LUTC PKT 12-04-2000Decemb'e~:~4,' 2000
City of Federal Way
City Council
Land Use/Transportation Committee
City Hall
Council Chambers
MEETING AGENDA
2.
3.
4.
5.
CALL TO ORDER
APPROVAL OF MINUTES from the November 20, 2000, meeting.
PUBLIC COMMENT (3 minutes)
COMMISSION COMMENT
BUSINESS ITEMS
A. 2001 Asphalt Overlay Action
B. 2000 Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) Act Action
Professional Services Agreement
Extension With King County
C. 2001 Wlork Program Info
D. Cluster Subdivisions Action
E. Crime Prevention Through Environmental Action
Design (CPTED) Guidelines
FUTURE MEETING AGENDA ITEMS.
2000 King County Comprehensive Plan Update
Sign Update
Salloum/15 min
Perez/10 min
McClung/Clark/20 min
McClung/15 rain
Clark/45 min
7. ADJOURN
Committee Members:
Phil Watkins, Chair
Jeanne Burbidge
Dean McColgan
City Staff:
Kathy/t'lcClung, Acting Director, Community Development Services
Sandy L yle, Administrative Assistant
253.661.4116
I:\LU-TRANS\December 4, 2000 LUTC AGN.doc
November 20, .2000
City of Federal Way
City Council
Land use/Tra'n~orfation Committee
. :',......:....;.....:.'i::..i'.' .'...,.. :..: ,. ·
City Council '
Co.uncil Chambers....
MEETING SUMMARY
In attendance: Committee members Phil Watkins, Chair, 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; Senior Planner Margaret Clark; Traffic Engineer Rick
Perez; Administrative Assistant Sandy Lyle.
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chair Watkins called' the meeting to order at 5:30 pm.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of the November 6, 2000, meeting were approved as presented.
3. PUBLIC COMMENT
There was no public comment on any item not included in the agenda.
4. BUSINESS ITEMS
Courtyard Village Developer Agreement Amendment- Larry Draper and John Lape, principals in the
Courtyard Village Development, came before the Committee to clarify an earlier tabled request for an
extension of the Developer's Agreement. The Developer Agreement was executed on August 12, 1999,
following Council approval of a site- specific Comprehensive Plan amendment to eliminate SW 341st
Street, which divided the property. In exchange, Mr. Draper would construct and dedicate the extensions
th t~
of 19 Avenue SW and SW 344 Street by September, 2001. Based upon the future benefit to the City to
see the land improvements constructed, the Committee m/s/c recommendation to the City Council to
grant a two year extension to the Developer's Agreement.
WSDOT Request for $50,000/Study I-5, SR#18 & SR #161 - 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 1-5/SR18 interchange which continues to have high levels of congestion and collisions
despite several improvements to the intersection at SR18 and SR 161. WSDOT is asking the City for
$50,000 as well as staff participation in the Design Analysis and Traffic Study to identify potential
solutions to these concerns. King County has been asked to provide $20,000 and the City of Milton has
been asked to provide. S5,000. 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
Committee so m/sic and recommended approval to the City Council.
Co
Cluster Subdivisions - The Committee discussed Cluster Subdivisions. The Committee m/sic
recommendation of approval of the 5,000 square foot minimum lot size for clusters. The Moratorium on
Cluster Housing will be extended by 30 days in order to provide additional time for the Council to further
discuss the minimum size of small lots. Other changes the Committee made to the Planning Commission
recommendation were striking shares property lines from Section 20-154(c) and eliminate Section 20-
154(d). Cluster Subdivisions is continued to the December 4, 2000, meeting agenda in order to fully
discuss the design of small lot subdivisions and zero lot lines.
2001 Planninq Commission Work Program - Discussion on the 2001 Planning Commission Work
Program was deferred to the December 4, 2000, meeting.
FUTURE MEETINGS
The next meeting will be held in Council Chambers at 5:30 pm on December 4, 2000.
o
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 7:15pm.
I:\LU-TRANS\November 6, 2000, sum.doc
DATE:
December 4, 2000
TO:
FROM:
VIA:
SUBJECT:
Phil Watkins, Chair
Land Use and Transportation Committee
Marwan Salloum, Street Systems Manag~
David H. M~nager
Year 2001 Asphalt Overlay Program Preliminary Project List and Authorization to Bid
BACKGROUND
Public Works staff has developed a list of recommended streets for the 2001 Asphalt Overlay Program. The
total budget for the program is $2,037,050 and is comprised of the following:
2001 Overlay Budget
Mitigation Fund (21st Avenue SW Park and Ride)
1999 Structures Budget
2000 Carry Forward
$1,622,832
$ 20,100
$119,000
$ 275~118
Total Funding Available
$2,037,050
The $119,000 from the Structures budget is for the City's annual Sidewalk Replacement Program, and will
cover the costs associated with the replacement of substandard wheelchair ramps, and repairing existing curb,
gutter, and sidewalks within the overlay project area. The $20,100 mitigation fund was collected from the
Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) for the overlay of a portion of 21 st Avenue SW as
part of the Park and Ride project.
The following is a preliminary list of Streets to be included in the 2001 Asphalt Overlay Program. The streets
were selected using the City's pavement management system and were verified by field reconnaissance. The
costs shown are estimated and will be refined as the design of each schedule is completed. A more detailed list
of streets and a project vicinity map are attached for your information.
Schedule A S 304th Street $ 225,249
Schedule B S 336th Street $ 278,813
Schedule C S 373ra Street $150,820
Scheduled Century Palisades $ 99,865
Schedule E West Campus - Phase 1 $ 293,650
Schedule F West Campus - Phase 2 $186,625
Schedule G Scarborough/Mark Twain $ 216,797
Schedule H Military Road E $ 205,058
Schedule I Weyerhaeuser Way S & S336th $ 509,348
Estimated Subtotal ConstructionProject Costs $2,166,225
LUTC Memo- 2001 Asphalt Overlay Project List and Authorization to Bid
December 4, 2000
Page 2
10% Construction Contingency
Pavement Management System*
In-house Design*
Construction Administration*
Printing and Advertising
$ 216,623
$ 20,000
$ 66,000
$ 85,000
$ 3,500
Estimated Total Program Cost
$2,557,348
* The 2001/2002 Budget authorized the transfer of the cost for the Pavement Management System and some staff time into the Overlay
Budget.
The estimated cost of $2,557,348 is a preliminary figure used for estimating purposes only and includes
construction administration, ten percent construction contingency, in-house design, and printing and
advertising. The 2001 Asphalt Overlay project will be awarded within the above identified overlay
construction budget.
Once Council approves the list of streets for the overlay program, staff will begin final design. The anticipated
date for advertising is April 2001, with construction beginning in May 2001.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the following items be placed on the December 19, 2000 City Council consent agenda:
1)
2)
Approve the list of streets for the 2001 Asphalt Overlay Project
Authorize staff to bid all or part of the 2001 Asphalt Overlay Project and return with a request
for permission to award the project within the available 2001 asphalt overlay budget to the
lowest responsive, responsible bidder.
MS.'jlf
k:\lutc\2000\2001 overlaylist.doc
1000 0 100g00~00~1000 Feet
Preliminary Vicinity Map
2001 Overlay Program
N
Map Pdntm:l-Sq) 26 2000
Federal Way
CityMap
DRAFT
Note: This map is intended for use as e graphicS...representation only.
Map made by -K. Messlnger The C, ib/ of Federal Way makes no warranty as m ns accuracy.
S29~h
ST
S 300lb ST
S3~rdST
s 304th ST
S29~h
S 301~t ST
S301~{ PL
$ 302nd
S301~
ST
S 302rd
ST
S301~ST
S 3081h ST
S 309~ ST
30~iPL
S 310~ PL
S 312th ST
· S3131hST /
200 0 200 400 600 800 Feet
Schedule A
Map made by-K. Mmmlnger
S 3081h ST
S 3101h ST ~
S 312th ST
S309~ST
R .'{tlUh RT
Preliminary List
2001 Overlay Program
A- S 304th Street
S 3151h LN
N
M~p Pdnt~d-~ep 27 2000
Federal Way
CityMap
Note: This map is intended for use as a g~. hic~. .r~oresent~on only.
The City of Federal Way makes no warranty es to its accuracy.
S 338thS~
--- S
3281h
ST
S 3301h
ST
S 336th ST
S 3271h ST ~'
S 3301h ST
S 333rd
S 3541h
S 344tfl ST
S 3431d ST
$ 3401~ ST
S 341~t ST ~
S 344th ST it
200 0 200 400 600 800 Feet
Schedule B
Preliminary List
2001 Overlay Program
B -S 336th Street
N
Map Pdnted-Sep 27 2OeO
Federal Way
CityMap
Note: This map is intended for use es agm. phic~. ~tation only.
The City of Federal Way makes no warramy es ro =s accuracy.
MaD made bv-K. Messlnaer
ILl
S 363rd PL
S 364th ST
371st ST
S 373RD ST
SW 374th ST
S 376th ST
200 0 200 400 600 800 Feet
Schedule C
Preliminary List
2001 Overlay Program
C - S 373rd Street
N
M~p Pdnted~Sep 27 20~
Federal Way
CityMap
Note: This map is intended for use as e graphicel representa#on only.
Map made by-lC Messlnger The City of Federal Way makes no warranty as to its accuracy.
200 0
SW 315th ST SW 316th ST
SW 320th ST
SW 320th PL
~ SW 318th ST
SW 322nd ST
SW 317th PL
~SW 3
SW 320th
iSW
321st LI~
~0 ~0 ~0
Schedule D
MaD made bv -K. libsslnaer
800 Feet
Preliminary List
2001 Overlay Program
D - Century Palisades
N
~ Pdnted-Sep 27 2OOO
Federal Way
CityMap
Note: This map is intended for use es a graphiceJ representation only.
The City of Federal Way makes no warranty as to its accuracy.
31;'th PL
318~n PL
317~ PL
S321stLt~
S
S321st
PL
SW 327~ PL
S 325~1
~PL
200~0 Feet
331st
CT
Pre~imJ.a~J_ ~s_t._
200~ overlay
E'- West campus
MaP pdotod,,~4~ 1'7 200O
Federat WaY
c tytaap
made t~ -~ Messtnger
SW316th PL I SW316th ST
SW 3181h ST
320th ST W 320th ST
SW 320th ST
! 320th PL SVV
"' [ :3201hpL
324th ST
SW 325th
~.7th PL ~,",q,
328th ,,,
CT-- ~:~
Xlsw33o~
328th ~r
sw 330th ~ ~_
~CT/
SW 330th ST
ST
-~4(/G~ SW331st
~ ST SW
;z; ~z,~ S 321st LN
3241h
2O0 0
200 400 600 800 Feet
Preliminary List
2001 Overlay Program
F - West Campus Phase 2
N
Map Pdnted-Sep 29 2000
Federal Way
CityMap
Schedule F
Map haole by-K. Mmmlngsr
Note: This map is intended for use as e grip. hick...representation only.
The City of Federal Way makes no warran[y as ro ~rs accuracy.
~?2ND ST
S 272ND ST
S 272nd ST
S 273rd
S 271st
ST
ST
S 276th ST
S 280th PL
S
284th LN
ILl
ST
S 282nd
--ST
S 282nd
PL
S
283n:1
ST
S 2841~
PL
S 282na
S 284th
200 0 200 400 600 800 Feet
Schedule G
Preliminary List
2001 Overlay Program
G - Scarborough/Mark Twain
Map Pdn~l-Sep 27 2000
Federal Way
CityMap
Note: This map is intended for use as a graphiceJ ..representation only.
Map made by-lC Messlnger The City of Federal Way makes no warranty as to ii= accuracy.
