Planning Commission PKT 04-01-2015City of Federal Way
PLANNING COMMISSION
April 1, 2015 City Hall
7:00 p.m. Council Chambers
AGENDA
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES.
March 4, 2015, & March 18, 2015
4. AUDIENCE COMMENT
5. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
6. COMMISSION BUSINESS
• STUDY SESSION
Proposed Amendments Related to the Regulation of
Manufactured Home Parks
7. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS
8. ADJOURN
Commissioners
Tom Medhurst, Chair Lawson Bronson, Vice -Chair
Hope Elder Wavne Carlson
Tim O'Neil Sarady Long
Diana Noble- Gulliford Anthony Murrietta, Alternate
KAPIanning Commissiod2015Wgenda 0401- 15.doc
City Staff
Isaac Conlen, Planning Manager
Margaret Clark, Principal Planner
E. Tina Piety, Administrative Assistant
253 -835 -2601
wlvw cityoffederalway.com
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
PLANNING COMMISSION
March 4, 2015 City Hall
6:00 p.m. Council Chambers
MEETING MINUTES
Commissioners present: Lawson Bronson, Hope Elder, Wayne Carlson Tim O'Neil, Sarady Long, Diana
Noble - Gulliford, and Anthony Murrietta. Commissioner absent: Tom Medhurst (excused). Staff present:
Planning. Manager Isaac Conlen, Senior Planner Matt Herrera,, and. Assistant Attorney Mark Orthiinann.
CALL TO ORDER
Vice -Chair Bronson called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES.
The minutes of February 4, 2015, were approved as presented.
AUDIENCE COMMENT
None
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
Planning Manager Conlen announced the next meeting is scheduled for March 18 and will be a briefing
on the economic development chapter of the comprehensive plan. The following meeting will be April 1
and will be a continuation of the critical areas regulations study session and a public hearing on a code
amendment dealing with manufactured home parks.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
PUBLIC HEARING — Proposed Amendment Related to the Regulation of Adult Family Homes Pursuant to
FWRC 19.105.080
Assistant Attorney Orthmann delivered the staff presentation. This is a housekeeping amendment dealing
with a conflict with state law. RCW 35A.63.24 prohibits cities from enacting regulations that treat residential
structures occupied by persons with handicaps differently than other similar residential structures. Federal
Way code imposes regulations on adult family homes in excess of those imposed on similar residential
structures. However, the city has not been enforcing these regulations. The proposed amendment removes
the conflicting language and aligns the Federal Way code with state law and current practice.
Commissioner Noble - Gulliford asked for clarification why 19.105.080(1) was being struck. Attorney
Orthmann explained that it is being struck to be consistent with the state. The sentence requires the person
who owns the adult family home live in the home, while the state does not require this. The state allows
the home owner to hire a manager of the home, as opposed to requiring that the owner live in the home.
K. Tianning Commissionl20I51Meeting Summary 03- 04- 15.doo
Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 March 4, 2015
Commissioner Long asked if the city has enforced the requirement of one off - street parking space
provided for each non - resident employee if it is an established residence that has plenty on- street parking.
Attorney Orthmann replied that he is not aware if the city has enforced this regulation in the past and will
research the issue.
Commissioner Noble - Gulliford asked if an adult family home could be multi - residential or only a single -
family home. Attorney Orthmann replied that depending upon the zoning, an adult family home could be
a multi- residential unit.
Commissioner Carlson moved (and it was seconded) to adopt the amendments as proposed by staff. There
was not further discussion and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
STUDY SESSION — Proposed Amendments Related to the Regulation of FWRC Title 19, Division V — '
Critical Areas
Senior Planner Herrera delivered the staff presentation. He introduced and Ilon Logan of Environmental
Sciences Associates who attended the January Open House and is here to answer any questions that may
come her way. Tonight's presentation will discuss the following code topics (staff will return in April to
discuss the wetlands and frequently flooded areas):
* Administrative
* These are sections that generally apply to all critical areas.
* Geologically Hazardous Areas
* Landslide, Erosion, and Seismic Hazards
* Fish & Wildlife Conservation Areas (a new heading/topic)
* Streams, lakes <20 acres (larger lakes are regulated by the Shoreline Master Program),
and protection of endangered, threatened, and sensitive species.
* Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas
* Zones based on proximity to and travel time of groundwater to water source wells.
