LUTC PKT 11-20-2000November 20, 2000
5:30 pm
City of F~'deral Way
.-. City Council
Land Use/TransportatiOn Committee
City Hall
Council Chambers
MEETING AGENDA
2.
3.
4.
CALL TO ORDER
APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 6, 2000, MEETING.
PUBLIC COMMENT (3 minutes)
BUSINESS ITEMS
A. Courtyard Village Developer Agreement Action
Amendment
B. WSDOT Request for $50,000/Study I-5, Action
SR#18 & SR#161
C. Cluster Subdivisions Action
D. 2001 Work Program Information
Perez/20 min
Perez/10 min
McClung/30 min
McClung/ClarkJ20 min
(Discussion of business items must be complete no later than 7.'OOpm due to a Human Services
Commission meeting following in the Council Chambers.)
FUTURE MEETING AGENDA ITEMS.
2000 King County Comprehensive Plan Update
Sign Update
6. ADJOURN
Committee Members:
Phil Watkins, Chair
Jeanne Burbidge
Dean McColgan
City Staff:
Kathy McClung, Acting D/rector, Community Development Services
Sandy L yle, Administrative Assistant
253.661.4116
I:\LU-TRANS\November 20, 2000 LUTC AGN.doc
November 6, 2000
5:3'0 pm '"
City of Federal Way
.... City Council·
.:... Land.u~e/Transportation Committee'
citY Council
· 'Council.Chambers
MEETING SUMMARY
In attendance: Committee members Jeanne Burbidge and Dean McColgan; Deputy Mayor Linda
Kochmar; City Manager David Moseley; Interim Director of Community Development Services Kathy
McClung; Public Works Director Cary Roe; Interim City Attorney Bob Sterbank; Deputy Director of Public
Works Ken Miller; Principal Planner Greg Fewins; Street Systems Manager Marwan Salloum; Assistant to
the City Manager Derek Matheson; Street Systems Engineer John Mulkey; Administrative Assistant
Sandy Lyle.
1. CALL TO ORDER
Committee member Burbidge called the meeting to order at 5:34 pm.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of the October 9, 2000, meeting were approved as presented.
PUBLIC COMMENT
There was no public comment on any item not included in the agenda.
4. BUSINESS ITEMS
Resolution SeaTac Flight Paths - The Committee reviewed a draft resolution seeking
equity in the direction of aircraft departing from Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. The
Mayor of the City of Des Moines requested that other affected cities consider adopting
such resolutions. The Committee m/sic recommendation of approval to the City Council
in support of the draft resolution.
11th Place Storm Drainage Project Acceptance- The Committee m/sic recommendation
to the City Council the final acceptance of the 11th Place Storm Drainage Project The final
construction cost of the project was $72,999 which was $15,442.10 below the approved
construction contract budget of $88,441.10.
South 298th Street Vacation - As part of development of the Tresden Place Plat South
298th Street will be reconfigured so that it intersects perpendicular to Military Road. The
property owners are requesting that the existing alignment of South 298th Street be
vacated outside of the proposed right of way. The Committee so moved with a
recommendation of approval for the City Council at the December 19, 2000, meeting
following the Public Hearing.
Applewood Plat Detention Pond Quit Claim Deed- In December of 1992, King County
transferred 39 plat drainage tracts to the ownership of Federal Way. Last year in 1999 it
was discovered that one of these drainage tracts was in the Plat of Applewood, which is
not inside the Federal Way City limits. The City requested that King County correct the
tract ownership and the attached letter and quit claim deed were received from them.
Since the drainage tract was quit claimed to the City by mistake, and the tract is not
inside the City limits, the Committee m/sic recommendation to the City Council at its
November 21, 2000, meeting, of approval of reconveyance of Tract A of the Plat of
Applewood for drainage purposes back to King County
Rosewood Pre-Plat - The Committee listened to public comment on the proposed
Rosewood Pre-Plat. Mike Rutter spoke on behalf of his neighbors, sharing their
concerns about water runoff; loss of wildlife, trees and the rural quality of the area;
increased traffic and speeding problems; the need for sidewalks; and overcrowding in the
schools. One citizen, Deb Willard, commented that open space increases, rather than
decreases, property value and clusters provide sensitive ways of increasing housing
while maximizing open space. Following discussion, the Committee m/sic
recommendation to the City Council at the November 21, 2000, meeting to approve the
Rosewood Pre-Plat.
Silverwood Pre-Plat -Public comment regarding the Silverwood Pre-Plat was
considerable. Jeanne Rutter was opposed to the Silverwood Plat because since the
Subidivision Code changed a few years ago, developers are allowed to make more
money on less space. Al Manning was concerned about traffic impacts. Joanne McClain
commented that drainage was bad now and wondered if it would get worse. Jess
Sanchez asked the Committee if they were listening to the comments of citizens. Tom
Barghausen of Novastar described homes over 2000 square feet and in excess of $200
thousand dollars in value. He added that drainage has been studied, researched and
much design work has been completed. Keith Dewey shared that cluster housing gives
access to more trees because single trees are not safe and must come down. Plat
conditions required traffic studies and each home pays a significant school impact fee.
The Committee m/sic recommendation to the City Council at the November 21, 2000,
meeting to approve the Silverwood Pre-Plat.
Cluster Subdivision Photos, Plan Field Trip - The Committee viewed slides of small lot
housing in local developments and heard a staff report describing the types of housing
seen in the slides and the circumstances of each building area including lot and home
square footage and approximate selling price. The Committee expressed interest in
seeing the sites in Des Moines and Sumner. A field trip for the Council and Committee to
view examples of cluster housing will take place on November 13, 2000. The Committee
will make a decision regarding small lot housing at the November 20, 2000, meeting.
Adult Use Code Amendment - The Committee moved to recommend to the City Council
to approve the amendment of the Adult Use Retail Regulations to clarify that the 1000-
foot setback does not apply to nonconforming residential uses in the BP and BC zoning
districts and to reduce the setback from other adult uses from 1000 feet to 660 feet.
Motion carried.
FUTURE MEETINGS
The next meeting will be held in Council Chambers at 5:30 pm on November 20, 2000.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 7:20pm.
I:\LU-TRANS\November 6, 2000, sum.doc
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
VIA:
SUBJECT:
November 15, 2000
Phil Watkins, Chair
Land Use and Transportation Committee
Cary Roe, Public Works Director
David H. Mos~ager
Courtyard Village Developer Agreement Extension
BACKGROUND
Larry Draper proposed constructing up to 300 units of senior housing on a parcel between Fred
Meyer and the Twin Lakes Park-and-Ride Lot, as shown in Figure 1. The proposed project site was
bisected by a planned extension of SW 341st Place running east-west between 21st Avenue SW and
19th Avenue SW. The extension of SW 341st Place as described above is identified in the City's
Comprehensive Plan and is classified as a minor collector. Mr. Draper requested a site-specific
Comprehensive Plan amendment to eliminate SW 341 st Place from the ComprehensivePlan because
it divided the site. In the 1998 Comprehensive Plan Amendment approved by City Council on
December 18, 1998, the Council approved Mr. Draper' s site-specific request on the condition that a
Developer Agreement be negotiated which would require Mr. Draper to acquire, construct, and
dedicate the following to the City:
1. The extension of 19th Avenue SW beyond the south property line of the Courtyard Village
site to the planned extension of SW 344th Street.
2. The extension of SW 344th Street from the east property line of the Twin Lakes Park-and-
Ride Lot to the extension of 19th Avenue SW.
The Developer Agreement was executed on August 12, 1999 and required the construction and
dedication of 19th Avenue SW and SW 344th Street extension improvements by September 30, 2001.
A copy of the Developer Agreement is attached for your reference.
ACTION
At the October 9, 2000 LUTC meeting, Mr. Draper requested a time extension for the construction
and dedication of 19th Avenue SW and SW 344th Street extension improvements. The Committee
tabled the time extension request until staff and the developer could meet. Staff now offers the
following options for the Committee's consideration:
Option A - To reject the request for a time extension for the construction and dedicationof 19th
Avenue SW and SW 344~ Street extension improvements and thus reinstating SW 341st Place
back into the City's Comprehensive Plan as a planned street.
