Loading...
Planning Comm PKT 07-22-2009 City of Federal Way PLANNING COMMISSION July 22, 2009 7:00 p.rn. City Hall COlmcil Chambers AGENDA 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES July 1,2009 4. AUDIENCE COMMENT 5. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT 6. COMMISSION BUSINESS . PUBLIC HEARING Plat and Land Use Application Time Limit Extensions and Vesting Clarification 7. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS 8. AUDIENCE COMMENT 9. ADJOURN Commissioners Merle Pfeifer, Chair Lawson Bronson Tom Medhurst Tim 0 'Neil Hope Elder, Vice-Chair Wayne Carlson Sarady Long (Alternate) City Staff Greg Fewins, CDS Director Margaret Clark, Senior Planner E. Tina Piety, Administrative Assistant 253-835-2601 v.r~"/lV. ci!vo tt'"ede:y!! wav. (:(ltn K:\PJanning Commission\2009\Agenda 07-22-09.doc CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PLANNING COMMISSION July 1,2009 7:00 p.rn. City Hall COlUlCil Chambers MEETING MINUTES CommissiO'ners present: Merle Pfeifer, HO'pe Elder, LawsO'n BrO'nsO'n, Wayne CarlsO'n, TO'm Medhurst, Tim O'Neil, and Sarady LO'ng. CO'mmissiO'ners absent: nO'ne. Staff present: SeniO'r Planner Margaret Clark, Public W O'rks DirectO'r Marwan Sallown, City Traffic Engineer Rick Perez, Assistant City AttO'rney Peter Beckwith, and Administrative Assistant Tina Piety. Chair Pfeifer called the meeting to' O'rder at 7:00 p.rn. ApPROVAL OF MINuTEs The minutes O'fMay 20,2009, were approved as written. AUDIENCE COMMENT NO'ne ADMINISTRATIVE REpORT NO'ne COMMISSION BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARING - Traffic Impact Fee CO'mmissiO'ner LO'ng recused himself as he is the city's prO'ject manager fO'r the Traffic Impact Fee (TIF). He asked if it WO'uld be acceptable fO'r him to' remain in the audience to' be available to' answer questiO'ns. Chair Pfeifer replied that WO'uld be acceptable. Mr. Perez delivered the staffrepO'rt. He explained that currently the city uses a cO'ncurrency analysis to' determine if traffic mitigatiO'n is necessary. The city uses a pro-rata share mitigatiO'n methO'd (which can result in fees ranging frO'm zerO' up to' $5,600 per trip) to' arrive at the mitigatiO'n fee. FO'rprO'jects in the city center, a set fee (as determined by the City Center Planned ActiO'n) is used SEP A mitigatiO'n is used fO'r CO'nstructiO'n imprO'vements beyO'nd projects identified in the program and site-specific impacts. The city is prO'PO'sing a set TIF as O'PPO'sed to' the pro-rata share mitigatiO'n methO'd The cO'ncurrency analysis WO'uld still be dO'ne and SEP A mitigatiO'n will nO't change. Mr. DO'n Samdahl with Fehr & Peers/Mirai cO'ntinued the presentatiO'n with infO'rmatiO'n O'n the reasO'ns to' have a TIF, state requirements, and hO'W the proPO'sed amO'unt O'f the fee was develO'ped My. Perez stated that the city wO'rked closely with a Stakeholders Group. That group agrees with the city's prO'PO'sal, with the exceptiO'n O'f when the payment O'f the fee shO'uld be made. The StakehO'lders Group believes the payment O'fthe TIF shO'uld O'CCur at the time O'fthe issuance O'fthe Certificate O'fOccupancy (CO). The city believes the fee should be paid at the time O'fbuilding permit issuance. The pros and CO'ns are as fO'llO'ws: K:\PJanning Commission\2009\Meeting Sunnnary 07-01-09.doc Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 July I, 2009 Certificate of Occupancy (CO) Pros: - May lower financing cost for development - Payment of mitigate fee coincide with timing of actual impacts Cons: - Staff may be pressured to' grant Certificate O'f Occupancy to' prO'jects that are cO'mpleted with exception O'f fee payment - Projects often change hands during the cO'nstruction process and the end user may nO't realize that fees are tied to' Certificate O'f Occupancy - Increased staff time to': develO'P a new system, track deferred fees, and cO'llect delinquent fees - High delinquency rate as demO'nstrated in Pierce and Kitsap CO'unty - Impact fee may be higher at time O'f collection than at building issuance Building Permit Issuance Pros: - Consistent with most or all of cities with impact fee program - Minimal staff time to' administer with high cO'llectiO'n rate withO'ut institutiO'nal enfO'rcement - Predictability as impact fee WO'uld be assessed and payable at the same time - CO'nsistent with current practice fO'r schO'ol impact fee Cons: - May add financing cost fO'r develO'pment due to financing charges CO'mmissiO'ner O'Neil asked ifunder the current system, unused funds are returned. Mr. Perez replied that funds are retuned if they have not been spent O'n the designated project within five years. Commissioner O'Neil hO'W much has been returned in the last ten years. Mr. Perez stated that he has been with the city abO'ut 13 years. In that time the city has, on average, collected over a million dollars a year in traffic mitigatiO'n. Of the total funds cO'llected in thO'se years, the city has had to' return less than $10,000. CO'mmissiO'ner O'Neil asked hO'W often the TIF amount will be adjusted Mr. Perez replied that it will be adjusted annually fO'r inflatiO'n and a new rate study will be performed every three years. CO'mmissiO'ner CarlsO'n commented that this is O'ne O'fthe best TIFs he has seen. He believes that in light O'f the prO's and CO'ns, cO'llectiO'n shO'uld be dO'ne at the building permit issuance. A nwnber O'f O'ther jurisdictiO'ns cO'llect a TIP and dO' so at the building permit issuance stage. CO'mmissiO'ner Carlson expressed sO'me cO'ncern with the projected Capital Improvement PrO'gram (CIP) project CO'st of approximately $320 milliO'n. DO'es it reflect potential impacts frO'm surrO'unding communities, O'r just grO'wth within Federal Way? Mr. Perez replied that it is based O'n histO'rical averages fO'r growth within Federal Way. GrO'wth in surrO'unding communities could increase the amO'unt. Vice-Chair Elder commented that she WO'uld prefer that the TIF be cO'llected at the building permit issuance stage in order to protect a new hO'meO'Wller from a possible unexpected fee at the time of the CO. CO'mmissiO'ner Medhurst asked if a cO'ntractO'r's CO'st O'f improvements WO'uld O'ffset the TIF. Mr. Perez replied that it WO'uld depend upO'n the IO'cation O'f the prO'ject; whether it was O'n the TransPO'rtatiO'n Improvement Plan (TIP) and if sO', it is possible that the cost of improvements could O'ffset the TIF. Mr. Perez stated that due to the current economic climate it is possible the TIF could be regarded as a new fee, as opposed to a replacement of the current system. Because O'fthis, staff recommends that implementation O'fthe TIF be deferred to July 1,2010. K\PJanning Commission\2009\Meeting Sunnnary 07-01-09.doc Planning CommissiO'n Minutes Page 3 July I, 2009 CO'mmissioner BronsO'n nO'ted that the current project map shows only one prO'ject on a state highway. Does the state help pay for improvements O'n 99? Mr. Perez replied that city attempts to' obtain state funds, but the state fO'CUS is on majO'r freeways and does not have much money fO'r smaller highways. Chair Pfeifer asked if O'ther cities use O'ur current system O'f the pro-rata share mitigatiO'n method Mr. Perez resPO'nded that some dO' use it, but more and mO're cities are moving to' a TIF because O'f its predictability. Chair Pfeifer asked if the TIF amount is more expensive than the current pro-rata share mitigation method Mr. Perez responded that while it would depend upon the project, the staffs research showed that for many prO'jects the overall TIF CO'st would be IO'wer than the current method Specifically, the Rivera OfficelMedical building paid $258,019 under the current system, but under the prO'PO'sed TIF it WO'uld have been $129,500. The Fred Meyer fuel project paid $207,664, but WO'uld have paid O'nly $83,030 under the proPO'sed TIF. Finally, the Sound Credit Union Bank, which is a city center project, paid $255,551, but under the proPO'sed TIP WO'uld have paid O'nly $52,454. CommissiO'ner O'Neil cO'mmented that accO'rding to' Staff Report Exhibit B, the amount O'fthe TIF varies greatly between cities. Mr. Samdahl resPO'nded that O'ne reasO'n fO'r that is that the cities use different methO'ds to arrive at the TIF amO'unt. Commissioner CarlsO'n moved (and it was seconded) to recommend adoptiO'n of the staff recommendation with cO'llectiO'n O'f the TIF to' O'ccur at the building permit issuance. There was one abstain and six yes; the mO'tiO'n passed. The public hearing was clO'sed ADDITIONAL BUSINESS Ms. Clark stated that the Planning CO'mmissiO'n regularly scheduled meeting O'f July 15th has been mO'ved to' July 22,2009. At that time, the Planning CO'mmission will hO'ld a public hearing O'n Plat and Land Use Application Time Limit Extensions and Vesting Clarification. AUDIENCE COMMENT NO'ne ADJOURN The meeting was adjO'urnedat 8:05 p.rn. K\PJanning Commission\2009\Meeting Sunnnary 07-01-09.doc (lTY or: Federal Way STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Planning Commission Meeting of July 22, 2009 Amendments to Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) Title 18 - Subdivisions and Title 19 - Permits and Review Processes Federal Way File No. 09-101017-00-UP Report prepared by Senior Planner Deb Barker I. PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT The proposed text amendments are intended to' aid in economic recO'very by providing flexibility with increases to extension deadlines and approvals for a variety of applications. In addition, vesting for land use applications is proposed to be clarified II. BACKGROUND Due in large part to' the natiO'nal ecO'nO'mic recessiO'n, the regiO'nal hO'using market has severely declined and the ability fO'r (cO'mmercial and hO'me) builders and developers to secure credit frO'm financial institutiO'ns has become cO'nsiderably mO're difficult. The local building industry has been significantly impacted by these issues and is faced with the O'n-going threat O'f jO'b losses and business clO'sures in land development and housing related industries. StakehO'lders in the building industry believe that bO'ld actiO'ns are needed at all levels O'f gO'vernment to spur hO'using and economic recoveries. One of the actions suggested by the Master Builders of King County as part O'f a hO'using stimulus plan at the local level includes extending the time periO'd applicants have to submit an application for a complete final subdivision or short subdivision approval. Taking this actiO'n may allow home builders increased O'Pportunities for debt recovery and prO'vide the time needed to obtain financing and complete cO'nstructiO'n. In additiO'n to extending time limits fO'r subdivisions, the City believes that extending time limits fO'r land use permits can further the recovery of the industry and improve sO'me incO'nsistencies in the existing codes. Vesting is a term that signifies the PO'int at which a project is guaranteed the codes upon which a prO'ject must be designed and processed. The city's cO'des currently establish vesting at variO'US PO'ints, leading to' incO'nsistency and cO'nfusiO'n. Staff's proposal to' establish vesting O'f land use permits and approvals at the point O'f submitting a cO'mplete application, consistent with subdivision applications, 1 also provides the building industry the certainty that codes would not be changed in mid-process, potentially impacting their application. It is in this spirit that this code amendment is prepared. 1 Vesting for subdivision applications is covered under RCW 58.17.033. The current Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) includes the following expiration timelines and PQints Qf vesting: Tvpe of Permit Summarized Current Time Line V estin~ Date Preliminary plat City code requires that responses for additional information be At complete prQvided within 180 days Qftherequest, or an applicatiQn can applicatiQn be cQnsidered VQid. Preliminary plat applicatiQns expire five years from date Qf apprQval. The Hearing Examiner can grant a one-time, one-year extensiQn. RecQrded preliminary plats vest for five years frQm date Qf recQrding. Short plat and BSP City code requires that resPQnses for additional informatiQn be At cQmplete prQvided within 180 days Qftherequest, Qr an applicatiQn can application be considered VQid. ShQrt plat applications expire Qne year fQllQwing director apprQval. The directQr can grant a one-time, Qne-year extensiQn. Process I, II, III, IV City code requires that resPQnses for additional information be At date of complete prQvided within 180 days of the request, or an applicatiQn can building permit be considered VQid. The applicant must submit a cQmplete application or Qf building permit within Qne year Qfland use apprQval Qr the land use apprQval apprQval expires. The prQject must be cQnstructed within one and five years follQwing approval with one-time, one-year extension or the applicatiQn expires. Building Permit Under the InternatiQnal Building CQde (IBC) a cQmplete CQmplete building permit applicatiQn shall expire within 180 days. applicatiQn ExtensiQns up to' 90 days are available subject to' written request with justifiable cause demQnstrated. Building permit applicatiQns tQll until the SEP A appeal periQd cQncludes. Issued building permits alsO' expire 180 days frQm issuance. Extensions up to 180 days are available subject to' written requests and justifiable cause demonstrated.2 ~ummary ot hX1stm , Ccxte g III. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENTS The following is a summary Qf the proposed amendments. Subdivisions - FWR C Title 18: (a) City code currently requires that resPQnses fQr additional infQrmatiQn be provided within 180 days Qf the request, Qr an application can be cQnsidered void. The purpose of this amendment is to' provide an extensiQn of that tirne1ine while ensuring that the applicant has nQt abandoned the prQject. 3 Staff recQmmends administrative extensions to' the 180-day time line fQr resubmitting additiQnal infQnnation for shQrt plats, binding site plans, and preliminary plats subject to criteria and situational cQnditions. A nQminal fee WQuld be required with the extensiQn request. The administrative extensions to the 180-day timeline would be retroactive to those subdivision applications currently under review (Exhibit A - FWRC 18.05.080 Application Cancelation). (b) City cQdes currently require that a short plat be completed within Qne year of approval or the shQrt plat expires. The purpose of this amendment is to extend the shQrt plat cQnstructiQn timeline so that it is consistent with the five years Qf time allQwed fQr constructiQn Qf a 2 mc related information from mc 105.3.2 and IDC 105.5 is provided for reference only. No changes to any mc provision are proposed with this code amendment. It is proposed that the number and timeline of 180 day extensions provided for pending preliminary plats, short plats, and binding site plan applications be based on compliance with criteria. Staff Report to the Planning Commission Amendments to Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) Page 2 09-101017/Doc. JD. 50754 preliminary plat. Staff recommends that approval deadlines for shQrt plat applications increase from one year to five years (Exhibit B - FWRC 18.30.260 Short plat duration approval). (c) Currently, all infrastructure such as roads and utilities required for those preliminary plat, short plat, or binding site plan