The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLUTC PKT 01-28-20023anUary28, 2002 5:30 pm City of Federal Way City Council Land Use/Transportation Committee City Hall Council Chambers 2. 3. 4. MEETZNG AGENDA CALL TO ORDER Approval of Minutes of the January 7, 2001, Meeting PUBLIC COMMENT (3 minutes) BUSINESS ITEMS A. 1st Avenue South Shoulder Widening 30% Design Status Report B. Planning Commission 2002 Work Plan FUTURE MEE-I'/NG AGENDA II-EMS Downtown City Center Market Study ADJOURN Action Salloum/20 min Action McClung/20 min Committee Members: Eric Faison, Chair Dean McCo/gan Michae/ Park City Staff: Kathy McCIuDg, D/rector, Community Deve/opment Services Sandy L y/e, Adm/nistrative Assistant 253.661.4116 I:~LU-TRANS~January 28, 2002 LUTC AGN.doc City of Federal Way City Council Land Use/Transportation Committee ~.~ January 7, 2002 City Hall 5:30 pm Council Chambers MEETING SUMMARY In attendance: Committee members Deputy Mayor Dean McColgan, Chair, Mayor Jeanne Burbidge and Eric Faison; Linda Kochmar; City Manager David Moseley; Director of Community Development Services Kathy McClung; Public Works Director Cary Roe; City Attorney Bob Sterbank; Assistant City Attorney Karen Kirkpatrick; Deputy Public Works Director Ken Miller; Building Official MaryKate Martin; Management Services Director Iwen Wang; Administrative Assistant Sandy Lyle 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair McColgan called the meeting to order at 5:30pm. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The summary of the December 3, 2001, 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. Review Process for Development Agreements/Potential Code Amendment - As part of the 2001 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Process, there were eight site-specific requests for amendments to the comprehensive plan. Four of the eight requests were approved, one was denied and another request was withdrawn by the applicant. Staff was given direction by the Land Use/Transportation Committee (LUTC) to prepare development agreements for consideration by the City Council on the remaining two requests. The City does not have an adopted process for development agreements. State law requires a public hearing for a development agreement. The City Council may conduct the public hearing or delegate its authority to the Planning Commission or Hearing Examiner. Staff requested direction from the LUTC to add two code amendments detailing the requirements of development agreements to the 2002 Planning Commission work program. Clearly, Development Agreements cannot be used to circumvent code requirements. Casey Treat, Pastor of Christian Faith Center, spoke in favor of the development agreement as a way in which development projects can be accomplished. The Committee recommended to Council that they approve at their next meeting adding the design of new processes for development agreements as code amendments to the 2002 Planning Commission Work Program. B. 25% Trigger Code Amendment - Current Code language requires that adjacent right of way be improved to current standards when an owner is improving an existing development and the value of the improvements is more than 25% of the value of the existing structure/s. Staff and the Chamber worked together and met with individual Council members to formulate the following code changes: 1) Includes the assessed value of the land and improvements in the 25% calculation for properties under 100,000 square feet; 2) Right-of-way requirements will not be applied if fa(;ade improvement only is proposed; 3) The right of way requirement is not imposed if the improvements are tenant improvements only; and 4) If the right-of-way improvements are required and the City has obtained grants to construct or improve the adjacent right of way, the applicant is only required to contribute their pro rata share minus the grant amount. Business owners, Chamber and Council commended staff and the Chamber on the tremendous work that has been accomplished on the 25% trigger issue. The Committee m/s/c recommendation to the City Council to adopt the recommended ordinance at its February 5, 2002, meeting. FUTURE MEETINGS The next meeting will be held in Council Chambers at 5:30 pm on January 28, 2002. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 6:40 pm. DATE: TO: FROM: VIA: SUBJECT: January 28, 2002 Marwan Salloum,~Street Systems Manag~ Davad H ~~ity Manager ~ - 1st Avenue South Shoulder Improvements (S 356th Street to S 361st Street) - 30% design Status Report BACKGROUND: This project reconstructs a shoulder and asphalt curb along 1st Avenue South between S 356th Street and S 361st Street near Illahee Junior High School. The purpose of the project is to improve pedestrian safety, (specifically school children), along this stretch of roadway. The project was funded as a part of the 2001/2002 Budget process. A total of $150,000 was budgeted in 2002 for this project. The project design is approximately 30% complete. PROJECT EXPENDITURES Planning and Design Right of Way Acquisition Construction 30% Construction Contingency TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $10,000 10,000 65,OOO 19,500 $104,500 FUNDING AVAILABLE 2002 Budget $150,000 ACTION: Due to the size and type of project and in an effort to take advantage of efficiencies, staffis requesting that this project be incorporated into the 2002 Asphalt Overlay Project. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends placing the following item on the February 19, 2002 Council consent agenda: 1. Authorize staff to finalize the design of the 1st Avenue South Shoulder Improvements (S 356th Street to S 361st Street) Project 2. Bid this project as a schedule in the 2002 Asphalt Overlay Project. APPROVAL OF COMMITTEE Me Colgan,' ~mbere~,,~: Mie ha~'fP~, i~7~ff.r, MS:tm cc: Project File Day File k:\lutcX2002\ 1st Avenue South Shoulder, 30%.doc CITY 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 ~ David M~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. Staffis 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 f'mal 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 Staff will 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 Description Status Potential Carry-Over Required By State 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 t° 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 P~e3 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 I Status I 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 1st. 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 cries complete its five-year update no later that September 1, 2002. 2002 Development Regulations Update3 RCW 36.70A. 130 requires that cries 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? 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. 4 This 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 Dean McColgan Mike Park 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 _lanuary 7, 2002 5:30 pm City of Federal Way City Council Land Use/Transportation Committee City Hall CoUncil Chambers 2. 3. 4. MEETING AGENDA CALL TO ORDER Approval of Minutes of the December 3, 2001, Meeting PUBLIC COMMENT (3 minutes) BUSINESS ITEMS A. Review Process for Development Agreements/ Potential Code Amendment B. 25% TriggerCode Amendment FUTURE MEETING AGENDA ITEMS ADJOURN Action Clark/20 min Action McClung/20 min Committee Members: Dean McCo/gan, Chair Jean Burbidge Eric Fa/son City Staff; Kathy McClung, D/rector, Community Development Services Sandy L y/e, Administrative Assistant 253.661.4116 I:\LU-TRANSLlanuary 7, 2002 LUTC AGN doc December 3, 2001 5:30 pm City of Federal Way City Council Land Use/Transportation Committee City Hall Council Chambers MEETING SUMMARY In attendance: Committee members Dean McColgan, Chair, Jeanne Burbidge and Eric Faison; Deputy Mayor Linda Kochmar; City Manager David Mosely; Director of Community Development Services Kathy McClung; Public Works Director Cary Roe; City Attorney Bob Sterbank; Assistant City Attorney Karen Kirkpatrick; Deputy Director of Community Development Services Greg Fewins; Deputy Public Works Director Ken Miller; Development Services Manager Jim Femling; Senior Planner Jim Harris; Development Services Engineer Ann Dower; Administrative Assistant Sandy Lyle 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair McColgan called the meeting to order at 5:32pm. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The summary of the November 19, 2001, meeting was approved as presented. PUBLIC COMMENT There was no public comment on any item not included in the agenda. 4. BUSINESS ITEMS A. Council Representative for PAA Steering Committee - The City has contracted with a consultant to study the Potential Annexation Area. In a collaborative effort to gather feedback, a steering committee has been formed to include one Council Member, one business owner, three citizens, one fire district staff, and one school district staff to meet four times during the life of the study. Mr. McColgan wished to wait until January, 2002, to select a Council representative and asked that any Council Member interested in attending the December 20, 2001, PAA Steering Committee meeting to please do so. Eric Faison will represent the Land Use Transportation Committee until the new committee appointments are made in January. B. Rosewood Final Plat; Silverwood Final Plat - Silverwood is a lot-cluster plat planned for development concurrently with Rosewood Lane. The Rosewood Lane subdivision is located along the west th side of 6 Avenue SW in the 36100 block. The Silverwood plat is located south of the intersection of 8th Avenue SW and SW 360th Street. Each was presented for review and discussion as a separate resolution. After questions and discussion, the Committee voted to recommend approval of the Rosewood Lane plat to the City Council at its December 18, 2001, meeting. It was also m/s/c to recommend approval of the Silverwood Subdivision at the Council's December 18, 2001, meeting. FUTURE MEETINGS The December 17, 2001, meeting was cancelled. The next meeting will be held in Council Chambers at 5:30 pm on January 7, 2002. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 5:45 pm. CITY OF FEDERAL WAY MEMORANDUM December 27, 2001 TO: VIA: FROM: SUBJECT: MEETING DATE: Dean McColgan, Chair Land Use/Transportation Committee (LUTC) David ~~ger Kathy McClung, Director of Community Development Services Margaret H. Clark, AICP, Senior Planner itvq, Xc, Proposed Process for Development Agreements and Related Code Amendment to Consolidate Public Hearings January7,2002 A. BACKGROUND As part of the 2001 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Process, there were eight site-specific requests for amendments to the comprehensive plan. Four of the eight requests were approved and one was denied by the City Council. Another request was withdrawn by the applicant. Staff was given direction by the Land Use/Transportation Committee (LUTC) to prepare development agreements for consideration by the City Council on the remaining two requests. Pursuant to RCW 36.70B.200, a city may approve a development agreement only after a public hearing. The City Council may conduct the public hearing or may delegate its authority to the Hearing Examiner or Planning Commission. The City of Federal Way has not yet adopted a formal process for reviewing development agreements. Therefore, the City Council would conduct the hearing. B. REASON FOR PRESENTATION TO THE LUTC Federal Way City Code (FWCC) Chapter 22 contains development regulations that set up standards for development of property as well as various processes that govern how applications are reviewed and approved. Some applications are subject only to administrative (staff) review, whereas others must be decided upon by the Hearing Examiner, following a public hearing. Under existing processes, the City Council's role is to make the final decision on formal subdivision plats and to hear appeals of the Hearing Examiner's decision. Staff is proposing a new process that would govern review and approval of development agreements. Development agreements may be used at the Council's discretion in cases of rezones, comprehensive plan amendments or annexations where a new comprehensive plan designation or zoning is being requested, the project is larger in scope and has potentially larger impacts than normal, or where certain restrictions may be desired to be placed on the proposal. The intent of a development agreement is not to waive requirements normally associated with a proposed use. Adoption of a new process would require two code amendments to the text of FWCC Chapter 22; the creation of a process to govern review and approval of development agreements and an amendment to allow the City Council's public hearing on a development agreement to take the place of the public hearing on the Master Plan or Process IV hearing by the Hearing Examiner to establish the use (please refer to the following discussions in Sections C and D). New code amendments become part of the Planning Commission yearly work program. Since there are two pending comprehensive plan amendment requests that are being considered for approval with development agreements, staff is requesting direction from the LUTC to work on these code amendments in advance of bringing the remainder of the Planning Commission work program (anticipated to be presented to the LUTC at the next regularly scheduled LUTC meeting). C. PROPOSED NEW PROCESS FOR REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS Development agreements can be used for a wide range of proposals, ranging from the deletion of a road from the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan in exchange for certain other road improvements such as in the case of Courtyard Village to a request for a change in comprehensive plan designation and zoning where a specific project is proposed such as in the case of the Christian Faith Center. Development agreements may also be used for the annexation of large parcels and adoption of comprehensive plan designation and zoning such as the East Campus annexation. Should the LUTC direct staffto add this item to the planning commission work program, staffwill prepare a code amendment that addresses the full range of development agreements. The following summarizes the proposed major steps for review of a development agreement: 1. The City Council determines whether a development agreement should be used for review of a request. The City after consultation with the applicant determines the parameters of the development agreement, e.g., the kinds of uses and intensity of uses allowed, types of structural or other setbacks, or type of road improvements. The applicant prepares a development plan that is consistent with the parameters of the development agreement. The development plan may vary in the amount of detail to be included, depending on whether a project has been identified for the site. o The City identifies impacts and mitigation associated with the implementation of the development plan. This would require the preparation of an environmental checklist. The detail of the checklist and the type of studies to be submitted would depend on the type of development agreement. 5. Process IV requests, such as requests for variances or requests for encroachment into environmentally sensitive areas, are heard by the Hearing Examiner. 6. The City Council makes the final decision on the development agreement and development plan after holding a public hearing. Page 2 The attached flowchart depicts the process that is being recommended to be used for a development agreement, which also requires a public hearing by the Hearing Examiner to establish the use. The flow chart also includes other Process IV requests such as a variance request and requests for encroachment into environmentally sensitive areas. D. PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENT TO CONSOLIDATE HEARINGS There are two pending requests for comprehensive plan amendments and rezones -- Kitts Corner and Christian Faith Center. Under the existing process, the Kitts Corner request would require a public hearing by the City Council to act on the development agreement and development plan. If the development agreement and development plan were approved, application for a future permit for development in the Community Business (BC) zone as contemplated in the development agreement and based on the approved development plan would require only administrative approval. On the other hand, under the existing process, the Christian Faith Center proposal for a church would require a Process IV approval by the Hearing Examiner, which requires a public hearing, in addition to the public hearing by the City Council for approval of the development agreement and development plan. Staff is recommending that a code amendment be prepared to allow the City Council's public hearing on a development agreement to take the place of the public hearing to establish the use by the Hearing Examiner in cases where Process IV approval is required for proposals also requiring a development agreement. This code amendment would eliminate a duplicative hearing process. In addition, it is the intent of the development agreement process that the City Council has the final approval authority, and therefore, an additional hearing by the Hearing Examiner may not be desirable because it could result in conditions of approval that conflict with the development agreement. Eo SUMMARY Staff is requesting direction from the LUTC on the following: 1. Should a code amendment outlining a new process for development agreements and the related code amendment to consolidate hearings be added to the planning commission work program? 2. If the LUTC determines that these code amendments should be added to the work program, staff is requesting the LUTC to choose from the following options: (a) Direct staff to continue work on the draft process as presented in this memorandum. (b) Direct staffto modify the draft process based on action taken this evening. 3. Direct staff to start work immediately on these code amendments to facilitate the processing of the two pending comprehensive plan amendment requests. Page 3 Attachment - Flow Chart For Development Agreement Process APPROVAL OF COMMITTEE ACTION: ~'an McColgan /' ,~/~j[nne Burbridge Eric Faison I:\01COMPPLAN\LUTC\010702 Cover Memo.doc/01/02/2002 4:31 PM Page 4 No ---~r ~--- No Yes Yes Yes Public hearing & decision SEPA appeal Process IV requests AppealofDesign Guidelines No No Yes Yes Superior Court Review& decision CC's decision on Process IV requests I CC's decision on SEPA appeal CC's decision on Development Agreement & Plan Yes Yes Yes ~o No City Council Public hearing & decision HE's decision !ili?~! onerocesslVrequests i?!i on SEPA appeal Development Agreement & Plan Memorandum TO: VIA: FROM: DATE: RE: Land Use and Transportation Committee David Moseley, City Manager ~ ~ Kathy McClung, Director of Community Development December 31,2001 25% Right of Way Trigger Code Amendment BACKGROUND Attached is the Draft Ordinance and Staff Report to the Planning Commission on the 25% value trigger for right of way improvements.