HomeMy WebLinkAboutLUTC PKT 01-14-2008
City of Federal Way
City Council
Land Use/Transportation Committee
City Hall
Council Chambers
January 14, 200S
6:00 p.m.
MEETING AGENDA
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: December 17, 2007
3. PUBLIC COMMENT (3 minutes)
4. BUSINESS ITEMS
A. S 30Sth St Stormwater Facility Modification Project - Project
Acceptance
B. Wildwood NTS-S 29Sth Street (Military Rd to 25th Ave S)
Action 5 min/Bucich
Action 5 min/Tirhi
C. NTS Policy Revisions
Action 15 min/Tirhi
D. Ming Court - Request to Amend Preliminary Plat Conditions
Discussion 15 min/Barker
5. FUTURE MEETINGS/AGENDA ITEMS
6. ADJOURN
City Staff
Cary M. Roe, P.E., Assistant City Manager/Emergency Manager
Darlene LeMaster, Administrative Assistant II
253-835-2701
Committee Members
Jack Dovey, Chair
Linda Kachmar
Dean McColgan
G:ILUTCILUTC Agendas and Summaries 10081/-/4-08 LUTC Agenda.doc
City of Federal Way
City Council
Land Use/Transportation Committee
December 17, 2007
5:30 pm
City Hall
City Council Chambers
MEETING MINUTES
In attendance: Committee Chair Jack Dovey, Committee Member Linda Kochmar, Committee Member Dean
McColgan; Council Member Jeanne Burbidge, Assistant City Manager/Chief Operations Officer/Emergency
Manager Cary Roe, Deputy Public Works Director Ken Miller, City Staff Attorney Monica Buck, Acting Deputy
Public Works Director Marwan Salloum, Surface Water Manager Paul Bucich, 'City Traffic Engineer Rick Perez,
Acting Direct of Community Development Services Greg Fewins, Senior Planner Margaret Clark, Associate Planner
David Lee, Senior Traffic Engineer Maryanne Zukowski, Code Compliance Officer Greg Vause, Street Systems
Project Engineer John Mulkey and Administrative Assistant II Darlene LeMaster.
1. CALL TO ORDER
Committee Chair Dovey called the meeting to order at 5 :30 p.m.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The November 5, 2007 LUTC meeting minutes were approved.
Moved: McColgan Seconded: Kochmar
Passed: Unanimously
3. PUBLIC COMMENT
Nancy Combs - Ms. Ccmbs expressed disappointment in the amount of overdevelopment, in her opinion, which
has been allowed in Federal Way. Ms. Combs also expressed her reasons for supporting a strong-mayor form of
government.
4. BUSINESS ITEMS
A. 1 Oth Avenue S Stormwater Trunk Replacement Proiect - 30% Design Status Report
Paul Bucich provided backg4round information on this item. There was no discussion.
Moved: Kochmar Seconded: McColgan Passed: Unanimously, 3-0
Committee PASSED Option 1 to the January 15, 2008, City Council Consent Agenda for approval.
B. Acceptance of Grant Fi.mding for Transportation Improvement Proiects
John Mulkey provided background information on the item. There was no discussion.
Moved: McColgan Seconded: Kochmar Passed: Unanimously, 3-0
Committee PASSED Option 1 to the January 15, 2008, City Council Consent Agenda for approval.
C. South 356th Street at SR99 Intersection Improvement Proiect - 100% Design Status Report
John Mulkey provided background information on the item. Committee Member Kochmar asked for
clarification between the TIB grant funding of $4.7 million and the grant money just approved in the prior
item of $4.3 million. Mr. Mulkey explained that the difference in the figures, approximately $378,210 had
been accepted from the TIB back in 2003, therefore making the total funding available $4.7 million.
Committee Member Kocbmar asked where mitigation funds would be coming from. Mr. Mulkey answered
that mitigation for traffic impacts would be generated from development of the surrounding area.
Committee Chair Dovey asked for explanation on the project's bidding schedule. In a combined effort,
both Mr. Mulkey and ACM Roe explained that design of the project is complete and project funding is in
place. Due to a similar project that will be constructed in close proximity in mid 2008 (S 348th Street
HOV), staff made a conscious decision to try to reduce impact to residents and commuters by not having
both parallel east/west corridors under construction at the same time. Secondly, TIB funding for this
project will not be available until August 2008. Waiting until March 2009 to bid the project will allow the
G:\LUTCILUTC Agendas and Surrunaries 2007112-17-07 Minutes.doc
Land Use/Transportation Committee
Page 2
July 2, 2007
S 348th St project to be further along as well as be the best bidding climate for the project. Staff was
congratulated by Council Member Burbidge for a job well done on this project as it was the TIB's top
scoring project.
Committee Member Kochrnar asked that although staff is waiting to bid this project in 2009, are the
construction costs estimated in 2008 costs. ACM Roe explained that staff attempts to take into
consideration growing construction costs, especially in this case, where it will be some time before bidding
actually occurs. In the event that construction costs rise higher than anticipated or that bids are returned
much higher than the engineer's estimate, staff will come back to the Committee for direction. ACM Roe
said there is flexibility in when the project goes out to bid and when construction actually begins. Staffhas
taken the unpredictable factors (weather, bidding climate, construction costs) into consideration when
determining the best time to bid this project. Mr. Salloum added that should the S 348th St project be
completed earlier than anticipated (S 348 St project completion anticipated for Oct.-Nov. 2008), bidding
the S 348th St project sooner would be a good idea.
Moved: Kochmar Seconded: McColgan Passed: Unanimously; 3-0
Committee PASSED Option 1 to the January 15, 2008, City Council Consent Agenda for approval.
D. City Center Access Studv
Maryanne Zukowski provided background information on the item. There was one public comment on this
item.
H. David Kaplan - Mr. Kaplan expressed concern over whether or not the funding for this project is
adequate for the project. So often it seems that unexpected tasks and costs surface. The budget does not
have much flexibility if something unforeseen comes up.
Committee Chair Dovey acknowledged that the consultant contract is not a bid contract, but wondered why
there wasn't a spreadsheet, tabulating costs in comparison to other consultants. How does staff or the
Council know if the negotiated contract compensation is average, high or low in comparison to other
consultants? Ms. Zukowski answered that state law does not allow the hiring of engineers (professional
service agreement) based on price. Staff selected the consultant based on qualifications. ACM Roe
restated the selection process and state law that binds this process. ACM Roe also addressed Mr. Kaplan's
comment, and stated that he is confident that this project will be completed within the approved budget.
Staff will be continuously reviewing the budget and reevaluating tasks as necessary to stay within the
budget.
Committee Chair Dovey asked about a 7% contingency, rather than the typical 10% contingency normally
seen in a construction contract. ACM Roe restated that the contingency allows for any unexpected tasks
and that the 7% contingency should be adequate and allow for any unforeseen tasks/costs. Committee
Member McColgan wonders if the $3.2 million that will be spent on studying the project is worth the
possibility that parts of this project mayor may not ever be built. ACM Roe stated that this is a huge
project that involves many, many smaller projects, environmental studies, traffic impact studies, etc. The
smaller components are very important on their own. ACM Roe believes that the City has an opportunity
to receive grant monies for many of the smaller components.
Moved: McColgan Seconded: Kochmar Passed: Unanimously; 3-0
Committee PASSED Option 1 to the January 15, 2008, City Council Consent Agenda for approval.
E. Resolution to Certify the Cost of Abatement for the Hoban Property
Monica Buck provided background information on this item. There was no discussion.
Moved: Kochmar Seconded: McColgan Passed: Unanimously; 3-0
Committee PASSED Option 1 to the January 15, 2008, City Council Consent Agenda for approval.
F. North Lake Pointe Preliminary Plat
David Lee provided background information on this item. Committee Member Kocbmar inquired as to the
age of the two existing homes that will remain part of the North Lake Pointe Plat as well as if there were
any significant findings from the Hearing Examiner. Mr. Lee was did not have the exact ages of the two
G:ILUTC\LUTC Agendas and Surrunaries 2007112-17-07 Minutes.doc
Land Use/Transportation Committee
Page 3
July 2, 2007
existing homes and said that the Hearing Examiner had no significant [mdings. Committee Chair Dovey
asked if there are any significant trees. Mr. Lee said there were not.
Moved: Kochmar Seconded: McColgan Passed: Unanimously; 3-0
Committee PASSED Option 1 to the January 15, 2008, City Council Consent Agenda for approval.
G. 2008 Planning Commission and Long Range Planning Work Program
Margaret Clark provided background information on this item. Council Member Burbidge's question
regards the proposed changed in off-site signage. Council Member Burbidge requests that staff consider
what may be necessary to have a banner stretched over/across a road for an even. Also, she would like
staff to consider a kiosk to be placed in the City Center area. The kiosk would be an opportunity for
additional signage and possible off-site signage. Council Member Burbidge would also like staff to review
whether it is still necessary to require a Process 3 for organizations such as FUSION that are developing
transitional housing. Ms. Clark will look into this.
Committee Member Kochmar asked Ms. Clark to comment on Nancy Comb's earlier public comment,
referring to trees cut down for new housing and commercial developments. Ms. Clark remarked on one
particular plat development that after receiving their permit from the City, applied for a permit from the
Dept. of Natural Resources that allowed the developer to take down the trees. ACM Roe gave additional
examples of why we are seeing mass grading on the remaining developable land in Federal Way.
Committee Member Kochmar inquired about cottage housing and access dwelling units (ADU's, formally
known as mother-in-law apartments). Ms. Clark responded that ADU's can either be attached or detached
from the main single-family home. The lot requirement for detached ADU's is 15,000 sq. ft. Staff is
seeing a public interest in ADU's and if the requirements are met, the City allows them. As for cottage
housing, the City had three developers apply for cottage housing. Two of the three are currently moving
forward with their projects.
