The URL can be used to link to this page

Planning Comm PKT 12-07-2005 December 7, 2005 7:00 p.m. City of Federal Way PLANNING COMMISSION City Hall Council Chambers AGENDA 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. AFPROY AL OF MINUTES 4. AUDIENCE COMMENT 5. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT 6. COMMISSION BUSINESS . PUBLIC HEARING - Continued City Center Code Amendments 7. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS 8. AUDIENCE COMMENT 9. ADJOURN Commissioners John Cauljield, Chair Dini Duclos William Drake Lawson Bronson Richard Agnew (Alternate #2) K\Planning Comrnissjon\2005\Agcnda 12~07-0S.dl"w; Hope Elder, Vice-Chair Dave Osaki Merle Pfeifer Pam Duncan-Pierce (Alternate #1) City Staff Kathy McClung, CDS Director Margaret Clark, Senior Planner E. Tina Piety. Administrative Assistant 253-835-2601 1:'::,I.!:,t>;:,r;:.i.!y"9JJi;d.t:!:alw(Jy",(f!!!1 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PLANNING COMMISSION November 16, 2005 7:00 p.m. City Hall Council Chambers MEETING MINUTES Commissioners present: John Caulfield, Hope Elder, Dave Osaki, Merle Pfeifer, and Lawson Bronson. Commissioners absent: Bill Drake and Dini Duclos (excused). Alternate Commissioners present: Pam Duncan- Pierce and Richard Agnew. Alternate Commissioners absent: none. Deputy Mayor Linda Kochmar and Council Member Jeanne Burbidge also attended. Staff present: Development Services Director Kathy McClung, Assistant City Attorney Amy Jo Pearsall, Senior Planner Lori Michaelson, and Administrative Assistant E. Tina Piety. Chair Caulfield called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. ApPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Elder moved (and it was seconded) to adopt the October 19,2005, minutes with one correction (date in Additional Business should be November 16,2005). The motion carried (five yes). AUDIENCE COMMENT None ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT None COMMISSION BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARING - City Center Code Amendments Ms. Michaelson delivered the staff report. She commented that she had sent the Commissioners an updated proposed Federal Way City Code (FWCC) Section 22-977 via email. She noted that there are 26 individual amendments outlined in the staff report and exhibits. The purpose of the amendments is to help ready the regulatory environment for redevelopment. This will be accomplished by amending the FWCC to be more consistent with the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan (FWCP) and to incorporate recommendations from the Interim Zoning Ordinance and the Final Code Obstacles Report by Lumsden International, Inc. The major goals are to: remove real or perceived barriers to development envisioned by the FWCP; promote urban- scale, vertical mix of uses including housing, maximize utility of land; improve quality of site and building design through better urban design principals; and emphasize pedestrian-oriented design and amenities (streetscape, public open space). The highlights ofthe proposed amendments are: · Relax height limits (base heights) Refine height bonuses to emphasize streetscape as well as open space Relax ground-floor commercial and open space requirements Remove residential density caps Bring buildings to street in most cases Limit surface parking along the street · Limit new single-story construction (with exceptions), but allow any amount of multiple-story buildings (regulate "form" not "function") Prohibit certain incompatible land uses Allow complete rebuilding of nonconforming structures destroyed or damaged by accident K\Pl.nning Commi"inn\2005\Mecting Summ.ry 11-16-0S.dnc Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 November 16,2005 Two of the proposed amendments are to prohibit gambling/card rooms and prohibit second hand sales. Commissioner Elder expressed her concern over limiting the types of business that are allowed in the City Center, we should be a City for all. Ms. Michaelson commented that gambling is restricted in many other cities in the state because of the negative impacts. However, not all cities restrict gambling, it comes down to what kind of City Center the citizens of Federal Way want. Commissioner Pfeiffer asked why certain uses (such as schools and public utilities) are excluded from the 20,000 square foot restriction. Ms. Michaelson responded that these are institutional uses and staff feels they should not be limited. Commissioner Bronson commented that over the last few years, he has noted that development in the City Center consisted of public projects as opposed to private projects (i.e., improvements to Pacific Highway South, but no new buildings). He asked how changing the zoning code will encourage new development. Ms. Michaelson replied that the proposed code amendments are only one piece ofa larger strategy. The Leland Consulting Group's City Center Redevelopment Strategy report addresses additional issues. The City has hired the Leland Consulting Group to develop an overall strategy to encourage development downtown. In addition, the City Council has voted to allocate $50,000 for City Center development. Public Testimony Gary Martindale, Steadfast