01-19-2022 Planning Commission PacketCommissioners City Staff
Lawson Bronson, Chair Tim O’Neil, Vice-Chair Keith Niven, Planning Manager
Wayne Carlson Hope Elder Kari Cimmer, Admin & Permit Center Supervisor
Diana Noble-Gulliford Tom Medhurst 253-835-2629
Jae So Eric Olsen, Alternate www.cityoffederalway.com
Anna Patrick, Alternate
K:\01 - Document Review\Planning\Planning Commission Documents\2022 01 January 19 Meeting\Agenda 01-19-2022.docx
City of Federal Way
PLANNING COMMISSION
January 19, 2022, 6:30 p.m. Via Zoom
AGENDA
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
a. Planning Commission Meeting of December 1, 2021
4. PUBLIC COMMENT
5. COMMISSION BUSINESS
a. Election of Chair and Vice-Chair
b. Public Hearing (continued from 12/1/21) – 2021 Various Proposed Text
Amendments to the Federal Way Revised Code: Titles 2, 14, 18, and 19.
6. STAFF BUSINESS
a. Manager’s Report
7. NEXT MEETING
a. February 2, 2022
8. ADJOURNMENT
Notice: Due to rising cases of COVID-19 and pursuant to Governor Inslee’s Proclamation 20-28, the Planning
Commission meetings will be held remotely via Zoom until further notice. The Mayor and City Council
encourage you to use one of the following ways to participate in the meeting remotely.
• Join here https://cityoffederalway.zoom.us/j/92039948345?pwd=b3RBOGdQeUw5ZEFQSi8rblhlZ0hRQT09;
• Zoom meeting code 920 3994 8345 and passcode 431768
• Call in and listen to the live meeting 888-788-0099 or 253-215-8782
• Public Comment may be submitted via email here, or sign up to provide live comments here
Planning Commission Minutes Page 1 December 01, 2021
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
PLANNING COMMISSION
December 01, 2021
6:30 p.m. City Council Chambers
MEETING MINUTES
Commissioners present: Lawson Bronson, Tim O’Neil (via Zoom), Wayne Carlson, Tom Medhurst, Diana
Noble-Gulliford (via Zoom), Hope Elder, Eric Olsen, and Anna Patrick. Commissioner absent: Jae So
(excused).
City Staff present: Planning Manager Keith Niven, City Attorney Kent van Alstyne, and Administration &
Permit Center Supervisor Kari Cimmer.
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Bronson called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m.
MINUTES
After discussion, the November 17, 2021, minutes were approved as presented.
PUBLIC COMMENT
None
COMMISSION BUSINESS
Public Hearing on the 2021 text amendments. Planning Manager Niven summarized each proposed
amendment, and requested Commission members, then the public to provide their comments after the
summary.
1. SEPA Noticing – Libraries
Proposal is to drop noticing at libraries. Instead, the noticing would occur on the City’s website.
2. Final Plat
Proposal is to have the Community Development Director approve final plat instead of City Council
approval.
3. Plat Alteration
Proposal to have the Hearing Examiner approve plat alterations instead of City Council.
4. Docket Process & Noticing
Proposal to add a step to go to the Planning Commission initially for public comments.
5. Convalescent Centers
Proposal to allow convalescent centers in other RM zones. Graphic shown.
6. Planning Commission
Proposal to allow Commission alternates to serve as full members to meet quorum obligations.
7. Non-substantive housekeeping items
Proposal to make a variety of administrative corrections with no change in substance.
8. Electric fences
Proposal to add electric fences for businesses.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 December 01, 2021
9. Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) parking
Proposal to remove the requirement of an addition parking space for an ADU when near a major
transit stop. Graphic shown.
10. Height for Accessory Structures
Proposal to clarify code language.
11. ADU Permit
Proposal to clarify code language for when an ADU permit is necessary. Graphic shown.
12. SEPA Categorical Exemptions
Proposal to change the noticing thresholds. Graphic shown.
13. Unrelated persons
Proposal to align the FWRC with Washington State law. Graphic shown.
14. Boundary Line Adjustment (BLA)
Proposal to clarify that BLA process is not intended to negate other city code requirements.
Commissioner Noble-Gulliford sought clarification for “Federal Way Open for Business” comment in the
Master Builders public comment; she has concern for people’s safety but is not sure electric fences are the
answer and worries how these fences will appear to businesses looking to locate in Federal Way.
Commissioner Carlson sought clarification about the quorum issue for the proposed change in the Planning
Commission code change, and would like us to do what we can to support business security. Commissioner
Patrick had questions about maintaining a walking path on streets without sidewalks, the difference between
convalescent centers and permanent supportive housing (definition read into record by City Attorney van
Alstyne), and she expressed concern regarding potential issues. Commissioner Elder commented that she
understands the concern regarding the convalescent centers, but is in favor of the change. Commission Chair
Bronson stated he would wait for his opportunity to comment until the January 2022 meeting.
David L. Mann spoke against the proposed code changes to ADU provisions. He also asked the Commission
to overturn an ADU code interpretation recently issued by Community Development Director Brian Davis.
Chair Bronson asked Mr. Mann to submit his comments in writing due to the length of his testimony.
Commissioner Carlson moved that the public hearing be continued until the 1/19/22 meeting. Motion carried.
MANAGER REPORT
The Planning Manager noted that we’ll work on getting the information to the commission members as
quickly as possible.
The Puget Sound Regional Council’s Growth Management planning commission group was voting to make
the second Sound Transit station area a county-wide transit center. We applied and are awaiting their
decision. We will then be able to apply for transportation funding.