Option B - To approve a two- (2) year time extension for the construction and dedication of
19t~ Avenue SW and SW 344th Street extension improvements, which shifts the starting point
of the Courtyard Village project from Spring 1999 to Spring 2001. This option would require
the two street extension improvements to be completed by September 30, 2003.
Option C - To approve a three- (3) year time extension for the construction and dedication of
19th Avenue SW and SW 344th Street extension improvements, which shifts the starting point
of the Courtyard Village project from Spring 1999 to Spring 2001 and grants an additionalone
year above and beyond what the original Developer Agreement provided. This option would
require the two street extension improvements to be completed by September 30, 2004.
RECOMMENDATION
Due to the amount of City Council involvement with the terms and conditions of the Developer
Agreement with Mr. Draper, staff is seeking direction from the Committee on this matter.
RAP:jif
k:\lutc\2000\devagrmntext2.doc
25th
SW 337th PL
Plarlned ' Ccurt';"ard
Slreet Vdlago
Extension
SW 34,'
200 0 200 400 600 800 Feet
Parcels
Figure I
Map Printed-Nov 16 2000
Federal Way
CityMap
Note: This map is intended for use as a graphical representation only.
The City of FedereJ Way makes no warranty as to its accuracy.
· After recording, return to:
City of Federal Way
Attn: ~0~) .oC('gcbqt~k
(Staff name)
33530 1st Wa~ South
Federal Way, WA 98003
FIRST RISERICRN AG 21.00
DOCUMENT TITLE: Development Agreement Between City of Federal Way, and Larry
Draper
GRANTOR: Yen, Chen, Chang and Associates and Draper, ~_~ .~t.~/)~H.
GRANTEE: City of Federal Way
PARCEL A LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
(Additional Legal on Exhibit A)
Portion of SE ¼ of NE ¼ of S. 24, T. 21 N, R. 3 E in
King Co., WA.
PARCEL B LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
(Additional Legal on Exhibit A)
Portion of SE ¼ of NE ¼ of S. 24, T. 21 N, R. 3 E in
King Co., WA.
ASSESSOR'S PROPERTY TAX PARCEL: Parcel A # 242103-9006
Parcel B # 242103-9054
REFERENCE NOS. of other Documents N/A
K:\pubworks\ctydvill.628a
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, AND LARRY DRAPER
This Agreement, made and entered into this (:::r' day of,~.~-~-1999, by and between
Yen, Chen, Chang and Associates ("Chen"), a Washington general partnership and
Draper ("Draper"), on the one hand, and the City of Federal Way, Washington, a municipal
corporation ("City"), on the other (collectively "the parties"). *Larry H.
RECITALS
A. Chen is the owner of two parcels of undeveloped real property, Parcel A (also
known as Tax Lot 6) and Parcel B (also known as Tax Lot 54). Parcels A and B are referred to
collectively herein as "the Property," and are located in the City of Federal Way, adjacent to 341st
Place and 19'h Avenue SW. The parcels are legally described in Exhibit "A" and depicted on
--Exhibit "B" attached hereto and incorporated herein.
B. Draper has entered into a contract to purchase Parcel A (Tax Lot 6), and wishes
to develop a senior housing complex on it. Draper proposed to build the senior housing in two
phases: Phase I on Parcel A (Tax Lot 6), and Phase II on Parcel B (Tax LOt 54). The project is
proposed to be named Courtyard Village. 34Pt Place South, as shown in the Transportation
Element of the City's 1995 Comprehensive Plan, would bisect the planned project.
C. During the City's 1998 annual review of its Comprehensive Plan, Draper requested
that the City delete 341st Place from the Transportation Element, to facilitate development of
Courtyard Village.
D. The Council agreed, on the condition that, as part of the project and in addition to
those conditions that may be administratively imposed as permit conditions, Draper enter into a
development agreement providing for improvement of 19~h Avenue SW from the south boundary
of Parcel A (Tax Lot 6), along the east boundary of Parcel B (Tax Lot 54) to SW 344th Street, and
improvement of 344th west to connect with the portion of 344th that the Washington Department
of Transportation CWSDOT") is to install as part of its construction of the Federal Way Park-'n-
Ride No. 2.
FIRST AI~£RICAH AG
21
19990851000507
PACE 002 OF' 014
05/31/1999 09:40
KI0tG COUNTY, JlA
D~velopment Agreement
City of Federal Way and Draper - Courtyard Village project / South 344~ Street
Page 2
E. .Chen and Draper wish to enter into a development agreement with the City, to
fulfill the condition set by the Council for its deletion of 341s~ Place from the Transportation
Element of the Comprehensive Plan.
F. The City has authority under RCW 36.70B. 170-.210 to enter into a development
agreement to delineate the development standards governing development and use of property.
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the City's deletion of 341s~ Place from
the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan, the parties agree as follows:
1. Development of Property. Draper and Chen covenant and agree that, as part of
the development of Parcel A (Tax Lot 6), Draper or any other party developing the Property' will
engineer, design, construct and improve 19~ Avenue SW, commencing at the south boundary of
Parcel A (Tax Lot 6) and extending along the east boundary of Parcel B (Tax Lot 54) south to SW
344th Street. Draper and Chert also covenant and agree that, as part of its development of the
Property, Draper or any other party developing the Property will engineer, design, construct and
improve SW 344th west to connect with the portion of SW 344th that WSDOT is to install as part
of its construction of the Federal Way Park-'n-Ride No. 2. The location of the streets to be
..constructed and improved are shown on Exhibit "B" attached hereto and incorporated herein by
reference. Following completion of construction and required maintenance to the City's
satisfaction, as evidenced by the City's acceptance, Draper and Chen shall dedicate said streets
to the City as public rights of way. The timing and scope of the improvements and dedication
required herein, as well as other requirements governing the improvements, are set forth in
Paragraphs 2 - 7 below.
2. Extent of Improvements Required. Draper and Chen covenant and agree that the
19th Avenue SW and SW 344~h Street will be improved as follows:
2.1: 19th Avenue SW will be improved in accordance with the standards for a
minor collector, as set forth in Chapter 3 of the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan, Roadway
Cross Section S, Figure III-3, except that on the east side of the street, Draper need not construct
or install a planter strip, street lights, street trees or sidewalk.
2.2. SW 344th Street will be improved in accordance with the standards for a
Principal Collector, as set forth in Chapter 3 of the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan, Roadway
Cross Section K, Figure III-3, except that on the south side of the street, Draper need not
construct or install a planter strip, street lights, street trees or sidewalk.
FIRST F~KIERICF~H F~G
.O0
19990~)31000307
PAGE 003 OF 014
0B/31/1999 09:40
KII'tG COUrtlY, [IA
Development Agreement
City of Federal Way and Draper - Courtyard Village project / South 344~ Street
Page 3
.2.3. Improvements to both 19th Avenue SW and SW 344th Street shall include
all utilities, including surface water drainage, sanitary sewer, water, lighting, power, telephone,
and cable television, in accordance with the requirements of the Federal Way City Code.
3, Timing of Construction and Dedication of Improvements,
3.1. Draper and Chen covenant and agree that, regardless of the date of
commencement of construction of Courtyard Village (subject to Paragraph 8.6 below), Draper or
any other party developing the Property will commence construction of the improvements
described herein no later than July 1, 2001 and will complete construction to the City's
satisfaction no later than September 30, 2001.
3.2 Draper and Chen covenant and agree that Draper or any other party
developing the Property shall obtain all necessary permits and approvals from the City of Federal
Way prior to commencement of construction.
3.3. Draper and Chen covenant and agree that, following completion of
..construction and satisfactory maintenance of the street (as determined by the City in its sole
discretion) for two years, Draper and Chen will within 30 days of the City's demand deliver a
statutory warranty deed, in a form in accordance with Federal Way City Code requirements and
acceptable to the City Attorney. The deed shall dedicate the segments of the 19th Avenue SW and
SW 344~h Street. rights-of-way specified herein to the City for public travel and utilities. The
rights-of-way dedicated shall meet the standards for minor and principal collectors Roadway Cross
Sections S and K, respectively, as applicable.
