The URL can be used to link to this page

LUTC PKT 07-17-2006 City of Federal Way City Council Land Use/Transportation Committee July 17th, 2006 City Hall 5:30 p.m. Council Chambers MEETING AGENDA 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: June 19th, 2006 3. PUBLIC COMMENT (3 minutes) 4. BUSINESS ITEMS A. Regional Solid Waste System Planning Information 30 min / Van Orsow, Kevin Kiernan, Diane Yates, King Co. Solid Waste Div. B. Grant Funding for Transportation Improvement Projects Action 15 min / Salloum C. South 348th Street HOV Lanes Project - 30% Design Status Action 15 min / Salloum Report D. 26th Ave. SW Drainage Trunk Replacement Project - 50% Action 10 min / Bucich Design Authorization E. Mark Twain NTS (20th Ave S) Action 10 min / Perez F. Sherwood Forest NTS (lih Ave SW) Action 10 min / Perez G. Commute Trip Reduction Program Interlocal Agreement with Action 5 min I Perez King County H. Cottage Housing Code Amendment Action 15 min / Conlen I. Annexation Update Action 15 min / McClung J. BP/BC Amendment Concepts Action 30 min / Michaelson 5. FUTURE MEETINGS/AGENDA ITEMS 6. ADJOURN Committee Members City Staff Jack Dovey, Chair Cary M. Roe, P.E., Public Works Director Eric Faison Marianne Lee, Administrative Assistant Dean McColgan 253-835-2701 G:\LUrOLUTC Agendas and Summades 2006\O7-17~06 LUTe Agenda.lJoc City of Federal Way City Council Land Use/Transportation Committee June 191h, 2006 City Hall 5:30 pm City Council Chambers MEETING MINUTES In attendance: Committee Chair Jack Dovey; Council Member Linda Kochmar; Committee Member Dean McColgan; Council Member Jeanne Burbidge; Committee Member Eric Faison; Community Development Director Kathy McClung; Community Development Deputy Director Greg Fewins; Associate Planner Andy Bergsagel; Engineering Plans Reviewer Kevin Peterson; Traffic Engineer Sarady Long; Public Works Director Cary Roe; Public Works Deputy Director Ken Miller; City Traffic Engineer Rick Perez; Deputy City Attorney Karen Kirkpatrick; Administrative Assistant II Marianne Lee; and King County DDES Land Use Services Div. Engineer II Pat Simmons 1. CALL TO ORDER Councilman Dovey called the meeting to order at 5:32 pm. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES , th The June 5 2006, minutes were approved. Moved: McColgan Seconded: Faison Passed: Unanimously 3. PUBLIC COMMENT None 4. BUSINESS ITEMS A. 2007-2012 Transportation Improvement Plan Adoption - Presentation Rick Perez provided the background information on this item. Staff recommends Option 1. Committee Member Faison asked when the TIP has to be completed. Mr. Perez responded that staff must have it transmitted'to the State and the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) by July 3151. Committee Member Faison asked if the Council wanted to revise the Comprehensive (comp) Plan to reflect different priorities, which would in turn result in the revision of the TIP, how would that process take place? When could it take place? Mr. Perez said that it would require an amendment to the Comp Plan. How quickly that can be done depends on the scope of the analysis being requested. Staff has the ability to amend the six-year TIP at any time. Committee Member Faison asked, if we were talking a pretty substantial change in the Comp Plan, what is staffs estimate on how long that would take? Mr. Perez said staff is currently funded to do a model update and that will probably take the remainder of the year so any analysis that was done that would be dependent on the latest traffic forecasts (forecasts are developed by staff using the travel demand model) would probably not be able to occur until the beginning of next year. Committee Member Faison asked ifit would be part of next year's Comp Plan amendment process. Mr. Perez answered, realistically, yes. Committee Member Faison asked how much would an on-ramp at 312th, a complete revision of the interchange, including the overpass at 320th cost. Mr. Perez said that staffs last estimate was about a $150 million dollars to do either of the alternatives proposed in the City Center Access study. That figure would probably be quite a bit higher if staff updated that cost estimate now. Committee Member Faison next asked how extensive a review was done to identify non-motorized capital means. Mr. Perez said that primarily the non-motorized portion of the TIP is driven by what is in the capital improvement program in the transportation element of the Comp Plan. Staff goes through the plan and G:\LUTClLUTC Agendas and Summaries 2006\06-19-06 LUTC Minutes FINALdoc Land Use/Transportation Committee Page 2 June 19th, 2006 identifies missing links in the non-motorized system that's proposed in the Comp Plan. Committee Member Faison said the Council has talked several times about the idea of amending Federal Way's Comp Plan to reflect less focus on widening of streets and widening of intersections more concentration on pedestrian orientation and making connections between streets that could serve as the basis for reducing traffic on other streets. One question Council Member Faison posed to his colleagues is: [s that something we would be interested in doing further exploration of as part of next year's Comp Plan amendment process or do we want to just continue this as usual? Committee Member McColgan said the city does a lot on its major intersections and trying to create better traffic flow. How about things like grid roads and connections? Mr. Perez responded that the way staff has been addressing that historically is that staff assumes that if an intersection is failing, as in the case of the 352nd extension by Lowe's where there is also failure at 348th & Enchanted, 348th & SR99, 356th & Enchanted, and 356th & SR99, the 352nd extension would divert traffic from all those intersections. So staff would assume that that, for instance on the concurrency requirement, it would be five points if you have an existing failure. Staff assumes that because that extension helps alleviate the problem that it gets the five points as well. Staff does try to address those by saying that if an extension helps mitigate a concurrency problem then it's going to get the same points as if staff were doing the improvement at the intersection. There is some judgment by staff about what's going to get the biggest bang for the buck. Historically that has been on the intersection improvement projects. Currently staff tries to maintain adequate time for a pedestrian to cross in their capacity analysis. As you add lanes, you need to add more time for pedestrians to cross. That frequently runs counter to the capacity improvement you are trying to achieve by adding lanes. But, anytime you are buying large pieces of ROW in order to punch a street through it's not going to score as well, in the short tenn, for benefit cost. That is really what's been hurting some of the proposed street improvements. Cary Roe said that staff also takes into account what the potential is from a developer perspective. Another street that staff thinks is akin to 3520d (staff is very interested in 3520d and it's on the TIP) is 10th extension from SW Campus Drive to 21st. There is a lot of residential activity up there and it is being done in parts and pieces, as the development occurs. 3520d is an area that is in the process of redeveloping. So, I think there will be some push in the economic development arena that will help facilitate the extension of 352nd, for instance, and/or 10th, between Campus and 2151. Both of those projects are also on the TIP so it's not the fact that they're not there, it's a question of where do you invest the money. Cary Roe said that the question is "What is your prescribed level of service?" What's driving the projects is Level of Service (LOS). It is: how much delay is associated with that particular location and what's the remedy? Is it turn lanes, is it through lanes... those occur at intersections and make them wider. Rick's comment about pedestrian crossings starts hurting you at some point. The more lanes you put in the further the distance they have to travel. What follows behind that is, when the intersections can't get any bigger you start increasing corridors. But, if you look at projects on the TIP they are on the two main East-West corridors. That's how you access 1-5 from our city, from 320th & 348th. That's where these HOV lanes are being proposed and that's where these large intersections are occurring- because that's where your volume is. Mr. Roe thinks it would be appropriate if staff brought back this topic, narrowed to the issue of LOS, what might the TIP list look like if you were to make some assumptions about lowering that level of service. That would help better inform the Council about what the options and alternatives are. Mr. Roe thinks that the TIP is reaching a point where almost every project on it is driven by LOS. If Council is going to shorten the list and focus its funds elsewhere then the LOS will have to be lowered. What comes with that is increased accident history. It's a series of trade offs and the Council will benefit from discussions on the topic. If the Council so directs, staff would work to that end on the work plan that Mr. Perez is doing for the 2030 forecast with the transportation model and bring that back in the first part of 2007 saying "here's what your list would look like" if you considered a lower LOS. Staff would also look into answering the question 'what's the process?' does it have to be a Comp Plan amendment to lower your LOS? Mr. Roe said he thinks there are a variety of issues that are on point with this question and, if the Council is generally interested, that would be a good topic for staff to bring back in the next 30-60 days. G:\LUTClLUTC Agendas and Summaries 2006\06-19-06 LUTe Minutes FINAL. doc Land Useffransportation Committee Page 3 June 19th, 2006 Council Member Faison said he wants to make sure he's not the only one who's interested in the topic and in having staff do research. He added that it is not just a LOS question; it's also one of prioritization. Does the Council take the short term view or the long term view? A good example on this list is 320m & 1-5 City Center Access (item 1 b) and the spending of$3 million dollars to add additional turn lanes on 1-5. That $3 million dollars also could go towards the $150 million to build a new on-ramp. Look at items 4 & 6. They combine for a total of$13 million dollars to make improvements on 320m, That money could also be used in creating a new onramp that would alleviate some of the traffic on 3201h. Between those few projects there is $15 million dollars and it's a start towards partnering with the State or the Fed's in making other improvements. So it is not just a LOS issue, it's also how do you go about prioritizing. The last thing Council Member Faison brought up is a lack of focus on the non-motorized portion. He recognized that this is all based off of concurrency requirements, accident histories, but he thinks the Council should look further beyond those as well and look at some of the things that go more towards quality of life as well. Quality oflife things are totally not on the list and somewhere those sorts of things need to appear. Council Member Burbidge said she has also had some background conversations with staff about this issue. She would like to see some alternatives presented at Council. She understands the investment, the cost- effective features Council and staff have been keeping in mind. Council wants to have increasing pedestrian traffic and bicycle traffic and non-motorized of various kinds. Increasing the size of so many intersections is really problematic in that regard. She does not want the City to be investing funds in intersections and roadways in such a way that we later regret that investment and find the City unable to reasonably change to a different format. Council Member McColgan said he supports what Council Member Faison and Council Member Burbidge have said: it's a good idea to take a look. He has looked at Council's desire to develop the downtown core. We talk a lot about retail and adding condominiums downtown and right now, it's a difficult stretch, talking about 320th. Can we afford to continue our vision of creating jobs, and residences, and denser downtown with our current traffic arterial streets? It is great to have a vibrant, dense, lifestyle center and downtown core. Council Member McColgan is still concerned about whether or not Federal Way streets can handle the added impact of extra cars and extra traffic. Chair Dovey said it sounds like Council is not going to change the TIP as it is now but is going to ask to have different alternatives in the future because of timing. A specific question he has has to do with City Center Access Phase II. The City has spent half a million dollars, has $200,000 in the budget, and has $2.8 million coming up. The City is not that far away from the next budget year and part of that money was earmarked; we could spend it if we got matching grants. Where are we at on the update? Is anything on the horizon or are we going to end up reallocating that money in another year or so? Cary Roe responded that two arenas best lend themselves to this project. One is the PSRC regional pot and we just put our Phase IV project in. Early indications are we asked for $7 million and, we'll be getting $2 million towards that project. So, you get this issue where you end up competing with yourself. There has been an emphasis on SR99; this is the last phase ofSR99 and staff has concentrated the regional money on that project. Mr. Roe was thinking about City Center Access for that same regional funding. There is no way the City would win both projects (SR99 Phase IV and City Center Access). Staff felt that SR99 had a better chance because of the continuity of the investment in the corridor to date plus it completes the gap that we would have if we did not do Phase N. The next cycle, when PSRC money is up, is 2-3 years and that will be a project that will be thrust in that location. The other arena is TIB but it [the City Center Access Phase II project] does not lend itself very well to Trn because it is on the freeway system. Again, how many projects do you put in to compete with yourself against? Those are the two arenas for funding and I would say the regional PSRC funds are probably set up the best to compete well with the other regional projects. But it is, as we've seen in the last cycle that just came out Friday, it's the large projects that win. It's the 520's, the viaducts, 1-405: those are the projects that are getting the money. Federal Way's ability to compete at a city level with those large projects is becoming more and more difficult. Our corridor project was the top project the last three cycles out - ahead of every other project in the region - we dropped 20 points from last time's score to this time's score. We asked for $7 million we got $2 G:\LUTC\LUTC Agendas and Summaries 2006\06-19-06 LUTC Minutes FINAL.doc ----- ----------~ Land UselTransportation Committee Page 4 June 19th, 2006 million, and we barely got the two. We were well on our way to getting zero. We had some key people who were also partners on the SR99 corridor project and sat on the RPEC committee that got us that $2 million dollars. It's getting tougher and tougher to find grant money for our projects let alone competing with 1-405 and some of the others. I think the City Center Access study is going to do better in that kind of an arena and staff intend to submit that at the next opportunity to the regional fund, when it presents itself which is roughly two years out. Mr. Perez said the current opportunity for City Center Access is a Federal discretionary grant that staff did submit for under the Transportation, Community, and System Preservation program which is pretty much a direct earmark. Staff will see how that shakes out. The Federal funding picture is pretty tight and, as Cary was describing, we are also competing against ourselves in that arena because we also submitted a discretionary request towards the Triangle Project which our elected officials are probably more familiar with and have supported in the past. Mr. Perez thinks it is in the best interest of the City Center in the long run to provide another alternative access to the city center from the freeway system. The City cannot rely on a single arterial at 320th to feed the city center for the density that is being proposed. Chair Dovey asked about looking at grid roads versus intersections. As he thinks about it long term that's probably a good solution but in the short term, because everything is so integral from going from the Twin Lakes area to the freeway, the minute you stop improving the intersections and start putting grid roads in it would stop the flow that goes to the freeway. Most of those grid roads are going to affect the downtown core. Until we have something to build in the core the need is to concentrate on getting the people to the freeway. Council Member Kochmar said she's really not clear and he really did answer her question but perhaps he could elaborate a little further. How much development can occur downtown if, in fact, there is not another access? Mr. Perez said the answer to that depends in part on the LOS the Council is willing to accept, on 320th in particular. For instance, the south-bound off-ramp ofI-5 is right at capacity right now. But, because we have such close signal spacing, when you get off of the freeway onto 320th it's very difficult to flush all that traffic out. The part of that project that would add the second left turn lane and the third right turn lane at that off- ramp is specifically to address that short-term issue so staff can continue developing the City Center while trying to develop the support for a larger project. So, it's an interim fix although the need for it wouldn't necessarily go away, in fact the City Center Access study concluded that was going to be an integral component of the long term need to address that. But, 320th is still going to be the primary access point for a lot of people regardless of whether we put another access point at 312th or 324th or anywhere. Because of freeway access, because it's centrally located with the City's retail base, people want to use 320th. Council Member McColgan asked, if the City widens the bridge over 1-5, does your LOS go from an E to a D, or even that much? Council just heard staff mention all the money we just spent on the new south-bound ramp improvements and it's already at capacity. Mr. Perez said the 320th ramp was reconstructed by WSDOT simply because they had to realign it a bit to fit in the direct access ramp at 317th. It was just realignment; it did not improve capacity. Mr. Perez also said it's something of a resource issue. No funding source has enough funding available all at once for these large projects. You have to do it in phases. Mr. Perez said it is frustrating for staff as well as the Council. Moved: McColgan Seconded: Faison Passed: Unanimously Committee PASSED Option 1 on to the July 18th, 2006 City Council Consent Agenda. Cary Roe asked for clarification from the discussion. Does Council want staff to bring back the question of LOS and priorities and what the TIP may look like if you considered some of those in a future meeting? Chair Dovey said he thought the committee would want to have at Land Use the discussion on grid roads and priorities. He does not think it's something that they would like to see in July or August but they do want it on the calendar sometime before the end of the year so they can at least plan for the following year. GILUTOLUTC Agendas and Sununaries 2006106-19-06 LUTC Minutes FINAL.doc -------- Land Use/Transportation Committee Page 5 June 19th, 2006 B. CTR Grant Agreement Amendment Moved: Faison Seconded: McColgan Passed: Unanimously Committee PASSED Option 1 on to the July 5th. 2006 City Council Consent Agenda. C. Maggie's Meadow Preliminary Plat Andy Bergsagel, Associate Planner, provided the background information on this item. Staff recommends Option 1. Chair Dovey asked about when the road connects in the future. [4th Avenue S would connect to 3rd Avenue Sat the north end of the property.] Would that only happen if the adjacent property [to the west] redevelops? Mr. Bergsagel said yes. Chair Dovey asked is the property developer in the adjacent property going to bear all the costs of that connection or will some of it be sent back to the original plat holder? Mr. Bergsagel deferred that question to the Traffic Division. Mr. Roe said if it was in the Comp Plan for connectivity it would likely fall on the shoulders of the developer of that adjacent property to make the connection. How that affected them from a nexus perspective (was it too burdensome) may preclude the connection but that would be an initial start on staffs part. That's the connection where it should be and we look at what the impacts to the property are and if it was too much maybe reconsider that. Generally, it would fall on the adjacent property owner to make the connection. Chair Dovey said if Council is going to be looking at grid roads they should be looking at it more universally. The City has a lot of property like this that's developed and there are these future connections that have come here and they're not going to happen until the next property develops and that could be something we want to look at because it causes more traffic on an intersection in stead of connecting. Mr. Roe said that often what happens in these situations, particularly residential connections, is that they don't want them. Council has experienced this with Ventana. Street connectivity issues in a residential neighborhood, where an adjacent property develops and staff suggests making the road connection, often have both the citizens and the council against making the connection. Chair Dovey said that if people obey the speed limits and the City does not have to put in speed humps it does alleviate traffic congestion, potentially. Mr. Roe agreed and said that's why you see it in the Comp Plan as policy about street connectivity. There is a significant portion of Federal Way that was built with that not in mind. A lot of dead-end streets, and no through connectivity. But Mr. Roe said that when that plat is in front of the Council and residents who live in the existing plat loudly suggest to Council not to make that connection whereas from a street connectivity and from a traffic flow & distribution perspective it makes a lot of sense. Chair Dovey said he understands that but there is also a fairness issue too between the person who's developing now and the person who has to come later. If the one who comes later has to put the improvements in then, because the other one got there fIrst and did not do it, there is more burden on the guy who comes second. And, again, we're not making our traffic flow. Committee Member McColgan asked Kathy McClung where the City currently is on its tree retention policy. Ms. McClung said it is on the list of the priorities for the planning commission this year. The on-call planner has started working on it. However, because the City lost a Senior Planner last week she has been pulled from that project temporarily to fill in until staff can hire somebody to fill the open position. It is being worked on. Chair Dovey said he does not have a problem moving this item ahead but asked about #5 where it says "Wildlife & Habitat" it says "no wildlife specific recognized"... Chair Dovey says he has to believe that any place