Planning Comm MINS 02-04-2009
K:\Planning Commission\2009\Meeting Summary 02-04-09.doc
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
PLANNING COMMISSION
February 4, 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) to approve the minutes of January 7, 2009, and
January 21, 2009 as written. The motion carried unanimously.
AUDIENCE COMMENT
None
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
Mr. Fewins announced that at the February 18, 2009, Planning Commission meeting we will hold our
Annual Appreciation Dinner. The dinner will start at 6:00 p.m. and will take place in the Dash Point
Conference Room. The regular meeting will start at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. There will be two
public hearings: one on the use of recreational vehicles for temporary occupancy and the second is on
construction hours (the Commission held a public hearing on the construction hours and the LUTC sent it
back to Commission). In addition, there will be a study session on the 2009 work program.
Mr. Fewins stated that the reorganization of the Federal Way City Code (FWCC) becomes effective
February 9, 2009. The codified version should be ready in about a month. He asked Commissioners if they
want a hard copy of the new code or if they would be willing to access it through the website.
Commissioner Hope would like a hard copy. Commissioner Bronson suggested a CD, but is willing to use
the website. The other Commissioners are willing to access the code through the website. Commissioner
Carlson stated that the tables on the website are difficult to read and understand. Mr. Fewins replied he
would look into this issue.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
PUBLIC HEARING Continued – Clearing, Grading, and Tree Retention Code Amendments
Ms. Shull delivered the staff report. She focused on the changes made since the January 21st meeting. On
January 30, 2009, staff issued a final staff draft and it is this document that is being considered at tonight’s
meeting. There are two recommendations that staff has received numerous comments to change, namely
limiting the artificial slope gradient to 3:1 and limiting the height of single-family retaining walls to four
feet and multi-family/commercial retaining walls to six feet. After careful review of these comments, staff
has concluded that the recommendations will not be changed. The meeting was opened for public comment.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 February 4, 2009
K:\Planning Commission\2009\Meeting Summary 02-04-09.doc
Peter Townsend – He commented that he does understand the Commission is frustrated and feels
the proposed amendments should be moved on, but he and other citizens are frustrated because
they have only recently learned about this issue and are attempting to understand some 40 pages of
proposed changes. This issue will affect thousands of homeowners. There are issues he feels have
not been adequately discussed, but feels this is not the time to bring them up since the Commission
wants to move the proposed amendments on to the City Council Land/Use Transportation
Committee (LUTC). He suggested that in the future, staff inform homeowner associations of all
proposed code amendments.
Paul Gobat – He stated that the minutes of January 7, 2009, on page 2, state that the proposed
amendments will not be retroactive and are intended for new lots. The draft does not address this.
The City has not had much input from homeowners on the proposed code amendments. Bellevue
had problems because homeowners did not have much input into some proposed amendments.
Bob Ormsby – He stated that staff has done a good job. Please clarify whether the proposed code
amendments will allow a homeowner to maintain their view. He has lived in a house where he lost
his view because trees in the green belt grew high enough to obscure the view. What impact would
the proposed code amendments have on a homeowner who remodels and changes the footprint?
Paul Lymberis, Quadrant – He asked the Commissioners to look at Exhibit D, which is two
examples of slopes comparing 3:1 to 2:1 slopes. His concern is that given the small nature of the
change, why should he have to go through a modification process. The 2:1 slopes could be
required to meet regulations for steep slopes and he asked the Commission to encourage staff to
make this change.
Brant Schweikl, Schweikl and Associates – He asked that if the proposed amendments are adopted,
that a report be prepared after they have been in use for a while to ascertain if the proposed
amendments work or not. He suggested the report include how many modifications are requested
and if they are approved or not.
Commissioner Carlson stated that in regards to the 2:1 versus 3:1 slopes, his inclination was to agree with
the staff recommendation. However, after reviewing Exhibit D on slopes and what has been said tonight,
he feels that a 2:1 slope at a limited, short height would be acceptable.
Commissioner Carlson asked staff if a covenant allows topping and if the city does not, which regulations
would take precedence? Mr. Beckwith replied that covenants are private agreements between homeowners
and city regulations take precedence over covenant regulations.
