LUTC PKT 06-04-2007
.:.. ,;..
City of Federal Way
City Council
Land Use/Transportation Committee
June 4, 2007
5 :30 p:m.
City Nall
Council ChamQ~rs
MEETING AGENDA
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: May 21,2007
3. PUBLIC COMMENT (3 minutes)
4. BUSINESS ITEMS
A. Hearing Examiner - Award of Contract
Action
5 min/HatHaway
5 'nIB :'~h
ml UCIC
5 'nIB '~h'
ml . UCIC
5 'nIB '~h-
rm UCIC
30 min/cIl.
i
B. S 30Sth Street Stormwater Facility Modifications Project - Bid Award
Action
C. Supplemental Funding for the Joe's Creek Salmon Habitat
Restoration Project
D. Amendment to the lnterlocal Cooperation Agreement with King
County for Conservation Futures Levy Funding
E. 2006 Comprehensive Plan Amendments- Chapters 1,4,6, and 7; and
Site Specific Re-zone Requests Note: Please see May 21,2007
agenda packet for complete 2006 Comprehensive Plan Amendments
Action
Action
Action
5. FUTURE MEETINGS/AGENDA ITEMS
6. ADJOURN
'~City Staff
Cary M. Roe. P,E.. Assistant City Manager/Emergency Manager
Darlene LeMaster. Administrativ~ssistant 11
ii'35-2701
Committee Members
Jack Dovey. Chair
Linda Kochmar
Dean McColgan
G:\LUTCILUTC Agendas and Summaries 2007\06-04-07 LUTe AgelUhuloc
City of Federal Way
City Council
Land Use/Transportation Committee
May 21, 2007
5:30 pm
City Hall
City Council Chambers
MEETING MINUTES .~
In attendance: Committee Chair Jack Dovey and Committee Member Linda Kochmar; Council Member Jeanne Burbidgt, Mayor
Michael Park, Deputy Public Works Director Ken Miller; Deputy City Attorney Aaron Walls, Development Services [v1anager
William Appleton, Street Systems Manager/Deputy Public Works Director Marwan Salloum, Street Systems Project ,Engineer
Brian Roberts, Senior Planner Margaret Clark, Senior Planner Lori Michaelson, Senior Planner Isaac Conlen, Deputy Co~unity
Development Services Director Greg Fewins, Community Development Services Director Kathy McClung and Admi~istrative
Assistant II Darlene LeMaster I
1. CALL TO ORDER
Committee Chair Dovey called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. Committee Member Dean McColgan was excused. I
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The May 7, 2007 LUTC meeting minutes were approved.
Moved: Kochmar Seconded: Dovey
Passed: Unanimously
3. PUBLIC COMMENT
There was no public comment.
4. BUSINESS ITEMS
A. Pacific Highway S HOV Lanes Phase III - Owest Agreement for Joint Construction and Statement of Work
Brian Roberts provided the background information on this item. There was no discussion.
B, Pacific Highway S HOV Lanes Phase III - Lease of City Property for Construction Field Office
Brian Roberts provided the background information on this item. There was no discussion.
C. Public Storage Easement Use Agreement
William Appleton provided the background information on this item. There was no discussion.
Moved: Kochmar Seconded: Dovey Passed: Unanimously ,
Committee PASSED Option 1 for items A, B, and C on to the June 5, 2007, City Council Consent Agenda for
approval.
D. Aspen Properties Street Frontage Improvement Development Agreement
William Appleton provided the background information on this item. There was no discussion.
Moved: Kochmar Seconded: Dovey Passed: Unanimously ,
Committee PASSED Option 1 as amended by staff to the June 5, 2007 City Council Consent Agenda for approval.
Staffrevised the construction costs to $109,420 plus a 10% contingency of $10,940 for a total amount of $12'0,360.
E. Request to Amend the Rezone Conditions for the Village at Federal Way (Kitts Comer) ,~
Margaret Clark provided the background information on this item. There was no public comment on tllis item.
Committee Member Kochmar asked for confirmation on the size of the anchor buildings as well as an example'of who
may be an anchor business. Ms. Clark answered that the recommendation is to increase the total size of the "anchor
buildings from 100,000 square feet to 140,000 square feet. The maximum footprint of the anchor buildings~will be
increased from 50,000 square feet to 80,000 square feet. An anchor building can be up to two stories, thus Jaking it
possible to reach the 140,000 square foot maximum with just one anchor building. Possible anchors could be a~rocery
store; there have been no potential anchors identified at this time. Committee Chair Dovey asked about the widthlo depth
ratios of the buildings. Ms. Clark responded that under existing conditions, buildings may not exceed a 1.5: 1 'rdth to
depth ratio. Those buildings that are 1.25: 1 are also satisfied through this requirement. Council Member Burbidge asked
for clarification of "non-integrated parking". Ms. Clark explained that integrated parking would be part of thehuilding
'.'~aw::~,"~:::":::.':'::::,~:::::~ <QuId meed the foolprint of the hnilding ,nd ,)" took the opportunity ttemind
Land Use/Transportation Committee
Page 2
March J 2, 2007
F.
,taff .nd Conn,il Membcrs ,hat the illu,""ion' in h" p""ntation we" oon"prn.1 in na!me only_ Council ~emb"
Kochmar asked if the development to the "Kitt's Comer" area to the west of , Pacific Highway S will be low,_,~in...,come
housing, Ms. Clark responded that the developer is looking at an up-scale zero-lot-line development. ' .
I ,
Moved: Dovey Seconded: Kochmar Passed: Unanimously . :
Committee PASSED Option 1 to the June 5, 2007, City Council Agenda for first reading of the Ordinance ~~ {
amended back to staffs recommendation of the anchor facades not to exceed a width to depth ratio of 1.25:~.
Shoreline Master ~rogram Update . , . , . . , ,~
Isaac Conlen provIded the background InformatIOn on this Item. A PowerPomt presentatIOn was gIven by Kent lfale and
Teresa Vanderberg from ESA Adolfson, the consultant on this project. .The presentation higWights the chang~s being
proposed to the Shoreline Master Program Update. If approved by Council, the revisions will go to the Deparhnent of
Ecology for review, and then come back to the City Council adoption, :~
Public Comment: :1
Chis Holden, Lakota Bea,h 0"0, Fed"al Way_ M, Halden wanted to paint aut a di,aepanoy in Lakota Beach n"a of
the map. Ms, Holden thought that "urban conservancy" was to be changed to "residential shoreline "; however, :~he map
did not reflect that change. Mr. Hale responded, apologizing for the maps small print and poor detail, but that~e map
should reflect this change from urban conservancy to residential shoreline. Mr. Conlen also concurred that a short section
of the Lakota waterfront was changed to residential shoreline, but the remainder of the shoreline is unchangerl'per the
Planning Commission recommendation. '.
Committee Chair Dovey asked about the specific changes being made to the Shoreline Master Program. Mri'Conlen
reiterated that a brief synopsis of these changes were addressed in the PowerPoint presentation and that he~nd the
consultants would answer any further questions he or the other Council members have. Committee Member Kochmar
asked about non-conforming uses. Mr. Conlen stated that if a non-conforming structure is destroyed, the'current
Shoreline Plan states that the structure may only be re-built to its original size at its original location if the repl~cement
costs are less than 75% of the existing value of the structure. This requirement is very restrictive. The planning
Commission proposes that this be changed to eliminate the value stipulation thereby allowing a non-conforming ttructure
may be replaced if destroyed to its original size at the original location, regardless of reconstruction costs VS',ilr.. iginal
value. '
Public Comment: '
Peter Townsend, 29508 J ih Avenue SW, Federal Way. Mr, Townsend questions the dejinitions of "strea'fls and
"wetlands ", claiming the dejinitions are not consistent with each other, He would like the City to address the jo~r types
of streams and the four types of wetlands, Under State guidelines, if the City doesn't conform to these dejinition~ then it
is Mr, Townsend's opinion that the City needs to give an explanation as to why we are not conforming. Ms. Va~erberg
clarified that the State has a four-tiered rating system and that the City is only required to bring current critical (eas into
the Shoreline Master Program. The City's definition for "wetland" is consistent with the State's definition. The City
does not have any streams which quality as shoreline. If wetlands are associated with a lake or larger body Of~~\ter, the
wetlands qualify as shoreline. I :,
I
Mayor Park asked if Camp Kilworth is designated as natural shoreline. Mr. Conlen responded that Camp Kilworth is
defmed as urban conservancy. Committee Chair Dovey asked about what changed would be made to the sb-ingline
setback. Mr. Conlen explained that there is currently a 50-foot setback. Example: a home could be built on a v,tcant lot
where there exists a home on either lot adjacent to the vacant lot. A stringline would be made between the tw<)~xisting
homes. The new home on the vacant parcel could be built to the same setback as the stringline. The standard 50-foot
setback, however, could be reduced to no more than a 35-foot minimum. On the other extreme, if two existing htlmes on
either side of a vacant parcel were set back a greater amount (ie. 150 feet), the new home would not have to fJIlow the
stringline theory and meet a setback of 150 feet. The proposed language eliminates the requirement to meet the sb-ingline
s,etback when adjacent structures are set back more than 50 feet. Council Member Burbidge wanted to clarify~~at the
minimum setback is 30 feet, not 35 feet. Mr. Conlen concurred that the correct minimum setback is 30 feet. 'founcil
Member Burbidge also wondered what kind of accessory structures can lie within the 50-foot setback. Mr. Confen stated
that accessory structures, such as a garden shed, boat house, etc. may not exceed 300 square feet combinedilLarger
structures need to be located outside of the setback area. ,
Moved: Kochmar Seconded: Dovey Passed: Unanimously
Committee PASSED Option 1 to the June 5, 2007, City Council Agenda for adoption of the Resolution witli the
understanding that the minimal setback is corrected from 35 ft. to 30 ft.
G:\LUTClLUTC Agendas and Summaries 2007\05,21-07 LUTC Minutes.doc
Land Use/Transportation Committee Page 3 March 12, 2007 :1
,~
G, 2006 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Chapter Two and Area Rezone Related to Changing Boundaries ofBP/CE and
BC Zones :~
Margaret Clark provided the background information on this item. There was no public comment. Committee lplember
Kochmar asked if action would or wouldn't be taken at this time. Ms, Clark confirmed that action will be delayed until it
can be taken on all of the Comprehensive Plan. Committee Chair Dovey asked for explanation on the BP/CE Z~ne and
what will now be included/excluded in this zone from what it was up to this point. Ms, Clark answered that Ms.
