The URL can be used to link to this page

Planning Commission PKT 11-15-2017City of Federal Way PLANNING COMMISSION November 15, 2017 City Hall 6:30 p.m. Council Chambers Commissioners Lawson Bronson, Chair Hope Elder Tim O'Neil Dawn Meader McCausland Dale Couture, Alternate AGENDA 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES September 20, 2017, October 18, 2017, October 25, 2017 4. AUDIENCE COMMENT — UNRELATED To HEARING 5. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT 6. COMMISSION BUSINESS • Public Hearing Proposed Amendments Related to FWRC Title 19 to Add Small Scale Wineries, Breweries, and Distilleries 7. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS 8. ADJOURN Tom Medhurst, Vice -Chair Wayne Carlson Diana Noble-Gulliford Anthony Murrietta, Alternate KAPlanning Commission\2017\Agenda 11-15-17.doc City Staff Robert "Doc" Hansen, Planning Manager Margaret Clark, Principal Planner E. Tina Piety, Administrative Assistant 253-835-2601 w1vw.ci0,ofedera1way.conn CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PLANNING COMMISSION September 20, 2017 City Hall 6:30 p.m. City Council Chambers MEETING MINUTES Commissioners present: Lawson Bronson, Tom Medhurst Wayne Carlson, Diana Noble-Gulliford, Tim O'Neil, Dawn Meader McCausland, and Dale Couture. Commissioners absent: Hope Elder, Anthony Murrietta (ex). City Staff present: Planning Manager Robert "Doc" Hansen, Deputy City Attorney Mark Orthmann, and Administrative Assistant Tina Piety. CALL TO ORDER Chair Bronson called the meeting to order at 6:30 P.M. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of September 6, 2017, were approved as presented. AUDIENCE COMMENT None ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT None COMMISSION BUSINESS Public Hearing — Proposed Amendments to FWRC Title 19 for Code Clarification and Use Tables Planning Manager Hansen delivered the staff report. He commented that there are a number of additions and corrections to the staff report that he will point out as they are appropriate. There are ten different amendments. They will go before the Land Use/Transportation Committee on October 7th and to City Council for first reading on October 17th and second reading on November 6th (becoming effective November 15th). The proposed amendments involve a number of sections of the code and are intended to clarify past interpretations. In addition, staff (at the direction of the City Council) is proposing a new land use within the Suburban Estates (SE) zone. Planning Manager Hansen went over each of the proposed amendments. Proposal #1 is intended to clarify the requirement of public notice board locations. After further research, city staff determined that the proposal is confusing and current code is able to address the issue; therefore, an amendment is not needed. KTIanning Commission\2016Weeting Summary 09-20-17.doc Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 September 20, 2017 Chair Bronson opened the public testimony. H. David Kaplan — He commented regarding micro -wineries; has the city staff talked to the owner of Abbe Vineyard? Do the definitions and regulations fit what they are doing at Abbe Vineyard and what they want to do in the future? He encouraged city staff talk to the owner of Abbe Vineyard. Chair Bronson closed the public testimony. Commissioner O'Neil asked in regards to request #3 and requiring landscaping for buildings that do not meet the property boundary, at what point will this be required. If I change the landscaping, will I have to follow this regulation? Planning Manager Hansen replied the requirement is for new and redeveloped structures. Commissioner O'Neil asked what if my landscaping is in conflict with fire requirements. Planning Manager Hansen replied that would require a director's decision. Commissioner O'Neil asked why not allow distilleries in an addition to micro -breweries. Planning Manager Hansen replied that the proposed amendment is intended to take advantage of small operations and distilleries are not small enterprises. It can be hard to determine what a micro -distillery is. Commissioner O'Neil commented that he feels the city is missing out on possible business opportunities by not allowing distilleries. Commissioner Meader McCausland asked if micro -breweries will be allowed in other zones. Planning Manager Hansen stated that currently through this proposed amendment, they will be allowed only in the Suburban Estates (SE) zone. Staff can later evaluate allowing them in other zones. Commissioner Meader McCausland expressed concern that they are classified as urban agriculture. What if they are only bottling or testing and are not growing grapes on the property? She feels this classification may be too restrictive and suggests changing or striking it. She is also concerned that classifying them as home occupations will also be too restrictive. In particular, limiting the number of visitors to the site. What if they need more than one delivery per day? What if they do not want to live on the site? She is concerned that city is too restrictive on areas that will not have damaging impacts. Further discussion on these issues was held. Commissioner Carlson commented that he does not feel comfortable adopting the proposed amendments tonight because of the number of changes and suggestions made by staff. Also, he would like to know what other jurisdictions are doing in regards to wineries. He feels the general direction is good. In regards to request #3 and allowing a certified landscaper to complete landscape plans, if the city is striving for higher design, the city should not make this change and should remove certified landscaper from places they are allowed and allow only landscape architects to complete landscape plans. In regards to request #2 and removing grid pavers, he feels exception #2(a) regarding wood decks should also be removed. He also suggests that permeable pavement be included. Commissioner Noble-Gulliford commented that she has received a number of inquiries about allowing wineries. She would like to broaden the zoning now rather than having to revisit the topic. She feels they should be allowed in all zones except residential zones. She believes they will attract tourism and additional business and does not want Federal Way to "miss the boat." Vice -Chair Medhurst agrees with what has been said. He feels the proposed regulations for the proposed wineries zoning are putting up barriers before we even start. He feels that if the streets can support the traffic, then it should be allowed. KAPIanning Commission\2016Weeting Summary 09-20-17.doc Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 September 20, 2017 Commissioner Carlson moved to recommend the proposed code amendments as presented and corrected by staff in their presentation on September 20, 2017, with the exception of FWRC 19.65.070, to the regular Land Use/Transportation Committee meeting. The motion includes FWRC 19.11.010,.020(2)(c), and delete 2(a) under 19.11.020 related to wood deck and its calculation of impervious surface as it is covered in the King County Stormwater Design Manual. The motion also includes everything that staff is proposing as corrected in Exhibit C, FWRC 19.125.030, 19.125.035, 19.125.040, 19.125.170, and .180; everything in Exhibit D, FWRC 19.135.100 section 2, FWRC 19.135.130 section 2; omitting in its entirety the contents of Exhibit E with direction to staff for additional study; including all of the contents in Exhibits F and G. Commissioner Meader McCausland seconded. Deputy City Attorney Orthmann commented that he may be able to draft a motion that would be easier for the record. In light of this, Commissioner Carlson withdrew his motion. Commissioner Carlson moved to recommend the proposed code amendments as presented and corrected by city staff on September 20, 2017, that are included