Loading...
Planning Commission PKT 10-07-2015City of Federal Way PLANNING COMMISSION October 7, 2015 City Hall 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers AGENDA 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES September 2, 2015 4. AUDIENCE COMMENT 5. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT • Manufactured Home Park Stakeholder Group Update 6. COMMISSION BUSINESS • Presentation by Telecare on Mental Health Facilities Proposed for Federal Way • PUBLIC HEARING Proposed Zoning & Development Code Amendments Related to Variance Procedures of the Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) 7. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS 8. ADJOURN Commissioners Tom Medhurst, Chair Lawson Bronson, Vice -Chair Hope Elder Wayne Carlson Tim O'Neil Sarady Long Diana Noble- Gulliford Anthony Murrietta, Alternate KAPIanning Commission\2015 \Agenda 10- 07- 15.doc City Starr Isaac Conlen, Planning Manager Margaret Clark, Principal Planner E. Tina Piety, Administrative Assistant 253 -835 -2601 www cityoffederalwavcom CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PLANNING COMMISSION September 2, 2015 City Hall 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers MEETING MINUTES Commissioners present: Tom Medhurst, Lawson Bronson, Hope Elder, Wayne Carlson, Sarady Long, Tim O'Neil, Diana Noble - Gulliford, and Anthony Murrietta. Commissioner absent: none. City Staff present: Community Development Director Michael Morales, Planning Manager Isaac Conlen, Associate Planner Leila Wiloughby- Oakes, Assistant City Attorney Mark Orthmann, and Administrative Assistant Tina Piety. CALL TO ORDER Chair Medhurst called the meeting to order; at 7 :C APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of July 15, 2015, were a AUDIENCE COMMENT None ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT None BUSINESS King County Countywide Planning Policies Proposed Amendment Planning Manager Conlen delivered the staff presentation. He went over the background and reason for the King County Countywide Planning Policies (CWPPs); the basic reason is to ensure consistency of planning among cities. The currently proposed amendment requires the city to work collaboratively with Federal Public Schools (FVVPS) to plan for adequate capacity for new school facilities. If there is a lack in the capacity, a plan to address this lack is required. The city currently works with FWPS to plan for school facilities and staff has no opposition to the proposed amendment. Commissioner O'Neil asked who makes the decision that there will be a new school, where it will be placed, and how much is the GMPC involved in this decision making? Planning Manager Conlen replied it is FWPS who makes the decision about whether their needs to be a new school and where it will be placed. The GMPC and King County do not get involved beyond formulating this proposed policy. Commissioner O'Neil asked why then are they proposing this policy if they do not get involved. Planning Manager Conlen commented he does not know why, but assumes there are a number of school districts (not Federal Way) that have had problems siting new facilities; hence this proposal. KAPIanning Commission\2015\Meeting Summary 09- 02- 15.doe Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 September 2, 2015 Commissioner Carlson commented that he feels that generally, this is a good policy. He asked if it will have any effect on bonds and impact fees. Planning Manager Conlen responded that he does not believe it is intended to have any impact on bonds and impact fees. Commissioner Bronson commented that he is concerned about what impact it will have on our staff to prepare reports to the GMPC. We are already understaffed. Planning Manager Conlen replied that he does not think it will have a large impact on staff. Since staff already works with FWPS on siting new schools, he expects the report will be a page long at the most. It is King County who will make the report, but he expects the city would have to report to the county if FWPS has any problems with siting facilities and how the city will address those problems, if any. Commissioner Noble - Gulliford commented that the people voted on classroom size, but since the state could not fund it, that petition was set aside. She is concerned about how this could affect the city. Assistant Attorney Orthmann replied the policy will not shift the burden from the state to the cities regarding classroom size. It just states the cities will work with school districts on siting facilities. Commissioner Colson moved (and it was seconded) to recommend the Mayor /City Council write a letter in support of the proposed King County Countywide Planning Policies Amendment. There was no further discussion. There was one no vote and six yes votes; the motion carried. Public