No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLUTC PKT 02-04-2002 City of City Land Use/Trans ' ' ..... . .............. '.:' '::':::~'i' ........... ':"". ". City Hall F'ebrua~'4, 2002 ..... ·. . '"' :::' '''Y: ' ?''" '...,..': i..:":.'."' .'":" :":; .... · .. 5:30 Pm . ......:'? :.ii.':'...: :'.:,, . :... ::./.: ..... '.:" ...:."." ....'" .{ .:" Goun¢il Ghambers MEETING AGENDA 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. Approval of Minutes of the January 28, 2002, Meeting 3. PUBLIC COMMENT (3 minutes) 4. BUSINESS ITEMS A. Christian Faith Center Development Agreement B. o o Co D. Sea Tac Mall Detention Phase II Final Acceptance and Retainage Release E. City Center Code Amendment Status Report F, Planning Commission 2002 Work Program FUTURE MEETINGS Schedule next meeting because of President's Day ADJOURN Action Clark/20 min Pacific Highway South HOV Lanes Phase I Improvement Action Salloum/15 rain Project (South 312th to 324th Street) - 100% Design Approval and Authorization to Bid SR 509 and 8th Avenue SW Traffic Signal Action Miller/10 min 100% Design Approval and Authorization to Bid Action Miller/10 min Information Burhans/10 min Action McClung/20 min K:\CD Administration Files\Feb 4, 2002 LUTC Agenda.doc Committee Members: Edc Faison, Chair Dean McColgan Michael Park City Staff: Kathy McClung, Director of Community Development Services Sandy L yle, Administrative Assistant 253.661.4116 January 28, 2002 5:30 pm City of Federal Way City Council Land Use/Transportation Committee City Hall Council Chambers MEETING SUMMARY In attendance: Committee members Eric Faison, Chair, Deputy Mayor Dean McColgan, and Mike Park; Mayor Jeanne Burbidge and Linda Kochmar; City Manager David Moseley; Director of Community Development Services Kathy McClung; Public Works Director Cary Roe; Assistant City Attorney Karen Kirkpatrick; Street Systems Manager Marwan Salloum; Administrative Assistant E. Tina Piety. 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Faison called the meeting to order at 5:34 pm. 2, APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the January 7, 2002, meeting was approved as presented. 3. PUBLIC COMMENT There was no public comment on any item not included in the agenda. 4. BUSINESS ITEMS A. Ist Avenue South Shoulder Widening 30% Design Status Report - This project reconstructs a st th st shoulder and asphalt curb along 1 Avenue South between South 356 Street and South 361 Street near Illahee Junior High School. The purpose of the project is to improve pedestrian safety (specifically school children) along this stretch of roadway. Due to the size and type of project and in an effort to take advantage of efficiencies, staff is requesting that this project be incorporated into the 2002 Asphalt Overlay Project. A citizen and the Federal Way School District requested this project. The Committee m/s/c the staff recommendation to the City Council to: 1) authorize staff to finalize the design of the 1st Avenue South th Shoulder Improvements (S 356 Street to S 361st Street) Project, and 2) bid this project as a schedule in the 2002 Asphalt Overlay Project. B. Planning Commission 2002 Work Plan - Each year the City Council is asked to review and prioritize the Planning Commission Work Program for the coming year. Because the City Council requested staff to review the permit process, new amendment proposals may arise and the Work Program may come back to the Committee. City staff is currently working on the following items from the 2001 Planning Commission Work Program: development agreements, group homes code amendment, Potential Annexation Area Study, large retail in the City Center code amendment, residential nonconformances code amendment, and traffic impact fees. In addition, City staff has not started work on the following items from the 2001 Work Program: wellhead protection code amendment, planned action SEPA for the City Center, miscellaneous code amendments, Endangered Species Act (ESA), and 2002 Comprehensive Plan updates. New items proposed for the 2002 Work Program are: home occupation requirements, day care code amendment, parking the City Center code amendment, gas stations in the City Center Frame code amendment, land surface modifications code amendment, process for development agreements, and other code amendments as a result of the review of the permit process. The Committee agreed that the 2002 Comprehensive Plan update and the permit process review are two top priorities. In order to help with the Committee's decision, they instructed Director of Community Development Services Kathy McClung to bring back a prioritized list of the items in a calendar format to next week's meeting, taking into consideration staff resources and which items are small-term and which are large-term projects. o FUTURE MEETINGS The Committee agreed to hold a joint meeting with the Planning Commission to discuss the Market Study. The Committee instructed staff to prepare a memo on the PAA boundary issue with Algona/Pacific. The next meeting will be held in Council Chambers at 5:30 pm on February 4, 2002. 6. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 6:10 p.m. K:\CD Administration Files\Jan 28, 2002 LUTC Minutes.doc MEMORANDUM To: FROM: VIA: DATE: SUBJECT: Eric Faison, Chair Land Use/Transportation Committee (LUTC) Kathy McClung, Community Development Services Director Margaret H. Clark, AICP, Senior Planner 0ot~ David Moseley, City Manag~ January30,2002 Briefing - Christian Faith Center Development Agreement A. BACKGROUND On November 5, 2001, staff presented a draft outline in bullet format on a development agreement that would govern the change in comprehensive plan designation and zoning of approximately 50 acres located south of South 336th Street and east of Pacific Highway South, proposed to be used for a church and school by the Christian Faith Center (CFC). Subsequently, staffhas been working with representatives of the CFC on the terms of the agreement. On January 7, 2002, staff requested approval from the Land Use/Transportation Committee (LUTC) to add a new item to the 2002 Planning Commission Work Program to prepare a new process that would govern review and approval of development agreements. The LUTC approved the staff recommendation during the January 7th meeting and made a motion to forward their recommendation to the full Council for action on February 5, 2002. We have reached a tentative agreement with CFC on the majority of items in the proposed development agreement and would like to again present the draft outline in bullet format to the LUTC for direction prior to requesting CFC to prepare a development plan. B. ITEMS OF AGREEMENT City staff and CFC have discussed and reached a tentative agreement on the following items: The development agreement shall be accompanied by a development plan showing the proposed development at build out of all property that is part of the agreement including all buildings, parking, and circulation areas, and other major improvements and buffers. The proposed church and school will be classified as a dual principal use. This would require those portions of the site that contain the church and its accessory uses to comply with the development standards of Federal Way City Code (FWCC) Section 22-671, and those portions of the site containing the school and its accessory uses to comply with those of FWCC Section 22-674. The use of the site is restricted to that of a church and a school with the authorized uses as shown in attached Table I- List of Allowed Principal and Accessory Uses and on the Development Plan. The Development Plan shall be subject to the terms of the February 5, 1996, Settlement Agreement between the City of Federal Way and Federal Way Industrial Park. Amendments to the agreement shall be done only by a written instrument executed by all parties pursuant to the appropriate procedures of FWCC Chapter 22, or as may be amended. Approval of the development agreement and development plan shall constitute the final development permit approval. Any future building permits shall substantially comply with the approved development plan. The Director of Community