that is being developed now has wildlife. It may not be endangered or specific but it is going to effect the migration of whatever birds are there and bring more crows or whatever it is. Moved: McColgan Seconded: Faison Passed: Unanimously Committee PASSED Option 1 on to the July 51\ 2006 City Council Consent Agenda. D. Northlake Ridge Division 3 Final Plat Approval Chair Dovey introduced this item and noted it is unique because it's a King County plat under Federal Way G:\LUTClLUTC Agendas and Summaries 2006\06-19-06 LUTC Minutes FINAL.doc ---~ ------ Land Use/Transportation Committee Page 6 June 19th, 2006 jurisdiction. Greg Fewins introduced Pat Simmons, from King County. Mr. Simmons provided the background information on this item and recommends Option 1. Committee Member Faison asked, under King County, when a lot is zoned R4, what is the maximum number of units that can be built on an R4 - outside of any 'cluster' subdivision? Mr. Simmons said that typically four units per acre is an R4 zone. Now, you can cluster, based on the fact that you have a critical area or a sensitive area on that particular lot so that lots can actually end up being smaller. King County also has a program called the Transfer of Developmental Credits Program where you can buy developmental credits from areas in rural King County that are basically undevelopable, they are critical areas: wetlands or steep slopes or whatever. These are recorded with the County and then the developer can increase his density above what the base is up to 150%. This particular plat has seven additional lots that were approved because of that program. Chair Dovey asked: Is lot averaging used in this? Mr. Simmons said it was. There is a significant critical area in the middle of the lower development there. If you look at your maps, where it says 'c' on the front page, that is a critical area wetland and therefore the lots were allowed to be smaller based on that Chair Dovey asked Ms. McClung, under Federal Way code, if this had been Federal Way, they probably would not have gotten as many lots as they did because Federal Way does not average. Ms. McClung said that Federal Way does not have a provision for lot averaging however there are other types of allowances when there is a critical area on the property. It is Ms. McClung's thought that King County allows lot averaging even when there is not a critical area. Mr. Simmons said if you have Right of Way (ROW) dedication and detention facilities, you know, King County just takes... if you have 10 acres, R4 zoning, you can have 40 lots; it's pretty basic. Whether some of that is used as detention area, ROW, or whatever, is kind of up to the developer. It is kind of a lot averaging that every lot is not 10,000 or so many square feet but it is not typically what we would consider lot averaging. Chair Dovey asked if this developer had come to Federal Way and said "I want to do this", would they have been able to do it under Federal Way's code (as opposed to King County code)? Ms. McClung said it would probably not have been exactly like this. Greg Fewins said the biggest difference is that the County goes off of gross acreage while the City of Federal Way goes off of net acreage after they take out Right of Way (ROW), detention ponds, and open spaces, and things like that. Chair Dovey suggested then that a developer would rather develop in King County than in Federal Way if they wanted to maximize development on their land. Mr. Fewins agreed with that, from a density standpoint. Chair Dovey said that the Council might want to have a discussion on this issue at LUTC sometime in the future. Mr. Roe said that it goes beyond the density standpoint. There are a lot of other issues about King County Code that are more favorable to the developer in regards to street cross sections. Whether you have street lights, whether you have planter strips, whether you have street trees, whether you have roll curbs, vertical curbs, width of the street, street connectivity... he said he could go on for about 20 minutes detailing other issues. There is a lot more than just density issues associated with the developer's desire or not to develop under the City's code versus King County code. There are quite a few issues there. Moved: Faison Seconded: McColgan Passed: Unanimously Committee PASSED Option 1 on to the July 5th, 2006 City Council Consent Agenda. E. King County Policy Update Kathy McClung provided the background information for this item. Staff recommends Option 1. IfLUTC moves to ratify this it will go to the full City Council for adoption. Council Member McColgan said that both of these proposed changes (the addition of 30 acres to Kent's P AA and allowing another Urban Center to be developed on the south end of Lake Union) really don't have an impact directly on our City but he understands that from a County standpoint Federal Way needs to approve it Does it impact Federal Way if they decide that South Lake Union, with all of its development, is deemed an urban center? Council Member Faison said that he sits on Growth Management Plan Council (GMPC). Both of these came before the GMPC and are being forwarded here, At that body Council Member Faison says he has many times G,ILUTClLUTC Agendas and Sununaries 2006\06-19-06 LUTC Minutes FINAL.doc Land Use/Transportation Committee Page 7 June 19th, 2006 commented on the criteria for Urban Center designation. There is going to be a review. It's going to be broader than just looking at "Should a new Urban Center be designated?" It's going to look at issues such as: which of the existing urban centers are achieving some of the goals of the Urban Center designation (of which Federal Way is not)? Should they reprioritize funds that would be allocated to Urban Centers to those that are "Super Regional Urban Centers" which is what South Lake Union probably is, given the number of jobs and housing being built? Bellevue's downtown, and then other urban centers, including Federal Way. So, eventually it does come down to money, People want to be designated because it adds points in certain transportation criteria. It is being looked at, both at PSRC and GMPC as to what criteria we actually want to use. It does have an impact on us eventually. Council Member McColgan said he would think that as they started to divvy up the pie some more in points, then eventually smaller urban centers may lose out. Chair Dovey said Federal Way has always voted for them but if you think about it, it says here that an urban center has to have 15,000 jobs within a half mile of a transit center, 50 employees per gross acre and a minimum average of 15 households per acre. Federal Way does not meet at least the first two in its Urban Center. He referenced exhibit C, page 2 of 2. He suggested that one day in the future somebody's going to say 'We've got all these Urban Centers, here's the criteria, who doesn't meet it? Council had that presentation on the 2020 Vision a month ago where they are reviewing where these places are and how things will be done. Federal Way may ultimately be putting a nail in the coffin of our Urban Center 10, 15,20 years down the line because we said we don't care if South Lake Union gets one. Council Member Faison responded by saying that the criteria that are set out, which Federal Way does not meet and South Lake Union does meet, were adopted by Federal Way. Council Member Faison said that Federal Way operates within the region. What happens when Federal Way wants something and Seattle, who has a lot of votes in a lot of places, says 'wait, Federal Way didn't vote in favor of our designation, meeting the criteria for which they voted to support and which they took advantage of... It looks really disingenuous. It could be problematic for Federal Way politically down the road. Chair Dovey said being problematic and being what is right for the City are two different things. Council Member Faison said it's being right for the City long-term. He suggested Council needs to look at the criteria and concentrate on Federal Way achieving these criteria by doing economic development efforts. Ms. McClung reminded Council Members of the housing targets discussion where Federal Way, sitting around the table with all the cities of King County, was in the position of having to significantly reduce its housing targets in order to have something that was even realistic. It really depended on the cooperation of Seattle, and others, to take what Federal Way could not supply. Moved: Faison Seconded: McColgan Passed: 2 to 1 Committee PASSED Option 1 on to the July 5th, 2006 City Council Consent Agenda. 5. FUTURE MEETINGS The next scheduled meeting will be July 17th, 2006. 6. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 6:40 p.m. G:\LUTCILUTC Agendas and Summaries 2006\06-19-06 LUTC Minules FINAL.doc ------------- COUNCIL MEETING DATE: August 1,2006 ITEM CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL SUBJECT: Regional Solid Waste Planning Issues Update - Waste Export System Plan POLICY QUESTION: Should the City Council endorse the Waste Export System Plan Recommendations at a future date? COMMITTEE: LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE MEETING DATE: July 17, 2006 CATEGORY: [8J Consent 0 Ordinance 0 Public Hearing 0 City Council Business 0 Resolution 0 Other ~!~!!,_~!,-Q~!_~Y:_~l?~y~~g!~l?~!_~l?!~~_~~~_~~__~__~~<::y<::lil1,g~()g_~<!~~_____E_~~_~~_~~~~:_~~~~~______________ Attachments: LUTC Memorandum; Preliminary Waste Export System Plan Recommendations For over 2 years, suburban cities and King County have engaged in a regional planning effort focusing on: . Pending closure ofthe King County-operated Cedar Hills landfill, . Potential export of solid waste to distant landfills, and . Infrastructure upgrades for the existing King County-operated waste transfer system. Suburban cities staff is also participating in non-binding negotiations to improve the existing Solid Waste Interlocal Agreement (SWIA) in how it sets respective roles for cities and the County in the system. These informal discussions may result in potential amendments to the SWIA that would be brought before the City Council for consideration at a later date. At the July 17, 2006 LUTC meeting, staff representing the King County Solid Waste Division, the lead agency in this planning effort, will provide a presentation on the overall solid waste planning issues, and the upcoming decision-making process. This planning effort will be completed this summer, and will then factor into the update of the County's Solid Waste Management Plan, slated for completion in 2007. Options Considered: A follow-up presentation will be made at an August 2006 LUTC meeting regarding endorsement of proposed solid waste system changes included in the Waste Export System Plan. The City Council would act on this issue at a subsequent Council Meeting. _.._. ........_____._.___.....___._..._..__._.__._........__.._.........._h.......................__..._._.................._m._._._._,.____ ....................._...............__. .....__. ...._..._............._..____.__.m....__............_......_..._._....._h.....___...__...__._._.____..,__"_.__.__________ STAFF RECOMMENDATION: For this item as an information item to the August 1, 2006 City Council Consent Agenda CITY MANAGER ApPROVAL: DIRECTOR APPROVAL: U~ Council Connnillee Council COMMITIEE RECOMMENDATION: Forward this item as an information item to the August 1, 2006 City Council Consent Agenda Jack Dovey, Chair Eric Faison, Member Dean McColgan, Member PROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION: "[ move approval of this information item on regional solid waste planning. " (BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE) COUNCIL ACTION: 0 APPROVED COUNCIL BILL # 0 DENIED 1 ST reading 0 TABLED/DEFERREDINO ACTION Enactment reading 0 MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only) ORDINANCE # REVISED - 02/06/2006 RESOLUTION # CITY OF FEDERAL WAY MEMORANDUM DATE: July 17, 2006 TO: Land Use and Transportation Committee VIA: Derek Matheson, Interim City Manager FROM: Rob Van Orsow, Solid Waste & Recycling Coordinator SUBJECT: Regional Solid Waste Planning Update - Waste Export System Plan BACKGROUND This memorandum provides the Council with an update on regional efforts to plan regional solid waste system improvements. City staff previously provided three updates on the current regional solid waste planning process to the Finance, Economic Development, and Regional Affairs Committee, covering topics such as: . Pending closure of the King County-operated Cedar Hills landfill, . Potential export of solid waste to distant landfills, and . Infrastructure upgrades for the existing King County-operated waste transfer system. For over two years, City, County, Labor, and Private Hauler representatives have provided input into four reports made to the King County Council that describe elements of the current system, options for system changes, and costs associated with various proposed "packages" for waste transfer system upgrades. The planning process itself has evolved from focusing predominately on waste export options to the interim steps and timeline needed to get the region to a point where final waste export decisions can be made. Suburban cities staff is also participating in non-binding negotiations to upgrade the existing Solid Waste Interlocal Agreement (SWIA) which sets respective roles for cities and the County in the solid waste system. These informal discussions will focus on potential dispute resolution options - including potential changes to the role of the Regional Policy Committee in dispute resolution. The discussion will result in potential amendments to the SWIA, and will conclude this summer. At this LUTC meeting, staff representing the King County Solid Waste Division, the lead agency in this planning effort, will provide a presentation on the overall solid waste planning issues, and describe the decision-making process slated to conclude this summer. These decisions will then factor into the update of the County's Solid Waste Management Plan, slated for completion in 2007. ATTACHMENT Preliminary Waste Export System Plan Recommendations - July 7, 2006 version Preliminary Waste Export System Plan Recommendations July 7, 2006 1. Transfer System Recommendation: . Recommendation- Pursue Package 1. Elements consistent with the currently adopted CSWMP will begin as soon as feasible. Other aspects will be implemented upon plan revision. . Basis- Overall, there is very little difference in the combined long term capital and operating costs between the packages. Package I is recommended because it offers the most operational flexibility and the lowest operating costs. This analysis was done assuming current recycling levels. If a higher level is achieved, such as a 60% recycling rate, the transfer system would still need to manage approximately I million tons of waste annually and transfer station improvements would still be required. 2. Public-Private Options: . Recommendation- Maintain public sector as primary provider oftransfer service. Disposal service will be privatized on closure of Cedar Hills. Decisions on intermodal service - public or private development and operation of intermodal services ~ will be made in consultation with stakeholders no sooner than five years before implementation. . Basis- Private services would be procured via contract and those contracts would contain the same requirements which would be placed on the public sector. As confirmed by the private haulers, under those conditions, there is no cost advantage to privatization. 3. Cedar Hills Landfill Capacity: . Recommendation- Revise Cedar Hills Site Development Plan. Seek to maximize capacity subject to environmental constraints, relative cost to operate, and community interests. . Basis- Operation of Cedar Hills is significantly less expensive than waste export. The 2004 recycling rate was 43%. Ifthe region could achieve a 60% recycling rate between 2009 and 2015, an additional1.1 million tons of materials would be diverted from the landfill. This would add approximately one year of life to the landfill. Weare exploring opportunities for taking advantage of additional available landfill capacity to extend the life of this cost-effective disposal option. Prior to selecting an option, additional environmental review, community involvement and technical study will be done. 4. Long Haul Transport Options: . Recommendation- Based on current economics and other local experience, rail transport appears most likely, however the final decision can be made closer to the time of export. . Basis- Transportation costs fluctuate with energy costs. This could potentially change the economICS. 5. ' /ntermodal Facilities: . Recommendation- This decision will be made approximately five years before implementation. The division will continue to monitor local intermodal capacity and retain the Fisher Property on Harbor Island as a potential option. . Basis- Availability oflocal intermodal capacity has fluctuated recently, with new capacity recently becoming available and the possibility for additional capacity in the near future. An early decision may foreclose other, better options including partnering with other jurisdiotions. 6. Sensitivity Analysis (Early Export): . Recommendation- Issue request for proposal for partial export of approximately 20% of waste stream after the reconstruction of Bow Lake is complete (approximately 2010). . Basis- Sufficient compacted waste would be available to test the market to see if early export is more cost effective than continuing to use Cedar Hills exclusively. The evaluation of costs will include consideration of offsetting advantages to reducing waste to Cedar Hills and extending its life. COUNCIL MEETING DATE: August 1,2006 ITEM #: -~.~.-. ....... __..~. ................n . ...__.....__....__._......... ..............n. ........... ..... ....... .............._ ........ ._.............__.~.._ ....._....._......~ ..............--........... ................................-......---_..-... ........... ......_._._.__..-~.-.-._..-_._.. CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL SUBJECT: Grant Funding for Transportation Improvement Projects POLICY QUESTION: Should City Council authorize staff to submit grant applications for transportation improvement projects? COMMITIEE: Land Use and Transportation Committee MEETING DATE: July 17,2006 CATEGORY: [8J Consent 0 Ordinance 0 Public Hearing 0 City Council Business 0 Resolution 0 Other -' DEPT: Public Works ~!~!':!~!Q~!,~_y:_M~~_~_~!!g~!!l:1_~!!:~~~~y~~~J\~:!~~~L_ . _...._..__.__._~_._._._._..._.._.__....____._m_..___..._._H.___....__.____._...__._~._____._ Attachments: LUTC Memorandum; Grant Funding for Transportation Improvement Projects. Options Considered: 1. Authorize staff to submit a grant funding application for the following transportation improvement projects: . Pacific Highway at S356th Street Intersection Improvements . S348th Street HOV Lanes - SR99 to 9th Ave South 2. Modify the project for which staff should submit a grant-funding application. 3. Do not submit any grant funding application for these projects in 2006. _.__.__......_....____.._________.....___.__..__...__............__..__.._..._._._.__.__._..__._____......._..._.__....__.____.._.__._......___....____....._.....____._____.___.__._...__....__.._..._.._.....__.__.__.__..____....__...m...._.._ STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Option #1; authorize staff to submit a grant funding application for the following transportation improvement projects: Pacific Highway at S356th Street Intersection Improvements & S348th Street HOV Lanes - SR99 to 9th Ave So CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: DIRECTOR ApPROVAL: ~ Council Conunittee Council COMMITIEE RECOMMENDATION: Forward Option 1 to the August 1St, 2006 City Council Consent Agenda for approval. Authorize staff to submit a grant funding application for the following transportation improvement projects: Pacific Highway at S356th Street Intersection Improvements & S348th Street HOV Lanes - SR99 to 9th Ave South Jack Dovey, Chair Eric Faison, Member Dean McColgan, Member PROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION: HI move approval to authorize staff to proceed with submitting grant funding application for the following transportation improvement projects: Pacific Highway at S356th Street Intersection Improvements & S348/h Street HOV Lanes - SR99 to <jh Ave South (BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE) COUNCIL ACTION: 0 APPROVED COUNCIL BILL # 0 DENIED 1 ST reading 0 TABLEDIDEFERREDINO ACTION Enactment reading 0 MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only) ORDINANCE # REVISED - 02/06/2006 RESOLUTION # ---- --- --- CITY OF FEDERAL WAY MEMORANDUM DATE: July 17,2006 TO: Land Use and Transportation Committee VIA: Derek Matheson, Interim City Manage, ~ FROM: Marwan Salloum, P.E., Street Systems Manager . ......... SUBJECT: Grant Funding for Transportation Improvement Projects BACKGROUND This memorandum provides the Council with the current funding availability of new grant funding programs for transportation projects. Staff has evaluated all projects listed on the City's Six Year Transportation Improvements Plan (TIP) and concluded that the following project will likely be competitive in the 2008 Transportation Improvement Board (Till) Funding Program. Project (Funding Phase) Estimated Possible Grant Required Grant Project Cost Fund City Match Pacific mghway At S356th Street Intersection Improvements (Design, Right of Way and Construction) 2008 Urban Corridor Program (Till) $7.0 $4.2 $2.8 S348th Street HOV Lanes - SR99 to 9th Ave South (Design, Right of Way and Construction) 2008 Urban Corridor Program (Till) $4.3 $2.58 $1.72 ----------- COUNCIL MEETING DATE: August 1,2006 ITEM CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL SUBJECT: South 348th Street HOV Lanes Project (SR99 to 91h Ave S) - 30% Design Status Report POLICY QUESTION: Should the Council authorize staff to proceed with design of the South 3481h Street HOV Lanes Project (SR99 to 9th Ave S) and return to the Council at the 85% design completion for further reports and authorization? COMMITTEE: Land Use and Transportation Committee MEETING DATE: July 17, 2006 CATEGORY: IX! Consent 0 Ordinance 0 Public Hearing D City Council Business 0 Resolution D Other ~!_~!,:_~~!Q.!.t~_~y: ~~~~~~~lJ~!!~~_t!:~~!.~y.~~E:J.~_M_~~~g~E .. DEPT: Public Works ........__.._-_._.__.._-_.__._-_.._.__.._...._.....---_._.~.-._-~._-~._._..._.__._. Attachments: LUTC Memorandum; S.348th Street HOV Lanes - 30% design Status Report. Options Considered: 1. Authorize staff to proceed with the design of the S. 348th Street HOV Lanes Project (SR99 to 9th Ave S) and return to LUTC Committee at the 85% design completion stage for further reports and authorization. 2. Do not authorize staff to proceed with finalizing the present design of this project and provide direction to staff. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Authorize staff to proceed with the design of the S. Street HOV Lanes Project (SR99 to 9th Ave S) and return to LUTC Committee at the 85% design completion stage for further reports and authorization. CITY MANAGER ~ DIRECTOR ApPROVAL: ApPROVAL: ~4Yl. Conunittee Council Conunittee Council COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Forward Option 1 to the Au~st IS" 2006 City Council Consent Agenda for approval. Authorize staff to proceed with the design of the S 348 Street HOV Lanes Project (SR99 to 9th Ave S) and return to LUTC Committee at the 85% design completion stage for further reports and authorization. Jack Dovey, Chair Eric Faison, Member Dean McColgan, Member PROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION: "I move approval to authorize staff to proceed with the design of S348th Street HOV Lanes project - SR99 to. g'h Ave South and return to LUTC Committee at the 85% design completion stage for further reports and authorization" (BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE) COUNCIL ACTION: 0 APPROVED COUNCIL BILL # 0 DENIED 1 ST reading 0 T ABLEDIDEFERREDINO ACTION Enactment reading 0 MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only) ORDINANCE # REVISED - 02/06/2006 RESOLUTION # CITY OF FEDERAL WAY MEMORANDUM DATE: July 17,2006 TO: Land Use and Transportation Committee b- VIA: Derek Matheson, Interim City Manager .__ FROM: Marwan Salloum, P.E., Street Systems Manager .. ........ SUBJECT: South 348th Street HOV Lanes Project - 30% Design Status Report BACKGROUND: This project will add HOV lanes on eastbound and westbound S348th from 9th Avenue South to Pacific Highway South. This will extend the HOV lanes from the Park &Ride lot at 91h Avenue South to 1-5. The traffic signal system at 9th A venue South will be replaced to accommodate the added lanes and the traffic signal system at Pacific Highway South will be modified to accommodate the added lanes. Other improvements include curb, gutter and sidewalk, planter strips between the curb and sidewalk and drainage modifications. The following provides a brief synopsis of the progress on this project to date. Currently, the project design is approximately 30% complete, which includes the following completed tasks: . The Topographical Surveys . SEP A Submittals . Right of Way Plan . Channelization Plans . Project Design to 30% Ongoing Tasks Include: . SEP A Approval and Project Permitting . Value Engineering Study (Scheduled for the week of 7 -17 -06) . Right of Way Requirements (Property Appraisals, Review Appraisals, Negotiation and Acquisition) . Project Open house scheduled for August 2006 . Project Design to 85% This project is scheduled to go to bid in April 2007 and start construction Jime 2007 if grant funding from the State Transportation Improvement Board (Till) is obtained. PROJECT ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES: Planning and Design $500,000 ROW Acquisition 677,000 2007 Construction Cost (estimate) 2,550,000 10% Construction Contingency 255,000 Construction Management 318,000 TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $4,300,000 ----------- Land Use and Transportation Committee S 348111 Street HOV Lanes July 17, 2006 Page 2 of2 AVAILABLE FUNDING: Mitigation 641,000 Interest 35,500 TOTAL AVAILABLE BUDGET $676,500 At this time, staff anticipates obtaining Transportation Improvement Board (Tm) funds at 60% funding, or approximately $2,580,000. IfTm funding is approved this project budget will still have funding shortfall of$I,043,500. K:\LUtC\2006\07-17-06 S348th Street HOV Lanes - 30% Design Status Report.doc -----_..~ COUNCIL MEETING DATE: 1,2006 ITEM CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL SUBJECT: 26th A venue SW Drainage Replacement Project -(CIP # 304-3100-253)- 50% Design Status Report POLICY QUESTION: Should the Council authorize staff to proceed further with design of the 26th Avenue SW Drainage Replacement Project and return to the Council at 85% design completion for further reports and authorization? COMMITTEE: LUTC MEETING DATE: July 17,2006 CATEGORY: IZI Consent 0 Ordinance 0 Public Hearing 0 City Council Business 0 Resolution 0 Other ~~~~.I!~};~Q!!~_~:R.!:l~l~:~:':I:~!~L~-=~:'l..~.~~f~~t::__~!:l!t::~_M~.r.!!:lgt:: .._ DEPT: Public Works ...... ---.-..--.-.---.--....-...-.....-.-.-.--.-.......-..---.. Attachments: Memorandum to the Land Use and Transportation Committee dated July 17, 2006. Options Considered: 1. Authorize Surface Water Management staff to proceed with design of the 2(/h Avenue SW Drainage Replacement Project and return to the LUTC Committee at the 85% design completion stage for further reports and authorization. 2. Do not authorize staff to continue with the project and provide direction to staff. ~______.m._.__M_______...____.._.._........._......._....._......._._____._.___.__.._._.._........__......__.........._._ ... ...... ..._......_.._......_........._......___.......~..~_~_....._._..__._._.._.........._..._._.....__..._.._M...__m._.._._.__.__.... ....._.._..._..m__..."_._.~._....__.______...._......_.._.m.._.. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends forwarding 0 to the August I, 2006 Council Consent Agenda for approval. CITY MANAGER ApPROVAL: DIRECTOR ApPROVAL: /h~ Council Committee Council COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Forward staff recommendation for Option 1 to the August 1,2006 City Council Consent Agenda. Jack Dovey, Chair Eric Faison, Member Dean McColgan, Member PROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION: HI move approval of the further design of the 2(/h Avenue SW Drainage Replacement Project and return to the LUTC Committee at the 85% design completion stage for further reports and authorization. " (BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE) COUNCIL ACTION: 0 APPROVED COUNCIL BILL # 0 DENIED 1 ST reading 0 T ABLEDIDEFERRED/NO ACTION Enactment reading 0 MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only) ORDINANCE # REVISED - 02/06/2006 RESOLUTION # ------ ---- ---- ------~ CITY OF FEDERAL WAY MEMORANDUM DATE: July 17, 2006 TO: Land Use and Transportation Committee VIA: Derek Matheson, Interim City Manager FROM: Paul A. Bucich, P.E., Surface Water Manag@ SUBJECT: 261h Avenue SW Drainage Replacement Project - (CIP # 304-3100-253) - 500/0 Design Status Report BACKGROUND: On May 16, 2006, the Council authorized SWM to commence the design for the 261h Avenue SW (304-3100- 253) Trunk Replacement Project and report back to council at the 50% design stage. This project will replace approximately 2,300 lineal feet of undersized/deficient drainage located along 26th Avenue SW between SW323rd to SW325th Streets and SW327th to SW3334th Streets in 2007. The project design is approximately 50% complete, which includes the following completed tasks: . Topographical Survey and Mapping . Hydrological and Hydraulic Analysis . Verified that other than a city R.O.W. Permit, no additional permitting is required . Project design plans to 50% level Ongoing tasks include: . Processing of SEP A documentation . Coordination with utility providers to minimize impacts to existing underground utilities and coordinate relocation where conflicts are unavoidable . Project Design to 85% Level ESTIMATED PROJECT EXPENDITURES: Design $85,020 Year 2007 Construction (Estimate) $604,150 10% Construction Contingency $60,415 10% Construction Management $60,415 TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $810,000 AVAILABLE FUNDING: TOTAL A V AILABLE BUDGET $810,000 COUNCIL MEETING DATE: August 151,2006 ITEM #: - CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL SUBJECT: Mark Twain NTS - 20lh Avenue S (S 280lh St to S 2881h St) POLICY QUESTION: Should the Council approve the installation of traffic calming devices for the Mark Twain neighborhood and have property owners fronting 20lh Avenue S relocate any walking obstructions out of City Right-Of-Way (ROW) to improve pedestrian and vehicular safety? COMMITTEE: Land Use/Transportation Committee MEETING DATE: July 17th, 2006 CATEGORY: ~ Consent D Ordinance D Public Hearing D City Council Business D Resolution D Other STAFF REpORT By: Rick Perez, P.E., City Traffic Engineer t!i?-. DEPT: Public Works ._.._...___._.______.___._____..._..._...____.._.._._______..____...._...._..._.___.........._____._._..._..__._......_._._......___.._.__..__.....__m_..__..._______....._.__.__.__.._.._..._._._.__._.___.._._._._..__....___..______ Attachments: 1. LUTC memo dated July 17th, 2006. Options Considered: 1. Approve the installation of the proposed traffic calming devices. 2. Allow staff to contact property owners fronting 20th Avenue S and have them relocate any walking obstructions out of City Right-Of-Way. 3. Approve options 1 and 2 above. 4. Reject the proposal and provide direction to staff. .__..______.___._______.__._._.___.__......__..__.....__._......._~._..._....._............_.._....._.__.._._._......................_m.....................____.___._................_..._.....___......~._..__..__._._.____.._..._mmm.._....__..__._..........._.........__.....____.....____ STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Sta CITY MANAGER ApPROVAL: DIRECTOR ApPROVAL: 61?y\' Council Conunittee CoWlCil COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: LUTC recommends Option 3 be approved and forwarded to the August 151, 2006 City Council meeting. Jack Dovey, Chair Eric Faison, Member Dean McColgan, Member PROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION: "I move approval to authorize staff to construct the proposed traffic calming devices and have property owners fronting 20th Avenue S relocate any walking obstructions out of City Right- Of- Way. " (BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE) COUNCIL ACTION: 0 APPROVED COUNCIL BILL # 0 DENIED 1 ST reading 0 T ABLEDIDEFERREDINO ACTION Enactment reading 0 MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only) ORDINANCE # REVISED.. 02/06/2006 RESOLUTION # CITY OF FEDERAL WAY MEMORANDUM DATE: July 17lh, 2006 TO: Land Use and Transportation commi~ VIA: Derek Matheson, Interim City Manag _ FROM: Rick Perez, PE., City Traffic Engineer r{P Raid Tirhi, PE., Senior Traffic Engineer SUBJECT: Mark Twain NTS - 2(jh Avenue S (S 28(jh Silo S 28Sh SI) BACKGROUND: Residents in the vicinity of 20th Avenue S between S 280th Street and S 288th Street have requested the installation of traffic calming devices in the area to control traffic speeds, minimize cut-through traffic, and to provide a safer walking path along the street especially due to the lack of sidewalks. Currently, adopted NTS installation criteria are based on a point system as follows: 0.5 0.3-0.5 0.1 500-1100 26-29 1.0 0.5-0.7 0.2 1101-1700 29.1-32 1.5 0.7-0.9 0.3 1701-2300 32.1-35 2.0 0.9-1.1 0.4 2301-2900 35.1-38 2.5 1.1-1.3 0.5 2901-3500 38.1-41 3.0 More than 1.3 More than 0.5 More than 3500 More than 41 Notes: . Each fatal collision counts as two injury collisions, . A half additional point is given for corridors fronting parks or schools or on a designated school safe walking route crossing. A traffic study indicated that the subject location had an average daily traffic volume documented at 688 vehicles per day and the 85th percentile speed was reported at 31 mph. A total of 12 accidents were reported within the last five years. The total severity score measures 4.5 points, which meets the 3.0 minimum severity score to qualify for the installation of traffic calming devices. In a neighborhood traffic safety meeting held on May 4th, 2006, the attending group requested the installation of traffic calming devices along 20th Ave S. They indicated that some drivers are July 17, 2006 Land Use and Transportation Committee - Mark Twain NTS - 20th Avenue S ( S 280th St to S 288th St) Page 20f2 running the stop signs. They raised concerns of fences and trees limiting visibility at intersections and lacking sidewalks. Therefore, to be effective in reducing speeds along 20th Ave S and to improve vehicular and pedestrian safety, the consensus was to: A) Install a speed hump between 28ih PI and S 285th St; B) Install a traffic circle at the 20th Ave S/S 284th PI intersection; C) Install a traffic circle at the 20th Ave S/S 282nd St intersection; D) Install a speed hump south ofS 280th St; and E) Have property owners fronting 20th Avenue S relocate any walking obstructions out of City Right-Of-Way (ROW) which is approximately 10 feet behind street curb. In accordance with established NTS policies, staff sent ballots to property owners and occupants within 600 feet of the proposed traffic calming device locations and also to those with the proposal located along their sole access route. The following table summarizes the ballot results: Proposal A B C D E Total lBallots Sent 53 105 64 85 307 614 Ballots Returned 25 47% 62 59% 39 61% 54 64% 90 29% 270 44% Returned w/o Response 5 10 6 8 13 42 ~es Votes 17 85% 48 92% 31 94% 41 89% 55 71% 192 84% No Votes 3 15% 4 8% 2 6% 5 11% 22 29% 36 16% One of the installation criteria requires a 51 % majority approval of the returned ballots. Based on the ballot results represented in the above table, all locations met the balloting criteria with an 84% average approval rate. The estimated cost ofthis project is approximately $12,000, which would exceed the $10,000 per neighborhood per year budget limitation policy. However, adequate budget currently exists within the NTS program to fund this proposal. cc: Project File Day File K:\LUTC\2006\07 -17 -06 Mark Twain NTS, 20s282.doc __ _________u_ ------ COUNCIL MEETING DATE: August 15"2006 ITEM #: - CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL SUBJECT: Sherwood Forest NTS _12th Ave SW_13th Way SW (SW 346th St to SW 354th St) POLICY QUESTION: Should the Council approve the installation of traffic calming devices for the Sherwood Forest neighborhood? COMMITTEE: Land Use/Transportation Committee MEETING DATE: July 17th, 2006 CATEGORY: [gJ Consent D Ordinance D Public Hearing D City Council Business D Resolution D Other STAFF REpORT By: Rick Perez, P.E., City Traffic Engineer fl(f: DEPT: Public Works .____._...___...___...__.__._._~....._._..._.__.__._.__._._...__.__....._..._....__.____.~.._____..__....._._..__...__H_..._..._..__..._.__."'..._.H__.__ ... ...__.__.... ...._. .........._________._.__.__....._._~.___..__._._M......_.___......~......_._. ..H_..._...._.....__.__._ Attachments: 1. LUTC memo dated July 17th, 2006. Options Considered: 1. Approve the installation of the proposed traffic calming devices: A) A raised crosswalk at the existing school crosswalk on the south leg of SW 346 St; B) A speed table south of SW 347 St; C) A speed table south of SW 349 St; D) A speed table south of SW 350 St; and E) A speed table south of SW 353 St. 2. Reject the proposal and provide direction to staff. ._..._._...___.._.._..._._____..._.._..._..._..................H_..HH_....._....m_....___...._....H..____.~H._.._.M.....__...._....._....m...._.__...._.._..........._......__.......___..~._._........_......._.____..__...._.._...._........_..._._............_.._____....._....._...__..__.___._____..._~.__.._..._.._.._._...__._._._.H..."'.._...__ STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staf CITY MANAGER ApPROVAL: DIRECTOR ApPROVAL: ~ Council Committee Council COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: LUTC recommends Option 1 be approved and forwarded to the August 1st Council Meeting consent agenda. Jack Dovey, Chair Eric Faison, Member Dean McColgan, Member PROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION: HI move approval to authorize staff to construct the proposed traffic calming devices. " (BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE) COUNCIL ACTION: 0 APPROVED COUNCIL BILL # 0 DENIED I ST reading 0 T ABLEDfDEFERREDINO ACTION Enactment reading 0 MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only) ORDINANCE # REVISED - 02/06/2006 RESOLUTION # ------------- CITY OF FEDERAL WAY MEMORANDUM DATE: July 17th, 2006 TO: Land Use and Transportation Committee VIA: Derek Matheson, Interim City Manager FROM: Rick Perez, P.E., City Traffic Engineer 1(0 Raid Tirhi, P.E., Senior Traffic Engineer SUBJECT: Sherwood Forest NTS -l~ Ave SW_13th Way SW (SW 34Gh St to SW 354th St) BACKGROUND: A group of residents represented by the Meadow Park Homeowner's Association (HOA) have requested speed humps to be installed on 1ih Ave SW between SW 346th St and SW 350th St. The group's goal is to control traffic speeds. The Madrona Meadows HOA subsequently requested to extend the project area further south along 13th Way SW to SW 354th Street. Currently, adopted NTS installation criteria are based on a point system as follows: 0.5 0.3-0.5 0.1 500-1100 26-29 1.0 0.5-0.7 0.2 1101-1700 29.1-32 1.5 0.7-0.9 0.3 1701-2300 32.1-35 2.0 0.9-1.1 0.4 2301-2900 35.1-38 2.5 1.1-1.3 0.5 2901-3500 38.1-41 3.0 More than 1.3 More than 0.5 More than 3500 More than 41 Notes: . Each fatal collision counts as two injury collisions, . A half additional point is given for corridors fronting parks or schools or on a designated school safe walking route crossing. The study resulted in different traffic patterns north of and south of the intersection with SW 347 Street. The northern portion of the corridor had an average daily traffic volume of 1140 vehicles per day (vpd) and 1550 vpd on the south end. The 85th percentile speed was documented at 31 mph north and 32 mph on the south end. There is an existing school crosswalk within the northern portion. A total of 4 injury accidents occurred at the SW 34ih Street intersection within the last five years. Two property-only accidents and one injury accident were reported on the southern roadway segment. - July 17,2006 Land Use and Transportation Committee Sherwood Forest NTS - lth Ave SW-13th Way SW (SW 246th St to SW 354th St) Page 20f2 In a neighborhood traffic safety meeting held on May 8th, 2006, the attending group requested the installation of traffic calming devices along lih Ave SW and 13th Way SW. Therefore, to be effective in reducing speeds along the corridor and to improve vehicular and school children safety, the consensus was to construct the following: A) A raised crosswalk at the existing school crosswalk on the south leg ofSW 346 St; B) A speed table south ofSW 347 St; C) A speed table south of SW 349 St; D) A speed table south ofSW 350 St; and E) A speed table south of SW 353 St. The adopted policy allows for bypassing the balloting process when conditions are severe enough to generate a 6.0 point score. Since the northern portion of the proposal (devices A, B and C) had a 7.5 severity score, it was not balloted. On the other hand, the southern portion of the proposal had only a 3.0 severity score. Therefore, this portion must be voted on by the effected residents. In accordance with established NTS policies, staff sent ballots to property owners and occupants within 600 feet of the proposed traffic calming device locations and also to those with the proposal located along their sole access route. The following table summarizes the ballot results: Traffic Calming Device 0 E Total Ballots Sent 179 139 318 Ballots Returned 37 21% 52 37% 89 22% Returned w/o Response 9 11 20 Yes Votes 21 75% 33 80% 54 78% No Votes 7 25% 8 20% 15 22% One ofthe installation criteria requires a 51 % majority approval of the returned ballots. Based on the ballot results represented in the above table, all locations met the balloting criteria with an 78% average approval rate. The proposed traffic calming package costs approximately $18,000, $8,000 of which has already been collected from Orchid Lane development as off-site traffic mitigation. Adequate budget currently exists within the NTS program to fund this proposal. cc: Project File Day File K:\LUTC\2006\07-17-06 Sherwood Forest NTS, 13sw353.doc -------------- -- -----------~- COUNCIL MEETING DATE: August 15\ 2006 ITEM #: - .. ..--.. -.. .... _. . ..................._.._..._..._.~~.-........._....... ....-......_..... -.-...._....... .. .-.-........... ..... -... ..-... ...-..... ..................---...- ...--..........-..-....... ...... ... .-...._.- -...... . . ......._._._--..~-~. .... ............-......-..-.-..--.....-.. .. . ....... .-........-.-.....-.- CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL SUBJECT: 200612007 COMMUTE TRIP REDUCTION (CTR) AGREEMENT AMENDMENT WITH KING COUNTY POLICY QUESTION: Should the Council continue contracting with King County Metro for the Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) Program support services? COMMITTEE: Land Userrransportation MEETING DATE: July 17th, 2006 CATEGORY: [8] Consent 0 Ordinance 0 Public Hearing 0 City Council Business 0 Resolution 0 Other STAFF REpORT By: Rick Perez, P.E., City Traffic Engineer ef: DEPT: Public Works .____._.~..__.__......__.._._..._.___.____.._._..._.~._......_....~.._..~._.__..._~.._~....._._._._._.~.....__~...................._. ........_.~._._..__......._.. ......_~ ....._.____..._. ...._~_..____......_.........._..._._.....~...__.._M__._......_._...._._.....__...._....__.__...._.__...,......______... Attachments: 1. Staff report with exhibits to the LUTC dated July 171\ 2006. Options Considered: 1. Contract with King County Metro for the Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) program implementation. 2. Implement CTR as required by state law and local ordinance using in-house staff. This option would require hiring additional staff. ._._..____..._..__._...._.___.__...._._.___._.._......H__............___..___._...__.__.___._._.__._...........__..._...."._.........._..._..__...___.._.__.._.__.._......__._._._._.._......__....._....._____..__._._._._._..__............_.._.____._.