Planning Comm MINS 03-28-2007
K:\Planning Commission\2007\Meeting Summary 03-28-07.doc
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
PLANNING COMMISSION
March 28, 2007 City Hall
7:00 p.m. Council Chambers
MEETING MINUTES
Commissioners present: Dave Osaki, Dini Duclos, Bill Drake, Lawson Bronson, and Wayne Carlson.
Commissioners absent: Hope Elder and Merle Pfeifer (both excused). Alternate Commissioners present: Kevin
King, Caleb Allen, and Richard Agnew. Alternate Commissioners absent: none. Staff present: Community
Development Services Director Kathy McClung, Deputy Community Development Services Director Greg Fewins,
Acting Senior Planner Isaac Conlen, Deputy City Attorney Aaron Walls, Assistant City Attorney Amy Jo Pearsall,
Administrative Assistant E. Tina Piety, and Teresa Vanderburg and Kent Hale of ESA Adolfson.
Vice-Chairwoman Duclos called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. She expressed the condolences of the Commission
to Chairwoman Elder and her family.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
None
AUDIENCE COMMENT
None
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
None
COMMISSION BUSINESS
PUBLIC MEETING – Proposed Amendments to City’s Shoreline Master Program
Mr. Conlen began the staff presentation. He commented that notice of the amendments was sent to all shoreline
property owners in the City and the City’s Potential Annexation Area (PAA). He noted that Chris Anderson from
the Shoreline Master Program (SMP) amendments Citizen Action Committee (CAC) was in attendance.
Ms. Vanderburg continued the staff presentation with a general overview. She noted that a key concept from the state
is for cities to develop process that will have “no net loss” of shoreline function. Federal Way has about 17 miles of
shoreline, 4.8 miles of marine shoreline and 12 miles of lake shoreline. To prepare for these amendments, an
inventory of the City’s shorelines was preformed. The proposed shoreline designations are tied to the results of this
inventory. Staff selected three proposed shoreline designations (Natural, Shoreline Residential, Urban Conservancy)
out of the state’s six available shoreline designations. There are no intensive uses on the City’s shorelines.
Mr. Hale continued the staff presentation with responses to the Commission’s comments from the study session
held February 14, 2007. One question was how many parcels would be affected by a change of designation. Mr.
Hale commented that in a small way all parcels will be affected in that the name of the designations will change.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 March 28, 2007
K:\Planning Commission\2007\Meeting Summary 03-28-07.doc
More specifically, for lake shoreline, the majority will change from urban and rural designations to the proposed
shoreline residential. For marine shoreline, 53 percent will change from rural and conservancy designations to the
proposed urban conservancy and 27 percent will change from urban and rural designations to the proposed
shoreline residential designation, with the remainder changing to the proposed natural designation.
The Commission had asked for an explanation of soft-shore armoring. Mr. Hale explained that it is more natural
erosion control method, as opposed to a concrete bulkhead. Soft-shore armoring would use natural vegetation,
wood, and soil.
The Commission had expressed concern that uses such as trams would become nonconforming and owners would
not be able to repair and/or replace them. Mr. Hale stated that section 18-183 will allow replacement, alteration, or
reconstruction of existing nonconforming uses, development, or mechanical improvements as long as they are not
made more nonconforming and the application is made within one year. The state might have an issue with the City
because the WAC has a threshold stating that if the value of replacement is above 75 percent, the use cannot be
replaced “as is.”
Mr. Conlen stated that the City has received comments from King County, the Washington Department of Fish and
Wildlife (WDFW), and the Washington Department of Ecology (DOE). The public hearing will be next week and
staff will revise the proposed amendments as appropriate. In order to meet the grant deadline, the City must adopt
the amendments by June 2007.
Commissioner Carlson asked if the DOE commented on the nonconforming threshold issue. Mr. Conlen replied
that the nonconforming language was a result of earlier Commission comments and has not yet been sent to DOE
for their comments. In regards to the version they have reviewed, DOE commented that the City’s language on
shoreline vegetation retention could be strengthened and they do not like the City’s stringline setback because it is
not a science based approach. Commissioner Osaki asked if the Commission could read the agency comment letters
and Mr. Conlen replied that he would provide them to the Commission.
