No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLUTC PKT 03-21-2005 City of Federal Way City Council Land Use/Transportation Committee March 21, 2005 7:00 p.m. City Hall Council Chambers MEETING AGENDA I. CALL TO ORDER 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: February 28,2005, and March 7, 2005 3. PUBLIC COMMENT (3 minutes) 4. BUSINESS ITEMS C. Signs in Sports Fields Code Amendment Action Zukowski/45 Min Action PerezJ20 Min Action McClung/5 Min Action McClung/5 Min Action McClung/I 0 Min A. City Center Access Study - Feasibility Study Completion B. On~Street Parking of Commercial Vehicles in Residential Zones D. Countywide Planning Policies E. Signs in the PAA Follow-Up 5. FUTURE MEETINGS/AGENDA ITEMS 6. ADJOURN Committee Members Jack Dovey. Chair Eric Fai$on Michael Park City Staff Kathy McClung, Community Development Service$ Director E. Tina Piety, Admini$trative A$$i$tant 253-835-2601 G.'IUJ1C\1JI1C Agendas and Summaries 2005103-21-05 LUTC Agenda.doc City of Federal Way City Council Land UselTransportation Committee February 28, 2005 5:30 pm City Hall Council Chambers MEETING MINUTES In attendance: Committee members Jack Dovey, Chair, and Council Members Eric Faison and Michael Park; Deputy Mayor Linda Kochmar; Council Members Jeanne Burbidge and Jim Ferrell; City Manager David Moseley; Director of Public Works Cary Roe; Assistant City Attorney Karen Kirkpatrick; Public Works Deputy Director Ken Miller; Community Development Services Deputy Director Greg Fewins; Senior Planner Lori Michaelson; Senior Planner Jim Harris; Associate Planner Deb Barker; Street Systems Manager Marwan Salloum; Surface Water Manager Paul Bucich; Development Services Manager Will Appleton; Senior Street Systems Engineer John Mulkey; NPDES/ESA Coordinator Don Robinett; Surface Water Quality Program Coordinator Dan Smith; Engineering Plans Reviewer Kevin Peterson; Senior Traffic Engineer Maryanne Zukowski; Traffic Analyst Sarady Long; and Administrative Assistant E. Tina Piety. 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Dovey called the meeting to order at 5:30 pm. 2. APPROV AL OF MEETING MINUTES The minutes ofthe February 7, 2005, meeting were approved as presented. 3. PUBLIC COMMENT None. 4. BUSINESS ITEMS It was m/s/c to change the agenda by moving items H and I to the top of the agenda. After discussion that staff had told people item I was at the end of the agenda and therefore, interested citizens will probably arrive later in the evening, it was m/s/c to move item H to the top of the agenda and leave item I at the end. H. 2005 Asphalt Overlay Project Bid Award - Mr. Salloum presented the 2005 Asphalt Overlay estimated expenditures. It was noted that Lakeside Industries completed the 2004 Asphalt Overlay Program within budget and on time. In order to stay within budget it is recommended that Schedule F (19th A venue South) be deleted from the project. It was m/s/c to award (and place on the March 15,2005, City Council Consent Agenda) Schedules A, B, C, D, E, and G oftbe 2005 Asphalt Overlay Project to Lakeside Industries, the lowest responsive, responsible bidder, in the amount of $1,357,217.97 and approve a 10 percent contingency of$135,271.80, for a total of $1,492,939.77, and authorize the City Manager to execute the contract. Ifproject funding allows, it was approved to add all or a portion of Schedule F back into the contract with the understanding that the total cost will not exceed the total funding available for this program. A. Ming Court Preliminary Plat - This application is for a IS-Jot residential subdivision located at 30901 8th Avenue South and zoned Single-Family Residential (RS) 7.2, requiring a minimum lot size of7,200 square feet per lot. The Hearing Examiner has reviewed the application and recommended a number of conditions of preliminary plat approval. The applicant requested mass grading of the site. As mass grading goes against the code and there are no special conditions, staff and the Hearing Examiner recommend against mass grading. Council Member Faison commented that if 7th Place South were to be continued through the lots to the south to connect to 320t/" it seems it would be too close to 8th G:ILUTCILUTC Agendas and Summaries 2005\02-28-05 LUTC Minutos.doc Land Use/Transportation Committee Page 2 February 28, 2005 Avenue South. Mr. Long commented that 7th Place South is in the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan and the spacing meets Federal Way City Code (FWCC) requirements. Mr. Roe commented that the plan gives the opportunity to continue 7th Place South, but even if the lots are developed, the applicant(s) could propose the development in such a way that continuation of7th Place South is not feasible. De-En Lang - He is the applicant for the project. He asked the Committee to allow mass grading of the site. He said the policy against mass grading is not in the code; it is just a city council policy. They allowed mass grading of the Lakota Crest Subdivision and he asks the same for his project. Rob Zinger - He lives behind the water tower, which is close to this project. He is concerned about the easement near his property because of flooding issues. He asked if they plan to grade to the property line or the easement line. He is concerned that grading to the property line will lead to more flooding. Tony Vaka - He shares the concern of the former speaker. He would also like clarification on the private road. Mr. Peterson commented that there would be some grading ofthe easement during construction for the water line (it is a Lakehaven Utility District easement), but it is too early to say how much grading will occur. Council Member Faison commented that there were unique circumstances with the Lakota Crest plat, which is why they were allowed mass grading. It was m/s/c to adopt the staff recommendation to approve the Ming Court Preliminary Plat Resolution and place it on the March 15, 200S, City Council Consent Agenda. B. Campus Crest Preliminary Plat and Concomitant Agreement - This application is for a 1 14-lot residential preliminary plat located along the south side of SW Campus Drive at approximately the 700 block southwest and is zoned RM-3600. Mr. Harris informed the Committee that staff and the Hearing Examiner are recommending mass grading for this site due to its topography. The applicant is requesting the 1990 Concomitant Zoning Agreement (which allows only townhomelcondominium development) be amended to allow single-family homes. The Committee expressed concern that this application has a road that crosses the BPA trail. Specifically, they are concerned for pedestrian safety. Staff commented that the crosswalk would be raised so that pedestrians would be more easily seen. In addition, this will be a low speed road. It was m/s/c to recommended adoption of the Hearing Examiner's recommendation and approve the Concomitant Zoning agreement and preliminary plat, and to place this item on the March 15, 200S, City Council Consent Agenda. C. Colella Estates Final Plat - This project has previously received preliminary plat approval by the City Council. This application is for a combination cluster and conventional subdivision for 86 single-family lots located in the northwest portion of the City between SW 309th Street and SW 316th Street, at 30th and 27th Avenues SW. The conventional subdivision portion is zoned RS 7.2 and the cluster portion is zoned RS 15.0. Since the preliminary plat approvaJ, seven of the lots have been relocated. It was m/s/c to recommend approval of the Colella Estates Final Plat Resolution and to place it on the March IS, 2005, City Council Consent Agenda. D. City Center Access Study, Budget Update - The City Center Access Study had a maximum dollar budget amount of $500,000.00 to complete a traffic study for feasibility of an Access Point Decision Report (APDR). CH2M Hill, Inc. is carrying a line item within their contract for Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) expenses to attend, participate, review, and approve the work on this project study. That amount is $2S,000. The City is paying WSDOT expenses from the project budget account directly to WSDOT. CH2M Hill, Inc. has requested a maximum contract expenditure of$SOO,OOO.OO; therefore, staff is requesting an increase of $25,000 to the City Center Access budget, for a total of $525,000.00. The reason for this increase is that CH2M Hill reviewed and analyzed 47 alternatives, while the contract stipulated 25 alternatives, and they reviewed and analyzed IS alternatives, while the contract stipulated five alternatives. Ms. Zukowski noted that staff has preformed a number of tasks (from giving all public presentations to using black and white graphics in lieu of color) that have led to savings. Ms. Zukowski went on to say the City has collected mitigation funds for this project and staff recommends using $2S,000 ofthese funds. Debra Hansen - She read a February 17,2005, letter from Weyerhaeuser into the record. The letter states that other alternatives would adversely impact Weyerhaeuser and they stated the South 312th Street is the best option. Margaret Reyhner - She is concerned about impacts to Steel Lake is the South 3 12th Street option is used. It was m/s/c to recommended authorization of an increase in the project budget to a maximum of$52S,OOO using collected mitigation funds, and to place this item on the March 15,2005, City Council Consent Agenda. G:ILUTCILUTC Agendas and Summaries 2005\02-28.05 LUTC M;nutes.doc Land UscfTransportation Committee Page 3 February 28, 2005 E. Steel Lake LMD Annual Report Presentation - Mr. Bucich, Don Robinett, and Dan Smith delivered the presentation on this program that deals with coordinating and funding aquatic weed management for Steel Lake. Mr. Bucich commented that lake residents have responded positiveJy to the results of this program. Margaret Reyhner - She is on the citizen committee for this project and praised staff for their quality work. F. North Lake Aquatic Weeds Grant - Prior to annexation, King County and the residents of North Lake applied to the State Department of Ecology for an Aquatic Weeds Management Grant. The purpose of the grant is to assist residents and the local jurisdiction managing invasive aquatic weeds in the lake. Staff will work on Steel Lake and North Lake at the same time and propose to use on contractor for the aquatic weeds management. The City's out of pocket expenses are anticipated to be approximately $2,9S0 over three years. It was m/s/c to recommend authorizing the City Manager to negotiate the final grant details with the Department of Ecology and execute an agreement with Ecology for aquatic weeds management in North Lake. The grant total is expected to be $80,210.33, with a 25 percent match of in~kind contributions and cash match. This item will be placed on the March IS, 200S, City Council Consent Agenda. G. Steel Lake RFB for Aquatic Weeds Management - Surface Water Management (SWM) is preparing a Request for Proposals (RFP) for aquatic vegetation management for Steel Lake that wouJd include surface and underwater surveys for invasive aquatic weeds. If the Council agrees, SWM would like to include a RFP for aquatic vegetation management for North Lake as well. It was m/s/c to recommend authorizing the Surface Water Utility to prepare and advertise a Request for Proposals for aquatic vegetation management for Steel Lake in accordance with the IA VMP for Steel Lake and the direction of the Steel Lake Advisory Board's annual work plan and the IA VMP and Ecology Grant for North Lake. In addition, direct the City Manager or designee to negotiate a contract based on the proposals and execute the contract in accordance with City purchasing guidelines. This item will be placed on the March IS, 200S, City Council Consent Agenda. I. Mayer Right~of-Way Lease Agreement - The question before the Committee is whether the Council should authorize the lease of unimproved public right-of-way at the end of 53rd A venue SW to Mr. Kurt Mayer for extension of his tram. Bill Holt - He is Mr. Mayer's attorney. He brought pictures and drawings to help with understanding of the issue. The Mayers have to park their car IS4 feet about their home. They are at a point in life where they find the steps difficult. They have a tram that starts about 120 feet above their home and would like to extend it to about 14S feet above their home. The tram is currently on their property, but the extension would place it on City property. The tram extension would not affect the current walkway that is used by others. Their proposed plan would minimize the effect on the sight Jine of anyone on top of the hill. Jon Graves - He is Mr. Mayer's architect. He commented that they are working on a plan that would be non-disruptive to others. They have minimized the height of the tram structure so that one would have to be Jooking downhill for it to obstruct someone's view. Tim LaPorte - He is the owner of the house adjacent to the Mayer resident. He feels staff has done a good job explaining the proposal. His concern is the parking. The street, 53rd Avenue SW, dead ends where the tram is proposed. They have had problems when visitors park in the way and there is no room for them to get out of their driveway. This also would Jeave no room for emergency vehicles. He asked the City to place "No Parking" signs on the northerly 20 feet of the street. Sally Favors - She lives in the neighborhood, but does not have waterfront. Currently she is able to use the trail for beach access and asked that the trail be unimpeded during and after construction. Bill Holt - He commented that they are seeking two leases from the City, instead of just one as proposed by staff They feel the boathouse and deck have no connection to the tram and therefore, should be a separate lease. Also, this would make it easier to terminate a lease as opposed to changing a lease if circumstances should change. In addition, the termination clause states the City can terminate "without cause" and this leaves the possibility open that the lease could be terminated for a frivolous reason. He requested the language be changed to something along the lines of, "With a 60 day notice, the lease can be terminated for reasons that are not arbitrary or capricious." G:\LUTC\LUTC Agendas and Summaries 2005\02-28-05 LUTC Minules,doe Land Use/Transportation Committee Page 4 February 28, 2005 The Committee would like to see language added along the lines with that requested by Mr. Holt that states the City would cancel the lease onJy for a public purpose. Staff will craft such language, have the Law Department review the language, and bring it to the City Council meeting. It was m/s/c to recommend authorizing the City Manager to execute the lease, with the amendment that City staff is to craft language for the lease to the effect that the City can terminate the lease for any public purpose. This item will be placed on the March IS, 2005, City Council Business Agenda. Chair Dovey commented that he has received (and perhaps other Council Members as well?) a letter from Lloyd Enterprises regarding 376th Street. Mr. Roe commented that staff is aware of this letter and have begun a technical anaJysis ofthe issue. The Committee agreed that staff would prepare a technical analysis of the issue and submit that to the LUTC. The Committee would then review the analysis and decide if they should take the next step. S. FUTURE MEETINGS The next scheduled meeting will be March 7, 2005. 6. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. G:\LUTC\LUTC Agendas and Summaries 2005\02-28.05 LUTC Minutes.doc City of Federal Way City Council Land UselTransportation Committee March 7, 2005 S:30 pm City Hall Council Chambers MEETING MINUTES In attendance: Committee members Jack Dovey, Chair, and Council Member Eric Faison (Council Member Michael Park was excused); Mayor Dean McColgan and Deputy Mayor Linda Kochmar; City Manager David Moseley; Assistant City Attorney Karen Kirkpatrick; Public Works Deputy Director Ken Miller; Community Development Services Director Kathy McClung; Senior Planner Margaret Clark; Code Compliance Officer Betty Cruz; Surface Water Manager Paul Bucich; Traffic Engineer Rick Perez; and Administrative Assistant E. Tina Piety. 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Dovey called the meeting to order at 5:30 pm. 2. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES There were no minutes. 3. PUBLIC COMMENT Bob Couper - He is &om Lloyd Enterprises. He understands the Committee will be discussing the possibility of opening 376th Street to commerciaJ trucks. He is in favor of this proposal. Being able to use that road for their trucks would help Lloyd Enterprises to be competitive. The triangle area is a determent to them and opening 376th would allow them to avoid the triangle area. 4. BUSINESS ITEMS A. P AA Sign Code Amendment - The main purpose of this amendment is to extend the sign code regulations to the newly annexed and future annexation areas, and to give the newly annexed areas a lO-year amortization period to bring their signs into compliance. There are also some minor changes intended for clarification. Ms. Clark commented that there is an error in the staff report. On page 6, at the bottom of the page where it talks about the definition for clearview zone, the reference should be for FWCC 22-1151, not 22-ISll as stated. Council Member Faison noted that on page 4, FWCC Section 22-335(i)(3)(a)(iv) gives the owner of the sign 90 days of the date the Consent Decree or Settlement Agreement was filed to apply for a sign permit. This seems quick to him. The Committee agreed that this deadline should be changed to six months. In addition, the Committee would like the staff to research offering an incentive to sign owners to bring their signs into compliance before the lO~year amortization ends. Staff will research this issue and return to the next LUTC with how many signs are in the newly annexed area, approximate cost to bring them up to code, and possible funding sources. It was m/s/c to recommend adoption of the proposed code amendments with the amendment that the 90 day deadline in FWCC Section 22-335(i)(3)(a)(iv) will be changed to six months. This item will go to the City Council for First Reading on April 5, 2005. B. SW 35th Street Regional Pond Fencing Contract Award - It was m/s/c to recommend awarding the SW 356th Street Regional Retention Facility Fence Project to SeaWest Construction, Inc., the lowest responsive, responsible bidder in the amount of$29,924.3S; to approve a 10 percent construction contingency of2,992.00, for a total of$32,916.00; to authorize the City Manger to execute the contract; and to place this item on the March 15, 200S, City Council Consent Agenda. G:\LUTC\LUTC Agendas and Summaries 200SIO3-!)7-!)S LUTC Minutes.doc Land Use/Transportation Committee Page 2 March 7, 2005 C. AGO4-133 "Sewer Extension Bellacarino Woods" Project - It was m/s/c to recommend authorizing final acceptance of the completed Sewer Extension Bellacarino Woods Project, constructed by Brad Mason Trucking & Excavating, Inc., in the amount of $83,929.48 as complete, and to place this item on the March IS, 2005, City Council Consent Agenda. D. Commercial Vehicles in Residential Neighborhoods - Staff's proposal is to revise the code to remove the time~of- day limitation (which would restrict commercial vehicles from residential neighborhoods), with exceptions listed for loading, unloading, and service delivery. Richard Keltner - He has a strong interest in maintaining neighborhoods. In the last several years he has noticed more influx of commercial vehicles into residential neighborhoods. He believes this is detrimental to the neighborhoods and supports the staff's proposal. Jean Atwell- She spoke in support of the proposal. She feelspeople are abusing the current code by moving their vehicle at midnight. This proposal would help neighborhoods to look residential. Marie Sciacqua - She supports the proposal, but for safety issues, would like to see all vehicles over 80- inches restricted from residential neighborhoods. She does not feel this would be costly to the City; it would only be an administrative cost. Enforcement wouJd be complaint based and this would help neighborhoods that do not have covenants. Wally Aikala - He also spoke in favor of the proposal. He showed the Committee pictures ora truck that is parked in his neighborhood. He commented that he has come close to hitting children who have run out into the street from behind the truck. He commented that the pictures show how tall the truck is and how if there is a car parked on the other side of the street, only one vehicJe at a time can use the street. He believes the pictures show this is a safety issue. The Committee expressed concern that if commercial vehicles cannot park in residential zones, where will they park? Will commercial zones be inundated with commercial vehicles parked overnight? There was concern that this proposal could place an unfair burden on small business owners who will have to park their commercial vehicle someplace other than their home. They asked staff to provide a map of areas that would allow on-street parking. The Committee expressed concern that there has not been much opportunity for the public to give testimony on this issue. Council Member Faison suggested that commercial vehicles be allowed to park in residential zones during regular business hours (8 a.m. to 6 p.m.). The Committee asked what the various neighborhood covenants say. Are they having problems with commercial vehicles? How much ofa problem is this in Federal Way? The Committee chose not to make a decision on this issue and requested staff return to the next LUTC with a report on the issues discussed above. S. FUTURE MEETINGS The next scheduled meeting will be March 21, 2005. 6. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 6:30 p.m. G:ILUTCILUTC Agendas and Summaries 2005\03-07-05 LUTC MinUles.dnc CITY OF FEDERAL WAY MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: VIA: FROM: SUBJECT: March 21, 2005 Land Use and Transportation Committee David H. Moseley, City ManagerFy~l :,o:v -v Maryanne Zukowski, P.E.j,~" City Center Access Study Final Briefing #6 Be/mor Park comment summary from project presentation. Public Stakeholder consensus comment summary. February 3,2005 Public Open House comment summary. Other Public Comments. Core Team .final option recommendations results. POLICY QUESTION: Should the remaining two (2) alternative options, endorsed by the Core Support Team of the City Center Access Study, move forward for further study in an environmental phase along with the completion of a Access Point Decision Report (APDR), and complete preliminary engineering as programmed in the current 2005 - 2010 six~year Transportation Improvement Plan. BACKGROUND: The City of Federal Way, in conjunction with project partners, Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), Federal Highways Administration (FHW A), Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC), and the additional supporting agencies (the "Core Support Team") perfonned a feasibility study to determine viable access solutions to the safety issues and the congestion at the interchange of S 320th Street and Interstate 5 (access to Federal Way City Center). The interchange is experiencing significant congestion many hours of the day and is currently at capacity. If a successful and viable access solution is found, Federal Way will proceed in developing an Access Point Decision Report (APDR) to submit to WSDOT. With City and State approval, the report would go to the FHW A. An APDR is the initial step required by FHW A before changing an interstate highway interchange. This briefing is the final in a series of Land Use and Transportation Committee (LUTC) briefings. This sixth and final update is the request for an approval of the preferred options for further evaluation. The final request is for the direction from the City of Federal Way City Council required for a step forward to an environmental study to rnove forward into an APDR. Briefing #1 presented the Public Involvement and Comrnunications Plan, the Project Work Plan, the Purpose and Need statement, the project issues map, and the study area of the project. Briefing #2 was presented by CH2M Hill, the engineering consultant, and provided an update from project beginning to the developrnent of 47 options (project alternatives) in this project study. Briefing #3 presented 15 options retained for further evaluation, analysis, and scoring. Briefing #4 presented 5 options retained for further evaluation, analysis, and scoring. Presented during this informational session were issues and concerns from the City of Federal Way Public Stakeholder Team and the Transit Agency Representatives. Briefing #5 presented a summary ofthe three (3) options evaluated at Level 3 screening prior to the second public open house. Final Briefing #6 presents: A recommendation for approval of two preferred alternative options with the following additional information: . Belmor Park comment summary from project presentation. Public Stakeholder consensus comment summary. February 3, 2005 Public Open House comment summary. Core Team final option recommendations results. Other Public Comments. . . . . Timeline December 2003 to June 2004 F=ÉDERÄl WAYÒli'Y CENTER EVALUATION PROCESS Bagan Study with 47 Options, Conducted "Fatal Flaw" Screening 14 LOI:.AI. N~TWORK OPTIONS " 28 5 N~W MODIFIED '" ~,i:; INTF.RCHANGE l 'IllRr.HANGE' OPTIONS '.. " OPTIONS June 2004: , ',,' ':'~;~:b¿;; !, . ,.:'~;:~~,:.:' Reduced to 15 Options for Second Leve! Screening I t1ÓPrIONS I REMAINED [ 4 ::::s ,."",,' 4 ':'¿'~:':::"5 ";;':'~.'i'~:: 3 LOCAL ,/iPJ,-" . ~i¡" ' Ot'HE,R 1I:1WORK:!~¡II:""IFIEb " , ,NEW ,""INrERqw«;f ", _IONS 11I'!.'r.RCltAI .(;~li' ItIŒRCHANGE '............. '" ,..,., ,!II"""!'¡'\:)f'IIOII ¡:""':"" OPTIOI S .. ",":-q~ ' """"j"1tf.~,:,:.)ii;","'Ii:,! ":i'il:",", ."',~,: January 2005: Reduced to 3 Build Options for Thìrd (Final) Screening " 3 OPTIONS] REMAINED ;:" 1 ..1;""'1"2 !':,i"" , ".:: JÍI¡~:::_.~"""""" ,I' ",LoCAl. >,"iIoiwIEh',,'~ ;;!""'TWO~~ I_~HA, ~ "'~~"."" 'I, '"I""",.. ","""'" ..",.. , ,.:::.,,:' -.. ~="'I" "" ", ,,1"":"" '" '",:: Eliminated Local Option, "':':,Iíij Recommend Mod. 1 and Mod. 2 for further study UPDATE: Following the completion of Briefing #5 to the LUTC, the City held two public stakeholder meetings, one public open house, a final core support team meeting, and presented a project summary to the Belmor Park residents and the South County Area Transportation District Board (SCA TDb). Additionally, public comments were received via e-mail to staff. The options presented for comment were the two options that moved forward from LUTC briefing #5: . Mod. 1 Option: S 320th/. 312th Braided CD Mod. 1 Option was created through refinement of the C2 VI Option that featured a Collector Distributor (CD) system accessing S 320th Street and S 31th Street. To accommodate a higher design speed, Option C2 VI was modified to enlarge the radius of the northbound loop on-ramp at S 320th Street. In the southbound direction, a braided ramp configuration allows for access to both S 31th Street and S 320th Street. A refinement in the northbound direction provides connection to S 31th Street via a northbound bound off~ramp alignment that travels under S 320lh Street before heading to S 31 th Street. A graphic schematic of Mod. 1 Option is provided as "Attachment A". . Mod. 2 Option: S 324th/S 320th Full Access Mod. 2 Option was created through modification of the D4 V2 Option that featured a half-diamond interchange at a new S 3241h Street bridge crossing and northbound and southbound frontage roads between S 324th Street and S 320th Street. Eliminating the fi-ontage roads modified the D4 V2 Option and added braided ramps in both directions to allow fu11y directional access from S 3241h Street and S 320th Street. The eastern extension ofthe proposed S 3241h Street crossing was realigned to merge with S 323rd Street instead ofWeyerhaeuser Way. In addition, the radius of the northbound loop on-ramp at S 320th Street was enlarged to accommodate a higher design speed, A graphic schernatic of the Mod. 2 Option is provided in the attachments labeled "Attachment B". The "build" options were compared against a "No-Build" Option that incorporated elements from a list of Spot City Wide Intersection Improvements (Transportation System Management "TSM" improvernents) developed by the City of Federal Way. Please see "Attachment C" for a complete list of these improvements. The future evaluation of the two "Build" options (Mod. 1 and Mod. 2) and the "No-Build" in an environmental phase, does not preclude the potential of a Local Option (additional bridge crossing 1-5 at S 3241h Street) to be combined and evaluated with a Modified Option or any combination of TSM or Modified interchange at the direction of the Core Support team. FEASIBILITY REPORT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Washington State Department of l' ran sport at ion (WSDOT) Chapter 1425, the feasibility study was an assessment of all Local Option irnprovements available to meet the existing and future transportation needs ofthe S 320th Street at I~5 interchange as well as the local connecting transportation network within the study area. All Local Options could not keep an acceptable Level of Service "E" through the City Center (S 320th Street) without extraordinary geometry (i.e. triple left-turns) and minimal impact to fi-eewayoperations. Since the Local Options did not meet project objectives and the project "Purpose and Need", two Modified Interchange Options with TSM have been approved by the WSDOT and the FHW A to move forward in an APDR. This recommendation has the endorsement of the Core Support Team, The new bridge crossing of 1-5 at S 312th Street, and the irnprovements at the 1-5 ramp intersections with associated bridge widening at S 320th Street are included in the all conditions, as they are currently within the City of Federal Way Comprehensive Plans. The S 320th Street at 1-5 ramp intersection improvements and bridge widening shall be included and evaluated as part of the final APDR request. Modification to this interchange as listed currently in the six-year Transportation Improvernent Plan (TIP) requires an APDR. This stand-alone improvement does satisfY a full solution to the future transportation issues within the study area. The Final Screening incrementally evaluated each of the Options in an effort to deteIlTline whether a low investment solution could be successful and meet the conditions outlined in Technical Memorandum 2 ('I'M 2) - Project Purpose and Need. The final outcome of the study was that Local Options alone cannot sustain the transportation needs ofS 320th Street at the 1-5 interchange and address the current and future safety and mobility issues. PUBLIC COMMENT SUMMARY: Belmor Park comment summary from project presentation At the request of the community residents' representative, following the City Center Access Study Public Open house, staff presented an informational session at the Community Club House on February 16, 2005 regarding the City Center Access Study project. It is estimated that over 250 residents participated in this presentation, although the sign in sheet as enclosed in" Attachment D" docs not ret1ect all the participants because people entered through auxiliary doors. There was standing room only in the presentation room. The majority of the participants were rnore concerned about the recent incident involving pedestrian safety and an immediate response to that issue, rather than the long-range transportation study presented. Although the majority ofthe participants were interested in the recent incident, staff did take many verbal comments, issues, and concerns regarding the City Center Access Study proj ect. Approximately 10 - 15 participants expressed comments towards the City Center Access Study project. In order to document comments, issues, and concerns and manage the large number of participants' comments from those who attended this meeting, staff requested written comments sent to the city by mail or e-mail on the City Center Access Study. To date, the attached comments have been received and are located with "Attachment D". Summarizing the 10 -15 participants concerns, issues, and comments expressed verbally at the presentation were: Access issues to Belmor Park with the Mod. 2 Option: S 324th/S 320lh Full Access option. Pedestrian safety issues with the Mod. 2 Option: S 324th/S 320th Full Access option. Positive feedback and interest in the Mod. 2 Option: S 3241h/S 320lh Full Access option. Negative feedback and disinterest in Mod. 2 Option: S 3241h/S 320th Full Access option. Positive feedback and interest in the Mod. 1 Option: S 320th/. 312th Braided CD option. Other Public Comments Staff has received various comments, issues, and concerns outside ofthe fonnal public open house, public stakeholder team, and the core support team. Although some of the comments presented here maybe from members of those teams, they are presented on their wish to present their position. Copies of these documents are enclosed in "Attachment E", and briet1y summarized below in no particular order: Friends of the HyIebos Wetlands - Comments on Endangered Wetlands under Mod 1 and Mod 2. Weyerhaeuser - Preference for Mod. 1 Option: S 320th/. 312th Braided CD option. King County Metro and Pierce Transit - request for additional analysis and work on both options in a future study. CH2Mhill- comments heard at open house. Federal Way Fire Department - Preference for Mod. 1 Option: S 320th/. 312th Braided CD option. The Commons at Federal Way - Solutions proposed are a positive impact to the mall. Citizen - comments on negative impacts from Mod. 1 Option: S 320th/. 312lh Braided CD option. Citizen - comments on negative impacts from Mod. 1 Option: S 320th/. 3l2th Braided CD option. Citizen - wishes additional attention for a new local alternative analyzed. Federal Way School District Transportation - Verbal opposition anyone-way couplet. Citizen - Commendations of the study. Federal Highway Administration - Commendations of the study. Citizen - Preference for Mod. 1 Option: S 320th/. 3lZth Braided CD option, with comments on negative impacts from Mod 2. SCA TBd - Verbal comments and interest on rnainline I~5 congestion improvements from proposals. Public Stakeholder consensus comment summary The final stakeholder meeting was held following the Public Open House for the project study on February 15, 2005. The Stakeholder group represents a wide and full range of interest and expertise. That experience ranges from former council members, ex-City Managers, City staff, Public Safety & Fire Department representatives, Chamber of Commerce President, business owners, private interest groups, and citizens. The team started out with a total of 32 participants,S of which were named from our legislative offices. A total of 12 active voting participants remained with the team, with 10 voting members at the final scheduled meeting. The following is a summary of the voting of the members with regards to the project study: 3 of 10 members voted to discontinue future phases of the study and do not support either alternative option. 7 of 10 members voted "no objection" to moving the two alternative options forward for further analysis, with one voting member abstaining. 'The team members also request to be on future phase study groups i£the project moves forward. February 3,2005 Public Open House comment summary A Public Open House presenting the results of the City Center Access Study project was held on February 3'd, 2005. With 101 people signing in, staff received many comments on the project alternative options. A fonnal surnmary ofthe Public Open House with the original cornments and that summary is to be located in the council workroom. A brief sumrnary of those comments is listed below and the spreadsheet summary is enclosed in "Attachment F". Mod. 1 Option: S 320th/. 312th Braided CD option Mod. 2 Option: S 324th/S 320th Full Access option Opposition to both options Support to both options Other forms of comments 14 positive comments 23 positive comments 4 4 7 20 negative comments 16 negative comments Core Team final option recommendations results The City staff and the Core Support Team for the City Center Access Study project endorse and recommend for further environmental study, final APDR, and preliminary engineering the two alternative options. Supporting this recommendation are the following summaries: 1. The City of Federal Way concurrency requirement for future transportation needs are supported by improvements that include modification to the Federal Highway System that includes safety and mobility. 2. Additional and detailed traffic analysis would be perfonned so that the decision makers will have adequate infonnation on a selection of a preferred alternative solution. 