Hearing — Proposed Amendments Related to the Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) Chapter 19.30, "Nonconformance" Associate Planner Leila Wiloughby -Oakes delivered the staff presentation. The purpose of this code amendment is to establish a consistent and intentional policy direction on how the city would like to deal with nonconforming uses, developments, and lots. In addition, the amendment will correct a number of problems with language in the chapter. Certain provisions are unclear, while others appear disproportionate to the impact being addressed or the work proposed. She went over the background, objectives, proposed changes, and recommendations. Proposed changes include definitions, nonconforming uses, nonconforming developments, and nonconforming lots. Staff has taken into considerations made by Planning Commissions at the July 15, 2015, Study Session. One result is that staff proposes that improvements for developments be allowed only once every 36 months. Site improvements will be required when a use ceases for 12 consecutive months. Commissioner Carlson commented that staff has done a good job responding to issues raised by the Commission. On page 2 of 14 of Exhibit A (19.30.03 -50), it speaks to abatement of an illegal nonconformance. Could you give some examples of when it would have been a legal nonconformance? Planning Manager Conlen commented that this is a complicated issue. The nonconformance started out as illegal, became conforming, and due to a change (perhaps to zoning) is again nonconforming. Commissioner Carlson is not in favor of this section. Just because it started out illegal and was legal at one point is no reason to not have it brought into conformance it if is currently illegal. Commissioner Long asked when does the 36 months start (19.30.090[a]); at the completion of an application or when the permit is issued. If it is at the completion of an application, it can take years for a project to be approved and a permit issued. Additional conversation was held between Commissioners and staff about when the 36 months should start. Chair Medhurst commented that one problem he sees with the 36 month regulation is if a developer comes in with a long -term plan (say making changes gradually over 10 years), this regulation would mean they could only make the changes once every 36 months. Planning Manager Conlen replied that could be an issue, but rare, and we need to have some trigger to bring a site into conformance. Chair Medhurst asked for clarification, when the developer comes back in 36 months, can they use the new footage as a starting point. Planning Manager Conlen replied yes, they can. KAPlanning Commission \2015Wee[ing Summary 09 -02- 15.doc Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 September 2, 2015 Commissioner Noble - Gulliford asked when the proposed amendments refer to bringing a site into conformance after a site has been vacant for 12 months, does it apply to the whole property (including landscaping, parking, etc.), or just the building. Planning Manager Conlen replied that the entire site must be brought into conformance. Chair Medhurst asked how a lot can be nonconforming if I am not doing anything with it. Associate Planner Wiloughby -Oakes replied that if the lot does not meet the zoned lot size, it would be nonconforming. Further discussion was held on this issue. Commissioner Carlson stated he is confused with the difference between a legal and illegal nonconforming lot. Planning Manager Conlen commented that an illegal nonconforming lot would not have been created by a recognized way of creating a lot. Commissioner Carlson moved (and it was seconded) to recommended adoption of the proposed amendments with the clarification that the 36 -month time period (when appropriate where ever it appears in the proposed amendments) start after a building permit is issued. Commissioner Bronson moved to amend (and it was seconded) that 19.30.090(a) shall state, "...within any consecutive 36 -month time period, the starting point of which shall be the completion for the building permit application; or." After discussion of the amendment, it was decided it would be easier if staff crafted the language, including the intent of the main motion that the 36 -month time period start after a building permit is issued. Commissioner Bronson withdrew his amendment. The vote was held and the motion carried unanimously. Hearing no objections, the public hearing was closed. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS None ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 8:40 p.m. KAPlanning Commission\2015Weeting Summary 09- 02.15.doc PLANNING COMMISSION MEMORANDUM To: Tom Medhurst, Chair of the Federal Way Planning Commission VIA: Michael A. Morales, Community Development Director FROM: Matthew Herrera, AICP, Senior Planner Isaac Conlen, Planning Manager DATE: September 30, 2015 SUBJECT: Zoning and Development Code Text Amendments Related to Variance Procedures HEARING DATE: October 7, 2015 A. POLICY QUESTION Should the City allow an administrative process for variances to provisions of the zoning and development code? B. MAYOR'S RECOMMENDATION The Mayor recommends allowing administrative variances in limited circumstances by allowing up to 25 percent relief to zoning code requirements such as setbacks, lot coverage, lot size, and height. C. ATTACHMENTS Exhibit A — Proposed Text Amendments to Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) Title 19, "Zoning and Development Code" Exhibit B — Jurisdictional Comparisons Exhibit C — Stakeholder Group Notification D. SUMMARY This city- initiated proposal is an effort to streamline decision - making procedures in the zoning code and reduce costs associated with the use of the city's third party Hearing Examiner. Current review procedures require all variances to zoning regulations be issued by the city's contracted Hearing Examiner. The Hearing Examiner presides over a public hearing on the variance and then is allowed 10- working days following the hearing to issue a written decision. Planning Commission Staff Report October 7, 2015 Variance Procedures Text Amendment Page I The Mayor's recommendation allows administrative variances issued by the Community Development Director for variances of up to 25 percent from code requirements. The result of this text amendment would provide timelier decision - making and reduced costs for the city, while preserving the ability for public hearings presided over by the Hearing Examiner for significant variances or if an administrative variance decision is appealed. E. ANALYSIS OF RECOMMENDATION Current Practice Cities that administer zoning regulations provide a mechanism to allow relief from those regulations when they cause an undue hardship or the inability for a property owner to build improvements that are typical for that property. The City of Federal Way administers this relief by way of a variance. The city may grant a variance if all of the following four criteria can be met: 1. That the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon uses of other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the subject property is located. 2. That the variance is necessary because of special circumstances relating to the size, shape, topography, location or surroundings of the subject property to provide it with use rights and privileges permitted to other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the subject property is located. 3. That the granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare, or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which the subject property is located. 4. That the special circumstances of the subject property are not the result of the actions of the owner of the subject property. The city's permitting database indicates that most variance applications have been associated with single - family residential improvements. Examples of variances that have been granted are instances related to lot coverage,' setbacks, lot size, and height. The current process to review variances is for staff to review the application and then provide an analysis and recommendation for approval or denial to the city's contracted Hearing Examiner. A public hearing is then scheduled where the Hearing Examiner presides and hears testimony. Following the hearing, the examiner is allowed 10- working days to issue a decision. Changes The purpose of this text amendment is to allow an administrative decision by the Community Development Director for variance applications that request up to 25 percent relief of code requirements. All variance applications that exceed the above - referenced thresholds would remain Hearing Examiner decisions. This text amendment does not propose to amend any substantive decision - making criteria. If approved as presented, the text amendment only changes the decision - maker for those applications that are below the aforementioned thresholds. 