No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLUTC PKT 05-03-2004 City of Federal Way City Council Land Use/Transportation Committee May 3, 2004 S:30 pm City Hall Council Chambers MEETING AGENDA 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: April 19, 2004, meeting 3. PUBLIC COMMENT (3 minutes) 4. BUSINESS ITEMS A. B. Potential Annexation Area Expansion RFB 04-110; Sewer Extension Bellacarino Woods- Bid Rejection/Request to Re-Bid Trip Reduction Performance Incentive for Federal Way Employers Kitts Corner Development Plan & Development Agreement Update Amendments to Countywide Planning Policies to Designate Downtown Auburn as an Urban Center Overview of 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendments PAA Subarea Plan Proposed New Freeway Commercial Zone Quadrant Site-Specific Request C. D. E. F. G. H. 1. 5. FUTURE MEETINGS/AGENDA ITEMS 6. ADJOURN Action Conlen/iS min Action Bucich/i0 min Action Perez/iS min Information Harris/20 min Action Clark/iS min Information Clark/S min Action Conlen/20 min Action Clark/20 min Action Clark/20 min Committee Members Jack Dovey, Chair Eric Faison Michael Park City Staff Kathy McClung, Director, Community Development Services £ Tina Piety, Administrative Assistant 253-661-4105 K \Llnc Agend,,-, and Sunllnam, 2UO4\May 1, 2004, LUTC Agenda due City of Federal Way City Council Land UselTransportation Committee April 19,2004 5:00 p.m. City Hall Council Chambers MEETING MINUTES In attendance: Committee Members Jack Dovey, Chair, Eric Faison and Michael Park; Mayor Dean McColgan, Deputy Mayor Linda Kochmar, Council Members Jim Ferrell and Jeanne Burbidge; City Manager David Moseley; Public Works Director Cary Roe; Deputy City Attorney Karen Kirkpatrick; Public Works Deputy Director Ken Miller; Street Systems Manager Marwan Salloum; Surface Water Manager Paul Bucich; Traffic Engineer Rick Perez; Street Systems Engineer Brian Roberts; and Administrative Assistant E. Tina Piety. 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Dovey called the meeting to order at 5:30 pm. It was m/s/c to amend the agenda by adding Item E, Briefing on 288th Access, which will be an informational briefing by Public Works Director Cary Roe. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The summary minutes of the April 5, 2004, meeting was approved as presented. 3. PUBLIC COMMENT Rod Leland, Federal Way School District Facilities Director, commented that the School District supports a connection between Pacific Highway South and 9th Avenue South. The District is considering consolidating school facilities on the land that they are interested in this area and feel that a connection utilizing 332nd would work best for their proposed project. He gave the Committee a copy of a map showing the parcels they are considering and how a connection utilizing 332n° would work. The plans they have are conceptual at this stage, but they would like a commitment from the City that a connection will be planned between Pacific Highway South and 9th Avenue South. 4. BUSINESS ITEMS A. 51st Avenue SW Storm Drain Improvements - Final Project Acceptance & Authorization to Release Retainage- This project has been completed at a cost below the expected cost. The Committee m/s/c the staff recommendation to place on the May 4,2004, City Council Consent Agenda, acceptance of the 51st Avenue SW Storm Drain Improvements Construction Contract (AG No. 03-111), constructed by R. L. Alia, Company, in the amount of 43,400.65 as complete, and authorize staff to release the retainage. B. West Hylebos Creek Restoration Project Bid Award - The bid came in below estimate and the contractor has assured the City they can do the work for amount stated. The Committee m/s/c the staff recommendation to place on the May 4,2004, City Council Consent Agenda to award the West Hylebos Creek Restoration Project to Jansen Inc., the lowest responsive, responsible bidder in the amount of $449,648.10 and approve a 10% construction contingency of $44,964,81 for a total ot $494,612.91; and authorize the City Manager to execute the contract. C. 23'd Avenue South Road Improvements Project - Final Project Acceptance & Retainage Release - This project was completed in late 2002. It is coming before the LUTC now due to disputes that have been resolved. The Committee m/s/c the staff recommendation to place on the May 4,2004, Council Consent Agenda acceptance of the 23'd Avenue South Road Improvements Project (South 316th to South 324th Street), constructed by DPK, Inc., in the amount of $5,471,895.86 as complete. D. Alternative Cross Sections for Pacific Highway South HOV Lanes Phase III Project - Council Member Dovey recused himself from this issue because he has property in the area. Council Member Park chaired this portion of the meeting. The City has completed the first phase of the Pacific Highway South HOV Lanes Project with the second phase currently under construction, and the third phase in preliminary design. In the first two phases, the project was designed consistent with Cross Section A of the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan. Numerous existing developments encroach into the right-ot-way required to construct Cross Section A. To minimize project impacts to adjacent businesses, the City made minor modifications to this cross section, reduced the right-ot-way purchased, andlor made some minor modifications during right-of-way negotiations. Based on several ot the right-of-way acquisitions and the impacts of implementing Cross Section A in Phases I and II, the Council requested that staff review the possibility of reducing the width of Pacific Highway K:\LUTC Agendas and Summaries 2004\Apnt 19. 2004, LUTC Mlnutes.doc South Cross Section A and to present their recommendations to the City Council for consideration. In response, staff has developed two Cross Section alternatives. The proposed alternative, Cross Section A-1 (beginning on the west side of the highway), plan elements include a three-foot utility strip, six-foot sidewalk, four and one-half foot planter strip, three lanes in each direction (a 14-foot HOV lane, an 11-foot outside general purpose lane, and a 12-foot inside general purpose lane), a 12-foot landscaped median, a four and one-half foot planter strip, an eight-foot sidewalk, and a three-foot utility strip. Cross Section A-2 plan elements would be identical to Cross Section A-1, except the planter strip on the west side of Pacific Highway South would be eliminated, With Cross Section A-2, the magnitude of right-of-way impacts on business would be the same as Cross Section A-1, but there would be no separation between pedestrians and traffic; a loss of aesthetic continuity with the WSDOT project to the north and the Pacific Highway HOV Lanes Phases I & II; and there would be less space to locate stormwater treatment facilities and underground utilities on the west side of the roadway. Even if Cross Section A-1 or A-2 is adopted, there will be some sections of Pacific Highway South that will not have planter strips because they would ne~atively impact the businesses; namely at Dash Point Road, next to the Nextel building, and at the Shell gas station at 288 . The Committee asked if it would be possible to decrease the size of the landscape median. Mr. Salloum replied that a smaller landscape median is possible, but it would not provide enough room for left-hand turn pockets and would not be large enough to plant trees in. The Committee m/s/c the staff recommendation to place on the May 4,2004, City Council Consent Agenda direction to staff to utilize Alternative Cross Section A-1 in designing the Pacific Highway South HOV lanes Phase III Project and make planter strip modifications to the cross section at specific locations, to avoid impacts on businesses. E. Briefing on 288th Access - At the April 6, 2004, City Council meeting, staff was directed to consider alternatives for this project. Staff will present this proposal at the April 20, 2004, City Council meeting. The major issue is sight distance. For vehicles turning left from 288tlí into the Shell ~as station site, there are two obstructions on Pacific Highway South that make it difficult to see cars turning right onto 288 . These two obstructions are the Shell sign and the signal controller cabinet. The staff's proposal is for the owner (at his expense) to move the Shell sign in line with the controller cabinet so there is only one obstruction. A gap will be made in the c-curb for left turns into the site. In addition, there will be signage to prohibit left turns out of the driveways for the Shell station, animal hospital, and check cashing business. Staff recommends they monitor and evaluate this situation for six months. The Committee asked if the previous discussion on the Cross Section would require that the owner move the sign a second time? Mr. Roe responded that the owner would not be required/requested to move the sign more than once. The Committee asked what is the threshold for the six-month monitoring period? Mr. Roe replied that the staff have not considered all aspects of this proposal and would be prepared to respond to this question at tomorrow's Council meeting. Since this project is almost completed, and the proposal is contingent upon the owner moving the sign, it was recommended that the owner be given a certain date by which the sign must be moved and if not, a gab in the c-curb for the left turn access will not be granted. 5. FUTURE MEETING The next scheduled meeting is May 3, 2004. 6. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m. K:\LUTC Agendas and Summaries 2004\April19, 2004, LUTC Minutes doc ~ CITY OF yc""" """Wt#i'i!ß' Federal Way MEMORAMDUM April 26, 2004 To: Jack Dovey, Chair Land Use/Transportation Committee (LUTC) David ~anagcr Isaac Conlen, Associate Planner VIA: FROM: SUBJECT: Annexation into Pierce County MEETING DATE: May 3rd, 2004 I. BACKGROUND This memorandum is in response to City Council's request for staff to look into the feasibility of annexing an unincorporated area in Pierce County as shown on the attached map. This area is located within Tacoma's Urban Growth Area (UGA). This memorandum will discuss process, timing! and cost of accomplishing annexations in Pierce County. II. PROCESS A. Pre-Annexation Steps Based on conversations with Pierce County staff, there is nothing in the Pierce County policies or regulations that would prohibit the City of Federal Way from annexing areas within Pierce County, i.e., it is not necessary to extend Federal Way's Potential Annexation Area (P AA) into Pierce County prior to annexation. Staff recommends, however, that we extend the Federal Way P AA (in Pierce County this is referred to as a UGA) into the area we intend to annex. Staff recommends the following steps 1. Initiate discussion with City of Tacoma. Again, this is not required, but because the area in question is within Tacoma's UGA, we recommend coordinating with City of Tacoma Officials as a courtesy. 2. Request Pierce County Comprehensive Plan amendment. The purpose of amendments to the Pierce County Comprehensive Plan would be to modify the County's UGA boundaries to include a Federal Way UGA. Eitherthe Pierce County Executive or County Council must request this amendment. The deadline for submittal of an amendment request is December 1, 2004. I At this point we do not have enough infonnation to provide a timeline for pre-annexation steps. The time line for these actions is tied to the timing of the Pierce County and Federal Way Comprehensive Plan amendment cycles, which will be processed beginning in 2005. 3. Process Federal Way Comprehensive Plan amendments to identify new UGA, and address County- Wide Planning Policies for Pierce County. Amendments to the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan would establish a UGA in the subject area, address the County Wide Planning Policies of Pierce County and address any policy issues specific to the new area. B. Annexation Process F or the purposes of providing a rough timeline, we have assumed the election method of annexation will be utilized (method proposed for pending North Lake, Redondo and S.W. Parkway annexations). The timeline shown does not include a Boundary Review Board public hearing (which we understand is infrequently required). If a hearing is required this could add 60-120 days to the timeline. Also note, several other annexation methods are available.2 ELECTION METHOD OF ANNEXATION Flow Chare (Pierce County) City submits legal description of annexation area to Pierce County Boundary Review Board (BRB) for preliminary review. (14-21 days) ~ City Council adopts resolution initiating annexation (2-days) ¡ City files Notice of Intent (NOI) to annex w/ BRB (2-days) ~ BRB reviews submittal (45-50 days) ¡ City Council selects election date - Set by Pierce County Council (Minimum of 60-days) 2 The petition and double petition method of annexation are both available to citizens interested in initiating an annexation. The island method may be available depending on the final boundary of the annexation area. 3 The time shown in parenthesis in each box is an estimate of time elapsed between the action shown in that box and the action shown in the following box. Page 2 Election held (7 -days) ~ County Canvassing Board submits statement of canvass (14-days) ~ If approved by voters City Council adopts ordinance providing for annexation (60-180 days) ~ Notice to state and annexation area survey (Complete) ~ Total time elapsed from start of annexation to completion is between 200-335 days. As noted in footnote I This does not include the time necessary to accomplish the pre-annexation steps cited in Section IleA). III. COST/RESOURCE ALLOCA nON Task Responsible Department Time (Calendar)4 Cosë Pre-Annexation Tasks Initiate discussions w/ City of Tacoma Community Development One month 10 ills staff time/ $585 Services Initiate Pierce County Comprehensive Community Development 1-2 months 40 ills staff time/ $2,340 Plan Amendment/follow-up Services Process Federal Way Comprehensive Community Development 6 -12 months 220 ills staff time/ Plan amendments Services depending on $12,870 - SEP A review timing ofComp. Plan amendment process Gathering of data and acquisition of Geographic lnfonnation One month $300-$500 to purchase GIS layers The GIS department Systems Department GIS layers and parcel presently does not have any parcel infonnation. data for Pierce County. Therefore, this data would have to be acquired. In Unknown for staff time. addition, we would need to obtain GIS charges its time to information and maps on service each department based on providers. the work prefonned. 4 Time shown for individual tasks overlap with other tasks in some cases and is not meant to show cumulative time elapsed. 5 Staff hours and dollar amounts shown under the cost category should be considered a rough estimate. Some of these tasks may be completed by outside consultants. Page 3 Task Responsible Department Time (Calendar) Cost Annexation Tasks Prepare legal description and submit Community Development Two months Surveyor cost - $3,000 to BRB for preliminary review Services and Public 25 ills staff time/ $1,460 Works City Council adopts resolution Community Development 1-2 months 40 ills staff time/ $2,340 initiating annexation Services - Staff files NO! - BRB 45-dav comment period City Council sets election date by Community Development 2 weeks 20 ills staff time/ $ 1,170 resolution Services Election held Community Development Minimum of 60- Not known Services, City Clerk's days from date 30 ills staff time/ $1,755 Office election set If approved by voters City Council Community Development One month 20 ills staff time/ $ 1,170 adopts ordinance providing for Services annexation Annexation notice and survey Community Development 3-5 months 150 ills staff time/ $8,775 Services Public participation efforts with Community Development 12-24 months - 200 ills staff time/ annexation area residents Services Ongoing $11,700 throughout pre- annexation and annexation process Total = $47,665 IV. POTENTIAL BOUNDARIES OF AREA TO BE INCLUDED Map I (attached) shows the unincorporated areas of northeast Pierce County located adjacent to City of Federal Way boundaries. V. EXPERIENCE OF OTHER CITIES WITH P AA's IN DIFFERENT COUNTIES Several communities within the Puget Sound region have municipal boundaries that are located in two separate county jurisdictions. Examples of cities with this type of jurisdictional governance include Algona, Auburn, Bothell, Milton, and Pacific. Staff contacted several of these cities to understand how municipal governance or operations change in a two-county jurisdiction. The following will provide the LUTC with an overview of the experience other cities have had in administering municipal operations in a two-county jurisdiction. . Duplication of Reporting: A normal part of municipal operations is the preparation of studies and reporting of data to numerous state, county, and regional agencies. Examples of these studies or reporting is the yearly Buildable Lands Study, which requires analysis of the amount of vacant and redevelopable land, as well as achieved densities within a city's jurisdiction; the preparation of yearly population estimates to the State Office of Financial Management (OFM); and the yearly Benchmark Reports to the respective counties. A municipality with corporate boundaries residing in two counties will typically be required to prepare separate reports and studies for each portion of their city, in this case one to King County and Page 4 one to Pierce County. Often times, staff members must use specific methodologies from different counties in preparing these studies or reports. Many staff members from the above-noted municipalities stated that the preparation of these separate reports or studies adds a significant amount of time and effort to an already difficult process. . Representation in County and Regional Organizations: City of Federal Way staff and elected officials currently provide representation on numerous King County boards and commissions. The City of Federal Way also actively participates in numerous regional organizations and boards that involve King County. Active participation in these organizations and boards helps facilitate regional cooperation among neighboring municipalities, while ensuring representation of City of Federal Way interests. If the City of Federal Way were to expand its corporate boundaries into areas of Pierce County, City staff and elected officials would be expected to actively participate on boards or commissions within Pierce County and provide representation on regional organizations involving Pierce County. Many staff members from the above-noted municipalities stated that keeping abreast of the issues within two counties, and providing representation on boards and commissions within two counties, has added a significant amount oftime and effort. VII. LAND UsE/TRANSPORT A nON COMMITTEE RECOMMENDA nON The Committee has the following options: Recommend that the City Council give staff direction to initiate discussion with City of Tacoma and begin research and preparation of Comprehensive Plan Amendments. Direct staff to do no further research on this issue. ApPROV ALOF COMMITTEE REpORT Jack Dovey, Chair Michael Park, Member Eric Faison, Member Enclosed: Map I Map of northeast Pierce County Page 5 PugetSound It-- Ilcfwg is2k/use rslm ikes/cdlbrown s.a ml City of Federal Way Unincorporated Northeast Pierce County D D D Legend: City of Federal Way City of Tacoma Unincorporated Pierce County Park Public School . . Pleae Note: Not all features are shown. Federal Way does not routinely update Pierce County boundaries and as such, some boundaries may have changed. The unincorporated areas shown on this map are within Pierce County's Urban Growth Area. Scale:1to 21180 1 Inch equals 1765 Feet 0 1,000 Feet ~ ß N A í=ëderal Way ~ CITY OF f{ I1' ~ Federal Way DATE: TO: FROM: VIA: SUBJECT: May 3, 2004 Jack Dovey, Chair Land Use and Transportation Committee Paul A. Bucich, P.E., ~rfaœ Water Mana@-----~ David H. ~ ~nager RFB 04-110; Kwer Extension Bellacarnio Woods Bid Rejection/Request to Re-Bid BACKGROUND: A total of eight bids were opened for this project on AprilS, 2004. The apparent low bidder, Americon, Inc., has requested authorization to withdraw their bid claiming that it did not include Washington State sales tax in accordance with the contract specifications. The contract required that sales tax be included in the individual unit prices, not as a lump sum pay item. Upon review of the eight bids, four appear to have included sales tax per the specifications, three added it as a lump sum item, and the last bidder did not complete the bid total sheet, only the unit prices sheet. SWM and legal staff have reviewed the contract documents to determine if the bid protest is justified. While it is our opinion that the contract language is clear, evidence indicates that there was uncertainty on the part of four or five of the eight bidders regarding the application of sales tax. Therefore, staff recommends rejecting all bids and re-advertising the project after adding clarifying language regarding state sales tax. Staff is not recommending award of the project to any other bidders for the following reasons: . the second lowest bidder incorrectly added sales tax as a lump sum the third bidder did not enter a total bid amount on the bid form the fourth bidder's total amount exceeded the authorized construction budget. . . Council previously authorized a construction budget of $77,981, including a 20% contingency. Based on the actual bids received, staff has increased the engineer's estimate by approximately $12,000, the average of the lowest three bids reflected below. Staff has decreased the construction contingency to 10% as there now is a bid history available to verify costs. PROJECT FUNDING: The project is to be funded as follows: Project Estimated Expenditures: Construction Estimate 10% Construction Contingency Sales tax @ 8.8% TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS Current $75,965 7,597 6,685 $90,247 1,200 200 $91,647 Advertising Revision of Documents TOTAL PROJECT COSTS AVAILABLE FUNDING: Previous (59,728) (11,946) (6,307) ($77,981) (1,000) (1,000) ($79,981) This project is funded through the SWM Utility Capital Facility Program. The original cost estimate for development of the SW 356th Street Regional Stormwater Control Facility did not set aside specific monies for construction of a sanitary sewer line. Staff anticipates returning to Council for future allocation of funding to complete land acquisition, legal proceedings, and construction of fencing around the facility. Staff anticipates re-bidding the sanitary sewer project in late May 2004 and awarding the project in July 2004. Construction would commence in late July 2004 with an estimated substantial completion date in August 2004. RECOMMENDATION: Staff requests that the Committee place the following project recommendations on the May 18, 2004 City Council Consent Agenda: 1. Reject all bids received on April 5, 2004 for the RFB 04-110 Bellacarino Woods Sewer Extension Project. (Located in the vicinity of SW 356th Street and 6th Ave SW.) 2. Authorize SWM staff to re-bid the project and return to the City Council for authorization to award the project to the lowest responsive, responsible bidder within available funding. ~> APPROVAL'OF COMMITTEE REPORT:~!'{~ "'\~¡":""";~'J~~!i;: ~;""~""'¡::""<I:'t, : ,i:'f ':'::'r::'~~~~:~"!;i!i:~{r~¡:;~,\~, , ' , . !:.:Jâc~ Dovey, ¡,C"'air::~ d~~t'r: :;":,~/¡¡I,~i,;~:~,~,.¡;~~;~',!~:~:"",+,, \".. cc: Project Ale Central Ale Unit Bid Tabulations Cost Estimate CITY OF FEDERAL WAY RFB 04-110 Sewer Extension Project- Bellacarino Woods --,--- , Engineer's . Estimate' Item Total ì;~' ..- !illl I ., J II'UI I. 1";,1" I Pric~ UtilI Price 1st. (Low) l~tllt PnGù Item T~tal LJl1tlPriw Item Total Un,t Price Item Total Unit f'ncc Item T?ta'lLJl1lt F'rtce Item T?tal ~ntt Pnce ~I~~'LDe~;nPt~,~~ = =,-~~'~t, c(~'~, IJ;";'~'L~x'enSlon];'~WBI('~::~.!~J~-!ld~~~-l--~~~~~t~! 2r!d~'~53rd~'ITd 3rdBidÐ'-~j;~~~~: '4thBid.¡ ~J~~:~--~~.J~~L~;-J' ~~hBld- :~:;:~ .Claimer', ~" .Api,lled L.S, No bid Total Westwater h,"d\~d funded Mid- incorr<'.cll;¡x funded Contractor N.1l1w and bid cor7ll1wnts: n<'II;1<;1u"e,: AmNicon 1 '" Rl , Aha on AI! B Constr. ;!'nount O.L AsahMa amount Mounlam r,lle Shoreline "':1"unl 1 ~~;;!" ¡",,;~',,, '==~~-~=-~~'c~' --I.S--'1- S_~,~il'i, $ 5,801' S-"-::-i~-7-:;-~ Š f,,~G7','~~- -S-'(;'-'~;;;;- $7:00000- S ".'W)í)o;ï $ -~,ROO,oo S- H,(;1',;- $-~4~¿~500 S- ~!DOI;I; $- :i,B(;;;~Oo's-~;m!õ(x; $--9,O~00O s---nl)I)'¡- 5-2;',000 S 'GC~Gno S 10,OOCOO 2'- 11""'I;'W,,',~;í'(Jllul'<J;:';~'~:;";I:'~' - L.S -1 $ ;>,,';~ S 2,500 S 1 ~,~¡)-., '$-1,540.41 5 ~'()()(lU $ 900,00 $ ---;-,C)() (II) S 500.00 S-- ïõõõo $ 10000 s:i~;õo(ju $ 3,100,00 S"1õ(ioo $ ,100.00 S 8,(iüOGO $ 8,000,00 S" ~'OOiK) $ 50000 '3 '¡"'ff,,;Contr:';¡-------'--- LS 1_' 'i-;>~oo!l S 2,000 $1-;;1';'-: $ 161.76 S 1,00000 $ 1,00000 S--'-:;OOOO $ 1,200.00 'S-1QOOO $ 100.00 S- gOO 00 S 900.00 $--;(;õï,,) $-..100.00 $ 3.10000 S 3,100.00"$ 1.',(X)OO $'..1.500.00. 4 f¡""l(m,t-";,h"t;CIII"."'t,,I'¡¡""'K"-~ sy 19() S ~"j $ 606 S ~,".i $ 986,10 S [,(j0 $ 950,00 5 --:100 $ 380,00 S-" 500 $ , 950.00 S /1(;0 $ '1,634.00 S GOO $'~_1,140.00 S 311; $.:'_'-'600.40 $ 500 $. .:950.00. 5 t-h:lIu1unSepllcl.lllk (>;1 2 S ,,11: $.1,200 S (j%?~ $ 1,3()640 5 mooo $ 1,400,00 S 1.00000 $-,2,000.00 $'- 50000 $ -1,000,00 $ '~IiÕ(K) $ :1;920.00 $ 1,80000 $':'!"3,600.oo $ 70000 $ .1,400,00 S (;0000 $ :1,200,00' 6 (JuCIII" I,on Sewer I'IP" 8 tr: (J;;) - ii,' -3G~, 5 :!(;OO S 10.950 $ - ~,:>I;I! S 19,72820 S ,,:,!;(I $'20,257.50 S 8:,()0 $ 31,025,00 S 5000 $ 18,250,00 S 5000 $ '18,2".JO.00 $ moo $ '25,55000 $ [,<)01 $ 21.538,65 S bOO $ .23,725,00' 7 lJuCllli, IIOnSN""I"lp..,o;lrl [J',l -' - LI "1~ s n()():5 330 S --',::1:1 $ 7(iO.05 S-----;;;;-;;õ- $' 83250 S NJ() $' 1,125,00 S - 3~,00 $ 52500 $-/;;;-;;; $ '1,320.00 S --9OOl) S 1,350,00 S ,,)(;00 $ 1,500.00 S ~bOO $ 1,42500 8 I've S:...i',,'V Sc:;:;~rï;,;~;-,¡;-;;[j,:~-;;- I.f :~(;~-J ~j $ 3,143 ~:~'"" $ ~),018,00 5 ','0:;- S 18,360,00 s' --~'" 00 $ 19.800.00 S - 3000 $ 10,800,00 S --':1'00 $ 11,160,00 S ~'" 00 $ 1(),8oo,00 S 4(! ~,1 $ 17,798.40 S ~,~ 00 $ 20,880 9 I'VCS,1!òl',JryS;,wt"I'I;",I"'I!>',"'1 -IT' 4:, -$' -,j,!" S 223 -s' '-;"!'<: $ 1,2'.o1.4!J S !,"OD $ 2.250,00 S '-;;-';OU $ 2,925,00 '5- 4000 $ 1,800,00 S'" Ii'H;;) $ 3,000.00 $--:I',OU $ 2,02500 $-'- ';,1,1,1 $ 4.249.80 S 10000 $,4,500,00 10 Cnn;;;::;~t"'" ':>f;"wl'l :""".1.,'" ...- -.- "'ijÇ -'1 - S I ;>,,:Î S 2,2!J3 $"~!n~ï;,1- $ 9701;1 $--"""1:'" $ ~Oo,oo ~ ,,!i<j(;;) $ 500,00 S -;-~noo $ 1,500,00 S' 1 r,olJOO $" 1,600.00 S :J,O()()Of) S '3,000,00 S UG~;OD $ 1,765.00 $ ;J (c;()()( $ 3,700,00 1'11<'.<"ln'IS,,"::;;~r',;,,'-----"-- -II' 1'.2.ò; S ~/1 $ 900 -$-1-"1 $ UC>394 's- ";>00 S 1,45200 '$-~)' $ 726.00 $-' 300 $ 2,17800 $ "10$ .'796,60 '$-----',(;õ' $'.~726.oo 's- '61 $":-1,212.42 's-.--;;o:J $, 1.452,00 12Curl"oly"t!I,1I'nCC"!,,p,II'lp"1rLJ,"--- ii' '4G 51',30 $ 704 $ --1;<0"; $ 60:>14 $-;;-O'r~J $.1,840.00 S"---;;-)OO $"2,300,00 -$- 1800 $ .~.828,00 $ '-44C)() $':.2,024.00 S 400!} $:.1,840.00. S ~,L 'j $':':2,500.10 S /1300 $:;.1,288.00' 13 Manl'Ok'4i!-~:-;'i:~~kC:"II'" lA- '-1 5-',:¡ë¡{ S 1.707 '~';;;;~I $ 1,()82,97 5 1,!J(JO,ii) $ .1,500,00 '~,ooo(;i) $.;2,000.00 si,~,¡¡ooo $'~'2,500oo S-3.;Õ~)-()O $"~3,3oo.00 S :I,~,DOOO $.,3,500.00 S 2.10000 $!:2,700.oo S 3,(;0000 $53,600.00, 13 Manhoh, 48 In 0,., 1,3 wll oc.~ln'¡ lid [A -., S 1,707 $ '1.707 S;>, HI;> ;;:; $ 2,102 ()2 S 1.',0000 $.. 1,500,00 S1:;',~OõO $ '.';1,750.00. S 3000 00 $ :':3,000.00 Š":I,~OO 00 $ ,",'3,300.00 S 3,50000 $ :,t:3.5OO.00 $ 2.'m(] 00 $':}~2,9oo.oo S--:I,OOO 00 S':~3,OOO,00. 14 Shonng f'cav",ion C;¡¡", n SF ~;,i1ij S 065 $ ,'. 3,410 S (1:>1< $ 1.468.88 $" 0 10 $! ;', 524.60 $ 010 $ ,,-::'.. 524.60 $ 1,00 $ "~5,246,00 S 078 S ";;_(468.88 S 010 $ ';"1:'524:60 S 0 5~; $-A2:885.30 $ O!JO $ '~2,623,oo-¡ 15 ~hurin,;i:'c;IV:1I""ICI"55A CY 70' 5'1«1;> S '.',1,142 $ ---:\'A S :>50,60 $"'- 100 $,<."'70,00 S '---'-¡jo $ -" '70.00 $' :>000 $";01.400,00 S 400 $"'.L'280.00 5 10D $":'~-:~70,00 S :>14 $'.;"':':,149.80 S 11\00 S.~.1,260.oo; 1G StrucIcJl<'.r..:ovolc"':C'¡¡ss[¡ CY 711 S /35 $ 5,226 S ._-,(;> S 1,151.82 S- C10 $<'; 71.10 $" 050 $ 355,50 S 400 $":2,844.00 S 2na $72,047,68 S 100 $:.:,"711.00 S :>:>0 $:".1,564.20 S ';>00 $:'6,532,00' " .. Item Total! Ul1It Pnce Item Total 7th Bid 8th Bid. 8th Bid B~--'- funded Pacific Crl'sd "'!loun! I L.ascr -,,---.. ", '.. -, .'. .' _. '-,"'. . . ' , '.'..'. ','" . .'. "." '. ; 17 ~;:ruc'ln'(xc"v"l.o"CI.",c,II,I"cI H,wl CY 1~)~J S 1'3(, $ 1,254' S 1011 S 1,~2~,!J0 $ WOO $ "1,500.00 S 100 $ "':'15Ó:00 S 2~,00 $ '3,75000 5 1!iOO is ~.2,4ÕÒ:OO $ 10[) $ .. '150,00 S 111U i":-"1':17o.oo S :>600 S'.::::Uioo.oo 18 i'VC Sar;it,ll'fS"""'Plpe4" Ikwl --¡ï'-' ?O4 ~ ",(iO S 3,OGO -;: ,- ,~,;>', S 3,111.00 5 ;>000 S '4,08000 '$ ?r,O() $,5,100,00 S 1000 $ :>,040,00 S ?ROO $ .5,712.00 's 4[}I)(~ S B,160,00 S ~,R33 $ 11,89(),3:> S 3~,OO $ .:7.140,00' 19 ~'d¡'S"w,,'Cle""""! [ti" e s ;;!;(~ $ 1,600 S--'--~L"¡ $ 3?!J,36 ~)-rn;- $ 800.00 -$-- !J¡;(;" $ 400,00 S '!JOOOO $ 4,000.00 S ;>3cJOO $ '1,840.00 S 1~,()0¡;' $ :1,:>00,00 S ~~JOO $..1,200,00 S -""hOO $' 1,400,00 20 r~md,^,,:1yrx:"IV:oI,()lI CY -140 5/100 $ '1,120 S _n~:", S (¡02,00 $ 1000 $',,1,40000 S' ; OO $ ..420,00 $ ~OO $ 700,00 '$ ':100 $':1,8:>0.00 'S- 1:>00 $:,1,61\0,00 S 10'~ $':1,505,00 S"---I!OO $"",1,1:>0,00 21 1-11I!>3nkn",nl(;c:r"p,I(:\llm CY 2U~i S ()!;',~- $ , 192 S -"'i~:;, S 761.10 $()1;) $.':":>9,50 S -,i;D $"" ,2'J5,00 S . 1500 $,"4,425,00 S'--' :>60 $'.~<1.652.00 'S- !:JOO $"":1,475.00 $-- 2'1 $"""~'799,45 Š"'---"¡"ÕC) $"'71:180:00- 22 Coo'"'"mn:""'"^,,llIdHa,,I(!:nj1II1I) CY 15~) 5';>0;) $ 1,860 s /;(;0, $ 1,?40.0a $ 50D $" 71500"$- :>:,O( $ 3,R75,00 S 700 $ 1,0(1500 S'- 2:\()O $'3,565,00 S'- 1300 S' :>,015,00 S- 1:ll~ $ 2,12970 S" ¿DOO $'.3,100,00' 23 G~-ïr"':111N.;yH",,"'ralll)'1(CSIC) CY- G3 5 2~',-i)( $ 1,575 S - '11~(,') S 1,051.47 ~¡¡;. S'.1,8()000 S- - 3"O( S 1,890.00 S .- 3',00 S' 2,20500 's" '-~;:J()O S.;3,1bO.00 S ?OOO $ ,'1.26000 S 3,11:1 $ '2,150.19 S-- !,OOO SÕ",3,1!:J0,00: 24 ACI'f;;;P,'vc..,""tH"~;:"¡¡!."lI lON 21 $:;;;11;1 S 1,263 $ ï';"~-1- S 4,12:,,24 S-----';;:;;jõ' $- 2,6;>!J,00 Š-' '1.0000 S '4,:>0000 $ "'-'10,00 $ '2.310,00 5 !;'(jC) $ :>,037,00 5- 1~,¡JO() $ .'3,1!J0,00 S 9'iœ, $'.'2,080,05 5 11\:)00 $:'3,760,00. 25 ::;',ed"'!I,rCI1Ih/l"'PIIIIM.IU""" CI~¡' 0,1f] $'~~);>( $ .. 189 5 ;,:iõ:;'-¡.;; S 41fi!Jn S ~"O"¡;O¡; $ 90000 S- ;>'i"", 0:) $ 360,00 Š --'~;OnOO $ . 90,00 $ !ot;í)OOO' $ '1,008,00 S ";.',::¡OOC S. 4W,OO $ 1.01<;)0(; $ ',194.40 S ;>,?:)( OO $ . ,396.00: 27 l:ellchf'oJn,t"I""St"hili"":'OII SI. 2,213(; 5--ïo:¡ $ 2,28G "'$--' ;,11 $ :1,2'11.131 $ 010 $ 2:18,60 S- -010 $. ;>;>8.60 S 200 $ 4,57;>,00 S 150 $'3,4;>9,00 S 010 $..:,228,60 S 110 $,2,514.60 $ 350 $'8.001.00' 28 (J1J"rrY!:i;'allsf~'Slq"'Stl!Jil'Z;]t",,, Cy" ~)O S-':t(;~) $ '880 S~:_:l/.j" S 1,124,00 $ ?DOO $"1,000,00 s"..:_n,O¡} S,,1,2!:J000 $ :1000 $.,1.!;oOOO S 3DOO $.,1,500.00 $ '3~OO $.,1,7!JO.00 S :>800 $:':1,400,00 5 4000 $';;'7,000.00: 29Cons!ruclnnG""""":elorSoilS~11J11 SY 74 S ;>00 $:'.'148 $ (;t:) S 4~!5IìO ~ ~oo $~;370.00 S '00 $"74,00 $ BOO $ '5!12.00 S (,20 $"';"458.80 5 400 $,.;>96,00 S 3h $:-~'211.bO S ;\()O $;,~~227.00: SffiITðìAtS: ',' n~--=---"~' I-' $59,348 ~~~l~ ?7,12348 '., -._, , '$ -'76.005,80, ", -~-u ."n, $ 92,223,70' -- -',' :$ 94,935.00 :". '-',.' 1$ 88,534.96;' " "-"',$.96,351.20. '==-11 $ ':0124.684'" . -,--:-... i$ ,<'125,524: Sales Tax (If not indlj(~;!d !n w;iï ii;ïœs): $5,;>:>;> 6.1 '---'-5 5,90!iii¡------' - Š 6,1¡1J8 ~,1 u_, NA -.. Nt- 'u 'u t 77C: 1 no ..,- ~"~~A 0< NA ~'~':"."h 125,524 BeliacarinoWoodsSewerExtension- ShortVersion BidTabs (4-5-04 Bid) Page 1 ~....-,._.._, By: J. Wolf 4/22/04 Printed: 4/23/2004 . ~ CITY OF ~ ~ Federal Way DATE: May 3, 2004 FROM: Jack Dovey, Chair Land Use and Transportation Committee Richard A. Perez, City Traffic Engineer þJ\ [~') Sarady Long, Traffic Engi~er David H, Mose~n~er Trip Reduction Performance Incentive for Federal Way Employers TO: VIA: SUBJECT: BACKGROUND: Washington State's Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) Law was adopted by the 1991 Legislature and incorporated into the Washington Clean Air Act as RCW 70.94.521 through 70.94.551. Its intent is to improve air quality and reduce fuel consumption and traffic congestion through employer-based programs by encouraging the use of alternatives to single occupant vehicle (SOV) for the commute trip. The trip reduction performance incentive program is a six-month demonstration program proposal from King County Metro. The performance incentive program is designed to reduce commute traffic within the City by converting SOV commuters to other commuting options such as carpools, vanpools, transit, etc. In addition, the program is expected to increase the success of current CTR programs and introduces trip-reduction strategies to smaller employers not affected by the CTR law. This would be the first ever demonstration program aiming at employers not affected by CTR program. The incentive program is geared toward major employers with 50 or more employees. Key element of the incentive program is a cash incentive reward to employees and employers for their help in reducing SOV commuting trips. For employers willing to provide monthly subsidies of at least $50 per month, Metro will match 3: 1 the value of an employer's first two voucher orders of subsidy (75% Metro/25% employer), then 50/50 for the next two orders. There is a maximum cap of $8,000 per employer through 2005. Additionally, Metro will match 50/50 an employer's first year of guaranteed ride home participation. Employers will also benefit from this program, because Metro will pay each employer $250 for every trip reduced. For additional information, please see attached draft Trip Reduction Pelformance Incentive proposal from King County Metro. PROGRAM COST ESTIMATES: PROGRAM ACTIVITY COST ESTIMATES AND FUNDING SOURCE KC Metro WSDOT City Total Design & Produce Materials $2,000 $2,000 Mailing Costs $SO $50 Marketing to prospective participants $1,000 $1,000 Contract administration $500 $500 Participant orientation $200 $200 Survey administration & processing $3,000 $1,000 $4,000 (non-CfR sites) Site services to non-erR participants $S,OOO $5,000 (proposed) Product incentives to employers $75,000 $75,000 Participant support $2,000 $2,000 Reward payments $2S,000 - $25,000 -$75,000 $75 000 Participant recognition $$tbd $$tbd $$tbd Project evaluation $2,000 $2,000 PROJECT TOTAL $110,700 $1,000 $5,050 + $116,750 - - 160,700 $TBD $166,750 PROGRAM AVAILABLE FUNDING SOURCE: FUNDING SOURCE King County Metro City Traffic Division Operating Funds WSDOT TOTAL AVAILBLE FUNDS ESTIMATE CONTRIBUTION $110,950 - $150,950 $5,050 $1,000 $116,950 - $161,950 This program will be funded with a combination of funds from King County Metro, WSDOT, and the City. The total cost for the six-month demonstration period is estimated to be between $116,950 to $161,950. The City would need to contribute a match of approximately $5,050 plus staffing time. Staff proposes using the Traffic Division's operating fund of $5,050 toward this project. RECOMMENDATION: Staff requests that the Committee place the following project recommendations on the May 18, 2004 City Council Consent Agenda: 1. Authorize staff to proceed with the Trip Reduction Performance Incentive Program for Federal Way Employers. 2. Authorize staff to incorporate the incentive program into the next CfR contract with King County Metro; the existing contract will expire June 30, 2004. 3. Authorize staff to use the Traffic Division's operating funds of $5,050 as a match toward the project. PPROVAL: OF COMMITTEE REPORT'~J: "':,::":tt:..:; ",~¡;,)~,. . "/JI"""":""""""'¡';;"""~'"',',":'. f1",'~,'!,:":~,;','~',""~,,,[,:It..','.';~.':"',~,,',:,:','~''.,.',¡.~,~\i"':','c:':"",,,.,~~""'~~:':":"',':','""",:",.~,:,;¡,'~,':::,"',',:,'~,:',',' ' ,~,;ri\-:): ,'. '<::;~:' /,,:,,:;;::"; "<¡:.i< )~:?~::~~ik :;t:~?~~t?:':'.~: ',~ - , . , Trip Reduction Performance Incentive for City of Federal Way Employers Dra t ro osal3ßl/04 Kin Coun Metro to the Ci 0 Federal Wa Project Description King County Metro Transit will pay employers for their success in reducing employees' drive-alone trips during a six-month demonstration period. To earn the rewards, employers wìll survey employees about their commuting, then use whatever means work best to encourage alternative commuting. Objectives of demonstration Product Incentives What must employer do? Timing Roles Potential City-paid Services for Non- CTR Participants Est. participants & tar et tri s reduced Bud et & Sources To help achieve success, King County Metro will also offer incentives for both employers and employees. However, employers will not be obligated to purchase products or services. . * Reduce drive-alone trips * Test the effectiveness of using employer perfOll11anCe payments to achieve trip-reduction * Increase the success of current CTRprograms * Expand the use of trip-reduction strategies by smaller employers. Target: Employers employees, CTR & non-CTR, but any size employer may participate $250 per annualized trip reduced over 6 months. "Starter kit" to support the employer's efforts, consisting of: . Surveys, survey processing . Access to "seed" money for subsidies . . Marketing materials . All-employer orientation for participants (one per city) . Trans rtation info & notices via e-mail etro CTRS staff to artici ants . CB/CB+ vouchers: For employers who provide a subsidy of at least $50/mo. on any alternative mode, Metro will match 3: I (75% KCW25% employer) the value of an employer's 1st two voucher orders (transit, vp, cp, bike, walk), thel.1 match 50/50 for the next 2 orders. (Metro's maximum per employer will be ~8QÞQ through 2005.) . HFG: Metro will match 50/50 an employer's 1st yr of guaranteed rides home . Area FlexPass: $45 - $65/employee/yr (transit, vp, HFG, vouchers) . Complete a registration packet, agreeing to the program's terms. Survey all employees twice - before the start of the program and again at the end - to measure shifts in commuting. erR employers may use 2003 results on record and their scheduled March 2005 survey. Participate in an end-of-program evaluation. . . . May - Aug 2004 - Kick-off, followed by promotions and participant !¡ign-ups . Sept. 2004 - Survey employees at non-CTR sites, all participants begin programs . March 2005 - End of program surveys See attached timeline or details. KCM: Administer surveys, contracts, payments; promote program, assist employers WSDOT: Process surveys City (proposed): Announce program, provide communication support, recognize all participants & successful results, purchase selected services for non-CTR participants. City or other entity may purchase for non-CTR participants: . Site analysis, including ZIP mapping ($150 for 3 hrs/site) . COP boards ($75) . Signage ($15/sign) . 5 on-site transportation events ($200/site for 4 hours) . Personalized rideshare follow-u reactive follow-u 20 'cmploy~i participants . òQ;.~iòò' tiii>s. red ~~çd Project total estimate: $'nf~;~~Q~FJ61t.f150 See attached for details. MS/South Perf IncentiveIFedWay Perf Incentive,doc 3130/04 .~ - , Federal Way Performance Incentives Program Draft proposal 3/31/04 King County Metro to the City of Federal Way Estimated Budget A Q-O I 10 CTR"1 Ò ...' GIR" . . 1100 BOO -;. d' - d ssumes; e~np_!?yers f}artlclpatl1lg.~ - .. non:"~ .am. .to'-~ '!niJS r.e" lice " ----" --- Program Activity Assumptions Staffing: Cost estimates and funding source LeadlSUDDort KCM WSDOT City Total Design & produce Marketing materials for 1 st KCMlCity $2000 $2000 materials mailing, follow-ups & program support Mailing costs KCMlCity $250 * 1 st invitation to $50t employers * 2-3 marketing mailings $200 ~.f\ to ~ÁQ interested employers Marketing to Calls to ~ interested & KCMlCity $1000 $1000 prospective participants targeted sites Contract administration .5 hour/site @ $50/hr for KCM $500 $500 ~~ sites Participant orientation 4 hours for prep & event KCM $200 $200 (1 per city) @ $50/hr Survey administration fIg sites @ $400/site (incL KCM $3000 $1000 $4000 & processing (non- 2 surveys) CTR) Site services to non- ".,. KCMlCity $5000* ~;g sites @ avg. $500/site .-._-~, $5000 CTR participants (proposed) (proposed) Product incentives to (Est.) Incentives for 10 KCM $75,000 $75,000 employers employees @ $50/mo @ KCM share = $3750/site @ gg sites (to max of$8K/site KCM share) Participant support 2 hours/site @ $50/hr for KCM $2000 $2000 ~Q sites Reward payments $250 @ OC:~~~'Q.~ trips KCM $25-75,000 $25-75000 reduced Participant recognition Certificates? City/KCM $tbd tbd Tbd Announcements? Project evaluation Participant surveys KCM/WSDOT $2000 $2000 Analysis, reporting /City Project total $110,900- $1000 $5,050 $116,950- $150,900 $161,950 MS/South Perf IncentivelFedWay Perf Incentive,doc 3/30/04 Set up program with city Send invitation letters from mayor (CTR, non-CTR) KCM, City, WSDOT City KCM KCM Company " '\ '. ~ Aug 04 Jan 05 Jun 05 Jul 05 Sep 04 Oct 04 Nov 04 Dee 04 Feb 05 Mar 05 Apr 05 May 05 Aug 05 ; I I I, :--1 ~; 1 I' i I I : I ,I ~ , I -- Company MS/South Perf Incentive/FedWay Perf Incentive.doc Provide add'l assistance to KCM, non-CTR participants as under contracted by city separate I agreemt Support all participants KCM Survey employees (CTR I Company cycle and unaffecteds) Process surveys, mail I WSDOT results Recognize success through I City mayor, media, etc. (eg congrats letter w/ paymts?) Mail reward payments IKCM Evaluate program I KCM, Cit i I I -1 I i , ¡¡;:ii'-~:I~l~f~!! ¡...~:.¡,....:. ~"'~~';(,'~' ,,-..'0..,- ',' ""'\£';<"'" 3/30104 ~ Fëderal Way MEMORANDUM Community Development Services Department DATE: April 27, 2004 To: SUBJECT: Jack Dovey, Chair Land Use/Transportation Committee Jim Ha~ior Planner David ?anager Kitts Corner Development Agreement and Development Plan Federal Way File #99-101673-00-UP FROM: VIA: Meeting Date: May 3,2004 I. HISTORY AND BACKGROUND In April 1999, the City received a request to change the comprehensive plan and zoning designation of three parcels in the vicinity of the southwest quadrant of the intersection of South 336th Street and Pacific Highway South, from Business Park (BP) to Community Business (Be). In June 1999, the Land Use/Transportation Committee (LUTe) recommended the request be further analyzed and recommended that all parcels in the vicinity currently zoned BP be included in the request. On November 5, 2001, the LUTC directed staff to draft a development agreement based on a "village concept" for the approximately 41-acre site that would include a mix of residential and commercial uses (Exhibit 1). In March 2003, at the applicant's request, approximately 13 acres of BP-zoned property located west of the 41-acre site on the south side of South 336th Street, was added to the proposal by the City Council. The City Council approved a comprehensive plan map amendment and zoning map change to Multiple-Family Residential (RM-2400) for the 13-acre site, subject to it being included with the Kitts Corner development agreement and development plan. The applicant has recently presented to City staff an updated conceptual site plan and elevation schematics for the total 54-acre Kitts Corner development agreement (Exhibits 2 and 3). Due to the extended length of time since this proposal was originally presented to the City Council and LUTC, City staff is requesting input from the LUTC regarding the development plan and the plan's relationship to concepts of the development agreement outline previously reviewed by the LUTe. No formal action is requested at this time. II. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT In 2001, a draft development agreement outline for the Kitts Corner project was prepared and presented to the property owners and LUTC. Due to the lapse of time since the LUTC was last briefed on the project, it is appropriate to update the LUTC on the content of the draft development agreement and development plan, before the applicant and City initiate the next steps of the project design and review. Below is a summary of the draft outline and bullet points that provide the framework for the Kitts Corner development agreement and development plan as drafted in 2001. The LUTC previously directed that the development plan be based on a concept that promotes the following: . A cohesive design concept. . A mix of housing and commercial services. . Entries and windows oriented to internal streets and/or connections. . Primary entrances to buildings should be clearly visible or recognizable from the right-of-way. . Preservation of trees and natural vegetation to the maximum-extent practical. . Pedestrian orientation of buildings. . Pedestrian connectivity. . Functional pedestrian-scale interior grid system. . Pedestrian amenities such as seating, generous landscaping, water fountains, banners or other ornamentation, art, and outdoor dining. . Public open space and plazas. . Minimize linear strip development by massing buildings and uses; however, an anchor tenant may be located apart from the other buildings. . Internal street grid system. . On-street parking is encouraged. . The development plan shall include a minimum number of residential units (75 - 175). . Phasing of construction to allow no more than 60,000 square feet of commercial! office without first constructing at least 50 residential units. Land Userrransportation Committee Kitts Comer Development Agreement and Development Plan April 27, 2004 Page 2 . The maximum gross floor area of any use housed in one building shall be restricted to 75,000 square feet. . Fuel pump operations are allowed only as part of a food market. . Traffic mitigation shall be detennined based on a Transportation Impact Analysis as part of the development plan, and mitigation will be required to meet the adopted level of service standards in the year 2020 for all peak hours. . Wetland and stream buffer widths are set for those properties identified in settlement agreements between the City and respective property owners. III. REVIEW PROCESS - NEXT STEPS This review by the LUTC is an intennediate step, before proceeding with the final conceptual development plan and development agreement. After receiving feedback from the LUTC, the next major procedural steps for the Kitts Comer development are as follows: . Based on direction from LUTC, applicant prepares final conceptual development plan and environmental review documents for submittal to the City for review and processing. City preparation of the draft development agreement. . State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) environmental review on draft development agreement and development plan initiated and issuance of environmental detennination. . Community Development Services (CDS) Director issues decision on Community Design Guideline compliance (Federal Way City Code Section 22-1669). . Hearing Examiner conducts public hearing and issues decision on Process IV components such as: wetland displacement for wetlands 3 and 4, other wetland and wetland buffer intrusions, if applicable. . City Council public hearing and decision on development plan, development agreement, Federal Way Comprehensive Plan (FWCP) amendment, and zoning map amendment. . CDS Director issues Notice of Final Decision on application, IV. DISCUSSION - DIRECTION Staff is requesting feedback from the LUTC regarding the development plan on its consistency with concepts for the development agreement. Specifically, staff requests direction on the following: . General layout of conceptual site plan . Architectural design Land Useffransportation Committee Kitts Comer Development Agreement and Development Plan April 27, 2004 Page 3 . Mix of uses . Timing/sequence of uses . Any other comments/feedback EXHIBITS 1. Draft Development Agreement Outline, November 19, 2001 2. Preliminary Conceptual Site Plan by Otak Inc. 3. Preliminary Conceptual Elevations by Otak Inc. 4. Development Plan Concept Explanation, April 19, 2004, by Otak Inc. Land Useffransportation Committee Kitts Comer Development Agreement and Development Plan April 27, 2004 Page 4 . ' DRAFT OUTLINE Presented at the November 19,2001 Meeting with Property Owners DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR KITTS CORNER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONE CITY FILE NO. CP A99-0008 Current Use Restrictions. Notwithstanding any contrary provisions in the City's land use regulations relating to the Community Business (Be) zoning category, the following development regulations shall govern the property described in Exhibit A: A. The Development Agreement is based on a Development Plan (Exhibit B) showing the proposed development at build out of all property included in Exhibit A. If there is a complete land use application for any portion of the site on file with the City at the time of approval ofthis Agreement, the proposed development pursuant to that application shall be included on the Development Plan. Should any active permit expire, the affected property owner shall be responsible for amending the Development Plan to show any new proposed use or development within six months of the expiration of the permit. The Development Plan shall be kept on file with the City of Federal Way. B. Amendments to this Agreement shall be done only by a written instrument executed by all parties pursuant to the procedures of FWCC, Chapter 22, Process VI, or as may be amended. C, Any future land use application shall substantially comply with the approved Development Plan. The scope of any component of the Development Plan may be reduced, but may not be intensified without being subject to the procedures of FWCC, Chapter 22, Process VI, or as may be amended. D. 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 this Agreement. Once approved, the Development Plan shall be amended. E. The Development Plan shall be based on an accurate representation of the properties, showing the location of all wetlands, streams, and respective buffers. F. The Development Plan shall be based on a concept that promotes the following: . A cohesive design concept . A mix of housing and commercial services . Entries and windows oriented to internal streets and/or connections EXHIBIT \ PAGE .lOF --3- . Primary entrances to buildings should be clearly visible or recognizable from the right-of-way. . Preservation of trees and natural vegetation to the maximum-extent practical . Pedestrian orientation of buildings . Pedestrian connectivity . Creates a functional pedestrian scale interior grid system . Pedestrian amenities such as seating, generous landscaping, water fountains, banners or other ornamentation, art, and outdoor dining . Public open space and plazas . Minimizes linear strip development by massing buildings and uses~ however, an anchor tenant may be located apart from the other buildings. G. The Development Plan shall incorporate an internal street grid system as adopted per Policy TP21 of the comprehensive plan. H. On-street parking shall be provided whenever possible and large expanses of parking is discouraged. Although allowable, the presence of parking between buildings and Pacific Highway, S. 336th Street and the new east-west connections should be minimized. On- street parking can be counted towards satisfying minimum parking requirements. I. The Development Plan shall include a minimum number of residential units (75-175 units). The number of units will depend on the use, layout, size, and heights of individual buildings With the exception of any complete applications or development applications in process at the time of the effective date of the City Ordinance approving this agreement, no more than 60,000 additional square feet of gross floor area may be granted a building permit without building penn its first being issued for the first 50 residential units. J. The maximum gross floor area of any single user housed in one building shall not exceed 75,000 square feet. K. Based on the proximity to wetlands and streams, vehicle service stations shall be prohibited. Fuel pump operations will only be allowed as part of food market, or other similar operation, for customer convenience. (Note: City staff will be research whether fuel pump operations should be included) L. Traffic mitigation shall be estimated based on a Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) prepared as part of the Development Plan. Mitigation will be required to meet adopted level of service standards in the Year 2020 for all peak hours. If development occurs after 2020, the TIA will be amended as necessary. The TIA shall also include a detailed phasing plan. The applicant will be responsible for constructing required mitigation improvements. In the alternative, the City may accept a fee-in-lieu of improvements for projects or expansion of scope of existing projects. The applicant shall waive the right to a refund of fees not expended within five years of payment. 2 EXHIBIT I PAGE ~ j)F-3- " M. For City regulation purposes, the buffers of on-site wetlands and streams are set for those properties identified (Names to be inserted) per Settlement Agreements and Covenants recorded between the City and the respective property owners, For properties subject to said Settlement Agreements~ any intrusion or modifications to buffers is subject to the terms and conditions of the Settlement Agreement. Any intrusion or modification to the buffers of the properties not a part to the Settlement Agreement is subject to the regulations in effect at the time of permit application. Any future changes to wetlands or stream regulations mandated by federal or state law, if more restrictive, will govern development of these properties I:\OICOMPPLAN\LUTC\Kitts Comer\111901 Modification ofDev Agr.doclO4/1812003 11:26 AM 3 EXHIBIT I PAGE ~-OF --3- .t:::,,', ....,"""",""",.', , ' ",~"""""""""""",-;"",:",-, .-.......... ... '....,', ,." UOld a¡iS IOn¡da~uo::> uo¡6u!4S0M '!.OM IOJapa.:l ¡da~uo::> ¡uaUJdola^ao asn pax,t'/ t[~Nt[OJ S.LLI)¡ ----- ,--.--... ,- r:1~-~~è~.' \\J! I'ir,. ; "-, '~~;-' ¡';-]-T,~.:'i'~;1 i Li;~(',¡i(~!< ¡;t -.' .'('",:' ,i ,.,-.' ,!~,:.' "'"\WI' ~r ~ ~ ... <L ~ ! ~ ~;i ~a= -"~ ~ g~~ ~ ~~.f 9 ~ î~ ~I " u~ ,... . I ~ ;; I! n :' ; B - ~a~ ~~t ~~~ .~b" I. ".~.~.; ~~ ;~i~i ~n ~r~~ . ~~ "~i ~~ " ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ ::!E ~ ~ u ~ :> 'i ~ ~ ",.~-",......~,""... 1m] ;I~.I ~ t i ¡t~.:E. ~Ol ~ . ~ ].- g, ó. 0 Sl Î -J: z .. .s S J~j IX 11 , i ì ~: p ~i OJ ~¡ ~ ¡ ~ ¡ ~ 8 ~ ~ ê ,; i ~ co ê ~ ""v;/ ---. --.,-/ '-, ~~~.. ~¡¡¡m: .-.""..-."", , ~ í f [ t . , 1 , II H }, ¡i ,¡ H ~! q !~ ~ , ¡~ a !î :J ¡~ r' , I " , ~ ~; :i b fl g ~ ~~ " n- Il g '. ¡! ; ! õ. " H !I H ,í ¡, ü 'i i£ " ; . Ii it ¡ , ~t ,l : ¡ :1 !I . XHIBIT 2 ~GE-LOF--L f~f'~~:=~-::'"rI' ;"~1 , ...'"""", " ',. :' C/o' '" ,.ocÂ:.ø.."'" ..." ;, ~"TX"" """ ..... ""';h.,-, -,-"~~,,,,¡,,(1.,',~'," >--.I', ;"",~"" ... 'U-èf.:: : I \;i:i':~1N"~~f1 : ,,'If .".f:.f."\""'"','~,,=,,,.,-Q'~',~'¡j''\14:1" :"i i í~:'Þ""'~:'U"~f'~~~' ; i"", ~L ~". ",v ?" " '1l 'i", , " " , :::E : ; ;~~, .-I" '.., ',I" ':,: ¡¡:¡ ..L:,~::., '4" ,'~ ~ 'i¡', '~~I": B ' b"",,-:;-,::,,~ Tr.ro:tJ1r,Q~; ..J " I~ç¡"~""",,, 'IQ~ , ~ ~ : I., -:;:- , ", . I;:" " t, 'I I : : i i ð'i " ifl~i , """"""","",",,',""'-... '.',' lon~d9:¡UO:) S94:¡~9~S ..~!S '100M IDJapaj uo}5u!4S0N, osn POX!Vi dOI"^OQ '\]' ~d,,:¡uo:> W¡¡WO S.L.1I/J. èl3NèI , I ~¡ ~I iJj @ e , ,,"',ow,' "",.."." (ldljm~~ .... ~ ", 1ì.E~ 1 . It"U N . j lilt I } 11 t .1 rJ ~; fl g: ; I I, i , t i @) @ E HIBIT 3 I ' ~ GE--L.OF-+- =II Memorandum 620 Kirkland Way, #100 Kirkland, WA 98033 Phone (425) 822-4446 Fax (425) 827-9577 To: Mr. Jim Harris City of Federal Way From: Matt Hough, PE Chad Weiser, ASLA Copies: Richard Wilson (Hillis, Clark, Martin, and Peterson) Leonard Schaadt, CPA (Campus Gateway Assoc.) Richard Borsini (Westlake Assoc.) Richard Wilson (HCMP) Jamie Schroeder, PE (Otak) Date: April 19,2004 Subject: Kitts Corner, Otak Project No. 30371 Development Plan Concept Explanation A draft outline of the Development Agreement (DA) for the Kitts Comer project site has been prepared. It is the intent that this outline will be the basis for a complete DA, including the master Development Plan. The following responses are provided as requested by City of Federal Way staff to further explain how the current site plan conforms/responds to each of the specific concept elements listed in Item F of the draft outline of the DA: F. . The Development Plan shall be based on a concept that promotes the followÍng: A cohesÍve desÍgn concept C:\Documents and Settings\default\Local Settings\Temp\harrisO41904m.doc The current site plan illustrates a comprehensive mixed"use plan that recognizes the commercial/retail facilities at the highly visible frontages of the property and attached single-family residential townhomes sited in the western portion of the site to take advantage of the limited visibility, natural buffering to surrounding commercial uses and views toward the central wetland complex. The configuration of the buildings, access locations, and plaza areas promote pedestrian activity with convenient connections between and within residential and commercial areas. Portions of the remaining open space and wetland buffer areas are to include passive and active recreation spaces. View corridors have been incorporated into the plan to maintain visual opportunities to the expanse of native area throughout the central portion of the site. The site plan accommodates the necessary parking with a massing of buildings and separated parking lots avoid an overwhelming expanse of parking lots. This plan provides a cohesive design concept with convenient access to commercial areas, integration of residential and pedestrian facilities, and preservation of significant native open space. EXH I B IT L( PAGE-LOF ..3- Mr. Richard Wilson Kitts Corner, Otak Project No. 3037] April]9, 2004 Page 2 of3 A mix of housing and commercia] services The proposed site plan for Kitts Corner supports a mix of housing and commercial services through a Village Center concept. The current site configuration provides the potential for additional commercial office or housing units over proposed retail space along the "Main Street". Parking for additional office or housing uses would be provided via below-grade structured parking. However, market conditions must be recognized and will likely determine the actual mix of uses within the proposed BC portion of the site. The western (proposed RM-2400) portion of the property is currently configured to support up to 160 townhome units with on"site active recreation space. The current site program is intended to provide development density and flexibility that directly responds to current commercial and residential market demands. . Entries and windows oriented to internal streets and/or connections The current site plan encourages the siting of building entries and windows toward internal streets and connections. This concept includes an emphasis on a pedestrian- oriented streetscape and is further illustrated in the architectural renderings provided with the current site plan for the project. The proposed site plan promotes the concept of zero setback building facades at sidewalks which provides street-front windows and entries. . Primary entrances to buildings should be clearly visible or recognizable from the right"of- way The proposed pedestrian oriented streetscapes, building massing, driveway access locations, Main Street plazas, and view corridors of the current site plan make the primary commercial building entrances clearly recognizable from internal streets. Preservation of trees and natural vegetation to the maximum extent practical The current site plan encourages the retention of native trees and vegetation in and around the residential (RM-2400) portion of the site with clustering oftownhome units resulting in minimal intrusions to resource buffers. Extensive preservation of trees is also provided through the preservation of on-site wetlands and buffers. . Pedestrian orientation of buildings, connectivity, and functional scale on an interior grid system The configuration of the buildings, building scale, access locations, walkway connections, and plaza areas promote pedestrian activity with convenient connections between and within residential and commercial areas. The use of varied pavement materials, crosswalks, pedestrian-scale street lighting, street trees, building facades along rights"of"way and street-front entries emphasize a pedestrian-oriented site plan approach. . Pedestrian amenities such as seating, generous landscaping, water fountains, banners or other ornamentation, art, and outdoor dining The proposed streetscapes, building massing, plaza spaces, public gathering areas, and view corridors shown in the current site plan support the provision for a variety of on-site pedestrian amenities - for both the commercial and residential portions of the site. These amenities will include art, outdoor seating areas, public plazas, street EXHIBIT ~ PAGE -- 2 OF 3 C:\Documents and Settings\default\Local Settings\Temp\harrisO41904m.doc Mr. Richard Wilson Kitts Corner, Otak Project No. 30371 April 19, 2004 Page 3 of3 . trees and landscaping. Public open space and plazas The current site plan illustrates a commercial site design that incorporates a large central plaza with a number of smaller plazas and gathering areas. The overall plan anticipates that pedestrian facilities (i.e., sidewalks, trails, and informal paths) would provide convenient access to the significant native open space located throughout the central portion of the property. The current siting of buildings and access roads also minimizes impacts to and preserves existing wetlands in the west, central, and southern portions of the project. Minimizes linear strip development by massing buildings and uses. However, an anchor tenant for the development may be located apart from the other buildings. The current site plan reflects a massing of buildings and uses that limits the undesired appearance of a strip development. In so doing, it also provides convenient access and parking to the commercial and residential facilities. This plan (and accompanying architectural renderings) illustrates an anchor building at the northeast, and most visible, corner of the site with a pavilion extending from its main body. The anchor building is currently shown detached from the other commercial buildings. This concept provides the visibility required by a likely anchor tenant, while also providing an identifying symbol for the Kitts Corner site. EXHIBIT ~ PAGE-L-OF 1- C:\Documents and Settings\default\Local Settings\Temp\harrisO41904m.doc  CITY OF <'~$¡;¡;@i¡¡¡¡%t!ì?t"""""" Federal Way MEMORANDUM April 28, 2004 To: Jack Dovey, Chair Land Use/Transportation Committee (LUTe) David ~nagc< Kathy McClung, Director of Community Development Services Margaret H, Clark, AICP, Senior Planner VIA: FROM: SUBJECT: Amendments to the King County Countywide Planning Policies MEETING DATE: May 3,2004 I. BACKGROUND The City has received a request from King County to review and ratify amendments to the King County Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs) (Exhibit A). Under the Growth Management Act (GMA), countywide planning policies serve as the framework for each individual jurisdiction's comprehensive plan, and ensure regional consistency with respect to land use planning efforts. The CPPs were developed by the Growth Management Planning Council (GMPC), a formal body comprised of elected officials from King County, Seattle, Bellevue, the Suburban Cities, and Special Districts. The CPPs were then adopted by the King County Council and ratified by the cities in 1994. Subsequent amendments to the CPPs are recommended by the GMPC, adopted by the King County Council, and ratified by the cities. Amendments to the CPPs become effective when ratified by ordinance or resolution by at least 30 percent of the city and county governments representing 70 percent of the population of King County, A city shall be deemed to have ratified the amendments unless, within 90 days of adoption by King County, the city takes legislative action to disapprove the amendments, The 90-day deadline for this proposed amendment is June 7, 2004, The amendment is described as follows: Ordinance No, 14844 (GMPC Motion No. 03-2) (Exhibit B) - Amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies by designating Downtown Auburn (the Auburn Central Business District) as an Urban Center. These amendments would add Downtown Auburn to the list of Urban Centers in Countywide Planning Policy LU-39. II. DISCUSSION Motion 03-2, adopted by the GMPC on September 17,2003, amended the CPPs to designate Downtown Auburn as an Urban Center. In 2003, the City of Auburn requested that its downtown core be designated as an Urban Center in the CPPs, Urban Centers are designated in the CPPs as areas of concentrated employment and housing, with direct service by high-capacity transit, and a wide range of other land uses. Urban Centers are expected to account for up to one half of King County's employment growth and one quarter ofhouseholò growth over the next 20 years. In order to be designated as an Urban Center, jurisdictions must meet specific criteria in the CPPs, including having planned land uses to accommodate: . A minimum of 15,000 jobs within one-half mile ofa transit center; At a minimum, an average of 50 employees per gross acre; and At a minimum, an average of 15 households per acre. . . The existing conditions in Auburn's proposed Urban Center are as follows: . 6,000 jobs within one-half mile of a transit center; An average of 50 employees per gross acre; and An average of less than one household per acre, . . The Countywide Planning Policies recognize that Urban Centers vary substantially in the number of households and jobs they contain at the time of their initial designation, and thus the decision to designate an Urban Center is based on planned, not existing densities. The GMPC interjurisdictional team analyzed Auburn's request against the Urban Center criteria in the CPPs and found that the City of Auburn had completed the necessary planning to support an Urban Center designation, including the adoption of a new downtown plan in 2001, and concluded that Downtown Auburn met the criteria for an Urban Center. Designating Downtown Auburn as an Urban Center would involve amending cpr LU39 to add Downtown Auburn to the list of the existing Urban Centers in King County. The existing Urban Centers are Bellevue, Federal Way, Kent, Redmond, Renton, Seattle CDD, Seattle Center, First Hill/ Capitol Hill, University District, Northgate, Tukwila, SeaTac, and Totem Lake. III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the LUTC forward a recommendation of approval to the full City Council of the proposed amendments to the CPPs contained in Ordinance 14844 (GMPC Motion No. 03-2). IV. LAND USE/TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE OPTIONS The Committee has the following options: 1. Recommend that the full Council adopt the amendments to the King County Countywide Planning Policies as recommended by staff. Land UselTransportation Committee Amendments to the King County Countywide Planning Policies April 28, 2004 Page 2 2, Recommend that the full Council disapprove the amendments to the King County Countywide Planning Policies. v. LAND UsE/TRANSPORT A nON COMMITTEE RECOMMENDA nON The LUTC forwards the proposed amendment to the full Council as follows: As recommended for approval by staff. As recommended for disapproval by the LUTe. ApPROVAL OF COMMITTEE ACTION: Jack Dovey, Chair Michael Park, Member Eric Faison, Member LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit A March 1 &, 2004, Correspondence from King County Exhibit B Ordinance No. 14844 (GMPC Motion 03-2) with Attachments 1:\KCWPPS\2004\LUTC\050304 Staff Report.doc/04/28/2004 9:05 AM Land Useffransportation Committee Amendments to the King County Countywide Planning Policies April 28, 2004 Page 3 @) CðMMu.Nífj¡~ËCË/VËD By : ~ EVELOPMENT DEPARTMEW :~ið, R J .r\ . ~ ?~n,; King County March 18,2004 The Honorable Dean McColgan City of Federal Way 33530 1 st Way South P.O. Box 9718 Federal Way, WA 98063 Dear Mayor McColgan: We are pleased to forward for your consideration and ratification the enclosed amendment to the King County Countywide Planning Policies (CPP). On March 8, 2004, the King County Council approved and ratified an amendment on behalf of unincorporated King County. Copies of the King County Council staff reports, ordinance and Growth Management Planning Council motion are enclosed to assist you in your review of these amendments. . Ordinance No. 14844, GMPC Motion No. 03-2, amending the Countywide Planning Policies by designating Downtown Auburn (the Auburn Central Business District) as an Urban Center. Downtown Auburn is added to the list of Urban Centers following Countywide Planning Policy LU-39. In accordance with the Countywide Planning Policies, FW-1, Step 9, amendments become effective when ratified by ordinance or resolution by at least 30 percent of the city and county governments representing 70 percent of the population of King County according to the interlocal agreement. A city will be deemed to have ratified the amendments to the County wide Planning Policies unless, within 90 days of adoption by King County, the city takes legislative action to disapprove the amendments. Please note that the 90-day deadline for this amendment is June 7, 2004. If you have any questions about the amendments or ratification process, please contact Paul Reitenbach, Senior Policy Analyst, King County Department of Development and Environmental @ ........ ..... EXHIBIT_- A PAGE_l- ,)i= t Services, at 206-296-6705, or Lauren Smith, Legislative Analyst, King County Council, at 206-296-0352. If you adopt any legislation relative to this action, please send a copy of the legislation by the close of business, June 7,2004, to Anne Noris, Clerk of the Council, W1025 King County Courthouse, 516 Third Avenue, Seattle, WA 98104. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. ms King County Executive Enclosures cc:\King County City Planning Directors Suburban Cities Association Stephanie Warden, Director, Department of Development and Environmental Services (DOES) Paul Reitenbach, Senio'r Policy Analyst, DOES Megan Smith, Lead Staff, Growth Management & Unincorporated Areas Committee (GMUAC) Lauren Smith, Legislative Analyst, GMUAC EXHIBIT 'f\ P AGE _~~)f -2. ~ 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 KING COUNTY 1200 King County Courthouse 516 Third Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 Signature Report March 8, 2004 Ordinance 14844 Proposed No. 2004-0033.2 Sponsors Patterson and Hammond I AN ORDINANCE adopting amendments to the 2 Countywide Planning Policies; designating downtown 3 Auburn as an Urban Center; ratifying the amended 4 Countywide Planning Policies for unincorporated King 5 County; and amending Ordinance 10450, Section 3, as 6 amended, and K.C.C. 20.10.030 and Ordinance 10450, 7 Section 4, as amended, and K.C.C. 20.10.040. 8 9 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF KING COUNTY: SECTION I. Findings. The council makes the following findings: A. The metropolitan King County council adopted and ratified the Growth Management Planning Council recommended King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies (Phase I) in July 1992, under Ordinance 10450. B. The metropolitan King County council adopted and ratified the Phase II amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies on August 15, 1994, under Ordinance. 11446. 8 ,~ _.u EXHIBIT PAGE_~ 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 : Ordinance 14844 ~ C. The Growth Management Planning Council met on September 17, 2003; and voted to recommend amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, designating downtown Auburn as an Urban Center. SECTION 2. Ordinance 10450, Section 3, as amended, and K.c.c. 20.10.030 are each hereby amended to read as follows: Phase II. A. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 Countywide Planning Policies attached to Ordinance 11446 are hereby approved and adopted. B. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 12027. C. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 12421. D. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies are amended, as shown by Attachments 1 and 2 to Ordinance 13260. E. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies are amended, as shown by Attachments 1 through 4 to Ordinance 13415. F. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies are amended, as shown by Attachments 1 through 3 to Ordinance 13858. G. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14390. H. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14391. EXHIBIT S PAGE:....2 ~o.- " 2 I \. 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 Ordinance 14844 I. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14392. J. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies. are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14652. K. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 20.12 - Countywide Planning Policies are amended, as shown by Attachments 1 through 3 to Ordinance 14653. L. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment Ito Ordinance 14654. M. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14655. N. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning. Policies are amended, as shown by Attachments 1 and 2 to Ordinance 14656. O. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies are amended. as shown by Attachment A to this ordinance. SECTION 3. Ordinance 10450, Section 4, as amended, and K.C.C 20.10.040 are each hereby amended to read as follows: Ratification for unincorporated King County. . A. Countywide Planning Policies adopted by Ordinance 10450 for the purposes specified are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County. B. The amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies adopted by Ordinance 10840 are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated IGng County. C. The amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies adopted by Ordinance 11061 are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated IGng County. EXHIBIT , ÞAGE. , 'n~lJ 3 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 Ordinance 14844 D. The Phase II amendments to the King County 2012 Countywide Planning Policies adopted by Ordinance 11446 are hereby ratified on behalf ofthe population of unincorporated King County. E. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 12027 are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County. E The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 12421, are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County. G. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as shown by Attachments 1 and 2 to Ordinance 13260, are hereby ratified on behalf ofthe population of unincorporated King County. H. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as shown by Attachment 1 through 4 to Ordinance 13415, are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County. I. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as shown by Attachments 1 through 3 to Ordinance 13858, are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County. J. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14390, are hereby ratified on behalf ofthe population of unincorporated King County. EXHIBIT PAGE_.-fI 8 v~~~ 4 / ," 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 Ordinance 14844 K. The amendments to the King Coúnty 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14391, are hereby ratified on behalf ofthe population of unincorporated King County. L. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14392, are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County. M. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14652, are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County. N. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as shown by Attachments 1 through 3 to Ordinance 14653, are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County. O. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14654, are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County. P. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14655, are hereby ratified on behalf ofthe population of unincorporated King County. Q. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as shown by Attachments 1 and 2 to Ordinance 14656, are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County. EXH!BiT Ii PAGE_~'Jf " 5 105 106 107 108 Ordinan~e 14844 R. The amendments to the King County 2012 - CountyWide Planning Policies. as shown by Attachment A to this ordinance. are hereby ratified on behalf ofthe population ofunincofPorated King County. Ordinance 14844 was introduced on 1/20/2004 and passed by the Metropolitan King County Council on 3/812004, by the following vote: Yes: 12 - Mr. Phillips, Ms. Edmonds, Mr. von Reichbauer, Ms. Lambert, Mr. McKenna, Mr. Ferguson, Mr. Hammond, Mr. Gossett, Ms. Hague, Mr. Irons, Ms. Patterson and Mr. Constantine. No: 0 Excused: I - Mr. Pelz KING COUNTY COUNCIL KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON A TrEST: ~ Anne Noris, Clerk of the Council . ~~ APPROVED this Ó day of., , 2004, Ron Sims, County Executive :::s:; ::z: CJ Attachments A, GMPC Motion No. 03-2 ~ c:::I ..ç.. :3: n ;%:Þ a :::0 co I ~~ co -<:;:J ::x; -0 0 ::J: a c :z: 0 r EXHIBIT PAGE -'- 8- - ,. 6 ::D m (') m < w m CJ -..1' .I 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 14844 - Attachment A September 17, 2003 Sponsored By: Executive Committee 1 MOTION NO. 03-2 2 3 4 5 6 A MOTION to amend the Countywide Planning Policies by designating Downtown Auburn (the Auburn Central Business District) as an Urban Center. Downtown Auburn is added to the list of Urban Centers following Countywide Planning Policy LU-39. 7 WHEREAS, A goal of the Growth Management Act is to encourage development in Urban Areas where adequate public facilities exist or can be provided in an efficient manner; WHEREAS, Policy LU-39 of the Countywide Planning Policies of King County describes the criteria for Urban Center designation; . WHEREAS, Policy LU-40 of the Countywide Planning Policies of King County describes standards for planned land uses within Urban Centers; WHEREAS, the City of Auburn has demonstrated that Downtown Auburn meets the criteria for designation as an Urban Center; and WHEREAS, King County Comprehensive Plan Policy U-1O6 supports the development of- Urban Centers to meet the region's needs for housing, jobs, services, culture and recreation. EXHiBI" B PAGE':--'1,JE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 14844 - Attachment A THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLANNING COUNCIL OF KING COUNTY HEREBY MOVES AS FOLLOWS: Downtown Auburn is designated as an Urban Center. The list of Urban Centers following Countywide Planning Policy LU-39 is modified to include Downtown Auburn. ADOPTED by the Growth Management Planning Council of King County on September 17, 2003 in open session. Ron Sims, Chair, Growth Management Planning Council EXH\B~~' PAGE__-t B )t @) Metropolitan King County Council Growth Management and Unincorporated Areas Committee Revised Staff Report Agenda Item: Proposed Ordinance: 2004-0033 Name: Lauren Smith Date: SUBJECT: The Growth Management Planning Council recommends amending the Countywide PJanning Policies by designating downtown Auburn as an Urban Center. Proposed Ordinance 2004-0033 would adopt this amendment, and ratify the amended Countywide Planning Policies on behalf of unincorporated King County. > BACKGROUND: The Growth Management Planning Council and Countywide Planning Policies The Growth Management Planning Council (GMPC) is a formal body comprised of elected officials from King County, Seattle, Bellevue, the Suburban Cities, and Special Districts. The GMPC was created in 1990 in response to a provision in the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) requiring cities and counties to work together to adopt Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs). Under GMA, countywide planning policies serve as the framework for each individual jurisdiction's comprehensive plan, and ensure countywide consistency with respect to land use planning efforts. The GMPC drafted the CPPs, which were then adopted by the King County Council and ratified by the cities. Subsequent amendments to the CPPs are recommended by the GMPC, adopted by the King County Council, and ratified by the cities. They become effective when ratified by ordinance or resolution by at least 30% of the city and county governments representing 70% of the population of King County. A city shall be deemed to have ratified an amendment to the countywide planning policies unless, within 90 days of adoption by King County, the city by legislative action disapproves it. The City of Auburn's Request to become an Urban Center . . In 2003, the City of Auburn requested that its downtown core be designated as an Urban Center in the Countywide Planning Policies. Urban CE?nters are envisioned in the CPPs as areas of concentrated employment and housing, with direct service by high-capacity transit, and a wide range of other land uses. They are expected to .account for up to one half of King County's employment growth and one quarter of hOl,lsehold growth over the next 20 years. Designating Auburn's central business district as an Urban Center would involve amending Countywide Planning Policy LU-39 to add it to the list of existing Urban Centers, which currently includes: .:. Bellevue .:. Kent .:. Federal Way . Kirkland .:. Redmond (2) .:. Henton .:. Seattle (5) .:. Tukwila EXHIBIT. 'ß PAGE___' j;-_Jl C:IOOCUME-1\pedfOzmeIl0CAlS-1\T emp'kgiCempI2844.doc 212712004 3:33 PM Urban Center Requirements In order to be designated as an Urban Center, jurisdictions must meet specific criteria in the Countywide Planning Policies, including having planned land uses to accommodate: .:. A minimum of 15,000 jobs within one-half mile of a transit center; .:. At a minimum, an average of 50 employees per gross acre; and .:. At a minimum, an average of 15 households per acre. In addition to these requirements, Policy LU-40 states that fully realized Urban Centers shall be characterized by the following: . .:. Clearly defined geographic boundaries; .:. An intensity/density of land uses sufficient to support effective and rapid transit; .:. Pedestrian emphasis within the Center; .:. Emphasis on superior urban design which reflects the local community; .:. limitations on single-occupancy vehicle usage during peak commute hours; .:. A broad array of land uses and choices within those land uses for employees and residents; .:. Sufficient public open spaces and recreational opportunities; and .:. Uses which provide both daytime and nighttime activities in the Center. City of Auburn's Existing and Planned Conditions The existing conditions in Auburn's proposed Urban Center are as follows: .:. 6,000 jobs within one-half mile of a transit center; .:. An average of 14 employees per gross acre; and .:. An average of less than 1 household per acre. The Countywide Planning Policies recognize that Urban Centers vary substantially in the number of households and jobs they contain at the time of their initial designation, and thus the decision to designate an Urban Center is based on planned, not existing, densities. A jurisdiction shows its commitment to realizing these densities through its comprehensive plan policies, a supportive regulatory environment and a commitment to provide adequate infrastructure. GMPC Recommendation The GMPC, through the unanimous adoption of Motion 03-2, has declared that the City of Auburn has demonstrated its commitment to developing a fully realized Urban Center as envisioned in the Countywide Planning Policies. Specific findings include: .:. The city has completed the necessary planning to support an Urban Center designation, including the adoption of a new downtown plan in 2001. .:. Auburn's new downtown plan supports increased transit-oriented development, pedestrian amenities and strong urban design, and a commitment to eliminating automobile oriented uses in the downtown area, .:. Auburn is the site of a major transit hub, which is the centerpiece of approximately $67 million in public works investments in the downtown core. .:. Recent zoning code amendments include the removal of building height limitations in the . Urban Center, and reduced parking requirements for uses close to the transit center. EXH\Brr J PA,GE 18 ~ II, C:IOOCUME-I\pedrozmeIlOCAlS-1\TempUegitempI2844.doc 2/27/2004 3:33 PM .:. Other comprehensive plan policies are in place to support transit use, pedestrian access, economic development, and urban design standards. SUMMARY: Proposed Ordinance 2004-0033 would amend the Countywide Planning Policies by: .:. Adding downtown Auburn to the list of Urban Centers in Policy LU-39 Additionally, the ordinance would ratify the change on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County, as required by Countywide Planning Policy FW-1, Step 9. L)' H' . ~ ',. , I::. , It ~- . PAGE , " ',-=--11 C:IOOCUME-1\pedrozmeILQCAlS'-1ITempVegitempI2844.doc 2/2712004 3:33 PM CITY OF FEDERAL WAY MEMO RAND UM April 27, 2004 To: Jack Dovey, Chair Land Use Transportation Committee (LUTC) VIA: anager FROM: Kathy McClun , Director of Community Development Services Greg Fewins, Deputy Director of Community Development Services Margaret H. Clark, AICP, Senior Planner SUBJECT: 2003 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE - OVERVIEW MEETING DATE: May 3, 2004 I. BACKGROUND Federal Way adopted its Comprehensive Plan in 1995 and updated it in December 1998, December 2000, November 2001, and March 2003. The City is presently processing the 2003 Comprehensive Plan amendments. The Growth Management Act (GMA) limits plan updates to no more than once per year except under the following circumstances: 1. The initial adoption of a sub-area plan that does not modify the comprehensive plan policies and designations applicable to the subarea; 2. The adoption or amendment of a shoreline master program; 3. The amendment of the capital facilities element of a comprehensive plan that occurs concurrently with the adoption or amendment of a county or city budget. None of the above exceptions are applicable to the 2003 amendments. Except as otherwise provided above, the governing body shall consider all proposals concurrently so the cumulative effect of the various proposals can be ascertained. However, after appropriate public participation, a county or city may adopt amendments or revisions to its comprehensive plan that conform to this chapter whenever an emergency exists or to resolve an appeal of a comprehensive plan filed with a growth management hearings board or with the court. II. 2003 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS The 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendments include the following components: 1. Adoption of a Potential Annexation Area (P AA) Subarea Plan, which will replace Chapter 8, Potential Annexation Areas of the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan (FWCP). 2. Amendments to Chapter 2, Land Use and Chapter 4, Economic Development related to the adoption of a new zoning classification entitled Freeway Commercial, which would apply to both the City and the P AA. 3. A request to remove the planned extension ofWeyerhaeuser Way South, north of South 320th Street shown on Map III-27B (2003-2020 Regional Capital Improvement Plan [CIP]) from the Comprehensive Plan and to delete this project from Table III-19 (Regional CIP Project List). 4. An application by the Christian Faith Center for a comprehensive plan amendment and rezone from Business Park (BP) to Multifamily Residential 3600 (RM 3600) and associated development agreement and development plan.! Changes to the text of the comprehensive plan are not proposed as part of the 2003 amendments, which is currently being worked on, because the seven-year update was completed in March 2003. The intent of the seven-year update was to ensure that the comprehensive plan complies with the key requirements made to the GMA between 1995 and 2001. Attached are the following staff reports: 1. April 26, 2004, P AA Staff Report. 2. April 27, 2004, Staff Report on the proposed Freeway Commercial Zoning Classification.2 3. April 26, 2004, Staff Report on the Quadrant Request to delete the Weyerhaeuser Way South extension, north of South 320th Street from the comprehensive plan. The staff report on the Christian Faith Center request will be provided to the City Council prior to the May 24, 2004 public hearing. III. PROCEDURAL SUMMARY Steps in Process PAA Sub-area Plan Freeway Commercial Quadrant Site- Zonin!!: specific Request SEPA Issued (Property owners and 2/18/04 2/18/04 3/20/04 (Mailed to agencies notified) property owners and agencies on 3/19/04) Planning Commission Study Session 3/3/04 Planning Commission Public Hearing 3/17/04 3/17/04 Planning Commission Public Hearing 4/7/04 4/7/04 (Cont.) Planning Commission Public Hearing 4/21/04 4/21/04 4/21/04 (Cont.) I The Growth Management Act (GMA) limits comprehensive plan updates to no more than once per year, therefore action by the Council to amend the comprehensive plan as requested by Christian Faith Center must be incorporated into the once yearly amendment process. This request is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on May 24, 2004, and if approved, adoption of the ordinance would occur concurrently with the other 2003 comprehensive plan amendments. 2 If adopted, the Freeway Commercial Zone would amend Federal Way City Code (FWCC) Chapter 22 (Zoning). Goals and policies would be added to Chapter 2, Land Use and Chapter 4, Economic Development of the Comprehensive Plan to support the new Freeway Commercial zone. Land Userrransportation Committee 2003 Comprehensive Plan Update - Overview April 27, 2004 Page 2 Steps in Process P AA Sub-area Plan Freeway Commercial Quadrant Site- Zonißl! specific Request LUTC Public Meetings 5/3/04 5/3/04 5/3/04 5/17/04 5/17/04 5/17/04 First City Council Public Hearing 6/1/04 Second City Council Public Hearing 7/6/04 7/6/04 7/6/04 and First Reading Second Reading Adoption of 7/20/04 7/20/04 7/20/04 Comprehensive Plan and P AA Sub- area Plan K:\Comprehensive Plan\2003\2003 Amendments\LUTC\050304 Introduction Staff Report to the LUTC.docl Land Useffransportation Committee 2003 Comprehensive Plan Update - Overview April 27, 2004 Page 3 ~ CITY OF ~. Federal Way MEMORANDUM April 26, 2004 To: Jack Dovey, Chair Land Useffransportation Committee (LUTe) SUBJECT: Isaac Conlen, Associate Plann~~ David MO~ Manager \ Potential Annexation Area Subarea Plan FROM: VIA: MEETING DATE: May 3, 2004 I. Introduction This memorandum transmits the Planning Commission recommendation regarding the Potential Annexation Area (PAA) Subarea Plan to the Land Use and Transportation Committee. The report gives a brief background and overview ofthe PAA Subarea Plan. The PAA Subarea Plan and PAA Annexation Feasibility Study (attachments I and II respectively) have already been forwarded to the Committee. The February 25,2004 Planning Commission staff report is also attached for review (Exhibit III). That report gives a detailed overview of the P AA Subarea Plan including discussion of four site-specific zoning requests received from property owners as part of the public involvement review process. Two shorter staff reports dated March 29, 2004 and April 13, 2004 primarily provide responses to Planning Commission questions and are attached for reference (Exhibits IV and V respectively). Summary of Planning Commission Recommendation On April 21, 2004 the Planning Commission recommended the Proposed Final Potential Annexation Area (PAA) Subarea Plan be approved per the staff proposal (Exhibit III, staff report dated February 25, 2004), except the following modifications to the staff proposal are recommended: A. Apply the Office Park and Single Family High Density plan class and Office Park (OP) and RS9.6 (single-family 9,600 square foot lot sizes) zoning to the Jackson property analysis area (adjacent to northbound 1-5 freeway on-ramps on the north side of S 320th Street), B. Apply the Neighborhood Business plan class and Neighborhood Business (BN) zoning to the Davis site located at 30682 Military Rd. S, Planning Commission also discussed two additional site-specific zoning requests. The Commission was unable to reach a majority decision regarding the Rabie site and therefore does not forward a recommendation for this site. Planning Commissioners expressed support for a self-storage use on the site (which the applicant has expressed interested in), but felt that City zones, which allow self- storage uses, are too intensive for the area. Staffrecommended the Single Family High Density plan class and RS7.2 (single-family 7,200 square foot lot sizes) zoning. With regard to the Northlake Frontage Lots site-specific request, the Planning Commission concurred with the applicant's request and the staff recommendation and recommends the Single Family High Density plan class and RS9.6 (single-family 9,600 square foot lot sizes) zoning. (See Table 1 on page 4) II. Background and Overview The City of Federal Way Comprehensive Plan identifies a 5,000-acre Potential Annexation Area (PAA) largely east ofI-5. A smaller 40+ acre area is located along SR-99 near S 272nd Street in the Redondo area, The boundaries of the P AA were established through a series of interlocal agreements between the City of Federal Way and neighboring south King County cities. Consistent with the State Growth Management Act and Countywide Planning Policies for King County, the City would ultimately annex the P AA and provide City services. To review its P AA comprehensively and in advance of individual requests, the City of Federal Way, with the support of King County, initiated a PAA Subarea Plan and Annexation Feasibility Study. By evaluating the feasibility of potential annexations and planning for the future delivery of services, residents of the PAA and the City can make more infonned choices about their future. The PAA Annexation Feasibility Study found that the City of Federal Way would experience a significant negative fiscal impact on its operating budget if the PAA areas east ofI-5 were annexed to the City and the City used the same revenue sources and rates, and provided the same level of services as it provides to the residents and businesses in the current boundaries of the City. The annual deficit would be just under $3.6 million ($8.2 million cost; $4.6 million revenue). The Redondo area is estimated to have no operating cash deficit. In addition, the City of Federal Way would experience major costs for capital improvements in the PAA totaling over $48,3 million. Dedicated capital revenue is anticipated to be $32.0 million through the year 2020, leaving an unfunded cost of $16,3 million, To address the fiscal impact the Federal Way Potential Annexation Area Annexation Feasibility Report, December 2003 identifies six categories of strategies that could be pursued to address the significant negative fiscal impacts of annexation, as follows, without a priority order: 1. 2, 3, 4, 5. 6. State and County Support Local Taxpayers Tax Base Expansion Special Districts Reduced or Phased Levels of Service Phased Annexation Some implementation strategies may be suitable for different portions of the PAA while others may not be. Study of the alternatives prior to or at the time of annexation requests would be warranted. The Feasibility Study Implementation Strategies are integrated into the Subarea Plan policies. Page 2 The Federal Way Comprehensive Plan addresses required State and County topics, and would broadly address the major concerns found in the P AA. The P AA Subarea Plan is intended to be a part of the overall City Comprehensive Plan, and it would replace the current P AA Element. The P AA Subarea Plan provides area-specific goals, objectives, and policies appropriate for the P AA, addressing a range of built and natural environment topics, The area-specific issues emphasized in the P AA goals and policies, include the following: . Support of Single Family Neighborhoods as the primary land use of the P AA, . Identification of neighborhood or community commercial centers along arterials, as appropriately scaled nodes for local-serving retail, and multifamily housing styles. . Relationship of the PAA to the Federal Way City Center, such as different functions of commercial centers, . Opportunities for subsequent detailed planning efforts such as master planning. . Area-specific environmental protection policies. . Capital improvements to meet levels of service for transportation, parks and recreation, and surface water. . Annexation strategies addressing fiscal feasibility, phasing, service delivery, and others. As part of implementing the P AA Subarea Plan, the City has the option of adopting pre-annexation comprehensive plan and zoning map designations (RCW 35.13.177), which would become effective upon annexation. Pre-annexation comprehensive plan classification and zoning map designations could provide more certainty to property owners and residents about the future character of the area should they annex to the City. The PAA Subarea Plan includes both Pre-annexation Comprehensive Plan and Zoning' Maps. The base or starting point for developing the maps was first to match the most similar City classification to the current County classification. Although the basis of the P AA Subarea Plan is the King County Comprehensive Land Use Plan, the City proposed adjustments to the basic land classification system in some areas as a result of a detailed review of existing land uses and future land use/zoning classifications, Through the PAA Subarea Plan public process, four requests were received to modify the associated proposed Pre-annexation Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Maps, The four requests, staff recommendations and Planning Commission recommendations are summarized in Table I (next page). Page 3 Table 1. Summary of Site-Specific Land Use Plan/Zoning Requests and Recommendations Applicant/Site King Proposed Applicant Staff Planning County Federal Request Recommendation Commission Plan and Way Recommendation Zone PAA Plan and Zone Richard and Louise DR 4-12 SFHD BN plan SFHD plan class BN plan class and Davis - 30682 plan class plan class class and and RS9,6 zoning zone Military Road South and NB and zone zonIng RS9.6 zoning Jerry Jackson, All COOC/UR OP and BC plan Apply a new OP and SFHD American Assoc. 4-12 with SFHD class and BC proposed Freeway plan class and OP 320th Street just east 0 and R-4 plan class zone Commercial plan and RS9.6 zoning of the NE ZOnIng and OP class and zone interchange on- and ramps RS9.6 zoning North Lake Zoning DR 4-12 SFHD SFHD plan SFHD plan class SFHD plan class Petition Committee, du/ac and and class with with RS9.6 zoning with RS9.6 zoning contact Lois R-6 zone RS7.2 RS9.6 Kutscha, North Lake ZOnIng ZOnIng lots fronting shoreline Lee Rabie, Enerco COOC SFHD Commercial Apply SFHD plan No Inc., SW "comer" of plan class plan class classification class and RS7.2 Recommendation 1-5 S 288th Street and NB and for proposed ZOnIng forwarded east ofI-5, parcels zoning RS7.2 self-storage 032104-9066-00 and with P- zomng use. 042104-9045-05 Suffix Equivalent (FW-P29) City condition designation limiting that would use to self- allow self- storage storage are BC and BP Key BC = Community Business BN or NB = Neighborhood Business COOC = Commercial Outside of 0 = Office Centers R = Residential - number are SFHD = Single Family High units/acre or lot square feet Density UR Residential Urban OP = Office Park Page 4 III LAND UsE/TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION The committee has the following options: Recommend to City Council adoption of the Proposed Final PAA Subarea Plan as modified and forwarded by Planning Commission; Modify the Proposed Final P AA Subarea Plan and recommend to City Council adoption of the Plan as modified; Recommend to City Council that the Proposed Final P AA Subarea Plan not be adopted, ApPROVAL OFCÖMMITTEE REPORT Jack Dovey, Chair Michael Park, Member Eric Faison, Member LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit I: Exhibit II: Exhibit III: Exhibit N: Exhibit V: Exhibit VI: Exhibit VII: Exhibit VIII: Potential Annexation Area Subarea Plan, Proposed Final December 2003 Potential Annexation Area Annexation Feasibility Study, December 2003 February 25, 2004 Staffreport to Planning Commission March 29, 2004 Staff Report to Planning Commission April 13, 2004 Staff Report to Planning Commission SEP A Detennination of Non Significance Written public comments (submitted to Planning Commission) Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY MEMORANDUM ',"""""!I1'!!""!:!!!!!1j' EXHIBIT ~ PAGE--LC~ 3 s February 25,2004 . ."",¡¡! To: John Caulfield, Chair of the City of Federal Way Planning Commission FROM: Kathy McClung, Director of Community Development Services Greg Fewins, Deputy Director of Community Development Services SUBJECT: Federal Way Potential Annexation Area (PAA) Subarea Plan I. Recommendation Summary It is recommended that the Proposed Final Potential Annexation Area (P AA) Subarea Plan be approved. The following amendments to the Proposed Final P AA Subarea Plan are also recommended: . Apply the Freeway Commercial Plan class and zone to the Jackson property analysis area (adjacent to northbound 1-5 freeway on-ramps on north side ofS 320th Street). . Amend the North Lake frontage lots to have a Pre-Annexation zone of RS9.6. II. Background Summary The City of Federal Way Comprehensive Plan identifies a 5,000-acre Potential Annexation Area (P AA) largely east ofI-5. A smaller 40+ acre area is located along SR-99 near S 272nd Street in ' the Redondo area. The boundaries of the P AA were established through a series of interlocal agreements between the City of Federal Way and neighboring south King County cities. Consistent with the State Growth Management Act and Countywide Planning Policies for King County, the City would ultimately annex in the P AA and provide City services. To review its PAA comprehensively and in advance of individual requests, the City of Federal Way, with the support of King County, initiated a P AA Subarea Plan and Annexation Feasibility Study. By evaluating the feasibility of potential annexations and planning for the future delivery of services, residents of the PAA and the City can make more informed choices about their future. The PAA Annexation Feasibility Study found that the City of Federal Way would experience a significant negative fiscal impact on its operating budget if the P AA areas east ofI-5 were annexed to the City and the City used the same revenue sources and rates, and provided the same level of services as it provides to the residents and businesses in the current boundaries of the EXHIBIT 3> PAGE d- OF 3s Page 2 of24 February 25, 2004 City. The annual deficit would be just under $3.6 million ($8.2 million cost; $4.6 million revenue). The Redondo area is estimated to have no operating cash deficit. In addition, the City of Federal Way would experience major costs for capital improvements in the P AA totaling over $48.3 million. Dedicated capital revenue is anticipated to be $32.0 million through the year 2020, leaving an unfunded cost of $16.3 million. The City would undoubtedly continue City policy that Surface Water Management (SWM) costs would be covered by Surface Water Fees within the structure of the Surface Water Enterprise Fund. This would reduce the operating cost gap to $3.0 million and the capital deficit to $11.6 million. In addition, the City will undoubtedly receive mitigation payments or impact fees from development in the P AA, which were not possible to estimate at this time, but they would further reduce the size of the capital deficit. To address the fiscal impact the Federal Way Potential Annexation Area Annexation Feasibility Report, December 2003 identifies six categories of strategies that could be pursued to address the significant negative fiscal impacts of annexation, as follows, without a priority order: 1. State and County Support 5. Reduced or Phased Levels of Service 2. Local Taxpayers 6. Phased Annexation 3. Tax Base Expansion 4. Special Districts Some implementation strategies may be suitable for different portions of the P AA while others may not be. Study of the alternatives prior to or at the time of annexation requests would be warranted. The Feasibility Study Implementation Strategies are integrated into the Subarea Plan policies. The Federal Way Comprehensive Plan addresses required State and County topics, and would broadly address the major concerns found in the P AA. The P AA Subarea Plan is intended to be a part of the overall City Comprehensive Plan, and it would replace the current PAA Element. The PAA Subarea Plan provides area-specific goals, objectives, and policies appropriate for the P AA, addressing a range of built and natural environment topics. The area-specific issues emphasized in the P AA goals and policies, include the following: . Support of Single Family Neighborhoods as the primary land use of the PAA. . Identification of neighborhood or community commercial centers along arterials, as appropriately scaled nodes for local-serving retail, and multifamily housing styles. . Relationship of the PAA to the Federal Way City Center, such as different functions of commercial centers. EXHIBIT -3 PAGE ~ OF ~5 Page 3 of 24 February 25, 2004 . Opportunities for subsequent detailed planning efforts such as master planning. . Area-specific environmental protection policies. . Capital improvements to meet levels of service for transportation, parks and recreation, and surface water. . Annexation strategies addressing fiscal feasibility, phasing, service delivery, and others. As part of implementing the P AA Subarea Plan, the City has the option of adopting a pre- annexation comprehensive plan and zoning map designations (RCW 35.13.177), which would become effective upon annexation. Pre-annexation comprehensive plan classification and zoning map designations could provide more certainty to property owners and residents about the future character of the area should they annex to the City. The PAA Subarea Plan includes a both Pre- annexation Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Maps. The base or starting point for developing the maps was first to match the most similar City classification to the current County classification. Although the basis of the PAA Subarea Plan is the King County Comprehensive Land Use Plan, the City proposed adjustments to the basic land classification system in some areas as result of a detailed review of existing land uses and future land use/zoning classifications. Through the P AA Subarea Plan public process, four requests were received to modify the associated proposed Pre-annexation Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Maps. The four requests and staff recommendations are summarized in Table 1. Table 1. Summary of Site-Specific Land Use Plan/Zoning Requests and Recommendations Applicant/Site King Proposed Applicant Staff R<;commendation County Federal Request Plan and Way Zone PAA Plan and Zone Richard and Louise Davis - 30682 UR4-12 SFHD BN plan class SFHD plan class and RS9,6 Military Road South plan class plan class and zone zomng and NB and RS9.6 zoning zoning Jerry Jackson, All American Assoc, COOC/UR OP and Community Apply a new proposed 320th Street just east of the NE 4-12 with SFHD Business plan Freeway Commercial plan interchange on-ramps 0 and R-4 plan class class and BC class and zone zoning and OP zone and RS9.6 zoning North Lake Zoning Petition UR4-12 SFHD and SFHD plan class SFHD plan class with RS9.6 Committee, contact Lois Kutscha, du/ac and RS7.2 with RS9.6 zoning, North Lake lots ITonting shoreline R-6 zone zoning. zoning, EXHIBIT 3 PAGE Lj OF 33 Page 4 of24 February 25, 2004 ApplicanUSite King Proposed Applicant Staff Recommendation County Federal Request Plan and Way Zone PAA Plan and Zone Lee Rabie, Enerco Inc., SW "comer" caac SFHD Commercial Apply SFHD plan class and ofI-5 S 288th Street east ofI-5, plan class plan class classification for RS7.2 zoning, parcels 032104-9066-00 and 042104- and NB and RS7.2 proposed self- 9045-05 zoning zoning. storage use. with P- Equivalent City Suffix designation that (FW-P29) would allow condition self-storage are limiting BC and BP. use to self- storage. Key BC = Community Business BN or NB = Neighborhood BP = Business Park Business COOC = Commercial Outside of Centers 0 = Office OP = Office Park R = Residential - number are unitslacre or lot square SFHD = Single Family High UR = Urban Residential feet Density Additional infonnation regarding the site-specific requests, plan and zone options, and recommendations is provided later in this memo. III. Proposed Review Schedule The P AA Subarea Plan has been reviewed by a P AA Steering Committee made up of representatives from the City Council, Planning Commission, P AA residents, Chamber of Commerce, School District, and Lakehaven Utility District. It has also been the subject of several public open houses as identified further below in this memo. The P AA Subarea Plan will now be fonnally reviewed by the Planning Commission, the Council's Land Use/Transportation Committee, and the City Council as a whole. The following table identifies potential meeting dates. Table 2. PAA Subarea Plan Proposed Review Schedule PAA Subarea Plan Activity Estimated Date Meeting Purpose Planning Commission Public 3/3/04 Study Session Meetings/Hearings 3/17/04 Hearing: Testimony on Four Site Specific Requests & Freeway Commercial Zone 4/7/04 Deliberations 4/21/04 Back-up meeting continuation date EXHIBIT 3 PAGE 6 OF 3>:S Page 5 of 24 February 25, 2004 P AA Subarea Plan Activit LUTC Public Meetings Estimated Date Meetin Pur ose 5/3/04 5/17/04 Discussion Recommendation City Council Hearings 6/1/04 Hearing Cit Council Action 7/6/04 7/20/04 Second Hearin and First Readin Second Readin IV. Potential Annexation Area Study In anticipation of the Planning Commission's March 3, 2004 Study Session regarding the Proposed Final Potential Annexation Area (P AA) Subarea Plan and Final Annexation Feasibility Study this memo describes: A. P AA Study Purpose B. P AA Study Area G. Subarea Plan Land Use Plan H. Private Amendment Requests C. Public Participation I. P AA Subarea Plan - Compliance with Comprehensive Plan Amendment Criteria D. PAA Background Studies E. P AA Annexation Feasibility Study J. Conclusions and Recommendatio Planning Commission Action and Staff Recommendations F. Subarea Plan Goals and Key Policies Each topic is addressed below in summary form. The Proposed Final P AA Subarea Plan and Final Annexation Feasibility Study should be consulted for more detailed infonnation. A. PAA Study Purpose The City of Federal Way Potential Annexation Area (P AA) was established through a series of interlocal agreements between the City of Federal Way and neighboring south King County cities. See Map 1 (P AA Subarea Plan Map 1). Based upon the State of Washington Growth Management Act (GMA) and King County Countywide Planning Policies, the City would ultimately annex and provide services within its designated P AA. Over time, property owners in the P AA have made annexation requests to the City of Federal Way, which requires a thorough City analysis of service/capital expenditures, revenues, and other issues. To review its P AA comprehensively and in advance of individual requests, the City EXHIBIT PAGE c£> OF 3 ~ I"age 6 of 24 February 25, 2004 3 of Federal Way, with the support of King County, initiated a P AA Subarea Plan and Annexation Feasibility Study. By evaluating the feasibility of potential annexations and planning for the future delivery of services, residents of the P AA and the City can make more infonned choices about their future. Specific Subarea Plan purposes include: . To act as an infonnational resource for the City and County staff, elected officials, residents, property owners, and business owners; . To identify the P AA-specific goals, policies, pre-annexation Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map designations and capital plans; and . To provide the City with a framework to guide future annexations. In coordination with the City's overall Comprehensive Plan, the PAA Subarea Plan provides a Year 2020 long-range land use and policy plan to guide pre-annexation planning efforts and annexation requests. It provides for pre-annexation Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Designations, capital facility plans for transportation, surface water, parks, and other facilities, and policies for a variety of natural and built environment topics. When adopted in final fonn, the PAA Subarea Plan will be a component of the overall Federal Way Comprehensive Plan focusing upon the 5,000-acre future annexation area, and will replace the Potential Annexation Area Element of the Comprehensive Plan currently in effect. It is intended that the City's Comprehensive Plan Elements provide the general goals and policies for land use, housing, capital facilities, utilities, transportation, economic development, and parks and recreation for the P AA as well as the City. However, the P AA Subarea Plan is intended to address unique characteristics or situations relevant to the P AA. Future annexation proposals will be evaluated, and, if approved, implemented in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan, that will include the P AA Subarea Plan. B. PAA Study Area For purposes of data collection efficiencies and resources, the P AA has been divided into three Major Subareas as well as seven smaller Community Level Subareas. The Major and Community Level Subareas are as follows (see Map 2; P AA Subarea Plan Map II): . The Redondo East Community Level Subarea is in the Redondo East Major Subarea (both with identical boundaries), west ofl-5 and is approximately 43 acres in size. . Star Lake, Camelot, and North Lake Community Level Subareas comprise the Northeast Major Subarea, east ofl-5 and north of SR-18, and total approximately 2,527 acres in size. . Lakeland, Parkway, and Jovita Community Level Subareas comprise the Southeast Major Subarea, east ofl-5 and south ofSR-18, and total approximately 2,470 acres in size. EXHIBIT 5 PAGE 7 OF 33 Page 7 of 24 February 25, 2004 The subarea boundaries are based upon City-defined Transportation Analysis Zones which align with Census Tract geography, neighborhood affinities as expressed in prior County planning efforts, and the ability of the County to provide information within existing resources, as well as input from the P AA Steering Committee in December 2001. C. Public Participation Key to the development of the P AA Subarea Plan and Annexation Feasibility Study has been and will be public participation. Public participation methods for the P AA Subarea Plan and Annexation Feasibility Study are described in detail in the Subarea Plan, and are summarized briefly below: . Articles in City and Utility District newsletters, and City and County website pages. . A P AA Study webpage on the City's website containing P AA publications and allowing interested citizens to comment. . Coordination of draft work products with neighboring jurisdictions and affected agencies. . City facilitation of public neighborhood meetings with several Homeowner's Associations in the P AA. . Mailing public meeting announcements and document publication announcements to a comprehensive stakeholder list. . P AA Steering Committee meetings. The Steering Committee was fonned to act as a "sounding board" reviewing products of the Subarea Plan and Annexation Feasibility Study, and assessing the direction of the project, particularly the Subarea Plan. The P AA Steering Committee consists of officials from the Federal Way City Council, Planning Commission, School District, Chamber of Commerce, King County, Lakehaven Utility District, and P AA Resident representatives. Steering Committee Meetings were held in December 2001, January and February 2002, and January, April and September 2003. . Public open houses held in February 2002, and January and September 2003. These meetings were held at local public schools in the PAA and at the City of Federal Way City Hall. At the meetings, the public could review the P AA inventory, land use concepts, levels of service and fiscal analyses as well as provide comments and ask questions. . Planning Commission and City Council public meetings and hearings. Following the Planning Commission Study Session on March 3, 2004, Planning Commission meetings are scheduled through April. Council meetings, including the LUTC, are scheduled for May through July at this time. EXHIBIT .; PAGE % OF 3~l1rll:~;~ ~~~: D. PAA Background Studies The P AA: Subarea Plan has been prepared in accordance with an established work program that included reviews by the City of Federal Way, King County, and working committees, as well as general public input. The key steps in this planning process have included: . Inventory: The inventory identifies current environmental and public service conditions. See Federal Way Potential Annexation Area Inventory, Final, March 18, 2002. . Analysis: Several analyses have been undertaken including land use and population review, levels of service (roads, surface water, police, etc.), and preliminary cost and revenue estimates. (Federal Way Potential Annexation Area Level afService Analysis, July 11, 2003; Federal Way Potential Annexation Area Land Use Analysis Compilation, March 5, 2003.) . Draft Plan: The March 2003 Draft P AA Subarea Plan contained draft policies and plans, and was the basis for a fiscal analysis. . Final Plan: Based on public input and the fiscal review of the Draft Plan, a Proposed Final Subarea Plan has been prepared. It is coordinated with the P AA Annexation Feasibility Study including strategic alternatives such as annexation area phasing and service provision phasing. Environmental review has been prepared addressing the Proposed Final P AA Subarea Plan in conformance with the State Environmental Policy Act (SEP A). . Adopted Plan: As part of the City's public hearing process, the Federal Way Planning Commission will review and make a recommendation to the Federal Way City Council Land Use and Transportation Committee (LUTC) regarding the adoption of the Subarea Plan. The LUTC will review the Subarea Plan and the Planning Commission recommendation and issue a recommendation to the Federal Way City Council regarding the adoption ofthe Subarea Plan. The City Council will review the Subarea Plan and the Planning Commission and LUTC recommendations in its consideration of adopting the Subarea Plan. As the P AA Subarea Plan and Annexation Feasibility Study have progressed to date, key concepts have been elicited about the P AA: . The City of Federal Way recognizes annexation as a citizen-based process. The Federal Way PAA Subarea Plan and Annexation Feasibility Study are intended to provide for advanced planning of the PAA allowing both citizens and the City to make informed choices about their future. . The P AA is part of the larger Federal Way community, but is distinct in its own right, Given its proximity, inter-dependent transportation network, shared school district/utility districts/emergency service providers, and the City's subregional economic role, the P AA is inter-related with the City of Federal Way. However, the P AA has its own unique characteristics - residential neighborhood variety, natural features including headwaters to EXHIBIT 3 PAGE ~ OF 3:S Page 9 of 24 February 25, 2004 several significant streams, a road system functioning with rural standards in an urbanizing area, some economic nodes such as in Redondo, and many other distinct features. E. PAA Annexation Feasibility Study An Annexation Feasibility Study (December 2003) has been prepared to estimate the long-tenn fiscal impact annexation would have on the City of Federal Way. As a baseline assessment, the Feasibility Study looks at the net fiscal gap the new, expanded City of Federal Way would face if the City were to annex any of the identified P AAs while trying to maintain current levels of services and current levels of taxation and fees. To account for the differences between the fiscal impacts associated with the day-to-day operation of the City and the impacts associated with needed capital investments, the Feasibility Study takes a three-pronged approach to assessing impacts: 1. Estimate the incremental operating costs introduced by annexation of the P AAs on an annual basis, and compare those costs to the incremental revenues the City would receive from the same areas. 2. Discuss how the balance of operating costs and revenues would be likely to change in future years. 3. Estimate the additional capital investments that the City would take on with annexation and compare those costs to the additional capital revenues the City could expect to receive from the P AAs. To provide the most intuitive and up-to-date infonnation about estimated impacts, this analysis provides a snapshot of what the operating impacts would be if the City were in the position of fully governing each PAA in 2003. The assessment of operating impacts is based on 2003 costs of service and 2003 tax and fee structures, as outlined in the City of Federal Way 2003/2004 Adopted Budget, and is intended to represent a picture of fiscal impacts under steady-state operation. In essence, these estimated steady-state operating impacts reflect the ongoing "costs" that the City would face each year, beginning perhaps, in the third year after annexation and extending into perpetuity.' Estimated costs of capital improvements are based on the most recent available data (2002) and reflect estimates of the combined investments that will be necessary through the planning horizon of2020 (all presented in 2002 dollars). There is no material effect on this fiscal analysis from using 2003 operating costs impacts and 2002 capital costs, primarily because the capital improvement costs are expressed in current (2002) dollars regardless of when the projects may be built in the next 20 years. I In the initial years of annexation costs could be either higher or lower than the estimated steady-state impacts, depending on how the City chooses to manage annexation. Among the determinants of transition-period costs will be the direct and indirect costs of managing the transition and the pace at which the City chooses to ramp up certain, discretionary service levels in the annexed area. EXHIBIT ~ PAGE ) b OF 55 Page 10 of24 February 25, 2004 The purpose of estimating the hypothetical gap that would be created if the City were to try to extend current service levels to the P AAs without increasing taxes is to present decision makers and the public with a picture of the true "cost" of annexation. Ultimately, any such gap between costs and revenues is hypothetical. Cities have no choice but to cover their costs of operation. Consequently, if Federal Way were to annex any of the P AAs, any estimated "cost" associated with annexation would have to be made up through some combination of (l) stretching City resources through decreased levels of service and/or (2) increasing City revenues. The Feasibility Study provides fiscal analysis and annexation strategies that are integrated into the Federal Way PAA Subarea Plan, particularly in tenns of: . Identifying public services and capital improvements that would need to be in place to serve the Subarea Plan current and future land use pattern over time, and . Incorporating into Subarea Plan policies the strategies regarding agency coordination, funding sources, future land use amendments, levels of service, and others, that could improve the financial feasibility of annexations in the P AA. Feasibility Study Results The City of Federal Way would experience a significant negative fiscal impact on its operating budget if the Southeast and Northeast Major Subareas (Southeast: Lakeland, Jovita, Parkway neighborhoods; Northeast: Star Lake, Camelot, and North Lake neighborhoods) were annexed to the City and the City used the same revenue sources and rates, and provided the same level of services as it provides to the residents and businesses in the current boundaries of the City. The annual deficit would be just under $3.6 million ($8.2 million cost; $4.6 million revenue). The cost of providing the City's levels of service in the PAA would exceed revenues from the PAA by 78 percent annually. The net operating revenue (or net costs) presented here represent the gap between operating revenues generated in each of the P AAs under the City's 2003 revenue structure and the costs of extending 2003 levels of City services to the same areas. In order to present a full picture of operating impacts, this presentation combines fiscal impacts across a number of disparate City Funds. The City would undoubtedly continue City policy that Surface Water Management (SWM) costs would be covered by Surface Water Fees within the structure of the Surface Water Enterprise Fund. Such a strategy would require increased SWM fees and/or decreased levels of SWM services by $538,000 [the difference between estimated SWM operating costs ($823,000) given current service levels and estimated revenues ($285,000)]. The remaining $3.0 million gap, then, would be bridged through some combination of other strategies. Another way oftmderstanding the fiscal impact of the approximately $3.6 million deficit is to see how it compares to the combined revenue of the City of Federal Way and the combined EXHIBIT ~ PAGE JI OF 3. 3- Page 11 of 24 February 25, 2004 Northeast/Southeast P AA subareas. If Federal Way and the Northeast and Southeast P AA subareas are viewed as a single City of over 105,000 population, the annual deficit of $3.6 million equals six percent of the combined operating revenue. It would be like running a business that loses six percent every year. In addition, the City of Federal Way would experience major costs for capital improvements in the P AA totaling over $48.3 million. Dedicated capital revenue is anticipated to be $32.0 million through the year 2020, leaving an unfunded cost of$16.3 million (which averages $0.9 million per year through 2020). As noted for operating costs above, City policy for surface water (and other enterprise activities) is to cover costs with fee revenue. Assuming that the City would use enterprise policy to cover the $4.7 million cost of stormwater capital, the remaining deficit would be $11,564,520 (which is an annual average of $642,473). In addition, the City will undoubtedly receive mitigation payments or impact fees from development in the P AA, which were not possible to estimate at this time, but they would reduce the size of the deficit. To address the fiscal impact the Federal Way Potential Annexation Area Annexation Feasibility Report, December 2003 identifies six categories of strategies that could be pursued to address the significant negative fiscal impacts of annexation, as follows, without a priority order: 1. State and County Support: With this option, the City could indicate that its ability to annex the Southeast and Northeast Subareas is contingent upon the State of Washington and/or King County providing new resources to offset the significant cost of such annexations. Examples could include a new local option sales tax per State Law that authorizes King County to submit such a tax for voter approval, State grants, and unexpended County impact fees being provided to the City. The County's ability to continue to service urban unincorporated islands has decreased over the last several years, and the County has been cutting back services. Accordingly, in August 2003, it was reported that King County will offer a total of $10 million to a number of cities that annex unincorporated areas in their P AAs. Details were not announced, and will depend on the County's budget decisions. 2. Local Taxpayers: With this option, the City could use one or more general taxes to have all taxpayers in Federal Way and the combined annexation area share in paying the annual operating deficit. The City could ask voters to approve long-term debt in the form of a general obligation bond that is used to build capital improvements, Of particular interest are enterprise funds. Like many cities, Federal Way has a policy that costs of enterprise funds, such as Surface Water Management and Solid Waste are to be covered by user fees. Such a strategy would require increased fees and/or decreased levels of services. Federal Way could increase user fees throughout the City and P AA for its stormwater utility and/or solid waste utility and use the proceeds to offset the increased cost of providing those services in the P AA. 3. Tax Base Expansion: A long-term strategy for Federal Way could be to increase City revenue by increasing the tax base in the P AA and/or in the City limits. Some businesses, like automobile dealerships, generate significantty more tax revenue than EXHIBIT 3 PAGE } d.- OF ?, ~ Page 12 of 24 February 25, 2004 the cost of the public services they receive. These strategies could be pursued independently by the City of Federal Way, but King County could make annexation more attractive if it were to take the lead in rezoning selected parcels in the P AA in accordance with provisions of the approved Subarea Plan and assisting in the economic development strategies to develop those areas. A caveat would be that the City of Federal Way and the PAAs cUrrently have vacant and underdeveloped land to absorb decades of anticipated commercial growth. 4. Special Districts: One strategy to generate revenue to pay for Federal Way's level of service in the annexation area would be to create a special district and charge a property tax levy in that district. Washington law allows the creation of limited special purpose districts for a number of purposes, such as roads, parks, transportation, and "local improvements." Voter approval is required to create special districts that have taxing authority. Property owner approval is required to create special districts that use special assessments. There is some risk associated with using special districts as a strategy to pay for providing urban levels of service the P AA. A vote on creating a special taxing district would occur subsequent to an annexation vote. If voters approve annexation, but do not approve the creation ofthe district(s), the City would be left with insufficient money to provide its level of service. 5. Reduced or Phased Levels of Service: Another way for the City to address the difference in levels of service between Federal Way and the County would be to pennanently provide a lower level of service for one or more services, either broadly citywide or only within specific areas. A second strategy for addressing the difference in level of service would be to phase-in the increases in level of service in the annexation area. Phasing would reduce costs during the transition, and it would provide Federal Way with time to recruit and hire personnel and acquire facilities and equipment. However, eventually, phased levels of service will grow to equal the standards achieved by the City of Federal Way. When that occurs, service levels will be the same throughout the City, and the City will experience the full fiscal impacts of those levels of service. A variation on phased or reduced levels of service could include alternative service delivery strategies or customized strategies for specific neighborhoods tailored to the needs or characteristics of the P AA location. For example, crime prevention programs could vary by neighborhood depending on the type residential dwellings, commercial uses, and previous crime rate statistics. 6. Phased Annexation: This strategy would involve annexing those areas that are financially self-supporting first and then annexing other areas later, perhaps in conjunction with other strategies to improve fiscal impact of these subsequent annexations. Phased annexation based on fiscal impacts could be accomplished by annexing Redondo first because it has no operating cash deficit. The Northeast P AA subarea, or portions thereof, could be annexed next because its operating costs exceed EXHIBIT 3> PAGE 13 OF 33 Page 13 of 24 February 25, 2004 revenues by 61 percent. Last to be annexed could be the Southeast P AA subarea, because its costs are estimated to be more than double the revenue it would generate (i.e., the deficit is 105 percent). Phasing can also be accomplished by smaller areas, such as community subareas. For example, if community subareas were annexed in order of their fiscal impact, from least to most net operating cost, the following would be the phasing sequence: Northlake, Lakeland, Star Lake, Jovita, Camelot, and Parkway. If other Implementation Strategies are considered and employed to determine phasing for annexation, the order might be different than the preceding list. It should be noted that phasing annexation emphasizes differences among the areas, and misses the opportunity to mitigate the apparent differences among areas by taking them all at the same time, thus effectively averaging the "highs"and "lows" of both revenues and costs. Some implementation strategies may be suitable to different portions of the P AA while others may not be. Study of the alternatives prior to or at the time of annexation requests would be warranted. The Feasibility Study Implementation Strategies are integrated into the Subarea Plan policies. F. Subarea Plan: Goals and Key Policies The Federal Way Comprehensive Plan addresses required State and County topics, and would broadly address the major concerns found in the P AA. The Subarea Plan is intended to be a part of the overall City Comprehensive Plan and address area-specific goals, objectives, and policies appropriate for the P AA. The proposed Subarea Plan Goals and Policies were developed based upon: .. . State Growth Management Act (GMA) requirements, Countywide Planning Policies, and City Policies. . P AA Inventory and Level of Service analyses. . Fiscal reports prepared for the P AA. The area-specific issues emphasized in the preparation of P AA Goals and Policies, include the following: . Support of Single Family Neighborhoods as the primary land use of the PAA. . Identification of neighborhood or community commercial centers along arterials, as appropriately scaled nodes for local-serving retail, and multifamily housing styles. . Relationship of the P AA to the Federal Way City Center, such as different functions of commercial centers. . Opportunities for subsequent detailed planning efforts such as master planning. EXHIBIT 3 PAGE } '-/ OF 5;S ~ØIK::~~:,~~~: . Area-specific environmental protection policies. . Capital improvements to meet levels of service for transportation, parks and recreation, and surface water. . Annexation strategies addressing fiscal feasibility, phasing, service delivery, and others The proposed goals are listed below. Policies are included in the P AA Subarea Plan and provide more detail. . Environmental Goal. Practice environmental stewardship by protecting, enhancing and promoting the natural environment in and around the P AA. . Land Use Goal. Respect the character, integrity, and unique qualities of P AA neighborhoods in land use planning efforts. . Housing Goal. Promote the preservation and enhancement existing residential neighborhoods, and allow for new housing developments meeting future needs in the P AA. . Parks Goal. Maintain current facilities and acquire new lands to meet P AA community park and recreation needs. . Surface Water Goal. Promote a P AA surface water system that protects the environment and property, and allows for efficient operation and maintenance. . Transportation Goal. Establish a safe, coordinated, and linked multi modal transportation system serving local and area-wide travel needs. . Private Utilities Goal. Facilitate provision of electric, natural gas, telecommunication, and cable services to the greater Federal Way community. . Public Services and Capital Facilities Goal. Provide effective, efficient, and quality capital facilities and services at the level necessary to meet community needs and support allowed growth. . Public Participation Goal. Actively seek public involvement in PAA planning efforts. . Govemance/Interjurisdictional Coordination Goal. Coordinate P AA planning efforts with other neighboring jurisdictions and agencies. . Annexation Goal. Provide a framework for processing annexation requests. G. Subarea Plan: land Use Plan The predominant character of the P AA consists of single- family residential with several nodes of commercial and multifamily uses, principally along arterial roadways. The King County land EXHIBIT 3 PAGE ) ~ OF s3 Page 15 of24 February 25, 2004 use plans governing the PAA have generally recognized this character. For the Federal Way PAA Subarea Plan, the base or starting point for developing a comprehensive land use plan was first to match the most similar City classification to the current County classification. Although the basis of the PAA Subarea Plan is the King County Comprehensive Land Use Plan, the City conducted a detailed review of existing land uses and future land uselzoning classifications to determine if adjustments to the basic land classification system were warranted in certain locations of the P AA. Geographic Information System (GIS) analysis produced a series of maps to help identify: . Nonconforming Uses: Existing uses that either under the King County classification/zoning system or the City potential classification/zoning system may be considered nonconforming - i.e. legally established land uses that do not conform to existing zoning regulations. . Mobile Home Parks and Units: Mobile home parks and single manufactured homes that may or may not meet Federal Way manufactured home park design standards. . Parcel Size and Minimum Lot Size Requirements: Parcels smaller than the minimum lot size associated with potential zoning categories. Additionally, other issues and locations were reviewed, including: . King County R-l Zoning areas were reviewed to determine if environmental characteristics warrant Federal Way equivalent zoning (RS-35.0) to King County's R-l (one residential dwelling per acre) zoning. . Potential Incompatibilities: The P AA Subarea Planning team reviewed sites where there could be a potential for incompatibility with City policies/codes, or other concerns. The result of the land use and zoning analysis is a Land Use Plan that: . Recognizes and supports the predominant single-family suburban character of the PAA. . Recognizes the need for neighborhood or community level business goods and services at key nodes in the P AA such as at the intersection of arterials. . Creates a consistent, compatible long-term land use pattern recognizing the predominant and unique character of P AA neighborhoods. As part of implementing the P AA Subarea Plan, the City has the option of adopting a pre- annexation comprehensive plan and zoning map designations (RCW 35.13.177), which would become effective upon annexation, Pre-annexation comprehensive plan classification and zoning map designations could provide more certainty to property owners and residents about the future character of the area should they annex to the City. As part of the Federal Way PAA Subarea Planning Process, a more specific P AA Pre-Annexation Zoning Map shown in Map 4 EXHIBIT 3 PAGE ) (p OF ?, 5 Page 16 of24 February 25, 2004 (P AA Subarea Plan Map VII-2) has been prepared to correspond to the proposed P AA Pre- Annexation Comprehensive Plan in Map 3 (PAA Subarea Plan Map VII-i). The process of adopting a pre-annexation land use plan and pre-annexation zoning would follow these steps in accordance with RCW 35.13: After a proposed comprehensive plan or zoning regulation is prepared, the legislative body of the city must hold at least two public hearings on it. These hearings must be held at least 30 days apart. Notice of each hearing must be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the annexing city and in the area to be annexed. The notice must give the time and place of hearing. A copy of the ordinance or resolution adopting the proposed plan, any part of the proposed plan, or any amendment, together with any map referred to or adopted by the ordinance or resolution, must be filed with the county auditor and the city clerk. The ordinance, resolution, and map must be duly certified as a true copy by the clerk of the annexing city. The county auditor is to record the ordinance or resolution and keep the map on file. (Municipal Research & Services Center of Washington, Annexation Handbook, Revised December 2001 - Report No. 19) The adopting ordinance for the pre-annexation plan and zoning should specify the time interval following an annexation during which the ordinance adopting the pre-annexation plan and zoning, must remain in effect before it may be amended, supplemented or modified by subsequent ordinance or resolution adopted by the annexing city or town. Any amendment to the pre-annexation land use plan that is adopted as part of the Comprehensive Plan is subject to the general GMA limitation that the comprehensive plan may be amended no more frequently than once a year, unless exceptions are met. (Municipal Research & Services Center of Washington, Annexation Handbook, Revised December 2001 - Report No. 19) The Steering Committee has held public meetings in preparing the Subarea Plan. Planning Commission and City Council public hearings are planned as part of the remainder of the Subarea Plan process to fulfill local City public participation requirements and the requirements to ultimately establish a Pre-Annexation Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map designations. Land Capacity The Federal Way PAA has an estimated Year 2003 population of21,460 with most of the population residing in the Northeast Subarea. The GMA and Countywide Planning Policies for King County require that King County and its cities accommodate their fair share of the future growth projected for King County. The PAA has been found to contain a large supply of vacant and underdeveloped land, with the capacity to accommodate significant future development. Consistent with regionally established methods that are tailored to reflect King County conditions, the total vacant and underdeveloped acres were discounted for critical areas such as wetlands, streams, and steep slopes, rights-of-way and public purpose lands, and market factors (i.e. not all property owners would want to sell or develop). These acres were then multiplied by EXHIBIT 3 PAGE 17 OF 3~ Page 17 of 24 February 25, 2004 density factors based upon achieved densities in developed projects over the period 1995-2000. The results for the 20- year period of 200 1 to 2022 are a potential dwelling capacity of 3,754 units and an employment capacity of 134 jobs calculated by King County. The City of Federal Way conducted a similar residential capacity analysis with results of 3,717 dwelling units, very close to the County's analysis since similar land use classifications are assumed. Future development "targets", expressed in the number of housing units, are detennined through an interactive, multi-jurisdictional process between King County and cities located within, considering land capacity, market factors, and other parameters. Through this ongoing regional process, the P AA growth target for the years 2001 to 2022 is established at 1,320 units. The employment target is established at 134 jobs. The buildable land capacity exceeds the residential "target", and is the same in tenns of jobs. It should be noted that a capacity analysis may make adjustments or discounts to the amount of available land, but does not estimate the time or rate that growth will occur, only the capacity of the land for additional development. To help identify potential market demands, the City conducted a market analysis for the P AA with the Puget Sound Regional Council forecasts as a starting point. The outcome ofthe market analysis is a year 2000 to year 2020 projection of 2,223 dwelling units and 115 jobs, which for dwellings exceeds the P AA housing targets, and for employment approaches the employment target, in a nearly similar time horizon. For the purposes of capital facility planning the market analysis figures are used in the P AA Subarea Plan analysis to ensure that facility planning efforts do no overestimate facility demand, capital needs, and funding requirements. H. Private Amendment Requests Through a public review process, four P AA Study Pre-annexation Comprehensive Plan and Zoning requests were submitted by private property owners for consideration by the City Council prior to adoption of the Subarea Plan (see Maps 6 - 9): . Richard and Louise Davis - 30682 Military Road South - Request for Neighborhood Business Comprehensive Plan Designation and Zoning (BN) instead of Single Family High Density/RS9.6 proposed in the PAA Subarea Plan. . Jerry Jackson, President, All-American Associates, Coldwell Banker on behalf of seven properties located at 1-5 and S 320111 Street just east of the NE interchange on-ramps, PAA Subarea Plan designations are Office Park along S 320111 Street and Single Family High Density on the northern two thirds of the property. The request is for Community Business (BC) class for the whole property. The applicant is willing to restrict commercial uses to those that would not compete with City Center commercial areas, such as car dealerships. The analysis area includes the applicant requested sites (seven parcels) along with an adjacent parcel, not part of the request, because it is similarly situated (addressed as 3126 S 320111 Street), EXHIBIT 3 PAGE ) 15 OF ~3 Page 18 of 24 February 25, 2004 . North Lake Zoning Petition Committee, facilitator Lois Kutscha. The request is for lots fronting the North Lake shoreline. The request is to retain the proposed Single Family High Density class but apply RS9.6 zoning instead ofRS7.2 zoning. The analysis area includes the 40+ petitioners' properties as well other similarly situated lakefront lots. Lee Rabie, Enerco Inc., SW "corner" ofI-5 and S 288th Street east ofI-5, King County parcel identification numbers 032104-9066-00 and 042104-9045-05. The request is to apply a commercial classification to the property similar to King County, for purposes of a proposed self-storage use, rather than the P AA Subarea Plan Pre-annexation single-family classifications (Single Family High Density/RS7.2). The property owner is pursuing a pennit for a self-storage use with King County. Equivalent City designations allowing self-storage include the Community Business Comprehensive Plan classification with either Community Business (BC) Zoning or Business Park (BP) Zoning. . The four P AA designation requests are summarized in the following Table and identified on Maps 6- 9: Table 3. Four PAA Designation Requests Applicant/Site Current Use Surrounding King County Proposed Applicant Uses Plan and Zone Federal Way Request PAA Plan and Zone Richard and Financial Office Single Family UR 4-12 plan SFHD plan BN plan class Louise Davis - class and NB class and RS9.6 and zone 30682 Military zonIng zonIng Road South Jerry Jackson, All Single Family Single family to COOC/UR4-12 OP and SFHD Community American Assoc. the north and with 0 and R-4 plan class and Business plan 320th Street just east, vacant to zonIng OP and RS9.6 class and BC east of the NE the east, office zonIng zone interchange on- to the south, and ramps freeway to the west North Lake Single family Single family UR 4-12 duJac SFHD and SFHD plan Zoning Petition on lots 9,600 to and vacant. and R-6 zone RS7,2 zoning. class with Committee, over 35,000 RS9,6 zoning. contact Lois square fee Kutscha, North Lake lots fronting shoreline EXHIBIT 3 PAGE4-°F ~ ~ Page 19 of24 February 25, 2004 Applicant/Site Current Use Surrounding King County Proposed Applicant Uses Plan and Zone Federal Way Request P AA Plan and Zone Lee Rabie, Vacant Surrounding COOC plan SFHD plan Commercial Enerco Inc., SW sites to the north class and NB class and RS7.2 classification "comer" of 1-5 S and east contain zoning with P- zoning. for proposed 288th Street east existing and Suffix (FW - self-storage use, ofI-5, parcels proposed P29) condition Equivalent City 032104-9066-00 churches. On limiting use to designation that and 042104-9045- the south is a self-storage. would allow 05 single-family self-storage are subdivision, and BC and BP. to the west is 1- 5. Key BC = Community Business BN or NB = Neighborhood Business COOC = Commercial Outside of Centers 0 = Office R = Residential - number are units/acre SFHD = Single Family High Density or lot square feet BP = Business Park OP = Office Park UR = Urban Residential Davis Request The Davis financial office is an existing use. Applying a Neighborhood Business plan/zoning class would recognize the current use, location along a principal arterial, and maintain the status quo for the neighborhood. However, the site's improvements, such as landscaping, parking, and other features would not meet City development standards and would be nonconfonning. While a detailed review of the site development has not been completed, given the size of the lot, it is unlikely that City development standards could be met in the future. Applying a single-family class would make the use nonconfonning, and site improvements would continue to be nonconfonning. A single-family class would recognize the predominant character of the neighborhood. Options to respond to the request include: . Per the Proposed Final P AA Subarea Plan apply the Single Family High Density plan class and RS9.6 zone similar to that applied to the surrounding properties. At a Comprehensive Plan level this matches King County's long-range vision. . Apply the Federal Way Neighborhood Business plan class and BN zoning. At a zoning level, this would be consistent with the current King County zoning of NB. The staff recommendation is to continue with the Proposed Final P AA Subarea Plan pre- annexation classifications of Single Family High Density with RS9.6 zoning similar to that applied to the surrounding properties. Jackson Request The Jackson property is immediately adjacent to 1-5 and the principal arterial S 320th Street. It has two easements BP A power lines and Olympic Pipeline. It is located across from office uses. EXHIBIT 3 PAGE ?'O OF 33 Page 20 of 24 February 25, 2004 Immediately to the east and north are single-family uses, and to the east there is also vacant property identified for future office uses similar to the frontage of the Jackson property. A portion of the site contains a wetland (greater than 5 acres), primarily along the freeway. Changing the site to the Community Business land class and BC zoning for the whole property would recognize the location of major roads and highways and easements that reduce the desirability of residential subdivision on the property. Reviewing the request in a larger context, if commercial uses are not limited, additional commercial uses could compete with the Federal Way City Center (a proposed Freeway Commercial plan class and zone is under analysis in a Staff Report which summarizes some P AA land use and market infonuation; when complete, this Staff Report will be provided). The reclassification also could affect immediately adjacent uses in tenus of changes in activity levels, noise, aesthetics, and traffic if access is not controlled, such as requiring access from the arterial. It is likely that commercial uses would be clustered away from the single-family areas to the north due to the wetland and wetland buffer, which may help reduce some compatibility concerns. Broader and area-specific compatibility issues could be controlled by regulations, such as limitations on uses, landscaping, lighting, noise, and access (access via the principal arterial rather than through the residential neighborhood). Such regulations are proposed in the Freeway Commercial zone.2 The applicant has also indicated in the application materials a willingness to sign an agreement to limit competitive uses with the Federal Way City Center. Such an agreement could become a development agreement addressing uses, landscaping, lighting, noise, and access. Options to respond to the request include: . Continue with classifications of the Proposed Final PAA Subarea Plan Pre-annexation plan and zoning classes for Office Park/Single Family High Density and OP and RS9.6 zoning. . Apply the Community Business plan class and BC zoning as requested. . Apply the Community Business plan class and BC zoning as requested, but with a development agreement identifying limitations on uses, landscaping, lighting, noise, and access. A development agreement would require a public hearing with the City Council. . Apply a new Freeway Commercial class and zone, which contains regulations regarding limitations on uses, landscaping, lighting, noise, etc. The regulations could be written to indicate that where the zone is applied the City may condition access to avoid impacts to residential areas or such a condition could be applied at the time of a site-specific proposal. 2 Some City development standards regarding landscaping, lighting, and others would also apply in any case when noncommercial projects are proposed in the OP zone (currently the classification is applied only to a portion of the site), [EXHIBIT '3 PAGE---21-0F 3 S Page 21 of24 February 25, 2004 The Staff Recommendation is to apply a new Freeway Commercial class and zone. Further analysis of a proposed Freeway Commercial plan/zone class will be provided in a Staff Report under separate cover; it will be distributed when complete. North Lake Zoning Petition Request The North Lake Zoning Petition would amend the Proposed Final P AA Subarea Plan Pre- annexation class and zoning of subject lakefront properties to RS9.6 instead of RS7.2. Since nearly all current lots range in size from 9,600 to 35,000 (see Map 5), there would be no significant impact. Generally, lots would be conforming in terms of size. There may be a lessened potential for future lot yields due to larger minimum lot size requirements. Since the properties are largely developed, this change is not considered significant to land capacity. Options to respond to the request are: . Apply the proposed P AA Pre-Annexation Subarea Plan class and zone of Single Family High Density and RS7.2. This matches the current King County class and zoning essentially resulting in about six units per acre. . Incorporate the petition request for a Subarea Plan Pre-Annexation class and zone of Single Family High Density and RS9.6 (resulting in about four+ units per acre). The current lot sizes meet or exceed the minimum lot size of 9,600. See Map 5. The Staff Recommendation is to incorporate the petition request for a Pre-Annexation Subarea Plan class and zone of Single Family High Density and RS9.6. Rabie Request The Rabie site on S 288th Street just east ofI-5 is a vacant property surrounded by non- residential uses to the north (church), east (vacant future church site) and west (1-5). To the south lies a single-family subdivision. The subject lots may be less desirable for low density residential due to the freeway and nearby institutional uses. The two subject lots are under a single ownership. Generally land classes and zoning are applied to more than one property in a given area. Current County zoning of Neighborhood Business is limited in application to the two parcels due to a property condition limiting uses to self-storage; the property owner has indicated he is seeking a permit with the County to construct a self-storage use. The effects of applying a commercial class to the property were studied and considered by the County at the time the zoning was applied. The City's equivalent zone to the County's NB zone is also Neighborhood Business (BN). However, if the object is to allow for a self-storage use as is limited by King County P-suffix conditions, City classes that allow self-storage are Community Business (BC) and Business Park (BP) zones, but these are fairly intense in the array of possible commercial uses, and they are generally applied to more than one parcel. If the PAA Subarea Plan is modified to match a fEXHH31ir 3 rf~GE :2? OF 3> 3 Page 22 of 24 February 25, 2004 commercial class to the Rabie property, potential effects upon the residential areas to the south could include changes in activity levels, noise, and aesthetics. These potential effects could be mitigated by a development agreement limiting use to self-storage. Application of City development standards regarding landscaping, lighting, and other design standards in the City Code would also help reduce compatibility concerns. Options to respond to the request include: . Continue with the Proposed Final P AA Subarea Plan Pre-annexation plan and zoning for Single Family High Density and RS7.2 zoning. . Apply a Neighborhood Business and BN zone to the property similar to King County, although this would not accommodate a self-storage use. . Apply the Community Business plan class and BC zoning or BP zoning to accommodate the proposed self-storage use. . Apply the Community Business plan class and BC or BP zoning, but with a development agreement identifying limitations on uses, landscaping, lighting, noise, or other concerns. A development agreement would require a public hearing with the City Council. A commercial class with limitations on uses is similar to the current King County commercial class and NB ZOnIng. The Staff recommendation is to continue with the Proposed Final P AA Subarea Plan Pre- annexation plan and zoning for Single Family High Density and RS7.2 zoning. The character of the area is primarily residential with some religious facilities, and is not an existing or future commercial node. I. PAA Subarea Plan - Compliance with Comprehensive Plan Amendment Criteria The Federal Way City Code includes Process VI that identifies requirements for City consideration of Comprehensive Plan Amendments and associated legislative rezones. The P AA Subarea Plan would amend the City Comprehensive Plan and replace the current Potential Annexation Area Element. The Subarea Plan also proposes a Pre-annexation Comprehesnive Plan and Pre-Annexation Zoning, similar to a preliminary areawide rezone, The Process VI criteria for general Comprehensive Plan amendments and legislative rezones are generally as follows (FWCC 22-526, 527 and 530): 1. The proposal bears a substantial relationship to public health, safety, or welfare; and 2. The proposal is in the best interest of the residents of the city; and 3. The proposal is consistent with the requirements of Chapter 36.70A RCW and with the portion of the city's adopted plan not affected by the amendment. rE}i{~n EUT '3 rÞ~GE ;). ~ OF ~? Page 23 of24 February 25, 2004 Additionally the City may consider other factors (FWCC 22-529): environmental effects, land use compatibility, impacts on infrastructure and community facilities, benefits to neighborhoods, city, and region, land use density/type/demand, population density, and similar factors. The proposed P AA Subarea Plan meets the above critieria: Criteria 1 and 2. The P AA Subarea Plan provides for advance planning which benefits the public health, safety, and welfare and the interest of City and P AA residents. By evaluating the feasibility of potential annexations and planning for the future delivery of services, residents of the P AA and the City can make more infonned choices about their future. Criteria 3. The proposal has been evaluated with respect to consistency with the State Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A), the related Countywide Planning Policies, and the City's Comprehensive Plan. A detailed matrix was prepared in March 2003, but the P AA Subarea Plan can be summarized as consistent with the following State, Regional, and City "indicator" policies: . Growth Management Act: The Subarea Plan applies urban densities to accommodate growth, avoid sprawl, and provide services efficiently within the Urban Growth Area. The predominant land classification would support urban level densities except in areas with significant environmental or infrastructure limitations. Public service capital and operational needs and improvements are identified to support the P AA land use plans. . Countywide Planning Policies: The land capacity ofthe P AA would accommodate the PAA housing target of 1,320 units and employment target of 134 between 2001 and 2022. Public service capital and operational needs and improvements are identified to support the P AA land use plans. The phasing of services and annexation areas is encouraged in Subarea Plan policies. . City Policies: Proposed Subarea Plan designations and policies support the Comprehensive Plan such as the hierarchy of Commercial Centers by providing for local-serving commercial and mixed-use nodes, and by supporting the predominant residential character of the P AA. Regarding other factors that may be considered, the City has prepared extensive studies of the P AA environment, capital needs, capacity, etc. in the P AA Inventory, LOS Study, and SEP A review as identified in Section IV.O of this Staff Report. J. Planning Commission Action and Staff Recommendations Consistent with the provisions ofFWCC Section 22-539, the Planning Commission may take the following actions regarding the Proposed Final P AA Subarea Plan, as a Comprehensive Plan amendment: EXI-IIBIT 3 PAGE ~~ OF ~3 Page 24 of 24 February 25, 2004 I Recommend to City Council adoption of the Proposed Final PAA Subarea Plan as proposed; 2. Recommend to City Council that the Proposed Final P AA Subarea Plan not be adopted; 3. Forward the Proposed Final PAA Subarea Plan to City Council without a recommendation; or 4. Modify the Proposed Final P AA Subarea Plan and recommend to City Council adoption of the Plan as modified. The Proposed Final PAA Subarea Plan would help the City of Federal Way and PAA residents and businesses to understand the implications of annexation and the future vision for the area as a part of the City of Federal Way. It is recommended that the Subarea Plan be approved. The following amendments to the Proposed Final P AA Subarea Plan are also recommended: . Apply the Freeway Commercial Plan class and zone to the Jackson property analysis area. . Amend the North Lake frontage lots to have a Pre-Annexation zone ofRS9.6. List of Exhibits Map I (PAA Subarea Plan Map I) Federal Way PAA . Map 2 (P AA Subarea Plan Map II) Community Level Subarea Boundaries Map 3 (PAA Subarea Plan Map VII-I) PAA Pre-Annexation Comprehensive Plan Designations Map 4 (P AA Subarea Plan Map VII-2) P AA Pre-Annexation Zoning Map Map 5 Existing Lot Size Map 6 Davis Request Map 7 Jackson Request Map 8 Northlake Request Map 9 Rabie Request { City of Federal Way Potential Annexation Area Federal Way PAA EXHIBIT 3 Legend: PAGE )f OF c==J FederalVVay . Algona ~ Auburn . Des Moines . Kent Milton . Pacific D Federal VVay, P,A,A, c==J c==J c==J Kent, P.AA D Milton, PAA, c==J Pacific, P,A,A. Algona, P .A.A. Auburn, P,A.A. Vicinity Map 0 Scale: 1/2 Mile L\ N ~ Map Date: December, 2003 City of Federal Way, 33530 First Way S, Federal Way, WA 98003 (253) 661-4000 www.ci.federal-way.wa.us Please Note: This map is intended for use as a graphical representation ONLY. The City of Federal Way makes no warranty as to its accuracy. A Fe-deral Way Mapl ..'m ikeslpaaldoc4'genma p.a ml Auburn .. City of Federal Way Potential Annexation Area Community Level Su barea Bo~ifs ] LegendPAGE á ~ OF 33 Potential Annexation Area - Community Level Subareas: . Redondo East (Redondo East) D Star Lake (Northeast) D Camelot (Northeast) []Ð North Lake (Northeast) D Jovita (Southeast) D Lakeland (Southeast) D Parkway (Southeast) Other Areas: D Incorporated Area D Unincorporated Area Source: City of Federal Way, GIS Division & Department of Community Development Services, BWR, ECONorthwest, PM Steering Committee, December 2001 Vicinity Map Scale: 0 1/2 Mile L\ N ~ Map Date: December, 2003 City of Federal Way, 33530 First Way S, Federal Way, WA 98003 (253) 661-4000 WoNN.ci .federal-way .wa.us Please Note: This map is intended for use as a graphical representation ONLY. The City of Federal Way makes no warranty as to its accuracy. A Fe-deral Way Map II ..Im ikeslpaaJdoc4'co m map.aml , ST {j hout 'ok. I 1 Pacific I 1 . Milton .;-=- '",," I ---- I 1 Auburn I r_1 .. ... I I I 1 . 1 I 1- .I City of Federal Way - Potential Annexation Area Federal Way P AA Pre-Annexation Comprehensive Plan Designations &:XHIBIT 3 PAGEàOF 33 Legend: . Community Business . Multi Family . Neighborhood Business . Parks and Open Space . Office Park ~ Single Family, Medium Density D Single Family, High Density Source: City of Federal Way C1. '" ::IE ~ c::: u :> Scale: 0 1/2 Mile Ii N ~ Map Date: December, 2003 City of Federal Way, 33530 First Way S, Federal Way, WA 98003 (253) 661-4000 www.ci.federal-way.wa.us Please Note: This map is intended for use as a graphical representation ONLY. The City of Federal Way makes no warranty as to its accuracy. ~ Fe-deral Way MapVII-1 .. .luso rslm ikoslpaaldoc4lfwcomp. 1m I --.- '- ',," . f _\ . C'-. ". ~' I,;,~';~ ¡;,~:-: Came1ð":;~, :,.' '. ,:-:.'!::f" Auburn ST , " '_I .. -.. I . I I I I .- .. Milton City of Federal Way Potential Annexation Area Federal Way Pre-An nexati 0 n Zoning Map ~){liH311 3 PAGE j2 OF 35 Legend. . BC (Community Business) . BN (Neighborhood Business) . OP (Office Park) RS35,O (1 Unit/35,OOO SF) D RS9.6 (1 Unit/9,600 SF) D RS7.2 (1 Unit!7,200 SF) D RSS.O (1 Unit/5,OOO SF) . RM3600 (1 Unit/3600 SF) . RM2400 (1 Unit/2400 SF) . RM1800 (1 Unit/1800 SF) Source: City of Federal Way c. '" ~ ~ c:: '(:) :> 0 Scale: 1/2 Mile ~ N ~ Map Date: December, 2003 City of Federal Way, 33530 First Way S, Federal Way. WA 98003 (253) 661-4000 WNW.ci,federal-way.wa.us Please Note: This map is intended for use as a graphical representation ONLY. The City of Federal Way makes no warranty as to its accuracy. å FeMderal Way Map VII-2 ,.luso rslm koslpaaJdoc4/1wzo no ..m I , "', ': ;' ,S:,,'. .,.. .. ;xl "", .pC oj' "." '" . :+,,!'l~~~" :"~~~'~~::/ ' ~ -- ¡- ;:..~ '- " \~~) - _..' , : ,."'r'" . ," ! ,- S 30,J~ It '. ",/" '~'i- ..,' " " "p.., ',' , ,: ~ " I I , - - .. ,', , '-i !"';~; "t-, City of Federal Way - Potential Annexation Area Existing Lot Size b:}{H 1811. PAGE2:LO~: 3 33 Legend: . < 5,000 Sq. Ft. . 5,000 - 7,199 Sq. Ft. D 7,200 - 9,599 Sq, Ft. . 9,600 - 14,999 Sq, Ft. D 15,000 - 34,999 Sq. Ft. D >35,000 Sq. Ft. D Incorporated Area D Unincorporated Area Note: Some open space areas are excluded. c. "" ~ ~ c:: '0 :> 0 Scale: 1/2 Mile 6 N ~ Map Date: January, 2002 City of Federal Way, 33530 First Way S, Federal Way, WA 98003 (253) 661-4000 www.ci.federal-way.wa,us Please Note: This map is intended for use as a graphical representation ONLY. The City of Federal Way makes no warranty as to its accuracy. GIS DIVISION IIcfwgi.2klu.. ../m ik../paaJdoc 1 llot.in . am I \~ \'.~ \(1) - z ñf ~ ~ ñf (II Original Staff Recommendation: Comprehensive Plan: Single Family, High Density Zoning: RS9.6 .~ ~ J!l .Ë :.:; ~ Õ >. ~ f, CÞ "0 CÞ U. RS9.6 Citizen Requested Change: Comprehensive Plan: Neighborhood Business Zoning: BN Final Staff Recommendation: Comprehensive Plan: Single Family, High Density Zoning: RS9.6 RS9.6 RS9.6 City of Federal Way P AA Subarea Plan, December 2003 Davis Key: D Proposed Zoning Boundary C Federal Way City Limits ~ Wetlands (1998 CFW Study) D Wetland Buffers (- 1 Applicant Properties Recommended Proposal ~ fT";1 -r::;,~ II ¡; ¡,¡ ...'-~ !;~ ">"1 ¡Fii'il 2; w tlfJ.'..' 0::1 - !.I (:) -¡¡"J I u 2l~ Loo Feet t;. ] This map is a graphic representation only, and is accompanied by no warranties. (M S)c :\mikes \av\paassr04, apr Key: D Proposed Zoning Boundary C City of Federal Way ~ Wetlands (1998 CFW Study) D Wetland Buffers ~ L=1 Applicant Properties ~I Recommended Proposal Citizen Requested Change: Comprehensive Plan: Community Business Zoning: BC " ,,' ' t, ,.¡ " ¡., . - - ' I '-- L " ~." t' f Final Staff Recommendation: I Comprehensive Plan: .' Freeway Commercial Zoning: FC (Freeway Commercial) .,'1 RM2400 Feder~1 Way City Limits 01 Non-applicant included in Final Staff Recommendation BN City of Federal Way PAA Subarea Plan, December 2003 Jackson 0 or,,"" [j'-"1 "'~¡ , ~.,;> ..ìo! "t,. ~;I !';J "'-"1 L~ií'a ~::I ~ ~'J'"f.¡. JE:.,c--:1 " ~! - ... 0 -/loa I~: Lv 200 400 Feet ~ ] N This map is a graphic representation only, and is accompanied by no warranties, (MS )c: \mikes \av\paassrQ4, apr I' /1: RS9.6 I City of Federal Way Key: D Proposed Zoning Boundary C Federal Way City Limits ~ Wetlands (1998 CFW Study) RS9.~ D Wetland Buffers C~;l Applicant Properties Recommended Proposal Final Staff Recommendation: Comprehensive Plan: Single Family, High Density Zoning: RS7.2 Note: Some non-applicant parcels are included in Final Staff Recommendation RS9.6 / Original Staff Recommendation: Comprehensive Plan: Single Family, High Density Zoning: RS7.2 RS9.6 ~iOÇ:."'._-~.;, - "i' , Federal Way City Limits ~ ~ ~ Citizen Requested Change: I ~ Comprehensive Plan: Single Family, High Density Zoning: RS9.6 PAA Subarea Plan, December 2003 North Lake 0 or, ~J ~...â ;' .... - u" ,.!..:,,> ~J ~ ø-:'..:'} mJa ~~ -12 =,~ W t73 ~ =11 1:1 I I 0 R> ¡'J þ~W 200 4~0 Feet t¡¡. I This map is a graphic representation only, and is accompanied by no warranties, (MS )c:lm ikeslavlpaassrO4 .apr Original Staff Recommendation: Comprehensive Plan: Single Family, High Density Zoning: RS7.2 0321_f" RM3600 Citizen Requested Change: Comprehensive Plan: Neighborhood Business Zoning: BN oi ~ ~ Final Staff Recommendation: Comprehensive Plan: Single Family, High Density Zoning: RS7.2 oi ~ I oi ~ RS7,Z . RS7.2 RS7.2' RS7.2 RS7.2 oi ~ Iii :; City of Federal Way P AA Subarea Plan, December 2003 Rabie oi ~ Ii :; Key: D Proposed Zoning Boundary C Federal Way City Limits ~ Wetlands (1998 CFW Study) D Wetland Buffers ['] Applicant Properties Recommended Proposal 0 tr......~ r-."¡ ...'o~ l¡ L," ,J ..~ ~d f"~ ".....'1 (~!~; ",o.~:r L "Iii ...!rJ ~tTJ... WE:= ~.'; - U 0- "".O^.