Planning Comm PKT 09-16-2009
City of Federal Way
PLANNING COMMISSION
September 16, 2009
7:00 p.rn.
City Hall
COlUlcil Chambers
AGENDA
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
July 22, 2009
4. AUDIENCE COMMENT
5. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
6. COMMISSION BUSINESS
. PUBLIC HEARING
Code Amendments to SEP A Exemption & Use Processes
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
U"wlV. (~ln.'attid.:::.(dv..!aY (:uYn
K:IPlanning Connnissionl2009IAgenda 09-16-09.doc
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
PLANNING COMMISSION
July 22, 2009
7:00 p.rn.
City Hall
Council Chambers
MEETING MINUTES
Commissioners present: Merle Pfeifer, Hope Elder, Lawson Bronson, Wayne Carlson, Tom Medhurst, and
Tim O'Neil. Commissioners absent: Sarady Long (excused). Staffpresent: Senior Planner Margaret Clark,
Senior Planner Deb Barker, Planning Manager Isaac Conlen, Public Works Deputy Director Ken Miller,
Assistant City Attorney Amy Jo Pearsall, and Administrative Assistant Tina Piety.
Chair Pfeifer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.rn.
ApPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of July 1,2009, were approved as written.
AUDIENCE COMMENT
None
ADMINISTRATIVE REpORT
Ms. Piety announced that the next Planning Commission meeting will be September 16, 2009. We will have
public hearings on two proposed code amendments.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
PUBLIC HEARING - Plat & Land Use Application Time Limit Extensions and Vesting Clarification
Ms. Barker delivered the staff presentation. The intent of the proposed code amendments is to provide
flexibility in city review processes and timelines. The proposed amendments will allow more time to submit
information before an application is canceled; will allow more time to complete an approved application as
long as the applicant meets the criteria; and will give a consistent and early vesting time for applications. A
draft of the proposed amendments was given to the stakeholders group and three responses were received
Lakehaven Utility District and ESM stated they approved of the proposed amendments. Sam Pace of the
Seattle King County Realtors sent a letter (attached) that was forwarded to the Commissioners. His main
concern was with the short plat timeline (he recommended seven years). Ms. Baker spoke to him about this
issue and he stated he did not have an opportunity to read the staff report before preparing his letter. She
explained to him that the proposed amendments increased the construction period to five years and allows for
two year extensions. Ms. Barker believes the proposed amendments address his concern about the timing of
projects. The proposed amendments will increase the time limit to five years and will allow two year
extensions as long as the criteria are met.
Public Comment
Wayne Snoey, Covington resident, Federal Way landowner, member Covington City Council- He
supports the spirit of the proposed amendments. He stated that the residential and commercial real
estate industries are in terrible shape. It is very difficult for developers to obtain funding, so
K:IPlanning Connnissionl2009IMeeting Sunnnary 07-22-09.doc
Pl~nnlna rnmTnlcc1nn ~Aln......t~C'
D....na."l
T.....1..,. "l"'l ..,f\f\O
Planning Commission Minutes
Page 2
July 22, 2009
extending the time limits will help by giving them more time to obtain funding. The real economic
stimulus will happen at the local level, as with the proposed amendments.
Garrett Huffman, Master Builders Association (MBA) - He stated this is excellent work. He passed
out three handouts. The first is a table showing what other jurisdictions are doing and! or proposing for
time extensions. He stated he has meet with staff on this issue. He commented that we may lose half
the builders in this region because they are unable to obtain funding due to the economy. Extensions
will be a great help. The other two handouts deal with the law. On page 8 of the 10 page handout, he
has bolded some information regarding vesting. It states in part that a local government,"... may not
cause vesting of application to be contingent on future events or decisions...." He feels the proposed
vesting amendment (city staff report Exlnbit F) allows for this and therefore is illegal and should be
deleted The third handout has case law on the vesting issue. Other than the vesting issue, the MBA
supports the proposed amendments.
Commissioner Elder asked for the city's legal opinion on the vesting issue. Ms. Pearsall replied that the legal
department reviewed the staffs proposal and feel it is legal. The language clarifies that vesting will occur when
the application is complete and is not contingent on future events or decisions. The language says that if
information is missing and thereby the application is incomplete, the city will request that information and will
wait until the missing information is submitted before declaring the application complete. Once the decision is
made that the application is complete, then it is vested Commissioner O'Neal asked Mr. Huffinan what he feels
is onerous about the proposed vesting. Mr. Huffinan replied he is concerned that the city could request
additional information or studies that are not on the list of what must be submitted with the application and the
city would say the project is not vested until it is all approved The application should be vested when it is
submitted and the city cannot legally require additional studies before vesting the project. Ms. Pearsall
commented that the proposed language states that vesting will occur with submission of a complete application,
and the code lists what constitutes a complete application. Mr. Huffman responded that just because it is in the
code does not necessarily mean it is legal.
Commissioner O'Neal asked if a limit is proposed for how many extensions an applicant may request. Ms.
Barker replied there is no limit to the number of extensions an applicant may request as long as they meet the
criteria.
