Planning Commission PKT 10-07-2015City of Federal Way
PLANNING COMMISSION
October 7, 2015 City Hall
7:00 p.m. Council Chambers
AGENDA
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
September 2, 2015
4. AUDIENCE COMMENT
5. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
• Manufactured Home Park Stakeholder Group Update
6. COMMISSION BUSINESS
• Presentation by Telecare on Mental Health Facilities Proposed
for Federal Way
• PUBLIC HEARING
Proposed Zoning & Development Code Amendments
Related to Variance Procedures of the Federal Way Revised Code
(FWRC)
7. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS
8. ADJOURN
Commissioners
Tom Medhurst, Chair Lawson Bronson, Vice -Chair
Hope Elder Wayne Carlson
Tim O'Neil Sarady Long
Diana Noble- Gulliford Anthony Murrietta, Alternate
KAPIanning Commission\2015 \Agenda 10- 07- 15.doc
City Starr
Isaac Conlen, Planning Manager
Margaret Clark, Principal Planner
E. Tina Piety, Administrative Assistant
253 -835 -2601
www cityoffederalwavcom
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
PLANNING COMMISSION
September 2, 2015 City Hall
7:00 p.m. Council Chambers
MEETING MINUTES
Commissioners present: Tom Medhurst, Lawson Bronson, Hope Elder, Wayne Carlson, Sarady Long, Tim
O'Neil, Diana Noble - Gulliford, and Anthony Murrietta. Commissioner absent: none. City Staff present:
Community Development Director Michael Morales, Planning Manager Isaac Conlen, Associate Planner
Leila Wiloughby- Oakes, Assistant City Attorney Mark Orthmann, and Administrative Assistant Tina Piety.
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Medhurst called the meeting to order; at 7 :C
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of July 15, 2015, were a
AUDIENCE COMMENT
None
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
None
BUSINESS
King County Countywide Planning Policies Proposed Amendment
Planning Manager Conlen delivered the staff presentation. He went over the background and reason for
the King County Countywide Planning Policies (CWPPs); the basic reason is to ensure consistency of
planning among cities. The currently proposed amendment requires the city to work collaboratively with
Federal Public Schools (FVVPS) to plan for adequate capacity for new school facilities. If there is a lack in
the capacity, a plan to address this lack is required. The city currently works with FWPS to plan for
school facilities and staff has no opposition to the proposed amendment.
Commissioner O'Neil asked who makes the decision that there will be a new school, where it will be
placed, and how much is the GMPC involved in this decision making? Planning Manager Conlen replied
it is FWPS who makes the decision about whether their needs to be a new school and where it will be
placed. The GMPC and King County do not get involved beyond formulating this proposed policy.
Commissioner O'Neil asked why then are they proposing this policy if they do not get involved. Planning
Manager Conlen commented he does not know why, but assumes there are a number of school districts
(not Federal Way) that have had problems siting new facilities; hence this proposal.
KAPIanning Commission\2015\Meeting Summary 09- 02- 15.doe
Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 September 2, 2015
Commissioner Carlson commented that he feels that generally, this is a good policy. He asked if it will
have any effect on bonds and impact fees. Planning Manager Conlen responded that he does not believe it
is intended to have any impact on bonds and impact fees.
Commissioner Bronson commented that he is concerned about what impact it will have on our staff to
prepare reports to the GMPC. We are already understaffed. Planning Manager Conlen replied that he does
not think it will have a large impact on staff. Since staff already works with FWPS on siting new schools,
he expects the report will be a page long at the most. It is King County who will make the report, but he
expects the city would have to report to the county if FWPS has any problems with siting facilities and
how the city will address those problems, if any.
Commissioner Noble - Gulliford commented that the people voted on classroom size, but since the state
could not fund it, that petition was set aside. She is concerned about how this could affect the city.
Assistant Attorney Orthmann replied the policy will not shift the burden from the state to the cities
regarding classroom size. It just states the cities will work with school districts on siting facilities.
Commissioner Colson moved (and it was seconded) to recommend the Mayor /City Council write a letter
in support of the proposed King County Countywide Planning Policies Amendment. There was no further
discussion. There was one no vote and six yes votes; the motion carried.