Development Services may approve minor modifications to the development plan pursuant to Process II review and approval, based on a submitted site plan portraying said modifications. These modifications must conform to the terms of the agreement. Once approved, the development plan shall be amended. For purposes of this development agreement, th~ front yard is determined to be adjacent to S. 336th. Setbacks for structures and playfields shall conform to Table II, unless a larger setback is required by City code for wetlands or streams. TABLE II Use Location Structural Setback Comments Church and its accessory Adjacent to S 336th St 50 fi This is greater than the uses existing code requirement of 30 ft, but is appropriate given the size of the proposed development. Adjacent to other 30 ft This requirement is based internal streets (340th, on existing City code for 344~h, 20th Ave) structural setbacks. Adjacent to all other 30 fi This requirement is based property lines on existing City code for structural setbacks. School (50 students or Adjacent to all Front, side, and rear - This requirement is based more) and its accessory property lines 50 fi on existing City code for uses (includes ball fields) structural setbacks. Briefing - Christian Faith Center Development Agreement Page 2 9. Parking setbacks are as shown in Table III: TABLE III Parking Setback Use Location from any property Comments line, right-of-way, or access easement Parking associated Adjacent tO S 50 ft This is greater than the existing code with a church and its 336th St. requirement of 30 ft, but is appropriate accessory uses. given the scale of the proposed development. Adjacent to 20 ft Based on existing City code, parking may other internal be located up to 15 ft of the property line; streets (340th, however a 20-ft landscaping strip is 344th, 20th Ave). required adjacent to streets. Adjacent to all 15 ft This requirement is based on existing City other property code for parking setbacks. lines Parking associated Adjacent to S 50 ft There are no required setbacks for parking; with a school and its 336th St. they are governed by landscaping accessory uses. requirements, which would be 20 feet. However, 50 feet is appropriate in this case given the scale of the proposed development. Adjacent to 20 ft There are no required setbacks for parking; other internal they are governed by landscaping streets (34ffh, requirement, which would be 20 feet. 344~, 20th Ave). Adjacent to all 10 ft There are no required setbacks for parking; other property they are governed by landscaping lines, requirement, which would be 10 feet. 10. Landscaping shall be provided around the perimeter of the property and along all property lines abutting public rights-of-way and access easements as specified in Table IV. In addition, all applicable landscaping requirements of FWCC Chapter 22, Article XVII, "Landscaping," shall apply. Briefing - Christian Faith Center Development Agreement Page 3 TABLE IV Use Location Landscaping Comments Requirement Church and Adjacent to S 336th St. Type III landscaping This exceeds existing City code by accessory uses 25 ft in width, five ft in width. With a 50-parking setback along 336th St, the first 25 ft of landscaping abutting 336th St would be Type III and the remaining 25 ft of parking setback would be Type IV landscaping. Adjacent to other Type III landscaping This requirement is based on existing intemal streets (340th, 20 ft in width. City code for landscaping width. 344~h, 20th Ave). Adjacent to other Type III landscaping This exceeds existing City code by property lines. 15 feet in width five ft in width. With a 15-£oot parking setback requirement in these areas, the first 10 ft of landscaping adjacent to the property line would be Type III and the remaining five feet of parking setback would be Type IV landscaping. 'School and Adjacent to S 336th St. Type III landscaping This exceeds existing City code by accessory uses 25 ft in width, five ft in width. With a 50 ft parking setback along 336th St, the first 25 ft of landscaping abutting 336~ St would be Type III landscaping and the remaining 25 ft of parking setback would be Type IV landscaping. Adjacent to other Type III landscaping This requirement is based on existing internal streets (340th, 20 fi in width. City code. 344t~, 20t~ Ave), Adjacent to other Type III landscaping This requirement is based on existing property lines. 10 feet in width City code. 11. The gym and ball fields shall each be made available for the city's PARCS Department and city sponsored or endorsed programs a minimum of twice per week subject to terms and conditions mutually agreed upon by Christian Faith Center and the city and/or public agency at the beginning of each school year. The sanctuary shall be made available for city sponsored or endorsed programs one weekend per quarter as follows: Friday and Sunday 5:00 - 10:00 p.m. and Saturday 1:00 - 4:30 p.m. In addition, the sanctuary shall be made available two times per year for special events based on mutual agreement between the city and CFC. City staff will be responsible for scheduling all events Note: The Development Agreement will address times of authorized uses, a list of authorized users, liability, and maintenance. Briefing - Christian Faith Center Development Agreement Page 4 12. If requested by King County Metro or other transit authority, Christian Faith Center shall agree to the use of a portion of the parking lot as a Park and Ride or Carpool/Vanpool lot subject to agreed upon terms between Christian Faith Center and the public agency. 13. The comprehensive plan designation and zoning of the site shall revert to Business Park, unless a building permit for either a church or school is submitted within one year of approval of the development agreement and development plan. 14. The site may be constructed in two phases only: (i) Construction of Sanctuary/School Auditorium and associated improvements, such as parking and landscaping. (ii) Construction of school and sports complex and associated improvements, such as parking and landscaping. Either the school or sanctuary may be constructed as the first phase. At that time that the first phase is constructed, all associated drainage facilities must also be constructed. In addition, the frontage improvements along 336~, the construction of South 340t~ Street, and the extension of 20th Avenue through the site to a point to be determined upon further review must be done. The traffic light and left turn lanes on all approaches at 20th Avenue South and South 336th Street must also be constructed. All mitigation as identified in the Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) and through the SEPA process must be done as necessary to mitigate the impacts associated with each phase. The south parking lot may be constructed at any time as long as it has not been identified as necessary parking to serve either phase. The phases may overlap; however, the shell of each building must be completely constructed and all on-site and off-site improvements associated with each phase and other impacts as identified through the SEPA and Development Agreement process must be mitigated. Tenant improvements may subsequently occur as the need arises. 15. Christian Faith Center must mitigate all traffic impacts from its development based on a Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA), which must be prepared as part of SEPA review. C. ITEMS NEEDING DIRECTION FROM LUTC Staff is requesting direction from LUTC on the size of the school and on whether the Dominion College should be treated as an accessory use. The following is organized first by discussion of each issue followed by a staff recommendation. 