Staff will continue this study session on April 1, 2015. After that an environmental determination will be
made. Staff will then consolidate the proposed amendments and comments into a new code chapter
( "Environmentally Critical Areas ") and will hold a public hearing with the Planning Commission. The
Planning Commission recommendation then goes to the City Council's Land Use /Transportation
Committee, who in turn makes a recommendation to City Council. City Council holds a First and Second
Reading of the proposed amendment /ordinance. Staff is on track to make the state mandated deadline of
June 30.
Senior Planner Herrera continued with an answer to Commissioner Elder's question of who paid for the
clean -up of Lake Grove Park. The clean -up was needed because of contaminated soil and was paid for by
Asarco settlement funds. The Department of Ecology reviewed Adelaide and Heritage Woods and
discovered the soil contamination was below the level required for state clean-up, so they put up signs.
Commission O'Neil asked for clarification of when a homeowner must seek the city's approval to take
down a tree. The city does not require a permit from a single - family property to remove a tree in a non -
critical area. The city does require a certain canopy percentage on the property, but there is no follow -up
to ascertain this. If the tree is in a critical area, the requirements are different because a critical area and/or
buffer cannot be disturbed without permission from the city. Tree removal in critical areas is partially
exempted, which means the owner needs written approval (not a permit, but a letter) from the city to
remove or perform maintenance on a tree in a critical area and /or buffer. So that an owner would not need
K APlanning Commission \2015Weeting Summary 03- 04- 15.doc
Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 March 4, 2015
to come into the city every year to request permission to perform maintenance, the city will accept a
maintenance plan from a licensed Arborist that could last up to five years. The city maintains a critical
areas map that delineates where the city believes the critical areas are located that homeowners can view
on the city's website.
Commissioner Long asked what criteria the city uses to require a tract in a critical area to be dedicated to
the city. Senior Planner Herrera replied that he is not aware of a time the city has done this, although it is
in the city code. The city does not have specific criteria for this situation. Commissioner Long asked if the
sign required for a Native Growth Protection Easement a standard city sign. What about the interpretive
sign. The Native Growth Protection Easement sign is a standard sign, but the interpretive sign is not
because each critical area is different the sign needs to be site specific. In addition, there are split rail fence
requirements (split rail fences allow wildlife access to the area) which do not have a design standard.
Commissioner;Carlson noted that the size of required buffers has been increasing and many times may be
only lawn with a tree or two. What is staff response to a homeowner who maybe wants to put a swing set
in that buffer? Senior Planner Herrera commented this is an issue staff plans to address April I when they
discuss wetlands. In the meantime, staff intends to hold with the thought that a deal is a deal. He noted
that wetlands can increase and /or decrease in size. If a wetland were to increase so that a property "o wrier "s
backyard would now lie within the wetland's buffer, staff would hold with the thought that a deal is a
deal, and the owner's backyard would not be considered part of the wetland buffer if the wetland
increases in size.
Commissioner Noble - Gulliford asked about non - buildable tracts in older developments, specficatly,
someone now makes plans to build on the tract. Senior Planner Herrera responded that as long as the `
property is recorded as a tract, it cannot be built upon; only lots may be built upon.
Commission Long asked about staff increasing the buffer for landslide hazard areas from 25 feet to 50
feet based on best available science recommendations, what are other jurisdictions using? Senior Planner'
Herrera replied that for updates to all the jurisdictions that he has seen, they are increasing the buffer to 50
feet. Commissioner Long what if an owner wants to build a house on a lot where it would not fit because
of the 50 -foot buffer. Can the city legally deny a building permit for that lot? Senior Planner Herrera
replied that the city has a reasonable use provision whereby a building permit would be issued as long a
geotechnical engineer signs off on it. In addition, the city may place restrictions upon the property, such
as the house may not be larger than x square feet. He did note that there are lots that were created say a
hundred years ago with conditions that are not conducive to build on.
Discussion was held regarding lakes, surface water management, and maintenance. Some lakes work as
surface water facilities. Staff will discuss the issue with the Surface Water Management Division and will
bring back clarification of the issue to the next meeting.