Committee Member Kochmar wanted to make sure the Planning Commission hears back on how the LUTC
and Council respond to their recommendations. Ms. Clark confrrmed that a portion of each Planning
Commission meeting review and updates the Commission on any Committee or Council decision, question,
request, etc.
Committee Member Kochmar asked about the interest in high-rise building above 200 ft. Ms. Clark
commented that the Symphony project may have been the catalyst, bringing lots of interest in bringing
high-rise buildings into the City Center.
Committee Chair Dovey noted that there is item on High Priority and on Medium Priority regarding
building heights. He requested that the lists be revised to combine both items into one. He also asked that
#7 on the Medium Priory list be reevaluated (allowing churches in all zones). Staff will then make every
attempt to get through all items on the High Priority list in 2008, however with additional items on the High
Priority list; items at the end of the list may have to be carried over into the following year. Added to the
High Priority list are: banners and kiosks in the sign code, the transitional housing process, height issues in
all commercial zones (currently the top priority) and churches in all zones. The Committee will only be
recommending approval of the top priority items.
Moved: McColgan Seconded: Kochmar Passed: Unanimously; 3-0
Committee PASSED the following recommendation: "Include those items required to be completed
by state law (Section F of the 12/6/07 Staff Report) and other amendments that have been started but
not yet completed (Section D of the 12/6/07 Staff Report) in the Planning Commission Work Program.
Concur with the LUTC's prioritization of the remainder of the code amendments."
5. FUTURE MEETING
6. ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 7:07 PM.
G:\LUTCILUTC Agendas and Sununaries 2007\12-17-07 Minutes.doc
COUNCIL MEETING DATE: February 5, 200S
ITEM #:_
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA BILL
SUBJECT: S 30Sth St Stormwater Facility Modification Project - Project Acceptance
POLICY QUESTION: Should the Council accept the S. 30Sth St. Stormwater Facility Modification Project
constructed by Pivetta Brothers Construction, Inc. as complete?
COMMITTEE: Land Use and Transportation Committee
MEETING DATE:, January 15, 200S
CATEGORY:
[8] Consent D Ordinance D Public Hearing
D City Council Business D Resolution D Other
.~!A!.~L~!g~_!_!'.:X:J~~~!.~:~~~.~.~~!.~:.~:.~~~fl:t.~~.~~~~~M~~~_8.~~~. DEPT: .~~blic W?~~.._._..__m._..__.__m._.__.
Attachments: Land Use and Transportation Committee memo dated January 14, 200S.
Options Considered:
1. Authorize final acceptance of the S 30Sth St Stormwater Facility Modification Project constructed by
Pivetta Brothers Construction, Inc., in the amount of$104,704.79 as complete.
2. Do not authorize final acceptance of the completed S 30Sth St Stormwater Facility Modification Project
constructed by Pivetta Brothers Construction, Inc., as complete and provide direction to staff.
ST AFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends forwarding Option 1.
DIRECTOR ApPROVAL:
CITY MANAGER ApPROVAL:
ee
Council
Committee
Council
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Place Option 1 on the February 5, 200S Council Consent Agenda for
approval.
Jack Dovey, Chair
Linda Kochmar, Member
Vacant
PROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION: HI move approval of acceptance of the S 30Sth S. Stormwater Facility
Modification Project constructed by Pivetta Brothers Construction, Inc., in the amount of $104,704.79 as
complete. "
(BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE)
COUNCIL ACTION:
o APPROVED
o DENIED
o T ABLEDIDEFERRED/NO ACTION
o MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only)
REVISED - 02/06/2006
COUNCIL BILL #
1 ST reading
Enactment reading
ORDINANCE #
RESOLUTION #
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
VIA:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
January 14,2008
Land Use and Transportation Committee
Cary M. Roe, P.E., Assistant City Manager, C.O.O., Emergency Manager ~
Paul A. Bucich, P.E., Surface Water Manager/~/
S 30Sth St Stormwater Facility Modificati~~t - Project Acceptance
BACKGROUND:
Prior to release of retainage on a Public Works construction project, the City Council must accept the work as
complete to meet State Department of Revenue and State Department of Labor and Industries requirements. The
above-referenced contract with Pivetta Brothers Construction, Inc. is complete. The final construction contract
amount is $104,704.79. This is $8,213.21 below the project construction budget of $112,918 (including
contingency) that was approved by the City Council on June 4, 2007.
cc: Project File
COUNCIL MEETING DATE: February 5,2008
ITEM #:_
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA BILL
SUBJECT: Wildwood NTS - S 298th Street (Military Rd to 25th Avenue S)
POLICY QUESTION: Should the Council approve the installation of three speed humps along S 29Sth Street?
COMMITTEE: Land Use and Transportation Committee
MEETING DATE: January 14, 2008
CATEGORY:
IZI Consent
D City Council Business
D Ordinance
D Resolution
D
D
Public Hearing
Other
.~!~!!.~!,-Q~!_!J.X:.g,~~~_Ii!.?~-,_~:.~:z._~~~i.'?!.I!.'.l:f~~_~~gi..!1.~~!._.t_!.._I.?~!!.~.~~!?.!.i._~~~!.~_________.._..._._______......-.-
Attachments: LUTC memo dated January 14,2008.
Options Considered:
1. Authorize the installation of three speed humps along S 298th Street between Military Road and 25th
Avenue S.
2. Do not authorize the installation of the proposed traffic calming devices and provide direction to staff.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Option 1.
CITY MANAGER ApPROVAL:
Council
DIRECTOR ApPROVAL: ~
Committee
Council
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Place Option 1 on the February 5, 2008 Council Consent Agenda for
approval.
Jack Dovey, Chair
Linda Kochmar, Member
Vacant
PROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION: HI move to authorize the installation of three speed humps along S 298th Street
between Military Road and 25th Avenue s."
(BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE)
COUNCIL ACTION:
o APPROVED
o DENIED
o T ABLEDIDEFERREDINO ACTION
o MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only)
REVISED - 02/06/2006
COUNCIL BILL #
1ST reading
Enactment reading
ORDINANCE #
RESOLUTION #
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
VIA:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
January 14, 2007
Land Use and Transportation Committee
Cary M. Roe, P.E., Assistant City Manager, C.O.O., Emergency Manager ~
Rick Perez, P.E., City Traffic Engineer fI/{
Raid Tirhi, P. E., Senior Traffic Engineer R-r
Wildwood NTS - S 298'h Street (Military Rd to 25th Avenue S)
BACKGROUND:
Residents along S 298th St in the vicinity of 25th Avenue S have requested the installation of traffic calming
devices in the area to control traffic speeds, minimize cut-through traffic.
Currently, adopted NTS installation criteria are based on a point system as follows:
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
0.3-0.5 0.1 500-1100 26-29
0.5-0.7 0.2 1101-1700 29.1-32
0.7-0.9 0.3 1701-2300 32.1-35
0.9-1.1 0.4 2301-2900 35.1-38
1.1-1.3 0.5 2901-3500 38.1-41
More than 1.3 More than 0.5 More than 3500 More than 41
Notes:
· Each fatal collision counts as two injury collisions,
· A half additional point is given for corridors fronting parks or schools or on a designated
school safe walking route crossing.
A traffic study indicated that the subject location had an average daily traffic volume documented at
1,119 vehicles per day and the 85th percentile speed was reported at 40 mph. A total of 1 accident was
reported within the last five years. The total severity score measures 3.5 points, which meets the 3.0
minimum severity score to qualify for the installation of traffic calming devices.
In a neighborhood traffic safety meeting held on June 6th, 2007, the attending group requested the
installation of traffic calming devices along S 298th St. Therefore, to be effective in reducing speeds along
Wildwood NTS
January 14,2008
Page 2
the street and to improve vehicular and pedestrian safety, the consensus was to install three speed humps
near the following home addresses:
a. 2621 S 298 St;
b. 2437 S 298 St; and
c. 2247 S 298 St.
In accordance with established NTS policies, staff sent ballots to property owners and occupants within
600 feet of the proposed traffic calming device locations and also to those with the proposal located along
their sole access route. The following table summarizes the ballot results:
Traffic Calming Device A B C Total
Ballots Sent 51 122 75 248
Ballots Returned 19 37% 35 29% 16 21% 70 28%
Returned w/o Response 8 13 4 25
Yes Votes 8 73% 15 68% 8 67% 31 69%
No Votes 3 27% 7 32% 4 33% 14 31%
One of the installation criteria requires a 51 % majority approval of the returned ballots. Based on the
ballot results represented in the above table, all locations met the balloting criteria with a 69% average
approval rate.
The estimated cost of this project is approximately $12,000, which would exceed the $10,000 per
neighborhood per year budget limitation policy. However, adequate budget currently exists within the
NTS program to fund this proposal.
cc: Project File
Day File
K:\LUTC\2008\1-14-08 Wildwood NTS, 298s25.doc
COUNCIL MEETING DATE: February 5, 2008
ITEM
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA BILL
SUBJECT: Neighborhood Traffic Safety (NTS) Program Revisions.
POLICY QUESTION: Should the Council approve the proposed NTS program revisions?
COMMITTEE: Land Use and Transportation Committee
CATEGORY:
[gJ Consent
o City Council Business
MEETING DATE: January 14,2008
D Ordinance
D Resolution
o
D
Public Hearing
Other
STAFF REpORT By: Raid Tirhi, P.E., Senior Traffic Engineer p.:r DEPT: Public Works
__........_........H..........__.........._......................................-............--.............................................................---.................................................-.....................................................................-................................................................................................................................................................-....--...-....
Attachments: LUTC memo dated January 14, 2008.
Options Considered:
1. Authorize the proposed NTS program revisions.
2. Do not authorize all proposed NTS program revisions and provide direction to staff.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Option 1.
CITY MANAGER ApPROVAL:
Council
DIRECTOR ApPROVAL: ~
omm1ttee
Council
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Place Option 1 on the February 5, 2008 Council Consent Agenda for
approval.