We have no permanent replacement for Tina at this time.
NEXT MEETING
January 19, 2022 Regular Meeting and continuation of public hearing.
ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Medford called for adjournment; Commissioner Carlson seconded.
The meeting adjourned at 8:04 p.m.
K:\PLN Long Range Planning\Planning Commission\Agendas, Minutes\2021\Meeting Summary 12-01-21.doc
33325 8th Avenue South
Federal Way, WA 98003-6325
253-835-7000
www.cityoffederalway.com
Jim Ferrell, Mayor
MEMORANDUM
DATE: 10 January 2022
TO: Federal Way Planning Commission
FROM: Brian Davis, Director
Keith Niven, AICP, CEcD, Planning Manager
SUBJECT: Response Memo – 2021 various proposed code amendments (File 21-103626-00-UP)
The planning commission received a briefing on the proposed code amendments on November 17, 2021.
The Public Hearing was opened on December 1, 2021 and was continued by the commission until January
19, 2022.
The following issues were discussed as part of the public hearing relating to the proposed Code amendments.
Staff’s response follows the issue raised.
1. Code amendments relating to the Planning Commission.
Staff Response: The commission discussed the proposed code amendments relating to the need for
clarifying language relating to voting members of the commission. In addition, Commissioner
Medhurst identified an error in the proposed language. Staff have provided the following updates in
response to those issues:
2. Permits for ADUs
Staff response: The commission received public comment during the hearing on 1 December 2021.
A member of the public expressed concern over parking relating to ADUs. The commission Chair
requested the individual submit his concerns in writing to ensure they could be adequately addressed
by staff and the commission. The city received written information from the testifying party on 10
January 2022. Those documents and the email are included in the Commission packet.
The points raised by the resident (attached) have been addressed in the separate memo from the City
Attorney (attached). Proposed revisions below are recommended by staff to improve clarity.
Proposed language:
3. Updated definition for “family”
Staff response: Staff have proposed an updated definition.
Original Recommendation:
“Family” means an individual; a group of not more than five individuals; or two or more individuals
related by not more than four degrees of affinity or consanguinity, including persons under legal
guardianship. Any limitation on the number of residents resulting from this definition shall not be
applied to the extent it would prevent the city from making reasonable accommodations to disabled
persons in order to afford such persons equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling as required by
the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988, 42 USC 3604(f)(3)(b). This definition shall not be applied
to the extent that it would cause a residential structure occupied by persons with handicaps, as
defined in the Federal Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988, to be treated differently than a similar
residential structure occupied by other related or unrelated individuals. any number of individuals
living together as a single household.
Updated and edited Recommendation:
CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
MEMORANDUM
DATE: January 12, 2022
TO: Chair Bronson, Vice-Chair O’Neil, and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Kent van Alstyne, Assistant City Attorney
SUBJECT: Clarification of the Planning Commission’s Role in Proposed Accessory Dwelling
Unit Code Changes
A. Introduction.
At the December 1, 2021, Planning Commission meeting, the commission opened and
conducted a public hearing on various proposed text amendments to the Federal Way Revised
Code (“FWRC”). One of the proposed text amendments is a change to the current definition of
Accessory Dwelling Unit (“ADU”).
A member of the public, Mr. David Mann, provided public comment regarding the
proposed ADU amendment. At the conclusion of Mr. Mann’s oral comments, Chair Bronson
suggested that Mr. Mann submit his comments in writing in advance of the January 19, 2022,
meeting and continuation of the public hearing on the proposed text amendments for
consideration by the Planning Commission. Mr. Mann has submitted additional written comment
for your consideration, which is contained in the commission packet. Please read and consider
Mr. Mann’s comments carefully, as of course you do with all comments from members of the
public.
Mr. Mann’s oral and written comments discuss two distinct ongoing processes: (1) Mr.
Mann’s pending land use appeal of Community Development Director Brian Davis’ previously
issued code interpretation of the current ADU code; and (2) the Planning Commission’s
consideration of proposed future changes to the ADU code. Portions of Mr. Mann’s comments
appear to suggest that the Planning Commission should revoke or overturn Director Davis’
previously issued code interpretation. The purpose of this memorandum is to clarify for the
Planning Commission that while the commission has a significant and important role in
consideration of the proposed amendments to the ADU code, the Planning Commission does not
have any role in Mr. Mann’s land use appeal of the code interpretation, which ultimately will be
decided by the City Hearing Examiner and the Washington courts of law.
B. Mr. Mann’s Separate Land Use Appeal of Director Davis’ Code Interpretation.
On October 15, 2021, Director Davis issued a code interpretation (“Code Interpretation”)
regarding the City’s definition of ADU.1 The Code Interpretation was issued because the current
code is potentially ambiguous with regard to whether a planned addition to a single-family home
with a second kitchen constitutes an ADU, or whether they are simply single-family homes with
a second kitchen. City staff have had difficulty on many occasions in determining whether a
proposed addition of a second kitchen to a single-family home creates an ADU, and therefore
requires an ADU permit and land use approval in addition to a simple building permit. The Code
Interpretation clarifies when such second kitchens and living facilities are ADUs under current
code, and when they are not. See FWRC 19.50.020, .040 (providing that an interpretation may be
issued on the City’s initiative to clarify conflicting or ambiguous application of the code). The
Code Interpretation is not specific to a particular property, it applies generally to the city as a
whole.
Mr. Mann disagrees with the reasoning and determination in the Code Interpretation, and
filed an appeal of the Code Interpretation on November 8, 2021 (“Appeal”). Appeals of code
interpretations issued by the City are governed by land use Process IV, which means the City
Hearing Examiner holds an appeal hearing and issues a decision granting or denying the appeal.