Commissioner Bronson asked in what document I would find `best available science' described. Senior
Planner Herrera replied that it is defined in the Washington Administrative Code and the city will be
adopting that definition. There will be an appendix in the FWRC stating what our `best available science'
is based upon. Ms. Logan of Environmental Sciences Associates replied that typically state agencies
publish guidance documents that summarize scientific literature for jurisdictions to use. The `best
available science' may be found in these summarized documents or the original publication (such as a
scientific journal). Commissioner Bronson asked what peer review is done on this `best available
science'? How does the public find the current studies? Commissioner Carlson commented that `best
available science' bibliographies are available. They can be found at the Department of Ecology.
Commissioner Bronson then asked if a wetland has been damaged and the city requires that it be restored,
how do we know the restoration won't cause more damage than what has already been done.
K.\Planning Commission\2015\Meeting Summary 03- 04- 15.doc
Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 March 4, 2015
Alternatively, can it even be restored? Ms. Logan commented that having a professional plan out the
restoration would help mitigate any additional damage.
Commissioner Bronson asked what happens if I have permission to have a ditch, but fish settle into it, can
I no longer use my ditch. This is a question staff should consider. Commissioner Bronson commented that
the city has designated professions, such as engineering geologist, as the only ones who can do this kind of
work. Is the city aware that the state says if any engineer feels they have the expertise, they may perform
the work? (An electrical engineer may comment on civil engineering if she feels she has the expertise.)
Peter Townsend — He lives in Marine View Estates. He has told Senior Planner Herrera he will
submit written comments. In the meantime, he feels there should be some language in the code
regarding "taking." He commented that he and a neighbor had a meeting with staff regarding
`best available science' and "takings." The neighbor feels that the `best available science' can be
refuted. He commented that Gig Harbor's code has a range of setbacks for slopes that allows for
flexibility. He is concerned that the public will have to pay to have an Arborist make a plan to
maintain the critical areas buffer. It does not make sense to him that he and his neighbor would
have to hire an Arborist. He feels the city could simply have guidelines for owners to use for
maintenance of buffers.
Senior Planner Herrera clarified that according to the constitution, `takings' means taking all reasonable
economic value from a property owner without compensation. He does not agree that a 50-foot buffer on
a landslide hazard property is a `taking.' The city is not saying you cannot build there, the city is saying,
they want to be sure that anything built there is safe. The buffer can be built upon with the sign-off 'of a
geotechnical engineer stating it would be safe. Requiring an Arborist to make a plan for maintenance in
critical areas is a typical practice of local jurisdictions. The city is flexible in regards to these plans. It
does not have to be done by an individual. The city has allowed a subdivision to have an Arborist create a
plan for the entire subdivision.
Commissioner Elder asked why the 25 -foot buffer has to go to 50 feet, why cannot it go to 30, 35, 40, etc.
Senior Planner Herrera will bring a copy of the `best available science' bibliography to the April meeting.
ADDITIONAL BUSINESS
None
ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at 8:50 p.m.
KAPIanning Commission\2015Weeting Summary 03- 04- 15.doe
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
PLANNING COMMISSION
March 18, 2015 City Hall
6:00 p.m. Council Chambers
MEETING MINUTES
Commissioners present: Tom Medhurst, Hope Elder, Wayne Carlson Tim O'Neil, Sarady Long, Diana
Noble - Gulliford, and Anthony Murrietta. Commissioner absent: Lawson Bronson (excused). Staff
present: Planning Manager Isaac Conlen, Principal Planner Margaret Clark, Economic Development
Director Tim Johnson, Assistant Attorney Mark Orthmann and Administrative Assistant E. Tina Piety.
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Medhurst called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
There were no minutes.
AUDIENCE COMMENT
None
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
Planning Manager Conlen announced the next meeting is scheduled for April 1 and will be a continuation
of the proposed critical areas regulations study session and a study session on regulations for manufactured
home parks. Staff expects the Commission will be meeting twice a month in April, May, and June.
Planning Manager Conlen asked if the Commissioners would be willing to meet an additional day if
needed in order to complete the 2015 Comprehensive Plan Update. The Commissioners stated they would.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
BRIEFING — Federal Way Comprehensive Plan (FWRC) Major Update — Chapter Four, "Economic
Development"
Principal Planner Clark delivered the staff presentation. Much of the proposed changes update policies
and demographic information. Sections with old language and dated material are proposed to be deleted.
The housing section is proposed to be deleted because that information may be found in the Chapter 5,
"Housing." Some of the information in this chapter comes from the city's economic development
strategy, "Some Assembly Required."
