Planning Commission PKT 01-18-2017January 18, 2017
6:30 p.m.
City of Federal Way
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
December 7, 2016
4. AUDIENCE COMMENT
5. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
6. COMMISSION BUSINESS
• Elections
• Briefing
Multi - Family 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
KAPlanning Commission\2017Wgenda 01- 18- 17.doc
City Hall
Council Chambers
City Staff
Planning Manager
Margaret Clark, Principal Planner
E. Tina Piety, Administrative Assistant
253 -835 -2601
www city_,(jederalway.com
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
PLANNING COMMISSION
December 7, 2016 City Hall
6:30 p.m. City Council Chambers
MEETING MINUTES
Commissioners present: Tom Medhurst, Hope Elder, Wayne Carlson, Sarady Long, Tim O'Neil, Diana
Noble - Gulliford, and Anthony Murrietta. Commissioners absent: Lawson Bronson (excused). City Staff
present: Principal Planner Margaret Clark, Senior Planner Dave Van De Weghe, Assistant City Attorney
Mark Orthmann, and Administrative Assistant Tina Piety. King County Historic Preservation Program:
Historic Preservation Officer Jennifer Meisner and Preservation Architect Todd Scott.
CALL TO ORDER
Vice -Chair Medhurst called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of October 19, 2016, were approved as presented.
AUDIENCE COMMENT
None
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
Principal Planner Clark stated that the City Council extended multi - family moratorium for six months. Currently,
staff intends to bring a public hearing to the Planning Commission on this matter in March 2017.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
Study Session — Historical Preservation Program
Senior Planner Van De Weghe delivered the staff report. He reviewed what was discussed at the last
Planning Commission study session on this topic. He also went through the staff responses to questions
raised by the Commissioners at the last session, as stated in the staff report. Staff is seeking guidance for
changes to the King County ordinance the Commission would like to see. (At the last study session, the
Commission indicated they want to enter into an interlocal with King County, but there are changes they
want to make to the ordinance.)
Historic Preservation Officer Jennifer Meisner and Preservation Architect Todd Scott from the King
County Historic Preservation Program also gave a presentation to the Commission. Historic Preservation
Officer Meisner gave an overview of the King County Historic Preservation Program. The purpose of the
program is to identify, evaluate, protect, and enhance historic properties; and sustain the historic
character. According to the King County Comprehensive Plan, "The County shall advocate for and
actively market its historic preservation services to agencies and cities that could benefit from such
services." This is why the county offers an interlocal agreement (ILA) to county cities to assist with
managing a historic preservation program. She noted that they have an archeologist on staff to provide
archeological services. She went over the responsibilities under the ILA of the county, city, special
commissioner, and ILA staff. Under the ILA, Federal Way would appoint a special commissioner to sit
KAPlanning Commission \2016 \Meeting Summery 12 -07- 16.doc
Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 December 7, 2016
on the King County's Historical Preservation Committee. The King County Historic Preservation
Program Historic offers free training on their services to ILA cities. Preservation Officer Meisner stated
that the ILA can vary with each jurisdiction. It is an incentive based program that can provide benefits to
homeowners (such as a special valuation tax program). Preservation Architect Scott described the City of
Kirkland's program. He went over how they identify historic resources and engage volunteers. He also
spoke about their historic residence ordinance and showed some of their landmark properties. He noted
that Federal Way could have signage and/or design guidelines in the ILA.
One "of the aspects of the ILA will be a survey. King County will work with the city on this survey. It is
likely that King County will have some information. They will work with the Federal Way Historic
Society and will also use the report completed by the city's consultant, Artifacts, in October 2015.
Commissioner Long asked what kind of modifications other ILA cities have requested. Preservation
Architect Scott replied that appeal procedures may differ and some require council review and/or
approval of designation requests. They have not received any appeals for landmark designations; they
have received a few for the requests to make changes to a landmark designated building. King County
works with the requester /owner on the application to be sure they understand the process and what is
expected of them and what to expect once a decision has been made.