See FWRC 19.70.150. Currently the appeal hearing is scheduled for early March, 2022. If either
party to the appeal disagrees with the Hearing Examiner’s decision on appeal, they may appeal
that decision to Superior Court, the Court of Appeals, and ultimately the Supreme Court of
Washington under the Land Use Petition Act, Chapter 36.70C RCW. See FWRC 19.70.260. In
other words, ultimate power for resolution of the Appeal is vested in the Hearing Examiner and
the courts of law.
Various sections of Mr. Mann’s oral and written comments (“Mann Letter”), however,
suggest that the Planning Commission should overturn or retract the Code Interpretation. See
Mann Letter, at 8 (asking for the Planning Commission to demand a “swift retraction” of the
Code Interpretation). While the Planning Commission has significant latitude to recommend how
ADUs are defined in the City in the future as explained in the next section, the Planning
Commission does not have the power to change the Code Interpretation or otherwise participate
in resolution of the Appeal—it is a separate legal process.
1 The notice of code interpretation is located at:
https://www.cityoffederalway.com/sites/default/files/Documents/Department/CD/Planning/Land%20Use/21-
104304-UP%20-%20Notice%20of%20Interpretation.pdf
The full text of the code interpretation is located at:
https://www.cityoffederalway.com/sites/default/files/Documents/Department/CD/Planning/Land%20Use/2021.10.1
5%20Code%20Interpretation%20-%20Attached%20ADUs%20FINAL.pdf
C. Planning Commission Consideration of ADU Code Amendments.
As you already know, the Planning Commission is an essential part of the City’s
consideration of future amendments to its development regulations, including the ADU code.
City staff has suggested amendments to the ADU code going forward that are consistent with the
previously issued Code Interpretation, but the Planning Commission is free to recommend
changes to this approach—including changing the definition in a different way or even keeping
the currently existing definition unchanged.
In doing so, please keep in mind the criteria that all development regulation changes must
meet in order to be adopted. Under FWRC, the City may only amend its development regulations
if it finds that:
(1) The proposed amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the
comprehensive plan;
(2) The proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to public health, safety, or
welfare; and
(3) The proposed amendment is in the best interest of the residents of the city.
FWRC 19.80.130. Please also keep in mind the need for clarity and enforceability in the City’s
development regulations, and that the proposed change should be in the best interests of all the
residents of the city as a whole.
D. Summary
As you consider Mr. Mann’s public comments as well as commentary from other
members of the public regarding the proposed amendment to the ADU code, please keep in mind
the Planning Commission’s significant and important role in determining the future of the City’s
ADU code. But also remember that the Planning Commission does not have any role in the
previously issued Code Interpretation, nor Mr. Mann’s land use appeal of the Code
Interpretation, which will be judged and decided by the City Hearing Examiner and the courts.
1
Kari CimmerFrom:Plng InquirySent:Thursday, December 23, 2021 8:57 AMTo:Kari CimmerCc:Plng InquirySubject:FW: federal way, wa - RE: Form submission from: Electronic Document Submittal MV Towing AmarokKari – Please add this last comment from Donald McLellan to the 1/19/22 Planning Commission packet also, it is a public comment for the Public Hearing. Jim Harris Senior Planner 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 Phone: 253/835-2652 www.cityoffederalway.com Office Hours Mon – Thur 8:00 AM – 4:30 PM From: Donald McLellan <dmclellan@AMAROK.COM>
Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2021 4:02 AM
To: Plng Inquiry <PlngInquiry@cityoffederalway.com>
Cc: Electronic Submittal <ElectronicSubmittal@cityoffederalway.com>; Michael Pate <mpate@AMAROK.COM>; Keith
Niven <Keith.Niven@cityoffederalway.com>
Subject: RE: federal way, wa - RE: Form submission from: Electronic Document Submittal MV Towing Amarok
[EXTERNAL EMAIL WARNING]
This email originated from outside of the City of Federal Way and may not be trustworthy. Please use caution
when clicking links, opening attachments, or replying to requests for i nformation. If you have any doubts about
the validity of this email please contact IT Help Desk at x2555.
Jim,
Good morning. Your initial response advising of the disposition is sufficient. Please do NOT waste staff time
on this. We are in hopes that in light of the worsening crime problems exacerbated by a combination of virus
outbreaks and deteriorating economy the city will agree that this type of security system is not only needed
but is the best and safest solution and will allow its deployment/use in all non-residential zones. On behalf of
AMAROK, LLC we wish you, your colleagues and families happy holidays.
Cordially,
Donald McLellan
AMAROK, LLC
Cell: 803-201-1773 | Main Office: 803-786-6333
From: Plng Inquiry <PlngInquiry@cityoffederalway.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2021 16:55
To: Donald McLellan <dmclellan@AMAROK.COM>; Plng Inquiry <PlngInquiry@cityoffederalway.com>
Cc: Electronic Submittal <ElectronicSubmittal@cityoffederalway.com>; Michael Pate <mpate@AMAROK.COM>; Keith
2
Niven <Keith.Niven@cityoffederalway.com>
Subject: RE: federal way, wa - RE: Form submission from: Electronic Document Submittal MV Towing Amarok
(External Sender)
Donald - If you want to proceed with the building permit link request process and submittal of a building permit
application that is your prerogative. Based on the project description and the similar nature of this proposal to what was
previously reviewed by City staff in a pre application for a different site as discussed below, it appears the proposal may
not meet applicable FWRC requirements. Obviously City staff has not conducted a review of the application, and a full
review and analysis would be conducted by City staff following submittal. If the application does not meet FWRC
requirements, the application may be denied by City staff in accord with FWRC.