1. Size of School Discussion: The total student enrollment of the K-12 school is proposed to be 900 students in two phases. The first phase would be a 75,000 square foot building to accommodate 650 students, and the second phase would be a 25,000 square foot expansion to accommodate an additional 250 students, for a total of 100,000 square feet and 900 students. Briefing - Christian Faith Center Development Agreement Page 5 Although this will be a private school, staff evaluated the CFC proposal relative to the acreage requirements of WAC 180-26-020, which governs schools receiving state monies. This code requires a potential site for a school to have a minimum of five useable acres and one additional acre for each 100 students, or portion thereof, of projected maximum enrollment, plus an additional five useable acres if the school contains any grade above grade six. However, WAC 180-26-020 also allows less than the required minimum acreage to be utilized based on the following criteria: (a) The health and safety of the students will not be in jeopardy; (b) The internal spaces within the proposed facility will be adequate for the proposed educational program; (c) The neighborhood in which the school facility is or will be situated will not be detrimentally impacted by lack of parking for students, employees, and the public; and (d) The physical education and recreational program requirements will be met. Based on the development plan, the site would be divided by the southerly extension of 20th Avenue. The area east of 20th Avenue including all wetlands and buffers and the on-site detention is approximately 19.72 acres. Once the wetlands and buffers are excluded, approximately 13.91 acres are left. The area west of 20th Avenue to be utilized as the church site consists of approximately 17.89 useable acres. Based on submitted information, the school will be using some of the church facilities such as the sanctuary as an auditorium. In addition, the parking on the west side of 20th Avenue could be used as overflow parking for the school, if necessary as the school and church will operate at different times. Staff Recommendation: Due to the proximity and functional relationship between the church and the school, there appears to be adequate space, including parking for the operation of the school; therefore, staff recommends allowing a maximum amount of 900 students. 2. Dominion College Discussion: Table I lists the church and school as principal uses with their respective accessory uses. Principal uses are depicted by a P and accessory uses by an A. Pursuant to FWCC Section 2-1, Definitions, "Accessory means a use, activity, structure or part of a structure which is subordinate and incidental to the main activity or structure on the subject property." One of the proposed accessory uses is a Dominion College. Initially, the Dominion College would be located in a 3,160 square foot area on the first floor, then as the church membership expands, the college would be relocated to a 22,581 square foot area on the second floor. Based on FWCC Section 2-1, Definitions, colleges are defined as a post-secondary institution for higher learning that grants associate or bachelor degrees and may also have research facilities and/or professional schools that grant master and doctoral degrees. Colleges may also include community colleges that grant associate or bachelor degrees or certificates of completion in business or technical fields. Colleges meeting this definition would not be allowed as a principal use in the RM 2400 zone. Based on information presented by the CFC, the Dominion College offers an associate degree in biblical discipleship, which is intended to Briefing - Christian Faith Center Development Agreement Page 6 train pastors in the church. Presently, the Dominion College in Sea Tac has approximately 35 students. The Dominion College does not restrict students to members of the CFC, but in general the majority of students are CFC members. Staff Recommendation: For purposes of the development agreement, allowable accessory uses must be clearly associated with the principal use and must principally serve members of the Christian Faith Center (CFC) congregation, students attending the CFC school, or staff of the church or school. A biblical college, which is intended to principally train CFC members, may be considered an accessory use to a church based on the FWCC definition of accessory. D. SUMMARY AND REQUEST FOR DIRECTION Staff is requesting direction from the LUTC based on the following questions: 1. Does the LUTC agree with all items in Section B, Items of Agreement? 2. Does the LUTC agree with the staff recommendation in Section C, Items Needing Direction from LUTC? Based on a response to the above question, staff is requesting the LUTC to choose from the following options: 1. Direct staff to continue work on the development agreement as presented. 2. Direct staff to modify the development agreement based on action taken this evening. ATTACHMENTS (Please note that these are still preliminary in nature, but they are being included to show what the final product may look like) Table I - List of Allowed Principal and Accessory Uses Exhibit A - Sanctuary First Floor Exhibit B - Sanctuary Second Floor Exhibit C - School First Floor Exhibit D - School Second Floor APPROVAL OF COMMITTEE ACTION: Eric Faison c~/Dean McColga~ Mike P'~r~/ I:\01COMPPLAN~LUTC\Christian Faith Center\020402 Cover Memo to LUTC.doc/01/30/2002 4:06 PM Briefing - Christian Faith Center Development Agreement Page 7 TABLE I -- LIST OF ALLOWED PRINCIPAL AND ACCESSORY USES Use Church Building 1st floor P Sanctuary/School Auditorium Room Number Sq. Ft. Occupancy # Seats 100B Phase I Non-fixed Seating 15,686.85 2240 (~7 sq. fi/person 2,002 100A Phase II Fixed Seating 19,515.75 2,498 2,498 101A Lower Stage 3425.52 228 (~15 sq. fi/person 101B Upper Stage 4,639.90 309 ~15 sq. ft./person 121 Storage #3 435.00 122 Entry to seating area 800.00 123 Usher Area 554.50 135 Green Room 1,834.31 136 Dressing Room 2,259.05 137 Office Area #1 495.00 138 Back Stage area 1,582.50 139 Editing Room 295.85 140 MC Room 540.00 141 Studio 1,200 142 Office Area #2 525.00 143 Choir 2,380 144 Computer/Phone Room 875 145 Storage Room #2 4,550 Subtotal 61,594.23 ~, then P 3nce Youth (Will move upstairs to # 201in a second Sanctuary phase and youth sanctuary will expand sxpands 119 Dominion College into this area) 3,160 32 ~;~ 100 sq. ft.'Vperson P 120 Youth Sanctuary 10,800 1,543 ~ 7 sq. ft./person (non-fixed seating) Subtotal 13,960 'A After School Care 124 Kids K - 3rd 4,510 125 Kids 4ht thru 6th 5,105 126 Storage #1 455 127 Kid's Stage 390 128 Sound Area 525 Subtotal 10,985 Supports both Primary and Accessory Use Maintenance 129 Facilities Control Storage 540 130 Shop 1,950 131 Facilities Storage 944 132 Distribution 1,953 133 Facilities Office 770 134 Electrical Room 525 Subtotal 6,682 (Will move upstairs to #200 in a second phase and this 1,064 @ 7 sq. ff./person A P will become multi- 102 Administration Office purpose/meeting rooms) 7,450 in second phase (non-fixed seating) 103 Chapel 3,750 535 ~ 7 sq. ft./person (non-f'~xed seating) A 104 Book Store 2,565 A 105 Caf~ 1,710 Subtotal 4,275 P 106 Main Lobby 8,880.02 Day Care 107 108 109 Classrooms/Sunday School Classrooms/Sunday School Classrooms/Sunday School ~9'~69'8~Z g06'8~ uos~ad/:u *bt 001. ~ 9~ Zg'gt6'O~ ~06'g~ eseqd puooes e ,,! 61, L# e/tom II!~ eSellOO uo!u!"'oo eseqd puooes e u! ~0!,# tuo~j e^ouJ le101 JO01:l I e~JV UOLULt ~:# eoeds peqs!u! ~# eoeds peqs!u~ I~Ol ;OOld pu~ §u ZZ' ~ 9i~'991. I~lo.L JOOL-I ~S'~69'~:S ~'/_69'~C seeJV UOLUU. 