Discussion was held about how the tax incentive works.
It was noted that an entire neighborhood could be designated as a historic district. Depending on how the
ILA is worded (i.e. owner consent is not needed), a property could be declared part of a historic district
even if they do not want to be.
Vice -Chair Medhurst opened the meeting to public comment.
Simone Perry, 33030 38`" Avenue South, Federal Way — If I have a property that does not have a
historic designation, is there any protection? — Historic Preservation Officer Meisner responded
that property is not protected if it has not been designated a historic landmark. — Ms. Perry
commented that she is concerned that historic properties may be lost because they have not been
designated.
The next step will be for staff to present a draft ordnance and ILA to the Planning Commission for their
recommendation.
ADDITIONAL BUSINESS
Principal Planner Clark announced that Community Development has a new director (Brian Davis). He apologizes
that he is unavailable this evening. He will attend the next Planning Commission meeting.
Commissioner Carlson asked about the status of the required NPDES permit principles. Principal Planner
Clark stated that SW Quality Program Coordinator Mindi English is working on it and the city anticipates
meeting its requirements.
Vice -Chair Medhurst validated the work of the Planning Commissioner who is also on city staff. There
has never been an occasion where the integrity or decision making of this commission has been
compromised. The Commissioner brings much knowledge and value.
ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at 7:50 p.m.
KAPlanning Commission \2016Weeting Summary 12- 07- 16.doc
CITY OF
Federal Way
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
DATE: January 18, 2017 (Revised January 17, 2017)
TO: Lawson Bronson, Planning Commission Chair
FROM: Brian Davis, Community Development Director
Margaret Clark, Principal Planner
SUBJECT: Briefing on the Multi - Family Housing Moratorium
I.
II.
III.
IV.
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. The moratorium was renewed for six
months on December 6, 2016, and is set to expire on June 6, 2017.
MULTI - FAMILY HOUSING IN FEDERAL WAY
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.
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.
TIMELINE
The following is the anticipated timeline for completion of the code amendments:
Process
Date
Check -in with Council
January 3`d
Planning Commission Briefing
January 18`h
SEPA Notice to Newspaper
February 2nd
Issue SEPA Determination
February 3rd
Council Retreat (Council Briefing)
February 4`h
14 -Day Comment Period Ends
February 17`h
Planning Commission Staff Report January 18, 2017
Briefing on the Multi- Family Housing Moratorium Page 1 of 7
V.
VI.
Process
Date
Notice of Planning Commission Public Hearing
February 24th
21 -Day Appeal Period Ends
March 10`'
Planning Commission Public Hearing
March 15`h
Land Use /Transportation Committee Meeting
April 3'
City Council 151 Reading
May 2nd
City Council 2 °d Reading
May 16 1h
Notice in Newspaper
May 18`h
Ordinance Effective
Moratorium Ends
May 23`d
June 6`h
BRIEFINGS
Staff briefed the Planning Commission on the progress to date on the multi - family moratorium on
October 5, 2016, at which time 18 potential actions to improve the quality of multi- family
development were discussed. The Planning Commission was in favor of all potential actions
except for Number 16, which stated, "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."
Thereafter, on October 18`h, staff made a similar presentation to the City Council. The City
Council concurred with the Planning Commission: therefore, staff has removed Number 16 from
the list (Exhibit A). At that meeting, the City Council had a number of questions and requested
further research. This is summarized in Section VI of this memorandum and responses are given,
if available so far.
Comments and Questions from the City Council
Question #1 — If the proposed 17 changes shown in Exhibit A were adopted, resulting in a higher
quality for multi - family development of more than 100 units, would we be able to meet the
affordable targets for housing for the low and very low income?
