No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLUTC PKT 07-07-2003July..7, 2003 · ............ City of Federal Way City Council Land Use/Transportation Committee City Hall Council Chambers F,IEETZNG AGENDA 2. 3. 4. CALL TO ORDER Approval of Minutes of the June 19, 2003, meeting PUBLIC COMMENT (3 minutes) BUSINESS ITEMS Proposed Amendments to the County-wide Planning Policies Correction to Ordinance No. 03-443/Design Guidelines and Definition of Height (FWCC, Section 22-635. Churches, etc.) Presentation of 2004-2009 TIP/ASTP Request for Vacation of a Portion of Puget Sound Marine View Drive Update on Washington State Annexation Methods 5. ADJOURN Inclusion of South King County Unincorporated Gap Area in Federal Way PAA Boundary Nleadowlane Final Plat SW 320th Street at SW 323rd Street Crosswalk Action Clark/10 min Action Clark/5 min Action Zukowski/5 min Action Salloum/10 min Information Burhans/lO min Action Burhans/10 min Action Harris/15 min Tnformation Perez/10 min Committee Members Eric Fa/son, Chair Dean McColgan Michael Park K:\LUTC Agendas and Summaries 2003LIuly 7, 2003, LUTC Agenda.doc City Staff Kathy McClung, D/rector, Community Development Services Sandy Lyle, Administra§ve Assistant 253.661.4116 June 16, 2003 5:30 p.m. City of Federal Way City Council Land Use/Transportation Committee City Hall Council Chambers MEETING MINUTES In attendance: Committee members Eric Faison, Chair, and Deputy Mayor Dean McColgan (Councilmember Park was excused); Council Member Linda Kochmar; City Manager David Mosely; Public Works Director Cary Roe; Deputy City Attorney Karen Kirkpatrick; Deputy Director of Community Development Services Greg Fewins; Senior Planner Margaret Clark; Senior Traffic Engineer Man/ann Zukowski; GIS Supervisor Curt Ryser; Engineering Plans Reviewer Anne Dower; Contract Planner Janet Shull; Administrative Assistant Sandy Lyle. 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Faison called the meeting to order at 5:31 pm. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The summary minutes of the June 2, 2003, meeting were approved as presented. 3. PUBLIC COMMENT There was no public comment. 4. BUSINESS ITEMS The order of the agenda was shifted in order to begin with item B, followed by items C and A. Items D and E remained in the same position. A. Resolution Setting Public Hearing on 2004-2009 TIP/ASlP - The Committee approved a recommendation to the City Council that at its July 15, 2003, meeting a public hearing would be held on the TIP/ASIP for 2004~2009. The Land Use/Transportation Committee will hear a presentation on the 2004-2009 TIP/ASIP at its next meeting on July 7, 2003. B. Code Amendment/Changes to Business Park Use Zone Charts - At the previous meeting, on June 2, 2003, staff had presented information regarding changes to the Business Park Use Zone Charts. The Committee asked for further research to determine if any other possible natural breaks occurred in defining a Business Park property from a Professional Office property based on a lot size of 1.5 acres. Further research by staff revealed no other justification of a natural break at 1.5 acres. If the break were to occur at 2.0 acres, all non-conforming stand- alone office properties, six additional parcels, a number not considered significant, would be affected. The Committee m/s/c recommendation to the City Council at its July 1, 2003, meeting to amend the Planning Commission recommendation, and increase the size of Business Park Use Zones to 2.0 acres. Staff was instructed to notify Councilmember Park of the decision made at this meeting. Deputy Mayor McColgan thanked Contract Planner Schull for her work and for her presentation to the Committee. C. Potential Annexation Area Study/Discussion of Process to Accommodate Requests for Changes to Preannexation Comprehensive Plan/Zoning Designations - The Committee voted to recommend to the City Council that staff incorporate the preannexation zoning process by which property owners may request changes in their pre-annexation Comprehenisive Plan and Zoning Map designations. Unless otherwise requested, PAA Zoning will be a direct translation between existing King County designations and the most comparable Federal Way designations. Minor exceptions occurred on some existing incompatible zoning designations, non-conforming uses, minimum residential lot size requirements, mobil home park uses, and an examination of existing King County R-1 zoning (one dwelling unit per acre). The Council will discuss this topic at its July 1,2003, meeting. D. Demonstration of GIS Mapping System - Staff presented a demonstration of improvements in the Geographic Information Systems (GIS) including the ability to layer different maps in order to gather a more diverse K:\LUTC Agendas and Summaries 2003t June 16, 2003, LUTC Minutes.doc sample of information on individual parcels. In the future, the public will have the capability of accessing these maps on the intemet. The Committee thanked staff for this work and extended the appreciation of the public. E. Pena Preliminary Plat - The Pena Preliminary Plat is a rectangular, unimproved 1.44 acre parcel abutting the south side of SW 344:~ Street and the east side of 21st Avenue SW within the City of Federal Way. The site abuts 21't Avenue SW for approximately 100 feet and SW 344th Street for approximately 550 feet. The parcel's east property line abuts 18t' Avenue SW. SW 44~ Place abuts the eastern 80% of the south property line. The applicant requests preliminary plat approval to allow subdivision of the site into seven single-family residential lots with a minimum lot size of 7,205 square feet and a maximum lot size of 9,224 square feet. The Federal Way Hearing Examiner recommended approval based upon conditions listed in the staff report subject to full compliance with drainage provisions set forth in the Federal Way City Code (FVVCC). The Committee voted to recommend approval to the City Council at the July 1,2003 meeting. FUTURE MEETINGS The next scheduled meeting will be July 7, 2003. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 6:15 p.m. K:~LUTC Agendas a~ Summari~ 2003kJune 16, 2003, LUTC Minutes.doc CITY OF ~ Federal Way MEMORANDUM July 2, 2003 TO: VIA: FROM: SUBJECT: MEETING DATE: Eric Faison, Chair Land Use/Transportation Committee (LUTC) David Moseley, City Manage~ ~ Kathy McClung, AICP, Director of Community Development Services Margaret H. Clark, AICP, Senior Planner Amendments to the King County Countywide Planning Policies July 7, 2003 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 (GMPC), a formal body comprised of elected officials from King County, Seattle, Bellevue, the Suburban Cities, and Special Districts. The CPPs were then 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 least 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 these proposed amendments is August 19, 2003. The amendments include the following: Ordinance 2003-0123 (GMPC Motion 02-4, Exhibit B) - Adopting amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies; adding a new policy to support ongoing water supply planning and development; and ratifying the amended Countywide Planning Policies on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County. Land Use/Transportation Committee Page 2 July 2, 2003 o o Ordinance 2003-0124 (GMPC Motions 02-1, 02-2, and 02-3, Exhibit C) - Adopting amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies; adopting new household and employment targets for the period 2001 through 2022; and ratifying the amended Countywide Planning Policies on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County. Ordinance 2003-0125 (GMPC Motion 02-5, Exhibit D) - Adopting amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies; amending the Urban Separator Map to reflect negotiated modifications to the Renton Urban Separator; and ratifying the amended Countywide Planning Policies on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County. Ordinance 2003-0126 (GMPC Motion 02-6, Exhibit E) - Adopting amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies; designating Totem Lake as an Urban Center; and ratifying the amended Countywide Planning Policies on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County. Ordinance 2003-0127 (GMPC Motions 01-2, Exhibit F) -Adopts amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies addressing the long-term protection of Agricultural Production Districts and ratifies the amended Countywide Planning Policies on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County. II. DISCUSSION This section will address each amendment request followed by staff discussion. Ordinance 2003-0123 (GMPC Motion 02-4) -Adopting amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies; adding a new policy to support ongoing water supply planning and development; and ratifying the amended Countywide Planning Policies on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County (Exhibit B). A. Staff Discussion In July 2002, the GMPC approved additions and changes to the 1994 CPPs relating to the 2002-2022 household and employment targets. (This will be discussed next as part of Ordinance 2003-0124 [GMPC Motions 02-1, 02-2 and 02-3], Exhibit C.) At that time, the GMPC also considered an amendment to add a new policy to support long-term water supply planning efforts in addition to the new policy on transportation planning efforts (already part of Motion 02-1). This new amendment was offered in order to consider both water and transportation infrastructure planning to support new household and employment targets for the region. The GMPC allowed reconsideration of the amendment until agreement could be reached on the language. On September 25, 2002, the GMPC adopted the following new policy to the CPPs: Land Use/Transportation Committee Page 3 July 2, 2003 FW-12c Ensuring sufficient water supply is essential to accommodate growth and conserve fish habitat. Due to the substantial lead time required to develop water supply sources, infrastructure and management strategies, long-term water supply planning efforts in the Region must be ongoing. B. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the LUTC forward a recommendation of approval to the full city council and vote to ratify the proposed amendments to the CPPs contained in Ordinance 2003-0123 (GMPC Motion 02-4). Ordinance 2003-0124 (GMPC Motions 02-1, 02-2, and 02-3) - Adopting amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies; adopting new household and employment targets for the period 2001 through 2022; and ratifying the amended Countywide Planning Policies on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County (Exhibit C). A. Staff Discussion Motion 02-1, adopted by the GMPC on July 24, 2002, amended the CPPs to add new policies to support the extension of the household and employment targets for the period 2001-2022. Motions 02-2 and 02-3 adopted by the GMPC on September 25, 2002, amended the CPPs to delete the old tables with the adopted 1992-2012 household and employment targets and replace them with the new 2002-2022 household and employment targets. The GMPC is responsible for developing updated household and employment targets for each jurisdiction in King County. In February 2002, the Washington State Office of Financial Management (OFM) released new population forecasts for the 20-year period 2002-2022. The GMA requires King County and the cities within King County to plan to accommodate these projections by accommodating them in their household and employment targets. As a result, the GMPC's interjurisdictional staffteam worked with a sub-committee of the King County Planning Directors to extend the existing targets through 2002. The methodology adopted by the GMPC took a sub-regional approach. First the County's urban area was divided into four subareas. These four subareas are SeaShore, East King County, South King County, and Rural Cities. The City of Federal Way is part of the South King County Subarea that includes Renton, Burien, SeaTac, Tukwila, Normandy Park, Des Moines, Kent, Covington, Maple Valley, Black Diamond, Auburn, Milton, Pacific, Algona, West Hill PAA, East Renton PAA, Fairwood/Soos Creek PAA, and Southwest King County PAAs. An important underlying concept of the methodology was a jobs/housing balance. Therefore, the PSRC's 2000 to 2020 small area employment forecasts were used as a basis for allocating population forecasts to these subareas by applying the employment percentages to the OFM countywide population forecast so that the proportion of housing Land Use/Transportation Committee Page 4 July 2, 2003 to jobs is balanced at a certain ratio. The household size of the various subareas were then determined based on the 2000 census, and adjusted downwards for 2022 based on the assumption that household sizes would decrease in the future. The household size for each subarea was used to determine how many new housing units would be needed to accommodate new population in 2022. Next, the remainder of the current household target by subarea at the end of 2000 was compared to the new households needed to accommodate new population. If South King County were to achieve their remaining household 2012 target, this would actually exceed the number of households needed to accommodate the 2002 to 2022 projected new households for the subarea .As a result, the methodology proposed that South King County receive no new targets for the 2012 - 2022 target extension period. After allocation of households to each subarea, jurisdictions within each sub-area negotiated their individual targets. As in the case of the household target extensions, the starting point for employment allocations was forecast from estimates derived for each city by the PSRC 2000 to 2020 small area employment forecasts. Future employment was then allocated to jurisdictions based on location of current employment, as well as location of commercial and industrial zones. The adopted household and job targets for cities, their PAA's and unincorporated areas within King County are shown in Table I of this staff report. Table I King County 2001 - 2022 Household and Employment Targets " I Household PAA HH - ~ob pA-S, Job Subareas] Target Target Target Target SOUTH KING COUNTY Algona 298 108 Auburn 5,928 926 6,079 252 Black Diamond 1,099 2,525 Burien 1,552 1,712 Covington 1,173 900 Des Moines 1,576 2 1,695 Federal Way 6,188 1,320 7,481 134 Kent 4,284 619 11,500 44 Milton 50 37 1,054 Maple Valle7 300 804 Normandy Park 100 67 Pacific 996 45 108 Renton 6,198 !,976 27,597 458 SeaTac 4,478 5 9,288 496 Tukwila 3,200 5 16,000 497 Unincorp King County 4,935 2,582 701 Total 42,355 4,935 89,500 2~582 EAST KING COUNTY Beaux Arts Village I 3 I I I Land Use/Transportation Committee Page 5 July 2, 2003 Household PAA HH Job PAA Job Subareas Target Target Target Target Bellevue 10,117 178 40,000 27 Bothell 1,751 584 2,000 174 Clyde Hill 21 Hunts Point 1 Issaquah 3,993 802 14,000 1 Kenmore 2,325 2,800 Kirkland 5,480 747 8,800 221 Medina 31 Mercer Island 1,437 800 Newcastle 863 1 500 Redmond 9,083 390 21,760 21 Sammamish 3,842 1,230 Woodinville 1,869 2,000 Yarrow Point 28 Unicorp King County 6,801 4,099 4,637 4,193 Total 47,645 6,801 98,527 4,637 SEA-SHORE Lake Forest Park 538 455 Seattle 51,510 92,083 Shoreline 2,651 2,618 Unincorp King County 1,670 1,670 694 694 Total 56,369 1,670 95,850 694 RURAL CITIES Carnation 246 75 Duvall 1,037 1,125 Enumclaw 1,927 1,125 North Bend 636 1,125 Skykomish 20 Snoqualmie 1,697 1,800 Total 5,563 5,250 King County Total 151,932 289,127 B. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the LUTC forward a recommendation of approval to the full city council and vote to ratify the proposed amendments to the CPPs contained in Ordinance 2003-0124 (GMPC Motions 02-1, 02-2, and 02-3). Ordinance 2003-0125 (GMPC Motion 02-5) - Adopting amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies; amending the Urban Separator Map to reflect negotiated modifications to the Renton Urban Separator; and ratifying the amended Countywide Planning Policies on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County (Exhibit D). Land Use/Transportation Committee Page 6 July 2, 2003 A. Staff Discussion Motion 02-5, adopted by the GMPC on October 23, 2002, amended the Urban Separator Map in the CPPs to reflect the negotiated modifications of the Renton Urban Separator. Urban Separators are regionally significant low-density areas within the Urban Growth Area (UGA) that create open space corridors, provide a visual contrast to contiguous development and reinforce the unique identities of communities. Urban Separators can play a significant role in preserving environmentally sensitive areas and providing fish and wildlife habitat. They also provide regional benefits, such as parks and trails, and meet the GMA's requirements for greenbelts and open space within the UGA. Urban Separators are governed by CPP LU-27, which states that Urban Separators shall not be redesignated in the future 20-year planning cycle to urban uses or higher densities. Three cities in King County, Auburn, Kent, and Renton, have Urban Separators within their Potential Annexation Areas (PAAs). However, the Urban Separators had not been mapped. This was seen as a problem by the GMPC staff because without a map, cities may not realize that they have Urban Separators within their PAA's. The GMPC staff met with Kent, Renton, and Auburn to clarify boundaries of the Urban Separators and an Urban Separator Map was created. However, Renton and Auburn had questions about their Urban Separator boundaries. Kent had recently annexed a large piece of property adjacent to Auburn's Urban Separator, and the GMPC jurisdictional team felt that there were some environmentally constrained areas within the annexed area adjacent to Auburn's existing Urban Separator, which would make a natural extension of the existing Urban Separator. The GMPC staff and Renton were able to come to an agreement. This agreement resulted in removing 76 acres of land within Renton's PAA from the Urban Separator status and designating 119 acres within the city as an Urban Separator, for a gain of 43 acres as Urban Separators. Discussions are still continuing with Auburn and Kent about boundaries of their Urban Separators. B. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the LUTC forward a recommendation of approval to the full city council and vote to ratify the proposed amendments to the CPPs contained in Ordinance 2003-0125 (GMPC Motion 02-5). Ordinance 2003-0126 (GMPC Motion 02-6) -Adopting amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies; designating Totem Lake as an Urban Center; and ratifying the amended Countywide Planning Policies on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County (Exhibit E). A. Staff Discussion Motion 02-6, adopted by the GMPC on October 23, 2002, amended the CPPs to designate Totem Lake as an Urban Center. In 2002, the City of Kirkland requested that Totem Lake be designated an Urban Center in the CPPs. Urban Centers are designated in the CPPs as Land Use/Transportation Committee Page 7 July 2, 2003 o areas of concentrated employment and housing, with direct service by high-capacity transit, and a wide range of other land uses. 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 January 2002, the Kirkland City Council adopted a new plan for the Totem Lake neighborhood that would support its designation as an Urban Center. Designating Totem Lake as an Urban Center would involve amending CPP LU39 to add Totem Lake to the list of the existing Urban Centers in King County. The existing Urban Centers are Bellevue, Kent, Federal Way, Redmond Overlake, Redmond CDBG, Renton CDBG, Seattle CDBG, Seattle Center, First/Capitol Hill, University District, Northgate, and Tukwila. The GMPC interjurisdictional team analyzed Kirkland's request against the Urban Center criteria in the CPPs and found that Totem Lake met the criteria for an Urban Center. B. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the LUTC forward a recommendation of approval to the full city council and vote to ratify the proposed amendments to the CPPs contained in Ordinance 2003-0126 (GMPC Motion 02-6). Ordinance 2003-012 7 (GMPC Motion 01-2) -Adopts amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies addressing the long-term protection of Agricultural Production Districts and ratifies the amended Countywide Planning Policies on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County (Exhibit F). A. Staff Discussion Motion 01-2, adopted by the GMPC on September 26, 2001, reaffirmed Motion 99-3 passed by them on June 16, 1999. In June 1999, the GMPC adopted Substitute Motion 99- 3 to add new policies that address the long-term governance of Agricultural Production Districts (APDs). Specifically, Motion 99-3 stated that Designated APDs shall not be annexed by cities and that the Lower Green Rive Valley APD must remain in unincorporated King County and provide an urban separator as surrounding areas are annexed and developed. In addition, the GMPC recommended that the PAA Map in the CPPs be amended so that the Lower River Valley APD does not appear within the PAA boundaries of any jurisdiction and that the UGA Map be amended to draw the Urban Growth Area Boundary around the Lower Green Rive Valley APD in order to clarify its classification as a long-tem resource land. In 1999 and 2000, the King County Council amended the King County Comprehensive Plan to be consistent with Motion 99-3. Finally, in 2001, the King County Council considered the adoption of Proposed Ordinance 2002-0256, which would have amended the CPPs consistent with the recommendations of the GMPC and with the changes already made to the King County Comprehensive Plan. However, since King County was negotiating for purchase of property within the Lower Rive Valley APD and out of concern that the GMPC had adopted their recommendations in the absence of a quorum and without Land Use/Transportation Committee Page 8 July 2, 2003 an adequate public review process, the Council did not adopt the ordinance. Instead the Council remanded the motion back to the GMPC. In September 26, 2001, the GMPC reconsidered its actions with respect to Motion 99-3, and via the adoption of Motion 01-2 reaffirmed its previous actions. On November 20, 2002, King County completed their purchase of the Nelson property in the Lower Green River Valley APD. B. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the LUTC forward a recommendation of approval to the full city council and vote to ratify the proposed amendments to the CPPs contained in Ordinance 2003-012 7 (GMPC Motion 01-2). III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION 1. That the LUTC forward a recommendation of approval to the full city council and vote to ratify the proposed amendments to the CPPs contained in Ordinance 2003-0123 (GMPC Motion 02-4). That the LUTC forward a recommendation of approval to the full city council and vote to ratify the proposed amendments to the CPPs contained in Ordinance 2003-0124 (GMPC Motions 02- 1, 02-2, and 02-3). 3. That the LUTC forward a recommendation of approval to the full city council and vote to ratify the proposed amendments to the CPPs contained in Ordinance 2003-0125 (GMPC Motion 02-5). 4. That the LUTC forward a recommendation of approval to the full city council and vote to ratify the proposed amendments to the CPPs contained in Ordinance 2003-0126 (GMPC Motion 02-6). 5. That the LUTC forward a recommendation of approval to the full city council and vote to ratify the proposed amendments to the CPPs contained in Ordinance 2003-012 7 (GMPC Motion 01-2). IV. COUNCIL ACTION/STAFF RECOMMENDATION 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. Staff recommends that the LUTC recommend to the full Council Option No. 1 above. Land Use/Transportation Committee Page 9 July 2, 2003 We LAND USE/TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION The LUTC forwards the proposed amendment to the full Council for first reading as follows: As recommended for approval by staff. As recommended for disapproval by the LUTC. APPROv~ OF COMMI~E ACTION Eric Faison,~hair Dean Mcc01gan Michael park LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D Exhibit E Exhibit F May 30, 2003, Correspondence from King County Ordinance 2003-0123 (GMPC Motion 02-4) with Attachments Ordinance 2003-0124 (GMPC Motions 02-1, 02-2, and 02-3) with Attachments Ordinance 2003-0125 (GMPC Motion 02-5) with Attachments Ordinance 2003-0126 (GMPC Motion 02-6) with Attachments Ordinance 2003-0127 (GMPC Motion 01-2) with Attachments I:~KCWPPSk2003\IMTC\070703 Staff Repo~ to the LUTC.doc/07/02/20033:41 PM Kh~g County May 30, 2003 The Honorable Jeanne Burbidge Mayor, City of Federal Way 33530- 1st Way South Federal Way, WA 98003 Dear Mayor Burbidge: We are pleased to forward for your consideration and ratification the enclosed amendments to the King County Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs). On May 19, 2003, the King County Council approved and also ratified seven amendments on behalf of unincorporated King County. Please note that the amendments approved by the Growth Management Planning Council for the growth targets, and the household and job target tables, were combined into one ordinance, 2003-0124. Copies of King County Council Staff Reports, County Ordinances, and Growth Management Planning Council Motions are enclosed to assist you in your review of these amendments. Ordinance 2003-0123 (GMPC Motion 02-4) adopting amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies; adding a new policy to support ongoing water supply planning and development; ratifying the amended Countywide Planning Policies on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County. Ordinance 2003-0124 (GMPC Motions 02-1, 02-2 and 02-3) adopting amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies; adopting new household and employment targets for the period 2001 through 2022; ratifying the amended Countywide Planning Policies on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County. Ordinance 2003-0125 (GMPC Motion 02-5) adopting amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies; amending the Urban Separator map to reflect negotiated modifications to the Renton Urban Separator; ratifying the amended Countywide Planning Policies on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County. Ordinance 2003-0126 (GMPC Motion 02-6) adopting amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies; designating Totem Lake as an Urban Center; ratifying the amended Countywide Planning Policies on behalf of the population of uniucorporated King County. Ordinance 2003-0127 (GMPC Motion 01-2) adopts amendments to thc Countywide Planning Policies addressing the long-term protection of Agricultural Production Districts, and ratifies the anmnded Countywide Planning Policies on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County. EXHIBIT PAGE_ I_OF The I tonoFable Jeanne Burbidge Ma)' 30, 2003 Page 2 ct'lDctivc when ratilicd by oFdimmcc oF resolution by at least 30 percent ot' thc city ami county govcrnnacnts representing 70 percent oF thc population of King County according to thc lnterlocal agreement. A city will be deemed to have ratified the amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies unless, within 90 days of adoption by King County, the city takes legislative action to disapprove the amendments. Please note that the 90-day deadline for these proposed amendments is August 19, 2003. If you have questions about the amendments or the ratification process, please contact Paul Reitenbach, Senior Policy Analyst, King County Department of Development and Environmental Semices, at 206-296-6705 or Lauren Smith, Legislative Analyst, King County Council, at 206-296-0352. If you adopt any legislation relative to this action, please submit by close of business, August 19, 2003, one copy of the legislation to Paul Reitenbach, Senior Policy Analyst, King County Department of Development and Environmental Science, 900 Oakesdale Avenue Southwest, Renton, WA 98055-1219. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. Sincerely, Cynthia Sullivan, Chair King County Council King County Executive Enclosures CC~ Lauren Smith, Legislative Analyst, King County Council Stephanie Warden, Director, Department of Development and Environmental Services (DDES) Paul Reitenbach, Senior Policy Analyst, DDES EXHIBIT A PAGF 'OF KING COUNTY Signature Report May 19, 2003 Ordinance 14652 ! 200 King County Courflmuse 516 Third Avenue' Seattle, WA 98104 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 I1 12 13 14 15 Proposed No. 20034)123.1 Sponsors Hague AN ORDINANCE adopting amendments to the Countywide planning Policies; adding a new policy to support ongoing water supply planning and development; ratifying the amended Countywide Planning Policies for unincorporated King County; and amending Ordinance 10450, Section 3, as amended, and K.C.C. 20.10.030 and Ordinance 10450, Section 4, as amended, and K.C.C. 20.10.040. BE IT 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 I) in July 1992, under Ordinance 10450. EXHIBIT PAGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 Ordinance 14652 B. The metropolitan King County council adopted and ratified the Phase II amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies on August 15, 1994, under Ordinance 11446. C. The Growth Management Planning Council met on September 25, 2002 and voted to recommend amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, adding a new policy to support ongoing water supply planning and development. 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 I/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 lI Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 and 2 to Ordinance 13260. E. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies are amended, 'as shown by Attachment 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 1 through 3 to Ordinance 13858. EXHIBIT PAGE_ A_OF 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Ordinance 14652 G. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14390. Il. The Phase Il Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies arc amended, as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14391. I. The Phase 1I Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14392. J. The Phase 1I Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 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 specified are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County. B. The amendinents 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 'H 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. 3 EXHIBIT 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 8O 81 Ordinance 14652 F. Thc amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as shown by Attachment I to Ordinance 12421, arc 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 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. I. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as shown by Attachments I 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, 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 I to Ordinance 14391, are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County. L. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as shown by Attachment I to Ordinance 14392, are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County. PAGE__ _O FI Ordinance 14652 82 83 84 85 M. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as shown b_y Attachment 1 to this ordinance, are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County. Ordinance 14652 was introduced on 3/17/2003 and passed by the Metropolitan King County Council on 5/19/2003, by the following vote: Yes: 12 - Ms. Sullivan, Ms. Edmonds, Mr. von Reichbauer, Ms. Lambert, Mr. Phillips, Mr. Pelz, Mr. McKenna, Mr. Constantine, Mr. Gossett, Ms. Hague, 'Mr. Irons and Ms. Patterson No: 0 Excused: 0 KING COUNTY COUNCil. KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON ATTEST: Anne Noris, Clerk of the Council APPROVED this _~;50'u' day of ~ ,2003. I Attachments Attachment 1. GMPC Motion 024 Attachment 1 - 2003-0123 14652 Scptembcr 25, 2002 /cm Sponsored By: Executive Committee 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 MOTION NO. 02-4 A MOTION by the Growth Management Planning Council of King County recommending the amendment of the Countywide Planning Policies adding a new policy to support ongoing water supply planning and development. WHEREAS, in July 2002, the Growth Management Planning Council approved additions and changes to the 1994 Countywide Planning Policies approving the countywide process developed to recommend a new 22-year household and employment target; and WHEREAS, an amendment to add a new policy supporting ongoing water supply planning and development was considered and tabled; and WHEREAS, the GMPC allowed reconsideration of the amendment at suCh time agreement could be reached on the language; and WHEREAS, it is in the interest of the county to encourage regional 'efforts to plan for and develop sufficient water supply sources to accommodate population growth and to meet environmental needs related to conservation of fish habitat. THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLANNING COUNCIL OF KING COUNTY ItEREBY MOVES AS FOLLOWS: Add a new policy to Section Ill C of the King County Countywi.cle Planning Policies as follows: FW-12c Ensuring sufficient water supply is essential to accommodate growth and conserve fish habitat. Due to the substantial lead-time required to develop water supply sources, infrastru_cture and management strategies, long-term water supply planni.ng efforts in the Region must be ongoing. PAGE__ OF 1 3 4 5 6 ? 