applications4 that have received preliminary approval must be installed within a specific timeline frQm the date Qf preliminary apprQval. The City code currently provides only a Qne-time, one-year extension Qf these time lines, and requires that the Hearing Examiner review preliminary plat extensiQn requests. This amendment propQses to' increase the extensiQn timeline from one year to' twO' years for all short plat and preliminary plat applications, and allow additional extension opportunities for those short plat and preliminary plat projects that have been approved but are not completed within the required timeline. It is further proposed that the Director of Community Development Services would review and grant each extension request subject to circmmtances and compliance with criteria,5 and it is prQPQsed that this extension opPQrtunity be made retroactive in order to' address thQse active and valid preliminary plat, shQrt plat, and BSP applicatiQns that have received preliminary approval, have received their Qnly extensiQn opportunity, and face expiration as they are still not completed Staff recommends that twQ-year extension opPQrtunities shall be available for apprQved shQrt plats, binding site plans, and preliminary plat applicatiQns subject to' criteria and administrative review; and appealable to' the Hearing Examiner. The extensiQns shall be retrQactive to' those active and valid prQjects granted preliminary plat, shQrt plat, Qr binding site plan apprQval (Exhibit C - FWRC 18.05.090 Lapse of Approval- Time Extension). (d) Currently, city code requires that approved short plats be completed within one year of approval or the short plat expires. As noted in (b) above, short plat timelines are recommended to' be consistent with preliminary plat timelines, and extended from Qne year to' five years. The five-year timeline reference is proposed as 18.30.260 to' the "Subdivisions in General" section of the FWRC. The one-year timeline reference would therefore be deleted frQm the short subdivisiQn portion of the FWRC. StaffrecQmmends that in Qrder to' prQvide for a cQnsistent subdivisiQn cQmpletiQn timeline shQwn in FWRC 18.05.090, Duration of Approval, the sectiQn knQwn as FWRC 18.30.270 WQuld be deleted (Exhibit D -- Deletes FWRC 18.30.270 Effect- Time Extension). ( e) Currently, extension provisions are individually located in short plat and preliminary plat sections of the FWRC. As noted in (c) above, the subdivision code is proposed to be modified to allow for consistent timeline and extension opportunities for shQrt plats and preliminary plats. Staff recommends that in Qrder to' consQlidate timeline and extension QPportunities for preliminary plats, timeline and extension references in FWRC 18.35.220 would be moved to' FWRC 18.05.090, Duration of Approval (Exhibit E - FWRC 18.35.220 Duration of Approval). Permits and Review Processes - FWRC Title 19: (a) As nQted abQve, vesting is a term that signifies the PQint at which a prQject is guaranteed the codes UPQn which a project must be designed and processed. The city's cO' des currently establish Use PrQcess I, II, III, and IV land use applicatiQllS vesting at the time a land use decision is issued, while subdivision applications vest at the time of a complete application. 6 The proposal to establish land use permits vesting at the point of submitting a complete 4 Binding site plans are processed under the provisions of short subdivision per FWRC 18.20.020. S The number of extension opportunities for approved preliminary plats, short plats, and binding site plans shall be based on compliance with criteria. 6 Vesting for subdivision applications are covered under RCW 58.17.033. Staff Report to the Planning Commission Amendments to Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) Page 3 09-l01017/Doc. W. 50754 applicatiQn would make vesting milestones consistent with subdivisiQn provisiQns. ApplicatiQns that are nQt cQmplete when submitted require that mQre infQrmatiQn be submitted ThQse Use PrQcess applications WQuld vest after required information is provided and a letter of completeness is issued by the City. An applicant would not be able to alter or choose vesting dates without formally withdrawing a current land use application. To eliminate inconsistency and confusion, staff recommends that the vesting of Use PrQcess I, II, III, and IV applications be changed from land use approval to the date the applicatiQn is determined to be cQmplete. It is also recommended that Use Process applications that require additional information to be considered complete would not vest until after determined complete based on a letter of completeness. A cQmplete land use application will be defined, and vesting rights would not be waivable (Exhibit F - FWRC 19.15.045 Use Process - Completeness of Applications). (b) City cQde currently requires that resPQnses fQr additional infQrmatiQn be prQvided within 180 days of the request, or an applicatiQn can be considered VQid. The purpQse Qf this amendment is to prQvide an extension of that timeline while ensuring that the applicant has not abandoned the project. Administrative extensions to the 180-day time1ine for resubmitting additional information would be available subject to' criteria and situatiQnal conditions; would be subject to a nominal fee; and if approved, would be retrQactive for valid Process I, II, III, or N applicatiQns.7 StaffrecQmmends administrative extensions to the 180-day timeline for resubmitting additional information for Use Process I, II, III, and IV applications subject to criteria and situational conditions, and subject to' a nominal fee. Administrative extensiQns to the 180-day timeline would be retrQactive to' valid Process I, II, III, and IV land use applications currently under review (Exhibit G - FWRC 19.15.050 Application Cancelation). (c) Language discussing "final decisiQns" and "effects of the decision" is IQcated in bQth sectiQns on Use Process III and Use Process IV. In an effort to consolidate duplicative language, this amendment proposes to consolidate and relocate this language into the ''permits and review processes" sectiQn sO' that it is applicable to' all Use PrQcess I, II, III, and IV applicatiQns. Staff recQmmends that duplicative language on final decisions and effects of the decision be merged and moved to the Permits and review processes section (Exhibit H - FWRC 19.15.075 Final decisions and effect of the decision). (d) Currently, an applicant for a Process I, II, III, Qr IV application must begin CQnstructiQn Qr submit to' the city a cQmplete building permit applicatiQn fQr development activity, use Qf land, or other actiQns within Qne year Qf the final decisiQn, Qr the decisiQn becQmes void. In additiQn, the applicant must substantially cQmplete the CQnstructiQTI for the development activity, use Qf land, or other actions and complete the applicable conditions in the decision within five years after the final decision or the decision becomes VQid. The purpose Qf this amendment is to' eliminate the timeline fQr submitting a cQmplete building permit application fQr apprQved Process II, III, and IV applicatiQns since wQrk approved under these applications is typically mQre cQmplex and a timeline to' submit a building permit is not practical. The amendment further proposes to allow five years to complete wQrk following the Process II, III, Qr N decision. In cQntrast, Process I applicatiQns focus on a limited aspect of the project, are typically less cQmplicated, and thus dO' nQt require additiQnal time limit extensiQns to complete the work. StaffrecQmmends that the applicant substantially cQmplete CQnstructiQn fQr the development activity, use Qfland, Qr