Planning Comm PKT 11-04-2009City of Federal Way
PLANNING GOMMISSION
4, 2009
c�� x�
Council Chambers
AGENDA
��,j���,z�
2. ROLL CALL
3. APPROVAL OF MIIVUTES
October 7, 2009
4. AiIDIENCE COMNIENT
5. ADNIlNISTRA'TIVE REPORT
6. COMNIIS�ION BUSIiVESS
P[TBLIC HEARING
I Proposed Deferment of Open Space Fee-in-Lieu and
Regional Storrnwater Facility Fee
7. ADDITIONAI, BUSINESS
8. �4UDIENCE COMN�NT
��L�11
commissioners
Merle Pfeifer, Chair Hope Elder, Vice-Chair
Lawson Brotrson Wayne Carlson
Tom Medhurst Sarady Long
Tim O 1Veil (Alternate)
K:�Plaonmg Commi4sion120091Agenda 11-04-09.doc
ci�y sc�cr
Greg Fewins, CDS Director
Margaret Clar�y Senior Planner
E �na Rety, AdministrativeAssistant
253-835-2601
u5•.w. cC::�al;�cfL: l::x'¢1'. �:tiYli
CITY OF FEDERA,I. WAY
PLANNING COMMISSION
Oetober 7, 2009 City Hall
7:00 p.m. Council Chambers
MEBTING MINUTES
Comtrrissioners present:lVlerle Pfeifer, Hope Elder, Sazady L,ong, Lawson Bronson, and'�im �'Neil.
Commissioners absent: 'Tam Medhurst (excuse� and Wayne Carlson (excused). Staffpresent: Se�iar
Plaimer Margaret Ciarli, Associate P.la�mer David L,ee, Pla�ung Ivlanager Isaac Conlen, Assista� Cifiy
Attorney Peter Beckwith, and Ad�inistrative Assistamt Tina Piety.
Chair �fei�er called the 3neetxng to orde� �t 7:00 p:xn.
AP�itO��i. OF 1V�IlVUTES
'i`�e m��es of Septembe,� 1b, ZU09, were ap�roved as written.
Au�r�vc� Conrn�rrr
i�to�e
�D1MID�YI3TRATIVE R�PORT
Mr: Conlen announced that Lawsfln �ronsan was re$ppointe� to a four year term last mght by the city counci"l.
We will hold elections for Plannix►g Commissiam officers the fnst meeting m November. We w�71 meet
Navember 4�`.
COA�IVIISSION BUSIl�ESS
Pt�i.�c H�.�1tuvG Code Amend�ents to Personal Wireless Service Facilities (PVi�S�
Mr. Lee delivered the staffpre.sentation. The proposed ameridments are mtended to reduce rechmdamt
language, remave sub-prioritization of location preferences, remove submittal requirements for
electromagnetic field (EMF) implementation reporEs, and remove the 10 year expiration period Zorring charts
are aiso proposed to be modified to change the min�nwn review process from a Process III to a Process II.
O� cancern was c�pressed by a HAM radio operator and staff inet with him to discuss his ecmeerns. He did
not make a formal comment. One formal commentwas made by RealComm Associates: Staf�'met with
representatives of ReaiComm Associates and as a result, incorporated some of their concerns/suggestions
into Eaclubit A, Second Version. Staff requests the Commissioners base their questions, cormnents, and any
decision on Exlubit A, Second Version. Staffprovided capies of Eachibit A, Second Version and the ema�
from RealCamrn Associates stating their acceptance of Exlnbit A, Second Version.
T}�re was no public comment.
Commissioner Bronson asked if the PWSF regutations apply to HAM radio operators. Mr. Lee rep&ed that it
does not apply to them. HAM radio operators are regulated by the FCC.
Commissioner O'Neil asked for clarification on what aze the sub-prioritizations of locatio�. Mr. Lee
explamed that under the current code there are five levels of site prioritization for where a PWSF inay be
located Those levels arc: structures located in the BPA trail; exist�ng broadcast, relay, and traasmission
towers; publicly used structures; appropriate business, commercial, and city center zoned sites; appropriate
x:�vmm� c�s��zoo9vvc«a� s»rom�y iam-o9.ao�
Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 October 7, 2009
public rights-of-way; arid alternative locatian as approved by the Director of Cornmunity Development: Of
those Ievels, two have sub-p�iarities: appropriate business, commercial, and city center zoned sites; and
approrpriate public rights-of-way. For example, under the appropriate public rights-of-way, the sub-
pric�ritization is a preferred order of strcet classific�tions (first principal arterial, then minor arterial, then
�rincipal cQl�eet�r). Staff has eonc��xded t�at the five main priaritized lacatio�s serve as aclequate measures to
ensure that PWSFs are located appropriately.
Gommissioner O'�+1ei1 �sket� how ma�xy`PVVSF applicatio�s has the city r�eeived. h�r. 'Leenplie� t�t since
mcoiparatioi� the city h�s tec�ivec# 48' applic�tia�s. Of those, 4� have �reen erect� and 3 were app�e�,'but
the appliaants did not b� t�em Camm�.ss�oner EJ'Ne'il aske� if the'pi'e�posacl �e�i�eSts �ei� ri�ode�
after other city's regulations.lVls. C1ark respoaded that when the regula�ions wer� first �ie�ogei� in Y 997; �e
eansultant did research regutations from other cities. Staff feh that smce the currait proposed amenihnents
mainly streamlme and simpfify the proeess, it was not rnecessary to .rescarch regu�ticros f�mi other' cities.
Commissione� Long asked if the eity has xegnilatians specifying how many ant�as may p�aced u�t a sit�.'
1VIr. i.,ee repfied t�hat the city ieaves that to the agqrheant to deeide Commissio�ner I.a�g sttat�#hat t� cucr�at
code reguires that withm six months the applicant shall sub�mt a project impleme�tatian report that pravides
cumutative fie�d measurements of radio frequency (EIV� power densities of all antennas on their site. Haw
many applicants have submitted this reprnt? He is concerned because of studies done iu �urope t}�at. show
higher levels of cancer m areas near cell towers. Mr. Lee rephed that few reparts have be� sutfmitted A�
appficant must fi�st obtain approval from the FCC to site a tower. The city caimot deny an apphcant as long
as they meet nrnmal standards. :In regards to Commissioner Lang's cancern about cancer, staff reseazched the
assue and has found that a person must be standing directly in front of an ante� to be�e.c�ed The �seai'ch
also stated t�at antecmas are g�nerally located hig,�C then w�ere peo,ple �re l�ely be �d are direct�d away
fram taller builclings Staff has i�ciuded a Brief Tee�mical Sur�nary on PWSFs with the sta .ffre�ort t� addres�
safety cancerns related to EMFs and radio frequencies.