Commissioner Medhurst commented that the proposed amendment make common sense. He asked staff
whether there was anything in the proposed amendments they may want to change once the economy
improves. Ms. Baker replied that staff considered a sunset clause, but they agree the proposed amendments
make common sense and decided not to place a sunset clause.
Mr. Miller commented that short plats tend to be infill and the city has received complaints from neighbors
about properties where work has been started, but nothing has been done for years. It is for this reason staff
that included the criteria that substantial progress be shown if an applicant is seeking a second extension
Commissioner Carlson commented that staffhas done a good job with these proposed amendments. He does
have a concem A project is not vested until the application is deemed complete, which could include a
number ofreports. He understands that city staffwill need to review the reports to insure they contain the
appropriate information, but he is concerned that staff could hold up the process because of a disagreement
with the preparer of a report over a specific piece of information within a report. He requested that staff add
language along the lines of stating that reports need only to meet the professional "standard of care."
Commissioner Bronson agreed
Commissioner Bronson asked why Use Process I is not included with the proposed amendments. Ms. Barker
replied that given the types of projects that are assigned to a Use Process I, staff does not foresee any such
K:\Planning Connnission\2009\Meeling Sunnnary 07.22.09.doc
Planning Commission Minutes
Page 3
July 22, 2009
project needing an extension. They are less complex, minor land use decisions and very few Use Process I
projects need more than a few weeks to complete and many need only a few days.
Commissioner Bronson asked if there is an appeal process if the requirements for a complete application
appear onerous to the applicant. He is concerned that a technical argwnent between staff and an engineer
could delay an application being deemed complete and thereby would delay vesting. Ms. Barker replied that
she is not aware of an appeal process because there has not been an issued decision. At such times, a
concerned applicant will speak with the department director. It is not a formal appeal with fees and
paperwork, but that is an option for them to take their concerns higher. Mr. Bronson commented this is a
concern for him because he is currently involved with a project with the federal government that is delayed
because of a technical argwnent between two professionals. There needs to be some mechanism that can be
used to move the process along. Commissioner O'Neil asked to clarify whether the discussion is about
vesting. Commissioner Bronson replied he is talking about getting to the point of vesting. If a government
professional and an outside professional are involved in an argwnent there is no way to go around that
arbitrary behavior. Mr. Conlen commented that Deb is correct. Typically at the start of the process there is
not a point for an appeal other than an informal discussion between the applicant and the planner's supervisor
or department director. However, typically within 28 days of the application being submitted, the city is
required to issue a decision as to whether or not the application is complete. The city will issue a letter and
that is a decision that could be appealed. So there is a chance to appeal.
Commissioner Carlson moved (and it was seconded) to recommend the City Council adopt the proposed
amendments as presented by staff. The motion passed unanimously.
The public hearing was closed
ADDITIONAL BUSINESS
Mr. Conlen informed the Commission of the status of the Shoreline Master Program (SMP). Staff had been
waiting for comments from the state Department of Ecology and has received thern. Staff is now editing the
SMP in light of these comments and plan to bring it back to the Planning Commission in September or
October.
AUDIENCE COMMENT
Wayne Snoey, Covington resident, Federal Way landowner, member Covington City Council -
He thanked the Commission for their work on the proposed amendments.
ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at 8:00 p.rn.
KIPlanning Connnissionl2009IMeeting Sunnnary 07- 22-09.doc
.
REALTOR4!l
SeattleKing County REAL TORS@
12410 SE 32nd Street, Suite 100, Bellevue, W A 98005
(425) 974-1011 . TF: (800) 540-3277 . Fax: 425-974-1032
TO:
City of Federal Way Planning Commission Chairman Merle Pfeifer &
Commissioners Hope Elder (Vice Chair), Lawson Bronson, Wayne Carlson,
Tom Medhurst, Sarady Long and Tim O'Neil,
DELIVERY: c/o: Margaret Clark, Senior Planner, (253) 835-2646,
mar2aret.clark(tV,citvoffederalwav.com
Tina Piety, Administrative Assistant II, (253) 835-2601
tina.pietv(tV,citvoffederalwav.com
Deb Barker, Senior Planner; and
deb.barker(tV,citvoffederalwav.com
FROM:
Sam Pace, Housing Specialist, SeattleKing County REAL TORS@
DATE:
July 20, 2009
RE:
Plat and Land Use Application and Permit Time Limit Extensions
Dear Chairman Pfeifer and Members of the Planning Commission:
My name is Sam Pace. I'm a Housing Specialist with the Seattle-King County Association of
REAL TORS@ and I'm writing to you on behalf of our 7,500+ members.
I will be unable to attend the July 22nd Planning Commission meeting to testify at the Commission's
Public Hearing on Plat and Land Use Application and Permit Time Limit Extensions.
I'm out-of-town on vacation with my family, but this issue of such importance I thought it necessary to
provide you written comments on the subject. I request that these be made a part of the Public Hearing
Record.
I provided similar written comments to the City Council back in March 2009. Since that time, several
other cities, as well as the King County Council, have already enacted extension ordinances.
I want to share with you our Association's support for (and underscore the importance of) the City
adopting a Local Economic Stimulus plan. One key piece of such a stimulus plan that we request the City
adopt is Extending the life of plat and land use applications and permits (and eSDeciallv "short
plats") including those that were in the City's permitting pipeline on or after January 1,2008.
