Loading...
Planning Comm PKT 02-20-2008 City of Federal Way PLANNING COMMISSION February 20,2008 City Hall 6:00 p.m.,Dinner Dash Point Conference Room 7:00 pan.,.Nfeeting Council Chambers AGENDA Annual Dinner Meeting 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES January 16,2008 4. AUDIENCE COMMENT 5. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT 6. COMMISSION BUSINESS • ELECTION • STUDY SESSION Recap 2007 & 2008 Work Plan 7. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS 8. AUDIENCE COMMENT 9. ADJOURN Commissioners City Staff Hope Elder, Chair Merle Pfeifer Greg Fewins, CDS Director William Drake Lawson Bronson Margaret Clark,Senior Planner Wayne Carlson Tom Medhurst E. Tina Piety,Administrative Assistant Sarady Long Kevin King(]'Alternate) 253-835-2601 Tim O'Neil(2 dAlternate) ugtx.citi��rrlc^ruGrrt.rronr KAPlanning Commission\2008Wgenda 02-20-08 doc CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PLANNING COMMISSION January 16, 2008 City Hall 7:00 p.m_ Council Chambers MEETING MINUTES Commissioners present: Hope Elder,Merle Pfeifer,Wayne Carlson,Bill Drake,Lawson Bronson,and Sarady Long. Commissioners absent:Tom Medhurst(excused).Alternate Commissioners present:None.Alternate Commissioners absent: Kevin King and Tim O'Neal(both excused). Staff present: Interim Community Development Director Greg Fewins, Senior Planner Margaret Clark, Senior Planner Janet Shull, Senior Planner Deb Barker, and Administrative Assistant E.Tina Piety. Chairwoman Elder called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES It was moved and seconded to approve the minutes of November 7, 2007, as presented.The motion passed;no nays. AUDIENCE COMMENT None ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT None COMMISSION BUSINESS STUDY SESSION—Clearing & Grading/Tree Retention Code Amendment Ms. Clark explained that this evening's study session will be a little different.Representatives from agencies and developers have been invited to participate in a panel. For each discussion point,members of the panel will be asked to express their questions, opinions, and suggestions. Members of the panel are: Douglas Corbin,Puget Sound Energy(PSE); Gary Nomensen, (PSE); Tina Melton,PSE; John Norris,Norris Homes; Ron Tremaine, Redstone Development; Kurt Wilson, Sound Built Homes; Paul Woolson,Bonneville Power Administration (BPA); and Don A?,BPA.Ms. Clark delivered the staff report.Discussion Point#1 was that regulations should be reorganized into one section to make them more usable and eliminate duplications and conflicts. There was no discussion on this point. Discussion Point#2 regarded providing guidance about under what circumstances mass grading would be allowed. A related point is whether the City should require topsoil to be stockpiled and reused. Staff has received information at Lower Impact Development training that stockpiling and reusing the soil would result in healthier soil. Commissioner Bronson commented that stockpiling and reusing soil would possibly result in healthier soil only if the original soil is not contaminated. He suggested that if staff proposes that soil be required to be stockpiled and reused, that testing for contaminates be part of the regulations. Mr.Norris stated that smaller constrained sites can be a problem.Builders use all the available ground, so there is no place to stockpile the soil.He doesn't agree that reusing existing top soil will result in healthier soil. Replacement soil is not necessarily unhealthy.We need to address the affordability of housing and how stockpiling can add to the cost. KAPlanning Comntission\2008Vdeeting Summary 01-16-08 Revised doe Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 January 16,2008 Mr. Wilson stated that we need to differentiate between commercial and residential development.You cannot leave soil on-site when doing commercial development because everything is built on pads. Builders don't want to take material off site because it is more expensive to haul soil away. On residential development,they attempt to just scrape off a few inches from top.Builders want a maximum two percent driveway and limiting mass grading can end up with steep driveways. Saving trees is great,but trees should be preserved in clusters. Ms.Melton stated that whether native top soil is used or new soil is brought in,the top soil must be suitable for planting trees. Proposing regulations must consider specific site conditions.Ms. Clark asked for codes that use this approach. Mr.Norris stated that the City's ordinance that allows 25 percent replacement for significant trees works. It has flexibility because it allows mass grading with replanting of trees. Mr. Tremaine agreed with John,Kurt, and Tina. Commissioner Elder stated that the project on Campus Drive has been a source of a lot of complaints to her. We need to educate the public that we are not just going ahead with mass destruction of trees. Ms. Clark noted that mass grading on the Campus Crest was allowed due to site constraints. Mr. Wilson added that this situation occurred due to SEPA being issued and then the developer obtained a Forest Practices permit. This is a loophole. The City should consider how to close the loophole.We need responsible development. Ms. Clark said that staff is working with the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) on this issue. The City may be able to take over the Forest Practice permit. Commissioner Bronson said that the problem isn't mass grading, but timing. If houses had been built sooner,there probably would have been fewer complaints. Commissioner Carlson asked whether the City's engineering department had applied any seasonal restraints to the clearing. Ms. Clark responded that there were some restrictions on when they could clear and grade. Mr. Wilson said that imposing seasonal restrictions is an issue. The concern is discharge of stormwater and erosion control. There shouldn't be a blanket statement in code because every situation is different. Discussion Point#3 regarded height and design standards for rookeries and retaining walls. Commissioner Elder noted that the City needs to be careful to keep residential and commercial rockeries and retaining walls separate. Mr.Norris said that we don't need extra restrictions if we already have them in code.A rockery over four feet already requires engineering if it is supporting dirt. The developer doesn't want to build walls because they are expensive, and imposing design standards can be even more expensive.Many times,rules don't consider that each piece of ground is different. We should allow the Director to make modifications. Commissioner