3. Additional and detailed infonnation from an environmental phase will address issues and concerns of the public and will provide decision makers with the correct tools to select a final alternative as a solution. A sampling of those issues are: a. Impact to Parks b. Environmental Justice (Displacements) c. Residential traffic impacts d. Noise e. Air Quality f. Water Quality g. Protection of threatened and endangered species to include fish habitat, critical and sensitive environmentally protected wetland plant life and sphagnum bog. Additionally the future study will identify all protected and endangered species impacted by the proposed project. With the council approval and funding the following is a proposed schedule of the project: -, ¿- c- RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends with the Core Support Team endorsement approval moving the following options forward for further study and approval by the City Council. Mod. 1 Option: S 320th¡. 312th Braided CD option Mod. 2 Option: S 324th¡S 320th Full Access option COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Forward the above recommendation to the AprilS, 2005 City Council Consent Agenda for approval. AI~PROV AL 01,' COM;\UTTKI'; REPORT; : . .:' .:,,;~~~!::~..,;;, ':. '.,:."... I;J~~.Y: Cb~ïr -:~-- -,- -':~~h.~ï~rk,M;mb.;---c- .".."...m._~ Eric Faison, Mcmbèr ." -. -,,--.-.... k:\lutc\2005\3-21-05 final brietíng #6 city cnter access study briefing. doc ATTACHMENT "A" ..f ?'. .:."..:if..:... ! +. p Park & Rice ,.<' , ~ I ",-~..., . Fcrlf'.ral Way - LEG~:-![) SCALE '[~"'.~:: "'" "" I. CõTY OF FEDERAL WAY C IIY CENTER ACCESS STUDY -V.-~O FINAL SCREENING MOD. 1 OPTION: S. 3201h1S. 312th BRAIDED CD - x x x -,..~,,; "'"".~,~"" ~~.NC_"':N"" I" = .coo FT Figure A.2 - Mod. 1 . C2 Vi Braided I CH2MHILL ô.,... .C>'. -co,.,., ,..~ :_" ~ -'," , ---- ---- A TT ACHMENT "B" ~~~~ F'~"~. .."'. .. '. '7~..... '.'" :~!~"~'.~~ .;~:.j~'t:::~~ "'. , 91 ~I"" - + ::T 'f!2 " ,.,. .' '. 23rd Ave. S -. -: ~:~ ~ "'..--......" .:,,'i:':-.~":- . ~~.;. ~ ~,-~ . .-,.- ~ ~.',- - . 2SthAve,- S ~, " '. NJ^ v N . Par'.< &. ,I RIde -'~"-.~ ...' '.~ ~ --' "':~i .. ~ç;~ 59 1C9! ICI.o) N ICI.o) .a f! ~ ~....~ Federal Way lEGE"::! ..""""m """""'iJ ~~~'~~~ELE"~- ! '«J"":"'" ,-",,_s , Weyerheal;ser Way S¡~- ~ ,. I CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CITY CENTER ACCESS S7UDY TM-10 FINAL SCREENING SCALE - xxx ""', ~ç om .. ,. -¿Xi. . : , J~~ï ~ :C~~ ~ -n. ~~~ / ~)ì-(I ;.. ~ .-" sr- . ". .' r--:~~'~",' ~ï [' - I --...:-r. i - I ff~~~ .~. ;.~: ,~": '.-<;F~i ,,-. I ,-; '. . . : ,J . :;~~;.;~.;:~~t.'~\:i ~:~~;-, ~.,'-~~~~~~t~ \ MOD. 2 OPTION: S. 324t1"JS, 32Qt'1 FULL ACCESS Figure A.3 - Mod. 2 - 04 Braided Schematic . . ;,' Fu"_"V' ; ~rmsÏl I : ;',Ce-:er . . i ",/- :. ~ V fD '" N ~ . <> "..' f!! ~9! :c.J ..... c""<! . ;5- m- ~ - f/I to) , N ~ 0 '5- .f!! ",~: -,- -;7 . '- .. ,,°, .,. .... u'- ,;~~:\:~. '-~~{f5~~n' . ",:"',c . - '.:c,-~>' '. '. ;" "'~ .> . ~ - 'Ë"~;~~ MOD. 2 c¿ 9q,A"ICEiJ , t-- -, ",- ) .",' ,~, - ,. t J' ~ .,¡. CH2MHILL A TT A CHMENT "C" Appendix 0 CH2M HILL Traffic System Management, TSM Analysis DRAFT 1M #10 A ndix D Inter- section Ap roach 1m rovements S. 32Oth 51. & SR 99 1, ,:III'I!!!"'I!II:I!I!i:,;~t/'!I¡I:!IIIII!!'!¡i::I":illI"',:i, SB NB W6 EB ,I" "~,~. , ':.., ""i:'II!I""!I"I~"""""" :1,,'~".'!!:'I!!I:IIII'¡iillliil .. "I'ill., ": ,.:"1" """. 'I ,. " . "':':'!"'.. "::""'¡ ~,~'',::I:,,:::illi":!¡'¡11 ':~i~.i.~.i!;¡'::', 4. S6 NB WB EB 5, SB NB WB EB .",".,1, """:",.,,' i,!II"!I::I:!!'I!"II::IIII'.1'~:l'illl!l:,,!II,II!!l1111i11111111I:ill:,,:: ':',':'1'" & I ~ NO R;1111P5 6, :'¡'I"""', . '!'i¡:~,¡ ~~",.: 7. 0-1 Appendix 0 CH2M HILL Traffic System Management, TSM Analysis DRAFT 1M #10 A endix D Inter- section A roach 1m ovements S. 336th St. & SR 99 10. SB NB WB EB Add SBL -~" II~~, ',il", ': . :<:1 ,); .!"" ,:, '""i:,, ,I ::",:, :,!:",;I,\I ;":1", , 11. ,,:,,'iill"":::::"h."t"M" "":"'!'I!II'>'.""",' ,,¡~::" .""',:"',"" ,"":!I:lli:,,!.,~.,~,I:::I!lli:,I!:IIII,,':,,',:!::1Illi;;ii:',,;i!:i¡t'tJ"'!lil!!I:::::I:,IIII, :í:,:;:::(;~i,~ S. 316th SI. & SR 99 12. SB NB WB EB ," .",.I'.~""::",,I:::::i,,::: "1:1::::111::::;::' ,':""i\'!<!~~!':."i::I",:,,ii', 13. 14. Add exclusive sin Ie WBL Add EBL Ii""',,, '~f '" "'~¡:"', . ":':::"",.',!Il\-:¡: 15. S6 NB WB EB " ".' 0-2 Appendix 0 "CH2M HILL Traffic System Management, TSM Analysis DRAFT 1M #10 A endix D Inter- section A roach 19, SB NB WB EB 20. ",~, ,"... ,: 'l!i:II!II""",'",:,;,';:, - .----..!!.. :J 121h m _& 28111 AvC>. ::>. I"":"", ::.', . "I>:~\ :,,1 21. SB NB WB EB Add WBL ,",I' '~o!Il"::""1 '1",:',;:~:~::il!",:,,!!:':IIi,I::',:: "",:~I,'/:,<"""", ~~. D;¡~;h 1'01111 Rd "'", SB NB WB EB "'" ""'"",:::'~"il:'¡ '1!"IIIIIII!li"'~}IIIIIIIIIII!!,::'! i:"':~':',_:~~",.:mè:;"I,,':',,¡¡I,¡II.. 22. 23. I ,I S8 NB WB EB .)~il:,i"llil'I:,I"I';I!I:!~;.t~'¡, ':";"",,, ,111I1I11!!II'Ar"""""!"!""IIII"""""",, <mnirrnd lefl:; NH:m'l ""'"i" "" "":,,,,:!¡jto¡'¡,'f!lllIllIl!li'IlIl' "¡iiiiiilli¡",i.¡.'"(¡e.:,I!,,,,, R ?72nù :~t R Militar Kù. . '!¡I:!I,,'¡í!I\i¡!~:', :'Iil!, ,'II' 26. SB NB WB EB Add exclusive NBR; Add 2nd NBL Add 2nd WBL Add 2nd EBL: Add 2nd EBR D-3 ATTACHMENT "D" Traffic Meeting Wednesday, February 16,2005 Belmor Park 2101 S 324th Street ..,' -' --'~- c..iCð -, <! ð IV\.. - -úCI ?- /ic "5~ ~b3.) '-)6/ Traffic Meeting VVednesday,February16,2005 Belmor Park 2101 S 3.24th Street SÞÃCE NO. '1\1 AME (PLEASE PRINT) PHONE No. EMAIL ADDRESS ',' C) "' b,X¡Ylrt,J - (') rV\ ..tf'Jt.~/- :21/.3 ~3Z'- /71 :20 ~3~- If) ~ '~)5 ~ bc;>j ERH~'¡ H ~~ D ~ cù r ô r> ......,\ \ L~ Irz A Áß \.lh ~ \ /1 C/) () / .;() (\ 7-t .I >¡ ~jJ Ah-/7 /¿ I ~ C;" >::7 ... /'? AÆ! ý.¡')¡;: FP':s T E ¡z ,.-;;::ç ¡) ,~ r23D F77 J~ I .)... ¿", / ( aL11 / I "{ ~.¿ ; ~?, A-kLIv e ý ¡ÇO 5- n£ V ~~ ~/ ~J4 t t:) Ao I L1! J-. V. V:\ 0 I ,ÌÏV\ (1"" --f:?; jJý, 'U~ ;PV ccq fb;ter r-!'. AII/O~~ AJI/ /),~/17 ( /Î 1\/ I~AN.o d F:¡:J46.J¡p:L-l'A/ &1, D flA Ii' L I (,(/1 tjIV 4- ~ I:2Gg~~.-+ r 5'~/lc;".¿.¥{..4# V ~/ß ¡jJ/j-é / ¿') C»--~.d~ Þ! á7? 1 '""j))¡J ¿J.d¿,. II'L JA~ v-L) '\ rJ , I.- ~ . (¿/ dJJ ;;-:b/J. A'Z:- 7/1 'A ~~~hA íJLf }f! /A ~A- V d. fiÞ / c-£- ~~~ f2. <1Ç4~ ~ IAJl /. d'ßft"7'V ~ ~ ---- .~.~ A"- ~~ ?? /l ÞcJ:Y/1 t:' {( 5' e~' -?ì1 r1 -' . "'VV- ~~ /l. . () { Þ ex '- (;;¡ CLußA- '1:J1tw ~/l{ J /. ¿ 1 ¿¡iJjlv ;tL- 1.)12-" ~ a ~ L{/)Á.- fL ' . /1'/ u~ j (A.h,(U /Y'-<, ';::Ì'~~¿/1 /~/'l'~ ¿fA' ~~¿L "t. .),;,~ ~C rÇ;~<1J~-"'--~ <-/ J 'ß L ~ ~O.ll)-€..¡ ,1----- ,/~~~/f/.-~ ~ ~ I~ 13~~/2J d < /'~J¿ 111f- /A A~ ~ ~ .-tú/u t1J\ J ki h~lklÁ~ :>" ( Q \'(\ /\A 0 1- I r,)\ ') 1 ^ -""'. ....~ 2L¿ :2¿, 2- ;2-6 2- :2... )(] '/ :< /1 ~///t/ 'P-d "2-13 ;1;; CO~ 7 79 /Cfr? Ii/, / v~ d--- /~8 ç/ .l2d 11.0,/ :i c) C} 'if./ t./3 /lr; / / ...., ð) \ Or ¡ ,~ I ..'.>""',;,,,>; c;;; '.c; ,.. 'cc .cc)............. -- - - ..-- ~ .... " " ~--- -..- -, _. /': ,::;C; 3 c¡tj ç b s;~) ( /j¡)lj IJLa ; J1 It{ If!.t/~ fQz, , 'SPAÇ'È: NAME (PLEASE PRINT)" ' ",,' ,", ,"" '~O'" t~ ¡} ç¡1d~~ ~ 2ß :J /~d.L.I /~¿ ."7 / 7 ~-7 ~4- . ~~i;;/a71/A7'- :2 ý ¡r:: .~ \11 ¡.\ 4 ¿ \\\ QM. \J~ 2--\ /~/ / )J.'¿-'L7,r!~? ~ /1 (/) ;'1,:11 d ~ Ì' V';¡¡f / - '~f- -L/bA ~p .~--- ~ À / / ?, , (~/477 /L.ç,-A" IL:, ~ ú/) 7 ~~7 jl Aft: ~,- / / ;6' ~oi.~;1 ~f-, L,L if :3 ð 0 '"-:;r;/J? ê:5 0 L SC> ¡J / L/ _~R~GfiAfl- ~SÐ~ /y Y ~ LAJ\ 'i\" V. / --"-- / "Ó .Š II! tit///\- c-- ~),' .".tc Ú Ie ç- ,;L~ J);_/(v/~~ 1:5 --li)íli[¿¡1cf --;/'fi;?-:cZ / I 5 , jj /.14-> /u /7/¡uh. / I 5 k n~\-ÁU¡) 0 -P)1 Á/11 /" ~( kP~ A ~Á ( ð- I J)/r ,~~ ~AUC)¿¡';:'ù' n v - I (I g ,<ß¡ //,1; 1/ /L 2. 2 j) _d~_J., &Jf L.L.s .d.3 'f5k l1~ j b ~ j ,; , J/Lt ~ Ie '-.. ,-2 Ç( J ~7éJ 11-/ II :fL./¡ / /:/ S ¡J 7 c¡ a #~JjL/~/Z;h~¡} 5 :J 1 C( ¡-1-' }dyc ¿rl~ec,r:è)- 17 1l7 /1,7 -' j -K~}ßJ J//TI /J I ) éJ... ~j//1 r ()/;:' / A / tÞ ,3 .~ ':1 ¡r /j A if (] PYLLxJ / -li:i :;¡ 7y ~~\dc~o~~ 1 (",<7 ~:,Ii C;~tt n. /kí ((¡k/YLt, LJ( f' (L,V¡1t--~ ( )?'4' 7'J~~~ j{jd/rflr¿~ / & ~/- ¡(f~( X<9/1Ar-C~i J Á j / ~ f 8 Df)¡Z;~Ab11 ¡(J fJa7'l-d7JT 7 </- ) ,e r7 0 n7 j./- 1.'1);- / ,f¡:; 7 j 'v , ",.'.,""""",""","",'" .. """""""", ,,"PHONE No. ',' EMAIL ADDRESS, ,}Ltz;tZt .. "',", ",-, 'JL".., ,'.." '26;- ¡rS ~ ~ $ Ç') q ! , -- , ....-- lJi-b3z. -/ P; < I," NAME (PLEASE PRINT) , SPACE No. £, J //(,-1 II ¿--,,¡ A/I.?' /} 1/ /L(L. ¿I//l E - k'Í-;::,(//¡j,~~\/ /77---- Ø¡;;;JíI!IÍ IJE/I¡ElJ£ Ii'l / AI? 7 I~TI,£7U'QjÉ )JÎcdilÆvL>-i/!)lfi~~u ,~)~l7F /;; F (~!/O -1À 0 '"' tel V Qþ' #-q:) '1! &4~ It,;. ~~ 1Þ c¡ 3 /./u-,//ju~ f' -, ) J; 11~ 7ftlf-d~ Æ/9 11j a--~.iJ ¿J AY~ j " /\ c2 .~3 II '':;It:/þ~ <t lJ¿:J;¡;.?7ß ,;:L /(æ-<l.¿ ¿J rJ/ ,-, .. - ,-".. .- -- -. f---------,-., . PHONE No. " - --- "., , .. , , ' , ' , ' .. .EMAIL.-;Á,t)DRESS" ',",' ---,,_.... ----,- ':<,"/.:, - -01/ \ :":~ ,"::tv"" , ..- -- - .m==..=-_~ag~_- From: To: Date: Subject: karen larson <bettyboop0972003@yahoo-com> < Marya n ne. Zu kows ki@cityoffederalway-com> 03/14/20059:50:01 AM Î-5 exit oppose the new f/w exit. Nora johnson space 284 belmor mobile park at 2101 s 324 st federal way ... , . ." ... ...""",.' ...". .". Maryanne Zukowski - Bel-mar lynch Mob "',' .' . ' ....,.., " " . ,. "..""" . .,"'.~----".._"""..".~----~. " ".." ..... " ",," .".. ".. ".,... .~.~.~~""....J From: To: Date: Subject: <m.mielenz@attnet> < maryan ne .zu kowski@cityoffederalway.com> 02/17/20058:45:04 PM Bel-mar Lynch Mob Good Moring Maryanne As you may have gathered, Bel~mor residents wish to fix the crosswalk death trap. When you explained the 2030 plan, they had a difficult time understanding why a light was not an option. If you want to please my fellow residents, put forth a plan for a prefabed bridge. That fits in with the 324th plan, so it won't be distrubed during any reorginization of 324th. By the way I'm attaching a resume, in case Engineering needs a planner (hint, hint). Thank you for coming, and please write if I can be of service. Michael R. Mielenz ""'~""""""M_""""""""""",c,"" From: To: Date: Subject: "wellsclyde@juno.com" <wellsclyde@juno.com> < ma ryan ne. zu kows ki@cityoffederalway-com> 03/13/2005 1 :45: 18 PM 15 exit at Federal Way Maryanne Zukowski We feel that an exit from 15 onto South 324th Street will not provide the traffic relief needed for Federal Way. This would dead end the traffic onto Highway 99 unless you plan to widen S. 324th west of Highway 99 and divert the traffic through Celebration Park. This would back up traffic at the Commons entrances. What would happen to the existing power line towers? We feel the answer would be an exit at South 312th Street. Traffic could flow into business plazas along S. 312th and Highway 99, Dash Point, Redonda and other areas served by S. 312th. There should be enough room to put the exit between the apartment buildings and the fire station. Thank you for your presentation to the Belmor residents. We feel strongly that South 312th Street would be a better solution. Clyde and Dorothy Wells Belmor residents #23 -_.~.._. . -~-~~~-~--~,~=""-- -' -.-_. --~_..".".._- .-- Yahbo! Mail - mekij kpk@Jahoó..cøm P~Ft of 1 MAIL Print..Cfese Windew Date: Thu 2005 19.124:~~..OBOO (PSi") From: !lj 0 hn'"ke llyn '<m elgjkpk@yâhoo.!';Qro> Subject:F'REEWAY EXIT To: 11 MARYANN ZUKOWSKl!J <Ria ryannezUkowskJ@cityÞffederal way .com>- MY NAME IS JOHNJ KEllY. II..JVE IN.BELMØRE PARK, WI'1"H~MYWlFE'M~RGARET. WE BOTH FEEL THA TAN OFF.RAMP fROM i",s ONTO 324THiSTREET WOI:JLDBE A. BAD IDEA. FOR THE fOLLOWING REASONS. 1-.,EXCESS TRAFfiC OmO324TRWOUlD MAJ(EITEVEN MORE D1RFICUl TTO E~IT BElMOREP~RK OR ENTeRBELMQRE PARK FROM 3241"H. 2- VfEI1~VE ALREAD¥HÂD FATALITY AND A fEW BAD ACCiDENTS INFRONTC>F OUR.EN"TRA.NGE BECAUSe OF.EXCESS TRA ON 324TH. AS IT IS. 'WEDON1T DMORe1RAfFfC.3 - ITLD BE ToaCLOSE TO EXIT 320TH WHI CHI SIN OPERATION KNOW. SO 312TH LDFAR AWÁ¥FROM THE PRESENT 320TIï EXIT. 4- MAYBEE AN EXIT DOWN Aft T . RI FldTH'.CENTER COMPLEK WOULD EVEN MAKE MORe SENSE. AS.AB 5+% OF REMEM LLCOME TO TRAT.AREAVIA THE FREEWAY. PLeASE CONSIOEROTHERAVENUESTHEN324TH; TtfANK YOU JOHNtMARGARET KELLY 2 53...4 49~Ì ATTACHMENT "E" Comment on Endangered Wetlands Under Mod 1 and Mod 2 Plans for City Access Improvement, 2/3/05 Chris Carrel, executive director of the Friends of the Hylebos, and I (past president of the board and professional biologist) visited a wetland just east of the 320th and 1-5 interchange and reviewed the status of the bog there on 2/1/05. This site had been shown to us in early 2001 by Louise Kulzer, a bog expert with King County Department of Natural Resources. As was the case four years ago, we found an apparently healthy sphagnum peat bog, populated with bog laurel, lavender tea, reindeer lichen, and sphagnum moss. A review of our notes from 2001 seems to indicate that this bog is still in excellent shape, and little, if anything has changed from that earlier visit. According to Louise Kulzer, only 3 percent of the wetlands in King County are bogs, and this particular bog is one of the few remaining bog wetlands in King County. We estimate that this wetland comprises an area of approximately 5000- 7000 square feet, and lies within 50 feet of 1-5 on the west1 near the Olympic Pipeline, and bordered by the base of the Capital One parking lot fill on the east. It appears from the existing design drawings that either the Mod 1 or Mod 2 in the City Access Study may directly intrude on the bog. Given the ecological importance of bogs and the regulatory issues involved in wetlands, the Friends felt it important to raise the issue of a potential conflict with the bog wetland at this early stage so that it can be considered as this decision-making process moves forward and the future NEPA/SEPA studies are undertaken. I'm attaching maps of the approximate location of the bog on the designs for Mod 1 and Mod2, as proposed by the City Access Study teams. I'm also including some photos taken of the bog in 2001 and four years later, in 2005. We appreciate your willingness to consider this issue and to move forward with this locally rare ecosystem in mind. Sincere, I~, , ," L-~J , / ~r Eric Stavney , Friends of the Hylebos Wetlands Representative on the City Access Stakeholder Team Comment on Endangered Wetlands Under Mod 1 and Mod 2 Plans pg 1 of 4 Approximate location of the bog on Mod 1 and Mod 2 Design Plans M &Iu!IT..' ~¡"I ~¡~ S' ",,',','> , , Location of pristine sphagnum-peat bog wetland along 1-5 .It ~ :"~;>1'-;'7"": \:~¥?' MOO. 1 Of'nON: S. 321JIN6, 31210 8Ito\1Ü€D CD ",."." a I8I\1II aL :" . ". "', "'::':!'~~~t:'~: '~'t ;', '. . '.. '.:- . ," '.,;t, :'.',~: "'",: :.r_~O::o:-I.~':I'~"¡.1.:.r.',. ;~ ~:d~ ~~~.. ~,. i~~:'::j~~"I¡' "'. "'or;"""':" "4.j;~;-'~'~"', j .....L:::.'." ,I "'0,/ [:'IIV"""I:t'FlAi.INIlY r.~~w.,.y '~'~!"~~""""~ ~.-.~' "'~nYC,""'lf':¡"CCES:5S,IU9Y -.~- ='~":""'" ",."", ni-1C fl","- ~"EoENI"(¡ . . .. . " . MOD. 2 01'1 ION: S. 32~tm'$. J<roII1 fl¡~L IICCES$ Figu... A,3 - Mod, 2 - 04 Braided Schemati" ...... 8.L Comment on Endangered Wetlands Under Mod 1 and Mod 2 Plans pg 2 of 4 The bog in Comment on Endangered Wetlands Under Mod 1 and Mod 2 Plans pg 3 of 4 " . " .;,'.. " ". .' . " ',- View of the bog northwards from southern end, 2001 Comment on Endangered Wetlands Under Mod 1 and Mod 2 Plans pg 4 of 4 Œi!i~h6F:4'R~;'¡@=~:ç¡i~~I:~'~ ~E~£tlj~~, ~:~£~§1§!ì:~:~2!. ,t9 '.XI,a.:E§]}:="::::":,=,:,:':::'::,:::::":,."",,,,,::",::::'~:::-:.,,::£,~.9iJ From: To: Date: Subject: "Stavney, Eric" <EStavney@sea.devry.edu> "Maryanne Zukowski" <Maryanne.Zukowski@cityoffederalway.com> 02/02/20053:02:16 PM Casual survey of wetlands behind Capital One next to 1-5 (2-1-05) Hi Maryanne, Chris Carrel, executive director of the Friends of the Hylebos and I visited the wetlands just east of the 32Oth and 1-5 interchange yesterday and reviewed the status of the bog there. Chris had visited the bog in early 2001 with Louise Kulzer, a King Co. Natural Resources bog expert to see how intact and pristine the bog was. As you have earlier indicated learning from Wash DNR, the bog there is indeed a sphagnum peat bog, complete with healthy hummocks (little hills) of bog laurel, lavender tea, reindeer lichen, and sphagnum moss. In examining his notes from the 2001 trip, Chris and I determined that the bog today (as of 2/1/05) is still in excellent shape, with vigorous and healthy growth of classic peatbog vegetation. In fact, Chris was hard-pressed, without a more thorough survey, to say that much have anything has changed in the last 4 years in this bog. According to Louise Kulzer, this bog is one of the few remaining pristine wetlands of its type in King County. We estimate that it probably comprises an area of approximately 5000-7000 square feet Since the bog is still in great condition, we can't say it has degraded to a point where a new freeway onramp wouldn't be destroying anything worth saving. The bog is still indeed vigorous and lovely. and is essentially a precursor plant community to what we now see in the West Hylebos wetlands - a park that the State and now Federal Way has already embraced as being well worth preserving. The position of the Friends and myself (as a professional biologist) would be to promote a greater awareness of this rare wetland and the possible conflict with the development of either Mod 1 or Mod 2 in the City Access Study. We'd like the Core Team and other decision-making bodies to understand what could be lost with the current design plans and to understand potential problems in passing the future NEPAISEPA studies with these designs. Perhaps changes in the plans for the east side of the interchange could save this little gem. I'm attaching some photos taken in February 2001 of the wetlands during the Louise Kulzer trip which look almost identical to those we took in the same location yesterday (2/1/05). I can supply more current photos if it would be helpful at this point to get them into the record. Thank you for your willingness and interest to include our opinion on this issue. Eric Stavney 3600 S. 344th Way Federal Way, WA 98001 estavney@sea.devry.edu <mailto:estavney@sea.devry.edu> (253) 943-3135 cc: "Chris Carrel" <chinook@hylebos.org>  Weyerhaeuser The future is growing'" rv:: ff/Ah¡ /JA'l)1/.-/ Corporate Headquarters . 0 PO Box 9777 Federal Way WA 98063-9777 Tel (2531924 2345 February 17,2005 The Honorable Dean McColgan, Mayor Mr. David Moseley, City Manager \/"Mr. Cary Roe, Director of Public Works City Hall 33325 8th Ave S PO Box 9718 Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 A ECE\V ED FEB 2 2 20ü5 fEOERALWAY PUBI-\C WORKS ADMINIS1RAiION DIVISION Dear Gentlemen: The City of Federal Way held an open house on February 3, ZOOS, for the public to review the two remaining options to improve transportation access to Federal Way's city center. Weyerhaeuser would like to respond to the City Center Access Study Team and the City of Federal Way on how those options will impact the company's campus. We believe the South 324th Street bridge crossing option would significantly increase traffic on Weyerhaeuser Way South, particularly during peak commute hours. Additionally, the traffic flow would end at 3Znd Avenue South or Weyerhaeuser Way South, which will require traffic to merge on to 3Z0th or 336th. These streets already are overcrowded. This option would take fewer vehicles off of South 320th, would also require use of some part ofWeyerhaeuser's property behind the company's technology center, and would disrupt our walking trails, all of which is a concern to us. In our view, the South 31ih street option provides the potential to enhance a street grid that can eventually connect to Hi~hway 167. Traffic moving south from Seattle could exit at Soutr 312th or the South 317t I car pool lane, taking vehicles off of I~5 prior to reaching South 320th where the City Center Access Study Team improvements are targeted. We appreciate your consideration ofWeyerhaeuser's concerns. Please feel free to contact Jan Gibson, Weyerhaeuser Facilities Director, at 924-4442 if you have any questions or concerns. ì;~~ Debra Hansen Vice President Weyerhaeuser Business Services [,..,',M, "a,ry,,"",',a,',',', n,".,'.',ne,",Z,"'~,.,",,'",'.,k,'~,'." (,;,'.,s,'~,'.,r,i,'=R,'.,',E,",".;më,i,'t,',y,",',',,'.,~,C,'.,'~e;',',','~,'."FA,cc~~;,"sTudy-~'(5'o'~m-~'~-t~:_m','~,'_m"~--_,"~'--""."..,.".'~,- "~:'.-:'~.,~,.,::~,....,.',:"""~,==.-.'.',:,"""í'Éà,",".g,.,~i, -j ""'""""""""""""'-~,.."'m'~m"""-"""""""-"ill"m_"~".m..""--"-""""m"'""'="""'mm"m,,,,.'m',,=.""","',=..,,"""""" ",_"_=-,~""""",,,,"'"""""m., ,.... ,'~"m.._m' """""""-_,m,"'.." m__~..m~ From: To: Date: Subject: "Gibson, Jan" <jan.gibson@weyerhaeuser.com> "Maryanne Zukowski" <Maryanne.Zukowski@cityoffederalway.com> 01/14/200510:28:02 AM RE: City Center Access Study - Comments Maryanne, Please enter the following statement into the comments for the core team meeting on January 18. After discussing the three remaining options for the Federal Way City Center Access Study, Weyerhaeuser has some concerns about the local option and mod 2. Both of these options will cut into our property and increase traffic on Weyerhaeuser Way. We look folWard to the environmental study to help us better understand these impacts. Jan Gibson Facilities Director Weyerhaeuser Business Services CH 3G18, (253) 924-4442 Fax: (253) 942-0614 ja n. g i bson@weyerhaeuser.com CC: "Akiyama, Patricia" <patricia.akiyama@weyerhaeuser.com>, "Costello, Wally" <wally.costello@quadranthomes.com>, "Hansen, Debra" <debra. hansen@weyerhaeuser.com> '<".e>._..,>"...~._.,.,""",,>w.>='e.....'.. """_"m"",,w_,..'.,,'- Pa e From: To: Date: Subject: "Lattemann, Jack" <Jack.Lattemann@METROKC.GOV> "Maryanne Zukowski (E-mail)" <Maryanne.Zukowski@cityoffederalway.com> 02/22/2005 8:02:34 AM Response to your questions I've only talked with Pierce Transit. and can say both King County Metro and Pierce Transit have an interest in further, more detailed analysis of the alternatives in an environmental process to help clarify the transit issues identified during the City Center Access Study, and identify interchange and arterial improvements that would benefit transit access and operations. In regard to financial contributions to future studies and grant applications, I will leave an answer to that question up to the grants staff in the King County DOT's Director's Office; a contact there for you would be Peter Heffernan (206-684~1812). The respective addresses for Ann and me are: Ann Martin, Principal Transportation Planner Office of Regional Transportation, DOT KSC-TR-O814 201 S Jackson St Seattle, WA 98104-3856 Jack Lattemann, Transportation Planner IV Service Planning, Transit Division, DOT KSC- TR-0422 201 S Jackson St Seattle, WA 98104-3856 Jack Lattemann Transportation Planner IV Service Planning - Transit Division King County Dept. of Transportation Phone: (206) 684-6764 E-Mail: jack.lattemann@metrokc.gov cc: "Martin, Ann" <Ann.Martin@METROKC.GOV> 8 {If.' {2IC¡¿ Kf' I L. King County Metro Transit Division Service Planning Department of Transportation King Street Center, KSC-TR-0422 201 South Jackson Street Seattle, WA 98104-3856 RECEIVED JAN 1 9 2005 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC WORK~ ADMINISTRATION DIVISION January 12, 2005 Maryanne Zukowski, P.E., Project Manager Federal Way City Center Access Study City of Federal Way, Public Works Department P.O. Box 9718 Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 Dear Ms. Zukowski: Thank you for organizing the December 15,2004 meeting that brought together stafffTom the City of Federal Way and the three transit agencies serving the City to discuss transit-related issues ofthe Federal Way City Center Access Study with the project consultant staff of CH2M Hill. The purpose ofthis letter is to follow up that meeting, as well as the discussion at the regular project support team meeting held on December 21, 2004. Summarized below are several of the points we discussed along with some additional comments generated by internal discussions among King County staff. I have organized our comments under six headings to facilitate further discussion. I. The Federal Way City Center Access Study should make recommendations that further the objectives set forth in the City's Comprehensive Plan. Compliance with local and regional planning goals is a critical objective and requirement of any future transportation improvements in downtown Federal Way. As one ofthe key urban centers in Central Puget Sound, both the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan and the Puget Sound Regional Council's Vision 2020 (and Destination 2030) planning documents emphasize the need to focus density (jobs, housing, shopping) within the City Center. Both of these documents recognize that the success of the urban center strategy is dependent on transit absorbing a significant share of the new trips in the urban centers and throughout the region as a whole. Critical to this strategy is the implementation and development of transit-supportive improvements within downtown Federal Way. The transportation chapter of the City of Federal Way's Comprehensive Plan (Chapter Three, Revised 2003) identifies the City Center as a transit-supportive urban center consistent with the Vision 2020 plan adopted by the Puget Sound Regional Council. Geographically, the Plan identifies 20th Ave. S. and proposed S. 318th S1. as the central point of the Urban Center. The Plan establishes transportation goals and policies for the City Center that place heavy reliance on public transit's attraction of a much higher mode share of travel in the future. To this end, the new Federal Way Transit Center under construction by Sound Transit at 23rd Ave. S. and S. 317th St. "is considered by the City as a major anchor to the urban center designation..." Maryanne Zukowski, P.E. January 12, 2005 Page Two The Plan poses some formidable mode split policy objectives for transit to carry (Policy TP69): . 15% of all daily person trips . 30% of all daily work trips . 40% of all work trips between activity centers The Plan acknowledges that a series of supportive actions are essential to support increased densities and the transit vision for the City Center. Specifically mentioned are street planning to provide "exclusive access routes to transit centers" as densities increase, developer incentives, focused public investments, improved traffic circulation, and improved non~motorized (pedestrian and bicycle) access. This is the adopted framework against which the consistency of City Center Access alternatives needs to be evaluated. To date significant investment has been made to accomplish both the broader goals of Vision 2020 and the specific goals and objectives outlined in the City's Comprehensive Plan. Significant facility and service investments supporting transit, such as the new Federal Way Transit Center and related direct HaV access, are now under construction. In the case of the City Center, future infrastructure investment will drive the nature of future development, auto-oriented versus pedestri anltransi t ~orì ented. Without the accommodation of transit-oriented focused growth in the urban center, growth may occur in areas outside the urban centers where it is more auto oriented with less infrastructure, where it is more difficult to manage and provide effective transit services and facilities. The City Center Access Study provides a strategic opportunity to build upon current investments and to identify the critical transit-oriented improvements needed to support the short- and long~range goals outlined by the City in its Comprehensive Plan. 2. More information is needed on the types of trips (both internal and external) that the City Center Access recommendations are designed to serve. A major question for the Federal Way City Center Access Study is what future trips are the access alternatives attempting to serve. The Comprehensive Plan identifies more than half of future trips as "internal." However, most of the discussion at support team meetings has been focused on how best to improve the circulation of trips moving to and from 1-5 and through the City Center. A specific concern has been how to alleviate future traffic volumes on S. 320th St. We believe the discussion of City Center access alternatives would benefit from more infonnation on the nature of the trips to be served by the proposed improvements (regional versus local, work versus non-work, transit/HOV versus auto). This information should be available from model runs already completed. Desirable data are: Maryanne Zukowski, P .E. January 12, 2005 Page Three . What proportion ofthe future trips on existing arterial segments is "internal" (i.e., originate and terminate within the study area), and what proportion is "external" (i.e., originate or terminate outside the study area)? . What percentage of future peak hour trips on S. 320th St. is actually diverted to other corridors (312th and 324th streets) by the proposed improvements? . What is the percentage mode share of future trips made by transit that is assumed by the model for 2030? How does this compare with existing mode share? . What impacts do the three City Center access alternatives have on the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) of "internal" trips compared to Baseline? 3. One~way arterial operations do not work for effective and efficient transit access and operations, and are unacceptable for accomplishing the policies and objectives for the City Center as set forth in Federal Way's Comprehensive Plan. A major focus of the letter sent to you by Sound Transit, Pierce Transit, and King County Metro on November 9, 2004, was the potential impacts to transit service and facilities by the one-way couplet local alternative. As we discussed at the Decernber 15,2004 meeting, the transit travel time criterion used in the final evaluation of City Center Access alternatives was too focused on a single arterial segment to address all of the costs (or all of the benefits) to transit. Potential transit impacts of one~way couplet operation in the City Center would include; . Circuitous routing for five existing King County Metro Transit routes (plus additional potential future routes) would significantly increase operating costs; . The one-way couplet would increase out-of-direction travel for auto access to Sound Transit's park-and~ride garage, currently under construction, as well to the existing Federal Way Park-and~ Ride (P&R), thereby reducing the attractiveness of these facilities for transit, carpool, and vanpool use; . Potential delays to transit movements in and out of the new transit center at 23rd Ave. S. and S. 317th S1. would negatively impact transit service; . One-way streets would require the relocation of existing bus stops and re-routing of existing transit routes, thereby increasing future tmnsit operating costs whilc reducing the ability of transit to attract increased modal share. Transit-supportive facilities should be added to the interchange alternatives to improve or counter-balance the impacts on transit: Maryanne Zukowski, P.E. January 12,2005 Page Four Each interchange alternative would need to be analyzed in greater detail to determine the specific impacts to transit operations and facilities. For example, the Mod. 1 alternative (S. 3l2th/320th interchange) might benefit transit access to the Federal Way park-and-ride lot if an HOY queue-jump lane were provided on the southbound off.rarnp to S. 320th S1. Likewise, the Mod. 2 alternative (S. 320th/324th interchange) could benefit transit access to the Federal Way park~and-ride lot if a queue- jump HOY lane were provided on the southbound collector-distributor ramp to S. 324th St. The Mod. 2 alternative would potentially also take away some capacity at the existing Federal Way park-and-ride lot, and might require reconstruction of the transit circulation roadway and boarding platform. These impacts have not been analyzed or quantified, but should be analyzed if Mod. 2 becomes the preferred interchange component of a City Center Access project. 4. The concept of a transit contraflow lane does not adequately address the impacts of a one-way couplet to transit summarized earlier in this letter, and in fact raises some new issues. During the support tearn discussions of the alternatives, the consultant team introduced the concept of a northbound contTaflow lane for transit under the one-way couplet alternative. The contraflow lane was described as a potential "mitigation" of the potential adverse impacts ofthe one-way couplet to transit operations. In our view, the concept of a transit contraflow lane does not adequately address the broader impacts of a one-way couplet to transit summarized earlier in this letter, and in fact raises some new issues: . The contraflow lane would have to be designed to allow buses pass one another. Otherwise, an inoperable bus would shut down the lane. . Optimal operation of a single contraflow lane would require no bus stops along 23rd Ave. S. This would mean that northbound buses on 23rd would not be able to stop to pick up passengers, which would effectively decrease transit access in the area. . A contraflow lane on 23rd Avenue South would defeat one of the objectives of a one-way couplet by introducing an additional signal phase at 23rd Ave. S. and S. 320th S1. The need for an additional phase was not assumed in the consultant analysis ofthat intersection's operation under the one-way couplet. . A contraflow lane for transit would be an inviting path for non-transit violators, and enforcement would be problematic if no pullouts were provided for police to pull over violators. Maryanne Zukowski, P .E. January 12, 200S Page Five S. Identification of a set ofIocal improvements may not be an all-or-nothing decision about the one-way couplet alternative, since the City Center Access Study has identified several promising arterial components that could be packaged together to complement interchange improvements. We have a general concern about which set ofIocal improvements will be matched up with a set of preferred interchange improvements. The following arterial improvements merit further investigation as components of a local alternative that would be consistent with the transportation policies and objectives of the City's Comprehensive Plan: . Additional east.west access provided by a S. 324th St. overcrossing A South 324th overerossing ofI-S, without the interchange component, does have the effect of significantly decreasing future traffic volumes on S. 320th S1.. The consultant analysis prepared for the Second Level Screening showed that 23rd Avenue S./S. 320th St. movements decreased by 440 vehicles per peak hour, with significant decreases also recorded at I-S and S. 320th St., Highway 99 and S. 320th, and 2Sth A venue S. and S. 320th. This element also has the advantage over the one-way couplet of only slightly increasing traffic volumes at the intersection of Highway 99 and S. 324th St. . S. 316th St. improvements S. 316th St. will playa key role in future circulation through the City Center. It is the east-west street that bisects the area expected to develop at the highest densities in the future, in addition to being one of the key access routes to the Transit Center. Potential enhancements to this street as a two.way facility should be examined. . Future configuration of 21st Avenue S. The consultant analysis assumed the completion of 21 st Avenue S. as a two-way arterial. In fact, thc City plans to construct this street between the Transit Center and S. 320th St. in 2006-2007. Present plans call for only a three-lane profile plus bike lanes; the provision of a signal at 21 st and S. 320th St. is still to be detennined. We would like to see more analysis ofthe future projected traffic volumes with future projected bus volumes taken into account, as well as the adequacy of a three-lane profile, given this street's potential importance as an access path to and from the Transit Center. . Potential changes to traffic operation at key intersections Restriction of specific turning movements, particularly along S. 320th St., might have the potential of improving traffic circulation in conjunction with other changes. We would also like to see additional analysis done of the signal at 2Sth Avenue S. and S. 320th St., important for transit buses exiting Federal Way park-and-ride lot. Consideration of a transit-only signal at this location would be preferable to its complete elimination. Maryanne Zukowski, P.E. January 12,2005 Page Six The King County Department of Transportation and the Metro Transit Division staff look forward to further discussion of the above comments with City staff and members of the project support team. If you have any questions about these comments, please contact Jack Lattemann, Transportation Planner, at 206- 684-6764. Si~ccrc1y, . - '~' ii/;J --/--. . ~/7) L///~ (//0 ,:/~ Victor Obeso Supervisor, Service Planning Metro Transit Division ( (-----".~ ! I ,... i .- \.._~"""".