881, 9 I, Im, OiC gg~9b 9~'~ eo~O V ls!uo!1deo sao~o eJeo ~ OgZ ~96 OgZ OgZ OgZ Iooqos ,~epuns/su~oodssel: Iooqos Xepuns/suJooJss~ Iooqos ~epuns/sLuooJsm Iooqos ~epuns/s~uooJssl /ueJq!'l/UJOO~l eoJnos Iooqos/[epuns/suJooJsm Iooqos ~epuns/sLuooJsm Iooqos ~[epuns/sLuooJsm IOOqOS ,~epuns/sLuooJsm Iooqos/[epuns/sLuooJsm g86'0 L cjg6'O L Im, o),q~ g~:g eeJv pun( 06~: e6elS S,l: 9gt~ L# e6eJo gOL'g q19 nJql ),qp sp 0 Lg't~ PJ~ - )t sp TABLE I -- LIST OF ALLOWED PRINCIPAL AND ACCESSORY USES Use Church Building 1st floor Total P Sanctuary/School Auditorium Room Number Sq. Ft. Occupancy # Seats 100B Phase I Non-fixed Seating 15,686.85 2240 @7 sq. fi/person 2,002 100A Phase II Fixed Seating 19,515.75 2,498 2,498 101A Lower Stage 3425.52 228 @15 sq. fi/person 101B Upper Stage 4,639.90 309 @15 sq. ft./peraon 121 Storage #3 435.00 122 Entry to seating area 800.00 123 Usher Area 554.50 135 Green Room 1,834.31 136 Dressing Room 2,259.05 137 Office Area #1 495.00 138 Back Stage area 1,582.50 139 Editing Room 295.85 140 MC Room 540.00 141 Studio 1,200 142 Office Area #2 525.00 143 Choir 2,380 144 Computer/Phone Room 875 145 Storage Room #2 4,550 Subtotal 61,594.23 61,594.23 A then P once Youth (Will move upstairs to ff 201in a second Sanctuary phase and youth sanctuary will expand expands 119 Dominion College into this area) 3,160 32 @ '100 sq. ft.'Vperson P 120 Youth Sanctuary 10,800 1,543 @ 7 sq. ft./person (non-fixed seating) Subtotal 13,960 13,960 A After School Care 124 Kids K - 3rd 4,510 125 Kids 4ht thru 6th 5,105 126 Storage #1 455 127 Kid's Stage 390 128 Sound Area 525 Subtotal 10,985 10,985 Supports both Primary and Accessory Use Maintenance 129 Facilities Control Storage 540 130 Shop 1,950 131 Facilities Storage 944 132 Distribution 1,953 133 Facilities Office 770 134 Electrical Room 525 Subtotal 6,682 6,682 (Will move upstairs to #200 in a second phase and this 1,064 @ 7 sq. ff./person will become multi- in second phase (non-fixed A 102 Administration Office purpose/meeting rooms) 7,450 seating) 7,450 P 103 Chapel 3,750 535 @ 7 sq. ft./person (non-fixed seating) 3,750 A 104 Book Store 2,565 A 105 Caf~ 1,710 Subtotal 4,275 4,275 P 106 Main Lobby 8,880.02 8,880.02 A Day Care 107 Classrooms/Sunday School 780 108 Classrooms/Sunday School 780 109 Classrooms/Sunday School 780 110 Classrooms/Sunday School 780 111 Classrooms/Sunday School 780 112 Resource Room/Library 962 113 Classrooms/Sunday School 725 114 Classrooms/Sunday School 700 115 Classrooms/Sunday School 750 116 8 Classrooms/Sunday School 5,328 117 Day Care Offices 2,436 118 Receptionist & Office 1387 Subtotal 16188 16188 Common Areas 32,697.52 32,697.52 1st Floor Total 166,461.77 Church Building 2nd Floor Total Administrative Offices will move from #102 in a A 200 Unfinished Space #1 second phase 18,903 18,903 Dominion College will move from #119 in a second ~, 201 Unfinished Space #2 phase 22,581 226 @ 100 sq. fi/person 22,581 Common Area 10,945.87 10,945.87 2nd Floor Total 52,429.87 Building Total 218,891.64 Use 15t Floor Room SCHOOL - STAGE '1 P Number Sq. Ft. Total Total Total 100 Lobby 1,684.50 101 Class Room #1 867.98 102 Class Room #2 868.00 103 Class Room #3 868.00 104 Class Room ~ 868.00 105 Class Room #5 868.00 107 Class Room #6 938.01 108 Class Room #7 868.01 110 Class Room #8 961.04 113 Class Room #9 868.00 114 Class Room #10 868.00 115 Class Room #11 866.98 116 Class Room #12 868.00 106 Art Room 986.51 109 Discovery 573.50 111 Staff Lounge 602.30 112 Staff Office 459.50 117 Llbrary 1,054.00 129 ;onference Room 300.00 130 Administration 1,880.00 131 Office Area 585.00 132 Receptionist 210.00 133 Storage ~4 238.00 134 Teachers lounge 308.00 135 Maintenance 238.00 136 Choir 1,000.00 137 Band 1,000.00 138 Drama 345.00 139 Stage' 720.00 140 Storage #3 435.00 141 Multi-Purpose Room 4,200.00 142 Kitchen 800.00 143 Storage #2 360.00 144 Gym 8,042.00 145 Weight Room 750.00 146 Storage #1 361.00 147 Locker Rooms 3,597.00 Common Areas 12,315.09 1st Floor Total 53,622.42 Use 2nd Floor Room P Number 200 Classroom #1 992.00 201 Classroom #2 867.98 202 Clasroom #3 868.00 203 Classroom ~ 868.00 204 Classroom #5 868.00 205 Classroom #6 868.00 207 Classroom #7 644.01 209 Classroom #8 961.00 212 Classroom #9 868.00 213 Classroom #10 868.00 214 Classroom #11 836.98 215 Classroom #12 1350.00 206 Science Room 1200.00 208 iStorage 573.50 210 I Staff Lounge 602.27 211 Staff Office 459.50 216 Computer Lab 1855.25 Common Areas 12315.09 228 Future Addition (8 classrooms) 7194.40 2nd Floor Total 35059.98 Stage I Building Total 88,682.40 SCHOOL STAGE II Use 1st Floor'Room P Number 123 Future Classroom #1 868.00 122 Future Classroom #2 868.00 121 Future Classroom #3 868.00 120 Future Classroom ~ 465.00 119 Future Classroom #5 418.40 118 Future Classroom #6 507.65 124 Future Classroom #7 868.00 125 Future Classroom #8 868.00 126 Future Classroom #9 868.00 127 Future Classroom #10 868.02 128 Future Classroom #11 899.30 1st Floor Total 8366.37 Use 2nd Floor Room P Numbers 222 Future Classroom #1 868.00 221 Future Classroom #2 868.00 220 Future Classroom #3 868.00 219 Future Classroom ~ 465.00 218 Future Classroom #5 418.40 217 Future Classroom #6 507.65 223 Future Classroom #7 868.00 224 Future Classroom #8 868.00 225 Future Classroom #9 868.00 226 Future Classroom #10 868.02 227 Future Classroom #11 899.30 2nd Floor Total 8366.37 Stage II Building Total 16732.74 Stage I & II Total 105,415.14 JOB #: 01-104 Gil Hulsmann DEVELOPMENT REVIEW: Gil Hul'smann &PPROVED BY: Gil Hulsmann 3ATE: 25 January 2002 I [SHEET: Sanctuary First Floor Exhibit A I~t Abbey Road Group LLC Land Development Company 923 SHAW ROAD, PUYALLUP, WA 98372 P. O. Box 207, Puyallup, Wa 98371 (253) 435-3699, Fax (253) 841-0925 Casey Treat President Christian Faith Center P. O. Box 98600 Seattle, WA. 98198 Christian Faith Center Santuary First Floor Exhibit A Federal Way, WA Z --.ii * '0 .... · m -i JOB #: 01-104 Git Hulsmann DEVELOPMENT REVIEW: Gil Hulsmanr~ APPROVED BY: Gil Hulsmann DRAFTED BY: Pete Swan DATE: 25 January 2002 ~HEET: Sanctuar~ 2nd Floor Exhibit AbbeyRoad Abbey Road Group LLC Land Development Company 923 SHAW ROAD, PUYALLUP, WA 98372 P. O. Box 207, Puyallup, Wa 98371 Casey Treat President Christian Faith Center P. O. Box 98600 Seattle, WA. 98198 Christian Faith Center Santuary Second Floor Exhibit B Federal Wav WA ~ o X o ~ F ~OB ~; 01-104 BY: CHK~ APRt 0AT~: P~: DESIGNED BY: Gil Hulsmann DEVELOPMENT REVIEW: Gil Hulsmanr ~¢1(: lULL ,~,,ov~ av~ ~, ~,.~.~ Abbey Road Group LLC Casey Treat Christian Faith Center DRAFTED BY: Pete Swan Christian Faith Center Exhibit C DATE: 25 Januaw 2002 923 SHAW ROAD, PUYALLUP, WA 98372 SHEET: School First :=P,~r Exhibit C~~ ~ ~~ (253) 435-3699. Fax (253~ 841-0925 Searle, WA. 98198 Federal Way. WA I I I JOB #: 01-?04 DESIGNED BY: Gil Hulsmann DEVELOPMENT REVIFW: Gil Hutsmanf' APPROVED BY: Gil Hulsmann DRAFTED BY: Pete Swan DATE: 25 January 2002 SHEET: School Second Floor Exhibit D AbbeyRoad Abbey Road Group LLC Land Development Company 923 SHAW ROAD, PUYALLUP, WA 98372 P. O. BOX 207, Puyallup, Wa 98371 (253) 435-3699, Fax (253) 841-0925 Casey Treat President Christian Faith Center P. O. Box 98600 Seattle, WA. 98198 j Christian Faith Center School Second Floor Exhibit D Federal Way, WA PACIFIC HWY. S. ......... ,, i c.~ I~' I°''' P* ~..~o~,~ ~,~., .... Abbey Road Group LLC Casey Treat Christian Faith Center Land Development Company President Conceptual Site Plan ~L ~ ~ ~veyxoau Christian Faith Center DATE ~ Fe~ ~2 923 SHAW ROAD, PUYALLUP, WA 98372 P, O. Box 98600 S.EE~ ~ ~3 (253) 435-3699, Fax (253) 841-0925 Seattle, Washington 98198 DATE: TO: FROM: ~VIA: SUBJECT: February 4, 2002 Eric Faison, Chair Land Use / Transportation Committee Nk Marwan Salloum, Street Systems Manage~lJ..~ David H. Mo~~j~nager Pacific Highway South HOV Lanes Phase I (South 312th to 324th Street) Improvement Project - 100% Design Approval and Authorization to Bid BACKGROUND The Pacific Highway South HOV Lanes Phase I (South 312th to 324th Street) design has been completed and is hereby presented for your consideration. In an effort to reduce costs and public disruption, the following planned projects have been incorporated into the design and will be constructed as part of this project: Surface Water WH11-CIP-3 Storm Drain Up Size Project (Approximately 60% of this Surface Water Management project will be completed as part of this road project.) · Utility Underground Conversion within project limits. · Lakehaven Utility District water and Sewer utility adjustment and pipe replacement. PROJECT FUNDING The project is funded as follows: PROJECT EXPENDITURES Planning and Design Right of Way Acquisition Estimate 2002 Engineers Construction Estimate 10% Construction Contingency Construction Management Underground Conversion (PSE & Qwest) Estimate TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $950,000 $2,933,000 $6,300,000 $630,000 $75O,OOO SS00,000 $12,088,000 (The ROW acquisition expenditure remains an estimate due to pending condemnation action on 19 properties.) (The underground conversion expenditure remains an estimate due to pending litigation with PSE.) February 4, 2002 LUTC Memo - Pacific Hwy. S. HOV Lanes Phase I, 100% Page 2 FUNDING AVAILABLE Total Grant Funding Mitigation Fund Surface Water Fund Lakehaven Utility District Budgeted City Matching Fund Interest Earning TOTAL AVAILABLE BUDGET $10,237,491 $240,597 $211,000 $525,129 $1,110,000 $71,000 $12,395,217 (TIA $1,274,000, STPUL $2,399,433, and STPC $5,396,000, WSDOT $1,168,058) (Part of SWM project WH11-CIP-03) (Utility replacement/Adjustment) PROJECT BALANCE $307,217 This project is on budget and we anticipate bidding the project in April 2002 and awarding in May 2002. Construction will commence in June 2002 with an estimated substantial completion date of October 2003. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends placing the following items on the February 19, 2002 Council consent agenda for approval: 1. Approve the 100% design plans for the Pacific Highway South HOV Lanes Phase I (South 312th to South 324th Street) Improvement Project. Authorize staff to bid the project contingent upon receiving necessary Grant funding agencies approval and return to the City Council for permission to award the project to the lowest responsive, responsible bidder. APPROVAL OF COMMITTEE REPORT: Uric Faison, Chair i)¢an. IcColga,, ~(lenmer ' Micn'~l ?~I~nmer MS:dl cc: Project File Day File K:XLUTC~002~acific Highway Phase I, 100%.doc CITY OF ~ DATE: TO: FROM: VIA: SUBJECT: February 4, 2002 Eric Faison, Chair Land Use / Transportation Committee Ken Miller, Deputy Public Works Director David H. M~~anager SR 509 (Dash Pont Road) and 8th Avenue SW Traffic Signal and Road Improvement Project- 100 % Design Approval and Authorization to Bid BACKGROUND This is the last of the projects to be constructed as a part of the 1995 voter approved bond issue. Currently this intersection is offset and not signalized. At peak traffic periods, access to Dash Point Road is very difficult, contributing to traffic congestion and accidents. This project will install a traffic signal, channelization to allow left turns, improvements to street lighting, and sidewalks at the intersection for bus stops. Due to delays in obtaining approvals to install a new traffic signal at the offset intersection and other design deviations required from the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), timing of the bond projects, a SEPA appeal, installing a retaining wall on the west side of the road, asphalt overlay of SR 509 by the WSDOT, this project has been delayed and the project cost has increased. All approvals from WSDOT and for the right of way have been obtained. The project is therefore ready to be bid. Public Works staff is requesting approval to transfer funds into the project as shown below. The $339,800 "blue ribbon" unappropriated bond funds are not being used. Project Funds $364,000 Interest 11,962 Mitigation Funds 11,470 Unappropriated Bond Interest 355,481 Unappropriated Traffic CIP 11,054 WSDOT Overlay Funds 20,000 Total Budget Available $773,967 The following table shows the estimated costs for design, right of way and construction of the new traffic signal and mm lanes: Design $195,000 Right-of-Way/Easements 4,500 Construction Management/Inspection 5,000 WSDOT Review 20,000 Survey for Utilities 2,000 Construction Estimate 490,000 10% Construction Contingency 49,000 Sub-Total $765.500 Printing Plans and specifications 750 TOTAL $766.250 Available Budget $773.967 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends placing the following items on the February 19, 2002 Council Consent Agenda: Approve 100% Design and Authorization to bid on SR 509 (Dash Point Road) and 8th Avenue SW Traffic Signal and Road Improvement Project. The costs shown are estimated and within the proposed available budget amount shown above. 2. Authorize transferring $355,481 of unappropriated street bond interest and $11,054 of unappropriated Traffic CIP funds into this project. APPROVAL OF COMMITTEE REPORT'x"~"-~ Eric Faison, Chair D~ M~Colgan,~e~er KM:dl cc: Project File Day File k:XlutcXsr 509 and 8th avenue traffic signal and mad improvement project.doc DATE: February 4, 2002 TO: FROM: VIA: SUBJECT: Eric Faison, Chair Land Use/Transportation Committee \~__.~ Ken Miller, Deputy Public Works Director David H. M~nager SeaTac Mall Detention, Phase II Storm Drainage Improvements Final Acceptance and Retainage Release BACKGROUND The SeaTac Mall Drainage project was completed in January 2001, but the contractor Katspan began to have financial difficulties at this time. The majority of the contractors' staff left and there were numerous liens and lawsuits filed against them. Shortly after this, the City was informed by the bonding company (American Safety Casualty) that they had been assigned this project by the contractor and would be completing any remaining contract items. As a part of the contract, "as- built" drawings were required of the drainage system and the bonding company paid to have this work performed by the surveyor Baseline Incorporated. When staff reviewed the "as-builts" they identified some pipe runs with a small adverse grade. The City's consultant performed a hydraulic analysis on the storm drainage system installed by Katspan and confirmed it would perform per the hydraulic design criteria. No adjustments within the trunk system were needed to meet the criterion. The small adverse grades could cause some sediment accumulation that may require periodic vactor cleaning at the low points. Katspan completed all construction work; however, the bonding company completed the final "paper work" items and has been assigned all monies by the contractor. There are numerous lawsuits and liens against the project including one from the Washington State Department of Revenue. Therefore, the City will be interpleading the final payment and the retainage amount into King County Superior Court (January 15, 2002 letter to Attorney General and Katspans' Bonding Company). In June of 1999 a Public Works Trust Fund Loan in the amount of $2,750,000 was approved based upon the original project estimate. Bids were then received that were lower than the original engineer's estimate and the construction of the project was completed for $140,950 below the contact amount. The Public Works Trust Fund Loan was for $2,750,000, but we could not exceed 70% of the total project costs to maintain a 1% interest rate. Draw downs on the loan were 15% and 75% per the loan agreement for a total of $2,475,000. This amount exceeded the maximum amount of the allowable loan of $1,927,538.38 (70% maximum of the project costs). Therefore, we are required to return $547,461.62 to the Public Works Trust Fund. ACTION Prior to release ofretainage on any Public Works project, the City Council must accept the work as complete to meet State Department of Revenue and Department of Labor and Industries requirements. The final cost for the construction of the SeaTac Mall Detention Phase II Storm Drain Improvements is $2,328,102.96. This cost is $387,855.34 below the approved construction contract budget of$2,715,958.30 (includes contingency). The City Attorney will interplead the final payment and retainage into the King County Superior Court. Staff is also recommending returning $547,461.62 to the Public Works Trust Fund in order to maintain the 70% match for the 1% interest rate on the loan in accordance with the June 1999 loan agreement. RECOMMENDATION Staff is requesting the Land Use / Transportation Committee place the following recommendations on the February 19, 2002 Council Consent Agenda: 1. Acceptance of the SeaTac Mall Phase II Drainage Improvement Project construction contract as complete and authorize the City Attorney to interplead the final payment and retainage into the King County Superior Court per the January 15, 2002 letter attached. 2. Authorize staff to return $547,461.62 to the Public Works Trust Fund. APPROVAL OF COMMITTEE REPORT?'"