Planning Comm MINS 07-22-2009
K:\Planning Commission\2009\Meeting Summary 07-22-09.doc
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
PLANNING COMMISSION
July 22, 2009 City Hall
7:00 p.m. 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). Staff present: 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.m.
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
Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 July 22, 2009
K:\Planning Commission\2009\Meeting Summary 07-22-09.doc
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 Exhibit 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 staff’s 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. Huffman
what he feels is onerous about the proposed vesting. Mr. Huffman 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 staff has done a good job with these proposed amendments. He
does have a concern. A project is not vested until the application is deemed complete, which could include
a number of reports. He understands that city staff will 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
Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 July 22, 2009
K:\Planning Commission\2009\Meeting Summary 07-22-09.doc
any such 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 argument 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 argument 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 argument 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 them. 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.m.