S 280th PL
281st
ST
S 282nd
ST
S 282nd
PL
S ¢,o
S ~
' 283rd ~
ST ~'~'/t h R-
S 2841h
ST ,~' ~
PL ~"
S 285~ ST ~ S 286th ST
'I~ tu
S 2861:h ST ~ ~ S 286th PL
S 287Ih ST
~ S 288th
S 288th
PL
S 2851h PL
S 280th ST
lS281stST
~l s282~ sT
S 28
S 290th ST
S 291st ST
S
292nd ST
S 290th ST
S 291st
ST
200 0 200 400 600 800 Feet
Preliminary List
2001 Overlay Program
H - Military East
M~p Pdnted-Sep 27 2000
Federal Way
CityMap
Note: This map is intended for use as a graphical representation only.
Map made by -K. Messlnger The City of Fedeml Wey makes no warranty as to its accuracy.
ST
WlNGED FOOT iffy
SEMINOLE I.N
S 323rd ST
S 325b~ ST
S 331st ST
S 333rd ST
S 336th ST
S 334th ST /
S 3361h PL
S 337lh ST
2O0 0
2OO 4OO
600 800 Feet
Schedule I
Preliminary List
2001 Overlay Program
I - Weyerhaeuser Way
N
~ Pdnted-Sep 27 2000
Federal Way
CityMap
Note: This map is intended for use as a graphiceJ representation only.
Map made by-K. Mmmlnger The City of Federg Way makes no warranty as to its accuracy.
2001 Overlay Street List
Schedule A - South 304th Street
Street
S 304 ST From
S 304 ST From
s 304 ST From
S 304 ST From
S 304 ST From
S 304 ST From
S 304 ST From
S 304 ST From
S 304 ST From
S 304 ST From
S 304 ST From
S 304 ST From
S 304 ST From
S 304 ST From
9 AVE S
10 AVE S
PAVEMENT BREAK
11 AVE S
13PLS
15 CT S
16 AVE S
PACIFIC HWY S
20 AVE S
21 AVE S
23 AVE S
24 PL S
25 PL S
26 PL S
Schedule B - South 336th Street
Street
S 336 ST From 9 AVE S
S 336 ST From 10 PL S
S 336 ST From 13 PL S
6 AVE S From S 335 ST
6 AVE S From S 335 ST
Schedule C - 373rd Street
Street
12 AVE S From
S 372 WY From
S 373 PL From
S 373 ST From
S 373 ST From
SW 374 ST From
SW 374 ST From
S 375 ST From
Schedule D - Century Palisades
Street
27 AVE SW From
28 PL SW From
SW 315 ST From
SW 315 ST From
21 AVE SW From
11 PLS
S 373 ST
8 AVE S
PACIFIC HVVY S
8 AVE S
2 AVE SW
I AVE SW
8 AVE S
PAVEMENT BREAK
SW 315 ST
27 AVE SW
28 PL SW
DASH PT RD SW
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
10 AVE S
PAVEMENT BREAK
11 AVE S
13 PLS
15 CTS
16 AVE S
PACIFIC HVVY S
20 AVE S
21 AVE S -
23 AVE S
24 PL S
25 PL S
26 PL S
27 AVE S
10 PLS
13 PLS
PACIFIC HWY S
S 334 ST
S 336 ST
S 372 WY
12 AVE S
S 372 WY
8 AVE S
S 373 PL
1 AVE SW
PACIFIC HWY S
CL W (15)
CS S
CS W
28 PL SW
EOR W
SW 316 ST
Schedule E - West Campus, Phase 1
Street
2 AVE SW From
2 AVE SW From
2 PL SW From
3 AVE SW From
4 AVE SW From
6 AVE SW From
6 AVE SW From
6 AVE SW From
6 AVE SW From
6 AVE SW From
6 AVE SW From
6 AVE SW From
6 AVE SW From
6 AVE SW From
6 AVE SW From
6 AVE SW From
SW 320 PL From
SW 321 ST From
SW 324 CT From
SW 324 ST From
SW 325 PL From
SW 325 PL From
SW 325 PL From
SW 325 PL From
Schedule F - West Campus, Phase 2
Street
7 AVE SW From
7 AVE SW From
7 AVE SW From
7 PL SW From
8 AVE SW From
8 AVE SW From
SW 323 ST From
SW 323 ST From
SW 323 ST From
SW 327 ST From
SW 327 ST From
SW 324 CT
SW 325 PL
SW 325 PL
SW 329 ST
CS N
SW 320 ST
SW 320 PL
SW 321 ST
SW 323 ST
SW 324 ST
SW 325 PL
SW 326 ST
SW 327 ST
SW 327 PL
SW 328 CT
SW 329 ST
CS W
6 AVE SW
2 AVE SW
CS E
1 AVE SW
2 AVE SW
2 PL SW
3 AVE SW
CS N
SW 323 ST
SW 327 ST
CS N
CS N
SW 323 ST
6 AVE SW
7 AVE SW
7 PL SW
6 AVE SW
7 AVE SW
tO
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
SW 325 PL
CS S
CS S
SW 330 ST
SW 321 ST
SW 32O PL
SW 321 ST
SW 323 ST
SW 324 ST
SW 325 PL
SW 326 ST
SW 327 ST
SW 327 PL
SW 328 CT
SW 329 ST
SW 330 ST
6 AVE SW
CS W
CS W
6 AVE SW
2 AVE SW
2 PL SW
3 AVE SW
6 AVE SW
SW 323 ST
CS S
CS W
SW 323 ST
SW 323 ST
SW 327 ST
7 AVE SW
7 PL SW
8 AVE SW
7 AVE SW
8 AVE SW
Schedule G - Scarborough/Mark Twain
Street
21 AVE S From
23 AVE S From
25 DR S From
25 DR S From
25 DR S From
25 DR S From
25 DR S From
27 AVE S From
S 276 PL From
S 276 PL From
S 277 PL From
S 278 CT From
S 278 ST From
S 278 ST From
S STAR LAKE RD From
279 PL
278 ST
STAR LK RE)
26 AVE S
278 ST
278 CT
279 PL
276 PL
CS N
27 AVE S
21 PL S
25 DR S
25 DR S
23 AVE S
27 AVE S
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
EOR
CS N
26 AVE S
S 278 ST
S 278 CT
S 279 PL
S 280 PL
S STAR LAKE RD
27 AVE S
S STAR LAKE RD
CS W
CS W
23 AVE S
21 PL S
MILITARY RD S
Schedule H - Military East
Street
26 AVE S
27 AVE S
27 PL S
28 AVE S
28 AVE S
28 PL S
28 PL S
29 AVE S
29 AVE S
29 PL S
29 PL S
29 PL S
29 PL S
S 282 ST
S 282 ST
S 282 ST
S 284 ST
S 284 ST
S 284 PL
S 285 PL
S 285 ST
S 287 ST
S 291 PL
From
From
From
From
From
From
From
From
From
From
From
From
From
From
From
From
From
From
From
From
From
From
From
S 284 ST
S 282 ST
S 287 ST
CS N
S 282 ST
S 291 PL
S 288 ST
CS W
S 282 ST
S 284 ST
S 284 PL
S 285 ST
S 285 PL
27 AVE S
28 AVE S
29 AVE S
26 AVE S
CS E
29 PL S
29 PL S
CS E
26 AVE S
28 PL S
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
S 287 ST
S 284 ST
EOR N
S 282 ST
S 284 ST
S 288 ST
CS N
S 282 ST
S 284 ST
S 284 PL
S 285 ST
S 285 PL
EOR E
MILITARY RD S
27 AVE S
28 AVE S
MILITARY RD S
29 AVE S
CS W
CS W
29 PL S
27 PL S
CS W
Schedule I - Weyehaeuser Way
Street
WEYERHAEUSER WAY S From
WEYERHAEUSER WAY S From
WEYERHAEUSER WAY S From
WEYERHAEUSER WAY S From
30 AVE S From
S 336 PL From
S 336 ST From
S 336 ST From
S 336 ST From
PAVEMENT BREAK. F&W to
S 336 ST to
S 336 ST to
S 336 PL to
S 336 PL to
WEYERHAEUSER WAY S to
I-5 to
FORK to
FORK to
S 336 ST
S 336 ST
S 336 PL
PAVEMENT BREAK
WEYERHAEUSER WAY S
3O AVE S
FORK
WEYERHAEUSER WAY S (N)
WEYERHAEUSER WAY S (S)
CITY OF~
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
VIA:
RE:
November 21, 2000
Phil Watkins, Chair
Land Use and Transportation Committee
Richard A. Perez, Traffic Engineer f~
Sarady Long, Traffic Analyst ~
David H. Monger
2000 Commute Triplteduction (CTR) Act Professional Services Agreement Extension
With King County Metro
BACKGROUND
Washington State's Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) Law was adopted by the 1991 Legislature and
incorporated into the Washington Clean Air Act as RCW 70.94.527. Its intent is to improve air quality
and reduce fuel consumption and traffic congestion through employer-based programs by encouraging
the use of alternatives to the single occupant vehicle (SOV) for the commute trip.
The law requires that all employers, both public and private, who employ one hundred (100) or more
full-time employees who are scheduled to arrive at a single work site between 6:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m.,
develop and implement a CTR plan. The following goals were established to reduce the number of
SOVs and the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per employee trip:
20% reduction by 1997
25% reduction by 1999
35% reduction by 2005
Currently, the CTR Law affects fifteen employers within the City of Federal Way:
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Berger/ABAM Engineers, Inc.
Capital One
City of Federal Way
Orion Industries
Financial Pacific
Saint Francis Hospital
United States Government Postal Services
USAA Insurance
World Vision
Weyerhaeuser Company (six sites)
LUTC Memo - 2000 CTR Act Professional Services Agreement Extension with King County Metro
November 22, 2000
Page 2
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
In order to comply with the state CTR Law, and to ensure consistency and fairness in its administration,
the City entered into a professional services agreement with King County Metro to delegate the
implementation of the CTR Act. Staff believes this is a cost-effective relationshipas most cities employ
a full-time CTR coordinator.
The current professional services agreement with King County Metro is funded by the state CTR grant
allocation and the Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ) grant from the Washington State
Department of Transportation (WSDOT), and will expire December 31,2000. Staff proposes to extend
this existing agreement for six (6) months to June 30, 2001 at an estimated cost of$13,741. See attached
Exhibit A for the adjusted scope of work and Exhibit B for the budget. The 2000 professional services
agreement extension with King County Metro will be funded by the remaining six (6) months of the
state CTR grant allocation ($12,100) and a portion of the CMAQ grant ($4,300), for an estimatedtotal of
$16,400.
At a later date, staff will be proposing a new CTR professional services agreement from July 1, 2001
through June 30, 2002. This new timeframe will coincide with the state CTR grant allocation period,
and will allow staff to plan future work activities and agreements to match state funding, based on the
state's fiscal calendar.
RECOMMENDATION
Place the following item on the December 19, 2000 Council Consent Agenda:
Authorize the City Manager to extend the 2000 Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) Act
Professional Services Agreement with King County Metro by six (6) months to June 30,2001 in
order to align the agreement term with the state's fiscal calendar and associated grant programs.
SL:jlf
k:\lut¢\2OOO\¢tr 2001 pa.do¢
Work
A.