-~ Ann Martin Principal Transportation Planner, Office of Regional Transportation DOT cc: Rick Perez, P.E., Traffic Engineer, Public Works Department, City of Federal Way Dan Eder, Project Development Coordinator, Regional Express Department, Sound Transit Tim Payne, Senior Operations Planning Manager, Pierce Transit Eric Gleason, Manager, Service Development, Metro Transit Division, DOT Jack Lattemann, Transportation Planner, Service Planning Group, Metro Transit Division, DOT From: To: Date: Subject: <Jean ne.Acutanza@CH2M.com> < Marya nne. Zukowski@cityoffederalway.com> 02/07/20051:39:16 PM Open House The comments I heard at the open house included: 1. Lots of comments from the residential community south of 324th (330 homes) that would like access to the Mall but would want a signal mid block. 2. People had a better understanding of what we are solving and the relationship to the urban center -- some folks claim the mall is dying and the urban center is unrealistic. 3. Most of the other comments were more or less not in my back yard. 4. Generally folks thought there was a solution to the Steele Lake park issue by developing and overcrossing. Jeanne Acutanza, PE CH2M HILL 425-233-3387 cc: <Andrew.Barash@CH2M.com>, <Roger.Mason@CH2M.com>, <Brian. Dearing@CH2M.com>. <Craig. Grandstrom@CH2M.com> ~e~F2~j<[~R~¿Jì~E§JEi~~=::'::,,::::,:::W'~"W:,:":,,w'. ~=:,:,::,=,.,==: ,:~'==",=~:=="""w,=..'::....'",~::::'::.'w<" p~á e From: To: Date: Subject: "Church, AI" <allen.church@federalwayfire.org> "Maryanne Zukowski" <Maryanne.Zukowski@cityoffederalway.com> 01/20/20052:02:27 PM RE: Hello there... MaryAnne... I had my entire Administrative Team review the final proposals...and we are all in agreement supporting the off-ramp and extension of 312th street. This option makes the most sense from an emergency response perspective. AI Fire Chief/Administrator Allen D. Church Federal Way Fire Department 31617 - 1 Ave. So. Federal Way, WA. 98003 #253.946.7258 alien. chu rch@federalwayfire.org From: Maryanne Zukowski [mailto:Maryanne.Zukowski@cityoffederalway.com] Sent: Friday, January 14, 20052:36 PM To: Church, AI Subject: Re: Hello there... Next week is OK -I run the core team meeting on Tuesday 10-12 so any time after that would be best. I could put the drawings up on the screen for you. Pick any other time in the week and I can make that work also - just let me know. mz »> "Church, AI" <allen.church@federalwayfire.org> 01/14/2005 2:25:46 PM »> Hi MaryAnne... Whew...we are two BUSY people. You with all your engineering work on the access study...me with work on a proposed fire department merger, ALS feasibility Study and some legislative issues- Holy cow!!! Not bad for a couple of Curtis Grads... I reviewed the three plans which the Core Team supports and they all look fine to me. Obviously, the 288th on/off ramp was my desired outcome. However, the plans being proposed by the Core Team would work well for the fire department. The 312th extension over 1-5... the ring road (even though 1 way roads can be problematic for us, it still provides us the ability to use lights and sirens for access against traffic if necessary)...and the 324th overpass over 1-5 all work well in helping to reduce congestion and eliminate potential traffic snarls and accidents. All of which we can support. I would still like to find some time to meet with you and go over the three proposals...perhaps next week??? Thanks...off to another meeting..... AI Fire Chief/Administrator Allen D. Church Federal Way Fire Department 31617 -1 Ave. So. Federal Way, WA. 98003 #253.946.7258 alien. church@federalwayfire.org From: To: Date: Subject: "Gary Martindale" <gmartindale@tcafw.com> < maryan ne - zu kowskì@cityoffederalway.com> 02/04/2005 9: 11 : 50 AM City Center Access Study Maryanne: Thank you for taking the time to discuss the City Center Access project with me last evening. This is an exciting step for the City of Federal Way, which needless to say will have a very positive impact on our mall. As I mentioned when we spoke, it would be helpful if I could get copies of certain items as follows: - Coy of selected Modification 1 Option - Copy of selected Modification 2 Option - A copy of the local option that was eliminated - Timeline graphic - Anything else you might deem important as I share this with our corporate office staff If these are in electronic format, e-mailing them to me would be great. Thanks for all your help. Gary R. Martindale, CLS, SCSM General Manager - The Commons at Federal Way Steadfast Commercial Management Company, Inc. 1928-B S Commons Federal Way, WA 98003 253.839.6156 office 253.946.1413 fax CORE VALUES PROCEED WITH INTEGRITY VALUE PEOPLE EMBRACE OPPORTUNITIES PURSUE EXCELLENCE DO GOOD AS WE DO WELL [Maryarïñê'Žuk9WsF.~.'.'.FV\l:(i~i;sStâkehoid'èrs"âñd8]'12 'street"" 'm'~"._..m. ,.. ..."m'm',..., ,,""'m'."'_""'~'.""'-""""""""""""""""".m.,.,,"Ú='~"'m"'m~"""",,",',,""""""'"""""=-""""""... .... " .... .~.",."","~-'""~,~-",,,..., """"""",""'",.",.."".""" From: "h.david kaplan" <hdk1934@hotmaiLcom> To: <griebonow@abam.com>, <dinid@multi-servicecenter.com>, <autumnl@aoLcom>, <celldumred@foxinternet. net>, <kurt, reuter@cítyoffederalway.com>, <dperry@lakehaven.org>, <spaul@ci. pacífic.wa. us>, <estavney@sea.devry.edu>, <steverapp@comcast. net>, <renowicki@aoLcom>, <Iisakaay@msn.com> Date: 10/13/2004 3:57:38 PM Subject: FW: CCAS Stakeholders and S. 312 Street >From: "h.david kaplan" <hdk1934@hotmaiLcom> > To: Maryanne.Zukowski@cityoffederalway.com, hdk1934@hotmaiLcom >Subject: CCAS Stakeholders and S. 312 Street >Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 15:55:21 -0700 > >Dear Maryanne: > >As per our discussion at this afternOon's meeting, I would like you to pass >on the following comments when you next report to the LUTC. > >Many of the options we have been reviewing include either a bridge or an >interchange at 1-5 and S. 312th Street. I would like to go on record to >express my opposition to a bridge crossing 1-5 at S. 312th Street or a new >freeway interchange at S. 312th Street and 1-5. (I also am opposed to the >S. 312th Street Bridge in the City's Comp Plan. I will address that during >the next phase of Comp Plan amendments.) > >1 have the following reasons for my opposition: > >1. It would be necessary to widen S. 312th Street through Steel Lake Park >to at least three lanes, if not four. Either modification would negatively >impact both the Massengale Ball field on the north side of S. 312th Street >and 28th Avenue South and the Skate Park at the South side of S. 312th >Street and 28th Avenue South. > >2. The heavy traffic resulting from either of the options would negatively >impact pedestrian safety at the crossing between the two parts of the park. > >3. There are wetlands at 28th Avenue South and S. 312th, as well at the >western boundary of the park on the South side of S. 312th Street. Buffer >requirements would made roadway construction difficult, if not impossible >to do at a reasonable cost. > >4. We now have a pair of two lane streets at the intersection of 28th >Avenue and 312th. The added traffic because of the 1-5 exit at 312th, plus >HOV traffic heading north from 317th on 28th Avenue South, would negatively >change the charaéter of the neighborhood. > >5. The tremendous cost of land acquisition and construction may not warrant >the value received in terms of traffic advantages and quality of life. > > Thank you for passing on these thoughts to LUTC. > >H. David Kaplan > Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onmOO2004 71 ave/direct/O 1/ cc: < Marya n ne. Zu kowski@cityoffederalway.com> From: To: Date: Subject: "Gary Jones" <Bigdog4142@msn.com> < ma rya n n e. zu kows k i@cityoffederalway.com> 02/01/20053:01:11 PM 1-5 Access, S.304th St First, let me begin by saying that the concept of any service connection to 1-5 at S. 312th St is completely unacceptable! What are you thinking of? Surely you are not so ignorant as to not be aware of the Steel Lake Park facility, or are you? Surely you are aware that the area is residential. Do you expect the citizens to suck up the financial loss from a devaluation of their homes and move on, due to your ignorance in placing 1-5 access in a residential areà? Or are you truly aware of how ludicrous this concept is and are just plain arrogant in stuffing this down our throats, as has been done in other instances! Gary "Big dog" Jones CC: "Susan Jones" <sugar4142@msn.com>, "Ryan Jones" <jonesrI1978@msn.com>, "Philip Jones" <pjkj@comcastnet> [~~ry~b~~'I~Eò~~"~,i~'þ;:]~,~i:X:§I[ù:~~~:p~rh~pi.Ù?!,§I,þ,i~I~'i6:~I::,:,,':.:::':~::,,: . ." ""-'., ....- ----_..",~'m=--- From: To: Date: Subject: "Geoffrey C- Kelly" <celldumred@foxinternetnet> "Maryanne Zukowski" <Maryanne.Zukowski@cityoffederalway.com> 01/30/200512:21:44 PM Delivery Failures perhaps not a bad thing! My ISP a few weeks back told me my mailbox was close to getting full and mentioned the box's size. Basically, your large and multiple mailings are filling the box and it shuts down and won't accept the mailing that generates the delivery failure message- However, I've not e-mailed you anything (but this) since the November 11 meeting notes. Basically, anything I would want to send you would not be a happy message. Seeing the city won't find the money to do half of what this worthless study proposes - and ignored what it could - I consider last year's efforts a colossal waste of time- As a taxpayer long livid at the city's take from my wallet, the money expended on this work only continues this sorry trend. And even if the city did find funding, the proposed actions would do zilch to solve the through city passage woes of the western city commuters whose interests I proposed to represent But thank you for your assistance and communications on this matter as facilitator. I knew I was in for an unhappy ride from the get go so can only blame myself for the self abuse- Sincerely - G. Kelly ." .... ~ -- . '- '----"~"'--' . ------'-"'~'-=---'""""""""",~""=,,-,-=--,-=~,-,,--=-=,,,,-=,""""-",=',, , . : fy1,~~rŸann9 Zukowski - A comrncmt t~) all sta~~l~~L,Ç9.ŒJ,~L!!~~.œ~!Jl2~-~~",-,=",=.,.."==-="-",,,,-=,,-~",---,",_....",,~~~L.: From: To: Date: Subject: "Stavney, Eric" <EStavney@sea.devry.edu> "Maryanne Zukowski" <Maryanne.Zukowski@cityoffederalway.com> 02/09/2005 2:39:58 PM A comment to all stakeholder committee members Hi Maryanne, Would you be kind enough to forward this email to all the members of the City Access Stakeholder Committee? Dear Stakeholder Committee Member, I wanted to take a moment to thank you for what you've taught me about politics and government "by the people". While I have sat in on City Council meetings and a few city hall siting meetings, and am a 2 year member of a nonprofit board of directors, I've never served on a jury, or a city commission. Aside from how our efforts will play out with the Core Team and the Council in the future, I wanted to thank you for what I believe to be a fantastic lesson in civics at its best At City Council meetings and the local newspapers, I've observed many irate people who aggressively bombard the City with their bitter complaints. I've heard all the usual rumors about council members and city workers and whose pocket they're in, what special interests they supposedly "cave in" to, and how the City always decides to always do whatever it thinks best, regardless of public opinion. I don't believe all or most of this vitriol, mostly because the complainers are rarely those who ask to be part of the government through volunteerism, commissions, and teams. No one on our committee comes even close to the personalitîes I've observed among the bitter complainers. J was sincerely struck with pleasant surprise at how dedicated every member of the committee was, asking astute and probing questions, thinking thoughtfully, and bringing unique viewpoints to the table. Very early on in the process, I realized that our group was not a mere collection of typical disconcerted citizens, but a group of people who really cared about the city, its welfare, and its future, I thought the debates we had were very healthy, interesting, and provocative. I always went home with a handful of viewpoints and considerations, feeling enriched and excited about being given so many things to think about, and the opportunity to discuss them with reasonable, intelligent, and committed committee members. If any of our other City commissions and teams have citizens that are as dedicated as you all were, and I believe they do, this completely destroys the contentions of those who feel that government and the citizenry are mutually exclusive, and bitter enemies at that. For me, we became part of the City government for a whole year. If our Stakeholder Committee was indeed a novel experiment æ~~~fi;ill:~:29,Œí~~119:êI!it@R~Ií,£@~:~qŒí'rr;T~~'~~b~Ei=',':=,-:~= -..-,- -,- -, ~.'~::::=:::~~~':~=':'::':_--::::~~~~~] in public participation, I wholeheartedly endorse such an idea for future projects, I wanted to personally thank you all for the integrity, honesty, and consideration for other's opinions that you showed in our discussions. I felt honored to be counted among you. Eric Stavney 3600 S. 344th Way Federal Way, WA 98001 estavney@sea.devry.edu <mailto: estavney@sea.devry.edu> (253) 943-3135 (Þ~ ðC:~ U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Washington Division Suite 501 Evergreen Plaza 711 South Capitol Way Olympia. Washington 98501-1284 (360) 753-9480 (360) 753-9889 (FAX) http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/wadiv February 17, 2005 HFO- W A. 7/ 560 Cary Roe, P.E. Public Work Director City of Federal Way 33325 8th Ave. S. P.O. Box 9718 Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 RECE\VED FEB 2 ! 2005 fEDERALWAYPUBUCWORKS ADMINISTRATIONDIVISION Federal Way City Center Access Study Dear Mr. Roe: The Federall-lighway Administration (FEW A) would like to recognize the outstanding work performed by the City of Federal Way on the City Center AcCess Study. Because of our involvement in the process, the FHW A can say, with all honesty, that this project was one of thc most organized and best managed studies of this naturc we've witnessed. FHW A is impressed with the process that was followed, especially the public involvement portion. The project team, managed by Maryanne Zukowski, did an amazing job of balancing and organizing all the information from two work groups. This project is a great example of a Context Sensitive Solutions approach. While it adhered to governmental regulations and polices, it also took into consideration the public's concerns and desires. Knowing this was one part of a larger process to get a tïnal project built, the project team also did an excellent job of incorporating other factors, such as the National Environmental Policy Act and the FHW A Access Decision Point Policy. This study is truly a great example of the results that can be achieved when you get the right partners to the table and work cooperatively. However, it can't be done effectively without a great manager and supporting team. So please congratulate your stafT and CH2M Hill for a job well done. Sincerely, fJ~11L.~ DANIEL M. MATI-lIS, P.E. Division Administrator æ~Œ~~ ,~~e.1~E~~i~::::;Èi 9;ec;i~;I~1[fi~fiîE,:::;:::::,: =." .". ,; ".,,"~::=:::=:~: ":=':':~~~'~ =:,:::::=::::~:~'::.' '"'='~~:::. ::E~9~ ,:] From: To: Date: Subject: Bob Evans <bobevans38@yahoo.com> < ma rya n ne .zu kowski@cityoffederalway. com> 03/06/2005 1 :23: 19 PM Proposed exits from 1-5 We want to register our opposition to construction of an exit from 1-5 at 324th St. in Federal Way. Out traffic on 324th is excessive at this time. It will be even worse after the addition of the multi-screen theater in The Commons across the street from Belmor Park where we live. We already get a tremendous amount of traffice from the 320th exit of those who circle The Commons rather than go to Pacific Highway to turn south. I have been randomly monitoring the flow of traffic from 1-5 onto 320th since you held the meeting at our Belmor clubhouse. I see streams of cars exiting at 32Oth and turning right at 23rd to go to the many businesses north of The Commons and along 320th- 1 followed 4 cars the other day: 1 went to New Lumber & Hardware, 1 to The Lock Shop, 1 to Carpet King and the other was still headed north on Pacific Highway when I turned off. Those cars would have exited at 312th if they had a chance, thus reducing the heavy traffic that exits at 320th from 1-5. I did this same type survey several times and with similar results. The 312th exit makes better sense because the traffic could then go beyond Pacific Highway to the west and would have easier access to the many businesses, schools, and homes in that area. An exit bringing more traffic to 324th only benefits the businesses at The Commons. They are not our only businesses to be considered as a support to our City. A 324th exit would not help traffic since it would be the same cars now coming off at 32Oth that circle The Commons to get to Pacific Highway to go south or to the area of the new City Hall, hospital, clinics, etc. that are south of 324th and west of Pacific Highway. To generate even more traffic onto the already-difficult.to-turn-onto~or-from Pacific Highway, and to the 10 mph route through Celebration Park only creates additional bottlenecks. We urge you to consider only the exit planned for 312th from 1-5. It will logically be a better solution as it drains traffic from 1-5 prior to 324th from the north and beyond 324th from the south. Robert G. Evans, Jr. and Nancy L. Evans 2101 S. 324th St. 233, Federal Way, WA 98003 253) 8742446 --------- ----------------- ------- Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday! Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web ATTACHMENT "F" Open House February 3, 2005 Mod 1 Positive Access at 312th is a great plan. It is the first place that we should build an overpass. There are a vast amount of people that take 272nd ex~ on 1-5 and take Military Rd to 3O4th. They take 28th to 312th, Access to 312th from 1-5 would greatly reduce the over burdened 28th Avenue. Existing condition is a safety halard Fire trucks and police cannot get through, Traffic is moving at speeds of 40 to 50 miles per hour on 3O4th. This is a residential area and 312th is already established to handle more traffic. I like it a lot' Direct access to Military Road, Access to Redondo area, Can head West all the way to 21st Avenue. These are major advantages for City center access because it would help off-load 3201h traffic that currently serves all of this bonus extended access (beyond city center too). I'm very conçeme<l and disappointed that the 312th "Mod 1" option didn't widen 312th at the p.ark's) The C~y of Federal Way asked so many businesses to give up space to widen Pac~ic Hwy, yet there is no budging on widening to four lanes at the c~ýs park? Access to the park's) needs to be addressed anyway. Please consider my above design. which would (In my mind) solve beth issues (4 lanes & park access). I love the park's) but as a dtllen. I'm willing to compromise and fix ~ for the everall good of the people and the C~y of Federal Way as a whole The only plan that makes sense to me is for an exitlon-.ramp at 312th. With the proposed off-.ramp at 288th, ~ will make a signWicanl impact on traffic in Federal Way. This option Is preferred. (See comments relatod to "Mod 2",) This option is better centered on planned growth in the downtown core. Federal Way should ef1COUl"aQ<l business growth, not by,?ass rt as Mod 2 would 00. 1 preferthis option since It distributes traffic better to the S 312th arterial. This improvement may benef~ Federal Way the most in that ~ will provide access to the population center to the west (including the NE Tacoma area that utilizes Federal Was as an access route to I- S), It has some major drawt>acks In that ~ has Ilm~ed potential for add~ional widening. It also will require extensive work to provide safe access to Steel Lake Park It also skirts environmentally sens~ive areas (I.e.. Mirror Lake). This route may also have strategic ties to road networks east of I- S, Mllöary Road and have potential to reach the Auburn area In the future. 3121h and fiwy. 99 would need e right turn lane to handle westbound traffic. Believe this option would be used more than Mod 2 because ~ goes further west than Mod 2 Might have better chançe to get approved because further distance form 32O1h Street If this option is chosen. I would like to see a pedestrian bridge or tunnel for crossing at Steel Lake Park. Preferred option, however. sigMicant impacts to Steel Lake Park Improved access to west Federal Way (Lakota area). There is a only one overpass - 32Oth people, from east of 1-5 comes to Federal Way via 32O1h 3O4th/28th Avenue S. It is necessary to build mora overpass to relieve E-W. Feel propef location is 312th to East, 3O4th/28th Avenue in residential area, 312\h to 32nd is more commarcial. Less homes please, build 3121h overpass to 32nd. Thanks You will need to improve S 312\h Street to Military Road and install lights at Milrtary Road and S 312th Streel. That has a blind <:orner on Mil~ary Road so you would not be able to see from S 3121h Streel. Also S 312th Street is gravel from 33rd Avenue S to Military Road. Also 32nd Aver\ue S north of S 3121h Street is only 1/2 road and would need to be wider and pushed through to 3201h. At the same time you build S 312\h bridge, you must include above side road improvements. This study should require the above improvements. You must add money for side road improvements at the same time you study the S 312th bridge. Will you need more than 60 feet east of 1.5 on S 3121h Street? to Military Road? On 3121h westbound. raise the road through the park and install an undeIpass for people to move from one side of the park to the other side. Negative Does not provide enough acceSS for people Northeast of 312th & 1.5. Disappointed that Federal Way is not working on a more regional solution and Is cor\Cer\trating aU potential tuture access points in congested business areas of Federal Way. Also, appears to be "bending" federal safety guidelines abeut how close together merge lanes can be by doubling 3201h and 312th access. I would encourage anyone with a less cer\tric view than Federal Way to not support this. This solution targets an already congested area near Steel Lake Park, the new Trans~ Center and 28th Avenue, "No" on Mod 1. As I understand, ther is currently construction underway to bring some of the 1-5 flow into Federal Way by cutting a road through to the existing road (Street #?) that borders the south side of the Truman High School area. TIle intent to provide easy aCcess to the new parking garage etc. I also believe I understood that ther is a Crty plan in place to extend 312th over 1-5 to connect with 32nd and then extend 32nd to 3201h. Personally. having lived close to these areas for qulle awhile. , am reluctant to encourage more "cement" and especially flow of moter vehicles In this area, realiling of course, there will inevitably be an increase anyway over time. My reasons for skating this are that this area is. and is becoming more-so. an area wrth a lot Of pedestrians. especially kids, olng to school. Boys and Girls Club. Daycare. sports fields. Steel Lake Park, etc. If anything, exp.and parking and 00 the plans already underway - but nix this Mod 1 option, I also think that Mod 1 may contribute 10 a 312th to 3201h grid lock, on 312th and 28th too. ps. -If this Mod No. Negative effect on Steel Lake Park - increased traffic along park entrance and ex~ . park Is heavily used. foot traffIC. bikes, etc. Greatiy increase 312th traffic w~hout imprOVing roadway. School children (all grades) fK1W use road shoulders to and from schools. Prefer Mod 2 which would lead traffic into in-placa Park and Ride without impacting park and residential slles, No, nO, no... Too much traffic, pollution and noise in this area, Would ruin a beautiful residential area I'm concerned with the large number of children walking to school at Lakota Jr. High aF)d there Is very I~tle space for them off the road. I fear for their life fK1W and that would make traffic so much worse. It certainly would ruin my access to shopping and church at Mason Clinic, etc. Ari extension of 3121h across 1-5 by bridge to Auburn has advantages for local access but an 1-5 exit involving 312th is an environmental nightmare, Steel Lake Park Is pristine and heavily used year round. Ari 1-5 access connecting to 3121h would create Knpossible traffic and negatively impact the park, let alone water qual~y issues due to road runoff. This option should not be considered, 1) Once 312th is expanded on the East end it follows that ~ will be a matter of time before the expMsion is taken to SR-509. 2) If this is done the pollution (water. air. noise) will kill the environment around Mirror Lake, Adding to the existing noise from the flight paths. 3) It would bring impossible congesllOf1 at the West end of 312th where ~ meets SR-509. 4) The Lakota Middle School children walk the far end of 312th and ~ would be very dangerous for them. 5) The wildlWe that is a permanent p.art of Mirror Lake should be eliminated, 6) This 3121h option will seriously impact both Steel Lake and Mirror Lake environments, 7) Residents on the S and W side of Mirror Lake would have enormous access problems. 8)Exp.anding 3121h East would impact yet another lake - Lake Dolloff. Lose the light for westbound 3201h traffic. Add loops for t.5 on..-amps and off ramps. I'd like the idea of the bus bridge @ 317th W we had a Park and Ride there. 324th makes more sense. 3121h bridge and D/G ramps - good idea but is 312th stopping at 32nd a good idea? How about extending 3121h to Military Road? Too much traffre from 1-5 Into a residential corridor at Steel Lake. Do not build access to 1-5 at 312th No improvements to 312\h are IderMied on this project. However. and exit at 312th will resuK in increased traffic through Steel Lake Park and the length of 312\h all the way to SR-509, Three schools are nearby. Kids fK1W must use the shoulder to travel 312th to Lakota. Inevllable roed Improvements will likely create significant environmental problems et Mirror Lake. Yet, meaningful environmental studies have been deferred until option were down selected to two. This option directs traffic off 3201h to 312fh and through a residential area whereas the 324th option directs traffre through commercial. The latter Is preferred. Mod 1 does I~tle to improve traffic flow In the most congesled areas. 'realile the feden31 government will contribule to S 3121h overpass W ramps are part of the project. However, such funding Is not a sufficient reason to go with Mod 1, which has I~tle else to recommend It. This does not allow for addilional on flow of traffic ooto 312th. Additional traffic and consiruction would Impact the Lake areas, Lake associations have been very active in re.torlng hearth to their lakes. which make. au: area special. It would be Impossible to extend 312\h past 1st Avenue South (straight) as ~ runs Into Mirror Lake (if W lanes ~re exp.anded, this would uKimateiy be a real problem.) An option must be found to stay clear of senortive areas. The greenery/lake Breas are what make Feder~1 Way spedal. No improvements planned for the incfease in traffic on 312th. which will incfease putting kids using the park and coming from three near schools in jeopa<dy. As rt is. the kids are required 10 wail< 00 the shoUlder of the road which is already dangerous. traffic win increase the full length of 3121h raising water quat~y oonoems to the area. The widening of 312\h that will be neces,;ery in the future wilt run into Mirror Lake as there is no room 10. build a wider road we.t lot Avenue, Open House February 3, 2005 Mod 1 Positive This a~ernative makes th<> most sense re: connecting slreets and faCilitating the traffic flow. Questions: How much foot traffic between north and south Steel Lake Park? How wi~ you make the crossing safe? How much right of way would need to be used, and os impact on the park? I think this is the preferred modet provided that fhe onramp from 312th "Overpasses" the off ramp proceeding to 3201h. If you try to coliecUdistribute, you will have a worse moss than you have down the road al the S 348th onramp to southbound 1.5 when ~ meshos with the off ramp to Highway 18 E Negative The everpass at 312th wi~ not be a s convenienl for the West Campus area of Federal Way, Many residences will be impacted. This could ease Iraff" on 3201h bul does nolhing else for the downtown area NIx on this ene! Don't devolop 312th. Hard on Pari<. Don't want to spur development in environmentally sensitive area Concerns about wetlands and the park property on 312th and on 312th east of 1-5. I would like to know is who voted for this Mod 1? This is the mOSt expe"sive pt"" ""d the mOst absurd idea This is the same plan the Be~ovue has ir> place already and it has already prover¡ that is DOES NOT WORK. If you want to incorporate ""incorporated King County, the Council needs to not~y the surrounding areas that are affected. The 312th plan also affects Steel Lake Park and this is a high occupancy area. So think of that the next time you hear of a child getting hrt and ki~ed by a more vehicle going too fast. I don't see how putting this in will help with traff" On 3201h. Cars wi~ exit off the freeway and go south on 32nd to end up at the bottle I"\eCk again at 3201h. All this will do is turn a private neighbort1ood into a main street This would direct traffic i"to residential areas that are soon to be overcrowded This mod~icalion should rot be used. An off.ramp at 312th is a rnust to relieve traffic on 3201h, However, no plan was present that included criteria or past 20 years of plans and complete plan of U'" future (i.e.. 288th Street off- ramp). No one has bee" ident~ied as responsible for these tasks and a"swer questions or take respoosibil~y to get answers. Criteria should irlclude traffIC paltems. local access to businesses, street light prior~y. directi"" of traff" flow prior~y. Why are we using stop lights at the S 317th off. ramp? How can We reduce outside traffic passing through dOWfltOWfl Federal Way? Why can't we have more on.way slrwts? What criteria are the designers of stop lights using to help loca' families access to the main arterials? Open House February 3, 2005 Mod 2 Positive Negative 312th good Idea for new 1-5 crossing. Access at 324th Street also OK no not want access to 1-5 at 304th Street S and very poor sight lines. Hard to get Out of driveway now Good second choice. We need this after we build on 312\h Additional bridge across 324th and 312th could help the congestion if you also reduce the traffic lights and pollution problems. The idea is to keep traffic n10ving so that people can get to their destination rather than constncting them and keeping them bottled up in 111e traffic corridor I see this as limrted because 324th St only goes a few blocks either way before everyone needs to turn, one way or another. The reason the City of Federal Way has so many issues with street traffic is because of the lack of through streefs (East &. We.1 especially). This 324th access would ooce again be a non-through. Someday (in the next 30 years). when all this is high-<ise businesses like Bellevue. this "Moo 2" alternative may be justified. But now, with nothing but mobile homes there. it isn't worth the loss of access to the City that's beyond just the City center, This makes the most sense to me This wouid improve access to Weyerhaeuser and the Office parks that have been built in that area. This approach would have less impact on neighborhoods and wouid benefit big business. This is the best plan with less impact to the surrounding areas and the most cost effective. With a Coy budget that is In the RED already, what is the City Council thinking anyway. I want answers on this subject and I ",ant to be nolrtlod on an\'fÐore meetinos with the Council on this issue. Seems the better of the two solutions. Less impact to Belmor Park than to possible wetlands and park property on 312th. I wouid use this one to access 1-5 Yes-develop 324-good for grid in downtown, Need to Come up woh phasing-this full build is too big for 10 year hori>:on. but maybe okay for 25. This one looks like rt would be the best of the two choices - if couid ease traffic on Hwy 18 and 320\h both, and get traffic into the business areas and closer to the Park and Rides, Good Idea and the best choice, much of the land IS already zoned bu"ness, therefore. not as many residences will be impacted. Looks to be a better altemative using 324th. Will bring traffic lI"ough a commercial neighborhood as opposed to a residential one. East of the freeway 3241h is undeveloped which should cause less hassle. This has the lowest impact on established residentiaf and environmental. This would divide incoming traffic between northbound and southbound wrth the added benefrt of spilling them into the commercial area. This makes sense. The exit at 272nd will handle northernmost traffic Mod 2 makes more sense in light of where most of the Coy's business activrty takes place Much more growth has taken place south of S 32O\h and now east of 1.5. As far as I can observe. Federal Way suffers from the great distance between S 320\h and SR-18/S 348th. Wrthout off and on ramps and without an overpass south of S 32Oth , SR.99 is overty congested as a resun Mod 2 offers the greatest improvement Also, more "bang for the buck" Mod 2 makes more. sense since traffic is diverted through commercial dominated areas. Mod 1 d~ects traffic through residential areas used by children as a walking route to school. Providing additional relief in the North area is better than the South. Both Mernatives need to be farther away from 320\h, either 336th or 3O4th. 324th is already a congested area, this would really mess up Weyemaeuser Way. Not sure how 32nd Avenue works with Ihis solution. What is the potential for connecting streets - it seems less effective than 312th - "Mod 1" I don't think this will cany the traffic through to destination. Drivers will find themselves bottle necked at Pack Highway S with no through to west Federal Way relief. The expense of a new overpass over the freeway is not justified by the ratio of vehicles that go east on 320\h Street. Besides, Weyemaeuser Way IS not deSIgned to handle any amount of traffic. Additional traffic to S 324th Street will lead to hazards for Belmor Park. Living at Belmor are 451 residents that already are subjected to many delays on entering 324th Sireel from the park. The pedestrian lane leaving Belmor to the Commons is alreedy CO!1sumed with problems. We've had One person injured and one death last week. Already the speeding is being monitored by radar patrol, In the past three years we've had four accidents and ma!1Y near accidents. S 324th Street wouid be dISastrous for 420 home owners. It's already scary to try to get on 324th Street now. We've petitioned for a light to no avail and t"ere's been numerous accidents both involving cars and/or pedestrians. There was a death involving a car and a pedestrian. Of the two. Mod 1 would be more feasible but still cause unbelievable congestion on Hwy 99 I would think using Exif for 272nd and drive a few extra blocks would bo a better suggestion I am opposed to this. Over 300 homes of voting Federal Way citizens live across from the Commons, We need a street light and a \eft turn lane. Putting all that traffic on this street would make it impossible to access our homes. This is a 55+ park. I realize others dO not want to damage Sleel Lake but you wouid damage wr homes. We walk in the mall and shop there. You want a downtown that is people friendly but you are hurting us. The traffic on 324th Street is dangerous at best To do anything to increase the amount of traffic as well as speed traveled on that street serves to purpose. Unless lighting, etc. can be increased, if will be a safely risk for anyone trying to cross over to the mall wouid be ext",mely dangerous. We do not need any more traffic on S 324th Street I manage Belmor Park, 2101 S 324th Street. We already have a ha;:ardous exit from our park. one person on foot being killed 1/20105. To add cars coming and going \0 1-5 entrance on S 324\h Street We are inundated with the Commons traffic - soo~ to add a 16-screen theater to the already busy Target, Bon, Sears shoppers. Cars from the Pari< and Ride as well as busses add to our traffic problem to enter or eXIt from our home. tn the past 3 years, there have been 4 auto accidents to our residents at our entry/exit due to heavy traffic. Two pedestrians have been hit . One recovered - ana did not live. We feel trapped in our park now, Please do not put tl1e exit from 1-5 at 324th Street. Federal Way's congestion at any point is tremendous between 3-8 PM. 320th is nearly at a standstill as is 99 from 348th to 312th. If there was more access to 324th to 99 the backup on 320\h and 99 wouid only accumulate. As a resident in Belmor Park, I would only believe egress and exiling the park wouid be a disaster. Several people have been killed al the crosswalk as if is. We need a pus" button crosswalk and no more traffic. 