Qther actiQns apprQved and cQmplete the applicable cQnditiQns listed in the decisiQn within Qne year Qf the Process I decisiQn, Qr within five years 7. It is proposed that the number and timeline of l80-day extensions provided for Use Process I, II, III, and N applications be based on compliance with criteria. Staff Report to the Planning COnmllssion Amendments to Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) Page 4 09-10 10 17 /Doc. I.D. 50754 Qf the Process II, III, or IV decisiQn, Qr those decisiQns become void (Exhibit 1- FWRC 19.15.100 Lapse of Approval- Generally). (e) Currently, city code provides a one-time extension of only one year for an applicant to complete all Qf the wQrk approved under a Use PrQcess I, II, III, and IV decision following the initial Qne year CQnstructiQn timeline. The purpQse Qf this amendment is to' provide greater flexibility for developers and builders by increasing extensiQn timelines from one year to two years for all Process II, III, and IV applications that have been approved but are not completed within the required timeline. The amendment also proposes that the Director of CQmmunity Development Services review and grant each extensiQn request subject to circumstances and compliance with criteria,8 and that this extension opportunity be made retroactive in order to address active land use applications that have received preliminary approval, received their only extension opportunity and, face expiration as they are still not completed As previously nQted, Use Process I applications are typically less complicated, and generally do not require additiQnal time limit extensions to complete the wQrk. Staff recQmmends that one year extensiQn opportunities be available fQr apprQved PrQcess I applicatiQns subject to' criteria and administrative review; that tWQ-year extensiQn opPQrtunities be available for apprQved Process II, III, and IV applicatiQns subject to' criteria and administrative review; and appealable to the Hearing Examiner. Extension provisions would be retroactive to valid and active land use Process I, II, III, and IV applications currently under review (Exhibit J - FWRC 19.15.110 Lapse of Approval- Time Extension). (1) Currently, the effect Qf a PrQcess III decisiQn is referenced in FWRC 19.65.110. As nQted in ( c) above, in order to eliminate duplicative cQde provisions and ensure that the effect of decision is consistent for all use process decisions, it is recommended that FWRC 19.65.110 Effect of decision be deleted as it is moved to FWRC 19.15.075 (Exhibit K - Deletes FWRC 19.65.110 Effect of the decision). (g) Currently, the effect of a PrQcess IV decisiQn is referenced in FWRC 19.70.160. As noted in C abQve, in Qrder to eliminate duplicative cQde prQvisions and ensure that the final decision and effect of decision is consistent fQr all use process decisions, it is recommended that FWRC 19.70.160 Final decisions and effect of decision be deleted as it is moved to FWRC 19.15.075 (Exhibit L - Deletes FWRC 19.70.160 Final decisions and effect of the decision). IV. PROCEDURAL SUMMARY The Project is procedurally exempt from State EnvirQnmental Policy Act (SEP A) review under WAC 197-11-800(19) (Procedural Actions). Public NQtice of the July 22,2009, public hearing was published and PQsted Qn July 4,2009, in accordance with the City's prQcedural requirements. There were no public CQmments. V. DECISIONAL CRITERIA FWRC 19.80.130 provides criteria for zoning text amendments. The following section analyzes the cQmpliance of the proposed zoning text amendments with the criteria provided by FWRC 19.80.130. The City may amend the text of the FWRC only if it finds that: & The number of extension opportunities for approved Use Process I, II, III, and N applications shall be based on compliance with criteria. Staff Report to the Planning Commission Amendments to Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) Page 5 09-101017/Doc. ID 50754 1. The proposed amendments are consistent with the applicable provisions ofthe comprehensive plan. The proPQsed FWRC zoning text amendments are consistent with the follQwing gQals and PQlicies contained in the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan (FWCP): LUG2 LUP4 EDG6 EDP15 EDP18 HP8 HP9 HP10 HPll Develop an efficient and timely development review process based on a public/private partnership. Maximize efficiency of the development review prQcess. The City will enCQurage and SUPPQrt existing businesses to' remain and! Qr expand their facilities within Federal Way. The City will continue to' implement a streamlined permitting prQcess cQnsistent with state and federal regulations to reduce the upfront costs of locating businesses in the City. The City will periodically monitor lQcal and regiQnal trends to' be able to' adjust plans, PQlicies, and prQgrams. Consider the eCQnQmic impact of all development regulations Qn the cost Qf housing. Maximize efficiency in the City's development review process and ensure that unnecessary time delays and expenses are eliminated. Continue to provide streamlined permitting prQcesses for development that is consistent with the FWCP and FWCC (sic), and that has no adverse impacts. Encourage cQmmunity input, where appropriate, intO' the development permit prQcess by providing thQrQugh and timely informatiQn to the public. Continue to assist developers with housing proposals at the earliest possible opportunity, including preapplication meetings to produce projects that can be reviewed quickly and maximize their ability to receive permits. 2. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relationship to public health, safety, or welfare. The propQsed FWRC text amendment bears a substantial relatiQnship to the public health, safety, Qr welfare because it responds to' current natiQnal econQmic cQnditions that impact IQcalland development and hQusing related industries by mQdifying development regulatiQns to' provide for flexibility during the development review process that is not prQvided in the current code; and clarifies and refines various related codes in order to increase the efficiency Qf the develQpment review prQcess. 3. The proposed amendment is in the best interest of the residents of the City. Approval of the propQsed code amendment WQuld benefit the City as a whole as it prQvides fQr flexibility in development review timelines, which results in continued development within the City, thus aiding the local eCQnomy, and ensuring that housing costs remain realistic. VI. PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW AND ACTION Pursuant to' FWRC 19.80.050(b), the City Council may review City-initiated changes to the text of the zoning code from time to time at the Council's discretion. The Planning CQmmission is being asked to review the prQPosed changes to the zoning code and forward a recommendation to the City Council. FWRC Chapter 19.80, "Process VI Review," establishes a process and criteria fQr zoning cO' de text amendments. CQnsistent with PrQcess VI review, the rQle Qf the Planning CQmmission is to' review and evaluate the zoning code text regarding any prQPosed amendments; to' determine whether Page 6 09-101017/Doc. ID. 50754 Staff Report to the Planning Commission Amendments to Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) the proposed zoning code text amendment meets the criteria provided by FWRC 19.80.130; and to fQrward a recQmmendatiQn to' City CQuncil regarding adQptiQn Qf the propQsed zQning code text amendment. Consistent with the provisiQns QfFWRC 19.80.240, the Planning Commission may take the fQllowing actions regarding the proposed zoning code text amendments: 1. Recommend to City Council adoption of the FWRC text amendments as proposed; 2. Modify the propQsed FWRC text amendments and recommend to City Council adoption Qf the FWRC text amendments as mQdified; 3. Recommend to City Council that the propQsed FWRC text amendments nQt be adopted; or 4. Forward the proposed FWRC text amendments to City Council withQut a recommendatiQn. VII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Based Qn the abQve staff analysis and decisiQnal criteria, staff recQmmends that the fQllQwing amendment to' FWRC Title 18 Subdivisions and PWRC Chapter 19.15 Permits and Review Processes as outlined in SectiQn II above be recQmmended for apprQval to the City Council. 