Commissioner Long noted that under the current conditions summary section, the Performing Arts and
Conference Center (PACC) is referenced, but the Farmers Market is not. Should not the Farmers Market
be included? Principal Planner Clark responded that staff can add the Farmers Market to the retail section
KAPlanning Commission \2015\Meeting Summary 03- 18- 15.doe
Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 March 18, 2015
of the current conditions. Commissioner Long noted that Wild Waves (Norpoint Entertainment LLC) is
included in the table of major employers in Federal Way, but is this not misleading because they are
seasonal workers. Principal Planner Clark replied that staff will research the issue.
Commissioner Noble - Gulliford asked if staff knows how many part-time vs full -time jobs are in Federal
Way. Principal Planner Clark replied that staff does not know, but will research the issue.
Commissioner Noble - Gulliford stated that the City Council had received a briefing last night on transit
oriented development from Sound Transit. Would staff explain what transit oriented development is?
Planning Manager Conlen that he does not know how Sound Transit defines it, but to his understanding
transit oriented development draws upon the symbiotic relationship between development (such as
residential, retail, or office) and transit. She asked if it is possible to have a formula for the number of jobs
we might be able to attract using the transit oriented development concept. Planning Manager Conlen
replied that it would be complicated (it would have`to take into account capacity for development and
market conditions /factors) but it may be possible. Principal Planner Clark will talk to the Puget Sound
Regional Council for help in developing a formula.
Commissioner Carlson commented he agrees with streamlining the chapters, but is concerned it may have
gone too far. He is concerned that much that provided a connection between the chapters is being deleted.
He suggested staff consider an Executive Summary that would show the connections between the
chapters. Principal Planner Clark replied that staff will consider it, but there may not be enough time to
write an Executive Summary.
Commissioner O'Neil commented that staff has talked about encouraging a university satellite to locate in
Federal city's demographics ( Way. Given the ci s demo ra young population with lower income it sounds like a
Y g P Y gP P )
good idea and he asked about the status of project. Economic Director Johnson replied that staff is
Actively recruiting universities and hopes to have an announcement of one locating in Federal Way in
about nine months.
Commissioner O'Neil asked what can be done to encourage the redevelopment of the Weyerhaeuser
property. Economic Director Johnson commented that the concomitant agreement (that outlines how the
land may be used) is very helpful. The city has been talking to corporations that have expressed an
interest in purchasing the property to use as a corporate campus.
Commissioner Long expressed concern that Economic Development Goal 3 specifically names
Weyerhaeuser. Since this is a long -term document and the Weyerhaeuser property is likely to change
hands within the next year, it does not seem appropriate to refer specifically to Weyerhaeuser. Planning
Manager Conlen replied that the goal could refer to the former Weyerhaeuser property. Alternate
Commissioner Murrietta suggested using the word corporation instead of Weyerhaeuser. Commissioner
Carlson feels the goal should be left as it is. This way, when the time comes again to update the chapter, it
will show the progress the city has made.
Commissioner Noble - Gulliford asked if the chapter contains information on tourism. Principal Planner
Clark noted that tourism is dealt with as part of Services. Commissioner Noble - Gulliford commented that
since the city is seeking tourism through the PACC, tourism should be more prominent.
Commissioner Medhurst asked is not the multi- family tax exemption (whereby a developer of a mixed -use
project can receive a tax exemption if 20% of their project is designed for lower incomes) contrary to the
city's effort to raise the median income in the city and provide higher level housing. Planning Manager
Conlen replied it is not because the formula that calculates affordable housing allows a developer to earn
the multi - family tax exemption for not truly low income housing. He noted that the city needs to strive for
KAPlanning Commission\2015Weeting Summary 03- 18- 15.doc
Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 March 18, 2015
a balance between lower and higher income housing. Commissioner Medhurst asked what percentage the
city is seeking in order to arrive at a balance of housing. Commissioner Noble - Gulliford asked what the
city can do to attract higher end housing.
Commissioner Long commented that the goals and policies should have language indicating how they will
be financed. Planning Manager Conlen replied that it is not appropriate for a city policy document (such as
the comprehensive plan) to contain language specific financing as budgeting is a city council decision.
Commissioner Carlson expressed concern that only one citizen is attendance for this important discussion
about the future of Federal Way. Planning Manager Conlen and Principal Planner Clark explained that the
staff has been doing as much as possible to advertise the meetings. There have been open houses and
flyers were sent home with school kids advertising the open house. The meetings are on the city calendar
which may be accessed on the city's website. In addition, the city has a list of citizens on the Notify Me
function of the city website and information about the meetings -is sent to them.
