LUTC PKT 01-22-1996City
of Federal Way
City Council
Land Use/Transportation Committee
January 22, 1996 City Hall.
5:30 pm Council Chambers
AGENDA
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
3. PUBLIC COMMENT
4. BUSINESS ITEMS
A)
RTA Presentation
Info
25 min
B)
Geoffre Baille of Berger/ABAM to
Info
20 min
Discuss SR509/Airport South Access Road
C)
King County/Metro CTR Agreement
Action
10 min
D)
SR99/WSDOT Project
Action
10 min
E)
Status report on Signs and Sign Code
Action
15 min
F)
Annexation Policies
Action
10 min
G)
Refresher on Workload and Priorities
Action
15 min
H)
Charging School Impact Fees on ADU's
Action
15 min
5. OTHER ITEMS
6. FUTURE MEETINGS/AGENDAS
FWSD/Metro Transit presentation
7. ADJOURN
Committee Members: City Staff.-
Phil Watkins, Chair Greg Moore, CDS Director
Ron Gintz Sandy Lyle, Admininstrative Assistant
Mary Gates 661-4116
Decembcr 4, 1995
5: UGpm
City of Federal Way
City Council
Land Use/Transportation Committee
SUMMARY
City Hall
Council Chambers
In attendance: Committee members Skip Priest (chair), Ron Gintz, Deputy Mayor Phil Watkins; Hope Elder, Community
Development Services Director Greg Moore; Public Works Director Cary Roe; City Attorney Londi Lindell; Principal Planners
Greg McCormick and Greg Fewins; Surface Water Manager Jeff Pratt; Policy and Projects Specialist Larry Springer; Senior
Planners Mike Thomas, Stephen Clifton and Margaret Clark; Traffic Engineer Saeid Daniari; Administrative Assistant Sandy
Lyle.
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 6:08pm.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of the meetings of October 9, 10, 11, and 16, 1995, were approved as submitted.
3. PUBLIC COMMENT
There was no public comment on any subject other than those on the agenda.
4. BUSINESS ITEMS
a. Speed Limit Revision - Some areas of the City have speed limits which are inconsistent with other similar areas.
Ordinance establishes speed limits at twenty-five miles per hour; speed limits over twenty-five miles per hour
are identified by code. Committee members m/s/c this discussion to full City Council at the December 19,
1995, meeting for further discussion. 330th Street connects First Way and Campus Drive and South 340th
Street is an extension of Campus Drive. It is in this stretch of roadway where speeds are inconsistent with
code. The committee m/s/c to make the speed limit on this stretch of roadway uniform at thirty-five miles per
hour.
b. Policy/Procedure for Public Requests & Access to GIS Data - Requests for information such as that produced
by the Geographic Information System are currently listed as two types: 1) public records and 2) custom
products. No request is granted without first submitting a written request to the City Clerk's Office which
issues a response to the requestor containing either the requested information or a defined timeline regarding
when the information can be provided. All requests for information must be accompanied by a copy of the
City's Indemnification/Disclaimer of Warranty form to be provided to all requestors at time of submittal. Costs
for public information are based upon consumables used. Costs for custom requests additionally include the
cost of staff time and computer usage. Following discussion the Committee voted to accept the above policy as
recommended by staff.
C. Revision of City/WSDOT Agreement on SR 161 - After Council approved the original agreement between the
City of Federal Way and WSDOT on SR 161 it was sent back to WSDOT for signatures. The State Attorney
General's office and the District Engineer rewrote the contract language in a form suitable to both. The revised
contract language has been reviewed and approved by the City Attorney's office. None of the original points of
the contract was changed by the language revision. The Committee m/s/c to accept the agreement as amended
with final language to include a cap in the amount of $124,000 the City will pay for undergrounding utilities
along SR 161. WSDOT will pay the City $717,000 for relocating the regional detention and water quality
facilities to the South 356th Street project. This item moved to full Council for approval on December 19,
1995.
d. Status Report on South 356th Street Regional Storage Facility - Due to avoiding the area of contamination of an
old gas station, now a tire warehouse, located at the corner of South 356th and Pacific Highway South, Welter's
Pond will become the 356th Street Regional Storage Facility. It meets the definition of a wetland and as such
needs Process III approval. A foot of sediment contaminated by urban runoff will be dredged from Welter's
Pond. It will be stabilized by a process called "soft engineering." Erosion will be minimized by softening
slopes and planting vegetation. The Committee m/s/c to authorize staff to proceed with the design and return to
the Committee at the 85 % design completion stage for further reports and authorizations. Mr. Priest praised
staff for continuing efforts and hard work at Surface Water Management and to make it seem like the latest
storms were simply no problem at all!
e. Puget Sound Regional Council/Highway #509 Project Funding - Discussion of this item was deferred to the full
Council at the December 5, 1995, meeting.
f. ESHB 1724 - Staff presented an overview of ESHB 1724 and how its enactment in March 1996 will impact the
City of Federal Way. The intent of the bill is to expedite the review and permit process. Discussion included
how best to reduce the time it takes for issuing permits without removing some of the valuable review steps.
OTHER ITEMS
The Committee raised concerns about Sign Code Compliance. Some businesses comply immediately while others ignore
the regulations. The committee asked that staff return in January with a report on Sign Code Enforcement.
FUTURE MEETINGS/AGENDAS
7. ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at 8:OOpm.
I: \L U -TRANS MEC4LUPC.SUM
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
MEMORANDUM
DATE: January 16, 1996
TO: Phil Watkins, Chair
Land Use / Transportation Committee
FROM: si- ��-ri, City Traffic Engineer
SUBJECT.- King County and Metro CTR Contract
Background:
The Washington State Legislature enacted the Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) act in 1991.
This act requires local governments, in those counties experiencing the greatest automobile
related air pollution and traffic congestion, to develop and implement plans to reduce vehicle
miles traveled (VMT) per employee and single vehicle commute trips. Any City having
within its jurisdiction one or more major employers (public or private that employs one
hundred (100) or more full time employees) is required to develop and implement a commute
trip reduction plan. The City of Federal Way currently has thirteen (13) eligible employers.
The purpose of the agreement with Metro is to assign certain tasks to be undertaken by
Metro on behalf of the City to implement the CTR act.
I. Work Activities Required Under Local Ordinances
A. Administer or goal measurement survey.
B. 1996 Program Development.
C. 1996 Program Review.
D. Notification Activities.
E. Record Maintenance.
II. Work Activities Not Required Under Local Ordinance
A. Coordination of networking groups.
B. Coordinate involvement of Metro products to assist employers with
achieving CTR goals.
C. Provide training to ETC's and conduct ETC orientation.
D. Assist employers with rideshare promotions and planning transportation
events.
E. Respond to employer requests and troubleshoot site problems.
The Program is totally funded by grants, and the amounts would vary based upon the number
of employers within the City. The City of Federal Way will receive a total of $26,895 in
1996, of which an estimated $22,895 will be contracted with Metro.
The CTR Program also requires an agreement with King County. The purpose of the
agreement is:
1. To allocate to the City its proportionate share of the State technical assistance
funding for implementing a commute trip reduction plan, and;
2. To continue a cooperative approach between the City and the County in order
to address intedurisdictional issues and to meet the statutory requirements for
coordination and consistency among the jurisdictions respective commute trip
reduction plans.
Recommendation:
The Committee to forward the CTR contract with King County and Metro to full City
Council with recommendation for approval.
KALUTOCCR.MEM
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
MEMORANDUM
DATE: January 16, 1996
TO: Phil Watkins, Chair
Land Use / Transportation Committee
FROM: Saeid D�n,ty Traffic Engineer
SUBJECT. • SR 99 South Re -Development Project
Early in 1995, the City's of Des Moines, Federal Way, Kent, SeaTac, and Tukwila along with King
County/Metro and WSDOT submitted a joint application (multi jurisdiction) "cluster" project for
PSRC'S ISTEA funding. This project is a multi -agency re -development of Pacific Highway South
from South 356th Street in Federal Way north to South 116th Street/SR 599 in Tukwila.
The intent of the projects is to re -develop SR 99/Pacific Highway South/International Boulevard to a
balanced, multimodal transportation facility linking urban centers, business centers, and key
communities. Elements to be included in the re -development include additional lanes where necessary
for turning movements, transit queue bypass or HOV. Transportation System Management facilities
utilizing AVI technologies, signal coordination and transit priority, bus pullouts, pedestrian
improvements with sidewalks, curbs and gutters and crossings, and other improvements, including
improved illumination and underground wiring in some locations.