1. Amendments as set forth in Exhibit A, to FWRC 18.05.080, Application Cancelation 2. Amendments as set forth in Exhibit B, to' FWRC 18.30.260, Short Plat Duration Approval 3. Amendments as set forth in Exhibit C, to' FWRC 18.05.090, Lapse of ApprQval- Time Extension 4. Amendments as set fQrth in Exhibit D, to' FWRC 18.30.270, Effect - Time ExtensiQn 5. Amendments as set forth in Exhibit E, to FWRC 18.35.220, Duration Qf Approval 6. Amendments as set fQrth in Exhibit P, to' FWRC 19.15.045, CQmpleteness of ApplicatiQns 7. Amendments as set fQrth in Exhibit G, to' FWRC 19.15.050, Application Cancelation 8. Amendments as set fQrth in Exhibit H, to' PWRC 19.15.075, Pinal DecisiQns and Effect of the Decision 9. Amendments as set forth in Exhibit I, to FWRC 19.15.100, Lapse of ApprQval- Generally 10. Amendments as set forth in Exhibit J, to FWRC 19.15.110, Lapse Qf Approval- Time ExtensiQn 11. Amendments as set forth in Exhibit K, to FWRC 19.65.110, Effect Qf the DecisiQn 12. Amendments as set fQrth in Exhibit L, to' PWRC 19.70.160, Pinal Decisions and Effect Qf the DecisiQn EXHIBITS Exhibit A, to' FWRC 18.05.080, ApplicatiQll CancelatiQll Exhibit B, to' FWRC 18.30.260, ShQrt Plat DuratiQll Qf ApprQval Exhibit C, to' FWRC 18.05.090, Lapse Qf ApprQval- Time ExtensiQn Exhibit D, to' FWRC 18.30.270, Effect - Time ExtensiQll Exhibit E, to' FWRC 18.35.220, DuratiQll of ApprQval Exhibit P, to' FWRC 19.15.045, CQmpleteness of ApplicatiQns Exhibit G, to' FWRC 19.15.050, Application CancelatiQn Exhibit H, to' FWRC 19.15.075, Final DecisiQns and Effect Qfthe DecisiQn Exhibit I, to FWRC 19.15.100, Lapse of Approval- Generally Exhibit J, to FWRC 19.15.110, Lapse of Approval- Time Extension Exhibit K, to' FWRC 19.65.110, Effect Qfthe DecisiQn Exhibit L, to FWRC 19.70.160, Final Decisions and Effect of the Decision Staff Report to the Planning Commission Amendments to Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) Page 7 09-101017/Doc. I.D. 50754 Proposed Text Amendments In Relevant Part Submitted to Planning Commission July 22, 2009 EXHIBIT A PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENTS Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) Title 18, "Subdivisions" 18.05.080 "Application Cancelation" (City File No. 09-101017-00-UP) Exhibit A (provides extension to the 180-day timeline) 18.05.080 Application cancellation. ill If an applicant fQr a boundary line adjustment, lot line elimination, binding site plan, shQrt subdivisiQn plat, preliminary plat, final plat, alteratiQn of plat, Qr vacation of subdivision fails to provide additional information to' the city within 180 days of being notified by mail that such informatiQn is requested, the applicatiQn shall be deemed null and void and the city shall have no duty to process, review, or issue any decision with respect to such an application. (2) Extension request No less than 30 days prior to the lapse ofthe l80-dav notification bv the city under FWRC 18.05.080(1). the applicant for a short plat. bindin2 site plan. or preliminary plat application(s) may submit a written reQuest in the form of a letter with supportin2 evidence to the department reQUestin2 an extension of the l80-dav time limits and documentin2 the followin2: (a) That circumstances beyond the applicant's control prevent compliance with the time limits of FWRC 18.05.080(1 )~ (b) That the applicant is makin2 substantial pr02ress in respondin2 to the reQuest for information so that review of the application can be furthered when that information is submitted~ and (c) The number of additional calendar days necessary to provide the reQuested information. (3) Review orocess. A reQuest for an extension to the l80-dav time limit will be reviewed and decided upon bv the director based on responses to criteria in FWRC 18.05.080(2). (4) Retroactive aoolicabilitv. Administrative extension to the l80-dav time limit shall be retroactive to' those valid bindin2 site plan. short subdivision. and preliminary plat applications currentlv under review. (Ord. No. 07-554, ~ 5(Exh. A(2)), 5-15-07; Ord. No. 00-375, ~ 5, 10-3-00. Code 2001 ~ 20-22.) 09-101017 Doc. J.D. 50755 09-1010]7 EXHIBIT B PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENTS Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) Title 18, "Subdivisions" 18.30.260 "Effect - Short plat duration approval" (City File No. 09-101017-00-UP) Doc. ].D. 50755 Exhibit B (Short plat approval would be valid for 5 years) 18.30.260 Effect - Short plat dDuration approval. (1) ShQrt plat approval shall expire eRe five year! from the date of the director Qf community development services apprQval. Said apprQval shall constitute acceptance Qf shQrt subdivisiQn layout and design and shall include all conditions, restrictions, and Qther requirements required by the director Qf cQmmunity development services as part Qf shQrt subdivision apprQval. City apprQval Qf a shQrt subdivision shall nQt constitute approval for land clearing or grading, vegetatiQn remQval, or any other activities which otherwise require permits from the city. (2) Prior to construction of improvements pursuant to short plat approval, engineering drawings for public improvements shall be submitted for review and approval to the department of public works, Lakehaven utility district, and city Qf TacQma public utilities department. No permits to begin CQnstructiQn Qr site work shall be granted until final approval Qf all utility plans, including storm drainage; the payment Qf all pertinent fees; and the submittal Qf perfQrtnance securities as may be required (Ord. No. 07-554, ~ 5(Exh. A(2)), 5-15-07; Ord. No. 97-291, ~ 3,4-1-97. Code 2001 ~ 20-106.) 09.101017 Doc. 1.0. 50755 09-101017 EXHIBIT C PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENTS Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) Title 18, "Subdivisions" 18.05.090 "Lapse of Approval- Time extension" (City File No. 09-101017-00-UP) Doc. I.D. 50755 Exhibit C (NEW section for time extension for short plat, BSP, and preliminary plat applications) 18.05.090 Lapse of approval- Time extension (1) Application. No less than 60 davs prior to lapse of approval under FWRC 18.30.260 and FWRC 18.35.220, or prior to lapse of approval of any precedin2 time extension 2ranted under this section, the applicant may submit a written reQuest in the form of a letter with supportin2 documentation to the department of community development services reQUestin2 extension ofthose time limits of UP to two years. (2) Criteria. An extension reQuest shall satisfy the followin2 criteria to be approved: (a) Except for the first reQuest for time extension, the applicant has made substantial pr02ress to complete the plat~ (b) There are circumstances beyond the applicant's control which prevent compliance with the time limits of FWRC 18.30.260, 18.35.220, or any previously 2ranted extension~ (c) The extension will not create or continue conditions that constitute a code violation or an attractive nuisance.. contribute to erosion and sedimentation problems~ or impact the public health, safety, and