Investments - Steadfast are the owners of The Commons. He thanked the City staff for all they work they have done on this issue, particularly Patrick Doherty, Kathy McClung, and Lori Michaelson. He commented that Steadfast Investments feels that overall, the proposed amendments will work for them. They are concerned that the proposed five-foot building setback adjacent to principal pedestrian right(s)-of-way, may not work for The Commons, but they do support the proposed amendments. Deputy Mayor Linda Kochmar - She commented that she had not been in favor of the originally drafted amendments, but feels the current draft is an improvement. She is most interested in how the proposed amendments may affect busincss owners. Chairman Caulfield expressed his disappointment at the level of public participation at tonight's meeting (there is one busincss/property owner in attendance). Ms. McClung stated that staff has been meeting with some business! property owners and with the Chamber of Commerce and the proposed amendments have taken the feedback from these meetings into account. Commissioner Pfeiffer asked ifthere is a time limit to the City Center Planned Action State Environmental Act Policy (SEP A) Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) staff is working on. Ms. Michaelson responded that an EIS does not have an expiration date, but can become obsolete if circumstances change (say the comprehensive plan is changed). Staff wants this EIS to stand for 10 years, but it depends on the amount of development that occurs (more development would mean more change and less devclopmcnt capacity, and the likelihood the EIS could become obsolete before 10 years). The Commission discussed how to proceed in regards to voting on the amendments. There must be a majority of the entire Commission (four yes votes) to recommend approval of an item. Since there are only five voting members present, concern was expressed that some of the proposed amendmcnts would not receive four yes votes. The Commission decided that since it is almost certain the public hearing would be continued, they would wait until the next meeting to discuss and vote upon some of the proposed amendments. Proposed Amendments #lA and #lB - Prohibit Incompatible Land Uses 1bese amendments would prohibit gambling/card rooms and second hand merchandise sales. A discussion was held on prohibiting gambling with one Commissioner stating that he sees no problem with allowing gambling and another Commissioner stating the negative effects a nearby gambling establishment has had on his business. The Commission asked if staff could provide some information about the effects of gambling on communities. K:\Planning Commi$!i1on\2005\Meeting Summary 11-16-05.doc Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 November 16, 2005 The Commission also asked the staff to research whether second hand merchandise would include a shop selling baseball cards and other similar collectibles. Proposed Amendments #2A, #2B, and #2C -Multi-Unit Housing These amendments would eliminate the density caps for multi-unit housing, relax the criteria for ground floor commercial, and revise the recreational open space requirement. Chairman Caulfield asked staff to clarify what multi-unit housing includes. Ms. Michaelson commented that it includes condominiums and townhomes, as well as apartments. Commissioner Pfeifer moved (and it was seconded) to recommend adoption of proposed amendments #2A, #2B, and #2C as written. Commissioner Bronson asked what kind of development can we realistically expect to happen in the next 10 years and how will these proposed amendments promote the City's vision, as outlined in the FWCP. Chairman Caulfield commented that the City needs to take a leadership role and one way to do so is to set the stage through street improvements and code changes, such as the proposed amendments. He noted that the vision we have for Federal Way's City Center is beginning to happen in the communities around us, such as Burien, Kent, Auburn, and Sumner. The vote was held with four yes and one no, and the motion passed. Proposed Amendments #3A, #3B, and #3C - Building Heights These amendments would grant limitcd increases to some base heights and amend the height bonus program. Commissioner Elder moved (and it was seconded) to recommend adoption of proposed amendments #3A, #3B, and #3C as written. Commissioner Osaki moved (and it was seconded) to amend the motion to state that the height will be 30 feet when adjacent to a residential zone. Commissioner Osaki commented that his amendment would serve to protect and preserve single-family development. The vote was held with three yes and two no, and the amendment passed. The vote was held on the main motion with two yes and three no, and the main motion fails. Commissioner Osaki moved (and it was seconded) to recommend adoption of proposed amendments #3B and #3C as written. The vote was held with five yes and zero no, and the motion passed. Proposed Amendments #4A and #4B - Single-Story Buildings These amendments deal with maximum size limits and options to increase the size above 20,000 square feet. Commissioner Elder moved (and it was seconded) to