within Exhibit C of the staff report to the regular Land Use/Transportation Committee meeting. Commissioner O'Neil seconded. There was no further discussion. The motion carried unanimously. Commissioner Carlson moved to recommend the proposed code amendments as presented and corrected by city staff in its presentation on September 20, 2017, that are included within Exhibit D of the staff report to the regular Land Use/Transportation Committee meeting. Commissioner O'Neil seconded. There was no further discussion. The motion carried unanimously. Commissioner Carlson moved to recommend the proposed code amendments as presented and corrected by city staff in its presentation on September 20, 2017, that are included within Exhibit F of the staff report to the regular Land Use/Transportation Committee meeting. Commissioner O'Neil seconded. There was no further discussion. The motion carried unanimously. Commissioner Carlson moved to recommend the proposed code amendments as presented and corrected by city staff in its presentation on September 20, 2017, that are included within Exhibit G of the staff report to the regular Land Use/Transportation Committee meeting. Commissioner O'Neil seconded. There was no further discussion. The motion carried unanimously. Commissioner Carlson moved to recommend the proposed code amendments as presented and corrected by city staff in its presentation on September 20, 2017, that are included within Exhibit B of the staff report to the regular Land Use/Transportation Committee meeting with one additional revision to remove 19.110.020(2)(a) related to a wood deck as it is covered under the King County Stormwater Manual. Commissioner O'Neil seconded. There was no further discussion. The motion carried unanimously. Commissioner Carlson moved to direct staff to further explore the allowance of breweries and wineries not just in SE zoning but in other zoning districts and provide support for the various criteria. Commisison Noble-Gulliford seconded. Commissioner O'Neil moved to amend the motion to include distilleries. Commissioner Carlson seconded. Deputy City Attorney Orthmann commented this motion is likely to become complicated with a number of amendments made by Commissioners to express the issues they feel it is important that staff includes in their exploration and drafting proposed amendments. He feels the Commissioners could simply let staff know their concerns. Staff will consider the concerns brought forth in this evening's meeting on the topic. Commissioner O'Neil withdrew his amendment and Commissioner Carlson withdrew his motion. Commissioner Carlson moved to direct staff to further study the issues and identified in Exhibit E of the staff report and return to the Planning Commission at a future date. Commissioner O'Neil seconded. There was no further discussion. The motion carried unanimously. KAPIanning Commission\2016Weeting Summary 09-20-17.doc Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 September 20, 2017 Commissioner Carlson moved to not recommend forwarding the proposed code amendments as presented by city staff in its presentation on September 20, 2017, that are included within Exhibit A of the staff report. Commissioner O'Neil seconded. There was no further discussion. The motion carried unanimously. Chair Bronson closed the public hearing. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS None ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 8:20 P.M. KAPlanning Commission\2016\Meeting Summary 09-20-17.doc CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PLANNING COMMISSION October 18, 2017 City Hall 6:30 p.m. City Council Chambers MEETING MINUTES Commissioners present: Lawson Bronson, Wayne Carlson, Diana Noble-Gulliford, Tim O'Neil, Dawn Meader McCausland, and Dale Couture. Commissioners absent: Tom Medhurst (ex), Hope Elder (ex), Anthony Murrietta (ex). City Staff present: Planning Manager Robert "Doc" Hansen, Deputy City Attorney Mark Orthmann, and Administrative Assistant Tina Piety. CALL TO ORDER Chair Bronson called the meeting to order at 6:30 P.M. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes are unavailable. AUDIENCE COMMENT None ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT Deputy City Attorney Orthmann informed the Commission that staff have a few issues that they want to consider in regards to tonight's public hearing on the proposed Federal Way Comprehensive Plan (FWCP) amendments. He requested the Commission consider canceling the FWCP public hearing and staff will bring the issue back as appropriate. In addition, in regards to the second hearing on the Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) amendments, it also is not ready. He asked the Commission to consider postpoing the FWRC amendments to November 15t1i Planning Manager Hansen reported on the City Council's public hearing on the self-strorage moratorium. Currently, the city has five vested applications; four have building permits and one is in land use review. COMMISSION BUSINESS Commissioner Noble-Gulliford moved to concel the FWCP public hearing. Commissioner Carlson seconded. There was no futher discussion and the motion carried uninamously. Chair Bronson asked if there were any opjections to postponing the FWRC amendments public hearing to November 15, 2017. Hearing no objections, the FWRC amendments public hearing is postponed to November 15, 2017. KAPIanning Commission\2016Weeting Summary 10-18-17.doe Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 October 18, 2017 Public Hearing — Proposed Amendment to FWCP Chapter 3, Transportation Element, Table III -10 Public Hearing — Proposed Amendments to FWRC Title 19 for Code Clarification and Use Tables ADDITIONAL BUSINESS Planning Manager Hansen announced there will be a Planning Commission Special Meeting next Wednesday, October 25, 2015. There was some discussion about the Planners Short Course that was attended by some of the Commissioners. ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 6:45 P.M. KAPlanning Commission\2016Weeting Summary 10-18-17, doc CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PLANNING COMMISSION Special Meeting October 25, 2017 City Hall 6:30 p.m. City Council Chambers FM MEETING MINUTES Commissioners present: Lawson Bronson, Hope Elder, Wayne Carlson, Diana Noble-Gulliford, Dawn Meader McCausland, and Dale Couture. Commissioners absent: Tom Medhurst (ex), Tim O'Neil (ex), and Anthony Murrietta (ex). City Staff present: Community Development Director Brian Davis, Planning Manager Robert "Doc" Hansen, Principal Planner Margaret Clark, Traffic Engineer Rick Perez, Deputy City Attorney Mark Orthmann, and Administrative Assistant Tina Piety. CALL TO ORDER Chair Bronson called the meeting to order at 6:30 P.M. Commissioners were asked if they had any ex -parte communication regarding the topic of the public hearing. Commissioner Noble-Gulliford stated she has spoken to Mark Freitas (an applicant), but the communication was general in nature. She has also spoken with Julie Cleary (an applicant) and Suzanne Tone, but it was also general in nature. Chair Bronson stated he knows Mark Freitas, but they have not spoken about this issue. Chair Bronson asked if there was any objection to the Commissioners in question participating in the public hearing. Hearing none, Chair Bronson and Commissioner Noble-Gulliford will participate in the hearing. COMMISSION BUSINESS Public Hearing — 2017 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Chair Bronson opened the public hearing. Principal Planner Clark delivered the staff presentation. There are nine site-specific rezoning requests. She went over each of the site specific requests. Chair Bronson opened the public testimony. Loren Neighbors — He owns property in the Milton Road area where six property owners (requests 4 — 9) have requested a rezone. He and his wife are