Loading...
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