Loading...
Planning Commission PKT 07-06-2016July 6, 2016 6:30 p.m. City of Federal Way PLANNING COMMISSION City Hall Council Chambers AGENDA 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES June 15, 2016 4. AUDIENCE COMMENT 5. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT 6. COMMISSION BUSINESS • Study Session Proposed Amendments to Open Space Requirements FWRC Titles 18 and 19 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 KA Panning Commission\2016 \Agenda 07-06-16. doe City staff Isaac Conlen, Planning Manager Margaret Clark, Principal Planner E. Tina Piety, Administrative Assistant 253 -835 -2601 www,ci&offederal",ay.com CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PLANNING COMMISSION June 15, 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, and Diana Noble - Gulliford. Commissioners absent: Wayne Carlson and Anthony Murrietta (excused). City Staff present: Planning Manager Isaac Conlen, Planner Jim Harris, City Traffic Engineer Rick Perez, Assistant City Attorney Mark Orthmann, and Administrative Assistant Tina Piety. Guest: Federal Way Public Schools Assistant Superintendent of Finance and Operations Sally D. McLean. CALL TO ORDER Chair Bronson called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of May 4, 2016, were approved with the correction that Tom Medhurst was absent and excused. AUDIENCE COMMENT None ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT Planning Manager Conlen informed the Commission that the city has hired David VanDeWeghe as our new Senior Planner. The next Planning Commission meeting will be July 6`h. It will be a second study session on the proposed amendments to parks open space requirements. COMMISSION BUSINESS Public Hearing — Proposed Amendments to the Impact Fee Deferral Program Planner Harris delivered the staff report. In 2015, the state passed legislation that requires cities to adopt an impact fee collection deferral system. The deadline for adoption is September 1, 2016. The proposed amendments are in response to that legislation. The amendments are applicable to school and transportation impact fees for single - family residences. Policy choices these amendments address include: what juncture should the impact fees be deferred to; whether to collect a reasonable administrative fee; and whether to limit the deferral to the first 20 building permits per applicant, or to a greater number. Currently, the city collects school impact fees at the time the building permit is issued for a new single - family residence. There is no deferral payment allowed for school impact fees. For transportation impact fees, the city collects the fee prior to recording for a new subdivision, with a deferral allowed (with KAPlanning Commission\2016UNeeting Summary 06- 15- 16.doc Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 June 15, 2016 conditions) to no later than the closing sale of each individual home. For existing single - family lots, the transportation impact fee is paid at the time a building permit is issued for a new single - family residence; with again, a deferral allowed (with conditions) to no later than the closing sale of each individual home. The proposed amendments will require payment of both the school and transportation impact fees at the time a building permit is issued for a new single - family residence. In addition, a deferral would be allowed for both fees at the final inspection of the building. The proposed amendments will also: • Allow the term of deferral up to 18 months from the issuance of the building permit. • The amount of the deferred fee is determined by the fee in effect at time the applicant applies for a deferral. • The deferral is limited to first 20 single- family residential permits annually per applicant. • The applicant must grant and record a lien against the property in favor of the city. • The city may collect a reasonable administrative fee. • The city and school district are authorized to institute foreclosure proceedings if impact fees not paid. Commissioner Noble - Gulliford asked if the city makes a distinction between attached and detached single - family residences. Planner Harris replied that the city does make a distinction and the proposed amendment will not affect attached single- family residences. Vice -Chair Medhurst asked if it is necessary for the city to go as far as a lien for the payment. Assistant City Attorney Orthmann replied that a lien is the city's only enforcement tool. The city collects the school impact fee and sends it to the school district. If for some reason the city decides to not close on a lien, the school district then as the right to close on that lien. The meeting was opened for public comment and there was none. Vice -Chair Medhurst moved (seconded by Commissioner Elder) to recommend adoption