We recommend extending the life of short plats to seven years, (or at least to five years plus annual
one-year extensions after the fifth year, similar to the way the City currently treats subdivisions and
building permits). Seven years, like the King County Council adopted (retroactive to 2004) is the
preferred approach
As you know, consistent with existing state law, the City allows 9-lot short plats, and deserves credit and
recognition for doing so. In addition, the City allows permits for subdivisions and buildings to be valid
for five years, plus annual renewals beyond the fifth year. The City's deserves credit for this approach as
well. It is appropriate for the City to provide time frames for the validity of short plats that are similar to
those the City provides for subdivisions and building permits. We recommend seven years.
TO:
DELIVERY:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
PAGE:
Chairman Merle Pfeifer and 'Members "fthe Federal Way Planning Commission
c/o Margaret Clark, Tina Piety and Deb Barker
Sam Pace, Housing Specialist, SeaUleKing County REAL TORS@
July 20, 2009
Plat and Land Use Application and Permit Time Limit Extensions
2of3
As you also know, the construction of homes and plats is stalled due to the national (and world) ftnancial
crisis that is dramatically constricting access to the capital needed to complete construction of plats and
homes. That financial crisis is not the fault of local builders/property owners who fmd themselves in the
position of unintended victims (like so many other small to medium-sized businesses in our local
communities).
It is important that the City extend the life of those plats (and esoeciallv "short plats") and permits, rather
than allowing them to expire.
Allowing them to expire, and requiring builders to re-do, re-submit, and re-pay for work that has already
been done, and already submitted to the City:
. Increases the Costs of Housing
. Hurts Housing Affordability for working families
. Places homebuilders (and the jobs they provide for local workers) in greater periL Some
observers of the industry indicate that perhaps as many as half the fIrms may not be able to
survive the current fmancial crisis.
. Allowing the permits/applications to expire also bas the potential to divert City resources for
review of other projects - such as construction the Council wants to see happen Downtown - to
redo staff work on residential projects once the market begins to recover; .and
. All of that, in-turn, delays the City's receipt of sales tax on "sticks and bricks" used in
construction of plats and homes, as well as REET revenues the City receives when the lots and
homes sell.
Additionally, viewing this situation from a "macro economics" perspective, I anticipate that when credit
markets start to recover and builders once again have access to capital, we're going to see a continued
constraint on housing supply (relative to the pent-up demand for homes) that will artifIcially increase
housing prices above more normal market levels. While it may seem counter-intuitive given current
inventory levels, this imbalance between supply and pent-up demand will be the result of the "lag time"
between the remaining/surviving builders regaining access to credit for working capital, and the time it
takes to complete construction of the plats and homes. Importantly, and unfortunately, there are likely to
be far fewer builders available to meet that demand, resulting in longer lag times and higher price
mcreases.
Depending upon the number of construction fIrms that go under, I anticipate this will happen for a period
of about 6 to 18 months while the construction industry once again begins building homes that, when
fInished, will be sold to the families of local workers. It's important for the City to do its small part to
help avoid unnecessarily exacerbating that imbalance between supply and pent-up demand when the
market starts to recover. Extending the life of plats (and especiaUv "short plats" which currently receive
disparate treatment) is an important contribution the City can make to help mitigate this problem.
Making the extensions retroactive for projects that were in the City's pipeline on or after January 1, 2008,
(or even 2007, when many construction ftrms began to experience the lenders' constricting access to
working capital) will help to mitigate the damage being done, and avoid future damage.
TO:
DELIVERY:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
PAGE:
Chairman Merle Pfeifer and' Members of the Federal Way Planning Commission
c/o Margaret Clark, Tina Piety and Deb Barker
Sam Pace, Housing Specialist, SeattleKing County REAL TORS@
July 20, 2009
Plat and Land Use Application and Permit Time Limit Extensions
20f3
A very recent study by a number of noted economists and researchers in our state found that Housing
(both directly and indirectly) accounts for approximately 20% of the State's GDP and 24% ofthe payroll
in Washington State. Additionally, each 1,000 home sales result in 935 jobs, $37.5 million in wages and
$126 million in economic activity. It's an important economic driver for our economy.
Thank you in advance for your consideration.
Sincerely,
SEATTLEKlNG COUNTYREALTORS@
~ PUt.
Sam Pace, Housing Specialist
cc: David Crowell
SKCAR Governmental Affairs Committee
A
CiTV OF "::iW'"N'<>';">:~.%:,:-,;::,>,:~W"-"-
Federal
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Amendments to State Environmental Policy Act (SEP A) Exempt Level Thresholds in
Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) Title 14, "Environmental Policy"
and
Amendments to FWRC Title 19, "Zoning and Development Code"
Use Process II, Use Process III, Use Process IV, & Use Process V
Federal Way Files 09-102608-00-UP & 09-102609-00-SE
Public Hearing of September 16, 2009
I. BACKGROUND
Amendments to the zoning code (Federal Way Revised Code [FWRC]) Title 14, "Environmental
Policy" to raise some ofthe State Environmental Policy Act (SEP A) Exempt Level Thresholds, and
Title 19, "Zoning and Development Code" on the Use Process II, Use Process III, Use Process IV,
and Use Process V decision criteria to obtain land use process approval in order to mitigate for
onsite or offsite traffic safety impacts to the transportation system, for all modes of transportation.
