Planning Commission PKT 10-05-2016City of Federal Way
PLANNING COMMISSION
I(October 5, 2016 City Hall
6.30 p.m. Council Chambers
AGENDA
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
July 6, 2016
4. AUDIENCE COMMENT
5. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
6. COMMISSION BUSINESS
• Briefing
Multi- Family Development Moratorium
7. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS
8. ADJOURN
Commissioners
Lawson Bronson, Chair
Tom Medhurst, Vice -Chair
Hope Elder
Wayne Carlson
Tim O'Neil
Sarady Long
Diana Noble- Gulliford
Anthony Murrietta, Alternate
K: \PlanningCommission\2016\Agende 10- 05- 16.doc
City Stab
Planning Manager
Margaret Clark, Principal Planner
E. Tina Piety, Administrative Assistant
253- 835 -2601
www.ciNoffederaim)gy.com
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
PLANNING COMMISSION
July 6, 2016 City Hall
6:30 p.m. City Council Chambers
MEETING MINUTES
Commissioners present: Lawson Bronson, Tom Medhurst, Hope Elder, Sarady Long, Tim O'Neil, Wayne
Carlson, Diana Noble - Gulliford, and Anthony Murrietta. Commissioners absent: none. City Staff present:
Acting Director Scott Sproul, Principal Planner Margaret Clark, Associate Planner Leila Willoughby -
Oakes, Assistant City Attorney Mark Othermann, and Administrative Assistant Tina Piety.
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Bronson called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of June 15, 2016, were approved with the addition that Planning Manager Isaac Conlen has
resigned his position and taken a position with the City of Seattle.
AUDIENCE COMMENT
None
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
Principal Planner Clark introduced Acting Community Development Director Scott Sproul. Scott is the
department's Building Official. She went on to deliver an update on the 2016 Planning Commission and
Long Range Work Program. The marijuana related amendment and time horizon language of the planned
action SEPA code amendment has been completed. The open space code amendment is expected to be
completed in September. The sign code, historic preservation program, and comprehensive plan code
amendments are next in priority. The city will seek input from the Historical Society as to whether the
city should do our own historic preservation program, or have an interlocal with King County for them to
lead the program.
Commissioner Noble - Gulliford asked if the city has defined a scope for the Multi- Family Development
Moratorium. Principal Planner Clark replied that a scope has not been defined. Staff is collecting data and
will seek the council's direction.
KAPIanning Commission\2016\Meeting Summary 07- 06- 16.doc
Planning Commission Minutes Page 2
COMMISSION BUSINESS
July 6, 2016
Study Session — Proposed Amendments to Open Space Requirements FWRC Titles 18 and 19
Associate Planner Leila Willoughby -Oakes delivered the staff presentation. The purpose of this code
amendment is to establish a methodology for calculating parks and open space (POS), or "private park
amenity space" (i.e., land dedication) requirements. New regulations will ensure dedication requirements
are proportional to a project's impact on community recreation needs and will set level -of- service
standards. Staff is proposing new designation of "Private Park Amenity" (PPA) space. This is defined as:
"Areas with appropriate topography, soils and drainage, improvements, and adequate space to be
used privately for active recreation by the residents of a development."
This will require only improved open space. The city will no longer include unimproved open space as
part of the open space requirement and the categories in the code that refer to them will be deleted. A
menu of at least one major and a few minor park improvements will be provided for developers to choose
from. In addition, there will be clear standards for private park amenity spaces, with room for director
discretion and flexibility for unique and innovative landscape design. The level -of- service required by a
development will depend upon the park zone within which the development is located. A developer will
have the option of paying a fee -in -lieu instead of providing the open space on -site. Staff has developed a
formula for calculating the fee -in -lieu.
Commissioner Carlson commented that at the last Planning Commission study session on this topic, the
suggestion was made that the staff research the idea of requiring a different level -of- service for
developments such as assisted care facilities; where uses likely will not generate the same need for parks
and open space. He also suggested the city consider allowing the open space to be an enclosed space for
such developments.
Commissioner Long expressed concern about the ability of a homeowners association to manage a park
and /or open space due to leadership and funding issues. Who will maintain the required open space?
Would the city step in to maintain the park if necessary? He remarked that Parks Director John Hutton
had stated that the city's existing level -of- service exceeds the adopted level -of- service. If this is the case,
why is the city requiring developments to provide additional parks /open space? Principal Planner Clark
replied that for some uses, the level -of- service is high, while for others it is low. The proposed
amendment will help close that gap. Staff will follow -up on this concern regarding level -of- service.
