Loading...
Planning Commission MINS 04-15-2015CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PLANNING COMMISSION April 15, 2015 City Hall 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers MEETING MINUTES Commissioners present: Tom Medhurst, Lawson Bronson, Hope Elder, Wayne Carlson, Tim O'Neil, Sarady Long, Diana Noble - Gulliford, and Anthony Murrietta. Commissioner absent: none. City Council present: Deputy Mayor Jeanne Burbidge and Council Member Martin Moore. Staff present: Community Development Director Michael Morales, Planning Manager Isaac Conlen, Principal Planner Margaret Clark, Senior Planner Matt Herrera, City Traffic Engineer Rick Perez, Assistant Attorney Mark Orthmann, and Administrative Assistant E. Tina Piety. Others present: Ilon Logan of Environmental Sciences Associates. CALL TO ORDER Chair Medhurst called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES None AUDIENCE COMMENT None ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT Planning Manager Conlen asked if Commissioner might be available for a meeting on April 29. Administrative Assistant Piety will ask them via email. COMMISSION 13USINESS Study Session — Proposed Text Amendments to Federal Way Revised Code Division V — Critical Areas Senior Planner Herrera delivered that staff report. This is the second part of the study session wherein wetlands, frequently flooded areas and follow -up items will be discussed. The definition of wetland(s) has been updated to reflect the state's definition. The city's existing wetland regulations are upwards of 20 years old. Updated Best Available Science (BAS) documents were published in the mid -2000s and the proposed amendments reflect the updated BAS. In addition, amendments have been made to be consistent with other jurisdictional authorities e.g. Army Corps of Engineers and Department of Ecology. The proposed amendments use the Department of Ecology's (DOE) rating system (I, II, III, or IV) for wetlands which are based on their ability to be replaced, sensitivity to disturbance, and how they function. Category I wetlands include bogs, mature /old growth forests, those containing rare plant communities, and the highest functioning wetlands (i.e. water quality and flood storage). Categories II, III, IV wetlands KAPlanning Commission\201MMeeting Summary 04- 15- 15.doc Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 April 15, 2015 are rated on how well they function. The city's current rating system does not consider water quality (or a habitat score), as do the DOE ratings. Wetland buffers will change with the change of ratings and BAS. The city's current categories and buffers are: Category I 200 foot buffer Category U 100 foot buffer Category 111 25 -50 foot buffer The proposed categories and buffers are: Category I (bogs & rare plants) 190 foot buffer Category I (forested & high runLnon) 75 foot buffer Category R 75 foot buffer Category 111 60 foot buffer Category IV 40 foot buffer could potentially increase to 225 feet if it scores high for habitat score could potentially increase to 105, 165, or 225 feet depending on the habitat score could potentially increase as above could potentially increase as above Existing regulations allow up to a 50 percent buffer reduction through buffer averaging, or with a buffer enhancement plan. The proposed edits will limit the buffer reduction and averaging to 25 percent. The proposed change reflects BAS that a more than 25 percent reduction begins to impact the wetland without the appropriate compensation. Direct impacts to wetlands require compensatory mitigation. The proposed required compensation for impacts reflect the DOE rules by ratios as shown on page 4 of the staff report. In addition, staff is proposal alternative mitigation measures. Fee -in -Lieu programs and wetland mitigation banks allow applicants to pay an agency or mitigation bank owner to provide mitigation off- site. Advanced mitigation allows applicants to establish mitigation prior to impacts. Staff is proposing a new section to the city's critical areas regulations for frequently flooded areas. All frequently flooded areas are located along the marine shoreline and regulated by the city's Shoreline Master Program (SMP). The new section cross - references the user to the SMP regulations in the code. Staff proposes the landslide hazard area buffer be increased to 50 feet. This is a standard that many jurisdictions are going to and also the recommendation from the city's geotechnical engineering sub - consultant. The 50 -foot standard provides a conservative buffer and may be modified with a geotechnical engineer's recommendation. The applicant may also choose to stay out of the buffer and forego the engineering expense. In response to the Commissioner's request and questions: The Best Available Science bibliography is attached to staff report. The City is not obligated to accept a critical areas report from a Professional Engineer (PE) from another discipline. Constructing a ditch to connect to a fish bearing stream would require approval which the City would likely not provide. Commissioner O'Neil is a real estate agent and commented that his clients have had problems dealing with wetlands. What exactly is meant by "ability to be replaced "? It seems the tests for wetlands (and hence the cost to the client) go on and on, with each jurisdiction requiring a different test. He is concerned delineating wetlands by habitat functions could be cost prohibitive. Senior Planner Herrera replied that some wetlands cannot be replaced and hence, the