Michaelson will be answering that question directly in her presentation of the next item, The remaini~\ 2006
Comprehensive Plan Amendments will be presented at the June 4, 2007 Land Use Transportation Committee fneeting
with all recommendations being forwarded to the June 19,2007 City Council Agenda.
No action taken.
H. Zoning Text Amendments: BP/CE and BC
Lori Michaelson provided the background information on this item.
Public Comment:
Jesse Cherian, ST Fabrication, Federal Way. Mr, Cherian stated that he has appeared at every meeting on this zoning
issue since March 14, 2007, He is requesting a text amendment to the proposed CE zone to allow m~xed-use
residentiallcommercialfor all properties south ofS 356th Street, between SR 99 and SR 161, which also abut a re!idential
zone, Mr, Cherian realizes that with the proposed Comp Plan amendments, ST Fabrication would b~~ome a
nonconforming use, As a businessman, Mr, Cherian would not be able to grow his company. Because of the restrictions
that would now be imposed, selling his parcels to another developer would be extremely difficult, Amending tJj~ text of
the CE zone to allow mixed-use residential would provide more options for developers, thus making his lah-d more
attractive to potential buyers. Committee Member Kochrnar asked if Mr. Cherian had thought to request~a code
amendment this coming year that would allow him to continue operating in this location. Mr. Cherian explained that he
has acquired adjacent land to expand his current business. Without expanding and generating more business, he~will be
unable to afford his current mortgage. With the proposed text change, he would be unable to expand. . :1
Stan Brown, S 35fJh Street, Federal Way, Mr. Brown has resided in Federal Way for 35 years on property that q'buts the
ST Fabrication site. ST Fabrication has had a huge impact on his quality of life. The fabrication business is ettremely
noisy. Mr. Brown compared it to the sound of a mortar round, He has met twice with Kathy McClung, howe\er, not
much could be done as Mr. Cherian was within his right to operate his business as the current land use zones iJ~low, A
neighbor was so overwhelmed with the noise that he actually abandoned his home without selling it, The home i}still on
the market as no one willpurchase it due to the close vicinity of the fabrication business, Mr, Brown would like t~see Mr,
Cherian 's request granted for mixed-use residential to be allowed in this specific location of the proposed CE zori~,
Committee Chair Dovey then summarized what he heard both Mr. Brown and Mr. Cherian say. There appears td~ot be a
buffer zone between the residential neighborhood and the CE zone. If this area south of S 356th were mixed-use
residential, it would serve as a buffer zone. Council Member Burbidge commented on whether "live-work" pr~ects for
artists had been thought of as a way to develop this particular area. Mr. Cheri an has' considered this option; if rrhxed-use
residential were allowed, he could decide to relocate his fabrication business to an appropriate location and re~laevelOP
this land himself. Council Member Burbidge is interested in comments from staff on "live-work" projects. , ,
Committee Chair Dovey inquired on the amendment regarding parking lot spaces for medical and dental offices; At this
time, medical and dental offices are not distinguished from general office. The current requirement for general~ffice is
one parking stall per 300 square feet of building gross floor area. The text amendments would increase the number of
stalls for medical and dental offices to one stall per 225 square feet. Committee Chair Dovey asks how much m~re this
would cost the developer to increase the number of stalls, for example, for a building 10,000 square feet. Disc~~sion on
this question followed, and staffwill bring information to the next LUTC meeting. ,~
Committee Chair Dovey also asked about building height for mixed use. The height for mixed use will go from 35 feet to
55 feet with the proposed text amendments. Is 55 feet high enough and why don't we go higher? Ms. M~~haelson
explains that the thought behind the amendment is to encourage mixed-use but not distract from developmeJt of the
"downtown" city center. The highest buildings should be in the downtown core. Committee Chair Dovey woui~ like to
see the limits increased where allowed. Ms. Michaelson stated that a significant height increase would be subjec~to view
corridor analysis, Comp Plan amendments and SEP A;not that the City would not like to go there, but there a lot Jf factors
to look at. Chair Dovey feels that more "view corridor" results in increased tax revenues. How high can the q'ty allow
without a study as he does not want to see the City set its standard too low. Ms. Michaelson stated that staff ~ll come
back later to revise this when necessary. Committee Member Burbidge is also interested in what is the "right:~ height.
She wants to make sure that whatever the height, there is also space between buildings, open spaces and "PUbliC".'"iew.
G:\LUTOLUTC Agendas and Summaries 2007\05,21-07 LUTe Minutes.doc ,
Land Use/Transportation Committee
Page 4
March ) 2, 2007
Comm;"" Ch." Dovey ["Is thot ML Ch""n .nd ML Bmwn's wmm,nts h,ve m,d, ,nd h, would lik:t s"
consideration given to their request. Ms. Michaelson stated that it could be considered for the limited pr~perties
mentioned by is not recommended for all of the CE zone, Between SR 99 and SR 161, south of S 356th Street is ~lose to
residential, critical areas, etc. Ms. McClung added that mixed-use residential in this area is not objectionable, h~wever,
within the entire CE zone would not work. Up until the present, staff has not been considering individual site~in this
city-wide project. Coimmittee Member Kochmar suggests that text be amended in the CE zone to allow for the~arcels
shaded in green on the map shown in Ms. Michaelson's presentation (west of SR 99 and south of S 356th St, betWeen SR
99 and SR 161) to have mixed-use residential/commercial. How would it be shown in the Comp Plan? Ms. Midhaelson
explained that language in the Comp Plan would be modified to set the policy framework for this use. '~ll text
amendments would be contingent of adoption of the plan amendments. .~
Moved: Kochmar Seconded: Dovey Passed: Unanimously I,
Committee PASSED Option 1 to a future City Council Agenda for first reading of the Ordinance as amendeD to
include mixed-use residential/commercial for property south of S 356th Street, between SR 99 and SR 161,
contingent on approval of the Comprehensive Plan..
5. FUTURE MEETING
The next regular meeting is June 4,2007,
6. ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 7:45 p.m.
G:\LUTClLUTC Agendas and Summaries 2007\05-21 ~07 LUTC Minutes.doc
COUNCIL MEETING DATE: June 5, 2007
ITEM #:
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA BILL
SUBJECT: AWARD OF HEARING EXAMINER CONTRACT :~
POLICY QUESTION: To whom should the City award the Hearing Examiner Services contract? :~
COMMITTEE: Land Use & Transportation MEETING DATE: 6/4/07 ,l
~TE~:n:::t D Ordinance D Public Hearing 'i,~
D City Council Business D Resolution D Other ,I,
STAFF REpORT By: Laura Hathaway, City Clerk DEPT: Management Services :~.
::::r:::::: se~cti~n~ri=~~-----r
It has been over ten years since the City revisited its need for hearing examiner services. Federal Way C.ity Code
Section 22 authorizes the City Council to appoint a qualified Hearing Examiner who will serve at the pl~~asure of
the City Council. The code further states that the Hearing Examiner shall be a person with trainin~ and/or
experience in land use planning, law or other areas related to the planning/development of the community. The City
recently added provisions for appeals to the Hearing Examiner relating to dangerous dogs and graffiti. :t
In April 2007 the City issued a Request for Proposals for Hearing Examiner Services. Two propos,als were
received: one from our current Hearing Examiner, Steve Causseaux of McCarthy, Causseaux, Hurdelbrin~and the
other from Phil Olbrechts of Ogden, Murphy, Wallace. Staff interviewed both applicants on May 22, 2007.:~ ,
C . fP al I
, ,
STEVEN CAUSSEAUX
}\IlcCartln'. Callsseall.\'. HlIrdelbrink
FIXED
RATE
$1,250
DESCRIPTION OF SERVICE
"Per Case Basis"
HOURLY
RATE
$120
$110
$50
$35
$25
DESCRIPTION OF SERVICE~'
Examiner Causseaux 1.
Deputy Examiners it
Assistant While Preparing Decisi<.>ns
Assistant for Copying & Mailing pecisions
Hearing Clerk .~
Other Charges: $,15 per page for copies; Postage at Equal Rate
PHIL A. OLBRECHTS
Ogden. klllrphr. Wallace
DESCRIPTION OF SERVICE ~~; DESCRIPTION OFSERVICE:~"
Hearings Less than Half-Hour (Shoreline $145 Members Rate .~
Master Program = $950). $135 Associate Rate :.
Hearings Half to One Hour (Shoreline Mileage Flat one-hour fee for r/t mileage oased on
Master Program = $1,050). Member or Associate Rate .
Hearings over one hour, plus $175 for each $0 Secretarial Time.
additional hour. (Shoreline Master Program $35 Tra:nscription of Hearing Tapes (~tional)
Minimum = $1,050). $20 Clerk Time During Hearings I
$450 Reconsideration Decisions
*lncludes travel time and clerical support at hearings, Does not include administrative expenses or legal research (i.e. time spent,researching
legal authority outside the Federal Way Municipal Code, Comprehensive Plan and Shoreline Master Program). Legal research b~lled at $145
fo, ~mb,n ood $135 foe =o"al~_ "Copy Md 100' d;<looa ,horg~ 001 ;odud.J ,t
FIXED
RATE *
$800
$950
$1125
Options Considered:
I
1. Award the contract for Hearing Examiner Services to Phil Olbrechts and authorize the City Manager to
execute the necessary documents. . :,
2. Award the contract for Hearing Examiner Services to Steve Causseaux and authorize the City Manager to
execute the necessary documents. :.
The state law requires land use decisions be rendered within 10 business days from hearing, unless an ext~nsion is
agreed to by both parties at the hearing. It has been a challenge in recent years to get hearing decisions from the
examiner within the prescribed time frame. Based on past performance, reliability, and interview result~~staff is
recommending awarding the contract to a new hearing examiner, Phil Olbrechts,ofOgden, Murphy, wallat.
ST ~FF RE~O~:;~~~~ON:-~~aff re~~mmen~~~wa~~ing the c~ntra~; fo~ Hearing E:~~iner Servi~es :~ Phil
Olbrechts o{Ogden, Murphy, Wallace. ;~
;~
CITY MANAGER ApPROVAL:
CoUncil
,II...
C RE . ~;t:r: J'n::tD n~ct 'Ct;' &-r}S r CJ- . S . c-t; . ph'l
OMMITTEE CO~MENDA!ION: Mohon to .tR€ .cen-t:raet', or eaTIng xammer. emces.~ 1
Olbrechtsl'aBd authonz€-tfle-Gity-Maf!ager..to~ the ooeessary Q~S and forward to the June 5,2007
City Council ConsenJ Agenda. .s+o.ff w n I N.- -!urn -to 4t-1e- ~ IrJ j H-ev fir( a.... mtneAtd.aJ1 ~r-lb
~v-e- t1-e;{,e.~t/ I/l ~M- -fur He~r1'::J ~al/Yll'n-N SVC5. w/fhd rec.h, -. :
~~~J.--- .