The total funds for the design study report and EIS is $800,000, of which $692,000 is STP Regional
Funds and $104,000 is a required local match. WSDOT, the lead agency, will fund 50% ($54,000)
of the required local match, and the other 50% is required by the involved jurisdiction ($9,000 each).
The project falls in the following jurisdiction:
1.
Federal Way
MP 7.63 to MP 12.15
= 4.52 miles
2.
King County
MP 17.15 to MP 14.15
= 2 miles
3.
Kent
MP 14.15 to MP 15.49
= 1.34 miles
4.
Des Moines
MP 15.49 to MP 16.51
= 1.02 miles
5.
Sea Tac
MP 16.51 to MP 20.66
= 4.15 miles
6.
Tukwila
MP 20.66 to MP 22.94
= 2.28 miles
Total Length
15.31 miles
Recommendation:
The Committee to approve the required funding match of $9,000 and forward to full City Council for
appropriation of Funds and approval of project.
KALUTOSR99MEM
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
MEMORANDUM
DATE: January 16, 1996
TO: Phil Watkins, Chair
Land Use / Transportation Committee
C�
FROM: Saeid ari, City Traffic Engineer
SUBJECT.- Proposed Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) Incentive Program
Affected employers are required to develop and implement a program designed to reduce
drive alone commuting to their worksites by encouraging their affected employers to carpool,
vanpool, take the bus, ride a bicycle, walk, or telecommute instead of driving alone to work.
The goals are to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per employee trips by: 15 % by 1995,
25% by 1997, and 35% by 1999.
1995 CTR Survey Results:
Federal Way employees current drive alone rate is 87.6% which falls short of its 1995 goal
of 72.5%. The City of Federal Way will be required to take additional actions to reduce
their employees drive alone commuting. Following are suggested actions and potential cost
to Federal Way to implement an incentive program. Some of the following can be funded in
part by Metro grant and Federal Way's State CTR funds as part of the CTR incentives
proposed for joint funding:
Recommended Program Addition
Estimated First Year Cost
(with Metro grant
contribution)
Estimated Second Year
Cost (Grant not available)
Guaranteed Ride Home
$0
$250*
Emergency ride for users of all alternative
Metro Grant funds 100%
(125 empl. x $2.00=$250)
modes. Provides security for commuters.
Effective in shifting SOV's to HOV's when
combined with other incentives. Contract with
Metro's Home Free Guarantee program at $2.00
per person per year for all city employees.
Limit 8 rides/person/year, and 60 miles per ride.
Recommended Program Addition
Estimated First Year Cost
Estimated Second Year
(with Metro grant
Cost (Grant not available)
contribution)
Bus. DART, Vanpool. Ferry Subsidy
$1,485**
$1,980**
Voucher to supplement fares. Provides one
(11 empl. x $15 x
(11 empl. x $15 x 12
mechanism to subsidize multiple transit systems.
9mos=$1,485)
=$1980)
Purchase "Commuter Bonus" vouchers at a
Metro grant pays for 3
recommended $15 per month per year user to
months
supplement fares. Estimated use is 8.5 % of
employees or 11 employees (125 x 8.5% = 11)
Increased visibility for current program elements
Minimal
Minimal
Increase visibility of current program elements
including internal ridematch, preferential
parking, bicycle facilities, compressed work
weeks and telecommuting.
TOTAL
$1,485
$2,230
*Second year estimate is a flat reate based on usage during the first year. Local experience indicates
that 90 % of employers who participate in the program maintain their initial year program rate.
**Note, cost estimates are high; based ont he usage for transit necessary to help meet 1997 CTR goals.
Recommendation:
The Committee to consider the proposed incentive programs described and forward to full City Council for
approval.
K:U.UMCPRINCEN.MEM
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
MEMORANDUM
DATE: January 16, 1996
TO: Phil Watkins, Chair
Land Use/Transportation Committee
FROM: Saeid Dani�i�y Traffic Engineer
SUBJECT.- SR 509 / South Access Study
Mr. Geoff Baillie with Berger/ABAM Engineers, Inc. is the Project Manager for the SR
509/South Access Road Project. As Project Manager, Mr. Baillie reports to the Project
Steering Committee, made up of staff representatives of the participating agencies. Funding
members of the Steering Committee include the cities of SeaTac, Des Moines, WSDOT, the
Port of Seattle, and King County / Metro. Other participating agencies include the City of
Federal Way, The City of Burien, and the City of Kent. The project proposes to extend the
existing SR 509 freeway, which currently ends in Burien, to one of three possible
connections with I-5, and to construct a new south access roadway to Sea Tac International
Airport. Mr. Baillie will be presenting a report to Land Use Committee on the status of the
DEIS.
KAI,UTOSR509.MEM
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
MEMORANDUM
DATE: January 16, 1996
TO: Land Use and Transportation Committee
FROM: Kathy McClung, Assistant Director Community Development
Services �,�,
Betty Cruz, de Compliance Officer
Q
SUBJECT: Sign Code Compliance
Attached is a report on the sign enforcement program. The staff
is seeking direction from the Committee either in concurrance
with the work program as proposed or with a Council alternative
or adjustment.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
STAFF REPORT
STATUS REPORT ON SIGN ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM
BACKGROUND
On July 14, 1995, registered businesses were informed that the
new sign code became effective on June 12, 1995 and the City
would actively pursue enforcement starting in August. An
inventory of all existing signs within the City began June 15,
1995. Four crew members inventoried and registered 2657 signs by
September 15, 1995.
(Figure 1)
The crew counted 1,060
mounted signs. Analysis
approximately 870 signs
qualify for a variance.
photos and hard copies
if the remaining 1,715
SIGN ENFORCEMENT
freestanding signs and 1,597 building
of the database projects that
are non -conforming. Of those, 54 may
A detailed analysis of the database,
of the log sheets is required to determine
signs are in conformance.
In August, Betty Cruz was hired as a code compliance officer and
began the sign enforcement program. Removing signs in public
right of way was given the highest priority because they
potentially can cause hazards to pedestrians and traffic safety
and city staff can remove them immediately. Portable signs on
private property were the second priority. In the case of
portable signs, the business owner must be notified through an "
Order to Correct Violation" (OCV). Through this order the owner
is given a deadline to remove the sign. If the sign is not
removed by the deadline a citation can be issued.
Approximately 400 portable signs were picked up from public
right-of-way as part of routine sign sweeps. About half of these
were political signs. Additional staff were assigned to this
project during the election season and one sweep was conducted on
a Saturday.
Since August, 103 Order to Correct Violations were issued to
Federal Way businesses. As a result of the orders to correct, 12
civil citations were issued. Routes were chosen randomly along
the Pacific Highway South corridor, beginning between South 320th
Street and South 312th Street. All businesses along the entire
corridor of Pacific Highway South have now been served with
orders to remove portable signs, such as readerboards and A -frame
type signs.
(Figure 2)
The next phase of enforcement will continue along a major
arterial. Order to Correct Violations will be issued to
businesses along one side of the road, to the end of one city
block, returning on the opposite side of the road and starting
over again. These procedures are most effective for time
management and for the safety of the person issuing the orders.
A progressive, orderly, enforcement within a certain area also
reduces negative reaction from business owners since the whole
area is being enforced at the same time.
Banners, real estate signs, off-site signs etc. will be
addressed as part of the next phase of sign enforcement.
ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES
Order to correct violations (OCV)-Prior to the issuance of an
Order Correct Violation, a form is filled out with detailed
information regarding the business. When issuing an OCV, an
explanation of the violation is presented to a manager,
supervisor or owner. Each OCV served takes approximately 15-20
minutes. On some occasions this process takes much longer, for
example during potentially violent situations, 911 is called. The
order is not issued until a police officer arrives to conduct a
civil stand-by.
Each OCV requires a file which identifies the name of the
business, correction number and address. A Declaration of Service
is filled out and added to the file. The violation is
reinspected one week from the date that the OCV was issued. If
the business complies with the order, a Declaration of Compliance
is mailed and the case is closed. If the business has not
complied by the due date, the 1st Civil Citation is served,
unless the applicant has filed for an extension.