4. Bonding of Improvements.
Draper and Chen covenant and agree that Draper or any other party developing the
Property will provide performance and maintenance bonds to insure his performance herein and
maintenance of the improvements once constructed. The bonds shall be in a form acceptable to
the City Attorney and in accordance with the requirements of the Federal Way City Code,
including but not limited to Sections 22-146 - 22-175. Draper or any other party developing the
Property shall provide the bonds meeting the requirements of this Paragraph prior to the City's
issuance of a building permit for Courtyard Village or other development of Parcel A (Tax Lot
6).
FIRST AMERICAN AG
21.00
19990851000507
PAGE 004 01:' 014
08/31/1999 09:40
KI~'XG COUNTY, 14A
Development Agreement
City of Federal Way and Draper - Courtyard Village' project / South 344~ Street
Page 4
5. . Latercomers' Agreement
The City agrees that Draper may seek City Council approval of a Latecomers'
Agreement, to enable Draper to seek reimbursement for the costs of the improvements described
herein from other property owners who develop in the future adjacent to 19th Avenue SW or SW
344th Street and are not required to construct street improvements because the improvements they
would be required to install have already been constructed by Draper. City Council review and
approval of any such Latecomers' Agreement shall be pursuant to FWCC 20-206 et seq.
6. Property Acquisition
The City further agrees that, to the extent allowed by applicable law, it will
exercise its power of eminent domain to acquire right-of-way necessary for construction of the
improvements described above; PROVIDED, however, that it will do so only under the following
conditions:
6.1 That Draper is unable to practicably acquire the property for fair market value,
as demonstrated by a written offer and rejection of or expiration of that offer and an MAI
..appraisal acceptable to the City indicating that the rejected or expired offer was equal to or greater
than the fair market value of the subject property; and
6.2 That Draper pay the cost of the property acquired and all of the City's costs,
including staff and consultant time, attorneys' and appraisers' fees, and all other costs incurred
in exercise of the City's power of eminent domain hereunder.
7. Environmentally Sensitive Areas
In the event that the route contemplated for the extension of 19th Avenue SW and
SW 344~ Street encroaches upon any environmentally sensitive areas as defined by the FWCC,
the City agrees that it will cooperate with Draper in identifying alternate routes and/or roadway
configurations for the improvements required herein.
8. General Provisions.
8.1. Binding on Successors; Covenant to Run With Land. This Agreement is intended
to protect the value of the Property, as well as the public health, safety, and welfare of the City
of Federal Way, and the benefits and burdens inuring to Draper and Chen, and to the City, from
this Agreement shall run with the land and shall be binding upon Draper and Chen and their heirs,
successors, and assigns, and upon the City of Federal Way.
pPIG£ 005 OF 014
08/3t/1999 09:40
KIHG COUM~Y, ~A
Development Agreement
City of Federal Way and Draper - Courtyard Village project ! South 344~h Street
Page 5
8.2. .Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and interpreted in
accordance with the laws of the State of Washington. Venue for any action to enforce the terms
of this Agreement shall be in King County Superior Court.
8.3 Recording. This Agreement shall be recorded against the Property.
8.4. Severability. The provisions of this Agreement are separate and severable. The
invalidity of any clause, sentence, paragraph, subdivision, section, or portion or the invalidity of
the application thereof to any person or circumstance, shall not affect the validity of the remainder
of this Agreement, or the validity of its application to other persons or circumstances.
8.5 Authority. The City, Draper, and Chen each represent and warrant to the other
that it has the respective power and authority, and is duly authorized, to execute and deliver this
Agreement and that the persons signing on their behalf are duly authorized to do so. Chen and
Draper further represent and warrant that they are the fee owners and contract purchasers,
respectively, of ParCel A (Tax Lot 6) and Tax Lot 54, that they have authority to agree to the
covenants contained herein, and that there are no other persons, entities, or parties with any
ownership interests in the property.
8.6 Term of Agreement. This Agreement shall remain in full force'and effect unless
amended or terminated by the mutual agreement of the parties; provided, however, that this
Agreement shall be void if City does not grant approval for development on Parcel A (Tax Lot
6) by July 1, 2001. If this Agreement becomes void pursuant to this Paragraph,'Draper and Chen
agree that 341s~ Place shall be reinstated as part of Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element
without need for further City Council action, and that any development on the Property (either
Parcel A or B) approved after July 1, 2001 will include construction of all road improvements
required by the FWCC for 34Vt Place, at no cost to the City.
8.7 Amendment. This Agreement may be modified only by a written instrument duly
executed by all parties; provided, however, notwithstanding any provisions of this Agreement to
the contrary, the City of Federal Way may, without the agreement of Draper or Chen, adopt and
impose upon the Property restrictions and development regulations different than those set forth
herein, if required by a serious threat to public health and safety.
8.8
set forth.
Exhibits A -B attached hereto are incorporated herein by this reference as if fully
8.9 Headings. The headings in this Agreement are inserted for reference only and
shall not be construed to expand, limit or otherwise modify the terms and conditions of this
Agreement.
Zt
Development Agreement
City of Federal Way and Draper - Courtyard Village project / South 344~ Street
Page 6
8.10 .Integration; Scope of Agreement. This Agreement and its exhibits represent the
entire agreement of the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof, which is the deletion of
341s~ Place from the Transportation Element of the City of Federal Way ComprehenSive Plan.
There are no other agreements, oral or written, except as expressly set forth herein. This
Agreement does not set forth all conditions applicable to the development of the Property;
additional conditions may be imposed as part of any permit issued by the City, as required by the
Federal Way City Code as determined by the discretion of the Directors of the Departments of
Community Development Services and/or Public Works.
8.11 Indemnification. Draper and Chen release and agree to defend,-indemnify, and
hold harmless the City and all of its elected and appointed officials, and its employees and agents,
from all liability, claims, appeals, and costs, including the costs of defense of any claim or appeal,
arising in connection with this Agreement, the deletion of 34Pt Place from the City's
Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element, and/or the City's review, approval, conditional
approval, or denial of any permits or approvals requested or necessary for development of the
Property, except to the extent any liability, claim, appeal or cost results from the sole negligence
of the City or its officers, agents, or employees in performing this Agreement.
8.12 Enforcement. In the event Draper or Chen fails to satisfy any of their obligations
"under this Agreement, the City shall have the right to enforce this Agreement at both law and
equity, including but not limited to enforcing this Agreement under the enforcement provisions
of the Federal Way City Code in effect at the time of any breach. Damages are not an adequate
remedy for breach. In addition, Draper's or Chen's failure to satisfy any of his obligations in this
Agreement shall constitute a breach of contract and shall be grounds for termination of this
Agreement by the City.
8.13 Police Power. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to diminish, restrict
or limit the police powers of the City granted by the Washington State Constitution or by general
law. This Agreement is an exercise of the City's police powers and the authority granted under
RCW 36.70B. 170-.210.
8.14 Effective Date. This Agreement shall be effective on the effective date of the
City's Ordinance approving this Agreement, and the execution of this Agreement by duly
authorized representatives of each party.
FIRST AMERICAft AG
21.00
19990831000307
PAGE 007 OF 014
08/31/1999 09:40
KIIXG COUIXTY, UA
Development Agreement
City of Federal Way and Draper - Courtyard Village project / South 344~ Street
Page 7
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have hereunto placed their hand and seals on the day
and year indicated.
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
City Manager
Date: r/_ ol-C/- q q
Approved as to Form
for City of Federal Way:
· - . ., ~LTv BI
C~ty Attorney, Lond~ K. Lmdell
ATTEST; ThisJI-~ay of ~ , 1999.
N. Christine Green, CMC
Federal Way City Clerk
Z1.00
19990831000307
PAGE 005 OF 014
08/31/1999 09:40
KIHG COUNTY, 14A
Development Agreement
City of Federal Way and Draper - Courtyard Village project / South 344~ Street
Page 8
LARRY
LCt-Wt~NG-E H. DRAPER
Date:
Larry
Approved as to form for~rcnee-H. Draper by:
YEN, CHEN, CHANG AND ASSOCIATES
Its:
Date:
Approved as to form for Yen, Chen, Chang and Associates by:
K :\pubwork\ctydvill.628
06-28-99
FIRST AMERICAM AG
1999083100038-?