____H___~ STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Option 1 be approved and forwarded to the August IS" 2006 City Council meeting consent agenda CITY MANAGER ApPROVAL: DIRECTOR ApPROVAL: th41'Z. Council Conunillee Council COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: LUTC recommends Option 1. Jack Dovey, Chair Eric Faison, Member Dean McColgan, Member PROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION: "I move approval to contract with King County Metro for the CTR implementation. " (BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE) COUNCIL ACTION: 0 APPROVED COUNCIL BILL # 0 DENIED 15T reading 0 T ABLEDIDEFERRED/NO ACTION Enactment reading 0 MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only) ORDINANCE # REVISED - 02/06/2006 RESOLUTION # CITY OF FEDERAL WAY MEMORANDUM DATE: July 17t11, 2006 TO: Land Use and Transportation Committee VIA: Derek Matheson, Interim City Manager FROM: Rick Perez, P.E., City Traffic Engineer fly Sarady Long, Traffic Engineer SUBJECT: Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) Program Agreement with King County BACKGROUND: The Washington State's Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) Law and the City's CTR ordinance require all major employers, both public and private, who employ one hundred (100) or more full-time employees who are scheduled to arrive at a single worksite between 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. to make a good faith effort as defined in RCW 70.94.534(2) and to develop plans and programs to reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and Single Occupant Vehicle (SOV) commute trips. City Hall is one of 14 employers in Federal Way that are affected by the CTR Law. In order to comply with the state CTR Law and to ensure consistency and fairness in its administration, the City entered into a Professional Services Agreement with King County. The purpose of the agreement is to delegate implementation of the CTR Act as required by state law and local CTR Ordinances to King County. The work to be performed under this agreement is described in the attached Exhibit A, Commute Trip Reduction Services Contract Scope of Work Period July 1, 2006 through June 30, 2007. Over the last 10 years the City has been contracting with King County for the CTR support services to implement the program. Staff believes this is a cost-effective relationship, as most cities have a full-time CTR coordinator. The 2006/2007 Professional Service Agreement will be fully funded by the state CTR grant. Based on the current 14 affected worksites, the City of Federal Way will receive approximately $28,226. The State CTR grant would be sufficient to fund the 2006/2007 Agreement with Metro, which is at $23,069. Please see attached Exhibit B for assumptions of state grant and expenditures. cc: Day File K:\LUTC\2006\07-17-06 memo 2006-2007 KC CTR Contracl.doc ---------- ----- Federal Way - Exhibit A Commute Trip Reduction Services Contract Scope of Work Period: July 1,2006, through June 30, 2007 Work Activities -14 current sites Schedule I. REQUIRED ACTIVITIES A. Notification of new sites As needed 1. Identify contact for potential sites 2. Send notification inquiry 3. Confirm status 4. Secure state code 5. Create timeline and legal file B. Data Management and Survey Processes First quarter and 1. Ongoing coordination of contact information and survey schedules with as necessary employers and WSDOT 2. Compilation / distribution of aggregate survey data as requested 3. Periodic survey processes and oversight of online survey process C. Program review 1. Remind employers of submittal deadlines Ordinance 2. Monitor program report receipt schedule by 3. Review revised programs for sites that did not make progress and evaluate the site potential for progress toward SOV reduction 4. Review program reports for completeness for new sites and for sites that made progress toward goal 5. Recommend action to jurisdiction 6. Generate approval letter for City signature E. Exemptions, Modifications and Compliance Issues As needed 1. Inform new sites about process and criteria 2. Receive requests and copy to City 3. Copy request to state for comment 4. Review and analyze request and provide comments to City 5. Contact employer as needed, generate and send response per City F. Records maintenance On-going 1. Maintain master file records on all affected sites 2. On a quarterly basis, provide WSDOT with hard copy of each employer program report approved within the quarter 3. Provide WSDOT with an electronic copy of the CTR database of the City's CTR-affected employers, quarterly or as required by WSDOT 4. Provide quarterly report information for jurisdiction to conduct state funds billing ------------ ----------------- II. EMPLOYER SERVICES G. Program Development As needed New Sites 1. Provide written information on basic requirements of the CTR Ordinance, CTR Zones, and an explanation of how the plan is intended to achieve its goals 2. Provide materials that explain a range of measures and activities that may help the employer achieve the CTR goals of the local ordinance 3. Assist with voluntary baseline survey. Analyze survey data and make programs recommendations. H. New ETC Consultation/Briefing As needed 1. Provide written information on basic requirements of the CTR Ordinance, CTR Zones, and an explanation of how the plan is intended to achieve its goals 2. Provide materials that explain a range of measures and activities that may help the employer achieve the CTR goals of the local ordinance I. Program Implementation Assistance As needed Provide assistance in the following categories: 1. Identify resources and implementation requirements 2. Coordinate/attend network group meetings 3. Communicate with ETCs about transportation issues, including Sound Transit, Metro Transit, Special events and items of interest (e.g.: construction and road closures, Air Quality alerts, WSRO bulletins) 4. Provide two employee awareness campaigns per year J. Training Quarterly Provide county-wide basic training to new ETCs 1. Basic Training part 1: ETC orientation 2. Basic Training part 2: Program Implementation and Promotion 3. Survey briefing 2 Federal Way -------- CITY OF FEDERAL WAY Exhibit B Period: July 1, 2006 through June 30, 2007 FUNDING State CTR Funds (estimated) $1,260 per site for Required Activities $ 17,640 $756.14 per site for Employer Services $ 10,586 TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE $ 28,226 NUMBER OF SITES 14 CTR SERVICES CONTRACT Required Activities New Site Notification / Site status change $ 101 Data Management & Survey Processes $ 3,236 Program Review & Site Analysis $ 7,035 Exemptions, Modifications and Compliance Issues $ 603 Records Maintenance $ 2,261 Total Required Activities $ 13,236 Emplover Service 1. Employer Training $ 490 2. Incentives $ 700 3. Promotions & Marketing $ 1,407 4. Other: Program Development $ 1,608 Program Implementation $ 5,628 Total Employer Service $ 9,833 CONTRACT TOTAL $ 23,069 -_.~ --~ COUNCIL MEETING DATE: August 1,2006 ITEM CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL SUBJECT: COTI AGE HOUSING CODE AMENDMENT POLICY QUESTION: SHOULD CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING CODE TO ALLOW COTIAGE HOUSING IN THE RS7.2, RS 5.0 AND RM ZONING CLASSIFICATIONS? COMMITTEE: LUTC MEETING DATE: July 17, 2006 CATEGORY: D Consent IZJ Ordinance D Public Hearing 0 City Council Business D Resolution 0 Other STAFF REpORT By: ISAAC CON LEN, SENIOR PLANNE~ DEPT: CD -.---.-...-....--.----.........-...-.-.....................-...........--..-...............--.--.....---.---.-...-...--..--........----....--...........-- ..... .-............................--...........-...-.- ... --........................--......................---.-..--.-..--_.__.._-_.._.....~...__.__..__._.__..._.._......- Attachments: Exhibit A - Staff report, Exhibit B - Draft ordinance with exhibits, Exhibit C - Minutes from Planning Commission public hearing, Exhibit D - Public comments received to-date Options Considered: 1. "Recommend that the full Council adopt an ordinance approving the proposed zoning code amendments to allow cottage housing as recommended by the Planning Commission" 2. "Recommend that the full Council adopt an ordinance approving the zoning code amendments to allow cottage housing, with modification, as determined by the LUTe. 3. "Recommend that the full Council disapprove the proposed zoning code amendments. ----.-..-.-.--......---...---...............................-..-........--..--..---...........---..-------..---...........----------....-......-..........----...-.-.................-.....-.-.--...-.--.-.-.-...-.--.--.....--.-..-.-.--.--.--.-...-..-..-.....-.-.--._.__.__._._~~.._-_.-...-.-. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: S CITY MANAGER ApPROVAL: DIRECTOR ApPROVAL: ~ Council Conunittee Council COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Committee Chair Committee Member Committee Member PROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION: "I move the proposed ordinance approving zoning code amendments to allow cottage housing to second reading and approval at the next regular meeting on August 15, 2006. " (BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE) COUNCIL ACfION: Doc. 1.0, ---~-- 0 APPROVED COUNCIL BILL # 0 DENIED 1 ST reading 0 T ABLEDIDEFERREDINO ACfION Enactment reading 0 MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only) ORDINANCE # REVISED - 02/06/2006 RESOLUTION # Doc.1.D. -.--..-- -.-- ~ CITY OF"" 4.,..,p Federal Way CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE STAFF REPORT DATE: July 3, 2006 To: Land Use/Transportation Committee (LUTe) VIA: Derek Matheson, Interim City Manager FROM: Kathy McClung, CDS Director Isaac Coni en, Senior Planner~ SUBJECT: Cottage Housing Code Amendments MEETING DATE: July 17,2006 POLICY QUESTION Should City Council adopt an ordinance amending the zoning code to allow cottage housing in the RS 7.2, RS 5.0 and RM zoning classifications? BACKGROUND On February 15,2005, the Land Use & Transportation Committee (LUTe) placed consideration of cottage housing on the Planning Commission's 2005 work program. On April 18, 2005 an informational presentation on cottage housing was made to LUTe. The committee directed staff to proceed with creation of a draft ordinance. Planning Commission conducted a cottage housing workshop on September 21,2005. The commission gave generally positive feedback on the draft ordinance and provided some additional direction to staff. On June 21, 2006, Planning Commission held a public hearing on cottage housing and following the public hearing recommended approval of the proposed zoning code amendments to allow cottage housing. The proposed code language is primarily taken from examples of existing codes, with modifications where we felt improvements could be made. Cottages in other communities including Kirkland, Redmond, Langley, Seattle and Bainbridge Island seem to have been received well. The one exception we are aware of is the City of Shoreline where the cottages have sold well but have also generated controversy regarding their compatibility with surrounding single-family development. We understand that Shoreline has repealed their cottage housing ordinance due to these concerns. SUMMARY OF CODE AMENDMENTS Proposed code amendments include creation of a new Cottage Housing Article (Article XII), amendments to FWCC 22-631, Single-Family Residential (RS) Use Zone Chart to allow cottage housing in the RS 7.2 and 5.0 zone classifications, amendments to FWCC 22-666, Multifamily Residential (RM) Use Zone Chart to allow cottage housing in the RM zoning classifications and amendments to FWCC 22-1, Definitions, to add a new definition of cottage housing development (Exhibit 1). EXHIBIT A PAGE-L-OF , ~ -~- Major Components The major components of the draft code are summarized below. . Density The minimum number of cottages permitted in the RS single-family zones is equal to twice the number of conventional dwelling units that would be permitted on the lot. In the RM multi- family zones cottage housing is permitted at one unit per 2,500 square feet of gross lot area. . Cottage Size Maximum cottage size is 1,100 square feet, 800 square feet on the ground floor. This is slightly larger than the typical examples of 900-1,000 square feet. . Site Design - 75% of units must abut a centrally located common open space area. - The common open space must have cottages on at least two sides These provisions are typical of existing codes. . Common Open Space - 500 square feet per unit - Improved for passive or active recreational use - No dimension less than 10-feet These provisions are typical of existing codes. . Private Open Space - 400 square feet per unit - No dimension less than 9-feet Intent is to ensure some usable private yard space for each individual unit. These provisions are similar to existing codes. . Cottage Design Standards - 6:12 roof pitch (up 20% ofroofarea may have a pitch not less than 4:12) - Cottages abutting public roads shall have an entrance and covered porch oriented towards the road. - All cottages shall have an entrance and covered porch oriented towards common open space. - Attached garages are not allowed except in limited circumstances. - I8-foot height, with top of roof not exceeding 24-feet. The intent of these provisions is to ensure attractive streetscapes, compatibility with adjacent uses and community oriented design. The provision requiring entries and covered porches oriented towards the public road is something new not contained in other codes we reviewed. We feel this Doc. J.D. EXHIBIT A 2 ~ PAGE 2- OF (, -- ------ ----- is a compatibility issue - ensuring that those units abutting public roads will present an attractive appearance from off-site. The rest of these provisions are typical of existing codes. . Parking - 1.8 spaces required - 15% of required spaces dedicated to visitor parking - On-street parking counted towards required parking - Size of garages and surface parking lots limited - Location of parking regulated - Surface parking lots visible from public right-of-way or adjacent residential uses screened with landscaping. These provisions are primarily intended to address compatibility issues. Again these are typical of examples in existing codes, with a few tweaks. . Compatibility The following provisions are intended to address compatibility with surrounding lower density residential development. - Locational criteria - minimum separation of 660 feet between cottage housing developments - Minimum overall site size of .75 acres - Maximum size of cottage housing developments - 12-16 cottages (in RS zones) - Maximum square footage of cottages - 1,100 square feet - Maximum height of cottages - 18-feet (24' to ridge) - Minimum roof pitch - 6: 12 - Entry and porch orientation - to public roads - Parking location and screening regulations - Requirement for Homeowner's Association to maintain common areas. All of the above regulations are unique to cottage housing and would not be requirements of a conventional subdivision. The purpose is to offset the real and/or perceived impacts associated with higher density development by regulating the form and layout of cottage housing developments to minimize impacts. . Affordable Housing The Planning Commission requested that affordable housing be encouraged on an incentive basis. The draft code contains a provision allowing up to four cottages over the base level of 12 (in RS zones) if at least 50% of the additional cottages are affordable. . Procedural Requirements Cottage housing developments may be subdivisions, with each cottage on its own lot of record or condominium developments with all cottages individually owned but located on one lot of record. In the multi-family RM zones cottage housing could also be developed as a multi-family concept, with all units on one lot of record, under one ownership (rentals). EXHIBIT A. Doc. I.D. "'- 3 PAGE 3 OF ~ ----- For those projects proposed as subdivisions, obviously they will go through the subdivision process. The process requires multiple notices, comment periods and public meetings to allow neighbors and other interested parties an opportunity for input. For this reason no additional permitting requirements are proposed. In the RS zones, cottage housing developments that are condominium projects, (with no subdivision proposed) are subject to Use Process N permitting requirements. Use Process N requires public notice and includes a public hearing before the Hearing Examiner to allow for public input. Condominium or multi-family cottage housing developments in the RM zones are subject to a less intensive permitting process, Use Process III. This is appropriate because cottage housing is a less intensive use than the multi-family uses that are already permitted in the zone through Use Process III. DECISIONAL CRITERIA FWCC Section 22-528 provides criteria for zoning text amendments. The following section analyzes the compliance of the proposed zoning text amendments with the criteria provided by FWCC Section 22-528. The City may amend the text of the FWCC only ifit finds that: 1. The proposed amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan. The proposed FWCC text amendment is consistent with the following Federal Way Comprehensive Plan (FWCP) goals and policies: HGI Preserve and protect the quality of existing residential neighborhoods and require new development to be of a scale and design that is compatible with existing neighborhood character HPI High-density housing projects, with the exception of senior housing, will not be permitted in existing single-family neighborhoods. More moderate densities such as cottage housing will be considered. HG2 Involve the community in the development of new housing to a degree that is consistent with the scale of impact on surrounding neighborhoods. HG3 Develop a Comprehensive Plan and zoning code that provide flexibility to produce innovative housing solutions, do not burden the cost of housing development and maintenance and diversify the range of housing types available in the City. HP13 Continue to use design guidelines to ensure that new infill developments have aesthetic appeal and blend into surrounding development. HPI5 Review zoning, subdivision and development regulations to ensure that they further housing policies and don't create unintended barriers. This is of particular importance for small lot and cottage housing developments. In order to facilitate small lot and cottage housing developments, it is particularly important to revise, as necessary, the subdivision and development regulations that govern their development. EXHIBIT A Ooc.I.O. . , 4 PAGE Lf OF l,; -_.._...._~ -----_.__._--------~ --..--- HP16 As appropriate, reduce minimum lot sizes to allow construction of smaller, detached single-family houses on smaller lots. HP17 Increase capacity and encourage greater diversity of housing types and costs for both infill and new development through various methods, such as inclusionary zoning, density bonuses, transfer of development rights, cluster housing, cottage housing, garden housing, duplexes and low to moderate density housing types. HP19 Increase the amount of undeveloped open spaces in both infill and new development parcels, by expanding the use of cluster development and allowing housing techniques such as lot averaging and zero lot line standards. HP20 Establish administrative procedures to permit innovative housing designs and techniques, provided they are of high standard and consistent with the FWCP. HP21 Continue to provide incentives such as density bonuses for multi-family housing, and expand the types of incentives offered to encourage new developments to include affordable housing. HP22 Periodically review and update development regulations to incorporate opportunities for new housing types. HP27 Ensure that any new affordable housing required by the City remains affordable through some tool approved by the City, such as recording a lien on the property. In the case of homeowners hip projects, the lien can be structured as a deferred second mortgage to the homebuyer, due upon sale if the subsequent buyer does not meet the income eligibility standards. 2. The proposed amendment bears a substantiai relationship to public health, safety, or welfare. The proposed text amendment bears a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, and welfare because it allows a type of housing that is currently lacking in the south King County marketplace. The housing allowed by this amendment would tend to be more affordable than many of the conventional home-ownership options, which are typical in the current market, at a time when many households find it difficult to obtain reasonably priced ownership-housing. The amendment would result in an increase in housing supply, which would benefit public welfare. The amendme.nt would result in safe and community oriented project designs, which would benefit public health and safety. 3. The proposed amendment is in the best interest ofthe residents of the City. The proposed text amendment is in the best interest of the residents of the City because it facilitates increased housing choice and opportunities, while implementing measures necessary to ensure compatibility with surrounding development. The amendment would result in creation of high-quality, functional open space in residential areas. The amendment would result in safe, attractive community- oriented projects that allow more efficient delivery of public services. The proposed amendment provides opportunities for property owners to develop infill type lots. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission conducted a study session meeting on September 21,2005, and a public hearing on June 21, 2005. At the conclusion of the June 21, 2006, public hearing, the Planning Doc. 1.0. EXHIBIT A 5 " PAGE 5 OF (p Commission forwarded a recommendation to the City Council to approve the zoning code amendment to allow cottage housing, as proposed by staff. OPTIONS 1. "Recommend that the full Council adopt an ordinance approving the proposed zoning code amendments as recommended by the Planning Commission" 2. "Recommend that the full Council adopt an ordinance approving the zoning code amendments, with modification, as determined by the LUTe. 3. "Recommend that the full Council disapprove the proposed zoning code amendments. Staff Recommendation Option 1: "Recommned that City Council adopt an ordinance approving the proposed zoning code amendments as recommended by the Planning Commission and attached as Exhibit' A' to the draft ordinance. Doc. 1.0. EXHIBIT A 6 '" PAGE ~ OF ~ -------------- ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, W ASIDNGTON, ESTABLISIDNG A NEW ARTICLE OF THE ZONING CODE, TITLED "COTTAGE HOUSING" AND AMENDING FEDERAL WAY CITY CODE (FWCC) ARTICLE I, SECTION 22-1 TO ADD A DEFINITION OF 'COTTAGE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT', AND ARTICLE XI, SECTION 22-631 AND 22-666 TO ALLOW COTTAGE HOUSING IN THE RS 7.2, RS 5.0 AND RM ZONING CLASSIFICATIONS (AMENDING ORDINANCE No. 90-43, ~ 2(3.10), 2-27-90; Ord. No. 90-51, ~~ 1, 2, 3-27-90; Ord. No. 91-87, ~~ 2 - 4, 2-5-91; Ord. No. 91-92, ~ 4, 4-16-91; Ord. No. 91-100, ~ 4, 6-4-91; Ord. No. 91-105, ~ 3, 8-20-91; Ord. No. 91-113, ~ 3, 12-3-91; Ord. No. 93-170; Ord. No. 94-223 ~ 3(A), 10-18-94; Ord. No. 95-245, ~ 3(A), 11-21-95; Ord. No. 96-269, ~ 3, 6-18-96; Ord. No. 96-270, ~ 3(A), 7-2-96; Ord. No. 97-295, ~ 3, 5-20-97; Ord. No. 97-291, ~ 3, 4-1-97; Ord. No. 97-296, ~ 3, 6-17-97; Ord. No. 97- 300, ~ 3, 9-16-97; Ord. No. 97-307, ~ 3,12-16-97; Ord. No. 99-337, ~ 2,3-2-99; Ord. No. 99-348, ~ 2, 9-7-99; Ord. No. 99-353, ~ 3,11-16- 99; Ord. No. 99-357, ~ 3,12-7-99; Ord. No. 00-363, ~ 2,1-4-00; Ord. No. 01-385, ~ 3, 4-3-01; Ord. No. 02-424, ~ 3, 9-17-02; Ord. No. 03- 443, ~ 3, 5-20-03; Ord. No. 04-457, ~ 3, 2-3-04; Ord. No. 04-468, ~ 3, 11-16-04; Ord. No. 05-506, ~ 3, 10-18-05) WHEREAS, the Federal Way City Council adopted its comprehensive plan with land use map (the "Plan") on November 21, 1995, and adopted development regulations and a zoning map implementing the Plan on July 2, 1996; and subsequently amended the comprehensive plan, land use map, and zoning map on December 23, 1998, September 14, 2000, November 1,2001, March 27, 2003, and July 20, 2004; and WHEREAS, the city's comprehensive plan calls for development of innovative and flexible land use regulations to allow in fill development and diverse housing types and specifically calls for consideration of cottage housing; and WHEREAS, the Growth Management Act and the King County Countywide Planning Policies encourage provision of a wide range of housing types to meet the needs of the full range of households size and income levels within the region; and WHEREAS, amendments to the Federal Way City Code (FWCC) text are authorized pursuant to FWCC Section 22-216 pursuant to Process VI review; and Doc. 1.0. EXHIBIT 17 PAGE OF ~ i ''f ---------- -- WHEREAS, the City of Federal Way City Council has considered the proposed amendments to the FWCC, to allow cottage housing developments in the RS 7.2, RS 5.0 and RM zoning classifications, attached hereto as Exhibit 1 and incorporated by this reference, ("Proposal"); and WHEREAS, the Federal Way City Council, pursuant to FWCC Section 22-517, having determined the Proposal to be worthy of legislative consideration, referred the Proposal to the Federal Way Planning Commission for its review and recommendation; and WHEREAS, an environmental Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) was issued for the proposal on May 13,2006 and no comments or appeals were received and the DNS was finalized on June 121h, 2006; and WHEREAS, the proposal was sent to state agencies for review as required by the Growth Management Act on May 16, 2006 and the state agency review period expired on July 14,2006; and WHEREAS, the Federal Way Planning Commission having