Jack Dovey, Chair
Linda Kochmar, Member
Vacant
PROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION: "] move to authorize the proposed NTS program revisions"
(BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE)
COUNCIL ACTION:
o APPROVED
o DENIED
o TABLED/DEFERREDINO ACTION
o MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only)
REVISED - 02/06/2006
COUNCIL BILL #
1ST reading
Enactment reading
ORDINANCE #
RESOLUTION #
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:
January 14,2008
Land Use and Transportation Committee
Cary M. Roe, Assistant City Manager, C.O.O., Emergency Manager ~
Rick Perez, P.E., City Traffic Engineer ~
Raid Tirhi, P. E., Senior Traffic Engineer ~
Neighborhood Traffic Safety (NTS) Program Revisions
DATE:
TO:
VIA:
FROM:
BACKGROUND:
Over the past few years, the Neighborhood Traffic Safety (NTS) program's criterion has undergone
several changes. The most recent changes that were approved by Council on June 21, 2005 included
additional points for location proximity to schools/parks, and accident severity. In order to better serve
the citizens of Federal Way and answer common questions, staff felt a need to better define the NTS
program, general conditions, process and minimum criteria. If approved, the proposed program
information package changes will be on the City's website.
In order to alleviate any misinterpretations to the NTS general conditions or installation/removal process,
staff is proposing several minor language changes that will:
1) Clarify intent, such as noting that the balloting results are advisory to City Council;
2) Restructure the program package language; and
3) Streamline the process for both staff and the citizens.
Please see the attached existing NTS and the proposed NTS information packages. Following are
highlights to the major proposed changes:
. Budget:
Staff proposes to increase the budget limit per neighborhood per year from $10,000 to $15,000.
This should allow the installation of approximately three to four traffic calming devices
(depending on total number of active NTS projects) along one corridor. The price per hump
increased from $2,000 to $4,200, including all associated signs, within the past five years.
. The Balloting Process:
The current process is unnecessarily complicated, expensive, time consuming, and confusing to
the public. Generally, the proposed changes would not change the outcome of the balloting
results but would tremendously reduce staff time in ballot preparation and processing. Most
importantly, it would reduce most citizen confusion when they receive multiple ballots on the
same Issue:
a. Current language indicates to ballot each traffic calming device separately. But, with the
absence of other traffic calming devices, one speed hump should not be installed on the
street as it proves to be ineffective. A proposed change to the balloting process would be
to send ballots to all residents affected by the proposed NTS project. Please see attached
example maps 1, and 2.
NTS Revisions
January 14, 2008
Page 2
b. Staff currently sends a ballot to the property owner and another to the resident that is
directly affected by a device. Instead, we propose to send ballots to the affected residents
and compare that list to the property owner's list. If they are different, the owner of the
property will also be added to the mailing list.
. Criteria:
There are no proposed changes to the location or accident technical criteria that were
approved on June 21, 2005 other than better technical presentation in the tables.
However, staff is proposing changes to the severity point scale regarding both speeds and
traffic volumes:
a. Staff received comments that the existing speed criterion does not have the appropriate
point scale in calculating the overall severity score. The existing criteria indicate that the
85th percentile speed needs to be more than 41 mph to qualify for traffic calming devices.
With the exception of short cul-de-sacs, staff feels that if the majority of the traffic is
driving 10 mph over the speed limit, then the .speed limit should be investigated for
revisions, or the road should be investigated for the installation of traffic calming devices
regardless of traffic volumes.
b. Traffic volumes on collectors are higher than local residential streets. The current
criterion does not differentiate between traffic volumes based on roadway functional
classification. This may lead to a collector street meeting the minimum criteria merely
on traffic volumes without any speeding or cut through traffic issues. Staff is proposing
to use the traffic volume criterion based on roadway functional classification (as defined
in the Comprehensive Plan) and is proposing different point scales for each roadway
classification.
Attachments: Proposed NTS program package
Marked up NTS program package
Existing ballot procedure map
Proposed ballot procedure map
cc: Project Fi Ie
Day File
K:\LUTC\2008\1-14-08 NTS Revisions.doc
CITY OF ~
Federal Way
Neighborhood Traffic Safety (NTS) Program
Existing residential neighborhoods in the City of Federal Way may be considered for the NTS
program in order to control traffic speeds, reduce cut-through traffic and improve documented
pedestrian and vehicular safety issues. Neighborhoods are defined by elementary school attendance
areas. The NTS program should not be confused with other City processes required of new
subdivisions or commercial developments. The NTS program consists of three phases (the three E's)
in the following order: 1) Education, 2) Enforcement, and then 3) Engineering:
I) Education:
The education phase is intended to increase neighborhood awareness of local speeding issues.
In many cases, a handful of speeders are known to the neighborhood and could use a
reminder to change their driving behavior. A neighborhood watch program may be launched
that could use the following tools:
. Include a general article in your homeowner association's (HOA) and/or local school
newsletters to remind residents about the importance of obeying speed limits, and to warn
residents to be on the watch for speeding traffic. In many cases, the driver is
unintentionally speeding and a friendly reminder would be effective.
. Contact the Police Department at (253) 835-6775 to request placement of a speed trailer
(speed reader board) in your neighborhood. Depending on the location and driver
population, this device may change driver behavior for an indefinite time period.
Volunteers willing to help the Police Department are always appreciated; please call
(253) 835-6730 if interested in volunteering in this program.
. Form a speed watch group to document incidents of speeding. Be sure to include any
vehicle information: colors, makes, models, license numbers, and the dates and times
they pass through a specific location. This information, when compiled for several
weeks, should then be submitted to a selected speed watch program manager. Several
reports of speeding for the same vehicle should then be reported to the Police Department
for enforcement so that officers may more effectively target locations at specific times for
emphases patrol.
II) Enforcement:
The second phase of the NTS program is special enforcement. It may take some drivers a
more drastic method (speeding tickets) to change their driving behavior. This usually works
for local residential speeds with minimum cut-through traffic. In some cases, the Engineering
phase is needed to address the speeding issue.
III) Engineering:
Citizens that have any questions regarding the NTS program may call the Public Works
Department at (253) 835-2700. The NTS program allows the installation of traffic calming
devices such as speed humps, speed tables, raised crosswalks, traffic circles, chicanes,
signing, pavement marking, or other approved devices. These devices shall only be installed
when the following general conditions and criteria are met:
A- General Conditions:
1. Less restrictive means of controlling speed (Education and Enforcement) have been
attempted without success.
2. The proposed devices may be installed on residential streets functionally classified as
local or minor collector. Some devices that do not severely delay emergency vehicles,
such as speed tables or roundabouts, may be permitted on principal collectors as long as
the posted speed limit does not exceed 25 mph.
3. No devices shall be installed within 600 feet of a traffic signal or 250 feet of a stop sign.
As measured along the major roadway movement.
4. For vertical deflection devices, no adverse street characteristics exist, such as steep
grades in excess of 8%. In all cases, sight distance standards must be met.
5. Storm drainage problems created by the installation of the proposed devices can be
adequately addressed.
6. Each neighborhood may apply for traffic calming devices costing a maximum of $15,000
per year. If the proposed devices cost more than this amount, the neighborhood may
form a Local Improvement District (LID) to fund the excess amount. Otherwise, the City
may phase and fund the excess amount in a future year (minimum of 12 months from
installation) and based on a first-come, first-serve basis.
7. The City will not fund the installation of traffic calming devices in cul-de-sacs that are
less than 600 feet long.
B- Installation Process and Criteria
I) To be considered for the installation of traffic calming devices, a City prepared or
approved petition must be submitted to the City. The petition must be signed by owners
or residents representing at least ten parcels within the affected area specifying the
problem's nature and exact project location and limits.
2) A traffic study will then be conducted to see if the program technical criteria (severity
score) is met. Currently, the City considers four criteria to qualify a street for traffic
calming devices:
a) Majority Speed: The 85th percentile speed averaged for both directions.
b) Volume: The Average Daily Traffic total of both directions.
c) Location: Half a point is given for streets fronting parks, schools, or designated
school crossings.
d) Collisions: A five-year reported collision history (frequency and severity) IS
investigated for collisions that may be correctable by traffic calming devices.
Depending on roadway functional classification, each criterion is scored on a scale of 0.0
to 3.0 points as shown in Tables 1 through 3 below. The total severity score is added for
each category for a maximum 15.5 points. A three point minimum severity score is
needed to continue with the program regardless of how the points were collected:
K:\ TRAFFIC\NTS\NTS Program Criteria, R VS 01-19-08 .doc.
2/4
Table 1
Local Residential Street NTS Criteria
Point 85th Percentile Average Daily Location 5- V ear Collision History
Scale Speed Traffic (ADT) School/Park Total Injury Fatal
0.0 0-25 o - 500 No 1 - -
0.5 26 - 27 501 - 600 Yes 2 - -
1.0 28 - 29 601 - 700 - 3 1 -
1.5 30 - 31 701 - 800 - 4 - -
2.0 32- 33 801 - 900 - 5 2 1
2.5 34 - 35 901 - 1,000 - 6 - -
3.0 36+ 1,001+ - 7+ 3+ 2+
Table 2
Minor Collector Street NTS Criteria
Point 85th Percentile Average Daily Location 5- V ear Collision History
Scale Speed Traffic (ADT) School/Park Total Injury Fatal
0.0 0- 25 0-1,000 No 1 - -
0.5 26 - 27 1,001 -1,800 Yes 2 - -
1.0 28 - 29 1,801 - 2,600 - 3 1 -
1.5 30 - 31 2,601 - 3,400 - 4 - -
2.0 32 - 33 3,401 - 4,200 - 5 2 1
2.5 34 - 35 4,201 - 5,000 - 6 - -
3.0 36+ 5,001 + - 7+ 3+ 2+
Table 3
Priucipal Collector Street NTS Criteria
Point 85th Percentile Average Daily Location 5-Vear Collision History
Scale Speed Traffic (ADT) School/Park Total Injury Fatal
0.0 0- 25 o - 5,000 No 1 - -
0.5 26 - 27 5,001 - 7,000 Yes 2 - -
1.0 28 - 29 7,001 - 9,000 - 3 1 -
1.5 30 - 31 9,001 - 11,000 - 4, - -
2.0 32 - 33 11,001 - 13,000 - 5 2 1
2.5 34 - 35 13,001 - 15,000 - 6 - -
3.0 36+ 15,001+ - 7+ 3+ 2+
K:' TRA FFIC\NTS'NTS Program Criteria, R VS 01- I 9-08 .doc.
