The URL can be used to link to this page

LUTC PKT 08-07-2006 -------------------------- -------~- City of Federal Way City Council Land Use/Transportation Committee August 7th, 2006 City Hall 5 :30 p.m. Council Chambers MEETING AGENDA 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: July 17th, 2006 3. PUBLIC COMMENT (3 minutes) 4. BUSINESS ITEMS A. 21st Avenue SW Extension - SW 356th Street to 22nd Ave Action 5 min 1 Salloum SW Improvements Project - 100% Design Status Report B. Setting public Hearing date for the Street Vacation of Campus Action 5 min 1 Salloum Highlands Division 1,3, & 5 C. South 320th Street at 1st Avenue South Intersection Action 5 min 1 Salloum Improvements Project - 100% Design Status Report D. Cottage Housing Code Amendment Action 15 min 1 Conlen E. 2006/2007 Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) Area FlexPass Action 10 min 1 Perez for City Hall F. PAA Annexation Update - Stone Creek & Van Doenhoff Information 10 min 1 McClung 5. FUTURE MEETINGSI 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:\LUTC\LUTC Agendas alld Summaries 1006\08-07-06 LUTe Agenda. doc --------...-- ------- City of Federal Way City Council Land Use/Transportation Committee July 17th, 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; Mayor Mike Park; Interim City Manager Derek Matheson, MIS Director Iwen Wang; Community Development Director Kathy McClung; Community Development Deputy Director Greg Fewins; Associate Planner Isaac Conlen; Senior Planner Margaret Clark; Public Works Director Cary Roe; Public Works Deputy Director Ken Miller; Street Systems Manager Marwan Salloum; Streets Project Engineer Al Emter; City Traffic Engineer Rick Perez; SWM Project Engineer Fei Tang; Deputy City Attorney Karen Kirkpatrick; Administrative Assistant II Marianne Lee; Kevin Kiernan & Diane Yates from King County's Solid Waste Division 1. CALL TO ORDER Councilman Dovey called the meeting to order at 5:32 pm. Eric Faison is out of town and was excused. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The June 19th 2006, minutes were approved. Moved: McColgan Seconded: Dovey Passed: Unanimously 3. PUBLIC COMMENT None 4. BUSINESS ITEMS A. Regional Solid Waste Svstem Planning Rob Van Orsow introduced this item; Kevin Kiernan from King County's Solid Waste Division provided the background information on this item. This item was information only. Council Member McColgan thanked Mr. Kiernan for his presentation. He asked for clarification that the Algona Transfer Station will remain open until it is replaced with another facility. Mr. Kiernan assured him that in the document it says that no facility will be closed until replacement capacity is available. Council Member McColgan asked for an ETA on the replacement facility. Mr. Kiernan said 2015; with the site selection, land use permitting, planning and public comment and then construction required the process will be completed around 2015. The new location will be close to the current Algona facility. Kent, Federal Way, Algona & Auburn are in the service area and King County is looking to replace it within the service area. The export system plan will include a facility sighting plan. King County went through a process where they talked about criteria with both Metropolitan Solid Waste Management Advisory Committee (MSWMAC) and Interjurisdictional Technical Staff Group (ITSG) and that document was adopted in May so there are new established criteria. The public process is a very important part of that. Council Member McColgan asked a final question: Is recycling a part of the County's plan? Mr. Kiernan responded that it is. One of most significant changes in the new facilities is that they all provide for separate yard waste/organic waste collection. The facilities in use now have been around 40 years; no one could conceive of the range of things we want to collect now. They want to have space so that ifthere's a material that suddenly becomes recyclable in a few years they will have space for bins, space for collecting that & G:ILUTCILUTC Agendas and Summaries 2006107-17-06 LUTC Minutes FINALdoc Land Use/Transportation Committee Page 2 June 19th, 2006 recycling it. This item was infornlation only; it will return to the Council at a fl.lture date. B. Grant Funding for Transportation Improvement Proiects This item was passed without a presentation. Moved: McColgan Seconded: Dovey Passed: Unanimously Committee PASSED Option 1 on to the August 1St, 2006 City Council Consent Agenda. C. South 34Sth Street HOV Lanes Proiect - 30% Design Status Report This item was passed without a presentation. Moved: McColgan Seconded: Dovey Passed: Unanimously Committee PASSED Option 1 on to the August 1st, 2006 City Council Consent Agenda D. 26th Ave SW Drainage Trunk Replacement Proiect - 50% Design Status Report This item was passed without a presentation. Moved: McColgan Seconded: Dovey Passed: Unanimously Committee PASSED Option 1 on to the August 1 st, 2006 City Council Consent Agenda E. Mark Twain NTS (20th Ave S) Rick Perez provided the background information for this item. Staff recommends Option 3, which combines Options 1 and 2. Council Member McColgan noted that Mr. Perez has said the price for this would be $2,000 over the limit. How is the City doing on a year-to-date basis, on this budget? Mr. Perez responded that this is the first NTS project that would come out of this year's budget; we also have the one to be presented next. There's another in the hopper that staff thinks will be under the $10,000 so staff thinks it will be OK for the budget this year; unless a whole slew of petitions come in in the next few weeks. Mr. Perez responded that the public Right of Way (ROW) extends ten feet back from the curb. Chair Dovey said if the City comes and says "We're going to put in these speed bumps and, by the way, take out this juniper and we're going to have people walk on your grass," is that going to go over very well? Mr. Perez said there is the potential for some controversy on that topic which is why staff is alerting Council to the issue. When this topic came up, that was one of the reasons why staff decided to have the neighborhood vote on it: to see if there was a strong consensus within the neighborhood to address this issue. 71 % of those that voted said yes that we should attempt to remove them. Chair Dovey then asked if the residents owned that land; Mr. Perez explained that the City owns that land. It's ROW. Mr. Perez discussed the issue and the need to reclaim sight distance at intersections and to enable residents to walk along the street and not in the road. The City usually deals with these issues on a complaint basis. If a complaint is made, the City investigates and resolves the issue. Now that the City has been notified of this issue, and we've identified the fact that it's not compliant with City Code for sight distance at intersections, if there was ever a collision there, the City could be liable for not acting. Chair Dovey agreed and asked if staff has knocked on doors and told residents there is a sight distance problem. Mr. Perez said staff has not yet; that's one of the things staff was looking for out of this LUTC meeting. The City does not have the staff to go out and investigate the sight distance at every intersection. Therefore, the City only responds on a complaint basis. Mayor Park asked what happens if the property owner claims they have 'owned' that property for many years? City Deputy Attorney Karen Kirkpatrick said under the statute there is no adverse possession against a government entity. [Residents cannot claim adverse possession against the City.] Mayor Park asked that if they GILUTCILUTC Agendas and Summaries 2006107-17-06 LUTC Minutes FINALdoc Land Use/Transportation Committee Page 3 June 19th, 2006 must remove the fence, will the property owner bear the cost of the removal? Mr. Perez said Federal Way's code does not address this issue. Chair Dovey asked if the real issue for safely walking is cars parked on the street. Mr. Perez said that contributes; when this development went in there were no sidewalks placed on this segment ofthe street. [Referencing the slide on the screen, which shows cars lining both sides of the street and no sidewalks he said] This is not necessarily indicative of parking utilization on the entire street this just happened to be the picture staff picked, that best illustrated the landscaping being in the way. Council Member McColgan said that at this point, since it has been identified as a safety issue the City is obligated to go forward and have the fence moved by the property owner. Mr. Perez clarified that this may not be the only fence; that there may be areas where the landscaping creates a sight-distance hazard at the intersection as well. It is not just that the landscaping is creating a problem for people trying to walk along the street; it is also a sight-distance hazard. Council Member Kochmar pointed out that residents are not to plant landscaping - junipers or anything else - in the ROW. She asked Mr. Perez if city staff notify people when their landscaping causes a sight obstruction. Mr. Perez responded that residents are notified on a complaint basis. Council Member McColgan asked if staff has the