Public Hearing — Proposed Amendments Related to the Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC)
Chapter 19.30, "Nonconformance"
Associate Planner Leila Wiloughby -Oakes delivered the staff presentation. The purpose of this code
amendment is to establish a consistent and intentional policy direction on how the city would like to deal
with nonconforming uses, developments, and lots. In addition, the amendment will correct a number of
problems with language in the chapter. Certain provisions are unclear, while others appear disproportionate
to the impact being addressed or the work proposed. She went over the background, objectives, proposed
changes, and recommendations. Proposed changes include definitions, nonconforming uses, nonconforming
developments, and nonconforming lots. Staff has taken into considerations made by Planning Commissions
at the July 15, 2015, Study Session. One result is that staff proposes that improvements for developments be
allowed only once every 36 months. Site improvements will be required when a use ceases for 12
consecutive months.
Commissioner Carlson commented that staff has done a good job responding to issues raised by the
Commission. On page 2 of 14 of Exhibit A (19.30.03 -50), it speaks to abatement of an illegal
nonconformance. Could you give some examples of when it would have been a legal nonconformance?
Planning Manager Conlen commented that this is a complicated issue. The nonconformance started out as
illegal, became conforming, and due to a change (perhaps to zoning) is again nonconforming.
Commissioner Carlson is not in favor of this section. Just because it started out illegal and was legal at one
point is no reason to not have it brought into conformance it if is currently illegal.
Commissioner Long asked when does the 36 months start (19.30.090[a]); at the completion of an
application or when the permit is issued. If it is at the completion of an application, it can take years for a
project to be approved and a permit issued. Additional conversation was held between Commissioners and
staff about when the 36 months should start. Chair Medhurst commented that one problem he sees with the
36 month regulation is if a developer comes in with a long -term plan (say making changes gradually over
10 years), this regulation would mean they could only make the changes once every 36 months. Planning
Manager Conlen replied that could be an issue, but rare, and we need to have some trigger to bring a site
into conformance. Chair Medhurst asked for clarification, when the developer comes back in 36 months,
can they use the new footage as a starting point. Planning Manager Conlen replied yes, they can.
KAPlanning Commission \2015Wee[ing Summary 09 -02- 15.doc
Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 September 2, 2015
Commissioner Noble - Gulliford asked when the proposed amendments refer to bringing a site into
conformance after a site has been vacant for 12 months, does it apply to the whole property (including
landscaping, parking, etc.), or just the building. Planning Manager Conlen replied that the entire site must
be brought into conformance.
Chair Medhurst asked how a lot can be nonconforming if I am not doing anything with it. Associate Planner
Wiloughby -Oakes replied that if the lot does not meet the zoned lot size, it would be nonconforming.
Further discussion was held on this issue. Commissioner Carlson stated he is confused with the difference
between a legal and illegal nonconforming lot. Planning Manager Conlen commented that an illegal
nonconforming lot would not have been created by a recognized way of creating a lot.
Commissioner Carlson moved (and it was seconded) to recommended adoption of the proposed
amendments with the clarification that the 36 -month time period (when appropriate where ever it appears in
the proposed amendments) start after a building permit is issued. Commissioner Bronson moved to amend
(and it was seconded) that 19.30.090(a) shall state, "...within any consecutive 36 -month time period, the
starting point of which shall be the completion for the building permit application; or." After discussion of
the amendment, it was decided it would be easier if staff crafted the language, including the intent of the
main motion that the 36 -month time period start after a building permit is issued. Commissioner Bronson
withdrew his amendment. The vote was held and the motion carried unanimously.
Hearing no objections, the public hearing was closed.
ADDITIONAL BUSINESS
None
ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at 8:40 p.m.
KAPlanning Commission\2015Weeting Summary 09- 02.15.doc
PLANNING COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
To: Tom Medhurst, Chair of the Federal Way Planning Commission
VIA: Michael A. Morales, Community Development Director
FROM: Matthew Herrera, AICP, Senior Planner
Isaac Conlen, Planning Manager
DATE: September 30, 2015
SUBJECT: Zoning and Development Code Text Amendments Related to Variance Procedures
HEARING DATE: October 7, 2015
A. POLICY QUESTION
Should the City allow an administrative process for variances to provisions of the zoning and
development code?
