Loading...
Planning Commission MINS 04-04-2018CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PLANNING COMMISSION April 4, 2018 City Hall 6:30 p.m. City Council Chambers MEETING MINUTES Commissioners present: Wayne Carlson, Lawson Bronson, Tom Medhurst, Hope Elder, Diana Noble- Gulliford, Dawn Meader McCausland, Tim O'Neil, and Anthony Murrietta. Commissioners absent: Dale Couture (ex). City Staff present: Planning Manager Robert "Doc" Hansen, Principal Planner Margaret Clark, Assistant City Attorney Eric Rhoades, Deputy City Attorney Mark Orthmann, and Administrative Assistant Mercedes Tenuta. CALL TO ORDER Chair Carlson called the meeting to order at 6:31 P.M. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chair Carlson felt some of his comments were overlooked regarding the staff presentation and requested the minutes be changed to include them. Staff will make the change and resubmit the minutes. AUDIENCE COMMENT None ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT None COMMISSION BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARING — Amendments to Docket Process — FWRC 19.80 Planning Manager Hansen presented the staff report. According to FWRC 19.80, "docket" includes, "all proposals to amend the comprehensive plan or development regulations." These are completed yearly and require a public hearing before the Planning Commission and City Council. The City Council makes the final decision whether to adopt the prosed amendment(s) or not. There are two objectives for this proposed amendment: Eliminate the need for a public hearing to prioritize items proposed to be heard in the docket process. Clarify some language and allow submittal of proposed amendments prior to Planning Commission approval. KAPlanning Commission\2016Weeting Summary 04-04-18.doc Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 April 4, 2018 One proposed language change is to submit the proposed amendments for review by the state (as required by the Department of Commerce) anytime during the process. Current code language says the submittal to the state must happen after the Planning Commission public hearing. Other minor changes proposed for clarification include: * When to prioritize the requests — propose it be done at a council meeting after September 30`x'. * Fees will be based upon the fee schedule and not codified. * Emphasize the time of notification — before the council meeting. * Request reasoning by the council if the proposed amendments are returned to the Planning Commission. No changes are proposed regarding citizen participation in the process. Written and verbal comments on any proposed change will continued to be accepted at any time during the process: ❖ Comments accepted at City Council meeting to prioritize the proposed amendments ❖ Comments at Planning Commission ❖ Comments at LUTC Comments at City Council Commissioner O'Neil regarding the state's review, have they ever rejected a proposed amendment? Planning Manager Hansen replied while he was with another jurisdiction, the state has responded stating if a proposed amendment is in violation of the Growth Management Act, and/or with suggested changes. The only authority they have is to make recommendations; most of the time they don't even make comments. Chair Carlson opened the hearing for public testimony. Mark Freitas, Business Owner and Federal Way Resident — He has been involved with the docket process two times. The first time was for a comprehensive plan rezone and it went through the process with no problems. The second time he submitted after the deadline of September 30t". To date, that docketed item has not been processed. It concerns where an RV campground can be located in Federal Way. The city has not responded to his request. He would like to hear back from the city. Administrative Assistant Tenuta read two comments into the record. The first was from Cary Stanton and Daniel Haeck and the second was from Suzanne Vargo. Both are attached to these minutes. Planning Manager Hansen will research an answer to Mr. Freitas and will discuss it with him. He also noted that on page 8, under section 19.80.080(3)(c), it states that the volume of requests received will be taken under consideration when making the decision of what to consider that year. A request may be moved to a subsequent year. Commissioner Noble-Gulliford has three questions. Can an administrative decision be made to amend the proposed docket process? Planning Manager Hansen responded that staff will not be able to make a change to the process itself through an administrative decision. That would have to be a code amendment. Second question, how is the public noticed before the city council meeting? Planning Manager Hansen replied he would recommend that a notice be placed in the Mirror that states the City Council will be making a decision, what proposals have been made, what will be researched, and contact information. This would be done 14 days before the council meeting. Commissioner Noble-Gulliford asked if specific information regarding proposed property rezones will be included in the notice. Planning Manager Hansen answered that specific information will not be included. KAPIanning Commission\2016Weeting Summary 04-04-18.doc Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 April 4, 2018 The third question is, how will the public know how to make comments for the record on future determination on the docket process. Planning Manager Hansen replied that any comments received from the public will become a part of the record regardless of when it is received. In the notice, staff will urge the public to contact the city and make comments, request additional information, and/or ask questions. Commissioner Noble-Gulliford asked if in the beginning of the process, a notice will be given to adjacent property owner(s) regarding the proposed rezone. Deputy City Attorney Orthmann responded that any site specific request will follow the same process of current rezone requests and property owners within 300 feet will be sent a notice. In addition, the property will have a posted notice, a legal notice will be placed in the Mirror, it will be placed on the city's website, and posted on the city notice boards at the library and city hall. Commissioner Noble-Gulliford stated she wants to know what is the noticing process for proposals that go to the City Council meeting that decides which ones to proceed with. She cited the example of the Spring Valley proposal last year where some nearby owners were not aware of the process and did not submit comments. She also cited Belmor Park, which has been in process a number of years. As part of the Planning Commission Work Program, we will be considering possible changes to multifamily projects in our downtown. This would be an opportunity for the Belmor owners to provide information about their vision for their property. She is concerned the city may miss noticing a property owner who may have valuable information to contribute. Chair Carlson commented that as he understands it, Commissioner Noble-Guillford's concern is the adjacent property owners of larger (but not city-wide, such as the Spring Valley proposals) area rezones may not receive notice of the proposal. She agreed. Principal Planner Clark said that the original Milton Road (Spring Valley) request consisted of six parcel owners. All property owners within 300 feet of those parcels were notified