Planning Comm MINS 01-21-2009
K:\Planning Commission\2009\Meeting Summary 01-21-09.doc
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
PLANNING COMMISSION
January 21, 2009 City Hall
7:00 p.m. Council Chambers
MEETING MINUTES
Commissioners present: Merle Pfeifer, Hope Elder, Lawson Bronson, Wayne Carlson, Tom Medhurst,
Sarady Long, and Tim O’Neil. Commissioners absent: none. Staff present: Community Development
Services Director Greg Fewins, Senior Planner Margaret Clark, Senior Planner Janet Shull, Assistant City
Attorney Peter Beckwith, and Administrative Assistant E. Tina Piety.
Chair Pfeifer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Commissioner Bronson moved (and it was seconded) that in order to correct a number of errors, staff
should be given time to correct the errors and the minutes should be brought back to the next meeting. The
motion carried unanimously.
AUDIENCE COMMENT
None
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
None
COMMISSION BUSINESS
PUBLIC HEARING Continued – Clearing, Grading, and Tree Retention Code Amendments
Ms. Shull delivered the staff report. Ms. Shull reviewed the process to date, explained the reasons for the
proposed code amendments, explained the overall goals for the proposed code amendments, and listed the
highlights of the proposed code amendments. Ms Shull also mentioned that staff had met with
representatives from the Master Builders Association on December 2, 2008. Subsequent to that meeting,
staff prepared a second draft of the code amendments and sent it to interested parties for comments. Ms.
Shull gave a summary of what changes were made in the second draft and what was not changed and why
(a detailed explanation is given in the agenda packet staff report). At the beginning of the meeting, staff
distributed the Master Builders comments on the second draft. Ms. Clark informed the audience that while
comments from the Master Builders Association were made available, the comments had not been received
in time for staff to review them. Therefore, staff will only be presenting the proposed code amendments
attached as Exhibit A to the staff report found in the agenda packet (which was also made available). The
proposed code amendments with yellow highlights are from the Master Builders Association will not be
presented this evening. The public hearing was opened for public comment.
Peter Townsend – He commented that his landscape architect sent the City a fax that is attached to
the staff report. He spoke to the Twin Lakes Homeowners Association and they feel there has not
Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 January 21, 2009
K:\Planning Commission\2009\Meeting Summary 01-21-09.doc
been enough input from property owners. It is difficult to understand the code amendments;
specifically what the old law is and what is new.
Marty Cannon – He built his own home in Federal Way six years ago. He also found the proposed
code amendments difficult to understand, but the staff presentation helped. He only recently found
out about the proposed code amendments. The City needs to provide a clear explanation of what
the code amendments are about and who they apply to. The proposed amendments seem to say that
no one will be allowed to cut down trees. The proposed amendments seem negative.
Mike Behn, Quadrant – He thanked the staff for their efforts. He encouraged the Commission to
continue the public hearing so they can consider additional comments. He asked the City to
consider a “sliding scale” based on the size of the tree for trees planted to meet the tree canopy
requirement. It would be helpful to have flexibility for the size of trees that are planted. Staff’s
purpose to improve the urban tree canopy is a reasonable goal, but they are asking the developer to
pay for it. Given the current economic climate and real estate market, he suggested the City
consider waiting until the economy improves.
Paul Lymberis, Quadrant – He stated that the proposed amendments have a common theme of
reducing the number of retaining walls. He feels a maximum required slope of 3:1 would mean
more retaining walls would be needed, as opposed to a 2:1 slope (which is widely accepted
throughout the Puget Sound area). While 3:1 slope is considered “usable,” it is not usable for
active space, such as a picnic or to play catch. Quadrant has homes that are built side-by-side with
no more than 18 inches [vertical relief?] between them, which does not require a wall. A 3:1 slope
would run into the foundation of one of the homes and the homeowner would not be able to walk
around the home. A 2:1 slope would give a two foot walkway between the homes. In a backyard
with six feet of elevation change, a 3:1 slope would take 18 feet and a 2:1 slope would take only
12 feet, leaving an additional 6 feet of flat space in the backyard.
Garrett Huffman, Master Builders Association – He complimented staff with having a healthy
process with input from many and where questions are being asked and answered. He agrees the
proposed code amendments are confusing. The Master Builders Association does propose
significant changes to the proposed language. He offered to provide a document with City and
Master Builder comments side-by-side, with the reasons for the Master Builders’ proposed changes.
Chair Pfeifer commented that staff has made nine significant changes due to input from the Master
Builders Association and 13 changes overall. He asked why the Master Builders Association did
not submit their current comments before Friday.
Garrett Huffman, Master Builders Association – He responded that it was his fault the comments
did not come sooner. It was difficult to obtain comments from the members. He commented that
one member said that 75% of his concerns were addressed in the second code amendment draft.
Christopher Stone – He is a Federal Way landowner. He does not want to stop the process, but
asked that it be extended so that those who have just learned about the proposed code amendments
can comment. He asked what is the implication of these amendments to those who own a fifth of
an acre or two acres.