Co
Uo
City of Federal Way - Exhibit A
Commute Trip Reduction Services Contract
Scope of Work
Period: January 1, 2001, through June 30, 2001
Activities - 15 current sites
Notification of new sites
1. Identify contact for potential sites
2. Send notification inquiry
3. Confirm status
4. Secure state code
5. Create timeline and legal file
Survey
Goal Measurement sites (9 - mandatory)
Baseline (1 current + new)
1. Alert employer to survey timeline
2. Track survey completion and processing
3. Send survey results to employer
Program review
New sites (2)
Goal measurement sites (9)
Non-goal measurement sites (6)
1. Remind employers of submittal deadlines
2. Monitor program report receipt
3. Review revised programs for sites that did not make progress and evaluate
the potential for progress toward SOV reduction
4. Review program reports for completeness for new sites and for sites that
made progress toward goal
5. Recommend action to jurisdiction
6. Generate approval letter for City signature
Exemptions & Modifications
1. Inform new sites about process and criteria
2. Receive requests and copy to city
3. Copy request to state for comment
4. Review and analyze request and provide comments to City
5. Contact employer as needed, generate and send response per city
Records maintenance
1. Maintain database and master file records on all affected sites
2. On a quarterly basis, provide WSDOT with hard copy of each employer
program report approved within the quarter
3. Provide WSDOT with an electronic copy of the CTR database of the City's
CTR-affected employers, quarterly or as required by WSDOT
4. Provide quarterly report information for state funds billing
Schedule
As needed
First quarter and
as needed
Ordinance
schedule by site
As needed
On-going
Exhibit A
Work activities, continued
Program Development
New Sites
1. Provide written information on basic requirements of the CTR Ordinance,
CTR Zones, and an explanation of how the plan is intended to achieve its
goals
2. Provide materials that explain a range of measures and activities that may
help the employer achieve the CTR goals of the local ordinance
3. Assist with voluntary baseline survey
4. Analyze survey data and make program recommendations
Go
New ETC Consultation/Briefing
1. Provide written information on basic requirements of the CTR Ordinance,
CTR Zones, and an explanation of how the plan is intended to achieve its
goals
2. Provide materials that explain a range of measures and activities that may
help the employer achieve the CTR goals of the local ordinance
Program Implementation Assistance
Provide assistance in the following categories/tasks:
1. Identify resources and implementation requirements
2. Coordinate/attend network group meetings
3. Assist with transportation fairs/events
4. Communicate with ETCs about transportation issues, including Sound
Transit, Metro Transit, Special events (e.g.: WTO), Air Quality alerts,
WSRO bulletins
5. Provide new and enhanced promotion/incentive support and coordination
(e.g.: planning, develop materials, secure grant funds, implement and
evaluate)
6. Develop and coordinate new grant projects (e.g.: generate ideas, secure grant
funds, planning, develop materials, implement and evaluate)
Training
1. Provide county-wide basic training to new ETCs
· Basic Training part 1: ETC orientation
· Basic Training part 2: Program Implementation and Promotion
· Survey briefing
2. Provide new county-wide continuing education opportunities to ETCs
Jo
Provide two employee awareness campaigns per year
Provide promotional incentives and awareness materials
Schedule
As needed
As needed
Quarterly
Second quarter
2 Federal Way 01-01-2001
City of Federal Way
2001 Budget Summary
Estimated Annual Revenue
Remaining balance of CTR Funds (as of 6/30/00)
Estimated CMAQ Grant Allocation ($17,121 / 2 years) (8)
Total Estimated Revenue
Annual 6-Month
$ 24,139 $ 12,069
$ 8,561 $ 4,280
$ 32,699 $ 16,350
Exhibit B
Number of CTR Sites:
ETR FTE per site:
Total ETR FTE percent:
15
0.0178
0.27
Number of Survey Sites:
Labor:
ETR Labor
Survey Labor
Indirect Labor ~. 17029
Total Labor
$ 8,302
$ 1,957
$ 1,414
$ 11,673
$ 1,766
Office Expenses
Rent, Services, Materials, Supplies and Incentives (1)
Total Expenses
Contract Fixed Fcc
Estimated Work.tho!) Costs:. Persons Costs
Basic iETC Training Part I: ETC Orientation(3) 2
Basic ETC Tm.ining Part 2: PI Workshop (4) 2 $
New Site Survey Briefing (5~ 0 $
Contimfit~g Education Courses (6) I $
Producing CTK Program Summar3.' Brochure (7) / $
Total Including Estimated Workshop Costs:
$ 13,439
Total
51) $
50 $
25 $
40 $ 4O
62 $ 62
S 302
S 13,439 (2)
S 13,741
1) Graphic services, supplies and miscellaneous operating costs including rent,
temporary clerical, parking, printing of materials, and postage and/or shipping
2) Quarterly fixed fee payments calculated based on this total divided by two.
- 4) Basic Training includes one (1) each quarter, county-wide sessions of both ETC Orientation ($50/ea) and PI workshop
($50/ea); registrants calculated using a 25% rate for training required from ETC turnover and new sites' ETCs.
5) New Site Survey Briefing includes access to quarterly survey briefing for new sites ($25/ea)
6) Continuing Education Courses ($40/ea); one class per quarter plus additional new intranet development training;
number of registrants calculated using 15% attendance of sites
7) Producing Your CTR Program Summary Brochure ($62/ea); number of registrants calculated using 10% attendance of
attendance of sites with a 1 site minimum.
8) Does not include required local match dollars. Also note that this estimate assumes that CMAQ dollars will be divided
equally among the eight periods of the CMAQ contract. The State, however, will allow a different rate of spending as long
as the jurisdiction makes progress towards the goals listed in the contract. This estimate can be changed.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
VIA:
RE:
DATE:
LUTC Committee
Kathy McClung, Interim Community Development Services Director
David Mo~er
Work program addition
November 29, 2000
Recently, the Federal Way Chamber of Commerce wrote to council members regarding a
request to review the 25% threshold for right of way improvements. This is a potential
addition to the Planning Commission work program for 2001.
The current language requires that any land use improvement requiring a development
permit, will trigger right of way improvements if the improvement is over 25% of the
appraised value of any structures on the property and no right of way improvements (city
or privately initiated) have occurred within the past four years.
Both the Planning Commission and City Council extensively reviewed the non-
conforming thresholds in 1997. Many changes were made to help facilitate
redevelopment. This particular requirement was also reviewed but the decision at that
time was to leave the requirement as is.
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
~:iiedm~e~ger
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
Miscellaneous 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. On December 4, 2000 No
Environmental Design (CPTED) LUTC Agenda.
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 On December 4, 2000 LUTC No
Agenda.
Status of 2000 Planning Commission Work Program
and 2001 Long Range Planning Work Program
Page 2 December 4, 2000
III.
CARRY-OVER AND POTENTIAL NEW WORK ITEMS FOR THE 2001
PLANNING COMMISSION WORK PROGRAM.
DESCRIPTION STATUS I 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
Amendmentst
POTENTIAL NEW WORK 1TEMS
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 Annexation The Phase I Study was completed this year. King No
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 City Funding needs to be approved as part of the No
Center. budget
Implementation of liB 2505 - This needs to be prioritized. No
Property Tax Abatement for
Multiple Family Housing2
Geologically Hazardous Areas This needs to be prioritized. No
Amendment3
Miscellaneous Code Amendments On-going to address housekeeping items. No
l 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 December 4, 2000
IV. OTHER LONG RANGE PLANNING RESPONSIBILITIES.
DESCRIPTION ] STATUS ] 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 December 4, 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. ,5
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 from Puget Sound Regional Council.
5 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 Il 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 December 4, 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
12. Miscellaneous Code Amendments.
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 December 4, 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.
1 :~2000 Code Amendments\ 112000 Status of Planning Commission Work Program to LUTC.doc/11/29/00 1:41 PM
Status of 2000 Planning Commission Work Program
and 2001 Long Range Planning Work Program
Page 7 December 4, 2000
TABLE 1
Summary of all Potential 2001 Planning Commission
and 2001 Long Range Planning Program Items
DESCRIPTION STATUS WHO IS DOING THE REQUIRED BY LAW?
WORK
Items In Progress
2000 Comprehensive Plan Update To Planning Commission March 2001 In-house Staff Yes
Miscellaneous Code Amendments Phase II To Planning Commission Jan-Feb 2000 Madrona Consulting No I
Crime Prevention through Environmental Design To Planning Commission Oct 18, 2000 continued to ' Madrona Consulting No
(CPTED)* November 15, 2000
Public Parks Text Amendment ToPlanning Commission January 2001 Madrona Consulting No
Dimensional Standards Text Amendments To Planning Commission Feb~ 2001 Madrona Consulting No
Cluster Subdivisions* ' ' To LUTC November 20, 2000 '" In-house Staff No I
Carry-over
Wellhead Protection Waiting on Lakehaven In-house Staff Yes
Transportation Impact Fee Depends on Completion of Transportation Model Consultant No
Annexation/Development Agreement Consultant selected Consultant No
Height Requirements for City Center On hold for Planned Action SEPA for City Center In-house Staff No
Group Homes Type I Consultant selected Consultant No
Endangered Species Act including Stream-related Waiting on clarification from State Not determined as yet Yes
Amendments
Potential New Work Items
2001 Comprehensive Plan Update (Five-year Requests received September 2000. Work will In-house Staff Yes
Update) commence January 2001
Phase II Potential Annexation Area Study Proposed in budget No
Planned Action SEPA for City Center Proposed in budget No
Implementation of HB 2505 Property Tax Not discussed previously/Needs to be prioritized No
Abatement for Multiple Family Housing.
Geologically Hazardous Areas Amendment Not discussed previously/Needs to be prioritized No
Miscellaneous Code Amendments On-going In-house Staff No
Other Taslfs
Annual Report to Office of Financial Management On-going In-house Staff Yes
Annual Benchmark Report On-going In-house Staff Yes
Annual Buildable Lands Report On-going In-house Staff Yes
Non-Planning Commission Code Amendments
Changes to FWCC, Chapter 18 No formal work done; City is following State Law In-house Staff No, however, it is advisable to
when processing applications have local regulations conform
to State Law
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
~M[!k~TV ~VF!.O~MENT O~PARTMEN7
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
~ffect on a habitat area within a sensitive area or buffer, and no creation of unstable
earth or erosion hazards.
Section 2;[-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 reg. ulatory 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 I wetland, but the property is outside the 100-
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 IRon 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 Cityi~
currently proposing 100' buffers for "major streams" and 50' for "minor streams" from
"the top of each bank ofamajor/minorstream." 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~nent.
Sincerely, ~
--%
Growth Management Planner
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
HB 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, Fortunato, 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 Pcterson (786-7150).
llous¢ Bill Report I - ItB 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
Regional Council
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 transpo.rtation 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."
1011 Weslem Avenue. ~ite ~0 ,, ,%oltle, iNoshin~on 98104-1035. (206) 46.t-1090, FAX ~7-4~3'25 (~
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 Statewicle Significance,
and projected facility "needs" on state highways within your jurisdiction, please contact
Mr. C ,hris 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 ajurisdiction'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,
I
King Cushman, 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:~F'GS~STAFF~HEILA\1487Letter. wpd
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
VIA:
SUBJECT:
October 30, 2000
Phil Watkins, Chair
Land Use and Transportation Committee (LUTC)
Kathy McClung. Interim Director of Community Development Services iZ~Lt~
David Moseley, dity Mana~
Planning Commission Recommendation - Cluster Subdivision amendments to
Chapter 20 (Subdivision Code) and Chapter 22 (Zoning) of the Federal Way City
Code.
I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
In July, the Federal Way City Council adopted a moratorium on cluster subdivisions. In the
moratorium ordinance the Council dirdcts staff to bring the issue to the Planning Commission. The
ordinance identifies the following citizen concerns: adequate distance between residential
structures, minimum lot sizes, and the buffering of more dense cluster subdivisions from other,
existing less dense residential uses.
Cluster subdivisions have been permitted since the city incorporated in 1990. The regulations were
revised in 1996 to include a minimum lot size, a provision that all open space has to be on-site and
usable, a provision for zero-lot line development and a formula to calculate density. (For more
detailed background and history see Planning Commission staff report)
Attached are the following:
Exhibit A - Proposed Ordinance with Planning Commission recommendations incorporated
Exhibit B - September 20, 2000, City of Federal Way Planning Commission Report (Staff
Report to the Planning Commission)
Exhibit C- June 21, 2000, Planning Commission Minutes
Exhibit D - Letters submitted to Planning Commission
The proposed amendments have been prepared in "line-in/line-out" format, with strikeeuts
(proposed deletions) and underline (proposed additions) indicated.