\ ¡,¡o¡¡ \~~ w 200 4~0 Feet ~ ] This map is a graphic representation only. and is accompanied by no warranties. (MS)c: \mikes\av\paassr04. apr ~ CITY OF ~ Federal Way DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: EXHIBIT L/ PAGE I OF ç; March 29, 2004 John Caulfield, Chair Federal Way Planning Commission Isaac Conlen, Associate Planner ::Ç.: (,- Lisa Grueter, Senior Planner, Jones and Stokes PAA Follow-Up 3/17/04 Meeting At the Public Hearing of March 17, 2004, the Planning Commission asked staff a number of questions. We also noted several common questions or concerns raised by citizens during the public comment portion of the meeting. Responses to Commission and public questions are provided below. Planning Commission Questions 1. What is the intent of policy statements in the P AA Subarea Plan that direct or mandate the County to perform certain actions? A number of these policy statements reflect actions that the County already routinely performs and/or is required to perform, There are, however, several policy statements, which direct the County to perform some action, which at this point they are not obligated to do. We have asked a King County staff member to attend our next meeting and address this issue. 2. What authority does the City have to adopt pre-annexation Comprehensive Plan and zoning designations in an area where the residents are not represented by the City Council. Why did the City and King County choose to initiate preparation of the P AA Subarea Plan and associated land use designations prior to annexation? The authority to prepare the P AA Subarea Plan, including pre-annexation land use and zoning plans is found in three sources: . The Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA). GMA indicates that counties in consultation with cities shall establish urban growth boundaries. which shall contain cities and areas adjacent to cities that are urban in character, Cities are to be the primary provider of services in urban areas, (RCW 36, 70A,]] 0) The efforts to jointly establish urban growth areas (UGAs) and potential annexation areas (PAAs) within such UGAs are described in Proposed Final PAA Subarea Plan Section 3.1. In GMA Comprehensive Plans, land use plans play the centra] role in capital facility, public service, and growth management planning since it is the driver for such supporting elements: ".., The plan shall be an internally consistent document and all elements shall be consistent with the future land use map.., " (RCW 36. 70A,070), . The Countywide Planning Policies for King County (December 2003). The GMA requires countywide planning policies. to which each comprehensive plan must conform, The Countywide Planning Policies for King County require growth phasing plans in UGAs including PAAs. Cities are to adopt criteriafor annexations, See policies LU-29 to 32 in Section 2,2 of the Proposed Final PAA Subarea Plan, EXHIBIT y . Annexation Laws, RCW 35.13.177. Jurisdictions may prepare comprefðge~aboF plans to become effective upon annexations. Land use plans may address a variety of topics as noted in the law, including land uses, zones, development standards, and other features. A summary of the process to establish pre-annexation land use and zoning districts is provided in Section 6,2 of the Proposed Final PAA Subarea Plan, 5 The City and County decided to initiate the P AA Subarea Study and Plan prior to annexation to facilitate annexation decision-making and land-use planning within the PAA. The plan furthers the purposes and intent of GMA, Pursuant to GMA the City is the appropriate provider of urban level services to areas within the P AA. This plan provides guidance to citizens, Planning Commissioners, Council Members and stafffor consideration offuture annexation requests. The alternative would be to consider each annexation request on an individual basis absent the context provided by a comprehensive land use plan and policy framework, as is the current circumstance, 3. How many parcels would be rezoned from commercial use to residential land use designations if the P AA proposed land use designations are adopted? Three parcels would be rezoned from commercial to residential designations if the proposed P AA land use designations are adopted. These are the Davis property, the Rabie property and the vacant Sutherland Grocery and Gas Station property located at 34051 Military Rd, S. 4. Of the acreage proposed to be zoned multi-family, what percentage is developed/undeveloped? 235-acres within the PAA are proposed for multi-family land use designations. 77-acres or approximately 33% of this total is currently undeveloped, 5. With regard to the Jackson private amendment request what water body feeds the on-site wetland? Does City code allow off-site wetland mitigation? What type of development restrictions are associated with the on-site easements. The on-site wetland is located within a closed depression, A culvert running under the 1-5 on- ramp discharges into the south end of the wetland. In addition, surface runoff and possibly subsurface springs may feed this wetland. No identified stream is in the vicinity. City çode section 22-1358 (e)(2) does allow off-site mitigation under certain circumstances where development activity affects on-site wetlands. The BP A easement prohibits placement of structures within easement boundaries, Certain types of agricultural uses are permitted, Other uses are subject to BP A approval, including parking lots, roads and landscaping. Likewise the Olympic Pipeline easement prohibits structures within the easement, There are no required setbacks from the edge of the easements. Please see the attached aerial photo (Olympic Pipeline easement not available on attached aerial. The pipeline itself is located within the BP A easement). 6, What is the rationale for the staff recommendation regarding the Davis request? The Davis financial office is an existing use. King County zones it as Neighborhood Business, although the County Comprehensive Plan applies an Urban Residential çategory. The proposed PAA Subarea Plan proposes pre-annexation classifications of Single Family High Density with RS9.6 zoning similar to that applied to the surrounding properties. Applying a single-family class would make the use nonconforming, and site improvements would continue to be nonconforming. A single-family class would recognize the predominant character of the neighborhood, 2 EXHIBIT Lf Options provided to the Planning Commission in the February 25, 2004 staff ,fA~~cma'e? OF 6' . Per the Proposed Final P AA Subarea Plan apply the Single Family High Density plan class and RS9, 6 zone similar to that applied to the surrounding properties, At a Comprehensive Plan level this matches King County's long-range vision, . Apply the Federal Way Neighborhood Business plan class and BN zoning. At a zoning level, this would be consistent with the current King County zoning of NB. Site improvements, however, would remain nonconforming to city code requirements, Additional information about the history of the Davis site was provided by the proponent at the March J 7, 2004 public hearing, and can be considered along with the February 25, 2004 staff report. Specifically, it was observed that a note on the face of the original plat states that the property shall be restricted to business use. The Planning Commission has the prerogative to consider the information and analysis and select an option accordingly. 7. With regard to the Rabie private amendment request why did staff recommend denial of the Rabie request outright rather than proposing conditions of development or some other approach more similar to the Jackson recommendation? The Rabie site on S 288'h Street just east of 1-5 is a vacant property surrounded by non-residential uses to the north (church), east (vacant future church site) and west (1-5). To the south lies a single-family subdivision, The two subject lots are under a single ownership, The current County land use and zoning class is Neighborhood Business with a property condition limiting uses to self-storage; the property owner has indicated he is seeking a permit with the County to construct a self-storage use. The City's proposal is for Single Family High Density and RS7.2 zoning. The character of the area is primarily residential with some religious facilities, and is not an existing or future commercial node. Planning Commission may consider any of the following options as provided in the February 25, 2004 Staff report: . Continue with the Proposed Final PAA Subarea Plan Pre-annexation plan and zoningfor Single Family High Density and RS7.2 zoning, . Apply a Neighborhood Business and BN zone to the property similar to King County, although this would not accommodate a self-storage use, . Apply the Community Business plan class and BC zoning or BP zoning to accommodate the proposed self-storage use, . Apply the Community Business plan class and BC or BP zoning, but with a development agreement identifYing limitations on uses, landscaping, lighting, noise, or other concerns, A development agreement would require a public hearing with the City Council. A commercial class with limitations on uses is similar to the current King County commercial class and NB zoning. The Jackson request evolved into the creation of a proposed new Comprehensive Plan and zoning designation (Freeway Commercial). This allowed staff to tailor specific development standards within the new zoning regulations to address concerns related to the Jackson site and similarly situated sites, The proposed development regulations for the Freeway Commercial zone were drafted to address compatibility issues with surrounding land uses, Staff did not feel a similar approach to the Rabie request was warranted or would lead to a satisfactory solution. 3 EXHIBIT t.j PAGE '-I OF ;:; Public Questions 1., Would adoption of the PAA Subarea Plan cause property to be annexed to the City. Adoption of the P AA Subarea Study will not annex any property to the City of Federal Way, Once adopted the P AA Subarea Study will become a part of the City's Comprehensive Plan, . The purposes of the P AA Subarea Study are to provide early information to citizens and decision makers, provide pre-annexation zoning designations and plan for areas within the P AA appropriate for annexation, including an analysis of the fiscal impacts. In most cases, to accomplish an annexation, citizens within a particular neighborhood or area must approach the City, and request annexation. If the City supports the annexation request, a number of annexation options are available, Typically, methods of annexation include petition or election methods, both controlled by either property owners and/or registered voters. As noted at our last meeting, three annexation requests have been submitted to the City and will be considered after adoption of the P AA Subarea Plan using the election method. There is another method of annexation involving islands of unincorporated area at least 60% of which is contiguous to city limits. In these instances, a city may initiate annexation by adopting an ordinance. Area residents then have 45 days to file an objection to the annexation. If 1 0% of the qualified electors, based on the total number of votes cast in the last state election, within the annexing area object to the annexation, the matter goes to election of residents within the annexation area. 2. What land use designations and zoning would control development activity in the P AA after adoption of the P AA Subarea Plan but prior to annexation of a particular area or neighborhood. After the City adopts the P AA Subarea Plan, zoning designations within the P AA will not change, King County zoning will.remain in effect, Zoning and land use designations will not change to the City classifications unless a particular area is annexed to the City. 3. Is the City promoting annexation in order to gain tax revenue generating property to improve the financial position of the City. Our analysis shows that as a whole the PAA would not generate revenues adequate to pay for City services, Therefore, the City has no financial incentive to annex the entire P AA. In fact the P AA Subarea Plan contains policies that direct the City to only consider annexation of an area when a strategy has been developed to balance costs and revenues. Attachments Jackson Aerial Photo 4 City of Federal Way Jackson Am mendement Site J ~ - I " II, .Iusers/m ik../cd/cplan/jackson,am I Map Date: March, 2004 City of Federal Way, 33530 First Way S, Federal Way, WA 98003 (253) 661-4000. This map is intended for use as a graphical representation ONLY. The City of Federal Way makes no warranty as to its accuracy. Please Note: Wetlands were identified in a 1998 City of Federal Survey, The 200' buffer show on the map is based on a preliminary wetland inventory, The final buffer will be determined by a future wetland analysis. XHIBIT Y 1\GE G OF :; Vicinity Map Scale: 1 to 3720 1 Inch equals 310 Feet 0 250 Feet ~ ~ N ~ Fe-deral Way ~ CITY OF ~ Federal Way EXH I BIT 6 PAGE ) OF 6 DATE: April 13, 2004 TO: John Caulfield, Chair Federal Way Planning Commission FROM: Isaac Conlen, Associate Planner $ .v- SUBJECT: PAA Follow-Up to 4/7/04 Meeting At the Public Hearing of April 7, 2004, the Planning Commission asked staff to follow-up on several questions. Staff also has follow up comments on some of the Planning Commission's general discussion. Questions and responses are provided below. Planning Commission Questions 1. What is the County's position regarding the appropriate zoning of the Jackson site? In 2003, King County budgeted funds for a 'subarea plan' to study the feasibility of revisions for land use designations and zoning for parcels at the intersection of 1-5 and South 320lh St. (Jackson site). The subarea plan, however, was not completed. Paul Reitenbauch, of King County Dept. of Development and Environmental Services indicated that the County has not taken a position, formally or informally, with regard to the appropriate zoning of the Jackson site, rather deferring to the ongoing P AA subarea planning process, The property owner's agent indicated that he has submitted a rezone request for Community Business zoning to King County. King County DDES staff indicated they have not received a rezone request for the Jackson site. Once a request is submitted it would be placed on the docket and reviewed by the King County Hearing Examiner and then go to the County Council for a final decision, 2. What type and location of access would the City allow to the Jackson property? Rick Perez, City Traffic Engineer, has prepared a preliminary analysis to clarify the type of access that would be permitted for the Jackson site, recognizing that without a specific proposal and supporting studies, a number of variables remain undefined, To summarize, he indicates that one access point directly to/from South 320lh St. meeting intersection separation requirements would be permitted, but a full signalized intersection without turning restrictions is unlikely to be permitted. A signal is already in place at South 320lh St. and 32nd Ave. S., so signalized access could be provided in this location by way of32nd Ave. S. Mr. Perez's email is attached, EXHIBIT t;; PAGE ;) OF r;; 3. What are the details of the concomitant agreement on the property to the east of the Jackson site within Federal Way City limits? When the property, known as Res, North originally annexed to the City in late 1998/early 1999 with a multi-family zoning designation, the City and the property owner entered into a concomitant agreement limiting the development of the property to single-family uses. The property was subsequently rezoned to Office Park at which time the development agreement became non-applicable to the site. The current zoning of the property is Office Park with no development agreement in place. 4. With regard to the Sutherland Grocery and Gas property why was the site designated as a landmark site? Is the current recommendation of RS9.6 single- family the most appropriate land use designation given the site's Landmark status? Anders Victor Sutherland originally built the Sutherland site in the 1930's as a roadside grocery store with gas pumps out front. The family originally live above the store, which was in operation until 1986. The site has been included in the King County Historic Resource Inventory. At the time our consultant prepared the land use inventory as a preliminary step in preparation of the P AA Subarea Plan, the Sutherland property was under consideration by King County as a Landmark site. Since that time the site has been designated as a King County Landmark. Given the historic character of the site we considered several options including retention of a commercial designation for this site. A City Building Inspector visited the site and concluded that due to the dilapidated condition of the building, renovation of the existing building to meet current code is not a realistic option. It was felt that given the condition of the buildings and the extreme nonconfonnance of the site with regard to setbacks and other development standards, redevelopment or re-use of the existing improvements for commercial purposes is unlikely. Therefore, retention of a commercial designation would not serve to preserve the historic nature of the site. Staff recommends a High Density Residential Comprehensive Plan designation and RS9.6 zoning. Surrounding properties to the west and south are also zoned RS9.6. Staff feels that if the site is re-developed, which is considered to be a likely scenario, residential use would be more compatible with surrounding land uses and consistent with the overall land use pattern than commercial use in this location. General Discussion - Staff Follow Up 1. Rabie Zoning Request Based on discussion at the Planning Commission's last meeting it appears there is some interest by the Planning Commission in applying a Community Business Comprehensive Plan classification and BC zoning designation to the Rabie property. The BC zoning allows a wide variety of intensive commercial uses including bulk hardware and garden sales, "big box" retail, health clubs, oversized commercial vehicle facilities and service 2 ...-- EXHIBIT ~ yards, truck stops, taxi lots, tow lots, self-storage units and hospital facifrð~~lln) ?f OF :s; these uses could be incompatible with surrounding single-family zoning and uses. The Land Use Chapter of the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan contains locational criteria for each land use designation. The Community Business section of the plan states, in part: "The Community Business designation encompasses two major retail areas of the City: It covers the "strip" retail areas along SR-99 and the "bulk" retail area found near the South 348th Street area, approximately between SR-99 and 1-5." The Rabie property is not consistent with Comprehensive Plan locational criteria for Community Business zoning. In addition, the intensity of potential uses pennitted in the BC zone may create compatibility issues with the surrounding residential land uses. The following are options the Planning Commission could consider related to this site specific request: a. Apply the staff recommendation of Single-Family High Density classification and RS7.2 zoning. b. Apply a Neighborhood Business classification and Neighborhood Business (BN) zoning to the site per the applicant's request and consistent with the current County designation. This would allow a less intensive commercial use of the property, more compatible with surrounding single-family zoning and uses, but would not allow the self-storage use, in which the owner has expressed interest. Additionally, Comprehensive Plan Policy LUP48 in the BN section states that the City shall limit new commercial development to existing commercial areas to protect residential areas. Considering that the County has designated this site as Neighborhood Business, but the property is undeveloped, it raises a policy question as to whether we consider a BN designation of this site inconsistent with the above referenced policy. Review of the BN zone is on the Planning Commission's work program for this year. A request to allow self-storage as a pennitted use in the BN zone has been made and will be considered when this item comes before the Planning Commission. c. Apply the Community Business classification and Community Business zoning (BC), This designation would allow self-storage in addition to a number of higher intensity commercial uses, but is inconsistent with Comprehensive Plan locational criteria and surrounding single-family zoning and uses. 2. Jackson Zoning Request When staff originally reviewed the site-specific request, staff concluded that Community Business (BC) zoning at this location would be inconsistent with the intent of the City's Comprehensive Plan. First, the site is not consistent with locational criteria for BC zoning. Second, policies in the plan call for commercial redevelopment of the city center rather than expansion of new commercial areas. The BC zoning would allow uses that 3 EXHIBIT ç:; .. . PAGE t/ OF dIrectly compete wIth the types of uses the ComprehensIve Plan encourages In t~ center, as opposed to the Freeway Commercial (FC) zone, which limits uses to categories that are under provided and not planned for the city center. ,-- =-- The following are options the Planning Commission could consider related to this site- specific request: a. Apply the staff recommendation of the proposed Freeway Commercial classification and Freeway Commercial (FC) zoning. b. Apply RS9.6 single-family zoning on the north portion of the site and Office Park zoning on the south portion of the property fronting on South 320th St. This would match existing King County zoning designations for the site. Under this option, the applicant could always approach the City in the future with a conceptual site plan and request a zoning change, A conceptual site plan would allow decision makers to better understand the future impacts associated with a zoning change on the property, and potentially lead to a developer agreement to restrict uses or impose additional mitigation. c. Apply the Community Business classification and Community Business (BC) zoning to the site. This would satisfy the applicant's request, but would allow a wide variety of intensive commercial uses on the site, including those that compete with city center businesses, which is inconsistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. Attachments: Perez Email 4 Isaac Conlen - Jackson Property access EXHIBIT PAGE b OF Page 1 of 1 5 ~ From: To: Date: Subject: CC: Rick Perez Isaac Conlen 04/08/200410:01 AM Jackson Property access Greg Fewins; Margaret Clark In response to the Planning Commission discussion last night: Access from S 32Oth Street to the subject site is limited by WSDOT's access standards for interchange areas and FWCC Section 22-1543. Per WSDOT design standards, if access is provided (via a new street) within 350 feet of the 1-5 northbound ramp terminal, access restrictions would be required 130 feet from the intersection of S 320th Street on the new street. Per FWCC 22-1543, access onto S 320th Street would be limited to one per 330 feet of frontage. A right-in/right out access would be permittted 150 feet from any other interec tion. A left-turn-in movement would be permitted only 330 feet from any other intersection. Full access would only be permitted at a signalized intersection, which would have to have sufficient side-street volume to meet warrants for signalization, and not create any adverse imapcts from queuing into any other signalized intersection or signal coordination, After required right-of-way dedication for the extension of 32nd Avenue S, the subject property would have 617.92 feet of frontage, based on assessors maps. Since this is less than 660 feet, only one access point would be permitted. This could be a right-in/right-out, and a left-in may also be possible (depending on how far into WSDOT right-of-way the ramp terminal interection is), but it is very doubtful that a full signalized access would be permitted, fi Ie:1 IC: \Documents%20and%20Settings\defauIt\Local%20Settings\ Temp \G W} 0000 I.H... 04/14/2004 :'\ , ~ CITY OF ~ Federal Way EXHIBIT ro PAGE ) OF d DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE (DNS) ADOPTION OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY POTENTIAL ANNEXATION AREA (PAA) SUBAREA PLAN Federal Way File #O4-100482-00-SE Description of Proposal: Adoption of the PAA Subarea Plan prepared in coordination with the overall Federal Way Comprehensive Plan (FWCP). The PAA Subarea Plan provides a Year 2020 long-range land use and policy plan to guide pre-annexation planning efforts and annexation requests. It provides for pre-annexation comprehensive plan and zoning designations; capital facility plans for transportation, surface water, parks, and other facilities; and policies for a variety of natural and built environment topics. When adopted, the plan will be a component of the overall FWCP focusing upon the 5,000-acre future annexation area, and will replace the current Potential Annexation Area Chapter. While the FWCP provides the general goals and policies for land use, housing, capital facilities, utilities, transportation, economic development, and parks and recreation for the P AA as well as the City, the P AA Subarea Plan is intended to address unique characteristics or situations relevant to the P AA. Proponent: The City of Federal Way Department of Community Development Services Location of Proposal: Federal Way Planning Annexation Area (PAA) located in South King County and generally east ofI-5 between South 272od Street and the King/Pierce County boundary, including an area near South 272od Street at Pacific Highway South. Lead Agency: The City of Federal Way City Contact: Greg Fewins, Deputy Director, Community Development Services, 253-661-4108 The lead agency for this proposal has determined that is does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21 C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. This DNS is issued under WAC 197-11-340(2). The lead agency will not act on this proposal for 14 days from the date below. Comments must be submitted by March 3, 2004. You may appeal this determination to the Director of Community Development Services (address below), no later than 5:00 p.m. on March 17,2004, by a written letter stating the reason for the appeal of the determination. You should be prepared to make specific factual objections. Responsible Official: Kathy McClung, Director, Department of Community Development Services Address: 33530 First Way South, PO Box 9718, Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 Date Issued: February 18.2004 Signature: ~nnur~~ Doc. I.D. 26038 .t. PugetSound CITY OF FEDERAL WAY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POTENTIAL ANNEXATION AREAS POTENTIAL ANNEXATION AREAS ELEMENT Legend: /'./ Federal Way City Limits /,/ Potential Annexation Area -SCALE- 1 Inch equals 4,100 Feet ;gm Q>< m::t t~ F ~.,.= ...4-. ED ERAL. ~~ flY GISDIVISIOt1 MAP VIII-1 0 NOTE: This map Is Intended lor use as a graphical representation only. The City 01 Federal Way makes no warranty as to Its accuracy M'P ",Int.. """",y 2000 " ") N""""p,,,n.'" COMM RECEIVED BY UNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MAR 1 5 2004 William and Sally Skaflestad 3226 S. 316th Street Auburn, WA 98001 March 11. 2004 City of Federal Way Planning Commission PO Box 9718 Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 RE: Federal Way File #04-100482-00-SE Dear Sir or Madam: After reviewing the City of Federal Way Memorandum dated February 25, 2004, we are pleasantly surprised to read that the Community Development Services staff is making an attempt to look out for the "little people". One of the specific areas of concern listed in the Federal Way Potential Annexation Area (PM) Subarea Plan is the support of the Single Family Neighborhoods as the primary land use of the PM. As homeowners residing within the PM, our main objective is to protect the character, integrity, and unique qualities of our neighborhood as it currently exists. We want to specifically address the Private Amendment request of Jerry Jackson. The property description includes a brief statement that the property "is located across from office uses." To our knowledge, the only currently practicing office uses are on the south side of 32Oth Street. In our opinion, the statement should accurately read, "... it is located across from office uses on one side along 320th street." In addition, the vacant property identified for future office uses is to the southeast corner rather than "to the east". We respectfully request that whatever zoning classification is chosen, please include the following regulations to protect our neighborhood: ACCESS. Our biggest fear is increased traffic on South 316th Street. This includes the fear of allowing South 316th Street to be used as a shortcut from Military Road to 320th. Will the main access to the Jackson property be 32nd Avenue South off of 320th Street? A 4-way traffic light is already functioning at that intersection. DRAINAGE. Because of the large wetlands area we ask that future development plans meet strict drainage requirements so that existing homes do not suffer increased runoff, standing water, or flooding. EXHIBiT_' PAGELoF-1L- . Page 2 March 11, 2004 NOISE and AESTHETICS. There must be buffers between our neighborhood and 1-5 to protect our privacy and contain noise levels. We also need an aesthetically pleasing buffer between our neighborhood and future development to the Jackson property. We want to keep as many trees as possible. The trees serve as a buffer as well as helping to protect the wetlands and the wildlife that we enjoy in our neighborhood. PROPERTY VALUES. We will hold the City of Federal Way liable for any adverse affect zoning and development have on our property values. RESTRICT DEVELOPMENT to the southwest area of the Jackson property and away from our neighborhood. RESPECT and PROTECT the existing property uses in our neighborhood, including pasture for horses and other farm animals. Thank you for providing us the opportunity to express our concerns. We look forward to reviewing the staff reports when they become available. Sincerely, E- 'X Irl. ! C; ..' 1 - i ~-' I , " PAGE Z- "..1'__- , Crì',fH RECEIVED BY "" :"¡UNITY ÐE\lfWPI,~fI\'T í}FPI\RW;::"- Mil [' (: ,-, March 16th 2004 As I am unable to attend the city council meeting in person, please let me take this opportunity to add my voice to those protesting any re-zone of the propeliy now occupied by D and D Accounting, 30682 Military Road, in the event of any annexation by the city of Federal Way- This business is located on a natural commercial comer and has been in use since at least 1942, It provides a valuable service to our community, lends a pleasing character to the neighborhood, and should not be forced to relocate, which in my opinion would only result in the stale, monotonous, homogenization that is now the benchmark of Federal Way, the epitome of strip mall sprawl. Respectfully, ( l-/ i ,",./',/, '//1 'è- '/1-<>':.1-- ~ " /Î- d~.Á /;/ ,~) j , .,:>/ i/-" ',/) '\ i\ ,~, L ~( , - /'~ (/1-'1/1 t~ J/ ¡ , /l..¿1-1..¿} / ¿-- ,,/ EXHIßïl- PAGE--3 7 > ,,-. -jl_~_~ RECEIVED BY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MAR 1 7 2004 RECEIVED BY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT " J 7 2004 March 17,2004 Larry N eether 37322 Milton RD South Federal Way, W A 98003 To Whom it May Concern, Mr. Greg-Fewins & City of Federal Way in reference to FWCP on Annexation & Zoning, the property that lies along 1-5 to the west, 375th & Pierce county line & Lloyds proposed development to the South and Six Flags Park to the North. All of these property owners approximately (12) property owners with acreage that is currently zoned & 1 believe Y2 Ac per single family dwelling, considering the development that has happened & will be done in future, it would be an ideal area to have zoning changed to multi use commercial with the exposure to 1-5 & Six Flags & Lloyds ETC. With present, future and planned developments, could you please consider this in your plans for future development. Thank You Larry Neether /f4 {¡. ;!~7Z1 EXHIBIT -p J PAGE~ '.:=-11 ._-,,-- ~ .; Smith Alling Lane Dougtas v, Alling Grant B. Anderson Joseph R. Cicero (1957-2001) Barbara A. Henderson Edward G. Hudson Edward M. Lane Linda Nelson Lysne, CPA Robert E. Mack Michaet E. McAteenan Robert L. Michaels Timothy M. Schellberg Daniel C. Smith (Re!.) A Professional Services Corporation Attorneys at Law 1102 Broadway Plaza, #403 Tacoma. Washington 98402 Tacoma: (253) 627-1091 Seattle: (425) 251-5938 Facsimile: (253) 627-{)123 Brian L. Dolman (also admftled in Omgon) Thor A. Hoyte March 17,2004 City of Federal Way Planning Commission 33530 1st Way South PO Box 9718 Federal Way, W A 98063-9718 Re: Davis Rezone at 30682 Military Road South Dear Honorable Members of the Planning Commission; Richard and Louise Davis request the proposed zoning designation ofRS 9.6 (Single Family 9,600 sq. feet), as a,Pplied to their property under the Proposed Annexation Area plan, be amended to BN (Neighborhood Commercial). FACTS Mr. and Mrs. Davis have been the owners of the subject property since 1988. At the time of their purchase, the Davises believed the property was zoned for neighborhood commercial uses. An examination of the approved subdivision bears out this belief. In the "Restrictions" language of page 2, Lake Dolloff Tracts, the Davises' lot is "hereby restricted to business use," (Exhibit 1.) The property was used for various commercial pursuits since its original platting in 1942. Barney Lucas, Jr., son of the original owner of the Davises' parcel, declared that the tract was used for commercial purposes continuously between 1946 and 1978. (Exhibit 2.) It should be noted the use was for a construction business. Preston Johnson, Esq., declared that he, too, recalls business uses on the Davis property since at least 1955. (Exhibit 3.) However, for an unknown reason, the zoning reverted to a Single Family designation in approximately 1962. The Davises and all of their predecessors in interest treated the parcel as a commercial property, expanding and changing the use on the parcel. When the Davises became aware of the inconsistent zoning they sought a Conditional Use pennit for their business. King County detennined that a Conditional Use pennit was not the proper vehicle to make their existing business "legal." In 1993 a rezone request was entered by the Davises. (Exhibit 4.) Despite the continuing presence of a small business on the property EXHlb~T- 1 ;', PAGEJ- ._)~.~ Federal Way Planning Commission March 17, 2004 Page 2 for the preceding 50 or so years, the King County Hearing Examiner recommended denial of the request despite signatures from 24 local residents attesting to the asset a business is on that parcel. (Exhibit 5.) On March 17, 1994, an Appeal Statement was submitted on behalf of the Davises. (Exhibit 6.) In the Appeal Statement, the Davises make many of the same points they make today. Mostly, the neighbors along that stretch of Military Road South did not see the adverse impacts of zoning the property according to its long-held use: neighborhood business. Moreover, the Davises submit that a neighborhood business on that parcel is crucial to the character of the area. King County Ordinance 12824, dated July 29, 1997, modified the Hearing Examiner's recommendation for denial. (Exhibit 7.) The King County Council found the original plat restrictions to be dispositive. Furthermore, the Davises' reliance on the original plat, the continuous use of the parcel as a neighborhood business for 45 years prior to the purchase of the parcel, the subsequent de facto treatment of the parcel as a commercial property since 1979, and overwhelming approval by the neighbors, made the denial of the rezone inequitable and untenable. Attached hereto as Exhibit 8, is the site plan drawn for a building permit application made with and approved by King County for the addition of a second story to the existing building. That second story has been built. The site plan more or less reflects the CUITent layout of the lot. It is important to note the constraints of the 9,325 square foot lot. First, the business is not on sewer, and uses a designed and approved septic and drainfield. The drainfield drastically limits development of the property. It is not inconceivable that a residential use on the property would require an expansion of the CUITent drainfield. Second, the legal lot is much smaller than one would perceive from a casual investigation. The jagged fence line along the rear of parcel, the required parking for the business (cuITently seven spaces), and the inability to impact the drainfield and septic, makes the lot fully built out with a building footprint of only 989 square feet. It is inconceivable that this lot would make a desirable single family residence lot. An appraisal done on October 30, 1998 by C. J. Munson and Joseph W. Harris on behalf of Key Bank, bears out this contention. (Exhibit 9.) In the excerpt from the appraisal, it is clear that although theoretical planning concepts dictate that this particular parcel should be designated single family residential, the reality of the parcel's location, size and history is something else. The highest and best use for this parcel is what it cuITently is: neighborhood business. EXHIBIT. PAGE .-" 7_- 1 L__- Federal Way Planning Commission March 17,2004 Page 3 ZONING CONCERNS Typically, to withstand a challenge, a rezone requires a showing of a substantial change in conditions. That is exactly what cannot be shown here. The parcel has always been in commercial use. King County recognized this and correctly rezoned the parcel to its original use. Washington courts have detennined that the main inquiry in spot zone cases is whether the rezone bears a substantial relationship to the general welfare of the affected community. Here, the affected community is the Davises as the property owner and the citizens in and around that section of Military Road South. The community has shown its support in the past for a local business on that parcel. Additionally, that section of Military Road South has a Montessori School, a church, and other small commercial activity. It is the character of the neighborhood that is being preserved, not challenged, by maintaining the Davises' neighborhood business zonmg. Zoning the parcel single family triggers the nonconfonnance chapter of the City of Federal Way zoning code (FWMC 22-325 et. seq.). The City of Federal Way has contended that zoning the Davises' property RS 9.6, would do them no real hann because they would be unable to meet the requirements of the BN zone, presumably in tenus of design guidelines requirements. It appears this belief is predicated on the notion that the current structure could be turned into a single family residence. Ironically, the City's proposed designation ofRS 9.6 would make the parcel nonconforming as to lot size. - It is inconceivable the current building could be turned into a single family- type structure. It was built to be a shop, and was converted into a small office. The second floor pennitted by King County, and built in approximately 2002 contains additional office space. The building looks like a business. Its signage is understated. The property is likely built-out completely short of a sewer line being installed along Military Road South. However, the BN zone would allow the Davises to continue their business without the threats of the nonconformance provisions of the Federal Way code. If the Davises wished to adapt their building for another type of neighborhood commercial use, or level it and build a type of building, the Davises would likely be able to confonn to the design standards Federal Way has enacted. With the small lot size, BN zoning gives the Davises more opportunity to fully use their land to its highest and best use. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CONCERNS The City of Federal Way's Comprehensive Plan (FWCP) recognizes King County's development patterns. The City adopted a land use element to its Comprehensive Plan that reflects the history of King County development in the area, and tries to merge that history with good growth ideas. As a result, FWCP delineates certain Land Use Concepts. EXHIB, . -----1 - P AGEJOF--'-L- Federal Way Planning Commission March 17, 2004 Page 4 One such concept is existing neighborhoods should be preserved and enhanced. Rezoning the Davises' land to RS 9.6 fails to either preserve or enhance the existing neighborhood. The FWCP calls for the provision of community and commercial services to residential communities. The Davises' business certainly serves the local area and beyond, and is appropriately placed in an area where there is moderate car traffic, and outside the commercial core of Federal Way. The FWCP calls for the promotion of the development of well designed commercial and office developments. The subject parcel would benefit fÌom the Federal Way design guidelines upon commercial redevelopment. Commercial development on that site arguably provides better opportunities for the City to coax attractive and functional design to the site than does single family development on a small lot. SUMMARY The Davises' property has been used as a commercial property since its inception in 1942. Maintaining the parcel as a neighborhood business zone is not a spot zone per se. Designating the parcel RS 9.6 makes the parcel nonconfonning as to lot size, and considering the constraints of the site, makes single-family residential construction unlikely. Furthennore, the continued operation of a neighborhood business on that parcel is in confonnance with the comprehensive plan. Very truly yours, or A. Hoyte Attorney for Richard and Louise Davis T AH:sl enc!. EXHIBIT__~---7 - P AG E -' __:1 r:_~- -. , , I "';~, -,",~,'";Ç:n;,..,~.. ......' ..~ ¡ 1 1 t 1 1 , t 1-" I I i' , I ~; ~ ,:~~, _:.~ ~:~~,:;":~:~~~~=~~=,~:' î::," ~. ~c--~ t:mrBT ¡ '. '. -PAGE_-! . . . .---. ~.. ':-,: :-."!-r:~' i ' i ; I :. " !. - . ;.' "', . ~~""f;"i"...'-:'t'i,\' ',""--"".""""" J"""~."""~~.'~."~-:--""". . , ':I'~J ""'If:"""" ~,"T_..::.r'"...~.- ,~.....,.. ,:"".."..~~ ,~, ,n " .. - -' ~_. . - ~.-~ - ~_.. .., - ~'. ..~,~- - ~. ,. 'tô FF-T-R AC 15 DOL or SEC'TION 10. : . r SECTION 9.AI-I0 NWI/4 . RANGE 4 ~AST.W. M. " ,. l ..._~;.,:'..: .'" :,.' '~ ~"~~,,"~;z~~~~.'¡~',f-.~~f;;~f.{::':c::.';,.<,:;"":: . '~"':,'" '1 ~ LAKE IN NE V4 orNEV4 TOWNSHIP 2~ -.-- tOO ! ' . ~-,~u--" ¡-- ' \ \~ I ~ ~",..~,.r ~~JC' \ \ :;; \ \ ~ \ \ ' I \ \ I' I .. - I ; ,: . \ '"' " \ ~ \ \ \ \ , \ ~ C. \ \ I , "1- "]A~ . 3 QEOICA110N ~ \ \ \ "..ow.w.U<".""'!n "U(.". '..... ~ '. \ "<;...: o..i:~=-'~~~.~.~"&,:;:-~ ,...\ \\ .... \ -"~. _TC «w.u",..<:TO".OW........"t I"'J 7. ", ," ' """',, OOOT<ON«ToC:L""" ..c:a<"""'T1tOL""'.-", ...\ " . 4 ..' '4~ SUT10"'I£"'IO'.1OW"SHIP~"TY-CCC:<l""""'- t" '. """",,'..\ ~".H.uT,""",A"O""'UOO1...Tt"'-n>.!'..., , . ". '\ ,w....."w,,(.I>HO(o-.OA.GLlHOOO""O30St..."!:J'", <- ;', , !. ....,..c .. ,." . H~;."~:~':"~;:'~'~'.i,~~.:':~~:-:~:~~;~' \, ~, .. 5 ...."- "'- . """;'ONor$A'Ov."OHC'UV"LA~TtO'V......w""""st",:-_, '-..7', " ,': ",.... SN01OWNS"'P""0'.NC,C.t«0(""'O(UAO(""ISP...T.""~0<V:t:" v-c. '-.... ( VS("'~""PU"'-'C'ORCV(' ....( CDV"T 'HOWH"'(O{CH,.NO """'."'S L ...'" k ".'1£0 ....tgtoo< AS """"""'0 It((.JrfA~I'''''''A.(A~ -_.",,'....-.-->:. '.... ""':1' '--.. ~ -. TH( ",",0 (VtAC".AtC" GOJfI1 IS H(OU. OtO""'(O 101>-( uscor,.., ',"< '....,:!' '-'-. ---. """ """-.c ,,'CHW.. pugPOS(.S ...., AU.0Tt«. P.....'C uses .." ",:.o..><n(.,: ." < '- -C"""", ~., """"""'CH"""-,""'PQS(S.ALSO1H(0I"'HT'1O"""(.w...(c:u.....~....'-", --- "','.;It-'t '--- ",-u """'_1.D1S""08<.Dc.t($s.«>w..H(A(OH,~....tO(""",....'t""...........-.c.7" --- -":'--, ~.j-:> " C:OU':',.:',';';;"~S~~Of.""(""'O<D4'POMT""'....s c:AUSCOT>otKI'OUtN" 101( v.:c'" O(SCRIPTI ON , -- .'it-- - ...m"""'ot""""OSt""""'Y.HO'TSc.ooPOR.~(S(AL 'tO8(H(AtVNTO .,.:a(O,~~'.:'.;. ,"'s 0'LA1Of-"""'( 001.,0<' T""G~- Gov(........ IN<.wocs TH( --. - ", ......t. '0"1"'1('" ANOYlO.rT "-OOTH,n... ""0 tOW..o...w..o.o N'o.3Ðsc","""(;J ., '0<.'-""" OtScOI.(Ono.GTS« """'INS(CT1ONS ...Nt", """'1£" '10'. " "(OtllHTO SO"",. """0' ""0"""1N"~.~ <MY« ,~\lf<~,T. A,O. f1:..t.. 1'OWNS".........n""", Uf)"o..........- _t.,(ASr.w.".,. ................ -:'-"" An,,( ON1tOStCToQOf OF "" "","H'AS"",V ""'C'" «T..t "'L"A""OIOAO ....:' """"'A "'...,n ""'- Wn"A"", >oFt(T HO"" «."(A",O(O A1 ""'..T A"""'" TH(Ano. -0 Ii{, 0 J:;IJRTISS L H111' MYJ:R m..lH~TC.IN =~'o'.'.:'..c'7f~i~~~~~~';;'(:"."~~~~':.~::'~~~~4~~-' ¡;: ." #r. --ñ--.õ,,-..i., --, - - - - -- - , (AST>..."" """"""";H("«HORTH)4-."OI-tAST 4t"",t:(~;~"'NG( :',: , ........ CUNTOIJ S.REYNOlpS ' VIOLET M.ROlHST!;I!!-_- 1Ó\I'" "'0'" (AS"',OO't(T.~..(N(.( -.... 4.- usr Z'O 00 ((n,1""WU ;/, --- mü<'.<'.ü;-- - - - - - - - --- - -... '.'00' (ASTn.,U',(u. TH(WU OOOATH 'H.'.'(O, ~M("C( _rH." (QW..A_RQ lI-.ÇI.I(fQIiQ. - - ' :.":.~~m~';-~T;t~;~';';.~~:~:;;'o.:';:"o':"~O::"~~:;;~;~~M " "[Q~~!:'!iJ!:I.LÇI)[fQ~Q.- -"'Z"OO""" '.S.oorto. 1H(N(.("OO<TH 4)'OO"""ST 'so.oorto.TNtNC( ..,..". ."ocrwCST MO.oo<ur,YHtNC.tw<sr,u.oo((n, -"«HO""',,' -<>00- :';~:t:;~::~T ~~~!.::.~~~:. ~~~:.,=..,.~~.;~( ACKNOWLE OGM ENT ..-(U. IA'" StCTlQOfS "'... Ct, -0 ""C<O' "O" -<01 PQf"TTMt CDIt""A """'O" TO "eT'""s -«~, 'OU0<4, ....... ,tJ A""U",IO......O ...-. --........... .......-.... "'1O"4'(AST AOCS1AHC(""'..flnt..TI<NCt '-""""""-""'-OO'..oT UZ,.""(O "to....( (AJTt"""""CIN O<~H( "'U~""" -.,; -NCt OOU-...,UL'I'. 00LJ.0w0N<. T"(~", A- ~ ..... c.ouoSU """'( (An(",,' -0 HOO~H(ASTULY ........... """'0 OOAO 1O T..( ~AC( '" """-"'.W8J'(C To -"U.lI1- """,,"T OV(O A"O ......,.. To« .....,- or "'0 St""""T(.. ,<0, - OUC".A"'O """""'O<t( "'ANTt 0 'OTH( -..", TtHPoOONt OHQ TtU""""~P"""" -OMc.ooo.O..._t OZ.'« Otto..""'" ,", At«HOOS "'....... C:OU"'V,W""""~1O".u..Ot. ""0' "011'1 <fL( "= "U.", AUCOUOIU-O ""("JOO... _AS..-.. UPON"'('AU """'( "LAT. -........ H.W."""""""'O .-...,. VNf'lATT~C '. SULL"OOro:r 10 . ...e>< -r f I .,. ... ...:r ""'-'u- ,. '" ---'Y'< ..,or 2 erATt«w..........."",) """""«."'" S~, . ..... U1O «""n ""T"",.., ...... DAvOf' ""<.un. A.O. ,uz...'OtI( K..... ....Ot..-(O..~ f'V8UC.'OI!LY""""':1""'(O-'-.PtOSOM.w.Y"""'A'CO W°tlJ1J..1"./.,J,.-0 ~!'!.TJI!'.t.~~", ... «- TO.. TM( "'(SIOt... - _T........ tlUPfC.'tVtU', Of ..'(cOO"""A"'.""""'T tUwUO1Ht.... . "'" == ~~~~:;,":.~r"~ =z=:.;::'. V~~"v~.r..r.(~~~~:;~~ ~O=.~~~~~~~ ~~... -""C"T._t- --UO<.tO "'........T...... ""'(0 A"OI(AL(O_- ~",(,"O(t-""'-:... "GT """0(0 '0II1..tv,ts ""O"""OS.. THE at... """TOO..( ). A'" ....(....OO"'C(1tS "'~o--:.. ... ...........,to .....A1...... ..tOt .."TItOOIUO ~O O(C,," ( £NO""..,,"(H, ANO,...T - ,t",- ."..<0 """"""'UI<...«,..o COOPO'A..o... INw...,US -t""",., MAY( HUltvom> StT """""0 AHO A"'no "Y «(I""A,".' T~( -.""".., ..... «'..roUt( no.. """"" ""'ntH. JEAN BELL ;;;..... ...." """"7>< ¡;¡ , ë;;; - -,-",-,., "..,<C, ,\ .-," . .J;;;' .>- 7---~_- ~::-'l .°::7- .- , .'~- --,~"...", ""~"~~:",,,!,,,,"',' ,,'-.....'--.-.: '::--",",:...~.-,<~..,:.-'" .~ -- ~ EXHIBIT - Iõ -.~.-v-,-,'¡;": '-.'. . /_.,,- ~"",,' ,"jj~',!"~,,,~..,i.>~' i-"-'~':' L! '.- .:-- <~'~, ,~ ".~ ; - '::::'7". ~:-:-'. . -,-~,,_. """"",~"~""'"",,~":~.~_:~~:o.,,,,,,..,.,\1. -, "". l I, ~ ~, f ~ ( : \\ to,',', , 1 -. I:' i '. i' , I I 'So_' ' -,- f. -"10( 't ......- ' ~- --' 00.(1..-, -....... ....c- ' J:"'- ...-to... """ ..,.. '-,. ..,,' '"-""Coou' -..(NtU< ~".t1"'" _om.. _or'" : (0«(1110 ¡ ...... ...- l ,. I .' ....- ~ ~~';. ¡ --: s""" ..-"" -"" ' dAld'-: , t.. ~'~'~'~"':,:",,~' "~;¡;:"!-"'~""',:~~~~!";'""'"",:")-:Ií .~. \~ ..~ .-t~ .~'" ...~ \\ "J ,~\ , ' , >< ".. , ..', .', , ,"'" 0 ' 6<"'- \ ~,-"",:"",~..."o.." "",',ØT-"" " -" \:j , \;. ~ ~\... ~ '.\,,- ,\ '\'" ~> "\ ;f ;~, ~ 1¡) f: , ./.,-:... .j:'" ,.,~"_,,.f:'/ ,....,~r¡;.;~...,:,~:~<;? H"" ::.. ...~'.......... ;;.~ '",:" .~.., -:"""~~.. ~ n ,u', ~- ~- .. £ .~~~ "-""'_..L,"'-'--- .L'.'~ '." , """'-"~ _c....._'.... -- ""'0 r("""<O«O AT'"C ..CQUUt O""'" COJ,," """"0"(. couu","'" ""s.,,! "'" "',RØ. A,a- ""?' A'.~.! U'N\lU' ow.n..'!!\"', AHO I\«("'oeo 'N VOLVUC_U '" rLAtS. r.o.c.c-s ~1.. I\C(.OttOS or.,,'" """,",_""'ON, -I ROß~RT A,MORRIS 1 ....... ~ .....LLI.....': ....T...,..oöñ'..' - .RMr.......,.-"- , --<>00- C£RTlnCA'T( I "'It(.. «....,.,..-T '"' rLA' .".'LAo<[ DOLL",r ,"AC""" ....co VI'ON AN A(.1""'- 1V"""'AHOSV.""'SlON OOCG"O"'" oO,'OWNs><,r Z"'OU","A..(.C« "",.w.",., ,...., '"COOS""'GUAHOc.ov"su """SNOw" COOOI\CGR,.T"'" '"C"""uuc"" "A".CC" <C, ANOLO' AHOtILOGK COOO"C'" $1A.(O CO."(GR' ON"'C GAOU"O, '"A' t.....o rvL" --puCO w""....C roo<W"'O'" '" TNC ndU'U A"""'- "t<.uLA""'" "",(II"N(. I'\.AtT- -~~.I f' l !.....,¡..co AHa ..,.~O '"'I,"!""' "",'" jX.J9!f~""'" "9, i , I .- """"""""OH,«r_",, J..J -=~ - ....-:f . - - , .. " .." . '- ,.', ...~, '. -, .,..., I'" . ' , '--'. .- . I; . ,<' SHut ~ ' r , Q> 4 (Q (. 1, -<) ~. ':,. .>. ,"- Ö "" VOL. ð. -- ~ , -e;;..,...!.1-~ 1 r---_t'("- i'. ::>.. '- u¡: ì~',,'" ,.....;' ..¡i f! 0,.., (I I~¡ . A',. ). i' ... / "'. l' '" /, '0 l' ~ -~ ~ ~ ~_O"'OA~a..",.......tn<-"'j¡(;~ .., ..0."", J R HEATH OJ- ¡ T...c<lWft-...,-¡;ønr -- , " :~ 000 - ~STRIGTIOOS ".,,-~.., ~ ~ I ~ ~ 80 LOt.OI\ 1'00""" '" A LOt'" 1WS ...AT."""'" ec O"IOt""80s<x'o.OI\ I[Wto. OIl ow"CUHor G"""GCO OIl 1AANSCCO"CO.WNCU" TNC "",'O'H'~ orANI' """OW 0""" reAl. DGtPt'N(. un 0, .ux.... -..a'LCU ""ANTN' AOCA ""00."(0 ron"cusC COSTAlGT .",1(0 ow THI' reA', """'LV. SOX ""V,ANO ("""""",OC reCT, of' ...... LOU"""" rLAT, ""t~""G SAIO u".. "'-""" t. AI\( HCO'.' :<s,..,-n:o 10 "'SlOCNGt use (.00'",..(0.. OU"'IG'IONS. "VLU . C. ~ ~~~~~.:"c,~~~: ;'~~i:~.:' ~::..~::;::(Q '" ,,°, O.8LDGK I." H(..'" 1\""""'1<0 10 OVS"'US use, ~ .... ~ -000---'--- ( HCI\£O (.("Ttf'Y""'T....e w<THt.. rLAI '" - LAKe oou.Orf ,fIACIS' SOOIe,...,.-",,"O .,"'..(.CouNT'I' ........,..(. GOUUOSSOOW1t«S,JO."'" "'-0.1;.1, ",o-""A., _c:.-~.f!.c.L Q1YL~~Rj)¡;L ~~l.~T~_ü, " '" y 1, ~272t69 --<>00- u.0i7'WL~ J!:!. ~~'$J:b~'W:h< .~+I- -000- \.. I' ... ~ ' , , - , ~ \ " , "' , . , . , ~ '0 '~~'-, . ," 22 r: 0""'" ", ~ '. ..' .it /./l" " " ... ...... ~ , '" s' ~ , ',t"'">-f;~... . ,'~ ..., . '... .... lot /'s . ..."':;~(~~/ 0 "1;( "'... ' .~:... '" ..L ......._"",~_........,.~~~ _.~ .t ..._, . ::--::-:::,.. ~~~:," .~ ')~ T t' ~ oS' ~~~.~~.-. .;J <., ;., ^ ... ...., « <- .::> 0',' " . .' ~, . 0 '2~ , , ""- ~ .' ;.¡ . - ""-.....~.....-.... -_...._......,.--~--,_._".,"7Z:.."'.:>5....r...~,:t:.=-.'lò~.'. "','.?JQ~'~~':""";"':-'~" 0..:4 EXH \ ~'1_. 1 .--~~---~ ,~' ":":::~:~-~-~,:.~,::":,:;:Z:=~.' , ,"~' , '. ' . ,,', ,':"'" .:. , :',~, :.~ ~;, ~=';~~ :=~":~.~~~'::.:. ~"':::: -.. .,' ~-..;':".- , " '.;~:, ':~,,2::~ AFFIDAVIT OF BARNEY LUCAS, JR. STATE OF WASHINGTON) COUNTY OF KING ) ss. BARNEY LUCAS, JR., being duly sworn, says: 1- 2. I make this affidavit based on personal knowledge. My father purchased the property legally described as Lot 8, Block I, Lake Dolloff Tracts, in 1946. At the time, the zoning allowed us to use the property as business property and he and I used it as such until I sold it in approximately 1978. 3. We operated a construction business out of the property. 4. On this /:3U'- day of September, 1991, at 1- ~~ ú ){')..{1 ' Washington, I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing affidavit is true and correct. ~~, Affiant AFFIDAVIT -1- ,. !l ~)¡1A EXH I B IT~J ~ i áJlWlL'it¡ - PAGE-1LOF---11- ~v~ -I J)-l~:; r à . ~j -1~ rU- A?tÆ- ~ / ;] ~ ~ v~&D~ I-Þ n;;tolty ~ r-/ - aw offices of preston johnso .. ,'14' DECLARATION STATE OF WASHINGTON) )ss. COUNTY OF KING ) LANORA CHURCHILL, b~ing duly sworn, says: 1. I know on personal knowledge that the property currently belonging to Richard and Louise Davis, commonly known as 30682 Military Road South, Auburn, Washington, has been used as business property since 1955. 2. In 1955, I knew the owners of the property, lived near the property, and witnessed the commercial use. 3. o~ this ~ day of September, 1991, at Camano Island, Washington, I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing statements are true and corr~ct. . ~ Subs< bed nd or me ~tr~ 1æ- this' yo' 9Cj r , . ",.....,,1590 N. Arrowhead Road .. ~ ~~~..." .~:.~~:no I s land, WA 98292 : Notary ~ublic in a~d.for.t.~~.\ \ I of \Yashmgton Residing Iß'~~ ~}O ~ EXHIBIT ... :..\ . ~ Bl.Jc . .. \~o..."1'.~.!~¡~~~~o/ PAGE 110F ',~ ø'~ ~ I 33838 pacific highway s~tht (ederal way. washington .98003 (206) 838-3454/927-3344 EXHIBIT .. -- ., ..._~..'"..- APPLiêÄ TION. F~J\ ZONING CUP OR ACUP (Continued) EXHIBIT D-3 GENERAL INFORMATION 1. Project description: uses): 2. Existing Zone: 3. Acreage: 4. Water District: (Include a statement describing the compatibility with surrounding SR 5. Sewer District: FEDERAL WAY .21 6. Fire District: FEDERAL WAY 1/39 FEDERAL WAY 7. School District: FEDERAL WAY 1/210 8. Address of Property: 30682 MILITARY R? S AUBURN WA 98001 9. Has an Environmental Impact Statement been prepared for this proposed development'? Yes ( ) No (x). If yes, submit with this application. 10. Development existing on subject property: One story frame structure 11. Development on adjoining properties: Lot 7 two story frame-North side Lot 8 parcel B one story frame 12. Neighborhood land use characteristics: Residential use with a few commercial businesses located along Military Rd S. Two blocks North is Cartland Alarm, next door is Powers Hardwood Floors, across the street is Velmas Signs, one block south is st Nichol Monstery Sèhool & daycare, two doors south of that is a church. Name the road(s) which provide legal access to the site: 1 13. Military Road and South 308TH Place / 14. Is this an expansion or renewal of an existing operation? Yes (x) No ( ). If yes, provide file numbers and dates of previous related County approvals for construction and operation:we are asking for a continuation of nonconforming business use. History of business use goes back 1946 purchased by Barney Lucas at tha time it was zoned as business, he used the lot for his construction activities. The existing office was built in 1979 as a shop and small retail store. In 1986 Vilma Signs was rented the building. In 1988 we What area do you plan to serve with the proposed use? Please describe: purchased the but Federal Way and Auburn ing for our account practice, and have been here. ever sincl 15. 16. Number of employees: Part-time Full-time 17. Numberofdailycustomers:'4 per day April 15th to Jan 1st, 10 per day Jan 1st to April 15th EXHIBIT .....~.. . PAGEa--'~n-_~ 18. Hours and days of operation: Monday thru Friday 9:00am to 5:00 pm Page 7 of 9 . i I EXHIBIT t¡ ",., .~_...... ,--_...,-~--_._,.,. """" ..,-.. .. 1 '" " APPLICATION FOR,ZONTNG Cçp OR ACUP (Continued) EXHIBIT D-3 (page 2) 19. Number of round-trip vehicle movements anticipated at this facility per day: employ~e automobiles 1 trucks . 0 customer automobiles 4 to 1 0 20. Schools Information: a. Is the subject property close to a school or to a pedestrian or vehicular access route to a school? Yes () No 6c ). If yes, will the proposed use have an ,effect on transportation and traffic safety of school children? Yes () No (X). b. c. Will the proposed. development present an "attractive nuisance" to children? Yes () No IX). Explain any of the above: d. Have you consulted with school officials regarding this matter? Yes () No ~>C). 21. Have you made your plans known to potentially interested community groups in the vicinity of tbe property or to neighboring property owners? Yes () No ( ). If yes. who has been contacted and what is their reaction? There has been a business operating out of this building since 1979. D & D Accounting has been there for three years, and the property has been used for business since 1946. The original land use map showed business only. ' Is the water distric~ or distributor capable of serving the property adequately to meet County fire protection standards and to meet the demand created by the proposed conditional use? Yes 22. 23. Is the subject property shown within a local service area in the King County Sewerage General Plan adopted by Ordinance No. 4035? We do not know 24. Is the subject property served by sanitary sewers? If not, bow do you propose to serve the proposed development? No, we plan on using septic Explain how the proposal complies with the zoning code standards listed for the specific use proposed and applicable KlDg County Comprehensive Plan policies: The building is designed as a little store and would be unadaptable to a home. (See attached pictures) We need to pu~ in a septic tank,we have designed a system, and it'sapproved for a small office. Our designe told us there would not be enough room for a residence system. The You may submit any additional information (e.g. sketches, engineering reports, petitions, photographs, etc.) which you believe will justify, clarify.. or explain your request or will assist in assessing tbe potential environmental impact of ~ranttn$ your requested CUP I ACUP. Further, the Building and Land Development DivisIon staff or the Zonin~ Adjusto~ may at any time requeSt further information or studies for these purposes. Other evidence which supports this application should be attached (on legal-sized 8-112" x 14" paper). 25. 1 pageE~HIBIT__- -1---- PAGElfI-°F~ (.. ',,', ,'" ';\ oJ ^ J ~ 1\ 1}~ J ~¡ ~ q: ~1 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ .... - ~ Q. .,'I <:> \IJ () ~ ð ~ > C\... I.s) ¡ ù " I\J ('l\ ~ v 1f\ 'sn JO s~~olq ~aJ e uT4~T~ PH ^~e~TTTW uo sassauTsnq ~<HnEXH I BI1'_,'7 ,------ szþ AG ElS-JFjL [-a .LHIIHX3" ~ ~ ' .ii2 5 , .. .., ;::>\< ": "~~'~;~~~~~: . .""""'",: c~~ ',' ';;~~'~~L:;~§g~i&~~ . , "'-"':.'-'>-.JiI'~t Co,;v",- of South 308TH Place ,lnò ,} 1 it':, r:.: :: ';, ",', ',:" ". off :-:illt>\rY Ed. ;'1111td"y Rd 150 ':.., ".,' "',::j '; .. :: ~ 'J CJ CC '; ... t j co;c "'~C:",,~ , 150 not a yard , , L .. ::.:,"J' 7 I 'ft, ,. .. .. . J..... #25 EXHIBIT D-3 Building designed as a little store not adaptable to be a ho;¡]e. '1 11 11 ,f 1\1, 1\1 . -, "September 29, 1993 EXH ¡ B ¡~.. ----,'. ) I We would like to let you kno\~ how we I£)A~¡;:",~ LA!""\ ~~ ,1 ¿ located at 30682 Military H.oàd South,r;¡JM~t~vf~g As you know the structure that Lo' ' . : bu~iness lo~g before she purcha~~~et~:v~~~p~~~yountàn¥ office is located, was pr vate resldence. an 1S not very desirable as D ~ D,Accounting does not create any more a reSldence would. traffic and probably less, than The Da"is 'family has lived in this nei hborh ' , 3O8th PI. longer than moSt of d good at:\bhe-H residence %20 S bettpr t f us an are always invol d ' ' o. ~ men. 0 - our communi ty. They have Ie t ve 1n everything for the ~~:i~ngs 1f necessary. One of the meetings ~: ~:1d bhe offfice for neighborhood ,1 ren, concerning the increased t ff' was or the safety of our bdnapping of a child near the schooI\ 1C on Hilitary Road and an attempted us stop close to D & D A ' If ' . ccountlng. glves the parents of these scho 1 ' one is alHays in the office so hel~ a~~l~d~:~ al secure feeling, kn()\o/íng some- ep10ne is close at hand. ~~ ~~erJ.e!Dna&i'nDa~Cacobu. UnstiinngesisS. a definite asset t . g 0 our neighborhood and would like SIGNATURE ADDRESS & PHONE Cm1ME . , //, .~/)¡J .-' 'NTS ( if any) ,- /-*,~L7 ø. 4..4,.,.., .z ð {, P' '/.. J 'j tj ¡)is; t2tf.""" It I" 't j..' J ;( - 7f/-~ d.. :J/;,¿/ " ,. ~ 4-1 .. - ,. 'I Ii. fJi, 9, (j "'-þ"", Ilf ",-f, . 'i 8 "co ) ~;:'- '~~ T~ 1'oG(~ '7Jl{CL ()I-'S ~~~'C 7((éJ<J( 1(- ~7~J~3ølolç-:5 </~ 62/ [: '( ? cPo / 5-- "<'<--.,(\ ':\ ,- ( (/ '({ ~/&:>~- '~f-C V :')C,(, )S:~{(¡ C,Q s:, f\lLQ,,< L ') ~ ,,' - 1!:.::/(; ;1.:.;L 3 '/I S S. 3ð,3." /'C Align, ,I "! ,) IÏ, '? J.~; / ;- / /:fL'l-t.(c.pvd1 '"3(.(.(; ( rJ1 ! '(- J . ~'() ~ :..1 n , ,~,,(("'( c.' ~H.."!.(V\.~'l (J...V)",- ý"ti'C'! ~, )~;v.:'ì~"\\'\\L~'\\\\!,tJu)'~\.~ "be:\':', Il'l 1'\~~'-<\ ')., ~'-". ll~~~ '( ß(Oof " r¡~t.tl!~,,~9~iâ';";¿~! - ~OY:2 !-";/~,~.5' rw4d,- (¿Ú,Ä"t?L/ ...//¡;/';:' I}j'/"/ ~ ;' J 1'"<,;' 711-,-,-,-< "L¡ 3 cf)1 1 ),J'J!" R,¡.i.) , tkt;" ¡" ;II II '7 t ð C I! '-1, f' ",ù".- -I ¡y. ý,...",-Iv :3 P{ r t. "?'",, 1;,;(, -01", (¡",ê,. 1[..0.. i 1;-, 'h" ~ It? #~ Z<ð.~!! 3'¡¡"ifl. -:5. ~ .'Ui~ 916ð) /-:5/ ,.,9-,fì;;'t,~ .1hJ¡j¿ 3CJØ~Ú-;-'5t.(.IÞ.A,. tÉ. ~,j~,¿¿'. .)-1-- "'l.Ÿ/v) 1'1: íZ ~".¡¿;¿v-- - 3 0 0 ( 3y.'tf: pi <;'" tUck ~, y Cb" I s .<~iL.e,/1ì a;)u7) ! 3 D ¿,Ii' 0 3 q jj, CP s (LuþUj!.J1,lU ~ c¡ ý (J () I I b ~} Î1~ 30,;,60 3'1" ('L 5 þ¡'u"~ LJ~ ,Y06( P? ')'~ A~ ~~ .3 (-.<¡, 1(, ^'; L; rA ~:oJ. >:c\ "A A" "<it'" (J A?3~::CI ) (J'.;? 17/)<")./' ~ß'-'-- :J 'I t1 ,'5¿)j /71/'£. /-: C{ -S"""I, (Un'i P' 1 ,'1., ~"'1 ¡!,,'}-~i ']CllIC' /Y!¡~hM'1 hi/! :i, ¡:J"gw?/I/ w)" r ýó" ¡ ,(Y'~~- e,~ëY~~ SOB lu ,,;,~, Q ç" (Iv b~<w ,/c~ 5S"'" I )..0' \j .? \ íI~'"-;jj;.¡J.uJ J~:J.. ~ 2i 3,1 ~ i-' Pi. ~'l-~~~ 'i 'iI'/; / 2 ,-l. . . '-}I1' j::,-' ""6 Ii) "<{.{II f'/5 /1. lrMo [t". '1.),",,/ - . ,J};~rìULt,. . ,'^í..- y-- ' . 2:~, . ib"'11K ~ J 3{",.7D 3"<3. I'L ~,. ,,>,'/'1-112:'-' ,"R<; ¡ EXHIB[ ¿2 ~ . 'íó- "\ ~,¡.ý-. l~1\À5 "" -"1:1 If( 'f 3 '{"" d ' ç. ¡J "O(A", ",4, q í .s . " , - _--:"1-- .. .' .. . . - ' " '.. """, ~.. "..'...".. J ' ~ II ; ~L/ 2 ~ 7;/ uf. ~ ..a. .:3: ~~ C£-/ zL ~ I :3 ::z C' vi ..J );;J 19 R. -t ~ "',) ~- c:ZLP- ?? ~~ ~~ ~ ø ~ .K/. ~ . ~-.- :3 c/ çL dk- 6;;:< 0 ~ ¿h-J1- i ~v<- ~~ ~~, A/~ /t:L:¿h'-6~ ~v~. r& f- ,,(Q ~~'~'~,~~~é~ á/~ ? ~~ .~ ~z:¿>---v 9 ~¿:) A-~(/-/ ~J ~ --dJ¿ ~¿ .' ~ . ~/ ~~ z;{~ ~~I . ~/ ~:Ä.-~ ~ ~ /¿J ~ ,--4,-, .-Lcyifi- ,.~~t= ~~, A) Æ~¿<--(..<--y~;y: "r~ ~-/lÆ.:'¿-~ ~ --;/~~ 'wk ~ cpf6~~..¿fr / ~ /-3'- fl~ ~ ~ ~/ //c~~ ~ }/~~-v ~~~v ~ ~ ~ ¿;/ ~¿~ y -:-LoU ~~~ J~ ~ d¿ ./z~ ~ -/~ #---tR-Ú-&~ - '7~~ 7~ /~ y~~£~ £~;P/~ c>2cJ6.- 837'-:? 3?'ý EXHIBIT_' PAGE1t-_OF~ ':::~:?\~f;:Ff~~;:~~- '-;.;':~;",'¿¿:;;..~~;a:~ . .. ~~ SUBJECT: March 17, 1994 APPEAL STATEMENT Land Use Services Division File No. L92RZOOI Proposed Ordinance No. 94-4 Proposed Zone Reclassification of D & D ACCOUNTING Northeast corner of South 308th Place and Military Road South The applicant, D & D ACCOUNTING, makes the following statement with regard to the findings and recommendations of the examiner. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. The current use of the property is already adequately served by public water service, an on-site septic system, and existing roads. The proposal has no adverse impact upon the environment and is supported by the neighborhood and King County Land Use. KCC 21A.O6.900 would classify this use as a professional office. The City of Federal Way's comment that more control is required of this site is met by the response dated January 27, 1994 by Lisa Pringle, the Supervisor of the Site Plan Review Section of King County Land Use Services Division, defending this rezone and stating that no more intensive use than is occurring currently will be allowed by the proposed rezone. The sole objection, other than the objections of the City of Federal Way, does not come from a neighbor, but from Les Akers, who lives over a mile from the site. The owner has documented business use of this property since 1946. The records of the King County Assessor show that the property has been treated by King County as commercial property since at least 1979. Only one complaint, in 1990, has ever been made against the commercial use of this property. The maker of that com- plaint did not file an objection to this reclassification. Indeed, 24 neighbors publicly supported this request. The current owner bought the property in good faith and has operated the business in good faith. No conditional use. permits, nonconforming use permits, or special use criterion are allowed under KCC 21A.08.060 for professional offices. EXHIsrT '.__d' PAGE~uE EXHIBIT . . . I .I I The owners have complied with and agree to comply with the B-N-P classification recommended by the Department of Development and Environmental Services. Equitably and morally, the County should permit this use to continue. The owner is using this property appropriately, fully within all codes and statutory requirements. Since 1925, this property has been treated as commercial property. without this rezone, the property has no economic value since it is not suitable for a single family home. For the reasons stated, the applicant respectfully requests that the County Council approve this application. DATED this 17th day of March, 1994. ON WSBA 11526 D & D Accounting 2 EXHIBi1"-1 PAGE~~')~ Ju]y 29, 1997 Introduced by: Pete von Reicl1bauer Christopher Vanc~ kn:ac 96-263 ,sub Proposed No,: 96-263 1 2 ORDINANCE NO. 12824 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ,27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 AN ORDINANCE relating to comprehensive planning and zoning; completing the zoning cOde conversion process fi-om TitJe 21 to TItle 21 A by repeaJing aU p- suffix conditions adopted pursuant to TItle 21 and adopting property specific development standards (p- suffix conditions) pursuant to TIde 21 A; amending Ordinance 263, Section I, and KC.C. 20.12,OlO~ Ordinance 11653, Section 6, and KC.C. 20.12.017; Ordinance 8846 and KC.C. 20.12.170; Ordinance 7746 'and KC.C. 20.12.180; Ordinance 10703 and KC,c. 20.12.210; Ordinance 2883, Section I, and KC.C. , 20.]2,240; Ordinance 10]97 Sections ], 3, and KC.C. 20.12,270~ Ordinance 5080, Sections I, 2, and KC.C. 20.12:300; Ordinance 7837. and KC.C. 20.12,320; Ordinance 11]66, Section 2. and KC.C. 20.12.337; Ordinance 10841, and KC.C. 20.12.340; Ordinance 9110, and KC.C. 20.12.345~ Ordinance 6422 and KC.C. 20.12.350; Ordinance 6986, and KC.C. 20.12.360; Ordinance 9499, and Kc.C. 20.12-440; Ordinance 10870, Section 4, and KC.c. 21AO1.040; -Ordinance 10870, Section 36, and KC.C. 21A04.L50; Ordinance 10870, Section 576, and K.C,C. 21A.38.030; amending p-suffix conditions established in Ordinance 11349, Ordinance 11389, Ordinance 11568, Ordinance 11653. Ordinance 11694, Attachment A to Ordinance 11147, Ordinance 1117 4 , Ordinance 118 98 , Or dû1.an ce 119 3 5 , Appendix A to Ordinance 12061, Ordinance 12065, Attachment A to Ordinance 12093, Attachment A to Ordinance 12170-, repeaJing Resolution 25789 and TItle 21, Chapter 21.02 through Chapter 21. 80; repealing Ordinance 8848, Secti.ons I, 6-8, and KC.C. 20.12,390; repealing Resolutions, 3 H>72, 32219,33877,33999, 34493,34639,35137, and 37156; repealing Ordinances 43, 118, 148,255,633, 1483, 1543, 1582, 1584, 1728, 1788,2487,2508,2548,2608,2671,2701,2703,2765, 2781,2840,2884,2940,2958,2965,2991,3239,326~ 3313,336~3424,3494,3496,3501,3557,3561,3641, 3643,3744,317~3901,3905,3953,3988.4008,4043, 4051,4053,4082,4094,4131,4289,4290,4418,4560, EX1-1 \ B ~ T 1___- AGE "'1." ~- .., P ---A--' '------I--!- -i- EXHIBIT ~ "~~ .! -'-';;:'.,::C Ii <-,""'"',,. ' , ,-"""" I", ."" ,,' .. 11/08/%001 J5:04 fAl10. let 1.34 D , D Aocountinq L92RZOOl n'NÐI~S~ 1. Central InformAtiont Gvr.Gr: S'I'R~ Looation: ExiaU,nq ;oninq: Re.~eliòta4 %onin91 Shfi: Community Pl~n,Area1 compreh.nø1ve Plan Ð.siqna.tion~ I.C.Beartns Elaœ1Der lifloo<l . .' Page. 2 EXHIBIT, "1 Richard and LO\1iJ?A~E~OF: " 30682 Military 'ROa<1 South. 1I.ub~rn, WA 98001. NW 10-21-4 Narth.oat corner of S~uth 308th Pb.06 and Kilitary Road South S-R . . B-N-P 9,325 square 1"e.et Federal Way Urban EXcept u modified below, the facts set torth in th. Xing' County Land Use Serviceø Division'. Preliminary Report to the tioninq and. Sutd,"v1sion Examiner for tb. Jan~ry 13, 1993 publ ic h6a.r1n<J e.l'e. found to be corrøot and are incorþOra.te4 he~in by this re~erence. Copies of th- eúd 1:9pQrt Y111 b. atu;,cbed to the copies of this report BUb1!l1tte:1 to the coWl.t.y councj.l. The subject property was identified ~u. Itrartrioted to ' DusinG.IF uatll when platted in 19{2. it bas b6~ 118e.11 tor businClCs and CO1IU:1ercial PUrpO~4. a !nee 19.Ui. Had 1::he King. county council boen œët<!G aware' of thOSQ fac:'t8 at 'the tUne o~ thå aru. 'Zoning, it is likely th~t a classification, perm.ttinq the prS$4mt UðQ YOulð hbV~ be.~ a.pp1.ied at that ti1le. . 2. 3. TM applicants purchased th$ subject property i.n 3.988, w1.th the bello:! that ~e exiati.n9 CIOm11.t:""'~e.l ~Ge ".. .. ~oqaJ. use ot th.e property. In fe-ct, the property has bean toned for .!.ntJlè--~U1ily re.idential use since 1962. and the cunent S-It, ~on~ ".. rcmeve.d by th4 1.986 !'e<1oera1. Way CC8maUn1~ Plan aM Area. Zoning. Xli 1993 the App1.1ce.rtt& "first learned t:hst. thair exiat:1nq use: ot' the propu'ty WCUI in violation of the 1tinq county Code. The applicant c:urrant1.y utilizes the 8tJ:uctur.. on the property as an ~6. Thia 8truct.ure ~s built. pursuant. to a 1919 ptU'2I1t i.sued 1:0 .. prior owner tor an accessory 8torft,gQ usa in conjunction with an existing- re.iden~. "L'h;.a buildinq 11!! not Q1,litablQ. t:or u.. .. i. reafdence, &nd the iot is not d..irable ~or ra.id.ntial døve1.op1Wnt., du~ to its location on a corner e.dja~nt to Military ROfld South, 4t1 artctrial road. 4. 5. suppo~ ~or the reclasaifioatiofi is atated by a petition .10n8d by 2~ nearby re.id~te Vho as8ert that the property 18 not ve~ dec1rable tor WJQ .. . ruidenoa: the curnnt \We dœs not create any .ore tre.:ff1c 'than .. rM1c1eZ1~ wou141 and that th. e.ppl1œntt\, their bu.iness &n~ fa11y are' "seta to. the M1ghborhOOð. 'the current u.. of ~ property i.e.ð.Qqua.~11 aerveð b~ public \latu ..rv1ce, 8.n on.c1~ ..pt10 ayctuJ., and exl.ting ~ ads.. 'lb. ro oad has no ac1v~e impact up<m the p~.ioe.l 6. 7. 4i1I~vironment.. eppccit1on to the proposed recl.a&iricat1on baa been exprGsHd by the City at Feð.e=al Way, the Kinq County planning.and Community O.velQP~en~ Divi.1on, community Planning- Sectibn, the F4!!deral Way water and SøWQr District, and on. area citizen. ., EXHIBIT___--_1 -----~ PAGEUt-'~'C_~ 11/08/20811&:0$ fAX %Oe 28e 1014 K.C.Eeartas Exactner llIoo~ ~ . D (( D Aocounting EXH' 8lTa9'--~Ll PAGE~(_'\~~ ~- The city of Federal Way further statG& that it'Kinq County de8'l!\8 it nâOQ..ary to authorize continuation of. the pre8ent ~'r it should: be permitted tbrouQ'h aODe proOU8 othe::' than a reclassification, aucb aa condi~iQnal use approval, hoœa occup~ti()n, or continuation of a non-c;:onforui~ U£e.. In the City'. view', re.clu5irication would conetitut8 llpot zoning, and b. a. pQt4tntially ille.qal actio~ by the county. xt. could. also oonatitute a precedent tor additional ~ion. violAtiv~ of tbQ eoamunity Plan. Rovev8r, the conditiona recommended by the Land Uðe 8ervi 1lDl~ ç Q .ubj~ property ~o prote$Qioàa1 office u only I 'and proh1bltin9 D.ny 4ucp.nsion of the exiat:lnq uildin<¡. LnRZOOl CONC!..V~:O~: l. Kinq county Code Section 20. ~4 .190 limits the circumstances W1der 'Which t;he. Zaninq o.1'1d SUbd1vif:¡ion EXaminu can reoo~Qnd . re.olul:irieat-ion 'to the Kin<¡ County Council. As applicable to this case, it is inc~ent upon the applicant to demoruitrate -..ri'th substantial. evidence that: , I' 2.. since the la~t previous aroa zonin9...cond1tion£ or cit'QWIIt¡tano8' e.U:..ctinq the subj ect property have und.~QnQ submtantial and mat.e.rial chanCJQ not antlcipat:.ed or oonte11pl8ted in the CoJUNnity tJ~án or area EoninCJ' the. iDpacts from the oh~ed conditions or oi.rcuDst:anoe. aUlitCt the su3::lject property in a unnar and to a degree di~farant than other propertiu in -the viciJ'\lty 8ucb that area rQzon1n9 or rOdQC1qnat1on is not approprle.t_, and 411. The requeate.dre,Qla8øif1ca~on or iG4Q~iqnation 15 re.quirM in 'the puÞl10 intft..t". ~CC ~O.~4.1g0.D. The evicknc8 in this caBO- 11: that since. thQ l.aat p1:'ev1ous aru zoning, the Applicants learne4 that their aurrant use ot' the aubjøot property ia in "iol~tlon of t::he ~aae.nt zonQ clll...8ificfltiot\. 'l'11ie. 18 a change in c.on<1itiol15 or . circUJdtanoe-a wn1ch waG not oont.e:JÞpla.ted et th. time or tha last area zon1n9, an4 atfects the subject property in a œannðr anð to a degreG different t~n oth8r propart18a in the "io1nity. 83. 2. The proposðd reclassification ia in th~ pUblic interet¡t. ACTION: 1J'P~ %'eOlU5sUioa.t.ion Of tbe øUbjoot property to JS--K-P1 . RUbjQct to the tol1owtnq po8t-.ffectivQ conditions: , 1. UN of the prop.rty sb&l.l ~ luit8d to protusion.l office <mly . ~. The ø1tQ .h~ll Þe ðøvaloped an~ maintained .. v_nerally c tl site lan dated Juno 10,1»'1. . '. .,,; 3, No expan6ion of the existir.g Þul1di~ øheU bQ allowed. '- EXHIB~1 - - 7 -~=---_J PAGE 24.()r-~ - (,' "4', .~Ø/tOOll~:O6 FA! toe ZI. 153' 1.C.He«.rw Elac1Der IlJ 000 ~ .° D 'D Aooountinq L92RIOOl Faqa 4 SUBHI'l"n.D this 18th day of K~y, 1994. .0 Connor, aru1 SuÞd1.v18ion.Examiner TRANSMITTED this 16th a~y of May, 1994, to the following parti8s of record: Le s A);:êrs Kary Duty Gary Ki~ Audrey 1'11.180n Richu-d I< Louise Davis: !;)Qbcrah {( J'aIm Borne Greqory Moore/City of Federal W~y TRANSM1'1'TED this 18th do.y of way. 1994,. to thØ tollowlnq: Gt'Qg Borba, Land Use s.r:vices DivisioTl Eli~abeth Deraitua, Land U.. Services Divi~ion T~Y Johnaon, Land use sarvices Division V&U9~ Norrie, Het.:t'.opalitan King county council Paul Reitenbach, Cgmmunity P1AMinq Trudy Sa.tterl.., Land. use S8rv1.ce& tliviç1QIl J!OTICE Or !:\rGHT. 1.2 J.P~AL AND ADDITIONAL AmON REOUI:RED In order to appeal thG t'QCOIIIII.8n4a'tian ot the .Ex,a,1!IÍner, written notiCE at appeal must. be :f1148d with the Cl.rk of the 1ti.ng C9unty Council with . fee of $125.00 (check payable to Kinc;r CO\U1ty Office of Finance) 9\)' OT b8~ora t1'1m. 1. 1'14. x~.. not.ice o( appe-al is ~i1.ed, thQ oriqinaJ: a.nd 6 copi&8 of a written appe.al sta~sent .pecifying the basü for the appe.a.l and arguD.ent. in 8upport of the a.PPe.8.1 aust Þ. tiled with tba Clerk ot the nne¡ County council ~ or before hue 8. l.tU.. Appea.1 8tð.tement8 may t"Qfer only to facta conta1n84 in the hurin9 reoorð: na'W facts ma.y not be p!:e.e:nted on appøa1. .' Filing' rQqUir.. ILct.ual ð.eli'l7Qry. to the ottice of the C~~k of the Council, noom .03, King County courthOUSG, prior to the QlosQ of bu. 1n6&11 ( ~ z J 0 p.~.) on the c1ate due. Prio~ mailiJ:1C 1& not 8ufficient it a.otual rcaœipt by 'the Clark doe. not. occur within the ðPPliçtlble ti1D8 parlod. 'l'he Exwd.nor ðOGlC not have &uthority' to extend ~8 ti:l1a PQr1Od unle.. the ottioa 01' the Clerk is not open em ~e specifieð olaain1¡ ð.ate~ in which ev.nt delivery prior, to the olos. of buc.1n... on the next busin.ca 4e.y is 8utt1oicmt to ~8st 'thø tilinq r.qu1~t. It ~ vr1tten notice of appeal and fi1in~ tee.ro nQ~ f14e4 w1thln 14 day" cÛen4ar 4&ya ot t.1w. au or this .report. or it ell written *Weal statement. o.nd ~.t\t are not. e11od v1th1D, :n. oo.lenðe.r d8.ya of t1w c1at4 of this ~rt, the Clerk ~ the Councll 81wl1 pac. a pt'QþOseð oX'dinaace which 1mi'lement8 the 1!:xu.iner' IS ~ recomsundcd action on th. eo enM of the next aVf.11Ab1A Co\1hOU C ZlLl.V ad. thG xxaminer. a .. .. ! , ~ J :.t f .~ .j ." 5 ( ~ .:; Ì t , .~ "I 1 f .,' ,~ ~ ÿ ~. .~ j .i ~ j t i i , ~ 1 . ., , 1\ \ \ I \ \ \ \ t----- \ \ ----- ..--- \ ~\ 0' r .s) ú) \ \ ~;; , , ----- - ./' I J ! Þ :::r:: E--c =:J I 0::: ~ 0 z -------- - \ z <{ -1 (L W l- ú) EXHIBit. --1 PAGE~C'FJ I'~-'- - 0 I 0 () 0 00 <X) () () ....sI I <t () 3 (-<) 00 . I Z c<) æ: ill ::J N íO I ::J - <t - II - . '0 <J} --I 0 --I <t . 0 9 æ: 0 >- æ: <t ú) f- - - > --I « L 0 ~ ill ~ <J) 0 ::J c<) 0 --I " <J} . <J} « UJ .. æ æ: 0 w 0 Z <t 6 8 ~ CO .. I - - - II - - - - - - - - - - - - - LIMITED SUMMARY /\PPRAISJ\L D & D Accounting Building 30682 rvlilitary Road South A,uburn, Washington 98001 Client: KeyBank Date of Appraisal: October 30, 1998 By C,j, tÆunson, ~~~l & Joseph \Xl. Harris ex 'I L' "-r 1. c H ù I à__- - PAGEn_~)~ c' .~ .' SUBJECT HISTORY AND HIGHEST & BEST USE HISTORY Sales History Assessed Value Real Estate Taxes THE FOUR HIGHEST & BEST USE CRITERIA I ¡ I I I I I I I , t , 1 Legally Permissible Uses Most Likely/Physically Possible Use Financial Feasibility Discussion Productivity Maximization and Optimal Use The property has not been transferred in the past five years. land Value: Improvement Value: Total Value: $40,000 $30,000 $70,000 1998 Taxes: $1,082.04 The most probable legally permissible use for the subject improvements is office space. The site as vacant would support a variety of neighborhood commercial uses, The most likely use is continued office use. The building is configured as an office building. The site as vacant would support a variety of neighborhood commercial uses, Based on the on financial feasibility, based on the current office market trends, the highest and best use of office is supported. Consequently. productivity maximization and optimal use is as office space. HIGHEST & BEST USE CONCLUSION Highest & Best Use As If Vacant Highest & Best Use As Improved CJM Neighborhood commercial use Office use EXHIBiT - _.1___~..- PAGE~O ~.)r,:-::JI--.-- 098-222 13 ~ ' Photo 1: Facing southeast from Military Road South. Photo 2 Facing northeast from Military Road South. 1 ~ '" ò z E' 11 ~ ãi EXHIBIT 10 '/1 098.222 '1, 31 ',. ' Photo 3: Facing northwest from South 30Sth Place. Photo 4 Facing northwest from South 308\n Place CJì\1 098.2):' 7 VII '-,...' ~2 '71 Members of the Federal Way Planning Commission: We represent a group of residents with property on North Lake. When the Potential Annexation Area Study was completed, we noticed that our lakefront properties were zoned six houses per acre by King County, although the non-Iakefront properties in the neighborhood were zoned four houses per acre. This is using the old King County zoning designations. We submitted a petition to the Federal Way Planning Department asking it to recommend a change in our zoning from six to four houses per acre. The Planning Department agreed with our request and we are here this evening to thank the people in the Planning Department for recommending this change. Just a little background on our petition requesting a zoning change: there were 56 owners of lakefront property on North Lake. Of these 44 households signed in favor of changing the zoning; 4 households did not sign the petition; and 8 households were not available to sign at that time. We would like to ask you, the Federal Way Planning Commission, to vote in favor of this petition request. It is our belief that this change will make our neighborhood more homogeneous in its character. A more dense zoning designation for part of this established neighborhood is not desirable. Thank you for considering this request from the lakefront residents of North Lake. The North Lake Zoning Petition Committee Chuck Gibson, spokesperson Julie Cleary Debra Hansen Lois Kutscha Gary Mingus Eleanor Vandenheuvel EXHIBrT. 7 . í. -- ---=----", PAGE»-OF~ . ti,' Friends of Washington 1000 Friends of Washington 1617 Boylston Avenue, Suite 200 Seattle, WA 98122 (206) 343-0.681 phone (206) 709-8218 fax www.lOOOfriends.org Aaron Ostrom Executive Director Dave Russell President Board of Trustees Fran Abel Langley Dia Armenta Bainbridge Island Jay Arnold Kirkland Nancy Ball Walla Walla Margot Blacker Bellevue David Bricklin Bainbridge .Island Vance Corum' Vancouver Jeff Eustis Seattle Ray Gould Edmonds Bart Haggin Spokane Bruce Lorig Mercer Island Mary McCumber I Seattle Henry McGee Seattle Barbara McIntosh Poulsbo Bill RlJSS Seattle Dave Russell Kirkland Will Stelle Seattle Margaret Studer Anacortes Nancy Tosta Burien Jodie Vice Seattle Daryl Williams Tulalip Tribe Advisory Board James Ellis Dick Ford Virginia Gunby Joe King Lucy Steers Evere~t Wilcock RECEIVED BY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ,l\PR 0 2; 2004 March 29, 2004 Ms. Kathy McClung, Community Development Director City of Federal Way P,O. Box 9718 Federal Way, Washington 98063~9718 Dear Ms. McClung: I am writing to ask that you carefully examine your city's densities as you prepare to update your comprehensive plan. 1000 Friends of Washington urges cities and counties to provide for development intensities that wisely and efficiently use land to avoid the negative impacts of sprawl. The negative impacts of low- density development include increased capital facility costs and traffic, lack of affordable housing to all income segments and destruction of critical areas. The Growth Management Act (GMA) goals encourage development inside urban growth areas (UGAs) and the reduction of low-density sprawling development I Further, urban growth at urban densities shall be encouraged within the UGA.2 To address these issues and carryout the goals and requirements of the GMA, the Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board has adopted a 'bright line' rule that comprehensi ve plans and development regulations must have a maximum density of no less than four residential dwelling units per net acre for all lands within the UGA.3 This density "is clearly compact urban development and satisfies the low end of the range required by the [Growth Management] Act,,4 "Any new residential land use pattern within a UGA that is less dense is not a compact urban development pattern, constitutes urban sprawl, and is prohibited."s The board has recognized a limited exception for"... environmentally sensitive systems [that] are large in scope (e.g., watershed or drainage sub-basin), their structure and fl,lllctions are complex and their rank order value is high, ...." Then a local government can apply densities of less than four 1 RCW 36,70A020(l) & (2), ' 2 RCW 36,70AIlO(l). 3 Master Builders Association of Pierce County, Terry L. Brink, et al. v, Pierce County (MBA/Brink), CPSGMHB Case No. 02-3-0010 Order Finding Partial Noncompliance and Continuing Invalidity p, "'8,2003 WL 22896415 p. *7 (September 4,2003) & Bremerton, et at. v, Kitsap County, CPSGMHB Consolidated Case No.: 95-3-0039c Corrected Final Decision and Order p. *33 (October 6, 1995). 4 Bremerton, et at. v. Kitsap County, CPSGMHB Consolidated Case No.: 95-3-0O39c Corrected Final Decision and Order p, *33 (October 6, 1995). 5 ld and RCW 36,70A.II0( I). EXH'B~'~' 7. . PAGE3~JI"~ housing units per net acre.6 All three of these criteria must be met to qualify for the exception and generally few lands in the UGA will qualify for this limited exception. To assist cities and counties who are required to review and update their comprehensive plans and development regulations to comply with thé goals and requirements of the GMA by December 1, 2004, 1000 Friends of Washington has reviewed the densities for zones within the urban growth areas for large cities and counties. This initial review has identified the City of Federal Way's RS 15 and RS35 zones as having densities of less than four units per net acre and are, therefore, in violation of the GMA. We urge you to bring these low-density zones and the comprehensive plan designations that provide for the zones into compliance with the GMA as part of the 2004 comprehensi ve plan and development regulations update. We also encourage your city to adopt higher density zones. While the four dwelling unit per acre minimum helps, it is not sufficient in itself. Higher densities are necessary to support transit service and provide affordable housing to all income levels. Generally, a minimum density of 7-12 units per acre is necessary to support transit. Increasing densities can be a difficult issue, but density is perceived and good design can make high density development extremely attractive. 1000 Friends also recognizes that changing zoning densities can be controversial in many communities. We stand ready to publicly support the necessary changes during the 2004 comprehensive plan and development regulations update. Please contact Sydney McComas or Tim Trohimovich both at (206)343-0681 or e-mail: sydney@ 1O00friends.org or tim@ 1000friends.org to let us know of hearings or other public involvement opportunities where this support would be helpful. We have enclosed a supporting document with more detailed infonnation about urban densities and the 'bright line' rule establishing four units per acre as the legal minimum under GMA. If you have any questions or believe we have misidentified any zones, please contact Sydney McComas or Tim Trohimovich at the telephone numbers and e-mails above. Please include this letter and the enclosed report in the record of the 2004 update. --» 1""" 7 - 1-. ~ EXH't-'" _.--- P AGE -Sf-C) ~ -11 6 Master Builders of Pierce County & Brink (MBAIBrink), et al. \1. Pierce County, CPSGMHB Case No,: 02-3-0006 Final Decision and Order p. * 10,2002 WL 31998487 p. * 11 (February 4, 2002). Thank you, city staff, the community, and your city's elected officials for your continuing efforts to successfully carry out the Growth Management Act and to ensure that Washington remains a great state in which to live and operate a business.. Sincerely, ~~~J fYl (; t~ Sydney McComas Urban Policy Advocate Enc: 1 Cc: Greg Fewins, Deputy Director and Principal Planner, City of Federal Way Ike Nwankwo, Technical and Financial Assistance Program Manager, CTED Anne Fritzel, Associate Planner, CTED EXH IB ¡, ,_- P AGE -3-1. - ~--'~ /~~J \1.1r\11 2CJ, 21)111 tiii Requirements for Compact Urban Development, a Minimum of Four Net Housing Units Per Acre hiCI1(b 1J/\h~hiI1(JtOI1 b Why Sprawl is Bad and Density is Good !\)orh' planncd Im\' de'n:;il\' s¡¡rd\\lln,-~ dl'n'lu¡¡[ì1l'lì! rl'sulh In man\' dd\\'r.'»' Im¡¡,1lh llll \V¿1shing!on's residents, !ucdl go\'crlll1wnh, dnd en\ïrOnmenl.: ;\ partial list ut tlw ¿ìdverse impdcts include: . Higher public facilitv ca¡1itJI and maintenance costs, . Higher housing costs and the exclusion of minorities and !ovv-income tamilies. . i\1ore traffic because morc !1l'Of1h' drin' "lone and must drive' longer distanl'l's tl} work and to mcet the need:; of their familics. Sprawling ¡1]¿ìCl'S are likeh' to h,l\l' more traffic fatalities per ccìpitd than mu1'l,' comp,Kt regions due tu higlwr rdll's u \'ehicle use. Sprawl converts more prime agnculturalland from farming to urban uses than morl' compact forms of development. Sprawl destroys more critical areas éHìd other environmentally sensitive areas than COIT\pact develo¡1lììent Sprawl results in fish and wildlifc habitJt lossL's and h,ìbiL¡! fragmentation, the separation of habitats by development. Sprawl's dispersed development pattern leads to the degradation of water quality by increasing rulwlt volume, altering regular stream flow and watershed hydrology, reducing groundvvatcr recharge, and increasing stream sedimentation. Scientists at tIll' University of vVZlshington have concluded that although impacts on s:dmon h,ìbil,ìt from urbanization occur in J. Iincar f()shion, changcsto the physical Zlnd bil)logi"ll filctors necessary for high quillitv salmon hilbitat occurs most rilpidly when five tll ten pc>rcc>nt of" rivcr bdsilì is (o\'c>rl'd bv im¡1C>r\IlHIS surfdces (roads, bui!din~~-; ,1IlcJ parking lots) . . Assuring that urh,1lì ,1rl',lS han' sutti,'il'lìt delì,srtil'S tll \\'IS\'I\ USe' thL' Lmd ,ìd,lress\"-. C>¿Kh of tl1\,'sl' ad\\'rse attc'\is ,md ulll,'!'S ]lÌ\)() I'ril'lllis ul \\'dshilìl~tulì ur~~,'s Citll'S al1l1 '--~---- t For iJ coIl1pn'he!1siv\' study ollhe iJdVL'IS\' effects of spr,l\\'1 S\'l' l\u[J\'rl \\'. [)urc!wll. l\:cì\'l'\'d 1\, '1h,ld [),l\'id I.istukill. H¡ ,l!'\' !'l1illlf)S. .\11111'"1\' !)U\\'IlS, '1,1111\1\'1 '1,'sl.tll, lud\' S !),n'is, '1'\'1'1\' \1(1\)r\" !),l\i,¡ I kIU)[l, ,md i\1¡dll'¡I,' (;,111 !lIt' c'¡},!" (}/S!Jlrlii'! --!\('i'I,l!r',i (11,u¡-;tl C(1(1!),'¡,)lt\\, !\es\',nc)¡ I'rl)è;¡,1!l1 1\\':" Jl), l'rcìllspurtati(1t1 !\I,'SL'clI','11 I\U,lId, Nattull,¡\ I\L'Sl',lrd¡ CUlllhl: ]\)')5)'\\"\11,1111\' ,11 blliW\\'\\'\\'-Lllcì I it )1]'111\,1dl'll1le~l ) rg/liliLæJ I i!ll'¡",-,lbiJ..1,SJ~~,lLTU~~~1 )~)J:b ;\ lsu S\'l' 1)ll'IIlt'l!' }Il, ('I Kli,¡¡!, CO/l II 11/. Celllr,!! I'uí',\'t S\)llild Crll\\'l11 'Vl,lIl,lè;l'Il1L't¡1 ¡ !,',¡rltl,l;'; I\u,nd (C!'SC\1111\) Cl1ih\)!JlLll<',1 (',1s\'Nu,,()::;,'~,(1(n(!c('urn'('l<',il'ill,11!)("ïSil)ll,1i1lJ()rder¡,!' 'I" '22 (lklul)('r(1, ILJLJ::;ì(,IIISllIl,l',l)lti¡,' ,1dvl'!'S\' \'Ifech ut SI)',1\\'I) Urb,m ])l'lìSitil's ,He' Re'-]uir\'d lu lw at LCdSI ¡:uur F}, ,-.' 7 , ' i., ..,,--' I L )l1si~15tt ('r ~'J8\crc-, ., I 1 P AG EJ:L-- ,---u- counties to provide densities that wisely and efficiently use land. While the four dwelling unit per net acre rule helps, it is not sufficient in itself. To provide transit supportive densities, at least seven homes per acre is necessary.2 In most communities, to provide housing affordable for vvorking families also requires higher housing densities. These needs must be considered in planning for sustainable communities. Minimum Urban Densities The Four Dwelling Units per Net Acre Bright Line Rule To address these adverse impacts the Growth Management Act goals encourage development within the urban growth area (UGA) and call for reducing sprawling 1m" density development.3 Urban growth must be encouraged in UGAs.4 To meet these goals and requirements, The Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board (Central Board) adopted a 'bright line" rule that a residential pattern of four net dwelling units per acre or higher "is clearly compact urban development and satisfies the low end of the range required by the [Growth Management] Act") "Any new residential land use pattern within a UGA that is less dense is not a compact urban development pattern, constitutes urban sprawl, and is prohibited,"6 In subsequent cases, the board has clarified that all properties that do not meet limited exceptions have to be designated and zoned at four or more housing units per net acre. As the Central Board recently wrote; In LMIIChevrol1, the Board held, "the GMA requires every city to designate all lands within its jurisdiction at appropriate urban densities," LMIIChevrOlI, [Final Decision and Order], at 23; (underlining in original, italics supplied). This concept of designating lands at- appropriate urban densities within unincorporated UGAs \vas extended to counties and zoning designations in 2 Boris I'ushkarev & Jeffrey Zupan. PlI/JIic Trallspor/17/ioll17lld Lalld Usc Policy (Indiana University Press, I3loomington, Indiana, 1977) (public transit use is minimal below a net residential density of seven dwelling units an acre). , RCW 36.70A.O20(1) & (2). 1 RCW 36.70A.11O(1). 5 Brcmertoll, et {II. v. Kits{lp COllll/Y, CPSCMHB Consolidated Case No.: 95-3-0039c Corrected Final Decision and Order p. *33 (October 6, 1995) (, Id. EXHIBrr Urban Densities are Required to be at Least Four Housing UnitP~GefAcl t 1 " Forster Woods Homeowners Association, et al., v. King County (Forster Woods), CPSGMHB Case No. 01-3-008c, Final Decision and Order, (Nov. 6, 2001), at 32,7 The Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board used four dwelling units per acre as a minimum urban density for determining if land was characterized by urban growth for the purposes of establishing an UCA.8 The Eastern Board has not adopted such a rule as of this date, Limited Exceptions The Central Board has recognized two exceptions to the bright line rule requiring all urban residential properties to have minimum density of four dwelling units per net acre. First, if part of the DCA contains "... environmentally sensitive systems [that] are large in scope (e.g., watershed or drainage sub-basin), their structure and functions are' complex and their rank order value is high, ..." then a local government can apply densities of less than four housing units per net acre,9 All three of these criteria must be met to qualify for the exception. Examples of areas found to meet this test have been the "large environmentally sensitive system [that] includes overlapping flood hazard areas, wetlands, critical fish and wildlife habitat areas and corridors.,./I and wildlife habitat diversity areas in MBA/Brink, a wetlands system adjacent to Hylebos Creek in Litowitz, and the overlapping seismic hazards, floodplains, wetlands, and aquifer recharge areas in Benaroya.lO In contrast, in MBA/Brink four areas had "isolated, sporadic and scattered occurrences of flooding, wetlands, or priority habitats that can be appropriately addressed through 7 Master BlIilders Association of Pierce COU!1ty, Terry L. Bri,¡k, et at. v. Pierce County (MBA/Brink), CPSGMHB Case No. 02-3-0010 Order Finding Partial Noncompliance and Continuing [¡walidity p. *8, 2003 WL 22896415 p. *7 (September 4,2003). ~ Fred l?. Klein v. San Juan County, Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board (WWGMHB) Case No. 02-2-0008, Michael Durland, et al. v. San JlIall Collnty, WWGMHß Case No. 00-2- 0062c, & Town of Friday Harbor, Fred R. Klein, John M. Campbell, LYIlIl Balzrych, ct al. v. San ¡lian County, WWGMHB Case No. 99-2-00l0c Final Decision and Order Compliance Order, 2002 WL 31405482 p. *7 (October IS, 2002). Y Master Builders of Pierce County & Brink (MBA/Brink), et al. v. Pierce COlillty, CPSGMHB Case No.: 02-3- 0006 Final Decision and Order p. *10, 2002 WL 31998487 p. *11 (February 4, 2002). This exception is sometimes referred to as the Litowitz test because the three part test was first enunciated in Litowitz v. City of Federal Way, CPSGMHB Case No. 96-3-0005 Final Decision and Order p. *12, 1996 WL 678415 p. *9 Ouly 22, 1997). 10 MBA/Brink, Final Decision and Order p. *13, 2002 WL 31998487 p. *13, Litowitz p.*I2, 1996 WL 678415 P *9, & Benaroya v. City of Redmond, CPSGMHB Case No. 95-3-0072c Finding of Compliance p. *10 -.11 (March 13, 1997). . Urban Densities are Required to be at Least Four [{ousing uÆix.\:;I.~¡¡'~e '1 PAGE~'~ -' t -, 3 7/ existing critical areas regulations."]! So these areas did not qualify for densities of less than four dwelling units per net acre, Similarly, in LMI/Chevron a 2.4-acre part of a wetland and pileated woodpecker and banded pigeon habitat on a 60,S-acre property did not meet the Litowitz testY Second, in Bremerton the Central Board also indicated that a major equestrian facility surrounded by "horse-acre lots" may also justify densities less than four dwelling units net acre.13 However, this potential exemption was in dicta which is not an essential part of the decision and is not legally binding. So this potential exemption should be carefully evaluated before it is used. In footnote 6 of the MBA/Brink Order Finding Partial Noncompliance and Continuing Invalidity, the Central Board included this note of caution against using applicant initiated rezones or planned unit developments (PUDs) to reach the minimum four dwelling units per net acre density. It should be the exception, rather than the rule, that lands within UGAs do not yield a minimum density of 4 du/acre. Insuch exceptions, a variety of flexible regulatory mechanisms are available to local governments to accommodate new development when challenged by difficult topography, parcel shapes or other localized constraints, Nevertheless, the Board cautions against reliance on certain pre-GMA tools, such as planned unit development permits and site specific rezones, as the primary mechanism to enable developers to reach the GMA-rnandated minimum urban densities. The growth accommodation mandate of RCW 36.70A.1l0 and the permit processing guidance of RCW 36.70A.020(7) would be thwarted if, in order to meet these mandates, an applicant would also be required to show "changed circumstances" (pre-GMA rezone criteria) or "public benefit" (classic PUD criteria),14 Indeed, the four housing unit per acre minimum should be allowed as of right. Also, to meet the other requirements of the Growth Management Act and to wisely use our limited land resources, most residential zoning should have maximum densities much higher than four dwelling units per net acre, It MBA/Brink, Final Decision and Order pp. *12-13 2002 WL 31998487 p, *13. 12 Lawrence Michael Investments. LL C. & Chevron (LM l/Chevron) v. Town of Wood way. CPSGMlc!B Case No. 98-3-0012 Final D~cision and Order p. *17 (January 8,1999). 13 Brel11erton at p, *33. 14 Master Builders Association of Pierce County, Terry L. Brink, et aI. v. Pierce County (MBA/Brillk), CPSGMHß Case No, 02-3-0010 Order Finding Partial Noncompliance and Continuing Invalidity, ¡:.q1~.te 6 p. *12, '- 2003 WL 22896415 p. *1 I (September 4,2003). EXH \ t). " -. , .-- P A G E_ÞO:.1-J- Urban Densities are Required to be at Least Four Housing Uni~s rdr Net A~e ' 4 The Central Board has also addressed the issue of whether capital facility deficiencies affect the duty to accommodate growth. The board answered no: Notwithstanding maintenance backlogs, RCW 36.70A.110 clearly imposes a duty upon local governments to accommodate urban growth. There is no question that the Act requires local jurisdictions to plan for and accommodate new growth -- that projected by OFM and allocated by the County. [FN 15] Thus, capital facilities plans must certainly identify, locate, and take steps to finance those capital facilities that are needed to accommodate new growth. There is no provision in the GMA to suggest that the Act allows a jurisdiction not to accommodate new growth because it has a capital facilities maintenance backlog, or it has not guaranteed funding to remove any maintenance backlog, or it is postponing indefinitely its duty to accommodate new growth until its maintenance backlog is removed or reduced. To do so would fly in the face of one of the cornerstones of the GMA.15 This same reasoning would indicate that a lack of capital facilities in the urban growth area would not allow densities lower than four dwelling units per net acre. Rather, the city or county is required plan for and finance the capital facilities needed to accommodate compact urban development at a minimum of four dwelling units per net acre. The Central Board has also addressed the issue of whether RCW 36.70A,020(4)'s goal of encouraging the preservation of the existing housing stock and RCW 36,70A,O70(2)'s requirement to "ensur[e] the vitality and character of established residential neighborhoods" affects the duty to designate and zone residential areas at a net density of at least four dwelling units per"acre. Again, the board has answered no. t5 West Seattle Defense Fund and Neighborhood Rights Campaig/1 (WSDF IV) v. City of Seattle, CPSGMHB Case No. 96-3-0033 p. *32,1997 WL 176356 p. *27 (March 24,1997). ("FN15. In Hensley v. City ofWoodi/1ville, CPSGMHB Case No. 96-3-0031, Final Decision and Order (1997), at 9, the Board held: The GMA creates an affirmative duty for cities to accommodate the growth that is allocated to them by the county. This duty means that a city's comprehensive plan must include: (1) a future land use map that designates sufficient land use densities and intensities to accommodate any population and/or employment that is allocated; and (2) a capital facilities clement that ensures that over the twenty-year life of the plan, needed public facilities and services will be available and provided throughout the jurisdiction's UGA. In Benaroya, et al. v. City of Redmo/1d, CPSGMHB Case No, 95-3-0072c, Finding of Compliance (1997), at 8, the Board clarified that this affirmative duty means that cities are to: 'give support to,' 'foster' and 'stimulat~' urban growth throughout the jurisdictions' UGAs within the twenty-year life of their comprehen~.' plans,") EXHIB\T_, ~I_---" Urban Densities are Required to be at Least Four Housing tPAGfÑet ,Wc~ ;II '-' The GMA clearly encourages the preservation of existing housing stock (See RCW 36.70A,O20(4)) and provides for ensuring the vitality and character of established residential neighborhoods (See RCW 36.70AO70([2]). However, as the Board stated supra, "any opportunity to perpetuate an 'historic low-density residential' development pattern, in the Parkland Spanaway Midland area, ended in 1994 when the County included the area within the UGA." It is clear that existing housing stock and neighborhoods may be maintained and preserved, however existing low-density patterns of development cannot be perpetuated.11> The Meaning of Net For properties that do not qualify for the limited exceptions, the definition of net may be an issue in crafting comprehensive plan policies and development regulations, The Central Board defined "net" in Benaroya v. City of Redmond: As applied to GMA planning exercises, "net" has the same general meaning as "buildable." Most cities within King County determined what their "net" land supply was for purposes of the County's DGA allocation exercise, From the record in Vashon-Maury, the Board is aware that various cities in King County deducted, for example, public rights-of-way and environmentally sensitive lands in order to determine the "net supply" of buildable land. Generally speaking, the concept of "net" remains the same when applied to a specific parcel of land - that portion which is encumbered with rights-of-way or certain critical areas would not be available for the placement of housing, for example. II So in calculating net densities, the unbuildable land may be deducted from the gross acres to determine the net acres. Additional Growth Management Act Provisions that Require Higher Residential Densities It is important to remember that the four dwelling unit per net acre rule is a floor. There are other Growth Management Act provisions that will require higher residential densities, They include: . The Growth Management Act goals to encourage growth in the UGA, reduce sprawl, protect natural resource based industries and protect the environmentl8 16 MBA/Brillk, Final Decision and Order p, *10, 2002 WL 31998487 p. *10. 17 Bcllaroya, ct al. v. City of fi.CdlllOlld, CPSGMHB Consolidated Case No. 95-3-0072 p. *2.[, 1996 WL 650317 p. *25 (March 25, 1996). IS RCW 36.70A.020(1), (2), (8), & (9). EXHIBIT 1-' ------ Urban Densities are Required to be at Least Four Housing LPA.&rBet A~ 1 L . The Growth Management Act goal to encourage the availability of affordable housing to all economic segments of the population of this state and promote a variety of residential densities and housing types.19 . The requirement that the housing element, and its implementing development regulations, shall include mandatory provisions for the preservation, improvement and development of housing.2O . The requirement that the housing element, and its implementing development regulations, shall identify sufficient land for housing, including, but not limited to, government-assisted housing, housing for low-income families, manufactured housing, multifamily housing, and group homes and foster care facilities.21 . The requirement that the housing element, and its implementing development regulations, shall make adequate provisions for existing and projected needs of all economic segments of the community.22 . The requirement that the DGA shall include II areas and densities sufficient to permit the urban growth that is projected to occur in the county or city for the succeeding twenty-year period.1I23 Also, if most of our cities and towns are zoned for four housing units per acre, the land needed to accommodate our future growth will be much greater than if we accommodate more homes per acre. Practice Tips In planning for urban densities, consider the following recommendations: . Almost all of the land within the DGA will require a density of four housing units per net acre and most will require greater densities to achieve community goals and to comply with all of the goals and requirements of Growth Management Act. Remember four units per net acre is lithe low end of the range required by the [Growth Management] Act"24- . If an area has extensive critical areas, do not add it to the urban growth area in the first place, If it is not annexed, move it outside of the urban growth area. That will provide the land with the most protection since it will not be subject to urbanizing 19 RCW 36.70A,O20(4). 20 RCW 36.70A.O70(2) & RCW 36.70AO40(3) &(5) (counties and cities shall adopt development regulations that are consistent with and implement the comprehensive plan). 21 [d. 22 [d. B RCW 36.70A.110(2). , D IT" 24 Bremerton, et at. v. Kitsap County, CPSGMHB Consolidated Case No.: 95-3-00:6~Þ1<1ttia ~iha~ _. ., Decision and Order p. *33 (October 6, 1995) (underlining added). P A G E_-~ S " . - 11- , .' Urban Densities are Required to be at Least Four Housing Units Per Net Acre ~- 7 . .. pressures. Both the Central and Western Boards have held that extensive critical areas should not be added to the UGA.25 . Build a good record showing why the less than four housing units per acre density is needed and that you have enough land elsewhere to meet your adopted growth targets. Maps showing the critical areas are very helpful and were specifically referred to in MBA/Brink. Aerial and ground photos help too. In both Litowitz and Benaroya, the fact that it was undisputed that both cities had adequate land for their growth targets impressed the board. . The more critical areas the merrier. In both Benaroya and MBA/Brink, the areas that were upheld for less than four housing units per acre zoning had multiple critical areas. . The critical areas should cover the whole area or almost entirely the whole area if you want to apply the LitowÎtz rule, This was important in Litowitz, Benaroya, and MBA/Brink. . The critical areas should be serious natural hazards or important habitats. For Additional Information Contact Tim Trohimovich, ACIP, JD, Planning Director 1000 Friends of Washington. Telephone (206) 343-0681 or e-mail tim@1000friends,org Copies of the Growth Management Hearings Board decisions referenced in this report are available at their website: http://www,gmhb.wa.gov/index.htmi The boards' also have excellent digests that summarize their decisions. The digests are also available at their website. F:\ 1000 Friends Reports\Compact Urban Develo¡5ment 4 DU per acre for Density Letter.doc EXHIBIT__.:1 P A G E___tf" 1,~ ._~J 25 Bremerton, et at. v. Kitsap County, CPSGMHB Consolidated Case No.: 95-3-0039 Final Decision and Order p. *33 - 34 (October 6, 1995)& Abcnrotlz v. Skagit CoU/IIy, WWGMHß Case No.: 97-2-0060 Final Decision; and Order p. *11 of 63, 1998 WL 1985337 (January 23, 1998). Urban Densities are Required to be at Least Four Housing Units Per Net Acre - 8 Smith Alling Lane A Professional Services Corporation Attorneys at Law Oaugtas V. Alling Grant B. Anderson Joseph R. Cicero (1957-2oo1) COMM,'" RECE/V Barbara A. Henderson UI1!ITYDE"~ ED By EdwardG.Hudsan vcLQPMEN Edward M. Lane T DEPAF:¡T/v11-if19a Netsan Lysne. CPA ~ P- n q:{lJt/ert E. Mack ! '1' (} f! In Michael E. McAleenan 1'1 . 04 Robert L. Michaels - Timothy M. Schellberg Daniel C. SmHh (ReI.) 1102 Broadway Plaza. #403 Tacoma, Washington 98402 Tacoma: (253) 627-1091 Seattle: (425) 251-5938 Facsimile: (253) 627'{)123 Brian L. Oatman (also admrlted In Oregon) AprilS, 2004 City of Federal Way Planning Commission 33530 1st Way South PO Box 9718 Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 Re: Davis Rezone at 30682 Military Road South Dear Honorable Members of the Planning Commission: We would like to take this opportunity to submit further testimony on behalf of Richard and Louise Davis regarding the above-named matter. The Davises have requested that the Commission modify the proposed zoning under the PAA from RS 9.6 (single family residential 9,600 square feet) to BN (neighborhood business). The City planning staff contends that the Davis parcel cannot meet the development standards under BN zoning. It is our understanding that the planning staff has determined that there is no advantage to the Davis property being zoned BN rather than RS 9.6. The assessment that the Davises' property would be non-confom1ing as to either RS 9.6 or BN zoning is conjectural. We have been advised by Mr. Fewins that, based on his experience with the Federal Way Municipal Code ("FWMC"), the Davis property could not meet the rigorous development standards of the code. This assessment was accomplished without "a detailed revic\'v' of the site development." City of Federal Way lvfemorandllm dated February 25, 2004 to John Caulfield, Chair of the Planning Commission from Kathy McClung, Director of Community Development Services, p. 19. In addition, Mr. Fewins invited the Davises to submit a site development plan that would show the city staff that development on the site could occur in a manner confom1ing to the ßN zoning. However, the Davises have no current plans for redevelopment of the property. Therefore, they have no future site development plan, . The Davises expended considerable resources in the initial rezone under the King County ordinances and are continuing to do so in light of the City's potential annexation of the area. Essentially, the City would require the Davises to attempt to do again what they accomplished in King County, i.e" zone their property properly to match the existing and historic use. EXHIBIT_.J - P AGE-¥1-JF ~ Planning Commissioner April 5, 2004 Page 2 Here, the Potential Annexation Area encompasses urbanized King County and those development patterns should be respected. Changing the underlying zoning will not change the uses on the property to meet the theoretical demands of the underlying zone. A theoretical concern was expressed to the Davises by City staff that a BN zone in an area generally zoned RS 9.6 would be a spot zone. That concern is unwarranted. The zone is existing under King County ordinance and adopting the City of Federal Way comparable zone of BN would not place the City of Federal Way in a position of having approved a spot zone. The State Supreme Court has described spot zoning as follows: Spot zoning is a zoning action by which a smaller area is singled out of a larger area or district and specially zoned for a use classification totally different from, and inconsistent with, the classification of surrounding land and not in accordance with the comprehensive plan. Citizens for Mount Vernon v. Mount Vernon, 133 Wn.2d 861,875,947 P.2d 1208 (1997). This situation is inapposite to a traditional spot zone challenge. Here, the city would only be adopting the existing zone and would face no exposure in doing so. The subject business at this intersection existed for over 40 years. It is "in accordance with the [existing] comprehensive plan." /d. It does not meet the criteria of a spot zone. City staff has also made clear that they feel the parcel would be non-conforming either as a BN zoned parcel or as an RS 9.6 zoned parcel. In essence, the City proposal would foreclose any opportunity for the Davises or their successors in interest to develop the property in accordance with the BN zone and to maintain historic business uses on the property. The rezone of a parcel by a municipality should recognize historic uses and consistent potential development on a parcel. The Davis parcel is not so large that its development as a commercial property would have impact outside of its immediate neighborhood. EXHIBIT.. PAGE_«t' 7. ,»,' " ,,- "--- Planning Commissioner April 5, 2004 Page 3 Finally, as the Davises and many of the neighbors have testified, the Davises have gone through all the required steps to make their property conforming. We respectfully submit that, to require that the Davises revert to 1962 in terms of the zoning of their property, the City would do a great injustice to the Davises. Sincerely, SMITH ALLING LANE, P.S. REM:cjs cc: Mr. and Mrs. Richard Davis Q~~ EXH\ß\T <~ ~ P A,G E--'I1 . ...- . Bryan R. Coge 3228 S. 314 h PI. Auburn, Wa 98001 253-529-1352 Planning Commission City of Federal Way 33530 1st Way South P.O. Box 9718 Federal Way, Wa 98003-9718 April6,20O4 Dear Planning Commission, Recently it has come to my attention that there has been a request to rezone an area that is adjacent to my neighborhood. A Mr. Jackson made this rezoning request for 23 acres located east of 1-5 and north of South 320th to be changed from Residential to Commercial. This change would potentially attract businesses such as car dealerships and other retailers. I am concerned that the Commission is not taking into consideration the effect that changing the zoning will have on my property value, and on the quality of life for me and my family. Our private neighborhood will be exposed to traffic that would otherwise not be coming in to the area, opening us up for the potential problems with theft, vandalism and other possible crimes. If the trees are removed, which serves as a buffer from 1-5, what impact will it have on the wet lands and the wild life living on the property in question? I am very upset that I did not receive any notification from the City of Federal Way regarding the proposed rezoning. I feel that the people who will be effected the most, the people in the adjacent neighborhoods, have a right to be involved in this rezoning process. I request the City of Federal Way address my concerns in writing and I request new hearings to give me the opportunity to fully participate in this decision making process, since this will have such a significant impact on my property value and the quality of my life. Sincerely, ~c~.~ EXHIBIT_- 7 P AGE -lII .~ ~2--"- Cindy J. Cope 3228 S. 314th PI. Auburn, Wa 98001 253-529-1352 Planning Commission City of Federal Way 33530 1 st Way South P.O. Box 9718 Federal Way, Wa 98003-9718 April 6, 2004 Dear Planning Commission, Recently it has come to my attention that there has been a request to rezone an area that is adjacent to my neighborhood. A Mr. Jackson made this rezoning request for 23 acres located east of 1-5 and north of South 320th to be changed from Residential to Commercial. This change would potentially attract businesses such as car dealerships and other retailers. I am concerned that the Commission is not taking into consideration the effect that changing the zoning will have on my property value, and on the quality of life for me and my family. Our private neighborhood will be exposed to traffic that would otherwise not be coming in to the area, opening us up for the potential problems with theft, vandalism and other possible crimes. If the trees are removed, which serves as a buffer from 1-5, what impact will it have on the wet lands and the wild life living on the property in question? I am very upset that I did not receive any notification from the City of Federal Way regarding the proposed rezoning. I feel that the people who will be effected the most, the people in the adjacent neighborhoods, have a right to be involved in this rezoning process. I request the City of Federal Way address my concerns in writing and I request new hearings to give me the opportunity to fully participate in this decision making process, since this will have such a significant impact on my property value and the quality of my life. Sincerely, rÁ~~ ß c;n~~ J~Vc¿þe ~ EXHIBIT 1-- PA.GE II' '-l Mike A. Tischler 3227 S. 314th Place Auburn, WA 98001 253-529-1185 Planning Commission City of Federal Way 33530 151 Way South PO BOX 9718 Federal Way, WA 98003-9718 April 7, 2004 RE: Jackson Application Honorable Commissioners, During the Public Hearing that this Commission had on March 17th, 2004 I found out, by chance, that the Staff of the City of Federal Way had put forward a "final" recommendation for the rezoning of the properties referred to by the "Jackson Application". Without having yet consulted with a legal advisor, I believe that this application has not been handled as required by the Municipal Code, neither in time nor in shape. According to the Law, a request to rezone needs to be communicated in writing to the owners of Residential properties located within 300 feet of such property. Signs should also be posted in locations where they are easily visible. I base the claim that this application was improperly handled on the following arguments: 1. The written notification. a. I live within the 300 ft of such property and have not received any written notification in such regards, statement that I willing to put in writing and under oath, if necessary. b. None of the neighbors I communicated with recalls receiving such notice. c. When I approached City Staffers, I was informed that a written notification was actually sent out (which I claim I did not received as specified above). I was provided with a copy of such letter, and a list to which this letter was supposedly mailed to. I am attaching a copy of this letter as Exhibit A. Please note that this letter is just a Notice of Public Hearing regarding, in general, to the Potential Annexation Area, the Freeway Commercial Zone, and the Quadrant Request, and secondly a notice for the Adoption of the City of Federal Way, Potential Annexation Area Subarea Plan. At any time, was there a notification of the specific Application submitted by Mr. Jackson, listing a date of submission, and a deadline to challenge this application in writing by the Public. 2. The Signs, a. No signs were ever present at or near the property in question. It is on these grounds that I request this honorable Commission to use. its authority to: 1. Thoroughly investigate the legality of the process followed both by the Applicant and the City Staffers on the handling of this application, including the proper communication to the public, as required by law, More precisely, this Commission should specifically determine what Section/s, Article/s, and Subsection/s of the City Code describe the process currently in place. 2. Reject this application if this process followed by the Applicant and/or the City Staff did not follow the requirements specified by the Law. Best Regards, J.1~t~f(~ Michael Tischler Property Owner 3227 S 314th PI . . EXHIBIT. 7 PAGE_SO l' Ana M, Tischler 3227 S. 314th Place Auburn, WA 98001 253-529-1185 Planning Commission City of Federal Way 33530 1 st Way South PO BOX 9718 Federal Way, WA 98003-9718 April 6, 2004 To whom it may concern, Last week it came to my attention that there's been a proposal to rezone an area that is very close to my property. This proposal was presented by a party identified as Jackson to change the zoning of currently empty lots from Residential to Commercial. This change could potentially attract businesses such as car dealerships and other retailers, I'm concerned that the following items are not being addressed in the proposal: . Preservation of the wet lands and wild life located in the property in question, How increased noise and traffic resulting from the establishment of a large business, will affect the residential area that surrounds the property proposed for rezoning, I'm also extremely concerned that I didn't receive any notification form the City of Federal Way regarding the proposed rezoning. I believe that public participation should be an essential part of this process as any changes to the zoning will deeply affect my property value and quality of life, I expect the city staff to address my concerns in writing and set up new hearings to discuss the Jackson proposal plenty in advance, to give me the opportunity to fully participate in the decision-making process. Anything less would be unacceptable and a reason for me to consider legal action, Regards, (>íYv1 PI Ana Tischler EXHI8IT- 7 PAGE_$I A"o 0011- Karen Bush 3218 S, 316th St. Auburn, WA 98001 April 7, 2004 Planning Commission City of Federal Way 33530 First Way South P. O. Box 9718 Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 RE: Opposition to change of zoning designation at 1-5 and S 320th St., as proposed by Jerry Jackson Dear Planning Commission Members: I am writing to protest the proposed zoning changes for the seven properties located on approximately 23 acres, north of S. 320111 Street, and east of 1-5. I fear that this change will have a detrimental impact on my neighborhood, This neighborhood includes the eighteen houses in the Courtney Downs development, plus neighbors that border either side of South 316111 Street. I am opposed to this zoning change as proposed for the following reasons: 1) Property Values and Quality of Life I am concemed about the impact this change may have on property values in our neighborhood. Property on the east side of 3200 Avenue is currently zoned as single-family, residential. It seems that an abrupt difference may be created by changing the zoning on the facing properties, west of 3200 Avenue, to a Commercial or Freeway Commercial designation. The requested change would allow for placing commercial concerns, such as car dealerships, in close proximity to the current neighborhood. This would likely introduce a high risk of unpleasant noise, traffic, light, and safety issues. 2) Wetlands The properties in question overtap with an area of more than 5 acres that has been designated as wetlands, Therefore the zoning change seems inappropriate, and may interfere with efforts to restore the Hylebos waterway and salmon runs. Initially, I supported incorporation of our neighborhood under the Federal Way Potential Annexation Area Plan. However, now I am worried that the City of Federal Way is more interested in increasing tax revenues by encouraging this type of commercial development, than it is concerned about the impact on its potential citizens, I hope that this is not the case. I thank you for the opportunity to make my concerns known, I would appreciate receiving any notifications concerning future events that will take place as part of the zoning review process. Sincerely, ~~ Karen M, Bush EXHIBIT, .l PAGE_S_2 )~~ L¡ - /}- 'I RDv 12uV(¡¡{D ;? 9 c¡ I b d I~ D A () S LV ç: W GfAL wAY W(Jr -~--------- - I O¡ ~oJ,3 . dOb-C¡Lj9 - 61gó-" EXHIBIT_7 PAGE_~5 \,: -1J . --- TO_-n~ - -~ 111 0- {- un¿(1¿~lA- (lÃ-A Y .:C D P~D5¡{ '-íí¥ fZ-€2DtJ,/tJGr- ~-rlK ~CkclÙÑ .--AJ-1M_f:~fl'1~~1 ..> i -r?£:., .<£Qltf ç .....9F- '¡'1 '(~~~5/4;grf: -. ~5 rvLLDWS u (J). d..A£t1¿ íi-.k15)7 ('{ fr ~S' I ¡) £(' T) ,:J L Cð}1/f H u 1'\ :c T Y _rJ.Y/j'-l.. C(¿h1S/£ O-?- N.P/~¡{rf2011 ?¡¿G¡f:wAY (Jr/('. TV PE.~!ß~¡f ru:ÞfDíJ/J..¿ ð"?- 1"j_A~4-L -r ~pf5 ..!- ðì7~ V£~*~61\. , œ, J/Ú) Po {2-DrZ!f 5$'/6 K_I ?lc¡'j.l*r u/¡:¿ re,A/..to.s lk¡{/CI-f /-,SA (SO -n~ 1J.:1VAplAP<~..5-qu 77.trf HVL-!&tfù5 [!./MÆX--S/~.tJ -. -rHk.¡l/i !?flS-i-S -n-kk po%t-J.í7(J( ALSO t7--{ rl-b:f ¡JÆ-S'¡I2n- -TV &-îJ>'~ IL(~ -1)')r-X 12/t£vk tJ.v¡,:¿ /1~ e I T ~ (.,&/ éé UtJ¿/c-¡{ -n~ ~. csr::: wk7 L-,ð--r-ly ¡:?u¡:::¡::::-£!ê - -- PrzQ{j'___n_~-~l C}c; 8'u~IIY ~ PJß:t?t&t@ (. ~ A Y ... ~/-c~A~..\1) Svgt/ téctf (J), -rH~__ß_tf=m-;;_c::;>I.\in _N. &- ~_-r14(2. ..T:7l-Q.E~ (!_..uWI~.t::..T¥t-S..Y -- . _u ------_.__u_~____-Pd--L1fßl!~:r~:___.Jí~:~?}--D ~ ~¿_n_-(I:l__.Tlf1[_._._.~-~~-_u~_u__n- 'n ---u--- --_u_---~-LC!.~I£._-~~-6xlà-rLoÂ----2-LA ¿~~n.._QE__._-;]~___s..LY- r__h'- ---Uh-_' - uu ._&_~.Q--- -_l_¿__n_nrl<fLr~_&_- 6<?_912._n~(f ___F -£ ~_TJ-{Ç;- _h-n . ----- --- _n- _n____nw___._--..------ -'P~£j;Jc.¿ ~-'-----------______n____~__._~n_.___._----_n_._---- .n____._----- .- - -. __on --.- -- . EXH I B IT__~_' IN ¿ LOStNb- AN. 'I F"uο.£A~?~',,~i~-11- ø-r:: "11HS Pfðo p~. ~ j/ S Hi) U { 0 {f r; () 0 /-..1£ Q co 5 ~ (; Y W I * ¡::>f2rsPff:{2,Y D U/ H;¡{,ßJ- I No ~. M64 -- -rQ ,z:~S~ FAltl-I'{Gss _~~éØð~ ßy ~ ~ r .L. .1' ~ D&tr£CcYPtW'lJ l1~'COC ~P£L'ß.~.J£.tf ~. .'1 _4. ~.r- -____C-o_nl'1.¡>tf-C~ - W, 11.J..- ¡:;¿_TÞ<ßL-/~lf;r?(?n <!.-I -rY .1S:C!~/I,1f:SS¡£s,- ---T~ I -- -..-.--- - -. ---- .-- -- ____n- - - - ~y ?-U?Hr'\.O ---Æ{s ? ..!J-!Ç- & / S r7 I"-J G- ;Z: 9Jp' T re j A At Coß-ð /..j£é) ¡:::- ~íJ?45&/si-fM¡ÇNy /~ -rtl£ ON¿Y f)Nk. ðÞ- Irs K/KD -rMr / KN..PVf¿ or-_- 1)"\ -rJ-t/_s - - . tf*R/fV4--- .;f ¡O f{ IfI &Rrff-- p~(l/cj Tò Ç.:k/sf/¡{ ~ r+?H~¿' L / ¡vi { r _Ð(: (/ h ¿ DP /If¡£¡-J. r TV <S 0 u fl<hC(L N po fLIl cy-j ~. P f?-6P~ T Y ----._--- ----.--.. .---.--- ----- --- --- U -- -_nn_- ----- u- _J~ (~ --yD----- _-un. Jn~-~_r- -þ_¿ ¿_O~__S__l_~~_:_~-_<£_~___CI( _.-- -- - - - - ---------------------_._--~rf~¿-~-----"IQ._---~_:l_-~--=_~_~r- -- -rJ¥L-'<!- --.-.--. :)-~~A-_~- . ---.-------------------------------------------------------_._---------------------_.__... .-----..-----.--. --- .---..-- - --- -- --- -----_._--.- -u- .-.------------;-.---.- , ------ -----...---------------------------------------.------------------------------------- ----------- -' EXHIBIT A /" ~1 , ¡ 1-=-:-:,-,-""",'- r ----, I !I I 5:/ ! -- ---./ I tul 8J' , Ell t , ,-_,m 4-. ',m, ¡Of I Ä,' , ';:::"_: I è")/ ; ¡to ! / (D ,......., / ([J i "1-...1 Ie/) i !.....:: . / Q)" " {/ i ,*-', 1£/ l1 j! !i Jil / I,! ¡ ! I;! / f :! ' ¡ j /i í ì I ! f ( ! II! , \ 1 ---]1 )L" ';,-/ IIi I, / r-¡ ! 11,-5",,-, g/1'4th Pli Irrl-;m;~j~ ~ I , ¡,I" ... -"-,i I "d ! I , " i! ; I i I 1 ! L 5 3 1 ~:tb>lt I ! i 1 I I / ",~ I ¡ , ..J) ¡ I I ~< 1,- ---r- 1 ! i I ..,',"" ,:".. ' ,,; I 'i'" ,,:\1 ;'1', :"" '; I :~;~:':::J:' I 1... L__-.-:-.--- - "L -~Se.c-32QfuJ~1reer ---- -==; ,,'m'--., ;'----,"'-'---' ", ; ,Cil; of I eli';;;¡! \Vay EXH\BIT PAGE 5$ 1-- 11--- PETITION To THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY REGARDING THE PROPOSED REZONING OF THE JACKSON PROPERTY ---------- We the undersigned consider that there has been no significant effort by the City of Federal Way to inform of the proposed zoning change of the parcels known as "the AI! American 1-5 and So, 320th Assemblage" shown on EXHIBIT A, to the owners ofthc: adjacent properties. Therefore, WE THE UNDERSIGNED, being PROPERTY OWNERS of the areé, adjacent to the properties in question under the Jackson Application, HEREBY PETITION FOR: I) the posting of Land Use signs at the property in question, 2) the mailing of written communications to owners of properties located within 60C feel of the said property. 3) the submission ofa report by the City Staff to the Planning Commission and to the: Public commenting on the impact that the proposed rezoning will have on: i) The single family residences adjacent to or near the Jackson property, We consider that issues such as (but not limited to) property values, reduced quality of life, noise and light pollution not appropriate for a residentiö1 3,,;'e1, safety and security of residents in the surrounding properties, need to be explicitly addressed and planned for, The class II wetlands (ID 2404 under the 1990 King County Wetland S lIl'\'ey) The buffer zone surrounding such wetlands The road surrounding the Jackson property. There should also be an ir.dication to the improvements that are needed to accommodate the increased traffic 4) a Public Hearing to be held with the opportunity for the Audience to comment on the report mentioned above, no sooner than 30 days after the release of such report to the public. SIGNATURE ii) iii) iv) PRINTED NAME ADDRESS DATE SIG:~f:D"---1 I '----'-1 . A , " ,/ ./'1 /-,-,~t" '3 /...;{; 5/ '>¡;è::Þ It. ~I Ie '---- .--- ~ J,' -- ./ ;,,',' /_'~ ,-'<C- -'-- ',., '\ / - :-/-"'I'.~,,!,./-.J,,, .J'" .; '-.. y- </- <. ,/ ,'" -, ,,; i t¡" ..:-'¡J:> ,(I '~! -';?'\ -;? I!, ( :> 1+~"J..-'l"\,I!; <x ¡ l ,'.. -/ . , :1- ~-- -Y>"'-\,"- -c--,..~, "\,\,\" .)\-, \- \~'u" "- \,\'))I) 5. "7lll!J- ¿J~ \.\.. '--, .. ", .-- --"- '1- \' - (;y-- 4--i-" {,'I (' -1- (~ .. C' '. / -------- -- ~-\'cvl , "- --- (1 r ,II -~) - /..."" <, '-1- b - oV {/ A"-j()(/ -~'j " ---'1L- _¿1/ VO~ SIGNATURE PRINTED NAME ADDRESS DATE SIGNED CI NbY J CDP£ ,-,¡,,' , ' ¡:>-:'{/JIÎ: ',' ,)~~/'- '-, /1/7/e, 4/7/(;4 .,/ q - 1.;~'-l 4 -7-cA Y-l-6L) ~--l--o y Y--7-y EXHI6~;: , 7- PAGE_~1 ~" SIGNATURE PRINTED NAME ADDRESS DATE SIGNED \; LI&~G" X~ 6./\ Iv] \ (I-{ l\, ¡¿l -¡,~ 01u:'f2 3':::<)7 f 5/~,-tt-¡ f¿ ¿iI L¡ / O(¡ ¡qr'ì'1 fi ANA -TI5C H LER -=\21l -So '11L¡11-\- eL At 4 rot¡ ~-Qèb~ )<f'\Jw L.. f/'\w~JL - 12)s,~ s~, 51JJl 1-fJ'- o~1 EXHIBIT- 7- PAGE._.S& ~ 'l- SIGNATURE PRINTED NAME ~~~ ADDRESS DATE SIGNED 3éi-18 So 31b k 1/ocdo <I- ~ , 4abu~n ï . I ,-3 ';':j cJ ~ 3/ c'of7Z::A . 7 7 t9è.t/iV-XUí./ y'ft'-cj' 3ó2/tJ 5, 316-i-k Sf, ~6úrrl .J,). ;;l.~-:) :¡ j,¡'H-s ,... Ò "J :3 ~ 5'. '3rj,tl¡ Av btll'l{ '/'9fJt1f 32 '11 5, 3/~r- St. AI< b~r,.J IPA '} ~ðð ( 3i/O7 S, 311.:7 t4vh.-O1 Ir/I'f (1 &Ðt ...- 31 (~ ~ ~I c.. ~-~~-{J 1- ~ -o{ 'i '-- ).-~ tJ ~ t - ç; -DC¡ t./- 5-0</ '- ¡ tf- ")-[) l Lj- -- D Lf ,t :;-- . 3ý3 ì 5. 3i~ f~ 11- 5 -óìl JVû-t~"1~ Le:,~\.1,,(,. I 7 .3'-13 :;- S ::5 J& H\ , /\\~ fì V-':::> ~- Ú L1 ~\.'\)v"" I\:) ~ o. 7 , -, <-("3 ~-4 9i(, ;. 1 '" . . - ,0 L.{.?lÁ \\. W ~ 5- 3~J3 5,.:3 ( ~~ð- fJru'~ L/-5-óLj 3"1 " S ) I Cd LJ - ç ~ 0' J A v~.. .. vV -, Î k~ Ir Ie ~E:(:, R t:::. ~L Q.. . -30 l{ N tz. Pkrlí ciA- C.ALDWL \fv\\ \< <l. -S-;.; EXHIBIT 1 PAGES.1 "','11 . ~-s---o 4- 7~v4 I ( 'J 32 f(? h 7b/Z J~ ]/~)~ {\ ('-1 ¡ ~ . . . z~JII '"'- / " ,- . ." w~ \k')~ I' ~~- \.~. i uJ^,C{'YCO\ C .-() - L)«( PCUVtdfU¿ ; 3J.ð? 5. Cf.Ç'/lJ( 4 7 LJ1 Ud-zl1~ 3/&r!J~.t+v.h. -- ¿t'. ({)é- EXHIBiT. 7 PAGE.-'o -;=:11- ~¿ PETITION AGAINST REZONING JACKSON PROPERTY To: Planning Commission City of Federal Way 33530 151 Way South Federal Way, W A 98003 WE THE UNDERSIGNED, being a majority of the PROPERTY OWNERS of ".',;' area adjacent to Jackson property, shown on EXHIBIT A, hereby petition against tl1l' proposed rezoning of such property. We request that the zoning to be included in the Comprehensive Plan for the Potential Annexation Area (P AA) be as follows: i) The areas currently designated as OP by King County be zoned as Office Pari; ii) The areas currently designated as R-4 by King County be zoned as Single FH:11il) l":gh Density t--...j' ..r' ,~;J', >:":( ¡ \ ), l(i '; '~"ì~ 1'\ ('l,j,tt')""'\Li '(.:s, , I ,,),)' ~:. ',I¿II' ':>1","- c.,-l....,-- \' ,/\ ", '..:,,' ? ;J~ S, ".'[~ìj: tl. ,'- /..."/>,r{¡.JI...JA,_;¡ ~ ...>"'I..J.t- ,,' ::' . I ~> ;JJ \ .ij:¡j -S 5 fj'-~ ':: <..(; ~S(\I' ~/,,/(, I I EXHIBi. .1-'------- I PAGEJJ"":;~~':n- I I--~/- SIGNATURE PRINTED NAME ADDRESS "", l C L ¡ ,;,:,~¿, ::12T.!,,'t. U ,..,L ,) ¡,,(1 'f;['1 .0';' ," .":: c "," "'" ;" j ( 'f " / " :.,., I '" / // j , L{ / II l ' , j , , -' , ' , .><*, -~;j ), ~ '> ~'11;1.',~ /1,.;,,';,,(; '(,,{v.,-..., t,'/;, "",;-,'" '".'~ '"0, .'...,.., I:' f,k;'.í"G.. \", " ') '\ " '\,t.., -.. ;, L" ;/.."f" b, K,ykW f~ln \~) õlJ3r S 3/21 Ac..J:;......... ,,;:1+ 1 e JÀ~1 j :3i'l It: ,~) \- '~tA "\ v-A c.h(.(,\ -l DATE SIGNED Lj/ C¡ ll, 'I, '. 'j --,----- Lt- Lt - ¿~-~ 1- '/ ~ '/_- /1-,1- i___- '-\.. "'\ - \~~---_. L - C::L~_:.-'J_--- ,/ -- . ,¡ '-'-.\ <'1 .--.--- -.--- L¡ - ':¡ .. f,i' I -..---.- .. __..n- u - ~,~ ,( --,' - ~.. - ", f -, - ._-- --_m - ----- I l-{-b -- OC¡ Lf-~ rci -, ...---., ---- PETITION AGAINST REZONING JACKSON PROPERTY To: Planning Commission City of Federal Way 33530 1 sl Way South Federal Way, W A 98003 WE THE UNDERSIGNED, being a majority of the PROPERTY OWNERS of the area adjacent to Jackson property, shown on EXHIBIT A, hereby petition against the proposed rezoning of such property. We request that the zoning to be included in the Comprehensive Plan for the Potential Annexation Area (P AA) be as follows: i) The areas currently designated as OP by King County be zoned as Office Park ii) The areas currently designated as R-4 by King County be zoned as Single Family High Density EXHIBIT A If r-=iI í , t i ! :-¡--""¡ ¡ I. f!!/ : i /i .g¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ i æ/ /i.o / , ¡~-, J.,¡.,.. í-, ¡ (]) ! ¡ ¡ Ö J !~ I II Ä,,! !f'rofl !! .....,..; r! ¡.¡.;f i I' I û / , j f:!?¡1 '.,/ ! ([)- I / /,',~,' , Ê ! j 't:::: I, i ;' ,1 '~ /J /-~!l /T " I'ii/ / ! 1(;/; j r ;:/ / í 1 ./ " / ¡ / ! f ¡ ! J I~..,<- J ¡ ,.- . I ! I t': :~---, - -1..:: I I '( ! l '/ " ~ f I , í , ! ' ""::'I,:rLI">""i'; (,'1";;': P",:: ;';¡ê) ! """,'." ¡i L__-L_., ' , '=-.,So~::32-Qtt~1 Slr~er:=::,:-".__:: ,_.......... , ' , I Cu,,!;]! .¡yay! I I i I L I::.XH\Srr. PAGE. 'I 2' ,;<"~ SIGNA TURE PRINTED NAME ~1.¡! )L J r;;.({ 5;rli '?"~,\J/" " ~~ ~b~wf ADDRESS DATE SIGNED 32i65. '3/t, <5Y. (32/ cJ ~ -3/'f,. \5';'---- ý"'~š/- d 4--5 - 01' '3 :2 1 0 5.:3 16 òf. 3ø.;;JS- 5' ;;?/~ ~- '- " ~ /'0 4N f(, ELL-:V3 'f3S:/ ,~(::, '3~~~ ~3\v L ~ \J\\) \J (L Ç'-- W '\.. 3~.);3 5 31 (p ~&- b~ 81J15- 3th )T Lf/ifot . -S--C) '1-S'-¿7 t.r -5'-01" L/-~-oL/ ~- , , Lf - 5 ~r' Lf t / !:7- -- C / t.¡. -5-olj ,...- "\ <-.....J t'i . .) - u 1 , ~- ~~ - c? '1-- EXHIBIT PAGE (,oJ 1 <:: --'J SIGNA TORE PRINTED NAME ADDRESS DA TE SIGNED y-~-o \ , (, EXHIBIT_- 1 P AGE Jt~ J F -.-:1L- PETITION AGAINST REZONING JACKSON PROPERTY To: Planning Commission City of Federal Way 33530 151 Way South Federal Way, W A 98003 WE THE UNDERSIGNED, being a majority of the PROPERTY OWNERS of the area adjacent to Jackson property, shown on EXHIBIT A, hereby petition against the proposed rezoning of such property. We request that the zoning to be included in the Comprehensive Plan for the Potential Annexation Area (P AA) be as follows: i) The areas currently designated as OP by King County be zoned as Office Park ii) The areas currently designated as R-4 by King County be zoned as Single Family High Density EXHIBIT A I i ì I " t ¡ ;_..,-; / ; , ".- :/ ;, ¡Ill k /; Jy/ ¡ j ¡ / i ¡ / ¡ í .I EXH' B i-r... PAGE.." ï .,,' ....1 " \----f-t-- SIGNA TORE PRINTED NAME ADDRESS 23/ ~"!fPlmr'L- - ß £-1tK& /lU&-æ~ VA 9.foo I V 371 ( S 314-~ Pc. ( 6.- JA4G$ ~ ~f: r~uJ)L4UJ C(BcP I d A¿" - ~LJ - { All '0 3-1..l~-'.5, 3 ¡'-f fL. ~/ThtA -4-/"'--r r'Y ~ (J-t<.LE.u./ZJ.J 18W( \)~,~ 32-\\~. 3\l\~~ p) ~l\: <~~\\ f=lL\:u,X-{ì\WRcì'ð ~ 5yYêQR\b ~7.\1 s 31¿\ih ç:>¡ -P~\{L. ~~@ q CH1.-U-t 3J.-n- S Ji , . ;..., \'\ \ lJI {\ LA ~-te l k,-, !Iv D~ iu" I [,: /ç::"h '1 a 9 '7i? d (oll} A// ( 12 v t::l¡-.!.. 7::) S" FLV- DATE SIGNED £f // ~Y:' if( ï {o't '1- '1- D« L\-l-()L\ .4 --"1 '-<D4-. Lf-'7 -à{ L/- /7 - 51' t:XH~bi:i 7 PA,GE-w' J~~ SIGNATURE PRINTED NAME ADDRESS DA TE SIGNED U r! ~ . ,') \!', .-- )~~7 \ l14~ PL It/it/ °1 ' , " ",' í\(HlL1~ ' I .~ (, '" y -r'n I' ,v' ">- ,J '/i-..f/',',¡'..J/\,-':£ I. Am PI -ANA \ i SC H t"tJZ 327.1 S. ~P1T1{ PL 4/4/04 i~ ~ ~Ji !<,ECN L-- ~'~JL wS- ~c- <;'\J..y~ 4- 6~ - tJ el- F EXH\Bi1 7- PAGE_~1..)i:--~ U~_aac~~~nlen~:__fw~:~~~ êgÂF~~~ili~!~LC?~~~ uÔitY arln~-~~ée~~ts__~----~~~-~-~-,~--"~-~--~~~------_.-----"C_------~_. -- f=>~~e - ~- FYI re community organizing on the freeway commercial zone, Derek »> "Lisa Ziccarelli" <l.ziccarelliCéV.comcastnet> 04/15/2004 2:35:02 PM »> Hello CCAFW supporters - As you all know, Peasley canyon won the fight against the State when DSHS selected a site in a commercial area near Spokane Street in Seattle to place their Level 3 Sexual Predator housing. Thank you to all that supported and helped Peasley Canyon win that battle. It was truly a community effort and a pleasure working together with you. CCAFW would like to make TWO announcements (below) for the community that so diligently helped in our fight. **CCAFW is not directly involved in these issues. This WILL be the LAST CCAFW e-mail, as we will be deleting the groups from my address book. ==============================================================================AN NOUNCEMENT #1 Skip's Priest would like to invite you to his Campaign Kickoff event, Sunday, April 25 from 4 to 7 PM at the Federal Way Marriott. Attaching is a jpg of his kickoff invitation. Perhaps some of you would be interested helping the campaign. His website, www.skippriestcarTlPaiqn,com has a sign up sheet for volunteer activities, --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- =ANNOUNCEMENT #2 Issue: Rezoning of area immediately east of 1-5 northbound on ramp from 320th, from Office Park/Residential to Freeway/Commercial to accommodate a car dealership or large retail business. This would include 32nd Ave S being built through to 5 320th St. Planning Commission Meeting: April 21, 7:00pm @ Fed Way City Hall, 336th and 1st Ave 5 You may attend the meeting to give public testimony, or you may send in written testimony to: Planning Commission of Federal Way, 33530 1st Way 5, PO Box 9718, Federal Way, WA 98003-9718. You may e-mail comments to: Margaret Clark, Senior Planner, www.citvoffederalwav.com, or call her 253-661-4105. Anyone who wishes to support us, please do so by commenting in person or in writing. Our little neighborhood greatly appreciates it! (Military Rd S, west down 316th St) Thank You, Pam Ditzhazy --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------- ------------- EXHIBIT_- 7. P AGEld-_JF ~ All. American Homes, Inc. 622 S. 320th Street Federal Way, W A 98003 (253) 765-2255 April 21, 2004 Planning Commission City of Federal Way 33530 1st Way South P.O. Box 9718 Federal Way, W A 98063-9718 Re: 1-5 Jackson Parcels Dear Planning Commission: Building a solid foundation in the community starts with bringing people and businesses together. The Jackson 1-5 parcels will do just that. These parcels of land are impacted by Freeway noise and congestion, which make them already unsuitable for residential property. History shows us that property such as this, that is both visible and accessible, serves communities by being Business Commercial. This property is no exception, though it is an exceptional property. It has always been felt that this property, with commercial usage, would serve as the lynch pin to bridge the gap between the existing city and the Potential Annexation Area. This property is the logical first step for the people on the East Side to feel a kinship to the City of Federal Way. Because this property will inevitably be joined to the city, it should be Business Commercial to allow full citizenship rights to those people making their home East of the Freeway. It is the request of All-American Homes, mc that this commission suggest the Jackson 1-5 parcels be recommended onto the LUTC as Business Commercial Zoning. Sincerely, C-' 4/ / ~ . / /f:/J/¿~ Steve MeNey I ~~~t~M~r . All-American Homes, mc t:XHiBl1_,7 - P AGE$tL~F--2L- Area Facts: . People will begin to feel like part of the City if these conveniences are provided. . The average income East of the freeway is greater than $68,200. . There are no grocery stores East of ¡ - 5. . There are no dry cleaners East of 1- 5. . There are no drug stores East of 1- 5. . There are no neighborhood restaurants immediately East ofI-5. . This property is more sui ted for commercial use. . The area is in need of these service items. . T!lls)s a perfect tìt and is ofbendÎt to the surrounding neighborhoods. . This will bring convenient shopping to the community East ofI-5. ..J 0 -.J ... Å .Juckson Purcels Steve MeN ey ~ Project Manager All American Home~, Inc. 622 S. 320th Street Federal Way, WA 98003 Phone: 253- 765.2255 Fax: 253.946-0559 Email: ~tephenmcne)€aol.com .., ~} Just Inlaginéi~ All the City has to offer,' . '::~i ...,," .I~ Without the inconveniêricepf :'.! City Traffic! .. -. . --- I A Sense of CommunitY "'//,',~/ ¿A// ,~ . Cornerstone of convenience located near your neighborhood. It is the goal of All American Homes, Inc, to bring the community together. We feet that this property would be better suited to provide a service to the community east of 1-5, Business Commercial zoning would allow for service-oriented businesses, suCh as: a grocery outlet drugstore, dry cleaners, sandwich shop, or neighborhood restaurant, etc.., all of which could make the citizens east of 1-5 feel like they are - participating in the snopplng convenience ;f'Qe ~ City, without the intimidation of traffic conge~n.-r, " .) ,J... ,.\ r~. All American Homes believes in the "heartH of'\! n"" Federal Way and the potential we all share as a growing community. We want to welcome the citizens of the Potential Annexation Area into the . City providing essential services to enhance t';.8 quality of life in this area. ..... ~' tt\ So MUCH MORE... By having a neighborhood shopping center, not only do you have convenience at your fingertips, but a variety of services can be provided as well. More than Just a grocery store, It can be a neighbor- hood center too. Building a solid foundation in the community starts with bringing people and business together. The neighborhoods and businesses have a mutual benefit and dependence upon each other. For example, a drive-through coffee shop located near a shopping center and a neighborhood allows for you to have a cup of coffee on your way to work or it can be a ¡,.I great place for neighborhood meetings. We are striving to encourage quality businesses to entertain the growing needs of your community. Whether it's a grocery outlet or drug store, we understand that time with your family is important and should not be spent sitting in traffic. I i ( ! , (/) ~~E /~~ J I S ,;/- I )"]!h"J' J f I I >;:',""""1<2.; ,:I : 'L -----;--,.. ".:' , " FT, 0 JAU:SONI'AI« LL~II.I / ' : / II, / , ~ -, -'"l. So Sl~"'" / ,/,1 / ' J r------ I I.' / (,) /~--l «1 I ' j ~/ I ()' / / J ( I, ~ : / ,,/ It " I I ~ i / lG .1 s' I I Q , / ~ I 1,,1/-, /,1, ,"" 'Ii I ¡ I ,I J J j /' I 1:',./""" .-" ("-,1," , ,- ' ,/ / X ;,.-"/ "; " ,,/' ,'I I ," '-, I " j" ' ,~ I .,... ,/ r '::' VI::" ,,/ / ; \.. "," -"/" /' <'I' ~! ~" / \J\~"'; ',' //'~'/[',/:<O v: '.¿" ,,'/ '\ ,/ [ / 4""Þ ,I / / "1' r~'/: I ", / ,r ,.,.,..,'V-, "":!:": ,I // ,,' 10/ /"','/ : I / / - ',/ ,/ " , .\C"'O~ t'AI<LLL t-5 & "'olio 3111'" SIt!: t'L\\ / / ! ""!"""~' <;"",', "".II""SJ' J.WIIQ,," ",,""" SJ. 1<""" A "",,1 / / !/ As you can see, the area adjacent to the neighborhood will be low Impact business buffer and a holding pond. The neighbors will also have easier access to So. 32Oth St & 1.5. City of Federal Way BC Zoning S, 320th Street City of Federal Way PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting E}{ ~~": i 8 ~ 'I" ç> --2...- Plrot: llJi;; 11 March 17,2004 7:00 p.m. City Hall Council Chambers MEETING MINUTES Commissioners present: John Caulfield, Hope Elder, Dave Osaki, Dini Duclos, Bil1 Drake. and Marta Justus Fold!. CommissIoners absent: Grant Newport (excused). Alternate Commissioners present: ChrIstine Nelson Lawson Bronson, and Merle Pfe1Íer. Alternate CommIssioners absent: Tony Moore (excused). City Council present: Mayor Dean McColgan, Council Members Eric FaIson and Jeanne Burbidge. Staff present: Community Development Services Director Kathy McClung, Community Development Services Deputy Director Greg Fewins, Senior Planner Margaret Clark, Associate Planner Isaac Conlen, Assistant City Attorney Karen Jorgensen, Management Services Director Iwen Wang, Traffic Engineer Rick Perez, Surface Water Manager Paul Bucich, Parks, Recreation, & Cultural Services Director Jennifer Schroder, Parks, Recreation, & Cultural Services Deputy Director Kurt Rueter, Contract Planner Janet ShulL Jones & Stokes Gregg Dohrn, Jones & Stokes Lisa Grueter, and Admmistrative Assistant E. Tina Piety~ Chair Caulfield cal1ed the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ApPROVAL OF MINUTES It was m/s/c to adopt the March 3, 2004, minutes as presented. AUDIENCE COMl\ŒNT None. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT None. COMMISSION BUSINESS PUBLIC IIEARIi\(; - Potential Annexation Area (PAA) Subarea Plan Mr. Dohrn delivered a presentation on the background of the PAA. Ill' stated these hearIngs address: I) the draft P^^ Subarea Plan: 2) amendments to that plan (site-specific requests): and 3) the new Freeway Commercial í',oI1lng designation. These hearings do not address the annexation process. Ms. (ìrueter dehvered a presentation on the purpose and process of the P;\;\ Subarea Plan. The COml1llSSiOn dIscussed annexations. The current City Councll policy is to wait to hcar tì'()m citizens If they have an Interest in annexation. Sincc IIlcorporatIon, the City has annexed three areas; two resulted III a net surplus to the Clly and one in a net loss, with an altogether net surplus. There \vould be an IIlcrease III taxes to areas that choose to annex to the City because of the CIty's utility tax, but they would gain a hIgher level of service. It was noted that the P;\;\ Subarea Plan is not a l1lechaI1lsm to annex areas, but designates the future zoning for areas Ifthcy choose to annex to the City. K "'Ia"""," ('"""""""",21)1)4 \hl"'" Snm""ny 1)\ 17.()4 d", Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 March 17, 2004 EXHIBIT ~ PAGE ;) OF--1.L PUBLIC HEARING - New Freeway Commercial Zoning Classification Ms. Shull delivered the staff presentation. This new zoning classification is being considered to: provide unique development opportunities along the 1-5 and SR 18 corridors; capture retail markets not currently strongly represented in Federal Way; and capture significant tax revenue. An owner of property in the P AA requested Commercial Business (BC) zoning, but staff felt it was inappropriate, Reasons for this are: Federal Way already has a lot of land designated commercial, adding to these could work against the City's plans for the City Center, and the proposed Freeway Commercial zone has fewer uses. New signage designation is proposed for this new zone. If the Freeway Commercial zone were adopted, goals and policies would have to be added to the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Shull noted that the height for pole signs was corrected and changed from 20 to 15 feet. Commissioners expressed concern that this new zone would draw businesses away from Pacific Highway South. Ms. Shull commented that the trend seems to be to have enough land available so a number of different auto dealerships can congregate in an "auto-mall" setting. The Commissioners asked if that is really the image we want to have at the entrance to our City. The Commissioners asked if we are lacking in other retail areas, why not pursue them, as opposed to a new zone. The Commissioners asked if the staff has a map with all the parcels in the City that would be eligible for this new zone. The Commissioners want to be sure that this proposed zone would not allow "big-box" retail. The Commissioners would like to know if signs are allocated by parcel or use. P AA Site-Specific Requests Ms. Grueter went over the four site-specific requests. Commissioner Osaki asked that the record reflect that he works for the City of Auburn, Public Testimony was opened. Thor Hoyle - He represents the Davis site-specific request. He also submitted written comments. He feels this request is different from the other site-specific requests because there has been a business on this parcel since 1946. It has been an office use since 1979. The current King County zoning is almost the same as Federal Way's Neighborhood Business (BN) zone. It is his understanding that part of the reason for zoning this residential is the belief that the property would not be able to meet Federal Way BN requirements, He feels the property can meet these requirements. He stated there is no way the current building could be turned into a home (it is only 900 square feet). There is no sewer and the lot is built-out. It is a comer lot, on a road that is not very busy, It has minimal signage, no parking problems, no egress or ingress issues, and no retrofit problems, It will stay as it is for the foreseeable future. Louise Davis - She purchased the property in 1998 and soon ran into legal problems with King County because it was not zoned for a business, It took a lot of time and effort, but the parcel was rezoned and she is now legal. It upsets her that she would again be iIIegal if the staff recommendation is adopted. Chuck Gibson - He spoke in regards to the Northlake request and represents the owners. Of 56 owners, 44 signed a petition in favor ofRS 9.6, four did not, and eight were not available. The RS 9,6 zone better fits the neighborhood, Alan Ulnyg - He spoke in regards to the Davis request. He has known her for several years and watched her go through the legal hassles. He supports her request. He feels it is better for the community, KIptanning Commissionl2004lMeeting Summary 03-17-04.doc/Last printed 4/2812004 to,23 AM Planning Commission Minutes .,; ,.< U ,; March 17, 2004 ---~.^~.,--~- Page :1 --.~'" :- ;'" ¡o r; ,...- , i'-< 3. .~ )) GmT Anderson - He spoke in regards to the Davis request. He feeis the' govemïTîër1t ~s 1àkîñg'" her property rights. He feels the land value of her property \\Ill go down if it is zoned residential. lie knows the City wants to annex them and he doesn't want the City to take her property rights by downzoning D&D Accounting. They are good for the community, She already went through the steps to be legal and now the City wants to change it back. It would close the business, rum their retirement, and put employees out of work. Christ), Ficld -. She asked Ifit was true that King County wants to have them annex to Federa] Way and they have no choice? She has livcd here 40 years and docs not want to be part of the City. The Commissioners wanted to make it clear that annexation would happen only if some citizens m the are3 ask the City to be annexed, BJ McMasters - He commented that he has 900 feet on freeway (on Military) and is happy with it. He wants to be in the County, not the City. He has a surface water problem that no one (county or state) has helped him with, Neil (Joldingm' - He is not impressed with the proposed Free\vay Commercial zone. He is open to the idca of annexation. He feels King County has done a good Job, He would love to see the City improve Military Road like PacIfic Highway South and make it a safer road, He also stated that the intersection of 288th and Military needs work in regards to trash, empty buildings, and vandalism. Lee Rabie - He feels the City is taking the Davis property and his propeI1y, This will cost him 12 million dollars. He feels the City staff is mean-spirited and deceitful. King County stafT is fairer and has more experts. He stated that the City's permitting proeess is broken and gave the example of a ehurch, He stated that he would fight if the City attempts to take his property. Norm Ingersoll- He stated that the map of the Rabie property is inaccurate because it shows a road that does not exist. Land is sct aside for the road, but eurrent]y it is trees and open space, He is not favor of the proposed Freeway Commereial zone or annexation. We should not compete with Aubul11, but work with them. Whatever happens, the 320th bridge over 1-5 needs to be fixed. It is too congested. In addition, Military Road needs to be made safer. He feeJs the' mailings on this issue were sporadic and few people knew of this meeting. He knows the City needs more money, but they should not seek more retail. but other kinds of businesses. Rick Reese ¡ Ie thanked the Commission for IIstenmg to the comments. He said that cars make no sense for a bedroom community. I Ie commented that the CIty should not think in the short- term. I Ie feels the City doesn't fÖllow the mandate of the voteh and cited CeJcbration Park as an example. The CIty needs to look at the carrying capacity of essential servlees. Sidewalks, water, etc. need to be m place before the City continues to develop. Mic/¡ael J'isc/¡/er I Ie spoke 111 regards to the Jackson request. I Ie lIves near the proposal. The topography that surrounds those lots IS very dIflerent from the northeastern sIde. The proposed new I'reeway ('ol11merelal zone would he better t~lell1g :120tll, but not near the sll1g1c-bmIly lots on the northeast. Moore She commented that an artIcle 111 the paper said that annex1l1g these areas would eost more than it IS worth. She feels large signs by the highway would distract drivers, K \I't"""",g Cu",n""",n2tHI4'Meel"'g S"""lmy 11\ t704 dnoLaSl pnnted 4.'X2O04 10 2\ A~1 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 t.,.. :'¡= 0 March17,2004 i: ~,',<.! U ~l --"",-Q,-_....~~.",, ~':~, ",;: ~~ .---H......{} :Z_._~.LL." Lawsoll Brollsoll. Alternate Plallllillg Commissioller - Does the staff know how many parcels in the P AA have been rezoned from commercial? He feels the proposed Freeway CommercIal zone is a separate issue and asked why are we creating a special classification for one request (Jackson), but not another (Davis)? He feels the P AA study should deal with the fìnancJaI aspects but not the zoning, until such time an area actually annexes to Federal Way. He feels that this way we are imposing zoning on people who cannot vote for Federal Way Counc¡] Members. He asked if this is implemented, what would be the impact on people who want to change their zoning before their area annexes to Federal Way (if it ever does)? A/Ill Rlackwe// She Jives near the Davis property. She commented that the traftìc IS heavy on M¡]ítary Road. There are times she feels she risks her Jife when pulling out of her dnveway, Jackie Moore - She spoke to the impact on the Northlake area. She said it would cost more money to annex and it would come out of our pocket book (property owners). There was no further public testimony. Since the public hearings will be continued, further pubJic testimony will be allowed. Chairman Caulfield read three letters into the record. The Commissioners asked about the way in which poJicies are stated, Some say, "City shall do this" and others say, "County shall do this," what does this mean? The Commissioners asked who is and is not the governing body of the P AA? They asked that a representative from the County be invited to the next public hearing, They would Jike to know how many multi-family parcels are developed and undeveloped. They requested that the Freeway Commercial proposal be "tightened"; taking into account the issues raised at this meeting. They would Jike to know what water body feeds the wetland on the Jackson property and is there any opportunity for off-site mitigation? They would Jike an aerial photo of the Jackson site and BP A easement in order to gain a feel for how much of the site could be developed. It was III/sIc to continue the pubJic hearings to Wednesday, April 7, 2004, in the City Council Chambers at 7:00 p.rn. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS None. AIJDŒNCE COMMF:NT None. ADJOURN The mccting was adjourned at 9:53 p.rn. K \1'1"""mg CUI11""""",\2004\Meetmg SUI11"';"Y 01-t7.()4 doelLast p..."ted 412X/2004 I [) 2.1 AM City of Federal Way PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting ~.::"~-;.;'.'.':"~;¡í' L 4 . Iii" IUJ II Pt1GE 6 _OF _-LL~ April 7, 2004 7;00 p.rn. City Hall Council Chambers MEETING MINUTES Commissioners present: John Caulfield, Hope Elder, Dave Osaki, Dini Duclos, and Grant Newport. CommissIoners absent: Marta Justus Foldi and BlIl Drake (excused). Alternate CommisslOners present: Christine Nelson Lawson Bronson, Tony Moore, and Merle Pfeifer. Alternate Commissioners absent: None. CIty Councll present: Council Members Enc Faison and Jeanne Burbidge. Staff present: Community Development Services Director Kathy McClung, Community Development Services Deputy Director Greg Fewll1s, Associate Planner Isaac Conlen, Assistant City Attorney Karen Jorgensen, Management Services Director Iwen Wang, Traffic Engineer Rick Perez, Contract Planner Janet Shull, Jones & Stokes Gregg Dohrn, Jones & Stokes Lisa Grueter, and Administrative Assistant E. Tina Piety. Chair Caulfield cal1ed the meeting to order at 7:05 p.111. ApPROVAL OF MINUTES It was 1Il/\lc to adopt the March 17, 2004, minutes as presented. AUDIE:\'CE COMMENT None. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT Ms. Wang delIvered a presentation on the City of Federal Way 2005 - 2006 Biennial Budget. She noted that whlle the City's tax burden is $63 higher than King County's, the City provides more services, and a tax break for 10w-ll1come senior citizens is available. CO¡W\IISSION BUSINESS PUBLIC 1IE,\RINC - Potcntial Anncxation Arca (PA:\.) Subarca Plan Mr. Conlen went over the stairs responses to the CommhSlon's and public's questions from the last meeting. The ('ommisslon questioned where access would be for the Jackson request. Mr. Perez responded that the prImary access would probably be from 32"" Avenue South. The Washmgton Department of Transportation would have to approve any access to/from 320111 Street and if they al1owed any access, it most lIkely would be nght-ll1/right-out only. Mr. Dohrn addressed the Kll1g County polIcies question r~l1sed at the last meetll1g. He stated that the stall had spoken to Kll1g County about provldll1g a representative for this mectll1g. but negotiations ICI1 through. One concern Kll1g County has about providll1g a representatIve is that they are working with the City Manager's onlce on this Issue and want to be sure no miscommunication occurs. King County wIll not adopt the City's I' AA Subarea Plan, but would view it, and the policies contained therein, as advisory. If K .YI"",n"g (n"'u"""'" '004 ~k""'g Snnuna,y "4117.114 cine Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 April 7, 2004 PAGE (p 0 F ---l.L the City feels strongly about any of the policies, they can enter into negotiations with King County to encourage King County to adopt said policies, PUBLIC HEARING - New Freeway Commercial Zoning Classification Ms, Shull went over the staffs responses to the Commission's questions and comments from the last meeting, The staff had removed SR 18 from the recommendation and the Commission asked if staff had considered including SR 18 east ofI-5. Michael Tischler - He showed a PowerPoint presentation of the area with aerial and ground photos of the single-family homes on 32nd and 316th. He commented that the last report said one of the goals ofthe change is to make adjacent parcels more alike. He feels his presentation shows the change will actually make adjacent parcels more different. Del Carlino - He lives on Lake Doloffand asked if the City was planning to annex the area. The Commission explained that this process only adopts future comprehensive plan zoning designations for the area that would take effect only if citizens in the area request that they be annexed to the City. Roy Ruffino - He spoke on the Jackson request. He stated it seems to be an adversarial issue and most neighbors are against it. He commented that off-site mitigation would not do any good in this area. He requested the City consider future relations with neighbors in the area when making their decision, Karen Bush - She stated her opposition to the Jackson request. James Awarado - He stated his opposition to the Jackson request. He commented it would decrease the quality of life in the area. There would be more traffic and more lights at night. Steve McNey - He is with All American Homes and represents the Jackson request. He commented that the Freeway Commercial zone is a compromise for them. They did not request this zoning from the City; rather they want Community Business (Be) so they can build a grocery store. A grocery store would decrease the traffic traveling west on 320th. A grocery store in this area would also capture traffic going to Auburn. They want to do a development that would be good for the neighborhood and the City. He stated they have been negotiating with King County and the County supports the BC zoning. He stated they have spoken with car dealerships and the dealerships say the sign code would be a deterrent. They have heard from grocery chains wanting to locate in the area. He commented that this side of 32nd would not make good residential property. One reason is because of the freeway noise. Gary Anderson - He stated his opposition to the Jackson request. He said that due to Mr. McNey's comments, most of what he had to say has gone out the window. He commented that he wants to keep auto dealerships out of the area. He lives only 60 feet away from the Jackson property, Planning philosophy denotes a gradual change from one use to another. This would be a sharp change. It would reduce the value of the homes in the area. He gave the Commission a petition signed by 52 people opposed to the zoning change, It would impact more than just his neighborhood, It would make traffic on 320th much worse, He feels it is not right that representatives that people in the neighborhood cannot vote for are making this decision. Louise Davis - She is the applicant for the Davis request. She asked if there are any other properties comparable to hers (staff replied the Sutherland Grocery and Gas property is similar, but it is abandoned). She challenged the Commission to consider that property; it hasn't operated KIPlanning Commissionl2004lMeeting Summary 04-07-04.docILast printOO 4/28/2004 10;23 AM Planning Conunission Minutes April 7, 2004 PAGE 7 OF----1L in years while hers is a thriving business. She spent a lot of money to re-establish her property as commercial with King County and does not want to do again for the City. It would not be possible for this to be a residential lot. Bryan Cope - He spoke on the Jackson request. He lives nearby. The City should keep businesses together and not place them out here. An auto mall should go along Pacific Highway near the other auto dealerships. There is no visibility of the property from 1-5 from the south and it would be a distraction from the north. Freeway Commercial zoning would change the City's "curb appeal." The City should work with SeaTac Mall to get more businesses to locate at the mall. Because of the wetlands, developing the Jackson property would be more trouble than it is worth, There is already a lot of noise in the neighborhood due to 1-5 and this would increase the nOIse, Lois Kutscha - She spoke in favor of the Northlake request. She wants to see the zoning changed from six to four houses per acre. Carla Laslella - She spoke on the Jackson request. She had figured it would be office park, like other properties in the area. She is concerned for the children in the area who ride their bikes along 32nd and 316111, She is concerned auto dealerships would bring in transients who have no feeling for the community. She feels access to the site would make more sense if it were from the freeway as opposed to 32nd. Steve Charles - He spoke on the Davis request. As a small business owner, he knows the Davis's look upon this business as their retirement and it would be very detrimental to them to lose it. He commented that the building would not work as a home. Because 308111 Place is in the wrong place, according to the title insurance, the property is in the road. Because of this when they remolded, they had to change the setback on the second floor. There is only one bathroom and no place to put a second. There is no place a garage could go. The current building would have to be demolished in order to have a residential use on the property. Pam Ditzhazy - She spoke in opposition to the Jackson request. She lives on the comer of 32nd and 316111. She is concerned about the noise and light auto dealerships would bring. She is also concerned about the safety of the children and the increased traffic, Lawson Bronson, Alternate Planning Commissioner - If the Jackson applicant does not want Freeway Commercial, what other uses would be good for this area? Since they don't want it, why pursue the Freeway Commercial zoning? The City needs to communicate more clearly about the P AA issue because miscommunication has caused unneeded stress, The Commissioners commented that the P AA Subarea Plan has been in the works for 1 Yz to 2 years, Numerous public meetings have been held that have been mailed to various citizens and agencies within the PAA, and advertised in the paper and on the City's TV Channel. Doug Parter - He spoke on the Davis request. He commented that community members do not have the ability to fight policy and that is what this is about. Val Caulder - He spoke in opposition of the Jackson request. A through street to 320111 would increase traffic on 316111 because people would use it to avoid the intersection of 320111 and Military. It would be a faster way to 1-5, Currently they ride horses on 316111 and would no longer be able to do that. KIPlanning Commissionl20041Meeting Summary 04-07-04doclLast printed 4/28/2004 10:23 AM Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 íEXI~IU3IT PP.GE 53 April 7, 2004 <? 0 F ---1L Lisa Fritz - She spoke in opposition of the Jackson request. The streets in this neighborhood are currently wonderful to walk along, but this would increase the traffic and they would no longer be safe. The Commission discussed the site-specific requests. The Commission would like to know King County's plans for zoning on the Jackson property and clarity on the access for the Jackson property. They would like to know the uses allowed by the concomitant agreement for property to the east of the Jackson request. They would like to know what properties could be zoned Freeway Commercial. The Commission would like to know why the Sutherland Grocery and Gas property is identified as a cultural resource. It was m/s/c to continue the Public Hearings to Wednesday, April 21, 2004, in the City Council Chambers at 7:00 p.m, ADDITIONAL BUSINESS None. AUDIENCE COMMENT None. ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p,m, K:IPlanning Commission\2OO4IMeeling Summary 04-07-04.doclLasl printed 412812004 1023 AM PLA~~I~~~~~~;lION u:j{i-=¡j rr . Regular Meeting . OJ n;: ¡ I. -.----1-- ~ e ---LL- April 21, 2004 7:00 p.m. City Hall Council Chambers MEETfNG MINUTES ComnllSslOners present: John Caulfield, Hope Elder, Dave Osaki, Dini Duclos, Bill Drake, and Grant Newp011. Commissioners absent: Marta Justus Foldi (excused). Alternate Commissioners present: Lawson Bronson. Tony Moore, and Merle Pfelfer. Alternate Commissioners absent: Christine Nelson (unexcused). City Council present: Deputy Mayor Linda Koehmar and Council Membcr Jeanne Burbidge. Staff present: Community Development Services Director Kathy McClung, Community Development Services Deputy Director Greg Fewins, Senior Planner Margaret Clark, Associate Planner Isaac Conlen, Assistant City Attorney Karen Jorgensen, Traffic Engineer Rick Perez, Contract Planner Janet Shull, Jones & Stokes Lisa Grueter, and Admil11strative Assistant E. Tina Piety. Chair Caulfield called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. ApPROVAL OF MINUTES It was III/sIc to adopt the April 7, 2004, minutes as presented. AUDIENCE COMi\IENT None. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT None COMMISSION BliSI:\TESS PUBLIC HEARING - Potcntial Anncxation Arca (PAA) Subarca Plan Mr. Conlen delivered a presentation on questions raised at the last public hearIng. It was stated that a development agreement is an option for the Rabie property. PUBLIC IIEARING - Ncw Freeway Commercial Zoning Classification Ms. Shull delivered a presentation on questions raised at the last public hearing. Because the Commission wantcd to know what parcels this proposed zonll1g could be applied to, she showed a map of the current zonlllg In the areas considered for thIs proposed ZOl11ng classification. Ms. Shull commented that if this zoning classlfìcatlon IS approved, any owner wlshlllg to apply thIs proposed zone to their property would have to go through the City's Comprehensive Plan Amendment process. PUBLIC IIEARING - 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amcndmcnts - Quadrant Site-Specific Rcqucst Ms. Clark delIvered the statl n:port. CommiSSIoner Newport recused himself from the Quadrant site- specific request. This IS a request to delete a proposed road fì'om the Federal Way Compre/¡ellsive Plall (FWCP). The road 111 question IS an extensIOn ofWeyerhaeuser Way. The City Council required the K i'1"'"""g(""u""""n2'HI4Mcc""gS"""",ns04.2t.O4du, Planning Commission Minutes ~ April 21, 2004 Page EXH I B IT applicant to prepare a traffic study analyzing the effects of de~~n9~~Qf~ensive plan. The study concluded that no roadway improvements would be needed by 2020 as a result of the proposed action, Due to this proposal, Mr. Perez asked the Commission to consider amending the comprehensive plan to make 32nd A venue South a principal collector from South 320lh Street to approximately South 3161h Street. The meeting was opened to public testimony. Commissioner Duclos informed the Commission that she had spoken to Steve McNey and encouraged him to bring his comments to this public hearing. Wally Costello - Applicant for the Quadrant request. He explained their proposal for the parcels the road would pass through and showed how the road would be detrimental to the proposed project. There are wetlands on the property that will restrict development and a road would restrict it further. Joanne Kirkland - She spoke in opposition of the Jackson request. She stated that the map in the staff report shows 31th as a through street (from 32nd to Military), but it is not. The report also says that a grocery store would decrease the amount of traffic in the area, but how could adding retail decrease the amount of traffic? She also commented that she recently learned that the PAA process has been going on for some two years, but this is the first she has heard about it. She is concerned that annexation would raise taxes and services would go down. This is a safe area for children and she is concerned that will change. Chairman Caulfield asked if King County mailed a notification of the P AA Subarea Plan to those within the P AA? Ms. Grueter replied that the issue was on the King County website, but for the most part, the City of Federal Way mailed the notifications. A notification had been sent in the utility mailings. Charles Gibson - He spoke his support of the Northlake request and said he was available if the Commission had any questions. Cindy Cope - She spoke in opposition of the Jackson request. She feels there is no need to bring more retail into the area. There is a lot of available retail space in Federal Way, such as the vacant theater and empty spaces in the Mall and Ross Plaza and SeaTac Village, etc. This area is a very private neighborhood that is safe for children to ride their bikes, Opening 32nd would bring more traffic, which would make it more dangerous for children to ride their bikes and would bring in more crime. Steve McNey - He is the Jackson property manager. They want Community Business (Be) zoning because they feel they can best serve the neighborhood and the City with that zoning. They are not trying to compete with the downtown core. A grocery store in this area would decrease traffic on 3201h, would proved a tax base to the City, and would provide a service to the neighborhood, They have submitted a docket to King County asking for a zoning change to commercial business. Kristen Wynne - She spoke in opposition of the Jackson request. She feels the proposed Freeway Commercial zone is not compatible with existing uses. If a car dealership were to go into the area, it would mean more lights and noise, She commented that 320lh is already a disaster area on the weekends. A more intense traffic study should be done before a decision is made. In addition, in terms of aesthetics, a car dealership at the entrance to Federal Way is a step in the wrong direction, K:\Planning Commission\2004\Meeting Summary 04-21-04.doc Planning Commission Minutes Apri121,2004 Page ÈXHIBIT <c PAGE-LLOF --U- Public testimony was closed, It was m/s/c (unanimous) to recommend adoption of the Neighborhood Business comprehensive plan designation and Neighborhood Business (BN) zoning for the Davis P AA site-specific request. It was m/s/c (unanimous) to recommend adoption of the Single Family, High Density comprehensive plan designation and Single Family 9.6 zoning for the Northlake P AA site-specific request. The Commission discussed how the owner of the Rabie P AA sit-specific request could utilize a development agreement. Mr. Fewins informed the Commission that annexation of this area is not anticipated in the near future and the owner plans to develop soon. It was m/slf(one yes, four no, one abstain) to recommend adoption of the Neighborhood Business comprehensive plan designation and Neighborhood Business (BN) zoning for the Rabie P AA site-specific request. The Commission expressed concern over downzoning the property. It was mlslf(three yes, three no) to recommend adoption of the Single Family, High Density comprehensive plan designation and Single Family 7.2 zoning for the Rabie P AA site-specific request; with the stipulation that the Planning Commission feels strongly that a self- storage/mini-storage use would be an acceptable use on this site. After further discussion, it was concluded that the Rabie P AA site-specific request would go forward with no Planning Commission recommendation. It was mlslf(one yes, five no) to recommend adoption of the Community Business comprehensive plan designation and Community Business (Be) zoning for the Jackson P AA site-specific request. It was mls/c (four yes, two no) to recommend adoption of the Office Park comprehensive plan designation and Office Park (OP) zoning to the south part of the Jackson PAA site-specific request, and Single Family High Density comprehensive plan designation and Single Family RS 9.6 zoning to the north part of the Jackson P AA site-specific request. It was mls/c (five yes, one no) to recommend adoption of the staff recommendation for the New Freeway Commercial Zoning Classification. It was mls/c (unanimous) to recommend adoption, with the aforementioned changes, of the staff recommendation for the P AA Subarea Plan. It was mls/c (four yes, one no, one excused) to recommended adoption of the staff recommendation for the Quadrant site-specific request with the amendment that 32nd Avenue South, from South 320th Street to approximately South 316th Street, would be reclassified from a minor to a principal collector, it would use Cross Section "0," Map III- 6 would be modified to reflect this, and 32nd Avenue South from South 320th Street to approximately South 316th Street would replace Weyerhaeuser Way as Map ID #35 on Table III-19. The Public Hearings were closed at 8:55. These items will be scheduled for the May 3,2004, City Council Land Use/Transportation Committee, which will meet at 5:30 p.m. in City Hall Council Chambers. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS None, AUDIENCE COMMENT None. ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m, K:\Planning Corrrnission\2004\Meeting Sununary 04-21-04.doc ~ ~~, CITY OF ?" "~ Federal Way CITY OF FEDERAL WAY MEMORANDUM April 27, 2004 To: Jack Dovey, Chair Land Use/Transportation Committee (LUTC) Dav;d M¥anagC' Kathy McClung, Director of Community Development Services Margaret H. Clark, AICP, Senior Planner Janet Shull, AICP, Planning Consultant VIA: FROM: SUBJECT: Amcndments to Federal Way Comprel1ell,\'¡'Ie Plall (FWCt» and Federal Way City Code (FWCC) Chapter 22, to add a Frceway Commercial Zoning Classification (File # 04-IOO812-00-lJP) MU.:TINCì DATI.:: May 3,2004 I. INTRODUCTION In reCl:nt years the City of Federal Way has hired consultants to prepare two market studies, one for the entire City in 2000 and one for the City Center in 2002. In addition, the City hired a consultant to prepare a Potential Annexation Area (PAA) Sub-Area Plan and Annexation Feasibility Study, which is being presented to thc LUTC concurrently with thc proposed Freeway Commcrcial (IT) Zoning ( 'Iassifjcation. All of these studies found that there is adequate supply ofyacant and underdeveloped col11nH.:rcial land in the City and in the PAA. I (owner. these studies also point to the possibility of zoning for retail dnelopmL'nt not currently being captured in Federal Way as a way to increase the tax base within the (It v and the PAA. A II of the stud ies ident i fjed lllllo/l/o/Ji/(' soIl's as a retai I category that generates sign i fjcantly more tax rL'velllle than the cost of the public services the)' reCl:ive and also as a rdaill11arkd that is not currently strong in Federal Way. Additional potentiall11arkets identifil't in the March 2002 study included Fllmilllr('. Fllmi,,/¡illg" ol/{ll:'lluilmwlIl. The trend in these categories is to locate in destination-tYIK' regional retail centers, A. Proposed Freeway Commercial Zoning Designation The intent of the proposed Freeway Commercial Zoning designation is not to compete with the existing zones that already allow retail uses, but to capture the type of retail development that is presently locating outside of Federal Way. Any parcel five acres or more that is located bordering the 1-5/SR-18 interchange or 1-5/South 320lh Street interchange, and is both visible and accessible from these interchanges, would be eligible to apply for the Freeway Commercial zoning designation. This zoning designation could be applied to parcels within the P AA as wcll as in the City, ß. Concurrent Review of the Proposed Freeway Commercial Zoning Designation and the P AA Plan As part of the PAA Sub-Area Plan process, property owners within the PAA were given the opportunity to apply for a different pre-annexation and zoning designation. One appl icant applied for Community Business (BC) zoning for approximately 23 acres located east of 1-5 and north of South 320th Street. The staff recommendation for this property was Freeway Commercial. I Consequently, this new Freeway Commercial Zoning designation is being reviewed concurrently with the PAA Sub-Area Plan. II. BACKGIWlJNI) The proposed amendments were presented to the Planning Commission at their March 17, April 7, and April 21,2004, public hearings, The staff reports to the Planning Commission and minutes of these meetings arc attached as follows: Exhibit I Staff Report for the March 17, 2004, Planning Commission Meeting (includes Tables I-III and Exhibits A-N) Minutes of March 17,2004, Planning Commission Meeting Staff Report for the April 7,2004, Planning Commission Meeting (includes Exhibits A-C) Minutes of the April 7,2004, Planning Commission Meeting Staff Rep0l1 for the April 21,2004, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of the April 21,2004, Planning Commission Meeting Exhibit 2 Exhibit 3 Exhibit 4 Exhibit 5 Exhibit (j III. PI{()('EIHII{AL SIJI\1 1\1 A In' February I X, 20tH Issuance of Determination of Nonsignilicance pursuant to the S/a/(' 1:'m'¡'YJl/I11('l1I(/II'o/icl' ..Ie/ (SEI' A) March 3, 2004 End of SEI'A ('oml11entl'eriod March 17,2004 End ofSEPA Appeall'eriod -~_.- I rhe Planning ('onul1ission. iu their April 21. 2004, dehberations or site-specific luning change requests to the I'AA Plan. did no! vote in ¡Ivor or application orthe FC lone to this particular property Stall'Report to the Land LJscfrmnsportaljon Committee Frccway Commercial Zonc April 27. 2004 Filc #O4-IOOI!12-00-LJI' Pagc 2 March 17, 2004 Planning Commission Public Hearing April 7,2004 Planning Commission Public Hearing Continued April 21, 2004 Planning Commission Public Hearing Completed May 3, 2004 Presentation to LUTC May 17,2004 ./uly 6,2004 LUTC Follow-up City Council Meeting IV. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION AND DISCUSSION OF" PROPOSED AMENDMENTS The proposed amendments as recommended for approval by the Planning Commission are summarized as follows and shown in Exhibits 7-20: A. Pl'Oposed Changes to the Comprehensive Plan I. Amend Chapter Two, Land Use to identify the Freeway Commercial concept and provide a general location in Figure 11-2, the Concept Plan Diagram (Exhibit 7, Pagc 101' 7). Î Amend Section 2.2 Relationship to Other Land Use Chapters to add a bullet that states: '"Freeway commercial development focusing on attracting and capturing those retail dollars presently being lost to other communities and complementing existing rctailuses in the comn1l1nity" (Exhibit 7, Page 2 of 7), 3. Amend Section 2.8 Land Use Designations - Commercial Designations to add locational criteria, and goal and policy statements for the Freeway Commercial designation (Exhibit 7, Pages:) and (¡ of 7). .1. AlI1end Table 11-3 Land Use Classifications to add the Freeway ('omll1ercial designation (I'::-;hihit 7, Page 7 of'7). s, AlI1l'nd Map II-I ('oll1prehl'nsi\L' Plan I >csi!!nations at the till1e areas are designated :rl'L'\\ay ('oll1l11l'n:ial. subject to ¡:ederal Way (Ity ('ouncil consideration, () , J\lllL'IHI ('haplcr h1l1f'. Econoillic I >cvelopll1l'nt to incorporate frl'l'way oril'nted coll1mercial dl'\clopnll'nt in thl' Econoll1ic l>cvclopll1l'nt Vision fi1l'l:l'dl'ral Way(E:-;hihit X), , ---~,. -- --_.~--------~---~~------- ---~-- hie IIO.I-IOOX I 2-00.IJl' Sian Report to the I.alld t IsdlransportatlOlI ('omllllllee I'rl'l'\\a~ ('"mllll'l"all"lIe Aplil '27. '2001 Page 3 B. Proposed changes to FWCC, Chapter 22, Zoning Code 1. ì 3, Permitted Uses The following uses are proposed to be allowed in the Freeway Commercial zone. Use Zone Charts have been prepared for each use: . Retail selling new vehicles, boats, recreational vehicles, and motorcycles (Exhibit 9) Retail selling household goods and furnishings (Exhibit I 0) Retail selling household appliances (Exhibit 10) Retail selling home electronics (Exhibit 10) Retail outlet centers (Exhibit 10) Retail providing entertainment, recreational or cultural services, and activities (amusement parks, movie theaters) (Exhibit II) Golf driving range (Exhibit II) Hotel (Exhibit 12) Public utility (water supply, electric power, telephone, cablevision, natural gas, transportation for persons/freight, commercial broad-cast towers, commercial antennas) (Exhibit 13) Public transit shelter (bus stop) (Exhibit 14) Personal wireless service facilities (Exhibit 15) . . . . . . . . . . Accessory Uses Accessory uses arc defined in FWCC Section 22-946, as a use, facility, or activity that is clearly secondary to the permitted use, a) For vehicle and boat sales, accessory uses would include the following (Exhibit 9, note 4): . l ¡sed vehicle sales . Gasoline service stations . Service, maintenance, and body shops . ('ar washes . Auto supply stores . ('o ' l'e shop to sCl've customers and employees b) A restaurant with a maximum gross floor area of 7,500 square ket would be permitted as accessory to a retail outlel celllL'r (Lxhibit 10. Ilote 5), Review I'rocess I'he majority of the pel'lllitlL'd uses ill the Freeway ('ollllllercial zone arc proposed 10 be re\ie\\l:d under I'rocess II. Sill' I'lall Re\'iew. except fl) ' New Vehicle Sales. which would hl' re\'ie\\ed lindeI' I'n!\:ess III, I'rocess II review would he used fl) ' huildings up to 4.000 square feet gross 110m area with up to 20 parKing spaces or a parKing lot up to 20 parKing spaces, If these thresholds wCl'e exceeded. I'ron'ss III would he used, St,,1l Report 10 Ihe 1."lId IJsenrallsportatioll COIl1l1l1ltee hee""y ('Ollllllcru"l/olle April '27. '2()(),1 hie #(),I- ()()¡ 12-(JO.lJP Page 4 4. :' ~ ,---~- ~"-------- Development Standards The following is a summary of the proposed development standards for the Freeway Commercial zone: a) Minimum/of size: Automobile sales uses must be located on at least five acres, Other permitted uses would have no minimum size requirements. b) AJaximum/of cOI'erage: Consistent with existing Federal Way use zone charts for non-residential uses, no maximum lot coverage is established. Instead, lot coverage is determined by other site development standards, such as landscaping, requirement for on-site detention, and parking, c) Height limits and setbacks ~I'hen adjaccntto residential ::ones: Ma.ximum height of 35 feet unless the structure is loeated less than 100 feet from an adjacent residential zone, I f a structure is located less than 100 feet from an adjacent residential zone, then that portion of the structure shall not exceed 30 feet above average building elevation, and the structure shall be set back a minimum of20 feet from the property line of the residential zone, In the case of new vehicle sales, the setback would be 50 feet versus 20 feet due to the potential intensity of the uses conducted. The height of that portion of a structure located 100 feet or more from a residential zone may exceed 35 feet above average building elevation to a maximum of 55 feet, if certain criteria arc mct: d) Noise, lighf oI/(l glare: Noise, I ¡ght and glare can be associated with any non- residential use, The FWCC includes regulations that address all of these impacts, I. Noise - Noise is addressed in Chapter 10, ^rticle II (Exhibit 16), In addition, Note II was added in the Use Zone Chart ()r New Vehicle Sales (Exhibit 9), This note states that the site must be designed so that noise associated with Pllblic addrcss systems: \'ehicle rerair or maintenance: and truck rarking, hiding, or Illaneu\cring: \\illnot be audible off the subject property. II. Light and (ìlarL' ,- This is addressed in FWCC Sections 22-950 and 22-95~. I>,isting code langllage \\as determined to be adeqllate to address these impacts, so no additionallangllage lIas added. c) I!a::on/ous II',/I/e, foric (lrl1o\'ious gosse,l', lI'ofl'/' ('Ol1f{//llil1ofim/: ^utomohile service, body shop. and IlIainlL'nance Licilitics can )!.enL'I'ate odors or hazard OilS \\aslL's, which eln elld lip in slirLlL'e or ¡.'.mllnd \\alL'r. ('onseqllently. nolL's to address these potential in\paL'ls arc inchllied in the I Jse Zone ('hart lill- New Vehicle Sales (I'::\hihit I), NolL's Ú. X, I) and I ()), ^melld 1'\\'( '(' Section 22-1)()() to incilide thc 1(' /\1nillg district inthc list of /\1nes where IK'I'so u \\ irl'lL'ss Llcilities Illay he !oelted (I,:\hihit 17), ---~-----------~-----,------~ ---- ---- ~--,--- Slall Report to the I.aml (Isc/ I rallsportation ('OIlHllmee hen\ ay ( 'ollllllen:ial/olll' April 27, :!OO,I hie I/O,I-IOOX I :!-OO-(JP Page 5 v. 6. Amend FWCC Section 22-160 I, Signs in nonresidential zoning districts to add a new category - Highway Profile Category A signs - to apply to properties designated with FC zoning (Exhibit 18), This new sign category will allow one free-standing pylon or pole sign that is oriented towards 1-5, be located near the property line closest to 1-5, and be visible from 1-5, not the freeway ramps, This freestanding sign would be allowed in addition to the other typically-permitted signs in the City's commercial zoning districts, 7. Amend rwcc Section 22-1566, Landscaping requirements by zoning district to incorporate reference to the new FC zoning district (Exhibit 19). The following landscape standards are recommended: . Typc III landscaping ] 0 feet in width shall be provided along the perimeter of parking areas abutting public rights-of-way. Type 1 landscaping 20 feet in width shall bc provided along the perimeter of property abutting a rcsidcntial zone, Typc III landscaping live feet in width shall bc provided along all perimeter lot lines, except as noted above. . . Languagc has been added to the Use Zone Chart for New Vehicle Sales (Exhibit 9) to clari(y that areas where vehicles are displayed are not subject to the parking lot landscaping requirements of Section 22- I 567 (Note 14), A note has also been added to state that areas where vehicles are displayed are not subject to the provisions of Article XIII, Section 22- 1113, Outdoor Activities and Storage, which also require screening and landscaping of outdoor storage (Note 15). x. Amend FWee Section 22-1638 District Guidelines (Community Design Guidelines) to incorporate reference to the new FC zoning district (Exhibit 20), LAN ) l1sEflk.\NSPORTATlOI\' COI\IJ\lITTEE OPTIONS The Conlll1ittec has the ¡(¡I lowing options: I. ') 3. .1. Recommend that the full ('ouncil adopt an ordinanCl: approving the proposL'd coll1prehensive plan and code amendments as recommended by the Planning ( 'ommission. Recolnmend that the full ('ouncilmodify and then approve the proposed eomprehensi\e piau and code amendments. Reconllnend that the full ('ouueil disapprove the proposed eolllprdlensi\e plan and code :lIl1endments. Recommend that the full ('ouncil refer the amendments back to the Planning ('ollllllission (¡r further proceedings. Staff Ih'('ollJlIJ(, (laljoll. Stalf recommends that the U IT<' recommend to the !iill ('ouncil ()ption No. I above, that is, adoption of the PlalJning('ommission's reeOll1mendations. ----- Stalf Report \0 the Land lJsefl'ransportation Commiuee Free 1\ ay ('ommer~i;ll/one April n. 200.1 File I/O.I-IOOX I 2-00-lJl' I'a!!e (, VI. COUNCIL ACTION Pursuant to FWCC Article IX, "Process VI Review," any amendments to the comprehensive plan, comprehensive plan designations map, or zoning text must be approved by the City Council based on a recommendation from the Planning Commission. Per FWCC Section 22-541, after consideration of the Planning Commission report, and at its discretion holding its own public hearing, the City Council shall by majority vote of its total membership take the following action: I. 2, Approve the amendments by ordinance; Modify and approve the amendments by ordinance; Disapprove the amendments by resolution; or Refer the amendments back to the Planning Commission for further proceed ings. I I' this occurs, the City Council shall specify the time within which the Planning Commission shall report to the City Counci I on the amendments, 3, 4, APPROVAL OF COMMffiEE ACTION: Jack Dovey, Chair LIST OF EXIlIBITS Exhibit 1 hhibit 2 hhibit 1 hhibit.1 I':xhibit 5 hhibit () hhibit 7 I.\hibit X E.\hibit I) hhibil 10 hhibit II hhibit 12 hhibit 11 hhihit 1.1 hhihit 15 Eric Faison, Member Michael Park, Member Staff Rcport for thc I'vtarch 17.2004. Planning Commission Mccting (includcs Tables I-III and hhibits ^-N) Minutes of March 17.200-1. Planning Commission Mceting Staff Rcport for thc April 7.200'1. Planning Commission Mceting (ineludcs Exhihits A-C) Minutes ofthc April 7. 200.t. Planning Coll1mission Mceting Staff Rcport f\)r thc April 21. 200.1 Planning ('omll1ission Mceting Minutcs ofthc April 21, 200.1. Planning Coll1mission Mccting ('hapter Two. I,and llsc of thc (Ily of Fcderal Way ('omprchcnsi\c Plan ('hapkr rour. Ecolloll1ic I k\cloplncnt of thc (Ity of :cderal Way ('oll1prchcllsivc Plan I Isc Zonc ('hart I Jsc lonc ('hart I Isc folIc ('hart I Isc ZOIlL' ('hart IJsc folIc ('hart I Jsc lollc ('hart IJsc ZI) IC ('hart Ncw Vehicle Sales Retail EntL'rtainlllclI!. !-:Ic. Ilokl I'uhlic I Jlility I'uhl ic Transit ('cntcr Personal Wireless Scrvicc racility -- ------------~- hlc IIO' -IOOX I 2.00-UI' Stat]' Rcport to thc Land lJscflransportalion Committcc ¡:rcc\\a~ ('onllllcn:iaIZonc ^plil'27.2oo. Pagc 7 Exhibit 16 Exhibit 17 Exhibit 18 Exhibit 19 Exhibit 20 FWCC, Chapter 10, Article II, Sections 10-26 and 10-27 (Noise) FWCC, Chapter 22, Section 22-966, Personal Wireless Services Facilities Freeway Commercial Sign Language FWCC, Chapter 22, Article XVII, Landscaping FWCC, Chapter 22, Article XIX, Community Design Guidelines I 1.'00,1 ('"Ie- ,\IIIClldlllnlhllll'C\\;1\ ¡ollcllll ('0'0 ;o' \I;tli Rcf'" , "oclO,I!.'7/.'OO, .' 'is 1'\1 SIan l{cpor110 Ihc Land 1 J~cllran~porta(ion ('ommíttcc Frcc\\ay ('ommcrTla' Zone' April 27. 200.1 File 1104.1 OOX 12-00-111' I'a~c X ~ CITY OF ~ Federal Way EXHIBIT I PAGE---LOF J" STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Amendments to Federal Way City Code (FWCC) Chapt<r 22 Addition of Freeway Commercial Zone Planning Commission Meeting of March 17,2004 I. INTRODUCTION 1. Why a New Commercial Designation? In recent years, the City of Federal Way has hired consultants to prepare two market studies, one for the entire City in 2000 and one for the City Center in 2002, In addition, the City has hired a consultant to prepare a Potential Annexation Area (P AA) Subarea Plan and Annexation Feasibility Study, which were completed in 2003 but have not yet been adopted. A II of these studies found thcre is adequate supply of vacant and underdeveloped commercial land in the City and in the PAA. Given that developable land is not a constraining factor in attracting development, the only way that land use actions would result in an incrcmental increase in development would be if the action created a specific opportunity for development that docs not currently exist in the City or I' AA, For instance, parcels that arc highly visible from 1-5 may provide unique development opportunities, Sales tax revenues arc the single largest source of tax revenue lix most cities, In any given year, most Washington residents typically pay more in city sales tax than they do for any other city tax. This means that it is in every city's interest to capture as many retail dollars as possible. Ilowever, I¡'om a liscal perspective, some retail uses arc more attractive than others. The ("ity of Federal Way is not a m;~ior destination '()r all t)ves of retail: however, the ("ity docs dominate a large market area for many retail categories. Federal Way is particularly dominant ill the .1!.('I/('ro/lf/('1'c/lillldis(' category (department stores), but the ("ity also serves as a regional cclIll'r 1(1f' hlli/dillg If/ol(Úo/I/limJ¡mr('; ('olillg 01/(/ drillkillg ('slohlis//lI/(,lIls;.fìmd (gro..:ery stores) alld "lis( '('I/W/('OIlS r('/oi/ slores. The n:lail catègories in which Federal Way is less competitive include 01110 .w/cs../imlilllr('. .fÌirllishillgs olld cil/lillf!l(,lIl. alld to a lesser extent, o/llmr('/ a//(/ ¡¡c('('s.wries. Lach of these catègories arc dominall'd by destination-type regional retail cenll'rs, including cities like Tukwila 1(1f' °ll/Ior('/ and.fÌimilllre, and cities lil\e Renton or I'uyallup '(JI' 01110 saIl's. These studies point to the possibility of zoning '()r retail development not currently being captured in Federal Way as a way to increase the tax base within the City and the PAA, The studies make it dear; however, that the key to generating increased tax base is to identify and capture rctaill1larkcts that arc currently underrepresented in Federal Way. EXHIBIT' PAGE 2. ,')~'a All of the studies identify automobile sales as a retail category that generates signi ficantly more tax revenue than the cost of the public services they receive, and also as a retail market that is not currently strong in Federal Way, Additional potential markets identified in the March 2002 study includedjim'¡ture, fumishings, and equipment. The trend in these categories is to locate in destination-type regional retail centers, There is potential to capitalize on these findings by creating a new Freeway Commercial zoning designation that can be applied to properties that are located adjacent to, and visible from, 1-5 or SR-l X. and are easily accessible from the fì'eeway interchanges, The intent of the new Freeway Commercial Zoning designation is not to compete with the existing zones that already allow retail uses, but to capture new dollars that are presently leaking to neighboringjurisdictions, In addition, the Freeway Commercial zone is intended to allow uses that complement and support existing rdailuses in other zones, such as outlet centers, as well as uses that attract people to Federal Way, such as entertainment fÌlcilitics (movie theaters and amusement centers), 2. Nt'w Fn't'way Coll1l1lcl-ciallksigllatioll Any parcel five acres or more that is located adjacent to and visible from 1-5 or SR-I X, and is easily accessible fì'om the freeway interchanges, is eligible to apply for the Freeway Commercial Zoning designation, This zoning designation can be applied to parcels within the P^^ as well as in the City, As part of the P^^ subarea planning process, parcels within the PAA have been gi \en ("ity colllprehensive plan and zon ing designat ions. which wi II becollle efkct ive upon annexation to the City, For the most part, the proposed designations are very similar tu the existing King County designations, In some cases, the propused designations arc intended tu make zoning of adjacent parcels more consistent with each other. ^s part of the P^^ Subarea Plan process. property owners within the PAA were given the opportunity tu apply fur a different pre-annexation and zoning designation, One applicant has applied for comlllercial zoning f(\(' approximately 23 acres located cast of 1-5 and north of South 320'11 Street. This property lIIay he a candidalL' f(\(,the new Freeway ('ommercial designation, ('onseqllently. this nc\\ Fn:e\\ay ('olllnH:rcial Zoning dcsignation must be revie\\ed concurn:ntly with the P^^ SllharL'a Plan, J. Existing Conlllll'l'l"ial Zoning I IlL' ("ily of teder;d Way cllrrently has the f()llowing f()[n eOllllllcrcial /l)lling lksignati,)nS (pkasL' rL'f(:r to I~¡/¡/(' I f()r thL' allo\\;lbk llSL'S in each /lIning distriL'l) . Nel~dlho"lood HnsnlL',SS IIN . ('onnnllllitv Hllsiness II(' . ("itv ('enter-( 'orL' cc-c . ("ilv (\'ntLT- 'r;IIJIL' ('( '-I' ()I Ille ~Hlr L',isting I()ning dislriets. the IH' lone is the Inost atllonH)hik-()lientL'lLI hL' HN lone is inlL'nded II) SLT\'L' sllnotIlHfin~: neighborhoods with pcdeslrian-()liented retail and services, The ('( '-(' alld ('(' I, lones, while allowing mort' inlensive devL'loplnL'nl and sLTving an area with grL';IILT allll)nlOhik tralfie. arc also intL'lHkd to provide a pedestrian-oriented ell\ i(()lnJIL'nt. 1'1.1/111111" ('01/1/111"'011 Slalt' \{q'orl "l'l'\\;I\('ol1l/l1l"lL¡ /ol1<,:I,ktlll, .IIIWìl.'-(j(j.I'" 'tlllh 17,200,1 I'ai-'I: 2 EXHIBIT__~ 1_- PAGE_J '¡: 12. -- The BC zone allows for a wide variety of commercial, office, and service uses. The existing BC- zoned areas are extensive, with many older developments that have potential lor upgrading and re-development. While simply applying the BC zoning designation to additional large tracts of undeveloped land would allow for those retail uses identilied by the market studies as under represented in Federal Way, it would potentially dilute private investment that otherwise might be concentrated in the older often under developed BC-zoned areas. In addition, this could create increased competition with the CC zoned areas, These circumstances led to the decision to consider a new zoning designation that would allow a focused range of commercial uses that require large tracts of land and a freeway-oriented location. For example, automobile dealerships and home furnishings centers are uses that typically require large tracts of land, Therefore, locating automobile dealerships and home furnishings centers in the existing BC zone would likely require the assemblage of multiple smaller parcels that for the most part are not located within C<1SY access to the freeway, II. RESEARCII OF OTIIER CITIES' ConES Stair researched codes of other jurisdictions that have lì'eeway-oriented commercial zoning districts, Specifically, permitted uses and development standards were reviewed for potential applicability to Federal Way's proposed Freeway Commercial Zoning designation, Tables II and III summarize those cities reviewed in Washington and California, respectively, Characteristics that \\ere considered in selecting allowable uses and development standards fix the Freeway (\mllllercial lone were: . Freeway orientation/proximity to freeway/major highway Uses that arc freeway-oriented (need visibility and/or convenient access) Retail calL'gories in which Federal Way is less compctitin: I Jscs that nccd largc tracts nf land and havc outdnor display of product (i,c. arc nnt cnl11patihk with pcdcstrian-oricnlL'd or highcr intcnsity cnmnll'rcialusc districts) . . . III. DISClISSIO:'l: OF I'I{()I'OSI,: ) ('oln: AI\II':N ):\U:i\'TS I. I't'..lIIitkd list's I Ill' 1()II'1\\ln!', IISl'S alc Plt1pds,'d td he alld\\l'd in a h'l'l'\\aV ('onulll'lci;¡/ IOnl' . I{l'tail selling new vchicks, hdats, Iccrcational vchil'ks, and /llotorcycks IÜ,t:liI sclling hdllschdld glHHls and fÙ!IIishin)'.s ( JodI cO\'l'Iings, dr:l K'rics, glass, and l'hin;II\;IIl') ¡{('Lid sl'lIill)' h(Hlsl'llold ;lppli;lIll'l"" 1{l'!;liI sl'llin)'. hOllll' ckcllonics I{ct:lil IHllkl ccnll'ls RcLlii pI(l\idin)',l'nll'rI;linllll'lll. Iccn';lti'1I1:d, (II cldtlll;¡/ scnin,'s and acti\ilics (;IIUtlSCllll'nt parks, Inm'ic thl'alL'rs) . . . . . I'LIIIIIIII¡,('OIIlIlIl..,loIISt.tlll\l'J"1I1 1",<,\\;,,("1111111<"'1.01/011,' IlkIlO, . (HIXI2.oo-tl ' \Ltrch 17,200,1 !'al'c' 1 EXHIBIT PAGE~ , '~'~5a . Golf driving range Hotel Public utility (water supply, electric power, telephone, cablevision, natural gas, transportation for persons/freight, commercial broad-cast towers, commercial antennas) Public transit shelter (bus stop) Personal wireless service facilities . . . . 2. Accessory Permitted Uses Accessory uses are defined in Federal Way City Code (FWCC) Section 22-946, as a use, facility, or activity that is clearly secondary to the permitted use. (a) For vehicle and boat sales, accessory uses would include the following: . Used vehicle sales . Gasoline service stations . Service, maintenance, and body shops . Car washes . Auto supply stores . Coffee shop to serve customers and employees (b) A restaurant with a maximum gross floor area of7,500 square feet would be permitted as accessory to a retail outlet center. 3. Review Process Any new commercial development in Federal Way is subject to one of six land use processes (Process I-VI). The majority of the permitted uses in the Freeway Commercial zone are proposed to be reviewed under Process II, Site Plan Review. Except for new vehicle sales, which would be reviewed under Process III, Process II review would be used for buildings up to 4,000 square feet gross floor area with up to 20 parking spaces or a parking lot up to 20 parking spaces. If these thresholds were exceeded, Process III would be used. Process II is an administrative review with no public notification. Process III requires a public notice of application to be published in the paper, posted on the City's official notice boards, and posted on the site. In addition, if the project is located within 300 feet of a residential zone, a copy of the notice would be mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the boundary of the property. This means that any new vehicle sales or other permitted use in the Freeway Commercial zone, which is 4,000 square feet or more with 20 or more parking spaces, or a parking lot with 20 or more spaces, would be reviewed under Process III. 4. Development Standards The following issues were considered when drafting the Freeway Commercial development standards. Use zone charts have been prepared for all of the proposed permitted uses (Exhibits A-G)!: I A change was made in FWCC Section 22-966 to add Freeway Commercial to the prioritized list of zoning districts (Exhibit H). Planning Commission Staff Report Freeway Commercial Zone / File #04-100812-00-UP March 17,2004 Page 4 EXHIBIT~J PAGEJ-,)~- -S& (a) Minimum Site Size - A survey of other communities found that minimum lot sizes for a permitted use ranged in size from none to five acres. The Freeway Commercial zone is intended to apply to an area that is large enough to accommodate a mix of uses that would attract a large customer base. The minimum size of five acres was chosen because this would accommodate one auto dealership, or a number of smaller retail uses. Language has been added to Page 11-22 of Chapter Two, "Land Use," of the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan (FWCP) to implement this goal (Exhibit I). At the time that an application for a comprehensive plan amendment and rezone to the Freeway Commercial zone is being considered, the parcel would have to meet both the minimum area size and locational requirements found in that section of the FWCP. (b) Maximum Lot Coverage - The range in maximum lot coverage allowed was broad in the other Washington communities reviewed, ranging from 85 percent in Olympia to no maximum requirements in Marysville and Oak Harbor. Consistent with existing Federal Way use zone charts for non-residential uses, no maximum lot coverage is established. Instead, lot coverage is determined by other site development standards, such as landscaping, requirement for on-site detention, and parking. (c) Height Limits and Setbacks When Adjacent to Residential Zones - Height limits for other jurisdictions' zoning districts that are similar to the proposed Freeway Commercial zone range from 30 to 50 feet, with most jurisdictions having a maximum of35 feet. Issaquah allows an increase to 65 feet if certain criteria are met. When crafting the height limits for the Freeway Commercial zone, we relied on those standards in the Federal Way Community Business zone, since it was the most similar to the Freeway Commercial zone. A larger setback is required if the site is adjacent to a residential zone. The following summarizes how height and setbacks will be addressed (notes 1 and 2 of the use zone charts [Exhibits A-E): Maximum height of 35 feet unless the structure is located less than 100 feet from an adjacent residential zone, then that portion of the structure shall not exceed 30 feet above average building elevation, and the structure shall be set back a minimum of20 feet from the property line of the residential zone. In the case of new vehicle sales, the setback would be 50 feet versus 20 feet due to the potential intensity of the uses conducted. The height of that portion of a structure located 100 feet or more from a residential zone may exceed 35 feet above average building elevation to a maximum of 55 feet, if all of the following criteria are met: (i) The additional height is necessary to accommodate the particular use conducted in the building; and (ii) That portion of the structure is set back an additional one-foot for each one- foot the structure exceeds 35 feet above average building elevation; and (iii) An increase in height above 35 feet will not block views designated by the comprehensive plan; and Planning Commission Staff Report Freeway Commercial Zone / File #04-1O0812-00-UP March 17,2004 Page 5 EXHIBIT I PAGE-'-OF 5'2. (iv) The increased height is consistent with goals and policies for the area of the subject property as established by the comprehensive plan. (d) Noise, Light, and Glare - Noise, light, and glare can be associated with any non-residential use. The FWCC includes regulations that address all of these impacts. (i) Noise - Noise is addressed in Chapter 10, Article II. This section states that it is unlawful for any person to cause, or for any person in possession of property to allow to originate from the property, sound that is a public disturbance noise. A list of those noises considered public disturbances are attached as Exhibit J. This language is adequate to address noise associated with the majority of the allowable uses in the Freeway Commercial zone; however, public address speakers are frequently used in car dealerships to communicate with employees moving throughout large outdoor areas. In order to address this impact, note 10 was added in the use zone chart for new vehicle sales. This note states that public address speakers (PA systems) shall not be audible from an adjacent residential zone (Exhibit A). (ii) Light and Glare - This is addressed in FWCC Sections 22-950 and 22-954. 22-950 Glare regulation. Any artificial surface which produces glare which annoys; injures; endangers the comfort, repose, health, or safety of persons; or in any way renders persons insecure in life or in the use of property is a violation of this chapter. 22-954 Lighting regulation. (a) Efficient light sources. The applicant shall utilize energy efficient-light sources. (b) State code. The applicant shall comply with the state energy code with respect to the selection and regulation of light sources. ( c) Glare from subject property prohibited. The applicant shall select, place, and direct light sources both directable and nondirectable so that glare produced by any light source, to the maximum extent possible, does not extend to adjacent properties or to the right-of-way. Automobile sales lots are brightly lit to showcase the merchandise. However, existing code language was determined to be adequate to address these impacts, so no additional language was added. (e) Signage - All of the Washington jurisdictions surveyed had provisions for both freestanding and wall mounted signs. However, the regulations that are proposed to be adopted for the signs allowed in the Freeway Commercial zone (Exhibit K) were patterned after the City of Bellingham, because they seemed most appropriate for Federal Way. For the Freeway Commercial zone, FWCC Chapter 22, Article XVIII, "Signs," will be amended to provide a Highway Profile Sign Category A. This will allow one free-standing pylon or pole sign that is oriented towards the freeway, located near the property line closest to the freeway (not the off-ramps), and visible from the freeway. The allowable height shall not exceed 25 feet above the elevation of the nearest driving lane of the Planning Commission Staff Report Freeway Commercial Zone I File #04-100812-00-UP March 17,2004 Page 6 EXHIBIT I PAGE_I:I. .~c 51- freeway at a point nearest to the proposed location of the sign. I f the subject property has an elevation that is higher than the nearest driving lane of the freeway, then the sign shall be no taller than 20 feet above the average finished ground elevation measured at the midpoint of the sign base. If the elevation of the site is equal to or lower than the elevation of the freeway at a point nearest to the proposed location of the sign, the allowable sign area shall be 600 feet, with no one sign face exceeding 300 feet. If the subject property has an elevation that is higher than the nearest driving lane of the freeway, then the sign area shall not exceed 400 square feet, for the total sign faces with no one sign face exceeding 200 square feet. The Highway Profile Sign would be in addition to the already allotted freestanding signs. (f) Hazardous Waste, Toxic or Noxious Gasses, Water Contamination -Automobile service, body shop, and maintenance facilities can generate odors or hazardous wastes, which can end up in surface or groundwater. Consequently, the following notes have been added to the use zone chart for new vehicle sales (Exhibit A, Notes 5, 7, 8 and 9): (i) Auto and boat body repair and/or painting may be permitted under this section only if: a, Building layout and design mitigates impact of dust, fumes, noise, glare, odor, or any other discharge on neighboring uses and natural systems; protects neighboring uses and natural systems from accidental spillage, leakage, or discharge of hazardous material and pollutants; b. All storage, operations, service, painting, and repair are conducted within enclosed buildings. (ii) Hazardous waste treatment and storage facìlities must comply with state citing criteria adopted in accordance with Chapter 70. I 05 RCW. (iii) No use or activity shall be conducted that involves the release of toxic or noxious gases, fumes, or odors. (iv) No use or activity shall be conducted that results in the contamination of stormwater, surface water, or groundwater pursuant to Chapter 21, Article IV. (g) Landscape Screening - Requirements for landscaping screening should ensure that commercial uses are adequately screened from adjacent residential areas. In addition, landscaping along street frontages should reflect the desire of the business owner to display merchandise for sale. In order to accomplish these objectives, the following landscape standards are recommended (Exhibit L): . Type III landscaping 10 feet in width shall be provided along the perimeter of parking areas abutting public rights-of-way, Type I landscaping 20 feet in width shall be provided along the perimeter of property abutting a residential zone. Type III landscaping five feet in width shall be provided along all perimeter lot lines, except as noted above. . . Planning Commission Staff Report Freeway Commercial Zone / File #04-100812-00-UP March 17,2004 Page 7 EXHIBIT I PAGE~8 ,)CS_a. New vehicle sales include a display area for cars, Language has been added to the use zone chart for new vehicle sales (Exhibit A) to clarify that areas where vehicles are displayed are not subject to the parking lot landscaping requirements of FWCC Section 22-1567 (note 13). A note has also been added to state that areas where vehicles are displayed are not subject to the provisions of FWCC Chapter 22, Article XIII, Section 22-1113, "Outdoor Activities and Storage," which also require screening and landscaping of outdoor storage (note 14). 5. Community Design Guidelines Amendments to the "Community Design Guidelines," FWCC Chapter 22, Article XIX, Section 22-1638, would add the Freeway Commercial District to that section, which governs Professional Office (PO), Neighborhood Business (BN), and Community Business (Be) (Exhibit M). IV. PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS The following paragraphs present recommended Federal Way Comprehensive Plan (FWCP) amendments necessary to implement a new commercial land use and zoning designation for Freeway Commercial development. 1. The Concept Plan Diagram On page 11-3, Figure 11-2, Concept Plan Diagram, should be revised to identify the Freeway Commercial concept and general location (this will be done prior to adoption). 2. Section 2.2, Relationship to Other Land Use Chapters On Page 11-4, a bullet should be added that states the following, "Freeway commercial development focusing on attracting and capturing those retail dollars presently being lost to other communities and complementing existing retail uses in the community" (Exhibit I). 3. Section 2.8, Land Use Designations - Commercial Designations Following the description of the Community Business Designation, add the following section for the proposed Freeway Commercial designation (Exhibit I): Freeway Commercial The Freeway Commercial designation is intended for areas that are adjacent to Interstate 5 and SR 18 interchanges with convenient freeway access and visibility. Freeway Commercial areas are typically large in size (five acres or greater). The range of commercial land usespermitted in these areas is limited to uses that are difficult to site in the city's other commercially designated areas due to their large site size requirements and/or difficulty in adapting to pedestrian-oriented areas. Freeway Commercial areas are particularly suitable for automobile sales, home furnishings centers and related retail and service uses that require large tracts of land, convenient freeway access and visibility. Planning Commission Staff Report Freeway Commercial Zone / File #04-1 008 1 2-00-UP March 17, 2004 Page 8 Goal EXH IBIT ____, P AGE ---!_,~) t::_~L LUG7 Encourage the development of limited areas with high levels of freeway access and visibility as suitable locations for freeway-oriented businesses to locate within the city in a cohesive development pattern that also meets the community's product and service needs. . Policies LUP40 Encourage freeway oriented uses to locate in Freeway Commercial-designated areas. LUP41 Encourage quality regional destination retail development through the utilization of appropriate design guidelines and development standards. LUP42 The development of freeway commercial areas should respond to the needs of consumers by providingfor ease of access and circulation and convenient grouping of complementary uses. LUP43 Create additional development standards to mitigate impacts to neighboring residential uses. 4. Table 11-3, Land Use Classifications (Exhibit I) Add a row to this table with the following infonnation: Comprehensive Plan Designation: Zoning Classification: Freeway Commercial Freeway Commercial s. Map II-I, Comprehensive Plan Designations (Exhibit I) At such time that areas are designated Freeway Commercial, subject to Federal Way City Council consideration, Map II-I and the official comprehensive plan map will be amended to incorporate the Freeway Commercial designated areas. 6. Section 4.2, The Economic Development Vision for Federal Way (Exhibit N) On page IV-IS under the heading "Retail Areas," add a bullet as follows: . Freeway oriented commercial development providing for automobile sales, home furnishings centers, hotels, and related retail and service uses are located adjacent to /-5 and SR-J8 within areas of appropriate size and with convenient access and visibility. Planning Commission Staff Report Freeway Commercial Zone I File #04-1 00812-00-UP March 17,2004 Page 9 V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION EXHIBIT I PAGE-'lLOF~ , Staff recommends that a new Freeway Commercial zone be adopted with the amendments as proposed in the enclosed Exhibits A-H and J-M. VI. REASON FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION FWCC Chapter 22 "Zoning," Article IX, "Process VI Review," establishes a process and criteria for zoning code text amendments. Consistent with Process VI review, the role of the Planning Commission is as follows: 1. To review and evaluate the zoning code text regarding any proposed amendments. 2. To determine whether the proposed zoning code text amendment meets the criteria provided by FWCC Section 22-528. 3. To forward a recommendation to City Council regarding adoption of the proposed zoning code text amendment. VII. DECISIONAL CRITERIA FWCC Section 22-528 provides criteria for zoning text amendments. The following section analyzes the compliance of the proposed zoning text amendments with the criteria provided by FWCC Section 22-528. The City may amend the text 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 amendment is consistent with the following FWCP goals and policies: LUPIO Support a diverse community comprised of neighborhoods that provide a range of housing options; a vibrant City Center; well designed and functioning commercial areas and distinctive neighborhood retail areas. LUP 15 Protect residential areas from impacts of adjacent non-residential uses. EDGI The City will emphasize redevelopment that transforms the City from a suburban bedroom community to a full-service community with an urban core. EDG5 The City will encourage and support the development of recreational and cultural facilities and/or events that will bring additional visitors to Federal Way and/or increase visitor spending. EDP7 The City will develop zoning, permitting and potential financial incentives that encourage prioritized development consistent with comprehensive and subarea plans and orderly, phased growth. Planning Commission Staff Report Freeway Commercial Zone I File #04-1 00812-O0-UP March 17,2004 Page 10 EXHIBIT-1 P AGE -I-L ':) F~ 2. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relationship to public health, safety, or welfare. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relationship to public health, safety, or welfare because it has the potential to attract new sales tax revenues to the City of Federal Way. New tax revenues would offset the cost of providing City services. The intent of the Freeway Commercial zone is to capture new dollars that are presently leaking to neighboring jurisdictions. In addition, the Freeway Commercial zone is intended to allow uses, such as outlet centers, that complement and support existing retail uses in other zones, and entertainment facilities such as movie theaters and amusement centers, which would attract people to Federal Way. Increased setbacks, height limitations, and additional landscape screening are proposed for development within the Freeway Commercial zone that is located adjacent to residential areas. 3. The proposed amendment is in the best interest rl the residents of the City. The proposed text amendment is in the best interest of the residents of the City because it provides for a commercial designation that will pennit retail uses that are currently under represented in the City of Federal Way. These uses include vehicle sales, outlet centers, hotels, and home furnishing retail centers. By providing an opportunity for specialized retail centers to locate in areas with convenient freeway access and visibility, the City can attract more of these uses and resultant sales tax dollars. Currently, residents have to travel outside of Federal Way to find large concentrations of businesses offering these goods for sale. Providing a new zoning category that could be applied to land with convenient freeway access and visibility, and which allows uses currently under represented in the community, would keep more retail dollars at home and could attract more visitors to Federal Way and visitor spending within the community. VIII. 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: I. 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. Ix. TABLES Table I Table II Table III Comparison of Allowable Uses City in Federal Way Commercial Zones Comparison of Development Standards in Selected Washington Cities Comparison of Development Standards in Selected California Cities Planning Commission Staff Report Freeway Commercial Zone / File #04-1 00812-00-UP March 17,2004 Page II x. EXHIBITS Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D Exhibit E Exhibit F Exhibit G Exhibit H Exhibit I Exhibit J Exhibit K Exhibit L Exhibit M Exhibit N EXHIBIT I PA.GE_-L1.0F ,¿ Use Zone Chart - New Vehicle Sales Use Zone Chart - Retail Use Zone Chart - Entertainment, Etc. Use Zone Chart - Hotel Use Zone Chart - Public Utility Use Zone Chart - Public Transit Center Use Zone Chart - Personal Wireless Service Facility FWCC, Chapter 22, Section 22-966, Personal Wireless Services Facilities Chapter Two, Land Use of the City of Federal Way Comprehensive Plan FWCC, Chapter 10, Article II, Sections 10-26 and 10-27 (Noise) Freeway Commercial Sign Language FWCC, Chapter 22, Article XVII, Landscaping FWCC, Chapter 22, Article XIX, Community Design Guidelines Chapter Four, Economic Development of the City of Federal Way Comprehensive Plan 1:\DOCUMEN1\Freeway Commercial Zoning District\Planning Commission\Final 031704 Planning Commission StaffReport.DOC Planning Commission StatfReport Freeway Commercial Zone / File #04-1O0812-00-UP March 17,2004 Page 12 TABLE I USES BN1 BC CC-C1 CC-F1 FC . 0" structured parking facilities X X Adult entertainment activity, retail or use X Art galJery X Bank/savings & loan company - retail providing these & related financial service X X X X Brokerage X X X X Bulk retail sale of lumber, paint, glass; plumbing, and heating fixtures & supplies; bulk X . . goods, and nurserv stock "big box" r-etail) Business or vocational school X X X Car wash X X X Church, synagogue, or other place of reJigious worship X X X X Convalescent center/nursing home X X X Convention center/trade center X X Day care facility, except Class II home occupations X X X X Department store X X Dwelling unit (Multiple family attached) X X X - Dwelling unit (Multiple family stacked) X X X X -';'1 -" Fast food restaurant X X X X t:~ Golf course X rr~ Golf driving range X X -¡. Government facility X X X X ".. """"'-""""""""""".....-. X X X { ') Group home (II-A and (II-A and (II-A and ,~1 II-B) II-B) II-B) Health club X X X X Ii.. J8 I Excluding Bulk Retail - 1 - m X ::r: - OJ ;::¡ .... r"---""'-"'-"""""" """""'-"""................ .............. ..................... """"""""""""""""""""""""""""'" """"""" .......-................................................"T"""""""""""""--""""""~"""""".......,.............................,....................."""""""'-'-"'r""""""""""""""""'""""""""T"""""""""""""""""-"-- I USES I BN1 BC I CC-Cl i CC-F1 I FC L :::~-=~=--=~==-=====i-=-= ~ffi~ Merchandise and equipment rental facilities (excluding heavy equipment rental) , X! I I ,--..-..............-...-.......-...---.......-............. ................ """"'-""""""""""--"-""""""""""""'""--"""""""'-""-"""'-""'--"-"""-"""""""'-"""""""""""""""-""--"""-"""-....................l---..........................-...... ......--......-...-.-....1..................................................;..-.................. j Mini-warehouse or public storage facility I X I I i L-..............-...........................................................-............................................................................. .................. ...........-.......................... .................._............... ................. .............. ....................t..........................--..................... ..........-...-.--.-.................l...... ............. ........__......¡.......................... .....+-.... .............. ".........-.... I Motel ! ¡ ¡ X i I 1---......-..-...........................................................................-..................................................................................................................-...................................-...........-.........-..................................................................-...-............-...... ......L......................................-.- . ........ ......-...... ...................j.-...... .............. ............!...... ......-.-.....-..j ~~~x~x~-~ j i X......J... X ...1 X I ~..."':I:::'" X ! X I X I .............._......~. ................;_.........~.........1.....~...._..........1........~...1.................. X i X I X I Retail selling liquor_._.__. """"""""""""""" .="::.............."'~::::..:"~:~:..~~:=:::..._.............::~~~~:=~:::::::::::t:::~~~::~~::=::=~L~~~=~~::~::""' """ "")(-""""-"1--"""'--)( i X .............................;........................................ ..................,.-..................-......... m X ::r: - OJ - ~ ................ ................ - - 2- ..........----..-.--.... USES BN1 BC cc-c1 CC-F1 FC ....-......--..........-........... .............................-........-- .....-......-........--...........-..-.-.-.....-.-.-........--...........-..-..-.. .._.__._~..... Retail selling clothing X X .---..............-...-..."""""""""""'" ........-..................-...--.-............................................................---...-..........-.-....-......----.-....--. .---.- ---.................. -...---- --...........-............-....--,......-....---. Retail selling variety items X X X X --'-----"""-"-'-"""""""""""--""""'--"-""",-""--,-"""",,,,-,'---"'-""'-'-""-'-"""""""""""'----""'-'- - "-" Retail selling specialty items X X -.---.................... """""""'-"""""""""-""'-""""""""-""--......-............--..............-..-.......-..-......-..-...--........-..--.-.....-- ..-..--- ----"--' .-- Retail selling home electronics X X X X X ...............-....--....-.- ..---....-.-....... ....................-.........--.- -...--................. X X X X ............-....--..-.-- -..-'--"""-"""""""" ..-.-...--..-..-.......- -..--.....-..................................J.................-....... X X X X Retail selling sporting goods ---"-""" ................... ......-....-... Retail selling works of art ..-.---..--...-..-... .................... .......... ................ ....-.....-.-............... """ .................-.............-.........--.-..-.--..........-...-"""-""'-"-""'-"--'-""-- ,---.....--.----..-".-..-...-- ..---........- Retail outlet centers X -....--..-.........-........-.---.................. ....-................ ..........................-..........--.......-.......................-......-...........--...--...................-.-................-.................--......................,..-..........---.-.---..-..-..--...........,.................-..--..-.-.-.........-.......-..-.....-.............,...-...-...........'-"'-- ~:: ::::::~~:~~~rn~~ :,:~:~:;'i=:-=+ ~ g~ ++~ ..---..- ----..-......-".."""""'" - -............. - ...-.-.......-.....-...-............-..............-..-...-.....-..-.........-........-.-..-............--..---.. -.....--......--..-...-<---...-.-... -.............-...--...-. ......-.-.-..-.........--. Retail providing vehicle service or repair X - .-...-.....---..................-................................."-"'--"-"""-""""".........-..--.....-.....--...-.-.........".. ....-..---........--....-................ ,.-......-..-.-.---..-..-.......,...............-..-...........-.-......---.--..................,..........-...--..... Retail providing vehicle, boat or tire sales, service, repair and/or painting X .--.......---..---....--------.--..........--....---..- --. Retail selling new vehicles. boats. recreational vehicles and motorcycles X eiãil provldiñglíïñitëëI meëfìëãl;"'ïñãï1iifäctuiìñg-Š-ervìëëš-šüëFï'aš"(!entaITaos, p¡:ostFïë1rês~-rãDš; opticär'" -""""'-"--""'-"-' X ie...rvi£~~,.2.D._a....ça..~~....þy.._ça..~~..Þa..~j~....................._.........-..--.-........................................--.-..........-......--................................-.-....'---""'-""'-'-"""""'--"'-"'-"" ....-....-.....-........ ............. ....---....... ..-.....-.....-............,--.---.. School (through secondary education) X X X X ------"""""""""""""""---""-""""" ....................................-.-...................... ............. .......................................................................... ""'..."""""""""""""'-"""""""""-" ..............................................."- ...-....---.-..............-. ............................................-- -.-.......................................... Senior citizen or special needs housing X X X ..--.........-.--.-........-........-..-..............................................-................................... """"""--"---"'-'-""""'--"""""-""'-""""""-"'-"-"--"""-"""..........-...-..-..----... -_.... ...-.-...-......-........-- -......--.........-.. X X X (Type A or (Type A (Type A or B) o!1!). --.......-............. ---..?)---.-. X X X Social service transitional housing "-'-'---'-"""-"""""""""""'-'-'-""'-"""'-"""---""""-"'-..-..-........----.-......--.............----.-.---..- ...-.-.-....--.-...........-....................................................................-",,-,,-'-""'---"-'--"--""""-"""""'" Trade school Vehicle service station 1:\2004 Code Amendments\Freeway Zone\O 13004 Comparison Use Chart.doc/O 1 /30/2004 .3- . Jurisdiction! Renton Olympia Des Moines Burien Issaquah Kirkland Marysville Oak Harboþ A G ~~'OE ' Zone Name Auto Mall Improvement Auto Services District Highway Commercial Special Planning Area 4 (SPA 4) Intensive Commercial (IC) Freeway Commercial I Freeway Service -FS C-4 Highway Service Interchange Commercial IC District Overlay (AS) Zone (H-C) Commercial Note: this area is located near junction of Note: this designation is applied to a Note: this zone is geared toward Note: this zone is geared toward the Note: This chart focuses on how SR518 and SRS09. It is in an area large area within the city, not a the needs of traveling public, not needs of traveling public, not auto overlay would apply in areas impacted by potential Sea-Tac third specialized zone, much of the area with auto sales. sales. zoned CA - commercial arterial. runway, this zoning is adjacent to 1-90, A small portion of the overlay zone overlays 1M - med. Approval of a development agreement Industrial zone and rezone to SPA 4 is required for any new development within the area designated SPA 4 on the Comprehensive Plan Permitted Auto, motorcycle, Restaurants (w/o drive (a selection) PERMITffiD: A new car auto dealer Extensive list of uses including: Offices, vehicle service PERMITffiD: Motels, RV park, Automobile and truck Auto and motorized vehicle sales Uses snowmobile, lawn and in) is allowed only if a minimum of3 station, restaurant or tavern, vehicle service and service stations; and rental garden equipment, and Banks, business offices, Automobile parking; dealers: minimum lot area for an Retail, including furniture, fast food restaurant maintenance, restaurants and automobile sales and passenger truck sales gov, offices automobile sales, new auto mall is 15 acres. Used cars may appliance, bookstore, clothing, drive in restaurants, repair; boat sales and Banks, business and professional Boat storage and used; automobile be sold as an accessory use, outlet store, paint and wallpaper, Hotel or motel, grocery repair; drive in banks; offices Secondary Uses: licensing Boat sales trailer sales and rental; hardware, nursery/garden, lumber stores, retail establishment ACCESSORY: Emergency fumiture manufacturing bureaus, car rentals, public Gas!service stations boat sales, new and Auto Rental, High tech and light yard, grocery providing entertainment, vehicle repair, confectionery, and sales; mobile and Car washes parking, and other uses Car wash used; building materials industrial, office, warehousing and recreational or cultural delicatessen, drug store, gift, modular home sales; Churches determined by the director to Vehicle sales stores and yards; car wholesale trade, artist studio, plant Hotel, MoteL B+B services, other retail curio and novelty shop, other printing and publishing; Convenience stores support auto dealerships, Motor vehicle supplies washes; convention nursery, off-site parking, establishment providing uses similar to above professional and Drive In business Medical offices facilities; furniture, convenience retail, eating and Office, including medical, bank goods or services to the scientific instrument Gasoline service stations Note: this is a geographic Personal services home furnishings and drinking establishments - allowed as freeway traveler, school or manufacturing; real Hotels, motels and B+Bs overlay zone and other Auto rental equipment sales; accessory use - no more than 20% of Govt facilities, schools, parks, day care, go v, facility, public estate sales; recreational Bus stations and P+R lots commercial uses are Public facilities nurseries and garden building area community center, library, museum park vehicle sales; Mini warehouses permitted similar to Federal Auto service and repair supplies; hotels and restaurants; retail or Personal services Way's BC zone. Truck, trailer and RV motels; motor vehicle Gov. facility, community facility, Restaurant, winerylbrewery, wholesale building Private clubs fraternal lodges rental repair, recreational religious facility on-site hazardous coffee/espresso, bakery supplies, hardware or Off street parking lots Telecommunication- vehicle sales and waste treatment and storage, off-site related items; self- Restaurants (conditional) storage; restaurants; re- hazardous waste treatment and Auto sales and related uses storage facilities; other Retail businesses upholstery, and storage -{ if environmental review is including: car wash, emission uses s defined by the Taverns, Pubs, microbreweries furniture repair. completed and all impacts fully testing, insurance, director to be similar to Vehicle Repair mitigated), park and recreational maintenance/service, motorcycle uses identified above facilities sales and repair, paint and body and have equal or less repair, parking lots and garages, impact on the purposes CUP: Adult entertainment, secure rental/leasing, service stations of the zone. On site hazardous waste community transition facility and Hospital personal wireless service facility if Lt Manufacturing certain conditions are met. Major Utility Facility Public parks and rec Public facility Schools Min. Lot No minimum lot size, Min. lot size: None Minimum lot size is 2 acres for new Min, lot size: None Min Lot Size: none Lot Size: no minimum No min, lot size Min lot size per building: Size! Max. lots unless part of a development 5,000 square feet Coverage! 65% maximum lot coverage Lot coverage: Max, building size: 3.5 agreement that covers at least 2 Max impervious surface: 65% Max lot coverage: 80% Lot coverage: No max, lot coverage for buildings, 85% max building times lot area acres, No requirements min, lot width: 50' Max. coverage Max building height: 35' up to 65' if Max building Height: 30' Max building height: 35 min, lot depth: 100' Building Max building height: 50 feet 85% max development Max buildng height: 35 Max, building coverage: none certain criteria are met Height Limit: 35 feet feet Height coverage feet Max impervious surface: 75% Max lot coverage: 80% Max. building height: 40' Max building height is 45 feet Max building height: 35', Setbacks Front Yard min: 10 feet Front: Front Yard: 60 feet No setbacks are required except for Front: 10' Front: 20' except for Service Side: min 5' unless adjoining Front setback: 35 feet Front Yard: 15' 30' buildings required landscape areas. Stations which are 40' residential area or zone, then Min. freeway frontage 15' other structures Rear: minimum 10 foot Side: 5' 25' Rear setback: none Min, setback principle or minor setback: 10 feet landscaped. from residential Side and Rear: 0' except for except 15 feet if arterial: 25'. Rear: 15' property Rear: 10' service stations which are Rear: min. 15' unless adjoining abutting a street Min, Rear yard: none, except 15' residential area or zone, then Rear yard: 20' 15 feet if lot abuts or is Side: 5', except Side: min, 10' from 25' Side: 10 feet if abutting adjacent to residential zone, 30' for buildin~s and residential property a residential zone; 15 Side yard: 15' TABLE II EXHIBIT_.' Jurisdiction! Zone Name Landscaping Renton Auto Mall Improvement District Overlay Note: This chart focuses on how overlay would apply in areas zoned CA - commercial arterial. A small portion of the overlay zone overlays 1M - med. Industrial zone Min, Side yard: none, except 10 feet if side yard abuts a street and IS feet if lot abuts or is adjacent to residential zone IS-foot wide strip along specific designated street trontages. Unimproved portions of the right-of-way may be used in combination with abutting private property to meet req, IS-foot strip width, la-foot wide strip along all other street trontages unless reduced through the site plan review process. Along property line adjacent to (across public r.O.w. trom) residential zoned property: IS ft sight-obscuring landscape strip, If street is a designated principal arterial non-sight obscuring shall be provided, Along property line abutting residential property: 15 foot wide visual barrier. A 10 foot sight obscuring strip may be allowed through the site plan review process, 2.5% of gross site area shall be provided as on-site landscaping, Shall be consolidated and located at site entries, building tTonts, or other visually prominent locations Olympia Auto Services District (AS) IS' for other structure if side yard is flanking a street frontage 6' of sight-obscuring buffer is required along all district boundaries. (ex: if a property is located at the edge of the zoning district, this would apply) Between parking lots and street rights-of- . way, screening strips shall be a minimum of ten (10) feet in width; and All other zone districts without setbacks shall install a perimeter screening strip at least five (5) feet wide development contiguous to a residential zoning district, areas of residential development or other incompatible use - solid screen (Type I) or visual screen (Type II) along the abutting perimeter, depending on the intensity of use, Des Moines Highway Commercial Zone (H-C) Burien Special Planning Area 4 (SPA 4) Note: this area is located near junction of SR518 and SR509, It is in an area impacted by potential Sea-Tac third runway, Approval of a development agreement and rezone to SPA 4 is required for any new development within the area designated SPA 4 on the Comprehensive Plan Along property line abutting a public right-of-way (except freeway or alley): 25' wide Type II along designated arterials, otherwise IS' wide Type III Along property abutting tTeeway: none Along all other property lines (except alley): 50' wide Type I along northern perimeter of area designated SPA 4 (abuts residential area) Otherwise, 10' wide Type III. Along building façade greater than 35' high or SO' wide: 5' wide Type IV Landscape width can be reduced up to 50% by using benn Up to 75% reduction by using a solid wall and landscaping. Minimum ß'high wall of same architectural style and material as building. Required landscaping shall be on the outside of the wall Issaquah Intensive Commercial (IC) Note: this designation is applied to a large area within the city, not a specialized zone, much of the area with this zoning is adjacent to I-9O, Abutting Residential Districts L 3D-foot wide establishing a year- round sight barrier, or 2, 15-foot wide evergreen planting backed by a minimum six (6) foot fence, or building wall. Abutting commercial districts: 10- foot wide densely planted with a mixture of evergreen and deciduous trees, shrubs, ground cover and landscape substitutions which shall have the effect of a year-round sight barrier. Abutting Right-of-Way: 10-foot wide planted with a mixture of evergreen and deciduous trees, shrubs, ground cover and landscape substitutions which shall have the effect of a year-round sight barrier, Where a large expanse of building wall exists. evergreen or deciduous trees shall be planted adjacent to the building wall, Ivy or similar vegetation may be required to supplement the effect Parking Lots: 10-foot wide which shall fonn an effective year-round sight barrier; or 5- 7 foot wide planted with coniferous evergreens backed by a minimum of a six (6) foot fence or building wall. shall form an effective year-round site barrier. Two hundred (200) square feet of additional landscaped area shall be provided for every twenty (20) parking spaces forming additional landscape islands or peninsulas within the parking lot. Storage Areas: Outdoor sales Kirkland Freeway Commercial I Note: this zone is geared toward the needs of traveling public, not auto sales. Varies depending on use (not tied to zone) Marysville Freeway Service -FS Note: this zone is geared toward the needs of traveling public, not auto sales. Screening from residential areas or zone by a wall, fence, greenbelt or other enclosure approved by the hearing examiner min of 4' and max, of 7' tall. Oak Harbor EX C-4 High:vay se,"*",eA Commercial r- feet if a corner lot J. 10-foot landscaped yard setback and six-foot masonry wall or wood fence established and maintained along the property line that abuts the residential zones, except that fences and walls located within the required front or street side yard shall not exceed a height of three feet. Outdoor Lighting, Outdoor lighting and aerial-mounted floodlighting shall be shielded from above in such a manner that the bottom edge of the shield shall be below the light source, The lighting shall be shielded so that the direct illumination shall be confined to the property boundaries of the light source, Ground-mounted floodlighting or light projection above the horizontal plane is prohibited between midnight and sunrise, except governmental flags. . Jurisdiction! Renton Olympia Des Moines Burien Issaquah Kirkland Marysville Oak HaEXH 18 ISfmner . Zone Name Auto Mall Improvement Auto Services District Highway Commercial Special Planning Area 4 (SPA 4) Intensive Commercial (IC) Freeway Commercial I Freeway Service -FS C-4 Highg AGE ~ ~eC District Overlay (AS) Zone (H-C) Com mer Note: this area is located near junction of Note: this designation is applied to a Note: this zone is geared toward Note: this zone is geared toward the Note: This chart focuses on how SR518 and SR509. It is in an area large area within the city, not a the needs of traveling public, not needs of traveling public, not auto overlay would apply in areas impacted by potential Sea-Tac third specialized zonc, much of the area with auto sales. sales. zoned CA - commercial arterial. runway. this zoning is adjacent to 1-90. A small portion of the overlay zone overlays 1M - med. Approval of a development agreement Industrial zone and rezone to SPA 4 is required for any new development within the area designated SPA 4 on the Comprehensive Plan display areas and recreational vehicle parking areas shall be treated as parking lot:; in Sign Req. Each dealership allowed its Max sign height within Primary building façade: I square Building Elevations Parallel to 1-90: Varies depending on use A Aggregate Sign Area. The wall or under marquee sign the Freeway Corridor foot for each linear foot of primary In those instances where a business aggregate sign area for the as allowed per the sign code, Overlay district: building façade, Each bulidng or is located in a building on property premises shall not exceed one tenant can have a minimum 30 (individual parcel/lot or part of a and one-half square feet for each Each dealership is allowed Uses on City street square foot and max 240 square foot development) adjacent to the 1-90 foot of street fiontage. Aggregate one fieestanding sign per frontages - 16 feet building-mounted sign, right-of-way, no business shall be sign area for corner lots shall not street frontage not to exceed allowed wall signage on the building exceed one square foot for each an area greater than one and Uses adjacent to the Secondary building façade: up to 114 elevation which is parallel (parallel foot of street fiontage. The one-half square feet for each fieeway - 25 feet square foot for each linear foot of being defined as an angle of 45 pennitted signs enumerated lineal foot of property building façade, degrees or less) to the fieeway below are subject to the total fiontage which the business A maximum of one (I) (including on-ramps or off-ramps) aggregate sign area occupies up to a max, of two pole sign is pennitted If the site has no fteestanding sign, and considered secondary frontage, hundred square feet per sign per use, however, only the amount of signage on building- Where a development consists of B. Multi-Establishment face and a maximum of four one pole sign in a mounted signs may be increased two or more buildings on property Buildings. may erect the hundred square feet development is 25% adjacent to the fteeway, this following signs up to the including all sign faces, or: pennitted. limitation shall be restricted to the maximum aggregate sign area: Freestanding signs: one square foot buildings located closest to the 1-90 1. Building Identification Sign, One fteestanding sign per Placement of pole signs for each linear foot of street right-of-way. These restrictions shall Sign(s) r up to 70 percent ofthe street ftontage up to ISO - pole signs shall be frontage. Max 50 to 200 square feet. not apply in those cases where the sign area square feet per sign face and placed in a planter box, Max height 20 to 35 feet parallel building elevation to the a, Freestanding Signs, 300 square feet for all sign or otherwise freeway (including on-ramps and i. One freestanding sign is faces plus a max of2 landscaped, with the One freestanding sign per site per off-ramps) is detennined to be the allowed per street frontage of the accessory ground signs per area of the landscaping street frontage. An additional primary ftontage for the building. premises up to a maximum of street ftontage up to 10' high a minimum of one-half monument sign is allowed on street two signs, The maximum sign and up to 25 square feet per (1/2) of the surface area ftontages of 400' or greater. Building Elevations Peroendicular area pennitted is 150 square feet. sign face, ofthe sign. Monument signs shall be a max of to 1-90: For buildings which are No one face shall exceed 75 64 square feet and 12 foot high. adjacent to 1-90 and have building square feet. Freestanding sign height is elevations which are perpendicular ii. The tfeestanding sign shall not limited to 40' Multiple freestanding signs shall be to or nearly perpendicular to 1-90, exceed a height of 15 feet within separated by a minimum of 150', the letters shall be limited to a 15 feet of any lot line abutting a One electronic message maximum height of two feet and the public street right-of-way, For board is pennitted as a wall An area around the base of each length shall not exceed 15 feet, The each additional one-foot setback sign, under marquee or free- fieestanding sign at least equal to total face area ofthe shall not beyond 15 feet, the sign height standing sign. the area of all sign faces must be exceed 30 square feet. may be increased by two feet to landscaped with Type IV a maximum height of 35 feet. Note: auto dealerships landscaping, Individual Business: An individual iii. Low, monument signs are outside of designated auto business located on a separate lot preferred. mall area are allowed less and not legally part of a multi- b. Wall Signs, One wall sign or sign area. business development may use one fteestanding sign is allowed for monument as either a primary sor a each street fiontage not to secondary sign, The sign may not be exceed a total of two signs. The located closer than two feet from maximum sign area pennitted is any property line, The overall height equal to 10 percent of the facade of the sign shall not exceed 10 feet. to which it is attached. No more than one monument sign c. Window Signs. Sign area shall shall be erected for anyone not exceed 20 percent of the total business. No sign shall obstruct the window area of any facade, view of motor vehicle operators d. Projecting Signs, On entering or leaving anY parking area, properties where a freestanding . . Jurisdiction/ Renton Olympia Des Moines Burien Issaquah Kirkland Marysville Oak Harb<E,XH I leI-fer , Zone Name ~~~~rcial ~ Auto Mall Improvement Auto Services District Highway Commercial Special Planning Area 4 (SPA 4) Intensive Commercial (IC) Freeway Commercial I Freeway Service -FS C-4 Highwa1"AG District Overlay (AS) Zone (H-C) Commercial Note; this area is located near junction of Note; this designation is applied to a Note; this zone is geared toward Note: this zone is geared toward the Note; This chart focuses on how SRSI8 and SRS09, It is in an area large area within the city, not a . the needs of traveling public, not needs of traveling public, not auto overlay would apply in areas impacted by potential Sea-Tac third specialized zone, much of the area with auto sales. sales. zoned CA - commercial arterial. runway, this zoning is adjacent to 1-90, A small portion of the overlay zone overlays 1M - med. Approval of a development agreement Industrial zone and rezone to SPA 4 is required for any new development within the area designated SPA 4 on the Comprehensive Plan service drive, private driveway, sign cannot be erected due to street, alley or other thoroughfare. setback requirements or building placement, a projecting sign may Multibusiness Development: be allowed in lieu ofthe Monument signs are pennitted for pennitted freestanding sign. Said the purpose of identifying the projecting sign shall not exceed development and the tenant or 15 square feet (outside occupants of any multibusiness dimensions). Signs may be development. A development shall internally illuminated mean one or more buildings under a e. Awning or Canopy Signs. common development scheme or Sign area shall be calculated as common ownership, One monument part of total allowed area for a sign may be erected for the purpose wall sign, No canopy sign shall of identifying the development and extend above the top of the some or all of the tenants or canopy. occupants of the development at f. Roof signs are prohibited. each point of vehicle entrance fTom public right-of-way to such 2. Individual Establishment development. A monument sign Identification Signs. Each shall not exceed 10 feet in height individual establishment in a and 100 square feet total for all faces multi-establishment building is with a maximum of 50 square feet allowed a minimum of 30 square for anyone face, At least 25 percent feet of signage as set forth of each sign face shall identify the below. Aggregate sign area shall development. Each panel identifying not apply to signs for individual a tenant shall be at least 14 inches establishments, high with letters and/or logo at least a. Freestanding signs are eight inches high, prohibited, Each sign shall be located at least b, Wall Signs, The maximum two feet from any vehicle entrànce, sign area pennitted is equal to 1O percent of the facade to which it is attached, c. Window Signs, Sign area shall not exceed 20 percent of the total window area 0 f any facade, d, Projecting Signs, Projecting signs are pennitted e, Awning or Canopy Signs. Sign area shall be calculated as part oftotal allowed area for a wall sign, No canopy sign shall extend above the top of the canopy, f. Roof signs are prohibited, g, Suspended Signs, C. Single Establishment: similar to Multi-establishment (see above) Parking Vehicle sales (large and Retail: 3.5 per 1,000 Auto sales use: per parking study to - Maintenance and Service Business and commercial Req. small vehicles) with square feet be prepared by applicant Shops:2.5 spaces per work area or buildings: 2.5 for each 1,000 outdoor retail sales areas: bay square feet of gross floor area Furniture and Camet Industrial: 1-3 spaces per 1,000 - Motorcycle Sales and Repair: . Jurisdiction! Renton Olympia Des Moines Burien Issaquah Kirkland Marysville Oak Harbor Sumner Zone Name C-4 H' h~XH I E It lñJfrchange co~mercial I~ Auto Mall Improvement Auto Services District Highway Commercial Special Planning Area 4 (SPA 4) Intensive Commercial (IC) Freeway Commercial I Freeway Service -FS District Overlay (AS) Zone (H-C) Com~;rct Note: this area is located near junction of Note: this designation is applied to a Note: this zone is geared toward Note: this zone is geared toward the PAGE ~aÞ'ì;': sa Note: This chart focuses on how SRSI8 and SRS09, It is in an area large area within the city, not a the needs of traveling public, not needs of traveling public, not auto overlay would apply in areas impacted by potential Sea-Tac third specialized zone, much of the area with auto sales, sales, zoned CA - commercial arterial. runway. this zoning is adjacent to 1-90, A small portion of the overlay zone overlays 1M - med, Approval of a development agreement Industrial zone and rezone to SPA 4 is required for any new development within the area designated SPA 4 on the Comprehensive Plan I per 5,000 square feet. The Retail: 1.25 per 1,000 square feet 2.5 spaces per work area or bay Office and professional sales area is not a parking lot square feet (note: not buildings, banks, dental and and does not have to comply allowed in this zone but Plant nursery: 3 spaces per 1,000 - Paint and Body Repair Shops: medical clinics: 2,5 for each with dimensional included for potential square feet 2.5 spaces per work area or bay 1,000 square feet of gross floor requirements, landscaping or applicability to Federal area; the bulk storage section Way's new zone) Convenience retail: 3 spaces per - Parts! Accessories, Glass, Tires, requirements for setbacks 1,000 square feet etc: 1 space per 300 sq ft GF A Planned shopping center: four and screening, Any for each 1,000 square feet, plus arrangement of motor Eating and drinking: 13 spaces per - Rental and Leasing: I space per six per 1,000 square feet of gross vehicles is allowed as long 1,000 square feet 500 sq ft GFA, including indoor restaurant area, plus three per as: display showrooms 100 seats for theater, over an A minimum 5' perimeter initial 4OO seats; landscaping area is provided; - Sales and Dealership: I space per They are not displayed in 500 sq ft GF A. including indoor required landscape areas; and display showrooms Adequate fire access is provided per Fire - Service Station: 2.5 spaces per Department approval. work area or hay Vehicle service and repair - Service Station wI Grocery: 2.5 (large and small vehicles): spaces per work area or bay + i per 0.25 per 100 square feet of 200 sq ftGFA gross floor area, - Tire Rebuilding and Recapping: Customer parking shall be 2,5 spaces per work area or bay designated and striped near entry drives and visible from - Towing Service and Storage public streets, Yard:2,5 spaces per work area or bay Where possible, customer parking shall be combined - Truckffrailer Storage (Outdoor): 1 with adjacent dealership space per 1,000 sq ft GFA customer parking and shared access, Wheel stops must be installed a min, of2.5' from sidewalks to prevent bumper overhang, Jurisdiction! Zone Name Permitted Uses Min. Lot Size/ Max. Cove rage/ Max. Building Height Elk Grove CA Auto Commercial (AC) Auto sales, rental and leasing, Motorcycle, and Truck sale sand service Boat sales, rental, repair Marine supply Water recreational equipment sales Computer sales and service Furniture and equipment sales and rental MedicalIDental office Towing service Lawn and garden equipment sales and repair Bar, brew pub, restaurant Physical fitness studio Supermarket Gun shop Pet store Church Bank, office insurance, real estate Public faciilities Conditional Use: Dance hall/disco, Movie Theatre, Indoor recreation facility, Bike sales and rental Min. Lot Size: 10,000 square feet Height Limit: 40 feet Lot coverage: No requirements TABLE III Red BluffCA Freeway Oriented commerciaP A District (FC) Automobile service stations; automobile sales and repair Towing service Parking lot Transit facility Convenience store and drive through business Hotels/motels Public unitities Min. lot size: 6,000 sq. ft Max building coverage: 60% Max surface coverage: 80% Max building height: 50 feet Mall/ Restricted Commercial Specialized Commercial: Sale of new automobiles Related Commercial: service related - banks, savings and loans, barbershops, beauty shops, cleaners, tailors, shoe repair, travel service, government, civic; art galleries, bakery, bookstores, camera, florist, jewelry stores, gift shops, liquor stores, restaurants, cafes (no drive-in) Office Open Space: Parks, playgrounds, agricultural, plant nurseries Accessory Uses: Sale of used cars and trucks, Sale of new trucks, sale of vehicle parts, auto repair, comparable uses Other Uses- (only allowed if certain siting and design conditions are met and uses do not detract from development of area for auto sales): RV sales, boat sales, motorcycle sales, lease or rent of automobiles, clubs and meeting halls, health and athletic clubs, convention centers, hotels and motels Minimum parcel size: Specialized Commercial: 1.8 acres Related Commercial: 2.0 acres Office Commercial: 2.0 acres (smaller parcel size is only allowed if an existing parcel) Parcels may be developed in phases Building Height: shall not exceed a height equal or lesser to the horizontal distance from the building and an adjacent arterial street or four stories in height, whichever is greater. No building w/in 58' of the curb face shall exceed two stories. No building shall provide vision into an ad.acent residential structure or Jurisdiction! Elk Grove CA Red Bluff CA PA( '~~"' c sa Zone Name ::. .}' .. .--.- Auto Commercial (AC) Freeway Oriented Commercial Development Area Five: Auto.. ' District (FC) Mall/ Restricted Commercial residential yard Setbacks Rear/Side: 25' between property line Front setback: 10 feet Setbacks From Street frontage: and structure if near residential dependent upon particular street property, otherwise 0' Rear setback 10' frontage and range from 20' to 58' Property line adjacent to freeway: Side: none unless abutting a r,o,w., 10' then 5' Adjacent to similar or nonresidential land: 20' .. Adjacent to residential land: 50' Landscaping Minimum 5' wide along R.O,W Street frontage: varies depending on particular frontage from min, Minimum 6' high masonry wall plus 18' t033' landscaping along property line if abutting residential Adjacent to similar or nonresidential land: setback area 10' wide landscaping for perimeter fully landscaped, adjacent to freeway Adjacent to residential land: 20' 5' wide perimeter parking lot minimum landscaped buffer landscaping plus one interior landscaped island per every 8 parking stalls Sign Req. The Special Sign Corridors are designated along state highways, county roads, and rivers which accommodate the traveling public, These types of corridors have traditionally attracted large, bright, gaudy signs in an effort to attract the attention ofthe traveler to a business or a product which mayor may not be related to the travel-way or the needs of the traveler. The purpose of the regulations in this section is to make provisions for signs that identity the name and type of business in an aesthetic manner that compliments the architecture of the building and serves the needs of the traveling public. 335-31. Permitted Signs (a) Identification Signs, Identification signs attached to a building and which are visible from the freeways, County roads, and County routes, and all freestanding signs are subject to the provisions of Section 335-15, Identification signs attached to a building and which are not visible from the freeways, roads and routes designated are subject to the provisions of the Zoning Code .relating to signs EXH I BIT ---L- Jurisdiction! Zone Name Parking Req. Elk Grove CA Auto Commercial (AC) Building Frontage, The total area of all signs attached to a building with less than fifty (50) foot setback from the street right-of-way line shall not exceed two (2) square feet per foot of building frontage, For buildings with fifty (50) feet or greater setback ftom the street right-of-way line, the total area of all signs shall not exceed three (3) square feet per foot of building frontage. For parcels fronting on more than one public street, sign area entitlement may be based on anyone of the street ftontages, not the total ftontage; however, once the allotted sign area has been computed, it may be distributed over both faces of the building ftonting on the public streets, (b) Driveway And Parking Lot Directional Signs, Private directional signs indicating ingress and egress shall be permitted at each entry and exit provided the sign does not exceed four (4) square feet. (c) Off-Site Directional Sign, Parcels with no public street frontage and being served by access easement, mutual parking agreement, or a private road may have one (I) monument sign at the point of access to a public street or private street provided: (I) Maximum area is twenty-four (24) square feet for a monument sign. (2) Maximum height is six feet. (3) Minimum setback is ten (10) feet from existing public street improvements or right-of-way line as provided in Section 335-09.5(g), or as otherwise determined by enforcement agency, when other than a public street. (4) Spacing shall be fifty (50) feet from any other freestanding sign and shall be located within a landscaped area with a minimum of three (3) feet in all directions, General retail: 4.5 spaces/I,OOO sq, It GF A Red Bluff CA Freeway Oriented commercp A District FC Auto repair/body shop: 2 s aces er service bay J urisdiction/ Zone Name Elk Grove CA Auto Commercial (AC) Offices: 4,5 spaces/l,OOO squ ft, GFA Furniture, major appliance, floor covering, piano/organ sales: 1.2/1,000 sq, ft, GFA Outdoor sales-Auto sales(boat, trailer, lumber): 5 spaces for first 5,000 square feet sales and 1 space for each addl.l,ooO sq, ft sales area for a Maximum 20 spaces plus 1 space per each employee. Indoor bulding material sales: 4.5 spaces per 1,000 sq, ft GFA Auto repairlservice: 5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. GFA Red Bluff CA Freeway Oriented Commercial District FC Auto parts store: 4 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft, g.(a, Convenience Store: 4 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. g.(a, Furniture store: 2 spaces per 1,000 sq, ft, g,(a, Gas station: I per 4 pumps plus I per service bay Restaurant: 1 per every 4 seats AGiintaK{)&; S MaW Restricted Commercial requirements of Chapter 22,74 of this code, the director of community development may require additional parking spaces and improvements so as to enhance the design of the development and to provide a hannonious circulation scheme between adjacent developments, (b) Adequate off-street parking shall be provided to accommodate all parking needs for employees, visitors, demonstration, rental, service, display and storage vehicles on the site or other sites approved by the city council. Employee parking shall be prohibited in adjacent residential developments. If parking requirements increase as a result of a change in use or number of employees, additional off-street parking shall be provided to satisfy the intent of Sections 22.15,210 through 22.15,390 and Chapter 22.74 of this code. (c) The number of display, new and used car storage, and service or repair storage parking spaces shall be detennined by the director of community development, and may be in accordance with the "Space Guide and Facility Recommendations" as published by the manufacturer and established for the specific make of car authorized to occupy the automobile facility. Said parking guide shall be submitted to the director of community development as an attachment to the precise plan and shall be certified to be the most recent copy of said parking standards, The required number of parking spaces shall be detennined by the "guides" established parking requirements for the anticipated annual sales potential plus one- half of that planned potential re uirement. 22-XXX New vehicle sales. The following uses shall be permitted in the freeway commercial (FC) zone subject to the regulations and notes set forth in this section: USE ZONE CHART ~ DIRECTIONS: FIRST read down to find use. .. TIffiN, across for REGULATIONS S2 Minimums . ~ ~ Required Yards ,..¡ 8 ;;;¡ 0 C-' ,,=,t:\: ¡.¡ ., ~ ¡:¡:: .i::., ::: .- 0"> ., ., ¡:¡:;¡:¡:; ., .t:j CI) õ ....¡ ë e ¡,¡,. ,-... ..c u '" ~ ., "=' (i5 æ ., ¡:¡:; 'õ ~ - ::: -§¡'U .¡;¡ .s ::I:CI) 8 '" Co ,,=,CI) ~ 1>1) '3.5 0"..10: ., æ ¡:¡:;¡:>., ZONE FC USE Retail establishment providing for new vehicle sales including boats, motorcycles and recreational vehicle RV sales SPECIAL REGULATIONS AND NOTES Process III acres 35 ft. above average building elevation Retail 1. Ifany portion of a structUre on the subject property is located less than 100 ft. from an adjacent residential zone, then that portion of the structUre facilities: I shall not exceed 30 ft. above average building elevation and the structure shall be set back a minimum of 50 ft. from the property line of the for every 300 residential zone. sq. ft of 2. The height of that portion ofa structure located 100 ft. or more from a residential zone may exceed 35 ft. above average building elevation to a ross floor maximum of 55 ft., if all ofthe following criteria are met: See notes I -\ ~rea a. The additional height is necessary to accommodate the particular use conducted in the building; and 2 b. That portion of the structure is set back an additional one ft. for each one ft. the structUre exceeds 35 ft. above average building elevation; and '. c. An increase in height above 35 ft. will not block views designated by the comprehensive plan; and ~thern:1sed d. The increased height is consistent with goals and policies for the area of the subject property as established by the comprehensive plan. etennme b 3. Used vehicle sales, gasoline service stations, service, maintenance and body shops, car washes, auto supply stores, hazardous waste on a cas:- y- treatment and storage facilities, and coffee shops are only permitted as an accessory use to a new vehicle sales establishment. case basIs 4. Gas pump islands, canopies, and covers over pump islands may not be closer than 25 ft. to any property line, unless located adjacent to a residential zone, in which case the setback shall be 50 ft. Outdoor vehicle display areas and service areas may not be closer than lOft. to any property line, unless located adjacent to a residential zone, in which case the setback shall be 50 ft. 5. Auto and boat body repair and/or painting may be pennitted under this section only if: a. Building layout and design mitigates impact of dust, fumes, noise, glare, odor, or any other discharge on neighboring uses and natural systems; protects neighboring uses and natUral systems from accidental spillage, leakage, or discharge of hazardous material and pollutants; b. All storage, operations, service, painting, and repair are conducted within enclosed buildings. 6. Truck parking, loading, and maneuvering areas; areas where noise generating outdoor uses and activities may occur; and vents and similar features must be located as far as possible from any residential zone and secondarily, from any public right-of-way. 7. Hazardous waste treatment and storage facilities must comply with state citing criteria adopted in accordance with Chapter 70.105 RCW. 8. No use or activity shall be conducted that involves the release of toxic or noxious gases, fumes, or odors. 9. No use or activity shall be conducted that results in the contamination of stonnwater, surface water, or groundwater pursuant to Chapter 2 I, ~W ~m 10. Public address speakers (PA systems) shall not be audible from an adjacent residential zone. II. No maximum lot coverage is established. Instead, the buildable area will be detennined by other site development requiremen~., r~d buffers, parking lot landscaping, surface water facilities, etc. '" ~ 12. For community design guidelines that apply to the project, see Article XIx. Areas where vehicles are displayed are not subjec~.I1e ~g lot design requirements of Section 22-1634(b). ; - 13. For landscaping requirements that apPly.to the project, see Article XVII. Areas where vehicles are displayed are not subject t e arœot landscaping requirements of Section 22-1567. - 14. Areas where vehicles are displayed are not subject to the provisions of Article XIII, Section 1 I 13, Outdoor Activities and Sto ~ 15. For sign requirements that apply to the project, see Article XVIII. . 16. For noise standards that apply to the project, see Chapter 10, Article II. . 17. Refer to § 22-946 et seq. to detennine what other provisions of this chapter may apply to the subject property. ; '\ . ',,--,- I - n .. .. L For other information about parking and pa.rking areas, see § 22-1376 et seq. ~ .. Process I, II. ill and IV te descrf,ed in §§ 22-351 - 22-356, 22-361 - 22-370, 22-386 - 22-411, 22-431 - 22-460, respectively. For details of what may exceed this height limit, see § 22-1046 et seq. For details regarding required yards, see § 22-1131 et seq. 22-XXX Retail. The followin USE Retail establishment selling houSehold goods and fumishings, household appliances and home electronics Retail Outlet centers lations and notes set forth in this section: USE ZONE CHART 1:j ti'i Õ ,..¡ :fi '" ~ .., "0 ti'i a .., ¡:,:: 'õ ~ -.= -§¡u .¡¡ S :I: <I) VI ~ c.. "0<1) ~ bIJ :=.5 O"~ .., a ¡:'::t:>. ZONE FC SPECIAL REGULATIONS AND NOTES Process II INone 120 ft. 5 ft. 5 ft. 35 ft. above Retail facilities: See notes I 2 and average I for every 300 Possible I 19 ' building sq.ftofgross Process elevation floor area III See Note 2 'é £ See notes 1 _II for each 100 2 sq. ft. of gross floor area for restaurants m X :J: - OJ ;::¡ f 1<,; I Process I, IT, ill and IV are describe. in §§ 22.351 - 22-356, .' 22-361 - 22-370, 22-386 - 22-41 1,' 22-431 - 22-460, respectively. ~ DIRECTIONS: FIRST read down to find use. .. THEN, across for REGULATIONS ~ Minimums ------- -- 5 ~ Required Yards ;;J g ~ "O~ ¡.¡ '" ~ =: .!::.., ::> .- 0"> '" .., ¡:,::¡:,:: 1. lfany portion ofa structure on the subject property is located less than 100 ft. from an adjacent residential zone, then that portion of the structure shall not exceed 30 ft. above average building elevation and the structure shall be set back a minimum of20 ft. from the property line of the residential zone. 2. If approved through Process Ill, the height of that portion of a structure located 100 ft. or more from a residential zone may exceed 35 ft. above average building elevation to a maximum of 55 ft., if all of the following criteria are met: a. The additional height is necessary to accommodate the particular use conducted in the building; and . b. That portion of the structure is set back an additional one ft. for each one ft. the structure exceeds 35 ft. above average building elevation; and c. An increase in height above 35 ft. will not block views designated by the comprehensive plan; and d. The increased height is consistent with goals and policies for the area of the subject property as established by the comprehensive plan. 3. Assembly or manufacture of goods on the subject property is permitted only if: a. The assembly or manufacture is clearly accessory to an allowed use conducted on the subject property and is directly related to and dependent on this allowed use; and b. The assembled or manufactured goods are available for purchase and removal from the subject property and are for sale only to retail purchasers; and . c. There are no outward appearance or impacts from the assembly or manufacture. 4. Restaurants, not exceeding 7.500 square feet in gross floor area. are allowed as an accessory use to the outlet center. 5. Truck parking, loading, and maneuvering areas; areas where noise generating outdoor uses and activities may occur, and vents and similar features must be located as far as possible from any residential zone and secondarily, from any public right-of-way. 6. Outdoor use, activity, and storage is regulated by Article XIII, Section 1113. 7. No maximum lot coverage is established. Instead, the buildable area will be determined by other site development requirements, i.e., required buffers. parking lot landscaping. surface water facilities, etc. '1J m 8. For community design guidelines that apply to the project, see Article XIx. » X 9. For landscaping requirements that apply to the project, see Article XVII. I O. For sign requirements that apply to the project, see Article XVIII. I""'\. ..,.. II. Refer to § 22-946 et seq. to determine what other provisions of this chapter may apply to the subject property. U ~ ...&. . -- For other information about parking and parking areas, see § 22-1376 et seq. For details of what may exceed this height limit, see § 22.1046 et seq. For details regarding required yards, see § 22-113 I et seq. -- 22-XXX Entertainment, etc. The following uses shall be USE Retail establishment providing entertainment, recreational or cultural services or activities Golf driving range Process II INone Possible Process III See Note 2 Process 1, ll, ill and IV are described in §§ 22-351 - 22.356, 22.361 - 22.370, 22-386-22-411. 22-431 - 22-460, respectively. ~ Ci3 Õ ..J 'ë e ¡.¡., := ~ ~ <> ~ Ci3 ~ DIRECTIONS: FIRST read down to find use. .. THEN, across for REGULATIONS g Minimums 3 ~ ReQuired Yards ;;¡ g '-' ~~ '"' <> ~ cz:: .!:: <> :::1.- <:r> <> <> e>:::o:: 20ft. 15ft. 15ft. See notes 1,2 and 5 æ <> e>::: .... <> 0 .... - :::I '§¡ü .¡; .5 ::ecn 35 f['ãb"õve average building elevation 8 ,. Q. ~cn .~ ~ :::1'- !æ USE ZONE CHART ZONE FC SPECIAL REGULATIONS AND NOTES Determined 11. If any portion of a structure on the subject property is located less than 100ft. from an adjacent residential zone. then that portion of the structure on a case-by- sh~1I no~ exceed 30 ft. above average building elevation and the structure shall be set back a minimum of20 ft. from the property. line of the case basis residential zone. 2. Ifapproved through Process Ill, the height of that portion ofa structure located 100 ft. or more from a residential zone may exceed 35 ft. above average building elevation to a maximum of 55 ft.. if all of the following criteria are met: a. The additional height is necessary to accommodate the particular use conducted in the building; and b. That portion of the structure is set back an additional one ft. for each one ft. the structure exceeds 35 ft. above average building elevation; and c. An increase in height above 35 ft. will not block views designated by the comprehensive plan; and d. The increased height is consistent with goals and policies for the area of the subject property as established by the comprehensive plan. 3. No maximum lot coverage is established. Instead. the buildable area will be determined by other site development requirements, Le., required buffers. parking lot landscaping, surface water facilities, etc. 4. Truck parking, loading, and maneuvering areas; areas where noise generating outdoor uses and activities may occur; and vents and similar features must be located as far as possible from any residential zone and secondarily, from any public right-of-way. 5. Outdoor use, activity. and storage is regulated by Article XIII, Section 1113. 6. For community design guidelines that apply to the project, see Article XIX. 5. For landscaping requirements that apply to the project, see Article XVII. 7. For sign requirements that apply to the project, see Article XVIII. 8. Refer to § 22-946 et seq. to determine what other provisions of this chapter may apply to the subject property. 9. Minor and supporting structures constructed as a functional requirement of golf driving ranges may exceed the applicable height limitation provided that the director of community development services determines that such structures will not significantly impact adjoining properties. See notes I, 2 and 5 U ", For other information about parking and parking areas, see § 22.1376 et seq. For details of what may exceed this height limit. see § 22.1046 et seq. For details regarding required yards, see § 22-1131 et seq. m- ~~ f' ~I Oi 'TlI- ¡. II 22-XXX Hotel. The following uses shall be permitted in the freeway commercial (Fe) zone subject to the regulations and notes set forth in this section: ~ DIRECTIONS: FIRST, read down to find use. .. THEN, across for REGULATIONS 52 Minimums ~ ~ Required Yards ~ 1;¡ :=- 0 " .",¿: '"' .,~ ¡:¡: .!::., ::0 .- <:r> ., ., ~~ 35 ft. above lOne for each average guest room. Possible I building Process elevation III USE Hõtei 1:! ¡;; õ ...¡ See Note 2 Process I, IT, ill and IV are described in §§ 22-351 - 22-356, 22-361 - 22-370, 22-386 - 22-411, 22-431 - 22-460, respectively. ë e ¡.¡.. -.. .c u '" ~ ., .", ¡;; æ ., ~ ~~ iiJu 1> .5 ::tCI:I See notes 1 - 2 rom »)< ~ m.lß ~~ Q. ~ USE ZONE CHART 8 '" Q. .",CI:I .g ~ ::0 .;;¡ !~ ZONE FC SPECIAL REGULATIONS AND NOTES See note 3 I. If any portion ofa structure on the subject property is located less than 100 ft. from an adjacent residential zone, then that portion of the structure shall not exceed 30 ft. above average building elevation and the structure shall be set back a minimum of20 ft. from the property line of the residential zone. 2. Ifapproved through Process III, the height of that portion of a structure located 100 ft. or more from a residential zone may exceed 35 ft. above average building elevation to a maximum of 55 ft., if all of the following criteria are met: a. The additional height is necessary to accommodate the particular use conducted in the building; and b. That portion of the structure is set back an additional one ft. for each one ft. the structure exceeds 35 ft. above average building elevation; and c. An increase in height above 35 ft. will not block views designated by the comprehensive plan; and d. The increased height is consistent with goals and policies for the area of the subject property as established by the comprehensive plan. 3. If this use includes accessory meeting, convention or other facilities that will be used by persons other than overnight guests at the hotel, the city may require additional parking on a case-by-case basis, based on the extent and nature of these accessory facilities. 4, Truck parking, loading, and maneuvering areas; areas where noise generating outdoor uses and activities may occur; and vents and similar features must be located as far as possible from any residential zone and secondarily, from any public right-of-way. 5. Outdoor use, activity, and storage is regulated by Article XIII, Section 1113. 6. No maximum lot coverage is established. Instead, the buildable area will be determined by other site development requirements, Le., required butTers, parking lot landscaping, surface water facilities, etc, 7. For community design guidelines that apply to the project, see Article XIx. 8. For landscaping requirements that apply to the project, see Article XVII. 9. For sign requirements that apply to the project, see Article XVIII. 10. Refer to § 22-946 et seq. to determine what other provisions of this chapter may apply to the subject property. L For other information about parking and parking areas, see § 22-1376 et seq. -em »x ~ mæ ~! ¡T1 For details of what may exceed this height limit, see § 22-1046 et seq. For details regarding required yards, see § 22-1131 et seq. 22-XXX Public utility. The following uses shall be permitted in the freeway commercial (FC) zone subject to the regulations and notes set forth in this section: ~ DIRECTIONS: FIRST, read down to find use. .. THEN, across for REGULATIONS ~ Minimums -- - 5 ~ Required Yards ;;;¡ 8 g " 'O~ "" .. ~ cz:: .=:.. '" .- 0"> .. .. ~~ USE .. .i::j VJ Õ ....¡ ë g ¡¡. Public utility I Process II I None Public Utility 20 ft. 5 ft. 5 ft. Ppossible I See Notes 1,2 and rocess 7 III See note 2 Process I, n, ill and IV are described in §§ 22-351 - 22-356, 22-361 - 22-370, 22-386-22-411, 22431 - 22-460, respectively. ,-.. .::: ~ ~ .. '0 (i3 a .. ~ 'õ ~ - '" -§¡t> .¡:¡ .5 :I:VJ Public Utilities: 35 ft above average building elevation C>O ¡:: ~ ~ '0 .. ... VI .- .. '" U 0",," .. c.. ~VJ Determined on a case-by-case basis. See notes I and 2 -em a m- oo ~~ USE ZONE CHART ZONE FC SPECIAL REGULA nONS AND NOTES 1. If any portion ora structure on the subject property is located less than 100 ft. from an adjacent residential zone, then that portion of the structure shall not exceed 30 ft. above average building elevation and the structure shall be set back a minimum of20 .ft. from the property line of the residential zone. 2. If approved through Process III, the height of that portion of a structure located 100 ft. or more from a residential zone may exceed 35 ft., if all of the following criteria are met: a. The additional height is necessary to accommodate the particular use conducted in the building; and b. That portion of the structure is set back an additional one ft. for each one ft. the structure exceeds 35 ft. above average building elevation; and c. An increase in height above 35 ft. will not block views designated by the comprehensive plan; and d. The increased height is consistent with goals and policies for the area of the subject property as established by the comprehensive plan. 3. May be permitted only if locating this use in the immediate area of the subject property is necessary to permit effective service to the area to be served. 4. If determined necessary to mitigate visual and noise impacts to surrounding properties, the city may require additional landscaping or buffers on a case-by-case basis. 5. No maximum lot coverage is established. Instead, the buildable area will be-determined by other site development requirements, i.e. required buffers, parking lot landscaping, surface water facilities, etc. 6. For community design guidelines that apply to the project, see Article XIX 7. For landscaping requirements that apply to the project, see Article XVII. 8. For sign requirements that apply to the project, see Article XVIII. 9. Refer to §22-946 et seq to determine what other provisions of this chapter may apply to the subject property. L For other information about parking and parking areas, see § 22~1376 et seq. For details of what may exceed this height limit, see § 22.1046 et seq. For details regarding required yards, see § 22-1131 et seq. -em »x "GJI moo ~I~ ~ p- 22-XXX Public Transit Shelter The following uses shall be permitted in the freeway commercial (FC) zone subject to the regulations and notes set forth in this section: ~ DIRECTIONS: FIRST, read down to find use. .. THEN. across for REGULATIONS ~ Minimums -< ~ ReQuired Yards .~ ..¡ ~ .¡.( ;;;¡ 0 -- æ " ..,~ '5 ..... ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~Š ~V> 'S .!:! èi5 ~ '-'. ~ '() 'S ~ go i) õ e ~ 3 'OJ .6 ¡r g, c.:: c.:: ....¡ "" CI) c.:: :c CI) c.:: CI) USE Public transit I Process I INone I Public Transit shelter Shelter õ"ft.lõ"ftlõ ft. Transit Shelter: 15 ft. above average building elevation None Process I, ll. ill and IV are described in §§ 22.351 - 22.356. 22.361-22.370, 22.386 - 22.411, 22-431 - 22-460, respectively. -em :ÞX G>:J: mffi - ~ - f '. u ITI .... USE ZONE CHART ZONE FC SPECIAL REGULATIONS AND NOTES I. For community design guidelines that apply to the project, see Article XIx. 2. There are no landscaping requirements for this use. The larger site on which it is located is subject to the landscaping requirements of Article XVII. 3. For sign requirements that apply to the project, see Article XVIII. 4. Refer to §22-946 et seq to determine what other provisions of this chapter may apply to the subject property. L For other information about parking and parking areas, see § 22.1376 et seq. For details of what may exceed this height limit, see § 22-1046 et seq. For details regarding required yards, see § 22.1131 et seq. ""Urn »X Ci):I: mffi ~F ¡11 t' 22-XXX Personal wireless service facility. The following uses shall be pennitted in the freeway commercial (Fe) zone subject to the regulations and notes set forth in this section: USE Personal wireless service facility See note 5 for allowed types of PWSFs USE ZONE CHART ~ DIRECTIONS: FIRST, read down to find use. .. THEN, across for REGULATIONS :2 Minimums-u n !;( ~ Required Yards .... ~ ;:J 0 " ""Ø:: ;¡ .g ~ =.- a-:> .. .. ~~ .. .t:j CI1 Õ ....¡ :;:: ~ ~ .. "" ti3 = 0 ~ See note INone ¡See see see 2 note I note note I I Process I, II, III and IV are described in §§ 22-351 - 22-356, 22-361 - 22-370, 22-386 - 22-41 I, 22-431 - 22-460, respectively. æ .. ~ 'õ e ... = '§¡t> ,> Ë :ecn Refer to §22-967 for maximum heights for allowed types of PWSFs See note 3 -o~ ~~ mOJ \.-::¡ "J I '11 1(\\ - .., ~ u '" "" ã ....¡ See INot note allowed 4 ona PWSF ~ ti3 I 0.0 C ~ ¡:>.. "" e '" 'S ~ a-os ~~ SPECIAL REGULATIONS AND NOTES ZONE FC N/A II. For developed sites, the setback requirements shall be those of the principal use of the subject property. For undeveloped sites, the setback requirements for new freestanding PWSFs shall be 20 ft. for front, side, and rear yards. 2. Subject to meeting all applicable development standards, the review process used shall be Process 1, except for the following proposals: a. Process III for the following proposals: (I) The PWSF is located within 300 ft. of a residential zone; (2) The PWSF is located on a structure that is a residence or school or contains a residence or school; or (3) The PWSF is a new freestanding PWSF. b. Process IV if the PWSF is a lattice tower accommodating four or more providers. 3. Maximum allowed height for a new freestanding PWSF shall be the minimum necessary to provide the service up to 100 ft., plus any height granted under § 22-1047. A PWSF shall be allowed up to 120 ft. if there are two or more providers, except that a lattice tower of between 120 ft. and ISO ft. will be allowed under a combined application of four or more providers. 4. All PWSFs shall be landscaped and screened in accordance with Article XVII of this chapter, and the provisions of the PWSF development regulations. At a minimum, a five ft. type III landscaping area shall be required around the facility, unless the community development services director detennines that the facility is adequately screened. 5. New freestanding PWSFs are allowed subject to height limits and collocation provisions. PWSFs are allowed on existing towers, on private buildings and structures, on publicly used structures not located in public rights-of-way, on existing structures located in the BPA trail, and on existing structures in appropriate public rights-of-way. Refer to § 22-967 for development standards applicable to allowed types of PWSFs. 6. For all other development standards, see Article XIII. Section 22-966 et al. For other information about parking and parking areas, see § 22-1376 et seq. For details of what may exceed this height limit, see § 22-1046 et seq. For details regarding required yards, see § 22-1131 et seq. -em :Þ-X G):I: mffi ~F îi1 EXH I BIT ---' P AGE-U.OF--S.L- Federal Way City Code Chapter 22, Article XIII, "Supplementary District Regulations" 22-966 Personal wireless service facilities (pWSF). (a) Purpose. This section addresses the issues of location and appearance associated with personal wireless service facilities. It provides adequate siting opportunities through a wide range of locations and options which minimize safety hazards and visual impacts sometimes associated with wireless communications technology. The siting of facilities on existing buildings or structures, collocation of several providers' facilities on a single support structure, and visual. mitigation measures are required, unless otherwise allowed by the city, to maintain neighborhood appearance and reduce visual clutter in the city. (b) Definitions. Any words, terms or phrases used in this section which are not otherwise defined shall have the meanings set forth in FWCC 22-l. (c) Exemptions. The following antennas and facilities are exempt from the provisions of this sectiòn and shall be permitted in all zones consistent with applicable development standards as outlined in the use zone charts, Article XI of this chapter, District Regulations: (1) Wireless communication facilities used by federal, state, or local public agencies for temporary emergency communications in the event of a disaster, emergency preparedness, and public health or safety purposes. (2) Industrial processing equipment. and scientific or medical equipment, using frequencies regulated by the FCC; provided such equipment complies with all applicable provisions of FWCC 22-960, Rooftop Appurtenances, and Chapter 22 FWCC, Article XIII, Division 5, Height. (3) Citizen band radio antennas or antennas operated by federally licensed amateur ("ham") radio operators; provided such antennas comply with all applicable provisions of FWCC 22-960, Rooftop Appurtenances, and Chapter 22 FWCC, Article XIII, Division 5, Height. (4) Satellite dish antennas less than two meters in diameter, including direct-to-home satellite services, when used as a secondary use of the property; provided such antennas comply with all applicable provisions of FWCC 22-960, Rooftop Appurtenances, and Chapter 22 FWCC, Article XIII, Division 5, Height. (5) Automated meter reading (AMR) facilities for the purpose of collecting utility meter data for use in the sale of utility services, except for whip or other antennas greater than two feet in length; provided the AMR facilities are within the scope of activities permitted under a valid franchise agreement between the utility service provider and the city. (6) Routine maintenance or repair of a wireless communication facility and related equipment excluding structural work or changes in height, dimensions, or visual impacts of the antenna, tower, or buildings; provided, that compliance with the standards of this chapter are maintained. (d) Prioritized locations. The following sites shall be the required order of locations for proposed PWSFs, including antenna and equipment shelters. In proposing a PWSF in a particular location, the applicant shall analyze the feasibility of locating the proposed PWSF in each of the higher priority locations and document, to the city's satisfaction, why locating the PWSF in each higher priority location and/or zone is not being proposed. In order of preference, the prioritized locations for PWSFs are as follows: (l) Structures located in the BP A trail. A PWSF may be located on any existing support structure currently located in the easement upon which are located U.S. Department of Energy/ Bonneville Power Administration ("BP A") Power Lines regardless of underlying zoning. {:)2002 Code Publishing Co, Page I EXHIBIT__K PAGE~:)F~ EXHIBIT. . ' r P AGE -¥O F ...lL....- '., (2) Existing broadcast, relay and transmission towers. A PWSF may be located on an existing site or tower where a legal wireless telecommunication facility is currently located regardless of underlying zoning. If an existing site or tower is located within a one mile radius of a proposed PWSF location, the applicant shall document why collocation on the existing site or tower is not being proposed, regardless of whether the existing site or tower is located within the jurisdiction of the city. (3) Publicly used structures. If the city consents to such location, a PWSF may be located on existing public facilities within all zoning districts, such as water towers, utility structures, fire stations, bridges, and other public buildings, provided the public facilities are not located within public rights-of-way. (4) Appropriate business, commercial, and city center zoned sites. A PWSF may be located on private buildings or structures within appropriate business, commercial, and city center zoning districts. The preferred order of zoning districts for this category of sites is as follows: BP - Business Park FC - Freeway Commercial CP-l - Corporate Park OP through OP-4 - Office Park CC-C - City Center Core CC-F - City Center Frame BC - Community Business . (5) Appropriate public rights-of-way. For the purposes of this section, appropriate public rights-of-way shall be defined as including those public rights-of-way with functional street classifications of principal arterial, minor arterial, and principal collector. A PWSF may be located on existing structures in appropriate public rights-of-way. Structures proposed for location of PWSFs shall be separated by at least 330 linear feet. Within any residential zone, neighborhood business (BN) zone, or professional office (PO) zone, there shall be no more than one PWSF located on an existing structure. Location of a PWSF on an existing structure in an appropriate public right-of-way shall require a right-of-way permit in addition to the required use process approval. The preferred order of functional street classifications for this category of sites is as follows: Principal Arterial Minor Arterial Principal Collector If the PWSF is proposed to be located in an appropriate public right-of-way and the surrounding uses or zoning are not the same, that portion of the right-of-way with the most intensive use and/or zoning shall be the preferred location. If the PWSF is proposed to be located in an appropriate public right-of-way and surrounding uses or zoning are the same, the preferred location shall be that portion of the right-of-way with the least adverse visual impacts. (6) If the applicant demonstrates to the city's satisfaction that it is not technically possible to site in a prioritized location, the city reserves the right to approve alternative site locations if a denial would be in violation of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, as determined by the city. (Ord, No, 97-300, § 3, 9-16-97; Ord, No, 00-363, § 14, 1-4-00; Ord, No, 01-399, § 3, 8-7-01) «d2002 Code Publishing Co. Page 2 EXHIBIT H PAGE--2.-0E t FWCP-ChapterTwo, land Use EXH I BIT -.-- _1____- PAGEJ1()~--L RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER LAND USE CHAPTERS 2.2 The land use concept set forth in this chapter is consistent with all FWCP chapters, Internal consistency among the chapters of the FWCP translates into coordinated growth and an efficient use of limited resources. Below is a brief discussion of how the Land Use chapter relates to the other chapters of the FWCP. Economic Development Federal Way's economy is disproportionately divided. Based on PSRC's 2000 Covered Estimates by jurisdiction>. retail and service industries compose more than 70 percent of Federal Way's employment base. Covered estimates are jobs that are covered by unemployment insurance. Dependence on retail trade stems primarily from the City's evolution into a regional shopping destination for South King County and northeast Pierce County. Increased regional competition from other retail areas, such as Tukwila and the Auburn SuperMall, may impact the City's ability to capture future retail dollars. To improve Federal Way's economic outlook, the economic development strategy is to promote a more diverse economy. A diversified economy should achieve a better balance between jobs and housing and supports the City's quality of life. In conjunction with the Economic Development chapter, this Land Use chapter promotes the following: . A City Center composed of mid-rise office buildings, mixed-use retail, and housing. . Community Business and Business Park development in the South 348th Street area. . Continued development of West Campus. . Continued development of East Campus (Weyerhaeuser Corporate and Office Park properties). . Redevelopment and development of the SR-99 coITidor into an area of quality commercial and mixed use development. . Continued use of design standards for non-singleJamily areas. . Freeway commercial development focusing on attracting and capturing those retail dollars presently being lost to other communities and complementing existing retail uses in the community. 2003 Comp Plan Update EXHIBIT__- 1: PÄGE ~--k 11-4 FWCP - Chapter Two, land Use EXHIBiT I PAGE....uOF-D--- r The land use map designations support development necessary to achieve the above (see' the Comprehensive Plan Designations Map II-I), A complete discussion of economic development is set forth in the Economic Development chapter. Capital Facilities Capital facilities provided by the City include: transportation and streets, parks and open space, and surface water management. Infrastructure and Urban Services The amount and availability of urban services and infrastructure influences the location and pace of future growth. The City is responsible for the construction and maintenance of parks and recreation facilities, streets and transportation improvements, and surface water facilities. Providing for future growth while maintaining existing improvements depends upon the community's willingness to pay for the construction and financing of new facilities and the maintenance of existing facilities, As outlined in the Capital Facilities Plan, new infrastructure and services may be financed by voter-approved bonds, impact fees, grants, designated capital taxes (real estate excise tax, fuel tax, utility tax), and money from the City's general fund. To capitalize on the City's available resources for urban services and infrastructure, this Land Use chapter recognizes that concentrating growth is far more cost effective than allowing continued urban sprawl. Concentrating growth also supports the enhancement of future transit improvements, Water Availability Based on reports from the Lakehaven Utility District, the estimated available yield from the underlying aquifers is 10.1 million gallons per day (MGD, 10-year averagè based on average annual rainfall). The District controls which well to use, thus which aquifers are being pumped from, based on a number of considerations including water levels and rainfall. In order to reduce detrimental impacts to its groundwater supplies in the recent past, the District has also augmented its groundwater supplies with wholesale water purchased from the City of Tacoma through water system interties, In addition, the District has entered into a long-tenn agreement with the City of Tacoma and other South King County utilities to participate in the construction of Tacoma's Second Supply Project (a second water diversion from the Green River), which will provide additional water supplies to the region, As a result, the water levels in the aquifers have remained stable, and the District's water supply capacity will increase to 14,7 MGD on an annual average basis when Tacoma's Second Supply Project is completed in 2004, Concentrating growth, along with conservation measures, should help to conserve water. Water Quality Maintaining a clean source of water is vital to the health and livability of the City, Preserving water quality ensures a clean source of drinking water; and, continued health of the City's streams and lakes. Maintaining water quality is also important for maintaining 2003 Camp Plan Update EXH ill' ; m .! P AGE .p --2. \ !~~._-"- 11-5 FWCP-ChapterTwo, Land Use EXHIBIT--_., , PAGE--'-ftOFþ. LUP36 Develop business parks that fit into their surroundings by grouping similar industries in order to reduce or eliminate land use conflicts, allow sharing of public facilities and services, and improve traffic flow and safety. LUP37 Limit retail uses to those that serve the needs of people employed in the area. Commercial City Center Core The intent of establishing the City Center Core is to create a higher density, mixed-use designation where office, retail, government uses, and residential uses are concentrated. Other uses such as cultural/civic facilities, community services, and housing will be highly encouraged, City Center Frame The City Center Frame designation will have a look and feel similar to the Core and will provide a zone of less dense, mixed-use development physically surrounding a portion of the City Center Core. Together, they are meant to complement each other to create a "downtown" area. A more detailed description, along with goals and policies regarding the City Center Core and Frame, can be found in the City Center chapter. Community Business The Community Business designation encompasses two major retail areas of the City. It covers the "strip" retail areas along SR-99 and the large "bulk" retail area found near the South 348th Street area, approximately between SR-99 and 1-5. Community Business allows a large range of uses and is the City's largest retail designation in terms of area, The Community Business designation generally runs along both sides of SR-99 from South 272nd to South 348th. A wide range of development types, appearance, ages, function, and scale can be found along SR-99. Older, single'-story developments provide excellent opportunities for redevelopment. Due in part to convenient access and available land, the South 348th Street area has become a preferred location for large bulk retailers such as Eagle Hardware, Home Depot, and Costco. Due to the size of these facilities, the challenge will be to develop these uses into well functioning, aesthetically pleasing retail environments. To create retail areas that are aesthetically and functionally attractive, revised development standards, applied through Community Business zoning and Community Design . Guidelines, address design quality, mixed-use, and the integration of auto, pedestrian, and transit circulation, Site design, modulation, and setback requirements are also addressed. Through regulations in the Community Business land use chart, the size and scale of hotels, motels, and office uses have been limited in scale so as not to compete with the City Center. 2003 Comp Plan Update E.Xi:ilBi T PA.GE __-3 1: ,:._-, 11-21 FWCP-ChapterTwo, Land Use Goal LUG6 Policies LUP38 LUP39 EXHIBIT- I':' P AGE --1.1'0 F-' I. Transform Community Business areas into vital, attractive, mixed-use areas that appeal to pedestrians and motorists and enhance the community's image. Encourage transformation of Pacific Highway (SR-99) Community Business corridor into a quality mixed-use retail area. Retail development along the corridor, exclusive of the City Center, should be designed to integrate auto, pedestrian, and transit circulation. Integration of public amenities and open space into retail and office development should also be encouraged. Encourage auto-oriented large bulk retailers to locate in the South 34Sth Street Community Business area. Freeway Commercial The Freeway Commercial designation is intended for areas that are adjacent to Interstate 5 and SR 18 interchanges with convenient freeway access and visibility. Freeway Commercial areas are typically large in size (five acres or greater). The range of commercial land uses permitted in these areas is limited to uses that are difficult to site in the city's other commercially designated areas due to their large site size requirements and/or difficulty in adapting to pedestrian-oriented areas. Freeway Commercial areas are particularly suitable for automobile sales. home furnishings centers. and related retail and service uses that require large tracts of land. convenient freeway access and visibility. Goal LUG7 Policies LUP40 LUP41 LUP42 Encourage the development of limited areas with high levels of freeway access and visibility as suitable locations for freeway-oriented businesses to locate within the city in a cohesive development pattern that also meets the community's product and service needs. Encourage freeway oriented uses to locate in Freeway Commercial-designated areas. Encourage quality regional destination retail development through the utilization of appropriate design guidelines and development standards. The development of freeway commercial areas should respond to the needs of consumers by providing for ease of access and circulation and convenient grouping of complementary uses. E.XHlJß- f -r .... 1 ~ .. .1-- PAGE~OF -" 11.22 2003 Camp Plan Update FWCP-ChapterTwo. Land Use LUP43 EXHIBIT_J P AGE-HOF-"-- Creatè additional development standards to mitigate impacts to neighboring residential uses. . Neighborhood Business There are a dozen various sized nodes of Neighborhood Business located throughout the City. These nodes are areas that have historically provided retail and/or services to adjacent residential areas. The FWCP recognizes the importance of finnly fixed boundaries to prevent commercial intrusion into adjacent neighborhoods. Neighborhood Business areas are intended to provide convenient goods (e.g., groceries and hardware) and services (e.g., dry cleaners, dentist, bank) at a pedestrian and neighborhood scale close to adjacent residential uses. Developments combining residential and commercial uses provide a convenient living environment within these nodes. In the future, attention should be given to design features that enhance the appearance or function of these areas. Improvements may include sidewalks, open space and street trees, and parking either on street or oriented away from the street edge. The function of neighborhood business areas can also be enhanced by safe pedestrian, bicycle, and transit connections to surrounding neighborhoods. The need to address expansion or intensification may occur in the future depending on population growth. Future neighborhood business locations should be carefully chosen and sized to meet the needs of adjacent residential areas. Goal LUG7 Policies LUP40 LUP41 LUP42 LUP43 LUP44 Provide neighborhood and community scale retail centers for the City's neighborhoods. "::;~ Integrate retail developments into surrounding neighborhoods through attention to quality design and function. Encourage pedestrian and bicycle access to neighborhood shopping and servIces. Encourage neighborhood retail and personal services to locate at appropriate locations where local economic demand and design solutions demonstrate compatibility with the neighborhood. Retail and personal services should be encouraged to group together within planned centers to allow for ease of pedestrian movement. Neighborhood Business centers should consist of neighborhood scale retail and personal services. . EXI:llBIT---. J: PAGE~)~" 2003 Camp Plan Update 11-23 FWCP-ChapterTwo, Land Use EXH I BIT I PAGE..1!.OF-u""'- the PAS will not have to go through prolonged environmental review. This can be a powerful incentive for private development in the City Center. Subarea Plans Over the years, citizens from various areas of the City have come forth to testify before the Planning Commission and City Council regarding their neighborhood or business area. Development of subarea plans can lead to area specific visions and policies. This type of specific planning, developed with citizen input and direction, can lead to improved confidence and ownership in the community. Areas where subarea planning should be considered include: SR-99 Corridor, South 348th Street area, and Twin Lakes neighborhood. Incentives Develop an incentives program, for both residential and commercial development. Incentives should be substantial enough to attract development and should be used to create affordable and desired types of housing and to encourage development within the City Center. Table 11-3 Land Use Classifications Comprehensive Plan Classification Zoning Classification Single Family - Low Density Residential Suburban Estates (SE), one dwelling unit per five acres Single Family - Medium Density Residential RS 35,000 & 15,000 Single Family - High Density Residential RS 9600, 7200, 5000 Multiple Family Residential RM 3600, 2400, 1800 City Center Core City Center Core City Center Frame City Center Frame Office Park Office Park, Office Park 1,2, & 3 Professional Office Professional Office Community Business Community Business Business Park Business Park Freeway Commercial Freewav Commercial Neighborhood Business Neighborhood Business Corporate Park Corporate Park-I Commercial Recreation Office Park-4 Open Space & Parks A variety of zoning is assigned, EXHIBIT__- t. PAGE ~~)F_(. 2003 Comp Plan Update II-55 10-26 General prohibition. It is unlawful for any person to cause, or for any person in possession of property to allow to originate from the property, sound that is a public disturbance noise. (Ord. No. 90-37, § I(A), 2-20-90) EXHIBIT____' PAGEJIIlOF-Ü- 10-27 Illustrative enumeration. The following sounds are public disturbance noises in violation of this article: (I) The frequent, repetitive or continuous sounding of any horn or siren attached to a motor vehicle, except as a warning of danger or as specifically pennitted or required by law. (2) The creation of frequent, repetitive or continuous sounds in connection with the starting, operation, repair, rebuilding or testing of any motor vehicle, motorcycle, off-highway vehicle or internal combustion engine within a residential district, so as to unreasonably disturb or interfere with the peace and comfort of owners or possessors of real property. (3) Yelling, shouting, whistling or singing on or near the public streets, particularly between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. or at any t~me and place as to unreasonably disturb or interfere with the peace and comfort of owners or possessors of real property. (4) The creation of frequent, repetitive or continuous sounds which emanate from any building, structure, apartment or condominium, which unreasonably disturbs or interferes with the peace and comfort of owners or possessors of real property, such as sounds from musical instruments, audio sound systems, band sessions or social gatherings. (5) Sound from motor vehicle audio sound systems, such as tape players, radios and compact disc players, operated at a volume so as to be audible greater than 50 feet from the vehicle itself. (6) Sound from portable audio equipment, such as tape players, radios, and compact disc players, operated at a volume so as to be audible greater than 50 feet from the source, and if not operated upon the property of the operator. (7) The squealing, screeching or other such sounds from motor vehicle tires in contact with the ground or other roadway surface because of rapid acceleration, braking or excessive speed around corners or because of such other reason; provided, that sounds which result from actions which are necessary to avoid danger shall be exempt from this section. (8) Sounds originating from construction sites, including but not limited to sounds from construction equipment, power tools and hammering between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on weekdays and 8:00 p.m. and 9:00 a.m. on weekends. (9) Sounds originating from residential property relating to temporary projects for the maintenance or repair of horns, grounds and appurtenances, including but not limited to sounds from lawnmowers, powered hand tools, snow removal equipment and composters between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on weekdays and 10:00 p.m. and 9:00 a.m. on weekends. (Ord. No. 90-65, § I(B), 7-3-90; Ord. No. 99-341, § 3, 5-4-99) EXHIBIT_- P A.G E___--' 1- "\t:" , «;)2002 Code Publishing Co. Page I EXHIBIT____I FREEWAY COMMERCIAL ~E-!t1-0F-.S:&....- 22-1601 Signs in nonresidential zoning districts. (a) Freestanding signs. Penn it applications for freestanding signs shall be designated as qualifying for a high profile, medium profile~ ef low profile sign, or highway profile category A, based upon criteria regarding both the size and zoning designation of the development. The sign profile designation shall control the sign types, sign height, sign area and number of signs allowed. Separate parcels or pads for single-tenant buildings that comply with all zoning requirements for single-tenant parcels, excluding access, and are not otherwise tied to an adjacent multi-tenant center by virtue of architectural style or theme, are pennitted one freestanding monument or pedestal sign not to exceed a maximum sign area of 80 square feet for the total of all sign faces with no one sign face exceeding 40 square feet. (1) High profile sign. a. Criteria. A subject property meeting all of the following criteria is pennitted a high profile freestanding sign: 1. A minimum of250 feet of frontage on one public right-of-way; 2. A zoning designation of city center core (CC-C) or city center frame (CC-F), or community business (BC); 3. A multiuse complex; and 4. A minimum site of 15 acres in size. b. Sign types. The following sign types are allowed for a high profile sign: 1. Pylon or pole signs; provided, however, th~t any pylon or pole sign must have more than one pole or structural support; 2. Pedestal signs; 3. Monument signs; 4. Tenant directory signs; and 5. Kiosks. Sign content for any pylon or pole sign, or for any pedestal or monument sign in lieu of a pylon or pole sign, may include electronic changeable messages, center identification signs and/or changeable copy signs. Any high profile sign may be an electrical sign, an illuminated sign, and/or a neon sign. c. Sign height. A high profile sign shall not exceed the following maximum heights: I. Pylon or pole sign: Twenty-five feet; 2. Pedestal or monument signs: Twelve feet if in lieu of a pylon or pole sign. Otherwise, pedestal and monument signs shall not exceed five feet; 3. Tenant directory or kiosk signs: Six feet unless the sign is set back a minimum of 50 feet from any public right-of-way, in which case it may be 10 feet. d. Sign area. A high profile sign shall not exceed the following maximum sign areas: I. Pylon or pole sign: 400 square feet for the total of sign faces with no one sign face exceeding 200 square feet; 2. Pedestal or monument signs: 128 square feet for the total of all sign faces with no one face exceeding 64 square feet; 3. Tenant directory or kiosk signs: 15 square feet per sign face. e. Number of signs. A subject property qualifying for a high profile sign may have the following maximum number of signs: EXHtB'1 PAGE I \<. 5 -- EXHIBIT I 'II ~ 1 FREEWAY COMMERCIAL seAGE.JI,.J..OF.....12..- I. Pylon or pole sign: One sign unles~ the subject property has an additional 500 feet of street frontage for a total of 750 feet of aggregate frontage on any public rights-of-way, in which case the subject property will be allowed one additional high profile sign, not to exceed a maximum of two such signs per subject property; 2. Pedestal or monument signs: If the pedestal or monument sign is in lieu of a pylon or pole sign, the number of signs allowed shall be detennined pursuant to subsection (e)(1) of this section. In addition, two monument signs which identify the name of any multiuse complex are allowed, per entrance from a public right-of-way, not to exceed five feet in height; and 3. Tenant directory or kiosk signs: One sign per frontage on a public right-of-way. (2) Medium profile sign. a. Criteria. A subject property that does not qualify for a high profile sign pursuant to subsection (a)(l) of this section and is not a low profile sign by being zoned office park (OP) or professional office (PO) pursuant to subsection (a)(3) of this section is pennitted a medium profile freestanding sign. b. Sign types. The following sign types are allowed for a medium profile sign: I. Pedestal signs; and 2. Monument signs. Sign content for any medium profile sign may include electronic changeable messages, center identification signs and/or changeable copy signs. Any medium profile sign may be an electrical sign, an illuminated sign, and/or a neon sign. c. Sign height. The height of a medium profile sign shall be calculated at the rate of 0.75 feet in the sign height for every 10 lineal feet of frontage on a public right-of-way; provided, however, that sign height shall be calculated at the rate of one and one-half feet in sign height for every 10 lineal feet of frontage on a public right-of-way for any multi-tenant complex; and provided further, that such sign shall not exceed a maximum height of 12 feet and every applicant is entitled to a minimum height of five feet. d. Sign area. For any multi-tenant complex, sign area allowed for a medium profile signs shall be calculated at the rate of two square feet per lineal foot of frontage on a public right-of- way not to exceed a maximum sign area of 128 square feet for the total of all sign faces on each pennitted sign with no one sign face exceeding 64 square feet. For other uses, sign area allowed for medium profile sign shall be calculated at the rate of one square foot per lineal foot of frontage on a public right-of-way not to exceed a maximum sign area of 80 square feet for the total of all sign faces on each pennitted sign with no one sign face exceeding 40 square feet. Notwithstanding the foregoing sign area calculations, every applicant is entitled to a minimum sign area of 50 square feet for the total of all sign faces with no one sign face eXceeding 25 square feet. e. Number of signs. A subject property qualifying for a medium profile sign may have one pedestal or monument sign for each street frontage. Each street frontage exceeding 300 linear feet and containing more than one vehicular access is pennitted one additional freestanding sign. No subject property may contain more than three freestanding signs regardless of total linear street frontage and no one street frontage may have more than two freestanding signs. Freestanding signs shall be located a minimum distance of 200 feet from other freestanding signs on the same subject property. (3) Low profile sign. a. Criteria, A subject property located in the office park (OP) or professional office (PO) zone is pennitted a low profile freestanding sign. b. Sign types. The following sign types are allowed for a low profile sign: I. Pedestal signs; EXHIBIT PAGE ~ I( , ,- .- EXHIBIT_._' FREEWAY COMMERCIAL ~Ä~E~F ~ 2. Monument signs; and 3. Tenant directory signs. Sign content for any pedestal or monument sign may include center identification signs and/or changeable copy signs, Any low profile sign may be an electrical sign, an illuminated sign, and/or a neon sign. c. Sign height. A low profile sign shall not exceed the following maximum heights: 1. Pedestal or monument signs: Five feet. 2. Tenant directory signs: Six feet unless the sign is set back a minimum of 50 feet from any public right-of-way, in which case it may be 10 feet. d. Sign area, 1. Pedestal or monument signs: Sign area allowed for a low profile sign shall be calculated at the rate of one square foot per lineal foot of frontage on a public right-of-way; provided, however, that a low profile sign shall not exceed a maximum sign area of 80 square feet for the total of all sign faces on each pennitted sign with no one sign face exceeding 40 square feet, and every applicant is entitled to a minimum sign area of 50 square feet for the total of all sign faces with no one sign face exceeding 25 square feet; 2. Tenant directory signs: 15 square feet per sign face. e. Number of signs. A subject property qualifYing for a low profile sign may have the following maximum number of signs: 1. Pedestal or monument signs: One sign per frontage on a public right-of-way; and 2. Tenant directory signs: One sign per frontage on a public right-of-way, (4) Highway Profile Category A signs, In addition to the categories available in FWCC Section 22-1 60 l(a)(l-3), a subiect property may be pennitted one of the following freestanding signs if it meets the criteria listed in highway profile category A below. a, Highway Profile Category A 1. Criteria. A subiect property is pennitted an additional highway profile category A freestanding sign if the subject property meets all ofthe following criteria: a. Abuts the right of way ofInterstate 5; b. Is located in a zoning designation of freeway commercial (FC). 2, Sign types, A pylon or pole sign is allowed, provided, that any pylon or pole sign must have more than one pole or structural support. Sign content for any pylon or pole sign, may include center identification signs, provided, however, that all font sizes used are a minumum 2.5 feet tall. Trademarks or copy write symbols are exempt from the font size requirement. Any highway profile category A may be an illuminated sign, and/or a neon sign. Electronic changeable copy and/or changeable copy signs are not pennitted. The sign must be oriented toward the freeway (not the off-ramps) and be located near the property line closest to the freeway and be visible from the freeway. 3. Sign height. A highway profile category A sign shall not exceed 25 feet above the elevation of the nearest driving lane of the freeway at a point nearest to the proposed location of the sign, The sign height shall be measured by a licensed surveyor and the applicant shall be responsible for providing the surveyor. If the subject property has an elevation that is higher than the nearest driving lane of the freeway, then the sign shall be no taller than 15 feet above the average finshed ground elevation measured at the midpoint of the sign base, t.XHabt'T PAGE \ K. H': -S EXHIBIT_J FREEWAY COMMERCIAL SI~E-4lf:()F ~ 4. Sign area. A highway profile category A sign shall not exceed 600 square feet for the total of sign faces with no one sign face exceeding 300 square feet. If the subject property has an elevation that is higher than the nearest driving lane of the freeway, then the sign area shall not exceed 400 square feet for the total of sign faces with no one sign face exceeding 200 square feet. 5. Number of signs. A subject property qualifying for a highway profile sign may have only one (I) highway profile category A sign per subject property. 6. The applicant shall be responsible for coordinating any such sign with the State of Washington Scenic Vistas Act. -f41ill Combined sign package for adjacent property owners. The owners of two or more properties that abut or are separated only by a vehicular access easement or tract may propose a combined sign package to the city. The city will review and decide upon the proposal using process III. The city may approve the combined sign package if it will provide more coordinated, effective and efficient signs. The allowable sign area, sign type, sign height and number of signs will be detennined as if the applicants were one multi-tenant complex. (b) Building-mounted signs. (I) Sign types. The following sign types may be building-mounted signs and are allowed in all nonresidential zoning districts: a. Awning or canopy signs; b. Center identification signs; c. Changeable copy signs; d. Civic event signs; e. Directional signs, on-site; f. Electronic changeable message signs; g. Instructional signs; h. Marquee signs; i. Projecting signs; j. Tenant directory signs; k. Time and temperature signs; I. Under canopy signs; and m. Wall-mounted signs. Any building-mounted sign may be an electrical sign, an illuminated sign, and/or a neon sign. (2) Sign height. No sign shall project above the roofline of the exposed building face to which it is attached. (3) Sign area. The total sign area of building-mounted signs for each business or tenant, excluding under canopy signs, shall not exceed seven percent of the exposed building face to which it is attached; provided, however, that no individual sign shall exceed a sign area of 240 square feet and every applicant is entitled to a minimum sign area of 30 square feet. A multi- tenant complex which does not use a freestanding sign may have two additional wall-mounted signs. No one sign may exceed seven percent of the exposed building face to which it is attached, to a maximum of 240 square feet per sign. This sign is in addition to any other tenant signs on that building face. (4) Number of signs. The number of building-mounted signs pennitted each user is dependent upon the surface area of the largest single exposed building face of his or her building as follows, excluding wall-mounted center identification signs: t:)(H1B~7 PAGE" t< ~'FJ FREEWAY COMMERCIAL SIG~XH I Blr _.,_1 ."; ,.., AGE -¥J-'O F-D- Largest Exposed Maximum Building Face Number of Signs Less than 999 sq. ft. 2 1,000 - 2,999 sq. ft, 3 3,000 - 3,999 sq. ft. 4 4,000 and over sq. ft. 5 Buildings with more than 4,000 square feet on any exposed building face, with several clearly differentiated departments, each with separate exterior entrances, are permitted one sign for each different department with a separate exterior entrance, in addition to the five permitted. No sign or signs may exceed the maximum area permitted for that building face except as may be specifically permitted by this code. However, an applicant is allowed to move allotted signs, as calculated in subsection (b)(4) from one building face to another. Each business or use shall be permitted under canopy signs in addition to the other permitted building-mounted signs subject to the size and separation requirements set forth in FWCC 22- 1599( c )(2)(w). (c) Sign area multipliers. The sign area and sign number allowed, as set forth in subsection (a)(1)(d) of this section for high profile signs, (a)(2)(d) of this section for medium profile signs, and (a)(3)(d) of this section for low profile signs and subsection (b)(3) of this section for building-mounted signs may be increased in the following instances; provided, however, that in no event shall the sign exceed the maximum sign area allowed: (1) If no signs on the subject property have internally lighted sign faces, then the total sign area allowed may be increased by 25 percent. (2) If all signs, other than center identification signs, are building-mounted signs, the total sign area allowed may be increased by 25 percent. (3) A time and temperature sign may be included with any sign and such time and temperature signs shall not be included for purposes of calculating maximum sign area or maximum number of signs. (Ord. No. 95-235, § 4, 6-6-95; Ord. No. 96-270, § 3(F), 7-2-96; Ord. No. 99- 348, § 5,9-7-99; Ord. No. 99-357, § 6, 12-7-99) I::XH 18 rr 1< PAGE.._S )FJ EXHIBIT I -..--- PA G E JU,.O F-----= Federal Way City Code Chapter 22, Article XVII, "Landscaping" 22-1566 Landscaping requirements by zoning district. (a) Suburban Estates, SE. (1) Type III landscaping 10 feet in width shall be provided along all property lines of nonresidential uses in the SE zoning district, except as provided in FWCC 22-1567 of this article. (b) Single-Family Residential, RS. (I) Type III landscaping 10 feet in width shall be provided along all property lines of nonresidential uses in the RS zoning districts, except as. provided in FWCC 22-1567 of this article. (c) Multifamily Residential, RM (I) Type III landscaping 20 feet in width shall be provided along all public rights-of-way and ingress/egress easements. (2) Type II landscaping 20 feet in width shall be provided along the common boundary abutting single-family zoning districts. (3) Type III landscaping 10 feet in width shall be provided along all perimeter lot lines, except as noted in subsections (c)(I) and (c)(2) of this section. (d) Professional Office, PO. (I) Type III landscaping eight feet in width shall be provided along all property lines abutting public rights-of-way and access easements. (2) Type I landscaping 10 feet in width shall be provided along all perimeter property lines abutting a residential zoning district except for schools which shall provide 10 feet of Type II. (3) Type III landscaping five feet i.n width shall be provided along all perimeter lot lines, except as noted in subsections (d)(1) and (d)(2) of this section. (e) Neighborhood Business, BN. (I) Type III landscaping five feet in width shall be provided along all properties abutting public rights-of-way and ingress/egress easements. (2) Type I landscaping IS feet in width shall be provided along the perimeter of property abutting a residential zoning district. (3) Type III landscaping five feet in width along all perimeter lot lines except as noted in subsections (e)(1) and (e)(2) of this section. (f) Community Business, BC (I) Type III landscaping five feet in width shall be provided along all properties abutting public rights-of-way and ingress/egress easements. (2) Type I landscaping 15 feet in width shall be provided along the perimeter of property abutting a residential zoning district. (3) Type III landscaping five feet in width shall be provided along all perimeter lots lines except as noted in subsections (f)(I) and (f)(2) of this section. (g) Freeway Commercial (I) Type III landscaping 10 feet in width shall be provided along the perimeter of parking areas abutting public rights-of-way. (2) Type I landscaping 20 feet in width shall be provided along the perimeter of property abutting a residential zone. . (3) Type III landscaping five feet in width shall be provided along all perimeter lot lines. except as noted above. ~2002 Code Publishing Co, Page I EXHIBIT PAGE___I L.. :~.-2 (gj ill City Center, Cc. (1) Type III landscaping five feet in width shall be provided along the perimeter of parking areas abutting public rights-of-way. (2) Type I landscaping 15 feet in width shall be provided along the perimeter of property abutting a residential zoning district. (3) Type III landscaping five feet in width shall be provided along all perimeter lot lines except as noted in subsections (g)(l) and (g)(2) of this section. W ill Office Park, OP; and Corporate Park, CP-I. (1) Type III landscaping 10 feet in width shall be provided along all property lines abutting public rights-of-way and access easements. . (2) Type I landscaping 15 feet in width shall be provided along the perimeter of property abutting a residential zoning district. . (3) Type III landscáping five feet in width shall be provided along all perimeter lot lines, except as noted in subsections (h)(l) and (h)(2) of this subsection. (i) .\fanujacturing Pmk, }.fl'. (i) Business Park. BP. (1) Type II landscaping 10 feet in width shall be provided along all property lines abutting public rights-of-way and access easements. (2) Type I landscaping 25 feet in width shall be provided along the perimeter of the property abutting a residential zoning district. (3) Type II landscaping 10 feet in width shall be provided along the perimeter of the property abutting a nonresidential zoning district, except MP zones. (4) Type III landscaping five feet in width shall be provided along all perimeter lot lines except as noted in subsections (i)(l), (i)(2), arid (iX3) of this section. (Ord. No. 93-170, § 4,4-20-93; Ord. No. 96-270, § 3(E), 7-2-96) EXH~BIT_~ --" P A. G E -'Cl.J F -b.- EXH'BI1_- PAGE_l La ); ~ ~2002 Code Publishing Co, Page 2 EXHIBIT__-..l. Federal Way City CodrAGE~OF-' L Chapter 22, Article XIX, Community Design Guidelines 22-1638 District guidelines. In addition to the foregoing development guidelines, the following supplemental guidelines apply to individual zoning districts: (a) Professional office (PO), neighborhood business (BN), and community business (BC» and freeway commercial (FC). (I) Surface parking may be located behind the building, to the side(s) of the building, or adjacent to the right-of-way; provided, however, that parking located adjacent to the right-of-way maximizes pedestrian access and circulation pursuant to FWCC 22-1634(d). (2) Entrance facades shall front on, face, or be clearly recognizable from the right-of- way; and should incorporate windows and other methods of articulation. (3) Ground-level mirrored or reflective glass is not encouraged adjacent to a public right- of-way or pedestrian area. (4) If utilized, chain-link fences visible from public rights-of-way shall utilize vinyl- coated mesh and powder-coated poles. For residential uses only: (5) Significant trees shall be retained within a 20-foot perimeter strip around site. (6) Landscaped yards shall be provided between building(s) and public street(s). Parking lots should be beside or behind buildings that front upon streets. (7) Parking lots should be broken up into rows containing no more than 10 adjacent stalls, separated by planting areas. (8) Pedestrian walkways (minimum six feet wide) shall be provided between the interior of the project and the public sidewalk. (9) Lighting fixtures should not exceed 20 feetin height and shall include cutoff shields. This shall not apply to public parks and school stadiums. 20' f¡~II': I ( » Sex:. 12» 1("3.'1 (a) (10) Principal entries to buildings shall be highlighted with plaza or garden areas containing planting, lighting, seating, trellises and other features. Such areas shall be located and designed so windows overlook them. <02002 Code Publishing Co. Page I EXH I B I'Tn PAGE_--l K. '~~ -4 " EXH' Bîl-___I PAGE-"O~ "IPfl- (7 . $tt.: 22. 16~ «1) (11) Common recreational spaces shall be located and arranged so that windows overlook them. ~ - ~"';) ----- ,.,. "!'U(e I b - St.c. 22. 163ft (a) (12) Units on the ground floor (when permitted) shall have private outdoor spaces adjacent to them so those exterior portions of the site are controlled by individual households. Fitt~ 19.~. 22. 163ß 'i} (13) All new buildings, including accessory buildings, such as carports and garages shall appear to have a roof pitch ranging from at least 4: 12 to a maximum of 12: 12. EXH 18 ¡-r- I-f P AGE ..1 4f 02002 Code Publishing Co, Page 2 fi~ 20 - ~. 22 - :63>8 «Ii EXH I B IT __.~I PAGE "O"Ó~"-- (14) Carports and garages in front yards should be discouraged. (15) The longest dimension of any building facade shall not exéeed 120 feet. Buildings on the same site may be connected by covered pedestrian walkways. (16) Buildings should be designed to have a distinct "base", "middle" and "top" The base (typically the first floor) should contain the greatest number of architectural elements such as windows, materials, details, overhangs, cornice lines, and masonry belt courses. The midsection by comparison may be simple. (Note: single-story buildings have no middle.) The top should avoid the appearance of a flat roof and include distinctive roof shapes including but not limited to pitched, vaulted or terraced, etc. fi~ 2l - S;x, 22. 1638 (.) (17) Residential design features, including but not limited to entry porches, projecting window bays, balconies or decks, individual windows (rather than strip windows), offsets and cascading or stepped roof forms shall be incorporated into all buildings. Window openings shall have visible trim material or painted detailing that resembles trim. (b) Office park (OP), corporate park (CP), and business park (BP). (1) Surface parking may be located behind the building, to the side(s) of the building, or adjacent to the right-of-way; provided, however, that parking located adjacent to the right-of-way maximizes pedestrian access and circulation pursuant to FWCC 22-1634( d). (2) Buildings with ground floor retail sales or services should orient major entrances, display windows and other pedestrian features to the right-of-way to the extent possible. (3) Ground-level mirrored or reflective glass is not encouraged adjacent to a public right- of-way or pedestrian area. (4) If utilized, chain-link fences visible from public rights-of-way shall utilize vjnyl- coated mesh and powder-coated poles. For non-single-family residential uses only: (5) Subsections (a)(5) through (A)(17) of this section shall apply. (c) City center core (CC-C) and city center frame (CC-F). (1) The city center core and frame will contain transitional forms of development with surface parking areas. However, as new development or re-development occurs, the visual 02002 Code Publishing Co, Page 3 EXHIBIT H ---- PAGE._.__3 ' It EXHIBIT__-J , PAGE-1!OE ... dominance of surface parking areas shall be reduced. Therefore, surface parking areaS s~ located as follows: .. . a. The parking is located behind the building, with the building located between the. right-of-way and the parking areas, or it is located in structured parking; or b. All or some of the parking is located to the side(s) of the building; or c. Some short-tenn parking may be located between the building(s) and the right-of- way, but this shall not consist of more than one double-loaded drive aisle, and pedestrian circulation shall be provided pursuant to FWCC 22-1634( d). Large retail complexes may not be able to locate parking according to the above guidelines. Therefore, retail complexes of 60,000 square feet of gross floor area or larger may locate surface parking between the building(s) and the right-of-way. However, this fonn of development shall provide for small building(s) along the right-of-way to break up and reduce the visual impact of the parking, and pedestrian circulation must be provided pursuant to FWCC 22-1634(d). For purposes of this guideline, retail complex means the entire lot or parcel, or series of lots or parcels, on which a development, activity or use is located or will locate. (2) Entrance facades shall front on, face, or be clearly recognizable from the right-of- way; and should incorporate windows and other methods of articulation. (3) Building facades that are visible from a right-of-way and subject to modulation per FWCC 22-1635(b), shall incorporate facade treatment as follows: a. The facade incorporates modulation and/or a landscape screening, pursuant to FWCC 22-1635(b); and b. The facade incorporates an arcade, canopy or plaza; and/or one or more articulation element listed in FWCC 22-1635(c)(2); provided, that the resulting building characteristics achieve visual interest and appeal at a pedestrian scale and proximity, contribute to a sense of public space, and reinforce the pedestrian experience. (4) Drive-through facilities and stacking lanes shall not be located along a facade of a building that faces a right-of-way. (5) Above-grade parking structures with a ground level facade visible from a right-of- way shall incorporate any combination of the following elements at the ground level: a. Retail, commercial, or office uses that occupy at least 50 percent of the building's lineal frontage along the right-of-way; or b. A 15-foot-wide strip of Type III landscaping along the base of the facade; or c. A decorative grille or screen that conceals interior parking areas from the right-of- way. (6) Facades of parking structures shall be articulated above the ground level pursuant to FWCC 22-1635(c)(1). . (7) When curtain wall glass and steel systems are used to enclose a building, the glazing panels shall be transparent on 50 percent of the ground floor facade fronting a right-of-way or pedestrian area. (8) Chain-link fences shall not be allowed. Barbed or razor wire shall not be used. For non-single-family residential uses only: (9) Subsections (a)(5) through (a)(17) ofthis section shall apply. (d) For all residential zones. (1) Non-residential uses. Subsections (a)(5) through (a)(10) and (a)(13) through (a)(17) of this section shall apply. (2) Non-single-family residential uses. Subsections (a)(5) through (a)(17) of this section shall apply. (Ord, No. 96-271, § 3, 7-2-96; Ord. No. 99-333, § 3, 1-19-99; Ord. No. 01-382, § 3, 1-16-01) EXHIB\1 PAGE_Lf M &f 02002 Code Publishing Co, Page 4 EXHIBIT___- .1- PAGEh'a~ FWCP - Chapter Four, Economic Development Retail Areas . SeaTac Mall and other regional retailers within the City redevelop/reposition to meet changing consumer demand and become more competitive with other regional retailers. . High-volume retail in Federal Way increases faster than population. . Growth in resident-serving retail occurs in the City Center, existing commercial nodes... and in redevelopment areas along SR-99. . Neighborhood scale retail development keeps pace with population growth and to an increasing extent, is accommodated within mixed-use buildings in more concentrated neighborhood villages. . Pedestrian-oriented retail development emerges gradually in the redeveloped City Center. . Small amounts of retail use occur on the ground floor of offices, residential buildings, and parking structures. . Neighborhood scale retail development in concentrated neighborhood villages emerges in response to growth in multiple-family concentrations in the I-5/SR-99 corridor and new single-family development on the east side ofI-5. . Old, outdated strip centers along the SR-99 corridor redevelop as a mix of retail, office, and dense residential uses. . . The large truck-stop facility at the intersection of Enchanted Parkway and South 348th Street is redeveloped into a retail or mixed-use commercial center. . Freeway oriented commercial development providing for automobile sales. home furnishings centers. hotels and related retail and service uses are located adjacent to 1-5 and SR-18 within areas of appropriate size and with convenient access and visibility. Office Development . Offices of regional, national, and/or international finus locate in West Campus, East Campus, and the City Center. . Garden, high-rise, and mid-rise office space, and modem light-industrial buildings increase rapidly in areas with land assembled for business parks and in redeveloped retail areas. . Office development is integrated with retail, residential, and business parks. E)(11t51r- PAGE fJ , 1__- 2003 Comp Plan Updates IV 15 PAGE- L --If City of Federal Way PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting L-". .. - . I March 17, 2004 7:00 P,J11. City Ilall Council Chambers \ll',LII\( I \11".l:II'.S (\)1l11l11",,]11I1C:h plC:>C:il1..I1 .il ( ~lu]t]L'ld,I¡')!1C: l'idLT, Jh\c: (b~lkl. DIIlI ])uc:iu> l)i¡ll)r~t;'L, ,II,,: \blïd .Iustu.> h,ld] ( 1)llllllh,ilII1L'h JihL'ill (,r~II]] \c:\\purt k\.LLI,c:dL :\]lLIl1dlL CUllllllh:;]UIlc:r> prL'>l'll1. Chnstlne \el:;()11 la\\>oll IhUll'l)ll, :lIld \1crk !'!Cd'cr, :\]¡C:Il1a!c Conllllh"IOJleh :libL'lll 1111l\ \IUI)I'c (c:\.cused I, City ('oune'!] prL'>ellt' ;\ lay,)r I kall i\lc( 'olgan, ('ounCiI Member:; Lne I. ahon alld ,1c;lI1lle Burbidge, St:lIl' prc:;en1. CUllllllUllllY I k\el'1pmcnt SenlCcs Director KJth\ \Ic(lum'., ( UlllmU]lll\ [)C\'eloplllen! Senlee> I kput\ I )IICL!or (ircg Fe\\'ms. Senior Planner Margarct Clark, .l\S:;OCI:lte PLiIlIlLT Isaac Conlcn. AssIstanl City ;\ttorncy Karen Jorgensen. Management Senlee:; Director h\cn Wang. Iranìc r:nt'-lIlcer r,zlck Pere/, Surl'aec \Vater Manat'-er Paul Buelch, Parb. Reereat1On, & ('ultmal Scnlee:; DlreelC1r .felllld'cr Sehr'1der. I\trk:;. Reere:ltlon. 8: Cultmal Scr\¡CCS Deputy DIrt..'cwr Kurt Rueter. ('I)lltrdet Planncr Janet ShulL .Iunc:; & SI"ke:; (iregg [)ohll1. Jones & Stokcs Lisa (TI'lICtCr. and ,\dllllnhtr:lll\e ;\:;sl:;tant L. Iina PIC\\, , --- - ---- , ,--,---, ('hall' ('aultìeld called thc mectlIlg to order at 7:00 p,m, ApPROVAL OF MI:\ln:S 11 \\as 1II,\e to adopt thc :\1:Jreh ,', 200-L lllillutes as prcscntcd, AI:DIE:\CE CO\L\IE:\T ".one, AD\II:\ISTR.\TI\E REI'ORI \I)]L' CO\L\IISSIO:\ H! SI:\ ESS I't HLIC HE\RI\C -- Potential ,\nnn:ation Area (1',\\) SlIbal-ea Plan \1r, 1\)hll1 dell\ercd;1 pre>en\;lli(JIl 011 thc bach,ground ol'thc 1'.-\.1\, Hc st;¡tL'd thcse hearm,-,> ~lddre>" i I t¡I'- dra '¡ 1'\:\ Sub~lrea I'lall: 2) amelldmcnt:, tu that pbn (:'\tc-spectile reLjucsh): :md 3) the nc\\ ]-¡'CL'\\d\ Commercial Ú11lll1g dc:;¡gn:ttlOIl, !hc:;e hc:lnngs do not :lddrc:,s the ~lI1ne\.:llI0n pn)ecss, 1\1:;, (,rUL']L'1 dell\'cred:l prcscntatlon uillhe purpo:;e ~tnd pruec,;s ot'thc P;\:\ Subarc~II'Llil. lhc ('Un1l111~:;I()I¡ dhL'lh~l'd ~lI1ne\.