that the City Council would hold a hearing to determine whether to consider them further. At that hearing, the Council directed staff to ask other property owners in the area to consider joining the request. It was at this time that staff notified all property owners in the area zoned RS 35.0 about the request and gave them a deadline in which to respond if they want to be considered in the proposed rezone. That deadline passed with no response, so staff performed the SEPA review and issued the determination. After that, notice of the public hearing was made. It was only after notices that some people responded, but it was too late given that the SEPA determination had been completed and the public hearing notice given. Commissioner O'Neil asked if the Commission should respond to the written comments on the record. Deputy City Attorney Orthmann replied that Commissioners may include anything they have heard at this hearing (including the comments read into the record) as part of their discussion on this topic. Commissioner Meader McCausland commented that during previous meetings we had discussed holding a public informational meeting as part of the process and that has been removed. She asked if staff will be implementing the suggestion of this meeting, even though it is not codified. Planning Manager Hansen responded the decision to not codify a public informational meeting was to give staff the flexibility to decide if such a meeting is necessary or not and when it would be held if needed. It does not have to be codified to hold such a meeting. Commissioner Meader McCausland noted that on page 8, in section 19.80.080(3)(b), the phrase "and other operational factors as determined by the director" was added. Please explain the intention of adding this phrase. Deputy City Attorney Orthmann responded that the phrase was added to indicate staff workload and other projects will be considered when making a decision. Vice -Chair Bronson asked how an applicant will know if their request will be postpone for a year due to reasons cited on page 8 of the report. Planning Manager Hansen responded that staff will inform the applicant in what priority order their proposal is and if it will be considered the current year or not. Deputy City Attorney Orthmann commented that applicants will be informed at the City Council meeting when the priority determination is made. Vice -Chair Bronson asked if a letter will be sent with the determination and if so, when will it be sent. Principal Planner Clark commented that within a week, staff sends the applicant a letter with the determination and any further steps if appropriate. KAPIanning Commission\2016Weeting Summary 04-04-I8.doc Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 April 4, 2018 Commissioner Noble-Gulliford asked if comments made during the City Council meeting to determine whether to further consider proposals will be consider as part of the public record. Deputy City Attorney Orthmann replied they would be considered as part of the record for that meeting, but not as public hearing comments. Commissioner Noble-Gulliford asked if those comments will be taken into consideration by staff and added to the staff report as part of the public record. Planning Manager Hansen replied the comments will be considered by staff and will become part of the public record. Commissioner Noble- Gulliford requested that they be considered as a party of record. Chair Carlson commented that the letter from Mr. Stanton and Mr. Haeck made some valid comments regarding notices. He feels staff has done a good job addressing his concerns regarding noticing. He would like to encourage Ms. Vargo to keep engaged because zoning issues change often. Commissioner Elder moved to recommend approval of the FWRC text amendments as proposed. Vice - Chair Bronson seconded. There was no further discussion. The motion carried with six yes and one no. The public hearing was closed. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS None ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 7:21 P.M. K APlanning Commission\2016Weeting Summary 04-04-18.doc Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 April 4, 2018 From: Cary Stanton [mailto:cee4ay56@comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2018 8:16 AM To: Doc Hansen Subject: Revised code title 19.80 Dear Mr. Hansen, We are unable to attend the Planning Commission meeting on April 4. Please add our voice in opposition to the proposed change that would allow the Council, Planning Commission or Mayor to eliminate public input in any phase of rezone discussion. We understand the process is long, but wish for maximum transparency. In addition, we would like clarification from you about the content of these proposed changes. Legal notices in the Mirror do not give the complete story. What does it mean to the "layman", who is not familiar with legal language as written? Anytime a property owner sees language that suggests less input along the way, stress levels rise. We believe that property owners need to have direct input and be heard when zoning changes are proposed -without exception. As long time residents in Federal Way, we have become increasingly concerned at the rapid growth that rezoning to smaller lots brings. Owners with property adjacent to proposed development should have ample opportunity to be heard, even early on. We are also curious as to why this zoning change is being considered. We are Lakota Ridge residents with a twenty acre parcel up for development, and wish to be included in every step of the process when it comes to rezoning. We tried to read through proposed changes and are having a hard time seeing the net results of changed code. Thanks for any insight you can give us, Cary Stanton Daniel Haeck 2121 SW 309 Ct Federal Way. 98023 Carpe Dlem KAPlanning Commission\2016Weeting Summary 04-04-18.doc Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 To the Council and residents of Federal Way: The process of changing the Comprehensive Plan, can only occur. once a year. This committee heard testimony from those individuals who were for and against the amendment. The Committee listened and gave the recommendation to NOT approve of the change. This wasthe opinion also given by the Major, who did not approve of "spot zoning". It is unfortunate that this process has been receded, because some applicants did not do their duc diligence and follow proper procedure. I believe the LUTC Committee should honer their decision as well as the process, in which the decision was previously made. In a years time this issue may be justly discussed and debated, would like to ask that the council to be mindful of a few things. Aquifers are protected by the Growth Management Act. The area known as Spring Valley is a highly sensitive area,and-is protected in its own right. The Conservancy land located on 8"' Ave. South and S, 373is connected and a vital recharge area for our drinking water. The Hylcbo5 Waterway runs throughout our fair city and the East Branch and the West also join together to provide waters for the salmon, that have called this creek home for hundreds of years. These are historic places, from The Natives that used these lands for trading, ceremonial, and burial, to our first pioneers. Please do what is right for our city acid for future generations. Thank You Suzanne Margo KAPIanning Commission\2016Weeting Summary 04-04-18.doc April 4, 2018