8 9 10 ADOPTED by the Growth .Management Planning Council of King County on September 25, 2002 in open session. 14652 Ron Sims, Chair, Growth Management Planning Council L/GMPC/02GM PCJMot02 4 .doc PAGE. Metropolitan King County Council Growth Management and Unincorporated Areas Committee Staff Report Agenda Item: 6 Name: Proposed Ordinance: 2003-0123 Date: Attending: Paul Reitenbach, King County DDES Kevin Wright, King County PAO Lauren Smith March 18, 2003 SUBJECT: Proposed Ordinance 2003-0123 adopting amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies; adding a new policy to support ongoing water supply planning and development; ratifying the amended Countywide Planning Policies on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County. 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 1990 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 regional consistency with respect to land use planning efforts. The GMPC drafted the CPPs, which were then adopted by the King County Council and ratified by the cities. Changes to the CPPs are recommended by the GMPC, adopted by the King County Council, and ratified by the cities. GMPC Actions On September 25, 2002 the GMPC adopted Motion 02-4 recommending the adoption of a new policy (FW12c) related to water supply planning and development. The issue of regional water supply was raised during discussions related to the adoption of new household and employment targets for the region, and was offered in the spirit of ensuring ongoing infrastructure planning efforts. The proposed new policy is consistent with existing policy direction in the CPPs related to water supply planning (Policy CO-5). FW-12c Ensuring sufficient water supply is essential to accommodate growth and conserve fish habitat. Due to the substantial lead-time required to develop water supply sources, infrastructure and management strategies, long-term water supply planning efforts in the Region must be ongoing. SUMMARY: Proposed Ordinance 2003-0123 would amend the Countywide Planning Policies by: · Adding a new policy, FW-12c in support of an ongoing discussion related to long-term water supply planning. C:\WINDOWS\TEMP~2003-0123 (CPP Amendmenls - Waler Supply Planning}(3-18-03) doc 5,'21/2003 8:50 AM EXHIBIT PAG FJ Additionally, the ordinance would ratify this change on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County, as required by Countywide Planning Policy FW-1, Step 9. Amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies become effective when ratified by ordinance or resolution by at least 30% of the city and county governments representing 70% of the population of King County according to the Interlocal agreement. A city shall be deemed to have ratified the countywide planning policy unless, within 90 days of adoption by King County, the city by legislative action disapproves the Countywide Planning Policy. POLICY DIRECTION Countywide Planning Policies C0-5 Water supply shall be regionally coordinated to provide a reliable economic source of water and to provide mutual aid to and between all agecnies and purveyors. THe region should work toward a mechanism to address the long-term regional water demand needs of all agencies and water purveyors. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Proposed Ordinance 2003-0123, with attachments PAGE_ OF C \WINDOWS\TEMP~2003 0123 (CPP Amendments - Water Supply Planning)(3-18-03) doc 5/21/2003 8:50 AM KING COUNTY Signature Report May 19, 2003 1200 King County Courthouse 516 Third Avenue Sealtle, WA 98104 Ordinance 14653 Proposed No. 2003-0124.1 Sponsors Hague 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 AN ORDINANCE adopting amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies; adopting new household and employment targets for the period 2001 through 2022; revising existing policies and adding new policies in support of the new targets; ratifying the amended Countywide Planning Policies for unincorporated King' County; and amending Ordinance 10450, Section 3, as amended, and K.C.C. 20.10.030 and Ordinance 10450, Section 4, as amended, and K.C.C. 20.10.040 BE 1T ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF KING COUNTY: SECTION 1. Findings. The council makes the following findi.ngs. 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. PAG, E---LO 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34' 35 36 37 38 39 Ordinance 14653 B. The metropolitan King County council adopted and ratified the Phase II amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies on August 15, 1994, under Ordinance 11446. C. The Growth Management Planning Council met on July 24, 2002 and voted to recommend amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, revising existing policies and adding new policies to support extending household and employment targets for the period 2001 through 2022. D. The GrOwth Management Planning Council met on September 25, 2002 and voted to recommend amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, adopting new household and employment targets for the period 2001-2022. 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 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 Attachment I and 2 to Ordinance 13260. E. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 through 4 to Ordinance 13415. 2 rVlJIl:llT PAGE 2.. OF 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 5O 51 52 53 54 55' 56 57 58 59 60 61 Ordinance 14653 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. G. Thc Phase ti Amendments to thc 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 Plannin~ Policies are amended, as shown by Attachments 1 through 3 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 Plann!ng Policies adop. ted 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 H 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. EXHIB ? PAGE__ _O Ordinance 14653 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 8O 81 82 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 - Couniywide 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. 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, 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 I to Ordinance 14391, are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County. EXHIBIT PAGE__ _OF 4 Ordinance 14653 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 L. The amendments to the King County 2012 ~ 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 Attachments 1 through 3 to this ordinance, are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County. Ordinance 14653 was introduced on 3/17/2003 and passed by the Metropolitan King County Council on 5/19/2003, by the following vote: Yes: 12 - Ms. Sullivan, Ms. Edmonds, Mr. von Reichbauer, Ms. Lambert, Mr. Phillips, Mr. Pelz, Mr. McKenna, Mr. Constantine, Mr. Gossett, Ms. Hague, Mr. Irons and Ms. Patterson No: 0 Excused: 0 KING COUNI~ COUNCIL KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON ATTEST: Anne Nods, Clerk of the Council APPROVED this~'~)O' day of m6L~ 2003. Attachments 1. GMPC Motion 02-1,2. GMPC Motion 02-2, 3. GMPC Motion 02-3 5 EXHIBIT PAGE_ 14653 Itlt Capacity Job Capacity PAA Job llousehold PAA }t}t lob Target Subarcas Target n PAA* Target in PAA Target __~o~th King County ........ Auburn 5 9~28_ __ 2._635~_ 926 __ Black Diamond ~099 __ Burien 1.552 Co¥ington __ 1, ! 73 ~De~ Moines 1.576 5 2 Federal Way __ 6.188 3.754 1.320 Kent 4.284 1.763 61 Milton. 50 106 3'~ ~le Valley _ 300 Not'mandy Park Pacific 996 127 45 Renton .6.E98 5.622 1.976 SeaTac 4.478 14 5 Tukwila 3.200 13 5 __ __ Unincorp King County __ 4.935 IToml 42,,355 14,0~9 4,935 East King Coun~ Beaux Arts Village 3 teNevue __ 1~00.117 184 ! 78 __ ~9_thelJ __ 1.751 603 584 .Clyde Hill 21 __ __ [tunts Point Issaquah 3.993 827 802 Ke .nmore 2,325 Kirkland 5,4.80 770 747 Medina .. 31 Mercer Island 1,437 _Newcastle 863 I 1 Redmond 9,083 402 3~_ S_amman:fish 3,842 W0odinville 1 ,g69] Yarrow Point 28 ] -- Uninccnp King County 6.801 **4222 **4099 Total .:47,645 7,009: 6~,01 Sea-Shore Lake Forest Park 538 Sea,lc ~51.~ 10. Shor~lill¢ 2.65 I _Unincocp King County*** _ 1,670 1,670 1,670 Tgtal 56,.36~9 1,670 1,670 Rural Cities _Carnation __ 246 _ Duvall __1~037 _ Enumclaw 1,927 __ __ North_Bend 636 __ S_~.komish 20 S~lmie __ 1.697 __ Total 5,563 Kin~ Count*' Total 151,932 *FAA: Potential Asmexafioo Area in Unincorporated King Count)' Urba~ Area; **Bear Creek UPD; ***North ILighlit)e The Rural Cifie.~' targets are for the current city limits and nh-al expansioa area for each city. Thus the methodology for adjusting targe~ as annexations occur is not applicable to the rural cities. IJGM F'C/02G M PC/Mot02-2 .doc EXHIBIT C ttousehold [ flit CapachyI PAA lilt lob Capacity PAA Job Subareas Target I in lb\A* 'Fargo! Job Target in PAA* Target Spytl~ King C~°utV)' . ! _ i Algona I I 108 Auburn 6,079 252 252 Black Diamond __ 2,525 B urien 1,712 Covington 900 Des Moine~; ! ,695 Federal Way 7.481 134 134 Kent 11,500 44 44 Milton 1,054 Maple Valley - 804 Normandy ]:~ark 67 Pacific 108 Renton 27.597 458 458 SeaTac 9,288 496 496 Tukwila 16,000 497 497 Unincorp King County 2,582 701 701 Total 89.5ff0 2,582 2,582 East King County Beaux Arts Village Bellevue _ 40,000 27 27 Bothell 2,000 174 174 Clyde }fill Hunts Point lssaquah 14.000 I I Kenmore 2,800 Kh'kland 8,800 221 221 Medina Mercer Island 800 Newcastle 500 Redmond 2 ! .760 21 2 I Sammamish 1,230 Woodinville 2,000 Yarrow Point Unincoq~ King County 4~637 *'4193 *'4193 Total 98,527 4,637 4,637 Sea-Shore Lake Forest Park 455 Seattle 92,083 Shoreline 2.618 Un~ncorp King'County*** 694 1 544 694 Total 95,85t) '1,544 694 Rural Cities Carnation 75 Duvall 1.125 Enumclaw 1,125 North Bend 1.125 _S k.ykomish _ S~noqualmie 1,800 Total 5~250 Kinl~ County Total 289.127 *PAA: Potential Annexation Area in Unincorporated King County Urban Ama; '*Be~ Creek UPD ***Nord~ Itighlinc The Rural Cities' targets are ftc the current city fimiL~ and rural expansion area for each city. Thus thc methodology for adjusting targets a~; annexations occur is not appl/cabl¢ to the rural cities. L/GMPC/02GM PC/MotO2-3.doc EXHIBIT C p GE .... 14653 Attachmentl 2003-0124 14653 July 24, 2002 /cm Sponsored By: Executive Committee 7 8 9 10 tl 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 MOTION NO. 02~1 A MOTION by the Growth Management Planning Council of King County recommending the amendment of the Countywide Planning Policies revising existing policies and adding new policies to support the extension of the household and employment targets for the period 2001-2022. WHEREAS, in accordance with the Growth Management Act (GMA), the 1994 Countywide Planning Policies established a household and employment target range for each city and for King County through 2012; and WHEREAS, the 1994 targets need to be extended to reflect projected growth through 2022 in accordance with the GMA '(RCW 36 70A 110); and WHEREAS, Countywide Planning Policy FW-3 states that the adopted household and employment targets shall be monitored bY King County annually with adjustments made by the Growth Management Planning Council utilizing the process established in FW-I, Step 6; and WHEREAS since February 2001 staff from King County and the cities in King County have worked cooperatively to analyze and recommend new 20-year household and employment targets; and WHEREAS the Growth Management Planning Council met and discussed the extension of the household and employment targets for the period 2001-2022, with opportunity for public comment on March 28, 2001, July 25, 2001, October 24, 2001 and May 22, 2002. THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLANNING COUNCIL OF KING COUNTY HEREBY MOVES AS FOLLOWS: Amend Sections llI. C and III. F of the King County Countywide Planning Policies as follows: III. Land Use Pattern C. Urban Areas EXHIBIT PAGE _ O 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 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 14653 The followin~ policies establish an Urban Growth Area (UGA ),_determine the amount household and employment ~rowth to be accommodated within the UGA in the form of targgts for each jurisdiction, and idcn[((x5 mcfl~odx to phase development within this arc(~ i,~ the (Urba~Jro~tt~r~) UGA is designated for pennanent rural and rcsource e.~ptfor~hc~4ti~qhe Rz~ra~O) Countywide Policies on Rural and Resource Areas are found in Chapter HIA, Resource ~nds, and Chapter IIIB, Rural Areas. bz accordance wi~h the State Growth Management Act (GMA) (36. 70A. 110 }, the State Office o[ Financial Management (OFM) provides a population projection to each county. The coun~_ , through a collaborative intergovernmental process established by the Growth Management Planning Council, allocates the population as growth targets to individual jurisdictions. Forecasts prepared by the Puget Sound Regional Council are used to establish the employment projection. 77~e process ['or allocating targets in King Coum7 is as £ollows: 1. The PSRC employment forecasts are calculated for the four j?eographic subareas of the UGA (Sea-Shore, South, East, and Rural Cities). These then become subarea employment targets. 2. The jurisdictions collectively allocate the OFM population pro/ection to the four subarea's based on the prelected employment for each area. A stnall amount of growth is assumed to occur in the Rural area. 3. The technical staff[translates the population proiections into proiected households, taking into account diff[erent average household siges within each subarea. These proiections then become subarea household targets. 4. Jurisdictions within each subarea negotiate the distribution o[ subarea household and employment targets using criteria based on Count~vide Planning Policies. The housing capacity in the ,,~'r r.~... ~ ...... t. ,~ ~.,,ll~ .. u ................... ~/UGA ((for growth)), based on adopted plans and regulations, ((meets the)) should accommodate the prelected 20-year grow eq:fircmo: :e Gro~ Mana~en~cco,~'~ ,,,~ curr~ ~uta~o~)). ((Mh~umrc, allm~))~rowth is to be accommodated within pe~anent Urban Areas by incre~ing densities, as needed. Phasing ((~o)) should occur within the ((Urba~owt~r~)) UGA, as necessa~, to ensure that se~ices are provided as grOwth occurs. ((~l cities~r~~ithin,,,~'r'- ,~, ~,,r~[m., m.,.,,,,~,~,~.~: a ~.. Cities ,,,;" ,,,'~'c. Rur~ Area arc to be Urban Gr~: Area island&)) ~-11 The land uso pattern for Kin9 CounW shall protect the natural environment by roducin9 tho consumption of land and Concontratin9 development. An Urban Growth Area, Bural Areas, and resource lands shall be designated and tho necessaw implementin9 regulalions adopted. This includes Court.ldo establishment of a bounOaw [or the Urban Gro~h Area. kocal jurisdictions shall make land use decisions based on the Count~ido Plannin9 Polities. L]GM FC/02G M I~AM o102-1 .doc EXHIBIT 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 14 15 16 17 19 20 21 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 35 36 37 39 4O 46 47 48 14653 lhe Urban Grov~h Area shall provide enough ~and to accommodate future urban development. Policies to phase the provision of urban services and to ensure efficient use of the growth capacity within the Urban Growth Area shall be instituted. All jurisdictions within Kinq County share the responsibility to accommodate the 20-year population proiection. The .qrowth projection shall be assiqned to the four subareas of King.C.ounty (Sea-Shore, East, South, and the Rural Cities) proportionate with the share of proiected employment growth. The growth shall be allocated pursuant to the following obiectives: a. To ensure efficient use of land within the UGA by directin.q growth to Urban Centers and Activity Centers;- b. To limit development in the Rural Areas; c. To protect desiqnated resource lands; d. To ensure efficient use of infrastructure; e. To improve the jobs/housing balance on a subarea basis; f. To promote a land use pattern that can be served by public transpodation and other alternatives to the single occupancy vehicle; and 9- To provide sufficient opportunities for growth within the iurisdictions. FVV-12a FW-12b The .growth tarqets established pursuant to the methodoloqy described in LU-25c and 25d shall be supported by both reqional and local transpodation investments. The availability of an adequate .transportation system is critically important to accommodating qrowth. The regional responsibility shall be met by planning for and delivering county, state, and federal investments that support the growth targets and the land use pattern of the County. This includes investments in transit, state highways in key regional transpodation corridors, and in .improved access to the desiqnated Urban Centers. The local responsibility shall be met by local transportation system investments that support the achievement of the targets. LU - 25a Each jurisdiction shall plan for and accommodate the household and employment tarqets established pursuant to LU-25c and LU-25d. This obligation includes: a. Ensurinq adequate zoning capacity; and b. Planninq for and deliverinq water, sewer, transportation and other infrastructure, in concert with federal and state investments and recognizing where applicable special purpose districts; and Accommodatinq increases in household and employment tarqets as annexations occur. The tarqets will be used to plan for and to accommodate growth within each jurisdiction. The tarqets do not obligate a jur. isdiction, to guarantee that a given number of housing units will be built or jobs added durinq the planning period. l JGMPC/02GMPC/Mot02 - I .doc EXHIBIT_ -[ -/ 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 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 4'7 1 2 3 .,1 LU25b 14653 As annexations occur, growth tarqets shall be adjusted. Household and employment tarqets for each iurisdiction's potential annexation area, as adopted in Table LU-I~ shall be transferred lo tile annexing jurisdiction fol!ov/s: and employment targets for areas under consideration for annexation prior to the submittal of the annexation proposal to the King County Boundary Review Board; b. A city's household and employment targets shall be increased by a ' share of the tarqet for the potential annexation area proportionate to the share of tine potential annexation area's development capacih, located within the area annexed. Each city will determine how and where within their' corporate boundaries to accommodate the tarqet increases;. The County's target shall be correspondingly decreased to ensure that overall tarqet levels in the county remain the same; The household and employment tarqets in Table LU-1 will be updated periodically to reflect chanqes due to annexations. These target updates do not require adoption by the Growth Manaqement Planninq Council. LU ~ ((67)) 25cThe target ((.s~and regulatiens)) objectives identified in ((kbL66)) FW-12a ((are baseaLen)) shall be realized throuqh the following ((,steps)) methodoloqy for allocatinq household tarqets: a. ((-T~e-Growth Ma~t c~,.,,-,~.,,-,, ,~, ,, ,,, ,~ Cou,qci! adopted the target ever *h,~., ,.. ,,...~,""'"4 ~..,°n ...... ,.._,.. as-198¢)gO)) Determine the additional population that must be accommodated countywide by calculating the difference between the most recent Census count and the State Office of Financial Mana,qement population projection for the end of the twenty year planning period; ((Tho intedudsdi~ff comm~oe repodod te the Growth Management Planning Counci! or its-succ.~ssor target ranges-f~ aew4~useholds for oac,h-judsdic:,tion based on the fo!lewing criteria:)) Subtract a percentage from that number to represent the amount of .qrowth that is assumed to occur in the unincorporated Rural Area; ((.1 .T~pacityand c. endit~f~exist~n,_, ', oreeast .,,_.pital faeilitiesa~tiliti o s, 2~ Proximity, to maj~en, t c~,~qter~ 8. Ac-oess-to,~',.,x~st,,~,-,,-, a~egional4ransit~,,u 4. CapaeJty-ePandevo!opod !and and potentialJor4edevelepmem giver~ho chara6ter-ef-existing-deve!op men~ ,5. T h ~epa-range~fdaou sing4ype~ ~-aoh jurisdictien~hare~f-affordable-housing~as-required by affordable-housing polic4esv 7. Consislenoy-with-tho Countywide-numbers4)) I ]GM l~.d02G M I x.'./M or02- I .doc EXHIBIT PAGE It 1 2 3 6 9 I0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 ,12 ,13 46 47 14653 c. Assign propodions of the urban population growth to each of the four subareas (Sea-_Shore, South, East, and Rural Cities_) based on the pro_portion of future employment qro~th forecasted for each of those subareas by_ the Puget Sound Reqional Council; d. Convert the estimated projected po~o. ulation for ca_ch subarea to an estimated number of households usin.q protected averaqe_ household sizes that reflect the variation amonq those subareas observed in the most recent Census; Allocate a household tarqet to individual jurisdictions, within each subarea, based on FW-12a and considerinq the followinq factors: 1. the availability of water and the capacity.of the sewer system; 2. the remaininq portions of previously adopted household tarqets; 3. the presence of urban centers and activity areas within each iurisdiction; 4. the availability of zoned development capacity in each jurisdiction; and 5. the apparent market trends for housinq in the area. ((c. The-target,,..,"o'-'~,:,~:- o h '~'-"-~'-' '-" ,,..,, ,~'-i"',.,, Appendix~a-were4e co mmende d by t~ re,;,,! h4Clanagement P!anning-Oeun6il,-adepteCand-rat ified pursuant to peli6y P.;!-I, Step-4c4)) i,, ' ' i,~r~'~ ((d.-T4-te-target-rangc~-Mn each j~]',,~:~'4~ ..... comprehc~gsive-plaa-ehall be-6o~sd~tent-with4ho targebraages in, ^,v~,.., .... , ,., ,.,d ;'-' ~o ,-,,-v, shall-state ,~,,-, ,-~.,o,-,,-,,=¢,,,- do,,4ating from, ~h~ re,-,-,,-,, ..... · ...................... ~ ...... ~,~ s4; )) f. Jurisdictions shall plan for household tarqets as adopted in Table LU-1; and ((f))g. Monitoring should follow the process described in policy FW- 1. A portion of the urban employment growth will occur in Activity Areas and neighborhoods in the Urban Area. ?'his employment growth will support the Urban Centers, while balancing local employment opportunities in the Urban Area. LU - ((68)) 25d_((:rargot ranges4or~mployment-grewth-eu~rban Centers were o~ablished-fer-6itiesand4e¢qJninc_~rporateaLKing County-through the-je~ Countywide adoptier'd~ecoes~a~e~the4~lewing steps)) The tarqet objectives identified in FWd 2a shall be realized throuqh the following methodoloqy for allocating emplo__vment targets: ((¥he-GrewllMVlanagement-P4annin~r~l-adopted tho 20wea¢ target-number-fo, ,..,mcleyment~jrowt~7,-40,.,. T,he interjurisdictienal~tafPcommit~ee~evelopedcreliminary-regommenda- IJ(;MP('J02GMIY'IMoff)2 I dtK- 7 9 10 I1 12 13 14 15 16 17 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 14653 tions4or4arget-ranges4or-employment~rowth-insideandeutskle-U rban Area9 for-each jurisdiotion-bac-~-mJ-on4he4ollowing~riteria.'- !, Consistenoy-with the Countywide numbers:. ~-A~eeleTegi~al-rapid4raneiI and-existing highway-andededa! ~padt~ 4. A~ilabilitie~~vel~dI ,an~ and ~~ cha~er of ~,~~~ Sho w~li~es oM~riedi~s to imp~mep~l~e~ki~ r~identia~ae)) Determine the number of jobs that must be accommodated Jn each of the four subareas of King Coun~ (Sea- Shore, South, East, and the Rural Cities) in accordance with the most recent PSRC job estimates and forecasts for the 20-year planning period. To account for unce~aintv in the employment forecasts, establish a ranqe of new jobs that must be accomm~ated in each subarea. Unless exceptional circumstances dictate, the ranqe should be 5% on either side of the PSRC forecast. b. ((~a~~~w~n * .... ~ ,,~r~ tho ~ .... ~ ..... ~~i¢~ Cou~opt~nd r~f~ ~f~ant to ~ ,St¢)) For each subarea, determine the point within the range upon which jurisdictions within the subarea will base their targets and allocme employment flro~h targets to individual jurisdictions based on consideration of the followinq: 1. the PSRC small area forecasts; 2. the presence of urban centers, manufacturJn¢industrial centers, and activi~ areas within each jurisdiction; 3. the availabiliW of zoned commercial and industrial development capaciW in each jurisdiction and; 4. the access to transit, as well as to existinq hJphwavs and aderials. ((d. Thr~gh ,h., ,~ .......... ~, ~~.~.~,~,~h~ich~4, ,~a~ R,t,. ! SIC, if the juri~i~'s co, ,mpr~gi~iffe~ma~a~tcaa~ Gro,¢,ahMana~men~n~g Cound! or it~~sor ~t~4e~ither-tho Cou~~P~nn~ c. Jurisdictions shall plan for employment tarqets as adopted in Table LU-1. (INSERT TABLE LU-1) IJG M FC/02GMI"CRvlot02 - I .doc Bil PAGE 3 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 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 ,14 45 46 47 14653 F. 1. Urban Residential Areas Urbcm rc,s'idct~ti~d arc(;3' form thc bzdk of thc UGA, and arc home to a large portion of the C(mtzt),'x pw)ulatio~. 77~cy will cotl&firt a mix of u,rc,v a~(t ~rill havu differct~t and dcveh)pmc~u of fl~ese at'cas ((ix-a)) ar_e thc rc.g¢onsibilitv of the local jurixdiction ((at respot,sibitity)), llowever, the residential areas need to support the Centers concept and provide sufficient opportunity for growth within the UGA. A substantial majority of new residentktl units will be constructed within urban residential areas. LU-66 In order to ensure efficient use of the land within the UGA, provide for housing oppodunities, and to suppod efficient use of infrastructure, each jurisdiction shall: a. Establish in its comprehensive plan a target minimum number of net new households the jurisdiction will accommodate in the next 20 years in accordance with the adopted household growth targets identified in Table LU-1. Jurisdictions shall adopt regulations to and commit to fund infrastructure sufficient to achieve the target number; b. Establish a minimum density (not including critical areas) for new construction in each residential zone; and c. Establish in the comprehensive plan a target mix of housing types for new development and adopt regulations to achieve the target mix. LU-67 ~, %0 ~rOJ¢~h ~n~n~m~nt Dl~nninn Pn,,n~il 9dnnf~hn , ...... ~ ................. j ............. ~ O~ ~,, .......... ,~ .......... ~~ for a range of ~si~ ~~nsd~ ..... ~re of affordable h~~~d by aff~b!o ~ng ~ .... 7. Co~~i~oun~i~um~ 0. T~a~t ranges a~o~ Jn th~ro~a~~¢P4a~in~u~tra~pt~n~tif~ pumuant4~y ~~ con~en~it~rge~a~~~ix 2 or shal~ate th~s LtGM PC/O2GM PCJMot02 1.doc EXHIBIT 7 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 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 14653 e.~Through4be-process-eslabtisheO underq~t~-1 Step4brif4he jurisdi6tiorCs-comprehensived~lan- differsfrorn-t h6Margetwtho Growth Management Planning-Council-may recommend-amendments-to eitherdhe Countywide Planning-Policies~onlocal-plans;-and ,,.~,,,, ~,.,,t,.,: .... .~,., ,,..,:. ,,,. ,,~,~ i~,..:,~:~v (iescrihr4d ir; [~oli,3y FW-I~ 2~ -U rbar~Employmen~Growth A porlie¢~ofqhe~rl~m~growdvwilLoc~;u*~inv~dtivii?Arcas4~m~eighi~*4~ood~nqh¢ Urban Area.--~tT~ir,~mptoymenrgrowth ;;'il! :;upI~rt4he4/r&~n C-enters, ;'~ite bata~ei~$ local emptoymem-oppot~nitics in4hc Urba~em LU-68 Target-ranges~for omp~,-yment growth ~utside-~rban43,~, ,ter~, were ~...,,,.*,-,,,.-,,ctPJ"~hlieht"rtJr~r-~iti~e,,.,,.,,,.,, ,~,,,,~, fc, r,,.~, ,., ...... o¢[~)¢&le~ ~';-~' o,-,, ,,~tu~hr,',,ucd~ tho ;,-,;nt and ..... h,,,,;,4,~ ~d,-,,-,*;,-,,-,~- ..... ho o~,4 on 'h'~ following stops7. ..... · /,,,,~,~ ~,,~1~,,,~, r i-,,,~,r~,~ ,~,~,.,,.. .... a. Tho ~ .... ak u~,~,~,, P-lanning o ..... a ~-~--v , .... ~ .... k~~~.~~t, as847,400. The inb:~durjo,4k-,ti,--,¢,ol ~,,3,ff-6o,,,~t:teedevelop,.,. ~, ........... · re¢ommendations4erqarget-raf:~je~er-employment~jrewtlmi~Me end outddCdrbanAreas4or-eac4~ jurisd~ion basedq:m4he4ellewing 1. Ce~stenw witlmthe cx:~ntywido numbor~; ~ noed4o4iroct growth teqJrban4genters based~ consisted6' with them~kiple~ters~trategyf 8. Acoess4e4egk~al-rapk~raf~sit ~nd~,..~.,r~i*t~""-',~ hJghway-armbafledal A ^wailahilitin° ,mi U, · ,,Ih, ,~ ........... ¢ ................... v' ......... t' ............... and ,h,~ o~,,,,;~,~, ,-,f po!ic, ieMhat e,qc,~ara~stering4~ b. Thetarget ........ h ..... ;'- App by r~, ,~,.,o endi~ero ........ ...,4 the43rowthMana§emont-P4an~ o...~.,,~,,,a adopted and4atified pursuant ~'-,~ po!icy-F3A/-!, -.-,,-,ve*"'~ 4~ c. As-part of4heir ,-.,.,~,.,.h,.,:~,.,,. r,~,.,-,o alFjurisdictions s,hal! planneO-empleymont capa6ity ~, ,d4ar§et,.... increases4n~emp!eymeRi for~O-years4nside-and outsido Urba~ter-s-anO~ohalkshow hew lheir-plans4eflect the-er4teria in-this-pelic6q-anO d. T-hrough-the-prec~s~abli$~o r ,~At- !,--,~r,q~"~'~-, if-the judsdiction,'s oen~rehensiveplar'~differs fro,m4he target-range~he Grewth Management4P4anning~Geuncil4:mits su6cossor ,,-nay , ,ann~ng4~ .... les reoommend-amendments4o-either-the-Counlywid o p~ ' or looal-plans~ 1/(;M FCJO2GM FCdMoff)2-1 .doc EXHiBi' i - - PAGE 9 10 I1 12 13 14 15 21.4653 ADOPTED by the Growth Management Planning Council of King County on July 24, 2002 in open session. , Growthx Management Planning Council L/GMPCd02GMPC/Mot02-I.doc - 9 - Attachment 2 2003-0124 14653 July 24, 2002 /cm Sponsored By: Executive Committee 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 MOTION NO. 02-2 A MOTION by the Growth Management Planning Council of King County recommending the amendment of the Countywide Planning Policies adding targets for new household for the period 2001-2022 by deleting Appendix 2, 2A and 2B and amending Table LU~I: 2001- 2022 Household and Employment Growth Targets which will be located in Section HI. C of the Countywide Planning Policies. WHEREAS, the 1994 Countywide Planning Policies established a housing target range for each city and for King County; and WHEREAS, the Growth Management Act requires the 1994 targets need to be revised to establish an extension of the targets through 2022; and WHEREAS the Growth Management Planning Council met and discussed the extension of the household and employment targets for the period 2001-2022, with opportunity for public comment on March 28, 2001, July 25, 2001, October 24, 2001 and May 22, 2002. THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLANNING COUNCIL OF KING COUNTY IIEREBY MOVES AS FOLLOWS: The attached Table LU-I: 2001-2022 Household and Employment Growth Targets is hereby recommended for adoption in the Countywide Planning Policies to revise the household growth targets to reflect the target extension from January 1, 2001 through December 31, 2022 and Appendix 2, 2A, 2B are recommended for deletion. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14653 ADOPTED by the Growth Management Planning Council of King County on September 25, 2002 in open session. · Chair, Growth Management Planning Council Attachment: 1. Table LU-I: 2001-2022 Household and Employment Growth Targets. lJG M PC/02GM I'K]/MoI02-2 .doc - 2 - EXHIBIT C,,, ..... PAGEt__.L~OF~~-- Attachment3 2003-0124 14653 July 24, 2002 /cm Sponsored By: Executive Committee 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 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 MOTION NO. 02-3 A MOTION by the Growth Management Planning Council of King County recommending the amendment of the Countywide Planning Policies adding targets for new jobs for the period 2001-2022 by amending Table LU-1:2001-2022 Household and Employment Growth Targets which will be located in Section III. C of the Countywide Planning Policies. WHEREAS, the 1994 Countywide Planning Policies established an employment target range for each city and for King County; and WHEREAS, the 1994 targets need to be revised to establish an extension of the targets through 2022 as required by the Growth Management Act. WHEREAS the Growth Management Planning Council met and discussed the extension of the household and employment targets for the period 2001-2022, with opportunity for public comment on March 28, 2001, July 25, 2001, October 24, 2001 and May 22, 2002. THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLANNING COUNCIL OF KING COUNTY HEREBY MOVES AS FOLLOWS: The attached Table LU-1:2001-2022 Household and Employment Growth Targets is hereby recommended for adoption in the Countywide Planning Policies to revise the employment growth target, s to reflect the target extension from January 1, 2001 through December 31, 2022. PAG E_/ O F_2, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 14653 ADOPTED by the Growth Management Planning Council o'f King County on September 25, 2002 in open session. Ron Sims, Chair, Growth Management Planning Council Attachment: 1. Table LU-I: 2001-2022 Household and Employment Growth Targets. IdGM PC/02GM PC/Mot02-3.doc EXH'IB~T ~ PAGE 2~ 0 F~,_~_~ Metropolitan King County Council Growth Management and Unincorporated Areas Committee Staff Report Agenda Item: 7 Name: Proposed Ordinance: 2003-0124 Date: Attending: Paul Reitenbach, King County DDES Kevin Wright, King County PAO Lauren Smith March 18, 2003 SUBJECT: Proposed Ordinance 2003-0124 adopting amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies; adopting new household and employment targets for the period 2001 through 2022; ratifying the amended Countywide Planning Policies on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County. 