PAG£ 009 0F 014
08/51/1999 09:40
KII~C COUI~TY,
Development Agreement
City of Federal Way and Draper - Courtyard Village project / SOUth 344~h Street
Page 9
'STATE OF WASHINGTON)
) SS.
COUNTY OF KING )
/
On this day, personally appeared before me, the(undersigned, a Notary Public in and for
th~S,~t/_e~f Washington, duly commissioned and sworn) ~, to me known to be
thEAl3ity Manager of the City of Federal Way, a Washington municipal corporation, the
corporation that executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged the said instrument to be
the free and voluntary act and deed of said corporation, for the uses and purposes therein
mentioned, and on oath stated that he was authorized to execute the said instrument.
Given under my hand and official seal this q>[~
day of ~.-~'"o/q , 1999.
EILEEN ROBINSON (nota y s'g ~ , . .
STATE OF ~/ASHINGT01~ (typed/printed name of notary)
HOTIRy-o- PUgLIC Notary Public in and for the State
IIY ~0111/1~10~ I~B~$1-2~1--0~ of Washington.
My commission expires: I
FIRST RM£RICRH AG
2t.00
t~990~31000307
PAGE Or0 OF 014
08/31/1999 09:40
KIHG COUttTY, [IA
Development Agreement
City of Federal Way and Draper - Courtyard Village project / South 344a' Street
Page 10
STATE OF W~.N~
COUNTY OF ~ )
SS.
LARRY
On this day personally appeared before me I=A-WRENC-E H. DRAPER, to me known to
be the individual described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and on oath swore that
he/she/they executed the foregoing instrument as his free and voluntary act and deed for the uses
and purposes therein mentioned.
Given my hand and official seal this ~"(, day of ~F60"~ , 1999.
OFFlC, I&$~I- ~" (notary signature)
] ~ SUSAN E PRINCE
NOTARY PUBLIC - OREGON
I COMMISSION NO. 316229
[ MY COMMISSION EXPIRES SEPT. 20, 2002
(typed/printed name of notary)
Notary Public in and for the State of
My commission expires: 69~ O-z---
FIRST R~ERICRH gig
PAGE 011 OF 014
08/31/1999 09:40
KIHC COUHTY,
Development Agreement
City of Federal Way and Draper - Courtyard Village project / South 344~ Street
Page 11
STATE OF WASHINGTON)
)
COUNTY OF KING )
On this day personally appeared before me, the undersigned Notary Public in and for the
State of Washington, duly commissioned and sworn, .-~/42-R t..~ 3/~3q , to me
known to be the General Partner of YEN, CHEN, CHANG AND ASSOCIATES, the Washington
general partnership that executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged the said instrument
to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said partnership, for the uses and purposes therein
mentioned, and on oath stated that he/she/they was/were authorized to execute said instrument on
behalf of said partnership.
GIVEN my hand and official seal this I 7-- day of /z~O6-og 7-
,1999.
JEFFREY J. BENTON
NOTARY PUBLIC
STATE OF WASHINGTON
COMMISSION EXPIRES
OCTOBER 29, 2002
(nofiry stgnamre)
(typed/printed name of notary)
Notary Public in and for the State of Washington
My co.m_mission expires: tO-2cl-Eoo~
FIRST AM£RICAt~ AG
~1 .00
199908~ 1000~07
PAGE 012 OF 014
08/31/1999 09:40
KIHG COU~,ITY, ~4A
Development Agreement
City of Federal Way and Draper - Courtyard Village project / South 344t~ Street
Page 12
EXHIBIT A - LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS
Parcel A (Tax Lot 6)
The North 412 feet of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 24, Township
21 North, Range 3 East, W.M., in King County, Washington; except the East 264 feet thereof;
and except the North 382 feet of the West 500 feet thereof; and except the West 30 feet thereof
conveyed to King County for road purposes by deed recorded under Recording No. 842325; and
except that portion deeded to the Federal Way School District No. 210 by deed recorded under
Recording No. 9303112451.
Parcel B (Tax Lot 54)
The West 475 feet, of the East 739 feet, of the South 411.24 feet, of the North 823.24 feet of the
Southeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 24, Township 21 North, Range 3 East W.M., in
· King County, Washington.
FIRST AtNERICflM AG
21.00
PriCE 013 OF 014
08/31/1999 09:4t3
KIi'tG COUtlIY, JlA
EXHIBIT
,~ ~ 1
GOUN~ARD VILLAGE JOHN LAPE, A~GHITEOT
Po~. o~N ~120~
FEDERAL ~Y. ~5HIHGTON P~'
Illllllllll[llll
FIRST RUERICRIX RG
Zl.80
! 99908~ t 00030?
PAGE 814 0F 014
08/;~1/1cJ99 09:4e
KIHG COUHTY, MR
SW 341,,
SW
100 0 100 200 300 400 Feet
Figure 1
Map Printed-Nov 15 2000
Federal Way
CityMap
i Parcels
Map made by ..Rick Perez
Note: This map is intended for use as a ~raPhical representation only.
The City of Federal Way makes no warranty as to its accuracy.
CITY OF ~
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
VIA:
SUBJECT:
November 15, 2000
Phil Watkins, Chair
Land Use and Transportation Committee
Rick Perez, Traffic Engineer 1~
David Mortgager
I-5/SR 18/SR 161 Design Analysis and Study
BACKGROUND
Since its incorporation, the City of Federal Way has been concerned with the intensity of traffic congestion and associated safety
issues in the vicinity of the I-5 / SR18 interchange, which continues to have high levels of congestion and collisions despite
several improvements to the intersection at SR18 and SR161. In the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan, the City proposed
constructing an interchange on I-5 at SR161 to reduce congestion at the intersection of SR18 and SR161.
The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) has consistently identified several parts of the I-5 / SR18
interchange as High Accident Locations. A study to identify potential solutions to these concerns was originally funded as a
result of the passage of Referendum 49, but funding was cut as a result of Initiative 695 shortly after WSDOT had selected a
consultant team. WSDOT has been able to restore the majority of funds necessary to contract the study and is now seeking the
balance of funds from stakeholder agencies, including King County, the City of Milton, and the City of Federal Way.
PROPOSAL
As outlined in the attached letter, WSDOT is requesting $50,000 from the City, as well as staff participation in this Design
Analysis and Traffic Study. King County has been asked to provide $20,000, and the City of Milton has been asked to provide
$5,000. The study is expected to be completed by December 2001 and is intended to identify improvementsand their associated
costs to improve safety and capacity in the vicinity of the I-5 / SR18 interchange, including the intersection of SR 18 and SR161.
This study will also provide a basis to pursue future funding for environmental reviews, design, and construction of these
improvements.
Staff anticipates full and intense participation will be required in order to assure a recommendation that the City can support,
similar in magnitude to that of siting the Sound Transit Park-and-Ride Lot and Transit Center in the City Center.
Staff proposes that the $50,000 be funded from any remaining balance from the 2000 Public Works Operations budget, and/or
from the City Manager's Contingency Fund. The specific project scope, schedule, and staff level of participation will be
negotiated as part of an interlocal agreement.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends placing the following item on the December 4, 2000 Council Consent Agenda:
1. Authorize the City Manager to execute an interlocal agreement with WSDOT to participate in the I-5/SR18/SR161
Design Analysis and Traffic Study.
2. Authorize providing $50,000 for this Study from any remainingbalance from the 2000 Public Works Operationsbudget,
and/or from the City Manager's Contingency Fund.
Washington State
Department of Transportation
Sid Morrison
Secretary of Transportatioe
September 21, 2000
Northwest !
15700 Dayton
P.O. Box 3303
Seattle, WA 9~
(206) 440-4000
RECEIVED
e.ionS[P 2 6 2000
i J_I J WORKS DEPARUENT
Mr. Cary Roe, Public Works Director
City of Federal Way
33530 Ist Way South
Federal Way, WA 98003-6210
Re: I 5/SR 18/SR 161:
Dear Mr.)~,
Design Analysis and Traffic Study
This letter is to request $50,000 from the City of Federal Way for the partial funding of a
study that will evaluate ways of improving traffic in the area surrounding the
interchanges and intersections between Interstate 5, State Route 18 and State Route 161.