~ltloll', Thc cunent (it\ ('uullcil polie'Y IS I() \\altlu hear from eltl/cllS ¡rthey k1\C ~lll I¡HLTe.;1111 :lIllle\.alll1l1 SlnL'l' ll1C,)t'!1()J;ltl()ll, lhL' ('It\ 11:1:; :lIlllL'\.Ccl three ;lrc;lS: I\\() rc>ull'.:d In :lnct "urplu', 1() Iii,' ( 1;\ :lIld \)IlC III :1 net Ius", II 11h ;In :111()~L:thLT 11L'1:;urplus, I¡¡ere I\uuld he :111 llll'l'L':hL' III tl\.e:; [() :lIL\h tin! C]1\1'):;L' t() ~lI1nL'\. t() IhL' ('It\ I1l'C:111-'L' ,,¡the ( 11\':; util!t\ t;¡\., but thc\ \\()llid ~;l!ll;1 hlghL')' Ie\l' 1)1' II \\':h Iluted tkl1 the !'\\ :,>uh;¡t'L':1 ¡'Ian h Il()t :lmeCh;lIlh!l1 to :lnnc\. ;lrC:h, hUI dcslgn:llL's thL' tutur,. I()nlng li)r arccl'; ]1'111", c]1I1()~e III ,llmL'.\. II) lhL' (11\, Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 EXHIBI+tarch I~O4 PAGE___'2. ..,. PUBLIC HEARING - New Freeway Commercial Zoning Classification Ms. Shull delivered the staff presentation. This new zoning classification is being considered to: provide unique development opportunities along the 1-5 and SR 18 corridors; capture retail markets not currently strongly represented in Federal Way; and capture significant tax revenue. An owner of property in the P AA requested Commercial Business (BC) zoning, but staff felt it was inappropriate. Reasons for this are: Federal Way already has a lot of land designated commercial, adding to these could work against the City's plans for the City Center, and the proposed Freeway Commercial zone has fewer uses, New signage designation is proposed for this new zone. If the Freeway Commercial zone were adopted, goals and policies would have to be added to the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Shull noted that the height for pole signs was corrected and changed from 20 to 15 feet. Commissioners expressed concern that this new zone would draw businesses away from Pacific Highway South. Ms. Shull commented that the trend seems to be to have enough land available so a number of di fferent auto dealerships can congregate in an "auto-mall" setting. The Commissioners asked if that is really the image we want to have at the entrance to our City, The Commissioners asked if we are lacking in other retail areas, why not pursue them, as opposed to a new zone. The Commissioners asked if the staff has a map with all the parcels in the City that would be eligible for this new zone. The Commissioners want to be sure that this proposed zone would not allow "big-box" retail. The Commissioners would like to know if signs are allocated by parcel or use. P AA Site-Specific Requests Ms. Grueter went over the four site-specific requests. Commissioner Osaki asked that the record reflect that he works for the City of Auburn, Public Testimony was opened. Thor Hoyle - He represents the Davis site-specific request. He also submitted written comments, He feels this request is different from the other site-specific requests because there has been a business on this parcel since 1946. It has been an office use since 1979, The current King County zoning is almost the same as Federal Way's Neighborhood Business (BN) zone, It is his understanding that part of the reason for zoning this residential is the belief that the property would not be able to meet Federal Way BN requirements, He feels the property can meet these requirements. He stated there is no way the current building could be turned into a home (it is only 900 square feet). There is no sewer and the lot is built-out. It is a comer lot, on a road that is not very busy. It has minimal signage, no parking problems, no egress or ingress issues, and no retrofit problems. It will stay as it is for the foreseeable future. Louise Davis - She purchased the property in 1998 and soon ran into legal problems with King County because it was not zoned for a business. It took a lot of time and effort, but the parcel was rezoned and she is now legal. It upsets her that she would again be illegal if the staff recommendation is adopted. Chuck Gibson - He spoke in regards to the Northlake request and represents the owners. Of 56 owners, 44 signed a petition in favor of RS 9.6, four did not, and eight were not available. The RS 9.6 zone better fits the neighborhood, Alan Ulnyg - He spoke in regards to the Davis request. He has known her for several years and watched her go through the legal hassles. He supports her request. He feels it is better for the community. K . Planning C"nlm"""n'2()()4 Mee'nlg Snmn"ny 11\. t7.114 <I,d .,," prnHed 4!2S!2()O4 " 0(, AM Planning Commission Minutes March 17,2004 EXHIBITt. Gary Anderson - He spoke in regards to the Davis request. He feels~~ße~ent is t!ng --'t her property rights. He feels the land value of her property will go down if it is zoned residential. He knows the City wants to annex them and he doesn't want the City to take her property rights by downzoning D&D Accounting. They are good for the community, She already went through the steps to be legal and now the City wants to change it back. It would close the business, ruin their retirement, and put employees out of work, Page 3 Christy Field - She asked if it was true that King County wants to have them annex to Federal Way and they have no choice? She has lived here 40 years and does not want to be part of the City, The Commissioners wanted to make it clear that annexation would happen only if some citizens in the area ask the City to be annexed, BJ McMasters - He commented that he has 900 feet on freeway (on Military) and is happy with it. He wants to be in the County, not the City, He has a surface water problem that no one (county or state) has helped him with, Neil GoldÙzgay - He is not impressed with the proposed Freeway Commercial zone, He is open to the idea of annexation, He feels King County has done a good job. He would love to see the City improve Military Road like Pacific Highway South and make it a safer road, He also stated that the intersection of 2881h and Military needs work in regards to trash, empty buildings, and vandalism. Lee Rabie - He feels the City is taking the Davis property and his property, This will cost him ~2 million dollars, He feels the City staff is mean-spirited and deceitful. King County staff is fairer and has more experts, He stated that the City's permitting process is broken and gave the example of a church, He stated that he would fight if the City attempts to take his property, Norm lngersoll- He stated that the map of the Rabie property is inaccurate because it shows a road that does not exist. Land is set aside for the road, but cuITently it is trees and open space. He is not favor of the proposed Freeway Commercial zone or annexation, We should not compete with Auburn, but work with them. Whatever happens, the 320th bridge over 1-5 needs to be fixed, It is too congested, In addition, Military Road needs to be made safer. He feels the mailings on this issue were sporadic and few people knew of this meeting, He knows the City needs more money, but they should not seek more retail, but other kinds of businesses. Rick Reese - He thanked the Commission for listening to the comments, He said that cars make no sense for a bedroom community, He commented that the City should not think in the short- term, He feels the City doesn't follow the mandate of the voters and cited Celebration Park as an example. The City needs to look at the carrying capacity of essential services, Sidewalks, water, etc, need to be in place before the City continues to develop, Michael Tischler - He spoke in regards to the Jackson request. He lives near the proposal. The topography that suITounds those lots is very different from the northeastern side, The proposed new Freeway Commercial zone would be better facing 320t", but not near the single-family lots on the northeast. Moore - She commented that an article in the paper said that annexing these areas would cost more than it is worth. She feels large signs by the highway would distract drivers, K Il'tannmg Commlss",n\èO(WMeetlng Sunull.1'Y 01-t7.04 doe/LaSt pnnted 4/28/2004 " 06 AM Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 EXHIBIT March 17,2004 2. Lawson Bronson, Alternate Planning Commissioner - Does the sta~ ð~!=w many s.cel;~in ---'I the P AA have been rezoned from commercial? He feels the proposed Freeway Commercial zone is a separate issue and asked why are we creating a special classification for one request (Jackson), but not another (Davis)? He feels the P AA study should deal with the financial aspects but not the zoning, until such time an area actually annexes to Federal Way, He feels that this way we are imposing zoning on people who cannot vote for Federal Way Council Members, He asked if this is implemented, what would be the impact on people who want to change their zoning before their area annexes to Federal Way (if it ever does)? Ann Blackwell- She lives near the Davis property, She commented that the traffic is heavy on Military Road, There are times she feels she risks her life when pulling out of her driveway, Jackie Moore - She spoke to the impact on the Northlake area, She said it would cost more money to annex and it would come out of our pocket book (property owners). There was no further public testimony. Since the public hearings will be continued, further public testimony will be allowed. Chairman Caulfield read three letters into the record. The Commissioners asked about the way in which policies are stated. Some say, "City shall do this" and others say, "County shall do this," what does this mean? The Commissioners asked who is and is not the governing body of the P AA? They asked that a representative from the County be invited to the next public hearing, They would like to know how many multi-family parcels are developed and undeveloped, They requested that the Freeway Commercial proposal be "tightened"; taking into account the issues raised at this meeting, They would like to know what water body feeds the wetland on the Jackson property and is there any opportunity for off-site mitigation? They would like an aerial photo of the Jackson site and BP A easement in order to gain a feel for how much of the site could be developed, It was m/s/c to continue the public hearings to Wednesday, April 7, 2004, in the City Council Chambers at 7:00 p.m, ADDITIONAL BUSINESS None, AUDIENCE COMMENT None. ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 9:53 p.m. K\Planníng Commission\2004\Meeting Summary 03-t7-04.doc/Last printed 4/28/2004 906 AM ~ CITY OF ~ Federal Way EXHIBIT__~ PAGE---L-~)F If) STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Amendments to Federal Way City Code (FWCC) Chapto- 22 Addition of Freeway Commercial Zone Planning Commission Meeting of April 7, 2004 I. BACKGROUND The proposed code amendment to Federal Way City Code (FWCC) Chapter 22, to add a new Freeway Commercial Zone was presented to the Planning Commission at their March 17,2004, public hearing. During this public hearing, some members of the Commission expressed concern about creating a new commercial zone. Some general concerns included a concern that businesses may relocate to this zone from commercial areas along Highway 99; therefore, having a negative affect on the Highway 99 corridor. Another concern was that locating automobile dealerships at the entrances to our community might not be the image that we want to present. One Commissioner was concerned about the effect of commercial development on existing residential neighborhoods. Yet another Commissioner wanted the code to be "tighter" in terms of protecting neighborhoods while benefiting the City. A list of more specific questions and comments from the Planning Commission followed by staff responses is contained within Section III of this staff report. Section II of this report discusses a change that staff would like to propose in the locational criteria for allowing parcels to be designated Freeway Commercial. II. PROPOSED STAFF CHANGES After the March 17,2004 Planning Commission public hearing, staffreviewed the proposed locational criteria in Chapter 2, "Land Use," of the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan (Exhibit A) and would like to propose the following change shown as stribLJ€Hit and underlined. Freeway Commercial The Freeway Commercial designation is intended for areas that are adjacent to the Interstate 5 and SR 1 & interchanges with convenient freeway access and visibility. Freeway Commercial areas are typicallv large in size (five acres or greater). The range of commercial land uses permitted in these areas is limited to uses that are difficult to site in the city's other commercially designated areas due to their large site size requirements and/or difficulty in adapting to pedestrian-oriented areas. Freeway Commercial areas are particularly suitable for automobile sales, home furnishings centers, and related retail and service uses that require large tracts of land, convenient freeway access, and visibility, A -... .-. fit P.Gt--~ ~ . ----._-- , ,- ~:--'.o r.- ,/. " f- ¡ " , ' ,..":/\., :" The reason for this proposed change is that SR 18 extends to Pacific Highway where it becomes S, 348 Street. If properties in this area were to apply for and be granted a Freeway Commercial zone, there is a potential for 25-foot tall signs to be constructed at grade adjacent to S. 348th Street. The maximum height of free stranding signs is presently 12 feet. III. FOLLOW-Ur TO QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION Questions from and comments by the Planning Commission are shown followed by the staff response: I. Planning Commission Comment: Locating automobile dealerships at the entrances to our community might not be the image that we want to present. Staff Re5ponse: The Planning Commission and Land Use/Transportation Committee (LUTC) will issue a recommendation, with the City Council making the final decision, 2. Planning Commission Comment: The Market Studies identified some retail dollars that were "leaking" to other communities. Why don't we pursue these uses? Staff Response: The Citywide Market Study conducted in 2000, the City Center Market Study conducted in 2002, and the Potential Annexation Area (PAA) Subarea Plan and Annexation Feasibility Study completed in 2003 all identify that Federal Way is less competitive in the retail categories of auto sales, furniture, furnishings, and equipment, and to a lesser extent, apparel and accessories, Except for apparel and accessories, the proposed permitted uses in the new Freeway Commercial zone include all of the identified retail uses, 3. Planning Commission Concern: There was a concern that providing a new commercial zoning district with opportunity for designating additional areas commercial, would detract from redevelopment along the Pacific Highway Corridor. Staff Re.\ponse: The proposed uscs to be permitted in a new Freeway Commercial zone was limited to the following due to the need to lessen competition between this new zone and existing commercial districts, Please refer to Table I (Exhibit C) for a comparison of the allowable uses between existing commercial zones and the proposed new Freeway Commercial zone. Proposed permitted uses in the Freeway Commercial Zone I. Retail selling new vehicles, boats, recreational vehicles, and motorcycles 2. Retail selling household goods and furnishings (floor coverings, draperies, glass, and chinaware) 3. Retail selling household appliances 4. Retail selling home electronics 5. Retail outlet centers 6. Retail providing entertainment, recreational, or cultural services and activities (amusement parks, movie theaters) 7. Golf driving range 8. Hotel _...__.~ Planning Commission Staff Réport Addition of Frééway Coll1ll1ércial i'.oné / Filé #04-1 OOX 12-00-UI' April 7, 2004 Pagé 2 EXHIBIT__J- PAGE-3- )~---1A.- 9. Public utility (water supply, electric power, telephone, cablevision, natural gas, transportation for persons/freight, commercial broad-cast towers, commercial antennas) 10, Public transit shelter (bus stop) 11. Personal wireless service facilities 4, Planning Commission Question: Do we have a map that shows areas that might qualify for the new Freeway Commercial zoning designation? Staff Response: The new Freeway Commercial zoning designation is intended to apply to property at least five acres in size that is located adjacent to, and visible from, 1-5 and is easily accessible from the freeway interchanges. This zoning designation can be applied to parcels within the P AA as well as in the City. Staff has not prepared a map showing all potential parcels that may be eligible for this zone because that is not the scope of the study. The intent of the Freeway Commercial zoning designation is to provide a new classification, which could be applied for as part of the annual comprehensive plan amendment process, by owners of properties meeting the locational criteria. As part of the P AA Subarea Plan process, property owners within the P AA were given the opportunity to apply for a different pre-annexation and zoning designation. One applicant, Mr. Jackson, has applied for commercial (Community Business) zoning for approximately 23 acres located east of 1-5 and north of South 320th Street. The Planning Commission, as part of the P AA adoption process, is presently considering this request. A traffic study (January 2004 City of Federal Way Planning Technical Report, Rezone Evaluation of Portion of Potential Annexation Area "Camelot" by the Transpo Group) was prepared for the Jackson request. This study showed that increased traffic associated with development of the Jackson site as Freeway Commercial would still meet the City's ado~ted level of~~ce standards. 5. Planning Commission Question: Will "big box" retail be allowed in the new Freeway Commercial zone? Staff Response: "Big box" retail and bulk retail sales will not be allowed in the Freeway Commercial zone. Only the Community Business zone allows this type of use. Staff has added language shown as underline in the chart for "Retail" in order to exclude "big box" retail (See Exhibit B). 6. Planning Commission Question: How will the Freeway Commercial signs be allotted? Will it be by parcel or use? Staff Response: The proposed code amendment to the sign code allows one Freeway Commercial sign per subject property. This is in addition to signage that is already allowed in the code. Per FWCC Chapter 22, Article I, subject property means the entire lot or parcel, or series of lots or parcels, on which a development, activity, or use is or will locate, or on which any activity or condition regulated by or subject to this chapter is or will occur or take place. Based on this definition, subject property may apply to a single use on a single lot, or to one use on a series of Planning Commission Staff Report Addition of Freeway Commercial Zone / File #04-1 00812-00-UP April 7, 2004 Page 3 lots, If the Freeway Commercial Zoning Classification and related admendments to FWCC Chapter 22, ArticleXVIII, Signs, are adopted as proposed, signage would be allowed as follows: EXHIBIT_- '- PAGE-'f '-".-' 10 ~ :;-. . (a) Building-Mounted Signs - As with all other non-residential zoning districts, the sign area of building-mounted signs in the Freeway Commercial zone would depend on the area of the exposed building face to which it is attached, and the number of building- mounted signs would depend on the surface area of the largest single exposed building face based on a certain formula. (b) Freestanding Signs - The Freeway Commercial zone will be permitted signs pursuant to the Medium Profile category and Highway Profile Category A signs. (c) A maximum amount offour freestanding signs per subject property would be allowed, with a maximum of three freestanding signs per street frontage (two Medium Profile Category and one Highway Profile Category A along the street frontage), including I- S. (d) Signs must have a minimum separation of200 feet. (e) Three of the four signs could have a maximum height of 12 feet (Medium Profile). The fourth sign (Freeway Commercial sign) could be a maximum of 15 feet if the subject property is ab9ye the freeway elevation, and 25 feet above the elevation of the freeway if the subject property is lower in elevation than the freeway. (f) For single-tenant parcels or separate parcels or pads for single tenant buildings, maximum sign area for three of the four maximum allowable signs is 80 square feet (maximum of 40 square feet per face). For multi-tenant parcels, the maximum sign area for three of the four maximum allowable signs is 128 square feet (maximum of 64 square feet per face). The Freeway Commercial sign could have a maximum sign area of 600 square feet (maximum of 300 square feet per face) if the elevation of the site is below the elevation of the freeway, and 400 square feet (maximum of200 square feet per face) if the elevation of the site is above the elevation of the freeway. 7, Planning Commission Question: The Planning Commission was concerned about what effect the commercial development of areas that were traditionally residential might have on existing residential neighborhoods. Related to this, the Planning Commission requested that staff "tighten" the standards of the Freeway Commercial zone, Staff Response: The existing proposal already incorporates the following standards if a Freeway Commercial zoned-property is located adjacent to residential zone: (a) Setbacks - There is a proposed setback of20 feet for all structures, if abutting a residential zone, with a 50-foot setback for New Vehicles sales, (b) Landscape Screening - . Type III landscaping 10 feet in width shall be provided along the perimeter of parking areas abutting public rights-of-way, Type I landscaping 20 feet in width (emphasis added) shall be provided along the perimeter of property abutting a residential zone, I . I Per FWCC Chapter 22, Section 22-1565, Type I landscaping is a solid screen, which is intended to provide a solid sight barrier to totally separate incompatible uses. This landscaping is typically found between residential and incompatible nonresidential land use zones. Planning Commission Staff Report Addition of Freeway Commercial Zone / File #04-1 008 I 2-00-UP April 7, 2004 Page 4 EXHIBIT- 3, PAGE~,)~ -1Þ . . Type III landscaping five feet in width shall be provided along all perimeter lot "lines, except as noted above, In response to the Planning Commission's concerns, staff recommends that the following language be added to the proposed use zone charts in the Freeway Commercial zone: (a) New Vehicles, Retail, and Entertainment Uses - "The hours of operation may be limited to reduce impacts on nearby residential uses"? (b) The following language, which is presently proposed for the New Vehicles Use Zone Chart is recommended to be further changed as follows3: Public address speakers (PA systems) shall Rot be audible from an adjacent residential zone. The site must be designed so that noise associated with public address systems~ vehicle repair or maintenance~ and truck parking, loading or maneuvering; will not be audible off the subject property, based on a certificate to this effect signed by an acoustical engineer and filed with the development permit application.2 IV. EXHIBITS Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Federal Way Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 2, Page II-22 Federal Way City Code, New Retail Use Zone Chart Table I, Uses 1:\2004 Code Amendments\Freeway Zone\Planning Commission\040704 Revised StaffReport.DOC/03/30/20048:50 AM 2A similar note is included in the Use Zone Chart for retail and office uses in the Neighborhood Business zone, 3 This change will be made in the Use Zone Chart if the Planning Commission approves it. Planning Commission Staff Report Addition of Freeway Commercial Zone / File #04-1 00812-00-UP April 7, 2004 Page 5 FWCP-ChapterTwo. Land Use Goal LUG6 Policies LUP38 LUP39 EXHIBIT__-S. P A,G E-' t \--- !~ Transform Community Business areas into vital, attractive, mixed-use areas that appeal to pedestrians and motorists and enhance the community's image, Encourage transfonnation of Pacific Highway (SR-99) Community Business corridor into a quality mixed-use retail area. Retail development along the corridor, exclusive of the City Center, should be designed to integrate auto, pedestrian, and transit circulation. Integration of public amenities and open space into retail and office development should also be encouraged. Encourage auto-oriented large bulk retailers to locate in the South 348th Street Community Business area. Freeway Commercial The Freeway Commercial designation is intended for areas that are adjacent to ~ Interstate 5 and SR 18 interchanges with convenient freeway access and visibility. Freeway Commercial areas are typically large in size (five acres or greater). The range of commercial land uses pennitted in these areas is limited to uses that are difficult to site in the city's other commercially designated areas due to their large site size requirements and/or difficulty in adapting to pedestrian-oriented areas. Freeway Commercial areas are particularly suitable for automobile sales. home furnishings centers. and related retail and service uses that require large tracts of land. convenient freeway access and visibility. Goal LUG? Policies LUP40 LUP41 LUP42 Encourage the development of limited areas with high levels of freeway access and visibility as suitable locations for freeway-oriented businesses to locate within the city in a cohesive development pattern that also meets the community's product and service needs. Encourage freeway oriented uses to locate in Freeway Commercial-designated areas- Encourage quality regional destination retail development through the utilization of appropriate design guidelines and development standards. The development of freeway commercial areas should respond to the needs of consumers by providing for ease of access and circulation and convenient grouping of complementary uses. EXHlB1 T PAGE--- ~- 2003 Camp Plan Update \ 11-22 22-XXX Retail. The followin USE Retail establishment selling household goods and furnishings, household appliances and home electronics (excluding bulk and big box retaiJ) Retail Outlet centers (excluding bulk and big boxretail) '" N Ci3 Õ ,...¡ ¡: e "'- :;: u '" ~ '" .", Cij æ '" ¡:,:: '- '" 0 ... - ::> ij¡'U ,- ¡: '" - :I:(J) '" " u '" 0. .",(J) '" 01) ... c: 'a ,- ~"g ¡:,::~ USE ZONE CHART ZONE FC SPECIAL REGULA nONS AND NOTES 1. If any portion of a structure on the subject property is located less than 100 ft, from an adjacent residential zone, then that portion of the structure shall not exceed 30 ft, above average building elevation and the structure shall be set back a minimum of20 ft, from the property line of the residential zone, 2, If approved through Process III, the height of that portion of a structure located 100 ft, or more from a residential zone may exceed 35 ft, above average building elevation to a maximum of 55 ft" ifall of the following criteria are met: a, The additional height is necessary to accommodate the particular use conducted in the building; and b, That portion of the structure is set back an additional one ft, for each one ft, the structure exceeds 35 ft, above average building elevation; and ,c, An increase in height above 35 ft, will not block views designated by the comprehensive plan; and d, The increased height is consistent with goals and policies for the area of the subject property as established by the comprehensive plan, 3, Assembly or manufacture of goods on the subject property is permitted only if: a, The assembly or manufacture is clearly accessory to an allowed use conducted on the subject property and is directly related to and dependent on this allowed use; and b, The assembled or manufactured goods are available for purchase and removal from the subject property and are for sale only to retail purchasers; and c, There are no outward appearance or impacts from the assembly or manufacture, 4, Restaurants, not exceeding 7,500 square feet in gross floor area, are allowed as an accessory use to the outlet center. 5, Truck parking, loading, and maneuvering areas; areas where noise generating outdoor uses and activities may occur; and vents and similar features must be located as far as possible from any residential zone and secondarily, from any public right-of-way, 6, Outdoor use, activity, and storage is regulated by Article XIII, Section 1113. 7, No maximum lot coverage is established, Instead, the buildable area will be determined by other site development requirements, i.e" required buffers, parking lot landscaping, surface water facilities, etc, 8, For community design guidelines that apply to the project, see Article XIX 9, For landscaping requirements that apply to the project, see Article XVII, 10, For sign requirements that apply to the project, see Article XVIII. II, Refer to § 22-946 et seq, to determine what other provisions of this chapter may apply to the subject property, Process II INone 120 ft, 5 ft, 5 ft, 35 ft, above Retail facilities: See notes I 2 and average I for every 300 Possible 1 19 ' building sq, ft of gross Process elevation floor area III See Note 2 See notes I -II for each 100 2 sq, ft, of gross floor area for restaurants m X :r: - OJ ::2 DIRECTIONS: FIRST, read down to find use", THEN, across for REGULATIONS ::: Minimums ~ ~ Required Yards ,..¡ " ~ Ë '" .",~ ~ '" ~ Q: ,: '" ::> ,- 0"> '" '" ¡:,::¡:,:: I Process I, II, III and IV are described ili §§ 22-351-22-356, ;- ¡ 22-361 - 22-370, 22-386 - 22-411, 22-431 - 22-460, respectively, ,-' ~ ! , '1 \i) For other information about parking and parking areas, see § 22-1376 et seq, For details of what may exceed this height limit, see § 22-1046 et seq, For details regarding required yards, see § 22-113 I et seq, -om »x wI 111 55 - -! 1("-.. ~~;\' I TABLE I USES BN1 BC cc-c1 CC-F1 FC Above-grade structured parking facilities X X Adult entertainment activity, retail or use X Art gallery X Bank/savings & loan company - retail providing these & related financial service X X X X Brokerage X X X X Bulk retail sale of lumber, paint, glass; plumbing, electrical and heating fixtures & supplies; bulk X L L " goods, and nurserv stock" . "big box" retail) Business or vocational school X X X Car wash X X X """""'-'-",,"-'- Church, synagogue, or other place of religious worship X X X X Convalescent center/nursing home X X X Convention center/trade center X X Day care facility, except Class II home occupations X X X X Department store X X Dwelling unit (Multiple family attached) X X X Dwelling unit (Multiple family stacked) X X X X Fast food restaurant X X X X =' J Golf course X '; ~ ~ Golf driving range X X ~ -- 1m Government facility X ^ X X X X X Group home (lI-A and (lI-A and (lI-A and I II-B) II-B) II:~) ..1 m<D Health club X X X X i m"m"", j'1. m.mm ."1.,, ~ I Excluding Bulk Retail 0 - I - "'Om 1»< G):I: ,11 ffi .-' I }:J-I ~I \ \ \') USES BN1 BC CC-CI CC-FI FC Hospital X X X Hotel X X X X Merchandise and equipment rental facilities (excluding heavy equipment rental) X Mini-warehouse or public storage facility X Motel X X Office use (medical, dental, health care, veterinary, accounting, legal, architectural, engineering, consulting, management, administrative, secretarial, marketing, advertising, personnel, sales offices X X X X (no' M_o;tO\ real estate, travel agent, loan and ' tra~sfér li:1Cllllte~ vehicle and service yards . truck stops, tow or taxi lOIS, and X Personal wireless service facility X X X X X Pistol range (Indoor) X Private lodge or club X X X X Public park X X X X Public transit shelter (bus stop) X X X X X Public utility (water supply, electric power, telephone, cablevision, natural gas, transportation for X X X X (entin, commercial broad-cast towers, commercial Recreational vehicle parking lot (temporary) X Restaurant or tavern X X X X Retail selling groceries; produce and related items X X X X Retail sell ing drugs and personal care products X X X X ~ .. Retail selling books X X X X ) > Retail selling liquor X X X X G ) Retail selling hardware X X X X r 1 Retail selling garden, nursery stock and related items X X X X :..- Retail selling household goods and furnishing X X X. Retail selling household appliances X '>".~ Retail sale of grain, seed, fencing, hay, nursery stock and other agricultural supplies X I I .' ... 0 - 2 - -em »x G)I mæ , - 'w . -..{ I I ¡. Vv .."'.--.'.'-'---..--.............,......"............. ............... ......--.-........"....".....-.--..............."....."'-""'---""-"""'-"-"-"""""'."'.""""""....."...----.-.................- -.-.. --.-..-- ---...-........".."-..-... USES BN1 BC cc-cl CC-F1 FC . "-""""--"-""-"'"""",.""".."""",-"",, ............................"...............-...... ......"...............-..........-.......".................."....."........... """-'-""""""'--""""'" ....--..- ..-.-- _. Retail selling clothing X X """--'""""""""""""""" ......"...... ......."-"..-....-.....-..................."..................."..--.-...-""""'--""""'""'-"""""""'-"""-"---""'-"-","""", ---_. -- .--.... ..........-.-.-.-. Retail selling variety items X X X X '-'---""""'-"'""'--'---"""""-""" ......"...... ......-.....".....-..........................".................... ...................--..-......-.........."....-.....-....-...--.-......... .......--....--.....--.-.......-..-.... .-- Retail selling specialty items X X '-""--'-"""'-""-"'-""'--""'-'-'""'""""'" ......-...... .....................................-..--..-..".............. ............. .........-...-..--.......... .... '-"""'-""""-'-""--"'- --'--"- ..-........--...-.... .....---. Retail selling home electronics X X X X X "'----'-'--'--'----'""-"""."""'. ......".....-..................... ....."......... ...........-............-...... .........-..""-..-............................... ......--.............-.................--........-............--.. . ...---.......... Retail selling sporting goods X X X X --'-"-'--.-...............-..--..-..............-.............. ......-.........--....... ...................... ......-.....................-..--..-.......-......................-..................-..-.-..........-.--...... .......-....-..-.. "'-'--"'."".- ...... Retail selling works of art X X X X ---....--.--.....-.-.-.--.....-........ ............. ......-...... ......"."..... ".............-..-.-......-........-...-................. ...............-.-..-...-..................... .-..----...-.. --.--..... .................-.---. .-.................-..-........... Retail outlet centers X ----.---...-..-.-.-...-....-........ ...........-................-....-......."........-...........-...........................""""--'-'-'---"'-"'-"--"'-"""""""-""""-,--""--""",,,,,,, ....-..-------. ---- -.--.........-- ...........-...-.-...-...... .-...--- Retail providing laundry, dry cleaning, beauty/barber, video rental or shoe repair services X X X X ...-.-.-...---.-......-.... ...................-....-....-.......- ...........-...-.-.....-.-........-.........------...-.........-.....--..-- .--.-- ..--.. Retail providing entertainment, recreational, or cultural services and activities X X X X X --""""""""""""""'----"""-"-.....-..-.--....-.--.-..-...-..-..-.......-..-...........-.---.-.-.. --......--. --.--.- ---- --- Retail providing printing & duplicating services X X .-....-.....-............-.--...... """""""""""""""'-""""'-"-'--"'--'--"'-""""'-""---""-'........--.-................ -..-........-.. .- -.--........--. Retail providing vehicle service or repair X .-.------ --.-..--.........-... --"---""""""-""'--"""'-"--- -...-.....-........-........ -...----....-.........."'....---. --.-.. .......-.....................-- .........-......--...-- .....-.... Retail providing vehicle, boat or tire sales, service, repair and/or painting X .-.-.-....--...-.-..-.-...-..-..-.--...---.--....-.............-......-.........---...-...-- -.-....--...... .------.--... -......-.--.............-...... ..-...----. Retail selling new vehicles. boats.recreational vehicles and motorcycles X RetØ:ll proVìëlìñglìiñìteamëclìë.al; mañufäëiürÍÏ1g servìêes süêl1 as oentãrIãb-Š-;' proi;thë1ìêš;Tãos, optiëã1- -..........-..--- --- ..----. --"X-""-' ... 2ervlçes.....Q.I}Jl....c..~~~..þ'y'...ç~~.~-Þß:~.!.~_._.._"...._......_....--.-...-...-.....-.-....-....."..........-..--......--.-.-....-.-..-..."'-....-.....--.-.--....- ...-..-- --. School (through secondary education) X X X X ""-'" .........-"'..-........-......................."..-.-..-......................-...........-...-....-.--.---.-....-....-..--...........-...... .............-...----- .....-.. -'-"'-' Senior citizen or special needs housing X X X - -...-..-..-...............-......... ........ -........- -...........- ...... ......-.......---...... -""""""""""-"'-""""'-"'-"'-""'-""-"-"'-""""'-"',-"""",,--.---........-. .........-. X X X Social service transitional housing (Type A or (Type A (Type A or -"--.-.......-.............".".................. ................-......-......................... ................-....-...-.-.-..............-....-..--.......--...........-.......--...--..--.....- -_?L- or B) -.....--..--... m Trade school X ..--....--............"'..............--....."......-.....-............. ......-...... ......-...... ...................-...... .......................-.......-..-......."'................-...............-.... """""-""""-""'-'-""'-"'-' ...-...-....-.. --.... ............-....... .............-..-...-...-.. .-... Vehicle service station X X X ..--.-............----.......................... .......................... ............. ............... ............. ................-...... .................. ",."-...",.""""""-",-",-""""",,,,, "'-"'--'-'-"'-"" ......--.--....... .-...............-.-- .............-..-............ () m X :I: - CD ~~ 0 iT1 1:\2004 Code Amendments\Freeway Zone\Planning Commission\021 004 Comparison Use Chart.doc/03/30/2004 9:05 AM - 3 - Citv of Federal Wav J . . J PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting E..-- XH-. \. \ t*- , ,- PAGE q- ~~=--~ , April 7, 2004 7:00 p.m. City Hall Council Chambers \ILL I I Vi \ll\.UTLS e '(\Jl1Jl1]SS¡O]h:rs presenl .luhn ('auilleld, I {ope I-Ider, I )~l\e (J"~lki. I ) III I ¡ Juelos, amI (ir~tIl\ \.e\\porl C(\nllllh,,]OnerS absen\: ¡vIarla .luSlLh h)!ll¡ ami Bill Drake (L\:eused). AI\erna\e ComJl1lss]oners presen\, Chns\lIle Ì\'elsun Lav\s(\ll Bronson, Tony \loore. and Merle Pfeifer, Alternate COJl1Ill]SSIOners absen\: ì\one, C1ly Council pre "en\: Council Melllbers I:nc htlson and .kanne Burb¡dgL', Stajì'presen\' COIllIllUIll\Y DevelopIllent Sen'lces D]rector Ka\hy McClung, e 'UIllIllUIlI\Y [kvclopIllCn\ Sen'¡ces I kpu\; DIrector Greg I-e\\']ns, Assoc]ate Planner Isaac Conlcn, ASS1SLln\ C1ly Attorney Karen Jorgensen, Management ServIces D]reetor Iwen Wang, lratìie Englileer R.lCk Perez. Contract Planner Janet Shull. Jones & Stokes Gregg Dolll~]~~~one'~~,-:~t()~t:~Llsa Cìru(?tt'r,--~l.~l~i~dIllIll]st~'(~tI\~t'~~~]SlclIltJ-'~Jj12~~~y Chall' Caul1ìeld called the mccting to order at 7:05 pm. ApPROVAL OF ,"1I~ITES It \\as /IIi\/c to adopt the \breh 17,2004, minutes as presented ATDIE:\CE Cen"I!':\T :\one, ADi\II\ISTRATI\E REPORT \ls, Wang de ¡\ cred a ptesenLillon on the C1ly o¡' Ì'l.:deral \Va; 2U05 20U() l3¡ennlal Budget. She noted that \vhile the City'S ta\ burden ]S Sed higher than KlIlg County'", the C1ly provides more "enICCS, and :t tax break ¡'or 100\-1IlcOllle sellior e1lILeIE b available, CO\I\1I5510:\ HI 51\ E55 P¡HLIC HL\IŒ\C ,-- Potential Anncxation Area (PAA) Subarea Plan :VIr. ('cll1len \\en! o\'er the staff,; responses to the ('OIllIllISS¡On'S ~lIld publIc's questIons li'olll the IaS\ Illeetlllg, The ( 01llJl1ISSj()I) queslloned where dCcess would be for the Jackson request. Mr. Perez responded that the prImarv access would probably be from 32"" Avenue South, The \Vashl11gton Department of TransportatIon would h:l\'e \0 approve any access \0, tì'olll J 20"1 Street and I l' they a Ilo\\'ed any access, It most I1kelv would be lî!!h\-I11/rtght-out only, Mr. DohI'll addressee! the Kl11g ('OllIlty polleles question r~lIsed dtthe lastllleetl11g, {Ie stated that the sUI't had spoKen \0 KlIlg County about ¡)!,(1\ldlllg a rl'prL'sen\atl\e for tills meetmg, butllegotl~l1]OIlS rcllt!lJ'()l!!!il (Jne eOlleLTn KlI1g ('OUllty has ~Ihnut pn)\]dl11g a represellt~JtI\e IS that the\' are \\orkll1!,! \\Ith the ('1\\ Manager's of/ice on thIS Issue aile! \\antto be sure no IlllseOllllllUllleatlon occurs, KIIl,l!: ('Olll1t\' \\llIllot adopt the ( Ity',s I'A!\ Suharetl Plan, but \\ould \Iew]t. ~llld the p()I¡eles COil tamed thereIn. as adnsor\, 11 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 April 7, 2004 the City feels strongly about any of the policies, the; can enter into neg£XttUøk~g County t~ encourage King County to adopt said policies, P AGE -- ~ ':; \~:: ~ PUBLIC HEARING - New Freeway Commercial Zoning Classification Ms. Shull went over the staff's responses to the Commission's questions and comments from the last meeting, The staff had removed SR 18 from the recommendation and the Commission asked if staff had considered including SR 18 east ofI-5, Michael Tischler - He showed a PowerPoint presentation of the area with aerial and ground photos of the single-family homes on 32nd and 316th. He commented that the last report said one of the goals of the change is to make adjacent parcels more alike. He feels his presentation shows the change will actually make adjacent parcels more different. Del Carlino - He lives on Lake Doloffand asked if the City was planning to annex the area. The Commission explained that this process only adopts future comprehensive plan zoning designations for the area that would take effect only if citizens in the area request that they be annexed to the City, Roy Ruffino - He spoke on the Jackson request. He stated it seems to be an adversarial issue and most neighbors are against it. He commented that off-site mitigation would not do any good in this area. He requested the City consider future relations with neighbors in the area when making their decision, Karen Bush - She stated her opposition to the Jackson request. James Awarado - He stated his opposition to the Jackson request. He commented it would decrease the quality of life in the area, There would be more traffic and more lights at night. Steve McNey - He is with All American Homes and represents the Jackson request. He commented that the Freeway Commercial zone is a compromise for them. They did not request this zoning from the City; rather they want Community Business (Be) so they can build a grocery store, A grocery store would decrease the traffic traveling west on 320th, A grocery store in this area would also capture traffic going to Auburn. They want to do a development that would be good for the neighborhood and the City, He stated they have been negotiating with King County and the County supports the BC zoning. He stated they have spoken with car dealerships and the dealerships say the sign code would be a deterrent. They have heard from grocery chains wanting to locate in the area. He commented that this side of 32nd would not make good residential property. One reason is because of the freeway noise. Gary Anderson - He stated his opposition to the Jackson request. He said that due to Mr. McNey's comments, most of what he had to say has gone out the window. He commented that he wants to keep auto dealerships out of the area. He lives only 60 feet away from the Jackson property, Planning philosophy denotes a gradual change from one use to another. This would be a sharp change. It would reduce the value of the homes in the area. He gave the Commission a petition signed by 52 people opposed to the zoning change, It would impact more than just his neighborhood, It would make traffic on 320th much worse, He feels it is not right that representatives that people in the neighborhood cannot vote for are making this decision, Louise Davis - She is the applicant for the Davis request, She asked if there are any other properties comparable to hers (staff replied the Sutherland Grocery and Gas property is similar, but it is abandoned). She challenged the Commission to consider that property; it hasn't operated KIptanning Commissionl2004IMeeting Summary 04-07-04.doc/L<1S' ponIed 4/28/2004 906 AM Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 April 7, 2004 EXH I B rT~ in years while hers is a thriving business. She spent a lot of money to l!IeJt~er prolrY}f:- ~ commercial with King County and does not want to do again for the cr:u~~!td-notiJè . possible for this to be a residential lot. Bryan Cope - He spoke on the Jackson request. He lives nearby. The City should keep businesses together and not place them out here. An auto mall should go along Pacific Highway near the other auto dealerships- There is no visibility of the property from 1-5 from the south and it would be a distraction from the north. Freeway Commercial zoning would change the City's "curb appeal." The City should work with SeaTac Mall to get more businesses to locate at the mall. Because of the wetlands, developing the Jackson property would be more trouble than it is worth. There is already a lot of noise in the neighborhood due to 1-5 and this would increase the nOIse, Lois Kutscha - Shespoke in favor of the Northlake request. She wants to see the zoning changed from six to four houses per acre. Carla Laslella - She spoke on the Jackson request, She had figured it would be office park, like other properties in the area, She is concerned for the children in the area who ride their bikes along 32nd and 316tl1, She is concerned auto dealerships would bring in transients who have no feeling for the community. She feels access to the site would make more sense if it were from the freeway as opposed to 32nd. Steve Charles - He spoke on the Davis request. As a small business owner, he knows the Davis's look upon this business as their retirement and it would be very detrimental to them to lose it. He commented that the building would not work as a home, Because 308tl1 Place is in the wrong place, according to the title insurance, the property is in the road, Because of this when they remolded, they had to change the setback on the second floor. There is only one bathroom and no place to put a second, There is no place a garage could go. The current building would have to be demolished in order to have a residential use on the property, Pam Ditzhazy - She spoke in opposition to the Jackson request. She lives on the comer of 32nd and 316tl1, She is concerned about the noise and light auto dealerships would bring. She is also concerned about the safety of the children and the increased traffic, Lawson Bronson, Alternate Planning Commissioner- If the Jackson applicant does not want Freeway Commercial, what other uses would be good for this area? Since they don't want it, why pursue the Freeway Commercial zoning? The City needs to communicate more clearly about the P AA issue because miscommunication has caused unneeded stress, The Commissioners commented that the P AA Subarea Plan has been in the works for 1 Y2 to 2 years. Numerous public meetings have been held that have been mailed to various citizens and agencies within the PAA, and advertised in the paper and on the City's TV Channel. Doug Parter - He spoke on the Davis request. He commented that community members do not have the ability to fight policy and that is what this is about. Val Caulder - He spoke in opposition of the Jackson request. A through street to 320th would increase traffic on 316th because people would use it to avoid the intersection of 3201h and Military, It would be a faster way to 1-5. Currently they ride horses on 316th and would no longer be able to do that. KIPlanmng Commissionl20041Meeting Summary 04-07-04 doc/Las! prImed 4/28/2004 906 AM Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 April 7, 2004 4- Lisa Fritz - She spoke in opposition of the Jackson request. The~ð§~s nelg!btrh~t~ currently wonderful to walk along, but this would increase the traffic and they would no longer be safe, EXHIBrf' The Commission discussed the site-specific requests. The Commission would like to know King County's plans for zoning on the Jackson property and clarity on the access for the Jackson property, They would like to know the uses allowed by the concomitant agreement for property to the east of the Jackson request. They would like to know what properties could be zoned Freeway Commercial. The Commission would like to know why the Sutherland Grocery and Gas property is identified as a cultural resource, It was m/s/c to continue the Public Hearings to Wednesday, April 21,2004, in the City Council Chambers at 7:00 p,m, ADDITIONAL BUSINESS None, AUDIENCE COMMENT None. ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 porn, KIPlanning CommissionI2004\Meeting Summary 04.07.04 doelLast pnnted 4/28/2004 9.06 AM ~ CITY OF ~ Federal Way EXHIBIT_S P A.G E___l_- ) ~~ MEMORANDUM April 14,2004 To: John Caulfield, Chair, City of Federal Way Planning Commission FROM: Kathy McClung, Director of Community Development Services Margaret H, Clark, AICP, Senior Planner Janet Shull, Contract Planner SUBJECT: Follow-up Responses to April 7, 2004, Planning Commission Comments on the Proposed Freeway Commercial Zone MEETING DATE: April 21, 2004 I. BACKGROUND The proposed code amendment to Federal Way City Code (FWCC) Chapter 22, to add a new Freeway Commercial Zone was presented to the Planning Commission at their March 17,2004, and April 7, 2004, public hearings. During the March 17,2004, public hearing, some members of the Commission had concerns and comments, which staff addressed in a follow-up memorandum, This memorandum was presented to the Planning Commission at their April ih meeting. At that meeting, the Planning Commission had two additional questions, which staff has addressed in the following section, II. FOLLOW-UP TO QUESTIONS BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION Questions from the Planning Commission are shown followed by the staff response: 1. Planning Commission Question: Can the Freeway Commercial zoning designation also be applied to areas along SR 18 east ofI-5? Staff Response: After the March 17,2004, Planning Commission public hearing, staff had reviewed the proposed locational criteria for the Freeway Commercial zone and recommended that this designation only be applicable to areas five acres or greater that are adjacent to the Interstate 5 (1-5) interchanges with convenient freeway access and visibility. This was a change from the initial recommendation, which had also included SR-18, Staff recommended not including SR-18 because SR 18 extends to Pacific Highway where it becomes South 3481h Street. If properties in this area were to apply for and be granted a Freeway Commercial zone, there is a potential for 25-foot tall signs to be constructed at grade adjacent to South 348(h Street. The maximum allowable height of free stranding signs in that area is presently 12 feet. EXHIBIT S PA<'"3E_~ J)E 3 However, after further study of how the locational criteria could relate to SR IS, staff recommends that only those areas five acres or greater in size that border the 1-5/South 320th and 1-5/SR IS interchanges with convenient freeway access and visibility should be eligible for the Freeway Commercial comprehensive plan and zoning designation. In order to accomplish this, staff recommends the following changes in the proposed locational criteria in Chapter 2, "Land Use," of the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan. Proposed changes discussed in this memorandum are shown as 8trib~€Hlt and underlined, Freeway Commercial The Freeway Commercial designation is intended for areas that are aàjaIJIJnt t€l IntIJfßtatIJ 5 and SR Us border the 1-5/South 320th and I-5/SR IS interchanges with convenient freeway access and visibility. Freeway Commercial areas are typically large in size (five acres or greater). The range of commercial land uses pennitted in these areas is limited to uses that are difficult to site in the city's other commercially designated areas due to their large site size requirements and/or difficulty in adapting to pedestrian-oriented areas. Freeway Commercial areas are particularly suitable for automobile sales, home furnishings centers, and related retail and service uses that require large tracts of land, convenient freeway access, and visibility. This recommendation is based on the following reasons: (a) There are three 1-5 interchanges that serve the City of Federal Way. These are located at South 272nd Street and 1-5, South 320lh Street and 1-5, and South 34Sth Street and 1-5. Mark Twain Elementary School and multi-family development is located on property bordering the southwestern portion of the I-5/South 272nd interchange, which is located within the City of Federal Way, and a church borders the southeastern portion of the 1-5/South 272nd interchange, which is located within the Potential Annexation Area (P AA), The northeastern and northwestern portions of the South 272nd/I-5 interchange is located within the Cities of Des Moines and Kent, respectively. Freeway Commercial zoning would not be appropriate for those properties bordering either the southwestern or southeastern portions of the 1-5/South 272nd interchange, Therefore, only the I 5/South 320th and I-5/SR IS interchanges are proposed as potential locations for Freeway Commercial zoning, (b) Freeway Commercial zoning could not be applied to properties west of 16th A venue South along SR IS if eligible property was required to border rather than be adjacent to the 1- 5/SR-IS interchange. This is because the dictionary defines "adjacent" as being next to or nearby whereas it defines "border" as having a common boundary, (c) Areas north of SR-IS that may be eligible for this designation are presently under the Weyerhaeuser Company control, and are for the most part developed as office. In addition, these properties are zoned Corporate Park (CP-l) pursuant to a development agreement which has been crafted for uses and standards unique to this property, Uses in this area are not expected to change in the near future. Planning Commission Memorandum Follow-Up to Freeway Commercial Zone April 14,2004 Page 2 EXHIBIT S PAGE__-!þ:JF 3 (d) Areas to the south of SR 18 that meet this requirement are presently in the P AA and are zoned single family (R-4, four units per acre) under King County and are proposed to be given a pre-annexation Federal Way zoning designation of single family (RS 9,6, one unit per 9,600 square feet), One other potential candidate for Freeway Commercial zoning is located to the east of this single family zoned area. This property is also under Weyerhaeuser control and is zoned for Office Park (OP-I) pursuant to a development agreement. 2. Planning Commission Question: Do we have a map that shows areas that might qualify for the new Freeway Commercial zoning designation? Staff Response: (a) The new Freeway Commercial zoning designation is intended to apply to property at least five acres in size that borders, is visible from, and is easily accessible from the 1-5/South 320th and 1-5/SR 18 freeway interchanges, (b) This zoning designation can be applied to parcels within the P AA as well as in the City. (c) Like any other site-specific comprehensive plan amendment and rezone request, the Freeway Commercial designation could be applied for as part of the annual comprehensive plan amendment process, Staff has not prepared a map showing all potential parcels that may be eligible for this zone because this may set up an expectation on the part of owners that these properties shall be given this designation upon request. Like any other request, these requests would be subject to the comprehensive plan amendment process, which includes a Selection Process by the City Council, a Public Hearing by the Planning Commission, and a decision by the City Council. I:\DOCUMENlìFrecway Commercial Zoning DistrictlPlanning Commission\042 I 04 Staff Report.docl04/15/2004 I :00 PM Planning Commission Memorandum Follow-Up to Freeway Commercial Zone April 14,2004 Pa~c 3 MEETING MINUTES Commissioners present: John Caulfield, Hope Elder, Dave Osaki, Dini Duclos, Bill Drake, and Grant Newport. Commissioners absent: Marta Justus Foldi (excused). Alternate Commissioners present: Lawson Bronson, Tony Moore, and Merle Pfeifer. Alternate Commissioners absent: Christine Nelson (unexcused), City Council present: Deputy Mayor Linda Kochmar and Council Member Jeanne Burbidge, Staff present: Community Development Services Director Kathy McClung, Community Development Services Deputy Director Greg Fewins, Senior Planner Margaret Clark, Associate Planner Isaac Conlen, Assistant City Attorney Karen Jorgensen, Traffic Engineer Rick Perez, Contract Planner Janet Shull, Jones & Stokes Lisa Grueter, and Administrative Assistant E. Tina Piety. Chair Caulfield called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. ApPROV AL OF MINUTES It was m/s/c to adopt the April 7, 2004, minutes as presented. AUDIENCE COMMENT None. ÅDMINISTRA TIVE REpORT None COMMISSION BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARING - Potential Annexation Area (P AA) Subarea Plan Mr. Conlen delivered a presentation on questions raised at the last public hearing, It was stated that a development agreement is an option for the Rabie property. PUBLIC HEARING - New Freeway Commercial Zoning Classification Ms. Shull delivered a presentation on questions raised at the last public hearing, Because the Commission wanted to know what parcels this proposed zoning could be applied to, she showed a map of the current zoning in the areas considered for this proposed zoning classification, Ms, Shull commented that if this zoning classification is approved, any owner wishing to apply this proposed zone to their property would have to go through the City's Comprehensive Plan Amendment process, PUBLIC HEARING - 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Quadrant Site-Specific Request Ms. Clark delivered the staff report. Commissioner Newport recused himself from the Quadrant site- specific request. This is a request to delete a proposed road from the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan (FWCP). The road in question is an extension ofWeyerhaeuser Way, The City Council required the KIPtano;ng Commiss;onI2004IMeet;ng Summary 04-2t-O4.doc Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 EXHIBIT April 21, 2004 applicant to prepare a traffic study analyzing the effects of deleting thÜ~snAGE~~~F~ . plan. The study concluded that no roadway improvements would be needed by 2020 as a result of the proposed action. Due to this proposal, Mr. Perez asked the Commission to consider amending the comprehensive plan to make 32nd Avenue South a principal collector from South 320th Street to approximately South 316th Street. The meeting was opened to public testimony, Commissioner Duclos infonned the Commission that she had spoken to Steve McNey and encouraged him to bring his comments to this public hearing. Wally Costello - Applicant for the Quadrant request. He explained their proposal for the parcels the road would pass through and showed how the road would be detrimental to the proposed project. There are wetlands on the property that will restrict development and a road would restrict it further. Joanne Kirkland - She spoke in opposition of the Jackson request. She stated that the map in the staff report shows 31th as a through street (from 32nd to Military), but it is not. The report also says that a grocery store would decrease the amount of traffic in the area, but how could adding retail decrease the amount of traffic? She also commented that she recently learned that the P AA process has been going on for some two years, but this is the first she has heard about it. She is concerned that annexation would raise taxes and services would go down. This is a safe area for children and she is concerned that will change, Chainnan Caulfield asked if King County mailed a notification of the P AA Subarea Plan to those within the P AA? Ms. Grueter replied that the issue was on the King County website, but for the most part, the City of Federal Way mailed the notifications. A notification had been sent in the utility mailings. Charles Gibson - He spoke his support of the Northlake request and said he was available if the Commission had any questions. Cindy Cope - She spoke in opposition ofthe Jackson request. She feels there is no need to bring more retail into the area. There is a lot of available retail space in Federal Way, such as the vacant theater and empty spaces in the Mall and Ross Plaza and SeaTac Village, etc. This area is a very private neighborhood that is safe for children to ride their bikes. Opening 32nd would bring more traffic, which would make it more dangerous for children to ride their bikes and would bring in more crime, Steve McNey - He is the Jackson property manager. They want Community Business (Be) zoning because they feel they can best serve the neighborhood and the City with that zoning. They are not trying to compete with the downtown core. A grocery store in this area would decrease traffic on 320th, would proved a tax base to the City, and would provide a service to the neighborhood. They have submitted a docket to King County asking for a zoning change to commercial business, Kristen Wynne - She spoke in opposition of the Jackson request. She feels the proposed Freeway Commercial zone is not compatible with existing uses. If a car dealership were to go into the area, it would mean more lights and noise, She commented that 320th is already a disaster area on the weekends, A more intense traffic study should be done before a decision is made. In addition, in tenns of aesthetics, a car dealership at the entrance to Federal Way is a step in the wrong direction, KIPlanning Commissionl2004lMeeting Summary 04-21-04 doc Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 EXHIBIT Apri121,2004 -'-- PAGE3JE. S Public testimony was closed. It was m/s/c (unanimous) to recommend adoption of the Neighborhood Business comprehensive plan designation and Neighborhood Business (BN) zoning for the Davis P AA site-specific request. It was m/s/c (unanimous) to recommend adoption of the Single Family, High Density comprehensive plan designation and Single Family 9.6 zoning for the Northlake P AA site-specific request. The Commission discussed how the owner of the Rabie P AA sit -specific request could utilize a development agreement. Mr. Fewins infonned the Commission that annexation of this area is not anticipated in the near future and the owner plans to develop soon, It was m/slf(one yes, four no, one abstain) to recommend adoption of the Neighborhood Business comprehensive plan designation and Neighborhood Business (BN) zoning for the Rabie P AA site-specific request. The Commission expressed concern over downzoning the property. It was m/slf(three yes, three no) to recommend adoption of the Single Family, High Density comprehensive plan designation and Single Family 7.2 zoning for the Rabie P AA site-specific request; with the stipulation that the Planning Commission feels strongly that a self- storage/mini-storage use would be an acceptable use on this site. After further discussion, it was concluded that the Rabie P AA site-specific request would go forward with no Planning Commission recommendation. It was m/slf(one yes, five no) to recommend adoption of the Community Business comprehensive plan designation and Community Business (BC) zoning for the Jackson P AA site-specific request. It was m/s/c (four yes, two no) to recommend adoption of the Office Park comprehensive plan designation and Office Park (OP) zoning to the south part of the Jackson PAA site-specific request, and Single Family High Density comprehensive plan designation and Single Family RS 9.6 zoning to the north part of the Jackson P AA site-specific request. It was m/s/c (five yes, one no) to recommend adoption of the staff recommendation for the New Freeway Commercial Zoning Classification, It was m/s/c (unanimous) to recommend adoption, with the aforementioned changes, of the staff recommendation for the P AA Subarea Plan. It was m/s/c (four yes, one no, one excused) to recommended adoption of the staff recommendation for the Quadrant site-specific request with the amendment that 32nd Avenue South, from South 320th Street to approximately South 316th Street, would be reclassified from a minor to a principal collector, it would use Cross Section "0," Map III- 6 would be modified to reflect this, and 32nd Avenue South from South 320th Street to approximately South 316lh Street would replace Weyerhaeuser Way as Map ID #35 on Table III-I 9. The Public Hearings were closed at 8:55. These items will be scheduled for the May 3,2004, City Council Land Use/Transportation Committee, which will meet at 5:30 p,m, in City Hall Council Chambers, ADDITIONAL BUSINESS None, AUDIENCE COMMENT None, ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p,m. KIPlanning Commissionl2004lMeeting Summary 04-21-04 doc FWCP-ChapterTwo. Land Use EXHIBIT- PAGE_____' Figure II-2 The Concept Plan Diagram Concentrate new development in the Highway 99/1-5 comdOC". Develop infrastnlC:wre to support' conidor devetopment. Transfonn retail core into a new mixcd-use Gty Ceratet'. 1 i- 7 " 2003 Comp Plan Update 11-3 FWCP- Chapter Twa, Land Use EXHIBIT_____1 PAGE-2, ,:)F-' RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER LAND USE CHAPTERS 2.2 The land use concept set forth in this chapter is consistent with all FWCP chapters. Internal consistency among the chapters of the FWCP translates into coordinated growth and an efficient use of limited resources. Below is a brief discussion of how the Land Use chapter relates to the other chapters of the FWCP. Economic Development Federal Way's economy is disproportionately divided. Based on PSRC's 2000 Covered Estimates by jurisdiction~ retail and service industries compose more than 70 percent of Federal Way's employment base. Covered estimates are jobs that are covered by unemployment insurance. Dependence on retail trade stems primarily from the City's evolution into a regional shopping destination for South King County and northeast Pierce County. Increased regional competition from other retail areas, such as Tukwila and the Auburn SuperMall, may impact the City's ability to capture future retail dollars. To improve Federal Way's economic outlook, the economic development strategy is to promote a more diverse economy. A diversified economy should achieve a better balance between jobs and housing and supports the City's quality of life. In conjunction with the Economic Development chapter, this Land Use chapter promotes the following: . A City Center composed of mid-rise office buildings, mixed-use retail, and housing. . Community Business and Business Park development in the South 34Sth Street area. . Continued development of West Campus. . Continued development of East Campus (Weyerhaeuser Corporate and Office Park properties). . Redevelopment and development of the SR-99 corridor into an area of quality commercial and mixed use development, . Continued use of design standards for non-singleJamily areas. . Freeway commercial development focusing on attracting and capturing those retail dollars presently being lost to other communities and complementing existing retail uses in the community. 2003 Camp Plan Update 11-4 FWCP-ChapterTwo. Land Use EXHIBIT___.--1 PAGE--5()F~ The land use map designations support development necessary to achieve the above (see the Comprehensive Plan Designations Map 11-1). A complete discussion of economic development is set forth in the Economic Development chapter. Capital Facilities Capital facilities provided by the City include: transportation and streets, parks and open space, and surface water management. Infrastructure and Urban Services The amount and availability of urban services and infrastructure influences the location and pace of future growth. The City is responsible for the construction and maintenance of parks and recreation facilities, streets and transportation improvements, and surface water facilities. Providing for future growth while maintaining existing improvements depends upon the community's willingness to pay for the construction and financing of new facilities and the maintenance of existing facilities. As outlined in the Capital Facilities Plan, new infrastructure and services may be financed by voter-approved bonds, impact fees, grants, designated capital taxes (real estate excise tax, fuel tax, utility tax), and money from the City's general fund. To capitalize on the City's available resources for urban services and infrastructure, this Land Use chapter recognizes that concentrating growth is far more cost effective than allowing continued urban sprawl. Concentrating growth also supports the enhancement of future transit improvements. Water Availability Based on reports from the Lakehaven Utility District, the estimated available yield from the underlying aquifers is 10.1 million gallons per day (MGD, 10-year average based on average annual rainfall). The District controls which well to use, thus which aquifers are being pumped from, based on a number of considerations including water levels and rainfall. In order to reduce detrimental impacts to its groundwater supplies in the recent past, the District has also augmented its groundwater supplies with wholesale water purchased from the City of Tacoma through water system interties. In addition, the District has entered into a long-term agreement with the City of Tacoma and other South King County utilities to participate in the construction of Tacoma's Second Supply Project (a second water diversion from the Green River), which will provide additional water supplies to the region. As a result, the water levels in the aquifers have remained stable, and the District's water supply capacity will increase to 14,7 MGD on an annual average basis when Tacoma's Second Supply Project is completed in 2004. Concentrating growth, along with conservation measures, should help to conserve water. Water Quality Maintaining a clean source of water is vital to the health and livability of the City. Preserving water quality ensures a clean source of drinking water; and, continued health of the City's streams and lakes. Maintaining water quality is also important for maintaining 2003 Camp Plan Update 11-5 FWCP-ChapterTwo, Land Use EXHIBIT PAGE_'" '1-, " '\-1' ß' ------ LUP36 Develop business parks that fit into their surroundings by grouping similar industries in order to reduce or eliminate land use conflicts, allow sharing of public facilities and services, and improve traffic flow and safety. LUP37 Limit retail uses to those that serve the needs of people employed in the area. Commercial City Center Core The intent of establishing the City Center Core is to create a higher density, mixed-use designation where office, retail, government uses, and residential uses are concentrated. Other uses such as cultural/civic facilities, community services, and housing will be highly encouraged. City Center Frame The City Center Frame designation will have a look and feel similar to the Core and will provide a zone of less dense, mixed-use development physically surrounding a portion of the City Center Core. Together, they are meant to complement each other to create a "downtown" area. A more detailed description, along with goals and policies regarding the City Center Core and Frame, can be found in the City Center chapter. Community Business The Community Business designation encompasses two major retail areas of the City. It covers the "strip" retail areas along SR-99 and the large "bulk" retail area found near the South 348th Street area, approximately between SR-99 and 1-5. Community Business allows a large range of uses and is the City's largest retail designation in tenns of area. The Community Business designation generally runs along both sides of SR-99 from South 272nd to South 348th. A wide range of development types, appearance, ages, function, and scale can be found along SR-99. Older, single-story developments provide excellent opportunities for redevelopment. Due in part to convenient access and available land, the South 348th Street area has become a preferred location for large bulk retailers such as Eagle Hardware, Home Depot, and Costco. Due to the size of these facilities, the challenge will be to develop these uses into well functioning, aesthetically pleasing retail environments. To create retail areas that are aesthetically and functionally attractive, revised development standards, applied through Community Business zoning and Community Design Guidelines, address design quality, mixed-use, and the integration of auto, pedestrian, and transit circulation. Site design, modulation, and setback requirements are also addressed. Through regulations in the Community Business land use chart, the size and scale of hotels, motels, and office uses have been limited in scale so as not to compete with the City Center. 2003 Camp Plan Update 11-21 FWCP - Chapter T WOo land Use Goal LUG6 Policies LUP38 LUP39 EXH I 8.1 T_- PAGE__-5 7. ~] Transform Community Business areas into vital, attractive, mixed-use areas that appeal to pedestrians and motorists and enhance the community's image. Encourage transformation of Pacific Highway (SR-99) Community Business corridor into a quality mixed-use retail area. Retail development along the corridor, exclusive of the City Center, should be designed to integrate auto, pedestrian, and transit circulation. Integration of public amenities and open space into retail and office development should also be encouraged. Encourage auto-oriented large bulk retailers to locate in the South 348th Street Community Business area. Freeway Commercial The Freeway Commercial designation is intended for areas that border the I-5/South 320th and I-5/SR 18interchanges with convenient freeway access and visibility. Freeway Commercial areas are typically large in size (five acres or greater). The range of commercial land uses permitted in these areas is limited to uses that are difficult to site in the city's other commercially designated areas due to their large site size requirements and/or difficulty in adapting to pedestrian-oriented areas. Freeway Commercial areas are particularly suitable for automobile sales, home furnishings centers, and related retail and service uses that require large tracts onand, convenient freeway access and visibility, Goal LUG7 Policies LUP40 LUP41 LUP42 Encourage the deyelopment of limited areas with high levels of freeway access and visibility as suitable locations for freeway-oriented businesses to locate within the city in a cohesive development pattern that also meets the community's product and service needs. Encourage freeway oriented uses to locate in Freeway Commercial-designated areas, Encourage quality regional destination retail development through the utilization of appropriate design guidelines and development standards. The development of freeway commercial areas should respond to the needs of consumers by providing for ease of access and circulation and convenient grouping of complementary uses, 2003 Comp Plan Update 11-22 FWCP- Chapter Two. Land Use LUP43 EXHIBIT_- PAGE_'-_- , _Y~1 Create additional development standards to mitigate impacts to neigþboring residential uses. Neighborhood Business There are a dozen various sized nodes of Neighborhood Business located throughout the City. These nodes are areas that have historically provided retail and/or services to adjacent residential areas. The FWCP recognizes the importance of fionly fixed boundaries to prevent commercial intrusion into adjacent neighborhoods. Neighborhood Business areas are intended to provide convenient goods (e.g., groceries and hardware) and services (e.g., dry cleaners, dentist, bank) at a pedestrian and neighborhood scale close to adjacent residential uses. Developments combining residential and commercial uses provide a convenient living environment within these nodes. In the future, attention should be given to design features that enhance the appearance or function of these areas. Improvements may include sidewalks, open space and street trees, and parking either on street or oriented away from the street edge. The function of neighborhood business areas can also be enhanced by safe pedestrian, bicycle, and transit connections to surrounding neighborhoods. The need to address expansion or intensification may occur in the future depending on population growth. Future neighborhood business locations should be carefully chosen and sized to meet the needs of adjacent residential areas. Goal LUG7 Policies LUP40 LUP41 LUP42 LUP43 LUP44 LUP45 Provide neighborhood and community scale retail centers for the City's neighborhoods. Integrate retail developments into surrounding neighborhoods through attention to quality design and function. Encourage pedestrian and bicycle access to neighborhood shopping and servIces. Encourage neighborhood retail and personal services to locate at appropriate locations where local economic demand and design solutions demonstrate compatibility with the neighborhood. Retail and personal services should be encouraged to group together within planned centers to allow for ease of pedestrian movement. Neighborhood Business centers should consist of neighborhood scale retail and personal services. Encourage mixed residential and commercial development in Neighborhood 2003 camp Plan Update 11-23 FWCP-ChapterTwo, Land Use EXHJBJT___- _1 ~ PAGE ., ~JF~ the PAS will not have to go through prolonged environmental review ~an be a powerful incentive for private development in the City Center. - Subarea Plans Over the years, citizens from various areas of the City have come forth to testify before the Planning Commission and City Council regarding their neighborhood or business area. Development of subarea plans can lead to area specific visions and policies. This type of specific planning, developed with citizen input and direction, can lead to improved confidence and ownership in the community. Areas where subarea planning should be considered include: SR-99 Corridor, South 348th Street area, and Twin Lakes neighborhood. Incentives Develop an incentives program, for both residential and commercial development. Incentives should be substantial enough to attract development and should be used to create affordable and desired types of housing and to encourage development within the City Center. . Table II-3 Land Use Classifications Comprehensive Plan Classification Zoning Classification Single Family - Low Density Residential Suburban Estates (SE), one dwelling unit per five acres Single Family - Medium Density Residential RS 35,000 & 15,000 Single Family - High Density Residential RS 9600, 7200, 5000 Multiple Family Residential RM 3600, 2400, 1800 City Center Core City Center Core City Center Frame City Center Frame Office Park Office Park, Office Park I, 2, & 3 Professional Office Professional Office Community Business Community Business Business Park Business Park Freeway Commercial Freeway Commercial Neighborhood Business Neighborhood Business Corporate Park Corporate Park-l Commercial Recreation Office Park-4 Open Space & Parks A variety of zoning is assigned, 2003 Camp Plan Update II-55 FWCP - Chapter Four, Economic Development EXHIBfT. PAGE._- , t ..1 Retail Areas . SeaTac Mall and other regional retailers within the City redevelop/reposition to meet changing consumer demand and become more competitive with other regional retailers. . High-volume retail in Federal Way increases faster than population. . Growth in resident-serving retail occurs in the City Center, existing commercial nodes~ and in redevelopment areas along SR-99. . Neighborhood scale retail development keeps pace with population growth and to an increasing extent, is accommodated within mixed-use buildings in more concentrated neighborhood villages. . Pedestrian-oriented retail development emerges gradually in the redeveloped City Center. . Small amounts of retail use occur on the ground floor of offices, residential buildings, and parking structures. . Neighborhood scale retail development in concentrated neighborhood villages emerges in response to growth in multiple-family concentrations in the I-5/SR-99 corridor and new single-family development on the east side ofI-5. . Old, outdated strip centers along the SR-99 corridor redevelop as a mix of retail, office, and dense residential uses. . The large truck-stop facility at the intersection of Enchanted Parkway and South 348th Street is redeveloped into a retail or mixed-use commercial center. . Freeway oriented commercial development providing for automobile sales. home furnishings centers. hotels and related retail and service uses are located in areas bordering the I-5/SR-18 and I-5/S 320th St interchanges within areas of appropriate size and with convenient access and visibility. Office Development . Offices of regional, national, and/or international firms locate in West Campus, East Campus, and the City Center. . Garden, high-rise, and mid-rise office space, and modern light-industrial buildings increase rapidly in areas with land assembled for business parks and in redeveloped retail areas. 2003 Camp Plan Updates IV.15 22-XXX New vehicle sales. The following uses shall be permitted in the freeway commercial (Fe) zone subject to the regulations and notes set forth in this sectIOn: ~ DIRECTIONS: FIRST, read down to find use. . . THEN, across for REGULATIONS 9 Minimums ~ ~ Required Yards ...¡ " ~ g " -o.t ¡.;¡ "~ cr:: .:" :> .- or> " " ~~ USE Retail establishment providing for new vehicle sales including boats, motorcycles and recreational vehicle RV sales " N i;i3 Õ ,...¡ :;: i\J ~ " -0 i;i3 æ " ~ '- " 0 ... -:> "É1>'g oj l:> :I: <11 c 0 ~ acres 35 ft. above average building elevation Process III See notes 2 and 3 Process I, II, III and IV are described in §§ 22-351 - 22-356, 22-361 - 22-370, 22-386-22-411, 22-431 - 22-460, respectively. USE ZONE CHART 8 '" Po -0<11 " OJ) ... c 'g. :;;¡ " æ cr::~ ZONE FC SPECIAL REGULATIONS AND NOTES Retail 1. The hours of operation !)1ay be limited to reduce the impacts on nearby residential uses. facilities: I 2. If any portion ofa structure on the subject property is located less than 100 ft. from an adjacent residential zone, then that portion of the structure for every 300 shall not exceed 30 ft. above average building elevation and the structure shall be set back a minimum of 50 ft. from the property line of the sq. ft of residential zone. gross floor 3. The height of that portion of a structure located 100 ft. or more from a residential zone may exceed 35 ft. above average building elevation to a area maximum of 55 ft., ifall of the following criteria are met: a. The additional height is necessary to accommodate the particular use conducted in the building; and Oth '. b. That portion of the structure is set back an additional one ft. for each one ft. the structure exceeds 35 ft. above average building elevation; and ern:1se. c. An increase in height above 35 ft. will not block views designated by the comprehensive plan; and determme~ d. The increased height is consistent with goals and policies for the area of the subject property as established by the comprehensive plan. on a cas:- y- 4. Used vehicle sales, gasoline service stations, service, maintenance and body shops, car washes, auto supply stores, hazardous waste case basIs treatment and storage facilities, and coffee shops are only pennitted as an accessory use to a new vehicle sales establishment. 5. Gas pump islands, canopies, and covers over pump islands may not be closer than 25 ft. to any property line, unless located adjacent to a residential zone, in which case the setback shall be 50 ft. Outdoor vehicle display areas and service areas may not be closer than lOft. to any property line, unless located adjacent to a residential zone, in which case the setback shall be 50 ft. 6. Auto and boat body repair and/or painting may be pennitted under this section only if: a. Building layout arid design mitigates impact of dust, fumes, noise, glare, odor, or any other discharge on neighboring uses and natural systems; protects neighboring uses and natural systems from accidental spillage, leakage, or discharge of hazardous material and pollutants; b. All storage, operations, service, painting, and repair are conducted within enclosed buildings. 7. Truck parking, loading, and maneuvering areas; areas where noise generating outdoor uses and activities may occur; and vents and similar features must be located as far as possible from any residential zone and secondarily, from any public right-of-way. 8. Hazardous waste treatment and storage facilities must comply with state citing criteria adopted in accordance with Chapter 70. ï<Ð.cm 9. No use or activity shall be conducted that involves the release oftoxic or noxious gases, fumes, or odors. ~ ~ 10. No use or activity shall be conducted that results in the contamination of stonnwater, surface water, or groundwater pursuant hap, Article IV. I I.The site must be designed so that noise associated with public address systems; vehicle repair or maintenance; and truck parki ad¡øg.er maneuvering; will not be audible off the subject property, based on a certificate to this effect, signed by an acoustical engineer an I d ~e development pennit application. - 12. No maximum lot coverage is established. Instead, the buildable area will be detennined by other site development requirements, i.e., req\tk'ed buffers, parking lot landscaping, surface water facilities, etc. : ,--; 13. For community design guidelines that apply to the project, see Article XIx. Areas where vehicles are displayed are not subject to the parking lot design requirements of Section 22-1 634(b). -- 14. For landscaping requirements that apply to the project, see Article XVII. Areas where vehicles are displayed are not subject to the parking lot landscaping requirements of Section 22- 1567. . : 15. Areas where vehicles are displayed are not subject to the provisions of Article XIII, Section I I 13, Outdoor Activities and Storal... ¡ 16. For sign requirements that apply to the project, see Article XVIII. I LA 17. For noise standards that apply to the project, see Chapter 10, Article II. ~ 118. Refer to § 22-946 et seq. to detennine what other provisions of this chapter may apply to the subject property. .. L For other information about parking and parking areas, see § 22-1376 el seq. For details of what may exceed this height limil, see § 22-1046 èt seq. For details regarding required yards, see § 22- I 13 I et seq. 22-XXX Retail. The following uses shall be permitted in the freeway commerciaUFC} zone subject to the regulations and notes set forth in this sectIOn: ~ DIRECTIONS: FIRST, read down to find use. sa Minimums ~ ~ Required Yards ...¡ <> ;;;¡ ë '" ",,0.. ~ <> ~ Cè .!:: <> :; .- <:3';> <> <> ~~ USE Retail establishment selling household goods and furnishings, household appliances and home electronics (excluding bulk and big box retail) Retail Outlet centers (excluding bulk and big box retail) <> N Ci3 Õ ,....¡ ? u '" ~ <> "" Ci3 c 0 .t .. THEN, across for REGULA nONS USE ZONE CHART æ <> ~ '- <> 0.... .=~ 101)= ,:; .':: :I:"" en <> u '" Q. """" ~ 101) .a .s <:3"'" ~~ ZONE FC SPECIAL REGULA nONS AND NOTES ]. The hours of operation may be limited to reduce impacts on nearby residential uses. 2. ]f any portion of a structure on the subject property is located less than] 00 ft. from an adjacent residential zone, then that portion of the structure shall not exceed 30 ft. above average building elevation and the structure shall be set back a minimum of20 ft. from the property line of the residential zone. 3. Ifapproved through Process 111, the height of that portion ofa structure located ]00 ft. or more from a residential zone may exceed 35 ft. above average building elevation to a maximum of 55 ft., if all of the following criteria are met: a. The additional height is necessary to accommodate the particular use conducted in the building; and b. That portion of the structure is set back an additional one ft. for each one ft. the structure exceeds 35 ft. above average building elevation; and c. An increase in height above 35 ft. will not block views designated by the comprehensive plan; and d. The increased height is consistent with goals and policies for the area of the subject property as established by the comprehensive plan. 4. Assembly or manufacture of goods on the subject property is pennitted only if: a. The assembly or manufacture is clearly accessory to an allowed use conducted on the subject property and is directly related to and dependent on this allowed use; and b. The assembled or manufactured goods are available for purchase and removal from the subject property and are for sale only to retail purchasers; and c. There are no outward appearance or impacts from the assembly or manufacture. 5. Restaurants, not exceeding 7,500 square feet in gross !loor area, are allowed as an accessory use to the outlet center. -n ~ 6. Truck parking, loading, and maneuvering areas; areas where noise generating outdoor uses and activities may occur; and ven~ si i a features must be located as far as possible from any residential zone and secondarily, from any public right-of-way. "p 7. Outdoor use, activity, and storage is regulated by Article XIII, Section] I ] 3. r""\ -r- 8. No maximum lot coverage is established. Instead, the buildable area will be detennined by other site development requiremeðtt, Ie., a4IIoired buffers, parking lot landscaping, surface water facilities, etc. m - 9. For community design guidelines that apply to the project, see Article XIx. I OJ. 10. For landscaping requirements that apply to the project, see Article XV]!. - II. For sign requirements that apply to the project, see Article XVII!. . ~-f 12. Refer to § 22-946 et seq. to determine what other provisions of this chapter may apply to the subject property. ~ ; I L For other information about parking and parking areas, see § 22-1376 et seq. Process II INone 120 ft. 5 ft. 5 ft. 35 ft. above Retail facilities: See notes 2, 3 and average I for every 300 Possible I I] 0 building sq. ft of gross Process elevation !loor area 111 See Note 3 Process t, II, III and IV are described in §§ 22-351 - 22-356, 22-361 - 22-370, 22-386 - 22-411, 22-431 - 22-460, respectively. See notes 2 and 3 1 for each 100 sq. ft. of gross floor area for restaurants -..~ For details of what may exceed this height limit, see § 22-1046 et seq. For details regarding required yards, see § 22.1131 et seq. : ., ~ ... 22-XXX Entertainment, etc. The following uses shall be permitted in the freeway commercial (Fe} zone subject to the regulations and notes set forth in this sectIon: ~ DIRECTIONS: FIRST, read down to find use. . . s: Minimums ~ ~ Required Yards ..¡ <> ;;¡ ë ~ -oP. ¡.¡ <> ~ CI: .::: <> = .- 0"> <> <> ¡:,::¡:,:: USE Retail establishment providing entertainment, recreational or cultural services or activities Golf driving range Process II INone Possible Process III See Note 2--1 Process I, II, III and IV are described in ** 22-351 - 22-356, 22-361 - 22-370, 22-386 - 22-41 I, 22-43 J - 22-460, respectively. <> N Ci3 Õ ..¡ ? u '" ~ <> -0 Ci3 E 0 .t 20 ft.15 ft. 15 ft. See notes 2, 3 and 6 THEN, across for REGULATIONS USE ZONE CHART ~ <> ¡:,:: 'õ Š ~g '0:; ::. :I: <.11 35 ft. above average building elevation en <> u '" 0- -0<.11 <> OJ) .g .5 8"~ P:::P. ZONE FC SPECIAL REGULATIONS AND NOTES Determined II. The hours of operation may be limited to reduce the impacts on nearby residential uses. on a case-by- 2. Ifany portion ofa structure on the subject property is located less than lOa ft. from an adjacent residential zone, then that portion of the structure case basis shall not exceed 30 ft. above average building elevation and the structure shall be set back a minimum of20 ft. from the property line of the residential zone. 3. If approved through Process III, the height of that portion of a structure located loa ft. or more from a residential zone may exceed 35 ft. above average building elevation to a maximum of 55 ft., if all of the following criteria are met: a. The additional height is necessary to accommodate the particular use conducted in the building; and b. That portion of the structure is set back an additional one ft. for each one ft. the structure exceeds 35 ft. above average building elevation; and c. An increase in height above 35 ft. will not block views designated by the comprehensive plan; and d. The increased height is consistent with goals and policies for the area of the subject property as established by the comprehensive plan. 4. No maximum lot coverage is established. Instead, the buildable area will be determined by other site development requirements, i.e., required buffers, parking lot landscaping, surface water facilities, etc. 5. Truck parking, loading, and maneuvering areas; areas where noise generating outdoor uses and activities may occur; and vents and similar features must be located as far as possible from any residential zone and secondarily, from any public right-of-way. 6. Outdoor use, activity, and storage is regulated by Article XIII, Section 1113. 7. For community design guidelines that apply to the project, see Article XIx. 8. For landscaping requirements that apply to the project, see Article XVII. 9. For sign requirements that apply to the project, see Article XVIII. 10. Refer to § 22-946 et seq. to determine what other provisions of this chapter may apply to the subject property. II. Minor and supporting structures constructed as a functional requirement of golf driving ranges may exceed the applicable height limitation provided that the director of community development services determines that such structures will not significantly impact adjoining properties. See notes 2, and 3 and 8 L For other information about parking and parking areas, see * 22-1376 et seq. U III »X G)J: ìr1OO -- l--f :... ; For details of what may exceed this height limit, see § 22-1046 et seq. For details regarding required yards, see § 22-1131 et seq. ~¡:: 22-XXX Hotel. The following uses shall be permitted in the freeway commercial (Fe) zone subject to the regulations and notes set forth in this sectIOn: USE ZONE CHART ~ DIRECTIONS: FIRST, read down to find use. . . 52 Minimums ~ ~ Required Yards ,..¡ 0.) ~ e '" ~~ ... 0.) ~ CI: .:: 0.) ::>.- C"> <>0.) ~~ USE Hótel 0.) N ¡;j Õ ....¡ :ê' u '" ~ <> ~ ¡;j ë: 0 ~ THEN, across for REGULATIONS æ 0.) ~ '- <> 0 ... .<::.3 Of)g .¡; ;::: :I:(/'J ~ g 0- ~(/'J ~ Of) 'S .5 C""" 0.) æ ~¡:,., ZONE FC SPECIAL REGULATIONS AND NOTES I. If any portion of a structure on the subject property is located less than 100 ft. from an adjacent residential zone, then that portion of the structure shall not exceed 30 ft. above average building elevation and the structure shall be set back a minimum of20 ft. from the property line of the residential zone. 2. If approved through Process III, the height of that portion ofa structure located 100 ft. or more from a residential zone may exceed 35 ft. above average building elevation to a maximum of 55 ft., if all of the following criteria are met: a. The additional height is necessary to accommodate the particular use conducted in the building; and b. That portion of the structure is set back an additional one ft. for each one ft. the structure exceeds 35 ft. above average building elevation; and c. An increase in height above 35 ft. will not block views designated by the comprehensive plan; and d. The increased height is consistent with goals and policies for the area of the subject property as established by the comprehensive plan. 3. If this use includes accessory meeting, convention or other facilities that will be used by persons other than overnight guests at the hotel, the city may require additional parking on a case-by-case basis, based on the extent and nature of these accessory facilities. 4. Truck parking, loading, and maneuvering areas; areas where noise generating outdoor uses and activities may occur; and vents and similar features must be located as far as possible from any residential zone and secondarily, from any public right-of-way. 5. Outdoor use, activity, and storage is regulated by Article XIII, Section I I 13. 6. No maximum lot coverage is established. Instead, the buildable area will be determined by other site development requirements, i.e., required buffers, parking lot landscaping, surface water facilities, etc. 7. For community design guidelines that apply to the project, see Article XIx. 8. For landscaping requirements that apply to the project, see Article XVII. 9. For sign requirements that apply to the project, see Article XVIII. 10. Refer to § 22-946 et seq. to determine what other provisions of this chapter may apply to the subject property. Process II INane [20 ft. 5 ft. 5 ft. 35 ft. above lOne for each See notes I, 2 and average guest room. Possible I 18 building Process elevation III See Note 2 Process I, II, III and IV are described in ** 22-351-22-356, 22-361 - 22-370, 22-386-22-411, 22-43 I - 22-460, respectively. See notes 1 - 2 See note 3 LFor other information about parking and parking areas, see * 22-1376 et seq. For details of what may exceed this height limit, see * 22-1046 et seq. For details regarding required yards, see * 22.1131 et seq. -om »x ØI miñ - ~ -- <.) ~ -- ~ 22-XXX Public utility. The following uses shall be permitted in the freewa}' commercial (FC) zone subject to the regulations and notes set forth in this section: ~ DIRECTIONS: FIRST, read down 10 find use. .. THEN, across for REGULATIONS 9 Minimums ~ ~ Required Yards ...;¡ '" ~ g " ""ð: ~ '" ~ CI:: .:: '" ::1.- ""'> '" '" ¡:.:¡:.: USE '" N ü3 Õ ,...¡ :c u '" ~ '" "" ü3 ë: E: "'" Public utility I Process II INane Public Utility ~ See Notes 1,2 and 7 Possible Process III See note 2 Process 1, ll, III and IV are described in §§ 22-351 - 22-356, 22-361 - 22-370, 22-386 - 22-411, 22-431 - 22-460, respectively. æ '" ¡:.: 'õ ~ - ::I "É1g .- ... "'- :I:(/) Public Utilities: 35 ft above average building elevation See notes I and 2 OJ) c :.;;¡ æ ¡:,. "" '" ... '" .- '" ::I u """" '" Q.. ¡:.:(/) Determined on a case-by-case basis. USE ZONE CHART ZONE FC SPECIAL REGULATIONS AND NOTES I. Ifany portion ofa structure on the subject property is located less than 100 ft. from an adjacent residential zone, then that portion of the structure shall not exceed 30 ft. above average building elevation and the structure shall be set back a minimum of 20 ft. from the property line of the residential zone. 2. If approved through Process III, the height of that portion ofa structure located loa ft. or more from a residential zone may exceed 35 ft., ifall of the following criteria are met: a. The additional height is necessary to accommodate the particular use conducted in the building; and b. That portion of the structure is set back an additional one ft. for each one ft. the structure exceeds 35 ft. above average building elevation; and c. An increase in height above 35 ft. will not block views designated by the comprehensive plan; and d. The increased height is consistent with goals and policies for the area of the subject property as established by the comprehensive plan. 3. May be permitted only iflocating this use in the immediate area of the subject property is necessary to permit effective service to the area to be served. 4. If determined necessary to mitigate visual and noise impacts to surrounding properties, the city may require additional landscaping or buffers on a case-by-case basis. 5. No maximum lot coverage is established. Instead, the buildable area will be determined by other site development requirements, i.e. required buffers, parking lot landscaping, surface water facilities, etc. 6. For community design guidelines that apply to the project, see Article XIx. 7. For landscaping requirements that apply to the project, see Article XVII. 8. For sign requirements that apply to the project, see Article XVIII. 9. Refer to §22-946 et seq to determine what other provisions of this chapter may apply to the subject property. C- For other information about parking and parking areas, see § 22-1376 et seq. -um :ÞX G)I m[i1 - ~~ For details of what may exceed this height limit, see § 22-1046 et seq. For details regarding required yards, see § 22-1131 et seq. 0 ¡n -... --- 22-XXX Public Transit Shelter The following uses shall be permitted in the freeway commercial fFC)z:one subject to the regulations and notes set forth in this sectIon: ~ DIRECTIONS: FIRST, read down to find use. . . g Minimums ~::i Required Yards ..¡ dJ ~ e '" ""i:>. ~ dJ ~ cz: .:: dJ ::1.- 0-> dJ dJ ~~ USE dJ N ¡;j Õ .....¡ ë e t.1. Public transit I Process I INone I Public Transit shelter Shelter ~ft. Process I, II, III and IV are described in §§ 22-351 - 22-356, 22-361 - 22-370, 22-386 - 22-411, 22-431 - 22-460, respectively. ? u «I ~ dJ "" ¡;j THEN, across for REGULATIONS USE ZONE CHART æ dJ ~ '- dJ 0 .... - ::I ..c- o¡¡U '¡) S :I:VJ Transit Shelter: 15 ft. above average building elevation o¡¡ c :.¡;¡ æ i:>. "" ~ '" .- dJ ::I u 0-«1 dJ c.. ~VJ None ZONE FC SPECIAL REGULATIONS AND NOTES I. For community design guidelines that apply to the project, see Article XIX. 2. There are no landscaping requirements for this use. The larger site on which it is located is subject to the landscaping requirements of Article XVII. 3. For sign requirements that apply to the project, see Article XVIII. 4. Refer to §22-946 et seq to determine what other provisions of this chapter may apply to the subject property. L For other information about parking and parking areas, see § 22-1376 et seq. For details of what may exceed this height limit, see § 22-1046 et seq. For details regarding required yards, see § 22-1131 et seq. l) IT'¡ þ. >< (.) I m -~ I OJ I - I--I~ I U' ¡-nl' -- 22-XXX Personal wireless service facility. The following uses shall be permitted in the freeway commercial {FC) zone subject to the regulations and notes set forth in this section: USE ZONE CHART ~ DIRECTIONS: FIRST, read down to find use. .. THEN, across for REGULATIONS g Minimums ~ ~ Required Yards .... <1J ~ Ë " ~"'- "" <1J ~ IX .= <1J ::> .- 0-;- <1J <1J ~~ USE <1J N ü3 Õ ,...¡ ::ê' u '"' ~ <1J ~ ü3 ë! E "'- Personal wireless service facility ... '"' <1J ~ 'õ ~ - ::> §'g .¡:; ):: :I:VJ See note I None I See I See I See I Refer to 2 note I note note §22-967 I I for maximum heights for allowed types of PWSFs See note 5 for allowed types of PWSFs Process I, II, III and IV are described in §§ 22-351 - 22-356, 22-361 - 22-370, 22-386 - 22-41 I, 22-43 I - 22-460, respectively. See note 3 <1J ê" u '" ~ c co ....J See INot note allowed 4 on a PWSF OD C ~ "'- ~ ~ '" .- <1J ::> U 0-,", <1J Q. ~VJ SPECIAL REGULA nONS AND NOTES ZONE FC '" c OD ü3 N/A II. For developed sites, the setback requirements shall be those of the principal use of the subject property. For undeveloped sites, the setback requirements for new freestanding PWSFs shall be 20 ft. for front, side, and rear yards. 2. Subject to meeting all applicable development standards, the review process used shall be Process I, except for the following proposals: a. Process III for the following proposals: (I) The PWSF is located within 300 ft. of a residential zone; (2) The PWSF is located on a structure that is a residence or school or contains a residence or school; or (3) The PWSF is a new freestanding PWSF. b. Process IV if the PWSF is a lattice tower accommodating four or more providers. 3. Maximum allowed height for a new freestanding PWSF shall be the minimum necessary to provide the service up to 100 ft., plus any height granted under § 22-1047. A PWSF shall be allowed up to 120 ft. if there are two or more providers, except that a lattice tower of between 120 ft. and 150 ft. will be allowed under a combined application of four or more providers. 4. All PWSFs shall be landscaped and screened in accordance with Article XVII of this chapter, and the provisions of the PWSF development ., regulations. At a minimum, a five ft. type III landscaping area shall be required around the facility, unless the community development services director detennines that the facility is adequately screened. 5. New freestanding PWSFs are allowed subject to height limits and collocation provisions. PWSFs are allowed on existing towers, on private buildings and structures, on publicly used structures not located in public rights-of-way, on existing structures located in the BPA trail, and on existing structures in appropriate public rights-of-way. Refer to § 22-967 for development standards applicable to allowed types ofPWSFs. 6. For all other development standards, see Article XIII, Section 22-966 et al. I For other information about parking and parking areas, see § 22-1376 et seq. -om »x Q..I mæ - ,-I 'I ~I¡;; -- For details of what may exceed this height limit, see § 22-1046 et seq. For details regarding required yards, see § 22-113 I et seq. . .'" 10-26 General prohibition. It is unlawful for any person to cause, or for any person in possession of property to allow to originate from the property, sound that is a public disturbance noise. (Ord. No. 90-37, § I(A), 2- 20-90) EXHIBIT- ,~ PAGE__~--JF: I 10-27 Illustrative enumeration. The following sounds are public disturbance noises in violation of this article: (I) The frequent, repetitive or continuous sounding of any horn or siren attached to a motor vehicle, except as a warning of danger or as specifically permitted or required by law. (2) The creation of frequent, repetitive or continuous sounds in connection with the starting, operation, repair, rebuilding or testing of any motor vehicle, motorcycle, off-highway vehicle or internal combustion engine within a residential district, so as to unreasonably disturb or interfere with the peace and comfort of owners or possessors of real property. (3) Yelling, shouting, whistling or singing on or near the public streets, particularly between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. or at any time and place as to unreasonably disturb or interfere with the peace and comfort of owners or possessors of real property. (4) The creation of frequent, repetitive or continuous sounds which emanate from any building, structure, apartment or condominium, which unreasonably disturbs or interferes with the peace and comfort of owners or possessors of real property, such as sounds from musical instruments, audio sound systems, band sessions or social gatherings. (5) Sound from motor vehicle audio sound systems, such as tape players, radios and compact disc players, operated at a volume so as to be audible greater than 50 feet from the vehicle itself. (6) Sound from portable audio equipment, such as tape players, radios, and compact disc players, operated at a volume so as to be audible greater than 50 feet from the source, and if not operated upon the property of the operator. (7) The squealing, screeching or other such sounds from motor vehicle tires in contact with the ground or other roadway surface because of rapid acceleration, braking or excessive speed around comers or because of such other reason; provided, that sounds which result from actions which are necessary to avoid danger shall be exempt from this section. (8) Sounds originating from construction sites, including but not limited to sounds from construction equipment, power tools and hammering between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on weekdays and 8:00 p.m. and 9:00 a.m. on weekends. (9) Sounds originating from residential property relating to temporary projects for the maintenance or repair of horns, grounds and appurtenances, including but not limited to sounds from lawnmowers, powered hand tools, snow removal equipment and com posters between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on weekdays and 10:00 p.m. and 9:00 a.m. on weekends. (Ord, No. 90-65, § I(B), 7-3-90; Ord. No. 99-341, § 3, 5-4-99) ~2002 Code Publishing Co. Page I EXHIBIT__" P A,G E __LH J F -.2- Federal Way City Code Chapter 22, Article XIII, "Supplementary District Regulations" 22-966 Personal wireless service facilities (PWSF). (a) Purpose. This section addresses the issues of location and appearance associated with personal wireless service facilities. It provides adequate siting opportunities through a wide range of locations and options which minimize safety hazards and visual impacts sometimes associated with wireless communications technology. The siting of facilities on existing buildings or structures, collocation of several providers' facilities on a single support structure, and visual mitigation measures are required, unless otherwise allowed by the city, to maintain neighborhood appearance and reduce visual clutter in the city. (b) Definitions. Any words, tenus or phrases used in this section which are not otherwise defined shall have the meanings set forth in FWCC 22-1. (c ) Exemptions. The following antennas and facilities are exempt from the provisions of this section and shall be penuitted in all zones consistent with applicable development standards as outlined in the use zone charts, Article XI of this chapter, District Regulations: (1) Wireless communication facilities used by federal, state, or local public agencies for temporary emergency communications in the event of a disaster, emergency preparedness, and public health or safety purposes. (2) Industrial processing equipment and scientific or medical equipment using frequencies regulated by the FCC; provided such equipment complies with all applicable provisions of FWCC 22-960, Rooftop Appurtenances, and Chapter 22 FWCC, Article XIII, Division 5, Height. (3) Citizen band radio antennas or antennas operated by federally licensed amateur ("ham") radio operators; provided such antennas comply with all applicable provisions of FWCC 22-960, Rooftop Appurtenances, and Chapter 22 FWCC, Article XIII, Division 5, Height. (4) Satellite dish antennas less than two meters in diameter, including direct-to-home satellite services, when used as a secondary use of the property; provided such antennas comply with all applicable provisions of FWCC 22-960, Rooftop Appurtenances, and Chapter 22 FWCC, Article XIII, Division 5, Height. (5) Automated meter reading (AMR) facilities for the purpose of collecting utility meter data for use in the sale of utility services, except for whip or other antennas greater than two feet in length; provided the AMR facilities are within the scope of activities permitted under a valid franchise agreement between the utility service provider and the city. (6) Routine maintenance or repair of a wireless communication facility and related equipment excluding structural work or changes in height, dimensions, or visual impacts of the antenna, tower, or buildings; provided, that compliance with the standards of this chapter are maintained. (d) Prioritized locations, The following sites shall be the required order of locations for proposed PWSFs, including antenna and equipment shelters. In proposing a PWSF in a particular location, the applicant shall analyze the feasibility of locating the proposed PWSF in each of the higher priority locations and document, to the city's satisfaction, why locating the PWSF in each higher priority location and/or zone is not being proposed. In order of preference, the prioritized locations for PWSFs are as follows: (1) Structures located in the BPA trail. A PWSF may be located on any existing support structure currently located in the easement upon which are located U.S. Department of Energy/ Bonneville Power Administration ("BP A") Power Lines regardless of underlying zoning. (Ç)2002 Code Publishing Co, Page I EXHIBIT_/1 PAGE~'c)F~ (2) Existing broadcast, relay and transmission towers. A PWSF may be located on an existing site or tower where a legal wireless telecommunication facility is currently located regardless of underlying zoning. If an existing site or tower is located within a one mile radius of a proposed PWSF location, the applicant shall document why collocation on the existing site or tower is not being proposed, regardless of whether the existing site or tower is located within the jurisdiction ofthe city. (3) Publicly used structures. If the city consents to such location, a PWSF may be located on existing public facilities within all zoning districts, such as water towers, utility structures, fire stations, bridges, and other public buildings, provided the public facilities are not located within public rights-of-way. (4) Appropriate business, commercial, and city center zoned sites. A PWSF may be located on private buildings or structures within appropriate business, commercial, and city center zoning districts. The preferred order of zoning districts for this category of sites is as follows: BP - Business Park FC - Freeway Commercial CP-I - Corporate Park OP through OP-4 - Office Park CC-C - City Center Core CC-F - City Center Frame BC - Community Business (5) Appropriate public rights-of-way. For the purposes of this section, appropriate public rights-of-way shall be defined as including those public rights-of-way with functional street classifications of principal arterial, minor arterial, and principal collector. A PWSF may be located on existing structures in appropriate public rights-of-way. Structures proposed for location of PWSFs shall be separated by at least 330 linear feet. Within any residential zone, neighborhood business (BN) zone, or professional office (PO) zone, there shall be no more than one PWSF located on an existing structure, Location of a PWSF on an existing structure in an appropriate public right-of-way shall require a right-of-way permit in addition to the required use process approval. ' The preferred order of functional street classifications for this category of sites is as follows: Principal Arterial Minor Arterial Principal Collector If the PWSF is proposed to be located in an appropriate public right-of-way and the surrounding uses or zoning are not the same, that portion of the right-of-way with the most intensive use and/or zoning shall be the preferred location. If the PWSF is proposed to be located in an appropriate public right-of-way and surrounding uses or zoning are the same, the preferred location shall be that portion of the right-of-way with the least adverse visual impacts. (6) If the applicant demonstrates to the city's satisfaction that it is not technically possible to site in a prioritized location, the city reserves the right to approve alternative site locations if a denial would be in violation of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, as determined by the city. (Ord, No, 97-300, § 3, 9-16-97; Ord, No, 00-363, § 14, 1-4-00; Ord, No. 01-399, § 3, 8-7-01) iÇ)2002 Code Publishing Co. Page 2 FREEWAY COMMERCIAL sIE~'B'T- PAGE_-I I~ ';\- -5 22-1601 Signs in nonresidential zoning districts. (a) Freestanding signs, Pennit applications for freestanding signs shall be designated as qualifying for a high profile, medium profile, 6f low profile sign, or highway profile category A. based upon criteria regarding both the size and zoning designation of the development. The sign profile designation shall control the sign types, sign height, sign area and number of signs allowed, Separate parcels or pads for single-tenant buildings that comply with all zoning requirements for single-tenant parcels, excluding access, and are not otherwise tied to an adjacent multi-tenant center by virtue of architectural style or theme, are pennitted one freestanding monument or pedestal sign not to exceed a maximum sign area of 80 square feet for the total of all sign faces with no one sign face exceeding 40 square feet. (1) High profile sign. a, Criteria, A subject property meeting all of the following criteria is pennitted a high profile freestanding sign: 1. A minimum of 250 feet of frontage on one public right-of-way; 2. A zoning designation of city center core (CC-C) or city center frame (CC-F), or community business (Be); 3. A multiuse complex; and 4. A minimum site of 15 acres in size. b. Sign types. The following sign types are allowed for a high profile sign: 1. Pylon or pole signs; provided, however, that any pylon or pole sign must have more than one pole or structural support; 2. Pedestal signs; 3. Monument signs; 4, Tenant directory signs; and 5. Kiosks, Sign content for any pylon or pole sign, or for any pedestal or monument sign in lieu of a pylon or pole sign, may include electronic changeable messages, center identification signs and/or changeable copy signs, Any high profile sign may be an electrical sign, an illuminated sign, and/or a neon sign. c. Sign height. A high profile sign shall not exceed the following maximum heights: 1. Pylon or pole sign: Twenty-five feet; 2. Pedestal or monument signs: Twelve feet if in lieu of a pylon or pole sign. Otherwise, pedestal and monument signs shall not exceed five feet; 3, Tenant directory or kiosk signs: Six feet unless the sign is set back a minimum of 50 feet from any public right-of-way, in which case it may be 10 feet. d, Sign area, A high profile sign shall not exceed the following maximum sign areas: 1. Pylon or pole sign: 400 square feet for the total of sign faces with no one sign face exceeding 200 square feet; 2, Pedestal or monument signs: 128 square feet for the total of all sign faces with no one face exceeding 64 square feet; 3. Tenant directory or kiosk signs: 15 square feet per sign face, e. Number of signs, A subject property qualifying for a high profile sign may have the following maximum number of signs: FREEWAY COMMERCIAL ~IBIT PAGE__2 1, Pylon or pole sign: One sign unless the subject property has an additional 500 feet of street frontage for a total of 750 feet of aggregate frontage on any public rights-of-way, in which case the subject property will be allowed one additional high profile sign, not to exceed a maximum of two such signs per subject property; . 2, Pedestal or monument signs: If the pedestal or monument sign is in lieu of a pylon or pole sign, the number of signs allowed shall be determined pursuant to subsection (e)( 1) of this section, In addition, two monument signs which identify the name of any multiuse complex are allowed, per entrance from a public right-of-way, not to exceed five feet in height; and 3, Tenant directory or kiosk signs: One sign per frontage on a public right-of-way. (2) Medium profile sign. a, Criteria. A subject property that does not qualify for a high profile sign pursuant to subsection (a)(l) of this section and is not a low profile sign by being zoned office park (OP) or professional office (PO) pursuant to subsection (a)(3) of this section is permitted a medium profile freestanding sign, b. Sign types. The following sign types are allowed for a medium profile sign: 1. Pedestal signs; and 2. Monument signs, Sign content for any medium profile sign may include electronic changeable messages, center identification signs and/or changeable copy signs. Any medium profile sign may be an electrical sign, an illuminated sign, and/or a neon sign. c. Sign height. The height of a medium profile sign shall be calculated at the rate of 0.75 feet in the sign height for every 10 lineal feet of frontage on a public right-of-way; provided, however, that sign height shall be calculated at the rate of one and one-half feet in sign height for every 10 lineal feet of frontage on a public right-of-way for any multi-tenant complex; and provided further, that such sign shall not exceed a maximum height of 12 feet and every applicant is entitled to a minimum height of five feet. d. Sign area. For any multi-tenant complex, sign area allowed for a medium profile signs shall be calculated at the rate of two square feet per lineal foot of frontage on a public right-of- way not to exceed a maximum sign area of 128 square feet for the total of all sign faces on each permitted sign with no one sign face exceeding 64 square feet. For other uses, sign area allowed for medium profile sign shall be calculated at the rate of one square foot per lineal foot of frontage on a public right-of-way not to exceed a maximum sign area of 80 square feet for the total of all sign faces on each permitted sign with no one sign. face exceeding 40 square feet. Notwithstanding the foregoing sign area calculations, every applicant is entitled to a minimum sign area of 50 square feet for the total of all sign faces with no one sign face exceeding 25 square feet. 18 >,-.~ e. Number of signs. A subject property qualifying for a medium profile sign may have one pedestal or monument sign for each street frontage. Each street frontage exceeding 300 linear feet and containing more than one vehicular access is permitted one additional freestanding sign, No subject property may contain more than three fTeestanding signs regardless of total linear street frontage and no one street frontage may have more than two freestanding signs, Freestanding signs shall be located a minimum distance of 200 feet from other freestanding signs on the same subject property, (3) Low profile sign, a, Criteria. A subject property located in the office park (OP) or professional office (PO) zone is permitted a low profile freestanding sign, b. Sign types, The following sign types are allowed for a low profile sign: 1. Pedestal signs; 2. Monument signs; and 3. Tenant directory signs, Sign content for any pedestal or monument sign may include center identification signs and/or changeable copy signs, Any low profile sign may be an electrical sign, an illuminated sign, and/or a neon sign. c. Sign height. A low profile sign shall not exceed the following maximum heights: 1. Pedestal or monument signs: Five feet. 2, Tenant directory signs: Six feet unless the sign is set back a minimum of 50 feet from any public right-of-way, in which case it may be 10 feet. d. Sign area. 1. Pedestal or monument signs: Sign area allowed for a low profile sign shall be calculated at the rate of one square foot per lineal foot of frontage on a public right-of-way; provided, however, that a low profile sign shall not exceed a maximum sign area of 80 square feet for the total of all sign faces on each permitted sign with no one sign face exceeding 40 square feet, and every applicant is entitled to a minimum sign area of 50 square feet for the total of all sign faces with no one sign face exceeding 25 square feet; 2. Tenant directory signs: 15 square feet per sign face. e. Number of signs, A subject property qualifying for a low profile sign may have the following maximum number of signs: 1. Pedestal or monument signs: One sign per frontage on a public right-of-way; and 2. Tenant directory signs: One sign per frontage on a public right-of-way. FREEWAY COMMERCIAL~~~BIT II PAGE___--3 -;=-5-- (4) Highway Profile Category A signs. In addition to the categories available in FWCC Section 22-1601(a)(l-3), a subject property may be permitted one of the following freestanding signs if it meets the criteria listed in highway profile category A below, Highway Profile Category A 1. Criteria. A subject property is permitted an additional highway profile category A freestanding sign if the subject property meets all of the following criteria: a. Abuts the right of way ofInterstate 5; b, Is located in a zoning designation of freeway commercial (FC). 2. Sign types. A pylon or pole sign is allowed, provided, that any pylon or pole sign must have more than one pole or structural support. Sign content for any pylon or pole sign may include center identification signs, provided, that all font sizes used are a minumum 2.5 feet tall. Trademarks or copywrite symbols are exempt from the font size requirement. Any highway profile category A may be an illuminated sign, and/or a neon sign, Electronic changeable COPy and/or changeable copy signs are not pennitted, The sign must be oriented toward the freeway (not the off-ramps) and be located near the property line closest to the freeway and be visible from the freeway. 3. Sign height. A highway profile category A sign shall not exceed 25 feet above the elevation of the nearest driving lane of the freeway at a point nearest to the proposed location of the sign, The sign height shall be measured by a licensed surveyor and the applicant shall be responsible for providing the surveyor. If the subject property has an elevation that is higher than the nearest driving lane of the freeway, then the sign shall be no taller than 15 feet above the average finished ground elevation measured at the midpoint of the sign base, FREEWAY COMMERCIAL s~~'B'T 't PAGE_~ ~.~-~ 4, Sign area, A highway profile category A sign shall not exceed 600 square feet for the total of sign faces with no one sign face exceeding 300 square feet. If the subject property has an elevation that is higher than the nearest driving lane of the freeway, then the sign area shall not exceed 400 square feet for the total of sign faces with no one sign face exceeding 200 square feet. 5. Number of signs. A subject property qualifying for a highway profile sign may have only one (1) highway profile category A sign per subject property. . 6, The applicant shall be responsible for coordinating any such sign with the State of Washington Scenic Vistas Act. ~æ Combined sign package for adjacent property owners. The owners of two or more properties that abut or are separated only by a vehicular access easement or tract may propose a combined sign package to the èity. The city will review and decide upon the proposal using process III. The city may approve the combined sign package if it will provide more coordinated, effective and efficient signs. The allowable sign area, sign type, sign height and number of signs will be detennined as if the applicants were one multi-tenant complex. (b) Building-mounted signs, (1) Sign types. The following sign types may be building-mounted signs and are allowed in all nonresidential zoning districts: a. Awning or canopy signs; b. Center identification signs; c. Changeable copy signs; d. Civic event signs; e. Directional signs, on-site; f. Electronic changeable message signs; g. Instructional signs; h, Marquee signs; i, Projecting signs; j. Tenant directory signs; k. Time and temperature signs; 1. Under canopy signs; and m. Wall-mounted signs. Any building-mounted sign may be an electrical sign, an illuminated sign, and/or a neon sign. (2) Sign height. No sign shall project above the roofline of the exposed building face to which it is attached. (3) Sign area. The total sign area of building-mounted signs for each business or tenant, excluding under canopy signs, shall not exceed seven percent of the exposed building face to which it is attached; provided, however, that no individual sign shall exceed a sign area of 240 square feet and every applicant is entitled to a minimum sign area of 30 square feet. A multi- tenant complex which does not use a freestanding sign may have two additional wall-mounted signs. No one sign may exceed seven percent of the exposed building face to which it is attached, to a maximum of 240 square feet per sign. This sign is in addition to any other tenant signs on that building face, (4) Number of signs. The number of building-mounted signs pennitted each user is dependent upon the surface area of the largest single exposed building face of his or her building as follows, excluding wall-mounted center identification signs: FREEW A Y CO MMER CIAL SIËfH I BIT PAGE__S Largest Exposed Maximum Building Face Number of Signs Less than 999 sq. ft. 2 1,000 - 2,999 sq, [1. 3 3,000 - 3,999 sq, [1. 4 4,000 and over sq. ft. 5 18 -5 Buildings with more than 4,000 square feet on any exposed building face, with several clearly differentiated departments, each with separate exterior entrances, are permitted one sign for each different department with a separate exterior entrance, in addition to the five permitted. No sign or signs may exceed the maximum area permitted for that building face except as may be specifically permitted by this code, However, an applicant is allowed to move allotted signs, as calculated in subsection (b)( 4) from one building face to another. Each business or use shall be permitted under canopy signs in addition to the other permitted building-mounted signs subject to the size and separation requirements set forth in FWCC 22- 1599(c)(2)(w). (c) Sign area multipliers. The sign area and sign number allowed, as set forth in subsection (a)(1)(d) of this section for high profile signs, (a)(2)(d) of this section for medium profile signs, and (a)(3)(d) of this section for low profile signs and subsection (b)(3) of this section for building-mounted signs may be increased in the following instances; provided, however, that in no event shall the sign exceed the maximum sign area allowed: (1) If no signs on the subject property have internally lighted sign faces, then the total sign area allowed may be increased by 25 percent. (2) If all signs, other than center identification signs, are building-mounted signs, the total sign area allowed may be increased by 25 percent. (3) A time and temperature sign may be included with any sign and such time and temperature signs shall not be included for purposes of calculating maximum sign area or maximum number of signs. (Ord. No. 95-235, § 4, 6-6-95; Ord. No, 96-270, § 3(F), 7-2-96; Ord. No. 99- 348, § 5,9-7-99; Ord. No, 99-357, § 6,12-7-99) EXHIB'~, Federal Way City CodPAGE- Chapter 22, Article XVII, "Landscaping" 11 2. t 22-1566 Landscaping requirements by zoning district. (a) Suburban Estates, SE. (1) Type III landscaping 10 feet in width shall be provided along all property lines of nonresidential uses in the SE zoning district, except as provided in FWCC 22-1567 of this article. (b) Single-Family Residential, RS. (1) Type III landscaping 10 feet in width shall be provided along all property lines of nonresidential uses in the RS zoning districts, except as provided in FWCC 22-1567 of this article. (c) Multifamily Residential, RM. (1) Type III landscaping 20 feet in width shall be provided along all public rights-of-way and ingress/egress easements. (2) Type II landscaping 20 feet in width shall be provided along the common boundary abutting single-family zoning districts. (3) Type III landscaping 10 feet in width shall be provided along all perimeter lot lines, except as noted in subsections (c)( 1) and (c )(2) of this section. (d) Professional Office, Po. (1) Type III landscaping eight feet in width shall be provided along all property lines abutting public rights-of-way and access easements. (2) Type I landscaping 10 feet in width shall be provided along all perimeter property lines abutting a residential zoning district except for schools which shall provide 10 feet of Type II. (3) Type III landscaping five feet in width shall be provided along all perimeter lot lines, except as noted in subsections (d)(1) and (d)(2) of this section. (e) Neighborhood Business, BN (1) Type III landscaping five feet in width shall be provided along all properties abutting public rights-of-way and ingress/egress easements. (2) Type I landscaping 15 feet in width shall be provided along the perimeter of property abutting a residential zoning district. (3) Type III landscaping five feet in width along all perimeter lot lines except as noted in subsections (e)(1) and (e )(2) of this section. (f) Community Business, Be. (1) Type III landscaping five feet in width shall be provided along all properties abutting public rights-of-way and ingress/egress easements. (2) Type I landscaping 15 feet in width shall be provided along the perimeter of property abutting a residential zoning district. (3) Type III landscaping five feet in width shall be provided along all perimeter lots lines except as noted in subsections (f)(1) and (f)(2) of this section, (g) Freeway Commercial, Fe. (1) Type III landscaping five feet in width shall be provided along the perimeter of parking areas abutting public rights-of-way. (2) Type I landscaping 20 feet in width shall be provided along the perimeter of property abutting a residential zone, (3) Type III landscaping five feet in width shall be provided along all perimeter lot lines, except as noted in subsections (g)(l) and (g)(2) of this section. iD2002 Code Publishing Co. Page 1 fgj (h} City Center, Cc. : ~ (1) Type III landscaping five feet in width shall be provided along the perimeter of parking areas abutting public rights-of-way. (2) Type I landscaping 15 feet in width shall be provided along the perimeter of property abutting a residential zoning district. (3) Type III landscaping five feet in width shall be provided along all perimeter lot lines except as noted in subsections (g)(l) and (g)(2) of this section. fh1 ill Office Park, OP; and Corporate Park, CP-I. (1) Type III landscaping 10 feet in width shall be provided along all property lines abutting public rights-of-way and access easements. (2) Type I landscaping 15 feet in width shall be provided along the perimeter of property abutting a residential zoning district. (3) Type III landscaping five feet in width shall be provided along all perimeter lot lines, except as noted in subsections (h)(l) and (h)(2) of this subsection. (i) Manl/fixtwing Park, UP. (i) Business Park. BP. (1) Type II landscaping 10 feet in width shall be provided along all property lines abutting public rights-of-way and access easements. (2) Type I landscaping 25 feet in width shall be provided along the perimeter of the property abutting a residential zoning district. (3) Type II landscaping 10 feet in width shall be provided along the perimeter of the property abutting a nonresidential zoning district, except MP zones. (4) Type III landscaping five feet in width shall be provided along all perimeter lot lines except as noted in subsections (i)(l), (i)(2), and (i)(3) of this section. (Ord. No, 93-170, § 4, 4-20-93; Ord, No. 96-270, § 3(E), 7-2-96) EXH' B "T PAGE--~ 2. fCt I,. ~ ...-...1. (j,)2002 Code Publishing Co. Page 2 EXHIBIT Federal Way City CodeP AG E H- .. I Chapter 22, Article XIX, "Community Design Guidelines" -¡-.e --_..-f 22-1638 District guidelines. In addition to the foregoing development guidelines, the following supplemental guidelines apply to individual zoning districts: (a) Professional office (PO), neighborhood business (BN), and community business (Be» and freeway commercial (FC). (1) Surface parking may be located behind the building, to the side(s) of the building, or adjacent to the right-of-way; provided, however, that parking located adjacent to the right-of-way maximizes pedestrian access and circulation pursuant to FWCC 22-1634( d). (2) Entrance facades shall front on, face, or be clearly recognizable from the right-of- way; and should incorporate windows and other methods of articulation. (3) Ground-level mirrored or reflective glass is not encouraged adjacent to a public right- of-way or pedestrian area. (4) If utilized, chain-link fences visible from public rights-of-way shall utilize vinyl- coated mesh and powder-coated poles. For residential uses only: (5) Significant trees shall be retained within a 20-foot perimeter strip around site. (6) Landscaped yards shall be provided between building(s) and public street(s). Parking lots should be beside or behind buildings that front upon streets. (7) Parking lots should be broken up into rows containing no more than 10 adjacent stalls, separated by planting areas. (8) Pedestrian walkways (minimum six feet wide) shall be provided between the interior of the project and the public sidewalk. (9) Lighting fixtures should not exceed 20 feet in height and shall include cutoff shields. This shall not apply to public parks and school stadiums. 20. F¡~...".: ¡ (. . &-c. 12 - 1(.3.'1 (a) (10) Principal entries to buildings shall be highlighted with plaza or garden areas containing planting, lighting, seating, trellises and other features. Such areas shall be located and designed so windows overlook them, iþ2002 Code Publishing Co, Page 1 E.. , " X. H' 'I. - , -.... -'. ~ !\".(." c, I~: ' PAGE a 20 --~ Ñ:.:,¡,,' I' . Sœ 22 - 16~ (":) (11) Common recreational spaces shaIl be located and arranged so that windows overlook them. ~....... - ........,...:1 .".....--" ,.. Fit'Utc III. M1'.21. 1(;311 (II) (12) Units on the ground floor (when permitted) shall have private outdoor spaces adjacent to them so those exterior portions of the site are controlled by individual households. F¡glìf\; J9. S,~,. 22 - lfð8 :~ (13) AIl new buildings, including accessory buildings, such as carports and garages shall appear to have a roof pitch ranging from at least 4: 12 to a maximum of 12: 12. «J2002 Code Publishing Co, Page 2 fi~llr( 10 - S<\:. 2: - :63-1$ t..: EXH I fj C'~ PAGE 3 . ~ø . -'I- (14) Carports and garages in front yards should be discouraged. (15) The longest dimension of any building facade shall not exceed 120 feet. Buildings on the same site may be connected by covered pedestrian walkways. (16) Buildings should be designed to have a distinct "base", "middle" and "top" The base (typically the first floor) should contain the greatest number of architectural elements such as windows, materials, details, overhangs, cornice lines, and masonry belt courses. The midsection by comparison may be simple. (Note: single-story buildings have no middle.) The top should avoid the appearance of a flat roof and include distinctive roof shapes including but not limited to pitched, vaulted or terraced, etc. nt:u,t' 21 - s..."', 22 . 16'.\8 «I) (17) Residential design features, including but not limited to entry porches, projecting window bays, balconies or decks, individual windows (rather than strip windows), offsets and cascading or stepped roof forms shall be incorporated into all buildings. Window openings shall have visible trim material or painted detailing that resembles trim, (b) Office park (OP), corporate park (CP), and business park (BP). (1) Surface parking may be located behind the building, to the side(s) of the building, or adjacent to the right-of-way; provided, however, that parking located adjacent to the right-of-way maximizes pedestrian access and circulation pursuant to FWCC 22-1634( d). (2) Buildings with ground floor retail sales or services should orient major entrances, display windows and other pedestrian features to the right-of-way to the extent possible. (3) Ground-level mirrored or reflective glass is not encouraged adjacent to a public right- of-way or pedestrian area. (4) If utilized, chain-link fences visible from public rights-of-way shall utilize vinyl- coated mesh and powder-coated poles. For non-single-family residential uses only: (5) Subsections (a)(5) through (A)(17) of this section shall apply. (c) City center core (CC-C) and city center frame (CC-F), (1) The city center core and frame will contain transitional forms of development with surface parking areas, However, as new development or re-development occurs, the visual «:i2002 Code Publishing Co, Page 3 EXHIBIT .2ø dominance of surface parking areas shall be reduced. TheretPrA~~ parM are~~ shall-d-- located as follows: a. The parking is located behind the building, with the building located between the right-of-way and the parking areas, or it is located in structured parking; or ' b. All or some of the parking is located to the side(s) of the building; or c. Some short-term parking may be located between the building(s) and the right-of- way, but this shall not consist of more than one double-loaded drive aisle, and pedestrian circulation shall be provided pursuant to FWCC 22-1634( d). Large retail complexes may not be able to locate parking according to the above guidelines. Therefore, retail complexes of 60,000 square feet of gross floor area or larger may locate surface parking between the building(s) and the right-of-way. However, this form of development shall provide for small building(s) along the right-of-way to break up and reduce the visual impact of the parking, and pedestrian circulation must be provided pursuant to FWCC 22-1634(d). For purposes of this guideline, retail complex means the entire lot or parcel, or series of lots or parcels, on which a development, activity or use is located or will locate. (2) Entrance facades shall front on, face, or be clearly recognizable from the right-of- way; and should incorporate windows and other methods of articulation. (3) Building facades that are visible from a right-of-way and subject to modulation per FWCC 22-1635(b), shall incorporate facade treatment as follows: . a. The facade incorporates modulation and/or a landscape screening, pursuant to FWCC 22-1635(b); and b. The facade incorporates an arcade, canopy or plaza; and/or one or more articulation element listed in FWCC 22-1635( c )(2); provided, that the resulting building characteristics achieve visual interest and appeal at a pedestrian scale and proximity, contribute to a sense of public space, and reinforce the pedestrian experience. (4) Drive-through facilities and stacking lanes shall not be located along a facade of a building that faces a right-of-way. (5) Above-grade parking structures with a ground level facade visible from a right-of- way shall incorporate any combination of the following elements at the ground level: a, Retail, commercial, or office uses that occupy at least 50 percent of the building's lineal frontage along the right-of-way; or b. A 15-foot-wide strip of Type III landscaping along the base of the facade; or c. A decorative grille or screen that conceals interior parking areas from the right-of- way. (6) Facades of parking structures shall be articulated above the ground level pursuant to FWCC 22-1635(c)(l). (7) When curtain wall glass and steel systems are used to enclose a building, the glazing panels shall be transparent on 50 percent of the ground floor facade fronting a right-of-way or pedestrian area. (8) Chain-link fences shall not be allowed. Barbed or razor wire shall not be used. For non-single-family residential uses only: (9) Subsections (a)(5) through (a)(l7) of this section shall apply. (d) For all residential zones. (I) Non-residential uses, Subsections (a)(5) through (a)(lO) and (a)(13) through (a)(l7) of this section shall apply. (2) Non-single-family residential uses. Subsections (a)(5) through (a)(l7) of this section shall apply. (Ord, No, 96-271, § 3, 7-2-96; Ord, No, 99-333, § 3, 1-19-99; Ord. No. 01-382, § 3,1-16-01) «)2002 Code Publishing Co. Page 4 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY MEMORANDUM April 27,2004 To: Jack Dovey, Chair Land Use/Transportation Committee (LUTe) VIA: David Mos FROM: Kathy McCI , Director of Community Development Services Margaret H. Clark, AICP, Senior Planner SUBJECT: 2003 Comprehensive Plan Update - Quadrant Site-specific Request, File #02-104263-00 UP MEETING DATE: May 3, 2004 I. BACKGROUND The 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendments include four components. The first is the adoption of a Potential Annexation Area (PAA) Subarea Plan, which will replace Chapter 8, Potential Annexation Areas of the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan (FWCP). The second is the adoption oflanguage related to a new zoning classification entitled Freeway Commercial, which would apply to both the City and the P AA. The third request is to remove the planned extension of Weyerhaeuser Way South, north of South 320th Street from the comprehensive plan. The last component is the request by Christian Faith Center for a comprehensive plan amendment and rezone from Business Park (BP) to Multifamily Residential 3600 (RM 3600), and associated development agreement and development plan. This staff report pertains exclusively to the request by the Quadrant Corporation for a comprehensive plan amendment to delete the planned extension of Weyerhaeuser Way South, north of South 320th Street, shown on Map III-27B (2003-2020 Regional Capital Improvement Plan [CIP]) from the FWCP (Exhibit A of Exhibit 1), and to delete this project from Table III-I 9 (Regional CIP Project List) (Exhibit B of Exhibit 1). Attached are the following: 1. 2. Exhibit I Exhibit 2 April 14, 2004, Staff Report to Planning Commission with Exhibits A-D April 21, 2004, Planning Commission Minutes II. PROCEDURAL SUMMARY March 20, 2004 Issuance of Determination of Non significance pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEP A) April 5, 2004 End of SEP A Comment Period April 19, 2004 End of SEP A Appeal Period April 21, 2004 Public Hearing before the Planning Commission May 3, 2004 Presentation to LUTC May 17, 204 LUTC Follow-up July 6, 2004 City Council Meeting III. SITE-SPECIFIC COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CHANGE In September 2003, the City received four site-specific requests for changes to comprehensive plan designations and zoning, and one request to delete a future road from the comprehensive plan. The Federal Way City Council held a public hearing "Selection Process" on November 18,2003, on these requests and detennined that only the request by Quadrant to delete a future road from the comprehensive plan should go forward for further analysis (Exhibit C of Exhibit 1). The City required the applicant to prepare a traffic study analyzing the effects of deletion of this street from the comprehensive plan. A March 2, 2004, traffic study "S. 320th Street North Parcel: Weyerhaeuser Way Extension Analysis" was prepared by The Transpo Group (Exhibit D of Exhibit 1). QUADRANT REQUEST File Number: Parcel No.'s: Location: 02-104263-00 UP 551560-0005,551560-0010,551560-0015,551560-0020,551560-0026, 551560-0025,551560-0030,551560-0037, 551560-0035, 551560-0091, and 551560-00901 Weyerhaeuser Way South would be extended from its existing tenninus at South 320th Street in a northwesterly direction to the future extension of32nd A venue South (Exhibit C of Exhibit 1). The Quadrant parcel is approximately 20 acres Wally Costello on behalf of the Quadrant Corporation Weyerhaeuser Company Wally Costello on behalf of the Quadrant Corporation Request by the Quadrant Corporation for a comprehensive plan amendment to delete the planned extension ofWeyerhaeuser Way South, north of South 320th Street, shown on Map III-27B (2003-2020 Regional Capital Improvement Plan [CIP]) from the Comprehensive Plan (Exhibit A of Exhibit 1) and to delete this project from Table 111-19 (Regional CIP Project List) (Exhibit B of Exhibit 1). Size: Applicant: Owner: Agent: Request: Existing Comprehensive Plan: Federal Way Office Park and King County Urban Residential I These parcels are the underlying parcels owned by the Quadrant Corporation through which the road extension is planned. Since the alignment of the road is conceptual at this time, there are other unidentified parcels that may also be affected. Land/Use Transportation Committee April 27, 2004 2003 Comprehensive Plan Update - Quadrant Site-specific Request Page 2 Existing Zoning: Federal Way Office Park (OP) and King County R -4 (Residential, four units per acre) and R-18 (Residential, 18 units per acre). Requested Comprehensive Plan: Requested Zoning: Staff Recommendation: N/A N/A Staff recommended that the request by the Quadrant Corporation for a comprehensive plan amendment to delete the planned extension of Weyerhaeuser Way South, north of South 320th Street, shown on Map 111- 27B (2003-2020 Regional Capital Improvement Plan [CIP]) from the comprehensive plan (Exhibit A of Exhibit 1) and to delete this project from Table 111-19 (Regional CIP Project List) (Exhibit B of Exhibit 1) be approved. IV. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION During the hearing, the Planning Commission asked who would be responsible for extending 32od Avenue South, and at what time would the extension occur. Traffic Engineer Rick Perez responded that as property on either side of 32od A venue South developed, the developer would be responsible for building the half-street adjacent to his or her property. On Map III-6 ofthe Comprehensive Plan, the Weyerhaeuser Way South extension is classified as a principal collector. Thirty-second Avenue South is classified as a minor collector from South 320th to South 3 16th Street and as a principal collector north of South 316th Street. Mr. Perez recommended that if the Weyerhaeuser Way South extension from South 320th Street to South 316th Street was not constructed, then that portion of 32od Avenue South, which is planned to be a minor collector, should be upgraded to a principal collector. This would ensure a consistent traffic flow on 32od Avenue South from South 320th northwards. The Planning Commission concurred with Mr. Perez's recommendation and added the following amendments: 1. Map III-5: Upgrade 32od Avenue South to a principal collector between the planned Weyerhaeuser Way South extension/32od Avenue intersection and South 320th Street. 2. Map 111-6: Revise the same segment of 32od Avenue South from a Type R street to Type 0.2 3. Map 111-27B: Realign Project 35 from Weyerhaeuser Way extension to 32od Avenue South 4. Table 111-19, Regional CIP Project List: Revise description of Map ID 35, replacing "Weyerhaeuser Way SIt with "3200 Ave SIt V. LAND UsEffRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE OPTIONS The Committee has the following options: 1. _Recommend that the full Council accept the Planning Commission's recommendation and adopt an ordinance approving the request by Quadrant to delete the planned extension of Weyerhaeuser Way South, north of South 320th Street, shown on Map III-27B (2003-2020 2 A Type R street consists of two lanes and on-street parking on either side, whereas a Type 0 street consists of two lanes and bike lanes on either side, Land/Use Transportation Committee April 27, 2004 2003 Comprehensive Plan Update - Quadrant Site-specific Request Page 3 Regional Capital Improvement Plan [CIP]) from the Comprehensive Plan (Exhibit A of Exhibit 1) and to delete this project from Table 111-19 (Regional CIP Project List) (Exhibit B of Exhibit 1) replacing it with 32nd Avenue South and to amend Maps 111-5, 111-6, and 111- 27B as set forth in Section IV of this memorandum. 2. _Recommend that the full Council disapprove the request by resolution, retaining the extension ofWeyerhaeuser Way South north of South 320th in the comprehensive plan. VI. COUNCIL ACTION Pursuant to FWCC Article IX, "Process VI Review," any amendments to the comprehensive plan, comprehensive plan designations map, or zoning text must be approved by the City Council based on a recommendation from the Planning Commission. Per FWCC Section 22-541, after consideration of the Planning Commission report, and at its discretion holding its own public hearing, the City Council shall by majority vote of its total membership take the following action: 1. 2. 3. 4. Approve the amendments by ordinance; Modify and approve the amendments by ordinance; Disapprove the amendments by resolution; or Refer the amendments back to the Planning Commission for further proceedings. If this occurs, the City Council shall specify the time within which the Planning Commission shall report to the City Council on the amendments. APPROVAL OF COMMIlTEE ACTION: Jack Dovey, Chair Eric Faison, Member Michael Park, LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit 1 Exhibit 2 April 14, 2004 Staff Report to Planning Commission with Exhibits A-D April 21, 2004 Planning Commission Minutes K:\Comprehensive Plan\2003\2003 Amendments\LUTC\050304 Staff Report to the LUTC,doc Land/Use Transportation Committee 2003 Comprehensive Plan Update - Quadrant Site-specific Request April 27, 2004 Page 4 EXHIBIT I PAGE , OF-U-- CITY OF FEDERAL WAY MEMO RAND UM April 12, 2004 To: John Caulfield, Chair, City of Federal Way Planning Commission FROM: Kathy McClung, Director of Community Development Services Margaret H. Clark, AICP, Senior Planner SUBJECT: 2003 .Comprehensive Plan Amendments MEETING DATE: Apri121,2004 I. BACKGROUND Federal Way adopted its Comprehensive Plan in 1995 and updated it in December 1998, December 2000, November 2001, and March 2003. The Growth Management Act (GMA) limits plan updates to no more than once per year except under the following circumstances: (i) The initial adoption of a sub-area plan that does not modify the comprehensive plan policies and designations applicable to the subarea; (ii) The adoption or amendment of a shoreline master program. (iii) The amendment of the capital facilities element of a comprehensive plan that occurs concurrently with the adoption or amendment of a county or city budget. Except as otherwise provided above, the governing body shall consider all proposals concurrently so the cumulative effect of the various proposals can be ascertained. However, after appropriate public participation, a county or city may adopt amendments or revisions to its comprehensive plan that conform to this chapter whenever an emergency exists or to resolve an appeal of a comprehensive plan filed with a growth management hearings board or with the court. II. 2003 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS The 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendments include three components. The first is a request to remove the planned extension of Weyerhaeuser Way South, north of South 320th Street. The second is the adoption of a Potential Annexation Area (P AA) Subarea Plan, which will replace Chapter 8, Potential Annexation Areas of the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan (FWCP). The third component is the adoption of language related to the adoption of a new zoning classification entitled Freeway Commercial, which would apply to both the City and P AA. Changes to the text of the comprehensive plan are not proposed during this year's update because the seven-year update was completed in March 2003. The intent of the seven-year update was to ensure that the comprehensive plan complies with the key requirements made to the GMA between 1995 and 2001, EXHIBIT I PAGE---L-OF~ This staff report pertains exclusively to the request by the Quadrant Corporation for a comprehensive plan amendment to delete the planned extension of Weyerhaeuser Way South, north of South 320th Street, shown on Map III-27B (2003-2020 Regional Capital Improvement Plan [CIP]) from the FWCP (Exhibit A), and to delete this project from Table III-19 (Regional CIP Project List) (Exhibit B). The Planning Commission commenced the public hearing on the P AA Subarea Plan and the Freeway Commercial Zone on March 17, 2004, with a continuation to April 7, 2004. They will hold the portion of the public hearing on whether to amend the comprehensive plan to remove the planned extension ofWeyerhaeuser Way South on April 21, 2004. III. REASON FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Federal Way City Code (FWCC) Chapter 22, "Zoning," Article IX, "Process VI Review," establishes a process and criteria for comprehensive plan amendments. Consistent with Process VI review, the role of the Planning Commission is as follows: . To review and evaluate the requests for comprehensive plan amendments; . To determine whether the proposed comprehensive plan amendments meets the criteria provided by FWCC Sections 22-529 and 22-530; and, . To forward a recommendation to the City Council regarding adoption of the proposed comprehensive plan amendments, IV. PROCEDURAL SUMMARY March 20, 2004 Issuance of Determination of Nonsignificance pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEP A) April 5, 2004 End of SEP A Comment Period April 19,2004 End of SEP A Appeal Period April 21,2004 Public Hearing before the Planning Commission V. SITE-SPECIFIC COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CHANGE In September 2003, the City received four site-specific requests for changes to comprehensive plan designations and zoning, and one request to delete a future road from the comprehensive plan, The Federal Way City Council held a public hearing "Selection Process" on November 18,2003, on these requests and determined that only the request by Quadrant to delete a future road from the comprehensive plan should go forward for further analysis (Exhibit C), The City required the applicant to prepare a traffic study analyzing the effects of deletion of this street from the comprehensive plan, A March 2, 2004, traffic study "S. 320lh Street North Parcel: Weyerhaeuser Way Extension Analysis" was prepared by The Transpo Group (Exhibit D), Planning Commission Memorandum 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendments April 12, 2004 Page 2 EXH1BIT_--.l P AGE.-10F ~ Quadrant Request File Number: Parcel No.'s: 02-104263-00 UP 551560-0005,551560-0010,551560-0015,551560-0020,551560-0026, 551560-0025,551560-0030,551560-0037,551560-0035,551560-0091, and 551560-00901 Weyerhaeuser Way South would be extended from its existing terminus at South 320lh Street in a northwesterly direction to the future extension of32nd Avenue South (Exhibit C), The Quadrant parcel is approximately 20 acres Wally Costello on behalf of the Quadrant Corporation Weyerhaeuser Company Wally Costello on behalf of the Quadrant Corporation Request by the Quadrant Corporation for a comprehensive plan amendment to delete the planned extension ofWeyerhaeuser Way South, north of South 320th Street, shown on Map III-27B (2003-2020 Regional Capital Improvement Plan [CIP]) from the Comprehensive Plan (Exhibit A) and to delete this project from Table III-19 (Regional CIP Project List) (Exhibit B), Location: Size: Applicant: Owner: Agent: Request: Existing Comprehensive Plan: Existing Zoning: Federal Way Office Park and King County Urban Residential Federal Way Office Park (OP) and King County R-4 (Residential, four units per acre) and R -18 (Residential, 18 units per acre), Requested Comprehensive Plan: Requested Zoning: Public Comments Received: N/A N/A None ANAL VSIS Background They applicant submitted an application for a binding site plan (Federal Way File #03-102229-00- SU) and SEP A review (Federal Way File #03-102230-00-SE) for development of an office complex (East Campus North Office) on the parcels shown on Exhibit C in May 2003, The reason for their comprehensive plan amendment request is that the extension ofWeyerhaeuser Way South from its existing terminus at South 320lh Street to the future extension of 32nd A venue would divide this parcel. The application for a binding site plan for these parcels has been determined to be incomplete by the City and is therefore on-hold at this time, Neighborhood Characteristics The underlying parcels through which the future road extension is planned are a mix of vacant and single family residential. In addition, the Bonneville Power Administration (BP A) power lines with supporting towers are located in this area, I These parcels are the underlying parcels owned by the Quadrant Corporation through which the road extension is planned. Since the alignment of the road is conceptual at this time, there are other unidentified parcels that may also be affected, Planning Commission Memorandum 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendments April 12,2004 Page 3 EXH I B IT ___I PAGE.-!LOF ---äL- There are no structures on the Quadrant parcels and it is difficult to determine whether existing structures on adjacent properties may be affected by a future road extension, since the alignment of the road is conceptual at this time. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Sensitive Areas The underlying Quadrant parcels across which the road is shown in the comprehensive plan have a rolling topography. Slopes vary from zero to eight percent over the majority of the site, with the steepest slope of 15 percent located in the easterly portion of the site. The site is generally mapped as Alderwood soils. There are four on-site wetlands. One wetland is located near the center of the site and the other three are located in the easterly portion of the site. No environmental information is known about the other parcels across which this road would extend, Drainage The underlying Quadrant parcels are vacant. Deletion ofthe road from the comprehensive plan will not affect drainage. If additional impervious surface is added to any of the parcels in the future through either the road extension or development or redevelopment of the parcels, they will be required to meet the 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM) and the City of Federal Way Addendum to the 1998 KCSWDM. Access The area through which the future road is planned for is bounded by South 320lh Street on the south and 32nd Avenue South on the west. Weyerhaeuser Way South is planned to be extended northward from South 320lh Street and curve gradually westward to intersect the future extension of 32nd A venue South between the BP A powerline corridor and South 316th Street. Noise Based on a site visit to these parcels, staff observed that these parcels experience noise from both 1-5 and South 320lh Street. The extension ofWeyerhaeuser Way South would result in additional noise impacts to the existing residences along the alignment. Potential Traffic Impacts If approved, the proposal would delete a planned street from the comprehensive plan. The traffic study (Exhibit D) concluded that no roadway improvements would be needed by 2020 as a result of the proposed action. Although there is no substantial impact associated with the deletion of this road from the comprehensive plan, vehicular delay could be reduced by a minor traffic signal phasing and pavement marking modification at the intersection of South 300lh Street and 32nd A venue South. Projections for Population and Employment There are some single-family residences in the area of the planned road extension; however, it is difficult to tell if they would be eliminated, since the road alignment is conceptual at this time. Planning Commission Memorandum 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendments April 12, 2004 Page 4 EXHIBIT_- I P AGE- ~JF~-- CONSISTENCY WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES Goal or Policy Comments TPIO, which reads in part, "Protect The deletion of the proposed Weyerhaeuser Way South existing and acquire future right-of- extension to the proposed extension of 32nd A venue South is not way consistent with functional consistent with this policy, However, a traffic study (Exhibit D) classification cross-section (transit, prepared to evaluate the impacts of not constructing this street rail, bike, and pedestrian) needs." on 2020 traffic volumes found that without the Weyerhaeuser Way South extension, the planned 32nd Avenue South extension would accommodate forecast traffic volumes with essentially the same operating conditions within the study area. TP14, which reads, "Provide access The traffic study (Exhibit D) prepared to evaluate the impacts of between major development areas not constructing the Weyerhaeuser Way South extension found identified in the recommended that the planned 32nd A venue South extension would alternative, while improving business accommodate forecast travel in the study area with the same access and protecting City travel times and approximately the same vehicle núles traveled, neighborhoods," Therefore, access between major development areas would still be provided, TP20, which reads, 'Take advantage The future 32nd Avenue South extension would provide an of opportunities to open new road additional route alternative between South 320th Street and connections to create route South 316th Street. In addition, as stated in the traffic study alternatives, especially in areas with (Exhibit D), the planned 32nd Avenue South extension would few access choices," accommodate forecast traffic volumes with essentìally the same operating conditions within the study area, the same travel times, and approximately the same vehicle núles traveled, Therefore, the Weyerhaeuser Way South extension is not necessary to create an alternative route in that area. TP2I, which reads in part, "Enhance The construction of the Weyerhaeuser Way South extension traffic circulation and access with would provide a closer spacing of through streets; however, closer spacing of through streets, with the construction of the 32nd Avenue South extension, it unless geographical constraints do would not necessarily enhance traffic circulation and access. not permit." CONCLUSION The proposed action does not create quantifiable adverse impacts. In addition, the conclusions of the March 2, 2004, "S, 320th Street North Parcel: Weyerhaeuser Way Extension Analysis," which was prepared by The Transpo Group (Exhibit D), and reviewed and concurred with by the City's Traffic Division, found that no roadway improvements would be needed by 2020 as a result of the proposed deletion of the Weyerhaeuser Way South extension from the comprehensive plan, VI. COMPLIANCE WITH FWCC SECTIONS 22-529 AND 22-530 1. Section 22-529. Factors to be Considered in a Comprehensive Plan Amendment The City may consider, but is not limited to, the following factors when considering a proposed amendment to the comprehensive plan: Planning Commission Memorandum 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendments April 12,2004 Page 5 EXHIBIT_- .1 P AGE-l.-ÛF-"--- (1) Tlte effect upon tlte pltysical environment. Deletion of the road from the comprehensive plan is a non-project action and would have no effect on the physical environment. An evaluation of potential impacts to the environment as a result of this non-project action was conducted and a threshold Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS), pursuant to the SEP A, was issued on March 20, 2004. (2) Tlte effect on open space, streams, and lakes. Deletion of the road from the comprehensive plan is a non-project action and would have no effect on open space, streams, and lakes. (3) The compatibility with and impact on adjacent land uses and surrounding neighborhoods. The underlying parcels through which the future road extension is planned are a mix of vacant and single-family residential. In addition, the Bonneville Power Administration (BP A) power lines with supporting towers are located in this area. There are no structures on the Quadrant parcels and it is difficult to determine whether existing structures on adjacent properties may be affected by a future road extension, since the alignment of the road is conceptual at this time. The Transpo Group's traffic study stated that the planned Weyerhaeuser Way extension would bisect the Quadrant parcel, significantly impacting the development feasibility of the site. (4) Tlte adequacy of and impact on community facilities including utilities, roads, public transportation, parks, recreation, and schools. The removal of the road from the comprehensive plan is a non-project action. Therefore, the removal of the road from the comprehensive plan would not impact community facilities such as utilities, parks, recreation, and schools. The traffic study (Exhibit D) concluded that the planned 32nd Avenue South extension would accommodate forecast traffic volumes with essentially the same operating conditions within the study area either with or without the Weyerhaeuser Way South extension. (5) Tlte benefit to tlte neigltborltood, city, and region. There would be no benefit to the neighborhood, City, or region by deleting the Weyerhaeuser Way South extension, However, the associated benefit of the road deletion for the City would be the development of the 20-acre Quadrant site as office and the creation of jobs. (6) Tlte quantity amllocation of land planned for tlte proposed land use type and density and tlte demand for suclt land. The removal of the road from the comprehensive plan is a non-project action; therefore, this criterion is not applicable, Planning Commission Memorandum 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendments April 12,2004 Page 6 EXHIBIT_1 P AGE ,~) F --Jf,I- (7) Tlte current and projected population density in tlte area. The removal of the road from the comprehensive plan is a non-project action; therefore, this criterion is not applicable. (8) The effect upon other aspects of the comprehensive plan. There should not be any adverse impacts on the comprehensive plan as a result of the proposed road deletion from the comprehensive plan. 2. Section 22-530. Criteria for Amending the Comprehensive Plan The City may amend the comprehensive plan only ifit finds that: (1) Tlte proposed amendment bears a substantial relationsltip to public healtlt, safety, or welfare Deleting the Weyerhaeuser Way South extension from the comprehensive plan would not affect the public health, safety, or welfare. The construction of the Weyerhaeuser Way South extension would provide a closer spacing of through streets, however, with the construction of the 32nd Avenue South extension, it would not necessarily enhance traffic circulation and access. In addition; the traffic study (Exhibit D) concluded that the planned 32nd Avenue South extension would accommodate forecast traffic volumes with essentially the same operating conditions within the study area, either with or without the Weyerhaeuser Way South extension, AND (2) Tlte proposed amendment is in tlte best interest of the residents oftlte city. Please see response under (1), above. However, a potential benefit of the road deletion for the City would be the development ofthe 20-acre Quadrant site and the creation of jobs, (3) Tlte proposed amendment is consistent witlt tlte requirements of RCW 36. 70A and witlt tlte portion oftlte city's adopted plan not affected by tlte amendment. RCW Chapter 36,70A, the Growth Management Act, requires the City of Federal Way to adopt and implement a comprehensive plan and to amend it in a timely manner, but no more than once a year, except under certain circumstances. The City is responding to this mandate by updating the comprehensive plan. The proposed deletion of the road is consistent with the remainder of the comprehensive plan. VII. COMPLIANCE WITH FWCC SECTION 22-488(c) (1) The city may approve the application only if it finds that: a. Tlte proposed request is in tlte best interests of tlte residents of tlte city; Planning Commission Memorandum 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendments April 12,2004 Page 7 EXHIBIT.