resources to go look at every sight obstructing landscaping in the City to give Council an adequate report? Public Works Director Cary Roe confirmed that staff does not have the resources to do that. Mr. Roe said that when identified, city staff work with the property owners to minimize the amount landscaping and/or fence removal or trimming of trees - whatever that is. The City's intent is trying to minimize the safety impacts to the traveling public and the pedestrians who use the road. Staff works hard to minimize the impact to the property owners. Mayor Park suggested that talking to the property owners should include not only the sight problem but also any public ROW encroachment. Some areas without any sight problems will have property owners encroaching upon the City ROW. Mr. Perez said City staff do occasionally run across a situation where somebody will put a non-conforming structure or something like that within the ROW or within the set-back from the ROW. Typically those are code enforcement issues rather than a Public Works Traffic Department Issue. Moved: McColgan Seconded: Dovey Passed: Unanimously Cmte PASSED Option 1 and part of Option 2 (to remove sight obstructions at intersections, but not pedestrian obstructions mid-block) on to the August 1st, 2006 COlmcil Consent Agenda. F. Sherwood Forest NTS (1 th Ave SW) Rick Perez provided the background information for this item. Staff recommends Option 1 Moved: McColgan Seconded: Dovey Passed: Unanimously Committee PASSED Option 1 on to the August 1 S\ 2006 City Council Consent Agenda G. Commute Trip Reduction Program Interlocal Agreement with King County This item was passed without a presentation. Moved: McColgan Seconded: Dovey Passed: Unanimously Committee PASSED Option 1 on to the August 1 '\ 2006 City Council Consent Agenda H. Cottage Housing Code Amendment Isaac Conlen provided the background information on this item. Public Comment: G:ILUTCILUTC Agendas and Summaries 2006107-17-06 LUTC Minutes FINALdoc -- ------------ Land Use/Transportation Committee Page 4 June 19th, 2006 Randy Forsyth, Stanton Properties. It's actually a pretty good ordinance, if you look at it, the way that it's written. They have comments on a couple of key elements of the ordinance. The limiting of the square footage to 1,100 is really small. He believes that they don't necessarily have to be limited to such small units to still be an effective ordinance for a cottage housing development. The other issue is the roof pitch; having a minimum of 6: 12. [Their plans use] a 4: 12 pitch to allow for architectural flatter features, not necessarily for the whole roof You would keep that same cottage look. Jim Soules, President of the Cottage (~ompanv, developer of the four projects just shown on the screen. He commended the Council and staff for bringing forward this concept. There's a great deal of interest in it all throughout the Puget Sound Region and he feels that. that Isaac and the staff have done a good job responding to some of the problems that happened in Shoreline. Shoreline did not have a strong design review process and in the process staff kind of felt that it was boxed into a code that was not very prescriptive. He also commented on equivalent density. These were clearly intended to be 2-bedroom or smaller homes. A great number of people, probably 2/3 to 75% of the purchasers of cottage housing are, in fact, single. He also commented on "affordable" [vs] "attainable". These are for people lookingfor an alternative to living in an attached condo where they still would pay $300,000 or $400,000 for a home but they still want a single family experience and they want to be in a single family residential neighborhood. End Public Comment Council Member McColgan asked if you have a 7.2 zoned piece of property, you can have two units on that property? Mr. Conlen said the basic concept is that you get pretty close to twice the number of conventional units that you get. Council Member McColgan asked how staff would deal with that project, or that development, abutting another development that is already built out with the regular zoned houses. Mr. Conlen said there are a number of provisions that staff intends to use to address compatibility with surrounding uses. They include: limitation on the height, the limitation on the location and orientation of the parking structures, landscaping to buffer the parking, and also a separation requirement so you don't have an influx of a large number of cottage projects within the same neighborhood: Staff would like projects to integrate on a smaller scale into the neighborhood. Limitation on the number of cottages within the project is one component of this. It's a trade off; it's a higher density but there's the smaller lot size so staff has identified criteria to mitigate those impacts. Council Member McColgan asked if it would have a negative impact on those homes that are already built and established that are 2,400 to 3,000 sq ft and now you have, abutting to your property, two or three 1,100 sq ft units? Mr. Conlen replied that he does not think so. The ultimate square footage may be very similar to what you could do in a conventional project. Traffic volumes are going to be lighter per unit because there aren't as many people living there. What staff is trying to do is limit the impacts to no more than what you would have with a conventional type project. Mr. Conlen said cottage housing is not for a family with a couple of kids. It's for a certain demographic that, like previously said, is looking for this type of use but this product is not available in the region. Council Member Kochrnar said Randy Forsyth showed a very attractive design for something that was 1,300 sq ft or more. Mr. Conlen said the main reason why staff limits the size of the units is because of the impact of those units. You are talking about a higher density and so staff is trying to keep these on a scale that keeps that trade- offin effect. The higher the density the smaller the unit. If you start getting too big you're not talking about cottage housing you're talking about single family higher density housing. Community Development Director Kathy McClung added that this [cottage housing] is just one housing option, or tool, that staff would like to add to their different options for housing. They also have zero-lot line and small-lot subdivisions that are going to the planning commission this week. Chair Dovey asked Mr. Conlen to elaborate on the 660 ft set-back he mentioned. Mr. Conlen said it is not a set-back, it is a separation requirement between cottage housing projects. If a cottage housing project comes into a neighborhood the second applicant would need to locate a minimum of 660 feet from that project. GILUTCILUTC Agendas and Summaries 2006107-17-06 LUTC Minutes FINAL.doc Land UseITransportation Committee Page 5 June 19th, 2006 Chair Dovey asked how many parcels ofland in Federal Way this could actually take place on? Mr. Conlen said he would guess they are talking about 100 sites. Chair Dovey said, if someone has an acre somewhere in Federal Way and they want to develop cottage housing if Council passes this ordinance but their zoning is 30,000 sq ft so they are out of the game? Mr. Conlen said it is a decision for the Committee and for the Council. Staff has taken a more conservative approach in making this applicable and the more medium to high density single family zones that the City has. Jim Soules noted that no one has gone beyond the 7.2. Council Member McColgan said there's not a lot of history on cottage housing. Without a lot of history or a proven a track record, he thinks it is more of a risk for the City to adopt a cottage style housing development. At 1,100 sq ft he guesses they are still in the $250,000 range, given what he's looked at. Chair Dovey said he thinks $350,000 - $400,000. Council Member McColgan said he hopes not; he thinks they're trying to create housing for people who are entry level- workers and single moms. Chair Dovey said that what he's been told about cottage housing is that it's more for the single, professional and the empty nester who does not want the 4,000 sq ft house any more; that wants to stay in the community. Mr. Conlen agreed Council Member Kochmar said she agrees with Chair Dovey; there is no housing available for our seniors. She said the City must provide different housing types for different niches. There is still affordable housing in our City for low income. Cottage housing is simply for a different market. Mayor Park said that cottage housing can be built not only in 7,200 but also in the RM, the multiple residential. Council Member McColgan asked if there has been an instance where something like this has been approved on a test basis? Mr. Conlen said that the City of Kirkland approached it on this basis. They allowed demonstration projects; he thought they had a demonstration ordinance. He said the trade-off is that that is a more conservative approach; it's like putting your toe in the water to see what the response is. The benefit is that: if people don't accept this type of housing you can cut it off and you won't get a lot of it. However, if it is accepted it delays the benefits of implementing this type of