The Planning Commission is being asked to review the proposed changes to the zoning code, attached
as Exhibits A-E, and forward a recommendation to the Land Use/Transportation Committee (LUTC)
and City Council. The following proposed zoning text amendments are addressed in this staff report:
1. Modify FWRC Chapter 14.l5.030(1)(a) to change exempt levels for minor new construction for
residential structures from 9 to 20 dwelling units; the maximum allowed per WAC 197-11-
800(1)(b) (Exhibit A).
2. Modify FWRC Chapter 14. 15.030(1)(c) to change exempt levels for minor new construction for
office, commercial, recreational, service, or storage buildings from 4,000 square feet to 12,000
square feet gross floor area, and from 20 parking spaces to 40 parking spaces; the maximum
allowed per WAC 197 -11-800( 1 )(b) (Exhibit A).
3. Modify FWRC Chapter 14.15.030(1)(d) to change exempt levels for minor new construction of
parking lots from 20 spaces to 40 spaces; the maximum allowed per WAC 197-11-800(1 )(b)
(Exhibit A).
4. Modify FWRC Chapter 19.60.050(2) to add a new decisional criteria for Process II - Site Plan
Approval (Exhibit B), Chapter 19.65.100(2)(a) Use Process III - Project Approval (Exhibit C),
Chapter 19.70.150(3) Use Process IV - Hearing Examiner (Exhibit D), and Chapter
19.75.130(3) Use Process V - Quasi-Judicial Rezones (Exhibit E). These modifications will
address potential traffic safety impacts for all modes of transportation that may arise as a result
of changes to the SEP A threshold exempt levels.
ll. PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENTS
1. Recommended Modifications to FWRC Chapter 14.15.030, "SEPA Categorical Exempt
Levels - Flexible Thresholds"
The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) was adopted to establish a set of rules that
agencies could use to determine and mitigate potential impacts to the environment generated by
development projects. Federal Way has adopted these rules as part of the revised code, under
Title 14, "Environmental Policy." FWRC Chapter 14.15.030 lists the exempt levels for minor
new construction. The city has adopted exempt levels for residential, commercial, office,
recreational, service, or storage buildings up to 4,000 square feet, andupt020parking spaces.
Also, for parking lots, the current exempt level is 20 parking spaces. WAC 197-11-800( 1)(b)
lists the maximum exempt levels allowed for each category listed above and allows local
jurisdictions to adopt exempt levels up to these maximum levels. The city now proposes to
amend the SEP A exempt levels to the maximum allowed for the residential, commercial, office,
recreational, service, and storage buildings to 12,000 square feet with 40 parking spaces and
parking lots for up to 40 parking spaces.
2. Recommended Modifications to FWRC Chapter 19.60 "Process II - Site Plan Approval,"
Chapter 19.65 "Process III - Project Approval," Chapter 19.70 "Process IV - Hearing
Examiner," and Chapter 19.75, "Process V - Quasi-Judicial Rezones"
The proposed amendments to the above-referenced chapters will add some decisional criteria to
project approvals to address potential traffic safety issues that may arise when smaller projects
are not required to go through a SEP A review process as a result of raising the exemption levels
as noted in item 1, above. Potential traffic impacts for pedestrian safety, access to the site,
signalization, off site improvements, and similar items that previously were mitigated through
the SEP A process are proposed to be addressed by new decisional criteria added to each of the
code sections noted above.
ill. PROCEDURAL SUMMARY
On July 25, 2009, the city issued an Environmental Determination ofNonsignificance (DNS) on the
_ pr()p()~~d._~e!l_~e!1ts~. 'Yith:_'!.(;2.~~td.~~cl1in.e()(Al!~t !Q1 ~QQ2~~d._~.appeaJd.~_<!line of
August 24,2009. No comments onthe DNSwere submitted to the city as of the date of transmittal
of this staff report. Public notice of the September 16, 2009, public hearing was published and
posted on August 29,2009, in accordance with the city's procedural requirements. As of this date,
no comments were received from the public on this proposal.
IV. REASON FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
FWRC Title 19, "Zoning and Development Code," Chapter 19.80 establishes a process and criteria
for zoning code text amendments. Consistent with Process VI review, the role of the Planning
Commission is as.follows:
FWRC Code Amendments
September 16, 2009, Planning Commission Public Hearing
09-102608-00-UP I Doc ID 51422
Page 2 of 5
1. To review and evaluate whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the
applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan;
2. To determine whether the proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to the
public health, safety, or welfare;
3. The proposed amendment is in the best interest of the residents of the city; and
4. To forward a recommendation to the City Council regarding adoption of the
proposed zoning code text amendment.
v. DECISIONAL CRIn~RIA
FWRC Chapter 19.80.130 provides criteria for zoning text amendments. The following section
analyzes the compliance of the proposed zoning text amendments with the criteria provided by this
chapter. The city may amend the text of the FWRC only if it finds that:
1. The proposed amendments are consistent with the applicable provisions of the
comprehensive plan.