opposed to rezoning in this area. He had property in Brittany Lane/Regency Woods that was one of the buffer lots. He sold that property and moved to his current property. He stated that buffer lots were required when Brittany Lane/ Regency Woods were built. They were required because of the lots next door. He told Ms. Clark that he would be interested in rezoning as well, but only if the other rezones are adopted. If they are adopted, he intends to sell his lot and move out of the area. Mark Spaur — He lives in one of the buffer properties between the requested rezone properties and Regency Woods. His remarks are about the SEPA process and is opposed to requests 4 — 9. He provided written comments and they are attached. He requests the city revise the SEPA checklist to conform to the guidance of the state. He also requests the city to consider the following if the rezone for requests 4 — 9 is granted: Planning Commission Minutes Page 1 of 7 October 25, 2017 "1. Make a study on the impact to Hylebos Creek Basin and Conservation flow control Area. Estimate the increase in impervious surfaces that would be constructed with the height density single family housing and road improvements that would be required for high density housing development and project the impact stream flow quantity and quality in a watershed that supports endangered Salmon. "2. Complete a projection of the road and traffic improvements that would be needed to accommodate the 200 or more homes that could be built with this zoning change beyond what is included in the report to the commission including a concurrency study." Roger von Doenhoff — He lives south of requests 4 — 9. He questions the logic of the SEPA process. Looking through the checklist, he noted most of the answers state this is a non -project action and the analysis is deferred until a project is proposed. He takes that to mean that the city will not have information to perform an analysis until a project is proposed. However, if more houses are placed on these properties that will have obvious impacts and some analysis can be done. It is his understanding that approval of the checklist means developers can move forward and apply to build houses on the lots at a higher density. At that point, the city would do a SEPA review on the impacts of the project, but what happens if the SEPA review shows that the high-density project has too many negative environmental impacts to be allowed, when the rezone SEPA said a high-density project could be done. It doesn't make sense to him to approve the up -zone without more analysis. He does recognize that the city would require mitigations to deal with the environmental impacts. It seems the process is set up to always approve any up -zone requests, since no analysis is done during the SEPA review. This area is acknowledged in the comprehensive plan as one of two of the most ecologically sensitive areas in Federal Way, but that doesn't seem to matter. He read the introduction to section 2.7 of the comprehensive plan. He requests that site-specific requests 4 — 9 not be approved. In regards to 376th, there was a right-of-way through his property that was established in 1933. They got it vacated last year. The right-of-way was supposed to be used within five years of establishment. Since it was not, they were granted the vacation. Bob Coleman — He lives on South 376th Street. His concern is about the rezone requests, but he is more concerned that the comprehensive plan shows South 376th as a minor collector. How did we get to the point that the "punch -through" is already shown on the city's map? The effect will be to link a major arterial (Highway 16 1) to Milton Road (listed as a minor arterial). Anything north and south of 1-5 is an escape route for the public heading home. This would add to that and cause all kinds of problems for people in the area. He asked that the city does not take steps to punch through 376`'. Alex Ray — He wants to see the city grow. He supports rezoning requests 4 — 9. Everyone needs a place to live. The added property taxes from rezoning will help fund school rebuilding and infrastructure improvement. The new houses will create jobs for construction tradesmen in Federal Way. Furthermore, it will produce more revenue for our local businesses. The need for housing is greater than ever before and we need these houses for our future. In regards to the buffer zone, he feels it is time to change. Edith Neether — She is one of the applicants for requests 4 — 9 and spoke in favor of the rezones. She and her husband have lived in this area since 1968. The Regency Woods and Brittany Lane areas used to be woods and a playground for their children. She spoke of all the growth she has seen in the area. On Milton Road, they now get traffic that goes to Milton, Fife, East Tacoma, and Puyallup. Brittany Lane and Regency Woods have their own roads with lights. When she wants to get out of her driveway in the afternoon, she has to wait for some 17 to 20 cars before she can pull out. There are more people moving to the area and they need housing. They pay high taxes on the buffer zone property. She doesn't understand why the city disapproves of more housing that will bring in taxes. Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 7 October 25, 2017 Suzanne Vargo — She spoke in opposition of rezone requests 4 — 9. She spoke about the Hylebos and its importance to our environment and health. This would mean a build -out of the upper level of the east branch that connects the Hylebos to the highly sensitive areas at Spring Valley. Connectivity is the key to our watershed and our watershed trumps everything. It is our survival. She named a number of environmental reports for the area that state a number of recommendations must be in place in the area to ensure the longevity and functionality of the Hylebos. She stated the city staff and council have not taken these reports and recommendations into consideration. She encouraged the staff, commission, and council to take these documents into consideration. Allowing high density building in this area would likely be the end of the Hylebos. Our city should accept this diverse land and work within its limitations. She asked that the significant tree ratio be in place if the rezone requests are granted. Trees are necessary for our survival. Removing trees will have immediate and detrimental effects on the Hylebos. Erosion and sedimentation pollution will greatly affect the salmon habitat. She asks that the council reject these rezone requests (4 — 9, and Campbell request) and concentrate on preserving our sensitive areas and encouraging community stewardship. Julie Cleary — She stated that Indian tribes do not reply within 30 days. They meet irregularly and must meet to make decisions. She noted that on the King County parcel viewer, the Lloyd's Sand and Gravel Pit is zoned multifamily. The Milton comprehensive plan has the area zoned PD (planned district), but she does not know the specifics, other than they have some kind of plan. The area should be studied as a whole. There needs to be a lot more study of the area. Milton's 2020 Vision talks about a possible interchange in the area (in coordination with Federal Way). Sandra Kramer — She lives in Snohomish, but is a partial owner of one of the parcels that is part of requests 4 — 9. She has watched the development in her neighborhood and has seen the need for a well thought out comprehensive plan to address the issues. Development in the area is inevitable, but she assumes there will be a thoughtful comprehensive plan process. She supports the requested rezones. Nick Semenyuk —He lives on 372nd Street and is owner of one of the parcels that is part of requests 4 — 9. He spoke in favor of the rezones. His concern is that with parcels spread so far apart, there is high crime in the area. Not