Planning Commission MINS 03-04-2015CITY 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 Orthmann.
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.
KAPIanning Commission\2015Udeeting Summary 03- 04- I5.doc
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 FR'RC 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
KAPlanning Commission\2015VNeeting 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 1 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 owner'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, specifically,
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.
KAPlanning 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.
KAPlanning Commission\2015%4eaing Summary 03-04- 15.doc