considered the Proposal at a study session meeting on September 21, 2005 and a public hearing on June 21, 2006, pursuant to FWCC Section 22-534, and all public notice having been given pursuant to FWCC Section 22-521; and WHEREAS, following the public hearing, Planning Commission submitted to the City Council Land Use/Transportation committee its recommendation that the City Council adopt the Proposal as recommended by staff; and WHEREAS, the City Council Land U se/Transportation Committee, on July 17, 2006 considered the recommendation of the Planning Commission and moved to forward a recommendation of approval to the full City Council; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered the recommendation of the Land Use/Transportation Committee at its August 1, 2006 meeting; Now, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Findings. The City council of the City of Federal Way makes the following findings with respect to the Proposal: Doc. I.D, EXHIBIT B PAGE OF 'It 2- i<f A. The best interests and general welfare of the City of Federal Way would be served by amending the zoning code to allow cottage housing developments in specified zoning classifications because: 1. Cottage housing provides more-affordable single-family ownership opportunities for small families than housing options currently available within the city; and 2. Cottage housing provides a type of housing that is desirable to a growing demographic of small families, but which is currently unavailable within the city; and 3. Cottage housing developments provide high-quality functional open space in residential areas; and 4. Cottage housing developments encourage neighborhood interaction and safety through design; and 5. Cottage housing development standards are designed to ensure compatibility with neighboring single-family land uses and developments; and 6. Cottage housing developments further the goals of the. Growth Management Act by meeting urban density objectives and providing opportunities for infill development. B. Demand for cottage housing has been high in recently built projects in north and east King County. Property owners in Federal Way and builders in the community have contacted staff and expressed an interest in cottage housing developments over the past year. C. Adoption of the zoning amendments will help implement the goals and policies of the Housing chapter of the comprehensive plan by allowing opportunities for innovative infill housing projects, while ensuring that new housing types implement measures to achieve compatibility with surrounding development. Section 2. Conclusions. Pursuant to FWCC Sections 22-216 and 22-528, and based upon the findings set forth in Section 1, the Federal Way City Council makes the following conclusions of law with respect to the decisional criteria necessary for adoption of the proposal: Doc. 1.0. EXHIBIT B PAGE OF ~ 3 14 1. The proposed amendments are consistent with, and substantially implement, the following comprehensive plan goals and policies: HGI Preserve and protect the quality of existing residential neighborhoods and require new development to be of a scale and design that is compatible with existing neighborhood character HPI High-density housing projects, with the exception of senior housing, will not be permitted in existing single-family neighborhoods. More moderate densities such as cottage housing will be considered. HG2 Involve the community in the development of new housing to a degree that is consistent with the scale of impact on surrounding neighborhoods. HG3 Develop a Comprehensive Plan and zoning code that provide flexibility to produce innovative housing solutions, do not burden the cost of housing development and maintenance and diversify the range of housing types available in the City. HP13 Continue to use design guidelines to ensure that new infill developments have aesthetic appeal and blend into surrounding development. HPl5 Review zoning, subdivision and development regulations to ensure that they further housing policies and don't create unintended barriers. This is of particular importance for small lot and cottage housing developments. In order to facilitate small lot and cottage housing developments, it is particularly important to revise, as necessary, the subdivision and development regulations that govern their development. HPl6 As appropriate, reduce minimum lot sizes to allow construction of smaller, detached single-family houses on smaller lots. HPl7 Increase capacity and encourage greater diversity of housing types and costs for both infill and new development through various methods, such as inclusionary zoning, density bonuses, transfer of development rights, cluster housing, cottage housing, garden housing, duplexes and low to moderate density housing types. HPl9 Increase the amount of undeveloped open spaces in both infill and new development parcels, by expanding the use of cluster development and allowing housing techniques such as lot averaging and zero lot line standards. HP20 Establish administrative procedures to permit innovative housing designs and techniques, provided they are of high standard and consistent with the FWCP. HP21 Continue to provide incentives such as density bonuses for multi-family housing, and expand the types of incentives offered to encourage new developments to include affordable housing. Doc. I.D. EXHIBIT i3 "- PAGE 4 OF Ii HP22 Periodically review and update development regulations to incorporate opportunities for new housing types. HP27 Ensure that any new affordable housing required by the City remains affordable through some tool approved by the City, such as recording a lien on the property. In the case of homeownership projects, the lien can be structured as a deferred second mortgage to the homebuyer, due upon sale if the subsequent buyer does not meet the income eligibility standards. 2. The proposed text amendment bears a substantial relationship to the public health, safety or welfare because it allows a type of housing that is currently lacking in the south King County marketplace. The housing allowed by this amendment would tend to be more affordable than many of the conventional home-ownership options, which are typical in the current market, at a time when many households find it difficult to obtain reasonably priced ownership housing. The amendment would result in an increase in housing supply, which would benefit public welfare. The amendment would result in safe and community oriented project designs, which would benefit public health and safety. 3. The proposed text amendment is in the best interest of the residents of the city because it facilitates increased housing choice and opportunities, while implementing measures necessary to ensure compatibility with surrounding development. The amendments would result in creation of high-quality functional open space in residential areas. The amendment would result in safe, attractive community-oriented projects that allow more efficient delivery of public services. The proposed amendment provides opportunities for property owners to develop infill type lots. Section 3. Amendment. The City Council hereby amends FWCC Chapter 22 as set forth in the attached Exhibit A. Section 4. Severability. The provisions of this ordinance are declared separate and severable. The invalidity of any clause, sentence, paragraph, subdivision, section, or portion of this ordinance, or the invalidity of the application thereof to any person or circumstance, shall not affect the validity of the remainder of the ordinance, or the validity of its application to other persons or circumstances. Section 5. Ratification. Any act consistent with the authority and prior to the effective date of this ordinance is hereby ratified and affirmed. Section 6. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force five (5) days from and after its passage, approval, and publication, as provided by law. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Federal Way this day of ,2006. Doc. 1.0. EXHIBIT 13 PAGE OF Ie.{ .. C; , CITY OF FEDERAL WAY Mayor, Michael Park ATTEST: City Clerk, Laura Hathaway, CMC APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney, Patricia A. Richardson FILED WITH THE CITY CLERIC PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE No: Doc. 1.0. EXHIBIT 15 OF . PAGE t- It{ Article XII. COTTAGE HOUSING Sections: 22-xxxx Purpose 22-xxxx Applicability 22-xxxx Development Standards 22-xxxx Modifications 22-xxxx Purpose. The purpose of this Article is to: (1) provide a housing type that is responsive to changing household demographics (e.g., retirees, small families, single parent households, single person households); (2) provide opportunities for more affordable housing within single-family neighborhoods; (3) encourage creation of functional usable open space in residential communities; (4) promote neighborhood interaction and safety through design; (5) ensure compatibility with neighboring uses; and (6) provide opportunities for infill development consistent with goals of the Growth Management Act. 22-xxxx Applicability. Other articles of this chapter shall be applicable to Cottage Housing Developments (CHDs). Where a conflict arises the provisions ofthis article shall control. CHDs are permitted in the RS 5.0 and 7.2 zones and all RM zones. 22-xxxx Development Standards. CHDs shall be subject to the following development standards. (a) Cottage Housing Development Size. (1) CHDs are not permitted on sites less than one .75 acres in size. (2) CHDs shall contain clusters consisting of a minimum of 4 cottages and a maximum of 16 cottages. In RS 5.0 and 7.2 zones, no more than 12 cottages are permitted in a CHD, unless additional units are permitted subject to subsection (m) below. A CHD may be integrated into a larger conventional subdivision. Maximum number of cottages is not limited in the RM zoning classifications. (b) Locational Criteria. (1) CHDs in RS zones shall be separated from another CHD by a minimum of 660 feet measured between the closest points ofthe subject properties. (2) Cottages shall not be permitted on a portion of a site with a slope of 15% or greater as measured in its natural state. (c) Minimum Lot Size. (1) Subdivided lots in RS 5.0 and 7.2 zones. Minimum lot size shall be one half of that required by the underlying zone. EXHIBIT 6 EXHIBIT t f1J (J12() . '" PAGE OF " PAGE 7 OF .14 ( % ~--_.__._------ (2) Condominium style projects in RS 5.0 and 7.2 zones. The number of cottages permitted in a condominium style project shall be equal to the number oflots that may be created pursuant to subsection (c)(1) above. (3) Subdivided, condominium or multifamily projects in the RM zones. One cottage is permitted for each 2,500 square feet of lot area for condominium and multi-family projects. Minimum lot size for subdivided lots is 2,500 square feet. (d) Cottage Housing Unit Size. (1) Cottage floor area shall be between 800 and 1,100 square feet. (2) Floor area ofthe first floor shall not exceed 800 square feet. (3) Floor area ofthe second floor shall not exceed 35 percent oftotal floor area. (4) Floor area is the area within the surrounding exterior walls, but excluding space where the floor to ceiling height is less than six feet. Floor area does not include covered porches. (e) Common Open Space. (1) A minimum of 500 square feet of common open space shall be provided per cottage. (2) Common open space within a CHD shall be a minimum of3,000 square feet in size, regardless of number of cottages. (3) No dimension of a common open space area intended to satisfy the minimum square footage requirement shall be less than lO-feet, unless part of a pathway or trail. (4) In subdivisions and short subdivisions, common open space shall be located in a separate tract or tracts. (5) Required common open space shall be divided into no more than two separate areas per cluster of cottages. (6) Common open space shall be improved for passive or active recreational use. Examples may include, but are not limited to courtyards, orchards, landscaped picnic areas or gardens. Common open space shall include amenities such as seating, landscaping, trails, gazebos, barbeque facilities, covered shelters or water features. Surface water management facilities shall not be located in a common open space. (j) Private open space. Each cottage shall provide a minimum of 400 square feet of private front yard space. (1) Examples include lawn area, courtyards and patios. (2) No dimension of a private open space area intended to satisfy the minimum square footage requirement shall be less than 9-feet. (g) Site Design. (1) A minimum of 75 percent of cottages shall abut the common open space. (2) Common open spaces shall have cottages abutting at least two sides. (3) Lots in CHDs are not required to abut a public street right-of-way. (h) Cottage Design Standards. (1) Cottages shall have a minimum 6:12 roof pitch. Up to 20 percent of roof area may have a slope less than 6:12, but not less than 4:12. EXHIBIT ---L- EXHIBIT 1 l?J cJPf). PAGE OF .-a.: PAGE OF '" <( 2 r -- ---------..------------------------ (2) Each cottage abutting a public right-of-way (not including alleys) shall have a primary entry and covered porch a minimum of 80 square feet in size, oriented towards the public right-of-way. If abutting more than one public right-of-way, the applicant, with city input, shall determine which right-of-way the entrance and covered porch shall be oriented towards. (3) Each cottage shall have an entry and covered porch oriented towards the common open space. If subject to (h)(2) above, this may be a secondary entrance with covered porch, a minimum of 50 square feet in size. Ifnot subject to (h)(2) above this shall be a primary entrance with covered porch, a minimum of80 square feet in size. (4) Covered porches shall be a minimum of 6 feet deep. (5) Cottages shall not include attached garages unless the garage abuts an alley or shared parking lot. The first 200 square feet of attached garage space shall not be counted towards maximum cottage size allowance. (6) Detached garages and carports associated with individual cottages shall not exceed 500 square feet in size (detached garages shall not count towards maximum cottage size allowance). (i) Parking. (1) A minimum of 1.8 parking spaces per cottage shall be provided for the entire development. Fifteen percent of total required spaces shall be designated for guests. (2) All or a portion of new on-street parking provided as a component ofthe development may be counted towards minimum parking requirements if the Director of Community Development finds that such parking configuration will result in adequate parking for the CHD. (3) Garages and carports shall have a minimum 6:12 roofpitch. (4) No more than 50 percent of covered parking spaces may be carports. (5) Garage doors shall not be oriented towards a public right-of-way with the exception of an alley. (6) No shared garage or carport may exceed 1,500 square feet. (7) Garages and carports shall not be located between the common open space and the cottages. (8) Surface parking lots shall be broken into sub lots of no more than 8 parking spaces. Sub lots shall be separated by landscaped bulb-outs a minimum of 12-feet in width. (9) Parking in the form of garages, carports or surface lots may occupy no more than 40 percent of site frontage on a public right-of-way, except in the case of an alley or on-street parking, in which case no restriction applies. (10) Surface parking lots shall be setback IS-feet from front property lines and 10-feet from external side and rear property lines. 11) Surface parking lots of more than 2 spaces, visible from a public right-of- way (not including alleys) or adjacent single-family uses or zones shall be screened by landscaping and/or architectural features pursuant to FWCC 22-1 567(e). EXHIBIT $ EXHIBIT t ro df2tJ. PAGE OF " PAGE 3 OF t " Cf ILj --..--- (j) Height. Cottages shall not exceed 18 feet in height, as defined in FWCC 22-1, "height of structure" and in no case shall the ridge of the roof exceed 24 feet from average building elevation. (k) Setbacks. Cottages shall have IS-foot front and 5-foot side and rear yard setbacks requirements. Cottages shall be separated by a minimum of 10- feet, not including projections, as identified in FWCC 22-1133(4). Cottages and accessory buildings shall be separated by six feet. (I) Lot Coverage. Lot coverage in CHDs shall not exceed 60 percent of gross site area. Lot coverage shall be calculated for the overall CHD, not for individual lots. Paved components of common open space areas and walkways shall not be counted in lot coverage calculations. (m) Affordable Housing Bonus in RS Zoning Classifications. In the RS zones, CHDs that include affordable units may exceed the base level of 12 cottages up to a total of 16 cottages (assuming adequate overall lot size). One half of all cottages over the base level of 12 must be affordable (for example, a total of four additional cottages may be permitted if two of these are affordable). (1) Affordable cottages shall be sold at a price which is affordable for a 2- person household with an annual income equal to or less than 80 percent of median income. The Director of Community Development shall prepare administrative guidelines for calculation of sale price and determination of income eligibility. (2) Affordable cottages shall have the same appearance and utilize the same exterior materials as market rate cottages and shall be dispersed throughout the CHD. (3) A deed, covenant or title restriction shall be recorded on the deed/title of affordable cottages. The restriction shall effectively maintain the cottages as affordable for a period of not less than 15 years from initial occupancy. The restriction shall be in a form acceptable to the Director of Community Development (n) Common Area Maintenance. CHDs shall be required to implement a mechanism, acceptable to the Director of Community Development, to ensure the continued care and maintenance of CHD common areas. A typical example would be creation of a home owner's association or condominium association with authority and funding necessary to maintain the common areas. (0) General Provisions. (1) A community building, not exceeding 2,000 square feet, may be provided for the residents of the CHD. Roofpitch, architecture, materials and colors shall be similar to that of the cottages within the CHD. (2) An existing single-family home(s) incorporated into a CHD, that does not meet the requirements of this article is permitted to remain on a site developed for cottage housing. Modifications or additions to the structure not consistent with the provisions of this Article shall not be permitted. (3) Accessory Dwelling Units are not permitted in CHDs. (4) CHDs may not utilize the cluster subdivision provisions ofFWCC 20-154. EXHIBIT ---Ii.- EXHIBIT 1- {'7J /)120~ PAGE ... PAGE OF ... '-I OF r- iD It.! ~-~----- ----- ------------- -- ------------------- (5) For those CHDs processed as formal or short subdivisions, all development standards of this article shall be reviewed by the Director of Community Development as a component of the preliminary plat or short plat review process. For all other CHDs the development standards of this article shall be reviewed as a component of process III or IV review (see use zone charts for required review process). In either case this shall include review of conceptual building elevations. 22-xxxx Modifications. Applicants may request modifications to the open space, site design, cottage design standards and parking provisions of this article. The Director of Community Development may modify the above referenced provisions of this article if all of the following apply: (a) The site is constrained due to unusual shape, topography, easements or critical areas. (b) The modification is consistent with the purpose of the article as stated in FWCC 22-xxxx. (c) The modification will not result in a project that is less compatible with neighboring land uses. EXHIBIT 13 EXHIBIT 1. TZ> ow PAGE , PAGE OF " II OF /</ 5 r ____n_____ " ..s .~ .~ OJ ." ~ .i o " ~ ~ - '" ." '" a .!l bO .~ e .::: ~ g ,:. " ." 1:: ~ e f; 8- o 0.. ~ e ......c .... ..... Cl. ....., ~ .~ .... o .~ := ~ V 00 ~ ~ E : ~ ~ ~ ~ :E E-<..s ./! OJ _ 0 '" 0 ..s .S Z.6 ~ ~ OJ " ~> .q ~ o;~i5. t:: Z gt~ ~ < ~ ..s ~ .0 0 l: t) VJ. :>''''t'J"" . 00 Z s;;~ if c:r '" riIi.l 0 .- ;g fir :: 1;! ~ -00 .... So 'fi OJ OJ o ~~ E-i bO~.~ 00 1.0 0- s:: O~ < :fj!r..s 'l'::;; 1;! 9t:) N...;;I -ug'Q N tU ; ~ ~~Jg ~~ 00 t-' ~ ~ 8 S .S! ~ ~ ::;:;. oS:: ~ ,;. ,;.4:l 4:l 4:l 0 .c: .~ 1;! N';' \I.l. en 01 . . . = bJ) 0 N U ~ ".+j 88 g"g"g'l! .5 ~ ~ ~~ '-' m ~ .. 0 0 0 0 0"'" ~ 1-0 ~ U (U .... "3 -< ~~~~~~g~~ bO .s :0 ~.~ .:s Gl ~ :g .~ .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ; ~ .5 "8-;" .... ~ U ~ cu ~";;";;";;; g g jg ~ :.::: ~ _ = ~ E-< ~ '" .~ . '" .!::l .!::l .!::l .'" ~ "" ,;;; "'" g <U ~ ~ ~ .:2 '0 '0 : .: ~ d -3 g tti '0 .~ t ~ "0 0 < 00 .,. - - .Si .Si .Si . ",,'8 ~ 1; l! '" , or;; -..... 3 g g s sse t:: .Si ~ .:!l.:i '" Q) t) """ ""ee333.c: ;g ~;a :.;;;..sl::: ",. tV Cl) U :fj 'Era .5 .5 .5 '3'" '" a ." ~ "'" ...... ..c ~ u 's Os .= .= .5 = 13 ~ ~ e 3 "=' ..; .... ;:l Z ~ OJ " sse 8 ,;.'- ;;:l ~ .~ ~ == fJ'} S ~ oS -5 -~ ~ ~ & ~ ~ . . .... ] ~ 50 NO' lI)_~";::t":o::;l"Zl "v..... 00 ~ ~ ga 0.. en!n .. .... ~ U1 u t ~ co~ ,0 ....0 ,-0 = ~ ~ . _ ..... U....rnrnrn....... >00.......0.......0..... 0 t:bO '0 ~ ON .~ S g ~ ~ ~"..... !..~ ~ ~ \On ""I @ ~ ~ "Jj ~ .S Z r~. ~ CIl '" N N 0 0 0 0 ~ v' - g .c: ." . - 00 Z .... 0 0 N NN Eo'V N '0 0.0 II II II . E ~;: 'E ';J ..9v)vi~~q _9' N-cnvl~~q 0 c..., 00 0 ~ Q E(",,)-OIt--.nU~~ ~a('f')-O\r--V'\ ~ O~ .~ ~I'I L..... ::s U'J (J) en (J') CI) .::: .~ 0 3 en (J') U'J en CI) .- ,." t.I:l ~ ...., ::;; 5"'''''''''''''-1l15 "e",,,,,,,,,,,,, . ==== = ~ . "''''=''' = "'~~~~==="'= ~ SS . ..... ~ .S - - - - ,.:;;;j. u u ~ ~ tIS - - - - - ~ -8 ~ oq- 00 ~ ;:;:';.D';.";~::=..s~",,,,;:;:.;.D';"';~ . .loo ",. M ~ ...; ",'0..,:$..,:,,; & && : = ~ N o <E S:l:lOOS llul)(Jlld gf ~ ,. ~ ... '" b;': GJ 0\ (I) (g pal~n g}l ii 'i) +-' S 0 .~ ~ Po ~ 'a . 0 Z s : N -0::1 I: - u I:li 't'J! ~ Ul l!l amprulS" gf.~ _" I:'~ " <'l ::z:: t:: U 00._ ..... GJ..... +-> V 0\ . s:: f-< S )Olljll!:lH .::: 1; ~ ;g ~ ]1 ~ ~! ~ 3 . ~ ~.~ g ~ ~.E 'i) ~ ~I ~]I Q) 81 >< GJ tt-t ~ o ~ ~ .s ~ :::s :llllll:lAO;) 101 ~ ~ 01 01 ~ s::::I CIlI:V"'l \01;':: " ..... -0 e "Cl..s lll:l~ 0''::: d .... ~ B ~ fI) 0 - ~ .4 tI) 1/')1 :: 'E ~'S ~ (lj:lIl:l):lP!S ~ o..;.1il.::: d '":' l:: 0 l!l if;;... .. -.... ~ V"'l .,.,J <'l o -Oi::C<: CIl~ t '" ..; -0 ::I IUUld C<: I: ..c: ci 'c Cl) ~ E .E 2 ~.::: 0 ~.::: ~.:::I Z :s~ ~ ~ ] ~ Po i I ! ; t ! 1.5 ~ ~ cd ~ ..... ~ - .c:: .- s........ '0 t) - ..... V "tt :>.... =- I ~ E iU '-' iU - ~ ro........ .~...... U U 0 == ~ ~ :lZ!S 101 ~ 0 OIl 0 ~",.::: '" e 1::1 i I~" ;.::: 1:: ~ ] 1_ . 1j .f; ~ ~ ("/) ~ "H ~ $: Q s:= ~ (.). ......._;> s.c 'r;; ~ U N ~ ~ r:J) ~ ~ 'g ~ 01 5 ..... ~I .~ ~ ;a 0 MJ ~ 3 _ ~ ~ -8 8. N ~;:l S ...::;.::: N CIl U Ii:: -101.0' .~ I .9.5 u i:1 CIl 0 -0 ; "'.0 ...: ! :- ~.S U SS:l:lUld A\:l!A:l~ :-i" ~ ~ '" '1_ .~ ; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ pallnb:l~ ~ ~ .~ u 1; N N N N "'" .... --. - . 0 0 2 0 ~ .::: o:S 0 >1 :::: I I I I t""i" 0"0 0 Z Z ...::"" -0 ll,_ ---"'- ... ~ <.t=4 =f~~~~ 0 .... 0 SNOI.lV'][l~nI1l -g OIl ~jj' . ~~ .....N N N N ~ rt') ...cl ..c .5 ~ 0 ~ 0 . en N N N M 0 u_ . - 0 I: 00 "'- Z '7' E-< ~ fl ~.