Commissioner Noble - Gulliford is concerned with the proposed fee -in -lieu formulas; specifically, the
differences for single- family /zero lot line development and multi- family. The Federal Way School
District has found that multi - family developments are generating more students than single - family
developments. They have changed their impact fees as a result of this information. Commissioner Noble -
Gulliford feels this is a major change in the city's housing base. Her concern is that this information
should be incorporated into the city's policies, formulas, and fees for parks, roads, and other services.
Associate Planner Leila Willoughby -Oakes responded that the current proposed amendment does not
address multi- family development. Staff will consider this concern when amendments for multi - family
development are addressed.
Vice -Chair Medhurst stated that with a population of approximately 93,000, at 6.7 acres per person, the
level -of- service is 627 acres per person. Is this a fair assessment? What is the basis of the formula? Does
the city have this much available land? Does the city have space dedicated to this use? How can we meet
our requirement if we don't have the space to dedicate to that use?
KAPlanning Commission\2016Weeting Summary 07- 06- 16.doc
Planning Commission Minutes Page 3
July 6, 2016
Commissioner O'Neil asked where is the city currently at in regards to our parks level -of- service goal.
Would the city be able to maintain that goal? How will the formula get us from where we are now to our
goal? Is our target unrealistic? How much parks /open space do we currently have? How much is state and
county park land? Associate Planner Leila Willoughby -Oakes commented that the proposed amendment
will support a more proportional open space set - aside. The acres per person will not be stated in the code.
Instead, the code will cross - reference the level -of- service currently adopted by the Parks plan and state's
statistics. The level -of- service will be amended as the Parks Department updates its plan.
ADDITIONAL BUSINESS
None
ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at 7:15 p.m.
KAPIanning Commission\2016UNeeting Summary 07- 06- 16.doc
CITY OF .,
Federal
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
DATE: September 28, 2016
TO: Lawson Bronson, Planning Commission Chair
FROM: Scott Sproul, Acting Community Development Director
Margaret Clark, Principal Planner
SUBJECT: Briefing on the Multi- Family Housing Moratorium
I. Background
The City of Federal Way adopted a six -month moratorium on the expansion or creation of multi-
family housing per Ordinance No. 16 -821 on June 7, 2016. Multi- family housing is allowed in the
Multi- Family Residential (RM) zones as a stand -alone use and in the Neighborhood Business
(BN), Community Business (BC), Commercial Enterprise (CE), City Center -Core (CC -C), and
City Center -Frame (CC -F) zones as part of a mixed -use residential /commercial project. The
moratorium covers all multi - family and senior housing except for duplexes, triplexes, accessory
dwelling units, townhouses, and cottage housing.
II. Reason for the Moratorium
The reason for the moratorium is to give the City Council time to review the multi - family zoning
and development regulations to determine whether such zoning and development regulations are
appropriate for the type of multi - family development that the Council envisions for the City.
III. Summary of Types of Multi- Family Uses in RM, BN, BC, CE, CC -C, and CC -F Zoning
Districts
Only those uses affected by the moratorium are listed.
z The Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) currently allows multi - family in the CE zone only south of South 350 Street,
between Pacific Highway South and 16`h Avenue South. Staff recommends not allowing future multi - family in this zone as it is
the City's industrial zone and is not an appropriate location for multi - family.
Page 1
Detached
Stacked
Senior Housing
Mixed -Use Residential /Commercial
RM 1800
X
X
X
RM 2400
X
X
X
RM 3600
X
X
X
BN
X
BC
X
X
CE
Xz
CC-C
X
X
CC -F
X
X
Only those uses affected by the moratorium are listed.
z The Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) currently allows multi - family in the CE zone only south of South 350 Street,
between Pacific Highway South and 16`h Avenue South. Staff recommends not allowing future multi - family in this zone as it is
the City's industrial zone and is not an appropriate location for multi - family.
Page 1
IV. Potential Actions to Improve Quality of Multi - Family Development
a. Amendments to the FWRC
The following code changes would be applied to stacked multi - family with more than 100
units:
1. Require underground parking for multi- family units; except structured parking would be
allowed in the CC -C and CC -F zones.
2. Require a certain percentage of commercial on the ground floor of buildings in all zones
(CC -C, CC -F, BC, BN, and MF) if located along an arterial or collector and are visible
from the right -of -way. This excludes gyms and other uses considered accessory to the
multi - family uses.
3. Prohibit the concentration of apartments with a large number of bedrooms by requiring a
mix of one, two, three, four, and five bedroom units.
4. Require a certain percentage of a unit to be shared living area, e.g., living and dining
rooms.