Pfeiffer asked for examples of the code John mentioned. K:\Planning Comntission\2008\Meeting Summary 01-16-08 Revised.doc Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 January 16,2008 Mr.Norris stated that in King County, if a wall is over five feet,you must obtain a permit. The wall needs to be engineered so it doesn't fall. Commissioner Drake said that engineering drives what you have to do. Code addresses engineering. We are talking about aesthetics. Commissioner Pfeifer asked about the maximum 12-foot rockery. Commissioner Carlson said that the City should not rely on the CTED model. There are problems with this model.We should offer applicants a choice. The City should provide different design solutions and allow the applicant to choose. Mr. Wilson asked if we are talking about retaining walls on single family housing lots or other retaining walls.The City can't restrict a single family home owner from building a wall on their lot; this is a property rights issue.Developing the property on Hoyt Road without walls wouldn't have been feasible. The developer doesn't want to spend money on walls. If they have to step a house, all you will be able to see is the siding of the house. Terraces would look better. Commissioner Bronson stated that if a large wall is masked with shrubbery,this could be a security issue as people could hide in the shrubbery. He also stated that if the retaining walls were regulated by OHSA, a handrail would be required. He asked whether City code has such a requirement. Mr.Wilson responded that the rule is that any wall over four feet high requires a four feet fence.He added that screening of walls should not be prohibited. Commissioner Long asked if code specifies whether a wall or rockery should be used for a structure over six feet tall, and whether the staff or developer gets to make the choice.Ms Clark stated that planning doesn't address this issue. Ms. Clark stated that it is hard for us to choose a specific height.We may need to look at alternatives. Mr.Norris stated that there are new walls that look nice. One thing that determines what type of wall to build is whether there are utilities close by. Sometimes it is better to use a gravity wall, other times poured in concrete is better. The developer has to determine what the best type of wall to use is; they want the plat to look good. Discussion Point#4 was about adopting lot averaging with a slope density ratio. Mr. Tremaine stated that this approach would allow flexibility to build around the slope without losing lots. Mr.Wilson likes flexibility,but he stated that conventional lots should not be prohibited. The developer can build on lots with topography by tucking the garages under the house. Commissioner Bronson stated that in previous meetings some Commissioners wanted to provide a way to make some lots smaller but still result in the same number of lots as in a conventional subdivision. The intent is not to force a developer to do things a particular way. KAPlanning Conunission\2008\Meeting Summary 01-16-08 Revised doc Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 January 16,2008 Discussion Point#5 related to significant trees and how they are classified/defined. Mr.Norris stated that the present ordinance is working. It is flexible. There are lots of trees in Federal Way. He added that builders don't cut trees for the fun of it; they want to retain trees, but you can't retain tree canopies and plot out lots.Keeping trees may get someone killed as the tree may come down on a house. Commissioner Elder asked Mr.Norris for clarification Mr. Norris explained that the existing ordinance allows the removal of trees and planting new ones that in time will grow large.Not allowing mass grading is a problem. Ms. Melton stated that using caliper to define a significant tree should be reconsidered.We should consider the health of the tree, its location, and amount of soil available. Tree failures during the last storm occurred in trees in buffers. We need a certified arborist to identify significant trees. Commissioner Pfeifer asked Tina Melton what is wrong with using the drip line to identify the protection zone. Mr. Barbarinas,the City's consulting arborist,had recommended defining the tree protection zone based on a ratio of the diameter of the tree to the protection zone. Ms. Melton responded that Mr. Barbarinas is a top arborist. The problem with using the drip line is that roots can grow beyond this line and there could be stability problems. Trees to be preserved should be based not only on caliper,but whether the tree is in good health,whether there is root rot, or whether the tree will fail in a wind storm. Commissioner Pfeifer asked whether it will cost more for the developer if an arborist is used. Ms. Melton replied that it would,but we need to weigh that cost against retaining trees. Commissioner Bronson said that we are trying to find a set of rules that are workable and not too expensive. But Ms. Melton is saying that we should hire an arborist.He asked whether there is a way of achieving our goal with less cost. Commissioner Elder asked how we can make an educational guess about what trees will be workable. Mr. Wilson replied that a Maple Valley project of his required a tree survey.The survey would have cost $50,000. However, he convinced them to use a different approach. He further stated that you cannot retain trees on 3,000 or 4,000 square foot sized lots. In Maple Valley,the trees were removed and replanted with a planting plan using native trees. This allowed all useable land to be developed. It is cheaper to retain trees if you can,but in many cases,you can't. Federal Way has a 15 percent open space requirement. Commissioner Pfeifer asked how Maple Valley defines significant trees. Mr. Wilson replied that their definition is based on a 24 inch caliper tree with X amount of canopy cover. You need to consider the size of a lot when adopting requirements. You can't save many trees on a 5,000 square foot lot. Commissioner Bronson said that the panel says they want mass grading and a determination of number of trees to be planted as part of project.Do we need an arborist involved? Commissioner Bronson also stated that if mass grading was allowed there should be a specific time in which trees have to be replanted. K:\Planning Commission\2008\Meeting Surrmary 01-16-08 Revised.doc Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 January 16,2008 Mr. Wilson responded that the City should take over the Forest Practices Act Permit in order to have more control over the replanting time. Mr. Woolson with the Bonneville Power Administration