Mr. Carlson noted that on page 14 of Exhibit A (proposed amendments), item 22-XXX3(9)(c) deals with
tree and vegetation removal and storm- and groundwater and states that removal “…will not change the
quality, quantity, or velocity of stormwater or groundwater.” Any kind of clearing and grading will
increase the quantity of runoff, so the word “quantity” should be deleted.
Chair Pfeifer asked Mr. Lymberis what he would say the height should be for a 2:1 slope. Mr. Lymberis
commented that he doesn’t know the magic number, but ten feet seems to make the most sense because it
fits the current code. Comment has been made in the past that a 3:1 slope is easier to maintain; Mr.
Lymberis commented that not all slopes are intended to be maintained.
Commissioner Medhurst commented that in regards to slopes, the proposed amendments should
accommodate the most common exceptions. He also commented that the definition of topping could allow
one to limb a tree from the bottom up and the definition should be changed.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 February 4, 2009
K:\Planning Commission\2009\Meeting Summary 02-04-09.doc
Commissioner Medhurst is concerned that with a 5% administrative cash deposit for bonds, because as the
amount a bond increases, so will the administrative deposit. He does not feel a more expensive bond
requires a more expensive administrative deposit and suggested that the administrative cash deposit be a
fixed fee. In regards to retaining walls, it is stated that an exemption may be made to allow a higher wall,
but it would have to lead to a “better result.” What is meant by a “better result” and how could staff apply
this equitably?
Ms. Shull replied that the 5% administrative cash deposit was chosen because this type of bonds is not
expected to be expensive. However, she understands the concern and staff is willing to consider the
suggestion. As far as using the phase “better result” for allowing an exemption for retaining walls, staff
wants to have flexibility in the code and since it is not possible to know all contingencies, it was felt this
phase would allow for flexibility. The “better result” would be based on aesthetics or saving open space.
Commissioner O’Neil asked Ms. Shull to explain the modification process; he is concerned regarding
timing of a modification, not wanting it to delay a project. Ms. Shull first clarified that a modification is not
a variance. A variance takes more time and effort and requires a hearing examiner hearing. The type of
development standards the city currently grants modifications to include right-of-way projects, landscaping,
and parking. Generally it will become apparent during the preapplication whether a modification may be
wanted or not. The applicant submits a letter to the director requesting the modification explaining what is
wanted and why. Any supporting documentation is included with the letter. The director will issue a
recommendation on the modification request by letter. The process can take from a few days to perhaps a
month or two depending upon the complexity of the request. Regardless, as long as the applicant requests
the modification while their project application is being processed, the recommendation for the modification
request will be completed before the project application process.
Commissioner Elder commented that she has spent a great deal of time considering the slope issue. She
went to another city to view how they handle slopes. She has decided that she does not support the staff
recommendation for slopes, but she does support the staff recommendation for fence height.
Commissioner Bronson commented that on page 2 of Exhibit A, item 20-83(b)(29), it states that the
applicant may be asked for additional information at the discretion of the director. This concerns him
because there is no limit on what the director may ask for and it could increase the cost and time to process
the application. Ms. Shull replied that requirement is there because staff cannot anticipate all information
that may be needed to process the application.
Commissioner Bronson commented that on page 14 of Exhibit A, item 22-XXX3(9)(d), seems to indicate
that a permit is required to remove trees and vegetation. Mr. Fewins commented that removal of trees and
vegetation on a residential lot does not require city approval or permission if it meets the criteria stated in
subsections a – c of that section.
Commissioner Long asked if there is a fee for a modification request. Mr. Fewins replied there is no fee.
Commissioner Long asked if a homeowner is granted a modification and his neighbor wants the same
modification, does the neighbor have to submit a modification request. Ms. Shull replied that the neighbor
will need to apply for a modification so that there is an official record of the request and approval.
Commissioner O’Neil asked if he was to remove a tree from his backyard, how this would affect the tree
unit per acre requirement. Ms. Shull replied that if removing the tree would put you below the tree unit per
acre requirement, then you would need to replace the tree. Be aware that for an already developed lot, you
would only need to replace to the point you are currently. For example, if to meet the tree unit per acre
Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 February 4, 2009
K:\Planning Commission\2009\Meeting Summary 02-04-09.doc
requirement your lot would need five trees but currently you have three, you do not need to plant two more
trees. In addition, if you were to remove one of your three trees, you would only need to replace one tree,
you would not have to bring the number up to five. Commissioner Medhurst asked what if I want to
replace with a different type of tree. Ms. Shull replied that city will have a wide-range list of acceptable
replacement trees. In addition, one can request a modification.