Since the elements to be evaluated and the outcome of the study will affect the cities,
WSDOT is asking the local governments to participate in funding the study. Our desire
is to have a partnership with the cities of Federal Way and Milton, along with King
county to help in developing the scope and participate in its analysis and
recommendations. WSDOT is contributing a total of $250,000 to the study.
The anticipated purpose of this study is to look at ways of improving traffic circulation,
reducing congestion and reducing the number of accidents and the accident severity in
the vicinity ofI-5, SR 18 and SR 161 in the Federal Way area. This study has been
referred to as the "Triangle" study.
Some of the alternatives to be considered in the study include: · SR 18/SR 161 grade separation
· Use of SR 18 and 28 Ave. as a route to Milton/Edgewood area
· Partial interchange at SR161/I-5 with connection to 356th St.
· Innovative transportation design at all locations, which includes but is not limited
to flyovers and urban interchanges.
Other major issues which also need to be addressed include known constraints such as the
proximity of Hylebos Creek to the interchange and the close proximity of the truck scales
and rest areas to SR 18/I-5 interchange.
We are anticipating for the design analysis and study to begin on December 2000 and be
completed on December 2001.
I-5/SR 18/SR 161
9/21/2000
Page 2
Please feel free to contact me at (206) 440-4774, if you have further questions regarding
the interchange study.
Sincerely,
Craig J. Stone, P.E.
Area Administrator ~- South King
MS:ms
There is No Attached Packet Information for
the Discussion on Cluster Subdivisions
CITY OF ~
MEMORANDUM
To:
FROM:
VIA:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Phil Watkins, Chair
Land Use/Transportation Committee (LUTC)
Kathy McClung, Interim CDS Director ~
Margaret H. Clark, AICP, Senior Planner ~fi~q'
David Mosel~~anager
November 20, 2000
Status of 2000 Planning Commission Work Program and 2001 Long Range
Planning Work Program
I. BACKGROUND
This memorandum includes the following:
o
4.
5.
6.
7.
Status of the Planning Commission Work Program as approved by the City Council
on May 2, 2000. The status of work preformed to date on each item is shown.
Carry-over and potential new work items for the 2001 Planning Commission Work
Program.
Other on-going long range planning responsibilities.
2001 Comprehensive Plan Update.
Consultant Monies Available.
Request for Prioritization.
Summary of all Potential 2001 Planning Commission and Long Range Planning
Division Work Items.
II. STATUS OF 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION WORK PROGRAM
DESCRIPTION STATUS REQUIRED BY
LAW
1999 Comprehensive Plan Update Completed in September 2000 Yes
2000 Comprehensive Plan Update The site-specific requests were Yes
presented to the City Council for
the Site Selection Process on
October 17, 2000. These requests
will be taken to the City's
Development Review Committee
after the Transportation Model has
been completed (Model anticipated
to be completed in November
2000).
Miscellaneous Code Amendments
igliscellaneous Code Amendments Simple housekeeping process- No
Phase I related items that are not subject to
review pursuant to the State
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA).
Code amendments adopted October
2000.
Miscellaneous Code Amendments These include housekeeping No
Phase II process-related items that are
subject to review pursuant to
SEPA. Scheduled for public
hearing by the Planning
Commission in January and
February 2001.
Crime Prevention through In process. Public hearing by No
Environmental Design (CPTED) Planning Commission on October
18, 2000 continued to November
15, 2000.
Public Parks Text Amendment Scheduled for public hearing by the No
Planning Commission in January
2001.
Dimensional Standards Text Scheduled for public hearing by the No
Amendments Planning Commission in February
2001.
Cluster Subdivisions Scheduled for November 20, 2000 No
LUTC meeting.
Status of 2000 Planning Commission Work Program
and 2001 Long Range Planning Work Program
Page 2 November 20, 2000
III.
CARRY-OVER AND POTENTIAL NEW WORK ITEMS FOR THE 2001
PLANNING COMMISSION WORK PROGRAM.
DESCRIPTION STATUS REQUIRED
BY LAW
CARRY-OVER ITEMS
Wellhead Protection This work depends on a Wellhead Protection Yes
Program being undertaken by the Lakehaven
Utility District. The District anticipates
completion of the program by July 2001.
Transportation Impact Fee This work depends on the completion of the No
(TIF) Transportation Model being prepared by the
Public Works Department. The Model is
anticipated to be completed at the end of
November 2000. The proposed City budget
includes $40,000 for consultant's fees for the TIF.
Annexation/Development Consultant selected. No
Agreements
Height Requirements for On hold for Planned Action SEPA for City Center No
City Center (Potential new work item).
Group Homes Type I Consultant selected. No
Endangered Species Act This work depends on clarification from the State. Yes
including Stream-related
Amendments~
POTENTIAL NEW WORK ITEMS
Complete the 2001 The deadline for submittal of requests was Yes
Comprehensive Plan Update September 30, 2000. Six site-specific requests
(Five-year update) were received. No work has been completed to
date. Please see Section V of this staff report for
additional details.
Phase II Potential The Phase I Study was completed this year. King No
Annexation Area Study County has offered to provide $50,000 towards the
completion of Phase II. An Interlocal Agreement
must be entered into between the two jurisdictions.
Also funding needs to be approved as part of the
budget
Planned Action SEPA for Funding needs to be approved as part of the No
City Center. budget
Implementation of liB 2505 This needs to be prioritized. No
- Property Tax Abatement
for Multiple Family
Housing2
Geologically Hazardous This needs to be prioritized. No
Areas Amendment3
~ Please see attached August 19, 1999 Correspondence from Washington Department of Community, Trade and
Economic Development correspondence.
2 Please see attached House Bill Report HB 2505
3 Please see attached August 19, 1999 Correspondence from Washington Department of Community, Trade and
Economic Development correspondence.
Status of 2000 Planning Commission Work Program
and 2001 Long Range Planning Work Program
Page 3 November 20, 2000
IV. OTHER LONG RANGE PLANNING RESPONSIBILITIES.
DESCRIPTION I STATUS t REQUIRED BY LAW
ANNUAL REPORTS
Office of Financial Management This is an annual report provided to the Yes
Yearly Population Estimate State Office of Financial Management
Report [OFM]
King County Benchmark and This is an annual data request made of all Yes
Annual Growth Information cities by King County to fulfill
Report requirements of the Growth Management
Act [GMA]
Track and Inventory Buildable Under the Buildable Lands Program, six Yes
Lands counties, including King County, must
annually collect data on land capacity and
development activity from their cities and
unincorporated areas
CARRY-OVER ITEM
Changes to FWCC, Chapter 18, These are code amendments required to It is advisable to have
Environmental Policy bring FWC, Chapter 18 into compliance local regulations
with state law. This is not required to go conform to State Law.
to the Planning Commission, but go
directly to the Land Use Transportation
Committee and City Council.
V. 2001 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
The City of Federal Way's Comprehensive Plan was adopted in November 1995. It has
since been updated in 1998 and 1999 and we are currently working on the 2000
amendments. The 1995 Comprehensive Plan took approximately three years to complete
and cost over $700,000 in consulting fees in addition to staff time and expense. The 1998
and 1999 amendments focused mainly on site-specific requests and amendments of a
housekeeping nature.
The City will be undertaking its five-year update of the comprehensive plan in 2001. This
update will be more comprehensive in scope than the two previous updates. The following
table identifies which chapters are in need of extensive amendments and will tentatively
identify work that can be done in house as opposed to by consultants. An asterisk marks
chapters requiring extensive work.
Status of 2000 Planning Commission Work Program
and 2001 Long Range Planning Work Program
Page 4 November 20, 2000
2001 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CHAPTER DESCRIPTION OF UPDATE WHO WILL WORK ON
IT?
1 - Introduction Housekeeping. Community Development
Services (CDS)
2 - Land Use * Housekeeping including preparing a new capacity CDS & Geographic
analysis. * Information Systems (GIS)
3 - Transportation* Update to Chapter. Based on current Model Public Works.