Bob Roper – He noted that there are no requirements for RS zones. The requirement of 20 to 25
tree units seems inadequate; if the trees are only one inch that would not be enough trees. He stated
that citizens should be given a chance to comment on the Master Builders Association comments.
He also encouraged the Commission to extend the process. He asked what the deadline is for
Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 January 21, 2009
K:\Planning Commission\2009\Meeting Summary 01-21-09.doc
written comments. Ms. Piety responded that written comments may be given until the City Council
makes a decision. For staff to comment on them, it is best to get comments in as soon as possible.
Brant Schweikl, Schweikl and Associates, PLLC – He is a civil engineer who is concerned with the
3:1 slope requirement and agrees with Mr. Lymberis’ comments. He encouraged Commissioners
to look at projects in the City with 2:1 slopes and they will see that there are no problems with
them. Shorter tiered rockeries would mean homeowners would lose usable open space. He
encouraged the Commission to review the Master Builders comments. He appreciates that the
proposed amendments will allow for mass grading. There are single-family homeowners who will
be affected by the proposed amendments. If they add 500 feet to their house, they will have to
plant trees if they don’t have them.
Commissioner Elder asked Mr. Lymberis about the difference of 18 inches between homes; is
there not a way of planting trees that would help this issue?
Paul Lymberis, Quadrant – He commented that he assumes Commissioner Elder means planting
trees between homes. Shrubs might work but not trees. Homes in Federal Way have a five-foot
setback from the property line and usually have eaves of two feet. This leaves approximately six
feet of usable space, which would be too small for trees, but shrubs could work and can
(depending upon the species) stabilize a slope between the homes.
Commissioner O’Neil asked how the tree canopy requirements would affect a homeowner. Ms. Shull first
wanted to clarify the tree retention requirement as it relates to expansion of a single-family home. Mr.
Schweikl misunderstood the proposed amendments when he stated that if single-family homeowner was to
expand their home by 500 feet they would have to follow the tree retention standards and plant trees. This
expansion standard (tree units per acre) applies to commercial, industrial, and multi-family development,
not single-family homes. In response to how the tree units per acre standard apply to single-family
homeowners; it applies as it does today, but the standard is different. The City is not adding a process, but
replacing the focus on retaining significant trees with a tree unit per acre standard. The issue is addressed
in the exemption section of the proposed amendments. There are steps that need to be evaluated in order to
know if one can remove trees on an existing developed site. One of the steps is to evaluate if there are any
critical areas (such as streams, wetlands, etc.) on the site. If yes, director approval is needed to remove
vegetation. Another step that could trigger tree retention is to evaluate if there will be anything done that
will affect stormwater as it enters or leaves the site. If it is an undeveloped property, the tree retention
standard would apply; just as the significant tree standard applies today. Also be aware that some older
plats may have statements on them that trees cannot be removed.
Commissioner O’Neil asked staff to confirm that there is a “sliding scale” for replacement trees (to
maintain the tree canopy) based on diameter. Ms. Shull replied that the tree unit credit table on page 22 of
Exhibit A has two categories: replacement tree and existing tree. In the second draft of the proposed
amendments, staff recommended a minimum size for replacement trees. The chart on page 22 determines
how many credits is available depending upon the mature tree canopy. There will be a chart available (it
will not be in the code because it could change as staff learns new information about trees) that will give
credits depending upon the type of tree selected. As she recalled, Quadrant requested additional credits if a
tree larger than the minimum size is planted. Staff is willing to consider this request, but is not prepared
tonight to comment upon it; further study is needed. One concern is whether a larger tree is likely to
survive.
Commissioner O’Neil asked how long it would take if a developer were to request a modification for
retaining wall height. Ms. Shull replied that the City receives a number of different types of modification
requests (parking, right-of-way, etc.) and they typically arise during the preapplication process. The
Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 January 21, 2009
K:\Planning Commission\2009\Meeting Summary 01-21-09.doc
process is typically a request letter with supporting documentation. After review by staff, a decision letter
is issued by the director. The length of time it takes will depend upon the complexity of the modification
and if it needs to be reviewed by staff in different departments, but it is a relatively quick process. The
developer does not need to wait for a decision on the overall project to request a modification.
Commissioner Bronson has concerns about lot size averaging. Do the requirements state how small the
smallest lot can be? He is concerned a future code change could make the smallest lot nonconforming. The
proposed amendments could lead to a development with similar sized houses, but different sized lots where
much of the lot is unusable, but is taxed on the total amount of land. So could someone with a larger lot,
but less usable land, be taxed the same or more than someone with a smaller lot but more usable land? Ms.
Shull responded that on page 19 of Exhibit A, for lot averaging, the site must have some relatively flat as
well as steep portions. The steeper portions of the site should have the larger lots. In no case may any lot
with a slope of 15% or greater be created at a size smaller than the minimum lot size of the underlying
zoning district. Reduced lot sizes up to 50% of the minimum lot size of the underlying zoning designation,
but in no case less than 5000 square feet for each single-family residential building lot or no less than 1800
square feet for each lot for zero-lot line townhouse lot, may be allowed on potions of the site with less than
a 15% slope. In regards to the tax rate, appraisal is a complicated process and each site is unique.