* This code amendment was initially proposed by the Chamber of Commerce for the 2001 Planning Commission Work Program. Cary Roe and I worked with a team of Chamber members and met with individual council members to formulate the staff recommendation. The current language in the Code requires that adjacent right of way be improved to current standards when an owner is improving an existing development and the value of the improvements is more than 25% of the value of the existing structure/s. A summary of the code amendment changes are as follows: 1. Includes the assessed value of the land and improvements in the 25% calculation for properties under 100,000 square feet. 2. Right of way requirement not applied if fagade improvement only proposed. 3. Right of way requirement not applied if tenant improvement only. 4. If right of way improvements are required and the city has obtained grants to construct or improve the adjacent right of way, the applicant is only required to contribute their pro rata share minus the grant amount. The Planning Commission heard this issue on December 5, 2001 and approved the staff recommendation. LUTC RECOMMENDATION After reviewing the Planning Commission recommended Ordinance, the LUTC may recommend the following: 1. The full Council approve the proposal by adopting the recommended Ordinance. 2. The full Council approve the proposal with modifications. 3. The full Council disapprove the proposal by resolution. Refer the proposal back to the planning commission for further proceedings. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff is requesting that the LUTC recommend approval of the Planning Commission's recommendation to the full City Council for their January 15th meeting. APPROVAL OF COMMITTEE ACTION: * A full set of the staff report attachments are available in the Council Office. If you would like your own set, please contact me or Sandy Lyle and we will provide them to you. DRAFT CITY OF FEDERAL WAY ORDINANCE NO. 01 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON, AMENDING CHAPTER 22 (ZONING) OF THE FEDERAL WAY MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADDRESS FRONTAGE IMPROVEMENTS 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); and WHEREAS, the City of Federal Way finds that the amendments to FWCC Chapter 22 (Zoning), to modify standards relating to frontage improvements will provide an incentive to redevelop properties; and WHEREAS, the City of Federal Way finds that the code amendments relating to frontage improvements will implement and are consistent with the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the City's State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Responsible Official issued a Determination of Nonsignificance on the code amendments relating to frontage improvements on October 13, 2001; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the code amendments relating to frontage improvements on December 5,2001, and forwarded a recommendation of approval to the City Council; and WHEREAS, the Land Use Transportation Committee of the Federal Way City Council considered the code amendments relating to frontage improvements on January 7, 2002, following which it recommended adoption of the text amendments; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the code amendments relating to frontage improvements are consistent with the intent and purpose of FWCC Chapter 22 (Zoning) to provide for and promote the health, safety, and welfare of the general public. Ord No. 01 - , Page I Now, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Findings. After full and careful consideration, the City Council of the City of Federal Way finds that the proposed code amendments will protect and will not adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare. Section 2. Conclusions. Pursuant to FWCC Sections 22-216 and 22-528, and based upon the Findings set forth in Section 1, the Federal Way City Council makes the following Conclusions of Law with respect to the decisional criteria necessary for the adoption of the proposal: 1. The proposed Fwcc text amendments are consistent with, and substantially implement, the following Federal Way Comprehensive Plan goals and policies: LUG1 Improve the appearance and function of the built environment. LUP 6 Conduct regular reviews of development regulations to determine how to improve upon the development review process. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relationship to public health, safety, or welfare because they will result in incentives for redevelopment and restoration of existing development, AND The proposed amendment is in the best interest of the residents of the City because they may result in increased redevelopment of existing properties resulting in increased efficiency and effectiveness of City resources. Section 3. Amendment. FWCC, Chapter 22 is amended as set forth in the attached Exhibit A. Section 4. Severability. The provisions of this ordinance are declared separate and severable. The invalidity of any clause, sentence, paragraph, subdivision, section, or portion of this ordinance, or the invalidity of the application thereof to any person or circumstance, shall not affect the validity of the remainder of the ordinance, or the validity of its application to any other persons or circumstances. Ord No. 01 - , 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 __ day of ,2002. APPROVED: Mayor, ATTEST: City Clerk, N. Christine Green, CMC APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney, Bob C. Sterbank FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO: Ord No. 01 - , Page 3 ATTACHMENT A DRAFT: PROPOSED CODE REVISIONS Article XVI. IMPROVEMENTS Sections: Division 1. Generally 22-1471 Special regulations in designated areas. 22-1472 Official fight-of-way map adopted. 22-1473 When public improvements must be installed. 22-1474 Required public improvements. 22-1475 Additional improvements. 22-1476 Traffic control devices and signing. 22-1477 Modifications, deferments and waivers. 22-1478 Bonds. 22-1479 - 22-1495 Reserved. DIVISION 1. GENERALLY 22-1471 Special regulations in designated areas. If the city council has approved a public improvements master plan or special design guidelines for a particular area that includes a fight-of-way, the master plan or other guidelines will be filed with the city clerk and will govern the improvements to be provided by developments that abut that right-of-way. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(110.10), 2-27-90; Ord. No. 98-330, § 3, 12-15-98) 22-1472 Official right-of-way map adopted. The public works director shall produce and keep current an official fight-of-way classification map that classifies each of the improved and proposed rights-of-way, other than alleys, based on the classification standards contained within FWCC 22-1524 and 22-1525 and the objectives the comprehensive plan. This fight-of-way classification map, as adopted and amended from time to time, shall have the full force as if its provisions were fully set forth within this chapter. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(110.15), 2-27-90; Ord. No. 98-330, § 3, 12-15-98) 22-1473 When public improvements must be installed. (I) The term "frontage improvements" as used in this section shall refer to the construction, reconstruction or repair of the following facilities along the ful! abutting public street frontage of property: (LIST) (a) The applicant shall provide the improvements required by this article if the applicant engages in any activity which requires a development permit except for the following: City of Federal Way Draft Code Revisions (1) The applicant need not comply with the provisions of this article if the proposed (a) The applicant shall provide the improvements required by this article if the applicant improvements in any 12-month period do not exceed 25 percent of the assessed or appraised value (based on an MAI appraisal provided by the applicant) of all structures and land combined on the subject property, whichever is greater, except that if the subject property is equal to or greater than 100,000 square feet in size, the land value shall not be included in the assessed or appraised value used to determine the 25 percent. (2) The applicant need not comply with the provisions of this article if, within the immediately preceding four years, public improvements were installed as part of any subdivision or discretionary land use approval under this or any prior zoning code. (3) The applicant need not comply with the provisions of this article if the proposal is to locate a personal wireless services facility (PWSF) on the subject property. (4) The applicant need not comply with the provisions of this article if the proposal is for fagade improvements only. In addition, the cost of improvements required by Article XIX, Community Design Guidelines, shall not be included in the total cost of improvements measured over a 12- month period pursuant to Section 22-1473(a)(1). (5) Tenant improvements, unless the proposed improvements add additional floor area. (6) If the required improvement is part of a larger project that has been scheduled for construction in the city's adopted six-year transportation improvement program, the public works director may permit the applicant to fulfill the applicant's obligation under this section by paying to the city the pro rata share of the costs of the required improvements attributable to the development of the subiect property, as determined by the public works director. For purposes of determining the applicant's pro rata share, funds received by the City fi:om any federal, state, or local grant for the project shall be excluded from the total cost of the planned six-year transportation improvement. (b) Right-of-way adjacent to and within subdivision and short subdivisions must be dedicated and improved consistent with the requirements of this article, unless different requirements are imposed by the city as part of the subdivision or short subdivision approval. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(110.20), 2-27-90; Ord. No. 98-330, § 3, 12-15-98; Ord. No. 00-363, § 15, 1-4-00) 22-1474 Required public improvements. (a) Generally. The development standards portion of FWCC 22-1523 through 22-1528 establish the improvements that must be installed, based on the classification of the various rights-of- way within the city. The applicant shall, consistent with the provisions of this article, install all improvements established in FWCC 22-1523 through 22~ 1528 along the frontage of each City of Federal Way Draft Code Revisions 2 right-of-way, other than alleys, that abuts and traverses the subject property, commensurate with the impacts of the development. At a minimum, improvements shall be required on the abutting side of the right-of-way and a 1 O-foot lane on the side of the right-of-way opposite the frontage. (b) Additional dimensions and improvements. The applicant may increase the dimensions of any required improvement or install additional improvements within the right-of-way with the written consent of the public works director. (c) Authority to require dedication. If a right-of-way abutting the subject property has inadequate width based on the requirements in FWCC 22-1523 through 22-1528, the applicant shall dedicate a portion of the subject property parallel to the fight-of-way and equal in width to the difference between the present right-of-way width and the width required by FWCC 22- 1523 through 22-1528 for that right-of-way. The public works director may waive additional dedication or may permit dedication of a lessor amount of the subject property for additional right-of-way width if: (1) It is likely to anticipate that, within the near future, the private property across the right-of-way will be required to dedicate property for public right-of-way; or (2) The reduction in the required right-of-way width will nonetheless provide adequate room for all improvements, infrastructure and functions within the right-of-way. For the purpose of determining the rough proportionality of right-of-way dedication to the development's impacts, the city may require up to 300 square feet of right-of-way dedication per average daily trip generated by the development. All dedications under this subsection shall be by conveyance through a statutory warranty deed. (d) Partial right-of-way improvements. Where a right-of-way abutting the subject property does not, even after dedications required under subsection (c) of this section, contain adequate width to install all of the improvements required within that right-of-way under this article, the applicant shall install improvements within the right-of-way which will provide a safe and efficient right-of-way and which will facilitate completion of all right-of-way improvements required in this article at a later date. The specific extent and nature of improvements, where full right-of-way width is not available, will be determined by the public works director on a case-by-case basis. (e) Easements. The public works director may require the applicant to grant such easements over, under and across the subject property as are reasonably necessary or appropriate under the circumstances, including but not limited to easements for the following: (1) Pedestrian access and sidewalks. (2) Street lighting. (3) Traffic control ,devices. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(110.25), 2-27-90; Ord. No. 98-330, § 3, 12-15-98) City of Federal Way Draft Code Revisions 3 22-1475 Additional improvements. The city may require the applicant to pave or install additional improvements within rights-of- way, either abutting or not abutting the subject property. This may include traffic signals, channelizations, turn lanes, and other improvements necessary or appropriate to improve traffic circulation and safety, the need for which is directly attributable to development of the subject property. Where appropriate, the public works director may permit the applicant to fulfill the applicant's obligation under this section by paying to the city the pro rata share of the costs of the required improvements attributable to development of the subject property, as determined by the public works director. The city may also require the applicant to provide traffic studies and other data describing the traffic impacts of the proposed development, the need for improvements under this section, and the reasonable pro rata share of the costs of these improvements to be borne by the applicant. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(110.30), 2-27-90; Ord. No. 98-330, § 3, 12-15-98) 22-1476 Traffic control devices and signing. All traffic control devices and pavement markings shall conform to the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (M.U.T.C.D.) as adopted, from time to time, by the State Department Of Transportation. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(110.55), 2-27-90; Ord. No. 98-330, § 3, 12-15-98) 22-1477 Modifications, deferments and waivers. The public works director may modify, defer or waive the requirements of this article only after consideration of a written request for the following reasons: (1) The improvement as required would not be harmonious with existing street improvements, would not function properly or safely or would not be advantageous to the neighborhood or city as a whole. (2) Unusual topographic or physical conditions preclude the construction of the improvements as required. (3) Proper vertical or horizontal alignments cannot be determined because the existing streets do not have correct alignments. (4) The required improvement is part of a larger project that has been scheduled for construction in the city's adopted six-year transportation improvement program. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(110.60), 2-27-90; Ord. No. 98-330, {} 3, 12-15-98) 22-1478 Bonds. The city may require or permit a bond under FWCC 22-146 et seq. to insure compliance with any of the requirements of this article. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(110.65), 2-27-90; Ord. No. 98-330, § 22-1479 - 22-1495 Reserved. City of Federal Way Draft Code Revisions 4 STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION 25% Threshold for Frontage Improvements Federal Wa.t, City Code (FWCC) Amendments Planning Commission Meeting of December 5, 2001 I. BACKGROUND The City received a request from the Chamber of Commerce to evaluate the trigger requirements for street frontage improvements for pre-existing uses. Currently, the City requires pre-existing uses with substandard street frontage that apply for a development permit to install improvements consistent with adopted requirements when the proposed action exceeds 25 percent (over a 12 month · period) of the assessed or appraised value of all structures on the subject property (Exhibit 1, FWCC Chapter 22, Article XVI, "Improvements"). The Federal Way City Council identified this code amendment as a high priority for this year's Planning Corn mission work program. This staff report evaluates the proposed request; identifies and discusses techniques to provide street improvements for previously developed properties; evaluates the applicability of the identified techniques to Federal Way; and finally recommends revisions to current code requirements. The Issue Many communities are challenged by the presence of substandard streets fronting developed properties within their jurisdiction. Usually, these circumstances are the result of development occurring prior to the establishment of suitable frontage improvement requirements, or before there were identified needs for improved street infrastructure at each location. Substandard streets pose functional and public safety-related risks to a community, such as the lack of pedestrian continuity, the absence of access control, uncontrolled parking configurations, loss of opportunities for coordinated stormwater treatment and conveyance, and the lack of consistent and/ or appropriate street lighting. In addition, streetscape improvements (street trees, plantings, landscaped median strips, and other decorative elements) that aesthetically enhance the community and (in commercial areas) contribute to economic vitality are often not present. The absence of street improvements can also contribute to a negative impression of the community by residents, commercial users, and visitors. Acknowledging the adverse factors resulting from the lack of street improvements, the challenge is to find a fair means of addressing the problem. In summary, how can a community orchestrate needed street improvement retrofits in a manner that is cost-effective for both the jurisdiction and adjacent property owners? Chamber of Commerce Request In October 2000, the Federal Way Chamber of Commerce requested that the City Council review the existing code policies associated with street improvements and the cost allocation required for pre- existing uses, generally referred to as the "25% trigger." The Chamber believed that Federal Way was, "...missing out on significant development opportunities because of these policies." Further, the Chamber requested staff time and resources to form a task force on these economic development incentives and stated, "The goal of this discussion would be to insure that we are not missing out on development opportunities and associated sales/property tax revenues because of the disincentives built into the current code" (Exhibit 2). Process to Date The Economic Vitality Committee (EVC), an established committee of the Chamber of Commerce, focused on the issue. In July 2000, a matrix was prepared by City Staff (Exhibit 3) that summarized the approaches used by various communities to address triggers for improvement of substandard streets associated with previously 6Stablished development. This matrix identified the following: 1. Applicability and Nonconformance Thresholds; 2. Criteria for Improvements; 3. Public Right-of-Way Improvement Requirements; and 4. Parameters for Deferral/Waiver of Requirements. A memorandum (Clirehugh, January 200 t) was prepared for the Task Force (Exhibit 3) that identified the following possible strategies for discussion: 1. Should the trigger be changed from 25 to 50 percent? 