welfare~ and (d) Whether either physical conditions in the vicinity ofthe plat or codes and reQuirements of the city, applicable a2encies, and utility providers have chan2ed to such a de2ree since initial approval that it would be contrary to the public interest to extend the life ofthe plat, includin2 but not limited to such factors as: i. Whether the adoption of new codes and/or standards would substantially affect project layout and storm draina2e desi2n~ ii. The adeQuacy of miti2ation and/or impact fees to address the cost of miti2ation at the end of the expiration period~ iii. Whether the delayed project is an impediment to other development projects in the vicinity as a result oftraffic concurrency reserved capacity. The director mav condition the extension reQuest to satisfv criteria (c) and (d) as appropriate. In order to demonstrate compliance with the criteria of FWRC 18.05.090(2), the applicant may also provide pertinent documentation of financial backin2, lease acceptance, or other such commitments secured bv the developer and/or a2ent as well as applicable project timelines with milestones and dates of anticipated completion. (3) Fee. The applicant shall include with the letter of reQuest the hourly fee as established bv the city. The reQuest will not be accepted unless it is accompanied bv the reQuired hourly fee. (4) Review process. Each reQuest for extension will be reviewed and decided upon bv the director of cQmmunity development services who may 2rant UP to a two-year extension(s) of approval. (5) Appeals. Anv person a22rieved bv the 2rantin2 or denvin2 of a reQuest fQr a time extension under this section mav appeal that decision. The appellant must file a letter of appeal indicatin2 how this decision affects the appellant's property and presentin2 any relevant material or information supportin2 the appellant's contention. The appeal will be heard and decided upon usin2 the appeal process described in FWRC 18.30.140 et seQ. Anv short plat time limit, pursuant to Chapter 36.70B RCW, upon the city's processin2 and decision upon applications under this title may, except as otherwise specifically stated in this title, be modified bv a written a2reement between the applicant and the director of communitv development services. (6) Retroactive app/icabilitv. The provisions of this section shall be retroactive to active and valid short plat, bindin2 site plan, and preliminary plat applications. 09-101017 Doc.I.D. 50755 09-101017 EXHIBIT D PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENTS Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) Title 18, "Subdivisions" 18.30.270 "Effect - Time extension" (City File No. 09-101017-00-UP) Doc. I.D. 50755 Exhibit D (Moved to 18.05.090) 18.30.170 Effect Time extension. (1) No less than 30 days prior to lapse of appr<y.yal under FWRC 18.30.260, the applicant may submit a ,",..fitten application in the form Qf a letter ';vith SUPPQrting dQcumentation to' the department Qf cormnunity dey..elopment services requesting a Que time extension Qfthose limits Qfup to' Que year. (2) The applicant shall include, v.ith the letter of request, the fee as established by the city and reasons for said req1:lest. The application ';'.'111 IlQt be accepted unless it is accompanied by the required fee. (3) The director of commlllity development services may grant a one year ~(tensiQn Qf SflQrt s1:lbdi~;ision approval '.vith an expiration date and nO' further opPQrtunity f-or eKtensiQn. (1) The request must demonstrate that the applicant is making s1:lbstantial progress on the apprQ~;al and COfI.ditiQfls Qf apprQval, and that there are circumstanees beYQfld the applicant's contrQI ,",;bieh prc'~/ent compliance ';/ith the time limits of FWRC 18.30.260. (5) }~ny person aggrieved by the granting or denying of a request for a time extension under this section may appeal that decision. The appellant must file a letter Qf appeal indicating ho...; this decision affects the appellant's property and presenting any rele~lallt material Qr informatiQn supporting the appellant's cQntentiQn. T'hc appeal will be heard and decided 1:lpon using the appeal process described in FWRC 18.30.110 ot seq. f1nytime limit, pursuantt{) Chapter 36.70B RCW, 1:lpOfl. the city's processing and decision upon applications under this title may, except as Qther'.vise specifically stated in this title, be modified by a \vritten agreement betv;een the applicant and the directQr Qf community development serVIces. (Ord. Na. 07 55~, ~ 5(lMl.. A(2)), 5 15 07; ore. No. 97 291, ~ 3, 1 1 97. Code 2001 ~ 20 107.) 09-101017 Doc. J.D. 50755 09-101017 EXHIBIT E PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENTS Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) Title 18, "Subdivisions" 18.35.220 "Duration of approval" (City File No. 09-101017-00-UP) Doc. I.D. 50755 Exhibit E (from Preliminary plat; most moved to 18.05.090) 18.35.220 Duration of approval. Preliminary plat approval shall expire five years from the date Qf city CQUllcil apprQval, unless the applicant requests an extensiQn as Drovided in FWRC 18.05.090. frQm the hearing examiner. The request f-or extension moot be submitted to the department Qf conmnmity deY/elopmrnt services at least 60 days priQr to' the expiratioo date of the preliminary plat. The department of commmlity deY/elopment sel"/ices shall schedule and advertise a public hearing in accordance ?,ith FWRC 18.35.100. In considering ?/hethey to grant the extension, the hearing examiner shall consider the following in. the public hearing: (1) Whether substantial progress has been made tov/ard completion Qf the entire plat, or the initial phase Qf the plat, if the preliminary apprO','al included phasing. (2) Whether cooditions in the yicinity Qf the subdivisioo have changed to a sufficient degree since initial approY/al to 'lIarrant reconsideratioo of the preliminary plat. The hearing examiner may grant a one year e1(tensioo of preliminary plat appl'O',.al or may allovl division Qf the plat intO' separate phases, each "'lith an expiratiQn date and nO' further oppQrtanity f-or eJ(tensiQn. (Ord. No. 07-554, ~ 5(Exh. A(2)), 5-15-07; Ord. No. 97-291, ~ 3,4-1-97; Ord. No. 90-41, ~ 1(16.120.10 -16.120.50), 2-27-90. Code 2001 ~ 20-131.) 09-101017 Doc. 1.0. 50755 EXHIBIT F PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENTS Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) Title 19, "Permits and Review Processes" 19.15.045 "Completeness of applications" (City File No. 09-101017-00-UP) Exhibit F (Defines use process vesting) 19.15.045 Completeness of applications. (1) Within 28 calendar days ofreceiving an applicatiQn, the city shall determine whether the application is complete, with reference to FWRC 19.15.040. Prior to the 28-day deadline, a letter of completeness shall be issued indicatinl! the date the application is deemed complete.. if the city deems the application to be complete, or, if the city determines the application to be incomplete, the city shall notify the applicant of what needs to' be submitted for a complete application. In this written determination, the city shall also identify, to' the extent known to the city, the Qther agencies oflocal, state, or federal government that may have jurisdiction over some aspect of the proposed develQpment activity. An application may be deemed complete Ufl:der tms sectiQR even if the city dQes nQt prQvide a ',';fitten determination to the applicant as required. (2) If an applicatiQn was fQund incQmplete and an applicant submits additiQnal infQrmatiQn, the city shall nQtify the applicant in writinl! within 14 days the date whether the applicatiQn is deemed complete or whether further additional information is necessary. (3) Additional information. A determination of completeness shall not preclude the city frQm requesting additional information or studies, either at the time of the letter of completeness or subsequently, if new information is required or if there are substantial changes in the proposed action. (4) VestinJ!. A proposed Use Process I. II. III. or IV application shall vest to and be considered under the zoninl! code and other land use control ordinances. in effect on the land at the time a fully completed application for Use Process I. II. III. or IV has been submitted to the city. In the event that the city reQuests supplemental or specific information to find an application complete.. the Use Process I. II. III. or IV application shall vest to those codes in effect on the date that all reQuested supplemental or specific information is submitted. A comolete application shall be defined as set forth in FWRC 19.15.040 and based on reQuirements in related handouts. Vested ril!hts shall not be waivable pursuant to the Vested Ril!hts Doctrine. (Ord. No. 09-594, S 19, 1-6-09. Code 2001 S 22-33.5.) 