5. Require a certain percentage of the gross floor area of the apartment building to be
common areas for social gathering.
6. Require a certain percentage of the gross floor area of the apartment to be designated as
private open space, such as a patio, porch, deck, balcony, yard, or shared entry porches or
balconies.
7. Require mandatory participation in garbage, recycling, and composting programs.
8. Require minimum space for solid waste enclosures to accommodate containers for
garbage, recyclables, and compostables.
9. Require operational plans for solid waste storage and conveyance, whether interior or
exterior, and establish a maximum allowable distance from unit entries to exterior solid
waste storage.
10. Minimize bulk of buildings by restricting the number of units in each building.
11. Buildings shall insure maximum compatibility with surrounding land uses and structures.
Where the site adjoins single - family residential uses, or single - family residential zones,
or less intensive multi - family zones or uses, building heights shall be reduced and side
yard setbacks shall be increased.
12. Require each apartment complex to have a Safety Plan, e.g., common areas such as
laundry rooms or any room which is not visible from publicly travelled places must have
posted hours of operation and be kept secure at other times.
13. Require security cameras in shared areas, e.g., lobby, community rooms, playground.
14. Require a maintenance plan and /or adopt an inspection program to be financed by
landlord fees.
15. Require impact fees to offset the need for calls by the police and fire departments.
16. Require multifamily complexes to provide supportive services (such as mental health
counseling, chemical dependency, and substance abuse counseling) and related services,
to the tenants of the project, the nature and extent of which shall be determined by the
developer /owner in cooperation with the City.
Page 2
17. Enforce the parking and critical areas provisions of the FWRC.
18. Come up with a new parking requirement based on number of bedrooms.
b. Legislative Approach
Lobby the state Housing Finance Commission to adopt a rule which requires a mix of
affordable and market rate housing units when tax credits are awarded.
V. Potential Impacts of Adopting Changes Under Section IV a. and b. Above
Increase in Cost to Develop — The majority of the changes would result in increasing the cost of
development. For example, requiring structured parking would add approximately $26,000 per
parking space to the cost of development. Many of other actions, such as #4 through #6, #10,
and #I I would end up decreasing the number of units, thus reducing the profitability of the
development, and potentially making it infeasible to construct. Incidentally, for calendar year
2016, the Federal Way School District increased the school impact fee for multi - family units in
Federal Way from $1,834 to $9,273 per unit, while decreasing the fee for King County,
Auburn, and Kent from $1,834 to $506 per unit. For 2017, the School District adopted a school
impact fee of $8,386 for multi - family units in all jurisdictions within the district boundary.
2. Unintended Consequence of Limiting Affordable Housing — The National Association of
Home Builders (NAHB) has begun to use the requirements of the Fair Housing Act (FHA) as
a tool to discourage land use planning that limits affordable housing for minorities. Courts
have held that the FHA may be violated where the effect of a land use or zoning decision
discriminates against minorities insofar as they are deprived housing opportunities. Under the
FHA, it is not necessary to prove that land use officials intended to discriminate against
minorities in denying a specific housing project, or otherwise making a land use decision.
3. Potential decertification of the comprehensive plan by the Department of Commerce and
Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC).
The comprehensive plan needs to be consistent with the following:
(a) Growth Management Act (GMA)
The GMA requires the comprehensive plan to identify sufficient land for housing,
including but not limited to, government- assisted housing, housing for low- income
families, manufactured housing, multi - family housing, group homes, and foster care
facilities.
It also requires the plan to provide for existing and projected housing needs for all
economic segments of the community.
(b) PSRC VISION 2040
The overarching goal of VISION 2040 is for the region to preserve, improve, and expand
its housing stock to provide a range of affordable, healthy, and safe housing choices to
every resident, with fair and equal access to housing for all people.
Page 3
VISION 2040 contains a Regional Growth Strategy with a preferred distribution of the
region's residential and employment growth, as well as a number of implementation
actions for local governments to carry out.
VISION 2040 calls for local comprehensive plans to address the following housing
policy topics:
• Increased housing production opportunities, including diverse types and styles for all
income levels and demographic groups.
• Affordable housing needs, including an assessment of existing and future housing
needs based on regional and local factors, including household income,
demographics, special needs populations, and adequacy of existing housing stocks.
• Regional housing objectives in VISION 2040 include promotion of housing diversity
and affordability, jobs- housing balance, housing in centers, and flexible standards
and innovative techniques.