conveyed their concerns about the kind of trees to be replanted adjacent to their easements, specifically stating that BPA does not want trees over ten feet near power lines. Mr.Norris agreed with Mr. Bronson's comments that trees should be replaced. He would like the City to allow the developer to replant trees in locations where the trees won't cause problems. Commissioner Carlson stated that residents don't want to wait 15 or 20 years before a neighborhood looks good again. City should have a certified arborist insure that trees that remain will thrive. Discussion Point#6 regarded ensuring that trees identified for preservation survive. Commissioner Drake said that he thought that the conclusion was to allow mass grading and replanting. Ms. Melton stated that site conditions should be taken into account. On some sites retaining trees would work well. However,trees near substations are a potential problem. Each site needs to be evaluated independently. Commissioner Elder agrees that one size doesn't fit all.We also have to be aware of the perception of citizens who may think that the city doesn't do anything about the mass grading. Commissioner Elder also stated that she appreciates the feedback from panel because it helps the Planning Commission with a decision. Commissioner Drake asked if it boils down to whether we are willing to pay for an arborist. It is what you are willing to spend to preserve trees. Commissioner Bronson asked whether there are thumb rules for evaluating the type of tree to be preserved so that a planner can determine when as arborist is needed, e.g.,which type of tree with which type of soil doesn't need an arborist. Ms. Melton responded that she is not aware of any boiler plate or checklist; it would be a challenge to develop one. Mr.Norris stated that he is concerned about Ms Melton's comments concerning the need for an arborist as this would add to the cost of housing.A builder may even have to change roads, etc to retain a tree. Every site is different. Ms. Clark stated that the subdivision code does allow you to clear for infrastructure improvements. Mr. Tremaine asked who would be liable if a significant tree that was required to be preserved falls two years later. Discussion Point#7 asks how replacement of trees should be regulated in regards to size, of site-replacement or a fee-in-lieu of replacement. Ms. Melton stated that requiring a minimum number of trees could be a problem from a screening standpoint in regards to substations. This could result in transients hanging out there. She also stated that K:\Planning Commission\2008\Meeting Summary 01-16-08 Revised doe Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 January 16,2008 replanting large caliper trees in sloped areas can damage the slope.We could also add verbiage about planting the right tree in the right spot.Ms Melton also added that allowing off-site replacement in places such as parks is good and a fee-in-lieu could be dedicated to tree planting and not used for other purposes. Mr.Norris stated that a three-inch caliper tree is expensive. Most cities require a two-inch caliper tree.He is also concerned that a fee in lieu of tree replacement would be viewed as money generator and overused. Commissioner Long asked about the caliper being used by other cities. Mr.Norris responded that a two-inch caliper is common.He further states that three-inch caliper trees require a root guard that costs more than the tree. Commissioner Pfeifer asked Ms. Melton her opinion about root guards. Ms. Melton responded that science hasn't made a decision as yet. Commissioner Long stated that he liked the concept of replacing trees on site.He suggested replacing as many trees as possible on site with fee-in-lieu for the remainder of the replacement trees. Discussion Point#8 asked whether the City should require monitoring of preserved and replacement trees. Mr.Norris stated that here is no guarantee that the replacement tree would not die within three years. He added that it takes a lot of time and work to get performance bonds released. Commissioner Bronson asked if staff knew how many replacement trees had died within the last five years and whether it was really a problem. Ms. Melton agreed with Commissioner Bronson, stating that monitoring would be an enormous amount of work for both the developer and the City. Commissioner Carlson agreed with Ms.Melton. Failures normally occur when people aren't doing basic care, such as irrigation. Commissioner Bronson asked Ms. Melton if she would let the City know what percentage of failure PSE has. Discussion Point#9 regarded whether there should be specific language to address tree replacement adjacent to utility(such as BPA and PSE) easement and rights-of-way(ROWS). Commissioner Drake asked whether utility companies already had regulations. Ms. Melton responded that PSE doesn't have power lines in Federal Way over 150 kilovolts. They do have language about vegetation management.PSE normally trims areas adjacent to power lines every three or four years. They work with land owners if hazard trees are on private property. Ms. Melton again mentioned the right tree,right place philosophy. She stated that she can provide the City with specifics. Commissioner Drake asked if we could just adopt the utility companies' standards by reference. Ms. Melton responded that some of the regulations are Federal regulations. KAPlanning Commission\2008\Meeting Summary 01-16-08 Revised.doc Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 January 16, 2008 Don A with the BPA stated that BPA can work with the City about types of trees to be planted adjacent to their ROW. Ms. Clark stated that we want to be more specific about types of trees to be planted adjacent to utility easements and ROWs. If we default to their regulations, it may not be clear in the future that they have the right to keep their easements and ROWS clear of hazard trees. Commissioner Carlson asked Ms.Melton if she could provide a permitted plantings notebook. Mr.Woolson asked that BPA be provided a planting plan of projects adjacent to their easements and ROWs for review by BPA. Ms.Melton stated that she has some literature about the Tree City USA program. Don with BPA states that street trees adjacent to their easements will have to be topped by the City or BPA will cut them down. Ms. Clark will talk to Public Works about this issue. Mr.Nomensen applauded the Planning Commission for inviting the panel.He stated that PSE has been analyzing outages that occurred during the 2006 storm. They found that 40 to 60 percent of the outages were caused by trees in required buffers. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS Ms. Clark stated that the 2008 Planning Commission Work Program has been adopted by the City Council. A copy was provided to the Commission. In February,the Commission will have a dinner,hold elections for chair and vice-chair, and have a study session that will discuss the work accomplished in 2007 and the upcoming 2008 Work Program. AUDIENCE COMMENT None ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m. KAPIanning Commission\2008\Meeting SuTmnary 01-16-OS Revised..doc COUNCIL MEETING DATE: January 15, 2008 ITEM #: CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL SUBJECT: 2008 Planning Commission and Long Range Planning Work Program POLICY QUESTION: How should the 2008 Planning Commission Work Program be prioritized? COMMITTEE: Land Use Transportation Committee(LUTC) MEETING DATE: December 17, 2007 CATEGORY: Consent ❑ Ordinance ❑ Public Hearing ❑ City Council Business ❑ Resolution Q Other STAFF REPORT BN'_ Margaret Clark, Senior Planner DEPT` Community Development A'T 7-1(_HINIENTS: 1)cc:ember 6, 'x)07. Staff Report to the I.t Exhibit A . 6k,biC B -- t.aTG Rtc'mw.wi, OAA%;-. ;fir 2ao's Plan n+Mj CQ+,,,wkss;M- luu+41m. OPTIONS ('0NS1DI-<lkD: Nee i)ecember 6, 2007, Staff Repnit to the LUTC STAFF RECORIN1ENDATION: Include those items required to be completed by state law (Section F of the 12/6/07 Staff Report) and other amendments that have been started but not yet completed (Section D of the 12116/07 Staff Report) in the Planning Commission Work Program. Concur with the LUTC's prioritization of the reminder of the code amendments. CITY MANAGER APPROVAL DIRECTOR APPROVAL: G Council C"inni ncc Council COMMITTEE RE(-O MENDASTIOt N: J.1 1Lurc I;rc orormeb+i a4axTTImot17 ''toah lous : J . . _a h�►� e AIV I. Chair Committee '1x nber Commute Member PR©PC)S D ® NC MOTION: "I+rir?l:,,rfj,.,?-(oval oflhe LUTC recommendation_ " (BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE) COUNCIL ACTION: ❑ APPROVED COUNCIL BILL# ❑ DENIED IST reading ❑ TABLED/DEFERRED/NO ACTION Enactment reading ❑ MOVED TO SECOND READING(ordinances only) ORDINANCE# _ REVISED-02/0612006 RESOLUTION# 1:\22008 Planning Commission Work Proguam1121707 LUTC MectingWgenda Bill doc CITY OF Fp=d�_ra� Way EX I BIT 1 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION WORK PROGRAM A. ITEMS TO BE CARRIED OVER INTO 2008 1. Significant Trees, Vegetation Retention, Clearing and Grading—This involves a review of and amendment to the current City of Federal Way zoning and subdivision code requirements related to the preservation of significant trees,vegetation retention, and site grading. 2. South 356`' Subarea Plan—This is a study to determine whether the Single-Family Residential (RS) 15.0 designated parcels located south of SW 356`h Street and west of I"Avenue South should be considered for higher density. B. New CODE AMENDMENTS I. Amendment to increase building height in the City Center-Core(CC-C)and City Center-Frame (CC-F). These amendments may be expanded to also address increased building height in the Community Business (BC)and Neighborhood Business (BN)zones depending on the scope of technical and environmental analysis needed_ 2. Amendment related to the 120-foot maximum facade length requirement of the Community Design Guidelines. As buildings become taller,there is a need for them to be longer and wider in order to retain appropriate bulk and scale. 3. Amendment to consider reducing how open space requirements are met in the CC-C and CC-F zones. The present open space requirement for residential development precludes efficient use of a site. This has become evident with the recent Symphony development_ 4. Amendment to delete the maximum allowable density for senior housing in the BC zone. There is no maximum density requirement in other commercial zones(CC-C and CC-F) which allow senior housing_ In addition, other development standards such as maximum height, and required parking, landscaping, and water detention requirements are sufficient to cap density. 5_ Amendment to FWCC Chapter 20, "Subdivisions,"and Chapter 22,"Zoning,"to incorporate Low Impact Development(LID)techniques. The City has recently received technical assistance from the Puget Sound Partnership, which will be in the form of reviewing our codes and proposing code amendments to implement LID techniques. Land Use/Transportation Committee(LUTC)Staff Report Meeting Date:December 17,2007 Exhibit B,2008 Planning Commission and Long Range Planning Work Program Page 1 of 2 6_ Amendment to allow home occupation day cares in an existing nonconforming residential dwelling in commercial zones_ This amendment is required to comply with state law. Also,re- examine the home occupation provisions for clarity and applicability in more unique situations, such as Adult Family Homes. 7. Amendment to allow the Director of Community Development Services the flexibility to determine the allowable hours of construction on a case-by-case basis. Presently, work is not allowed under any circumstance from 8 p.m. to 9 a.m. on Sundays and holidays. There is sometimes a reason to grant permission to work at these times; for example,the Department of Transportation may need to engage in construction around the clock. 8. Amendment to adopt regulations allowing storage containers in non-residential and/or residential zones.The code is silent on allowing this use and there has been inquires about the use of containers, more commonly on commercial property and to a lesser extent on residential property. 9. Amendment related to allowing churches in all zones. Currently, churches are allowed in all residential zones and the BC, CC-C, and CC-F zones,but not in the BN, Professional Office (PO), Commercial Enterprise(CE), or Office Park(OP)zones_ 10. Amendment to FWCC Chapter 22,Article XVIII, "Signs,"to allow off site signs, such as banners, in order to better publicize major events in our city, such as the Federal Way Symphony concerts; Festival Days events;Red, White and Blue Festival; Centerstage plays; Han Woo Ri, etc- L\2008 Planning Commission Work Program\City Council\Exhibit B LUTC Recommendation_doc Land Use/Transportation Committee(LUTC)Staff Report Meeting Date:December 17,2007 Exhibit B,2008 Planning Commission and Long Range Planning Work Program Page 2 of 2 a tau -,,, �, CITY OF Federal Way CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE STAFF REPORT DATE: December 6, 2007 TO: Land Use/Transportation Committee (LUTC) VIA: Cary Roe, Assistant City Manager FROM: Greg Fewins, Interim Director of Community Development Services Margaret H_ Clark, AICP, Senior Planner hvAA- SUBJECT: 2008 Planning Commission and Long Range Planning Work Program MEETING DATE: December 17, 2007 A. POLICY QUESTION How should the 2008 Planning Commission Work Program be prioritized? B. BACKGROUND At the beginning of each calendar year, the Planning Commission's Work Program for that year is approved by the City Council. The purpose of this memorandum is to assist the LUTC and City Council in approving a work program. An update was presented to the Planning Commission on October 17, 2007, and they recommended for inclusion in the 2008 Work Program an amendment to Federal Way City Code(FWCC)Chapter 18, "Environmental Protection," in order to address carbon emissions associated with development_ This memorandum includes the following information: 1_ 2007 Planning Commission Work Program— Items Completed in 2007 (Section C of this staff report). 