Loading...
Planning Comm MINS 07-18-2012 K:\Planning Commission\2011\Meeting Summary 07-18-12.doc CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PLANNING COMMISSION July 18, 2012 City Hall 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers MEETING MINUTES Commissioners present: Merle Pfeifer, Lawson Bronson, Wayne Carlson, and. Tim O’Neil Commissioners absent: Tom Medhurst, Hope Elder, and Sarady Long (all excused). Staff present: Planning Manager Isaac Conlen, Senior Planner Janet Shull, 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 April 4, 2012, were approved as presented. AUDIENCE COMMENT Diana Noble-Gulliford, Federal Way Historical Society President – She noted that research and adoption of an ordinance addressing historic preservation is on the Planning Commission’s 2012 Work Program and she presented the Commission with some background on the issue. She gave the Commissioners a handout where it was noted that research shows that 546 properties within the City of Federal Way were built in 1950 or before and 28 were built in 1920 or earlier. Some examples of potential Federal Way landmark status properties include the Federal Way High School, Camp Kilworth Rotary Lodge, Dumas Bay Retreat, and the Robert Verzani Home. She stated there are many others. She commented that one of the primary benefits of a historical preservation program is that owners of designated landmark properties would be eligible to apply for a variety of incentive programs for preservation. A historical preservation program would implement the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan’s policies. A discussion was held regarding Federal Way High School being a potential Federal Way landmark. It was noted that Federal Way Public Schools is considering demolishing the school and replacing it with a new one. It was noted that portions of the school could be preserved. The entire building does not necessarily have to be preserved if it is declared an historical landmark. It would depend upon the landmark preservation policies adopted by the city. Developing these policies will be part of the proposed code amendment. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT None Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 July 18, 2012 K:\Planning Commission\2011\Meeting Summary 02-22-12.doc COMMISSION BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARING – Proposed Amendments Related to Open Space Standards for Multi-Unit Residential Development Within the City Center-Core and City-Center Frame Zoning Districts Ms. Shull delivered the staff report. The proposed amendment will reduce the minimum amount of required on-site open space for residential development in the City-Center Core (CC-C) and City-Center Frame (CC-F) zoning districts. In addition, it includes design guidelines that will emphasize quality over quantity and help ensure the on-site open space is usable. It will modify the open space definitions to make them more consistent with the way they are referenced throughout the code. Finally, it will add the option of a fee-in-lieu for open space related to residential development in the CC zones. Currently, the code requires a minimum of 200 square feet of usable open space per unit of residential development. Reviews of recent development proposals for high-rise, mixed-use development has shown that this requirement results in a required open space area that exceeds the size of the building site. Staff recommends that the amount of required usable open space be reduced to a minimum of 100 square feet. Ms. Shull stated that in 2010, the City Council approved the recommended reduction of usable open space area in the Community Business (BC) zoning districts from 300 square feet per unit to 150 square feet per unit due to similar circumstances. This resulted in a lesser open space requirement in the BC zone as opposed to the CC-C and CC-F zones. It is anticipated that development in the CC zones is more intense than the BC zone and therefore, it makes sense to consider a reduction to the open space requirement in the CC zones. A new section is proposed for Chapter 19.115 that will provide recommended minimum sizes and dimensions for private and common open space areas to be considered “usable.” The proposed section will allow for common (such as gyms, pools, and gathering spaces), private (balconies, etc.), and publicly accessible open space (when directly accessible to residents) of particular dimensions. Common open space areas will be required to provide amenities that will make them engaging and will allow for active use (such as child play areas). In addition, the proposed new chapter will allow a fee-in-lieu option for a maximum of 50% of the total open space requirement. The fees will be used for park facilities within the parks planning areas that coincide with the CC zoned areas. Commissioner O’Neil asked what percentage of the open space must be public access. Ms. Shull replied that the open space is intended for the residents and does not necessarily have to be accessible to the public. Commissioner O’Neil expressed his concern that if a developer chooses the fee-in-lieu option, the money may not be used in a way that is directly beneficial to the residents. Commissioner O’Neil expressed his concern that if the open space is to benefit the residents he is uneasy with the option of a fee-in-lieu which will go to a park that may not benefit the residents. Commissioner Bronson stated he finds the proposed definitions confusing and asked for clarification. Ms. Shull replied that the city has a number of different types of open space and the definitions are staff attempts to capture them all. Commissioner Bronson asked what the reason is for choosing 100 square feet. Mr. Shull replied that staff used the Municipal Research and Services Center of Washington (MRSC) report titled, “Providing for Usable Open Space for Multifamily Developments,” that is an exhibit to the staff report. The report compares the open space requirement for various cities in Washington. Staff also researched comparable cities outside of Washington. Some cities used a percentage of gross square footage, but staff felt this would be difficult to implement. Commissioner Bronson expressed his concern that the 100 square feet is not based on objective data, but he recognizes that objective data may not exist. Commissioner Carlson expressed his concern about the aesthetics of the buildings. He suggested that a certain percentage (say 10%) of the open space be required to be on the ground level. Commissioner O’Neil agreed and stated what he is missing is how this proposal fits into the overall vision for the city Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 July 18, 2012 K:\Planning Commission\2011\Meeting Summary 02-22-12.doc center. He is concerned that not requiring a percentage of open space on the ground level could result in the city center looking and feeling like a “closed compound.” Ms. Shull replied that currently the code does not require that residential open space be provided on the ground level. The proposed amendment is not intended to address the issue of public open space, but rather private, residential open space (some of which can be public open space). Commissioner Bronson expressed concern that the option of a fee-in-lieu will not meet the intent of the proposed code amendment to provide open space for the residents of the building. Other Commissioners agreed with him. Ms. Shull explained that staff wanted to give developers the flexibility of the fee-in-lieu in cases where they are not able to meet the open space requirement on-site. Mr. Conlen commented that it is expected that developers will choose the fee-in-lieu option only as a last resort. Mr. Beckwith commented that state law requires that fee-in-lieu payments provide a direct benefit to those making the payment and that the funds be spent within five years of receipt. The Commissioners agreed that this is acceptable. Commissioner Bronson moved (and it was seconded) to recommend approval of the staff’s recommendation as stated on page 5 of the staff report. There was no further discussion. The motion carried unanimously. The public hearing was closed. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS The next Planning Commission meeting will be August 15, 2012, or September 5, 2012, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. It will be a public hearing regarding parking. ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 8:15 p.m.