Response: The countywide need for housing by percentage of Area Median Income (AMI) is:
50 -80% of AMI (moderate)
30 -50% of AMI (low)
30% and below AMI (very-low)
16 %of total housing supply
12 %of total housing supply
12% of total housing supply
Presently, the city's affordable housing inventory is as follows:
Income Levels
Need
Have
Rental
51 -80% of AMI (Moderate)
16% of Total Housing Supply
41.3%
- 3+--50% - - --- —
6 of Total Housing-Supply—
o
Planning Commission Staff Report January 18, 2017
Briefing on the Multi- Family Housing Moratorium Page 2 of 7
Income Levels
Need
Have
30% & below AMI (Very Low)
12% of Total Supply
3.5%
Owner - Occupied
51 -80% of AMI (Moderate
16% of Total Housing Supply
24.0%
31 -50% of AMI (Low)
12% of Total Housing Supply
4.2%
30% & below AMI (Very Low)
12% of Total Supply
1.0%
If we were to adopt the 17 potential code amendments shown in Exhibit A, the cost to develop
would most likely increase, for example, requiring structured parking would add approximately
$26,000 per parking space to the cost of development. Many of the other actions, such as #4 through
#6, #10, and #11 may result in a decrease in the number of units, thus reducing the profitability of
the development. Adopting these actions may result in a higher quality of development; however, the
number of units constructed may decrease.
Based on the experience of A Regional Coalition for Housing (ARCH), a partnership of the
County and East King County Cities, housing for the low and very low income can only be
provided with subsidies. Even multi - family units financed with state tax credits do not serve the
low and very low income populations. Developments financed with tax credits are affordable to
those at 60 percent or less of AMI, which is considered moderate income.
Question #2 — Can you explain how the security - related amendments would work? If adopted,
would the requirements be retroactive to the existing multi - family?
Response: Staff is still researching this item.
Question #3 — How are other jurisdictions addressing multi- family development in terms of their
regulations?
Response: Staff is in the process of researching design guidelines of the following cities':
• Auburn
■ Puyallup
• Bellevue
■ Redmond
• Burien
■ Renton
• Des Moines
■ SeaTac
• Issaquah
■ Seattle
• Kent
■ Tacoma
• Kirkland
■ Tukwila
Question #4: How do the school district fees compare to other cities around us?
Response: As shown in the following table, for all of the surveyed cities with School Impact
Fees, except for the City of Federal Way, single family impact fees are greater than those for
multi - family.
1 Based upon the deadline for completing the moratorium, we may not be able to review the guidelines of all listed cities.
Planning Commission Staff Report January 18, 2017
Briefing on the Multi - Family Housing Moratorium Page 3 of 7
COMPARISON TABLE FOR 2016 SCHOOL IMPACT FEES IN SELECTED CITIES
City
Population
#
Housing
Units
# Single
Family
Units
%
Single
Family
Units
Single
Family
Impact
Fee
# Multi-
Family
Units
%
Multi-
Family
Units
Multi-
Family
Impact
Fee
South King County
Federal Way
90,760
37,166
20,116
54
$2,899
15,777
43
$9,273
Kent
122,900
46,693
25,935
56
$4,990
18,929
40
$2,163
Renton
98,470
41,285
22,229
54
$5,643
18,075
i 44
$1,385
Burien
48,810
20,153
12,481
62
$7,528
7,663
38
$6,691
East King County
Bellevue
135,000
59,041
32,429
55
$4,419
26,605
45
$2,266
Kirkland
83.460
37.765
21,257
56
$9,715
16,422
43
$816
Redmond
59,180
26,141
12,572
48
$9,715
13,229
51
$816
Issaquah 33,330 15,082 7,683 1 51 $4,635 7,398 49 $1,534
Pierce County
Puyallup
38,950
17,014
10,053
59
$3,005
6,800
40
$1,585
Question #5: Related to the Fair Housing Act, how perilous would our funding sources be if we
adopted these potential code amendments? Or are we more concerned about removing inventory
that may be developed as affordable housing; can we be more informed about the impacts?