Cam�njssio�er Lcmg as�ed if �the city hass design standarcls for celi towers. Mr. 'Lee rephed tt�at the city
rec�uests the �pplic�nt to design the tawer to bie�nd into the existing envirarnnent as :m�Ch:as poss�'Ule. `t'he
eity wants to achieve aesthetic hannony with the existing e�viromnent.
Ch�r Pfeif:c� cvmmented tliat it vsrould �ave been helpful to ha�ve pic�es. of ce�l to�vers. �ie
s�tbacl�s are addressed. Mr. Lee repfie� they �re addressed m 19.255 Q20(5�(b), top of �age 7 of Exl�bit A;
Second Veision.
Commissionter B�anson moved (and it was seconded) to forwazd the proposed amendinents (Exh�i� A,
Second Veision) to 'the Gity Council far ap�rov�l, The motion carried unanimously.
The puhfic hearing was closed.
ADDITIONAL B�TSINESS
None
Avn�;rrcE Co�x•r
None
ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at 7:3Q p.rn.
K�Plenoug Commivsion�2009ll�kMmg Sumimry 1P67-09.doc
C3 Y �8
1
STAFF REPORT TQ THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Public Hearing November 4, 2009
Policy Issu+� Deferment of Open Space Fee-fn-Lieu and Regional �tormwater Facility Fee
(Fi1e No. 09-10101&Qti-UP)
I. Ovatv�w
The proposed development regulation is with regard to timing of open spaee fee-in-lieu and
regional stormwater payments to #he city. The Federal �ay Revised Code (FWRC) does not
currently pr�cnbe the timing of such payments. As an administrative policy, the city collects
open space fee-in Iieu prior to recorcting a residential subdivision with the King County Division
of Records and Elections, anil collects regional stormwater facility fees prior to engineering
approval. Staffrecommends this policy become codified withm the FWRC.
This develo��ent regul�tion amendment was mitiated by the Master Bw7ders Association
(MBA) of King and Snohorrush Caurtties as part of the association's local `economic stimulus
plan' daected towards severallocal jurisdictions. Deferring the collection of i�act fees to a date
closer to the actual i�act is ane of several items the MBA suggested the city add to its 2009
Zong Range i�'ork �rogram. It is the MBA's position that deferring the colleetion of impact fees
to a date closer to the actual impact would reduce "carrying costs" of the develapment. Carrying
costs, such' as ix�act fees, mcrease the amount develc�ers must fmance and accumailated interest
associated �vith such costs increase the c�ts of the overall development.
Notwithstan�ng the recently adopted Trai�ic Im�act Fee, ihe city does not utilize impact fees, but
instead can accept a fee-in-lieu far apen space and directing starmvvater nm-off from developed
sites �r�o one of the city's regional facilities. The fee-in-lieu option is far developezs that cho�e
not to prov�de vnsite open space for residential subdivisions or stormwater detentian faeilities in
areas within tiie c�ty's regionai stormwate� facility basins:
Fees Considered for Deferment
City staff first identified the follovving fees associated with new develapment for possible
deferment: traffic, school, apen space, and regional stormwater facility. However, since the City
Council has recently adopted a Traffic Impact Fee and defened payme,nt to the property's point
of sale for single fam�ly development and biuld'mg permit for all other development as part of the
new ordinance, staff no longer proposes to address this fee. Although collected by the city via an
inteT-local agreement, school impact fee policies are set by the Federal Way Public School
District; therefore, staffpraposes not to address this fee; thus leav�ng the open space andregional
stormwater fee-in-lieu aptions as possible candidates for deferment.
Residential subdivisions �e reqtured to provide open space in the a�unt of 15 perce� of the gross l�d at+ea of the subdivision
site; however, at the discretion of the Parks Director, they �my pay a fee-in-lieu in the amount of 15 perc:ent of the pre-divided
assessed land value to satisfy apen space require�nts�
Z Regional stormwater fees are assessed to develop�nts that choose to utilize one of the city owned stormwater facilities. Ttris
option �ovides developers the option of paying a fee-in-lieu of providing an-site stormwater deteirtion pond.
Deferment of Fees Code Amendment File #09-1010-18-00- UP Doc ID 51870
Planning Comr�rission 3taff Report Page 1 of 7
II. PitOCEnvxaL SvivrnraRY
The prc�osed develapment regulation is exempt fram environmental review pursuant to State
Enviranmental Podicy Act Rules 197-11-800(19),,Procedural Actions. The proposal relates salely
to gove�nniental procedures containing no substautive sta�dards tespect�ng vse o� mo�ification of
the e�vira�nment.
.,Pt�lic notice of th� Flan�in� �ommissian he�uring was pravid�d Octabec 17, 2009, pursuan� �to
proc�dures �viti�in F�VRC 19.80.1 ZQ ani�,:�mailecl to the departme�t stakeholders (E�t�bit
�Uctc�he� 16, 2U09. One comment was received via ema� frain 7ohn Narris of Narris Hon�es
Incor�orated an October l8, 2009 (Elclnbit Bj.
I[I. SiJMMA,RY OF DEYELOPMENT REGUL�iTION 4PTIONS
Sfaff &as presented the Planning Cbmrmssion with fhe following three scenarios:
(1) Rct�in the curient policy with no`cbange;
(2) Defer the conectiori of the fees to Certificate uf Occupancy; or
(3) Defer the collec#ion of the fees to the point of sale of the praperty.
Fee Option #1 Q�iea 2 O�tion #3
Cnrre�nt �olicy Defer to Cer 't►�'icate Defer to Point of Sale
of Occnpancy
Opea �ace fe�in=liea :'Paad prio� to plat i�ee wonld �e divic�ed ap gee wonld be di�ided up
reeording. aaznongst all �erti� �n�gst all propetties
(Not �licable-to wit�in the �bdivi�ou withm the snbdi�ision and
cammercial/multi- �d gaid �uic� to th� gaid at the time of sale of
f�uily develapments.) occapaucy of the the home via a lie,n
eumpleted ix�e. ainitiated by �the city.