2_ 2007 Planning Commission Work Program— Items to be carried over into 2008_ Work items started in 2007, but not yet completed (Section D of this staff report)_ 3_ Other Long Range Planning Responsibilities_ We have included other long-range planning projects that are not part of the Planning Commission Work Program but are required to be done on an annual basis by King County or the State of Washington (Section E of this staff report). 4_ 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendments-This is a list of citizen-initiated comprehensive plan amendment requests that will be presented to the LUTC on February 4, 2008, for a recommendation to the City Council on which ones should be selected for further study(Section F of this staff report). 5. Recommended Prioritization of Code Amendments for 2008 - This is a list of potential code amendments to be included as part of the 2008 Planning Conunission Work Program. Since there are more amendments on the list than can be completed by staff during 2008,we have organized them by High, Medium, and Low Priority in an attempt to assist you in prioritizing them(Section G of this staff report). A staff recommendation is presented in Section I of this staff report. 6. Other Long Range Work (Addendum and Supplement to the Planned Action SEPA) is described in Section H of this staff report_ 7. Exhibit A -This is a list of potential code amendments that staff has been adding to over the years but have been unable to work on due to them not being a high enough priority or based on staff workload_ C. 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION WORK PROGRAM-ITEMS COMPLETED IN 2007 The following is a list of items completed in 2007. 1_ Flag Lots- Amended the zoning code to clarify how flag lots should be regulated_ 2_ 2006 Comprehensive Plan Amendments-Seven site-specific requests were approved_ In addition, various chapters of the comprehensive plan were amended to address the BP/BC code amendments (see below)_ The BP/BC comprehensive map amendment also altered the boundaries of the Community Business (BC) and former Business Park (BP)zone and created a new Commercial Enterprise (CE) zone. 3_ BP/BC Code Amendments -The City adopted a new Commercial Enterprise (CE)zoning district, which is based on the BP designation with expanded uses_ 4. Height Increase- Allowed increased building heights for certain uses in the BC zone. 5. Housing-Allowed single-family units (small lot detached development) and zero-lot line townhouse development in multifamily zones_ 6_ Increased Short Plat and SEPA Thresholds-Amended FWCC Chapter 20, "Subdivisions,"to increase the maximum number of lots in a short plat from four to nine lots_ Amended FWCC Chapter 18, "Environmental Protection," to increase the SEPA residential categorical exemption threshold from four to nine lots and from four to nine residential units. 7. 2005-2007 Shoreline Master Program Update-The City updated the Shoreline Master Program (SMP). The SMP provides policy guidance and land use regulations for shoreline areas and adjacent upland areas within 200 feet of the shoreline within the City_' 'Staff completed the Master Program Update. It has been submitted to the Department of Ecology for their review and approval. Land Use/Transportation Committee(LUTC)Staff Report Meeting Date: December 17,2007 2008 Planning Commission and Long Range Planning Work Program Page 2 8. Shoreline Stringline Setback— Amended FWCC Chapter 18, Article III, to add flexibility in measuring the shoreline stringline setback_ This is being addressed as part of the SMP update.' D. 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION WORK PROGRAM—ITEMS TO BE CARRIED OVER INTO 2008 The following two amendments are part of the 2007 Planning Commission Work Program that were started in 2007, but are not yet completed. Work on these amendments will continue in 2008: 1. Significant Trees. Vegetation Retention, Clearing and Grading—This involves a review of and amendment to the current City of Federal Way zoning and subdivision code requirements related to the preservation of significant trees, vegetation retention, and site grading_ Staff has conducted two study sessions with the Planning Commission to date_ The next step is to invite developers, representatives from the Master Builders Association, Friends of the Hylebos, Puget Sound Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, and interested citizens to a Planning Commission Study Session_ This study session is scheduled for January 16, 2008- 2- South 3j6 1h.Subarea Plan --This is a study to determine whether the Single-Family Residential (RS) 13.0 designated parcels located south of SW 356'' Street and west of I" Avenue South should be considered for higher density_ Potential impacts on drainage and traffic associated with increased density are being evaluated. The next step is to brief the LUTC on these findings. This briefing is scheduled for February 4, 2008. E. OTHER LONG RANGE PLANNING RESPONSIBILITIES The following table shows reporting or monitoring work required by King County or the State of Washington to be done on an annual basis. This is not part of the Planning Commission Work Program_ Description Status Required by State Law ANNUAL REPORTS Oce of Financial This is an annual report provided to the RCW 43.62.030 requires OFM to Management Yearly State Office of Financial Management annually determine the population of all Population Estimate Report (OFM). cities and towns of the State of Washington as of April I`_ King County Benchmark This is an annual data request made of RCW 36.70A.130 required Countywide and Annual Growth all cities by King County to fulfill Planning Policies(CWPP's)to be Information Report requirements of the Growth adopted by King County by July 