Planning Comm PKT 06-21-2006
City of Federal Way
PLANNING COMMISSION
June 21, 2006
7:00p.m.
City Hall
Council Chambers
AGENDA
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
4. AUDIENCE COMMENT
5. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
6. COMMISSION BUSINESS
. PUBLIC HEARING - Continued
Cottage Housing Code Amendment
7. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS
8. AUDIENCE COMMENT
9. ADJOURN
Commissioners
Hope Elder, Chair
Dave Osaki
Merle Pfeifer
Pam Duncan-Pierce
Dini Duclos, Vice-Chair
William Drake
Lawson Bronson
Richard Agnew (Alternate #1)
City Staff
Kathy McClung, CDS Director
Margaret Clark, Senior Planner
E. Tina Piety, Administrative Assistant
253-835-2601
11-""11'. cityo(federal11'av.com
K:\Planning Connnission\2006lAgenda 06-21-06.doc
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
PLANNING COMMISSION
May 3, 2006
7:00 p.m.
City Hall
Council Chambers
MEETING MINUTES
Commissioners present: Hope Elder, Dave Osaki, Merle Pfeifer, Bill Drake, Lawson Bronson, and Pam Duncan-
Pierce. Commissioners absent: Dini Duclos (excused). Altemate Commissioners present: Richard Agnew. Alternate
Commissioners absent: none. Staff present: Director of Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Services Donna Hanson,
Parks, Planning, and Development Services Coordinator Betty Sanders, John Hutton, Assistant City Attorney Amy
Jo Pearsall, Senior Planner Margaret Clark, and Administrative Assistant E. Tina Piety.
Chair Elder called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
ApPROVAL OF MINUTES
Commissioner Bronson moved (and it was seconded) to adopt the April 19, 2006, minutes with a correction (it is
Chair Elder, not Vice-Chair). The motion carried.
AUDIENCE COMMENT
None
ADMINISTRATIVE REpORT
Ms. Clark informed the Commission that a public hearing on the zero lot line code amendment is scheduled for
June 21, 2006. A public hearing on cottage housing will be held either June 7th or June 21 st.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
PUBLIC HEARING - 2006 Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan Update
Ms. Clark introduced Director of Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Services Donna Hanson and Parks, Planning, and
Development Services Coordinator Betty Sanders. Ms. Sanders delivered the staff report. The City's Parks,
Recreation, and Open Space Plan (Parks Plan), which is part of the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan (FWCP), is
updated every six years in compliance with the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA). The process
has included an extensive assessment of the City's existing parks, open spaces, and recreation programs. It also
included efforts to determine the needs and desires of the community. There were public opinion surveys, open
house meetings, stakeholders group (made up of individuals representing organizations that have an interest in the
future of the City's park system) meetings, and working sessions with the Parks and Recreation Commission and
the Parks, Recreation, and Public Safety Committee ofthe City Council.
The 2006 Parks Plan has:
· Less emphasis on acquiring land for neighborhood parks; more emphasis on improving existing
facilities
· Less emphasis on quantity of park land (and a numeric level of service standard), and more
emphasis on their future development
· A detailed assessment of each individual park and open space site
· A focus on meeting a variety of social and recreational needs, including the need for community
gathering spaces and for a diverse community
K:\Planning Connnission\2006\Meeting Summary 05-03-06.doc
Planning Commission Minutes
Page 2
May 3, 2006
Five "Core Values" emerged from a consensus of ideas and opinions expressed through the public outreach efforts.
These core values have been used to guide the concepts and proposals developed throughout the planning process.
1. Improve existing facilities and provide multiple functions in parks
2. Develop a walking and biking community through an integrated trail and sidewalk network
3. Retain and improve our open spaces
4. Create community gathering places and destinations
5. Provide a balance of services for a diverse population
The Commission asked how these core values differ from six years ago. Ms. Sanders replied that the last plan
focused on neighborhood parks. Through their research the parks department has found that the use of
neighborhood parks is low, while that of community-wide parks (such as Steel Lake) is higher. In addition, there is
a new focus on quality. Also, this Parks Plan has detailed information about each park and open space. The plan
six years ago had only two lines about each park and open space.
The Commission asked about the financial impact of this plan. Ms. Sanders referred them to Attachment A
(handed out this evening) which is a detailed financial plan. The Commission asked where is the funding coming
from. Ms. Sanders replied that potential funding sources are listed and that grants would be a big part of the
funding sources. The Commission expressed their concern that if they recommend adoption of the Parks Plan, they
are also recommending the financial plan, which only has potential funding sources.
Commissioner Osaki asked for an explanation of the phased maintenance plan. Ms. Sanders stated that the parks
department has staffing issues. For many parks all they can do is mow and clean up trash. They are not able to
perform the little extras (such as planting annuals) that would add to atmosphere of the park. In addition, they have
a large graffiti and vandalism problem. Phased maintenance address how often larger tasks must be done and fits in
the day-to-day tasks.
There was no public testimony.
Commissioner Pfeifer moved (and it was seconded) to recommend adoption of the Parks, Recreation, and Open
Space Plan as presented. It was moved (and seconded) to amend the main motion by including a comment that the
Planning Commission is aware that financial challenges exist with this plan. The amendment was carried (five yes,
one no). The main motion as amended was carried (six yes).
The public hearing was closed.
