Planning Comm PKT 04-07-2004
,',""',
"',","',,
April 7. 2004"
7:00p.m."';"
" <;.;City of Federal Way
'PLAN'NI'N G CO MMISSI 0 N
.. '\' ..:,,'
'/ y:>;,;; ..
..'..'", "
" ,City Hall
Council, ChamberS'"
, ",:
AGENDA
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
4. AUDIENCE COMMENT
5.
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
6.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
.
PUBLIC HEARINGS - Continued
Potential Annexation Area (P AA) Subarea Plan
New Freeway Commercial Zoning Classification
7.
ADDITIONAL BUSINESS
8.
AUDIENCE COMMENT
9.
ADJOURN
Commissioners
John Caulfield, Chair
Dini Due/os
William Drake
Grant Newport
Tony Moore (Alternate #2)
Lawson Bronson (Alternate #4)
KIPlanning Commission\2004\Agenda 04-07-04,dnc
Hope Elder, Vice-Chair
Dave Osaki
Marta Justus Foldi
Christine Nelson (Alternate #1)
Merle Pfeifer (Alternate #3)
City Staff
Kathy McClung, CDS Director
Margaret Clark, Senior Planner
E. Tina Piety, Administrative Assistant
253-661-4105
www.citvoffederalwav.com
:';" ',,::.;.t;, ,::.".'(-;jtyofF~deral Way.:
, ' .,..~i'lr¡:. ':;Pi.ÁNNrNG~COM.MISS:ION
"Ii...' :",;:~,\'I.'<' ':'.' ' , ." ,. ",.. "
.. '\' ,'. '~ègulå~.Meeting.;.:"
,,;~~~;~~~';~~';;i~~$:;fJ~ '.' ,~.,\
i' ,
" ,
i".'.~
..",'.'" ,
..
, ,,:,,/fj~;i}¡"!.~,~t
..:¡,:~\¡;,.' Clt)'Jlan..
, ¡ Counfil ChaOibers ,
'" ..
,,"
, "',>'.
:.f:~;t:' "
MEETING MINUTES
Commissioners present: John Caulfield, Hope Elder, Dave Osaki, Dini Duclos, Bill Drake, and Marta
Justus Foldi. Commissioners absent: Grant Newport (excused). Alternate Commissioners present:
Christine Nelson Lawson Bronson, and Merle Pfeifer. 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 Administrative
Assistant E. Tina Piety.
Chair Caulfield called 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 COMMENT
None.
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
None.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
PUBLIC HEARING - Potential Annexation Area (P AA) Subarea Plan
Mr. Dohrn delivered a presentation on the background of the PAA. He stated these hearings address: 1) the
draft PAA Subarea Plan; 2) amendments to that plan (site-specific requests); and 3) the new Freeway
Commercial zoning designation. These hearings do not address the annexation process. Ms. Grueter
delivered a presentation on the purpose and process of the P AA Subarea Plan. The Commission discussed
annexations. The current City Council policy is to wait to hear from citizens if they have an interest in
annexation. Since incorporation, the City has annexed three areas; two resulted in a net surplus to the City
and one in a net loss, with an altogether net surplus. There would be an increase in 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 AA Subarea Plan is not a mechanism to annex areas, but designates the future
zoning for areas if they choose to annex to the City.
K:\Planning Commission\2004\Meeting Summary 03-17-04.doc
Planning Commission Minutes
Page 2
March 17,2004
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 SRl8 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 ofland 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 corner 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 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.
KIPlanning Cnmmissionl2004\Meeting Summary 03-17-04.docILast printed 4/1/2004 8A3 AM
Planning Commission Minutes
Page 3
March 17,2004
Gary Anderson - He spoke in regards to the Davis request. He feels the government is taking
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.