recommend adoption of proposed amendments #4A and #4B as written. Chairman Caulfield commented that he feels there is a disconnect between proposed amendments #4A and #4B and the FWCP. He feels these amendments encourage strip development as opposed to mixed-use development as outlined in the FWCP. Commissioner Pfeifer stated that he views these amendments favorably because they would place a limit on the size of single-story buildings, which are not currently limited in size. The vote was held with two yes and three no, and the motionfails. Commissioner Osaki moved (and it was seconded) that the Commission revisit proposed amendments #4A and #4B when the public hearing is continued. The vote was held with five yes and zero no, and the motion passed. Proposed Amendment #5 - New Use and Definition The amendment proposes a new use and definition of "retail shopping center, regional." Commissioner Pfeifer moved (and it was seconded) to recommend adoption of proposed amendment #5 as written. The vote was held with four yes and one no, and the motion passed. Proposed Amendments #6A, #6B. and #6C -- Site Layout These amendments modify existing building setbacks and parking requirements. Commissioner Pfeifer moved (and it was seconded) to recommend adoption of proposed amendments #6A, #6B, and #6C as written. The vote was held with five yes and zero no, and the motion passed. K\PI.nning Commission\2005\Mccting Summary t l-16-05.doc Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 November 16,2005 Proposed Amendments #7 A, #7B, #7C, #7D, #7E, #7F, and #7G - Design Guidelines These amendmcnts deal with definitions, mixed-use residential buildings, location of parking, fac;adc treatment, pedestrian circulation, drive-through facilities, and criteria for public on-site open space. Commissioner Pfeifer moved (and it was seconded) to recommend adoption of proposed amendments #7 A through #7G as written. The vote was held with five yes and zero no, and the motion passed. Proposed Amendments #8A, #8B. and #8C - Nonconformance These amendments allow improvements and expansions of conforming uses that are collocated with nonconforming uses, applies to expansion of existing single-story buildings, and allows full replacement of nonconforming structures that are damaged or destroyed by sudden accidental cause. Commissioner Bronson moved (and it was seconded) to recommend adoption of proposed amendments #8A and #8C as written. The vote was held with five yes and zero no, and the motion passed. Commissioner Bronson moved (and it was seconded) to table proposed amendment #8B to the next meeting, but later withdrew the motion since it is not needed. Proposed Amendment #9 - Housekeeping This amendment repeals a subsection that should have been previously repealed. Commissioner Osaki moved (and it was seconded) to recommend adoption of proposed amendment #9 as written. The vote was held with five yes and zero no, and the motion passed. Proposed Amendment #]0 - Street Improvements This amendment clarifies the method by which required street frontage improvements are determined. Commissioner Osaki moved (and it was seconded) to recommend adoption of proposed amendment #10 as written. The vote was held with five yes and zero no, and the motion passed. Proposed Amendment #] ] - Perimeter Landscape Buffers This amendment clarifies that no perimeter buffer is required where building front on a right-of-way. Commissioner Osaki moved (and it was seconded) to recommend adoption of proposed amendment #11 as written. The vote was held with five yes and zero no, and the motion passed. Commission Pfeiffer moved (and it was seconded) that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council extend the Interim Zoning Ordinance 30 days so the Planning Commission can finish their deliberations. Commissioner Osaki stated that the deliberations on these amendments would need than 30 days since these proposed amendments must also go to the Land Use/Transportation Committee and City Council. It was moved and seconded that the motion be amended to simply state the Planning Commission needs 30 days to complete their deliberations. The amendment was voted upon, five yes and zero no, and the amendment passed. The main motion was then voted upon, zero yes and five no, and failed. Commissioner Osaki moved (and it was seconded) to continue the public hearing to December 7,2005, at 7:00 p.rn. in the City Hall Council Chambers. The vote was held with five yes and zero no, and the motion passed. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS Ms. McClung infom1ed the Commission that the staffwill be taking nine proposed code amendments to the City Council for the Annual Code Amendment Selection Process on December 6, 2005. The City received $152,000 grant from the state for Shoreline Amendments. AUDIENCE COMMENT None ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 9:51 p.m. K:\Planning CoJTJITi'ission\2005\Meeting Summary 11-16-05.doc ~ CITY OF ... ~ Federal Way DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES MEMORANDUM To: Federal Way Planning Commissioners Kathy McCI~rector of Community Development Services ~(..... Lori MiChael~'fniOr Planner City Center Code Amendments From: Re: Date: November 30, 2005 This memo responds to questions and issues raised by Commissioners at the November 16,2005, public hearing. Also, as requested, staff has provided you with the current Federal Way Comprehensive Plan (FWCP), the "Code Obstacles" report by Lumsden International, and photos of example developments from the power point presentation. In addition, enclosed are five graphic illustrations oflow-rise to mid- rise development scenarios that could occur at specific locations in the City Center. Negative Commnnity Impacts Related to Gambling Establishments According to the Washington State Gambling Commission; 62 cities and counties in the state2 currently prohibit gambling in some form. Although the specific reasons for the prohibitions may vary between communities, gambling is widely recognized as incompatible with residential uses due to its negative secondary impacts, such as increased criminal activity. Other negative impacts may result from problem or pathological gambling, such as bankruptcies, job losses, family problems, or resorting to criminal activity. At the national level, although the subject has been studied extensively, the available research provides little guidance to help policy makers decide about gambling in their community. According to the National Gambling Impact Study Commission Final Report,3 "... although the growth of gambling is a national phenomenon, gambling itself is of the greatest concern to the individual communities in which it operates or proposes to operate. It is at that level that its impact is felt most keenly and where the debates surrounding this issue are most energetically contested. Those communities form no common front: one community may welcome gambling as an economic salvation, while its neighbor may regard it as anathema. As such, there are few areas in which a single national, one-size-fits-all approach can be recommended. " I "Cities Prohibiting Gambling Activities," Revised September 21,2005, Washington State Gambling Commission website, wWW.wsgc, \Va. gov 2 There is a combined total of 320 cities and counties in the state. 3 Dated August 3, 1999 Planning Commission Memorandum City Center Code Amendments November 30, 2005 Page 1 The following analysis of gambling-related criminal activity in Federal Way's City Center is based on crime statistics provided by the Federal Way Public Safety Dcpartment. This analysis compares the crime statistics (police incidents) for a three-year time period (2001-2003, when two gambling establishments were operating in the City Center, Cafe Arizona, which ceased gambling opcrations at the end of2003, and PJ Pockets, which continues to operate) with the crime statistics for four non-gambling establishments in the City Center that also provide entertainment (Billy McHale's, Black Angus, Gateway Center, and the Scoreboard Pub). As detailed below, a significantly higher level of criminal activity has historically been associated with the gambling establishments than with the non-gambling cntertainment establishments. In addition, the criminal activity associated with gambling establishments involves more crimes against persons, such as assaults and robberies, than crimes against property, such as vehicle break-ins and burglaries, as are generally associated with the non-gambling establishments. From January 2001 through December 2003, Cafe Arizona had 199 police incidents, 49 of which were crimes against persons (25%). PJ Pockets had 71 incidents, 9 of which were against persons (13%). That means the two establishments with gambling activities accounted for 270 incidents, 58 of which were crimes against persons (21 %). For the same time period, Billy McHale's had 33 incidents, 3 of which were crimes against persons (9%). Black Angus had 51 incidents, 4 of which were crimes against persons (8%). Gateway Center Theater had 78 incidents, 5 of which were crimes against persons (6%). The Scoreboard Pub had 18 incidents, none of which were crimes against persons (0%). That means four non-gambling entertainment establishments accounted for a total of 180 incidents, 12 of which were crimes against persons (7%). ill summary, for the three-year period when the City had two gambling establishments operating in the City Center, four other non-gambling establishments in the City Center that also provide entertainment generated one-third fewer police incidents than the two gambling establishments, and of those calls, the gambling establishments generated almost five times as many calls for crimes against persons. Increase in Residential Housing Density The proposed changes to multifamily regulations, including increasing base height, eliminating density caps, relaxing open space requirements, and reducing ground floor commercial requirements, are intended to promote multifamily housing by eliminating and relaxing real or perceived regulatory barriers to its development. A corresponding minor increase in residential dcnsity could occur as a result of eliminating density caps. However, no substantial density increase can occur unless and until the maximum height limits for multifamily are increased. No height increase is being proposed