Loading...
Planning Comm MINS 04-04-2012 K:\Planning Commission\2011\Meeting Summary 04-04-12.doc CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PLANNING COMMISSION April 4, 2012 City Hall 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers MEETING MINUTES Commissioners present: Merle Pfeifer, Tom Medhurst, Wayne Carlson, Lawson Bronson, and Sarady Long. Commissioners absent: Hope Elder and Tim O’Neil (excused). Staff present: Planning Manager Isaac Conlen, Contract Planner Jim Harris, Assistant City Attorney Peter Beckwith, and Administrative Assistant II Darlene LeMaster. CALL TO ORDER Chair Pfeifer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of March 7, 2012, were approved as presented. AUDIENCE COMMENT None ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT Planning Manager Conlen stated the second meeting of April (April 18) has been canceled. COMMISSION BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARING – Proposed zoning code amendments related to change of use and nonconforming development standards, and review process for minor improvements and improvements to developed sites. Contract Planner Harris delivered the staff report. These are business friendly amendments. The proposed amendments are to several sections of the zoning code and can be as follows: – Modify the review process for minor exterior building modifications; – Modify the review process for improvements to developed sites; – Modify the review process for change of use; – Eliminate a section of the nonconformance standards that require site upgrades when there is a change of use; and – Amendments to zoning use charts related to change of use. Commissioner Medhurst asked how minor improvements (as opposed to substantial improvements) are defined. He understands that it will be done by square footage, but are there other criteria, such as impact, dollars spent, etc. Contract Planner Harris stated that in Exhibit A, page 3 of 6, minor improvement is defined by gross floor area. Commissioner Medhurst is concerned that a developer could spend a lot of money and make substantial improvements within the required gross floor area for a minor improvement. Contract Planner Harris noted that an additional criterion for a minor improvement is that it must be exempt from SEPA requirements. Commissioner Medhurst’s example may not be exempt from SEPA requirements and therefore, would not meet the definition of a minor improvement. Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 April 4, 2012 K:\Planning Commission\2011\Meeting Summary 04-04-12.doc Commissioner Medhurst asked if a tenant moves into a multi-tenant building and over the years takes over almost all, or all, of the building, would that trigger improvements, or would they be exempt under the proposed code amendment. Planning Manager Conlen replied that if it is not a change of use, they would not need to do anything. If it is a change of use, it would trigger the city’s review process. The proposed process to determine if a tenant is a change of use would take place during the business registration process (since there is no building or land use permit requirement). If it is determined to be a change of use, land use review would be triggered. Otherwise, no additional review would be required. The current process requires a land use review (with commensurate fees) in order to determine if it is a change of use. The proposed process will take less time and cost. There was discussion about SEPA categorical exemptions and how they relate to the proposed code amendments. There was also discussion of how change of use is dealt with differently from a traffic trip generation perspective. This is addressed in a different section of the code. Commissioner Bronson asked what type of substantial improvements to a site would require land use review process III or IV. Contract Planner Harris replied that a substantial improvement is any improvement above the 25% or 2,000 square feet of gross floor area. It is the use that triggers the land use process required. Some uses have more impact, such as a gravel batch plant, and therefore are required to go through a more intense land use review of process III or IV. The hearing was opened for public comment. Sam Pace, Seattle/King County Realtors – He feels the proposed amendments are an important step in the right direction. He is encouraged by the effort to simplify the process. The current process is more subjective than objective. With the proposed amendments, one must still meet requirements for parking, setbacks, etc. He believes the proposed amendments strike a good balance. He feels that with the current economic environment, it is important the city is able to concentrate its time and resources on what is most important. The proposed amendments will allow the city to take issues that are relatively minor, treat them as minor, and still maintain needed protections. The proposed amendments will create predictability for the private sector and will save them money. This is likely to encourage investors to make more investments in the city. Public comment was closed. Commissioner Carlson moved (and it was seconded) to recommend approval of the proposed code amendments as supplemented by the new Exhibit B and presented by staff. There was no further discussion. The motion passed unanimously. The public hearing was closed. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS None ADJOURN Chair Pfeifer adjourned the meeting at 8:06 p.m.