The proposed FWRC text amendments are consistent with the following Federal Way
Comprehensive Plan (FWCP) policies:
LUG2 Develop an efficient and timely development review process based on a
publidprivate partnership.
LUG4 Maximize efficiency of the development review process.
L UP6 Conduct regular reviews of development regulations to determine how to
improve upon the permit review process.
TG2 Provide a safe, efficient, convenient, and financially sustainable
transportation system with sufficient capacity to move people, goods, and
services at an acceptable level of service.
The City shall develop and adopt policies for the construction,
reconstruction, maintenance and preservation of new and existing facilities.
EDP15 The City will continue to implement a streamlined permitting process
consistent with state and federal regulations to reduce the up front costs of
locating businesses in the City.
EDP18 The City will periodically monitor local and regional trends to be able to
adjust plans, policies, and programs.
FWRC Code Amendments
September 16, 2009, Planning COnmUssion Public Hearing
09-102608-00-UP / Doc ID 51422
Page 30f5
2. The proposed amendments bear a substantial relationship to public health, safety, or
welfare.
The proposed FWRC text amendments bear a substantial relationship to the public health,
safety, and welfare because they will allow a streamlined development review process for small
projects meeting certain criteria. The proposed SEP A exempt levels are already identified by
state codes to be "minor" construction levels. Raising the exempt levels under SEP A will
simplify the development review process for these minor construction projects with less cost
and a shorter review time for the applicant. Any potential impacts that are identified for these
smaller projects will be addressed through existing codes or mitigated through the land use
process approval as conditions of approval for the proj ect.
3. The proposed amendments are in the best interest of the residents of the city.
Approval of the proposed text amendments would benefit the city as a whole as they would
provide the opportunity for a shorter and less costly review process for proposed development
and/or redevelopment of structures. By increasing opportunities for additional development
within the city, additional revenues would be generated, which would benefit all residents of
the city by providing the city with revenue for vital services to the public.
VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Based on the above staff analysis and decisional criteria, staff recommends that the following
amendments to FWRC Title 14, "Environmental Policy" and Title 19, "Zoning and Development
Code" be recommended for approval to the Land Use/Transportation Committee (LUTe) and City
Council.
1. Modification to FWRC Chapter 14.15.030, "Categorical Exempt Levels - Flexible
Thresholds. "
2. Modifications to FWRC Chapter 19.60 "Process II - Site Plan Approval," Chapter 19.65
"Process III - Project Approval," Chapter 19.70 "Process IV - Hearing Examiner," and
Chapter 19.75, "Process V - Quasi-Judicial Rezones."
VII. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
Consistent with the provisions ofFWRC Chapter 19.80.240, the Planning Commission may take
the following actions regarding the proposed zoning code text amendments:
1. Recommend to the City Council adoption of the FWRC text amendments as
proposed;
2. Modify the proposed FWRC text amendments and recommend to the City Council
adoption of the FWRC text amendments as modified;
FWRC Code Amendments
September 16, 2009, Planning Connrussion Public Hearing
09-102608-00-UP I Doc ID 51422
Page 4 of 5
3. Recommend to the City Council that the proposed FWRC text amendments not be
adopted; or
4. Forward the proposed FWRC text amendments to the City Council without a
recommendation.
EXHIBITS
Exhibit A - Proposed Code Amendment:
. FWRC Title 14, "Environmental Policy," Chapter 14.15.030(1)
Exhibit B - Proposed Code Amendment:
. FWRC Title 19, "Zoning and Development," Chapter 19.60.050(2)
Exhibit C - Proposed Code Amendment:
. FWRC Title 19, "Zoning and Development," Chapter 19.65.100(2)
Exhibit D - Proposed Code Amendment:
. FWRC Title 19, "Zoning and Development," Chapter 19.70.150(3)
Exhibit E - Proposed Code Amendment:
. FWRC Title 19, "Zoning and Development," Chapter 19.75.130(3)(b)
FWRC Code Amendments
September 16, 2009, Planning Commission Public Hearing
09-102608-00-UP I Doc ID 51422
Page 5 of5
EXHIBIT A
FWRC Chapter 14.15
Categorical Exemptions and Threshold Determinations
14.15.030 Categorical exemptions - Flexible thresholds.
(1) The city establishes the following exempt levels for minor new construction defined in WAC 197-
11-800(1)(b) based on local conditions:
(a) For residential structures up to nme 20 dwelling units.
(b) For agricultural structures covering up to 10,000 square feet.
(c) For office, commercial, recreational, service or storage buildings up to 4;QQQ 12.000 square
feet gross floor area, and up to W 40 parking spaces.
(d) For parking lots up to W 40 parking spaces.
(e) For landfills and excavations up to 500 cubic yards.
(2) Whenever the city establishes new exempt levels under this section, it shall send them to the State
Department of Ecology as required by WAC 197 -11-800( 1 )( c).
(Ord. No. 07-554, ~ 5 (Exh. A(l)), 5-15-07; Ord. No. 04-468, ~ 3,11-16-04; Ord. No. 90-40, ~ 1(20.90.10,
20.90.20),2-27-90. Code 2001 ~ 18-73.)