(c) Countywide Planning Policies (CWPPs)
The CWPPs must be consistent with both GMA and VISION 2040. The overarching
goal of the CWPPs is that the housing needs of all economic and demographic groups
are met within all jurisdictions. In order to do so, they require that jurisdictions do the
following regarding housing:
• Address the need for housing affordable to households with moderate, low, and
very-low incomes, including those with special needs. The countywide need
for housing by percentage of Area Median Income (AMI) is:
50 -80% of AMI (moderate) 16 %of total housing supply
30 -50% of AMI (low) 12 %of total housing supply
30% and below AMI (very-low) 12% of total housing supply
Attachment 1 lists recent multi- family development in the City, affordable to
persons at 50 and 60 percent of Area Median Income (AMI).
The CWPPs also suggest local actions to encourage development of affordable
housing. These may include, but are not limited to, providing sufficient land
zoned for higher housing densities; revision of development standards and
permitting procedures; reviewing codes for redundancies and inconsistencies;
and providing opportunities for a range of housing types.
Have enough capacity to meet its Population Targets
In 2012, the Growth Management Planning Council (GMPC)3 adopted targets
for new households and jobs for the period of 2006 -2031. These targets were
based on a methodology developed by the King County Planning Directors.
The adopted 2006 -2031 housing target for Federal Way is 8,100 new
residential units.
At the end of 2012, Federal Way had a capacity for 8,443 new residential units,
made up of 2,412 detached single- family homes and 6,030 multiple - family units.
7 The Growth Management Planning Council (GMPQ is a formal body, currently consisting of elected officials from King
County, Seattle, Bellevue, other cities and towns in King County, special purpose districts, and the Port of Seattle.
Page 4
The capacity for 4,880 of those 6,031 multi - family units was located in mixed -
use development zones, and 1,151 units were located in multi - family zones.
Between 2006 (January 1, 2006) and September 11, 2016, Federal Way
permitted 2,537 net new residential units and lost 100 units to demolition,
resulting in a net gain of 2,437 units.
Table 1
Residential Units Permitted Between 1/01/06 and 9/11/16
Single - Family
Multi - Family
Senior Housing
# Units
Demolished
Total Net Gain
10384
1,059
440
100
2,437
The 2,437 residential units prorated over approximately 10.75 years equate to
approximately 227 units per year. This is less than the 324 units per year over a
25 year period that would be required to meet the 8,100 unit target. In addition,
of the total 1,499 non - single family units permitted between January 1, 2006
and September 11, 2016; 910 multi- family units and 378 senior housing units
were permitted between August 19, 2013 and September 11, 2016. Furthermore,
the remaining targets of 5,663 units would require a net gain of 397 units per
year to meet the 2031 housing target of 8,100 new residential units.
VI. Summary
The 2015 Major Comprehensive Plan Update has been certified by both the Department of
Commerce and PSRC. Certification by the Department of Commerce and PSRC enables the City
to be eligible for loans and grants. Some examples of these grants are shown in Table 2. If changes
are made to the zoning code that result in a decrease in the capacity for new residential units and
the inability for the City to meet its targets, this may place the certification of the comprehensive
plan in jeopardy, which in turn may make us less competitive in obtaining funds administered by
the Department of Commerce and PSRC.