housing on a larger scale. Senior Planner Margaret Clark said that there is also the demonstration project that Quadrant wants to do in what staff call Res North (north of 320th). Those would be 1,400 - 1,500 sq ft houses on 2,400 sq ft lots; a lot more attractive, creative, flexible type of development. Chair Dovey asked if staff know where 7,200 is in the City. He thinks that is something Council gets before they make a final decision on the ordinance. Council Member McColgan said he would favor a demonstration with 3-5 projects and have staff work on the next steps for that and forward the recommendation to Council. Mr. Conlen said staff has looked at how the City of Kirkland did it. They identified neighborhoods within their community and specified no more than one or two projects within a particular neighborhood. Federal Way could approach it that way and divide the City up into geographic regions based on the type of zoning staff is looking at and allow one project in each area and a period of time to evaluate the project after it was built. Jim Soules commented that Kirkland had a once a year submission program so that it was a comparison of all the projects at the same time; it was not that the first one in was approved. Five were submitted the first time and they chose two. Chair Dovey said, so it can be moved out of the Committee, he would second that the LUTC move the ordinance forward and have staff come back with a criteria on how to do 3-5 projects in a demonstration and that options be presented for the rest of the Council to discuss at the councillevel. The committee directed staff to come back in two weeks, do some fine tuning, so the City can move forward. Chair Dovey thanked staff and complimented them on the process. \. Annexation Update Kathy McClung provided background information on this item; it has been presented at LUTC in the past. Public Comment: G:ILUTCILUTC Agendas and Summaries 2006107-17-06 LUTC Minutes FINAL,doc -- --- ------------------- Land Use/Transportation Committee Page 6 June 19th, 2006 Jane Von Doenhoff, 1414 S 376th St. She has lived on the property for 48 years and they have always associated with Federal Way although they were not 'in the city limits' at that time. They are, unfortunately at this time, split between being in the City ofF ederal Way and potential annexation into Milton. Their desire is to be all in one city or the other and since the north half is in Federal Way they would appreciate having the south half in Federal Way. They did send a letter expressing that wish back in February of 2005 and it was addressed to Mr. Greg F ewins. It was asking that they request the south half of their parcel to be annexed into Federal Way. At this point, having it separated like that has created tax-property nightmares so it would be easierfor them if they were included in Federal Way. Thank you. Council Member McColgan said Federal Way has been walking a fine line on the 20,000 annexation population number that triggers the legislation out of Olympia. Ifthe City gave up the Stone Creek sub- division to Milton would Federal Way fall under the 20,000 number? MIS Director Iwen Wang said that at this time City staff are still working with the Department of Revenue (DOR) and Office of Financial Management (OFM) in terms of how the annexation population will be determined and if they will rely on the City's estimate and assumption of the number or if they want to make a modification of that assumption. So it would be preferable if the City did not give up a large number of households. Council Member McColgan said he thinks it comes down to asking what the citizens in that subdivision want. Council Member Kochmar agreed with Council Member McColgan; she said the most sensible thing would be to keep the upper portion [of this sub-division] in Federal Way's PAA. As for the three lots, as Ms. Von Doenhoff said, it's a little bit of a nightmare if there's a call for service and the boundary is split like that. Who responds? Mr. Conlen said the sense that he got, in discussing this with Milton's staff, was that they want a trade. They will give Federal Way 'their' portion of the Von Doenhoffparcel in exchange for Federal Way's portion of the Stone Creek sub-division. With that scenario, Milton seems willing to give up the Von Doenhoff parcel. Chair Dovey said he moved staff go to Council on the annexation and that this parcel is not part of it and then staff return to LUTC with the three lots. Ms. McClung said staff won't be ready by the next Council meeting but they will work on it and can present these topics at the next LUTe. Chair Dovey moved to pass the annexation of the entire PAA. Council Member McColgan seconded. Ms. McClung clarified that the Von Doenhoff parcel can be annexed at any time. It does not have to go with the entire P AA. Staff will find out from Milton what their position is on that. If they are agreeable staff will work with the property owners to figure out when the best time to amend the P AA boundary is and then what works best for annexation. Council Member McColgan said Council is in favor of assuming this parcel. Ms. McClung said that staff will have another conversation with the City of Milton to resolve the issue of the three Stone Creek lots that straddle the annexation boundary. J. BP /BC Amendment Concepts Margaret Clark provided the background information on this item for Lori Michaelson. Public Comment: Rob Rueber 6220 2cjh St NE Tacoma. They are in favor of the merger of the zones. They're in favor because most of what they see coming to Federal Way isfrom a broker's perspective ... We allow 50-seat restaurants in the BP zone but require 1.5 acre minimum lot size... You have a really comprehensive set of rules that everyone has to follow. Council Member McColgan asked what the total BP acreage is. Ms. Clark said the amount varies but right now there are about 94 vacant BP acres; a lot of it includes wetlands & buffers. Council Member McColgan says it seems that BP has not been developed in a long time. He leans toward merging the BP & BC and coming up with some kind of compromise zone. Regarding hotels; he would actually prefer to see a taller hotel. He does G: ILUTClLUTC Agendas and Summaries 2006107-17-06 LUTC Minutes FINAL.doc ------------------------ -- -- - ------ Land Use/Transportation Committee Page 7 June 19th, 2006 not want to compete with downtown but he also believes that there is a tremendous need, in a city of Federal Way's size, for more hotel space. For the events held at the aquatics center, Celebration Park, the [Subaru] triathlon, there are so many people staying outside the City and Federal Way is continuing to lose good revenue dollars and economic development dollars. Increased hotel heights make the properties more marketable and creates an economic development opportunity; he'd like to see it taller. The set-backs in the 5- acre suggestions make sense; he would support those changes. Chair Dovey said to merge the two zones; make them as open as can be. On the heights; if it makes sense to go to four floors, go to four floors. If it needs to be 50 feet, so be it. That's just common sense. Council Member Kochmar agrees with her colleagues; she thinks the two zones should merge. She would also be in favor of taller hotels; so many of the city's business spaces are sitting vacant and are in need of redevelopment and she hopes this will help that as well. Council Member McColgan thinks it's healthy to look at the zoning and think about the long-term development future of the City. The City faces a budget issue every single biennium and if they can improve Federal Way's economic health and make it more desirable to develop he does not see why staff would not entertain those positive steps. Ms. Clark said that eventually it will go to Council as part of the Code Amendment, probably sometime before the end of2006 5. FUTURE MEETINGS The next scheduled meeting will be August 7'h, 2006. 6. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 8: 11 p.m. GILUTClLUTC Agendas and Summaries 2006107-17-06 LUTC Minutes FlNAL.doc ---------------- COUNCIL MEETING DATE: Sept. 5,2006 ITEM #: .......m......._._...._........... ................................................. ........._....... ......................... ..... ....................................-........-....... CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL SUBJECT: 21st Avenue SW Extension, SW 356th Street to 220d Avenue SW, Improvements Project -100% Design Status Report POLICY QUESTION: Should the Council authorize staff to bid the 21 sl Avenue SW Extension, SW 3561h Street to 220d Avenue SW, Improvements Project and return to LUTC for bid award, further reports and authorization? COMMITTEE: Land Use and Transportation Committee MEETING DATE: Aug. 7,2006 CATEGORY: [gI Consent 0 Ordinance 0 Public Hearing 0 City Council Business 0 Resolution 0 Other ~!~~X~~~2~!'I!y.=..M.i:l:~i:l:~.~~1.!I:?~!!.I:?~!~~~!.~y~!~~~.M~i:l:g~E .. .." . DEPT: Public Works .......... ......... ....................................M ...............M........... .................................. .................... .................".....................M.... Attachments: 1. Staff memo to LUTC dated August 7, 2006. Options Considered: 1. Authorize staff to bid the 21 sl Ave SW Extension, SW356th St to 22nd Ave SW, Improvements Project and return to the LUTC Committee to award the project to the lowest responsive, responsible bidder. 