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 1990 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 regional consistency with respect to land use planning efforts. The GMPC drafted the CPPs, which were then adopted by the King County Council and ratified by the cities. Changes to the CPPs are recommended by the GMPC, adopted by the King County Council, and ratified by the cities. GMPC Development of Household & Employment Targets In February 2002, the Washington State Office of Financial Management released new population forecasts for the 20-year period 2002-2022 (the projections were smaller than expected, largely due to the current economic climate). The GMA requires King County and the cities within King County to plan to accommodate these updated projections. The GMPC is responsible for developing updated household and employment targets for each jurisdiction in King County. The GMPC's interjurisdictional staff team worked with a subcommittee of the King County Planning Directors to extend the existing targets through 2022, with the GMPC's approval of their methodology. In recent years, the region has grappled with the concept of a jobs/housing "balance" as part of ongoing growth management discussions. The development of the updated targets was approached with the jobs/housing balance in mind. The methodology approved by the GMPC took a sub-regional approach. First, the County's urban area was divided into four subareas: "SeaShore" (comprised of Seattle, Shoreline, and EXHIBIT Lake Forest Park), East King County, South King County and the Rural CitiesL Next, a percentage of the total population forecast for King County was assigned to each subarea that was based on the percentage of expected job growth for each subarea (employment forecasts were provided by the Puget Sound Regional Council). Finally, the raw population numbers were converted into households (based on the average household size in each subarea), and the jurisdictions within each subarea negotiated their household targets. The draft household and employment targets were presented to the GMPC On May 22, 2002 at which time the GMPC directed staff to prepare motions recommending their adoption. Policy changes related to the new targets were adopted on July 24, 2002 and the targets themselves were adopted on September 25, 2002. Development of the household targets was informed by the results of the Buildable Lands work (required by GMA), which has been developed over the past 5 years (the Buildable Lands Report was released in August, 2002). Major findings from this work include: · 96% of all new development in King County is occurring within Urban Growth Areas. · 40% of the way through the 1992-2012 planning period, King County has reached 38% of the household growth target, and more than 50% of the population forecast. · King County has the capacity for 263,000 more housing units. This is more than twice the capacity needed to accommodate the remainder of the 1992-2012 household growth targets. · King County has the capacity for nearly 600,000 more jobs within the Urban Growth Area - several times the remaining target of 110,000 jobs for the period 1992-2012. · All available evidence suggests that there is enough capacity to support the new targets through 2022. SUMMARY: Proposed Ordinance 2003-0127 would amend the Countywide Planning Policies by: · Adopting revised household targets for each jurisdiction in King County for the period 2001-2022; · Adopting revised employment targets for each jurisdiction in King County for the period 2001-2022; and · Amending the policy direction in the Countywide Planning Policies in support of the new household and employment targets. Additionally, the ordinance would ratify these changes on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County, as required by Countywide Planning Policy FW~I, Step 9. Amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies become effective when ratified by ordinance or resolution by at least 30% of the city and county governments representing 70% of the population of King County according to the Interlocal agreement. A city shall be deemed to have ratified the countywide planning policy unless, within 90 days of adoption by King County, the city by legislative action disapproves the Countywide Planning Policy. ATTACHMENTS: 1 Although the Carnation, Duvall, Enumclaw, North Bend and Snoqualmie are called Rural Cities, the Growth Management Act considers all municipalities to be Urban. Rural cities provide the vast majority of services and infrastructure for residents of the Rural unincorporated area, and they do have growth targets, albeit small ones when compared to cities in the main urban growth area. C:\WINDOWS\TEMP~003-0124 (CPP Amendmenls - Household Employmenl Targels)(3-18~)3).doc 5/21/2003 8:50 AM 1. Proposed Ordinance 2003-0124, with attachments C:\WtNDOWS\TEMP~2003-0124 (CPP Amendments - ttousehold [_mployment Targets)(3 18-03).doc 5/21/2003 0:50 AM KING COUNTY Signature Report May 19, 2003 Ordinance14654 1200 King County Courthouse 516 Third Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Proposed No. 2003-0125.1 Sponsors Hague AN ORDINANCE adopting amendments to.the Countywide Planning Policies; amending the Urban Separator map to reflect negotiated modifications to the Renton Urban Separator; ratifying the ,amended Countywide Planning Policies for unincorporated King County; and amending Ordinance 10450, Section 3, as amended, and K.C.C. 20.10.030 and Ordinance 10450, Section 4, as amended, and K.C.C. 20.10.040 BE IT 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 I) in July 1992, under Ordinance 10450. Ordinance 14654 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 B. The metropolitan King County council adopted and ratified the Phase II amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies on August 15, 1994, under Ordinance 11446. C. The Growth Management Planning Council met on October 23, 2002 and voted to recommend amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, amending the Urban Separator map to reflect negotiated modifications to the Renton Urban Separator. 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 ti 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 1I Amendments to the King County 2012 ~ Countywide Planning Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 and 2 to Ordinance 13260. E. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 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 1 through 3 to Ordinance 13858. EXHID,, .... Ordinance 14654 38 39 41 42 43 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 6O G. The Phase II Amendments tO the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14390. tl. The l'hase II z\mendn~cnts to thc King County 9.2012 - Countywide l~tanning Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14391. I. The Phase H 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 I 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 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 amendments to the King County 2012 Countywide Planning Policies adopted by Ordinance 11446 are hereby ratified on behalf of th.e population of' unincorporated King County. E. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as shown by Attachment I to Ordinance 12027 are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King Connty. Ordinance 14654 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 8O 81 F. Thc 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 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. 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, 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 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14392, are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County. EXHIBI-¥ PAG F_IO Ordinance 14654 82 83 85 M. Thc amendments to Iht King_Counlv 2012 - Countywide PlanninR Policies, as_ shown by Attachment I to this ordinance, arcJ~creby ~atificd on behalf of thc p_opulation o~ ~!~_~ nco~/poratcd Kin g Cou n tv. Ordinance 14654 was introduced on 3/17/2003 and passed by the Metropolitan King County Council on 5/19/2003, by the following vote: Yes: 12 - Ms. Sullivan, Ms. EdmOnds, Mr. von Reichbauer, Ms. Lambert, Mr. Phillips, Mr. Pelz, Mr. McKenna, Mr. Constantine, Mr. Gossett, Ms. Hague, Mr. Irons and Ms. Patterson No: 0 Excused: 0 KING COUIxFI'Y COUNCIL KING COUNTY, WASItDqGTON ATTEST: Anne Noris, Clerk of the Council APPROVED this ~ day of ~ Cynthia Sullivan, Chair ' Attachments 1. GMPC Motion 02-5 PAGE_ Attachment l 2003-0125 14654 October 23, 2002 Sponsored By: Executive Committee MOTION NO. 02-5 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 A MOTION to amend the Urban Separator Map in the Countywide Planning Policies to reflect the negotiated modifications of the Renton Urban Separator. WHEREAS, The Growth Management Act states that each Urban Growth Area shall permit urban densities and shall include greenbelt and open space areas; WHEREAS, Urban Separators are an adopted regional strategy serving multiple functions and providing environmental, visual, recreational and wildlife benefits to the citizens and communities of King County; WHEREAS, Consistent With the Countywide Planning Policies, the King COunty Comprehensive Plan recognizes that Urban Separators create open space corridors, provide a visual contrast to continuous development, and reinforce the unique identities of communities; WHEREAS, King County has designated Urban Separators on the Land Use 2000 map in the King County Comprehensive Plan, and King County has provided advance copies of Urban Separator maps to cities that have designated Urban Separators located within their Potential Annexation Areas; WHEREAS, the City of Renton disagreed with Urban Separator.designation for 76 acres of land within its Potential Annexation Area; and WHEREAS, the GroWth Management Planning Council directed staff to attempt to negotiate a'mutually acceptable resolution of this disagreement EXHIBI-f PAG E__.&_O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 I0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 14654 'FILE GROWrDt MANAGEMENT PLANNING COUNCIL OF KING COUNTY HEREBY MoVEs AS FOLLOWS: The Urban Separators map included within the Countywide Planning Policies document is amended to reflect the negotiated modifications of the Renton Urban Separator described and mapped in the September 25, 2002 GMPC staff report. Specifically, 76 acres of unincorporated land is deleted from Urban Separator designation and 118.8 acres within the City of Renton shall be designated Urban Separator. ADOPTED by the Growth Management Planning Council of King County on October 23, 2002 in open session. Ron Sims, Chair, Growth Management Planning Council idG M PCd2002GM PCJMotion02-5 .doc EXHIBIT _ PAG Metropolitan King County Council Growth Management and Unincorporated Areas Committee Staff Report Agenda Item: 8 Name: Proposed Ordinance: 2003-0125 Date: Attending: Paul Reitenbach, King County DDES Kevin Wright, King County PAO Lauren Smith March 18, 2003 SUBJECT: Proposed Ordinance 2003-0125 adopting amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies; amending the Urban Separator map to reflect negotiated modifications to the Renton Urban Separator; ratifying the amended Countywide Planning Policies on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County. 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 1990 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 regional consistency with respect to land use planning efforts. The GMPC drafted the CPPs, which were then adopted by the King County Council and ratified by the cities. Changes to the CPPs are recommended by the GMPC, adopted by the King County Council, and ratified by the cities. Countywide Planning Policies: Policy Direction related to Urban Separators Urban Separators are regionally significant Iow-density areas within the Urban Growth Area that create open space corridors, provide a visual contrast to continuous development and reinforce the unique identities of communities. Urban Separators can play a significant role in preserving environmentally sensitive areas and providing fish and wildlife habitat. They also provide regional benefits, such as parks and trails, and meet the Growth Management Act's requirement for greenbelts and open space within the Urban Growth Area. Urban Separators are governed by Countywide Planning Policy LU-27: LU-27 Urban Separators are Iow-density areas or areas of little development within the Urban Growth Area. Urban Separators shall be defined as permanent Iow-density lands which protect adjacent resource lands, Rural Areas, and environmentally sensitive areas and create open space corridors within and between Urban Areas which provide environmental, visual, recreational and wildlife benefits. Designated urban separators shall not be redesignated in the future (in the 20-year planning cycle) to other urban uses or higher densities. The maintenance of these urban separators is a regional as Urban Seoarator)¢3-184)3).doc 5/21/2003 8:50 AM EXHIBIT-]A '_OF well as local concern. Therefore, no modifications should be made to the development regulations governing these areas without King County review and concurrence. Urban Separators are within the Urban Growth Area and therefore are appropriate to be annexed by cities. Once annexed, Urban Separators (and all other annexed land) are shown as "incorporated areas" on the County's comprehensive land use map. The lack of a map of Urban Separators in the countywide planning document was seen by the staff as problematic because it increased the likelihood that cities might be unaware of the presence of Urban Separators within their Potential Annexation Areas. Therefore, the interjurisdictional staff team recommended that the GMPC adopt a map of existing Urban Separators. Three cities have designated Urban Separators within their Potential Annexation Areas: Auburn, Kent, and Renton. Past GMPC Actions related to Urban Separators July 25, 2001 GMPC staff recommends including a map of existing urban separators in the Countywide Planning Policies. Member jurisdictions of the GMPC express concern over the boundaries of designated Urban Separators and ask the interjurisdictional staff team to present additional information at the September meeting. September 26, 2001 GMPC directs staff to meet with affected cities (Kent, Renton and Auburn) to answer questions and clarify the boundaries of the designated Urban Separators. October 5, 2001 King County staff meets with Kent, Renton and Auburn to answer questions and clarify the boundaries of the designated Urban Separators. November 20, 2001 The interjurisdictional staff team reports to the GMPC Executive Committee that staff has successfully negotiated a solution to concerns about mapping Urban Separators raised by Renton and Auburn. The Executive Committee directs staff to develop a motion for the GMPC's consideration at the December meeting. December 11, 2001 GMPC adopts Motion 01-1, adopting maps of uncontested Urban Separators and setting in place a process to fudher analyze and refine the Urban Separators in Renton and Auburn's Potential Annexation Areas, to be completed no later than September 30, 2002. September 25, 2002 The interjurisdictional staff team reported back to the GMPC with the following information on the City of Renton and Auburn's Urban Separators: City of Renton Renton did not agree with the Urban Separator designation for 76 acres of unincorporated urban land within their Potential Annexation Area (PAA), citing lack of environmental EXHIBIT.__ _ C:\w~D~w`~S\TEMF~2~3~2~(~PF~Amendmen~$~Re~`~nUrb~Sep~ra~3~18~3~d~5~2~38:*AM PAGE constraints. However, Renton did identify 119 acres within their city limits that they felt met the criteria for designation of Urban Separators. The City proposed removing the Urban Separator designation from the 76 acres within their PAA, and applying the designation to the 119 acres within their city boundaries, for a net gain of 43 acres. The interjurisdictional staff team field- checked the two areas and concurred with the city's conclusions. City of Auburn Auburn did not agree with the Urban Separator designation for 178 acres of land within their PAA, but has identified 153 acres they do feel meets the criteria. The City of Kent recently annexed a large piece of property adjacent to Auburn's existing Urban Separator that the interjurisdictional staff team believes contains environmentally constrained areas and that would make a natural extension of the existing Urban Separator. However, the City of Kent does not wish to consider designating this area until sometime in 2003. Therefore, the interjurisdictional staff team recommends that discussions should continue with Auburn and Kent, and that staff should report back to the GMPC with recommendations by June 1, 2003. October 23, 2002 The GMPC adopted Motion 02-5, amending the Countywide Planning Policies to reflect the negotiated modifications to the Renton Urban Separator. SUMMARY: Proposed Ordinance 2003-0125 would amend the Countywide Planning Policies by: · Revising the Urban Separator map to reflect the negotiated modifications to the Renton Urban Separator, as indicated on the map in Attachment 2 to this staff report. Additionally, the ordinance would ratify these changes on behalf of the population of' unincorporated King County, as required by Countywide Planning Policy FW-1, Step 9. Amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies become effective when ratified by ordinance or resolution by at least 30% of the city and county governments representing 70% of the population of King County according to the Interlocal agreement. A city shall be deemed to have ratified the countywide planning policy unless, within 90 days of adoption by King County, the city by legislative action disapproves the Countywide Planning Policy. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Proposed Ordinance 2003-0125, with attachments 2. Map of Renton Urban Separator C:~WINDOWS\TEMi~2.003-0125 (CPP Amendmenls - Renlon Urban Sep3rator)(3-18*O3),doc 5/21/2003 8:50 AM EXHIBIT PAGE_C_ _OF KING COUNTY Signature Report May 20, 2003 Ordinance 14655 1200 King County Courthouse 516 Ttfird Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Proposed No. 20034)126.1 Sponsors Hague AN ORDINANCE adopting amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies; designating Totem Lake as an Urban Center; ratifying the amended Countywide Planning Policies for unincorporated King County; and amending Ordinance 10450, Section 3, as amended, and K.C.C. 20.10.030 and Ordinance 10450, Section 4, as amended, and K.C.C. 20.10.040 BE IT 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 I) in July 1992, under Ordinance 10450. B. The metropolitan King County council adopted and ratified the Phase II amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies on August 15, 1994, under Ordinance 11446. EXHIBIT_ I .OF Ordinance 14655 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 C. The Growth Management Planning Council met on October 23, 2002 and voted to recommend amendments to the King Connty 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, designating Totem Lake as an Urban Center. 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 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 1] Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 and 2 to Ordinance 13260. E. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 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. 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. EXHIBI-I'__ '- PAGF 2 OF' Ordinance 14655 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 5O 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 I. '/he Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countyxvide 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 I 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 Poli. cies 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 populati.on of unincorporated King County. D. The Phase Il 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. EXHIBIT PAGE,, 3 Ordinance 14655 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73' 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 G. The amendments to the 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. I. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Count~twide 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, 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 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance. 14392, are hereby ratifidd on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County. M. The amendments to the King Cgunty 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as EXH ! PAGE__A_( F' tO 4 Ordinance 14655 81 82 shown by Attachment 1 to this ordinance, arc hereby ratified on behalf of thc population of unincorporated King Cou__n_ty. Ordinance 14655 was introduced on 3/17/2003 and passed by the Metropolitan King County Council on 5/19/2003, by the following vote: Yes: 12 - Ms. Sullivan, Ms. Edmonds, Mr. yon Reichbauer, Ms. Lambert, Mr. Phillips, Mr. Pelz, Mr. McKenna, Mr. Constantine, Mr. Gossett, Ms. Hague, Mr. Irons and Ms. Patterson No: 0 Excused: 0 ATTEST: Anne Noris, Clerk of thc Council APPROVED this ~,~day of [YIO~ KiNG COUNTY COUNCIL KING COUNTY, WASItlNGTON -C'/ynthia Sullivan, Chair - 2003. ~ty ~ ~-- ' '. Executlv Attachments 1. GMPC Motion 02-6 EXHIBIT .... PAGF $_0 At~chmentl 2003-0126 14655 October23,2002 Sponsored By: Executive Committee MOTION NO. 02-6 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 A MOTION to amend the Countywide Planning Policies by designating Totem Lake as an Urban Center. Totem Lake is added to the list of Urban Centers following CountyWide Planning Policy LU-39. WHEREAS, A goal of the Growth Management Act is to encourage, development in Urban Areas where adequate public 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 Kirkland has demonstrated that Totem Lake meets the criteria for designation as an Urban Center,-and that Kirkland's "Totem Lake Activity Area" designated on the City's comprehensive plan land use map is consistent with the standards established by the Countywide Planning Policies for Urban Center designation. WIIEREAS, King County Comprehensive Plan Policy U-106 supports the development of Urban Centers to meet the region's needs for housing, .jobs, services, culture and recreation. PAGE _t.._OF /D 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 14655 TI It:. GROWTtI MANAGEMENT PLANNING COUNCIL OF KIN(; COUNTY ttEREBY MOVES AS FOLLOWS: Totem Lake is designated as an Urban Center. The list of Urban Centers following Countywide Planning Policy LU-39 is modified to include Totem Lake. ADOPTED by the Growth Management Planning Council of King County on October 23, 2002 in open session. Ron Sims, Chair, Groxvth Management Planning Council L/GM PCF2002G M PC/Motion02 4.doc Metropolitan King County Council Growth Management and Unincorporated Areas Committee Staff Report Agenda Item: 9 Name: Proposed Ordinance: 2003-0126 Date: Attending: Paul Reitenbach, King County DDES Kevin Wright, King County PAO Lauren Smith March 18, 2003 SUBJECT: Proposed Ordinance 2003-0126 adopting amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies; designating Totem Lake as an Urban Center; ratifying the amended Countywide Planning Policies on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County. 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 1990 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 regional consistency with respect to land use planning efforts. The GMPC drafted the CPPs, which were then adopted by the King County Council and ratified by the cities. Changes to the CPPs are recommended by the GMPC, adopted by the King County Council, and ratified by the cities. City of Kirkland requests Urban Center designation for Totem Lake In 2002, the City of Kirkland requested that Totem Lake be designated as an Urban Center in the Countywide Planning Policies. Urban Centers are envisioned in the CPPs as areas of concentrated employment and housing, with direct service by high-capacity transit, and a wide range of other land uses. 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. In January, 2002 the Kirkland City Council adopted a new plan for the Totem Lake neighborhood that would support its designation as an Urban Center. Totem Lake, which is located in the northeast corner of Kirkland, encompasses about one square mile and includes residential, office, retail, light industrial and institutional uses. Designating Totem Lake as an Urban Center would involve amending Countywide Planning Policy LU-39 to add it to the list of existing Urban Centers, which currently includes: + Bellevue ,:- Redmond Overlake + Seattle CBD · :-Kent .:- Redmond CBD ,:, Seattle Center · :.Federal Way -:- Renton CBD .:- First/Capitol Hill EXHIBIT---- -- · :. University District -:. Northgate -:. Tukwil'a 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: · :.A minimum of 15,000 jobs within one-half mile of a transit center; · :.At a minimum, an average of 50 employees per gross acre; and · :.At a minimum, an average of 15 households per acre. When fully realized, Urban Centers shall be characterized by the following: · :.Clearly defined geographic boundaries; · :.An intensity/density of land uses sufficient to support effective and rapid transit; · :.Pedestrian emphasis within the Center; -:- Emphasis on superior urban desi9n which reflects the local community; · :.Limitations on single-occupancy vehicle usage durin9 peak commute hours; o:. A broad array of land uses and choices within those land uses for employees and residents; · :. Sufficient public open spaces and recreational opportunities; and · :. Uses which provide both daytime and nighttime activities in the Center. The interjurisdictional staff team analyzed the Totem Lake neighborhood against all of the criteria in the Countywide Planning Policies 9overning Urban Centers, and found that an Urban Center designation would be appropriate, for the following reasons: · :.The City of Kirkland has completed the necessary plannin9 to support an Urban Center designation. · :.By 2012, Totem Lake is projected to contain over 4,500 housing units and 21,400 jobs. o:- Totem Lake is planned as a transit oriented development district with very high residential and commercial intensity. · :-A new transit center will be constructed at the center of the transit oriented development district. · :.Within ½ mile of the transit center, 11,000 jobs and 2000 housing units are projected by 2012. Another 3,000 to 4,000 jobs are expected by 2022. · :-Employment densities in Totem Lake are planned for a minimum of 130 jobs per acre (net), and will reach approximately 40 jobs per gross acre by 2022. · :. Residential densities are planned for 50-75 units/acre (net). Capacity will remain for additional job and housin9 growth beyond 2022. · :. Other comprehensive plan policies are in place to support pedestrian emphasis, job creation and re-investment, redevelopment, high density residential and high intensity commercial uses, design principles, infrastructure, parks and open space, and community services. SUMMARY: Proposed Ordinance 2003-0126 would amend the Countywide Planning Policies by: · Adding Totem Lake to the list of Urban Centers in Policy LU-39. Additionally, the ordinance would ratify the change on behalf of the population of unincorporated Kin9 County, as required by Countywide Planning Policy FW-1, Step 9. Amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies become effective when ratified by ordinance or resolution by at least 30% of the city and county 9overnments representin9 70% of the population of King County according to the Interlocal agreement. A city shall be deemed to E_XHIBIT__ have ratified the countywide planning policy unless, within 90 days of adoption by King County, the city by legislative action disapproves the Countywide Planning Policy. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Proposed Ordinance 2003-0126, with attachments EXHIBi'; __[ PAGE_ ~ OF C:~WINIE)OWS\TIEMP~2003-O126 (CPP An~endments - Tolem Lake Urban Cenlef~f3-18~)3).doc 5r21/'2003 8:51 AM KING COUNTY Signature Report May 20, 2003 Ordinance 14656 1200 King County Courthouse 516 Third Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Proposed No. 2003-0127.1 Sponsors Hague AN ORDINANCE adopting amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies addressing the long-term protection of agricultural production districts; ratifying the amended Countywide Planning Policies for unincorporated King County; and amending Ordinance 10450, Section 3, as amended, and K.C.C. 20.10.030 and Ordinance 10450, Section 4, as amended, and K.C.C. 20.10.040 BE IT 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 -Coun. tywide Planning Policies (Phase I) in July 1992, under Ordinance 10450. B. The.metropolitan King County council adopted and ratified the Phase ll amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies on August 15, 1994, under Ordinance 11446. · 1 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 Ordinance 14656 C. The Growth Management Planning Council met on June 16, 1999, and adopted Motion 99-3, recommending amendments tothe King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies addressing the long-term protection of agricultural production districts; adopting new policies LU-2A and LU-2B, revising the interim potential annexation area map so that the lower green river valley agricultural production district is not within the potential annexation area of any city, and drawing the urban growth area boundary around the lower green river valley agricultural production district to clarify that it is outside of the urban growth area. E. The King County Council adopted Motion 11208 on May 21, 2001, requesting that the GMPC review and reconsider its Motion' 99-3 and provide for a thorough public process, including opportunities for public testimony. D. The Growth Management Planning Council met on September 26, 2001 and adopted Motion 01-2, reaffirming Motion 99-3. 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 1I 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. 2 PAGE Ordinance 14656 4O 41 ~2 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 5O 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 6O 61 62 D. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 and 2 to Ordinance 13260. E. The Phase I1 Amendments to thc King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 through 4 to Ordinance 13415. F. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planmng Policies are amended, as shown by Attachments 1 through 3 to Ordinance 13858. G. The Phase 11 Amendments to the King County 201-2 - Countywide Planning Policies am amended, as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14390. H. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planmng Policies arc amended, as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14391. I. The Phase 1I Amendments to the King County 2012 -' Countywide Planning Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14392. J. The Phase 1/Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies are amended, as shown by Attachments 1 and 2 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 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 am 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. 3 PAGF S_OF 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 Ordinance 14656 D. The Phase H 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 - Counfywide Planning Policies, as shown by Attachment I 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 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. 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 df unincorporated 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. EXH Bf'i PAGE__ OF/-/-L Ordinance 14656 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 K. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as shown by Attachment I to Ordinance 14391, are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County. L. The amen,dments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as shown by Attachment I 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 PAGE $_- .. '.'::-.1 t________. Ordinance 14656 91 92 93 shown by Attachments I and 2 to this ordinance, arc hereby ratified on behalf of the ILopnlation of unincorporated King~Comgy: O'rdinance 14656 was introduced on 3/17/2003 and passed by the Metropolitan King County Council on 5/19/2003, by the following vote: Yes: 12 - Ms. Sullivan, Ms. Edmonds, Mr. yon Reichbauer, Ms. Lambert, Mr. Phillips, Mr. Pelz, Mr. McKenna, Mr. Constantine, Mr. Gossett, Ms. Hague, Mr. Irons and Ms. Patterson No: 0 Excused: 0 KING COUNTY COUNCIL KING COUbYFY, WASHINGTON ATTEST: Anne Nods, Clerk of the Council Cynthia Sullivan, Chair APPROVED this ,3~'/9~day of r~ · 2003. Attachments 1. GMPC Motion 99-3, 2. GMPC Motion 01-2 EXHIB.i: F PAGE_f._OF Attachment2 2003-0127 14656 September 26, 2001 /pr Sponsored By: Executive Committee MOTION NO. 01-2 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 -24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 . A MOTION reaffirming Motion 99-3 passed by the GMPC on June 16, 1999 mending the Countywide Planning Policies to add new policies that address the long-term governance of Agricultural Production Districts. WHEREAS, The Growth Management Act requires the maintenance, enhancement and conservation of agricultural industries and lands through a variety of methods and programs; WHEREAS, .King County residents have supported efforts to preserve good farmland and active farms for the value of local crops, dairy and livestock and for scenic and historic values; WHEREAS, King County, through the Farmlands Preservation Program, has purchased the development rights of 12,600 acres of farmland and has established the Agricultural P[oduction Districts (APDs) to further protect these and adjacent prime agricultural lands; WHEREAS, the Lower Green River APD is ~:ompletely surrounded by Urban designated lands and as such is under immense pressure for development and annexation; and' WHEREAS, King County and the City of Auburn have signed an interlocal agreement that removes the southern portion of the Lower Green APD out of the city's potential annexation area. THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLANNING COUNCIL OF KING COUNTY HEREBY MOVES AS FOLLOWS: Reaffirm the unanimous vote by this Council on June 16, 1999 to add the following new Countywide Planning Policies: LU-2A Designated Agricultural ProductiOn District lands shall not be annexed by cities. LU-2B The Lower Green River Agricultural Production District is a regionally designated resource that is to remain in unincorporated King County. Preservation of the Lower Green River Agricultural Production District will provide an urban separator as surrounding Urban areas are annexed and developed. King County may contract with other jurisdictions to provide some local services to this area as appropriate. AGE ''/ OF ti · 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 i0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1~656 In the event that this motion is ratified by the member jurisdictions of Growth Management Planning Council, then the Interim Potential Annexation Area Map shall be revised accordingly and the Urban Growth Boundary will be drawn around the Lower Green Agricultural Production District (APD) to clarify that the APD is outside of the Urban area. ADOPTED by the Growth Management Planning Council of King County on September 26, 2001 in open session. Ro~~i~, Growth Management Planning Council · EXHIBIT Iff' 8 PAGE .... L/G~001GMPC/Motion01-2.doc - 2 - Metropolitan King County Council Growth Management and Unincorporated Areas Committee Staff Report Agenda Item: 10 Name: Proposed Ordinance: 2003-0127 Date: Attending: Paul Reitenbach, King County DDES Kevin Wright, King County PAO Lauren Smith March 18, 2003 SUBJECT: Proposed Ordinance 2003-0127 adopts amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies addressing the long term protection of Agricultural Production Districts, and ratifies the amended Countywide Planning Policies on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County. 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 1990 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 regional consistency with respect to land use planning efforts. The GMPC drafted the CPPs, which were then adopted by the King County Council and ratified by the cities. Changes to the CPPs are recommended by the GMPC, adopted by the King County Council, and ratified by the cities. GMPC Actions In June of 1999, the GMPC adopted Substitute Motion 99-3, recommending amendments to the King County Countywide Planning Policies, as follows: Recommendation #1. Add two new policies addressing the long-term governance of Agricultural Production Districts: LU-2A Designated Agricultural Production Districts shall not be annexed by cities. LU-2B The Lower Green River Valley Agricultural Production District is a regionally designated resource that is to remain in unincorporated King County. Preservation of the Lower Green River Valley Agricultural Production District will provide an urban separator as surrounding urban areas are annexed and developed. King County may contract with other jurisdictions to provide some local services to this area as appropriate. EXHIF F ' PAC::?. I! C:~WINOOWS\TEMP~.O03~0127 (CPP Amendmen(s - Lower Green River Valley APDX3-18~)3) doc 5/21/2003 8:51 AM Recommendation #2. Amend the Potential Annexation Area (PAA) Map in the CPPs so that the Lower Green River Valley APD does not appear within the PAA boundaries of any jurisdiction. Recommendation #3. Amend the Urban Growth Area map by drawing the Urban Growth Area Boundary around the Lower Green River Valley APD. This is to clarify its classification as long- term resource land, and to emphasize that although it is located west of the main urban-rural boundary line, it is not considered urban. King County Council Actions In 1999, the King County Council amended the King County Comprehensive Plan to be consistent with the GMPC recommendations contained in Motion 99-3, by adopting policies R- 513 and R-544 (see below), and by drawing the Urban Growth Area Boundary around the Lower Green River Valley APD (see Attachment 2). R-513 Designated Forest and Agricultural Production District lands shall not be annexed by cities. R-544 The Lower Green River Agricultural Production District is a regionally designated resource that is to remain in unincorporated King County. The Lower Green River Agricultural Production District functions as an urban separator between the cities of Kent and Auburn. King County may contract with other jurisdictions to provide some local services to this area as appropriate. In 2000, the King County Council further amended the King County Comprehensive Plan by adopting Policy R-543, which also supports the GMPC's recommendations in Motion 99-3: R-543 King County commits to preserve Agricultural Production District parcels in or near the Urban Growth Area because of their high production capabilities, their proximity to markets, and their value as open space. Finally, in 2001 the King County Council considered the adoption of Proposed Ordinance 2002- 0256, which would have amended the CPPs consistent with the recommendations of the GMPC and with the changes already made to the King County Comprehensive Plan. However, because the County was engaged in negotiations to purchase certain properties within the Lower Green River Valley APD, and out of concerns that the GMPC had adopted their recommendations in the absence of a quorum and without an adequate public review process, the Council did not adopt the Proposed Ordinance. Instead, the Council adopted Motion 11208 (see Attachment 3), which remanded the GMPC motion back to the GMPC for further review and reconsideration. Motion 11208 also directed the County Executive to complete negotiations with property owners in the Lower Green River Valley APD in the earliest possible timeframe. On September 26, 2001 the GMPC reconsidered its actions with respect to Motion 99-3, and via the adoption of Motion 01-2, reaffirmed those actions. On November 20, 2002 King County executed the fee simple purchase of what is known as the Nelson property in the Lower Green River Valley APD, thus fulfilling the second mandate of Motion 1120g. C:\WlNOOWS\TEMP~2003-0127 (C,°P Amendments o Lower Green River Valley APl)X3-18~03).doc 5/21/'2003 8:51 AM i- ..... t/ With these two actions complete, the King County Council is asked to consider once again amending the Countywide Planning Policies as recommended by the GMPC in Motions 99-3 and 01-2. SUMMARY: Proposed Ordinance 2003-0127 would amend the Countywide Planning Policies by: · Adding policies LU-2A and LU-2B addressing the long-term governance of Agricultural Production Districts; ~ Amending the Interim Potential Annexation Area Map to illustrate that the Lower Green River Valley APD is not within the PAA of any jurisdiction; and · Amending the land use map in the CPPs to illustrate that the Lower Green River Valley APD is outside the boundaries of the Urban Growth Area. Additionally, the ordinance would ratify the changes on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County, as required by Countywide Planning Policy FW-1. Amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies become effective when ratified by ordinance or resolution by at least 30% of the city and county governments representing 70% of the population of King County according to the Interlocal agreement. A city shall be deemed to have ratified the countywide planning policy unless, within 90 days of adoption by King County, the city by legislative action disapproves the Countywide Planning Policy. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Proposed Ordinance 2003-0127, with attachments 2. Map: Lower Green River Valley Agricultural Production District 3. King County Motion 11208, Adopted May 21, 2000 EXHIBIT F PAGF II OF ti C:\WINOOWS\TEMF~2003~127 (CPP Amendments - Lower Green River Valley APD)(3*18~3).doc 5/21/2003 8:51 AM CITY OF ~ Federal Way MEMORANDUM July 2, 2003 TO: VIA: FROM: SUBJECT: MEETING DATE: Eric Faison, Chair Land Use/Transportation Comg}rit{,ee (LUTC) David Moseley, City Manager~ Kathy McClung, Director of Community Development Services Margaret H. Clark, AICP, Senior Planner Janet Shull, Planning Consultant Correction to Ordinance No. 03-443 -Design Guidelines and Definition of Height (FWCC, Section 22-635, Churches, etc.) July 7, 2003 1. BACKGROUND Ordinance No. 03-443 was adopted by the City Council on May 20, 2003 and became effective on May 29, 2003 (Exhibit A). At the time that it was being forwarded to the codifier, staff realized that Note 3 pertaining to allowing a rectory on-site and Note 4 requiring the church site to be adjacent to a collector or right-of-way had been inadvertently struck-out for single-family residential zones only (Exhibit B). This change was not intended to be adopted and was never presented nor discussed at the Planning Commission public hearings on March 5, and March 19, 2003 or at the Land Use Transportation public meeting on April 21, 2003. II. STAFF REQUEST Staff is requesting the LUTC to recommeud to the City Council that the Use Zoue Chart, FWCC, Section 22-635 as shown in Exhibit C be adopted in lieu of that version adopted as part of Ordinance 03-443. III. COUNCIL ACTION/STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Committee has the following options: 1. Recommend that the full Council adopt an ordinance approviug the proposed correction as requested by staff. 2. Recommend that the full Council modify and then approve the proposed correction. 3. Reco~nmend that the full Council disapprove the proposed correction. Staff recommends that the LUTC recommend to the full Council Optisn No. 1 above, that is, adopt the corrected language. IV. LAND USE/TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION The LUTC forwards the proposed amendment to the full Council for first reading as follows: As recommended by Planning Staff. As recommended by Planning Staff and amended by the LUTC. APPROVAL OF COMMITTEE ACTION: Eric Faison, Chair Dean McColgan Michael Park LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit A Ordinance No. 03-443 with attachments Exhibit B FWCC, Section 22-636. Churches, etc. as adopted by Ordinance No. 03-443 Exhibit C Proposed correction of FWCC, Section 22-636. Churches, etc. K:\CD Plannin~Design Guidelines &Definiticn of Hei~t\LUTC\070703 Memo RS Use Zone Chart Correction. DOC/07/02/20034:51 PM Amendments to Business Park Zoning Charts Follow-up Research File #03-101758-00-UP Page 2 EXHIBIT A CITY OF FEDERAL WAY ORDINANCE NO. 03 - 443 AN ORDINANCE OF TIlE CITY COUNCIL OF TIlE CITY OF FEDEI~AI~ WAY, WASHINGTON, AMENDING FEDERAL WAY CHAPTER 22 (ZONING), ARTICLE XIX OF THE CITY CODE --DESIGN GUIDELINES AND DEFINITION OF HEIGHT 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) relating to maximum faCade length, modulation, roof pitch, and other miscellaneous standards for institutional uses, and height for churches will provide for more flexibility and improved design options for institutional buildings; WHEREAS, the City of Federal Way finds that these code amendments will implement and are consistent with the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing on these code amendments on March 5, and March 19, 2003, and forwarded a recommendation of approval to the City Council; WHEREAS, the Land Use Transportation Committee of the Federal Way City Council considered these code amendments on April 21, 2003, following which it recommended adoption of the text amendments; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the code amendments relating to maximum faCade length, modulation, roof pitch, and other miscellaneous standards for institutional uses, and height for churches are cousisteut with the intent and purpose of FWCC Chapter 22 (Zoning) to provide for and promote the health, safety, and welfare of the general public. Ord No. 03 -443, Page NOW, ] ttI~RI~FORE, TIlE CITY C()UNCII; OF TIlE CITY OF FEI)ERAL WAY l)OEg t tEt?,I~I~,Y OI?,I)AIN A~ I:OI~I~()W~: S~tion I_: I:m~)~g5_ After ft~ll and carelid consideration, Iht City Council of the City oI' l:cdcral Way finds that thc px'(~poscd code amcndmcnls will prolcct and xxill not adversely al'lkcl thc public hcahh, safety, or welfare. Section 2. Conclusions. Pursuant to FWCC Sections 22-216 and 22-528, and based upon the Findings set foah in Section 1, the Federal Way City Council makes the following Conclusions of Law with respect to the decisional criteria necessa~ for the adoption of the proposal: 1. The proposed FWCC text amendmen~ are consistent with, and substantially implemeut, the following Comprehensive Plan goals aud policies: LUG I lml)rove the apt)earance and fimction of the built environme~t. LUP 6 Conduct regular reviews of development regulations to determine how to improve upon the development review process. LUG 3 Preserve and protect Federal ~ay's single-family neighborhoo&. LUP I 5 Protect residential areas from impacts of adjacent non-residential uses. The proposed amendments bear a substantial relationship to public health, safety, or welfare because they will result in more aesthetically pleasing institutional buildings throughout the City, while ensuring compatibility with adjacent residential areas. and The proposed amendments are in the best interest of the residents of the City because they will supplement existing development standards and clarify various code sections. Clarificatiou of City codes is in the best interests of the residents of the City. Section 3. Amendment. FWCC Chapter 22 is amended as set forth in the atlached Exhibit A. Section 4. Severabilitv. The provisions of this ordinance are declared separate and severable. Tile invalidity of any clause, sentence, paragraph, subdivision, section, or portion of this ordinance, or thc invalidity of the applicatiou thereof to any person or circumstance, shall not affect lite validity of tile remainder of the ordinance, or the validity of' its application to att3, other persons or circumstances. Ord No. 03 -443, Page 2 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. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Federal Way at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 20 day of May ,2003. APPROVED: rOR, JEANNE BURBIDGE ATTEST: CITY~LERK, 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: 4/30/03 5/20/03 5/z4/03 5/29/03 03-443 K:\CD Planning~Design Guidelines & Definition of Height~LUTCSAdoption Ordinance.doc/04/29/2003 4:09 PM Ord No. 03 _44~, Page 3 EXHIBIT A FEDERAl. WAY CITY COI)E Chapter 22, 22-1 Definitions. The following 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: Average building elevation (ABE) means a reference datum on fire'surface topography of a subject property from which building height is measured. The tcfetcnce datum shall be a point uu higher than fi~ feet above the lowest elevation taken at any exterior Walt of the structmc eitlm prim to any devclopm~ ~y m at fiuish~% whicheve~ is tower, p~ovidcd~te lefercnce datum is equal to m lower than t~ highest elevat~~ extc~ im walt~'st~ uctu~rim to development activit~ &llt~ageof thddgh~tmn~o~mistingmrq~roposed~ations,~fi~Jsl~v~l~t~as~flhc ~o~lls~tra~ro; pro~id~hat~hallao~ reat~a~~~lt ~ow~t ~ng~r~ropos~ti~. Allowed ..... --- 7'-------'X7--- ..... Buildin9 Hei9ht Lowest Reference Hi9hes! Elevation datum (ABE) Elevation Height of structure means .the vertical distance above the average building elevation measured to the highest point of the-copingq~f a fiat roof or to the deck line ora mansard roof, or to the ave~~qJf the highest-gubteq~f~ed o~ h~~ mid~oint~v~~ndxidg~f~ddgh~t prin~palxoof~f~ gabl~ldp,gamb~,~ r~imilar~lop~xoof~r~in~famil~id~t rial stru~ur~~h~totalx~of~r~fAorm~s~~5~er~t~fAh~otal~r~flhe undeflyh~g_slop~,oof,_heightavill~ncasuredlolhehdg~flhddgh~st4~fin~lmlgalfle. Sections: 22-1630 22-1631 22-1632 22-1633 22-1634 22-1635 22-1636 22-1637 22-1638 22-1639 22-1640 22-1641 22-1630 Article XIX. COMMUNITY DESIGN GUIDELINES Purpose. Ad~ninistration. Applicability. Definitions. Site design - Ali zoning districts. Building design - All zoning districts. Building and pedestrian orientation - All zoning districts. Mixed-use residential buildings in commercial zoning districts. District guidelines. Design criteria for public on-site open space. Design for cluster residential subdivision lots. - 22-1650 Reserved. Purpose. The purpose of this article is to: (1) Implement community design guidelines by: a. Adopting design guidelines in accordance with land use and development policies established in the Federal Way comprehensive plan and in accordance with Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) Guidelines. b. Requiring minimum standards for design review to maintain and protect property values and enhance the general appearance of the city. c. Increasing flexibility and encouraging creativity in building and site design, while assuring quality development pursuant to the comprehensive plan and the purpose of this article. d. Achieving predictability in design review, balanced with administrative flexibility to consider the individual merits of proposals. e. Improving and expanding pedestrian circulation, public open space, and pedestrian amenities in the city. (2) Implement Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles by: a. Requiring minimum standards for design review to reduce the rate of crime associated with persons and property, thus providing for the highest standards of public safety. b. CPTED design principles are functionally grouped into the following three categories: 1. Natural Surveillance. This focuses on strategies to design the built environment in a manner that promotes visibility of public spaces and areas. 2. Access Control. This category focuses on the techniques that prevent and/or deter unauthorized and/or inappropriate access. 3. Ownership. This category focuses on strategies to reduce the perception of areas as "ownerless" and, therefore, available for undesirable uses. c. CPTED principles, design guidelines, and performance standards will be used during project development review to identify and incorporate design features that reduce opportunities for criminal activity to occur. The effectiveness of CPTED is based on the fact that criminals make rational choices about their targets. In general: 1. The greater the risk of being seen, challenged, or caught; the less likely they are to commit a crime. 2. The greater the effort required, the less likely they are to commit a crime. 3. The lesser the actual or perceived rewards, the less likely they are to commit a crime. d. Through the use of CPTED principles, the built environment can be designed and managed to ensure: Design Guidelines & Definition of Height Code Amendments Exhibit A File #03-100842-00-UP ©2002 Code Publishing Co. Page 2 1. There is more chance of being seen, challenged, or caught; 2. Greater effort is required; 3. The actual or perceived rewards are less; and 4. Opportunities ~- criminal activity arc minimized. (Ord. No. 96-~71, § 3, 7-2-96; Ord. No. 9(I- 3_3_3.~ 3, 1-19-99: ()rd. No. 01-382. ~ 3. -I(~ 0l) 22-1631 Administration. Applications subject to commumty design guidelines and Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) shall be processed as a component of thc governing land use process, and the director of community development services shall have the authority to approve, modify, or deny proposals under that process. Decisions under this article will consider proposals on the basis of individual merit and will encourage creative design alternatives in order to achieve the stated purpose and objectives of this article. Decisions under this article are appealable using the appeal procedures of the applicable land use process. (Ord. No. 96-271, § 3, 7-2-96; Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1-97; Ord. No. 99-333, § 3, 1-19-99; Ord. No. 01-382, § 3, 1~16- 01) 22-1632 Applicability. This article shall apply to all czmm~orcial,-offic-erand4ndustrial development applications,-4nqmrm~al gones except single-family residential~ subject to FWCC 22, Zonings_. and4vhich ~.~tled for--re4qe~w aftov44aly !, ! 996, and~hall~ppby4~--singq~fami!y residemtia! deve!opment-application4n-any-zo~m; vchich ;:'as subm4tted~ftor Janua~5, '~,. q 1999. CPTg~D-guide4ine~and-pe~:aace standar-ds~sha~~ r~~i~n~v~e¥~fi~~&~~he~mendm~. Project proponents shall demonstrate how each CPTED design principle is met by the proposal, or why it is not relevant by either a written explanation or by responding to a checklist prepared by the city. Subject applications for remodeling or expansion of existing developments shall meet only those provisions of this a~icle that are dete~ined by the director to be reasonably related and applicable to the area of expansion or remodeling. ~is a~icle in no way should be construed to supersede or modi~ any other ciW codes, ordinances, or policies that apply to the proposal. (Ord. No. 96-271, ~ 3, 7-2-96; Ord. No. 97-291, ~ 3, 4-1-97; Ord. No. 99-333, ~ 3, 1 - 19-99; Ord. No. 01-382, 5 3, ~-~6-0~) 22-1633 Definitions. (1) Active use(s) means uses that by their very nature generate activity, and thus opportunities for natural surveillance, such as picnic areas, extracurricular school activities, exercise groups, etc. (2) Arcade means a liuear pedestrian walkway that abuts and runs along the facade ora building. It is covered, but not enclosed, and open at all times to public use. Typically, it has a line of columns along its open side. There may be habitable space above the arcade. (3) Awning means a roof-like cover that is temporary or portable in nature and that projects from the wall of a building for the purpose of shielding a doorway or window from the elements. (4) Canopy means a permanent, cantilevered extension of a building that typically projects over a pedestrian walkway abutting and running along the facade ora building, with no habitable space above the canopy. A canopy roof is comprised of rigid materials. (5) Com~non/open space area meaus area within a development, which is used primarily by tim occupants of that developtnent, such as an entryway, lobby, courtyard, outside dining areas, etc. (6) Natural surveillance means easy observation of buildings, spaces, and activities by people passing or living/working/recreating nearby. (7) Parking structure ~neans a building or structure consisting of more than one level, above and/or below ground, and used for temporary storage of motor vehicles. Design Guidelines & Definition of tteight Code Amendments Exhibit A File #03-100842-00-UP ©2002 Code Publishiug Co. Page 3 (8) Plaza means a pedestrian space that is available for public use and is situated near a main entrance to a building or is clearly visible and accessible from the adjacent right-of-way. Typical features include special paving, landscaping, lighting, seating areas, water features, and art. (9) Public on-site open space means a space that is accessible to the public at all times, predominantly open above, and designed specifically for use by thc general public as opposed to serving merely as a setting for the building. (10) Right-of-way means land oxvned, dedicated or conveyed to the public, used primarily for the movement of vehicles, wheelchair and pedestrian traffic, and land privately owned, used pri~narily for the movement of vehicles, wheelchair and pedestrian traffic; so long as such privately owned land bas been constructed in compliance with all applicable laws and standards for a public right-of-way. (11) Sight line means the line of vision from a person to a place or building. (12) Streetscape means a term in urban design that defines and describes the character and quality of a street by the amount and type of features and furnishings abutting it. Such features and furnishings may include trees and other landscaping, benches, lighting, trash receptacles, bollards, curbing, walls, different paving types, signage, kiosks, trellises, art objects, bus stops, and typical utility equipment and appurtenances. (13) Surface parking lot means an off-street, ground level open area, usually improved, for the temporary storage of motor vehicles. (14) Transparent glass means windows that are transparent enough to permit the view of activities within a building from nearby streets, sidewalks and public spaces. Tinting or some coloration is pernfitted, provided a reasonable level of visibility is achieved. Reflective or very dark tinted glass does not accomplish this objective. (Ord. No. 96-271, {} 3, 7-2-96; Ord. No. 99-333, {} 3, 1-19-99; Ord. No. 01-382, {} 3, 1-16-01) 22-1634 Site design - All zoning districts. (a) General criteria. (1) Natural amenities such as views, significant or unique trees, creeks, riparian corridors, and similar features unique to the site should be incorporated into the design. (2) Pedestrian areas and amenities should be incorporated in the overall site design. Pedestrian areas include but are not limited to outdoor plazas, arcades, courtyards, seating areas, and amphitheaters. Pedestrian amenities include but are not limited to outdoor benches, tables and other furniture, balconies, gazebos, transparent glass at the ground floor, and landscaping. (3) Pedestrian areas should be easily seen, accessible, and located to take advantage of surrounding features such as building entrances, open spaces, significant landscaping, unique topography or architecture, and solar exposure. (4) Project designers shall strive for overall design continuity by using similar elements throughout the project such as architectural style and features, materials, colors, and textures. (5) Place physical features, activities, and people in visible locations to maximize the ability to be seen, and therefore, discourage crime. For example, place cafes and food kiosks in parks to increase natural surveillance by park users, and place laundry facilities near play equipment in multiple family residential development. Avoid barriers, such as tall or overgrown landscaping or outbuildings, where they make it difficult to observe activity. (6) Provide access control by utilizing physical barriers such as bollards, fences, doorways, etc., or by security hardware such as locks, chains, and alarms. Where appropriate, utilize security guards. All of these methods result in increased effort to commit a crime, and therefore, reduce the potential for it to happen. (7) Design buildings and utilize site design that reflects ownership. For example, fences, paving, art, signs, good maintenance, and landscaping are some physical ways to express ownership. Identifying intruders is much easier in a well-defined space. An area that looks protected gives the impression that greater effort is required to commit a crime. A cared for environment can also reduce fear of crime. Areas that are run down and the subject of graffiti and vandalism are generally more intimidating than areas that do not display such characteristics. Design Guidelines & Definition of Height Code Amendments Exhibit A File//03-100842-00-UP ©2002 Code Publishing Co. Page 4 (b) Surface parking lots. (1) Site and landscape design for parking lots are subject to the requirements of Article XVII of this chapter. (2) Vehicle turning mo¥cmcnts shall be minimixcd. Parking aisles without lc)op access arc discouraged, l~arking and vehicle circulation areas shall bc clearly delineated usiug directional signagc. (3) Driveways shall be located to be visible from thc right-of-way but not impede pedestrian circulation on-site or to adjoining prope~ies. Driveways should be shared with adjacent prope~ies to minimize the number of driveways and curb cuts. (4) Multi-tenant developments with large surhce parking lots adjacent to a right-of-way are encouraged to incorporate retail pads against the right-of-way to help break up the large areas of pavement. (5) See FWCC 22-1638 for supplemental guidelines. (c) Parking structures (includes parking floors located within commercial buildings). (1) The bulk (or mass) of a parking structure as seen from the right-of-way should be minimized by placing its sho~ dimension along the street edge. The parking structure should include active uses such as retail, offices or other commercial uses at the ground level and/or along the street frontage. (2) Parking structures which are pa~ of new development shall be architecturally consistent with exterior architectural elements of the prima~ structure, including rooflines, hcade design, and finish materials. (3) Parking structures should inco~orate methods ofa~iculation and accesso~, elements, pursuant to FWCC 22-1635(c)(2), on hcades located above ground level. (4) Buildings built over parking should not appear to "float" over the parking area, but should be linked with ground level uses or screening. Parking at grade under a building is discouraged unless the parking area is completely enclosed within the building or wholly screened with walls auger landscaped be~s. (5) Top deck lighting on multi-level parking structures shall be architecturally integrated with the building, and screened to control impacts to off-site uses. Exposed fluorescent light fixtures are not permitted. (6) Parking structures and vehicle entrances should be designed to minimize views into the garage interior from su~ounding streets. Methods to help minimize such views may include, but are not limited to landscaping, planters, and decorative grilles and screens. (7) Security grilles for parking structures shall be architecturally consistent wifll and integrated with the overall design. Chain-link fencing is not pe~i~ed for garage securi~ fencing. (8) See FWCC 22-1638(c)(4) for supplemenUl guidelines. (d) Pedestrian circulation and public spaces. (1) Prima~ entrances to buildings should be clearly visible or recognizable from the right-of-way. Pedestrian pathways from rights-of-way and bus stops to prima~ entrances, front parking lots to prima~ -entrances, and pedestrian areas, shall be accessible and should be clearly delineated. (2) Pedestrian pathways and pedestrian areas should be delineated by separate paved routes usiug a variation in paved texture and color, and protected from abutting vehicle circulation areas with landscaping. Approved methods of delineation include: stone, brick or granite pavers; exposed aggregate; or stamped and colored concrete. Paint striping on asphalt as a method of delineation is not encouraged. Design Guidelines & Definition of Height Code Amendments Exhibit A File #03-100842-00-UP 02002 Code Publishing Co. Page 5 Fi~ I - Sec~ 22. 