long ago, when his wife was home alone, she heard a noise; it turned out to be someone was trying to break in. Neighbor cannot see neighbor. His mailbox is vandalized on a regular basis. It is nice to have a large lot with room. But we live in the 21St Century. Lifestyle has changed. People will have to travel less to work, which will decrease traffic. Arnold Ellingson — He is the owner of one of the parcels that is part of requests 4 — 9. He knows all of those in the rezone. He stated that 376th was supposed to go through when the retirement center went in, and he doesn't know why it didn't happen. He has owned 13 acres in the area since 1990. Most of the owners are older and want to sell their property and move on. He noted that Lloyd's is up for sale and they plan to build a 20 acre building. They will redo the road all the way through Milton. It has already been surveyed. There will be a light at 376th. Richard Beard — He is also an owner of one of the parcels that is part of requests 4 — 9. He feels it is ironic that people are voicing their opinions in the negative. He feels that if someone had given them the opportunity 25 years ago to develop the neighborhood they live in, they would have taken it. There is a large demand for housing in the area. There are some six subdivisions going up in Milton and Edgewood. There is one on the west side of Edgewood that is almost completed and he expects it will increase the traffic in their neighborhood. With Lloyd's developing there will be even more traffic. With the bend in Milton, every couple of months there is an accident there. He feels it needs to be straightened. He wants others to be able to enjoy the lifestyle he has; close to the city with easy access to the freeway. He asks the rezone requests be granted. Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 7 October 25, 2017 Pam Otteson — She is an owner of one of the parcels that is part of requests 4 — 9 and spoke in favor of the rezones. She has lived in the area her whole life. She stated that they used to ride horses throughout the area. Their property doesn't touch the Hylebos. This is not Spring Valley; that is on the other side of the freeway. The bottom line is people need a place to live and we want to give it to them. Commissioner Elder asked Traffic Engineer Perez to inform the Commission about the plans for the 376th extension. Traffic Engineer Perez explained that the 376th extension has been in the area's comprehensive plan from before the city incorporated. Connectivity is the reason. Our comprehensive plan states that with urban density, one should have a collector street about every quarter to half mile. The extension for 376"' is still in our comprehensive plan on the assumption it will eventually be needed. Commissioner Noble-Gulliford stated that a couple of speakers addressed concerns regarding the SEPA checklist and it not being applied as they felt it should be. When the city does a comprehensive plan update or revision they usually do an environmental impact statement (EIS). How does staff decide whether or not to do an EIS? Principal Planner Clark replied that the city has not done an EIS on the comprehensive plan since the original one in 1995. The Department of Commerce has not told the city we are doing the checklist inappropriately. The city is consistent with other jurisdiction on the use of the SEPA checklist. Commissioner Noble-Gulliford asked what was done for the city center? Principal Planner Clark replied that was a planned action SEPA, which is different. All the impacts are analyzed up -front, so when a proposal comes in that complies with the planned action SEPA; it does not have to go through a full SEPA review. Commissioner Noble-Gulliford isn't that what the owners in the requests 4 — 9 area are asking for? Planning Manager Hansen commented that there are a lot of alternatives that can occur. But these are nonproject actions, which are treated differently. If there was a specific proposal, all of the environmental impacts would have to be evaluated. Commissioner Carlson commented that he has done SEPA reviews and has authored EIS, etc. He stated he has confidence staff used the correct process and analysis. A planned action EIS is very expensive to do. What city did is consistent with SEPA. Jurisdictions handle them a little differently. He disagreed with the rational from many of those in opposition. He stated he is opposed to rezone requests 4 — 9, because he feels there should be a variety of densities throughout the city. Commissioner Noble-Gulliford asked regarding the Campbell request, does density averaging apply. Principal Planner Clark replied that it does not. Commissioner Meader McCausland asked if there is any information about the location of the proposed light rail in this area. Director Davis replied that no plan has been adopted as yet. Commissioner Carlson moved adoption of the recommendations as presented by staff; Commissioner Meader McCausland seconded. There was no further discussion. The vote was unanimous and the motion carried. Chair Bronson closed the public hearing. ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 8:00 P.M. KAPlanning Commission\2016\Meeting Summary 10-25-17.doc Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 7 October 25, 2017 Mark Spaur 37611 1711 PI. 9_ Federal Way, WA 980[}3 Jim Farrell, MayQr Federal Way CityufR,5r Ak JAJbulP Margaret Clark, Senior Planner 25 October- 2017 RE. 2017 Oomprehensive Plan Amer drnerits, Site -Specific Requests 44-9 - Johnson, Neether, Otteson, Beard, Ellingson, and Dararak, SEPA checklist_ The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43,21 C RCW, "requires all governmental agencies to consider the en+rironmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions.° Concerning the Use of Checklist for tion -Project Proposals: "Non -Project actions are governmental actions involving decisions on policies, plans, or programs containing standards for controlling use or rnodRying the environment, or that will govern a series of conneeted actions, Non -project action analysis provides an opportunity to analyze planned acti+:ns before projects begin and permits applications are prepared. The early SEPA analysis results in a more streamlined permitting process when a planned action does occur as the impacts have already been analyzed.:' Very little analysis was done prior to the SEPA checklist being issued, deferring to when projects are proposed_ However, the state gives general guidance for non -project actions, e,speoially far land use decisions: °The procedural requirements for SEPA revievu of a non -project proposal are the same as a project proposal.' "If the non -project action is a land -use decision or similar proposal that will govern future project development, the probable impacts nccd to be Page a of .3 Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 7 October 25, 2017 considered of the future development that would be allovved_ For example, environmental analysis of a zon+- designation should analyze the likely impacts of the development allowed within that zone." Further, the ROW states, to the fullest extent posslble; all branches of government of this state, shall; (I ) Include in every recommendation or report on proposals for legislation and other major actions significantly affecting the duality of the environment, a detailed statement by the responsible official on: () the environmental impact of the proposed action. (ii) any adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided should tree proposal be implemented: (iii) alternatives tc the proposed action; (iv) the. relationship between local short-term uses of the environment and the maintenance and enhancement of lone -term productivity; and (v) any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources which would be involved in the proposed