2. Do not authorize staff to bid this project and provide direction to staff. .....-........----..- ........... .........................-...... ......._. ...................................._................. ........................._ ................_....._.................... ......................_....__......._..__....M...... . ...m................................."............ ..........................._.......... ............. ..............--........-............-......-..-..--... STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Authorize staff to bid the 21st Ave SW Extension, SW 356th St to 22nd Ave, Improvements Project and return to the LUTC Committee to award the ro' the I west res onsive, res onsible bidder. CITY MANAGER ApPROVAL: thttt... Council Committee Council COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Forward Option 1 to the September 5th, 2006 City Council Consent Agenda for approval. Jack Dovey, Chair Eric Faison, Member Dean McColgan, Member PROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION: "I move approval to authorize stajfto bid the21st Ave SW Extension, SW356th St to 22nd Ave SW, Improvement Project and return to the LUTC Committee to award the project to the lowest responsive, responsible bidder" (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 # K:\COUNCIL\AGDBILLS\2006\09-05-06 21st Ave SW Extension - 100% Design Status Report.doc CITY OF FEDERAL WAY MEMORANDUM DATE: July 31, 2006 TO: Land Use and Transportation Committee VIA: Derek Matheson, Interim City Manag~ FROM: Marwan Salloum, P.E., Street Systems Manager ." SUBJECT: 21st Avenue SW Extension - SW 356th Street to 22nd Avenue SW Improvements Project- 100% Design Status Report BACKGROUND: This project will extend a 2-lane collector street section from SW356th Street to 220d Avenue SW. The traffic signal will be modified to accommodate the added lanes. PROJECT ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES: Planning and Design $150,000 ROW Acquisition 288,000 Construction cost 2006 (estimate) 590,000 10% Construction Contingency 59,000 Construction Management 67,000 TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $1,154,000 AVAILABLE FUNDING: Grant Funding $500,000 REET Fund 307,000 Mitigation 90,400 Interest 18,000 TOTAL A V AILABLE BUDGET $915,400 At this time this project budget has funding shortfall of $238,600. As part of the 2007/2008 budget staff will be requesting a transfer of$238,000 from completed CIP projects to this project. cc: Project File Day File K:\LUTC\2006\08-07-06 21st Ave SW Extension SW356th ST to 22nd Ave - 100%Design Status report - Matheson.doc ------- COUNCIL MEETING DATE: Sept 5, 2006 ITEM #: - .............~...~.._........._ ........................................... u..................... ..................................._...... ... . .... ........~.. ............................. ........ _. .... .. ... ._.............._.... .. ... .......~....M.__.M..~....... CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL SUBJECT: Setting Public Hearing Date for the Street Vacation of Campus Highland Divisions 1,3, & 5 POLICY QUESTION: Should City Council approve a resolution to set a Public Hearingfor the street vacation of a portion of the right of way within Campus Highlands Divisions 1, 3, & 5 on October 1 th, 2006? COMMITTEE: Land Use/Transportation MEETING DATE: Aug 7, 2006 CATEGORY: r;g] Consent 0 Ordinance Public Hearing D City Council Business r;g] Resolution Other ~!~!_!~_!.>.2~!.!\.x:M~~~!:1.~~!!~~~,~~~~~~y.~!~~~_Ma.:?a.:g~~ EPT: Public Works .. .... ............. ... .............._~...~..._~...._.__.....~... Attachments: 1. Staff LUTC memo, resolution, and attachments dated August 7, 2006. Options Considered: 1. Approve the Resolution to set the date and time of a public hearing for the street vacation of a portion of the right of way within Campus Highlands Divisions 1,3, & 5 at the Oct. 17th, 2006 City Council meeting. 2. Set Public Hearing on an alternative date recommended by the committee. ...... ......._..._....._......M ............................._ ............_............M .........................~...._......~__...... .........~ .............M ............... ... .............._...........M.....M .................................................. ............__....... ....._........ ............_._........M ......................M..M.M ............~......_ ..........._......._.._....~..._......._._..... STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Option 1. CITY MANAGER ApPROVAL: DIRECTOR ApPROVAL: ~ Council Committee Council COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: LUTC recommends Option_ Jack Dovey, Chair Eric Faison, Member Dean McColgan, Member PROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION: "I move to approve the Resolution to set the date and time of a public hearing for the street vacation of a portion of the right of way within Campus Highlands Divisions 1, 3, & 5 at the October 17th, 2006 City Council meeting " (BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE) COUNCIL ACTION: 0 APPROVED COUNCIL BILL # 0 DENIED 1ST reading 0 TABLEDIDEFERRED/NO ACTION Enactment reading 0 MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only) ORDINANCE # REVISED - 02/06/2006 RESOLUTION # K:\COUNCIL\AGDBILLS\2006\09-0S-06 Setting Public Hearing Date for Street Vacation of Campus Highland Division 1, 3 &S.doc CITY OF FEDERAL WAY MEMORANDUM DATE: July 31, 2006 TO: Land Use and Transportation committ~ VIA: Derek Matheson, Interim City Manager ~ FROM: Marwan Salloum, P.E., Street Systems Manager. ../ . SUBJECT: Setting Public Hearing Date for the Street VacatIOn of Campus Highlands Divisions 1, 3, & 5 BACKGROUND: The Campus Highlands Homeowners Association has petitioned the City to vacate a portion of 4th Place SW, sth Avenue SW, sth Place SW, SW 34Sth Street, SW 346th Place, SW 347th Place, SW 347th Way, SW 348th Court and SW 3S0th Place, located East of 6th Avenue SW between SW Campus Drive and Enterprise Elementary School, constituting the Campus Estates Neighborhood. See the accompanying map of the area to be vacated (Exhibit A) for exact location. The area is a system of connecting streets that are improved with asphalt concrete roads, curb and gutter, sidewalk, and storm drainage facilities. The street system in the neighborhood connects to 6th Avenue SWat two locations, at SW 34Sth Street to the north and SW 347th Way to the south. The only other connection to this system is an emergency access to Enterprise Elementary School, which connects to the south end of Sth A venue South. The zoning of the Campus Estates neighborhood is divided in to two sections. The properties abutting 4th Place SW, Sth Place SW, SW 34Sth Street, SW 346th Place, SW 34ih Place and SW 34ih Way are zoned Residential 7.2, the properties abutting Sth Avenue SW, SW 348th Court and SW 3S0th are zoned Residential 9.6. Both areas are listed as single family, high density in the Comprehensive Plan. The Homeowners Association is seeking the street vacation in order create a private gated community. The area to be vacated has sixty-eight (68) abutting private property owners, S tracts owned by the Campus Estates Homeowners Association and the Campus Highlands Homeowners Association, of which 43 signatures have been received. Other abutting property includes a 20-foot section owned by the City ofPederal Way, which connects to the Storm Water Retention Pond on the southwest end of Sth Avenue SW and the emergency access to Enterprise Elementary at the extreme south end of Sth Avenue SW. cc: Project File Day File Res. # , Page 1 --------.--- Exhibit "A" II-.~ ~~ /~ ~ .~ HI' ~ 111 N --'" l ... * ~:tf'1F; ~ ~~ .t ~ ~~ W E ...... I ... V < .L I C II 'P Ir, 14 ' ~ - I~ s III -;::;;, ~'1 r -m~ ~ ::j =~~- II 'r-~I - -l'.A ___ ~ E ~ 7~ I~ :+'<1< T1 If -f d E ~ ~ vV' \"""f&j 'j ~@J~ ~ S=t..,c~:~1- +Ll ~~ ~ Jl lI:J ~ ~~ 'I/Vlr ~~~ ~ ~ W c ,1/] 7i Ii'l /: -l:,., ~ 'J - ~1 l ~ ' ~ 1 ll'i:I' ~\ 11 J -" ~ ( IJ: &' r- 1 ~_~l ' ~ \~ Jl ~ - "i ~ ~&0, I ," I r1 fil' "\ ~ ,. \ ~ ~ V' ] I)L. ~ [I n -f-' . -IFf' L.J , ,l~ "~:r >4~ \I (v / ~ ~",r ./ ~~q~,;,~' I r-' '-f I=j- ~ lJ. -:j~ -;:: - ~ ~fl't~ L -A '\ t- Lfr ~ -1~ -y~ \ ~~~~~~~ ~ ~ I~ '\ [/ ~ -' /~ \ Proposed Streets To Be Vacated VICINITY MAP CAMPUS ESTATES STREET V ACA TION Map made by John Mulkey Note: This map is intended for use as a graphical representation only. Map Updated Jul 28 2006 The City of Federal Way makes no warranty as to its accuracy. RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON, REGARDING VACATION OF A PORTION OF RIGHT OF WAY WITHIN CAMPUS HIGHLANDS DIVISION 1, 3 AND 5, SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE STREET VACATION. WHEREAS, a proper petition has been filed requesting vacation of a portion of right of way within campus highlands Division 1, 3 and 5, in the City of Federal Way, as described in Exhibit "A" (legal description) and as depicted on Exhibit "B" attached hereto; WHEREAS, the petition contains the signatures of the owners of at least two- thirds of the property abutting the portion of right of way within campus highlands Division 1,3, and 5 proposed to be vacated; NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Res. # , Page 2 Section 1. A public hearing on the aforesaid vacation petition shall be held at the regular meeting of the Federal Way City Council at 7:00 p.m. on October 17, 2006, in the Council Chambers in the City Hall, 33325 8th Ave. South, Federal Way, Washington. Said hearing date is not more than sixty (60) nor less than twenty (20) days after the date of the passage of this resolution. Section 2. The City Clerk shall give at least twenty (20) days notice of the hearing and cause the notice to be posted as provided by law. Section 3. The Public Works Director shall obtain the necessary approval or rejection of, or other information from the City departments, affected agencies, and utilities, fire and police agencies, and shall transmit such information to the City Council so that the matter can be considered by the City Council at the public hearing on October 17,2006. Section 4. 