II. REASON FOR COUNCIL ACTION
FWCC Chapter 22, "Zoning," Article IX, "Process VI Review," establishes a process and criteria
for FWCC text amendments. Consistent with Process VI review, amendments to the FWCC text
must be approved by the City Council based on a recommendation from the Planning Commission.
The Subdivision Code does not require Planning Commission review. However, they reviewed it
since the cluster subdivision moratorium resOlution specifically called for it.
IlL PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
As discussed below in Section IV-- Procedural Summary of this staff report the Planning
Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed text amendments to the FWCC regarding
cluster subdivisions on September 20, and October 4~, 2000. Three members of the public were
present at the first public hearing, approximately 12 citizens attended the second meeting, and four
letters were entered into the record.
The Planning Commissioh considered the proposed FWCC text amendments in light of the
decisional criteria outlined below in Section V of this report. By a unanimous vote of the Planning
Commission (4-0), the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council adopt the Zoning
and Subdivision Code text amendments as amended by the Planning Commission. The Planning
Commission recommended draft, which identifies the proposed text amendments to the FWCC
regarding cluster subdivisions is attached as Exhibit A.
The primary recommended changes made by the Planning Commission are:
a. added a purpose statement
b. added requirement that lots immediately adjacent to existing residential lots be no
less than the neighboring lot size or the underlying zoning lot size minimum 10°A,
whichever is smaller or have a natural buffer of 50 feet.
c. modified the open space requirements.
d. added additional conditions to zero-lot line development.
e. added som~design criteria for development on cluster lots.
IV. PROCEDURAL SUMMARY
September 20, 2000: Planning Commission Public Hearing
October 4, 2000:
Continuation of Planning Commission Public Meeting
November 6, 2000:
Land Use Committee
V. DECISIONAL CRITERIA
FWCC Section 22-528 provides criteria for FWCC text amendments. The following section
analyzes the compliance of the proposed land use review processes text amendments with the
criteria provided by FWCC Section 22-528.
The city may amend the text of the FWCC only if it finds that:
(1) The proposed amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive
plan;
City of Federal Way LUTC Report August i, 2000
Land Use Review Processes FWCC Text Amendments Page 2
(2)
The proposed FWCC text amendments regarding cluster subdivision and cluster subdivision
lot design are consistent with the following City of Federal Way Comprehensive Plan goals
and policies:
LUG 1 Improve the appearance and function of the built environment.
L UP 1 Develop residential design performance standards to maintain neighborhood
character and ensure compatibility with surrounding uses.
L UP 10 Support a diverse community comprised of neighborhoods which provide a
range of housing options; a vibrant City Center; well designed and
functionin~g commercial areas; and distinctive neighborhood retail areas.
LUG 3 Preserve and protect Federal Way's single-family neighborhoods.
LUG3.1 Provide wide range of housing densities and types in the single family
designated areas.
LUP I 6 Revise existing land use regulations to provide for innovation and flexibility in
the design of new single-family developments and in-fill.
LUP18 Encourage the development of parks and the dedication of open space in and
adjacent to residential areas to preserve the natural setting of Federal Way.
LUP19 Consider special development techniques (e.g. accessory dwelling units, zero
lot lines, loxt size averaging, and planned unit developments) in single-family
areas, provided they result in residential development consistent with the
quality and character of existing neighborhoods.
LUP 20 Preserve site characteristics that enhance residential development (trees,
watercourses, vistas, and similar features) using site planning techniques such
as clustering, planned unit developments, and lot size averaging.
HG 1 Preserve and protect the quality of existing residential neighborhoods and
require new development to be of a scale and design that is compatible with
existing neighborhood character.
HP 16 Consider reducing minimum lot sizes to allow construction of smaller. Detached
single-family houses on smaller lots.
HP 27 Encourage new residential developmenl to achieve maximum allowable density
based on net building area.
The proposed antendntent bears a substantial rehttionship to public health, safety, or
welfare; and
City of Federal Way LUTC Report August I, 2000
Land Use Review Processes FWCC Text Amendments Page 3
(3)
The proposed FWCC text amendments will result in improved cluster subdivision
development, which have a direct relationship to the public health, safety, and welfare.
The proposed amendment is in the best interest of the residents of the city.
The proposed FWCC text amendment will improve the cluster subdivision requirements to
better blend with existing neighborhoods.
VI. COUNCIL ACTION
Pursuant to FWCC Section 22-541, after consideration of the Planning Commission report and, at
its discretion holding its dXvn public hearing, the City Council shall by majority vote of its total
membership take the following action:
1. Approve the proposed Zoning Code and Subdivision Code text amendments by ordinance;
2. Modify and approve the proposed Zoning and Subdivision Code text amendments by
ordinance;
3. Disapprove the proposed Zoning and Subdivision Code text amendments by resolution; or
Remand the proposed Zoning Code and Subdivision text amendments back to the Planning
Commission for further proceedings. If this occurs, the City Council shall specify the time
within which the Planning Commission shall report back to the City Council on the proposed
text amendments.
I :k2000 Code Amendments~vliscellaneous Code Amendments~LUTC Staff Report on Phase I Amendments.doc/I 0/31/00 2:17 PM
City of Federal Way LUTC Report August 1, 2000
Land Use Review Processes FWCC Text Amendments Page 4
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON, AMENDING CHAPTER 22 OF
THE FEDERAL WAY ZONING CODE AND CHAPTER 20, THE
FEDERAL WAY SUBDIVISION CODE, ADOPTING SPECIFIC
AMENDMENTS, AND ADDING NEW REGULATIONS FOR
CLUSTER SUBDIVISIONS.
A. Amendments to the Federal Way City Code (FWCC) text are authorized
pursuant to FWCC Section 22-216 pursuant to Process VI review; and
B. The Federal Way City Council has considered proposed changes to the
FWCC regarding cluster subdivisions; and
C. The Federal Way City Council, pursuantto FWCC 22-517, having determined
the Proposal to be worthy of legislative consideration, referred the Proposal to the Federal
Way Planning Commissior~as a priority item for its review and recommendation; and
D. The Federal Way Planning Commission, having considered the Proposal at
public hearings during 2000 on September 20, and October 4, pursuant to FWCC Section
22-523, and all public notices having been duly given pursuant to FWCC Section 22-528;
and
E. The public was given opportunities to comment on the Proposal during the
Planning Commission review; and
ORD # , PAGE 1
F. The City of Federal Way SEPA responsible official issued a Declaration of
Nonsignificance on September 8, 2000; and
G. Following the public hearings, the Planning Commission submitted to the
Land Use and Transportation Committee of the City Council its recommendation in favor of
proposed zoning text amendments adding sections to the FWCC as noted previously; and
H. The Federal Way Land Use and Transportation City Council Committee met
on November 6, 2000, to ~onsider the recommendation of the Planning Commission; and
has moved to forward the Proposal, with amendments, to the full City Council; and
I. There was sufficient opportunity for the public to comment on the Proposal;
Now, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY Of FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON,
DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Findinqs~. After full and careful consideration, the City Council of the City
of Federal Way makes the following findings with respect to the Proposal and the proposed
amendments to the Federal Way City Code ("FWCC"):
1. The Federal Way City Council adopted the Federal Way Comprehensive
Plan in order to comply with the state's Growth Management Act; and
2. The Federal Way Comprehensive Plan contains policies that call for a variety
of housing types, protection of single family neighborhoods and encourage open space;
and
ORD # , PAGE 2
3. The Federal Way SEPA responsible official has issued a Declaration of
Nonsignificance on September 8, 2000; and
4. The proposed code amendmentswould not adversely affect the public health,
safety or welfare; and
5.
35A.63.070,
The Planning Commission, following notice thereof as required by RCW
held public hearings on the proposed regulatory amendments and has
considered the testimony,"written comments, and material from the public by and through
said hearings.
Section 2. Conclusions. Pursuant to FWCC Section 22-216 and based upon the
Findings set forth in Section 1, the Federal Way City Council makes the following
Conclusions of Law with respect to the decisional criteria necessary for the adoption of the
Proposal:
1.
LUG 3
The Proposal is consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan goals and
policies contained in the Land Use and Housing chapter
Preserve and protect Federal Way's single-family neighborhoods.
LUP 1
LUP 10
LUG 1
LUG 3.1
Develop residential design performance standards to maintain neighborhood
character and ensure compatibility with surrounding uses.
Support a diverse community comprised of neighborhoods which provide a
range of housing options; a vibrant City Center; weft designed and
functioning commercial areas; and distinctive neighborhood retail areas.
Improve the appearance and function of the built environment.
Provide wide range of housing densNes and types in the single family
designated areas.
ORD # , PAGE 3
LUP 16
LUP 18
LUP 19
LUP 20
HG I
HP '16
HP 27
Revise existing land use regulations to provide for innovation and flexibility
in the design of new single-family developments and in-fill.
Encourage the development of parks and the dedication of open space in
and adjacent to residential areas to preserve the natural setting of Federal
Way.
Consider special development techniques (e.g. accessory dwelling units,
zero lot lines, lot size averaging, and planned unit developments) in single-
family areas, provided they result in residential development consistent with
the quality and character of existing neighborhoods.
Preserve site characteristics that enhance residential development (trees,
watercourses, vistas, and similar features) using site planning techniques
such as clustering, planned unit developments, and lot size averaging.
Preserve and protect the quality of existing residential neighborhoods and
require new development to be of a scale and design that is compatible with
existing neighborhood character.
Consider reducing minimum lot sizes to allow construction of smaller.
Detached single-family houses on smaller lots.
Encourage new residential development to achieve maximum allowable
density based on net building area.
Section 3. Amen(tcnent. The Federal Way Subdivision Code, Chapter 20, and
Zoning Code, Chapter 22, is amended to provide as set forth in Attachment A and by this
reference is incorporated herein.
Section 4. The provisions of this ordinance are declared separate and severable.
The invalidity of any clause, sentence, paragraph, subdivision, section, or portion of this
ordinance or the invalidity of the application thereof to any person or circumstance, shall
not affect the validity of the remainder of the ordinance, or the validity of its application to
other persons or circumstances.
ORD # , PAGE 4
Section 5. Ratification. Any act consistent with the authority and prior to the
effective date of this ordinance is hereby ratified and affirmed.
Section 6. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force five (5)
days from the time of its final passage, as provided by law.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Federal Way this
, ooo.
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
day of
ATTEST:
MAYOR, MICHAEL PARK
CITY CLERK, N. CHRISTINE GREEN, CMC
\
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
INTERIM CITY ATTORNEY, ROBERT STERBANK
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
PUBLISHED:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
ORDINANCE NO.
ORD # , PAGE 5
Attachment "A"
Chapter 20 Subdivision Code
Sec. 20-153. Density
(a)
(b)
All lots in conventional subdivisions shall meet the density and minimum lot
size requirements of chapter 22. Calculation of density in subdivisions shall
not include st[. eets or vehicle' access easements.
Lots created in cluster subdivisions may be below the minimum lot size
requirements, of chapter 22, Zoning, provided the total number of lots created
does not exceed the number which would be permitted in a conventional
subdivision on a site of the same total area, after reservation of required open
space. The total number of lots permitted will be calculated by subtracting the
required open space 15 percent and subtracting 20 percent for streets from the
gross land available, then dividing by the minimum lot size of the underlying
zoning district.
Sec. 20-154. Cluster Subdivisions
Purpose - The purpose of cluster subdivisions is to provide design flexibility, sensitivity
to surrounding environment, and innovation consistent with the site and the
Comprehensive Plan; promote compatibility with housing on adjacent properties through
lot size and design; promote affordable housing; promote reduction of impervious
surface; and promote usable open space.
(a)
(b)
(c)
reduced ~.n o;~-'~ and placed ;-' clusters en *,he site. The gross land area available
for cluster subdivisions must be a minimum of two acres.