Regic�►al stormwate,r p�id p�iior to Fee wo�ilc� 3�e paid �or Fee �vo�ld be paid �t t�e
f�ty �ee-in-li� engtnee�mg to tbe aceup�ncy o�the time of sale af'the �tome/
�Pp�'ovaUbuiid�g complete�l h�eJ comm�cial;b�d�g via a
permit issuance. co�ntercial �uilc�g. :lie�n initiated by the city.
IV. ANALYSIS OF CURRENT POLICY (OPTION #1�
Open space and. regional stormwater fees are currently co�lected prior to construction. Existing
collection policies provide the city with assurance that fees are paid as: (1) tt�e subdivision/plat
can not be recarded without payment of apen space fees and lots are not officially divided unh7
fhe plat is recorded with the county; and (2) construction activities may not begin until the
apglicant pays far the use of a regional starmwat�'facility.
The impetus far the policy change, in part, is to iiefer fees to a time closer to the achial i�act of
the development. Currently, open space fees are colleeted after plat infrastructure (roads, sewer,
water, etc.) is eo�leted, but prior to the occupancy of the individual residences, which can be
argue@ is the ach�al time of impact. Conversely, regional stormwater fees are collected at the tinie
of imQact as tiie construction process (clearing, grad'mg, and paving) results in an immediate
im�act to the praPert3'•
Deferment of Fees Code Amenchnent File #09-1010-18-00• UP Doc ID 31870
Platming Ga�mssion StaffReport Page 2 of 7
Qpen Space Fee-in=lieu is a type of mitigation and not an impact fee. State law restricts the use
of mitigation;payments to only those identified projects directly related to the development. This
limits the urilization of these fees to a specific park comprehensive plan planning area that the
subject praperty fa11s within. Fees are currendy collected for the entire pre-dividecl parcel prior to
recording the plat and must be used within five years of collection, or they are refunded to the
properry owners o�xecord
Regaonal Stormwater The �bility to utilize one of the city's regional stormwa�er facilities often
a.11ows the developer to forego t�te need to pro�+ide an on-site detention pond Public Works
Deparhnent standards require developers to contain stormwater flows at a siYmlar rate as the
property's pre-developed conditian. Fees collected for regional stormwater facility usage are used
for construction cost recovery and the facilities ongomg maintenance.
V. ANALYSIS OF THE PROPUSED POLICY CHANGE
Defei�ment of fees wauld-result m the city receiving payment after construction is completed.
Deferring the collection of fees until the end of construction increases the risk of na�npay�cnt.
�uch� a deferrnent �y also put the city'in tlre position af withhol�ing occupancy to a completed
building or ho�. Staff analyzed tvvo aptions far fee defeTment: Option 2, defer pay�ent to
Certifica.te of Occupancy; and Option 3, defeT payment to point of sale.
Option #2, Defer to Certificate of Occu�ancy The Certificate of Occupancy is the final stage of
per�utting. A building inspector from the Department Community Develapment Services conducts
a fmal inspection of the completed home .or commercial bw7ding and grants occu}�ancy if all
required improvements are com}�ieted per the approved plan. Persons may not reside ar canduct
business m a home or building until the Certificate of �ccupancy is gr�ted. If it is fc�xi. the
app�icant has not paid apen space fee-in-li�u fees owed to the city,� the irispector avc�d be required
to withhoic� tl�e Ce�tificate of Occupancy until �he balance of fees ar� paid This could patentially
put the cit3r m�e a�wkward position of withholcling occupa�cy far non payme�t of �ees.
Pote�ttial Adverse Efiects of Deferri�g to Certificate of Occupancy
City inspectars placed in the awkward positi�n of w�t�hald�g
,�capancy to a completed home for non-safety issn�.
Open Space Fee-in-l.ieu Piece�neal collection and state mandated time:limitatians to nse
fees would make utilizarion o� funds difficult.
Adds to adminis4rative costs of tracking and impl�►eutation.
City inspectors placed in the awkward position of withhold'mg
occnpancy to completed commercial buildings �d homes for
Regional St�mwater Facility Fee natt-safety�issues.
Fees are collected following the actual impact.
Stormwata flow control conld be�ovided lhronghaat fhe
constraction process withont payment for services.
Deferme� of Fees Code Amendment File #09-1010.18-00- iJP! Doc ID 518�0
Planning Commission StaffReport Page 3 of7
OptiQ� #3, Defer to Point of Sale T'he cleferment until point of sale could potentially gut the
cvllectio� of fees past the Certificate af Qccupancy. This rnay be accomplished by placing a
covenanti or l�en agains� the property requiring payment prior to cl�i�g::
Pe►testial Adverse Effects of D�femng to Poiut �f �a�e
City,is ug�ble to tr� pas4 tlie �a�t af Ce�icaEe of Oceapanc�r.
;�ectian,0��eeee i� c1e��t ap e�4K'
C�pen Sp�e ��i I:iea is mad� �ioa.to alosing
Pie;�emeal� col�ection and stt��te m�dat�d tinue limita�iia�ns to use
fees would make utilizatie�'o�fimds difficult.
Ac�itional ac�m;inistrative �d eallecti� costs.
I� c� af ca�metciall��-fam�'�'as�� �e de�ei� nnay
�ld ar►to the p�'aPea1.Y fcix �n �a�t�tded peri�d of i� o� have no
��tia�► o� 5ellmg, the.r�b�r �void'rtcg fae pa��ts.
Regional Sta�mw�ter ��ity Fee �Y is uuable to �rack �ast the:.�t of Certificate o� ��cup�cy.
Collection af fee is dependa►t c� �crqw a8e�t ensuring g�ment
is made p�iqr to clpsi�g.
Starmwater flow control oonldbe gravided througho�t the
construction,�ocess aud. .be.yond �Nitho� payment a�' �e�vices.