B. MAYOR'S RECOMMENDATION
The Mayor recommends allowing administrative variances in limited circumstances by allowing up to
25 percent relief to zoning code requirements such as setbacks, lot coverage, lot size, and height.
C. ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit A — Proposed Text Amendments to Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) Title 19,
"Zoning and Development Code"
Exhibit B — Jurisdictional Comparisons
Exhibit C — Stakeholder Group Notification
D. SUMMARY
This city- initiated proposal is an effort to streamline decision - making procedures in the zoning code
and reduce costs associated with the use of the city's third party Hearing Examiner. Current review
procedures require all variances to zoning regulations be issued by the city's contracted Hearing
Examiner. The Hearing Examiner presides over a public hearing on the variance and then is allowed
10- working days following the hearing to issue a written decision.
Planning Commission Staff Report October 7, 2015
Variance Procedures Text Amendment Page I
The Mayor's recommendation allows administrative variances issued by the Community
Development Director for variances of up to 25 percent from code requirements. The result of this
text amendment would provide timelier decision - making and reduced costs for the city, while
preserving the ability for public hearings presided over by the Hearing Examiner for significant
variances or if an administrative variance decision is appealed.
E. ANALYSIS OF RECOMMENDATION
Current Practice
Cities that administer zoning regulations provide a mechanism to allow relief from those regulations
when they cause an undue hardship or the inability for a property owner to build improvements that
are typical for that property. The City of Federal Way administers this relief by way of a variance.
The city may grant a variance if all of the following four criteria can be met:
1. That the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the
limitations upon uses of other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the subject
property is located.
2. That the variance is necessary because of special circumstances relating to the size,
shape, topography, location or surroundings of the subject property to provide it with
use rights and privileges permitted to other properties in the vicinity and zone in which
the subject property is located.
3. That the granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public
welfare, or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which
the subject property is located.
4. That the special circumstances of the subject property are not the result of the actions of
the owner of the subject property.
The city's permitting database indicates that most variance applications have been associated with
single - family residential improvements. Examples of variances that have been granted are instances
related to lot coverage,' setbacks, lot size, and height.
The current process to review variances is for staff to review the application and then provide an
analysis and recommendation for approval or denial to the city's contracted Hearing Examiner. A
public hearing is then scheduled where the Hearing Examiner presides and hears testimony.
Following the hearing, the examiner is allowed 10- working days to issue a decision.
Changes
The purpose of this text amendment is to allow an administrative decision by the Community
Development Director for variance applications that request up to 25 percent relief of code
requirements. All variance applications that exceed the above - referenced thresholds would remain
Hearing Examiner decisions. This text amendment does not propose to amend any substantive
decision - making criteria. If approved as presented, the text amendment only changes the decision -
maker for those applications that are below the aforementioned thresholds.
1 Lot coverage is the amount of impervious surfaces the are allowed on a property.
Planning Commission Staff Report October 7, 2015
Variance Procedures Text Amendment Page 2
The Community Development Department requested this item for Planning Commission
consideration as a streamline and cost - saving measure. Processing time for applications that require a
public hearing and Hearing Examiner decision is longer than administrative decisions, which are
issued by the Community Development Director. This is due to additional noticing requirements,
scheduling the public hearing with the Hearing Examiner, and the standard 10- working day allowance
provided to the examiner to issue the decision following the hearing. Additionally, the cost for public
hearings is considerable. Staff resources to review and provide a recommendation along with the
hourly rate and reimbursable for the Hearing Examiner to preside over the hearing and then issue a
decision can exceed the permit fee the city takes in for a variance.
The text amendment would allow an applicant to receive a decision on a variance application in a
shorter time period with a cost savings to the city. Also, the proposal requires similar public notice
requirements as the public hearing requires. The ability for citizens and neighbors to provide
comments to the decision -maker for an administrative variance would remain under the proposed
amendments. Existing public hearing and Hearing Examiner decision requirements would continue
for significant variance requests (those over the thresholds) and any variance that is appealed.
