWCP) policies: LUG2 LUG4 LiTP6 EDP15 EDP18 Develop an efficient and timely development review process based on a public/private parMership. Maximize efficiency of the development review process. Conduct regular reviews of development regulations to determine how to improve upon the permit review process. The City will continue to implement a streamlined permitting process consistent with state and federal regulations to reduce the upfront costs of locating businesses in the City. The City will periodically monitor local and regional trends to be able to adjust plans, policies, and programs. 2. The proposed amendments bear a substantial relationship to public health, safety, or welfare. The proposed FWRC text amendments bear a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, and welfare because they will allow a streamlined development review process for projects. The critical area code provisions within FWRC Title 19, Division V, will provide adequate protection ofthe environment and critical areas. Eliminating the SEPA inapplicable exemptions will simplify the development review process for these applicable proposals with less cost and a shorter review time for the applicant. Any potential impacts that are identified for these projects will be addressed through existing codes or mitigated through the land use process approval as conditions of approval for the project. FWRC Code Amendments, Exemptions in Critical Areas October 19, 2011, Planning Commission Pubtic Hearing File 11-103919-00-UP Page 3 of 5 25 3. The proposed amendments are in the best interest of the residents of the city. Approval ofthe proposed text amendments would benefit the city as a whole as they would provide the opportunity for a shorter and less costly review process for proposed development and/or redevelopment of structures. The FWRC critical area provisions contain appropriate regulation and protection from any improvements within critical areas. It is in the best interest of the residents of the city that the city identifies and eliminates regulatory redundancy in the municipal code. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Based on the above staff analysis and decisional criteria, staff recommends that the following amendments to FWRC Title 14, `Bnvironmental Policy" be recommended for approval to the Latid Use/Transportation Committee (LUTC) and City CounciL 1. Elimination of FWRC 1430.030, "Exemptions." 2. Modifications as identified in Exhibit A to FWRC 14.30.040, "Treatment of Proposals." VI. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Consistent with the provisions of FWRC Chapter 19.80.240, the Planning Commission may take the following actions regarding the proposed development code text amendments: 1. Recommend to the City Council adoption of the FWRC text amendments as proposed; 2. Modify the proposed FWRC text amendments and recommend to the City Council adoption of the FWRC text amendments as modified; 3. Recommend to the City Council that the proposed FWRC text amendments not be adopted; or 4. Forward the proposed FWRC text amendments to the City Council without a recommendation. EXHIBIT Exhibit A — Proposed Code Amendment: • FWRC Title 14, "Environmental Policy," 14.30.030 and 14.30.040 FWRC Code Amendments, Exemptions in Critical Areas October 19, 201 l, Planning Commission Public Hearing File 11-103919-00-UP Page 4 of 5 26 Exhibit A October 19, 2011, Planning Commission Staff Report Proposed Code Amendments Federal Way Revised Code Title 14, "Environmental Policy" � � � . • •�� .• �� „ � � �� . . •�� „ • �� . �, �, ... . � � �. � . . . .� ,� � �� ► . •. . .� .. , 14.30.040 Treatment of proposals. The city sha11 treat proposals located wholly or partially within a critical area no differently than other proposals under this title_ e�se�t-a�-�t-��ea �� '�xror , � �n n�n n +�.,.o��.,.�a ,.;,.;,..,, � (Ord. No. 04-468, § 3, 11-16-04; Ord. No. 90-40, § i(20.280.20), 2-27-90. Code 2001 § 18-144.) 27 �� 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 adeyuate 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. K.�Planning Commission\2011�Iv1eeting Summary 10-19-1 l.dce 2$ Plannin� Eommission Minutes Pa�e 2 October 19, 201 1 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 ofEngineers. Commissioner Carlson moved (and it was secondec� to recommend adoption of the amendments as proposed by staff. The motion carried unanimously. PuB1.�C HEAR�1vG – Temporary Uses, FWRC 19.275 Senior Planner Barker delivered the staffpresentation. She noted a change that should be made to Eachibit 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 exi�ting temporary use code: duplicates much of the temporary business license code; is nat 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 reGuirements 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 lon�er 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 pertnit. 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. K:�P�anning Commission�201 I Wleeting Summary 10-19-1 I.doc 29 Planninb Commission Minutes Page 3 October 19, 2011 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 ar 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. T'he 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 Pacifrc 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 ow 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 ta�c 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 Pacifrc 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 Med�urst 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 K:�Planning Commission1201 IVNeeting Summary 10.19-ll.doc � � 30 Planning Commiss�ion Minutes Page 4 October l9, 201 1 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 opera.ting 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 secondec� 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. [�DDITIONAL 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 ofthe 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. K:�Planning Commission�20I IUNeeting Summary 10.19-1 l.doc 31