Update, develop the 2020 Year forecast and
identify new projects based on this forecast. *
Make changes to be consistent with the 2001
Updated Metropolitan Transportation Plan
(MTP). * Propose amendments to comply with
HB 1489 (Level-of-Service Bill). * 4
4 - Economic Housekeeping, including incorporating data from CDS
Development the Market Analysis.
5 - Housing* Housekeeping. This chapter has not been updated Human Services.
since 1995.
6 - Capital Facilities Housekeeping. Parks, Surface Water
Management, Traffic,
Finance, Lakehaven Utility
District, School District, Fire
District
7 - City Center* The 2020 Traffic Forecast, to be included in Undecided. The traffic-
Chapter 3, may identify additional improvements related portions will be done
for City Center. Also, timing of the Planned by the Traffic Division.
Action SEPA for the City Center may require
amendments to this chapter. *~
8 - Potential Annexation This may involve extensive amendments CDS
Areas* depending on timing of the Phase II PAA Study
(Implementation phase) .5/6
9 -Natural This may involve extensive amendments ESA and streams-Public
Environment* depending on what is done on the Endangered Works & CDS. Public Works
Species Act (ESA), and code amendments relating is requesting $30,000 as part
to streams, geologically hazardous areas and of the proposed budget for
Wellhead. * amendments to this chapter.
Geologically Hazardous
Areas - Consultant.
Wellhead- CDS and
Lakehaven
10 - Private Utilities* Housekeeping amendments. This chapter has not CDS
been updated since 1995. Updating the chapter
will require coordinating with providers of private
utilities.
4 Please see attached April 26, 2000 Correspondence fi.om Puget Sound Regional Council.
s The 2001 comprehensive plan process will not be held up if these items are not funded or, if funded, not
completed when respective chapters are being updated.
6 The Phase II PAA Study, if done, will have an impact on the entire comprehensive plan, as each chapter would
cover the PAA as well as the city limits.
Status of 2000 Planning Commission Work Program
and 2001 Long Range Planning Work Program
Page 5 November 20, 2000
V. CONSULTANT MONIES AVAILABLE
At the beginning of this calendar year (2000), there was a total of $87,000 ($50,000
budgeted and $37,000 carry-over) for consulting work. We received an additional
$10,767 from Suburban Cities for work completed in 1999 on the Buildable Lands
Program for a total of $97,767. Approximately $39,000 will be expended by the end of
the year, leaving $58,000 for carry-over to 2001.
VI. REQUEST FOR PRIORITIZATION
Based on past experience, planning staff's time is expected to be spent on the annual
comprehensive plan update process, working with the consultant on code amendments,
and completing those long range tasks required by state law (please refer to Annual
Reports in Section IV of this memorandum).
When the Sensitive Areas Code amendment was being prepared, the City committed to
the State that we would also undertake a code amendment to address streams. In addition,
it is unclear when the State will provide further clarification on the Endangered Species
Act (ESA), and at that time whether it would become a state-mandated priority for local
jurisdictions. The total cost for the Sensitive Areas Code Amendment, which addressed
only wetlands, was $50,000, including $38,000 for consulting costs.
With approximately $58,000 in carry-over funds for 2001 and a number of potential new
work items, staff is requesting assistance from the LUTC with prioritizing the Planning
Commission and Long Range Division Work Program for 2001. The following lists all
potential work program items, including those mandated by state law.
List of New Planning Commission Work Items7
1. Wellhead Protection
2. Transportation Impact Fee
3. Annexation/Development Agreement.
4. Height Requirements for City Center
5. Group Homes Type I
6. Endangered Species Act including Stream-related Amendments
7. 2001 Comprehensive Plan Update (Five-year Update)
8. Phase II Potential Annexation Area Study
9. Planned Action SEPA for City Center
10. Implementation of HB 2505 - Property Tax Abatement for Multiple Family Housing.
11. Geologically Hazardous Areas Amendment
7 Carry-over items, that are in process (under review by staff) but have not yet been considered by the Planning
Commission (See Section II - Status of 2000 Planning Commission Work Program, have not been listed here.
Status of 2000 Planning Commission Work Program
and 2001 Long Range Planning Work Program
Page 6 November 20, 2000
Other Long Range Planning Responsibilities
1. Office of Financial Management Yearly Population Estimate Report.
2. King County Benchmark and Annual Growth Information Report.
3. Annual Buildable Lands Report
Non-Planning Commission Code Amendments
Changes to FWCC, Chapter 18, Environmental Policy
VII. SUMMARY OF ALL POTENTIAL 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION AND LONG
RANGE PLANNING DIVISION WORK ITEMS
The following Table I lists all potential work items for the Planning Commission and the
Long Range Division in 2001. Shaded items are those items that are State mandated or
are already in progress, either having gone to the Planning Commission or scheduled to
be presented to them in the near future. We are, therefore, not requesting prioritization of
these items.
In addition, there are two items - Crime Prevention through Environmental Design and
Cluster Subdivisions -- that will not be on the Planning Commission's Work Program
next year, however, they have been included in the table because Council has not yet
adopted them. An asterisk marks these two items.
I:L2000 Code Amendments\112000 Status of Planning Commission Work Program to LUTC.doc/11/15/00 3:26 PM
Status of 2000 Planning Commission Work Program
and 2001 Long Range Planning Work Program
Page 7 November 20, 2000
STATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY, TRADE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
906 Columbia St. SW · PO Box 48300 · Olympia, Washington 98504-8300 · (360) 753-2200
August 19, 1999
The Honorable Ron Gintz
Mayor, City of Federal Way
33530 First Way South
Federal Way, Washington 98003
Dear Mayor Gintz:
Thank you for sending us the draft Environmentally Sensitive Areas regulations' proposed
for the City of Federal Way. We recognize the substantial investment of time, energy and
resources this document represents. This letter summarizes our comments on your draft
ordinance.
We have included the comments from the Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology)
with regard to the City of Federal Way's draft Environmentally Sensitive Areas regulations
into this letter. Although the Department of Community, Trade and Economic
Development (CTED) coordinates the review of comprehensive plans and development
regulations, we rely on the advice of other agencies on some issues, especially in the
review of critical area regulations. Ecology is a good source of advice on how to include
best available science in developing policies and regulations to protect the functions and
values of critical areas as required by RCW 36.70A172(1).
We especially like the following:
DIVISION 7. REGULATED WETLANDS
Section 22-1356(c). Drainage Facilities
We concur with Ecology that the language in this section is well written in determining
whether specifically stated drainage facilities "...which were designed to impound or
convey water for an engineered purpose..." are not considered regulated wetlands
provided these facilities meet a set of detailed criteria listed in this section.
Section 22-1357. Wetland Classifications and Standard Buffers
CTED and Ecology commend the City for the proposed buffer widths. The ordinance
provides that category I and II wetlands shall have a standard buffer width of 200 and
100 feet respectively. We encourage adoption of these standards. RECEIVED. BY
The Honorable Ron Gintz
August 19, 1999
Page 2
Section 22-1357.5. Modification of Standard Wetland Buffer
The ordinance requires an applicant to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City that
proposed buffer averaging would meet certain criteria. These criteria include, but are
not limited to, no effect on the water quality entering a wetland or stream, no adverse
effect on a habitat area within a sensitive area or buffer, and no creation of unstable
earth or erosion hazards.
Section 22-1358(e)(1). Mitigation Plan
The City requires mitigation plans to contain the following elements: environmental
goals and objectives, performance standards, detailed construction plans, timing, a
monitoring for a minimum of five years, a contingency plan, and performance bonding
in an amount of 120 percent of the costs of implementing each of the above elements.
We have noted a few concerns, which We recommend you address. They are as follows:
Chapter 22
Section ;22-1. Definitions
The ordinance states regulated wetlands shall mean those areas greater than 2,500
square feet. Establishing a minimum size for regulating wetlands may be appropriate
for the lower value wetlands, but size alone is not a relevant factor in the determination
of a wetlands functions and values. We recommend there be no minimum size
exemptions for Class I and II wetlands, but that 2,500 square feet may be appropriate
for Class III and IV wetlands only.