---l P AGE -1-C) F -'- The construction of the Weyerhaeuser Way South extension would provide a closer spacing of through streets, However, with the construction of the 32"d A venue South extension, the extension would not necessarily enhance traffic circulation and access, In addition, the traffic study (Exhibit D) concluded that the planned 32nd A venue South extension would accommodate forecast traffic volumes with essentially the same operating conditions within the study area, either with or without the Weyerhaeuser Way South extension. Consequently, the deletion of the Weyerhaeuser Way South extension from the comprehensive plan should have no effect on residents of the City, However, a potential benefit of the road deletion for the City would be the development of the 20-acre Quadrant site and the creation of joþs. AND b. The proposed request is appropriate because either: i. Conditions in the immediate vicinity of the subject property have so significantly changed since the property was given its present zoning and that, under those changed conditions, a change in designation is within the public interest; Since the property was annexed in January 9, 1999, a number of large office buildings and corporate headquarters have been constructed south of South 320th Street in East Campus. Development of offices on this site is a logical extension for high quality office park development. The Transpo Group's traffic study stated that the planned Weyerhaeuser Way South extension would bisect the parcel, significantly impacting the development feasibility of the site, OR ii. The change in designation will correct a designation that was inappropriate when established. This criterion is not applicable, c. It is consistent with the comprehensive plan,' The following comprehensive plan policies support the future construction of the Weyerhaeuser Way South extension, TPIO Protect existing and acquire future right-of-way consistent with functional classification cross section (transit, rail, bike, and pedestrian) needs,... TPI4 Provide access between major development areas identified in the recommended alternative, while improving business access and protecting City neighborhoods. TP20 Take advantage of opportunities to open new road connections to create route alternatives, especially in areas with few access choices, Planning Commission Memorandum 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendments April 12, 2004 Page 8 EXHIBIT__-J P AGE --~. i r..---., -It-'- TP21 Enhance traffic circulation and access with closer spacing of through streets, unless geographical constraints do not pennit.... The construction of the Weyerhaeuser Way South extension would provide a closer spacing of through streets, However, with the construction of the 32nd Avenue South extension, it would not necessarily enhance traffic circulation and access. In addition, The Transpo Group Traffic Study (Exhibit D) concluded that the planned 32nd Avenue South extension would accommodate forecast traffic volumes with essentially the same operating conditions within the study area, either with or without the Weyerhaeuser Way South extension, d. It is consistent with all applicable provisions of tlte chapter, including those adopted by reference from the comprehensive plan; There are no regulations in FWCC Chapter 22, "Zoning," that require street connectivity or specify block perimeter standards. However, Transportation Policy TP21 of the FWCP states, "Enhance traffic circulation and access with closer spacing of through streets, unless geographical constraints do not permit.. .." AND e. It is consistent with the public health, safety, and welfare. The March 2, 2004, Transpo Group Traffic Study concluded that with the construction of the 32nd Avenue South extension, the Weyerhaeuser Way South extension would not be necessary, as it would not enhance traffic circulation and access, Therefore, the deletion of the road from the comprehensive plan would be consistent with the public health, safety, and welfare. (2) The city may approve an application for a quasi-judicial project related rezone only if it finds that: a. b. The criteria in subsection (1) above are met; AND The proposed project complies with this chapter in all respects; AND The site plan of the proposed project is designed to minimize all adverse impacts on the developed properties in the immediate vicinity of the subject property; AND The site plan is designed to minimize impacts upon the public services and utilities. c. d. The request under consideration is for an amendment to the comprehensive plan to delete a road, It is not a project-related rezone, and therefore, the criteria under this section do not apply. VIII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the request by the Quadrant Corporation for a comprehensive plan amendment to delete the planned extension ofWeyerhaeuser Way South, north of South 320lh Street, shown on Map III-27B (2003-2020 Regional Capital Improvement Plan [CIP]) from the comprehensive plan (Exhibit A) and to delete this project from Table III-19 (Regional CIP Project List) (Exhibit B) be approved. Planning Commission Memorandum 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendments April 12, 2004 Page 9 IX. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION EXHIBIT--!- _._1 p AGE-Ul-O~~~ Consistent with the provisions of FWCC Section 22-539, the Planning Commission may take the following actions regarding the proposed comprehensive plan amendment: Recommend to City Council adoption of the proposed comprehensive plan amendment as proposed; 2. Recommend to City Council that the proposed comprehensive plan amendment not be adopted; 3. Forward the proposed comprehensive plan amendment to City Council without a recommendation; or 4. Modify the proposed comprehensive plan amendment and recommend to City Council adoption of the amendment as modified. LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D Map III-27B (2003-2020 Regional Capital Improvement Plan [Crp]) of the FWCP Table III-19 (Regional CIP Project List) of the FWCP Map Showing Conceptual Alignment of Proposed Extension ofWeyerhaeuser Way South March 2,2004, Technical Report, "S. 320th Street North Parcel: Weyerhaeuser Way Extension Analysis" 1:\2003 Comprehensive PlanlPlanning Commission\042 I 04 Report 10 Planning Commision.docl04/15/2oo4 I :04 PM Planning Commission Memorandum 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendments April 12,2004 Page 10 +. Puget Sound /'-- "",...J ~ a.y " to... ---~~~ ~~ ~ CliY OF FEDERAL WAY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 2003-2020 REGIONAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT /".,;' Federal Way City Limits Potential Annexation Area Street Improvement Projects Non Motorized Improvement Projects Intersection Improvement Project Transit Station Project /'/ ~ è~.. ~. ~ . . @ Map Identification Number -c m "'tJ m »X »X G) :I:" G> :I: m roo m ffi I - ~- 1... ~ ~ ,í' \ -SCALE- " , 1 Inch equals 5,SOt:ll. 0 ,--- ' Map printed February 2003 ~~ Federal Way Project Number 92-21 95-17 95-02 02-01 98-25 98-08 01-02 98-05 93-09 01-05 94-24 93-08 95-03 92-20 02-04 92-23 92-14 98-01 99-06 00-12 00-08 98-15 00-09 97-01 00-02 98-34 98-32 98-17 98-23 93-O7c 98-13 94-10 94-11 98-18 98-57 98-58 00-10 98-24 92-22 98-39 98-21 94-17 94-22 95-07 EXHIBIT~ PAGE . 11 aF ~ Table ///-19 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) S 2009 to 2020 Map ID 2000 :-:<~.'.' ,,::'CA~ITAL PROjE~,;"¿~~; ,:' ,':'~'>¡:"i;~:f\:~\;f": '::.~. 96-04 .~ 's 352,ilSI: SR 99 - Sf{ 1(,]: blend 3~anc principal collector, signal al SR99 2 S 336'" St: 18'" Ave S - Weyerhaeuser Way S: Widen to 3 lanes 3 SR 99: S 340'" St - S 356'" St: Construct HOV lanes, add WB right-turn lane, 2nd SB left-turn lane (âJ 3481h S 312"'St: 23'" AveS-28'" AveS: Widen t051anes S 320'" St @J 1-5: Add HOV lanes on S 320'" St S 348'" St: 1St Ave S -9'" Ave S: Add HOV lanes S 320'" St: 1St Ave S -8'" Ave S: Add HOV lanes S 3161H At@J 2O'" Ave S: Signal modifications 9 S 324'" St: SR 99 - 23'" Ave S: Widen to 5 lanes, add 3'" WB left-turn lane @J SR 99 1St Ave S: 5 366'" St- SR 99: Extend 2-lane road SR 99 (âJ S 312'" St: Add NB 2'" left-turn lanes 14'" Ave S: S 312'" St-S 316'" 5t: Ring Road extension S 316'" St: SR 99 - II" PI S: ring Road extension S 312'" St: 28'" Ave S - Military Rd: Extend 5-lane arterial, interchange @ 1-5 15 SW 320'" St (âJ 47'" Ave SW: Signalize 16 SR 18 @ SR 161: Add 3'" SB thm lane, 3'" SB left-turn lane, 2'" NB right- turn lane S 304'" St: SR 99 -28'" Ave S: Widen to 3 lanes Military Rd S: S Star Lk Rd - S 288'" St: Widen to 5 lanes S 304"' St (âJ SR 99: Add left-turn lanes on 304'" SR 99 @ S 336" St: Add 2nd EB and SB left lane, widen 336'" to 5 lanes to 2O"' S 308'" St: 14'" Ave S 18'" Ave S: widen to 3 lanes 22 SW 336'" StlCampus Dr @ 21St Ave SW: Add 2'" LT lanes EB, WB, NB, and SB; add WB right-turn lane 23 Military Rd S: S 288"' St -1-5 (S): Widen to 5 lanes 24 5W 320'" St: 21St Ave SW - 26"' Ave SW: Signal modifications and interconnect 25 5W Campus Dr & SW 340" St: 10'" Ave SW - Hoyt Rd SW: Signal coordination 5312"' St (âJ 28" Ave S: Add SB right-turn lane 5W 320.' St (âJ 21St Ave SW: Add 2nd WB left-turn lane 13"' PI S: S 330" St - S 336'" St: Extend 3 lane collector 5 Star Lk Rd: S 272"" St - Military Rd S: Widen to 3 lanes 47'" Ave SW: SR 509 - SW 32O"' St: Widen to 3 lanes 21St Ave SW: SW 344'" St- SW 356'" SI: Widen to 5 lanes 32 5W 344' St & 35" Ave SW: 21St Ave SW - SW 34O"' 51: Bike lanes, sidewalks SR 509: 1St Ave S - SR 99: Widen to 3 lanes S 308'" St: 5"' PI 5 - 80. Ave S: Extend 2-lane street 28'" Ave SIS 317" St: S 304'" 5t - 23'" Ave 5: Widen to 3 lanes SR 509: 3O"' Ave SW - 47"' Ave SW: Widen to 3 lanes SR 509: 47'" Ave SW - West City Limits: Widen to 3 lanes SW 33O' St (âJ 1St Ave S: Signal modifications, extend NB left-turn lane Hoyt Rd SW: SW 320 . St - SW 340.' SI: Widen to 3 lanes I St Ave S: S 3480. St - S 356 . St: Widcn to 5 lanes 1St AveS: SW 30lSt St-SW 312" SI: Widen t031anes 5333"' St: 8 . Ave S - 13 . PI S: Extend 3 lane street 5R 509: 1St Ave S -21St Ave SW: Widen to 3 lanes S 336' SI: 9"' AveS -13"' AveS: Widen to 5 lanes S 288"' St: SR 99 - Military Rd S: Widen to 5 lanes Project Description Cost Cumulative Totals " ' ',',", I',." ':~ ""'::',~ :~.::~:~:;~~~~' .'; .--- 4 5 6 7 8 4,066,000 1,200,000 12,096,000 2,856,000 4,104,000 5,174,000 5,174,000 100,000 2,200,000 3,328,000 1,680,000 4,066,000 6,160,000 23,894,000 180,000 1,080,000 2,376,000 5,280,000 432,000 761,000 1,173,000 1,680,000 14,280,000 100,000 10 II 12 13 14 17 18 19 20 21 26 27 28 29 30 31 210,000 120,000 720,000 3,024,000 1,280,000 1,600,000 1,875,000 2,620,000 8,000,000 1,440,000 4,200,000 6,400,000 6,400,000 250,000 7,200,000 1,584,000 3,600,000 4,752,000 7,200,000 1,152,000 1,540,000 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 EXHIBIT P A.G E I 4,066,000 5,266,000 17,362,000 20,218,000 24,322,000 29,496,000 34,670,000 34,770,000 36,970,000 40,298,000 41,978,000 46,044,000 52,204,000 76,098,000 76,278,000 77,358,000 79,734,000 85,014,000 85,446,000 86,207,000 87,380,000 89,060,000 103,340,000 103,440,000 103,650,000 103,770,000 104,490,000 107,514,000 108,794,000 110,394,000 112,269,000 114,889,000 122,889,000 124,329,000 128,529,000 134,929,000 141,329,000 141,579,000 148,779,000 150,363,000 153,963,000 158,715,000 165,915,000 167,067,000 168,607,000 , ..8-tLL ...- 3 "Y- EXHIBIT I P AGE-1¡ ~E~ Project Map 2000 Cumulative Number ID Project Description Cost Totals 98-19 46 S 308"' SI: 8ú, Ave S - 14th Ave S: Install curb, gutter, sidewalks 1584,000 170,191,000 98-26 47 S 320 ' St (â! 5"' Ave S: Sionalization 200,000 170,391,000 98-29 48 SW 320' St(á II" Ave SW: Signalization 180,000 170,571,000 98-28 49 SW 320th St fa 7th Ave SW: Signalization 180,000 170,751,000 98-30 50 10'" Ave SW ~ 'iJ, SW 334'" SI: Signalization 180,000 170,931,000 98-07 51 SW 336'" Wy & SW 340m St: 26m Ave SW - Hoyt Rd SW: Widen to 5 4,840,000 175,771,000 lanes 98-20 52 S 312"'SI: 1" AveS-14"' AveS: Widen to 5 lanes 5,082,000 180,853,000 00-15 53 SW Campus Dr@ 19"' Ave SW: Modify signal, increase curb return 200,000 181,053,000 radius 93-12 54 SR 509 (ZiJ 47"' Ave SW: Add turn lanes, realign SR 509 1,100,000 182,153,000 98-31 55 SW 356' St (ZiJ 13ú, Wy SW/14'" Ave SW: Signalization 180,000 182,333,000 98-27 56 1" Wy S (ZiJ S 333m SI: Signalization 180,000 182,513,000 00-07 57 S 348'" St (ZiJ 9'" Ave S: Add 2'" SB left-turn lane 360,000 182,873,000 01-03 58 SR 509 (ZiJ 26m PI SW: Add WB left-turn lane 420,000 183,293,000 00-16 59 SR 99 (ZiJ Spring Valley Montessori School: Add NB left-turn lane 750,000 184,043,000 92-11 60 SW Campus Dr: 1" Ave S - 10m Ave SW: Widen lanes/sidewalk 1,540,000 185,583,000 93-O7a 61 21" AveSW: SW 312"'St-SW 320"'St: Widen to 5 lanes 2,200,000 187,783,000 98-14 62 S 288"' St: Military Rd S - 1-5: Widen to 5 lanes 1,400,000 189,183,000 I. SU~~~TAL - - 111'),183.000 ..._,.~--- .._=~-_...----- '-"---'-. .-= -,..,.,.~= , .. ' ',', ..,'1;". ¡ ,'., " NON-MOTORIZED CAPITAL PROJECT LIST ':" 9R-10 98-39 98-42 (d 64 65 9(,0,000 3,072,000 720,000 <¡(,(),OOO 4,032,000 4,752,000 SUDTOTAL 4,752,000 ...,==_. " ..-.-. '~==-. TOTAl, CITY EXI'I:J\I>ITlJRES 193,935,000 ..m .~_."'_."'--- y.~~~-"..~=~-'- ..._~~--~. ._-_.~-_.~.~- '..." .'.'. '.. ""'. "/C" .. .~ REGIONAL CIP PROJECT LIST 94-09 1 SR 99: S 272'" St - S 284" SI: Add HOY lanes 9,632,000 9,632,000 01-07 2 S 272"" St (ZiJ 1-5: Add 2'" EB left-turn lane, WB right-turn lane 6,702,000 16,334,000 00-21 3 1-5: S 32O"' St- SR 18: Add BOV lanes 40,000,000 56,334,000 00-19 4 1-5: SR 18 - SR 99: Add HOY lanes 60,000,000 116,334,000 02-05 5 51" Ave S (â! S 316'" SI: Signalize 180,000 116,514,000 02-06 6 S 321" St (ZiJ 44' Ave S/46ú, PI S: Signalize 180,000 116,694,000 98-47 7 SR 18 WB ramns (ZìJ Weyerhaeuser Wy S: Signalize 400,000 117,094,000 94-20 8 Park & Ride and Transit Center: SR 99 vicinity S 272'" SI 10,440,080 127,534,080 94-19 9 Park & Ride and Transit Center: SR 161 vicinity S 356ú, SI 10,440,080 137,974,160 02-07 10 S 272"" St (ZiJ 42"" Ave S: Signalize 180,000 138,154,160 02-08 II 51" Ave S @.S 296"' SI: Signalize 180,000 138,334,160 95-31 b 12 Military Rd S: S 272'" St - S star Lk Rd: Widen to 5 lanes 5,544,000 143,878,160 94-18 13 City Center Transit Center 44,000,000 187,878,160 98-44 14 S 320" SI: 1-5 - Peasley Canyon Rd: Add flaY lanes 4,032,000 191,910,160 98-49 15 SR 99 (ZìJ S 279" St: recon(ìgure intersection, signalize 1,260,000 193,170,160 98-50 16 S 288ú, St@. 51" Ave S: Add WB left-turn lane 360,000 193,530,160 95-18 17 SR 18: W Valley Ilwy - Weyerhaeuser Wy S: WB truck climb lane 10,000,000 203,530,160 94-03 18 1-5 (ZìJ SR 161: Construct interchange & reconfigure SR 18 interchange 150,000,000 353,530,160 00-24 19 SR 18: SR 161- SR 167: Add HOV lanes 50,000,000 403,530,160 98-43a 20 Military Rd (iij S 272'" St: Add SB and EB right-turn lanes 432,000 403,962,160 01-06 21 S 360'" St@.28 ' Ave S: Add left-turn lanes, signalize 1,440,000 405,402,160 EXHIBIT B-J-J- PAGE- 2. ~-;: ---,-. Project Number 98-46 94-04 00-22 95-05 95-24 95-31a 95-26 95-28 98-55 98-20 95-21 98-60 98-61 ~ 98-51 98-48 98-53 98-52 96-04 98-45 98-43b 98-50 95-54 00-25 00-26 95-31 95-32 95-33 Map ID 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 ~ 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 Project Descrintion 5272"" 5t: 5R 99 ... Military Rd 5: Add HOV lanes 5 336"' Transit Center (S 336 ' (àJ 5R 99) SR 161: Milton Rd S - Military Rd S: Widen to 5 lanes 5312"' St: Military Rd - 51" Ave S: Extend 5 lane arterial with bike lanes, sidewalks 5 272"d St (àJ S Star Lk Rd: construct left-turn lane Military Rd S: S 26O"' St... S 272"" St: Widen to 5 lanes S 32O"' St (àJ Military Rd S: Add EB, WB right-turn lanes 5316"' St Extension to W Valley Hwy: Widen to 5 lanes 536O"' St: 5R 161 - 32"" Ave 5: Widen to 3 lanes Military Rd S: S 32O' 5t - SR 18: Widen to 3 lanes Military Rd S: 31" Ave S... 5 320"' St: Widen to 3 lanes Military Rd S: SR 18 - S 36O"' St: Widen to 3 lanes Military Rd 5: S 36O"' 5t- SR 161: Widen t031anes , , St: Extend 3 lane collector 16"' Ave S: S 272"" St- 5R 99: Widen to 3 lanes S 27200 St: Military Rd S... Lake Fenwick Rd 5: Widen to 5 lanes 28"' Ave 5/5349"' St: Weyerhaeuser Wy S - S 36O'" St: Widen to 3 lanes 51" Ave S/S 321" St: S 288'" St- 5 Peasley Canyon Rd: Widen to 3 lanes 5 321" St Iã2 Peasley Canyon Rd: Add left-turn lane Peasley Canyon Rd: S 321" St... W Valley Hwv: Widen to 5 lanes 5 272nd St (àJ Military Rd S: Add 2"" EB, NB left-turn lane S 288"'St: 1-5-51" AveS: Widen t051anes 5328"' St/38"' Ave S/S 334"' 5t/33"' PI S: Military Rd 5 - Weyerhaeuser Wy S: Widen to 3 lanes EXHIBIT I PAGE 'JIt '~)~,ff' 2000 Cost 5,040,000 6,464,426 25,872,000 13,920,000 720,000 8,078,000 432,000 18,000,000 4,080,000 6,000,000 6,720,000 11,520,000 11,520,000 I 9,5éO,000 2,400,000 4,200;000 5,940,000 15,360,000 216,000 9,504,000 750,000 4,368,000 6,144,000 SUBTOTAL REGIONAL CIP LIST " ,', 51!3,2 I O,58(j , =-="'-...- .. .. .~~. .-=~ - ,.. --..=,===-.._.-..~,..., ."" " ""\", SUBTOTAL REGIONAL NON-MOTORIZED CIP LIST Cumulative Totals 410,442,160 416,906,586 442,778,586 456,698,586 457,418,586 465,496,586 465,928,586 483,928,586 488,008,586 494,008,586 500,728,586 512,248,586 523,768,586 531,328,586 536,728,586 540,928,586 546,868,586 562,228,586 562,444,586 571,948,586 572,698,586 577,066,586 583,210,586 ,,-,; , "'- 11,952,000 I GRAND TOTAL I 789,097,5861 EXHIBIT PAGE 3 8~ 3 " RS7.2 RM24M S7.2 . ~ æ ~ Existing .Designation: Comprehensive Plan: Office Park CF I Zoning: OP I() /!:! ;S '" r:; ¡....;. ¿; City of Federal Way Comprehensive Plan 2003 SITE SPECIFIC REQUESTS FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION CHANGES Proposed Action: Elimination of i Weyerhaeuser Way I extension north of S 32Oth St Note: Thl$ mep is lr.tMcec fo' use es a grapl1icel I"...c'é'sentation only. ~. C/~ 0' F~c!e",!!1 \'lev r'9Ve$ .~o we~anty as:o i:s eccucecy. 200 0 200 400 600 800 Feet ^ c.oc.--- ....... W. N Quadrant Legend: Wetlands Steep Slopes Site Specific Request .. -om »x G):t: mffi \~ ,-- . , ' ';fl ~ -- M3pprint '"U m. »X G>:r: miD ~~ '.. I. ,;..¡ ,11 Je. t," ~. -S,pt, b~: .hDD31'.'. // . .. ... .. .. 4 .. .. ... .. .. 1) ... -=- -- .. .. 1 1 .,. ~ ~ .... ~ .. -- ~ .. .. ~ ,. ~ ~ I ,... .. ~ '" ~ .~ (T v ~~ ð EXHJBI¡ I PAGE>'-"'- III '. .. ,., "", user Way Extension The purpose of this technical memorandum is to present the results of the analyses performed to evaluate the impact of eliminating the planned Weyerhaeuser Way extension, from S 32011, Street to 32nd Avenue. This analysis has been prepared in support of the comprehensive plan amendment currently re(luested by Quadrant. The methodology surrounding these analyses were coordinated in advance with City of Federal \Xlay staff in a December 2003 memorandum. Through close coordination and cooperation with City staff, Transpo utilized the approved methodology to arrive at the results presented herein. Background As part of their comprehensive plan, the City of Federal \V'ay has previously identified a long-range improvement project tl1at would extend \'Veyerhaeuser \Xlay nortl1 from its current terminus at S 320'h Street to the future extension of 32nd A \'enue S, 'l1lis extension ofWeyerhaeuser Way would divide tlle S 320'h Street North Parcel that Quadrant Corporation has proposed for development, A Transportation Impact Analysis (flA) was completed by Transpo in May 2003 for tllis proposed development. In response to City comments regarding the TIA, Quadrant is pursuing a comprehensive plan amendment that would clÚninate the subject extension of \V'eyerhaeuser Way S. This study satisfies the City's re(juirements for a comprehensive plan amendment process. By evaluating future-year scenarios with and without the \'Veyerhaeuser \X1ay extension, decisions regarding the improvement can be Jude as to its necessity and benefits when balanced against the impacts to affected properties. Study Methodology Through coordination with City staff, nine study Intersections were identified for analysis. These intersections arc believed to be those most affected by the potential extensIon of \X!eyerlueuscr \\I;IY, \X!hen considerïng the constructIon of ncw roads, it is common that the ad¡acent p;¡rallcl arterials are evalu;¡ted. The study area in terseC( ions i'Klude: 'H t>Thc Transpo Group 11730118111 Avenue NE., Suite 600 Kirldand, WA 98034-7120 EXHIBIT~ PAGE-L-OF -- 425.821.3665 Fax: 425.825.8434 ~ ~ ~ r- ~ ~ i ,.. ,... ,.... .-. .... .... ... ~ .... ~ ... ~ ~ .... ~ ~ 4. ~ ~ ... 4 4 ~l~ -0 .. "",~-'4 t; "I '..twO;¡ f¡t. . 28th Avenue S/S 312th Street . 32od Avenue S/S 312th Street . Military Road S/S 312m Street . 25th Avenue S/S 320rh Street . 1-5 SB Ramps/S 320th Street EXHIBIT' PAGE1L:)F-d-- 1-5 NB Ramps/S 320'h Street 32od Avenue S/S 320'h Street Weyerhaeuser Wy S/S 320th St Military Road S/S 320rh Street . . . . The City of Federal Way provided their 2000 and 2020 forecast emme/2 traffic modeling networks for use in developing the future PM peak hour traffic volumes. The original 2020 model provided by the City dLd not include the Weyerhaeuser Way extension. Transpo revised the 2020 model to include the planned extension. Thus two model scenarios were developed, one with the planned Weyerhaeuser Way extension and one without the planned Weyerhaeuser Way extension. Further modifications were made to the City's travel demand model for both alternatives at the Interstate 5 (1-5) ramps to/from S 320th Street to allow left turns from the ramps onto S 320m Street. These turning movements are currently permitted. However, the City's 2020 model has assumed left-turn restrictions. There are no future improvements that indicate that such restrictions will be in place in the future. City staff concurred with these revisions to the model coding. For both scenarios, without and with the Weyerhaeuser Way extension, 2000 turning movement volumes were subtracted from the 2020 model volumes to arrive at 20 year forecast growth in traffic volumes for each turning movement. Prior to adding the 20 year growth to the existing turning movements, adjustments to the 20-year growth were made to account for the year in which each existing traffic count was conducted. Existing traffic counts at the study intersections were conducted in either 2002 or 2004. By adding the difference in the two models to existing traffic counts, the forecast results are calibrated to real-world conditions. Furthermore, this methodology further accounts for shifts in traffic that result from planned improvements, such as the S 312m Street extension. TIús is a common post process modeling procedure that reduces the effects of known modeling deficiencies and linùtations. The above procedures were followed for both scenarios (with and without the Weyerhaeuser Way extension). Traffic volumes along S 320'h Street were balanced between intersections. The resulting traffic volumes without the Weyerhaeuser Way extension are shown in Figure 1 for the weekday PM peak hour, while Figure 2 shows the traffic volumes with the Weyerhaeuser Way extension. ~ ~' EXHIBIT ~ PAGE~9f -Ð- The Transpo Group - DRAFT- , 6 I ~!~ I 94 ) \. 152 , 1,866 - -- 1,821 ¡ 1,493- 'II 32 , --- r ( 31 I 838, ! 49 t 65 , I 8 ~ j ..-' ----- ---- --~-"----- .. N G) 5312TH5T CD 5312TH5T 0 5 312TH 5T 28TH AVE 5 32ND AVE 5 MllITAAY RD 5 260 524 269 ! 23 I ~t -' '- 292 ) \. 43 ! 291) I 389- -449 ! 293- -- 447 57, (104 I 181") (77 217, ---1r -\ r -\ f 53 63 I 148 215 319 65 I 361 f4\ 5 320TH ST ~ 25TH AVE S S 312TH ST C/) w > <t: I f- a '" (f) W > <t: I f- co '" (f) W > <t: 0 Z '" C') S 320TH ST SEATAC MALL (/) OJ ~ 0 a: <'> ("J S 324TH ST 0 S 320TH ST @ S 320TH ST 0 S 320TH ST 32ND AVE S WEYERHAEUSER WY S MILlTAAY RD S 48 28 256 58 t 1n 121 ¡ 86 150 ¡ 215 -' '- -' '- -' '- 245) \. 112 26) \.17 103) \. 329 1,142- -950 1,094- -- 745 1,164- -762 9G, (6 211, (272 215, (234 ---tr ---tr ---tr- 212 12 201 302 123 78 60 5 126 f5\ 5 32OTH SI \..:!../ 1-5 5B RAMPS f6\ 5 320TH 5T \::!.) 1-5 NB RAMPS 20 600 I 52ü -'+'- \. 157 --1,404 1,112- -1,063 ( 274 901 , --- r 615 371 I '1 It aNOT TO SCALE EXHIBIT ~ PAGE3-0F ~ lœ " Tra!§Jo Gtip ~ Figure 1 2020 Traffic Volumes Without Weyerhaeuser Extension ., S 320th Street North Parcel: Weyerhaeuser Way Extension M:~2\O22821Gr;¡phiC$lgr;¡phicQ2 <A> BrandonM 02/26104 07:59 . .. . . .. .. . . . . \'I . . . . tit . . . . . . (It ~ {I . . fO e . . -. . . S . . . . , ~ . t f1\ 5 312TH 5T \.:J 28TH AVE 5 0 5312THST 32ND AVE 5 f3\ 5312THST '\V MIUTARYRDS 265 I ~l~ 290 J (48 i 394 - -- 458 Ii 58 , ( 100 -\ t r I 52 72 1- 64 278 - - 412 216, ( 121 -\ r 194 223 491 ~l 3ooJ 201, 2-;; t 3~ 3 312TH 3T if) ill > <{ :r: l- e> '" S 320TH ST SEATAC MALL if) uJ :;c 0 0::: c<J C'> S 324TH ST - CD S 320TH ST 0 S 320m ST 0 S 320TH ST 32NO A'Æ S VÆYERHAEUSER WY S MILIT MY RD S 48 115 260 59 l 20 86 l175 150 J 202 -' '- -' '- -' '- 240 J (20 17 J (31 103) (307 1.132- -935 1,057- -759 1,167- -772 96, (16 138, (259 215, (236 't£ ,tr -\ t r 223 60 126 253 127 77 57 95 123 f4\ S 32OTH ST \2.) 25TH AVE S f5\ S 320TH ST \..:!J 1-5 S8 RAMPS f6\ S 320TH ST ~ 1-5 N8 RAMPS - 6 20 ,- ~J~ ,; 5l~ 94 J ( 152 ,.1,873- -1'83611'485- -1,392 ! 32ì (31 852, (274 -\ t r i 49 65 I ! 8 , (159 1,104 - -- 1,058 901, , r 608 364 - --------- -- ~-------------- I .. N NOT TO SCALE et& (f) w > <{ :r: l- ce N ~ EXHIBIT Jl.& PAGE-LOF:...s5 11 FIgure 2 ; 2~20 Traffic Volumes With Weyerhaeuser Extension , -I S 320th Street North Parcel: Weyerhaeuser Way Extension M:'iJ2'iJ2282\Gl'<lphiçs~raphicO2 <8> BrandooM 02126.104 08:00 lœ Tra~o Grci4J ., . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ~ .. . .. ~ ~ e .. . . . ~ e . . . . ~ ~ . . 0 ~ c1 P ~l t ,,> \ it. I 18> &fa Evaluation Criteria and Results 'Through coordination with City staff, three measures of effectiveness were identified for analysis to determine the effect of the Weyerhaeuser Way extension upon traffic operations in the area, The selected measures of effectiveness iqclude: study intersection level of service (LOS), corridor travel time on Weye1;haeuser Way and 32nd Avenue S, and vehicle miles traveled (V1\1'1) as determined by the City's traffic model. Intersection Operations The City of Federal Way provided their Synchro network for use with the S 320'h Street North Parcel TIA. This Synchro network was revised to include future city projects in the immediate area that were also considered in the development of the future 2020 traffic forecasts, These improvements include: . The extension of 32nd Avenue S, from S 320'h Street to S 312th Street . The extension of S 312'h Street from 28th A venue S to Military Road S (across Interstate 5) . Improvements to S 320'h Street including a seven lane section, City staff provided specific details of projected future channelization at the study intersections that are affected by these improvements, as well as various improvements to existing intersections. Level of service (LOS) analyses was conducted for the 2020 without extension and with extension scenarios using these improvement assumptions, Traffic signal cycle lengths were preserved as providcd by the Syncmo file (120 seconds), but the signal splits and offsets were optimized in the 2020 without extension scenario and held constant for the 2020 with extension scenario, By holding the timings constant, an equal comparison can be drawn between the results to isolate the effect of the extension on traffic operations, Table 1 summarizes the LOS results with and without the Weyerhaeuser \X'ay extension. SYflchro LOS sheets are provided in Attachment A, EXHIBIT .D.u PAGE.LOF -S5 . \ t\,t The Transpo Group - DRAFT- page S ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 4 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ A ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r ~ -,,",,11-'" ø'\, 'I~ ~ ~ ~ .. )""If ";" ,\1'/ !;:-..(", t.:/' r', à,,-, i , ,."..,.",--- !""" "', ~ r I ' '.....: ;.. ~, aa- Table I 0,90 3/ !\V(,lllt>:' S/S 31 r Street C 181 tw Left C 23,8 N B Left Military Roacl/S 3 ¡ 2' Street C 24,9 0.78 C 24,2 0,74 25" Av('nue S/S 320" Street C 33,2 0,89 C 33,6 089 1,5 SB Rarnp/S 320" Street C 30,2 095 C 31,1 0,96 1,5 NB Rarnp/S 320'" Street C 20,3 0.15 C 20,1 0,74 32" Avenue S/S 320"- Street C 28.4 0,66 C 28,2 0,61 Wcycrhaeuser Wy/S 320'" St C 223 066 C 23 7 0,61 Military Road/S 320" Street C 27,9 0,68 C 275 0,68 FTI!~~:~?E }ZE~g~~ ;~ft ~ ~' J!'~llE; };:~. '.~~: if r?I }~~ }~~tZ ~ fF~T 1 ,\S IS Sh(I\\/l In 1':lhJc I, all of thc s(ud\, Interscct!()11S :tH' pJ()I('ctcd (0 °PC¡;1Ic:1I J J):---: (: rcpardlcss of thc su'n:trJo, ¡:j\'C of thc nlnc s(ud\, IntcrscctIOI1S actual!\- ¡nC1TaSC In ,', " (),'cr;¡]1 dl'h\' 111 thc ,\'jth \Vcn'rh:lcuscr \\la\' C:\tC!1SI0I1 SCCIUIIO, Thc Lnpcst deercas,' , " <' II1 a\'Cr;tl'C deb\' :IS a rcsult of the \Ve\'crhacuser \V:l\, C:\tC!1S10I1 "'as foUI1d (0 hc at :---: :) 12t1, :---:t;~'Ct/¡\I;IIt:ny I\oad, ,,'hleh dc¿reasl'll h\' appnJ:\lm:lte!l 1 second per ,"chIck, Dccrcases In ,'(dume to cap:tCl(\' ratio (V /C) occur at four of (he clght slgn:lltzl'll stud\' II11IT\ec!I(JI1S duc to thc \\"'\Trhaeuser \\':t\ !-::\!l'tlSlOI1. The lnll'rSl'l:tlollS or )T I , " ¡\n'I1uc/S ,)21)'" :---:Irec( and \\'c\crh:lcuscr \\la\,/:---: '-)2(),I, :---:Ircet :Ire Impactcd hy the 11)(JSt uI1der clllwr altl'lI1:ltl\'C duc to (hc rc:IssIgIJll1l'I1t or tr;tftlc :tI1d (he Impact and :ISSll'lllIll'Ilt 1<1 kl'\' IIltcrsCCII<1I1S uI1dcr l'IIher SCCIUIII) " . Tlw n'Sttils "j till' :tl1:l!lsls 111<11C:llc (h:tt (Ill' \\'C\l'¡]J;tCU,:CI \\ :i\ l':\(CJ1SIIIJ1 JI()\!lks 1IIIllll'lII)(,lldlls to ()\('ulllJ1tcISC('(IOI1 ()I)(':t(!<II!S :tt Ihc slillh 111\('IS('('t!<1I1~;, IIHrC:tS,", :llld dl'llc:t""s 111 dc!:t\, l)('t\\'(TII tll<' (\\'!)~;, ('11:1111)'; :tlC \\lthlll I:tIH',('S or d('i:!\ tlut (\I),(:tlh \:11\ "II :III IHIIIIII' :111<1 d:tlh In"I', dllc t" \ "Iitlll(' Ilil' tlt:tl!<111'; hlltll<'tll1"Il', 1)(':tL 11<1111 tl:tlll' C(IIHllt!<III'; \\"ttld ('<ltlll!lIlC (0 °IWl:t«' :tt :l1('CPl:tI,]C n,('I,: \\/th(lllt (Ill' \\I('\,nh:IClI,;cr \\1:1)' (':\t('II~;¡(IIJ. Corridor Travel Time Analysis ll':III,I', (II(' :,:1111(' ,I)'J/i/llii liI(' ()IIIIJlII~; :t:; ICj>"ltCilltl 111(' 111«'I"l'( t!<1I1 JJ J>, !(";lIlts, (I:tl'l' (1I11e (111(111)'.'1 Illl' :dl(,((l'lll1()flh S(Jlltil IlJIIII' \Vlth :111<1 WI(hout till' \\lc)'erh:t('u:;n \\1:1\' CXkl¡:,I(JII w:t:, (:tI, 1I!:t(l'll "'IIII II<JllltI)(Jtlll<l :111<1 ~,(JtllhIJ(IIIIHI II:I'TIIIIII('S \H'Il' cstlJ1L1!l'll f"l :t lollt(' )(',I',ll1llltJ,lo,/ClllI1I1,l', ')()() I<-ci ~:ollth (II \Vc\nl1:Il'llSn \\1:1)', :tJ1d , EXHIBIT ~ PAGE~OF -A 11)('lrall'ofJo(,rollfJ-IJI(Af¡ ~ .. .. .. .. 1 .. ... .. .. .. 8!!t ~ .. ~ -.,:,. ~ ~ ~ .. ... -- ~ ~ . .. . .. . ~ ~ ~ .. -S ~ ~ ~ ~ . . , , , ! EXHIBIT__J P AGE -4--) J= ---YL-. , ending/beginning 500 feet south ofS 312th Street. In the scenario \vifu'out the Weyerhacuser Way extension, vehicles would travel on Weyerhaeuser Way, S 320th Street, and 32nd Avenue S, With the Weyerhaeuser Way extension, vehicles would bypass S 320th Street and travel on Weyerhaeuser Way directly to 32nd Avenue S. A traffic signal was assumed to be constructed at the 32nd Avenue S/Weyerhaeuser Way extension intersection, and is included in the with extension scenario travel time calculations. . Running time for the scenarios is expected to be approximately the same for each alternative since the posted speed and distance traveled is essentially the same for each scenario. These running times were then added to turning movement delay experienced at each intersection along the travel route. The delay estimates utilized were consistent with the Synchro model outputs utilized for the intersection LOS calculations. A third, mitigated scenario was added for evaluation in the travel time analyses to demonstrate a potential mitigation measure that would noticeably reduce travel time in the without Weyerhaeuser Way extension scenario. Based on information provided by the City, th'e south leg of the 32nd Avenue S/S 320th Street intersections is configured with a left-turn lane and a left-thru lane. This configuration and traffic volumes would require operating the traffic signal with split phasing. Split phasing is generally considered less than desirable phasing method as it results in less efficient signal operations. Therefore, the third scenario assumes the south leg would operate with a left-turn and a thru-right and the signal would be operated with more efficient phasing. The benefits of eliminating such phasing from the future plans for this traffic signal are shown in Table 2, along with the unmitigated scenarios. A detailed summary of the travel time data is shown in Attachment B. Table 2 " , , " , " =f\":\~;;f',l:,;,~((:2::Y;',~:" !f7Yf~P.¡J~~~~2!. ,,:<', "i,"..:';'\~O::?: ~ iŒ¡j~, ~W ~v~E ~ ~~ ~ ~~r;,o/g ~:~ ~q~ ig[ t? Mitigated WithoútWeÿerhaéliser< (,':~t'j:,;}~' Way, Extension 1,:' ,>(C' "'i",',"':':",;',""': """"",,,"",":,,>',':': 'Vi'ith:,Vjeyerhaeüs,er"yv~y. ~t~nsio~ ...- .BI' lB. ~-_. . - ... . . 8iiIBI.. . _1fB8_~------ ~~"'~ ~~ , ( ~~ ' '0 ,0 The Tr4po Group EXHIBIT --h..I :, PAGE~OF 51 page 7 E . .. -. .., 4 .. .. .. ... . "8 .. .. ~ ,~ ~ ... 4 1 ~ .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. -I "" .. ~ ~ . ~ .; ,!!'" ." ;' {,; , '~:I . ;:- ..?, EXHIBIT_' PAGE~~1~ ~ As is shown in Table 2, the travel time comparison between the with and unmitigated without Weyerhaeuser Way extension scenarios shows that the Weyerhaeuser Way extension provides travel time savings for vehicles traveling both north and south along the selected route. Northbound, it accounts for a savings of only 10 seconds per vehicle, while in the southbound direction it accounts for approximately 30 seconds of travel time savings per vehicle during the PM peak hour. However, if the City's proposed split phasing at 32nd Avenue S/S 320th Street is replaced with protected north/south phasing, the difference between the with and without Weyerhaeuser Way extension scenarios is cut in half. In the northbound direction, a vehicle would save approximately 6 seconds of travel time with the extension, and about 14 seconds in the southbound direction with the extension, when compared to the without extension alternative. As was noted previously, in the mitigated without extension scenario, the northbound leg of the 32nd Avenue S/S 320th Street intersection would be converted to provide a single left turn lane to allow for protected north/south left turn phasing at the intersection. In order to further understand the effects of these changes among the mitigated and unmitigated scenarios, the previous LOS analyses were revised to address the proposed mitigation measures. The results of this analysis are swnmarized in Table 3. Also shown in Table 3 are the results of the queuing analyses. The queuing analysis was conducted using Synchro 5.0 and focused primarily on the northbound left-turn movement only. ' Table 3 F'YV¡ t~ ~.utW eyer ~ a e u s erViay".' ,:,,:>~,.,,:,;,;, ExtensIon ,',-,;,,' ',',Y,;' , ,;',:::Mitigated Without:<,» :We ' erhaêuser Wå 'Exterisionl~ ........ ~-_EPBJ_-_mJ- _....I8J_-_m.mfilQ1l ! ~:':": ,: Mitígationwould involve ~he elimination, of future,City plans ,toíncludea NB th ro.left lane at " :/,:.'\;' S:2-;j.i320;h/3 2ndwlth,,~ ~I it, pháslng'a.ndrepl¡¡ce'lt\vlth .~!S' P[ot~~t~d, left tutr'l pha,s \ng>,r;';;'." " ',,','.i' ?;-:, S;:':¡bNòn:l1bound 9S"~,' ,'rc:êntlleleft turn', ueùe length in feet (rouridèd)~;;'.,:;.""¿\¡,,,:':',;~::\j::,;;:'::,,::-:;>:, Table 3 shows that eliminating the northbound left-thru lane and related split phasing (leaving a single northbound left turn lane) slighdy improves the overall intersection LOS as well as reducing the average delay for the movement by approximately 4 seconds per vehicle. The largest positive impact is on the delay would occur on the southbound approach, which explains the improved southbound tra~cl time. The 95th percentile queue increases by approximately 50 feet with the single, northbound left turn lane. Based on these results, it appears that the mitigated option does not substantially affect the northbound approach at 32nd Avenue S/S 320th Street, thereby EXHIBIT ~,' PAGE-LOF ~ """°.. " t The Transpo Group . . , . . , . , . . . . l' . . . . , , . , . . - . . , , t . , . , ~ , \ , . , , , , , cr 'i,. ~t .. EXHIBIT_1 . PAGE~'t")\~~ allowing the mitigated scenario without the extension to remain a highly plausible alternative. Vehicle Miles Traveled - System/Circulation Impacts As discussed, City sta.ff requested a system measure focusing on travel time or travel dista.nce under each alternative. In response to this request Transpo utilized the 2020 models developed for each of the alternatives. Since there is not set sta.ndard for this measure, this information is presented for informational purposes only. A sub-area was created from the large model that included the links within the study area previously identified. It extended from S 312th Street to the north, S 320th Street to the South, Military Road to the east, and 25th Avenue to the west. Vehicle miles traveled' (VM1) equal the nwnber of vehicles on each link, multiplied by the link length. The VMT with the Weyerhaeuser Way extension was found to be 5,470 miles. Without the extension, the VMT was 5,376. As noted, there is less VMT without the new roadway. In general these results are similar. Relative to the size of the City's model being utilized for this analysis, the planned extension is minimal. As a result, the model may not be refined enough to provide realistic data.. The information presented does indicate that dIe change in VMT would be minor. Benefit/Cost Analysis As noted previously, the planned Weyerhaeuser Way extension would bisect the north parcel property, significandy impacting the development feasibility of the site. To help understa.nd the economic impacts of the Weyerhaeuser Way eXtension, the travel time benefits as noted above were reviewed and put in the context of an economic impact. Based on information provided by Quadrant, the extension of Weyerhaeuser Way would result in a $1.5 to 2.5 million negative economic impact to the project. This figure includes the additional costs of a road to full city arterial sta.ndards as well as the loss in development potential for the site. Based on a total savings of20 seconds for approximately 2221 vehicles during the PM peak hour, for both the northbound and southbound travel times and a cost of$1.5 to 2.5 million. This equates to a cost per vehicle (PM peak hour) between $6,757 and $11,261. This comparison illustrates that the potential benefits of the Weyerhaeuser Way extension are greatly surpassed by the cost implications of constructing the roadway. Summary This study evaluated LOS, travel time, VMT, and a cost/benefit analysis of the planned Weyerhaeus'er Way extension between S 320th Street and 32nd Avenue. Based on the analyses dcta.ilcd in this memorandum, Transpo has found the following information to be true: t Reflects shifts in background traffic, plus site traffic that would likdy utiliz~~~n ~ '£ I . of the Weyerhaeuser Way extension. C;An I g II --..L.l-!t.' 0\ PAGS-LOF..a3.L The Transpo Group page 9 ; .. . ... .. -- .. .. .. .. ~ 't' ~ .. .. .. '" '8 .. " " ~ ~ ~ .. -I ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 9 t ~. ~ t t . f-r '" ., ,~ í .,. ;.." ~',.. , >¿.""'" '1'..:.- - '. EXHIBIT_- -' . P AGE -U-:Q F JfR-- The Weyerhaeuser Way extension would provide litde to no benefit to overall intersection operations at the nine study intersections Excluding site related traffic, the extension would attract approximately 180 additional PM peak hour trips PM peak hour operations would remain at LOS C throughout the study area with or without the roadway extension. The Weyerhaeuser Way extension would decrease northbound and southbound travel tin1es for vehicles traveling between Weyerhaeuser Way and the planned 32nd A venue S roadway by a toml of 20 seconds (NB and SB) per vehicle. A comparison ofVMT between alternatives indicates less VMT (1.7 percent) without the roadway extension. Although the model may not be refined to a detail to provide a truly accurate measurement on such a small scale, the minor change confinns the nùnÏmal impacts previously shown with respect to intersection LOS and corridor travel times. When considering the economic impacts and the average travel time savings, the cost equates to between $6,757 and $11,261. Thus, the cost of the planned extension is not proportional to the project impacts assuming no extension of Weyerhaeuser Way. . . . . . The proposed Weyerhaeuser Way extension is anticipated to provide nominal benefit that would be unapparent to the average driver. Without the Weyerhaeuser Way extension, the planned 3200 A venue S extension would accommodate forecast traffic volumes with essentially the same operating conditions within the study area; the same travel times, and the approximately the same VMT. Therefore, the results indicate that the Weyerhaeuser Way extension would be redundant. M:\O2\O2282\Comp Plan anuncndmant\O2282mt-WWE.doc ~ \. ... .. The Transpo Group EXHIBIT 1)dl PAGEJ(LOF 3L . page 10 'T I . EXHIBt: . PAGE_Å ):~JØ- k- .. .. ,. ~ ~ "' I .. t I ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~" ï'. ~" ;.:. , : ".' ' . Attachment A: Synchro LOS Worksheets .' ""EXHlalr.]:L.t I ; . PAGE-/LOF..31- . .. . . , . . : .', . . .' -.. , . " . ..". '.~OqO~Q"~QaaQQ~aQ.Q~Q~ø~~~~...~~.........~t 135:S312St&28AvS ;f 2020 WITH Weyerhaeuser Way Extension Weyemeeuser Way extension Study '" 135:S312St&28AvS .,)' 2020 WITH Weyerhaeuser Way ExtensIon Weyeme8User Wey Ex1enslon SIu<Iy - (" - " (" of- S ,'\ t I' \,. k:, :/.0':: ¡¡ene""",^"" .-...............!: ~ t!, lD YY ; ~'\IY I:!,I~VV ; KémlJ:'i ~I'S t!~J:i CII&~ !:!_- Lane Group Flow (vph) 290 452 100 458 48 52 138 27 5~ ¡'¡C~W-'W!mj,~a4~?lØZ~~U'~$.1\m"'.tD~",~!!l'!'!!*,;m~F.ì1?\;)~J!¡ JM'a!t¥ Qûêue lengfh9'5ÎìÎ(ÎÌ)'21Š"""f7ã" '.49:¡-'1Š1"'14""""45~¿""¡1r"""21 1Í313 ' " ,-~ ,', Il\!. ~ m!LU...2.ISiP.!!\,m~\~,~¿~~~;'I,'.~~;;,i'~~;¡;'í;'i.?'d!1~í¡,~1~Z~'!F~~ 50th Up Block Time (%) ~F..øe~~¡>~~i~~ ~~ ,,!!I!'jii ;œ,h@M"'X_~~4>1' ~4~ ~êIyLéñglh(ft) ..d.,.""""i\\'?;~Jl\.....,.,.",;;"""",......",.,...../,.$,,, ".." ..."",..,!, , ",. ,,", ,", ,'"' ", P2!!f..í.lLrr.JIJ.~~~~'i}"W~~~I!B:I{~¡¡!~_Äï:~ 95th Bey Block Time oAt ~~~!rt ~ !!L~ID~~~~~¡¡;_¡£~i{l4~ Im8f:ll"Cll9rn;¡ur¡¡ln""v____",..............."""""", ""'H~Dd ~ ~~.L'\05!¿e léqe,~g ~£!i þ~PIJYJ.t¡tl~E.e{ù'\ l!y¡þ,,:J(jJ'!Øè~~¡,~..¡Ii}~~ \,/ueue shown Is'maxlmum lIfIer two cycles. M:\O2\O2282\Comp PI en emmendmantlSynchro\2020 with Weyer Ext..sy6 2116/Cl04 Page 3 MO.\/!! m en tlmt'l'A~1H\ I: 1<-..m:!: 1:I'!mtJ; t! R~VV ~VV t!JB VY ; ~_r; BL";!;!: r; ,I~~ ~~:st! IIßmj tl.1_~eß Lane Con fl" 'I to " 'I ,,'f¡ ,""': Ciiiíê-Wiilfh m1'2'11 12" 12' '11"12' 12 11 1~'JIf~~~~ !ô £II a e..l":bI~_%~~J >~~¡¡t~'ít:~":G¡¡;f~"':31f1Q),;¡!~ %"y-('t~~ i'otâi'LosÚlme(s)' >, 5,0 5.0 ' '-5:0 . 5.0"'" 5.0 5,Ò 5.0' . . 5",0 "5.0 . tal\~'()1 ~t F"IÎ e¡ò ~¡;~*i' ¡PCJ~_I5ò~~r. O~'i:~,ro'Ç;~~~'@ö'bRþ1; Ob'7,~i;~.1;~t4;.f!P'0'~.~ F,pb, pedlbÎÌ<eš" '{(50 1.00 {co . (00" 0.96' 1.bó' 0.99 ' "1:00' 0.98 ' fi!ÞJ~[P!.M?J!~~¡~9t~§~!!!J~.OJ,~~~~%( ( ~~Y9.m()1'P~Jqt'IðCJ~I$¡:Ä$/~.o.:'I1J!.í1i~ Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.92 1.00 0.92 El.tJE~I~~1t.~a:!.Il._iqq~t~:!ï~;tm.1j9.0 fiþ'.'!r5'if':;¡~ :Oþ1"f1;".'~;;¡'~;ri'Ö~ ;>.f~1.¡ ( O~~ SaId. Flow (prot) 1721 1722 1738 1763 1509 1751 1630 1746 1625 œ-~~~~¡~gl!mn\¥~~~l1'¡;;W¡( ~~~,1jOþ.~~a~~""iOOrœ'!¡¡)~'If~'ò!^!~;5; J. SaId. Flow (penn) 730 1722 748 1783 1509 417 1630 1231 1625 :-l.l!q!iì,!iltYi'lV..._2!!Q-~9lB~~81~;~5,8j_:l6J,$.?2þj*i641~'i7;2~2;7'"26.5.ø2.~~ Peek-hourfllCtor, PHF . 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ~II!;J2!Y.\YP}!)_~~~4~~~..í8!.~.&?Z:~*,64_%2BJ:.z'.~t 5!_~It~ Lene Group Flow (vph) 290 452 0 100 0458 048 52 136 0 27 '534 a ~J)J:\ l!iíE ~ '1\1 t(l) n>!lIIWl1!jllllmu..-wJltftlpM¡, ,0,..' OQl'iD;11.1 ~WWc~..,!;1¡~ ~( ~ 05œQ Tum Type Penn Perm Perm Perm Perm t[( 0 I ~ !ßI ¡ ¡¡ J1!I ,!ë$, ~ ~ 1~li¡~¡.\'illj!¡JI8jlM~i¡~_;!"~j , ; ~ ~ m ~ ~ ~ ~ Pennltted Phases 4 8 8 2 6 ~!I!JI~1!!!l'\\:?l(~).&7. ~~¡Z~~~l_~\P.~ìi);:f'G~f¿~'I'{~~'ífJf:¡~,7i¡~~ Effec1lveGraen,g(s) 24.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 18.2 18.2 18.2 18.2 ~ 1~'&~j¡~Yi~~~~~.PJ!BJLo.æ~1'i¿:'Þ~~ßî4I'i&ffi¡¡~ì.~_¡~ Clearance TIme (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6,0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 ~Itfði:~e~§~l(' 1_"'I.IIIf;¡¡U~:~¡¡l(!~'I.I~iØ#?:rt2TO>~.o~~ Lene Grp Cap (vph) 336 792 ~4 820 694 145 568 429 567 ~m.~JI JlJf.r.o. ~;iI: ~í'~,~~!!~f;4;Ö;O ~~~ vIs Retlo Perm cO.40 0.13 0.03 0.12 0.02 \>l ~a ~~_......_;¡;,~".y¡,?jA ¡.¡;;¡:tîJ1ItO'12'~o;5I!_~J. _!J!iSß()J<f;~!2~1~~IO '!!!æu.;~~ Unifonn Delay, d1 12.6 10.3 8.8 10.2 7.9 12.7 12.1 11.3 16.5 ~ - s, ~'9.rot.!!;!.9 IiUIIli/I'M ~ t ~ JII¡M~!If.~¡¡¡¡¡:,1, 1 0' ~ :\' 0. ~ - 9O,J .Jl :¡'!'i 90 ~ ~ r, 0: 0 D'I.'. ~ Incremental Deley, d2 19.2 0.6 0.2 0.5 0.0 0,6 0.1 0.0 23.9 Yøi.t!/~m~;,t1iiM.q¡j! I 1~i.Q;S1PJ~¡¡ ..3~?X12¡Z_~~,;¡I~~~ Lewl of Service C B A B A B B B 0 öPPJP'!g)lI?!!.!~J~ ~,~~\'l.~?lI@"'ìiic?'!O)g~'i12¡~;&:.~~~~ Approach LOS B B B D II!! ~ II c iOIX'AIIm m WY-.r;m~UW~Wf!' .r\¡,r.,.;¡ ¡¡>..'!ìJ!ll!:1l J illIIIRIi!III!I~ HCM Average Control Deley 21.3 HCM Level of ServIce ~ ~lQ![~!5'Ár:a!J.~t§!~~,¡:¡¡r~~;~Adt."W.k."",','. ", d', ~~;1;;P~B~~;1~~t1!~~~:~--~~~~~~~I~~~~~~-~g.. '.", ' ' , ' c Critical Lane Group ..' ' m tJJ 'Af "." ~ M:\02\02282IComp Plan ammendmentlSynchro\2020 with Weyer Ext..sy6 .. 'r 2I1~ \'þg~4 THETRAlVC3-FF" . -i ' t . ' THETRAlVL3-FF51 '. ¡." r~6"Q"qqqqu~qaaqQ~.~~~ø..~~~...~~......~~~at 219: S 320 51 & Galeway Blvd S t ~ .J' - ..r: - 2020 WITH Weyemaeuser Way extension Weyemaauser way extension Study ...... t '-. t 219: S 320 SI & Gateway Blvd S (?-,~^ì .J¿: ~?t ~ 2020 WITH Weyemaeuser Way Extensron Weyemaeuser Wey Extension Study - '- ...... t t' ~ + ;,jr ¡:al)8iU;J)Ul'J!re""""U"'i...t:BL~::t:It,{¡ i1<'\{I: ~:vvtll~~;'it ~::II~~!:S~~~:~,-- Lane Group Flow (vph) 94 1905 311989 A9 73 399 105 ~!J~'!¡!"!Qg~,:!!:(~)~?9Z 45'4.1I,!!1!~~,;12'2: - ',":14~"7'.~:,¡¡~~8~:':::. ~~...'-..,....~ ..~,;L_- Ou_leno~ 95~ (ft) .139 S49 m53 8639 53 35 /1.468 39 !'1!!~~R!8..t~}!,,~"<;: ;~47a:-:~"".r3aO" ."~"~,'~~504":"~;':"~~!!!,~-,._~ 50th UP Block Time (%) 5% ' 95:r!.uJ&B1~ilm8"('KI1~~,;-:::'7S"A~f'~,ì!ì.;:;23~~-r: "~':-:':"- :"':";,"~~~"'T;,~r. TI!:-.f1 ;'ûm eïŸLëñgtñ"iii:¡ - '50 .. 50 . 75 10Õ' , . ,', ~~f!IY.J:!~I.IJ!I.~,.'KI.::r;29'~49%~:'.'.::r:.~!;2%.,>:"""'~"~:;~~";;:":~",;~-" ~~~~ 95th BIIy Block Time % eO% 52~~ ~C% 53% 53% ¡:@.~~I~g.!'-~A!lyJY.8.!1JÆ.~'2a~:::47~~'2ea --~',- "-~, :'~' ..,:;~9Y':':-_i~f~a¡~~ MO'JC!'I\er., ';.~ ~'$!!;t!,I<'.I:~~1: tlt,!'I~1: I:! l-! ;~W tj¡;;~ vvt!J,~v:vtl~ IIBI\!\I!WNtlIWJ" tlK¡:~~!!m~~ Lene Configura:ionl ,'I tt1o '! tt'to . "! . 10, ,'" '! 10,' , ~(QplfPQ~¡,.!~~:;:¡¡;_~90(f;.<"'fQOO :'" 19óO~\1öö/'.1J OO ;¡T;19~r,'Íi~!JðO~~ Lene WlC!lI 12 12 12 12 12 12 11 11 12 11 11 12 Ç;!a<l.è (~) ~:~'~-;;:;k~"';M,i;;:"'~-:: ,:r:':~~~~I¡!~~r:~~AVJ~ Tolal Lolt time (I) 5.0 5.0 5,0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 1:.öh.!~JJI~õr~,..Oø ~~; 9 J~':i: ::;l:CO : :r-o,y}jt~~n'7(j¡jrf_à~.'i~~ Frp!l. pedlbikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 0.97 1.00 0.97 E!P.~dJ!)~s!,~~~¡;;¡.r;o9~Loo.;rJ!i:>::;;::'.":'.' .00;" :~Oi~tJ%:%'(~,;¡j¡i~~~i~!J.~'11~ Fr1 1.00 1.00 1,00 0.99 1.00 0.87 1.00 0.88 m:rrO'!ëc'e<I..:,.,,:~~,~ (].95~i:.~~.!.:T""~~'7rr95 O' '1 ;oo$1í',~a;g-!r'r1;1iOO;~'ÑET~J~~~:I'fi~~t!'J Said. Flow (P¡:Ô!)-' ' '1752" ~909'" ~--"796 5077" '1309' 1181 . "'lB16 - 1541 -. ~er~r:fed;m:-!N.:;!,.(],g~~E~~- :';""0:95' "'1~£~!(i::Í;aO:j--¥t,~\~ Sa:<I. Flow (perm) 1752 4909 1796 5077 949 1181 1207 1541 y'oI.ume:ívph)W~~1t~~.1!!~3.:ri~:32 "'-~;31 -, 18~:1!r;~t§?,.J~~Œ.!îit~~~:\f;;65%.~9~~&_~ Peek-hour lector. PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00. 1.00 1.00 1.00 ð'!IJ ;;'~0\Y,1V¡!~T~o~.\';¿~Q.~.!IJ..a~32~"j~:J ,';';;'1 ~~¡ll~.2~~7Î.8 _6~:<,~o~~ Lane G:-oup Flow (yph) 94 1905 0 31 1988 0 49 73 0 399 1'05 '0 ~~nïr)~T;.~::n ~~, .Qør. , Q"!'~ '0 c.;:.y,iW.~p~:?,~m~~9~R~1~~q HeavyVahlcles (%) 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 30% 30% 30% 0% 0% 0% Slln!15ðI18g¡¡;r,.'I1~.-'IIu~, ~~ ,'0' ;", "1!iO;~oøSO';7:~'O'~~a;~ !!~.~ Turn Typa Prol P,ot Perm Perm ~t8C1~f!i.~¡¡.,~'§I:.~1.~~t2.~~~~:r ',' i~~¡.~i;i"fu'~~)fu¡~f.~'$1~ Permi~e<l Phases 4 8 ~~t~j ,Ç3!.~!~~3~}~~'2:~~!iz.;.\J~~"~, 4.6':~4~_. ;.R£~g;1P.15J_J8IP£.~¡'2t~JI Er.ecllve Green, g (s) 11.6 57.9 3.6 49.9 39.5 39.5 39.5 39.5 ~!ge~_al';:;1tB.~!~~~.~~19m!;:y,f&!f!f.i"'"o;U~C~~~ ,~L!.iI!.~~.q-~fI~.\:í$}}.~'r~jP!~~ Clearance Time (s) 4.0 5.0 A.O 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vëli!ëlnx-.enSIOn,( S ~;:¡"2:U }~'!<'J2,O ~,;r.'" ,m:tr'->': :2;Vt~2rOB2¡OJ1~2iO:n;-4M¡¡:¡o-,æœ~ Lane Grp Cap (vph) 175 2450 56 2184 323 402 411 525 vrs:R 811 õ,P IbI~~Jìj;;T O:O~9~ ~' :"'O:02'~' cO !39~~,,:~;:'O.06;7îS;¡¡-~_(]¡011ft'8 vIs Ralio Perm 0.05 cO.33 ~~lo~:,~~~~IJ.5;4lí'L'I1.¡'8.~1!.~""-';:O:55," 'O;g1¡~~Kr,O;J8__( ¡g]Æ!P¡'2~ Uniform Delay, d1 A9.6 23.8 55,4 31.0 28.6 26.9 37.7 27.1 ~l'ë I s ¡ Õ~1:tJ\) JW.;Iluu. £;; Æ ,;;"'1:0:1'.' ','O782~1 '!J9¡T?ff: OO)'---1:o.u lYilJ,' uý~ Incrementel Deley, <12 1.6 2.5 8.0 8.5 0,1 0.1 36.5 0.1 ~ ~o,:!1;ti~~f£~~1i;;3 2)'O~Jr¡ZZi\127,:'O!;'f~1f111iiZ4.w2!.¥I ~ Level 01 S81Yfce D C E C C C E C ~l(ë{I]?![iI9ÃiJ'fÐ~;:l¡t,~Q~\"'~- ' 3z.5f~~'5%¡,' 26:9,i{' Approach LOS C C C ">P-'--""-'~'~=""""""~"""",,*¡o¡;¡ HCM Average Controt Deilly 33.6 HCM Level of Service C !iW~y'çfò"fù~I,¡PJtl1~~t!'!I!!~ì1m ~ 11 !lLI!!I~~~¡ ~~";¡jìi¡~_S""",. Actuated Cycle Length (s) 116.0 Sum ollolt time (s) 10,0 1!1.!!tr;s!lÇ!J~!!i¡';'~P'!~tf9i!11l1Jrz¡¡ t r<m;fl~~j'i!%¡jj'~,:¡¡¡.'JC(J :Cé1(eE~S'é'f}íf&I"~!~~ ",;;~,t.::' :?:"'St>~'1S~~ c Crftlcel Lane Group M:IO2\O2282\Comp Plan ammendmantlSynchro\2020 with Weyer Ext..Iy6 THETRAl Vl3-FF51 2/16/04 Page 5 M:I02102282\Comp Plan emmendmant\Synchro\2020 with Weyer Ext..sy6 THETRAL Vl3-FF51 Page '8 .J :---' . ,ff~ J.C. r '.~"6DØ~~~~ðØ~ð4~~.~~~~.~~~~~~~~~~¡¡~¡¡¡~~ 220: S 320 SI & 1-5 SB - 320 RamQ 2020 WITH Weyerhaeuser Way Extension Weyemeeuser Wey extensIon Study 220: S 320 SI & 1-5 S8 - 320 Ramp ~.' 4 "". 2020 WITH Weyerhaeuser Way Extension Weyemaeuser Way Extension Study -" 1"'-""¡.:( ~..- --- . !f;t:=_L_tll~:st t.mII;~tI'I~~__j! Lane Group Flow (vph) 1485 852 274 1392 263 277 627 Queue ength 95th (ft) 93 !h!!!t 1Ij¡!!!!l~ !i!~ m læi?iR ~ ~ ~ ~ : ;, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ fir; ; " ~ .61;, t ør - &, ., ~ .. , ~ - ~ 50th Up Block TIme (%) -~~~~~&i~lft~~$i_~;'¡::~~ ~.J J. o;c;m.lIJ) e ~ ~ ìf . - w.. ~ 3 :œ g %i iii: ~ ¡ , d¡ìftß ~ ' : r ; 1 ti1¡æ¡¡B1ID&fi:Îjî' ~ 1- - ...... """"""'" t S 95th Bey Block Time % 21% 13% !d!le.!!!!2.Qlf'.en~~~_"-~1\:i_4!'I1IE~'t~4J~!_¡¡¡B,~i;"'~...- ......I~ ~~~j¡¡",_._._."....,I~>."""",..,~ "~~!Iì! ý§..æ!Jj ~1~Tq u ê)il ~l!!¡ro~l~{!!:~iliY;YP$tì'ðJI!t\l~IQ ill! 1~~~.1í 1'" - '- .... t ,Þ ',. + :;.. ~ove m en MIt_'!m__c!'!'~lI:;tli!mt't:tlt(!!iìYV tIIi'¡'!JWI:S.J IGfiVVJ:! KmJN tlUWiefN tI.ll\)tNtSK~'iI'¡~I:!t.Zœ;:; tlIX,1( : tm LaneC J!..,.......m~"J!...tl~~.."~.,.."""""",'c.."",\-.,..'m~..fJ'~ . !lA.,. .,3k,w, ,.00 ,>1?,OOi~;I.~.'JVA¡\\!!;I~,,'1.9vv,;:tJ,9,"";Ì"~!~:;"à9i~~~k"~.~ Grade (%) 1% 0% 2% 2% J:8r..iI I :ro 1t:t1!:[ !lr~ J~5 ;.0. ~,þ,.5;g:~~:P~c~j .:) !f~~~~r~!I: g¡r~~ !!! Lene um. Factor 0.91 1.00 0,97 0.91 0.95 0.95 0.78 f;'Þ þ i: p'èi'!!J5.1it II ~,~~~.~'g'.Dqit,~;~:"!IT~~',";;'!\!;;:'~"JV"i~ )'; O!r -,;,gg FlpÞ. pedlblke. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ~~~~~!~_. .!!_JA9( Æ~$Ji¡.Qg~M()JÇIT'i¡i 'i.:>'~~~~1%~,.0lJ2~~}¡ .t:!:,~ Fit Protected 1.00 1.00 0,95 1.00 0,95 0.98 1.00 s~ ~ ~F:!i!I(IJ. ~!ì,~~~~~"'*i~f[~_TTiê,~!:~~~,!~~~ Fit Pe~ltted 1.00 1.00 0,95 1.00 0,95 0,96 1.00 S 8! ~ . . F 1õW( þ~nn ) ~\_ill¡¡}'i~OU;T;1B14"'~Ìjf34 t!7 Æ5'36t¡tt;m'lá1[7¡¡¡:mB?:t1?'¿~~~, ~5T ¡4w.3514. Volume (vph) 0 1485 852 274 1392 0 0 0 0 520 20 627 !?êã I(:I! oW' g~or:ír:ß~~qu_.. !.!Um!9.o.1r=litt~~q Mm~m~_OOB'I.!t!U,~TI uy,w;l>.çg Adj, Flow (vph) 0 1485 852 274 1392 0 0 0 0 520 20 827 !=II fI a . G ~ Þ%l~.. \~ß)~.E::.~_B,:gr.:lh\l*lt;¡~~-"U~( Æl~( Z¡~!ì~p_2~;r_J'~1l~!:I¡¡¡~ Conn. Peds. ('lhr) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 FIëmVV ~ )~Ji!¡¡,,",",-~ -¡ .~:mII\\1.~!<\_11'b;!~~~~~;m.1if>1~" - "" Tum Type Penn Pro! Split custom F!~ ~ ~,!'!8~J~~~~~~fi~'mi~A;.""~'59 Pern>itled Phases 2 M:',O2\O22821Comp Plen emmendmentlSynchro\2020 with Weyer Ex1..sy6 2/1 ð/Oo4 Page 7 , ~;4:':"""-""""-"""'-'-"'""~-'i!:','~"""'1"~",~~j\!i%iI'ßi$¡¡%~~i.15M-6,"'!~~J,..!! E!lective Green. g (s) 66.4 66,4 13.0 69.4 21,8 21.ð 38.8 @Jii.feã ~~9.~ç~.~ì:)J:.2~ÞiÞ,~_iì,~it¡&.Ei'¡'¡¡';'~ b':I}lAD.~.!' m.~~~ Cleere~ce Time (s) 5.0 5,0 5,0 5.0 4,0 4.0 yo Mnct~. CXf ~"IIQn1{ IJ~Zw- \) JiW2¡Q]ì!¡l'irom:li~~m\1,m!:!.m"'d~~ti2.o._~, UJl~ LeneGrp Cep (vph) 2868 829 389 3073 310 312 1128 ~CI~(X_II' 11I1~,~,,-Ç,Q12.(JJ21~R$lh1~:"Ph'5A1;IO~y'IJ.!! vIs Ra!io Penn cO.59 ~~ 0 '~:r"""I.ì.9.~g,3_!li_Ç !!.~'i1'ik~i_q ¡~:)";I ~J:.~ Unlronn Deley, d1' 15.1 24.8 49,6 12.8 45.6 46.0 33.0 ~ 1,9 l!¡t .:. ~ q¡ ~ U' ~ ~ au. !!.. ~ Æ!1.:t . Ø\ð p if ~ ? ! - f ~J~'i¡¡:rf~\I> u.V ~ #N.B¡t !9'iI Incremental Deley, d2 0.4 32.1 4,2 0.4 18.3 24.2 0.3 """""~ Level or Service A FDA E . i!Oèt'b.' .' .0 ..""iI.¥m:rS?2....' ,",'.7~O:~'..,t)......'.' . ~~~:~tõf...L~~~¡¡¡§¡b.""'~**BE<~L"'$"Ä""~""^'" . .... . ItltlIDl~t>UIl\m8Ø'_""'M!l1 1'- 1"""""""""'~~-~«1iItiM!! ).leïm~!lW~~¡~ HCM Average Control Deley. 31.1 HCM Level or Service C . - ~IU !Jlt\ð'wa pa 1:1 MI'II U O.iœltiííJlllpi9 II Aß'i9KVì~_w¡~',!!~~ . .....'II:,æ,,~.....""-.. '0.0"... ",.. .... ". ..',,",. "'15"Ô""""~ ~~~~~--:1r.. ..' ..:¡ c Critical Lene Group ,.,..., ì i 'f--- I ~m ø)( m:¡: ~I~ 0 ~ ~~, ... .. THêTRALVL3-FF51 M:\o2I02282IComp PI en ammendmantlSynchro\2020 with Weyer Ext..sy6 THETRALVL3-FF51 , .. 'f:I ~ "" 0' . .., ~, " " ~, . fit 'II " (I " ,. ( 'I fj fi . ta t¡ ~ f/ . . . ~ ~ . . . . ,. . .. .' ..-'n 221: S 320 St & 320.1.5 NB Ramp 2020 WITH Weyerhaeuser Way Extension Weyemseuser Way Extension Study -""t ~"\ t p nll,iUl'OUØ1.III..- '!'-~!~4\\V1:I,I_N BI.."1II¥N ~J~1_-W,......_...... Lane Group Flow (vph) 1160 845 1217 518 454 ~ e!!Míl!nllro.~ l{!!}_l1JJ:)t~,6}1!~';.~'IT?'/~~,'.?;;r;':'Yi~~~:?;¡\' (~i:j~_:t:'t!!"Z!i'¡*í"d~;t;D Queue Length 95th (rt) 138 25 85 476 407 ~22~':~1'(,"i'~,{~( D~f;~'?:' 31.2"'t;'S: ':'#~\!m\~'(i~f)\;~~~ ~.eø!~ 6:{'j¡ ¡~j:!!%¡!'f~~~~.\;}>'+}l3?C¡?;!~""?~~"~4'7~~'?iP ~ëaYt:enoth (ft)" ",-L"";¡¡!ßf'ffi'J'-'" 2ôcf"""",."b~"" "',:<>,Ÿ"h. "'"". .' ".'.'. ,. ",,! ~!IY.ì ~!~ ~~~~g'~W'; 2 8_'1'°1 ;;XTI¡"';'~I.~--,-¡J' 95th ša/ifóêk TIme % . '~""",¡:..r';~34ò;¡"3Ò%'*"""""""',":1-hK ~ .. "'. '.. . ..' ...' ~V'.m.!!lY'.iYWj!.a:~!E.~~~~"1ßPÃRiL~¥lm;¡¡¡~~ [[IIl!I:HÇ! On;;:IIII ' rtUICr ~N. !_"""""'~~¡_1SI.\t-1I'\~"""'!;.'1.\"""""""",_",,~- 221: S 320 SI & 320 -1-5 NB Ramp 2020 WITH Weyerhaeuser Way ExtensIon Weyemeeuser Way Extension Study .J -,+' ""t f" ~ -\. "\ t ~ \. + .¡ MO'vemem '..'i-"<'i~',.,~ ~;o;I:I:I~'t:tS t!~ E:t!R'C~:W03¡:,!,V',tIl..,-V'{t ~t,'~Nt!L ,"' NUJ¡~N~¡r,m:St!~~t! mtS~ Len~ C~:;g~ra!ion. Hfo ~. 7' ,"" '0 Hfo~. ..- 'I 4+?~. "'" - .. 1m. 1:1.ow.(VI;fipl)1:",.,:.~;,,'.Mo¡i';1'OOOL,19~"0(f 19:X¡ ""!fOO ,.'9bo H':X¡" jgOõ'Y,,19öOj~'1:f~,~ Grade (%) 1% -1% 2% 3% . !'õfãr,tö;t ~m¡'J;í~"',):"}::,;,~.::.~:tJ~i;5:C: .,7'":::' 5:0-:-:':":"'~ ~.O . . 5.0'?;{¡;';7.:y";::'f~~Jì~ Lene Ulil. Fsctor 0.86 0.86 0.91 0.95 0.95 ffl5T,pool'Jlfê&!,! \õ'~~!'¡¡'!'è\-"":OO~:OO,,",?,':7"" 0:99' :,~ ~~~:f;OO 0 9""'\:>~!'i~:g;'!~~i~ Flpb. pedlbi~es 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 !.OO F:iI",¡¡¡¡þ...Z "f\,\.t;~';:;;-;:i¡?~'1,"'~:-~0.~!!5;-::':""-~'~- O:g'! ' : '.'-:"""T::1;OO , . O.88;;1%';;'i"'~~%:¡¡:¡Y4'.!"'~r~ FítP;;î@èt~" .,.. .... -'1.00"'1.00 ""'1.CO . "'0.95099""""""" . yO SãTc!'!floWJ~;f.,:;o;,",,1'-;:':;fi;;,¡:4.~~355'~- -:- - ~ 5013 7;-:::-HI81 . ~5~;5~;;;;,)ç:¡;W;'i1'i'~&~~~ Fit Permlr.ed 1.00 1.00 1 DC 0.95 099 Siiß:'FIòW"(pel'm) ,."'¡";,.,..~-4~7.;';"'f35S--"':::;- . 5013 ':~:.~7~1681 1500Y,'<:X¡.:¡:¡;-T';¡';",*~ Volume (vph) 0 1104 901 0 ~059 159 609 0 364 0 0 Ó ~~""~.~¡;¡;'I ¡I?P.iD.1i~C!O~OO' ::;. 1 :OO'?'-1:DO¥'f<1;oo"', :OOñ~~\¡,m'tJQ(1S,t;~t\~ Ad .FIOW(vph) 0 1104 901 0 :058 159 608 0 384 0 0 0 1;.lme:;Ü~QUPJ:IO,,?:. r~)~1:!o:.u.:;;u.J. ~':m~7.~ 2~:Z..TÞi.O ~5f8';. :'" 4 54,¡'_( ~Q~~q Conn. Peds. ('lhr) 10 10 10 10 10 10 . 10 10 HeellY.val1!CI!1 (~~i.""'Z' \ ~'2'1!1"".~. 1 ~.()"',~'.:f"" ~J!<1;' '!!I~ 'fW".",1 ~;M!'llk~~¡¡gs1~ Tum Type Free Spl;~ r.~~l!a.s!I.m~Wi.tIZim~".:~"'!'m~v-.;;";.7.i;."'l~"'!.:-' '~:,~ ~.tf¡~~ Permined Pheses Free ~8.1 ~ ,,(3 !!.eQ1..q;!&) Æ~];.B. ~~.,. 6 ~ ~cï;:;'¡¡;u !"{', e ~ .13:~.;,:~~'t.;';. 3U2D 7. ~ Et'.ec1lve Green, II (s) 69,8 116.0 59.8 36.2 36.2 . ðcJu..~ !eë!J7C..~!l1!o~:.i"ä-"'iIlq,,69~.' UU 1:..";:;{, ,,¡¡ ,T¡U.~p,: ¡~~~~o.3:C: ;~:O.~ ~~ Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 11' énlellf'l:x'.en Iron ,(I r..>i!R~~2.U'¡¡""!N!II,..;;..."',', :'h' = 2'.0 ."""¡;WM;~ 3'~'2:¡¡""'7:~-~~ Lene Grp Ce~ (vph) 2656 1355 3016 525 468 ~Ub~~~Ii.\:z¡~~ã.U,_z~,.¡;;¡¡Jl!tm:¡.~b;-~'; !;¡ 0 ;2'4'.~~'F..co.3'r;' : 0: 30E1':k~~;:ø~Io¥i-'~~.1€'4'II vIs Retio Perm cO.62 ~:ätrò~.( ff,~..';¡:v~"~U"~T;i1'Ii.U.62~...,:,,,,-:--!;:O:40 .'.»:;;~",.:ror.99" "0.97;:i~~~~~ UnlfofM Deley. d1 12.2 0.0 12.2 39.7 39.4 E.'.$;~}i¡'on J::šc~~;,;,,¡¡¡¡p...:!o JU'UOO! ,:,:E;...,;g, 0.28 .'!~>¡;¡!!:.1~' i '; '1:C(r1!~ Incremental Deley, d2 0.4 1.8 0.4 35.4 33.7 ~[S)oh':W:,!1"!!"'1."';~~~:.;;:¡¡¡¡{:>:Z~1 ;6 ,-, - ~.: :'>:':"3,S-O~~:;¡'¡"""T:7!.r" 73: ~Ff;à'ì1,\.,,\y',~,,~ LëYelofSe!'V!ce""'" . A "'A--"""'.'A" -'È-- E:"""" " . m.it!m1I~J~( ~)~~4¡~ßjj¡~:~~~7r4r1\iì~~~o:~ Approach LOS A A E A HCM Average Control Deley 20.1 HCM Level of Se!'V!ce C ~~QJP.!!f!iLo.Ll.¿~~'£~-~ !!f~~_...~'!it.~;i:~ij~fR1, Actuated Cye/e Length (s) 116.0 Sum of lost time (s) 5.0 !!l!!tS"~J~Dlii:!l [IIg,tyj,I;J~~JJ %"~\'9!_<àt~:!:b ~ I.c: O;tt ~el~~ ~þ¡~\ìBf:.c:"~ c CrltlcalLsne Group THETRAL VL3-FF51 P ~.), ."" ~ .... M:\O2\O2282\Comp Plan smmendmant\Synchrol2020 with Weyer ExI..sy6 2116104 Page 9 M:\O2\02282\Comp Plan emmendmsntlSynchro12020 with Weyer ExI..sy6 THETRALVL3-FF51 . ...' - - -~~~~~._-~~~~~~~..~~_.~~~~...~~....~...... 222: S 320 St & 32 Av S ..f - r+-'\ t \i..+ ,RI ~~ <: t:SC!mI t: e,JAOOi1N~ wt!J!M:~ tj, ~ tS:!~ tSIJ!mI::; tS,I_- I.8neGroupFlow(vph) 240 1228 16 955 170 170 20 107 0' beue'¡;enQID~'!!!H!!~~, ~70~",:,':':¡:&j, "',:',~,:'" ",2,S'1",',"11Z"'_,'",e,"::r2,,,', 9',',~"'5',n,3"',~",,'i,tf",""',i'Tt,3,~,.",~:Y,l"~,,;,.,#mJ,,,..,,>,f',~~" "'~,:,, õüéue"téñÓ!h9siif(II) '25èi""\160'~31< 'iå'2 #223 "il205"" '38'106 "" , ".. . ~."......O'" _i'<'~~" """:,;; ,.":'~\:, "'*1" K~'~~,p:!¡A"WjJiil!-- 5õiiiÛp~"iÎT;ê'(%"'"")':""'f",,¡,t:\;"'~':'~""M"', J~: "",'",'c,;"V";: ,m",'y'O}}".F:~t¡i¡¿£9:i!f"":" """,'" ,',' ;" ~¿~L{~J&;¡t.4f:~:~~::.m:~r :' '>~li,i~/'2;E;;¿:: ,; ;~~':\~~~~~~! Tum Bay Length (II) 100 200 150 50 ~Is ~æ~~:~6!'~~¡;F,'~"""iíIØ\ô"~-~"'~~ ~,..""-"",, ",>C1"" ",', """""""""",,!,,,C"'^ ""~L,, "", ",J ,.,.,'~,,' ,,' 90th Bay Block TIme % 29% 23% 28% 28% 22% 46% !:Lí!i1!ID CJiä~8J.rj¡@..'llJIMJ;:¿~~5~~~!1~~~~ ~ [!1111)- -'---,,"~_IF..g-~IIi<~._--- ~ §!J:!i.Þ~l~J!!m!~~ ~d. s t~ pac;¡ ty¡¡;~\i,el.l e ftD a y be;! Oi) g e~;i%],þ1't~)f'.fi$~~~ Queue Ihown II maximum Iller two cycles, -'!.0J.!m'!~A,gf¿~ q¿~ ]![&~ ~rrl\'þ!~ÿ\îfp' s t f~ ~íg rt är;~d~;¡¡J:¡~- ~~ 2020 WITH Weyemaeuser Way Extension Weyemaeuser Way Extension Study 222: S 320 St & 32 Av...§. ..) 2020 WITH Weyemaeuser Way Extension Weyemaeuser Way Extension Study ~, " r +- \. '\ t ,.. '-. r ;¡ Moverner.I";!,~",,,,"!'.....,~ !::~~Jt:t!,t,"'1:tj~""V'.!3L";V"'l11'~.;WBK"""'N;:¡~t! lRNt!K~:;t IZ"!J:::;tS_:::s~ Lane Confi.u,at'o"s 'It.,.;. 'I ~~;. 'I':' ,'I fo Ic!i1IrF'.öW (Vplíp""'::~""1gcro"'!t1~c'j900 -1900 1900 '!!1:)()~.1ÐOO ~900"'19ðð!\'£tgo¡j~~~ Le~eWid:~ 12 11 12 ~2 " 12 12 '1 12 12 " 12 mlÍdß'{% ~~,TI~":":J':';~e.!.~~%w',:i:"" """~" c%. .':-. '~. '03% ';¡~~!~,;fi¡¡¡m"O'~r~ 7o,al Los~ :;"'1'. (s) 5.0 5.0 50 5.:> 5.0 50 5.0 5,0 t:r~U:!I;.~¡ië!ò(5~n~":m1o\¡;O,9.r~-;:;t;;.:,;; 1;00 : 0:91:: "",:--- ;"TO,95 0.9$1?'S<"~7::;1,(f~(e<m\~ FrpÞ. ped","i~es 1.00 1.00 1.CO 1.00 1.00 0 99 1.00 1,00 FrpsrPèãl5i!(es';'1~'.!,:;: ,.Oo:~" 1:~"'.00' 1.tO; ::":"'~'1:oo -, .01";";?f?'jy',:;;rrO.~';~1. Fr1 1.000.99 1.CO 1.0:> 100095 1.00 0,92 !'!1]fi'ètec~e.::J;;:'!J~;:r.A:;;_O,95:';~,!:OQ.:..;!:r,";.":::O:!!S :"I.CO ~77""~O,95 0.99\;5f!9i7q;:O'¡~5,,~~f¡~~ Sa:d. Flow (pr:!) 1770 ~825 177:> 4e92 1693' 600 1755 1652 F'{~iirmi!l&dr'4.~~~~:-:o:9'~OO~~'!\:'":-0:95', 1,00'-:--"" ":::;0.9S' 'O.G8g);:"d;~');fti;9~,~"W~~J~~ SaId. Flow (oerm) 1770 ~825 1770 4e~2 '693 1600 1755 1852 ~OIUrJ)e:(y?hW~:;~~'!!1~::-2493~1t32~96.';';~'c.15"935 '.~:{20~;;;,223 ,57i;;)f~60~,~ñ20,~_,49~,5.~ Pee~ohourfector. Pf-IF 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.CO 1.00 1.00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1.00 ~I:row ,{~~ !:...,},ß'a~'2~p~.,!32~~~ .~8T--93'S~~~:r' "':: 57_(j( .:~\)~~,~.~ La~e Grou~ -row (YO~) 240 1228 0 :6 955 0 170 :7~ 0 20 107 0 Cõt'!!I':.~e(!ffllJ!iõ'!!~!I.~;~'a~l;';:f(J'::<:"'::' ~:1O.:":.DO~3r::'~~' "'10~fO~1:0;gJ~ 8us Brockng.o (.l1>r) 0 2 0 C 2 0 2 0 2 2 0 2 -;:ury1.Tl'Pe~~~~~~~O!ilJ¡¡;¡¡;;;ß:'iI";~~~: 'fOrot.,. ,:~;"¡,,.r-:;!!*,~;¡:Sp'lt. - "",?~~Sp ),~- P~!eC1ed Phases 7 ~ 3 8 5 5 6 9 perrM!ed'P~8Se8;Þ~~:i.~í!i!ì'.'~~;:':"'~'!", ",-: 7?"::~~'F.;~(' .-~" ':~,¡f,-~ Ãdúãied G'reèn. G (š¡ '22.2 69:0'-- .. 3.5 50.3' . .. ,~:a "4.6 '" 8,9 e'.9 Ë[~,v~;"G~e~~g;(S)D.~i~t-'1.!!i!.,Q)¡.¡z,¡~;;~......3'.5,~! 5O::!~;~~~'?f:~' '~1;¡:~~!~'t!'f._~.~ Actuated g/C Ralio 0.19 0.59 0.C3 0.43 0.13 013 0,08 0,08 ~:;U(1).e;( ~ );ri?'~.5:0 "'~,\I';¡kt:'~~,~ :S:O:1J:.5:t!.7.t,;;::-i"~ w. ~S: ~;>¡,~¡~ Vehide Ex'.enoion (0) 2.0 2.0 20 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2,0 ¡;Drie:Grp~Cap'~(VpI1J~~"'33.!lJii2~Z02~¡\t.r;~, ;,:~:?53,' ;2117:" ;:;':j~J;213'.: ,. 201kW8#_'l3~~ v/o Ra!;o Prot 00.14 0.25 0.0' cC.20 0.10 c011 0,0100,06 ~/SJ!.a~o.I:'Ð~,:,o"~-'~~'Iiïi&':~~i~J'1IJ:.;. "'~;:;~ ',¡;,~~:;,'l.~~~(ilI¡'!I!l~:':;"-'~'-~ v/cRa!io ' 0.71 0.43 .. 0.30 0.~5 0.80 0.85 . 0.15 0:84 ' p~n C!'!1T. U. ereY~.l.!'.~~s¡" ~;¡í!'~~I:!.l'íiBEq-.55.':,'1'::?"23'~ ,,:¡ -!~ o;:.,;:..".;¡. 4 9".3;;:-'49: 6$>~,59J9ao.;j!,~~ Progression FaC1or 0.86 0.65 1.02 1.:3 1.00 1.00 1,00 1,00 w.~è1!fë(OëTii9:'!J.~ ;;.u.5;!l.ï;¡ In 11 ;:" os;¡, '!> .~m; j """7'0 ~: ~<"'.;..!.~, 7,¡1Ii: ,:: 2 5: B~;ama.~{fE~\~ Deley (s) 42.6 8.7 57.5 26.8 e6.7 75.2 50,2 88.7 ~~_S~'eI!::;:,t;:.~";"~.,,,, u..~.!\ l!1';,.;;-a:::..: ~e: ¡7f,'; (,; .~~...I>.;.:a;;o::,.. E!':-~::Z, E~~>t~LJ~~ APproach De:sy (s) 14.2 27.3 70.9 ~ ""',' -""'O:;""'N""'~,' ifee",~....!,,'<!r..,.c=,<.,'fIt"",~"', ,""~""'~"\""',~,,,,E~,," ':,' ,"'; ,,' , ("'I't'.~o~."""'~'~~""""" "',. """'.M.'~ "-"""""","""C.","_4~.,. '" , M:\O2\O2282\Comp Plan ammendmantlSynchro\2020 with Weyer ExLsy6 2/16/04 Page 11 M:\O2\O2282\Comp Plan emmendman!\Synchro\2020 with Weyer Ext..sy6 - THETAALVl..3-FF51 THETAALVl..3-FF51 '.~~~Q~~~~~~~~~~~.~a~~~.a~~a...~~...a~...s" 223: S 320 St '" 2020 WITH Weyemaeuser Way ExtensIon Weyemaeuser Way extensIon Study e'-^~tr ~. ,... ").' .c ~ "'- ~ t ,.... \. r ¡;¡.~ ",-oyemenril;{!,",1I\r;-,.;o.1'):P I:BI.,Wol:ö !rntI:BH"'WVBU""1 VVJ: I;,::WBI{ ~jI[ NB~NI:UA.'fN~~!f:¡B_:¡I:!,";!f.n.;BR Lane Configurations 'I ttTo 'I ttfo 'I , " or rr " "I ,t .,,/'; raraD:1õvrJ~PQ:~:';.',~1ö.OQ~;.:~OQ~"g'oa-' ,1 libO .:1 gOO:"'~f9ððTf9OQR'1Gðc)i:iù;'9~,.~ØtJ9i~).m Lane WIdth 12 11 12 12 11 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Tðl'ëITõsr~S);¡-;::;~;.~p;t!:~?0J[:;:r;::;"~T'5:0" . 5.0~:7.~5.0t'tS:Ö~fis:m.¡;~5:ð,j,~!5;~'Æq Lane Util. Fac~or 1.00 0,91 1.00 0,91 0,95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 J:rPb~IÍèc!i'b1'lœ"s~:~.o,;.O.99 Si'~: ','~ '1.00 ",' f()O' ;~"'~1.Oö.:r;O()'!'7P;!)9!tif;t;W;~O'O)¡Jit1;:pg F'pb,pedlbikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 F'rt~~~;"~.:7~";;T".:s;:"f.t)O:£O.9~7" 'f.OO- 0:99--~:-:'-'~'-":-'1.Q()"'f¡OOn?o;!!5JJ")i6P.-¡~~JF.~ Fit P:-otecled 0,95 1.00 0,95 1 00 0,95 0.99 1.00 0.95 1,00 1.00 ~Frow(¡;rot)",:r"'~"-17_TI'~479~ '::-:"f17,69 '4874':'~.~~'::;;f6eg,-':;1ß5ií{(f5~J'fm~88~~ Fit Permi!'.ed 0,26 1.00 0.16 1,00 0,95 0.99 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 S8fa"'.FIõW~iTj,T7-'-','~47m7~':7"', "'304 4674' C"-'" 7'16ð8";1M':':f5~':i1f7'7.ð).~"'8t13':l~!$8'3 Volume (voh) 17 1057 138 259 759 31 126 95 253 175 115 86 ~~6¡¡r;rIla'OÌ';"'Ht,~ .P~;S1~.~:OO ' ::; 1:oo~~1 ,ooj:;;i~~J~~ AdJ, Flow (vph) 17 1057 138 259 759 31 126 95 253 175 115 811 ~P");I.ó\9 !vpn)1..;;':ì'>JI'¡.'~1..1.9~C~259~'790_~.. O'~' '07VJ~"'~5~'J;~~lM:t\~ Conn. Peds. ('/hI') 10 10 10 10 10 10 B08, BI ~ageI1/f¡;¡r¡ ',,'\.',. :..;O'~¡'I ';':.ÿ."1"~~0"'~'7";O~"~~0~< 2L"'~0'~:t~,IM~~m;v~o Tum Type pm+pt pm+pl $pl,t pm+ov Split ' Perm efõt~~~ë~~.~... ;':-:"1" ", '-::6 "1!'¥-r:~~: !!E:;Yff¡¡,!!j1~\i;;:¡i'~~~" Permitted Phases 2 6 8 4 mfòTë~~ ¡:G,J'1~B2;~g.i.41¡2~ ~ ::t'::--as:1I ;, - e5.'B'::::;'~¡.~~1 :4f5;JtJ£.(Jjj¡~i~~1,~¡_1~,ø3JI! ElleC'.lve Green, g (s) .2.2 42.2 65,6 65,6 12,4 12.4 39.0 14.8 104.8 14.8 ~~~~R'al¡~~ @.~~~~ t ',:"0 :57 -:-:- 0:57::xW~'17:;£:O,'1' f \fY:a.~1~!¡!f.O~»~~~~C)!:I¡lD~b.~~ Clearance Time (s) 6.0 5.0 5.0 5,0 6.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 mJê1èE11'éñiT~~.O~..'" "'..',,2:0"',;;' 2F.~~~..2.0i¡;;¡~¡o;_21OìDiz¡o.æ::>2'~ Lane Grp CaD (vph) 210 1743 508 2756 17B 168 522 226 238 202 vr8~Rii'J8'Pi'ë~~~"~,, ,~5~\"~ëcO:-r2' .' O~16 -,...."?--:T-O.06<'CO:06~~trê:OIf~ vIS Ra!lo Perm 0,03 0,17 0.05 0.05 ~~lfo~,¡1:J1:..m;:O'-C~:69..w,..f?'~0;51 .:: 0:29','.!:::~;~O.eo1iÆ¡1):~'æ.~.~Wl7.9~_<r~3. Uniform Delay, d1 2..1 31.3 25,0 13,1 49.4 49.5 30.5 49.0 47.0 411.7 ~tenICn).I')IC!Dr;W-.~'<:o!:J £~o.58~~o:S;C ":"O~""':!'.~1'.OO :J1iIO(t-Ð.,Q9m'U\!U"';~1;!Q Incremen~al Delay, d2 0.1 2.1 0,3 0,2 3,9 3.8 _,~3 0.11 0.5 Cë1iŸ:,{¡"~~9,O.af.'9.T,f.~":;;:::'!J'3.S,~ .'8.0':~;~:r'~!53;~;?::s:r:2J!!få¡þ;lØ!' {. '.. ;~, LevelofServlCð A B BAD D C' D D ~(S ~\;':;'~,.~¡~IJ.:!.~~T"~' ,...' ''''':;'If.4~''}""~~;;::rn~!iA~'í\' Approach LOS 9 A D 223: S 320 St '" 2020 WITH Weyemaeuser Way extensIon Weyemaeuser Wey extension Study .,f - <: - '" t '* ,'t]; if:: ii?' þJne;v¡pI,....."..", -...C~tlJA'lVI:!~ öJ!ßj;'I;NI I8.N tlJø,N tI~!)I3!!!W!.~tM_~tI- l.8ne Group Flow (vph) 17 1195 259 790 107 114 253 175 115 86 P U&U eJ.L"!IJ~~t~~~~!I,_"'~~e:-œ:m~!lr&~.¡g!l~~'lli Oll8Ue Length 95th (It) m10 337 0 92 140 147 96 200 137 45 ~~~S!.1) ~'~7:~~ ~~!!q~1R.s?J~~;%i~!'J1~Mtß rot/IÙi!BlocItTlme(%) , """,,',,-^, d, ,=" ..,... "-" '." .... ~MlJB~%¡"",ç'""""~:'N""~""""""'.J""""""""""'-"'~1J!!:)\iIæ ~,r1ìo ø: ",," "",,,","'-,',',,""",,',",,",',0'",",',,',"',"",',"-,""'~""',",""""'"""','=,',,',,",,,,""""""""""",,",,,,',,',;""",'",",',','!!G,' ' "',:N.:- """'~""",A',"""""""""",_"=",-""_""""",,,,,,wß ,-",~"',.,-" urn Bey Length (ft), 200 400 300 ~~ ~(-~ 1i;': ',!\(~¿Y'?~!~-¡;};~:;~~,~'W;.~-*,; 95ìhêirySlocItTlme% ", ,......, ,.. " A,', ," """~" -" .. ,g, " ' ' !=œ.~ ~JZL8!tŒB11J æ::œ~f'~:~¡¡i~fif~¡ä~.~'i¡'i ~-~->-~- ....c,' """1 A' ~ IDa\!... õ!!fL!J!!1.~!'>11§mr,çet\ ti I,~iš tie,li 8:1 srtri~~ ë~gi¡"1::q ~s (ream',s I (¡na I ::';f.~i:1i1;i;'¡;J~'j~'il~~~:'i' THETAALVL3-FF51 2/16/04 Page 13 HCM Average Control Deley 23.7 HCM Level of Service ~!Mlfg¡,Ç.~~<m!.~~?l'!J~~~.;;üX'JR.~,- ,--_. '" Actuated Cycle Length (s) 116.0 Sum of lost tlma (s) 15.0- ~ì.!.',I¿!I RI\ÇI !Yi,1ÆÝP~&!!9J.!~«1!JJ~ ~.B',~1fiWJ epee av.el!!)r;(l)e.lYI~:'!!tf~~ c Critical Lane Group - !"" -,' , , ...... .. ~ , ... ~i M:IO2IO2262\Comp Plan ammendmantlSynchro\2020 with Weyer Ext..sy6 M:IO2\02282\Comp Plan ammendmantlSynchro\2020 with Weyer Ext..sy6 211 !11'04 Page 14 THETAALVL3-FF51 ~, . - -- -- '.. ... - ..., .., ,., "" ,., ... '. ~ .. .. ... ... ... '. r. (tf I,. 'ø ' I" 'II (II I. '. r. '. r. ,~ '~ 4) !4J a a- a . .,. 2204: S 320 SI & Mllila!;LRd S ..I' 2020 WITH Weyemaeuser Way Extension Weyerheeuser Way extension Study 224: S 320 51 & Mililary Rd 5 2020 WITH Weyemaeuser Way ExtensIon Weyerheeuser Way Ex1enslon Study - .. c - "\ t "~ ,.,s... +.,.1 .} -'+, .. c - 4... "\ t I"" ~ ~ ~ tIIM..Vf!)I:.. --lil; 6..,.-,\11: I; .t~ I: I; /:<.~ '¡YBIPD.~t'/~t ;¡'~tSJlmø~~¡~~ foIICvemer.I'1!¡",\~~~t:BL~tI!t:B I~ t:BR~W~I!i!tl'l1!BKWN6~~I:Jti_:st\L_::Ifj,I~!ò~ Le~. Co~~gur81!0~S 'I ttt J' 'I Hi- , ,,'1'1 ~ tor' 'I t , r ée ãr Fr õW ('f'¡þ ~\fm:lö v MO;:¡¡:r 9"0!1i:'%1 ~~1 ø öö'~:OþO!f:.'~' 1900;:7.1'9 00[$;,' !Jöö~~9öq';t'}~ Le~eV'l;d~h 12 ~1 12 12 11 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Tõ1ãr[.õ-sr~'1S) ,::C ::1:': 1:5:cm.5:~ ~79]£f:f!S;t)Fi,';5:~((q~FB~t\~);1'S.Ö: ,'5:0t,t]~;.5:0~rY:5:qi~5~:i!:5.:.q Lene U!iI, F8:10r 1.00 0,91 1,00 1,00 0,91 0,97 1,00 1,00 1,00 1.00 1.00 ~ ~ ~":"¡:-ë<! ,"J '~ëš~~ ' "I"OO~: ~ ;9J! j,1¡f:} (99ií(:t1[~ïr$#œ~~!}\"500 '1: 0Ol~f.O Ö-¡;'%~ ;~;Otf.llt~ Flpb. ped!'J;~es 1.00 1.0C 1,00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 !:').~~::;;;~ "';:!""'~f', ':00 J!,j1~:o;g~J¡t59J¡'¡O'@~4¥~~1)\()():1.00JÜ~:o:a~~1~1~:~':¡g,~ Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 ~ .00 0,95 1,00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Së.'.3rFIòŸ(p~r:;:-?'.: ~'",: 1 't55.;"!JJ~~ S~J'£t~o;tì~~e ~;~iit~~: "1gajfu¥t15~~EP;~e~~~ Fit Perm't:ed 0.95 1,CC 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 S"nfã. FIõ';¡'{~~'75~1 e:""': 5e~:f77ðiiW:'i a65Z~j~!!~~ '1 a!5j~}"'5S3~770!í!M8~ Vc!~me(vcn) 1C3 1167 215 236 772 307 127 123 71 202 260 \50 ~ës¡r.~õ"(jr !R!õr;1'H~:1~~ .pq;r~l¡go'j]':Ji()()Tf!Bf!O°.~"Q().. ',;1¡00W;F.~(OO~jOO~iO).!..~:t!\I..~ Ad:, F!ow (vph) ~03 1167 215 236 772 307 127 123 77 202 280 150 r6 n€' Gfë~5~¡=¡è~ h)~ 1 o37~mh~d ¡¡J,~~~~a:fi;¡IQ?i~~.127B\>~123*,~m~~e~ Co~~, Peds. (tliI'r) 4 10 10 3 3 3 eWeT i!~lfãge§"'C/t:ffff"~Ff:.W2"..'~ 0 ;¡~:, ~O~O7%'~~~r:OF>';WO'~$~O~~'PiR~Z Turn Type Pret Perm Prot Pro! Perm Prot Penn l'(bteèt~'~!1i9ë~~".~5'~W;; Z¡:'Z,' ,"".'ifI;Q;¡l:~~'r¡¡¡..-4!¡:I~";';:S}'ig~~i"¡7:~~_'1!I Pe"";t~ed P~eses 2 8 4 Aé!UlÌléCI--G~!!n~a:(S.,.~' o-.e~!iI~.tei~¡;'¡:;"iIg;e~<;;~2;;~=¡~8:0' ',11:7 '~'l1m:~l,;1'8':5'"~~~ EMec!lve Green. g (s) 10.6 .6.2 46.2 20,6 56.2 9.0 12.7 12.7 18.5 20.2 20.2 Aët> .i¡'~ed :g!C:l'!à\1~g~ :a.ç9 ~;:.tO P::O if.q!1IQ¡1a.;;'vi,(f¡,4!!)'E~tIí(J¡9a;'o;¡1,1.':ZiQ¡M:i¡!¥0¡1J~I');1zr:A'; Cles's"ce Til"'.e (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 6,0 5.0 6,0 8.0 ,6.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vë!ílë'.é'EX'.èFis'ó':(S)'~", ~ ¡¡.u:o~Z.II~,"'~~OEiWi!i'.~¡Z;Oì};.;ff2;:O'Imñ21!t~1O'a2~ Ls~e Grp Csp (vph) 180 1958 630 314 2260 266 20. 173 252 324 288 Ilro<á1fo "rot';f:.:';::,~:;r.a:t16~.Z4..V;: R~.~~~~!'iI'fi:¡:'öT()~ik;¡~;~¡;1~~ viS RstloPerm 0.14 0,05 0.10 ~~\ró3'.~~¡Fo;e~¡t4.IJ¡tKJ~IJ:~'.r.?{0;76,>0.'48r,~~O.4a:. ,O.60.,,:'OA~?:~"0;80~O;8~~)'58 Uniform Delay, d1 SO.9 27.5 24,3 45.3 20.1 51.2 49,2 .8.4 48.2 48.0 43.8 ~~s)TiSQ'J',¡¡èl91'*¡~¡q;~:O'.m;o;~;C1?;¡¡;~"f:PO . ,1,go~:!~¡;J:_f.00.. ,1.00;¡1f1:0p':;r0¡80~14:TO;~'lR!~ InCfementsiOelay,d2 5.2 1.1 1.2 8.7 C.7 0,5 3.4 0.7 13.7 11.0 1.2 ~Yl(j)~'5,,~.'!:2~$'t:();r2QT:8:;;¡t'#¿[~.)5f:7J: "52¡?,i;iC49;O;~5~%.~ Lever of Service DBA D C D D D E 0 c ;m~~'(J~!fø.lðf;~,,¡&~~~2'a: ;7~4;;~";; 5,1~41~t'i~: ~~ Approach LOS BCD 0 lI\t ~~~ IT! _i~~,g.¡_W_flWM,~~~I~'X~\~ HCM Average Control Delay 27.5 HCM Level of Service C:!:: ~~~~ )!CIt}'¡~Y.~u.t1!!¡;;¡!JB:vß3.J¡1..[ir""$Ji~'I'3Z!:;.;;;:::s:Y.''"r!'i:f','$j{'; '. ';. .' Acfusted Cycle Length (s) 116.0 Sum of lost time (s) 15.0 I ~~CIIOn'ca caêl; Jnzãuon' "',r:!rI'"",;,P". "(J, ""8 imrœ""{:',,'D"';'::'~V'.;. ,.' .mJ~""",~'LP.,.J~J.".,",,"..._~..,;%',:~,"¡¡\':'C ,;r?Ø.y~" ,3"., ." .",."."".,C"". " ",,' , c CritIcal Lane Group m - ~ Lane Group Flow (vph) 103 ~167 2~5 236 1079 127 123 77 202 260 150 ~!!IKl~.\ò.!!lo-n~~(I!5;~~ Bu~'!)) 1 ..",...¡~.2~:;, ~~,t1£t~65¡fñllit+l!tà~~~.~t8.~~¿}!JR¡¡!$~ Queue Lengt., 95L~ (1".) n130 156 . 253 250 78 149 44 209 267 73 l'l!!m~~I;!;'1JS'i.IJ.!s~m) ã~ ¥,:?':~ 2: 50~ ~ì~m~$iof~~t'fiR¡~""i;f;:7lÍ>u:~~~<;i! SOUl Up B'OCIo: iime (%) ØSl!î!t ø.1!!ðe (iQfñe~) ., ~.' .,~~':...~-~;~' 1!!fj,¡:(?~~"ñD;;¡!;\;!'Yf;!1ti41'\r.~~~ít'?)1¡¡;~¡¡¡1~'o/! 'fûrñ'Bøÿiêñç:h(1:)' . 2~O" ""200" ",.." '.>" "Ì75'.n, 100 .. ~!!~a~,e.;,"r¿t.!;'l1!?:' ~:::':' ~':,':f:' -B,~lD:~æBi:!'LB~~"&~j 95:hBayBlockiime% 3% 21% 11% 12% 22% ~!lI~g:p!n "w ~ ¡òð~t:.:-. '"'i~. :J.:~~:¡3]3tt~t~~~_>È.%J¡ø:.~~~ :gm ø>< m:E: p~ 0 M:\O2\O2282\Comp Plan emmendmsn!\SynChroI2020 with Weyer Ext..sy6 2/16104 Pegs 15 M:\02\02282\Comp Pisn emmendmsnt\Synchrol2020 with Weyer Ex1..sy6 THETRALVl3-FF51 THETRALVl3-FF51 '< 2118/004 , Page 18 " '~ , ¡...... ., r ,.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~aaa..~ 234: S 312 St & 32 Av S 2020 WITH Weyemaeuser Way Extenslqn Weyemaeuser Way Exlenslon Study 2020 WITH Weyemaeuser Way ExtensIon Weyerhaeuser Way Ex1enslon Study ,"'" ~' ,'r: - ~ ". t ¡ MOWmen_- - :~-~I; ~1lYt:!~Nt:!um:Nt:!t(j'~~~~-- Lane Conflgurauonat~ " . .', '1ft'! .,,1" ;;¡Q ~1;26,~;'II~~~.J;:t~ &~~_"~~te:~!;5.s:@~~~~i~:;:;;'l&,*Æ!I!1'~~ Grade 0% 2% 0% ~1K!!¡ :mi:)äij¡i{:.:7?~~2! !';~,;z~.41]2".5!;)f~22~;Älâ.~~~~~ Peek HourF8CIor , 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ~tt'J~~ e¡{!~¡~);~Z. SB2't~5.l'Z'.f1r2¡~j(1\1~1122~lØj~~~ PedestrIans 10 10 10 ;~ ~ ~~,;z'. p _dl~M¡~l!,.~!219~'t!~~~~~~;~œ: --., Walking Speed (ft/a) 4.0 4.0 4.0 ,.~ !t~!~ g ~~,.~FtRih è':rEtW:1Jl~31;\.?:l*$':*~:~ë~:¡'(~_--~ RighI 111m flare (veh) , ~£!...TiR~~1~f~~~1¡¡!;1~1Jfr~~Ëz~~i~~ Median atO!'llQe veh) 1 !~~~4~- "..._--~ ~l . W8 px. platoon unblocked ~~~~~#1í'J~~~J- 1."'V ~ ~J_~¡¡I!I- vC1. atege1 confYOt 396. ~t~Q!~~~~~'M¡¡;+~~~?'~'¡Jt~f,,~ vCu, unblocked YOt 504 854 267 ~1rJ'Jrll~;;'~~':,~4i1"""""""'" ',. .1';:6 '8 .~~ 6' 9""/ "'1\¡'";""'\f",.""~~-¡--~"> ' . 2ÎI¡\Q'e (a) . , ,"'-;~~"$~,b¡*'.",.~= ""'s:e',æ:",.. .o";",,r~""'~""¡:_!k'!"'â1i¡m~, ~~~~~~}~l~$#.~(~~~ pO queua free % . 88 49 69 ~1!..~~~~;¡¡~ji!"";~~.1~1¡¡.¡¿.rlml ~ "I!I"IiV-~ \oJ ~J:.tmIm~jZ t¡,'I11ISitl>WYB¡Z~V)(I'!~O a l1Jmtil6,!2B\' HH ¡II"I"_R~-.--R m¡~f!l ~ ólùtnftTotlí~.~.5_~~J&.~-~PJ3Btt~.21@'J!~B VoIumeLaft 0 0 121 0 0 194 0 m9 ~g ti~w_~~~~~~g~<i~~A'~- cSH 1700 1700 1048 1700 1700 381 719 œ ~~~q¡¡ 1ap.ZI.g_.A1~RPJ1.Wg;, .;¿).!1;51.~òt4,.~gm1im1f j~1!! -. "!itt:3 Queue Langill (ft) 0 0 10 0 0 69 33 ~ e' ~¡I.!~OJ9.iJIŒ \9 ~p.!.g&cì;'tFi;q;!jJ12~;!!_6t~~ '~ Lane LOS A, C B e:P.P~ !M{~}~Q¡P~~*-.\!_,\...¡,~.7i:~~l,..._m_J Approach LOS C' Average Delay '&~"," " '~,,' 5.8 ',' ..,5f~~~~rt-r~"~"t2tW:4Wl_a¡;'~_m ~~~ll.t\ÇUY..lIiIßlt;!t () , . - J"... ~" . , II\!J'¿:'(~:~!~II r,;wf ,\~. :;.¡¡h¡))iili;m:il£'h~N;;¡¡Yâi Ii ~:~¡:\",~f, ~¡~~#IiW;>'b:i;,:t;JiI.¡:;'\"$\,,*,Úì,øí¡¡¡¡¡f¡~i4':tt~¡¿,%jjj;Í~Wi Jiíf:i:1:W. -om »x G):I i~ ~m C)( m:t - .'-.J '2282\Comp Plan ammendmant\Synchro\2020 with Weyer Ext..ay6 ~LVL3-FF51 2/16/04 Page 17 M:I021022821Comp Plan ammendmantlSynchro12020 with Weyer Ext..sy6 THETRALVL3-FF51 " .. ,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~a~~aa~aa~aaaaaaa._~ " 497: S 312 St & Milita~ / ...., 2020 WITH Weyerhaeuser Way Extension Weyemseuser Way extension Study "'\ t ¡ ~ ~""[1'1er¡IPD..,...........GEt!".t:B~,-t:~K~ NI:!C!" '".Nti 1.C;:1.::¡1:I t_:$t ~-~---"",-_........- lane Conr"OIUrtllions '\ ~ '\ ~ ':+ ~lYP::J;:.IJ~:~~;.L9OC !";f~~ goo.~OO':. . ~~ Soom:!J.Q9~~tjl.1[~.i\.~~ìl1ìit'F'~ TOIel Lost ume (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 ~ C J;!Q.~J;1!!J;F..øgP!..;~~~t~1,CO~i :OO~;;:;'f~O:J ::: '1::Co()~;;1!iz~~rK~I!1Æi>~1 Frpb. pealbikes 1.0C 092 1.00 1.0C 0.99 !:I~~rP.~ 'D!~s ~~.;.r~ )!')a:?:1:00m~Oð~ C.c : --: ~:CO_-~~~~;¡;~_4i!.lm:4t'_-~1 Frt 1.00 0.a5 1.00 ~ CO 0.95 tli..t!E! ~:. eo ~~I~:e., 0:9 5 ~ 1 : ~c:g. 5" ~'. c:;:~ I". 0 O-Ž<1f?i;h._l="fr_.w.~B&~}J~:-¡ Setd,FIOW(prct) 17~S 1450 1770 1848 '745 f'¡t!'.!!~f:".e<I~I.......:.o.!!5~:OO~~1 :CC" '1:~'t!'}tm'!i1W~'¡;~J~~~,f{_1;~iK~~ S8!d:FiõwïDë~) 175S-'1AS6 '578"'1Úa' 1745'-~'" """ . . " y'Çlflt1l~~{vp.!1)f'i.'M;¡¡¡~¡300~~:¡ 20' ;!~:i~92.~~ :)53,.: 491jf.1{>;t2~,1.~_~ Peek.hour fector, PHF 1.00 LCO 1.00 1.00 I.Ce 1.00 fi9;t.1.~{~!1J':'i",¡r¡&..;:o¡~JO~IJ'.t'!!,.292 ~J:.:J53",,: ':: z9'H2.f,1¡æj_~è~tf'~¡¡.~ Line Group Flow (\'Ph) 300 20~ 292 353 732 0 ~2!1!Iæ.e.g~-ú"l1'J »(¡:;.~'< ¡.).fJ..';'~. J O~1.DJ:;:,I' 0 "--::1 O:_;i'\J~r4if4l"t_~_1!iWI mm~ Bus BIOCkeqes (8/hr) 2 2 0 2 2 0 . ;~j}'þfJ~~,t,ÿ';i?e!ë1*~~n:ln¡¡~¡;¡?: .. .,;: ,B$\,~t\\j---_~~ P!'OIected P!'1eses 4 2 6 ~erm!I~6( '~85e1;!'t~..~,.~~~~^.;..,;",~~~~ -. :,:;" '~~!F~!'.~'Í]í1~~~ ACiüãìéd~ëii;""G(S)"'2fo"'i2:o""ã4:0 'à4.'O' 9.4~O..~"v""" ~".'~.. . ~e,Çt:î'.ì..~.i'.8'_e:!)lg:(S.l",":;!:22:°Z:22:!f\~:~Bl:O' '. .. e..(O!a'!1:IJ~:ti~ft~~ ActuetedgtCRetio 0.~9 0.~9 0.72 0.72 072 ~~~~~(')~ælv.5.0:-.;z 5:q~~~:azi:~5:0" '." '5.0:_~ VehICle Exlenlion (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 . ~)!!"ÁG}P3,~It:(Yþ!1~333]< !'-27. 5.'~417~;:1:)38 ". 1284._~~"'.1I~ vflRetloProt cO. 17 0.19 0.42 V(l:.R..8~!I_~~~:I~..:.,~;:."':..~O. 1" :¡ëU:5'.~:'7' .. vIe Retlo 0.90 0.73 0.70 0.28 ~~Pmf.u.ef~;o;.c.'!l-'-:;:jjf.,¡j¡,~5:9~:44:2~9:0~5:5; . 7.B~~;.';:¡\Wì~ø't~:i__~¡r,r,,_:§!,j ProgressionFector LCD ~.OO 0.82 0.781.00 lQ9'J!.Iil.11118r.L!~~.~I:!=~5:ð~e::3'~;S:D:D:5~-; ';~:9g~W:;'~~ OelIY(s) 71.5 52.5 16.2 4.7 95 ~Ø!:!l;:.e.lio1.~~':t,.,:; ?'<JSo-~ìF...::t:I.W"'-:'A7;~ ; ~'A_;!u'.%1œt">1~4i!i'-_~;\1 Approecn Oeley (I) 63.9 9.9 9.5 . ~¡¡!?!!~t;.I./.~'i'!¡;¡~~t:~~:-"r~i.I:";"!\:' '"::,,~W'aA...At~'\i --om 'ß~ mffi _:4 "~!"".. i ~" rmetJ eçuort.'Þ!IITI m III)' "'--i~-1ti'ml!!i!'llœlmm;l$_JfII~ßtW,"1i1:bltW\!~tlœ¡¡W!fi:UöWl.mtllllRffl¡¡l- f.!.. ~ ~a ~~!~~2 !i~j'i~¡:ifi; I;i C ~ll.iÀ! ~e.I;ofl§' ~ ~~~ç;~ HCMVoIume 10 Cepedlyratlo 0.74 ~~1mì.L.MØ !!It{.!~~UJ~!!J~~HI'5rðJ.J£!~Jj¡:if~t~ )g¡~¡9JþÀ~~ IntenectJon CapecUy'.Utlllzetion 86.2% ICU Level of Service 0 ~ll~~.!RIl Pl\1:ii\\i!i-IIð;~4&r;î;Ji¡r¡:¡;'¡'ì1r~¡j.'\_~'\Ì!(i1,l\1¡N¡~m¡¡i1b~W:"ii.---:m~ it¡' 2116104 Page 19 , ~ ~ ~ (II (II ell (II rll r/ 'II fj tJ 'ø '. '. f4J ~ r. '. '. r. r. ,. 3 .-. ~ a a -a ~ ~ a a a a' a' a' a ~ :8 .. ... ~ 135: S 312 51 8. 28 Av 5 ..f .,.... ~ - " ~t \;. l _1{: I \ ~ _CB~¡:I:U~IIi!II\\Y:I$'I:m~_r;¡BeNt!J~~tIl'_!III!I- line Group Flow (\'Ph) 292 446 10-4 449 -43 53 126 23 529 ~1!!1Q!Jl.~!!~'t~ÇJ.Jt~k~--:!f4!_,!!'j-~~R11~ Queue Length 95th (II) #217 173 51 176 13 -45 -47 19 11308 InI8lT18!J!!!!!1!i!, U, [!mI"m~B, <~',-"1",,2,' ~-,' ,þ'" ",6'1,t1r."-,:'fiNm!!iP,',',."",',';,X_,",1'\'.1~1j!~;!'4\\Œi!g~~~E.$~1f 5ðiii'ûp Block-Time (%) --"', .~.""!\.'t_iH.,_, ,JuM".. u«.#~~._,. "..". ",' . .,. Q.i!¡,~l~~~l~lI1':¡t~~~I..~liìf:.;'at;j!,~'E:,D¡;M;_;%~,~\~~ Tum BeyL~h (II) ~~~~im.a~:",¡~j';æ~~~.)mt¡;;~~__--- _wn,- 95th Bey Block Time % !!l~ø.!!.!YìL.1I!Dl~~~",,'~ç~~ ,.::. "~ ~,aQ' AII-mlllm'i'.-....'1!'.__- "__IIIIII_mIIlt1lll_- _ß~ 1!!!!!e~,liE8 ~p~ .!X~!!~,(¡~1!f1 a y ;~~;!P~ '1 e,t__ti#J'jIpl~m!tI.m_r'1!' ~., .. '-'Queue shown Is maxImum allerh'lO cycles. 2020 WITHOUT Weyerhaeuser Way ExtensIon Weyemaeuser Way Extension Study 135: 5 312 51 8. 28 Av..§. Æ 2020 WITHOUT Weyerhaeuser Way Extension Weyemaeuser Way Extension Study .,...., ") ~ - " ~ t I" \;. ~ .¡ MQvemen~..'I>~",~;'mt:l::w".?J.t:I:II'31', EBR ,vweL~VYI:IJlR¡!¡!i'VEe,aNBU1.~t!.I&NBR~BLHlStI.IîDISBr:t La~e Con~gura:,ons ;¡ ¡. 'I ",t ".',J' .'", ,,'I, " " ,10 , " ~ to. , " ", ~ëW (Y;5!i p IJ}~:;¡;~ 1 '3 . tßObO:'2I9OO:' ~J~ !Xt~f~~,~ ~OöX'<fiRXft¡1f.~fi.ì ~j~ t\!OCJ La~eWi~!" 12 11 12 12 11 12 12 11 12 12 11 12 ~~ ~;" ::'~'::'~""';::;~..!7:.4%::;::~ ':'¡~:t;~'<~!'!~~1:.);~;"v.,..".,~:~¥t,~i:r;Þ,,'~~~ Tolal Losl lime (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Œ/fë;U!i1';F; ar:~~O'~.:O'O;r: -::¡r '~'f. OQ),JJ1:'19.C!~~,tJ~O'O1;;"1:Oö':'i1~f!ì?!~~ Frp!l. pad/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 ~7P.l!1J5IKes~,< "R~:;' a;Sg lW:'-, cq~~,;: ç. ';::0 .9~!JYl&J4.~ga.(f;9,~16:¡\QO();1\M't;{$g;~~.'I;,~ Ft1 1.00 0,98 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.93 1.00 0.92 f;Ir.~~!èe!e~:;¡¡-t~.~2'~~ 0: 9.~..t'f!1.oW.o(.;.J-.<,' >;';-~'O: 9~.:!1~~~g\¡J,~ì,l~,¡Þ9.\\I'£I!Sf::Jì~1i.0]~~WilÂl,,\J!J~ Said. Flow (pro!) 1721 1723 1738 1783 1510 1751 18-41 17-46 162-4 r;rœëi'fñ,1ftë~~ ~.::~,.O. ~:tl~ l;oO 11 > 'J~7'-:' 0':'; 2~~~'ROO,fž1:oì2~; ;'i'1iC!O:!i&;ìZ',;r+ðx".<a 0 :6J~l ;.0I.t~.~ Said. Flow (pem) 7.8 1723 759 1783 1510 -429 18-41 12-40 162-4 V.oI.u,!,\a:(vp Þ )..2i..~.2.9.2~9Å~::: 57;,' ~~'1. Ot.~I:1~,3"'5?%\'1iI~_1~3_;{238.2~O_2,~.1! Peak-hour(actor,PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,001.00 1,00 1.00 ~flõw~ ~ ).~ a~~~!! ~ . 57?Y f 0'1"~¿j)(~'ì~5,irih\¥~~_{ ~.JI Lane Group Flow (\'Ph) 292 448 0 10-4 449 -43 53 128 0 23 529 0 ~~1I\'F '"'~~!:".;,1 [t~~ , u ~:v.1~' ~i()"'1U~1'C!%:ìBl'fO'~Mß~~ Tum Type Perm PerM Perm Perm Perm F:!~è:a;P.n.!.S~8 Y.1wc.i1i.~$1t'.::i;: 3:,~~~~A,~~"2!~~ Permi~ed Phases 4 8 8 2 8 ~el~èJ G r6i!ni .u.f!) jAAI'22;J!.~,¿..! . >,!!'i',~".~22:!!~i!!_~,\5.".819£'t%1JI:;~.~&~1Ø'¡IItDt5.¡)!,.~ Ellecllve Green. g (s) 23.8 23.6 23.6 23.6 23.6 17.9 17.9 17.9. 17.9 ~üfil è-a:ò-..q~ 1O;';~1i':. u'~.!! z.0 ~ 4 6~"'" (f; A smíQ;! ~;i¡I!~} ;¡¡FJ~!!'I.j¡~~~.~\'iîi~~tt'-~ [~~ C!eara~ce ¡Ime (s) 6.0 8.0 8.0 6,0 8.0 8.0 6.0 8.0 6.0 Vëfi!ëlè":E:JC'.enslon '{ S)~"OZ'Q ~-;!;.::u ~:,'~':..:::<2, OD.2¡O,1I1¡I1IZ¡01ll!!m'i¡1J;¡fß$!-.2iOj¡¡¡~~~ Lane Grp Cao (\'Ph) 342 790 348 817 692 1-49 570 -431 58-4 !!{ ~!~.o;"E~~~~;2a ~ :.~t~~.~" ~?%t>:;CY!!.f4(~~>1i..Wãœt9J$'; _~ v/sRatioPerm cO.39 0.1-4 0.03 0.12 0.02 ~a~;. ~ 1'.1'! !J,6.~.m.11<~ ~ i\':u.., ¡ ,. ~'" o;:ro.Q'.~g¡;æJ},Rt!!IJi.Oj;I.$.11!ì~0: '2 '2\~g:q~AY.¡.>J!.,~ Uniform Deley, d1 12.4 10.2 8.8 10.1 7.8 12.5 11.9 11.2 16.3 ~"r~!!'J". II ~ I or: ~J'Ji~ ~ RIJ ...;~ 'r, t1o~ 14. ~¡,. c~";~~"\~_fO;g:a;!;90.~'~~¡ ~ ~ Incremental Deley. d2 17.7 0.6 0.2 0.04 0.0 0.5 0.1 0.0 23.1 ~~~~~:\u,J;,~..~1,O:7}~~'¡";. ,:.' B:91îíWJrp:¡5f_{e.&1~rq;'*.:11Z:0;:~1'A~:í.9'~ Level of Service C B A B A B B B 0 ~~:~~'~W rst.'J¡;IF,' ~t;¡.:¡ ~~~~'~':::;~¡ðQ¡~tW¡l~;~~tJ~ HCM Average Control Deley 20.7 HCM Level of Service , Ell;) M\Y;Of um !!IiI i:!l~t ~~U;B !I~t-t', %'¥Z~ hiüatedêyc¡ër¡~Ór~?~t,.a~ , " 51':5 ' . Su"; otlos! IImê (a) "OM"'" '~ç, ..;.a..;..~"--~'-'~ I!l!.e",eo! on' \;a þâ CI!ÿJ I9U1rií.î U~8Jro"~'ThnCt!J;{!~I)~ NI ~6'¡& .C¡jb:!~~ c (:;¡¡iCàr~ãñe'Gr<:pm "",>"":<f,n,, " ,a'W,'Oj " , "'(1 I"'W' "'.' I.. ;:¡ ~? M:\02\O2282\Comp Plan ammendmantlSynchro\2020 without Wwyer Ext..sy6 " ¿ 2/161200-4 "':", Page 2 THETRALVL3-FF51 1.... I F , r'I ~ r¿ {II (/ (ø tø ¡Ø rø (/I Ii) ~IJ r. r. r. (ð ~ ,.. (J f4t r¡ ':¡ '-¡ ~ -a ~ ~' :a a 'I a J J J J J J ¡ $ :I t" 219: S 320 St & Gatewa 2020 WITHOUT Weyerhaeuser Way Extension Weyemaeuser Way extension Study ('" - ~ ~~~¡.-_............,..;~'è: tf!;m:.\(V1:!~)(Y tfJ~~~ u:nI!.tI tf 1,Iit,1',::i ~::;tf l,¡¡r. ;,.¡¡,~¡o;,~I_~ f>,'W Lene Group Flow (vph) 94 1898 31 1973 49 73 400 107 ~~:::r~~;'~¡~;~F.i;::\'T~;~~; ~~~::' ";~ 7:":¡¿"::¡::" ';'~~;')":;~~;:,:,,~ '~;~'!í¡¡, ;Ú::-'~~ ~~~~f!r~~jf:'74!6~t:'.';~~:;a~'; ',::', :~'504'::<"~"; :568'~':;,";:;r:,;,;;'J7.';5"'J~~~?'" ~[~~7:)~,r,~t~~~%!.~¡J~:3%=1" ,,~~~ :' "'~::;;¡~~F"'<7:~i"! ".,:~(}1{ßi!,it},:::.'\t\f~V( ~~¡Jme.,w;Ñ~w.;:,,:,.(g%"'~','~:¡~m7%'" :';:~""':C:':":ê":;¡Z~',,~ ,',' ,7,:;.;:J~,,'~,':.;~¡;;i';í"i,;"'~~,,~:/,: 95Îh BÏyÊiI'òëk iiìììë% '60%""52"'; ~ 12;,t"52%' ,," 53%'" .. . '."'" ,,",.. ú', 9.1!!!:I!Og;e;en~Y,~1.ð;:'t>\28 2~3:r~c:m.? 122":' ""7.:~::;::::--;:~ ;r:&!:'~'?fu:::7'i;~'~\~~,¿¡ to! ~=( 1"'Y~"'~}~~~'-1l!_J'.!t~!l-l!l;'I\"_~I~¡,~~IF.",W!,M.!t\\i!I~mi'J!,\'1 ~5t!:!!P.ercentlle'iVoIÚi'ne¡exceeds'capaclty..,queue maybe longer, ",';;:i~,', ' ,::Q;~.,;'wh"";:7.;%:ilÌAl\t""",;-:,t,:.,.. . aùëŸe'stíòWriTsñïâxiinúrî1 after two cyè¡es. .. "'.. ,. ,P..M " ,""""'" ,"~~t,O111'é:r.ð'~t!j~êrìure-q(Jèúe'1S't1'\~tê1'èC!'byupstieànfsfgnaL"""':"'." , :'" '7"~'::~:::-:'~j~im;,..':. ..f -+ t ..... + 2020 WITHOUT Weyerhaeuser Way Extension Weyemaeuser Way Extension Study - "'- ~ t ~ '. + ~ tflovel'l'l8flt~¡;~'¡)¡\¡'1..1!~f:tfI!¡'W~Iè:tf t,~t:f: R'!iJ':,Wt;UJ\~WèJ ~jIW;WèJt<,r¡~.I'It;¡;;¡.,¡, Nt; fi;¡¡,N~1!R!'iSf: UH1!<¡:;1:S I~¡::;BR Lane Configurations ',~ ttTo .. 'I ttt. 'I t. 'I To rd"GàrJ;róW:Nplìplì1;~;r9'Oö¡;~!iôö.!¡¿itJJ'00':7.119oo'V1900:i'J9ooTçl9öö' 1900" t9oo':;-1900:'5lgoo;~ LeneWldth 12 12 12 12 12 12 11 11 12 11 11 12 ()Ià1!e:l%r;~t~%K~)'f'jÞ"i\;~~'Jt!g::,'tiT;~:':::'\~"';1%:~;S+;~:' "'2% ""'::;;,~';i(";~F:t=;f' i\;;1i;~?m Total Lost time (s) 5,0 5,0 5,0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Cõ,;ëD~{'i'ãC'.¡;".""" ""1.c:r~~:9J5:;r':TrOö'7,O,9t",~:~~:oo '1:0Ö¡7'7':i:\:1':Öð~"'jðO';;-~~ ~r:'.b, p...d~'~es 1.CO 1.00' 1,00 1,00 1.00 0,97 1.00 0.97 F'.þô: ~iió'::ìt(es "-':--"-f:~O-'~~:bqM?"é'~:;::;¡:J;O'O'. :n1'OÖ'1t'\¡::g?'~:0799 ,';'ì:öO;i"'~:':Ö:99'~f:ððFj,,¡~ ~rt '1.00 "1.00""""""1,00 0.99"""""#'1,000.87"""1.00"'0,86" ,. ~!'r~! !""'..ec""---'-' C.9S' ~~ ~~1'!(1¡¿¡y)t'iö'95"'""rcOO'?"':)';:¡;';rO:95 "1:00"'rrj?,,:':~'O:\ 5'f:71:oov' :'f'¡!'1-~ S.~~. Ftcw!or~n 1752 4909"" ", "1796 507i ," '1309 1181" 1616 1541'- ", FTt ¡>eir-'~pC;' ;.:. .. 0.95'~-'1.tJO~t::!T(j:95"f:öO :'Q>¡;~Jr.:'(j:69 1.00 !" ':"':':O:71':~,COi)":t)1;.:::; S"~~.F'cw;o~",,: 1752 4909"'" 1796 5077 ' " 948 1181 1207 1"541' , VOi,,-. (":1~¡.. , ,C<4 ,'1e.ß()..~ii32j,!@;::31 :: 1821¡?':;:¿152¡;*¡¡itL49 , ./8 ¡.:..65,!.}.'.400,\!$J#Ti¡6Á'ì"WP! Pee~'~ow~ac:o'. OU~ 1,0:: 1.00 1,00 1.00 1,00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.0'0 1,00 1,00 Aë!'¡:1:16w\~'h1?:.":..! ~",:, c" ~""', S~~,f¡ti;,3'2'fE:l1j:~1,a'2_r5~'_';49:¡;:"1:;;;:a;,~!þJ:'e~I~%I~O~lt1;\c ¡lr~IoJ Lsoe G'Oup FI~w (,':)~) 94 1898 0 31 1973 0 49 73 0 400 107 0 Ct\ñ ~:"Pêc s-::rfl"!WP:~U ';,," J qJ:í!~¡¡¡"i1P~1'D7:'7;:1.1t)¡~~~'P.'ii)~i~;rO)n},~tO):~fO];;i1¡>J'O~"11"'J$9. He.vyVe~'"~c.('~) 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1'Æ, 30% 30% 30% 0% 0% 0% !Jus' 8' òCk e;-.T{1l 'Ii ¡,~ ~"T!)-:-'1f'm¡:r~")~:rJ )1!~O7jP);:W0~O!!'!:J:1:\,()0"..~:?::7 (j .""'"', ð~¡;;?fð~~ 7um Type Prot Prot Perm Perm Pi:ë! eel éd, þ~ ijTës7.~~-:--:::~ C" ", ']t~}.Ii~J\1~IL\j¡£¡);1~..;;1T!;~;'jâ,e~f.~ij:¡¡¡¡¡(!i;¥%.\4f):1w£!j!?'it¡¡í)5;f'1Ji~5j,\'~~ Pe~¡:!ed P~.ses 4 a ~ë1f(;~een; G15)"7-:,J2:r~8~;;~.'.~ :-:-48' ~'4g'.7-~~"cr;~;Þ.119Tel1~'&B~~J¡.~4g,,~.l'I'.~ !õ!!ec:'veGreen,g(s) 1~.7 57,8 36 49.7 39.6 39.6 39.6 39,6 A~!'ë~g.r:;r¡åt¡o:': :':':.0,10", 0.507':":"""""G.C3' C:43- -".:;-'"" j:,0"~f~1'D:~'I;r¡~i1;~þ]tO:~~~9:'3.~Sf~ Cleara~ce 7ime (s) 40 5,0 4 C 5.0 4,0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vè'li!C!;fEX!ãi's'öi-(il1",:,,",,-":!:(f'T"'.2.0C-:'" ";"", ""':l,O' -- 2.C 'è""-"-~"':t,Oc'11:!i2-:(j'ì'¡¡}¡~5'i~.J2--'O,l'iiW¡¡:.I1~!'N'~ L""eG';1C~p(v;>~) 177 2445 ~", ;,,;~. 324 403 412 526 v/(Ràro Pror~'\::-:7;'.':':":"O:C5:-CG:3g:"',-,'..""'" 0'C2 'cO.3a' ::-'~~.. :>1F<O,06:¡'~!},]î:{ ;~o;~ vis Ra~io Pp,", 0.05 cO.33 IÌ!C'~i.!:¡õ "":-";"""'7"":'" O;S~:7g::.".....::: :': "O,~5'" C 91' ""~: "'! 0.1:5,:;':.o:le]1!;i):7i~rO:9Z¡i~;O¡2~- U~'~orm Delay. d1 49.5 23.8 55.4 3" 0 26,5 26,8 37.6 27.0 l;'rõërP.åš:o~'Fhë'.õ,."',-,:, .n'~p"~:":".:"'-f.N' '0,70 :~~'1:00),;i::1roq:~..¡g;~r(JP.t.~J}oga.~~ :ncref"'enl.1 Je'.y, d2 1.5 2.5 ~.J 64 0,10,1 36,40,1 D-e""""y¡r-~""""""""'-5~ft3,¡q""",...". '~:63""""R'30"9"..i5...."""" 2""6 ',!"2":'9~':::f!~' " Le:r6;§er:¡l;;ê"":"~'.!'ì5;"'.~?,',C"'"",~M',',","',',','",,"",E, "',',," ',C, ",""',','\',"",..,',"','" ",'C'/",',. "(;"",",',',","",', ',', '," ~'.- """"""""",.'"r""m:<W1J""C'~....""'y'r::.."..."" " ~~(.)#,;:¡¡::¡",g~",'g1'8~.;1I;~:;;",..""",..""3y¡g",,d,,;f,"',,~~\ ,2.6~,;"..\:-., ""i):S""" ,,' .. ;gm G)( m:J: ~..c.m'"M .mm.",mM"~"mO"O ","Po, W~" E",,~ ~~Vl3-FF51 0 -vi ",,_. '" "'~\ ..11""',H"",,"',',,1 .,.¡i¡ ',' HCM Average Control Deley 33,2 HCM Level of Service C' -,- t:'t"""""'õ1~u'm¡¡"fl"o ""~""a' """'r"'fõ'IJ"'!¡~O"""'1"""'r"'m""'%'1'œ"""""(""""i~",",,""""';"",1"""',""'~~ Ä~~;~d C~I~;¡l~~ith"g}ö1. "~A~," 'f16~6¡túli"a)~~;;;¿'i16;;~Î~,;r;j"';W' i':"';1';'ð~ó'"i_~_':~'V:;r~'--"'" m~,eëlfõri-:ç:ãÞ'ãëTIY;gt~tl6iï;,!!"ìiJjIi';~~:2%$~ifi:::'Ç1'rCO'rèverõfSè1YlCèiJy.,'. ,"" 'T'~:¡r:; O~;r;:¡:;~t¡~?m , ","i", ""' -, ..' i 2116/2004 Page 3 M:I021022821Comp Plan ammendmantlSynchro\2020 without Weyer Ext..sy6 211.812004 Psg,,:' ,e... I I ¡ THETRALVl3-FF51 ~ eo .. ~~~~~'.'.'.,.'.\.~- ., .., '. ~ ... '... '. I... . '. . '.. '. ... .. . . . . .. . ~ .8-4 220: 5 320 51 & 1..5 S8 . 320 Ramp 2020 WITHOUT Weyerhaeuser Way Extension Weyemaeuser Way Extension StUdy - .., ., - 2!!!Y-n;>c;>~!,>o<"",,:,,¡ I:.:J ~~I: tilti¡'.¡!W!'! t.:fItW tj l~::>t !.'II11t:Stl ¡""'::! ~~W1.~VJ'~¡¡;~~'-i!A~~1 LeneG'CuDFIOW(V"'.n) ~'93 838 274 1404 263 277 600 ~ë;rëfi~ :(r.ì." ',' .;g1~1 Ö9~::~n:r:!:¡',::::W~: ':::2!1n':'~1"3Y:"1"3'!f"-:1':"'~(:~' '"':\~r;'~r"7::~~t:::~~:~,~" Queue Le"..:~ 95~~ (~ì r..¡ m161 144 234 286 302 170 ~u~~;;;~~7iZ:~~50::-~""";"7i'Ç?;?;\,)3922 ,-~:~ "1171:" ',~~"',:';~~::::::-"";~!~~~':;;~¿;\':.:~t"r<7, ~~1!'i:tIP-'õac~(~)-:,~:-,?~~;~,:~,*",.,tf¡t\: ,:;" ":"'::"""-':'::""~~"'~'f:\{:"'!:T~~~~¿:¡ Tu", BeY Le".":~ (~~ì 225 ' 100 700 ' , , """ .5C!!i13i!Y:~~õ1-Jc~"'ë"!.;r~"" ':o'C"-",,:" "'fð'%':;""2'!ó' ."" '" .," , ".~.. ': ..'" ""':C".""":""'~""'~"r';:"'!7'~":'" 95tn gev eloc~ 7,-e'~ 16% 27% 9Ueiññ~1'.è".Õ1!Y\Ÿe~~'-~;::':~"::~:"¡':::;7.5E'1,T'36:¿:~ ':<:~ ",:,:':ï;:?'::;;:::'~~t"?G::: It)IJ!r~eCl]() (I~m IT1 BlYmuN;!!'1I),~t~"lltlr"'1\,~~"I t~~~.'ß~""£'f~~ìI'~!¡~I".I;~'iW>1~~~M¡¡¡.¡~\m:l@,'¡J'¡! I!!iif<.V9l.om~;!,çf,~~t!1,~£Çeì)tlle,queueis,metered,by upstream ,signaL,,', ;j;¡;, ':,;,,' ",:- "3:;';:>\¥æ':'~;:~~~;(*,1?;" '. ! .¡ 220: 5 320 51 & 1-5 58 . 320 Ramp 2020 WITHOUT Weyerhaeuser Way Extension Weyemaeuser Way Extension Study --..,- -\.~ t ~ Movero&Ot¡}~~,,1"':"}~\!.ml:l:!l4W~t;tI,.~t'E..f: ~~;WBl..'\~'o"I]:j ,\",yytjK"¡;O¡1"J6Eï"',~Ntj ¡,\lei) N6R;~ffiSf: ~'"\1!~tj I~I::;~ Lane Configurations ,'.ttt 7' '1'1 ttt . 'I..of 7'7'" :~ë~~ F1ÇW"(Qïf¡¡130j'<1:n!kt;t~~~Jgbô(~JgoÖ" '19ÖÖ??ySOöiifJ9Oö '19ÖÖ'1gQO 19Oö':Y~9öo':":t;.H¡OO G"ede (%) 1% 0% 2% 2% Tc:p.! œ'§{'~~(!h::Xì!,¡iR;L;D~~:~5:0;YQ':5:0 'S:O"Ti'}çR"ET ' ",' /;:0 '?>"S:O(J;â;5'.Q La~e Uti!. Factor 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 0.95 0.95 0.76 F'r;;~:-pWJb1!(ëi~j~j't~Jc1i¥Z.~~îM1J(j()~:9:3ii;g]':ö'ò"n'1;OO:\:~t:l¡,~',..,..; "1" ,"';';i;';Ti,1":OÖ~f:~~ ~:~~, pedlbikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Fif"" ':"J~""::"17(F'f71'1T"'S)"'~'~~0;g5V'1;OO'7g0'0'T'9Y;;'~'T-"'" ",., ""1:C10"'7'J:00~!5 F'~Pro!~tèd " ",'\.00"""1.00.'0.95 1,00" ,"'" 0.95' 'Ó.96' 1.00 Sõ!¡r FïðW)IPfõQ;?7mp:¡;:;:ÿ?~)!j~':I'~4e""":3'Ið1":'5r3ð'7Sì';j;r':¡q;;0';" ' ~", ~',"'Jðð'4":"'l'6"'!4~;4'~ F':Per".,ítted""""""'1.oèi"1.O0 0,95 1.00 " , 0.95'0.96"1.00 Sà!:f.FIòW'(p¡riTñ)'%IW7;D¥'1~:1\M'rf44!j':C(:!4 ~7'$ t:3ð'>(~"(.7!7;"T '.f' J e64'¡;f...1e1~7:f Vc!~<:1e (vph) 0 1493 838 274 1404 0 0 0 0 520 20 600 ~èã k :¡<'~@éf òl'¡tf'Jl ffi~ñligq£fi1JlJO,~\')'l,'O;,'\î1:00:": t:OOTiJiR\:O 9~17 00 "":'\;00. :tf':t( a Og~V1 {OO:$~ OOl~J ,;og A~J.FI~w(vph) 0 1493 838 274 1404 0 0 0 0 520 20 600 t"à'Íe-GiCiÜp' FlifW ;V"J~) -'-:':'O'~~!13~~'e3e'j1';¡~214""'14~':r~9':O:¡¡;!'MrW"'0 '. ;'¡:;z'O T'lZfO'x:!~2.83:1m27:!l'f{~ cor.n.f'e~..(.;~r) ~O'~ 10 10 10 1010 f-J¡¡a w Vc~ ~ ~lei"~o/, ,~- ~~3~o/,""?~' :\ %';;;!1'nl%':~";f%~11!!'f~!;1'J2 %:< 7",2% " ',~~'2%"i;~":2"~ Tu'n Tr-c P~.." Prot Split custom Pf5\OCIe<r Pñà-!ÎëíiT~'-;',:;, ",.:..' '2?,T';lJm:Bl!t71!1~6!;ÿj\!,~¡:($i.ß'J:t¿:,;'~£,:::1;n¿;:';J1:?þ)%¡!!:,)){q:~~i;.~ Pe~;:te~ ?~e"es 2 ~.rã~ëa~G 'fõõñ; 'Glij,t::: c.' ,::, f.,oo;¡p:e 5:1}~'O'iI~E~;1tM~;'}~Wj;¡;'ii~:3:iÇ:¡~¡~ji¡-1:f~2~!~t~2'(-"!m! El".eC'.ive G'een. g (s) 66.4 SeA 13.0 69.4 21.6 21.6 38.6 ~~~!C::I'!1i!:9i~7.(.':..";: :,9,57;7,0'. 5~1¡1;.'OTð':Q:¡¡¡tí1ì~~~¡¡!Ej~:;¡*~~~:Ií~~_~1i}L~~~i~ Clea'n~~e Ti"'ð (s) 5.0 50 5.0 5.0 4.0 >4.0 mlë~Q~éf!9"õ.'¡ rS) . ""n:', ,""'2:a-.~2:~)ð'J'~2:ÒW'Mæi\"\b1~,,,r';¡f't'~;¡!:~~11n.;¿.u,i'Jtt~ Lnce Grp Cap (vp') 2858 829 389 3073 310 312 1126 ¡¡lsRii~õ-Pi"vI'7, ':~," ;' :::f,.~:.~: .~cr.30"~:':~~"CtJ¡O~OT2.Z{1!~1~~:\\;¡i<l::::';?R::P;f~¡t'1:~::r.O;¡1"t3)m!'1J~i9!1;~ viS Ra~;o ;>e"., cO.58 vi?'Rã!1o '-,i :rr.:~':7'~;;rO:5 2".:'): C '~¡1I:O:Zq¡¿;0.~e'i;œ,_%t11;,';;:~;ii':';;;~;;::~:pr8~~.9:B~~ U~ifcrm De'ny. dl 15.1 24.8 49.6 12.9 45.6 48.0 32.1 P':'öç-rij 9S I ë:ï F åc !õf'7::"'~:~~~~";i.O'.¡¡O ::::-:::1. 9;¡~P:8,,:,g::'O:<89,;,ik:¡¡M(¡X~1~~J'1'('< R)ITiff;~~t:~\lJIJ.!IF;~'.¡pq ic~re"..e~te! Oetny, d2 0.4 27.4 4.2 0.4 16.324.2' 0.2 D.~ ;~r~~);~~:~;:-::',':,::~,i:;,~",:::',~::.,: ,.,.~'8:~-::-',' ¡~,_:~.,',J""'\,.',',','~,',','",",7","',b4..""""":,.!,,.",...,.".,.7.,'.','9:A,3~.'.,;".;.:.';,',',',<.<,',".~,i.',',:."""',1.",'..i,1.'.'.""'.".,.."',,,"","',','.'..',.""'.',',:,'.¡.',r,.".".,.'."'.',"'~::'~,':'-, ','=,',:',":.'~:'..:,',',~,","."",".,'.,,"tJ,',', ",3,','~,., ""iE.~,, ',;,'.~,' 3,2:9, 'c," 'A"p--i'Cec.h DeIe-.¡' .(š'~-"~--""'1'D"'-'-'7""i"""'f""~1'r5-¡""r~-'""""", ,"0:0 """""þ' ' ""-, -~ ""'" ':.."::".",.-..'"":,:¡:;i"'",y"",~"..'Ii\;>f~"'",,,,,:'~,,'.'<;"'" i".>þ'j.""">i4 ADcroa~~LaS . C .' 's"'" 'A-n° Ó'" I!\t~/OíJíJ:)( ffi m ¡¡¡y,~Ij.,~-lI:wm1l!.'~I'.æt \!-WJiil':~\w.~ ¡.m~t.!~m¡WJ:@~¡¡~f~~~ ~e\~~~;~~~!~g~~j2mq£~mr,\'i~~~';%~~~~~~2¡;f7G3¡,1.1',:i~~mt1œJ%~{~~ Actuated Cycle Length Is) 116.0 Sum of lost time (s) 15,0_- IQ!~(S~~flõl¡'£C"p'àël!Y]!J£nIZeifôvWi!;~JfZ<.~.,8!1j2%j}~~fTGU'[ëVêr'15f¡Se¡yrêë:'7::;'::';?f?:M~"';Í¡t..:t~$.~~5:>~ c Critical Lene Group ~' '! .. .,) '. ¡ .¡ 2!16/20O4 Page 5 .Jt - M:I021022e21Comp Plan emmendmentlSynchro12020 without Weyer Ext..sy6 i ¡ &1 ..'/ t ¡ Î THETRALVL3-FF51 2/1612004 Page ð , ~ ., ... \.1/1 '. ~. \. \" ", '. 'II tø .. 'ø '. (II rJJ '. ~. '. r. '¡) '8 3 ,.. ~'3' ~ a a -a a a a a a a a 8 . .... 221: S 320 St & 320 -1-5 N8 Ramp 2020 WITHOUT Weyerhaeuser Way Extension Weyemeeuser Way Extension Study 221: 5 320 51 & 320 - 1-5 NB RamI' 2020 WITHOUT Weyerhaeuser Way ExtensIon Weyemeeuser Way ExtenslO!\ Study - "t - ~ t ..J - "t .('" - ..,. ~ t ~ '. + .,¡ ~ OØ'¡~ _c I: I ,Ii») Î t: E!I3. ~W!)~~ N 1:!J~~~~!~!&J?Æ.i1'Æ~~~!H /ðO'Ie rn ent,~*,!~<t1M);~I¡11;E S¡.\~EI:J.,L!\~¡ 1:8 ~l!\;WHC~¡\ .v(¡8T~$eW~ L'%;W' ÑBTillYlf'¡ljR¡¡;j>I}.SI: ~i!ib~I; J~!)BR l8ne Gl'OIJp Flow (vph) 1164 649 1220 525 461 R!l1~~e.!10!1:t:~tlI~15!rJ~?~;%~';'~:[;:;ffi~9'~~&;:n()' 34ÖT"~, Queue Length 95th (!I) 138 26 84 481 413 r~Wlji(~,~!t22~"'~{);'i;~q,!,20~?f"r"'" 1312}J" 5oihupBÎöéiÌ ti;;',e '(i~) , . ' , " " , ~~:U~!Çé~T!íYí X~8::: ','I~' " '::r:~s':' Tum Bey Length (It) 250 200 5;!:I!l!a.iìfJ.f!~tfi~~;;t};rY'I., """:""'!~~35%' 95th Bey Block Time % 4% 34% q\l~l(\O,:ge:t'ð!t'ý'(ye])~,;;;;;ë ,,~,:. 7:':;';);ill:162 ',' LeneConfiguretions ,", ttt-rt' ,,', ttt- ' "IO¡ 4- 1¡ !a').'ff6Y¡(V¡¡Kpty\~Ã!;'.'$Cj9~?~.~J7~9bOJJj~tjOO'('1 9öö'Z;"jMtfË'1"9öö 1900 "'.J9M',"19ðO1T;¡~~ Grade (%) 1% ,1% 2% 3% mr!2"ô~t'ffríf¡¡-tà)'1:r"7g",,"^")Y\":i~S:0:;,1{1;1~~OT:'!T: '5:0 1,,')";'5,0 5,0 "";"{"';W"1'¡'.J'lj~ Lsne'Ütil. Fector ' '0,86" 0,86 0.91 0,95 0,95 ' .. ,,' fl¡;b;¡;è( ìIi,l(iJS'¡'(5"';;:;?,~,:!1\i"'~;~~O()~l:OO:"':" 0.99T;';",'þ;,f.oo 0,9;' Flpb, pedlbikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 100 F"if:';'~"<' ,v"," ','<."":"::77',,'0:997"""0:85' 0,98 ':'1,00 0,88 Flt'P~~ïected ' ' , 1.00 1.00 1.00 0,95 0,99 ~1i1í~Jov;;rp'/ôl)7P:r~:U;:lr';:':j!¡,,;;::.m,OI'Û1j55'~'" 5015 1499 FIIPel1T>Itled 1.00 1,00 100 0,99 Sãfifr.l'fóW'tp&fnìYi'1('~¡:r:,:..t;¡'þ':~1M)1';f3.55; :. 5015 ,;"',t1M1 1499' , ,'\?/1fo!:mm Volume (vph) 01112 901 01063 157 615 0 371 0 0 0 P'~fì61Jf,lãè!ð'r;rpRF';'.,~:1:oo~;oq¡m;\:rOO:;:;l:00 '1:00.;:"t:OO'~1:oo:. 1;00":::1.00;',,'1:oo1!¡rr:~.:1':C'O Ädj.Flow(vph) '01112' 901' 0 1053 157"515 0 371 0' 0 Ó 1.'i31î~t(fùft:f)ðWJI/!5t\~mQ.~~;::)¡ì(:'O.):, 1220!ii'¡'¡;$Jc'Wi:S2S'," . 46r;%'O:;;:;-;¡7':O;Œ,';¡1O£~~ Conn. Peds. (#/hr) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Reaw;Vè1'i1ë!eTX%)~2~~%Th""¡:1%"7."1~{ii::'¡¡1%9:'1?!%'; , ;1%";';1%;"Jh1'h~'\\';It¡1%~~~ ¡cr~ Tr.-... Splil ~~%,~~ ~~::~:-"" '"j:ð'}":;,~~ftg~%:;¡:;Ifi'c:, ';'4 :"",(:',:k:;B:r(;:;;<:~:..~ .Acfuu'!'ed Green, G'(s) . . E~ec:,v~ G'ee~. g Co) Aê'.ü¡'!ed'gfC:J-¡e!!õ," ' , çte."."ce ~,.,.e (5) 5,0 Vr.hrc'e'EX'éñslon'~s) -,... "':""-.:~:O:"'~t ¡¡';;;:'¡¡ë"7:C",C,¡,;."'~";¡Z;;:~~ LÐ~ G,;> Cap (v::>h) 2838 1355 532 vfs:!rô~o 'Pre! "~,~~'""':~~..""'77"""P:25~"- v!S Ret;o Pe"", co:(.-, v!ò~Ré5ö "1':,' ';~:n:'~'c'::':-:J:':'CX'J"mJ. E\-:J'l~;r;p"';;."ir;\" O':'41;;;'kîi*!(i~O~~K' ' 0 :91,~175';;'ii'\Wf:;;;rIb"~(~ U~"o"., DeiRY. ~1 12,5 0,0 12.4 39.4 39,2 ' " P!ÖÇié'ià!or¡ F3C!~~ 7;¡'...j.:u-..ccr;;;J .~~.!¡$'g~o;~;N'Ií;~1Z{.!IJ;P<)~: ;1;oO;;";~:;:;;i1';;1g;¡;;r;¡)¡,,1V1iffl~ l"cre"'e~IS! D~!AY, d2 o..c 1.8 o..c 35,2 34,0 ~ n " .~>:,.......-",,- ..~ ~~, '."...." ",',.-W7"'" .' "J"T"'t)!<;r,c, ",,". . ¡;,?""'"."'" ",,=- 'c'" " ., De11ìY1s) ',- .,"v~.' ~.4. " 1.8'1i~~ ',:'",."",,3'.9n"1J"',xd;¡~i¡7¡¡,a! 13.1..". ,<0",;--"""", c;".. .. \ Lev...I'ofS';;'i~e"""'" ""A""A.""""'A"."'E' E""""""~~ l':pf~IÌWI:.'è"ë);19r'.--' .' '," .,.J:9'ë:~1PJ%?;;,n:'3:9*1;~itÞ;Ec 13:9~:;:'1:&~~':;;i'fi~i:!:1~ '",?roech LCS .., A E ~ IOIØP18CtJOl1:wmm"ryik'!.¡'~¡;¡¡;¡;¡iió!IIIf~¡;g¡~~¡""Ud+ffi'i;M!1,&\:i'J'A~fi&~~@jff~'~Iiì)ì'~;¡H\;.'\\{;~J!¡;,,"", ' ' HCM Averege Control Deley 20.3 HCM Level of Service CLL L~~ f;fq!11jR~1 \J (ï:ì ~Õ~~ff:ï~~}l~;;Et}Bi&i;\ThTií~.~;¡f;.T)'!1F:';-¡~~;':~;:¡m~ Actueted Cycle Length (5) 116.0 Sum 01 lost time (5) 5,0 ',~-,- 1¡'le~~IÍ:Cííþã¿¡lî1::fm1Zã!Tôn'¡:~tT!Þ~~I!2¡C5%:'~5,'T 'ICU CeveI'6(Sêr;;tê8'!!,',""" "'. C*!;::;;;,;¡~¡>,~~...{ c~~~ ~. --.... 29% 30% 1 54"" : ",~~" '~:" ':¡:,r~':,~ 2116/2004 Page 7 M:IO2\02282IComp PI en emmendmentlSynchro12020 without Weyer Ext"syß 2I1612OO.c Pege 8 ~c i\ THETRALVL3-FF51 " ~ " ..., ., ., .., ." '111 .., '111 '111. ., '1/1 'Ð'Ø '.11 '.. '. 'ø 'ø II . " iJ till" " . . . . . . . ~ 41 '~ ra-.,¡ 222: S 320 St & 32 A~ ;.f 2020 WITHOUT Weyerhaeuser Way Extension Weyemaeuser Way Extension Study - ~ ..- ~ t ~ + 222: S 320 St & 32 Av...§. ./ 2020 WITHOUT Weyerhaeuser Way Ex1enslon Weyemaeuser Way Extension Study ~ .. ~ ..- 4.... ~ t ,-. ~ + ,.I I;IIOð,urou ~ ~"I'=¡t !:IL'\mIt: 1: :1'íI>'!I)N~ t:S J'm-~NB~lIIt:S I!'¡m¡;¡ 1:IL~!'<~I:S,\_¡¡¡¡¡W,*,~¡m¡¡.mi,,~,m'!i~ Lane Grou~ Flow (V:~) 24S 1238 6 1062 142 142 177 106 9~ui!. !=.e:t:'- = ~"..!i:\~ 1?:"; ~ ;~t100:;x~~f73', .: .:. fO'9~fOÏ:~~@ ~}i.~]f~ ~~~4;{i4;,,*,~~,,\!:~'}2',,:.: Oueuele~g:.'>95:~(~ì 25S 16S m13 311 177 17S m200 m93 ~ffflm:t:lñl(~:Yi!J~.::p',' !Z: TI:'~~Ž~4~r'" :"." "-:305:"':~:":154'9~ß','¡:~J:.1~,,:~~"::~tfijj~l¡;ti:~?;: SCO.t¡ UD B'OCI( 7;..,e (%) ~"V~:ocÞ(-Jlmè~)-:-;'" ~&~~:;!;~~fr::. . Tum Bey le~.:~ (~) ~C: 200 ~::;. ~~~:~ ~ '" ;; ~~ ~;1::!-:¿:r..ß::t::53~} ::~:~2~1ii~:~: :'.~~ ~¡~~r}l¡;Jt'f.: ~':~~~:~;;~:!:;1;':; ~"'J¡\ã~'jŒ::':~ 2 e;'i:~ 3~~;fr:::1"î.1 0" 3~:;: 9r,',:;:'6'f"'?::-¡" :r9~:;;!'3"?'j:'~~~TI: l~ 81]IeaIO n;.~ m "')III\'-""""~:I'~;~~~,,??èl~WW",,>"'#I.'I¡! ,<"W{1;~\~hl'¡!'~"n~f¡~ ,\'~~\¥$W'>t'J"\\~i~';\\"'M"!!hj roZ¡Y})!!J¡tIe::.(?!..~.2Ih;~rœntile queue Is,matered',by upstream signaL',:"'" ,::, ,'d:>¡. "':"';"':i:,t"::,¡,,:l:~k""í¡,":c' M()vel1ìen\~U1r~Jj.'I\Q.f'¡;':;¡;J:t:!L!¡,.mt:1: l'Im:t:I: t<~Bun1W!; ~I¡i;I',WBI:'{'~ I BL;~NB I ,WI NBHt;¡,l}SI: ~~I~t:S ~m:!SBR LaneC~gurations ':'ltt1+., -", 'I"tt1+...~ --", 't, 4+", '., ,\.,..., 1+\..- " ~rt;1oWß15!\plmrg~tJqo~,900:;;;:r90ð :1900 1900",19"0"0:,,1900 1900"1900 1900",'9oo","iWtJ lane WIdth 12 11 12 12 11 12 12 11 12 12 11 12 cmrdè'1¡jt)~~¿¿"~~'þ%~'.'F-"!;':"":" ""O'jC""':¡;;¡"':';r::" '-3%""'.""': ::~":':':'"èw.,O%'f}~ TotaIL'ostUmê(s)"""S.O""S:Ö""""'S.O'S.O "S.O S.O "S.O'S,O"'" ~e;1J!TC'.f':iiaOr~1'.'1.rO]þtO:9)~;;::::c"..).öO" :0,9f"::\,f"'~'0~95' 0.95:' .::."":':1:00;:;J'f;OO¡'~~~ Frpb, pedlblkes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 '7!¡;5rpedJ6lkeŠ'!:::!);~'¡(:~r:tlOl\~'f.1oo~;;:~f:OO: " 1 :OO~t ""¡::;c¡rnX)1.0Ö:::;-:;"! "','1 ;0~:;I'1,f.OðÌ'~.;;;~3 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 0,98 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.92 F'.~l'ròt;.c~pd .- -.. ~ftO'Jf~iðO?~77ßf{:',:O:95 '; "1:00' ::':'.';': " '"l;Ö'.95 :" 0:98': '? """".:"O~5Cì;?r:oa;::-"J1!t~ Sn:d. Flow (pre!) 1770 4826 1770 4809 1693 1688 17SS 16S3 F't Pcr-'~~d": ~,!,',;:'.Ö,~~;bO:c¡;r' .:.' ',0:95 '1.00 "',:, ,:;0.9S 0.98 "'."O:95-::,:;1.°0I::w;¡., SaId Flew (~e"mì 1770 4826 1770 4809 1693 1668 17SS 16S3 VoIc'"1e (v;h) :: '~4!\f4i.2~,~,H2l1i~,~:96.'.,J;,,'8 :'; 950,,:;"¡,112/;t:"212. . 60 :',:" ,12 .',':, 17cN~;¡;~;48:r.:'1r.5:8 "ea~-~O~rIBC!Cr.PHF 1.001.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 P::~:'Flow r.,p~T".!f,it;Z.i:.T:Z!5...~1.~2t£':;;::00!~S"'::'~950;7~'f2;~12" ,60'i:;:,~'12i;¡'Z¡1~:~;;,¡1~ la,e Group Flew (vph) 24S 1236 0 6 1062 0 142 142 0 177 106 0 Cõf.n~P!fds~,!,i)~~"JY"B~'1aì.10~107r.Ìiff'1,,~~¡~cr;~fC\~;¡¡:; :;' ',VJO :'}rtJq;;J?r:,-,'0.,,~,u;tíì¡~ Bus BlockaGes (t:!hr¡ 0 2 0 0 2 0 2 0 2 2 0 2 TumT~Q";"','~Prot~;:¡¡¡-l"¡""iV;;.¡,:",",Prot"f' 'r, ;,'¡"¡¡:',;\:;"VI'.Split. ", '/"""'-' ,:,'::Spllti¡:,'iJ1¡;'."~ Prc'~è!edP~~;~s "'~'7' 4""~"""'3"'à""'" . S "'5'" '" 6" ~6" F:èm1¡f!e~P!iõ!'ês .j1fE:£;JAi~~\1i'.:,J¿;~l:-:-:;i¡"'::,:;;;';,:fJ-¡;,;¡;¡"'1~>::;: "',, ,; ":":~',"":::i;'7;;'~~ Ac'~"'ed Gre~~. G (s) 23.S 6S.S 2.0 44.0 13.3 13.3 1S.2 15.2 I:rro<:'.~.,;è-Gre'e;;: ¡j ~SJT:.:4'Z!~e.~":5~"H¡r;;'!'i:F~~O:; ':;44:0;¡i';"Bt~-3:3¡:' ,13:3:'-:r':7'f~?115!~5:~é~ AC'.uB'e: C!~Ra';o 0.20 0.S6 0.02 0,38 0.11 0.11 0.13 0.13 C~ëe'IÎ'ci 7ir'1e (,n~'J;;;¡JWiiS:~"~5:Ö';¡¡.~;q¡:':;:5:Ö, :5:0,":}W:~5:0" 5.0;ê":'-~:: ::";:;,5;C\~~5:0¡'B Ve~'c'e EX'.~rsio~ (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 tare G!'¡J Cap (V::h)¡¡',~;:,,~"359";-('272S;¡,'*í.:'/ik', "31' ',1824, "{",.k"..\;\1194 191 ,"" ",,230"',,;'-21.7.:'-.'.":,¡:( V!SRRroProt "c'0,14"Ó:26'" Ò.OÒ cO.22 ... 0.08 cO.O9 cO,1o"'ò.oé"-- v!§,!'!e:;o PeM1 . . V~'¡X¡;~;,,;~,~'F:;:f;g:;;X;;;~~\'i";": v!cRn!'~ 0.68 O.4S 0.19 Uñ"cmDe'ey,d1 49.7 -,. ,,'48:78:ç46.e'l',~'~~ Progression Faetor 1.00 "'1.04' 1.08"" ~:t~ D~làWd2~:~J'h~:~}~~:~f::~~~~"...,:~~~¡~:':E:~.. '~'~:~':~:~~:~;"~::~I" "3'~ ~ßél\i¡~e"!\-."fh--:"~:-;':,,,,1J~)IIt;ï::;LJ:"- ',' E., C "'j-"',' E E. ,..~.\.é, ~ APproachDëíÍÌy(;')" ""'14.5"""'" 'iÓ.6' "...~ '61.8' '~, . " ~Ctt;t'qsuR1~~?~Bjìii,¡;¡~¡¡t~f}!\V'\:~;;;';C~'::~~í!V;: (;' .,.: E:,',X;?,;).;:~~m CM.leVel,ofjSeryI~.;r,', ""':."":'":\;,,,C"~:~f~~~ '.:,"C':"1~:!k~~~~~ . '~:~ , ,,-' - _.66 ~1ë¡( C"ya¡¡:t8ijgll\ 1s);:r_&~n1rOJ: ';~:::$üÌ1i :606'$ ('tfrffë::OO-:':;;;' , Inte~eetlon Capacity Utilization 63.5% ICU level of Service ~C:ilfJëJï(Làñ¡(GlOüp;~:!'í'~~~iä'Ïiii.¡ì::,.;;¡::::::r:r;;:".:,'" ;:::~; :;,,~: ':,:it~~§;~'" 2!16!2004 Page 9 M:I021022821Comp Plan ammendmantlSynchro\2020 without Weyer Ext..sy6 ; 2I161200>C . i Page 10 ..cl ..' I THETRAL VL3-FFS1 , '7~""."1 rø r:ø "II lð rlJ'ð Iii " Iii (II rø 'I) II) ' r. 'tJ ,( () tJ ~, '. a aaa a a a ¡ i ¡ ¡ a 'a'~ ~ ~:-:¡-I 223: S 320 S\ 8. Weyemaeuser Wy S ..f - of 2020 WITHOUT Weyerhaeuser Way Extension Weyernaeuser Way Extension Study 223: S 320 St 8. We~aeuser \!jy S 2020 WITHOUT Weyerhaeuser Way Extension Weyerhaeuser Way Extension Study - ~ t ~ ~ ¡ ~ ..f - .. of - " ~ t I" ~ ¡ ;¡ 1III~,v_"""""""~rr.~~t:tIL~t:I: J~ ¡!!JyVtIl~iNß~NI: II'1'ÆlN ~t:!~:¡t:!,r~;-::¡BR~_'3!{.Þl Lane Group Flow (vph) 26 1305 272 763 101 105 302 86 28 121 ,~~~:!'!I:i§'![501H'J!!t~'"J' PT7~ 94"1ë¡':i1:f1:~:M ~ w: 76~'" 80 ' , '" '"7,43 ""~:'e'3'~r: ;¥20~!~;p~:;;,!,?,:,~~' Queue length 95th (II) m12 382 102 92 133 137 78 108 45 53 ID!.1!t1L~!1~1~.f3h.)~~~~~,!40 ;;~~;';;'t~50" '~,:r.' ;:31"280"~~~'~" ::"'~1:~'25~~i<,i"}*.lf.¡~;¡;f(;' 50th Up Block TIme (%) ~.!!pp~B.I~e.~¡~:~~C';;~r;:;~?"c;'" -:~',:~'-~' "',.'.~::,;o~;~;::;:~:èm:;7;,~~~:;':,~ Tum Bay length (II) 200 400 300 ~~~~~:~;X"'j!.rJt;;r'::~F':~~~!~:"!f,;,,<~. '" ~" '" ;:"!;~:-"':"ë:'::':~:r'~~",;~::;~'7"'" PE..è.{]1n'Q,r...~.JIL!}TÞ:ëli'.w.;~~;; t;::~;: : ¡:;:'~;':f7:," /IIO~l'ííël1t;m!mtm~~1íi'i.l>EB¡¡"!\'t:t! t'li% EI: Kri';':wt:!I-"!'] :WBU"'WBR:!'f',NBI.:~:','NBT '¡:"NBR~51: ~~~t:! J!1:'.:'.S~ Lane Configurations 1 tt1> 1 tt1> 1 4' r' '! t r' rd~r~tóY?(VPhpt)':~~::~"~T'1'9b1r;;;100d71~ð(F, '900 '1900' 1900':~'100d 1900 '900c:~OOO":"1900;¡."{goo løneWidth 12 11 12 12 11 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 !6Iã1.1:()sYItitW{5;:::,;r:~~rr5:0,~~'.5.0 '. 5:0 ~~;.;.::~: 5:0 '5,0 ',', 5,0 :'r5:cr:::-:'5:~~ LaneUtll.Feclor 1.00 0.91 1.000,91 0,950.951,001.001,001.00 F'ii5'5fJëa16fm':~');;\;:¡¡:;ì'n:O'~OJJ9~Ä~::'~r:tOO'. " ,00'~.::":;':7i:ifOO' 1,.00' :'0:99 ~"1;00'~:i>,1.~~OO Flpb.pedtbikes" 1.00 1.00' ... , .. 1,00 1.00 .. 1.00' 1,00' 1,00 1.00' 1,00 . 1.00 r'~:'>:,)~"r:'<,;O:""':').!:~f:OO1!""O:9!fiX""':":~:'TbO 1.00 ";"',""'1:00 ':1,OO""0.85""'.OO"'r:!;1.00~im Flt'Pr~t~¡~d.""" 0.95'N'1.00 '.. '0,95 1.00 ,', '0,95 0.95 1.00 0,95 1,00 1,00 SãTa':rròW'(þf5!n~;7"170"i"':"4ì,47:~~:r:,;~':'~'769 4888 ':!"""'::':16M' 1889":'1554 .,"1770,;:':f88~1\~f!~ Fit Permitted 0.28 1,00 0,15 1.00 0.95 0,95 1,00 0.95 1,00 1.00 SãrdTJ"IoW'Zpëirnr:'!',~1'\5'2'S~:'!:'4i41~')~=7"'271' 48B6' """)""18ß8 1889' "554 ',""1770':,"'1863"-:,'158'3 Volume (vph) 26 1094 211 272 746 17 201 5 302 86 28 121 ~éi\f(:hOùrrâêtól;ï>Hr:~{;tf,O~~~!OO:::;::;:.f.OO:-:11.00. ; 1.00 or:;! :OO:m:rOO; ,1.00 ;':1 '.00 ;:!\T;Oa.:¡¡¡¡~\~ Adj. Flow (vph) 26 1094 211 272 746 17 201 5 302 86 28 121 L1!~e~Gfo(;;> FJôW',r.¡t¡!i~~~S1:305.æ::!:0ì'ITi272':763~:::~0~to~ f: 'c; 105 ':~J302~::8S~'2~in:Z1; Ccn~, Pe~s. (..1\r) 10 10 10 10 10 10 eü8!J'xkiroes~(Iì'If!?):!\V.~';'IT07"")'!":Z'f"i~<O~':'O' :~:'~":'2'1':"""!'.'O~~T" ;', :>'O'::'J!:'.'!'2' ~<r"1!!:'!í'fO~ 7um ;y:'.e pm+pt pm+pt Split pm+ov Split Perm Pre:lic:!'d Ptiåš!íâ~~J":,ì'1ì.sÞ'R:~;:)7~!;;~';>; ~~::::1:,,"6'~::"";:'-1W:,::8 "e;:~1!,!f'¡r;,¡"?4~g~.f~~ "ermi::ed P~ases 2 6 8. p.~'TIil1eè Grt\'ení.G;í.j41't~.3~,1f;7J!l}f7;¡";,F:370:0':;70:0':T;);r":~:i!i:rm',' 11';1" ':'37;7:):10:g¡r¡~0'.~ S-ec!'veGreen.g(s) 46.7 46.7 70,0 70',0 12.1 12,1 38.7 10.6 10.6 10'.6 A::"tÜo1eãi;j!C~à,!!or.l~,!\'!.~~~~gI#lQ;<ror;1'J'ù.\~:;;:9:eO'~", 0:6O'~~t~;')~:o:tO:;'(1.1 0 ""::O:33f;.~fP:09~9,O9~1!',tX! ::'earnoce 7i..,e (s) 6.0 5.0 5,0 5.0 6,0 6.0 5,0 5,0 5,0 5.0 Vè~lcle-¡;x'e'~slõfi"t~:O'J!""'~':1'1';2;O'o:: ',2:0~t¡~2:0" ",-2;O\t<1':!!'2:O:'~2',~2~(1 La~eGI';JCnp(vph} 247 1911 507 2948 174 176 518 162 170 1<45 v~i'~ iJ ~ö: "re: iW~j *%"..ø,'fi .o.:Qt?~,27.~4ß'.;1:1!r~O:1 Z::¿T 0 ;16"~~)ðO:P(J:-' CO':O 6:~i!O~f31vrO: ()'5m:n~~%~ v's Re:io Per-'l 0.04 0.20 0,06 cO.08 li/e:RãCo~,.: :"1.\1ii#!':N,;~b<,;;, O;~¡1,¡~P:68.::¡lJi,;,!:,"{;.:"':0:54' ""0':16' ';:, .?n~T0:5S: ,-0:60' ,¡'10:56(v.O:53'!i'!ri.o.'1~U~ u"r"..", D~lny. d1 21.3 28.5 24,1 10,8 49,5 49.6 32,0 50,3 48.6 51.8 D,;;¡jro'ss.c,; F'ec1õì".!."~"0!3~O37~1'i"J(:~!0;55'l;,:, O,81'~~~~1:00:,:::1.00 :;-::1:00:J:ç¡f.OO~~~J:00,~~:r.,uq Ircr""'."ntDelay.d2 0.1 1.8 0,5 0,2 3,2 3.6 1.1 1,7 0,2 30'.7 :ërlifí:i): ,";:~~":',~~8:5.~\~;tB:O:~~'W?1:r;6,:,o'6:8',rf'1""'?;'52:1~ '53:2':":"33:f'::;:;5Z:0~~:8;m;B~ level of Service A B" BAD D c.,... Ct-r1 D F ~äèh:DèJ1!Y:[!¡'?~.':;:rr;.vJTff~t::::~? :'.:~:;':' .. .'8.6 ..;,::r~~;¡;~::," . 41:1,. ";7:,:gI:;Uer:~~-¡"1.1 Approach lOS BAD --........, E !Dn.v.~!1ie1çtl~?!I1:~rc:en..tile queue Is metered)y upstream signa!.,,'..,":, îf~!1~}'j' \',."'f¡f;l.W¡;¿¡.t.."?~fi;<lfiW¡~:';;¡¡;. HCM Average Control Delay 22.3 HCM Level or Service r;~i5!iJñíe:re:C1!'PÞênYJliUi'5I~~í!tl(j,8~3i.:J¡:'l:: ;~,: ~4¡'1:\::::7;~~*~f " Actuated Cycle length (s) 116,0 Sum or lost time (s) Int~tJðéU5h'::CãPìiC!~l!JzatJonw.~i¡W"¡;¡.~,i"~qJCV'rëVel'õfSer'V1êê7""-' c Critical Lane Group 'lm~t"'~t~j'fIIIIiIJ "",',',,', ~ '-,- "";':"::'~~ð"'l>;~~»" :"':"'h~?"'""S"U ,¡;J wn~",~ ","'", ,f:",::r>;o",,',.~~.J\;".!¡')i~;'f;:) ~¡ "' ... 2/16/2004 Page 11 M:\02\02282\Comp Plan emmendmant\Synchro\2020 without Weyer ExLsy6 2/16/200<4 Pege 12 THETRAL VL3.FF51 .8: ..' ... ' I - - - - - - ., fill .., ""-_....ø..........ø....~~~~fl 224: S 320 SI & Milila.!r..Rd 5 ..f 2020 WITHOUT Weyerhaeuser Way Extension Weyemaeuser Way ExtensIon Study ..... ., f" +- ~ t ~ '.. ~ ".¥ 224: 5 320 51 & Mllila.!r..Rd 5 ..f ..... 2020 WITHOUT Weyerhaeuser Way Extension Weyemaeuser Way Extension Study ~ f"+- ,,~ t ~ ~overnent~11Ì>i'>!ôfW~!t,\~j,mEBU"..IìtEJ:! f,~E BR"ìWBamws P,1t,WBK ~I\ NSmNB T,¡¡:¡'NèJH""J:SBlI.!j'i'.SB 1m.>.¡S~ Lane Configurations 'I ttt r' "i ttr. "i"i t r "i t r laêãf'l"loW:(Vpñpir"f{t;¡Jji";19öð~:hJ~:::f9OO":'19OO'~ 19oo..':tMo,"~900 1900 "1900 "-'19Oôr.~1'9ÖÖ;:~moo Lane WIdth 12 11 12 12 11 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 ro!àr.r:östí!ffiF(s)~~~~'::5.'q.:\1:d;:5.0:~5:0. ::"5.0" 5:0';;:)":"5.0 'S.O 5.0S.0-C:~5:°'7:~q Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FiPb(peaì!il!(ëš:;:'Ett':'~-:1)'ö)Ji:f:f'..0ö~1,:OÒ"::1.00"':'O,99",.~",:"':>!'1.00 1,00 ,'1,00" 1.00:'~1:0ö-:;r':o:g's Flpb, pedlblkes 1,00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1.00 1,00 1,00 1.00 frt:1;:¡¡¡¡:~!;:¡,}eJi:;.: .?:':i:~:roO;~t~ö'¡~"(§S5:vD1 :00":'O.9S .-:':.., ':~T.oo . 1.00' '0.85 .' 1.00:;~t ;00"::' o:M Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1,00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 :~d~f.rðW:<Þfõt):';';.,~;>'~1:',:\f7Æ5m!rt6:1n-583.;::1770"4851'::": ~"ÿ3433' 1863 '1583' "1770';::::1S6~l54ð Fit Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Sãfèl~FlòW(¡;èffi;f!;;',:~l?"5~'9l'6~:1'583"""1770 '4e51'~":":~j3 . 1'863 "1583','1110';'1]M3"':~ Volume (vph) 103 1164 215 234 762 329 123 126 78 215 256 150 ~~"ä~:~( UF:reëtõr~F!F'z!;!!'préq~;0ö1'~':1:00 "1:00';r:;1',OO"':::~1.00"' '1:00, ;~:1 :00;:.'~:1:00;lTIJ:;~1)'QO Adj. Flow (vph) 103 1164 215 234 762 329 123 126 78 215 256 150 ~"!!DelGr~(rP:E¡.ðW;:(VPflJ'R~1JJ3!E:1~'æ'215'¡;~72341?1 09f">,'?;:i',O:¡r¡;123;: ";126 :.: :.F- 78 ¡;:r.2'1,5.~25~M5q Conn. Peds. (#lt1r) 4 10 10 3 3 3 81'fií";B1õi a e #/fir' .;~~I Ol<:~,:,7'0'-":';'::"0"':':';;¡"ê~~2:1;;¡,~ '0" "0-"'";::'O:"7T'0~.~~ Tum Type Prot Perm Prof :~r::: ~~~;'::~~~r;:,'!1~fJ4T:;;~1'T,:n{:~:;~ 1 A'élûaTeaCrreeñ¡:G:(š'~:Í::10:ð1~~:~~45:'6:::;:19.6 . Effective Green, 9 (s) 10.6 45.6 45.6 20.6 ~àlèd;g/CiF38t õ7f£'&')';-;O:O:S4!:1O::3'9~.39:~ 0:1'8 Clearance rime (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 6,0 Ve~'c!e ËXlêñS1ð1f.(STI:J~2:0"i:m\r2:0~'2:ð":':"2:Ö. Le"e G? Cap (vph) 160 1932 622 314 v.'s Ri1':o'~1'õt~~:':::'O,Olr::'êO:Z4:;15:f':;;':. cO.13' v's Ra:'o Perm 0.14 v:::"Kliro'~:~::f::;:0Jt~0:SO~:35',:'0.75" 0:49.' ':""",:::0:46, U"'".,,, Jelay, d1 50.9 28.0 24,7 45,2 20,S 51.2 P'0¡¡'e"s!Öt'i:F:.ãctOr:".:7,'7,;::Z:O:90?}lP:1I~:13Y:~:,f.00 ': 1,00 "\~:'?' .[;:'1.00, :"C'~"'c"tal Delay, d2 5.3 1.1 1.2 8.1 0.8 0,5 De!ay (s) ?,:;j1f&~ß<j{r:~~~?£'5t:!Oiì!:;ID;J;~~4,~ëJ:S3:4 " 21.3" ';:;:;;."'$E:SP: Leve! c' Service DBA DC, D A7:Õ-'õ8c.~ ~D;êräY'{s l.m;Y~7;fJ:G?;1~l.£(,:;-:?)j"::c 2~0""::~'Ç';~,,;::~:. ~=~~S 8 C \. ~ ~ r;I!!Jj ~-~I:~I: J~I:I: B~j:!,L~t<f:i4m¡~1:j ¡~Ifo~eK~SI:;¡~~!I:>tj In¡:W!>jj~&'$,q LanaGroupFJow(vph) 103 1164 215 234 1091 123 128 78 215 256 150 9.\:fÆ!Æ+~¡¡m~~(!\~~B 1 ~'fO~':~~o:r;;:;1M' "~¡J!!b~,:!",,:' 451;.;~9f~*-~õ.1~1 a:!þ~2,9,:',:¡::<è' , Queue Lengt/195th (I'!) m132 164 6 252 252 77 151 44 223 264 73 ~~%~~~~~T~~: '?"1250':";~;'\'7£:C' 'Zê;" 4z:r:.'7;~"':'~"'7":': 506\"~;; ">$,';:;1': ,; ?ê"'~~21o:rk~1!";lh';k1;:tr ~~d"(~}~,:~::,,:,¡,O;;"; ;';;;¡'~"":::'" ":'tt::",', ' ."'," """;,.,, "":';':;~'W"'~~~~",J¡}:¡¡!'!;:~:¥i'~t.' Tuméa;;T¡;¡ïgtlÎ(fÍ) > 200 .. . 200' '. 175 "0Õ' . ~t\".tj~r~nii:~~ -:1';-'1 ~:;",,11'>~,"fi::' ";")",:,..ô"",:," ':~nT~'~/~kl;,",~"'!.;:z:::r80/0:;W,¡,'!!~:¥¡.;.:í.".'; 9Sù1"ëaY-ëiõCì:î'ìmeòX~""""3%"" "2'0%' '12% """<""""~%""'22%"<1' ",", 9U..~,~!(!Q"&~~f;1)~~:::['::'W~:~1)1'37!' ':"if3 ';;;';:';;:::~~"~l:~~~32~M¡¡iê1Y'!"ii:;£ ~!:OO ~ourn tT) 8!Y _\'¡~~I)J>~ !¡¡j}Jí<j r'¡'im~.:t'tø~~w~¡¡¡:Ij.~,~~~~ ro~~~ùm.~lf.~.~?!!i;þe~ti1e.queueis:meterèd,:bY upstream signaL..,' :i:"$t: !::ò" ;.'LE ,~:?1:';-f.¡;:¡;¡j;;::,¡~\Jji}¡%fi'~¡.fi'¡; C\" 11.7 :>',f,7~:;:'7;'::i';20.S:r~ZO':8 12.7 12,7 17.1 20.8 20.8 0.11::-0:11':,O:1~~:~0~182i..;,0~ 6.0 6,0 5.0 5.0 5.0 , "2.0<.':2,O,.:;:;;2:0~'h:2.0"',:[~-o 204 173 261 334 276 cr.07 ...::.. cO,12,"'c<J:1+:f'Z;¡':W; 0.05 .. 0.10 0.62 :'0.45" :0,82' '~<O;",,~O.S4 49.3 48.4 48.0 45.3 43.3 1,00'1.00"'.,'0:88 :rO.903¡i.C!;Z4 3,9 0.7 15.6 7.9 1.0 53.2 ':::'.~1~ : ~'P?;.\i48,5:";'~33'.:Z D "q IE, D C . 51.~~;-:;~~!:~;4S:gF1jJ~~ ""~' ;gm ø>< m:i: ~~. 282\COmP. Plan ammendmantlSynchro\2020 without Weyer Ext..sy6 2/16/2004 - Page 13 ~LV\.3-FF51 0 ~ I Y,",' ~i>iÆ.im1., ..,\1J;!1'.,"" .. ,"'m,~1,\'-æï',~f!"\~¡"'l'J;,~~n~¡: ,t~i!I¡!!:',r;,~Jtw;;~",~'1'J HCM Average Control Delay 27.9 HCM Level of Service C' ="'~ HPMW,ôJúfrjè:Iõ:t:ãpãCl¡YifåUm¡r%\ì¡j[l£.!i'5fÞ;eajit',i.': . " .i;;;.\;j!t'.~!ii£1¡~!';:" '~~!1"':':;~ffõ'j¡Û<~ ActuetedCycleLength(s) 116,0 Sum of lost time (s) 15.0' ;,.." r.ijfé[S:è'¿U'õi);:C:¡I¡I7i(:1t91:o:mriã1fò(ì).~;&Zð!Z%'if} sncu Levelô(;SeiVlce'::r c Critical Lane Group t- M:I021022821Comp Plan ammendmantlSynchro\2020 without Weyer Ext..sy6 i 2/18/2004 1 Page 14 THETRALVL3-FF51 & .. : , - -- - - - - 234: S 312 5! & 32 Av 5 2020 WITHOUT Weyerhaeuser Way Extension Weyemaeuser Way Extension Study - ., - ,.,. f ~ lI4Q'Y! I 8fI ,~= J !t¡;¡:;=~:;\\;v.v/: ~,vy/: J~mNIJ¡;m¡NBK'IIIm~"' iU;¡¡¡;~,\\'!~JW>tj(Æï¡,j¡i"iI'M'jK4 Lane ConfiOUl'lltions .. t~ 'I "tt 'I r' ~,~~~~~ì!.me e~~:fJ~D~ ~::;!!frfèe:: ,'S lop ~"",,:"g'E';;"fi ':'?£:',';¡¡?tt1"J~~:f:$t"}¡;¡gfujfi'l,¡\j;,;rITi:;; Grade 0% 2% 0% Vö!!I1'n Ø'¡,~ M1 )~~¡J:t~;,/293 i'"'.rr181 :;,,;ç:i77~~7?:.;'>r'¡8,i:¡ 215'Y";'T'tm~~~~~7»"i";\'f:1¡\~fi"ÆmY;b'~ P'ê";~¡:¡ou¡:F8èior"" '1.00"1.00"1,00 '1,00 1,00 1,OO""""'~' ., ""","" .. ~~J!'!I?~~;"":"'E1"""7'::;:';¡~;'" 'i~"r'215"':"";I';~?':(i"';i".:r;:"},:,;::,,,,;E..;<:;;Ti'::¡¡\!~ti~~~¿: ~~'i1!'!p~;¡~ ';";:;.;~2::~'_h'" ":"'--""12':0' W¡'lklñõ'sp~~' (:"J;)' '4: .. '.. .: ~!"DI~Tcã;~~"'~'~::"-'-" --:'-:--:..-."~' Rlo~t ¡un, rsre (v~n)' , , ~,:~'~ty',.e,:¡,~~"!:1,':1-,.... ::,:u:,".: "_""_'~'-::,~.~,-:-", ':' '-'edien 1!0t'80e ve~) ~~rç:i"l!lJ~1.~':"'1'2~~ :,':"",n"<::'~'12S0 p,Cpiàiõon' U;b!ocJce~ - .., ß!7.~.lI!~I~cme,;;,,~r..~ :'.;.:,-::':':~~~4TI: .:.: ~1.1!80e1CO~!vd ~~ts~g~,;,~CJ.O!1.;.:?1Ji~\,~'\.~ ';:::;':~7T~J ¡:?~~ ~ .:,,'- ~u. unb!OCkea vol '84 ~~~~.(j.\K~~(\:.....~ .;'7:;' :,--, ::'~4: 13:'-'",,::"' :C. 2 s!8ge (s) ~"T.!!¡:""~~~,;~o::,:,,.:;;,:,':,,~"2,~,":~' , Do cueue;ree ... - _. . "93 ' § ~~ ~li)=t;z,::: ~:;::::::~.~ ~;Z~:¡¡;1:,,:07 2~ 2. !~Z~:9tãrffi.tÌ#Êì1!~i£1Wf\f <fi{tl¡¡lï¡¡¡cjî~~ ~ L~!êI Wt !:J: !,.~~1'!\(,,/ tfJ;ll.11JWB 1 il\t W ~¡:J 1:JN:! é! j-1~. NB¡;'¡ijj¡¡p¡¡.¡¡,_'¡¡\!!'l~'11\~1I.!¡g."'A1mmw.fg ~9I!!~(!I ~ ~,?Þ.'i1!r.2?9. !J!.~$ì!7,?;,.£2,2~ !~(.'S2.2 ~jJ~\;'¡t~ 8i1J~m' 2.1ß~'Jj,\%iî~h~~~~~¡N:lmj~¡~-fi¡¡'t_¡i~ VOIum8 Left 0 0 77 0' 0 148 0 ~.!!!!1.~~ g !l~þ m,'g'rÆíBOm-~O;r:.;;BfcO ~:$:O§.2, 't?~*~liÇfllwJ:r¡~i~ΡMi~\Í¡I¥.~ij,~tjÆ~i@.ï:;¡~ ~ 1~ 1~ 1-1~ 1~ ill ~ ~A't¡!!p. ~.1J!..()'."'1ìi:~1!.~1 '6 ~O.mSPJ;3 #.T.1i 0 ;1'3~ 0 :35':1i7:¡f,OJ2.~~¡\\tîW'¡¡ßW_m~:jtl~ttWj1iÞ.'¡¡WJ QueueLenoth(ft) 0 0 6 0 0 39 31 P~.I{Ot,~ì!Y;;(Sl¡t;."M,¡~;,q,O:4':;!1Ö:O~1J1J'6:~ð":Ö":' ."'.ö.O'¡J~; 18:'1 ~"1'2',Oír.se?::;~i)'!:§j:~j~æ,.¡i3J'ÃJjM¡~ L8ne LOS. A C B &. p ~ ~ ay;(~) ,¡.~r..9, p~:;;;:j~r;~š'f!3 ~Ñ;;::;:;:;~i:;iT4: 5j;¡¡Ji:~i¡¡;~:5'¡Ä~~j%5¥íJt¡1?íW?ì;;~¡~¡¡t~Àt"l;fìí~iì\¡íj' ApPro8Ch LOS B I ~ ~~CQOr)¡,~um m SlY dtr.\1!;,HJ!;":¡¡i:::ï\',J;\!r¡IJ ;:1J\'1§:ttg"...I'.'; ,'"ií¡t1~JM'(~;(i&;;.'¡1.1;¡'l\7";¡¡'\1I¡~~ ¡.^!¡¡;¡rJtt{~::~:;!~ÌI'.M;¡¡!~¡@¡w;ì1;J Average Deley 4,3 !!'!1~r;,s_8BI9i1l~~~~fðIT~¡~ 4a;7%~¡ttrc U .. LëVêl'Or S ë¡yT œYi.;~¥y'1'::;, 1,j;¡i;mrA'ip.ré«,;Sim,¡¡Z¡-;¡¡;;t\\\'¡f,§;f', ... - 8P ", . . . . ø 8 . '. " .. 'jþ ~:~ .. .. .. ., . .. 497: S 312 5t & MilitaryRd 5 2020 WITHOUT Weyerhaeuser Way ExtensIon Weyemaeuser Way Extension Study .J t + ., ~ !;!IQe¡~p¡m'¡¡~~IM""~t::~N~ IJ:'!tNé! ~;~':Ji5ttf 'r;!\'{'.;\'fin~~¡"'f1'A11"".'":'.~-"t"'¡-.tr:}~ ~~~.':,'{?~".-.w¡;""",'m Lane Group Flow (vph) 291 217 319 361 729 o.1\'è\J'è'.rëií¡¡!ff'5OtIf'(flJ'~~',2'O'!!".i¡::,,:¡'0"');'iZt8l ','7'!'84 '.. 226"'~":";;I:!.'\":T":,;" Q~eueLength'95Ü;(it)'#:kj"-<'65"#364 '113 322' '.." ' ríîrf.rjiíilcrrîl(Omll1r:~1ITf.'~:,Jt.'>'¡i'f%;t'i"",""'2703'" 918"?":."('{~'.:'. 50th Up Block Time (%) 9'SlfflJpSlocJ(ìfif¡¡¡"(% ¡:,~:~VTè'T'7::::"';':"" Tum'BayLangth(ftj" 5ðfñ'"Baÿ'Bfóëk"T1më'%:'~r:;:;'-7;7;:"""":':"""'::' ". 95th Bay Block 'Time % '" ,......',.. .' .' aùciJlhg Þ.ena1tY:(vè~rT;:F~'~1J:::'r,7,f'::;::;::i'::"" ';;:.:'7';'::"i"'C:'¡"'~:':\':::~:'J"I~[i'~ I?R)!I'i'ëëtJI! /ì\~ /f¡8fY¡I~~'&'W~!!¡WÅ 1n<,~"'~~i¡".t-.."",X'%; .,.t¡..~J!""";¡:"""I:'...~'I':1 "'"\1"¡H,"!""",-",~.¥¡¡~":!!t1'1:! '!I".~~ I!\.~I'\!'!\'J #-'~',95th percentlleyolume"exceeds, C3paclty; queue may be longer. . , 'J' ",". <\'h"','Ì~,J Queue shown Is maximum after two cycles. 'TJ n " ,.~'c, ~'..., ,.j) 'n' , -, ~ ~- M:\02\02282\Comp Plan ammendmant\Synchro\2020 without Weyer Extusy6 2/16/2004 Þage 16 THETRAl Vl3-FF51 ..c:¡ ~I - - - - - - ." W' .. ..., .. ."...,. 2020 WITHOUT Weyemaeuser Way Extension Weyemeeuser Way Extension Study 0497: 5 312 5t & Military Rd S ~~'\ t¡..; ~(11 en, ~~=éBL~.=t1~"'NB¡¡;¡11-1 ~, ~¡;¡.~ ~¡~I;(,o."""1;l-;:.ti~¡\IM>1 I.r"_:¡-' ¡~¡¡~;n-. Lane Configurations '~ l' ~ t 1- f.ID~~t?P:t'PJ..~t~t.Ð'!&~f9Cíq~f~Oþ~~oo:;:;' 19001 Total Lost time (I) 5,0 5,0 5,0 5,0 5,0 ~llfW~m1rooli~:'J.tOÖ~í1ff,Oo..,:o." , Ft;)b, Pedlbikes 1,00 0,92 1,00 1,00 0,99 f1P.~k~\T~11po~1Too~J!Jfj'.'O~";E~J,'YOtJ,}~¡C;;:;~~P"t;fiRt1;~Þt_.¡¡Ììii~*\(;¡w,_.j~ Frt 1 CG C es ~ ,C~ , 00 0,96 ~~~'?,~'!:I.,,¡,~"'~?;O7Ss7'~ 1 ::;,0 :'!"'.C:9ST:f:?O~Z'1j9'O~:'Br;¡;;ì:'J~.~~~;~~-'¡jj~~tlìi_j;~'\i:.1:WiI: Said F'"",'..o" .... '..' ..,. 'D48 1781 ~~~:~~f~( J, .;.~-~;~~i~:; ~~~. ~ ~;-} ~~~;tZ~~f~'1 y"C?!U[!1!!::v-,.-)~~.:.~;';;;'.291.,:,.,2~ 7.. -,':3~,9;t-,38J£:1j:Øi~£1!'lì'i<Ìi2.0~i::'-¡¡:¡{.@¡¡i!k~J~""i!¡glÆfi:f~d..~~ Peakoh::!:" '~or, PI-'" La" : :;" I.::';; I co 1.00 1,00 ~~;~~~~;f ~; :."":~~ ~ ;'.'"':",;; ~~t~'%:~;~.2ogäpitk~';!3,t£_QÆ&~4~;¡;1iW,¡q1~ft.~¡i&!i'&iK\'î1im ǧj',1T~~P-,~*:,~.,,;;,t,: 1 O,,-:::O;"~ 0 ;: ~"',~ C"mf' f O.~"I\~1>O~~O~)}!~~7ß;i~1~';'~$~ But 8'0"-"e"~s (11th,) : 2 () 2 2 o I.~r,.e""i'!:!J~¡;l~¡":-<!<-':, ,,~..., '."er:.h-'.~,", Prc~ect8"'.. =--.,es . e..iffii!!I~GSë_s~':~""~Þ:\";'-";'~:;;'4' ,~r;2¡/~'~. Ac!üaiec'Go...i.G(s) 2:.7 2:,~ 801.3 8013 801.3 ~G:?1"!1ã'JI)~2,~~7 '-121,7.':;'::!!4:3";:SA.3fi;c' ACtualed,!CRe~io 0.:9 C.:9 0.73 0.73 O. ~~~;(:1~J~~~:~f.!\:O~':"~',~' C :":~ 5:0:IT::5:C!'Ei";{; Vellide Ex'.ensi,,~ (si 2.0 :¡ 0 2.0 2.: 2.0 Lans_Grp'C,ap.(y::)~).~i4ò!-:,328:"!2?1 ',:: 422-,;13 v/sRa:ioPr::r cO. I? 0.2~ '0.41 --"~e~~., 'n......"........'1"""--"O-~I;".'--"'~'~~- VI."".", .. """,-"~.,."",,, ",.~..r,"'"'v,,--",,, ",' '1c:ì~at:Q 0 , -.. ":::e9 '~5:; 0.7S-" G.2~ 0.5 ~f!:~8?!.c.1i!:,,;~4e~~;. 4 ~ .1:-:;59:6 '1"!:5:4 ProgreUlon FlK:1or : .0:: :::; 0.87 0,77 1.00 ~~~~~:2¡:-':.~ G::;::~ 1';22:'0.5 Oelsy(s) 89.2 ~9 8 19.5 ..8 ~:Rr';'~~~8.W:~.>;;:¡";:,~; E:~'.~' :E'-::~:.sZ"::".A. . ADproeo.~ Do'By (s) 55.2 11.5 ~'9]1'~~,\ {"'¡¡!i..;[e J:'J":' 2~ ,1¿-::::E~';~!1 9.2 P Pløn smmendmant\Synchro\2020 Without Weyer Ext"lye 2118/2004 Page 17 ..... - .. '" . . . . . .. ... "" ~'it;;-ft * -& IP ¡ u > r"'<, \,,1) nl >< T ~""- -: .... ,- - - - . .- .,., 222: S 320 5t & 32 Av..§ .J' MITIGA TED- 2020 WITHOUT Weyerhaeuser Way Extension Wayamaeu.er Way Exten.lon Study ¡ - ~ .-. ~ t ~ 150 7% 31% - -c, .3O5'-":'~.~:-'2S49::--,""'~.,";,""':"-,..ç,.,,,.,-,,'^O,' ! rn~~Q m (\'\. ~ L"!\>v;'?;'¡,?!,~S'ßt 'W:~" 41":; :¡:1¡;~ ;?!I1!~¡;¡'t::í,f¡¡-!;f!J'gì'\'1tNf-!J"7 "-~~1p¡.,1!i!~Ì!!tJÆM§fml~~!jJ mYò/tJrn~.foJ.95,tJ:I.pe!:Çentilequeue.l',metered.by upstream signal.. ~m ~)( m:t: ~:\O2\v!'=, ",Comp Plan ammendmant\SynchrolMITIGA TED, 2020 without Weyer Ext..sy6 3-FF51 ~ ~~ ~,~ . ~-- 2124/2004 Page 1 '" .,. v '" . .. " "... .ø...~~~"~" 222: S 320 St & 32 Av S .J' MITIGA TED- 2020 WITHOUT Weyerhaeuser Way Extension Weyemaeuser Way Extensloo Study .-. -\. ". - ~ :.J! ~ ~ - ~ p ~,,~ž EB ~a'W~~a'T'm"!f¡a@!Jí$T!~ 8 BL'tfi})1S SJi.<¡~WÆ~~&{ft'?~'NœÆ!~~,jß~~~~ .a-e Group Flow (vph) 245 1238 6 1062 212 72 177 106 ~~!l!)!r)gtm~":'(I1)~17 P"Z!è1'é4:i!';'}'¡'5':'?I197 ~~~,,~Length95th(~) 250 172 m13 287 '.I"-ì11'I!Iñ1<'1DTšt:'!.!\)":t"",);f,-,-":"" -"'-'7207'.-';~Y":7):740- ~:.. ~p'Bío;;Tì;"'¡' (%T'" ' .. . .. ~~""'J~fOè!{ill~é.:(%)~l~\-~-" - ",-,"':" "?,.",.,,,.,- - .,'. ::ley Length (II) 100 200 5>:,...~~tñê1'&:~"';:~:{4%"--'-J:~:'-j.. - ~~.- ::ey Block Time % 27% 30% 31 % :~~~~~~bl"1I29:¡;ri';-41"Cr:'f'~¡-è'j'5l7:.r;.1 . ~ ¡ .¡ t ~ f'" mm'&ít ¡~r~¡ ,,¡~~!!, tl ¡¡;~EB r~1!'. EB R¡:;,y,wetffl!WBTl1ßWBR~~: f'¡ e~~B R~: 5 B l1\ì~8t: J\f¡'¡ ~BR Lane Configuration. 1 ttt<' 1 tt1+ 1 1+ ~ 1- lìI9iíf" ö¡.r(Vphprr,,::;'?(;:19"ooq1900:~~190<CJ900' '19OO'.;1goo~::':1900 1900 '190019001:':1900';;,1"9'00: laneWidlh 12 11 12 12 11 12 12 11 12 12 11 12 -3%' ".'. '-- "">-:-,.,O""",~~ 5.0 5.0 5.0""-' 1.00' -"1.00';"1.00"Z" 'b~ 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00~:-1.oor<'f~ 0.98 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.92 .., 1.00 "'-;:0.95 1.00'b.9S.--','.oo;"~: Flow (prot) 1770 4826 1770 4809 1782 1772 1755 1653 F fPerml~ed ':':" ;'o.g-S":"1:00:'" ;-,"-:'0.95 1,00 .',.0.95 1.00 'O:95'"7,.00-~ 7':. SaId. Flow (pemÌ) 1770"'4826 - 1770 4809 "1782 1772 1755 '1653 ".' Y:olul1)e(vp~)l:,F¡'¡;:':¡;;:(H.;.245:\;!~lt42:""r961;-,..,6" _950":,,,,1.12y::'~.212., ,.60,. ,;12-";:;J77":~"::',48ð~~t:5S D'.'-~c""actor. PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ,\::!¡. F!o-,y('.-jhF;'7f;;:i1';...:g245"j~,n42'~;M;;::1'ë;6 -. 950"êJ.112!1ifi212 .. 6O'-::".12';:177'.~'-";,:~1i¡;~~ l."eG'~";FI;-:'(.;phi"245"1238"'NO" 6" 1062~0'21272' 0 "177 "i'ot- Ô cë;.n: ::>~~s':'(#lh1)J1ffii:~'fu~11?&~.o.~1~O::'\:;';'; :'~:. ::W' :-:;::1 O~;;~:::" 10';'::;10 ',~?:10~~~fO)¡:¡l,~ f:~s ¡:'!"c.~~es (#/hr) 0 2 0 0 2 0 2 0 2 2 0 2 Tu~_iy;:.. '-¡,i',}'1:~':'$"?í..!t::,~J;O\1\!Afi!~¡Y:::1::ì.¿.';<!:';i':\;,;Prot :-; ':. Pro~ - p-;::. - - ,-¡t!t.xì~ "'~!ec!p~ F'~1ases 7 4 3 R 5 1 ~ 6 oemn~e~rry8'Wii"8"'ii[.t~:W':~~~1,;¡¡,~:J¡-¡;;f(;;¡ì~~;::¡,>;' >,. ..-.~--'~_:;-" -"'.~':-:;":~~;:'~:'-:51'm ,Ac~~"~~~G'een.G(s) 23.766.6 2.0 449 '~.4 ~3 !9.1 90 E~~.c'he QreenrgJš)!:h7123;7¡r.400;a,~W:7~:;--2.;O"!:: '4.S -~. :-_. 1 e 4 9.~ - , .- ~ 9. f':-: g.:J~,~'~~ Ac~~a~e~g'CRatio 0.200.57 0.02 :~~ C.16 :;r;" 0'5 OC9 C'p.ars.;:e '~Tñ'ìé;r8);ibl~i!!'.g'¡jj\]r..L5;O;fu.i.\:i~7':7S:0-!;~ 5.~. -'" ..,- 5.0' 5.0'..' .r_-.5.C:-:::5".:¡$:~ìÆl Ve~':'e ""'.nslon (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2 ~ 2 ~ 2 ~ 2 C 2.0 ~R'Ð Grp Cap (Vphh:1i':¡'iïit,;J621:'I'.;2nl¡.(di,\';t"'l-l. 7.31", :~31_. 2~3 127 . 2~9. '..12S&IifJ\t i v'. '?a',o "r~t cO.14 0.26 0.00 C.:. c(\.12:: C4 0.'0 cC.06 v!s Ra:io relji'j:;yr;;f¡f:;~1m£:k.1¥-~;mø.~y.;:¡::::::. -.. -.;'?:"" - ::. "-:;::'7,\~~ v': qA~'O 0_68 0045 0.19 ~ 5~ O.7~:; 5~ D.CI 0.83 t:."br~ D.'éwa!?p~42~¡¡!J'iJ~~'?~5'11[56:'2 ';¡ .8.0 - .-. -"7'46.9' 52.~ """ -::45.0':-:-52'-¡:¡¡l'ffo~ ?r~'esslon Factor 0.84 0.64 1.07 ~-~~ 1.::: ~ _:: C_S; 0.91 !~'trémêñtìíroèlaW:ð2'::;{:':;,3;-e~:'5~'-~":T;~1:1":':,1:'2 :'(:'::~T, 9.1','," ,3.4 ';';~;-.\ "'::?:;'2:7:::W32;J;m..~ C~'~y(s) 39.3 9.5 61.2 28.1 55.7 55.5 46.3 80.1 t:evp.rõf SèìVlêå'7t-"Fi'.:';ë':'JfT,~rp1t~~:::'~!~.':!:"":'E:""<"C:';:'"'j~'":~E':,;.' E ,,'-::;;'::':,";¡D:D t;,l;:,)':f:~~ :'PP'~ach Delay (s) 14.4 28.3 55.7 -;¡'1. rTI 58.9 ,\~Þlõlìè!j:lOS¡Qffi;"ì{,~!i:.~~Œ)32n~:,;i,~{fUY ;~~,:;-;"~~, ::~':::":\:::7.r:'~,;TI:;;: - ::.J;" E ;¡~';;\u}~;tFt'~;¡;~.;¡;t 1)'---------- --"""--'H~""."W"""-<""""'W.,-,w-"'--"'-"W. -- I;jCM.:t.verege~~tr..oLD&.lay);'ø~J(.¡t27"O:i,j¡,J{N4I)CM .Level,of.S.e.Mce,:'" - . HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.66 Äèftiã)~d~CýC!ègí\'lf911j~(8)-;~:~~,fft\'!"t~:~:tJà1~¡;: Suhfonöàt't1m"'Bsr~f:' , Intersection Capacity Utilization 65.4% ICU Level of Service è~C'iìtrè3 ¡;élfèéQì:t>('jp";:;:"~~,';'::?rdg;~~':":""~":-':';-::' :~:'."!'J;':".: ..,'IKI1'!\}'!ì\;., ,A- ".' ... .. M:I021022821Comp Plan ammendmantISynchro\MITIGATED- 2020 without Weyer Ext~ 2/24/2004 Page 2 iHETRAL \!l3-FF51 .... ~ ~ í i I = I ~ ~ ~ ~ ,. .. .. 0 - ft . , .. & .. .. It . . , , , . . , . ) E--' X ~-! ¡ ,- .. ,.. -' ,r I, !,,- r:J; he:; C U,' ¡- f""'. \.-' , , '11- Attachment B: Travel Time Summary Sheets fEXHIB~1~ PAGE.3l-°F.ß.. . , , '.' . '. ,.-- -. .., 7 ,." ~ 'ill 7J ',." ,., 'i'J ... ~ 11' 'êJ-",~1)-'¡a ~r-a -a a a ¡- a- ¡-- - ~ - Travel Time Summary (without Mitigation) Road'way Distance Running Time Int. Delay (s) Total Travel Time Speed PM NB wlo Link Weyemaueser Wy: 500' south to 320tn - I 35 I 0.095 9.7 52.7 62.4 320tn: Weyernaueser Wy to 32M. mpn 0.150 15.4 30.4 45.8 32nd: 320tn to 1,500 South of 312th 0.25 25.7 0 25.7 [TiJ(als- . -- - - - 0.495 --- _~0.9 83._1 _L __134~- _I PM sa wlo LInk I 35 I 32M: 1,500 South of 312tn to 320th - mpn 0250 25.7 63.7 89.4 320tn: 32nd to Weyerhauser Wy 0.150 15.4 18.0 33.4 Weyemaueser Wy: 320tn to 500' south 0.095 9.7 0 9.7 ¡Totals 0.495 50.9__--~].~L~~_j I I PM NB \Wt/} LInk 35 Weyemaueser Wy: 500' south to 320th mph 0.095 9.7 53.2 62.9 320tn: Weyernaueser Wy to 32nd 0.150 15.4 20,5 35,9 32M: 320th to 1,500 South of 312th 0,25 25.7 0 25,7 ITotals 0.495 50.9 73.7 I 124,6 I I PM sa \Wt/} LInk 35 32M: 1,500 South of 312th to 320tn mpn 0,250 25,7 4,5 30,2 320th: 32nd to Weyerhauser Wy 0.150 15.4 47,6 63,0 Weyemaueser Wy: 320tn to 500' south 0.095 9,7 0 9,7 ITotals 0.495 50,9 52.1 I 103,0 500' south i 500' south I i - ~-L 500' I ¡ south ~m ~)( ¡;~ ~~ 0 ~I; 500' south Î WIthout LInk .fa With Link ~, -¡ ¡ U ',,;>- , .,),,' i1" '..,../ ,,' -, "T c' ... ".r.p~~-~~ ~ r--- ~ - - I--~H-I-.t~t-.,- t- $ t t t t 11 t- I-I t t- t t-t-'~-t Travel Time Summary (with Mitigation) PM Int. Delay (s) Total Travel Time PM ~m ~)( l;§ ~~ 0 b,o ... - Speed Distance Running Time NB w/o Link WeyerhaueserWy: 500' south to 320th - I 35 I 0.095 9.7 52.7 62.4 320th: Weyerhaueser Wy to 32nd - mph 0.150 15.4 28.1 43.5 32nd: 320th to 1,500 South of 312th - 0.25 25.7 0 25.7 ¡Totals 0.495 50.9 80.8 I 131.7 I SB w/o Link I 35, I 32nd: 1,500 South of 312th to 320th - mph 0.250 25.7 46.3 72.0 320th: 32nd to Weyerhauser Wy - 0.150 15.4 20.0 35.4 Weyerhaueser Wy: 320th to 500' south - 0.095 9.7 0 9.7 ¡Totals 0.495 50.9 66.3 I 117.2 I ~.,J ~., .-,' I -cJ ffl """""" >".' ).-< ;:"t", ,.~ ï'" \.,1" -4,..., r)Oi ~ ..... City of Federal Way PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting April 21, 2004 7:00 p.111. City Hall Council Chambers MELTING MINUTES Commissioners present: John Caulfield, Ilope Elder, Dave Osaki, Dini Duclos, Bill Drake, and Grant Ncwport. Commissioners absent: Marta Justus Foldi (excused). Alternate Commissioners present: Lawson Bronson, Tony Moore, and Merle PfeIfer. Alternate Commissioners absent: Christine Nelson (unexcused). CIty Council present: Deputy Mayor Linda Kochmar and Council Membcr Jeanne Burbidge. Staffpresent: Community Development ServIces DIrector Kathy McClung, Community Development Services Deputy DIrector Greg Fewins, Senior Planner Margaret Clark, Associate Planner Isaac Conlen, Assistant City Attorney Karen Jorgensen, Traffic Engineer Rick Perez, Contract Planner Janet Shull, Jones & Stokes Gregg Dohrn, Jones & Stokes Lisa Grueter, and Administrative Assistant E. Tina Piety. Chair Caulfield called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.111. ApPROV AL OF MINUTES It was III/sic to adopt the April 7, 2004, minutes as presented. AUDIENCE COMMENT None. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT None COMMISSION BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARING - Potential Annexation Area (PAA) Subarea Plan Mr. Conlen delivered a presentatIon on questions raised at the last public hearIng. It was stated that a development agreement is an optIon for the RabIe property. PUBLIC IIEARING - New Freeway Commercial Zoning Classification Ms. Shull delIvered a presentatIon on questions raIsed at the last publIc hearIng. Because the Commission wanted to know what parcels this proposed ZOl1lng could be applIed to, she showed a map of the current zoning in the areas considered for this proposed zonlllg classIficatIon. Ms. Shull commented that if this zonIng classIficatIon IS approved. any owner wishlllg to apply thIs proposed zone to theIr property would have to go through the City's ComprehensIve Plan Amendment process. PUBLIC HEARING - 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Quadrant Site-Specific Request Ms. Clark delivered the stafr report. CommissIoner Newport recused hImself from the Quadrant site- specIfic request. ThIs is a requcst to deletc a proposed road {ì-om the Federal Way Co/llprchcnsivc Plan (FWCP), The road 111 question is an extension of Weyerhaeuser Way. The City Council required the K IPianning Comnu"'onI2004\Mcclmg Snmn""y 04.2t.O4 doc EXH'B\T PAGE. 2- ,- I Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 April 21,2004 applicant to prepare a traffic study analyzing the effects of deleting this street from the comprehensive plan. The study concluded that no roadway improvements would be needed by 2020 as a result of the proposed action, Due to this proposal, Mr. Perez asked the Commission to consider amending the comprehensive plan to make 32nd A venue South a principal collector from South 320lh Street to approximately South 3161h Street. The meeting was opened to public testimony. Commissioner Duclos infonned the Commission that she had spoken to Steve McNey and encouraged him to bring his comments to this public hearing. Wally Costello - Applicant for the Quadrant request. He explained their proposal for the parcels the road would pass through and showed how the road would be detrimental to the proposed project. There are wetlands on the property that will restrict development and a road would restrict it further. Joanne Kirkland - She spoke in opposition of the Jackson request. She stated that the map in the staff report shows 312lh as a through street (from 32nd to Military), but it is not. The report also says that a grocery store would decrease the amount of traffic in the area, but how could adding retail decrease the amount of traffic? She also commented that she recently learned that the PAA process has been going on for some two years, but this is the first she has heard about it. She is concerned that annexation would raise taxes and services would go down. This is a safe area for children and she is concerned that will change. Chainnan Caulfield asked if King County mailed a notification of the P AA Subarea Plan to those within the P AA? Ms. Grueter replied that the issue was on the King County website, but for the most part, the City of Federal Way mailed the notifications. A notification had been sent in the utility mailings. Charles Gibson - He spoke his support of the Northlake request and said he was available if the Commission had any questions. Cindy Cope. - She spoke in opposition of the Jackson request. She feels there is no need to bring more retail into the area. There is a lot of available retail space in Federal Way, such as the vacant theater and empty spaces in the Mall and Ross Plaza and SeaTac Village, etc. This area is a very private neighborhood that is safe for children to ride their bikes. Opening 32nd would bring more traffic, which would make it more dangerous for children to ride their bikes and would bring in more crime. Steve McNey - He is the Jackson property manager. They want Community Business (Be) zoning because they feel they can best serve the neighborhood and the City with that zoning. They are not trying to compete with the downtown core. A grocery store in this area would decrease traffic on 3201h, would proved a tax base to the City, and would provide a service to the neighborhood. They have submitted a docket to King County asking for a zoning change to commercial business. Kristen Wynne - She spoke in opposition of the Jackson request. She feels the proposed Freeway Commercial zone is not compatible with existing uses, If a car dealership were to go into the area, it would mean more lights and noise. She commented that 320lh is already a disaster area on the weekends. A more intense traffic study should be done before a decision is made. In addition, in tenus of aesthetics, a car dealership at the entrance to Federal Way is a step in the wrong direction. K:IPlanning Commission\2004\Mceting Sunwnary04-21-04.doc EXHIBIT. PAGE 2 2. .1 Planning ComITÚssion Minutes Page 3 April 21, 2004 Public testimony was closed. It was m/s/c (unanimous) to recommend adoption of the Neighborhood Business comprehensive plan designation and Neighborhood Business (BN) zoning for the Davis P AA site-specific request. It was m/s/c (unanimous) to recommend adoption of the Single Family, High Density comprehensive plan designation and Single Family 9.6 zoning for the Northlake P AA site-specific request. The Commission discussed how the owner of the Rabie PAA sit-specific request could utilize a development agreement. Mr. Fewins informed the Commission that annexation of this area is not anticipated in the near future and the owner plans to develop soon. It was m/slf(one yes, four no, one abstain) to recommend adoption of the Neighborhood Business comprehensive plan designation and Neighborhood Business (BN) zoning for the Rabie P AA site-specific request. The Commission expressed concern over downzoning the property, It was mlslf(three yes, three no) to recommend adoption of the Single Family, High Density comprehensive plan designation and Single Family 7.2 zoning for the Rabie P AA site-specific request; with the stipulation that the Planning Commission feels strongly that a self- storage/mini-storage use would be an acceptable use on this site. After further discussion, it was concluded that the Rabie P AA site-specific request would go forward with no Planning Commission recommendation. It was mlslf(one yes, five no) to recommend adoption of the Community Business comprehensive plan designation and Community Business (Be) zoning for the Jackson P AA site-specific request. It was m/s/c (four yes, two no) to recommend adoption of the Office Park comprehensive plan designation and Office Park (OP) zoning to the south part of the Jackson P AA site-specific request, and Single Family High Density comprehensive plan designation and Single Family RS 9.6 zoning to the north part of the Jackson P AA site-specific request. It was mls/c (five yes, one no) to recommend adoption ofthe staff recommendation for the New Freeway Commercial Zoning Classification. It was m/s/c (unanimous) to recommend adoption, with the aforementioned changes, of the staff recommendation for the PAA Subarea Plan. It was m/s/c (four yes, one no, one excused) to recommended adoption of the staff recommendation for the Quadrant site-specific request with the amendment that 32od Avenue South, from South 320th Street to approximately South 316th Street, would be reclassified from a minor to a principal collector, it would use Cross Section "0," Map III- 6 would be modified to reflect this, and 32od Avenue South from South 320th Street to approximately South 3161h Street would replace Weyerhaeuser Way as Map ID #35 on Table III-19. The Public Hearings were closed at 8:55. These items will be scheduled for the May 3,2004, City Council Land UselTransportation Committee, which will meet at 5:30 p.m. in City Hall Council Chambers. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS None, AUDIENCE COMMENT None. ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m. EXHIBIT PAGE-1 2- )~3 K:\Planning Commissionl2004\Meeting Summary 04-21-04.00c FederalWaJ Potential Annexation Area Subarea Plan Proposed Final Detember 2003 ... ,. ~ .":"" ',.\ ~ CITY OF ~ Federal Way CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PAA Proposed Final Subarea Plan ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Federal Way City Council: Jeanne Burbidge (Mayor) Jack Dovey Eric Faison Mary Gates Linda Kochmar Dean McColgan (Deputy Mayor) Mike Park Federal Way Planning Commission: John Caulfield (Chair) William Drake Dini Duclos Hope Elder (Vice Chair) Marta Justus Foldi David Osaki Grant Newport Christine Nelson (Alternate #1) Tony Moore (Alternate #2) Merle Pfeifer (Alternate #3) Lawson Bronson (Alternate #4) Potential Annexation Area Steering Committee: Hope Elder, Federal Way Planning Commission William Drake, Federal Way Planning Commission Eric Faison, Federal Way City Council Linda Kochmar, Federal Way City Council Lois Kutscha, Resident Representative Thomas Murphy, Federal Way Chamber of Commerce Gail Pearson, Resident Representative Paul Reitenbach, King County, DDES Ed Stewart, Commissioner, Lakehaven Utility District Bev Twiddle, Commissioner, Lakehaven Utility District Geri Walker, Federal Way School District Potential Annexation Area Staff Work Group Representatives of the following Agency Departments and Divisions have participated: City of Federal Way Community Development Services- Planning Division City Manager's Office Management Services-Finance Division Management Services-GIS Division Parks and Recreation Department Public Safety Department Public Works-Solid Waste Division Public Works-Surface Water Management Division Public W orks- Transportation Division Other Agencies: Federal Way Fire Department Highline Utility District King County DDES Lakehaven Utility District Puget Sound Energy Agency Report Preparation Team: Consultant Report Preparation Team: City of Federal Way, Department of Community Development Services, Project Management City Federal Way, GIS Division, GIS Mapping Services King County, DDES, Data Coordination Jones & Stokes, Project Management ECONorthwest Henderson, Young and Company Mirai Associates Tetra Tech/KCM, Inc. December 2003 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PM Proposed Final Subarea Plan TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 I NTROD U CTIO N .............................. ................................................... .................. 1 2 1.1 Purpose of Subarea Plan........... ""'" """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" 1 1.2 P AA Location and General Characteristics """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""'" 1 1.3 Subarea Plan Relationship to Other Elements """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""'" 2 1.4 Subarea Planning Process and Concepts """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" 2 1.5 Public Input Process """"""""""""""""""""""""""'"...................................................3 POLICY BACKGROUND.......................................................................................5 2.1 Statewide Planning Goals..................................................................................................5 2.2 Countywide Planning Policies .."""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" 6 2.3 City Planning Goals or Policies ....................................................................,................... 8 2.4 Consistency of Subarea Plan with Key State, Countywide, and Local Planning Goals 8 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY POTENTIAL ANNEXATION AREA ................................... 9 3.1 Federal Way P AA Boundary .....................................................................................""." 9 3.2 Accomplishments since 1991 Issue Paper...................................................................... 10 3 4 Feasibility Analysis ........................................................................................... 11 4.1 Annexation Feasibility Analysis Purpose....................................................................... 11 4.2 Study Area Population..................................................................................................,.. 13 4.3 Feasibility Study Methodology ....................................................................................... 14 NA TU RAL ENVI RONMENT ................................ ................................ .................. 15 5.1 Summary of Inventory................................................... ..................................................15 5.2 Environmental Goals and Policies """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" 18 5 6 LAND USE ........................................................................................................... 19 6.1 6.2 6.3 Existing Land Uses """""""""""""""""""""""""""""................................................19 Land Use Plan """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""'"...................................................21 Land Use Goals and Policies...........................................................................................25 7 HOUSING ...........................................................................................................26 8 7.1 Summary of Inventory............................................... """"""""""""""""""""."""""'"26 7.2 Housing Goals and Policies................................................"""""""""""""""""""""'" 28 PARKS AND RECREATION .................................................................................29 8.1 Summary of Parks Planning Efforts and Inventory """""""""""""""""""""""""'.'" 29 8.2 Future Parks and Recreation Needs """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" 30 8.3 Parks & Recreation Goals and Policies """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" 33 9 SU RFACE WATER ................................................................................................ 34 9.1 Summary of Inventory """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""...................................34 9.2 Future Surface Water Needs .""""""'.""""""""."""'.""""""""""""""""""""""""'" 37 9.3 Surface Water Goals and Policies """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""'" 41 1 0 TRANSPORTATION ............................................................................................. 42 10.1 Summary of Inventory """""""""""""""""""""""""""""........................................... 42 10.2 Existing and Future Transportation Levels of Service ..................................................43 10.3 Transportation Goals and Policies ..................................................................................49 PRIVATE UTILITIES ...............................................................................................51 11 ii December 2003 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PM Proposed Final Subarea Plan 11.1 Summary of P AA Inventory """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""'"...... 51 11.2 Private Utilities Goals and Policies """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" 52 12 PUBLIC SERVICES AND CAPITAL FACILITIES ..................................................... 53 12.1 Inventory of Public Services Likely to Change as a Result of Annexation ................. 53 12.2 Summary of Fiscal Impacts and Strategies ...............................................................,.... 55 12.3 Services Unlikely to Change as a Result of Annexation:.............................................. 61 12.4 Public Services and Capital Facilities Goals and Policies ............................................64 13 PU BLIC P ARTICI P A TION ..................................................................................... 66 13.1 Public Participation Goal and Policies ...........................................................................66 14 GOVERNANCE AND INTER-JURISDICTIONAL COORDINATION...................... 67 14.1 Govemance/InteIjurisdictional Goals and Policies........................................................ 67 15 ANNEXATION .................................................................................................... 68 15.1 Annexation Goals and Policies................................. """"""""""""""" ........................ 69 16 TECHNICAL REFERENCES TO THE SUBAREA PLAN ............................................ 72 List of Tables Table 1 Year 2000, 2002, 2003, and 2020 Population and Housing ...................................",.. 13 Table 2 Existing Land Use by Parcel..........................................................................................l9 Table 3 P AA Housing Sales and Affordability """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" 28 Table 4 P AA Park Facilities Owned by King County............................................................... 29 Table 5 P AA and City Parks Levels of Service .....................................................................".. 30 Table 6 Federal Way Potential Annexation Area Capital Cost for Parks and Recreation....... 31 Table 7 In-Road Surface Water ..Facilities................................................................................. 35 Table 8 Regional Stormwater Facilities.................................... ............"................ .................". 35 Table 9 Residential and Commercial Drainage Facilities.......................................................... 35 Table 10 Road Maintenance Problems in P AA.......................................................................... 37 Table 11 Road Maintenance Problems Near P AA .....................................................................37 Table 12 Federal Way Potential Annexation Area Capital Cost for Surface Water Capital Improvements...........................................................................................,....................40 Table 13 Street Inventory within P AA """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""'" 43 Table 14 Future LOS and Recommended Improvements .....................................................".. 45 Table 15 Federal Way Potential Annexation Area Capital Cost for Roadway Improvements............................. """ """""""""""""""""""""'" ...........,........... ......... 47 Table 16 Operating Revenues Generated, by P AA (2003)........................................................ 56 Table 17 Operating Costs by Department by Potential Annexation Area (2003) ....................57 Table 18 Annual Net Operating Revenues (or Operating Cost) of Annexation, by P AA (2003)...... .............................,.... ......................................,.. ................................, .......,... 57 Table 19 Federal Way Potential Annexation Area Capital Revenue to 2020.......................... 57 Table 20 Federal Way Potential Annexation Area Estimated Future Capital Costs................ 58 Table 21 Federal Way Potential Annexation Area Estimated Net Capital Revenues.............. 58 iii December 2003 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PM Proposed Final Subarea Plan List of Maps Each Map follows after Page 72: Map I Federal Way PAA Map II Community Level Subarea Boundaries Map III Sensitive Areas Map IV Geologic Hazards Figure V 2002 Existing Land Use Distribution Map VI Parks & Cultural Resources Map VII-I Federal Way PAA Pre-Annexation Comprehenisve Plan Designations Map VII-2 Federal Way PAA Pre-Annexation Zoning Map Map VIII Surface Water Facilities Map IX Arterials and Local Streets Map X Existing Roadway Level of Service Map XI Year 2020 Roadway Level of Service Map XII 20 Year Proposed Intersection Improvements Map XIII Fire Department Facilities Map XIV Public School Facilities Map XV Water Service Map XVI Wastewater Service, Septic Repair and Complaints iv December 2003 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PM Proposed Final Subarea Plan 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose of Subarea Plan The City of Federal Way Potential Annexation Area (PAA) was established through a series ofinterlocal agreements between the City of Federal Way and neighboring south King County cities. Based upon the State of Washington Growth Management Act (GMA) and King County Countywide Planning Policies, the City would ultimately annex and provide services within its designated PAA. While the City's Comprehensive Plan focuses upon plans and policies for property in the City limits, this Subarea Plan augments the Comprehensive Plan and addresses in more detail the Federal Way PAA, located principally to the east ofl-5, with a small portion located west ofl-5 and north of the City limits near the Redondo neighborhood. Over time, property owners in the P AA have made annexation requests to the City of Federal Way, which requires a thorough City analysis of service/capital expenditures, revenues, and other issues. To review its P AA comprehensively and in advance of individual requests, the City of Federal Way, with the support of King County, initiated a PAA Subarea Plan and Annexation Feasibility Study of which this P AA Subarea Plan is a part. By evaluating the feasibility of potential annexations and planning for the future delivery of services, residents of the P AA and the City can make more informed choices about their future. Specific Subarea Plan purposes include: . To act as an informational resource for the City and County staff, elected officials, residents, property owners, and business owners; . To identify the P AA-specific goals, policies, pre-annexation Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map designations and capital plans; and . To provide the City with a framework to guide future annexations. In coordination with the City's overall Comprehensive Plan, this P AA Subarea Plan provides a Year 2020 long-range land use and policy plan to guide pre- annexation planning efforts and annexation requests. 1.2 P AA Location and General Characteristics The Federal Way PAA is located in South King County, and, with the exception of a small future annexation area near the intersection of South 272nd Street and Pacific Highway South (SR 99), lies generally east of the City of Federal Way and Interstate 5. The PAA is characterized by a series of residential neighborhoods focused around numerous lakes beginning with Star Lake at the north and concluding with Five Mile Lake at the South. See Maps I and II. December 2003 1 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PAA Proposed Final Subarea Plan 1.3 Subarea Plan Relationship to Other Elements The GMA requires that the City of Federal Way prepare a 20-year comprehensive plan that at a minimum addresses land use, housing, capital facilities, utilities, transportation, economic development, and parks and recreation. Optionally, a city or county may choose to include subarea plans and/or other elements. GMA does not limit optional topics. Since its adoption in 1995, the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan has included policies identifying the need for comprehensive land planning in its designated PAA. The City's Comprehensive Plan was prepared in accordance with the GMA and underwent an extensive public participation process including City residents, property owners, and business owners as documented in the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan Introduction. The City of Federal Way Comprehensive Plan in its entirety contains ten elements: Land Use, Transportation, Economic Development, Housing, Capital Facilities, City Center, Potential Annexation Area, Natural Environment, and Private Utilities. The Consolidated Plan for Housing and Human Services, and the Parks Recreation and Cultural Services Plan are incorporated by reference. When adopted in final form, this P AA Subarea Plan will be a component of the overall Federal Way Comprehensive Plan focusing upon the 5,OOO-acre future annexation area, and will replace the Potential Annexation Area Element of the Comprehensive Plan currently in place. It is intended that the City's Comprehensive Plan Elements provide the general goals and policies for land use, transportation, economic development, etc. for the P AA as well as the City. However, the P AA Subarea Plan is intended to address unique characteristics or situations relevant to the P AA. Future annexation proposals will be evaluated, and, if approved, implemented in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan, that will include the PAA Subarea Plan. 1.4 Subarea Planning Process and Concepts This P AA Subarea Plan has been prepared in accordance with an established work program that included reviews by the City of Federal Way, King County, and two working committees. The work program has included public participation throughout the process. The key steps in this planning process include: . Inventory: The inventory identifies current environmental and public service conditions. See Federal Way Potential Annexation Area Inventory, Final, March 18, 2002. Analysis: Several analyses have been undertaken including land use and population review, levels of service (roads, surface water, police, etc.), and preliminary cost and revenue estimates. (Federal Way Potential Annexation Area Level of Service Analysis, July 11,2003; Federal Way Potential Annexation Area Land Use Analysis Compilation, March 5, 2003.) . December 2003 2 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PM Proposed Final Subarea Plan . Draft Plan: The March 2003 Draft P AA Subarea Plan contained draft policies and plans, and was the basis for a fiscal analysis. Final Plan: Based on public input and the fiscal review of the Draft Plan, the Final Subarea Plan has been prepared. It is coordinated with the P AA Annexation Feasibility Study including strategic alternatives such as annexation area phasing and service provision phasing. Adopted Plan: As part ofthe City's public hearing process, the Federal Way Planning Commission will review and make a recommendation to the Federal Way City Council Land Use and Transportation Committee (LUTC) regarding the adoption of the Subarea Plan. The LUTC will review the Subarea Plan and the Planning Commission recommendation and issue a recommendation to the Federal Way City Council regarding the adoption of the Subarea Plan. The City Council will review the Subarea Plan and the Planning Commission and LUTC recommendations in its consideration of adopting the Subarea Plan. . . As the P AA Subarea Plan and Annexation Feasibility Study have progressed to date, key concepts have been elicited about the P AA: . The City of Federal Way recognizes annexation as a citizen-based process. The Federal Way PAA Subarea Plan and Annexation Feasibility Study are intended to provide for advanced planning of the PAA allowing both citizens and the City to make infonned choices about their future. . The PAA is part of the larger Federal Way community, but is distinct in its own right. Given its proximity, inter-dependent transportation network, shared school district/utility districts/emergency service providers, and the City's subregional economic role, the PAA is inter-related with the City of Federal Way. However, the PAA has its own unique characteristics- residential neighborhood variety, natural features including headwaters to several significant streams, a road system functioning with rural standards in an urbanizing area, some economic nodes such as in Redondo, and many other distinct features. 1.5 Public Input Process Key to the development of the PAA Subarea Plan and Annexation Feasibility Study has been and will be public participation. Public participation methods for the P AA Subarea Plan and Annexation Feasibility Study have included: . Articles for inclusion in City and Utility District newsletters, and City and County website pages sites (www.cityoffederalway.com; www.metrokc.gov, respectively), as well as a link from the Federal Way School District web site page to City and County website. December 2003 3 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PM Proposed Final Subarea Plan . Creation of a P AA Study webpage on the City's website that provides an opportunity for residents, property owners, and business owners to view draft and final work products, provide comments and suggestions, as well as other features. Coordination of draft work products with neighboring jurisdictions and affected agencies. City facilitation of public neighborhood meetings with the North Lake, Lake Kilamey, and Lake Geneva Homeowner's Associations to explain the purposes of the P AA Study and its scope of work. City-issued press releases announcing the publication of draft work products and the hosting of public meetings. The maintenance of a comprehensive stakeholder list that is used for mailing public meeting announcements and the announcement of the issuance of recently issued draft work products. . . . . . The mailing ofthe City's quarterly newsletter to each P AA household. Each newsletter provides an update regarding the status of the P AA study and the announcement of recently issued draft work products. Announcement ofthe publication of draft work products and hosting of public meetings on the City's public access television station. P AA Steering Committee, Planning Commission, and City Council regular meetings open to the public. To date, Steering Committee Meetings have been held in December 2001, January and February 2002, and January and April 2003, and more are planned. Planning Commission and City Council meetings are forthcoming. Public open houses where residents, property owners, and business owners can review information of interest relevant to their neighborhood, and talk individually with officials and staff To date public open houses have been held in February 2002, and January and September 2003. Meetings were held at local public schools in the PAA and at the City of Federal Way City Hall. At the meetings, the public could review the P AA inventory, land use concepts, levels of service and fiscal analyses as well as provide comments and as~ questions. Later in the process, public hearings before the Planning Commission and/or City Council to present formal testimony, including written comments in advance of the public hearings. . . . . A Steering Committee was formed to act as a "sounding board" reviewing products of the Subarea Plan and Annexation Feasibility Study, and assessing the direction of the project, particularly the Subarea Plan. The PAA Steering Committee consists of officials from the Federal Way City Council, Planning Commission, School District, Chamber of Commerce, King County, Lakehaven Utility District, and P AA Resident representatives. December 2003 4 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PM Proposed Final Subarea Plan A Staff Work Group comprised of City staff from multiple departments, a County staff representative, Utility District representatives, and Fire District staff provided technical review of P AA Subarea Plan products and furnished data and information to the Subarea Plan preparation team. 2 POLICY BACKGROUND 2.1 Statewide Planning Goals The GMA contains 13 statewide planning goals addressing: . Urban growth . Natural resource industries . Reduce sprawl . Open space and recreation . Transportation . Environment . Housing . Citizen participation and . Economic development coordination . Public facilities and services . Property rights . Historic preservation . Permits While all have been considered in the Subarea Planning process, three in particular are most relevant to P AA planning efforts: . Urban growth - Encourage development in urban areas where adequate public facilities and services exist, or can be provided in an efficient manner. Reduce sprawl- Reduce the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling, low-density development. Public facilities and services - Ensure that those public facilities and services necessary to support development shall be adequate to serve the development at the time the development is available for occupancy and use, without decreasing current service levels below locally established minimum standards. In terms of urban growth and reduction of sprawl, the P AA contains primarily single-family development, with a few commercial nodes along major arterial roadways, where services are or can be extended, identified as neighborhood or community centers. The land use/zoning pattern based on the Pre-Annexation Comprehensive Plan and Zoning designations would result in urban densities of about 4 units per net acre or greater, meeting GMA goals for urban level growth. Select areas have Pre-Annexation Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Designations to accommodate approximately 1 residential unit per acre on the periphery of the . . December 2003 5 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PM Proposed Final Subarea Plan P AA, due to sensitive areas and infrastructure limitations. The ability of the City and Special Districts to provide public facilities and services to the P AA is another key topic of this Subarea Plan. The principles contained in the Subarea Plan are to meet community service and infrastructure needs concurrent with growth, to conduct additional capital planning in areas where data gaps have been found (e.g. surface water), and to provide public services in a cost-efficient manner recognizing the historic level of service differences between the City and the County. 2.2 Countywide Planning Policies In King County, the Countywide Planning Policies (CWPP's) that were enacted pursuant to the GMA also provide guidance with regard to multi-jurisdictional joint planning, annexation, and the phasing of urban development. The most applicable policies are: LU28 LU29 LU30 Within the Urban Growth Area, growth should be directed as follows: a) first, to centers and urbanized areas with existing infrastructure capacity; b) second, to areas which are already urbanized such that infrastructure improvements can be easily extended; and c) last, to areas requiring major infrastructure improvements. All jurisdictions shall develop growth phasing plans consistent with applicable capital facilities plans to maintain an urban area served with adequate public facilities and services to maintain an urban area to meet at least the six year intermediate household and employment target ranges consistent with LU67 and LU68. These growth phasing plans shall be based on locally adopted definitions, service levels, and financing commitments, consistent with State GMA requirements. The phasing for cities shall not extend beyond their Potential Annexation Areas. Interlocal agreements shall be developed that specify the applicable minimum zoning, development standards, impact mitigation, and future annexation for the Potential Annexation Areas. Where urban services cannot be provided within the next 10 years, jurisdictions should develop policies and regulations to: a. Phase and limit development such that planning, siting, densities, and infrastructure decisions will support future urban development when urban services become available. b. Establish a process for converting land to urban densities and uses once services are available. December 2003 6 FW13 LV31 LV32 LV33 LV34 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PAA Proposed Final Subarea Plan Cities are the appropriate provider of local urban services to urban areas, either directly or by contract. Counties are the appropriate provider of most countywide services. Urban services shall not be extended through the use of special purpose districts without the approval of the city in whose potential annexation area the extension is proposed. Within the urban area, as time and conditions warrant, cities should assume local urban services provided by special purpose districts. In collaboration with adjacent counties, cities, and King County, and in consultation with residential groups in affected areas, each city shall designate a potential annexation area. Each potential annexation area shall be specific to each city. Potential annexation areas shall not overlap. Within the potential annexation area, the city shall adopt criteria for annexation, including conformance with Countywide Planning Policies, and a schedule for providing urban services and facilities within the potential annexation area. This process shall ensure that unincorporated urban islands of King County are not created between cities and strive to eliminate existing islands between cities. A city may annex territory only within its designated potential annexation area. All cities shall phase annexations to coincide with the ability for the city to coordinate the provision of a full range of urban services to areas to be annexed. Land within a city's potential annexation area shall be developed according to that city's and King County's growth phasing plans. Undeveloped lands adjacent to that city should be annexed at the time development is proposed to receive a full range of urban services. Subsequent to establishing a potential annexation area, in-fill lands within the potential annexation area that are not adjacent, or not practical to annex, shall be developed pursuant to interlocal agreements between the County and the affected city. The interlocal agreement shall establish the type of development allowed in the potential annexation area and standards for that development so that the area is developed in a manner consistent with its future annexation potential. The interlocal agreement shall specify, at a minimum, the applicable zoning, development standards, impact mitigation, and future annexation within the potential annexation area. Several unincorporated areas are currently considering local governance options. Unincorporated urban areas that are already urbanized and are within a city's potential annexation area are encouraged to annex to that city in order to receive urban services. Where annexation is inappropriate, incorporation may be considered. The CWPP's are particularly reflected in Subarea Plan sections 12 and 15, Public Services and Capital Facilities, and Annexation. December 2003 7 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PM Proposed Final Subarea Plan 2.3 City Planning Goals or Policies The Land Use Element of a Comprehensive Plan plays a central role in guiding and directing all other Elements by indicating the desired land use pattern that consequently drives the demand for infrastructure and services. The key City Planning Goals are based then on the City's Land Use Concept in the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan (see Federal Way Land Use Element, Map II-2). In summary, the City of Federal Way land use concept is based upon creating land use patterns that support multiple modes of transportation, with attention to neighborhood enhancements and protection, and community amenities and needs (design quality; parks; etc.) to ensure compatible land uses. These concepts include the transformation of the City's retail core into a dense, mixed use City Center, preservation of residential neighborhoods, a hierarchy of mixed-use retail and employment nodes to serve the community, and development that recognizes environmentally sensitive areas. The PAA, as part of the larger Federal Way community, is reviewed in this Land Use Concept framework while also reviewed with respect to unique P AA circumstances. 2.4 Consistency of Subarea Plan with Key State, Countywide, and Local Planning Goals This Subarea Plan has been prepared in accordance with the provisions of the Washington State GMA, the King County Countywide Planning Policies, and the City of Federal Way Comprehensive Plan to ensure coordinated planning. In summary, the Subarea Plan is consistent with the following State, Regional, and City "indicator" policies: . Growth Management Act: The Subarea Plan applies urban densities to accommodate growth, avoid sprawl, and provide services efficiently within the Urban Growth Area. As described in Section 6, the predominant land classification would support urban level densities except in areas with significant environmental or infrastructure limitations. Public service capital and operational needs and improvements are identified to support the P AA land use plans. . Countywide Planning Policies: The land capacity of the P AA would accommodate the P AA housing target of 1,320 units and employment target of 134 between 2001 and 2022, described further under Section 6.2. Public service capital and operational needs and improvements are identified to support the P AA land use plans. The phasing of services and annexation areas is encouraged in Subarea Plan policies. . City Policies: Subarea Plan designations and policies support the Comprehensive Plan such as the hierarchy of Commercial Centers by providing for local-serving commercial and mixed-use nodes, and by supporting the predominant residential character of the PAA. December 2003 8 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PM Proposed Final Subarea Plan 3 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY POTENTIAL ANNEXATION AREA 3.1 Federal Way P AA Boundary Federal Way Adoption of P AA Boundary Process The City of Federal Way formally began the process of evaluating its logical service delivery areas and the boundaries of its P AA with the publication of a July 1991 issue paper. This paper examined the requirements ofGMA as they relate to UGA's, and included a discussion of how urban services were being provided. The paper also described special purpose district boundaries, the transportation system, parks and recreation facilities, and physical features that potentially affect urban service delivery. The analysis that was included in the 1991 issue paper provided the basis for a proposed P AA area for the City. Staff presented the issue paper and proposed Urban Growth Boundary to the Federal Way Planning Commission. The Commission reviewed the proposal and held a public hearing. Most of the testimony received by the Commission was supportive of the proposed urban growth boundary. The Commission recommended that the City Council adopt the proposed PAA boundary. The City Council accepted the recommendation, but did not adopt it. Rather, the Council directed staffto begin negotiations with the neighboring cities of Auburn, Milton, Algona, Pacific, Des Moines, and Kent, all of whom had developed urban growth boundaries that overlapped with Federal Way's proposal. The City negotiated with each of its municipal neighbors for the better part of a year. By the Fall of 1993, staff presented a revised PAA boundary to the City Council. The Council reviewed the proposal and adopted the P AA boundary on December 21, 1993. That boundary was amended in 1994. The City executed interlocal agreements with all of the neighboring cities based on the boundary shown on MapI. Neighborhood Analysis levels For purposes of data collection efficiencies and resources, the P AA has been divided into three Major Subareas as well as seven smaller Community Level Subareas. The Major and Community Level Subareas are as follows (see Map II): . The Redondo East Community Level Subarea is in the Redondo East Major Subarea (both with identical boundaries), west ofI-5 and is approximately 43 acres in size. . Star Lake, Camelot, and North Lake Community Level Subareas comprise the Northeast Major Subarea, east ofI-5 and north ofSR-18, and total approximately 2,527 acres in size. December 2003 9 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PAA Proposed Final Subarea Plan . Lakeland, Parkway, and Jovita Community Level Subareas comprise the Southeast Major Subarea, east ofI-5 and south ofSR-18, and total approximately 2,470 acres in size. The Community Level Subarea Boundaries are shown on Map II. The subarea boundaries are based upon City-defined Transportation Analysis Zones which align with Census Tract geography, neighborhood affinities as expressed in prior County planning efforts, and the ability of the County to provide information within existing resources, as well as input from the P AA Steering Committee in December 2001. 