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 ofthis resolution. Section 5. Ratification. Any act consistent with the authority and prior to the effective date of the resolution is hereby ratified and affirmed. Section 6. Effective Date. This resolution shall be effective immediately upon passage by the Federal Way City Council. RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON, this day of ',2006. CITY OF FEDERAL WAY MAYOR, MIKE PARK ATTEST: K:\LUTC\2006\08-07-06 Request for Street Vadion of Campus Highlands Divsion 1,3 &5.doc CITY CLERK, LAURA HATHA WAY, CMC APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATTORNEY, PATRICIA A. RICHARDSON FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: RESOLUTION NO.: K:\LUTC\2006\08-07-06 Request for Street Vaction of Campus Highlands Divsion 1,3 &5.doc Request for Street Vacation of Campus Highlands Division 1, 3, & 5 --_..._._~ ..~~- ---.....-.-- EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCR~PTION: CAMPUS ESTATES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION STREET v.ACATION: THAT PORTION OF STREETS AND AVENUES HERETOFORE DEDICATED TO THE PUBLIC AND MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED WITH THOSE CERTAIN NAMES AS SOUTHWEST 345TH PLACE, SOUTHWEST 346TH PLACE AND 5TH PLACE SOUTHWEST AS SHOWN ON THE PLAT OF CAMPUS HIGHLANDS DIVISION NO. 1, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT RECORDED IN VOLUME 144 OF PLATS, PAGES 51 THROUGH 58, RECORDS OF KING, COUNTY, WASHINGTON, LYING EAST OF THE EAST MARGIN OF 6TH AVENUE SOUTHWEST; TOGETHER WITH THAT PORTION OF STREETS AND AVENUES HERETOFORE DEDICATED TO THE PUBLIC AND MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED WITH THOSE CERTAIN NAMES AS 4TH PLACE SOUTHWEST, SOUTHWEST 347TH WAY, SOUTHWEST 347TH STREET AND 5TH AVENUE SOUTHWEST AS SHOWN ON THE PLAT OF CAMPUS HIGHLANDS DIVISION NO. 3 AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN VOLUME 150 OF PLATS, PAGES 67 THROUGH 71, RECORDS OF KING, COUNTY, WASHINGTON, LYING EAST OF THE EAST MARGIN OF 6TH AVENUE SOUTHWEST; AND TOGETHER WITH THAT PORTION OF STREETS AND AVENUES HERETOFORE DEDICATED TO THE PUBLIC AND MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED WITH THOSE CERTAIN NAMES AS 5TH AVENUE SOUTHWEST, SOUTHWEST 348 TH COURT AND SOUTHWEST 350TH PLACE AS SHOWN ON THE PLAT OF CAMPUS HIGHLANDS DIVISION NO. 5 AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN VOLUME 156 OF PLATS, PAGES 94 THROUGH 100, RECORDS OF KING, COUNTY, WASHINGTON, LYING EAST OF THE EAST MARGIN OF 7TH AVENUE SOUTHWEST. SITUATE IN THE COUNTY OF KING, STATE OF WASHINGTON. ExPlAU ~):"':'~.' Page I of2 April 28, 2006 KENNETH R. ANDERSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. S:\Projects\2006 Projects\06-016 Campus Estates Street Vacation\Documents\DeliverablesWacation Legal.doc -~ -- I EXHIBIT "8" CAMPUS ESTAlES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION STREET VACATION ., .. .. -'-"~"-"-"-'. M ~ '-,I> uSl " ~ .L...:: .~., . i... .. __n " ~ " (')1 f , ~, 'ii ""'. ! c: CJ) ~ f i ~ 'O! rl I ~~, I " ~ In t SCAlE : ,. = 300' ~ ~ ~ i f I j I ;',~!;20' .. LAKEWOOD i .,. ... KENNETH R. ANDERSON AND ASSOCIATES. INC. .. 501........ IIcIpjlIng and Land Plan...... .. p.o. _ 417J I - ::t _ War. ~ lIlIOt3-4173 B~% \loa ~2:.3) 1'" .. " T_ 272__ F'AX ( 83I-el.. iil ------- COUNCIL MEETING DATE: Sept. 5,2006 ITEM #: .......................................__._m..... ........ ............. ....................._............ .............................-.--...... CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL SUBJECT: S 320th Street at 1st A venue S Intersection Improvements Project - 100% Design Status Report POLICY QUESTION: Should the Council authorize staff to shelve the S 320th Street at 1st Avenue S Intersection Improvements Project and return to the Council when funding becomes available for further reports and authorization? COMMITTEE: Land Use and Transportation Committee MEETING DATE: Aug. 7,2006 CATEGORY: ~ Consent 0 Ordinance D Public Hearing D City Council Business 0 Resolution Other .~!.~~~:g~~2~!m~y.:M.~~~.~~I!~~IP.:'..St!:~~!~ys.!~IP.:s.M~1?:~g~! ....._.._.....H_....H ....H ............H ..........._.......... Attachments: 1. Staff LUTC Memo dated August 7, 2006. Options Considered: 1. Authorize staff to not move forward with property acquisition, shelve the S 320th Street at 151 Avenue S Intersection Improvements Project, and return to the LUTC Committee when additional project funding becomes available for further reports and authorization. 2. Authorize staff to acquire the necessary property and then shelve the project. 3. Authorize staff to move forward with property acquisition and not shelve this project. Provide further direction to staff. ........ ......._.........H.......... ..._.........._........._............_~_......_......._ ....................................._..............._...... ... ......................................H..._....... ... .........................................H........ ......H............. .............................._....__._._.....___.. ............... ......................_ ........._.._.. ........................._.H STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Authorize staff to proceed with Option 2. CITY MANAGER ApPROVAL: DIRECTOR ApPROVAL: ~ Council Committee Council COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Committee authorizes stafIto forward Option 2 to the Sept. 5,2006 City Council Consent Agenda for approval. Jack Dovey, Chair Eric Faison, Member Dean McColgan, Member PROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION: "I move to authorize stajJto acquire the necessary property and then shelve the project. " (BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE) COUNCIL ACTION: 0 APPROVED COUNCIL BILL # 0 DENIED 1sT reading 0 T ABLEDIDEFERRED/NO ACTION Enactment reading 0 MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only) ORDINANCE # REVISED - 02/06/2006 RESOLUTION # K:\COUNCIL\AGDBILLS\2006\09-05-06 5 320th at 1st Ave 5 - 100% design Status Report.doc ------ CITY OF FEDERAL WAY MEMORANDUM DATE: July 31, 2006 TO: Land Use and Transportation Committe VIA: Derek Matheson, Interim City Manager FROM: Marwan Salloum, P.E., Street Systems Manager SUBJECT: S 320th Street at ]'t Avenue S Intersection Improvements Project - 100% Design Status Report BACKGROUND: This project will add a 2nd left-turn lane in all four directions, northbound, southbound and westbound right-turn lanes and widen 1st Avenue S to five lanes from S 316th Street to S 320th Street. The traffic signal system will be modified to accommodate the added lanes. The existing span-wire emergency signal system at the Federal Way Fire Department will be replaced with a new signal. The 100% design is complete. The right of way acquisition has not started as of yet PROJECT ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES: Planning and Design $450,000 ROW Acquisition (estimate) 864,000 Construction cost 2006 (estimate) 4,633,000 10% Construction Contingency 463,000 Construction Management (12%) 579,000 TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $6,989,000 AVAILABLE FUNDING: REET Fund $337,000 Utility Tax 603,000 Transfer in street CIP Fund 217,000 Mitigation 169,000 Interest 58,000 TOTAL A V AILABLE BUDGET $1,384,000 Given the project currently has a funding shortfall of $5,605,000; staff anticipates applying to the Transportation Improvement Board (TIB) for grant funding to construct the project. The TIB grant application would be submitted assuming a 60/40 split of the total project cost or $4,193,400 TIB grant and $2,795,600 as city match. With $1,384,000 of City/mitigation funds currently available, the City would need to provide an additional $1,411,600 to satisfy the City match amount. In 2004 Staff applied and was not successful in obtaining TIB funding for this project as it was scoped in the 2004 TIP. At this time staff does not feel that this project will score high enough to get TIB funding even though it will qualify as a construction-ready project. cc: Project File Day File COUNCIL MEETING DATE: September 5, 2006 ITEM CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL SUBJECT: COTTAGE HOUSING CODE AMENDMENT Policy Question: Should City Council adopt an ordinance amending the zoning code to allow demonstration cottage housing projects in the RS7.2, RS 5.0 and RM zoning classifications? ~. COMMITTEE: LUTC MEETING DATE: August 7, 2006 CATEGORY: D Consent ~ Ordinance D Public Hearing D City Council Business D Resolution D Other STAFF REpORT By: ISAAC SENIOR PLANNER DEPT: CD Attachments: Exhibit A - Staff report, Exhibit B - Draft Code, Exhibit C - Public comments received since last LUTC meeting, Exhibit D - Potential Site Map, Exhibit E - Potential Site Statistics, ExhibitG - Selection Criteria Language Options Considered: 1. "Recommend that the full Council adopt a permanent ordinance approving the zoning code amendments to allow up to four demonstration cottage/Compact Single Family housing developments subject to certain pre-selection criteria". 