Accordingly, we concur with Ecology's recommendation that you delete the exemption
from the City's wetland regulations of "areas defined as a regulated lake" and "Lower
Puget Sound I and 51 ." Ecology notes that vegetated wetlands occur along the
shoreline edge of lakes and require protection under the Shoreline Management Act
(SMA). Similarly, vegetated wetlands along Puget Sound's near shore are critical
habitat for Chinook salmon and should not be exempted by the City from protection
under the City's critical area ordinance.
The City's classification of streams into three categories: streams, major stream and
minor stream may create some regulatory confusion. Most jurisdictions apply the
Washington Department of Natural Resources' (DNR) Forest Practice Board's water
typing system for classification of stream types (WAC 222-16-030).
The ordinance provides that for "major streams" where a natural permanent blockage
precludes the upstream movement of anadromous fish shall be regulated to a lesser
buffer standard or 50 feet, and that these streams be categorized as a "stream."
With this provision, you do not anticipate natural or man-made improvements and'
restoration of the upland "major" stream to a normal flow pattern. By not regulating
The Honorable Ron Gintz
August 19, 1999
Page 3
land use for currently blocked streams to the higher protective standard provided for
"fish habitat," you would potentially adversely impact the stream's function for water
quality, sediment control, temperature and other habitat needs for anadromous fish.
The City may want to consider omitting this language from the ordinance.
DIVISION 1. GENERALLY
Section 22-1223. Jurisdiction
Ecology notes that the code applies to subject properties depending on the distance
from the regulated feature. You may consider increasing the distance "trigger" to
ensure that adequate buffers are protected. For example, (5) states the code applies if
a subject property is within 25 feet of any regulated lake. There may be a situation in
the City where a wetland associated with a lake extends the boundary of the wetland
more than 25 feet from the edge of the lake. A similar situation may arise when a
200-foot buffer is required on a Class 1 wetland, but the property is outside the lO0-
foot limit as stated in (6) under Sec 22-1223.
Section 22-1244(c)(1). Reasonable Use of the Subject Property
The ordinance allows for an applicant to apply for a modification or waiver from the
provisions of this article on a case by case basis based on criteria listed. Language in
the following criteria should be changed, which currently reads: "The application of the
provisions of this article eliminates any profitable use of the subject property"
[emphasis added]. We recommend changing "any profitable" to "all reasonable" to be
consistent with current case law on constitutional takings. Otherwise, the property
owner could argue that any proposed use is a profitable use.
We understand that during the original development of this ordinance the City had been
looking at wetland issues only. Further, we also understand the City had been conducting
a wetland inventory and has not yet conducted a stream inventory but plans to in the
future. We have the following comments on issues that should be addressed when you
amend your Sensitive Areas ordinance to include all pertinent components of a critical
areas ordinance consistent with RCW 36.70A.030(5).
DIVISION 4. GEOLOGICALLY HAZARDOUS AREAS DEVELOPMENT
This section of the ordinance offers some good methods for regulating uses within the
geologically hazardous areas. The comprehensive plan also provides some good policy
direction to be met by the development regulations. The ordinance could be
strengthened by providing better integration of comprehensive plan policies with
development regulations.
Comprehensive plan Policies NEP 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52 and 53 should guide
these regulations. For example, Policy NEP 51 states that, "the City should develop
special regulations that address construction on or near marine bluffs of Puget Sound.
Regulations should take into consideration landslide potential, drainage and vegetation
The Honorable Ron Gintz
August 19, 1999
Page 4
removal." Policy NEP52 further states, "proposals for development on or near marine
bluffs should substantiate, either through design or adherence to special development
regulations, that the development has less than a 25 percentage chance of failing by
collapsing, or becoming dangerous and/or uninhabitable due to slope movement within
a 50 year time period."
Knowledge of the types of soils, the degree of slope, and the general size and depth of
the landslide feature is needed to establish a threshold distance by which a
development permit is required. Of concern is the 25~foot distance on or within the
area where development activities are proposed to occur. This may be an appropriate
distance for some geological areas, but not enough for others. Since slope tops
· recede, property owners should not build to the edge of the slope (e.g. within 25 feet).
An appropriate sized buffer zone should be established from the edge of slope to
protect both structures and Slope integrity. Additional drainage requirements may be
necessary to ensure stability. The recommended dimensions of the buffer zone should
be determined by the geotechnical analysis conducted by a qualified expert.
DIVISION 5. STREAMS
Section 22-1311. Rehabilitation
This section provides the director of Community Development Services with the
discretion to require or not require an applicant to retain the services of a qualified
professional in preparing the restoration plan. The ordinance should list criteria
applicable in making this determination by the director. We would suggest that the
"may" be changed to "shall" to ensure stream rehabilitation projects are designed,
implemented and monitored using professional guidance.
In addition, Ecology has noted this section references maintenance of "inappropriate
vegetation." The City may want to provide a list of species it deems to be
"appropriate."
The stream buffer widths should be increased to provide optimum benefits. The City is
currently proposing 100' buffers for "major streams" and 50' for "minor streams" from
"the top of each bank of a major/minor stream." Stream buffers need to be based on
stream type and width and should be delineated from the ordinary high water mark.
The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) has conducted an exhaustive
review of the scientific literature regarding the protection measures necessary to
preserve or enhance anadromous fisheries and wildlife habitat and believes the Priority
Habitat Species Management Recommendations for Riparian Areas represents best
available science. These recommendations include the following stream classifications
and their recommended buffer widths for rivers and streams in western Washington:
Type 1 and 2 ............................. : .................................... 250 feet
Type 3 (5-20 feet wide) ................................................... 200 feet
Type 3 (less than 5 feet wide) ..........................................150 feet
Type 4 and 5 (Iow potential for erosion or slope failure) ....... 150 feet
The Honorable Ron Gintz
August 19, 1999
Page 5
Type 4 and 5 (high potential for erosion of slope failure)...225 feet
Larger buffer areas may be required where priority species occur.
We realize that it may not be possible to require buffers of these widths in all cases;
however, these standards can be applied on a case-by-case basis based upon site-
specific and watershed system information, such as identified fish and wildlife habitat
biological needs, site topography; hydrology and other factors.
DIVISION 8. REGULATED WELLHEADS
Federal Way's comprehensive plan clearly identifies areas susceptible to ground water
contamination (Policies NEP 10, 11, 12 and 13). Upon completion of a wellhead
protection program, the City should have corresponding development regulations to
ensure these areas are protected.
We have the following suggestions to strengthen your ordinance:
Section 22-1309. Culverts
The City may want to consider adding the following language: "The city will use a
stream conveyance system, which must have natural stream bed materials in the
bottom to replicate habitat conditions in the natural stream channel. The preferred
conveyance facility is a bottomless arch culvert." Further, "if a artificial bottom culvert
is used, the city recommends an elliptical culvert due to the wider channel bottom."
The City may also want to consider indicating in the ordinance that it retains the option
to consider the use of new water crossing technologies as they emerge.
DIVISION 6. REGULATED LAKES
We agree with Ecology that the ordinance should list which lakes are "regulated" as
there are not that many lakes in the City. We were unable to locate any linkage to the
City's Shoreline Master Program. The ordinance should provide this reference for
consistency.
We have also reviewed the comments provided to you by WDFW and encourage the City
to give consideration to WDFW's recommendations.
Congratulations to you and your staff for the good work your draft revisions embody.
If you have any questions or concerns about our comments or any other growth
management issues, please call me at (360) 753-2951, Ike Nwankwo at (360) 586-9118
or Chris Parsons at (360) 664-8809. Additionally, Ecology has expressed its willingness to
work with Federal Way and provide technical assistance regarding sensitive areas. Please
contact Erik C. Stockdale senior wetlands specialist for Ecology's Bellevue office at
(425) 649-7061
The Honorable Ron Gintz
August 19, 1999
Page 6
We extend our continued support to the City of Federal Way in achieving the goals of
growth manage~ ~ent.