1634 i-"ih'ure 2- Sec. 22- 1634 (d) Pedt~,~ian ¢~nneclions (3) Pedestrian connections should be provided between properties to establish pedestrian links to adjacent buildings, parking, pedestrian areas and public rights-of-way. (4) Bicycle racks should be provided for all commercial developments. (5) Outdoor furniture, fixtures, and streetscape elements, such as lighting, freestanding signs, trellises, arbors, raised planters, benches and other forms of seating, trash receptacles, bus stops, phone booths, fencing, etc., should be incorporated into the site design. (6) See FWCC 22-1638 for supplemental guidelines. (e) Landscaping. Refer to Article XVII of this chapter for specific landscaping requirements and for definitions of landscaping types referenced throughout this article. (f) Commercial service and institutional facilities. Refer to FWCC 22-949 and 22-15.64 for requirements related to garbage and recycling receptacles, placement and screening. (1) Commercial services relating to loading, storage, trash and recycling should be located in such a manner as to optimize public circulation and minimize visibility into such facilities. Service yards shall comply with the following: a. Service yards and loading areas shall be designed and located for easy access by service vehicles and tenants and shall not displace required landscaping, impede other site uses, or create a nuisance for adjacent property owners. b. Trash and recycling receptacles shall include covers to prevent odor and wind blown litter. c. Service yard walls, enclosures, and similar accessory site elements shall be consistent with the pri~nary building(s) relative to architecture, materials and colors. d. Chain-link fencing shall not be used where visible from public streets, on-site major drive aisles, adjacent residential uses, or pedestrian areas. Barbed or razor wire shall not be used. Design Guidelines & Definition of Height Code Amendments Exhibit A File #03-100842-00-UP ©2002 Code Publishing Co. Page 6 (2) Site utilities shall comply with the following: a. Building utility equipment such as electrical panels and junction boxes should be located in an interior utility room. b. Site utilities including transformers, fire standpipes and engineered retention ponds (except biofiltration swales) should not be the dominant element of the front landscape area. When these must be located in a front yard, they shall be either undergrounded or screened by walls and/or Type I landscaping, and shall not obstruct views of tenant common spaces, public open spaces, monument signs, and/or driveways. (g) Miscellaneous site elements. (1) Lighting shall comply with the following: a. Lighting levels shall not spill onto adjacent properties pursuant to FWCC 22-954(c). b. Lighting shall be provided in all loading, storage, and circulation areas, but shall incorporate cut-off shields to prevent off-site glare. c. Light standards shall not reduce the amount of landscaping required for the project by Article XVII of this chapter, Landscaping. (2) Drive-through facilities such as banks, cleaners, fast food, drug stores and service stations, etc., shall comply with the following: Design Guidelines 8: Definition of Height Code Amendments Exhibit A File #03-100842-00-UP ©2002 Code Publishing Co. Page 7 a. Drive-through windows and stacking lanes are not encouraged along facades of buildings that face a right-of-way. If they are permitted in such a location, then they shall .be visually screened from such street by Type III landscaping and/or architectural element, or combination thereof, provided such elements reflect the primary building and provide appropriate screening. b. The stacking lane shall be physically separated from the parking lot, sidewalk, and pedestrian areas by Type 111 landscaping and/or architectural element, or Colnbination thereof, provided such elements reflect the primary building and provide appropriate separation. Painted lanes are not sufficient. c. Drive-through speakers shall not be audible off site. d. A bypass/escape lane is recommended for all drive-through facilities. e. See FWCC 22-1638(d) for supplemental guidelines. (Ord. No. 96-271, § 3, 7-2-96; Ord. No. 99- 333, § 3, 1-19-99; Ord. No. 01-382, § 3, 1-16-01) 22-1635 Building design - All zoning districts. (a) General criteria. (1) Emphasize, rather than obscure, natural topography. Buildings should be designed to "step up" or "step down" hillsides to accommodate significant changes in elevation, unless this provision is precluded by other site elements such as stormwater design, optimal traffic circulation; or the proposed function or use of the site. (2) Building siting or massing shall preserve public viewpoints as designated by the Comprehensive Plan or other adopted plans or policies. (3) Materials and design features offences and walls should reflect that of the primary building(s). (b) Building facade modulation and screening options, defined. All building facades that are both longer than 60 feet and are visible from either a right-of-way or residential use or zone shall incorporate facade treatment according to this section. Subject facades shall incorporate at least two of the four options described herein; except, however, facades that are solidly screened by Type I landscaping, pursuant to Article XVII of this chapter, Landscaping, may use facade modulation as the sole option under this section. Options used under this section shall be incorporated along the entire length of the facade, in any approved combination. Options used must meet the dimensional standards as specified herein; except, however, if more than two are used, ditnensional requirements for each option will be determined on a case-by-case basis; provided, that the gross area of a pedestrian plaza may not be less than the specified minimum of 200 square feet. See FWCC 22-1638(c) for guidelines pertaining to city center core and city center frame. (1) Facade modulation. Minimum depth: two feet; minimum width: six feet; maximum width: 60 feet. Alternative methods to shape a building such as angled or curved facade elements, off-set planes, wing walls and terracing, will be considered; provided, that the intent of this section is met. Design Guidelines & Definition of Height Code Amendments Exhibit A ©2002 Code Publishing Co. File #03-100842-00-UP Page 8 (2) Landscape screening. Eight-foot-wide Type II landscape screening along the base of the facade, except Type IV may be used in place of Type II for facades that are comprised of 50 percent or more window area, and around building entrance(s). For building facades that are located adjacent to a property line, some or all of the underlying buffer width required by Article XVII of this chapter, Landscaping, may be considered in meeting the landscape width requirement of this section. Fibre, ?- Scc. 22-1635 (3) Canopy or arcade. As a modulation option, canopies or arcades may be used only along facades that are visible from a right-of-way. Minimum length: 50 percent of the length of the facade using this option. (4) Pedestrian Plaza. Size of plaza: Plaza square footage is equal to one percent of the gross floor area of the building, but it must be a minimum of 200 square feet. The plaza should be clearly visible and accessible from the adjacent right-of-way. Design Guidelines & Definition of Height Code Amendments Exhibit A ©2002 Code Publishing Co. File//03-100842-00-UP Page 9 F~.~c 9 - Sec. 22 - 1635 (c) Building articulation and scale. (1) Building facades visible from rights-of-way and other public areas should incorporate methods of articulation and accessory elements in the overall architectural design, as described in subsection (c)(2) of this section. Design Guidelines & Definition of Height Code Amendments Exhibit A File//03-100842-00-UP ©2002 Code Publishing Co. Page 10 Fi~ur¢ I ? ~oc. 25 16~ A~ltv O~k'-MU¢.~ I (2) Methods to articulate blank xvalls: Following is a nonexclusive list of methods to articulate blank walls, pursuant to FWCC 22-1564(u) and subsection (c)(1) of this section: a. Showcase, display, recessed windows; b. Window openings with visible trim material~ or painted detailing that resembles trim; bc. Vertical trellis(es) in front of the wall with climbing vines or similar planting; ed_. Set the wall back and provide a landscaped or raised planter bed in front of the wall, with plant material that will obscure or screen the wall's surface; de. Artwork such as mosaics, murals, decorative masonry or ~netal patterns or grillwork, sculptures, relief, etc., over a substantial portion of the blank wall surface. (The Federal Way arts commission may be Used as an advisory body at the discretion of the planning staff); cf. Architectural features such as setbacks, indentations, overhangs, projections, articulated cornices, bays, reveals, canopies, and awnings; fg. Material variations such as colors, brick or metal banding, or textural changes; and gh. Landscaped public plaza(s) with space for vendor carts, concerts and other pedestrian actiVities. (3) See FWCC 22-1638(c) for supplemental guidelines. (Ord. No. 96-271, § 3, %2-96; Ord. No. 99-333, § 3, 1-19-99; Ord. No. 01-382, § 3, 1-16-01) Design Guidclines& Definition of ltcight Code Amendments Exhibit A ©2002 Code Publishing Co. File #03- 100842-00-UP Page 11 22-1636 Building and pedestrian orientation - All zoning districts. (a) Building and pedestrian orientation. ( 1 ) Buildings should generally be oriented to rights-of-way, as more particularly described in FWCC 22-1638. Features such as entries, lobbies, and display windows, should be oriented to the right-of-way; othcrwise, screening or art features such as trellises, artwork, murals, landscaping, or combinations thereof, should be incorporated into the street-oriented facade (does4mt-applyqo4'esidential¢onos). (2) Plazas, public open spaces and entries should be located at street corners to optimize pedestrian access and use. Figure 14 - ,5~x' 2~ - 16.t6 (a) (3) All buildings adjacent to the street should provide visual access from the street into human services and activities within the building, if applicable. (4) Multiple buildings on the same site should incorporate public spaces (formal or informal). These should be integrated by elements such as plazas, walkways, and landscaping along pedestrian pathways, to provide a clear view to destinations, and to create a unified, campus-like development. (Ord. No. 96-271, § 3, 7-2-96; Ord. No. 99-333, § 3, 1-19o99; Ord. No. 01-382, § 3, 1-16-01) 22-1637 Mixed-use residential buildings in commercial zoning districts. (a) Ground level facades of mixed-use buildings that front a public right-of-way shall meet the following guidelines: (1) Retail, commercial, or office activities shall occupy at least 20 percent of the gross ground floor, area of the building (unless exempt from this requirement by FWCC district zoning regulations). (2) If parking occupies the ground level, see FWCC 22-1634(c). I~-~ 15 - Sc-~... 22 - t637 O) R,,,~k~en~l ground ~eve! facade e~emenlt Design Guidelines & Definition of lfeight Code Amendments Exhibit A ©2002 Code Publishing Co. File #03-100842-00-UP Page 12 (3) Landscaped gardens, courtyards, or enclosed terraces for private use by residents should be designed with minimum exposure to the right-of-way. (Ord. No. 96-271, § 3, 7~2-96; Ord. No. 99-333, § 3, 1-19- 99; Ord. No. 01-382, § 3, 1-16-01) 22-1638 l)istrict guidelines. In addition to the foregoing development guidelines, the following supplemental guidelines apply to individual zoning districts: (a) Professional office (PO), neighborhood business (BN), and community business (BC). (1) Surface parking may be located behind the building, to the side(s) of the building, or adjacent to the right-of-way; provided, however, that parking located adjacent to the right-of-way maximizes pedestrian access and circulation pursuant to FWCC 22-1634(d). (2) Entrance facades shall front on, face, or be clearly recognizable from the right-of-way; and should incorporate windows and other methods of articulation. ·. (3) Ground-level mirrored or reflective glass is not encouraged adjacent to a public right-of-way or pedestrian area. (4) If utilized, chain-link fences visible from public rights-of-way shall utilize vinyl-coated mesh and powder-coated poles. For residential uses only: (5) Significant trees shall be retained within a 20-foot perimeter strip around site. (6) Landscaped yards shall be provided between building(s) and public street(s). Parking lots should be beside or behind buildings that front upon streets. (7) Parking lots should be broken up into rows containing no more than 10 adjacent stalls, separated by planting areas. (8) Pedestrian walkways (minimum six feet wide) shall be provided between the interior of the project and the public sidewalk. (9) Lighting fixtures should not exceed 20 feet in height and shall include cutoffshields. This shall · not apply to public parks and school stadiums and other comparable large institutional uses. The maximum heil~ht for large institutional uses shall be 30 feet and shall include cutoffshields. 20' Figure 16. Scm_ 22. 1638 (10) Principal entries to buildings shall be highlighted with plaza or garden areas containing planting, lighting, seating, trellises and other features. Such areas shall be located and designed so windows overlook them. Design Guidelines & Definition of Height Code Amend~nents Exhibit A File #03-100842-O0-LIP ©2002 Code Publishing Co. Page 13 (1 1) Common recreational spaces shall be located and arranged so that windows overlook them. Fi~ 18 - ~. 22, 1618 (a) (12) Units on the ground floor (when permitted) shall have private outdoor spaces adjacent to them so those exterior portions of the site are controlled by individual households. Figul~ 19- $¢¢. 22 - 16~ {a} (13) All new buildings, including accessory buildings, such as carports and garages shall appear to have a roof pitch ranging from at least 4:12 to a maxitnum of 12:12. Design Guidelines & Definition of Height Code Amendments Exhibit A File//03-100842-00-UP ©2002 Code Publishing Co. Page 14 (14) Carports and garages in front yards should be discouraged. (15) The longest dimension of any building facade shall not exceed 120 feet. Buildings on tile same site may be connected by covered pedestrian walkways. (16) Buildings should be designed to have a distinct "base", "middle" and "top" The base (typically the first floor) should contain the greatest number of architectural elements such as windows, materials. details, overhangs, cornice lines, and masonry belt courses. The midsection by comparison may be simple. (Note: single-story buildings have no middle.) The top should avoid the appearance ora fiat roof and include distinctive roof shapes including but not limited to pitched, vaulted or terraced, etc. ligt,r~: 2 t - gcc, ~- 1638 (~) (17) Residential design features, including but not limited to entry porches, projecting window bays, balconies or decks, individual windows (rather than strip windows), offsets and cascading or stepped roof forms shall be incorporated into all buildings. Window openings shall have visible trim material or painted detailing that resembles trim. (b) Office park (OP), corporate park (CP), and business park (BP). (1) Surface parking may be located behind the building, to the side(s) of the building, or adjacent to the right-of-way; provided, however, that parking located adjacent to the right-of-way maximizes pedestrian access and circulation pursuant to FWCC 22-1634(d). (2) Buildings with ground floor retail sales or services should orient major entrances, display windows and other pedestrian features to the right-of-way to the extent possible. (3) Ground-level mirrored or reflective glass is not encouraged adjacent to a public right-of-way or pedestrian area. (4) If utilized, chain-link fences visible from public rights-of-way shall utilize vinyl-coated mesh and powder-coated poles. For non-single-family residential uses only: (5) Subsections (a)(5) through (A)(17) of this section shall apply. (c) City center core (CC-C) and city center frame (CC-F). (1) The city center core and frame will contain transitional forms of development with surface parking areas. However, as new development or re-development occurs, the visual dominance of surface parking areas shall be reduced. Therefore, surface parking areas shall be located as follows: a. The parking is located behind the building, with the building located between the right-of-way and the parking areas, or it is located in structured parking; or b. All or some of the parking is located to the side(s) of the building; or c. Some short-term parking may be located between the building(s) and the right-of-way, but this shall not consist of tnore than one double-loaded drive aisle, and pedestrian circulation shall be provided pursuant to FWCC 22-1634(d). Large retail complexes may not be able to locate parking according to the above guidelines. Therefore, retail complexes of 60,000 square feet Of gross floor area or larger may locate surface parking between the building(s) and the right-of-way. However, this form of development shall provide for small building(s) Design Guidelines & Definition of Height Code Amendments Exhibit A File #03-100842-00-UP ©2002 Code Publishing Co. Page 15 along the right-of-way to break up and reduce the visual impact of the parking, and pedestrian circulation must be provided pursuant to FWCC 22-1634(d). For purposes of this guideline, retail complex means the entire lot or parcel, or series of lots or parcels, on which a development, activity or use is located or will locate. (2) Entrance facades shall front ou, fitce, or be clearly recognizable fi'om the right-of-way; and should incorporate windows and other methods of articulation. (3) Building facades that arc visible from a right-of-way and subject to modulation per FWCC 22- 1635(b), shall incorporate facade treatment as follows: a. The facade incorporates modulation and/or a landscape screening, pursuant to FWCC 22- 1635(b); and b. The facade incorporates an arcade, canopy or plaza; and/or one or more articulation element listed in FWCC 22-1635(c)(2); provided, that the resulting building characteristics achieve visual interest and appeal at a pedestrian scale and proximity, contribute to a sense of public space, and reinforce the pedestrian experience. (4) Drive-through facilities and stacking lanes shall not be located along a facade of a building that faces a right-of-way. (5) Above-grade parking structures with a ground level facade visible from a right-of-way shall incorporate any combination of the following elements at the ground level: a. Retail, commercial, or office uses that occupy at least 50 percent of the building's lineal frontage along the right-of-way; or b. A 15-foot-wide strip of Type 1II landscaping along the base of the facade; or c. A decorative grille or screen that conceals interior parking areas from the right-of-way. (6) Facades of parking structures shall be articulated above the ground level pursuant to FWCC 22- 163S(c)(l). (7) When curtain wall glass and steel systems are used to enclose a building, the glazing panels shall be transparent on 50 percent of the ground floor facade fronting a right-of-way or pedestrian area. (8) Chain-link fences shall not be allowed. Barbed or razor wire shall not be used. For non-single-family residential uses only: (9) Subsections (a)(5) through (a)(l 7) of this section shall apply. (d) For all residential zones. (1) Non-residential uses, Subsections (a)(5) through (a)(10) and (a)(13) through (a)(17) of this section shall apply. (2) Non-single-family residential uses. Subsections (a)(5) through (a)(17) of this section shall apply. (Ord. No. 96-271, § 3, 7-2-96; Ord. No. 99-333, § 3, 1-19-99; Ord. No. 01-382, § 3, 1-16-01) 22-1639 Institutional uses. (a) In ali zoning_districts where such uses are permitted the following shall~ ~1) Sections 22-1634~ 22-1635~and 22-1636. (2) Subsections 1638(a) l(~kth~a)(5)~and (a)(7} through (a)~9~. 3(~ Building facades that exceed 120 feet in length and are visible from an adjacent residential zone r~r~r~r~r~r~r~r~r~ght-o f-wa~mblic park or recreation area shall incorporate a significaut structural modulation (offset). The minimum depth of the modulation shall be approximatel,~ e~qual to ten percent of the total length of the subject facade and the minimum width shall be a_pl~roximately twice the minimum depth. The modulation shall be integral to the building structure from base to roofliue. 4~_~Roof design shall utilize forms and materials that avoid the general appearance of a "flat" roofi Rooflines with an integral and obvious architectural pitch are an approved method to meet this guideline. Alternative distinctive roof forms such as varied and multiple stepped rooflines, architectural par_~gpets~ articulated cornices and fascias~ arelles, e3~brows~ and Design Guidelines & Definition of lteight Code Amendments Exhibit A File #03-100842-00-UP ©2002 Code Publishing Co. Page 16 similar methods will be considered by the director provided that the roof design minimizes ~!ninler~H~ted horizontal planes and rcsnlts in architectnral and visual al~eal. (S) Alternative methods lo organize and shape the structnral elements ora buildin~ and provi(l~ fa~Fea_~men~ put, trent to Subse~tiqn !.~35(~ and/0r~), a~Pvc~ will be considered by thc director ~5 lmrt of an 0vcrqll design that address? thS following criteria: a. Faqadc design incorporates at least t~vo of thc oplions listed al Nul)scclion 1635(b); ~ Thc ~P~0P :q~! di~!!~()~S ~t] s~'~!~urai u~d~al~p~~ ~tr~ p?ql)p~!io~q~ lo ~ i~eight and iengthpf th~sn~)ject~a~9~d% usi~ ~nl)sections 1635(b) and _(3) al)~v% a~ 3t gni~ielin~ c. Faqade desi~incorporates a Inajority of architectural and accesso~, des~n elements listed at Subsection 22-1635(c)(2) and maximizes building and pedestrian orientation pursuant to Section 22-1636; and d. Overall buildin~ des~n utilizes a combination of structural modulation, facade treatment, and roof elements that organize aud va~, building bulk and scale=add architectural interest, and appeal at a pedestrian scale, and when viewed from an adjacent residential zone, r~hts-of-way, or other public area, results in a proiect that meets the intent of these guidelines. ~_Tbe director may permit or require modifications to the parkin~ a~ea lan~scapi~ standards of Subsection 1638(a)~ for landscape d~s tha~rese~'e and enhance existing natural features and syste~)rovided that the total amount of existing~nd propp:se~ landscapin~vithin parking area(s) meets_the a~licable square footag~uirement of FWCC Article XVII, Landscaping~and the location and arrangement of such landscaping is a~r~ved by the director. Existing natural features and systems include environmentally sensitive areas, stands of significant trees and native vegetation, natural topography and drai~)attgr~ wildlife h~bitat, migration corridors, and connectivi~ to adjacent habitats. 22-16394~0 Design criteria for public on-site open space. The following guidelines apply to public on-site open space that is developed pursuant to the height bonus program established in Article XI, Division 8, of this chapter. (1) Open space developed under this section should be located so that it: a. Abuts a public right-of-way, or alternatively, is visible and accessible from a public right-of- w a y; b. Is bordered on at least one side by, or is readily accessible from, structure(s) with entries to retail or office uses; housing, civic/public uses, or another public open space; and c. Is situated for maximum exposure to sunlight. (2) Opeu space site design and configuration must meet a majority of the following guidelines: a. The gross area of the open space does not incorporate any other site elements such as setbacks, laudscaping, buffers, paviug, or storm draiuage Gcilities, that would otherwise be incorporated into site design without exercising the open space option; b. The gross area of the open space encompasses at least 2.5 percent of thc lot area, up to a total aggregate square footage of 25,000 square feet; c. The open space area must be clearly visible and accessible from the adjacent right-of-way; d. The prima~ area is at least 25 feet in width; e. A minimum of 15 percent of the total area of the open space is landscaped using Type IV laudscaping or other landscaping alternative; and f. The opeu space may not be used for parking or loading of commercial vehicles. Colnmercial vehicle loading areas abuttiug the open space must be screened by a solid, site-obscuring wall. (Ord. No. 96- 271, ~ 3, 7-2-96; Ord. No. 99-333, ~ 3, 1-19-99; Ord. No. 01-382, ~ 3, 1-16-01) Design Guidelines & Definition of lteight Code Amendments Exhibit A File #03-100842-00-UP ©2002 Code Publishing Co. Page 17 22-1640_1 Desigu for cluster residential subdivision lots. (a) Garages shall be provided for all residential lots except if the lot is in a multifamily zone. (b) Front entryways should be the prominent feature of the home. Attached garages should not compose more than 40 percent of the fi'ont facade of the single-family home if the garage doors arc flush with the front facade, or will be set back a minimum of five feet fi'om the rest of the front facade. Detached garages should also be set back a minimum of five feet from the facade. (c) If garage access is provided from alleys, the front yard setback can be reduced to 15 feet. (d) Each dwelling unit shall be intended for owner occupancy. (Ord. No. 01-381, § 3, 1-16-01) 22-164t-2- 22-1650 Reserved. Design Guidelines & Definition of lfeight Code A~nendments Exhibit A File #03-100842-00-UP ©2002 Code Publishing Co. Page 18 .< © © .< S~DYd$ DNDPdVd 0 N © C~ © $33VdS 9~d (I3'SIflbH'd 3P~flJ~D fI~LLS dO J. tlOlHIl 39V'dHA03 J~O'I (q~ea) H(II$ £NO~dd ~IZIS £Oq S$~2K)~Id (I3'tllfl~)3qt EXHIBIT B EXHIBIT C S~IDVdS ©NI'A~IVd dO &HDI~]H ~IDV'dEIAOD ±O'l (q~eo) 3CIIS £NO~hf ~tZIS SSH::)O~Id ~NOIJ~V'IflS}~IH 8 =o ~o 8 ° leral Way DATE: TO: FROM: VIA: SUBJECT: July 7, 2003 Eric Faison, Chair Land Use/Transportation Committee Maryanne Zukowski, P.E. David H. Mo~t~200~4 x 2009 Tnager Proposed - ransportation Improvement Plan (TIP) and Arterial Street Improvement Plan (ASIP) Presentation and Resolution for Adoption of the Proposed 2004 - 2009 Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) and Arterial Street Improvement Plan (ASIP) BACKGROUND In accordance with the requirements of Chapters 35.77 and 47.26 of the Revised Code of Washington, the City of Federal Way adopted its original TIP and ASIP on July 23, 1991. The City is also required to adopt a revised TIP and ASIP on an annual basis that reflects the City's current and future street and arterial needs. These plans identify capital projects that the City intends to construct over the next six years. Projects are required to be listed in the TIP in order to be eligible for grant funding. The City is required to hold a minimum of one public hearing on the revised plan, which is proposed for the July 15, 2003 City Council meeting. Once the revised plans have been adopted by Resolution, a copy of the respective plans must be filed with the Washington State Secretary of Transportation and the Washington State Transportation Improvement Board. The attached resolution would adopt the 2004-2009 TIP and ASIP. REVISED PLAN Attached are the proposed 2004-2009 TIP and ASIP (Exhibit A), and a location map. The six-year TIP and ASIP respond to the Growth Management Act concurrency requirements as well as other emerging needs. Projects are selected based on criteria adopted in the City's Comprehensive Plan TP81, which reads, "Prioritize transportation projects considering concurrency, safety, support for non-SOV modes, environmental impacts, and cost effectiveness." The scoring criteria as established for Transportation TIP/CIP Prioritization ranked each project. Staff also reviewed and analyzed available grant eligible programs suitable for project programming. The proposed plan does not significantly differ from the previous year's plan. Three projects are reflected to be in progress, it is proposed that two projects be deleted because they have been completed, one project is modified, and that four new projects be added to the six-year TIP and ASIP. Projects in progress include the following: · SR-99 HOV Lanes Phase II, adding HOV lanes, raised medians, sidewalks, curbs, gutters, illumination, underground utilities, landscaping, and left turn lanes on S 324~h Street. k:~lutcL2003\0701 tip asip 2004~2009.doc Page 1 of 3 S 288th Street at SR-99, adding left-turn lanes for eastbound and westbound at SR-99 and 18th Avenue S, interconnects signals on Military Road South. "I-5 to City Center Access Study", previously titled S 312th Street at I-5 Design Study. This project is a design study to recommend improvements for a preferred solution to the interchange at S 320th Street at I-5 reaching capacity. Completed Projects Projects completed include the following: · SR-99 HOV Lanes Phase I, adding HOV lanes, raised medians, sidewalks, curbs, gutters, illumination, underground utilities, and landscaping. · S 312th Street at 8th Avenue S adds a new signal at this intersection and interconnect to SR-99. Modified Project · S 320t~ Street at I-5, The previous project scope adds a second left-tum lane and a third right-turn lane on the southbound off-ramp. The scope is increased to add the widening of S 320th Street across I~5 to seven lanes. Proposed New Projects The proposed new projects include the following: Westway Street Lighting: This project secured a Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), and installs up to 32 new streetlights in the Westway neighborhood to address a crime prevention program in parmership with the City's Public Safety Team. S 352na Street Extension from SR-99 to SR-161: This project (currently contained in the Capital Facilities Program in the Comprehensive Plan) addresses a concurrency issue and level of service deficiencies. The project will add a new signal at SR-99 and extend the 3 lane principal collector. SW 320th Street SW at 21st Avenue SW: This project (currently contained in the Capital Facilities Program in the Comprehensive Plan as two separate projects) addresses a concurrency issue, level of service deficiencies, and addresses current safety issues. The combined project adds a second westbound le~ turn lane and interconnects the signal at 26th Avenue SW. S 320th Street; 1st Avenue to 8th Avenue S: This project (currently contained in the Capital Facilities Program in the Comprehensive Plan) addresses a concurrency issue, level of service deficiencies, and safety issues. The project adds HOV lanes and installs raised access medians. The project is an extension of the HOV corridor and promotes the decrease in SOV. k:~lutcL2003\0701 tip asip 2004-2009.doc Page 2 of 3 Minor Modifications The schedule of the program dates of implementation have moved due to funding availability. RECOMMENDATION Staffrequests the Land Use/Transportation Committee recommend approval of the attached resolution adopting the 2004-2009 Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) and Arterial Street Improvement Plan (AS[P) at a Public Hearing to be held July 15, 2003. MZ:ss cc: Project File Day File k:MutcL2003\0701 tip asip 2004-2009.doc Page 3 of 3 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING AN EXTENDED AND REVISED TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AND ARTERIAL STREET IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR 2004-2009, AND DIRECTING THE SAME TO BE FILED WITH THE WASHINGTON STATE SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION AND THE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT BOARD. (AMENDS RESOLUTION 91-67, 92-117, 93-155, 94-186, 95-210, 96-236, 97-258, 98-273, 99-299, 00-316, 01-343, and 02-365). WHEREAS, pursuant to the requirements of RCW Chapters 35.77 and 47.26, the City Council of the City of Federal Way adopted its original Transportation Improvement Program on July 23, 1991 (Resolution No. 91-67); and WHEREAS, the Federal Way City Council updated its Transportation Improvement Program ("Program") on October 19, 1993, by its passage o f Resolution No. 93-155; and WHEREAS, the Federal Way City Council further updated its Transportation Improvement Program on October 4, 1994 (Resolution No. 94-186); and WHEREAS, the Federal Way City Council further updated its Transportation Improvement Program on July 18, 1995 (Resolution No. 95-210); and WHEREAS, the Federal Way City Council further updated its Transportation Improvement Program on July 16, 1996 (Resolution No. 96-236); and WHEREAS, the Federal Way City council further updated its Transportation Improvement Program on July 1, 1997 (Resolution No., 97-258); and RES # ., PAGE 1 WHEREAS, the Federal Way City council further updated its Transportation Improvement Program on July 7, 1998 (Resolution No., 98-273); and WHEREAS, the Federal Way City council further updated its Transportation Improvement Program on June 1, 1999 (Resolution No., 99-299); and WHEREAS, the Federal Way City council further updated its Transportation Improvement Program on June 20, 2000 (Resolution No., 00-316); and WHEREAS, the Federal Way City council further updated its Transportation Improvement Program on July 17, 2001 (Resolution No., 01-343); and WHEREAS, the Federal Way City council further updated its Transportation Improvement Program on June 18, 2002 (Resolution No., 02-365); and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Federal Way has reviewed the work accomplished under the existing Program and has reviewed work scheduled to be accomplished according to the updated Program; and WHEREAS, a public heating was held on the revised Transportation Improvement Program on July 15, 2003, in compliance with the requirements of State laws; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined current and future City street and arterial needs, and based upon these findings has prepared a revised and extended Transportation Improvement Program and an Arterial Street Improvement Plan for the ensuing six calendar years; and RES # , PAGE 2 WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 35.77 and 47.26, the City Council is required to annually revise and adopt an extended Transportation Improvement Program and an Arterial Street Improvement Plan; and WHEREAS, the City's SEPA Responsible Official has adopted the DNS in Federal Way File No. 03-101942-00-SE issued for the City's 2004 - 2009 Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) and Arterial Street Improvement Plan (ASIP) which includes the extended and revised projects contained in the TIP adopted herein; and WHEREAS, adoption of the City's 2004- 2009 Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) and Arterial Street Improvement Plan (ASIP) DNS reflects the fact that there will be no significant adverse environmental impacts as a result of adoption or implementation of the extended and revised Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) and Arterial Street Improvement Plan (ASIP) adopted herein; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Program Adopted. The extended and revised Transportation Improvement Program and Arterial Street Improvement Plan for the City of Federal Way for the ensuing six (6) calendar years (2004-2009 inclusive), a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference, which sets forth the City's transportation project locations, types of improvements and the estimated costs thereof, is hereby approved and adopted. Section 2. Filin~ of Program. Pursuant to Chapter 35.77 RCW, the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to file a copy of this Resolution, together with Exhibit A, with the Washington State Secretary of Transportation and a copy with the Washington State Transportation RES # , PAGE 3 Improvement Board. Section 3. Severabilit¥. tfany section, sentence, clause or phrase o£this Resolution should be unconstitutionality shall not affccl the wdidity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Resolution. Section 4. Ratification. Any act consistent with the authority and prior to the effective date of the Resolution is hereby ratified and affirmed. Section 5. Effective Date. the Federal Way City Council. RESOLVED BY THE WASHINGTON, this This Resolution shall be effective immediately upon passage by CITY day of COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ,2003. CITY OF FEDERAL WAY FEDERAL WAY, ATTEST: MAYOR, JEANNE BURBIDGE 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: RESOLUTION NO. k:\traffic\tip_cip\2004h-esolution for 2004-2009 tip, 2003.doc RES # , PAGE 4 CITY OF Federal Way DATE: TO: FROM: VIA: SUBJECT: July 7, 2003 Eric Faison, Chair Land Use / Transportation Committee Marwan Salloum, Street Systems Manager David H.