-'N Committee Chair KM:dI cc: Project File Day File k:\lutck2002ksea tac n~ll detention, phase ii final acceptance and retalnage release.doc CITY OF~__~ ~' ~' 33530 1st Way South PO Box 9718 (253) 661-4000 Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 (253) 661-4034 January l5,2002 State of Washington Office of Attorney General ATTN: Kathryn Ford 900 Fourth Avenue, Suite 2860 Seattle, Washington 98164 American Safety Casualty Insurance Company c/o David R. Trachtenberg Groff & Murphy, PLLC 1191 Second Avenue, Suite 1900 Seattle, Washington 98101 Re: Department of Revenue v. Katspan Superior Court Cause No. 01-2-23133-2KNT Groff & Murphy File No. 10733-02 Our File No. 2001-156H Dear Ms. Ford and Mr. Trachtenberg: Enclosed you will find a document entitled Progress Pay Estimate with regard to the estimated final payment of $98,146.53 by the City to Katspan. Please note that if the estimated final payment is correct, $114,217.54 will be the amount of retainage. As you are aware the following lawsuits against the retainage have been filed: ao February 2, 2001, Northwest Grating Products Inc. - $21,159.00 plus $60.00 fee. Lawsuit filed June 15, 2001 Cause No. 01-2-17158-5 SEA; March 19, 2001, Slead Construction, Inc. - $48,037.00 plus interest and attorney's fees. Lawsuit filed July 10, 2001 Cause No. 01-2-18121-1 KNT; State of Washington American Safety Casualty Insurance Company January 15, 2002 Page 2 Co April 6, 2001, Kodo Construction, Inc. - $80,368.34 plus interest at legal rate and attorney's fees. Lawsuit filed June 14, 2001 Cause No. 01-2-16127-0 SEA; and April 10, 2001, Everson's Econo Vac, Inc. - $5,693.15 (which includes fees in the amount of $275.00 and $50.00) plus 12% interest. Lawsuit filed September 21, 2001 Cause No. 01-2-26298-KNT. The following claims have also been filed against the retainage: ao Co eo f. g. h. i. j. k. 1. po December 29, 2000, John Weatherly - $9,492.50 plus 18% interest; amended to reference correct bond number on January 24, 2001; January 17, 2001, New Structures LLC - $127,654.00 plus interest at the legal rate and attorney's fees, re-filed May 14, 2001 for $87,654.00; January 19, 2001, Stan Palmer Construction- $8,420.04; revised February 16, 2001 - $6,058.75; January 26, 2001, V.S. Campbell Construction Incorporated - $45,317.38 plus. interest at the legal rate and attorney's fees; February 12, 2001, Woodworth and Co., Inc. - $120,009.50, revised May 14, 2001 - $125,995.99; February 21, 2001, Best Parking Lot Cleaning - $1,900.00; March 6, 2001, Smith Tractor and Equipment Company - $9,786.69 plus interest at the legal rate and attorney's fees; March 14, 2001, Holst Enterprises Inc. - $3,195.50 plus $50.00 fee, S/C's and attorney's fees; March 26, 2001, S and J Trucking, Concrete and Excavating, Inc. - $33,720.50 plus 18% interest; April 9, 2001, Totem Electric Company of Tacoma, Inc. - $13,065.19 plus interest, costs and attorney fees; April 24, 2001, Scidelhuber Iron & Bronze Works Inc. - $42,836.00; April 27, 2001, Gene Yakovich, Jr. Trucking and Excavation - $300.00 principal plus $150.00 attorney's fee, plus 12% interest from and after February 14, 2001; May 10, 2001, Totem Electric of Tacoma $13,065.19, plus attomey's fees, interest, costs and expenses; May 25, 2001, Quality Fence Builders, Inc. $20,364.00; June 20, 2001, Emerald Turfgrass Farms $2,717.40 plus interest, fees and court costs. June 20, 2001, R.W. Scott Construction, Inc. $10,745.41. June 27, 2001, U.S. Filter Distribution Group $796.34. July 5, 2001, Randales Sand & Gravel $1094.46. July 11, 2001, South Central Concrete, Inc. $1,142.00. State of Washington American Safety Casualty Insurance Compan_y January 15, 2002 Page 3 It is my understanding that the Department of Revenue and American Safety Casualty dispute entitlement to the final payment. Accordingly, when Council accepts the project as final, the City intends to interplead both the final payment and the retainage amount into King County Superior Court. Sincerely, Patricia A. Richardson Deputy City Attorney Enclosure PAR:cms cc: Ken Miller Risk Management MEMORANDUM DATE: January 25, 2002 To: FROM: VIA: SUBJECT: Mr. Eric Faison, Chair Land Use and Transportation Committee Rox Burhans, Associate Planner ~ ~ David Mortgager City Center Code Amendment Status Report BACKGROUND In May of 2001, City staff was asked to develop a code amendment intended to exclude large discount retail establishments from locating within the City' Center-Core (CC-C) zoning district. Examples of discount retail establishments include Target, Wal-Mart, and Fred Meyer. The goal of excluding these types of uses from the CC-C was to promote development that efficiently uses scarce CC-C land and encourage development that is compatible with the goals of the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan (FWCP). City staff has developed four alternative code amendment concepts that would permit these types of uses to locate within the CC-C, versus excluding them outright. City staff believes that prohibiting these types of uses from locating within the CC-C could inhibit economic investment within the Federal Way Downtown. The proposed code amendment concepts address the impacts associated with these types of uses such as their inefficient use of land and incompatibility with the vision of the CC-C as a distinct pedestrian-scale, mixed-use environment. The proposed code amendment concepts presented in this memorandum represent a significant departure from the originally approved scope of work.~ City staff requests the LUTC review each proposed code amendment concept and select the appropriate concept that should be further developed and presented to the Federal Way Planning Commission as a proposed code amendment. Once the complete code amendment has been presented to the Planning Commission, it will be presented to the LUTC for additional review and comment. PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENTS City Center Code Amendment - Alternative I City staff proposes the establishment of a maximum Gross Floor Area (GFA) limit (i.e. maximum size limit) for discount retail establishments in the CC-C. Possible maximum GFA limits may be 60,000 or copy of the May 16, 200 I, LlYrC memorandum outlining the original code amendments scope of work is enclosed for your review. 75,000 square feet. However, such establishments would be allowed to exceed the maximum size limit, subject to the additional development requirements contained in one of the two following options: · The retail establishment shall be located within a multistory building with a limited building footprint. Possible limited building footprints may be 60,000 or 75,000 square feet. or One dwelling unit of housing shall be provided for every 1,000 square feet of GFA over the maximum permitted GFA. Each dwelling unit shall be located above the primary retail establishment in a multistory building. For example, a 150,000 square foot discount retail establishment would build 75-units of housing (if the max. GFA were 75,000 square feet). Pros The use of a maximum GFA limit and additional development standards will permit discount retail establishments to locate in the CC-C, as well as promote development that efficiently uses land and is compatible with the goals and policies of the FWCP. This alternative would not create any additional nonconforming development within the CC-C zoning district. Cons City Center Code Amendment I does not address the similar impacts associated with other comparably sized non-discount retailers such as JC Penney's, Nordstrom, or Bon Marche. In addition, a code amendment that only applies to discount retail establishments could create a discriminatory application of the Federal Way City Code (FWCC). The discriminatory application could occur by applying the proposed code amendment to lower-end retailers like Wal-Mart and Target, and not applying the code amendment to comparably sized higher-end retailers such as the Bon Marche and Nordstrom. The application of City Center Code Amendment I solely to the CC-C could unintentionally siphon economic investment out of the CC-C and into the City Center-Frame (CC-F) zoning district. Developers would be more inclined to locate within the neighboring CC-F due to the presence of less development requirements. City Center Code Amendment - Alternative II The application of the maximum GFA limit and additional development standards presented in City