Planning Commission PKT 05-16-2018City of Federal Way
PLANNING COMMISSION
May 16, 2018 City Hall
6:30 p.m. Council Chambers
AGENDA
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
March 21, 2018 & April 4, 2018
4. AUDIENCE COMMENT — UNRELATED TO COMMISSION BUSINESS
5. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
6. COMMISSION BUSINESS
• Discussion of Regulations Upon Self -Storage Facilities/Announcement
of Hearing
• Discussion of Changes to FWRC 19.142.060 for Floodplain Permits
7. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS
8. ADJOURN
Commissioners
Wayne Carlson, Chair
Tom Medhurst
Lawson Bronson, Vice -Chair
Hope Elder
Dawn Meader McCausland
Tim O'Neil
Diana Noble-Gulliford
Anthony Murrietta, Alternate
Dale Couture, Alternate
KAPlaming Cmmnission\2018WgendaWgmda 05-16-18.doc
City Staff
Robert "Doc" Hansen, Planning Manager
Margaret Clark, Principal Planner
E. Tina Piety, Administrative Assistant
253-835-2601
www.cLtvoffederalway.com
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
PLANNING COMMISSION
March 21, 2018 City Hall
6:30 p.m. City Council Chambers
MEETING MINUTES
Commissioners present: Wayne Carlson, Lawson Bronson, Tom Medhurst, Hope Elder, Dawn Meader
McCausland, Tim O'Neil, Anthony Murrietta, and Dale Couture. Commissioners absent: Diana Noble-
Gulliford (ex). City Staff present: Planning Manager Robert "Doc" Hansen, Principal Planner Margaret
Clark, Senior Planner Dave Van De Weghe, Deputy City Attorney Mark Orthmann, -and Administrative
Assistant Tina Piety.
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Carlson called the meeting to order at 6:30 P.m.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of March 7, 2018, were approved as presented.
AUDIENCE COMMENT
None
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
Planning Manager Hansen delivered an update on Sound Transit. He commented that a decision has been
made to not have a pedestrian bridge over 320th Street. There was some discussion on this issue. He also
commented that Sound Transit will have (and will maintain) restrooms in the station. He announced that
Sound Transit will hold an Open House on the Tacoma Dome link at Todd Beamer High School on April
18, 2018, starting at 6:00 p.m. The Planning Commission meeting scheduled for that date will be canceled
to allow staff and Commissioners to attend this Open House.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
Self -Storage Moratorium and Beginning Efforts to Address Council Requests
Senior Planner Van De Weghe delivered the staff presentation. This is for informational purposes. City
Council and staff wondered why Federal Way was receiving a large number of self -storage applications.
The Council inacted the moratorium and directed staff to determine why the increase in applications and
whether they are compatible with other uses within the zone. Senior Planner Van De Weghe is asking for
the Commissioners feedback and direction. He commented that staff has met with industry representatives
on this issue. One thing he learned from Federal Way self -storage facility owners is that about 20 to 30
percent of their facilities are being rented by retail outlets for overflow storage. He also discovered that the
number of self -storage applications have increased throughout the region. Due to incompatibility reasons,
K\Planning Com ission\2016Uvleeting Summary 03-21-18.doc
Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 March 21, 2018
staff is recommending that self -storage facilities not be allowed in Neighborhood Business (BN) zone. He
went over the design standards staff is considering. He noted that developers want black and white
regulations so there is more certainty and they know what they can and cannot do. Staff recommends that
if the Commission want to allow facilities in the BN zone, that the regulations be made more rigorous by
moving from the current process IVIII (administrative) review to a process IV (hearing examiner) review.
Commissioner Couture stated that he is the architect for a currently approved self -storage project. Chair
Carlson stated that he is the owner of an engineering firm that is working with the developer of a vested
self -storage project. Commissioners agreed that they do not have to recuse themselves.
Discussion was held on how much storage space is needed within the city. Commissioner Medhurst
commented that he would like to know the usage percentage for single-family housing to help us
understand what a "reasonable" level of storage is. He expressed concern over the design standards staff
is considering. Will other retail businesses be subject to the same design standards? Senior Planner Van
De Weghe replied that the design standards would apply only to self -storage facilities. Staff feels they are
unique and warrant specific design standards.
Vice -Chair Bronson commented that he is concerned on a safety basis about having multi-levels and not
allowing a view inside the buildings. He also feels they should not have separate design standards.
Planning Manager Hansen commented that the standards have come from several sources; one of which is
people within the industry. Many of these design standards are ones they are already doing, or have said
they have no objection to. Those in the industry want to be compatible with other uses in the zone.
Commissioner O'Neil feels the city is trying to regulate the market. The industry has indicated that
Federal Way has not reached the saturation point, but the city wants to regulate how many self -storage
facilities can locate here. Planning Manager Hansen commented that the city does not want to eliminate
self -storage facilities, but make sure they meet what our community wants to see.
Commissioner Elder commented that she has a storage unit for the non-profit she works with and doesn't
feel the facility looks too large and overwhelming. She feels the design standards are too much regulation.
Commissioner Meader McCausland asked how different the recent applications are from the suggested
design standards. Senior Planner Van De Weghe replied that they are multi -story and utilize the many of
the design standards staff is suggesting. Commissioner Meader McCausland would like to see the current
design standards. She also asked if any have space to accommodate large vehicles, such as boats and RVs.
Senior Planner Van De Weghe responded that some of the current facilities accommodate large vehicles,
but the newer applications do not seem to plan to include vehicles. Commissioner Meader McCausland
expressed concern that the suggested design standards could eliminate the ability of future proposals to
offer storage for large vehicles.