<;:: 0 ::I ;> ~:t :1-01 g - 'E ~ ;;l=> O-G5 uO"E1U ";:ala tl: Q. EXHIBIT B EXHIBIT f n; ~p. ~ , PAGE IZ-- OF /<( PAGE ~ OF r ------ - u '" ~ '" d ~ o B "'8 00 ~ v r..:l ~ : ~ ~ -- 0 os -;S Z E .13 ~ ~ ~ ~ _ rFJ v . ~ Z & '" 0 ~ 00 ~ OJ .s O~ ~ '" & 8 N~ < ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ Q ~ N ~ CIl C "'" 0 ~ '" ~ :: ;;& = ~ N ~ o tn 1:oOQ- __ co u -=: ~ e H- ..'" as v.! ('f"l '-" - OJ) ...s::: _ ..... j '8, ('I: V U ~ li;::J ;: ~ ~ ~ 8. .fo~ N = _ ~ ~ '8 ,-:: '? Q.) 't:1 -< rLJ co .,g~ r-~ :g B == j Jj-e d-, f.'-2 +-i U .... "0 ~ ("') dJ () 8. "'-0 <.0'> ..J V r..:l - 1l" ~. ~ ..c Z g II 's r:;:- ~ ~ 0 ~ ~e 8 .II1II( Q) N 5 coo. e _ '., -s 0 .. .... ,_, ~ 11 "" z.. ('I: ~ 1:i.l (J) E ,,:;; ..,;:: == ~ z ~ '8 it 0 ;:: Q .- .!a ..:a .- = f-o l:l -s 'B q; ~ < ;S "" ~ 0 ~"O ~ ~. S 06 ~ . \:) - l.L. ~u.. M ~ ~ "'" = ~ s;J:mds ~UD[l13d j ~ I ~ .S: <8 p:u!nb;J~ ~ OJ ,- ..:. CI:l U'1 ~ a ~ 0'\ ..... (g N "d :3 (,,) 0 ~ El ~ ;)lfll:JIUlS" bO g lit iiI' ~ ~ (Ii S JOllj~!;JH <l=l ~ ~f~ ~i>:o '> ;"" -:g ~ +:: ::c::1E o.o>~...2 > v '- 0\ ~ f--l 4_ ~ cO cd U 0 0 E ~ ~ V :2; ;J~lll;J^OJ lOl J! i ~ -;S ~ ~ ~ ~ d "0 ~ ~ -:i -;:l ~ e "'0 0.::: l13;J~ <l=l ~ r- Q) 0"'0 '0 vJ eo:. t: ~ ~U'1 0 'E ~'~ ~ (lj:J13;J) ;JP!S <l=l:;1 r- ~ ~ .gs~>- '" '" ~ ;<.:: -g S lUOld 0 - "'I .., .g = V '" ,_ N <l:: - .... ..... ~ ~ ~. ~ <l=l ill! j I~ i ,5 ~ ~ ~ ~ ;JZ!S lOl g- ~ , ~ ~ ; ,- ~ ; '., i:8 ~ ~ 8 4,) 00 tI) 8 - ~ . d = 4.... li .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Z V').. 0 r-'~ . . ca ~ U N ~ ~::l Q 1- 'I ] "" i. ~~ ~ ~ _ tJ SS;J:JOldA\;J!M~ : ' - > ~ g;::fi5 ;q ~ u ~ ~ p:u!nb;J~ l! i~i ~'I ~;Z;Z;1;;!; ~ ~ = 0 _ 0 ~NNNN ~ < "t;:::: 0 z _'III-('t1" ~ ~ ~ SNOUV'1f1~IDIn'~ Ie j ~~ ~ ~ 9 ~ g \0 ...d ~ bE) . :;"' N ~ ~ ~ ..g ~ ~ ~ AS II S i .""'..... I riril ~'il fl' e 1l"""2 ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ > ~ .t 2. ~ EXHIBIT f> EXHIBIT 1, ~ otA. ~ ~ PAGE-LLOF -1;L PAGE 7 OF ~ --- Amend FWCC 22-1 to add the following definition: Cottage Housing Development (CHD) means residential development consisting of clusters of between 4 and 16 detached dwelling units. meeting the following criteria: (1) dwelling units are limited to a maximum square footage: and (2) dwelling units are grouped around a common open space: and (3) developments meet a set of design criteria not applicable to typical single-family developments as stipulated in Article XII of this Chapter. EXHIBIT B EXHIBIT 1.. elF t?12(J- PAGE. ." /'1 OF It..{ , ~I\~E~ OF~ (' , Doc. 1.0. t ------ --- CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PLANNING COMMISSION June 21, 2006 City Hall 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers MEETING MINUTES Commissioners present: Hope Elder, Dave Osaki, Dini Duclos, Bill Drake, Merle Pfeifer, Lawson Bronson, and Pam Duncan-Pierce. Commissioners absent: none. Alternate Commissioners present: none. Alternate Commissioners absent: Richard Agnew (excused). Staff present: Senior Planner Margaret Clark Senior, Planner Isaac Conlen, Assistant City Attorney Amy Jo Pearsall, and Administrative Assistant E. Tina Piety. Chair Elder called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ApPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Drake moved (and it was seconded) to adopt the May 3,2006, minutes. The motion carried (seven yes). AUDIENCE COMMENT None ADMINISTRATIVE REpORT None COMMISSION BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARING - Cottage Housing Code Amendment Commissioner Duclos informed the Commission that she had conversations with Mr. Huffinan during her campaign, but they did not discuss cottage housing. Mr. Conlen delivered the staff report. Cottage housing refers to small detached single-family units grouped around a common open space. Typical characteristics include community oriented design, construction characteristics of single-family housing, higher density, shared parking facilities, and architectural design standards. The purpose of cottage housing is to provide "more affordable" housing, provide infill, reduce urban sprawl, encourage social interaction, and promote safety. The proposed amendments include the suggestions made by the Planning Commission at their September 2005 study session. They also include input from a builder of cottage housing. Cottage housing is proposed to be allowed in the Single-Family Residential (RS) 5.0, RS 7.2, and all Multifamily Residential (RM) zoning districts. The provisions have been developed to be compatible with the surrounding residential uses. Commissioner Drake asked if there was demand for this type of housing and Mr. Con1en replied that he has talked to individuals interested in pursuing this type of development. Commissioner Drake asked if the City could require a homeowners association and Ms. Pearsall replied that the City does have that authority. Commission Duncan- Pierce asked for a larger scale map of potential sites for cottage housing. The meeting was opened for public testimony. KIPlanning Commission\2OO61Meeting Summary 06-21-06.doc EXHIBIT C PAGE I OF 'lo 2- Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 June 21, 2006 Garrett Huffman. Master Builders Association South King County Manager - He commented that this is a unique housing style that is still developing. More and more people want smaller housing. He feels the proposal is too prescriptive and does not allow much flexibility, which will make it less attractive to builders. He suggested that if the City wants to encourage this type of housing, they should add incentives (i.e. waive the impact fee, expedite the permit, allow change to the size of the common area if there are wetlands on the property, and flexibility for design of the houses) to the proposal. Even so, this is a good draft. He commented that affordable housing seems to be long gone and this cottage housing may not be affordable. There have been bidding wars among buyers in other areas for cottage housing units. He commented that there may be opposition from neighbors at first, but once they see them, neighbors will see that cottage housing fits well within single-family neighborhoods. Mr. Conlen agreed the draft code is prescriptive, but noted the draft includes a modification section to provide flexibility as needed. Commissioner Duncan-Pierce expressed concern that these are being marketed as starter homes, but people are being priced out of the market. A discussion was held on affordable housing. Ms. Clark commented that the City is working on other code amendments (such as zero lot line) in order to address affordable housing. The public testimony was closed. Commissioner Duclos moved (and it was seconded) for adoption of the proposal with a request to staff to research incentives that may encourage developers to pursue cottage housing. Discussion and the vote was held (three yes, four no); the motionfailed. Commissioner Drake moved (and it was seconded) for adoption of the proposal as recommended by staff. Discussion and the vote was held (six yes, one no); the motion passed. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS A study session on the zero-lot line code amendment will be held Wednesday, July 19,2006. AUDIENCE COMMENT None ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 8:05 p.m. K:\Planning Connnissionl2006\Meeting Summary 06-21-06.doc EXHIBIT c:- PAGE OF 'It 2- L --------------------- --------- lli:~ac Conlen - CHD draK~qd~ ~: .. -~ ". ..:":w.w~.~ :::=::: - . ==-==~. :: -. :'.====-== :. .. -_::. -p~~~] From: "Jim Soules" <jim@cottagecompany.com> To: <isaac.conlen@cityoffederalway.com> Date: 6/5/2006 9:33:37 PM Subject: CHD draft code Isaac, Thank you for sending me the draft CHD code almost 2 months ago. I just noticed the first hearing is this Wednesday - Feb 7th. I apologize, but yes I have some thoughts. First I am very impressed with the draft. you've worked hard to address some of the issues that have come up. Here are my thoughts in a general sense -ask if you need more detail or why: Site size - one acre might be too large. I suggest. 75 acre. Our Greenwood site is about. 75 acres in an R6 zone that would have been four 7200+ SF lots, and we built 8 cottages - a good size. Minimum number - I feel 6 is minimum. If site is one acre and zoning is R4 then it's unlikely a developer would do 4 CH when the could do 4 unlimited-size homes. Link the minimum to the minimum site size. It's great you have a larger minimum size - the problem Shoreline CHD's were developed on two 7,200 SF lots on a corner. I like your corner restrictions too. Minimum Lot Size - It's not realistic to have 2,500 SF lots in R5, and 3,600 SF lots in 7.2 zones because at least 25% of the site might end as a common tract with detached garages, courtyard, community building, storm water facility, etc. But it looks like you were using that computation as the way to allow more homes. I think you need to reword. BUT - I'm a strong believer now that the increase should be based not on units per acre, but on the number of lots that could be developed under the R zoning. As an example on the Greenwood site only four 7,200 SF lots could be developed and thus we developed 8 cottages. But with the underlying code there could have been 10 cottages which would have not made such a good project possible. On Kirkland's Innovative Demonstration project they used this approach and required a proforma tentative map to be submitted as part of the application. Two of the problem Shoreline projects were a problem because of too many cottages. Common open Space - Suggest it include a community building. But not an open storm water detention pond. It must be usable. Private Open Space - Needs to be in front of the cottage - not along side or in rear. The front yards act as a small front yard setback from walks. Also most of our residents do not plant lawn in their yards, but beautiful ornamental plantings and some hardscape. An minimum dimension should be 9 feet. Roof pitch. We've needed to have a shallower roof pitch on some shed like porches. I suggest that 80% of the building have a 6/12 pitch, but none less than 4/12. Covered Porch - 80 SF is good, but with a minimum clear dimension of 7 feet. Or you may get a 4 foot by 20 foot useless porch - like Shoreline did. Parking - The visibility and location of parking was one of the two biggest problems in Shoreline. Lots to say on this: The projects looked like multifamily because so many garages were visible from the street. It's been a struggle to codify this problem. An objective is that a CHD should have a similar character to standard SF. This problem will first be solved by making sure the number of units is not pushed to the limit by using the underlying density. Using the number of lots will reduce the number of units allowing more room to get EXHIBIT j) PAGE OF " / ;J... -- I Isaac Conlen :<gE(Q,~@:ff'fgde ,,:= "~<'~~'nm'=~.. ..=..~<==~ Page I parking to the sides - look at our Third Street Cottages site plan. Require garages - at least one garage 12 feet wide with 9 foot garage doors. No carports - they look like MF, not SF. Garages are also great for storage and bicycles. At least 1.8 spaces per cottage - Greenwood is 15 spaces for 8 cottages and there are 12 cars there so that leaves 3 for guests and service. Conover is 2.0 and just fine. But good to allow some credit for new ROW spaces. Height - This was the second problem in Shoreline - tall skinny houses. The original intent was that cottages be one and one-half story buildings - about 700 SF on lower floor and 300 SF for upper bedroom and small bath. But with a slab the 18 foot height allowed full height walls on both floors. Reduce base height to 16 feet and total to 24 feet. And to avoid a 1,100 SF tall skinny home with 550 SF on each floor require on at least 75% of the homes that the upper floor not exceed 35% of the total SF. That's enough. I'll try to respond by email before the meeting and will try to make the meeting. Also call me on my cell if your wish - 206.579,8731, I hope this is helpful. Jim Soules The Cottage Company, LLC Ph: 206.525.0835 Fx; 206.527.9128 www.cottagecompany.com cc: "Ross Chapin" <ross@rosschapin.com>, "Linda ,PrUitt" <linda@cottagecompany.com> EXHIBIT ]) PAGE OF " 2- 2- COUNCIL MEETING DATE: ITEM CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL SUBJECT: ANNEXATION OF ENTIRE POTENTIAL ANNEXATION AREA POLICY QUESTION: SHOULD THE CITY PROCEED WITH AN ANNEXA nON APPLICATION TO THE BRB FOR THE ENTIRE P AA AREA TO TAKE ADV ANT AGE OF THE RECENT STATE PROVISION FOR A TEMPORARY SALES TAX CREDIT AND THE OFFER LEITER FROM KING COUNTY? COMMITTEE: LUTC MEETING DATE: July 17,2006 CATEGORY: ~ Consent Ordinance 0 Public Hearing 0 City Council Business RI Resolution 0 Other STAFF REpORT By: KATHY MCCLUNG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT: Community Development DIRECTOR ...__..~__H__"__...__.______..._._...__......_____..__..___....___.._____........__h.__..______.............____....._....._.........__._._..._.._..._.....h......___......__.__mm._m...._......._.__........................_...__...._.._.._..........____..........._....,_ The Council last discussed annexation at the May 15,2006 LUTC meeting and directed staff to follow up on some outstanding issues with King County and Milton. The results of those contacts are attached in the staff report dated July 10, 2006. Attachments: 1: April 27, 2006 staff report with following attachments: A- Preliminary General Government Financial Impact from P AA B- Conceptual Timeline C- Stone Creek Boundary Map D- Map ofPAA E- Updated Draft Resolution 2. May 16,2006 Supplemental Annexation Financing Memo 3. Letter from Executive Ron Sims dated June 21, 2006 Options Considered: 1) Initiate annexation process of the entire remaining PAA, utilizing the election method of annexation. 2) Do not initiate any portion of the P AA at this time. ...__.._...__...........__.__..._._..................._..__.......__..............__...................__......__..__._.....___..............__._.._.......................................__............................m.__...._m_.~.._._..~.__.__.___._..._.____.._~.~._m_.___.__....____._.........__......__._...__...___.._..__ STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Re CITY MANAGER ApPROVAL: DIRECTOR ApPROVAL: ~ --------- --------- -- Committee Council Committee Council COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF INITIATING THE ANNEXATION PROCESS OF THE ENTIRE PAA, UTILIZING THE ELECTION METHOD OF ANNEXATION. Committee Chair Committee Member Committee Member PROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION: "I move approval of the LUTe recommendationfor initiating the annexation process of the entire P AA utilizing the election method of annexation." (BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE) COUNCIL ACTION: 0 APPROVED COUNCIL BILL # 0 DENIED 1 ST reading 0 T ABLEDIDEFERRED/NO ACTION Enactment reading 0 MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only) ORDINANCE # REVISED - 02/06/2006 RESOLUTION # ----------- - ---- -------------------~ Memorandum TO: Land use & Transportation Committee From: Kathy McClung, Community Development Services Director VIA: Derek Matheson, Interim City Manager Date: July 10, 2006 RE: P AA Annexation contacts with King County and Milton Staff contacted King County regarding what contribution they could make to help make up the city's deficit should the city decide to move forward on an annexation initiative. Federal Way staff and two council members have met with the King County Executive and King County staff, and King County has prepared a letter of offer to the city as an incentive to proceed with annexation efforts. The offer includes $3,500,000 of one-time money once a successful election for the entire annexation area is completed and $25,000 of outreach costs and one half of the annexation election costs. The staff has some resolvable concerns with the offer and will continue discussions with county staff. The letter from Ron Sims, County Executive, is attached for your reference. City staff also met with Mayor Asay of Milton, the Milton Interim City Administrator and Planning Director. The issue is regarding the developed plat of Stone Creek which is all within the unincorporated area of King County, but has been split between the Potential Annexation Area (PAA) of Milton and Federal Way. Three lots are in both PM's. The King County Boundary Review Board has advised us that this issue must be resolved prior to annexation to either jurisdiction. There are approximately 33 lots entirely in the Federal Way PAA and 10 lots entirely in the Milton P AA plus the three lots that are in both. Existing access to all the lots are by S 376th which is in the Milton P AA. However, there is a future access planned on 26th S. to Enchanted Parkway. The Milton representatives are resistantto give up any lots within the plat to Federal Way and would prefer to have Federal Way adjust the PAA boundary to include all the lots within the Milton P AA. There are three alternatives. 1) To include the entire PAA within Federal Way 2) To include the entire P AA within Milton and 3) To make a slight adjustment to move the split lots into one jurisdiction or the other. The best option from a planning standpoint is to include the plat within one jurisdiction. Federal Way makes the most sense from a long-term service standpoint. The plat is served by the South King Fire and Rescue, the Federal Way School District and Lakehaven Utility District, all in Federal Way. Police service would be closer, in terms of miles, from Milton. The loss of three lots or even the whole plat may not be significant in terms of population or revenue gain or loss. Staff is making an effort to contact the residents in this area to see if they have a strong preference. ~ C'TY OF ,~ Federal Way CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE STAFF REPORT DATE: April 27, 2006 To: Land Use/Transportation Committee (LUTC) VIA: Derek Matheson, Interim City Manager FROM: Kathy McClung, CDS Director Isaac Coni en, Associate Planner Iwen Wang, MS Director SUBJECT: PAA ANNEXATION BACKGROUND The City's PAA, located entirely east ofI-5, is approximately 4,400 acres with an estimated population of 20,152. Recently adopted legislation authorizes a new source of revenues for cities that complete large annexations. King County supports annexation of this area to the City. See attached Exhibit A for additional fiscal analysis. DISCUSSION Timeline If we begin the annexation process immediately, a late spring election date may be achievable depending on the length of Boundary Review Board (BRB) review!. An exact timeline cannot be produced because some aspects of the process (e.g. BRB review, Federal WaylMilton PAA boundary issue) are outside of the City's control. However, a conceptual time line flowchart is attached as Exhibit B. Public involvement/education will also be a major component of the process and will begin early in the process. Public involvement/education methods include direct mailings, newsletters, web and public television updates, announcements, and informational public open houses. P AA Boundary Discrepancy As you may recall, while processing the Parkway annexation in 2004, we discovered that the County had approved a subdivision called Stone Creek which is partially situated within the P AA of both Federal Way and Milton (see Exhibit C). The effected properties were eliminated from the Parkway annexation so that the annexation could move forward. Resolution of this issue will be necessary if this southern portion of the P AA is included in an annexation proposal. One-Time Annexation Costs The cost to process an annexation of this size is noted in the following table. These costs are estimates at this point in time and assume annexation of the entire P AA. Cate or Descri tion Cost Election Cost Cost paid to County for election ballots and voter $10,200 pam hlet pre aration and distribution I Assuming election method of annexation initiated by resolution. Category Description Cost Staff Resources Staff resources to prepare annexation materials, staff $61,000 meetings, host open houses, respond to questions, (a portion of planner update web site, administer census, etc. salary is paid through * .5 FTE (Planner) 12 months approved carry forward * .25 FTE (combination Public Works, Parks, funds) Finance, Police, & Admin) 12 months Post Annexation Census Door-to-door census reQuired after annexation $118,000-$140,0002 Miscellaneous BRB application fee, cost of legal descriptions, $19,000 mailing, copying, publishing, etc Total $208,200 - $230,200 Population As noted above, total population is estimated at 20,1523. The table below breaks down the estimated population by PAA subarea (see Exhibit D, Estimated Population Map). Population Subarea Estimate Star Lake 4,078 Camelot 8296 Lakeland 3,017 Parkway 3,569 Jovita 1,192 TOTAL 20,152 FISCAL ANALYSIS A. Overview The 2003 Annexation Feasibility Study ("Study") summarized the City's PAA in three larger areas: the NE PAA, the SE PAA, and the Redondo PAA with total estimated housing units of 7,622 and a population of 21,500. In the fall of 2003, Redondo, North Lake (in NE P AA), and portions of Parkway (in the SE P AA) voted to annex. These three neighborhoods, combined, were estimated to have 788 housing units with a population of approximately 1,800. The post-annexation census revealed actual numbers of 1,219 housing units and a population of 2,730. The difference is primarily due to a large, new residential development in the North Lake subarea. After the 2003 annexation, the remaining I P AA area consists of five subareas: Star Housing Units Lake and Camelot remaining in the NE Population P AA with an estimated total of 4,117 housing units and a population of 12,375. Lakeland (part of Parkway), and Jovita remain in the SE PAA with 2,938 estimated housing units and a population of 7,778. Combined, these areas have an estimated total of 7,055 housing units and a population of20,152. 2 Costs of census vary by time of year. A winter census would be the most expensive and may result in lower counts. 3Estimated population was computed by I) establishing the estimated number of existing dwelling units in each Subarea & Census Tract using the data from the King County Assessor records, 2) estimating the number of occupied units using the vacancy rate from 2000 Census data, 3) Subtracting the number of vacant units from the number of total dwelling units, 4) multiplying the resulting number of units by the average household size, again from the 2000 census. Page 2 - ------------- B. Operatin2 Revenues and Expenses Overall, the general governmental operating revenues and expenses show there will be substantial operating deficits to annex the two areas because they are predominantly residential in character. The per capita revenue is slightly higher in the NE P AA due to the slightly higher average assessed value of homes in this area. At the same time, the per capita operating cost is higher in the SE P AA due to the three large scale active parks (Lake Geneva, Five Mile Lake Park, and the ball fields) requmng substantial maintenance versus the two paSSIve open spaces/parks in the NE P AA that require fewer resources to maintain, $ C. Capital Sources and Needs On the capital side, the combined areas would need nearly $10 million in service-level-related transportation improvements to bring a number of intersections up to City standards; they will also need nearly $18 million in neighborhood parks, open spaces, and most of all trails to meet the City's Park Plan goals. The Parks' capital cost is lower than the Study suggested due to two changes in assumption used here: 1. We assume the annexation in itself does not affect the demand on the Community Center space. This is due to the population in the PAA is already, or will be, using the City's facility regardless of whether or not the area is annexed. 