324th Street is an accident already happening We have no light at Selmor Pari< entrance even though we fought for one, We have had several accidents with one fatality. If you ;cut an access of Hwy S to 324th Street, if will be impossible to drive in and out of Belmor Park. An 320\h and 324th are so close, the congestion on 99 wouid be tremendous. Thank you for your consideration. I. am concerned about the traffic on 324th Street that would increase and be a hardship on the elderly entering and exiting Belmor Park. Will there be a traffic light for them? This option will drop way too much traffic Onto S 324th street. This option will choke up S 324th the same way S 320\h is. The residents of BeimOf will not be able to safely cross to the n,all (assuming rt won't go out of business). It will make if even easier for convict Casey's followers to zip down S 324th Street and make that lell on 20th S to hurTy up and get there, And if they do if. others will as well. As one show lives off of 20\h S. I strongty oppose any action thai will increase my neighbOO1ood traffic. The "Mod 2" OptIOn will create a higher traffIC demand on SR.18 due to the connection with Weyerh~euser Way. This is undesirable since there is not any future expansion capacity. beyond the Truck Climbing Lane currently under construction, to accommodate the increased load Selection of the "Mod 1" option would also create lass tralllC loading at the SR-99/S 320\h Street intersection, ThiS option done not appear to serve the true Crty core. It merety provides a southern by-pass, This option would concentrate traffic around the Mall too much. Open House February 3, 2005 Mod 2 Positive Negative I like this all around. I'd stilllik~ to los~ th~ cross traffic left turns for 1-5 access by engaging the three additional loop id~a on Mod 1. Definitely th~ bettor option. East of the freeway has few existing hemes to impact The westerly route has the Mall car park on one side and the only residential area is Belmor ParK This property is certainly not utilized to hlghost and best use. Could not the Coy purchase the area and develop attractive senior housing and r~place the ~y~sor~ in the heart of the city? It is a perfect location for proximhy to the Mall and could be accessed by a pedestrian ovelpass. If tho Coy can purchase privately owned strip malls to widen the reed on SR.99 and 336th to facilitate a Monster Church. it does not seem out of lino to purchaso undorutili¡ed property to provide much needed senior housing. It seems to me that Mod 2 could be combined with the developm~nt of Bolmor Park for a much needed improvement for the Coy center. This option makes sense and has minimum environmental issues. Ows it eliminate the Park and Ride tot? If so. that parking needs to go somewhere. 324th appears to be a much better choice. It would impact few~r people and bear an advantage to the r~sldants of Belmor Park. They could have acceSS to shopping at the mall through the overpass This is a better a~emative. than ruining a neighborhood. This mod~ication is the preferred choice. Yes - Mod 2. This option to me seems to have a littie more "give" to 0 in terms of space and actual construction opportunity with a less~r impact on ped~strian-type "traffic" and housing areas, (with the exception of the Beimor trailer area). Also, underway is the construction of a hug~ church and school campus nest to Weyerhaeuser that expects a big flow of traffic "daily" as weil as weekends. I travel from 3201h. through W~y~maeuser campus to 336th and OVer to 348th almost daily, and 0 seems to me that this Mod 2 proposal would offer more back to us in terms of flow, impact and bringing people into existing Park and Ride areas-<ond shopping/businesses better than the Mod 1 plan. Open House February 3, 2005 Other Miscellaneous Comments Lose the light for WB 320th traffic and add loops for 1-5 on ramps and off ramps. I'd like the idea of the bridge at 317th if we had a Park & Ride there. 324th makes more sense. 312th bridge and dIe ramps good idea but is 312th stopping at 32nd a good idea? How about extending 312th to Military Road? If this option is chosen, I would like to see a pedestrian bridge or tunnel for crossing at Steel Lake Park. Concerns for residents at Belmor prevented sitting of considerations when location of transit center was being considered The height of the offlon ramp was a problem. Please keep this in mind. Clover leaf 320th access to 1-5. Open 320th going West to six lanes. Make 324th four lanes going East Without addressing the widening and adding traffic controls to the neighborhood including Military Rd, or the East side of 1-5 at 312th Street, is very short sighted and dumps a lot of traffic into a residential neighborhood. to continue the road The traffic on 324th has already reached major capacity. The street is also very dark at night leading to more problems. More traffic is not feasible. It is a dangerous situation. ...~.,: 1,II1II1' JJ,~.J_.I ~, Ilm!I.!!] ~1!n..JIIIÆIIII8II.Wi1iWr-' Federal Way needs to work with the County, the State, or the Feds to reach a more regional sOlution. I hope that none of my tax dollars are used to provide more access to congested areas of Federal Way. A bypass for these areas needs to be provided. Federal Way never looked so good with side walks and planters on Pacific Highway S. Would like to see sidewalks extended to 304th Street. I hope to see these two options both built someday. So, please be sure that whatever is chosen near term, it fully allows for the other to be easily added on. Thanks for all your time and hard workl! The City is doing a great job! Tough choice between the tow "Mods". It seems to be half again one or the other. An exit at S 304th and over pass there would relieve traffic at the City core. You can't please everybody. Widen 320 to 7 lanes. Get going now. Nice presentation. Good to know this is a priority. If you need any help consulting citizens, give me a call. Well thought out alternatives. The committee workers have done a good job. The wisteria planted on each corner of S 320th and SR-99 will eventually block vision for cars making turns - City needs to take a broader look at traffic problems caused by development of the new Wal-Mart and Casey Treat's church prior to granting building permits Thoroughly disappointed that there was no formal presentation. Also frustrated because no criteria available to ascertain how the models were arrived at. I guess it's just a frustration that we can't address the increasing traffic congestion in all of Federal Way. I guess I was hopeful that was the purpose of this meeting. What is wrong with a formal presentation containing a criteria, costs, different plans considered. areas of responsibility. Very unprofessional. The open house was very informative. The presentations were nicely done and the representatives were knowledgeable and courteous. Thank you for the effort. If the "ring-road" option is really out, then shy display it at all? I still don't trust the City regarding this. I thought Ms. Zukowski's comment in the FW Mirror that you want to hear from supporters is very telling of the City's attitudes towards its residents and the City will cram what it wants down the residents' throats. Flut Na.... Last Nama St,", Addrau CIt1 Stat. Zip Phe",. Em.. "'" """'p.," ....'VMS."", PO""'SOH'S.,, ,IIR..- N._""'~'" 'm."U~ Ray Wilson 7226 S 304th Stroot Federal Way WA 98003 206.851.1578 RaV.J. Wilson2@Boein!l,com Jean Schuman 30242 21st Avenue S Federal Way WA 98003 253.839.2427 Schuliian@msn.com Milt Schuman 30242 21st Avenue S Federal Way WA 98003 253.839.2427 Schullian@msn.com Scott Chase 22 SW 327th Place Federal Way WA 98023 253.874.4755 s.chase@comcastnel Jerry Jennings 30310 38th Piace S Federal Way WA 98003 253.839.3638 ierrvsienninas@msn.com Matthew Jarvis 2628 SW 35151 Place Federal Way WA 98023 253.874.5325 Lynda Jenkins 29726 3rd Avenue S Federal Way WA 98003 253.839.4959 VJLJ@netz"ro.nel Gary Anderson 3224 S 312th Street Federal Way WA 98003 253.941.0999 ancoasS(lciales@comcastnet Sang Rosenberg 2661 S 304th Street Federal Way WA 98003 253.332.4989 sanorosenbermWvahoo . com Brian Cope 3228 S 314th Place Federal Way WA 98003 253.529.1352 ADG3914@vahoo.com Marie Sc",cqua 32658 9th Piace S Federal Way' WA 98003 253.941.7080 G. Blanchard GAB LAN CHARD 1 @comcast.net Duncan Blanchard 31400 7th Piace SW Federal Way WA 98023 253.941.5138 dwbianchard 1 @comcastnet Marla Ledin 401 SW 312th Street Federal Way WA 98023 253.839.9090 mMa.O.iedin@osk.com John Mayers PO Box 2543 Auburn WA 98071-2543 John. Mavers@alum.uos.edu Bob Roper 525 SW 312th Street Federal Way WA 98023 253.941.6954 R STAN LEY3@comcast.net Russell Cottor\-Betteridge 34242 1st Place S, #A Federal Waf WA 98003 253.874.2441 Russ-eU@holmail.com Frosty Hardison 30524 8th Avenue SW Federal Waf WA 98023 253.528.0343 GR OWl NC LL C@hotmail.com Marilyn Gates 31404 7th Place SW Federal Waf WA 98023 253.838.2676 mlgatesre!1l!vahoo.com Bill Linehan 253.941.8005 Ma~orie Dana 31400 7th Place SW Federal Wæ-¡ WA 98023 253.941.7076 Baroara Hofloff 31434 7th Place SW Federal Way WA 98023 253.927.9958 Mari1ynn Mas<on 31212 81h Avenue SW Federai Way WA 98023 253.839.4841 MMASION@aoi.com Annie Gorsline 29902 26th Avenue S Federai Way WA 98003 253.946.2704 Baroara Lunde' PO Box 23541 Federai Way WA 98093 253.661.6693 BMLUNDE@msn.com AI Lunde PO Box 23541 Federai Way WA 98093 253.661.6693 Ted Enticknap 36817121h Avenue S Federai Way WA 98003 253.838.7196 Liz Wolf 33445 351h Avenue S Federai Way WA 98003 Jeff Wolf 33445 351h Avenue S Federai Way WA 98003 253.835.2753 ielf wo1f@citvolfederalwaV.com Elizabeth Kari 2012 S 331st Street Federai Way WA 98003 GlaM Sawyer 2005 S 331st Street Federai Wæ-¡ WA 98003 253.838.0593 RAMJ ET200 1 @comcast.net Mary Brownson 2101 S 3241h Street #117 Federai Way WA 98003 253.661.6172 Baroara Whilmore 2101 S 3241h Street. #82 Federal Way WA 98003 253.838.0195 Qoodcuom@msn.com Nancy Evans 2101 S 324th Street. #233 Federai Wæ-¡ WA 98003 253.838.0517 beimorfw!1!!bipk.com Helen Fairchild 2101 S 324th Street. #48 Federai Way WA 98003 253.943.9094 Karen Pettir>geli 2101 S 324th Street. #180 Federai Wæ-¡ WA 98003 253.874.8395 Qpettinoell@poooiepc.c.9m Myrtle Wmg 2101 S 324th Street. #38 Federai Wæ-¡ WA 98003 Mary O'Neil 37815 44th Avenue S Federal Wæ-¡ WA 98001 253.838.2574 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: VIA: FROM: SUBJECT: March 21, 2005 Land use. and Transportation comm.inee David H. Moseley, City Manager ~4Y' - Rick Perez, P.E., City Traffic Engineer ~ On-Street Parking of Commercial Vehicles in Residential Zones POLICY QUESTION: Should on-street parking of commercial vehicles be further restricted in residential zones? BACKGROUND: Federal Way City Code Section 15-82, as last amended in 1991, reads: "No person shall park a commerCÎaJ vehicle which is more than 80 inches wide overall on any street or alley in residential areas zoned SE, RS and RM between the hours of 12:00 midnight and 6:00 a.m." In 2004, Ordinance 04-457 also amended Sections 22-1176 through 22-1180 to restrict the ability to park commercial vehicles off-street in residential zones. Staff anticipated that parking of commercial vehicles might shift to public right- of-way as a result. At the January 10, 200S Land Use and Transportation Committee meeting, four citizens spoke in favor of further restrictions for parking commercial vehicles in residential zones. The concerns presented included: 1. 2. 3. Larger vehicles create safety issues, including sight distance restrictions at driveways and ability of emergency vehicles to turn around in cul-de-sacs; The current restrictions require vehicles to be moved by midnight and the resultant noise disturbs the neighborhood; Enforcement of the existing code is lacking. At the January 24, 2005 Land Use and Transportation Committee meeting, the Committee requested staff to compare our ordinance with other cities and provide a recommendation. Attachment A provides a summary of the comparison of codes, and Attachment B provides the proposed code language. At the March 7, 200S Land Use and Transportation Committee meeting, the Committee requested staff to investigate the extent of streets on which on-street parking would be permitted under the proposed ordinance, and investigate the extent to which the codes, covenants, and restrictions (CC&R's) of individual residential developments would already provide such a restriction. The map in Attachment C shows citywide the streets on which on~street parking could be permitted, and Attachment D shows the same streets in greater detail. These do not include streets where only one side of the street is zoned residential, nor do they include streets where the existing pavement width would not permit parking on at least one side. Some of these streets however could allow on-street parking if they were reconstructed to current standards. Hence, these maps present a current, worst-case analysis. The total street length where on-street parking of commercial vehicles could be permitted under these circumstances is approximately 3 miles. However, these does not include any reductions that may be necessary to preserve sight distance at intersections and driveways, fire hydrants, etc., which typically are addressed on a complaint basis. Staff estimates that there are over 300 plats that might have CC&R' s. Based on the latest contact list from the Community Development Department, approximately 80 of them may be active. Staff estimates that it would take approximately 160 hours to research the CC&R's of each, which wouJd presumably at best apply to only a quarter of the streets in residential areas in the City. Therefore, staff seeks Committee direction as to whether to continue with this research. Another question was asked about how residents in newly-annexed areas would be notified of the change in on-street parking regulations upon annexation. Currently, the codes are identical, however, if the city modifÏes its code, areas annexed in the future would experience a change in the regulation of on-street parking. To date, there has been no systematic effort to notify residents of newly-annexed areas of any differences between the City and County codes. Staff could perfonn this if Council so directed. -" OPTIONS: -- .-- ._. ._".. ~ ..- ...--. --" "_n.. .~.. ~. ~ "-. ...--. .....-. ....- ..-.-!.o.titive~~...-...~ . -.~_.. "", Nelf.~tive,~.,,__. t .. - . "-.. 1. Eliminate on-street parking of commercial vehicles in residential zones, with exceptions for delivery vehicles . Reduces potential safety issues; Improves vehicle access; Reduces late night noise in neighborhoods; Reduces diesel fumes in neighborhoods . Potential impacts to home.based business owners/operators that utilize commercial vehicles. . emergency . . 2. Further restrict hours for on-street parking of commercial vehicles 111 residential zones . Reduces potential safety Issues; Improves vehicle access; Reduces late night noise in neighborhoods; Reduces diesel fumes in neighborhoods . Potential impacts to home-based business owners/operators that utilize commercial vehicles. . emergency . . 3. No action . No impact . Could be perceived as unresponsive to citizen concerns regarding: 0 Potential traffic safety issues; 0 Emergency access; 0 Noise and diesel fumes in neighborhood vehicle STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Per the direction of the Chair of the Committee, as this issue is a policy decision, staff is not making a recommendation. Options are: 1. Prohibit on-street parking of commercial vehicles in residential zones. 2. Increase the hours of restriction for on-street parking of commercial vehicles in residential zones. 3. No action. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDA TJON: Forward the Committee recommendation to the April 5, 2005 City Council Business Agenda for 1 st Reading of the ordinance. .2i':;<:;-:"..().<,'n-;¡..<'cc1p.¡r;;n,.":'CPlm",,,: ATTACHMENT A r ,\gcncYÎ c.;m;ncrc¡31-,,"'¡3C¡;-;,1 ',-=::-' siz,ï;;n:l" , --=~ I' L Vdlh:lcs <. O!HI'l.lcrcml Vl.l(ithTI..C.ngth j J .oar! . ~ 'i .-- .- '.. ..~....,_..~ n~II<.:!~, (lcc~L:'.Jfcc~) ...~.Llnd:;) I' Auburn 1 hour max 1 hour max 7.5 20 No limit Operating Operating Bellevue prohibited prohibited 8 30 32,000 10:00pm--- 10:00 pm- 7:00 am 7:00 am Des 6 hours max 6 hours max 7.5 20 10,000 Moines Everett Allowed Loading only 8 20 16.000 Kent 2 hours max 2 hours max 8 20 8.000 Puyallup Loading only Loading only 7 No No limit limit Over 1 ton Renton prohibited Prohibited No No 12,000 9:00 pm - limit limit 6:00 am Tacoma 1 hour max 1 hour max No No 12,000 limit limit King Prohibited Prohibited No Midnight -. Midnight - 6.67 No limit County 6:00 am 6:00 am limit CUlTent Prohibited Prohibited Federal Midnight - Midnight - 6.67 No No limit Way limit Code 6:00 am 6:00 am ATTACHMENT B Article IV. STOPPING ~ STANDING -PARKING Division 1. Generally 15-81 Penalty for violations. Unless another penalty is expressly provided by law, any person found to have committed an act which violates the provisions of this article, shall be guilty of a traffic infraction and shall be punished by a penalty of not morc than $250.00. (Ord. No. 90-46, § 5,3-20-90; Ord. No. 91-97, § 1,5-21-91) 15-82 Parking commercial vehicles in residential areas. No person shall park a commercial vehicle which is more than 80 inches wide overall on any street or alley in residential areas zoned SE, RS and RM behveen tHe flown> of 12:00 miElflight and 6:00 a.m. ,except when engaged in deliveries or as support to an ongoing business activity such as construction, moving, carpentry, plumbing, or landscaping, but only for the time reasonable and necessary to support the activity or make the delivery. (Ord. No. 90-46, § 4, 3-20-90; Ord. No. 91-97, § 1,5-21-91) 15-83 Parking privileges for disabled persons. The following state statutes, including all future amendments, additions or deletions, are adopted by reference: (l) RCW 46.16.381, Special parking privileges for disabled persons - Penalties - Enforcement. (2) RCW 46.61.581. (3) The department of public safety rnay appoint volunteers to enforce the parking laws for disabled persons as set forth in RCW 46.16.381(13) as currently written, or amended in the future. (Ord. No. 01-391, § 7,6-19-01) 15-84 - 15-95 Reserved. Division 2. Specific Streets 15-96 Authority to impose limitations. The public works director has the authority, with respect to public highways, streets, roads and thoroughfares under the city's jurisdiction, to prohibit or limit the times that on-street parking is to be legally pennitted. (Ord. No. 90-42, § 1,2-27-90; Ord. No. 90-47, § 1,3-20-90; Ord. No. 03-449, § 2, 9-16-03) 15-97 Signs. When the public works director detennines parking restrictions are necessary, pursuant to FWCC 15-96, he or she shaH erect, or cause to be erected and maintained, signs designating the parking restrictions. No such limitations shall be effective unless signs are in place. In no other case shall enforcement and effectiveness of this division be conditioned on signage. (Ord. No. 90~42, § 2, 2-27-90; Ord. No. 03~449, § 3, 9-16-03) 15-98 -15-110 Reserved. City of Federal Way, GIS Division 33325 8th Ave S PO Box 9718 Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 (253) 835-7000 www.CÎtyoffederalway.com ¡"".<1j ,¡ ¡ " Kent Ir ,--;- ,~_.~ ~ ' r , ., ..~ " .. ,,:' l ~"""""'."..'..'"" ", :II^ï'-:'~"""'T7'1 ¿:~i ,~)Ù-j~f'! ..~/' ""~ ~I~_;;.f ,P' ,~;;L. -----.-t:\ § '~Sr-'""."ìÎ':7-:~m=7! ~----,-"_00,,,--,0""'00_'" . -.-- "~\, I,' ~\' jr .-! -,-'?~:--!F), .~ " "j \""'~ j " I' ,',,' _"i-' ,. ,'" ,/.,,0"" I ,- I " ,I /0- . '; \'j,-~:'I-"T".l;7,,:-;C'~' . ~g ~"""'1"""'" r ,j \,'~" '~-~-', DEC;:" ¡ ",0,1"""" 'I,il'"""w,ê::"". J ,1,:1 !- ' !~-';' " , ", ' ' """,,_u_'-\_f>:.~~9,,"'\ ct";l ,v / :: \'í.L___~i,~ / ,Q / '\ <f' ~.' , '" CD. . it--\ ----""'-"""-."""',.cA,,",""""" '" . ,..,. êi5\ " "",."."""...",."='<I'",1"?!h"';:"I',', ",,~,i,'~¡\. ." ,oJ",....., - /l--"'" 'f' '" """"'-"'~'-~'""""" """^,-,,,;:-"f-""""'~"""""""""'" "'""--'f.~""" ,(0" """""'-"""'«'i;i~¡1:{,--:,\ !- " , ,.,,"", ',I 'I, ..,r"i" j' .i1:1.j$ "I, \." "",'f " ¡ , ¡'~i(J)i-" \ ; "o=::',""'~"'" I' ¡ , ,f" ',"""""'""""""""),,,,"\"f[(,,,:It!~" '\. .,,~ ¡-, .. . ¡ : 1 ¡,,'~\ /:.. ~'. r'-"..""'~"":"""'.""",..".".. ./,"_.""""'"""""'""""""""t.Jj'ft... ,~~'Uh;~L. ..." . ..!s.3~\h.$f"'\I ' f- L \ i\.\""',.,-, ~ ' ~,. ~,:}/""'" ""~'" "" ...... \....' ~¡ "~~~,. ./"Fc.dcral '\, ':J: õii! ,', ui " f Way "\" \~ N¡ ¡ ,,~¡ ',,/ ~'>'" ...,.,.:, \". \1J. ¡\", "'/~""" ~l ..J:~~ff~:;~~~L~,\\~& $,w..~.tn.SI.."",""\" " §J~ SIt-)' ("! '\ \,,'.. .......:".'........". .'~~"':"",,:",,"',,;"',,"""""~:"'//,,"".,,,,""""~i"",, ,""""""'\""""""""" ' /i-""",,",,: "'"iL"""'"'-",,.,,",,",,"',,,,',,',,",,,"""I""r ~\,l""""JI-->«""" ',,: -~L" I """""'\( "'77J"i-' \¡, "'\'""l ",," ' """ 'I"'"",,,,,,"""""""'" \:""",,- ~f,,"', ".!,~§Ul.§¡,.:_.1t"/""¡"""""""""""",,Y \ \r'~rd~T~.'"'\"" C-":-'", "N¡ "" ~¡ r"'-r""í;( '\ !'--- I ' "/.",, - ,,~,,' -~-'::-'~"--"")t""""" ,,"" 1 ,,' > l ,,!,,' \..-",~;", --'>. l' ",,' ~ / ¡,..'~C~ ~"""'~':~~~:"""" """',,",,',,'J,,",, ',,"" ", ' ~'" '""~,, ""l~"§ll:t,§J...,.",,, """..."..:: "-,"~""~"'~""""""'~'~"""""""-" J\ "'""",,",,1 , i_,,'_"",-:"};:;:' """'"( " '", ""..,,",.,," !" ! ""'::'\("+"':1 \,"!\" !,,' ! , j , """ ri ':' '" ,,' I'" "I"'" 'r.., ¡ "'\ ¡ / . VI: I I " '.'.." I "I ',..,"""", "'" ¡ \", , "I 1».'" ,<t)""jf'¡("'~,,-j r~Y,,\-;~::-¡I.~'--+----" "'"i "\";,,, i ';, """"""..,:1",'"'«,,, i-' '" :'~. ¡ V """,,- ,\~.._'---,"I:J::":'--'--" , "",i," ""~,,",,;,,::I~_,,"""" -"'--- :>~, ) _G'.f;$iß ,..~..R..f1' .~~.-~..~...C¡~-;L~...-.--.:'.~.-.'.....-. '.". ).<-;'" "" \t\' ~t~.. --~J----->'. ~V ..:;ør.." ,~~'?1.'....!.- .. "I,:~"..!(.ll '. i (\"'..."... ""'h,. " ..../-- ... .ß' "'ti:\-.J1-u I'..'"."".ii..'.,'..:-- "c'\c", ", "'\J "",,:0<0_.. - ~ "---i U"'-¡'~l . ,+ ') 19 l~. ../.'.4/ ~ ",""': ....'..~<'().... ~J. .;." ,! ~ : t.'fØ. ,/. i /' "'".'.'..-..,.12;~. : I I /" f /{i Milton'. '."'..~ \ / --' L_-:/); . \f" ", ~ ';; City of Federal Way Attachment C Streets with Allowable on-Street Parking in Non-Residential Zones. PugetSound ~ N This map is accompanied by NO warranties, and is simply a graphic representation. ¡ ._-~-- Legend ........ Allowable on Street Parking 0 I 1,750 3,500 7,000 I Feet A Fëderal Way \\U5.'" Ion~.Ipw',.fflc\Str..,P ar1<ing. m>«I City of Federal Way ? ark 5330 ! 5 330 5T ST I-- I Cl) Cl): ...J > S I a. <C. 332 ¡ r-- ~ J?l,.-i ! ~ST ¡ Cl) , r--z , ""...J '¡, .,cf <t i Q':" r' -.. Attachment 0 Streets with AIlowciöle on Street Parking in Non-Residential Zones. Street Detail City of Federal Way, GIS Division 33325 8th Ave 5 PO Box 9718 Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 (253) 835-7000 www.cityoffederalway.com > ~, « q;l S 308 5T. ~ ~ ~~ö8CT ~ ~ .~ ¡ .... '5 310TH ST p;;......--.,. -..,.. ¡ S 310 ST j ¡ ¡ ".-.. -..-_c,' ,., --L.,.~.s..312.,~~L_~"~_,"i" __i/';:-' (.. -~..:¿ Þ".".""-' . ....., ( ". "\ -"-'+,.,-- ....." (. 00' ...J a. co Cl) coZ .... ...J --I --: ! /':_~- 1 -.-. "I U_- ~J ';:i :il§340 ST ". U-!I ¡¡;/. ~ ,Si~"", I ,t.,.' S 341 ST 1." ,"- "'~"" > I j « I . ,.... f¡ N CI)! ~, (Oi . ~ 1 S 344 STj i - - 0, , r ~! ....>~ 00 /J;/ ....« ,;:~ ~I si )' -....."-----.. :..~~--,..~i_.," SR 1 S 348 ST./ --~,-.,- ~ 22 ¡ ..-- PL! , ~ S S 327.';T " : 328 w ~ ~c '3'3~ pL ;i"~ ""; :k~Y"'" \. S..,?'?- /:. City - ':':J"" '!.'!. Hal \ ~ \""-"""" .¡JÌ. /' '<> '!. "-,..,.. '\ ~ '?~\"'<~J- ~..s 3'35 s1 s '!.":J< ". úI , . \. l .."-.-""""".."""",,....-.. \'.. .. ~.§1.'~';j'" ';""""'- ...~.- ~ 3651\ ( ) to S '3 \ ' ""J¿. tS 338 SL.....""',<'p ! ------'---- Inset Map Scale: 1 inch equals 1,000 feet 1,750 3,500 L\ N Legend - Allowable on Street Parking llu..",\erik.Ipw".lficlSl,..'Parki"9.,ß1_mxd ThiS map is accompanied by NO waffanties, and is simply a graphic representation- 0 I 7,000 I Feet ~ í=ëderal Way ~ CITY OF ~ Federal Way PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDA TION March 7, 2005 To: Jack Dovey, Chair Land Use/Transportation Cornmittee (LUTC) David M~anag", Kathy McClung, Director of Community Development Services ~c- VIA: FROM: SUBJECT: Amendments to Federal Way City Code (FWCC) Chapter 22, Article XVIII, "Signs" (on ballfield fences) MEETING DATE: March 21,2005 I. POLICY QUESTION Should the City of Federal Way adopt code amendments to the Federal Way City Code (FWCC) Chapter 22, Article XVIII, "Signs," to provide signs on sports field fences as shown in Exhibit 17 II. BACKGROUND When the sign code was substantially rewritten in 1996, no provision was made for pennitting signs on sports field fences. The Little League of Federal Way and the City of Federal Way Parks Department have requested that this issue be reviewed for a potential code amendrnent. The City Council put this item on the 2004 Planning Commission Work Program. III. PURPOSE OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS The purpose ofthe proposed amendments is to amend FWCC Chapter 22, Article XVIII, "Signs," in order to adopt regulations for signs on sports field fences. IV. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission conducted a pubJic hearing on March 2, 2005. The staff report to the Planning Commission is attached as Exhibit 2, and the March 2, 2005, minutes are attached as Exhibit 3. The Planning Commission unanimously approved the staff recommendation to pennit signs on sports field fences. V. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS AS RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION Public comment at the Planning Commission Hearing included a letter (see Exhibit 4) from Bill Foulkes, President of the Federal Way National Little League in favor of the amendment and John Hutton, Recreation Coordinator for Federal Way Parks also spoke in favor of the amendment. The Planning Commission recommendation makes two minor changes in the definition section. On page 2 of Exhibit 1, it amends the definition of "billboard" so that ballfield signs are not considered billboards. On page 3 of Exhibit 1, under "graffiti", an error in the code is corrected from "works" to "words". The recommendation also provides for signs on sports field fences provided that that they are no larger than 32 square feet, do not project above the fenceline and are oriented to the interior of the field. No sign permits would be required. See specific code language in Exhibit 1, page 10 . VI. Land Use/Transportation Committee Options/Staff Recommendation The Committee has the following options: 1. Recommend that the full Council adopt an ordinance approving the proposed code amendments as recommended by the Planning Commission (The proposed amendrnents are shown in Exhibit J). 2. Recommend that the full Council modify and then approve the proposed code amendments. 3. Recommend that the full Council disapprove the proposed code amendments. Staff recommends that the LUTC recommend to the full Council Option No.1 above, that is, adoption of the Planning Commission's recommendations. VIII. LAND UsE/TRANSPORT A nON COMMITTEE RECOMMEND A nON The LUTC forwards the proposed amendment to the full Council at their April 5th meeting for first reading as follows: As recornmended by Planning Commission. As recommended by Planning Commission (including the additional staff changes) and amended by the LUTC. ApPROVAL OFCOMMITTEE',AOOON: Jack Dovey,' Chair Eric Faison, Member Michael Park, Mem~ Amendments to Federal Way City Code (FWCC) Chapter 22, Article IV, "Nonconformance," and Article XVIII, "Signs" P1anning Commission Recommendation to the Land Use/Transportation Committee Page 2 LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit 1 Exhibit 2 Exhibit 3 Exhibit 4 Exhibit 5 Proposed Code Amendments as Recommended by the Planning Commission. Staff Report for the March 2, 2005, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of March 2,2005, Planning Commission Meeting Letter from Bill Foulkes, President of Federal Way National Little League Draft Ordinance 1:\2005 Code Amendments\PAA Signs\LUTC\PC Rec Staff Report to LUTCdoc/3/8/2005 3:38 PM Amendments to Federal Way City Code (FWCC) Chapter 22, Article IV, "Nonconformance," and Article XVIII, "Signs" Planning Commission Recommendation to thc Land Use/Transportation Committee Page 3 Exhibit 1 Portion of Federal Way City Code Chapter 22, Article XVIII. Signs 22-1597 Definitions. The fol1owing words, terms and phrases, when used in this chapter, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning: (1) Abandoned sign means any sign remaining in place after a sign has not been maintained for a period of 90 or more consecutive days or if the activity conducted on the subject property ceases for 180 consecutive days. (2) Administrator means the director of community development or his/her designated representative. (3) Animated or moving sign means any sign that uses movement, by either natural or mechanical means, or change of lighting, either natural or artificial, to depict action to create a special effect or scene. (4) Architectural embellishments - Signs means the aesthetic elements of the structure that includes or encloses a sign. They do not include any copy, text, logos, graphics, or other eJements of the sign face or sign base, but are solely intended to enhance the aesthetics of the structural elements surrounding or supporting the sign. (5) Awning means a shelter projecting from and supported by the exterior wall of the building and are constructed of a noncombustible framework and covered by a flexible or nonrigid fabric. Awnings can be fixed, retractable, or collapsible. Any structure that extends above the adjacent parapet or roof of a supporting building is not included within the definition of awnmg. (6) Awning or canopy sign means a non-electric sign on the vertical surface or flap that is printed on, painted on, or attached to an awning or canopy. Illumination for the awning or canopy shall be for safety purposes only, and therefore, shall point toward the ground and not illuminate the canopy. (See also "Marquee sign.") I a.....-.......... ........ Figure 1 - A wRing or Canup)' Sign. (7) Balloon means a decorative inflatable device, generally composed of a thin layer of latex or mylar, into which a gas (typically helium) is inserted in order to cause it to rise or float in the atmosphere. (See also "Inflatable advertising device.") (8) Banner means a sign made of fabric or any nonrigid material with no enclosing framework. (9) Billboard means pcnnanent outdoor advertising off-site signs containing a message, commercial or otherwise, unrelated to any use or activity on the subject property on which the @2004 Code Publishing Co. Page 1 sign is located, but not including civic event signs, signs oriented to the interior of sports fields. government signs, or instructional signs. (10) Building-mounted signs means any sign attached to the facade or facc of a building or mansard roof including without limitation wall signs, marquee signs, under canopy signs and projecting signs. (11) Cabinet sign means a sign constructed of a box, rigid material, or framework over or . within which is secured the sign copy, text graphics, or other sign elements. Cabinet signs may have either interior or exterior illumination. --- p II ...~ "I )þ .w E F'íglJtc 2 - Cabínet Sign (12) Canopy - Building means a rigid, multi~sided structure covered with fabric, metal, or other material and supported by a building at one or more points or extremities and by columns or posts embedded in the ground at other points or extremities. Any structure which extends above any adjacent parapet or roof ofthe supporting building is not included within the definition of a building canopy. (13) Canopy - Freestanding means a rigid, multi-sided structure covered with fabric, metal, or other material and supported by one or more posts embedded in the ground. (14) Canopy sign. See "Awning or canopy sign." (15) Center identification sign means a building-mounted or freestanding sign that identifies the name and/or logo of a development containing more than one office, retail, institutional or industrial use or tenant and which may separately identify the tenants. (16) Changeable copy sign means a sign whose informational content can be changed or altered (without changing or altering the sign frame, sign supports or electrical parts) by rnanual or electric, electro-mechanical, or electronic means. A sign on which the rnessage changes more than eight tirnes a day shall be considered an electronic changeable rnessage sign and not a changeable copy sign for purposes of this chapter. A sign on which the changing is an electronic or mechanical indication of time and/or temperature shall be considered a "time and temperature" sign and not a changeable copy sign. (17) City means the city of Federal Way, a Washington municipal corporation, unless the context clearly indicates otherwisc. (18) Clearview zone means the definition set forth in FWCC 22-1511 et seq. of this Code for intersection sight distance requirements. (19) Community service event or civic event means an event or gathering (such as a food fest, concert, fun run, cultural exhibition, or charitable fund raising event) sponsored by a private or public nonprofit organization. Sponsoring organizations can include, but are not limited to, schools, churches, and/or civic fraternal organizations, theater and arts groups, and charitable organizations. The event may not be prirnarily for the purpose of selling or promoting merchandise or services. (20) Construction sign means a temporary sign identifying an architect, contractor, subcontractor, and/or material supplier participating in construction on the property on which the sign is located. Construction signs also include "Coming soon" and "Open During Construction" SIgnS. (21) Copy means the graphic content of a sign surface in either permanent or removable letter, pictographic, symbolic, or alphabetic form. (22) Directional sign, on-site means a sign giving directions, instructions, or facility (92004 Code Publishing Co. Page 2 infonnation and which may contain the name or logo of an establishment but no advertising copy (e.g., parking, exit or entrance signs). (23) Electrical sign means a sign or sign structure in which electrical wiring, connections, or fixtures are used. (24) Electronic changeable message sign means an electronically activated sign whose message content, either whole or in part, may be changed by means of electronic programming. (25) Exposed building face means the building exterior wall of a single occupant building or the building exterior wall of an individual tenant's leased space in a multi-tenant complex, including the vertical distance between eaves and ridge of a pitched roof above it, used for sign area calculation for building-mounted signs. (26) Facade means the entire building front including the parapet. (27) Festoons means a string of ribbons, tinsel, small flags, or pinwheels. (28) Flag means any piece of cloth of individual size, color and design, used as a symbol, signal, emblem or for decoration. (29) Flashing sign rneans a sign when any portion of it changes light intensity, switches on and off in a constant pattern, or contains moving parts or the optical i1lusion of motion caused by use of electrical energy or illumination. (30) Freestanding sign means a sign supported pennanently upon the ground by poles, pylons, braces or a solid base and not attached to any building. Freestanding signs include those signs otherwise known as "pedestal signs," "pole signs," "pylon signs," and "monument signs." S~ H8Wi "".. I Sign HIIIgt1t ~ - ~ Figure .3 -Fn>estanding Sign (31) Frontage means the length of the property line along any public right-of~way on which it borders. (32) Frontage, building means the length of an outside building wall on a public right-of- way. (33) Fuel price sign means a sign displaying the price of fuel for motorized vehicles. (34) Graffiti means the inscription of symbols, weffis, words. or pictures by painting, spray painting or other means of defacing public or private property. (35) Grand opening means a promotional activity used by newly established businesses to infonn the public of their location and services available to the community. A grand opening does not mean an annual or occasional promotion of retail saJes or other services, and does not include <Þ2004 Code Publishing Co. Page 3 a change in ownership, remodeling, or other change incidental to the initial establishment of the business. (36) Ground-mounted sign means a pedestal sign, pole, pylon, monument sign, or any sign pennanently affixed to the ground. (37) Government sign means any temporary or permanent sign erected and maintained by any city, public utility, county, state, or federal government for designation of or direction to any school, hospital, hospital site, property, or facility, including without limitation traffic signs, directional signs, warning signs, infonnational signs, and signs displaying a public service message. (38) Height (of a sign) means the vertical distance measured from the highest point of the sign to the grade of the àdjacent street or the surface grade beneath the sign, whichever is less. (39) Identification sign means a sign whose copy is limited to the name and address of a building, institution, or person and/or to the