Vice -Chair Bronson commented that the existing facility on Dash Point Road in the BN zone is well
camouflaged. He doesn't see a reason to eliminate self -storage from the BN zone if they are well camouflag
Chair Carlson commented that in today's world, retailers are working to deliver packages faster and faster
(Amazon's next -day delivery). In light of this, they need inventory as close as possible and self -storage
facilities could work for them. Being in a BN zone could make them much closer to their delivery point. He
went on to state that aesthetics are important and we want high quality design, but what is most important is
the view from the right-of-way. He feels the staff presentation is a bit misleading because it focuses on
views from the air and does not reflect the views from the right-of-way. He feels views from the right-of-
way will show the facilities are more hidden from view then the views from the air depict. If items such as
the garage doors are out of this view, he sees no problem with leaving them as is. He has no problem with
making the land use approval more rigorous for facilities in the BN zone, but they should be allowed.
YOPlanning Commission\2016\Meeting Summary 03-21-18.doc
Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 March 21, 2018
Continued Discussion on the Docket Process
Planning Manager Hansen stated we will have the public hearing in two weeks on April 4, 2018. Principal
Planner Clark delivered the staff presentation. She went over the existing and proposed docket processes.
Staff recommends that the proposed timeline (during the first quarter) be removed. This way staff will be
able to shift the timeline due to circumstances. The intent will be to have the selection happen in the first
quarter, but having no defined timeline will give staff the flexibility to change the timing; for example, if
there are a large number of proposals.
Vice -Chair Bronson expressed concern about having no stated timeline. How will citizens know when to
expect the start of the deliberations for the docket process projects if there is no stated timeline? Planning
Manager Hansen commented that there will be a notice in the paper.
Chair Carlson opened the meeting to public testimony.
Jeff Carpenter — He lives in Mukilteo and is one of the applicants for a self -storage project that
just missed being grandfathered. He commented that they have spent much money on preliminary
work. He stated he appreciates the Commissioners's feedback regarding self -storage facilities, and
feels much of it is spot on. He would not waste his money on a bad investment and an additional
self -storage facility in Federal Way would not be a bad investment He asked that self -storage
facilities be allowed in the BN zone. He stated that the BN zone is actually a perfect area for us
because it is close to our market. They can be nicely designed to fit within the neighborhood.
ADDITIONAL BUSINESS
None
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 8:06 P.M.
K:Tlanning Com ission\2016\Mwing Sumnwy 03-21-18.doc
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
PLANNING COMMISSION
April 4, 2018 City Hall
6:30 p.m. City Council Chambers
MEETING MINUTES
Commissioners present: Wayne Carlson, Lawson Bronson, Tom Medhurst, Hope Elder, Diana Noble-
Gulliford, Dawn Meader McCausland, Tim O'Neil, and Anthony Murrietta. Commissioners absent: Dale
Couture (ex). City Staff present: Planning Manager Robert "Doc" Hansen, Principal Planner Margaret
Clark, Assistant City Attorney Eric Rhoades, Deputy City Attorney Mark Orthmann, and Administrative
Assistant Mercedes Tenuta.
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Carlson called the meeting to order at 6:31 P.M.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Chair Carlson felt some of his comments were overlooked regarding the staff presentation and requested
the minutes be changed to include them. Staff will make the change and resubmit the minutes.
AUDIENCE COMMENT
None
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
None
COMMISSION BUSINESS
PUBLIC HEARING — Amendments to Docket Process — FWRC 19.80
Planning Manager Hansen presented the staff report. According to FWRC 19.80, "docket" includes, "all
proposals to amend the comprehensive plan or development regulations." These are completed yearly and
require a public hearing before the Planning Commission and City Council. The City Council makes the
final decision whether to adopt the prosed amendment(s) or not. There are two objectives for this proposed
amendment:
s Eliminate the need for a public hearing to prioritize items proposed to be heard in the
docket process.
* Clarify some language and allow submittal of proposed amendments prior to Planning
Commission approval.
K:\Planning Commission\2016Weeting Summary 04-04-18.doc
Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 April 4, 2018
One proposed language change is to submit the proposed amendments for review by the state (as required
by the Department of Commerce) anytime during the process. Current code language says the submittal to
the state must happen after the Planning Commission public hearing. Other minor changes proposed for
clarification include:
* When to prioritize the requests — propose it be done at a council meeting after
September 30t".
* Fees will be based upon the fee schedule and not codified.
* Emphasize the time of notification — before the council meeting.
* Request reasoning by the council if the proposed amendments are returned to the
Planning Commission.
No changes are proposed regarding citizen participation in the process. Written and verbal comments on
any proposed change will continued to be accepted at any time during the process:
❖ Comments accepted at City Council meeting to prioritize the proposed amendments
❖ Comments at Planning Commission
❖ Comments at LUTC
❖ Comments at City Council
Commissioner O'Neil regarding the state's review, have they ever rejected a proposed amendment?
Planning Manager Hansen replied while he was with another jurisdiction, the state has responded stating if
a proposed amendment is in violation of the Growth Management Act, and/or with suggested changes. The
only authority they have is to make recommendations; most of the time they don't even make comments.
Chair Carlson opened the hearing for public testimony.
Mark Freitas, Business Owner and Federal Way Resident — He has been involved with the docket
process two times. The first time was for a comprehensive plan rezone and it went through the
process with no problems. The second time he submitted after the deadline of September 30th. To
date, that docketed item has not been processed. It concerns where an RV campground can be
located in Federal Way. The city has not responded to his request. He would like to hear back
from the city.
Administrative Assistant Tenuta read two comments into the record. The first was from Cary Stanton and
Daniel Haeck and the second was from Suzanne Vargo. Both are attached to these minutes.