Peter Townsend — He has given this chapter much thought and feels if the city gets it right, it will
attract people to the city. While he not yet prepared with specific comments, one general
comment he has is that it seems the amount of goals and policies is excessive. They should be
more concise and meaningful. He does intend to provide specific written comments.
ADDITIONAL BUSINESS
None
ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at 8:20 p.m.
KAPlamung Commission\2015\Meeting Summary 03- 18- 15.doc
4%
CITY OF �
Federal Way
Proposed Amendments to Regulations for
Manufactured Home Parks
Planning Commission Study Session
April 1, 2015
I. INTRODUCTION
This report presents an overview of options for amendments to the Federal Way Revised Code
(FWRC) and preliminary recommendations to better address the interest of residents of manufactured
home parks (MHP) within the City of Federal Way. This matter is designated as a "high priority"
discretionary action item on the Planning Commission's work program. The Planning Commission
will be asked to review proposed amendments to FWRC Title 19 and forward a recommendation to the
City Council's Land Use/Transportation Committee (LUTC) and City Council.
By way of background, there is interest on the part of some citizens for the city to create a MHP
zoning designation that would limit permitted uses within that zone to MHPs (and a few others). The
city was first approached by residents of the Belmor Manufactured Home Park, who were soon joined
by residents of other parks in pursuing the request.
In April 2013, the City Council adopted the 2013 Planning Commission Work Program, which
included the potential creation of a MHP zoning designation. Thereafter, in September 2013, the
Belmor Homeowners Association asked that any future rezoning issues regarding MHPs exclude
Belmor. The reason for that request was the residents of Belmor were able to reach an agreement with
the park owner. At that time, the Council stated that they would like staff to research the issue further
to determine how changes in zoning would affect existing parks. This item is on the 2015 Planning
Commission Work Program.
What is the focus of proposed amendments to regulations for N11lFs?
The primary focus of potential code amendments is consideration of ways to better address the
interest of residents of MHPs. This can be achieved in several ways; two possible options are:
• Option 41: Adopt a manufactured home park closure chapter in the zoning code
that requires a park owner to prepare a relocation report and plan to assist park
residents when a park is going to close.
• Option #2: Adopt a manufactured home park zone that is restrictive in the range
of allowed uses (for example, allow a manufactured home park, a detached single
family home, and other minor uses, but no multi- family allowed).
FWRC Code Amendments — Manufactured Home Parks File 14- 105659 -00 -UP
April 1, 2015, Planning Commission Study Session Page 1 of 7
II. BACKGROUND
What is the status of N1flPs in Federal Way?
There are eight MHPs in the city, with approximately 1,170 spaces (see attached map for locations).
Two of the parks, Cedar Creek and Parkwood Lane, are in condominium ownership, meaning the
spaces are owned by residents rather than an overall park owner.
MHPs are an allowable use in the city's Single - Family (RS) and Multi- Family (RM) zones. A new
park in the RS zone requires review and approval of a Use Process IV land use application, while the
RM zone requires a Use Process III. All eight MHPs in the city are located in RM zones as follows:
MHP Name
Zoning Designation
MHP Name
Zoning Designation
Belmor
RM 3600
Crestwood
RM 1800
Camelot Square
RM 3600
Hi hline Park
RM 1800
Cedar Creek
RM 3600
Laurelwood Valley
RM 1800
Charwood
RM 3600
Parkwood Lane
RM 3600
How have other jurisdictions addressed NHOs?
In preparing this report, staff researched the zoning regulations of several other cities, including
Auburn, Kent, Marysville, and Tumwater, which have adopted provisions related to MHPs.
City of Kent
The City of Kent allows MHPs in any multi - family residential district. The city has adopted
regulations intended to protect the interests of the residents of MHPs. These regulations require a
MHP owner to obtain approval of a relocation plan from the city before they can: a) close a park, or
b) obtain final approval of a comprehensive plan or zoning re- designation.
The relocation plan must provide that the MHP owner will assist each household to relocate, in
addition to making any state or federal required relocation payments. Such assistance must include
providing tenants an inventory of relocation resources, referring tenants to alternative public and
private subsidized housing resources, helping tenants obtain and complete the necessary application
forms for state - required relocation assistance, and helping tenants to move their mobile /manufactured
homes from the park. This approach does not create a MHP zoning designation, yet it ensures that
tenants are assisted in relocating their homes.