Lots created in a cluster subdivision may be reduced in size below the
minimum required in chapter 22, up to one-half of the size of the underlying
zoning requirement, but in no case smaller than 3600 square feet, per lot,
provided that minimum setback requirements are met except as allowed for in
(d) below. This provision cannot be used together with section 220967(d) (1)
(affordable housing bonus).
When the cluster subdivision abuts an established single family use or zoned
neighborhood, the lots in the proposed development immediately adjacent
(shares property lines) shall be no less than the neighboring lot size, or the
_underlying zoning minimum lot size minus 10 percent, whichever is smaller.
Cluster Subdivisions Amendments Page I ' Attachment A
(d)
(e)
(0
(d g)
When there is a natural separation such as a ravine, wetland, stream, sensitive
area setback, or a man made separation such as a passive or recreational park
that provides a minimum of 50 feet buffer between adjacent properties c
above does not apply.
Cluster lots may not be created on slopes of 15 percent or greater.
Open space.
(~ 1_) Open space created by through cluster subdivisions shall be protected
from further subdivision or development by covenants filed and
recorded with the final plat of the subdivision.
(2) Any subdivision created by this section must provide all open space on-
site and:it must be all usable, except up to five percent can be buffer.
(3) All usable open space must be readily identifiable with the development
and easily accessible by the residents. Usable open space should be the
central focus and an amenity for the project.
Cluster subdivisions can be constructed with zero-lot lines under the following
conditions: ..... ;a,~a ,,~, ...... ,ho,,, ....... ;, ...... h ..... o ........ u
(1) No more than two units shall share a common wall.
(2) Zero-lot line cannot occur in zones of RS 9.6 or greater.
(3) Each dWelling unit shall be built to respect privacy of abutting homes.
(4) Zero-lot line development cannot exceed 30 percent of the lots proposed
unless it is in a multi-family zone.
o.,a ;, .... , on ~.~ usable.
Approval Criteria - The innovative or beneficial overall quality of the proposed
development shall be demonstrated by the following criteria:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
The subdivision provides innovative development, otherwise not allowed, but
which promotes the goals of the comprehensive plan for architectural
compatibility with single family housing on adjacent properties.
Results in common open space at least 10 percent of the gross land area,
which is identified with the development and easily accessible to residents.
Cluster lots immediately adjacent to existing neighborhoods have incorporated
design elements through lot size and architecture to be compatible to be
approved by the Community Development Services Director.
Will not result in destruction or damage to natural, scenic, or historic features.
Each dwelling unit shall meet the design standards in the FWCC Design
Guidelines for cluster subdivisions.
Cluster Subdivisions Amendments Page 2 Attachment A
Chapter 22 Zoning
ARTICLE XIX. COMMUNITY DESIGN GUIDELINES
Sec. 22-1640 Design for cluster residential subdivision lots.
(a)
Garages shall be provided for all residential lots except if the lot is in a multi-
family zone.
Front entryways should be the prominent feature of the home. Attached
garages should not compose more than 40 percent of the front faqade of a
single family home if the garage doors are flush with the front faqade, or will
be setback a minimum of five feet from the rest of the front faqade. Detached
(c)
garages should also be setback a minimum of five feet from the faqade.
If garage access is provided from alleys, the front yard setback can be reduced
to 15 feet.
Cluster Subdivisions Amendments Page 3 Attachment A
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT
Cluster Subdivision Regulations
Federal Way City Code (FWCC) Amendments
A. Introduction
In July, the Federal Way City Council adopted a moratorium on cluster subdivisions. In the
moratorium ordinance (Exhibit A), the Council directs staff to work with the public and
bring the issue to the Planning Commission. The ordinance identifies the following citizen
concerns: adequate distance between residential structures, minimum lot sizes, and the
buffering of more dense cluster subdivisions from other, existing less dense residential uses.
Federal Way City Code (FWCC) Chapter 22, Zoning, Article IX, Process VI Review,
establishes a process and criteria for Zoning Code text amendments. Consistent with Process
VI review, the role of the Planning Commission is as follows:
To review and evaluate the proposed Zoning Code text amendment regarding subdivision
and development review processes;
To determine whe. ther the proposed Zoning Code text amendment meets the criteria
provided by FWC~C Section 22-528; and,
To forward a recommendation to City Council regarding adoption of the proposed Zoning
Code text amendment.
Subdivision Code amendments are not required to be reviewed by the Planning
Commission; however, in this case, the Ordinance specifically includes the Planning
Commission's participation in the Council recommendation.
B. Background
What is a Cluster Subdivision?
Cluster Subdivisions are residential plats where the lots are reduced in size and "clustered"
in order to accomplish certain goals. Examples of goals are to preserve open space, to
achieve maximum density, to help create affordable housing, and to provide a variety of
housing types.
City of Federal Way Planning Commission Report
Cluster Subdivision and Design FWCC Text Amendments
September 20, 2000
Page I
thY M~lUng- pC-St~Report, 09-!,,!-00, dOC ,,,,,, i.,,.-~-- ' .' ' ' , ............. Page
Washington State Growth Management Act
The Growth Management Act ((}MA) requires cities to, ,...encourage the availability of
affordable housing to all economic segments of the population and to promote a variety of
residential densities and housing types." The Act discourages conversion of undeveloped
land into "sprawling, low-density developments" (RCW 36.70A.020, 1990 Supp). The Act
also requires that the City include in its Comprehensive Plan, "...encouragement for
innovative land use m~ anagement techniques to enhance affordable housing opportunities,
including density boriuses, cluster housing, planned unit developments and transfer of
development rights."
History
Cluster Subdivisions have been allowed in the City of Federal Way since the City
incorporated in 1990. The original regulations (Exhibit B) did not have a minimum lot size
and the number of lots created could not exceed what would be permitted in a conventional
subdivision. Under these provisions, the applicant was required to prepare drawings of a
conventional subdivision to determine how many lots would be permitted and a second set
of drawings of the cluster subdivision. The staff conducted a full review of each drawing.
In 1996, the City Council asked that the staff look at recommending a Planned Unit
Development (PUD) ordinance. Increased densities are awarded in a PUD for accomplishing
certain goals like preserving open space, superior design, creating a variety of housing types,
etc. Once the proposed ordinance reached the City Council's Land Use/Transportation
Committee, the Council decided to deny the PUD proposal and replace it with language that
would allow property ~wners that had sensitive areas a way to keep existing density, but not
increase it.
The cluster subdivision regulations were changed to include a minimum lot size and a
requirement that all open space had to be on site and usable. Instead of requiring the
applicant and staff to prepare and review two drawings to calculate the density, a formula
was included. The required open space of 15 percent and a road calculation of 20 percent is
subtracted from the gross land area and then divided by the underlying zoning minimum lot
size. The Subdivision Code stipulates the 15 percent open space requirement. The 20
percent road calculation is an estimate that most conventional subdivisions use 20 percent of
the land for streets. A cluster subdivision will usually pave less than 20 percent for streets.
The City has approved one cluster subdivision under the original language. This is the only
cluster subdivision built within the City since incorporation. The development is called
Blackberry Hill and is located on 312th Street, at 3ra Court South. There are five other cluster
subdivision applications pending approval. These projects will not be impacted by the
moratorium as they are vested to the codes in place at the time they were submitted.
City of Federal Way Planning Commission Report
Cluster Subdivision and Design FWCC Text Amendments
September 20, 2000
Page 2
~K~thy McClung - PC Staff Report - 09-11-O0.doc Page 3 !
EXHIBI T ....
PAGE___
On August 16, 2000, the Director and Deputy Director of Community Development
Services met with interested citizens, property owners, and developers about cluster
subdivision regulations. Approximately 30 people attended. A summary of comments is
enclosed as Exhibit C.
Some Common Misconceptions Mentioned at the Meeting About Cluster Subdivisions
"Cluster subdivisions result in higher density:' Cluster subdivisions do not result in more lots
unless there are sensitive areas on the property. Federal Way has strict requirements for
setbacks to streams and wetlands. A wetland buffer can be as much as 200 feet around
the wetland. In 1996 when the Council reviewed the cluster requirements, they wanted
to protect sensitive areas adequately without penalizing the property owner. Cluster
subdivisions allow the land from the sensitive area and buffer to be counted toward
density. However, the cluster subdivision regulations require that 35 percent of the land
be subtracted from the gross land area before it is divided by the underlying minimum
lot size. Except for the credit for sensitive areas, there are no density bonuses in cluster
subdivisions.
"Homes in cluster subdivisions are low-income." By clustering lots, the developer may save costs
on installation of utilities and streets and may have a lower cost of land per residential
structure; however, this is no guarantee that any cost savings will be passed on to the
consumer. With diminishing property available to develop, what is left many times is
property with environmental constraints or other problems. Savings can be eaten up by
mitigation or enhancement costs. Housing costs are determined by a variety of factors
including interest rates, cost of materials, amenities provided, neighborhood, and what
the market will b~ar.
Applicants for subdivisions, whether they are conventional or cluster, do not have to
disclose the housing prices for their homes. The housing price is not a criterion that the
City can use to approve or not approve a Subdivision. Low-income housing is housing
that households making under 50 percent of the median income for the county could
afford. Government funding, non-profit organizations, or a combination of both usually
subsidizes low-income housing. Affordable housing is housing that a household making
80 percent of the median income for the county could afford. The median new house
price~ in King County in 1999 was $230,000. In order to afford a house in this price
range, after a 10 percent down payment, the owner would have to make $70-74,000 to
make the house payments. See Exhibit D for more examples of low income and
affordable housing prices.
"Cluster subdivisions create more traffic." Any time vacant land is developed; the result will be
more traffic than was there before any development occurred. However, cluster
~ Median ltome Price is the sale price ofthe "middle" home during a given period. 50% of homes sell for higher
than this amount and 50% sell for less than this amount.
City of Federal Way Planning Commission Report
Cluster Subdivision and Design FWCC Text Amendments
September 20, 2000
Page 3
PAG
subdivisions should not add any more traffic than a standard subdivision since the
number of housing units will be the same as allowed under a conventional subdivision.
do
"Cluster subdivision homes are rented out." Cluster subdivision homes are no more
likely to be rented out than standard subdivision homes. The applications reviewed so
far by the City are intended to be owner occupied.
C. Subdivision Code Amendment Options
Most cities have onepr more tools within their regulations to accommodate some flexibility
for residential development. The most common tools are through cluster subdivisions or
Planned Unit Developments. Planned Unit Developments provide higher density bonuses
for providing certain amenities on the site. Cluster subdivisions do not necessarily provide
higher density, but allow the developer to create smaller lots in order to accomplish certain
goals. This may be to the developer's advantage to lower development costs or better utilize
a difficult site, and is to the City's advantage to create a variety of housing types within the
City and preserve sensitive areas and open space.
City regulations from Sumner, Renton, Everett, Issaquah, Dupont, Poulsbo, Redmond,
Tacoma, and Olympia were compared to the City's existing regulations for housing
developments. The following are options to amending the cluster subdivision code
language:
1. Purpose Statement:
A purpose statement will drive how the rest of the regulations will be written. The
City's current regulations do not contain a purpose statement. At the time the
regulations were revised in 1996, the Council's stated the goal was to, "...allow
property owners with sensitive areas a way to achieve the density they would have had
without the sensitive area." The current regulations do that, but the purpose is not stated
in the code.
Purpose and intent statements from other cities include:
a. Provide efficient arrangement of structures for providing services and
infrastructure.
b. Encourage sense of community.
c. Promote owner-occupied homes.
d. Promote maximum density.
e. Promote flexibility and variety of housing types consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.
f. Promote architectural compatibility with housing on adjacent properties.
g. Promote affordable housing.
h. Promote usable open space and/or protect environmentally sensitive areas.
City of Federal Way Planning Commission Report
Cluster Subdivision and Design FWCC Text Amendments
September 20, 2000
Page 4
PAGE
i. Reduce amount of impervious surface.