activity or occupation being identified. (40) Identification sign (subdivision) means freestanding or wall sign identifying a recognized subdivision, condorninium complex, or residential development. (41) Illuminated sign means a sign with an artificial light source incorporated internally or externally for the purpose of illuminating the sign. (42) Incidental sign means a small sign, emblem, or decal infonning the public of goods, facilities, or services available on the premises (e.g., a credit card sign or a sign indicating hours of business). (43) Inflatable advertising device means an advertising device that is inflated by some means and used to attract attention, advertise, promote, market, or display goods and/or services. These devices include large single displays or displays of smal1er balloons connected in some fashion to create a larger display. (44) Instructional sign means a sign which designates public infonnation including, without limitation, public restroom signs, public telephone signs, exit signs and hours of operation signs. (45) Integral sign means a sign displaying a building date, monument citation, commemorative inscription, or similar historic infonnation. (46) Kiosk means a freestanding sign, which may have a round shape or which may have two or more faces and which is used to provide directions, advertising or general infonnation. (47) Maintenance means the cleaning, painting, and minor repair of a sign in a manner that does not alter the basic design, size, height, or structure of the sign. (48) Marquee sign means any sign attached to or supported by a marquee, which is a permanent roof-like projecting structure attached to a buiJding. (49) Menu board means a pennanently mounted sign advertising the bill of fare for a drive-in or drive-through restaurant. (50) Monument sign means a freestanding sign supported pennanently upon the ground by a solid base of landscape construction materials such as brick, stucco, stonework, textured wood, tile or textured concrete materials harmonious with the materials of the primary structure on the subject property. (See drawing set forth in FWCC 22-1602(c)(2), Figure 8.) (51) Multi-tenant complex means a complex containing two or more uses or businesses. (52) Multiuse complex means the definition of "multiuse complex" set forth in FWCC 22-1. (53) Mural means a design or representation that is painted or drawn on the exterior surface of a structure and that does not advertise a business, product, service, or activity. (54) Nameplate means a non-electric on-premises identification sign giving only the narne, address, and/or occupation of an occupant or group of occupants of the building. (55) Neon (outline tubing) sign means a sign consisting of glass tubing, filled with neon gas, or other similar gas, which glows when electric current is sent through it. (56) Obsolete sign means a sign that advertises a product that is no longer made, a CQ2004 Code Publishing Co. Page 4 business that is no longer in operation, or an activity or event that has already occurred, except for historical signs. (57) Off-site sign means a sign relating, through its message and content, to a business activity, use, product, or service not available on the subject property on which the sign is located. (58) On-site sign means a sign which contains only advertising strictly applicable to a lawful use of the subject property on which the sign is located, including without limitation signs indicating the business transacted, principal services rendered, and goods sold or produced on the subject property, or name of the business and name of the person occupying the subject property. (59) Person means any individual, corporation, association, firm, partnership, or other legal entity. (60) Pedestal means freestanding signs supported permanently upon the ground by a solid base of landscape construction materials such as brick, stucco, stonework, textured wood, tile or textured concrete materials hannonious with the materials of the primary structure on the subject property. Such base shall be equal to at least 50 percent of the sign width. (See drawing set forth in FWCC 22-1602(c)(1), Figure 6.) (61) Point of purchase display or sign means an advertisement for an item accompanying its display indicating only instructions and the contents or purpose of the item (e.g., an advertisement on a product dispenser, tire display, recycling containers, collection containers, gas pumps, phone booths, etc.). (62) Pole or pylon signs rneans freestanding signs supported pennanently upon the ground by poles or braces of materials such as brick, stucco, stonework, textured wood, tile or textured concrete materials hannonious with the materials of the primary structure on the subject property and not attached to any building. (See drawing set forth in FWCC 22-1602(c)(l), Figure 7.) (63) Political signs means temporary signs advertising a candidate or candidates for public elective office, or a political party, or signs urging a particular vote on a public issue decided by ballot in connection with local, state, or national election or referendum. (64) Portable sign means any sign designed to be moved easily and not pennanently affixed to the ground or to a structure or building. Portable signs differ from temporary signs in that portable signs are made of durable rnaterials such as metal, wood, or plastic. (65) Pre-opening sign means a temporary sign which identifies a new business rnoving into a new tenant space or building. The sign must include the name of the business and copy stating the business will open soon (e.g., "Coming Soon..." "Opening Soon...", etc.). (66) Private advertising sign means a temporary sign announcing an event, use or condition of personal concern to the sign user including without limitation "garage sale" or "lost animal" signs. (67) Private notice sign means a sign announcing a restriction or warning regarding the subject property, such as, but not limited to, "no trespassing" or "beware of dog." (68) Projecting sign means a sign, other than a flat wall sign, which is attached to and projects from a building wall or other structure not specifically designed to support the sign. (92004 Code Publishing Co. Page 5 DO DO a 0 I I Fi~tlrt 4 -Projectidg Sigd (69) Public right-of-way means land owned, dedicated or conveyed to the public, used primarily for the movement of vehicles, wheelchair and pedestrian traffic and land privately owned, used primarily for the movement of vehicles, wheelchair and pedestrian traffic, so long as such privately owned land has been constructed in compliance with all applicable laws and standards for a public right-of-way. (70) Real estate, off-site sign means a portable or temporary sign announcing the proposed sale of property other than the property upon which the sign is located and providing directions to the subject property. (71) Real estate, on-site sign means a sign placed on the subject property and announcing the sale or rental of the subject property. (72) Roof sign means any sign erected, constructed, or placed upon, over, or above the eaves or on the roof of a building or structure, excluding signs affixed to the face of a mansard style roof, and which is wholly or in part supported by the building. (73) Sign means any communication device, structure, fixture, or placard that uses colors, words, letters, numbers, symbols, graphics, graphic designs, figures, logos, trademarks, and/or written copy for the purpose of: (a) Providing infonnation or directions; or (b) Promoting, identifying, or advertising any place, building, use, business, event, establishment, product, good, or service, and includes all supports, braces, guys, and anchors associated with such sign. @2004 Code Publishing Co. Page 6 Painted wall designs or patterns which do not represent a product, service, or registered trademark, and which do not identify the user, are not considered signs. If a painted wall design or pattern is combined with a sign, only that part of the design or pattern which cannot be distinguished from the sign will be considered as part of the sign. (74) Sign area means the entire area of a sign on which colors, words, letters, numbers, symbols, graphics, graphic design, figures, logos, trademarks and/or written copy is to be placed, excluding sign structure, architectural embellishments and framework. Sign area is calculated by measuring the perimeter enclosing the extreme lirnits of the module or sign face containing the graphics, letters, figures, symbols, trademarks, and/or written copy; provided, however, that individual letters, numbers or symbols using a canopy, awning or wall as the background, without added decoration or change in the canopy, awning or wall color, have sign area calculated by measuring the perimeter enclosing each letter, number or symbol and totaling the square footage of these perimeters. Groce ry 11:11. '".+Q'.' rty-&gn"'" I "If' "d' "¡j" ... I- x ( b-teHI-te) ::I SIan AnI8 I FigureS - Calculatilig SIgn Area (75) Sign face means the area of a sign on which the colors, words, letters, numbers, symbols, graphics, graphic design, figures, logos, trademark and/or written copy is placed. (76) Snipe sign means a temporary sign or poster posted on trees, fences, light posts or utility poles, except those posted by a government or public utility. @2004 Code Publishing Co. Page 7 (77) Temporary sign means a sign not constructed or intended for long-term use. (78) Tenant directory sign means a sign for listing the tenants or occupants and then suite numbers of a building or center. (79) Time and temperature sign means any sign that displays the CUITent time and temperature, without any commercial message. (80) Under canopy sign means any sign intended generally to attract pedestrian traffic suspended beneath a canopy or marquee which is at a 90-degree right angle to the adjacent exposed building face and which contains no commercial messages other than the name of the business. (81) Vehicle sign means a sign temporarily affixed or attached to a parked vehicle for the purpose of advertising a product or service, or providing directions to such products or services. (82) Wall sign means either a sign applied with paint or similar substance on the surface of a wall or a sign attached essentially parallel to and extending not more than 24 inches from the wall of a building with no copy on the side or edges. (83) Warning sign means any sign which is intended to warn persons of prohibited activities such as "no trespassing," "no hunting," and "no dumping." (84) Window sign means all signs located inside and affixed to a window and intended to be viewed from the exterior of the structure. (Ord. No. 95-235, § 4, 6~6-95; Ord. No. 99-348, § 5, 9-7-99; Ord. No. 99-357, § 5, 12-7~99) 22-1599 Permits. (a) Permit requirements. No sign governed by the provisions of this Code shall be erected, moved, enlarged, altered or relocated by any person without a permit issued by the city unless such sign is expressly excluded from this permitting requirement pursuant to subsection (d) of this section. An applicant shall pay the permit fees set forth in the city's fee schedule. No new permit is required for signs which have valid, existing permits and which conform with the requirements of this Code on the date of its adoption unless and until the sign is altered or relocated. Signs which, on the date of adoption of this Code, do not conform with this Code's requirements may be eligible for characterization as nonconforming signs and for nonconfonning sign permits under FWCC 22-335. (b) Permit applications. Applications for permits shall contain the name and address of the owner and user of the sign, the name and address of the owner of the property on which the sign is to be located, the location of the sign structure, drawings or photographs showing the design and dimensions of the sign, details of the sign's proposed placement and such other pertinent information as the administrator may require to insure compliance with this Code. (c) Permit expiration and inspection. All sign permits expire one year from the date of issuance. If no work was initiated to instal1 or construct any part of the sign, the permit for such sign expires six months from the date of issuance. All signs for which a permit was issued must receive a final inspection for compliance with applicable requirements. It is the responsibility of the applicant to provide access for inspection. (d) Permit exceptions. (1) Maintenance and operation. A sign permit is not required for maintenance of a sign or for operation of a changeable copy sign and/or an electronic changeable message sign. (2) Exempt signs. A sign permit is not required for the following signs or modifications to signs; provided, however, that such signs shall comply with all ofthe following requirements: a. Address identification with numbers and letters not more than 10 inches in height. b. Balloons no greater than 18 inches in diameter and no more than five balloons per display with a tether no longer than 36 inches. No more than two displays are permitted per site. c. Barber poles. d. Construction signs, so long as such signs are limited to two signs per project and each sign does not exceed 32 square feet per sign face and 10 feet in height. Construction signs (92004 Code Publishing Co. Page 8 shall not be displayed prior to issuance of a building permit and shall be removed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. One "Coming Soon" or "Open During Construction" sign per site entrance is also pennitted. e. Directional signs, on-site. Each sign shall not exceed four square feet in sign area if the directional sign is indicating one direction and shall not exceed eight square feet in sign area if such sign is indicating more than one direction. Each sign may be no more than five feet in height. No more than two signs per street frontage are permitted for multi-tenant complexes. Single-tenant properties shall be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. Center or complex names or logos shall not comprise more than 20 percent of the total sign area. £. Flags of any nation, government, educational institution, Or noncommercial organization. Decorative flags without corporate logos or other forms of advertising are also excluded from permit requirements. All flags must be a minimurn size of five square feet unless it is a national or state flag and the official national or state flag is less than five square feet in size but not larger than 40 square feet in size. g. Fuel price signs. Signs shall be located on the property where fuel is sold, shall be limited to one monument sign per street frontage not exceeding five feet in height and sign area shall not exceed 20 square feet per sign face. h. Gravestones or other memorial displays associated with cemeteries or mausoleums. i. Historical site plaques and signs integral to an historic building or site. j. Holiday decorations displayed in conjunction with recognized holidays. k. Incidental signs attached to a structure or building, providing that the total of all such signs per use or business shall not exceed two square feet. 1. Instructional signs that do not exceed six square feet in area per sign face. ill. Integral design features when such features are an essential part of the architecture of a building (including religious syrnbols) and when such features do not represent a product service, or registered trademark. n. Integral signs when no more than one per building. o. Interior signs located completely within a building or structure and not intended to be visible from outside the structure, exclusive of window signs. p. Menu board not to exceed 32 square feet per sign face and a maximum height of five feet (two pem1Ìtted per site). q. Nameplates not to exceed two square feet per sign face. r. Nonblinking small string lights which are part of decoration to be used in association with landscaped areas and trees. s. Point of purchase displays. Point of purchase signs are limited to two square feet in area and one sign per point of purchase. Such signs shall only display instructional or price information and shall not include copy pertaining to any special sale or promotion. Point of purchase display signs shall be permitted in conjunction with an outdoor use, activity, or storage as authorized under Article II, Division 8 ofthis chapter. t. Political signs so long as the maximum area per sign is limited to six square feet. No political sign shall be displayed later than seven calendar days after a final election. u. Private advertising signs. The sign shall be limited to eight square feet per sign face and five feet in height, the sign must be immediately rernoved at the end of an event, use or condition, the sign must contain the address of the event or advertiser, and there shall be no more than six such signs advertising an event. v. Private notice signs. w. Real estate signs. 1. Off-site. The number of off-site real estate signs shall be limited to six per property per agent; provided, however, that there shall be a rninimum separation of 200 lineal feet between such signs. The area of such signs shall be no greater than six square feet per sign face. (92004 Code Publishing Co. Page 9 An off-site real estate signs must be removed each day at the conclusion of the open house or other sales event and are permitted only between sunrise and sunset when the seller or the agent are in attendance at the subject property. 2. ûn*site. The number of on-site real estate signs shall be limited to one per agent per street frontage or public entrance ifno street frontage exists. For dwelling units, the area of the sign shall be no greater than six square feet per sign face. For other uses and developments, the size shall not exceed 32 square feet per sign face. All on-site real estate signs must be removed when the sale closes, or in the case of a rental or lease, when the tenant takes possession. x. Temporary business signs for temporary business defined by FWCC 9-386; provided, however, that each licensed temporary business is only allowed two signs of 16 square feet per sign face. If only one sign is used, that sign may be 32 square feet per sign face. y. Under canopy signs not exceeding the width of the canopy and eight square feet in size; and provided, that a rninimum separation exists between such signs equal to 20 lineal feet or more. z. Warning signs. aa. Window signs not exceeding 25 percent of the window area only to advertise products, goods or services for sale on site, business identification, hours of operation, address, and emergency information. bb. Signs on sports field fences not exceeding 32 square feet per si~ that are securely attached to the fence. are not protruding above the fence line. and are oriented to the interior of the field. (e) Temporary and special signs. No pennit for any sign for any civic event, community service event, special sale/promotional event, grand openings, mural display or scoreboards shall be used unless such sign complies with the sign type, maximum number, maximum sign face area, maximurn height, location, duration and all other allowances and limitations for those uses described in Table 1, "Allowances for Temporary and Special Signs - Pennit Required." (f) Government signs. The location, number, and content of signs used to identify government facilities must comply with the standards for commercial signs in that zone and be appropriate to the use. All signs must be approved by the city. Street and traffic signs are excluded from these requirements. (g) Residential zone signs. No pennit in any residential zone shall be issued for any sign unless such sign complies with the sign type, maximum number, maximum sign area, maximum height, location, duration and all other allowances and limitations for those uses described in Table 2, "Sign Allowances for Residential Zones - Pennit Required." (h) Sign registration. No person shall maintain a sign in the city without first having been issued a proper and current sign registration unless the sign is expressly exernpt from such registration requirements. All signs exempt from the pennitting requirements set forth in this section shall be exempt from the registration requirements. The sign registration shall be issued in connection with a person's business registration pursuant to FWCC 9~29 or issued after the city has independently obtained the dimensions of the sign and other necessary infonnation. Sign owners or users who, on the date of adoption of this Code, have current business registrations are not required to apply to register their signs until the next renewal of their business registration. A sign registration shall be valid until such time as the applicant alters the sign in any way, in which case the applicant will be required to apply for a new sign registration and sign pennit. No pennit fees will be charged in connection with such sign registrations. The city will assign a registration number to each sign upon issuance of the business registration and approval of a sign registration application. The city shall affix the registration sticker containing the registration number to the face of the pennitted sign. Upon issuance of a registration, the city will advise an applicant if his/her sign is in compliance with this Code, is a legal nonconforming sign pursuant to FWCC 22-335, or an illegal nonconforming sign pursuant to this Code. (i) Bond. The city may require a bond under FWCC 22-146 et seq. to ensure cornpliance with (92004 Code Publishing Co. Page 10 CITV OF ;-~ Federa I Way Exhibit 2 STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Amendments to Federal Way City Code (FWCC) Chapter 22, Article XVIII Sign Regulations Planning Commission Meeting of March 2, 2005 I. BACKGROUND The current Federal Way City Code (FWCC) does not have a provision for advertising on fences surrounding sports fields. The City has taken the position that absent regulations, outside advertising is not permitted. Both the Little League Organization and the City of Federal Way Parks Department have requested that a code provision be reviewed. The City Council placed this item on the 2004 Planning Commission work program on March 2, 2004. This code amendment proposal will address this issue and offer an option where advertising is oriented to the interior ofthe field (see Exhibit 1, FWCC Chapter 22, Article XVIII, "Signs"). The Issue The City has a number of outdoor playfields that belong to private, non-profit organizations (i.e. Little League), the Federal Way School District, or the City itself. One of the ways that these organizations have historically been able to generate revenue for the maintenance ofthese facilities is to sell advertising and post that advertising on fences. When the City adopted its sign regulations in 1990 and amended the regulations in 1995, one of the primary goals was to improve the aesthetic quality of the City. To this end, billboards (FWCC Section 22-1600) and off-site advertising were prohibited. However, the FWCC does provide a permit exemption for interior signs that are located within a building and are not intended to be visible from outside the structure (FWCC Section 22-1599[d][2][o]). The lack of clear code direction on this issue prevents the City from advertising at the sports fields in Celebration Park and was recently raised as a nonconforming issue with an expansion at the Federal Way Little League Fields. II. DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENTS The inconsistency of the existing code is that product advertising within a gymnasium is permitted under the FWCC sign permit exemptions for signs entirely within a building, but product advertising at an outdoor event is prohibited as an off-site sign. As long as the advertising at an outdoor playfield is oriented to the interior of the field rather than adjacent public rights-of-way or neighboring properties, these signs should not be detrimental to the general public or to other properties. The suggested size for these signs is no greater than 32 square feet per sign. This allows for a variety of sizes up to 32 square feet. A four by eight-foot sign is a standard used in many ball field contracts. Suggested language is to exempt these signs from a pennit as long as the signs are maintained and are not oriented to adjoining streets or property. III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the following code amendment be recornrnended for approval to the City Council: A code amendment be adopted that exempts from sign pennits advertising at sports fields up to 32 square feet in size, as long as they are oriented to the interior of the ball field, do not extend beyond the height ofthe fence or enclosure, and are securely fastened to the fence or enclosure. Drafted Code language is in Exhibit 1. New language added is underlined. All signs rnust be maintained in good repair per FWCC 22.1600 (5). IV. REASON FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION FWCC Chapter 22, "Zoning," Article IX, "Process VI Review," establishes a process and criteria for zoning code text amendments. Consistent with Process VI review, the role of the Planning Commission is as follows: 1. To review and evaluate the zoning code text regarding any proposed amendments. 2. To detennine whether the proposed zoning code text amendment meets the criteria provided by FWCC Section 22-528. 3. To forward a recommendation to City Council regarding adoption of the proposed zoning code text amendment. V. DECISIONAL CRITERIA FWCC Section 22-528 provides criteria for zoning text amendments. The following section analyzes the compliance of the proposed zoning text amendments with the criteria provided by FWCC Section 22-528. The City may amend the text ofthe FWCC only if it finds that: 1. The proposed amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan. The proposed FWCC text amendment is consistent with the following Federal Way Comprehensive Plan (FWCP) goals and policies: Ball Fields Sign Amendments Planning Commission Staff Report March 2, 2005 Page 2 EDP2} The City recognizes the importance of cultural and recreational activity to its economy and through the Arts Department and Parks Department will pursue joint ventures with private groups and individuals in developing cultural and recreational opportunities. EDP22 The City will encourage the expansion of existing and development of new multipurpose facilities to host cultural and recreational activities. The FWCP recognizes the importance of recreational facilities for the growth of the Federal Way economy and quality of life for its citizens. Enabling these facilities to create the revenue for maintenance and improvernents is consistent with the FWCP. 2. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relationship to public health, safety, or welfare. The proposed FWCC text amendment bears substantial relationship to the public health, safety, and welfare because it provides an opportunity for local non-profit groups, the School District and the City to create the revenue stream to sustain recreational opportunities for its citizens. 3. The proposed amendment is in the best interest ofthe residents ofthe City. The proposed FWCC text amendment is in the best interest of the residents of the City because it facilitates funding for maintenance of recreational fields and programs, while protecting aesthetic quality of the City. VI. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Consistent with the provisions of FWCC Section 22-539, the Planning Commission may take the following actions regarding the proposed zoning code text amendments: 1. Recommend to City Council adoption of the FWCC text amendments as proposed; 2. Modify the proposed FWCC text amendments and recommend to City Council adoption of the FWCC text amendments as modified; 3. Recommend to City Council that the proposed FWCC text amendments not be adopted; or 4. Forward the proposed FWCC text amendments to City Council without a recommendation. VII. EXHIBITS Exhibit A - Federal Way City Code Chapter 22, Article XVIII, "Signs" Ball Fields Sign Amendments Planning Commission Staff Report March 2, 2005 Page 3 EXHIBIT 3 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PLANNING COMMISSION March 2, 2005 ~.m. City Hall Council Chambers MEETING MINUTES Commissioners present: John Caulfield, Hope Elder, Dave Osaki, Dini Duclos, Merle Pfeifer, and Lawson Bronson. Commissioners absent: Bill Drake (excused). Alternate Commissioners present: None. Alternate Commissioners absent: Pan Duncan~Pierce, Christine Nelson, and Tony Moore (all unexcused). City Council present: Mayor Dean McColgan and Council Member Jack Dovey. Staff present: Community Development Services Director Kathy McClung, Assistant City Attorney Amy Jo Pearsall; Recreation Coordinator John Hutton, and Administrative Assistant E. Tina Piety. Chair Caulfield called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES It was m/s/c to adopt the February 16, 2005, minutes as presented. AUDIENCE COMMENT None ADMINISTRATIVE REpORT Moved to Additional Business COMMISSION BUSINESS Chair Caulfield stated that if there is no objection, the Commission will hold a roundtable discussion with Mayor McColgan and Council Member Dovey on issues raised at the Commission's annual dinner meeting held December 8, 2004. Hearing no objection, the roundtable was held. ROUNDTABLE - Discussion with Mayor McColgan and Council Member Dovey One issue the Commission has is concern over the role of the Planning Commission. Is it a useful expenditure of citizen's time to attend a Planning Commission and then a Land UselTransportation Committee (LUTC) meeting, and finally a City Council meeting, only to see the recommendation of the Planning Commission overturned? Mayor McColgan and Council Member Dovey explained that the Planning Commission does play an important role in clarifying issues and obtaining citizen input. Chair Caulfield suggested, and all at the table agreed, that when a divisive issue comes before the Commission, K:\Planning CollllllÌ5Sionl2005lMceting Summary 03-02-05.000 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 March 2, 200S he or the Vice-Chair will attend the LUTC to communicate the reasoning behind the Planning Commission's recommendation. In another method of keeping the lines of communication open, it was agreed that copies of the LUTC minutes that deal with issues that have been before the Planning Commission will be given to the Commissioners. In addition, the Commission requested that if the LUTC and/or City Council returns an issue to the Planning Commission, they provide a sense of direction with it. Commissioner Bronson asked if the City could add the meeting minutes to the website before they are approved, with a caveat that they are draft. This would provide quicker information to citizens. Mayor McColgan replied that minutes are not placed on the website until they are approved in case there are mistakes. However, he will ask if the Law Department can research the ramifications of placing draft minutes on the website. The Commission asked if there were ways in which they could assist the City Council. The Mayor replied that improving communication as they discussed earlier will help. He encouraged them to let the Council know of any issues/ideas that arise from either the Commissioners or citizens (Celebration Park was an idea from a citizen). Ms. McClung commented that given their knowledge of the Federal Way City Code and Federal Way Comprehensive Plan, they would have much to contribute to studies, open houses, forums, etc. They discussed the role of alternates. Mayor McColgan and Council Member Dovey feel that Alternates are Commissioners in training and want them to participate as much as possible. It was determined that Alternates should sit at the dais or the staff area and be encouraged to give public testimony. Finally, the Commission asked what are the City Council's priorities. Do they have a work program? Mayor McColgan and Council Member Dovey replied that the goals from the City Council's retreat are their "work program." The Commission suggested these be placed on the City's website. PUBLIC HEARING - Signs in Ball Fields Code Amendment Ms. McClung delivered the staff report. The current code does not have a provision for advertising on fences surrounding sports fields. Both the Little League Organization and the City of Federal Way Parks Department have requested that a code provision be reviewed. One of the ways organizations have historically been able to generate revenue for the maintenance of these facilities is to sell advertising and post that advertising on fences. The proposed amendment would exempt from sign permits advertising at sports fields as long as they meet the size requirement and are oriented to the interior of the field. In addition, the signs must not extend beyond the height of the fence and be securely fastened and maintained. The suggested size for these signs (32 square feet) was arrived at by researching what other cities allow. Ms. McClung noted that the size is consistent with what the City allows for business signs. In order to be more inclusive, staff recommends replacing the words "ball fields" with "sports fields." Commissioner Duclos asked if the Parks Commission is aware of this proposed amendment. Staff replied that they. are not sure and would make sure they are told of the issue. The Commission asked who will decide upon the fee and who will be responsible for maintenance of the signs? Staff replied that it will be the responsibility of property owners to decide the fee and enter into an agreement with advertisers for maintenance of the sign(s). Mr. Hutton commented that in regards to maintenance, the City is considering light-weight signs that are made from a foam core material that would allow wind to pass through and would be easy to install and remove. The Parks Department is in the midst of researching a fee that would be a fair market value and affordable. The fees will go to the Parks general fund. The department is already receiving inquiries ITom advertisers. The signs would go up when the fields open (which this vear is ili . J February 28 ) and come down when the fields close at the end of September. K:\Planning Commission\2005\Meeting Summary 03-02-05.dnc Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 March 2, 2005 When asked what kind of advertising would be allowed, Ms. Pearsall replied that would be up to the property owner. Ifthis amendment is adopted, the City would develop a policy on the type of advertising allowed. Mr. Hutton commented that the Parks Department has researched what types of advertising other cities allow and it can be considered family friendly. Ms. McClung read a March 2, 2005, letter from Bill Foulkes, President ofthe Federal Way National Little League, into the record that was favorable to the proposed amendment. There was no further public testimony. It was m/s/c to recommend adoption of the text amendment as proposed, and with the replacement of the words "ball fields" with "sports fields." The Commission requested that when they are placing the signs, the Parks Department keep in mind that some people like to be able to observe the game through the fence. In addition, the Commission suggested that after the first year, the Parks Department review how well or poorly this program is working. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS Ms. McClung provided the Commission with a Permit Activity Update. She noted that she only listed plats with 10 or more lots and did not include items in the newly annexed areas. An article in the February 23, 2005, Federal Way News cited the number of apartments in Federal Way. That number is inaccurate. She thinks the reason it is inaccurate is because they used the ZIP code and the ZIP code boundaries encompasses more than the City of Federal Way. Currently the City has (not counting the newly annexed areas) 18,377 single-family homes, 13,635 apartments, and 1,200 mobile homes. Ms. McClung also informed the Commission that the City will start a test pilot this year on a WI-FI (wireless internet) system. AUDIENCE COMMENT None ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 8:15 p.m. K;\Planning Commissionl200S\Mæting Summary 03.o2.OS.doc RECEIVED REVISION DATE MAR 0 2 2005 EXHIBIT ~ .... 3/2../ oS MAR (ì ~ (r~ -: d.' CITYOF FEDERAL WAY , I L} í' - BUILDING DEPT --- r-tCi"0V' 4,P G \...0(\1\""" \S$t Ol\¡;roS ) - --:r h ç., \I E r ev rt£\Ñ~¿" -ftt: f r 6 f <# S ~ 5l) Vl .., M. f't f:io ~)It, 1- .. - ý'E; (...... ~ to s ;")1115 {o~ fd tY\ fÀ} th rl~ ~q;S. - <1\ ~ Of.' r (M fGl.. -1-0 +-fe ( 1\ hv-, 0.- of --I-h E b.. iI 11 IS 1.,£ l' I ..I hd ---1-4. ~.r ~NA' c¿eA'J ~ø ft, bt! Þ'\-rt-e - " - r OV'" #Js, f {Zert:.-. ~ M ~ .ss , ~ wl1 ~ --J--tt IJ I ¿ ~ /IJ ,. So d rS tAJS5 ~ --~L:¡" (C{""'"~ 10 G¡;{¡;--b~ hot, P~/L ~ ,I- ev~ eft -fIt.v-j- _--f'ðl ~t ....¡-v..,.. f- T: vf90{ I~c¡( W~ ~A. q SIM,fIV ~ 6Xlsh") C4>td'¡';"'Y'I ... r- -f-itE Fwv../ fNA7 III... hlMC J --- ~ UitJ t/,. t:..o~f b~..