Contact the Permit Center if you want to proceed with the upload link request
Jim Harris
Senior Planner
33325 8th Avenue South
Federal Way, WA 98003-6325
Phone: 253/835-2652
www.cityoffederalway.com
Office Hours Mon – Thur 8:00 AM – 4:30 PM
From: Donald McLellan <dmclellan@AMAROK.COM>
Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2021 3:46 AM
To: Plng Inquiry <PlngInquiry@cityoffederalway.com>
Cc: Electronic Submittal <ElectronicSubmittal@cityoffederalway.com>; Michael Pate <mpate@AMAROK.COM>; Keith
Niven <Keith.Niven@cityoffederalway.com>
Subject: RE: federal way, wa - RE: Form submission from: Electronic Document Submittal MV Towing Amarok
[EXTERNAL EMAIL WARNING]
This email originated from outside of the City of Federal Way and may not be trustworthy. Please use caution
when clicking links, opening attachments, or replying to requests for information. If you have any doubts about
the validity of this email please contact IT Help Desk at x2555.
Jim,
Good morning. Thank you for the email. You are correct, this submittal was for the same type of system as
that of the previous Potelco submittal, a system that has no shock whatsoever. It is truly a monitored,
outdoor burglar alarm system. Please accept this formal request to include the BC zoning category into the
proposed amendment process. You may be aware that crime is rapidly increasing not only throughout the
state of Washington but across the entire country. In our 30 years of business we have never seen crime grow
so quickly. Combine this fact with the worsening economic situation and it is a nearly overwhelming one-two
punch for businesses to survive. MV Towing is but another case in point. They are increasingly victimized by
thieves trespassing and stealing the lucrative catalytic converters amongst other auto parts and
electronics. They need help! The system we provide our clients is the single most effective perimeter security
system on the market. Once installed, most of our clients go from potentially business ending crime to zero
crime following installation. Our system provides a few of the following benefits:
3
deters crime from the area (not just the subject property)
lower crime means safer communities
lower crime rates increase property values
higher property values equal greater revenue for the city
police resources can be husbanded towards life safety rather than on property crimes
the city can project a progressive image recognizing new, green technologies
city projects a business friendly, tough on crime image
Thank you again for reaching out. We look forward to working with the city to create a win-win security
solution for the city and the business community in need.
Donald McLellan
Compliance Manager, Government Relations
AMAROK, LLC
550 Assembly St., 5th Floor, Columbia, SC 29201
Cell Phone: 803-201-1773 | Main Office: 800-432-6391 | Fax: 803-404-5378
dmclellan@amarok.com
www.AMAROK.com
AMAROK formerly known as Electric Guard Dog
From: Plng Inquiry <PlngInquiry@cityoffederalway.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2021 17:35
To: Donald McLellan <dmclellan@AMAROK.COM>
Cc: Electronic Submittal <ElectronicSubmittal@cityoffederalway.com>; Plng Inquiry
<PlngInquiry@cityoffederalway.com>; Keith Niven <Keith.Niven@cityoffederalway.com>
Subject: federal way, wa - RE: Form submission from: Electronic Document Submittal MV Towing Amarok
(External Sender)
Donald – The Permit Center staff asked me about your request for upload link to submit application for proposal below.
Based on the brief description in your upload link request below, this current proposal sounds similar to what we
discussed for Potelco property in Federal Way on February 18, 2021, in a pre-application meeting. As outcome of that
pre-application conference, under existing code regulations, the proposal did not meet City code regulations as noted in
the pre-application summary letter.
If this is the same or similar type of proposal, but for a different site, then the same or similar FWRC regulations apply,
and the proposal would not meet FWRC regulations.
Is this the same type of security system as we previously discussed for the Potelco site?
Please note there is currently a proposed code amendment regarding electrified fence under review by the Planning
Commission. However, that proposed code amendment regarding electrified fences (if approved) only applies to CE
zoned property. No recommendation on the proposed fence regulations has been rendered by the Planning
4
Commission, and the City Council has not yet received a recommendation from the Planning Commission on the
proposed code revisions.
The MV Towing site is not zoned CE, it is zoned BC and if the code amendment were to be approved by the City Council
in current format, then it would not apply to MV Towing and the BC zoning district.
Jim Harris
Senior Planner
33325 8th Avenue South
Federal Way, WA 98003-6325
Phone: 253/835-2652
www.cityoffederalway.com
Office Hours Mon – Thur 8:00 AM – 4:30 PM
From: noreply@cityoffederalway.com [mailto:noreply@cityoffederalway.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2021 4:13 AM
To: Electronic Submittal
Subject: Form submission from: Electronic Document Submittal
[EXTERNAL EMAIL WARNING]
This email originated from outside of the City of Federal Way and may not be trustworthy. Please use caution
when clicking links, opening attachments, or replying to requests for information. If you have any doubts about
the validity of this email please contact IT Help Desk at x2555.
Submitted on Tuesday, December 21, 2021 - 4:13am
Submitted by anonymous user: 207.144.143.226
Submitted values are:
Contact Name:
Donald
Project Name:
MV Towing
Business/Company Name
AMAROK, LLC
Project Parcel #:
1721049031
Mailing Address
550 Assembly St., 5th Floor
5
Project Address:
33110 14TH AVE S
Email Address:
dmclellan@amarok.com
Project Description:
Project encompasses both 33110 14th Ave S & 33125 15th Ave S, Federal Way WA 98003 (parcels: 1721049031 &
1721049033). Installation of approx. 939 linear feet of 10' tall, outdoor burglar alarm system to be located inside of
existing chain link fence.
