Loading...
Planning Commission MINS 01-15-2018CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PLANNING COMMISSION January 17, 2018 City Hall 6:30 p.m. City Council Chambers MEETING MINUTES Commissioners present: Lawson Bronson, Wayne Carlson, Hope Elder, Diana Noble-Gulliford, Tim O'Neil, Dawn Meader McCausland, and Dale Couture. Commissioners absent: Tom Medhurst (ex), Anthony Murrietta (ex). City Staff present: Planning Manager Robert "Doc" Hansen, Principal Planner Margaret Clark Deputy City Attorney Mark Orthmann, and Administrative Assistant Tina Piety. CALL TO ORDER Chair Bronson called the meeting to order at 6:30 Y.M. APPROVAL OF MINUTES No minutes available. AUDIENCE COMMENT Dana Halloway, a 40 year resident, thanked the Commissioners for their time. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT Planning Manager Hansen delivered a summary of the administrative report from the agenda packet. Commissioner Noble-Gulliford expressed concern over how Sound Transit is using the property they purchased for the Sound Transit project that is not needed for the project. For example, they deeded some property to a developer of affordable housing that generates no taxes. She wants to be sure that any such property in Federal Way is used in a way that generates taxes. Manager Hansen stated he will discuss her concern with the Sound Transit committee. COMMISSION BUSINESS Examine the process to select items to be considered on the docket. Planning Manager Hansen proposed placing all proposed amendments that meet timing, work load, and complexity criteria on a "docket," as opposed to separate items on the Planning Commission Work Program. Items on the docket would be processed in a specific timeline. Currently, the city does this with the comprehensive plan and development regulation amendments as proposed by citizens. For the current docket process, items must be submitted by September 30`h and are considered the following year. The proposed docket process would include all amendments proposed by citizens, the Mayor, city staff, and/or KAPlanning Commission\2016\Meeting Summary 01-17-18.doc Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 January 17, 2018 the City Council. There would be a deadline for items to be considered for the next docket period (such as September 30th for items to be considered the following year). Items of such complexity that they would not be completed within a year, or for some other reason do not meet the timing requirement may be placed on the Work Program as opposed to the docket. The docket is one item on the Work Program. Staff has a number of questions for the Commission as they develop this proposal. One is who should make the decision on what is to be considered on the annual docket? Commission O'Neil commented that the City Council and Mayor (our elected officials) should be the ones deciding upon the priorities for the city. Commissioner Carlson concurs that there should be at least a nominal direction from the council. Manager Hansen than asked how should the council make the decision of what items are on the docket. Currently, the City Council holds a public hearing (referred to as the Selection Process, that requires significant staff time for pre -research and preparation). His suggestion is that the council could make a decision of what items to place on the docket during council business, as opposed to a public hearing. Commissioner Meader McCausland asked if there is an obligation on the council to decide whether to consider an application that year. Manager Hansen replied the council could create a priority list and thereby place an item on hold. Commissioner Meader McCausland asked how many citizens show up for these public hearings. Manager Hansen replied that it varies greatly depending upon the specific items. For example, at the last Selection Process hearing, there were about 60 citizens because one of the items was a proposed rezone in their neighborhood. Many times there are no citizens, other than applicants, at the Selection Process hearing. He also commented that there is no legal requirement to hold a Selection Process hearing. Commissioner Meader McCausland stated it may be beneficial to the public to hold the Selection Process hearing. Staff commented that a Selection Process hearing could be confusing because a yes vote means the item moves forward for more research, but it may be denied at the end of the update process. At the last meeting, some citizens commented that they would have not attended the Selection Process hearing if they had understood that it was not a final decision. Chair Bronson commented that he feels the more opportunity for public comment the better. The Selection Process hearing allows for a first filter and can deal with issues that may not be heard otherwise. Commissioner Noble-Gulliford agrees that the more public education/information that is available the better. Manager Hansen stated that the city could hold a public information meeting after the docket decision to accept comments and provide information about the proposed amendments on the docket. The Commissioners agreed that if there is no Selection Process hearing, there should be a public information meeting about the proposed amendments on the docket. Commissioner Carlson commented that he likes the idea of a fall deadline (with notice that items will be considered the following year) for the docket process. With a fall deadline, there would be fewer conflicts with the budget process and shorter council agendas (people would not have to wait a long time for their item to be considered) during this timeline. He also feels an ending deadline is a good idea. Commissioner Meader McCausland commented that having deadlines can result in a more predictive process The Commissioners agreed that have a fall deadline for docket requests is a good idea. Commissioner Carlson asked if applicants are charged for comprehensive plan and development regulation amendment requests. Principal Planner Clark replied that it is a two-step process. The city does not charge for the first (selection) process. If the request is approved by the council for further review, then the applicant is charged for the request. Commissioner Couture encouraged the staff to prepare a bulletin for citizens that explains and outlines the docket process. K:Panning Commission\2016\Meeting Summary 01-17-18.doc Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 January 17, 2018 Message to the Council Regarding Recommendation to Deny the Rezones and Comprehensive Plan Amendments From the November Hearing Principal Planner Clark delivered the staff presentation. On January 2, 2018, the City Council tabled Site Specific Requests 4 — 9 and requested the Planning Commission review a legislative rezone for the larger area presently designated Single Family Medium Density Residential and Single Family (RS 35.0, one unit per 35,000 square feet) located between I-5 and the existing Single Family High Density Residential (RS 7.2) zoning to the east. Staff will prepare a legislative proposal for this area as part of the 2018 Planning Commission Work Program. Mark Spaur — He is a 25 -year resident and lives adjacent to the proposed rezone area. He noted a number of people have expressed opposition to this proposal. A more comprehensive environmental assessment and traffic assessment needs to be done for this area. A new SEPA determination should be done because there is a lot of critical habitat in the area. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS Elections need to be held at the next meeting. ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 P.M. KAPlanning Commission\2016\Meeting Summary 01-17-18.doc