of the impact fee deferral system as presented by staff. There was no further discussion and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS Commissioner Noble - Gulliford encouraged the city to research whom lives in the city and are the impact fees adequate to address the needs (transportation and parks) of our citizens? Planning Manager Conlen agreed that it is important that the city review and adjust impact fees as needed. He responded that city will take this into consideration when addressing the current parks and open space code amendments. He noted the school district does review and adjust (if needed) their fee on an annual basis. The Parks Department will be updating the Parks Plan in the near future and will review their impact fees at that time. ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 7:15 p.m. K1Planning Commission\2016Weeting Summary 06- 15- 16.doc -1�k CITY OF Federal Way PLANNING COMMISSION MEMORANDUM TO: Lawson Bronson, Chair of the Federal Way Planning Commission VIA: Scott Sproul, Acting Community Development Director FROM: Leila Willoughby- Oakes, Associate Planner Margaret H. Clark, Interim Long Range Planning Manager DATE: June 30, 2016 SUBJECT: Study Session II — FWRC Title 19, "Zoning and Development Code" and Title 18, "Subdivisions" Open Space Text Amendments STUDY SESSION: July 6, 2016 A. POLICY QUESTION Should the City amend existing open space provisions applied to new residential developments in Title 18 and 19 of the Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC)? B. INTRODUCTION The purpose of this code update is to establish a new methodology for calculating required parks and open space (POS) set -aside requirements and optional fee -in -lieu payments required as mitigation for residential development. The proposed amendments are intended to result in an open space standard, now called a "private park amenity" (PPA), which more accurately reflects the direct impacts of development. In May 2016, the Planning Commission met for a study session on this topic. As a result of additional changes associated with this update, a second session will provide further discussion of the proposed amendments. The planning division analyzed a proposed private park amenity formula, noting the required open space will be lower for the majority of new residential development. These new code amendments will not address development covered by the recent multi - family (MF) housing moratorium, or open space requirements within the city center. Open space standards for MF housing and the city center will be addressed as a component of two items in progress on the work program: the moratorium related code updates and the city center urban design standard code updates. Planning Commission Study Session II Staff Report July 30, 2016 Open Space (Private Park Amenity) - Text Amendments Page 1 C. PROPOSED EDITS AND AMENDMENT ANALYSIS The following summarizes some of the substantive edits and subsection additions to FWRC 19.105, "General Development Regulations" (a new subsection), FWRC 19.100, "Timing of Fee Payments," and FWRC 18.55, "Open Space and Recreation ": 1. General House - Keeping /Edits for Text Clarity — Staff propose to correct a number of problems with language and clarity in the chapter. 2. New Definition — Private park amenity. 3. Private Park Amenity (improved open space and recreation) Formula — Staff will prepare a PPA and fee -in -lieu calculation sheet for applicants based on the following proposed formula for onsite open space. FORMULA Per person OS LOS x Average persons per x Proposed new dwelling units =Total open space set aside household (PPH) acreage requirement Open space dedication requirements /land -set aside will no longer include passive open space (constrained, severely constrained, and buffer open space) requirements without improvements. 4. Standardized Requirements — The PPA formula will apply to conventional residential subdivisions, cluster subdivisions, small lot development, duplexes, triplexes, zero -lot line townhomes, and townhomes (attached) dwelling units. The aforementioned housing types, and other housing not addressing in this code update, require on -site private and common open space at a square footage rate per unit ranging from 100 square feet per unit to 900 square feet per unit. 5. Existing Units Credit — Applicants will receive a private park amenity credit(s) (no dedication requirement) for existing residential unit(s) on the subject property. Private Park Amenity and Park Level of Service — Open space required as a result of new development will be renamed "Private Park Amenity." The city will no longer include unimproved open space as part of the total open space required as it serves little purpose to meet residents' park and recreation needs. References