1, Management Act(GMA)_ 1992.The CPP's set up the Benchmark Program to assess progress in meeting the CPP's. Track and lnventon, Under the Buildable Lands Program, six RCW 36.70A.215 requires evaluation Buildable Lands counties, including King County, must of data collected under the Buildable annually collect data on land capacity Lands Program- and rogramand development activity from their cities and unincorporated areas. Land Use/Transportation Committee(LUTC)Staff Report Meeting Date: December 17, 2007 2008 Planning Commission and Long Range Planning Work Program Page 3 F. 2008 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS The City accepts applications on a yearly basis for amendments to the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan (FWCP)text and map_ Pursuant to FWCC Section 22-523, after the September 30'h deadline for accepting applications, the City Council shall hold a public hearing and select those amendment requests it wishes to move to the Planning Commission for further consideration. It is the City's practice that all City business be presented to a Council committee, in this case the Land Use/ Transportation Committee(LUTC), before Council deliberation. The following is a list of citizen-initiated comprehensive plan amendment requests that will be presented to the LUTC on February 4, 2008, for a recommendation to the City Council on which ones should be selected for further study: 1_ Request from Mr. Un-Ha Shin to change the comprehensive plan designation and zoning of two parcels totaling 5.01 acres located east of Pacific Highway South at approximately the 27700 block and directly east of the Silver Shadow apartment complex, from Single Family High Density and RS 7.2 (one unit per 7,200 square feet) to Multi-Family and Multifamily Residential (RM 2400— one unit per 2,400 square feet)_ 2. Request from Federal Way Village LLC (developer of the Federal Way Village project at Kitts Corner)to change the comprehensive plan designation and zoning of 1.53 acres located at 33901 Pacific Highway South, from Multi-Family and Multifamily Residential (RM 2400—one unit per 2,400 square feet)to Community Business and BC zoning_ 3. Request from Ms. Trinh Nguyen to change the comprehensive plan designation and zoning of two lots totaling 0.3 acres located at the southwest corner of the intersection of South 288"'Street and 18'h Avenue South, from Multi-Family and Multifamily Residential (RM 3600 —one unit per 3,600 square feet) to Community Business and BC zoning_ 4. Request from Mr_ Peter J_ Koszarek to change the comprehensive plan designation and zoning of the northern portion of a 19.86 acre-parcel located south and west of 21"Avenue SW and directly south of the Lakota Palisades I and Lakota Ridge subdivisions, from Single-Family Medium Density and RS 15.0(one unit per 15,000 square feet) to Neighborhood Business and BN zoning. 5. Request from Mr. Robert Velasco to change the comprehensive plan designation and zoning of 0.75 acres located at the northwestern corner of Hoyt Road SW and.SW 340'''Street from Single- Family High Density Residential and RS 9.6 (one unit per 9,600 square feet)to Neighborhood Business and BN zoning_ G. RECOMMENDED PRIORITIZATION OF CODE AMENDMENTS FOR 2008 The following is a list of potential code amendments to be included as part of the 2008 Planning Commission Work Program. Since there are more amendments on the list than can be completed by staff during 2008, we have organized them by High, Medium, and Low Priority, in an attempt to assist you in prioritizing them_ Land UseCfransportation Committee(LUTC)Staff Report Meeting Date: December 17,2007 2008 Planning Commission and Long Range Planning Work Program Page 4 High Priority I. Amendment to increase the maximum allowable height in the City Center-Core (CC-C) and City Center—Frame (CC-F)- 2- Amendment related to the 120-foot maximum facade length requirement of the Community Design Guidelines. 3. Amendment to consider reducing how open space requirements are met in the CC-C and CC-F zones. 4. Amendment to delete the maximum allowable density for senior housing in the Community Business (BC)zone.This is a citizen-initiated request; however, it is one that would have been initiated by staff in the absence of being initiated by a citizen_ 5. Amendment to FWCC Chapter 20, "S ubd 1 visions,"and Chapter 22, "Zoning," to incorporate Low Impact Development(LID)Techniques. Whether this remains a high priority depends upon obtaining technical assistance from the Puget Sound Partnership. A determination as to whether the City is successful in obtaining this assistance should be received by the end of 2007- 6. Amendment to allow home occupation day cares in an existing residential dwelling in commercial zones. This amendment is required to comply with state law. 7. Amendment to allow the Director of Community Development Services the flexibility to determine the allowable hours of construction on a case-by-case basis. 8. Amendment to adopt regulations allowing storage containers in non-residential ancUor residential zones. Mediunt Priority 1. Amendment to FWCC Chapter 18, "Environmental Protection,"to address carbon emissions. 2. Amendment related to development standards for adult family homes. 3. Amendment related to revising the Community Design Guidelines. 1t has been 1 I years since the Community Design Guidelines were first adopted and it may be time to revisit them. 4. Amendment related to maximum lot coverage for single-family development_ 5. Amendment to regulate the size of secondary/accessory buildings and to clarify how the size of an accessory dwelling unit(ADU) is calculated_ 6. Amendment to adopt an approval process and criteria to locate heliports. 7. Amendment related to allowing churches in all zones. Currently, churches are allowed to all residential zones and the Community Business (BC), City Center-Core (CC-C)and City Center- Frame (CC-F)zones, but not in the Professional Office(PO), Neighborhood Business(BN), Commercial Enterprise(CE), or Office Park(OP)zones_ 8. Amendment to allow increased building heights for certain uses in the Neighborhood Business (BN) zone and require buildings to be located adjacent to rights-of-way- 9- Amendment to allow increased building heights in the Community Business(BC) zone. Low Priority 1. Amendment to FWCC Chapter 20, "Subdivisions,"to simplify the submittal requirements for plats_ 2. Amendment to FWCC Chapter 22, "Zoning,"to require design standards and development requirements for essential public facilities. This is an omission in the current code. 3. Amendment to FWCC Chapter 22, Article XVIII, "Signs,"to allow off site signs for special events. 