Citations- Civil Citations are sent via certified mail. A copy is
given to the City Clerk for payments and collections. A
reinspection is scheduled one week from the date that the
business receives the citation. If the business has paid the
fine and complied with the order, a Declaration of Compliance is
mailed and the case is closed.
If the business has not complied, the 2nd Civil Citation is
issued and the process is continued until the business has
complied with the order.
No appeals have been filed to date.
EFFECTS OF THE NEW SIGN CODE
As a result of the enforcement procedures, we have had a high
volume of calls and drop -ins from the public requesting detailed
explanations regarding the new sign code and information
regarding options on signage. Betty Cruz receives approximately
6-15 calls per day regarding signs and meet with approximately
3-6 people per week at the front counter.
Total fees collected in 1995 were $333.33 for Civil Citations and
$120.00 for signs located in the public right-of-way. Since
the beginning of the year, $133.00 was collected for civil
citations and $5.00 for one sign in the public right-of-way
($591.33 grand total collected to date).
PUBLIC REACTION
Public reaction during the sign inventory was generally positive.
There were very few people who refused to permit the crew to
complete the inventory and only one or two upset citizens who
called city hall. The sign enforcement program has generated more
emotional and potentially violent responses and has resulted in
the police being called in a small number of cases. Generally,
the business community has complied with the requirements.
Around 10% of the businesses that have been issued the orders to
correct have not complied and have resulted in a citation being
issued. All of these except two, have complied with the first
citation. This percentage is the expected rate of compliance. It
has been surprising, however at the high number of citations that
have to be turned over to collections because the recipient has
not paid within the required 14 days.
1996 WORK PROGRAM
This year the plan is to complete enforcement of the portable
signs over the entire city both on public and private property
and to start the notification of businesses about the status of
their signs. This will be a labor intensive project and will
certainly result in a high number of calls and contacts from
businesses receiving the notifications. In order to free up as
much time as possible for Betty to work on this project, other
staff have recently been trained to answer general questions on
signs and are in the process of learning how to review sign
permit applications.
In addition, staff are working on a one page summary sheet that
can be included with business registration applications and
Chamber of Commerce packets that will explain basic regulations
and who to contact to get more information.
0)
C
L
O
00 0
U
c
0
�.
-a
c
E
L
a)
a)
n
LO a)
0
a)
U
C
(li
E
L
0
4�
0
U
C
cz
E
L
0
r
11
01 MWAMM,T, WAN a
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
MEMORANDUM
DATE: January 16, 1996
TO: i Lana Use and Transportation Committee
FROM:4VLCommunity
arry Springer
Development Services
SUBJECT: \,J Annexation Policies
At the July 27th, 1995 Finance and Economic Development Committee (FEDC) Meeting, the
members asked that the following issues be reviewed and a recommendation made to the
Land Use and Transportation Committee (LUTC) for how they should be resolved.
ISSUE STATEMENT
The issues evolved out of a request for a budget adjustment to allow the GIS Division to
spend $55,000 to add the planimetric data layers to the GIS data base for the Weyerhaeuser
and the proposed Enchanted Village annexation areas. The proposal was to use a portion of
the 1995 county road tax money from the Weyerhaeuser Annexation to pay for creating the
data layers. At the time of the Weyerhaeuser Annexation, the GIS Division proposed, as a
matter of policy, that part of the one time county road tax money derived from annexations
be used to update the GIS data base for newly annexed areas. The FEDC didn't say no to
the budget request, but they did say they wanted more information before committing to the
$55,000 or to the policy for use of a portion of county road tax money.
First, the FEDC wanted more assurance that the Council knows what the City is getting into
fiscally when they agree to an annexation proposal. The FEDC wants to be sure that the
cost revenue analysis which is done as part of the annexation is complete, is based on solid
assumptions and that there are no hidden liabilities associated with the annexation. Second,
before it makes decisions about how to spend one time county road tax money, the Council
should know what the competing needs or liabilities are in the proposed annexation area.
The FEDC acknowledges that having the GIS data base up to date is important, but believes
the Council should know that there isn't a higher priority need (like a missing storm water
facility or road improvement) before they commit the one time money to GIS.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
To ensure that Council has access to an acceptable cost revenue analysis, staff proposes the
attached analysis of on-going maintenance and operations costs as an example of the type of
evaluation we would do in conjunction with a proposed annexation. Staff is asking for
advice and comment on the format, level of detail and general usefulness of this model. We
recognize that the specific information in this model is almost a year old and needs to be
updated and revised. However, if it provides the council with sufficient information for
decision making, then we would propose using the model in evaluating annexations. This
particular model was prepared in house using available data. If the council needs more detail
or better information, we may have to ask for additional resources to up grade the analysis.
In addition to the on-going cost and revenue analysis, staff is also proposing an in house
evaluation of capital facilities needs including streets, sidewalks, parks and police facilities.
As an example of the type of capital facilities analysis staff being proposed, staff has attached
field notes from a "windshield" survey of the streets and sidewalks in the Enchanted Park
Annexation Area. This analysis took about 8 hours to prepare and provides a general
evaluation of the physical condition of the transportation facilities in the area. It provides a
cursory evaluation of existing traffic volumes on local streets and intersections where
information is available from other sources, but it is incomplete.
For example, this analysis does not look at projected growth to see how soon these facilities
will be at capacity nor does it provide cost estimates of what it might cost to bring these
facilities up to minimum standard. To complete a more detail analysis of the transportation
system would typically require resources that exceed what is available in house at this time.
For the Enchanted Park Annexation, staff is preparing an evaluation of the surface water
facilities, existing parks facilities and police capital costs that is similar in level of detail to
the attached street evaluation. The one time cost to add planimetric data to the GIS system
for the Enchanted Park Area was previously provided to the Council as outlined in the
second paragraph of this memorandum.
We look forward to discussing Council's expectations with regard to the fiscal impact
analysis associated with annexations. If the committee has questions or would like additional
information for the January 22nd LUTC meeting, please call me at 661-4102.
a
(V
N
0)
J
X
w
z
z
O
O
ea.i v11 i8i �cz
O
04
`�,'2�.rv,;rN:�`.:�kMY::MM,x
`� „iCxx�"2`Ar`$i.�:.rixrxi xttY •.,L`T
f�"` fti.lii�.iiiifiisis.ifl`•••i:: "`y`y"' "v
MIN
Q1
as
v ..AI
iiT„:..iri...x.:� :: ::` 'A:;r.r` iZ'.r' .z ; „r.iii „r
;,,;,,
iiiv"i. ia?Zv`„ }r =ii'rr: ;iii;;tix rrzi.iszi„ "ii�ii}ii..c1` i' `z�,�r si iu
.�,,,,,ax,,, � xxvis�`F°A?ri,r. i ra, r:,,
,,,atr,,,,,,,,i�s,,,,„ r A,{,As>rr�i'sr,��i��A „ssi,,.2�,
si ;
Z
co
~
N
:iar. vi,rrnr rsri...i{{iri's8riws{i.l .i{i`r- ;u
r'c is,zriuiuiii,,,,,,,is,,,,,,,iiiiiittsi'' i'iiuiuii' ;;r'niii:;, rza'ria
;s
............,w c zcrr,,,,, , „ arr; rrzr„ zzz.Z'i �c� zrz.i:
`:.
OOi
x
L:'
....•,iv`,wi�a`. .�^: r;; z iiii? i r ,,, „a,ai?i...ir,iii
.. i „r; rr, ,rrrr„
i r.........
z ,i x a `•a ............ ;i szz�iiii Yct "
.vr;.