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 Goldingay- 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 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 property. This will cost him ~
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 Ingersoll- He stated that the map ofthe Rabie property is inaccurate because it shows a
road that does not exist. Land is set aside for the road, but currently 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 surrounds those lots is very different from the northeastern side. The proposed
new Freeway Commercial zone would be better facing 320th, 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:\Planning Commission\2OO4\Meeting Summary 03-17-04.docILast printed 4/1/2004 8:43 AM
Planning Commission Minutes
Page 4
March 17,2004
Lawson Bronson, Alternate Planning Commissioner - 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 PM 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.
KIPlanning Commission\2OO4\Meeting Summary 03-17-04.dncILast printed 4/1/2004 8A3 AM
~
CITY OF "*, ~_è'
Federal Way
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
March 29, 2004
John Caulfield, Chair
Federal Way Planning Commission
Isaac Conlen, Associate Planner ~.- (,.-
Lisa Grueter, Senior Planner, Jones and Stokes
P AA 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 peiforms
and/or is required to peiform. There are, however, several policy statements, which direct the
County to peiform 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. lOA.]] 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.]. In GMA Comprehensive Plans,
land use plans play the central 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... H (RCW 36. lOA.OlO).
.
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 criteria for annexations. See policies LU-29 to 32 in
Section 2.2 of the Proposed Final P AA Subarea Plan.
.
Annexation Laws, RCW 35.13.177. Jurisdictions may prepare comprehensive land use
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.
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 P AA. 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 PAA 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
deveIoped/undeveIo ped?
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 code
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 category. The proposed
P AA 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
Options provided to the Planning Commission in the February 25, 2004 staff report 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. 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 17, 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 2881h 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 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 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
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 P AA 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
Ammendement
Site
...,'
,~ .,
. '. -~
//..Iu..",/mik../cd/cplan/jackson.aml
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.
Vicinity Map
Scale: 1 to 3720
1 Inch equals 310 Feet
0 250 Feet
~
~
N
~ rëderal Way
Public Correspondence
Received Since Last Meeting
R' .,r"~I'
eV1I,,! i' ":'JC VED gv
f", ,<L'~.ITY 'lJ:\lP('DI1PI'T
, '
Vl\ [ 'i
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 0 and 0 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' l/
.,.,;/tl'2jJ
" /7
~~
. 'I
¡/
. ~"") '..' ~
,',/ .j/, 'f}
\'. Ie l {' Z;¿
./'
/:'1-7 t../
J/J. IlÁ..'Þ~/
. l
<./
¡Isaac Conlen - Low density letter Federal Way.doc
Page 1
..----.-- . '-.----. ---_.-..--~_.
"'--""--_.'~.__.._~- .
till
Friends of Washington
1000 Friends of Washington
1617 Boylston Avenue, Suite
200
Seattle. WA 98122
(206) 343-0681 phone
(206) 709-8218 fax
www.1000friends.org
Aaron Ostrom
Executive Director
Dave Russell
President
Board of Trustees
I OO<FI/Bf!I'I&>ef Washington
1617 Boylston Avt.<lBgJey200
Seadl)ip~à2
(206) 3.ßJaOtlSrldge Island
(206~a9~i:!IC>8:Ifax
www.1000friends"ir¡tdand
Nancy Ball
Walla Walla
Margot Blacker
Bellevue
David Bricklin
Bainbridge Island
Vance Corum
Vancouver
Jeff Eustis
Seattle
Ray Gould
Edmonds
Bart Haggin
Spokane
Bruce Long
Mercer Island
Mary McCumber
Seattle
Henry McGee
Seattle
Barbara Mcintosh
Poulsbo
Bill Ross
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
Everett Wilcock
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 oflow-density sprawling development'
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 comprehensive 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."5 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 functions are complex and their rank order
value is high, ...." Then a local government can apply densities of less than four
I RCW 36.70A020(l) & (2).
2 RCW 36.70A.110(1).
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 al. v.
Kitsap County, CPSGMHB Consolidated Case No.: 95-3-0039c Corrected Final Decision and
Order p. *33 (October 6, 1995).
