Loading...
Planning Commission MINS 03-04-2015CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PLANNING COMMISSION March 4, 2015 City Hall 6:00 p.m. Council Chambers MEETING MINUTES Commissioners present: Lawson Bronson, Hope Elder, Wayne Carlson Tim O'Neil, Sarady Long, Diana Noble - Gulliford, and Anthony Murrietta. Commissioner absent: Tom Medhurst (excused). Staff present: Planning Manager Isaac Conlen, Senior Planner Matt Herrera, and Assistant Attorney Mark Orthmann. CALL TO ORDER Vice -Chair Bronson called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of February 4, 2015, were approved as presented. AUDIENCE COMMENT None ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT Planning Manager Conlen announced the next meeting is scheduled for March 18 and will be a briefing on the economic development chapter of the comprehensive plan. The following meeting will be April 1 and will be a continuation of the critical areas regulations study session and a public hearing on a code amendment dealing with manufactured home parks. COMMISSION BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARING —Proposed Amendment Related to the Regulation of Adult Family Homes Pursuant to FWRC 19.105.080 Assistant Attorney Orthmann delivered the staff presentation. This is a housekeeping amendment dealing with a conflict with state law. RCW 35A.63.24 prohibits cities from enacting regulations that treat residential structures occupied by persons with handicaps differently than other similar residential structures. Federal Way code imposes regulations on adult family homes in excess of those imposed on similar residential structures. However, the city has not been enforcing these regulations. The proposed amendment removes the conflicting language and aligns the Federal Way code with state law and current practice. Commissioner Noble- Gulliford asked for clarification why 19.105.080(1) was being struck. Attorney Orthmann explained that it is being struck to be consistent with the state. The sentence requires the person who owns the adult family home live in the home, while the state does not require this. The state allows the home owner to hire a manager of the home, as opposed to requiring that the owner live in the home. KAPIanning Commission\2015Udeeting Summary 03- 04- I5.doc Planning Commission. Minutes Page 2 March 4, 2015 Commissioner Long asked if the city has enforced the requirement of one off - street parking space provided for each non - resident employee if it is an established residence that has plenty on- street parking. Attorney Orthmann replied that he is not aware if the city has enforced this regulation in the past and will research the issue. Commissioner Noble - Gulliford asked if an adult family home could be multi - residential or only a single - family home. Attorney Orthmann replied that depending upon the zoning, an adult family home could be a multi - residential unit. Commissioner Carlson moved (and it was seconded) to adopt the amendments as proposed by staff. There was not further discussion and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. STUDY SESSION — Proposed Amendments Related to the Regulation of FR'RC Title 19, Division V — Critical Areas Senior Planner Herrera delivered the staff presentation. He introduced and Ilon Logan of Environmental Sciences Associates who attended the January Open House and is here to answer any questions that may come her way. Tonight's presentation will discuss the following code topics (staff will return in April to discuss the wetlands and frequently flooded areas): * Administrative * These are sections that generally apply to all critical areas. * Geologically Hazardous Areas * Landslide, Erosion, and Seismic Hazards * Fish & Wildlife Conservation Areas (a new heading/topic) * Streams, lakes <20 acres (larger lakes are regulated by the Shoreline Master Program), and protection of endangered, threatened, and sensitive species. * Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas * Zones based on proximity to and travel time of groundwater to water source wells. Staff will continue this study session on April 1, 2015. After that an environmental determination will be made. Staff will then consolidate the proposed amendments and comments into a new code chapter ( "Environmentally Critical Areas ") and will hold a public hearing with the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission recommendation then goes to the City Council's Land. Use/Transportation Committee, who in turn makes a recommendation to City Council. City Council holds a First and Second Reading of the proposed amendment/ordinance. Staff is on track to make the state mandated deadline of June 30. Senior Planner Herrera continued with an answer to Commissioner Elder's question of who paid for the clean-up of Lake Grove Park. The clean-up was needed because of contaminated soil and was paid for by Asarco settlement funds. The Department of Ecology reviewed Adelaide and Heritage Woods and discovered the soil contamination was below the level required for state clean -up, so they put up signs. Commission O'Neil asked for clarification of when a homeowner must seek the city's approval to take down a tree. The city does not require a permit from a single - family property to remove a tree in a non- critical area. The city does require a certain canopy percentage on the property, but there is no follow -up to ascertain this. If the tree is in a critical area, the requirements are different because a critical area and/or buffer cannot be disturbed without permission from the city. Tree removal in critical areas is partially exempted, which means the owner needs written approval (not a permit, but a letter) from the city to remove or perform maintenance on a tree in a critical area and/or buffer. So that an owner would not need KAPlanning Commission\2015VNeeting Summary 03- 04- 15.doc Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 March 4, 2015 to come into the city every year to request permission to perform maintenance, the city will accept a maintenance plan from a licensed Arborist that could last up to five years. The city maintains a critical areas map that delineates where the city believes the critical areas are located that homeowners can view on the city's website. Commissioner Long asked what criteria the city uses to require a tract in a critical area to be dedicated to the city. Senior Planner Herrera replied that he is not aware of a time the city has done this, although it is in the city code. The city does