11 lirrs
,ii�r;"r„y�. s ;ar;; 'iaiA „fir
- - -----
ZCLC
d
i-
x
c
a
W
O
Q
to
N
W
Yrn
Ln
a
L_
Q1
” ,i'.,;;,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
.Pzh hu;u,irur,,,•,' rrrrrrrrr,rr`r;niir:;;i
N,4 ,r„ aei ;... k'£ar„xrrr; .iiu {ri
”\{ .....
r
CL
>
Q%
�—
,�>Vi .....- ..... �,�s±r�, 'Ivl\; rrr2:Mii: ,itr`„
.`..k...,,, ir,.,irk. `;r:1"rr.rrrri.r.,,.,,,,:rrEfli,i'U"."rrr7r;.r:rr:`�rrrSr.iiiiSiiii{:iiii.iiiiriii t77 ;I
�;.iw, ;; •, c;
iii.: A� x rx
H
m
c
z
------------------------
U
------------------------
Z
W
�rri wsiuirprrir.} x; t y imur ;uisuuuisxsuuui2im,iuiu"uu^;uuu
?sii ir?iYel'u; •ieiii}};}i,iir`ri,iir F�{isri{r ghiiiii.irrii`r`a lriii iii? i?Fisz ?1 ii?Fig xiriNv�i
s. r.rirz" ;i 'r>iiii i;,i.rrr„iru;;ziir?�i;rixsrrzrzzsrzrrr,`zrrzi i:i...... ;:{{rr, rrrrra„ir�rrrr:rrri;;
Is�' : \,`gyp: ,`{ik%'Ii;�: i .. ........ tC\tr`y".i`y�`�``ir.StSA ,x,r},7':11\{`:iii`i�`rirrr
a; ,it71;7"1i •ir;r
„{•, •"iikltirYirr7rr.:ri`r :Vx, „St:i2.'IY; �7� 212` rw`i7____ ____,i rr\L7M
Ln
Qi
ViAi
1 J� 'nll .N'.1 I I' '� ANi'Iilil11�I9�IFIn'
!"
O
O O O O O O O O d4
O
O O O O O O O O
O
O Cl O O O O O O
LO
O LO O Lo O LO O LO
64
69069 69 69 669 69 EA
;unowd
a
(V
N
0)
J
X
w
z
z
T
ID
M
O
O
N
00
00
M
0
0
0
V
N N
M
O
Q)
U)
O
r
O
O
O
M
000j_
O
V
O
N�
to
f`
a0
O
Q7
O
�A
U)
V
O
(D
Nm00
N
M
O
1,.
0)
N
NNdM
M
0)
too
M
ON)_
f
".L
c!
X00
ONV
V
.-
UJ
M 0(l)
f`
U)
0)
00
�
MO
M.-
t0
au
O
N
V
00
V
UJ
00
00 r
M
O
U)
N
00
N
(D
M
M
M
M
Cl)
::b
CU
N
N
M
O
N
p
a`
h
(D
N
00
M
M
(D
00
1-
O
O
N
M
h0
OM
M
n
O
hN
00
O
h
0
N(O
0
VQO
O)
co
U)
M
O
I0Ct
CO
(
MO
n
O
O
N
V
O
V
�
00
OOO
O
ONV00
U]
aD
nMt�
co
O
N
N
O
N
M
N
D
O
(D
M
N
.-
M
Cl)
r
U)
M
04
cn
OI
N
Cl)
r
p
a`
N
tD
N
O
O
M
Q)
U)
(O
1n
O
O
CO
N M
W
4
Un
N
0
0
O
00
N
00
O�
M
M
M
N
O
CO
c)
..�:
,O
O
(O
N
co
N
UJ
N
(O
M
V
a1
W
M
O
N
N
.0
V7
f_ CD
r 0)
(D
r
N
O
N
N
N
lh
UD
(D
-
(�
r-
N
U)
N
C
O
O
V
(�
y
mN
00
N
MhV
NoDh
Cl)
ONN
^
V
N
U)
rMMr
O
M
U)
V
Mr
O
M
U
N
Cl)
.
OI
r'
.0
O
a
W
M
N
0
0
0
tD
N
h
V
0
0
U)
m
O
N
M
0)
ow
V
00
N
O
N
n
V
(O
00
1`
D) M
UJ
V
N
N
00
(N
V
N
0)
()
t`
U)
Oct
Ih
C
0)
M
�'
n
r
h
h
U) O)
(D
r
O
t0
N
M
O
O)
N
V
U)
M
nO
V
Un
M
V
N
M
h
U)
h
fD
M
M
N
N
1
M
N
N
r
V
M
M
N
N
r
V
O
M
V
O
A
N
M
Of
r
.O
O
a`
"'
ti
N_
M
(O
O
N
O
O
O
fD
O 0
N
O
M
0
O
h
O
O
O
N
O
O
(D
N
W
Ih
V
0
N
[O
O.
M
N
O
0)
V
(D
V
O
M
UJ
M O
N
00
00
V
N
N
N
O
M
m
O
M
()
CD
,9
y
O
0)
CD
N
r
-(l)
N
N
M
r
.Nl
V
(D
Un
U)
h
O 00
U)
0)
N
M
0)
00
V
N
N
r
N
U)
N
N
V
r
N
M
00
N
�
N
r
(O
CM
0)
N
V
01).
':..
v
V
N
N
Z
Cn
.�
r
O
a`
ui
`9
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
o
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
a
d
V
Un
h
()
O
O
U)
0
U)
(O
U)
O
O
V
M
M MM
O
O
Unto
O
N
O
O
O
U7
O
M
O
CR
O
O
O
w
O
'IT
V
N
O
a
r'
O
.-00
.-
.-00
.-
r
O
r
-0-
O
O
O
r
0
r
O
r
N
N
.-
.-
O
N
r
Ol
00
0)
R
Q
j
W)
m
v
m
c
cn
0
V
OOn
MMnW0
00
m
_
0 M
U
N
N
O
O
O
O
O
M
O
N
O
N
O
0
m
N
O
o
MM
9C
n
h
M
n
N
O
V
N
V W
WO
OhVM
U)
N
W
00
U7
W
n
r
0
O
M
NOr
W'
O
0)
N
10
0
N
N
Cl)
r
V
U)
h
117
N
QI
V
N
�
U)
V
N
cli
M:
T
O
X
N
N
M
'-
Cl)
N
000
N
rn
a
y
r
o
a
c
c
Q
U)
V
UA
V
O
h
U17
h
O
O
Un
M
O
O
Un
N
N
W
O
O
M
O
N
O)
M
(D
N
r
f` V7
N Ub
N
d
w
h
V
h
M
Cl)
U)
00
co
O
M
n
NV
UO
N
N
N
N
f`
M
O)
N
N
N
f`
W
O
lD
N
O
O
Un
d
d
N
N
Cl)
D>
T
U)
W
O
O
Un
U)
f`
O
UJ
Q)
CO
r
(D f`
M
N�
M
M
U)
N
n
00
M
O
N
Y
.-
O
C)
M
O
CO
O
n
O
N
W
U)
V
N
O
N
N
U)
(D
O)
O
O
N
M
M
(D
O
o
Un
w
M
O
M
M
M
N
00 U)
V (D
Q)
V
Un
W
M
O
Un
a)
O
t,
co
V
c0
N
O
M
V
n
0
O
M
to
M
N
M
O.
tT
9
n
U)
O
M
Cl)
N
V
N
0
M
in
O)
N
V
M
r
r
m
t-
co
.-
M
M
M
h
0)
n
Vf0
(D
M
.^
c0
CO
m
N
O
V
N
t`
M
O
U)
M
r
r
N
M
Q3
N^
r
N
CO
r
N
x
0)
N
a:
W
N
~
C
0
>t0
>N
N
d
E
7
Nc
CL
U
o
U
c
j
C
U
u
d
10-.
U
c
CLE
c
w
X
d):
u)
O
Z
U
C
U0
c
W
(
O
ma)
O
a
A
H
C
F
VxU
VOI
7
7
a
Y
.G
LL
m
C
,
O
y
J
d
F-
E
v_
t
W
O
o
-�
-)
(On
°i�
N
°1
•C.~-
ul
m
w
c
m
o
V
W
c
m
c
S
o
d
u)S
a
ro
a
u LL
�i
a.
g
A
w
e
c
c
E
'm
m
c
o
`
d
V%
a
Y
4
Ifjc
L
O
U
C
0)
J
E
a.
w'
W
O
E
'C
'C
C
N
d
w
E
y
d
C
a
N
U
U
>.
C
:M
OI
jp
l0
Q
Q
R
V
C
/�00
w
U)-1
.�UJJ000
LLJLLNd(AR�
��
LUUU22UU�UX:0-
(L
'
J
Q
z
Q
z
7
Q
X
W
z
z
Q
0 M 11 Q ) Q l,J N
[
�
13 cm V L In 10
N
Q Q
^
N
"
V. In L7
F)
1:1 fl r') r: . Ir'1 r.
•7 1!) N V
V V R U Cl tJ r.
lC ([)
�.. ..