( F-VV N~) . . .. P' t=:I/J Nt-V el-h II ~ ~ $11.-ú as 4 -fv/l~ VØ("5Et- .dCtnJ.... ms døvt;-"Sø ~ ,,( ""'-0' f- ~ '1E3f/tr,s. WE -.. garn ðl.f~roK.~?OO WCW\ ~t:::.4 S'iV) I ~ tU c1.. --- ~ol~ is 0 "J~ f11-u..h'rrr. lA;1¡;;;ft:/t,-¡ uNIt U --/-4;5 6"" ~4s ---io for?ít~Q)r Ðrjc,~/u-h 1Þ1f: ~h -10 enI1Civ1c..E --~ ~4:1 w.... 7 (d,M Mv'A If] . .. . , nJ:. W. ØJ. .14. tt$l<--. V 'f'v...I' 4f,¡'f fA Ý5CPMrYbYt()(,~ ._~~Ct-( k---f-t4u frof.l'Ei{., M~thLqh~ -1-0 1l.Jjf - ß (,{1 b r,'Q lJ5 ( A. ~tI f ~ I' ~ (foJ < --f1--t ~ G<N%rI T ~ /' . ._-~:-~: - t:~Œo-::':::/ -:: VI ~ ~ILfiJIl4 rql~ I ~ cr - n __n --.- .. ---- 'P- . ...---- ..... ..... . 1 . h ----------------- --_u_------------------------------- --- - _--_,~A ~ ~.b--'f"A!-~~-f-~------------ - - . --_..--------------------_.____f2_~1L___£~!.l4r..~J- Æ~~l~~ ...¥~~_f__JtJq ~-- --~_..~I_,._~ttkJ~~(flJt~ Exhibit 5 ORDINANCE NO. - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON, AMENDING CHAPTER 22 (ZONING) OF THE FEDERAL WAY MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADDRESS SIGNS ON SPORTS FIELD FENCES. (Amending Ordinance Nos. 95-235, 99-348, 99-357) WHEREAS, the City of Federal Way adopted Ordinance No. 96-270 in July 1996, which significantly revised the Federal Way City Code (FWCC) Chapter 22 (Zoning); WHEREAS, the City of Federal Way finds that the amendments to FWCC Chapter 22 (Zoning) . Article XVIII, "Signs" meets the intent of Chapter 36.70A RCW, Growth Management; WHEREAS, the City of Federal Way finds that the code amendments relating to signs on sports field fences are consistent with the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the code amendments relating to frontage improvements on March 2, 2005, and forwarded a recommendation of approval to the City Council; and WHEREAS, the Land Use Transportation Committee ofthe Federal Way City Council considered the code amendments relating to the sign code on March 21,2005, following which it recomrnended adoption of the text amendments; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the code amendments relating to frontage improvements are consistent with the intent and purpose of FWCC Chapter 22 (Zoning) to provide for and promote the health, safety, and welfare of the general public. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Oed No. - , Page I Section 1. Findings. After full and careful consideration, the City Council of the City of Federal Way finds that the proposed code amendments will protect and will not adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare. Section 2. Conclusions. Pursuant to FWCC Sections 22-216 and 22-528, and based upon the Findings set forth in Section 1, the Federal Way City Council makes the following Conclusions of Law with respect to the decisional criteria necessary for the adoption of the proposal: 1. The proposed FWCC text amendments are consistent with, and substantially implement, the following Federal Way Comprehensive Plan goals and policies: EDP2] The City recognizes the importance of cultural and recreational activity to its economy and through the Arts Department and Parks Department will pursue joint ventures with private groups and individuals in developing cultural and recreational opportunities. EDP22The City will encourage the expansion and development of new multipurpose facilities to host cultural and recreational activities. 2. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relationship to public health, safety, or welfare because they will result in revenue streams to assist with maintenance of public and private recreation programs and facilities. AND 3. The proposed amendment is in the best interest of the residents ofthe City because they may result sustaining existing recreational programs and infrastructure. Section 3. Amendment. FWCC, Chapter 22 is amended as set forth in the attached Exhibit 1. Section 4. Severability. The provisions of this ordinance are declared separate and severable. The invalidity of any clause, sentence, paragraph, subdivision, section, or portion of this ordinance, or the invalidity of the application thereof to any person or circumstance, shall not affect the validity of the remainder of the ordinance, or the validity of its application to any other persons or circumstances. Section 5. Ratification. Any act consistent with the authority and prior to the effective date of this ordinance is hereby ratified and affirmed. Section 6. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be effective five (5) days after passage and publication as provided by law. Ord No. - , Page 2 "" - _~@illW,""""""""""""" , "-,---,-,,c_.='.,-- - =:::=,,=-~-~é1~~~n 'y ~g9~~ ~~E:~£~~t¥"Yi~~cPí~~:þ~I~~~::::,::" ,-",""-@,@-"""""""rn"""",,,,",,, ~ CITY OF ,~ Federal Way MEMORANDUM MarchI1,2005 To: Jack Dovey, Chair Land Use/Transportat['on Committee (LUTe) ,~N David Mosele'~ld,y Mager Kathy McClung, Director of Community Development Services ~\<- VIa: From: Subject: Amendments to the King County Countywide Planning Policies Meeting date: March 21, 2005 I. Background The City has received a request from King County to review and ratify amendments to the King County Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs) (Exhibit A). Under the Growth Management Act (GMA), countywide planning policies serve as the framework for each individual jurisdiction's comprehensive plan, and ensure regional consistency with respect to land use planning efforts. The CPPs were developed by the Growth Management Planning Council (GMPe),adopted by the King County Council, and ratified by the cities in 1994. Subsequent amendments to the CPPs are recommended by the GMPC, adopted by the King County Council, and ratified by the cities. Amendments to the CPPs become effective when ratified by ordinance or resolution by at Jeast 30 percent of the city and county governments representing 70 percent of the population of King County. A city shall be deemed to have ratified the amendments unless, within 90 days of adoption by King County, the city takes legislative action to disapprove the amendments. The 90-day deadline for this proposed amendment is May 16,2004. The amendments are described as follows: Ordinance No. 1512/, (GMPC Motion Nos. 04-1, 4-2. 04-5) (Exhibit B)- Amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies by amending the urban growth boundary map, the interim potential annexation areas map, and the urban separator map. Ordinance No, /5/22, (GMPC Motion No. 04-4) (Exhibit C) - Amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies by revising targets for new household and job growth for the period 2002-2022. Ordinance No. 15123, (GMPC Motion No. 04-3) (Exhibit D) - Amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies by designating Downtown Burien as an Urban Center. These amendments would add Downtown Burien to the list of Urban Centers in r~'ê\~,¥w,~Ç')y ~. ~",:~?Si~,i~~'~J~ ni ~i,:,~~L e ~~5~~'?. .'.:,'~.~:::~w ...,.~~::":"'~~:"",,,.,.....:.... .'""="':',:= ::::. ::~"....,. .:. ==:',~".::-':~:: ::,..., :.... ...'..: "~-'",,- ::'~:"'J):~~~:~:j ,----".' Countywide PJanning Policy LU~39. The following definitions are provided to assist you with the remainder of this report: Countywide Planning Policy (CPP) - Policies created by the GMPC and adopted by the county and cities that provide basis for comprehensive planning and compliance to the Growth Management Act Growth Management Planning Council (GMPC) - A formal body comprised of elected officials from King County, Seattle, Bellevue, the Suburban Cities, and Special Districts. Potential Annexation Area (PAA) - Designated areas in the county that will eventually be annexed into adjacent cities. Urban Center ~ Areas within incorporated cities that are intended to receive a high level of growth. Urban centers must meet certain criteria to be so designated. Federal Way's City Center Core zoned area has been designated an urban center. Urban Growth Area (UGA) - The area designated by the county to receive urban growth in housing and jobs. Beyond this boundary are rural lands that cannot be incorporated into cities without changes to the UGA boundary. Urban Separator - Low density areas with the UGA that create open space corridors and provide visual contrast to contiguous development. There are no urban separators in Federal Way's PAA. II. Discussion A. King County Ordinance 15121 ~ Amendments to the Urban Growth Area, Potential Annexation Areas (PAA) Map, and Urban Separator Map. 1. Motion 04-1, adopted by the GMPC on September 15, 2004, and the King County Council on February 14,2005, amended the Urban Growth Areas Map Iofthe Countywide Planning Policies, the Potential Annexation Area Map, and designates a new Urban Separator as depicted on maps in Exhibit B. a. Attachment 1 (p.l0) - A map showing the removal of the "overlap" designation for the unincorporated Urban area between SeaTac and Tukwila, and including this area in Tukwila's PAA, Attachment 2 (p.ll) - A map showing the redesignation of Perrigo Park from Rural to Urban, and including this property within Redmond's PAA and allowing Redmond to ultimately add the park to their city boundary. Attachment 3 (p.12) - A map showing the redesignation of the Enumclaw Gold Course from Rural to Urban, and including this property within Enumclaw's P AA and allowing Enumclaw to eventually add the golf course to their municipal boundary. b. c. Land Use/Transportation Committee Amendments to the King County Countywide Planning Policies March ¡I, 2005 Pagc 2 I(!",g~i~i~~~ !,~~n'9,:,"~2 ~'~,~~I~~..p,I~,~~iciif2!~~~':~?Ç~-:",,:,:, "'""'lli""",~=:::="'~",'@" .. .. "',"',':'::=~=:m~_"': ...'~:':::':',,"':.':_,~ ',"'::'::":-:,.",~:':':=~~,~",~J d. Attachment 4 (p.13) - A map showing the redesignation of .6 of an acre parcel on Cougar Mountain from Rural to Urban, and including this property in Bellevue' s PAA. Attachment 5 (p.14) - A map showing the redesignation of 120 acres of Bear Creek Urban Planned Development from Urban to Rural. Attachment 6 (p.IS) - A map showing the redesignation of approximately 128 acres in the Willows Road area from Rural to Urban, and including this area within Kirkland's PAA. Approximately 70 acres of this area is designated as an Urban Separator. e. f. 2. None of the above recommended changes impact Federal Way. Motion 04-2 adopted on the dates as described in #1 above, amends the Urban Growth Area of King County and the Potential Annexation Area Map in the Countywide Planning Policies as depicted on maps in Exhibit B. a. Attachment I (p.18) - A map showing the redesignation of an area adjoining the Issaquah Spar Road from Rural to Urban, and including this property within Issaquah's PAA, and a .2 acre redesignation from Urban to Rural to correct a map error. Attachment 2 (19) - A map showing the redesignation of about six acres from Rural to Urban, and including this property with the City of Renton's PAA b. Amend the Interim Potential Annexation Area Map by including any additional unincorporated urban land created by these UGA amendments in the Potential Annexation Area of the adjoining city. 3. None ofthe above proposed amendments impact Federal Way. Motion 04-5 adopted on the dates as described in #1 above, amends the Urban Growth Area of King County and the Potential Area Annexation Area map in the Countywide Planning Policies. This inc1udes a 29-acre area known as Covington Park in the UGA as shown on the map attached to Exhibit B, (p. 22). This amendment does not impact Federal Way. King County Ordinance 15122 and GMPC Motion 04-4 (Exhibit C, attached) - Amendments to the Countywide Planning Polices revising targets for household and job growth. The following are the proposed revisions to the growth targets as approved by the GMPC on September 15,2004, and by King County Council on February 14,2005. B. 1. 2. 3. Allocating a 592-household target area to the West Hill unincorporated area, which mistakenly was not assigned a household target during the last round of updates. Adjusting Tukwila's growth targets to include projected new households and jobs in an area that was formerly claimed by both SeaTac and Tukwila (total change to Tukwila's growth targets: +8 households, +993 jobs). A correction increasing the job target for the City of Kent's potential annexation area Land Use/Transportation Committee Amendments to the King County Countywide Planning Policies March II, 2005 Page 3 [~X~i_~~~1~6,Q,:'::::,g,~,~~~J~~lrå'~_ning ~91_i~i~~_.~£:::=:. .......- ..-.. -_.=,~"~--_..._--,,,.,",~-~,-',,"-_'~._.,--,-_.,".T . -.m""""w"",,,----.-.. ."..',-,-m..."_.----.---.----..,...m,,,_,,--=. -- ..- -""",,",~--!:~.g from 44 jobs to 287 jobs, commensurate with the employment capacity for the area. 4. An adjustment of household an job targets for Pacific and Auburn to reflect a de- annexation by Pacific and annexation by Auburn, and a shift of household targets from Pacific to Covington. These changes do not impact the job or household targets for Federal Way. C. King County Ordinance 15123 and GMPC Motion 04-3 (Exhibit D attached), adopted by the GMPC on September 15, 2004, amending the CPPs to designate Downtown Burien as an Urban Center. The City of Burien has requested that its downtown core be designated as an Urban Center in the CPPs. Urban Centers are expected to account for up to one half of King County's employment growth and one quarter of household growth over the next 20 years. In order to be designated as an Urban Center, jurisdictions must meet specific criteria in the CPPs, including having planned land uses to accommodate: . A minimum of IS,OOO jobs within one-half mile of a transit center; At a minimum, an average of SO employees per gross acre; and At a minimum, an average of 15 households per acre. . . The existing conditions in Burien's proposed Urban Center are as follows: . 4025 jobs within one-half mile of a transit center with projections of 18,028; An average of 11.4 employees per gross acre, with projections of SI employees per acre; and An average of 4.1 households per acre with projections of 17.8 households per acre. . . The Countywide Planning Policies recognize that Urban Centers vary substantially in the number of households and jobs they contain at the time of their initial designation, and thus the decision to designate an Urban Center is based on planned, not existing densities. The GMPC interjurisdictional team analyzed Burien's request against the Urban Center criteria in the CPPs and found that the City of Burien had completed the necessary planning to support an Urban Center designation. Designating Downtown Burien as an Urban Center would involve amending CPP LU39 to add Downtown Burien to the list of the existing Urban Centers in King County. The existing Urban Centers are Bellevue, Federal Way, Kent, Redmond, Renton, Seattle CDD, Seattle Center, First Hill/Capitol Hill, University District, Northgate, Tukwila, SeaTac, Auburn, and Totem Lake. III. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the LUTC forward a recommendation of approval to the full City Council of the proposed amendments to the CPPs contained in Ordinances 15/21,15122, and 15123 (GMPC Motions No. 04-1 04-2. 04-3, 04-4, and 04-5). Land Use/Transportation Committee Amendments to the King County Countywide P1anning Policies Mareh 11,2005 Page 4 ["g~~hÿ" .~éCì~úng-=--C?~..~tywi d e PI a ~bjrig'~o¡i'ci-es-:di?~~~~:~"" .'.,.~,.....'..-:.~~~~~"._'".._----~-=~~... ......'.'_...'.:...:.:,,::::~= ..........._".~~:~=~:......._....:.....::_-:..:=:é~~~-~] -_.._~.,,--,,-,-, IV. land Use/Transportation Committee Options The Committee has the following options: 1. Recommend that the full Council adopt the amendments to the King County Countywide Planning Policies as recommended by staff. 2. Recommend that the full Council disapprove the amendments to the King County Countywide Planning Policies. V. Land Use/Transportation Committee Recommendation The LUTC forwards the proposed amendment to the full Council as follows: As recommended for approval by staff. As recommended for disapproval by the LUTC. provalOf Committee Action;- ; Eric Faison, Member"'. MicM¿IPark, Member JackDovey, Chair List of Exhibits Exhibit A March 4, 2005, Correspondence from King County Exhibit B Ordinance No. 15121 (GMPC Motion 04-1,04-5,04-2), with Attachments Exhibit C Ordinance No. 15122 (GMPC Motion 04-4), with Attachments ExhibitD Ordinance No. 15123 (GMPC Motion 04-3), with Attachments Land Use/Transportation Committee Amendments to the King County Countywide Plalming Policies March 11,2005 Page 5 King County EXHIBIT --L PAGE-1-0F ~ "',,- '-""- --: I ! i i i ¡, I' 'J L~ I I' : ¡ I I ~----;::'¡;""':;-:'.'-"",m--_.J I v "y "I_" .'-~ , " I City)! i-';,J!:,'Jli,-J"J ! -----..-'-.....----...-...,..-J March 4, 2005 The Honorable Dean McColgan City of Federal Way 33325 8th Ave. South P.O. Box 9718 Federal Way, WA 98063 Dear Mayor McColgan: We are pleased to forward for your consideration and ratification the enclosed amendments to the King County Countywide Planning Policies (CPP). On February 14,2005, the King County Council approved and ratified amendments (listed below) on behalf of unincorporated King County. Copies of the King County Council staff reports, ordinances and Growth Management Planning Council motions are enclosed to assist you in your review of these amendments. . Ordinance No. 15121, GMPC Motion Nos. 04-1, 04-2, 04-5, amending the Countywide Planning Policies by amending the urban growth boundary map, the interim potential annexation areas map and the urban separator map. . Ordinance No. 15122, GMPC Motion No. 04-4, amending the Countywide Planning Policies by revising targets for new household and job growth for the period 2002-2022. . Ordinance No. 15123, GMPC Motion No. 04-3, amending the Countywide Planning Policies by designating Downtown Burien as an Urban Center. In accordance with the Countywide Planning Policies, FW-1, Step 9, amendments become effective when ratified by ordinance or resolution by at least 30 percent of the city and county governments representing 70 percent of the population of King County according to the interlocal agreement. A city will be deemed to have ratified the amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies @ ".'-'it." EXHIBìT -A- PAGE...L..OF -L.. unless, within 90 days of adoption by King County, the city takes legislative action to disapprove the amendments. Please note that the gO-day deadline for this amendment is May 16, 2005. If you have any questions about the amendments or ratification process, please contact Paul Reitenbach, Senior Policy Analyst, King County Department of Development and Environmental Services, at 206-296-6705, or Lauren Smith, Lead Staff, King County Council, at 206-296-0352. If you adopt any legislation relative to this action, please send a copy of the legislation by the close of business, May 16, 2005, to Anne Noris, Clerk of the Council, W1039 King County Courthouse, 516 Third Avenue, Seattle, WA 98104. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. Sincerely, Larry Phillips, Chair King County Council Ron Sims King County Executive Enclosures cc: King County City Planning Directors Suburban Cities Association Stephanie Warden, Director, Department of Development and Environmental Services (DOES) Paul Reitenbach, Senior Policy Analyst, ODES Megan Smith, Lead Staff, Growth Management & Unincorporated Areas Committee (GMUAC) Lauren Smith, Lead Staff, Committee of the Whole 10 II 12 13 14 15 IBIT ~~~~~~t 1200 King County Cow1house S161bird Avenue Seattle, WA 98[04 February 14, 2005 Ordinance 15121 Proposed No. 2005-0045.1 Sponsors Constantine 1 AN ORDINANCE adopting amendments to the 2 Countywide Planning Policies; amending the urban growth 3 boundary map, the interim potential annexation areas map 4 and the urban separator map; ratifying the amended 5 Countywide Planning Policies for unincorporated King 6 County; and amending Ordinance 10450, Section 3, as 7 amended, and K.c.c. 20.10.030 and Ordinance 10450, 8 Section 4, as amended, and KCC. ZO.IO.040. 9 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF KING COUNTY: SECTION L Findings. The council makes the following findings: A. The metropolitan King County council adopted and ratified the Growth Management Planning Council recommended King CountyZOIZ - Countywide Planning Policies (Phase I) in July 1992, under Ordinance 10450. I 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 '\.: Ordinance 15121 :~ "':X,'~ .,~" ' ,,' ",' ,'n " ,(:, B. The metropolitan King County council adopte; ftitd ratified t~ Phase II amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies on August 15, 1994, under Ordinance 11446. C. The Growth Management Planning Council met on September-I5, 2004, and December 7, 2004, and voted to recommend amendments to the King County Countywide Planning Policies amending the urban growth boundary map, the interim potential annexation areas map and the urban separator map, as shown in Auachments A, Band C to this ordinance. SECTION 2. Ordinance 10450, Section 3, as amended, and K.c.c. 20.10.030 are each hereby amended to read as follows: Phase II. A. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 Countywide Planning Policies attached to Ordinance 11446 are hereby approved and adopted. B. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment I to Ordinance 12027. C. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 ~ Countywide Planning Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment I to Ordinance 1242L D. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies are amended, as shown by Attachments 1 and 2 to Ordinance 13260. E. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies arc amended, as shown by Attachments I through 4 to Ordinance 13415. F. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies are amended, as shown by Attachments 1 through 3 to Ordinance 13858. 2 39 40 .41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 Polìcies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14390. H. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 toOrdinance 14391. L The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14392. 1. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14652. K. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies are amended, as shown by Attachments 1 through 3 to Ordinance 14653. L. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 ~ Countywide Planning Policies are amended, as shown by Auachment Ito Ordinance 14654. M. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14655. N. The Phase 11 Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies arc amended, as shown by Attachments 1 and 2 to Ordinance 14656. O. The Phase II amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment A to Ordinance 14844. P. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies are amended. as shown by Attachments A, Band C to this ordinance. SECTION 3. Ordinance 10450, Section 4, as amended, and Kc.c. 20.10.040 are each hereby amended to read as follows: Ratification for unincorporated King Counly. 3 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 OliO. Ordinance 15121 , ." b OfI!nance 10450 for the purposes specified are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County. B. The amendments to the Countywide. Planning Policies adopted by Ordinance 10840 are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County. C. The amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies adopted by Ordinance 11061 are hereby ratified oq behalf of the population of unincorporated King County. D. The Phase 11 amendments to the King County 2012 Countywide Planning Policies adopted by Ordinance 11446 are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County. E. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 12027 are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County. F. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 12421, are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County. G. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as shown by Attachments I and 2 to Ordinance 13260, arc hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County. H. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as shown by Attachment 1 through 4 to Ordinance 13415, are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County. 4 100 101 102 103 Or (\ ce 15t?1; ¡,.~;:' :'" ~."... . fi1!.,.' .. 83 ..", .< 84 shown by Attachments 1 through 3 to Ordinance 13858, are hereby ratified on behalf of 85 the population of unincorporated King County. 86 J. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as 87 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14390, are hereby ratified on behalf of the 88 population of unincorporated King County. 89 K. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as 90 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14391, are hereby ratified on behalf of the 91 population of unincorporated King County. 92 L. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as 93 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14392, are hereby ratified on behalf of the 94 population of unincorporated King County. 95 M. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as 96 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14652, are hereby ratified on behalf of the 97 population of unincorporated King County. 98 N. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as 99 shown by Attachments 1 through 3 to Ordinance 14653, arc hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County. O. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14654, are hereby ratified on behalf of the populatìon of unincorporated King County. 5 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 ordi~nce15121. --~1. .,.'.,.',,' ~~'- ,,>,,~ ", "'a " P. The aif¡eðd"medt~ to,tß~ng County 2012 - Countywide Planning Polici~s, as -:. shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14655, are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County. Q. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as shown by Attachments 1 and 2 to Ordinance 14656, are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincOI1>orated King County. R. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as shown by Attachment A to Ordinance 14844, are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County. S. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as 6 Ordinance 15121 .. '.~ A, Band C to this ordinance, are hereby ratified on behalf of the 114 shown by Attachments 115 population of unincorporated King County. 116 Ordinance 15121 was introduced on 1/31/2005 and passed by the Metropolitan King County Council on 2/14/2005, by the following vote: Yes: 12 - Mr. Phillips, Mr. von Reichbauer,Ms. Lamhcrt, Mr. Pelz, Mr. Dunn, Mr. Ferguson, Me Hammond, Mr. Gossett, Ms. Hague, Mr. Irons, Ms. Patterson and Mr. Constantine No:O Excused: 1 - Ms. Edmonds ATTEST: ~~ Anne Noris, Clerk of the Council APPROVED this Æday of 2005. '-) <, ...~~- -,!:? ".J --... .-VJ rn (') íTJ Attachments A. Motion No. 04-1, ß. Motion No. 04-2, C. Motion No. 04-5 -"'-1 -:-- ---( :-::, ,:')Á -E;: or- C) -"- -........ ~ '.0 m cê) 0 en .(::- 7 --- 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 -~-_.~ 09/15/04 Attachment A EXHIBIT PAG 11"'2005- 045 . .. \' Sponsored By: Executive Committee /pr 1 MOTION NO. 04-1 A MOTION to amend the Urban Growth Area of King County. This Motion also modifies the Potential Annexation Area map in the Countywide Planning Policies and designates a new Urban Separator. WHEREAS, the Washington State Growth Management Act, RCW 36.70A.llO requires counties to designate an urban growth area or areas within which urban h'lowth shall be encouraged and outside of which growth can occur only if it is not urban in nature; and WHEREAS, Countywide Planning Policy FW-l Step 8 recognizes that King County may initiate amendments to the Urban Growth Area; and WHEREAS, the King County Executive and the Metropolitan King County Council requests the Growth Management Planning Council consider the attached amendments to the Urban Growth Area for eventual adoption by the Metropolitan King County Council and ratification by the cities; and WHEREAS, the Growth Management PlamlÎng Council has directed the interjurisdictional staff team to review additional Urban Separators and present them for GMPC consideration, and WHEREAS, Countywide Planning Policies LU-31 and LU~32 antiçÏpate the collaborative designation of Potential fumexation Areas and the eventual annexation of these areas by cities. The attached amendments are supported by the affected city. BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLANNING COUNCIL OF KING COUNTY HEREBY MOVES AS FOLLOWS: 1. Amend the Urban Growth Area as designated by the Urban Growth Areas Map in the Countywide Planning Policies, the Potential Amlexation Area map, and the Urban Separator map as depicted on the following attached maps: - 1 - . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 to 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 ,.--..---------- ----------..._-_...----~~_. . EXli,!BIT...' ",~,¡."',:l.~ '-5121 PAG1~OFr' , r '. Attachment 1, a map showing the removal 0 the ed "overlap" designation for the unincorporated Urban area between ScaTac and Tukwila and including this area in Tukwila's PAA; Attachment 2, a map showing the redesignation of Perrigo Park from Rural to Urban and including this property within Redmond's PAA; Attachment 3, a map showing the redesignation of the EnumcJaw Golf Course from Rural to Urban and including this property within Enuinclaw's PAA; Attachment 4, a map showing the redesignation of a .6 of an acre parcel on Cougar Mountain [TOm Rural to Urban and including this property within Bellevue's P AA; Attacluncnt 5, a map showing the redesignation of 120 acres ofthe Bear Creek Urban Planned Development from Urban to Rural; Attachment G, a map showing the redesignation of approximately 128 acres in the Willows Road area [TOm Rural to Urban and including this area within Kirkland's PAA. Approximately 70 acres of this area is designated as an Urban Separator. 2. Amend the Interim Potential Annexation Area Map by including any additional unincorporated urban land created by these UGA amendments in the Potential Annexation Area of the adjoining city. 3. Amend the Urban Separator map by adding the new Urban Separator as shown on attachment 6. 4- These amendments are recommended to the Metropolitan King County Council and the Cities of King County for adoption and ratification. ADOPTED by the Growth Management rImming Council of King County in open session on September 15, 2004 and si chair of the GMPc. h Management Planning Council - 2 - -----, 'u_--,- ------- ------,-- --,------ -- - --,-- :'¡ (: "', fA. ::, ,-,' " N 1 PAGE .HL9fmosec&.!'d ~ Iil ,-- Interim P AA Map Amend~ent ~} ... ............ ""..... .. .... ~.. .., -- - " _c-no"~.'-'~"""'-""'~-""""'V" -... --- """ eo...., ...... - .....-",..." ~ --""<, -- .. """', - .. ~-- -'-~- ---"""""".""'-""-,_c...... .... ... ... ...~ ... ..., -"'- "..ao<- -"'- -- ~ --" """" ........." ..... ... ......... ..- .... -""~"""--"'-"-"'" ....-- -- .. ......, ... - .. ....... .. "'-"--""""""~-"""'~-"'" .,., c..-.,- CJ Proposed Area "'---1 L._: Incorporated Areas 1,000 500 . 0 1,000 2,000 'I eel ~-"""""",-ocç-""-,-""",,,,'w""-""-' """-"""""-""-'-------""""- 'w,"-""" I",-----,~-~-=:-,-,-----";",,,,-";:;:;=;",,----~..:!J_----,--_,,_'-'n-=,;',U¡, ,,'_II"; ~,\ j' ~ J J ' j "" I II," -, /' ' ! !I! i! L:' 1~¡~\~'1 :T i : Ii r.t--- '[I ¡ ,-; It-iFf r-lf/ 4~ 1f~,,=--nÞ! t,+iT--,,~~~';-!~,,'r;~iJ@V~~~ .\~, -,~IEl,-! (~,IL_'"lIJ I i Ll .~1 ~f=1L-,~JS~t~~,-¡~--~, ., I' !i-LJ j I "" _-f.:tH<;:'],---nrcmn ._~-~t.:¡ 'm'J'.-~~' III' ' --,.,---k-~ - ,/ I] I 1 I~:).- J i¡!!"! \'0--, " 1 (j]~V'"\....'---1:~ II i- II! ! ¡--F.c!o--cc'=-'-':!-=,-.hi!ì$ ". "~ t f I! A - ì j I 'L-JHt----, ~ t r--- i ¡---._-~ ! I j 'U~f--'" ' ',' t-, -~~,-.=.;.'\\.~--,J---:.J¡_iW,' !) rn! t t, -, - 'I ' , 'J1,-~ ~ «.' --< " '"' '--'c ~ I 1,-, ---- "W- U---'-H---1-~ I ~-~',l- i,' tlL__,~ê1~!:~~@~~~,-~6/J,td I It -1.---iL_l, if ,f i ==r(:.:.~ ,\¡Dr,:, , l,,",'_~, --" ' .tfjJJ/3 " ' ,- ~.._-, l ,( I h ,11:= ~ ~ I' i ¡""'..lr:'á~\¡ : l;:1.€r--- ,':6.~q fl:¡--"C-'r-~-- 'Í I j ¡ I ,t, «;'i¡r ,! : L_....!~'i:.;,'"',,~, -~~H 'I=--<".'-è-'--'-'H,~-d:, ...j~t', ,.:: ,/'-",; ! : I !! i'. {",",I I: - ; ~ '.< """,, ':::jL:-'" ,~~ q~ , ,. ',lþ -'f':. " l;! ",//),.~, 1.f:7"ì,-;¡;"~,i,2f"",,,t::"r,:----~,.,-;I{1J' , --~,'!~-X'fH)tlj~..l ï \~"qV§kA."~l j :: '17 ì-! ~ ¡---~-,-~1"'----"~'j ""r !t,~';"H;-,"" " ,'~""-",',"'~,I','_:_,L,:J,,"-,-"'S'j,""-" ï, - "'1TI,":F-,"-"'-' Hi ;l,~ ,_",,1,,1 ,',',' $, ( ,',iI, ')1 ",:?P illll,l!1 ,/,-'----" iY';¡i.-;.' J ~::',r':'i-~-'-;!IT:C--'-:.1;;r:- mrnH' ~;..--' /--..,J/ ~ kw] l i( ~/!l----------I{ ¡ ,/ Ø'~d 4~~ ~"~rJ~~1!15'~~~~~~~-~G (l) l~:~:t!¡{J7~/ff;, '. ~~ ,:- '-", ! -E:n::I~Þ~d-i; I~ ' ,~J["-'" ,,- Ii ,)+: /-~ ,7"'=' J!"~--_-!.---"-þ-CL__" J c:~,=,,::'- ~~I~~~IJ~~'}C, :r ,1. ~~~:~~i~~~,!J~~rf;1--t {~E r "I ---",' ",r,,--,?:';;; ,jF~;ß /" -' ,:,',/r-'\.~---cl_LLJ'--_--'---.JL')' I, ' ;, .Q'fD;~---"./{Îi~:'-- H;;p J~ r"-- iii,t, :/\-----]lfT -¡=-¡¡ If-- ,-~'r'FT ~ j \,----.J:: ,-=-:,?_~./.'L.A- '--" ,"f:.'kij;/' ,/ i ,/ " '(I if 1~\.---"7r 'J"! P-1: I t-,,--!. !/,1 i, -\'¡ " ,'" ,"" '-----f-'-'----""V;'j( I ¡I"-i,,],,,' lllf ;;--'!I---- " ,,:. ,", ': ,--"-' -;""--------:/'-/;. /'-../"---~~-::-:-::-----'--::- ~'---_J'-----:-.,--,-;J.i_..i ~:,r'",--,,;"'----- '.' " , .. ~",-"'- I,' /,! ",1,j"~,7/~"", l '-I-'-'-I-"'('-'--,"----',-l"C-,'~" "~" ,', '...- '-"-õ- 1---"" 1/'--.... " ~I' ':," ---r ~ " " -"...--- : : :/: of!í 1. i /, .. - --..-!J---{Kcnc " Lì' l-i';: V tIL=j,-,- -' ' . I <!.." ,~ \y ~/ y.,¡/ ;¡ , L- ' , L__- I: ,- "--'ilt'l , ""'-,'! I,,~.~\"ot/I I '¡-------fl.,~!~,I!i---",-,-',"1 -! -.{\ ,~i i/ .. ,. , ¡ -- -:l!! ,)' : [. .. ,~'(\' // / f-I'II ¡ U!--Î C--=f ;-V ~L:;C!-" .ç¡~~,jtitW~;:::i:lti-{:,-y-' "",'JJ"-;:( _,I, ' r:l, I - ~'V,< / I )l LL_.L, I ,J'~/;":b':'#I_! r¡::-.-;:-,r ','.' -' -" J_~>--- -=--'~~-:;:::-::'_--------'~o' ¡--'----- ! /""'~- (=-r ' "'-;;)t--t ,,! c_" -~,-~f ¡~'LJ]I:Œ,-fi.(,)~d' ¡-~--,,- ,'s1Æ< 1..1' í----¡1ì Æ -~,! u7>- J,Lr----] ~~", ,¡-I,,---t-' - ~L" --.13-lli'.lJî:, - ,..<)-N I '¡;-----j I j -- :" J ! í' I Iv II _E,i'¡- W'-~-,-;:..,:' - J / ~---_J/ :j / ,-"-- :-' I --1 ,\ J -I' J L-, ., ,,',I, ", ',~,,~,'~ 1 " '/" // 0' -c"co---'fi!Aí,'," . -T~~~, " " oJ " " , -:=jt~~ j, r~~~/ f--- ¡/¿i-")O-! j~~~ 'ì"~r ì -~.L~-..u_---aIL _J_- ~ --41--'---,"'; I 1 " !,----",_u_--,(,'/'- ,H / ,,/.,' '¡,~, ;, Add Outlined Area, "1--"'---'" ,,- ! ,c-'; (,' H .I 1£1/' &..' II -:---¡f--.-- ----L-_L_......:"",,/ ! i--;" --:/ I L"~" #L--- ,,-J I to Tukwila's PAA ~ j~ : , ,[;v:l",)! CT/ ;/1:jt;J / ¡'i,f ~~_u_~ .,_fft::-=~_-~i---~ !---I~~--;I !~r~"~~{~~ ------"'--"""'5~rmIT- ~---"==+-----~ . --t-----,-----,,--,- ~,,'jL-_____':--::---:L":, "--' vY'L LQ_d~E,;'~F-.: c:\t!liiß~ \'.,:,', 'Ii, ,'3! r--¡ " i f~ Ø'ø--- ' I I It--- ,¡' '1----.---11': "~-"--'- --- - J '--, n- ~ --..,---'--.L--,--L.--, ií::'.øi;'L_- " '--!""rl:-',Hj" r"-~~ ;;;;(i1---"----'--r~-rT ,-~-;-,---.1_- ---_~L__JL,--JL" L 11--"'1 ;Ji,.:{;:;:iffj~~j;,,: g- ,! ;~, "~~';-' B'¡-.Y",: ~, "'JYþ,'/' , ~ì\~L---C-, -~,--,' , ,/r,,-,-..J-_' : nk:, '--'-.:; r'--=="---=-~,¡--'j - ,~, ~f:ti- ,-..---0".".........,1, I ~ ¡~L I J-./ 7}'// U " ' , !! ì-.lj:¡~i-<, ;Y(t-Ibl§' -'{!-~ 1,-- ! . ..r---~---;z- ,i:;¿:j; - v---' . ~: ~; / ~- ot"", ", ,-,¡::1¡'+i r>-,----, ~ I ~ fj...-- . ' -----"-J 1= I . ",~C;::' S' ';.1'1"-,,,-, =ifJ,- -. ',' , ,"k ,~ f', ---'=:::I' LJ'Er,r----r":: H"¡-;--;'-' '.1'1 - ':. -..{. 'ff //1 ----F=I ------- --,', -~. ¡ ,o-<cn!T'., ,-----...l;:.--,. --'I . -- ",'d:-, 1/1 '.. i; '1 ¡----~--.--- '--Ti,-:.r2I-.....nm_~_.._--- .'. tj..... .". Attachment 2 PAGE-1L-OF!Op<?i~ A~~dment '.~~.J~",' (j; - City of Redmond Per~nunity Park Site -UGA Amendment N + "" -- ......... - ... ~.. .., "'- '....... ... -""""" --.-".........""".."""..""""", --... -..,..,..,.......-.....-~ --". ._~ ~ """..,. .. .. ~-... --"'. -~.'_......_,,_.......,.... -ç-..." ..... -...-.. ""-'. -"'. _..-...~ -- -- ......... "'" .... ...... "- .... - .. .... ..- ~....... "- "" ... .. .....- .. ... -- -...... .. """" .... "". .. ... .... ~ -~""""""-""""'---""'" .... "-'" 1'~c.~J- Urban Growth Boundary. a p Other Parks I Wilderness 400 200 0 . 400 800 ~ ~ # Proposed Urb;Jn # . Growth Boundary rr Rural Residential I Feel ...---, Lh_: Incorporated Areas --'-;"- - ~--------"""" -- ""--- -oj __n....'_._--..-..--""".--", ; I i , n LJ 1 ~ i i t t t i '---,----, --------, -,----- --,--, -----'- 1 Attachment 3 N + '..._-~ø;._""-"""""""" -~~"'-......"..---...;,_..-.. ...- -, - c-.o, ...-. - .....- ~ _._- ........ .. -"'- .. .. ~..<t- --... -- .. ..... .. ... ... .. ................. K", """"" ""'-""""""'------- ~- -'O.. """""',"'" ... """" ..- ..~ -...........-",........,........ ....._....... -- -..... .. ... ....' '" "'" .. ... .... .. --... -~............... '" -- ........... """eo-,, .;f~~,? Urban Growth Boundary rx Rural City UGA rr Rural Residential f Forest ~~ ~ ~ . Proposed Urban Growth Boundary .A.. ~ Proposed Forest Production "'V District Boundary 500 250 , 0 500 1.000 'Feet '---1 L_-= Incorporated Areas ~----"""""'--""'~----"""""'" -""""""~---",,--""-......