2. What value should trigger additional requirements? 3. Should interior tenant improvements be excluded from triggers? 4. Should there be area specific requirements? 5. Should the City adopt a pro rata formula as it relates to when street improvements are completed? 6. Should the calculation of impact take in account how the project is being funded? 7. Financial impacts might be spread out over time. An additional meeting of the Task Force was scheduled for February 2001. A memorandum (Clirehugh, March 2001) was prepared (Exhibit 3) that summarized the results of the discussion to date and proposed the following recommendation to the City: 1. The 25 percent trigger shall be unchanged. 2. The total assessed value of both land and improvements shall determine the thresholds. 3. Interior tenant improvements shall be excluded from the trigger. 4. All street frontage improvements, to be absorbed by the landowner, shall be calculated based on the City's proportioned amount excluding federal, state, and county contributions. 5. The landowner shall be given the opportunity to spread the cost of the assessment over time, when practical. The Chamber of Commerce formally submitted these recommendations to the Federal Way Planning Commission in May 2001 (Exhibit 2a). Staff Involvement The City's Public Works Director and Community Development Director worked early in the process with the Chamber of Commerce to provide technical information to the Task Force. Staff also met individually with the Council to share progress on the issue and to receive direction. The PC Staff Report Page 2 of 14 25% Trigger for Improvements Council was clear that they were in favor of "moving the bar," wanted to especially help small businesses, but did not want to move the bar so far that all burden of street improvements is on the tax payer. In August 200 I, City staff and the City's consultant presented the background information to the Planning Commission at a workshop. The Planning Commission asked a number of questions that are answered in memo form (Exhibit 11). In October, the City's consultant prepared a draft staff report that was provided to the Chamber of Commerce and Planning Commission. A public hearing before the Planning Commission was scheduled for October 17, 2001. The Chamber requested a delay of the public hearing in order to give them time to share the staff recommendation with their membership. Representatives from the Chamber have met with City staff a number of times and issues such as tenant improvements and fagade treatments have been further clarified. The Chamber also requested staff to reconsider the recommendation to include land values only in the 25 percent calculations for properties over 100,000 square feet. The Chamber and staff both ran separate calculations that resulted in no change in the staff recommendation on this particular issue. Existing Code Requirements ' - The code currently addresses street frontage improvements in FWCC Chapter 22, Articl~: XVI, "Improvements' (the applicable development standards of Sections 22-1523 through 22-1528 are attached in Exhibit 1). FWCC Section 22-1473 indicates when public improvements must be installed. This section states that applicants must provide the improvements required by Article XVI if the activity requires a development permit. Two exceptions are established: 1. If the proposed improvements in any 12-month period do not exceed 25 percent of the assessed or appraised value of all structures on the subject property, or 2. If, within the immediately preceding four years, public improvements were installed as part of any subdivision or discretionary land use approved under the code. The balance of the article delineates with specificity the improvements that must be installed. It is important to note that the improvement requirements and the two exemptions (above) are applicable within all zoning districts within the City. In practice however, it is in the commercial areas that pre- existing deficiencies are the most acute. Regulatory Basis and Issues In promoting the public interest, a community must strive to balance the needs of both its property owners and the general public. It is in the public interest to require business to expand the tax base. It is also in the public interest to require from a property owner a fair investment in the infrastructure that brings business to a commercial property. Comparison and Evaluation of Thresholds for Washington Cities The following chart shows a comparison of various local jurisdictions and their methods of extracting improvements associated with pre-existing development. PC StaffRcport Page 3 of 14 25% Trigger for Improvements City Trigger , permit ~aluation Comm~ht 'Auburn 50% Y Value of structure, additions, Deferral permitted but must alterations, repairs, execute agreement to insure participation in future LID. Bellevue 100% Y Replacement value of structure over Deferral permitted but must three years. Additions, alterations, execute agreement to insure repair, participation in future LID. Everett 50% Y Current market value one-year period. Deferral permitted but must Additions, alterations, repair, execute agreement to insure participation in future LID. Issaquah 25% Y Maintenance: ICBO value. Additions, alterations, repair. Alterations: greater than 75% must meet development standards. Additions, alterations, repair. Kent $20,000 Y Except for buildings on lots old code. Deferral permitted but must Additions, alterations, repair, execute agreement to insure participation in future LID. Puyallup $60,000 Y Any two-year period. Additions, alterations, repair. Redmond 20% of Y Increase of floor area. Additions, ' ' Deferral permitted but area alterations, repair, participation in future LID. 50% of Alterations or repair greater than 50 structure percent of structure. Renton $50,000 Y Additions, alterations, repair of structure. Sea-Tac $75,000 Y Additions, alterations, repair of structure. Tumwater 25% Y Current market value one-year period. Additions, alterations, repair. As shown, there is a lack of consistency between jurisdictions in establishing a threshold for frontage improvements. In addition, there are a variety of measures used as "triggers." Whereas 25 percent of assessed valuation is used by Mt. Vernon, a 50 percent factor appears to be more widely used. In terms of the valuation method, most use an assessed value of the structure and/or land. Using the value of the structure appears to be more general. However, some use a dollar-figure over a particular period of time. Although there is a general lack of consistency noted in the sample, all of the jurisdictions are similar in linking any waiver or deferral of improvement requirements to executing an agreement with the subject municipality to enter into a "no protest" agreement toward the future formation of a Local Improvement District (LID). Analysis of the Task Force Recommendations Cities have broad statutory authority to require basic levels of street improvements as a condition of building permit issuance. The challenge of orchestrating streetscape improvements in a manner that is not haphazard and is cost-effective for both the city and property owner is not easy. There is no obvious, accepted, or consistent agreement among municipalities as to how to accomplish this (see comparison matrix, above). Perhaps the only way to assess the effectiveness of one threshold or valuation method over another would be to evaluate the relative function and appearance of each individual city, or the economic effect on landowners who have provided the required frontage improvements. This would be difficult to measure, and highly subjective to evaluate. In addition, the results of such analysis would not likely be transferable due to the unique circumstances associated with each community. PC Staff Report Page 4 of 14 25% Trigger for Improvements As such, each community must determine for itself the right balance between facilitating gro~vth and discouraging it. The EVC task force has made a significant effort to address this issue in a balanced manner. Their five recommendations are discussed below. 