VI. JiT�S���t�N;i�. C(�1t��:SQNS
c�f� t�f a�pact�;fees is a•r�ively;new� polic�t broug� �tt b��the curr�ct eccmomic
de►wa��n. l.�tic�st:�i�.cti�s in i�Tasi�o� State,. �nclu�g•F�deral �ay, �o�l�et� fe� a�bt�ilcti�g
permit i�st�e `fc�r. c��ner�;ll�ti-f�rhil�a ��is� aa�d at �l�t �carc� far s��tivisio�s: �e
�ollo�ng four jurisdictions �a.ve e�ther had clefemient policies ar`currentty implement a
deferment opti�
1. Piei-ce County �ierce �Coimty experimented with allowing delayed collection of impaet fees
a� point o€ sale (O�tic�n #2} subject to a voltmtary lieu. How�ver, Pierce County r�scinded this
pro�v�sion� �fter ex�re�rienc;ing� a 27 percent failure rate on in�act fee collectio�.
2. Kitsap Cvunty I�its�p County deferred impact fees to Certificate of Oecupancy (Option #1),
but due high rates of non-payment� Kitsap mo�ed the eollection paint to prior to tfie final
inspection of the b�ding permit,
3. City of sammamish This year, Sa�a�mish adapted a poficy to allow deferment to thepoint
of sale imhY Decem�er 31„ZOlO.,As of the date of this repart, no failure in collection lias been
found.
4. City of Olympia Olyrr�ia recently adapted a policy to allow the defert�nt imtil the ��int of
sale for develapment5 vvithin the dawntown area. The policy'wilI sunset t�ugust 20I O. As of
the cht� of this Tepor� na failure in collectio7c has been found
3 The term cocmr�erciaUuailti-fanvly is �ant to refer to uses other tban subdivisions.
Defernient of Fees Code Amendment File, ff09 UP poc ID S 1870
Planning Commission StaffReport Page 4.of7
VII. PLANNING CONIIVIISSION OPTIONS
Staffpresents the Planning Commission the following aptions for the open space fee-in-lieu and
regional stormwater facility fee:
a. Open Space Fee-in-Lieu:
1. Re�tain t}►e ctment policy with no change;
2. Defer the collection of the fee to Certificate of Occupancy; or
3. Defer the collection of the fee to the point of sale of the property.
b. Regio�al Stormwater Fac�7ity Fee:
1. Retaim the current policy with no cliange�,
2. Defer the collection of the fee to Certificate of Occupancy; ar
3. Defer the collection of tlze fee to the point of sale of the praperty.
VIII. STAFF RECOMIVVIEENllATION
Staffrecomn�ends the fee collection policy remain unchanged for both fees (Option #1) due to the
following:
1. Maintaining the current policy of collection (f?ptian #1) at plat recarding far open space
fee-in-lieu and engineering approval for regional stormwater provides the greatest
assua�ce the city will receive payment of the two fees.
2. The impetus for the policy change, in part, is to defer fees to a time closer to the actual
impact. With regard to regional starmwater fees, both Options #2 and #3 defer the
collection to a poiirt after the actual impact; therefare, making the policy inconsistent with
the gremise that fee collection should be tied to the paint of in�pact.
3. Unl�ke the newly adopted Traf�'ic Tmpact Fee, these fees are not mandatory. The develaper
does have the aption to provide onsite apen space or a stormwater detention facility.
4. Deferrang fees to point of sale (Option #3) could result in a loss of collection as the
develc�er �y have no intention of selling the property once construction is completed.
5. The fra�ted c�llection coupled with ma�xdated t�e �rrrits to use fees could cause
difficu�ty in the utilization of cypen space fees.
6. The fragmented collection of fees would add additional tracking and adr�rinistrative c�ts.
IV. BASIS FOR PLANNIlVG C011TNIIiSSION ACTION
FWRC Title 19 "Zoning and Developme�xt Code" Chapter 19.80, "Process VI Review,"
establishes a pzocess and criteria for develapment regulation amendments. Cansistent with
Process VI review, the role of the Plalming CorrYnussion is as follows:
1. To review and evaluate the proposed develapment regulation amendments.
Deferment of Fees Code Amendment File #09-1010.18-00- �JP Doc ID 51870
Planning Cominission StatFReport Page 5 of7
2. To determine whether the proposed develapment regulation amendment me�ts the criteria
providedby FWRC 19.80.130.
3. T'o forward a recommendatian to City Council regarding adaption of the.praposed
clevelopment regulation amendment.
V. �3EC`ISIO�TAL
F�V�C 19.80. i�0 provides criteria far de�elapment regulation amendments. The �ollowing
section analyzes the compliance of the prap�ed. a�endment� wi#h the-eritaria provided by
F�NRC 19.80.130. The city �y amend the telct af the FWRC only if it f�ds that:
1. Tl�e propased amendment is consist�t with the apg�able provisians of the
comprehensive ,plan.
Policy C�P 1- Provide needed public facilitees and servic�s to ihe T�edera�
�Wuy.Comprehensive Plan.
Policy GFP6 Protect investments in existing facidities through an appropriate 1eve1 af
�aaintenance and operation�'unding.
Policy CFP1� -�rovide the capital facilities nee�ed:to serve fhe future
anticipated by the Federad A'ay Comprehe�sive Plan.
Staff Res�anse Maintaining the .cuirent palicy of fee �oll,gcrion at glat.�ecording for
c�en, space fee-in lieu a�d engineering �raval fo� regional stormv�ater facilities
provides assurance t�e preceding,tl�ee: cam�rehensi�e plan policies can be implemented.
Payment defaults ma.y cause level af service deficiencies due fo increase demands on
e�ci5ting facilities.
2. The prap�ed ameridment bears a substantial relationship to public health, safety, ar
�ve�l�arc. a
Sta,�`'Response The cuirent point of collection policy ensures payment, protects level of
service, and provides consistency:
3. The prc�osed amendment is in the best interest of the residents of the City.
Staff Response As mentioned previously, the current policy ass�es payment of regional
stormwater fees at the point of im�act and assurance tha:t open space fee-in-lieu is paid
without dela.y to occupancy.
VI. PLANNING COIVIlVIISSION ACTIUN
Cansistent with the provisions of FWRC 19.80.240, the Planning ConYrmssion may take the
following actions regarding the pro�osed develop�nt-regulatian amenctments.