Providing a procedure for administrative variances is typical for local jurisdictions. As provided in the
attached South King County City Comparison, five of the six surveyed cities provide administrative
variances, with Renton and Burien processing all variances administratively.
F. PROCEDURAL SUMMARY
The proposed text amendment is a procedural amendment to the zoning and development code and
therefore exempt from an environmental threshold determination pursuant to State Environmental
Policy Act Rules 197- 11- 800(19)(a).
Public notice of the Planning Commission hearing was published in the Federal Way Mirror and
posted on the city designated bulletin boards September 18, 2015. This staff report was issued on
September 30, 2015, and emailed to members of the Planning Commission and department
stakeholders.
G. BASIS FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
FWRC Title 19, "Zoning and Development Code," Chapter 19.80, "Process VI Review," establishes
a process and criteria for development regulation amendments. Consistent with Process VI review,
the role of the Planning Commission is as follows:
1. To review and evaluate the proposed development regulation amendments.
2. To determine whether the proposed development regulation amendment meets the
criteria provided by FWRC 19.80.130 (item H below).
3. To forward a recommendation to City Council regarding adoption of the proposed
development regulation amendment.
Planning Commission Staff Report October 7, 2015
Variance Procedures Text Amendment Page 3
H. DECISIONAL CRITERIA
FWRC 19.80.130 provides criteria for development regulation amendments. The following section
analyzes the compliance of the proposed amendments with the criteria provided by FWRC 19.80.130.
The city may amend the text of the FWRC only, if it finds that:
1. The proposed amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan.
Staff Response — The proposed code amendment is consistent with the following goals and policies:
LUG 2 —Develop an efficient and timely development review process based on a
public /private partnership.
LUP4 — Maximize efficiency of the development review process
LUP6 — Conduct regular reviews of development regulations to determine how to
improve upon the permit review process.
EDP2 — Periodically monitor local and regional trends to be able to adjust plans,
policies and programs.
2. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relationship to public health, safety, or welfare.
Staff Response — The proposed code amendment bears a substantial relationship to public
welfare as it provides timely decision- making for applicants that may have a unique hardship in
developing a particular property.
3. The proposed amendment is in the best interest of the residents of the city.
Staff Response — The proposed code amendment is in the best interest of the city as it
streamlines decision - making and reduces costs.
I. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
The Mayor recommends allowing administrative variances for up to 25 percent relief from code
requirements as shown in Exhibit A. Consistent with the provisions of FWRC 19.80.240; the
Planning Commission may take the following actions regarding the proposed development regulation
amendments:
1. Recommend to City Council adoption of the FWRC text amendments as proposed;
2. Modify the proposed FWRC text amendments and recommend to City Council
adoption of the FWRC text amendments as modified;
3. Recommend to City Council that the proposed FWRC text amendments not be
adopted; or
4. Forward the proposed FWRC text amendments to City Council without a
recommendation.
Planning Commission Staff Report October 7, 2015
Variance Procedures Text Amendment Page 4
Exhibit A
Chapter 19.45
Variances
Sections:
19.45.010
Procedure generally.
19.45.015
Administrative variance.
19.45.020
Application information.
19.45.030
Criteria for grant.
19.45.040
Denial.
19.45.010 Procedure generally.
The city will use process IV, Chapter 19.70 FWRC, to review and decide upon an application for a
variance..., with the exception of an administrative variance pursuant to FWRC 19.45.015 where the city
will use process III, Chapter 19.65 FWRC.
(Ord. No. 97 -291, § 3, 4 -1 -97; Ord. No. 90 -43, § 2(120.10), 2- 27 -90. Code 2001 § 22 -196.)
19.45.015 Administrative variance
The community development director mqy grant a variance that does not exceed 25 percent of the
measurable standard.
19.45.020 Application information.
In addition to the application materials required in Chapter 19.65 FWRC or Chapter 19.70 FWRC, the
applicant shall submit a completed application on the form provided by the depaftfneR4 of community
development department, along with all of the information listed on that form.
(Ord. No. 90 -43, § 2(120.15),2-27-90. Code 2001 § 22 -197.)