action should it be implemented The City of Federal Way in the SEPA checklist failed to address the environmental impact of the proposed changes in the checklist in the manner described above: preferring to defer those studies until specific projects are proposed. This approach would fail to address the cumulative effect on the environrnent from multiple proposals for construction in this area_ request that the City revise the SE PA checklist to conform with the guidance of the state and address the following foreseeable impacts should the change in zoning be granted; Pa�F 2 of 3 Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 of 7 October 25, 2017 Make a study on the impact to Hylebos Creek Basin and Consanration Flow Control Area_ Estimate the increase in impervious surfaces that woultd be constructed w!th the high density single family housing and road improvements that would be required for high density housing development and project the impact stream flow quantity ant! quality in a watershed that supports endangered Salmon, Complete a projection of the road and traffic improvernerts that would be naeded to ar>,,ornmodale the 200 ar more homes that could be built with this zoning charge beyond what is iricltjcJed in the report to the comrnissian including a concurrency study. Lastly, I support the Mayor's opposition of the Site -Specific Requests #4-9 because approval of the requested changes Would be incompatible with the remaining parcels in this area, Granting this reque$t would not be consistent with Housing Coal (HG) 1 of the Comprehensive Plan, which states "Pressrve and protect the quality of existing residential neighborhoods and require new development to be of a scale and resign that is compatible with existing neighborhood character_" As an owner of one of those properties that is zoned RS 35,0, 1 do not want to live next to high density housing. Some of the parcels designated as RS 35.0 in this area are in the& boundaries of Brittany Lars or Regency Woods Developments_ Their C&CRs prohibit subdividing of lots unless a majority of lot holders approved of the subdivision. This has already been tried in Regency Woods and voted down by their membership. Thank you for your consideration. Mark S pau r Page 3Uf3 Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 of 7 October 25, 2017 CITY OF `.. ;..- Federal Way PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: November 15, 2017 TO: Lawson Bronson, Planning Commission Chair FROM: Brian Davis, Community Development Director Robert "Doc" Hansen, Planning Manager SUBJECT: Amendments to Title 19 of the FWRC to allow Micro -Breweries, Micro - Distilleries, and Micro -Wineries within a Number of Zoning Classifications I. Introduction A public hearing was held on September 20, 2017, to consider recommendations from the Mayor for proposals to amend various sections of Title 19 of the Federal Way Revised Code. It was moved unanimously to recommend to the City Council most of the proposals with one modification. The proposal to allow micro -breweries, micro -distilleries, and micro -wineries in the Suburban Estates (SE) zone was returned to the staff for further research and consideration. The major concerns presented to the staff by the Planning Commission revolved around not providing enough information regarding the definition, the numbers used to limit the amount of liquid produced, and limitations placed upon small operations regarding the amount of production allowed. Specifically, the Planning Commission found that: 1. Standards limiting micro -wineries to four persons per day and one delivery trip, and production only from Washington grown grapes reduced opportunity. 2. Micro -Distilleries should be allowed within this section. 3. Numbers related to production should be researched so that limitations and justification can be verified. 4. The proposed use should be included within all commercial zones. 5. The limit to 10 percent coverage should not include the residence in an SE zone. The proposal has been changed regarding these concerns in order for the Planning Commission to make a recommendation to the Council in regards to allowing micro -breweries, micro -distilleries, and micro -wineries in various land use zones. II. Proposed Code Amendments The current proposal allowing for the establishment and operation of micro -breweries, micro - distilleries, and micro -wineries has a number of changes from the previous proposal. Each of the proposals is provided within one of the following exhibits: Page 1 1 1. FWRC 19.05.130 - Definition of Micro -Breweries, Micro -Distilleries, and Micro - Wineries; Exhibit A. Current language does not include the definition of micro -breweries, micro -distilleries, and micro -wineries. One of the major purposes of providing such a definition is to limit the amount of production of the product so that it is compatible in the zone where it is permitted. Thomas Bobson, the Marketing Manager at the Washington State Wine Association has indicated that most producers in Woodinville produce between 160 and 2000 cases per year. He indicated that he has obtained information by interviewing various wineries throughout that city and other cities that most of the small wineries throughout the state make around 800 cases per year. While he has no specific statistics he is confident from the producers that he has interviewed that it takes around 2,000 cases of production per year before small wine producers begin making profit, and that it takes several years before wine -makers can produce this amount of product. A representative from the Washington Wine Institute estimates this number at 4,000 to 5,000 cases per year. The number that is proposed will provide economic opportunity for most small wineries and will prevent the large production of wine or limit large producers in the SE zone. The largest winery in this state produces more than 3 million cases per year. Micro -distilleries produce in quantities of "9 -liters per year." Large distilleries produce around 16 million 9 -liter cases. Research of T Edward Wines and Spirits, a news organization for small alcohol producers indicates "micro- distilleries" are ones that produce no more than 25,000 9 -liter cases per year. They provide examples of production that vary between 1,642 (very small) and 7,630 9 -liter cases per year. It is suggested this higher number be used within the definition of the micro -distillery to allow for a larger micro operation. Breweries are measured in "beer barrels." Researching other ordinances and looking at accepted definitions as researched allows us to conclude that 15,000 beer barrels per year would constitute a small brewery. A very popular national beer produces more than 38 million beer barrels per year. It is suggested that this number be decreased to 3750 beer barrels per year since it is estimated that 75% of the beer is sold off site and this number is 25% of the 15,000 beer barrel number. 