1. The 25% trigger shall remain. Analysis: Some municipalities have a 50 percent trigger, some a dollar amount, and some have no requirement at all. There are a number of factors that must be weighed in adopting a threshold for "fair share improvements." The initial goal is to construct needed street improvements; secondarily is how those improvements will be paid for and'how soon they must be done. Additionally, the municipality must decide if some improvements are excluded (currently, electrical, plumbing, SEPA, Use Process,-' Preapplication, and Site Plan Review are excluded). There must be a firm and rational basis for excluding these elements. In reviewing the goal of establishing a threshold for needed improvements balanced with the need of the municipality to provide for responsible economic growth while promoting public safety, it must be acknowledged that there is no perfect solution. If one of the goals is to incrementally p:ovide for needed retrofit improvements, then the City may wish to continue to use the 25% trigger; however, this will likely result in fewer improvements and those occurring in a patchwork fashion. If the goal is to address deficiencies in a more comprehensive manner, the City should consider enacting LID's or establishing a Transportation Benefit District (TBD), which would provide for more orderly improvements with costs apportioned to all of the adjoining businesses. 2. Total assessed value of land and improvements to determine the threshold. Analysis: If both land and structures are included, there will be a higher dollar amount target or threshold that must be reached to trigger improvements. Consequently, the landowner could make more improvements than under the 25 percent threshold if the value was calculated on only the assessed value of the structure. The result would be that fewer required frontage improvements would be triggered. 3. Interior tenant improvements to be excluded from trigger. Analysis: Tenant improvements are improvements made within the interior of the building. They do not include building additions. Arguably, interior tenant improvements do not increase demand on surrounding streets. However, it is fair to say that businesses make improvements to increase their volume and profitability. If a business is successful, it is likely that their customer base will grow. Most of the municipalities reviewed did not make this exception explicit in their code. Indeed, seven out of the eight municipalities specifically included alterations or remodeling. Occasionally, a tenant improvement can include a change to increase floor area, such as a mezzanine. In these rare instances, additional traffic can be generated. In these circumstances it is fair to potentially require street improvements if needed. 4. All frontage improvements to be absorbed by landowner, based on calculation of the City's proportioned amount excluding federal, state, and county contributions. PC Staff Report Page 5 of 14 25% Trigger for Improvements Analysis: A transportation system for the City is planned within the comprehensive plan. This network of streets is implemented through improvements required at the time of development and through the City's six-year Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP). Every year this plan is reviewed, updated, and approved by the City Council. The Public Works Department utilizes the TIP to apply for state and federal grants to match the City's funds for street improvements. Should the City obtain funding from federal or state sources, the landowner should not be additionally assessed for improvements to be provided through those sources. In cases where funding is obtained, the property owner should contribute a proportionate share toward establishing any remaining unfunded improvements. 5. Landmvner to be given the opportunity to spread the costs of the assessment'over time, when practical. Analysis: This would apply only to a LID or TBD assessment, as otherwise a public entity would be loaning money to a private entity. Article VIII, Section 7 of the Washington Constitution specifically prohibits this, and reads as follows: "No county, city, town or other municipal corporation shall hereafter give any money, or property, or loan its money, or credit to or in aid of any individual, association, company or corporation, except for the necessary support of the poor and infirm, or become directly or indirectly the owner of any stock in or bonds of any association, company or corporation." This provision of the state constitution actually contains the following four separate prohibitions that are relevant: 1) a prohibition against gifts of money; 2) a prohibition against gifts of property; 3) a prohibition against loans of money; and 4) a prohibition against the lending of municipal credit. This is why the Legislature enabled the process as defined in RCW 35.43 through 35.56. Analysis of FWCC-EVC Recommendations: Case Studies Matrix I (Exhibit 4) analyzes the recommendations as proposed by the Task Force using two recent projects (Sears and Key Bank). The current code requirements are included to establish a baseline reference. In the case of Sears, street improvements were not required under the existing code. If the recommended revisions are adopted, it is likely that a larger project, such as Sears, would not exceed the recommended trigger and consequently would not have to make improvements. The proposed Key Bank project was smaller in scale. Under both the existing and proposed trigger mechanisms, street improvements would be required. It is evident that smaller or less valuable properties will be the ones most likely to provide improvements under either scenario. Alternative Strategies to be Considered Several alternative strategies can be used to address substandard streets, and should be considered. These approaches tend to address resolving substandard conditions for multiple sites or larger areas. The general advantages of cumulatively addressing deficiencies are shared cost, economy of scale (in some cases), opportunities to integrate the design and construction of improvements, the ability to spread costs over time, and the avoidance of the discontinuity typically associated with PC Staff Report Page 6 of 14 25% Trigger for Improvements incremental site-by-site redevelopment. The general disadvantages of these approaches are the need to involve multiple property owners and the procedural hurdles associated with implementing the strategy. The following alternative strategies may be applicable: "Recovery or Latecomers Agreement." Have the property owners construct all the street improvements in his/her block and establish a "recovery contract''~ under Chapter 35.72 RCW (Exhibit 5). 2. "Sidewalk Statutes." Use the "sidewalk statutes''2 to construct street improvements (Chapters 35.68 and 35.70 RCW) (Exhibit 6). 3. LID. Forming a local improvement district (LID).3 4. Improvements Provided by City. Constructing the improvements with City and/or grant funds.4 Establish Transportation Benefit Districts (TBD). A TBD is not so much a revenue source as it is a funding mechanism by which infrastructure projects can be planned, prioritized, funded, and built by either a local government:,l entity on its own or in partnership with other stakeholders. RCW 35.21.2255 gives the legislative authority of a city the power to establish a TBD for the purpose of acquiring, construct, improving, providing, and funding any city street. RCW 36.736 describes the process and methods of payment for the district. In essence the district is a, "...quasi-municipal corporation, an independent taxing authority''7 as allowed by the state constitution. Significant of ~ Chapter 35.72 RCW allows a city to enter into a recovery contract or latecomers agreement with any property owner to provide for reimbursement for street improvements installed by the property owner, which also benefit other properties in the area. A city must, however, have an ordinance in place that requires the street improvements as a condition of property development. A city may, if it participates in the improvement, be reimbursed for its share of the improvement costs in proportion to the benefit received by the specific properties included in the recovery contract area. In 1997, the Legislature mended this statute to allow a county, city, or town to create an assessment rei~:~bursement area on its own initiative, without the participation of a private property owner, finance the costs of the road or str.:et improvements, and become the sole beneficiary of the reimbursements that are contributed. 2 Three chapters, 35.68 RCW, 35.69 RCW, and 35.70 RCW, provide cities and towns with the authority to require property owners abutting a public street to construct sidewalk improvements or, if the property owners refuse, to construct the improvements itself and assess the costs to them. Each of the statutes has a slightly different approach to the issue and must be read carefully to make sure that all procedures particular to that statute have been followed. All three statutes refer to limitations in RCW 35.69.020: a) an abutting property owner cannot be charged more than 50 percent of the valuation of the property, exclusive of improvements; and b) an abutting property owner cannot be charged if action by the city caused deterioration or damage or if the deterioration or damage was caused by failure of the city to enforce its ordinances. 