City of Tumwater
In 2009, the City of Tumwater adopted a MHP zoning designation that permits MHPs, mobile home
parks that were legally established prior to July 1, 2008, manufactured homes on single family lots,
single - family dwelling units, and certain recreational and child day care uses. Churches, schools,
community centers, agriculture, and bed and breakfast establishments are permitted based on
obtaining a conditional use permit. Use exceptions can be granted if the property owner demonstrates,
"... they do not have a reasonable use of their property under the MHP zoning," or "... the uses
authorized by the MHP zoning are not economically viable."
City of Marysville
In 2010, the City of Marysville adopted a MHP zoning designation that was modelled after
Tumwater's ordinance. Allowable uses within this zoning designation include such uses as MHPs,
single- family dwelling units, mobile homes which are permitted outright, and conditional uses such as
FWRC Code Amendments — Manufactured Home Parks File 14- 105659 -00 -UP
April 1, 2015, Planning Commission Study Session Page 2 of 7
senior citizen assisted facilities, recreational vehicle parks, community centers, libraries, museums,
art galleries, churches, funeral homes, schools, and regional detention ponds. In 2013, the city worked
on rezoning MHPs within residential zones to the new MHP zone.
The following table contains a sample list of jurisdictions' status related to MHPs.
Table 1
Jurisdictions' Status Related to Manufactured Home Park Re ulations
STATUS
MHP* Zone-
MHP Zone-
Closure
Other*
MF* not allowed
MIT allowed
Chapter
JURISDICTION
Auburn
Enumclaw
Auburn
Algona
Marysville
Kent
Bellevue
Renton
SeaTac
Black Diamond
SeaTac
Burien
Tumwater
Covington
Des Moines
Fife
Issaquah
Kirkland
Maple Valley
Mercer Island
Milton
Newcastle
Normandy Park
North Bend
Redmond
Sammamish
Seattle
Shoreline
Snoqualmie
Tukwila
*MHP--manufactured home park; MF= multi - family; Other--there is not a specified MHP zone or closure
chapter. Manufactured homes and manufactured home parks are regulated in other ways through a variety of
zoning designations and other use - specific development standards.
Policy considerations related to N1HPs
• Mobile homes and manufactured homes are considered affordable housing. Adopting a MHP
zoning designation could help to preserve existing affordable housing.
• When parks are converted to other uses it can be difficult to find another space if a park closes.
• Once a manufactured or mobile home has been placed on a lot, it no longer is mobile and it is
costly to move the home to another park.
• Some homes that are displaced are older, single -wide models that can be difficult to relocate
because of restrictions placed by park owners.'
1 In 1991, the Washington State Legislature passed a new law establishing the Mobile Home Relocation Assistance Program to
provide financial assistance to low- income mobile home park tenants who are forced to relocate due to a park closure. In addition
to the financial assistance measure, this law also exempts mobile homes that are relocated due to a park closure from complying
with the requirements of city or county fire, safety, or construction codes (see RCW 59.21.105).
FWRC Code Amendments — Manufactured Home Parks File 14- 105659 -00 -UP
April 1, 2015, Planning Commission Study Session Page 3 of 7
The state Mobile Home Relocation Assistance Program requires a landlord to give each
homeowner at least 12 months' written notice if he or she intends to permanently close a MHP.
The state will also reimburse a low- income household for all actual moving costs up to a
maximum of $12,000 for a double -wide mobile home and $7,500 for a single -wide on a first -
come, first -serve basis.3 However, residents of parks have stated that on average, it may be closer
to $25,000 to move a manufactured or mobile home. a
The state's relocation assistance fund receives monthly deposits from a dedicated fee collected
when a home is purchased in a MHP. Based on a 1993 court case, Guimont et al. v Clarke, park
owners cannot be required to pay for relocation costs.
• There have been no MHP closures within the City of Federal Way during its 25 -year history.