Phone Number:
803-201-1773
Plumbing and/or Mechanical Included:
N/A
File # (For Resubmittals Only):
Permit Type:
Building – Commercial
The results of this submission may be viewed at:
https://www.cityoffederalway.com/node/4588/submission/28238
1
Kari Cimmer
From:Gina Clark <gclark@mbaks.com>
Sent:Wednesday, November 17, 2021 3:25 PM
To:Kari Cimmer
Cc:Keith Niven
Subject:Public Comment
Attachments:Federal Way Various Code Amendments Nov 17 2021.pdf
[EXTERNAL EMAIL WARNING]
This email originated from outside of the City of Federal Way and may not be trustworthy. Please use caution when
clicking links, opening attachments, or replying to requests for information. If you have any doubts about the validity of
this email please contact IT Help Desk at x2555.
Good afternoon, Chair Bronson and Federal Way Planning Commissioners.
Attached, please find written comments for Item #5, 2021 Various Proposed Code Amendments.
Thank you so much for the opportunity to provide these written comments in support of staff’s proposal.
Sincerely,
Gina
Gina Clark | Government Affairs Manager, King County
p 425.460.8224 c 425.268.1156
335 116th Ave. SE, Bellevue, WA 98004
mbaks.com
We aspire to be the most trusted and respected housing
experts
in the Puget Sound region.
November 17, 2021
Honorable Lawson Bronson Chair
City of Federal Way
33325 8th Ave. S.
Federal Way, WA 98003
RE: 2021 Various Proposed Code Amendments: Files: 21-103626-UP, 21-103627-
SE
Dear Chair Bronson and Federal Way Planning Commissioners:
With nearly 2,700 members, the Master Builders Association of King and Snohomish
Counties (MBAKS) is the largest local homebuilders’ association in the United States,
helping members provide communities a range of housing choice and affordability.
MBAKS thanks the city for the opportunity to submit comments in support of staff’s
various proposed code amendments.
MBAKS thanks staff, in particular Planning Manager Keith Niven, for his pro-active,
transparent, and effective approach to planning in preparing the various code
amendments that will help produce needed housing while saving the city time and
money.
Federal Way needs more housing choice and supply along a spectrum of affordability.
According to the city’s Housing Action Plan (HAP) and Housing Needs Assessment
(HNA), the rate of new housing production in the city is not keeping pace with
demand or comprehensive plan growth targets. The city needs to:
• Add approximately 6,800 new units before 2040 to accommodate expected
population growth and account for past underproduction.
• Accommodate growth, producing an average of 339 residential units each
year, a 68% increase over recent housing production trends.
• Produce more “missing middle” housing such as townhomes and multiplex
housing, build more supply, and affordable rental and homeownership
opportunities to alleviate the over 13,000 households in the city that are cost-
burdened at a variety of income levels.
• Update code to allow for zoning changes and additional density or
development types that can support new development.
The last bullet, updating code, is what staff is doing to help the city save time and
money and support development in smarter, more efficient ways.
Moving Final Plat approvals to the Planning Director saves the city time and money
while moving projects forward more expeditiously without changing the substance of
current regulations. Jurisdictions have already adopted administrative approval of
Final Plats:
Auburn
Bellevue
Covington
Kent
King County
Kirkland
Renton
Shoreline
Woodinville
Maple Valley
Mercer Island
Newcastle
Normandy Park
SeaTac
Snoqualmie
And like the Federal Way City Council, these jurisdictions’ City Councils had not once
denied a Final Plat approval. Unfortunately, valuable staff time was taken preparing
packets, attending meetings, and accruing overtime for what is a rubber stamp at that
stage of land use approval. In addition, much needed housing had to wait to get on
Council dockets for approval. MBAKS supports staff’s recommendation to move Final
Plat approvals to the Planning Director.
Staff is also recommending administrative decision-making for Plat Alterations to the
Hearing Examiner for similar reasons. As noted in your packets, other jurisdictions
have already moved to Hearing Examiner or Planning Director, and MBAKS supports
staff’s recommendation for the change in Federal Way.
In addition, MBAKS supports staff’s proposal for SEPA categorical exemptions with
that allow for flexible thresholds, including increasing residential structures from 20 to
30 for single-family dwelling units and up to sixty multi-family dwelling units. Kent,
Shoreline, and Redmond have adopted similar standards.
However, while MBAKS supports SEPA exemptions for infill development in the urban
center, MBAKS would not limit it to just the urban center. With land becoming more
limited, housing supply and choice at record lows, and prices at record highs, we
cannot afford to limit it.
And as the city’s own Housing Needs Assessment stated, “Federal Way is seen as ‘built
out’ based on its existing zoning. Zoning changes that allow additional density or
development types could support new development.” (December 2020, page 3)
Restricting SEPA exemptions for infill, with guardrails established by staff, would
support density, the development of housing choice in all residential zones, and not
perpetuate the image that Federal Way is closed to development.
It is time our entire region to stop giving single-family residential zoning continued
preferential treatment. Adopt SEPA exemptions for infill throughout the city and
remove continued exclusionary policies from single-family neighborhoods to help
diversify housing stock and opportunity.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. If you have any questions or comments,
please contact me at gclark@mbaks.com or (425) 268-1156.
