Loading...
Planning Commission MINS 07-15-2015CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PLANNING COMMISSION July 15, 2015 City Hall 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers MEETING MINUTES Commissioners present: Lawson Bronson, Hope Elder, Wayne Carlson, Tim O'Neil, and Anthony Murrietta. Commissioner absent: Tom Medhurst, Diana Noble - Gulliford, and Sarady Long (all excused). 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 E. Tina Piety. CALL TO ORDER Vice -Chair Bronson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of May 20, 2015, were approved as presented. AUDIENCE COMMENT None ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT Planning Manager Conlen stated there will not be a Planning Commission meeting the first week of August (August 5, 2015). Staff plans to have the public hearing ready for the proposed amendments related to the Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) Nonconformance Chapter, 19.30 the second meeting of August (August 19, 2015), but it may not be until the first meeting in September (September 2, 2015). Manufactured Home Park Stakeholder Group Update — Director Morales delivered the update. The first meeting was held June 18. Staff has attempted to have a balance among participates (renters, owners, different parks). It was a successful meeting with respectful . discussion. There are issues that will not be agreed upon, but there is some common ground. It was agreed staff will research and prepare proposals. Discussed creating voluntary zoning in the city code where a park owner could choose the type of zoning. Discussed the financial implications of how property is assessed regardless of zoning and impacts on property owners. It is not the intent of the city to force a zoning change or meddle in financial affairs. The next meeting is scheduled for August. KAPIanning Commission\2015Weeting Summary 07- 15- 15.doc Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 July 15, 2015 COMMISSION BUSINESS Study Session — 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 the proposed amendments is to have a consistent policy direction, improve regulation clarity /usability, and have proportional conformance. Nonconformance refers to any use, structure, and /or activity that do not conform to any of the provisions of the FWRC. There are legal and nonlegal nonconformances. Legal nonconformances are those that were legal in the past and became nonconforming because of a change in the regulations. Illegal nonconformances are those that have never been legal. The proposed amendments deal with legal nonconformances and specifically the following: Policy 1: Nonconformance Uses Policy 2: Damaged Nonconforming Improvements/Uses Policy 3: Nonconforming Development Policy 4: Legal Nonconforming Lots This evening, staff is seeking the Commissioner's feedback regarding the proposed amendments. Staff will then develop a final staff report that will come back to the Commission for a public hearing. Commissioner O'Neil stated that as realtor, the issue of nonconforming lots is important to him. How many nonconforming lots are in the city? Associate Planner Wiloughby -Oakes replied that she does not know, but will find out. Commissioner O'Neil asked if it would be considered a "taking" if an owner cannot build on a lot because it has been determined to be nonconforming. Assistant City Attorney Orthmann replied that is one of the issues the proposed amendments will deal with. If the owner proposes to do what was on the lot when it was legal, that should be allowed. If the city does not allow what was done before the lot became nonconforming, that could be considered a "taking." Commissioner O'Neil asked how long a lot may be abandoned before the owner can longer do the nonconforming use. Director Morales commented that staff has been discussing this question. They are considering a commercial nonconforming path versus a residential path. Allowing a similar use could be advantageous on the commercial path, but maybe not on the residential path. Associate Planner Wiloughby -Oakes commented that staff is considering a set time (probably 12 months) for this situation; with provisions for the next owner to continue the legal nonconformance. Commissioner Carlson suggested the city continue to stay aggressive when dealing with nonconforming signs. He likes the proposed proportionality for structures; include a lower percentage for some. He suggests requiring a public hearing for more extensive changes. He encourages the city to be less strict on nonconforming uses and stricter on nonconforming structures; uses come and go often, but structures remain much longer. He commented that the city needs a baseline for structures so owners are not applying every year for a 25% change. Planning Manager Conlen commented that many codes are stricter on uses and less on structures because uses are more obvious and a bigger problem than structures. Commissioner Elder commented that she is concerned with future annexations. The city must take into account how the proposed amendments might affect possible future nonconformances. Alternate Commissioner Murrietta commented that he thinks the idea of commercial and residential paths is a good one. He likes the proposed square footage and agrees with the need for a baseline for structures. He requested definitions for ways a structure may be abandoned (i.e. foreclosure, etc.). K Tlanning Commission\201 SWeeting Summary 05- 20 -15. doc Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 July 15, 2015 Commissioner Bronson thanked the staff for their work. He asked if the nonconformance was tied to the cost of living index or to the assessed value. Associate Planner Wiloughby -Oakes replied the city is asking applicants for the assessed or appraised value. Planning Manager Conlen commented that the city wants to get away from the appraised concept. Commissioner Bronson commented that deconstruction can cost more than the original building. is staff taking this into consideration? Planning Manager Conlen commented that the current code uses 75% of valuation. For damaged structures, the proposed amendments would allow replacement of what existed before the damage. Commissioner Bronson asked if the owner would have to meet the current building code standards. Planning Manager Conlen replied that this chapter does not address the building code, but any building will need to meet current building code standards for life and safety issues. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS None ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 8:15 p.m. KAPlanning Commission\2015VOeeting Summary 05- 20- 15.doc