-oo_----"".""'"- I I ! ¡.; \-\ \~l ! ,-,\, V,.-\ \¡ , , \:! Hlj! ! I:, r---¡ ¡---'~ t , ¡---l~L==:~=r-~J;~~ ¡~--!---------L,.---- : :~ i 1 ~ ¡ : ENUMCLAW ! . ! 1: ; I "" ! I ) j-11 ¡ ¡ ,------.1 ~~~-:"'r~ [¡g ! : .'r-----.----r¡ : !---___L'r f~~; ! H c;-l1 ~J~~=I !--T¡L~)[--r-!! ~ I ( ----_~___L-"_~,.~.l,' ,'i ¡ /1J',', - ~ ----T1-rrT"-~r¡~~~i--=-~¡ I--~~; -t:?c~~~Dö~~~~-;-:f:-~~~¿~i. " ",' " , h '--1",\ ~---,,-- -, - \\ dJ rx j' ,; I :1 r II ¡ - , 1¡ i ,.,(=17 -1-- ---- - --rJi ~=~-;¡ ¡ ;~ ': ..-.~~ç~L~;,~~,;,;;¡;{)!l,"__,_---~-- ---',' " !-7- , ,. " .,' , 1 1 1 . i , i ---- -_: 1 , ¡ ¡-----""--":-,,-,,,!,---.- ----,,-----, ""-- ----""-- rr rx ""'-. ~<~,'~"", ,----- - -------- è-- " ' " '",- "-Î, i '," , " " " "- --" - "-'-"'--""'- --,---------> ----- '-- _-.-J"---::::~~~::--=i~_-~S~41~_- r r=;rt-=--=-~ I~ L , f I I rr - - >r< ; , -- ,- ag f --- "n- --- -- ---- -- _J---------~ ; , ~ , ---.; ____l,,_--~~ ; ------------------- . . --------1---- -- rr ! - ----+------- ---", "- '--, - ; ',--'---' ", ..'".. "'-~t~:' '--~~~~'¿HJ --------,------- --- -,----__irL ----------- - -------l---------~--,-~----:------ "----,---------- -----,--"---------- -..m-- ------ r.¡ + 5 ).,~.l- AUachnæm 4 ~- .. .. Cougar Mountain - UGA Amendment Tho "'...-... - .. ... .... ... .... -- .. --"'._"-"~""'-"""'" -- -.., - c-.. _. - --. .. -~ ........ w ...-. .. .. -'><Y. .............. -..-.....-......-- .....""""" -""""-"'--,-~---'-'w ---"""""""""'" -w_..---...-..-..... -............-....., ""-"""""'" --"--"-"""-"'--""""""" -""""" ..~4]:"""t'!'P ....,' Urban Growth Boundary Proposed Urban Growth Boundary rr ul CI Rural Residential Urban Residential. low. 1 dulac 300 150 0 300 600 . .~ ---------"""""" --'-----'--"---""""-""-"'~ Study Area j-C- i I ul rr I ¡ I ------, I r~' i [-----, ! ~ ----¡ ---~~"-- - -____'_H__- 2--1------- ._- - ---_.._--- Attachment 5 "'~.¡! Urban Growth Boundary rr Rural Residential #~ # Proposed Urban upd Urban Planned Development # . Growth Boundary CJ Change Area -'--,----"--"-'-, ~'~-,.,__,__L~-Jdt=, ,,' ,~' ./ ,",-_., ",,' , '""";~,~,""""'~,, ---~,-,: '~;.,-~--- ¡ ~~~~:~t ~cb~~~¿~~¡ --~\ct:_:~~*~ ,------- ---------- - - -----.' . . "----!"""" , ~:::::: --.. --"'- .. ' í \ - .i--"___------_t - -_..- -----i 1 . . \ f~J::~);t'~~~'T~.$,;te.*~'::;>~¡fl~:::';;:;;<&~~~:>-:~'.::-~~-~. ..' , I --- i" ~, , i~\ . " !"-~--" L d ';:_---_J--... ' ,:, .. ¡ Y\,,'; ; I - ---!~----j --, '-', ~ ~--------i:. - t-¡---~!-----~ 1!-'--i ~_! ¡--- !~--_..J._--_..! ~------~:"_-------j l)--h-'--- , ,\; .. ,-" ..~-",:~---- -~ ' - r " ¡I, ! i i i! 1>._--'; - ., ¡---j'---J , i I i : - ,--------- --~'~", --- ----~--- --------- '- ---; ;------~--""",----,,;-,--------- -- -/-,,-'"i----- C'---'--- -'ì N + ~I:; ;' "...~,;j ;¡ t, ~. - mendment'~-:1n'" Redmond Ridge - UGA Amendmeht ... ........... .......... - 0;. ..... .... '-n ....-. '" .....~-_........",._~......_to- --'<0- .....c.,....-...._.....-~ _...;.0, .....- .. -- - to """""'Y, """"",,-..- .............."........_d............._._""""" .... - .. ....... .,. .... """"- -.>00- -- """", « ---- ......... -... "" ... ...... to. ,- -~""-~__"'_"_01'" -- -- - """,: ",. - ., ... ..... .. -- ohio ....~,..................""" ---.. -.,....,.- 150 . 375 0 750 1.500 . Feel ._--~""""""""""""""""--""'.""- _~"'B_.,"""""",,___-""-------.""-'" - -<-' --- ,---.;-~:-----_::-::-:::>' : - . - -'~¡'~'c~1=~_~= -=-¡----c --.-- . __e_,! ~~+~~_T,:¡~-~¡-,-~",,~- ,.- -" - +- ! , opd , .------.--- ¡-,-..~,----,~ rr' " , ,---,- ", .. I' -] ,.' , -----'.=1.----- J f j. j <",- .' -- . " ;./ J }'--- ---, '--_u_,- --- , ~-"" \.- ~ - ----' .' '~ \0 " -'t"'-'-"-' ';- .. I;; ;., " ,- i:, 'ag \ -L '\ '-'--~,-" ---.-----'--" -- -'-,,- - . ¡-.....-.... \_--_3 : ,.-,n -'0, -----;::r-l-5T2T----~ ,.",.~> --,---------~..-_. "..-_..-- N + -~ , Attachm~nt 6 ..- Proposed Amendment Willows Road Subarea Plan - UGA Amendment ~;;'~"i:r':L! !-:~~:y~.cfr~~ c ~~~~~1 \ 'T --: !--~ =~ 'I_, 1lf!~~~\ _of' ti;= : ---- ¡ ! -- -----"---, I , ; J_, f f'~' ~< 1 ¡ ; f ¡ i f ,...._~---.....,-.....--", -"""""....,-......,......--,;..""",..-.. .......- "....c-o.""""""--" --.-""""".-"-r-"""'-' ........... .. ...... .. ... - .. .... --""'- ...,. <-'Y """""""""-r'-~- -""---~-" ---...--....... --......-...--...-......-..... ---.......-- "",_.....~.... -..--....-.-.."""""""""'" -"""""- ¿tv Urban Growth Boundary #~ # # . Proposed Urban Growth Boundary .00 200 . .00 aoo , Feet Incorporated As:eas 0 Lj~-J ----.,"""","",,-'------.."""--"" --"--------""--.-"""""" -- -- --,- 7'" -- ....-- ,.",-- ---~ COT' -"" ----- '->:"-'-' <L..~~< ¡ i ¡ ¡ - - i ~~ ._--.._;1 F:---~ i' - fT-r'T -'..-- -------.- 1- gb) ¡ " "'F"í~ i ¡-'---" , .. ! '-------""'.. -'-:----- - t '--_.._J i___..- ì " ; §~@n~[~ß~ t:~. '-:~ - - --~~-';,L<"':; - --1 ! L~:-Z_,_~_:_:- ~, ~-;~_:_:_y-~_:.;_:~~_i"- tlt;~~ '---- . -,,--_.--:-..-{-,- .. --T-c.~---'----!j ¡,- )-L />- JRK~/ --,: --, [Igi~_~~~-~~ .. ,- ---,-'- ,-/- ..--0'- .----- ,; i -J~_=;.?;?;d ! gb urn Greenbelt/Urban Separator Urban residential. medium, 4.12 duJac rr Rural residential c::J Change Area :0} -, r '\ ;\ --- , i :¡ 1 .t .~ :t \1\ ¡~ Jf: ¡ ! ¡ '---.J --"--, " NE t32"d $I '--------'------- - -----"--""------- - "---" - ---, - ~ 11, r-, ~ .fi,4 I,' 'i ;~ -11 Î;à '~ :~; t~ i .¡i'~'.' [-, . - : iI¡ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 ------m--------- -- -. -------... -.-- ---_.---------- 'EXH I B IT 'R- 09115/04 PAGE-&-~ 1512,1 R fWi~t 0 5 ~iVi'Ya"" 4 . Attachment B Sponsored By: Executive Committee /pr 1 MOTION NO. 04-2 A MOTION to amend the Urban Growth Area of King County. This Motion also modifies the Potential AIlllexation Area map in the Countywide Planning Policies. WHEREAS, the Washington State Growth Management Ad, RCW 36-70A.I10 requires counties to designate an urban growth area or areas within which urban growth shall be - encouraged and outside of which growth can occur only if it is not urban ÜI, nature; and WHEREAS, Countywide Planning Policy FW--l Step8 recognizes that King County may initiate amendments to the Urban Growth Area; and WHEREAS, the King County Executive and the Metropolitan King County Council requests the Growth Management Plarming CoW1cil consider the attached amendments to the Urban Growth Area for eventual adoption by the Metropolitan King County Council and ratification by the cities; and WHEREAS, Countywide Planning Policies LU-31 and LO-32 anticipate the collaborative designation of Potential Annexation Areas and the eventual annexation of these areas by cities. The attached amendments are supported by the affected city. BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLANNJNG COUNCIL OF KING COUNTY HEREBY MOVES AS FOLLOWS: 1. Amend the Urban Growth Area as designated by the Urban Growth Areas Map in the Countywide Plarming Policies and the Potential Annexation Area map as depicted on the following attached maps: Attachment 1, a map showing the redesignation of an area adjoining the Issaquah Spar Road from Rural to Urban and including this property within Issaquah's>s PAA There is also a very small (approximately .2 acre)redesigoation from Orban to Rural to con-ed a likely mapping en-or. Attachment 2, a map showing the redesignation of approximately 6 acres from Rural to Urban and including this property within the City of Renton's PAA; -- 1 - I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 --------------- EXH,IISIt-L-, PAGE-llOF -7A- S""-'" l - ~, 11"-,",," ""',,",' ) \,- ,.. . >,:Of ' i .. - ~------- 15121 . - '\ f\1ti,1t - "..1 2. Amend the Interim Potential Annexation Area Map by including any additional uIÚncorporatcd urban land created by these UGA amendments in the Potential Annexation Area of the adjoining city. 3. These amendments are recommended to the Metropolitan King County Council and the Cities of King Countyfor adoption and ratification. ADOPTED by the Growth Management PlaIllling Council DiKing County in open session on September 15, 2004 and signed b the chair of the GMPC , hair, GroWth Management Planning Council - 2 - ',--.,,-..-..-..--...-.,-- -'----. ....-.--.. "----..- N + EXHI~lT ~ fiiP~sed Amendment PAGE~~ua~ïjãr Road UGA Amendment 1_51 '" ',. , ,.f ... --- ....... ... .... ..... .., too- -- by .... c.o.-r.", _. -" -- ...;, -..- ,,-... -- .....eo.-r""~"-~ --""""'~-""-"'._, -.....-.....-..-",,-- -"-> ..... - .. ..... ... .... ....... """'."""'" -. .. ---"'--""" -~----"'-"-"'" --_............. ""-"""""" --.... .... .... """-' '- by _...~ .-...... .. -"""'"' 0 75150 ~- 300 450 600 . Feet ." k...þ Urban Growth Bound-:!ry ji" ""... . North Fork Issaquah Creek /'V (approximate location) [==1 Incorporated Areas CJ Change Area ..... Proposed Urban Growth BoundafY .. + N-Spar (approximate location) ~ ~ -. fr Rural Residential ul Ulban Low, 1 du/ac ---.-. "«---------------""-""'-""- °"'" -.,...." "'--------"'-'-'.---------"'"'-"""'" ~- --_L .~- 7[jEI1 ..~~ .. I ~--T----'l I I I ~~~~:--~"'-"'~W/-~7~ """:,>1,, ="'-;""""'~ ..->,,<~t,-'il ---- - -- ---.-.-. ... ""- - '" ... .... .... ..- -- .. .... r-.., -..... ...-.. -..". ""~"""a ~ "'- --..... .... ""'- -= - ..........- ~ --"-,~~'~T._. .............-....-..--......- ....""'.., ..... ... .. ..... "" .... ......-. "..a.<. -, _. .. --"'---"'-""""'.- -"'-"""--"'-""""""" --"--..... ""-""'......, .-....... - -....;.......,... ---.. --......~... .... ""- <00 . 200 0 <00 800 . Fe.. """"-.---""""'-."""'-----.-- - -'-.-.------.-----'" ~:):~ <'~,~1 !~~;~?~~{}f;{n~ ~ ~ -,.,~~ . -1--,-_.,'-,.,...-""" , . j - c'-' .' .--, . - ..' -. ,">/," .-'. . '-. -.~;-.".,-.",j .' ."" "". " '...:'"";-, :---. -. - "..' ..'-~' "/...<.'.".' :.__Y:~:'-" ,:::,\>":::T¡~.:-;-'.r,/~-:~- ':_-~"-,,:';» ;~.;~~~:~-~=~':.:; : u- -- --- -- -- - " ~'¡~~1Øj~::~:~: 1 5T2-t--- -------.. ,,"., Attachment 2 ""'f l~;' .. Jf-\-"f;.f-' Urban Growlh Boundary rr Rural Residential . ' . .. Proposed Urban Growth Boundary urn Urban Residential. medium, 4.12 du/ac King Counly Ownod Open SpacelRecrealion C] Study Area os --- .Ii /: , ,>~~~-=~;::.:./ -/ -,- , ;'; ! , . . , ..- , '-',' -"-\,C!,CT¡'D"'~'<\¡-j '«. (»>. /.. '," ,,:,!.:;,L,~~:>~!!:f!?;'~¡i!'~ os ¡ \ ",\\' v/J,:~r,;:'Y~?<'-,,-':-;')~,i i-,~;-(/-"-' :~:<.,', ',.~.:':{tf~'~'}I~"':~:: ; rr I~<"'-¡~-'~"T-C'\\-'" ,\.¡t-i( Ò ,',,' ~,.;,.w:".;~\,>, ¡, - - . .J, "-,...11 ~Ùti,'iL:.=---~:J ~:-,~-,,~,::::,-,~:',:"/ "~-" :" ,;,!,_:-~~'ì~é~1~ , ~ 1 \ ¡...J, --;'~-'>-'""----' --'-', ",-----, - ~=-~~ - u m ~~/r.-~_:,~-'_:,~:_f~"_;'- 'J_'~_!~<,>;,;~ \_- ¡ ~ /'-, --:rü L"~>-fi, <><" >-,¡ : : ------, ,: I=j}<'-¡"'>'-.,..."í, 'i--.."-"~,_:--':,','-.:: I--'o,L_J"<i/'¡\---'<L--"- "- ::':1-,. i '--;">---., (!./¡~W'-;,-\\--: i.(:~:::i j !--¡"t.-.; :~.-lJJ-C:',,~ ;,--;/-..", '--'-----'------'-~i- ~---1.1...U..!Is."-;"""";' C'-'~=-, ,-;".ç-..¡ "~--=-~r--'-' , ~CL~LLl-,-~,- -':..l.~-- --,-- --,- --...--------.----.. . ----- - -L--- , --- >- - -'--- :-o-;'~;-::':-:-:---;":-- --'-,---- - -' - .. - --- .- 15 r-l- . .'....".-'. EXHlBJ.T~ . ~""","'.L2."',O"O5-0-45 PAGQilLOF~ fJ~ '-1;, \~ ':, 'I 12/07/04 - . Attachment C 2- 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 -11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 Sponsored By: Executive Conunittee Ipc I MOTION NO. 04-5 A MOTION to amend the Urban Growth Area of King County. ll1is Motion also modifies the Potential Annexation Area map in the Countywide Planning Policies. WHEREAS, the Wa<;hington State Growth Management Act, RCW 36-70A.lI0 requires counties to designate an urban growth area or areas within which urban growth shall be encouraged and outside of which growth can occur only if it is not urban in nat';læ; and WHEREAS, Countywide Planning Policy FW -I Step 8 recognizes that King County may initiate amendments to the Urban Growth Area; and WHEREAS, the King County Executive and the Metropolitan King County Council requests the Growth Management Planning Council consider the attached amendment to the Urban Growth Area for eventual adoption by the Metropolilan King County Council and ratification by the cities; and ' WHEREAS, Countywide Planning Policies LU-31 and LU-32 anticipate the collaborative designation of Potential Armexation Areas and the eventual annexation of these areas by- cities. ' WHEREAS, the attached amendment is supported by the City of Covington, which has taken steps to insure that the area known as Covíngton Park will remain in park use in perpetuity. BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLANNlNG COUNCIL OF KING COUNTY HEREBY MOVES AS FOLLOWS: I. Amend the Urban Growth Area (UGA) as designated by the Urban Growth Areas Map in the Countywide Planning Policies to include the 29-acre area known as Covington Park in the UGA, as shown on the map attached to this Motion. - 1 - ------ -- ---..- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 - ------ ----- --------- -------------------,---- EXHIBIT "8- {.~..q5l.-....'..2t PAGE~~"~ ~, '" iJJ-:t\ 2. Amend the Interim Potential Annexation Area Mapbyinduding the 29-acre area known as Covington Park in the Potential Annexation Area of the City of Covington. 3. This amendn\cnt is rccommendedto the Metropolitan King County Council and the Cities of King County for adoption and ratification. ADOPTED by the Growth Management Planning COlillcil of King County on December 7, 2004 in open session and signed by the chair of the GMPc. - 2 - \.. -,--,-,-- ---,-- --~" -'-------'--, -~-'- N + EXHI!JIT - PAGE.D.JIt A n sed Amendment rk Site -UGA Amendment ""--'."-""'.ß.~"-" ~~':';'=~~ :,"~:,,=: =' :-:;; :; .;<:;.:.',. :.;:=~ ~~:: "", - .. ,.... .. '"' """'~- ",<do. ""'- '"""'""", '" ~:::::::::".... <;:::::~~ ":.. :'. :;0" >0'01 '::: .."'....... c--' .. .... -, ... .... 01 .... -- '" ....--..."" -"' ..""""'-" --"",_.. .... ""'- ,/i'f...;.Ê Urban Growth Boundary '< ~ 500 250 . 0 500 1.000 . Feet CJ Study Area rr Rural Residential Op OU)er Parks/Wilderness r---, Inçorporated Areas L._: . ~... Proposed Urban Growth Boundary .=:'t:'==-~=- ";: :::;a..,,:,~::=;~ J:'~:' --- ---_.c ---~~-tu'j:--'-'--{---.i , i 1------' -_J I L--=----! -- , -,----i ~T----+----i ¡" ; 'I '" ¡ i i'\ '-i-~-:--li :----------1, !~,---.,-,~----¡ r---u-, '¡, I - --------.-~u__,_,I_____..l._--¡ :-------~--1,,-- ---", : ; i i --< ' ' , ;------- 1,---1 1------; L---! , I I I ¡ , , -----~-L-~~--_-- r----' I I i " I , ------+----,,---,,-- -- ,_1_j --<,,;--' , . ¡ ,---- ,', ¡ - - ----: : ; i' ¡j u_-----'---'"v - I' " i ,. .-","n,_- .."...--- ,- I,',' ø -" ;;--:-7 I, ------, ,- -- -, ~-------...-.... , ----- -,--- -- - -' ---'; "'-':- ------- -. ' " rr , ' '. . ~~--~, '¡ -¡'--:-;_:; -"--- I----r-~i¡;'t*.;;;::1Z;;-¡;:""~~<-;.';' " , , , --'----'-----'-------- -_:.--_'.'jL~~~[--1Ç~:~,,_,~~TJ, . ~pr-,u¡u ~~,l ¡--,I li ¡ T~¡ - 'f---:-,,"--'- : ¡ 'I'", -- ij U ¡ H- ----.Jt.J_~.D,,~,'-I, - ,/ &nl, ~;~! ,; ¡ ,.' ! -'- ',-- .---- . "" ! " I '. " . . ,. +-- ~6¡-' . '. I f'.-,'-r;;---.. ,Y--,---, "":---" i ~, ~, fr--'---'-I-'i- U..;' 11' ,'-, L~'V,GIv NG,rfN '(--,=il,--- r;,,-J~~~~gR,J -----d_-_=--=---i_--_m~_----,"-~ j:: , ' S, ,-r;J,i~~,liIrJt,' "~. khmt, , -¡::¡m; H,t;!, ,,--' --'--~-:' ¡---! I,' ~--____-'L_--r-----j,[}0HmB¡ffi -- $.l¡Ïií~~~' -- ",,'--'--~~~--= ~ ~~~= -----=:~~-" ~~f--",__,,-,,-=~-,~~~--- ___~:1. C¡--~LT_lli,_-- ,1*,'",lll"~'--;\¡!=~ ,~" :',_~~~i : ~.-'--_:~ ^^-,;",,-^,-,.~-,>,,=,,~,.=---.t-'-"'---'---'----"'~'--=:::="::"';',~ ',- ,', ],., , / r.,--rl,-1+¡-~-,~,1?", ' ",,', ,;- ~::,,",::,¡_o"=~:':=f¡T;-!Z~~:t::f<:IL,¡ ------u---- ",' :u_---=~=-~¡-, ; t-~-d~'- /j_'" /';~,' " --_:""-- : ,t1~'Ç~~V;J«,-¿I, : ~--;---, ---ill, ----; N,-1- ,(flLY "~-,',,>' :. '-6--"--- ,C ""~~/-"\"f -;, !/~-.._; 'i~: r: / ,. , ,--------::-:::-~lf,~,'- ,~,-W~_., .. L::::_C.- -c"3r,~~=--1,~~~J rf~:,~'-': :,,-: -, --, -- -: , '- --,q;>-",~¡,~b~~, ~;ðB~' '-,----~ ' ~=-,-~~ ï ;Þf,' .' ,', \ '..- ' h'~'v'§j~-Þ.\?\.,'~",,'~,-_J ~,,~...,=,~,-~~""i::'~="'"'-=r':~'~="~,~_Lftl~!_,Y..?',._/,r,_,___~~,"":__:_- "",::--, -'---~~_.L~""~!1rTTrI-, ï--- ¡ ¡ ¡J /d\', '----"----C.- - -, - -" L ~;""'ç;T\ït-,'1,' i í f , II "'~:""";---,:,o-- un_: y:.:;) -y-¡','~r.:¡ ì , i 1-,----, ~-_!Y/>;tt2h;:-' ;-- ,---" .- ~~kì¡-¡--.ryj-:J,Eì, ¡ I' ~.J i I ~1 --;'~!.,~,:'ji';:: ; ø : /--...: ,'--/ r-).c--~'.::1(""9ft3ê~§ ¡-_u¡ J ~--I r- r----t:j L:,;,.fJ?L-- --;-----.-~~---:-u¡ /;~' .--:;:/ D~_LiI-----BæUlliJÞI ¡¡----'--r----~.--+---J u-g' I : ¡ i ,-' . ; ,...,~-:--;:/ /, /[':LBEE§PRIfffil I ¡o, I f.- ¡ ,,1, ", " -'"1 ¡--~ :----: ),-'->"-;'-/ I--..il 8/::j-~,......., ,I. I , ( . .r...-"", q ,-,;. . ct. øt'\ø\I ~ ~¡(8 f-S'r _Ð-Of ..a+- ~ Metropolitan King County Council Growth Management and Unincorporated Areas Committee Revised Staff Report Agenda Item: ' 5 Proposed Ord: 2005-0045 Attending: Paul Reitenbach, Senior Policy Analyst, DOES Name: Date: Lauren Smith February 8, 2005 SUBJECT: Adopting amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies; amending the urban growth area boundary map, the interim potential annexation areas map, and the urban separator map. BACKGROUND: . The Growth Management Planning Council (GMPC) is a formal body comprised of elected offícials from King County, Seattle, Bellevue, the Suburban Cities, and Special Districts. The GMPC was created in 1992 by interlocal agreement, in response to a provision in the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) requiring cities and counties to work together to adopt Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs). Under GMA, countywide planning policies serve as the framework for each individual jurisdiction's comprehensive plan, and ensure countywide consistency with respect to land use planning efforts. As provided for in the interlocal agreement. the GMPC developed and recommended the Countywide Planning Policies, which were adopted by the King County Council and ratified by the cities. Subsequent amendments to the CPPs follow the same process: recommendation by the GMPC, adoption by the King County Council, and ratification by the cities. Amendments to the CPPs become effective when ratified by ordinance or resolution by at least 30% of the city and county governments representing at least 70% of the population of King County. A city shall be deemed to have ratified an amendment to the CPPs unless, within 90 days of adoption by King County, the city by legislative action disapproves it. SUMMARY: Proposed Ordinance 2005-0045 would amend the Countywide Planning Policies by making adjustments to the Urban Growth Area, Potential Annexation Area, and Urban Separator maps. As part of the 2004 Comprehensive Plan Update, the King County Council made several changes to the urban growth area boundary. Because the GMA requires the County's comprehensive plan to be consistent with the Countywide Planning Policies, these amendments necessitate changes to the Urban Growth Area map in the countywide planning document. The county's redesignation of lands from rural to urban also requires changes to the Potential Annexation Area map, since urban areas are to eventually be annexed by cities. In one instance, a County amendment would require a change to the Urban Separator map. Because the Council had already made the policy decision(s) to amend the Urban Growth Area in the 2004 Comprehensive Plan Update, a detailed discussion of the individual map amendments is not inCluded in this staff report. Instead, brief descriptions of each of the proposed changes are inCluded below: . . O:\COMMITTEE GM. 2005\FINAl Siaff Reporls12005-0045 CPPs - Map Changes H(VISEOdoc 2/912005 3:03 PM .",. ~' Amendments to the countywide Urban Growth Area Bound~rhap' ~ . Redes~gnat~on of Redmond's Perrigo Park from rural t ' ~¡b.}.f'I~ , I;XH T . Redesignation of the Enumclaw Golf Course from rur~o ~an, ~E g¡¡ If ~OF ~ . Redesignation of a small parcel on Cougar Mountain frotn rural to ur~ ~ . Redesignation of about 120 acres of the Bear Creek Urban Planned Development from urban to rural. . Redesignation of approximately 128 acres east of Kirkland (described as Willows Road) from rural to urban. . Redesignation of Covington Park from rural to urban. . Redesignation of about 6 acres including the Renton Christian Center and some land owned by King County from rural to urban. . Redesignation of about 9 acres adjacent to the Issaquah Spar Road from rural to urban, as well as the redesignation of a small (less than y.. acre) parcel in the same area from urban to rural. Amendments to the countywide Potential Annexation Areas map: . Inclusion of Perrigo Park in Redmond's potential annexation area. . Inclu~ion of the Enumc/aw Goff Course in Enumclaw's potential annexation area. . Inclusion of the Willows Road area in Kirkland's potential annexation area. . Inclusion of Covington Park within Covington's potential annexation area. . Inclusion of about 6 acres including the Renton Christian Center and some land owned by King County within Renton's potential annexation area. . Inclusion of about 9 acres adjacent to the Issaquah Spar Road within Issaquah's potential annexation area. . Resolution of a potential annexation area that was formerly claimed by both SeaTac and Tukwila; this area is now within Tukwila's potential annexation area1. Amendments to the countywide Urban 'Separator map: . Creation of a new urban separator in the Willows Road area. Proposed Ordinance 2005-0045 would also ratify these changes on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County, as required by Countywide Planning Policy FW-1, Step 9. STAFF ANALYSIS: Council staff, through its participation on the GMPC's interjurisdictional staff team, has had an opportunity to review the proposed CPP map amendments, and concurs that they are the same map amendments made by the King County Council in the 2004 Comprehensive Plan Update. A more thorough description of the proposed changes is included as Attachment 3 to this staff report. Additionally, documentation on the use restrictions of the Enumclaw Golf Course, Covington Park and Perrigo Park is included as Attachment 4 to this staff report, pursuant to King County Comprehensive Plan Policy U-104. ATTACHMENTS: , 1. Documentation of use restrictions for Enumclaw Golf Course, Covington Park and Perrigo Park. 1 This is the only proposed change that was not driven by amendments to the King County Comprehensive Plan, but by the actions of cities working to resolve their PAAs. O:\COMMITTEE GM - 2005\FINAL Staff Repo'1s\2005-0045 c:pp, - Map Changes REVISEO,ooc 2/9/7005 3:03 PM A TT ACHMENT 1 t~~~!!1~ f.t' ... ~OF~UmclaW Golf Cours~ . Summary of Use RestrictIOns Background: King County conveyed the Enumclaw Golf Course, an asset of the County park system, to the City of Enumclaw in 2003. At that time portions of the golf course were outside the urban growth boundary. Section 3 of the interIocal agreement transferring the Golf Course states: The King County Executive's proposed 2004 Comprehensive Land Use Plan Amendments will include a proposal to modify the City's urban growth boundary so that it will encompass the golf course property in a manner that will enable the City at íts discretion to annex the Property into its municipal boundary. The 2004 King County.Còmprehensive Plan amendments, as adopted by the King Comity Council, include policy language to facilitate this referenced modification in the urban growth boundary: Specifically, policy U~1O4(c) regarding rural park properties adjacent to the urban growth line facilitates an urban designation of such park properties where "the property is or was fonnerly a King County park and is being or has been transferred to a city." Park Use Restrictions on the Enumclaw Golf Coursc: Section 2.1 ofthe interlocal agreement transfening the golf course to the City of Enumclaw places several restricti ve covenants on the property which run with the land, including but not limited to the following: "The Cíty covenants that the Propeliy shall continue to be used in perpetuity for park or recreation purposes unless other equivalent lands or facilities within the county or the city are received in exchange therefore and the replacement lands or facilities arc used in perpetuity for park or recreation purposes." ". . . the Property shall not be transferred or conveyed except by agreement providing that such lands shall continue to be used for the purposes contemplated by £ the ordinance authorizing the Forward Thrust bond program], and that the Property shall not be converted to a different use than the park and recreation uses contemplated... unless other equivalent lands and facilities within the County or City shall be received in exchange therefore." ~ " ~,' "'"" '- ri k Perrigo Park ",f '- ' Summary of Use Rcstri£lb" EX~JJ."r- "'( '," PAGtW-OF Background: The City of Redmond had its grand opening of Perrigo Park in 2004 after spending $1.5 million to acquire the park property and $6 million to develop the property into a city park. The City initially purchased Perrigo Park property in l 994 with funding provided by the Washington State Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation (LAC). The City expanded Perrigo Park upon the acquisition of additional property purchased in 1997. Together, the four parcels that make up Perrigo Park today are 25.86 acres in size. At the time Perrigo Park opened the park was located adjacent to the City and urban growth boundary. The adopted 2004 King County Comprehensive Plan amendments include policy language to facilitate modification of the urban growth boundary to include mral park properties adjacent to a city, with city commitment to use the property in perpetuity for park purposes. Specifically, policy u~ 1O4(a) facilitates an urban designation of such park properties where "the pr6perty is no more than 30 acres in size and was acquired by the city prior to 1994". With County Council adoption of these amendments in September 2004, and subsequent adoption and ratification of the countywide planning policies, the urban growth boundary will be moved to include Perrigo Park, which will enable the City to aIUlex the property intQ its municipal boundary. Restrictions on Use of Perrigo Park: The initial park property was purchased with funding provided by the Washington State Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation (lAC), The grant agreement between the City of Redmond and lAC places several restrictive covenants on the property which run with the Land, including but not limited to the following contained in Section 15(f): Deed of Ríght to Use Land for Public Recreation Purposes The Public Agency agrees to execute an instrument or instruments which contain (1) a legal description ofthe property acquired under this Project Agreement, (2) a conveyance to the State of Washington ofthe right to use the described real property forever for outdoor recreation purposes, and (3) a restriction on conversion of use of the Land in the maIUler provided in RCW 43.99.100, whether or not the real property covered by the deed is marine recreation Land..." Pursuant to this agreement, the City executed two deeds conveying to the State the right to use this property for outdoor recreation purposes and providing restrictions on the conversion of use of the Land; the deeds also included a legaL description of the properties. The City expanded Pen'igo Park in l 997 with the acquisition of additional property purchased with city park bond funding. The Redmond City Council adopted Resolution No. 802 and Ordinance No. 1585 authorizing bonds for the purpose of "providing money to pay the capital costs of acquiring land for parks, recreation facilities and open spaces, and renovating existing park and recreation facilities"; a proposition authorizing issuance of bonds for parks, recreation and open space acquisition and renovation was approved by Redmond voters at the general election on November 7, 1989. Because the parcels acquired in 1997 were purchased with park bond funds, they arc restricted to park purposes. ..A " h . ~.~.. .þ'. EXHIBIT Proposed ConselVation PIHi~~ 2 the City of Covington and the Cascade land Conservancy Document dated November 1, 2004 Prepared by: City of Covington The City of Covington and the Cascade Land Conservancy have reached a telJtative agreement to execute a Conservation Easement that will encumber a City~owned 29.8 acre parcel, of property, purchased by the city in 2003 for park uses. Through the Easement, the City, as Grantor, would protect the subject property from' residential or commercial development in perpetuity, reserving to the City the ability to build, own and operate a public park on the site. The acreage itself would be divided into two sections referred ,to within the Easement as Section A and Section B (See attached Map). Section A, which contains some wetland areas and the Little Soos Creek, will be primarily unimproved open space, and will offer low impact recreational activities such as hiking and use as a nature conservancy. This Section will be managed so as to conserve fish and wildlife habitat, buffer aqùifer recharge areas and protect open space. Some improvements are contemplated such as removal of dirt bike jumps and the maintenance of a non-commercial City-run tree nursery for replacing street trees and other plants on public works projects. Rights are also reserved on Section A to facilitate future improved trail access to the Soos Creek Park and Regional Trail. Section B would be used as an improved community park containing two soccer/multi-use fields, 9 softball diamond and stands, tennis courts, playgrounds, picnic shelters, basketball court and a fieldhouse. There will also be public restroom facilities and parking. This section of the park is planned for active recreation but will be blended with the adjacent open space to provide a harmonious buffer betWeen the urban residential development on the east side of 180~ Ave SE and the rural residential areas to the west and north. ..'¡.. . EXHIBIT f.> ('.j ~ '. .' PAGE~OF Any deV€lðtmerit rig~ forfeited by the City would be retain.e by the Cascade Land Conservancy and could be later sold to developers as part of a Transfer of Development Rights program. The EasemerirrecfÜifes;hÔwever~ that any ttiörliës generated lröhi the sale of these development rights be utilized to create new conservancy zones within the City of Covington's defined Area of Interest. . ~ .. :...I . . Both the City and the Cascade Land Conservancy are excited about this unique approach to conserving the environment and buffering the urban/rural boundaries with low impact improvements that provide needed recreational opportunities to both City and rural residents. Iii combination with the new Covington Aquatics Center at Tahoma, the park and adjacent pool facility will provide a campus- like recreation zone that will also allow the City to partner with the Tahoma School District and Tahoma High School on a variety of recreation and community projects~ The School District and City are excited about jointly utilizing their resources as this will result in efficient ,use of tax dollars, especially in times where the Citizens have asked their public entities to maintain conservative budgets. Excerpts of the Easement language are provided in the attached ExhibitA. - . The legislative goals of the Growth Management Act include directives to "retain 1UI} . ð.open space, enhance recreational opportunities, conserve fish and wildlife habitat, ..:I\nlBIT J;t;~ç..access to natural resource lands and water, and develop parks and recreation tPGE Ita (Jþcilities" 'RCW 36::0A.020(9). Within the City of Covin~on (C~ty), additi~nal "Ï ~ r.ec.'.t.'.e..'.ãttamn.. .o..pport. ..u.llI.tIe. s .3. r. C. .need.ed. to..mect the demand. of an lll.C. r.easmg P. oPul.a. hon. 1:, _Restricting th~ JlseS of Sectìon1\toPaßsiy~ recreation ap.d SectiOI1 B to passive and active recreation would advance one of the Growth Management Act's planning goqls of developing parks and recreation facilities. f.'3 (7) ************************************************************************ Grantor intends that the Conservation Values of the Protected Property be preserved and maintained by pennitting the continuation of only those land uses on the Protected Property that do not significantly impair or intenerc with the Conservation Valués. Such uses existing at the time of tills grant include, without limitation, active/passive recreational, natural, scenic, open space and educational uses cQnsistent with this Easement. . p.4 (ç) ************************************************************************ Grantee is a publicly supported, tax-exempt nonprofit organization, qualified under Sections 50 I (c )(3) and J 70(h) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended; and also qualified as a nonprofit nature conservancy corporation under RCW 64.04.130 and 84.34.250, whose primary purpose is to promote the preservation of open space and critically important ecological systems in King County and surrounding counties in Washington State. Þ. 4 - ç (6¡) \ ************************************************************************ The purpose of this Easement isto implement the mutual intentions of Grantor and Grantee as expressed in the above Recitals, which are incorporated herein by this reference, and in the provisions that follow, to assure that Section A will be retained forever predominantly in its natural, scenic, passive recreational and/or open space condition and, in addition, that Section B will be retained forever predominantly as an active recreational site, and to prevent any use of, or activity on the Protected Property that will significantly impair or interfere with the Conservation Values of the Protected Property (the "Purpose"). Grantor intends that this Easement will confine the use of, or activity on the Protected Property to such uses and activities that are consistent with this Purpose. þS (Ire) ************************************************************************ Any use of, or activity on the Protected Property inconsistent with the Purpose of this E~ement is prohibited, and Grantor acknowledges and agrees that it will not conduct, engage in or permit any such use or activity. Without limiting the generality of this subsection, the following uses of, or activities on the Protected Property, though not an exhaustive list, are inconsistent with the Purpose of this Easement and shall be prohibited; except as expressly provided for and authorized in Section V above. f,l2-\3 LA) 10 11 12 13 14 15 fklNG COUNTY Co.'. .<~ ,.. ~""; , .',' : - ""~\ 1 si~nat~ Report /200 Kiog County Courthouse 5161l1ird Avenue ScatHe, WA 98104 February 14, 2005 EXHIB, IT G.~ PAGE--'-~ Ordinance 15122 Proposed No. 2005-0046.2 Sponsors Constantine 1 AN ORDINANCE adopting amendments to the 2 Countywide Planning Policies; revising targets for new 3 household and job growth fOf the period 2002-2022; 4 ratifying the amended Countywide Planning Policies for 5 unincorporated King County; and amending Ordinance 6 10450, Section 3, as amended, and Kc.c. 20.10.030 and 7 Ordinance 10450, Section 4, as amended, and K.c.c. 8 20.10.040. 9 BE rr ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF KING COUNTY: SECTION 1. Findings. The council makes the following findings: A. The metropolitan King County council adopted and ratified the Growth Management Planning Council recommended King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies (Phase 1) in July 1992, under Ordinance 10450. I 16 17 ,,~' " Ordinance 15122 ~mendments to the Countywide Planning Policies on August 15, 1994, under Ordinance :": .. 18 r~' 11446. " ~.. : t 19 C. The Growth Management Planning Council met on September 15, 2004, and 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 voted to rcconunend amendments to the King County Countywide Planning Policies; revising targets for new household and job growth for the period 2002-2022 by amending Table LU-!. SECTION 2. Ordinance 10450, Section 3, as amended, and KC.C. 20.10.030 are each hereby amended to read as follows: Phase II. A, The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 Countywide Planning Policies attached to Ordinance 11446 are hereby approved and adopted. B. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 12027. C. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 12421. D. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies are amended, as shown by Attachments 1 and 2 to Ordinance 13260. E. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies are amended, as shown by Attachments 1 through 4 to Ordinance 13415. F. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies are amended, as shown by Attachments I through 3 to Ordinance 13858. 2 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Ordinance 15122 E~, ,I'~IT, '"," ';':"':,",':. ,to':'-' .",,' "IS,' 1... ~ . - - ~- ~ " 1 ,'~',~ , p ".",. 0 "~ G. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14390. H. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 ~ Countywide Planning Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14391. I. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14392. J. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14652. K. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies are amended, as shown by Attachments 1 through 3 to Ordinance 14653. L. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14654. M. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14655. N. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies are amended, as shown by Attachments 1 and 2 to Ordinance 14656. 0. The Phase II amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment A to Ordinance 14844. P. The Phase 11 Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment A to this ordinance. SECTION 3. Ordinance 10450, Section 4, as amended, and K.CC 20.10.040 arc each hereby amended to read as follows: Ratification for unincorporated King County. 3 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 ,77 78 79 80 81 Ordinance 15122 ExHtBn- bt: P!1ì~~bt. . . . . . _. 1'. A. Countywide Planning Policies adopted by Ordinance 10450 for the purposes . specified are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County. B. The amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies adopted by Ordinance 10840 are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County. C. The amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies adopted by Ordinance 11061 are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County. D. The Phase II ame~dments to the King County 2012 Countywide Planning Policies adopted by Ordinance 11446 are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County. E. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 12027 are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County. F. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 12421, are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County. G. The amendments tothe King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as shown by Attachments 1 and 2 to Ordinance 13260, are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County. H. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as shown by Attachment 1 through 4 to Ordinance 13415, are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County. 4 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 Ordinance 15122 L The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as shown by Attachments I through 3to Ordinance 13858, are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincoq)Orated King County. J. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as .shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14390, are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County. K. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14391, are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County. L. The amendments to the King County 20 12 ~ Countywide Planning Policies, as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14392, are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County. M. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as shown by Attachment I to Ordinance 14652, are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County. N. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Polìcies, as shown by Attachments 1 through 3 to Ordinance 14653, are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County. O. The amendments to the King County 2012 -Countywide Planning Policies, as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14654, are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County. 5 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 Ordinance 15122 '-""6 '«;,:.'~"",.,,'..-.'~...I.BIT -." "'~~ i P. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14655, are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County. Q. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as shown by Attachments 1 and 2 to Ordinance [4656, are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County. R. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as shown by Attachment A to Ordinance 14844, are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County. s. 'the amendments to the King County 2012 ~ Countywide Planning Policies, as 6 EXHIBIT ~ PAGELOF ..1L Ordinance 15122 113 shown by Attachment A to this ordinance, are hereby ratified on behalf of the population 1I4 of unincorporated King County. liS Ordinance 15122 was introduced on 113112005 and passed by the Metropolitan King County Council on 2/1412005, by the following vote: Yes: 12 - Mr. Phillips, Mr. von Rcichbauer, Ms. Lambert, Mr. Pelz, Mr. Dunn, Mr. Ferguson, Mr. Hammond, Mr. Gossett, Ms. Hague, Mr. Irons, Ms. Patterson and Mr. Constantine No: 0 Excused: 1 - Ms. Edmonds ATTEST: ~ Anne Noris, Clerk of the Council APPROVED thi.2;L day ~. 2005. Att:lchmcnis A. Motion No. 04-4 -.x; '"'" ~ :.r: Q C) en '---., -'1 :- ; r'1 ;::: C) '.);1 r (- f\.) -.r'! .c- -, :n nà ~ a -0.. c= --- I.L> " ç, CJ1 ,ç- 7 --.'" ."':J m () rn ..~ fTl. 0 ------ 8' 9 10 II 12 13 14 IS 16 17 18 19 20 21 2Z 23- 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 .-.-----------.-- ---- ){H'B:r~ ~AGE~~~~~\,:15 122 ~. - ~ - 'J September 15, 2004 Attachment A Icf 2 3 4 5 6 7 Sponsored By: Executive Conunittee MOTION NO. 04---4 A MOTION by the Growth Management Planning Council of King County reconunending the amendment of the Countywide Plarming Policies, revising targets for new household and job growth for the period 2001-2022 by amending Table LU-I: 2001-2022 Household and Employment Growth Targets which will be located in Section III. C of the Countywide Planning Policies. WHEREAS, the 1994 Countywide Plarming Policies established a housing target range for each city and for King County; and WHEREAS, the Growth Management PlaJUling Council adopted revised household and job growth targets for the period 2001 - 2022 on September 25, 2002; and WHEREAS, on May 26, 2004, the Growth Management PlamÚng Council met and discussed revisions to the adopted household and employment targets for the period 2001- 2022- THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLANNING COUNCU, OF KING COUNTY HEREBY MOVES AS FOLLOWS: The attached "Revised Table LU-I: 200 I ~2022 Household and Employment Growth Targets" is hereby recommended for adoption in the Countywide Planning Policies to revise the household growth targets and potential annexation area targets to reflect the target extension from January I, 200 1 through December 3 J, 2022. LJG M PCIO4G M PC/M ()I()4 -4 _doc - 1 - ...__.~..__.- ".__.."-. .----... -.--.-. ~-- ~~~It':~"-' .. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 JO II 12 J3 14 15 16 17 , 15122 ADOPTED by the Growth Management Planning Council of King County on September 15, 2004 in open session and signed bY. the chair of GMPC Attachment: . .. I + Revised Table LU-I: 2001-2022 Household and Employment Growth Targets (file LU-l_Rev2004.xls). UGM PCI04GM PClMotQ4 -4 .doc - 2- ---- -- ----- -~- ------------------------- ----- ---- ------ A -l+ t\ (., h fI\er n \ 1. 1,099 1,552 ---~ ~~. -=~-- ---- 6,188 .. ~J84__- 50 300 100 - . ~'fjff--,~- -~-,' - 6,198 4,478 3200 5,235 42,355 3 ~- --_!Q,!.!J -~ 1,75! 21 I __3.993 2.32S 5,480 1\ 1,437 863 9,083 3,842 1,869 28 6.801 -~-~~ ='-----'-~:O99 ~~.. ---4,637 --- 47,645 7,009 6,801 98,527 Sea-Short Late forest Park Sea!t1e. Shoreline. Unincorp King Coun~ Tol2l Rural Cities"" ------- Camalion 246 ----~. ,------ --~---- ~--- Duvall 1.037 ElIumclaw 1 :J27 North Bend 636 S~ ¡omish ~ ,,- 20 Sn ualmie 1,697 ____M__.-___,--- --_!...!OO -_-.--._-- Tot,,' 5,563 5,250 King COliot Tobl 151,932 289,127 °pM: Potential AnneXAtion Alca in Uointorpot3lCd King County Urban Ar..; "Bear Creek UPD; ° ,0North Hightin< ""The Rur"l Citid "rgels~,. for II", Cu""", cily limilS 3D<! rural c.pansion "re-a for tach eily- 1110s lhe melhodology f", adjusting WgelS "" ""'leulions occur is n'" applIcable 10 I"" n"al eíties- FAilor's Note: Source for 200\ housing ""d job capacity ligurcs for I'AAs is ,"" 2002 King CounlY l)iI<I3blc lands evaluation- Subalc" unit\Corpo""cd ulge" wclcall""altd (0 I'AAs based on plOportional capacuy- Revjsed pcl MlJlion 114-4, &pl 2004- ... South King CQU"-~!.- AI ona Auburn Black Diamond Bî;rien Covington Des Mojn<:s federal Way Ke.111 Mílton Maple Valley Nonnandy Pick: Pacific Renton Scalae Tukwila ![njncorp King CountY. Total - East Xing County Be.aux Ñ.ts Village Dclk\'uc Botherl Clyde Hill HulllS Point Issaquah KcnmoTc Kirkland Medina Mereu Island Newcastle Redmond Sammamish Woodinville Yarrow Point UnincOJp King County Total .. --._-,,- 298 -_..-._--- ---- -~,,-~ 538 -,---- --- 51510 2651 - -....JÆQ 56,369 EXHIBIT PAGEJ!LO 108 - . ---- 252 251 ----------- 2,525 1,712 900 1,695 __-7.48\ 11,500 --~ 1.054 804 67 ,,---, --------..- -- 184 178 603 584 --- ------~ 40,000 2,000 21 174 ----..--- - -"--'- ---- ----------" --- 827 -----_.._-~ 802 14,000 -_,------2L[.OQ 747 8,800 770 221 -,------ --~...._--~ I 402 800 500 21,760 1,230 2.000 21 ----- 1 390 ----------- --------- --------- .:°4,193 4,637 "4,193 4,637 1,670 1,670 455 -- 92,083 1,618 694 95,850 --~ 1,670 1,670 1544 1,544 694 694 75 --- - 1,125 -~.- 1,125 ----- -___--_P25 -~ 27 174 22) 2\ -------------------- 22 -~) ~\ -I,-~ "~"~"':::-. ' '" 8 EXHIElIY - Tz PAGEJLOF Metropolitan King County Council Growth Management and Unincorporated Areas Committee Revised Staff Report Agenda Item: Proposed Ord: Attending: 4 2005-0046 Paul Reitenbach, Senior Policy Analyst, DOES Name: Lauren Smith Date: February 14,2005 COMMITTEE ACTION: The Growth Management and Unincorporated Areas Committee recommended a "DO Pass Substitute" recommendation for Proposed Ordinance 2005-0046. The committee passed amendment A-1, a technical amendment to replace the current attachment to the ordinance (GMPC Motion 04-3) with a new attachment (GMPC Motion 04-4). The transmittal package included the wrong GMPC Motion. SUBJECT: Adopting amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies; revising targets for new household and job growth for the period 2002-2022. BACKGROUND: The Growth Management Planning Council (GMPC) is a formal body comprised of elected officials from King County, Seattle, Bellevue, the Suburban Cities, and Special Districts. The GMPC was created in 1992 by interlocal agreement, in response to a provision in the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) requiring cities and counties to work together to adopt Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs). Under GMA, countywide planning policies serve as the framework for each individual jurisdiction's comprehensive plan, and ensure countywide consistency with respect to land use planning efforts. As provided for in the interlocal agreement, the GMPC developed and recommended the Countywide Planning Policies, which were adopted by the King County Council and ratified by the cities. Subsequent amendments to the CPPs follow the same process: recommendation by the GMPC,adoption by the King County Council, and ratification by the cities. Amendments to the CPPs become effective when ratified by ordinance or resolution by at least 30% of the city and county governments representing at least 70% of the population of King County. A city shall be deemed to have ratified an amendment to the CPPs unless, within 90 days of adoption by King County, the city by legislative action disapproves it. SUMMARY: Proposed Ordinance 2005-0046 would amend the Countywide Planning Policies by making technical adjustments to the household and employment growth targets. These adjustments were recommended by the Growth Management Planning Council through their unanimous approval of Motion 04-4 on September 15, 2004. Q:\COMMITIEE GM. <OOS\FINAL Staff Rcports\200S.0046 Revised SH <.14-{)S.doc 2I9/200~ ""19 PM .. f:Æ "'-.. '.",-Î i' " EXHI T rf, t.,- Rè;';~i<Ìns to the ~"'wth targets were discussed~~O May 26 and again on September 15, 2004. The proposed changes are as follows: \ 1, Allocating a 592-household target to the West Hill unincorporated area, which mistakenly was not assigned a household target during the last round of updates. 2. Adjusting Tukwila's growth targets to include projected new households and jobs in an area that was formerly claimed by both SeaTac and Tukwila (total change to TukwiJa's growth targets: +8 households, +993 jobs). 3- A correction increasing the job target for the City of Kent's potential annexation area from 44 jobs to 287 jobs, commensurate with the employment capacity of the area. 4. An adjustment of household and job targets for Pacific and Auburn to reflect a de- annexation by Pacific and annexation by Auburn, and a shift of household targets from Pacific to Covington. " Proposed Ordinance 2005-0046 would also ratify these changes on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County, as required by Countywide Planning Policy FW-1, Step 9. STAFF ANALYSIS: Council staff, through its participation on the GMPC's interjurisdictional staff team, has had an opportunity to review the proposed target adjustments, and concurs that they are technical in nature and have been approved by the affected jurisdictions via the GMPC action. A complete description of the proposed changes is included as Attachment 4 to this staff report. Q:\COMMITTEE GM - 2005\FINAL Staff Repoo1s\2005-0046 RevISed SR 2'14-05 doc 2/9/2005 2:19 PM 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 ""'r c. ~' ..';; .."....,..." KI~ 'q\.n..~~';;;~':;, '. . 1200 King County Courthouse 516 TItird Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 Signature Report February 14, 2005 EXHIBIT -D- PAGE-LOF j ~ Ordinance 15123 Proposed No. 2005..0047.2 Sponsors Constantine 1 AN ORDINANCE adopting amendments to the 2 Countywide Planning Policies; designating downtown 3 Burien as an Urban Center; ratifying the amended 4 Countywide Planning Policies for unincorporated King 5 County; and amending Ordinance 10450, Section 3, as 6 amended, and K.c.c. 20.10.030 and Ordinance 10450, 7 Section 4, as amended, and K.c.c. 20.10.040. 8 9 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF KING COUNTY: SECTION I. Findings. The council makes the following findings: A. The metropolitan King County council adopted and ratified the Growth Management Planning Council recommended King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies (Phase I) in July 1992, under Ordinance 10450. B. The metropolitan King County council adopted and ratified the Phase II amendmènts to the Countywide Planning Policies on August 15, 1994, under Ordinance 11446. Ordinance 15123 ~ C. The Growth Management Planning Council met on September 15,2004, and -",..,. 19 l voted to recommend amendments to the King Co~nty Countywide Planning Policies '. ,..f. ;{'" -- 2~ ~ designajing downtown Burien as an Urban Center. 18 21 SECTION 2. Ordinance 10450, Section 3, as amended, and K.Cc. 20.10.030 are 22 each hereby amended to read as follows: 23 Phase II. 24 A. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 Countywide Planning 25 Policies attached to Ordinance 11446 are hereby approved and adopted. 26 B. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning 27 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment I to Ordinance 12027. 28 C. The Phase II Amendments to the }(jng County 2012 ~ Countywide Planning 29 Policies arc amended, as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 12421. 30 D. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 ~ Countywide Planning 31 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachments I and 2 to Ordinance 13260. 32 E. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning 33 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachments I through 4 to Ordinance 13415. 34 F. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 ~ Countywide Planning 35 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachments I through 3 to Ordinance 13858. 36 G. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning 37 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment I to Ordinance 14390. 38 H. The Phase n Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning 39 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14391. 2 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 Ordinance 15123 I. The Phase II Amendments to the King County tic Planning Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14392. J. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14652. K. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies are amended, as shown by Attachments 1 through 3 to Ordinance 14653. L The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14654. M. The Phase IJ Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment Ito Ordinance 14655. N. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies are amended, as shown by Attachments 1 and 2 to Ordinance 14656. O. The Phase 11 amendments to the King County 2012 ~ Countywide Planning Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment A to Ordinance 14844. P. The Phase 11 Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment A to this ordinance. SECTION 3. Ordinance 10450, Section 4, as amended, and K.c.c. 20.10.040 are each hereby amended to read as follows: Ratification for unincorporated King County. A. Countywide Planning Policies adopted by Ordinance 10450 for the purposes specìtìed are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County. B. The amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies adopted by Ordinance 10840 are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County. 3 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 Ontínancel5123. .~...H.. .. ...'T."()o . ~.t"- - C. The a~Jments: to the éountywide Planning Policies adopt~d by Ordinance 11061 arc hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County- D. The Phase II amendments to the King County 2012 Countywide Planning Policies adopted by Ordinance 11446 are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County- E. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 12027 are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County. F. The amendments to the KingCounty 2012- Countywide Planning Policies, as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 12421, are hereby ratifìed on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County. G. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as shown by Attachments 1 and 2 to Ordinance 13260, arc hereby ratifìed on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County. H. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as shown by Attachment 1 through 4 to Ordinance 13415, are hereby ratifìed on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County- I. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as shown by Attachments 1 through 3 to Ordinance 13858, are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County. J. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14390, arc hereby ratifìed on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County. 4 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 .,.-'. EXHIBIT ~ (ti.;PAGE~OF ~ -: . .' r~.. f.! ':<,' ,:,'~,'-" ("lit" 'J ., - K. The amendments 'to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as Ordinance 15123 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14391, are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County. L. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Plamiing Policies, as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14392, are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County. M. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14652, are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County- N. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as shown by Attachments 1 through 3 to Ordinance 14653, are hereby ratifiecl on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County. O. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14654, are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County. P. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as shown by Attachment I to Ordinance 14655, are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County. Q. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as shown by Attachments 1 and 2 to Ordinance 14656, arc hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County. 5 107 108 109 110 ~",.} ~~, Ordinance 15123 '....", . SlHIBIT~ ..~ R. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as shown by Auachment A to Ordinance 14844, are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County. . S. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide PlannIng Policies, as 6 Ordinance 15123 .~ HI shown by Attachment A to this ordinance, are hereby ratified on behalf of the population H2 of unincorporated King County. 113 Ordinance 15123 was introduced on 1/31/2005 and passed by the Metropolitan King County Council on 2/1412005, by the following vote: Yes: 12 - Mr. Phillips, Mr. von Reichbauer, Ms. Lambert, Me. Pelz, Me. Dunn, Mr. Ferguson, Mr. Hammond, Me. Gossett, Ms. Hague, Me. lIons, Ms. Patterson and Mr. Constantine No: 0 Excused: 1 - Ms. Edmonds ATTEST: ~ (~~ Anne Noris, Clerk of the Coùncil APPROVED thi, ~ d,y of ~. 2ooS Attachments A. Motion No. 04-3 :z: C) ....., n f"l .~ CO ~:::~ N ::".-",..., .Ç" -/ ;:) '=^ :P- c' ::i: 0 C \.D ~ n 7 :::m m (') m < rn CJ (J1 .ç- ----- ------- --- --,----------~ 7 8 9 10 I1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18- 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 -----'--------- ,---- -------.--- -----_._-,~---- --_.- ---'- -----~-_.- -----,- --- -- ~~~~l~i 5::12 3 September 15, 2004 Attachment A Sponsored By: Executive ConuniUec . MOTION NO. 04-3 2 3 4 5 A MOTION to amend the Countywide PJarming Policies by designating Downtown Burien as an Urban Center. Downtown Bmien is added to the list of Urban Centers following CouDtywidePlarining Policy LU-39- 6 WllliREAS, A goal of the Growth Management Ad is to encourage development in Urban Areas where adequate pubJic facilities exist or can be provided in an efficient manner; WHEREAS, Policy LU-39 of the Countywide Planning Policies of King County describes the criteria for Urban Center designation; - WHEREAS, Policy LU-40 of the Countywide Planning Policies of King County describes standards for planned land uses within Urban Centers; - WHEREAS, the City of Burien has demonstrated that Downtown Bu,-,ien meets the criteria for designation as an Urban Center; and WHEREAS, King County Compreh<.:nsive Plan Policy U-1O6 supports the development of Urban Centers to meet the region's needs for housing, jobs, services, culture and recreation. tlGM PC IZOO2GMf'CJMotionO2-6-doc 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 to II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 ------- --------- EXH I ~'~( PAGE ~. þF' ----.._-----------------~ -- 15123 -THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLANNING COUNCIL OF KING COUNTY IŒlŒBY MOVES AS FOLLOWS: Downtown Buncn is designated as an Urban Center. The list of Urban Centers following Countywide Planning Policy LU~39 is modified to include Downtown Bunen. ADOPTED by the Growth Management Planning Council of King County on September 15, 2004 in open session and signed by the chair of GMPc. -- - Ron Sims, Chair, Growth Management Planning Council UGM !'C12002GMPClMotionO2 .6- doc <T .$\ ':, ~1 ~. 8 EXHI~lT.;.. 1). ~ PAGE1D-OF ~ .'. :;~".:" ;u" \ --.' '" " " Metropolitan King County Council Growth Management and Unincorporated Areas Committee Revised Staff Report Agenda Item: Proposed Ord: Attending: 3 2005-0047 Scott Greenberg, Community Development Director, City of Burien Name: Lauren Smith Date: February 15, 2005 COMMITTEE ACTION: The Growth Management and Unincorporated Areas Committee recommended a "DO Pass Substitute" recommendation for Proposed Ordinance 2005-0047. The committee passed amendment A-1, a technical amendment to replace the current attachment to the ordinance (GMPC Motion 04-4) with a new attachment (GMPC Motion 04-3). The transmittal package included the wrong GMPC Motion. SUBJECT: Adopting amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies; designating downtown Burien as an Urban Center. BACKGROUND: " The Growth Management Planning Council and Countywide Planning Policies The Growth Management Planning Council (GMPC) is a formal body comprised of elected officials from King County, Seattle, Bellevue, the Suburban Cities, and Special Districts. The GMPC was created in 1992 by interlocal agreement, in response to a provision in the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) requiring cities and counties to work together to adopt Countywide Plaoning Policies (CPPs). Under GMA, countywide planning policies selVe as the framework for each individual jurisdiction's comprehensive plan, and ensure countywide consistency with respect to land use planning efforts. As provided for in the interlocal agreement, the GMPC developed and recommended the Countywide Planning Policies, which were adopted by the King County Council and ratified by the cities. Subsequent amendments to the CPPs follow the same process: recommendation by the GMPC, adoption by the King County Council, and ratification by the cities. Amendments to the CPPs become effective when ratified by ordinance or resolution by at least 30% of the city and county governments representing at least 70% of the population of King County. A city shall be deemed to have ratified an amendment to the CPPs unless, within 90 days of adoption by King County, the city by legislative action disapproves it. SUMMARY: Proposed Ordinance 2005-0047 would amend the Countywide Planning Policies by adding downtown Burien to the list of Urban Centers in Policy LU-39. The"ordinance would also ratify the change on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County, as required by Countywide Planning Policy FW-1, Step 9. Q:\COMMITTEf' {,M "2005\FlNAI Slall Reports\700S-0047 CPPs - 8",;"n Ufoan Center REVISED.dOC Ji9/lOOS 2:52 PM tr EXHIBIT.J4.- STÄ:~A~~~YSIS{\'~ PAGE-U-°F ~ Proposed Designation of Downtown Burien as an Urban Center The City of Burien requests that the King County Council amend the Countywide Planning Policies to add its downtown core to the list of Urban Centers in Policy LU-39. The city has followed the correct process for obtaining such a designation, starting with amending its own plans, policies and capital improvement programs, and also by securing the recommendation of the Growth Management Planning Council, which indicated its approval through the unanimous adoption of Motion 04-3 on September 15, 2004. The final steps in the center designation process are approval by the King County Council and ratification by the cities (see background section for a detailed explanation of the ratification process). Requirements for Urban Center Designation . The Countywide Planning Policies describe Urban Centers as areas of concentrated employment and housing, with direct service by high-capacity transit and a wide range of other land uses. Collectively, they are expected to account for up to one half of King County's employment growth and one quarter of household growth over the next 20 years. The list of Urban Centers in Countywide Planning Policy LU-39 currently includes: . Auburn . Bellevue . Kent . Federal Way . Kirkland . Redmond (2) . Renton . Seattle (5) . Tukwila In order to be designated as an Urban Center, jurisdictions must meet specific criteria in the Countywide Planning Policies, including having planned land uses to accommodate: 1. A minimum of 15,000 jobs within one-half mile of a transit center; 2. At a minimum, an average of 50 employees per gross acre; and 3. At a minimum, an average of 15 households per acre. In addition to these requirements, Policy LU-40 states that fully realized Urban Centers shall be characterized by the following: a. Clearly defined geographic boundaries; b. An intensity/density of land uses sufficient to support effective and rapid transit; c. Pedestrian emphasis within the Center; d. Emphasis on superior urban design which reflects the local community; e. Limitations on single-occupancy vehicle usage during peak commute hours; f. A broad array of land uses and choices within those land uses for employees and residents; g. Sufficient public open spaces and recreational opportunities; and h. Uses which provide both daytime and nighttime activities in the Center. City of Burien's Existing and Planned Conditions The Countywide Planning Policies recognize that Urban Centers vary substantially in the number of households and jobs they contain at the time of their initial designation, and thus the decision to designate an Urban Center is based on planned, not existing, densities. A jurisdiction shows its commitment to realizing these densities through its comprehensive plan policies, a supportive regulatory environment and a commitment to provide adequate infrastructure. Q:\COMMIllE[ GM - 2005\FlNAL Staff Reports\2005-0047 CPPs. Bunen Urban Centcr REVISEO.doc 2/9/2005 2:52 PM EXHIQI]'- ~ PAGEAOF The table on the next page shows Burien's existing conditions, as well as future growth projections for the near future (10-20 years, or "mid-range), and beyond (20+ years, or "long-range). The long-range projected capacity envisions an Urban Center that is consistent with the requirements in the Countywide Planning Policies. I. BurienUrban Center ~ Existing and Planned Capacity H~U~¡'d_~ ~~"seJ:rAcre Em~~f~ ~ ~:'O!ircrj GMPC Recommendation The GMPC. through the unanimous adoption of Motion 04-3, has declared that the City of Burien has demonstrated its commitment to developing a fully realized Urban Center as envisioned in the Countywide Planning Policies. Specific findings include: . Burien's comprehensive plan and downtown plan establish the policy framework for achieving a compact, mixed use, transit and pedestrian oriented Urban Center. . Burien has implemented its plans with supportive land use and development regulations, including unlimited residential density in the downtown zone, increased height limits, design guidelines and streamlined permit processing. . The city has planned for future growth within the Urban Center through recent investments in utility, street and sidewalk upgrades, and in land assembly and acquisition. These efforts include plans for a mixed-use Town Square development, and plans for a transit-oriented development project. Council staff, through its participation on the GMPC's interjurisdictional staff team, has had an opportunity to thoroughly review the city's proposal, and concurs that it meets the requirements in the Countywide Planning Policies for designation as an Urban Center. A complete analysis of the city's proposal as presented to the GMPC is included as Attachment 4 to this staff report. Q'ICOMMITTEE GM. 2005\FINAL Staff Repcrl<I:'OO5-0047 CPPs - ¡¡u"en Urban Cenlcr REVISEO.doc 21912005 2:52 PM ~ ClTVOF'" -~ Federal Way MEMORANDUM March 15, 2005 FROM: Jack Dovey, Chair Land Use/Trans. portation cor~~e (LUTC) David Moseley, City ManagV~f\r...., V Kathy McClung, Director of Community Development Services ~~ To: VIA: SUBJECT: Follow up to Signs in Annexation Areas Discussion MEETING DATE: March 21, 2005 I. BACKGROUND At the last LUTC meeting held on March 7, 2005, the LUTC reviewed a code amendment to give a 10 year amortization period for signs located in the newly annexed areas. This language is consistent with what businesses in the existing City limits were granted prior to the deadline for compliance of February 28, 2000. The LUTC requested that staff come back with infonnation regarding possible sign incentive programs that could be offered to these businesses similar to the one offered to the rest of the City in the 1990's. II. DISCUSSION A. P AA Signs - The majority of the signs in the recently annexed areas are within the Redondo East area. There are approximately 23 operating businesses within the area. The vast majority of the 17 freestanding business signs exceed the height and size limits, and are pole signs that the Federal Way City Code (FWCC) does not penn it. There are also 3 billboards in the area, which again are not pennitted in the city limits. There are approximately 13 roof signs, which the FWCC also does not pennit. Some of these can probably be modified and moved to below the roofline, which could make them compliant to the code. Most of the other building signs are most likely in compliance with the code. B. Sign Incentive Program - The program, as adopted in the late 90's, used a combination of incentives to encourage businesses to achieve early compliance. First, there was a $2,000 stipend, or 25 percent of the cost of the sign, whichever was greater. $2000 per business was the limit, regardless of how many signs they were removing or modifying. Second, the City waived the pennit fees, and third, low cost loans were provided by a local bank. Debra Coates, Economic Development Coordinator, who was housed in the Chamber of Commerce, administered the whole program. c. D. Direct cost to implement a similar program would be around $35,000. This assumes that about half of the signs would go through the program. Indirect costs would be about $10,000 in permit fees. Staff time and advertising has not been estimated. Since the low-interest loan option was hardly utilized, it also was not included in the analysis. Scenic Vistas Act - The Scenic Vista Act protects signs that are visible ITom state routes from abatement without compensation. Almost all signs in the Redondo East area qualify for protection under the Scenic Vista Act because they are visible from Pacific Highway. Cost of Full Abatement in the Redondo East Area - The cost to fully abate the nonconforming signs in the Redondo area will be expensive. Freestanding signs are commonly $10,000 or more and a billboard will likely cost more. At this time, we have not had experience with evaluating the compensation for signs taking into account depreciation. A very rough ballpark figure would be $250,000. This would be assuming every freestanding sign was at least $10,000, plus three billboard signs and 11 roof signs. The code language recommended for the P AA area provides an option to the Council to proceed with abatement or not, based on costs to the City. Ifthe code amendment is adopted, the abatement date is 10 years off and this decision does not have to be made immediately. III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the LUTC delay any decision on signs in the P AA area until a sign inventory can be completed. Under this option, it is recommended that the code amendment for signs in the PAA area move forward to the full City Council on April 5, 2005, as planned. IV. LAND USE!TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE OPTIONS The Committee has two decisions to consider: 1. Should the signs in the recently annexed areas be fully abated? The following options should be considered: a. Recommend to the full City Council that the signs in the Redondo East area not be abated ifthey qualify under the Scenic Vista Act. If this is the option that the LUTC chooses, then the code amendment forwarded for the April 5th full Council Meeting may need to be pulled from the agenda and modified for recommendation. Select particular signs to abate. For instance, the City could concentrate on only pole signs or only roof signs. Delay any decision on signs in the PAA area until a sign inventory can be completed. This will give the Council more detailed information about which signs will qualify under the Scenic Vista Act and what the potential cost to the City might be. Direct staff to find a recommended funding source for the full extent of abatement. Defer this decision since the proposed code amendment gives 10 years for compliance. This would give the City more experience with the Scenic Vista Act before making this decision. b. c. d. e. Land Use/Transportation Committee Follow up to Signs in Annexation Areas Discussion March 15,2005 Page 2 2. Should the City move forward with a sign incentive program? The following options should be considered: a. Provide a sign incentive program for voluntary compliance and for those signs that will be relocated because of the widening of Pacific Highway (WSDOT project) and for those that do not qualify under the Scenic Vista Act. Direct staff to find a recommended source to fund a sign incentive program. Delay the decision to create a sign incentive fund until after an inventory is completed. b. c. v. LAND USEITRANSPORT A nON COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION The LUTC forwards the proposed amendment to the full Council as follows: Pick an option from above. PPROV~Lqtt(if)MMJ:lT, '<Ì ' I:\KCWPPS\2004\LUTaO50304 Staff Report.doc/O3/1512005 1 :40 PM Land Use/Transportation Committee Follow up to Signs in Annexation Areas Discussion March] 5, 2005 Page 3 PASSED by the City Council of the City of Federal Way at a regular meeting ofthe City Council on the day of ,2005. ApPROVED: Mayor, Dean McColgan ATTEST: City Clerk, N. Christine Green, CMC ApPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney, Patricia A. Richardson FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE No: Ord No. - , Page 3