09-101017 Doc. J.D. 50756 EXHIBIT G PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENTS Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) Title 19, "Permits and Review Processes" 19.15.050 "Application cancellation" (City File No. 09-101017-00-UP) 09-101017 Doc.I.D. 50756 Exhibit G (Provides extension to the ISO-day timeline) 19.15.050 Application cancellation. ill If an applicant fails to provide additional information to the city within 180 days ofbeing notified by mail that such information is requested, the application shall be deemed null and void and the city shall have no duty to' process, review, or issue any decisions with respect to such an application. (2) Extension request. No less than 30 days prior to the lapse of the 180-dav notification bv the city under FWRC19.15.050(1). the applicant may submit a written reQuest in the form of a letter with supportinl! evidence to the department reQuestinl! an extension of the time limits and documents the followinl!: (a) That circumstances beyond the applicant's control prevent compliance with the time limits of FWRC 19.15.050(1)~ (b) That the applicant is makinl! substantial prOl!ress in respondinl! to the reQuest for information so that review of the application can be furthered when that information is submitted~ and (c) The number of additional calendar days necessary to provide the reQuested information. (3) Review process. A reQuest for an extension to the 180-dav time limit will be reviewed and decided upon bv the director based on responses to criteria in FWRC 19.15.050(2). (4) Retroactive applicabilitv. Administrative extension to the 180-dav time limit shall be retroactive to those valid Process I. II. III. or IV applications currentlv under review. (Ord. No. 97-291, ~ 3,4-1-97. Code 2001 ~ 22-34.) 09-101017 Doc. J.D. 50756 EXHIBIT H PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENTS Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) Title 19, "Permits and Review Processes" 19.15.075 "Final decisions and effect of the decision" (City File No. 09-101017-00-UP) 09-101017 Doc. I.D. 50756 Exhibit H (NEW SECTION combining "Final decisions and effect of the decision" and moving it from Process ill and IV sections to section 19.15 - Use process overview) 19.15.075 Final decisions and effect ofthe decision Upon a decision becomiDl! final. the applicant may enl!al!e in activity based on the decision. provided applicable permits have been approved. (a) Director. Decisions of the Director of Community Development Services become final subiect to the followinl!: . (1 ) If a written notice of appeal is received within the appeal period. the decision shall not become final until the appeal process is complete and the city issues a final decision. (2) If no appeal is submitted within the 14-calendar-dav appeal period. the decision shall become final on the first calendar day followinl! the expiration of the appeal period. (b) Hearinf! Examiner. If a decision of the hearinl! examiner is the final decision of the city. it may be reviewed under FWRC 19.70.260. Where the hearinl! examiner's decision is not the final decision of the city. the decision may be appealed under FWRC 19.70.170 and is subiect to subsection (2) of this section. (1 ) Af!encv decision aDDeals. The decision bv the hearinl! examiner on an al!encv decision appeal is the final decision of the city. except where the proposed proiect involves: i. An approval. other than a site plan approval. involvinl! a school (FWRC 19.195.100). a community recreation area (FWRC 19.195.120). a l!overnment facility (FWRC 19.195.150). a public utility (FWRC 19.195.140). or a public park (FWRC 19.195.160) located in an SE (suburban estates). RS (sinl!le-familv residential). or RM (multifamilv) zone~ or ii. A site plan approval for a public utility located in a BN (neil!hborhood business). BC (community business). or OP (office park) zone. Hi. SEPA appeals under FWRC Titles 14 and 15. (2) Other cases. In cases not subiect to subsection (1) ofthis section. decisions ofthe hearinl! examiner become final: i. If no appeal of the hearinl! examiner's decision is submitted within the appeal period. on the first calendar day followinl! the expiration ofthe 14-calendar-dav appeal period~ ii. If a written notice of appeal ofthe hearinl! examiner's decision is received within the appeal period. when the city issues a final decision after the appeal process is complete. 09-101017 Doc. I.D. 50756 EXHIBIT I PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENTS Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) Title 19, "Permits and Review Processes" 19.15.100 "Lapse of approval- Generally" (City File No. 09-101017-00-UP) 09-101017 Doc. LD. 50756 Exhibit I (Establishes the time that Use Process I, II, III, and IV applications are valid) 19.15.100 Lapse of approval- Generally. (1) Use Process L The applicant must substantially complete construction for the development activity. use of land. or other actions approved and complete the applicable conditions listed in the Process I decision within one year after the final decision of the city on the matter. or the decision becomes void. If a land use petition is filed under Chapter 36.70C RCW in Kin2 County superior court. the time limits of this section are automaticallv extended bv the len2th of time between the commencement and final termination of that liti2ation. (2) Use Process II. III. and IV. i\n applicant must begin construction or submit to the city a cOHlplete building permit application for the development acti~.rity, we Qfland or other actions \\i:thin one year after the final decision apprQving the matter, or the decision becomes ~,Toid. The applicant must substantially cQmplete CQnstructiQn fQr the development activity, use Qfland, or Qther actions apprQved and cQmplete the applicable cQnditiQns listed in the Use Process II. III. and IV decisiQn within five years after the final decisiQn Qf the city on the matter, Qr the decision becQmes void. If a land use petitiQn is filed under Chapter 36.70C RCW in King County superior court, the time limits of this section are automatically extended by the length Qf time between the commencement and final termination Qf that litigatiQn. If the development activity, use Qfland, or other action approved under this chapter includes phased construction, the time limits Qf this section may be extended in the decision Qn the application, to' allow for cQmpletiQn of subsequent phases. (Ord. No. 09-594, ~ 23,1-6-09. Code 2001 ~ 22-39.) 