4 Bremerton, et al. v. Kitsap County, CPSGMHB Consolidated Case No.: 95-3-0039c Corrected
Final Decision and Order p. *33 (October 6, 1995).
5 Jd and RCW 36.70A.ll 0(1).
Isaac Conlen - Low density letter Federal Way.doc
Page 2
r~-----~-
-------- --------------
--------~---
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 the goals and
requirements of the GMA by December I, 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 RSl5 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 ofthe 2004 comprehensive 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 of7 -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(á1 I OOOfriends.org or tim(lI> I OOOfriends.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 information 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.
6 Master Builders of Pierce County & Brink (MBA/Brink), et al. v. Pierce County, CPSGMHB
Case No.: 02-3-0006 Final Decision and Order p. *10,2002 WL 31998487 p. *11 (February 4,
2002).
Isaac Conlen - Low density letter Federal Way.doc
Page 3
--------- -----
------- - - - ---- --- ----
----------
-------- - -------- ---
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,
Sydney McComas
Urban Policy Advocate
Enc:
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
March 29, 2004
tiii
Friends of Washington
Requirements for Compact Urban Development,
a Minimum of Four Net Housing Units Per Acre
Why Sprawl is Bad and Density is Good
Poorly planned low density sprawling development results in many adverse impacts on
Washington's residents, local governments, and environment.l A partial list of the
adverse impacts include:
. Higher public facility capital and maintenance costs.
. Higher housing costs and the exclusion of minorities and low-income families.
. More traffic because more people drive alone and must drive longer distances to
work and to meet the needs of their families. Sprawling places are likely to have
more traffic fatalities per capita than more compact regions due to higher rates of
vehicle use.
. Sprawl converts more prime agricultural land from farming to urban uses than more
compact forms of development.
. Sprawl destroys more critical areas and other environmentally sensitive areas than
compact development. Sprawl results in fish and wildlife habitat losses and habitat
fragmentation, the separation of habitats by development. Sprawl's dispersed
development pattern leads to the degradation of water quality by increasing runoff
volume, altering regular stream flow and watershed hydrology, reducing
groundwater recharge, and increasing stream sedimentation. Scientists at the
University of Washington have concluded that although impacts on salmon habitat
from urbanization occur in a linear fashion, changes to the physical and biological
factors necessary for high quality salmon habitat occurs most rapidly when five to
ten percent of a river basin is covered by impervious surfaces (roads, buildings, and
parking lots).
Assuring that urban areas have sufficient densities to wisely use the land addresses
each of these adverse affects and others. 1000 Friends of Washington urges cities and
1 For a comprehensive study of the adverse effects of sprawl see Robert W. Burchell, Naveed A. Shad,
David Listokin, Hilary Phillips, Anthony Downs, Samuel Seskin, Judy S. Davis, Terry Moore, David
Helton, and Michelle Gall. The Costs of Sprawl- Revisited (Transit Cooperative Research Program Report
39, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council 1998). Available at:
http://www4.nationalacademies.org/trb/onlinepubs.nsf/web/TCRP Reports Also see Bremerton, et al. v.
Kitsap County, Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board (CPSGMHB) Consolidated
Case No.: 95-3-0039c Corrected Final Decision and Order pp. *17 - *22 (October 6, 1995) (a listing of the
adverse effects of sprawl).
Urban Densities are Required to be at Least Four HOusit~tlJJ;lr~erA.çr.,e
-fSAGE CF
1 .
-
,
...
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 working 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 (DGA) and call for reducing sprawling low
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"S "Any
new residential land use pattern within a DGA 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 LMI/Chevron, the Board held, "the GMA requires every city to designate all
lands within its jurisdiction at appropriate urban densities." LMI/Chevron, [Final
Decision and Order], at 23; (underlining in original, italics supplied). This
concept of designating lands at- appropriate urban densities within
unincorporated UGAs was extended to counties and zoning designations in
2 Boris Pushkarev & Jeffrey Zupan. Public Transportation and Land Use Policy (Indiana University Press,
Bloomington, Indiana, 1977) (public transit use is minimal below a net residential density of seven
dwelling units an acre).