Commissioner Carlson asked staff to clarify that a parcel part of an approved subdivision would not be
subject to the proposed amendments. Mr. Fewins commented that per state law, a final subdivision is
vested for five years and any development within the subdivision after those five years is subject to the
current code.
Commissioner Carlson asked staff to speak to the topic of topping. Ms. Shull responded that the city does
not have a tree topping standard. Topping is not the same as pruning and arborists say that topping almost
always leads to the death of the tree. For this reason, in the proposed amendments the city considers
topping the same as removing a tree.
Commissioner O’Neil asked if someone cuts down a tree and thereby no longer meets the tree unit per acre
requirement, how would the city know. Mr. Fewins replied that the city’s code enforcement is a complaint
based, meaning that unless your neighbor files a compliant, the city will not know.
Commissioner Bronson moved (and it was seconded) to adopt the proposed code amendments as written
and send them on to the LUTC recommending approval.
Commissioner Elder commented that she favors a 2:1 slope. Commissioner Carlson agreed, but also feels
the height or length should be limited to six feet. Commissioner Bronson stated that a 2:1 slope should be
acceptable and the city can encourage developers to design 3:1 slopes. Commissioner Carlson stated that
engineers should be able to design aesthetically pleasing 2:1 slopes. Commissioner Elder commented that
properties are developed to be sold and engineers know what will and will not sell and they say 2:1 slopes
will sell. Commissioner O’Neil stated that he understands both the staff’s and developer’s views and feels
that as long as the modification process is not onerous, 3:1 slopes are acceptable. Commissioner Medhurst
commented he is in favor of 2:1 slopes. Commissioner Carlson moved (and it was seconded) to amend the
motion by amending section 22-XX15 to provide for 2:1 slopes with length of no greater than six feet.
Commissioner Bronson commented he doesn’t see a need for the six-foot length limit. The vote was held
on the amendment to the motion with two opposed and five in favor; the amendment to the motion carried.
It was pointed out to staff that on page 14 of Exhibit A, there are two sections numbered 9.
Commissioner Medhurst commented that the bond deposit should be on a sliding scale. Commissioner
Medhurst moved (and it was seconded) to amend the motion on the floor to modify Division 3 section 22-
XX33 paragraph 3 to include language consistent with existing bond cash deposits to be applied on a
sliding scale. The vote was held with seven in favor; the amendment to the motion carried.
Commissioner Carlson moved (and it was seconded) to amend the motion by removing the word
“quantity” from section 22-XXX3(9)(c). The vote was held with seven in favor; the amendment to the
motion carried.
The vote was held on the original motion to adopt the proposed code amendments as written and send
them on to the LUTC recommending approval as amended. The vote was held with seven in favor; the
motion as amended carried.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 February 4, 2009
K:\Planning Commission\2009\Meeting Summary 02-04-09.doc
ADDITIONAL BUSINESS
Commissioner Pfeifer thanked the staff for all the work they did on the Clearing, Grading, and Tree
Retention Code Amendments. He appreciated that staff involved the Master Builders Association,
homeowners, developers, and engineers and that staff listened to them and made some changes based on
what they heard.
Mr. Fewins commented that staff intends to present the proposed amendments at the February 23, 2009,
Land Use/Transportation Committee (LUTC) meeting. He also stated that the Planning Commission needs
to hold elections for chair and vice-chair at their next meeting, planned for February 18, 2009.
AUDIENCE COMMENT
Peter Townsend – He commented that there are more issues that need to be addressed on the
Clearing, Grading, and Tree Retention Code Amendments.
Brant Schweikl, Schweikl and Associates – He stated that he had a project where a costly noise
study was an additional study requested per the director. He asked if subdivisions are vested for
five years, does that mean the CC&R’s are no good after five years. He asked if Commissioner
Carlson intended for his amendment to slopes to limit height and not length.
Mr. Beckwith replied that the CC&R’s would be a valid document, but city requirements may supersede
them. Commissioner Carlson agreed that he did intend to limit the height and not the length of slopes. Mr.
Fewins commented that he will ensure the LUTC is aware that height and not length was intended.
ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m.