Sincerely,
Growth Management Program
MJN:Iw
CC:
Kathy McClung, Deputy Director, Community Development Services
Erik C. Stockdale, Washington Department of Ecology
Millard S. Deusen, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
Don Nauer, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
HOUSE BILL REPORT
HR 2505
As Passed Legislature
Title: An act relating to the definition of "city" for the multiple-unit dwellings property
tax exemption.
Brief Description: Modifying the definition of "city" for the multiple-unit dwellings
property tax exemption.
Sponsors: Representatives Cairnes, Veloria, O'Brien, Morris, Radcliff, Scott, Barlean,
Esser, Kagi, Keiser, For~unato, Schual-Berke, Edwards and Miloscia.
Brief History:
Committee Activity:
Finance: 1/25/00, 2/1/00 [DP].
Floor Activity:
Passed House: 2/11/00, 88-8.
Passed Senate: 3/3/00, 46-2.
Passed Legislature.
Brief Summary of Bill
Expands the areas included in the 10-year property tax exemption for
multiple-unit housing projects by lowering the eligible city population
threshold from 100,000 to 50,000.
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON FINANCE
Majority Report: Do pass. Signed by 8 members: Representatives Dunshee,
Democratic Co-Chair; Thomas, Republican Co-Chair; Cairnes, Republican Vice
Chair; Conway; Dickerson; Pennington; Santos and Veloria.
Minority Report: Do not pass. Signed by 4 members: Representatives Reardon,
Democratic Vice Chair; Carrell; Cox and Van Luven.
Staff: Rick Peterson (786-7150).
House Bill Report - I HB 2505
Background:
New, rehabilitated, or converted multiple-unit housing projects in targeted residential
areas are eligible for a 10-year property tax exemption program. The property tax
exemption applies to the increased value of the building made after the application for
the tax exemption. The exemption does not apply to the land or the nonhousing
related improvements.
The property tax exemption program is limited to cities with a population of at least
100,000, and the largest city or town within a county planning under the Growth
Management Act. A targeted residential area must be located within an urban center,
lack sufficient available, desirable, and convenient residential housing to meet public
demand, and increase permanent residents in the area or achieve the planning goals of
the Growth Management Act. The city is authorized to establish standards and
guidelines for approving tax exemption applications by developers.
Summary of Bill:
The population threshold for cities that are eligible for the 10-year property tax
exemption program for new, rehabilitated, or converted multiple-unit housing is
lowered from 100,000 to 50,000.
Appropriation: None.
Fiscal Note: Available.
Effective Date: Ninety days after adjournment of session in which bill is passed.
Testimony For: This program is working in the cities allowed to use the 10-year
property tax exemption. This program creates opportunities to develop multi-family
housing in areas where development is not occurring. This program will help cities
accommodate the increased densities called for by the Growth Management Act.
Testimony Against: None.
Testified: Representative Jack Caimes, prime sponsor; Doug Levy and Tim Clark,
city of Kent; and Trent Matson, Building Industry Association of Washington.
House Bill Report - 2 HB 2505
Puget Sound Regona Counc
April 26, 2000
Mr Rick Perez
City of Federal Way
33530 1st Wy S
Federal Way, WA 98003
Subject:
Reminder - December 31, 2000 Deadline Regarding Compliance with New
(1998) Growth Management Act Requirements for Transportation Elements of
Local Comprehensive Plans
Dear Mr. Perez:
In 1998, the Washington State Legislature enacted the "Level-of-Service Bill" (House Bill 1487)
which amended of the Growth Management Act (GMA). This letter draws particular attention to
city and county local plan requirements under RCW 36.70A. The amendments to the GMA were
intended to clarify and distinguish local, regional and state responsibilities for monitoring
transportation system performance and addressing system needs and deficiencies. These
amendments require local jurisdictions planning under the GMA to include additional detail
(summarized further below) regarding state-owned transportation facilities in the transportation
element of their comprehensive plans. This letter serves as a reminder about this year's December
31, 2000, deadline to either amend the local transportation element of your comprehensive plan to
address these additional requirements, or, if you feel your plan may already comply with these
requirements, please provide the Regional Council with a brief assessment of how you have
determined that your plan may already be in compliance so we may review and, hopefully, concur
and report such under our GMA plan certification responsibilities.
The additional local transportation element requirements can be summarized as needing to
include the following two key provisions:
Inventory & LOS for State-owned Facilities:
An inventory of state-owned transportation facilities (all modes) that are located within
your jurisdictional boundaries, with specific identification of state-established Level of
Service (LOS) standards for state highway facilities. This should include text, a map, and
one or more descriptive data tables identifying state highway facilities and related
state-established LOS standards for state highways within your jurisdiction. Note: Until
the Washington State Transportation Plan (WTP) is updated -- presently scheduled for
the end of 2001 -- the current adopted state LOS for state highways is LOS "C" for state
highways in rural areas. For state highways in urban areas, LOS "D-mitigated" is the
current standard when current or projected peak period LOS for traffic congestion falls
below LOS "D."
'Western Avenue, Suile 500 0 Seattle, '~¥asnington 98104-i035 0 (206) 464-7090 0 FAX 5874825
Mr. Perez
Page 2
April 26, 2000
Estimate of Traffic Impacts & Needs on State Highway Facilities:
Provide a descriptive estimate of how your jurisdiction's projected growth may impact the
above identified traffic LOS on state-owned highway facilities within your jurisdiction.
This should involve a local modeling estimate which identifies how your plan's land use
and growth projections may impact state-established LOS on Highways of Statewide
Significance (HSS) within your jurisdictional area. These estimates should be documented
in a table which also includes consistent recognition in your plan of the state highway
needs previously identified by WSDOT in its Highway System Plan (HSP). For
information on the WSDOT's Highway System Plan, Highways of Statewide Significance,
and projected facility "needs" on state highways within your jurisdiction, please contact
Mr. Chris Picard at the WSDOT's Office of Urban Mobility at 206/464-5420.
(Note: clarifications in the 1998 GMA amendments exempted
transportation facilities and services of statewide significance in our
region from local concurrency requirements. It further determined that the
nine categories of statewidefacilities ofstatewide significance are to be
essential public facilities as defined under the GMA. One category,
Highways of Statewide Significance (HSS), has already been designated by
the Transportation Commission and the Legislature; current efforts to
update the WTP and the region's Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP)
in 2001 will clarify and define the extent of the other eight categories of
facilities and services of statewide significance. Please see the enclosed
brochure for further definition and explanation of facilities and services of
statewide significance).
Within the central Puget Sound region, jurisdictions are encouraged to contact the WSDOT's
Office of Urban Mobility for information on transportation facilities of statewide significance and
the established LOS standards. If your jurisdiction uses a process to set level-of-service standards
that differs from the approach used by the state, you are encouraged to cite the state standards
and then briefly state the compatibility of your jurisdiction's level-of-service methodology. You
should also reference in your comprehensive plan that state facilities were factored into your
modeling.
The Puget Sound Regional Council must begin certifying that jurisdictions have met these
requirements for all future comprehensive plan amendments that are submitted after the December
31, 2000, deadline. If these requirements are not met, it could result in a change in a jurisdiction's
certification status. As a reminder, all cities and counties must maintain a certified transportation
element in their comprehensive plans to be eligible to apply for funding through the Regional
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP).
Mr. Perez
Page 3
April 26, 2000
Please let us know if we can be of assistance as you address these additional growth management
requirements. If you have questions about the "Level-of-Service Bill" please contact Kevin
Murphy at (206) 464-6411 or by e-mail at kmurphy@psrc, org. If you have questions about the
Regional Council's plan review and certification work, please contact Rocky Piro at
(206) 464-6360 or by e-mail at rpiro@psrc, org. To contact the WSDOT's Office of Urban
Mobility, please contact Chris Picard at (206) 464-5420. Thank you.
Sincerely,
man, Director
Transportation and Growth Planning
CC:
Margaret Clark, Senior Planner
Stephen Clifton, Director of Community Development
Cary Roe, Director of Public Works
Enclosure:
Copy of Brochure - Coordinating Transportation and Growth Management
Planning: Background and Information Guide
X:LFGSXSTAFI:~ HEILA\ 1487 Letter. wpd