Linda Koc ar, Dean McC gan, .
Committee Member Committee Member ,~
PROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION: "] move approval of the award of the Hearing Examiner's contract t}.Phil
Olbrechts, and authorize the City Manager to execute the necessary contract documents. " ,~
DIRECTOR ApPROVAL:
/~\0J~~
Committee
COWlcil .
COUNCIL ACTION:
o APPROVED
o DENIED
o T ABLEDIDEFERREDINO ACTION
o MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only)
REVISED - 02/06/2006
COUNCIL BILL #
1 ST reading
Enactment reading
ORDINANCE #
RESOLUTION #
,~
,~
.~
;~
.~
~
(BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE)
RESPONSE TO HEARING EXAMINER REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL
The City Clerk's Office received two (2) responses to the recent RFP for Hearing!
Examiner Services. The first response is from our current examiner, Steve Causseaux, ofj
McCarthy, Causseaux, Hurdelbrink. The second submittal is from Phil Olbrechts of,
Ogden, Murphy, Wallace. Staff interviewed both firms on May 22,2007.
SELECTION CRITERIA:
Factor
Weight Given
1. Responsiveness of the written proposal
to the purpose and scope of service.
15%
2. Price.
40%
3. Ability and history of successfully
completing contracts of this type,
meeting projected deadlines and
experience in similar work.
45%
Total Criteria Weight
100%
The following comparison is presented for your consideration and recommendation:
McCarthv/Causseaux Olbrects/Ogden Murphy Wallace
Responsiveness: 15% 15%
Price: 40% 40%
AbilityfHistory: 30% 45%
Recapitulation: 85% 100%
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends award ofthe Hearing Examiner Contract to Phil
Olbrechts based on the selection criteria and percentages factored into each area.
COUNCIL MEETING DATE: June 19, 2007
ITEM #:
l
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA BILL
SUBJECT: RFB 07-109 Bid Award- S 308lh Street Stormwater Facility Modification Project (CIP #304-3100-2~4)
POLICY QUESTION: Should the Council award the S 3081h St. Stormwater Facility Modification Project to the'lowest
responsive, responsible bidder? :,
:~
:l
'~,
.-..----.-.....--.---.---....----.---...--.....--....-.........---.---.-...--..-.-.......,-----...---....--..
COMMITTEE: Land Use and Transportation Committee
MEETING DATE: June 4, 2007
CATEGORY:
[g] Consent
o City Council Business
o Ordinance
o
Resolution
o
o
:public Hearing
Other
.~.!~_~F ~PO~!_!!y..:_~~_1!~~~_~~_~_!~_~_R}~:_:..?~~fCl~~._~~!~.r:_M~_._
DEPT: Public Works
Attachments: Memorandum to the Land Use and Transportation Committee dated June 4; 2007.
Options Considered:
1. Award project to Pivetta Brothers Construction, Inc., in the amount of $102,653, authorize al 10%
construction contingency of $10,265 for a total amount of $112,918, and authorize the City Manager to
~~~. I
2. Do not authorize award of the project and provide direction to staff_ .. '
S-TAFF RECOMME"N-DA T-ioN~--.-St;ff~~~~~~-d~...f~~~;di-;;g..-..~;Opti~~--i;~~b~~~-t~the -j~;~--19-:-2007:.-c~:K~il
Consent Agenda for approval. _ ,k
:~
CITY MANAGER ApPROVAL.
DIRECTOR ApPROVAL:
t?1AL
Council Committee CounCiJ;l
:;OMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Place "Option 1" on the June 19,2007 City C ~,il Consent Agenda '~
ean McCoIg , Membe~i
PROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION: HI move to award the S 308/h St. Storm water Facility Modification Projectlo
Pivetta Brothers Construction, Inc., in the amount of $102,653, authorize a 10% contingency of $10,265 for a tot,~l
amount of $112,918, and authorize the City Manager to execute the contract. " . :.
COUNCIL ACTION:
o APPROVED
o DENIED
o T ABLEDIDEFERRED/NO ACTION
o MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only)
REVISED - 02/06/2006
COUNCIL BILL #
] ST reading
Enactment reading
ORDINANCE #
RESOLUTION #
:~
:~
I~
:..
;~
;~
(BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE)
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
MEMORANDUM
DATE: June 4,2007
TO: Land Use and Transportation Committee
VIA: Neal Beets, City Manager ;
FROM:. Paul A. Bucich, P.E., Surface Water Manag~ '
SUBJECT' RFB 07-109 Bid Award: S 308th Street Sto~acility Modification Project
. (eIP #304-3100-254) . 'I
BACKGROUND: '
On April 16, 2007, Council authorized advertisement of this project for an estimated construction
cost of $1 04,463, plus a 10% construction contingency for a total of $114,909-1
Two bids were received and opened on May 21, 2007. The lowest responsive, responsible bidder ii
Pivetta Brothers Construction, Inc., with a total bid of$l 02,652.95, including tax. See the attached
Bid Tabulations for further details_ I
Staff requests authorization to award this contract to the lowest responsive, responsible biddef"
Pivetta Brothers Construction, Inc., in the amount of $102,653, and approve a 10% constructioJ
contingency of $ 10,265 for a total of$112,918.
ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES:
ITEM
Project Design by Consultant
Project Construction
Construction Contingency (10%)
Printing, Advertising & SEP A
Construction Management & Inspection (15%)
ESTIMATED TOTAL PROJECT COST:
PROJECT
$ 59,339
102,653
10,265
850
15,398
$188,505
AVAILABLE FUNDING:
TOT At A V AILABLE BUDGET
$ 248,000
PB/JW:dl
cc: Purchasing
Project File
k\lutc\2007\06-04-07 s308th stonnwater facility mods rfb07-I09 bid award,doc
Unit Bid Tabulations Cost Estimate
CITY OF FEDERAL WA Y
Printed: 5/22/2007
. RFR 07-10Q ~ ?/HU.... Sf. .... - ... II"^""~ ... . ~ n::ltl'>' &:/'>" In7 B iI' ,/I'>ff Wr It
Engineer's %of %of
Bid Plan Estim, Unit Engineer's Unit Price Totals- Low Engineer's Unit Price Total- 2nd Engineer's
Item Description Unit Qty, Price Estimate Low Bidder Bidder Estimate 2nd Bid Bid Estimate
BID SCHEDULE A Contractor Name: I-'Ivetta Ijrotners ~onstructlon, - KBH Construction Co,
Inc.
1 MOBILIZATION LS 1 $ 7,650 $ 7,650 $ 4,400 $ 4,400.00 57.5% $ 12,000 $ 12,000.00 156.9%
2 UTILITIES LOCATE AND PROTECTION LS 1 $ 2,000 $ 2,000 $ 800 $ 800.00 40.0% $ 1,500 $ 1,500.00 75.0%
3 CONSTRUCTION SURVEYING LS 1 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 3,000 $ 3,000.00 60.0% $ 3,500 $ 3,500.00 70,0%
4 PROJECT TEMPORARY TRAFFIC CONTROL LS 1 $ 4,500 $ 4,500 $ 6,500 $ 6,500.00 144.4% $ 3,000 $ 3,000.00 66.7%
5 TEMP, WATER POLLUTION/EROSION CONTROL LS 1 $ 3,000 $ 3,000 $ 2,500 $ 2,500,00 83.3% $ 2,000 $ 2,000.00 66.7%
6 CLEARING AND GRUBBING LS 1 $ 3,000 $ 3,000 $ 5,800 $ 5,800.00 193.3% $ 6,000 $ 6,000.00 200,0%
7 REMOVAL OF STR. & OBSTRUCTIONS LS 1 $ 2,000 $ 2,000 $ 13,950 $ 13,950.00 697.5% $ 7,500 $ 7,500.00 375,0%
8 EXCAVATION AND EMBANKMENT INCL. HAUL LS 1 $ 9,000 $ 9,000 $ 14,900 $ 14,900.00 165.6% $ 19,000 $ 19,000.00 211,1 %
9 SHORING OR EXTRA EXCAV., CL. A AND CL. B LF 100 $ 5 $ 500 $ 8 $ 800,00 160.0% $ 30 $ 3,000.00 600,0%
10 ADS N-12@WT IB DRAIN PIPE, 12-INCH DIAM, LF 140 $ 60 $ 8,400 $ 40 $ 5,600.00 66.7% $ 60 $ 8,400,00 100.0%
11 ADS N-12@ WT IB DRAIN PIPE, 18-INCH DIAM. LF 55 $ 75 $ 4,125 $ 60 $ 3,300.00 80,0% $ 65 $ 3,575.00 86.7%
12 CATCH BASIN TYPE II, 54-INCH DIAM. EA. 1 $ 3,500 $ 3,500 $ 3,500 $ 3,500.00 100.0% $ 9,000 $ 9,000,00 257,1 %
13 CATCH BASIN TYPE I EA. 2 $ 1,800 $ 3,600 $ 980 $ 1,960.00 54.4% $ 1,100 $ 2,200.00 61.1%
14 CATCH BASIN TYPE IL EA. 1 $ 2,600 $ 2,600 $ 1,200 $ 1,200.00 46.2% $ 1 ,400 $ 1,400.00 53.8%
15 BANK RUN GRAVEL FOR TRENCH BACKFILL TON 60 $ 40 $ 2,400 $ 28 $ 1,680.00 70.0% $ 25 $ 1,500,00 62.5%
16 CRUSHED SURFACING TOP COURSE TON 90 $ 40 $ 3,600 $ 27 $ 2,430.00 67.5% $ 29 $ 2,610.00 72.5%
17 CRUSHED SURFACING BASE COURSE TON 85 $ 40 $ 3,400 $ 27 $ 2,295,00 67.5% $ 29 $ 2,465.00 72,5%
18 ROADSIDE RESTORATION LS 1 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 5,500 $ 5,500.00 110.0% $ 1,800 $ 1,800.00 36,0%
'19 CHAIN LINK FENCE, TYPE 3 LF 95 $ 25 $ 2,375 $ 11.50 $ 1,092,50 46,0% $ 18 $ 1,710.00 72.0%
20 FENCE END POST EA. 2 $ 135 $ 270 $ 180 $ 360.00 133.3% $ 100 $ 200.00 74.1%
21 FENCE CORNER OR PULL POST EA. 4 $ 135 $ 540 $ 180 $ 720.00 133.3% $ 125 $ 500,00 92,6%
22 LOCKING DOUBLE GATE, 14-FOOT WIDE EA. 1 $ 1,800 $ 1,800 $ 847 $ 847.00 47.1% $ 1,900 $ 1,900,00 105,6%
23 QUARRY SPALLS TON 30 $ 60 $ 1,800 $ 35 $ 1,050,00 58,3% $ 25 $ 750.00 41,7%
24 ROCK WALL TON 27 $ 80 $ 2,160 $ 202 $ 5,454.00 336.7% $ 175 $ 4,725,00 291,7%
25 REMOVABLE BOLLARDS EA. 3 $ 750 $ 2,250 $ 375 $ 1,125.00 625.0% $ 500 $ 1,500.00 833.3%
26 FORCE ACCOUNT DOL 3,500 $ 1 $ 3,500 $ 1 $ 3,500.00 100.0% $ 1 $ 3,500,00 100.0%
SUBTOTAL (Without Sales Tax): $ 87,970 $ 94,263.50 $ 105,235.00
8,9% Sales Tax: $7,829 $8,389.45 $9,365.92
I TOTAL BID (With Sales Tax)j I $1'02,652.95 98.3%1 $114,600,92 109.7%
Consultant's Revised Engineers Estimate at Bid Time $95, 799 (Rev, Engineer's Estimate submitted after April 16 LUTC)
May 7,2007 Council Approved Engineers Estimate I $104,4631 Authorized Amount per April 16 LUTC Memo
Project Total Cost Summary: Requested Contract Award Amount $ 102,653
Construction Contingency (@10%) $ 10,265
Construction C<;>ntract Total with. ContingenGY , $ t12,9.18. . . . . , - - - -- - --. -. -'". _ _ _ .-- - .