3.2 Accomplishments since 1991 Issue Paper The following has been accomplished since completion of the 1991 Issue Paper: . Used technical information from neighboring jurisdictions and information from affected citizens to identify and establish a P AA boundary for the City of Federal Way. Established an interlocal agreement on mutually agreeable P AA boundaries with the following South King County Cities: Des Moines, Kent, Auburn, Algona, Pacific, and Milton. Completed a preliminary analysis of the P AA that identified potential issues associated with annexation and a scope of work for a more comprehensive study of the PAA. Initiated a comprehensive study of the PAA in conjunction with King County. . . . The comprehensive study of the P AA includes several phases as described above: inventory, analysis, draft and final plan formulation, etc. The Federal Way PAA Inventory (March 18, 2002) addresses a range of environmental, economic, and social conditions within the Federal Way PAA. The Inventory is primarily a compilation of readily available data from King County, Special Districts, and the City of Federal Way, and was supplemented with some limited field review. The purpose of the Inventory was to serve as a basis for additional planning and analysis of the PAA including levels of services, current and future fiscal conditions, and subarea planning. The P AA Inventory was followed by a series of reports about levels of service (LOS) in the P AA (Federal Way Potential Annexation Area Level of Service Analysis, July 11, 2003). The LOS reports address a wide range of governmental services including community development, human services, parks/recreation, police services, roads, surface water, solid waste, water and wastewater. However, the LOS reports focus upon surface water and transportation in more detail due to the complexity and importance of these services to the community and the City. Also completed was a series ofland use classification and policy December 2003 10 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PAA Proposed Final Subarea Plan analyses analyzing current and proposed land use patterns and policy issues. These recent P AA inventories and analyses are summarized and integr ted as appropriate into this Subarea Plan. Additional phases addressing costs and revenues and annexation strategies in the Annexation Feasibility Study, December 2003, have also been integrated with this P AA Subarea Plan. 4 Feasibility Analysis 4.1 Annexation Feasibility Analysis Purpose An Annexation Feasibility Study (December 2003) has been prepared t estimate the long-term fiscal impact annexation would have on the City of Fede al Way. This section provides information on the basic assumptions and metho ology of the analysis. The results ofthe Feasibility Analysis are reviewed in th appropriate topical section of this PAA Subarea Plan (e.g. transportati n, surface water, parks and recreation), but are summarized in total in Section 12. As a baseline assessment, the Feasibility Study looks at the net fiscal g p the new, expanded City of Federal Way would face if the City were to annex an of the identified P AAs while trying to maintain current levels of services and current levels of taxation and fees. To account for the differences between the fiscal impacts associated w'th the day- to-day operation of the City and the impacts associated with needed ca ital investments, the Feasibility Study takes a three-pronged approach to as essing impacts: 1. Estimate the incremental operating costs introduced by annexa ion of the P AAs on an annual basis, and compare those costs to the incre ental revenues the City would receive from the same areas. 2. Discuss how the balance of operating costs and revenues woul to change in future years. 3. Estimate the additional capital investments that the City would take on with annexation and compare those costs to the additional capi al revenues the City could expect to receive from the P AAs. To provide the most intuitive and up-to-date information about estima d impacts, this analysis provides a snapshot of what the operating impacts would e if the City were in the position of fully governing each PAA in 2003. The as essment of operating impacts is based on 2003 costs of service and 2003 tax and e structures, as outlined in the City of Federal Way 200312004 Adopted udget, and is intended to represent a picture of fiscal impacts under steady-state 0 eration. In essence, these estimated steady-state operating impacts reflect the ong ing "costs" December 2003 11 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PM Proposed Final Subarea Plan that the City would face each year, beginning perhaps, in the third year after annexation and extending into perpetuity.t Estimated costs of capital improvements are based on the most recent available data (2002) and reflect estimates of the combined investments that will be necessary through the planning horizon of2020 (all presented in 2002 dollars). There is no material effect on this fiscal analysis from using 2003 operating costs impacts and 2002 capital costs, primarily because the capital improvement costs are expressed in current (2002) dollars regardless of when the projects may be built in the next 20 years. The purpose of estimating the hypothetical gap that would be created if the City were to try to extend current service levels to the P AAs without increasing taxes is to present decision makers and the public with a picture ofthe true "cost" of annexation. Ultimately, any such gap between costs and revenues is hypothetical. Cities have no choice but to cover their costs of operation. Consequently, if Federal Way were to annex any of the P AAs, any estimated "cost" associated with annexation would have to be made up through some combination of(1) stretching City resources through decreased levels of service and/or (2) increasing City revenues. The Feasibility Study Implementation Strategies are integrated into the Subarea Plan Section 12, and examine a variety of options to improve the financial feasibility of future annexations. The Feasibility Study provides fiscal analysis and annexation strategies that are integrated into the Federal Way PAA Subarea Plan, particularly in tenus of: . Identifying public services and capital improvements that would need to be in place to serve the Subarea Plan current and future land use pattern over time, and Incorporating into Subarea Plan policies the strategies regarding agency coordination, funding sources, future land use amendments, levels of service, and others, that could improve the financial feasibility of annexations in the PAA. . I In the initial years of annexation costs could be either higher or lower than the estimated steady- state impacts, depending on how the City chose to manage annexation. Among the detenninants of transition-period costs will be the direct and indirect costs of managing the transition and the pace at which the City chooses to ramp up certain, discretionary service levels in the annexed area. December 2003 12 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PM Proposed Final Subarea Plan 4.2 Study Area Population Population data for the Annexation Feasibility Study covers several time periods. The data is consistent among time periods, but different periods are used in order to produce the most accurate forecast of operating and capital costs and revenues. Baseline data was developed from the last US Census and other sources that used the US Census. This enabled the study to start from a reliable base of data for the year 2000. The Operating Cost/Revenue analysis is a snapshot in time based on the City's 2003 budget and rates, with some trend analysis. As a result, population forecasts for 2003 were prepared for use in the analysis of operations. The Capital Cost/Revenue analysis covers the period 2002 through 2020 in order to provide a long-range forecast similar to other long-range planning strategies for capital. The data to support the capital improvements analysis is based on the City's PAA market population and employment forecast from 2000 to 2020. Table I shows the population and housing units for each Major Subarea and the total P AA for the years 2000, 2002, 2003, and 2020. The area included in this fiscal analysis comprises a substantial population equal to approximately 25 percent of the 2002 population of the current City of Federal Way (83,850, 2002). Table 1. Year 2000, 2002, 2003, and 2020 Population and Housing 2000 2000 2002 2002 2003 2003 2020 2020 Subarea Population Housing Population Housing Population Housing Population Housing Units Units Units Units (Total) Redondo 260 150 260 150 260 150 388 204 East Northeast 11,600 3,900 11,900 4,015 12,300 4,130 15,870 5,705 Subarea Southeast 8,700 3,200 8,800 3,307 8,900 3,340 9,761 3,564 Subarea PAA Total 20,560 7,250 20,960 7,472 21,460 7,620 26,019 9,473 Source: 2000 U S Census, and King County Office of Regional Policy and Planning, January 2002; ECONorthwest 2002 and 2003 December 2003 13 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PAA Proposed Final Subarea Plan 4.3 Feasibility Study Methodology Cost and Revenue Forecasts There are many ways to forecast costs and revenues associated with annexation. Examples include per capita analysis or estimates that are based on the experiences of a handful of so-called "comparable" cities. The City of Federal Way desired an analysis with a high degree of reliability; therefore the Study Approach to evaluating the fiscal impacts of annexation is based on a more detailed analysis ofthe fundamental characteristics ofthe three Major P AA Subareas and comparisons ofthose characteristics with the defining characteristics ofthe existing City of Federal Way. The Feasibility Study analysis looks at the fundamental drivers of demand for City services within the existing boundaries of Federal Way, and based on a comparison of similar drivers in the three P AAs, estimates the additional demand for each service that would be introduced by annexation of each area. In the case of law enforcement, for example, a typical assessment of service costs might be based on figures like average-cost-per-resident or the cost associated with extending police services in a manner that would maintain the City's current count of officers-per-thousand-residents. While each of these measures is attractive due to their ease of use, neither measure does a particularly good job of capturing the true demand for police services. To account for the unique characteristics of the PAA Major Subareas (and to account for the many differences between the P AAs and the existing City of Federal Way) the Feasibility Study estimates ofthe demand drivers for police services take into account, first, differences in the level of commercial activity among each of the areas, and second, the different characteristics of each area's residential base. Among households in each of the P AAs, the Study estimate of police demand distinguishes between the typical demand characteristics associated with five different combinations of housing type and tenure: (1) owner-occupied single- family homes; (2) renter-occupied single-family; (3) owner-occupied multifamily; (4) renter-occupied multifamily; and (5) mobile homes. The estimates ofthe relative contribution of each of these segments of the residential base to police demand is based on a series of statistical analyses of more than 100 cities across Washington State. Other examples of drivers used in this study include: land area (solid waste and surface water services), signals/street lights/road miles/population (traffic and road maintenance services) as well as several others. Feasibility Study Assumptions The Feasibility Study analysis is based on five assumptions: December 2003 14 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PAA Proposed Final Subarea Plan . Redondo East, Northeast and Southeast P AAs would receive levels of service similar to those now provided by the City of Federal Way. The current level of service, staffing and expenditures in Federal Way is the benchmark for forecasting comparable levels of service, staffing and costs in the P AA. Cities that have undertaken annexations in the past have found that there is a surge in demand for services after annexation. The Study methodology of "drivers" and "outputs" produces a more accurate forecast than a simple population-driven forecast, but it may not fully capture the increment of increased demand during the first few months after annexation. The fiscal analysis includes cost and revenue estimates only for those taxes or services that would change upon annexation. The local services that would not change include water and sewer, fireÆMS, schools, regional transit, health services, and regional parks. In other words, after annexation existing school and fire district boundaries will remain as they are, and regional transit, health and regional parks will continue to be provided by King County. The Feasibility Study projections of revenues and costs for determining fiscal analysis are conservative. This means that when a forecast includes judgment as well as data, the Study selected lower alternatives for revenues and higher alternatives for costs. . . . . Again Feasibility Study results are integrated throughout the Subarea Plan by relevant topic, but are fully summarized in Section 12. 5 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT Environmentally sensitive areas in the P AA include wetlands, streams and lakes, fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas, aquifer recharge areas, frequently flooded areas, and geologic hazard areas. The March 18, 2002, P AA Inventory Report provides a detailed inventory and description of these critical areas. Many of these areas have already been identified, delineated, mapped, and classified. In addition, the Inventory Report details the implications of Federal, State, and local policies regarding environmentally sensitive areas pending any potential future annexation. 5.1 Summary of Inventory The Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA), Washington State Priority Habitat and Species Program (PHS), and the State Growth Management Act (GMA) provide levels of protection for endangered, threatened, or sensitive species and habitats, and hazard protection. Please refer to Maps III and IV for locations of sensitive and hazard areas within the P AA. A brief description of the results from December 2003 15 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PM Proposed Final Subarea Plan research on the environment is provided below. Wetlands There are approximately 440 acres of wetlands in the PAA, with the largest acreage of wetlands found in the Northeast Subarea. Within the smaller individual Community Subareas, Lakeland has the largest acreage of wetlands. See Map III. Both the County and City have regulations protecting wetlands with buffers and other requirements varying by wetland class. Streams A distinctive characteristic of the P AA is that most of the area is a headwater to several major streams (Hylebos Creek, Mullen Slough, and Mill Creek). Most of the streams in the Federal Way PAA are classified by the County as Class 2 with salmonids requiring a 100 foot buffer. If using the City of Federal Way classification system, most streams would be considered Major Streams, also requiring a 1 DO-foot buffer. Lakes Lakes in the P AA include Star, Dollof, North, Killamey, Geneva, and Five Mile lakes. The City of Federal Way Code has defined specific wetlands within the City as the Regulated Lakes. i.e. those located in the City and contained in King County Wetlands Inventory Notebook Volume 3, South. Upon annexation of areas containing lakes, the City would designate specific lakes within the P AA as Regulated Lakes. The setback requirement for Regulated Lakes is 25-feet landward in every direction from the ordinary high water mark of the lake. Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas Based on the State Priority Species and Habitat Mapping Program, within the P AA there are three anadromous running streams. These include the headwaters of West Hylebos creek, the south draining stream from Lake Dolloff and East Hylebos Creek south of Lake Kilamey. King County has also identified downstream and west ofI-5 in the City limits that Hylebos Creek has a "Chinook distribution 500 foot buffer." The City definition of fish and wildlife areas is found in the Federal Way City Code (FWCC 18-28 and 22-1). The Federal Endangered Species Act listings of two fish, Chinook and bulltrout, as threatened are resulting in reassessments of County and City policies and permitting procedures. Interim ESA approaches in the King County permit process include use of existing regulatory tools with greater emphasis on application and enforcement as well as the adoption of more stringent Comprehensive Plan policies. The City of Federal Way requires all project applicants to fill out an "ESA Listed Salmonids Checklist," primarily using the SEP A process to determine mitigation required beyond code requirements. December 2003 16 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PM Proposed Final Subarea Plan Aquifer Recharge Areas King County has mapped low, medium, and high potential groundwater contamination areas in the P AA and has adopted numerous regulations addressing critical aquifer rècharge areas. These regulations address on-site sewage disposal systems, clearing restrictions, and through some overlay districts restrict certain land uses. The County is also in the process of preparing a Groundwater Management Program, which is slated to produce a Groundwater Management Plan for South King County, including Federal Way and its PAA. It is expected that this plan will include a work program to guide future actions and will establish a groundwater protection committee to guide its implementation. The Lakehaven Utility District's main source of water is from four aquifer systems that underlie the City: the Redondo-Milton Channel Aquifer, the Mirror Lake Aquifer, the Federal Way Deep Aquifer, and the Eastern Upland Aquifer. The locations of wells in relationship to the aquifer systems are shown on Map III. Aquifer recharge areas are located in areas where permeable soil and rock materials are relatively close to the land surface and where there is an excess of water from precipitation. The Lakehaven Utility District notes that the precise extent of the aquifer recharge areas is uncertain. Highline Water District services a small part of the P AA in the Star Lake area. Until 1962, all water came from the Highline District's wells. Today, about 90 percent of the water supply of the District is purchased from Seattle Public Utilities. The District supplements its Seattle water source with local wells. The wells, which draw from an intermediate aquifer approximately 400 feet underground, were designed to furnish approximately 15 percent of the total volume of water supplied by the District. The District has wells located in Des Moines and also near Angle Lake outside ofthe PAA and Federal Way. As defined in the City of Federal Way, Sensitive Area Ordinance, siting criteria for wells must comply with State law. Futhermore, any improvement or use on a subject property is subject to State requirements regarding separation of wells from sources of pollution. Frequently Flooded Areas There are no Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)-recognized frequently flooded areas in the City of Federal Way. There is a 100-year floodplain located around Lake Dolloff in the P AA (See Map III). King County regulations require that development activities including fill may not cause the base flood elevation to rise. Federal Way has similar floodplain regulations in its Surface and Stormwater Management Code, Chapter 21 ofthe Federal Way City Code. Geologic Hazard Areas There are small portions ofthe Parkway, Jovita, and North Lake Subareas, which December 2003 17 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PM Proposed Final Subarea Plan have Landslide Hazard Areas and Erosion Hazard Areas, mostly located near streams or steep slope areas. There are also small portions of the Camelot and Lakeland Subareas that have erosion hazard areas. The Star Lake Subarea has a significant proportion of both Landslide Hazard and Erosion Hazard areas along its eastern border. Please refer to Map Iv. 5.2 Environmental Goals and Policies The following environmental goal and policies are provided to address P AA environmental conditions. Environmental Goal Practice environmental stewardship by protecting, enhancing and promoting the natural environment in and around the P AA. Environmental Policies P AA Env - 1 Prior to and upon annexation, the County and City in partnership shall promote the protection of P AA wetland and lake complexes, as much of the area is a headwater to significant fish-bearing streams, including Hylebos Creek, Mullen Slough, and Mill Creek. P AA Env - 2 The County shall, prior to annexation, manage the 10O-year floodplain of Lake Dolloff in accordance with Federal, State, and County laws and guidelines. Regulations to prevent reductions in base flood storage volumes should continue to be implemented. Upon annexation, the City shall continue the policy and practice of floodplain management. P AA Env - 3 Prior to and upon annexation, the County and City in partnership should encourage the establishment of an active lake management system to monitor and manage lake water quality. This management system should actively involve property owners, homeowner's associations, lake management districts, and agency stormwater utilities within the P AA. P AA Env - 4 Prior to the annexation oflarge areas, updated surface water basin management plans should be prepared by the County in conjunction with the City for the P AA basins and sub-basins, particularly east ofI-5. Basins and sub-basins should be prioritized for study and coordinated with all appropriate State and local agencies. The topology, soils, drainage, flow and channel monitoring, vegetation, habitat identification, utilities, RID maintenance, and mitigation policies should be uniquely identified and defined for each basin/sub- basin. P AA Env-5 In preparation of applying City Environmentally Sensitive Area regulations in the future, the City and County should inventory and map steep slope areas in the P AA. December 2003 18 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PM Proposed Final Subarea Plan P AA Env-6 Prior to and upon annexation, the City should coordinate with the King County Solid Waste Division regarding the environmental monitoring ofthe closed Puyallup/Kit Comer Landfill. P AA Env - 7 The City shall coordinate with King County through interlocal agreements or other means to institute common environmental protection standards while the area is in transition from County to City jurisdiction. Standards would include, but are not limited to, wetland buffers and mitigation standards, stream buffers, geologically hazardous area disturbance avoidance and buffers, and others as appropriate. 6 LAND USE 6.1 Existing Land Uses With the exception of the Redondo East neighborhood, which lies along Pacific Highway South and contains a higher percent of land devoted to multifamily or commercial uses, the Federal Way PAA contains primarily single family residential land uses as shown in Figure 5, and in Table 2. Of any neighborhood, the Parkway neighborhood has the most acres in multiple family uses although still primarily containing single family uses. Table 2. Existing Land Use by Parcels CATEGORY Redondo East Star Lake Camelot North Lake Lakeland Parkway Jovita Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres % Agriculture 0.0 0% 5.5 1% 0.0 0% 1.3 0% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% Commercial 4.8 11% 12.2 1% 7.2 1% 0.9 0% 47.0 3% 1.1 0% 0,0 0% Easements 0.0 0% 6.0 1% 12.3 1% 0.1 0% 6.8 1% 2.8 0% 0.0 0% Industrial 1.9 4% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 10.5 1% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% No Data 0,0 0% 1.1 0% 12.1 1% 0.0 0% 0.7 0% 0.0 1% 0.3 0% Office 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 0.2 0% 2.3 1% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% Open Space, 0.2 1% 27.7 3% 35.8 3% 1.8 0% 7.7 1% 56.9 9% 0.1 0% Common Areas & Drainage Public Park 0.0 0% 16,7 2% 18.4 1% 0.0 0% 64.7 5% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% Quasi-Public 0.0 0% 46.0 5% 49.5 4% 0.0 0% 24.3 2% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% Recreation 4.4 10% 0.0 0% 0,0 0% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% Residential, 9,3 21% 6.2 0% 53.4 4% 1.4 0% 30.1 2% 82.8 11% 3.9 0% Multi-Family Residential, 6.9 16% 412.3 50% 702.6 54% 140.6 37% 643.0 47% 271.9 41% 217.3 49% Single-Family Rights-of-Way 7.0 16% 105.3 13% 190.6 15% 57.7 15% 179.2 13% 128.7 19% 56.8 13% Utilities 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 30.6 5% 0.0 0% December 2003 19 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PM Proposed Final Subarea Plan CATEGORY Redondo East Star Lake Camelot North Lake Lakeland Parkway Jovita Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres % Vacant 8,8 20% 165.7 20% 202,0 15% 126.5 33% 295.9 22% 87,1 13% 167.1 37% Water 0.0 0% 33.6 4% 20.7 1% 51.9 13% 52.6 4% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% TOTAL 43.3 100% 838.3 100% 1304.8 100% 384.5 100% 1362.5 100% 661.9 100% 445.5 100% Notes: The acre figures are derived ITom the ArcInfo Geographic Infonnation System (GIS). Multi family includes triplex, fourplex, apartments, condominiums and group homes. No Data is used for parcels where King County parcel infonnation was unavailable. Easements include transportation and utility. Not all right of way (ROW) is developed. Source: King County Department of Assessments 2001 and City of Federal Way GIS Division, 2002 While the predominant land use in the P AA neighborhoods is residential, there are several businesses including the following types: . Redondo - Convenience stores, taverns, fast food, auto service and repair, personal services, offices, manufacturing, vehicle storage, and others Star Lake - Tavern, nursery Camelot - Gas stations, offices . . . North Lake - Nursery, gas station Lakeland - Convenience store, espresso, auto repair, day care center . . Parkway - Auto salvage and towing. PAA Generally- Numerous home occupations (for example, home day care operations, individual construction contractors, home-based professional services, and others). . During the years 2000 and 2001, King County processed a variety ofland use and building permits, including preliminary plats containing approximately 576 lots, as well as multifamily developments totaling about 605 units. The majority of the preliminary plat lots were located in the Star Lake and Lakeland Neighborhoods, and the majority of the multi-family units permitted were located in the North Lake and Star Lake Neighborhoods. Residential development has continued since the compilation of County data in 2000 and 2001. Essential Public Facilities RCW 36.70A.200 states that essential public facilities are "those facilities that are typically difficult to site, such as: . Airports, . State education facilities State or regional transportation facilities as defined in RCW 47.06.140, . . State and local correctional facilities, Solid waste handling facilities, . December 2003 20 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PM Proposed Final Subarea Plan . In-patient facilities including substance facilities, mental health facilities, group homes, and Secure community transition facilities as defined in RCW 71.09.020." . Essential public facilities can be government owned and operated facilities, or privately owned facilities that are regulated by public entities. This definition is not considered to be all-inclusive, but provides examples of facilities that are difficult to site. No local comprehensive plan or development regulation may preclude the siting of essential public facilities. The P AA contains several essential public facilities including highways of statewide significance such as 1-5 and SR-18, a WSDOT maintenance facility, the closed & monitored Puyallup/Kit Comer Landfill (see section 12.1, Solid Waste), group homes, and potentially others that remain to be identified beyond present inventory efforts. Under County or City plans and rules, essential public facilities are required to undergo a review process for siting them. Cultural Resources The King County Historic Preservation Program has identified historic properties included in the King County Historic Resource Inventory. The only designated or potentially eligible historic landmarks are in the Lakeland neighborhood of the Southeast Subarea (see Map VI). The Sutherland Grocery and Gas Station, built in the 1930's, was designated a King County Landmark in 2002. The two other potentially eligible historic sites are the Westborg House, a farmhouse built in 1905 by M. Westborg on property originally part of a 160-acre homestead owned by James Duncan, and the Fancher House, a home and barn built in 1923. The King County Historic Preservation Program recommends an inventory update to identify any additional historic properties in the P AA area as well as the City limits since the last inventory was conducted 15 years ago. Additionally, the County recommends an interlocal agreement for preservation services to provide a mechanism and incentives for protecting significant historic properties within the current and future annexed city boundaries. 6.2 land Use Plan The predominant character of the PAA consists of single-family residential with several nodes of commercial and multifamily uses, principally along arterial roadways. The King County land use plans governing the P AA have generally recognized this character. For the Federal Way PM Subarea Plan, the base or starting point for developing a comprehensive land use plan was first to match the most similar City classification to the current County classification. Although the basis of the PM Subarea Plan is the King County Comprehensive Land Use Plan, the City conducted a detailed review of existing land uses and future land use/zoning classifications to determine if adjustments to the basic land December 2003 21 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PAA Proposed Final Subarea Plan classification system were warranted in certain locations of the PAA. Geographic Information System (GIS) analysis produced a series of maps to help identify: . Nonconforming Uses: Existing uses that either under the King County classification/zoning system or the City potential classification/zoning system may be considered nonconforming - i.e. legally established land uses that do not conform to existing zoning regulations. . Mobile Home Parks and Units: Mobile home parks and single manufactured homes that mayor may not meet Federal Way manufactured home park design standards. . Parcel Size and Minimum Lot Size Requirements: Parcels smaller than the minimum lot size associated with potential zoning categories. Additionally, other issues and locations were reviewed, including: . King County R -1 Zoning areas were reviewed to determine if environmental characteristics warrant Federal Way equivalent zoning (RS- 35.0) to King County's R-1 (one residential dwelling per acre) zoning. Potential Incompatibilities: The P AA Subarea Planning team reviewed sites where there could be a potential for incompatibility with City policies/codes, or other concerns. . The result of the land use and zoning analysis is a Land Use Plan that: . Recognizes and supports the predominant single-family suburban character of the P AA. . Recognizes the need for neighborhood or community level business goods and services at key nodes in the P AA such as at the intersection of arterials. Creates a consistent, compatible long-term land use pattern recognizing the predominant and unique character of P AA neighborhoods. . Land Use Capacity Analysis The Federal Way PAA has an estimated Year 2003 population of21,460 with most ofthe population residing in the Northeast Subarea. The GMA and Countywide Planning Policies for King County require that King County and its cities accommodate their fair share of the future growth projected for King County. The PAA has been found to contain a large supply of vacant and underdeveloped land, with the capacity to accommodate significant future development (approximately 3,717 dwelling units as described further below). Future development "targets", expressed in the number of housing units, are determined through an interactive, multi-jurisdictional process between King County and cities located within, considering land capacity, market factors, and other parameters. Through this ongoing regional process, the P AA growth target for the years 2001 to 2022 is established at 1,320 units. The employment target is established at 134 jobs. The P AA land capacity yield can be compared with the December 2003 22 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PM Proposed Final Subarea Plan growth targets to help determine the ability of the land use plan to meet growth management obligations. As part of a countywide effort to prepare an analysis of buildable lands pursuant to GMA requirements, the County has estimated the capacity of vacant and underdeveloped (land not developed to full potential) lands in the P AA. Consistent with regionally established methods that are tailored to reflect King County conditions, the total vacant and underdeveloped acres were discounted for critical areas such as wetlands, streams, and steep slopes, rights-of-way and public purpose lands, and market factors (i.e. not all property owners would want to sell or develop). These acres were then multiplied by density factors based upon achieved densities in developed projects over the period 1995-2000. The results for the 20-year period of2001 to 2022 are a potential dwelling capacity of3,754 units and an employment capacity of 134 jobs calculated by King County. The City of Federal Way conducted a similar residential capacity analysis with results of3,717 dwelling units, very close to the County's analysis since similar land use classifications are assumed. It should be noted that a capacity analysis may make adjustments or discounts to the amount of available land, but does not estimate the time or rate that growth will occur, only the capacity of the land for additional development. The market demand for homes and places of employment will in part determine the timing and rate of growth within the 20-year planning period for the P AA. To help identify potential market demands, the City conducted a market analysis for the P AA with the Puget Sound Regional Council forecasts as a starting point. The outcome of the market analysis is a year 2000 to year 2020 projection of2,223 dwelling units and 115 jobs, which for dwellings exceeds the P AA housing targets, and for employment approaches the employment target, in a nearly similar time horizon. For the purposes of capital facility planning the market analysis figures are used to ensure that facility planning efforts do no overestimate facility demand, capital needs, and funding requirements. The market analysis population growth to 2020 and the City level of service standards have been the basis for the capital needs projections in this Subarea Plan. The County or City plans need to accommodate and direct growth in its comprehensive plan, development regulations, and resource allocation decisions, but the achievement of the Subarea Plan land use plan and other policy objectives will be driven in large part by the private sector, including individual property owner decisions. It is the County and City role to provide opportunities and capacity to meet regional fair share growth, monitor growth, and respond to changing needs and circumstances as they arise through regular review of comprehensive plans, development regulations, and budgets. Comprehensive Plan land Use; relationship to Pre- Annexation Zoning As part of implementing the P AA Subarea Plan, the City has the option of December 2003 23 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PAA Proposed Final Subarea Plan adopting a pre-annexation comprehensive plan and zoning map designations (RCW 35.13.177), which would become effective upon annexation. Pre- annexation comprehensive plan classification and zoning map designations could provide more certainty to property owners and residents about the future character ofthe area should they annex to the City. As part of the Federal Way P AA Subarea Planning Process, a more specific P AA Pre-Annexation Zoning Map shown in Map VII-2 has been prepared to correspond to the proposed P AA Pre- Annexation Comprehensive Plan in Map VII-I. The process of adopting a pre-annexation land use plan and pre-annexation zoning would follow these steps in accordance with RCW 35.13: After a proposed comprehensive plan or zoning regulation is prepared, the legislative body ofthe city must hold at least two public hearings on it. These hearings must be held at least 30 days apart. Notice of each hearing must be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the annexing city and in the area to be annexed. The notice must give the time and place of hearing. A copy of the ordinance or resolution adopting the proposed plan, any part of the proposed plan, or any amendment, together with any map referred to or adopted by the ordinance or resolution, must be filed with the county auditor and the city clerk. The ordinance, resolution, and map must be duly certified as a true copy by the clerk of the annexing city. The county auditor is to record the ordinance or resolution and keep the map on file. (Municipal Research & Services Center of Washington, Annexation Handbook, Revised December 2001 - Report No. 19) The adopting ordinance for the pre-annexation plan and zoning should specify the time interval following an annexation during which the ordinance adopting the pre-annexation plan and zoning, must remain in effect before it may be amended, supplemented or modified by subsequent ordinance or resolution adopted by the annexing city or town. Any amendment to the pre-annexation land use plan that is adopted as part of the Comprehensive Plan is subject to the general GMA limitation that the comprehensive plan may be amended no more frequently than once a year, unless exceptions are met. (Municipal Research & Services Center of Washington, Annexation Handbook, Revised December 2001 - Report No. 19) The Steering Committee has held public meetings in preparing the Subarea Plan. Planning Commission and City Council public hearings are planned as part of the remainder of the Subarea Plan process to fulfill local City public participation requirements and the requirements to ultimately establish a Pre-Annexation Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map designations. See Section 1.5. December 2003 24 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PM Proposed Final Subarea Plan 6.3 Land Use Goals and Policies The P AA land use goal and policies are provided in this section, and address land use character and land use planning in the P AA. Land Use Goal Respect the character, integrity, and unique qualities ofPAA neighborhoods in land use planning efforts. Land Use Policies General Policies PAA LV -1 Proposed annexations should be implemented to be consistent with the pre-annexation land use plans and zoning ofthe Federal Way PAA Subarea Plan. (See Policy P AA Annex-4.) P AA LV - 2 City and County plans and regulations shall emphasize single- family detached dwellings as the primary use in the P AA's established single- family neighborhoods. PAA LV - 3 The City and County PAA commercial and multi-family land use patterns and regulations should meet community needs, respect the hierarchy of districts and centers in the Federal Way planning area, and support the Federal Way City Center. PAA LV - 4 The City and County PAA land use plan should provide sufficient zoned capacity, and a variety of housing types, to address total household growth targets for the P AA. P AA LV - 5 Areas with significant environmental hazards, unique or fragile ecosystems of high rank:, order, and function, or long-term infrastructure limitations, may be further protected beyond the application of development regulations through Federal Way RS-35.0 zoning in the Star Lake, Jovita, and Parkway neighborhoods. P AA LV - 6 To promote financially self-supporting annexations, the City should support the County in facilitating or conducting coordinated master or sub- area planning of vacant, underdeveloped, or transitional land areas in the PAA that may present unique and/or highly visible sites for high tax generating land uses, such as but not limited to auto sales. Expedited or advanced environmental review, incentives to encourage assemblages ofland, and/or coordinated and comprehensive approaches to site development and environmental protection should be considered. Cultural Resources Policy PAALV-7 Prior to and upon annexation, the City and County should December 2003 25 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PM Proposed Final Subarea Plan coordinate with the King County Historic Preservation Program, the Cultural Development Authority of King County, and local historical societies (such as the Historic Society of Federal Way) to promote the preservation of historic resources in the P AA. PAA LU-8 The City and/or County should conduct a PAA historic inventory update prior to or upon annexation. P AA L U -9 The City should consider mechanisms to offer historic preservation services and incentives in the P AA upon the annexation of P AA properties into the City, including, but not limited to, an interlocal agreement with King County for resource evaluation and incentives. Economic Development Policies P AA L U - 10 Commercial locations, development standards, and permitted uses of City and County Comprehensive Plans and Zoning Regulations should reflect a hierarchy of business districts, recognizing the Federal Way City Center as the primary Citywide business center, and business districts in the P AA as secondary and tertiary nodes catering to local and/or neighborhood needs. PAA LV -11 The City and County should support neighborhood level business retention, improvement, and development on commercially zoned properties to the east ofI-5 to meet the needs oflocal residents. PAA LV -12 The City and County should promote the redevelopment and strengthening of viable commercial centers, such as in the Redondo East Community Subarea. P AA L U - 13 Commercial development should be encouraged on properties designated commercial on the PAA Comprehensive Plan Land Use and Zoning maps to help meet the P AA employment target determined in the Countywide Planning Policies. Essential Public Facilities Policies The Federal Way Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element policies address essential public facilities. Additional policies are not proposed. 7 HOUSI NG 7.1 Summary of Inventory The Federal Way PAA has an estimated Year 2003 population of21,460 with the larger population residing in the Northeast Subarea. As of the Year 2000, a majority ofthe dwelling units are single-family (83 percent; 6,050 units) in the December 2003 26 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PM Proposed Final Subarea Plan P AA as a whole, and most dwellings are owner-occupied rather than rented except in Redondo East. Most of the single-family housing has typically been developed since 1960. However, there are pockets of older, well-maintained homes occupied by long- time area residents. The communities with the newest single-family housing stock include Redondo East, Star Lake, and Parkway. Few single-family homes are considered to be in poor condition and most are considered average in all neighborhoods. Neighborhoods with the highest percent of homes rated "good" by the King County Assessor include Camelot, Jovita, and Lakeland. There are about 1,200 multifamily units in the P AA (17 percent of total Year 2000 units). PAA multifamily complexes (excluding mobile home parks) are described by the King County Assessor as average or low quality in condition. The King County Countywide Planning Policies commit the City and the County to ensuring there is capacity in their Comprehensive Plans to meet their assigned targets, which for the P AA equals 1,320 additional housing units. There is sufficient vacant and underdeveloped land in the P AA to accommodate this target without significant zoning changes. It should be noted, however, that the timing and rate of this growth would occur based upon market forces. In addition to apportioning general housing growth targets, the Countywide Planning Policies indicate that jurisdictions should promote affordable housing to low and very low income households, at 20- 25 percent and 17 percent of the overall housing target respectively. In 1998, King County published a King County Market Rate Affordability Study. A review of the housing stock affordability was conducted for the City of Federal Way, and all of Unincorporated King County. The results show that Federal Way and Unincorporated King County as a whole provide substantial percentages of affordable housing, both ownership and rental, particularly in relation to other King County locations. Housing sales information for the P AA would tend to support the Countywide study. Considering principal and interest (7 percent assumed) costs, most single- family homes would be affordable to households of Low-Median income level (80 percent), and some are affordable to Moderate Income households (60 percent). Relative to each other, the Jovita and Camelot neighborhoods are the most affordable, and the Star Lake and Redondo East neighborhoods are the least affordable. See Table 3. December 2003 27 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PM Proposed Final Subarea Plan Table 3. P AA Housing Sales and AtTordability HousingIMortgage Characteristic Camelot North Star Jovita Lakeland Parkway Redondo Lake Lake East Median Sales Price for SF Sales* $162,500 $174,000 $245,000 $159,500 $203,000 $185,000 $214,900 Count of Transactions 466 35 259 70 186 264 10 2001 Average Assessed Value of Single Family Homes $152,443 $187,658 $187,301 $160,798 $189,162 $172,263 $212,029 Monthly Mortgage Payment for 95% $1,026.59 $1,099.25 $1,547.79 $1,007.64 $1,282.45 $1,168.74 $1,357.63 Median Sales Price: 7% interest** Annual Mortgage Costs for 95% Median $12,319,13 $13,190.94 $18,573.45 $12,091.70 $15,389.43 $14,024,85 $16,291.57 Sales Prices: 7% interest** Year 2002, income level at 80% of median $54,400 King County Income, Family of 4 Year 2002, income level at 60% of median $46,740 King County Income, Family of 4 80% of Median Income x 30% of Annual $16,320.00 Income, Family of 4 60% of Median Income x 30% of Annual $14,022,00 Income, Family of 4 Notes: *Includes recorded sales valued at $25,000 and above for the years 1999,2000, and most of2001. **Assumes Mortgage Payment Factors (principal and interest only) 30 year fixed, 7 percent interest. The inclusion of taxes and insurance, as well as a higher interest rate would raise monthly housing costs, but there appears to be a margin between the mortgage figures and affordable monthly housing costs, which would mean conclusions would generally stay the same when factoring in those other costs. Source: ECONorthwest, Inc.; Bucher, Willis & Ratliff; U, S, Department of Housing and Urban Development As growth occurs, a key policy would be to help maintain the conditions allowing for housing affordable to a variety of incomes. 7.2 Housing Goals and Policies F or the P AA, the following housing goal and policy have been developed. Housing Goal Promote the preservation and enhancement existing residential neighborhoods, and allow for new housing developments meeting future needs in the P AA. Housing Policy P AA House - 1 The City, in cooperation with King County, should promote the preservation of existing housing. Private investment should be encouraged in older residential neighborhoods, and multifamily complexes. Programs supporting weatherization, home repair and rehabilitation, and infrastructure maintenance should be supported. The Federal Way Comprehensive Plan Housing Element policies address housing stock protection, existing and future affordability, and special needs, and would also be applicable to the P AA. December 2003 28 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PM Proposed Final Subarea Plan 8 PARKS AND RECREATION 8.1 Summary of Parks Planning Efforts and Inventory The City of Federal Way Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Services (PRCS) Department has prepared a Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Comprehensive Plan, which was originally created in 1991 and updated in 1995 and 2000. The PRCS plan is currently being updated and, once completed, will be adopted by reference into the FWCP. The plan divides the City and PAA into subareas for purposes of long-range planning. The primary goal of the Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Comprehensive Plan is to assure that a park serves every neighborhood in Federal Way. Currently, the City is providing 10.1 acres of parks per 1,000 population in the current City limits. The City's goal is to provide a level of service of 10.9 acres per 1,000 in population within the City limits. The City's goal is to maintain this level of service standard as Federal Way grows in population and size. The City of Federal Way's existing parks and recreational areas are divided into six categories. Each category represents a distinct type of recreational activity or opportunity. Please note that this classification system is for the existing parks only. The categories are: Neighborhood Parks, Community Parks, Regional Parks, Special Use Areas, Trails, and Undeveloped Land/Open Space Areas. The total parkland in Federal Way equals 846.0 acres as of year 2002. The PAA is primarily served by five County park sites totaling 109.52 acres. See Table 4. All of the active park facilities are located in the Lakeland community subarea, while natural park and passive park areas are found in the Star Lake and Camelot community subareas. Completed in 2000, the South County Ballfie1ds Phase 2 is the only recent capital project completed in the P AA. Furthermore, King County Executive's Proposed 2002-2007 Capital Improvement Program does not include plans for any new projects or improvements in the P AA. Table 4. P AA Park Facilities Owned By King County P AA Neighborhood Park Site Name County Park Plan Acreage Classification Star Lake Bingaman Pond Natural 16.72 Camelot Camelot Park Passive 18.08 Lakeland Five Mile Lake Park Active 31.71 Lake Geneva Park Active 18.64 South County Ballfields Active 24.37 Total Acres 109.52 Source: Federal Way Potential Annexation Area Inventory, Final, March 18,2002 December 2003 29 CIl"V-OF FEDERAL WAY PM Proposed Final Subarea Plan In addition to King County parks, the Federal Way School District (during non- school hours) and the State of Washington also provide public recreation facilities and opportunities in the P AA. These include sites located in the Camelot, and North Lake community subareas. Private recreation facilities may also be required in residential subdivisions and developments of five units or more in accordance with King County development regulations and King County's determination of recreation facility needs. 8.2 Future Parks and Recreation Needs Currently, the P AA's existing amount of park acres does not meet the City's level of service standard for parks and recreation (see Table 5). Additionally with forecast growth additional demand for park services would occur. These existing and forecast park and recreation needs to meet City levels of service would require investment of capital and operating revenue sources to provide for park services. Table 6 identifies the capital costs of providing park services to meet existing and future parks & recreation needs for the major subareas of the P AA: Redondo, Northeast (Star Lake, Camelot, and North Lake) and Southeast (Lake land, Jovita, Parkland). A discussion of public service operating and capital costs and revenues, including Parks & Recreation, can be found in Section 12, Public Services and Capital Facilities. Table 5. P AA and City Parks Levels of Service Redondo Northeast Southeast Federal Way Level of Service Measure East P AA PAA PAA Subarea Subarea A. Neighborhood Park Land Acres per 1,000 Population. Total acres of parks (2-7 acres) with playgrounds divided by population (times 1,000) Actual Level of Service (acres per 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 1,000) Level of Service Standard (acres per NA* NA* NA* 1.7 1,000) B. Community Park Land Acres per 1,000 Population. Total acres of community-wide parks (15-25 acres) for active use divided by population (times 1,000) Actual Level of Service (acres per 0 0 8.6 2.6 1,000) Level of Service Standard (acres per NA* NA* NA* 2.8 1,000) C. Trail Acres per 1,000 Population. Total acres of trail system divided by population (times 1,000) ** Actual Level of Service (acres per 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 1,000) Level of Service Standard (acres per NA* NA* NA* 2.2 1,000) December 2003 30 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PM Proposed Final Subarea Plan Redondo Northeast Southeast Federal Way Level of Service Measure East P AA PAA PAA Subarea Subarea D. Open Space Acres per 1,000 Population. Total acres undeveloped land by population (times 1,000) Actual Level of Service (acres per 0.0 3.0 0.0 4.2 1,000) Level of Service Standard (acres per NA* NA* NA* 6.0 1,000) E. Community Center Square Feet per 1,000 Population. Total square feet divided by population (times 1,000) Actual Level of Service (square feet 0.0 0.0 0.0 131 per 1,000) Level of Service Standard (square feet NA* NA* NA* 600 per 1,000) Source: Henderson, Young & Company, July 11,2003 * King County LOS standards are based on a parks classification system that is different than the City of Federal Way * * There are no trails in the P AA meeting the City's definition of a trail. Table 6. Federal Way Potential Annexation Area Capital Costs for Parks and Recreation Project Costs in 2002 Dollars Year of Construction and Project Costs in 2002 Dollars Project Capital Project List Design Acquisition Construction 2002-2007 2008-2014 2015-2020 ill 1.00 Areawide CIP 0 0 0 Programs 2.00 Parkway Neighborhood 2.01 Neighborhood Parks 271,581 810,006 360,529 360,529 360,529 2.02 Community Parks 0 0 0 0 0 2.03 Trails 229,878 1,348,618 526,165 526,165 526,165 2.04 Open Space 1,198,152 5,573 401,242 401,242 401,242 2.05 Community Center 0 334,368 111,456 111,456 111,456 Subtotal Parkway 0 1,699,611 2,498,565 1,399,392 1,399,392 1,399,392 Neighborhood 3.00 Jovita Neighborhood 3.01 Neighborhood Parks 89,416 266,688 118,701 118,701 118,701 3.02 Community Parks 147,273 774,897 307,390 307,390 307,390 3.03 Trails 75,686 444,022 173,236 173,236 173,236 3.04 Open Space 394,482 1,835 132,106 132,106 132,106 3.05 Community Center 0 110,088 36,696 36,696 36,696 Subtotal Jovita 0 706,857 1,597,530 768,129 768,129 768,129 Neighborhood 4.00 Lakeland Neighborhood December 2003 31 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PM Proposed Final Subarea Plan Project Costs in 2002 Dollars Year of Construction and Project Costs in 2002 Dollars Project Capital Project List Design Acquisition Construction Total 2002-2007 2008-2014 2015-2020 ill 4,01 Neighborhood Parks 198,072 590,761 262,944 262,944 262,944 4.02 Community Parks 0 0 0 0 4.03 Trails 167,657 983,585 383,747 383,747 383,747 4.04 Open Space 873,846 292,637 292,637 292,637 4,05 Community Center 0 81,288 81,288 81,288 Subtotal Lake1and 0 1,239,575 1,020,616 1,020,616 1,020,616 Neighborhood Subtotal Southeast 0 3,646,043 3,188,137 3,188,137 3,188,137 Area 5.00 North Lake Neighborhood 5.01 Neighborhood Parks 146,434 436,748 194,394 194,394 194,394 5.02 Community Parks 241,185 1,269,027 1,510,212 503,404 503,404 503,404 5.03 Trails 123,948 727,162 851,110 283,703 283,703 283,703 5.04 Open Space 646,032 3,005 649,037 216,346 216,346 216,346 5.05 Community Center 0 180,288 180,288 60,096 60,096 60,096 Subtotal North Lake 0 1,157,599 2,616,230 3,773,829 1,257,943 1,257,943 1,257,943 Neighborhood 6.00 Star Lake Neighborhood 6.01 Neighborhood Parks 235,557 312,707 312,707 312,707 6.02 Community Parks 387,977 809,789 809,789 809,789 6.03 Trails 199,386 1,169,731 456,372 456,372 456,372 6.04 Open Space 320,264 1,490 107,251 107,251 107,251 6.05 Community Center 0 96,672 96,672 96,672 Subtotal Star Lake 0 1,143,184 4,205,191 1,782,792 1,782,792 1,782,792 Neighborhood 7.00 Camelot Neighborhood 7.01 Neighborhood Parks 551,934 1,646,176 ,.10 732,703 732,703 732,703 7,02 Community Parks 909,068 4,783,178 92,246 1,897,415 1,897,415 1,897,415 7,03 Trails 467,181 2,740,795 3,207,976 1,069,325 1,069,325 1,069,325 7.04 Open Space 1,657,564 7,710 1,665,274 555,091 555,091 555,091 7.05 Community Center 0 679,536 679,536 226,512 226,512 226,512 Subtotal Camelot 0 3,585,747 9,857,395 13,443,142 4,481,047 4,481,047 4,481,047 Neighborhood Subtotal Northeast 0 5,886,530 16,678,816 22,565,346 7,521,782 7,521,782 7,521,782 Area 8.00 Redondo East December 2003 32 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PM Proposed Final Subarea Plan Project Costs in 2002 Dollars Year oeConstruction and Project Costs in 2002 Dollars Project Capital Project List Design ill Neighborhood 8.01 Neighborhood Parks 8.02 Community Parks 8,03 Trails 8.04 Open Space 8.05 Community Center Subtotal Redondo Area 0 Acquisition Construction Total 2002-2007 2008-2014 2015-2020 22,690 67,675 30,122 30,122 30,122 37,372 196,638 78,003 78,003 78,003 19,206 112,675 43,960 43,960 43,960 100,104 33,523 33,523 33,523 0 9,312 9,312 9,312 179,372 194,921 194,921 194,921 Total 0 9,711,945 23,002,575 10,904,840 10,904,840 10,904,840 Source: Henderson Young and Company, 2003 To develop capital cost estimates, first, the standard for park land was multiplied times the population of each neighborhood in the P AA to calculate the number of acres of each type of park land that is needed to serve the population of each area. Second, the acres needed were compared to the number of acres of existing parks. Whenever the acres needed were more than the acres of existing parks, the difference is the number of acres to be acquired through the Capital Improvement Program (CIP). Third, the cost of acres to be acquired through the CIP was estimated using City estimates of costs per acre. The CIP project costs were calculated by multiplying the City's cost per acre (or mile, or square foot, as appropriate) times the number of acres (or miles or square feet) needed for each neighborhood. The portion of the park capital cost estimate that would be attributed to meeting the higher City parks level of service standard for the existing population (i.e. the cost ofthe existing "deficiency" -- providing Federal Way's level of service to the existing PAA population) is $25.6 million, and the cost of growth through the year 2020 is $7.1 million for a total cost of$32.7 million. The Northeast Subarea has low maintenance costs because it has little parkland now. The high capital cost in this CIP will bring the Northeast Subarea up to the City's standard, and that, in turn, will cause a significant increase in future operating costs. 8.3 Parks & Recreation Goals and Policies The following goal and policies address P AA parks and recreation needs. Parks Goal Maintain current facilities and acquire new lands to meet P AA community park and recreation needs. December 2003 33 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PM Proposed Final Subarea Plan Parks Policies P AA Park - 1 The City should continue to address the P AA in its comprehensive parks, recreation, and open space system plans. P AA Park - 2 The City should review County park maintenance and operation plans for each County park facility that may be transferred in the event of annexation. The City will assess available resources at the time of annexation and determine the appropriate level of maintenance for all acquired County facilities. P AA Park - 3 Additional parkland, open space, and trails should be acquired and developed according to the standards outlined in the City of Federal Way Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Comprehensive Plan. Phasing in a gradually increasing level of service standard may be appropriate based on agency resources at the time of annexation. 9 SURFACE WATER 9.1 Summary of Inventory The P AA is almost entirely within the nearly level upland plateau which is immediately adjacent to steep slopes at the edge ofthe Green and White River valleys, and Puget Sound (in the case ofthe Redondo Subarea). As a result, historical stormwater systems within the P AA include a series of lake and wetland complexes that drain in steep ravines to the rivers and streams below. The most distinctive characteristic of the P AA is that most of the area is a headwater to several significant streams (Hylebos Creek, Mullen Slough, and Mill Creek). Five drainage basins have been identified by King County mapping within the PAA. These designations also agree with the City of Federal Way designations: Lower Green River, Mill Creek, White River, Hylebos Creek, and Lower Puget Sound. See Map VIII. Surface Water Facilities Within the various drainage basins, the P AA contains a variety of surface water facilities that require inspection and maintenance by several County divisions and/or property owners as listed in Tables 7 through 9: December 2003 34 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PM Proposed Final Subarea Plan Table 7. In-Road Surface Water Facilities Measurement Unit Redondo Northeast Southeast Facility Subarea Subarea Subarea Curb And Gutter LF lineal feet 1,902 252,806 92,206 Catch Basin & Manhole EA each 19 1,361.00 633 Paved Ditch And Gutter LF lineal feet 0 755 450 Open Ditch LF lineal feet 707 85,292.00 81,916.00 SP lineal feet Enclosed System storm pipe 1,557 149,913 70,980 Cross Tile And Access EA each 9 985 699 Cross Culverts EA each 7 614 332 Curb & Gutter And Thick RM road mile 0.3 55.2 22.5 Bridge Drains EA each 0 6 6 Auxiliary Pipe LF lineal feet 1 2,697 1,611 Trash Racks EA each 0 0 0 Headwa1ls EA each 0 1 0 Cross Culverts LF lineal feet 0 590 0 Box Culverts EA each 0 0 0 RID Facilities EA each 0 2 1 Source: King County Roads Division, January 2002 Table 8. Regional Stormwater Facilities Subarea Facility Name Address Type Of Facility Northeast Sweet Briar Drainage 4700 S 292m St. Pipe hnprovement (immediately east of 4613 S. 292od ) Northeast P-32 (Camelot Park) 29800 36m PI. S. Pump Station Northeast Lake Dolloff Outlet 4200 308m PI. S. Channel/weir Southeast Peasley Canyon Culvert 5100 S. Peasley Canyon Rd. Culvert Southeast S. 360m S1. Embankment 2100 S. 360m S1. Regional RID Southeast Regency Woods Div 1 37546 2ls' Ave. S. HDPE Pipe Southeast Regency Woods Div 1 37694 18m PI. S. HDPE Pipe Southeast Regency Woods Div 4 37934 23IU PI. S. HDPE Pipe Southeast Regency Woods Div 4 37811 2¡S' C1. S. HDPE Pipe Southeast Regency Woods Div 4 1817 S 380111 PI. HDPE Pipe Source: King County Department of Natural Resources, December 21,2001; January 29, 2002 Table 9. Residential and Commercial Drainage Facilities Type Of Facility Subarea Number Of Facilities Residential Northeast 40 Southeast 26 Redondo 1 Total 67 December 2003 35 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PM Proposed Final Subarea Plan Type Of Facility Subarea Number Of Facilities Commercial Northeast 9 Southeast 16 Redondo 4 Total 29 TOTAL 96 Source: King County Department of Natural Resources, December 21,2001; January 29, 2002. Surface Water Level of Service Analysis, July 11,2003. Regional and local surface water facilities are shown on Map VIII. Surface Water Problems One function of drainage system maintenance is to respond to complaints and problems in connection with drainage conditions. The data in the P AA Inventory report (March 18, 2002) indicated that most of the citizen complaints have come out of the Star Lake and Camelot neighborhoods in the Northeast subarea, two of the more populated neighborhoods. However, out of 160 complaints received in the past 5 years, only 8 remained open with the King County Roads Maintenance Division as of December 2002. The closed complaints were resolved in various ways: technical advice, determination that there was no identifiable problem, maintenance work, referral to other agencies, etc. Most complaints appeared to be resolved with routine responses. A few complaints required more study or action for resolution. No information was obtained about their disposition. It is likely that some of the more enduring problems overlap the drainage problems observed by King County Road Maintenance, discussed below. Discussion with King County Roads Maintenance Division 3 indicates a number oflocations with drainage related problems. Certain street locations are subject to occasional flooding. Also, as noted in the P AA Inventory, the area around Lake Dolloff, is in a designated floodplain. Recently the Roads Maintenance Division addressed surface water problems with a 48-inch crosstile at Peasley Canyon Road, and a pipe and catch basin within an easement to Lake Geneva. The Peasley Canyon Road area is subject to landslide and erosion due to sensitive environmental conditions (designated landslide and erosion hazard area). Lake Geneva is subject to periodic maintenance for cleaning of inlets and drainage structures, which indicates potential for periodic sediment and debris accumulations. More problematic drainage conditions indicated by King County Roads Maintenance Division 3 are listed in Table 10. The drainage facilities and locations listed are subject to flooding by excessive stormwater flows, and must be monitored during storms. The problems are severe enough to warrant study of a design solution for the facility and the local drainage system. Several other nearby areas with known problems are also listed in the following Table 11. The problems may be related to drainage conditions in the P AA, possibly contributing flow or groundwater, and Federal Way may be asked to participate in a solution to December 2003 36 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PM Proposed Final Subarea Plan that problem. Problems on Tables 10 and 11 appear on Map VIII. Table 10. Road Maintenance Problems in PAA King County Maintenance Division 3 No. Subarea Street Problem 1. Northeast SE 288 St. @ 1-5 2 Catch basins 2. Northeast 3366 S. 290 St. 2 Catch basins 3. Northeast 38 Ave. S. & S. 304 Water over road signs. On going problem. 4. Southeast S 342 St. & 44 Ave. S. Crosstile e/of 44 Ave. S. Should be monitored. Source: King County Roads Maintenance Division 3,2002, Updated April 2003 Table 11. Road Maintenance Problems Near P AA King County Maintenance Division 3 No. Subarea Street Problem 5. Northeast S. 296 St. east of 64 Steep bank, excessive water. Should be monitored. Ave. S. w/ofW. Valley Rd from 64 Ave S. Down to Merideth Hill 6. Northeast S. 296th St east of61 Crosstile to pond. Should be monitored. Ave. S. w/of55 Ave. S. 7. Northeast LowerLk. Fenwick Rd. 36" inlet to MH/lake overflow. Needs to be monitored. S. 8. Northeast West Valley Hwy bit S Flooding. Needs to be monitored. 272 - S 285 9. Redondo East Old Star Lake Road All inlets and Catch basins. Needs to be monitored. from S 272 to Military Source: King County Roads Maintenance Division 3, 2002, Updated April 2003 It is anticipated that after annexation, Federal Way will experience a similar level of complaints and responses in the P AA. Costs associated with complaint response would include staff time to respond to inquiries and issues, and the labor, equipment and materials to provide minor corrective actions. Non-routine problems, i.e. street flooding, severe stream bank erosion, etc., may become more identifiable over time and require further action. Certain problem areas may require continual non-routine maintenance due to existing environmental conditions (such as Peasley Canyon Road), or could become candidates for further study and capital improvements (such as Lakes Geneva and Dolloff). 9.2 Future Surface Water Needs As part of a more detailed level of service analysis (Federal Way Potential Annexation Area Level of Service Analysis, July 11,2003), program and capital improvements have been identified. To transition the P AA from the existing County level of service to the Federal Way program for surface water, the following actions will be needed: . The City will need to conduct a field inventory of the storm drainage conveyance system for inclusion in a map or GIS database. December 2003 37 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PM Proposed Final Subarea Plan . The City facilities and GIS databases will need to be updated to provide coverage of the P AA. The increased inventory of facilities to maintain, due to the annexation, will over the long tenn require a proportional increase in the City's maintenance budget. Increased program space needs will possibly require larger maintenance facilities than those currently planned by Federal Way and possibly accelerate the need for new facilities. It is anticipated that after annexation, Federal Way will experience a level of complaints and responses in the P AA similar to current levels. Costs associated with complaint response would include staff time to respond to inquiries and issues, and the labor, equipment and materials to provide minor corrective actions. . . . . Non-routine problems, i.e. street flooding, severe stream bank erosion, etc., may become more identifiable over time and require further action. Certain problem areas may require continual non-routine maintenance due to existing environmental conditions (such as Peasley Canyon Road), or could become candidates for further study and capital improvements (such as Lakes Geneva and Dolloff). Ten Regional Stonnwater Facilities constructed and maintained by King County will need to be maintained by Federal Way. King County has identified 67 residential and 29 commercial drainage facilities in the P AA. The residential facilities are inspected and maintained by King County. The commercial facilities are inspected by King County and maintained by the property owner. Federal Way will need to evaluate the feasibility of inspection and maintenance. . . . An initial sustained cleaning effort will likely be needed to bring the ditch system to a level of improvement where minimal routine maintenance would be needed. This could take approximately two years, depending on the levels of accumulations and restoration needed, and may need to respond to the Tri-County Regional Road Maintenance Program, a program that implements road maintenance practices that protect habitat by reducing pollutants and sediment from reaching environmentally sensitive areas such as rivers, streams and wetlands. The program also encourages the removal of old road culverts and other blockages that prevent fish from reaching spawning areas. It is anticipated with the annexation that Federal Way may take a more active role with the drainage and water quality aspects of the P AA lake system. There are various options for Federal Way to set up the lake management system, including use of homeowners associations, lake management districts, and the City's stonnwater management utility. Upon annexation of the PAA, it is anticipated that Federal Way will expand its water quality program to provide more lake water quality . . December 2003 38 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PM Proposed Final Subarea Plan . management and surface water quality monitoring. This could include a variety of program elements, such as volunteer groups, monitoring stations, community organization, and public education. Federal Way will need to increase other stormwater program components to include the P AA. A notable expansion element will be a field inventory ofthe storm drainage system, which is a part ofthe Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination requirement in the Phase II National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. Potential capital improvements are anticipated to include: 0 The four problem areas indicated in Table 10, from King County Maintenance Division 3. Some additional improvements may be needed depending on the outcome of complaints that have remained open as shown in the PAA Inventory. 0 King County Executive Proposed Basin Plan for Hylebos Creek and Lower Puget Sound include the following: - Project 2442: S. 360th Street Regional Detention Pond - Construct a regional detention facility on tributary 00116A at about S 360th Street (extended). This project may be completed through a partnership with the Washington State Department of Transportation and the City of Federal Way. - Project 2444: SR 161 Conveyance Upgrades - Upgrade three culvert crossings at tributaries 0016A, 0016, and 0006. - Project 2446: SR 161 Regional Pond - Construct a regional detention facility on tributary 0015 at SR 161. . As the Basin Plan is ten years old, it is likely that the conditions and potential project list should be re-examined and prioritized. 0 There are several projects identified in the Mill Creek Special Area Management Plan and Mill Creek Basin Flood Management Plan. These projects are not within the P AA, however the City of Federal Way may be asked to help adjacent jurisdictions with cost sharing in the future if annexation occurs because King County was identified as a possible agency which could provide cost sharing and because of the location of the headwaters for these projects within the P AA. The projects identified are as follows: - Bingaman Creek Levee Overflow Improvements (King County). - Study of Mullen Slough Intercept Hillside Drainage (King County). - Sediment Trap on Peasley Canyon Tributary (City of Auburn). Due to the date of the basin study in 1997, some ofthese projects may December 2003 39 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PM Proposed Final Subarea Plan have begun and may have received funding from other sources. These projects are not within the P AA and were not included in P AA CIP cost estimates. To meet City surface water level of service standards, and accomplish the studies and improvements identified in the P AA studies, capital cost estimates have been developed and are summarized in Table 12. Table 12. Federal Way Potential Annexation Area Capital Costs for Surface Water Capital Improvements Project Costs in 2002 Dollars (000) Year of Construction and 2002 Dollars (000) Project ID Capital Project List Design Acquisition Construction Total 2002-2007 2008-2014 2015-2020 1.00 Area Wide Programs 1.01 Stonn Drain System 300 300 300 Inventory and Comprehensive Plan Major Maintenance: 1.02 Ditch Cleaning 544 1.03 Stonnwater Facility 223 Cleaning Subtotal Genera 300 1,067 2.00 Parkway Neighborhood Hylebos Executive Proposed Plan 2.01 2442-S 36Oth Regional Det. 1,565 1,565 Pond 2.02 2444-SR 161 Conveyance 372 Upgrades 4.00 Lakeland Neighborhood Hylebos Executive Proposed Plan 4,01 2446-SR 161 Regional 598 Pond King County Road Maintenance Div 3 - Identified Problems 4.02 Crosstile east of 44 Ave. S 7 35 42 Subtotal Southeast Area 7 2,578 7.00 Camelot Neighborhood King County Road Maintenance Div 3 - Identified Problems December 2003 40 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PM Proposed Final Subarea Plan Project Costs in 2002 Dollars (000) Project ID Capital Project List 7.01 (1) 2 Catch basins 7,02 (2) 2 Catch basins 7.03 (5) Water over road signs Design Acquisition Construction Total Year of Construction and 2002 Dollars (000) 2002-2007 2008-2014 2015-2020 7 7 35 42 42 42 Total 486 0 930 990 165 Subtotal Northeast Area Subtotal Redondo Area 179 0 0 0 1,074 0 0 0 4,719 Source: TetraTech/KCM, Inc., 2003 Notes: (1) All projects assumed for construction in 5 years unless differently stated in source CIP document (2) No separate cost given for design, acquisition for Hylebos, certain other CIP figures (3) Estimated cost for maintenance problems and projects assume 100 percent contingency (very general estimates). Permitting costs were assumed to be included in the contingency. (4) Costs escalated trom original sources to 2002 dollars (5) Does not include water quality program costs, including lake management (6) Does not include routine maintenance increase, such as catch basin cleaning, street sweeping. (7) There are several projects identified in the Mill Creek SAMP and Mill Creek Basin Flood Management Plan. These projects are not within the PAA, however the City of Federal Way may be asked to help adjacent jurisdictions with cost sharing in the future if annexation occurs because King County was identified as a possible agency which could provide cost sharing and because of the location of the headwaters for these projects within the PAA. However, there has been no determination of specific cost share by Federal Way, and none are estimated above. (8) Cost data for estimates were derived trom the following sources: a, Federal Way estimates for ditch cleaning, with a 33 percent contingency. b, Federal Way staff information for pond cleaning costs, Pond facilities (wet ponds, infiltration facilities, etc.) were estimated at $5,000 per facility. Other facilities (catch basins, tanks, etc.) were assumed at $1,000 per facility. The costs were assumed to include some contingency; therefore, no additional contingency was applied. c. Planning cost estimates for stormwater facilities developed for the City of Auburn 2002 Comprehensive Drainage Plan. Conveyance costs included a ratio of four catch basins per 300 feet. When individual catch basins or manholes were indicated, separate cost estimates for the catch basin or manhole were made, using the planning cost estimates developed for the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) outfall inventory project (2002). d. Costs for certain stormwater facilities, and costs for mobilization, traffic control, tax, engineering, and land acquisition were obtained trom planning cost estimates developed for WSDOT outfall inventory project (2002). A discussion of public service operating and capital costs and revenues including the Surface Water enterprise fund, can be found in Section 12, Public Services and Capital Facilities. 9.3 Surface Water Goals and Policies Surface water management would be guided by the following goal and policies. Surface Water Goal Promote a P AA surface water system that protects the environment and property, and allows for efficient operation and maintenance. December 2003 41 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PM Proposed Final Subarea Plan Surface Water Policy In addition to Natural Environment and Capital Facility policies, the following policy is provided specific to surface water concerns: P AA SW -1 Prior to annexations of large areas, the County, in conjunction with the City and in partnership with other agencies, should further inventory surface water facilities and conditions, and prepare hydrologic models and basin plans for the PAA areas east ofI-5. Surface water analysis of the Redondo East Subarea should occur as necessary, in conjunction with any area-wide subbasin or basin plans for the vicinity. 10 TRANSPORTATION 10.1 Summary of Inventory The Federal Way P AA is served by a series of arterial roadways that provide local and regional transportation access. Refer to Map IX King County has been responsible for maintenance of public roadways and accompanying facilities such as shoulders, sidewalks, traffic signs, striping and signals, guardrails, and landscaping. The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) has jurisdiction over state highways within the P AA. State Highways located within the boundaries ofthe Study Area include Interstate 5 (1-5), SR-18, SR-99 (Pacific Highway S) and SR-161 (Enchanted Parkway S). The City of Federal Way is currently responsible for the maintenance ofthese facilities within the City limits, except 1-5 and SR-18, which are currently maintained by WSDOT. Transit service, including several park and ride facilities along the 1- 5 Corridor, is provided by King County Metro. The majority of the street network in the P AA is characteristically rural with asphalt concrete pavement, gravel shoulders, and ditches for drainage purposes. The street network is largely underdeveloped, with many cul-de-sacs and dead- end streets creating insufficient connectivity. Furthermore, a general lack of sidewalks and existing luminaires inhibit pedestrian traffic and present public safety concerns. Luminaires are limited to street intersections along arterial streets and newer subdivisions, with very few mid-block luminaires along arterial streets. Most arterial corridors in the P AA, particularly in the Southeast, lack sidewalks and, in most cases, are poorly lit. As shown in Table 13, sidewalks are a smaller percent of lane road miles. December 2003 42 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PM Proposed Final Subarea Plan Table 13. Street Inventory Within P AA Inventory Item Redondo East Northeast Subarea Southeast Subarea Subarea All Road Miles* 0.3 miles 46.6 miles 28.9 miles All Paved Road Surfaces, Lane Miles 0.6 93.2 57.3 Curb & Gutter (linear 1,902 252,806 92,206 feet) (-0.4 miles) (-48 miles) (-17 miles) Paved Sidewalk, one side 0.4 miles 25.5 miles 12.3 miles (miles) Traffic Signals (EA)** 0 12 2 Luminaires (EA) 10 561 190 Sheet Signs (EA)*** 37 980 520 Notes: *There are several street clusters in the Study Area for which road logs do not exist, including: private streets (approx. 7 miles), as well as several unmaintained public gravel streets (approx. 7 miles), and in some cases relatively new public asphalt sheets (about 1-2 miles), and these are not included in the totals above. **Based upon City staff review and field confmnation, there appear to be nine signals, two flashing beacons, one fire signal and two traffic signals on SR 161 (currently WSDOT responsibility) that would become the City's responsibility upon annexation. Controllers would need to be replaced to connect to the City's system. *** King County does not inventory sheet name signs, which would understate the number of signs maintained. Source: King County Roads The largest traffic volumes exist along east/west arterial routes, which provide access to 1-5. Over half of the arterial roadway miles within the study area have accident rates that are higher than the average King County accident rates. 10.2 Existing and Future Transportation Levels of Service The purpose of the intersection level-of-service (LOS) analysis is to identify LOS deficiencies in the City's PAA and then evaluate the improvements that will be needed to meet the City's LOS standard. LOS is a letter designation that describes a range of operating conditions along a roadway segment or at an intersection. The Highway Capacity Manual 2000 (HCM2000) defines the LOS concept as "a quality measure describing operational conditions within a traffic stream, generally in terms of such service measures as speed and travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, and comfort and convenience." Six grades of LOS are defined for traffic operational analysis. They are given letter designations A through F, with LOS A representing the best range of December 2003 43 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PAA Proposed Final Subarea Plan operating conditions and LOS F the worst. The specific terms in which each level of service is defined vary with the type of transportation facility involved. In general, LOS A describes a free-flowing condition in which individual vehicles in the traffic stream are not affected by the presence of other vehicles. LOS F generally describes a breakdown in operations that occurs when traffic arriving at a point is greater than the facility's capacity to discharge the traffic flow; consequently, vehicle queues develop. Existinl! LOS For this study, LOS was analyzed at a total of twenty-five (25) intersections with the results presented in Map X. Intersection LOS analyses were performed using Highway Capacity Software Version 4.1 b (HCS2000). Representative intersections in various parts ofthe P AA that the City and/or County monitor now, or desire to monitor in the future when the roadways are constructed, were analyzed. (Based on information from the Federal Way Potential Annexation Area Level of Service Analysis, July 11,2003.) In base year of 2000, the LOS analysis was done by using actual traffic counts between years 2000 to 2002. Analysis indicated that all signalized intersections operated at an acceptable LOS during the PM peak hour and most unsignalized intersections were operating at an acceptable LOS. Exceptions included: S 288th Street at 51"t Avenue S S 296th Street at 51st Avenue S SR 99 at 16th Avenue S LOSF LOSF LOSF Future LOS Analysis of the transportation impacts of future land use requires development of future transportation networks. The future land use projection analyzed is based on Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) projections and market analysis, and was developed for the year 2020 (based on information from the Federal Way Potential Annexation Area Level of Service Analysis, July 11, 2003). In order to determine a future road network, the City provided a future street improvement list by analyzing the Transportation Improvement Programs, comprehensive plans, and near term transportation improvement projects of King County, the Washington State Department of Transportation, and the City of Federal Way. In order to analyze the year 2020 LOS, future intersection volumes were estimated using a calibrated EMME/2 transportation model. On behalf of the City, Mirai Associates developed the EMME/2 model based on the forecasted land use and future transportation improvements described briefly above. The results of the analysis are shown in Map XI (based on information from the Federal Way Potential Annexation Area Level of Service Analysis, July 11, 2003). Overall the most congested locations included are those with two-way stop control, and those December 2003 44 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PM Proposed Final Subarea Plan located in the Military Road corridor. 20-year intersection LOS deficiencies are shown in Map XI. The average vehicle delay and LOS changes are: Congested Locations Military Road S at S 27200 Street Military Road S at S 320111 Street S 277th Street at 55th Avenue S S 288th Street at 51st Avenue S Military Road S at S 312111 Street Peasley Canyon Way S at S Peasley Canyon Road Military Road S at Peasley Canyon Way S Military Road S at S Star Lake Road (N Jct.) 51 st Avenue S at S 296th Street Military Road S at S 360111 Street 28111 Avenue Sat S 360th Street SR 99 at 16111 Avenue S Average Vehicle Delay and LOS Change from 42 sec to I 16 sec, from D to F from 27 sec to 73 sec, from C to E from 59 sec to 195 sec, from E to F from 64 sec to 361 sec, from F to F Exceeds calculable limits (ECL) from 26 sec to 351 sec, from D to F from 34 sec to 559 sec, from D to F from 39 sec to ECL, from E to F from 106 sec to 996 sec, from F to F from 22 sec to ECL, from C to F from 46 sec to 770 sec, from E to F Exceeds calculable limits (ECL) To determine the additional improvements needed to meet the City's LOS standard, the lowest cost capacity improvement is sought to address identified deficiency and then LOS analysis is conducted with the recommended improvements to insure that all locations will meet the City's LOS standard. With the recommended improvements listed in Table 14 and shown on Map XII, the City's LOS standard is met at all future deficient locations. Table 14. Future LOS and Recommended Improvements 2020 Recommended Improved Intersection LOS Problem Improvements LOS 1. Military Road S @ S 272nd Street F Substantial demand for Add one additional D southbound traffic. southbound through lane. 2. Military Road S @ S 320th Street E Substantial demand for Construct an D eastbound right turn eastbound right traffic. turn lane. 3. S 277th Street @ 55th Avenue S F The northbound right turn Construct new E demand is queuing while signalized waiting for the eastbound intersection. to westbound through green cycle. 4. S 288th Street @ 51st Avenue S F Insufficient intersection Construct a left D capacity for the A WSC turn lane from (25-sec intersection. westbound to southbound. delay) December 2003 45 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PM Proposed Final Subarea Plan 2020 Recommended Improved Intersection LOS Problem Improvements LOS Install a traffic D signal. (47-sec delay) 5. Military Road S @ S 3 12th Street F Traffic demand on Install a traffic D eastbound approach signal with one exceeds the LOS for eastbound left turn TWSC intersections. pocket and one eastbound right turn lane. 6. Peasley Canyon Way S @ S Peasley F Traffic demand on Install a traffic C Canyon Road northbound approach signal. exceeds the LOS for TWSC intersections. 7. Military Road S @ Peasley Canyon F Traffic demand on the Install a traffic B WayS east/west approaches signal at Military exceeds the LOS for Road S and S TWSC intersections. 340th Street and close the southbound movement on Peasley Canyon Way S from S 340th to Military Road S. 8. Military Road S @ S Star Lake Road (N F Traffic demand on Install a traffic B Jet.) westbound approach signal with an exceeds the LOS for additional TWSC intersections. southbound through lane. 9. 51st Avenue S @ S 296th Street F Traffic demand on Install a traffic B westbound approach signal with exceeds the LOS for additional TWSC intersections. southbound and westbound left turn pockets. 10. Military Road S @ S 360th Street F Traffic demand on the Install a traffic C east/west approaches signal with exceeds the LOS for additional TWSC intersections. northbound and southbound left urn pockets. 11. 28th Avenue S @ S 36Oth Street F Insufficient intersection Install a traffic C capacity for the A WSC signal with one intersection. southbound right turn pocket and one southbound through lane. December 2003 46 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PM Proposed Final Subarea Plan 2020 Recommended Improved Intersection LOS Problem Improvements LOS 12. SR 99 @ 16th Avenue S / S 279th Place F Traffic demand on Install a traffic E eastbound approach signal. exceeds the LOS for TWSC intersections. Source: Jones & Stokes 2003 (Federal Way Potential Annexation Area Level of Service Analysis, July 11, 2003) Notes: A WSC = All Way Stop Controlled; TWSC = Two Way Stop Controlled The total estimated capital cost for roadway improvements in the P AA, existing and future needs to achieve levels of service, is $10,882,000 through 2020, as shown in Table 15. About 21 percent of the total capital facility cost estimate is related to existing deficiencies ($2,241,000). Existing deficiencies due to levels of service below E were found at: . S 288th Street at 51 st Avenue S S 296th Street at 51 st Avenue S SR 99 at 16th Avenue S . . Of the three subareas in the P AA, the Northeast Subarea has the largest estimated roadway cost at $7,561,000. The largest part of this is the Military Road South project described above. The Southeast Subarea has an estimated roadway capital cost of$3,039,000, with the largest project consisting of a $1,188,000 improvement to the Military Road South/South 360th Street intersection. The Redondo East Subarea has a total roadway cost of $282,000, which consists entirely of the SR 99/16th Avenue South intersection improvement project. Table 15. Federal Way Potential Annexation Area Capital Costs for Roadway Improvements Project Costs in 2002 Dollars (000) Year oCConstruction and Project Costs in 2002 Dollars (000) Project Capital Project List Design Acquisition Construction 2002-2007 2008-2014 2015-2020 ID 1.00 Areawide CIP Programs 0 0 0 2.00 Parkway Neighborhood 3.00 Jovita Neighborhood 3.01 Peasley Canyon Way S & S 41 0 234 275 Peasley Canyon Rd Intersection Improvement 3.02 Peasley Canyon Way S & Military 158 16 916 1,090 Rd S Intersection Improvement 4.00 Lakeland Neighborhood 4.01 Military Rd S & S 360th St 162 84 942 1,188 Intersection Improvement December 2003 47 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PAA Proposed Final Subarea Plan Project Costs in 2002 Dollars (000) Year of Construction and Project Costs in 2002 Dollars (000) Project Capital Project List Design Acquisition Construction Total 2002-2007 2008-2014 2015-2020 ill 4,02 28th Ave S & S 360th St 65 47 486 Intersection Improvement Subtotal Southeast Area 426 147 2,466 3,039 1,188 1,576 275 5.00 North Lake Neighborhood 5.01 S 320th St & Military Rd S 108 165 623 896 Intersection Improvement 6.00 Star Lake Neighborhood 6.01 Military Rd S & S 272nd St 91 327 528 946 946 Intersection Improvement 6.02 Military Rd S & S Star Lake Rd 41 0 275 (N Jet) Intersection Improvement 6.03 Military Rd S Improvement - S 305 496 1,770 0 801 1,770 272nd St to S Star Lake Road 6,04 S 277th St & 55th Ave S 92 291 531 914 Intersection Improvement 7.00 Camelot Neighborhood 7.01 S 288th St & 51st Ave S 66 0 385 451 451 Intersection Improvement 7.02 S 296th St & 51st Ave S 206 109 1,508 Intersection Improvement 7.03 S 312nd St Improvement 0 Subtotal Northeast Area 909 1,388 5,264 7,561 2,234 1,747 3,580 8.00 Redondo East Neighborhood 8.01 SR-99 & 16th Ave S Intersection 41 0 241 282 Improvement Subtotal Redondo Area 41 0 241 282 0 0 3,323 3,855 9.00 Southeast Areawide 9.01 Paving 6,400 6,400 6,400 9.02 Curb and Gutter 5,400 5,400 1,800 1,800 1,800 9.03 Sidewalk 7,400 7,400 2,400 2,600 2,400 Subtotal Southeast Area 32,000 32,000 10,600 10,800 10,600 10.00 Northeast Areawide 10.01 Paving 4,600 4,700 4,600 10.02 Curb and Gutter 6,100 2,000 2,100 2,000 10.03 Sidewalk 10,900 3,600 3,700 3,600 Subtotal Northeast Area 30,900 10,200 10,500 10,200 11.00 Redondo East Neighborhood 11.01 Curb and Gutter 32 10 12 10 December 2003 48 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PM Proposed Final Subarea Plan Project Costs in 2002 Dollars (000) Project ill Capital Project List Design Acquisition Construction Year of Construction and Project Costs in 2002 Dollars (000) 2002-2007 2008-2014 2015-2020 11.02 Sidewalk 39 71 13 23 13 25 13 23 Subtotal Redondo Area Subtotal Road Cross Section Improvements 0 0 62,971 20,823 21,325 20,823 Total Source: Jones & Stokes, 2003 Notes: Current expenses for similar construction work within the region were reviewed to determine unit prices for broad categories of construction line items and typical percentages for standard items. All LOS project costs assume a 30 percent contingency factor. 1,376 1,535 70,460 24,527 24,648 24,678 While the focus of the capital cost estimates are the improvements required to ensure the City's intersection LOS would be met, other capital costs may be incurred to bring essentially rural road standards to the City's urban road standards (e.g. curb, gutter, sidewalk, paving of public gravel or public bituminous surface roads). These road cross-section improvements may be made incrementally as new development makes street frontage improvements, or through local improvement districts, or other means. The road cross-section estimates were made in a preliminary fashion for order of magnitude level of analysis, using as a basis data provided by the County on lane miles, feet of sidewalk, etc. in the P AA. The Northeast Subarea and Southeast Subarea have similar road cross-section costs at $30,900,000 and $32,000,000 respectively. The cross-section improvements in Redondo East Subarea total $71,000. Please refer to Table 15. A discussion of public service operating and capital costs and revenues, including Transportation, can be found in Section 12, Public Services and Capital Facilities. 10.3 Transportation Goals and Policies Transportation would be guided by the following goal and policies. Transportation Goal Establish a safe, coordinated, and linked multimodal transportation system serving local and area-wide travel needs. Transportation Policies P AA Trans - 1 Prior to annexations, particularly in the Northeast and Southeast Subareas, the City and County should jointly classify streets in the P AA consistent with Federal, State, and City guidelines, and future roadway usage. Joint City-County street standards should also be established, such as the City of Federal Way standards, a hybrid of standards, or others as determined by the City and County. This may be achieved through an interlocal agreement and any December 2003 49 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PAA Proposed Final Subarea Plan required County Comprehensive Plan amendments. The joint classification system will help ensure a common set of standards are applied as new roadway improvements are proposed and implemented in the P AA, and that the roadways meet City standards upon annexation. The City classification system for the P AA is presented in Map IX. P AA Trans - 2 Joint City and County street standards identified in P AA Trans- 1 should address: . Property access . Street signs . Street lighting . Pedestrian and bicycle safety . Street widths. P AA Trans - 3 As development proposals are proposed or capital improvements are implemented in the P AA prior to annexation, the City and County should encourage the connection of streets when considering subdivision or street improvement proposals, unless prevented by topographic or environmental constraints. The City and County should limit the use of cul-de- sacs, dead-end streets, loops, and other designs that form barriers to a coordinated transportation network in the community. P AA Trans - 4 The City should work with the County to ensure uniform maintenance standards for public streets are instituted and conducted by the County until such time as annexation occurs. P AA Trans - 5 Prior to annexation of P AA properties, the County, in consultation with the City, should review high accident locations, and improve street safety and functions focusing efforts at the most critical locations. P AA Trans - 6 To ensure that City and County LOS standards are met as development occurs prior to annexation, the City and County should agree to joint implementation of LOS standards for concurrency. Development applicants should prepare reports that contain dual analysis of the County's Transportation Adequacy Measurement (TAM) and Roadway Segment level of service standards and the City's LOS E intersection standard. P AA Trans - 7 Prior to annexation ofthe Northeast and Southeast Subareas, a coordinated Capital Improvement Program should be prepared between the City and County to ensure that improvements required to meet levels of service are implemented concurrent with development. P AA Trans - 8 The City and County shall continue to coordinate with park- and-ride and transit service providers in establishing appropriate LOS for the P AA, promoting alternative modes and assisting the achievement of LOS December 2003 50 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PM Proposed Final Subarea Plan standards. PAA Trans - 9 Prior to annexation of the Northeast and Southeast Subareas, as part of a P AA interlocal agreement the City and County shall establish a regional traffic planning and mitigation payment system. 11 PRIVATE UTILITIES Utilities described in this section include electric (power), natural gas, telephone, and cable. Public utilities are described under Public Services and Capital Facilities. Private utility providers rely on coordination of information such as population and employment forecasts as well as coordination of construction activities, such as street improvements. 11.1 Summary of P AA Inventory Electric Electric utility service for the Federal Way PAA is provided by Puget Sound Energy (PSE). The PSE grid provides a link between the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) Bulk Transmission System and the local distribution system that connects with customers. Bulk transmission lines supply power into the Federal Way distribution system and provide connections to Tacoma City Light, King, and Pierce Counties. Power is transferred from the transmission system to the PSE local distribution system at distribution sub-stations. There are 115,000 volt, 230,000 volt, and 500,000 volt transmission lines in the Federal WayPAA. Distribution substations transform voltages of 115kV (Kilovolt) or greater to lower voltages of 12 or 34kV. Electric Substations serving the Federal Way PAA include: Marine View; Lakota; Belmor; Christopher; Weyerhaeuser; Starwood; Kitts Comer; and West Campus. Most of the Substations include one or two 25,000 kV A transformers. The load on the substation varies continuously, exactly meeting the demand of the customers. The average PSE residential customer uses approximately 2 kV A per person during peak winter conditions. Commercial loads are highly business specific. (Based on information found in the Federal Way Potential Annexation Area Inventory, Final, March 18, 2002.) As new development occurs or consumer electrical demand increases, future substations will be needed to meet the increased demand. The future substations in the PSE long-range plan include: Federal Way; Dolloff; Twin Lakes; Enchanted; Five Mile Lake; and Killamey. There are planned expansions at Marine View Substation and the development of the Transmission line corridor between Christopher and Marine View. There are also future 115 kV lines planned in the Five Mile Lake area (in Lakeland). (Based on information found December 2003 51 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PM Proposed Final Subarea Plan in the Federal Way Potential Annexation Area Inventory, Final, March 18, 2002.) Natural Gas Puget Sound Energy provides natural gas to the Federal Way P AA. The PSE customer count in the Federal Way PAA is approximately 5,250. Natural gas is not an essential service, and therefore PSE is not mandated to serve all areas. Significant lines in or near the PAA include a 12" STW (steel wrap) supply main located in Military Road South and 6" STW located in 288th Street. At this time within the Federal Way PAA, no improvements are planned to existing facilities. Long Range plans for the years 2006-2007 call for installation of a 16" STW High Pressure supply main from Auburn Valley to the Star Lake area, and the route is still in the planning stage. (Based on information found in the Federal Way Potential Annexation Area Inventory, Final, March 18, 2002.) Telephone Qwest delivers telecommunication services to the Federal Way planning area as regulated by WUTC. Qwest is required by law to provide adequate telecommunications services on demand. Accordingly, Qwest will provide facilities to accommodate whatever growth pattern occurs within the P AA. Due to advances in technology, additional capacity is easily and quickly added to the system. (Based on information found in the Federal Way Potential Annexation Area Inventory, Final, March 18, 2002.) Wireless Service and Cable Providers Numerous wireless service providers currently serve the City of Federal Way and the P AA. Comcast Cable serves the majority of the City and P AA. (Based on information found in the Federal Way Potential Annexation Area Inventory, Final, March 18, 2002.) 11.2 Private Utilities Goals and Policies Coordination with private utilities is addressed in the following goal and policy. Private Utilities Goal Facilitate provision of electric, natural gas, telecommunication, and cable services to the greater Federal Way community. Private Utilities Policy P AA Utility - 1 The County and City should coordinate with electric, natural gas and telecommunication providers to ensure P AA services support planned growth, meet desired customer service needs, and result in a comparable community system in the greater Federal Way area. December 2003 52 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PM Proposed Final Subarea Plan 12 PUBLIC SERVICES AND CAPITAL FACILITIES This section provides a summary of current and projected public services and capital facilities in the P AA, addressing local government as well as special district services and facilities. For services that the City would provide if the P AA were to be annexed, an analysis of operating and capital costs and revenues is provided based upon the Federal Way Potential Annexation Area Annexation Feasibility Report, December 2003. 12.1 Inventory of Public Services Likely to Change as a Result of Annexation General Government The City of Federal Way and King County house a variety of operations such as administration, public safety, court services, community/senior centers, and maintenance bases at government facilities. The P AA contains the following County government facility: Lake Dolloff Community Policing Storefront just west of 51 st Avenue S. in the Camelot neighborhood. A private, non-profit senior center operates in the P AA at S. 352nd Street in the Lakeland neighborhood. While this facility has received some King County and City of Federal Way funding, it is not owned or operated by either jurisdiction. Also, the North Lake Improvement Club clubhouse is a non-profit center available for public use, although not owned or operated by the City of Federal Way or King County. The operating costs that could be borne by the City, if it annexed the P AA and provided General Government services, is estimated in Table 17 further below. (Also see Section 8 regarding capital costs for community centers.) Parks and Recreation Please refer to subsections 8 and 12.2. Police Services The King County Sheriff provides police protection services to the P AA. The PAA is served by Precinct 3, George Sector, with its headquarters in Maple Valley. However, there is a local storefront police station near Lake Dolloff in the Camelot neighborhood. The substation is not manned for general public visitors, and one must call and leave a message. Although calls for service in the P AA have decreased by five percent between 1999 and 2000, during this time period the number of traffic citations and traffic accident events increased by 17 and 12 percent respectively. As of2000, the crime rate of35.26 per 1,000 population was nearly equal to the crime rate for the December 2003 53 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PM Proposed Final Subarea Plan countywide area patrolled by the Sheriff's Office. According to the King County Executive's Proposed 2002-2007 Capital Improvement Program, there are no new proposed or expanded capital facilities in the Federal Way P AA. At the time of incorporation, the City contracted with the King County Sheriffs Department for police services. In the spring of 1995, the City decided to terminate its contract relationship with King County and form its own police department. The City's Public Safety Department began limited service on September 16, 1996, and was fully operational on October 16, 1996. Federal Way's Public Safety Department could be expanded at some time in the future so that it could effectively provide services to the P AA. (A comparison oflevels of service in the County and City can be found in Federal Way Potential Annexation Area Level of Service Analysis, July 11, 2003.) State laws require and establish procedures for the lateral transfer to a City of qualified county sheriffs office employees who would otherwise be laid off as a result of the annexation of unincorporated territory into that city (RCW 35.13.360 to 400). The City would not be required to put all transferring employees on the police department payroll. It is within the City's discretion to determine what staffing provides an adequate level of law enforcement service. Estimates of public safety operating costs to the City should annexation occur are provided in Table 17 below. Solid Waste The King County Department of Natural Resources, Solid Waste Division, operates King County's transfer and disposal system comprised of a regional landfill, eight transfer stations, and two rural drop boxes for residential and non- residential self-haul customers and commercial haulers. The closest waste transfer station to the PAA and the City of Federal Way is in the City of Algona. Unincorporated areas of King County are served by private garbage collection companies, which receive oversight through the Washington State Utilities and Transportation Commission (WUTC). While Federal Way Disposal serves the City of Federal Way, local haulers within the PAA operate within two service areas: Allied Service Area (SeaTac Disposal) and Waste Management and Allied Service Area (Sea- Tac Disposal and RST Disposal), with the dividing line at about S. 300th Street. In the event of annexation, the City may decide to contract for solid waste collection or undertake solid waste collection itself. However, in accordance with State Law, the holder ofthe fÌ'anchise or permit in the annexing area may continue to operate for the remaining term of the original franchise or permit, or for seven years, whichever time period is shorter (RCW 35A.14.900). In the Parkway neighborhood, the Puyallup/Kit Comer Landfill is sited southeast ofthe 1-5 and SR-18 interchange. This landfill was closed in the mid-1960's prior December 2003 54 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PM Proposed Final Subarea Plan to existing regulations requiring extensive environmental controls. Environmental systems are being monitored and maintained, and gas extraction systems are in place. Estimates of solid waste operating costs to the City should annexation occur are provided in Table 17 below. Surface Water See Subsections 9 and 12.2. Tra ns portatio n See Subsection 10 and 12.2. 12.2 Summary of Fiscal Impacts and Strategies Fiscal Impacts Summary The City of Federal Way would experience a significant negative fiscal impact on its operating budget if the Southeast and Northeast Major Subareas (Southeast: Lakeland, Jovita, Parkway neighborhoods; Northeast: Star Lake, Camelot, and North Lake neighborhoods) were annexed to the City and the City used the same revenue sources and rates, and provided the same level of services as it provides to the residents and businesses in the current boundaries of the City. The annual deficit would be just under $3.6 million ($8.2 million cost; $4.6 million revenue). The cost of providing the City's levels of service in the PAA would exceed revenues from the PAA by 78 percent annually. The net operating revenue (or net costs) presented here represent the gap between operating revenues generated in each ofthe P AAs under the City's 2003 revenue structure and the costs of extending 2003 levels of City services to the same areas. In order to present a full picture of operating impacts, this presentation combines fiscal impacts across a number of disparate City Funds. The City would undoubtedly continue City policy that Surface Water Management (SWM) costs would be covered by Surface Water Fees within the structure of the Surface Water Enterprise Fund. Such a strategy would require increased SWM fees and/or decreased levels ofSWM services by $538,000 (the difference between estimated SWM operating costs ($823,000) given current service levels and estimated revenues ($285,000). The remaining $3.0 million gap, then, would be bridged through some combination of other strategies. Another way of understanding the fiscal impact of the approximately $3.4 million deficit is to see how it compares to the combined revenue of the City of Federal Way and the combined Northeast/Southeast PAA subareas. If Federal Way and the Northeast and Southeast P AA subareas are viewed as a single City of over 105,000 population, the annual deficit of$3.6 million equals six percent of the combined operating revenue. It would be like running a business that loses six December 2003 55 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PM Proposed Final Subarea Plan percent every year. In addition, the City of Federal Way would experience major costs for capital improvements in the P AA totaling over $48.3 million. Dedicated capital revenue is anticipated to be $32.0 million through the year 2020, leaving an unfunded cost of $16.3 million (which averages $0.9 million per year through 2020). As noted for operating costs above, City policy for surface water (and other enterprise activities) is to cover costs with fee revenue. Assuming that the City would use enterprise policy to cover the $4.7 million cost of stormwater capital, the remaining deficit would be $11,564,520 (which is an annual average of $642,473). In addition, the City will undoubtedly receive mitigation payments or impact fees from development in the P AA, which were not possible to estimate at this time, but they would reduce the size of the deficit. Tables 16 to 21 provide the cost and revenue infonnation supporting the conclusions above: Table 16. Operating Revenues Generated, by P AA (2003) Northeast Southeast PAA PAA Redondo Total Property Tax $947,000 $699,000 $24,000 $1,670,000 State Shared Revenues $365,000 $264,000 $8,000 $637,000 Sales Tax - Criminal Justice $246,000 $178,000 $5,000 $429,000 Local Retail Sales Tax $107,000 $173,000 $79,000 $359,000 Utility Taxes (O&M). $196,000 $135,000 $6,544 $337,544 Surface Water Fees $159,000 $116,000 $10,000 $285,000 Fines and Forfeits $106,000 $115,000 $6,000 $227,000 Building Permit Fees $121,000 $90,000 $7,000 $218,000 Vehicle License Fee - - - - Franchise Fees $102,000 $74,000 $2,000 $178,000 Solid Waste Revenues $41,000 $41,000 $1,000 $83,000 Development Services $39,000 $27,000 $1,000 $67,000 Fees Recreation Fees $23,000 $33,000 $500 $56,500 Zoning Fees $7,000 $5,000 $1,000 $13,000 Gambling Tax $13,000 - $16,000 $29,000 Business License Fees $4,000 $3,000 $1,000 $8,000 Total $2,476,000 $1,953,000 $168,044 $4,597,044 Revenues per Resident $201 $219 $646 $214 Source: ECONorthwest analysis. December 2003 56 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PM Proposed Final Subarea Plan Table 17. Operating Costs by Department by Potential Annexation Area (2003) Northeast Southeast PAA PAA Redondo Total City Council $26,000 $26,000 $1,000 $53,000 City Manager $193,000 $204,000 $10,000 $407,000 Community Development $299,000 $221,000 $13,300 $533,300 Law $129,000 $136,000 $6,000 $271,000 Management Services * $182,000 $187,000 $7,000 $376,000 Parks & Recreation $55,000 $406,000 $1,000 $462,000 Public Safety $1,651,000 $1,780,000 $98,000 $3,529,000 Public Works $1,457,000 $1,038,000 $21,000 $2,516,000 Total $3,992,000 $3,998,000 $157,300 $8,147,300 Costs per Resident $325 $449 $605 $380 Source: ECONorthwest analysis. Table 18. Annual Net Operating Revenues (or Operating Cost) of Annexation, by PAA (2003) Northeast Southeast PAA PAA Redondo Total $2,476,000 $1,953,000 Operating Revenues $168,044 $4,597,044 Operating Cost $3,992,000 $3,998,000 $157,300 $8, 147,300 Net Revenues or Cost -$1,516,000 -$2,045,000 $10,344* -$3,550,256 Costs ner Resident -$123 -$230 $41 -$166 Source: ECONorthwest analysis. * Given the uncertainties surrounding estimates of costs and revenues for a small area like Redondo, the reported net revenue of $10,344 for the Redondo area could be viewed as essentially equal to zero, Table 19 Federal Way Potential Annexation Area Capital Revenue to 2020 Capital Revenues Northeast Southeast Redondo All Subareas Real Estate Excise Taxes $ 300,000 $ 222,000 $ 7,000 $ 530,000 Utility Taxes (Capital) 694,000 480,000 20,000 1,194,000 Annual Total $ 995,000 $ 702,000 $ 27,000 $1,724,000 CIP Planning Horizon (years 2002-2020) 18 18 18 18 2020 Total of Annual Revenue 17,910,000 12,636,000 486,000 3 I ,032,000 December 2003 57 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PAA Proposed Final Subarea Plan Capital Revenues Northeast Southeast Redondo All Subareas Grants for Roads 1,000,000 0 0 1,000,000 2020 Revenue Total 18,910,000 12,636,000 486,000 32,032,000 Source: ECONorthwest 2003 Table 20. Federal Way Potential Annexation Area Estimated Future Capital Costs Redondo Area Wide Northeast Southeast East TOTAL Subarea Subarea Subarea Parks and Recreation $-0- $22,565,346 $9,564,412 $584,762 $32,714,520 Roads: Level of Service -0- 7,561,000 3,039,000 282,000 $10,882,000 Surface Water 1,067,000* 1,074,000 2,578,000 -0- $ 4,719,000 Total $1,067,000 $31,200,346 $15,181,412 $866,762 $48,315,520 Sources: Jones & Stokes, Henderson Young & Company, TetraTech/KCM, Inc., 2003 * Area wide capital programs include a joint P AA stonn drain system inventory and comprehensive plan, and major maintenance of ditches and other stonnwater facilities. Table 21. Federal Way Potential Annexation Area Estimated Net Capital Revenues Northeast Southeast Redondo Area Wide Subarea Subarea Subarea TOTAL Capital Revenue $18,910,000 $12,636,000 $486,000 $ 32,032,000 Capital Cost 1,067,000 31,200,346 15,181,412 866,762 48,315,520 Net Revenue (1,067,000) (12,290,346) (2,545,412) (380,762) (16,283,520) Sources: ECONorthwest, Jones & Stokes, Henderson Young & Company, TetraTech/KCM, Inc., 2003 Implementation Strategies To address the fiscal impact the Federal Way Potential Annexation Area Annexation Feasibility Report, December 2003 identifies six categories of strategies that could be pursued to address the significant negative fiscal impacts of annexation, as follows, without a priority order: 1. State and County Support: With this option, the City could indicate that its ability to annex the Southeast and Northeast Subareas is contingent upon the State of Washington and/or King County providing new resources to offset the significant cost of such annexations. Examples could include a new local option sales tax per State Law that authorizes King County to submit such a tax for voter approval, State December 2003 58 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PM Proposed Final Subarea Plan grants, and unexpended County impact fees being provided to the City. The County's ability to continue to service urban unincorporated islands has decreased over the last several years, and the County has been cutting back services. Accordingly, in August 2003, it was reported that King County will offer a total of $1 a million to a number of cities that annex unincorporated areas in their P AAs. Details were not announced, and will depend on the County's budget decisions. 2. Local Taxpayers: With this option, the City could use one or more general taxes to have all taxpayers in Federal Way and the combined annexation area share in paying the annual operating deficit. The City could ask voters to approve long-term debt in the form of a general obligation bond that is used to build capital improvements. Of particular interest are enterprise funds. Like many cities, Federal Way has a policy that costs of enterprise funds, such as Surface Water Management and Solid Waste are to be covered by user fees. Such a strategy would require increased fees and/or decreased levels of services. Federal Way could increase user fees throughout the City and P AA for its stormwater utility and/or solid waste utility and use the proceeds to offset the increased cost of providing those services in the PAA. 3. Tax Base Expansion: A long-term strategy for Federal Way could be to increase City revenue by increasing the tax base in the P AA and/or in the City limits. Some businesses, like automobile dealerships, generate significantly more tax revenue than the cost of the public services they receive. These strategies could be pursued independently by the City of Federal Way, but King County could make annexation more attractive if it were to take the lead in rezoning selected parcels in the P AA in accordance with provisions of the approved Subarea Plan and assisting in the economic development strategies to develop those areas. A caveat would be that the City of Federal Way and the PAAs currently have vacant and underdeveloped land to absorb decades of anticipated commercial growth. 4. Special Districts: One strategy to generate revenue to pay for Federal Way's level of service in the annexation area would be to create a special district and charge a property tax levy in that district. Washington law allows the creation oflimited special purpose districts for a number of purposes, such as roads, parks, transportation, and "local improvements." Voter approval is required to create special districts that have taxing authority. Property owner approval is required to create special districts that use special assessments. There is some risk associated with using special districts as a strategy to pay for providing urban levels of service the P AA. A vote on creating a special taxing district would occur subsequent to an annexation vote. If voters approve annexation, but do not approve the creation of the district(s), the City December 2003 59 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PM Proposed Final Subarea Plan would be left with insufficient money to provide its level of service. 5. Reduced or Phased Levels of Service: Another way for the City to address the difference in levels of service between Federal Way and the County would be to permanently provide a lower level of service for one or more services, either broadly citywide or only within specific areas. A second strategy for addressing the difference in level of service would be to phase-in the increases in level of service in the annexation area. Phasing would reduce costs during the transition, and it would provide Federal Way with time to recruit and hire personnel and acquire facilities and equipment. However, eventually, phased levels of service will grow to equal the standards achieved by the City of Federal Way. When that occurs, service levels will be the same throughout the City, and the City will experience the full fiscal impacts of those levels of servIce. A variation on phased or reduced levels of service could include alternative service delivery strategies or customized strategies for specific neighborhoods tailored to the needs or characteristics of the P AA location. For example, crime prevention programs could vary by neighborhood depending on the type residential dwellings, commercial uses, and previous crime rate statistics. 6. Phased Annexation: This strategy would involve annexing those areas that are financially self-supporting first and then annexing other areas later, perhaps in conjunction with other strategies to improve fiscal impact of these subsequent annexations. Phased annexation based on fiscal impacts could be accomplished by annexing Redondo first because it has no operating cash deficit. The Northeast PAA subarea, or portions thereof, could be annexed next because its operating costs exceed revenues by 61 percent. Last to be annexed could be the Southeast P AA subarea, because its costs are estimated to be more than double the revenue it would generate (i.e., the deficit is 105 percent). Phasing can also be accomplished by smaller areas, such as community subareas. For example, if community subareas were annexed in order of their fiscal impact, from least to most net operating cost, the following would be the phasing sequence: Northlake, Lakeland, Star Lake, Jovita, Camelot, and Parkway. If other Implementation Strategies are considered and employed to determine phasing for annexation. the order might be different than the preceding list. It should be noted that phasing annexation emphasizes differences among the areas, and misses the opportunity to mitigate the apparent differences among areas by taking them all at the same time, thus effectively averaging the "highs" and "lows" of both revenues and costs. December 2003 60 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PM Proposed Final Subarea Plan Some implementation strategies may be suitable to different portions of the PAA while others may not be. Study of the alternatives prior to or at the time of annexation requests would be warranted. 12.3 Services Unlikely to Change as a Result of Annexation: In the event of annexation, some services currently being provided in the P AA through special districts will not change. The current service providers, levels of service, or costs of services including fire protection, library, schools, water and wastewater will remain unchanged. However, it is important that the City and service providers coordinate planning efforts to match services and facilities with the current and future population and employment levels. Each of the services are summarized below based on the March 18, 2002 P AA Inventory. Fire Services The Federal Way Fire Department provides service to the City of Federal Way and most of the surrounding unincorporated area in the Federal Way P AA. However, the Fire Department is not part of the City of Federal Way government. The Department was formed in 1980 from a series of mergers, which united several smaller fire districts in the area, some of which had been in existence since 1946. The resulting boundary encompasses some 34 square miles and has an estimated population of over 100,000. Services provided by the Federal Way Fire Department include fire suppression, fire prevention (building inspection and public information), emergency medical, and communications center operation for 911 emergency calls. Emergency medical response calls or service make up a majority of the calls for the Department. The PAA is served by four ofthe Department's six stations (Map VIII). One of these stations is located outside of the P AA, within the Redondo area. The other fire stations serving the P AA are located within the Lakeland and Camelot community subareas. The fire station in the Camelot area lies on the border of the Camelot and North Lake community sub areas. A 1996 Des Moines annexation (W oodmontiRedondo) could result in area currently served by the Federal Way Fire Department to be served by Fire District 26 if either party should give the required 12-month notice to eliminate the contract allowing the Federal Way Fire Department to continue providing service. If the contract is eliminated, District 26 would take ownership of Station 66. The Federal Way Fire Department has purchased property at South 288th and Interstate 5 as a contingency should they need to replace Station 66. This would accommodate the building of a new station that is more centrally located in the north end of the City. This realignment of stations, response areas, and revenues would require closure of Station 65 (4966 South 298th). Both Stations 65 and 66 serve portions of the Federal Way P AA. December 2003 61 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PM Proposed Final Subarea Plan For the City and P AA Planning efforts, the City has worked closely with the Department in reviewing the Fire District Master Plan, which complies with the GMA. The Department's Master Plan identifies the new facilities the Department will need to continue providing service as its service area grows. The City included the Department's new facilities requirements and cost and revenue estimates in the City's Capital Facilities chapter. Library Services Library services are provided by King County. There are no public libraries inside the P AA, but there are six libraries of different sizes serving residents of the P AA including: Algona-Pacific Library - 5,250 square feet (medium) 255 Ellingson Road Auburn Library - 15,000 square feet (resource) 1102 Auburn Way South Federal Way 320th Library- 10,000 square feet (large) 848 S. 320th St. Federal Way Regional Library - 25,000 square feet (regional) 34200 1st Way S. Kent Regional - 22,500 square feet (regional) 212 2nd Avenue N. Woodmont Library - 5,250 square feet (medium) 26809 Pacific Highway South King County Library System (KCLS) plans for capital projects, including expansions, depend on the KCLS Board determining whether they wish to propose a bond issue to King County voters and whether it passes. The KCLS staff and Board have discussed many possible projects for such a bond issue and some of the libraries serving the P AA have been included. However, there are no capital plans or funds to provide library services in the P AA at this time. Schools/Education Probably more than any other special district, a school district provides an area with a sense of community. The Federal Way School District #210 (as outlined on Map XIV) extends from the county line south to South 252nd west of 1-5 and South 232nd Street, east of 1-5 to the north, and for the most part along the edge of the plateau to the east. A school district provides a common thread, be it through school activities such as organized sports, or through voting during elections. City staff meets regularly with School District #210 administrators to discuss December 2003 62 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PM Proposed Final Subarea Plan growth management and school development issues. The District primarily serves students in the Cities of Federal Way, Des Moines, and Kent, and unincorporated King County. The District administration has indicated in these meetings that they would prefer to work with one jurisdiction as the District attempts to anticipate growth and develop plans for new school facilities. Seven schools are located in the P AA, including five elementary schools, one junior high school, and one high school (as outlined on Map XIV). Aside from Thomas Jefferson High School, all schools within and serving the PAA have some student demand beyond the building capacity, requiring the use of portable classrooms. Water and Wastewater The Lakehaven Utility District and Highline Water District provide water service to properties within the P AA. As indicated on Map XV, the current Lakehaven Utility District boundary is generally bordered on the south by the Pierce/King County line, on the east by the Green River Valley, and on the west by Puget Sound. The Lakehaven Utility District's northern boundary is generally bordered by South 272nd Street with a narrow strip extending along Puget Sound to South 252nd Street. Maps contained in the Lakehaven District's water system comprehensive plan describe an extensive system of wells, storage tanks, and distribution mains. The water distribution infrastructure is sufficient to provide water to virtually all of the Lakehaven Utility District. The Highline Water District water service area boundary encompasses most of the PAA Star Lake community subarea and parts of the City of Federal Way (Map XV). Both the 1998 Lakehaven Utility District Comprehensive Water System Plan and 2002 Highline Water District Capital Improvement Plan have identified the following water quality and service goals and objectives: maintain their water systems and water quality to the highest level of service and at least the level required by applicable regulations; participate in the conservation efforts to maximize existing water supply resources and develop new water resources; and install new water distribution systems as necessary to serve the existing and future populations within their Districts. Both Districts have existing rate structures and capability to ensure this level of service. Wastewater systems in the PAA include both septic and sanitary sewer systems. Sanitary sewer service is available in several areas outside the City limits including the Camelot/ Star Lake area, north of Lake Dolloff, Redondo, Woodmont, a small area east on -5 and south of Kitts Comer Road, and portions of the Weyerhaeuser Corporate campus east on-5. See Map XVI. Relevant to the P AA, the Lakehaven Utility District plans estimate that sewer December 2003 63 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PAA Proposed Final Subarea Plan service will be extended to the east-central area of the District in the near future and the area is projected to reach its target population in the Year 2007, based on the Lakehaven Sewer Master Plan which estimated growth based upon City of Federal Way traffic analysis zone growth projections available in approximately 1999. The number of onsite septic systems throughout the District was estimated to be 7,500. The Utility District plan assumptions are that 50 percent of the onsite systems will be replaced with sanitary sewer connections by the year 2017. Under ultimate development conditions, it is anticipated that all areas that could feasibly and economically be served would be served. The City of Federal Way's responsibility with regard to the water and wastewater systems will be limited to updating the FWCP in future years in accordance with the City's regular planning efforts, and providing development applications to the Lakehaven Utility District and Highline Water District for their input as part of the City's Development Review Committee process. 12.4 Public Services and Capital Facilities Goals and Policies The provision of public services and capital facilities would be guided by the following goal and policies. Public Services and Capital Facilities Goal Provide effective, efficient, and quality capital facilities and services at the level necessary to meet community needs and support allowed growth. Public Services and Capital Facilities Policies In addition to Governance and Intergovernmental Coordination Policies, the following policies are proposed: P AA CapFac - 1 Prior to annexation, the City, in conjunction with King County, should develop and maintain an inventory of capital facilities in the P AA. As new information becomes available, supplementary inventories should be completed for surface water facilities and roadway improvements to bridge gaps in information identified in the Final Potential Annexation Area Inventory, City of Federal Way, March 18, 2002. P AA CapFac - 2 City and County plans should address the P AA to ensure that systems are reviewed comprehensively, and in order to support desired annexation phasing. P AA CapFac - 3 Through an interlocal agreement prior to annexation, shared City-County capital facility maintenance standards should be implemented. Standards, funding, and practices should seek to avoid maintenance deferrals prior to annexation. Maintenance standards should be consistent with approved functional plans for transportation, stormwater, parks, and other systems that would become a part of the City system upon annexation. December 2003 64 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PM Proposed Final Subarea Plan P AA CapFac - 4 The City should allow for a variety of service delivery or revenue enhancement options to increase the feasibility of annexation. Based on the PAA Annexation Feasibility Study, these options may include, but are not limited to: a. State of Washington and/or King County providing new resources to offset the significant cost of annexation, through such options as New Local Option Sales Tax, State Grants, unspent County Impact Fees, County monetary incentives to annex, or others. b. The County or City posing to voters general obligation bonds or general taxes. c. The County or City proposing to create special limited districts in P AAs to pay for specific costs. d. Tax base expansion per Policy LU-6. e. Increase in fees for enterprise funds such as surface water management or the solid waste program. f. When considering annexation proposals, the City could provide a lower level of service for one or more services. The reduction could be City-wide (e.g. lower park standards) or just in the P AAs (e.g. lower roadway pavement rating in the newly annexed neighborhoods). g. When considering annexation proposals, the City could explore alternative service delivery strategies or customized strategies for specific neighborhoods tailored to the needs or characteristics of the P AA location. h. The City could address the difference in County and City levels of service by phasing-in the increases in level of service in the annexation area. 1. The City could annex those areas that are financially self-supporting first and then annex other areas in conjunction with other strategies to improve fiscal impact of these subsequent annexations, such as identified in "a" to "h" above. PAA CapFac-5 To avoid City assumption ofnonconfonning infrastructure, a coordinated Capital Improvement Program should be prepared between the City and County. Such a program should be developed prior to annexation, particularly of the Northeast and Southeast subareas, to ensure that improvements required to meet levels of service are implemented concurrent with new development. When considering annexation proposals that have significant existing nonconfonning infrastructure, the City should consider service delivery and revenue enhancement options identified in Policy P AA CapFac-4. December 2003 65 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PM Proposed Final Subarea Plan 13 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION GMA requires public participation in the adoption and amendment of Comprehensive Plans and Development Regulations, including the preparation of Subarea Plans like the Federal Way PAA Subarea Plan. Public participation efforts in the development of the Federal Way PAA Subarea Plan are addressed in prior sections of this report, and have included public meetings, open houses, and various means of advertisements. Once adopted, the approved P AA Subarea Plan will require some implementing activities including interlocal agreements, and additional capital planning. Implementing activities depending on the nature of the activity may result in additional opportunities for public input in accordance with State and local laws. Also, if the Subarea Plan is amended in the future which is allowed typically on an annual basis by the GMA, other public participation efforts would be needed. Finally, the annexation process would require public notification and participation efforts pursuant to State laws. 13.1 Public Participation Goal and Policies The following goal and policy would help direct public participation efforts in the PAA. Public Participation Goal Actively seek public involvement in P AA planning efforts. Public Participation Policy PAA Pub -1 Consistent with Washington State law, the City of Federal Way recognizes annexation as a process which requires and benefits from public participation. As the City is the designated future municipal service provider to the P AA, the City should inform P AA residents, property owners, and business owners of City activities and invite participation from P AA residents, property owners, and business owners through the following efforts: a. Encourage City staff and elected officials to regularly attend civic and community organization meetings. b. Seek broad representation on boards, commISSIons, and advisory groups. c. Prior to action on City plans and regulations, seek and integrate public input through public workshops, meetings and hearings. December 2003 66 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PM Proposed Final Subarea Plan 14 GOVERNANCE AND INTER-JURISDICTIONAL COORDINATION In accordance with the provisions of the GMA, new development should occur in designated urban growth areas, and urban services should primarily be provided by cities. In consultation with the County, a PAA for Federal Way has been designated in which it is anticipated that the City would ultimately provide services as property owners and citizens elect to annex. This will require a transition from County governance to City governance. Additionally, GMA requires coordination between land use and services/capital planning, such as between the City of Federal Way, neighboring cities, special districts and the County, for which the Countywide Planning Policies help provide a regional framework. While some service providers would not change, such as special districts including the Lakehaven Utility District, Highline Water District, Federal Way Fire Department, and Federal Way School District, other services provided by the County including police and corrections services, surface water management, land use and building permitting, human services, and others would change. (A comparison of services and levels of service between the two agencies is identified in Federal Way Potential Annexation Area Level of Service Analysis, July 11, 2003; a detailed discussion of fiscal impacts is found in the Annexation Feasibility Study, December 2003.) Section 12 provides strategies to minimize negative impacts to public services and facilities impacted negatively by annexation. 14.1 Governance/lnterjurisdictional Goals and Policies Governance and interjurisdictional coordination would be directed by the following goal and policies. Governance/lnterjurisdictional Coordination Goal Coordinate P AA planning efforts with other neighboring jurisdictions and agencIes. Governance/lnterjurisdictional Coordination Policies P AA Gov - 1 The City shall coordinate with King County to ensure service provision and land development prior to City annexation is consistent with the goals and policies of this Plan. Methods to allow for coordination may include, but are not limited to, execution of an Interlocal Agreement between the City of Federal Way and King County to: a. Establish guidelines for development plan review, impact fees, and SEPA mitigation consistent with the P AA Subarea Plan; and December 2003 67 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PAA Proposed Final Subarea Plan b. Define service delivery responsibilities, level of service standards, and capital facility implementation consistent with the P AA Subarea Plan. P AA Gov - 2 Through regional planning efforts, the County and City should ensure P AA plans are compatible with neighboring jurisdictions, including King and Pierce Counties, and the Cities of Algona, Auburn, Edgewood, Kent, Milton, and Pacific. P AA Gov - 3 Coordinated planning efforts between the City, County, Lakehaven Utility District, Highline Water District, Puget Sound Energy, Federal Way School District and Federal Way Fire Department should continue to assure managed growth supportive of the P AA land use, annexation phasing, and service delivery objectives. 15 ANNEXATION For purposes of efficient services, coordinated land planning and development, and unity between economically and socially related areas, annexation may be desired by citizens, property owners, and the City. As noted above, the GMA provides for coordinated urban growth area planning between counties and cities with the intent that urban and urbanizing areas ultimately be served by municipalities. In the GMA framework, annexations may occur only within a jurisdiction's designated PAA. By addressing its city limits and PAA in its Comprehensive Plan, the City is responding to the GMA framework to manage growth, provide efficient services, and meet community needs in the broader Federal Way community. There are currently four methods of annexation applicable to the Federal Way PAA. . The Election Method, Initiated by Ten Percent Petition, is initiated by the collection of signatures from qualified electors in the area proposed for annexation equal to ten percent of the number of voters in the last general election in that area. This method would require an election by the residents of the area being considered for annexation. This method could be used to annex portions of or all of the P AA at a time. The Election Method, Initiated by Resolution, may be initiated by City Council resolution. This method would require an election by the residents of the area being considered for annexation. This method could be used to annex portions of or all of the P AA at a time. . December 2003 68 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PM Proposed Final Subarea Plan . In May 2003, legislation became effective which adopted a new "Petition Method of Annexation" designed to overcome the State Supreme Court's findings of constitutional defects in the State's previous petition method. Under the new law, the annexation petition must be signed by property owners (owning a majority of the area) and by registered voters (a majority in the area). If there are no registered voters (vacant, commercial, or industrial property, or property that has residents but no registered voters), then only owners of a majority of the area need sign. This method could be used to annex portions of or all of the P AA at a time. In July 2003, another "Island Method of Annexation" became effective. It allows a legislative body to initiate an annexation process for an urban island of territory by adopting a resolution commencing negotiations for an interlocal agreement between the initiating city and the county. At least 60 percent ofthe island must be contiguous to one or more cities. A public hearing is required by the county and the city separately or jointly, before the agreement is executed. Following adoption and execution of the agreement by both legislative bodies, the city legislative body is to adopt an ordinance providing for the annexation of the territory described in the agreement. Generally, a petition or public vote is not required. The method has a vote requirement ifproperty owners reject annexation through obtaining a certain number of petition signatures. This Island method could be used to annex all ofthe Redondo East, and/or all of the Northeast and Southeast P AAs as a whole. It may be possible to use the Island method to annex portions ofthe Major Subareas. . As identified in Section 12, no individual strategy or combination of strategies will make annexation feasible for the Major or Community Level Subareas (other than Redondo), without significant sacrifices or costs to the City in the fonn of reduced levels of service or financial impacts to citizens. Annexation of smaller areas involve portions of the cost ofthe entire PAA; therefore requests for small area annexations should be reviewed in the context ofthe annexation strategies and policies in Section 12, as well as the policies below. 15.1 Annexation Goals and Policies Annexation Goals Provide a framework for processing annexation requests. Annexation Policies P AA Annex - 1 The City should give priority consideration to annexation proposals that are financially self-sufficient or those where the fiscal impact can be improved through annexation strategies such as those identified in Policy P AA CapFac-4. As areas become feasible for annexation, such areas may be prioritized for annexation in accordance with the following: December 2003 69 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PM Proposed Final Subarea Plan a. Priority criteria should include: . Neighborhood willingness to annex; . Land use developability where urban densities may be achieved, rate of growth indicating City oversight of growing area would ensure compatible development with City goals and requirements, and other similar land use factors; Ability to provide a balance in costs and revenues to the City; City's ability to provide appropriate levels of service; . . . The annexation includes areas with regionally serving infrastructure that meets City of Federal Way Level-of-Service (LOS) standards. Infrastructure examples may include parks and recreation facilities, arterial roadways, regional surface water detention facilities, etc. Annexation areas containing nonconfonning infrastructure should have sufficient planning and funding mechanisms in place to assure existing LOS deficiencies are addressed. Sufficient planning mechanisms may include affected areas being addressed in capital facility plans. Sufficient funding mechanisms may include anticipated utility tax revenues from the affected area, and the establishment of a Local Improvement District to minimize any gaps in tax revenues. Logical and reasonable service areas based on Policies P AA Annex -2 and PAA Annex-3. . b. Annexation of the geographic subareas may be phased over several years. P AA Annex - 2 The City should process annexation requests in accordance with review criteria. Review criteria should include: a. The proposal meets the priority criteria of P AA Annex - 1. b. Annexations are an appropriate size. Appropriate size means an area that warrants the staff time and expense involved in processing annexation requests and complies with the goals of the GMA and the CWPPs. c. Annexations generally should not have or create abnonnally irregular boundaries. d. The annexation must, to the greatest extent possible, preserve natural neighborhoods and communities. e. The annexation proposal should use physical boundaries, including but not limited to bodies of water, highways, and land contours, including meeting provisions ofPAA Annex-3; December 2003 70 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PM Proposed Final Subarea Plan f. The annexation proposal should create and/or preserve logical service areas, including meeting provisions ofPAA Annex-3. P AA Annex 3: The City will use, but may not be limited to, the following factors in determining the specific location of an annexation proposal boundary: a. The annexation boundary, where appropriate, should adjust any impractical or irregular boundaries created in the past. b. The annexation boundary should provide a contiguous and regular boundary with current City limits. c. The annexation boundary, where appropriate, should be drawn along property and/or existing or future right-of-way boundaries. Annexation boundaries, where possible, should not be drawn along right-of-way centerlines. d. P AA roadways contiguous to a proposed annexation area should not be included within the proposed annexation boundary, unless the roadways are contiguous to current City limits. e. When a proposed annexation is located in the vicinity of a P AA King County surface water management facility, the City Public Works Department should evaluate the facility and the water basins it serves to determine whether the boundary should be modified to include the public facility. f. When a proposed annexation is located in the vicinity of a P AA public recreation facility, the City Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Services Department should evaluate the financial feasibility of modifying the annexation boundary to include the public facility. g. When a proposed annexation includes portions of a natural lake, the annexation boundary should be modified to include or exclude the entire lake area from the proposed annexation. h. When a proposed annexation is located in the vicinity of a P AA special purpose district facility (i.e. school, fire station, etc.), the City should consult with the respective district regarding modifying the boundary to include the special purpose district facility. P AA Annex - 4 Upon annexation, properties shall be required to assume FWCP designations and zoning as found in the adopted P AA Subarea Plan (Maps VII-I and VII-2). a. The adopting ordinance for the pre-annexation plan and zoning shall specify the time interval following an annexation during which the ordinance adopting the pre-annexation plan and zoning, must remain in effect before it may be amended by the City. December 2003 71 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PM Proposed Final Subarea Plan b. Any amendment to the pre-annexation land use plan that is adopted as part of the Comprehensive Plan is subject to the general GMA limitation that the comprehensive plan may be amended no more frequently than once a year, unless exceptions are met. P AA Annex - 5 Where appropriate, the City and/or County should allow development agreements in the P AA that are consistent with the approved Subarea Plan. P AA Annex - 6 The City will require owners ofland annexing into Federal Way to assume their proportion of existing City bonded indebtedness. P AA Annex - 7 The City and County will work with affected neighborhoods upon annexation to provide a smooth transition from King County to City of Federal Way administration. P AA Annex - 8 The City should establish departmental service needs prior to major annexations through a fiscal impact analysis. As revenues from each annexation area are collected, increase City services to maintain current citywide levels of service or detennine other level of service phasing, reduction, or customization as identified in Policy PAA CapFac-4. P AA Annex - 9 The City should evaluate the unincorporated lands beyond the P AA boundaries, including but not limited to, the Browns Point and Dash Point areas of Pierce County and the southwest King County "gap" area, that may be appropriate to include within the P AA. The City should work with King County and Pierce County and neighboring jurisdictions regarding the potential addition of any lands to the Federal Way PAA. 16 TECHNICAL REFERENCES TO THE SUBAREA PLAN The following technical references are available under separate cover: A. City of Federal Way Potential Annexation Area Inventory, Final, March 18, 2002. B. "Federal Way Potential Annexation Area Level of Service Analysis," July 11, 2003. C. "Federal Way Potential Annexation Area Land Use Analysis Compilation," March 5,2003. D. Federal Way Potential Annexation Area Annexation Feasibility Study, December 2003. December 2003 72 ll!Ii ~I'.'~~~, I~\) '.-';:"¡... tJ tL - n I ~.. ì I I- , .' I- - ..' .Q ",J+~ Q1ù U ~~ , ¡,> \1ffjY ~I;=~ ~ ~_.~ "tin I ~ L ~e-C' -(\~~ I~' UIy;;., ;~E= !:" ~~ ~ \\~ :;~cö~ Ë~~ h ~ r;y / -i1 rl ~ '.....~I ¡::;LfTl ~~þ c:; hL rn ~ - ~ -" flo-- r~l~ ~ - ~~ T ~ bt 8 ,- - f nlð II to j ( f- J- ~ --~) ~ h ~~~ . \:ý¡ 'j D ~ 1.[\lr f-I ¡-l Er :-~~ - 0 ;-._ilf h ~ I u6tt BY I rl 1 '\ ~ II / -! ~ ) 1771 ¡ .~.' ~ ~.J!fr~! Aubum ~ :I: ,~, f- -- f- I ~ I /)----!!~ ~ I IJ- c -'- ~ ,r ~-~ V I ~ 151--- T --c;J.-.."" Wi I I I f------- J. ~I"~.T rr /' 1\6' J ~. \ I ~r t- ~~Y;d'~-r~~t;\. : f'l - ~ - 't 1 ~o ,." Þ '" .... .,. I--- ~. \- l.. J ¡U I H /r,. ;.; 7 ¡} ~ 0 nL,....# % ~ f __8 0 h û ~ L I f! ~- 1M' H LJ ~~flF=.. -rtrj JJ .! I \J / ... t--../ vV~~ Pi- t L \[ ~~_..-~tW. IT'- )~ -[+ ~ti -- ;¡'~~ . I f-~ 1)1 & .~ I . \ I,! r ~ (I~' I ~ ~D-i ~ Jt .. ~ \'J cr ~ ~ I II LC ~ I '~ . ~7~\~ - lV ~ ~ /Q' / I .~~ f- @) I . '/ .., A tJ f-- ~.I'" '-:;'-'j'~'~.~. ¥ì L City of I Federal Way - : Potential I Annexation Area I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Federal Way PAA Legend: D Federal Way . Algona D Auburn D De. Moines D Kant D Milton . Pac:iliç D Federal Way, P AA D Algona, P AA D Auburn, P AA. D Kant, PAA. D Milton, PAA. D Pac:iliç, PAA. Vicinity Map Scale: 0 1fl Mile ~ N ~ t.tIp Date: December, 2003 Please No18: I City of Federal W~. ThIB map Islnf8nded for UBe 33530 First Wæ¡ S, as a graphlœl repreBentalon Federal Way, WA8aOO3 ONLY. The City of Federal I (258) 661-4000 Way mak&8 no warranty WHN.c:i.fedend-way.wa.us as to its ICCUraG'j. I A F8døral Way I Map I oJm """-'dac4Ig......p..rri IfJ I i I ¡ i. ( j '\'1 IA--lJ_l IJ ~i\\..\> I_J ~ lift I j ~~ lu I -E I I~ ~ ----r y I . Elf} ~~~ L I .,- ~t r- ~ '~~5~lr ke =:- '- ~ ~ r ~~. -\ ~ ~ . a Þ-?~u¡: .f1, ,- r 1\ ~ ~ Sp\~ ~!f~~ í" f ~ ~J ~ - - '--- : ~~. I~ ~ ¡ ~Cr -~ ': tî ~ I ~ V'I/ -1 I r I <:l! ,~ , Q T, ~;Ç¡I I «L' ti n -1- I \ ~ i~::: iq~ ~ Ci 8-~-a.. -I nN ;1 to ry ~ -!1 / "£~ J c;~ ~, ~ I II f-j -. \i - :---- " rc d:1 .,...1 ~ E! ) ~n.¡)f¿ ! I ~ I ~ i ! ~~ :;:; ul' -11;! Jlllbo.. Z 4 I -- f- I p-I /)--- 2~ J . h -'- .. I / ~f-- r-:;5) r¡ _..':..~ II, ~ <l(tu~ ./ \. I \ I iJ I J f j !:: ~~ =- I~ ~'t!iJJj :-ra~ ¡' - ~ a - .'1 - ... 0 .-1,_.1 -'"17 .. ~ - II!! NOIfh ~4--' -:::J / lake ., ~.-"!" -- I 1..1 ," T Hi".- ", T 7 ?o' )\¿\ ~-y_.., .. Y 1 == f--' I -I ~ # U ~J w I J ¡ t,fj I I / 7V I ::::>1 --'\Dt! I'" I \J ,. i\. .-.~. :>~B=-=l ,~.~ I " ~¿II"- . ~ D . I +- ~ r:þ~ ~ !, I ;' =f ~'i & -§ / ~j ~ ¡ I I . l w =-.-J" / I ~ I - ~) I~ r ~ (i.f 1110VÍUl I ~ ~ ìfi 1 ~J J!J ~ ~ -j LL !e / ~Vl \\ C c¡~(~ /71 (~rj I . ù?T i:< 'Yul ,il' . /) I I V;~ ~' I', ' - - ~ r l1- I I v ----, Par, . .~ , - \,,=.J ) 'I i,tn,... 1/7 t ~ - t r II 1-.r:"-l.ii;~-~ ~ ~ ~ L I I Mlnon /- I I -u ffi-" .~.. .. 1----<" City of Federal Way - Potential An nexation Area Community Level Su bares Bou ndaries Lðgend: Potential Annexation Area - Community Level Subareas: D Redondo East (Redondo East) 0 Star Lake (Nor1heast) D Camelot (Northeast) D North Lake (Northeast) D Jovita (Southeast) D ukeland (Southeast) D Parkway (Sou1heast) Other Areas: 0 Incorporated Area D Unincorporal8d Area Source: City of Federal Way. GIS DiviSion & De partment 01 Community Development Servi088, BWR, ECONor1hwest. PM SfBering Committee. December 2001 Vicinity Map Scale: 0 1fl Mile ~ ~ N Map Dale: DeGember, 2003 Ple88e Nole: City of Fedel'lJ W~, This map I. Intended for UBe 33SS0 First Wæ¡ S, 88 a graphical repreB8I1ta1on Federal Wæ¡, WA 9&003 ONLY. The City of Fedel'lJ (258) 661-4000 Way makec no warranty VNtN.ci.faderal-wl'f.wa.u8 ill to itJ¡ ICCUracy. å Fiidaral Way Map II Jml<e8lpuldoc4lcom 1IIIp...... '\\.1"'"" I ~ /~~ III\~ I. ,JrW-L1 t J 11\\ \ \1 ,l...,~>~... '.'." /If :¡, I Lu8 I ==-\. ~ ' ',,~~: , - ~~~. Mal'O 'j I 8 ,t- - -L J rstf riJ<)D L . ~~ -.- t ~ ~ ~ l:z2r11 ,~ ~ ~"I ( II! \ Þ oJ' - Þ'"ll iii.. : I- '- ) s P l' It=~ ~: ~ I ~ ~ !- J' U -=r C- ~ 1 ~ " , f-- ~,Þ. -C-- ~ (UJ lì ~I ~ )~~~~,~ I~ '-" I ~f-c;:Y, ~ ~ 1 y ~:I , 1/ _-11 rl r-;-1~J111~ I ~~ ~: nO \ --i ~ ~~ r; , y¡~, I I ¡ ~ "'-"'0 a 11.£= \'1 nL'J) - ~:fl~ ;yT °, ~ " '- -" ....... 0---- h '. +\' - 7 \ ~ ~ ~ f-" UI:.' - ,{/ "--.J K~ , h ~. ..~ 8T ' '- nel t /Î ! J ': ij' ¡ ~.L J!l F:"" "Ii:\~. .-~irr~! Aubu/1I' . , ':Z: 't :'ì ~ 'f- ~I~ ~~ ì 1'1- I :!\- ì'----;- ~r------ Y- -I B 1" 'I~ 1--. v I ---- ' . ~ --- \ l----r:::T I.A I I .. I]" ',L..< '.!( ,AT' ~ ,I" .-- ~.. ~~ I - I- j.t'l 8,: J I~ ~t:"l - ~~. '.. t--q ~'C;¡ ~ wdlrar- 1.';'\ =- '., t--- R/~ ~'. II' (', - . ~ ..1 . -. . tr-J ' ... '" - ~ I tS\ . -., 1 U -;~ I III~ 'jVi."'~ 2)~ rr-:', ~, '. ,r I f~ '. - ~'~ rI.. .\.':J 'hi T\. ~ f!iJ ~ ~ ~ LJ " , .' 7{ (,- ~.,.. .-!4 -" ~ . ~" ~ ;J.:FrL1 l~~ch~lr\ ~~ -I'~ ~ . I .. ~~~,"'-. ~[') . 1iI "1 '-::t .. i" í~ D~ é ¡~ ' -'. J-\ -,..~ L ¡II reo 1/ I .. I"':~ ~ - ~. .. I I I I- -.L.. L .. ! --.U..I rr Jr, I 11 ~ tL 1t¡~ '1 LIJ ~ 14'~ I ~'l ¡_.~ ( ,I >~ .. . Y :4, . :=. ~ T < T r'" r-ll ~. ::' tl~' '==:::, , I' ¡ i, . >'; If =: \i ~r~ - í Ìé~ 7 - I ,~ ~ llari i;}-/, , ~,:".'eJ 1,IIJ~ v@ ì ~ i P.Jl I ~ I.~/ I r/~ ~ --, Í' 1 ~; / ~;/ 8 .. ~ '11 r?\~ £.f, I-- r I , r; - ' ~------ I I . Mlnon I. ~ I ) ~ -.. ~ ,L I '11 City of I Federal Way - : Potential I An n exatio n Area I. I I Sensitive Areas: I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I J Scale: ~O:andS and ftreams I' ~ were IdentifIed In a 0 1/2 Mile 1888 Ci~Federai Way stu . Wildlife ì ~ N hlbllat I &lIon -==- com. from tIle StItt of WaahlngtDn PI.e No1&: I Thll map Is Intended for Ute as a grapijcal npr..ntaUon " ONL V. The City Of Federal Way makes no wamnty as to ill ilGCurac.y, Legend: . Lakahaven UIIIIty Dlrtric:t Well . Private WIllI (All US" In Use and Unused) BluefGI'IIIII Hlron Brlecing Hili N Sll'8II1Ie / I Anadromous FIlii Runs Rlllident Fish Pl8llInt IV Riparian AnIU IV Ulban Natural Open Space .AI Water FCMII . oN DllpAqulfar Eutom Upland Aqulfor . ,N Redondo , Minon Channlll Aquifer . .N "'rror Lake Aquifer SusClptibiliIV to Grol.l'ldNatar Contamination 0 Medium Sell8itivity SulClptibiliIV to Grol.l'ldNatar Contamination - High Sen8IDYII¥ 100 Year Floocillaln Wellandl Source: KIng County GIS Cenler, December2001, City of Foderal Waf ColT1lrehenllYe PID, 2000, Laléehaven UtIlity Dlrtric:t, 2002 Shllldon and Alloc:iales, April 2002 and State of Washll'løton 11118 document Is not uub8IIUIe for a field IlI'Yøy, ADDITIONAL SENSInVE AREAS MAY EXIST. CI. ca ::E ~ ¡;; 'u > Map Date: Deoember, 2003 City of Federal W~. 33S80 First Wrt¡ S. Federal Wr¡, WA 9&003 (258) 661-4000 \fNINsj,f8dltral-WlY.wa.U6 I Map III I' A Federal Way . .,rWmlklo/þooldoc4lc..m I .t:...J I II ' rr . vr , '1 II' SIIIr Lob . ~ I .,., , ~ ! II ,r ~_' ~~ j ~ I r\-[ ~ Ie- II ~ iO- , m~ = .\. . ,,!.. .. , '= rnEE cd \,/: ,I,:: ;<:amerøf::' J.~ r;¡tri1 ~ ~-~:i .'.~~.~ '"-li::" « ~~i'-';77:':~(:~ ~i<,' ~ w FT/[ FE¡ ~ ~' ., ~~\l" -=lffi§m' r-~' ,~ \=J ~ ttJ ~~~ )=1H=;1 I- f--f-- ;if I-'-r illtJj. {)! 8l11li11 -;;¡'\-I >-+-- t--J:'- :nl- Way '" ~ ~ n-ILtt Il L~ ~ ~"" I' .~ .It' L~"':' ~ ~ I [ ';J IL ..l... .w !f=J -" yD:l~m ~R ~~ 1 U ~ ~~ ~~~I \5 U~ ~~ ~~ ~ EfJb1m7",~ ~,~ ~ æJ=DBw;~=æ m@ ~~~~ I~h~ ~ ~ ~',',.¡t.: ¡,' .~,:: I --- ! -, ~ :r:L:'::i{:;,,"',t:'¡ :/::: I 1= "- -. /'~..':';"':i'i ~.. ',I ~~ ,"" --I :1 ~ ~ tli f£~~ II ~ ~6IJ~ l r>'fJ f-- ~r. I t..k. ~ffiqr f-l .! 1.:1 I~I} ~ '-I -' .~Ccþ 'UI' f;~ lMI - .J~f.,i"i~;:~:,,;i~,:,T'¡;;"-i'\'~'iL !IiJ ~:':;"i:;,L;i¡;,,;:¿:rL ~Æ~T,...":,,, ',\ ./:r~. -- - """ I, ~I".' L ffi i ~I æ ~i~EJ City of Federal Way - Potential Annexation Area Geologic Hazards Legend: ~ Landslide Hazard Areal El'O8lon Hazard Area (There are NO coal nine hazards or IlIÎsmic hazards in this lrea.) Potential Annexation Area- CommLllity Levll S ubareu: D Redondo East (Redondo Eut) D Star Lake (Norlheut) D Camelot (Northeast) D Norltl LiIkII (Northeast;) D Jovita (Southeast) D Lakeland (Southea&1) D Parkway (Sodh.ut) OItter Areas: D Incorporated Area D Unlncolpol1ll:ed Area Sou roe: King County GIS Center, D8C8mber2DD1 This document i I nat a substitute for a field survey. ADDITIONAL SENSITIVE AREAS MAY EXIST, ~ ~ Q. cu :E ~ ¡;;; 'u > Scale: ~ 0 1fl Mile ~ N Map Dale: December, 2003 PleaseNo18: ~ of Federal W"I. Thll map Is Intended for use 0 First W:t S, as a ~1~caI npr888ntat1on Fed8ra1W~, A9aOO3 ONL , he City of F&d&raI (258) 661 000 Way malœs no warranty WHN .G.f8deral-WlY.wa.U8 as to ill m:uraw. .å Fëdsral Way Map IV .JuoonAn bt/pu/dac4/crll'l.11I1 Figure V Potential Annexation Area 2002 Existing land Use Distribution (Based on Total Acres) 158.8 73.2 30.6 . Commercial III Easements . Industrial 0 No Data . Office . Open Space, Common Areas & Drainage . Public Park . Quasi-Public . Recreation III Residential, Multi-Family 0 Residential, Single-Family 0 Rights-ot-Way . Utilities 0 Vacant . Water 11\--1 ~ (7Jt,'ï T- ~_L 'J ~{\-\ ~ I '} tf- . ,- ~ I ~ l-E~ : "f.::!t-- ~ ~ ~ ~-J I ~ I _.1 E;s¡rr2~) \ ~~Abr ~ ) I ~-1 r~~' [.ilEí' _~E~iI ~ . åB\ "'- ?I~ ~ .. n-u- irY, L :,~-~ ~~ t ~ t~ ~5'- ~ I=-...), ~ I L\ ~ -;.. ~' \\~~ i J- -c -, .," ~ ~l \:: I v L 8.\ I' 1-"\ ~?" ~ Y : «'{ ~ n " ~;¿: I c¡~~-r~i ~~ h~~ f-Il-- r=1 ~ ,~ ~ ,"I ~, L, t I . . I -..: -h -~,:: --¡ 7 \ rr- ":: . . I ne (-- '-- I HI- .. . U -/'i I . . / 1 ~ ' ~ Ll~ rr ¡AubUrn ;1"1 ~- ~- ~ ;-.:":': -~II 7 ~~ . I~ ,,'. J '-..~ r= ~~ ~ c ~~~!-~ 2°~ ~1.1'\ I 1 u -'- t ,¡ú)ll~ortJ¡. "1. ~ -! ~ l ::J '6 ~ aø:l. - ¡Y. ~..l.~ ,u T H_~ '-i~ T 7 ~ I e )\5 ~ #. Y ~ r ¡ï-' I 0 --I q, LJ .~.' ~ - I ~ ¡ I ~ I f / . -, ~~,. II ¡a'" _\J,. !~". Æi,Js5~-. -:q: l.~ , .. f ¡r¡-L ~I ¡t;)l, Q~ = . t-i I ). u~ =0- if/I ~ fT'. I ;9~ I I D ---r- -- ..uJ -- I œT ~ ~' "," I .:: \E ~ /( ~ I. "'v 1.1 Ð ~ - !Mo II ~III~ ~ -, A ~ .j L ' ' I' MiRon "7- -- ~ - rn... '\¡,. - ;¡ .....,......... ~ City of Federal Way - Potential Annexation Area Parks & Cu Itu rei Resou fees Legend: Recreatlonll helll'll..: 0 Fishing Ace_, LBe Geneva ø Fishing Ace8l6, Lab Killamev e Federal Way Senior C8II1:8r ø North Lab Improvement Club CutllJraI Resounl8s Ð Fancher HOU88 ø Sutherland's 6u Stltion and Grocery Ð Weøtborg Houle Comml81lty Level Subarea Boundary . Public Park D Incorporated Area 0 Unincorporlted Area Soun:e: City of Federal W8) GIS, KIng COl81ty Department of Natural Resources, December 2001, Federal W~ SlII'1ior CIII'1Ie!\ Februa.ry 2002 and Stale of WlUlnn Jlon. Department of Fish and Wllcllte, February, 2002 ca. ca 2 ~ ¡;;; 'u > Scale: ~ 0 1r¿ Mile ~ N Map Dale: December, 2003 PleaseN0t8: ~ofFederai W~, This map Is Intended for use 0 Firat W:6 S, as a ~,hlcaI npresentlllon Federal W~. A 98003 ONL " he CIIy Of Federal (258) 661 000 Way makes no WIITIIIty WHN.Jj .federal-wI'J .wa.UB as to ill illiGuraw.  Federal Way Map VI 11dw8't1'1AA8l'11mlbolpuldoc4/p 1Ib....1 , ~ .::--- .,1 I ---- . I . I Auburn . I '-I .. -.. . I . I . I Mlnon City of I Federal Way - : Potential I Annexation Area I Federal Way P AAI Pre-Annexation I Comprehensive I Plan : Designations I I I I I I I I I I I I I , , I I I Please Note: I This map Is Intended for U88 as a graphical npr88entatlon I ONLY. The City of Federal Way makes no warranty . as to ita Buraey. I I MapVII-1 Legend: . Commll1i1;y Busin888 . Mum Family . Neighborhood BUlin.. . Parke and Open Space . 0fIIc8Park D Single Family, Medium Density D Single Fanily, IIgh DIIII8ily Sou All: Cnv of Federal Way Scale: 0 1r¿ Mile ~ Map Dale: Deaember, 2003 City of Federal W~, 33S80 First Wat[ S, Federal Way. WA 98003 (258) 661-4000 www.c;j.f8deral-WI' .wa.us A Fëdøral Way . JI.lllmlkll/pllldac4llm¡u.1I1 ca. ca :2 ~ ¡:; 'u > tl N IT ~ Q? ---- . .;--- "..... I I I I I I I I I I I I I I j I IJ 0 I I II I I I I I () I I- I I I I I . / I I I I I I.'" . I I Aubum I I '-I ... -.., I I . I . I . ,. .I I I City of Federal Way - Potential Annexation Area Federal Way Pre-An nexation Zoning Map l..8g..d: . BC (Communty Bulln.s) . BN (NllighborhoDd Bullinlll8) . OP (Office Park) D RS35.0 (1 UnltJ35,DOO Sf) D R68.8 (1 Unltl8,l100 SF) D RS7.2 (1 Unltl7,200 SF) D lUlU (1 UnitJ5.ßOO SF) . RM3800 (1 Unlll38GO SF) RM2400 (1 Unlt/24GO &F) . RM1800 (1 Unltl1lOO SF) Souroe: City at Federal Way CI. C'II ::E ~ I:: 'u > Scale: ~ 0 1flMIle ~ N Map Dale: December, 2003 PleaseN0t8: ~of Fed,1'II W~. Thl. map Is Intendadfor u., a First W:t S, as a ~1ijcal npr88entatlon Fadel'll W.2' A SaO03 ONL . h, City Of Fedel'll (258) 661 000 Way makes no warranty VMW.d.f8dllral-way.wa.us as to ill lliCurac;y. A F8deral Way Map VII-2 . AIolnlmk88/ l8lldoc4ll"",1In1 IWU" ( IN' -~_L- I \J 1(\\ ).. \::. I }. ~I"if ~ ~j~~.1 ~I~ l< 1:::-' ,r'Ì ~L C. : ,.-:;¡~- ~'j~.,,' Oil ~ ~ L Jí. I h." , " Molnl R' l R-- - l..l1. ~ J" ~~GY.u ~ v""' -)~' ilÇ r - T I-;n .,- ¡-. t. ~~ ?!~'r\18S '\ ~~I~\J PI I"-\~ Stø'I-i~; ,JV ~ - Ì"- f---< .) ~ :J . t:Æ r I-- :- ~~ ~ 1@, L. --U:J~~1.~........" l' I~~. ~~ \~% I J-~-C '-"--- (:f/...~I(Î' --=~ Cr [.n:~ 1 ~" ~ ,,~ "c:;:': ~ 1/ l' I I ~;: r=1 èT r iPxW-'^ VL l§ ~ n ~ \ - ~e 'I, ¡' ~ 11 ~ ,..;'j " I:;;¡... L I n I è .' ~~ " --.:"" -+i' - /' r -.- ~ - . - -.l I- ' 1.11:.' - \~, .7f" . ~ 1.fJ1" ~E- , - n ~ 1c ~ _L rl ~ u tnelðr~ -- . ' ., -"'II"" ~ I F/7 tf . t.;'~ rI! Aubum V ~ ::i ~ - 4 ,., ~~ II -' I ~ I h r-- -I -<11 Vi ~ JL;l I 1 -:.. f T ~/ '-. ~ ~- ~ I ~ Ý~ L r I 'J' -, - ~ ~ - ~ - \~, := - ~~ 71 ~nrr~ ~-~~. v- - .~~ 111 ¡; ,:. - ...J' ~ j~J1~ (2'T'(lk~. J' J f'í ' do ,7' I ~j.41"-, ¡ . --z. [} ~ ~ ~ 1J' ì"..A,- ~ - ~ ¡.-. . 0 ~ ~ [ -, ~,~ -r- I ,l --f 1'~ I ~ /lJ~-= P+~ J: I~ L ~ ,~~t- ' I r- ) ~ - ~ uT - 'i' [f. L I /¿ -à~ M -' ~ b rß\ if. I ( I 'Jovita " 'XIII" ~A ~lIr 'f '~ l-NI. ~r~ Å ~~ ill'" (;i n (I I 1/ ~ n \j ~ ~ ~~ 3=}:-(, i I /Y ., . ' !f = ~ ~ r-/\ ~ J - /( 1- ~ \'1,' -/ r I .- I-c ~~'.J ,..... ~ II ~ltI~~~ /. I - - ~~ r- '¡"I ~ .! ~. ~J )/ J I f7Mlhon /' -j"ï'ñ- ~ ;¡ [-) Lr-< City of I Federal Way - : Potential I ' Annexation Area I' I Su rface Water: Facilities I I I I I I I I I I I I I I J I I , , I J I I I , Legend: . Conveyance FlClllty . Rlllidential Surfue Wilier Faåli;t  Commeralal SufaGe Wallr FaGiIIty R8(IIIonai Stormwalllr FIeIIII88: 0 Lake Dolloff 0 uUet e P.32 (Camelot Par1c) 9 P_IIIY Canyon Culvert 0 Regenay Woods. DIY 1 ø Regen.", Woods. DIY 4 ø Regenay Woods. DIY .. (2) 0 S 38Oth St Emblllkment (1) SW8et Bñar Dnilagel ß1)FOYement 0 Regençy Wood6, Div 1 G Regency Woods. Dw 4 (3) D Problem, (In P AA) See text. 0 Problem. (Outside P.AA) See text N &ll'8IIIIs 100 Yeu FlooqJllln . Wellßds D Hyl8bo8 Cre8lc: B88ln D Lower Green RIver lain D Lower Puallt Sound Basin D Mil Creek Buln D WhiIB River Basin Source: King County GIS CentM'. D8Cem&er 2OD1.l<ìng County Department of Nllural Resolft'., December 2001 & JanullY - g. March 2002, ::E King CoUlI;V Asset b Developllllm and -ë Managem8llt SlCItton, 'C:;: March 2002 :> Scale: 0 1fl Mile ^ NobI: ~ Wøllandl and mama N were identified in a 1998 CIII¡ 01 Federal Way study. ~ ~ Dale: December, 2003 CIIv 01 Federal W~. 33S80 Firat W'" S. Federal Way, WA SaO03 (258) 661-4000 YNNi.å. f8deral-wøy.wa.u8 Please No1&: I This map Illmned for ute 18 a graphical npr888ntat1on ONLY. TheCllyóf F8d8ra1 Way mlbl no WIIT8nty as to ill accurac.y. J I Map VillI A F8deral Way . AI boIpu/d.c4bllWII...~.'1I1 I Ir~. ~ /~~~'I\~I~I ~ I~~ : i~~H~ ê ;N ' ~ '~#ç¿ ~ y ~ ~ ..".. J~ .Ol.~ I Ifi ~ -r¡ ~ - 1-1LT\-j I I -.1 Et.(rl1 j ~1A - L f- I Ÿ ~ÍU Z '~~~Er e /--'""- 14 ~,; r1' )' L- 1- r ~ ~ ~' r\ , 'I ::.. Ï2 l J ~. U+- i 11 ¡ L ;'{:~' \ft1... ~ ~~\~I\~~l- ~ii ~ = t1~ J cv l~.. 1.1-'\ ~ !lJI~ ~ I) .n ,~ c..1 rr--r- r\ S2Hlh r I ~ -t I r I . ~ ~[ [.:: Cl ~ i I ~~ I ~ n ~ I ~ , ~l>- r (i-~ 1'1 "k-"'" - , - " r t ~~I t;, L- -/ nÏð ~8T ~ IJ, -~~- ~ ~I.DI ~"Q/.I1= E; ~'i'...~ ~'-¡2 ~ 1\ ~ ~ .. , ~ \\~) ¡"e t- -c- I aT I. ~ ~.'.-r I I ~ 17? = !~ ~yJ L----[(! Aubul'll ~ ;; I:l I f- 7. - ì I 'f- I ~I h r-- - -". ~ - '1 .~ 11'" I f ~ ~ _......:..~ ~ II I; ~ ~Øi~ -t 'rE' =7 ~:~~ iL,,}:rq ~ .~ ~ -~ ¿s:' - ... >- 'i-1 '\ <. - cd' ~ \ . 833111111;;¡-;:P /!!,.~ ~<) f-- - I I . I I I ," I' fr1 (:@ .- ~ ~ 7 ?o~., "j(j~~_i1.~~g~ ,f--- I = -I ~nlll 1.-, ~ =Ti"'Œ:~ ~ ,,~ . ~ i ~ ~~!,J/ ! ~ 1.1 \J I = t< t- /'" =' ¡ ~Î~ '~l r J .11£ "1"""'-"~~~19/ D : I .r 10 1.- '11~~/7!r i'~ .~ I ~'-i 1_1' ~8'.~ ~J l..c '- I I I J ". j ~: ~- ,V¡.i ~ ~\1l ._~ I ., 'oviJa ~l ~ LL 0-; L1J" ~, ~ it' <C (I ~~ ~ I I'D 0 ~(. r\ II - ì v r Ir- I 'r "auf t- . . :¡ - , A ~ ~t - r- I LI I I 4.lnol '-7-~--u-m"'.~" ~7 - I City of Federal Way - Potential Annexation Area Arterials & Local Streets Legend: Federal Way S1ho1 CI.sllcilllons: IV Prlnolpal Arterial IV Minor Arteñal IV Prlnolpal Co.IGlor IV MinorCo.eGlor Potential AnnlXl1lon ArIa. Comm LlliI¥ Lwei S ubareu: D Redondo Eut (Redondo Eu1) D Star Lak8 (NoI1heast) D Camelot (NOl1heast) D North LaIœ (Nol1heast) D Jovita (Southea&1) D Lakeland (Southeast) D Par1lway (Southeast) O1I1lr Areas: D Incorporated Area D Unincolporlt8d Are. Sou me: KIna Coul11y GIS Center, DIIO8mber2DO1, CiI¥ at Federal Wæ¡ Col11lrehensÌVII PIIR, 2000 ca. cu 2: ~ ¡;;; 'u > Scale: ~ 0 1f¿ Mile ~ N t.tap Date: December, 2003 Please Not&: ~ of Federal W~, Thll map Is Intended for ule a First W~ S, as a ~1h1ca1 npree8ntr11on FederalW~. A9aOO3 ONL . he Chy of Federal (258) 661 000 Way makes no warranty WIN(.c;j,f8deral-w.y.wa.us as to ill ilCCurac.y. å Federal Way Map IX . Jml<8o/ lolldoc4l..,....1 YJ I ¡:.I -( j ~L, I --W-l I t J I Î'- \.. \ \ ,{ ." '< "?"cl ~ I -E '\.- ~~ ~ p1j ~ c v .. 01. ~ 'L fr 1 .:"... ."'nOIo r~~ r;, Jj -1 L " f/ ~A"'e f..--'- .. '\ r"" '- J'-- UN," &A6A1 --, .~ ~ ~ \1 ~ ~ ¡P-:' -ji l L c ~ 'ê'" 1---r \~. ~ ~IJ ~ ~ (;7) ~ T 1. ' ~... " 1 . ~ ~ 1 ._h' Y .. -I I r , ! ~ ' , C1 I ~~ c: . "n --j- \ ~ !~ Y ~~ ' ,- - -=\ ,~ 'I ~ JJ ~ r. -In (j '~8T ~ - J- 'Ÿ ]"1 -cQ/ 1t1£; ~ J I ~I FT 11 E = r ¡ ~ ,¡%J, ;--_! 'l - Î ! ne t,. --! P I ZZ ! Œ j.J -! All..... . 1- - I- I ~ I -, - ~ ttL,. fJ. - ~ I ,¡f -. "'1 r ~ ~ --':". I I I: -.. - I I \:Jz'8t .. ~ >' ,> ~ . - . - ~;- r ~ ! -r'.~~ ~ r rj ~B1 ~~- (~-~~~ r - .;'1 ~.. f¿ \ .. - ..J I \- tel ," I' H ~ ,- . 'It 7 I I ,. I ]" I V )\j .. -A~ . ~~ - ï -. 0 ~ " lJg-- . = iDT-- ""rtd~ J ( I c -I ~ I U 81:. r1Ml' -'. ,. i.~ -7! ~ J :s:- ! ~ =: ~ ~ I I"" I \J / ,. ~ -. i ¡~ .~ l.~ 01 "" "'-"'ifìW~' --- > . L ~- ~ 'f- I, T é:f 1- ~'i & A -- L i- -; I I --f'" ~ ..LL.C -r-' 1 I I T I + \j(! r ~~ ._~ t ~10rita I ~L1j:rl ~ ~ N --, ~ (I ~ I ~:T ~~,;I f .... ~ ~ I - .:::E - - -~. 7' ~ I 1\ . I ~~o+ .. , A ~f7 - - , L I I ~I"'R "-7"-"~"m...~~..7 -< I ~ City of I Federal Way - : Potential I Annexation Area I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Existing Roadway Level of Service Leg8l1d: Level of Service Interseø!ionll: 0 Me8l& City LOS . Failed Intersection (Before Mitigation) Federal Way SInIt CIIIIsificationll: IV Pdnclpal Alledal IV Mnor Arterlll IV Pñncipal Coleclor IV MnorCole~or D Incorporated Area D Unincorporated Area Potentlll Annexation Area . Commlllity Løvel S ubueu: D Redondo Eut (Redondo EUI) D Star Lake (Northeast) D Camelot (Northeast) D North LaIœ (Northeast) D Jovita (Southeast) D Lake/and (Southeast) D ParkwaV (Southeast) Soun:e: King County GIS Center, December2DO1, City 01 Fedelll WaJ¡ Coll1lrehenslYe Plan, 2000, Jones & Stokes, 2002 c:a. n:II :::E ~ I: 'ü > Scale: 0 1r¿ Mile ~ N ~ Map Dale: December, 2003 Please Not&: I City 01 Federal WfII, This map Is Intended for use 33&0 Firat WaIf S, as a grap~caI repr88entlllon I Federal Way. WA 98003 ONL V. The City óI Federal (258) 661-4000 Way makes no warranty WWN.