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