with the current code amcndments. Minor height increases for multifamily will be considered and addressed in the Planned Action EIS. Ifthe City wishes to implement any height increases, it would require a zoning code amendment at some future date. Would collectibles, such as baseball cards, be considered "second-hand merchandise"? Staff believes it would be consistent with the intent of these amendments to exclude "collectibles" from the definition of "second-hand merchandise," the same as for "antiques." This can be accomplished through the following rccommended new and amended definitions.4 4 The proposed definition is based on a review of other eity eode definitions, and is the same as the eities of Des Moines and Lynwood, WA. Planning Commission Memorandum City Center Code Amendments November 30, 2005 Page 2 Antique or collectible means any article which, because of age, rarity, or historical significance, has a monetary value greater than its original value, or which has age recognized by the United States government as entitling the article to an import duty less than that prescribed for contemporary merchandise. A store or shop selling only such articles, or offering them for sale, shall be considered as a dealership selling antiques or collectibles and not as a dealership selling second-hand merchandise. Retail sales, second-hand merchandise, means an individual or establishment that sells second hand merchandise, such as pawn shops; used book and record stores; used clothing, furniture, and appliances; thrift stores; consignment stores; and flea markets. This defiflition Second-hand merchandise does not include the sale of antiques~ or colleetibles as defined in this chapter. City Center Planned Action EIS In response to ongoing concerns about whether the code amendments should be reviewed in context with the Planned Action EIS, enclosed is a November 10,2005, email from Patrick Doherty explaining why the EIS need not precede nor be coincident with these code amendments. In short, the EIS contains no "planning" action that would infonn, or be informed by, the current code amendments. The only "planning action" contemplated in the EIS is a potential height increase for multifamily development. The currently proposed code amendments are neither dependent on the potential height increases, nor are the potential height increases dependent on the current code amendments. The purpose of the EIS is to analyze the environmental impacts of ten years' worth of development, together with increment potentially possible associated with multifamily height increases, and establish related mitigation measures. Once the EIS is adopted, a future development proposal that is consistent with the EIS will not have to undergo separate environmental review. This will considerably expedite the development review process and serve as a development incentive. Updates to Comprehensive Plan Policies Enclosed you will find certain revisions and additions to the comprehensive plan policies cited in the staff report, Section IX, Decisional Criteria. The reason for these changes is that some of the policies have been updated from the version shown in the staff report, and other policies that should have been included in the staff report were overlooked. These revisions do not in any way affect the analysis, findings, or recommendations contained in the staff report, but simply correct and strengthen the policy basis for the proposa1. Enclosed is a strikcoutJunderline version of the policies as updated and added. Also enclosed is a "clean copy" of the replacement pages (pages 8 through 11) for inclusion in the staff report. We look forward to continuing the public hearing on December 7111. If you have any questions or comments, please contact Lori Michaelson at 253-835-2645 or 10rL..!I1i~h.ael~cityoffederalway.com. Enclosures e: David Moseley, City Manager Patrick Doherty, Director of Economic Development Greg Fcwins, Deputy Director of Conununity Development Services Amy Jo Pearsall, Assistant City Attorney Planning Conunission Memorandum City Center Code Amendments November 30, 2005 Page 3 GRAPHIC ILLUSTRATIONS - EXAMPLES OF 5 DIFFERENT DEVELOPMENT SCENARIOS AT SPECIFIC LOCATIONS IN CITY CENTER Existing Development - Entrance on Street ^j1...i~~ -^'" ~d ~ Example Development -Mid-rise Office L._________________._._____...__.._._._.______.__..._.-.-----------.~....-.-.-....---.,.,'"..-.,-..-'".....----..., l I i i I I I 1 I t : I I I ___I ..- .-..--------------...-.....-....-..-----.---.-.- ..,-"....._..--_..~..-._..._.... ..-"...".".----.--.----.---~,_.--.._--.---...----..-~.~-.-1 '.{/ ~'~ ~,l"",~ ....!~r ;"!I..: ~--~ \ I \ !I, .m...........'.~~ . . ..------ iii ...' Existing Development ~ ~~ Example Development - Mid-rise Mixed Use , -----,,~,-~.. .~,.._'.,,_..----,--_._---------_._---_..~._,.,.,.__._.,--..-,--..- .--..--.---....' _."'_.~'-~,--".._-_._--"--' ._~",..~~-,."-- -.--... ".",-_..".~-,._-_.._----~_.~.,~~---------.---~-~."----'~"~~~~-"~_.~--',',._~ Existing Development t( ~...J a:.::;::J a;;;:;;;:::1 a::::=;r a:::::::J a::;:=:;z a:::::::l b:::l a:;;;;;;;;J rr---:I c:::J rt::::::J C------=:J ~'"1 c:::J b-=:J lC=:J II:.:::::J I I Example Development - Highrise Residential/Hotel I I L.