Planning Manager Hansen will research an answer to Mr. Freitas and will discuss it with him. He also
noted that on page 8, under section 19.80.080(3)(c), it states that the volume of requests received will be
taken under consideration when making the decision of what to consider that year. A request may be
moved to a subsequent year.
Commissioner Noble-Gulliford has three questions. Can an administrative decision be made to amend the
proposed docket process? Planning Manager Hansen responded that staff will not be able to make a
change to the process itself through an administrative decision. That would have to be a code amendment.
Second question, how is the public noticed before the city council meeting? Planning Manager Hansen
replied he would recommend that a notice be placed in the Mirror that states the City Council will be
making a decision, what proposals have been made, what will be researched, and contact information.
This would be done 14 days before the council meeting. Commissioner Noble-Gulliford asked if specific
information regarding proposed property rezones will be included in the notice. Planning Manager
Hansen answered that specific information will not be included.
Y-Tianning Commission\2016Weeting Summary 04-04-18.doc
Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 April 4, 2018
The third question is, how will the public know how to make comments for the record on future
determination on the docket process. Planning Manager Hansen replied that any comments received from
the public will become a part of the record regardless of when it is received. In the notice, staff will urge
the public to contact the city and make comments, request additional information, and/or ask questions.
Commissioner Noble-Gulliford asked if in the beginning of the process, a notice will be given to adjacent
property owner(s) regarding the proposed rezone. Deputy City Attorney Orthmann responded that any site
specific request will follow the same process of current rezone requests and property owners within 300
feet will be sent a notice. In addition, the property will have a posted notice, a legal notice will be placed
in the Mirror, it will be placed on the city's website, and posted on the city notice boards at the library and
city hall. Commissioner Noble-Gulliford stated she wants to know what is the noticing process for
proposals that go to the City Council meeting that decides which ones to proceed with. She cited the
example of the Spring Valley proposal last year where some nearby owners were not aware of the process
and did not submit comments. She also cited Belmor Park, which has been in process a number of years.
As part of the Planning Commission Work Program, we will be considering possible changes to
multifamily projects in our downtown. This would be an opportunity for the Belmor owners to provide
information about their vision for their property. She is concerned the city may miss noticing a property
owner who may have valuable information to contribute. Chair Carlson commented that as he
understands it, Commissioner Noble-Guillford's concern is the adjacent property owners of larger (but
not city-wide, such as the Spring Valley proposals) area rezones may not receive notice of the proposal.
She agreed. Principal Planner Clark said that the original Milton Road (Spring Valley) request consisted
of six parcel owners. All property owners within 300 feet of those parcels were notified that the City
Council would hold a hearing to determine whether to consider them further. At that hearing, the Council
directed staff to ask other property owners in the area to consider joining the request. It was at this time
that staff notified all property owners in the area zoned RS 35.0 about the request and gave them a
deadline in which to respond if they want to be considered in the proposed rezone. That deadline passed
with no response, so staff performed the SEPA review and issued the determination. After that, notice of
the public hearing was made. It was only after notices that some people responded, but it was too late
given that the SEPA determination had been completed and the public hearing notice given.
Commissioner O'Neil asked if the Commission should respond to the written comments on the record.
Deputy City Attorney Orthmann replied that Commissioners may include anything they have heard at this
hearing (including the comments read into the record) as part of their discussion on this topic.
Commissioner Meader McCausland commented that during previous meetings we had discussed holding a
public informational meeting as part of the process and that has been removed. She asked if staff will be
implementing the suggestion of this meeting, even though it is not codified. Planning Manager Hansen
responded the decision to not codify a public informational meeting was to give staff the flexibility to
decide if such a meeting is necessary or not and when it would be held if needed. It does not have to be
codified to hold such a meeting. Commissioner Meader McCausland noted that on page 8, in section
19.80.080(3)(b), the phrase "and other operational factors as determined by the director" was added. Please
explain the intention of adding this phrase. Deputy City Attorney Orthmann responded that the phrase was
added to indicate staff workload and other projects will be considered when making a decision.
Vice -Chair Bronson asked how an applicant will know if their request will be postpone for a year due to
reasons cited on page 8 of the report. Planning Manager Hansen responded that staff will inform the
applicant in what priority order their proposal is and if it will be considered the current year or not.
Deputy City Attorney Orthmann commented that applicants will be informed at the City Council meeting
when the priority determination is made. Vice -Chair Bronson asked if a letter will be sent with the
determination and if so, when will it be sent. Principal Planner Clark commented that within a week, staff
sends the applicant a letter with the determination and any further steps if appropriate.
KAPlanning Commission\2016UNeeting Summary 04-04-18.doc
Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 April 4, 2018
Commissioner Noble-Gulliford asked if comments made during the City Council meeting to determine
whether to further consider proposals will be consider as part of the public record. Deputy City Attorney
Orthmann replied they would be considered as part of the record for that meeting, but not as public hearing
comments. Commissioner Noble-Gulliford asked if those comments will be taken into consideration by
staff and added to the staff report as part of the public record. Planning Manager Hansen replied the
comments will be considered by staff and will become part of the public record. Commissioner Noble-
Gulliford requested that they be considered as a party of record.
Chair Carlson commented that the letter from Mr. Stanton and Mr. Haeck made some valid comments
regarding notices. He feels staff has done a good job addressing his concerns regarding noticing. He would
like to encourage Ms. Vargo to keep engaged because zoning issues change often.
Commissioner Elder moved to recommend approval of the FWRC text amendments as proposed. Vice -
Chair Bronson seconded. There was no further discussion. The motion carried with six yes and one no.