Commissioner Osaki asked if the City currently allows shoreline exemptions and if not, why a statement of
exemption is included in the amendments. Mr. Conlen replied that the City does issue a letter, but the City code is
silent on the matter. Even though a project is exempt from a permit, it must still comply with SMP policies and
regulations. Requiring a statement of exemption would allow the City to evaluate the project for compliance.
Commissioner Bronson expressed concern over the one-year timeline for repair/replacement of a nonconforming
use. If damage occurs during the winter, it may not be possible to begin the replacement until spring and then a
number of permits from different agencies have to be obtained. All this could easily take over a year. He would like
the timeline to be increased.
Commissioner Drake commented that section 18-176(a) says a substantial development permit is required for a
development whose total cost or value exceeds $5000. Where does this figure come from? Mr. Conlen replied that
it is established by the DOE. Commissioner Drake asked if the same threshold applies to section 18-182, which
deals with revisions. Mr. Conlen replied that if a change to a current permit is substantial enough to require further
review, it would require a new permit; otherwise, it is a revision. The City’s Planning Division’s Administrative
Guidelines determines if changes are substantial enough to require further review.
Commissioner Agnew commented that there is a discrepancy in regards to bulkheads. On page 17 (permitted use
table) it says bulkheads are allowed, but on page 11 (regulations) it says bulkheads are not allowed. Mr. Conlen
explained that a “normal protective bulkhead common to single-family residences” (WAC 173-27-040[2][c]) is
exempt from a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. However, bulkheads must be in compliance with the
policies and regulations of the SMP. The state guidelines establish a preference for development that does not need
Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 March 28, 2007
K:\Planning Commission\2007\Meeting Summary 03-28-07.doc
a bulkhead, or if needed, it should be a “soft-shore” bioengineered design. The City’s proposed SMP follows these
guidelines of discouraging bulkheads. The proposed regulations (page 11) do allow a bulkhead if there is a
demonstrated need.
Commissioner Agnew noted that the maximum height of a bulkhead is only one foot above the extreme high water
mark. Is there a biological purpose for this? Why only one foot? Does this maximum come from DOE? It seems a
higher bulkhead would provide more protection. Commissioner Bronson stated that with a higher bulkhead, more
energy would go back into the water and could cause problems elsewhere. Ms. Vandenburg commented that the
maximum does not come from DOE. One of the reasons for this maximum is a compromise between protection for
the homeowner and providing a minimum disruption to shoreline functions.
Commissioner Osaki noted that the Commissioner’s set of Shoreline Goals and Policies is dated December 6,
2006. Is this the latest version? Mr. Conlen replied that it is the latest version.
The Commission expressed some confusion about the distinction between the Shoreline Residential and Urban
Conservancy shoreline environments. The areas designated as Urban Conservancy are not lightly populated, so
why are they not Shoreline Residential? Staff explained that the Shoreline Residential designation is for the most
intensively developed shorelines, with primarily residential uses. The Urban conservancy designation may be used
in shoreline areas that are also intensively developed, but it is used where the environmental constraints are greater,
such as high bluff areas, areas with associated wetlands, and important nearshore habitats, such as pocket estuaries.
Commissioner Bronson noted that breakwaters and jetties are prohibited, but they are allowed in nearby Redondo
(as evidenced by the recently installed breakwaters). Why does Federal Way prohibit them? Ms. Vandenburg noted
that Federal Way does not have a demonstrated need for breakwaters and jetties. Commissioner Bronson
commented what if a boat launch ramp was to be developed and needed a breakwater to protect it. In addition, he
feels the City regulations should be consistent with adjacent jurisdictions. Commissioner Carlson suggested that
breakwaters and jetties be allowed as an accessory use. Mr. Conlen replied that staff will research this issue.
The meeting was opened to public testimony with the understanding that since this is not a public hearing; any
testimony will not be part of the public record.
Jeff Warren – He lives on Lake Dolloff. Referring to the Proposed Shoreline Environment Designations
map, he asked why Lake Dolloff is not yellow (Shoreline Residential) all around? He also had some
questions about the possible annexation of the area.
Mr. Conlen replied that the map can be difficult to read and that within the red lines that circle Lake Dolloff, it is
designated as Shoreline Residential. Ms. McClung commented that she would be happy to discuss annexation
issues with anyone who has questions after the meeting.