proposed rating system. Some wetland biologists have commented that the city's current system actually adds costs because they must use our standards for the city permits and then DOE standards for DOE permits. Having the same standards should lead to fewer delineations and cost. KAPlanning Commission\2015UNeeting Summary 04- 15- 15.doc Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 April 15, 2015 Commissioner Elder is concerned about the proposed fee -in -lieu and alternate mitigation measures and the effect they will have. Senior Planner Herrera commented that alternative mitigation measures are intended more for lower category wetlands that will not likely function well. In addition, since wetlands using the traditional methods of mitigation need to be monitored 5 to 10 years to be sure they are functioning; many fail for the lack of monitoring. Commissioner Long is concerned that the funds for the fee -in -lieu mitigation will be used outside of the city limits. Can we require the funds be used within the city limits? Senior Planner Herrera replied that would require an inter -local agreement with King County. The failure rate of traditional mitigation measures is higher than 50 percent. These are lower functioning wetlands and the fee -in -lieu funds would be used to help higher functioning wetlands. That higher functioning wetland may be in Auburn, but while not directly affecting Federal Way, it does affect us in that it affects the Puget Sound area overall. Commissioner Long is concerned over the cost of wetland mitigation, is there a state law that addresses how much of a wetland area must be mitigated. Senior Planner Herrera replied that the new regulations have area ratios and he is not aware of any case law that challenges the current ratios. Commissioner O'Neil asked staff to describe the process if he were to come in with an application that has a'' /2 acre wetland on a 3 acre property and wants to mitigate. Staff described the process. A Commissioner had asked what happens if a ditch they dig attracts fish and later becomes fish- bearing. Senior Planner Herrera commented that staff would regulate as a fish - bearing stream. Commissioner Long asked what is size of the smallest wetlands regulated in the city. Senior Planner Herrera stated that the city currently does not regulate those less than 2,500 square feet. Ilon Logan of Environmental Sciences Associates stated they recommend jurisdictions change the regulation to less than 1000 square feet and a 40 -foot buffer for smaller wetlands. Commissioner Long asked if there is a time table for King County to spend the fee -in -lieu funds. Senior Planner Herrera commented they will collect funds until they have enough to spend on a project. Chair Medhurst asked in regards to buffer reduction is the 25% a hard and fast amount or could it change. Planning Manager Conlen commented that the state DOE says that lowering the buffer reduction to less than 25% would likely cause a wetland to fail. It would be similar to filling in the wetland, but without compensation. Commissioner O'Neil asked if there is an advantage to a property owner to buy mitigation credits. Senior Planner Herrera replied that the property owner would not have to mitigate the wetland themselves. They would not have to have the wetland monitored for up to 10 years to ensure it survives. Alternate Commissioner Murrietta asked how does it benefit the city to allow a property owner to bulldoze a wetland in Federal Way and pay to improve one in Auburn. What about the special "bug" that lives in Federal Way? Senior Planner Herrera replied that mitigation is a discretionary permit. It is allowed if the only way to use the property is to impact the wetland. Alternate Commissioner Murrietta asked whether the city can just say no. Senior Planner Herrera replied that the city cannot deprive someone the right to reasonably develop their land. KAPlanning Commission\2015heeting Summary 04- 15- 15.doc Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 April 15, 2015 Briefing — Federal Way Comprehensive Plan (FWRC) Major Update — Chapter Seven, "City Center" Principal Planner Clark delivered that staff report. Commissioner Long recused himself. The Policy Background has been updated and expanded relative to the goals of the GMA, PSRC VISION 2040's goals, and the Countywide Planning Policies (CWPPs). The proposed changes add an Urban Center Plan, update demographics, update actions and eliminate duplication. Information regarding the Town Center concept has been added. Principal Planner Clark went over the City Center existing conditions and efforts that have been made to stimulate development. The Concept Plan seeks to create: • A compact Urban Center and vibrant center of activity • City Center as social /economic hub • Central gathering place for community • Long -term growth — employment & housing • Housing opportunities close to employment • Environment that supports high - capacity transit (HCT) by locating residents and workers within convenient walking distance of HCT • Reduced dependency on automobiles • Improved auto circulation by completing the proposed street grid and creating smaller blocks • Pedestrian and bicycle connections throughout the City Center • A network of public spaces connected to a citywide and regional system of open spaces, parks, and trails • Strategies to protect views such as Mount Rainier, especially for civic uses and public parks Several goals and policies were amended.to reflect the city's current vision and plans for City Center