The public hearing was closed.
ADDITIONAL BUSINESS
None
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 7:21 P.M.
K\Planning Commission\2016\Meeting Summary 04-04-18.doc
Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 April 4, 2018
From: Cary Stanton [mailto:ceeiay56@comcast.net]
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2018 8:16 AM
To: Doc Hansen
Subject: Revised code title 19.80
Dear Mr. Hansen,
We are unable to attend the Planning Commission meeting on April 4.
Please add our voice in opposition to the proposed change that would allow the Council, Planning
Commission or Mayor to eliminate public input in any phase of rezone discussion. We understand the
process is long, but wish for maximum transparency.
In addition, we would like clarification from you about the content of these proposed changes. Legal
notices in the Mirror do not give the complete story. What does it mean to the "layman", who is not
familiar with legal language as written? Anytime a property owner sees language that suggests less input
along the way, stress levels rise.
We believe that property owners need to have direct input and be heard when zoning changes are
proposed -without exception. As long time residents in Federal Way, we have become increasingly
concerned at the rapid growth that rezoning to smaller lots brings. Owners with property adjacent to
proposed development should have ample opportunity to be heard, even early on.
We are also curious as to why this zoning change is being considered. We are Lakota Ridge residents
with a twenty acre parcel up for development, and wish to be included in every step of the process
when it comes to rezoning. We tried to read through proposed changes and are having a hard time
seeing the net results of changed code.
Thanks for any insight you can give us,
Cary Stanton
Daniel Haeck
2121 SW 309 Ct
Federal Way. 98023
Carpe Diem
K TIanning Commissiorf 2016Neeting Summary 04-04-18.doe
Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 April 4, 2018
To the Council and residents of Federal Way:
The process of changing the Comprehensive Plan, can only
occur once a year. This committee heard testimony from those
individuals who were for and against the amendment. The
Committee Listened and gave the rccornmendation to NOT
approve of the change. This wasthe opinion also given by the
Major, who did not approve of "spot zoning". It is unfortunate
that this process has been receded, because some applicants
did not do their due diligence and follow proper- procedure.
believe the LUTC Committee should honor their decision as well
as the process, in which the decision was previously made. In a
years time this issue may be justly discussed and debated.
would like to ask that the council to be mindful of a few
things. Aquifers are protected by the Growth Wnagement Act.
The area known as Spring Valley is a highly scnsitive area,and is
protected in its own right. The Conservancy land located on 8"'
Ave. South and S. 373'x, is connected and a vital recharge area
for our drinking water, the Hylchos VJaterway runs throughout
our fair city and the East Branch and the West also join
together to provide waters for the salmon, that have called this
creek home for h�indreds of years.
These are historic places; from The datives that used these
lands for trading, ceremonial, and burial, to our first pioneers.
Please do what is right for our city and for future generations,
Thank You
Suzanne Vargo
KAPlanning Commission\2016VN- ing Summary 04-04-18.doc
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
MEMORANDUM
DATE: 5/8/2018
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Robert "Doc" Hansen, Planning Manager
SUBJECT: Self -Storage Moratorium and Proposed Ordinance
BACKGROUND
From 2016 to 2017, the city received 10 proposals for new self -storage facilities. If all the proposed
facilities were completed, the number of self -storage businesses in the city would have almost tripled.
Those that had applied for land use and building permits were vested and when completed will more than
double the number of storage units that already exist in the City, far outpacing projected population
growth.
On September 5, 2017, City Council upon learning of this growth, adopted a 12 -month moratorium on
new self -storage facilities. Council directed staff to study the local growth of self -storage business and
review development regulations to ensure they meet the intent of the Comprehensive Plan while still
meeting the needs of the City's population. They also suggested to examine potential design standards
that could be adopted to make such facilities compatible with surrounding environments.
It has been brought to the staff's attention that the number of storage units within an area relates to the
amount of available storage square footage per person. Research shows that the amount of storage space
does not reach a saturation point until there is 11 to 12 sq. ft. of storage space per person in a three mile
radius from a given storage site. In 2016, according to several self -storage developers, Federal Way's
number was approximately 6 sq. ft. per capita, thereby explaining the rapid increase in self -storage
activity. Research also indicates that Federal Way, with its major thoroughfares and intense retail market
area, is a favorable place for those in the industry to locate. When any business locates upon the major
thoroughfares, it provides an image of our City to the passing resident or traveler. It is therefore
necessary to have appropriate design standards to present the type of image we wish to present to the
public, as has been expressed in our marketing of the City and is outlined within our Comprehensive Plan.
Staff then examined various jurisdictions to see how they deal with self -storage development and found
that many surrounding jurisdictions have more strict design standards and/or land use requirements than
the City of Federal Way with regards to such facilities. Their design standards are intended to provide the
atmosphere designed to project to the public. These jurisdictions do not deny the development of self -
storage within the jurisdiction. They only attempt to ensure the compatibility of such development with
the environment the Plan encourages. Amendments to our Code are necessary to ensure that self -storage
businesses locate in areas appropriate for such activity, are held to higher design standards than now exist
to meet our image objectives, and are compatible with surrounding environments.
CURRENTSTANDARDS
Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) defines self-service storage facilities as "a structure or group of
structures for the storage of personal property where individual stalls or lockers are rented out to different
tenants for storage" (FWRC 19.05.190). Self -storage facilities are permitted via Use Process II and III
(administrative approval) in three zoning districts, which are the Neighborhood Business (BN), the
Community Business (BC) and Commercial Enterprise (CE) zones. Each of these zones has a specific
purpose including:
Neighborhood Business (BN) "Is intended to provide convenient goods (e.g., groceries and
hardware) and services (e.g., dry cleaners, dentist, bank) at a pedestrian and neighborhood scale
close to adjacent residential uses" (Federal Way Comprehensive Plan, 2015).
