Loading...
Planning Commission MINS 10-25-2017CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PLANNING COMMISSION Special Meeting October 25, 2017 City Hall 6:30 p.m. City Council Chambers 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 he 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 3761", 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 3Vh 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 3761H 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 372"d 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 2155 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 376`" 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 3761". 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 376t' extension. Traffic Engineer Perez explained that the 376"' 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'h 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 pl. S. Federal Way, INA 98W3 Jim Farrell, Mayor Federal Way City fieum4t RA, JAJW Margaret Clark, Senior Planner 25 October 2017 RE. 2017 Comprehensive Plan Amendments, Site -Specific Requests 44-9 - Johnson, Neether, Otteson, Beard, Ellingson, and Dararak, SEPA checkiist. the State EnvlrorimentaI Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43,21 O RCW, "requires all governmental agencies to consider the anvironmental 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 modifying the environment, or that will govern a series ofconnected actions. Non -project action analysis provides an opportunity to analyze planned actions 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, especially for land use decisions: °The procedural requirements for SEPA'revieve of a non -project proposal are the same as a project proposal." 'If the non -project action is a land -use docision or similar proposal that will govern future project development, the probable impacts need to be Page 7 of 3 Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 7 October 25, 2017 considered of the future development that would be allowed. For example, environmental analysis of a zone designation should analyze the likely impacts of the development allowed within that zone." Further, the RCVS! states, to the fullest extent possIble: all branches of government of this state, shall: (1) Include in every recommendation or report on proposals for legislation and other major actions significantly affecting the quality 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 the proposal be implemented; (iii) allernatives to the proposed action; (iv) tho relationship between local short-term uses of the environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity; and (v) any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources which would be involved in the proposers action should it be implemented The City of Federal Way in the SEPAL 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 environment 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; Papp 2 of 3 Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 of 7 October 25, 2017 I . Make a study on the impact to Hylebas Greek Basin and Conservation Flaw Control Area. Estimate the increase in imparvious surfaces that would be constructed with the high density single family housing and road improvernents 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 naaded to accomrnodale the 2010 flr more homes that could be built with this zoning change beyond what is included in the report to the commission including a concurrency study. Lastly, I support the Mayor's opposition of the Site -Specific Requests 44-9 because approval of the requested changes would be incompatible -with the remaining parcels in this area. Granting this request would not be consistent with Housing Goal (HG) 1 of the Comprehensive Plan, which states "Preserve and protect the quality of existing residential neighborhoods and require new development to be of a scale and design 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 Lane or Regency Moods 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 Spaur Page 3 ur3 Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 of 7 October 25, 2017