K:\2009 Code Amendments\SEPA Exempt Levels\Planning Commission\Exhibit A.doc
Exhibit A
Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT B
FWRC Chapter 19.60
Process 11- Site Plan Review
19.60.050 Site plan and community design guidelines approval criteria.
(1) Applicability. The director may approve an application for site plan review and community design
guideline review if it is consistent with the following sets of decisional criteria:
(2) Site plan criteria.
(a) It is consistent with the comprehensive plan;
(b) It is consistent with all applicable provisions of this title;
( c) It is consistent with the public health, safety, and welfare;
(d) The streets and utilities in the area of the subject property are adequate to serve the
anticipated demand from the proposal; and
( e) The proposed access to the subject property is at the optimal location and configuration for
access; and
(f) Traffic safety impacts for all modes of transportation. both on and off-site. are adequately
mitigated.
(3) Community design guideline decisional criteria.
(a) It is consistent with site design standards set forth in FWRC 19.115.050 for all zoning
districts;
(b) It is consistent with applicable supplemental guidelines set forth in FWRC 19.115.090; and
( c) For development applications for remodeling or expansion of an existing developrnent, it is
consistent with those provisions of Chapter 19.115 FWRC, Community Design Guidelines, identified by
the director as being applicable.
(Ord. No. 09-594, ~ 44, 1-6-09; Ord. No. 07-573, ~ 17, 12-4-07; Ord. No. 97-291, ~ 3, 4-1-97; Ord. No. 90-43, ~
2(175.10(4)),2-27-90. Code 2001 ~ 22-365.)
K:\2009 Code Amendments\SEPA Exempt Levels\Planning Commission\Exhibit B.doc
Exhibit B
Page 1 ofl
EXHIBIT C
FWRC Chapter 19.65
Process III - Project Approval
19.65.100 Director's decision.
(1) General.
(a) Coordination with decisions under the State Environmental Policy Act. If a SEP A threshold
determination is required to be issued, the threshold determination must follow the end of the public
comment period on the project permit application, but precede the director's decision on the land use and
design components of the process III project permit approval. If the SEP A threshold determination is
appealed, the director's land use and design components decision shall be issued sufficiently in advance
of the open record hearing on the threshold determination appeal, to allow any appeal of the land use
and/or design review decision to be consolidated and heard with the appeal of the threshold
determination.
(b) Timing. The director will endeavor to issue his or her decision on the land use and design
components of the process III project permit approval within 120 days of the issuance of the letter of
comp leteness.
(i) The 120-day time period does not apply if a project permit application under this
chapter requires an amendment to the comprehensive plan or this title; requires approval of a new fully
contained community as provided in RCW 36.70A.350, a master planned resort as provided in RCW
36.70A.360, the siting of an essential public facility as provided in RCW 36.70A.200, or capital facility
projects of the city; or if a project permit application under this chapter is substantially revised by the
applicant, in which case the time period shall start from the date at which the revised project application is
determined to be complete.
(ii) If the decision solely relates to a review of community design guidelines of a process
IV application, the director shall issue a written decision within 10 working days after the deadline for
submitting comments.
(iii) The following periods shall not be included in the calculation of the 120-day period:
(A) Any period during which the applicant has been requested by the city to correct
plans, perform required studies, or provide additional required information. In these instances, the period
excluded from the 120-day calculation shall begin on the date the city notifies the applicant of the need
for additional information and run until the earlier of the date the city determines whether the additional
information satisfies the request for information, or 14 days after the date the information has been
provided to the city. If the city determines that the information submitted by the applicant under this
subsection is insufficient, it shall notify the applicant of the deficiencies and the procedures under this
subsection shall apply as if a new request for studies had been made.
(B) Any period during which an environmental impact statement is being prepared
following a determination of significance pursuant to Chapter 43.21 C RCW.
(C) Any period for administrative appeals of the SEP A threshold determination;
provided, that the time period for consideration of such appeals shall not exceed 90 days for an open
record appeal hearing. The parties to an appeal may agree to extend the 90-day period.
(D) Any extension of time mutually agreed upon by the applicant and the city.
(iv) If the director is unable to issue his or final decision on the land use or design review
components of a process III project permit application as provided in this subsection, the city shall
provide written notice of this fact to the applicant. The notice shall include a statement of reasons why the
decision has not been issued within the 120-day period, and an estimated date for issuance of the notice of
final decision.
Exhibit C
Page 10f2
(2) Decisional criteria. The director shall use the criteria listed in this subsection and the provisions of
this title describing the requested decision in deciding upon the application.
(a) The director may approve the application only if:
(i) It is consistent with the comprehensive plan;
(ii) It is consistent with all applicable provisions of this title;
(iii) It is consistent with the public health, safety, and welfare;
(iv) The streets and utilities in the area of the subject property are adequate to serve the
anticipated demand from the proposal; aRE!