2. We also assume the community parks can serve a population beyond the sub-PAA area. The Study calculates community park requirements independently by subareas; therefore the SE P AA has a surplus of community parks while the NE P AA has a deficit. When the two areas are combined, the community parks acreage meets City standards. The Capital Needs table NEPAA SE P AA Combined shows annualized capital Capital Needs needs using the above total Annual Capital Sources $638,558 $909,565 $1,548,122 capital costs as a base and Annualized Park Capital (over 15 yrs) (841,335) (690,693) (1,532,028) spreads them over a IS-year Annualized Street Capital (over 15 yrs) (578,689) (271,676) (850,365) period usmg an inflation Annual Pavement Maintenance (215,168) (308,893) (524,061) factor of 3.5%. In addition Annual Capital Surplus (Deficit) $(996,635) $(361,697) $( 1,358,332) to the capital improvements, the assumption is that an annual pavement maintenance program will be maintained using the street overlay program funding sources available from the area. This may not be sufficient to bring the road surface conditions to the same rating of existing City streets. The capital resources include 50% estimated utility tax revenues, arterial street and new fuel taxes, and REET expected from the area. Based on these assumptions, the combined P AA area shows an annualized capital funding deficit of around $1.4 million. While the capital deficit is substantial, the Council does have substantial discretion and control in the timing and amount of many of these capital investments. Page 3 D. Effect of SSB 6686 The phenomena of operating and capital investment deficits is very consistent with what we have seen in findings from other communities that have completed annexation feasibility analyses. The financial deficit that cities would inherit with large annexations has been one of the major deterrents in achieving these annexations as envisioned by the Growth Management Act. Substitute Senate Bill 6686, enacted by the 2006 Legislature, attempts to address this concern by allowing a limited new local option sales tax that is offset by a state sales tax credit (thus there is no impact on consumers) to mitigate the deficits and encourage annexations. Specifically, effective June 7, 2006, the bill allows a city to levy to up to 0.1% sales tax for an annexation between 10,000 and 20,000 populations, and up to 0.2% sales tax for annexations with a population greater than 20,000 or more. The local option tax and subsequent tax credit payment is made at the beginning of each state fiscal year (July 1) starting in 2007 and the local tax can only last up to ten years from the time the city first imposes the tax. The tax credit will be effective on July 151 of the fiscal year subsequent to the year the annexation takes place. This tool is only available to cities in King, Snohomish and Pierce counties, excluding Seattle; is only available to those jurisdictions which annex sufficiently large populations; and it is only available for those annexations which commence prior to January 1,2010. There are a couple of areas where we need to get additional clarity as to how the bill will be interpreted. For instance, it is not clear how the time line will work from the annexation, to a city's imposition of the tax, the notification to the Department of Revenue (DOR), and the first actual tax distribution. It is also unclear if the City could impose the tax before an annexation actually occurs (SSB 6686 requires a city to commence the annexation - we assume this is defined by the adoption of a resolution). Lastly, it is not entirely clear whether the "up to ten years" time line in the legislation begins with the date the City enacts the tax and ends ten years later or begins from the first tax distribution. Weare part of a cities group that has asked to meet with the Department of Revenue on technical questions surrounding SSB 6686 - and we expect that meeting to occur in mid-to-late May. Eligible Costs The revenue generated from the local sales tax is to provide, maintain, and operate municipal services for the annexation area. While this language is not an outright prohibition of capital investments, the expressed intent of the legislation is to focus expenditures on operations, maintenance, and associated startup capital costs. There have been a significant number of discussions - a few of which helped persuade the Governor to ultimately sign SSB 6686 into law - that lead us to conclude our city and others would be safest to stay within this narrower definition of eligible expenditures. Additionally, it is expected that the Governor's office will pursue 2007 legislation to add reporting and accountability requirements to the provisions oflaw in SSB 6686. Amount of Sales Tax Credit Because this is a local option tax, the tax will be based on the whole city's taxable sales, not just those in the newly annexed areas. Using the City's sales tax revenue collection of $11.5 million in 2005, that is $1.4 million on 0.1 % or $2.8 million for the 0.2% of sales tax. This is the maximum amount the City may receive. The actual revenues will only be for the amount necessary to fill the financial gap in the annexation area. The City is required to make annual estimates for the upcoming gap and notify DOR by March 1 each year for the next fiscal year's distribution. Once the revenue collected bridges the gap, the City must notify DOR to suspend the distribution for the remainder ofthat year. With the population in the PAA very close to the 20,000 threshold, there is a possibility that the City would not be eligible to receive the full 0.2% sales tax credit. However, with the law being narrowly constructed to assist certain cities that act within a certain time period, this is a window of opportunity for the City to receive substantial assistance to mitigate the operating deficits even if the credit Page 4 ---------- - -- ----- ---- --- -- -------------- ____n_____ ____ amount is only at 0.1 %. The ten-year period is also a reasonable timeIine for a community to stabilize services in the newly annexed area and to take necessary actions to address option deficits. E. Net Deficit with SSB 6686 With the updated population estimate for the PAA at 20,152, the City could pursue annexing the whole remaining P AA area. The $2.8 million from the 0.2% sales tax would substantially cover the projected $3 million operating deficits. However the updated population estimate is just that - an estimate based on certain assumptions, and the 152 over 20,000 is an extremely narrow margin for any assumption errors. Should the actual population fall below the required 20,000 as determined by the post annexation census, the new sales tax the City may receive would only be $1.4 million or 0.1 %; and leaving the City with a gap of $1. 7 million a year. It may be worthwhile for the City to conduct a pre-annexation census to get more certainty regarding the actual population in the area because of the financial risk involved. It is important to remember that populations change throughout the year, even a pre-annexation census does not guarantee the same result as a final census. Alternatively, the City could pursue annexation of a portion of the P AA with sufficient population to meet the 0.1 % sales tax eligibility. Using the NE P AA as an example, it has an estimated population of over 12,000, with a baseline projected deficit of $1.71 million, and thus the deficit could be largely offset by the $1.4 million through a 0.1 % sales tax credit payment. However, this would leave a substantial portion of the P AA, with a population of nearly 8,000, unannexed. Unless the City decides not to ever annex this area at all, we would face the financial challenge sooner or later as it is unlikely the area will break even financially in the foreseeable future. Further, it is extremely unlikely that the financial assistance provided under SSB 6686 will remain available indefinitely. OPTIONS Options Positives Ne2atives 1. Initiate the This option would: This option would: annexation process a) Achieve local, regional and state-wide a) Result in a long-term for the entire planning and public policy objectives and deficit with regard to remaining P AA, goals related to annexation operational costs versus utilizing the b) Maximize collection of tax revenues revenues in the annexed election method of available under authority recently granted to area annexation. cities that annex areas containing large populations c) Allow local control of development standards in the P AA where current development patterns affect the City's levels of service 2. initiate the This option would: This option would: annexation process a) Work towards achieving local, regional and a) Result in a long term for only a portion state-wide planning and public policy deficit with regard to of the PAA, such as objectives and goals related to annexation operational costs vs. the Star Lake and b) Collect a portion of temporary tax revenues revenues in the annexed Camelot subareas, available under authority recently granted to area utilizing the cities that annex areas containing large b) Would not maximize election method of populations the City's ability to annexation. c) Allow local control of development standards collect tax revenues in the P AA where current development available under patterns affect city levels of service authority recently granted to cities that annex areas containing Page 5 ---- --.- Options Positives Ne!!atives a large population c) Likely make annexation of the remaining P AA not included in the current proposal more difficult, when initiated at some future time. 3. Do not initiate This option would: This option would: annexation of any a) Not result in an operating deficit a) Not achieve local, part of the PAA at regional and state-wide this time. planning and public policy objectives and goals related to annexation b) Preclude the City's ability to collect tax revenues available under authority granted to cities who annex areas containing large populations c) Not allow local control of development standards in the P AA where current development patterns affect the City's levels I of service STAFF RECOMMENDA nON After considering the positives and negatives of each option, staff recommends approving Option 1. EXHIBITS: A. Preliminary General Government Financial Impact from Potential Annexation B. Conceptual Time-Line e. Stone Creek Boundary Exhibit D. Estimated Population Map by Subarea E. Initiating Resolution Page 6 ---- ----- Preliminary PAA General Govt Operating Estimates Item NE PM SEPM Total Unit $ Unit $ Unit $ Housing Unit/Average AV 4,117 166,470 2,938 157,987 7,055 162,229 Population 12,375 7,778 20,152 - Facilities in area Acres Es Mnt Hrs Acres Es Mnt Hrs Acres Es Mnt Hrs Parks 34.80 180 74.72 7,476 109.52 7,656 Bigaman Pk, passive 16.72 122 16.72 122 Camelot Pk, passive 18.08 58 18.08 58 lk Geneva Pk, active 18.64 1,521 18.64 1,521 5M lake 31.71 2,451 31.71 2,451 Ball Field 24.37 3,504 24.37 3,504 PW (GG portion only) Signaled Intersections count 15.00 count 2.00 17.00 Street lights 100% 561.00 100% 190.00 751.00 Road Miles 100% 46.45 88% 25.41 71.86 Operatina Jm I)act NE PM ' SE PM Combined GG Operating Revenue Per Capita Total Properly Tax, Proj. levy rate 1.22 836,134 1.22 566,284 1.22 $ 1,402,418 State Shared (w/o Art St Fuel) 25.23 312,250 25.23 196,254 25.23 508,504 CJ Sales, per capita 20.98 259,607 20.98 163,167 20.98 422,774 local Sales - 107,649 - 67,659 8.70 175,308 Utility Tax, 50% 122.73 509,938 122.73 320,504 122.73 830,442 Fines & Forefetures - 106,643 - 67,027 8.62 173,670 Building Permtis - 121,734 - 76,512 9.84 198,246 Franchise, 60% of HH 29.55 219,368 29.55 137,876 29.55 357,244 Development Svs - 39,237 - 24,661 3.17 63,897 Rec Fees - 23,140 - 14,544 1.87 37,683 Zoning - 7,042 - 4,426 0.57 11,469 Gambling Tax - - - - - - Bl, number of businesses 140.00 7,042 113.00 4,426 11,469 Total GG Revenue 2,549,784 1,643,340 232.47 $ 4,193,124 GG Operating Exp FTE Cost Council - 27,727 - 17 ,427 - $ 45,154 CM 0.30 63,986 0,26 40,216 0.56 104,202 Court 1.41 141,835 1.31 89,146 2.72 230,981 Community Development 3.02 318,863 1.92 200,410 4.94 519,273 law 0.50 67,185 0.44 42,227 0.94 109,412 Prosecution 0.50 68,252 0.52 42,897 1.03 111,149 MS 2.41 194,090 2.18 121,989 4.60 316,079 PK 0.50 58,654 3.32 387,204 3.82 445,858 PS 18.56 2,188,980 11.67 1,375,809 30.23 3,564,789 PW 4.33 1,076,028 2.27 676,300 6.60 1,752,328 Total OoeratinQ Costs 31.54 4,205,599 23.90 2,993,625 55.44 $ 7,199,224 NetRevenuellossl 11,655,815' (1,350,285) $ (3,006,100) Per Capita Net Revenue (loss) (134) (174) (149) 0.1% Sales Tax based on current taxbase- $ 1 ,388,235 0.2% Sales Tax based on current taxbase = $ 2,776,471 Update Assumptions: 1, Property tax revenue assumes 15% properly value increase over the past 3 years and by applying 2006 levy rate 2. 10% general cost inflation for PS and 6% for all other GG services over 3 years 3. Change PS total staffing/population ratio to 1.5 FTE11 000 population from 1.25/1000. Current actual = 1.67/1000. 5. Assume 50% of utility tax is available for M&O 6. Assume Arterial Street Fuel Tax not available for M&O 7. PW data excludes SWM and SWR A 8. % of PWs asset inventory = area hh/totaf subarea hh EXHIBIT 9. SWM deficit is projected at: PAGE . OF: , "- K:\ANNEX\2006\2006 annex study.xls whole new pop 1 of 1 - - Preliminary Annexation Time Line Initiate discussion of boundary issue with Milton (May 4, 2006) Initiate public outreach/education +- Initiate annexation(s) by Council Resolution (J une 12, 2006 - ongoing) - I Resolve Milton boundary issue (end of August?) I File with Boundary Review Board (BRB) ( -, BRB Review - jurisdiction not invoked BRB Review - jurisdiction invoke 45-day review period 120 days or more - I (Unknown) L Council sets election date at next Council meeting ,- ., Council sets election date at next Council meeting (Unknown -likely Jan/Feb 2007 but could be longer) Election :...... Election Minimum of 60 days from date council Minimum of 60 days from date Counc sets election sets election (Any scheduled election after Dec 22. (Date unknown - depends on length ( 2006 - Opportunities in Feb. Mar. Apr. BRBreview) May, Sept and Nov, 2007 ~ L Reciept of official election results from Reciept of official election results frOtl1 County County (Date unknown - depends on election (Date unknown - depends on election I EXHIBIT----.D.. date chosen) date chosen) ~ PAGE , OE-l City Council approves annexation by City Council approves annexation by ordinance ordinance (next Council meeting - date unknown) (next Council meeting - date unknoWll 1 ~ Conduct door-to-door census Conduct door-to-door census (Timing unknown) (Timing unknown) .k:wn:m SI! 0193 ^1J6JJtlM OIJ sa>tWJ!.eM l6Japa.:l JO ^IO atjl "A lNOUO!Jl3lJasaJdaJ IlJO!ljdeJfl B 93 991JOJpapuajU! S! dew S!41 :9jON 9re91d ~ --.-1--1.. ~ ~ ar 6J ~ ~ e ~ tU ~ l;'O :g- loW ~ t: ~ ii" Q) .~ ~ - ~; \. ~ * <1" - ~~ ~ ~~ .,,- i ~~ ,r ., i -~.'--1- . -1--I.-r-r . " \ I r----.y"\-' I \ [l LL I, I /-, .7....,.. \i ' _ -.. \ \ \ j ~J _ . i ! I I ,. .. r -....~, __ ----\ \" ~ _Jl:--.J^'s!,.ONU --~.-.l_J (l ' ~~-..\---. r'-'.~~'. ~ ,,'.---. \ \. f-Y n~! \' C-) \-P-l-----\~.-::-~E~P;;h.( \ f 1, <i.:,' 'D .- -" ~...\ - '-- t. }~. L. ,... i~r" \-1 ....jgt.... f 1...... >'-.;..- --\ I I' \...___ .... --.... ~<! -~---.------~ ~'-.----/r---.\:;,\/~~-\~;,\.---'--~.,~L i_ i /'\". \.Ji .'.', 01,'1/ /\ 'r/",",~~ l ~~~ Ii:: I" 'l...... \.... ~\ \.", .. ,/ ." -;; $ ",. I~~! /, '\ 'Y' " ....: I \ .. :/', .... _-...,<('0-1"\' , ,'~-\ '. ""'-~'. .,\\t?\:~..' - , ". ,l. . ,..; '\ ~..._ { \ t., --...~ I / \ ~- <,. ',/ , I \ ' ~ ';- I ',:[' \ ',,' ,_~'" \ ". ' .1 ..: \.\ g ll!...~ {'.vi,.' I-l~--'-r-r"-"-'\(/\ \-'"../ ."';;-J"\--- ',\ \ '. \11\'...\ jlli. /\\~0Y~'\ +--1"-.1--'-., I, _=- ..J / ~ \, tl> V~ E: \... ~1 "4 ~ \ \ \ \ I \.. I '. ,I i l' ' (l':).. ,,)~t'"'\ t 1_';' Wil\" \ , I .,. ~r\ \,) \ I r--::.\ \ '\, '. ~;g 0 '. >'h _to L -\,k;i$--~- r---l'''' '</ l \\'~'\ \ \,J i \""I~'V~;~"r 9/.';: 1''-i3-'J<J~J ._'"-(:;..~iJ .. - dew ^~!U!:>!I\ ~ ....., ",,",,"0 \ 1'9, ~"1.-I--) \ I 1 0/. ... ~ \:(;, ....,..'l~ t ,< ,...'~~ , r,'l If\.... \",... ,,( :<; \ I~ ,..-.. n_... -.----.-----"-1 ,.' ct. g ,/ ~,.- -it: \ \ \;'1 1.1)- -)I~l '-. _ iI\.1~'(\\-"\" "' , \ "C ";'/I<...;t"-":::J-~-\W-;~' \ 'y'....\ I I. - "\.. 0 " ,,< \ "-J:r\.- i" .i\i.,...-- ----"I l"( ,<, .\. - \ I' L .'..-, ...'.-J--;--(:-<....:s: I "' " . I " ~I-- ,. ,':' -- , .;" I 1 ' ~(".\,.. ""'\ l-.._-\- ------- \ \ " ,I. n):l:' ! ...,--~~~<i'.... ./ l:r<'{;,~)-:--l-(~\ ~i/'/\',( \,' (-'I~\ '. \..:1;',. '\\ \ \.-.-:\~:, . ~<~~:Lgt:'- i '-..'';6J .'. -' i i..- -,\ ;....; l / ,! ;.,'.h. J-t \ \.,;\ --7 ~c. '. \: -\.~ j , l ~E I !5 Ii? ---'t./ "l-::~_LE:>~..~:j.:.,:.{t.~:(~~~~:<~tI.J~I.-\.! ~-::.- \"::;>,... \~~~iiT1~- -j"}-} '" ~(J j !',,", .it:: ,/..., -..-- ... ,...__.1, ,. '.,..... I,,)., , ", --'. "l' r I 8;:: .( '" . j.~ ~ 1~~!'.~.5.~;~;t:,;,:::.n--~~[~~~;~ij~~ //'\ / /__, i '~..._~-.-~-:,~ 'c_ --(~<:\- !i~~~~ I .. ". ~> j... I 'CI.. I "'.",. ""'. .." .-.. -:;;u.U:_~€ ! i - & l i. }Jt:;'"-;:-,,:,! ,/"!. \,- \"'h<'-'~..:;';;:!..J;:i; ),,(Z/,:, ",.:' .... ....,~.... <.,J ';.~r; ~~~ Ii - I~:''i'-r.?h< /.../...1(....., \ /_//1. ... I,. "'. ././ i 'I:;;,'--/.\-''fc~/... ,>.. -'.":'.. i (, , ".:. !/ ~C3~:fa~ I (t ~ 1 l-._:) ...~.>..~./~~~~:1-..h,..!',.,. (.ij) ,.. -..-..(~-._~/ ...../' :~.i,.. lffL l ,/ /~'.,~\',-_.''..'>. r,..\"..,~i.J/.,..L l : .~ ~ " I ... ,~, "",.'-". -r.' ,. _n. ~-. c.J .i,"-' -;-.." i' . \:h'. ....1".... . , , /'" . I ~ !_i~:..~.-'~~Y../7i'::__'..--{jC--l-'..)~Ln-.I' \,\\/(' / /'/\ i)" "j ,7;\-'."<'/-;'7"''''''''.-' ,..", .' 1" I I ".0.' ~"'.l J.~'.~-. { Ii l}. f1."-..!'A-~fri',..A ~'>/..~'.:~);":.l.'''-"..''.'r::- \~\./.1.---,' 1 i / .. )'-.-" . I :::i:t"'<" ?""{'-.., '...../ I .J ; /1 :' l."-,"'":4'.L ....~ _ __.~.( ,4''':','1,. t. J " \'"""\.__... :1 "i' ,-" f ' r., '. I ...r.. 010; J . ~ \,-"-. . .'-. 'I ' " : I '/' r-, :'1' \ \... :. \." .-." "',..\..! \';, '.,' i ' ',. I L J.;}-' .. I "\ ... I " , I' I - , . 1 \ '" . 1 / I . .- ..1 I .' "'. , .. .. .h' --------l{ ~~.li'- .n_ ((,'.-'.1'-1 ! I !_Y_\l \ {-: \- L Ii r u . "{ -: / I J ~......~~_.__ __.__.__. 1- .. ....1 r~ ...-"el.e., r"- '~\for;"'-'.-'l-- ~ 1)- .... ~"" "0111,>, .. ... I .1 I I I >. 0 ' ..... u_. .. I 1- L. .,---' ..--.......\ \. I HI .jooI 'i ---1- " 1 - -- I I j ~ (/) \, I ~I' II)' I ~ I ~ \ " -- ,n n__ I .... ._ . ~ I I J m r: CO , \: --- - --- ~, -. ... 0.. 0 ...., ..;, '-'_. ..~. .. --1 -- - .. .-1 -'r--'-~---~"- "C ~ ~ ."", ." J \ LIE (]) ...... 1:..' '-"'. '\.-..' --. -- I _ ,1\ "~ ra - I ~..--, v, III "0 ~:. t__ .c:>> ._ \U (]) s::::: /",. \ _.n... ---. .f---.... __.. _ . -# "'"'... > s:: II.) ~ 'S 'I"" I [-. .-.-~...- iii .... \!I o ->:/'t. . .::....'.... I" .~.:u \II' .... ~ -....--.. 0) . . ~Y./Q'l>,. .,..... ' J u!l.c 0::: <( U ~ 6), -1~ - I .. .uQ ----- ra . "'h ':i1! "I . ~:. ,. -. l!:! -". '".s}<7.... -...._ _ _ _ : \' . ..:-",..: ~----.. <( a.. L '"( ,~;,) /1''I.. ~...... - - __h__ Jij.".-,,,o.. . >. .~~~ E II m ~ ~=-~" _ ". "'u;~~ ',..::.;;;;,~~... . ....:. ....:..... :_,:.;.Hi): .:i-:';;/(. ~ ra - - a.. u",\t.; (~)~ '. .... .-.. ' .. . ..... ". ,.. ... .. ..... " S 1;3 ~ ~ s::::: s::::: CI.l ---r--~' -'-.,. -"'-- ',.> t.,., :> i ;:~~> :. <, _ r ~ ~ ~ 0 0 s::::: I ' $'.'-. ... ..,....,.",......:.."... .,......".......... m - v '-' ...... ...... 0 "', ~ " - ,.,.,..",- "'...,,.,..... \U -u ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U5 L r "---...., '.(/y-iI '.: i 15 l.... ..---__L} DDD8JEEj -.-- '-~1\. TY<~I~ ........ G~ \ oP, I - I .'" . \ Q'!> :1'"'''' ! C't f ~'.. /. S 27;~~'ST.. :':'. : '" : \ I Y 0 Federal Way ~ Potential Annexation Area Annexation J> .~" Area Estimated .'}1 ..' .". . , ~o:iir i'~l Population Map .j\- :,:] ':j "ii' .. , ~ ; j ; ~ 304th ST; f;/ . I!I...., :': ."" Legend , , . '" ,.' '" City Limits ;: ~ ..', ,< . a;;i' : ;.... ' Community level Subareas .. . .. Camelot S 312th ST I::.:ti'nelot , ~. . ~~ r ; ..,....: s: Lakeland Ii' .. ~i. ,. Parkway lL.. ~. ' Star Lake 0.: S 320lh ST ,o~ . '. "i&(' Notes on Methodology: S 324th ST, . ~ Estimated population was computed by 1) establishing , . '.. '... ." () the estimated number of existing dwelling units in each yo Subarea & Census Tract using the data from the King So ' ~ County Assessor records. 2) estimating the number of ? 0 occupied units using the vacancy rate from 2000 ::; .? ~ Census data. 3) Subtracting the number of vacant units t;: "11).. () from the number of total dwelling units, 4) multiplying the iii .~ resulting number of units by the average household size, JJj 0<\'./. HWY'18 again from the 2000 census, .J..:: '''~,' Any variation in the vacancy rate, average household T. ff" . size or number of existing units could affect the W :\t I ' estimated population. . ...'0. . , ~~,,/ ~.'." ,----- .. . . I . .- :i I.",... ! .,' . ,,'. I! i . , g- 18 .~,.. ,'" ~ .,' .~.-_~ ... : .. f L .€ .;.:_i_.'..,I,';"'''-1~''''''""""",-", ~ C ~;':'0 _:,:,':"::-:'.,"-~.. "'! .".. '. . '0 :> 6. o 0.25 0,5 '. N ~i!'~Itm;&i!.!I'\mMila5 Map Date: December. 