09-101017 Doc. J.D. 50756 EXHIBIT J PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENTS Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) Title 19, "Permits and Review Processes" 19.15.110 "Lapse of approval- Time extension" (City File No. 09-101017-00-UP) 09-101017 Doc. J.D. 50756 Exhibit J (Time extension for Use Process applications) 19.15.110 Lapse of approval- Time extension. (1) Application. No less than 30 days PPrior to' the lapse QfapprQval under FWRC 19.15.100 for substantially comoletinl! construction or orior to laose of aooroval for any oroceedinl! time extension l!ranted under this section. the;-an applicant may submit a written application reQuest in the form of a letter with sUPPQrting documentation to the department requesting a one time extension of those time limits of up to two years. one year. (2) Criteria. The request must demOlliitrate that the applicant is maldng substantial progress Of!. the dey,-elopment activity, use Qfland, Qr Qther actiOflS appro....ed ooder this chapter and that eircumstanees heYQfld the applicant's control prey/em cQmplianee ','lith the time limits QfFWRC 19.15.100; An extension reQuest shall satisfy the followinl! criteria to be aooroved: (a) Exceot for the first reQuest for time extension. the aoolicant has made substantial orOl!ress to comolete the oroject; (b) There are circumstances beyond the aoolicant's control which orevent comoliance with the time limits ofFWRC 19,15.100. or any oreviously l!ranted extension; (c) The extension will not create or continue conditions that constitute a code yiolation or an attractive nuisance.. contribute to erosion and sedimentation oroblems. or imoact the oublic health. safety and welfare; and (d) Whether either ohysical conditions in the vicinity of the olat or codes and reQuirements ofthe citv. aoolicable al!encies. and utility oroviders have chanl!ed to such a del!ree since initial aooroyal that it would be contrarv to the oublic interest to extend the life of the olat., includinl! but not limited to such factors as: i. Whether the adootion of new codes/standards would substantially affect oroject layout and storm drainal!e desil!n; ii. The adeQuacy of mitil!ation and/or imoact fees to address the cost of mitil!ation at the end of the exoiration oeriod; iii. Whether the delayed oroject is an imoediment to other develooment orojects in the vicinity as a result oftraffic concurrency reserved caoacitv. The director may condition the extension reQuest to satisfy criteria (c) and (d) as aoorooriate. In order to demonstrate comoliance with the criteria of FWRC 19.15.110(2). the aoolicant may also orovide oertinent documentation of financial backinl!. lease acceotance.. or other such commitments secured by the develooer and/or al!ent as well as aoolicable oroject timelines with milestones and dates of anticioated comoletion. (3) Fee. The applicant shall include, with the letter ofrequest, the hourlv fee as established by the city. The application reQuest will not be accepted unless it is accompanied by the required hourly fee. (4) Review process and timeline, An Each reQuest application for a time extensiQn will be administratively reviewed and decided UPQn by the director who may l!rant uo to a one-year extension of time to substantially comolete cQnstruction and comolete aoolicable conditions of aooroval for aooroved Use Process I aoolicatiQn(s) after final decision and may l!rant uo to' a two-year extension of time to substantially comolete construction and comolete aoolicable conditions of aooroval for aooroved Use Process II. III. or IV aoolication(s). (5) Appeals. Any perSQn whO' is aggrieved by the granting Qr denying Qf a request fQr a time extension under this sectiQn may appeal that decisiQn as orovided in FWRC 19.65.120. The appellant must file a letter Qf appeal indicating how the decisiQn Qn the time extension affects the appellant's property and presenting any relevant material or informatiQn supporting the appellant's contention. The appeal will be heard and decided upon using process IV. Pursuant to Chapter 36.70B RCW, any time limit upon the city's processing and decision upon applications under this title may, except as otherwise specifically stated in this title, be mQdified by a written agreement between the applicant and the director. (6) Retroactive 4pplicabilitv. Extensions aooroyed under this section shall be retroactive only for those active and valid Use Process I. II. III. or IV aoolications. (Ord. No. 09-594,924,1-6-09. Code 2001 922-40.) 09-101017 Doc. J.D. 50756 EXHIBIT K PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENTS Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) Title 19, "Permits and Review Processes" 19.65.110 "Effect of the decision" (City File No. 09-101017-00-UP) 09-101017 Doc. I.D. 50756 Exhibit K (Move this section to 19.15 and combine with Process IV language) 19.65.110 Effect of the c:leeisian. Upon a decision becoming final, the applicant may engage in acti'/ity based on the decision, prQy/ided applicable permits have been approved Decisions become final sl:lbject to' the fQllQv;ing: (1) If a v;ritten notice Qf appeal is recei'!ed 'llithin the appeal periQd, the decision shall nQt become final until the appeal process is complete and the city issues a [mal decision. (2) If no appeal is submitted ';lithin the 14 calendar day appeal period, the deeision shall become final on the first calendar day follov;ing the expiration of the appeal period 09-101017 Doc. 1.0. 50756 EXHIBIT L PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENTS Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) Title 19, "Permits and Review Processes" 19.70.165 "Final decisions and effect of the decision" (City File No. 09-101017-00-UP) 09-101017 Doc. J.D. 50756 Exhibit L (Move this section to 19.15 and combine with UP language) 19.70.160 Final deeisions and effect aetke deeisian. Upon a decision becoming final, the applicant may engage in acti'/ity based on the decision, prQvided applicable permits ha'/e been appny/ed. If a decision of the hearing e-xaminer is the final decision Qf the city, it may be reviewed under FWRC 19.70.260. \Vhere the hearing examiner's decision is not the final decision of the city, the decision may be appealed under FWRC 19.70.170 and is subject to subsection (2) of this section. (1) Ageney decisitm a.ppea.ls. The decision by the hearing e-xaminer on an ageney decision appeal is the final decision of the city, e-xcept where the proposed project in'/Ql'/es: (a) Jill approval, Qther than a site plan approy/al, inyolving a school (PWRC 19.195.100), a cormnunity reereation area (PWRC 19.195.120), a gO".'ernrnentfacility (PWRC 19.195.150), a public utility (PWRC 19.195.110), QT a public park (PWRC 19.195.160) IQcated in a SE (suburban estates), RS (single family residential), QT RM (multifamily) ZORe; QT (b) .^. site plan approval fQr a p1:lblic utility located in a EN (neighbQThoQd business), EC (community business), QT OP (Qffice park) zone. (c) SEP.\ appeals 1.U1:der PWRC Titles 11 and 15. (2) Other cases. In eases not subject to subsection (1) ofthis section, decisions of the hearing examiner become final: (a) Ifno appeal Qfthe hearing e-xaminer's decision is submitted ?,ithin the appeal periQd, on the first calendar day fQllov,'ing the e-xpiration of the 11 calendar day appeal period; (b) If a writtCfl notice of appeal of the hearing examiner's decision. is recei'led \vithin the appeal period, when the city issues a final decision after the appeal process is complete. (Ord. No. 09-594, ~ 92, 1-6-09; Ord. No. 07-573, ~ 26, 12-4-07; Ord. No. 00-375, ~ 15,10-3-00; Ord. No. 97-291, ~ 3,4-1-97; Ord. No. 92-133, ~ 3(150.70),4-21-92; Ord. No. 90-43, ~ 2(150.70),2-27-90. Code 2001 ~ 22-446.) 09-101017 Doc. I.D. 50756