to constrained, severely constrained, and buffer open space will be removed; landscape buffer tracts will no longer be credited towards open space and recreation square footage requirements. Open space dedication requirements /land -set aside will no longer include passive open space (constrained, severely constrained, and buffer open space). Staff had initially proposed to use the overall Park Plan Level of Service (LOS) of 10.9 acres per 1,000 residents (475 square feet per person) to calculate the required open space (which includes Regional Park and Conservation Open Space LOS). Since a PPA reflects improved and useable open space; we propose to use the LOS standards adopted by the Parks Plan for Community Parks (2.8 acres /1,000 residents), Neighborhood Parks (1.7 acres /1,000 residents), and Trails (2.2 acres /1,000 residents) equaling a rate 6.7 acres /1,000 residents (0.007 acres [rounded to the nearest thousandth] per 1,000 residents, or 305 square feet per 1,000 Fesid 1 resident). Planning Commission Study Session II Staff Report July 30, 2016 Open Space (Private Park Amenity) - Text Amendments Page 2 The following example is based on a four lot short subdivision: • Per person LOS is 0.00 -'7 0.0067 acres, or 304-Q 291.8 square feet, which is rounded up to 395 292 square feet. • The Office of Financial Management establishes an average of 2.9 residents per single - family detached home (2.6 residents is the average occupancy rate for all housing unit types in the City of Federal Way, and will be used in the PPA formula for zero -lot line townhomes, duplexes, and triplexes). • The four lot short subdivision will result in construction of four new homes. • Four homes x 2.9 residents= 11.6 new residents, which is rounded up to 12. • The 12 x 0 00:7 0.0067 acres = 0.084 acres (or 3659 3502 square feet) of PPA. • The subdivision would be responsible for setting aside 0.084 0.0804 acres of PPA, and for improving the a open space dedication/set -aside according to detailed improvement criteria. 7. Improvement Criteria – Proposed regulations will specifically describe the minimum improvement requirements for approval and provide clear guidance on PPA development; offering flexibility for alternative designs if resulting in a superior result. 8. Scrivener's Error— Staff proposes to correct an existing scrivener's error. Amenity open space will be required for new multi - family housing units in the Neighborhood Business (BN) zone. The BN zone will require open space at a rate comparable to open space requirements for multi- family in the Community Business (BC) zone. 9. Commercial Open Space – In response to questions from the Commissioners at the first study session, staff have investigated requirements for commercial development. Staff noted amenity space and pedestrian plazas are a part of the requirements in FWRC 19.115, "Community Design Guidelines," for building design in all zones. 10. Zero -Lot Line Townhome and Townhome (attached) Dwelling Units – This housing type may request to pay a fee -in -lieu of providing PPA space for up to 50 percent of the total requirement at the discretion of the Parks Director. 11. Fee Deferrals Sunsets – Code provisions that addressed the economic downturn and deferred mitigation fees at the applicant's request, explicitly sunsets on July 2, 2015; therefore, the text will be removed. Operationally, this process was inefficient, resource intensive, and costs were often passed on to buyers. 12. Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) – In order to encourage affordable housing options, and due to site constraints on platted single family lots, PPA space will not be required for attached and detached ADUs. PPA space will be required for all new duplexes, triplexes, and zero -lot line townhomes, and will be included as a new section in FWRC 19.105, "General Development Regulations." 13. Capital Improvement Fee – Staff is working on a cost estimate per square foot of required PPA space when fee -in -lieu is employed. These figures are based on an average cost of three park capital improvement projects (adjusted for inflation). The public hearing package will include the capital improvement fee methodology. Planning Commission Study Session II Staff Report July 30, 2016 Open Space (Private Park Amenity) - Text Amendments Page 3 D. SUMMARY New regulations will ensure the park and open space needs generated by residents as a result of new development will be met by payment or provision (applicants may provide all or a portion of open space on -site) of their proportional share of required physical space, or costs of new facilities needed to serve growth. Current open space dedication/set- asides and fee -in -lieu requirements are often not proportional to their impact. E. MAYOR'S RECOMMENDATION The Mayor recommends draft language be developed to implement the text amendments described in this report. This approach will ensure open space requirements are proportional to the development proposed, based on added residential density and number of dwelling units. F. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Staff will consider the input of the Planning Commission and public during the study session and will bring back proposed code amendments for your consideration at a public hearing. G. PLANNING COMMISSION NEXT STEPS Staff requests Commissioner feedback on the general direction of the above draft policy. No formal action will be taken at this meeting. Planning Commission Study Session II Staff Report July 30, 2016 Open Space (Private Park Amenity) - Text Amendments Page 4 Leila Willoughby -Oakes From: Margaret Clark Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2016 9:14 AM To: Leila Willoughby -Oakes Subject: FW: Parks or Open Space From: Diana Noble - Gulliford [mailto:diana@gulliford.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2016 9:06 AM To: Margaret Clark Subject: Parks or Open Space Margaret: Here are some of my questions for this evening's meeting: I am interested in what the city's policies are but also what national policies are also. My personal interest and concern is to have an adequate inventory city -wide of park facilities that can serve our youth and families and within walking, biking distance and /or short driving distance from their place of residence. I am thinking basketball, soccer, baseball, skateboard, etc. as active for our youth. Parks that they can walk to from their home instead of relying on someone to drive them or within bicycle distance. Park facilities that they can use without having to go through the city to use or pay for. Kind of a barrier -free access on a casual basis where they are welcome to use. Could you please explain to me the differences of parks and open space as to how it is applied to development requirements. Is there a distinction as to goals of city policies? Do you have an inventory of open space acreage, improved parks acreage and unimproved parks acreage? Does the city have a parks CIP plan for parks? Is there a list or inventory of parks as to what age group the facilities are suitable for? ADA? Has the city identified where needs are for more additional improved parks —what age groups, type of facilities? Changes in type of use? Is there a policy as to placement of parks in single family and multi - family neighborhoods? Distance from housing, type, how large /small? 7/6/2016 Should the City amend existing open space provisions related to new residential development in Title 18 and t9 of the Federal Way Revised Code? Background * The purpose of this code update 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 set level of service standards. Policy Question Should the City amend existing open space provisions related to new residential development in Title 18 and t9 of the Federal Way Revised Code? Background * The purpose of this code update 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 set level of service standards. Summary of •- • OS Standardization • Private park amenity *NEW!* • Defined improvement criteria • Level of service used • Dwelling unit occupancy • Housing keeping in • Fee -in -lieu for townhomes • Procedural amendments • Housekeeping • Capital improvement fee • Existing open space requirements throughout all zones and housing types ranges from ioo sf to goo sf per unit. • Voluntary fee in lieu available for single family detached, zero -lot line townhomes (subdivisions), townhomes (attached), duplexes & triplexes apply uniform formula. • Accessory dwelling units exempt. Private Park Amenity PPA y "Areas with appropriate topography, soils and drainage, containing improvements, and adequate space to be used privately for active recreation by the residents of a development." • Only improved open space. • Open space categories struck. 7/6/2016 2 Zand L: • Existing open space requirements throughout all zones and housing types ranges from ioo sf to goo sf per unit. • Voluntary fee in lieu available for single family detached, zero -lot line townhomes (subdivisions), townhomes (attached), duplexes & triplexes apply uniform formula. • Accessory dwelling units exempt. Private Park Amenity PPA y "Areas with appropriate topography, soils and drainage, containing improvements, and adequate space to be used privately for active recreation by the residents of a development." • Only improved open space. • Open space categories struck. 