• • 1V f•f
r) C
:•7 M to N U) •-
M :V •7
v:
N M
M • M
C
r. N h
O
•,
,.. .V R
:A
ZL
. Q
N N
N
�.
O
N
N
C
a
V)
w
W)
N
y N N
[) r) .- r•,• l8 ")
ti
- . r 1.1 N
IN T
. f' O)
N N
ff)
b
C9 b
t7 to f7
1:1 l:l ♦ ) O
U1
M V N r•�� U)-
• IB
O
[-1
IN O
V Q
r0
O 13% f7)
6
;V [� .; !'V •. ^
:31 1.1
K
cj V4
N
7 N
N N
01
4.
C)
CL
,n
_
;•` i ,� ']I c f1 1.) Q N
f:: v 1[) Y IT Ili V: c)
N
r) s7 b
Iv U)
O O
1� r^
CO
OI
CI Ili f0
10 V A
fl: "I• ar 111 11)
is
„ _
[: .•1 !') 1.1 4') C::
`O
N
O
US, U7 O
L;
N
N
b N.
�
Cn
Of
6
a
,n
w
,rr
w
w w w
- U: . :) f: '- ::) i7 M
:•• [♦ 1:` I'^'• • NCi
ry O
A
�'
oD
h R F'!
IC M.
f:) l:: M ^ In
O
[T
:') y r4
" N
M
:.l in
1•)
i7
10 1•'1 A
•' O
... .r•' 1'v 11: W
aT
V
v
C;
.�
`•_
•.1 of
"1 N
N
O
OI
�
C
n.
,n
w
V)
y
N y w
; ; .) -. C,1 ••,
r .
,_. •
%.)
'71 L ."V r-
�4
rn
cm
N
LII
rC-) �•1
f
1
N
N
IN
N fJ N
T
. C
r-
C
a`
UI
w
V)
V)
N y y
•• ,� •r .'� ,'• ',
r_
. - ;.
ril
..
may.\•,
C
�` r.
V,.
.... .' f1) -1 .. �• r'-
:.'.1 I7 a: V : •) ..
..
... at
.: 1•)
U)
o
d
4)
C
C'
�
fL
C
C
Of
�
N
:') :? r) •,,. ar ,') Y) Q
CT
M : V In
:,) O
IF$
o: to
:'i - f, ` N
:.) ♦• 1.,• :'V :'V .. ') ::'
h
(.l — C7
Q
to
:. .. Q
": i:1 •l'V :..; a.
.[:
CA
fn
0
k
Q
Q
In
w
ut
N
w N w
N : • ••••- "` '^ f`• r. •^ N
! .V h
:[) 19 l:1 :� ••) ♦1 :.: fn
li: Q
ti
A.
tO V '-: O
•. .: f: A
:fl in
•-
�-
h
U) fr) O
' �) �`
.i :•1 Q
•_� •[:
.) IA 1 V f:1 [ [:1 C1
Q
:Ip V. Ir) a -'V
N
T
a R
r
. ': 1^•y i• f:: '•) [::
M pf
l:) •, •" r1 ::) 1°` fC
^) fV f:) 11 V- ; ` 1:1
A
.^ IV O
:V :. C 1.
N N
O
ti
n fy f0
a.
1 :.. ^ fn
•7 :^. ,"1 l . :f) ill O
"� fn
If) N
Q
R 4 OI
O
OI
L1
I.1
Q
..V N
.
�-
Al N
r
Q
ff)
V)
y
VI
N
r+) w [A
N
N
V.
t
I,
J
N
r
N
41
le
V
v
4
V)
lu
a
W
x4
l.1
_
W
_
to W
d=V)
A
.
c
W
11 G
w
H U U :� li
x
C
u:
x
f:
w ~
J U i^ '', •- n
W
u s
C
w
C
C `-
N N. a ♦
Y u. u= " w is o
c
�')
.:
u is c
a
2 Z
O
LCLI
n I' n LL ii
p
y
�, l F
r-
N
W W ?
a
O „
3 er
c u 1-
:�
o
r
°^
� c1 _J e T ci m o 1 1
E c .; _
v
u u
=
u
U 7> ufL c(9rf a
C ` uc91.1•�;{,oD
C
[Y
's
al
as;,
C) V 'ry 'I _ 6 U G 1'- u
>
x v 0 > f.i
V
> -a a
x
d w I+ :� G I- fr f1 IY () N C
W e1 V F t) �) 47 N
hl N [ l !
W t7
I/ ti ti Q•
0�
Cl)
04
f-
ALO
r-
N
(14
N
H
d
N
N
>
E
rn
�
m
U
C
(D
C
(%
O
,C
c
U
0
Y
a
.O
O
O)
O
(`
N
O
dU2F-d4k
d
M
M
��
r
`
In
000
r�
't
O
co
C
O
O
U
00
N
CO
M
(�
CD
w
NO
N
N
1�
7
M
M
0
m
N
r
UC
C
v►
��
64
64
r
c
J
6�460A
Vi
69
N
6A
6A
R
I
01
Q
zmc
op
c`ro
o
r-
°
(n
H
� w
•�
O
d
0
o
eR
~
c
U
(Lac
o
o
O
r�
M
h
O
O
b
O
�_
CD
co
40
rn
co
Q
O
y.7
y
N
M
d
m
U
ifl
6v
N
w
N
0
C
In
M
N
N
M
lh
0U7
c0
Go
O
co
0o
O
O
O
(0
0
M
V
h
c0
O
M
0
O
N
N
'"
•l0
^
(�
rn
b9
W
N
6N9
664
6�4
f09
64
69
69
64
64
r
f9
N
by
O
a
w
���������������
�
o
a
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
e
��������e
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-e
0
�o
..
y
0
0
M
N
O
M
M
M
(n
00
00
0
0
M
O
U)
'IT
M
r-
O
O
O
=
UDO
(O-4!
NCOUi
-IT
1-(OMM
(n00
t -W
"t
V
0M
NO
00
7
r
Q
0
CD
N
D]
a0
0
In
'ct
Nt`
N
N
0
CO
O
l!')
(D
N
r
0
(D
M
N
O
"'
O
M
O
N
N
�.
(D
Un
N
Un
M
M
(17
�
O
N
O
O
N
N
M
0
1-_
00
CO
(n
(D
N
(D
M
M
M
0
4)
r-1
OD
00M
N
V
—
Mh((O
c0
M"'
O
O(n(n
N(D
0MNe-^
OO
N
0)CM
1-
CO
C
0
N
(Y)
00
-4-
h
0
O
CO
0
00
N
M
p
M
Cl)
(D
h
N
r
00
00
�.
Of.00DM
11,
r(0M(DMON00(0nN
ONO
V
nOLOON
00o
Cl)
7
MMM
V
(0-00
'
U)V
n0M—M
vMOD
.M
ODN64nh
MM
N
m
69
(fl
64
69
64
69
C
60
C
vi
64
64
vlf
69
N
69
W
(D
69
bq
64
6460).
64
64
N
69
64
V►
N
69
E
C
U
W
(D'U
o
c
LL
Z
'Z
E
0
c
w
(.g
L
co
a�'i
E
c
lQ
0
N
0)
U
LL
01
(n
-
.0
j
N
€
d
rR.
W
M
N
M
d
N
E
(�
(D
N
C
O
N
(n
0
.�
>
C
U
O
YJ
C
d
V>
_
C
U
'�
E
0)
(0
w
c
c
E
m
.c
w
g
U
n
O
t9
L°
E
d
o
n
m
CD
4
U
0
o
(O
N
d
N
7
°�
Z
N
w
w
d
•H
O
U
M
N
;C
Ol
C9
U
m
c
.o
c—
E
E
a
w
a
d
to
v.
�
o
F-
r
N
U
(G
a1
=
3
m
o
N
p
r
r
m>
>
0
0
m
W
U—_
w
o
mT
E>
v0
>
0
c
o
m
�"
q
sy
a�=Eao
h
c
is g
A
v�
a
q 00000
g o
0 0
000
0
0
0
00
0 0
0 00
0 0
0 0o
n
M n
en^�
r
ve
m A`
b olro
m o
Y
,p
n0000
00
o o
b
cpm
.-oi
N n
m
NIS
m
N
N U
CC
A
J
N
eo
W w
N�
N
w
2
„
A
}
f r
•�
�'
y
O
o =
p
U
N
<
�
F-
m
Q auww
0
wwwNr
0
°r
..
ww
wwwaonwwo
m
z
w
a
oa
up
�
�c
o
_
O
a
0 000
°Dy
N
L
}
h
O
r
N .........