~anager Request for Street Vacation of Portion of Puget Sound Marine View Drive BACKGROUND Brad and Mary Jo McHenry have petitioned the City to vacate a portion of Puget Sound Marine View Drive, located between SW Dash Point Road and 28t~ Avenue SW. (See the accompanying map of the area to be vacated for exact location.) The area requested for vacation is in two sections. The southern portion is unopened Right-of-Way that has been partially maintained by the abutting property owners and in some portions the property owner to the west has encroached upon the Right-of-Way with a fence. This portion is abutted by SW Dash Point Road to the south, a single private property to the west, 28~ Avenue SW to the north, and two private properties to the east. The northern portion is unopened Right-of-Way that has been partially maintained by the property owner who owns both properties, east and west of the area proposed for vacation. The northern section also abuts Poverty Bay Park on the north end, and 28m Avenue SW to the south. The Right-of-Way width for both portions of Puget Sound Marine View Drive is Eighty-feet (80'). The areas in which the Right-of-Way is located are zoned Residential 15.0 and are listed as Single Family, Medium Density in the Comprehensive Plan. The street vacation is being sought by abutting property owners, as they believe the Right-of-Way will never be developed and thus want the existing Right-of-Way to have the ability to subdivide, build home additions or garages. The area to be vacated has four (4) abutting private property owners, all of which have signed the petition. ACTION The petitioners did not meet Mandatory Criteria #lb - The street, alley or portion thereof is no longer required for public use, Discretionary Criteria #2c - Whether conditions may so change in the future as to provide a greater use or need than presently exists, or Discretionary Criteria #2e - The vacation would not interfere with future development or access to other existing or future development, as set forth in FWCC Section 13-102 required for granting the vacation request. The reason the criteria were not met was due to the potential use of this Right-of-Way as a vehicular and/or pedestrian access to Poverty Bay Park, which will be master planned in 2005. Because the petitioners did not meet all of the criteria, staff recommends denial of the vacation request. See the attached staff report for further details. RECOMMENDATION Staffrecommends denial of the requested street vacation and requests placing the attached resolution setting the time and date of the Public Hearing to be at the Council meeting on August 19, 2003 at 7:00 p.m., on the July 15, 2003 Council consent agenda. k:\lutc~2003Xrequest for street vacation of portion of puget sound marine view drive.doc APPROVAL OF COMMITTEE REPORT: Eric Faison, Chair Dean McColgan, Member Michael Park, Member cc: I'~,~j cci I:ilc I );~)' File RESOLUTION NO. A RESOI,UTION OF TIlE CITY COUNCIl. OF THE CITY OF FEDERAl, WAY, WASIIINGTON, REGARDING VACATION OF A PORTION OF PUGET SOUND MARINE VIEW DRIVE, I,OCATED BETWEEN SW DASIt POINT ROAD AND POVERTY BAY PARK, ABUTTING PUGET SOUND MARINE VIEW DRIVE AND SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE STREET VACATION. WHEREAS, a proper petition has been filed requesting vacation of a portion of Puget Sound Marine View Drive, located between SW Dash Point Road and Poverty Bay Park, in the City of Federal Way, Washington, and as depicted on Exhibit A (vicinity map), attached hereto; and WHEREAS, the petition contains the signatures of the owners of at lease two-thirds of the private property abutting the portion of Puget Sound Marine View Drive proposed to be vacated; NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. A public hearing on the aforesaid vacation petition shall be held at the regular meeting of the Federal Way City Council at 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, August 19, 2003, in the Council Chambers located within City Hall, 33530 - 1 st Way South, Federal Way, Washington. Said hearing date is not more than sixty (60) days nor less than twenty (20) days after the date of the passage of this resolution. Section 2. The City Clerk shall give at least twenty (20) days notice of the hearing and cause the notice to be posted as provided by law. Section 3. The Public Works Director shall obtain the necessary approval or rejection of, or other information from the City departments, affected agencies, and utilities, fire and police agencies, Res. # , Page 1 and shall transmit such information to the City Council so that the matter can be considered by the City Council at the public hearing on Tuesday, August 19, 2003. Section 4. SevcrabiliLy. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this resolution should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or phrase of this resolution. Section 5. Ratification. Any act consistent with the authority and prior to the effective date of this resolution is hereby ratified and affirmed. Section 6. Effective Date. This resolution shall be effective immediately upon passage by the Federal Way City Council. RESOLVED BY WASHINGTON this THE CITY day of COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ., 2003. CITY OF FEDERAL WAY FEDERAL WAY, ATTEST: MAYOR, JEANNE BURBIDGE APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY CLERK, N. CHRISTINE GREEN, CMC PATRICIA A. RICHARDSON, CITY ATTORNEY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: RESOLUTION NO.: Revised: 6/11/03 K:~-esolution~street vacation. Puget Sound Marine View Dr Res. # , Page 2 . . q 306 ST 3( PUGET SOUND MARINE VIEW DRIVE STREET VACATION EXHIBIT~A FOR RESOLUTION Map Printed-June 23, 2003 Federal Way CityMap Note: This map is i¢!e.,nded f~r use as a graphical representation only. City of Federal Way STAFF REPORT TO THE LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE PETITION FOR VACATION OF A PORTION OF PUGET SOUND MARINE VIEW DRIVE Federal Way File No. 03-100466 DATE: June 23, 2003 PROPOSED ACTION: Petition for vacation of a portion of?uget Sound Marine View Drive PETITIONER: Brad and Mary Jo McHenry LOCATION: See attached vicinity map REPORT PREPARED BY: John Mulkey, Street Systems Engineer RECOMMENDATION: Deny Street Vacation Request I. BACKGROUND Brad and Mary Jo McHenry have petitioned the City to vacate a portion of Puget Sound Marine View Drive, located between SW dash Point Road and 28th Avenue SW and between 28th Avenue SW. See the Street Vacation Petition (Exhibit A) and the accompanying map of the area to be vacated (Exhibit B) for exact location. The area requested for vacation is in two sections. The southern portion is unopened Right-of-Way that has been partially maintained by the abutting property owners and in some portions the property owner to the west has encroached upon the Right-of-Way with a fence. This portion is abutted by SW Dash Point Road to south, a single private property to the west, 28th Avenue SW to the north, and two private properties to the east. The northern portion is unopened Right-of-Way that has been partially maintained by property owner who owns both properties, east and west of the area proposed for vacation. The northern section also abuts Poverty Bay Park on the north end, and 28th Avenue SW to the South. The Right-of-Way width, for both portions of Puget Sound Marine View Drive is eighty (80) feet. There is no proposed street section for either portion of Right-of-Way, as shown in the City's comprehensive Plan. The areas in which the Right-of-Way areas are located are zoned Residential 15.0 and are listed as single family, Medium Density in the Comprehensive Plan. The street vacation is being sought by abutting property owners, as they believe the areas will never be developed, and want the existing property to have the ability to subdivide, build home additions or garages. The area to be vacated has four (4) abutting private property owners, all of which have signed the petition. II. COMPLIANCE Vv'ITH CRITERIA DESCRIBED IN THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CODE (FWCC) SECTION 13-102 A. Mandatory Criteria: The following criteria are mandatory and must be met before a petition for a street vacation may be approved: Criteria #la - The vacation provides a public benefit or is for a public benefit. The betteJ~t tnay include economic or busbtess support that the cottttttuttity as a whole derives front the abutting property o,,it er. 1 Puget Sound Marine View Drive Street Vacation Staff Report The land is not currently used or maintained by the City. The vacation of the portion of Puget Sound marine View Drive could provide a public benefit in that the land will be purchased and maintained by property owners. The vacation would benefit thc property owners m that they would have more property and allow for possible sub division or improvements to their respective properties. Criteria #lb - The street, alley or portion thereof is no longer required for public use. These areas encompass unopened Right-of-Way, which have not been used for access to any other areas. Although the Comprehensive Plan does not show this road to be opened to traffic the City Parks Department intends to begin planning development of Poverty Bay Park, which abuts the proposed area for vacation to the north. The Poverty Bay Park Master Plan is a 2005 funded project. As this right of way offers the potential for possible vehicular and/or pedestrian access to the park property, there is the potential for future public use of the property. Criteria # 1 c - The vacation does not abut a body of water, such as a river, a lake, or salt water, except for a public purpose such as a park or port facility attd which reverts to a public authority. This Right-of-Way is not located in the vicinity of a body of water, therefore this criteria is not applicable. B. Discretionary Criteria: Compliance with the following criteria is not mandatory, but the Council must consider them in making its decision. Criteria #2a - The vacation meets the intent of the City's Comprehensive Platt's general purposes attd objectives. The City's Comprehensive Plan has no requirements for future roads in the locations proposed for vacation. The areas in which the Right-of-Way areas are located are zoned Residential 15.0 and are listed as single family, Medium Density in the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed vacation area abuts Poverty Bay Park, which is planned for development in the future. Possible future pedestrian and/or vehicular access to the Park could be made through this Right-of-Way. Criteria #2b - The vacation provides for an exchange of public property itt the public interest. There is no exchange of public property associated with this vacation petition. Criteria #2c - Whether conditions may so change itt the fitture as to provide a greater use or need than presently exists. The City Parks Department intends to begin planning development of Poverty Bay Park, which abuts the proposed are for vacation to the north, beginning in 2005. With development of the park property this area may be used to provide pedestrian and/or vehicular access to the park. This change in future conditions could provide a greater use and need for this property than currently exists if this route is selected as an access route to the park. Criteria #2d - Whether objections to the proposed vacation are made by owners of private property (exclusive of petitioners) abutting the sante. As all abutting private property owners have signed the petition, this criteria is not applicable. Puget Sound Marine View Drive Street Vacation Staff Report Criteria #2e - The vacation would not interfere with future developntent or access to other existing or future developments. Thc vacation could interfere with future access and development of Poverly Bay Park, if this Right-ot'-Way was chosen as a pedestrian and/or vehicular access route to the park. Qwest has notified the City they currently have utilities within the proposed vacation area. Lakehaven Utility District is proposing future utilities in this area as well. The existing and proposed utilities must be granted easements through the property before vacation is allowed. III. PAYMENT As per RCW 35.79.030, Section 1, because the property has been part of a dedicated public Right-of-Way for over twenty five (25) years, having been conveyed to King County in 1930, the full amount of the appraised value (based on an appraisal acceptable to the City) of the land would be required as payment to the City if the proposed vacation is approved. IV. RECOMMENDATION Mandatory Criteria lb and Discretionary Criteria 2c and 2e have not been met as per the potential to develop this area as an access to Poverty Bay Park. Staff recommends the petition for vacation of a portion of Puget Sound Marine View Drive not be approved until such time as the decision for access into Poverty Bay Park has been determined. If the vacation petition is granted, the vacation should not be approved until all current and proposed utilities are granted easements through the property. kSstrcetskstreet vacation\puget sound marine view drivekfinal staffreport.doc -/ EXHIBIT Address: ,--~O4/~-./OO 4~'~ STREET and/or ALLEY VACATION and PETITION Dear Mayor and Federal Way City Council: We,'the undersigned abutting property owners, hereby respectfully request that certain 2~ ,JC~ueSz~-~,~,-,<,-~ ,-'~,~,z_,~tou-l/~.w' Z'~/C. aga~ hereby be vacated. (General Location) Legal Description Lo-r z t~l.'7 ,c'Lrq5'~,-,e' Brief Statement Why Vacation is Being Sought Ke u~ed Attachments: ct~L~ l~ ' ~ ~o ~z~llb~ o~ Ho~ ~ A ~ Venficatlonastoownershlp: ~ ~/~ ~py of deed/contract, supported by Kmg ~unW tax roll d~cnpuon, ~, Cu~ent title re~rt ~ ~rporatio~artnership (if appli~ble) Pr~f of individual's au~ofiw to si~ on behalf of ~rporatio~armership shall ~ s ubmi ~ Attach a color-c~ed map ofa s~le not less than 1" = 2~' of the area sought for vacation. *Note: Map must corres~nd with legal description. ~ Application fee Abutting Property Owners' Tax Lot # Signatures and Addresses Lot, Block & Plat/Sec. Twn. RG Fee Paid Appraisal Fee Paid Land Value Paid Deed Accepted Trade Accepted Treasurer's Receipt No. O ~-COC:,oq ',),_c~ Treasurer's Receipt No. __ Treasurer's Receipt No. Date: Date: K :kSTREETS\ROW~Vacadon Process.doc 306 ST 30~ PUGET SOUND MARINE VIEW DRIVE STREET VACATION EXHIBIT B Map Printed-Mar 26 2003 Federal Way CityMap Note: This map is intended for use as a graphical representation only. Map made by -KCM The City of Federal Way makes no warranty as to its accuracy. CITY OF ~ Federal Way MEMORANDUM July 1, 2003 TO: FROM: VIA: SUBJECT: MEET1NG DATE: Eric Faison, Chair Land Use/Transportation Committee (LUTC) Rox Burhans, Ass¢.~anner David ~n~>' ager Update on Washington State Annexation Methods: New Island and Petition Methods July 7, 2003 Background and Overview Governor Locke recently signed into law two new methods of annexation that will expand the methods available to annex unincorporated properties located in the Federal Way Potential Annexation Area (PAA). The development of these new annexation methods are in response to a recent Washington State Supreme Court decision~ that invalidated the previous annexation petition method, and the desire to simplify the process to annex unincorporated island territory. The following will summarize the new petition and island methods of annexation and their applicability to the Federal Way PAA. A brief discussion regarding preliminary PAA Study fiscal information is also noted below. II. New Petition Method On March 14, 2002, the Washington State Supreme Court issued a decision stating that the use of the petition method (in place at that time) §rants more influence to owners of high valued property than to other property owners or residents. This decision resulted in the invalidation of the petition method of annexation, in place at that time. The invalidation of the petition method left only the complicated and expensive election methods to facilitate the annexation of most unincorporated properties~ The new petition method of annexation became effective on May 16, 2003, and can be used by the City of Federal Way to annex unincorporated properties located in the PAA. The format and process of the new petition method of annexation is largely consistent with the previous petition Grant County Fire Protection District v. Moses Lake and Yakima County Fire Protection District v. City of Yakima Washington Association of Cities January 2003 Issue Policy Statement method, with key differences related to the annexation petition's signature requirements. The following will summarize the steps in the new petition method. The information on the new petition method is largely drawn from a recently published Washington Association of Cities Fact Sheet (Exhibit 1).~ Step 1: Annexation Initiation Annexations under the new petition method are initiated by a written notice to the city council signed by owners of not less than 10 percent of the acreage of the area being considered for annexation. Step 2: City Council Meeting With Initiators The city council is required to set a date for a meeting with the annexation initiators, which may occur no later than 60 days after the filing of the Notice of Intention. The meeting is to determine whether the city council will: 1. Accept the annexation request as proposed; 2. Modify the boundaries of the area proposed for annexation (and accept the proposed annexation as modified); or 3. Reject the proposed annexation The city council decision to accept the proposed annexation is a procedural step and does not obligate the city to annex the unincorporated area~ If the city council accepts the proposed annexation, it must also decide whether it will require simultaneous adoption of proposed zoning regulations and whether it will require assumption of any portion of the city indebtedness by the area to be annexed. Step 3: Annexation Petition If the city council accepts a proposed annexation, the annexation initiators must submit a petition to the city council containing the signatures off 1. Owners of a majority (i.e. more than 50 percent) of the acreage of the area proposed for annexation; and 2. A majority of the registered voters residing in the area proposed for annexation. If the area proposed for annexation does not contain any residents or registered voters, the petition must be signed by the owners of a majority of the acreage of the area. Step 4: Public Hearing and Annexation Ordinance Upon receipt of the annexation petition, the city council is required to conduct a public hearing. If the city council chooses to move forward with the proposed annexation, the city council may effect the annexation by issuing an ordinance (following the public hearing). The ordinance may annex all or portions of the proposed annexation area. The annexed area will become a part of the city on the date fixed in the ordinance. III. New Island Method of Annexation The new island method of annexation establishes a process by which a city or town may annex unincorporated island territory through an interlocal agreement and municipal ordinance. The new Washington Association of Cities April 2003 Fact Sheet Update on Washington State Annexation Methods: New Island and Petition Methods Page 2 method also exposes a city's PAA island territory to annexation by other contiguous cities or towns. Island territories typically consist of unincorporated land that is surrounded by cities or towns. A good example of an unincorporated island territory, is the Federal Way PAA Redondo East Subarea near the South 272''d Street and Pacific Hwy. South i~tersection. This largely commercial area is completely surrounded by city boundaries (Federal Way, Kent, and Des Moines) and could be annexed to the City of Federal Way using the new island annexation method. The new island annexation method becomes effective July 27, 2003. Due to the very recent enactment of the new island annexation method, there is little existing analysis providing local governments with implementation guidance. The following will provide the LUTC with a preliminary overview of the new island method of annexation and its applicability to the Federal Way PAA. A copy of the new island annexation method legislative bill is enclosed as Exhibit III. A. Island Territory Criteria and Annexation Process Island Territory Criteria In order for an unincorporated territory to be considered an "island," it will need to meet the following criteria: 1. Be located within a city's Urban Growth Area (UGA); and 2. Have at least 60 percent of the boundaries of the territory contiguous to the annexing city or one or more cities or towns. Based on the above criteria, the new island method of annexation could be used to annex the Federal Way PAA Redondo East Subarea and the PAA Subareas located to the east of I-54. Please refer to Exhibit II for a vicinity map of these areas. The following will explain the steps in the new island annexation process. Step 1: Initiation of Island Annexation Process The island annexation process is initiated through the adoption of a resolution by the legislative body of the county or city. The resolution will need to specify the commencement of negotiations for an interlocal agreement between the county and city. Step 2: Interlocal Agreement Content and Public Hearing Process The interlocal agreement will need to describe the boundaries of the territory to be annexed. A public hearing will need to be held by the county and city (separately or jointly), prior to execution of agreement. The interlocal agreement is required to be published in one or more newspapers of general circulation within the proposed annexation island territory. Step 3: Ordinance Adoption The city is required to adopt an ordinance providing for the annexation of the unincorporated island territory. The city is also required to issue a public notice specifying the following: Proposed effective date of the annexation; and A description of the property to be annexed; and 3. Any assumption of city indebtedness by the island territory; and Thc Redondo East Subarea has 100 percent of its borders contiguous to one or more cities. According to City GIS Division records, the PAA Subareas to the east ofl-5 has 60.87 percent of their borders contiguous to one or more cities or towns. The Redondo East Subarea and the Subareas located to the east of I-5 (collectively) are contiguous to the City of Federal Way. Update on Washington State Annexation Methods: New Island and Petition Methods Page 3 4. Adoption of any proposed zoning regulation. The public notice is required to be published in one or more newspapers of general circulation within the island territory to be annexed. Effective Date of Annexation The territory shall become part of the city upon the date fixed in the annexation ordinance, which may not be fewer than 45 days after adoption of the ordinance. B. Referendum Challenge to Island Method of Annexation Co Process to Initiate Annexation Challenge The annexation ordinance described in Section A above is subject to a referendum challenge for 45 days at~er ordinance passage. A challenge is initiated through the filing of a referendum petition with the city, signed by a minimum number of registered voters equal to 15 percent of the votes cast in the last general state election in the area to be annexed, within 45 days after ordinance passage. Election Process and Timing The question of annexation will be submitted to the voters of the area in a general election, if one is to be held within 90 days of the filing of the above referendum petition. Alternatively, a special election can be held not less than 45 days of the filing of the referendum petition and not more than 90 days of the filing of the referendum petition. Annexation Approval In the event an election is held, the annexation shall be deemed approved unless a majority of the votes are against the annexation proposal. Exposure of City's PAA Island Territory to Annexation by Another Contiguous City or Town As noted above, the new island method of annexation exposes a city's PAA island territory to annexation by another contiguous city or town. A county may initiate this annexation process with another contiguous city or town under the following circumstances: 1. The county has initiated an annexation process with the city that contains the Island territory within it's UGA; and 2. The affected city legislature adopted a responsive resolution rejecting the proposed annexation or declined to create the requested interlocal agreement with the county; or 3. More than 180 days have passed since adoption of the county or city resolution and the parties have not adopted or executed an interlocal agreement providing for the annexation of the Island territory,s s The new island annexation method does contain a provision allowing the county or city to pass a resolution extending the negotiation period for six-months. Update on Washington State Annexation Methods: New Island and Petition Methods Page 4 IV. Preliminary PAA Study Fiscal Information According to preliminary PAA Study cost and revenue inforlnation, it appears that the anticipated revenues from tile Redondo East Subarea could equal, or slightly exceed, lhe costs to provide municipal services to tile area. It also appears that the anticipated revenues t¥om the PAA Subareas located to the east of 1-5 will be significantly less than the anticipated costs to provide municipal services to these areas. More complete fiscal information on the PAA will be available upon completion of the PAA Study later in the year. V. Requested Action Staff requests direction from the LUTC regarding any additional work assignments that should be performed in response to the new Washington State annexation methods. APPROVAL OF COMMITTEE REPORT Eric Faison, Chair Michael Park, Member Dean McColgan, Member LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit I: Exhibit II: Exhibit III: Washington Association of Cities April 2003 Annexation Fact Sheet Major PAA Subarea Boundaries Map Substitute House Bill 1755 Update on Washington State Annexation Methods: New Island and Petition Methods Page 5 Association of Washington Cities (AWC) Page 1 of 3 ASSOCIATION WA~ HINGTOhl Annexation Home Page Using the New Petition Hethod (Fact Sheet) The Court Case Annexation Coalition Policy Paper Fact Sheets In the News AWC's Survey Results MP, SC's Annexation Page Contact Us EXHIBIT_ k ____ PAGE OF 3 Home 3obNet Legislative Insurance Library City Issues Trai A~nexatJat~ Hot Topics / Annexation / Using the New Petition Method (Fact Sheet) MUNICIPAL ANNEXATION UNDER THE NEW PETITION METHOD NRSC/A WC Fact Sheet, April 2003 On May ~6, 2003 Governor Locke signed $$_B 5409, which adopts a new petition method of annexation designed to overcome what the state supreme court decided in Grant County Fire Protection D/st. v, Moses Lake were constitutional defects in the "old" petition method. The court has yet to rule on the motions for reconsideration in the Grant Count' case: and it is possible that the old method may, at least in some orcurnstances, be resurrected. That reconsideration decision would, however, have no effect on the new method. This taw ~s effective upon the governor's signature, tn other words, cities may now begin using this new method of annexation. The Q&A below outlines this new petition method, which, with minor exceptions as noted, is the same for all classes of cities and for towns. The new method follows the format of the old method, with differences primarily in the signing requirements for the annexation petition. The primary difference between the new and the old method is that the annexation petition must be signed by property owners (owning a majority of the area) and by registered voters (a majority in the area). ~f there are no registered voters (vacant, commercial, or industrial property, or property that has residents but no registered voters), then only owners of a majority of the area need sign. How is an annexation under this method initiated? Notice of Intention An annexation under this method can be initiated by written notice Association of Washington Cities (AWC) Page 2 of 3 EXHIBIT _',-F.. PAGE_ OF to the city council of an "intention to commence annexation proceedings" signed by: · 10 percent or more of the residents of the area to be annexed (non-code cities only), or · Owners of not less than 10 percent of the acreage of this area. An exception is recognized for school district property, which, under RCW 28A.335.110, can be annexed only if it constitutes the entire area proposed for annexation. Meeting with Initiators/Initial Decision by City Council The city council must set a date for a meeting with the initiating parties, which may occur no later than 60 days after the filing of notice of intention, to determine whether the council will: · Accept the annexation as proposed; , Geographically modify the proposed annexation (and accept the proposed annexation as modified); or · Reject the annexation. The decision of the council whether to "accept" the proposed annexation is entirely within the council's discretion. By accepting a proposed annexation, the council is not committing itself to ultimately annexing the territory proposed when a sufficient petition is presented to it. The decision to accept merely allows the annexation to go forward procedurally. If the council rejects the proposed annexation, the initiating parties have no right of appeal. :If the council accepts the annexation, it must also decide: . Whether it will require the simultaneous adoption of a comprehensive plan (non-code city) or a proposed zoning regulation (code city), and · Whether it will require the assumption of all or any portion of existing city indebtedness by the area to be annexed. If the council decides to require either or both of the above, that decision must be reflected in the meeting minutes. What must a sufficient annexation petition contain? If the city council accepts the initial annexation proposal, the initiating parties may draft and circulate a petition for signatures. The petition for annexation must: · Be in writing and be addressed to the city council; http://www.awcnet.org/portal/StudioNew.asp?Mode=B 1 & WebID= 1 &UI D=&MenuActio... 07/01/2003 Association of Washington Cities (AWC) Page 3 of 3 · Contain a legal description-of the property; · Be accompanied by a drawing that outlines the boundaries of the area proposed for annexation~ · If the city council is requiring the assumption of all or any portion of city or town indebtedness and/or the adoption of a comprehensive plan or proposed zoning regulation for the area to be annexed, state those facts, along with a quotation from the meeting minutes where the council imposed such requirements; · Be signed by: o Owners of a majority of the acreage of the area proposed for annexation, and o A majority of the registered voters residing in the area proposed for annexation If there are no residents in the area proposed for annexation (or no registered voters), by the owners of a majority of the acreage of the area. (For school district property, the petition is to be signed by the district board of directors); · Comply with the rules for petitions in RCW 35.21.005 (non- code city) or _RCW 35A.01.040 (code city); and · Be filed with the city council. The procedures following the filing of the annexation petition with the city council are not changed by this legislation. 