DeferIIlent of Fees Code AmendmeIIt File #09-1010-18-00- UP Doc ID 518'70
Planning Commissian Staff Report Page 6 of 7
A. Open Space Fee-in-Lieu
1. Recorrnnend to the City Council adaprion of Option #1 (staffrecommendation);
maintain the cutrent method of collection at plat recording as shown in Exh�rit C,
FWRC Chapter 19:100, "Mitigation of Development Impacts."
2. Recommend to the City Council adaption of Option #2; defer the collection of the apen
space fee-in lieu to Certificate of Occupancy.
3. Recommend to the City-Council adaption of Option #3; defer the collection of the apen
space fee-in-lieu to the point of sale of the praperty.
4. Modify Option #1, #2, or #3 and recommend to the Ciry Council adaption of the
�dification.
5. Forward the policy question to the City Council without a recomcnendation.
B. Regional Stormwater Facility Fee
1. Recommend to the City Council adoption of Option #1 (staff recommendation);
maintain the current method of collection at enginecring approval as shown in
Eachibit C, FWRC Chapter 19.100, "Mitigation of Development Impacts."
2. Recommend to the City Council adoption of Option #2; defer the collectian of the
regional stormwater facility fee to Certificate of Occupancy.
3. Recommend to the City Council adoprion of Option #3; clefer the collection of the
regional stormwater fee to the point of sale of the property.
4. Modify Option #1, #2, or #3 and recommend to the City Council adoption of the
modification;
5. Forward the policy questian to the City Council without a recommeridation.
EXHIBITS
Exhibit A- Community Devel�ment Services Stakeholders List
Exhibit B- Comment Received from John Norris
Elchibit C- Proposed Code Ar�ndment FWRC Chapter 19.100, "Mitigation of Develapm�ent Impacts"
Report Prepared by: Associate Planner Matthew Herrera
Deferment of Fees Code Amendment File #09-1010-18-00- UP Doc ID 51890
Planning Commission StaffReport PaSe of
CODE AMENDMENTS AND DNS NOTICE
Stakeholders List
as of June 18, 2009
Bob Cooper
Lloyd Enterp�ises Inc.
PO Box 3889
Federal Way, WA 98063-38�9
hc��r��l I�i��l t���ti�e�inc�c�z�x
C}lI1S CBCI�
Friend of fhe Hylebos
PO Box 24971
Federal Way, WA 98093
C:��i��cx?k_.__3.0�.����;�css.s��g
Dan Bi1es
SBI Developing
PO Box 7379U
Puyalhtp, WA 983'73
+ianb fz:!sQ���Es�i�Eh�es.�om
Kurt Vt�ilsan
SBI Develaping
PO Box 7379Q
Pnyallup, WA 98373
(253)539-8116
kur�,'c%�,��but��tia€x�es.��En
Darla Nlorin
Harsch Investment Properties
1301Q NE 20"` Street, Suite 450
Bellevne, WA 98005
(425)284-5352
dar1��(a�,���r�+c�. ca�t�
lulie Ramseth
Harsch inv�t I'roperti�
13010 NE 20�` Street, Suite 450
Bellevne, WA 9&005
(530)450-0778
�,t3�3 Cyf'f6Pl,�c7_�'SC�:£�FTF
Dan Perry
Lakehaven LJtility Uistrict
PO Box 4249
Fede�ral Way, WA 98063
��:�+x��at��t�w ezt��r,g
Tim Osborne, PE
Lakehave�n Utility D�slriet
31627 1�` Av�ne South
Federal Way, WA 98003
(253) 946-5540
Eask��xt€f a��av�.c�r
John Bowman
L,akehaven Utility Ilistrict
PO Box 4249
Federal Way, WA 98063
(253)946-5401
j�3nSCRt�iF i �;;1�i'�3;tv�E.c�
Gil HnLsmann
Abbey Road Group
P0 Box 1224
Pnyallup, WA 98371
(253) 435-3699
'I.,��ul_sm;�u��La��e��rn�€��-cam
Jennifer �ovey
Windernxere
33405 6� Avenue South
Federal Way, WA 98003
(206) 423-80U0
jSG�OS'�1';Lt%L�iiFFf�f;ifT1 f�'F:.COIfi
John Norris
Norris Homes
2053 Faben Drive
Nlercer Island, WA 98040
(206) 275-1901
���t�fxis anic �3t�f��t
Steve Kelly
ESM Consulting EIIgi�teers
33915 1�` �Vay 3oath, S�ite 2�1U
Fed�a1 Way, WA 98003
(253)$38-6113
�teve.Aill���.ca�ii_com'
Mark Clir�ugh
GVA Kidd�, Mathews, Segner
1201 Pacific Avenue, 1400
Tacoma, WA 98�U2
(253)722-1416
m;�rc�rv;u`,�a�z ecc�n�
Paul Lymbais
Qnadrant Homes
PO Box 130
Be2levae, RfA 98009
(425} 452-6556
P�a1.IS�berisy�uac���o���,.cum
Panl Manzer
Paclaz►d Developme�tt C�nsa�g
11235 SE 6�` Stre,ct, S�ite 224
Bellevue,-WA° �8�04
(425) 453-9501`
�m �Iant�.c�nrr�
Rod Leland
Federal Way Pablic Schools
31405 18�` Avenue Sonih
Fed�ral Way, WA 9�QU3
r1�Ia�dr�rifwsti. �i�:�. edt�
Sid �Vhite
Fede,ral Way P�b�c Schoais
1066 �t� 320`� S�eet a
Federal W�y, �VA 98'E)03
(253) 945=5935
sw�it��
Ran Biesol�i
South King��e 8c Aeseas
31617 1�` Avenue Sonth
Federal R�ay, �A 48UU3
(206) 227-930�
Ron.bic�ld u„',s�ut�3�n�re.Jr�
Tom Ray�u.�nd
Sonth King Fire Rescne
31617 i�` Avenne South
Fede.ral Way, �VA 98003
(253) 945-724�
T�fnx;�Ynorf�tc�su�z��e.��
Tom Piasa��
Federal Way Chamber of Commerce
PO Box 4220
Federal Way, WA g8t)63
(253) 838-2605
tom u�
Sam Pace
Sea/King County A�soc ofRea�tors
29839 154`� Averm� SE
Kt�nt, WA 98d42-45�7
(253) 630-5541
.S�iik�J�Gt�[O�CC�f�I'�'1C.flt�
'K�2009 Code Ammdmm�Umpact Fee Pont oFCollectioalatakeholde� mterested paKes mailmg listdoc PAg6 1 Of 3
CODE AMENDMENT5
AND DNS NOTICE
Ra� '£re�aine
Redst�e Develo�neat
L�d i�quisiki� �td Developme�t
17417 433 �eet SE.