4. Amendment to FWCC Chapter 22, "Zoning,"to require applicants to hold traffic-related neighborhood meetings,when necessary, related to mitigation of traffic impacts. 5. Amendment to FWCC Section 22-952 pertaining to"Junk and Junk Yards" in order to clarify what constitutes junk, particularly on developed lots. Land UserTransportatton Committee(LUTC)Staff Report Meeting Date: December 17,2007 2008 Planning Commission and Long Range Planning Work Program Page 5 6_ Amendment to make FWCC Chapter 22, Article IV, "Nonconformance,"and Article XVI, "Improvements,"consistent pertaining to who is authorized to conduct an appraisal of property, 7_ Amendment related to revising the process for permitting cell towers and wireless facilities and their development standards. It has been 10 years since the regulations were first adopted and it may be time to revisit them. H. OTHER LONG RANGE WORK Recent proposals for residential development in the Planned Action EIS area have exceeded assumptions. In addition, the City is anticipating even more residential development in that area based on recent inquiries. Therefore, in the short term an addendum to the Planned Action EIS will be prepared and in the longer term,a Supplemental EIS may have to be prepared. Neither document is required to be presented to the Planning Commission, LUTC, or City Council. Staff may also be involved in the preparation of strategic plan to address how we will use the money from the Lift Legislation_ The City will receive up to$30 million over 20 years_ This money can be used to construct grid streets, parks,and structured parking in the downtown. It is unclear at this time whether the Planning Commission will be involved_ 1. STAFF RECOM(\IENDATION Staff recommends that the code amendments to be included in the 2008 Planning Commission Work Program be those listed under"High Priority" in Section G of this staff report. As in the past, it is the staff's intention to complete the adopted work program by the end of the calendar year; however, some items may have to be carried over to the 2009 Work Program if we are unable to complete them in 2008. J. COMMITTEE OPTIONS The LUTC and/or City Council may add additional items to the 2008 Planning Commission Work Program, or may modify the priority order recommended by staff Staff can work with the LUTC to re- prioritize the list at the December 17th LUTC meeting, or come back to your next meeting with a prioritized list. K. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION Forward the LUTC recommendation to the ' 2008, City Council Consent Agenda_ APPROVAL OF COMMITTEE REPORT: .Lack Dovey, Chair -Linda Kochmar, Member Dean t'46C: em ber P2008 Planning Commission Work Program\121707 LUTC Meeting\LUTC Stafl Report.doc/12/12 2007 2:59 PM Land Useffransportation Committee(LUTC)Staff Report _ Meeting Date:December 17,2007 2008 Planning Commission and Long Range Planning Work Program Page 6 EXHIBIT A LIST OF CODE AMENDMENTS CHAPTER 18-- ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Page Section/Title Explanation of Problem/Ratioual for Change 18-8 18-51(a) &(b) Amend the SEPA appeal process from Process IV to Process III_ Process IV doesn't work well for an appeal(e-g-decisional criteria doesn't work; traditional 1724 processing is awkward). Also,clarify the process for different types of SEPA appeals_ CHAPTER 20-- SUBDIVISIONS Page Section/Title Explanation of Problem/Rational for Change NA Subdivisions in general Add provisions for plat corrections. These provisions would be for fixing minor typographical/scrivners errors on recorded plats_ We have had several recent requests and needs for these types of plat fixes_ See document in Silverwood folder 01-103104-00-SU. King County has plat correction code provisions I have used as a guideline, see KCC 19A_08.120. 20 Preliminary plat .Add criteria to define a major and a minor change to the preliminary plat. CHAPTER 22 --ZONING Page Section/Title Explanation of Problem./Rational for Change Codify process and development standards for uses such as a mobile taco stand or outdoor accessory use that is in place just during working hours. Consider amending Environmentally Sensitive Area(ESA)provisions to eliminate setback requirements for critical areas when separated by an existing road or other physical barrier of a certain width or type. 22-21 22-33 Development application submittal requirements.._(b)Contents.._ (8) Eight complete and bound sets of drawings... This section requests elevations,but does not request floor plans_ We need to add"floor plans" to the list of required items because it is impossible to understand elevations without the corresponding floor plans_ For site plans, we need"existing site plan"and"proposed site plan"in order to determine what is being changed. We also need"existing"and "proposed"for building elevations and floor plans_ 22 42 22-351 Add provisions for an expiration period for Process I Director's Approval_ Land Use/Transportation Committee(LUTC)Staff Report 2008 Planning Commission and Long Range Work Program Exhibit A—List of Code Amendments Page I CHAPTER 22 -- ZONING Page Section/Title Explanation of Problem/Rational for Change 22-44.1 22-365 Process II Process II approval criteria list only some things from the design guidelines_ approval criteria For example, it lists 1634,but not 1635. I think it should simply say, "(c) Community design guideline decisional criteria"and stop there_ Here is the excerpt: 2245 Process II Add provisions for an expiration period for Process 11 Site Plan Review, 22-65 22-488(c)(1)(b) These two principal criteria are too linuting for making a rezone decision_ Add additional criteria—call Municipal Research to get other rezone criteria examples. 