1 Lot coverage is the amount of impervious surfaces the are allowed on a property. Planning Commission Staff Report October 7, 2015 Variance Procedures Text Amendment Page 2 The Community Development Department requested this item for Planning Commission consideration as a streamline and cost - saving measure. Processing time for applications that require a public hearing and Hearing Examiner decision is longer than administrative decisions, which are issued by the Community Development Director. This is due to additional noticing requirements, scheduling the public hearing with the Hearing Examiner, and the standard 10- working day allowance provided to the examiner to issue the decision following the hearing. Additionally, the cost for public hearings is considerable. Staff resources to review and provide a recommendation along with the hourly rate and reimbursable for the Hearing Examiner to preside over the hearing and then issue a decision can exceed the permit fee the city takes in for a variance. The text amendment would allow an applicant to receive a decision on a variance application in a shorter time period with a cost savings to the city. Also, the proposal requires similar public notice requirements as the public hearing requires. The ability for citizens and neighbors to provide comments to the decision -maker for an administrative variance would remain under the proposed amendments. Existing public hearing and Hearing Examiner decision requirements would continue for significant variance requests (those over the thresholds) and any variance that is appealed. Providing a procedure for administrative variances is typical for local jurisdictions. As provided in the attached South King County City Comparison, five of the six surveyed cities provide administrative variances, with Renton and Burien processing all variances administratively. F. PROCEDURAL SUMMARY The proposed text amendment is a procedural amendment to the zoning and development code and therefore exempt from an environmental threshold determination pursuant to State Environmental Policy Act Rules 197- 11- 800(19)(a). Public notice of the Planning Commission hearing was published in the Federal Way Mirror and posted on the city designated bulletin boards September 18, 2015. This staff report was issued on September 30, 2015, and emailed to members of the Planning Commission and department stakeholders. G. BASIS FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION FWRC Title 19, "Zoning and Development Code," Chapter 19.80, "Process VI Review," establishes a process and criteria for development regulation amendments. Consistent with Process VI review, the role of the Planning Commission is as follows: 1. To review and evaluate the proposed development regulation amendments. 2. To determine whether the proposed development regulation amendment meets the criteria provided by FWRC 19.80.130 (item H below). 3. To forward a recommendation to City Council regarding adoption of the proposed development regulation amendment. Planning Commission Staff Report October 7, 2015 Variance Procedures Text Amendment Page 3 H. DECISIONAL CRITERIA FWRC 19.80.130 provides criteria for development regulation amendments. The following section analyzes the compliance of the proposed amendments with the criteria provided by FWRC 19.80.130. The city may amend the text of the FWRC only, if it finds that: 1. The proposed amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan. Staff Response — The proposed code amendment is consistent with the following goals and policies: LUG 2 —Develop an efficient and timely development review process based on a public /private partnership. LUP4 — Maximize efficiency of the development review process LUP6 — Conduct regular reviews of development regulations to determine how to improve upon the permit review process. EDP2 — Periodically monitor local and regional trends to be able to adjust plans, policies and programs. 2. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relationship to public health, safety, or welfare. Staff Response — The proposed code amendment bears a substantial relationship to public welfare as it provides timely decision- making for applicants that may have a unique hardship in developing a particular property. 3. The proposed amendment is in the best interest of the residents of the city. Staff Response — The proposed code amendment is in the best interest of the city as it streamlines decision - making and reduces costs. I. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION The Mayor recommends allowing administrative variances for up to 25 percent relief from code requirements as shown in Exhibit A. Consistent with the provisions of FWRC 19.80.240; the Planning Commission may take the following actions regarding the proposed development regulation amendments: 1. Recommend to City Council adoption of the FWRC text amendments as proposed; 2. Modify the proposed FWRC text amendments and recommend to City Council adoption of the FWRC text amendments as modified; 3. Recommend to City Council that the proposed FWRC text amendments not be adopted; or 4. Forward the proposed FWRC text amendments to City Council without a recommendation. Planning Commission Staff Report October 7, 2015 Variance Procedures Text Amendment Page 4 Exhibit A Chapter 19.45 Variances Sections: 19.45.010 Procedure generally. 19.45.015 Administrative variance. 19.45.020 Application information. 19.45.030 Criteria for grant. 19.45.040 Denial. 