3/4
3) If a project does not meet the 3-point minimum severity score, the contact petitioner is
informed about the study results and is asked to inform those who signed the petition of
the results. In such a case, additional education and enforcement would be the proposed
solution.
4) If the project meets the above criteria, the City will hold a neighborhood meeting to
discuss the advantages and disadvantages of various traffic calming devices and to
develop a consensus solution. In addition to residents, staff from the School District,
Police, and Fire Departments may also be invited. Public meetings are usually advertised
by posting signs on the subject roads.
5) Ballots are sent to all properties abutting the streets and are within 600 feet (measured
along street centerlines) of the proposed project location. Ballots are also sent to
properties where the proposed devices would be located along their sole access route as
determined by the Public Works Director. A simple majority (more than 50 %) of
returned ballots is necessary to carry the project forward to City Council for final
approval. The ballots are only utilized to measure neighborhood project support and are
advisory to Council who may modify the proposal.
6) The ballot results may be delivered to the neighborhood utilizing signs on the street or by
conducting a second neighborhood meeting.
7) If a project's severity score is at least 6 points, staff may develop a proposal with citizen
input and the balloting process may be bypassed.
8) If the ballot measure passes or if the total severity score is at least 6 points, the proposal
is presented to the City Council sub-committee, and if passed, is then presented to the full
Council for final approval.
9) If the ballot measure fails, a one-year waiting period is required to restart the process.
10) If approved by Council, the traffic calming devices would be installed as soon as budget,
weather, and the contractor's schedule permits.
C- Removal Process and Criteria
Traffic calming devices may be removed when all of the following criteria are met:
1) A City prepared or approved petition signed by owners or residents representing 10 or
more lots within the affected area must be submitted to the City. The affected area
includes properties abutting streets within 600 feet of the existing device location,
measured along street centerlines, and properties which the existing devices are located
along their sole access route as determined by the Public Works Director, and
2) Property owners and residents within the affected area shall be sent a City prepared or
approved ballot by first class mail. More than 50 % of the returned ballots must vote
affirmatively, concurring with the removal of devices. This ballot is advisory to City
Council, who may modify the proposal, and
3) An adequate review period (minimum of 12 months from installation) and subsequent
engineering analysis has been performed to determine the traffic characteristics along the
route and the impacts to the remaining street system.
K:\TRAFFIC\NTS\NTS Program Criteria, RVS OI-19-08.doc.
4/4
~
-~
CITY OF.~"",_
Federal Way
TRAFFIC CALllflNG DEVICE INSTALLATION/
REAfOVAL
CRITERIA
Trtlffic Ctll1Hin~ !nshllltlno/'l
Neighborhood traffic calming
humps, traffic circles,
requested by neighborhood
~
CITVOF ~
Federal Way
Criteritl
devices may inelude speed
chicanes, or other devices
residents and approved by
Neh!hborhood Traffic Safetv (NTS) Pro2ram
E, istin' residential nei 1hborhoods in the City Council. These devices shall only be installed \vhen
f Federal \Yav mayJ2~ cQll?i<JIT~~JQ[ th~j:iI2--R@2E~rn.in order to control traffic speeds. reduce
c t-through tratIie and im rove documented pedestrian and vehicular safety issues. Neighborhaods
defined b' the nearest eclementarv school attendance areas. The NTS program should not be
c nfused with other Cit, )rocesses ree uired :fFem-of new subdivisions or commercial developments.
TeNTS ra'!Tam consists afthree phases (the three E's) in the following criteria are met order: ~
: JJj::i!!J~~!Ji~m,-:n!~llJor~_cmt:'!lL1!l!9-'-.h(:n .JHi.n.wee ring:
TIle education phase is intended ta increase tlw-neighborhaod a\vareness of tbelocal speeding
issues. In manv cases. t!le-a handful afspeeders are a handful of dri';ers that are kno-wn to the
neighbarhoad and could use a reminder to change their driving behaviar. A neighbarhaod
watch program may be launched that may-cauld usef the tollowing tools:
· Include a general article in your homeowner association.s (HOA) and/or ~local
school newsletters to remind residents abaut the importance of obeying speed limits" and
to warn ffie-.residents to be on the watch for speeding traffic. -In many cases, the driver is
unintentia!lallv_.dri':ing o\-er the g2eeding,.l-tmtt--~nd a Jbcndly reminder wouldtt be
~etTecti ve.
-Form a speed '.vatch group to document incidents of speeding. Be sure ta include vehicle
colors, make~;, license numbers, and the dates and times they passed throu~h a specific
lacation. This information, ,,,,hen campiled for :;e\.cral weeks, shauld then be submitted
to a selected ~;peed \,;atcl1 pragram manager. Several reparts 1.11' speeding far the same
vehicle should be reported to the Palice Department far enforcement so that they may
more effectively target :;pecific lacations at specific time~; tor special patrol.
· Contact the Police Department at (253) -835-6775 to request placement of a speed trailer
wee<J_!~der.J!~~~1<JLi11_Yml.L-'1t:jgh!>ilIhoQL {2~~D9 ing _..9_"_Jho IQcati9!LJ!!ld dr:i vel'
population, thisstl€-!:l deVice may change driver behavior tor the day, a month of fef
gBOOan indefinite time period. Volunteers willing to coordinate with thelp the Police
Department are always v:elcome and are appreciated: please call (253) 835-6730 if
m!ere_~~_d in ~:Ql!mt~ering it:Lilii1'ij)IQgr~lIt
. Form a speed watch group to document incidents of speeding. Be sure to include any
vehicle infonnation: colors. makes, models, license numbers, and the dates and times
!h~y pass through 1L-;;Q..e~iJic lQ_~atiQD. This infOlwation. when cOill]2iled for several
weeks, should then be submitted to a selected speed watch program manager. Several
rcports of speeding for the same vehicle should then be reported to the Police Department
fr~r enforcement so lhaU2fJig~I,,_!DAY.J:!lOre effectively targ~t locations at_sm;cific times for
emphases patrol.
II L--Ent"orcemellt:
The second phase of the NTS program is special enforcement. It may take some drivers a
more drastic metho<.Upay for a speeding tickets) to change their driving behavior. This
usually works for local residential speeds with minimum cut--through traffic. In some cases,
the EngiDeerjp-R-.I!-has.e i~Dee<-l~Q. to_ad~!:es~_ the speeding issue.
U;;L -EIlf!inccrinf!:
Citizem-.JJlat have any questionsEgarding the NTS program may call the Public Works
Department at (253) 835-2700. The NTS program may-allows the installation of traffic
~almimLdevice~_sllch_ a~_g~~r,Lll!:llIm5~eed tables, r;1ised. crosswl1Ik", traffic circles,
chicanes, signing, pavement marking. or other approved devices. These devices shall only be
installed when the tollo\ving general conditions and criteria are met:
K:\TRAFFrc:.NTS NTS Program Criteria. RVS (Il::L')-08.doc.
2/7
A- General Conditions:! General Conditions:
L 1. Less restnctIve means of controlling speeding speed (Education and
Enforcement) have been attempted without success~ (ob':iousi.e. public education, radar
reader board, special enforcement, speed watch, :;igning, etc.).
2. 2. The proposed devices shall only !lli!Y-be installed on residential streets
functionally classified as local or minor collector, except that. Some devices that do not
~everek_delay emergency vehicles, such as speed tables or roundabouts~ may be
permitted on principal collectors as long as the posted speed limit does not exceed 25
mph.
......ith posted speed:; of 25 mph.
3. The proposed devices shall only be installed on streets ',yhich have no more than hvo
lanes, or where the overall pavement width is not h'Teater than 40 feet.
1. The proposed devices shall only be installed on streets where legal posted speed limit
doe:; not exceed 25 MPHmph.
3. 5. No devices shall be installed within '.vithin 600 feet of a traffic signal or 250 feet
of a stop sign. As measured along the maior roadwav movement.
6. No device.:; shall be installed at locations ',vhichthat have less than the minimum safe
stoppin;; :;ight di:;tance '.vRich is of 150 feet at 25 MPHmph.
4. 7. For vertical detlection devices, nNo adverse street characteristics exist, such as
steep grades in excess of 8%%. In all cases, sight distance standards must be met. 6f
:;eyere horizontal or vertical curves.
8.
&5. Storm drainage problems created by the installation of the proposed devices can be
adequately addressed.
9-:6.9. Each neighborhood may apply for traffic calming devices costing a maximum of
$1 ()~,OOOf _ -per year, where a neighborhood is. Neighborhoods are de tined by the
elementary school attendance areas. If the proposed devices cost more than this amount,
thea neighborhood_ group must may form a Local Improvement District (LID) to fund the
excess amount. Otherwise, the City may QtL;'!se and fund the excess amount in the~
following future year (minimum of 12 months from installation) and based on a first:
come, first::-serve basis.