3 RCW 36.70A.O20(1) & (2).
4 RCW 36.70A.ll0(1).
5 Bremerton, et al. v. Kitsap County, CPSGMHB Consolidated Case No.: 95-3-0039c Corrected Final Decision
and Order p. *33 (October 6, 1995).
61d.
Urban Densities are Requifed;to be at Least Four Housing Units Per Net Acre
2
Forster Woods Homeowners Association, et ai., v. King County (Forster Woods),
CPSCMHB 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.s 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..." 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.1O
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 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).
8 Fred R. Klein v. San Juan County, Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board
(WWGMHB) Case No. 02-2-0008, Michael Durland, et al. v. San Juan County, WWGMHB Case No. 00-2-
0062c, & Town of Friday Harbor, Fred R. Klein, John M. Campbell, Lynn Bahrych, et al. v. San Juan County,
WWGMHB Case No. 99-2-0010c Final Decision and Order Compliance Order, 2002 WL 31405482 p. *7
(October 15, 2002).
9 Master Builders of Pierce County & Brink (MBA/Brink), et al. v. Pierce County, 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 Guly
22, 1997).
10 MBA/Brink, Final Decision and Order p. *13, 2002 WL 31998487 p. *13, Litowitz p.*12, 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).
d b i=VHIRIT- -
Urban Densities are Require to e at Least Four Housing Umr[Þer Net Acre 3
PAGE_-- ':._-,,---
existing critical areas regulations."ll 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 60.8-acre property
did not meet the Litowitz testP
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 MBAIBrink 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. In such 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-mandated minimum urban densities. The growth accommodation
mandate of RCW 36.70A.I10 and the permit processing guidance of RCW
36,70A.O20(7) would be thwarted if, in order to meet these mandates, an
applicant would also be requiTed 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.
11 MBA/Brink, Final Decision and Order pp. "12-13 2002 WL 31998487 p. "13.
12 Lawrence Michael1nvestments, L.L.C & Chevron (LMI/Chevron) v. Town of Wood way, CPSGMHB Case No.
98-3-0012 Final Decision and Order p. *17 (January 8,1999).
\J Bremerton at p. "33.
14 Master Builders Association of Pierce County, Terry L. Brink, et al. v. Pierce County (MBA/Brink), CPSCMHB
Case No. 02-3-0010 Order Finding Partial Noncompliance and Continuing Invalidity Footnote 6 p.' 12,
2003 WL 22896415 p. "11 (September 4, 2003).
Urban Densities are Required to be at Least Four Housing Units Per Net Acre
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.ll0 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.O20(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.
15 West Seattle Defense Fund and Neighborhood Rights Campaign (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 of Woodin vi lIe,
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 element 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 Redmond, 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 'stimulate'
urban growth throughout the jurisdictions' UGAs within the twenty-year life of their comprehensive
plans.")
Urban Densities are Required to be at Least Four Housing Units Per Net Acre
5
~
The GMA dearly 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 36.70A.O70([2]). However, as the
Board stated supra, "any opportunity to perpetuate an 'historic low-density
residential' development pattern, in the Parkland 5panaway Midland area,
ended in 1994 when the County included the area within the UCA." It is clear
that existing housing stock and neighborhoods may be maintained and
preserved, however existing low-density patterns of development cannot be
perpetuated.16
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 CMA 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 DCA 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. I?
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 environment. 18
16 MBA/Brink, Final Decision and Order p. *10, 2002 WL 31998487 p. *10.
17 Benaroya, et at. v. City of Redmond, CPSGMHB Consolidated Case No. 95-3-0072 p. *21, 1996 WL 650317
p. *25 (March 25, 1996).