North Be�nd, WA 98D45
re�,,�to�e��otc�hat���om
425-831-7730 (wk�
206-353-1761(cell)
425-83 �-778� (fax,)
M�te �'e�l
Powell �es
29607 E'� Aven�e So�th
Fec1�at �Vay, WA �8UO3
4�E�t �?pcYVtie�-hc�es.rom
H. D�vid
3024Q' 27�` i�v�ra� South
Fed�a�,��y, �Vi'4 98�03
�#e�k193�,cz�t�Et���.r,�
Gar�'ett Hnffiman
1Vlast� Ba�ldeas Associatic�
of�ing/Snohomish�Gounties
335 I1�-t�;'vea�e SE
Believ�e, �iV�4 .980KX4
gtt�t�'�.�3�.�r�
425-460-8236 (1�i�KSj
Hans Ko�v�
726 Auhurn Way Nor�h
Anbam,:�VA 98032
h�s(cu,c�p-in�.as
253-3$3-220Q
Bob I3�oper
hob.zc�er("w,co�.casC.�te�
253-941-6954
Date A Itaper
The Rup�r Compang
':Lanascape. Architectm�e/
Site Pl�ning
816 Chemy Avenne, #3A
Smm�e,r, WA �8390
253-8g2-1030.'
253-836-�891(fax)
r����ac.�l:�coni
C�g �ea�
S �w �flC.
E�nafl
Br�t A. Schw�l, F.E;
Managaag Mesibe�
Schwe�l �d Associates, PLLC
705 So� 9`" Street, Snite 303
Tacc�►a, WA 98405
bseh�;�i� �?s�iti-il.�xet
253-272-4451(wk)
2s3-2"T2-44ss(f�cj
M�ce:Behn
Qnadraat, Der'elopme,ut Manager
14725 SE 36� Street, Suite #200
PO Box l30
Bellevae, WR 980f)9
It1i��.�3�Ili2SA➢$f'�TaLt�1QiF1@: .G'llFtl
425-452-6563
425-753-4866(cell)
Gary Hering
1439 SW 296� Street
Fedecal Way, WA 9.8U23
��1�►*1ty'£�lI3C�S� fl�E
T.un Atkms
'Big Motantain Ent�prises
tEn�lxi�u�taiuc�t.cctfn
PCl Bc�<<l�l
E&�mc3aw, WA� 98U22
Bil� McCaffrey
WJM Stadio
1911 SW Campus Drive, Snite l lb
Fecteral Way, WA 98023
�mc�a8re�"cuco�ca..�..net
Tom Bazghan.se�t
Barghansea Consnlring Engineers
182I5 72° Avenue Sonth
Kent, V1TA 98032
tbarglxa����a -k�ar,g����.com
Pexer Townsend
1648 South 310`" Strat, Suite 6
Fea��t way, wA ssoa3
253-839-2947
�etert8;U�e.r,c�m
anu�n, wA 98032
From the Clearing Grading
POR list
1Vlihe Ba�+
Id�G A��itecks
13i3 De�rt� A�ena� �b0
Seattle, WA 98109
20b-283-4764
nti��'�ild�ue��.e��.s�
Chad Wci�r
OTAK
10236 NE Poictts Dri�e, Sui�e 400
KiskL�md, WA 98033-789K'i
206-442-I359
c�tacE.weis�fa�utr�k:c+�
C�rism►e Balyeat
New Cancept Homes
PO Box 1229
Issaquah, WA 98027;,_
hc��elYea#su�ot�aii:ro�t
Nlark Freitas
33516 9'�. A�Be Sc►�
Federal Way, WA 980U3
253-838-8327
m��c�.�ve�c.�
Tres Kirkeba
Apex Engin�in�
26Q135�` S#reet,. S�#e 200
'Tacoma, WA 98409'
253-473-4
l�irl:ebo�.�pe��:�e�&��t
Dennis H�eberg
�°,Pex EnSme�mg
2601 35`� Slreet, Suite
Tacoma, WA 98409
253-473-4494
h�nbaz�(�,��ax�g:nt�
Gacy Martiadale
The Comma�s o€Fed�ral Way
1928-B SoniL "Commems Blvd
Federal VVay, WA 98003
253-839-6156
�nar�zn�eCcr;tcaf�rv. com
Jeff �rreene
�ICP�B �T�1WSy l�liC�IItOCtS
PO Box 4158
K:�2909 Code AmmdmmbUmpact Fee PomR of Colkction�slateholdec intaesled peties mailmg lis�doc P8� 2 Of 3
Federal Way, WA 98063-4258
253-941-4937
i���#'ggarch �cu ��:an et _c.nrt�
Steve Hammer
Browleit Peterson Hannmer
Architects
6920 220`� SW, Suite 200
Moun#lake Terrace, WA 98043
��c� a'cJExphasch.cam
Me2 Easter
Johnsun Bra�md Desigu Group
15200 52 Avenue Sonth, Snite 200
Seattle, WA 98188
201�766-83U0
me.��C`v�'bd .�c€��
Koong C�o
Royal H�pitality
issoi w�c v�uey x�gn.�y
T,�wi��, w� 9siss
253-318-U908
kc�,gc�a;co�cast.u�[
Jim Jord�
(Sa�alie Heights dev�loper)
jr�'arsian(iLF;oin��.c�?�
Mike �3ovlaud
Havland Architects
9d0 firie�ric� Ave East, Suite 408
Mr'ltoa�, �VA 98354
hvvaccht'.a'�ear��cast.�ei
Dave Thc�stad
406 Sc�uth 289`�` Place
Fcdaal Way, WA 98003
dltarehit��co�casrt w ne9:
Dan Coxa11
Ha�nmes Co.
(St Fraacis Hospital)
1325 4�' Avenne, Suite 1035
Seattle, WA 98101
t�ffiR;dt� 31FLTE2L'�Cfl.Gt1FIi
a,.