2. "Recommend that the full Council adopt an interim zoning ordinance allowing up to four cottage/Compact Single Family housing developments subject to certain pre-selection criteria". 3. "Recommend that the full Council disapprove the proposed zoning code amendments". .. m..............................................HH_............... ......... m................................................ ..................... .................................... .... ....................... .......................................................... ... ......................................................_.......................................................__....... -,.. .........................-...--..............................-.-...-........ STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Sta CITY MANAGER ApPROVAL: DIRECTOR ApPROVAL: ~ Council Connnittee Council COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Committee Chair Committee Member Committee Member PROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION: "] move the proposed ordinance approving zoning code amendments to allow up to four demonstration cottage/Compact Single Family housing projects to second reading and approval at the next regular meeting on September 5, 2006. " --------- (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: Isaac ConI en, Senior Planner VIA: Derek Matheson, Interim City Manager ~ Kathy McClung, Community Development Services Director Date: July 31,2006 RE: Cottage Housing Demonstration Ordinance At the July 17, 2006 LUTC meeting, the committee requested the draft ordinance be amended to regulate cottage housing as demonstration projects. Staffhas identified two demonstration project models to choose from. 1. Permanent Zoning Code Amendment - Adopt amendments to the zoning code establishing cottage housing standards, authorizing a maximum of four demonstration cottage housing projects and establishing criteria for a competitive pre-selection process. Advantages of this approach include the ability to limit the total number ofprojects for a period of time to evaluate their suitability and ability to select superior proposals. 2. Interim Zoning Controls - Adopt an interim zoning regulation establishing cottage housing standards, allowing up to four demonstration cottage housing projects and creating criteria for pre-selection ofprojects. This is similar to the Kirkland model. This model has the same advantages as option 1. The disadvantage is that City Council would be required to hold a public hearing and extend the life ofthe interim zoning ordinance at intervals not exceeding six months. In both cases the selection criteria is contained in the adopting ordinance rather than the code. See Exhibit F for proposed selection criteria language. Recommendation Staff recommends Option 1. Public Comments Staff has received public comments from a cottage housing builder since our last meeting on the 1 ih. We have made changes to the draft ordinance to address several of those comments. These include minor changes to clarify the minimum site size for cottage housing projects, to provide EXHIBIT A 1 PAGE / OF 2- more flexibility with regard to roof pitch for architectural features, to provide more flexibility for development of properties, a portion of which are sloped and to provide more flexibility with regard to second story square footage. It was suggested that a portion of the total units be permitted up to 1,300 square feet (I've referred to these as Compact Single Family (CSF) units). We have identified two options. 1. Maintain existing size limitations. This option would maintain the original concept, which was strictly 'cottage housing'. 2. Allow CSF units, based on the following provisions: a) Allow 35% oftotal units as CSF, up to 1,300 square feet in size b) Limit the size of all other 'cottage' units to 1,000 square feet (reduced from 1,100 to clearly differentiate between cottages and the CSF units) . c) Adjust the ratio of CSF units allowed per each conventional single family home that could otherwise be built. Rather than allowing two CSF units for each single family home, as we do for cottages, allow 1.5 CSF units per single family home that could be built. The lower ratio offsets the slightly larger size of the CSF units. These measures should maintain the desired balance between unit size and overall project bulk vs. density. The advantage ofthis option is it provides more flexibility to meet market demands. An option similar to this is contained in Kirkland's demonstration ordinance. Recommendation (CSF Units) Staff recommends Option 2. Potential Site Map and Statistics Please refer to Exhibit D for a map of potential sites and Exhibit E for a table providing acreage statistics. EXHIBIT A 2 PAGE Z- Of L --------------- --- --------------- Article XII. COTTAGE AND COMPACT SINGLE FAMILY 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 housing types that are 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 and Compact Single Family (CSF) Housing Developments, which collectively, are referred to as Cottage Housing Developments (CHDs). Where a conflict arises the provisions of this 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 .75 acres in size (a site mav be composed of more than one lot). (2) CHDs shall contain clusters consisting of a minimum of 4 dwelling units and a maximum of 16 units. In RS 5.0 and 7.2 zones, no more than 12 dwelling units are permitted in a CHD, unless additional dwelling units are permitted subject to subsection (m) below. A CHD may be integrated into a larger conventional subdivision. Maximum number of dwelling units 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 of 660 feet measured between the closest points of the subject properties. (c) Calculation of Cottage and Compact Single Familv Units (1) The following steps shall be utilized to determine the number of cottage and CSF units 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)(1)(a) above shall be multiplied by two in the case of cottages and 1.5 in the case of CSF units. The resulting number is the number of cottages and CSF units permitted on the site, subject to the maximum identified in subsection (a)(2) above. EXHIBIT J 1 PAGE I OF '-I . -------- ~------ --~---- (c) In the RM zones one cottage is permitted for each 2,500 square feet of lot area and one CSF unit is permitted for each 4,000 square feet of lot area based on gross lot SIze. (d) CSF units shall not exceed 35% of total dwelling units regardless of the zone. (d) Cottage and Compact Single Familv Unit Size. (1) Cottage floor area shall be between 800 and 1,000 square feet. (2) CSF unit floor area shall be between 1,000 and 1,300 square feet. (3) Floor area of the 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. The Director of Community Development shall use appropriate discretion, consistent with the intent of this Article in determining area to be counted in the calculation of maximum square footage. (e) Common Open Space. (1) A minimum of 500 square feet of common open space shall be provided per dwelling unit. (2) Common open space within a CHD shall be a minimum of 3,000 square feet in size, regardless of number of dwelling units. (3) No dimension of a common open space area used 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 dwelling units. (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 area. (j) Private open space. Each dwelling unit 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 used to satisfy the minimum square footage requirement shall be less than 9-feet. (g) Site Design. (1) A minimum of75 percent of dwelling units shall abut the common open space. (2) Common open spaces shall have dwelling units abutting at least two sides. (3) Lots in CHDs are not required to abut a public street right-of-way. (4) Siting of dwelling units or common open space in areas with slopes exceeding 15 percent is not encouraged. Dwelling units shall not be placed in such areas if extensive use of retaining walls is necessary to create building pads, or open space areas. (h) Design Standards. (1) Dwelling Units shall have a minimum 6: 12 roof pitch. Up to 35 percent of roof area may have a slope not less than 4:12. Portions ofa roof with a pitch less than 6:12 shall be limited to architectural features such as dormers, porch roofs and shed roofs. (2) Each dwelling unit 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. EXHIBIT /3 2 PAGE 2- OF f-{ ---- --------------- (3) Each dwelling unit 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. 