Cluster subdivisions provide some flexibility to the owner in order to preserve more
open space and still achieve an economically viable project. Citizen concerns over
cluster subdivisions include the impact of the design on adjacent properties. The design
of the subdivision should take compatibility of the neighborhood into consideration.
Affordable housing and a variety of housing types in Federal Way should be
encouraged. The Growth Management Planning Council (GMPC) of King County is
responsible for d~termining whether housing development is meeting the needs of all
economic sectors of the community. Countywide planning policies suggest that 20
percent of new residential units built should be affordable. Federal Way has only been
tracking this information since May of 1999. Since that time, less than five percent of
new units have been affordable.
Staff Recommendation:
Provide design flexibility, sensitivity, and innovation consistent with the site and the
Comprehensive Plan; promote compatibility with housing on adjacent properties
through lot size and design; promote affordable housing; promote reduction of
impervious surface; and promote usable open space.
2. Applicability:
The current code language requires a minimum of two acres in any residential zone to
do a cluster subdivision. Other codes vary from three units minimum to a maximum of
100 units, and alls~w them in most or all residential zones.
Staff Recommendation:
No change.
3. Density:
Existing Language- FWCC Sec. 20-153(b). Lots created in cluster subdivisions may
be below the minimum lot size requirements of FWCC Chapter 22, Zoning, provided
the total number of lots created does not exceed the number that would be permitted in
a conventional subdivision on a site of the same total area, after reservation of required
open space. The number of lots will be calculated by subtracting the required open
space of 15 percent, and subtracting 20 percent for streets from the gross land available,
then dividing by the minimum lot size of the underlying zoning district.
Staff has reviewed approximately 30 ordinances from other jurisdictions on cluster
subdivisions, or alternative ordinances that permit flexible residential development in
order to preserve open space. The research shows that a majority use a simple formula
that divides the minimum lot size of the underlying zoning district into the gross land
City of Federal Way Planning Commission Report
Cluster Subdivision and Design FWCC Text Amendments
September 20, 2000
Page 5
area. The cities of Redmond and Sumner use a percentage lot reduction based on zoning
with the stated purpose of not increasing density. Other ordinances have built in density
increases mostly in exchange for providing open space over and above the minimum
required. Federal Way is the only ordinance to require 35 percent of the gross land area
to be subtracted to calculate density.
Staff Recommendation:
No change.
4. Lot Size:
Existing Language- FWCC Sec 20-154Co). Lots created in cluster subdivisions may be
reduced in size below the minimum required in Chapter 22, up to one-half of the size of
the underlying zoning requirement, but in no case smaller than 3,600 square feet per lot;
provided that minimum setback requirements are met except as allowed for in (d)
below. This provision cannot be used together with FWCC Section 22-967(d)(1)
(affordable housing bonus).
This language results in the following where zoning is:
RS 12 (lot sizes of 12,000)- cluster 6,000 square feet
RS 9.6 (lot sizes of 9600) - cluster 4700 square feet
RS 7.2 or 5.0 (lot sizes of 7200 or 5,000) - cluster 3600 square feet
There are several issues to take into consideration when establishing a minimum lot
size. The underlying zoning requirements, established adjacent neighborhoods (lot size
and character), anXd the proportion of the house size to the lots. Examining other city's
codes show a variety of lot sizes from no stated minimum (Dupont), to 5,000 square
feet in Poulsbo.
Another way lot size is treated is through a percentage reduction depending on the
underlying zoning. Redmond and Sumner use this method. A flat rate of 25 percent
reduction is used in Puyallup and 20 percent is used in Olympia.
A consideration stated through the moratorium ordinance, and by Council members and
citizens, is the transition of lot sizes proposed compared to any adjacent established
neighborhoods. A radically different adjacent development can cause concern that
property values may be negatively impacted. Property values and appraisals do not, as a
rule, go down in price on small lot development as long as the amenities on or near the
development are the same as conventional developments. Access, schools, utilities,
parks, curb and gutter, sidewalks, etc., are as important to residential property value as
lot size Cluster subdivisions must meet the same requirements for street and utility
standards as a conventional subdivision. A school impact fee is charged for each lot.
There is no discount because the lot is smaller. The School District updates these
City of Federal Way Planning Commission Report
Cluster Subdivision and Design FWCC Text Amendments
September 20, 2000
Page 6
impact fees annually depending on their costs and enrollment. In addition, the standard
for providing park amenities is actually higher in a cluster subdivision than the standard
subdivision because all open space must be usable and provided on-site. Neighboring
properties to a cluster development may actually increase in value, especially if the
property can be subdivided. Once an application is submitted for review to the City;
however, property values cannot be taken into consideration as long as the development
meets all the code requirements.
Designing cluster subdivision lots to be more compatible with adjacent properties can
occur in a variety of ways.
Options:
a. When the cluster subdivision abuts an established single family use or zoned
neighborhood, the lots in the proposed development immediately adjacent (shares
property lines) shall be no less than the neighboring lot size, or the underlying
zoning minimum lot size, whichever is smaller.
When the cluster subdivision abuts an established single family use or zoned
neighborhood, the lots in the proposed development immediately adjacent shall be
no less than the neighboring lot size, or the underlying zoning minimum lot size
minus 10%, whichever is smaller.
Co
When there is a natural separation such as a ravine, wetland, stream, sensitive area
setback, or a manmade separation such as a passive or recreational park, or major
arterial that provides a minimum of 50 feet buffer between adjacent properties,
neither a or bsabove apply.
d. Require all cluster lots to be half of the underlying zoning district with a minimum
of 5,000 square feet.
e. No change. Lots may be reduced up to one half the underlying zoning as long as
they are over 3600 square feet.
Numbers a and b provide a transition to neighboring properties, but would allow lots on
the interior to be smaller. Number c would provide a buffer roughly the size of a
residential lot width to provide a transition between neighborhoods. Number d provides
predictability for both neighbors and developers.
Staff Recommendation:
A combination of a or b and c.
Sloped lots do not work well for small lot development. Larger lots may be needed in
order to ensure slope stability.
City of Federal Way Planning Commission Report
Cluster Subdivision and Design FWCC Text Amendments
September 20, 2000
Page 7
= thY-M~-Clung; PC St-afl Report; 09;~ l ~0' d6~ ........ , ........ P~'~J
Staff Recornrnendation:
Add language to prohibit cluster subdivisions that create lots on slopes of 15 percent or
greater.
Open Space:
Existing Language - FWCC Sec. 20-154(e). Any subdivision created by this section
must provide all open space on-site and it must all be usable.
As stated previously, cluster subdivisions many times create more usable open space
on-site than con~'entional subdivisions. A conventional subdivision is also required to
provide 15 percent of open space, but the requirement can be met by paying a fee-in-
lieu-of providing the open space on the property. This money is collected by the City
and pays for parks improvements or land acquisition for the area where the
development occurs. If the development provides the open space on-site, only a portion
of it has to be usable. Usable open space has to be available for some type of
recreational activity such as play equipment, walking/jogging trails, sports courts, etc.
Usable open space development proposals, whether on-site or fee-in-lieu-of, are
reviewed by the City's Parks and Recreation Director before the subdivision approval.
One improvement that could be made to usable open space is to make it integral to the
development. Usable open space should be readily identified with the development and
easily accessible to the residents. Usable open space should not be the left over land
where no lots could be placed, but rather a central focus and amenity for the project.
Staff Recommendation:
Add language to a~proval criteria to make cluster subdivision open space readily
identifiable with the development and easily accessible to the residents.
6. Approval Criteria:
All subdivisions are required to be reviewed by the Hearing Examiner who makes a
recommendation to the full City Council. Approval criteria will help staff, the Hearing
Examiner, and the Council use discretion on a case-by-case basis. Approval criteria can
take into account the proposed scale of development, as well as location of open space
and lot locations. The current Federal Way language does not contain specific
evaluation criteria.
Staff Recommendation:
Add the following language:
Evaluation criteria shall be the innovative or beneficial overall quality of the proposed
development, demonstrated by the following criteria:
City of Federal Way Planning Commission Report
Cluster Subdivision and Design FWCC Text Amendments
September 20, 2000
Page 8
Options:
a. Innovative development otherwise not allowed, but which promotes the goals of
the comprehensive plan for architectural compatibility with housing on adjacent
properties and owner occupied housing types.
b. Results in usable common open space at least 15 percent of the gross land area and
is identified with the development and easily accessible to the residents.
c. The propos,ed size of structures is in scale with the lot sizes proposed.
d. Cluster lots immediately adjacent to existing neighborhoods have incorporated
design elements through lot size and architecture to be compatible.
e. Will not result in destruction or damage to natural, scenic, or historic features.
f. Is adequately served by services (i.e. fire protection, sewer and water, schools,
etc.).
D. Design Criteria (Zoning Code)
Design Guidelines are contained in FWCC Chapter 22. Design guidelines were first
included for commercial development only. In 1998, residential design guidelines were
added for non-residential uses in residential zones like daycares, churches, schools, and
multi-family uses. Single family uses have not been included up to this point. Design
elements are as important as lot size to ensure some degree of compatibility with adjacent
neighborhoods. Good design can enhance property values, provide some predictability to
adjacent neighborhoods, encourage neighborhood pride, and help prevent crime.
To ensure compatibility with neighboring large lot development, garages should be required.
If the development is proposed next to multifamily development where garages are not
necessarily provided, a different standard could apply. Garages should not be the prominent
feature of a home, especially when lot sizes are reduced. Garages can dominate a streetscape
and houses fade into the background making entryways invisible or hard to locate.
Entryways to the house should be the prominent feature for aesthetic and crime prevention
reasons.
Other City codes encourage parking to be out of site from adjacent streets and properties
through use of alleys. Front yard setbacks are to be reduced in this case to accommodate
parking in the rear of the structure.
Building materials are also important to the long-term appearance of a neighborhood.
City of Federal Way Planning Commission Reporl
Cluster Subdivision and Design FWCC Text Amendments
September 20, 2000
Page 9
Requiring building materials that are natural or equal/better than natural materials will also
help maintain property values in the neighborhood.
Neighborhood blight can and will occur in any neighborhood regardless of house and lot
size or income level. Blight can be prevented by an active homeowners association, the
City's code compliance program, and a high percentage of home ownership. The City has a
strong code compliance program and a Neighborhood Development Coordinator on staff to
help neighborhoods organize to resolve neighborhood issues. Homeowners associations can
be one way to pull a neighborhood together. They also provide maintenance for
neighborhood parks ~.and can enforce covenants that exceed the City's requirements.
Home ownership increases pride in the neighborhood and reduces crime. Design features
like prominent entryways, carefully designed landscaping, and good lighting can reduce
crime. The City Council has directed staffto propose crime prevention design standards for
all types of development including residential. This code amendment will be presented to
the Planning Commission and City Council before the end of the year.
Staff Recommendation:
Cluster subdivisions shall include the following design standards:
a. Garages shall be provided for all residential lots except if the lot is in a mUlti-family
zone or immediately adjacent to a multi-family zone.
Front entryways shall be the prominent feature of the home. Attached garages shall not
compose more than 40 percent of the front facade of a single family home if the garage
doors are flush wi. th the front fagade, or will be setback a minimum of five feet from the
rest of the front faXcade. Detached garages shall also be setback a minimum of five feet
from the facade.
c. If garage access is provided from alleys, the front yard setback can be reduced to 15
feet.
d. Building materials shall be natural materials unless approved by the Community
Development Services Director and Building Official.
Zero Lot Line Development
Residential zero lot line development is where a common lot line is used between two
properties to:
a. Build a common wall for two residential units.
b. Build a common wall for two detached garages.
City of Federal Way Planning Commission Report
Cluster Subdivision and Design FWCC Text Amendments
September 20, 2000
Page 10
c. Eliminate a setback to create a larger usable yard.
Existing Language - Cluster subdivisions can include lots with zero-lot lines, provided that
no more than two units may share a common wall.