revitalization. Per VISION 2040 requirements, goals and policies were added to address reduction of air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions and managing natural drainage systems. A goal and policy was added for view protection to address build -out of the City Center and protection of views from civic buildings and uses. One e-mail was received from Sam Pace requesting that we add language from the GMA to an existing CWPP. We are unable to amend the county's language; however, we can address the language in our policies. One e-mail was received from JoAnn Milton, Vice President of Park Pals Off -Leash Dog Park, requesting that we add language about a second dog park in the comprehensive plan. I spoke to city Parks Director John Hutton and they may consider this as part of their next parks comprehensive plan update process. Commissioner O'Neil commented that the city has purchased 17 acres in the city center, what does this do to further the end goal. Principal Planner Clark responded that the city is seeking a developer for the site (a Request for Qualifications has been released) who will agree to develop the site in a manner that will meet the city's vision and ideally, spur further development. Alternate Commissioner Murrietta asked what about traffic mobility? Is the city planning a smaller street grid and do you have something that addresses the current gridlock. In addition, will not additional development negatively affect the gridlock? City Traffic Engineer replied that Chapter 3, "Transportation," addresses much of this. Managing traffic will become more important as time goes on. In the near term, the city is planning a more robust traffic plan. Our existing service is adequate, but to maintain, we would have to greatly widen 320th, which given how wide it already is, is not a viable option. Staff is researching alternatives, such as signal timing and freeway access on 320. Alternate Commissioner Murrietta asked if staff has considered a grade separation on 320th. Traffic Engineer Perez commented that staff has considered it. A grade separation would be very expensive and historically, the City Council has not supported the idea for financial and aesthetic reasons. KAPlanning Commission\201 MMeeting Summary 04- 15- 15.doc Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 April 15, 2015 Council Member Moore commented that the City Council has been working with staff on transportation and traffic issues. We are approaching the three year review of signalization recommended by WSDOT. Traffic patterns are constantly changing, so reviews and updates of signalization must be done to keep the traffic flowing efficiently. Commissioner Bronson commented that the city has no protected views. Director Morales replied that staff will be discussing view corridors in the new future, superficially from the proposed Town Center area. The city has spectacular views of Mt. Rainier from this area that should be protected. Commissioner Carlson commented that other properties near the City Center should be included in the protected view corridors. Planning Manager Conlen commented that view protection is difficult to address; a distinction should be drawn between protecting view from public property as opposed to private property because public property serves everyone. Commissioner Bronson disagrees, as a private owner; my view should also be protected. Alternate Commissioner Murrietta commented that if the intent is to have a downtown more like Bellevue's, then. we need to accept that there will be negative factors, such as traffic and blocked views. Director Morales commented that one of our goals is to reduce the percentage of people who leave Federal Way to work. There are a number of policy questions to be debated, such as how we get those mass job creators to come here. Commissioner Noble - Gulliford commented that the street network map matches one done many years ago; when will this map come to fruition and how will we pay for it. Traffic Engineer Perez commented that one difference from the past is the proposal to have 324' cross the freeway. He commented that the city needs to focus on providing grid streets and perhaps bring back the ring -road concept. We need to shift to completing projects. He is unsure where the funds will come from. In the past the city has sought funds from developments, now we have a traffic impact fee. One suggestion is to use the traffic impact fee to create grid streets. Chair Medhurst feels Sam Pace is correct with his request and asked if staff has worked on adding this information. Principal Planner Clark replied that staff will develop the language. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS Director Morales addressed the Commission regarding the stakeholders' process for the manufactured home parks issue. Staff expects this to be a difficult process, with each side standing their ground for either property rights or renter rights. Even so, the purpose is of the stakeholders is to find common ground and report back to the Commission. Staff does not feel it would be appropriate to have decision makers as part of this process. There will be representatives from home owners and park owners. Staff is researching homeowner rates in manufactured home parks. Chair Medhurst commented that Commissioners would like to hear the input even if only as observers and not participants. Director Morales will research this request. ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 9:32 p.m. KAPlanning Commission\201 SWeeting Summary 04- 15- 15.doc