Center Code Amendment I to all retail establishments in the CC-C. Pro City Center Code Amendment II addresses the negative impacts associated with all large retail establishments, versus only discount retail establishments. Cons This alternative does not address the impacts associated with large retail shopping centers. The CC-C has several large shopping centers that cluster together medium sized retail tenants such as Barnes and Noble Bookstore and Old Navy Clothing. Seatac Village, located on 3204 Street, is a good example of this type of shopping center'. These types of shopping centers typically have a long string of attached single story buildings that do not efficiently use CC-C land and are incompatible with the vision of the downtown as an identifiable, pedestrian-scale community. city Center Code Amendment Status Report Page 2 This alternative does not address the potential loss of economic investment created by applying the code amendment solely to the CC-C zoning district. In addition, this alternative would make applicable existing development more nonconforming with the FWCC. City Center Code Amendment - Alternative III The application of the maximum GFA limit and additional development standards presented in City Center Code Amendment I to all retail establishments, including medium sized retail establishments that are clustered together into large shopping centers. Pro This alternative addresses the impacts associated with medium sized retail establishments that are clustered together in large shopping centers. Cons The development of City Center Code Amendment III would require a significant amount of staff hours to complete. This task is more complex because the code amendment would need to address multiple buildings within a shopping center, versus a code amendment that only addresses a large single retail building/establishment. This alternative does not address the potential loss of economic investment created by applying the code amendment solely to the CC-C zoning district. In addition, this alternative would make applicable existing development more nonconforming with the FWCC. City Center Code Amendment - Alternative IV The application of the maximum GFA limit and additional development standards presented in Code Amendment I to all large retail establishments, including medium sized retail establishments clustered together in shopping centers in the CC-C and CC-F zoning districts. Pro Applying Code Amendment IV to the CC-C and CC-F zoning districts will maintain a more balanced economic environment within the Federal Way Downtown. Con This alternative would make applicable existing development more nonconforming with the FWCC. RECOMMENDATION City staff requests the LUTC review each proposed code amendment concept and select the appropriate concept that should be further developed and presented to the Federal Way Planning Commission as a proposed code amendment. I:~X)CUMENT~City Cc"nt~ Cote Amend~LLrFC Feb 4 memolI.doc City Center Code Amendment Status Report Page 3 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: VIA: DATE: SUBJECT: Land Use and Transportation Committee Rox Burhans, Associate Planner David MoS~,-'~['i~anager May 16, 2001 Code Amendment- Creation of New Retail Sales Definition The Federal Way City Code (FWCC) presently contains two definitions that are used to classify retail sales establishments: Retail sales, bulk; and Retail sales, general and specialty. The definition of Retail sales, bulk is primarily differentiated from Retail sales, general and specialty by the sales volume, size of merchandise sold, and the sale of goods or merchandise to other retailers (wholesale sales). Examples of Retail sales, bulk merchants are Costco, Eagle ttardware, and Sam's Club. The FWCC does not presently differentiate between retail establishments, relative to the scale of the facility and its compatibility with the surrounding environment. The FWCC's lack of differentiation could permit non-bulk discount retailers such as Target and Walmart to locate within the City Center-Core District. These types of establislm~ents typically have a warehouse scale single story building, a disproportionately large surface parking lot, and single access points to reach the interior of the building. Development of these uses will make it difficult to realize the vision of the City Center~Core as a distinct, pedestrian-friendly mixed-use environment. The staffrecommendation is to revise the definitions section of the FWCC to include a third definition for classifying retail sales establishn~ents. This definition will differentiate these types of establishments according to the scale of the facility, relative to the surrounding environment, and ensure retail uses consistent with the City Center-Core Comprehensive Plan policies. Comnfittee Action Required: Recommend approval to the full Council to add the above code amendment to the Planning Commission work program for 200 l. APPROVAL OF COMMIITEE ACTION: /~.~ne Burbidge Faison MEMORANDUM To: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Eric Faison, Chair Land Use/Transportation Committee (LUTC) Kathy McClung, Community Development Services Director January30,2002 2002 Planning Commission and Long Range Work Program Following is the LUTC January 23, 2002, memorandum on the 2002 Planning Commission and Long Range Work Program. As requested by the LUTC, at the February 4~ meeting I will be presenting a prioritized list of the Work Program to assist the Committee with the prioritization of Work Program items. (~ITY OF ~ MEMORANDUM To: FROM: VIA: DATE: SUBJECT: Eric Faison, Chair Land Use/Transportation Committee (LUTC) Kathy McClung, Community Development Services Director Margaret H. Clark, AICP, Senior Planner [g,64~ David nager January 23, 2002 2002 Planning Commission and Long Range Planning Work Program I. BACKGROUND This memorandum includes the following:~ 1. Status of the 2001 Planning Commission Work Program as approved by the City Council on December 19, 2000. The status of work performed to date on each item and whether that work should be carried over into 2002 are shown. 2. Status of other work to be completed by City staff but not required to be presented to the Planning Commission. However, this work will be incorporated into code amendments or comprehensive plan amendments, which are presented to the Planning Commission. 3. On-going long range planning responsibility required by state law. 4. Potential new work items for the 2002 Planning Commission Work Program. 5. A request for recommendation on the 2002 Planning Commission Work Program II. STATUS OF 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION WORK PROGRAM Potential Carry-Over Required By State Description Status Items Law 2001 Comprehensive Approved by Council. Yes. Staff is preparing RCW 36.70A.130(1) Plan Update development agreements requires the on two of the site-specific comprehensive plan to requests (Christian Faith be updated annually. Center and Kitts Comer) not acted upon by the Council. ~ In order to assist the LUTC in its recommendation, a column has been included to explain whether state law or other authority mandates the work item. Potential Carry-Over Required By State Description Status Items Law Mega Church Code Denied by Council. No. No. Amendments Amendments to FWCC, Approved by Council. No. No. Chapter 22 relating to nonconforming structures and signs created by government acquisition of property for right-of- way expansion Wellhead Protection - The City has received the Yes WAC 173-100-120 Amendments to FWCC August 2001 Lakehaven requires local Chapter 22, Article XIV Utility District study. We governments to adopt or will be utilizing this study amend regulations to to develop regulations to implement Wellhead implement wellhead Protection Programs protection policies pursuant required by the Federal to the Countywide Planning Safe Drinking Water Policies and the Federal Act. Way Comprehensive Plan. Planned Action SEPA This is a two-part study Yes. The final draft of the No. consisting of a Market Market Study has been Study to determine the completed. Depending on feasibility