The zero-lot line provision was the only part of the original Planned Unit Development
flexibility to be added in 1996. No zero-lot line development proposals have been submitted
to the City for review since that time. As of the date of this staff report, no recent (within the
last seven to eight years) zero lot line development has been proposed or developed in the
South King County cities the staff researched. Most duplex or townhouse development has
occurred as part of planned unit developments.
If the Planning Commission wishes to recommend keeping this flexibility within a cluster
subdivision the following could be added as criteria:
a. Zero-lot line development cannot occur in zoning of 9600 or greater.
b. Zero-lot line development cannot exceed 10 percent of the lots proposed unless it is in a
nmlti-family zone.
c. Each dwelling unit shall be distinguishable as a separate dwelling unit and shall have a
prominent entrance.
d. Each dwelling unit shall be intended for owner occupancy.
e Each dwelling unit shall be situated to respect privacy of abutting homes
f. Each dwelling unit shall meet the design standards in the FWCC Design Guidelines for
cluster subdivisions.
F. Compliance With FWCC Section 22-528
FWCC Section 22-528 provides criteria for zOning text amendments. The following section
analyzes the compliance of the proposed zoning text amendment regarding subdivision and
development review processes with the criteria provided by FWCC Section 22-528.
The City may amend the text of FWCC Chapter 22, Zoning, only if it finds that:
(l)
The proposed amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the
comprehensive phm;
The proposed Zoning Code and Subdivision text amendments regarding cluster
subdivision and design review are consistent with, and substantially implement, the
following Comprehensive Plan goals and policies:
City of Federal Way Planning Commission Report
Cluster Subdivision and Design FWCC Text Amend~nents
September 20, 2000
Page I I
LUGI
LUPI
LUPIO
LUG3
LUG3.1
LUP16
LUP18
LUP19
Improve the appearance and function of the built environment.
Develop residential design performance standards to maintain neighborhood
character and ensure compatibility with surrounding uses.
Support a diverse community comprised of neighborhoods which provide a
range of housing options; a vibrant City Center; well designed and
functioning commercial areas; and distinctive neighborhood retail areas.
Preserve and protect Federal Way's single-family neighborhoods.
Provide wide range of housing densities and types in the single family
designated areas.
Revise existing land use regulations to provide for innovation and flexibility
in the design of new single-family developments and in-fill.
Encourage the development of parks and the dedication of open space in and
adjacent to residential areas to preserve the natural setting of Federal Way.
Consider special development techniques (e.g. accessory dwelling units, zero
lot lines, lot size averaging, and planned unit developments) in single-family
areas, provided they result in residential development consistent with the
quality and character of existing neighborhoods.
LUP20
HG1
HP16
HP27
Preserv~e site characteristics that enhance residential development (trees,
watercourses, vistas, and similar features) using site planning techniques
such as clustering, planned unit developments, and lot size averaging.
Preserve and protect the quality of existing residential neighborhoods and
require new development to be of a scale and design that is compatible with
existing neighborhood character.
Consider reducing minimum lot sizes to allow construction of smaller,
detached single-family houses on smaller lots.
Encourage new residential development to achieve maximum allowable
density based on net building area.
(2) The proposed amendment bears a substantial relationship to public health, safety, or
welfare; and
city of Federal Way Planning Commission Report
Cluster Subdivision and Design FWCC Text Amendments
September 20, 2000
Page 12
athy McClung - PC Staff Report - 09-11-00.doc ' Paue 13 ~
The proposed Zoning Code text amendments will result in improved cluster subdivision
and single-family design standards, which have a direct relationship to the public
health, safety, and welfare.
(3)
The proposed amendment is itt the best interest of the residents of the city.
The proposed FWCC text amendment will improve the design and review criteria for
cluster subdivisions, resulting in improved neighborhoods.
G. Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends amending the cluster subdivision code requirements to add a purpose
statement; include changes to lot size and design standards to improve the transition
between cluster subdivisions and established neighboring properties; change the open space
requirements for cluster subdivisions to integrate open space with the development; and add
criteria for approving zero lot line development.
He
Planning Commission Action Alternatives
Consistent with the provisions of FWCC Section 22-535, the Planning Commission may
take the following actions regarding the proposed Zoning Code text amendments:
1. Recommend to City Council for adoption of the Zoning Code text amendments as proposed;
2. Modify the proposed Zoning Code text amendments and recommend to City Council for
adoption of the Zoning Code text amendments as modified;
3. Recommend to City Council that the proposed Zoning Code text amendments not be
adopted; or,
4. Forward the proposed Zoning Code text amendments to City Council without a
recommendation.
Recommended Motion
The following motion is suggested:
Move to recommend to City Council for adoption of the proposed Zoning Code text
City of Federal Way Planning Commission Report
Cluster Subdivision and Design FWCC Text Amendments
September 20, 2000
Page 13
,~thy Mcclung PC staff Report: 09:i
amendments regarding subdivision and development review processes (if changes occur as a
result of Planning Commission deliberations add, "...as amended by the Planning
Commission").
Je
Exhibits
Exhibit A
Exhibit B
Exhibit C
Exhibit D
Moratorium Ordinance
OriginS. 1990 Regulations
Summary of Citizen Comments from August 16, 2000, Public Meeting
Affordable Housing Table
I:q)OCIJME~uster Sabdivlaions'4~C ~aff ILepo~ * 09-11 -O0.do~ - Last prin~l O~tober 6, 2000 10:30 AM
City of Federal Way Planning Commission Report
Cluster Subdivision and Design FWCC Text Amendments
September 20, 2000
Page 14
PAGE : OF
MEETING SUMMARY
Commissioners present: Robert Vaughan (Chair), Hope Elder, Karen Kirkpatrick, John Caulfieid, Nesbia
Lopez, and William Drake. Commissioners absent: Eric Faison. Alternative Commissioners present:
None. Staff present: Community Development Services Deputy Director Kathy McClung, and
Administrative Assistant E. Tiaa Piety.
Chair Vaughan called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of June 21, 2000, were approved as presented.
AUDIENCE COMMENT
None.
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTx
Ms. McClung announced the resignation of Community Development Services Director Stephen Clifton.
She will be interim director until such time a new director is chosen. The Community Development
Services Department has seven positions open and is currently searching for people to fill the positions.
Due to the good economy, the department is having a difficult time finding good prospects. To date, the
City has received more applications than last year, but mainly for small projects.
COMMISSION BUSINESS- Cluster Subdivisions
The Public Hearing was opened at 7:12 p.m.
Ms. McClung gave the staff presentation, which included examples of cluster subdivisions in the City
and other jurisdictions. The Planning Commission expressed concern over who would maintain the open
space. It was suggested that a mandatory Homeowner's Association be added to the Open Space Criteria.
Staff will research this issue.
The Commission also requested the staff to research if Options e. and f. of the proposed Approval
Criteria (pages 8 & 9 of the Staff Report) are already in the Federal Way City Code (FWCC) and if they
should apply to the City in general, not just cluster subdivisions.
Ms. McClung read letters from Leonard and Harriet Hills and Brooks Powell (attached) into the record.
EXHIBIT
PAGE
Planning Commission
Page 2 September 20, 2000
The Public Comment period was opened at 8:35 p.m., with no comments given. The Commission
thanked the staff for their work and researching what other communities have done. The Commission
commented that the City needs cluster subdivisions in order to plan for growth. They expressed their
concern that the City not dictate the specifics and not micro-manage. The Commission went over each of
the proposed options cited in the Staff Report.
Subdivision Code Amendment Options
1. Purpose Statement - The Commission requested the words, "...sensitivity to the surrounding
environment..." be added to the statement. They questioned how would the City know if it is
affordable housing? The Commission supports the staff recommendation with this change.
2. Applicability - The Commission supports the staff recommendation.
3. Density- The Commission supports the staff recommendation.
4. Lot Size -The Com~nission expressed concern that 3600 is too small. The Commission
supports options b, c, and e.
5. Open Space - The Commission supports the staff recommendation. Suggested adding a goal
statement addressing that the open space be maintained.
6. Approval Criteria - The Commission suggested that criteria a, b, and d relate to cluster
subdivisions, while criterion c relates to the broader based residential guideline design criteria.
They requested that the words "owner occupied" be removed from criterion a. They requested
staff to research if criteria e and f are covered elsewhere in the FWCC. They deferred
discussing criterion d.'
D Design Criteria (Zoning Code)
The Commission deferred discussion of this issue.
Eo
Zero Lot Line Development
The Commission supports the existing language. They are in favor of criteria a, b (but 10 percent is
low, 30 percent would be good), e, and f. They do not support criteria c and d.
ADDITIONAL BUSINESS
Chair Vaughan announced that he would not be seeking reappointment. He thanked the staff for all of
their work. Ms. Piety announced that the Planning Commission agenda and minutes are now available on
the City's web page. The Federal Way Comprehensive Plan will be available soon.
The Commission stated that they would like to see the Commission mentioned in the press. Staff replied
that they will watch for opportunities to promote the Commission through the press.
AUDIENCE COMMENT
None.
ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at 9:50 p.m.
K:~D Admin Filc$~PLANCOM'O.000%Mceting Summa~/09-20-00.docLa~ printed I Itel/2000 02:28 PM
October zi
7:00 p.i'n.' ;'
MEETING SUMMARY
Commissioners present: Robert Vaughan (Chair), Hope Elder, Eric Faison, and John Caulfield.
Commissioners absent: Nesbia Lopes, William Drake, and Karen Kirkpatrick. Guests present:
Councilmember Michael Hellickson. Staff present: Interim Director of Community Development
Services Kathy McClung, and ;~dministrative Assistant E. Tina Piety.
Chair Vaughan called the meeting to order at 7:06 p.m.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
None.
AUDIENCE COMMENT
None.
ADMINISTRATIVE REPOR][
None.
COMMISSION BUSINESS- Cluster Subdivisions
The Public Hearing was reconvened at 7:07 p.m. and Public Testimony opened at 7:07 p.m.
Alex Klouzal, 20910 3r'tAvenue South, Seattle - Owns 13 acres near Lakota. Feels that King
County created the wetlands on his property and the City is using them for runoff. Since some
75 percent of his property is wetlands, he needs higher density and clustering in order to
develop it.
Jerry Klaubon, 32421 Hoy! RoadSW- Owns four acres on Hoyt Road with a small wetland.
He believes clustering would have a negative impact on his property.
Michael Rutter, 36619 6'~' Avenue SW- He represents the people of his area. He understands
that cluster subdivisions make sense, but it would not work in his area of the City. The
community bas had numerous tneetings on this subject. They feel they live in a unique area
that is a friendly, long-term community and they do not want to be run over by development.
The community is concerned that lot sizes would be too small and further development would
cause more flooding problems. He commented that be attended a Hearing Exmniner meeting
recently and was dismayed that the City staff were supporting the developer. The City is
supposed to serve the people of Federal Way, not outside developers.
Planning Commission
Page 2
'EXHIBIT
ctober . 20~0
PAG
Bill May, 35341 11'n Court SW- He is a member of the Madrona Meadows Homeowners
Association. He stated that he struggles with being told by elected officials that development,
"will happen." He is concerned with the Kenwood Pit development. He feels it will bring
increased traffic and will heavily impact schools. He sees nothing that deals with these issues
in the proposed amendments. Under Lot Size, he supports the staff recommendation of
numbers b and c. Under Approval Criteria, he supports d, e, and f. He also concurs with the
staff recommendation to prohibit cluster subdivisions that create lots on slopes of 15 percent or
greater.
Michael Hellickson, Federal Way City Councilmember - He commented that the City needs to
protect everyone's property rights, not just single-family homeowners. He encouraged people
to check the eomprehensi,ve plan to see what future holds. Cluster zoning does not mean more
density, just smaller lots, not more lots. It is not fair for anyone to say, "We were here first, so
you can not build here."