__..,...,.,_.-.-__.._.____-.-____........_._._..._-.-____-.-_.__.____...._._____________-.--.-___..__..._....,_...._...___....__....._._._...___... .__.___.__.....__.__.J ---l Existing Development IT --- n CI n - .....--~~-- p ,.........------ l1 tJ tJ 0 0 Example Development - Highrise Office .,'1'\ -~..._'----_....---l I I I I Existing Development Example Development - Mid-rise Mixed Use -,,---_.~._-~.. ." .- ._-----_..._._,--,-~,~-~'.-,.,._------_.,~~~,.,._-'~~'._~_..,---_._.,.__._..- _.~----------_._".".,. ,"'-~._-'-_.. .----.." PATRICK DOHERTY'S EMAIL DATED 10/20/05 >>> Patrick Doherty 10/20/2005 4:30 PM >>> Dear commissioners: Thanks for powering through a long and complicated meeting last night! A couple of you brought up the status of the City Center Planned Action/EIS and its potential relationship to the code amendments under your consideration, and I wanted to take a chance to provide a concise, yet detailed response. As you may know, the Legislature approved changes to the State Environmental policy Act (SEPA) in the mid-1990's that included creation of a new provision that allows communities to conduct Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) in association with master plans, zoning changes or simply in targeted growth areas that capture the impacts of either those plans or that anticipated growth over a designated period. Once the EIS is done, the community adopts an ordinance that approves the action and sets up regulatory processes that are intended to reduce the burden of environmental disclosure and analysis on the part of individual developments that comport with the approved plan and/or EIS. Several communities around the State have used this provision (although not MANY). In MOST cases the planned Action was triggered by a community'S desire to implement a new master plan, comp plan changes or subarea plan for a specific area (such as the south Everett industrial area, the Kent Station planned development, etc.). In Federal Way's case, we chose to access this provision in the SEPA law to provide incentives for complying development to come into our City Center in order to implement the already extant Camp Plan vision. In essence, we are conducting an EIS to capture ten years' worth of development in advance to unburden individual development applicants from this environmental work, streamline their permit processing, and provide predictable transportation-mitigation measures. The part that we are NOT including in this Planned Action is a master plan, subarea plan, camp plan change or other major "planning" action. As you know, the only "planning" change being contemplated is a potential height increase for residential development from the existing 85' height maximum to 145' (the maximum for other, commercial buildings), with an option to consider 200'. What might be confusing about the City Center Planned Action EIS is that the name of the SEPA provision that allows us to do this, is "planned action," but in our case we are not really implementing a major new planning action! We're mostly just doing the environmental work up front for 10 years worth of development pursuant to the existing development potential + a minor increment of development potential for taller residential buildings. Commissioner Osaki raised a very good point last night about why the Commission's consideration of these code amendments should not be "informed" by the Planned Action and so why were these amendments and the Planned Action not being considered together. To answer that directly, I think the quick explanation above of what our City Center Planned Action EIS does and DOES NOT do can be offered again. Basically, the EIS will NOT provide any information that is related to these code amendments. There is no master plan, comp plan change, subarea plan or other major change to the environment contemplated in the Planned Action, with the EIS simply disclosing environmental impacts over ten years' time. Since these code amendments do not in any significant way increase development potential in our City Center - but rather accommodate it more readily and/or direct it to be more compliant with our Visiion - they do not need an EIS to proceed. That is why these amendments are not being held up for the more detailed (mostly transportation) review and analysis of the City Center EIS. In summary, the City Center Planned Action EIS ,probably shouldn't even use the term "planned action" because it does lead to confusion. We use that term only because it's the title of the SEPA section that allows us to do an EIS for a certain area over a certain period of time and set up a consequent, streamlined regulatory process. I hope this helps clarify this somewhat confusing issue. But please do not hesitate to contact me by ,return email or by phone (253-835-2612) if you'd like to chat about this more. And, similarly, please consider our sincere invitation to meet one-on-one (or even in groups of up to 3 Commissioners) to walk'through any part of the proposed code amendments prior to the Public Hearing on 11/16. Best wishes to you all! Patrick REVISIONS TO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES ATTACHED: -STRIKEOUT/UNDERLINE VERSION -"CLEAN" VERSION TO REPLACE PAGES 8 & 9 OF STAFF REPORT City Center (Chapter 7, FWCPj CCG 1 Create an identifiable City Center that serves as the social. cultural, and economic focus of the City. Define a City Center with distinct boundaries, unique building types, and special features. CCG2 Attract a regional market for high quality office and retail uses which increases employment opportunities, adds to the City's tax base, and establishes Federal Way's City Center as an economic leader in the South King County region. CCG5 Encourage a mix of compatible uses to maintain a lively, attractive, and safe place to live, work, and visit. CCG6 Focus on improving the existing character and image ofthe City Center. CCG7 Encourage housing opportunities in mixed residential/commercial settings. Promote housing opportunities close to employment. CCG9 Create an environment oriented to pedestrians and bicyclists. CCG 1 0 Create an environment that attracts high quality housing, commercial, and office uses. Deyelop Continue to enforce requirements for Quality desi~ in buildings, streetscape, and site 6esign planning. CCG11 Create policies and regulations to encourage more efficient use of parking facilities and to foster new, innovative, and creative parking solutions. CCG 13 Focus new growth.. with higher demands for infrastructure and transportation.. in the City Center, specifically the core area. Allow for higher intensity uses for efficient use of land. CCP2 Develop an attractive City Center that will attract Quality development. CCP3 Revise land use regulatioFls, as necessary, to Continue to support land use regulations that allow the higher intensity development expected over tho course of the next 15 to 30 years. CCP7 Allow for a variety of uses and mixcd-use development within buildings, or complexes. Ensure that mixed-use development complements and enhances the character of the surrounding residential and commercial areas. CCG14 Increase housing opportunities and diversity of housing types within the City Center, inoludiAg the! frame area. Allow increased development of commercial uses while increasing housing opportunities and diversity of housing types. City Center Code Amendments Revisions to City Center Policies File #05-1 04258-00-UP CCP 10 Continue to develop land use regulations that encoura~e the frame area to accommodate higher-density residential uses accompanied by residentially oriented retail and service uses. CCP 11 Continue to provide amenities such as community services. parks. and public spaces to meet residential needs. CCP 17 Emphasize pedestrian and bicycle circulation. as well as other travel modes in all aspects of developing the City Center transportation system. Include public sidewalks. street trees. and other pedestrian amenities for streets. CCP 18 Continue to enforce and refine local zoning codes. site planning requirements. and street design standards. as necessary. to establish a more pedestrian and bicycle friendly environment. CCP 19 Re'lise loeal zoning codes, site planning req1:lirements, and street design standards, as necessary to establish a more pedestrian and bicycle friendly eflvirOl'lment. Encoura~e new development to include active ground floor uses such as shops. community services. office. and housing units. Provide pedestrian connections between adiacent buildings where possible to provide for streetscape continuity. CCP21 Continue to site and screen parking lots to minimize impact on the pedestrian environment. CCP22 Connect the main entry of buildings to public sidewalks by a clear. identifiable walkway. CCP442 Site and orient buildings and parking to allow redevelopment of surface parking. CCP47 Continue to construct streetscape improvements as an integral component of any roadway improvement. CCP48 Encourage buildings to front or face public rights-or-way. providing clear paths from the sidewalk to all entries. \ City Ccntcr Code Amendments Revisions to City Center Policies File #05-104258..o0-UP LVP2 Usc design and performance standards to achieve a greatcr range of housing options in multiple-family designations. LVP3 Use design and performance standards to create attractive and desirable commercial and office developments. LVP44 Neighborhood Business centers should consist of ncighborhood scale retail and personal services. LVP45 Encourage mixed residential and commercial development in Neighborhood Business designations where compatibility with nearby uses can be demonstrated. LVPI87 Develop incentives to encourage desired development in commercial areas, especially in the City Center Core and Frame. Economic Development (Chapter 4, FWCP) EDGI The City will emphasize redevelopment that transforms the City from a suburban bedroom community to a full-service community with an urban corc. Housing (Chapter 5, FWCP) lIP31 Encourage new residential devclopment to achieve maximum allowable density based on gross area. City Center (Chapter 7, FWCP) CCGI Create an identifiable City Center that serves as the social, cultural, and economic focus of the City. Define a City Centcr with distinct boundaries, uniquc building types, and special features. CCG2 