5/16/03 EXHIBIT PAGE '5 OF Milton kubur; City of Federal Way- Potential Annexation Area Major Subarea Boundaries Legend: Major Subarea Boundary EXHIBIT ~ PAGE t OF_ I Scale: 0 1 Mile Map Date: November, 2001 City of Federal Way, 33530 Rrst Way S, FederaJ Way, WA 98003 (253) C~1-4000 This map Is Intended for use as a graphical represe~tatio~ ONLY. The City of Federal Way makes no warranty as to its ~ccur~y. CERTIFICATION OF ENROLLMENT SUBSTITUTE HOUSE BILL 1755 Chapter 299, Laws of 2003 58th Legislature 2003 Regular Session UNINCORPORATED TERRITORY--ANNEXATION EFFECTIVE DATE: 7/27/03 Passed by the House April 22, 2003 Yeas 97 Nays 0 FRANK CHOPP Speaker of the House of Representatives Passed by the Senate April 17, 2003 Yeas 48 Nays 0 BRAD OWEN President of the Senate ODCERTIFICATE I, Cynthia Zehnder, Chief Clerk of the House of Representatives of the State of Washington, do hereby certify that the attached is SUBSTITUTE HOUSE BILL 1755 as passed by the House of Representatives and the Senate on the dates hereon set forth. CYNTHIA ZEHNDER Chief Clerk []Approved May 14, 2003. Page 1 of 7 EXHIBIT PAGE Page 2 of 7 GARY LOCKE Governor of the State of Washington O[]FILED May 14, 2003 - 3:29 p.m. Secretary of State State of Washington SUBSTITUTE HOUSE BILL 1755 AS AMENDED BY THE SENATE Passed Legislature - 2003 Regular Session EXHIBIT_.. PAGE_ OF_'-/ State of Washington 58th Legislature 2003 Regular Session By House Committee on Local Government (originally sponsored by Representatives Kirby, Romero, Conway, Jarrett, Rockefeller and Morrell) READ FIRST TIME 03/06/03. AN ACT Relating to creating alternative means for annexation of unincorporated island of territory; amending RCW 36.70A.110; adding new sections to chapter 35.13 RCW; and adding new sections to chapter 35A.14 RCW. BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON: {+ NEW SECTION. +} Sec. 1. A new section is added to chapter 35.13 RCW to read as follows: (1) The legislative body of a county, city, or town planning under chapter 36.70A RCW and subject to the requirements of RCW 36.70A.215 may initiate an annexation process for unincorporated territory by adopting a resolution commencing negotiations for an interlocal agreement as provided in chapter 39.34 RCW between a county and any city or town within the county. The territory proposed for annexation must meet the following criteria: (a) Be within the city or town urban growth area designated under RCW 36.70A.110, and (b) at least sixty percent of the boundaries of the territory proposed for annexation must be contiguous to the annexing city or town or one or more cities or towns. (2) If the territory proposed for annexation has been designated in an adopted county comprehensive plan as part of an urban growth area, urban service area, or potential annexation area for a specific city or town, or if the urban growth area territory proposed for annexation has been designated in a written agreement between a city or town and a county for annexation to a specific city or town, the designation or designations shall receive full consideration before a city or county may initiate the annexation process provided for in section 2 of this act. (3) The agreement shall describe the boundaries of the territory to be httv://www, lee.wa.eov/nub/billinfo/2003-O4/House/1750-1774/1755-s sl 05212003.txt 06/17/2002 Page 3 of 7 annexed. A public hearing shall be held by each legislative body, separately or jointly, before the agreement is executed. Each legislative body holding a public hearing shall, separately or jointly, publish the agreement at least once a week for two weeks before the date of the hearing in one or more newspapers of general circulation within the territory proposed for annexation. (4) Following adoption and execution of the agreement by both legislative bodies, the city or town legislative body shall adopt an ordinance providing for the annexation of the territory described in the agreement. The legislative body shall cause notice of the proposed effective date of the annexation, together with a description of the property to be annexed, to be published at least once each week for two weeks subsequent to passage of the ordinance, in one or more newspapers of general circulation within the city and in one or more newspapers of general circulation within the territory to be annexed. If the annexation ordinance provides for assumption of indebtedness or adoption of a proposed zoning regulation, the notice shall include a statement of the requirements. Any territory to be annexed through an ordinance adopted under this section is annexed and becomes a part of the city or town upon the date fixed in the ordinance of annexation, which date may not be fewer than forty- five days after adoption of the ordinance. {+ NEW SECTION. +} Sec. 2. A new section is added to chapter 35.13 RCW to read as follows: (1) The legislative body of any county planning under chapter 36.70A RCW and subject to the requirements of RCW 36.70A.215 may initiate an annexation process with the legislative body of any other cities or towns that are contiguous to the territory proposed for annexation in section 1 of this act if: (a) The county legislative body initiated an annexation process as provided in section 1 of this act; and (b) The affected city dr town legislative body adopted a responsive resolution rejecting the proposed annexation or declined to create the requested interlocal agreement with the county; or (c) More than one hundred eighty days have passed since adoption of a county resolution as provided for in section 1 of this act and the parties have not adopted or executed an interlocal agreement providing for the annexation of unincorporated territory. The legislative body for either the county or an affected city or town may, however, pass a resolution extending the negotiation period for one or more six-month periods if a public hearing is held and findings of fact are made prior to each extension. (2) Anny county initiating the process provided for in subsection (1) of this section must do so by adopting a resolution commencing negotiations for an interlocal agreement as provided in chapter 39.34 RCW between the county and any city or town within the county. The annexation area must be within an urban growth area designated under RCW 36.70A.110 and at least sixty percent of the boundaries of the territory to be annexed must be contiguous to one or more cities or towns. (3) The agreement shall describe the boundaries of the territory to be annexed. A public hearing shall be held by each legislative body, separately or jointly, before the agreement is executed. Each legislative body holding a public hearing shall, separately or jointly, publish the agreement at least once a week for two weeks before the date of the hearing in one or more newspapers of general circulation Within the territory proposed for annexation. (4) Following adoption and execution of the agreement by both legislative bodies, the city or town legislative body shall adopt an ordinance providing for the annexation. The legislative body shall cause notice of the proposed effective date of the annexation, together with a description of the property to be annexed, to be published at least once each week for two weeks subsequent to passage of the ordinance, in one or more newspapers of general circulation within the city and in one or more newspapers of general circulation within the territory to be annexed. If the annexation ordinance provides for assumption of indebtedness or adoption of a proposed zoning regulation, the notice shall Page 4 of 7 include a statement of the requirements. Any area to be annexed through an ordinance adopted under this section is annexed and becomes a part of the city or town upon the date fixed in the ordinance of annexation, which date may not be less than forty-five days after adoption of the ordinance. (5) The annexation ordinances provided for in section 1(4) of this act and subsection (4) of this section are subject to referendum for forty-five days after passage. Upon the filing of a timely and sufficient referendum petition with the legislative body, signed by registered voters in number equal to not less than fifteen percent of the votes cast in the last general state election in the area to be annexed, the question of annexation shall be submitted to the voters of the area in a general election if one is to be held within ninety days or at a special election called for that purpose not less than forty- five days nor more than ninety days after the filing of the referendum petition. Notice of the election shall be given as provided in RCW 35.13.080 and the election shall be conducted as provided in the general election law. The annexation shall be deemed approved by the voters unless a majority of the votes cast on the proposition are in opposition thereto. After the expiration of the forty-fifth day from but excluding the date of passage of the annexation ordinance, if no timely and sufficient referendum petition has been filed, the area annexed shall become a part of the city or town upon the date fixed in the ordinance of annexation. (6) If more than one city or town adopts interlocal agreements providing for annexation of the same unincorporated territory as provided by this section, an election shall be held in the area to be annexed pursuant to RCW 35.13.070 and 35.13.080. In addition to the provisions of RCW 35.13.070 and 35.13.080, the ballot shall also contain a separate proposition allowing voters to cast votes in favor of annexation to any one city or town participating in an interlocal agreement as provided by this section. If a majority of voters voting on the proposition vote against annexation, the proposition is defeated. If, however, a majority of voters voting in the election approve annexation, the area shall be annexed to the city or town receiving the highest number of votes among those cast in favor of annexation. (7) Costs for an election required under subsection (6) of this section shall be borne by the county. {+ NEW SECTION. +} Sec. 3. A new section is added to chapter 35A.14 RCW to read as follows: (1) The legislative body of a county or code city planning under chapter 36.70A RCW and subject to the requirements of RCW 36.70A.215 may initiate an annexation process for unincorporated territory by adopting a resolution commencing negotiations for an interlocal agreement as provided in chapter 39.34 RCW between a county and any code city within the county. The territory proposed for annexation must meet the following criteria: (a) Be within the code city urban growth area designated under RCW 36.70A.110, and (b) at least sixty percent of the boundaries of the territory proposed for annexation must be contiguous to the annexing code city or one or more cities or towns. (2) If the territory proposed for annexation has been designated in an adopted county comprehensive plan as part of an urban growth area, urban service area, or potential annexation area for a specific city, or if the urban growth area territory proposed for annexation has been designated in a written agreement between a city and a county for annexation to a specific city or town, the designation or designations shall receive full consideration before a city or county may initiate the annexation process provided for in section 4 of this act. (3) The agreement shall describe the boundaries of the territory to be annexed. A public hearing shall be held by each legislative body, separately or jointly, before the agreement is executed. Each legislative body holding a public hearing shall, separately or jointly, publish the agreement at least once a week for two weeks before the date of the hearing in one or more newspapers of general circulation within the territory proposed for annexation. httnt//www.le~.wa.eov/nuh/hilllnfn/?(iO3-O4/Hnll.~e/1750-1774/1755-.~ .~1 0591 ?(Iflq tx-t lift/17/?fill2 Page 5 of 7 (4) Following adoption and execution of the agreement by both legislative bodies, the city legislative body shall adopt an ordinance providing for the annexation of the territory described in the agreement. The legislative body shall cause notice of the proposed effective date of the annexation, together with a description of the property to be annexed, to be published at least once each week for two weeks subsequent to passage of the ordinance, in one or more newspapers of general circulation within the city and in one or more newspapers of general circulation within the territory to be annexed. If the annexation ordinance provides for assumption of indebtedness or adoption of a proposed zoning regulation, the notice shall include a statement of the requirements. Any territory to be annexed through an ordinance adopted under this section is annexed and becomes a part of the city upon the date fixed in the ordinance of annexation, which date may not be fewer than forty-five days after adoption of the ordinance. {+ NEW SECTION. +} Sec. 4. A new section is added to chapter 35A.14 RCW to read as follows: (1) The legislative body of any county planning under chapter 36.70A RCW and subject to the requirements of RCW 36.70A.215 may initiate an annexation process with the legislative body of any other cities or towns that are contiguous to the territory proposed for annexation in section 3 of this act if: (a) The county legislative body initiated an annexation process as provided in section 3 of this act; and (b) The affected city legislative body adopted a responsive resolution rejecting the proposed annexation or declined to create the requested interlocal agreement with the county; or (c) More than one hundred eighty days have passed since adoption of a county resolution as provided for in section 3 of this act and the parties have not adopted or executed an interlocal agreement providing for the annexation of unincorporated territory. The legislative body for either the county or an affected city may, however, pass a resolution extending the negotiation period for one or more six-month periods if a public hearing is held and findings of fact are made prior to each extension. (2) Any county initiating the process provided for in subsection (1) of this section must do so by adopting a resolution commencing negotiations for an interlocal agreement as provided in chapter 39.34 RCW between the county and any city or town within the county. The annexation area must be within an urban growth area designated under RCW 36.70A.110 and at least sixty percent of the boundaries of the territory to be annexed must be contiguous to one or more cities or towns. (3) The agreement shall describe the boundaries of the territory to be annexed. A public hearing shall be held by each legislative body, separately or jointly, before the agreement is executed. Each legislative body holding a public hearing shall, separately or jointly, publish the agreement at least once a week for two weeks before the date of the hearing in one or more newspapers of general circulation within the territory proposed for annexation. (4) Following adoption and execution of the agreement by both legislative bodies, the city or town legislative body shall adopt an ordinance providing for the annexation. The legislative body shall cause notice of the proposed effective date of the annexation, together with a description of the property to be annexed, to be published at least once each week for two weeks subsequent to passage of the ordinance, in one or more newspapers of general circulation within the city and in one or more newspapers of general circulation within the territory to be annexed. If the annexation ordinance provides for assumption of indebtedness or adoption of a proposed zoning regulation, the notice shall include a statement of the requirements. Any area to be annexed through an ordinance adopted under this section is annexed and becomes a part of the city or town upon the date fixed in the ordinance of annexation, which date may not be less than forty-five days after adoption of the ordinance. (5) The annexation ordinances provided for in section 3(4) of this act and Page 6 of 7 subsection (4) of this section are subject to referendum for forty-five days after passage. Upon the filing of a timely and sufficient referendum petition with the legislative body, signed by registered voters in number equal to not less than fifteen percent of the votes cast in the last general state election in the area to be annexed, the question of annexation shall be submitted to the voters of the area in a general election if one is to be held within ninety days or at a special election called for that purpose not less than forty- five days nor more than ninety days after the filing of the referendum petition. Notice of the election shall be given as provided in RCW 35A.14.070 and the election shall be conducted as provided in the general election law. The annexation shall be deemed approved by the voters unless a majority of the votes cast on the proposition are in opposition thereto. After the expiration of the forty-fifth day from but excluding the date of passage of the annexation ordinance, if no timely and sufficient referendum petition has been filed, the area annexed shall become a part of the city or town upon the date fixed in the ordinance of annexation. (6) If more than one city or town adopts interlocal agreements providing for annexation of the same unincorporated territory as provided by this section, an election shall be held in the area to be annexed pursuant to RCW 35A.14.070. In addition to the provisions of RCW 35A.14.070, the ballot shall also contain a separate proposition allowing voters to cast votes in favor of annexation to any one city or town participating in an interlocal agreement as provided by this section. If a majority of voters voting on the proposition vote against annexation, the proposition is defeated. If, however, a majority of voters voting in the election approve annexation, the area shall be annexed to the city or town receiving the highest number of votes among those cast in favor of annexation. (7) Costs for an election required under subsection (6) of this section shall be borne by the county. Sec. 5. RCW 36.70A.110 and 1997 c 429 s 24 are each amended to read as follows: (1) Each county that is required or chooses to plan under RCW 36.70A.040 shall 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. ~ ~ nature. Each city that is located in such a county shall be included within an X urban growth area. An urban growth area may include more than a single city. An urban growth area may include territory that is located outside of a city only if such territory already is characterized by urban growth whether or not the urban growth area includes a city, or is adjacent to territory already characterized by urban growth, or is a designated new fully contained community as defined by RCW 36.70A.350. (2) Based upon the growth management population projection made for the county by the office of financial management, the county and each city within the county shall include areas and densities sufficient to permit the urban growth that is projected to occur in the county or city for the succeeding twenty-year period. Each urban growth area shall permit urban densities and shall include greenbelt and open space areas. An urban growth area determination may include a reasonable land market supply factor and shall permit a range of urban densities and uses. In determining this market factor, cities and counties may consider local circumstances. Cities and counties have discretion in their comprehensive plans to make many choices about accommodating growth. Within one year of July 1, 1990, each county that as of June 1, 1991, was required or chose to plan under RCW 36.70A.040, shall begin consulting with each city located within its boundaries and each city shall propose the location of an urban growth area. Within sixty days of the date the county legislative authority of a county adopts its resolution of intention or of certification by the office of financial management, all other counties that are required or choose to plan under RCW 36.70A.040 shall begin this consultation with each city hltn://www, lee.wa.eov/tmb/billinfo/2OOq-O4/FIm,qe/1750-1774/17qq-¢ el OS91 ?OI3q tvt t3~;/17/gnf~t Page 7 of 7 located within its boundaries. The county shall attempt to reach agreement with each city on the location of an urban growth area within which the city is located. If such an agreement is not reached with each city located within the urban growth area, the county shall justify in writing why it so designated the area an urban growth area. A city may object formally with the department over the designation of the urban growth area within which it is located. Where appropriate, the department shall attempt to resolve the conflicts, including the use of mediation services. (3) Urban growth should be located first in areas already characterized by urban growth that have adequate existing public facility and service capacities to serve such development, second in areas already characterized by urban growth that will be served adequately by a combination of both existing public facilities and services and any additional needed public facilities and services that are provided by either public or private sources, and third in the remaining portions of the urban growth areas. Urban growth may also be located in designated new fully contained communities as defined by RCW 36.70A.350. (4) In general, cities are the units of local government most appropriate to provide urban governmental services. In general, it is not appropriate that urban governmental services be extended to or expanded in rural areas except in those limited circumstances shown to be necessary to protect basic public health and safety and the environment and when such services are financially supportable at rural densities and do not permit urban development. (5) On or before October 1, 1993, each county that was initially required to plan under RCW 36.70A.040(1) shall adopt development regulations designating interim urban growth areas under this chapter. Within three years and three months of the date the county legislative authority of a county adopts its resolution of intention or of certification by the office of financial management, all other counties that are required or choose to plan under RCW 36.70A.040 shall adopt development regulations designating interim urban growth areas under this chapter. Adoption of the interim urban growth areas may only occur after public notice; public hearing; and compliance with the state environmental policy act, chapter 43.21C RCW, and RCW 36.70A.110. Such action may be appealed to the appropriate growth management hearings board under RCW 36.70A.280. Final urban growth areas shall be adopted at the time of comprehensive plan adoption under this chapter. (6) Each county shall include designations of urban growth areas in its comprehensive plan. {+ (7) ~n urban growth area designated in accordance with this section may include within its boundaries urban service areas or potential annexation areas designated for specific cities or towns within the county. +} Passed by the House April 22, 2003. Passed by the Senate April 17, 2003. Approved by the Governor May 14, 2003. Filed in Office of Secretary of State May 14, 2003. CITY OF ~ Federal Way July 1, 2003 TO: VIA: FROM: SUBJECT: MEETING DATE: MEMORANDUM Eric Faison, Chair Land Use/Transportation Committee (LUTC) David Mos/~~anager Rox Burhans, As~Planner Extension of Federal Way's Potential Annexation Area (PAA) into Unincorporated King County Gap Area July 7, 2003 I. Background/Proposal This memorandum is in response to the Land Use/Transportation Committee's (LUTC) request of staff to look into the feasibility of including the unincorporated King County Gap Area into the Federal Way Potential Annexation Area (PAA). Gap areas are urban areas that are not within the designated PAA boundaries of any city. The unincorporated Gap Area being considered by the LUTC is located in the vicinity of the Federal Way PAA (Jovita and Lakeland Subareas), City of Edgewood, City of Algona, City of Milton, and City of Pacific PAA boundaries. Please refer to the enclosed vicinity map for the specific location of the Gap Area (Exhibit I). This memorandum will discuss the location and demographics of the Gap Area, previous staff research on this area, statutory authority, applicable King County policies, and what services would have to be provided in the event of an annexation of this area by Federal Way. II. Gap Area Location and Demographics As noted above, the King County Gap Area is located near several municipalities and PAA boundaries. The enclosed vicinity map (Exhibit 1) indicates that the City of Pacific PAA, located generally around Trout Lake, divides the Gap Area into two separate sections (north and south). The Gap Area's southern section has a limited amount of contiguousness to the Federal Way PAA. If the process to extend the Federal Way PAA were to move forward, staff would not recommend extending the Federal Way PAA boundary to include the Gap Area's southern section. A second alternative to consider is to facilitate discussions with the City of Pacific regarding their willingness to transfer all or portions of their PAA to the City of Federal Way. This PAA transfer may result in a more logical and/or reasonable extension of the Federal Way PAA to include the entire Gap area. The King County Gap Area largely consists of older, single-family residential development. A small convenience store is located in the Gap Area near the South 372nd Street and Military Road South intersection (across from Five Mile Lake Park). Table I (below) will provide a summary of King County Gap Area demographic characteristics and features.~ Table I King County Gap Area Demographic Characteristics and Features Land Area (in acres) 5682 Total Population 1,480 Number of Housing Units 550 Median Year Structure Built 1973 Median Real Estate Taxes (Owner-Occupied Housing Units) $2,307 City of Federal Way GIS Records and 2000 U.S Census Bureau IlL Previous Research In May of 2002, the LUTC requested staffto conduct preliminary research regarding the expansion of the PAA boundary to include three separate areas located in unincorporated King and Pierce Counties. One of the three areas researched was the above noted King County Gap Area~ The LUTC also asked staffto prepare preliminary cost estimates to expand the City's ongoing PAA Study to include these areas. At the time of the May 2002 LUTC meeting, the cost to expand the PAA Study to include the above areas was approximately $100,000. The LUTC suggested that staffadd this project (expansion of PAA Study) to the 2003-2004 City budget process as a new initiative. The expansion of the PAA Study was proposed as a new initiative for the 2003-2004 budget; however, the initiative was not funded. IV. Growth Management Act Revised Code of Washington (RCW) Section 36.70.A. 110 specifies the criteria for the establishment of Urban Growth Areas CLIGA). The King County Gap area being considered by the LUTC is located in the King County UGA. The Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) does not contain specific policies that pertain to extending PAA boundaries. However, RCW Section 35A. 14.005 specifies that no code city may annex territory beyond an UGA. As noted in Section VIII below, the City would have to extend the City's UGA or PAA boundary prior to annexing any portion of the King County Gap Area. V. VISION 2020 VISION 2020 is the long-range growth management, economic, and transportation strategy for the central Puget Sound region encompassing King, Kitsap, Pierce, and Snohomish counties. In Due to the Gap Area's location in multiple Census geographies, all Census data is reported as approximations. The land area for the Gap Area's southern section is 184.49 acres. The land area for the Gap Area's northern section is 383.23 acres. P~e2 adopting VISION 2020, the elected officials that make up the Regional Council recognize that jurisdictions in the region are increasingly interdependent. The policies in VISION 2020 reflect broad directions agreed to by member jurisdictions and agencies. Many of the policies reflect and will be implemented through local comprehensive plans and programs, as well as regional efforts. The only VISION 2020 policy that might apply to the extension of Federal Way's PAA to include the King County Gap Area is Multicounty Policy RC-2.2 - Encourage Strategic Location of Growth of VISION2020. This policy is to, "Encourage annexation proposals that conform to an orderly expansion of city boundaries within the urban area and provide for a contiguous development pattern. When proposed annexations are near county boundaries, the process should include collaboration and proposal review by the neighboring county to ensure proper expansion and interjurisdictional cooperation." VI. Countywide Planning Policies The King County Countywide Planning Policies (CWPP) include criteria for the establishment of UGA or PAA boundaries and phasing development within these areas. The CWPP do not contain any specific policies that pertain to extending PAA boundaries. However, King County Comprehensive Plan Policy U-203(c) states that, "....King County shall work with cities adjacent to the unclaimed urban areas and service providers to develop a mutually agreeable strategy and time frame for annexation of these areas .... "As noted in Section VIII below, King County staff indicated their willingness to assist the City in extending the Federal Way PAA boundary to include the entire or portions of the Gap Area~ VII. Services Public services within the unincorporated King County Gap Area are provided by a combination of public and private service providers. Table II (below) identifies the capital facilities, public safety, and fire protection service providers within this area. Table II King County C.ap Area Service Providers PUBLIC SERVICE SERVICE PROVIDER Water Lakehaven Utility District Wastewater (Sewer)3 Lakehaven Utility District Solid Waste Disposal RST Disposal, Inc. Electricity and Natural Gas Puget Sound Energy Roadways King County Dept. of Transportation Surface Water King County Stormwater Services Dept. Public Safety King County Sheriff Department Fire Protection Federal Way Fire Department Upon annexation of the Gap Area into the City of Federal Way, the City would become responsible for providing and/or arranging for the provision of services to these areas. The City would either provide services directly, or contract the provision of services to a public or private service provider. In order to give the LUTC information on what the City might be facing in terms of provision of services to this area, staffspoke to Federal Way Traffic Engineer Rick Perez and Surface Water 3 According to available information, it appears that wastewater service is limited to the Meadow Glen subdivision near the intersections of South 389th Street and Military Road South. Page 3 Manager Paul Bucich regarding the impact of annexing the King County Gap Area on City of Federal Way traffic and surface water management operations. Mr. Perez stated that the roadways serving the Gap Area are mainly rural in nature, with many unpaved and unopened rights-of-way. In the event of an annexation of the King County Gap Area by Federal Way, the City would become responsible for the maintenance and capital improvements of roadways within this area. Due to the limited amount of traffic signals and street lighting in this area, the additional maintenance expense would largely be limited to roadway resurfacing. While the roadways in these areas do not meet the City of Federal Way roadway design standards, capital improvements would be minimal, except to address any unforeseen safety issues. A specific maintenance and safety concern is the one-way couplet of streets dropping down to West Valley Highway. From a surface water management perspective, the Gap Area drainage infrastructure primarily consists of roadside ditches. The ditches are in fair shape with approximately 20 percent in need of immediate restoration. As noted above, many of the roadways serving the Gap Area consist of unimproved gravel roads or gravel tracks. This area may present opportunities for the establishment of Local Improvement Districts (LID). The hillside down to the West Valley Highway is well vegetated; however, it has historically experienced small slides in large storm events. VIII. Process to Initiate Expansion of Federal Way's PAA Boundary Based on conversations with King County staff, the following will provide a summary of the process to expand Federal Way's PAA to include the Gap Area: Step 1: Step 2: Step 3: Step 4: Step 5: Initiate process with letter of inquiry from City of Federal Way Mayor to King County Executive. City hosting of community meeting with Gap Area residents, property owners, and neighboring cities to discuss the proposed PAA boundary extension. Proposal review by King County Growth Management Planning Council Issuance of King County Ordinance and later amendment to King County Comprehensive Plan. Amendment to City of Federal Way Comprehensive Plan. IX. Requested Action Staff requests direction from the LUTC regarding any additional work assignments that should be performed related to the unincorporated King County Gap Area. APPROVAL OF COMMITTEE REPORT Eric~Faison,' Chair Michael Park, Member Dean McCOlgan, Member.. List of Exhibits Exhibit I: Vicinity Map of King County Gap Area Page 4 l 0 13_,- ~,- o~ ~ ~ < '~< 'ff-< ~  o ~ o -= ~c mc m c ~.