~.., : - - - - -- ---- . _. -- _ _.,., . n'.' _ _ , .", . $ 15':3'98
Const. Management (@15%) On Contract Amount Only
Design Consultant Cost $ 59,339
SEPA, Printing & Advertisement $ 850
Estim. Total Project Costs $ 188,505 Available Budget is $248k
COUNCIL MEETING DATE: June 19, 2007
ITEM #:
t
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA BILL
CATEGORY:
[8J Consent 0 Ordinance. 0 Public Hearing
o City Council Business 0 Resolution 0 Other
STAFF REpORT By: Paul A. Bucich, P.E., Surface Water Manager DEPT: Public Works :~
A:::=-==~-:~:=-~=~-:::=~==-=:'~~l
SUBJECT: Supplemental Funding for the Joe's Creek Salmon Habitat Restoration Project, CIP 304-3100-251 :k
POLICY QUESTION: Should the Council authorize transfer of funds from SWM CIP 304-3100-252 into the J9~e's
Creek Salmon Habitat Restoration Project, CIP 304-3100-251? ."
COMMITTEE: Land Use and Transportation Committee MEETING DATE: June 4, 2007 :~
:l
Options Considered: ,
1. Authorize the Finance Department to transfer remaining budget funds, $499,671, from the SWM CIP 304-
3100-252 into SWM CIP 304-3100-251. '
2. Do not authorize transfer of funds and provide direction to staff.
ST AFFj~ECOMMENDATio-N~-._..St;fr;~~~~~~~i;--i~~~;di.~g-;;opti~~--i;;--~b~~~-t~-.-th~-j~~.~.-i9~007 - CoUA~il
Consent Agenda for approval. 'k,
'~
CITY MANAGER ApPROVAL:
DIRECTOR ApPROVAL:
~
Council Committee Council'~
~~MMIITEE RECOMMENDA nON: Place "Option ~on th~ity Co iI Consent Agenda :,
inda Koc~ ' Member ean McColga , MembeF~
PROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION: "I move to authorize the Finance Department to transfer remaining budg"et
funds from the SWM CIP 304-3100-252 into SWM CIP 304-3100-251." :~
COUNCIL ACTION:
o APPROVED
o DENIED
o TABLEDIDEFERREDINO ACTION
o MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only)
REVISED - 02/06/2006
COUNCIL BILL #
I ST reading
Enactment reading
ORDINANCE #
RESOLUTION #
,~
~~
(BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE)
.~
;~
:t..
.~
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
VIA:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
June 4, 2007
Land Use and Transportation Committee
Neal Beets, City Manager :
Paul A. Bucich, P.E., Surface Water Manager~ :
Request to Combine Funding for Joe's Creek ~ Habitat R~storation Project
BACKGROUND:
Due to a differing site conditions claim by the contractor on the Joe's Creek Salmon Habit3;t
Restoration Project, CIP # 304-3100-251, the project budget has been experiencing charges fo~
litigation not anticipated when the project budget was created. As such, the budget is being rapid11
depleted and needs to be supplemented with additional funding. At this time, it is not possible t~
report to Council on anticipated expenditures due to the pending litigation, however we do expect
continued charges as the City defends itself from the claim. 'I
During the contract bid award, Council ~as informed of another SWM project, CIP # 304-31 00-252~
that was identified in our CIP plan as potentially to be combined with the Joe's Creek project due t9:
overlapping pipe replacement plans. At the time of bid award, SWM staff requested and Council
authorized a transfer of$103, 329 from CIP # 252 to the Joe's Creek project, CIP #251. At thi$~
time, SWM staff is requesting the remaining $499,671 be combined with the Joe's Creek projectl'
CIP # 251 and the funds transferred from CIP # 252 into the CIP # 251 project account.
COUNCIL MEETING DATE: June 19,2007
ITEM #:
}
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA BILL
SUBJECT: Amendment to the Interlocal Cooperation Agreement with King County for Conservation Futures ::,k
Levy Funding I
POLICY QUESTION: Should the Council authorize the City Manager to execute an amendment to the existing~
Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between King County and the City of Federal Way for open space acquisiti~n
~~ ~
:~
:1
.~_~!,!..~!.g.~!.J.JY:.!>'_~~!._~~~~jE-~!~~~.2~~fa~~ W_a.!~I.:.M~J:1___ e. _ _.. E~!.~_~~?!.~~_~?~~.~....___._____._.;~__
Attachments: ~~
· Memorandum to the Land Use and Transportation Committee dated June 4,2007. '.
· Amendment to the Conservation Futures Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between King County
and the City of Federal Way for open space acquisition projects. :~
Options Considered:1
1. Authorize the City Manager or Assistant City Manager to execute the attached Amendment to the
Conservation Futures Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between King County and the City of Federal Way
for open space acquisition projects. '
COMMITTEE: Land Use and Transportation Committee
MEETING DATE: June 4, 2007
CATEGORY:
t:8J Consent
o City Council Business
o Ordinance
o
Resolution
Public Hearing
. Other
2. Do not authorize execution of the amendment and provide direction to staff.
I
.STAFF-RECOMMENDA-lioN;--'--St;if-~ec~;;'~~d~-f~;;;~di~g--~.Opti~~..1;;-'-;;;b~~~.t~.th~-i~;;-19, 2007 c~~ticii
Consent Agenda for approval. 'L
I~
CITY MANAGER ApPROVAL:
DIRECTOR ApPROVAL:
thP1.
Council
Committee Council~.
n -I Consent Agenda ,t
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Place "Option I" on the June 19,2007 City
for ap, al.
. Membet~
, '.
PROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION: "I move to authorize the City Manager or Assistant City Manager to exec,fte
the attached Amendment to the existing Conservation Futures Inter/ocal Cooperation Agreement between Kihg
County and the City of Federal Way for open space acquisition projects. " :~
COUNCIL ACTION:
o APPROVED
o DENIED
o TABLEDIDEFERRED/NO ACTION
o MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only)
REVISED - 02/06/2006
COUNCIL BILL #
I ST reading
Enactment reading
ORDINANCE #
RESOLUTION #
:~-
.~
:..
;t
.:~
IL
(BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE)
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
VIA:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
June 4, 2007
Land Use and Transportation Committee
Neal Beets, City Manager
Paul A. Bucich, P.E., Surface Water Manager~
Amendment to Interlocal Cooperation Agreement with King County for
Conservation Futures Levy Funding
BACKGROUND:
On June 51\ 1990, the City of Federal Way and King County entered into a perpetual Interloc~l
Cooperation Agreement for establishing procedures for dispersing King County Conservatio~
Futures Levy Funds to Federal Way on projects selected for acquisition by King County. Attached t<t
this memorandum is an Amendment to the original agreement necessary for dispersement of funds t~
Federal Way for projects within the Hylebos Creek Drainage Basin selected by King County in 2003"
and 2005 for funding. Currently Surface Water Management has acquired the former Kim propertie~
and is pursuing additional properties within the basin. Execution of the attached Amendment i~
necessary for the SWM fund to be reimbursed for the acquisition(s). I
AMENDMENT TO THE CONSERVATION FUTURES
INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT
BETWEEN KING COUNTY AND THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
FOR OPEN SPACE ACQUISITION PROJECTS
Preamble
The King County Council, through Ordinance 9128, has established a Conservation Futures Levy
Fund and appropriated proceeds to King County, 'the City of Seattle, and certain suburban citil~s
through the procedures set forth in Ordinance 8867, as amended by Ordinance 14714. Tms
amendment is entered into to provide for the allocation of additional fluids made available f~r
open space acquisition_ _ :~
THIS AMENDMENT is entered into between the CITY OF FEDERAL WAY and KIN~
COUNTY, and amends and attaches to and is part thereof of the existing Interlocal Cooperati0n
Agreement entered into between the parties on the 5th day of June, 1990, as previously amended;
The parties agree to the following amendments:
Amendment 1: Article 1. Recitals .
Two paragraphs are hereby.added to the Recitals Section to provide for a .~onservat~6r
Futures Levy Fund allocatIon for the Federal Way Hylebos Creek (CntIcal Hablt,at
Preservation) acquisition project, and for the Federal Way Hylebos Creek (Spring Valle~)
acquisition project, which reads: "~
· On November 24, 2003, the King County Council passed Ordinance 14790/,
which appropriated a total of Three Hundred and Twenty Thousand Dollar\
($320,000) in Conservation Futures. Levy proceeds to the Hylebos' Cree'~
(Critical Habitat Preservation) Project and on April 9, 2007, the King County
Council passed Ordinance 15711, authorizing the King County Executive t~
. enter into an interloGal agreement with the City of Federal Way for tli~
- 1 -
.
disbursement of Conservation Futures. Funds to the City of Federal Way
Hylebos Creek project authorized in Ordinance 14797_1
On October 3,2005, the King County Council passed Ordinance 15295, wh~ch
appropriated a total of Four Hundred Thousand Dollars ($400,000) ;~
Conservation Futures Levy proceeds to the Hylebos Creek (Spring Valley)
Project and o~ .April 9, ~007, the King Co~nty Council passed <?rdinan,te
15711, authonzmg the Kmg County ExecutIve to enter mto an mterl06al
agreement with the City of Federal Way for the disbursement of Conservati~n
Futures Funds to the City of Federal Way Hylebos Creek project authorized;\n
Ordinance 15295.