å.federal-wlY.wa.u8 as to ill aŒurac;y. I I MapX I A F8døral Way .Jmkll/p88ldoc4/lllum I I I IrJ ¡ ,~" (J. ~, J,i.j_LT I' J II f\ \..\ \ J L ~ " ~I/~r~ Lu '-E'\.. I "-- ~ f ~~ --- c Y h~ : II Des I -' . V" T I ~= ..I'b --1-'11 ~ - -tt:r\, I -" Æf'!f B ~n?~ L -) I :l¡.;; r. ~~!1" ev- m~ .., r" l' '-;- r,. ~ - ~~ I~ 1 ~~ rjÏJ?(1 L ~. ~:, [ I. i j j ~ - ~ f\ ~ ~ ~ w:: ';~ - U L = -' := I t;~ . ~ t:J ~ rL ~ ~ ~ ì ~ >; I I eft . ~ 1 ~. ~ £ Irr ¡ I ",,-' V - I r, ! ~ " C1 IT, ~ I ~ . "n -j- \~!Þ-; ~~ . - - "\ ,~ 1 04'" ~ L ~I n l.) i:ï;..8T 'J '-I~ ~ ~ - - ~<~" I ~'Uk.'" ~~ . I ~ : I ~]I >-1 h-r~~ . ~~~>- ,æ ;--_! f\ '( - ... ...., ..', ~e t;" -- I IT . '<f ~. ~ I ~.:! ~ ~! Aubul1I - T,1tl 1-- 7. -If- I ~II/)--- J'., ~ -'"1 --- ;.c. -(" 1---' :th If - 1-:b' - ..-':.. . i I I 11 ~ ~ 1 I r - \:"='1. 1ii ~ ~ c J ~ ! - ~< ~ ~ ~ ~~. ~:HII~" - ~~ - "I - I - rI~' 1- . ~. ~ .:II.J'~ "" ~ -- ~I. - í~l ~lœ. ; I I 1..1 ,u I ~ I .-- 7 . I '" I ? I g)(¿ * <1 W ï -. '" . \J ~. !'j¡~~ i I ¡ -I fT-' U K r Œc J J 0 ¡ I ~ I I / = -7 " I /)1) 'p+! .'. I \J ,. \. = jl ~êï-= f1t ~ ~ I ..Ii "'....-...~ I 'ìT 1_;- ~ ~f I , ~~ '? I . ~ ~ l I-. ---Jf' ". r I 'I I .ll-r- I' I I I ~ 1íJ I ~m .888Ih~ I 'l!JoVÜß, 1- ~ Vi UJ Ji:~- -J LL f1 ---, (I ~- ~ I I æ ~,j ~ I I( I .. - ... - I - - "" - - ~ r l1- r -\ v-, r-" I ... ~ ~o+ - =- -Q.. - - - ~~ - - I i I ~Inon /- I I J m'" - ~.. II '--I----< \\ I I I t City of Federal Way - Potential Annexation Area Year 2020 Roadway Level of Service Legønd: Level at Service Int8l'&8CJtion6: 0 Mem City LOS . failed lnìer&eelion (Before Mitigation) Federal Way ~1r811 ClaI ¡ification ¡: IV Pllnclpal Arterial IV "'nor Arlerlll IV Pñncipal Coleclor IV "'norCole~or D Incorponrtld Area D Unincorporated Area PotønUlI ARnndon Area - Commll1l1y Lovel S ubueu: D Redondo Eut (Redondo East) D Star Lake (Northeast) D Camelot (Northea&t) D North LaIœ (Northeast;) D Jovita (Southeast) D Lalœland (Southeast) D ParKway (Southeast) Soun:e: Kinll County GIS Center, December 2001, City at Feder'll Way Col11lrehenslVe riD, 2000, JonM & Stokes, 2002 CI. "' 2 ~ ¡;;; 'u > Scale: !:l 0 1r¿ Mile ~ N MIp Date: December, 2003 Please Nota: ~ of Federal W~, Thll map Is Intended for ule 0 First W:t S, as a~~hlcaI npr8lentlllon Federal W~. A 98003 ONL . he City of Federal (258) 661 000 WI'¡ make ¡ no warranty W/fN~ .1ederal-way.wa.us as to ita miUl'iCIY. å Fëdsral Way Map XI .Jm~,oml 0,.... City of Federal Way - Potential Annexation Area Legend: - Propoeed Inlle,section - Improvement I I I I I , I I I I I I I I , I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Please Nol8: I this map Is Intended for use as a graphical repres8l1ta11on . ONLY. The City of Fedel'll I. Way makec no warl1l11y II to itB IliGUraGY. 20 Year Proposed I nte rsecti 0 n 1m provements Vicinity Map Scale: 0 1/2 Mile ~ N ~ IYIap Dale: Decsmber, 2003 City of Fedel'll W~. 33580 Flrtt Wæ¡ S, Federal Way, WA 98003 (258) 661-4000 VNtN.c:i.f8dttraJ-way.wa.U8 I I I Map XIII A Fëdøral Way . 1m _,.8/dac4Jlnllmpmap.1III1 ~ J (n -¡ I_'}"'u I eMf ~ \> : 'tW I- ~ ~~~ ~"" I ~~~nb - ,~j K.- - I J:ÌLr\"Ij I ~ E .[9A - -.J 11 It ~tj - Fire I ~ .,- ~ - ~ UN., l:œ, ftiltrlct i'" r~ L " -. 139 ~llS l. ~ r=ln ~ ~ ~ í1R irI¡ L :sj r -«~~ I f?I/T, U,x;: ~ L( U L r ë=, ~ I ~~. ~ ~~ n~~~ --.", ~D- I~ Ir~"1--- >- ~ I ~~y '" / ~ II rl ~![-T- ~ ~ 11 .ø-'. tt ,5 ~ n = I if, J~ ~-/~ I r- ~ ~ ~r: C-¡n/7) '¡- ~ ~1 --= +1 '- Q:7 Fire I ~ I ~. = ~ Dlllltct " ~I~ hiT 1 - ~ - 139 -"-' ILL' 'J II I-- ., ì I-- fA - ~ 'l ~T luk-.8T1 ~ E !D¿Æ~:æ ~~ 8 I ~ ) 177 ! r- L W~ ~ I AlIbi", +-L T 'I I-- -'- ~ I Pi h 'r---¡ ~ 4~ ",... ""'l/ L- rf 1----. ;VI f J1=7 -... I I ~ rY'~ \. ... - \ I ~~ t .-- J VI' ~ 1" - ~~ = I-r ~'Æ7¡~.ra !'-:~~ °i - M - -1" ~ ~ r. -b @ag.. I l...J. ¡U I H ,- i I "1 I e j~! .' ... 11 I ~ o- r 0 n ~~ ~ c; r--+- CI let '" I -II hi] I ~';l ~ I ~..Jq,o I ' .----J ~,., ¡ LF J. ~ I ~ f I \J / rIA. ¿-~'~= .~ \ r L ~ "1"""'-* L~ . L") I ~.... "'~ (if"' n I Á-f I-- >- I ~- I I--- t~--j i ~ lli '-.r- ; I I I I 91 ~~ r A1ì (I ~ I 'oVÏûl, I ~ tLr-., UJ Jt~~ I ~ -::, ~, h::C1 ~ ~ I' 119 I - ~ \E - I-- A J( - J L, ~1-"' j I ~ltI~ ~), .. V/ . I ~ ~ ~ r/ I ., II f- II L I I f; '----- ~ Clivi Of i Milton II . \ ~... _II Lf---, hcllic l\ City of Federal Way - Potential Annexation Area Fi re Department Facilities L1lØ8I1d: . Fire SlIIion IV Fire DI8tr1ot Boundary Comml8li!;y LItVa. Subuea Boundary D Incorporated Area D UnlncolpOl'ltod Area Souroe: FedI... Way Fin! Department, City of federal Way GIS DMslon, February 2002 CI. cG 2: ~ c:: 'ü ~ Scale: ~ 0 1/2 Mile ~ N Map Dale: December, 2003 Pl8I8e Not&: ~ of Fedel'll W~, This map Is IntMded for use OFlrelW:hS, as a ~1h1ca1 n!pr88entatlon Federal W~. A 98003 ONL . he Cby of Federal (258) 661 000 Way makes no wamnty VNNI.Q :federal-way.wa.u8 1& to ita aœuracy.  F8d8l'a1 Way Map XIII . AIo,"'mkl8/ lMldoc4llllldlol.8m1 i\\J~ 1- (,I ~ ¡..J ~\.\ ~ï I }. .~ \ ,:' , ~ £1 I J..J- I ----J=...""" Vi I ~:;¡ f, -~ L- I I ~h' : --r::: Y I I DOI,¡..-;'~ c3 I .~ . J . MOil/ -} R 1'--' IÌILIÌ ) ~~øt~ ~: ~ '~Ïl- ~ / .I- , r "'" L:'!:- L '-, K8111 r 0 ::l. ~~n- \J ~þ ì=U [Ii .~ .. '" I ~'='- ..,.. 1\ Þ;1 .1. It ~ . -. \- u-R ~ ~ \ iD- ~ ~ IT 'ì k; I Lft " I' ~ ~;=:1' ~ ~ ~ ~ ,.~ -11 r/~["¡.r- C1ETI ~-I; «j' ." ~~ "..¡;= r =~'~~~ -<~,~ r: ~I ~ I r- It ííJ, = . PS- gJ .-.. --~ 1iõJ": ..>---q¡ rì::= E - . ~" ~:. ~!lL' ilif"f2Z- .1 rl ! ~'\ ~ ~e -!/ ~! lJ..j ! ~ -n ) tr! Auba... I- - 'I I- -ìlL I I - - . . 1----.' . Fl....w. . .. = .8 ..., I/) - ..-':. $- í" q;;,;,~ c- ~ :A~If.\.; \ ~ :J -.- - ...... - ~ ,- !- ~~ =- F8dll'l>-- .' ~ a>r- ~~~ ~ ..we:.'-J 'r:! ~ 0 , .- ~ s'- ~ - ~ ~ 1 U I --, JfC1~~ ,;";" I~ orth ~ ~--L - ~ J ~ --J '6 LIb -'-- \- l..uJ ,U I ~. '-ïA L_---.~ ]' I g )0 # I'8i' r -~ii-t. 0 , / \J ~ 1--1--. . # I . -iFf' j LJ ~ ¡"lb ~ ~ ~ o! I ,.( I VL/ ~? ~= -~ Lr:!'- ". '\~- ~1WI-T l~ M- T ,t [lì I r< -i - -41 >-. - - , I t r . f- . I f- -1 ).~ () ~ ~--1'.. i.LI". ~. I ---'-' I I I I I . ;¡j~LL)H ~ Jt.... Còì "'-. ~: (I /,1 ~ . ,-... \'\ 51 ~ ~W?, ,I ~:~ 'L- ~.-. ~C~!-4'i---( r~ , . U~ \Œ -. - ~ .~. . 1\ ( f- - II I l1 . -ø (-\'. - - . ~ -, !~- #l ........U .- . .-.- Pi. ¡¡ fi""cI I IlllIon /- I ì) m""ll n.... ~~ I .""U City of Federal Way - Potential Annexation Area I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Please No18: I Thll map Is Intended for ule as a graphical npr8lentltlon I ONL V. The City of Federal Way mikes no warranty IS to ill aoourac;y. I I Map XIV ì Pu bl ic School Facilities Legend: N School Dirlrict BoLl1d¡uy . Elementary School . Junior High School lIB Senior High School Potlllllial AnnlXllion Area . Commlllity Level S ubueu: D Redondo Earl (Redondo Eu1) D Star Lake (Northeast) D Camelot (Northeast) D North LaIœ (Northeast) D Jovita (South.at) D Labland (Southeas1) D ParkWay (SOUlhlut) OIlIer Arw: D Incorporated Area D Unlncolporated Are. Source: Flldel'llll Way School Dlrlr1Gt, City of Fedelll WI'i GIS DIVIsion, 2001 Scale: 0 1r¿ Mile !:l N ~ Map Date: Deaember, 2003 City of Federal W~, aaæo First WØtf S, Federal Way. WA 98003 (258) 661-4000 WltN Jj .federal-way.wa.u8 . Fëdøral Way .~k8,,¡p.o1dø.4Iochld""'11\1 I I - I Lœ I I I r:c;--- -- City of Federal Way - Potential Annexation Area I Water Service Legend: . Booster Pump Station ~ Intertie Vault W Tank . Well (Lakehaven Utility District water source) , '< Lakehaven Utility District Boundary ,,~~. Water Service Area Boundary N Water mains under 10" N Water mains over 10" Potential Annexation Area- Community Løvøl Subarøas: D Redondo East (Redondo East) D Star Lakø (Northeast) D Camelot (Northeast) D North Lakø (Northøast) D Jovita (Southøast) D Lakeland (Southøast) D Parkway (Southeast) Other Areas: D Incorporated Area D Unincorporatød Area Source: Highline Water District, 2001, Lakehaven Utility District, 2002 c:L nS :æ ~ c:: '<3 :> 0 Scale: 1/2 Mile L\ N ~ Map Date: December, 2003 City of Federal Way, 33530 First Way S, Federal Way, WA 98003 (253) 661-4000 www.ci.federal-way.wa.us Please Note: This map is intended for use as a graphical representation ONLY. The City of Federal Way makes no warranty as to its accuracy. A Fëderal Way Map XV ../usorslml<os/paaldDc4/wator.aml City of Federal Way - Potential Annexation Area I Wastewater Service, Septic Repairs and Col11plai nts Legend: . Septic Repairs (Complete/Pending) @ Septic Complaints .t., Booster Pump Station ~' Lakehaven Utility District Boundary ;~. SBWer Service Area Boundary N SBWer mains under 10" N SBWer mains over 10" D Incorporated Area D Unincorporated Area Potential Annexation Area- Community Level Subareas: D Redondo East (Redondo East) D Star Lake (Northeast) D Camelot (Northeast) D North Lake (Northeast) D Jovita (Southeast) D Lakeland (Southeast) D Parkway (Southeast) Source: Lakehaven Utility District, 2002 King County, 2002 .1 I C. <'IS :E ~ c: "0 :> 0 Scale: 1/2 Mile ß N ~ Map Date: December, 2003 City of Federal Way, 33530 First Way S, Federal Way, WA 98003 (253) 661-4000 WNN,ci.federal-waywa,us Please Note: This map is intended for use as a graphical representation I ONLY, The City of Federal Way makes no warranty as to its accuracy, A Federal Way Map XVI ..Iu.erslm ikeslpaaldoc4/.ewer.aml Federal Way Potential Annexation Area Annexation Feasibility Study Review Dralt De£ember 2003 ':;':¡""~;)i~~" ',,--, , . L_. ~ . ' 1",:- =". ~ ~" - '.' I .~..., 'w- .'.. -, ';""., , -.. ~ CITY OF'~"'~'-~~"';,*,"" Federal Way Annexation Feasibility Study Acknowledgements ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Federal Way City Council: Jeanne Burbidge (Mayor) Jack Dovey Eric Faison Mary Gates Linda Kochmar Dean McColgan (Deputy Mayor) Mike Park Federal Way Planning Commission: John Caulfield (Chair) William Drake Dini Duclos Hope Elder (Vice Chair) Marta Justus Foldi David Osaki Grant Newport Christine Nelson (Alternate #1) Tony Moore (Alternate #2) Merle Pfeifer (Alternate #3) Lawson Bronson (Alternate #4) Potential Annexation Area Steering Committee: Hope Elder, Federal Way Planning Commission William Drake, Federal Way Planning Commission Eric Faison, Federal Way City Council Linda Kochmar, Federal Way City Council Lois Kutscha, Resident Representative Thomas Murphy, Federal Way Chamber of Commerce Gail Pearson, Resident Representative Paul Reitenbach, King County, DDES Ed Stewart, Commissioner, Lakehaven Utility District Bev Twiddle, Commissioner, Lakehaven Utility District Geri Walker, Federal Way School District Potential Annexation Area Staff Work Group Representatives of the following Agency Departments and Divisions have participated: City of Federal Way Community Development Services- Planning Division City Manager's Office Management Services-Finance Division Management Services-GIS Division Parks and Recreation Department Public Safety Department Public Works-Solid Waste Division Public Works-Surface Water Management Division Public W orks- Transportation Division Other Agencies: Federal Way Fire Department Highline Utility District King County DDES Lakehaven Utility District Puget Sound Energy Agency Report Preparation Team: Consultant Report Preparation Team: City of Federal Way, Department of Community Development Services, Project Management City Federal Way, GIS Division, GIS Mapping Services King County, DDES, Data Coordination Prime Authors: ECONorthwest Henderson, Young and Company Contributing Authors: Jones & Stokes, Project Manager Mirai Associates Tetra Tech/KCM, Inc. Review Draft December 2003 Annexation Feasibility Study Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter A Executive Summary ............................................................................... A-1 Introduction......................................................................................................................................... A-I Conclusion .......................................................................................................................................... A-5 Implementation Strategies ................................................................................................................... A-9 Chapter B Operating Costs ........................................................'............................... B-1 Summary of Findings .....................................................................................................,.....................B-2 Key Assumptions .................................................................................................................................B-4 Departmental Detail...............................................................,..............................................................B-5 Chapter C Operating Revenues.............................................................................. C-1 Summary of Findings .......................................................................................................................... C-l Revenue Detail........................................................................................................"""""""""""""" C-3 Chapter D Net Fiscal Impact on Operating Revenues.......................................... D-1 Overview of Findings .............. .................. ..................... ...... ............ ............... .................................... D-l Distinctions Among Neighborhoods .................................................................................................... D-4 Chapter E Trends in Operating Costs and Revenues.............................................. E- 1 Trends in City Revenues and Costs.......................................................................................................E-I Revenue Trends....................................................................................................................................E-l Trends in City Costs .............................................................................................................................E-3 What Do Current Trends and Forecasts Mean to Prospects for Annexing the PAAs?............................E-4 Chapters F Capital Facilities Costs ........................................................................... F-1 Purpose................................................................................................................................................F-I Land Use, Population and Capital Facility Linkages .............................................................................F-l Overview of Findings ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... .................... F-4 Parks and Recreation............................................................................................................................F-6 Surface Water.....................................................................................................................................F-20 Water and Wastewater ........................................................................................................................F-26 Other Government Facilities...............................................................................................................F-29 Chapter G Capital Facilities Revenue .................................................................... G- 1 Revenues for Capital Costs ................................ ............ ............. ....... ........................... ..... .................. G-I Revenue Sources Currently Collected by Federal Way......................................................................... G-l Other Revenue Sources.............................. .......................,........ .......................... ..... ................ ........... G-2 Chapter H Net Fiscal Impact of Capital Costs and Revenues.............................. H-1 Introduction......................................................................................................................................... H-l Capital Revenues................................................................................................................................. H-l Capital Costs .........................................................................................,............................................. H-2 Net Fiscal Impact ......... ............ ..... ...... ............ ...... ..... ......... .............................. ........................ .......... H-3 Chapter I Implementation Strategies........................................................................ 1- 1 Introduction...........................................................................................................................................1-1 Review Draft December 2003 ii Annexation Feasibility Study Table of Contents State and County Support......................................................................................................................1-2 Local Taxpayers Share Equally the Cost of Annexation.........................................................................1-3 Tax Base Expansion............................................."""""""""""""""""""""""""""".........................1-5 Create Special Limited Districts in Annexation Areas to pay for Specific Costs .....................................1-5 Reduced or Phased Increases of Level of Service to Match Federal Way's Standards.............................1-6 Phased Annexation of Redondo East, Southeast and Northeast.......... ...................... ...............................1-8 Final Considerations - Strategies ..................................................................................................... 1-9 Post Script:' Future Application of this Document................................................................................................ ..PS-l Appendix A: Transportation Capital Cost Calculations Appendix B: Surface Water, Water, Wastewater Capital Project Calculations Figure A-I Figure A-2 Figure E-l Table A-I: Table A-2: Table B-1: Table B-2: Table B-3: Table B-4: LIST OF FIGURES Major Subarea Boundaries............................. .................................... Follows A-14 Community Level Subarea Boundaries .............................................. Follows A-14 Historical Revenue Collections by the City of Federal Way (1993-2001) ........... E-2 LIST OF TABLES Year 2000, 2002, 2003, and 2020 Population and Housing.................................A-5 2003 Population and Housing by Community Subarea......................................A-5 Operating Costs by Department by Potential Annexation Area (2003) .............. B-2 Estimated Staffing Increases by Department by Potential Annexation Area (2003) .................... .............. .................... ............ ........................ ...... .............. B-3 Public Safety, Criminal Prosecution, and Municipal Court- Estimated Incremental Demand by Subarea (2003) ........................................... B-8 Annual Public Safety, Criminal Prosecution, and Municipal Court Cost Impacts (2003 Dollars) """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""'" B-9 Review Draft iii December 2003 Table B-5: Table B-6: Table B- 7: Table B-8: Table B-9: Table B-1 0: Table B-11: Table B-12: Table B-13: Table B-14: Table B-15: Table B-16: Table B-17: Table B-18: Table C-1: Table C-2: Table C-3: Table C-4: Table C-5: Table C-6: Table C- 7: Table C-8: Annexation Feasibility Study Table of Contents Estimated Additional FTEs: Public Safety, Criminal Prosecution, and Municipal Court (2003) .................................................................................. B-10 Community Development Services-Estimated Incremental Demand by Division and Subarea (2003)........................................................................... B-11 Community Development Cost Impacts (2003 Dollars) .................................. B-12 Estimated Additional FTEs: Community Development (2003) ........................ B-12 Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services-Estimated Incremental Demand by Division and Subarea (2003)...................................................................... B-14 Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Cost Impacts (2003 Dollars) ........... B-15 Estimated Additional FTEs: Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services (2003) ..........................................................................................................B-15 Traffic Demand Driver Values .................................................................... B-16 Land Area Comparisons, Federal Way and PAA Subareas..........................B-17 Public Works-Estimated Incremental Demand by Division and Subarea (2003) .... ................................................................".... ................. ............... B-18 Public Works Cost Impacts (2003 Dollars)................... ......... """"""""""" B-19 Estimated Additional FTEs: Public Works (2003) ....................................... B-19 Cost Impacts for Indirect Service Departments (2003)................................. B-20 Estimated Additional FTEs for Indirect Service Departments (2003) ........... B-21 Operating Revenues Generated, by P AA (2003) ............................................... C- 2 Assessed Value (in 2003 dollars) ...................................................................... C-3 Estimated Assessed Value per Resident by Neighborhood (2003) ..................... C-4 2003 State Shared Revenue Distributions Per City Resident.............................. C-5 Building Space Characteristics by Neighborhood.............................................. C- 7 Estimated Land Uses for Collection of Surface Water Fees and Taxes by PAA............................................................................................................C-9 Summary of Utility Tax Revenues Dedicated to Operation and Maintenance Activities.......................................................................................................... C-9 Public Safety, Criminal Prosecution, and Municipal Court- Estimated Incremental Demand by Subarea (2003) ......................................... C-lO Review Draft December 2003 iv Table C-9: Table C-IO: Table D-I: Table D-2: Table D-3: Table D-4: Table F-I: Table F-2: Table F-3: Table F-4: Table F-5: Table F-6: Table F-7: Table F-8: Table F-9: Annexation Feasibility Study Table of Contents Estimates of Building Division Costs and Fee Revenue by PAA (2003) .......... C-ll Counts of Businesses by PAA (2000).......................................................... C-15 Operating Revenues Generated, by PAA (2003) ...............................................D-2 Operating Costs by Department by Potential Annexation Area (2003) ..............D-3 Annual Net Operating Revenues (or Operating Cost) of Annexation, by PAA (2003) ..............................................................................................................D-4 Estimated Population and Assessed Value per Resident by Neighborhood (2003) ..............................................................................................................D-5 Year 2000 and 2002 Population and Housing.................................................... F-3 2000 to 2020 Population and Employment, Federal Way PAA TotaL............... F-3 2020 New Population and Dwelling Units, Federal Way PAA, by Neighborhoods ...................................................,.............................................. F-3 Federal Way Potential Annexation Area Estimated Future Capital Costs............ F-5 Federal Way P AA Current Parks Inventory........................................................ F - 7 Federal Way Park and Recreation Levels of Service........................................... F- 7 Federal Way Potential Annexation Area Capital Costs for Parks and Recreation......................................................................................... F-8 Land and Development Costs for Parks and Recreation Facilities..................... F -11 Cost Estimate of LOS Improvements - Existing Deficiencies .......................... F-13 Table F-I0: Future LOS and Recommended Improvements ................................................ F-14 Table F-ll: Estimated Capital Cost for Roadway LOS Improvements................................. F-16 Table F-12. Table F-13: Federal Way Potential Annexation Area Capital Costs for Roadway Improvements.................................................................................................. F -17 In-Road Surface Water Facilities ............. ............................ ............................ F -20 Table F -14: Regional Stonnwater Facilities .................. """""""""""""" ...... ............ .......... F21 Table F-15: Residential and Commercial Drainage Facilities ............................................. F-21 Table F-16: Federal Way Potential Annexation Area Capital Costs for Surface Water Capital Improvements ........................................................................... F-23 Table F-17: Federal Way Potential Annexation Area Capital Costs for Water Service Improvements.................................................................................................. F-27 Review Draft v December 2003 Annexation Feasibility Study Table of Contents Table F-18: Federal Way Potential Annexation Area Capital Costs for Wastewater Improvements.................................................................................................. F-28 Table G-l: Federal Way Potential Annexation Area Capital Revenue..................................G-I Table H-I: Federal Way Potential Annexation Area Capital Revenue through 2020 (2002 dollars) ....................................................................................................H-2 Table H-2: Federal Way Potential Annexation Area Estimated Future Capital Costs (2002 Dollars) .......... .............."...... ................................................................... H-3 Table H-3: Federal Way Potential Annexation Area Estimated Net Revenues......................H-3 Review Draft December 2003 vi ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY Executive Summary Executive Summary INTRODUCTION STUDY PURPOSE The goal of this analysis is to estimate the long-term fiscal impact annexation would have on the City of Federal Way. As a baseline assessment, this study looks at the net fiscal gap the new, expanded City of Federal Way would face if the City were to annex any of the identified PAAs while trying to maintain current levels of services and current levels of taxation and fees. To account for the differences between the fiscal impacts associated with the day-to-day operation of the City and the impacts associated with needed capital investments, the study takes a three-pronged approach to assessing impacts: 1. Estimate the incremental operating costs introduced by annexation of the P AAs on an annual basis, and compare those costs to the incremental revenues the City would receive from the same areas. 2. Discuss how the balance of operating costs and revenues would be likely to change in future years. 3. Estimate the additional capital investments that the City would take on with annexation and compare those costs to the additional capital revenues the City could expect to receive from the P AAs. To provide the most intuitive and up-to-date information about estimated impacts, this analysis provides a snapshot of what the operating impacts would be if the City were in the position of fully governing each P AA in 2003. The assessment of operating impacts is based on 2003 costs of service and 2003 tax and fee structures, as outlined in the City of Federal Way 2003/2004 Adopted Budget, and is intended to represent a picture of fiscal impacts under steady-state operation. In essence, these estimated steady-state operating impacts reflect the ongoing "costs" that the City would face each year, beginning perhaps, in the third year after annexation and extending into perpetuity.! 1 In the initial years of annexation costs could be either higher or lower than the estimated steady-state impacts, depending on how the City chose to manage annexation. Among the determinants of transition-period costs will be the direct and indirect costs of managing the transition and the pace at which the City chooses to ramp up certain, discretionary service levels in the annexed area. Review Draft December 2003 A-1 ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY Executive Summary Estimated costs of capital improvements are based on the most recent available data (2002) and reflect estimates of the combined investments that will be necessary through the planning horizon of 2020 (all presented in 2002 dollars). There is no material effect on this fiscal analysis from using 2003 operating costs impacts and 2002 capital costs, primarily because the capital improvement costs are expressed in current (2002) dollars regardless of when the projects may be built in the next 20 years. The purpose of estimating the hypothetical gap that would be created if the City were to try to extend current service levels to the P AAs without increasing taxes is to present decision makers and the public with a picture of the true "cost" of annexation. Ultimately, of course, any such gap between costs and revenues is hypothetical. Cities have no choice but to cover their costs of operation. Consequently, if Federal Way were to annex any ofthe PAAs, any estimated "cost" associated with annexation would have to be made up through some combination of (1) stretching City resources through decreased levels of service and/or (2) increasing City revenues. The final chapter of this analysis examines a variety of potential implementation strategies to allow the City to bridge the identified fiscal gap. The Annexation Feasibility Study provides fiscal analysis and annexation strategies that are integrated into the Federal Way PAA Subarea Plan, particularly in terms of: . Identifying public services and capital improvements that would need to be in place to serve the Subarea Plan current and future land use pattern over time, and . Incorporating into Subarea Plan policies the strategies regarding agency coordination, funding sources, future land use amendments, levels of service, and others, that could improve the financial feasibility of annexations in the P AA. In addition to informing the PAA Subarea Plan, it is intended that the Annexation Feasibility Study be used by key stakeholders - City of Federal Way, King County, PAA residents and businesses, and City residents and businesses - as annexation proposals are formulated or considered: . The City of Federal Way is considering the fiscal analysis and strategies as it formulates its policies toward annexation in the Subarea Plan. The City would also consider the analysis and strategies when individual annexation proposals and requests are submitted, to determine or improve fiscal feasibility. . King County may use the Annexation Feasibility Study to identify collaborative strategies with the City to improve the feasibility of Review Draft December 2003 A-2 ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY Executive Summary annexation to the City, such as making available County funding sources or implementing capital improvements. The County may also use the Study as a resource when reviewing development proposals to determine capital improvements that meet City standards as well as County standards. . P AA residents and businesses may use the study to see the fiscal costs and revenues associated with annexing their area to the City, including the capital improvements that may be needed to provide City levels of service to the area. Interested parties can review the benefits and caveats associated with any of the implementation strategies and make comment to the City as annexation proposals or requests are considered. . City residents and business owners may use the study to see the fiscal costs and revenues associated with annexing an unincorporated area to the City. Interested parties can review the benefits and caveats associated with any of the implementation strategies and make comments to the City as annexation proposals or requests are considered. BACKGROUND In 1990, Washington's Growth Management Act was adopted and it encourages all unincorporated areas within King County's Urban Growth Boundary to pursue incorporated status either through annexation or through incorporation. In the early 1990s, King County and the suburban cities adopted Countywide Planning Policies that explicitly address the status of unincorporated urban areas. Among other things, the policies call for: . Elimination of unincorporated urban islands between cities. . The adoption by each city of a Potential Annexation Area, in consultation with residential groups in the affected area. . The annexation or incorporation of all unincorporated areas within the urban growth boundary within a 20-year time frame (1993 - 2013). In accordance with these principles, the City of Federal Way in conjunction with King County has retained a consultant team to prepare this fiscal analysis of the City's approved Potential Annexation Area as well as a Subarea Plan. STUDY AREA This report provides a detailed analysis of the fiscal impacts of annexing the Redondo East, Northeast and Southeast Potential Annexation Areas (P AAs) Review Draft December 2003 A-3 ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY Executive Summary to the City of Federal Way (see Map A-I). Each of the three areas is analyzed individually, and they are analyzed in combination. Where feasible due to data availability, comments are made at a smaller community level within the larger PAA subareas (see Map A-2). This report also presents strategies for addressing the results of the fiscal impact analysis. STUDY AREA POPULATION Population data for this study covers several time periods. The data is consistent among time periods, but different periods are used in order to produce the most accurate forecast of operating and capital costs and revenues. Baseline data was developed from the last US Census and other sources that used the US Census. This enabled the study to start from a reliable base of data for the year 2000. The Operating Cost/Revenue analysis is a snapshot in time based on the City's 2003 budget and rates, with some trend analysis. As a result, population forecasts for 2003 were prepared for use in the analysis of operations. The Capital Cost/Revenue analysis covers the period 2002 through 2020 in order to provide a long-range forecast similar to other long-range planning strategies for capital. The data to support the capital improvements analysis is based on the City's PAA market population and employment forecast from 2000 to 2020. Table A-I shows the population and housing units for each Major Subarea and the total PAA for the years 2000,2002,2003, and 2020. Table A-2 identifies more detailed 2003 population and housing information for the Community Subareas in the P AA. The area included in this fiscal analysis comprises a substantial population equal to approximately 25 percent of the 2002 population of the current City of Federal Way (83,850,2002). Review Draft December 2003 A-4 Subarea Redondo East Northeast Subarea Southeast Subarea PAA Total ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY Executive Summary Table A-1. Year 2000,2002,2003, and 2020 Population and Housing 2000 2000 2002 2002 2003 2003 2020 2020 Population Housing Population Housing Population Housing Population Housing Units Units Units Units (Total) 150 260 11,600 260 204 150 260 150 388 3,900 11,900 4,015 12,300 4,130 15,870 5,705 8,700 3,200 3,564 8,800 3,342 3,307 8,900 9,761 20,560 7,250 20,960 7,472 21,460 7,622 26,019 Source: 2000 U S Census, and King County Office of Regional Policy and Planning, January 2002; ECONorthwest 2002 and 2003 9,473 Table A-2. 2003 Population and Housing by Community Subarea Community/Major 2003 Population 2003 Housing Units Subarea Redondo 260 150 Star Lake 3,200 1,134 Camelot 8,500 2,758 North Lake 600 238 Total Northeast 12,300 4,130 Lakeland 3,000 1,137 Jovita 1,400 479 Parkway 4,500 1,726 Total Southeast 8,900 3,342 Total 21,460 7,622 Source: 2000 U S Census, and King County Office of Regional Policy and Planning, January 2002; ECONorthwest 2003 CONCLUSION The City of Federal Way would experience a significant negative fiscal impact on its operating budget if the Southeast and Northeast Major Subareas were annexed to the City and the City used the same revenue sources and rates, and provided the same level of services as it provides to the residents and businesses in the current boundaries of the City. The annual deficit would be just under $3.6 million. The cost of providing the City's levels of service in the PAA would exceed revenues from the PAA by 78 percent annually2. 2 As described elsewhere, the operational study is a snapshot of a fully operational year of costs and revenues associated with providing the P AA with the same level of service as the City of Federal Way. The study does not analyze changes in costs or revenues that are associated Review Draft A-5 December 2003 ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY Executive Summary The net operating revenue (or net costs) presented here represent the gap between operating revenues generated in each of the P AAs under the City's 2003 revenue structure and the costs of extending 2003 levels of City services to the same areas. In order to present a full picture of operating impacts, this presentation combines fiscal impacts across a number of disparate City Funds. The City would undoubtedly continue City policy that Surface Water Management costs would be covered by Surface Water Fees within the structure of the Surface Water Enterprise Fund. Such a strategy would require increased SWM fees and/or decreased levels of SWM services by $538,000 (the difference between estimated SWM operating costs ($823,000) given current service levels and estimated revenues ($285,000). The remaining $3.0 million gap, then, would be bridged through some combination of other strategies. Another way of understanding the fiscal impact of the approximately $3.6 million deficit is to see how it compares to the combined revenue of the City of Federal Way and the combined Northeast/Southeast P AA annexation subareas. If Federal Way and the Northeast and Southeast annexation subareas are viewed as a single City of over 105,000 population, the annual deficit of $3.6 million equals 6 percent of the combined operating revenue. It's like running a business that loses 6 percent every year. In addition, the City of Federal Way would experience major costs for capital improvements in the Southeast and Northeast areas totaling over $48.3 million. Dedicated capital revenue is anticipated to be $32.0 million through the year 2020, leaving an unfunded cost of $16.3 million (which averages $0.9 million per year through 2020). As noted above, City policy for surface water (and other enterprise activities) is to cover costs with fee revenue. Assuming that the City would use enterprise policy to cover the $4.7 million cost of stormwater capital, the remaining deficit would be $11,564,520 (which is an annual average of $642,473). In addition, the City will undoubtedly receive mitigation payments or impact fees from development in the P AA. STUDY METHODOLOGY Cost and Revenue Forecasts There are many ways to forecast costs and revenues associated with annexation. Examples include per capita analysis or estimates that are based on the experiences of a handful of so-called "comparable" cities. The City of Federal Way requested an analysis with a high degree of reliability; therefore our approach to evaluating the fiscal impacts of annexation is based on a more detailed analysis of the fundamental characteristics of the three with growth after 2003. In general, experience indicates that the cost of servicing residential growth usually exceeds the revenue generated by such growth. Review Draft December 2003 A-6 # ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY Executive Summary Potential Annexation Areas and comparisons of those characteristics with the defining characteristics of the existing City of Federal Way. In essence, this analysis looks at the fundamental drivers of demand for City services within the existing boundaries of Federal Way, and based on a comparison of similar drivers in the three P AAs, estimates the additional demand for each service that would be introduced by annexation of each area. In the case of law enforcement, for example, a typical assessment of service costs might be based on figures like average-cost-per-resident or the cost associated with extending police services in a manner that would maintain the City's current count of officers-per-thousand-residents. While each of these measures is attractive due to their ease of use, neither measure does a particularly good job of capturing the true demand for police services. It is not unusual, for example, for two areas with identical counts of residents to generate vastly different demands for police services (think of Tacoma and Bellevue for example). In such circumstances, providing police services based on a target number of officers-per-thousand-residents will result in significant differences in work load per officer and, therefore, large differences in true levels of police services provided. To account for the unique characteristics of the three P AAs (and to account for the many differences between the P AAs and the existing City of Federal Way) our estimates of the demand drivers for police services take into account, first, differences in the level of commercial activity among each of the areas, and second, the different characteristics of each area's residential base. Among households in each of the P AAs, our estimate of police demand distinguishes between the typical demand characteristics associated with five different combinations of housing type and tenure: (1) owner-occupied single- family homes; (2) renter-occupied single-family; (3) owner-occupied multifamily; (4) renter-occupied multifamily; and (5) mobile homes. Our estimates of the relative contribution of each of these segments of the residential base to police demand is based on a series of statistical analyses in which ECONorthwest assessed the experiences of more than 100 cities across Washington State. Other examples of drivers used in this study include: land area (solid waste and surface water services), signals/street lights/road miles/population (traffic and road maintenance services) as well as several others identified for various Departments in Chapter B. Review Draft December 2003 A-7 ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY Executive Summary Assumptions The analysis is based on five assumptions: . Redondo East, Northeast and Southeast P AAs would receive levels of service similar to those now provided by the City of Federal Way. . The current level of service, staffing and expenditures in Federal Way is the benchmark for forecasting comparable levels of service, staffing and costs in the annexation area. This study does not evaluate whether Federal Way's existing levels of service, staffing or expenditures are acceptable or sustainable with existing resources and staffing. . Cities that have undertaken annexations in the past have found that there is a surge in demand for services after annexation. Our methodology of "drivers" and "outputs" will produce a more accurate forecast than a simple population-driven forecast, but it may not fully capture the increment of increased demand during the first few months after annexation. . Our fiscal analysis includes cost and revenue estimates only for those taxes or services that would change upon annexation. The local services that would not change include water and sewer, fire/EMS, schools, regional transit, health services, and regional parks. In other words, after annexation existing school and fire district boundaries will remain as they are, and regional transit, health and regional parks will continue to be provided by King County. . Our projections of revenues and costs for determining fiscal analysis are conservative. This means that when a forecast includes judgment as well as data, we selected lower alternatives for revenues and higher alternatives for costs. COMBINED PAA RESULTS Operations and Maintenance . Costs It will cost $8,147,300 annually for the City of Federal Way to provide Redondo East, Northeast and Southeast PAAs with the same services that are provided to current residents and businesses in the City. . Revenue The Redondo East, Northeast and Southeast areas will generate an additional $4,597,044 annually, based on the City of Federal Way's current rates for taxes, fees and charges. The cost of services for Redondo East, Northeast and Southeast areas exceeds the additional revenue the area generates by $3,550,256 annually. The deficit is equal to . Balance Review Draft A-a December 2003 Capital Improvements . Costs . Revenue . Balance ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY Executive Summary 78 percent of annual revenue. The City would undoubtedly continue City policy that Surface Water Management (SWM) costs would be covered by Surface Water Fees within the structure of the Surface Water Enterprise Fund. Such a strategy would require increased SWM fees and/or decreased levels of SWM services by $538,000 (the difference between estimated SWM operating costs ($823,000) given current service levels and estimated revenues ($285,000). The remaining $3.0 million gap, then, would be bridged through some combination of other strategies. The cost of parks, roads and stormwater capital improvements to provide Redondo East, Northeast and Southeast P AAs with the same levels of service that are provided to current residents and businesses in the City will cost $48,315,520. The Redondo East, Northeast and Southeast areas will generate an additional $32,032,000 by 2020, based on the City of Federal Way's current rates for real estate excise taxes and utility taxes and estimated transportation grants. The cost of capital improvements for Redondo East, Northeast and Southeast areas exceeds the revenue the area generated by the year 2020 by $16,283,520 (which is an annual average of $904,640). As noted in the Conclusions, above, City policy for surface water (and other enterprise activities) is to cover costs with fee revenue. Assuming that the City would use enterprise policy to cover the $4.7 million cost of stormwater capital, the remaining deficit would be $11,564,520 (which is an annual average of $642,473). In addition, the City will undoubtedly receive mitigation payments or impact fees from development in the P AA. It is not possible to forecast these revenues (as described in Chapters G and H), but they would reduce the size of the deficit. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES The following are highlights of strategies that can be used to address the fiscal impacts of annexing Redondo East, Northeast and Southeast P AAs to the City of Federal Way. Review Draft December 2003 A-9 ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY Executive Summary STATE AND COUNTY SUPPORT The City could indicate that its ability to annex the Southeast and Northeast Subareas is contingent upon the State of Washington and/or King County providing new resources to offset the significant cost of such annexations. Examples of such resources include: New Local Option Sales Tax In 2003, the State Legislature passed a measure authorizing King County to submit for voter approval, a Countywide, voter approved sales tax increase of 0.3 percent. Forty percent of the tax would be distributed to cities based on population. A preliminary estimate of the revenue from the local option sales tax indicates approximately $600,000 per year would be available for the annexation area (and an additional $2.4 million per year for the City of Federal Way's existing population). State Incentives Federal Way could apply for a special grant or direct State appropriation from Washington's Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development to underwrite some portion of the fiscal impacts of implementing Washington's Growth Management Act by annexing Redondo East, Southeast and/or Northeast P AA subareas. County Mitigation Payment System King County has a Mitigation Payment System (a form of road impact fee). If the County has money that it has collected from the Potential Annexation Area but not yet spent or committed, the County could provide the revenue to the City or use it for capital improvements to help the road system in the annexation area. State Grants for Capital Improvements There are a number of state and federal grant programs for local government capital improvements, as described in the chapter on capital revenues. These include grants for parks, roads, and other capital improvements. The City could offer to share the matching cost of grants that King County could apply for and use to improve facilities in Federal Way's PAA. County Incentives In August 2003, it was reported that King County will offer a total of $10 million to a number of cities that annex unincorporated areas in their potential annexation areas. Details were not announced, and will depend on the County's budget decisions. Review Draft December 2003 A-10 ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY Executive Summary LOCAL TAXPAYERS SHARE EQUALLY THE COST OF ANNEXATION The City could use one or more general taxes to have all taxpayers in Federal Way and the combined annexation area share in paying the annual operating deficit. Property Taxes (Voted Excess Levy) A property tax levy increase of $0.50 per $1,000 of taxable property would be needed to generate the additional $3.6 million in operating revenue ($150 per year on a $300,000 home). The property tax levy could only be imposed if approved by a majority of voters. Since Federal Way is already at the maximum allowable levy, the excess levy would need to be submitted annually for voter approvaL". Utility Tax Raising current utility taxes (6 percent) to 8.3 percent would generate an additional $3.6 million and eliminate the operating deficit. Increases of utility taxes in excess of 6 percent require an election to obtain approval of a majority of voters. This strategy would also require a change in policy by the City of Federal Way. Current policy is to use the majority of City utility taxes for capital improvements, rather than operating costs. The City could designate the additional utility tax for operating costs associated with annexation, but that would deprive the City of the same revenue to provide capital improvements in the Potential Annexation Area. Business Tax Federal Way could impose a Business and Occupation (B&O) tax of 0.18 of one percent to eliminate the operating deficit ($180 per $100,000 of gross sales). Alternatively, the City could use its business licensing authority in a manner similar to Redmond to establish a business license charge ("head tax") of $138 per employee per year to eliminate the operating deficit. Combination The City could spread the responsibility among the three types of taxes. If each tax paid for an equal share of the deficit, the property tax would increase approximately $0.17 per $1,000 taxable value, the utility tax would increase to 6.7 percent, and the business tax would be either 0.06 percent of gross receipts, or $46 per employee. " The 2003 Legislature approved, and the Governor signed, 2ESSB5659, which allows property tax increases of up to 6 percent for periods up to 6 years, subject to voter approval. Continuation of the increased levy would require voter approval every 6 years. Review Draft December 2003 A-11 ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY Executive Summary Voted General Obligation Bonds for Capital Improvements A city can ask voters to approve long-term debt in the form of a general obligation bond that is used to build capital improvements. Typical bond issues provide the borrowed money "up front" to pay for the new capital improvements as quickly as possible. The bonds are repaid over a period of time (typically 20 years) from a special property tax that is approved as part of the ballot measure that authorizes the bonds. Voted general obligation bonds are typically used for parks, but not usually used for roads. Enterprise Fund Revenue Like many cities, Federal Way has a policy that costs of enterprise funds, such as Surface Water Management and Solid Waste are to be covered by user fees. Such a strategy would require increased fees and/or decreased levels of services. Federal Way could increase user fees throughout the City and P AA for its stormwater utility and/or solid waste utility and use the proceeds to offset the increased cost of providing those services in the P AA. TAX BASE EXPANSION A long-term strategy for Federal Way could be to increase City revenue by increasing the tax base in the P AA or the tax base in the current City limits. Some businesses, like automobile dealerships, generate significantly more tax revenue than the cost of the public services they receive. Federal Way could explore land use planning, zoning, and economic development strategies in the P AA and/or the City to attract such businesses. Specific techniques could include "planned actions" under SEP A, or special overlay zoning districts. Caveat The City of Federal Way and the PAAs currently have vacant and underdeveloped land to absorb decades of anticipated commercial growth. Given that developable land is not a constraining factor in attracting development, the only way that rezoning or other land use actions in the P AA would result in an incremental increase in development would be if the action created a specific opportunity for development that does not currently exist in the City or PAA. For instance, parcels in the PAA that are highly visible from highways may provide unique development opportunities. CREATE SPECIAL LIMITED DISTRICTS IN ANNEXATION AREAS TO PAY FOR SPECIFIC COSTS Washington law allows the creation of limited special purpose districts for a number of purposes, such as roads, parks, transportation, and "local improvements." Voter approval is required to create special districts that have taxing authority. Property owner approval is required to create special districts that use special assessments. Review Draft December 2003 A-12 ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY Executive Summary Caveat There is some risk associated with using special districts as a strategy to pay for providing urban levels of service to Redondo East, Southeast and Northeast subareas. A vote on creating a special taxing district would occur subsequent to an annexation vote. If voters approve annexation, but do not approve the creation of the district(s), the City would be left with insufficient money to provide its level of service. REDUCED OR PHASED INCREASES OF LEVEL OF SERVICE TO MATCH FEDERAL WAY'S STANDARDS Reduced level of Service Another way for the City to address the difference in levels of service between Federal Way and the County would be to permanently provide a lower level of service for one or more services. The reduction could be Citywide (i.e., lower park standards) or just in the annexation areas (e.g. lower pavement rating). Currently the City is meeting 10.1 acres of parks per 1,000 population but has adopted a standard of 10.9 acres per 1,000 population. Phased Increases in Level of Service One of the main reasons for the significant fiscal impact of annexing Redondo East, Southeast and Northeast Major Subareas is the difference in levels of service provided by Federal Way and King County. The City provides an urban level of service that is typical of a municipality, and King County provides a rural level of service that is commensurate with unincorporated areas. One strategy for addressing the difference in level of service would be to phase-in the increases in level of service in the annexation area. Phasing would reduce costs during the transition, and it would provide Federal Way with time to recruit and hire personnel and acquire facilities and equipment needed to serve the annexation area at Federal Way's level of service. Phased levels of service could involve contracting with King County, as described in Chapter I. Caveat Eventually, phased levels of service will grow to equal the standards achieved by the City of Federal Way. When that occurs, service levels will be the same throughout the City, and the City will experience the full fiscal impacts of those levels of service. A strategy of phasing levels of service postpones, but does not avoid the full fiscal impact of annexation. Review Draft December 2003 A-13 ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY Executive Summary PHASED ANNEXATION OF REDONDO EAST, SOUTHEAST AND NORTHEAST MAJOR SUBAREAS This strategy would involve annexing those areas that are financially self- supporting first and then annexing other areas later, perhaps in conjunction with other strategies to improve fiscal impact of these subsequent annexations. Phased annexation based on fiscal impacts could be accomplished by annexing Redondo first because it has no cash deficit based on operating expenses. The Northeast P AA subarea or portions thereof could be annexed next because its costs exceed revenues by 61 percent. Last to be annexed would be the Southeast PAA subarea, because its costs are more than double the revenue it would generate (i.e., the deficit is 105 percent). Phasing can also be accomplished by smaller areas, such as community subareas. For example, if community subareas were annexed in order of their fiscal impact (from least to most net operating cost), the following would be the phasing sequence: North Lake, Lakeland, Star Lake, Jovita, Camelot, and Parkway. If other Implementation Strategies are considered and employed to determine phasing for annexation the order might be different than the preceding list. FINAL CONSIDERATIONS - STRATEGIES The purpose of the Annexation Feasibility Study is to estimate the long-term fiscal impact annexation would have on the City of Federal Way. The findings can be viewed as costly (i.e., $3.6 million per year) or bearable (i.e., the shortfall is only 6% of the City's annual budget). The Implementation Strategies identified in this Annexation Feasibility Study provide a menu of options that the City can employ to respond to a variety of factors in each subarea in order to improve the financial feasibility of annexation. Financial feasibility, however, is not the only determinant of annexation. While fiscal strategies have been integrated into the related P AA Subarea Plan, there are other issues considered in annexation, such as natural environment, land use, housing, public facilities and services, public participation, governance and interjurisdictional coordination, and other topics as identified in the Subarea Plan. In considering specific annexation requests or proposals, City officials can review the menu of Implementation Strategies and tailor an annexation approach that meets City policy objectives. Review Draft December 2003 A-14 , .......... ..,........., ~~~hea~¡ .' . .. ' ...., ......- .-.... ,"" . "" , '.., .. i.. ' ,:.:;:.>,',::,: ':~>" " ." " "/,"v..,."" , ,... ¡.,.., 1 ' "\ ":,;"'Y',-,..:. ~~"\/,.>:"":,,' ,,"", ,; ._~y,~;;? ')/)., , , "-""'"\ ,j,"'; ¡i~,~C'" ~<, l.,L,1! , ..........' ': ' '.. I A..ra , ¡...... ..',/: i ] ,J.. ; ,-.,....., , ¡, ':...~.{.. , , ' , """"", . ,...i t , " .." f'\.." . , : , ,-.. . 1 -......... """" I '-..... City of Federal Way - Potential Annexation Area < Major Su barea Bou ndaries Legend: ,., Federal Way POl8ntial AnnexaIIIIn Area Major Suba.... BoLøIdll'll. Oller Are.... Incorporated Area D LklincorporalBd hea SoI.rCI: CitY of Federal Way. GIS DM8ion &: Deputrnent of Cornrrullty Development Servlcu, BWR, ECONol1hwe8t, December 2001 Scale: !:l 0 112 MRe ~ N Mill Dale: DIIGIIIIIhr.2GD3 Please NøI8: ma 01 f8d1llJl Ww¡, 11111 map 18 1nbind8d for U.I DFirllWIiS, . a~1:GlllIPrIIIß1aIGn Fedeli! W~ A 1IlOO3 ONL, CllyofFtdlIl! (258) B81 DO Wltm_.o~ _.à .f8dell!-wIY.IN8.U8 . to illllGGuraarf. A """1 Way Map A-1 .JmItiolW llIlldoo4tnoþn_....1 '~-'~ ,: ~::,~.. ' .--...........' ... LIIt8.. "~;':,, Lt';, , ~ """""')<: "",j ; """""'"" "!"'" , , St4r Løk, r; , i", ;"i:::::"::':::".:,: ' ..' :"""" '" ,',"':,..."'i":,~ ~(:,:~'~;:;'.~~;':) [','<. j :, :""",,:~~:,j'1,::i,;":":"":' ;~"':,.1 ,>1.::;, :, ,;"i' ; ¡ ;,~>""'",::~;1'; "'i,,"'! ,\ , ! ~ ; '! ~ ., . :~ù::ç.~:>.,)' ...-.-.; i ï""T--T"'i ,-:-,:.'J . :', ..,..1 ¡-, 1 : : ~\-;:. !t.,..i i."".!. 1 i ¡ . "" ..":; I Alllall r:::~'",; i_...,.......;" ;:,:;~-~t ¡"""" 1 i . f : f'\.., , . \ Lc ,... ' ; I "'¡ I \.. " . I i,_- City of Federal Way - Potential Annexation Area , " Community Level Su barea Bou ndaries lIgInd: ~ flldlnlWar PalllnIIaI ., AnneXlllon Area Colllllltllity LMI Swna Boundll'l. Inœrporlled Area D Unlncorpol'll8d Area Sdlartll & Commllllly Level Subareu: ~ ~ NDlh8tSal1ll: Camelot NDIIh Laka SIar Lak8 Southam SUMnI: JovtIa LaIcIIand I'IrkwIv Souroe: City of Fedllnl Way, GIS DlvllIDII & De~lrImtnI of Community 6"8Iopmlllt BelVia., BWR, ECONortlrNell, PM Sl8ertng CommmM, DeomIJer 2001 a. <'II ::E ~ c ~ Scale: ~ 0 112 Mile ~ N MIp Dale: Dumber, 2003 PIeut Not.: c~ of federal Wav. Thill map IlIlnt_edfor UIII 33 DFinlW~S, . I fTthical nlPltllIIdaIion Fedtl'll W~A 8IDOa Oft. . .. City of Federal (259) 681 WftJ mlk8l no WIITInIy WNN.cI.1ed.~.WlLu. D to III accUIIðJ.  Fëd.raI Way Map A-2 ,JI1I1...~............1 ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY Operating Costs Operating Costs This component of the Analysis of Fiscal Impacts of Annexation examines the impacts that annexation would have on the day-to-day costs of operations for the City of Federal Way. In later sections of the analysis, this operating cost assessment will be combined with revenue estimates to identify the "net annual cost" of extending City services to the three study areas: the Northeast, Southeast, and Redondo Potential Annexation Subareas. The current analysis seeks to answer one hypothetical question: If one or more of the study areas were a fully-functioning part of the City of Federal Way in 2003, how much additional operating revenue would the City need to extend its existing levels of day-to-day services to those areas? Answering this question involves assessing both the direct costs of service (costs of additional patrol officers, road maintenance workers, the costs of facilities and equipment, etc.) as well as the indirect costs of supporting those services (e.g. impacts associated with increased demands on City support functions including things like Human Resources, City Management, and Finance). We describe this form of analysis as identifying the "fully loaded" impacts associated with extending City services to a given potential annexation area (PAA). In addition to assessing the budgetary impacts of annexation, capturing a fully loaded cost also requires tracking the impacts on City staffing. Including these impacts is necessary for an accounting of costs associated with securing office and maintenance facility space-real costs that frequently are not captured in a city's annual operating budget. The City of Federal Way has recently acquired an 87,000 square foot building for the new City HalL This new facility may provide additional space to accommodate future staffing needs associated with annexations. It should be noted, however, that estimates of the space requirements for new employees included in this Annexation Feasibility Study do not reflect the space- planning analysis performed as part of the City's planning for the new City Hall. Our analysis is based on an assessment of each of the operating departments and divisions in Federal Way's organization structure. Estimated costs for direct service divisions are based on an assessment of each division's 2003 budgeted costs coupled with an assessment of the incremental demand for services the division could expect to see if it were to serve one or all of the P AA Subareas. Review Draft December 2003 B-1 ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY Operating Costs Estimates of the incremental demand introduced by annexation are based on "demand drivers" that help describe (1) an operating division's current demand for services and (2) the additional demand that would be introduced with annexation of each P AA Subarea. The consultant team worked with representatives of each department to identify demand drivers that were both appropriate and workable (i.e. drivers for which reliable data were available in both the City and the PAAs). SUMMARY OF FINDINGS With a combined estimated 2003 population of slightly less than 21,500, annexation of the three PAA Subareas would increase Federal Way's population by roughly 25 percent. If annexation of the three Subareas were to increase Federal Way's operating costs by the same 25 percent increment, then the 2003 cost impact would be in the range of $9.5 million. Based on our assessment of the three P AA Subareas, however, we estimate that the cost impact of annexation will be somewhat lower than 25 percent of the City's existing operating costs. For all three PAA Subareas combined, we estimate annual operating cost impacts of roughly $8.1 million. In per- resident terms (based on our estimate of 2003 population in the P AA Subareas) this translates into a cost of $380 per P AA resident (Table B-1). Table B-1: Operating Costs by Department by Potential Annexation Area (2003) Northeast Southeast PM PM Redondo Total City Council $26,000 $26,000 $1,000 $53,000 City Manager $193,000 $204,000 $10,000 $407,000 Community Development $299,000 $221,000 $13,300 $533,300 Law $129,000 $136,000 $6,000 $271,000 Management Services . $182,000 $187,000 $7,000 $376,000 Parks & Recreation $55,000 $406,000 $1,000 $462,000 Public Safety $1,651,000 $1,780,000 $98,000 $3,529,000 Public Works $1,457,000 $1,038,000 $21,000 $2,516,000 Total $3,992,000 $3,998,000 $157,300 $8,147,300 Costs per Resident $325 $449 $605 $380 Source: ECONorthwest analysis. Note: See the following discussion under the section headings of Key Assumptions and Departmental Detail for a thorough discussion of the assumptions. methods, and analytic steps that underlie the above figures. Review Draft December 2003 B-2 ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY Operating Costs Among the three Subareas, the Northeast P AA exhibits the lowest operating costs per residents: estimated at $325. Factors that contribute to that lower cost include (1) anticipated lower demand for public safety services per resident when compared to the Southeast and Redondo Subareas; (2) the absence of active park facilities that the City would have to maintain and operate, compared with substantial facilities in the Southeast P AA; and (3) the Northeast's higher population densities, which reduce the per-capita costs of infrastructure maintenance (including roads and surface water maintenance systems). We estimate that the total PAA cost increases will be accompanied by a total increase in City staffing of 66.2 Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) employees (Table B-2). Similar to the costs, the largest share of employee increases would be associated with annexation of the Southeast P AA Subarea. Table B-2: Estimated Staffing Increases by Department by Potential Annexation Area (2003) Northeast Southeast PAA PAA Redondo Total City Council City Manager 1.70 1.80 0.10 3.60 Community Development 3.00 2.20 5.20 Law 1.00 1.10 2.10 Management Services ' 2.40 4.90 2.50 Parks & Recreation 0.50 3.80 4.30 Public Safety 15.40 16.60 0.90 32.90 Public Works 7.40 5.70 0.10 13.20 Total 31.40 33.70 1.10 66.20 Source: ECONorthwest analysis. Our goal in generating these staffing impact estimates is not to precisely "predict" the staffing actions the City Council would actually take upon annexation of one or all of the P AA Subareas. Rather, our goal is to try to accurately quantify the additional workload that each City department would be likely to see upon annexation, both in terms of dollars and staffing. In generating these staffing estimates, we recognize that departmental staffing is an inherently "lumpy" process. If, for example, Federal Way were to annex only the Redondo area, it is unlikely that many City departments would add any new staff. We recognize, too, that some departments may currently be operating at a greater staffing deficit than others, so adding even a small amount of additional demand on those already constrained functions could trigger the hiring of additional staff. Finally, we recognize that, since an annexation area almost never brings additional revenues that Review Draft B-3 December 2003 ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY Operating Costs precisely balance new costs, it is almost always the case that annexation of an area will result in a change in the overall levels of service that a city provides, both to existing and new constituents. Given that staffing is "lumpy" (departments don't typically add 0.1 FTEs), and given that we estimate FTE impacts on a fractional basis, one thing we can say with certainty is that, upon annexation, some of Federal Way's departments would see staffing and cost increases in excess of those estimated here, while others would see staffing and cost increases that are lower than our estimates suggest. Ultimately, decisions about where additional staff are placed within the City's departmental structure will require thoughtful discussion among City staff and policy makers. Without pre-judging how those decisions will play out, and without pre-judging which divisions are likely to see their staffing impact rounded up or down, our goal here is to get the cost impact right, on average. The bottom line is that, ultimately, these estimated impacts are just that- estimates. In no way can a blanket estimation methodology replace the governmental process of carefully weighing competing demands for scarce City resources in the context of day-to-day demands for City services. The following sections provide a more detailed discussion of the methods and assumptions we used to develop the broad cost impacts reported above. The section immediately following identifies some of the overarching assumptions that we used in our analysis. The remaining eight sections provide a more detailed discussion of the methods and findings for different City departments and operating divisions. KEY ASSUMPTIONS . Year 2008 impacts:\ll operating cost estimates are based on the City of Federal Way's 2003 budgeted expenditures as reported in the City 0/ Federal Way 2003/2004 Adopted Budget. For those service categories that use population as a driver, we used an estimated 2003 City population of 84,250, which we generated based on the 2002 Office of Financial Management population estimate of 83,850, combined with recent trends in the City's annual population gains. For the three Potential Annexation Areas, we estimated 2003 populations of 12,300 for the Northeast Subarea, 8,900 for the Southeast, and 260 for Redondo. We generated these population estimates by extending our analysis that generated the original 2002 population figures-combining 2000 census counts by census block, housing unit counts from the King County Assessor tax parcel accounts, and recently-permitted housing units as tracked by King County and the Puget Sound Regional Council. Review Draft December 2003 B-4 ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY Operating Costs . Recognize economies of scalèNhen people think about extending city services to additional constituent groups, it is tempting to believe that cities have far-reaching opportunities to take advantage of economies of scale. Once you have a City Manager, people reason, the costs of extending that manager's duties to include oversight of additional constituencies should be relatively low. Our experience suggests, however, that while opportunities for economies of scale do exist in cities, those opportunities are much more limited than one might think. If one looks at the hundreds of cities in Washington State, for example, and examines the relationship between a city's population and the costs of operating that city's Office of City Manager, one will find that the relationship between the size of a city and its costs of management are, in fact, closely linked. Our analyses of city governments suggests that, on average, a 10 percent increase in a city's population will translate into an 8 percent increase in the costs of maintaining that city's executive functions. To account for these real, but limited, economies of scale, we adjust departmental budgets to exclude the costs of maintaining the Departmental Director position. For the Department of Community Development Services, for instance, we exclude from our cost basis a round figure of $110,000 to account for the Departmental Director's salary and benefits, and we exclude the Director's one FTE from our departmental staffing basis. DEPARTMENTAL DETAil The following sections provide a more detailed discussion of our estimates of the cost impacts that annexation would have on each of Federal Way's service departments. We track each ofthe City's operating divisions under one of three categories: (1) direct services divisions, which include those divisions like police services, planning, street maintenance, and surface water management, that provide services directly to the public; (2) citywide indirect services, which provide support to all City functions, include service divisions like Finance, City Clerk, and Human Resources of the divisions of the City's Department of Management Services; and (3) departmental indirect services, which include the Administration divisions of each of the direct service departments. The section immediately to follow discusses each of the direct service divisions, along with the departmental indirect Administration divisions of Public Works; Public Safety; Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services; and Community Development Services. The later major section then goes on to Review Draft December 2003 8-5 ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY Operating Costs address cost estimates for those remaining operating divisions that provide citywide indirect services. DIRECT AND DEPARTMENT INDIRECT SERVICE DIVISIONS The following four sub-sections discuss estimates of the incremental demand for direct services that would be introduced by annexation of each of the three P AA Subareas. As noted above, estimated cost impacts on direct service divisions are based on estimates of the incremental demand for each service category coupled with the City's existing cost basis for that category, as reflected in the City's 2003 budgeted costs. In most cases, costs for the departmental indirect Administration divisions are driven by anticipated increase in departmental staffing. For example, if our estimates of the necessary staffing increases for the direct service divisions of Department of Community Development called for increasing staffing in those divisions by a total of 25 percent, then the increase in allocable administrative costs and staffing would also increase by 25 percent (adjusted to exclude the one FTE and the salary and benefits costs of the Departmental Director). PUBLIC SAFETY, CRIMINAL PROSECUTION, AND MUNICIPAL COURT Our analysis assumes that the demand for public safety services will also drive demand for two service divisions that fall outside of the City's Department of Public Safety. These two divisions are the Division of Criminal Prosecution, which is one component of Federal Way's Department of Law (and includes the cost of publicly-provided legal defense of indigent defendants), and the Municipal Court Division of the Department of the City Manager. The rationale behind this aggregation of disparate divisions is that, in many instances, the demand for Criminal Prosecution and Municipal Court services are closely related to the demand for direct Public Safety servIces. We should note that Public Safety services also includes the costs of adult detention-a cost that is included within the Support Services Division of the Department of Public Safety. In many instances in this analysis, our estimates of the incremental demand for services from annexation are based on characteristics that are directly measurable. For example, the costs of extending street maintenance services to each P AA Subarea are based on the miles of public streets found in each area. Unfortunately, however, no such directly measurable data are available for estimating the demand for public safety and related services. Review Draft December 2003 8-6 ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY Operating Costs For purposes of this analysis, the King County Sheriffs Office chose not to provide historical data on the demand for public safety services in any of the P AA Subareas. To make up for this lack of data, the project team chose to use an alternative estimation method. This alternative method is one ECONorthwest first developed for a prior annexation analysis, a method that we have since extended and improved. In the case of law enforcement, a typical assessment of service costs might be based on figures like average-cost-per-resident or costs associated with maintaining a certain, target number of officers-per-thousand-residents. While these measures are easy to use, neither measure does a particularly good job of accounting for the true demand for police services. It is not unusual for two areas with identical counts of residents to generate vastly different demands for police services. In such circumstances, providing police services based on a target number of officers-per-thousand-residents will result in vast differences in work load per officer and, therefore, vast differences in true levels of police services. To account for the unique characteristics of the three P AAs (and to account for the differences between the PAAs and the existing City of Federal Way) our estimates of the demand drivers for police services take into account, first, differences in the level of commercial activity among each of the areas, and second, the different characteristics of each area's residential base. Among households in each of the P AAs, our estimate of police demand distinguishes between households who live in (1) owner-occupied single- family homes, (2) renter-occupied single-family homes, (3) owner-occupied multifamily, (4) renter-occupied multifamily, and (5) mobile homes. Our estimates of the relative contribution of each of these segments of the residential base to police demand is based on a series of analyses in which ECONorthwest assessed the experiences of more than 100 cities across Washington State. In essence, our estimate of police demand splits Federal Way's provision of police services into two segments: (1) those police resources that are dedicated to providing police services to the residential base (75 percent of the Department's resources) and (2) those resources that are dedicated to policing commercial areas and activities (the remaining 25 percent of the resources). Ultimately, because the Northeast and Southeast P AAs have substantially less commercial activity than current-day Federal Way, our estimates suggest that policing of commercial areas and activities in these two P AAs will absorb substantially less than the 25 percent share the Department experiences in current-day Federal Way (a finding that should not be a surprise to anyone). Due to differences in housing type and tenure, however, Review Draft December 2003 B-7 ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY Operating Costs we estimate that, on a per capita basis, the Southeast P AA will generate greater levels of police demand than the Northeast. Estimates of demand for public safety services in each Subarea are based on an estimate that 75 percent of the City's existing public service resources are dedicated to providing services to the City's base of roughly 84,000 residents, while 25 percent of service provision is dedicated to policing commercial areas and activities. Estimates of the increase in residential service demand for each of the P AA Subareas is based on ECONorthwest analysis of more than 100 cities in Washington State in which we examined the relationship between the costs of police services and each city's fundamental characteristics, including measures like counts of households, housing type and tenure, and population densities. 1 We applied the coefficients of this estimation model to residential components of the City of Federal Way and each of the three PAA Subareas to identify the incremental demand that would be introduced by the residential components of the P AAs. Estimates of commercially-driven components of demand were based on comparisons of retail employment in the City and the P AAs. Ultimately, the combination of estimated residential and commercial demand suggested that, combined, the three P AAs would increase the demand for public safety services by 22.3 percent (Table B-3). Table B-3: Public Safety, Criminal Prosecution, and Municipal Court-Estimated Incremental Demand by Subarea (2003) Public Safety Source: ECONorthwest analysis. Northeast PAA 10.4% Total 22.3% Southeast PAA 11.2% Redondo 0.6% For the Department of Public Safety, we adjusted 2003 budgeted costs in three ways to arrive at a cost basis for extension to each of the P AAs. First, as discussed previously, we excluded $110,000 to roughly account for the salary and benefits of the departmental director. Second, we excluded the City's reimbursed costs of providing policing services to Federal Way schools and SeaTac Mall. Third, we subtracted the costs the Department incurs to lease its facilities (a cost which we account for separately). Ultimately, of the 1 The model generated through this statistical analysis found that, among 138 Washington State cities, 96% of the variation in police activities could be "explained" by the variation in the measured components. Review Draft B-8 December 2003 ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY Operating Costs Department's budgeted $16.28 million expenditures, we used $15.62 million as our cost basis for extending services to the P AAs. Combining the above cost basis with the above estimates of increased demand, we estimated $3.5 million of increased Public Safety costs and a 32.9 FTE increase in publicly funded staffing (Tables B-4 and B-5). Given this staffing increase, we estimated an additional $122,000 in facility costs- which reflects a need for 185 square feet of building space per FTE (a number that is based on Departmental analysis) at an estimated annual cost of $20 per square foot. In total we estimated increases of $3.529 million for Public Safety costs (Table B-4). Estimated Municipal Court Division costs are based on the service demand increase in each Subarea multiplied by the 2003 budgeted expenditures for the division. Likewise, Criminal Prosecution Service cost impacts were based on budgeted expenditures for the division, although we reduced this cost basis by $22,000 to account for the division's 20 percent share of the costs of the City Attorney (who serves as the Director of the Law Department).2 Table 8-4: Annual Public Safety, Criminal Prosecution, and Municipal Court Cost Impacts (2003 Dollars) Northeast Southeast Department Division PM PM Redondo ' Total Public Safety Administration 156,000 168,000 9,000 333,000 Public Safety Support Services 690,000 744,000 41,000 1,475,000 Public Safety Field Operations 805,000 868,000 48,000 1,721,000 Division Public Safety Total 1,651,000 1,780,000 98,000 3,529,000 Law Criminal Prosecution 64,000 69,000 4,000 137,000 Services City Manager Municipal Court 133,000 143,000 8,000 284,000 Source: ECONorthwest analysis. . In estimating demand for Public Safety Services in Redondo, we adjusted our estimates of demand drivers by treating the area's mobile homes as single family homes, thereby reducing estimated demand for services in the Redondo PAA. The basis for this adjustment is a recognition that the residents of area mobile homes are older (with a median age exceeding 63 years of age in the 2000 census) and an assessment by the Federal Way Department of Public Safety that found the frequency of calls for services in the area of mobile homes in Redondo to be roughly consistent with the frequency typically found in single family neighborhoods. 2 We assumed rough costs of $110,000 for salary and benefits for each Departmental Director and the City Manager. Review Draft December 2003 8-9 ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY Operating Costs Table 8-5: Estimated Additional FTEs: Public Safety, Criminal Prosecution, and Municipal Court (2003) Northeast Southeast Department Division PM PM Redondo Total Public Safety Administration 0.10 0.10 0.2 Public Safety Support Services 5.80 6.30 0.30 12.4 Public Safety Field Operations Division 9.50 10.20 0.60 20.3 Public Safety * Total 15.40 16.60 0.90 32.9 Law Criminal Prosecution 0.50 0.60 0.00 1.10 Services City Manager Municipal Court 1.40 1.50 0.10 3.00 Source: ECONorthwest analysis. . Estimated FTE impacts include only City funded FTEs. Extension of current City service levels to the PAA could include additional public safety FTEs for provision of services to schools in the PAAs. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Of the five direct service divisions included in Federal Way's Department of Community Development Services, we assume that one-the Division of Economic Development-will be largely unaffected by annexation.3 Estimates of demand for the remaining four divisions are based on either the population of the three P AA Subareas or are based on a combination of population and commercial activity (estimated in terms of employment). Based on conversations with City staff, we estimate that workload for the Planning Division is driven by residential-related activity (45 percent of demand) and commercial/employment activity (55 percent of demand). 4 Conversely, for the Building Division, we estimate that residential activity drives a larger share of demand for services (55 percent), while commercial/employment drives the lesser share (45 percent). For the 3 To the extent that there are vacant or underdeveloped properties in the P AAs that could at some time be the subject of some need for Economic Development Services assistance (marketing, inquiry by out of town developer or commercial interest, etc.), the Economic Development Division probably wouldbe marginally impacted by an annexation. However, given the likelihood that these impacts would be relatively minor, the consultant team and the administrative staff of the Department of Comm unity Development Services chose to make the simplifying assumption of zero impact on the Economic Development Division. 4 Upon review of the methodological estimate of cost and staffing impacts on the Planning Division, overall staffing impacts were increased by 0.5 FTEs based on input by Planning staff to account for long-term planning activities associated with the Northeast and Southeast PAAs. Review Draft December 2003 8-10 ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY Operating Costs Neighborhood Development Divisions, we assume that activities are driven strictly by the number of residents. Federal Way's Human Services Division is charged, among other things, with directing the expenditure of federally-funded Community Development Block Grants (CDBG). If the City were to annex any of the three Subareas, the amount of the annual CDBG grants would increase, and these additional dollars would then be expended under the direction of the City's CDBG coordinator. To simplify the analysis, we have excluded both CDBG revenues and expenditures from our analysis to concentrate on those Human Services activities that are funded by the City of Federal Way's General Fund revenues. In 2003, these General Fund expenditures are budgeted at roughly $577,000, or $7 per resident. We assumed that, as with the Neighborhood Development Division, direct Human Services expenditures would be driven by the number of residents served. Table 8-6: Community Development Services-Estimated Incremental Demand by Division and Subarea (2003) Northeast Southeast PAA PAA Redondo Total Administration 8.7% 6.4% 0.5% 15.60% Planning 7.3% 5.5% 0.5% 13.30% Building 8.6% 6.4% 0.5% 15.50% Economic Development Human Services (Gen. Fund) 14.6% 10.6% 0.3% 25.50% Neighborhood Development 14.6% 10.6% 0.3% 25.50% Source: ECONorthwest analysis of population and employment data. In total, of the $4.1 million expenditures budgeted for the Department of Community Development Services in 2003, we included slightly more than $3.2 million in our expenditure bases for determination of service provision costs in the PAA. (The difference between the $4.1 million total and the $3.2 million allocated reflects the non-General Fund CDBG revenues and an estimated $110,000 in the Administration Division for the Director's salary and benefits.) In total, we estimated a 15.7 percent increase in demand for non-CDBG Community Development services in the three PAA Subareas, at a cost of roughly $510,000. We also estimated total necessary staffing increases of 4.8 FTEs, with the largest share of the increases coming in the Building and Planning divisions (Table B-8). At an assumed floor area requirement of 250 square feet per FTE and annual costs of $20 per square foot, we added slightly more than $24,000 in facility costs to arrive at total additional costs of $533,300 for the department as a whole (Table B-7). Review Draft December 2003 B-11 ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY Operating Costs Table B-7: Community Development Cost Impacts (2003 Dollars) Northeast Southeast Division PAA PAA Redondo Total Administration 23,000 17,000 40,000 Planning 71,000 54,000 5,000 130,000 Building 103,000 76,000 6,000 185,000 Economic Development Human Services 87,000 63,000 2,000 152,000 Neighborhood Development 15,000 11,000 300 26,300 Total 299,000 221,000 13,300 533,300 Source: ECONorthwest analysis. Table B-8: Estimated Additional FTEs: Community Development (2003) Northeast Southeast Division PAA PAA Redondo Total Administration 0.30 0.20 0.50 Planning ' 1.80 1.00 0.80 Building 1.10 0.80 1.90 Economic Development Human Services 0.50 0.30 0.80 Neighborhood Development 0.10 0.10 0.20 Total 3.0 2.2 5.2 Source: ECONorthwest analysis. PARKS, RECREATION AND CULTURAL SERVICES Currently, King County maintains five parks within the three P AA Subareas: two largely undeveloped open space areas in the Northeast P AA (Bingamon Pond and Camelot Park) and three active parks in the Lakeland neighborhood of the Southeast P AA (Five Mile Lake Park, Lake Geneva Park, and South County Ballfields). Given this distribution of existing facilities, a large portion of the impact to Federal Way's Parks and Recreation Department would come from the annexation of the Southeast P AA in general, and the Lakeland Neighborhood in particular. Recreation Services Estimates of the additional demand for recreation services that would be introduced by annexation are based, primarily, on the judgment of City Recreation Services Division staff. Based on experience in other cities, and Review Draft December 2003 B-12 ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY Operating Costs based on conversations with staff, we assume that Federal Way's existing Recreation Division already provides substantial recreation services to the residents in the P AAs. If we assumed that newly annexed residents would represent a completely new source of demand for recreation services, then we would estimate that incremental demand on a per-resident basis. However, since many of the residents of these areas already enjoy recreation services at facilities within the City, we assume that increases in demand for these services will relate to the number of residents in newly annexed areas only on a fractional basis. Again, based on the judgments of City staff, for those P AA Subareas with no active park facilities, we assume that annexation will introduce additional demand equal to 25 percent of the increase in population. The rationale behind this assumption is that these people have been coming into the City for recreation options in the past, and even with annexation, they will continue to seek the same kinds of opportunities at the same locations (at least in the near term). Under this rationale, the assumption of a 25 percent increase in demand for recreational services is intended to capture a shift in the mindset of residents in the annexation areas. As residents of newly annexed areas begin to think of themselves as City residents, the assumption is that these residents will begin to more freely avail themselves of the City's Parks and Recreation services. For the Southeast P AA, we assume incremental demand equal to 50 percent of the increase in population, reflecting a similar shift in mindset combined with the need for the City Recreation Division to assume responsibility for recreation services for the three active parks. Park Maintenance Estimates of the costs of the day-to-day maintenance of the existing parks in the P AA Subareas are based on assessments provided to the consultant team by the City's Parks Maintenance Division. These assessments included estimates of staffing costs, the costs of materials and small equipment, and the annualized costs of the additional large equipment that would be necessary to maintain the three active parks in the Southeast P AA. To ensure consistency with the methods used elsewhere in this analysis, we also accounted for the impacts in the Park Maintenance "overhead" costs, which include loaded intergovernmental costs like Building M&O, Data Processing, GIS, etc. In addition to the costs introduced by the active parks of the Southeast P AA, Parks Maintenance staff report that the passive parks of the Northeast P AA would introduce a small demand for their services. Review Draft December 2003 8-13 ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY Operating Costs Administration In contrast to the method we used to estimate incremental demand for administrative functions in other departments (which were driven by incremental increases in FTEs in the direct service divisions) we estimated the impacts on Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Administration based on the relative increase in the department's overall budget. Due to the high staff counts in the Recreation Division and the relatively low average cost of those FTEs, if we had used the department's FTE impacts as the driver for Administration increases we would have, in effect, been emphasizing the role of Recreation Services as the driver of the City's Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Administration. Given current parks facilities, annexation of the Northeast and Redondo P AA Subareas would not result in large increases in demand for the services of the City's Department of Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services (Table B-9). Annexation of the Southeast P AA, however, would have a more dramatic effect. Table 8-9: Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services-Estimated Incremental Demand by Division and Subarea (2003) Northeast Southeast Division PAA PAA Redondo Total Administration 1.1% 7.8% 0.0% 8.9% Recreation 3.6% 5.3% 0.1% 9.0% Park Maintenance 0.2% 14.1% 0.0% 14.3% Source: ECONorthwest analysis and Federal Way Parks Maintenance Division estimates. In total, we estimate that annexation of the three P AA Subareas combined would introduce demand for 4.30 additional FTEs in the Department (Table B-11), and when we combine the service impacts with the facilities costs necessary to support these additional staff, we estimate total Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department cost impacts of $462,000 (Table B-1O).5 5 For estimates of facilities costs to support additional FTEs, we distinguish between office and maintenance staff. As discussed previously, we estimate facility costs for one additional office staff based on an assumed requirement of 250 square feet per FTE, at an annual cost of $20 per square foot (resulting in an annual cost of $5,000 per FTE. For maintenance FTE, we assume the need for 200 square feet of maintenance shop space per FTE, annualized building costs of roughly $8 per square foot (or $1,600 per FTE), and yard space requirements of 10,000 square feet (a floor area ratio of 0.02), with total annualized land costs of $6,400. For maintenance staff, therefore, we estimate total facilities costs of $8,000 per FTE. Review Draft December 2003 8-14 ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY Operating Costs Table B-10: Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Cost Impacts (2003 Dollars) Northeast Southeast Division PAA PAA Redondo Total Administration 6,000 46,000 52,000 Recreation 45,000 65,000 1,000 111,000 Park Maintenance 4,000 295,000 299,000 Total 55,000 406,000 1,000 462,000 Source: ECONorthwest analysis and Federal Way Parks Maintenance Division estimates. Table B-11: Estimated Additional FTEs: Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services (2003) Northeast Southeast Division PAA PAA Redondo Total Administration 0.30 0.30 Recreation 0.50 0.70 1.20 Park Maintenance 2.80 2.80 Total 0.50 3.80 4.30 Source: ECONorthwest analysis and Federal Way Parks Maintenance Division estimates. PUBLIC WORKS Estimates of impacts for the five direct service divisions of Public Works are based on specific assessments of the services provided and the probable drivers of demand in the three P AA Subareas. Development Services To capture the impact that both commercial and residential development have on the demand for Development Services, we base our estimate of incremental demand for these services on the relative taxable assessed values of real property in each of the three P AA Subareas. The ratio of these assessed values (which include residential, commercial, and yet-undeveloped properties) to the overall assessed value of the City of Federal represents the estimated increase in demand for Development Services the City would see upon annexation. Using this approach, we estimate total incremental demand of 21.8 percent (Table B-14), which reflects a 2002 assessed value of $5.67 billion for the City compared with $717 million, $501 million, and $19 million in the Northeast, Southeast, and Redondo P AA Subareas respectively. Review Draft December 2003 8-15 ANNEXATION FEASIBiliTY STUDY Operating Costs Traffic Our estimate of incremental demand for Traffic Services is based on a combination of four factors, each weighted according to their contribution to 2003 budgeted costs: (1) the number of traffic signals in the P AAs versus the number currently in the City (weighted at 24 percent); (2) the number of street lights (weighted at 22 percent); (3) the overall number of road miles (which relates to street signs [weighted at 9 percent]); and (4) population (capturing "other" traffic services demand [weighted at 45 percent]). Table 8-12: Traffic Demand Driver Values Northeast Southeast Federal Way PAA PAA Redondo Signals 75 12 2 Street Lights 1,444 561 190 10 Road Miles 256.00 46.60 28.90 0.30 Population 84,250 12,300 8,900 260 Source: King County Road Division inventory reports by PAA Subarea, January 2002, City of Federal Way 2003/2004 Adopted Budget, conversations with City staff, and ECONorthwest analysis. Note: The number of PAA road miles is based upon King County Road Division databases and include improved rights of way as of the date of the inventory database in January 2002. Based upon the PAA Inventory, March 18, 2002, between 1 and 2 miles of public local streets were added in the PAA Parkway neighborhood as of March 2002 but were not in the January 2002 King County Road database, as there may be time lags in database updates. If 1.5 miles is added to the Southeast PAA total, it would add a fractional cost of $20,000 to the total $2.5 million Public Works cost. For all three Subareas combined, analysis of these four drivers suggests that demand for traffic services would increase by 32 percent in the event of annexation (Table B-14). Streets Maintenance Estimated demand for street maintenance is based on comparisons of road miles in the three PAA Subareas versus those in within Federal Way's existing city limits. This comparison suggests a total incremental demand of 30.2 percent in the PAA (Table B-14). Surface Water Management Federal Way's Surface Water Management (SWM) operation and maintenance functions are funded through the City's Surface Water Management enterprise fund, which in turn, is supported by surface water fees. Typically, enterprise funds are established where the intent of the governing body is to recover the costs of service provision primarily through service charges. As long as City policy dictates that SWM expenditures will not be augmented by General Fund revenues (or any other City revenue source), then any Review Draft December 2003 8-16 ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY Operating Costs ongoing shortfall in SWM revenues will result in (1) an increase in the City's SWM fees schedule and/or (2) a decrease in SWM levels of service. Such an action would be entirely consistent with the potential strategies for reconciling shortfalls in revenues identified in Chapter I of this study. Estimated demand for Surface Water Management operations and maintenance expenditures in the P AA Subareas is based on comparisons of the overall land area of the P AA Subareas versus that of the existing City of Federal Way. Table 8-13: land Area Comparisons, Federal Way and PAA Subareas Northeast Southeast Federal Way PAA PAA Redondo Acres of land (excluding water bodies) 13,457.97 2,393.80 2,391.45 52.55 Source: US Census Bureau 2000 data and ECONorthwest analysis. A comparison of relative land areas suggests that, combined, annexation of the three P AA Subareas would increase demand for day-to-day Surface Water Management services by roughly 36 percent (Table B-14). To ensure that this section of the analysis reflects only the day-to-day costs of maintaining and operating the surface water system, of the $3 million total expenditures budgeted for Surface Water Management in 2003, we excluded $822,000 budgeted for capital improvements and debt service payments. This exclusion resulted in a 2003 cost basis of $2.19 million. Solid Waste & Recycling As is true of Surface Water Management, estimated demand for Solid Waste Division services is based on the incremental increase in City land area that would be introduced by annexation. As the basis for Solid Waste & Recycling Division costs, we used the 2003 budgeted cost of $223,441 but excluded the $141,000 of budgeted one-time charges. Like Surface Water Management, Federal Way's Solid Waste & Recycling functions are funded through an enterprise fund, financed through a combination of collection fees, grants, and a small amount of interest income. For purposes of assessing fiscal impacts of annexation, we assume that this current revenue structure would be sufficient to fund Solid Waste and Recycling activities associated with annexation. As a result, we estimate that incremental costs and revenues associated with Solid Waste and Recycling functions will balance one another out. Review Draft December 2003 B-17 ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY Operating Costs Table 8-14: Public Works-Estimated Incremental Demand by Division and Subarea (2003) Streets Surface Water Management Solid Waste & Recycling Northeast Southeast PAA PAA Redondo Total 14.3% 10.8% 0.2% 25.3% 12.6% 8.8% 0.3% 21.8% 21.9% 9.9% 0.3% 32.0% 18.6% 11.5% 0.1% 30.2% 17.8% 17.8% 0.4% 35.9% 17.8% 17.8% 0.4% 35.9% Administration Development Services Traffic Source: ECONorthwest analysis. Findings Of the Public Works Department's $8.9 million operating budget, we included $8 million in the cost basis for calculating annexation impacts. In total, we estimate that Public Works would incur additional operating costs of $2.5 million (including added office and maintenance facility costs) if the City were to annex all three P AA Subareas in their current form (Table B-15), with associated staffing increases of 13.2 FTEs (Table B-16). Of the $2.5 million total, the largest increases would be seen in the Streets and Surface Water Management divisions, with estimated staffing increases of 3.7 and 5.7 FTEs respectively.6 6 For estimates of facilities costs to support additional FTEs, we distinguish between office and maintenance staff. As discussed previously, we estimate facility costs for one additional office staff based on an assumed requirement of 250 square feet per FTE, at an annual cost of $20 per square foot (resulting in an annual cost of $5,000 per office-based FTE). For maintenance FTEs, we assumed (1) the need for 200 square feet of maintenance shop space per FTE; (2) annualized building costs of roughly $8 per square foot (or $1,600 per FTE); (3) yard space requirements of 10,000 square feet (a floor area ratio of 0.02); and (4) land costs of $8 per square foot, annualized at a total costs of $6,400 per year. For maintenance staff, therefore, we estimate total facilities costs of $8,000 per FTE. One can think of these annualized costs as (1) the annual cost of renting a facility to house office or maintenance activities or (2) the payment on a 20-year bond (with a 5% interest rate) that would cover the purchase and development cost for the facility. Under the latter, bond-repayment scenario, $8,000 in annualized costs would translate into a one-time investment of $100,000 per FTE (under these assumptions, that means $20,000 for 200 square feet of equipped building space per FTE and $80,000 to purchase the 10,000 square feet ofland to go under and around that 200 square feet of building space). Using Surface Water FTE's as an example, the roughly $35,000 of annualized facility costs included in the cost impacts would translate into slightly less than $440,000 in facilities, which in our analysis were split between office and maintenance space. Review Draft December 2003 8-18 ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY Operating Costs Table 8-15: Public Works Cost Impacts (2003 Dollars) Northeast Southeast Division PAA PAA Redondo Total Administration 47,000 36,000 1,000 84,000 Development Services 65,000 46,000 2,000 113,000 Traffic 291,000 132,000 4,000 427,000 Streets 606,000 376,000 4,000 986,000 Surface Water Management 407,000 407,000 9,000 823,000 Solid Waste & Recycling 41,000 41,000 1,000 83,000 Total 1,457,000 1,038,000 21,000 2,516,000 Source: ECONorthwest analysis. Table 8-16: Estimated Additional FTEs: Public Works (2003) Northeast Southeast Division PAA PAA Redondo Total Administration 0.20 0.10 0.30 Development Services 0.80 0.60 1.40 Traffic 1.00 0.50 1.50 Streets 2.30 1.40 3.70 Surface Water Management 2.80 2.80 0.10 5.70 Solid Waste & Recycling 0.30 0.30 0.60 Total 7.40 5.70 0.10 13.20 Source: ECONorthwest analysis. INDIRECT SERVICE DEPARTMENTS Citywide indirect services include those division's that provide administrative and support functions to ensure the efficient operation of City government. These citywlde indirect operating divisions include the City Council; the Administration Division of the Department of the City Manager; the Civil and Legal Services Division of the Department of Law; and all five divisions of the City's Department of Management Services: Administration, Finance, City Clerk, Human Resources, and Information Systems. Of these eight divisions, the costs of the Information Systems Division are already directly "loaded" into the budgeted costs of the remaining City divisions. Therefore, to avoid double counting, we did not include the budgeted costs of Information Systems in our calculation of indirect services. Because the costs of facilities are not included in the City's operating budget, however, we did include an estimate of the facilities costs necessary to house additional Information Systems staff. Review Draft December 2003 8-19 ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY Operating Costs For the remaining seven divisions, our estimated cost impacts are based on the City's previously developed indirect service allocation mechanisms. These mechanisms were originally developed by the City for allocation of indirect service costs to direct service divisions, helping to identify fully-loaded costs of direct services. These allocation mechanisms rely on (1) a given direct service division's share of direct service FTEs, (2) the division's share of budget, or (3) some combination of FTEs and budget as the basis for allocation. For the Administration Division of the Department of the City Manager, for example, 70 percent of our impact estimates are driven by percentage increases in direct and departmental indirect service divisions increases in operating expenditures, while the remaining 30 percent of impacts are driven by percentage increases in those divisions' staffing (See the column describing the Cost Allocation Mechanism for each division in (Table B-17). As with direct service departments, we excluded $110,000 for each director- level position from the 2003 cost basis of each affected division. In total, we estimate non-loaded cost impacts of the eight indirect service divisions of $686,000 (Table B-17), and staffing impacts of 6.5 additional FTEs (Table B-18). Table 8-17: Cost Impacts for Indirect Service Departments (2003) Cost Allocation Northeast Southeast Department Division Mechanism PAA PAA Redondo Total City Council City Council 100% Budget 26,000 26,000 1,000 53,000 City Administration 70% Budget Manager - 30% FTEs 60,000 61,000 2,000 123,000 Law Civil & Legal 50% Budget 63,000 66,000 5,000 134,000 Services - 50% FTEs Management Administration 70% Budget Services - 30% FTEs 18,000 18,000 1,000 37,000 Management Finance 80% Budget Services - 20% FTEs 80,000 81,000 3,000 164,000 Management City Clerk 100% Budget Services 30,000 30,000 1,000 61,000 Management Human 100% FTEs Services Resources 49,000 53,000 2,000 104,000 Directly Management Information Loaded into Services Systems Departmental Budgets 5,000 5,000 10,000 Total 331,000 340,000 15,000 686,000 Source: ECONorthwest analysis. Review Draft December 2003 B-20 ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY Operating Costs Table 8-18: Estimated Additional FTEs for Indirect Service Departments (2003) Northeast Southeast Department Division PAA PAA Redondo Total City Council City Council City Manager Administration 0.30 0.30 0.60 Law Civil & Legal Services 0.50 0.50 1.00 Management Services Administration 0.10 0.10 0.20 Management Services Finance 0.80 0.80 1.60 Management Services City Clerk 0.20 0.20 0.40 Management Services Human Resources 0.40 0.50 0.90 Management Services Information Systems 0.90 0.90 1.80 Total 3.2 3.3 6.5 Source: ECONorthwest analysis. Review Draft December 2003 8-21 ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY Operating Costs This page intentionally blank. Review Draft 8-22 December 2003 ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY Operating Revenues Operating Revenues This component of the Annexation Feasibility Study examines the impacts that annexation would have on the Federal Way's operating revenues. Consistent with our approach to estimating operating costs, we approach this analysis of revenues by looking at operating revenues that the City of Federal Way would stand to generate in the Northeast, Southeast, and Redondo PAAs for a single year. The following analysis is based on asking a hypothetical question: If one or more of the study areas were a fully-functioning part of the City of Federal Way in 2003, how much addÜional operating revenue would these areas generate for the City? These estimates represent the revenues the City would stand to collect from the P AAs in 2003 if the City were to apply its current tax and fee structure. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS In total, we estimate that if the three P AAs had been part of Federal Way in 2003 the City would stand to generate $4.6 million in operating revenues (Table C-1). Among the three PAAs, the Redondo area generates the highest revenues per resident, at $646-a finding that is not surprising given the small population of the area and the relative intensity of commercial uses. By contrast, the Southeast and Northeast P AAs generate revenues per resident of $219 and $201, respectively. Review Draft December 2003 C-1 ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY Operating Revenues Table C-1: Operating Revenues Generated, by PAA (2003) Northeast Southeast PAA PAA Redondo Total Property Tax $947,000 $699,000 $24,000 $1,670,000 State Shared Revenues $365,000 $264,000 $8,000 $637,000 Sales Tax - Criminal Justice $246,000 $178,000 $5,000 $429,000 Local Retail Sales Tax $107,000 $173,000 $79,000 $359,000 Utility Taxes (O&Mf $196,000 $135,000 $6,554 $337,554 Suñace Water Fees $159,000 $116,000 $10,000 $285,000 Fines and Foñeits $106,000 $115,000 $6,000 $227,000 Building Permit Fees $121,000 $90,000 $7,000 $218,000 Vehicle License Fee " Franchise Fees $102,000 $74,000 $2,000 $178,000 Solid Waste Revenues $41,000 $41,000 $1,000 $83,000 Development Services $39,000 $27,000 $1,000 $67,000 Fees Recreation Fees $23,000 $33,000 $500 $56,500 Zoning Fees $7,000 $5,000 $1,000 $13,000 Gambling Tax $13,000 $16,000 $29,000 Business License Fees $4,000 $3,000 $1,000 $8,000 Total $2,476,000 $1,953,000 $168,044 $4,597,044 Revenues per $201 $219 $646 $214 Resident Source: ECONorthwest analysis. . Estimated utility taxes available to defray the City's day-to-day costs of operation represent 22 percent of the total estimated revenues for utility taxes. This 22 percent share reflects current City policy, which earmarks 78 percent of utility tax revenues for capital purposes (including Transportation CIP, Parks CIP, Community/Senior Center/Pool capital expenditures, funding for the Public Safety building, and project maintenance and operations). The remaining 22 percent of utility tax revenues go to defray day-to-day operating costs (including street overlays [the expense for which is included in our day-to-day costs of operation], operation and maintenance of the Community/Senior Center/Pool, and administration of the utility tax). .. In November 2002, Washington State voters approved Initiative-776, which sought to limit the cost of car tabs to a rate of $30 in all areas of the state. Among other impacts, implementation of 1-776 would have ended the collection of King County's $15 license fee. In February 2003, a King County Superior Court judge ruled that 1- 776 was unconstitutional in its form. Subsequently, the State Attorney General has appealed the Superior Court ruling, seeking a State Supreme Court review of the ruling. In November, 2003, the State Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of 1-776, eliminating vehicle license fees as a source of city revenue. Following we provide a detailed discussion of the assumptions, methods, and analytic steps that underlie the above figures. Review Draft C-2 December 2003 ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY Operating Revenues REVENUE DETAIL The revenue estimates presented in the previous section are based on a combination of directly observed data, the City of Federal Way's current tax structure, and estimates that are based on revenue-generation patterns that we have observed in cities throughout Washington State. In instances where revenues are derivative of City functions (for example, permit or recreation fees) we have sought to ensure that the estimated revenues are consistent with our estimates of the related costs of service. For building permit fees, for example, our revenue estimates are directly linked to our estimated costs of providing Building Division services, based on historical cost-recovery (the portion of total operating costs that are recovered through fees) associated with permitting activity. PROPERTY TAXES On the whole, potential property tax revenues represent the single largest source of revenues that would be available to Federal Way were the City to pursue annexation. In 2002, the City of Federal Way itself generated $7.7 million in property taxes through its regular levy of $1.38 per $1,000 of taxable assessed value (A V). Our estimate of the property tax revenues the three P AAs would generate in 2003 is based on combining (1) real property data extracted from 2002 King County Assessor's extracts, (2) an assumption that the three PAAs have additional taxable personal and intercounty utility property worth 4 percent of the real property value (an assumption that is in line with county averages), and an assumption that overall property values in the P AAs increased at a rate of 4 percent from 2002 to 2003 (a figure that includes the value of new improvements and the increase in existing property). To arrive at our 2003 estimated revenue, we applied Federal Way's 2003 levy rate of $1.34 per $1,000 of assessed value to our estimate of $1.3 billion of taxable property in the P AAs. This translates into total revenues of $1. 7 million (Table C-2). Table C-2: Assessed Value (in 2003 dollars) Northeast PM Southeast PM Redondo $17,542,000 $1.34 $24,000 Total $1,198,086,505 $1.34 $1,670,000 Taxable Assessed Value $707,053,000 $521,416,000 Levy Rate (per $1,000 AV) $1.34 $1.34 Property Tax Revenue $947,000 $699,000 Source: ECONorthwest analysis of King County Assessor's 2002 data extracts. Review Draft December 2003 C-3 ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY Operating Revenues Among the seven neighborhoods of the three P AA's, the relatively small North Lake neighborhood has the highest assessed values per resident at $95,000 (Table C-3). The remaining six neighborhoods each exhibit per capita AVs ranging from $51,000 to $70,000. Table C-3: Estimated Assessed Value per Resident by Neighborhood (2003) North lake $95,000 Lakeland $70,000 Redondo East $67,000 Star Lake $67,000 Jovita $60,000 Parkway $51,000 Camelot $51,000 Source: ECONorthwest analysis of King County Assessor's 2002 data extracts. STATE SHARED REVENUES All cities and towns in Washington State are eligible to receive certain "shared" revenues on the basis of their population. These state-collected revenues derive from three sources: liquor receipts (both profits from liquor sales as well as liquor taxes); fuel taxes; and a small, population-based distribution to support cities' criminal justice functions. As a group, Washington cities and towns receive a fIXed percentage of these source revenues, and that fixed percentage is then allocated to the individual cities on a per capita basis. (For shared profits from liquor sales, as an example, Washington cities and towns as a group receive 40 percent of the total profits. This lump of money is then distributed to the individual municipalities according to their respective populations.) If the Northeast, Southeast, and Redondo PAAs were part of Federal Way in 2003, the City's population would have been an estimated 21,460 residents greater. 1 As a result of this change in population, the City would have received 21,460 more shares of the state per capita distributions. I For the three Potential Annexation Areas, we estimated 2003 populations of 12,300 for the Northeast Subarea, 8,900 for the Southeast, and 260 for Redondo. We generated these population estimates by extending our analysis that generated the original 2002 population figures--combining 2000 census counts by census block, housing unit counts from the King County Assessor tax parcel accounts, and recently-permitted housing units as tracked by King County and the Puget Sound Regional Council. Review Draft December 2003 C-4 ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY Operating Revenues Table C-4: Resident 2003 State Shared Revenue Distributions Per City Tax Criminal Justice (Population based) Liquor Tax Liquor Profits Unrestricted Gas Tax Distributions Total 0.18 3.51 5.03 14.42 6.74 $29.70 Restricted Gas Tax Source: Municipal Research and Services Center: Budget Suggestions for 2003 SALES TAX-CRIMINAL JUSTICE By Washington State law, a few counties, including King County, are authorized to seek voter approval to levy a 0.1 percent sales tax to support local criminal-justice programs. Ifvoters approve the levy, as they have in King County, the State Department of Revenue collects the tax, and then after retaining a small portion, distributes 10 percent of the proceeds to the County and the remaining 90 percent to the County and cities based on population. For 2003, we estimate criminal justice sales tax distributions of $20 per resident, a figure that translates into distributions of $246,000, $178,000, and $5,000 for the Northeast, Southeast, and Redondo areas, respectively, for a total distribution of $429,000. LOCAL RETAIL SALES TAX Retail sales tax is calculated as a percentage of the sale price of tangible personal property (with the exception of groceries and prescription medicine) and many services purchased by consumers. Beyond its application to tangible personal property, sales tax is also applied to items such as telephone service; the installation, repair, or cleaning of tangible personal property; and to the construction or improvement of new or existing buildings, including labor and services provided throughout the process. Of the 8.8 percent sales tax currently collected in the City and the Potential Annexation Areas, a 1 percent "local" tax accrues to local jurisdictions. In the unincorporated areas the full 1 percent local tax accrues to the County except for a small portion retained by the State Department of Revenue to cover collection and distribution costs. If the transaction location is within a city like Federal Way, the city receives an 85 percent share of the 1 percent local tax and the County receives 15 percent. Review Draft December 2003 C-5 ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY Operating Revenues With sales tax revenues in excess of $10.6 million in 2002, sales taxes are the single greatest source of funding for the City of Federal Way. With collections of roughly $127 per resident, Federal Way ranks 95th out of Washington State's 280 cities and towns in per-capita sales tax collections. Our estimate of the sales tax revenues Federal Way could expect to receive from activities in the three P AAs are based on comparisons with other existing cities in the Puget Sound area and across Washington State. Based on our analysis of how a range of jurisdictional characteristics correspond to generation of sales tax dollars, we identified three variables that strongly correlate with sales tax revenues: the number of employees in the Retail sector in a given area; the number of employees in the Finance, Insurance, Real Estate and Services sector (FIRES); and the number of new housing units permitted in the previous year (because of sales taxes on construction activities). While sales tax revenues varied widely from one jurisdiction to the next, we found a large portion of the variation (more than 95 percent) could be explained by variations in the three aforementioned factors. - Based on the distribution of Retail and FIRES employment in each P AA, and based on historical levels of development, we estimate that if the three P AAs were part of Federal Way for the entirety of 2003, the City would have received total sales tax revenues of $359,000. Among the three areas, we estimate that the Northeast PAA would generate $107,000, the Southeast PAA would generate $173,000, and the Redondo area would generate $79,000. UTILITY TAXES While King County is unable to levy utility taxes, Federal Way does levy taxes on the gross operating revenues that public and private utilities earn within the City boundaries, including electricity, telephone, natural gas, cable television, solid waste, and surface water management. In 2003, the City raised its utility tax rates for all utilities from 5 percent to 6 percent, the highest rate a City can levy without voter approval. Federal Way policy is to use the majority of utility tax revenues to fund capital improvements, including Roads Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), Parks Capital Improvement Program (CIP), and development of City facilities. A small portion of the revenues, however, are earmarked for activities that we include within the operating functions of the City, including 17 percent of the revenues for the City's roads overlay program, 4 percent for maintenance and operation of the City Community/Senior Center and Pool, and 1 percent for administration of the utility tax revenues. Given this split, we account for 22 percent of utility tax revenues as operating revenues (17% + 4% + 1% = 22%). Our methods for estimating utility tax revenues vary by source. Review Draft December 2003 C-6 ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY Operating Revenues Electricity and Natural Gas Estimates of taxes on the gross revenues of electricity and natural gas generated in each of the three P AAs are based on (1) the total square footage of buildings in each area; (2) the relative share of that space that is residential (as opposed to commercial); and (3) the share of residential square footage that uses electricity as the primary source of heat. Our estimates of the electrical and gas revenues generated per square foot for each P AA are based on comparisons of revenues and building space in Federal Way, Kent, Des Moines, and Kenmore. At the City's 6 percent tax rate, we estimate that an area will generate between $28 and $38 in electricity taxes for every 1,000 square feet of building space. Areas with a higher share of commercial space and, to a lesser extent, higher shares of residential square footage with electric heat fall in the higher end of the range, while areas with little commercial space and low shares of electric heat fall in the low end of the range. For natural gas, we estimate that an area will generate between $17 and $20 per 1,000 square feet, with the differences, again, being driven by the level of commercial built space and relative split in residential among heating sources. Table C-5: Building Space Characteristics by Neighborhood Share of Commercial Residential With Total Floor Area Share of Total Electric Heat Camelot 4,556,847 15% 14% North Lake 406,546 0% 48% Star Lake 2,343,325 11% 15% Jovita 595,324 0% 41% Lakeland 1,868,375 10% 23% Parkway 2,319,160 19% 12% Redondo 196,007 62% 3% Telephone Our estimate of taxes on gross telephone revenues is based on a statistical analysis of a dozen Puget Sound area cities. Telephone tax revenues are driven by (1) the population of each Potential Annexation Area and (2) the estimated number of employees in the Finance, Insurance, Real Estate, and Services (FIRES) sectors of the economy, with a revenue-generating effect of Review Draft December 2003 C-7 ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY Operating Revenues a single FIRES employee weighted as being equivalent to the effect of 1.8 residents. Cable Television Our estimate of cable television tax revenues are based on an estimate that, on average, each resident in the PAA will generate revenues of $9.93. This figure is based on historical trends in Federal Way cable television revenues. At the old 5 percent tax rate, City cable tax revenues equaled $7.13 per resident in 2001, increasing from $5.74 in 1999. Adjusted for the increase to the 6 percent tax rate, our estimated $9.93 per resident in 2003 represents a slight decrease in the rate of cable revenue growth. Solid Waste Estimates of solid waste tax revenues are based on an estimate that the Northeast and Southeast P AAs will generate revenues at a rate of $4.74 per resident. This estimate is based on historical trends within the City of Federal Way and an assumption that, within the City, 80 percent of solid waste revenues are generated by residents, while the remaining revenues are associated with commercial activities. Estimates of solid waste revenues in the Redondo area are also based on comparisons with patterns of revenue collection within the City. However, because Redondo is more skewed towards commercial uses, we made an upward adjustment in the expected revenues per resident in Redondo commensurate with the commercial presence in the area. For Redondo, we estimate overall solid waste tax revenues equal to $7.10 per resident. Surface Water Estimates of surface water tax revenues are based on direct estimates of surface water fee collections given the City's current rate structure and land uses in each of the Potential Annexation Areas. Based on King County Assessor's data, we estimate the following breakdown of land uses in the P AA. Review Draft December 2003 C-8 ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY Operating Revenues Table C-6: Estimated land Uses for Collection of Suñace Water Fees and Taxes by PAA Northeast Southeast Redondo 1 ,442 811 47 Mobile Homes 44 466 103 Acres Commercial-Hea 1.75 9.55 0 Acres Commercial-Moderate 77.07 33.92 8.50 Acres Commercial-Li ht 71.66 76.50 1.80 For purposes of estimating surface water fees, determinations of heavy, moderate, and light usages are based on floor area ratios (FAR), which are defined as the ratio of built floor area to land area. Parcels with F ARs in excess of 0.5 are categorized as Heavy use, parcels with F ARs between 0.1 and 0.5 are categorized as Moderate, while parcels with FARs less than 0.1 are categorized as Light. Our assumed fees per acre for Heavy, Moderate, and Light commercial parcels are $1,166, $366, and $179, respectively. These fees correspond with City fees levies on Light, Moderate, and Very Heavy commercial uses as outlined in the City Code. Summary of Utility Tax Revenues for Operation and Maintenance Table C-7: Summary of Utility Tax Revenues Dedicated to Operation and Maintenance Activities Northeast Southeast PM PM Redondo Total Electricity $52,000 $34,000 $2,000 $88,000 Natural Gas $31,000 $20,000 $1,000 $52,000 Telephone $71,000 $51,000 $2,000 $124,000 Cable TV $27,000 $19,000 $1,000 $47,000 Solid Waste (Utility Tax) $13,000 $9,000 $406 $22,406 Surface Water Management $2,000 $2,000 $138 $4,138 (Utility Tax) Total $196,000 $135,000 $6,544 $337,544 SURFACE WATER FEES As we noted in our preceding discussion of the operating costs associated with surface water management (SWM), Federal Way's surface water operation and maintenance are funded through an enterprise fund supported by surface water fees. As long as City policy dictates that SWM activities will Review Draft December 2003 C-9 ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY Operating Revenues not be augmented by General Fund revenues or any other revenue source, then any shortfall in SWM funding will result in (1) an increase in SWM fees and/or (2) a decrease in SWM levels of service. As outlined in the discussion of surface water taxes, estimates of surface water management fee revenues are based on application of the City's current fee structure to land uses in each of the three P AAs. In addition to the commercial fees outlined in the discussion of surface water tax revenues, consistent with the City's current fee structure, we applied a fee of $79.03 for each single family parcel and $32.08 for each mobile home. Estimates for surface water fees and taxes do not include payments for City roads. Payment of these fees simply constitutes a transfer from one operating division within the City to another, with no net impact to the City's overall operating budget. FINES AND FORFEITS While cities are responsible for providing municipal court services for adjudication of local infractions, cities also stand to receive a portion of the fines and forfeit revenues associated with that adjudication. Our estimates of the additional fines and forfeit revenues that Federal Way would receive were it to annex any or all of the P AAs are directly tied to our estimate of the increase in law enforcement services associated with each P AA. Specifically, our estimates of fines and forfeits revenues represent (1) the City's budgeted 2003 fines and forfeit revenues multiplied by (2) the incremental demand for law enforcement services that we estimate will be introduced by each of the PAAs. As we discussed in our examination of service costs for Public Safety, Criminal Prosecution, and Municipal Court services, we estimate that the three P AAs combined will introduce a 22.3 percent increase in demand on public safety resources (Table C-7). Consequently, our estimate of fines and forfeits revenues generated by the three P AAs combined represents 22.3 percent of the $1,018,813 in revenues the City budgeted for fines and forfeits in 2003... equaling $227,000. Table C-8: Public Safety, Criminal Prosecution, and Municipal Court-Estimated Incremental Demand by Subarea (2003) Public Safety Northeast PM 10.4% Southeast PM 11.2% Redondo 0.6% Total 22.3% Source: ECONorthwest analysis. Review Draft December 2003 C-10 ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY Operating Revenues BUILDING PERMIT FEES To help defray the costs of defining and enforcing development and building standards, the Building and Planning divisions of the City's Department of Community Development Services collect fees in return for the oversight and issuance of zoning, development, and building permits. For the Building Division, these fees include fees for electrical permits, plan review, and building permits (which include among other things, mechanical permits and sign permits). While it is tempting to try to base building fee revenues on historical trends in permitting activity in the Potential Annexation Areas, our experience in past analyses has been that such an approach generates estimates that are less than reliable. Among the hurdles we have encountered are (1) challenges associated with incomplete or inconsistent historical permit data for the P AAs and (2) the experience of annexing cities (in terms of the number of permits issued) tends to differ from the historical experience of King County. One possible reason for this second hurdle may be that residents of unincorporated King County have different expectations about the kinds of activities that require building permits, or about the level of enforcement they would be likely to see if they are part of a city as opposed to residing in unincorporated King County. Given our experience with a variety of methods for estimating permit revenues, we chose, ultimately, to tie our estimate of revenues for building permits, electrical permits, and plan review directly to the estimate of permitting activity that we generated when estimating the operating costs associated with Building Division. As it turns out, most cities find that the relationship between the costs of providing permitting services and the revenues that those permits generate has proven to be relatively stable from year to year. Given this relationship between costs and fees, we base our estimate of fee revenues on (1) the anticipated cost of providing Building Division permitting services to the P AA, (2) the historical relationships that the City has seen between permitting costs and revenues, and (3) recently enacted changes in Federal Way's permitting fee structure. Table C-9: Estimates of Building Division Costs and Fee Revenue by PAA (2003) Northeast PAA Southeast PAA Redondo Total Building Division Fee Revenues $121,000 $90,000 $7,000 218,000 Source: ECONorthwest analysis. Review Draft December 2003 C-11 ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY Operating Revenues VEHICLE LICENSE FEES King County has historically imposed a $15 license fee for all vehicles registered in the county. Cities within the county were eligible to receive the revenues from this fee paid by their own residents. In November 2002, Washington State voters approved Initiative-776, which sought to limit the cost of car tabs to a rate of $30 in all areas of the state. In November, 2003, the Washington Supreme Court upheld 1-776, eliminating vehicle license fees as a source of county or city revenue. FRANCHISE FEES The City of Federal Way levies a 5 percent franchise fee on the gross revenues generated by the cable television service provider within the City. Our estimates of the revenues generated by this fee in the P AAs are based on the estimate of cable television utility taxes summarized above. In total, we estimated cable utility tax revenues of $213,000, based on a 6 percent tax rate (of which, $47,000 is included in the estimated impacts to the City's operating revenues). Given the difference between the 6 percent utility tax rate and the 5 percent rate for the franchise fee, we estimate cable franchise fee revenues of $178,000. SOLID WASTE AND RECYLCING REVENUES A portion of the revenues that accrue to the City's Solid Waste and Recycling Fund from collections and grants serve to cover the City's costs of managing and running the City's Solid Waste and Recycling services. For purposes of assessing fiscal impacts of annexation under a steady-state scenario, we assume that this current revenue structure will be sufficient to fund collection and oversight activities associated with annexation. As a result, we estimate that incremental costs and revenues associated with Solid Waste and Recycling functions will balance one another out over time. Based on our estimate that the City would incur $83,000 in costs for managing Solid Waste and Recycling services for the three P AAs combined, we estimate equal revenues of $83,000. Having noted our full-cost-recovery assumption for Solid Waste and Recycling operations, we should also note that it will take the City a number of years upon annexation to adjust its revenue structure to accommodate the newly introduced service costs. Roughly half of the revenues that support Solid Waste activities accrue to the City from grants. Since these grants are distributed to the City based on the City's population, any annexation of new populations would bring with it a commensurate increase in revenue distributions. Review Draft December 2003 C-12 ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY Operating Revenues The remaining half of Solid Waste revenues-fees that are generated as part of the City's franchise agreement with the waste hauler-will not automatically increase with annexation. Upon annexation, the City will have a certain opportunity to negotiate commensurate increases in franchise charges when the waste hauler's franchise becomes subject to City regulatory authority (7 years after annexation), and the City may have an opportunity to negotiate an increase with the waste hauler prior to that. As we stated above, however, for our steady-state snapshot of operating impacts, we have assumed that the City will have the opportunity to negotiate franchise charges that would fully support the costs of providing its Solid Waste and Recycling services. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES FEES As is true of the Building and Planning divisions of the Department of Community Development Services, the Development Services Division of the Public Works Department generate fee revenues to help defray the costs of plan review and issuance of right-of-way permits. As we noted in our preceding discussion of building permit revenues, our experience in estimating costs and revenues associated with development services suggests that the preferred method for estimating development services fee revenues is to base those estimates on the anticipated demand for the Development Services Division's services in the PAA, as identified in our earlier estimates of operating costs. For the 2003 budget, the City anticipates that these revenues will recoup 63 percent of the directly-budgeted costs of operating the Development Services Division.2 Our estimate of Development Services fees represents our estimated costs of providing Development Services to the three P AAs (excluding the non-budgeted costs of facilities) multiplied by this 63 percent cost-recovery rate. For the three P AAs combined, these methods result in total estimated Development Services fees of $67,000. RECREATION FEES Estimates of recreation fees represent 54 percent of our estimate of the costs of providing recreation services for each of the P AAs. This cost-recovery percentage is consistent with the City's 2003 budget for recreation costs and 2 It is worth noting that the directly-budgeted costs of operating a city's development services division almost always understates the true, fully-loaded cost of operating the division. As cost-of-service studies are designed to identify, in addition to the direct costs, the true costs of running a division must also include a pro-rata share of a city's support functions, the cost of facilities, etc. Review Draft December 2003 C-13 ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY Operating Revenues revenues within the City. For the three P AAs combined, this cost-recovery assumption results in estimated fees of $56,500. ZONING FEES As with the fees generated by the Building Division of the Department of Community Development Services, the Planning Division generates zoning, or more accurately, land use application fee revenues that help to defray the costs of operating the Division. Again, we estimate these revenues based on our estimate of the additional demand for services that will be generated in each of the three P AAs. From 2000 through 2002, zoning fees recouped roughly 9 percent of the directly-budgeted costs of operating the Planning Division. (In 2001, for example, the City's 2003/2004 Adopted Budget reports that the Planning Division generated $86,819 in zoning fees, which represents roughly 8.5 percent of the Planning Division's overall expenditures of $1.025 million.) Our estimate of zoning fee revenues represents 9 percent of our estimated Planning Division services costs (excluding non-budgeted facilities costs), adjusted to account for the 14.6 percent increase in fees instituted in 2003. For the three P AAs combined, we estimate zoning fee receipts of $13,000. GAMBLING TAX Gambling Tax revenues represent revenues collected through taxes on pull- tab revenues collected at a single business in the Star Lake neighborhood of the Northeast PAA and a single business in the Redondo PAA. The estimated revenues of $13,000 for the Northeast PAA and $16,000 for the Redondo PAA reflect the recent pattern of gambling tax revenues collected from the site by King County in recent quarters. Since both the City of Federal Way and King County levy a 5 percent tax on pull-tab revenues received by businesses, we anticipate similar revenue generation for the City of Federal upon annexation. BUSINESS LICENSE FEES The City of Federal Way levies a $25 annual renewal fee on all businesses located within City boundaries. Our estimate of the revenues generated by this fee in the P AAs is based on a count of businesses in each P AA based on Department of Employment Security data that have been geocoded by staff at the Puget Sound Regional CounciL People who are familiar with the Northeast and Southeast P AAs are likely to be surprised at the number of businesses that are located in those areas. Most of these businesses, however, are home-based businesses, the existence of which would not be immediately apparent to the casual observer. Many of these home-base businesses provide construction-related services (e.g. Review Draft December 2003 C-14 ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY Operating Revenues carpentry, plumbing, and electrical services), with others being listed simply as private households who also run a business of one sort or another. Table C-10: Counts of Businesses by PAA (2000) Northeast PAA Southeast PAA Redondo Number of Businesses 113 20 140 Source: ECONorthwest analysis of PSRC data on covered employment. Given the estimated number of businesses in each of the P AAs, and given the annual fee of $25 per business, we estimate annual business fees of roughly $8,000 from the three PAAs combined. Review Draft December 2003 C-15 ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY Operating Revenues This page intentionally blank. Review Draft December 2003 C-16 ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY Net Fiscal Impact on Operating Revenues Net Fiscal Impact on Operating Revenues As noted in preceding sections, our approach to estimating the fiscal operating impact of annexation is to ask a series of hypothetical questions: 1. What are tile operating cost impacttif one or more of the study areas were a fully-functioning part of the City of Federal Way in 2003, how much additional operating revenue would the City need to extend its existing levels of day-to-day services to those areas? 2. What revenues would tile areas generate to defray tllese costs! What revenue would the City generate in 2003 If it applied its current tax and fee structure to each of the PAAs? 3. What are tile net, annual operating revenues! By answering these three questions, we are able to identify the net cost of annexation in annual terms. Assuming that the net revenues are negative (i.e. an area generates a net cost), if the City were to go ahead and annex an area, then these costs could manifest themselves in the form of (1) increased taxes for City residents, (2) decreased services, or most likely, (3) some combination of the two. OVERVIEW OF FINDINGS With total estimated operating revenues of $4.6 million and estimated operating costs of $8.1 million, if Federal Way had annexed the P AAs in 2003 and tried to extend its current levels of services to the areas, we estimate that the City would have incurred net costs of slightly less than $3.6 million (Table D-3). This net cost translates into a cost of $165 per P AA resident. For a discussion of how this net cost would be likely to change in coming years, readers should look to the discussion in Chapter E: Trends in Operating Costs and Revenues. Among the three P AAs, however, substantial differences exist in the extent of the cost of annexation. With a relatively small population and substantial commercial activity, we estimate that annexation of the Redondo area would generate virtually no net costs to the City. (Given the margin of error associated with estimating costs and revenues for an area like Redondo, our estimated net revenues of $10,344 should be viewed as essentially equal to zero cost.) In the long term, given the potential for redevelopment of commercial parcels in Redondo, and given the area's proximity to neighboring retail and Review Draft December 2003 D-1 ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY Net Fiscal Impact on Operating Revenues commercial markets, we believe that annexation of Redondo is likely to be a long-term net generator of operating revenues for Federal Way. In contrast to Redondo, the Northeast and Southeast P AAs are both largely residential in nature. Neither the Northeast nor the Southeast PAA generates substantial sales tax revenues. Rather, the primary source of operating revenues for both areas is property tax, a source that, with the 2001 passage ofInitiative-747 property tax limits, the City should expect to erode over time. Between the Northeast and Southeast P AAs, annexation of the Northeast P AA would generate lower net costs, both in absolute terms and in terms of costs per resident. Among the biggest reasons for the differences in net costs for the two areas are (1) differences in per-capita property values, (2) differences in the estimated per-household cost of high-cost services like public safety, and (3) differences in the costs of maintaining parks facilities. 1 Table D-1: Operating Revenues Generated, by PAA (2003) Northeast Southeast PAA PAA Redondo Total Property Tax $947,000 $699,000 $24,000 $1,670,000 State Shared Revenues $365,000 $264,000 $8,000 $637,000 Sales Tax - Criminal Justice $246,000 $178,000 $5,000 $429,000 Local Retail Sales Tax $107,000 $173,000 $79,000 $359,000 Utility Jaxes $196,000 $135,000 $6,544 $337,544 (O&M) Suñace Water Fees $159,000 $116,000 $10,000 $285,000 Fines and Foñeits $106,000 $115,000 $6,000 $227,000 Building Permit $121,000 $90,000 $7,000 $218,000 Fees Veh.~cle License Fee Franchise Fees $102,000 $74,000 $2,000 $178,000 Solid Waste Revenues $41,000 $41,000 $1,000 $83,000 Development $39,000 $27,000 $1,000 $67,000 Services Fees 1 The Southeast PAA has substantial parks facilities while the Northeast PAA has virtually no active parks space. It is important to note that, if the City were to annex the Northeast PAA and want to bring the area up to current City standards for park acres per resident, the City would have to incur substantial capital costs to do so. Moreover, upon completing the new facilities, the City would find itself in the position of facing higher maintenance and operation costs associated with maintaining those facilities. Review Draft 0-2 December 2003 ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY Net Fiscal Impact on Operating Revenues Northeast Southeast PAA PAA Redondo Total Recreation Fees $23,000 $33,000 $500 $56,500 Zoning Fees $7,000 $5,000 $1,000 $13,000 Gambling Tax $13,000 $16,000 $29,000 Business License $3,000 $1,000 $8,000 Fees $4,000 Total $2,476,000 $1,953,000 $168,044 $4,597,044 Revenues per $201 $219 $646 $214 Resident Source: ECONorthwest analysis. . Estimated utility taxes available to defray the City's day-to-day costs of operation represent 22 percent of the total estimated revenues for utility taxes. This 22 percent share reflects current City policy, which earmarks 78 percent of utility tax revenues for capital purposes (including Transportation CIP, Parks CIP, Community/Senior Center/Pool capital expenditures, funding for the Public Safety building, and project maintenance and operations). The remaining 22 percent of utility tax revenues go to defray day-to-day operating costs (including street overlays [the expense for which is included in our day-to-day costs of operation], operation and maintenance of the Community/Senior Center/Pool, and administration of the utility tax). .. In November 2002, Washington State voters approved Initiative-776, which sought to limit the cost of car tabs to a rate of $30 in all areas of the state. Among other impacts, implementation of 1-776 would have ended the collection of King County's $15 license fee. In February 2003, a King County Superior Court judge ruled that 1- 776 was unconstitutional in its form. Subsequently, the State Attorney General has appealed the Superior Court ruling, seeking a State Supreme Court review of the ruling. . In November, 2003, the State Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of 1-776, eliminating vehicle license fees as a source of city revenue. Table D-2: Operating Costs by Department by Potential Annexation Area (2003) Northeast Southeast PAA PAA Redondo Total City Council $26,000 $26,000 $1,000 $53,000 City Manager $193,000 $204,000 $10,000 $407,000 Community Development $299,000 $221,000 $13,300 $533,300 Law $129,000 $136,000 $6,000 $271,000 Management Services . $182,000 $187,000 $7,000 $376,000 Parks & Recreation $55,000 $406,000 $1,000 $462,000 Public Safety $1,651,000 $1,780,000 $98,000 $3,529,000 Public Works $1,457,000 $1,038,000 $21,000 $2,516,000 Total $3,992,000 $3,998,000 $157,300 $8,147,300 Costs per Resident $325 $449 $605 $380 Source: ECONorthwest analysis. Review Draft December 2003 D-3 ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY Net Fiscal Impact on Operating Revenues Table D-3: Annual Net Operating Revenues (or Operating Cost) of Annexation, by PAA (2003) Northeast Southeast PAA PAA Redondo Total Operating Revenues $2,476,000 $1,953,000 $168,044 $4,597,044 Operating Cost $3,992,000 $3,998,000 $157,300 $8,147,300 Net Revenues or Cost -$1,516,000 -$2,045,000 $10,344 ' -$3,550,256 Costs per Resident -$123 -$230 $41 -$166 Source: ECONorthwest analysis. Note: The net operating revenue (or net costs) presented here represent the gap between operating revenues generated in each of the PAAs under the City's 2003 revenue structure and the costs of extending 2003 levels of City services to the same areas. In order to present a full picture of operating impacts, this presentation combines fiscal impacts across a number of disparate City Funds. Among the potential strategies that are available to bridge the gap between costs and revenues, the City has expressed interest in a strategy that maintains City policy and ensures that Surf ace Water Management costs would be covered by Surface Water Fees within the structure of the Surface Water Enterprise Fund. Given estimated SWM costs and revenues, pursuit of this strategy would require increased SWM fees and/or decreased levels of SWM savices. By balancing SWM fees and costs Citywide, the City would reduce the remaining gap by $537,000 (the difference between estimated SWM operating costs ($823,000) given current service levels and estimated revenues ($286,000), which again, are based on the City's current schedule of fees. The remaining $2.8 million gap, then, would be bridged through some combination of other strategies. * Given the uncertainties surrounding estimates of costs and revenues for a small area like Redondo, the reported net revenue of $10,344for the Redondo area could be viewed as essentially equal to zero. DISTINCTIONS AMONG NEIGHBORHOODS Although we were not able to perform detailed analyses of operating costs and revenues at the neighborhood level, we did perform a high-level assessment of differences in the fiscal attractiveness of the seven identified neighborhood. Our assessment of these differences among neighborhoods is based on an assessment of property and sales tax revenues (the two major sources of revenues that have the potential to vary widely from area to area), and a rough assessment ofthe distribution of demand for high-cost services like public safety. Our assessment of these factors leads us to believe that, with the exception of Redondo, no other single neighborhood is likely to be a net "winner" for the City as an annexation area (at least not in their current form). In relative terms, the small North Lake area (estimated 2003 population of 600) is likely to come the closest to breaking even. North Lake has taxable property per resident that is more than 50 percent higher than that of the three P AAs combined (Table D-4) (values that should translate into roughly a 20 percent boost in the area's per capita revenues). We also estimate that North Lake will ge nerate lower-than-average demand for public safety Review Draft December 2003 D-4 ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY Net Fiscal Impact on Operating Revenues services. However, North Lake appears to generate only very low levels of sales tax revenues. On balance, our rough assessment is that even annexation of the North Lake neighborhood would generate net costs in excess of $50 per resident. Table D-4: Estimated Population and Assessed Value per Resident by Neighborhood (2003) Assessed Estimated Value per Population Resident North Lake 600 $95,000 Lakeland 3,000 $70,000 Redondo East 260 $67,000 Star Lake 3,200 $67,000 Jovita 1,400 $60,000 Parkway 4,500 $51,000 Camelot 8,500 $51,000 Source: ECONorthwest analysis of King County Assessor's 2002 data extracts, 2000 census data, and 2000 and 2001 permitted housing units as tracked by the Puget Sound Regional Council. Again, due to limitations in readily-available data,2 the scope of this study does not allow us to perform a rigorous examination of the full costs and revenues associated with annexing each neighborhood within the three major P AAs. However, based on our rough assessments of revenue potential and cost drivers, we believe that the overall hierarchy of relative attractiveness might look as follows, running from most attractive at the top of the list to least attractive at the bottom: 1. Redondo East 2. North Lake 3. Lakeland 4. Star Lake 2 Detailed analysis of each neighborhood was not pursued due to several factors, such as (1) obstacles that arise from the way the State Department of Revenue tracks certain revenues, (2) lack of specificity in SF3 US Census data, and (3) an assessment by City and County staff and consultant team that the Major-Subarea level of analysis represented the most efficient use of scarce resources. Review Draft December 2003 0-5 ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY Net Fiscal Impact on Operating Revenues 5. Jovita 6. Camelot 7. Parkway As we noted previously, Redondo appears to be the one neighborhood that would be likely to generate net fiscal benefits to the City in the long term ($41 net revenue per new resident). Next on the list would be the North Lake and Lakeland neighborhoods, which we estimate would generate annual net operating costs in the range of $60 to $90 per new resident, respectively. Our rough assessment is that the remaining four neighborhoods would generate net costs ranging from slightly more than $110 per neighborhood resident for Star Lake to perhaps$135 per new resident for Jovita and Camelot, to as much as $360 per resident for Parkway. Parkway has among the lowest assessed values per resident, and we estimate that the neighborhood would generate relatively high levels of demand for public safety services. Review Draft D-6 December 2003 ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY Trends in Operating Costs and Revenues Trends in Operating Costs and Revenues When assessing the long-term fiscal impacts of annexation, in addition to looking at current costs and revenues associated with annexation, a city must also make an assessment of how those costs and revenues are likely to change over time. TRENDS IN CITY REVENUES AND COSTS REVENUE TRENDS Cities in Washington State typically rely on three major sources of revenue to fund their day-to-day operations: (1) retail sales tax, (2) property tax, and (3) business and utility taxes. Across the state, these three sources provide roughly 75 percent of cities' general fund revenues. Among the three primary revenue sources, the most important source to Federal Way is retail sales tax-revenue the City receives based on its position as a retail center in Southwest King County. In addition to being the biggest source of revenues, retail sales taxes have also been the biggest source of revenue growth for Federal Way over the past decade, as it has been for most cities in the Puget Sound region (Figure E-l). The importance of sales taxes notwithstanding, however, both property taxes and utility taxes also generated substantial revenue growth for Federal Way throughout the 1990s. With rapid increases in property values in the Puget Sound Region, the growth in property taxes during the 1990s was limited, principally, by State law that restricted growth of a city's property tax revenues to 106 percent of the previous year's levy (plus revenues associated with "add-ons"-primarily from new construction or annexation). Increases in utility taxes were the result of rapid growth in the adoption of cell phones and general increases in rates and usage for Cable TV, electricity, and natural gas. Review Draft December 2003 E-1 ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY Trends in Operating Costs and Revenues Figure E-1. Historical Revenue Collections by the City of Federal Way (1993 through 2001) $11,000,000 $9,000,000 Sales Tax $10,000,000 $8,000,000 $7,000,000 Property Tax Utility Taxes Austed to a Uniform 6% Tax Rate $6,000,000 $5,000,000 $4,000,000 $3,000,000 $2,000,000 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Source: Washington State Auditor's Office. Note: Utility tax receipts represent revenues that the City would have collected since 1997 (when the City first levied a utility tax) if the City had always levied its current 6 percent utility tax rate. In 2001, with a decade of strong revenue growth behind them, Washington State cities were dealt two simultaneous blows: /irst, the State slipped into a deep recession; second, in November 2001, voters in Washington State passed Initiative 747, an initiative that essentially ended the growth that cities could expect in property tax revenues. 1-747 reduced the state's existing 106 percent limit on revenue growth from existing property to a growth limit of 101 percent-a rate that is virtually guaranteed not to keep up with inflation. 1 The result of the combination of an economic slowdown and passage of 1- 747 meant that, in 2002, most cities in Washington State saw their real (inflation-adjusted) revenues fall from the previous year. Moreover, with the strict limits of 1- 747 in place, cities had to begin building in an expectation lOr, in the event that the previous year's inflation was less than 1 percent, the increase is limited to 100 percent plus the rate of inflation. Review Draft December 2003 E-2 ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY Trends in Operating Costs and Revenues that property tax revenues on existing property would continue to fall each year (again, in inflation-adjusted terms). The bottom line is that, with the passage of 1- 747 and the growing importance of retail sales tax as a source of City operating revenues, it will become increasingly true that, from a fiscal perspective, annexation of a typical residential area will become less and less attractive to a city. TRENDS IN CITY COSTS The costs of city services are driven by two factors: (1) the level of service the city provides to its constituents (e.g. the number of police officers the city has on patrol, the number and extent of park facilities, or the level of road maintenance), and (2) the costs of the inputs (staff, materials, and equipment) that go into provision of that service. Of these two factors, the level of service that a city provides is, to one degree or another, under city control Faced with a given set of fiscal/political constraints, city policy makers choose to provide a level of service. The costs of the inputs to city services, by contrast, are almost entirely outslde of city control The primary input for city services is city staffing-the costs of workers salaries and benefits and the associated costs of training, equipment, and facilities. With nearly a decade of economic growth in the nation and in the Puget Sound Region, salaries have increased steadily over the past decade. Although the recent recession has diminished the rate of salary growth in recent quarters, in the long-term, cities should expect that overall productivity growth in the private sector will continue to increase staffing costs at a rate that exceeds general inflation. The only way that cities will be able to hold the line on their "per-unit" costs will be if cities are able to achieve productivity gains that match the increases in the costs of salaries. Another key component of the increase in staffing costs is the costs of health benefits. Health insurance costs have seen double-digit increases in recent years, increases that have put substantial pressure on employers in both the private and public sector. As we have seen at both the state and local level, these health benefit costs have been a major source of growth in the costs of providing governmental services. Overall, cities should anticipate that the costs of providing public services will continue to rise, even above the rate of general inflation. While it is impossible to predict the technological innovations that will drive efficiency gains, in the end, providing City services is a people-intensive endeavor. Given that, and given the substantial upward pressures on the costs of labor, cities should anticipate, over the long term, costs of doing business will Increase. Review Draft December 2003 E-3 ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY Trends in Operating Costs and Revenues WHAT DO CURRENT TRENDS AND FORECASTS MEAN TO PROSPECTS FOR ANNEXING THE PAAS? REDONDO As noted previously, the relatively small Redondo Potential Annexation Area has the potential to be a long-term net generator of revenue for Federal Way. Redondo has substantial existing commercial activity. Perhaps more important, Redondo has the capacity to support additional commercial development in close proximity to the nearby commercial markets of Des Moines, Kent, and Burien. Given this market position, Redondo has the potential to develop into an area that will contribute growth in both the City's sales tax and property tax revenues over the long term. THE NORTHEAST AND SOUTHEAST PAAS Unlike Redondo, the Northeast and Southeast Potential Annexation Areas are dominated by residential uses. Absent identification of a unique development opportunity (see the discussion in Chapter I regarding Potential Annexation Strategies), these two areas are expected to see only modest demand for commercial growth over coming decades. What the lack of commercial activity in these areas means for Federal Way is that the Northeast and Southeast P AAs will be unlikely to become substantial generators of retail sales taxes (again, absent a unique development opportunity). As outlined in the preceding discussion of current operating revenues, by far the largest portion of the total operating revenues generated in the Northeast and Southeast P AAs (roughly 36 percent) would be generated through property taxes. Unfortunately, with the 101 percent property tax limitations put in place by 1-747, property taxes are the one source of City revenues that will be most susceptible to deterioration over time. An illustration may be helpful. In terms of what an average existing household pays, under 1-747, a city like Federal Way must assume that real property tax revenues from each existing household will grow by only 1 percent each year. At the same time, however, the average cost of providing a given level of service to that household will increase at between 2 percent and 4 percent per year. A 1 percent to 3 percent difference between the growth of costs and revenues does not seem like much for a given year. Over time, however, the effect of the different growth rates has the potential to compound to create a huge gap between costs and revenues. For example, if the costs of serving a household were to continue to grow at a rate of 3 percent per year, while the property taxes paid by that household increased by an average of only 1 percent per Review Draft December 2003 E-4 ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY Trends in Operating Costs and Revenues year for the same period, then in 20 years, costs will increase by roughly 80 percent while revenues will increase by only 22 percent. If costs and revenues were equal in the first year, then under this example, at the end of the 20- year period, costs will have grown to exceed revenues by a full 50 percent. Given the role of property taxes as the primary source of operating revenues in the Northeast and Southeast PAAs, this compounding effect ofl-747 property tax limits represents a real long-term barrier to annexation of these areas. Washington State's local tax code poses another challenge to the annexation of the Northeast and Southeast PAAs. Under current Washington tax structures, as a general rule, new residential development in places like the Northeast and Southeast P AAs do not cover the costs of providing city services to the new residents the developments house. As has been demonstrated by the preceding assessment of fiscal impacts for neighborhoods like North Lake, the typical three person household living in a new $250,000 house does not generate enough tax revenue to cover the costs Federal Way incurs to provide services to those residents.2 Given this phenomenon, future residential development of the P AAs will only make the Northeast and Southeast P AAs more of a challenge to annex in coming years. 3 Ultimately, the revenue picture for the Northeast and Southeast PAAs will be driven by (1) low long-term commercial activity, (2) low sales tax revenues, and (3) property tax revenues that will continue to fall in real, per-capita terms. Given that, Federal Way should expect to see little or no real growth in operating revenues generated in its residential P AAs over the foreseeable future. Combining stagnant or falling revenues with steadily increasing 2 In fact, those residents probably do pay enough in local taxes to cover the costs of serving them. The problem is, they pay the biggest chunk of those taxes in the form of retail sales taxes-a source oflocal revenues that accrues to local jurisdictions regardless of where that household actually lives. 