Commissioner Osaki commented that Lake Dolloff is within a 100-year floodplain. It is his understanding that
development within a 100-year floodplain is restricted; therefore, should it be designated Shoreline Residential?
Also, are there any other lakes within a 100-year floodplain? Mr. Conlen replied that staff will research this issue.
Greg Griffin – He asked if the proposed regulations are more limiting than required by the WAC. How will
they affect future usage? How do they affect saltwater areas? He commented that a fund to compensate for
the right to use land is to be established by the City, as required by the Supreme Court. Does the City have
such a fund? What about public access to the shore?
Mr. Conlen replied that the goal of the City is to not be more limiting than the WAC and the staff believes the
proposed SMP meets that goal. In regards to the compensation fund, the City does not have such a fund. Mr. Conlen
Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 March 28, 2007
K:\Planning Commission\2007\Meeting Summary 03-28-07.doc
asked for comment on this issue from legal staff in attendance. Ms. Pearsall stated that compensation for alleged
takings would have to be demonstrated on a case-by-case basis. Mr. Conlen stated that in regards to public access,
the public has access to the shoreline at various parks, but it is not intended they intrude on private property.
Judy Turpin – She is a Lakota Beach resident. She is concerned that the area she lives in is proposed to be
Urban Conservancy, which is to be less developed. She stated the area has been densely developed for a
long time. The area use to have the mosquito fleet docked here and there have been bulkheads in the area
for 40 years. She commented that in regards to the $5000 threshold, it used to be $2,500 and it has no
scientific justification. Concerned that exempt uses permits may become too complicated and expensive
and people will simply go ahead and do it. She also commented that many people in the area care about
Puget Sound and would likely want to participant in the proposed volunteer restoration plan.
Norm Kutchen – Lives on North Lake and asked if the proposed SMP addresses the removal of large trees
in the 200-foot setback from the high water mark?
Mr. Conlen replied that it does, there are specific regulations that typically it apply for trees within 50 feet of the
adjacent shoreline.
Mustafa (?) – Lives in the Redondo area and expressed concern about the 200 feet conservancy on the
shoreline. Who preserves it in order to minimize erosion? What are the regulations? We can make
regulations that say don’t step on it or do anything with it, but there are ways to limit erosion. What does
the City want property owners to do to limit erosion? For example, there are trees that if they were to fall
would cause significant erosion. There are things an owner could do to prevent this. However, he is
concerned if he does something (such as trim the trees) in order to prevent this occurrence, he would be in
violation of City regulations.
Mr. Conlen commented that there are competing goals with the regulations, protecting the area and allowing use of
the property. The City is working on striking a balance between those goals. There are also other City regulations
that deal with this issue. Commission Duclos suggested that any citizen looking for direction for this type of issue
(preventing erosion) should contact City staff to discuss the specifics.
Peter Townsend – A resident of the Bueana area. He also expressed confusion over the Shoreline
Residential and Urban Conservancy and doesn’t see the need for two separate designations. There is not a
huge difference between the two. He was on the citizen committee and told them that the maps they were
using didn’t show the development over the last year or two.
Mr. Conlen replied that the difference between the two isn’t the development pattern, but rather the environmental
constraints.
Jen (?) – She lives on Steel Lake. She asked which takes precedence, the stringline setback or 50 or 100-
foot setback.
Mr. Conlen explained that on Steel Lake, the typical setback is 50 feet. The stringline method comes into play
when there is a vacant lot with adjacent development on both sides. The stringline is a line between the forward
corners of the two adjacent buildings, which determines the forward most setback, with a provision that it cannot
be less than 30 feet. Ms. McClung noted that the state DOE is not in favor of the City’s stringline method and the
City may be required to discontinue use of this method, depending upon the state’s review.
Ann Kow (?) – Lives in Palisades area. She asked for a definition of a feeder bluff, does it involve a
stream?
Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 March 28, 2007
K:\Planning Commission\2007\Meeting Summary 03-28-07.doc
Ms. Vandernburg explained that a feeder bluff is a bluff that erodes over time and feeds sedimentation to the
shoreline, which helps contribute to natural beach processes.
Commissioner Allen commented that some of the WAC citations maybe incorrect. Mr. Conlen replied that staff
will check to be sure these are correct.
ADDITIONAL BUSINESS
None
AUDIENCE COMMENT
None
ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at 8:40 p.m.