18 RCW 36.70A.020(1), (2), (8), & (9).
Urban Densities are Required to be at Least Four Housing Units Per Net Acre
6
. 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 UGA shall include" areas and densities sufficient to permit
the urban growth that is projected to occur in the county or city for the succeeding
twenty-year period."23
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 UGA 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 "the 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.
23 RCW 36.70A.110(2).
24 Bremerton, et al. v. Kitsap County, CPSGMHB Consolidated Case No.: 95-3-0039c Corrected Final
Decision and Order p. *33 (October 6, 1995) (underlining added).
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 Litowitz 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.html 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¡1ment 4 DU per acre for Density letter.doc
25 Bremerton, et at. v. Kitsap County, CPSGMHB Consolidated Case No.: 95-3-0039 Final Decision and Order
p. *33 - 34 (October 6, 1995)& Abenroth v. Skagit County, WWGMHB Case No.: 97-2-0060 Final Decision
and Order p. *11 of 63, 1998 WL 1985337 Ganuary 23, 1998).
Urban Densities are Required to be at Least Four Housing Units Per Net Acre
8
~
CITY OF ~
Federal Way
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Amendments to Federal Way City Code (FWCC) Chapttr 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, staff reviewed the proposed
locational criteria in Chapter 2, "Land Use," ofthe Federal Way Comprehensive Plan (Exhibit A) and
would like to propose the following change shown as fRrilu:øüt and underlined.
Freeway Commercial
The Freeway Commercial designation is intended for areas that are adjacent to the Interstate
5 mil ER 1 g 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.
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 2S-foot tall signs to be constructed at grade adjacent to S. 348th Street. The
maximum height of free stranding signs is presently 12 feet.
DI. FOLLOW-UP TO QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Questions from and comments by the Planning Commission are shown followed by the staff response:
1.
Planning Commission Comment: Locating automobile dealerships at the entrances to our
community might not be the image that we want to present.
Staff Response: 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 Response: The proposed uses 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
S. 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 Report
Addition of Freeway Commercial Zone / File #04-100812-00-UP
April 7, 2004
Page 2
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 ofthe
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 ofI-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 adopted level of service 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 #04-100812-00-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:
(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 of four 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 1-
5.
(d) Signs must have a minimum separation of200 feet.
(e) Three ofthe 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 above 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 of300 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) ifthe 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 of 20 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
.
1 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 #04-100812-00-UP
April 7, 2004
Page 4
.
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 (P.^. systems) shall not be auèible from an adjaeent
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 11-22
Federal Way City Code, New Retail Use Zone Chart
Table I, Uses
1:\2004 Code Amendments\Freeway Zone\Planning Commission\040704 Revised StaffReport.DOC/03/30120048:50 AM
2 A 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 #04-100812-00-UP
April 7, 2004
Page 5
FWCP - Chapter Two, land Use
Goal
LUG6
Policies
LUP38
LUP39
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.
Freewav Commercial
The Freeway Commercial designation is intended for areas that are adjacent to the
Interstate 5 811.8 f;R I g 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.
EXH1B1 T
PAGE---- \
{\
2003 Comp Plan Update
\
11-22
22-XXX Retail.
The following uses shall be permitted in the ÍÌ"eeway 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
...¡ 8
~ 0
" "'ò:
¡.¡ <> ~
CI: .!: <>
::s .-
0'>
<> <>
~~
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)
<>
.!:::!
en
Õ
...¡
ë
e
"'"
?
~
~
<>
'"
ëi3
~
<>
~
.... <>
0...
- ::s
-§¡'ð
,> .s
::I: en
~
c..
",en
.g ~
::s.-
gÆ
USE ZONE CHART
ZONE
FC
SPECIAL REGULATIONS AND NOTES
Process II I None 120 ft. 5 ft. 5 ft. 35 ft. above Retail facilities:
See notes 1,2 and average 1 for every 300
Possible I 19 building sq.ftofgross
Process elevation floor area
III
See Note
2
See notes I _11 for each 100
2 sq. ft. of gross
floor area for
restaurants
¡
Process I, II, ill and IV are described in
§§ 22-351-22-356, i- i
22.361 - 22-370,
22-386-22-411,
22-431 - 22-460, respectively.,",'
.,
I ~ Iw
- I \J\J
I. 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 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., 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 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.