Sincerely,
Gina Clark
Government Affairs Manager, King County
cc: Mayor Jim Ferrell
City Council
Brian Davis, Community Development Director
Keith Niven, Planning Manager
INTRODUCTION AND RELIEF REQUESTED
Commission Members:
From the outset, I would like to extend my sincere thanks to the City of Federal Way
employees and to the Commission for facilitating the opportunity for remote access to public
comment, and for the time you have taken from your other obligations to address these various
matters. You are charged with the important task of planning for our community in these
challenging times, and I want to convey that I see that very clearly.
This past autumn, I appealed the City’s “Interpretation” of the part of the Federal Way
Revised Code (hereinafter “Code” or sometimes “FWRC” or sometimes “Ordinance”) that
governs attached, Accessory Dwelling Units or “ADUs”. These separate residences– sometimes
colloquially referred to as “Mother-In-Law” apartments– are by design set up to be rented to an
independent resident (or family of residents) within the landlord/owner’s existing, single family
home.
The reasons I decided to challenge the City’s Code Interpretation are important– it is my
intention to raise awareness with you, the Commission, of the very grave issues at stake, so that
we might take the necessary steps to protect our fair city. What follows are the relevant
background facts:
My fiancee and I are homeowners in federal way, and my family has resided in the city
since 1957. Our home is a tiny, 1-bedroom beach cottage, situated on the “dead end” portion of
S.W. 292nd St., in Federal Way. See Fig. 1 below
Figure 1
It was built in 1901, in a row of what were originally 11 similar cottages on 25ft.-wide
lots, affectionately referred to by its multi-generational residents as “Puyallup Row”, since the
time of the Great Depression and beyond. The reason for the name is that the original settlers of
those little beach houses on Poverty Bay were families that came primarily from Puyallup,
Washington.
It is important to my story to note that, at the time of the construction of those cottages, at
the turn of the last century, there was no road access behind the little row of houses– what is now
that “dead end” of S.W. 292nd St.— because in those days the little beach cottages were only
accessible from the water side by boat, and used exclusively as rustic dwellings for the summer
months. Fig. 2, below.
Figure 2- (showing my stair leading directly into S.W. 292nd St.)
The reason that fact is important to my story is this: To this day, there is no driveway or
any off-street parking for my tiny beach house or several others along that “Puyallup Row”. See
Fig. 3 below.
Figure 3- (The “street” view of my planterbox / parking strip on the right).
Because of this history, that “dead end” of S.W. 292nd St. has very little parking to access
those homes. There is no other public parking for a half mile in any direction. See Fig. 4 below.
Figure 4 – (Showing my house from S.W. 292nd St., and my little truck)
Fast forward more than a century later: My next-door neighbors to the east, immediately
upon purchasing the house next door to mine, began converting their basement into a “mother-
in-law” style rental apartment. Not only was it unpermitted, but it could never have qualified as a
“permitted ADU” under the requirements of the FWRC at that time because it didn’t meet the
off-street parking and setback requirements of that Ordinance.1 Despite our protestations that the
houses were not designed to be multi-family and there was not enough parking, my neighbors
were defiant.
Upon my filing a formal complaint with the City detailing the ways the basement
apartment was out of compliance with the Code, the City, after several months of delay, asked
my neighbors if they were able to furnish “proof” that they met the requirements of that portion
of the Code governing attached ADUs.
Needless to say, my neighbors did not furnish proof to the City in response to that
request, because there was no proof. I pressed the City and the City Attorney for answers: What
were the next steps to enforcing the ordinance?
Strangely, in response, the City Attorney advised me that their offices would be drafting a
Code Interpretation– the very same that introduced to the Commission by Mr. Niven at the time
of the last meeting– narrowing the definition of an attached ADU to those apartments that can be
locked from the inside. This “writing-in” of new language into the Code is in direct
contravention of the express intention of the legislative body to ensure that homeowners had
sufficient parking and setbacks to accommodate an additional family.
1 Exhibit A (Online resource entitled “How Do I Create A Legal ADU?”)
ARGUMENT
Whether it was the intention of the Planning Department– in “rubber-stamping” the
approval of the decision of the City Attorney to move forward with what was effectively a
bureaucratic “work-around” to actually having to enforce the rules– is an open question.
What is clear is the consequence and practical effect of that narrowing of the definition of
an attached ADU: It indemnifies the City outright by shifting the responsibility to “self-report” to
those homeowners (or would-be slumlords) who would have their single-family homes
converted to multi-family apartments without limitation, with no oversight whatsoever. This
ensures that the City is able to deny any accountability for violations any Code governing
attached ADUs until which time those bad actors somehow elect to “self-report” whether or not
their rental units have a handle that locks from the inside— something that can be easily
swapped out so as to manipulate the new Code Interpretation.
This is not good governance by our City.
It is also important for me to underscore to the Commission that the record will show the
“interpretation” of the Code was taken in direct response to my sounding the alarm to the City.
They elected to move in this direction despite my best effort to set forth in writing and in
multiple conversations with Kent VanAlstine and Brian Davis the long-term effects that such a
change would have on the community, and the problems someone in my position would have in
filing a complaint: Not only were my concerns disregarded, the City affirmatively took steps to
ensure any similar complaints going forward would be impossible to prove. This would give the
City an “easy out” going forward– and allow the City to effectively deny responsibility for the
enforcement of their own rules.