Community Business (BC) "To allow a broad mix of uses, including general, specialty, and
service retail; commercial; office; commercial/residential mixed-use; and supportive uses. This
designation envisions mid -rise (three to seven stories), high quality developments containing a
vibrant and compatible mix of well integrated and designed pedestrian -oriented and auto -oriented
uses" (Federal Way Comprehensive Plan, 2015).
Commercial Enterprise (CE): "Is primarily intended to capture the demand for a diverse mix of
industrial, office, and retail sales and services, arrayed in well integrated, high quality
developments. Housing is not contemplated for this designation" (Federal Way Comprehensive
Plan, 2015).
Self -storage businesses are large-scale and auto -centric. They conflict with the stated purpose of the BN
zoning district to provide a pedestrian environment with businesses designed to serve the neighborhood.
While such businesses may provide service to a market area as defined by the developer, the nature of the
self -storage often aligns more closely to the purposes of the BC and CE districts, and therefore, should be
restricted to these zones.
For self -storage facilities, FWRC currently requires building fagade modulation, entrances oriented toward
the right-of-way, pedestrian pathways, landscaping and Crime Prevention through Environmental Design.
Self -storage building height is limited to 35 ft. in the BN zone, and 55 ft. in the BC and CE zones.
PROPOSED CHANGES TO CODE
Staff has examined self -storage regulations from other jurisdictions, both within and outside the Puget
Sound Region. The following code revisions are recommended in order to better meet land use goals
from the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan.
1. Eliminate all reference to self -storage in the Neighborhood Business (BN) zoning district section
of the Code (FWRC 19.215).
2. Adopt the following design standards for self -storage in the Community Business (BC) and
Commercial Enterprise (CE) zoning districts including:
2
a. Permitting self-service storage facilities only within multistory structures designed to
emulate multifamily or office buildings. The accompanying graphics supplied by the
staff shows how such a standard will encourage increased intensity in business areas.
b.
Figure 1 — Multistory Structure, Allowed
3
c. The ground floor transparency requirements of the commercial districts design guidelines
shall also apply to each floor above the ground floor of a self-service storage facility
building that is visible from a street or from a residentially zoned area. Such a standard
will allow vision of an active business area as intended by the adopted plan.
Figure 4 — Building Transparency, Allowed
Figure 5 — Building Transparency, Not Allowed
d. Require variation for any roof lines which exceed fifty (50) feet in length discouraging
the sometimes boxy appearance of self -storage buildings. Roof line variation shall be
achieved using one (1) or more of the following methods:
i. Vertical offset ridge line, intended to break up long rooflines; or
ii. Horizontal offset ridge line, meant to vary long building facades; or
W. Variations of roof pitch, designed to provide visual appeal.
Figure 6 — Roof Line Variation, Allowed
Figure 7 — Roof Line Variation, Not Allowed
e. The maximum building length is one hundred (100) linear feet, regardless of modulation,
for any facade located within fifty (50) feet of and facing a residential zoned property or
right-of-way.
E All storage units shall gain access from the interior of the building(s) or site — no unit
doors may face the right-of-way or be visible from off the property.
Figure 9 Interior Unit Access, Not Allowed
g. Fencing: Low -maintenance material with articulation and/or prominent posts at intervals
no greater than twenty-five (25) feet is required. Chain link fencing is not permitted.
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDATION
1. Eliminate the use from the BN zone to preserve the neighborhood compatibility of such zones;
and
2. Permit self -storage development within the BC and CE zones provided they meet the standards
listed above.
6
DRAFT Suggested Changes to FWRC 15.15
Meeting DOE Requirements
15.15.040 Definitions. (New addition)
"Protected Area" means the greater of the Floodway, Riparian Buffer Zone (RBZ), or Channel
Migration Zone (CMZ). If no CMZ is identified in a riverine system, the Protected Area extends
to the outer limits of the floodplain. The "protected area" does not extend outside of the Special
Flood Hazard Area.
15.15.050 General provisions.
(1) Application of chapter. This chapter shall apply to all areas of special flood hazards within
the jurisdiction of Federal Way. The areas of special flood hazard identified by the Federal
Insurance Administration in a scientific and engineering report entitled "The Flood Insurance
Study for King County, Washington and Incorporated Areas Federal Wal. dated May 16, 1995,
and any revisions thereto, with an accompanying flood insurance rate map (FIRM), and any
revisions thereto, are hereby adopted by reference and declared to be a part of this chapter.
The flood insurance study and the FIRM are on file at Federal Way City Hall. The best available
information for flood hazard area identification as outlined in FWRC 15.15.070 shall be the basis
for regulation until a new FIRM is issued that incorporates data utilized under FWRC 15.15.070.
(2) Penalties for noncompliance. No structure or land shall hereafter be constructed, located,
extended, converted, or altered without full compliance with the terms of this chapter and other
applicable regulations.
(3) Summary abatement. Whenever any violation of this chapter causes or creates a condition,
the continued existence of which constitutes or contributes to an immediate and emergent threa
to the public health, safety or welfare or to the environment, the director may summarily and
without prior notice abate the condition. Notice of such abatement, including the reason for it,
shall be given to the person responsible for the violation as soon as reasonably possible after
abatement. The costs of such summary abatement shall be recoverable via procedures for
recovery of abatement costs as set forth in Chapter 1.15 FWRC, Civil Enforcement of Code.