• MHPs are an allowable use in the city's RS and RM zones. All eight MHPs in the city are located
in RM zones. The RM zoning designation allows the following uses:
o Zero -lot line townhouses
• Attached dwelling units
• Detached dwelling unit (single - family home)
• Cottage housing development
• Stacked dwelling unit
• Manufactured home park
• Senior citizen housing
• Social service transitional housing
• Convalescent center /nursing home
• Church, synagogue, or other place of religious worship
• Day care facilities
• Schools
• Private noncommercial sports field, or similar open area uses
• Community recreation area or clubhouse
• Public transit shelter
• Public utility
• Government facility
• Public park
• Personal wireless service facility
• Community gardens, urban farms and farm stands
• Cottage food operations
• Restricting existing properties developed as MHPs to remain only as that use may affect the value
of said properties and could potentially be considered a taking, depending on how restrictive such
a provision would be.'
2 A low- income household means households whose adjusted income is less than 80 percent of the median family income.
3 RCW 59.21.021
4 Testimony of Belmor residents at the April 15, 2013, City Council meeting as reported in the April 18, 2013, Federal Way Mirror.
5 In 2009, the City of Tumwater adopted a zoning district and accompanying comprehensive plan designation for manufactured
and mobile homes and rezoned six of the ten manufacturing parks to this designation. Several of the park owners challenged the
ordinances as a regulatory taking. The Ninth Circuit Court upheld the city's actions; concluding that the ordinances had minimal
economic effect on the plaintiffs, that the impact on their investment- backed expectations was highly speculative, and that the
ordinances did not force plaintiffs to continue operating their properties as MHPs. The court also rejected plaintiff's allegations
that the ordinances amounted to "spot zoning."
FWRC Code Amendments — Manufactured Home Parks File 14- 105659 -00 -UP
April 1, 2015, Planning Commission Study Session Page 4 of 7
If a MHP zoning designation were imposed on existing mobile /manufactured home parks, owners
of the parks may take compensatory or even actions perceived as retaliatory such as:
o Raising the cost to rent a space.b
o Converting the property to condominiums and putting the spaces up for sale in
order to preserve the value of the property.
111. PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS
This section provides a summary of each option. At this point in the process; this information is
provided primarily to prompt discussion with the Planning Commission. Your comments and
suggestions in reaction to the recommendations will help staff to prepare draft regulations for
presentation at a public hearing.
1. Option I (Mayor's recommendation): Establish a manufactured home park closure chapter.
The Mayor recommends adoption of regulations to require a MHP owner to prepare a relocation
report and plan that must be approved by the city before they can close a park.
Current State Requirements
Currently, per RCW 59.20.080. Le, a landlord is required to provide the tenants 12 months' notice
prior to closure of a park. Per RCW 59.21.030, the state required notice must be given to the
Department of Commerce (DOC) and all tenants in writing, posted at all park entrances, and
recorded with the county auditor. A copy of the closure notice must be provided with all month -to-
month rental agreements signed after the original park closure notice date. Notice to the DOC must
include a good faith estimate of the timetable for removal of the homes, the reason for closure, and
a list of the names and mailing addresses of the current registered park tenants.
Proposed Additional City Requirements
Adoption of local regulations to require a MHP owner to obtain approval of a relocation report
and plan from the city before they can close a park would better address the interest of residents
of MPHs within the city. The relocation report and plan must provide that the park owner will
assist each tenant household to relocate. The relocation report and plan shall describe how the
MHP owner intends to comply with Chapters 59.20 and 59.21 RCW, relating to mobile home
relocation assistance, and with the other requirements of the new locally adopted closure chapter.
No sooner than upon approval of the relocation report and plan, may the owner of the park issue
the 12 -month closure notice to the tenants.
Relocation assistance must include providing tenants an inventory of relocation resources,
referring tenants to alternative public and private subsidized housing resources, helping tenants
obtain and complete the necessary application forms for state - required relocation assistance, and
helping tenants to move the mobile /manufactured homes from the park. The report and plan must
also contain details on the condition of each home. An inventory of relocation resources must be
provided, including available spaces in King, Snohomish, Kitsap, and Pierce Counties, as well as
6 In 2008, residents of Moshe Illahee, located outside of the city, claimed that the owners of the park, Chicago -based
Manufactured Homes Communities Inc., raised their rent in retribution for a lawsuit filed against the company by the residents
association the previous year.
FWRC Code Amendments — Manufactured Home Parks File 14- 105659 -00 -UP
April 1, 2015, Planning Commission Study Session Page 5 of 7
mobile home age or size restrictions each park may have in place. An explanation must be
provided of specific actions the park owner will take to refer tenants to alternative public and
private subsidized housing resources, to assist tenants to move the homes from the park, and to
minimize the hardship tenant households suffer as a result of the closure /conversion of the park.