Sometimes if a lot is considered less “usable,” it may not be appraised as high as a more “usable” lot.
However, if the site has a view, it could be appraised higher. In the first proposed code amendments, lot
size averaging was a requirement, but staff has changed that for the second proposed amendments and now
lot size averaging is an option.
Commissioner Bronson asked if someone purchases an existing developed property and wants to rebuild the
house on the current foundation, would they have to meet the proposed requirements if they have existing
slopes that do not meet the proposed requirements. Ms. Shull replied that if it is an existing slope, the City
would not require the owner to re-grade the property to make it a 3:1 slope. The requirements would apply
only if someone is creating a slope.
Commissioner Long is concerned that there are no established criteria for approving a modification for a
retaining wall or slope and suggested that some be included. Ms. Shull replied there are some recommended
criteria on page 16 of Exhibit A. They are in the beginning general section under the purpose language and
would apply to clearing, grading, and tree retention. Commissioner Long replied that it was not clear
enough to him and what about health and safety.
Commissioner Long asked for clarification regarding fence height. A fence up to six feet in height is
currently allowed in any building setback without a building permit. Ms Shull replied that staff envisions that
many retaining walls will be placed near or on property lines and expects that the homeowner on the uphill
side will want a six-foot high fence for safety. The four-foot wall and six-foot fence will create a ten-foot
barrier that staff believes is high, but acceptable. Staff anticipates there will be higher walls allowed due to
the modification process and so if the wall is higher than four feet, a fence on the uphill side is limited to 42
inches. The 42 inches is a standard height for safety railing and staff does not want to go higher because it
could mean a barrier higher than ten feet. Commissioner Long stated he is concerned that the 42 inches
would not be high enough to keep kids from jumping over it. He is also concerned that most citizens do not
know they need a permit for some fences. Ms. Shull agreed that public education will be needed.
Commissioner Carlson had questions about preparation of the tree survey. One thing it asks for is the
general location of trees within 50 feet of the site. Since it would likely be difficult to actually survey the
trees off site, he is requesting staff to clarify that by general location the intent is to not impact the root
zone of any off site trees. Ms. Shull agreed that is the intent. To be consistent he asked staff to use the
language from page 16 regarding general location on page 1, in item 20-83(b)(8). He agreed with
Commissioner Long that more criteria are needed for approving a modification.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 January 21, 2009
K:\Planning Commission\2009\Meeting Summary 01-21-09.doc
Commissioner Medhurst asked if the 42 inch fence height would pertain to retention ponds. Ms. Shull
replied the intention of this fence requirement is not for retention ponds but between residential properties.
Staff may need to modify the language to make this clear.
Commissioner Carlson commented that on page 21 it specifies how may trees units per acre based on zone
and then on the following page there are credits for replacement trees and existing trees. If the site is fully
wooded and one can establish one meets the thresholds through timber cruising methods, or something
similar, does a surveyor need to physically locate all of the trees on the site? If a surveyor can locate trees
in one area to meet the thresholds, does a tree survey need to be done on the entire site? Ms. Shull
responded the City would accept both suggested methods for determining if the site meets the thresholds
and a tree survey of the entire site would not have to be performed. Commissioner Carlson asked that this
be made clear in the proposed amendments.
Commissioner Bronson moved (and it was seconded) to continue the public hearing to the next meeting
[February 4, 2009, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers] with the intent to finish the public hearing
at that meeting. He commented that this is a complex issue that staff and the Commission have been
working on for over a year and since we have comments from a number of different sources, it is time to
move the issue on to the City Council.
Commissioner Carlson moved (and it was seconded) to amend the motion to state that the deadline for
written comments is today [January 21, 2009] and that verbal comments will be accepted at the next
meeting. The Commissioners discussed this issue. The intent behind the amendment is to free staff from
having to review and comment on additional comments. Commissioner Medhurst expressed concern that
someone may have comments but would be unable to attend the next meeting. Commissioner O’Neil
commented that the Commission is effectively creating a deadline for comments if they vote on this issue
at the next meeting. Commissioner Long suggested leaving the record open with the understanding that
staff does not have to review or comment on written comments. Commissioner Bronson commented we
need to move this issue forward and written comments can be read into the record at the next meeting.
Commissioner Elder commented that we want a well-done product, but we also need to move the issue
forward to the City Council. Chair Pfeifer and Commissioner Medhurst expressed concern over restricting
public comment. Commissioner Carlson withdrew his amendment.
The vote was held on the main motion to continue the public hearing to the next meeting [February 4,
2009, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers] with the intent to finish the public hearing at that
meeting and it carried.
Ms. Clark asked that any written comments be delivered by noon on Monday to give staff time to review
and comment.
ADDITIONAL BUSINESS
None
AUDIENCE COMMENT
None
ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m.