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 of 6 feet deep. (5) Dwelling units 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 dwelling unit size allowance. (6) Detached garages and carports associated with individual dwelling units shall not exceed 500 square feet in size (detached garages or carports shall not count towards maximum cottage or CSF unit size allowance). (i) Parking. (1) A minimum of 1.8 parking spaces per cottage and 2 parking spaces per CSF unit 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 of the 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 maybe 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 800 square feet in size. (7) Garages and carports shall not be located between the common open space and the dwelling units. (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, in which case no restriction applies. On-street parking is permitted along the entire frontage. (lO)Surface parking lots shall be setback IS-feet from front property lines and lO-feet from external side and rear property lines. (II )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. Dwelling units 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. Dwelling units shall have IS-foot front and 5-foot side and rear yard setback requirements. Dwelling units shall be separated by a minimum of 10- feet, not including projections, as identified in FWCC 22-1133(4). Dwelling units and accessory buildings shall be separated by six feet. Dwelling units not abutting or oriented towards a right-of-way shall have a front yard oriented towards the common open space. The Director of Community Development may use appropriate discretion, consistent with the intent of this Article, 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 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 dwelling units up to a total of 16 dwelling EXHIBIT e 3 PAGE ~. OF if ./ units (assuming adequate overall lot size). One half of all dwelling units over the base level of 12 must be affordable (for example, a total of four additional dwelling units 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. Affordable CSF units shall be sold at a price which is affordable to a 3-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 dwelling units shall have the same appearance and utilize the same exterior materials as market rate dwelling units and shall be dispersed throughout the CHD. (3) A deed, covenant or title restriction shall be recorded on the deed/title of affordable dwelling units. The restriction shall effectively maintain the units 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. Roof pitch, architecture, materials and colors shall be similar to that of the dwelling units within the CHD. (3) An existing single-family home incorporated into a CHD, that does not meet the requirements of this article is permitted to remain on a site developed for cottage and CSF 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 ofFWCC Chapter 20. (6) 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, design standards, setbacks 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 B 4 PAGE if OF L/ ---- ----------- [!~i~CJ:;~Dt~b:~~~~~~~n-iS~~~~fi~g~Qi~!!l:~iice~~,:,="~~=~~"==:~^> ._'~==::::M^~""::':~::::::~:::==^::::^:,== := : :=: .::=:~f~:l From: "Randy Forsyth" <randy@stantonproperties.com> To: "'Isaac Conlen'" <lsaac.Conlen@cityoffederalway.com> Date: 7/26/20069:58:19 PM Subject: Comments on Cottage Ordinance Isaac, Per your request, here is a recap of our concerns with the code as discussed in my meeting with Kathy and Greg on Friday last week. 1. The ordinance lists. 75 acre sites as the minimum required size, but that doesn't address if it is one lot or a series of lots. The concern is that in other jurisdictions that allowed cottage developments on a series of lots and eventually there were a few redevelopments of a group of lots in the 5000 and 7200 zones that, in the eyes of neighbors, were incompatible with existing homes. This caused many outraged citizens to attend council meeting and complain to the council about the ordinance which with other things led to its revocation. 2. The ordinance has a limit on the slope of the roof, and we recommend that some allowance should be made for slopes less than 6:12. It was noted that my copy of the ordinance was old and an allowance of 20% of roof to no less than 4: 12 was provided. It was then suggested that the allowance would be more practical for diversity of design if it was 35 to 40% and limited to architectural features like dormers, shed roofs, modulations, and porches. 3. Allowing for a Demonstration Ordinance like Kirkland's, which is one of the better written codes on cottages, is a good idea. However the size limits were still to restrictive in our opinion to allow the ordinance to be effective in the long run. 4. The size limit of 1100 is too small for a diverse application of the cottage ordinance, and for meeting a reasonable long term use of the ordinance. The target market the "The Cottage Company" is specifically going after is very limited in scope and demand, which can be seen in the fact that most jurisdictions these limited ordinance have only had one cottage development in them. We recommend allowing the maximum size to be exceeded in the RS zones with 40% of the units on a site being 20% above 1100, and another 20% being 10% above 1100. This means that in a 12 unit site, 5 units (due to rounding up since the math is 8 units) could be 1300 sq. ft., 2 units could be 1200 and the rest have to be 1100 and less. This provides for a good mix of homes so that the target market will be larger. We also suggest that this also could be limited to sites over 2 acres since that helps with the massing of the site. 5. The limit on the upper floor square footage is too small. 35% of 800 sq. ft. is only 280 sq. ft., therefore there could never be an 1100 sq. ft. home. We would recommend that the limit on the upper floor be increased to 45%. This would allow for the above mentioned sq. ft. increases and give flexibility to design if a smaller first floor with attached garage is used. That is the best I can remember of the topics we discussed. I will add that another thing which would prove helpful to the overall Cottage standards is to consider using plate height limits instead of the 18' - 24' limits. An EXHIBIT L- PAGE I OF S --- -------------- ~iic~i>~!~~~:~~m!1le!it~ oKCo~ageT5rdlnance'~,,_~'~= - -.=~,,~___~=~_~~_. ~~-::-:=-:=::::=_-:_=:~_-_=:::_ - :==,,~::_w - ~:_:::~-~:g~:-] example would be to allow a maximum first floor plate height of 10 feet, and require that any wall faces have at least 60% of the first floor wall line with roof at that height, you would end up with a very good design resembling the bungalows and cottages of Old Seattle. Our Architect could discuss this further if you wish. Please let me know if you need us to write up ordinance language to help address these issues. Sincerely, Randy Forsyth VP of Development and Construction Stanton Properties, LLC PO Box 2307, Kirkland, WA 98083 (206) 251-9289 Fax (425) 893-9525 randy@stantonproperties.com EXHIBIT C- PAGE 2 OF ? .> --------- Hsaa~ ~cij1le!!~~:g~[~~2!:~lnan"ce^'=. ::~"". ..'-='==:=::===~:=~.:::~_:,_::::=...::.:==>-,". .., =.:-"::' ..,:::,.:. : . :==,:=:==::=.e~"g~'] From: "Randy Forsyth" <randy@stantonproperties.com> To: <greg. fewins@cityoffederalway.com> Date: 7/24/20061:17:42 PM Subject: Cottage ordinance Greg, Thanks for taking the time to meet last Friday about the ordinance and some of our concerns. Since Kathy is out this week I wanted to send you an additional comment that we would like to see addressed as part of the demonstration ordinance The Development Standards section item (b) (2) states that "Cottages shall not be permitted on a portion of a site with a slope of 15% or greater as measured in its natural state." Our concern is that some times sites have 15% slopes on them because areas that have been modified by previous grading activities or other non natural occurrences, and therefore could be regarded overall to make for a lower then 15% site pad, Our site is one in particular due to the sewer line that was place a few years back, we have a section of 15% and greater right through the middle of our site. This provision could be modified in several ways to make this ordinance more usable; however since it appears the concept is more about the location of the final homes, and not the overall site our thoughts would be that you could just move it to section "(h) Cottage design standards." as item (7) since this is more of a design standard than a site selection issue. It would also allow the intent of the standard to be intact, but allow for the "Modifications" section to be applied on a case by case basis. Please let me know if the City intends to make some of the modifications to the ordinance we discussed (specifically increasing the square footage limits by allowing a percentage of units to go over 1100) before the next LUTC meeting, as we would much rather be there to speak in support of those changes verses against the ordinance as submitted. Thanks, Randy Forsyth VP of Development and Construction Stanton Properties, LLC PO Box 2307, Kirkland, WA 98083 EXHIBIT C- PAGE .7 OF -5 .::> Map Date: July 31st, 2006 City of Potential Demonstration City of Federal Way P.O.Box 9718 Federal Way Housing Project Sites 33325 8th Ave S. Federal Way, WA. 98063 - RS 5.0, RS 7.2, and RM Zones (253) 835 - 7000 www.cityoffederalway.com EXHIBIT D Poverty PugetSound Bay PAGE---1-0F I ~ T .. .... '" ~ .... N " C---~ Z' .,.. ,. ,// -/ ;.