Below is the specific regulation that the City Attorney has attempted to nullify by artfully
inserting a new definition of attached ADU. It is summarized nicely on page two of the attached
informational document provided online as a resource for homeowners, entitled “How Do I
Create A Legal ADU?”, which reads as follows:
"Primary dwelling units with an ADU must have a minimum of three off-street parking
spaces located a minimum of five feet from the side and rear property lines." 2
The reasons that inform my decision to appeal the validity of the Code Interpretation are
these:
1) It constitutes improper “over-reaching” by the City, and flies in the face of the Ordinance as it
was originally contemplated by the drafters. Attempts to “override” the off-street parking
requirements are squarely opposed to the spirit and purpose of the legislative body of drafters of
that portion of the Code— who intentionally included the above, plain language requiring
significant setbacks and off-street parking for any attached ADU— with the express purpose of
addressing the very same density problem at issue here;
2) It is a stark dereliction of duty on the part of the City Attorney and Planning Department–
offices which have been charged with the protection of the quality of life of its citizens. The
implications of the City’s decision to abrogate parking requirements and minimum distances
from property lines are profound are far-reaching: The unchecked growth that will inevitably
result will cause irreversible change to our quality of life, and the further deterioration of our
city.
2 Exhibit A
3) It is the wrong decision from a policy perspective for us, the residents of Federal Way. The
practical effect of narrowing/relaxing the definition of an attached ADU allows any landlord of
any larger, single-family residence to create a veritable apartment building with impunity, and
with no consideration of parking or due process afforded to those residents who are affected. The
unintended consequence of the City’s disregard for the rights of its citizens and the failure to
protect them against unchecked density only serves to encourage profiteering by those who
would violate the density rules governing multi-family housing.
I intend to address each of these with you at the time of the Commission meeting.
CONCLUSION
With the arrival of the light rail, the seemingly endless nature of the COVID-19
pandemic, and the larger, continuing homelessness issues facing Federal Way and all of Western
Washington, we stand at a pivotal crossroads in the history of our fair city. But allowing the City
to deal with these problems by undermining the Ordinance and allowing for unchecked growth
invites landlords to convert single family residences into de facto multi-family apartment
complexes without limitation, and encroaches on the peaceful enjoyment and quiet solitude of its
citizenry— recognized property rights that have been justifiably relied upon by the residents of
Federal Way since the time of the development of those residential neighborhoods and the
inception of the FWRC.
Please join me in demanding a swift retraction of the above-referenced Code
Interpretation. Thank you for reading my submission.
I remain, Very Truly Yours,
David L. Mann, Esq. - Citizen and Property Owner
Bulletin #048 – December 21, 2015 Page 1 of 3 k:\Handouts\ADU Information
ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT (ADU)
WHAT IS AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT (ADU)?
An ADU is a freestanding detached structure, excluding outdoor storage containers and similar
structures used or designed to be used as living facilities, or an attached part of a structure that is
accessory to the main or primary dwelling unit. As established in Federal Way Revised Code
(FWRC) 19.265.020, ADU’s are permitted in both Single-Family Residential (RS) and Suburban
Estates (SE) zoning districts. ADU’s provide complete independent living facilities exclusively for
one single housekeeping unit, including permanent provisions for living, sleeping, cooking, and
sanitation. There are two types of ADU’s:
An Attached ADU is an accessory dwelling unit that has one or more vertical and/or
horizontal walls in common with, or attached to, the primary dwelling unit.
A Detached ADU is a free standing accessory dwelling unit that is not attached or
physically connected to the primary dwelling unit.
HOW DO I CREATE A LEGAL ADU?
There are two City permits required to create an ADU:
ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT LAND USE PERMIT: Fill out the Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Land
Use Application and return it to the Department of Community Development with a non-refundable
fee (contact the Permit Center at 253-835-2607, or permitcenter@cityoffederalway.com for the fee
amount). Site plan and floor plan drawings should be submitted to meet the requirements of FWRC
19.195.180 and 19.200.180. Staff will review this application to determine if the ADU proposed for
your property is legal.
Once the ADU land use permit has been approved, a signed and notarized Letter of Application/Deed
Restriction (see ADU Application) must be provided with a recording fee. The recording fee is paid
to the City, who will in turn pay King County.
BUILDING PERMIT: New construction, additions, or alterations to create an ADU will require a
building permit. Building permit fees are based on construction values. Following final approval of
the ADU by the Building Inspector, a Certificate of Occupancy will be provided.
WHAT IS A “LEGAL NONCONFORMING” ADU?
An ADU may be considered legally nonconforming if it meets one of the following:
1) The ADU was covered by a permit on the date of adoption of this code (February 28,
1990), if one was required under applicable law; or
2) No permit was required at the time the ADU was created and the ADU was in
compliance with the applicable law (minimum housing and building code standards) at
that time.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
33325 8th Avenue South
Federal Way, WA 98003
253-835-2607; Fax 253-835-2609
www.cityoffederalway.com
Bulletin #048 – December 21, 2015 Page 2 of 3 k:\Handouts\ADU Information
City ADU land use permit fees are not required for legal nonconforming ADU’s if the owner provides
a copy of the permit issued by the county, or provides proof that no permits were required at the time
the ADU was created. Owners of legal nonconforming ADU’s must still file a “Deed Restriction” with
King County Records and Elections and provide the City with a legally recorded copy. Once the City
receives a recorded copy, the Certificate of ADU Compliance will be issued to the owner.
Please be advised that a legal nonconforming ADU may have been legal when it was
created, but may not necessarily meet the City’s current ADU standards.
Per FWRC 19.30.140, the legal nonconforming ADU status is lost when one or more of the
following events occur:
(a) Increase in square footage. The applicant increases the gross floor area of the ADU; or
(b) Abandonment or cessation of occupancy. The subject property containing the ADU is abandoned
for 90 or more consecutive days, or the ADU is not occupied for 180 consecutive days.