not have specific criteria for this situation. Commissioner Long asked if the sign required for a Native Growth Protection Easement a standard city sign. What about the interpretive sign. The Native Growth Protection Easement sign is a standard sign, but the interpretive sign is not because each critical area is different the sign needs to be site specific. In addition, there are split rail fence requirements (split rail fences allow wildlife access to the area) which do not have a design standard. Commissioner Carlson noted that the size of required buffers has been increasing and many times may be only lawn with a tree or two. What is staff response to a homeowner who maybe wants to put a swing set in that buffer? Senior Planner Herrera commented this is an issue staff plans to address April 1 when they discuss wetlands. In the meantime, staff intends to hold with the thought that a deal is a deal. He noted that wetlands can increase and /or decrease in size. If a wetland were to increase so that a property owner's backyard would now lie within the wetland's buffer, staff would hold with the thought that a deal is a deal, and the owner's backyard would not be considered part of the wetland buffer if the wetland increases in size. Commissioner Noble - Gulliford asked about non - buildable tracts in older developments, specifically, someone now makes plans to build on the tract. Senior Planner Herrera responded that as long as the property is recorded as a tract, it cannot be built upon; only lots may be built upon. Commission Long asked about staff increasing the buffer for landslide hazard areas from 25 feet to 50 feet based on best available science recommendations, what are other jurisdictions using? Senior Planner Herrera replied that for updates to all the jurisdictions that he has seen, they are increasing the buffer to 50 feet. Commissioner Long what if an owner wants to build a house on a lot where it would not fit because of the 50 -foot buffer. Can the city legally deny a building permit for that lot? Senior Planner Herrera replied that the city has a reasonable use provision whereby a building permit would be issued as long a geotechnical engineer signs off on it. In addition, the city may place restrictions upon the property, such as the house may not be larger than x square feet. He did note that there are lots that were created say a hundred years ago with conditions that are not conducive to build on. Discussion was held regarding lakes, surface water management, and maintenance. Some lakes work as surface water facilities. Staff will discuss the issue with the Surface Water Management Division and will bring back clarification of the issue to the next meeting. Commissioner Bronson asked in what document I would find `best available science' described. Senior Planner Herrera replied that it is defined in the Washington Administrative Code and the city will be adopting that definition. There will be an appendix in the FWRC stating what our `best available science' is based upon. Ms. Logan of Environmental Sciences Associates replied that typically state agencies publish guidance documents that summarize scientific literature for jurisdictions to use. The `best available science' may be found in these summarized documents or the original publication (such as a scientific journal). Commissioner Bronson asked what peer review is done on this `best available science'? How does the public find the current studies? Commissioner Carlson commented that `best available science' bibliographies are available. They can be found at the Department of Ecology. Commissioner Bronson then asked if a wetland has been damaged and the city requires that it be restored, how do we know the restoration won't cause more damage than what has already been done. KAPlanning Commission\2015\Meeting Summary 03- 04- 15.doc Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 March 4, 2015 Alternatively, can it even be restored? Ms. Logan commented that having a professional plan out the restoration would help mitigate any additional damage. Commissioner Bronson asked what happens if I have permission to have a ditch, but fish settle into it, can I no longer use my ditch. This is a question staff should consider. Commissioner Bronson commented that the city has designated professions, such as engineering geologist, as the only ones who can do this kind of work. Is the city aware that the state says if any engineer feels they have the expertise, they may perform the work? (An electrical engineer may comment on civil engineering if she feels she has the expertise.) Peter Townsend — He lives in Marine View Estates. He has told Senior Planner Herrera he will submit written comments. In the meantime, he feels there should be some language in the code regarding "taking." He commented that he and a neighbor had a meeting with staff regarding `best available science' and "takings." The neighbor feels that the `best available science' can be refuted. He commented that Gig Harbor's code has a range of setbacks for slopes that allows for flexibility. He is concerned that the public will have to pay to have an Arborist make a plan to maintain the critical areas buffer. It does not make sense to him that he and his neighbor would have to hire an Arborist. He feels the city could simply have guidelines for owners to use for maintenance of buffers. Senior Planner Herrera clarified that according to the constitution, `takings' means taking all reasonable economic value from a property owner without compensation. He does not agree that a 50 -foot buffer on a landslide hazard property is a `taking.' The city is not saying you cannot build there, the city is saying they want to be sure that anything built there is safe. The buffer can be built upon with the sign -off of a geotechnical engineer stating it would be safe. Requiring an Arborist to make a plan for maintenance in critical areas is a typical practice of local jurisdictions. The city is flexible in regards to these plans. It does not have to be done by an individual. The city has allowed a subdivision to have an Arborist create a plan for the entire subdivision. Commissioner Elder asked why the 25 -foot buffer has to go to 50 feet, why cannot it go to 30, 35, 40, etc. Senior Planner Herrera will bring a copy of the `best available science' bibliography to the April meeting. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS None ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 8:50 p.m. KAPlanning Commission\2015%4eaing Summary 03-04- 15.doc