O O
0 0
0 0
0 0
17
O O
N N
M fel
O O
YI q
0 0
h N
��
O O
Yl N
0 0
h h
0 0
h N
0�
O O
q
�
q
0 0
O O
O O
V
K
O
v w
O O
w w
M O
w
m
O
N w
m
rv'
A
AArvm�
A
O�
aD 0
N
01 0
O N
oa
O M
N b
Yv�oenbn
OI �
b
b Y
Y Y
b
b
nR
�O
e'1
"
d
R
A��YbI
Mr
°'wMRw
o
D N
a 0
A
Y to
Y O
QI W
r
y
a`
N
m
V
NHm
RObIO
-Y
AO
4Nr
YhbbY♦{
q
^.M.
rMI
bMRRh�-x-00
yj
r
p
a`
M M
O
m H
H N
O
M
N O
w
b Y
O
N
m N
m O
Y H
A
M b
N^
O N
b
A
q
0
O
a`
.b -M
N o
r
yy
M„
N N
b
t'11%1
NMHpM
O W
N H
O
•-
b ry
ap
f'1 '
F N
M fq
N Y
Prv'I ep
ep n
p N
N
R
qb�
IC
N
N
^ N
w
aD N
N
b
M
OI ♦
N O I
b
w
M
wen
N f A
O
N N
p
^
0
a
„I
D
C
O O
M O
N
A O
0
ry
A
. h
OI A
N O
b H
O
h A
eQ
b
N O
n n
Y A
Y b
ry N
b O
O Y
Y
NO
N
Y
O
01 A
N O
Y b
O.
N
h
x
A
N
N b
b
N N
b
OI N
fA
W
q
J OMMOAI
1�ppYm
O
ebpYN
�AOM�
i.614
A
YMaOO
IeIA
H
N
N
N
M„
N
ry
sy
T
LL
s
f;
q
a�
qw�
tS
z
E
ii
�Uc°�x°a°a
gCIL
agF-~
M
m ..
h
PuOiO
u 3
„a
N
a0
N W
U
PPPPPSPPPPSP�SSSS
PPP
PSPPP
PPPPP
PP
PSS
N
zq
:PPPPP""PP""
�
PwP
P�;PPPPP
"""
PP
"PS
o
4
b
L
i c
> o_
X c
N ffi
w x
Q
W
W
qq
q
q
c
P P
e
C P
C C
q
q q
7 �
W e
K o=
C
J C
O 7
0
L
aSPP
O
O �
V
00
OONn
M
ap aDOOO
q
N
q c
�
N
O O<
q
m q
< O�
q
NN
O M
q
c
O q
0
0 o
m 0
0
0 0
0 0
0`
o o
P P
o o
P
P o
P
o o
q
o P
P
t Wo
0
0
rc
9O
L
n
N
MON
r
N
M
m M
O
0 0
m
M
M
O M
O n
N
W N
w
Nm O
m N
O m
W
0 0^
N
N
N m
O O
M tl
d o
N O
N
N
N n
N
N N
Ym P
m
N tl
n
C
N
n W _
N
O
N o
_
Y O
_
N
fM'1
wM
-
W
ON
N O
O tl
N Y
_
O O
W y
m_
N O
W
M N
N
Y
W
M N
P
NO
M
n
p
6
16
10
nln
OOwN
NN
N
Nv
w
�p
^
O
tl V
L
N
I D
m N
N N
N N
M W
I V M
N m
YW a D
NNN
O tl
W
N
O
m!
M I
W
N
0
N O
O
N^
N
q
N Ntl
W M
O N
O O
O
O O
N
O O
w N
� 0 0
MO »
� O Y
O
N»
N M
tl
q
� M
Ytl
P
N tl
N N
q
h
C
m
m
m N
n
O O
O
G
m^
Ym NNN
nn
W
aG,"nGro
O
—a—.-
q�w
M m
fV»
O 0
a r
mM
.0.
YON
q
tl W
nwO
N
N
M n
W P
Y
n
Nry
L
n
0
O O
w N
N m
M
1' 1 M
0
m h
n N
O
2w
0
O M
N N
a
m
W n m
N a
h n
c O tl
O
w 1p
O
N
Y p
n
O O
w
N O
Y N
N N
N
tl M
a
0 0
Y r
N O
W N
tl r
M tl
N q
N N
M N<
O
a0
M
M O
w Y
M P
N N
m 0
q e
Y
yN
N
Yr
W
^NOpt'1
W tl
0
oN
0 N
N N
SSm
O ro
W ro�rvN
W m
m
W
m N
rhM�Oh
N n
h M
N N
O W
m
Y�Nry�N
n m
W O
NaMpnnAN
N m
M m
1� tl
NNtY�'
O M
tl W
MY
N
W
N
Y
W O
n N
mQO'
tl
N
q
01
tl
O
Nm
W ry-
MONfIMm
a0
NOl
Y NMN
W tl
aG
N OO
n
mN
OhM
h O
N0
m
N N
h
N
mNc
NN
A O
N
Y W
N
q
n
M
e
F
w
IE
O
oU
Q
tl
p
yy
LL
C
go
O
CJC
C>C
>
Y
LL
o��e
o
W
�LLe
>
"�
IN
W
>
J x F
'E
r
r W
p
y
Y
J w
t�t
LLL
N
"
LL
y��ySSS cc
a?
W p
uOu
o~
6
j
tl U
5
C
W~
y
s
N
s
U i
w
W~
N
<
tl
U L'
E
W f
U
U
C W~
O
d L
W~
O
y
u Y
W~
-!r3fib;cA
Esc€p�
- ib;
�
�
iE�e
`
o'
a
0c
QYy��
scy
Sc$SC$
V
(p
C7 J
Z U
7
U U
41 LL
7 li
N
1A L'
=
�!
L
N
>
�Co
J H
O:
Q
E J
F
N
EXISTING CONDITION REPORT - Streets and Sidewalks
On August 10th, 1995, Ken Miller completed a field survey of the
street system in the Enchanted Parks Annexation Area. There are
two major parts to the system: Milton Road from S. 376th Street
to the intersection at Hwy 161 and the internal street system of
the Brittany Lane/Regency Woods subdivision. The proposed
annexation does not include any of the State Route 161 (Enchanted
Parkway) right of way. However, some observations about SR 161
are included in this report for informational purposes only.
Milton Road
Milton Road is a designated Principal Collector in the city's
transportation plan. As such, it should be at least a two lane
facility with curb, gutter, sidewalk, planter strip and street
lighting on both sides. Depending on the nature of the traffic
flows, a principal collector would probably need a center turn
lane. Currently, Milton Road is a two lane street with narrow
unpaved shoulders and open ditch storm drainage. In addition,
there is a tight radius curve with very narrow shoulders just
south of the intersection at S. 369th St. that is posted for 20
miles per hour speed limit. The pavement and striping for the
full length of Milton Road is in generally good condition (75 -80
on the pavement rating system) and appears to have been
resurfaced in the past 2 - 5 years.
Traffic volume along Milton Road is light (1,000 to 1,400 ADT)
for a principal arterial but includes approximately 150 truck
trips per day. The truck are heavily loaded, tandum gravel
trucks from Lloyd's Sand and Gravel'Pit. One impact of the high
volume of heavy truck traffic is that the roads will undoubtedly
need to be resurfaced on a more frequent basis. In addition, the
city may need to consider an amendment to the Federal Way City
Code (section 15-183) designating Milton Road as a truck route to
accommodate Lloyd's operation. At present, Milton Road is not a
city designated truck route which means that after the date of
annexation, no truck traffic would be permited on that facility
unless it has an origin or destination within the city limits.
The bulk of the trips out of Lloyd's Sand and Gravel Pit are not
headed for in -city destinations.
If the city proceeds to annex the Enchanted Parks area and wants
to bring Milton Road up to standard for a principal arterial, it
would require a significant capital expenditure. The road would
need to be widened to at least a 56' facility and maybe as wide
as 72' with a center turning lane. Realistically, the road is
currently functioning well as it is but would certainly benefit
from the addition of pedestrian facilities and street lights and
from some spot widening in the vicinity of the tight radius curve
south of S. 369th Street. In addition, the city will need to
closely monitor the condition of the pavement and resurface it as
often as necessary to preserve the structural integrity of the
road base.