Option #1 Pros
Option #1 Cons
Provides relocation resources to park residents.
Ma allow conversion of affordable housing.
Preserves property rights of landowner.
Affects property rights of landowner.
Retains flexibility of housing options allowed
in the zone.
Potential for perceived retaliatory actions to tenants.
2. Option 2: Add anew zone to FWRC Title 19 called "Manufactured Home Park."
A new section in Title 19 could create a MHP zoning designation that would limit the permitted
uses within that zone to only MHPs, along with other minor uses such as:
• Detached single family on an existing single lot of record
• Accessory uses within a MHP, such as recreation areas, RV/boat storage for use by
residents of the park, clubhouses, and community centers
• Residential accessory uses such as storage sheds, parking areas, carports, and home
occupations
• Day care
Other uses could include, with a Use Process N (Hearing Examiner review and approval):
• Churches
• Wireless communication facilities
• Cemeteries
• Schools
• Neighborhood community center
• Neighborhood- oriented commercial center
The new MHP zone would not allow any other forms of housing than those listed above,
including no multi - family housing, zero -lot line townhouses, cottage housing development, senior
citizen housing, or convalescent center /nursing home. Establishing a new zoning designation
requires additional amendments be made to the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan and Zoning
Map, including rezoning existing MHPs from their current Multi- Family Residential (RM)
designations to a new MHP zoning designation.
Option #2 Pros
Option #2 Cons
May reserve existing affordable housing.
Limits housing options allowed.
Affects property rights of landowner.
Potential for perceived retaliatory actions to tenants.
No guarantee it will remain a MHP in perpetuity.
FWRC Code Amendments — Manufactured Home Parks File 14- 105659 -00 -UP
April 1, 2015, Planning Commission Study Session Page 6 of 7
IV. PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION POINTS
Staff is asking for Planning Commissioners' input on the options and the recommendation presented in
this report and look forward to hearing your feedback on the items listed below, as well as any additional
items you may have identified related to manufactured home parks in Federal Way. With your input on
this topic, staff will then prepare a report that provides further analysis of these issues, as well as a series
of specific recommendations for your consideration and action at a future meeting.
1. Proposed New Manufactured Home Park Closure Chapter — Option #1
The Mayor's recommendation is adoption of regulations to require a MHP owner to obtain
approval of a relocation report and plan from the city before they can close a park.
Discussion: Do you have any particular concerns, comments, or questions about a new
Manufactured Home Park Closure Chapter?
2. Proposed New Manufactured Home Park Zone — Option #2
Another option for consideration is for the city to adopt a new zoning designation in Title 19 for
Manufactured Home Parks.
Discussion: Do you have any particular concerns, comments, or questions about a new MHP
zone?
3. Preferred Option Determination
Two options have been presented for consideration. The Mayor is recommending Option # 1.
Discussion: Which option does the Commission prefer staff prepare code amendments for their
consideration at a public hearing?
4. Other Discussion Points
Discussion: Are there other discussion topics or questions pertaining to MHPs that the Planning
Commission would like to raise at this time?
V. PLANNING COMMISSION NEXT STEPS
Staff will consider the input of the Planning Commission and public and prepare proposed code
amendments for your consideration at a public hearing.
Enclosure: MHP Map
FWRC Code Amendments — Manufactured Home Parks File 14- 105659 -00 -UP
April 1, 2015, Planning Commission Study Session Page 7 of 7
MOBILE HOME PARKS IN FEDERAL WAY
i S 272nd
i
i
i
i
t
CO
t N
U r
a
W14: ' t
CO i I y . S 312th ST
x -T-.
SW 320th ST Q S 320th ST
W 3
r i �
FA 2
U.
N
a.
W 336th ST S 336th ST
l
it
E•,r�i
�I
I
i
+tW-
,9
2�
ID
Name
Zone
#Spaces
I
Belmor
RM3600
336
2
Camelot Square
RM3600
400
3
Cedar Creek
RM3600
73
4
Charwood
RM3600
72
5
Crestwood
RM 1800
102
6
Highline
RM3600
49
7
Laurelwood Valley
RM 1800
64
8
Parkwood Lane
RM3600
72
Total
1168