2. FWRC 19.215.015 — Allowing Micro -Breweries, Micro -Distilleries, and Micro -Wineries in Suburban Estates (SE) Zone; Exhibit B. Current use charts do not reference any type of micro -breweries, micro -distilleries, and micro -wineries as being allowed within this zone classification. The proposed use chart indicates that the amount of land coverage is limited to 10% without considering the primary residence allowed within the zone. Any proposal for liquid production will be subject to a Process III review. While the use would be allowed upon any non -conforming lot (less than five acres), the Process III review will ensure the compatibility of production activity with surrounding land uses. 3. FWRC 19.215.015 — Allowing Micro -Breweries, Micro -Distilleries, and Micro -Wineries in Neighborhood Business (BN) Zones; Exhibit C. Current use charts do not reference any type of micro -breweries, micro -distilleries, and micro - wineries as being allowed within this section. The use chart provides standards and notes that are similar to the retail uses that are permitted within the zone. Footnotes related to retail activity not relevant to micro -breweries, micro -distilleries, and micro -winery production have been removed. This proposed chart would not restrict proposals that include outside activity such as plazas for tasting. Page 1 2 4. FWRC 19.220.015- Allowing Micro -Breweries, Micro -Distilleries, and Micro -Wineries in Community Business (BC) Zones, Exhibit D. Current use charts do not reference any type of micro -breweries, micro -distilleries, or micro - wineries as being allowed within this zone. The use chart provides standards and footnotes similar to entertainment activity. Footnotes related to retail activity and not relevant to micro - breweries, micro -distilleries, and micro -winery production have been removed. Parking requirements are relevant to the tasting room and employees, and not to the entire production activity since storage of the product comprises most of the facility and is not visited by anyone outside of the producer. The tasting room parking requirement is small since visitation is infrequent. 5. FWRC 19.225.015 — Allowing Micro -Breweries, Micro -Distilleries, and Micro -Wineries in City Center Core (CC -C) Zone, Exhibit E. Current use charts do not reference any type of micro -breweries, micro -distilleries, and micro -wineries as being allowed within this zone. The use chart provides standards and footnotes similar to entertainment activity. Parking requirements are relevant to the tasting room and employees, and not to the entire production activity since storage of the product comprises most of the facility and is not visited by anyone outside of the producer. The tasting room parking requirement is small since visitation is infrequent. 6. FWRC 19.230.015 — Allowing Micro -Breweries, Micro -Distilleries, and Micro -Wineries in City Center Frame (CC -F) Zone, Exhibit F. Current use charts do not reference any type of micro -breweries, micro -distilleries, and micro -wineries as being allowed within this section. The use chart provides standards and footnotes similar to entertainment activity. Parking requirements are relevant to the tasting room and employees, and not to the entire production activity since storage of the product comprises most of the facility and is not visited by anyone outside of the producer. The tasting room parking requirement is small since visitation is infrequent. 7. FWRC 19.240.015 — Allowing Micro -Breweries, Micro -Distilleries, and Micro -Wineries in Commercial Enterprise (CE) Zone, Exhibit G. Current use charts do not reference any type of micro -breweries, micro -distilleries, and micro -wineries as being allowed within this section. The use chart provides standards and footnotes similar to entertainment activity. Footnotes only related to retail activity and not relevant to micro -breweries, micro -distilleries, and micro -winery production have been removed. Parking requirements are relevant to the tasting room and employees, and not to the entire production activity since storage of the product comprises most of the facility and is not visited by anyone outside of the producer. The tasting room parking requirement is small since visitation is infrequent. III. Timeline The actions that have occurred and the anticipated timeline for completion of the code amendments process are shown below: Page 13 *SEPA Notice to Newspaper 8/11/2017 *Issue SEPA Determination 8/11/2017 *14 -Day Comment Period Ends 8/25/2017 *Notice of Planning Commission Public Hearing Reschedule to 10/25/17 Reschedule to 11/15/17 9/29/2017 10/18/2017 10/25/2017 Planning Commission Public Hearing 11/15/2017 *21 -Day SEPA Appeal Period Ends 9/15/2017 Land Use/Transportation Committee Meeting 1/08/2018 City Council 1"Reading 1/16/2018 City Council 2nd Reading 2/06/2018 *Actions which have already been accomplished. IV. Public Comments No public comments have been received regarding this proposal as of November 8, 2017. V. Reason for Planning Commission Action FWRC Chapter 19.80.050(2) allows the City Council to review city -initiated changes to development regulations at the Council's discretion. The section establishes a process and criteria for zoning code text amendments. Consistent with Process VI review, the role of the Planning Commission is as follows: To review and evaluate the proposed zoning code text regarding any proposed amendments. 2. To determine where the proposed zoning code text amendments meet the criteria established in FWRC 19.80.130 including: a. That the proposed amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; b. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to public health, safety or welfare; and c. That the proposed amendment is in the best interest of the residents of the city. 3. To forward a recommendation to the City Council regarding adoption of the proposed zoning code text amendments. VI. Decisional Criteria FWRC 19.80.130 provides criteria for zoning text amendments. The following section analyzes compliance of the proposed zoning text amendments with the criteria provided by this chapter. The City may amend the text of the FWRC if it finds that: 1. The proposed amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan. Page 14 Staff Response — The adopted comprehensive plan is to be implemented by development regulations as indicated within the Growth Management Act. Within the "Introduction" of the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan it states that the role of the plan "is to clearly state the community's vision for its future." One purpose of the amendment is to allow small wine, distillery, and brewery production uses, which enhances economic development, meeting the following Federal Way and County -wide policies: MPP-Ec-S: Foster a supportive environment for business startups, small businesses, and locally owned businesses to help them continue to prosper. EC -6: Foster the retention and development of those businesses and industries that export their goods and services outside the region. Allowing these industries at a small scale will foster business start-up. Small wineries, distilleries and breweries often export their products to other areas, which increases economic development. Allowing such a use through a Process III review in the SE zone also ensures that the economic development activity is compatible within the neighborhood and therefore meets the following Comprehensive Plan policy: LUP36: Require development to be compatible and well integrated into its surroundings and adjacent zones through site and building design and development standards that reduce or eliminate land use conflicts and nuisance impacts; ensure project aesthetics; promote sharing of public facilities and services; and improve vehicular and pedestrian traffic flow and safety, including access control and off- street interconnectivity between adjoining properties where feasible. 2. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relationship to public health, safety, or welfare. Staff Response — The proposed code amendment offers economic incentive for a new and creative use within the City, which is made compatible with surrounding environments and the potential increase in tourism. The clarification of various sections of the Code will eliminate interpretation within those sections proposed for amendment and less "guessing" on the part of landowner and/or developer. 