Brittany Lane/Regency Woods
The circulation system in these two subdivisions is in very good
condition. The streets are wide with curb, gutter, sidewalk and
planting strips on both sides. There are street lights along
both sides of most of the streets. The pavement is in very good
condition (95 - 100 on the pavement management scale). Traffic
volumes on the major streets in the network range from an average
of 1,000 to 1,600 trip per day which is very low for even a
neighborhood collector. In summary, this street system is
complete to city standards and in good condition. The only
elements missing are some street lights and landscaping along S.
369th St and along 18th Ave S where development to date, has only
been completed on one side of the street.
State Route 161
SR -161 is a designated Principal Arterial and carries from 15,700
to 16,500 ADT in the vicinity of the proposed annexation. This
is a moderate to high volume of traffic for a two lane facility
with turn pockets at the intersections. The condition of the
pavement is rated at about 65 t0 70 and will need resurfacing.
The level of service at the intersections (Milton Rd/SR 161,
S.368th/SR 161) is low and upgrades are necessary. Indications
are that traffic signals are currently being installed the S.
368th St and SR 161 and should be operational before the end of
the year. Finally, the WSDOT intends to widen SR 161 to five
lanes in the near future. Phase I of this project, which is the
section from South 348th to South 360th Streets including the
bridge over Interstate I-5, will go to bid in 1996. Phase II to
the south is unfunded at this time.
MEMO
TO: Land Use Committee
From: Kathy McClung, Assistant Director Community Development Director
Date: January 16, 1996
Re: 1996 Work Program
Attached is both the updated work program adopted by the Council in November as well as a
proposed work program that incorporates projects added since November and other projects
affecting the planning divisions that have been indicated as high priorities.
Since the initial work program was adopted, the Land use and Long Range Divisions have
experienced some changes. First one FTE was eliminated for the benefit of the Public Works
Department. Secondly the planners have been reorganized in order to better utilize staff
resources. All planners will work on both long range and land use projects depending on
availability , skills and interest. Greg Fewins continues to manage the Land Use projects and
Greg McCormick manages the Long Range planning projects and code amendments.
The attached work program is impacted to some degree by the number of development
applications the department is processing at any given time since processing applications
remain the departments highest priority.
Not included in the proposed work program are work items to be completed by other
divisions of the department. The Building Division continues to look at ways to streamline the
permit process and are looking at code amendments that can potentially make things easier for
our clients.
Work Program Adopted 11/8/95
The following was adopted by the Land Use Committee in October
1995 and the full Council in November.
1. Comprehensive Plan (complete)
2. School Impact Fees (complete)
3. Commercial zones/zoning map (95% complete)
Comment: The Planning Commission should complete this
project in the first quarter of this year. This
project also includes design guidelines.
4. Initiative 164 (not applicable)
5. House Bill 1724
Comment: State mandated regulatory reform measures will
require changes to our Zoning Code, Subdivision
Code, Shoreline Master Program, Environmental
Regulations, and processing procedures. The law
requires compliance by April 1, 1996.
6. Junk Vehicles (90% complete)
Comment: This is a code amendment to add a definition in
our code to assist with enforcement of junk
vehicles in residential zones.
7. Subdivision Administrative Changes (90% complete)
Comment: Needs ordinance and SEPA review. Does not need to
go to Planning Commission.
8. Wetland variable Buffer/Stream Setbacks/miscellaneous (50%
complete)
9. Review of non-conformance provisions, i.e. phased improvements
10. Annexation Policy Issues
11. Proposed Comprehensive Plan Follow-up
Comment: There are a number of follow-up items that have
been identified through the comprehensive plan
effort. Following is a non -prioritized list.
A. Subdivision Code (including opens space, zero lot line
provisions, binding site plans and clustering provisions.
B. Impact fees for transportation and parks as allowed under
GMA.
C. Shoreline Master Program update which include preparing
our own program, the Weyerhauser concomitant agreement
commitment to change the designation from conservancy to
urban and related changes to House Bill 1724.
D. PUD provisions in zoning code which includes flexibility
to include creative developments which cannot occur under
current provisions.
E. Residential code amendments for urban design guidelines.
F. Implement affordable housing policies.
G. Subarea planning (348th, 99 corridor)
H. Annual Comp Plan Update.
I. Annual monitoring- land use, households, employment data
base.
Revised Work Program 1996
(Staff Recommendation)
1. Commercial zones/zoning map (95% complete)
Comment: The Planning Commission should complete this
project in the first quarter of this year. This
project also includes design guidelines.
2. House Bill 1724
Comment: State mandated regulatory reform measures will
require changes to our Zoning Code, Subdivision
Code, Shoreline Master Program, Environmental
Regulations, and processing procedures. The law
requires compliance by April 1, 1996.
3. Airport Issues (Including CTED grant, Four Post Plan, ACC,
Seatac Master Plan, PSRC, etc.)
4. Sign Enforcement and Notification Program
Comment: This includes enforcement of signs within the
public right of way, portable signs and other
signs of a temporary nature and notification to
businesses of all signs that must be eventually
brought into conformance.
5. Junk Vehicles (90% complete)
Comment: This is a code amendment to add a definition in
our code to assist with enforcement of junk
vehicles in residential zones.
6. Downtown Implementation Program -
Comment: The City Manager has directed staff to work with
the property owners within a small, defined area
in the downtown to create an improvement plan to
be implemented in 1997. The exact scope of this
project has not been determined.
7. Subdivision Administrative Changes (90% complete)
Comment: Needs ordinance and SEPA review. Does not need to
go to Planning Commission.
8. Wetland variable Buffer/Stream Setbacks/miscellaneous (50%
complete)
9. Review or non-conformance provisions, i.e. phased improvements
10. Annexation Policy Issues
11. Proposed Comprehensive Plan Follow-up
Comment: There are a number of follow-up items that have
been identified through the comprehensive plan
effort. Following is a non -prioritized list.
A. Subdivision Code (including opens space, zero lot line
provisions, binding site plans and clustering provisions.
B. Impact fees for transportation and parks as allowed under
GMA.
C. Shoreline Master Program update which include preparing
our own program, the Weyerhauser concomitant agreement
commitment to change the designation from conservancy to
urban and related changes to House Bill 1724.
D. PUD provisions in zoning code which includes flexibility
to include creative developments which cannot occur under
current provisions.
E. Residential code amendments for urban design guidelines.
F. Implement affordable housing policies.
G. Subarea planning (348th, 99 corridor)
H. Annual Comp Plan Update.
I. Annual monitoring- land use, households, employment data
base.
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
MEMORANDUM
DATE: January 16, 1996
TO: Land Use/Transportation Committee
�Ph�il Watkins, Chair
F'�ROM: IA Gregory D. Moore, AICP, Director of Community Development Services
Margaret H. Clark, AICP, Senior Planner
RE: School Impact Fees
I. INTRODUCTION
This memorandum is in response to the question, if a school impact fee should be charged
when a nonconforming Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) applies for ADU compliance in
order to legalize its status. The accompanying chart in Section IV outlines the pros and
cons associated with this question and also includes pros and cons of whether new ADU's
(new construction) should be charged the school impact fee. No recommendation has been
made as to whether fees should be charged or not and depending on what the decisional
outcome is, the School Impact Fee Ordinance may or may not have to be changed.
This memorandum also includes administrative interpretations made relative to the
implementation of the School Impact Fee Ordinance since its effective date of December
21, 1995, and also brings to your attention other areas of the ordinance which have not
been addressed.
The remainder of this memorandum is organized by Ordinance Background which lists
key features of the School Impact Fee Ordinance, followed by a Status of Nonconforming
AD U's and Pros and Cons of Charging AD U's a School Impact Fee, and last,
Administrative Interpretations Completed and Forthcoming.
H. ORDINANCE BACKGROUND
1. The School Impact Fee Ordinance, Ordinance No. 95-249, which authorized the City
of Federal Way to collect school impact fees on behalf of the School District, was
approved by the City Council on November 21, 1995, and became effective on
December 21, 1995.
Land Use/Transportation Committee
School Impact Fees
Page 2
2. School impact fees are due upon the issuance of a building permit. There is no
vesting, so the fee must be paid regardless of whether the building permit was applied
for prior to the effective date of the ordinance.