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 detennined by other site development requirements, ¡,e., required i
butTers, 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.
11. 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 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.
TABLE I
-om
»(
G>:J:
rnffi
I
I -
'-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
Brokerage X X X X
Bulk retail sale of lumber, paint, glass; plumbing, electrical and heating fixtures & supplies; bulk X
L .1. 000(1<:: and nursery "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
""""""""""'.-......................'
elling unit (Multiple family attached) X X X I
......-.........--.-........-.-t..........-.-......................-.........
Dwelling unit (Multiple family stacked) X X X X I
I
Fast food restaurant X X X X
""""""""""""".""--
Golf course X
Golf driving range X X
Government facility X X X X
X X X
Group home (lI-A and (II-A (II-A
II-B) 1I-B) II-B)
(" Health club X X X
~I ¡
~
I Excluding Bulk Retail
- 1 -
-"""'-""'--"'--""""'-"""""""""-"""'--...-.-..".........-.-...".......-.""'-'-"""""""""""".......-......""""""""""""""""""""......-...-"'-"""""'-"""""""'",-""""-",..,-",-",-"""",-"""""-.,,,,-,-,,"""""'..""',"""-"."."""""""""'--""""'T-"-""'.-"-"""'-r"""""""'-""-"'T"-""---"""-""'-"'~--'-"'-"'-'-"'T
I USES ! BN1 I BC I CC-C1 i CC-F1 FC i
===--=--===---==t--r X ~ ---¡
....-................-...........1
--......................-...-.............i
i
-"""'-"""-""""-"""""1
i
I I "
1....E~~~.~!!~f!.~ig~!!..~<:>'~!!1...t:.~~!~!...Þ!.<:>.~~.:.£~!...!<:>'~I::!.~L£<:>'.~P..~~~.!~!_~!~1?:!1.~1....._...._............._............................__...........................................-........................-....\.....................................-.....
I Recreational vehicle parking lot (temporary) I I X
i.....-.........-........-...............-..............-..........................-..-.......""""""""""""..................."""""""""""""""",-,-""""""",.""""""""""........-.....-....................................................................... . .
'"Om
» X Retail selling groceries; produce and related items ,.......... X X ......... X 1..2'_..J._-- J
G> ~ Retail selling drugs and personal care products X X X i X
m ~ Retail selling books X X X X
\}J'~ Retail selling liquor X X X X
Retail selling hardware X X
~ Retail selling garden, nursery stock and related items X X
~ I Retail selling household goods and furnishing X X X
\ Retail selling household appliances X
\ Retail ..t, of grnia, 'oed, f",dag. hay, aum,.,. 'tock and oth" agricult""" ,uppli" X
- 2-
¡ Retail selling home electronics X I X X X x I
x i x I X I X x I
~-=~~~ ,--~~
I I x ' : I
l...........-....-....-..-......--....¡...-.........-..-......... -.............-....-_.........i "'-"""'.....""""""""""-"". .....-.........................1
¡ Retail selling new vehicles. boats. recreational vehicles and motorcycles ¡ I I X !
I School (through secondary education) I X I X X X !
~ ~ ~o~~~~;n~=~~==...~..=--:-=-=----=~¡c-=r~ ~ ~-=-1
r'\:J:S'I' "Ih' X X III ¡ X ,-"--""'¡
1IJ I ocla service transltlOna ouslng ¡(Type A or I (Type A i (Type A or !
: ~ G~~===-==~~~~~l~g~~
'"
Vv
()
1:\2004 Code Amendments\Freeway Zone\Planning Commission\021004 Comparison Use Chart.doc/03/30/2004 9:05 AM
- 3 -