Taa�y Starkovich
16YI Avenne North
Edmaa►ds, WA 98020
425-775-6552
s�nta�era� ��u?l�u��il.cam.
Gareth Roe
BCRA
2106 Pacific Avenue, Suite 300
Tacoma, WA 98402
253-627-4367
0 3, �'v�jc:rade:_i�:�3.r�nx
Heidi Swartz
Swartz Development
5724 30th Ave 1VE
Seattle, WA 98105
(206) 73Q-6933 cell
(206) 527-8999 fax
�1�5`rY&3'$L: Q%4'nITlCa,�.FiC"f
K�2009 Co� Amen�m6Umpact Fee Point of Co&ction�stakeholder mtexesfed paties mailffig liatdoc Page 3 of 3
Tina Piety
from: John Norris [johnnorris@comcast.net]
Sent: Sunday, October 18, 2009 5:12 AM
To: Tina Piety; Matt Herrera
Cc: AAargaret Clark
Subject: RE: Planning Commission Meeting
They shoutd repeal both of the ardinances that charge thess fees. The open space fee is extremely excess�ve
and punishes people who held on to their land longer. Most of Federal way was built without the open space
fee so the very people wrho actually provided open space `by not deve(oping their Eand got puni�hed wi�h a tax
equal to 1S! of the assessed va'lue af their land. Thsy paid taxes on their land al) of that #ime, it was �srob�bly
their nest egg or sorne#hing and along comes government prabably 6ackecE up by some citizens vvha sornehaw
justify that it is okay to steel their neighbors stufF as iong as they get the government to do it for them. do
not understand why some people are supposed to provide open space for other people to use. It seems to me
that the used to be that if #he governrne�t needed your land for the good of the public they could
condemn it and buy it far fair value or fair value plus 10% if you had ta mave. Bacfc then the government
needed way less land when they'had ta buy it, but naw that they just pass ordinances-that allowr #hem to steel
it, they steei twice as much as they need. Just like all of the sensitive area buffers. Why steeE a 5 foot buffer
when yau can stee150 foo# buffer for the sarne cost (free�. Act�alEy in a lot cases they charge us a fee, make us
hire a consultant or two, fifl out an application, jurrEp througt� a few hoops ta get permission to have the city
steel our buffer. The best part was when they tripled all o# the buffers and cafled it "Best Science". What they
meant was "na science" or "made �p science". 'Best science would have been #o have buffers determinecf by
each indivicfual sensitive area, �ased on the unique nature of the sensitive area in questian, the gavernment
agency requiring t�e bufFer should have to buy the bufFer fior the good of the public so Lhat they are not
tem�ted #o steel 1(3 #imes as rnuch as they needed. Government should not ever be allowed ta spend ather
.peaple's rnoney. Oops did that turn into a rant? Qid I do rr�y (even with gaod intentions) �overnment sucks
rant? Sorry I was just throwing my slightly jaded apinion out there. I am not bitter anci :f stiil like everynne,
Could sorrteone fiarward this on to eacf� council member for me? Oh and i# anyone takes offense, #his wasn't
written bylohn �arris, it was actually written by that littEe srrtart ass in his head, sometimes he ge�s loose and
sends out inflammatory emails'before lahn can stop him.
Js:��•�i 1��
ff���.� ;�:+�.?�t.€i.u; �iC.`.�
��1*i �44
O. 206.Z7a�.�J02 G 1�t16�42i4C00 F. �OG2/51�0
�_+�4>#; f�., x�
'r�'�•�:€Z.�: ���s°,3�.� 1+�'siI: ��f��
From: Tina Piety [mailOo:Tina.Piety@cityoffederalway.com]
Sent: Friday, October 16, 2009 5:14 PM
To: Matt Herrera
Cc: Margaret Clark
Subject: Planning Commission Meeting
Hello,
Please see the attached notice of the November 4, 2009, Federal Way Planning Commission. The Commission will
consider whether the collection of the open space fees and stormwater fees shou'Id be deferred to a later date in the
development process. The city currently collects open space fees,prior to plat reeording and regional stormwater fees
prior to engineering approvaL Please contact Associate Pfanner Matthew Herrera at 253-835-2643, or
n�att�l�errera�ci#r,�s�ffe��ralva��r,c�m with any questions.
r�,�.��,�- �aa��,�r�w��a�-�rr
Community Development Services
City o# Feder�l Wa,y
S#;�eet: 3332� 8th Avenue So�th
Mail. PQ Box 97��
Federa! Wa�, �IVA '98063;
253-835-260�; Fax.253-835-2609
�t
2
FEDERAL WAY REVISED CODE
Title 19, Zoning and Development Code
Chapter 19.100, Mitigation of Development Impacts�
Sections:
19.100.U10 Purpose.
19.100.020 Definidon.
19.100.030 Deter�rination of direct i��ct.
19..IOQ.040 Costs.
19.100.050 Mitigation of direct impacts.
19.100.060 Ivlethods of mitigation.
19.1O0.01 Q Purpose.
It is the �uipose of tlris chapter to provide alternahves far prc�pective dev�iopers of land witlrin the city to
mitigate the direct im�acts that l�ave been specifically identifiecl l�y the city as a conseguence of proposed
develc�ment, and to.make �rovisians fc�r, including, but not limited to, the public health, safety.and general
welfare� for open spaces, drainageways, streets, alleys, otl�er:public ways, water supplies, sa�itary wrastes, parks,
plaYgrounds anci sites, for schovls and school .gro�nds.
(Ord No. 90-39, 1(22.10), 2 27-90. Code 2001 19-41.)
I9.100.020 Definitioa
For;purposes of this cha�ter, the term "development" shall include, but not be limited tq subctivisions, short
subdivisions, bindmg site and any other development actiyity defined by FWRC Title 19, Zoning and
Devela��ent Code,
{Ord No. 90-39, 1(22.20), 2-27-90. Code 2001 19-42.)
19.10Q.030 Deter,mination direct impact.