Table 2
Examples of Grants
Year
Project
Amount Awarded
Grantor
Sponsoring Agency
2004 -2008
SR 99 Phase III
,689
$7,648,689
Federal Highway
Administration
PSRC
$7,879,392
Federal Highway
PSRC
Administration
2006 -2012
SR 99 Phase IV
State of Washington
Washington State
$8,177,109
Transportation
Dept. of Commerce
Improvement Board
I
cn
S�348 HOV Lanes (SR 99 to
State of Washington
Washington State
2008
9 Ave S)
$2,739,000
Transportation
Dept. of Commerce
Improvement Board
I
S 356`n St at SR 99 Intersection
State of Washington
Washington State
2009
Improvements
$4,350,533
Transportation
Dept. of Commerce
Improvement Board
4 This includes nine mobile homes on lots and three accessory dwelling units.
Page 5
Year
Project
Amount Awarded
Grantor
Sponsoring Agency
2011
1-5 southbound off ramp to S
$3,184,863
Federal Highway
PSRC
320th St
Administration
State of Washington
Washington State
2013
21" Ave SW at SW 336 ' St
$3,360,000
Transportation
Dept. of Commerce
Improvement Board
2013
S 320`x' St Preservation
$1,100,000
Federal Highway
Administration
PSRC
$9,639,331
Federal Highway
PSRC
Administration
2013 to
Present
SR 99 Phase V
State of Washington
Washington State
$6,000,000
Transportation
Dept. of Commerce
Improvement Board
Attachment
Page 6
Z
LU
L
V
Q
Q
i�
O
m
L
O
2
to
_
0
2
.E
m
LL
S�
G
O
m
6
00
N
M
U
w
2
E
r
W
a
W
a
O
a
a
A
W
zU
d
z
Fri
A
O
A
F
A
E�
a
O
Fri
W
0
U
A
x
W
O
x
ID
d
O
0
0
a
O
d
O
O
O
O
J
OO
O
a
O
N
N
N
N
00
�c
M
W)
c
0
�o
r-
I
ss
F
ss
to
q
.b
69
69
69
69
O
6A
69
O
O
O
O
O
O
O u
a
o
0
0
0
tn
0
0
6A
� u
O\
r
IC
O
'IT
O,
M
Qw
00
IC
Wn
v
M
M
h
69
L'
ffi
69
6s
6A
z
- °'0000C>
O
N
c
69
000
6s
0
69
69
`O
'a
M
0�0
0�0
6J
O
00
�O
O C�
0
�O
6A
69
69 6s
69
69
69
e O
�
N
O
N
rA
N
1�
r-
�
0
0
0
CL
o0
�O
O
N
w
0
O
kn
00
0,
O
N
a
00
00
.6
a
O1
O
I—
a
�
�
M
M
h
tn
6s
6s
69
6s
6s
69
69
oor-
6s
O W
0
0
to
O
to
o
a
v
=
to
M
oLpgo
o
a\
z�
N
'IT
69
�
�c
O
Qw
w
10.
a
�
c
F;
a
�
6s
69
�
6s
6
6
00
N
M
U
w
2
E
r
W
a
W
a
O
a
a
A
W
zU
d
z
Fri
A
O
A
F
A
E�
a
O
Fri
W
0
U
A
x
W
O
x
ID
d
O
0
0
a
O
d
N
V] W
~ F
za
OO
A a
V] A
:Q U
U z
Fr.
az
aO
a�
oz
� d
W A
A�
D k
F
d
0
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
4
110
N
O
'R
=
N
�c
M
W)
c
�O
�o
r-
I
ss
s
ss
to
00
69
69
69
69
69
6A
69
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
a
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
6A
O\
r
IC
O
'IT
O,
M
Qw
00
IC
Wn
It
M
M
h
69
6rs
ffi
69
6s
6A
69
- °'0000C>
O
N
69
000
6s
0
69
69
`O
M
0�0
0�0
-
O
00
�O
0
�O
6A
69
69 6s
69
69
69
69
o
0
0
0
0
CL
o0
�O
O
N
w
0
O
kn
00
0,
O
N
a
00
00
.6
O,
O1
O
I—
to
�
�
M
M
N
tn
6s
6s
69
6s
6s
69
69
oor-
6s
0
0
0
to
O
to
o
a
v
=
to
M
cq
o
a\
O
N
'IT
69
�
�c
O
Qw
�
6s
69
�n
6 9
6s
6
IS
6.s
M
6s
M
6s
N
6s
w
o
0
0
to
Cl
to
Cl
c.
v
oo
v)
oo
N
wn
ON
W)
O
t�
c
to
to
�
M
d
M
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
O
O
O
In
O
On
O
O.
w
4n
M
N
O
01
00
M
.-+
to
O\
M
.o
r
M
�o
N
00,
Wi
a
to
It
M
M
N
N
N
N
ffi
6s
69
6s
6s
6s
6s
g
0
0
0
4n
O
to
O
IT
00
tn
L
D\
10
'IT
M
M
M
N
N
N-
H
as
69
6A
6s
6s
6s
69
q
p0
kn
OM
b
DD
kn
M
0
Q
N
V] W
~ F
za
OO
A a
V] A
:Q U
U z
Fr.
az
aO
a�
oz
� d
W A
A�
D k
F
d
0
0
d'
M
tn
Cl
O
�c
W
N
00
CQ
6s
ss
ss
s
ss
to
O
N
O
O,
00
CO
N
^
6o�
G�
6A
o
Q
Ic
O\
N
I-
O
..
O
�
O
N
69
000
6s
69
69
69
69
M
O
0
en
0
o
Goi
69
(9
6s
6.4
N
°
O
N
DD
M
00
p
O
r
O,
O
oor-
6s
69
IC
6s
W)
69
W)
6s
O
;.d
G'^
F
�
M
M
V
69
69
69
6s
tn
69
'IT
69
E
o
0
0
0
0
M
p b
W)
M
cn
rw
d