(4) Abrogation and greater restrictions. This chapter is not intended to repeal, abrogate, or
impair any existing easements, covenants, or deed restrictions. However, where this chapter
and another ordinance, easement, covenant, or deed restriction conflict or overlap, whichever
imposes the more stringent restrictions shall prevail.
(5) Interpretation. In the interpretation and application of this chapter, all provisions shall be
(a) Considered as minimum requirements;
(b) Liberally construed in favor of the governing body; and
(c) Deemed neither to limit nor repeal any other powers granted under state statutes.
.............__..........................................................................................................._.._............................................................
Draft Proposed Changes to FWRC 15.15 for DOE Review Page 1 of 6 May 7, 201
(6) Warning and disclaimer of liability. The degree of flood protection required by this chapter is
considered reasonable for regulatory purposes and is based on scientific and engineering
considerations. Larger floods can and will occur on rare occasions. Flood heights may be
increased by manmade or natural causes. This chapter does not imply that land outside the
areas of special flood hazards or uses permitted within such areas will be free from flooding or
flood damages. This chapter shall not create liability on the part of Federal Way, any officer or
employee thereof, or the Federal Insurance Administration for any flood damages that result
from reliance on this chapter or any administrative decision lawfully made hereunder.
15.15.060 Development Activities Subject to Floodplain Development Permit.
(1) Floodplain Development Permit Required. A floodplain development permit shall be
obtained before construction or development begins within the regulatory special hazard
established in FWRC 15.15.050(1). The permit shall be for all structures including manufactured
homes, as set forth in FWRC 15.15.040, and for all development including fill and other
activities, also as set forth in FWRC 15.15.040.
(2) Non -development Activities. Activities that do not meet the definition of "development" in this
chapter are allowed in the regulatory floodplain without the need for a floodplain development
permit under this chapter, provided all other federal, state, and local requirements are met. The
following are examples of activities not considered development or manmade changes to
improved or unimproved real estate:
(a) Routine maintenance of landscaping that does not involve grading, excavation, or
filling;
(b) Removal of noxious weeds and hazard trees and replacement of nonnative vegetation
with native vegetation;
(c) Normal maintenance of structures, such as re -roofing and replacing siding, as long as
such work does not qualify as a substantial improvement;
(d) Normal maintenance of above ground public utilities and facilities, such as replacing
downed power lines;
(e) Normal street and road maintenance, including filling potholes, repaving, and installing
signs and traffic signals, but not including expansion of paved areas;
(f) Normal maintenance of a levee or other flood control facility prescribed in the
operations and maintenance plan for the levee or flood control facility; and
(3) Other Activities. All other activities not listed in subsection (2) of this section are allowed, as
long as a floodplain development permit is approved, and, if required, as long as they meet all
the other requirements of this chapter, including the habitat impact assessment and any
mitigation required under FWRC 15.15.060(8) and (9), and after a floodplain development
permit is issued.
{24(4) Application for floodplain development permit. Application for a floodplain development
permit shall be made and shall include, but not be limited to, plans induplicate drawn to scale
showing the nature, location, dimensions, and elevations of the area in question, existing or
proposed structures, fill, storage of materials, drainage facilities, and the location of the
foregoing. Specifically, the following information is required:
............-
Draft Proposed Changes to FWRC 15.15 for DOE Review Page 2 of 6 May 7, 2018
(a) Elevation in relation to mean sea level, of the lowest floor (including basement) of all
structures recorded on a current elevation certificate (FEMA Form 81-31) with Section B
completed by the city of Federal Way building official;
(b) Elevation in relation to mean sea level to which any structure has been floodproofed;
(c) Certification by a registered professional engineer or architect that the floodproofing
methods for any nonresidential structure meet floodproofing criteria in
FWRC 15.15.140(2);
(d) Description of the extent to which a watercourse will be altered or relocated as a
result of proposed development.
Designation of the administrator. The director or designee is hereby appointed to
administer and implement this chapter by granting or denying development permit applications
in accordance with its provisions. The director shall:
(a) Review all development applications to determine that the requirements of this
chapter have been satisfied;
(b) Review all development applications to determine that all necessary permits have
been obtained from those federal, state, or local governmental agencies from which prior
approval is required; and
(c) Review all development applications to determine if the proposed development is
located in the floodway. If located in the floodway, assure that the encroachment
provisions of FWRC 15.15.160(1) are met.
(6) The riparian habitat zone shall be delineated on the site plan by the applicant at the time of
application for subdivision approval or floodplain development permit for all development
proposals within 300 feet of any stream or shoreline.
(7) If the project is located in the regulatory floodplain and includes activities not listed in
FWRC 15.15.060(2), the application shall include a habitat impact assessment. If that
assessment determines that impacts would result from the project, the application shall also
include a habitat mitigation plan as described in FWRC 15.15.060(9)
(8) Habitat Impact Assessment. Unless allowed under FWRC 15.15.060(2) an application to
develop in the regulatory floodplain shall include an assessment of the impact of the prosect on
water quality and aquatic and riparian habitat. The assessment shall be:
(a) A biological evaluation or biological assessment that has received concurrence from
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service, pursuant to
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act; or
(b) Documentation that the activity fits within a habitat conservation plan approved
pursuant to Section 10 of the Endangered Species Act; or
(c) Documentation that the activity fits within Section 4(d) of the Endangered Species Act;
or
Draft Proposed Changes to FWRC 15.15 for DOE Review Page 3 of 6 May 7, 2018
.n assessment prepared in
FloodDlain Ha
Assessment and Mitigation, FEMA Region X, 2010. The assessment shall determine if th6
project would adversely affect any of the following:
(i). The primary constituent elements identified when a species is listed as threatened
or endangered;
(ii) Essential fish habitat designated by the National Marine Fisheries Service:
(iii) Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas;
(iv) Vegetation communities and habitat structures;
(v) Water quality;
NO Water quantity, including flood and low flow depths, volumes and velocities;
NO The channel's natural planform pattern and migration processes;
(viii) Spawning substrate, if applicable; and/or
(ix) Floodplain refugia, if applicable.
