Planning Comm MINS 07-17-2002K:\Planning Commission\2002\Meeting Summary 07-17-02.doc
City of Federal Way
PLANNING COMMISSION
Regular Meeting
July 17, 2002 City Hall
7:00 p.m. Council Chambers
MEETING SUMMARY
Commissioners present: John Caulfield, Hope Elder, Bill Drake, Dini Duclos, Dave Osaki, and Grant Newport.
Commissioners absent (excused): Nesbia Lopes. Alternate Commissioners present: None. Alternate
Commissioners absent (excused): Christine Nelson (Tony Moore and Marta Justus Foldi were also absent).
Councilmember present: Mayor Jeanne Burbidge. Staff present: Community Development Services Director Kathy
McClung, Associate Planner Deb Barker, Associate Planner Jane Gamble, City Attorney Bob Sterbank, and
Administrative Assistant E. Tina Piety.
Chair Caulfield called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
APPROVAL OF SUMMARY
The May 15, 2002, meeting summary was approved with two minor changes: on page 2 under Public Testimony,
the second sentence, “Hi parents” should be “His parents”; and at the bottom of the page, the meeting was
adjourned at 8:21, not 7:21.
AUDIENCE COMMENT
None.
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
Moved to the end of the meeting.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
PUBLIC HEARING – Social Services Transitional Housing Units Code Amendment
The Public Hearing was opened at 7:05 p. m. Commissioner Hope excused herself from this hearing because she is
a member of the Federal Way Community Caregiving Network Board. Ms. Barker presented that staff report. As
part of its regular review of development regulations, staff has identified the need to amend the separation
requirement for social services transitional housing units. Currently, 1,000 feet must be separate a social services
transitional housing unit from any other social services transitional housing unit. Staff researched five ways this
requirement could be amended:
a. Reduce the 1,000-foot requirement to 400 feet for all zoning districts.
b. Reduce the 1,000-foot requirement to 400 feet for only type A social services transitional housing
unit in all zoning districts.
Planning Commission Summary Page 2 July 17, 2002
K:\Planning Commission\2002\Meeting Summary 07-17-02.doc/Last printed 1/10/2005 3:57 PM
c. Reduce the 1,000-foot requirement to 400 feet only in the RM zoning district.
d. Reduce the 1,000-foot requirement to 400 feet for all zoning districts that permit multifamily
dwelling units, provided that no more than three social service transitional housing units per
multifamily complex can be established.
e. Eliminate the 1,000-foot separation requirement only in the RM zoning district.
Staff recommends option c, “Reduce the 1,000-foot requirement to 400 feet only in RM zoning district.” This
would allow a social services transitional housing unit to locate in a condominium where another exists, so long as
400 feet separates them. This option reduces separation parameters in a limited but nonetheless valuable way, and
creates the least impact on the City as a whole.
The Commission asked why was a 1,000-foot separation originally chosen? Staff replied that there is limited
background information and the reason for choosing 1,000 feet is not addressed. However, there is some case law
from another circuit court that discusses the therapeutic reasoning behind having a separation and 1,000 feet is
common in other jurisdictions. It was asked why should there be any separation?
Staff indicated that currently, there are six social services transitional housing units (Type A) in the City under these
provisions. (There may be others that started before these provisions came into affect, and there are some other types
of “group” homes in the City.) Social services transitional housing units of this type have stringent requirements.
There is the 1,000-foot separation and the unit is governed by a management plan submitted to the City, which
requires monitoring of those who live in the unit. Another aspect governing the location (and number) of these types
of units is the cost of a condominium. FUSION (Friends United to Shelter the Indigent, Oppressed, and Needy) is
the only provider of these units in the City. They have informed the City that the need is great for this type of
housing, but because of the 1,000-foot separation, there is no affordable units left in the City.
When the provisions were first in place, there were many questions about the suitability of the units by others
living in the condominiums where the units were placed. FUSION has been responsible in answering questions and
monitors the units closely. They are quick to respond to problems. There are still some questions when a new unit
is proposed, but not as many. None of the applications for the six units were appealed.
The Public Testimony was opened at 7:30 p.m.
Linda Rasmussen, Regional Director of YWCA – Her agency contracts with FUSION to proved case
management to existing social services housing units. They have 27 unsolicited applications for one
housing unit. Their requests for such housing are up 20 percent. She encouraged the Commission to take
the most flexible approach. She told the Commission stories of some families and how having secured
housing has allowed them to succeed.
Beverly Kim, FUSION Boardmember – She stated that homelessness is a huge social problem and the
need for housing is great. Caseworkers match the families to others residing in the condominium. The
families receive weekly case management from the YWCA, who in turn sends a monthly report to
FUSION. Since they started providing this housing, FUSION discovered that many of the women had
problems with such issues as budgeting. They now contract with outside agencies/individuals to provide
advice/training to the women on such issues as budgeting and how to be good neighbors and citizens.
Since starting their program, 75 percent of those on the program have found permanent housing. On
average, a family will stay in a social services transitional housing unit for six to twelve months.