Amendment 2: Article V. Conditions of Ae:reement
Section 5.1 is amended to include references to Attachment "E", which lists a 20t!)}
Conservation Futures Levy Allocation for the Hylebos Creek (Critical Habit~t
Preservation) Acquisition Project, and Attachment "F", which lists a 2005 Conservati~h
Futures Levy Allocation for the Hylebos Creek (Spring Valley) Acquisition Project.
Amendment 3: Article VII. Responsibilities of County
The first two sentences of this article are amended to include references to Attachment
"E", which lists a 2003 Conservation Futures Levy Allocation for the Hylebos Cre:k
(Critical Habitat Preservation) Acquisition Project and Attachment "F", which lists a 20~'s
Conservation Futures Levy Allocation for the Hylebos Creek (Spring Valley) Acquisiti~n
Project as follows: :l
Subject to the terms of this agreement, the County will provide conservatio~ :
Futures Levy Funds in the amounts shown in Attachments "A" through "F" to br~
used for the projects listed in Attachments "A" through "F". The City ma1'
request additional funds; however, the County has no obligation to provide funds'
to the City for the projects in excess of the total amounts shown in Attachments'
"A" through "F". The County assumes no obligation for the future support ofthJ
projects described herein except as expressly set forth in this agreement I
In all other respects, the terms, conditions, duties, and obligations of both parties shall remain tHe
same as agreed to in the Interlocal Cooperation Agreement as previously amended.
This document shall be attached to the existing Interlocal Cooperation Agreement.
- 2 -
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, authorized representatives of the parties hereto have signed th~ir
names in the spaces set forth below:
KING COUNTY
Ron Sims
King County Executive
Date
Acting under the authority of Ordinance 15711
Dated: April 9, 2007
APPROVED AS TO FORM
KING COUNTY
King County Prosecuting Attorney
K:\CONTRACT\2007\2003-2005 Federal Way CFT ILA Amendments E& F,doc
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
.,
CaryM. Roe, P.E. ."
Assistant City Manager/Emergency Manager
,l
Date
ATTEST:
Laura K. Hathaway, CMC, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
Patricia A. Richardson
City Attorney
- 3 -
ATTACHMENT "E"
2003 CONSERVATION FUTURES LEVY ALLOCATION
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
Jurisdiction
Proiect
Allocation
Federal Way
Hylebos Creek (Critical Habitat Preservation)
$ 320,000
TOTAL
$ 320,000
Project Description:
Hylebos Creek (Critical Habitat Preservation): This project consists of approximat~ly
. th . ~
63 acres along Hylebos Creek on several parcels north of South 376 Street In Fede~al
Way. The properties contain riparian habitat important for the protection of salmonW
species in Hylebos Creek.
City of Federal Way - Hylebos Creek (Critical Habitat Preservation)
$ 320,000
-4-
ATTACHMENT "F"
2005 CONSERVATION FUTURES LEVY ALLOCATION
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
Jurisdiction
Proiect
Allocation
Federal Way
Hylebos Creek (Spring Valley)
$ 400,000
TOTAL
$ 400,000
Project Description:
Hylebos Creek (Spring Valley): This project consists of approximately 63 acres along
Hylebos Creek on several parcels north of South 376th Street in Federal Way. T~\
properties contain riparian habitat important for the protection of salmonid species i~
Hylebos Creek.
City of Federal Way - Hylebos Creek (Spring Valley)
$ 400,000
- 5 -
~~~~~~-~...~~~.!.!,~~~~!~~..!.~~~~-~,-...~~~?__._--
ITEM #:
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA BILL
SUBJECT: 2006 Comprehensive Plan Amendments :~
POLICY QUESTION: Should the City approve the text ~nd map amendments to Chapter One - Introductio~~
Chapter Two -- Land Use, Chapter Four - Economic Development, Chapter Six - Capital Facilities, and 'I
Chapter Seven -- City Center; map changes to Chapter Three - Transportation, Chapter Eight - Potentia(
Annexation Area, Chapter Nine - Natural Environment, and Chapter 10- Private Utilities; city-initiated,-
amendments to the comprehensive plan map and zoning map related to changing the boundaries o~ the
Business Park (BP)/Commercial Enterprise (CE) and Community Business (BC) comprehensive p~an
and zoning designations; city-initiated amendment to change the comprehensive plan and zoning :,
designation oj Mitchell Place; and citizen-initiated requests Jor changes to comprehensive plan '.
designations and zoning for seven sites? I "
COMMITTEE: LUTC MEETING DATE: May 21, 2007~nd
~TE~n:::t ISI Ordinance D Public Hea~:ne- '-/, 200.'17
D City Council Business D Resolution D Other
. '~
STAFF REpORT By: Senior Planner Margaret H. Clark, AICP DEPT: Commumty Develop'~ent
;~-~:~:-l-~:;-':~:;~:~-~~:--~~:~~:~:::~~-~~::-'~:'-~:~~~b:-~-~95 -:~-~ ame~de~-~he ~~~:.~~ Dec'::~:~98~-'-----'--'-"'-
September 2000, November 2001, March 2003, July 2004, and June 2005. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.130, Hie
Growth Management Act (GMA) limits plan updates to no more than once per year, except under certain :~
circumstances. The Planning Commission conducted public hearings on March 14, 2007, March 21,2007, and
April 18, 2007, at the close of which they recommended to the council approval of the following amendme~ts: 1)
Amendments to the text and maps of the comprehensive plan (Exhibit A of the draft Adoption Ordinance); ,Q)
Amendments to the comprehensive plan map and zoning map boundaries of the BP/CE and BC zoning dis~icts
(Exhibit B of the draft Adoption Ordinance); 3) Approval of the city-initiated change to the comprehenSiVei,tp.lan
and zoning designation for Mitchell Place (Exhibit C of the draft Adoption Ordinance); 4) Approval of six.
(Request #1- Quadrant, Request #2 - Trimble, Request #3 - Gramor, Request #4 -Washington Memorial Park,
Request #5 - Taylor, and Request #7 - Waller Road IV Associates) (Exhibit D of the draft Adoption Ordin~nce)1
o~the seven citizen-initiated requests for changes to the.comprehensive pla~ and zoning desi~~tions. The ,~
Llfeway Church (Request #6) request moves forward WIth no recommendatIOn because a maJonty vote oftlie
entire membership (four of seven members) is necessary for a recommendation of Planning Commission 'I
Approval and only three of the four present members voted to recommend approval.
The recommended changes to the text and maps Qf the comprehensive plan (Exhibit A of the draft Adoptioh
Ordinance) are shown as strIkethrough (deletions) and underline (new) text. ,~
=:,="q=:,,=:::~:t:t::':~d:Pt':"=~T===r
City Council's final action.
COUNCIL ACTION:
o APPROVED
o DENIED
Attachments: I) Draft Adoption Ordinance with Exhibits A, B, C, and D; 2) Minutes of March 14, 2007,) March
21,2007, and April 18, 2007, Planning Commission Public Hearings (please note that due to their bulk,: the
staff reports for these public hearings are not included in the City Council packet, but are available in the
City Council Conference Room). :l
-~;~~~~~"-~o~-~~-~~~~';--~;"-~~~;~"-~~-;-~~~;~;-~-~rni~-~~~~-~~~~~~e~~~~-~:~:~:~:~~-'~~~ho::--~~- Exhi~~~--~,-
B, C, and D to the Draft Adoption Ordinance; 2) Adopt the Planning Commission recommended amendrri~nts as
further amended by the LUTe; 3) Do not adopt the amendments_ ,
~-;:;;-~C~~~;-~~~;~~~-;-;~;f r~~-~::~~d~- C~cil ~~;ro~~'-~Pti~n ;~~-:~~~~-~~~-'~~~~:~:;"~~~~-~i~-----
recommended amendments as shown in Exhibits A, B, C, and D to the Draft Adoption Ordinance. ~
CITY MANAGER ApPROVAL: -t~2ttee 10 Council DIRECTOR ApPROVAL: 10 ~ l'~Council
...
'.
for first reading.
1 n (, !'e..t7J,u!es f ~
~ (),~ .)
d__ '~~ L--
ean McColgan, ember ind ochmar, Mem er
PROPOSED OUNCIL MOTION: "I move approval of the LUTC's recommendation to approve the~2006
Comprehensive Plan Amendments, which are attached as Exhibits A, B, C, and D to the Adoption Ordinare. "
;~
,~
'~
,~,
,~
.~
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Forward the
tV 0 aef; on. -I-P..k.. ~ .a::I- 5/21/ ()1 m.e '
(BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE)
o TABLED/DEFERRED/NO ACTION
o MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only)
REVISED - 02/06/2006
COUNCIL BILL #
1 ST reading
Enactment
reading
ORDINANCE #
RESOLUTION #
K:\Margaret\2006 Comprehensive Plan Amendments\LUTC\Agenda Bill.doc
AMENDMENTS TO
CHAPTER TWO - LAND USE
JUNE 4, 2007
LUTC MEETING
,':
FWCP - Chapter Two, Land Use
2.2 RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER LAND USE CHAPTERS
The land use concept set forth in this chapter is consistent with all FWCP chapters.