(9) Habitat Mitigation Plan.
(a) If the assessment conducted under FWRC 15.15.060 (8) of this section concludes the
project is expected to have an adverse effect on water quality and/or aquatic or riparian
habitat or habitat functions, the applicant shall provide a plan to mitigate those impacts in
accordance with Regional Guidance for Floodplain Habitat Assessment and Mitigation
FEMA Region X, 2010.
(i) For protects or those portions of a project located within the regulatory floodplain
but outside of the protected area, the mitigation plan shall include such avoidance
minimization, restoration, or compensation measures as are appropriate to mitigate
the adverse effects of the project.
(ii) For projects or those portions of a proiect located within the protected area the
project shall be revised to include such appropriate measures as are needed to
ensure that there is no adverse effect due to the project. Minimization measures are
not allowed in the protected area, unless they, in combination with other measures
result in no adverse effect.
(b) The plan's habitat mitigation activities shall be incorporated into the proposed project
The floodplain development permit shall be based on the redesigned project and its
mitigation components.
(10) Third -Party Review. For the habitat impact assessment required in FWRC 15.15.060 (8) of
this section or the habitat mitigation plan required in FWRC 15.15.060 (9) the city may require a
third -party review. Third -party review requires the applicant's habitat impact assessment habitat
mitigation plan and/or additional technical studies to be reviewed by an independent third party,
Draft Proposed Changes to FWRC 15.15 for DOE Review Page 4 of 6 May 7, 2018
paid for by the applicant but hired by the city. Third -party review shall be conducted by a
qualified consultant as defined in the Floodplain Habitat Assessment and Mitigation Regional
Guidance, FEMA Region X, 2010.
New Section
15.15.155. Coastal High Hazard Areas. Located within areas of special flood hazard identified
in Section 15.15.050(1) are "Coastal High Hazard Areas," as designated on National Flood
Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) as zones V1-30, VE and/or V. These areas have potential flood
hazards associated with high velocity waters from surges. In addition to meeting all other
provisions in this Code, the following provisions shall also apply to these FIRM zones.
(1) All new construction and substantial improvements as defined in 15.15.040 shall be
elevated on pilings and columns so that:
a. The bottom of the lowest horizontal structural member of the lowest floor
(excluding the pilings or columns) is elevated one foot or more above the base
flood level; and
b. The pile or column foundation and structure attached thereto is anchored to
resist flotation, collapse and lateral movement due to the effects of wind and
water loads acting simultaneously on all building components. Maximum wind
and water loading values to be used in this determination shall each have a one
percent (1 %) chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year (100 -year
mean recurrence interval).
(2) A registered professional engineer or architect shall review the structural design,
specifications and plans for the construction, and shall certify that the design and
methods of construction to be used are in accordance with accepted standards for
meeting provisions of this section of FWRC 15.15.
(3) The applicant shall submit the elevation of the site in relation to mean sea level of the
bottom of the lowest structural member of the lowest floor (excluding pilings and
columns) of all new and substantially improved structures, including any basement.
(4) All new construction and substantial improvements shall provide space below the lowest
floor either free of obstruction or constructed with non-sumDortina breakawav walls. open
wood lattice -work, or insect screening intended to collapse under wind and water loads
without causing collapse, displacement, or other structural damage to the elevated
portion of the building or supporting foundation system. For the purposes of this section,
a breakaway wall shall have a design safe loading resistance of not less than 10 and no
more than 20 pounds per square foot. Use of breakaway walls which exceed a design
safe loading resistance of 20 pounds per spare foot, either by design or when required
by local or State code, may be permitted only if a registered professional engineer or
architect certifies that the proposed structure meets the following conditions:
a. Breakaway wall collapse shall result from water load less than that which would
occur during the base flood; and
b. The elevated portion of the building and supporting foundation system shall not be
subject to collapse, displacement, or other structural damage due to the effects of
wind and water loads acting simultaneously on all building components, structural or
non-structural.
Draft Proposed Changes to FWRC 15.15 for DOE Review Page 5 of 6 May 7, 2018
Maximum wind and water oading values to be used in this determination shall each have
a one percent (1 %) chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year )100 -year
mean recurrence interval). If breakaway walls are utilized, such enclosed space shall b
useable solely for parking of vehicles, building access, or storage. Such space shall not
be used for human habitation.
(5) Fill for structural support of buildings is prohibited.
(6) Man-made alteration of sand dunes is prohibited.
(7) All manufactured homes to be placed or substantially improved on sites outside or
inside of a manufactured home park or subdivision, or manufactured homes outside or
inside a manufactured home park or subdivision shall meet the standards of section
FWRC 15.15 (1) through (6) above.
(8) Recreational vehicles placed on sites shall:
a. Be on the site for fewer than 180 consecutive days, and
b. Be fully licensed and ready for highway use, on its wheels or jacking system
attached to the site only by quick disconnect type utilities and security devices and
have no permanently attached additions; or
c. Provide a floodplain permit and meet section FWRC 15.15.140(3).
(9) All new construction shall be located landward of the reach of mean high tide.