19.45.030 Criteria for grant.
The city may grant the variance only if it finds all of the following:
(1) That the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon
uses of other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the subject property is located.
(2) That the variance is necessary because of special circumstances relating to the size, shape, topography,
location or surroundings of the subject property to provide it with use rights and privileges permitted to
other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the subject property is located.
(3) That the granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to
the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which the subject property is located.
(4) That the special circumstances of the subject property are not the result of the actions of the owner of
the subject property.
(Ord. No. 90 -43, § 2(120.20),2-27-90. Code 2001 § 22 -198.)
19.45.040 Denial.
The city may grant a variance to any of the provisions of this title except:
(1) The city may not grant a variance to any provision establishing the uses that are permitted to locate or
that may continue to operate in any zone;
(2) The city may not grant a variance to any of the provisions of this chapter;
(3) The city may not grant a variance to any of the procedural provisions of this title; and
(4) The city may not grant a variance to any provision that specifically states that its requirements are not
subject to variance.
(Ord. No. 90 -43, § 2(120.25),2-27-90. Code 2001 § 22 -199.)
Planning Commission Staff Report October 7, 2015
Variance Procedures Text Amendment Page 5
Exhibit B
South King County City Comparison
City
Code Citation
Administrative
Terms
Federal Way
19.45.010
No
All variances require Hearing
Examiner decision.
25 % maximum for setbacks,
lot coverage, lot width, and
Auburn
18.70.015
Yes
lot area. 50% for height. All
others granted by Hearing
Examiner.
Des Moines
18.35.070
No
Hearing Examiner grants all
variances.
Burien
18.65.085
Yes
All variances administrative
25% maximum for setbacks,
Kent
15.09.042
Yes
lot coverage, and building
height. All others granted by
the Hearing Examiner.
All variances administrative,
Renton
4 -9 -250
Yes
unless underlying permit
requires Hearing Examiner
decision.
20% maximum. Variances
for height, aesthetics,
equipment enclosure, PWSF
Sea -Tac
15.22.020
Yes
freestanding pole height, and
all other regulations over the
20% threshold require
Hearing Examiner decision.
Planning Commission Staff Report October 7, 2015
Variance Procedures Text Amendment Page 6
Exhibit C
Stakeholder Group Notification
Name
Affiliation
E -Mail
Alex Wilford
Master Builders Association
awilford@mbaks.com
Bill McCaffrey
WJM Studio
wimccaffreygcomcast.net
Bob Cooper
Lloyd Enterprises
bobcAlloydenterprisesinc.com
Bob Roper
Citizen
bob.roper@comcast.net
Chad Weiser
OTAK
chad.weiser@otak.com
Chris Ingham
South King Fire & Rescue
chris.in h� am @southkin fip re.org
Cynthia Stanley Lee
The Commons
clee@tcafw.com
Dale A Roper
The Roper Company
ro erp dale@aol.com
Dave Thorstad
Developer
dltarchitect(d�comcast.net
Gareth Roe
BCRA
groegbcradesign com
Gil Hulsmann
Abbey Road Group
gil.hulsmann@abbeyroadgroup.com
Gordon Goodsell
South King Fire & Rescue
or�don oodsell@southkin fig re.org
Jeff Greene
Greene Gassaway
jeffggarch@seanet.com
Jennifer Dovey
Windermere
jsdovey@windermere.com
John Bowman
Lakehaven Utility District
ibowman@lakehaveg.org
Mark Clirehugh
GVA, Kidder, Mathews, Segner
markckgyakm.com
Mark Freitas
Developer
markfccimgcs.com
Mike Bailey
LDG Architects
mike ,ldgarchitects.com
Monte Powell
Powell Homes
monte@,powell- homes.com
Peter Townsend
Citizen
petert8kme.com
Rebecca Martin
Federal Way Chamber
rmartingfederalwaychamber .com
Rod Leland
Federal Way Public Schools
rleland(a fwsd.wednet.edu
Sam Pace
Sea/KC Association of Realtors
sampacegconcentric.net
Tom Barghausen
Barghausen Consulting Engineering
tbarghausengbarghausen.com
Planning Commission Staff Report October 7, 2015
Variance Procedures Text Amendment Page 7