3 Local Improvement Districts (LIDs) are a means of assisting property owners in financing needed capital improvements through the formation of special assessment districts. Special assessment districts allow improvements to be financed and paid for over a period of time through assessments on the benefiting properties. They are similar to assessment districts that are created under the sidewalk statutes, but are not as limited in the scope of improvements (type and geographical area) that can be accomplished, nor are they subject to the limitations of RCW 35.69.020. They are subject, however, to approval (or more correctly, non-protest) by the property owners, whereas the sidewalk statutes are not. Basic LID processes are in Chapters 35.43 RCW through 35.56 RCW. Cities which make extensive use of LIDs to construct neighborhood improvements include Tacoma, Spokane, and Everett. Each Washington city and town should have on file a copy of the newly published Washington State Local Improvement District Manual, Fourth Edition (AWC, APWA, and MRSC). This manual provides much information on formation, administration, and closeout of LIDs. 4 Cities and towns are eligible for a number of grant and loan programs for their share of the costs of participating with property owners in construction of improvements. ~ Attached as Exhibit 7. 6 Attached as Exhibit 8. ? RCW 36.73.040, General Powers of District PC Staff Report Page 7 of 14 25% Trigger for Improvements this method of funding, the city need only find that the action of establishing the district is in the public interest and adopt an ordinance. Once established, the city may levy an ad valorem tax, or issue general obligation bonds to pay for the improvements.8 Analysis of Alternative Strategies The adopted 25% trigger is dependent on redevelopment or expansion as a means of remedying existing deficiencies. Practically, needed improvements will likely be "stretched out" over a period of many years. The incremental nature of redevelopment will at best result in a patchwork pattern of frontage improvements. Although most of these strategies to retroactively provide improvements place the full initial financial burden on the developer, some jurisdictions are eager for growth and subsidize the construction, provide labor or materials, or partially reimburse the developer. In the cases of LID's (discussed below) the assessing authority may subsidize the project by assessing less than the full cost of the project. " The following matrix describes the alternative strategies: "St rh~t~' '"'" ~."~'"~' ~:'¥" ~'.: ,l)escr,pt~o n 'of"Methotl~ ..... "' 3fita!~'is" ": ;.?~' ''~ ~;~:' .... '"'"'"" Recovery ~]ntract Allows the property owner to I;stablished by ai~ ordinance that requires street make ~provemenB ~d be ~provemen~ ~ a condition ofpmpe~ re~bursed by o~er prope~ (re)development. CiW can m~e ~provemen~ ome~ benefiting. CiW may be on im own ~d become ~e sole beneficia~ of re,bused for i~ shoe ~ re~bu~emen~ ~at ~e con~ibuted when propo~ion to benefit received. ~iggem are reached. Ci~ may also crmte an ~sessment reimbursement area Requkes the CiW provide the costa of the on im own. ~provemenm "up ~ont," which may be cost prohibkive. Sidewal~ Statutes CiW h~ authoriW to requke Approval by prope~ owne~ not requk~. The sidewalk ~provemen~, or ~n prope~ owner ~nnot be charged more ~an cons~ct and ~sess the cosB to 50 percent of the valuation of the prope~, prope~ ownem, exclusive of improvement. Applies to sidewal~ only. Problems may ~ise if sidewa~ are improved and s~ee~ ~e not. Would requke ~ord~ation wi~ other s~eet wo~. ~cal Improvement Allows improvemen~ to be Subject to approval by ~e prope~ ownem. DistricB finan~d and paid for over a Generally used by larger municipalities. period of t~e through ~sessmenB of benefiting An expensive and time-consuming process if prope~ies, the district is not approved by ~e prope~ ownem. A fair system of cost sharMg, ~d may ~ ~nsidered less of an initial ~pact ~ costa are spr~d out over a long period of time. Municipally CiW cons~c~ improvemen~ to Cos~ ~sociat~ wi~ the project are borne by Constructed remedy existing deficiencies. ~e whole communiW. Improvemen~ lmprovemen~ must be detemin~ to be in the public interest. S RCW 36.73.060 & RCW 36.73.070 PC Staff Report Page g of 14 25% Trigger for Improvements Strategy l)escriptio~i.~fMefinod An,41ysis '.'.~:'i":.=', ' . ':'" ' ' Transportation Creates an independent taxing City must fred that the TBD is in the public Benefit Districts authority. A funding mechanism interest and adopt an ordinance. City levies for improvements built either by tax or issues GO Bonds to pay for the City or in parmership with improvements. other stakeholders. Numerous funding options available. Not a widely used option. Criteria for Determining an Appropriate Strategy for Federal Way In order to determine the most appropriate strategy for Federal Way, it is useful to establish a set of evaluating criteria. As a precursor to the development of criteria, it is important to establish the local context, which should reflect the unique conditions found in the community. The local context can be established thorough the identification of: 1. The general degree of existing building development; 2. The current level of pre-existing street improvements; 3. The current circumstances under which exemptions, variances or waivers for retroactive street improvements are granted; and 4. The allowable alternatives to the construction of improvements. After the local context is established, the following criteria should be used to evaluate the alternatives: Will the proposed strategy serve as a significant disincentive for desired economic development? What is the most appropriate balance between benefit to the landowner and the public? 2. How quickly and consistently does the City want the retroactive street improvements to be done? 3. Will the proposed strategy create a haphazard, patchwork of improvements? 4. How much should the City contribute towards remedying current deficiencies? 5. How much of a leadership role in facilitating these improvements does the City wish to take? A detailed analysis of the criteria questions shown above was performed, as well as a review of the recommendations related to specific application in the City of Federal Way; taking into consideration the perspectives, and concerns of the City as well as the business community. The analysis is attached as Exhibit 9, "AnMysis: Local Context" and "Analysis: Criteria." Recommendations In order to prepare relevant, balanced recommendations this report has: 1. Reviewed the existing code in comparison with other (local and adjacent) municipalities. PC Staff'Report Page 9 of 14 25% Trigger for Improvements 2. Analyzed the legally available tools for providing improvements. 3. Analyzed data provided by the City relating to cost associated with typical projects. 4. Applied proposed strategies to selected local projects as a case study. 5. Evaluated the effectiveness of each of the proposed strategies. 6. Analyzed the goals of the City as identified in the comprehensive plan to transportation infrastructure, economic development, and community character. As discussed above, there is no perfect solution, but recommendations are proposed by focusing on the need for an ordered, comprehensive, and consistent method of required improvementg based upon a fair cost sharing. ,-Wireless Transmission Facilities Any improvement issues associated with wireless communications would follow the requirements of FWCC Section 22-966, "Personal Wireless Service Facilities," and as such should be exempted from the requirements described herein. Summary 1. The 25% trigger shall be unchanged. Analysis: Although municipalities differ in using various thresholds9 and it is widely acknowledged there is no perfect solution, the continued use of the 25% trigger appears to be a reasonable "middle ground". It represents neither the highest nor the lowest threshold, and it would not appear to create a disincentive for improvements. Identifying exemptions and adding other factors in the 25 percent calculation will result in fewer requirements for business expansion. Valuation of properties. The total assessed value of both land and improvements shall determine the threshold. Excepting that if the property is less than 100,000 square feet in size the assessed or appraised value of structures and property shall be used to determine the 25 percent of the assessed or appraised value. If the property is greater than 100,000 square feet in size, the assessed or appraised value of structures only shall be used. Analysis: Our task was to develop a fair and equitable "cut-off" or base line below which both structures and property values would be used to determine the 25 percent calculation, and above which the value of structures only would be used in the 25 percent calculation. As demonstrated in the case studies~° matrix, and further described in the "Analysis of FWCC-EVC Recommendations: Case Studies" section above, the -proposed 100,000 square footage trigger would reverse the current disincentive to smaller business and more equitably distribute the cost of improvements to both large and small businesses based upon their impact to the infrastructure. As shown in the case studies, larger businesses with greater monetary value have rarely reached the trigger. 