22-75 22-552 This code section allows for a 60 day temp use permit, with the possibility for an additional 60 days for a total of 120 days_However,Chapter 9 states that temporary business registrations are only issued for a maximum of 90 days without the possibility of an extension_These two duration periods should be coordinated one way or the other_ Various Various Modify temporary use,outdoor activity exemptions for certain temporary uses,and temporary business registration provisions for consistency_Need to allow a broader range of temporary sales particularly by zone(e.g_ pedestrian type sales in the city center; non-profit sales;school activities such as food sales at football games)- 22-85, 22-601, Various The current development regulations governing church uses are unable to Various accommodate the modern day church facility/campus. Modern churches now have large secondary schools,daycares, youth services, and large office buildings on site. The current development regulations do not contemplate the mixed use nature of the modern church campus in terms of setbacks, heights, use process,etc- 22-249 22-967(5), PWSF 22-967(5),Standards for electronics equipment enclosures, lists the following as priority#3: "Equipment enclosures shall be placed above ground in an enclosed cabinet that shall not exceed six feet in height and occupy more than 48 square feet of floor area, including areas for maintenance or future expansion."This is becoming a problem because many proposals are calling for cabinets up to 7"6"_One proponent has said that the manufacturer does not make that type of cabinet shorter,so they are proposing to build shed enclosures instead_ However, a shed is more bulky and intrusive than a cabinet. Also,some of these sites are already developed with multiple carrier cabinets in a fenced enclosure,in which case building a shed for one carrier does not make sense- Proposed solution_Change the code to state,"shall not exceed eight feet." 22-259 22-1093 Consider adding new Land Surface Modification(LSM)exemption criteria (it would be #14) that would state that those noxious weeds,as identified on the Washington State Noxious Weed List, which are designated(which means the state requires their removal)are permitted to be removed outright_Those noxious weeds that are identified by the state but not designated for removal can be permitted to be removed with director's approval looking at scope and scale of removal, and potential need for remediation of disturbed area. Land Use/Transportation Committee(LUTC)Staff Report 2008 Planning Commission and Long Range Work Program Exhibit A-List of Code Amendments Page 2 CHAPTER 22 -- ZONING Page Section/Title Explanation of Problem/Rational for Change 22-269 22-1248, Critical areas Homeowners who wish to add small additions or decks to their houses often exemptions face a major obstacle if the existing house was built in part of a critical area, such as a steep slope or stream buffer. The only provision of the code for allowing them to build an addition is a costly and time-consuming Process IV with the hearing examiner_ Other cities have critical area exemptions for minor improvements in order to avoid situations like this.These exemptions could also apply to commercial and mixed-use projects- 22-296 22-1564(i) Code gives measurements for"small shrubs,""medium shrubs,"and"large shrubs"but nowhere in the code is landscaping described as either"small" or"medium"—only"large_"Perhaps we could simply say,"Shrubs in Type 1, II and III landscaping shall be a minimum of 24 inches in height, shrubs in Type IV landscaping shall be a minimum of 12 inches in height." 22-299 22-1564 Need to clarify which requirement supersedes when there is a conflict between setbacks/required yards and landscaping requirements. 22-299 22-1566(c) Need to clarify landscaping requirements for single family uses in the Multifamily Residential(RM)zone. 22-1568(c)(1)(g)and One section requires a 12-foot replacement tree and the other requires a 10- (c)(5)(b) foot replacement tree. Is there a good reason for the different standards? 22-325 22-1634 and 22-1635 The design guidelines could use some revision and clarity overall.One thing that might help would be to combine the site design section with the building design section,because some things listed under"site design" apply to building design. For example:22-1634(4), "Project designers shall strive for overall design continuity by using similar elements throughout the project such as architectural style and features, materials,colors,and textures."This is something that could apply, even if there is just one building on the site- 22-328 22-1635 Add a standard for screening exposed rooftop mechanical units with both new construction and remodels.This will provide a basis to require that pre-existing, ugly rooftop units are screened as part of major facelifts(as "reasonably related"to the remodeling). ESA section Delete reasonable use criteria from various Environmentally Sensitive Area modification sections. Consider using the SEPA approach as criteria that uses a priority order of avoidance,minimizing impacts, mitigation,etc_ Various Principally 22- Separate single-family parking and driveway regulations into separate 1 135(1)(a); and subsections;preclude driveways and parking from required side yards with 1134,1403, 1453, and modification provisions and decisional criteria(e.g.constraints,access to 1424 principal parking area/structure,use rights and privileges like others). Various Chapter 22, Article Create administrative review processes for rehabilitation activities within XIV, ESA all ESA's buffer areas. Refer to stream and wetland rehabilitation provisions as examples. Unknown Create new provisions to allow a second kitchen area in single-family homes under certain conditions without triggering Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU)provisions. Land Usef Fransportation Committee(LUTC)Staff Report 2008 Planning Commission and Long Range Work Program Exhibit A-List of Code Amendments Page 3 CHAPTER 22 -- ZONING Page Section/Title Explanation of Problem/Rational for Change 22-244 Chapter 22, Article XIII Section 22-955(b)(3)requires counting '/2 the area of grass grid pavers as impervious surface for determining lot coverage_Ann Dower, PWDS Division, says the SWM manual allows all areas of grass grid to be counted as pervious area for stormwater-These two regulations conflict and Ann says the grass grid pavers are becoming more commonly used.Need to coordinate the two standards- 22-334 22-1641 Revise both the front entryway standard and standard that a garage may not exceed more than 40 percent of the front facade for single family houses in cluster subdivisions to a performance based standard. 22-63 22481(a)(8) The code requires the same format and content for the hearing notice as the Notice of Action. In either case, the requirement in 22-481(a)(8)is wrong, as you can't appeal the hearing examiner decision,(as the examiner does not make a decision)_The code should be revised to say something to the effect._.. "Only those that provide comments to the Hearing Examiner at the public hearing may appeal the Council's final decision on the matter_" 1:12008 Planning Commission Work Program\121707 LUTC Meeting\Exhibit A--Proposed Zoning&Subdivision code Amendments.doc Land Use/Transportation Committee(LUTC)Staff Report 2008 Planning Comnussion and Long Range Work Program Exhibit A—List of Code Amendments Page 4