Draft Proposed Changes to FWRC 15.15 for DOE Review Page 6 of 6 May 7, 2018
41k
CITY OF
Federal Way
FILE NUMBER
APPLICANT INFORMATION
FLOODPLAIN DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
Date
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DE
33325 81h A
Federal Wa`
253-835-2607; Fax 2`
TION
;nue South
WA 9800
-835-2609
Owner NAME
PHONE NUMBER
MAILING ADDRESS
E-MAIL
CITY
STATE
ZIP
FAX
Agent NAME
PHONE NUMBER
MAILING ADDRESS
E-MAIL
CITY
STATE
ZIP
flooded areas identified by the City's Critical Areas Ordinance.
Property
Parcel Number
Property Size
Zoning Designation
Comprehensive Plan Designation
Shoreline Designation FIRM Designation
SUBMITTAL DOCUMENT: Provide six (6) copies drawn to scale no less than 1:50.
Req. Sub.
Q ❑
Site Plan
1. Show the location of proposed and existing structures and any storage of fill or materials on the parcel
in relation to the existing topography of the parcel and the mean sea level.
2. Show the location of all water bodies, waterways, wetlands, and drainage facilities within 300 feet of
the site.
3. Show the location of special flood hazard area (100 -year floodplain), as well as any frequently
flooded areas identified by the City's Critical Areas Ordinance.
4. Proposed surface water drainage system.
5. Proposed post -development grading topography at one -foot intervals.
6. Description of the extent a watercourse will be altered as a result of the proposed action.
Q ❑
Cross Section
1. Elevation of project in relation to the mean sea level (include current elevation certificate, FEMA
form 81-31 found at https://www.fema.izov/media-library/assets/documents/160#)
2. Elevation of mean sea level to any structure that has been flood -proofed and certification by a
registered professional engineer or architect that the flood -proofing method meets FWRC
19.142.140(2);
3. Elevation of existing or proposed structure floor levels (including basement) in relation to the mean
sea level, including the lowest and highest finished grade adjacent the proposed structure
Bulletin #OXX — April 19, 2018 Page 1 of 3 k:\Handouts\Floodplain Developme t Permit
Q
Certification by registered professional engineer or architect that the floodproofing methods for any
❑ Storage ❑ Habitat Enhancement ❑ Debris Removal
nonresidential structure meet floodproofing criteria in FWRC 15.15.140(2),
PROJECT INFORMATION
Activity Types
❑ New Construction
❑ Addition
❑ Alteration
❑ Relocation
❑ Demolition
Categories
❑ Residential Structure
❑ Non -Residential Structure
❑ Manufactured Home
❑ Bridge / Culvert
❑ Levee
Components
❑ Excavation
❑ Fill
❑ Channelization
❑ Grading
❑ Clearing
Li xepiacement u stream bank / Channel ❑ Mining and Dredging
❑ Repair ❑ Irrigation Structure ❑ Drilling
❑ Storage ❑ Habitat Enhancement ❑ Debris Removal
❑ Water/ Sewer ❑ Wetland Impact
❑ Subdivision (new or expansion) ❑ Other:
❑ Other:
Project description and additional project information (attach additional sheets if necessary)
If the value of an addition or alteration to a structure within an area designated as a "special flood hazard" equals or exceeds
50% of the value of the structure before the addition or alteration, the entire structure must be treated as a substantially
improved structure. The following information must be provided if the proposed improvement is within a "special flood
hazard" zone identified by FEMA.
Cost of Improvement (a): $
Market Value of the Building (b): $
Percent of Value Change (a/b): %
Disclaimer: Substantial Improvement Evaluation must be supported by project cost documentation and
approved market evaluation. Attach supporting documentation.
Relocation or Replacement
A relocated structure or a structure being replaced must be treated as new construction.
Quantity of fill placement in floodplain (Detailed Grade and Fill Plan Required) (cubic yards)
List all applicable local, state and federal permits that have been applied for, and indicate whether they were issued,
waived, denied or pending.
Bulletin #OXX —April 19, 2018 Page 2 of 3 k:\Handouts\Floodplain Developm7t Permit
List elevation of the structure at the lowest floor of the structure (including basement) at project site to the Mean
High Water Mark
AUTHORIZATION
Application is hereby made for permit(s) to authorize the activities described herein. I certify that I am familiar with the
information contained in this application, and that to the best of my knowledge and belief such information is true,
complete, and accurate. I further certify that I possess the authority to undertake the proposed activities. I hereby grant to
the agencies to which this application is made, the right to enter the above-described location to inspect the proposed aid or
completed work.
Warning and Disclaimer of Liability
The review of your development is solely for the purpose of determining if your application conforms with the written
requirements of the floodplain regulations. It is not to be taken as a warranty. Compliance with the regulation does nc
insure complete protection from flooding. FWRC Chapter 15.10 meets established standards for floodplain managemf
but neither this review nor the regulation take into account such flood related problems as natural erosion, streambed
meander or man-made obstructions and diversions all of which may have an adverse effect in the event of a flood. Tho
owner is advised to consult an engineer or other expert regarding these considerations.
In consideration for the issuance of the requested permit the applicant, owner, agent, engineer and their successors agree to
hold the City harmless from any onsite or offsite damages of any kind arising from the development of the subject propert)
in accordance with their submittals as outlined in their eventual permit.
All correspondence and notices will be transmitted to the Land Owner of Record and copies sent to the author
agent, as applicable. By signing this document, I agree that all information submitted is true and correct, and
have read and understand the above warning and disclaimer of liability.
X Date
Signature of Authorized Agent:
(REQUIRED if indicated on application)'
X Date
Signature of Land Owner of Record Date:
(Required for application submittal)
Bulletin #OXX — April 19, 2018 Page 3 of 3 k:AHandouts\Floodplain Development