Internal consistency among the chapters of the FWCP translates into coordinated growth I
and an efficient use of limited resources. Below is a brief discussion of how the Land Use:
chapter relates to the other chapters of the FWCP. I
Economic Development
Federal Way's economy is disproportionately divided. Based on PSRC's ~ 2005
Coyered Estimates by jurisdiction~ retail and service industries compose more than +G 72
percent of Federal Way's employment base. Coyered estimates are jobs that are coyered '
by unemployment insurance. Dependence on retail trade stems primarily from the City's :
eyolution into a regional shopping destination for South King County and northeast Pierce
County. Increased regional competition from other retail areas, such as Tukwila and the '
Auburn SuperMall, may impact the City's abil.ity to capture future retail dollars. To
improve Federal Way's economic outlook, the economic deyelopment strategy is to :
promote a more diverse economy. A diversified economy should achieve a better balance,
between jobs and housing and supports the City's quality of life. I
In conjunction with the Economic Development chapter, this Land Use chapter promotes,
contemplates the following:
. /\ City Center eomposed of mid rise offiee I:lHildings, mixed I:lse retail, and :
hOl:lsing. A dense. urban-scale. City Center. comprised of a diyerse mix of office. I
commercial. retail sales. seryices. entertainment. and housing; with the "City
Center-Core" containing the City's tallest buildings and the "City Center-Frame"
containing transitional heights between the Core and adiacent lower-height areas. ;
~~BHsiness Park Commercial Enterprise development iFl tlie SOMtli 318111 Street area i
generallv west of the 1-5/SR-18 interchange. east of 9111 Ayenue South. south of :
South 339th Street. and north of South 359111 Street. composed of a compatible mixi
of light industrial. commercial. retail sales. and serYices.liresJdential uses are ooJJ
~Qotemp-l.ated io the CE zpne. exce-ot mixed-use r~sidential/cQ.mmercial can serv~ I
~ an apJlffiQriate transitional use adiace_ot to established....si.ogJe famiJ'y:zpoed
~esideotial neiRhborboJLd_s.l
. Community Business deyelopment iFl tlie SOHth 318111 Street area and arol:ln€l tlie I:
5/SoMtli 32(,)"' aFld I 5/SR 18 iRterelianges generally along the SR-99 corridor. i
north and south of the City Center. in proximity to residential areas. composed of I
a broad range of retail sales and services. commercial. office. and mixed-use
commercial/residential development.
· Continued deyelopment of West Campus.
Revised 200J 2007,2006 Comprehensive Plan Amendment
1
FWCP - Chapter Two. Land Use
low intensity development. In the future, these areas will become more intensively
developed and pedestrian oriented, and in some designations, accommodate housing.
Transforming existing areas into places where people want to liye, shop, and work
requires changes. Commercial areas should contain street furniture, trees, pedestrian I
shelters, well marked crosswalks, and buildings oriented to and along the street to proyide
. 1
interest and allow easy pedestrian access.
General Policies for Commercial, Office, and Busiaess Pari, Commercial
Enterprise
The following general policies apply to all commercial, office, and business park
commercial enterprise designations. In some instances, specific goals and policies may
follow a specific land use designation
Policies
LUP26
LUP27
, LUP28
LUP29
LUP30
LUP31
LUP32
LUP33
LUP34
Proyide employment and business opportunities by allocating adequate land fot;
commercial, office, and business park commercial enterprise development. '
Encourage deyelopment of regional uses in the City Center.
Proyide for a mix of commercial and residential in n~n industrial commercial
areas ia'm~ifi"llimirea~--proJ2fiateloc-atioI]S in commei-cia~rise are~
,
Use Community Design Guidelines to promote common open space, public art;
and plazas in commercial and office deyelopments. '
Ensure compatibility between mixeal::lse non-residential developments and
residential areas zones by regulating height, scale, setbacks, and buffers.
Use Community Design Guidelines to encourage quality design and pedestriani
and vehicle circulation in office, commercial, and business park commercial '
enterprise developments.
Use Community Design Guidelines to encourage commercial development to I
locate along street edge (where deemed appropriate) to provide pedestrian stre~~
access. Provide pedestrian access between deyelopments and to transit stationS~I!II
Identify and designate streets where on-street parking can be safely provided :
without unduly slowing traffic flow or jeopardizing traffic safety. i
, '
Proyide deyeloper incentives for inclusion of housing in commercial projects at
appropriate locations.
"il
Revised ~ 2007,2006 Comprehensive Plan Amendment
FWCP - Chapter Two, Land Use
Busiaess Park Commercial Enterprise
The Business Park t'lesignation eneompasses the uses feunEl in areas .....here large
unt'leveloped and underdeveloped parcels, having convenient aeeess to Interstate 5 ant'll
Highway 18, provide a natural location for business park t'levelopment. The Business Park
designation is intendet'l to eaf'ltufe the demand fer higher quality, mixed use business parl<~
which permit a mixture of light manufaeturing, warehouse/distribution, offiee, and Iimite<;l~
retail uses to ser.,e the immediate needs in the area. In the past few years, the City has
observed a marked inerase in requests to change parcels from the Business Park
designation to another comprehensive plan designation. As a result, the City should
explore potential ehanges to the allo..../able mix of I:lses in the Business Park zone in order:
to meet ehanging market eonditions.
The Commercial Enterprise (CE) designation was developed from the former Business
Park (BP) designation, in order to meet changing market conditions, as indicated by City ,
market studies and bv numerous rezone requests. The CE designation is &iJ]1atiJ~ :
intended to capture the demand for a diverse mix of industrial, office, and retail sales and:
services, arrayed in well integrated, high quality developments. Housing is not
contemplated for this designation. ~ceDt ~d:--~ellitential/commercial deveIQP-OJen~
~ro'p-r(ate as a -trans.i.!ill.nj.1 use adi~ the established~o.gJe fam~zQn~d
~esidential.JJ.S)igbJmI.billLd located smillLofSouth 356111 Street between Pacific HiR~
~th and.l.6~ yelJue fuLuth. as it is ill:::€lm~atible ...:ith tit::: ~rlld€lmillaRt uses allJ
~it&faeter €lftitll aflla, Lll., bulk flltail, maRufallturille;, '::::reit€lM8ille;, aRd r~-ed im_ .
~it as buildiRg bull( aRd seale, €l':eF::izlld :::€lmmgreial ':eitielll tr::ffi:::. aRd €lutd€l€l:" st€lfae;.
, . , .,~ - " ". .;~
The CE designation encompasses areas located generally south of South 3391h Street, nortli
of South 359111 Street, and west of the Interstate-5/SR-18 interchange. It includes all ofthe:1
former BP-designated properties, and some former BC-designated properties. Presently, .
these areas are characterized bv bulk/big box retailers such as Costco and Home Depot; ,
emerging "destination" retail/commercial centers such as Federal Way Crossings and
Marketplace; and light manufacturing and warehouse uses; whose convenient access to
Interstate-5 and Highway 18 provide a natural location for such development. The area
also includes some large undeveloped and underdeyeloped parcels.
Goal
LUGS Develop a quality busincss park commercial enterprise environment Ihtff
s/;lfJports sblrrounding ceml'l1cr-cia[ arcas. characterized bv a viable. vibrant,
and attractive ,!?!~_of cOl1}merciq!: !eta!!,_ ?ffice, industrial, and SUl?po!:.tive.. ~sesi~
~ne mixed-use residentiallcommercial aLa transitional u,sg at ap.]2l:f)priate,
to_c;lJ.?iOJ:J~and utiliz~ational and de_sjen criteria to ensure comoaJibili1J.J '
~etween use_s.1
Policies
LUP35 Encol:lfage ql:lality, mixedl:lse de.,elopm.ent for office, manl:lfaeturing, and
distribl:ltiofl center. Allow a broad and range of commercial. retail, office,
industrial, and supportive uses to meet the needs of workers and consumers, in ,
Revised 2003 2007,2006 Comorehensive Plan Amendment
"i
FWCP - Chapter Two, Land Use
LUP36
LUP37
~
well integrated. well functioning. high quality developments.
I
Oe./elop Bl:Isiness parks that fit into their Require deyelooment to be comoatible
and well integrated into its surroundings and adiacent zones by grol:lping simila.
inal:lstries in efaer to through site and building design and deyelooment II
~2ar"s th~t reduce or _eliminate land use conflicts,~..oh-';; ';'.>!ficti"1'--k.fWi.~
indM~ri.a1 u~s fro!'B.j2foDertv thaLadjoins ~le family residential zonesJ :
nuisance impacts. or critical areas impacts: ensure proiect aesthetics: ana allow'
promote sharing of public facilities and services,; and improve vehicular and '
pedestrian traffic flow and safety~ including access control and off-street
interconnectivity between adioining properties where feasible;
bifl:H.t Allow general and specialty retail uses to those that serve the needs of :
people employed ~ resTdTn~ in the local area~. as well as "destination" retail ana
wholesale businesses that may serve a broader consumer base vis-ii-vis the .:1
area's convenient access to Interstate 5 and Highway 18. :
A"IIOW~ini~-use resiCle'iifiii'17commerciii'1 as a IransifiQ'irn1 use adLacent to thel ..
blablis_hed sin.gJe f.amjJ.Y:-zoned.ES..i.dential neighb_oJ:.QQo_d 10~at~.d_s.Quth of Souffl
~561h Street between PaciikJfjghway Sou.1lumd 16th Ayenue South.! '
ILO P3~DQ:ill)t--aIIOWheavv~i.naustfiii'1 u~ -oJDlTO]2enieslhataltiO'in""'"lilow or mea i;mJ
~ensity.Jesidential zone.!
Commercial
City Center Core
The intent of establishing the City Center Core is to create a higher density, mixed-use
designation where office, retail, government uses, and residential uses are concentrated. '
Other uses such as cultural/civic facilities, community services, and housing will be highly
encouraged. '
City Center Frame
The City Center Frame designation will haye a look and feel similar to the Core and will
provide a zone of less dense, mixed-use deyelopment physically surrounding a portion of:
the City Center Core. Together, they are meant to complement each other to create a ,
"downtown" area. A more detailed description, along with goals and policies regarding thie
City Center Core and Frame, can be found in the City Center chapter. :
Community Business
The Cemml:lnity Bl:Isiness aesignatien eneompasses two major retail areas of the City
along the SR 99 corridor. It eO'/ers the "strip" retail areas along SR 99 and the large
"bMlk" retail area found near the Sel:lth 318111 Street area, appreximately between SR 99
and I 5. Comml:lnity Bl:Isiness allows a large range ofl:lses and is the City's largest retail
designation in terms of area. The Community Bl:Isiness designation generally nms along I
both siaes ef SR 99 frem SOl:lth 27200 te Sel:lth 318111. :\ wide range of deyelopment types,:
11-;1
Revised ~ 2007.2006 Comorehensive Plan Amendment
AMENDMENTS TO
CHAPTER FOUR
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
JUNE 4, 2007
LUTC MEETING
I ~- ----~ ~
,
i
,
,
I ,
,
I
Federal Way Crossing is a 224.500 square foot multi-tenant complex with retai
commercial. small offices. and restaurants: and Lowe's is a 169.000 square foo
improvement warehouse and garden center.