2005 Please Nole: Cily of Federal Way. This map is intended for use 33325 8lhAve S. as a graphical representation PO Box 9718 ONLY. The City of Federal Federal Way, WA 98063 Way makes no werranty (253) 335-7000 CiS tv its 6(;(.u(CiCy. www.dlyoffederalway.com , ~ Federal Way E,j clmikeslgislslandardlpaazone.mxd PAGE DE' '- ", ------------------------------ ----~ DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON, CALLING FOR THE ANNEXATION, BY ELECTION, OF THE CITY'S ENTIRE POTENTIAL ANNEXATION AREA TO THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, CONSISTING OF UNINCORPORATED TERRITORY LYING IN AN AREA GENERALLY EAST OF EXISTING CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CITY LIMITS, SOUTH OF S. 272nd STREET, WEST OF 55TH AVENUE S. AND 51sT AVENUE S. AND NORTH OF S. 321sT STREET AND EXISTING CITY LIMITS AND INCUDING UNINCORPORATED TERRITORY SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 18, THEN FOLLOWING THE CITY'S EASTERLY POTENTIAL ANNEXATION AREA BOUNDARY, THEN FOLLOWING THE CITY'S SOUTHERLY POTENTIAL ANNEXATION AREA BOUNDARY AND INCLUDING THE STONE CREEK SUBDIVISION IN IT'S ENTIRETY AND THEN MEETING THE CITY'S EXISTING WESTERLY BOUNDARY WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Federal Way, Washington, has determined that it would be in the best interests and general welfare of the City of Federal Way and the annexing area to annex the city's entire Potential Annexation Area (PAA) consisting of unincorporated territory lying in an area generally East of existing city limits, South of S. 272nd Street, West of 53rd Avenue S. and 51st Avenue S. and North of S. 321st Street and existing city limits and including unincorporated territory south of Highway 18, then following the city's easterly PAA boundary, then following the city's southerly P AA boundary and including the Stone Creek subdivision in its entirety and then meeting the city's existing westerly boundary; and WHEREAS, the Growth Management Act and the King County Countywide Planning Policies encourage transition of unincorporated urban and urbanizing areas within P AA from cou~ty governance to city governance; and WHEREAS, the annexation area is generally within the City of Federal Way's P AA; and Res. #_ Page I EXHIBIT E. PAGE / OF S '\ ----- -------------- WHEREAS, financial analysis of revenues and costs for the annexation area indicate a net operating deficit to the City of Federal Way in the amount of approximately 3 million dollars; and WHEREAS, the City Council Land Use/Transportation Committee considered the proposed annexation at their meeting of May 1, 2006 and at the meeting of July 17,2006 recommended to City Council to proceed forward with the annexation process; and WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted the Federal Way Potential Annexation Area Subarea Plan, as a component of the City's Comprehensive Plan and which establishes Comprehensive Plan and zoning designations for the proposed annexation area as well as general land use policies; and Now THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Public Interest. The best interests and general welfare of the City of Federal Way and the annexing area would be served by annexing the city's entire Potential Annexation Area (P AA) consisting of unincorporated territory lying in an area generally East of existing city limits, South of S. 272nd Street, West of 53rd Avenue S. and 51 st Avenue S. and North of S. 321 st Street and existing city limits and including unincorporated territory south of Highway 18, then following the city's easterly PAA boundary, then following the city's southerly PAA boundary and including the Stone Creek subdivision in its entirety and then meeting the city's existing westerly boundary as described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if fully set forth. Section 2. Voters. As nearly as can be determined the number of voters residing in the aforesaid territory is _' Res. #_ Page 2 EXHIBIT t::.. '. PAGE 2- OF s: ----- Section 3. Population. Population of the annexation area has been estimated based on 2000 census data with updates based on King County Assessor's data. The estimated population of the northeast PAA is 12,415. The estimated population of the Southeast PAA is 8,096. The estimated population for the entire proposed annexation is 20,510. Section 4. Election. The City Council hereby calls for an election to be held pursuant to Chapter 35A.14 RCW to submit to the voters of the aforesaid territory the proposal for annexation. Section 5. Taxation and Indebtedness. There shall be submitted to the electorate of the territory sought to be annexed a proposition that all property located within the territory to be annexed shall, upon annexation, be assessed and taxed at the same rate and on the same basis as property located within the City of Federal Way is assessed and taxed to pay for all or any portion of the outstanding indebtedness of the City of Federal Way, which indebtedness has been approved by the voters, contracted for, or incurred prior to or existing at, the date of annexation. Section 6. Zoning. All property located within the territory to be annexed shall, simultaneous with the annexation, have imposed the City of Federal Way Comprehensive Plan and zoning designations, prepared under RCW 35A.14.330, and depicted in the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan. Section 7. Cost of Election. The cost of said annexation election shall be paid by the City of Federal Way and King County jointly. Section 8. Resolution to be filed. The City Clerk shall file a certified copy of this resolution with the King County Council and with the King County Boundary Review Board. Section 9. Notice of Intention. The City shall also file with the King County Boundary Review Board a Notice of Intention hereof as required by RCW 36.93.090 et seq. Res. #_ Page 3 EXHIBIT~ p ~ PAGE 3- OF> ---------- Section 10. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause, or phrase of this resolution should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause, or phrase of this resolution. Section 11. Ratification. Any act consistent with the authority, and prior to the effective date, of the resolution is hereby ratified and affirmed. Section 12. Effective Date. This resolution shall be effective immediately upon passage by the Federal Way City Council. Res. #_ Page 4 EXHIBIT E PAGE-.:1....0F 5 .. -------- ---~ -------------- RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON, this day of 2004. CITY OF FEDERAL WAY - Mayor, Michael Park A TIEST: City Clerk, Laura Hathaway, CMC APPRovED AS TO FORM: City Attorney, Patricia A. Richardson FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: RESOLUTION No: Res. #_ Page 5 EXHIBIT .t=- - OF5 . PAGE ::> ------ [~~h'y~guniLJ~t~~~~!?6~?6 sup.doc ~-~- , ~~~, ~ ,~-,,^- ~" ~r '=~: ~. . Page.:] .- I City of Federal Way Memorandum Date: May 16, 2006 To: LUTC From: Iwen Wang, Management Services Director Via: Derek Matheson, Interim City Manager Subject: Supplemental Information Regarding Annexation Financing As indicated in the Annexation staff memo dated April 27, there are a number of areas lacks clarity in the 2006 session law on Annexation Financing and staff from various cities were to meet with DOR to clarify the intents and interpretations. Staff from Renton, Kirkland, Burien, and Federal Way met with staff from DOR on May 11 and received better understanding of how DOR interprets the law. The purpose of this memorandum is to provide Council with important points discussed and clarified at this meeting. Due to the newness of this law, DOR staff emphasized that information provided at this time should be considered preliminary. Again, the 55B6686 provides financial assistance in form of local options sales tax offset by a state sales tax credit for large annexations in 5nohomish, King, and Pierce counties commencing before January 1, 2010. b. Eliqible Annexation: Eligibility will be based on population regardless if the annexation is a geographically contiguous area or not. 2. Amount: For annexation contains more than 10,000 populations, the tax credit is 0.1%; and for annexations with 20,000 or more in populations, the tax credit is 0.2%. The 0.1% for each 10,000 DODulation annexed could be additive. UD to the 0.2% maximum. Therefore two separate annexations of more than 10,000 populations each would allow a total of 0.2% sales tax credit. Again, the above tax rates set maximum assistance a jurisdiction may receive. The actual credit will be based on actual funding gap in providing services in the newly annexed area up to the maximum. 3. Population Count: The population for tax eligibility will be based on the population at the time city adopts resolution of intent to and commencing the annexation. Typically this would only be an estimated population, no actual census is required. A different result from a post annexation censes will not change the amount eligible. 4. lO-year Period: The 1 O-year tax credit period will start when the city first impose the tax. Therefore if a city decides to complete the annexation over a 3 year period with 3 eligible separate ~---- ----- __n__.__.______ I Kathy Mcqung - lutc ssb6686.~~.doc. . - =~~.._. - :.-.~ ~ Page ~ annexations and start to impose the tax upon first annexation, the clock for the 10-year period will start and the subsequent eligible annexations will not receive the full lO-year worth of funding. 5. Investment interests: Interest earning earned during the time from the tax collection to actual distribution will be distributed at the same time and will not be counted as part of the assistance. This clarifies a number of concerns Council has raised; and staff believe make the assistance more attractive than previously discussed. There are other details discussed at the meeting and still more to be defined and clarified, primarily administrative in nature. Staff will provide additional updates when appropriate. As previously provided to Council, this law is narrowly constructed to assist a limited number of cities who take the opportunity to act within the next 3 and half years. This is the first time assistance for annexation of this size and for such long a period ever been considered by the state or counties and would be extremely unlikely anything like it will be available again in the future. Therefore unless the City's decision is never to annex the PM, this would be an extraordinary opportunity to get the financial assistance to eliminate the funding gap in initial years and allow city time to pursue long term funding solutions. I 06/26/06 14:23 FAX 206 296 0194 KB EXEC OFFICE f4J 002 @> ~: (!IJUAu 1.- I<ing County Ron Sims King County Executive 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3210 ?eattle, WA 98104 2.06-296-4040 Fax 206-2516-Ql94 June 21, 2006 TlY ReliilY: 711 www.metrokc.gQV- The Honorable Michael Park Mayor, City of Federal Way 3~325 Eighth Ave. S. Federal Way, WA 98003-6210 Dear Mayor Park It was a pleasure to meet with you, Councilmember Faison, Derek Matheson and others at City Hall earlier this month. This letter confirms the offer I am prepared to recommend to the COWlty Council for financial support to the city should it annex the East Federal Way Potential Annexation Area (PAA) by the end of2008. As you know, the county has set aside funds to promote annex.ation in the form of transition funding for cities annexing any of the ten largest remaining urban unincoq>orated areas. Understanding that the annexation of the East Federal Way PAA is subject to an affimlative vote of the residents of the area, and based on: . The East Federal Way P AA being one of the ten largest remaining unincorporated areas of King County; . King County incurring an estimated annual General Fund deficit of $2.4 million from providing General Fund local services to this area; and . King Cmmty estimating a considerable savings to the General Fund from annexation. I am prepared to enter into an Interlocal Agreement, subject to County Council approval, providing incentives totaling over $3,500,000 to support an accelerated annexation of the East Federal Way PAA. Specifically, the COWlty would pay Federal Way $2,000,000 million in General Fund incentives together with road pavement improvements valued at $1,000,000 and $500,000 from Real Estate Excise Taxes assuming annexation occurs prior to the end of 2008. I am further willing to advance some portion of these funds to the city prior to completion of annexation, specifically, after certification of the annexation election results and final action to accept the area by the city. if the city so desires to support transition efforts. As part of the Interlocal Agreement, I am prepared to recommend that the cOtmty share the costs of the city's annexation election. Finally, we will work collaboratively with the city and residents to undertake an effective outreach effort regarding the positive benefits of annex.ation compared to the likely consequences of the area remaining unincorporated. This offer is conditioned upon: " . The city accepting ownership on the date of annexation of all county-owned local surface water management facilities within the annexed area, as is, where is, together with assuming the obligation to maintain such privately owned surface water management facilities as are now maintained by the county in the area. (9 King County is an equal OpporruairylAffirmative AcriOl1 Employu ....- ---------- Qnd complies with thE: Amer;ulnS with Dimbi/We. Act 06/26/06 14:23 FAX 206 296 0194 KB EXEC OFFICE @003 The Honorable Michael Park June 21,2006 Page 2 . The city accepting ownership on or before the date of annexation of all local park facilities owned by the county within the P AA, in as is condition. . The city agreeing to give consideration to hiring any county employees that are laid off as a direct result of the annexation, subject to city civil service rules and state laws. In addition to the foregoing offer of fmancial assistance, I am prepared to support the application of the special development codes overlay for the PAA on the terms and conditions earlier presented by the county pursuant to negotiations between our respective staffs over the last year, including adoption of a reciprocal impact fee agreement such as that which we have in place with several other cites. This further includes a commitment to extend the time during which the overlay remains in place beyond February, 2008, if the parties then concur that the city remains committed to complete 3IU1exation of the PM in the near-term. .It does not include funding for any additional infrastructure studies. Separate from the temlS of the Interlocal Agreement, I have directed my staff to provide up to $25,000 towards commllnity outreach efforts and to work with you to implement a series of jointly-sponsored conununity outreach meetings. As we discussed, our lead negotiator on this transaction and the code project will be Karen Reed. Please feel free to contact her, at 206-948-3556, or Elissa Benson, Annexation Initiative Manager, at 206-296-3414, if there are questions regarding this offer letter. The city's willingn~ss to engage in annexation of the East Federal Way PAA is welcome news and an important step towards ensuring a better quality oflife fOf residents of the PM. Ilook forward to working with you in partnership on this effort. cc: Metropolitan King County Councilmember ATfN: Shelley Sutton, Policy Staff Director Anne Noris, Clerk of the Council Kurt Triplett, Chief of Staff, Office of the King County Executive (OKCE) Bob Cowan, Director, Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Ryan Bayne, Director of Imergoveunnental Relations, OKCE Nori Catabay, Local Government Relations Liaison, OKCE De'Sean Quinn, Director of Council Relations, OKCE Karen Reed, Lead Negotiator Elissa Benson, Annexation Initiative Manager, OMB -- --.- COUNCIL MEETING DATE: N/A ITEM #: N/A -~'---._--~-_...._-_...._._.._.._.._-._---------------...-.-.--.-.---...--...-...-----.....-------..---..---.--..---.------ CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL SUBJECT: POTENTIAL AMENDMENTS TO BUSINESS PARK (BP) AND COMMUNITY BUSINESS (Be) ZONES POLICY QUESTION: DISCUSSION AND FEEDBACK REQUESTED. STAFF IS SEEKING CLARIFICATION ON POTENTIAL TEXT AMENDMENTS AND REZONES TO THE BUSINESS PARK AND COMMUNITY BUSINESS ZONES. COMMITTEE: LAND USEITRANSPORT A TION COMMITTEE MEETING DATE: July 17, 2006 CATEGORY: D Consent D Ordinance D Public Hearing D City Council Business D Resolution IZI Other - DiscussionlDirection ~TAFF REpORT ~x~__M~rg~!:.~_~~~~!s_~~I1ior P1~nne~___________._______________E~~_:_~~~un~~_~eve~o~~:~~ Attachments: Staff memorandum (with attachment) to Land Useffransportation Committee. Options Considered: See staff memorandum. _.__.__________.._____....__._.__.__._........___.__...._____.__.._.._..._____.___....._..._..............__.....m......__...._..__....____~___.___.__..______._________..__._...___..__ STAFF RECOMMENDATION: (1) Proceed with certain zoning text amendments to the Business Park (BP) and Community Business (Be) zones in 2006; and (2) Consider potential rezones to BP and/or BC as part of the 2007 Comprehensive Plan Update. CITY MANAGER ApPROVAL: - DIRECTOR ApPROVAL: me.., - Council Committee Council COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Proceed with the staff recommendation. Jack Dovey, Chair Eric Faison, Member Dean McColgan, Member PROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION: NO MOTION PROPOSED, AS THIS ITEM IS FOR DISCUSSION ONLY, AND NO ACTION IS REQUIRED BY THE FULL COUNCIL. (BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE) COUNCIL ACTION: N/A 0 APPROVED COUNCIL BILL # 0 DENIED 1ST reading 0 T ABLEDIDEFERREDINO ACfION Enactment reading 0 MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only) ORDINANCE # REVISED - 02/0612006 RESOLUTION # ---------------- --------.-----.- CITY OF FEDERAL WAY MEMORANDUM DATE: July 17,2006 TO: Land UselTransportation Committee VIA: Derek Matheson, Interim City Manager FROM: Kathy McClung, Director of Community Development Services Itf...lc, Margaret H. Clark, AICP, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Potential Amendments to the Business Park (BP) and Community Business (BC) zones BACKGROUND During the 2006 Comprehensive Plan Update, the City Council asked staff to identify potential zoning text amendments, and/or rezones, to the Business Park (BP) zone, and/or the Community Business (BC) zone, to make the zoning more market-responsive. This was due to the high demand the City has experienced over the last five years to rezone BP-zoned property to BC, including a request this year. STAFF RECOMMENDATION - FOR DISCUSSION AND FEEDBACK Staffhas considered multiple options for changes to the BP/BC zones. Prior to moving forward with more detailed study or public hearings, staff would like feedback from LUTC regarding the recommendations below. Recommendation #1 (zoning text amendments) would be processed this year. Recommendation #2 (recommended rezones and related text amendments) would be processed as part of the 2007 Comprehensive Plan Update. RECOMMENDATION #1 - ZONING TEXT AMENDMENTS (2006) a) Allow a minor increase in the maximum height (currently 35 feet) of motels and hotels in the BP and BC zones. This would respond to concerns from the development community that hotels must have at least three floors for the project to be feasible. However, the height increase would be minor, so as not to compete with mid-rise hotels in the City Center. b) Allow vehicle and boat body repair and painting as a primary use in the BC zone. Currently it is allowed in this zone only as an accessory use to a new vehicle or boat sales establishment. This would respond to concerns from the development community that new vehicle or boat sales businesses are not typically associated with body repair and painting businesses. This is a reasonable principal use in the BC zone, which allows a range of vehicle-related sales and services businesses. c) Eliminate senior citizen housing as a permitted use in the BP zone. These residential uses are not consistent with the purpose and intent of the BP zoning district. Senior citizen housing should be in areas with proximity to, with access to, public transportation, health care providers, shopping, and other services and facilities frequently utilized by this population. Currently, one senior housing development, "Mitchell Place", exists in the BP zone, and it would become nonconforming as a result of the amendment. However, if the Mitchell Place July 17,2005 Land Use and Transportation Committee Page 2 property were rezoned to RM (as recommended below), the use would conform to the zone. Except for Mitchell Place there has been no market demand for senior citizen housing in the BP zone. Also, the opportunity for senior citizen housing would not be unduly restricted, as they would continue to be allowed in the more appropriate zones of single family residential, multiple family, City Center Core, and City Center Frame. RECOMMENDATION #2 - POTENTIAL REZONES OF BP PROPERTIES (2007) a) Consider rezoning the "Mitchell Place" property (discussed above) from BP to Multifamily Residential (RM). This property is highlighted on the attached map. This property is well situated for a residential use, particularly senior citizen, given its proximity to health care services and providers, the senior center/community center, city hall, and Celebration Park. The property adjoins a multifamily residentially-zoned property to the east. As noted above, except for Mitchell Place, there has been no demand for senior citizen housing in the BP zone. The rezone would memorialize the existing residential use of the site and avoid the above-noted nonconformance. b) Consider rezoning, to BC, all BP-zoned properties located west of Pacific Highway South, between South 348th Street and the south side of South 356th Street. These properties are highlighted on the attached map. This would help respond to the market demand for BC-zoned property, which greatly exceeds demand for BP-zoned property. The location is logical, since the property is surrounded by BC zoning, and most of it fronts on Pacific Highway South, like the majority of BC-zoned properties. c) Consider rezoning, to Office Park (OP), all BP-zoned properties fronting the east side of 9th Avenue South, between South 336th and South 348th Streets. These properties are highlighted on the attached map. This would be consistent with other recent zoning changes in this area and will help address increasing demand for medical offices and services. d) Consider a Subarea Plan for the BP-zoned properties in the vicinity of South 356th Street, SR-161, and Pacific Highway South. This area is highlighted on the attached map. This general area has seen significant commercial development over the past several years, and a new exit ramp from 1-5, at South 356th Street, is planned for 2010. Any rezones or text changes for these properties should be analyzed in a broader context that considers these development trends and changes. e) As part of, or as an alternative to, (d) above, consider combining the BP and BC zones into one zone, and adding performance standards to address use-specific impacts. SEE A IT ACHED MAP \,JVUI l '-'L.'Vl\...~ ' ....,,',.l..A} i-1l1"...erS C"""", r ~ ::,outn Center B""~ I'" W <1M T I , ':f , Center I ~ Ra '9: II 0- '" I I '. Slerlll1q I ?(' I .... ~ S,-l\'lng~ r -' ~~ t , I r I - - - J ~..... __ - ~ 5 336TH 5T 5 336TH 5T 5 336TH 5T t. .. _ - -- --- 5 336TH 51 -~- - --- -- --- - --- ~-- Campus Business el Cenler, Bldg A a Omnl Bldg ,Carllpu5 BUSInE:S5 I ~itchell 11 Cdnler. Bldg 8 ace SeniO . OO'i Wet1iloit: 0' ~ ',Campus BusIness Forum I ~"~Ifl~ !l:' " Cent~r. Bldg C , .~e ~tti- ~e' ""'" ".~. ~""" '\ FO,"~ \: \: ~' C:J..... ~,f:t) e <:' es Cente" Bldg D '" . t V~ c; Wet~ ,. Ratil1!}! II .~ . <<tti- ~ Frito Lay Residences I Wetland Orion Rating: II BP ;! - ,. I - - ~P '" ~ I I Lloyd I ~ II Spectrum Business Park II 5 3415f 5T . I . Samolux 5 3415T 5T Trinity I J. Consider Rezone Broadcasting ,PS, to OP I -' ( Mail . BP Sunrise Gility '" BP ~- Pattison's Self Storage 1 :. l/) .. Q) 1 i! - 'I, u I c .. ~: BP Q) BP l/) '0 ~: Q) '0; I u Q) < Cash & c a:: Campus ~; Q) i Mesto '0 I Carry '0; Park__ ~ Q) I a:: -~-............ .; S 344Tf1 - T 5 344TH Sf 5 3441H 5T 5 344TH Sf I - - - Medical t I Office ~BP I I Bldg. . .. 'I '.., ) ~v' .. ~Ieventh p\Jce ,lJ ..... v~ Sea coma ." .. 'l> _ ~ _ ~ Center/ I Lanes ~ ..~ .f ~ z " ~ ~ - nV .c:J ~ WN~~ :I -...-:'\: , " ,,' ~g>lf :: ~...w ... v Public t!! " - j Quality "- 1 '" Storage t!! Inn -' '" .. .:; ~ g ., . :! '" . "," It: S')41"~ ~ '" Wells 5 347TH ST ~ :. '" .. ~ ~ Fargo ; ------- ~ BP Zoning . 5 348TH 5T In 5R 18 5R 18 5TAT - iSharis Federal Way , Cin C , '- Popeyes " , .... ~ I Zoning Key: c.... . ~ D BP Zoning - oJ "- -,,"-' - Olive Il.':-' . " ~ Garden ~ [ - r All Other Zoning , ~ .... ,,,,1 Wl ~ Possible Future Rezone to OP C" Critical Areas Key: \ BP Sc ~ Streams* Wetland Ra~.J.",-. " - S 352ND 8T S 352ND 5T Wetlands (1998 City Survey) - . Consider in future D Wetland Buffers Subarea Plan Lowes Property Key: Consider Rezone ,- Hardware City of Federal Way Properties to BC I Bpi ~I City of Federal Way SWM Properties S 356th I Federal Way School District Properties e De!ention I Pond New King County Properties Lowe's - ~ - Store Lakehaven Utility District Properties Multi-Family Properties Parks 5 356TH Sf - Single Family Residence in BP Zone - Open State of Washington Property Space Tracts/Private Open Space ,. I } United States Government Property 1 ~ ~ 'S WetRmd- ~ ~ 0 500 1,000 '. ~ RatitlI1: l N I t Feet I :1~~",~ This map is accompanied by no warranties, :r I ~ and is simply a graphic representation. I 5 359TH 51 5 359TH 5f tl I ... ., '" ~ . .~ . ~ -'