9 See, "Comparison and Evaluation of Thresholds for Washington Cities," above. to See Exhibit 4,. "Analysis of FWCC-EVC Task Force Recommendations." PC StaffReport Page 10 of 14 25% Trigger for Improvements In order to demonstrate the differences between lot size, frontage, and property value, we organized 115 subject parcels into categories based on lot size for analysis. The categories ranged from lots less than 10,000 square feet to lots over 750,000 square feet. The number of lots in each category, along with the average footage of street frontage, were plotted to determine any correlation between lot size and frontage (see Average Frontage Per Lot Size graph in Exhibit 10). The average frontage increased with the increase in lot size, with the largest frontages in the 70,000 - 750,000 square foot range. Land and structures values were then averaged and plotted within each lot size category (see Land/Building Value Per Lot Size graph in Exhibit 10). Value increased gradually with increases in lot sizes until the 100,000 - 750,000 square foot lot size category was reached. Significantly, average property value increased dramatically beyond the- 100,000 square foot lot range. This became the definitive baseline, and consequently, was a logical threshold. The City's Geographical Information System identifies 19,644 parcels within the City limits. Approximately 3.7 percent, or 731, have more than 100,000 square feet. When considering only the nonresidential parcels, there are 932 parcels, 227 (24 percent) of which are over 100,000 square feet. Although some inequities are unavoidable, the proposed threshold offers a reasonable and rational approach for the smaller business owner. If both land and structures are included, there will be a higher dollar amount target that must be reached to trigger improvements, thus they would not be unfairly penalized as the landowner could make more improvements than if the value was calculated on only the assessed value of the structure. Conversely, the larger landowner, who could make considerable improvements under existing regulations before reaching the threshold, would be required, using the trigger value of the structure only, to contribute fair share,n In other words, the threshold allows smaller property owners to further develop and improve their property without the disincentive of required costly street frontage improvements, thereby achieving the goal of not continuing or creating disincentives, but achieving a fair and equitable growth environment. The utilization of the property square footage threshold allows reasonable redevelopment, upgrades, and/or expansion, but recognizes the obligation of a property owner who benefits from improvements to his property to participate in mitigating the increased impacts to the existing infrastructure. Tenant improvements are exempted, excepting those improvements that increase the floor area. Analysis: There is a direct correlation between improvements that increase the size or intensity as measured by increased traffic trip generation, and the impact on the surrounding road network. In order to prevent unforeseen inefficiencies in a public system it is rational, and prudent, to require that expansion of use requires a requisite "fair share" contribution. The proposed exemptions allow for redevelopment, upgrades, and/or expansions that do not allow the traffic-generating intensity of the See Exhibit 4, "Analysis of FWCC-EVC Recommendations: Case Studies." PC Staff Report Page 11 of 14 25% Trigger for Improvements use to increase significantly. However, other expansions that do increase the traffic- generating intensity would remain subject to the 25 percent provision. o All street frontage improvements, to be absorbed by the landowner, shall be calculated based on the city's proportioned amount excluding federal, state, and county contributions. Analysis: See "Analysis of Task Force Recommendations," above. Should the City obtain funding from federal or state sources, the landowner will not be additionally assessed for improvements to be provided through those sources. In cases where funding is obtained, the property owner should contribute a proportionate share toward establishing any remaining unfunded improvements if the 25 percent threshold is trig'gered. The law does not permit that the landowner shall be given the opportunity to spread the cost of the assessment over time, when practical. Analysis: Although utilities possess the ability to charge fees for the use of their infrastructure, frontage and road systems do not legally posses this ability,n Staff is recommending an additional exemption of faq:ade improvements. Analysis: Improving the front of the building does not in itself impact traffic. When fagade improvements are proposed, the City's design guidelines may also require other site improvements, such as landscaping or parking. The recommended language for this code amendment waives the fagade improvement and any additional site improvements required as part of the facade improvement from the 25 percent calculation. II REASON FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION FWCC Chapter 22, "Zoning," Article IX, "Process VI Review," establishes a process and criteria for zoning code text amendments. Consistent with Process VI review, the role of the Planning Commission is as follows: · To review and evaluate the zoning code text regarding any proposed amendments; · To determine whether the proposed zoning code text amendment meets the criteria provided by FWCC Section 22-528; and · To forward a recommendation to City Council regarding adoption of the proposed zoning code text amendment. III PROCEDURAL SUMMARY May 16, 2001: Official request(s) to City Council to review 25 percent threshold improvements ~2 See, "Analysis of Task Force Recommendations," above. PC Staff Report Page 12 of 14 ' 25% Trigger for Improvements October 13,2001: October 29, 2001: December 5,2001: January 2002: February 2002: Determination of Nonsignificance pursuant to State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) End of SEPA Comment Period Planning Commission Meeting Proposed Land Use/Transportation Committee Meeting Proposed first and second reading of Ordinance by full City Council DECISIONAL CRITERIA 'FWCC Section 22-528 provides criteria for zoning text amendments. The following section analyzes the compliance of the proposed zoning text amendment with the criteria provided by FWCC Section 22-528. The City may amend the text of the FWCC only if it finds that: 1. The proposed amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan. The proposed FWCC text amendments are consistent with, and substantially implement, the following Federal Way Comprehensive Plan goals and policies: LUG1 LUP7 LUG6 Improve the appearance and function of the built environment. Integrate and coordinate construction of public infrastructure with private development to minimize costs wherever possible. Transform Commercial Business areas into vital, attractive, mixed- use areas that appeal to pedestrians and enhance the community's image. 2. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relationship to public health, safety, or welfare. The proposed FWCC text amendments will result in an improved environment by providing for upgrading of substandard streets through a fair and equitable process. Substandard street pose function and public safety-related risks to the community, such as the lack of pedestrian continuity, the absence of access control, uncontrolled parking configurations, loss of opportunities for coordinated stormwater treatment and conveyance, and the lack of consistent and/or appropriate street lighting, which have a direct relationship to the public health, safety, and welfare. 3. The proposed amendment is in the best interest of the residents of the city. The proposed FWCC text amendment will enhance the community and will contribute to economic vitality, through a fair and equitable means of assessing adjoining property owners for their fair share of cost, resulting in increased efficiency and effectiveness of City resources. PC Staff Report Page 13 of 14 25% Trigger for Improvements V PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Consistent with the provisions of FWCC Section 22-539, the Planning Commission may take the following actions regarding the proposed zoning code text amendments: 1. Recommend to City Council adoption of the FWCC text amendments as proposed; 2. Modify the proposed FWCC text amendments and recommend to City Council adoption of the FWCC text amendments as modified; 3. Recommend to City Council that the proposed FWCC text amendments not be adopted; or 4. Forward the proposed FWCC text amendments to City Council without a recommendation. VI STAFF RECOMMENDATION The following motion is suggested: Move to recommend to the City Council for adoption of the proposed FWCC text amendments relating to 25% Frontage Improvements. (If changes occur as a result of Planning Commission deliberations add, "...as amended by the Planning Commission.") VII EXHIBITS Exhibit 1: Exhibit 2: Exhibit 2a: Exhibit 3: Exhibit 4: Exhibit 5: Exhibit 6: Exhibit 7: Exhibit 8: Exhibit 9: Exhibit 10: Exhibit 11: Exhibit 12: FWCC Chapter 22, Article XVI. "Improvements," Sections 22-'1471 to 15.44 Correspondence from Federal Way Chamber, October 11, 2000' Correspondence from Federal Way Chamber, May 16, 2001, to Federal Way Planning Commission Memorandum from Cary M. Roe, P.E., Public Works Director, Regarding Street Frontage Policies, Memorandums, Spreadsheets Identifying Parcels, Land Value, etc. Analysis of FWCC-EV 25% Task Force Recommendations RCW 35.72.010-040 RCW 35.68.010-080 RCW 35.21.225-315 RCW 36.73.030-900 Analysis: Local Context and Analysis: Criteria Land/Building Value Per Lot Size Graph Memorandum to Planning Commission, Follow Up Questions from August Workshop Draft Ordinance with Attachment of Proposed Code Revisions I:'~)OCIJMENT~25% Trigger Amendme~6Dec 5 PC 25% Sm'T Repoccdoc PC Staff Report Page 14 of 14 25% Trigger for Improvements