Proccss:
7. 1. To be considered for The City will not fund the installation of traffic calming
devicc~t.:.vi<;.rs iQsul.:.cle:sacs that are less than 600 feet 10[lg,program bude;et
B- Installation H--Process and Criteria
I K:\TJ1-~FFIC\J~'b"'TSJ'rogram Criteria. R\li.ill.::l2::08.doc
3/7
a) Installation:
I) To be considered for the installation of traffic calming devices, a Citv prepared or
mm!Q.~_~ipetition must be submitted 10 the C!!Y-,-.~Lh..u!etition m!!.~!J)c signed by owners
or residents representing at least ten lots or parcels within the affected area. The
affected area includes properties abutting streets within 600 feet of the proposed
devices location, measured along street centerlines and properties which the
proposed devices would be located along their sole access route as determined by
the Pub lie VI orks Director specifying the -P..I9blem ' ~_natur~ and exactnroiect location
gnd Jimi.t~.
2. The total
2) A traffic studv will then be conducted to see if the program technical criteria (severity
score based on accident history, aceident severity, average daily trame, and ) is met.
Currently. the Citv considers four criteria to qualify-et' a street for traffic calminj:!;
i mpro vement:;devices:
a)M'!ll)ritv SRecd: The 85th percentile speedJ!'y~rag~_<Lfor__both 9ircctions.,
b) Volume: The Avcrage Dailv Traffic total ofb01b.dire.f..tions.
c) Location: Half a point is given for streets fronting parks, schools. or designated
~~ho~2.1 cr.9J>~L~,
d) Collisions: A -five-year reported collision history (frequency and severity) is
investigated for collisions that may be con'cctable bv traffic calming
dcvicesfrequency and ~,e\'crity.,
Q-cpending on roadway functional classification, Beach criterion is scored on a scale of 0.0 to
JJlpoin~~_shown on Table I shall be at least 3.0.
in Tables I through 3 below) for a possible total of 12.5 point:;.. The total severity score
is added tor each category tor a maximum 15.5 pointsall criterion points. A three point
minimum severity score is needed to continue with the program regardless of how the
points were collected:o
I biRAFFIC\NTS\N1'S Pnlgram Criteria. RVS OI-19-08.doc.
4/7
Table I: Sew:rity Scorillg Poillt Scale
-F€ ffits Acoidents,IV ear1\. verag 1\.','erage Daily Ifljffi=y 85th Percentile Speed
e Daily Traffio Traffic8Sth Percentile Accident~; Per Injury l\ccidentsiYeur*
(5 year history)(t'..;o ~ ffia.F (mph in either
way total) (two "'lay total)(mph in (5 year history) direotion)(5 year
either direction) ,
L-,) 0.3 0.5500 1100 500 110026 29 0.13 0.5 26 290.1
,() 0.50.71101 1700 1101 170029.1 32 0.25 O. 7 29.1 320.2
~ 0.70.91701 2300 1701 230032.1 35 0.37 0.9 32.1 350.3
~,() 0.9 1.12301 2900 2301 290035.1 38 0.49 1.1 35.1 380.'1
t~ 1.1 1.32901 3500 2901 3S0038.1 /11 0.51.1 1.3 38.1 110.5
:: ,() More than 1.33500 l\tore than 3500/11 Morcthun More than 410.5
MH
Table 1
Local Residential Street NTS Criteria
* Note: Fatal collisions will count as tv,'o iniury collisions
3. ^
,LA.
Point 85th Percentile Avera~e Daily Location
Scale S eed Traffic ADT School/Park Total
0.0 0-25 0-500 No 1 - -
- -
0.5 26 - 27 501 - 600 Yes ~ - -
- -
.L.Q 28 - 29 601 - 700 - ~ 1 -
- -
~ 30 - 31 701 - 800 - 1: - -
- - -
2,0 32 - 33 801 c 900 - Q ~ 1
-
2.5 34 - 35 901 - 1 ,000 - Q - -
- - -
3.0 36+ 1,001 + - 7+ 3+ 2+
-
Table 2
Minot- Collector Street NTS Criteria
Point 85th Percentile Average Dailv Location 5-Year Collision History
Scale SDeed Traffic (AOT) School/Park Total In.lurY: Fatal
0.0 0-25 o - 1,000 No 1 - -
0.5 26 - 27 1 ,001 - 1 ,800 Yes 2 - -
1.0 28 - 29 1 ,801 - 2,600 - 3 1 -
-
1.5 30 - 31 2,601 - 3,400 - 4 - -
- -
2.0 32 - 33 3,401 - 4,200 - 5 2 1
K:ITR-\FFIC\NTS\NTS Prolo-'fam Criteria. RVS (, I-I 9-08.doc.
5/7
2.5
3.0
34 - 35
36+
4,201 - 5,000
5,001+
Q
7+
3+
2+
Table 3
Principal Collector Street NTS Criteria
Point 85th Percentile Average Dailv Location 5-Year Collision Historv
Scale Sneed Traffic lADT\ School/Park Total Iniurv Fatal
0.0 0-25 o - 5,000 No 1 - -
-
0.5 26 - 27 5,001 - 7,000 Yes 2 - -
-
1.0 28 - 29 7,001 - 9,000 - 3 1 -
-
1.5 30 - 31 9,001 - 11,000 - 4 - -
-
2.0 32 - 33 11 ,001 - 13,000 - 5 2 1
2.5 34 - 35 13,001 - 15,000 - 6 - -
-
3.0 36+ 15,001 + - 7+ 3+ 2+
-
3) If a proiect does not meet the 3-point minimum severity score. the contact petitioner is
informed about the study _r~!llt~ anc:Lis askedt.<Linfi:!.lJTI those who signed the petition of
the results. In such a case. additional education and enforcement wouldwill be the-fmly
proposed solution,
4}If the proiect meets the above criteria. the Public W orl~s DepartmentCitv -will hold a
neighborhood meeting will be held to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of
various traffic calming devices at the subject location.and to develop a consensus
solution. In addition to residents, staff from the City-s Departments of Public Works and
School District. Police '.",ill be at the meeting. Police, and Fire Department statf
willDepartments will-may also be invited. -Public meetings are usually advertised bv
posting signs on the subiect ~~ides of the roads in the vicinity of the projeot location,
~
4. If the total sevcrity soore is at least 6.0. no balloting '"ill ooour and the proposal will be
vreseflted to the City Council sub committee. as desoribed in Step 6 below. Otherwise. property
o'lmers and residents within the affeoted area shall be sent by first class mail a city prepared or
appro'/ed ballot. Property ovmers \",ho are also residents 'NiB receiye one ballot, although if
returned, will be equivalent to two Yotes. Half (50%) of the returned ballots must vote
affirmati'/ely, concun-ing with the installation of the proposed devices.
5) 5. Ballots are sent to all properties abutting the streets and are within 600 feet
(measured along street cel}t~:lines )Qf the -2IQl?osed proiect location. Ballots-,1Ie also sent
,...aHd-to properties where the proposed devices would be located along their sole access
route as detennined bv the Public Works Director. Each device is balloted separately,
afld-aA simple maiority (51 % or more than 50 %) of retumed ballots is _necessary to
carry the proiect forward to ~City Council for final approval. The ballots are only
utilized to measure neighborhood project support and arc advisorY to Council who may
modify the proposal.
1)11' a project's severity score reaches 6 or more points, staff would develop a proposal with
citizen input and the balloting proce:;s may be bypas~;ed.
I K:TRl\FFlC\NTS\NTS Program Criteria. RVS CU -19-08.doc,
6i7
fi6) The ballot results may be delivered to the neighborhood utilizing signs on the
street or by conducting a A--second neighborhood meeting will be held to deli','er the
balloting results.
7) If a project's severity score is at least 6:-- points, staff may develop a proposal with
citizen iill2ut ang the ball.Q1ing process may be b}'Qassed..:.
ID-If the ballot measure is passedpasses or if the total severity score is at least 6-:() points, the
proposal is presented to the City Council 8$,sub-committee, and if passed, is then
presented to the full Council for final approval.
9) 7. If the ballQt mea~~rej1li1s. a one-year waiting~Dod is r~quired t9 restart the
process.
lQ)Jf approved by the City Council, the traffic calming devices wHtwould be installed as
soon as budget weather permits, and the contractor's schedule permitss.
Traffic CtllmingC- Removal Process and Criteria
b) Removal:
I
Neighborhood traffic calming devices located v/ithin the City of Federal Way may be
removed when all of the following criteria are met:
11-1. To be considered for ~raffic calming devices removal, a uA City prepared or
approved petition must be submitted signed by owners or residents representing 10 or -at
least tentenmore -lots or parcels within the affected area.,.- must be submitted to the City.
The affected area includes properties abutting streets within 600 feet of the existing
device location, measured along street centerlines, and properties at-which the existing
devices are located along their sole access route as determined by the Public Works
Director, and
2.1-2. Property owners and residents within the affected area shall be sent by first class
mail; a ~eity prepared or approved ballot by first class mail. Property O'l.'T:Iers who are
also residents will receive one ballot, although if returned, will be equivalent to h,,+,o
votes. Half (ballots. (. More than 50 % M-%}-of the returned ballots must vote
affirmatively, concurring with the removal of devices. This ballot is advisory to City
Council, who may modify the proposal, and
11
J.:.-An adequate review period (minimum of 12 months from installation) and subsequent
engineering analysis has been performed to determine the traffic characteristics along the
route and the impacts to the remaining street system.
K:\TR.^.ffIC\NTS\NTSCRIT DRAFT REV '02.DocK:\TRAFFIC\NTS\Ruid\2003 NTS Program
Criteria. doc
RVS. 08 08 (g
I K:\l'RAFFIC\NTS\NTS Program Criteria. RVS ell-I') 08.doc
7/7
8 E
'" .., 8
~ S'l '"
ex; >- as m
~,: en R .!
..> "15 l!!
21 (I)~~r---~
~ c:r::<.@~~
!!i~~~=s"'o
tU_>5 o(l)!~€
~~i5~~~lH
~o~G:c;s.f~~
Q)
a.s....
ro :J
~~
(.)