- '0. ( ~'..' i J'- OJ ;.....-..,. rJ ./' r- 1 ~. , ,.J l./ U; ! .... ! ! ! Legend i , i _ Vacant Parcels That Are 3/4 Acre or Larger _ Underdeveloped Parcels That are 3/4 Acre or Larger r-..~ l___J City Limits Zoning _ RM 1800 -1 Unit/1800 SQFT _ RM 2400 - 1 Unit /2400 SQFT ~ .#' RM 3600 - 1 Unit / 3600 SQFT This map is intended for use as RS 5.0 - 1 Unit / 5000 SQFT a graphical representation only. The City of Federal Way makes " <" RS 7.2 - 1 Unit /7200 SQFT no warranty as to is accuracy. Information provided in this map is provided for illustrative purposes ONLY. t\ ~ Federal Way Actual boundaries are subject of field verification. Additional areas may exist. N Demonstration Housing Facts Number Potential Sites 188 ~~~~'~'~"'"~"'''-""'~---''"-''''''~'''''""''~'''''-''--~~'''~''~ Number Sites On Vacant Land 67 ....~~~--~----_....- Number of_Sites that are Under:.qeveloped 121 Total Acreage of Sites 364.7 ~..~_.'".. ~ ~ ._._~~"~-".. Total Acreage of Vacant Sites 175.92 ~'-'"'"----' ""-~"~'~""" Total Acreage pf Underdf!xelope~~ 188.78 !0~~~reageofRM1~90Zonin[ 4.87 Total Vacant 4.87 -"-'-' ............_._...,... r~tal Underdeveloped 0 Total Acreage of RM2400 12.56 ~-".._~..- Total Vacant 12.56 -- 0 Total Underdeveloped ..~---~~--_..~-~ !9..t~L~...r~age o~.QO 30.2 Total Vacant 15.12 'w~______ Total Underdeveloped 15.08 Total Acreage of RS5.0 23.23 -- Total Vacant 13.8 ~~~_...- Total Underdeveloped 9.43 To!al Acreage of RS7.2 293.84 Total Vacant 129.57 ----. Total Underdeveloped 164.27 Number of Sites in MF Zones 21 ~.. ..- 47.63 Acres Number of Sites in SF Zones 167 ~,~""y",-~, ""-- Acres 317.07 EXHIBIT -- t:- PAGE i OF i Project Selection Criteria The City shall use a competitive pre-selection process to select CHDs to move forward through the permitting process. The City may approve up to four CHDs pursuant to this ordinance. Applications for CHDs shall be submitted and docketed on a schedule determined by the Director of Community Development. The Director of Community Development shall determine which applications, if any, will be accepted as formal applications based on the following criteria: (a) Consistency with the purpose of the article as specified in the purpose section of the code. (b) Demonstration that the project has been designed with sensitivity to adjacent properties and that impacts associated with the proposed project are substantially equivalent to impacts expected to be associated with development of conventional housing on the subject property. (c) Demonstration that the project will result in a highly attractive environment, which incorporates a high level of quality throughout the development, including but not limited to the following areas: (1) Architectural design (2) Building materials (3) Open space (4) Parking The decision by the Director of Community Development selecting CHDs to advance past the pre- selection phase shall be in writing and shall be the final decision of the city. EXHIBIT F PAGE { OF I COUNCIL MEETING DATE: Sept. 5,2006 ITEM #:_ ...............-.- .......................-.-.......... -. .................................................... . ................................-....... ..................................................-........................... CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL SUBJECT: 2006/2007 COMMUTE TRIP REDUCTION (CTR) AREA FLEXP ASS FOR CITY HALL POLICY QUESTION: Should the Council adopt a staffrecommendation to continue Federal Way's compliance with the Washington State Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) Law and City's CTR ordinance by purchasing Area FlexPasses for employees? COMMITTEE: Land Use/Transportation MEETING DATE: Aug. 7,2006 CATEGORY: ~ Consent D Ordinance D Public Hearing D City Council Business D Resolution D Other ~7 DEPT: Public Works ~!":\!!.!~!'.Q~!.~X:~i~~~t:!t::z;?y~~:.?...gi!Y'l:'!~f.f}~~!1.g~?.:t:.t:!.A;j.m........ .. ............................................................... ....................._ .............M..... ............ ................................... ......................... Attachments: 1. Staff report with exhibits to the LUTC dated August 7th, 2006. Options Considered: 1. Purchase Area FlexPasses for all (168) full time affected employees 2. Implement CTR as required by state law and local CTR ordinance without purchasing FlexPass or budget for CTR program. This option could move City Hall site to non-compliance and may subject it to a penalty as identified in local ordinance. ..................................................................... .............................---....-....... ............................................... .................... ..............................................................................--.................. ..... ....................................-....... STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Option 1. CITY MANAGER ApPROVAL: DIRECTOR ApPROVAL: Ih1A. Council Committee Council COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Jack Dovey, Chair Eric Faison, Member Dean McColgan, Member PROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION: "] move approval to purchase Area FlexPasess for all full time affected employees. " (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 # K:\COUNCIL\AGDBILLS\2006\09-0S-06 CTR 2006-2007 Area FlexPass.doc ---- CITY OF FEDERAL WAY MEMORANDUM DATE: July 31, 2006 TO: Land Use and Transportation committ~ VIA: Derek Matheson, Interim City Manager FROM: Rick Perez, City Traffic Engineer @./ Sarady Long, Traffic Engineer SUBJECT: 2006 Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) Program Area FlexPass for City Hall BACKGROUND: The Washington State 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) 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. The City currently provides up to a $30 incentive in the form of Commute Bonus/Bonus Plus vouchers for employees using alternative modes of transportation. The incentive program was funded via the City's one time 2003/2004 CTR budget of$4,250. This one time budget has been exhausted and no additional funding has been provided. The incentive program has been very effective in reducing single occupancy vehicles (SOV's). Currently, there are about 22 employees participating in the incentive program. Staff anticipated employee participation to increase due to high gas prices. Based on our current $30 per month incentive, Guaranteed Ride Home Program and minor internal promotion, staff anticipates spending approximately $10,200 for the 2006/2007 CTR Incentive program. Area FlexPass for City Hall The Area FlexPass program is a low-cost annual pass sponsored through King County Metro. The program includes elements beyond the normal bus pass at the price of $50 per person per year. With the Flexpass, eligible employees may use it to ride on all parts of the regular route transportation system via King County Metro, Pierce Transit and Sound Transit. The Flexpass Program will pay up to $65 per employee per month for vanpools, $20 per month for vanshares and a Home Free Guarantee in case of emergency. Additionally, the FlexPass Program provides $2,520 in the form of Commuter Bonus Plus Vouchers for promoting other alternative modes. The City may elect to purchase the pass for either all 168 affected full time employees starting work between 6:00 a.ill. and 9:00 a.m. or all full time employees in City Hall, whether they use it or not. Based on 168 affected employees at City Hall, the Area FlexPass will cost approximately $8,400. The FlexPass agreement would be from September 1, 2006 through August 31, 2007. Staff believes this is the most cost effective method of implementing the CTR program for the City Hall site. As a major employer and the lead jurisdiction for implementing CTR among all affected employers in Federal Way, it is important that we show our commitment to the spirit and to the goals of the CTR Law. Therefore, staff is recommending purchasing the proposed Area FlexPass for the 168 affected employees at City Hall. Staff proposes the FlexPass be funded by the remaining Public Works Department funds at the end of the year and/or the City Managers Contingency fund. K:\LUTC\2006\08-07-06 CfR 2006-2007 Area FlexPass - Matheson.doc --------- CITY OF FEDERAL WAY MEMORANDUM DATE: August th, 2006 TO: Land Use and Transportation Committee VIA: Neal Beets, City Manager FROM: Kathy McClung, Community Development Director SUBJECT: P AA Stone Creek Sub-division & the Von Doenhoff Property BACKGROUND: Staffhas not yet had an opportunity to meet with the City of Milton. K:\LUTC\2006\08-07-06 PM Stone Creek & Von Doenhoff issues - placeholder. doc ----- ----------------------