Planning Commission Summary Page 3 July 17, 2002
K:\Planning Commission\2002\Meeting Summary 07-17-02.doc/Last printed 1/10/2005 3:57 PM
Susie Horan, Coldwell Banker General Manager – They have helped purchase the six units. She is
familiar with the price range of condominiums and noted there are few units that fit into the affordable
range. Of those that are affordable, there is now a social services transitional housing unit in each of
them. FUSION has volunteers ready to help provide another unit, but cannot do anything until the code
is changed. She stated that FUSION has become a model to other communities on how to provide this
type of housing. She would prefer the Commission choose option e (eliminate the 1,000-foot separation).
Other cities do not have setbacks and the restriction is not needed because there are enough people to
oversee the program. Changing to a 400-foot separation may double the number of units, but it also
depends on where in the condominium the current unit is situated (if it is in the middle of the
condominium, there may not be 400 feet between it and any other unit) and a unit must be for sale that is
400 feet away from the current one.
Peggy LePorte, Founding Member of FUSION – She stated the need is great. FUSION is an all
volunteer organization. In their nine years of operation, there have been few problems. Problems that
arise are dealt with immediately. They keep in contact with the homeowners association, who calls the
case manager if there are any problems. In 1993, the need was not as great and the 1,000-foot separation
was not a problem. Now that the need for the housing has grown, the 1,000-foot separation has become a
problem. If the need continues to grow, 400 feet may become a problem. If the restriction remains in
place, they will have to purchase higher cost units. This could mean a higher cost to the City because
they use Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds.
Public Testimony was closed at 7:50 p.m. The Commission asked what is the risk to the City if the separation is
changed? Staff replied it is a negligible risk. There have been relatively few problems. Staff questioned apartment
mangers with these units and they said they have almost no problems. This does not mean that problems will never
happen.
The Public Hearing was closed at 7:55 p.m. It was m/s/c to accept the staff recommendation and forward it on to
the Land/Use Transportation Committee (LUTC). Further discussion was held on eliminating the separation
requirement, but it was felt that because of a current volatile situation, it is best to have a separation requirement.
PUBLIC HEARING – Miscellaneous Code Amendments
The Public Hearing was opened at 8:03 p.m. Ms. Gamble presented that staff report. There are four miscellaneous
code amendments for the Commission to consider:
A. Definition of High-Density Residential Use, High-Density Residential Zone, Low-Density Use,
Low-Density Zone, Medium-Density Use, and Medium-Density Zone – These definitions provided
in the Federal Way City Code (FWCC) are not consistent with the same words defined in the
Federal Way Comprehensive Plan (FWCP). The proposed changes will bring the FWCC into
alignment with FWCP definitions. In addition, high-density residential use and medium-density
use definitions would be removed from the FWCC because they are not referenced anywhere in
either the FWCC or FWCP.
B. Keeping of Animals – The proposed changes will clarify the applicability of the provisions for
keeping animals in FWCC Sections 22-981 to 22-987, and will identify animals as an allowed
use in each of the FWCC zoning charts.
Planning Commission Summary Page 4 July 17, 2002
K:\Planning Commission\2002\Meeting Summary 07-17-02.doc/Last printed 1/10/2005 3:57 PM
C. Affordable Housing Regulations – It is necessary to delete the reference to “countywide
planning policies” in FWCC Section 22-967(b) because they do not “establish” specific
affordability numbers, just thresholds and policies.
D. Quasi-Judicial Rezones – Add the criterion that, “The rezone has merit and value for the
community as a whole” to FWCC Section 22-488(c)(2). The criterion is in keeping with
neighboring jurisdiction’s rezone criteria.
There was no Public Testimony and very little Commission discussion. The Public Hearing was closed at 8:12 p.m.
It was m/s/c (unanimous) to accept the staff recommendation and forward it on to the LUTC.
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
Ms. McClung gave the administrative report. The Commission hasn’t met often because staff has been working on
other studies (i.e., PAA study, downtown market study, and permit process). For the PAA study, an inventory of
the PAA has been completed. For the downtown market study, staff plans to present a completed study to the
LUTC at their second meeting in August. Updated statistics have become available and staff wants to ensure the
study is accurate. The stakeholders group has met three times on the permit process. There was a good response to
the survey. We have hired a consultant to look at our practices and those of other cities. The Department reinstated
Over the Counter Permits in April. It took awhile for the program to become popular, but now there is a four-week
wait for an appointment. In light of this, we have added two more appointment times for the summer months.
There will be a vote on housing targets next week. If all goes well, the City’s housing target will be reduced. SEPA
has been issued on the 2002 Comprehensive Plan Update. It will come to the Commission in September. Single-
family residential permits are up. Last year we issued 50 permits, currently this year we have 56 waiting for review.
An Environmental Impact Statement will be done for Christian Faith Center. Pavilion Centre II has an application
in for upgrades and new stores. Work is being done on a number of high schools and churches. Six Flags continues
to expand Enchanted Parks. The number of land use applications currently exceeds all past years. The Expansions
of Nonconforming Residential Uses and Structures that the Commission dealt with on May 15, 2002, have been
adopted.
ADDITIONAL BUSINESS
None.
AUDIENCE COMMENT
None.
ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at 8:32 p.m.