......0
go:
roC)
me
+:i
CJ)
.x
w
~
~
-
~
CU
~-C
~ICP
~
~~
<!'"
-
~
--
...
~l:l
;;;:;:
<!...
-...
"'-
<!'"
f---.-_._,_
"
.."
l::i:'
!:I"
rtr ~ n Ih~lil'" ~nt~f... ~~~ _ _,..--
f-i~ II) !l ill!l " 2~ ~" <!_~
~:o:: <!8 "'''ill<! 1.;...." ":;:
h- Is iSS 2~=-- ~ i~ ~ ~8
"0 ~...... " en is
~~"<!g 2~ _~~~ i ~\ en s~ ~ lillil "
co..- r-o-....o ~~ ~~ :8 0') Sg ~~
<!8 fl:J~ - " lils !l8 ~ is ~8
fOS ~ft ~ 2 m ~i U) ~~
..." 'OJ." !l !l8 S8
~" lilOi '~"!l is " is
o co 0 "'".R ~ 0 0
..<! is' ..'" ~5!
ill "':0:: ~ "is 8 "8
~S 6\ " is
~~
~ ~g
~re CO g-~
;;;:;: ... ~8
~~ ~~
/~V ~~.
" <!'"
~ggo - "
~ f::g h "iil
0- 1/; ~8
" " ~ 1/;"
.. :e 8 ,gel! ill~
a;8"lil ~6\ ~8
~8 "'8 "
CI) ~2 ill" leg
1/;8 a;8 ~'" a;8
1/;8
~
I~ ~-
l..c:o.
!:IS!
~
"
"::l ..
~8 -- "liI
~8
a~ ~I ~ Ii
le :e
~~ ~ ~~
i8 ::I: lil~ 5l~.. ..';8
o ~ ~ : ;i ;~~
"2 co 1/; ;/; -8 -8 ~:a
~i8 ~ ;/; 1/; ;8
h II) S^"Hl~Z
i8.. h
.. " ~:o:: 5lg.. 5l. .:to
U ~~ io:t- ~!i 1< h
1/;" io 1/;" io 1/; ~8
<!
..
:g~
l;;
I~ !i I~ I~ If!
....
v= .~~
'":0::
~8
S ^" ONZZ
"
""
....
58
~ S "" ONZZ
!Ih U
..
I
II Ii
.. ..
h
..
..
::llil
188
" " "
o ~g go ~~ ~o ~~
U 188 ~8 188 ~8 i88
S ld lS~Z
l! ....
8
S ld lS~Z
....
II)
::I:
....
ClCl
~
II)
"
""
:ll-
~8
er--
":0::
h
g~
~8
-"'E
"8
~.
"iil
~8
851
h
j~
II
"
,,~
h
"
~5l
~8
8:;:
_..~~.. ~ S^v:~
ali all! ::I: a5!
leS leg .... ..!l
I :; 0-- to-
S ld HlSZ N :::I ~ II)
II) Ie!l::l:
.... ."--....
VI ~i c
.. :l:!l ~
~ .. "" :. II)
- "'lil "'... "':;:
: ~o ~o ~8
S ld Hl~Z
alii ~~~:o::
leS le8 ~8
"
:::I5l
le8
lil:o::
~S
~~
..
....
M_
~g
-0--- ....
:S:~ U)
~S i:
~~ g
~S :
h..
"
a~
:e"
"
..'"
~-
leS
i_
ia
....
II)
::I: i",
.... 5Hi
ClCl
~l~::
II) N!S
'"
'" 1\' ..a.
i Ii ~~.Ift I~
~i le .
as
leg
lJlJI1
.
I~
"
..-
~~
<D"
"
..'"
M'"
..-
<D"
'----""-
"
"M
r3~
:e"
.. .. .. " " ~~ ~~
" " ~~ " ;~ li!", ii ~i a~ :::l5!
" ~~ l!!J: l!!::l ZO :::8..8 ~8 ~8 ~8
~~ ~8 ~8 ~8 is ~8 ... ...
~8
a~
,,~
~ ~ ~.~-
=8 gN
..... ~8
---
_"
"'...
M" .,
~U;~~O
U;~ Me; ~~
~o at ~
~_.. ~!
~ 0 ~ ;; ~ ~ 510
-!::!- '" ",8~_:;:
(:i C ~ M 0 ~ .....0
at 0) t-C'? 0:;;
- :;: "'-~
~8 0)
'"
s ^" lS~Z
M_ .. I" .,
GOB 00 00 ~l&
~ is i8 ~8
I g~ ..... ..... ,_
~V S
..---...k>
~~88' g~
::l2 h ~8
.... :::s ~ .... -i5-
II)~- ":;: II) ~lil
::I:~:O:: io ....~_
~",!l~1I)
pXUl'aJnpa:lOJdpooMPI!Nlp!JjSJl\Md\a~~9\:A
S ^" lS~Z
"!/i" " "
.... ;;;!i -J: ;;;51 -~
en ~8 ~B ~8 ~B
% 0 ..... a..... .....
~ _0 .....0
I~g ~8 -7
....:~~
II) "
:J: g~
.... "'..
'" ...
l'.l,\
I
"
i3~
~"
" ll"
;:;il .....0
~c; ~~
--~~! !!]'
h S 1d H.L8l:
~"
ar:: g~ i81t
~8 ~S ~!lli
o Tgi g2
~~\~a ~o Jo
~.. ^" Hl8Z
~
~2 i~
"M ...
"'., "
~ i~
Iii h ~"
j!: %~~
o ClIO 0
~~... ~~
II) -f;-r 8l! 1;8"/
~ ~~ I ~a ~a
:,'d H~l9: Iii
~fa ~~ ~
:0 00c; VJ
~~i ~
:ll_ .._
~_~ ~ 0 0 ~
:g~ :g~ ~
~o ~o co
...
"",
_<D
3(;;
1------
~~
<S'"
...
"",
-'"
i(;;
...
"M
_M
"'-
<S'"
<!-
~2
Q)
Ql
0 u..
0
M
0
II)
....
II)
....
0
u
:2
Iii
al
u
CO
:2
Iii
al
al
:2
Iii
al
I
U
al
<(
:2
Iii
al
I
al
<(
:2
Iii
al
SA'
<(
:2
Iii
al
I
I/)
c:
0
~
0
0
..J
Q.
E
:J
J:
"0
Q)
Q)
Q.
" rn
c I
CD
C)
j
8
N <,>!5
5 :g ~
Q)~ ~ ~
~~ vi 'Se
1li! "'!!~""~
~~l::;:::<~~':
iU ...2 "'5$: <'> 0
a;1&..~ S(Q-a)~
~~O~~i~~
~u<3~~.f~~
Q)
~
c.::J
co"'C
~~
o
+-oJ ~
00..
-
-"'C
CO Q)
men
o
C-
o
~
a..
~
~
-
N
---
..
~i:l
!lil
..
"..
-~
N_
el"'
----.--c-
"
"'''
~::;
~"
-
~
CU ~s
10. -C ~"
ecu
o;liI
~8
I
..
~:g
N_
<\"'
rn-- ~ f! ~lil~lil \-~~~~~ ~~~ c---
r mo .'" CI ~N Q)S 0 g:~ ,. 0 ~ 0
r<<'.~ I/) !;""8 "'" "I<mel 10:."1< "'lil
~:n; ;:~;a ~l~ lil; ~ ~ ~I' . i! ~ :: ;,
lil_ " f')/O "S: ~ i1llil Gl 188 "'8
<\8 t::J~ - " lil~ ill" 188" ... ill" ~
"'~ "'d' ~ 2~ ~ii i1l~ I/) Sg
" 2~ +... ~ .. "18",, 18
22 S "".a ~B In~ ~~ U'J2
lllel 2li1 ~d' ;- 3" ~8 188 ~8
:::S :ilir ill g"
~~N ~ :",ii !: I~ -i:
~lil :;:8 !;Iii ~ lll8
~.... ~ ~' r-
N;! " "'N ~ 19
~I!li~ ~~el",.. !~ It~ ! la Ii >-.Y
8~or-- 0 ~GO~ ~8
" ~~ ~g ~~ ~~ ~N is i~
;e8,gel! "'!; :ila g"
i;8oo", ~d' ~8 :ill< ~s ~g
OJ; ~ ~~ ~
:ils ~8" " ~g h h'l- ~lil
~s ~~ "'liI OJ; 8 j!8 ;eS ~8
"' ~8 '---- ~li:
1251 lll8
~
~~ :1:g al< ~I~ I~ I~II~II~
II ~S :a ,,~~ m~( aSs:A"'H::?:
'1 ~ g~ ll!~ ~S ~ l:el:! ~~
o 5: 0 re j! ~g en 0....
I~ u ~ ""~~ S ld HlS?: -:1: ~ D~ ~~ ~
I "".... "gli: g" "f-i5--- 0
a;;; '';' I~ ~~ ;eo ;eS ~~ ~~ ~~:
I~ leS! I~ I~ I~ I~ I~II~II~II~
~ ~ S ld Holt?:
h h :1:g~ .1"" " "~I"
is is js h I~ I~II~ ~~ I~ ~~ ~~ ~il ~~
SA'" Holt?: ~~:1:",
" ~~ I " ~s
alii .... f---!::-- Iii
reS ~~ :s ~~
jeS ,.. !S ~
COM ~
iZ a~ ~s en
~I:! :e~ l~
:eS
"
'"
~I< G-
is %: h
o "'-8
~:;:U ! 3
:1:8
3h :1:"
io jii
:2
:1:~ _io
jc ~~
"
:~ i~ 0
....o:!.... ;~
3 3" iC'
....
I/)
%: a!:!
to ",I:!
I':' :1:_ :1:"
I/)~S ~iii
X"
"
"''''
:;:-
leS
S^"uat;c.
Lill
"'3
~I:! I~
3
Cl 82 g.,..
I~ G8 ms
'-. S A'" ON?:l:
"
"';;
~S
8S
lll_
..."