(v) The proposed access to the subject property is at the optimal location and
configuration; and
(vi) Traffic safety impacts for all modes of transportation. both on and off-site, are
adequately mitigated
(b) If the application is subject to the requirements of Chapter 19.115 FWRC, Community
Design Guidelines, the director shall also use the following criteria in deciding upon an application:
(i) It is consistent with the site design standards set forth for all zoning districts in FWRC
19.115.050;
(ii) It is consistent with applicable supplemental guidelines set forth in FWRC 19.115.090; and
(iii) For developrnent applications for remodeling or expansion of an existing
development, it is consistent with those provisions of Chapter 19.115 FWRC, Community Design
Guidelines, identified by the director as being applicable.
(3) Conditions and restrictions. The director shall include in the written decision any conditions and
restrictions that he or she determines are reasonably necessary to eliminate or minimize any undesirable effects
of granting the application, Any conditions and restrictions that are included become part of the decision.
(4) Contents. The director shall include the following in the written decision:
(a) A statement granting, modifying and granting, or denying the application.
(b) Any conditions and restrictions that are imposed
(c) A statement of facts presented to the director that support the decision, including any
conditions and restrictions that are imposed
(d) A statement of the director's conclusions based on those facts.
( e) A statement of the criteria used by the director in making the decision.
(f) The date of issuance of the decision.
(g) A summary of the rights, as established in this chapter, of the applicant and others to appeal
the decision of the director.
(h) A statement of any threshold determination made under the State Environmental Policy Act,
Chapter 43.21C RCW.
(i) A statement that affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax
purposes notwithstanding any program of revaluation.
(5) Distribution of written decision. Within five working days after the written decision of the director
is issued, it shall be distributed as follows:
(a) A copy will be mailed to the applicant.
(b) A copy will be mailed to each person who submitted written comments or information to the
director.
(c) A copy will be mailed to any person who has specifically requested it.
(d) A copy will be mailed to the King County assessor.
(Ord. No. 09-594, ~ 59, 1-6-09; Ord. No. 97-291, ~ 3, 4-1-97; Ord. No. 90-43, ~ 2(145.45), 2-27-90. Code 2001 ~ 22-395.)
K:\2009 Code Amendments\SEP A Exempt Levels\Planning Commission\Exhibit C.doc
Exhibit C
Page 20f2
EXHIBIT 0
FWRC Chapter 19.70
Process IV - Hearing Examiner
19.70.150 Hearing examiner's decision.
(1) General. After considering all of the information and comments submitted on the matter, the
hearing examiner shall issue a written decision. In an agency decision appeal, the examiner shall affirm,
reverse, or modify the decision being appealed based on the hearing examiner's findings and conclusions.
Subsections (3), (4) and (5) of this section do not apply to agency decision appeals.
(2) Timing.
(a) Unless a longer period is agreed to by the applicant, the hearing examiner shall issue the
decision within 10 working days after the close of the public hearing.
(b) The hearing examiner will endeavor to issue his or her decision on the land use and design
components of the process IV project permit approval within 120 days of the issuance of the letter of
completeness issued pursuant to FWRC 19.15.045, except that the following periods shall not be included
in the calculation of the 120-day period:
(i) Any period during which the applicant has been requested by the city to correct plans,
perform required studies, or provide additional required information. In these instances, the period
excluded from the l20-day calculation shall begin on the date the city notifies the applicant of the need
for additional information and run until the earlier of the date the city determines whether the additional
information satisfies the request for information or 14 days after the date the information has been
provided to the city. If the city determines that the information submitted by the applicant under this
subsection is insufficient, it shall notify the applicant of the deficiencies and the procedures under this
subsection shall apply as if a new request for studies had been made.
(ii) Any period during which an environmental impact statement is being prepared
following a determination of significance pursuant to Chapter 43.21 C RCW.
(iii) Any period for administrative appeals of the SEP A threshold determination; provided,
that the time period for consideration of such appeals shall not exceed 90 days for an open record appeal
hearing. The parties to an appeal may agree to extend the 90-day period
(iv) Any extension of time mutually agreed upon by the applicant and the city.
The 120-day time period does not apply if a project permit application under this chapter requires an
amendment to the comprehensive plan or this title; requires approval of a new fully contained community
as provided in RCW 36.70A.350, a master planned resort as provided in RCW 36.70A.360, or the siting
of an essential public facility as provided in RCW 36.70A.200; or if a project permit application under
this chapter is substantially revised by the applicant, in which case the time period shall start from the
date at which the revised project application is determined to be complete under FWRC 19.15.045.
If the hearing examiner is unable to issue his or her decision on the land use or design review
components of a process IV project permit application as provided in this subsection, the city shall
provide written notice of this fact to the applicant. The notice shall include a statement of reasons why the
decision has not been issued within the 120-day period, and an estimated date for issuance of the notice of
final decision.
(3) Decision criteria. The hearing examiner shall use the criteria listed in the provisions of this title
descnbing the requested decision in deciding upon the application. In addition, the hearing examiner may
approve the application only if:
(a) It is consistent with the comprehensive plan;
(b) It is consistent with all applicable provisions of this title and all other applicable laws;
(c) It is consistent with the public health, safety and welfare;
Exhibit D
Page 10f2
(d) The streets and utilities in the area of the subject property are adequate to serve the
anticipated demand from the proposal; iIREl .
( e) The proposed access to the subject property is at the optimal location and configuration for
access; and
(f) Traffic safety impacts for all modes of transportation. both on and off-site. are adequately
mitigated.