of conducting a the results of the study, a Planned Action SEPA for Planned Action SEPA may the City Center Core and be conducted in 2002. Frame and the SEPA analysis itself. Twenty Five Percent This will be presented for No, unless the Council No. Threshold for Right-of- first reading by the City requests additional Way Improvements Council on February 5, information or changes to 2002 this item. Group Homes Type 1 The consultants have Yes. No. However, the prepared a draft report. Council has requested that staff review whether amendments are appropriate in light of the discussion of the Twin Lakes Oxford House. Phase II Potential A draft inventory report for Yes. Anticipated to be RCW 36.70A.130(3) Annexation Study the sub-area plan and a completed in November requires jurisdictions to preliminary cost and 2002. review their urban revenue data report for the growth areas, including annexation feasibility study densities and make have been prepared, changes, if needed, at least every 10 years. Amendment relating to Staffwill present a report to Yes, depending on No. large retail the LUTC on Feb 4, 2001. direction from LUTC. 2002 Planning Commission and Long Range Planning Work Program Page 2 Potential Carry-Over Required By State Description Status Items Law establishments in City Center Core and Frame Miscellaneous Code The following were Yes. These are on-going No. Amendments approved by Council: housekeeping-related items that are identified New definition of throughout the calendar by Gymnasium; allowing staff. increased heights for schools; allowing schools in the OP Zone; and clarifying definitions for Schools. Height & landscaping requirements for public parks & recreational facilities, schools, golf courses, and golf driving ranges. Code interpretations and Process I Appeals; clarifications to provisions relating to land use application notices; siting emergency preparedness containers on primary and secondary school sites; senior housing; and Personal Wireless Service Facilities (PWSF) Residential Non- A briefing paper was Yes. No. conformances presented to the planning commission. Staff is in process of preparing a SEPA determination. 2002 Planning Commission and Long Range Planning Work Program Page 3 III. OTHER CODE AMENDMENTS NOT REQUIRED TO BE PRESENTED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Potential Carry-Over Required By State Description Status Items Law Endangered Species Act This study is Yes. The results of this study Required by U.S. (ESA)/NPDES Gap Analysis, anticipated to be will be incorporated into Department of Fish and Stormwater Capital completed Chapter 9 - Natural Wildlife 4(D) Rule, and Improvement Project Review, January 31, 2002. Environment of the 2002 potentially by RCW and Stream Inventory Comprehensive Plan Update. 36.70A.172 for protection Assessment of critical areas. Traffic Impact Fee and This study is Yes. The results of this study No. Concurrency Management anticipated to be will be incorporated into System completed March Chapter 3 -Transportation of 31, 2002. the 2002 Comprehensive Plan Update. IV. OTHER LONG RANGE PLANNING RESPONSIBILITIES Description ] Status ] Required By State Law ANNUAL REPORTS Office of Financial Management This is an annual report provided to the State RCW 43.62.030 requires Yearly Population Estimate Office of Financial Management [OFM] OFM to annually determine Report the population of all cities and towns of the State of Washington as of April 1 King County Benchmark and This is an annual data request made of all RCW 36.70A. 130 required Annual Growth Information cities by King County to fulfill requirements Countywide Planning Report of the Growth Management Act [GMA] Policies (CPP's) to be adopted by King County by July 1, 1992. The CPP's set up the Benchmark Program to assess progress in meeting the CPP's. Track and Inventory Buildable Under the Buildable Lands Program, six RCW 36.70A.215 requires Lands counties, including King County, must evaluation of data collected annually collect data on land capacity and under the "Buildable Lands development activity from their cities and Program". unincorporated areas 2002 Planning Commission and Long Range Planning Work Program Page 4 V. POTENTIAL NEW WORK ITEMS FOR THE 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION WORK PROGRAM Description Required By State Law 2002 Comprehensive Plan Update (Five-Year Update)2 RCW 36.70A.130 requires that cities complete its five-year update no later that September 1, 2002. 2002 Development Regulations Update3 RCW 36.70A. 130 requires that cities consider amendments to their development regulations from interested parties on at least an annual basis. Amend FWCC Chapter 22, Division 6 relating to RCW 36.70A.450 prohibits cities from imposing requirements for allowing Home Occupations and special requirements, which would prevent family clarifying the definition and intent of a home day-care facilities from locating in residential areas. occupation. Amend FWCC Chapter 22 to add a process for RCW 36.70B.200 authorizes a city to approve a Development Agreements and make related changes to development agreement only after a public hearing. consolidate public hearings. The City of Federal Way has not yet adopted a formal process for reviewing development agreements.4 Amend FWCC Chapter 22, Article XV to allow more No. This code amendment is being proposed to flexibility for shared parking and other parking-related encourage economic development in the downtown. incentives in the City Center Core and Frame. Amend FWCC, Division 8 relating to setbacks in the No. City Center Core and Frame. Amend FWCC, Division 8 to prohibit vehicle service No. stations (gas stations) in the City Center Frame. Amend FWCC, Section 22-1093 to address types of No. land surface modifications permitted outright. VI. REQUEST FOR RECOMMENDATION Based on past experience, planning staff's time is expected to be spent on the annual comprehensive plan update process, working with the consultant on code amendments, and completing those long range tasks required by state law (please refer to Annual Reports in Section IV of this memorandum). 2 The site-specific requests and other proposed text changes will be presented to the LUTC in February 2002 as part of the Amend FWCC, Division 8 Comprehensive Plan Selection Process. 3 Proposed amendments to the development regulations will be presented to the LUTC in February 2002 as part of the annual Selection Process. 4This proposed code amendment was presented to the LUTC on January 7, 2002, and will be considered by the City Council on February 5, 2002. 2002 Planning Commission and Long Range Planning Work Program P~e5 Staff is requesting the LUTC to choose from the following options: Recommend adoption to the City Council of the 2002 Planning Commission Work program as presented in Sections II (Carry-over Items) and Section V (Potential New Work Items). 2. Recommend adoption to the City Council of the 2002 Planning Commission Work program as modified this evening. APPROVAL OF COMMITTEE ACTION: Eric Faison /-45ean McColgt(n I:~2002 Planning Commission Work Program\012802 Planning Commission Work Program to LUTC.doc/01/23/2002 1:31 PM 2002 Planning Commission and Long Range Planning Work Program Page 6 PLANNING COMMISSION WORK PROGRAM Project Winter Spring Summer Fall 1) Comp Plan Update (Clark) a) TIF (Consultants, PW) b) ESA (Consultants, PW) c) Wellhead Protection (Consultants) 2) Development Agreement Process (Clark) 3) Potential Annexation Study 4) Group Homes Dispersion (Planner) 5) Residential Nonconformances (Fewins) 6) Grading (Consultant) 7) Large Retail in Core & Frame 8) Miscellaneous Code Amendments a) Day Care b) Home Occupations (Consultants) Proiects Not Assigned: Group Homes Type I Parking issues in the City Center Core and Frame Setbacks in the City Center Core and Frame Prohibit service stations in the City Center Frame Also on CD work program, not required to go to PC Permit Process Review Development Agreements Downtown Planned Action SEPA Tax Exempti6n Ordinance Reports-OFM, Benchmark, Buildable Lands Sound Transit Regional Housing Target Issue