'"
8"
lll::
10"
I~
8~
lll_
10"
~:
~ I~
....
'"
Gl
...
I/)
~ S J\'" ON?:?:
8"" "
1118:ils! alll
10 ~8 le8
'"
"
"'8
~S
~s:
108
~~
10
8:;l
~8
" ~p
~~ ~8
188 g-"
iii
S ld olS~?:
a~
;e"
"
"'-
M",
"'-
:e"
"
~~
"'''
L---"'_
",-0-
:;:-
,,~
~~, ~.~ ---
~8 ~8
"
o ~fi 80
~g 08 81l)
ilS 18 188
"
"" "
SI8S ~~
i8
"
:;:2
188
"
"':;:
~o
S ld olS~?:
~1'I:g ~!i!
h h
... ...)
i liI S ld H.L8l:
"'~ ~
o ,.... 0 0 ~
~~ Gl~ i81..
~8 ~S ~~Ijj
h\!~\I~ )!
17 ^"'~olB?:
~s !!
"'M ~"
: g~O i~
ti;8 ~o
:r: ~2
.... !!l ~-
g~~o 5::11
: ~~ ~~ 1:~01
~a I fl8 ~o
~!'~!.9! Iii
~~ ~~ ...
~o ~:; ~
~g$ ~
=~:o co
~-,.... 0 C;
~8 ~~ g
~o ~o I~
..
~~
3"'
1------
..
~~
el"'
~~
el"'
..
"M
_M
30)
3_
-"'
~li:
o ~~ii1g ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ i~ Zo
:2~ ... ~8 ~8 ~g ~g ~8 ~...8
~ -
~.; !~;;;2
~~ 0 ~~ "0
~ ~~ ~i ~~ ~o ~o ~8 ~
~2 MO ~~ M -.... .",80
;50 en Slc SC 0) So ~~~
S A'" olS~l: ~ ~ l;l
~S! 0 0 0
~8 o~ ~~!i! "S:
~:;:8 ..8 ~8
r ~~ ~ .....
~V S
...-.... -..-
~-----g8 '\ ~~
C) 0 ~C) ~S! :~ ~
s: Mii1 M",~ .... ..S ~ .... ;"
~ 0 ~ c; 0) 0 .0 ~_ ~ i - U) g GO
.- ... %: "liI I lllo ....r_
I != h f--'--- I/)
pxw'eJnpe:)QJdpOOMPI!MI~!lIBJl\Md\e~~9\:^
"
~~
a2 ~~
~8 ~8
~~
:;:s: ~!;
~8 ~8
.... ~!;S;: ol;:?: ~I< Jj~. ~~~!i!
CI) ~8:gg gilg ~8 t: ~o
~:!: ,....~;- V~
= f8 118 7 ~ "'\
~
Cii
Ql
0 U.
0
CO)
0
It)
.....
It)
f'oo
0
SA'
lU
l!!
<(
:Q
a;
III
Ul
c:
o
~
o
o
...J
Q.
E
~
J:
"0
Q)
Q)
Q.
'tJ CJ)
} I
~~~CII~..~_~_~!.!~G :I.?~!~~~?~~_~~.~~~!~~ soughL__.._.....
ITEM #:
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA BILL
SUBJECT: Ming Court Clearing Request, File number 07-1 03195-AD
POLICY QUESTION: N/A
COMMITTEE: LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE (LUTC)
CATEGORY:
o Consent
o City Council Business
MEETING DATE: Jan. 14,2008
o Ordinance
o Resolution
o
~
Public Hearing
Other
.~.!~I."F ~.!~9~!JJ.~.:..!;?EB B~ER!._~E:.~Q~.R~ANNE~_..__....oo......___._.___.._..._....!.?!.!.~.:oo.~~S _.__...._00____.__00
Attachments: January 8, 2008 memorandum, with attachments to City Council Land Use/ Transportation
Committee.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff seeks direction from the LUTC as to how to process a proposed clearing request,
which exceeds conditions of preliminary plat approval. Staff sees two potential options for this request: (Option #1)
LUTC reviews this request at a regularly scheduled meeting. City staff prepares a staff report about the request and
makes a brief presentation at the LUTC meeting; the applicant could make a presentation as well. The public who were
notified of the preliminary plat process are notified of this meeting. The LUTC could approve the request and forward a
recommendation to the full City Council including a resolution regarding the request. (Option #2) LUTC reviews this
request at a regularly scheduled meeting. City staff prepares a staff report about the request and make a brief
presentation at the LUTC meeting; the applicant could make a presentation as well. The public who were notified of the
preliminary plat process are notified of this meeting. The LUTC could deny the request and direct the applicant to
continue development with the existin conditions. No recommendation would be prepared.
CITY MANAGER ApPROVAL:
DIRECTOR ApPROVAL:
~
Council
Committee
Council
COMMITTEE RESPONSE: LUTC DIRECTS STAFF TO PROCESS THE REQUEST VIA THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
Committee Chair
Committee Member
Committee Member
PROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION: DIRECTION SOUGHT FROM LUTC, NOT FORWARDED TO CITY COUNCIL.
(BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE)
COUNCIL ACTION:
o APPROVED
o DENIED
o TABLEDIDEFERRED/NO ACTION
o MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only)
REVISED - 02/06/2006
COUNCIL BILL #
1 ST reading
Enactment reading
ORDINANCE #
RESOLUTION #
Doc. 1.0. 43338
~
CITY OF" -7
Federal Way
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
MEMORANDUM
To:
Jack Dovey, Chairperson
Land Use and Transportation Committee
FROM:
Greg Fewins, Interim Director of Community Development Services
Deb Barker, Senior Planner a6
Neal Beets, City Manag~
Ming Court Clearing Request
File #07-103195-00-AD
VIA:
RE:
DATE:
January 8, 2008
I. STAFF REQUEST
Staff seeks direction from the Land Use and Transportation Committee (LUTe) as to how to process
a modification proposed to the Ming Court preliminary plat conditions of approval as discussed
below, in order to confirm that the modified preliminary plat remains in substantial conformance
with the approved preliminary plat.
II. SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL
The developer has proposed modifications to the Ming Court preliminary plat approved by the City
Council on March 15,2005 (Exhibit 1). Specifically, they request permission to modify the clearing
limits of the approved preliminary plat and remove vegetation from lots 1 through 15 prior to
issuance of building permits for new houses, including removal of all significant trees from lots 7
through 11; removal of trees believed to be diseased and/or dead and hazardous from lots 1 through
6 and 12 through 15; and mitigation of the 41 removed significant trees with replacement trees
located on lots 1,2,3,4,5, 10 and 15 (Exhibit 2).
III. BACKGROUND
Preliminary plat conditions of approval for Ming Court Preliminary Plat included Condition #1
which states:
1. Clearing limits for the construction of the plat improvements (roads, pond, and utilities) shall
be generally consistent with the clearing limits depicted on the Conceptual Drainage Plan of
07-103195 Doc. lD. 43343
Ming Court, plan page C1.0, dated March 19, 2004, and prepared by Sitts and Hill Engineers,
Inc. (Exhibit A). The clearing limits on the plan sheet referenced above are the approximate
clearing limits necessary for roads, utilities, and pond. The clearing and grading limits on the
approved plan may be modified with the approval of the Community Development and Public
Works Departments duringfinal engineering plan review as required to reflect changes in road
and utility designs, if any.
The Sitts and Hill plan depicts clearing only for construction of roadways, utility connections, and
storm drainage facilities. All other vegetation including significant trees is to remain undisturbed on
the majority of the future building lots. As provided for in Federal Way City Code (FWCC) Section
20-179(b), preservation of significant trees shall apply solely to the development of each single-
family lot at the time a building permit is applied for. Clearing limits were accurately represented on
engineering plans approved by the City in advance of infrastructure construction activities.
The developer of the Ming Court plat, Norris Homes, would like to expand the clearing limits and
remove vegetation from all lots in the plat in advance of issuance of residential building permit. This
includes removal of all significant trees on lots 7 through 11, and all other trees believed to be dead
or hazardous on lots 1 through 6 and 12 through 15. As discussed in a January 2,2008 letter from
Norris Homes (Exhibit 3), the developer is currently installing plat infrastructure including right-of-
way and storm drainage improvements. Once the required sidewalks are installed, removal of
existing vegetation behind the new sidewalk will be constrained to a specific method that limits
damage to the new sidewalk, and the result is that these trees would be removed via a docking
method, where they are cut into smaller pieces and removed from the site as construction debris.
According to the letter, the smaller logs are not usable to the timber industry, resulting in waste.
Norris Homes wishes to remove significant tree timber in larger usable pieces in conjunction with
plat construction.
Norris Homes also notes that several large non-significant trees have recently fallen, resulting in
damage to adjacent properties. During discussions with a contractor with tree hazard experience, he
recommended that any and all hazard trees be removed as soon as possible.
This clearing request exceeds the scope of clearing permitted under condition #1 of preliminary plat
approval as the clearing requested in advance of building permit issuance is not related to any
changes in road and utility design. The effect of the request is that more large trees are removed
from the subject site in advance of the final plat and building permit processes, and the developer
may save development costs.
IV. REASON FOR BRINGING THIS TO LUTe
Staff has brought this issue before the LUTC in order to obtain direction as to how to process this
request. The developer has a final plat application in for review but the plat is not completed to allow
processing of the final plat application, and no building permits can be issued until final plat
approval is granted. Under final plat criteria, the City Council must find that a final plat is in
substantial compliance with the approved preliminary plat. The proposed clearing of all vegetation
on building lots exceeds that depicted on the preliminary plat and approved engineering plans,
exceeds clearing and grading limitations currently found in the City's subdivision code, and is not
related to any changes in road or utility design as required by preliminary plat conditions. If staff
approved this request without council direction, the final plat would not be in substantial
conformance with the approved preliminary plat.