3. The fee is $1707 per single family dwelling. and $1423 per multi -family unit.
4. The city collects the fee on behalf of the school district and will remit the fees on a
monthly basis to a school district account.
5. The city is not responsible for tracking school impact fees relative to it being spent in
a timely manner, rather the district will track and report back to the city.
M. STATUS OF NONCONFORMING ADU'S
Background
Based on research by the Code Enforcement Section, since incorporation, 12 complaints
were received about possible illegal accessory dwelling units. Three of those complaints
duplicated previously received complaints for a total of nine ADU complaints
investigated. Five of the nine units have since either been removed, determined to be in
compliance with county regulations (KCC 21.08.030), or brought into conformance with
existing Federal Way regulations. The remaining four are still under investigation and/or
awaiting the implementation of the new ADU regulations.
King County did not have special permit requirements specific to ADU's. ADU's were
allowed as an accessory use in a residential zone once they met certain criteria. Therefore,
older ADU's, typically ten or more years old at the time of the complaint, were not
researched for other permits if they otherwise met county zoning standards at the time
they were created. This usually meant some other form of documentation was required
e.g., record of property sale indicating the age of the unit, etc.
Cases Resolved
Of the five resolved cases, two did not meet the definition of a dwelling unit (no separate
kitchen and/or bathroom) and no structural alteration had been made. Another was redone
with a building permit as a family room. The fourth was built under KCC when the house
itself was constructed. The fifth was so old (built at least 30 years ago) it could not be
determined whether it was part of the original house.
Land Use/Transportation Committee
School Impact Fees
Page 3
Unresolved Cases
Three of the four unresolved complaints have been investigated to date. In each of the
three cases, some permitting may be required. Two of the three may require building
permits as each was a conversion of garage space into a dwelling unit. This is a change in
the occupancy standard of the building. In addition, walls have been added and doorways
installed which require permits. Electrical permits would be required to accommodate any
new wiring and/or installation of higher voltage outlets for appliances.
The third case might not require building permits because it involves using an existing
downstairs living area as an ADU. Research on this case indicates a "wetbar" type kitchen
may already exist. This area could become a separate dwelling unit without further
alteration, thus not triggering building permit requirements.
IV. PROS AND CONS OF CHARGING ADU'S A SCHOOL IMPACT FEE
Reasons to Charge ADU's
(New Construction) School
Impact Fees
Reasons to Exempt ADU's (New
Construction) from School Impact
Fees
Reasons to Charge
Nonconforming
ADU's School
Impact Fees When
Requiring ADU
Compliance
Reasons to Exempt
Nonconforming ADU's from
School Impact Fees When
Requiring ADU Compliance
The construction of an
Section 22-965 Accessory Dwelling
The unit was not a
Section 22-965 Accessory Dwelling
ADU creates an additional
Units, states that one of the reasons
legal nonconforming
Units, states that one of the reasons
dwelling which could
for allowing ADU's is to provide
use when the
for allowing ADU's is to provide
potentially impact the
affordable housing in compliance
ordinance was
affordable housing in compliance
School System. There are
with the Growth Management Act
adopted.
with the Growth Management Act
no restrictions on who may
and the Washington State Housing
and the Washington State Housing
reside in an ADU. FWCC,
Policy Act. By adding a fee of $1423
Policy Act. By adding a fee of
Section 22-613 allows up to
to a building permit, this may not
$1423 to a building permit, this
two bedrooms within an
meet the intent of this section. A
may not meet the intent of this
ADU, so there may be
typical building permit for an
section. A typical building permit
enough bedrooms to allow
attached ADU is $400 - $500 and
for an attached ADU is $400 - $500
children within an ADU.
$950 for a detached ADU. This
and $950 for a detached ADU. This
means that the development costs
means that the development costs
associated with ADU's will triple to
associated with ADU's will triple to
quadruple for attached ADU's and
quadruple for attached ADU's and
more than double for detached
more than double for detached
ADU's. These impact fees will be
ADU's. These impact fees will be
passed on to the consumer which
passed on to the consumer which
may discourage production of
may discourage production of
affordable housing such as ADU's.
affordable housing such as ADU's.
Land Use/Transportation Committee
School Impact Fees
Page 4
Reasons to Charge ADU's
Reasons to Exempt ADU's (New
Reasons to Charge
Reasons to Exempt
(New Construction) School
Construction) from School Impact
Nonconforming
Nonconforming ADU's from
Impact Fees
Fees
ADU's School
School Impact Fees When
Impact Fees When
Requiring ADU Compliance
Requiring ADU
Compliance
The maximum size of an ADU is 800
Section 14-214 Exemptions and
square feet, discouraging residents
Credits, states that alterations or
with children.
expansion or enlargement or
remodeling or rehabilitation or
conversion of an existing dwelling
unit where no additional units are
created and the use is not changed
are exempt from the school impact
fee. Making a Nonconforming
ADU conforming will not add any
units, therefore, this may qualify as
an exemption.
If a School Impact Fee is charged,
this may discourage owners from
obtaining ADU compliance.
The maximum size of an ADU is
800 square feet, discouraging
residents with children.
V. ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATIONS COMPLETED AND FORTHCOMING
The following interpretations have been made administratively by staff and/or the Legal
Department to aid in implementing the ordinance since its effective date.
1. ADU's, whether detached or attached, will be charged a school impact fee based on
the multi -family fee of $1423. However, as evidenced by this memorandum, there is
still a question of whether nonconforming ADU's should be charged a fee when
requesting compliance.
2. In situations where there has never been a home on a lot within a manufactured home
park and that park has been converted to condominiums through the Horizontal
Regimes Act, a school impact fee will be charged when a building permit is issued to
locate a manufactured home on that lot. The rationale for charging the fee is that
Land Use/Transportation Committee
School Impact Fees
Page 5
although the development was originally approved as a manufactured home park
which would rent or lease lots, the lots can now be sold as "condominiums" and
therefore should be treated similarly to single family residences.
The replacement of one manufactured home by another in an existing manufactured
home park would not trigger the requirement for a School Impact Fee, as it falls
within the exemptions in Section 14-214(2), which states that, "...the replacement of a
structure with a new structure of substantially the same size or lot when such
replacement occurs within 12 months of the demolition or destruction of the prior
structure would be exempt."
4. In situations where the developer applied for numerous "basic" building permit lots
just prior to the effective date of the ordinance, and where the developer desires to
change the house design prior to the 180 day expiration period, the permit to be
changed will be treated as a new permit and the school impact fee will be charged.
The rationale for this is that a basic permit costs only $100, and developers may have
obtained them prior to the December 21, 1995, date to avoid having to pay the fee.
5. If a permit was issued prior to the effective date of the ordinance, but work has not
commenced within the 180 day period, as long as the design of the house is not being
changed, and the permit meets all the "tests" for renewal of the building permit, an
impact fee will not be charged.
The following are areas which have not been addressed as yet, but that the committee may
desire to discuss:
Manufactured Home Parks — Should school impact fees be charged for all new
manufactured home permits on previously vacant lots within existing manufactured
home parks or whether the city would only collect impact fees for "new" mobile
home developments, i.e., the fee would be paid by the developer when the planning
permit was issued and not at the time that individual permits were obtained.
2. Requirement for a Building Permit — A procedure has not been established under the
Uniform Building Code to address bringing nonconforming ADU's into compliance.
Whether a building permit or other type of inspection would be required is
undetermined at present.
3. Exemptions — An exemption to the requirement for a school impact fee is any form of
housing exclusively for the elderly, including nursing and retirement centers, as long
Land Use/Transportation Committee
School Impact Fees
Page 6
as these uses are maintained in perpetuity and the necessary covenants or declarations
of restrictions are recorded on the property to ensure that no children will reside in
the development.
a) Should this be interpreted to mean that someone could build a house for elderly
parents and by filing the proper covenants be exempt from impact fees? If this is
the case, would we want to track this permit and charge the school impact fee if
the status of the residents changed in the future?
b) Section 14-210(I) of the ordinance defines "elderly" as a person aged 62 or older.
However, there are manufactured home parks, for example Cedar Creek Mobile
Home Park, specifically designed for retirees who may not all be 62 or older.
Such parks specifically prohibit children in their covenants. Should school impact
fees be required for building permits in such parks?
c) How should the ordinance treat group homes and hardship housing?
WCUEETEE.1