Before arry developrnent is given the required approval ar is permitted to proceed, the official ar body charged
with deciding whether such approval should be given shall determine direct impacts, if azry, that ere a
consec}uence of the.praposed de�velopment and which require mitigation, considering, but not limited to, the
following factors:
(1) Predevelopment versus pastdeveiopment need for services such as city streets, sewers, water supplies,
drainage facilities, parks, playgrounds, recrea.tional facilities, schools, police services, fire serviees and other
mu�icipat facilities or services;
(Z) Likelihood that a d�rect i�act of a proposed develapment would require mitigation clue to the cumulative
effect of suc� impact when aggregated. vuith the similar i�acts of future development in the immediate viciruty
of the proposed development;
(3) Size, nu�er, condition andproxirrrity of �isting facilities to be affected by the prop�ed development;
(4) Nature and quantity of capital improvements reasonably necessary to mitigate specific direct impacts
identified as a consequence of the pro�osed development;
(5) Likelihood that the users of the praposed develapment will benefit from any miriga.ting capital
ir�rovements or prograTns;
(6) Any significant adverse environmental impacts of the praposed development identified in the process of
camplying with the environmental policy, FWRC Title 14, or the Sta.te EmTironmental Poficy Act, RCW
43.21C.010 et seq.;
(7) Consistency with the city's comprehensive plan and any of its subparts;
(8) Likelihood of city growth by annexation into areas iminediately adjacent to the proposed develapment;
(9) Appropriateness of financing necessary capital i�rovements by means of local ir�rovement districts;
(10) Whether the designated capital improvement furthers the public health, safety or general welfare; and
(11) Any other facts dee�d by the city to be relevant.
(Ord No. 90-39, 1(22.30), 2-27-90. Code 2001 19-43.)
K�2009 Code AmmthnmhUmpact Pee Pomt otColkction�Ptannmg Commision\CLapteT 19-100.doc P&� 1 Of 2
19.1 OQ.044 Costs.
The cost of any investigations, analysis or reports necessary for a deternrination of direct irr�act shall be borne
by the applicant.
(Ord No. 90-39 i�z�.ao>, �-2�-90. eoa� ?oo� i9-aa.a;
19.100.050 Mitigation of direct impacts.
'T'he official or body charged with grantmg the necessary approval for a pra��ed develapm�ent shall review au
applicant's proposal for mitigating any identified direct impacts and determine wkether such proposal is an
acceptable �rritigation measure considering the c�t arid land requirements of the required im�'ove�t a�d ttze
extent to which the necessity far the im}�rovement is attnbutahle to th� direet impacts af tlie ;pro�osed
develap�nent. No afficial vr body shall approve a development unless pravisions have been �e ta �t��ate
identified direct i�acts #hat are cansequences of such development.
(Ord No. 90-39, 1(22.50), 2 27-90. Code 2001 i9-45
19.1OO.OGO 1VIe�ods of:mitigation.
(1) The methods af x�itigating identi�ied ciirect impacts req�ired as a candition of any develr�ment atpprov�l
may include, tiut �ece not Iimuted to;' cledicaticm afland'�a any pubfic body, off-site im�rovements, on-site
improvements, a�d otTi+er ea�ital ar rtancapital meEhdds fhat rr�y effectively reduce il�rect i�arets.
(2) I� lieu o� a d�icatirnt of �rond or ta mitigate a direet �act that has beeirideirtifiec� a�s a c�nsequence of a
proposect developn�ent, �the city may approve a voluntary'payment agreement, if deemect necessary, �vith fihe
develo�er, pravided no such agreem�ent shall be required as a con�tion of a�proval, and shall be subhect ta ttie
following provis�ons:
(a) The official or body approving development must fmd that the money offered will mitigate or is a
satisfacto�y alte�na�e to mitigate the identified direct impact.
s
The payment sha11 be held in a reserve account and �y anly be expencteci to tuna a cap�ta.�
i�rovement ar program agreed upon by the parties to mitigate the identified direct impact.
{e� .�d,�The payment sha11 be �cpended in a�l cases within five y�ats of collection, unless qtlieryvise
agreed to by the de�e�o�er:
f�} �1�y p�y�t i�crt e�pended wit� five years o� caT�eetion si�all be re�iinded ta fi�ie pf�pe�ty
awners of recorci a#`tli[e timEe 'o�the iefund vvith inteiest �at the ra�e'earned iri the city's "reserve accourrt,a�lic��le at
the time o�refi�nc�. If the �ay�tt is not e�cpended within �ve years ciue to delay attnbt�table to t�e c�€vel'vp�r, ,the
:payment shall =be re�cfed_vc�Tiout interesf.
t�Prvperty �vvneis enfitled to a refimd "and/iir interest under the provisions of this c�ap�er rrsay
voluntarily and in vvriting waive their right to a refimd fox specified period of time m the mterest of provid'mg the
designated capital ixnprovement or other capital improvement or prog�ram identified by the propeity owner, and
acceptable to the city.
��The devel�er may voluntarily and in writing waive on behalf of the developer arid subsequent
purchasers the right to urterest and or a refimd in order to facilitate co�x�leticm of an im�rovement. iJnder no
condition shall such a waiver be required as a condition of apprbval. Such waiver shall be recorded with the
county where the propertX is sitixated and shall be binding on subsequent owners:
(3) The develc�ez or a�pticant may choose to pay a fee in lieu of reservation of all o�r portions of open space
areas required. If the applicazrt offers to pay money in lieu of apen space aud if the city accepts the affer, the
amount sha11 be determined based upon the squaze footage of apen space which otherwise would have been
required to be provided ti�es the then cuirent market value per square foot of similarly situated praperry.
(Ord No. 90-39 2�22.60: i o— 2z.6o.30� 2-27-90. Code 2001 19-46.)
i
Gross references: Parkks and recxeation, Chapter 4.05 FWRC; streets �d sidewallcs, FWRC Title 4, Division II; utilities, FWRC Title 11;
water quality reguirements an,d surface water, stormwater and other waternvays, ChaPter 16.45 FWRG; subdivisia�ns, FWRC TiUe 1�;
public use easements, FWRC 19.05330; building site r�uirements, FWRC 19.105.010; calcailating lot coverage requirements in the
district regulatians, FWRC 19.110.020; land modificatian restrictions and require��s, Chapter 19.120 FWRC; restrictions regarding
fences, FWRC 19.125.120 et seq.; site design reyuirements far environmentally sensitive areas, Chapter 19.155 FWRC.
R:�2pp9 Code pmmdmmbUmpact Fa Po� of Co&cti��Plaonng CommBion\Chapta t9-IOO.doc Page 2 of 2