Attract a regional market for high quality office and retail uses which incrcases employment opportunities, adds to the City's tax base, and establishes Fedcral Way's City Center as an economic leader in the South King County region. CCG5 Encourage a mix of compatible uses to maintain a lively, attractive, and safe place to live, work, and visit. CCG6 Focus on improving the existing character and image of the City Center. City Center Code Amendments Planning Commission Staff Report File #05-104258~OO-UP Page 8 CCG7 Encourage housing opportunities in mixed residentiaVcommcrcial settings. Promote housing opportunities close to employment. CCG9 Crcate an environment oriented to pedestrians and bicyclists. CCG10 Create an environment that attracts high quality housing, commercial, and office uses. Continue to enforce requirements for quality design in buildings, streetscape, and site planning. CCG II Create policies and regulations to cncourage more efficient use of parking facilities and to foster new, innovative, and creative parking solutions. CCG 13 Focus new growth, with resultant increasing demands for infrastructure and transportation, in the City Center, specifically the core area. Allow for higher intensity uses for efficient use of land. CCP3 Continuc to support land use regulations that allow the higher intensity development expected over the next 15 to 30 years. CCP7 Allow for a variety of uses and mixed-use development within buildings, or complexes. Ensure that mixed-use development complements and enhances the character of the surrounding residential and commercial areas. CCG 14 Allow increased development of commercial uses while increasing housing opportunities and diversity of housing types. CCP19 Encourage new development to include active ground floor uses such as shops, community serviccs, office, and housing units. Providc pedestrian connections between adjacent buildings where possible to provide for streetscape continuity. CCP21 Continue to site and screen parking lots to minimize impact on the pedestrian environment. CCP22 Connect the main entry of buildings to public sidewalks by a clear, identifiable pathway. CCP42 Site and orient buildings and parking to allow redevc10pmcnt of surface parking. CC"'P47 Continue to construct strcctscape improvements as an integral component of any roadway improvement. CCP48 Encourage buildings to front or face public rights-of-way, providing clear paths from the sidewalk to all entries. City Center Code Amendments Planning Commission Staff Report File #05-104258-QO-UP Page 9 2. The proposed amendments bear a snbstantial relationship to public health, safety, or welfare; The proposed FWCC text amendments will help create an idcntifiable downtown, improvc the form and function of the City Center through improved site and building design, improve pedestrian amenities and circulation within the City Center, restrict land uses that may be incompatible or inconsistent with residential uses, and limit continued private investment in developmcnt inconsistent with the comprehensive plan, which will have a direct relationship to public health, safety, and welfare. And 3. The proposed amendment is in the best interest of the residents of the city. The proposed FWCC text amendments will help create an identifiable downtown that is the social and economic focus of the City, encourage a mix of land uses compatible with housing, promote housing opportunities close to employment, promote development that consumes less land, and improve the quality of urban design and architecture within the City Center, which is in the best interest of the City's residents. X. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Consistent with the provisions ofFWCC Section 22-539, the Planning Commission may take the following actions rcgarding the proposed zoning code text amendments: 1. Recommend to City Council adoption of the FWCC text amendments as proposed; 2. Modify the proposed FWCC text amendments and recommend to City Council adoption of the FWCC text amendments as modified; 3. Recommend to City Council that the proposed FWCC text amendments not be adopted; or, 4. Forward the proposed FWCC text amendments to City Council without a recommendation. STAFF RECOMMENDS THE FOLLOWING MOTION: "Move to recommend to the City Council for adoption of proposed FWCC text amendments, numbered I through 11, aslistcd in Paragraph II of the staffreport... " .or.. .if deletions or changes occur as a result of Planning Commission deliberations, add... "except amendment no(s)_, as deleted, or as amended by the Planning Commission as follows...... ". City Center Code Amendments Planning Commission Staff Report File #05-I04258-OO-UP Page 10 XI. EXHIBITS Exhibit A: Exhibit B: Exhibit C: Exhibit D: Exhibit E: Exhibit F: Code Amendments #1 through #6 - Tables and Affected Codes Code Amendments #7 A through #7G - Tables and Affected Codes Code Amendments #8 through #11 - Tables and Affected Codes Zoning Map, City Center-Core and City Center-Frame Federal Way Comprehensive Plan, City Center Chapter Interim Ordinance, No. 493, adopted June 7, 2005 City Center Code Amendments Planning Commission Staff Report File #05-I04258-00-UP Page II