3 The problem of the gap between (1) the costs of serving residential areas and (2) the revenues those areas generate is one that many cities face. For Federal Way, however, the problem is particularly acute-at least from an operations perspective. The reason for this is that the City dedicates most of its utility tax revenues for capital uses. For most cities, utility taxes are among the largest residence-based sources of operating revenues. Moreover, unlike the property taxes on a house, which will diminish in real value over time, utility taxes have proven in recent years to be a key source of revenue growth. illtimately, of course, Federal Way does collect utility taxes, using those revenues to cover the costs of capital improvements. Therefore, even if the City wanted to earmark utility taxes in the P AAs to help cover operating costs, such a move would not result in any overall increase in revenues. Such a move would, however, contribute to narrowing the net impact on the City's operating budgets associated with annexing the Northeast and Southeast P AAs. Review Draft December 2003 E-5 ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY Trends in Operating Costs and Revenues operating costs suggests that the fiscal picture for annexation is likely to deteriorate even further in coming years. Review Draft December 2003 E-6 ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY Capital Facilities Costs Capital Facilities Costs PURPOSE This chapter of the Annexation Feasibility Study serves as a consolidated summary of key public capital facility facilities and associated cost estimates identifying the cost of providing capital facilities consistent with City of Federal standards in the Federal Way Potential Annexation Area. It identifies capital improvements needed to meet the City of Federal Way standards based on current facilities and populations as well as to meet City standards as expected growth occurs. The capital facilities addressed include: . Parks & Recreation . Roads . Stormwater . Water and Wastewater Parks & Recreation, Roads, and Stormwater capital projects would include facilities the City itself, or in partnership with other agencies, would likely design and build and potentially manage or maintain, depending on the type of facility. Water and Wastewater infrastructure and services are provided by special districts, but would affect the timing and rate of growth, and may have a bearing upon the phasing of annexations in the Potential Annexation Area. LAND USE, POPULATION AND CAPITAL FACILITY LINKAGES Capital facility planning follows from the development of land use plans and growth estimates. A proposed pre-annexation land use plan for the PAA was developed in March 2003 and is contained in the PAA Subarea Plan 3. It is similar to adopted King County long-range land use plans for the PAA. Based on the land use plan, buildable land capacities were developed. Additionally, a market analysis identifying the timing of residential and non-residential growth was prepared to provide a more realistic estimate of land use and growth that is related to land capacity, but also primarily to market potential. Each analysis is described below. As part of a countywide effort to prepare an analysis of buildable lands pursuant to GMA requirements, the County has estimated the capacity of vacant and underdeveloped (land not developed to full potential) lands in the Review Draft December 2003 F-1 ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY Capital Facilities Costs PAA.1 The results for the 20-year period of 2001 to 2022 are a potential dwelling capacity of 3,754 units and an employment capacity of 134 jobs calculated by King County. The City of Federal Way prepared its own residential capacity analysis related to the pre-annexation land use plan and estimated a highly similar residential capacity of 3,717 units. It should be noted that a capacity analysis may make adjustments or discounts to the amount of available land, but does not estimate the time or rate that growth will occur, only the capacity of the land for additional development. The market demand for homes and places of employment will in part determine the timing and rate of growth within the 2020 planning period for the P AA. To help identify potential market demands, the City conducted a market analysis for the P AA with the Puget Sound Regional Council forecasts as a starting point. The outcome of the market analysis is a year 2020 projection of 2,223 dwelling units and 115 jobs. For the purposes of capital facility planning the market analysis figures are used to ensure that facility planning efforts do not overestimate facility demand, capital needs, and funding requirements. The market analysis population growth to 2020 and the City level of service standards were the basis for the capital improvement needs analysis in this Chapter. Costs of capital improvements are based on the most recent data available (2002). Table F-l summarizes population by major subarea for the years 2000 and 2002, while Tables F-2 and F-3 summarize population from the year 2000 to the year 2020 for the whole PAA and PAA neighborhood respectively, based on the market analysis. There has been little growth in the period of 2000 to 2002. 1 The capacity estimate reduces vacant and underdeveloped acres with discount factors for critical areas (wetlands, streams, etc.), rights-of-way and public purpose lands, and market factors (i.e. not all property owners would want to sell or develop). These discounted acres were then multiplied by density factors based upon achieved densities in developed projects over the period 1995 to 2000. Review Draft F-2 December 2003 ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY Capital Facilities Costs Table F-1. Year 2000 and 2002 Population and Housing 2000 2000 2002 Population Housing Units Population (Total) 150 3,900 Subarea 2002 Housing Units (Total) 260 150 Redondo East Northeast Subarea Total 260 11,600 11,900 4,015 Southeast Subarea Total PAA Total 8,700 3,200 8,800 3,307 20,560 7,250 20,960 7,472 Source: 2000 U S Census, and King County Office of Regional Policy and Planning, January 2002; ECO Northwest 2002 Table F-2. 2000 to 2020 Population and Employment, Federal Way PAA Total Year Total Population Total Employment 2000 20,560 1,088 2010 23,189 1,141 2020 25,819 1,203 Change, 2000-2020 5,259 115 Percent Change, 2000-2020 25.58% 10.57% Source: City of Federal Way, final TAZ Allocations, August 2002 Table F-3. 2020 New Population and Dwelling Units, Federal Way PAA, by Neighborhoods Multi- Family Total Units Single City - Subarea Population Family Redondo RE - Redondo East Northeast CA - Camelot SL - Star Lake NL - North Lake Subtotal Northeast Southeast LL - Lakeland 487 206 0 206 PW- Parkway 144 61 0 61 JO- Jovita 229 48 49 97 Subtotal Southeast 861 315 49 364 Total PM: 5,259 892 1,331 2,223 Source: City of Federal Way, final TAZ Allocations, August 2002 128 0 54 54 1,138 1,228 1,904 4,270 100 113 364 577 381 406 441 1,228 481 519 805 1,805 Review Draft December 2003 F-3 ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY Capital Facilities Costs OVERVIEW OF FINDINGS Anticipated capital costs associated with each of studied services, parks and recreation, roads, surface water, water, and wastewater are summarized in Table F -4 below and described in greater detail in the balance of this document. Table F -4 provides a summary of anticipated capital costs in the P AA through 2020. As shown in this table, the total cost of capital improvements related to potential future City services to meet City levels of service in the PAA through 2020 is estimated to be $48,315,520; approximately $32,260,000 of the cost would be a result of addressing existing deficiencies in parks/recreation, roads (level of service based), and surface water facilities - that is the level of cost due to meeting the City's adopted levels of service within the P AA today to the current population with the large majority of that due to parks and recreation deficiencies. 2 Road costs are presented in two parts: levels of service and cross-section improvements. The separate treatment is due to the different basis for determining needs, as well as the different funding tools that are used to pay for them. Roadway cross-section improvements are not required to meet the City's roadway intersection level of service. These road cross-section improvements may be made incrementally as new development makes street frontage improvements, or through local improvement districts, or other means. Water and Wastewater infrastructure and services are provided by special districts rather than the City of Federal Way, but would affect the timing and rate of growth, and may have a bearing upon the phasing of annexations in the Potential Annexation Area. 2 Existing deficiencies for parks were derived by applying the City's level of service to the existing population in the PAA and comparing the resulting need to the inventory of parkland in the PAA. Existing deficiencies for roads are those improvements needed at locations where the level of service is below the City standards as of the base year 2000. Existing surface water deficiencies are based on known capital improvements identified in existing basin plans or by King County Roads Division to address surface water problems or major maintenance items, although other deficiencies may be identified in the future when basin plans are completed. Review Draft December 2003 F-4 ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY Capital Facilities Costs Table F-4. Federal Way Potential Annexation Area Estimated Future Capital Costs Capital Improvements to meet Levels of Service: Potential City Provided Services Redondo Area Wide Northeast Southeast East TOTAL Subarea Subarea Subarea Parks and Recreation $-0- $22,565,346 $9,564,412 $584,762 $32,714,520 Roads: level of Service -0- 7,561,000 3,039,000 282,000 $10,882,000 Surface Water 1,067,000* 1,074,000 2,578,000 -0- $ 4,719,000 Total $1,067,000 $31,200,346 $15,181,412 $866,762 $48,315,520 *Area wide capital programs include a joint PM stormdrain system inventory and comprehensive plan, and major maintenance of ditches and other stormwater facilities. Discretionary Capital Improvements: Road Cross Section Improvements Redondo Area Wide Northeast Southeast East TOTAL Subarea Subarea Subarea Roads: Cross-section -0- 30,900,000 32,000,000 71,000 $62,971,000 Capital Improvements - Special District Provided Redondo Area Wide Northeast Southeast East TOTAL Subarea Subarea Subarea Water Service -0- 16,000 21,000 -0- $37,000 Wastewater Service -0- 9,474,000 309,000 -0- $9,783,000 Sources: Jones & Stokes, Henderson Young and Company, TetraTech/KCM, Inc., 2003 GENERAL NOTES AND ASSUMPTIONS Planning level estimates of probable project costs were prepared for parks and recreation, road, stormwater, water, and wastewater facilities recommended in the Proposed Final PM Subarea Plan, associated PAA Level of Service Analysis, and/or by Special Districts. As noted in the Level of Service Analysis, many level of service standards of current service Review Draft December 2003 F-5 ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY Capital Facilities Costs providers are different (typically lower) than the standards of the City of Federal Way. The Capital Improvement Program (CIP) analysis and resulting capital improvement projects in this chapter are based on achieving the City's level of service standards. These estimates are at a planning level and should only be used for broad planning level estimates. As projects approach inclusion in the City's or County's CIP, more refined estimates should be prepared using more defined scopes of work and field investigations. General assumptions for each of the capital cost analyses include: . The need and type of facilities are based upon the market study population projections and/or the proposed zoning designations for the P AA in the Proposed Final PM Subarea Plan. . Except as specifically noted, all costs are reported in 2002 dollars. . Whenever possible, costs are broken down roughly into three six-year increments: 2002 - 2007, 2008 - 2013, and 2014 - 2020. Dividing the estimates into three groups assists in identifying capital project phasing, and it aligns with the Growth Management Act, which generally promotes the development of six-year capital improvement programs as well as longer range 20-year capital facility planning. . As applicable, capital costs are assigned to one of the three major P AA planning areas (Northeast, Southeast and Redondo East) and their component communities. Where feasible due to data availability, costs are assigned to the smaller community level subareas within the larger P AA subareas. . Capital costs that apply throughout the PAA are identified as an area- wide program. If areawide programs are not listed, then the areawide programs relate to operational costs, which are addressed in Chapter B, Operating Costs. PARKS AND RECREATION OVERVIEW Public open space, parks and recreational programs are currently provided to the Federal Way P AA by King County. The P AA is primarily served by five County park or open space sites totaling nearly 110 acres. Within the PAA, recent capital projects completed in the Year 2000 include the South County Ballfields Phase 2. No capital facility projects are planned currently for the PAA by the County. Review Draft F-B December 2003 ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY Capital Facilities Costs In the event of annexation, the City of Federal Way will provide parks and recreation services. Table F -5 indicates the parks and acreages that would transfer upon annexation. Table F-5. Federal Way PAA Current Parks Inventory 18.08 16.72 Ownership after Annexation Federal Way Federal Way Park Type PAA Area Park Name Acres Northeast PM Camelot Star Lake (Bingamon Pond) Southeast PM Lake Geneva 18.64 Federal Way Community Five Mile Lake Park 31.71 Federal Way Community South County Ballfields 24.37 Federal Way Community Source: Federal Way PAA Inventory, March 18, 2002; Final Federal Way Potential Annexation Area Level of Service Analysis, March 5, 2003; Jones & Stokes, Henderson, Young & Company Open Space Open Space The Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for parks and recreational facilities for Federal Way's PAA was developed by using the City's level of service standard for five types of parks and recreational facilities, as identified in the City's 2000 Parks and Recreation Master Plan, as shown in Table F-6. Table F-6. Federal Way Park and Recreation levels of Service Type of Park or Facility Federal Way's Standard Neighborhood Parks 1.7 acres per 1,000 population Community Parks 2.8 acres per 1,000 population Trails 2.2 miles per 1,000 population Open Space 6.0 acres per 1,000 population Community Center 600 sq. ft. per 1,000 population Source: Federal Way 2000 Parks and Recreation Master Plan To develop capital cost estimates, first, the standard for park land was multiplied times the population of each neighborhood in the P AA to calculate the number of acres of each type of park land that is needed to serve the population of each area. Second, the acres needed were compared to the number of acres of existing parks. Whenever the acres needed were more than the acres of existing parks, the difference is the number of acres to be acquired through the CIP. Third, the cost of acres to be acquired through the CIP was estimated using City estimates of costs per acre (addressed below under notes and assumptions). Relative to all of the capital facilities required to meet City level of service standards, parks and recreation facilities have the highest cost. Estimated parks and recreation costs include dollars for acquisition and construction of neighborhood parks, community parks, trails, open spaces, and a community center. The total estimated cost for the PAA through 2020 is $32,714,520. Review Draft December 2003 F-7 ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY Capital Facilities Costs This amount would be equally divided among the three six-year increments, with expenditures of $10,904,840 expected in each of the periods. The portion of the park capital cost estimate that would be attributed to meeting the higher City parks level of service standard for the existing population (i.e. the cost of the existing "deficiency" -- providing Federal Way's level of service to the existing P AA population3) is $25.6 million, and the cost of growth through the year 2020 is $7.1 million for a total cost of $32.7 million. The Northeast Subarea is estimated to require $22,565,346 in parks and recreation facilities, or approximately 69% of the total P AA park and recreation capital cost. The Southeast Subarea would require $9,564,412, or 29% of the total cost. Redondo East, with an estimated cost of $584,762, would require about 2% of the total parks and recreation estimated cost. As noted in Chapter B, Operating Costs, the Northeast Subarea has low maintenance costs because it has little parkland now. The high capital cost in this CIP will bring the Northeast Subarea up to the City's standard, and that, in turn, will cause a significant increase in future operating costs. The same is true, to a lesser extent, about the Southeast Subarea. A detailed breakdown of estimated costs by subarea and community area is shown in Table F - 7 below. Table F-7. Federal Way Potential Annexation Area Capital Costs for Parks and Recreation Project Costs in 2002 Dollars Year of Construction and Project Costs in 2002 Dollars Project Capital Project List Design Acquisition Construction Total 2002-2007 2008-2014 2015-2020 ID 1.00 Areawide CIP 0 0 0 0 Programs 2.00 Parkway Neighborhood 2.01 Neighborhood Parks 271,581 1,081,587 360,529 360,529 360,529 2.02 Community Parks 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.03 Trails 229,878 1,348,618 1,578.496 526,165 526,165 526,165 2.04 Open Space 1,198,152 5,573 1,203,725 401,242 401,242 401,242 2.05 Community Center 0 334,368 334,368 111,456 111,456 111,456 Subtotal Parkway 0 1,699,611 2,498,565 4,198,176 1,399,392 1,399,392 1,399,392 Neighborhood 3 Existing deficiencies for parks were derived by the method described above to develop total capital cost estimates, but the existing deficiency is calculated for the current population, whereas the total costs are based on the 2020 population. It is also possible that there would be costs to address deficiencies between the County's provided level of service and the County's adopted level of service standard. Review Draft December 2003 F-8 ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY Capital Facilities Costs Project Costs in 2002 Dollars Year of Construction and Project Costs in 2002 Dollars Project Capital Project List Design Acquisition Construction 2002-2007 2008-2014 2015-2020 ID 3.00 Jovita Neighborhood 3.01 Neighborhood Parks 89,416 266,688 356,104 118,701 118,701 118,701 3.02 Community Parks 147,273 774,897 922,170 307,390 307,390 307,390 3.03 Trails 75,686 444,022 519,708 173,236 173,236 173,236 3.04 Open Space 394,482 1,835 396,317 132,106 132,106 132,106 3.05 Community Center 0 110,088 110,088 36,696 36,696 36,696 Subtotal Jovita 0 706,857 1,597,530 2,304,387 768,129 768,129 768,129 Neighborhood 4.00 lakeland Neighborhood 4.01 Neighborhood Parks 198,072 590,761 788,833 262,944 262,944 262,944 4.02 Community Parks 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.03 Trails 167,657 983,585 1,151,242 383,747 383,747 383,747 4.04 Open Space 873,846 4,064 877,910 292,637 292,637 292,637 4.05 Community Center 0 243,864 243,864 81,288 81,288 81,288 Subtotal Lakeland 0 1,239,575 1,822,274 3,061,849 1,020,616 1,020,616 1,020,616 Neighborhood Subtotal Southeast 0 3,646,043 5,918,369 3,188,137 3,188,137 3,188,137 Area 5.00 North lake Neighborhood 5.01 Neighborhood Parks 146,434 436,748 583,182 194,394 194,394 194,394 5.02 Community Parks 241,185 1,269,027 1,510,212 503,404 503,404 503,404 5.03 Trails 123,948 727,162 851,110 283,703 283,703 283,703 5.04 Open Space 646,032 3,005 649,037 216,346 216,346 216,346 5.05 Community Center 0 180,288 180,288 60,096 60,096 60,096 Subtotal North Lake o 1,157,599 2,616,230 3,773,829 1,257,943 1,257,943 1,257,943 Neighborhood 6.00 Star lake Neighborhood 6.01 Neighborhood Parks 235,557 702,564 312,707 312,707 312,707 6.02 Community Parks 387,977 2,041,390 809,789 809,789 809,789 6.03 Trails 199,386 1,169,731 456,372 456,372 456,372 6.04 Open Space 320,264 1 ,490 107,251 107,251 107,251 6.05 Community Center 0 290,016 96,672 96,672 96,672 Subtotal Star Lake 0 1,143,184 4,205,191 1,782,792 1,782,792 1,782,792 Neighborhood Review Draft December 2003 F-9 ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY Capital Facilities Costs Project Costs in 2002 Dollars Year of Construction and Project Costs in 2002 Dollars Project Capital Project List Design Acquisition Construction 2002-2007 2008-2014 2015-2020 ID 7.00 Camelot Neighborhood 7.01 Neighborhood Parks 551,934 1,646,176 2,198,110 732,703 732,703 732,703 7.02 Community Parks 909,068 4,783,178 5,692,246 1,897,415 1,897,415 1,897,415 7.03 Trails 467,181 2,740,795 3,207,976 1,069,325 1,069,325 1,069,325 7.04 Open Space 1,657,564 7,710 1,665,274 555,091 555,091 555,091 7.05 Community Center 0 679,536 679,536 226,512 226,512 226,512 Subtotal Camelot 0 3,585,747 9,857,395 13,443,142 4,481,047 4,481,047 4,481,047 Neighborhood Subtotal Northeast 0 5,886,530 7,521,782 7,521,782 7,521,782 Area 8.00 Redondo East Neighborhood 8.01 Neighborhood Parks 22,690 67,675 90,365 30,122 30,122 30,122 8.02 Community Parks 37,372 196,638 234,010 78,003 78,003 78,003 8.03 Trails 19,206 112,675 131,881 43,960 43,960 43,960 8.04 Open Space 100,104 466 100,570 33,523 33,523 33,523 8.05 Community Center 0 27,936 27,936 9,312 9,312 9,312 Subtotal Redondo 0 179,372 405,390 584,762 194,921 194,921 194,921 Area Total 0 9,711,945 10,904,840 10,904,84 10,904,84 0 0 Source: Henderson, Young & Company 2003 PARKS & RECREATION NOTES AND ASSUMPTIONS For the purposes of this study, the capital cost estimates and the base level of service analysis address only park acreage that is owned and/or maintained by King County and ultimately to be transferred upon annexation. Although other entities located within or adjacent to the P AA and City of Federal Way (such as schools) provide additional park land and/or facilities, the capital estimates are based upon acres required in accordance with Federal Way park and recreation levels of service, representing the levels of service which the City would be able to directly control upon annexation. The following sentences describe the method used. First, the standard for park land was multiplied times the population of each neighborhood in the P AA to calculate the number of acres of each type of park land that is needed Review Draft December 2003 F-10 ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY Capital Facilities Costs to serve the population of each area. Second, the acres needed were compared to the number of acres of existing parks. Whenever the acres needed were more than the acres of existing parks, the difference is the number of acres to be acquired through the CIP. Third, the cost of acres to be acquired through the CIP was estimated using City estimates of costs per acre (or for trails, cost per mile, and for community center, cost per square foot) as shown in Table F -8. Table F-8. land and Development Costs for Parks and Recreation Facilities Units of Cost Estimate Neighborhood Parks per acre $34,400 Community Parks per acre 34,400 Trails per mile 22,500 Open Space per acre 43,000 Community Center per sq. ft. 0 Source: City of Federal Way; Henderson, Young, & Company Type of Park or Facility land Cost Development Cost Total Cost $102,600 181,000 132,000 200 120 $137,000 215.400 154,500 43,200 120 The CIP project costs were calculated by multiplying the City's cost per acre (or mile, or square foot, as appropriate) times the number of acres (or miles or square feet) needed for each neighborhood. ROADS OVERVIEW The Federal Way P AA is served by a series of arterial roadways that provide local and regional transportation access. Following are some characteristics of PAA road conditions summarized from the PM Inventory and PM Subarea Plan: . The majority of the street network in the P AA is characteristically rural with asphalt concrete pavement, gravel shoulders, and ditches for drainage purposes. The street network is largely underdeveloped, with many cul-de-sacs and dead-end streets creating insufficient connectivity. . A general lack of sidewalks and existing luminaires inhibit pedestrian traffic and present public safety concerns. Luminaires are limited to street intersections along arterial streets and newer subdivisions, with very few mid-block luminaires along arterial streets. Arterial corridors generally lack sidewalks and, in most cases, are poorly lit. . The largest traffic volumes exist along east/west arterial routes, which provide access to 1-5. Review Draft December 2003 F-11 ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY Capital Facilities Costs . Over half of the arterial roadway miles within the study area have accident rates that are higher than the average King County accident rates. King County has been responsible for maintenance of public roadways and accompanying facilities such as shoulders, sidewalks, traffic signs, striping and signals, guardrails, and landscaping. These responsibilities would transfer to the City upon annexation. King County Metro would continue to maintain transit service under the City jurisdiction. The responsibilities of maintaining State Route 99, 161, and 181 within the PAA as mandated by RCW 47.24.20 would transfer from WSDOT to the City. SUMMARY OF EXISTING LEVEL OF SERVICE RESULTS AND NEEDED CAPITAL PROJECTS Six grades of level-of-service (LOS) are defined for traffic operational analysis. They are given letter designations A through F, with LOS A representing the best range of operating conditions and LOS F the worst. The specific terms in which each level of service is defined vary with the type of transportation facility involved. In general, LOS A describes a free-flowing condition in which individual vehicles in the traffic stream are not affected by the presence of other vehicles. LOS F generally describes a breakdown in operations that occurs when traffic arriving at a point is greater than the facility's capacity to discharge the traffic flow; consequently, vehicle queues develop. The purpose of the intersection LOS analysis is to identify LOS deficiencies in the City's Potential Annexation Area (PAA) and then evaluate the improvements that will be needed to meet the City's LOS standard - intersection level of service of E. In the base year, the LOS analysis was done by using actual traffic counts between years 2000 to 2002. Analysis indicated that all signalized intersections operated at an acceptable LOS during the PM peak hour and most unsignalized intersections were operating at an acceptable LOS. Exceptions included: S 288th Street at 51st Avenue S S 296th Street at 51st Avenue S SR 99 at 16th Avenue S LOSF LOSF LOSF At the intersection of S 288th Street and 51St Avenue S, there are two-lane approaches on the south and west legs and a single lane approach on the east leg. Providing an additional westbound left turn lane on the east approach will improve the level of service. At intersection S 296th Street at 51st Avenue S, there is a stop control for westbound traffic and the installation of traffic signal and north and south bound left turn pockets will improve the level of Review Draft December 2003 F-12 ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY Capital Facilities Costs service at the intersection. At the intersection of SR 99 and 16th Avenue S, there is an unsignalized left turn pocket and 16th Avenue is a right turn only onto SR 99. The installation of a signal would improve the LOS for left and right turns as well as provide a safer pedestrian crossing. Completing these improvements would cost approximately $2,241,000 as shown on Table F-9. Table F-9. Cost Estimate of LOS Improvements - Existing Deficiencies Location Existing LOS Improvement Cost Estimate S 288th Street at 51st Avenue S S 296th Street at 51st Avenue S SR 99 at 16th Avenue S Total LOS F LOS F LOS F Project Improvement LOS LOS D LOS B LOS E $451,000 $1,508,000 $282,000 $2,241,000 Source: Jones & Stokes, 2003 SUMMARY OF FUTURE LEVELS OF SERVICE RESULTS AND NEEDED CAPITAL PROJECTS Analysis of the transportation impacts of future land use requires development of future transportation networks. The future land use projection analyzed is based on the City's market forecast for the PAA. In order to determine a future road network, the City provided a future street improvement list by analyzing the Transportation Improvement Programs, comprehensive plans, and near term transportation improvement projects of King County, the Washington State Department of Transportation, and the City of Federal Way. In order to analyze the year 2020 LOS, future intersection volumes were estimated using a calibrated EMME/2 transportation model. On behalf of the City, Mirai Associates developed the EMME/2 model based on the forecasted land use and future transportation improvements described briefly above. Overall the most congested locations included are those with two-way stop control, and those located in the Military Road corridor. The average vehicle delay and LOS changes (from the base year 2000 to the horizon year 2020) are: Congested Locations Military Road S at S 272nd Street Military Road S at S 320th Street S 277th Street at 55th Avenue S S 288th Street at 51st Avenue S Military Road S at S 312th Street Peasley Canyon Way S at S Peasley Canyon Rd Military Road S at Peasley Canyon Way S Average Vehicle Delay and LOS Change from 42 see to 116 see, from D to F from 27 see to 73 see, from C to E from 59 see to 195 see, from E to F from 64 see to 361 see, from F to F Exceeds calculable limits (ECL) from 26 see to 351 see, from D to F from 34 see to 559 see, from D to F Review Draft December 2003 F-13 ANNEXATION FEASIBiliTY STUDY Capital Facilities Costs Congested locations Military Road S at S Star Lake Road (N Jct.) 51st Avenue S at S 296th Street Military Road S at S 360th Street 28th Avenue S at S 360th Street SR 99 at 16th Avenue S Average Vehicle Delay and LOS Change from 39 see to ECL, from E to F from 106 see to 996 see, from F to F from 22 see to ECL, from C to F from 46 see to 770 see, from E to F Exceeds calculable limits (ECL) Based on identified deficiencies, lowest cost capacity improvements were identified to attain City standards. Subsequently, a LOS analysis was conducted with the recommended improvements to insure that all locations would meet the City's LOS standard. With the recommended improvements listed in Table F-IO, the City's LOS standard is met at all future deficient locations. Table F-10. Future LOS and Recommended Improvements 2020 Recommended Improved Intersection LOS Problem Improvements LOS 1. Military Road S F Substantial demand for Add one D @ S 272nd southbound traffic. additional Street southbound through lane. 2. Military Road S E Substantial demand for Construct an D @ S 320th Street eastbound right turn eastbound right traffic. turn lane. 3. S 277th Street @ F The northbound right Construct new C 55th Avenue S turn demand is queuing signalized while waiting for the intersection. eastbound to westbound 4 through green cycle. 4. S 288th Street @ F Insufficient intersection Construct a left D 51st Avenue S capacity for the A WSC turn lane from intersection. westbound to (25-sec southbound. delay) Install a traffic D signal. (47-sec delay) 4 See Level of Service report for additional information about the problem at S 277th Street at 55th Avenue S. Review Draft F-14 December 2003 ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY Capital Facilities Costs 2020 Recommended Improved Intersection LOS Problem Improvements LOS 5. Military Road S F Traffic demand on Install a traffic D @ S 312th Street eastbound approach signal with one exceeds the LOS for eastbound left TWSC intersections. turn pocket and one eastbound right turn lane. 6. Peasley Canyon F Traffic demand on Install a traffic C WayS@S northbound approach signal. Peasley Canyon exceeds the LOS for Road TWSC intersections. 7. Military Road S F Traffic demand on the Install a traffic B @ Peasley east/west approaches signal at Canyon Way S exceeds the LOS for Military Road S TWSC intersections5. and S 340th Street and close the southbound movement on Peasley Canyon Way S from S 340th to Military Road S. 8. Military Road S F Traffic demand on Install a traffic B @ S Star Lake westbound approach signal with an Road (N Jet.) exceeds the LOS for additional TWSC intersections. southbound through lane. 9. 51st Avenue S @ F Traffic demand on Install a traffic B S 296th Street westbound approach signal with exceeds the LOS for additional TWSC intersections. southbound and westbound left turn pockets. 10. Military Road S F Traffic demand on the Install a traffic C @ S 360th Street east/west approaches signal with exceeds the LOS for additional TWSC intersections. northbound and southbound left turn pockets. 5 See Level of Service report for additional information about the problem at the intersection of Military Road S and Peasley Canyon Way S. Review Draft December 2003 F-15 ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY Capital Facilities Costs 2020 Recommended Improved Intersection LOS Problem Improvements LOS 11. 28th Avenue S @ F Insufficient intersection Install a traffic C S 360th Street capacity for the A WSC signal with one intersection. southbound right turn pocket and one southbound through lane. 12. SR 99 @ 16th F Traffic demand on Install a traffic E Avenue S / S eastbound approach signal. 279th Place exceeds the LOS for TWSC intersections. Source: Jones & Stokes 2003 Notes: A WSC = All way stop control TWSC = Two way stop control Sec = second Roadway Improvement Cost Estimates The total estimated capital cost for roadway improvements in the P AA, existing and future needs to achieve levels of service, is $10,882,000 through 2020. When broken down into six-year increments, this total divides roughly into thirds, as shown in Table F-11. As noted previously, about 21% of the total capital facility cost estimate is related to existing deficiencies ($2,241,000). Table F-11. Estimated Capital Cost for Roadway LOS Improvements Years Capital Cost $3,704,000 $3,323,000 $3,855,000 2002 - 2007 2008 - 2014 2015 - 2020 Source: Jones & Stokes, 2003 The largest capital project is Military Road South widening between South 272nd Street and South Star Lake Road. This project consists of widening Military Road South from 2 and 3 lanes to 5 lanes wide along the entire distance of the project. The total cost of this project is $2,571,000. This project is located in the Northeast Subarea. Of the three subareas in the P AA, the Northeast Subarea has the largest estimated roadway cost at $7,561,000. The largest part of this is the Military Road South project described above. The Southeast Subarea has an estimated roadway capital cost of $3,039,000, with the largest project Review Draft F-16 December 2003 ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY Capital Facilities Costs consisting of a $1,188,000 improvement to the Military Road South/South 360th Street intersection. The Redondo East Subarea has a total roadway cost of $282,000, which consists entirely of the SR 99/16th Avenue South intersection improvement project. While the roadway capital cost focus consists of the improvements required to ensure the City's intersection LOS would be met, other capital costs may be incurred to bring essentially rural road standards to the City's urban road standards (e.g. curb, gutter, sidewalk, paving of public gravel or public bituminous surface roads). These road cross-section improvements may be made incrementally as new development makes street frontage improvements, or through local improvement districts, or other means. The road cross-section estimates were made in a preliminary fashion for order of magnitude level of analysis, using as a basis data provided by the County on lane miles, feet of sidewalk, etc. in the P AA. The cost of providing drainage facilities is included in the paving estimate instead of the curb and gutter estimate. The estimated cost of the road cross-section improvements is $62,971,000. Paving costs total $33,100,000, curb and gutter costs total $11,532,000, and sidewalks costs total $18,339,000. The Northeast Subarea and Southeast Subarea have similar road cross-section costs at $30,900,000 and $32,000,000 respectively. The cross-section improvements in Redondo East Subarea total $71,000. Reviewing PAA Inventory maps regarding the locations of sidewalks, gravel roads and other features, additional paving in the Northeast Subarea would be most needed in the Star Lake community, with sidewalks spread throughout the remainder of the Northeast Subarea. Paving in the Southeast Subarea would be mostly needed in the Lakeland and Jovita communities, with sidewalks spread throughout the remainder of the Southeast Subarea. All LOS project costs listed in Table F -12 assume a 30 percent contingency factor. See Appendix A for detailed cost calculations for each listed roadway project. Table F-12. Federal Way Potential Annexation Area Capital Costs for Roadway Improvements Project Costs in 2002 Dollars (000) Year of Construction and Project Costs in 2002 Dollars (000) tal 2002-2007 2008-2014 2015-2020 41 0 0 0 0 Project Capital Project List ID 1.00 Areawide CIP Programs 2.00 Parkway Neighborhood 3.00 Jovita Neighborhood 3.01 Peasley Canyon Way S & S Peasley Canyon Rd Design Acquisition Construction 234 275 Review Draft December 2003 F-17 ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY Capital Facilities Costs Project Costs in 2002 Dollars (000) Year of Construction and Project Costs in 2002 Dollars (000) Project Capital Project List Design Acquisition Construction Total 2002.2007 2008-2014 2015-2020 ID Intersection Improvement 3.02 Peasley Canyon Way S & 158 16 1,090 Military Rd S Intersection Improvement 4.00 lakeland Neighborhood 4.01 Military Rd S & S 36Oth St 162 84 1,188 Intersection Improvement 4.02 28th Ave S & S 36Oth St 65 47 486 Intersection Improvement Subtotal Southeast Area 426 147 1,188 1,576 275 5.00 North lake Neighborhood 5.01 S 32Oth St & Military Rd S 108 165 896 Intersection Improvement 6.00 Star lake Neighborhood 6.01 Military Rd S & S 272nd St 91 327 946 Intersection Improvement 6.02 Military Rd S & S Star lake Rd 41 0 275 (N Jct) Intersection Improvement 6.03 Military Rd S Improvement - S 305 496 0 801 1,770 272nd St to S Star lake Road 6.04 S 277th St & 55th Ave S 92 291 914 Intersection Improvement 7.00 Camelot Neighborhood 7.01 S 288th St & 51st Ave S 66 0 451 Intersection Improvement 7.02 S 296th St & 51st Ave S 206 109 1,508 Intersection Improvement 7.03 S 312nd St Improvement Subtotal Northeast Area 909 1,388 2,234 1,747 3,580 8.00 Redondo East Neighborhood 8.01 SR-99 & 16th Ave S 41 0 241 282 282 Intersection Improvement Subtotal Redondo Area 41 0 241 282 282 0 0 Subtotal lOS Projects 1,376 1,535 7,489 10,882 3,704 3,323 3,855 9.00 Southeast Areawide 9.01 Paving 6,400 6,400 6,400 9.02 Curb and Gutter 1,800 1,800 1,800 9.03 Sidewalk 2,400 2,600 2,400 Review Draft December 2003 F-18 ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY Capital Facilities Costs Project Capital Project List ID Subtotal Southeast Area 10.00 Northeast Areawide 10.01 Paving 10.02 Curb and Gutter 10.03 Sidewalk Subtotal Northeast Area 11.00 Redondo East Neighborhood 11.01 Curb and Gutter 11.02 Sidewalk Project Costs in 2002 Dollars (000) Year of Construction and Project Costs in 2002 Dollars (000) Design Acquisition Construction Total 2002-2007 2008-2014 2015-2020 Subtotal Redondo Area Subtotal Road Cross Section Improvements 0 32,000 32,000 10,600 10,800 10,600 13,900 13,900 4,600 4,700 4,600 6,100 6,100 2,000 2,100 2,000 10,900 10,900 3,600 3,700 3,600 30,900 30,900 10,200 10,500 10,200 32 32 10 12 10 39 39 13 13 13 71 71 23 25 23 0 62,971 62,971 20,823 21,325 20,823 1,535 70,460 73,853 24,527 24,648 24,678 Total Source: Jones & Stokes, 2003 1,376 ROADWAY CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS - NOTES AND ASSUMPTIONS Current expenses for similar construction work within the region were reviewed to determine unit prices for broad categories of construction line items and typical percentages for standard items. The line items included roadway pavement, storm drainage, lighting, etc. These broad categories included a number of related items. For example the storm drainage line item includes all piping, catch basins, culverts, manholes, inlets, water quality, and detention facilities. Typical industry percentage values of construction costs were used to establish such items as mobilization, design, construction engineering, and contingencies. In the case of right-of-way estimates unit prices from values used in other suburban areas were used. These values assume the right-of-way acquisition is a strip of land fronting the property and involves no improvements, such as a house, and include negotiation and appraisal costs. Inflation was not included as all revenue projections are in current dollars. Once the unit prices were determined project scopes of work were developed with several key elements: length of project, pavement width, sidewalk width, need for retaining walls, SEP A process, and terrain. These elements were multiplied by the unit prices as appropriate to determine the category line item estimate. In the case of some projects where the terrain was rolling or a new roadway alignment was proposed additional expenses were included for grading. See Appendix A for detailed cost calculations for each listed roadway project. Review Draft December 2003 F-19 ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY Capital Facilities Costs SURFACE WATER INTRODUCTION The PAA is almost entirely within the nearly level upland plateau which is immediately adjacent to steep slopes at the edge of the Green and White River valleys, and Puget Sound (in the case of the Redondo Subarea). As a result, historical stormwater systems within the P AA include a series of lake and wetland complexes that drain in steep ravines to the rivers and streams below. The most distinctive characteristic of the PAA is that most of the area is a headwater to several significant streams (Hylebos Creek, Mullen Slough, and Mill Creek). Five drainage basins have been identified by King County and City of Federal Way within the P AA: Lower Green River, Mill Creek, White River, Hylebos Creek, and Lower Puget Sound. Within these various drainage basins, the P AA contains a variety of surface water facilities that require inspection and maintenance by several County divisions and/or property owners as listed in Tables F-13 through F-15: Table F-13 In-Road Suñace Water Facilities Measurement Unit Redondo Northeast Southeast Facility Subarea Subarea Subarea Curb And Gutter LF lineal feet 1,902 252,806 92,206 Catch Basin & Manhole EA each 19 1,361 633 Paved Ditch And Gutter LF lineal feet 0 755 450 Open Ditch LF lineal feet 707 85,292 81,916 SP lineal feet Enclosed System storm pipe 1,557 149,913 70,980 Cross Tile And Access EA each 9 985 699 Cross Culverts EA each 7 614 332 Curb & Gutter and Thick RM road mile 0.3 55.2 22.5 Bridge Drains EA each 0 6 6 Auxiliary Pipe LF lineal feet 1 2,697 1,611 Trash Racks EA each 0 0 0 Headwalls EA each 0 1 0 Cross Culverts LF lineal feet 0 590 0 Box Culverts EA each 0 0 0 RID Facilities EA each 0 2 1 Source: King County Roads Division, January 2002 Review Draft December 2003 F-20 ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY Capital Facilities Costs Table F-14 Regional Stormwater Facilities Address 4700 S 292nd St. (immediately east of 4613 S 292nd ) 29800 36th PI. S 4200 308th PI. S 5100 S Peasley Canyon Rd. Southeast S 360th St. Embankment 2100 S 360th St. Regional RID Southeast Regency Woods Div 1 37546 215t Ave. S HDPE Pipe Southeast Regency Woods Div 1 37694 18th PI. S HDPE Pipe Southeast Regency Woods Div 4 37934 23rd PI. S HDPE Pipe Southeast Regency Woods Div 4 37811 215t Ct. S HDPE Pipe Southeast Regency Woods Div 4 1817 S 380th PI. HOPE Pipe Source: King County Department of Natural Resources, December 21,2001; January 29,2002 Subarea Northeast Facility Name Sweet Briar Drainage Improvement Type Of Facility Pipe Northeast Northeast P-32 (Camelot Park) lake Dolloff Outlet Peasley Canyon Culvert Pump Station Channel/weir Culvert Southeast Table F-15 Residential and Commercial Drainage Facilities Type Of Facility Subarea Number Of Facilities Residential Northeast 40 Southeast 26 Redondo 1 Total 67 Total 9 16 4 29 96 Commercial Northeast Southeast Redondo TOTAL Source: King County Department of Natural Resources, December 21,2001; January 29, 2002. Surface Water Level of Service Analysis, July 11, 2003. Federal Way's standards and rules for maintenance of stormwater control facilities, including criteria for City maintenance of private facilities, are found in the Federal Way Municipal Code Sections 21-26, 21-27, and 21-28. Federal Way does not accept responsibility for maintenance of private facilities in its jurisdiction unless an easement has been granted to the City, and it is in the City's interest to provide maintenance. The City may maintain residential stormwater control facilities if they meet City design standards, and if the facilities serve a residential subdivision or plat. Review Draft December 2003 F-21 ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY Capital Facilities Costs Surface water capital project costs were developed to address the following items: . Capital Improvement Project (CIP) costs identified in previous studies. . Pond cleaning operations to bring stormwater ponds to City of Federal Way standards. This is considered major maintenance and part of capital improvements. . Ditch cleaning operations to bring ditches to City of Federal Way standards. This is considered major maintenance and part of capital im provements. . Problem areas within the P AA identified by King County Road Maintenance Services Division 3. SURFACE WATER CAPITAL COST OVERVIEW The total estimated capital cost of surface water improvements in the P AA is $4,719,000. Over half the cost ($2,578,000) would be allocated to the Southeast P AA to address known capital proposals from previous basin studies or identified deficiencies by King County Roads Division. Known capital proposals or deficiencies in the Northeast P AA would result in another 25% of the cost, roughly, at $1,074,000. The final category of capital proposals are general area improvements applicable to the P AA as a whole, except Redondo, totaling another 25% roughly, $1,067,000. These include ditch cleaning, storm water facility cleaning, and unspecific capital improvements under the Federal Way Comprehensive Surface Water Management Plan. The total cost is to occur in the period 2002-2007, and is largely related to correction of known existing deficiencies, either in terms of major maintenance or in terms of completing capital projects identified in prior basin studies or King County Road Division identified problems; additional deficiencies may be found when the needed new basin studies are conducted for the P AA. No surface water capital improvements are anticipated for the Redondo East Subarea. A detailed breakdown of costs by project and community is provided in Table F-16. Review Draft December 2003 F-22 ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY Capital Facilities Costs Table F-16. Federal Way Potential Annexation Area Capital Costs for Surface Water Capital Improvements Project Costs in 2002 Dollars (000) Year of Construction and 2002 Dollars (000) Project ID Capital Project List Design Acquisition Construction 2002- 2008-20142015-2020 2007 1.00 Area Wide Programs 1.01 Storm Drain System 300 300 Inventory and Comprehensive Plan Major Maintenance: 1.02 Ditch Cleaning 544 1.03 Stormwater Facility 223 Cleaning Subtotal General 300 1,067 2.00 Parkway Neighborhood Hylebos Executive Proposed Plan 2.01 2442-S 36Oth Regional 1,565 Det. Pond 2.02 2444-SR 161 372 Conveyance Upgrades 4.00 Lakeland Neighborhood Hylebos Executive Proposed Plan 4.01 2446-SR 161 Regional 598 Pond King County Road Maintenance Div 3 - Identified Problems 4.02 Crosstile east of 44 Ave. 7 35 42 42 S Subtotal Southeast 7 2,578 Area 7.00 Camelot Neighborhood King County Road Maintenance Div 3 - Identified Problems 7.01 (1) 2 Catch basins 7 35 42 7.02 (2) 2 Catch basins 7 35 42 7.03 (5) Water over road signs 165 990 Subtotal Northeast 179 895 1,074 1,074 Review Draft December 2003 F-23 ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY Capital Facilities Costs Project Costs in 2002 Dollars (000) Year of Construction and 2002 Dollars (000) Project ID Capital Project List Design Acquisition Construction 2002- 2007 2008-2014 2015-2020 Area Subtotal Redondo Area 0 486 0 0 0 930 0 4,719 0 4,719 0 0 Total Source: TetraTech/KCM, Inc., 2003 Notes: (1) All projects assumed for construction in 5 years unless differently stated in source CIP document (2) No separate cost given for design, acquisition for Hylebos, certain other CIP figures (3) Estimated cost for maintenance problems assume 100% contingency (very general estimates) (4) Costs escalated from original sources to 2002 dollars . (5) Does not include water quality program costs, including lake management (6) Does not include routine maintenance increase, such as catch basin cleaning, street sweepIng. (7) There are several projects identified in the Mill Creek SAMP and Mill Creek Basin Flood Management Plan. These projects are not within the PAA, however the City of Federal Way may be asked to help adjacent jurisdictions with cost sharing in the future if annexation occurs because King County was identified as a possible agency which could provide cost sharing and because of the location of the headwaters for these projects within the P AA. However, there has been no determination of specific cost share by Federal Way. SURFACE WATER CAPITAL FACILITIES - NOTES AND ASSUMPTIONS Appendix B contains a more complete discussion of methods and assumptions. A summary of key assumptions is provided below: . A planning estimate of $300,000 is assumed for a comprehensive drainage study and master plan for the P AA. The drainage study would include an inventory of the existing drainage system and stormwater facilities. The study and master plan would identify additional future capital improvement requirements. This cost was assigned as an area-wide project. For the purposes of this cost estimate, the timing for the study and master plan development and subsequent implementation of capital improvements was assumed as follows: 2007 Completion of study and master plan, and approval of funding (assuming annexation within the next few years, completion of Review Draft December 2003 F-24 ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY Capital Facilities Costs the study/master plan and funding of initial projects could be approximately 2-3 years later, with public participation and review) 2008 Begin funding and construction of planned capital improvements from the study and master plan. (Note: some emergency construction may begin earlier.) 2020 Completion of planned capital improvements. . Cost estimates were developed for major maintenance problems identified by King County Road Maintenance Services Division 3. Windshield visits were made to locations with continuing problems. Applicable projects are identified in Appendix B and as project numbers 4.02, 7.01, 7.02, and 7.03 in Table F-16. . For most storm water conveyance problems, retrofits were assumed to provide for sufficient cost estimate for repair, replacement, or alternative solution. Some of the problem locations may have had incremental improvements over the years and may require only further incremental improvement. For the most part, retrofits were assumed to apply in the form of catch basins and inlets. Unique problems, such as water over road conditions (Project 7.03), were given planning level estimates for redesign and construction. . All estimated stormwater projects and studies were assumed to be completed by 2007. . Cost data for estimates were derived from the following sources: 1. Federal Way estimates for ditch cleaning, with a 33% contingency. 2. Federal Way staff information for pond cleaning costs. Pond facilities (wet ponds, infiltration facilities, etc.) were estimated at $5,000 per facility. Other facilities (catch basins, tanks, etc.) were assumed at $1,000 per facility. The costs were assumed to include some contingency; therefore, no additional contingency was applied. 3. Planning cost estimates for stormwater facilities developed for the City of Auburn 2002 Comprehensive Drainage Plan. Conveyance costs included a ratio of four catch basins per 300 feet. When individual catch basins or manholes were indicated, separate cost estimates for the catch basin or manhole were made, using the planning cost estimates developed for the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) outfall inventory project (2002). Review Draft F-25 December 2003 ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY Capital Facilities Costs 4. Costs for certain storm water facilities, and costs for mobilization, traffic control, tax, engineering, and land acquisition were obtained from planning cost estimates developed for WSDOT outfall inventory project (2002). 5. A contingency of 100% was applied to project estimates due to their very preliminary nature. Permitting costs were assumed to be included in the contingency. SURFACE WATER COSTS EXCLUDED FROM CAPITAL FACILITY ESTIMATE . Maintenance facility space due to additional space needs for Surface Water Management personnel and operations, while a capital improvement that would be funded out of the Surface Water Management CIP, is annualized and separately included in the overall operating cost (Chapter B) of an expanded Federal Way municipal government. To avoid redundancy, the facility cost is omitted from the Surface Water Management CIP tabulation included with this review. . There are several projects identified in the Mill Creek Special Area Management Plan (SAMP) and Mill Creek Basin Flood Management Plan. These projects are not within the P AA and were not included in this cost estimate. However, the City of Federal Way may be asked to help adjacent jurisdictions with cost sharing in the future if annexation occurs. King County was identified as a possible agency, which could provide cost sharing; the headwaters for these projects are located within the P AA. However, there has been no determination of specific cost share by Federal Way. The projects identified are as follows, with costs in 1997 dollars: 1. Bingaman Creek Levee Overflow Improvements - within King County - $6,000 2. Study of Mullen Slough Intercept Hillside Drainage - within King County - $20,000 3. Sediment Trap on Peasley Canyon Tributary - within the City of Auburn - $610,000 WATER AND WASTEWATER Water and Wastewater infrastructure and services are provided by special districts rather than the City of Federal Way, but would affect the timing and rate of growth, and may have a bearing upon the phasing of annexations in the Potential Annexation Area. This section summarizes the planned water and wastewater capital improvement projects of the Lakehaven Utility District and Highline Water District scheduled for completion in the P AA. More detailed information can be found in Appendix B. Review Draft December 2003 F-26 ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY Capital Facilities Costs OVERVIEW Water The total P AA water service capital improvements costs are estimated to be $37,000. This total is divided between two the PAA subareas: $21,000 in the Southeast Subarea and $16,000 in the Northeast Subarea. No capital improvement expenditures are anticipated for the Redondo East Subarea. Refer to Table F-17. Wastewater The total PAA wastewater capital improvements costs are estimated to be $9,783,000. This total is divided between two the PAA subareas: $9,474,000 in the Southeast Subarea and $309,000 in the Northeast Subarea. No capital improvement expenditures are anticipated for the Redondo East Subarea. Refer to Table F -18. Table F.17. Federal Way Potential Annexation Area Capital Costs for Water Service Improvements Year of Construction and Project Costs in 2002 Dollars Project Costs in 2002 Dollars (000) (000) Project 2002- 2008- ID 2007 2014 2015-2020 1.00 Area Wide Programs 4.00 Lakeland Neighborhood 4.01 W-20 S 286th Main 21 Replacement Balance Subtotal Southeast Area 0 0 21 0 0 6.00 Star Lake Neighborhood 6.01 Main Replacement, Military No Separate Cost Road 6.02 Main Replacement, South No Separate Cost Star Lake 7.00 Camelot Neighborhood 7.01 W-5 Second Supply 11 11 Project Balance 7.02 W-6 Auburn Intertie Project 5 Balance Subtotal Northeast Area 0 0 16 0 0 Subtotal Redondo Area 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 37 37 0 0 Source: TetraTechlKCM, Inc., 2003 Review Draft December 2003 F-27 ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY Capital Facilities Costs Table F-18. Federal Way Potential Annexation Area Capital Costs for Wastewater Improvements Project Costs in 2002 Dollars (000) Project ID Desi n Ac uisition Construction Total 2002.2007 2008.2014 2015.2020 1.00 Area Wide Programs Subtotal General 0 0 0 4.00 Lakeland Neighborhood S-6 S End Diversion (Hylebos/Brook Lk Sta's) Subtotal Southeast Area 0 4.01 0 6.00 Star Lake Neighborhood S-8 Pump Sta 12,31,35 Emer. 6.01 6.02 Generators (shared with Camelot Neighborhood) Camelot Neighborhood S-8 Pump Sta 12,31,35 Emer. 7.00 7.01 7.02 Generators (shared with Star Lake) Subtotal Northeast Area 0 0 0 Subtotal Redondo Area 0 0 Total 0 0 0 9,783 Source: Tetra TechlKCM, Inc., 2003 WATER AND WASTEWATER - NOTES AND ASSUMPTIONS Year of Construction and Project Costs in 2002 Dollars (000) 0.0 0.0 0.0 5,642 3,832 5,642 3,832 0 309 See Star Lake 309 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5,951 3,832 0 Appendix B contains a more complete discussion of methods and assumptions. A summary of key assumptions is provided below. The following sources were reviewed in compiling estimates for water and Wastewater improvements: . 2002 Federal Way Potential Annexation Area Inventory . 2002 Capital Improvement Program of the Highline Water District December 2003 Review Draft F-28 ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY Capital Facilities Costs . 1997 Lakehaven Utility District Comprehensive Wastewater System Plan . 1999 Lakehaven Utility District Comprehensive Water System Plan Update A detailed break down of costs is provided in Tables F-17 and F-18 above. In reviewing these tables, the following should be noted: . Most projects reviewed in the two utility districts are scheduled for completion prior to 2008. The Lakehaven Utility District has a Wastewater diversion project that extends to 2010. . The Highline Water District has two main replacement projects in the Star Lake neighborhood. These projects are part of an overall $2.1 million water main replacement projects and separate costs were not available. . The Lakehaven CIP includes a project that spans the Star Lake and Camelot neighborhoods. In Table F-18, all costs were assigned to the Star Lake neighborhood with a note explaining the project is shared with the Camelot neighborhood. OTHER GOVERNMENT FACILITIES GENERAL GOVERNMENT Both the City of Federal Way and King County must provide facilities to support a variety of general government operations, including: . Administration . Court services . Community/senior centers, and . Maintenance bases. No County general government facilities are located in the P AA. There are no County plans for additional capital facilities related to general government at this time. With the exception of community/senior centers, which are addressed under Parks & Recreation above, General Government facilities are addressed in Chapter B, Operating Costs. The operational cost impact analysis addresses general government facilities in terms of net additional investment estimates based on calculations of additional staff that would be needed to provide services to the P AA. Review Draft December 2003 F-29 ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY Capital Facilities Costs EMERGENCY SERVICES: POLICE AND FIRE Police Services The King County Sheriff provides police protection services to the P AA. The P AA is served by Precinct 3, George Sector, with its headquarters in Maple Valley. However, there is a local storefront police station near Lake Dolloff in the Camelot neighborhood. The substation is not manned for general public visitors, and one must call and leave a message. No County capital facility improvements are planned in the P AA regarding police services at this time. At the time of incorporation, the City contracted with the King County Sheriffs Department for police services. In the spring of 1995, the City decided to terminate its contract relationship with King County and form its own police department. The City's Public Safety Department began limited service on September 16, 1996, and was fully operational on October 16, 1996. Federal Way's Public Safety Department could be expanded at some time in the future so that it could effectively provide services to the P AA. Regarding capital and operating costs of police services, two items should be considered, space needs for additional staff and patrol vehicles. Federal Way considers police cars as capital cost in the City's annual budget rather than a Capital Improvement Program item. Replacement/reserve costs are budgeted for each vehicle in the annual budget. Staff space needs are addressed as net additional investment estimates based on calculations of additional staff that would be needed to provide services to the P AA. Both space needs and patrol vehicles are addressed in Chapter B, Operating Costs. Fire Services The PAA is served by four of the Federal Way Fire Department's six: stations. One of these stations is located outside of the P AA, within the Redondo area. The other fire stations serving the P AA are located within the Lakeland and Camelot community subareas. The fire station in the Camelot area lies on the border of the Camelot and North Lake community sub areas. Regarding fire services and capital facilities, the Federal Way Fire Department's Master Plan identifies the new facilities the Department will need to continue providing service as its service area, City and P AA plus other areas, grows. The City has included the Department's new facilities requirements and cost and revenue estimates in the City's Comprehensive Plan Capital Facilities chapter. The PAA study team has reviewed the Fire Department Master Plan and has not found capital projects directly related to the Federal Way Potential Annexation Area alone. It should be noted that a 1996 Des Moines annexation (WoodmontlRedondo) could result in an area currently served by the Federal Way Fire Department, to be served by Fire District 26, if either party should give the required 12-month notice to eliminate the contract allowing the Federal Way Review Draft December 2003 F-30 ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY Capital Facilities Costs Fire Department to continue providing service. If the contract is eliminated, District 26 would take ownership of Station 66. The Federal Way Fire Department has purchased property at South 288th and Interstate 5 as a contingency against that possibility. This would accommodate the building of a new station that is more centrally located in the north end of the City. This realignment of stations, response areas, and revenues would require closure of Station 65 (4966 South 298th). Both Stations 65 and 66 serve portions of the Federal Way P AA. Review Draft F-31 December 2003 ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY Capital Facilities Costs This page intentionally blank. Review Draft F-32 December 2003 ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY Capital Facilities Revenue Capital Facilities Revenue REVENUES FOR CAPITAL COSTS Cities receive revenues from a variety of sources. Some of the revenues are for ongoing operations and maintenance of government services and programs. Those revenues are described in an earlier chapter of this study. There are a few revenue sources that can be used for capital improvements. This chapter describes revenues that can be used to pay for the costs of capital improvements described in the preceding chapter. REVENUE SOURCES CURRENTLY COLLECTED BY FEDERAL WAY The City currently collects two sources of revenue that it uses for capital improvements. The real estate excise tax (REET) is required by state law to be used for capital, and the City's policy is to use its utility tax revenue for capital improvements. Upon annexation, these revenues would be collected in the PAA subareas. Table G-l shows the annual revenue from these two sources that would be generated from the P AAs. Table G-1. Federal Way Potential Annexation Area Capital Revenue All Capital Revenues Northeast Southeast Redondo Subareas Real Estate Excise Taxes $ 300,000 $ 222,000 $ 7,000 $ 530,000 Utility Taxes (Capital) 694,000 480,000 20,000 1,194,000 Electric Utility 185,000 120,000 6,000 311,000 Natural Gas 111,000 71,000 3,000 184,000 Telephone 251,000 182,000 6,000 439,000 Cable TV 95,000 69,000 2,000 166,000 Solid Waste 45,000 33,000 1,000 80,000 Surface Water Management 7,000 5,000 0 13,000 Total $ 995,000 $ 702,000 $ 27,000 $1,724,000 Source: ECONorthwest 2003 The City also collects some money from mitigations of impacts on roads and parks. These payments are collected on a case-by-case pursuant to the Federal Way City Code (FWCC) requirements and State Environmental Policy Act (SEP A). The City is presently developing impact fees for roads and parks. Review Draft December 2003 G-1 ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY Capital Facilities Revenue OTHER REVENUE SOURCES There are a number of other revenue sources that can be used for capital improvements. The revenue sources for capital improvements are organized according to the type of capital improvements listed in the earlier parts of this chapter: . Parks and Recreation . Roads . Surface Water . Water and Wastewater . Other Government Facilities Generally, the list of other revenue sources does not include estimates of the amount that could be generated. It is difficult to predict the success that the City would have competing with other cities for grants. Impact fees cannot be charged for existing deficiencies, and the calculation of revenue from impact fees for new development would require formulas or similar methods and a special study, as required by state statutes. Voted general obligation bonds are limited to 2.5 percent of the assessed value of the area, but other factors, such as existing debt and credit-worthiness affect the amount that could be borrowed. Utility fees require special rate studies to forecast both the rates and the total revenue that would be generated by such rates. P ARKS AND RECREATION There are at least five revenue sources that can be used for parks and recreational facility capital improvements: . Aquatic Lands Enhancement Account . General Obligation (Voted) Bonds (repaid by property tax levy) . lAC Grants (Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation) . Impact Fees (per Growth Management Act, RCW 82.02.050 et seq) . Park Land Dedication or Fees-in-Lieu The City collects some money from mitigations of impacts on parks pursuant to the Federal Way City Code (FWCC) requirements and State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). As noted previously, the City is considering a park impact fee. The City may also apply for and receive lAC Review Draft December 2003 G-2 ROADS ANNEXATION FEASIBiliTY STUDY Capital Facilities Revenue grants for parks, but the selection process is difficult to forecast and historical averages are generally poor predictors of future revenue.! There are at least ten revenue sources that can be used for road capital improvements: . Arterial Improvement Program (grant) . Commercial Parking Tax . General Obligation (Voted) Bonds (repaid by property tax levy) . Impact Fees (per Growth Management Act, RCW 82.02.050 et seq) . Motor Vehicle License Fee . Pedestrian Safety and Mobility Program (grant) . Public Works Trust Fund (low interest loans and grants) . SEP A (State Environmental Policy Act) Mitigation Payments . Special Districts (Local improvement districts, road improvement districts, transportation benefit districts) . Surface Transportation Program (grant) . Transportation Partnership Program (grant) In addition, some of the road cross-section improvements may be made incrementally as new development makes street frontage improvements, or through local improvement districts, or other means. An analysis of the proposed road improvement projects indicates that some of them are eligible for grants totaling approximately $1 million.2 The amount ! Currently, the IAC administers several State grant programs as well as some Federal programs where IAC submits its approved applications for Federal Agency approval. Grant programs include (as of 2003): Aquatic Lands Enhancement Account (ALEA), Boating Facilities Program (BFP), Firearms and Archery Range Recreation Program (F ARR), Nonhighway and Off-Road Vehicle Activities Program (NOVA), Washington Wildlife Recreation Program (WWRP), Youth Athletic Facilities (YAF), Federal Boating Infrastructure Grant Program (BIG), National Recreational Trails Program (NRTP), Federal Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF). At the time ofthis writing, criteria for grants can be found at the IAC website, http://www.iac.wa.gov/iac/grants.asp. 2 Based upon a review of transportation capital facility projects in Chapter F between consultants and City staff, grant funding may be possible for the following projects: Review Draft G-3 December 2003 ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY Capital Facilities Revenue of mitigation payments that may be collected in the P AA depends on whether they are based on SEPA (like Federal Way's current approach) or on GMA impact fees (like King County's program, and a program being evaluated by Federal Way). SURFACE WATER There is one revenue source that is typically used for surface water capital improvements: . Surface Water Utility Fee The City would likely maintain current City policy that Surface Water Management (SWM) costs would be covered by Surface Water Fees within the structure of the Surface Water Enterprise Fund. This strategy would require increased SWM fees and/or decreased levels of SWM services in an amount totaling $538,000 (the difference in the PAA between estimated SWM operating costs ($823,000) given current service levels and estimated revenues ($285,000), The same policy would require an additional increase in SWM fees and/or decreased levels of SWM services in amount totaling $4.7 million over 18 years (which is $262,166 per year) to cover the capital costs of stormwater improvements. WATER AND WASTEWATER The City of Federal Way does not provide water and wastewater services as these are provided by the local water and sewer utility districts, Highline and Lakehaven. For these districts, there is one revenue source that is typically used for water and wastewater capital improvements: . User Fees (water and sewer rates paid by customers) Other revenue sources that can be used for water and wastewater capital improvements include: . Grants (i.e., Centennial Clean Water Fund, Department of Health, Community Development Block Grants,) Military Road widening, south of 272nd Street, combined with intersection improvements at 272nd Street, would be Transportation Improvement Board (TIB) eligible. . Peasley Canyon Way at either terminus may be HESS eligible. . The two new signals on S. 360th Street, if combined with a signal upgrade or interconnection with the signal at Enchanted Parkway may be CMAQ eligible. Grant funds of $1 million were generally assumed overall. It is likely that the grant funds would be solicited for projects in the Northeast PAA (first two bullets) given their total project costs. Review Draft December 2003 G-4 ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY Capital Facilities Revenue . Public Works Trust Fund O-ow interest loans and grants) OTHER GOVERNMENT FACILITIES There is one revenue source that is typically used for capital improvements for other government facilities: . General Obligation (Voted) Bonds (repaid by property tax levy) Review Draft December 2003 G-5 ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY Capital Facilities Revenue This page intentionally blank. Review Draft G-6 December 2003 ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY Net Fiscal Impact of Capital Costs and Revenues Net Fiscal Impact of Capital Costs and Revenues INTRODUCTION In order to analyze the net fiscal impact of capital costs and revenues, we ask the same three questions as in the chapter on net fiscal impact of operations, but with a different, longer-range time horizon: 1. What are the capital cost impacttif one or more of the study areas were a fully-functioning part of the City of Federal Way, how much additional capital costs would the City expect to incur to extend its existing levels of services to those areas? 2. What revenues would the areas generate to defray these costs! What revenue would the City generate for capital improvements 11 it applied its current tax structure to each of the PAAs for a period of20 years? 3. What are the net capital revenues! By answering these three questions, we are able to identify the net capital fiscal impact of annexation. The net impact will indicate the need for strategies that would help make the annexation of all or part of the P AA acceptable to the City and the area that would annex to Federal Way. CAPITAL REVENUES As noted in the chapter on capital revenues, Federal Way currently collects two sources of revenue that it uses for capital improvements: the real estate excise tax (REET) and utility taxes. Upon annexation, these revenues would be collected in the P AA subareas. Table H-l shows the annual revenue from these sources that would be generated from the potential annexation areas. The annual revenue projections are extended for a period of 18 years because the planning horizon is through the year 2020, and capital improvements have long useful lives. Table H-l also includes the transportation grant revenue that was described in Chapter G. Review Draft December 2003 H-1 ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY Net Fiscal Impact of Capital Costs and Revenues Table H-1. Federal Way Potential Annexation Area Capital Revenue through 2020 (2002 dollars) Capital All Revenues Northeast Southeast Redondo Subareas Real Estate Excise Taxes $ 300,000 $ 222,000 $ 7,000 $ 530,000 Utility Taxes (Capital) 694,000 480,000 20,000 1,194,000 Annual Total $ 995,000 $ 702,000 $ 27,000 $1,724,000 CIP Planning Horizon (years 2002- 2020) 18 18 18 18 2020 Total of Annual Revenue 17,910,000 12,636,000 486,000 31,032,000 Grants for Roads 1,000,000 0 0 1,000,000 2020 Revenue Total 18,910,000 12,636,000 486,000 32,032,000 Source: ECONorthwest 2003 In addition to the revenues listed in Table H-l, the City can expect to receive some money from mitigation payments or impact fees for development impacts on transportation and parks. It is not possible to forecast the amount of money to be received from the P AA from these sources because the underlying basis of such payments has not been determined for the P AA, and the City is considering changing from SEPA-based mitigations to GMA-based impact fees. Nevertheless, it is clear that the City would receive money from these sources that would offset some of the cost of capital improvements. The City may also apply for and receive lAC grants for parks, but the selection process is difficult to forecast and historical averages are generally poor predictors of future revenue. CAPITAL COSTS The chapter on capital costs (Chapter F) provided a projection of the costs of parks, roads, and stormwater facilities needed to provide the PAAs with Federal Way's urban level of service. Table H-2 summarizes those costs. <:N ater and wastewater costs are excluded since those services are provided by separate utility districts.) Review Draft December 2003 H-2 ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY Net Fiscal Impact of Capital Costs and Revenues Table H.2. Federal Way Potential Annexation Area Estimated Future Capital Costs (2002 Dollars) Redondo Area Wide Northeast Southeast East TOTAL Subarea Subarea Subarea Parks and Recreation $-0- $22,565,346 $9,564,412 $584,762 $32,714,520 Roads: Level of Service -0- 7,561,000 3,039,000 282,000 $10,882,000 Surface Water 1,067,000* 1,074,000 2,578,000 -0- $ 4,719,000 Total $1,067,000 $31,200,346 $15,181,412 $866,762 $48,315,520 Sources: Jones & Stokes, Henderson Young & Company, TetraTechlKCM, Inc., 2003 * Area wide capital programs include a joint P AA storm drain system inventory and comprehensive plan, and major maintenance of ditches and other stormwater facilities. NET FISCAL IMPACT The net fiscal impact is determined by comparing the revenue from Table H-1 to the costs from Table H-2. If the net revenue is negative, (i.e. an area generates a net cost), then these net costs could manifest themselves in the form of (1) increased taxes, (2) decreased services, or most likely, (3) some combination of the two. Table H.3. Federal Way Potential Annexation Area Estimated Net Revenues Northeast Southeast Redondo Area Wide Subarea Subarea Subarea TOTAL Capital Revenue $18,910,000 $12,636,000 $486,000 $ 32,032,000 Capital Cost 1,067,000 31,200,346 15,181,412 866,762 48,315,520 Net Revenue (1,067,000) (12,290,346) (2,545,412) (380,762) (16,283,520) Sources: ECONorthwest, Jones & Stokes, Henderson Young & Company, TetraTech/KCM, Inc., 2003 Table H-3 shows the net capital fiscal impact of annexation through the year 2020 is a net cost of $16,283,520. The annual net impact would average $904,640. City policy for surface water (and other enterprise activities) is to cover costs with fee revenue. Assuming that the City would use enterprise policy to cover the $4.7 million cost of storm water capital, the remaining deficit would be $11,564,520 (which is an annual average of $642,473). Review Draft December 2003 H-3 ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY Net Fiscal Impact of Capital Costs and Revenues Also, as indicated above, the City will receive money from mitigation payments and/or impact fees that will reduce the amount of the deficit for capital improvements. Review Draft H-4 December 2003 ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY Implementation Strategies Implementation Strateg ies INTRODUCTION The City of Federal Way would experience a significant negative fiscal impact on its operating budget if the Southeast and Northeast Major Subareas were annexed to the City and the City used the same revenue sources and rates, and provided the same level of services as it provides to the residents and businesses in the current boundaries of the City. The annual deficit would be just under $3.6 million. The cost of providing the City's levels of service in the PM would exceed revenues from the PM by 70 percent annually. Another way of understanding the fiscal impact of the $3.6 million deficit is to see how it compares to the combined revenue of the City of Federal Way and the combined Eastern annexation area. If Federal Way and the Northeast and Southeast annexation subareas are viewed as a single City of over 105,000 population, the annual deficit of $3.6 million equals 6 percent of the combined operating revenue. It's like running a business that loses 6 percent every year. In addition, the City of Federal Way would experience major costs for capital improvements in the Southeast and Northeast Major Subareas (see Chapters F and H). In this section of our analysis we present six types of implementation strategies that the City of Federal Way could employ to address the significant negative fiscal impacts of annexation: 1. State and County Support 2. Local Taxpayers 3. Tax Base Expansion 4. Special Districts 5. Reduced or Phased Levels of Service 6. Phased Annexation In the future, new strategies may be developed that are not available at this time. Conversely, some strategies identified in this study might not be available in the future. No individual strategy or combination of strategies will make annexation feasible for the Major or Community Level Subareas (other than Redondo), without significant sacrifices or costs to the City in the form of reduced levels Review Draft December 2003' 1-1 ANNEXATION FEASIBiliTY STUDY Implementation Strategies of service or financial impacts to citizens. Annexation of smaller areas involve portions of the cost of the entire P AA, therefore requests for small area annexations should be reviewed in the context of the annexation strategies described below. STATE AND COUNTY SUPPORT While the City of Federal Way is in compliance with the requirements of Washington's Growth Management Act, it is unable to proceed with annexations without incurring significant negative financial impacts. One strategy the City could pursue is to indicate that its ability to annex the Southeast and Northeast Major Subareas is contingent upon the State of Washington and/or King County providing new resources to offset the significant cost of such annexations. NEW LOCAL OPTION SALES TAX In 2003, the State Legislature passed and the Governor signed the so-called "Tri-Association" financing package. One part of the bill includes a County- wide, voter approved sales tax of 0.3 percent. Forty percent of the tax would be distributed to cities based on population. A preliminary estimate of the revenue from the local option sales tax indicates approximately $600,000 per year would be available for the annexation area (and an additional $2.4 million per year for the City of Federal Way's existing population). STATE INCENTIVES An untested, but legally feasible strategy would be for Federal Way to apply for a special grant from the State of Washington's Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development to underwrite some portion of the fiscal impacts of implementing Washington's Growth Management Act by annexing Redondo East, Southeast and/or Northeast P AA Major Subareas. COUNTY MITIGATION PAYMENT SYSTEM King County has a Mitigation Payment System (a form of road impact fee) that is collected throughout the unincorporated County, including Redondo East, Southeast and Northeast PAA Major Subareas. Historically, newly incorporated cities, and some cities annexing large areas have the view that the mitigation payments "belong" to the city. Naturally, if the County has expended the money, particularly if the projects were in and/or serve the area that paid the money, then the annexing City has already received the benefit of the mitigation payments. If King County has money that it has collected from the Potential Annexation Area but not yet spent or committed, the County could provide the revenue to the City or use it for capital improvements to help the road system in the annexation area. Review Draft December 2003 1-2 ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY Implementation Strategies STATE GRANTS FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS There are a number of state grant programs for local government capital improvements, as described in the chapter on capital revenues. These include grants for parks, roads, and other capital improvements. At a minimum, after annexation Federal Way could apply for grants to provide parks and road improvements in the PAA subareas. The City could offer to share the matching cost of grants that King County could apply for and use to improve facilities in Federal Way's PAA. A more far-reaching strategy would be for the State of Washington to earmark portions of their grant programs to be given as incentives to cities that implement Growth Management Act goals by annexing P AAs to provide urban levels of service. COUNTY INCENTIVES In August 2003, it was reported that King County will offer a total of $10 million to a number of cities that annex unincorporated areas in their potential annexation areas. Details were not announced, and will depend on the County's budget decisions. LOCAL TAXPAYERS SHARE EQUALLY THE COST OF ANNEXATION The annual deficit of the Northeast and Southeast Major Subarea revenue compared to operating cost is just under $3.6 million (assuming current rates and revenue sources). The City could use one or more general taxes to have all taxpayers in Federal Way and the combined annexation area share in paying the annual operating deficit. PROPERTY TAXES (VOTED EXCESS LEVY) If the amount were to be paid by property owners, it would require an increase in the City's levy rate to be applied equally to all property owners, including City of Federal Way, and the three annexation areas: Redondo, Southeast and Northeast. The combined taxable value of the City and the 2 annexation areas is estimated to be $7.17 billion in 2003. A property tax levy increase of $0.50 per $1,000 of taxable property would be needed to generate the additional $3.6 million in operating revenue ($150 per year on a $300,000 home). The property tax levy could only be imposed if approved by a majority of voters. Since Federal Way is already at the maximum allowable levy, the excess levy would need to be submitted annually for voter approvaF. 1 The 2003 Legislature approved, and the Governor signed, 2ESSB5659, which allows property tax increases of up to 6 percent for periods up to 6 years, subject to voter approval. Continuation of the increased levy would require voter approval every 6 years. Review Draft December 2003 1-3 ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY Implementation Strategies UTILITY TAX If the deficit were to be financed by an increase in utility taxes, it is estimated that current utility taxes (6 percent) would need to be increased to 8.3 percent in order to generate an additional $3.6 million and eliminate the operating deficit. Increases of utility taxes in excess of 6 percent require an election to obtain approval of a majority of voters. This strategy would also require a change in policy by the City of Federal Way. Current policy is to use City utility taxes for capital improvements, rather than operating costs. The City could designate the additional utility tax for operating costs associated with annexation, but that would deprive the City of the same revenue to provide capital improvements in the annexation area. BUSINESS TAX Federal Way could impose a Business and Occupation (B&O) tax in accordance with provisions of the law of the State of Washington. The tax could not exceed 2/10 of one percent of the gross receipts of businesses in Federal Way. While we do not have an accurate accounting of the gross receipts that are generated in Federal Way and the Northeast and Southeast P AA Major Subareas, if we assume that those receipts are $2 billion (slightly less than double the taxable retail sales generated in the area), then a B&O tax of 0.18 of one percent would eliminate the operating deficit ($180 per $100,000 of gross sales). Alternatively, the City could use its business licensing authority in a manner similar to Redmond to establish a business license charge ("head tax") for each employee and use the revenue to pay for the operating deficit. Based on an estimated 26,500 non-governmental employees in Federal Way and the Northeast and Southeast Major Subareas, it is estimated that a head tax of $138 per employee per year would eliminate the operating deficit. COMBINATION The City could spread the responsibility among the three types of taxes. If each tax paid for an equal share of the deficit, the property tax would increase approximately $0.17 per $1,000 taxable value, the utility tax would increase to 6.7 percent, and the business tax would be either 0.06 percent of gross receipts, or $46 per employee. VOTED GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS A city can ask voters to approve long-term debt in the form of a general obligation bond that is used to build capital improvements. Typical bond issues provide the borrowed money "up front" to pay for the new capital improvements as quickly as possible. The bonds are repaid over a period of time (typically 20 years) from a special property tax that is approved as part of the ballot measure that authorizes the bonds. Voted general obligation bonds are typically used for parks, but not usually used for roads. Review Draft December 2003 1-4 ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY Implementation Strategies ENTERPRISE FUND REVENUE Like many cities, Federal Way has a policy that costs of enterprise funds, such as Surface Water Management and Solid Waste are to be covered by user fees. Such a strategy would require increased fees and/or decreased levels of services. Federal Way could increase user fees throughout the City and P AA for its stormwater utility and/or solid waste utility and use the proceeds to offset the increased cost of providing those services in the P AA. TAX BASE EXPANSION A long-term strategy for Federal Way could be to increase City revenue by increasing the tax base in the PAA or the tax base in the current City limits. Some businesses, like automobile dealerships, generate significantly more tax revenue than the cost of the public services they receive. Federal Way could explore land use planning, zoning, and economic development strategies in the PAA and/or the City to attract such businesses. Specific techniques could include "planned actions" under SEP A, or special overlay zoning districts. These strategies could be pursued independently by the City of Federal Way, but King County could make annexation more attractive if it were to take the lead in rezoning selected parcels in the P AA in accordance with provisions of the approved Subarea Plan and assisting in the economic development strategies to develop those areas. Caveat The City of Federal Way and the P AAs currently have vacant and underdeveloped land to absorb decades of anticipated commercial growth. Given that developable land is not a constraining factor in attracting development, the only way that rezoning or other land use actions in the P AA would result in an incremental increase in development would be if the action created a specific opportunity for development that does not currently exist in the City or P AA. For instance, parcels in the P AA that are highly visible from highways may provide unique development opportunities. CREATE SPECIAL LIMITED DISTRICTS IN ANNEXATION AREAS TO PAY FOR SPECIFIC COSTS One strategy to generate revenue to pay for Federal Way's level of service in the annexation area would be to create a special district and charge a property tax levy in that district. Washington law allows the creation of limited special purpose districts for a number of purposes, such as roads, parks, transportation, and "local improvements." Voter approval is required to create special districts that have taxing authority. Property owner approval is required to create special districts that use special assessments. Review Draft December 2003 1-5 ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY Implementation Strategies Metropolitan park districts, park and recreation districts, and transportation benefit districts can use their levy for capital improvements, and/or operations and maintenance. Local improvement districts and road improvement districts charge special assessments, rather than property taxes, and the revenue is typically used for capital costs, and not for ongoing operations and maintenance. Special assessments can be blocked by 60 percent of property owners. Caveat There is some risk associated with using special districts as a strategy to pay for providing urban levels of service to Redondo East, Southeast and Northeast Major Subareas. A vote on creating a special taxing district would occur subsequent to an annexation vote. If voters approve annexation, but do not approve the creation of the district(s), the City would be left with insufficient money to provide its level of service. REDUCED OR PHASED INCREASES OF LEVEL OF SERVICE TO MATCH FEDERAL WAY'S STANDARDS REDUCED LEVEL OF SERVICE Another way for the City to address the difference in levels of service between Federal Way and the County would be to permanently provide a lower level of service for one or more services. The reduction could be City-wide (i.e., lower park standards; currently the City is meeting 10.1 acres of parks per 1,000 population but has adopted a standard of 10.9 acres per 1,000) or just in the annexation areas (e.g. lower pavement rating). In addition, the City may explore alternative service delivery strategies or customized strategies for specific neighborhoods. PHASED INCREASES IN LEVEL OF SERVICE One of the main reasons for the significant fiscal impact of annexing Redondo East, Southeast and Northeast is the difference in levels of service provided by Federal Way and King County. The City provides an urban level of service that is typical of a municipality, and King County provides a rural level of service that is commensurate with unincorporated areas. One strategy for addressing the difference in level of service would be to phase-in the increases in level of service in the annexation area. Phasing would reduce costs during the transition, and it would provide Federal Way with time to recruit and hire personnel and acquire facilities and equipment needed to serve the annexation area at Federal Way's level of service. The following is a review of the potential for phased levels of service in the annexation areas. Review Draft December 2003 1-6 ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY Implementation Strategies Building For building services, a phased level of service in the annexation area could involve contracting with King County to continue to provide permitting and inspection services until the City can afford to take on that service itself. Municipal Court, Prosecutor and Public Defender Municipal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over cases in their area, therefore the City of Federal Way would be fully responsible for court cases from the annexation area upon the effective date of the annexation, and the City would not be able to phase court services in the annexation areas. Parks and Community Services The current operating cost estimates for parks and recreation services assume that the City will be operating and maintaining only the parks facilities that currently exist in the P AAs. If the City were to increase park facilities in the P AAs in an attempt to bring the areas up to current City standards, then a phased approach would slow the rate at which additional costs are added. Federal Way could phase-in the parks standards as it is able to acquire more park land. Land for park sites is increasingly difficult to obtain in the urbanizing annexation areas. Land costs are very expensive, and park acquisition may involve purchasing parcels with existing houses that must be demolished in order to create space for parks. Such sites are also available only as the owners choose to put them up for sale. It can take a long period of time to acquire enough adjacent sites to develop as a park. In terms of the current cost estimates, one way that Federal Way could reduce the costs of parks operation and maintenance would be by contracting with King County parks to continue to maintain the parks in the annexation area. Planning and Community Development Planning and community development services do not appear susceptible to "phasing. " Police Federal Way could contract with King County Sheriff to continue its service in the annexation area for a specified number of years. Streets Federal Way could contract with King County Transportation for maintenance of the street system in the annexation area. Review Draft December 2003 1-7 ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY Implementation Strategies Surface Water Federal Way could contract with King County Surface Water Management to continue its service in the annexation area for a specified number of years. Caveat While this strategy raises the possibility of contracting with existing service providers to continue existing levels of service on an interim basis, it is beyond the scope of this study to determine the feasibility of this strategy. Specifically, we have not determined whether or not the County agencies that currently provide the service would be interested and able to provide services under contract, nor have we determined how such contracts would be received by residents of the annexation area. Eventually, phased levels of service will grow to equal the standards achieved by the City of Federal Way. When that occurs, service levels will be the same throughout the City, and the City will experience the full fiscal impacts of those levels of service. A strategy of phasing levels of service postpones, but does not avoid the full fiscal impact of annexation. PHASED ANNEXATION OF REDONDO EAST, SOUTHEAST AND NORTHEAST This strategy would involve annexing those areas that are financially self- supporting first and then annexing other areas later, perhaps in conjunction with other strategies to improve fiscal impact of these subsequent annexations. Phased annexation based on fiscal impacts could be accomplished by annexing Redondo first because it has no cash deficit based on operating expenses. The Northeast Major Subarea could be annexed next because its costs exceed revenues by 61 percent. Last to be annexed would be the Southeast Major Subarea, because its costs are more than double the revenue it would generate (i.e., the deficit is 105 percent). Phasing can also be accomplished by smaller areas, such as community subareas. For example, if community subareas were annexed in order of their fiscal impact, from least to most net operating cost, the following would be the phasing sequence: Northlake, Lakeland, Star Lake, Jovita, Camelot, and Parkway. If other Implementation Strategies are considered and employed to determine phasing for annexation. the order might be different than the preceding list. Caveat Phasing annexation emphasizes differences among the areas, leaves the most expensive until last (which reduces the likelihood of it ever annexing), and misses the opportunity to mitigate the apparent differences among areas by taking them all at the same time, thus effectively averaging the "highs" and Review Draft December 2003 1-8 ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY Implementation Strategies "lows" of both revenues and costs. Annexation of smaller areas involve portions of the cost of the entire P AA, therefore requests for small area annexation should be reviewed in the context of the annexation strategies described above. FINAL CONSIDERATIONS - STRATEGIES The purpose of the Annexation Feasibility Study is to estimate the long-term fiscal impact annexation would have on the City of Federal Way. The findings can be viewed as costly (i.e., $3.6 million per year) or bearable (i.e., the shortfall is only 6% of the City's annual budget). The Implementation Strategies identified in this Annexation Feasibility Study provide a menu of options that the City can employ to respond to a variety of factors in each subarea in order to improve the financial feasibility of annexation. Financial feasibility, however, is not the only determinant of annexation. While fiscal strategies have been integrated into the related P AA Subarea Plan, there are other issues considered in annexation, such as natural environment, land use, housing, public facilities and services, public participation, governance and interjurisdictional coordination, and other topics as identified in the Subarea Plan. In considering specific annexation requests or proposals, City officials can review the menu of Implementation Strategies and tailor an annexation approach that meets City policy objectives. Review Draft December 2003 1-9 ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY Implementation Strategies This page intentionally blank. Review Draft 1-10 December 2003 Annexation Feasibility Study Post Script Post Script: Future Application of this Document This Annexation Feasibility Study is based upon the methods described in Chapter A, utilizing data from the City, County, Special Districts, and private utilities provided in years 2002 and 2003 as noted throughout the text. The current approach, as outlined in Chapter A, and potential future use of the analysis as annexations are reviewed are summarized below: . Operating Costs and Revenue§:he assessment of operating impacts is based on 2003 costs of service and 2003 tax and fee structures, as outlined in the City of Federal Way 2003/2004 Adopted Budget, and is intended to represent a picture of fiscal impacts under steady-state operation. In essence, these estimated steady-state operating impacts reflect the ongoing "costs" that the City would face each year, beginning perhaps, in the third year after annexation and extending into perpetuity. In the initial years of annexation costs could be either higher or lower than the estimated steady- state impacts, depending on how the City chose to manage annexation. Among the determinants of transition-period costs will be the direct and indirect costs of managing the transition and the pace at which the City chooses to ramp up certain, discretionary service levels in the annexed area. Future Use: In the future as individual annexation requests are reviewed, the operating cost and revenue analysis would need to be reviewed for continued applicability and timeliness, and updated and adapted as appropriate. The more current City Adopted budget could be utilized to determine tax and fee structure. The cost drivers and allocation methods to determine costs as described in Chapter B could be updated over time. Depending on need and timing in relation to annexation requests, the P AA operating analysis could be updated in a broader manner during the City's budget preparation process. . Capital Costs and RevenuesEstimated costs of capital improvements are based on the most recent available data (2002) and reflect estimates of the combined investments that will be necessary through the planning horizon of 2020 (all presented in 2002 dollars). There is no material effect on this fiscal analysis from using 2003 operating costs impacts and 2002 capital costs, primarily because the capital improvement costs are expressed in current (2002) dollars regardless of when the projects may be built in the next 20 years. Future Use: In the future as individual annexation requests are reviewed, the capital cost and revenue analysis would need to be reviewed for continued applicability and timeliness, and updated and adapted as appropriate. Over time, costs may change due to inflation or due to new construction requirements not known at the time of this writing. Each capital facility improvement project is based on a series of assumptions that are documented in Chapter F, Appendix A and Appendix B (e.g. cost per acre for parks). Additional funding sources may become available in terms of capital revenues, such as impact fees. At the time of annexation proposal review, the need to apply a cost inflation factor, or to update cost assumptions or revenue sources may be determined. An opportunity to update the capital improvement project costs and revenues in a broad Review Draft PS-1 December 2003 Annexation Feasibility Study Post Script manner could be at the time of Comprehensive Plan Amendment cycles, or City CIP budget preparation cycles. For the Surface Water capital projects, an appropriate time for update would be during any Surface Water Basin studies recommended in the P AA Subarea Plan. For either operating or capital impact analyses, it is important to ensure that the fiscal study methods utilized are appropriate to the size of annexation request under consideration. Much of the data in this analysis was provided at the Major Subarea level, typically due to data availability, although some was available at the Community Subarea level. See Maps A-I andA-2. Review Draft December 2003 PS-2 Appendix A: Transportation Capital Cost Calculations City of Federal Way Planning Estimates of Probable Cost: Transportation Location SR-99 & 16th Ave S Intersection Improvement Military Rd S & S 272nd St Intersection Improvement Military Rd S & S Star Lake Rd (N Jct) Intersection Improvement Military Rd S Improvement - S 272nd St to S Star Lake Rd (N Jct) S 277th St & 55th Ave S Intersection Improvement S 288th St & 51st Ave S Intersection Improvement S 296th St & 51 st Ave S Intersection Improvement S 320th St & Military Rd S Intersection Improvement Peasley Canyon Way S & S Peasley Canyon Rd Intersection Improvement Peasley Canyon Way S & Military Rd S Intersection Improvement Military Rd S & S 360th St Intersection Improvement 28th Ave S & S 360th St Intersection Improvement Total C:\Documents and Settings~williams\Desktop~isa\IAppx_A_Cost Estimates 08.08.2003.xls]Summary Project Construction Development Inflation Total $ 165,792 $ 116,054 $ $ 281,846 $ 363,632 $ 581,902 $ $ 945,534 $ 162,000 $ 113,400 $ $ 275,400 $ 1,220,749 $ 1,350,524 $ $ 2,571,273 $ 366,837 $ 547,536 $ $ 914,373 $ 265,450 $ 185,815 $ $ 451,265 $ 822,731 $ 685,187 $ $ 1,507,917 $ 430,070 $ 466,049 $ $ 896,119 $ 162,000 $ 113,400 $ $ 275,400 $ 632,220 $ 458,117 $ $ 1,090,337 $ 649,323 $ 538,226 $ $ 1,187,550 $ 258,550 $ 227,485 $ $ 486,035 $ 5,499,354 $ 5,383,696 $ $ 10,883,050 Jones & Stoke~ City of Federal Way Transportation Plan Capital Estimate Project: Location: Scope: SR-99 & 16th Ave S Intersection Improvement Date: Length: 4/9/2003 feet Install a traffic signal. Roadway Width Sidewalk 8 Right-of-Way No Environmental: x EA EIS Commercial Land Use: Residential x Commercial Corners Planning estimate of probable cost: Units Unit Price Extension Pavement Removal $1.00 $225 4" Asph/8" CR $2.48 $0 Curb and gutter $15.00 $300 . Sidewalks $3.60 $1,386 Lighting If $50.00 $0 Sodding 0 sf $2.00 $0 Trees 0 ea $200.00 $0 Drainage and erosion control 0 If $87.00 $0 Excavation 0 If $5.00 $0 Traffic paint, buttons and control 80 If $20.00 $1,600 Retaining Wall 0 sf $60.00 $0 New Signal 1 ea $150,000.00 $150,000 Mobilization 8% $12,281 Construction Subtotal $165,792 Permitting 5% $8,290 Contingency 30% $49,738 Design 20% $33,158 Construction Eng 15% $24,869 Right-of-Way $0 Project Development Subtotal $116,054 Total $281,846 Inflation 0.0% per year 0 years .IQ GRAND TOTAL $281,846 No need to Signalize 16th Ave S approach. Crosswalk on northside of intersection(including rebuild traffic island and ramps). C:IDocuments and SettingsljwilllamsIDesktoplllsal[Appx_A_Cost Estimates 08.08.2003.xts]SR99 & 16th 1Îf Jones & Stoke~ City of Federal Way Transportation Plan Capital Estimate Project: Military Rd S & S 272nd St Intersection Improvement Date: Length: 4/9/2003 680 feet Location: Scope: Add one additional southbound through lane. Curb, gutter, and sidewalks at corners and along Military Rd adjacent to additional through lane and on the east side upto existing driveway (100'). Roadway Width Environmental: 46 DNS Sidewalk x 8 Right-of-Way Required EA EIS Commercial Commercial Corners Unit Price $1.00 $2.48 $15.00 $3.60 $50.00 $2.00 $200.00 $87.00 $5.00 $20.00 $60.00 $150,000.00 $250.00 8% Land Use: Residential x Planning estimate of probable cost: Extension $5,800 $13,541 $12,900 $24,768 $0 $10,320 $5,800 $59,160 $3,400 $13,600 $30,000 $0 $170,000 $14,343 $363,632 Pavement Removal 4" Asph/8" CR Curb and gutter Sidewalks Lighting Sodding Trees Drainage and erosion control Excavation Traffic paint, buttons and control Retaining Wall New Signal Undergrounding Facilities Mobilization Construction Subtotal Units 5,800 sf 5,460 sf 860 If 6,880 sf 0 If 5,160 sf 29 ea 680 If 680 If 680 If 500 sf 0 ea 680 If Permitting Contingency Design Construction Eng Right-of-Way Project Development Subtotal 5% 30% 20% 15% $18,182 $109,090 $72,726 $54,545 $327,360 $581,902 $945,534 Total Inflation 0.0% per year 0 years IQ GRAND TOTAL $945,534 Pavement removal includes existing sidewalk remove!. Retaining wall is 5' high and 100' long from northeast corner northward to existing driveway.(including sidewalk) 50% of Right of Way costs assume fuel pump relocation. Assume widening south of the intersection has occurred. Revise 2 corners for pedestrian landings. C:\Documents and Settings~williams\Desktop~isa\lAppx_A_Cost Es~mates 08.08.2003.xls]Military & 272nd Jones&: St()ke~ Project: City of Federal Way Transportation Plan Capital Estimate Military Rd S & S Star Lake Rd (N Jct) Intersection Improvement 4/9/2003 feet Location: Scope: Date: Length: Install a traffic signal. Roadway Width Environmental: Land Use: Residential Planning estimate of probable cost: Pavement Removal 4" Asph/8" CR Curb and gutter Sidewalks Lighting Sodding Trees Drainage and erosion control Excavation Traffic paint, buttons and control Retaining Wall New Signal Mobilization Construction Subtotal Permitting Contingency Design Construction Eng Right-of-Way Project Development Subtotal Total Inflation 0.0% GRAND TOTAL Sidewalk x 8 Right-of-Way No EA EIS Commercial Commercial Corners Unit Price $1.00 $2.48 $15.00 $3.60 $50.00 $2.00 $200.00 $87.00 $5.00 $20.00 $60.00 $150,000.00 8% x Units 0 sf 0 sf 0 If 0 sf 0 If 0 sf 0 ea 0 If 0 If 0 If 0 sf 1 ea 5% 30% 20% 15% per year 0 years Assume curb & gutter, and pedestrian landing are completed as part of Military Rd improvements. C:\Documents and Settings\jwilliams\Desktop~isa\[Appx_A_Cost Estimates OB.OB.2003.xls]Military & Start Lake Extension $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $150,000 $12,000 $162,000 $8,100 $48,600 $32,400 $24,300 $0 $113,400 $275,400 .IQ $275,400 Jones & Stok~ City of Federal Way Transportation Plan Capital Estimate Project: Military Rd S Improvement - S 272nd St to S Star lake Rd (N Jet) Date: S 272nd St to S 288th St length: Widen to 5 lane roadway with Curb, gutter, and sidewalks. 4/9/20.0.3 2,0.0.0. feet location: Scope: Roadway Width 58 Sidewalk 8 Right-of-Way Required Environmental: DNS x EA EIS Commercial land Use: Residential x Commercial Corners Planning estimate of probable cost: Units Unit Price Extension Pavement Removal 4,0.0.0. sf $1.0.0. $4,0.0.0. 4" Asph/8" CR 32,0.0.0. sf $2.48 $79,360. Curb and gutter 4,0.0.0. If $15.0.0. $60.,0.0.0. Sidewalks 32,00.0.. sf $3.60. $115,20.0. Lighting 2.0.0.0. If $50..0.0. $10.0.,0.0.0. Sodding 24,0.0.0. sf $2.0.0. $48,0.0.0. Trees 134 ea $20.0..0.0. $26,80.0. Drainage and erosion control 2,0.0.0. If $87.0.0. $174,0.0.0. Excavation 4,0.0.0. If $5.0.0. $20.,0.0.0. Traffic paint, buttons and control 2,0.0.0. If $20..0.0. $40.,0.0.0. Retaining Wall sf $60..0.0. $0. New Signal 0. ea $150.,0.0.0..0.0. $0. Undergrounding Facilities 2,0.0.0. If $250..0.0. $50.0.,0.0.0. Mobilization 8% $53,389 Construction Subtotal $1,220,749 Permitting 5% $61,0.37 Contingency 30.% $366,225 Design 20.% $244,150. Construction Eng 15% $183,112 Right-of-Way $496,0.0.0. Project Development Subtotal $1,350,524 Total $2,571,273 Inflation 0..0.% per year 0. years .iQ GRAND TOTAL $2,571,273 Pavement removal includes existing sidewalk removel. Right of Way only required for 50.% of project length. Retaining wall: 30.0.' long and 10.' high; 150.' long and 30.' high. Paving: 12' width entire length of the project. Excavation doubled for widening into earthbanks. C:\Documents and Settings~williams\Desktop\lisa\[Appx_A_Cost Estimates 08.08.2003.xls]Military-272nd to Star Lake Jones & Stok~ Project: City of Federal Way Transportation Plan Capital Estimate Location: Scope: S 277th St & 55th Ave S Intersection Improvement Date: 4/9/2003 Length: 500 feet Relocate 55th Ave 250' to the east and install new signal at new intersection. Roadway Width Environmental: 36 DNS Land Use: Residential Planning estimate of probable cost: Pavement Removal 4" Asph/8" CR Curb and gutter Sidewalks Lighting Sodding Trees Drainage and erosion control Excavation Embankment Traffic paint, buttons and control Retaining Wall New Signal Mobilization Construction Subtotal Permitting Contingency Design Construction Eng Right-of-Way Project Development Subtotal Total Inflation 0.0% GRAND TOTAL Before Shoulder x x Units 15,000 sf 16,800 sf 0 If 0 sf 0 If 15,000 sf 0 ea 500 If 0 If 4,500 cy 500 If 0 sf 1 ea 3 Right-of-Way Required EA EIS Commercial Commercial Corners Unit Price $1.00 $2.48 $15.00 $3.60 $50.00 $2.00 $200.00 $87.00 $5.00 $11.00 $20.00 $60.00 $150,000.00 8% 0 After C:\Documents and Settings~willlams\DeskiopUisa\[Appx_A_Cost Estimates 08.08.2003.xls]277th & 55th 5% 30% 20% 15% per year 277th St C11 C11 s: ~ years C11 C11 s: » < (1) Extension $15,000 $41,664 $0 $0 $0 $30,000 $0 $43,500 $0 $49,500 $10,000 $0 $150,000 $27,173 $366,837 $18,342 $110,051 $73,367 $55,026 $290,750 $547,536 $914,373 ~ $914,373 Jones .~ Stoke~ City of Federal Way Transportation Plan Capital Estimate Project: S 288th St & 51st Ave S Intersection Improvement Date: Length: 4/9/2003 675 feet Location: Scope: Add an additional westbound left turn bay. Curb, gutter, and sidewalks along tangent section of left turn bay Roadway Width 35 Sidewalk 8 Right-of-Way No Environmental: DNS x EA EIS Commercial Land Use: Residential x Commercial Corners Planning estimate of probable cost: Units Unit Price Extension Pavement Removal 675 sf $1.00 $675 4" Asph/8" CR 2,325 sf $2.48 $5,766 Curb and gutter 120 If $15.00 $1,800 Sidewalks 960 sf $3.60 $3,456 Lighting 0 It $50.00 $0 Sodding 720 sf $2.00 $1,440 Trees 4ea $200.00 $800 Drainage and erosion control 675 If $87.00 $58,725 Excavation 675 If $5.00 $3,375 Traffic paint, buttons and control 675 If $20.00 $13,500 Retaining Wall 0 st $60.00 $0 New Signal 0 ea $150,000.00 $0 Undergrounding Facilities 675 If $250.00 $168,750 Mobilization 8% $7,163 Construction Subtotal $265,450 Permitting 5% $13,272 Contingency 30% $79,635 Design 20% $53,090 Construction Eng 15% $39,817 Right-ot-Way $0 Project Development Subtotal $185,815 Total $451,265 Inflation 0.0% per year 0 years IQ GRAND TOTAL $451,265 Widen north side ot roadway to provide left turn pocket. Extend exisitng sidewalk along north side to 51st PI S (120') C:\Documents and Settings~williams\Desktop\lisa\[Appx_A_Cosl Eslimates OB.OB.2003.xls]2BBlh & 51 sl Ave Jones & Stoke~ City of Federal Way Transportation Plan Capital Estimate Location: Scope: S 296th St & 51st Ave S Intersection Improvement Date: 4/9/2003 Length: 1,500 feet Add an additional southbound and westbound left turn bay with curb, gutter, and sidewalks. Install a traffic signal. Project: Roadway Width Environmental: Sidewalk x 8 Right-of-Way Required EA EIS Commercial Commercial Corners Unit Price $1.00 $2.48 $15.00 $3.60 $50.00 $2.00 $200.00 $87.00 $5.00 $20.00 $60.00 $150,000.00 $250.00 8% Land Use: Residential x Planning estimate of probable cost: Pavement Removal 4" Asph/8" CR Curb and gutter Sidewalks Lighting Sodding Trees Drainage and erosion control Excavation Traffic paint, buttons and control Retaining Wall New Signal Undergrounding Facilities Mobilization Construction Subtotal Units 2,010 sf 9,120 sf 1,110 If 8,880 sf 0 If 6,660 sf 50 ea 1,500 If 1,500 If 1,500 If 0 sf 1 ea 1 ,500 If Extension $2,010 $22,618 $16,650 $31,968 $0 $13,320 $10,000 $130,500 $7,500 $30,000 $0 $150,000 $375,000 $33,165 $822,731 $41,137 $246,819 $164,546 $123,410 $109,275 $685,187 Permitting Contingency Design Construction Eng Right-of-Way Project Development Subtotal 5% 30% 20% 15% $1,507,917 Total Inflation 0.0% per year 0 years .iQ GRAND TOTAL $1,507,917 Widen appeoachs to 3 lanes. Widen westbound leg to north side. C:\Documents and Settings~williams\Desktop~isa\[Appx_A_Cost Estimates OB.OB.2003.xls]296th & 51 st Ave Jones 8(. Stoke~ City of Federal Way Transportation Plan Capital Estimate Project: S 320th St & Military Rd S Intersection Improvement Date: 4/9/2003 Length: 750 feet Add an additional eastbound right turn lane with curb, gutter, and sidewalk. Location: Scope: Roadway Width 68 Sidewalk 8 Right-of-Way Required Environmental; DNS x EA EIS Commercial land Use: Residential Commercial Corners x Planning estimate of probable cost Units Unit Price Extension Pavement Removal 9,000 sf $1.00 $9,000 4" Asph/8" CR 9,000 sf $2.48 $22,320 Curb and gutter 790 If $15.00 $11,850 Sidewalks 6,320 sf $3.60 $22,752 Lighting 0 If $50.00 $0 Sodding 4,740 sf $2.00 $9,480 Trees 26 ea $200.00 $5,200 Drainage and erosion control 750 If $87.00 $65,250 Excavation 750 If $5.00 $3,750 Traffic paint, buttons and control 750 If $20.00 $15,000 Retaining Wall 1,000 sf $60.00 $60,000 New Signal 0 ea $150,000.00 $0 Undergrounding Facilities 750 If $250.00 $187,500 Mobilization 8% $17,968 Construction Subtotal $430,070 Permitting 5% $21,504 Contingency 30% $129,021 Design 20% $86,014 Construction Eng 15% $64,511 Right-of-Way $165,000 Project Development Subtotal $466,049 Total $896,119 Inflation 0.0% per year 0 years iQ GRAND TOTAL $896,119 Retaining wall is 5' high and 200' long. Begin right turn lane and curb, gutter, and sidewalk easterly of 32nd Ave S at terminus of recent widening. C:\Documents and Settings\jwilliams\Desktop~isa\[Appx_A_Cost Estimates 08.08.2003.xls]Military & 32Oth Jones 8( Stoke~ City of Federal Way Transportation Plan Capital Estimate Peasley Canyon Way S & S Peasley Canyon Rd Intersection Improvement Date: Length: 4/9/2003 teet Project: Location: Scope: Install a traffic signal. Roadway Width Sidewalk 8 Right-ot-Way No Environmental: x EA EIS Commercial Land Use: Residential x Commercial Corners Planning estimate ot probable cost: Units Unit Price Extension Pavement Removal st $1.00 $0 4" Asph/8" CR st $2.48 $0 Curb and gutter It $15.00 $0 Sidewalks st $3.60 $0 Lighting If $50.00 $0 Sodding st $2.00 $0 Trees ea $200.00 $0 Drainage and erosion control It $87.00 $0 Excavation It $5.00 $0 Traffic paint, buttons and control 0 It $20.00 $0 Retaining Wall 0 st $60.00 $0 New Signal 1 ea $150,000.00 $150,000 Mobilization 8% $12,000 Construction Subtotal $162,000 Permitting 5% $8,100 Contingency 30% $48,600 Design 20% $32,400 Construction Eng 15% $24,300 Right-ot-Way $0 Project Development Subtotal $113,400 Total $275,400 Inflation 0.0% per year 0 years !Q GRAND TOTAL $275,400 C:IDocuments and SettingsljwilliamsIDesktopllisa\[Appx_A_Cost Estimates 08.08.2003.xJs]peasiey & peasley Jones &: Stoke~ City of Federal Way Transportation Plan Capital Estimate Peasley Canyon Way S & Military Rd S Intersection Improvement Project: Location: Scope: Date: 4/9/2003 Length: 1,174 teet Install a traffic signal at Military Rd and 340th St with southbound left turn pocket. Widen 34Oth St to westbound left turn and rignt turn lanes. Close the southbound approach from Peasley Canyon Way to Military Rd. Roadway Width 34 Shoulder 8 Right-ot-Way Required Environmental: DNS x EA EIS Commercial Land Use: Residential x Commercial Corners Planning estimate ot probable cost: Units Unit Price Extension Pavement Removal 3,454 st $1.00 $3,454 4" Asph/8" CR 10,116st $2.48 $25,088 Curb and gutter 0 It $15.00 $0 Sidewalks 0 st $3.60 $0 Lighting 0 It $50.00 $0 Sodding 1,800 st $2.00 $3,600 Trees Oea $200.00 $0 Drainage and erosion control 1,174 It $87.00 $102,138 Excavation 1,174 It $5.00 $5,870 Traffic paint, buttons and control 1,174 It $20.00 $23,480 Retaining Wall 0 st $60.00 $0 New Signal 1 ea $150,000.00 $150,000 Undergrounding Facilities 1,174 It $250.00 $293,500 Mobilization 8% $25,090 Construction Subtotal $632,220 Permitting 5% $31,611 Contingency 30% $189,666 Design 20% $126,444 Construction Eng 15% $94,833 Right-ot-Way $15,563 Project Development Subtotal $458,117 Total $1,090,337 Inflation 0.0% per year 0 years 12 GRAND TOTAL $1,090,337 C:IDocuments and SettingsljwilliamsIDesktop\lisa\[Appx_A_Cost Estimates 08.08.2003.xls]Military & Peasley Jone$&:.Stoke~ Project: City of Federal Way Transportation Plan Capital Estimate Location: Scope: Military Rd S & S 360th St Intersection Improvement Date: 4/9/2003 Length: 1,068 feet Install a traffic signal with an additional northbound(320') and southbound(220') left turn bays. Curb, gutter, and sidewalks at corners and along tangent sections of left turn bays. Roadway Width Environmental: Sidewalk x Land Use: Residential x Planning estimate of probable cost: Pavement Removal 4" Asph/8" CR Curb and gutter Sidewalks Lighting Sodding Trees Drainage and erosion control Excavation Traffic paint, buttons and control Retaining Wall New Signal Undergrounding Facilities Mobilization Construction Subtotal Units 3,720 sf 1,240 sf 1 ,240 If 9,920 sf 0 If 7,440 sf 42 ea 1,068 If 1,068 If 1,068 If 0 sf 1 ea 1,068 If Permitting Contingency Design Construction Eng Right-of-Way Project Development Subtotal 5% 30% 20% 15% Total Inflation 0.0% per year GRAND TOTAL 8 Right-of-Way Required EA EIS Commercial Commercial Corners Unit Price $1.00 $2.48 $15.00 $3.60 $50.00 $2.00 $200.00 $87.00 $5.00 $20.00 $60.00 $150,000.00 $250.00 8% Extension $3,720 $3,075 $18,600 $35,712 $0 $14,880 $8,400 $92,916 $5,340 $21,360 $0 $150,000 $267,000 $28,320 $649,323 $32,466 $194,797 $129,865 $97,399 $83.700 $538,226 $1,187,550 0 years M $1,187,550 C:\Documents and Settings\jwilliams\Desktop~isa\[Appx_A_Cost Estimates 08.08.2003.xls]Military & 360th ~ Jones &: Stoke~ City of Federal Way Transportation Plan Capital Estimate 28th Ave S & S 360th St Intersection Improvement Date: Length: Install a traffic signal with an additional southbound right turn lane. Curb, gutter, and sidewalks at corners and west side of 28th Ave adjacent to right turn lane. 4/9/2003 350 feet Project: Location: Scope: Roadway Width 34 Sidewalk 8 Right-of-Way Required Environmental: DNS x EA EIS Commercial Land Use: Residential x Commercial Corners Planning estimate of probable cost: Units Unit Price Extension Pavement Removal 1,470 sf $1.00 $1,470 4" Asph/8" CR 3,780 sf $2.48 $9,374 Curb and gutter 630 If $15.00 $9,450 Sidewalks 5,040 sf $3.60 $18,144 Lighting 0 If $50.00 $0 Sodding 3,780 sf $2.00 $7,560 Trees 21 ea $200.00 $4,200 Drainage and erosion control 350 If $87.00 $30,450 Excavation 350 If $5.00 $1,750 Traffic paint, buttons and control 350 If $20.00 $7,000 Retaining Wall 0 sf $60.00 $0 New Signal 1 ea $150,000.00 $150,000 Mobilization 8% $19,152 Construction Subtotal $258,550 Permitting 5% $12,928 Contingency 30% $77,565 Design 20% $51,710 Construction Eng 15% $38,783 Right-of-Way $46,500 Project Development Subtotal $227,485 Total $486,035 Inflation 0.0% per year 0 years ¡Q GRAND TOTAL $486,035 C:\Documents and Settings\jwilliams\Desktop~isa\[Appx_A_Cost Estimates OB.OB.2003.xls 2Bth & 360th Assumptions: Prices are 2003 bid estimates. All projects include curb, gutter, sidewalk, and landscaping unless noted otherwise. Existing asphalt will be removed and replaced. Sidewalks are assumed at 8 feet with additional shy distance outside the sidewalk of 3 feet. Roadway section is assumed 4n ACt8n CSBC. Existing lane width Existing Right-of-Way Sidewalk Sodding (including curb) Street trees every Unit Pavement Removal sf 4" Aspht8" CR sf Curb and gutter If Sidewalks sf Ughting If Sodding sf Trees ea Drainage and erosion control If Excavation If Traffic paint, buttons and control If Retaining Wall sf New Signal ea Mobilization 11 fcct 60 fcct 8 feet 6 feet 30 feel Unit Price $1.00 includes clearing and grubbing $2.48 $15.00 $3.60 $50.00 $2.00 $200.00 $87.00 Drainage (including inlets, pipes, catch basins, vaults) is $71and erosion control is $16 $5.00 $20.00 (including fencing at $7) $60 $150.000.00 8% ~~:-." . ~j¡íg~... ." " . COOSWCUon Management ~ìght of Way &lri~.I.ønø lak~&: . ,'. ',,:" ,.' .-.:, '¡i,;i~,~ asuming a DNS ....:;.:..~.i~.:.'.:.':~~.1 ).~.' asuming a EA .,.~;;.~:~~¡ . :.15%, $15.5 per sf for residential $18.0 per sf for commercial '$22.0 per sf for commercial corners PerrnItIfÐg' .: " "':' ,,"., . .'. .", Federal Way PAA Cross-Section Cost Estimate Northeast Subarea Southeast Subarea Redondo Subarea Unit All Road (miles-roads) 46.6 28.9 0.3 RM Lit Bit & Gravel Road 7.6 10.5 lM Curb & Gutter 252,806.0 92,206.0 1,902.0 IF Concrete Walkway 70,817.1 36,024.4 1,056.6 SY Asphalt Concrete Walkway 4,043.8 - - SY All Road (IF) 492,096.0 305,184.0 3,168.0 IF Lit Bit & Gravel Road (IF) 40,128.0 55,440.0 - IF Curb & Gutter 252,806.0 92,206.0 1,902.0 IF Concrete Walkway 127,470.8 64,843.9 1,901.9 IF Asphalt Concrete Walkway 7,278.8 - - IF Paving Cost $ 13,900,000 $ 19,200,000 $ - Curb & Gutter Cost $ 6,100,000 $ 5,400,000 $ 32,000 Sidewalk Cost $ 10,900,000 $ 7,400,000 $ 39,000 Sub Total $ 30,900,000 $ 32,000,000 $ 71,000 Total $ 62,971,000 A B C D E F = A*5280(ft)*2 G = B*5280(ft) H=C I = D/5(ft)*9(sf/sy) J = E/5(ft)*9(sf/sy) K = G*($3.48*32(ft)+$5+$87)*1.7 l = (F-H)*$15*1. 7 M = (F-I-J)*5(ft)*$3.6*1.7 Assumption: 70% development factor Paving Cost - $3.48/SF for adjustment & paving costs; 32' wide of paving Paving Cost - $5/LF for excavation Paving Cost - $87/LF for drainage & erosion control Curb & Gutter Cost - $15/LF for the curb & gutter cost Sidewalk Cost - $3.6/SF for the sidewalk cost; 5' wide of sidewalk C:\Documents and Settings\jwilliams\Desktop\lisa\[Appx_AJederal Way PM Cross-section Costs.xls]Sheet1 Appx_A_Federal Way PM Cross-section Costs.xls 12/12/2003 Appendix B: Surface Water, Water, Wastewater Capital Project Calculations Date: To: Tetra TechIKCM, ¡Be. [11;] September 2, 2008; Updated December 2008 Memo c: Lisa Grueter, AICP Tony Melone, P.E., Central Files From: Arthur Lee, P.E. Project No.: 2140101 Subject: CIP Cost Estimates for Water, Sewer, and Stormwater Elements in Potential Annexation Area - REVISED MEMO Cost estimates were prepared for a 20-year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for Water, Sewer, and Surface Water elements in the Federal Way Potential Annexation Area (P AA). The CIP tables are attached as Tables CIP 1, CIP 2, CIP 3, and CIP 4. Water and Sewer CIPs The following sources were reviewed in compiling estimates for water and sewer improvements: . 2002 Federal Way Potential Annexation Area Inventory 2002 Capital Improvement Program of the Highline Water District 1997 Lakehaven Utility District Comprehensive Wastewater System Plan 1999 Lakehaven Utility District Comprehensive Water System Plan Update . . . The District Engineers for Lakehaven Utility District and Highline Water District were contacted to determine whether any change in 1heir respective CIPs would occur as a result of the proposed land use plan for the P AA. Both responded that unless there was significant increase in land use intensity from King County designations, the CIPs would not change. The Lakehaven District Engineer noted that any land use change initiated by Federal Way would be incorporated into the upcoming CIP review and development process. The proposed zoning for the P AA was reviewed for differences with the existing King County zoning designations. The proposed zoning generally translated King County designations into Federal Way equivalents. There were several existing conforming areas that were proposed for more intense zoning to recognize existing uses. A few areas were proposed for less intense zoning. Overall, there appeared to be little significant change. A more detailed growth analysis for the P AA for the year 2020 is being developed by Federal Way and may be used for a more detailed evaluation of potential CIP changes when available. CIP cost estimates from the utility districts were adjusted to year 2002 dollars using Means cost indices. Most projects reviewed in the two utility districts were Tetra TechIKCM, Inctt 1917 First Avenue- Seattle, WA 9810.ß.027. Tel 206 443õ300 . Fax 206 443-5372 ~ scheduled for completion prior to 2008. The Lakehaven Utility District had a sewer diversion project that extended to 2010. Project costs were distributed to the seven communities (Redondo East, Star Lake, Camelot, North Lake, Lakeland, Jovita, Parkway) as feasible. The Highline Water District had two main replacement projects in the Star Lake neighborhood. These projects are part of an overall $2.1 million water main replacement project, and separate costs were not available. The Lakehaven CIP included a project (S-8) that spanned the Star Lake and Camelot Neighborhoods. In the CIP cost table for Sewer (LUD), all costs were arbitrarily assigned to the Star Lake neighborhood, with a note explaining the project was shared with Camelot. Federal Way will incur some operating costs as the result of permit review and facilitation, and minor comprehensive plan map and text updates. Permit review may include environmental, traffic, engineering, utility, building, safety, and/or other review components as needed. Review costs are difficult to estimate, as costs are typically reimbursed on an hourly rate basis. The permit review and approval costs are usually included into the estimated capital improvement cost for a project. Since the permit review and approval costs are already included in the capital costs, a separate estimate for permit review and approval by Federal Way is not included in the CIP estimate. The permit review and coordination to be conducted by Federal Way would be considered operating costs, and permit review costs are also anticipated to generate some offsetting revenue from fees. Comprehensive plan map and text updates would occur with annexation to include the new utilities and service areas into Federal Way's maps. These costs would not be reimbursable, but are anticipated to be relatively minor, assuming a separate attachment is made in the interim to update the Comprehensive Plan (i.e., an "update" insert), for the P AA. Mapping and text costs would be incurred for GIS production, writing, and publication. A reissuance of the Comprehensive Plan with the newly annexed area incorporated into the plan would require substantially more effort and cost. Surface Water CIP Surface Water CIP costs were developed for several elements: . Pond cleaning operations to bring stormwater ponds to Federal Way standard. This is considered major maintenance and part of capital improvements. Ditch cleaning operations to bring ditches to Federal Way standard. This is considered major maintenance and part of capital improvements. Maintenance facility space. Comprehensive drainage study and master plan. Problem areas within the P AA identified by King County Road Maintenance Services Division 3. . . . . Page 2 ~ . CIP costs identified in previous studies. Routine maintenance costs such as for street sweeping, stormwater facility maintenance, and Stormwater quality management, were considered part of operations costs and not included in the CIP. While such costs would increase with the inclusion of the P AA due to expansion of service area, the costs were presumed to be covered by the Storm Water Management utility fees collected from the PAA. Project costs were adjusted to 2002 dollars as appropriate and allocated to communities as feasible. The comprehensive drainage study and master plan was assumed to provide review and confirmation of existing major proposed projects, and may develop new projects if needed. The major maintenance work (ditch and pond upgrade), comprehensive drainage study and master plan, and minor problems identified by King County Maintenance Div. 3, were considered near term projects which could be implemented within a few years of annexation. The drainage study and master plan would enable a comprehensive review of surface water problems and provide the basis for future capital improvements to the year 2020. More discussion is given below on the cost estimates. Costs for capital improvements to the year 2020 would be funded out of the Surface Water Management Utility (SWM utility) fund, which would have the ability to use rates to recover costs, and would be separate from operational costs. All projects identified from previous special studies were scheduled for the 2002- 2007 timeframe. Costs were broken out by design and construction components where feasible. Certain costs were given only as totals from original sources and were stated as such. There are several projects identified in the Mill Creek SAMP and Mill Creek Basin Flood Management Plan. These projects are not within the P AA, however the City of Federal Way may be asked to help adjacent jurisdictions with cost sharing in the future if annexation occurs because King County was identified as a possible agency which could provide cost sharing and because of the location of the headwaters for these projects within the P AA. However, there has been no determination of specific cost share by Federal Way. The projects identified are as follows, with costs in 1997 dollars: . Bingaman Creek Levee Overflow Improvements - within King County - $6,000 . Study of Mullen Slough Intercept Hillside Drainage - within King County - $20,000 . Sediment Trap on Peasley Canyon Tributary - within the City of Auburn - $610,000 Due to the date of the basin study in 1997, some of these projects may have begun and may have received funding from other sources. Page 3 ~ A planning estimate of $300,000 was made for a comprehensive drainage study and master plan for the P AA. The drainage study would include an inventory of the existing drainage system and stormwater facilities. The study and master plan would identify additional future capital improvement requirements. For the purposes of this cost estimate, the timing for the study and master plan development and subsequent implementation of capital improvements was assumed as follows: 2007 Completion of study and master plan, and approval of funding (assuming annexation within the next few years, completion of the study/master plan and funding of initial projects could be approximately 2-3 years later, with public participation and review) 2008 Begin funding and construction of planned capital improvements from the study and master plan. (Note: some emergency construction may begin earlier.) 2020 Completion of planned capital improvements. Cost estimates were developed for major maintenance problems identified in Table 2 from the Surface Water Level of Service report, which are attached to this memo (with corrections noted below). Figure ß 1, showing the problem locations is also attached. Windshield visits were made to locations with continuing problems. In a recent update from King County Road Maintenance, some locations had previously reported problems which had been fixed or were no longer problems. The revised statuses are given below in a revised Table 2. Address corrections to Table 2 were follows: . Problem 3 was originally indicated at 28662 36th Place South, and should be at 29662 36th Place South. Problem 4 was indicated at S. 298th Street and 35th Place South, and should be at S. 298th Street and 36th Place South . Table 3 in the Surface Water LOS report listed problems near to but outside of the P AA. No estimate was developed for these problems since no cost share for Federal Way had been determined. A recent update from King County Road Maintenance indicated that the following problems no longer exist due to development or upgrade. The revised statuses are given below in a revised Table 3. Cost data for estimates were derived from the following sources: . . Federal Way estimates for ditch cleaning, with a 33% contingency. Federal Way staff information for pond cleaning costs. Pond facilities (wet ponds, infiltration facilities, etc.) were estimated at $5,000 per facility. Other facilities (catch basins, tanks, etc.) were assumed at $1,000 per facility. The costs were assumed to include some contingency; therefore, no additional contingency was applied. Planning cost estimates for stormwater facilities developed for City of Auburn 2002 Comprehensive Drainage Plan. Conveyance costs included a ratio of four catch basins per 300 feet. When individual catch basins or manholes were indicated, separate cost estimates for the catch basin or . Page 4 . manhole were made, using the planning cost estimates developed for the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) outfall inventory project (2002). Costs for certain stormwater facilities, and costs for mobilization, traffic control, tax, engineering, and land acquisition were obtained from planning cost estimates developed for WSDOT outfall inventory project (2002). A contingency of 100% was applied to project estimates due to their very preliminary nature. Permitting costs were assumed to be included in the continge ncy. . Retrofits were assumed for most storm water conveyance problems to provide for sufficient cost estimate for repair, replacement, or alternative solution. Some of the problem locations may have had incremental improvements over the years and may require only further incremental improvement. For the most part, retrofits were assumed to apply in the form of catch basins and inlets. Unique problems, such as water over road conditions (problem 5), were given planning level estimates for redesign and construction. Maintenance facility space due to additional space needs for Surface Water Management personnel and operations was estimated. The cost, while a capital improvement that would be funded out of the SWM CIP, is annualized and separately included in the overall operating cost of an expanded Federal Way municipal government. To avoid redundancy, the facility cost is omitted from the SWM CIP tabulation included with this review. Future capital improvements beyond those identified could come from the comprehensive drainage study and master plan. Such projects would be funded through the Storm Water Management utility fund. Page 5 ~ ~ TABLE 2 (REVISED FROM SURFACE WATER LOS REPORT) ROAD MAINTENANCE PROBLEMS IN PAA KING COUNTY MAINTENANCE DIVISION 3 NO. SUBAREA STREET PROBLEM 1. Northeast SE 288 St. @ 1-5 2 Catch basins. On !wine: Droblem. 2. Northeast 3366 S. 290 St. 2 Catch basins. Need to be monitored. 3. Northeast 29662 36 PI. S. (Not a problem) 4. Northeast S. 296 St. @ 36 PI S. (No IonIZer a problem) 5. Northeast 38 Ave. S. & S. 304 Water over road signs. On going problem. 6. Southeast Peasley Canyon Rd. (No longer a problem) 7. Southeast Peasley Canyon Way (No Droblem as of latelv) 8. Southeast S 342 St. & 44 Ave. Crosstile e/of 44 Ave. S. Should be monitored. S. 9. Southeast 4009 S 345 St. (No longer a problem) Source: King County Roads Maintenance Division 3, 2002, updated April 2003 TABLE 3 (REVISED FROM SURFACE WATER LOS REPORT) ROAD MAINTENANCE PROBLEMS NEAR PAA KING COUNTY MAINTENANCE DIVISI8 3 NO. SUBAREA STREET PROBLEM 10. Northeast S. 296 St. east of 64 Steep bank, excessive water. Should be Ave. S. w/of W. monitored. Valley Rd from 64 Ave S. Down to Merideth Hill 11. Northeast S. 296th St east of 61 Crosstile to pond. Should be monitored. Ave. S. w/of 55 Ave. S. 12. Northeast 5116 S. 292 St. Problem no IonIZer exists. 13. Southeast 36826 Military Rd. Upgraded, no longer a problem. S. 14. Southeast 3711742 Ave. S. Upgraded, no longer a problem 15. Southeast 37242 42 Ave. S. Upgraded no longer a problem. 16. Southeast 4520 S. 376 S. Not a problem, but needs to be monitored 17. Northeast Lower Lk. Fenwick 36" inlet to MH/lake overflow. Need to be Rd. S. monitored. 18. Northeast West Valley Hwy bit Flooding. Need to be monitored S 272 - S 285 19. Redondo Old Star Lake Road All inlets and catch basins. Need to be East from S 272 to monitored. Military Source: King County Roads Maintenance Division 3, 2002, updated April 2003 Page 6 Œ:at ~ostEstMemo -090203- Rev 1. doc CIP-1 Federal Way PAA Capital Improvement Program Fund: Water (Lake haven Utility District! Date: 4/4/2003 Project Costs in 2002 Dollars (,ODD) Year of Construction (,ODD) I Project I[ Capital Project List Design AcQuisition Constructior Total 2002-2007 2008-2014 201 5-2020 I 1.00 ~!!~-~~~!-"-!..C?!l~'!I.!_------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- ------------- -------------- 1.01 ------------------------------------ -------------- ------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- ___L9_L ------------------------------------ -------------- -------------- -------------- -------______9 -------------- -------------- -------------- ___L9.L ---------------------------------- - - -------------- -------------- -------------- -------______9 -------------- -------------- -------------- ___1J1.'!__- --------------------------- ---- -- -- - -------------- -------------- -------------- ---------____9 -------------- -------------- -------------- ___1;9.L --------------------- --- -- - - - ------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------______9 -------------- -------------- -------------- ___1;9.12-.. - -- - -- ---- --- -- - - -- - - --------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- ----------___9 -------------- -------------- -------------- ----------- !!.!!!!.l<;!!!IJ_~!!l!!!'L______------- -------______9 -------______9 -------______9 -------______9 -----______9;9 -----__-___9"9 -----______9;9 ----------- ------------------------------------ -------------- -------------- -------------- ------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- 2.00 !'."'!~-~_I!¥_!4.!!!,I-~~c?!!'.c?!'.!!_------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- ___?;9.L ------------------------------- - ---- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------______9 -------------- -------------- -------------- ___?;9.L -------------------- ----- - -- -------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------______9 -------------- -------------- -------------- ___?Æ__- ------ ---- ---- --- --------- ---------- -------------- -------------- ------------- ----------__9 -------------- -------------- -------------- ---?;9_~__- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - --- - ------------------ -------------- -------------- -------------- -------______9 -------------- -------------- -------------- ___?;9.L -- ---------------------------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------______9 -------------- -------------- -------------- 3.00 ~_C?~!~_!4.!!!,I-~~c?~!,~.!'.c?!!_-------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- __J;9.L ---------------------------------- - -------------- -------------- ------------- -------______9 -------------- -------------- -------------- 3.02 ---------------------------- -- - ----- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------______9 -------------- -------------- -------------- ___~Æ__- -------------------- ---- - - - - -- ------ -------------- -------------- -------------- -------______9 -------------- -------------- -------------- 3.04 - - - - - ----- ----- --- ------------------ -------------- -------------- -------------- ---------____9 -------------- -------------- -------------- 4.00 !:.1!~.!~I!!.".!!_~_~~Il!'.~.!'.~~.!'.~.!!_------ -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- ___~Æ__- ~:£Q_~L?§.~!~_~§'j!'_ß!p.L'! 9!!!'- ~ n t_~_'!L'!!'.£~---- -------------- -------------- -------_____?1 -------_____?1 -------------- -------------- ___1Æ__- --------------------- - -- - - -- -------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------______9 -------------- -------------- -------------- __..1Æ__- - - - - - -- - -- - -- - -- - ----- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------______9 -------------- -------------- -------------- ___1&1... ------------------------------------ -------------- -------------- -------------- --------_____9 -------------- -------------- -------------- ___1;9.L ------------------------------------ -------------- ------m_---- -------------- -------______9 -------------- -------------- -------------- ----------- !!.!!!!.t.o.!!Il.~_C?!'_t..'!!!'.~!.~!.!..._------ -------______9 -------______9 -------______9 -------_____?1 -------_____?1 -------__-___9 -------______9 ------------------------- -- - ------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- 5.00 !4.~~!'._~~~!_~!!!,I-~ ~ !~_C?!'.!!_---- -------------- -------------- ------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -__~J)-L -- - -- - --- -- --- - -- - ------------------ -------------- -------------- -------------- -----______9 -------------- -------------- -------------- ___~;9.L ------------------------------------ -------------- -------------- -------------- -------______9 -------------- -------------- -------------- _--~;9.L ------------------------------------ -------------- -------------- ------------- -------______9 -------------- -------------- -------------- ---~;Q.4.--- ------------------------ ------------ -------------- ~------------ -------------- -------______9 -------------- -------------- -------------- 6.00 !!.~~-~!'_~!_!4.!!!I.'!~<;!!.!'.<;!.!'.!!_------ ------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- ___~;9.L --- --------------------------------- ------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- ___~Æ__- ------------------------------------ -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- ___~Æ__- ------------------------------ ----- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------______9 -------------- -------------- -------------- ---~;Q.4.--- -------------------------- ---------- ------------- -------------- -------------- -------______9 -------------- -------------- -------------- _~;9.L - -- - -- - - - - - - - -- - -- ----------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------______9 -------------- ------------- -------------- ___~;9.L ------------------------------------ -------------- -------------- ------------- -------______9 -------------- -------------- -------------- 7.00 £"'!'!_!~C?!_~_~~Il!'.~.!'.~~!'.~.!!_------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- _L9.L ~:.?.§!_~!'_c:!_§.!'.epJY_!'.~i~t~_'!L'!!'.£~__------- - -------------- -------------- ------______11 -------_____!1 ------------- -------------- __L9.?.. ~;§. ~!'- ~ ~!!'.!!' j !'!lL ~_t'!PP.9t.ê§'!!' n 9L__- ------ -------------- ------------- ------------_? ------------_? -------------- -------------- __L9.L ------------------------------------ -------------- -------------- -------------- ------------_9 -------------- -------------- -------------- __L9.1... ------------------------------------ -------------- -------------- -------------- ----------___9 -------------- -------------- -------------- __L9.L --------------------------------- --- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------______9 ------------- -------------- -------------- ----------- !!.!!!!.1<;!!...1.~_<;!!!!'_4!....!1~!!!- ------ -------______9 -------______9 ------______9 ----------_.!~ -----------_!~ -------______9 -------______9 ------------ ------------ - --- -------- -------------- -------------- ------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- 8.00 ~!.!!~-'!~_C?_~! "'!_~_~!Il.!'.~~~!'.~-~- ------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- ___I};9.L ------------------------------------ -------------- ------------- -------------- -------______9 -------------- -------------- -------------- ___I}Æ__- ------------------------------------ ""------------- ------------- -------------- -------______9 -------------- -------------- -------------- __..I}Æ__- ------------------------------------ -------------- -------------- ------------ -------______9 ------------- -------------- -------------- ---I};Q.4.--- ---------------------------- ------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------______9 ----------- -------------- -------------- __I};9.L - -- - -- - -- - -- --- -- - --- -------------- ------------- -------------- ------------- -------______9 -------------- -------------- -------------- ___I};9.L ---------------- -------------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- ----------__9 -------------- -------------- -------------- ___I}Æ__- ------------------------------------ -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- ------------- -------------- ----------- !!.!!!!.1<;!!...1.~!~-<;!!'.!!P.~!!'.1!_------ ""------______9 ------______9 ----------___9 -------______9 -------______9 -------______9 -------______9 Total 0 0 0 37 37 0 0 C:\Documents and SettingsliWilliams\Desktop\tisa\[Appx_B_CosLEst.xts]Waler-LUD CIP-2 Federal Way PAA Capital Improvement Program Fund: Water IHiahline UtilitY District) Date: 4/4/2003 Project [ Capital Project List Project Costs in 2002 Dollars (,ODD) Desion Acouisition Constructior Total Year of Construction (,ODD) 2002-2007 2008-2014 2015-2020 I 1.00 ~!!~-~..ï.c.!!..P.!.~fl~~_~!I_-------- 1.01 ------------------------------------ --_!"9.~--- ------------------------------------ --_!"9.~--- ------------------------------------ --_t9.~--- ---------------------------------- __!"9_~_- ------------------------------------ --_t9.~--- ------------------------------------ ----------- ----------- ---------- ----------- -------------- -------------- ------------ -------------- -------------- ----------- ~~~~=~~~=~~ =~~~=~~~~= ~=~=~==~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -------______9 -------------- -------------- ---------- -----______9 -------------- -------------- -------------- --------_..9 ------------ -------------- -------------- -------______0 ----______9 -------______9 -------______9 -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- -------------- ----------- !!!~t~~L~!!'.!!!'L____--------- -------______9 -------______9 ----------___9 ----------- ------------------------------------ -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- ------------ -------------- 2.00 !'.~!!<..w._I!¥_~!!il.~!>.~!~-~~c.!_------- ---~"9.!._- ------------------------------- --- ~"9_~__- ------------------------------------ --_?J)-~--- ------------------------------------ ---~"Q.4..--- ------------------------------------ --_?"9.~--- ------------------------------------ 3.00 ~-~~!!!-~!!iJ.~~_~~~~'!~--------- ---~"9.!._- ------------------------------------ ---~"9.~--- ------------------------------------ ---~"9.~--- ------------------------------------ 3 . 04 ------------------------------------ 4.00 !:.~~!!!~.!!_~-~~Ii!!'.~~~~'!.!!_------ ---~"9.!._- ---------------------------------- ___~"9_~__- ------------------------------------ ---~"9.~--- ------------------------------------ ---~"Q.4..--- ------------------------------------ 4.05 ------------------------------------ ---------- ~!!~t~!!'J_~_':!!'_~~!.!'.~!..~-~!_----- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- ----------- -------------- ---------- ------------- ---------- -------______9 -------______9 -------______9 -----------_..9 -----------_..9 -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- ------------- ------------ -------------- ------------- ------------ -------------- -------------- ------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- ------------ ------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- ------------ -------------- ------------- ------------- --------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------- ------------- -------------- -------------- -----______9 -------------- -------------- ------------- -------____9 ------------ -------------- -------------- -------------9 ----------- -------------- -------------- -------______9 ------------- ------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- ------------ -------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- -------_____-9 -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- ------------- -------------- ------______9 -------------- -------------- ------------- -------------- ------------- -------------- ------------.9 ------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------______9 ------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------9 -------------- -------------- -------------- ------______9 -------______9 -----------_.9 -------______9 -------______9 -------______0 -----______9 --------- ------------------------------------ ------------ ------------- --------- -------------- -------------- -------------- ----------- 5.00 ~~-~.!!_~!'_~!_~!!il.~~!!'.~~c.!_---- -------------- ------------- -------------- ----------- ------------- -------------- -------------- ---~"9.!._- ------------------------------------ -------------- -------------- -------------- -------____--9 ----------- -------------- -------------- ---~"9.~--- ------------------------------------ -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------9 ------------ ------------ -------------- 5.03 ----------------------------------- ------------- -------------- -------------- -------_____-9 -------------- ------------ -------------- ---~.:9~--- ---------------------------- ------------ ------------- ------------- -------------9 -------------- ------------- ----------- 6.00 ~\.;8.~-~!'_~!_~!!il.~!>.'!!!'.~~c.!_----- ----------- ---------- --------- ------------- -------------- -------------- -------- ___~"9.L M~J!'_~~P.!!!2~_'2l~!'!L_~J!~~_'Y.~9_'!9______-------- ------------ ----------~9..§~p..ê~~_f9..~t -------------- -------------- -------------- ___~Æ__- M~J!,_~~p.L'!2~_'2l~!'!L_~9..!!~b_~J§I!.!-a~~____------- -------------- ----------~9- S~P.!!!'J~f9_~t ---------- -------------- -------------- 6.03 ------------------------------------ -------------- -------------- -------------- -------______9 ------------ ------------ -------------- ---~"9.~--- ------------------------------------ -------------- -------------- -------------- --------_----9 -------------- ------------- -------------- --~"9.~--- ------------------------------- -------------- ------------- -------------- -------------9 -------------- -------------- ----------- -_E?"9.~--- --------------------------------- ------------- ------------ --------- -------______9 -------------- -------------- ---------- 7.00 £!!!'_~L~!_~_~~\!!'.~~~~~~.!!_------- -------------- ------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -_.?"9.!._- ------------------------------------ -------------- -------------- -------------- -------___---9 ------------- ----------- -------------- ___I"9.~__- ------------------------------------ -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------9 -------------- ---------- -------------- -_.?"9.~--- ------------------------------------ ------------- -------------- -------------- -------------9 -------------- -------------- --------- __I"9.i..- ---------------------------------- ------------- ------------ ------------ ----------9 -------------- -------------- -------------- -_.?"9.~--- ------------------------------------ -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------9 ---------- -------------- -------------- ----------- ~!!~t~!!'L~_~!!~_~!!t~!!..a._------ -------______9 -------______9 -------______9 -------_____-9 ------______9 ---______9 -------______9 ------------------------------------ -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- ---------- ------------- 8.00 ~!~~-~~_':!_~'!!..'!!!.\!.!!..I>?~~~c.! ----------- ------------- ------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------- 8.01 -------------------------------- ----------- -------- ---------- ___~"9_~__- ------------------------------------ -------------- -------------- -------------- ---~"9.~--- ------------------------------------ -------------- -------------- -------------- ---~"Q.4..--- ------------------------------------ -------------- -------------- -------------- 8.05 ----------------------------------- ----------- -------------- ------------- -----~--_: --~--~------- -------------------------------------------------------------- ------------ ---------- ------------ -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------- ------------- -------------- ----------- ~!!~!O.!!L~~~_':!!'.<J~~!!I.!_------- -------______9 -------______9 ---------____9 -----------_..9 -------______9 -------------9 -------______9 ------_..9 ------___---9 -------------9 -------------9 ------____--9 ----------.9 -------------- ----- -------------- ----------- -------------- -------------- ---------- ------------ -------------- -------------- ---------- -------- -------------- ------------- --------- ----------- -------------- -------------- Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C:\Documents and Settings\jw;Uiams\Desld",,~i..\[Appx_B_COSLEst.xts]Water-High CIP-3 Federal Way PAA Capital Improvement Program Fund: Sewer ILakehaven Utility District) Date: 4/1712003 Project Costs in 2002 Dollars (,000) Year of Construction (,000) I Proiect I[ CaDital Proiect List Desian Acouisition Constructior Total 2002-2007 2008-2014 2015-2020 I 1.00 ~!!~-~~~!!!!..I!.!l~~_I!'-!l_------ -- -------------- ------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -__1;9.L ------------------------- - - -- ----- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------______9 -------------- -------------- -------------- ___t9.L ---- - -- --- ----- - -- - - --- - -- --- ------- -------------- -------------- -------------- ------------_9 -------------- -------------- -------------- ___t9.L -- --- ------- ------------------------ -------------- ------------- -------------- -----------__9 -------------- -------------- -------------- ___t9.L ------------------------------------ -------------- -------------- -------------- ------------_9 -------------- -------------- -------------- ___1;9.L ------------------------------- - --- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------____-_9 -------------- -------------- -------------- ___t9.L --- -- ---- ------------ - - - - ---- ------ -------------- -------------- -------------- -------______9 -------------- -------------- -------------- ----------- ~!!Þ.!'?~~_~!!!.!!!'L-_____------- -------______9 -------______9 -------______9 -------_----_9 -----_----_9;9 -------____9"9 --------___9"9 ----------- ------------------------------------ -------------- -------------- ------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- 2.00 !'.'!!!<.:N.!r_~!!iI_~~_'!!!'.'!~~-------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- ___~;9.L --------- - -- ---- -- - -- - - -- - ---------- ------------ -------------- -------------- -------_-____9 -------------- -------------- -------------- ___~Æ__- -- ------ -- ------ -------------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------______9 -------------- -------------- -------------- --_?J)-~--- ----------------------------------- - -------------- -------------- -------------- -------______9 -------------- -------------- -------------- ---~;9.~--- --------------------------- - - ------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------______9 -------------- -------------- -------------- ___~;9.L ---------- - ----- - -- - - -- - ------------ ------------- -------------- -------------- -------_-____9 -------------- -------------- -------------- 3.00 ~~~!!~ - ~~! !!.~ ~_c:!~ T..~'!~--------- -------------- ----------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- __JÆ__- ------------------------------------ -------------- -------------- -------------- -------______9 -------------- -------------- -------------- ___~;9.L 0 ----------------------------- ----- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- ___~Æ__- ----------------- ---- - -- - -- - -------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------_-____9 -------------- ------------- -------------- ___~;9.L - ----------- - ----------------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- ------_----_9 ------------- -------------- -------------- 4.00 !:,!~!!;a.!.'~-~-~~\!!'.~~~~~~~------ -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- ___4;9.L ~:~-§_S~ 9_.Q!~~~J!?-'2.l ':! y2 !I_~!?~!~ ro £~---------- -------------- -------------- --______§l.Æ~ ----____.M4_? --------~"'!!.~? -------------- ___4J)-L - ~ ~-§.!!! ~-- - -- -------------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------______9 -------------- -------------- -------------- ___4;9_L --------------------------------- -- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------______9 -------------- -------------- -------------- ___4;9.4..__- -------------------------- - -- ------- -------------- -------------- ------------- -------_--___9 -------------- -------------- -------------- ___4;9JL ----- ---- - ---- -- - - - -- --------------- -------------- -------------- ------------- -------______9 -------------- -------------- -------------- ----------- ~!!Þ.!'?~~-~_'!~_~~!!!L~!'!___---- 0 0 0 --______§l",i~~ -------_?,,!¡~ ---_____~Æ? -------______9 -------------- -------------- -------------- ------------------------------ - -- -- -------------- -------------- ------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- 5.00 ~~~!'._~~~~_~~!iI_~~~~_c:!~~----- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- ___§':9.L -- ----- ----------------------------- ------------- ------------- -------------- ------______9 -------------- -------------- -------------- ___!?Æ__- ---------------------------------- - -------------- -------------- -------------- -------_----_9 ------------- -------------- -------------- ___~&L ------------------------------------ -------------- ------------- -------------- -------______9 -------------- -------------- -------------- --~;9.4.._-- --- - - - -- -- -- - - -- - -- - --------------- ------------ -------------- -------------- ------__-___9 -------------- -------------- ------------- ___~;!>.L ~!'!~-~!~!_~!!i~!!.'?!!'.'!~~------ -------------- ------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- ___E2Æ__- ~:~..P.!J.~~_~~_l?"?_L~?_s~~!"-- -------------- -------------- -------------- ----______lQ§I ----______lQ§I -------------- -------------- ___~Æ__- -~~~--T -------------- -------------- -------______9 -------------- -------------- -------------- ___E2Æ__- ~~ -------------- -------------- -------______9 -------------- -------------- -------------- ___~;9.L -------------- 0 -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- ---~;9.~-- -------------- -------------- -------______9 -------------- ------------- -------------- _JL9_L -------------- -------------- -------______9 -------------- -------------- -------------- 7.00 -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- __L9.L -------------- -------------- -------______9 ~!,-~-~!~!.~.!!.~e -------------- -------------- __L9.L -~~ !'_~ ~!!?~ - i~ !'.~~£~it~_§!~!.~.!' k~L- - ------- -------------- -------------- -------______9 -------------- -------------- -------------- __L9_L ------------------------------------ -------------- -------------- -------------- -------______9 -------------- -------------- -------------- __L9.L --------------------------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------______9 -------------- -------------- -------------- __L9.L ------------------------ - -- ------ -------------- -------------- ------------- -------______9 -------------- -------------- -------------- ----------- ~!!Þ.! '?!!'~-~_'!!!!'-'!!'.!!~!!-'!..._---- -------______9 ------______9 -------______9 ----______lQ§I ------_---~Q§I ----------___9 ----------___9 ----------- ------------------------------------ -------------- ----_m____-- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- 8.00 ~~~~!!~_c:!_~!~!_~-~~\!!'.~~~~-~- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- ------------- -------------- -------------- __~9.L - ----- - - ---- -- - - --- -- --------------- ------------ -------------- -------------- -------______9 -------------- -------------- -------------- __J1Æ__- ------------------------------------ ------------- -------------- -------------- -------______9 -------------- ------------- -------------- _Jt9_L ---------------------------------- ------------- -------------- -------------- -------______9 ------------- ------------- -------------- ---~;9.4.._-- --------------------------- - ------ -------------- -------------- -------------- -------______9 -------------- -------------- -------------- ___~;9.L - ------ ----- --- --- - ---------------- 0 ------------- ------------- -------------- ------------ -------------- ------------- -------------- ___~;9.L ------------------------------------ ------------- ------------ -------------- -----______9 -------------- ------------- -------------- ___~;9L- ----------------------------------- - -------------- -------------- ------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- ----------- ~!!Þ.!O.!!'L~'!~_C?!!.<.!£~~-~-------- -------______9 -------______9 -------______9 -------______9 -----______9"9 -----_-____9;9 ----_-____9"9 Total 0 0 0 9,783 5,951 3,832 0 C :\Documents and SeWngs\jwilliams\Desktop\IIsa\[Appx_B- CosLEst.xts]Sewe, -LUD CIP4 Federal Way PAA Capital Improvement Program Fund: Suñace Water Date: 8/28/2003 I Project I~Capital Project List IAssumptions AREA-WIDE PROJECTS AND PROGRAMS 1.00 Area Wide Programs 1.01 siõm:ïõi-ãiñ-sysië;;¡--------- ------------------------------------------ T----'3õõ- -------------- -------------- Inventory and ------- £I!..'!!e.r.!!!!!'!!!'!!!!!'!_---- ------------------------ ------- ---------- -------------- M!'¡'!!.M..I!!'!_f!~~!!!?_~õ_--------- ------------------------------------------ -------------- -------------- -------------- 1.02 -_P..!t.c::~_fl~_~!lJ!l9______---------- ----------------------------------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- 1.03 Stormwater Facil~y £~~!:I_':!!':!£L______------------------ ------------------------------------------ -------------- -------------- -------------- 1.04 Maintenance Facility Approx. $700,000 for add~ional Space for new SWM facility space for SWM personnel, personnel and operations equipment and operations, to be funded out of the SWM CIP, is included on an annualized basis into the operating costs. The facil~y cost is omitted from this table to avoid redundancy. Project Costs in 2002 Dollars (,000) Design Acquisition Construction Total Year of Construction (,000) I 2002.2007 2008-2014 2015-2020 "r---3ÕÕ- '$-----3ÕÕ- ------------- ------------- ------------ ----------- ------------ --------- '$-----544- '$-----544 ----------- ------------- '$----223- '$---223- ------------ ------------- ------------ ----------- ------------- ------------- ~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~!~~!~~~~!~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ J.~~~~~~~I ~!~~~~~~~~~=~ ~~C~~~~~~ ~=I§~~ I~!~§~?~ ~C~~~~~~:~ T~~~~~~~:~ ÑEiG-H-Ël-õRHÕõ[ïpRÕJI~ëTS--------- ------------------------------------------ -------------- -------------- ------------- ------------ ------------ ------------- ------------- --'2:õ-õ--- i;;;~;Ÿ-Ñ-ëig¡;ï;õ'hõõ'd-------- ---------------------------------------- -------------- -------------- ----------- ------------ ------------ ------------- ------------- ~~~~~~~~~~~ i3i!~~"i.~~¥.~~Ë.~!!~~!!.f9Ë~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~==~~~ ~=~~~~~=~~~~ =~~~=~~== ===~~~~~~ ------------ ------------ ------------- ------------- 2.01 2442-S. 36Oth Regional Det. From Federal Way 1998 CIP, '$---{565- -f--'¡~Š6Š- ------------- ------------ Pond escalate 2002 $ 2.02 24#SR-161-ëõ~~ëÿã~ëë----- Froñï~iÿië¡;õš-piã~'-ësëãiãiëëïtõ----- -------------- -------------- -------------- '$-----372- '$-----3"72' ---------- ------------- Y.P.S!~~~~------------------------- ?_Q9.?!____------------------------------ -------------- -------------- -------------- ----------- ------------ ------------- ------------- 3.00 Jovita Neighboorhood 4.00 L8k,;i;~ëiÑëigh¡;õ-'-¡;õõëi------- ------------------------------------------ -------------- -------------- -------------- -------- ------------ ------------- ------------- ~i!~E~I~~Ë~!~~~!.f§Ë~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -~~~~=~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~== ~~~~~~=~~~~ ------------ ------------ ------------- ------------- 4.01 2446-SR 161 Regional Pond From Hylebos Plan. escalated to '$-----š9ii '$-----š9ã- ------------- ------------- 2002$ ----------- fš¡'¡ë-2-------------------------- ---------------------------------------- ------------- -------------- -------------- ------------ ----------- ------------ ------------- 4.02 [ã'-Crõšsi~ëëiõi44-Ã~ë~-Š~----- Rëi;õfiiëãiëiibåsiñšiiñiëisïõ~--------- T-------]" -------------- -$---------35 '$------42- '$------42- ----------- ------------- ~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~l~~!~~~!~!~~~~~~~~~~~=~ ~=~~=~=~~~~~~~~~~=~:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ T~~~~~~~~~~ T~~~~~~~~=~ 1~~~~~~~~~! L~~~Æ ~=~~~!.~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 5.00 Ñ-õ;th-L'åk"ë-Ñ-eijjh'bõ'hõõ'd----- ------------------------------------------ -------------- -------------- -------------- 6.00 s'iãrL'åk"ê-Ñêigh'bÕ'hõõ'¡------- ------------------------------------------ -------------- ------------- ----------- 7.00 ë-ãiñëlõïÑëigh¡;õ-'-¡;õõëi-------- ----------------------------------- ---------- --------- ----------- fš¡'¡ë-2---------------------- ---------------------------------- ------------ ------------- -------------- 7.01 fir2ëãiëiï¡;ãsi~s--------------- Rei;õfiiëãiëtii,ãsiñšiiñiëisïõ,--------- T-------T -------------- -$'--------35 ------------------------------------ ~.!!.ç!1!!!.!1.!'.t!C~P.l_9!'.P.!'.£i!Y_--------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- 7.02 (2) 2 Catch basins Retrofit catchbasinslinlets for $ 7 $ 35 ------------------------------------ ~.!!.~l!!!.!1!lt!c~P.I_9!'.P.!'.£~Y_--------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- 7.03 (5)Wateroverroadsigns Elevate road. assume 1'increased $ 165 $ 825 height. 400' length, 60' cross section. ------------ ------------ ------------- ------------- ------------ ------------ ------------- ------------- ------------ ------------ ------------- ------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ -------- '$------42- '$------42- ----------- ------------- '$------42- '$------42- ------------- ------------- r---99Õ- '$-----99Õ- ------------- ------------- ~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~§~~!~~~~~!~~!~~!!~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~=~~~~~=~=~=~=~=~~~~=~= T=~~ll~~ ~L~~~~=~ )----=~~~! Ij~§E I~!~§!.~~ ~C~~~~~~:~ T~~~=~~:~ ---š:õõ--- Rë(iõñ'¡õ-Ê~-siÑï;igh-b(;r¡;õõëi- ------------------------------------------ ------------- -------------- -------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------- ~~~~~=~~~~ ~~~l~~!~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~=~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~L~~~~=~:~ T~~~~~~~~=~ ~~C~~~~~~~: I~~~~~~~=~ ~L~~~~~:~ I~~~~~~~~:~ J~~=~~~:~ Total $ 486 $ - $ 930 $ 4,719 $ 4,719 $ . $ - NOTES: A. No separate cost given for design. acquisition for Hylebos, certain other CIP figures B. Estimated cost for maintenance problems assume 100% contingency (very general estimates) C. Costs escalated from original sources to 2002 dollars D. Does not include water quality program costs, including lake management E. Does not include routine maintenance increase, such as catch basin cleaning, street sweeping. C:lDocuments and SettingsljwilliamslDesktopllisal[Appx_B_CosLEst.xls]SW.{;tP 1." . '¡ , '<\\< ~\ ",' i. , \. \.'-' . ..~. "'. .'" '- ,'- . ""'-' . "~,, '- , ' Ir'!t.' , , ...., , \:->..., '""" w', ""-,......, ':" : ' '" . . . . "':""'1' "< ~~"'> (.."",~;"" "I. , SIll1- Litke , i ".' II) . .11 ex CD œ, ":/~~;.~' .. .., . .' . ...' . , f .~/. ,. ' -" ., ' ". :'.;..;':.9. ,.,It" ...~, ,;.., ,t r" '.. ,','~ ',I '. '1 Camelot -,' . '\"'.. ,-- ,\..., '- -,' /" . ': I ! i", it , ,~ .. . . ,',.. ... , '".,. , ...--- , , , I I I Auburn . a_, ., -... I I . r . I ,- ... Milton Parkway, , '1IIi!1' ,. ."" -, I ¡¡ /<:>"""'..,,1 ' -, J.f! .......-.....----- : .... r----- . I PacifIc I I I I « " ' " City of Federal Way - Potential Annexation Area Surface Water Complaints & Problems Legend: D Problem, Table B-1 (In P.A.A.) G) Problem, Table B-2 (Outside P A.A.) . Surface Water Complaint N Streams 100 Year Floodplain . Wetlands D Hylebos Creek Basin Lower Green River Basin Lower Puget Sound Basin Mill Creek Basin White River Basin Not all surface water complaints are shown. This document is not a substitute for a field survey. ADDITIONAL SENSITIVE AREAS MAY EXIST. Source: King County Department 01 Natural Resources,December 200t X No longer a problem or as of lately per KCRMS 4/2003 c. cu ::::E ~ c:: 'u :> Scale: 0 1/2 Mile ~ ~:~dS and streams N were Identified in a 1998 City of Federal Way study, Please Note: This map is intended for use I as a graphical representation ONLY. The City of Federal Way makes no warranty as to its accuracy. ~ Map Date: January, 2002 City of Federal Way, 33530 First Way S, Federal Way, WA 98003 (253) 661-4000 WNW.d. federal-way .wa.us ¡e~ REV. 4/17/031 lua.lllmkasipuldoo1I8woompl2.aml Fig u re B-1 I