19.45.010 Procedure generally. The city will use process IV, Chapter 19.70 FWRC, to review and decide upon an application for a variance..., with the exception of an administrative variance pursuant to FWRC 19.45.015 where the city will use process III, Chapter 19.65 FWRC. (Ord. No. 97 -291, § 3, 4 -1 -97; Ord. No. 90 -43, § 2(120.10), 2- 27 -90. Code 2001 § 22 -196.) 19.45.015 Administrative variance The community development director mqy grant a variance that does not exceed 25 percent of the measurable standard. 19.45.020 Application information. In addition to the application materials required in Chapter 19.65 FWRC or Chapter 19.70 FWRC, the applicant shall submit a completed application on the form provided by the depaftfneR4 of community development department, along with all of the information listed on that form. (Ord. No. 90 -43, § 2(120.15),2-27-90. Code 2001 § 22 -197.) 19.45.030 Criteria for grant. The city may grant the variance only if it finds all of the following: (1) That the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon uses of other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the subject property is located. (2) That the variance is necessary because of special circumstances relating to the size, shape, topography, location or surroundings of the subject property to provide it with use rights and privileges permitted to other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the subject property is located. (3) That the granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which the subject property is located. (4) That the special circumstances of the subject property are not the result of the actions of the owner of the subject property. (Ord. No. 90 -43, § 2(120.20),2-27-90. Code 2001 § 22 -198.) 19.45.040 Denial. The city may grant a variance to any of the provisions of this title except: (1) The city may not grant a variance to any provision establishing the uses that are permitted to locate or that may continue to operate in any zone; (2) The city may not grant a variance to any of the provisions of this chapter; (3) The city may not grant a variance to any of the procedural provisions of this title; and (4) The city may not grant a variance to any provision that specifically states that its requirements are not subject to variance. (Ord. No. 90 -43, § 2(120.25),2-27-90. Code 2001 § 22 -199.) Planning Commission Staff Report October 7, 2015 Variance Procedures Text Amendment Page 5 Exhibit B South King County City Comparison City Code Citation Administrative Terms Federal Way 19.45.010 No All variances require Hearing Examiner decision. 25 % maximum for setbacks, lot coverage, lot width, and Auburn 18.70.015 Yes lot area. 50% for height. All others granted by Hearing Examiner. Des Moines 18.35.070 No Hearing Examiner grants all variances. Burien 18.65.085 Yes All variances administrative 25% maximum for setbacks, Kent 15.09.042 Yes lot coverage, and building height. All others granted by the Hearing Examiner. All variances administrative, Renton 4 -9 -250 Yes unless underlying permit requires Hearing Examiner decision. 20% maximum. Variances for height, aesthetics, equipment enclosure, PWSF Sea -Tac 15.22.020 Yes freestanding pole height, and all other regulations over the 20% threshold require Hearing Examiner decision. Planning Commission Staff Report October 7, 2015 Variance Procedures Text Amendment Page 6 Exhibit C Stakeholder Group Notification Name Affiliation E -Mail Alex Wilford Master Builders Association awilford@mbaks.com Bill McCaffrey WJM Studio wimccaffreygcomcast.net Bob Cooper Lloyd Enterprises bobcAlloydenterprisesinc.com Bob Roper Citizen bob.roper@comcast.net Chad Weiser OTAK chad.weiser@otak.com Chris Ingham South King Fire & Rescue chris.in h� am @southkin fip re.org Cynthia Stanley Lee The Commons clee@tcafw.com Dale A Roper The Roper Company ro erp dale@aol.com Dave Thorstad Developer dltarchitect(d�comcast.net Gareth Roe BCRA groegbcradesign com Gil Hulsmann Abbey Road Group gil.hulsmann@abbeyroadgroup.com Gordon Goodsell South King Fire & Rescue or�don oodsell@southkin fig re.org Jeff Greene Greene Gassaway jeffggarch@seanet.com Jennifer Dovey Windermere jsdovey@windermere.com John Bowman Lakehaven Utility District ibowman@lakehaveg.org Mark Clirehugh GVA, Kidder, Mathews, Segner markckgyakm.com Mark Freitas Developer markfccimgcs.com Mike Bailey LDG Architects mike ,ldgarchitects.com Monte Powell Powell Homes monte@,powell- homes.com Peter Townsend Citizen petert8kme.com Rebecca Martin Federal Way Chamber rmartingfederalwaychamber .com Rod Leland Federal Way Public Schools rleland(a fwsd.wednet.edu Sam Pace Sea/KC Association of Realtors sampacegconcentric.net Tom Barghausen Barghausen Consulting Engineering tbarghausengbarghausen.com Planning Commission Staff Report October 7, 2015 Variance Procedures Text Amendment Page 7