Response: It is difficult to respond to this question. Courts have held that the Fair Housing Act
(FHA) may be violated where the effect of a land use or zoning decision discriminates against
far .. 1 deprived f .w 'a' T T... A__ aL - UT A 'a *- - t
illlilorltles iil �0 1aI as they are uepriveu Gi ii0iisirig OppOl LuniLieS. vilucL uLC i iir%, iL is L1oL
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. The U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development (HUD) has recently adopted the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
(AFFH) Rule, which requires the city to prepare an Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH) Plan. The
city will be preparing the AFH Plan in conjunction with other jurisdictions. The AFH Plan would
identify impediments to providing fair housing and adopt actions to eliminate those impediments.
The AFH Plan must be submitted to HUD for review and acceptance and compliance with the AFH
Plan will be required in order to receive any funding from any federal agency, or indirectly through
the State of Washington; e.g. Community Development Block Grants (CDBG).
Question #6: How soon do you think that you will be able to come back with a recommendation?
Response: We are hoping to have a recommendation for the February 4`h Council Retreat.
Planning Commission Staff Report
Briefing on the Multi- Family Housing Moratorium
January 18, 2017
Page 4 of 7
Question #7 — Are they addressing housing affordable to the very low income on the eastside by
using the ARCH structure?
Response: ARCH is a partnership of the King County and East King County cities who have
joined together to assist with preserving and increasing the supply of housing for low- and
moderate - income households in the region. ARCH assists member governments in developing
housing policies, strategies, programs, and development regulations. It also assists people looking
for affordable rental and ownership housing. The ARCH Housing Trust Fund was created in 1993
as a way to directly assist the development and preservation of affordable housing in East King
County. The trust fund is capitalized by both local general funds and locally controlled, federal
CDBG funds.
ARCH's member governments have supported a wide range of housing created and operated by
local organizations and private developers that serve individuals, families, seniors, homeless, and
persons with special needs. Between 1993 and 2011, ARCH member jurisdictions committed
over $34 million to this fund, including CDBG and general funds. Also included in this amount is
over $7 million in contributions of land, fee - waivers, and other in -kind donations. Funding is
made available as loans or grants depending on affordability levels and other fiinding sources.
Projects receiving local funds sign covenants ensuring affordability levels are maintained long
term. Types of projects include: rental and ownership housing for lower income families; senior
housing; homeless and transitional housing; and housing for persons with special needs.
ARCH
Awards loans and grants to developments that provide below - market rate housing.
Since 1993, the ARCH Housing Trust Fund has funded over 2,575 units of East King
County housing for families, seniors, and persons with special needs.
• Makes surplus public land available for housing.
Waives impact and permit fees, e.g., Habitat's Newcastle project received $190,000
of ARCH funding, including over $28,000 in waived permit fees granted by the City
of Newcastle.
Question #8: Do you have the numbers that show the differences in the income levels in King
County?
Response: There are no differences in available data between the different parts of King County.
Although housing is generally more affordable as you go south, the methodology of measuring
affordability is the same.
The following table shows the 2016 King County Median Income Levels by Household Size
Percent of Area
Median Income
One Person
Household
Two Person
Household
Three Person
Household
Four Person
Household
Five Person
Household
30%
$19,000
$21,700
$24,400
$27,100
$29,300
40%
$25,320
$28,920
$32,520
$36,120
$39,040
50%
$31,650
$36,150
1 $40,650
$45,150
$48,800
60%
$37,980
$43,380
$48,780
$54,180
$58,560
Planning Commission Staff Report January 18, 2017
Briefing on the Multi - Family Housing Moratorium Page 5 of 7
Percent of Area
Median Income
I One Person
Household
Two Person
Household
Three Person
Household
I Four Person
Household
Five Person
Household
70%
$44,310
$50,610
$56,910
$63,240
$68,320
80%
$50,640
$57,840
$65,040
$72,240
$78,080
90%
$56,970
$65,070
$73,170
$81,270
$87,840
100%
$63,300
$72,300
$81,300
$90,300
$97,600
115%
$72,795
$83,145
$93,945
$103,845
$112,240
120%
$75,960
$86,760
$97,560
$108,360
$117,120
Question #9: Typically, very low income residents may be able to pay monthly rent, but are
unable to pay rents for the first and last months as well as a security deposit. Is there anything that
anyone is doing in this country or in Canada to give landlords incentives to take away these
requirements? Can we offer incentives to landlords to take away the security deposit and last
month's rent up- front?