3. The proposed amendment is in the best interest of the residents of the City. Staff Response — The proposed amendment is in the best interest of the public and the residents of the City of Federal Way because it creates an opportunity for smaller businesses, which will increase the economic base of the City. VII. Planning Commission Action 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 Page 15 4. Forward the proposed FWRC text amendments to City Council without a recommendation. EXHIBITS Exhibit A: FWRC 19.05.130 — Definition of Micro -Breweries, Micro -Distilleries, and Micro -Wineries Exhibit B: FWRC 19.215.015 — Allowing Micro -Breweries, Micro -Distilleries, and Micro -Wineries in Suburban Estates (SE) Zone Exhibit C: FWRC 19.215.015 — Allowing Micro -Breweries, Micro -Distilleries, and Micro -Wineries in Neighborhood Business (BN) Zones Exhibit D: FWRC 19.220.015 — Allowing Micro -Breweries, Micro -Distilleries, and Micro -Wineries in Community Business (BC) Zones Exhibit E: FWRC 19.225.015 — Allowing Micro -Breweries, Micro -Distilleries, and Micro -Wineries in City Center Core (CC -C) Zone Exhibit F: FWRC 19.230.015 — Allowing Micro -Breweries, Micro -Distilleries, and Micro -Wineries in City Center Frame (CC -F) Zone Exhibit G: FWRC 19.240.015 — Allowing Micro -Breweries, Micro -Distilleries, and Micro -Wineries in Commercial Enterprise (CE) Zone Page 16 Exhibit A Definition of Micro -Breweries, Micro -Distilleries and Micro -Wineries 19.05.130 M definitions. "Maintenance," for signs, means the cleaning, painting, and minor repair of a sign in a manner that does not alter the basic design, size, height, or structure of the sign. "Manufactured home" means a factory -built structure transportable in one or more sections which is built on a permanent chassis and designed to be a dwelling with or without a permanent foundation when connected to required utilities. A manufactured home shall be built to comply with the National Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974 (regulations effective June 15, 1976). "Manufacturing and production" means the mechanical or chemical transformation of materials or substances into new products, including the assembling of component parts, the creation of products, and the blending of materials, such as oils, plastics, resins, or liquors. Manufacturing and production is divided into the following categories: (1) "Manufacturing and production, general, " means establishments typically manufacturing and producing for the wholesale market. (2) "Manufacturing and production, limited," means retail establishments engaged in the small-scale manufacture, production, and on-site sales of custom goods and products. These uses are distinguished from "manufacturing and production, general," by a predominant use of hand tools or domestic mechanical equipment, limited number of employees, limited sales volume, limited truck deliveries, little or no outdoor storage, typical retail hours of operation, and an obvious retail storefront with a public entrance that is in scale with the overall building and oriented to the right- of-way. This category includes uses such as ceramic studios; candle -making shops; custom jewelry manufacturing; woodworking and cabinet making; manufacturing of specialized orthopedic appliances such as artificial limbs or braces; manufacturing of dental appliances such as bridges, dentures, and crowns; production of goods from finished materials such as wood, metal, paper, glass, leather, and textiles; and production of specialized food products such as caterers, bakeries, candy stores, microbreweries, and beverage bottlers. "Maximum lot coverage" means the maximum percentage of the surface of the subject property that may be covered with materials which will not allow for the percolation of water into the underlying soils. See FWRC 19.110.020 et seq. for further details. "Mean sea level" means the level of Puget Sound at zero tide as established by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. "Medium density zones" mean the following zones: RS 15.0, RS 35.0 and comparable zones in other jurisdictions. "Micro -brewery." "micro -distillery." or "micro -winery" means a small-scale brewery limited to production of less than 3.750 beer barrels per year (115,000 gallons), small-scale distillery limited to production of 7,600 9 -liter cases per year (65,700 LITERS), or small-scale winery limited to production of less than 3,000 cases per year (495 gallons), respectively, that produce, sell, and/or bottle the product, along with any tasting room(s) designed for the purpose of offering samples of the product. "Microcell" means a wireless communication facility consisting of an antenna that is either: (1) Four feet in height and with an area of not more than 580 square inches; or (2) If a tubular antenna, no more than four inches in diameter and no more than six feet high. "Minor facility" means a wireless communication facility consisting of up to three antennas, each of which is either: (1) Four feet in height and with an area of not more than 580 inches; or (2) If a tubular antenna, no more than four inches in diameter and no more than six feet in length. A minor facility includes any associated equipment cabinet that is six feet or less in height and no more than 48 square feet in floor area. "Mixed-use building" means a building containing two or more different principal permitted uses, as determined by the director, and which occupy separate tenant spaces. "Moorage facility" means a pier, dock, buoy or other structure providing docking or moorage space for waterborne pleasure craft. "Multiple -story building" means a building containing two or more floors of active permitted use(s), and each upper floor area, excluding any storage, mechanical, and other similar accessory, nonactive areas, contains at least 33 percent of the ground floor area. "Multi -tenant complex" means a complex containing two or more uses or businesses. "Multi -use complex" means all of the following: a group of separate buildings operating under a common name or management; or a single building containing multiple uses where there are specific exterior entranceways for individual uses; or a group of uses on separate but adjoining properties that request treatment as a multi -use complex. "Mural" means a design or representation that is painted or drawn on the exterior surface of a structure and that does not advertise a business, product, service, or activity. Exhibit B Allowing Micro -Breweries, Micro -Distilleries, and Micro -Wineries within a Suburban Estates (SE) Zone Chapter 19.195 SUBURBAN ESTATE (SE) Sections: 19.195.010 Detached dwelling unit. 19.195.020 Public or private stables. 19.195.030 Raising agricultural crops. 19.195.040 Keeping, raising animals, etc. 19.195.050 Other agricultural, livestock uses. 19.195.060 Churches, etc. 19.195.070 Golf course. 19.195.080 Micro -breweries, micro -distilleries, and micro -wineries. 19.195.090 Day care facilities, commercial — Up to 50 attendees. 19.195.100 Schools. 19.195.110 Noncommercial sports fields, etc. 19.195.120 Community recreation areas. 19.195.130 Public transit shelter. 19.195.140 Public utility. 19.195.150 Government facility. 19.195.160 Public parks. 19.195.170 Cemeteries. 19.195.180 Accessory dwelling units. 19.195.190 Personal wireless service facility. p _v d � 0 9 G � w p W bi ea ea p S U C•» 0 00 tw p tl. y> x E O ca u w > G 4 z Y 0,0 ° y =�v 3 ti •3 ea � 0p y 0 30 c z o o> W p> G o c;80 0 b M' o z F c E. Ncl O O ina y U Q p O M .cdC y y N b 0 cGa G y C S Eim L 'G •d m fa. a5 o V1 .E ❑ E yN. w p C� .� "' C • W � U w is p y to �m � A iin O E3 p �• v w o p 3 d G p E p'o 0' _ E to 0 0 o F_ p '.gyp G a+ p' p O G G ca ° p F y'� l— eQ N 0 F. u M n 14b LL Lo LL — O G sane S UIJ�lEd C�G 50W° pann ag jo �I�� o �� ai —jonRS G p oLQM ro 30 3 aH m.2 1 jo R MI � aE1a� p p b lEa� x o 0 3 ° } M o gaEa aptS G M . z 3uOI3 0MI I F az!S 307 I �f J b z O � •� v� axi of � � G 0 V •E 'D y FO � SSa003d M2IAa-d p Opaimbi-d a _ m SNOIIvrinDau o ani o p �) a Ir o E 3 auuC5u Exhibit C Allowing Micro -Breweries, Micro -Distilleries, and Micro -Wineries in Neighborhood Business (BN) Zones Chapter 19.215 NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS (BN) Sections: 19.215.010 Office/retail. 