Loading...
Planning Commission MINS 09-02-2015CITY 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 t4urrietta. 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 Qrder at 7,:00 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of July 15, 2015, were approved as presented. AUDIENCE COMMENT None ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT None COMMISSION 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 (FWPS) 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. K APlanning Commission\2015Wee[ing Summary 09- 02- 15.doc 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. K.Planning Commission\201 SWeeting 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 started 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`bu ldiiig 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. KAPIanning Commission\2015Weeting Summary 09- 02- 15.doc