07-103195
Doc. lD. 43343
However, the FWCC does provide some flexibility should the council determine that they can
support this particular request. Criteria contained in FWCC Section 20-127 can provide a benchmark
as to the significance of a proposed request or modification. Under FWCC Section 20-127, when the
Hearing Examiner has forwarded a recommendation on a preliminary plat application to the City
Council, the City Council may require or approve a minor modification to the preliminary plat if:
1. The change will not have the effect of increasing the residential density of the
plat;
2. The change will not result in the relocation of any access point to an exterior street
from the plat;
3. The change will not result in any loss of open space area or buffering provided in
the plat; and
4. The City determines that the change will not increase any adverse impacts or undesirable
effects of the project and that the change does not significantly alter the project.
Although this section does not apply to the current proposal, it may provide reference for the City
Council to consider regarding whether to approve or deny the request to modify the preliminary plat.
v. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
As previously noted, staff seeks direction from the LUTC as to how to process the proposed clearing
request which exceeds conditions of preliminary plat approval. Staff sees two potential options for
this request:
(Option #1) LUTC reviews this request at a regularly scheduled meeting. City staff prepares a staff
report about the request and makes a brief presentation at the LUTC meeting; the applicant could
make a presentation as well. The public who were notified of the preliminary plat process are
notified of this meeting. The LUTC could approve the request and forward a recommendation to the
full City Council including a resolution regarding the request.
(Option #2) LUTC reviews this request at a regularly scheduled meeting. City staff prepares a staff
report about the request and make a brief presentation at the LUTC meeting; the applicant could
make a presentation as well. The public who were notified of the preliminary plat process are
notified of this meeting. The LUTC could deny the request and direct the applicant to continue
development with the existing conditions. No recommendation would be prepared.
EXlDBITS
1. Reduced Scale Approved Ming Court Preliminary Plat
2. Reduced scale drawing titled Significant Tree Removal/Replacement Proposed Hazard Tree Clearing Limit
Revisions
3. January 2, 2008 letter from Jodey Odegard with Norris Homes
07.103195 Doc. J.D. 43343
~
~
uJ
"i"
eI:
Z
J- ~~
a:if~5
o~OcOd
....J -1 Z Z
QWO-
>-I
W I- (f)
000<.(
1-~3:
:S .::! ~
I ~ n... ..- z
V@~5
Z~~g
- n... I- Z
lIIIIII::::: 0 u. Q
..:::: R: 0
<.(z
o
I-
eI:
,.=~..=-,@-,,,,,,-
n...
<.(
!
J:
~-I
.111nOO llNIl'l :10 . 0 ~ Ill,
.1 Vld AllVNIl'l11311d I"", · C? Ii] if'
~--h- l:g
.,..
.111nOO llNIl'l
.......1 \1..) ""'....... """'""..... ,.... -s '''"I
t;tS-l9r (sot)
~Z 1&8 VM 'Jlll't'JS
J.33~1S HJ.LO~ 3N .Lt6~
tlN~nS .. '~ru::>n~ .. 11A1:J
~::>NI 'Sl::I33NIE>N3
lllH i S111S
llNI1 OIA VO
/
i
I
;Y--I~~ I \ =VT I
] I 't - - -~[1,. a! '-\ J-j
-=-ll a!/ ~ - _L_ -....- m',f ~ E1S:-I~ r I
~I I' ~ ~ "~^~'~~' r-l
...J ") l ~l ,,/ "Jl 1- ; i.- I I
~1~:t\ '=~~~;L 1_~~},=,~~=/L!==.Yf -_~ L !j~ L
-..
1: 'Bi\V HlB ..,bU
-rl~-
CD 0
:::> IE
en'"
LU
a::
-_______ I
l
------~-----q---1
I
I
I
+1~
a
"' 1-'
II . L-.J
~ ,
Gj
-.J "
'"
u
OJ
,
.~ ~ s
I I I
11;-,1 :~ I
1 L ,: III IlL
I L...JIL_.JI
,.. '.F""",C
h ~.
.~ ~
~I ge
~ on I~ ;~
WN~ ~~ ~I
;;~~"" ~.
~r~; ~iI ~:
~ ~ ~ I~~~ p~ a
uCli ~ <~;; 2~'!!!;
N ~i;! ;~~:! '
h" "~_iw
I g
"il~
;i~~
!::~
!!~~
illi;
'il~~
<e ~'6~t;;
o ~m~.;
::! il~L
-==1"
CL
<(
2
a ! I
q .~. i
~U piigl;nPI
;~I~~~:i~~~~~iil!~
; 00 0 . l.x If. " ~ . j ! .1 !!
! I Ii
>-0
I-- "
8
~.
~
~ !: ! il ~
\ \" ';>
'"
z
o
~
C2
u
(f)
W
Cl
~
~-
____.____J
*-
92 :0
G) m
~ s;
9 fri r
~ ~ m
:il ~ ~
m -f Z
m:o 0
lilt 2-
JLOF --L-
/'
-'>"'..,
'- ---,/ >-
...1(......-----','.."".,
fl...~ 'S
---..,\
j'
--__.l_
Co ':l"','se- ;;, !~9_2~'
'. ">=;
-
i
I
I
I
I
,
i
---------1
---
~ :C is ~
:t I ~ I'"
CD"'.CR
.... W N - 9
00 _ 00 0
I
....I~
""
:D
m
C> !::
~
a
.... w
aOOOOO
Q ;2l
~h ~
~~ :: ~
~n ~
:-l~ 0
C> C> C>
m
x
I
CD
---f
)>
j1s::
02
"1JG)
00
~O
OC
I::O
~:
::OG)
02
---f-
::011
mO
m)>
02
r---f
m---f
,)> ::0
::om
-m
2::0
G)m
rs::
s::0
---f~
::Oc
~::o
CJ)m
_"1J
(J)S;
00
2m
(J)s::
m
2
---f
"1J
);:
2
= !'Jp~~I~
2053 Faben Orive
Mercer Island, WA 98040
Tel 206.275.1901 Fax 208.275.1910
Email infoOOnorrishomesinc.com
norrishomesinc.com
January 2, 2008
Ms. Deb Barker
The City of Federal Way
Department of Community Development Services
33325 8th Avenue South
PO Box 9718
Federal Way, WA 98063
Re: Ming Court Clearing Limits
Dear Ms. Barker;
Enclosed please find an exhibit and photos presenting our formal request to revise the clearing
limits associated with preliminary plat recommendation #1 of the Hearing Examiner's Decision,
dated February 1, 2005. Recommendation #1 states that a revision to the clearing limits can
be made administratively by the community development and public works department as
required to reflect changes to the roads and utility design. Because the basis of this revision is
outside of the scope of what the recommendation will allow to be handled administratively, we
are looking to council for approval of this proposed revision.
Our proposal is to extend the clearing limits to fully clear lots #7 through #11 which include
significant trees. As well as lots #1-6 and #12-15, due to diseased and/or dead and hazardous
trees. We are proposing the removal of 41 significant trees on these lots in addition to removal
of non significant trees and understory vegetation. We propose to meet the significant tree
replacement ratio of 25% replacement value of significant trees removed per lot. Please refer
to the map included and labeled as exhibit A, which shows the locations of the replacement
trees. In an attempt to create a more appealing project, we are proposing to disperse the
replacement trees throughout the lots within the plat rather than the replacement trees being
clustered with multiple trees on one or two lots.
Our proposal complies with the Federal Way City Code for Significant Tree Retention of one
tree planted per four removed on a per lot basis (FWCC 22-1568(c)(1)a). While the calculation
is based on a replacement ratio of 25%, the replacement tree will be dispersed throughout the
plat in an attempt to place the trees in the best location possible.
EXHIBIT 8
The contractor is ready to start constructing sidewalks on this project ve~~ Wp are ne 2.
concerned that if the sidewalks were to be installed prior to the trees bei~~y
( RESUBMITTED
I
t>< JAN 0 3 Z008
'':'
env (\1':" ,....-- - -., ",.. /
instances we would have to "dock" the trees, meaning the trees will be cut in to smaller short
lengths, making them unusable for lumber. We will have to then dispose of them in the
landfills, instead of putting them to use as lumber. At Norris Homes we do our best to be
environmentally conscious; and this sort of waste is not something we like to be a part of. The
most efficient way to make good use of these trees is to take them out by full truck. loads in
whole logs. As you can imagine the lumber industry is far from booming right now, meaning
this motivation is not a monetary one but an environmental one.
Our second concern, which is a more important concern, is that we have already had two
situations at Ming Court where trees have fallen onto adjacent properties. In one case the tree
damaged a large portion of fence, which we replaced for the homeowner at our expense. And
the second which took out a shed and came down very near the home. We also repaired this
shed, but are concerned that next time it could land on someone's home and possibly injure a
person. These trees in some case's are left standing without aU the protection they may have
once had prior to the surrounding stronger trees being removed making way for roads and
utilities. These weaker trees are then more susceptible to strong winds knocking them down.
I have personally walked the site with the contractor who has vast experience relating to tree
hazards, and it is his recommendation as well to remove any and all tree hazards as soon as
possible. Most of these trees are located on lots #12 - #15, with a few scattered dead or
diseased trees dispersed throughout the site. Please see attached photos. These trees are not
merchantable as our motivation to clear these trees is a safety concern.
While we understand the intent of the code and in many cases agree with the intent, this
situation is one that we feel can not only be managed more efficiently from a project stand
point, but if approved will alleviate a possible detriment to the adjacent land owners and
community.
We appreciate the time taken to look at this situation more closely and the staff support we
have received in regard to this matter. Thank you for your time.
Sin~~
Jodey Odegard
Project Coordinator/Land Planner
Land Development Division
Norris Homes, Inc.
206.423.4929
Jodey@norrishomesinc.com
EXHIBIT 3>
PAGE z. OF ~