19.215.015 Micro -breweries, micro -distilleries, and micro -wineries. 19.215.020 Entertainment. 19.215.030 Vehicle service stations. 19.215.040 Schools — Day care facilities, commercial — Animal kennels or animal care facilities. 19.215.050 Multifamily dwelling units. 19.215.060 Group homes. 19.215.070 Social service transitional housing. 19.215.080 Government facility, public parks, public transit shelter. 19.215.090 Public utility. 19.215.100 Personal wireless service facility. 19.215.110 Churches. 19.215.120 Funeral homes — Mortuaries. 19.215.130 Self-service storage facilities. 19.215.140 Urban agriculture. 19.215.150 Senior citizen or special needs housing w � C O •� s � o � o U O •� ° Y Z 3 '9"a o W m •�' �o;yU.y tri, y A 2 .0 N O o E OO 0 3 WO `°�' � 'oN W � p 'CIO, U W Ec H _o c o'v •o Ate' ` 'O W r 1 02.2 1.9 R F L' W C ._ "W W F �W F/ F .O O F O Cw L' F U U F 4.' O¢ O O w N G C}C}p vVi O is oW^Oz >wwwa� w W SaaE� y=^ U C U O 7 Z A J am�aruis X O O W 'qq� 7 C O .� Y7+ O F W G.' W p m Q' -•i 3 N nri V1 NI b .zEag a N A � gaea apis o x o� Ei O W E o W Z' N F .E o �y � V lIIO3�j 't! o y p rn az!s 101 o z o z F n saaoi y x pann ad a v suoiiv,InDau o° > U U U U '�3 o3aagax W G G w G wl � U i uqq H inn c Exhibit D Allowing Micro -Breweries, Micro -Distilleries, and Micro -Wineries in Community Business (BC) Zone Chapter 19.220 COMMUNITY BUSINESS (BC) Sections: 19.220.010 Office/retail — Manufacturing and production, limited. 19.220.015 Micro -breweries, micro -distilleries, and micro -wineries. 19.220.020 Entertainment — Generally. 19.220.030 Vehicle and equipment sales, service, repair, rental — Self-service storage facilities. 19.220.040 Schools — Day care facilities, commercial — Animal kennels. 19.220.050 Multifamily dwelling units. 19.220.060 Hotels — Motels. 19.220.070 Hospital facilities — Convalescent centers — Nursing homes. 19.220.080 Senior citizen or special needs housing. 19.220.090 Group homes. 19.220.100 Social service transitional housing. 19.220.110 Government facility, public parks, public transit shelter. 19.220.120 Personal wireless service facility. 19.220.130 Churches. 19.220.140 Urban agriculture. G O U w o W _ u�� Y W O �i rr�� 1�1 d 0 � W N O,' U A L °may •N N o o0ifYi .�- 04 79 � .N � W O � Q 'O y0 FO � •� 3 W E y U u W U N N U G E o ° ° o O N p O �' W N N R; U W b .= Exhibit E Allowing Micro -Breweries, Micro -Distilleries, and Micro -Wineries in City Center Core (CC -C) Zone Chapter 19.225 CITY CENTER CORE (CC -C) - Sections: 19.225.010 Office use. 19.225.015 Micro -breweries, micro -distilleries, and micro -wineries. 19.225.020 Retail use. 19.225.030 Retail shopping center, regional. 19.225.040 Entertainment. 19.225.050 Hotel, convention or trade centers. 19.225.060 Parking garages. 19.225.070 Multifamily dwelling units, senior citizen, or special needs housing. 19.225.080 Hospital — Convalescent centers — Nursing homes. 19 225 090 S h I n f I't' ; I 19.225.140 Urban agriculture. U oo s — ay care aci i ies, commercia . 19.225.100 Government facility, public parks, public transit shelter. 19.225.110 Public utility. 19.225.120 Personal wireless service facility. 19.225.130 Churches. 19.225.140 Urban agriculture. L L w c � f.n p c0 G di pb ti .o •a � w •� ti � `n k. ca F z �.3,c p do c ,� �•^^ °=� Z DoE ago �p�ffi Q yw °•" b � v 'G Edo RY y Wp ^/ Uti .VA. w N ! ` 0 0 0 b Q � � ctl G C ' 7 ami N > � � p •p .� 'Oo '? vUUi W Ul C c °,tom W O O O Aw .N . U ^ c '� ,. 3 i5 ? A o N bi C o O w U f.J' > ° N U . ttl A UiYi �bMb.N O. my W fa0 'u0 Somas Buplig q W � p� 4� O p •O alit— m O G N C M U aan;ongS 30; !;)H O •• N o d - � 'O CI M wld p d , gora TopiS �I x ;aoi3 t ri azrS;O1 o z g ssaoaid,aarnag F E5 pann d g N g o SNOT LV'IflDau ; �x�xx U U U U DI � E cce a�sU9'v� Exhibit F Allowing Micro -Breweries, Micro -Distilleries, and Micro -Wineries in City Center Frame (CC -F) Zone Chapter 19.230 CITY CENTER FRAME (CC -F)' Sections: 19.230.010 Office use. 19.230.015 Micro -breweries, micro -distilleries, and micro -wineries. 19.230.020 Retail use. 19.230.030 Entertainment, etc. 19.230.040 Vehicle service station. 19.230.050 Hotel, convention and trade centers. 19.230.060 Multifamily dwelling units, senior citizen, or special needs housing. 19.230.070 Group homes. 19.230.080 Social service transitional housing. 19.230.090 Schools — Day care facilities, commercial. 19.230.100 Hospitals — Convalescent centers — Nursing homes. 19.230.110 Parking garages. 19.230.120 Government facility, public parks, public transit shelter. 19.230.130 Public utility. 19.230.140 Personal wireless service facility. 19.230.150 Churches. 19.230.160 Urban agriculture L L a a a d c: s� g OM N � •y qq F b J G L m v G 8 ~ C o v o 8 8 y o v d c «� ° Zo o�oE.� 4�>° a ' � o W20 No w 0 ani m egeg C.= U c >.5 r > x v W O W O m p 7 cg L O w � y -1 ° U 3 2 O o y •� y o A c .° & o° 3° a° W w o o ° 'A _o N� � � b p � A U y •-^• U « O 80- A r0 O .D m A�v o c W C G U b G P 'O N y G' N U Ei � W z E o,o,oA v•oa4:o > E rV1 s mo E o q c W -52 m�rz ou:rLl 4. p� c N soonits auqnd c w ° paiinbaR o :? am]ongS 30 3 taH c M ti .zeag � v 3 N • ,b, gosa apcS � � •g oI v �C4 JQOl3 � OI� azis lol ❑ 0 � z ssaool j Mainag °��' c� a pain a A o '� 8�i 2 Q off. n°a baaaa SNIOI.LV'IfIf)iiI El Exhibit G Allowing Micro -Breweries, Micro -Distilleries, and Micro -Wineries in Commercial Enterprise (CE) Zone Chapter 19.240 COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISE (CE) Sections: 19.240.010 Manufacturing and production, general. 19.240.020 Warehouse — Distribution — Storage facilities — Truck stops — Automotive emissions testing facilities. 19.240.030 Commercial photography — Communications — Product testing — Industrial laundry facilities. 19.240.040 Hazardous waste treatment and storage — Chemical manufacturing — Gravel batch plant — Transfer station. 19.240.050 Vehicle, boat, equipment, and outdoor storage container sales, rental, service, repair— Self-service storage — Tow and taxi lots. 19.240.060 Retail — Bulk retail. 19.240.070 Retail, general and specialty — Manufacturing and production, limited. 19.240.080 Office uses. 19.240.090 Hotels — Motels. 19.240.100 Business, vocational, trade schools — Day care facilities, commercial — Animal kennels. 19.240.110 Entertainment — Generally. 1 9.24 . 11-5 Micro -breweries, micro -distilleries, and micro -wineries. 19.240.120 Entertainment — Adult entertainment, activity, retail, or use (adult uses). 19.240.130 Government facilities, public parks, public transit shelter. 19.240.140 Personal wireless service facilities. 19.240.160 Churches. 19.240.170 Urban agriculture. 19.240.180 Group homes. y �yU CC N a) 5 ° iOd 3 —a°i 0 p O C. CO F O �q UO 7 d v' M 14 N b V s�- co y 11 0 h 0 40 2 to Z > V E p o aui Q -i ^ :O 'b 6% g� 3 ri is a b O Y c °4' y O Q O � � � •� N 'g � N ctl R '3 .:: y (�j `� 7�j o y' O . Z �'��bRa°ip�3❑>m�aw�°�aUiy �� O U QE sm w.., agE0•y °av «� N ° 5 O 5 O c3 3 5-0.3� :^ Y y W .0+ Q .-+..N y W cC +'� Uy 7 7 U '.r'� N cd biN d U .� 5 •� o a Q ° y 0 a s p ca b ':+ 'b V ? N 5� U� y y y �'• O� C� U �' � ''�-' N a tC � O y wW0b 5 .� ... •� o°b„btic° O M y ctl O ;; C '� a� .Y �d =705 'O 7 Q c6 O W H O O O N d N 1 C O R O R 7 0 .L+ ci yO .0 O o O C b w Q > g y� 0 W Z y ro, 5 a^�P a °„y 5 0 0 „yam v �;y 5tj o 5 Z e 5 y °•SSp� °' S U c 5 5 7 5 c. .5 o o C ro z L 3 n' 0 240. >° tj Q 5��0°>�oyo�N°•5 5�sm oj r.° v, O v'N� 3 R Y_ a oCO�r.y mz ° wwww o b� Nin Oh s0.C� LOt L°t y O O w O aa; O O a0. saaec[�utxlud 5 N a 0 0 z pain y 5.5 �w yg•o 0 ct 0 U M W '— y ,y., R cd o O 0 s am;an.gs � m d o a o a�5�'�pW��Ws K ° w301—� umcu�xey� o > ° o ieag E > gaea apis ° ce c o F -CIO 5 ;uoi3 1�7 o zams c o z H W2 w ssaaoidaa. d Q C pa7t�o-d o a "Al w=0 a►� b E > 2 U U U U sNOI.LV'Ifl9aH b ani 0 W)eV)o p o rn ON b {ON y U a) N O �I EE a"UUUU