When legal nonconforming status is lost, the ADU must be removed or modified to meet City of
Federal Way ADU requirements and receive a land use approval by the Planning Division.
WHAT ARE THE STANDARD ADU REQUIREMENTS?
Primary dwelling units with an ADU must have a minimum of three off-street parking
spaces located a minimum of five feet from the side and rear property lines.
The primary dwelling unit and the ADU cannot exceed the maximum lot coverage
prescribed by the FWRC.
The ADU should be designed so that the appearance remains that of a single-family
residence. ADU’s may be accessed through the entrance to the primary dwelling unit or
through an additional side or rear entrance. Only one entrance is allowed on the front of the
primary residence.
The ADU shall have between 300 and 800 square feet of floor area. ADU’s must not exceed
40 percent of the square footage of the primary dwelling unit.
ADU’s may have up to two bedrooms.
ADU’s on septic systems require King County Public Health Department approval with the
ADU land use permit application.
The Lakehaven Utility District may require a separate water meter for attached and detached
ADU’s. Their approval of the ADU is required with the ADU land use permit application.
Home occupations are not allowed in ADU’s.
WHO MAY LIVE IN AN ADU?
No more than one single housekeeping unit may occupy an ADU. A single housekeeping unit is
defined as no more than three unrelated persons, or an unlimited number of individuals who are
related. This definition does not limit the number of residents if the limit prevents the City from
making reasonable accommodations to disabled persons to afford them equal opportunity to use and
enjoy a dwelling, as required by the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988.
WHAT IS THE OWNER OCCUPANCY REQUIREMENT?
Owners of primary dwelling units that have an ADU must occupy one of the two dwelling units for
six months in each calendar year. Owner occupancy is pledged with the Letter of Application and
Deed Restriction, and recorded with King County Records and Elections following ADU land use
permit approval. The goal of owner occupancy is to ensure monitoring and maintenance of both
units by the property owner.
Bulletin #048 – December 21, 2015 Page 3 of 3 k:\Handouts\ADU Information
WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THE HOME WITH AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT IS SOLD?
The new purchaser of a home with a legally established ADU must file a new Deed Restriction
accompanied by a check to cover recording fees. The deed restriction document and fee must be
submitted to the Department of Community Development within 30 days of transfer of ownership if
the new owner intends to continue maintaining the ADU. The City will record this document with
King County Records and Elections. If the new owner chooses not to occupy one of the units, he/she
will have to discontinue use of the ADU and remove features that make it a separate dwelling unit,
such as stove, toilet, or tub.
I HAVE AN EXISTING ADU THAT DOESN’T MEET ALL CITY REQUIREMENTS. WHAT CAN I DO?
You have two options if your ADU was not permitted by King County and does not meet the City
ADU requirements. The elements that make up the separate dwelling unit can be removed, or you
can apply for a variance to the ADU requirements. The Federal Way Hearing Examiner decides
variance requests. The Hearing Examiner conducts a public hearing and decides upon the request
after reviewing the variance criteria. Contact the Permit Center at 253-835-2607, or
permitcenter@cityoffederalway.com, for variance processing fees.
WHAT ABOUT PRIVATE COVENANTS THAT MAY PROHIBIT ADU’S?
The City of Federal Way does not review nor enforce private Covenants, Conditions, and
Restrictions (CC&R). The applicant is advised to consult property documents for any deed
restrictions.
WHAT ABOUT SCHOOL IMPACT FEES?
Attached or detached ADU’s are subject to School Impact Fees per Ordinance 96-265. The fees,
assigned to all new residential development projects, are used by the Federal Way School District to
build new schools and improve existing schools. Contact the Permit Center at 253-835-2607, or
permitcenter@cityoffederalway.com, for ADU school impact fees. These must be paid before a
building permit can be issued.
HOW CAN I OBTAIN ADDITIONAL INFORMATION?
Additional information about ADU’s may be obtained from the City of Federal Way Community
Development Department, located in City Hall (33325 8th Avenue South, Federal Way, WA 98003-
6325). City Hall is open from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. Contact the Permit
Center at 253-835-2607, or permitcenter@cityoffederalway.com, for information about the ADU
Land Use Permit Application or Deed Restrictions. Development Specialists are available to guide
you through the building permit process.
2022 Planning Commission Tentative Calendar
January 2022
Date Potential Topics
January 5 No meeting
January 19 2021 Code amendments
February 2
February 16 Periodic Update – Land Use Chapter
March 2 Periodic Update – Land Use Chapter
March 16 Periodic Update – Natural Environment Chapter
April 6 Periodic Update – Natural Environment Chapter (cont.)
April 20 Periodic Update – Introduction
May 4 Periodic Update – Introduction (cont.)
May 18
June 1
June 15 Periodic Update – Shoreline Master Program Chapter
July 6 Periodic Update – Shoreline Master Program Chapter (cont.)
2022 Specific Code Amendments: ADUs, Open Space
July 20 2022 Specific Code Amendments: ADUs, Open Space
August 3 2022 Annual Comp Plan Briefing
August 17 No Meeting
September 7 2022 Annual Comp Plan Amendment Hearing
September 21 2022 Annual Comp Plan Amendment Hearing (cont.)
October 5 2022 Annual Code Amendments Briefing
October 19 2022 Annual Code Amendments Hearing
November 2 2022 Annual Code Amendments Hearing (cont.)
November 16 Periodic Update – Arts & Culture
December 7 Periodic Update – Arts & Culture (cont.)
December 21 No meeting