~ ~ ~~ . ~ ~AVL~ S ^¥ OS CA S AV SS ~ S AV 0S SAV6~ S AV 8~, ~d S AV ~ S AY ~ S AVIS S AV S AY S S AY lzE~ S AV S AV ~ CITY OF Federal Way MEMORANDUM DATE: June 30, 2003 TO: FROM: VIA: SUBJECT: Eric Faison, Chair Land Use/Transportation Committee \\ Jim Harris, Senior Plan~ x~ Dma:il o~a: railf: A p p i icat ionC'} Federal Way File #03-100878-00-SU STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Land Use/Transportation Committee forward to the City Council a recommendation approving the Meadowlane One Final Plat Resolution. II. SUMMARY OF APPLICATION/EXHIBITS This application requests final plat approval for Meadowlane One, a subdivision of ten single-family lots on 2.6 acres. The Federal Way City Council granted preliminary plat approval for the ten lot residential subdivision on February 6, 2001. The Meadowlane One subdivision is located along the east side of 35th Avenue SW, between the 34400 and 34300 blocks. Zoning for the site at the time of application was, and continues to be, Residential Single-Family (RS 7.2). Pursuant to Federal Way City Code (FWCC) Section 20-136, the City Council may approve the final plat application only if all criteria of FWCC Section 20-136(b) are met. Findings and conclusions contained in the staff report to the City Council and referenced in the resolution indicate that the application is consistent with these criteria. III. REASON FOR COUNCIL ACTION The final decision for final plats rest with the City Council in accordance with FWCC Section 20- 136(b). Bringing this matter before the City Council Land Use/Transportation Cominittee for review and recommendation prior to the full Council is consistent with how land use matters are currently processed by the City. IV. PROPOSED MOTION I move that tile Land Use/Transportation Colnmittee forward to tile City Council, and place on tile July 15, 2003, City Council consent agenda, a recommendation approving tile Meado;vlane One Final Plat Resolution. APPROVAL OF COMMITTEE ACTION Eric Faison - Chair Mike Park Dean McColgan Meadowlane One Final Plat File #03- 100878-00-SU / rx,c zi~ 23:167 Land UseFI'ransportation Committee Memo Page 2 CITY OF Federal Way DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF REPORT REQUEST FOR FINAL PLAT APPROVAL MEADOWLANE ONE FINAL PLAT File No. 03-100878-00-SU RECOMMENDATION City of Federal Way staff has reviewed the final plat of Meadowlane One for compliance with preliminary plat conditions and all applicable codes and policies, and recommends approval of the final plat application. II. INTRODUCTION Date: June 30, 2003 Request: Request for final plat approval for Meadowlane One Subdivision Description: Meadowlane One is a proposed subdivision of ten single-family lots on approximately 2.6 acres. The ten lot Meadowlane One Preliminary Plat was granted approval by the Federal Way City Council on February 6, 2001, per City Council Resolution 01-334. Access to Meadowlane One is from SW 343~d Street, which is a new local access road off 35"' Avenue SW. All required roads, sidewalks, storm drainage facilities, sewer lines, water lines, and related improvements have been constructed or are financially guaranteed. Oxvner: Robert Hanson 216 Puyallup Avenue/t168 Tacoma, WA 98421 Surveyor: Dryco Surveying, Inc., 253 826-0300 12714 Valley Avenue East Sumner, WA 98390 Location: Sewage Disposal: Generally along the east side of 35th Avenue SW at 343rd Street SW. h~ the NW ¼ of Section 24, Township 21 North, Range 3 East, W:M, King County (Exhibit A - Vicinity Map). Lakehaven Utility District Water Supply: Tacoma Water Fire District: School District: Report Prepared By: King County District No. 39 Federal Way Public Schools, No. 210 Jim Harris, Senior Planner III. HISTORY AND BACKGROUND Meadowlane One is a proposed subdivision including ten single-family lots on approximately 2.6 acres (Exhibit B - Final Plat Map). A proposed resolution of the City of Federal Way, Washington, to approve the final plat of Meadowlane One is attached (Exhibit C-Meadowlane One Final Plat Resolution). The ten lot Meadowlane One Preliminary Plat was granted approval by the Federal Way City Council on February 6, 2001, per City Council Resolution 01-334 (Exhibit D - Preliminary Plat Map and Exhibit E- Resolution 01-334). Zoning for the 2.6 acre site is Single-Family Residential (RS) 7.2, requiring a minimum lot size of 7,200 square feet. Lot sizes on the Meadowlane One Final Plat range from 7,200 to 22,414 square feet, with nine of the proposed lots being just over 7,200 square feet and one lot comprising approximately ½ acre. The owner applied for final plat approval on March 3, 2003. Improvements installed under EN file number 01 - 102465-00-EN are now substantially complete. Pursuant to RCW 58.17.110 and Section 20-136 of the Federal Way City Code (FWCC), the City Council is charged with determining whether: 1) the proposed final plat conforms to all terms of the preliminary plat approval; 2) if the subdivision meets the requirements of all applicable state laws and local ordinances that were in effect at the time of preliminary plat approval; 3) if all taxes and assessments oxving on the property have been paid; and 4) if all required improvelnents have been made or sufficient security has been accepted by the City. City of Federal Way staff has reviewed the Meadowlane One Final Plat for compliance with preliminary plat conditions and all applicable codes and policies. All applicable codes, policies, and plat conditions have been met or are financially secured as allowed by FWCC Section 20-135. A proposed resolution of the City of Federal Way, Washington to approve the final plat of Meadowlane One is attached (Exhibit C). IV. COMPLIANCE WITH PRELIMINARY PLAT CONDITIONS The following lists conditions of preliminary plat approval in the same order referenced in Federal Way City Council Resolution 01-334. No SEPA mitigation measures were required for the proposal. Required improvements have been substantially completed or are financially secured as allowed by FWCC Section 20-135. Prior to final plat approval, signage shall be installed on the temporary cul-de-sac barricade as required by the Public Works Director. The signage shall be a minimum size of three feet by three feet, with three-inch letters, and state, "This street is planned for future extension. For further information contact the City of Federal Way Public Works Department at 253-661-413 I." Meadowlane One Final Plat File #03-100878-00-SU / ~o~ ~o 23366 Staff Report Page 2 o Staff Response: This condition has been met. Tile required sign has been installed. As required by the Public Works Director, a note shall be included on the final plat to tile folloxving effect, "Lots I - 5 must access from interior plat streets, and lots 6 - 9 must access from the private access tract." Staff Response: This condition has been met. Note number four on the final plat implements this condition of preliminary plat approval. Prior to final plat approval, the applicant shall install signage as required by the Public Works Director and Fire Department to assure the temporary cul-de-sac is maintained in an accessible manner at all times. A note shall also be made on the final plat map, clearly indicating the temporary cul-de-sac bulb is to be accessible for turn-around at all times. Staff Response: This condition has been met. The required sign has been installed and note five on the final plat discusses keeping the cul-de-sac accessible. The final plat map shall include language as required by the Public Works Director and Community Development Director, identifying provisions for release of the temporary turn-around easement and removal of the temporary cul-de-sac bulb upon future extension of the roadway. The temporary easement should be worded to release automatically upon future extension, and future development would be responsible for removal, replacement, and repair of the temporary bulb and associated sidewalks as applicable. Staff Response: This condition has been met. Note number five on the final plat map implements this condition. Private utility service lines are not permitted across the public water quality tract, unless approved by the Public Works Director. Staff Response: This condition has been met. There are private utility easements at both ends of the stormwater quality tract. However, the private utility lines within the stormwater quality tract do not affect the function of the water quality treatment. The engineering plans for the project were reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department. Prior to final plat approval, all utility poles required, or proposed to be relocated, must be outside of any sidewalk, as required by the Public Works Director. Staff Response: This condition has been met. None of the existing utility poles along the project frontage were required to be moved or relocated. Therefore, the sidewalk meanders around several existing utility poles and one pole is located within a widened sidewalk section that provides the required six-foot sidewalk width. The engineering plans for the project were reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department. All streets shall have a minimum pavement section of three inches Class B asphalt over six inches of crushed surfacing to support the traffic loads, as required by the Public Works Director. Meadowlanc One Final Plat File #03-100878-00-SU / mc ~o 23366 Staff Report Page 3 Staff Response: This condition has been met. The pavelnent meets the required section and was reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department during the engineering plan review and approval. As required by the Public Works Director, in order to install code required street frontage improvements, right-of-way dedication is required on the northeast corner of SW 344th Street and 35th Avenue SW to accommodate the sidewalk radius. Staff Response: This condition has been met. Right-of-way dedication at the corner of SW 344th Street and 35th Avenue SW is shown on the final plat map and in a separate deed to be recorded. The offset at the intersection of SW 343rd Street must be minimized to the maximum extent possible, as required by the Public Works Director. Staff Response: This condition has been met. The minor offset at the intersection was reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department during the engineering plan review and approval. V. DECISIONAL CRITERIA Pursuant to FWCC Section 20-136, if the City Council finds that the following criteria have been met, the City Council may approve the final plat for recording. 1. The final plat is in substantial conformance to the preliminary plat. Staff Response: This criterion has been met, as the conditions of preliminary plat have been met or are financially guaranteed, and the final plat is in substantial conformance to the preliminary plat. 2. The final plat is in conformity with applicable zoning ordinances or other land use controls. Staff Response: This criterion has been met and/or is financially guaranteed. The plat meets the zoning standards for the RS 7.2 zoning district. Pursuant to FWCC Section 20-155, the applicant has opted to make an open space fee-in-lieu of providing on-site open space. As provided in FWCC Section 20-135, performance and maintenance bonds are in place for completion of any outstanding improvements. Infrastructure improvements are substantially complete except the streetlights along the project frontage have not yet been installed, and must be completed within six months of final plat approval. 3. That all conditions of the Hearing Examiner and/or City Council have been satisfied. Staff Response: This criterion has been met as noted in the staff comments above. All plat conditions have been met and/or are financially guaranteed to be completed within six months of final plat approval. All life safety improvements have been completed. That the public use and iuterest shall be served by the establishment of the subdivision and dedication by determining if appropriate provisions are made for, but not li~nited to, the public health, safety, general welfare, open space, drainage ways, streets and roads, alleys, other public ways, transit stops, potable water supplies, sanitary wastes, parks and recreation, playgrounds, schools and school grounds, and shall consider all other relevant facts, including sidewalks and other planning features that assure safe walking conditions for students who only walk to and from school. Meadowlane One Final Plat File #03-100878-00-SU / mc ~r)2m6 Staff Report Page 4 Staff Response: This criterion has been met. The final plat is consistent with applicable zoning and subdivision regulations and ensures the public health, safety, and welfare is protected. The plat infrastructure has been installed and/or adequately financially guaranteed as discussed above, including: safe xvalking routes to school; open space fee-in-lieu payment; drainage system installation: water system installation; sewer system installation; and street improvements. That all required improvements have been made and maintenance bonds or other security for such improvements have been submitted and accepted. Staff Response: This criterion has been met. All road and storm drainage improvements for Meadowlane One have been constructed and/or are financially guaranteed. The street improvements are complete, with the exception of the street lighting along 3 5th Avenue SW. The financial guarantees on file with the City will assure completion of the streetlights within six months of final plat approval. In addition, all water lines have been installed and approved by Tacoma Water as identified in the October 15, 2002, Project Completion Checklist. Sewer lines have been installed and approved by Lakehaven Utility District as identified in the June 30, 2003, letter of substantial completion from Lakehaven Utility District. 6. That all taxes and assessments owing on the property being subdivided have been paid. Staff Response: Prior to being recorded, the plat is reviewed by the King County Departlnent of Assessments to ensure that all taxes and assessments have been paid. VII. CONCLUSION Based on site visits, review of the final plat maps, construction drawings, and the project file, staff has determined that the application for final plat approval for Meadowlane One meets all platting requirements of RCW 58.17.110 and FWCC Section 20-136. Plat infrastructure improvements have been substantially completed and/or financial guarantees have been provided to assure completion of plat conditions within six months of final plat approval as allowed by FWCC Section 20-135. The project has been developed in conformance with Resolution 01-334. A reco~nmendation of final plat approval is therefore being forwarded to the City Council for your approval. VII. EXHIBITS Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D Exhibit E Vicinity Map for Meadowlane One 8½ x 11 Reduced Copy of Meadowlane One Final Plat Map Final Plat Resolution of the City of Federal Way, Washington, Approving the Meadowlane One Final Plat 8½ x 11 Reduced Copy of Approved Meadowlane One Preliminary Plat Resolution 01-334 - February 6, 2001, City of Federal Way Preliminary Plat Approval of Meadowlane Meadowlane One Final Plat File #03- 100878-00-SU / x)oc ~) 23366 Staff Report Page 5 ,/ SW JJ5TH SW 340TH SW 547TH ST, SW J49TH VICIN.ITY MAP NOT TQ SCALE EXHIBIT PAGE I OF A Meadowlane One A PorHon ot~ t,h~ 6ou~h~st ~u~t~r o~ ~h~ Nor~h~ ~u~r~r 6ec~lon 24, To~nsh¥ 21 North, ~once ~ ~lll~m~te Merldl~n, CIt~ o~ Federal ~, ~ln¢ Courtly, ~shlncton LEGAL DESCRIPTIOH APPROVALS ~ ~ P~ ~T ~ ~ ~ ~ ~EREOF FOR PUeUC 0EP~RT~EHT O~ PUBLIC WORKS ~Y ~ ~ ~ ~T ~ 8EI~ ~O ~ ~O TO A ~ ~ ~ O~ ~ ~ PU~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ W&Y, ~ ~ ~0 ~. FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL R~ ~0 ~R~ ~ ~S ~ P~ FOR ~E, OT~R m~ C~S ~ ............. ~ZFc ~T~. ~E ~ ~S Of ~E ~ ~80~ HEREBY AGREE FOR ~. ~BR H~ ~ ~S~ TO ~NI~. H~ ~SS KING COUNTY DEPARTMENT O¢ TREASURY T~S ~. ~. W~R ~ ~MS ~0 AGR~ENT TO HO~ KING COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF ASSESSMENTS ~C[Li 536020 0005 ~ WI~ ~EREOF. ~ ~VE HEREUNTO S~ OUR ~OS. EX~.4EO~--~R~6~TI4i~Ei~Iq~ / ~ [, ~ K,~C COUN~ ~s[sso~ K.qC c~r~ e[Puw &ss[sso~ ..... , EXHIBIT ~t,: ~J~Jo~ / SW ~56th St. SURyE rlCkf[: t ~'~o ~/ ~ 12714 VALLEY AVENUE EAST /,~,~.,,.,~,~¢~ . 255-826-0500 FAX 255-826-970~ SN B42nd Street 30' ~0' .Street Meadowlane One ~n~., 2~2 A Porf. lon o~ f.h~ 5ouf, h~osf, C~uor~.er o~ ~h~ Nor~h~[ ~uor~er ....... hlllome[~. Meridian, CI[~ o~ Federal H~, King Goun[~, Yqashlng[on (aS2OT) t ' -- ' Lot 2 r - -~- - ~.- .... Lot ~ (~) ,Lot 5 , Lot 4~ -~- SW 343rd Street ~m' ~ ~ i ', ~ ~ .... t '~ Lot 9 ~', ,,~ Lot 8 _ _ _ _ _ J _ .... SW 344i~ Street City of Federol Way File No. 0~-100878-00-$U EASEMENTS NOTES: REFERENCE SURVEY EQUIPMENT& METHODOLOGY LEGEND RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF TItE CITY COUNCIL OF 'TItE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON, APPROVING THE FINAL PLAT OF MEADOWLANE ONE, FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON, FILE NO. 03-100878-00-SU WHEREAS, the preliminary plat for Meadowlane One, City of Federal Way File No. SUB96-0004, was approved subject to conditions on February 6,2001, by Federal Way City Council Resolution No. 01-334; and WHEREAS, the applicant has satisfied all of the conditions set forth in Resolution No. 01-334 and in the December 19, 2000, Recommendation of the Federal Way Hearing Examiner; and WItEREAS, the applicant submitted the application for final plat for Meadowlane One within the required time of receiving approval for the above-referenced preliminary plat; and WHEREAS, the City of Federal Way's Depamnent of Community Development Services and Public Works Department staff have reviewed the proposed final plat for its conformance to the conditions of preliminary plat approval and the Federal Way Hearing Examiner, and their analysis and conclusions are set forth in the June 30, 2003, Staff Report; and WHEREAS, the City Council Land Use/Transportation Committee considered the application and staff report for the Meadowlane One final plat at its July 7, 2003, meeting and recommended approval by the full City Council; and WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed and considered the Staff Report and the application for final plat for Meadowlane One during the Council's July 15, 2003, meeting; NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FEDERAl. WAY HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Findings and Conclusions. 1. The final plat for Meadowlane One, City of Federal Way File No. 03-100878-00-SU, is in substantial conformance to the preliminary plat and is in conformance with applicable zoning ordinances or other land use controls in effect at the time the preliminary plat application was deemed complete. Rcs # , Page I EXHIBIT C t'lle #03- 100878-00-SU / l~oc ~r> 2336s PAGE_ i OF 2. Based on, inter alia, the analysis and conclusions in the StaffReport, which are adopted herein by reference, and oil the City Council's review of the application for final plat, tile proposed subdivision makes appropriate provision for public health, safety, and general welfare, and for such open spaces, drainage ways, streets or roads, alleys, other public ways, transit stops, potable water supplies, sanitary wastes, parks and recreation, play grounds, and schools and school grounds as are required by City Code, or which are necessary and appropriate, and provides for sidewalks and other planning features to assure safe walking conditions for students who walk to and from school. 3. The public use and interest will be served by the final plat approval granted herein. 4. All conditions listed in the Federal Way Resolution No. 01-334 and the conditions listed in the December 19, 2000, Recommendation of the City of Federal Way Hearing Examiner, have been satisfied, and/or satisfaction of the conditions have been sufficiently guaranteed by tile applicant as allowed by Federal Way City Code Section 20-135. 5. All required improvements have been made and/or sufficient bond, cash deposit, or assignment of funds have been accepted as a guaranty for completion and maintenance of all required plat improvements, as identified in the June 30, 2003, Staff Report. 6. All taxes and assessments owing on the property being subdivided have been paid or will be paid, prior to recording the final plat. Section 2. Application Approval. Based upon the Findings and Conclusions contained in Section 1 above, the final plat of Meadowlane One, City of Federal Way File No. 03-100878-00-SU, is approved subject to satisfaction of compliance with plat conditions and conditions required by the Public Works Director as ideutified in the Staff Report and as required by applicable codes and policies. Section 3. Recording. The approved and signed final plat, together with all legal instruments pertaining thereto as required pursuant to all applicable codes, shall be recorded by the applicant in the King County Department of Records. The applicant shall pay all recording fees. EXHIBIT,. , Section 4. Severabilit¥. If any section, sentence, clause, or phrase of this resolution should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause, or phrase of this resolution. Section 5. Ratification. Any act consistent with the authority, and prior to the effective date, of the resolution is hereby ratified and affirmed. Section 6. Effective Date. This resolution shall be effective immediately upon passage by the Federal Way City Council. RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITif OF FEDERAL WAY, WASI tINGTON, this day of ,2003. CITY OF FEDERAL WAY AWl'EST: Mayor, Jeanne Burbidge City Clerk, N. Christine Green, CMC APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney, Patricia A. Richardson FILED WITH TIlE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: RESOLUTION NO: EXHIBIT, c , Page3 PAGE., % OF Res # File/t03- 100878-00-SU / D~¢ ~D 23368 I ......... ......... ., EXHIBIT_ RESOLUTION NO. 01-334 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF TIlE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON, APPROVING WITIt CONDITIONS THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF MEADOWLANE, FEDERAL WAY FILE NO. SUB96-0004. WHEREAS, the applicant Ed Flanigan, applied to the City of Federal Way for preliminaryplat approval to subdivide certain real property known as Meadowlane and consistingofapproximately2.6 acres into ten (10) single family residential lots located at the northeast quadrant of the intersection of Southwest 344'h Street and 35~' Avenue Southwest; and WHEREAS, on April 12, 2000, an Environmental Determination ofNonsignificance (DNS) was issued by the Director of Federal Way's Department of Community Development Services pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), RCW 43.21 C; and WHEREAS, no comments or appeals on the DNS were submitted to the Department of Community Development Services; and WHEREAS, the Federal Way Land Use Hearing Examiner on December 5, 2000, held a public hearing concerning the Meadowlane preliminary plat; and WHEREAS, following the conclusion of said hearing, on December 18, 2000, the Federal Way Land Use Hearing Examiner issued a written Report and Recommendation containing findings, conclusions, and recommending approval of the prelimihary plat of Meadowlane subject to conditions set forth therein; and WHEREAS, on January 22, 2001 the City Council Land Use and Transportation Committee considered the record and the Hearing Examiner recommendation and voted to forward a recommendation for approval of the proposed Meadowlane preliminary plat to the full City Council, with no changes to the Hearing Examiner recommendation; and Resolution No. 01-334, Page #1 EXHIBIT_ - WItEREAS, the Federal Way City Council has jurisdiction and authority pursuant to Section 20-127 of the Federal Way City Code to approve, deny, or modify a preliminary plat and/or its conditions; and WItEREAS, on February 6, 2001, the City Council considered the written record and the Report and Recommendation of the Hearing Examiner on the Meadowlane preliminary plat, pursuant to Chapter 20 of Federal Way City Code, Chapter 58.17 RCW, and all other applicable City Codes; Now THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Adoption of Findings of Fact and Conclusions. 1. The findings of fact and conclusions 'of the Land Use Hearing Examiner's Recommendation, attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated by this reference, are hereby adopted as the findings and conclusions of the Federal Way City Council. Any finding deemed to be a conclusion, and any conclusion deemed to be a finding, shall be treated as such. 2. . Based on, inter alia, the analysis and conclusions in the Staff Report and Hearing Examiner's recommendation, and conditions of approval as established therein, the proposed subdivision makes appropriate provisions for the public health, safety, and general welfare, and for such open spaces, drainage ways, streets or roads, alleys, other public ways, transit stops, potable water supplies, sanitary waste, parks and recreation, play grounds, schools and schools grounds, and all other relevant facts as are required by City Code and state law, and provides for sidewalks and other planning features to assure safe walking conditions for students who walk to and from school. 3. herein. Tile public use and interest will be served by the preliminary plat approval granted EXHIBIT tz'- _ PAGE OF c_( Resolution No. 01-334_, Page #2 Section 2. Application _Approval. Based upon the recommendationofthe Federal Way Land Use Itearing Examiner and findings and conclusions contained therein as adopted by the City Council immediately above, the preliminary plat of Meadowlane, Federal Way File No. SUB96-0004, is hereby approved, subject to conditions as contained in the Recommendation of the Federal Way Land Use Hearing Examiner dated December 18, 2000 (Exhibit A). Section 3. Conditions of Approval Integra[ The conditions of approval of the preliminaryplat are all integral to each other with respect to the City Council finding that the public use and 'interest will be served by the platting or subdivision of the subject property. Should any court having jurisdiction over the subject matter declare any of the conditions invalid, then, in said event, the proposed preliminary plat approval granted in this resolution shall be deemed void and the preliminary plat shall be remanded to the City of Federal Way Hearing Examiner to review the impacts of the invalidation of any condition or conditions and conduct such additional proceedings as are necessary to assure that the proposed plat makes appropriate provisions for the public health, safety, and general welfare and other factors as required by RCW Chapter 58.17 and applicable City ordinances, rules, and regulations, and forward such recommendation to the City Council for further action. Section 4. Severabilit~. If any section, sentence, clause, or phrase of this resolution should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause, or phrase of this resolution. Section 5. Ratification. Any act consistent with the authority and prior to the effective date of the resolution is hereby ratified and affirmed. Resolution No. 01-336., Page #3 Section 6. Effective Date. This resolution shall be effective immediately upon passage by the Federal Way City Council. RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON, THIS _6i. lPAY OF February ,2001. CITY OF FEDERAL WAY AVEST: /~ / APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATI'ORNEY, BOB C. STERBANK FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: 01/30/01 PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: 02106101 RESOLUTION NO. 01-336 Document ID It 13128 Resolution No. 01-336, Page 114 EXHIBIT E- PA E OF ,. CITY OF ~ Federal Way DATE: July 7, 2003 TO: Eric Faison, Chair Land Use / Transportation Committee FROM: VIA: SUBJECT: Rick Perez, P.E? City Traffic Engineer M~n ' David H. ager SW 320th Stree~"~at SW 32~ra Street Crosswalk BACKGROUND On July 24, 2002 City Council received an e-mail from Mr. Michael McLeod concerning pedestrian safety at the intersection of SW 320th Street and SW 323rd Street. He requested a traffic signal be installed at the subject intersection to stop traffic and allow pedestrians to safely cross SW 320th Street. Mr. McLeod indicated that the speed and volume of traffic combined with the sight distance being limited due to trees along the north side of the street on the inside ora horizontal roadway curve make the existing crosswalk unsafe to use. The Traffic Division contacted Mr. McLeod on July 29, 2002 and indicated that the sight distance may be resolved by trimming the subject trees. During field visits, staff found that the sight distance could not be improved simply by trimming trees as there is a fence and a storage shed in the line of sight. It would require Right-of-Way acquisition and disruption of an existing business to improve the sight distance. Furthermore, the Traffic Division did not observe the pedestrian demand that may warrant the construction ora traffic signal. Staffrequested that Mr. McLeod provide his perspective as to the best time to conduct a traffic count that may show the highest pedestrian volume towards meeting adopted warrants for improvements. However, staff did not receive a response to this request. Staff also communicated their concern to Mr. McLeod that constructing an unwarranted traffic signal may increase the number of rear-end collisions for which the City could be liable as it would be deviating from national standards ifa signal is constructed at the subject location. Staff observed that the subject crosswalk is about 300 feet east of an existing pedestrian underpass that serves a private golf course and the general public. Therefore, staff suggested to Mr. McLeod an idea of relocating the crosswalk to a mid-block location about 400 feet east of the intersection at approximately 3440 SW 320th Street and providing signs to the undercrossing. Mr. McLeod indicated agreement with staff's idea. Staffprogrammed the construction of these improvements for 2003. Based on Mr. McLeod's comment, at the May 20, 2003 City Council meeting, that staffhas not adequately responded to his concern, staff recently contracted a 12-hour pedestrian and vehicle traffic count, which was used to conduct a comprehensive signal warrant analysis. The analysis confirmed that none of the 8 signal warrants are met. The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) indicates that the Pedestrian Warrant is met if there are more than 100 pedestrians crossing a major street for each of any 4 hours. The count indicated that only 8 pedestrians crossed SW 320th Street between 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM during a typical day. A five-year history accident analysis indicated there were no reported pedestrian collisions at this intersection. The vehicle collision rate did not indicate a need for a traffic signal. Finally, the intersection Level of Service is "B" which does not indicate a significant delay problem at this intersection during any of the peak hours o f the day. A new report from the Federal Highway Administration, "Safety Effects of Marked vs. Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations", indicates an increase in pedestrian crash rates at marked crosswalks over unmarked crosswalks for high-volume multi-lane streets. Even though pedestrian volumes do not meet warrants for marking a crosswalk, given the existing crosswalk location, roadway and traffic conditions, staff is recommending relocating the existing crosswalk to the east at approximately 3440 SW 320th Street, as previously discussed with Mr. McLeod. This proposed location has better sight distance and the pedestrian refuge island would significantly improve the safety of pedestrian crossings compared to the existing crosswalk location. In addition, signing would be provided directing pedestrians to use the relocated crosswalk to the east or the pedestrian underpass to the west. The proposal will cost approximately $8,000. RECOMMENDATION Due to this topic being an in£ormation item on the agenda, Public Works Staffis requesting direction on how the Committee would like to proceed on this topic. RP/rt:ss Attachments cc: Project File Day File