,
I
I. I
,
t home I
,
:
,
I
I
I
FWCP - Chapter Four, Economic Development
Office Development
Federal Way's East and West Campus Deyelopments set a standard in the region as two :
of the best examples of master-planned office campuses in the Pacific Northwest. The
quality of development in this area is decidedly different than elsewhere in Federal Way
and Southwest King County.
I
WithiR the last tW0 years tThe majority of new office deyelopment has been located within
Federal Way's East Campus. which has seen the following development: Foss Office I
Building at 108,000 square feet; Capital One Office Building at 143,000 square feet; and:
Federal Way Office Building and Warehouse at 70,767 square feet. Currently.'there is an!
additional 105.342 square feet of office (East Campus Terrace) under construction.
Since incorporation. +the West Campus area has seen little new office development.
:\Ithol:lgh pEermits ftave had been issued. but not picked up for additioflal offiee
devel0pmeRt iR the West CamJ3l:1s, due to rising vacancy rates. there have stalled
additioRal developmeRtfor the Rear term. However. there has been recent increased
interest in office development with an additional 27 .575 square feet of office under
construction in 2006-2007.
In the City Center no new additional office development has occurred since the last
comprehensive plan update, and office buildings continue to constitute a minority of the I
City Center's development.
I
Other eommereial areas withiR the City have seeR limited amOl:lRts of office developmeRt,'
sl:lch as the [eeeRt Lloyd ERterprises bl:lilding at 34667 Paeifie Highway 80Hth.
Business Park (Light Industrial) De\'elopment Commercial
EnterDrise
Revised 2003 2007, 2006 Comprehensive Plan Amendments
There has been no substantive Business Park development since the City's incorporation.;
This lack of recent Business Park development suggests the influence of market forces :
outside of the City limits, where cheaper land and established industrial parks act as a draw
for prospective business park deyelopment. As a result. the City has adopted a new zonint-
designation. the Commercial Enterprise (CE) designation. which replaces the former !
Business Park (BP) zoning designation. The CE designation was created in order to meet,
I
changing market conditions. as indicated by City market studies and by numerous rezone:
requests. The CE designation is intended to capture the demand for a diyerse mix of
industrial. office. and retail sales and services. arrayed in well integrated. high quality
developments~.1I€lMsing; is R€l~ :€lRtllmplatlld f@ftllis dllsi~n::ti€ln. as it is iHll€lffil?&tiblll ...:i::~
tkllp:-:d-;;rnant MSllS alHI llkarallter €lftke area. i.ll.. bMlk retail. man:#acturiRgj I
~':arek€llisin;;. an3 related im~aetg SMllll as bliil~ bulk and sealll. €Kersizlld e@ffim:rllifl' '
~Ill traf!111,,---a~3 ~Mt€l€l€lL s~€lr~be. .Resj.d~J)li.aLu5e iss.QJJ~JJlPJ.a.t~_d.j)JJJy""'a_s_rnixed-us~ .
,
1V:1
[\
FWCP - Chapter Four, Economic Development
~aent'j..a17com:rnerciii'1 tl]lnsifiOfi'li'I use aBliicent t()S'iii'i!'le-fam"i1v"'zoneB re-s'iOent'iii'1 arellS :
~u.tll.QLSQ!.ltb 35~reell ~
Residential Development
One of Federal Way's strengths is the range and quality of its housing stock. The quality~
quantity, and range of options for housing are major factors in. business siting decisions. I
According to the 1990 US Census data, the median value of owner-occupied homes in ~
Federal Way was $118,800. In contrast, the average sales price of Federal Way owner- :
occupied homes in 2001, as reported by the King County Office of Regional Policy and:
Planning, was $194,092, with single-family homes averaging $213,060 and condominiutPs
averaging $112,135. These figures contrast with other King County cities, as outlined in,
Table IV-2.
2001 Avera
Place
Federal Way
Auburn
Renton
Kent
Des Moines
Seattle
King County
Table IV-2
e Sales Prices of Owner-Occu ied Homes in Kin Coun
All Homes Single-Family Condos
$194,092 $213,060 $112,135
$197,965 $216,549 $124,089
$215,341 $248,271 $149,608
$198,844 $222,580 $142,577
$206,379 $207,302 $202,142
$318,671 $342,922 $240,619
$295,158 $321,700 $198,822
As one can see from the aboye data, homes in Federal Way are generally more affordable
than in the immediately surrounding communities and are far more affordable than home~
in Seattle and the Eastside communities. :1
While single-family houses remain Federal Way's dominant housing type, the majority of
housing starts since the late 1980s were multiple-family. Multiple-family units as a I
percentage of all housing units increased from less than 10 percent in 1970 to nearly 40 :
percent in 1990. During the late 1980s, there were twice as many multiple-family housing
units constructed in Federal Way than single-family housing units. From 1990 to 1992, I
permitting of multiple-family construction stopped, and single-family construction '
slowed to about one-third of late 1980 leyels.
It is interesting to note than in 1990 median monthly rental rate for Federal Way was ,
$476, while the median monthly rental rate for King County communities varied betweeri
$398 and $458. That is, Federal Way's multifamily housing stock was on the higher end:
of cost within the region. Since then, Seattle and some Eastside locations haye become
particularly expensive, and Federal Way's multifamily housing stock is substantially
more affordable than those locations, while averaging competitiyely with nearby
communities, as seen in Table IV-3 (page 9).
Revised ~ 2007.2006 Comprehensive Plan Amendments
'Vl
FWCP - Chapter Four, Economic Development
office vacancies have risen substantially and rents haye correspondingly fallen, region- I
wide. In addition, several office buildings, particularly in the West Campus area, exhibit I
substantial yacancies that can readily absorb near-term demand in the City. Nevertheless;
the long-term picture looks good, with continued demand for and interest in office space:
in Federal Way, particularly in the East and West Campus areas. City Center office :
development will likely lag behind for most of the planning horizon. However, generous:
zoning, panoramic views, and proximity to the freeways and transit may start to make the
City Center a more attractiye location for mid- to high-rise office deyelopment in the 10 ;
to 20-year time frame.
i
With regard to housing, only a small amount of land remains in the single-family zoning I
districts to accommodate new single-family dwellings. As a consequence, the vast I
majority of new residential development will have to take the form of townhouses, small;
lot subdivisions and cottage housing. walk-up apartments, mid-rise apartments, and ~
mixed-use buildings and/or high-rise residential buildings. As with the condition for
single-family development, the majority ofthe multi-family-zoned land is also already
deyeloped, leaving primarily the commercial zones and City Center as the potential
location of a great deal of the future residential development. Nevertheless, higher land ,
values and construction costs, and lower relative rental rates compared with other
communities in the region, act as barriers to residential development within the City
Center in the near term, unless public-sector actions create financial incentiyes, reduce
deyelopment costs, or otherwise create conditions attractive to housing deyelopers.
Therefore, in the short term, most multi-family housing developments wiltcontinue to be
seen in the remaining multifamily-zoned areas and in the neighborhood commercial areas
or other commercial areas along Pacific Highway South. ~nile mulfi::familynousiii1riS;d
generally not permifte'lf'in the BusiAess Park C_ommercial Enterorise zones, this zone '::iH
~€lntinlHl t€l ~_alLaccommodate 8@ni€lr h€lM8:ng SJ).1Iltl.tallsit.ii>Jla.L~s.idSilltil:lILc.PJnm.eJ:..cial) :i
~_s~s adiacent tD e..stabLished silJgJe fam.il-Y.::.zQQed residential n.mghbQJ:ho...Q.ds ~
~8 hag b~n s@eR in l'~nt :,~ In the longer term, assuming no public-sector incentiyes,1
as rental rates rise and demand increases, housing developers will likely respond to the '
opportunities for development within the City Center, and begin to add multi-family
housing there, as well.
,
Substantial new lodging development in Federal Way is not anticipated in the near term, :
unless actions are taken to increase demand substantially. With business travel somewhat:
cut back due to increasingly burdensome airl ine-travel procedures since September II, ,
2001, the demand for hotel rooms has dropped. Business-related trayel may be slow to
return to earlier levels. Sports-related lodging demand during the late Spring, Summer,
and early Fall has been solid over the past few years and is expected to increase, although:
development of new lodging facilities will likely not follow increased demand during
only a few months of the year. If sports- or event-related facilities are deyeloped within I
the City that could accommodate off-season events, it is likely that more near-term
demand for lodging would rise and could occasion development of new facilities within
the five-year timeframe.
Like all forecasts, these should be periodically monitored relative to the real estate markei.
and economic conditions in South King County, the Central Puget Sound region, and
Revised :!003 2007, 2006 Comprehensive Plan Amendments
IV-19'
~~
ME~ ,-~MO USE %,OME
Ct\~R1'
. \
JUME 4, 2001
,-U1'C ""EE1"MG
~..
Q
\~
~
<:-
"
S\1
c~~
~~
-;~\
'o~
~\1
E\I
EW
\' ~
.~~
\ e
\ ~~,
2>\\
-'
-;l
~
rA
m
:;$'
>:>
C'
. .~
~.
~~,
~
-~~
_0.-
,~
~ 0>"" ,,~"U),.. ~~
IlllU'J,,18 ~ ~~,~ ';a' 0. ..",
~ ~dl\j~~ ",!