ADDITIONAL BUSINESS
None
AUDIENCE COMMENT
P. T. Purdom, Chair of the Parks Commission - He has been on the Parks Commission for the last nine
years. He appreciated the comments from the Planning Commission. The Parks Commission knows that
what they do impacts others and they do not have the final word (that is the City Council). They want the
best for Federal Way. When the City Council held interviews for the Parks Commission, they asked where
the interviewee stands on a special levy for parks. Mr. Purdom asked the Planning Commissioners to also
consider this question.
ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at 8:26 p.m.
K:\Planning Connnission\2006\Meeting Summary 05-03-06.doc
~ Federal Way
CITY HALL
33325 8th Avenue South
Mailing Address: PO Box 9718
Federal Way, WA 98063-9718
(253) 835-7000
www.cityoffederalway.com
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
Planning Commission Public Hearing
June 21, 2006
DATE:
June 14,2006
TO:
Chair
Planning Commission
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Isaac Coni en, Senior Planner....,...... L:-
-
Cottage Housing
Based on public comments received since distribution of your previous packets, we've made a few
changes to the draft cottage housing text. I've enclosed a copy of the public comment letter and a
modified draft ordinance. Please replace pages 1-5 of exhibit 1 from your previous packet, (prepared for
the June 7, 2006 meeting) with this modified version. Changes from your previous packet are shown in
strikethrough and underline.
Doc.1.D.
Article XII.
COTTAGE HOUSING
Sections:
22-xxxx
22-xxxx
22-xxxx
22-xxxx
Purpose
Applicability
Development Standards
Modifications
22-xxxx Purpose.
The purpose ofthis 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 ofthe 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 ffile .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) A CHD in an RS zone shall be separated from another CHD by a
minimum of660 feet measured between the closest points of the 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) Calculation of Cottage Dwelling Units },/inimum Lot Size.
1
(1) Two cottages are permitted for each dwelling unit permitted by the
underlying zoning classification. The following steps shall be utilized to
determine the number of cottages permitted on a given site:
(a) In the RS zones the applicant shall submit a proforma site plan
showing the number of conventional dwelling units that would be
permitted by the underlying zoning classification. This number shall
be rounded to the nearest whole number.
(b) The number calculated in subsection (c)(I)(a) above shall be
multiplied by two. The resulting number is the number of cottages
permitted on the site, subiect to the maximum identified in subsection
(a)(2) above.
( c) In the RM zones one cottage is permitted for each 2.500 square feet of
lot area, based on gross lot size.
Sabdi'lided lots in RS 5.0 and 7.2 zones. Minimum lot size shall be one
half of that required by the underlying zone.
(2) Condominiam style projects in RS 5.0 and 7.2 zones. The ffiIDlber of
cottages permitted in a condominiam style project shall be equal to the
ffilfllber oflots that may be created pursuant to subsection (e)(1) abo'le.
(3) Subdi'/ided, condominium or multifamily projects in the RM ZORes. One
cottage is permitted for each 2,500 square feet oflot area for
condominium and multi family projeets. Minimum lot size for sl:lbdivided
lots is 2,500 square f-eet.
(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 of total 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 of 3,000 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 10-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
2
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 area.
(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 ~2- feet.
(g) Site Design.
(1) A minimum of75 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.
(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 4() 50 square feet in size. If
not subject to (h)(2) above this shall be a primary entrance with covered
porch, a minimum of 80 square feet in size.
(4) Covered porches shall be a minimum of6 feet deep.
(5) Cottages shall not include attached garages unless the garage abuts an
alley or shared parking lot. The door of an attached garage shall not be
oriented tm.'fards a public right of ':/ay, \vith the exception of an alley.
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 M U parking spaces per cottage shall be provided for the
entire development. Fifteen percent oftotal 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 roof pitch.
(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.
3
(6) No shared garage or carport may exceed -l-;WG 800 square feet in size er-4
parking spaces.
(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 W 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. On-street parking is permitted along the entire frontage.
(lO)Surface parking lots shall be setback 15-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
22-1567(e).
(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 and Building Separation. Cottages shall have I5-foot front and 5-
foot side and rear yard setback requirements. Cottages shall be separated by a
minimum of 10- feet, not including proj ections, as identified in FWCC 22-
1133(4). Cottages and accessory buildings shall be separated by six feet.
Cottages not abutting or oriented towards a right-of-wav shall have a front
yard oriented towards the common open space. The Director of Community
Development may use appropriate discretion in determining orientation of
yards in CHDs.
(I) Lot Coverage. Lot coverage in CHDs shall not exceed 60 percent of gross site
area. Lot coverage shall be calculated for the overallCHD, 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.
4
(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) CHDs in the RS zones are permitted as subdivisions, short subdivisions or
condominium developments. CHDs in the RM zones are permitted as
subdivisions, short subdivisions, condominium developments or multi-
family developments.
(2) 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 ofthe cottages within the CHD.
(3) An existing single-family home(s) incorporated into a CHD, that does not
meet the requirements ofthis 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.
(4) Accessory Dwelling Units are not permitted in CHDs.
(5) CHDs may not utilize the cluster subdivision provisions of FWCC 20-154.
(6) For those CHDs processed as formal or short subdivisions, all
development standards ofthis 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 developrnent standards ofthis
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, setbacks and parking provisions ofthis 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 ofthe article as stated in
FWCC 22-xxxx.
(c) The modification will not result in a project that is less compatible with
neighboring land uses.
5
n - CHD draft code
Pa
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
"Jim Soules" <jim@cottagecompany.com>
<isaac.conlen@cityoffederalway.com>
6/5/2006 9:33:37 PM
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
n - CHD draft code
P
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" <Iinda@cottagecompany.com>