Response: A new Seattle law, which goes into effect this month, requires a landlord to allow a
tenant to pay the security deposit, fees, and last month's rent over the course of a payment plan.
This law will also cap the total amount of security deposits and nonrefundable fees landlords can
charee at no more than one month's rent. In addition, nonrefundable fees can't exceed 10 percent
of one month's rent unless the cost of the tenant's screening report exceeds that amount.
The length of the payment plans will depend on the details of the lease, and the law will allow
landlords to skip offering payment plans if they keep the total move -in costs to less than a quarter
of the monthly rent. An exception was made for landlords who rent rooms in their single- family
homes where they also live.
S RENT
SECURITY DEPOSIT
ETHAN
UP TO SIX MONTH I I NON - REFUNDABLE FEES* I AP MOMORS RENT
PAYMENT PLAN
LAST
*Limited to those fees explicitly allowed by State Statues
Question #10: Are there specific targets for low income housing?
Response: There are no targets in the Fair Housing Act, but there are targets in the Countywide
Planning Policies (CWPPs). Please refer to response under Question #1.
Planning Commission Staff Report January 18, 2017
Briefing on the Multi - Family Housing Moratorium Page 6 of 7
Question #11: How does the Growth Management Act (GMA) look at the numbers of low
income housing in a community versus affordable housing units?
Response: Affordable housing is housing that is affordable to a household that earns 80 percent
of median income or less. In addition, the occupants must pay no more than 30 percent of their
income for rent and utilities, or for mortgage, taxes, and insurance for the housing to be
considered affordable. The GMA itself does not quantify how much affordable housing must be
provided. It 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.
The CWPPs establish three tiers of affordable housing— moderate, low, and very low (refer to
Question #1).
Question #12 -- Are we considering the Section 8 voucher holders or public housing when we
look at how we are meeting our affordable housing targets ?
Response: There are two types of Section 8 programs:
Tenant -based Housing Choice Vouchers, which provides Section 8 subsidies to
households (these vouchers stay with the households). It is difficult to include those
subsidized units that accept the Tenant -based Housing Choice Vouchers as affordable
housing as the owner /landlord may not always accept the voucher; for example there
may be a change in ownership.
2. Project -based Vouchers provide rent subsidies to tenants, but stays with the unit. The
King County Housing Authority (KCHA) owns and manages nearly all of this type of
public housing. The Project -based Housing Choice Vouchers, such as those
administered by KCHA, were counted in the affordable housing inventory used in
measuring how we are meeting our affordable housing targets.
Question #13: Is there a way for the city to require landlords to accept Section 8 Vouchers, since
many landlords do not accept them and there are more households with Tenant -based Housing
Choice Vouchers than there are housing units that will accept these vouchers?
Response: Kirkland, Redmond, Bellevue, Seattle, and most recently Renton have adopted
regulations which prohibit a landlord from discriminating against certain types of income sources,
like Section 8. This is commonly referred as "Source of Income Discrimination (SOID)
Protections." Kent and Tukwila are presently pursuing similar legislation. The Housing
Development Consortium Seattle -King County is willing to provide assistance if Federal Way
chooses to adopt similar legislation.
KA2016 Code AmendmentsWultifamily Code Amendments \Planning Commission Briefings\O 11817 Briefing \Revised Final 011817
Briefing.docx
Planning Commission Staff Report January 18, 2017
Briefing on the Multi - Family Housing Moratorium Page 7 of 7
EXHIBIT A
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. Enforce the parking and critical areas provisions of the FWRC.
17. 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.