(4) Conditions and restrictions. The hearing examiner shall include in the written decision any
conditions and restrictions that the examiner determines are reasonably necessary to eliminate or
minimize any undesirable effects of granting the application. Any conditions and restrictions that are
imposed become part of the decision.
(5) Contents. The hearing examiner shall include the following in the examiner's written decision:
(a) A statement granting, modifying and granting or denying the application.
(b) Any conditions and restrictions that are imposed.
(c) A statement of facts presented to him or her that support the decision, including any
conditions and restrictions that are imposed.
(d) A statement of the hearing examiner's conclusions based on those facts.
(e) A statement of the criteria used by the hearing examiner in making the decision.
(f) The date of issuance of the decision and a summary of the rights, as established in this
chapter, of the applicant and others to appeal the decision of the hearing examiner.
(g) A statement of any threshold determination made under the State Environmental Policy Act,
Chapter 43.21C RCW.
(h) A statement that affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax
purposes notwithstanding any program of revaluation.
(6) Distribution of written decision. Within five working days after the hearing examiner's written
decision is issued, the director shall distnbute the decision as follows:
(a) A copy will be mailed to the applicant and the appellant.
(b) A copy will be mailed to each person who submitted written or oral testimony to the hearing
exammer.
( c) A copy will be mailed to any person who has specifically requested it.
(d) A copy will be mailed to the King County assessor.
(Ord. No. 09-594, ~ 91, 1-6-09; Ord. No. 97-291, ~ 3, 4-1-97; Ord. 'No. 92-133, ~ 3(150.65),4-21-92; Ord. No. 90-
43, ~ 2(150.65), 2-27-90. Code 2001 ~ 22-445.)
K:\2009 Code Amendments\SEPA Exempt Levels\Planning Commission\Exhibit D.DOC
Exhibit D
Page 20f2
EXHIBIT E
FWRC Chapter 19.75
Process V - Quasi-Judicial Rezones
19.75.130 Recommendation by the hearing examiner.
(I) Generally. After considering all of the information and comments submitted on the matter, the
hearing examiner shall issue a written recommendation to the city council.
(2) Timing. Unless a longer period is agreed to by the applicant, the hearing examiner must issue the
recommendation within 10 working days after the close of the public hearing.
(3) Decisional criteria. The hearing examiner shall use the following criteria for quasi-judicial
rezones:
(a) The city may approve an application for a quasi-judicial nonproject rezone only ifit finds that:
(i) The proposed rezone is in the best interest of the residents of the city; and
(ii) The proposed rezone is appropriate because either:
(A) Conditions in the immediate vicinity of the subject property have so significantly
changed since the property was given its present zoning and that, under those changed conditions, a
rezone is within the public interest; or
(B) The rezone will correct a zone classification or zone boundary that was inappropriate
when established;
(iii) It is consistent with the comprehensive plan;
(iv) It is consistent with all applicable provisions of the title, including those adopted by
reference from the comprehensive plan; and
(v) It is consistent with the public health, safety, and welfare.
(b) The city may approve an application for a quasi-judicial project-related rezone only if it finds
that:
(i) The criteria in subsection (3)(a) ofthis section are met; and
(ii) The proposed project complies with this title in all respects; and
(iii) The site plan of the proposed project is designed to minimize all adverse impacts on the
developed properties in the immediate vicinity of the subject property; and
(iv) The site plan is designed to minimize impacts upon the public services and utilities; and
(v) Traffic safety impacts created by the proposal for all modes of transportation. both on-
and off-site, are adequately mitigated; and
M (vi) The rezone has merit and value for the community as a whole.
(4) Conditions and restrictions. The hearing examiner shall include in the written recommendation
any conditions and restrictions that the examiner determines are reasonably necessary to eliminate or
minimize any undesirable effects of granting the requested rezone.
(5) Contents. The hearing examiner shall include the following in the written recommendation to city
council:
(a) A statement of facts presented to the hearing examiner that supports his or her
recommendation, including any conditions and restrictions that are recommended.
(b) A statement of the hearing examiner's conclusions based on those facts.
( c) A statement. of the criteria used by the hearing examiner in making the recommendation.
(d) The date of issuance of the recommendation.
Exhibit E
Page 1 of2
(6) DistrIbution of written reconnnendation. The director shall distribute copies of the
reconnnendation of the hearing examiner as follows:
(a) After the hearing examiner's written reconnnendation is issued, a copy will be sent to the
applicant, to each person who submitted written or oral testimony to the hearing examiner, and to each
person who specifically requested it.
(b) Prior to the meeting where city council considers the application. a copy will be sent to each
member. of city council. The director shall include a draft resolution or ordinance that embodies the
hearing examiner's reconnnendation with the copy of the reconnnendation sent to each city council
member.
(Ord. No. 09-594, ~ 120, 1-6-09; Ord. No. 02-424, ~ 3,9-17-02; Ord. No. 99-337, ~ 2,3-2-99; Ord No. 97-291, ~ 3,
4-1-97. Code 200 I .~ 22-488.)
K:\2009 Code Amendments\SEP A Exempt Levels\Planning Commission\Exbibit E.doc
Exhibit E
Page 20f2