,
~'a~ ''''''~''''l ,~
:;> e ~\..::.\' ~
~\I~}l
,l
,-
,
AMENDMENTS TO
SIGN CODE
I
I
, -
I
;
JUNE 4, 2007
-LUTC MEETING
(12) Pennants, streamers, ribbons, spinners, whirlers, propellers, festoons, blinking lights, or simihtr
items that attract attention through moyement, reflection or illumination unless expressly alloweA
pursuant to Table I of this article. :1
(13) Portable signs except as expressly allowed in FWCC 22-1 599(d)(2). ;
(14) Real estate signs proyiding information other than the name of the development and that the
subject property is for sale, lease or rent, such as signs which only announce the features or amenities t
the subject property (i.e., features such as indoor pool, hot tub, fireplaces, skylights, coyered parking, free
cable, laundromat seryices, community centers, etc.). 'I
(15) Right-of-way signs including any sign in a public right-of-way except governmental signs. .:
(16) Roof signs. :
(17) Simulations of traffic signs. Any sign using the words "stop," "look," or "danger," or any other
words, symbols, or characters in such a manner as to interfere with, mislead, or confuse pedestrian ~
vehicular traffic. .'1
(18) Snipe signs.' ,
(19) Vehicle signs including any sign attached to, or placed on, a parked yehicle or trailer useB
principally for advertising purposes, rather than transportation, but excluding signs relating to the sal~
lease, or rental of the vehicle or trailer and excluding signs which identify a firm or its principal produ~
on a vehicle operated during the normal course of business. (Ord. No. 95-235, ~ 4, 6-6-95; Ord. No. 99-348,:~
5,9-7-99; Ord. No. 99-357, ~ 5, 12-7-99; Ord. No. 05-486, ~ 3,4-19-05) :1
22-1601 Signs in nonresidential zoning districts. :
(a) Freestanding signs. Permit applications for freestanding signs shall be designated as qualifying for'f
high profile, medium profile or low profile sign, based upon criteria regarding both the size and zoning
designation of the development. The sign profile designation shall control the sign types, sign height, sig~
area and number of signs allowed. In addition to the categories available in subsections (a)( I) and (2) ?f
this section, a subject property may be permitted an additional freestanding sign if it meets the criteri~
contained in subsection (a)(4) of this section. :~
Separate parcels or pads for single-tenant buildings that comply with all zoning requirements for
single-tenant parcels, excluding access, and are not otherwise tied to an adjacent multi-tenant center b~
yirtue of architectural style or theme, are permitted one freestanding monument or pedestal sign not tb
exceed a maximum sign area of 80 square feet for the total of all sign faces with no one sign fac~
exceeding 40 square feet. . . '.'~
(I) High profile sign. I
a. Criteria. A subject property meeting all of the following criteria is permitted a high profile
freestanding sign: ' '~
. I. A minimum of250 feet offrontage on one public right-of-way; 'I
2. A zoning designation of city center core (CC-C) or city center frame (CC-F), 5community
business (BC)~occ-:-()OJ!1J~_rcial enl~rj~riilCE,j; :1
3. A multiuse complex; and :
4. A minimum site of 15 acres in size. '
b. Sign types. The following sign types are allowed for a high profile sign: :
I. Pylon or pole signs; provided, however, that any pylon or pole sign must have more th4n
, one pole or structural support; !
2. Pedestal signs;
3. Monument signs;
4. Tenant directory signs; and
5. Kiosks.
Exhibit 14, FWCC Chapter 22, Article XVII, Signs
Page ,II' 6
, .
i
i
-~
, I'
\ proposed aoundar'l
~ fedeJa\ '/'Jay \ Changes
-~', ill
_ _ -r::::J--c 7e . \- ~::p'" p- · \" I "
~' ;,-~~~tJ~h;" :,~. .\
CJ,'" \~, ). ~I...---'_.' ~ ~.~",. _~.~. \~\ l/~- · ..: .. II
,~' ., W ,v [" )'1<tl'~~',~ ~ ." 'i
. _ . ,,,,I '''IZl · ·
f-- ..'.. ~'. -A"<.: \ ,. i _ :1.~' ;",1.. '~', T, ' ~
. ' II 1#<" >"--' \ '"
. . \ _,'ft.iI \, ~J;'\. ~,.. "", - - '.
_ . " :-r" ' . 'tiC: J 1 .' ~- J
.,. . rl. I-- < ;" "~ ..
, _ v. ... '" ... " -
--, I--~ I . ~
_ _. ,} '-'I--- '" .- ·
~~.,.'1'. :1 \= t: ,c-..J ~
1 '<0
,,' ' .
~ >-- . --;::::- ,,~,' @
)f ," ' l;--. F ~At\.~ \ i~
\ III ,\_'-1 ~ ~ J _.~ ~~i'. \\
o(f) ~ n ~\)t~ \---\-~. ~4\7rc~. J j.
! \ .. _ \("" -J" -:IJ .;;\ \ Ii
,j ? s~q '.~_;!':l c:.. - ~,"-:::;-::-i .n0C\
",' . 1pt,~ " ."1 \{~ ~I~.. _ ~.. ~ J---l .",
".~ ..,,~. .'" : '" g ,g I
~. O>s.J ~J~;f~ ~::;::" \ ~ ~ ~
D~;i ,
"):. .
"-S ,.1,.7
,~
," u:a ~\ ~ ~
" ' 7/W' ' ~. lJ \ ~\ I \ :::. UJ~ -
I!Y _ ~IC ~ \'::":10. U '" " ,T" , \0
, IF--I \rrt'r-'~" ~~~"\' '\ r Isc... ~~~~,
:i.J .~,' ~ ).. 250 5" ,,000 ~ ~'~iJl
i ~/. " .~~ i":~'~'
--:t7"- -, -,T .,.~'''\
Ji/ / ~ " L- \ '" '^ = C--U-'-::: :F
""y, f . -1. proposed R~3600 ~ooing ~\$ting Bus,n." p.t\< (BPl J P;~~.:ining BC \"'~", -',
l1li proposed Rl'I24OO Zoning : €>i,sling community BllS,neSS .
~ EJ\is1ing BC J proposed ceoQ " AC(e s,te '\
\tJ\a'P oate 4118107 '
CItY of federal Way ,
33325 8tll "'o/e S '
1'060)( 971B "
federal wav.IN" 98063 \
t253) B35-255B '
WWW.Ci\.JOllederaIVlav.COrn.
~
'"
\\,~:
" '"
;, g!
~
-0
~
a>
cc
o
NI
u.l ___
9
8,. .
~t'---n
en
10
~
-0;
-0.
Q)
~
~
'~
'"
'9'
::i
l;;
"
l'
RESPONSE TO QUESTION
ON PARKING
J'UNE 4, 2007
LUTe MEETING
~
r$il
b ~
~~~ ~
~~..~~':', i ~...
@ ~ ~ ~
o~
~ @1~ '~aa~~,
oc5. 'c>" :i~ ~ .: ~ " ,
' ~ e'E~...... eJ.
~ ... -~ ~i~ ~ ': ~ \!i) \i.U ... ~
~ '\;B \!jl ... ~... ~
~ c e ~ \; ~~ ... ~~ @1 B
~ ~~- ~~~~ g~~ c @~
\3 ~ 7' ~@ ~ ~ r.?r(ct ~ c ~~
~ ~ cS\ ~ G!1~ \!jl13~" ~(ct
1a ~ ,"" ~ <=@1 Ell e,. iO\ ~ (ct @1
@ ~'~<';\ ~~~~~~ c ~
· ~,~c '9~ ~c~_
~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ d
~ ~,~~ a a \
~ a a//~
~
~
~
~
Ll::::::j
~
~
~
~
~
@
~
~
~
"'" ,aa".,.,- ....".. ',.,,"~' - 'J< .. '"j. .-, ,,~, '.:"" - ~. '- f:"";". ,''''''0
I ~
I
] ~
I 0
I:~ s ~ i ~ i ~ i ,~ ~
s s s s S
I]
]1 0 S S S 8 S ~
II ~ C:::::. S .S 8 S
S
I (!1) C:::::. , C:::::. C:::::. C:::::. C:::::.
~ ~ S S E) i~ i8 S C3 '~
(!J) ~ d ~ ~ d ~ ~
~ ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ C3 @. .8 ~ 8 ~ (if) ~
a::::::J C:::::::::::;;l Q(f) 'Q(f) Q(f) (if)
d
ES Q{J) C:::::::::::;;l C:::::::::::;;l ~ ~ ~ C:::::::::::;;l ~
~ ~ .8 ~ 8 i 8 ~ S .~
B ~ s s s C3
~ ~~ ~ .~ (if)
m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .~
0 i ~ ~ cu;j ~ cu;j ~ d ~
0 ~ . (!iJ ~ (!iJ ~ (!iJ .
@ ~ ,~ 8 ~
~ cc=J cc::J a::::J . a::::J a:::::J
a::::::J ~ J~ ~ ~ ~
Q
~ ~ oc::J a::::.J i. a::::::J a::::.J cc::J a::::.J
~ fJ fJ fJ fJ .~
B ~ '~ ~ ~ Q0:!J
iJi.'
~
~
~
~
ES
~.~
~ ~
...~
c:::::J
(i!]
~
@J
ar~
4 ' (i!]
~
~~
~ (i!]
~.~
~ ~
'~
b
,~
~
2l
~ .
,
~'
:t
AMENDED
WATER SERVICE MAP
JUNE 4, 2007
LUTC MEETING
.t:.
~
.j-'
l\'''
PW'i;'! Suund
,,",
f'U\\'I'f\'
fklY
own-IS
Bel\'
\CiW o~ federa\ Wa'1
compreneosi"e p\ao
\,",'9hUOe & "{aCOma
V4ater se""ce ~rea
\ capital Facilities Element
\.egend:
t::l federa\ Way City Limits
. _, potentia\ Anne~ation Area
--
^-' Hig\1lioe \Nate' se<"ice "",,0 BOUl\dal'J
^-' lOCO"'" wa"" 5el'lice "",,0 BOuodal'J
MgOl\3
..,-'
\sca\e.,
, 0 0,5; 2
~ ~~~:...-
--
__. ._~lr
JKAP"~n:8
~.<____.....rc..(,'
- ", .", .'eO'"' '" ~. ~ , .....'" "",-""" ","
,M OJ'' ,,' ,,,,,,. ,"",.- '" .,- ~ ~..-
COMMENT LETTER
JUNE 4, 2007
LUTC MEETING
. I
,
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
"CHERYL HARRIS" <charris@cunninghamcylinders.com>
"Margaret Clark" <Margaret.Clark@cityoffederalway.com>
6/412007 8:31 AM
Planning Commission meeting June 4
Page l~of 1
II
:,
Margaret Clark - Planning Commission meeting June 4
Hello Margaret,
I am unable to attend the meeting this afternoon, and just want to send you a quick note to let you know that:
Charles ,
and I are still opposed to the new zoning proposal. I spoke to Mrs. Rowe and to her power of attorney, Mrs.;
Hella Lunnea
and they are still opposed to this as well. Hella had planned on atteriding this meeting but she has taken a ~ad
fall and has Ik
broken her ankle_ She has no computer access right now and ask me to pass this along to you_ . 'I
If we could be guaranteed in writing and notarized, that there would only be one other house built we would not '
be opposed to the Trumbles request. Mr. Trumble has changed his story several times, so we are very skepti~1
as to what he really does have in mind. 't
Should he seli to a developer, and 3 or 4 houses are built, our peaceful, quiet home and neighborhood WOUld.:, .
change drastically. I
The traffic that would come through our neighborhood and in front our property, where there is none now, is not
something that we '
are looking forward to.
,Thank you for your consideration
Cheryl Harris
5440 S.W.320th St.
Fereral Way, Wa 98023
file://C:\Documents and Settings\Defau1t\Local Settings\Temp\GW} 0000 1.HTM
6/412~~7