7/6/2016 2 Improved Open Space Defined (PPA Improvement Criteria) Menu of at least one major and a few minor park improvements to choose from. Clear standards for private park amenity spaces with room for director discretion and flexibility for unique and innovative landscape design. • Previous recommendation -1o.9 acres /i,000 res. for "Private Park Amenity" formula (475 sf) • 1o.9 acres included conservation open space and regional park LOS standards • Proposal to use 6.7 acres /i,000 res. (292 sf). • LOS comprised of'useable' POS 4 • Neighborhood Parks (1.7 ac /i,000); • Community Parks (2.8 ac /i,000); and, • Trails (z.z ac/1,000). Dwelling Unit Occupancy Single family average occupancy 2.9 people /DU (Office of Financial Management). Zero -lot line townhomes, attached townhomes, duplexes and triplexes 2.6 people/DU (metric used). Average occupancy in Federal Way used for all housing unit types. 7/6/2016 3 Level of Service (Formula) • Previous recommendation -1o.9 acres /i,000 res. for "Private Park Amenity" formula (475 sf) • 1o.9 acres included conservation open space and regional park LOS standards • Proposal to use 6.7 acres /i,000 res. (292 sf). • LOS comprised of'useable' POS 4 • Neighborhood Parks (1.7 ac /i,000); • Community Parks (2.8 ac /i,000); and, • Trails (z.z ac/1,000). Dwelling Unit Occupancy Single family average occupancy 2.9 people /DU (Office of Financial Management). Zero -lot line townhomes, attached townhomes, duplexes and triplexes 2.6 people/DU (metric used). Average occupancy in Federal Way used for all housing unit types. 7/6/2016 3 Fee -in -lieu Deferrals Sunsets Capital Code sunsets - deferral of fee -in -lieu of open space (a mitigation) payments to closing of sale or 5 years from recording. Major implementation issues with fee deferrals for new home owners and allocation of city resources. - Collection of fees potentially 5 years after impact. Fee -in -lieu for townhomes Voluntary fee -in -lieu available for zero -lot line townhome and attached townhomes (condominiums) to a maximum of 50 %of the required private park amenity. * Provides design flexibility, medium density infill opportunities and minimum on -site recreation. • Average cost /sq. ft. for park improvements in addition to fee -in -lieu calculation. • Based on past park project costs; adjusted for inflation (Consumer Price Index). • Provides funds to improve and prepare public land with park facilities, add capital improvements to existing and program spaces. 7/6/2016 4 Capital Improvement Fee: Fee In -Lieu of Private ark Amenity • Average cost /sq. ft. for park improvements in addition to fee -in -lieu calculation. • Based on past park project costs; adjusted for inflation (Consumer Price Index). • Provides funds to improve and prepare public land with park facilities, add capital improvements to existing and program spaces. 7/6/2016 4 Housekeeping • No open space requirements in BN 'Neighborhood Business' zone. • Solution: BC'Community Business' zone requirements used. Multi- family and city center open space requirements addressed under separate code update. * Environmental review checklist prepared (SEPA) and notice of threshold determination for non - project proposal published, circulated and posted. Public hearing and SEPA notice published in the local newspaper and posted at designated boards for 14 days before public hearing (target date: mid - August 2016). * Staff report w/ recommendations made available to public. Text Amendment Commission Procedures Steps * Environmental review checklist prepared (SEPA) and notice of threshold determination for non - project proposal published, circulated and posted. Public hearing and SEPA notice published in the local newspaper and posted at designated boards for 14 days before public hearing (target date: mid - August 2016). * Staff report w/ recommendations made available to public. t. Staff proceeds with code amendment additions and <<.:�Qn based on direction from the PC. i. Proposed amendments for PC consideration at a Public Hearing. a 7/6/2016 67 Planning Commission Next Steps t. Staff proceeds with code amendment additions and <<.:�Qn based on direction from the PC. i. Proposed amendments for PC consideration at a Public Hearing. a 7/6/2016 67 The Mayor recommends draft language be developed to implement the text amendments described. This approach will ensure open space requirements are proportional to the development proposed, based on added residential density, level of services and number of new dwelling units. WI Discussion Do you have specific questions about the proposed text amendments? Thank you! 7/6/2016 C. Mayor's Recommendation The Mayor recommends draft language be developed to implement the text amendments described. This approach will ensure open space requirements are proportional to the development proposed, based on added residential density, level of services and number of new dwelling units. WI Discussion Do you have specific questions about the proposed text amendments? Thank you! 7/6/2016 C.