Terry Graft, PO Box 3063, Federal Way- He is a homeowner on the north end of town. He
thanked staff for the letter informing him of this issue. He is concerned about increasing
restrictions in a city that is already very restrictive. Good development can happen with fewer
restrictions. He opposes the staff recommendations because they add restrictions. He
encouraged the City to base their decisions on the comprehensive plan's policies and goals
rather than specific restrictions. He commented that a 15 percent slope could be built upon
using good engineering. Base decisions on a case-by-case basis. He suggested that rather than
requiring that the open space be development, it may be best to leave it as it is.
Alex Klouzal, 20910 3ra Avenue South, Seattle - He agrees with previous testimony. The City
has less land to build on and more wetlands to take care of. He suggests the City leaves cluster
subdivisions as they are, or make it case-by-case.
Bill May, 35341 11'h Court SW- He is concerned that making decisions on a case-by-case
basis would erode the City's oversight.
Cecelia Wheeler, 15234 SE 49'n, Bellevue - She owns nine acres and worked on the City's
comprehensive plan. She asked, at what price is a house affordable? How can we have
affordable housing when we have to pay the City so much to build? She feels more restrictions
would be a great burden on providing affordable housing.
Michael Hellickson, Federal Way City Councilmember - He asked the audience to keep in
mind that the Planning Commission does not make the final decision. He encouraged them to
attend the City Council's Land Use/Transportation Committee and City Council meetings in
order to get their opinions heard.
Patricia Owen, 926 SW 35~n - She has lost property to the City's retention pond. Her property
is being asked to absorb huge amounts of water. The City is overlooking the impact of
development on neighbors. The City should preserve the natural land rather than try to
improve it. Attempts to improve usually cause more problems that it solves.
Lori Dolan, 30614 28'h Avenue South - She is a long-term resident and has seen the impacts of
development. It now takes some 20 minutes to get to work within the City. She owns property
by Steel Lake. The land has been declared to have wetland, but she has not seen any water.
Planning Commission
Page 3
XH!_R T
__ Q,;:c,~;rd, 2000
PAGE OF
Michael Rutter, 36619 6'n Avenue SW- He stated that he is very gratefully to have local
government. He noted that the Blackberry Hill development does not fit the proposed purpose
statement.
The Public Testimony was closed at 8:20 p.m.
Ms. McClung read letters from Chris Carrel and Rob Rueber (attached) into the record. The Commission
discussed the staff recommendations cited in the Staff Report.
Co
Subdivision Code Amendment Options
1. Purpose Statement - The Commission requested the words, "...sensitivity to the surrounding
environment..." be added to the statement. They support the staff recommendation with this
change.
2. Applicability- The Commission supports the staff recommendation.
3. Density - The Commission supports the staff recommendation.
4. Lot Size -The Commission supports options b, c, and e, and the staff recommendation on
sloped lots.
5. Open Space - The Commission had requested information about maintenance. The code does
require maintenance through a covenant with City review, but does not address what happens
when a homeowners association dies off. The Commission discussed the issue and decided to
leave it as is. The Commission discussed the requirement that all open space in cluster
subdivisions be usable. They requested a change be made that five percent (of the 15 percent
required) may be buffer open space, and the remaining 10 percent shall be usable. They
support the staff recommendation with this change.
6. Approval Criteria-
a. Change the last ~art of the sentence to read, "...compatibility with single-family housing
on adjacent properties."
b. Change 15 percent to 10 percent.
c. Should be applied to all subdivisions.
d. Add, "...with the approval of the director."
e. Add, "Will not endeavor to result..."
f. Already in the subdivison code, strike it.
Design Criteria
a. Strike the words, "...or immediately adjacent to a multi-family zone."
b. Change it to say 'should' instead of'shall' and include the City's goal.
c. The Commission accepts this recommendation as is.
d. This is not required of regular subdivisions, the Commission says strike it.
Zero
a.
b.
C.
d.
e.
f.
Lot Line Development
The Commission accepts this recommendation as is.
The Commission requested this be increased to 30 percent.
Strike it.
Strike it.
The Commission accepts this recommendation as is.
The Commission accepts this recommendation as is.
EXHIBIT
4
/,~g]~"3/-- . _ __ ~ o,-?~r~2ooo
Plannln~ Commission Page a'-t ~'~ ~"~ OF'-,~~
The Commission thanked Ms. McClung for her presentation, especially the pictures of current cluster
subdivisions, and thanked the citizens for their participation.
It was m/s/approved (no nays) to accept the staff recommendation with amendments, and forward them
to the Land Use/Transportation Committee.
The Public Hearing was closed at 9:50 p.m.
ADDITIONAL BUSINESS
None.
AUDIENCE COMMENT
None.
ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at 9:55 p.m.
K:V2D Admin Filcs~PLANCOhfO.000~qe~ting S~mmary 10-04-00.doc, Last I~inted 11/01/2000 02:2'/PM
PAG E_L._OF
RESOLUTION NO. 00-320
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON, IMPOSING A
MORATORIUMON THE ACCEPTANCEAND ISSUANCE OF
CLUSTER SUBDIVISION APPLICATIONS AND
APPROVALS UTILIZING OR RELYING UPON FEDERAL
WAY CITY CODE SECTIONS 20-152(d), 20-153(b), AND/OR
20-154.
WHEREAS, RCW 36.70A.090 encourages but does not require the use of
"innovative land use management techniques, including, but not limited to, density bonuses, cluster
housing, planned unit developments, and the transfer of development rights" in a city's
comprehensive plan; and
WHEREAS, the City of Federal Way Comprehensive Plan contains the twin goals
(Goals LUG3 and 3.1) of preserving mad protecting Federal Way's single-family neighborhoods,
while providing a wide range of housing densities 'and types in the single family designated areas;
and
WHEREAS, these goals are implemented by polices LUP14, 19 and 20, which call
for the City to maintain and protect the character of existing and future single-family neighborhoods
through strict enforcement of the City's land use regulations, while considering special development
techniques (e.g. accessory dwelling units, zero lot lines, lot size averaging, and planned unit
developments) in Single-family areas provided they ?~s: ult in residential development consistent with
Res. No. 00- 320 Page 1
ORIGINAL
the quality and character of existing neighborhoods, and while preserving site characteristics using
site planning techniques such as clustering, planned unit developments, and lot size averaging; and
WHEREAS,in OrdinanceNo. 98-330, adopted December 15, 1998, the Federal Way
City Council adopted procedures for the use and approval of cluster subdivisions; and
WHEREAS, these provisions are codified at Federal Way City Code ("FWCC")
Sections 20-152(d), 20-153(b), and 20-154; and
WHEREAS, the.City has, to date, approved only 1 application, and is processing 4
applications, utilizing or seeking to utilize the cluster subdivision code provisions, and therefore the
City has not had an opportunity to study the results of implementation of the cluster subdivision code
provisions; and
WHEREAS, it appears that the City could, in the near future, receive additional
applications seeking approval of cluster subdivisions, particularly in the area east of 21 st Avenue SW,
in the vicinity of Saghalie Junior High School;
WHEREAS, members of the public have raised concerns about impacts arising from
approval of the cluster subdivision code provisions, including issues of the adequate distance
between residential structures, minimum lot size, and the buffering of more dense cluster
subdivisions from other, existing, less dense residential uses; and
WHEREAS, the City of Federal Way values the utility of innovative land use
management techniques such as clustering, but believes that its land. development process and
citizens w~uld be best served if cluster subdivisions were designed so as to fully address public
health, safety, welfare and/or aesthetic concerns; and~
Res. No. 00-320, Page 2
(
WHEREAS, the City needs to review its codes and ordinances in a comprehensive
fashion to determine whether stated concerns have been adequately addressed in existing cluster
subdivision provisions, or whether additional amendments are necessary or desirable; and
WHEREAS, RCW 35A.63.220 and RCW 36.70A.390 authorize cities to adopt
moratoria provided a public hearing is held within sixty (60) days of adoption; and
WHEREAS, the City should impose a moratoriumbarfing the aceeptance or approval
of any subdivision application relying upon cluster subdivision provisions of the FWCC, including
but not limited to FWCC Sections 20-152(d), 20-153(b) and/or 20-154, until any necessary code
revisions are complete and have been adopted by the Federal Way City Council;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY HEREBY
RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Moratorium. The Federal Way City Council hereby declares a
moratorium upon the acceptance or approval of any subdivision application utilizing or relying upon
the cluster subdivision provisions of the FWCC, including but not limited to FWCC Sections 20-
152(d), 20-153(b) and/or 20-154. In addition, the Federal Way City Council hereby declares a
moratorium upon the processing of any subdivision application utilizing or relying upon the cluster
subdivision provisions identified above and submitted after the effective date of this resolution.
Section 2. Exemptions. This moratorium shall not apply to:
A. The processing of or approval of cluster subdivision applications submitted prior
to the effe6tive date of this resolution; or
B. Subdivisions which are not cluster subdivisions but the processing or approval
of which relies in part upon FWCC Sections 20-152(~1).
Res. No. 00-320, Page 3
¢
Section 3. Duration. This moratorium shall be in effect for ninety (90)days
following the effective date of this resolution, and shall expire at midnight on Monday, October 16,
2000, unless extended by the City Council.
Section 4. Public Hearing. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.390, the City Council shall
hold a public heating on this moratorium within sixty (60) days of its adoption, on Tuesday,
September 5, 2000. Immediately after the public hearing, the City Council shall adopt findings of
fact on the subject of this moratorium, and either justify its continued imposition or cancel the
moratorium.
Section 5. Staff Direction. City staff and the Planning Commission are directed to
work with interested City residents and property developersto determine the impacts and appropriate
use and location of cluster Subdivisions, and draft and forward to the City Council any appropriate
code amendments. Specifically, the 2000 Planning Commission work program is hereby amended
to permit the Commission's consideration, as expeditiously as possible, of any code amendments
\
proposed by staff.
Section 6. Recitals Incorporated. The recitals set forth on pages 1-3 of this
Resolution are incorporated as if fully set forth herein and shall serve as Findings of Fact.
Section 7. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this resolution
should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a'court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity
or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any:~her section, sentence,
clause or phrase of this resolution.
Section 8. Ratification. Any act consistent with the authority and prior to the
effective date of the resolution is hereby ratified and affirmed.
Res. No. 00-320, Page 4
(' tr
Section 9. Effective Date. This resolution shall be effective immediately upon
passage by the Federal Way City Council.
RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY,
WASHINGTON, this 18t~ day of July, 2000.
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
M~YOR, lVl~~ ·
~.ITY (~LE~(, N. CHRISTINE GREEN, CMC
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
INTERIM CITY ATTORNEY, BOB C. STERBANK
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: o?/18/0o
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: 07/18/oo
RESOLUTION NO. 00- 320
KARESO\clustermor.wpd
Res. No. 00-320, Page 5
.40
PAG
~8
Except in a duster subdivision, all lots should abut a public street right-of-
way. Residential lots should not have access onto arterial streets.
16.230 Density
.10
All lots in conventional subdivisions shall meet the density and minimum lot
size requirements of the Zoning Code. Calculation of density in subdivisions
shall not include streets or vehicle access easements.
.20
Lots created in cluster subdivisions may be below the minimum lot size
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance provided the total number of lots
created dr)es not exceed the number which would be permitted in a
conventional subdivision on a site of the same total area, after reservation
of required open space.
16.240 Cluster Subdivision
.10
In order to promote open space and the protection of natural features such
as trees and wetlands, lots may be reduced in size and placed in clusters on
the site.
.20 Lots created in a duster subdivision may be reduced in size below the
minimum required in the Zoning Code provided that minimum yard and
setback requirements are met. Building setback lines for each lot shall be
shown on the face of a duster subdivision plat.
.30 Open space created by cluster subdivisions shall be protected from further
subdivision or development by covenants filed and recorded with the final
plat of the subdMsion.
16.250 .Open .Space and Recreation
.10 For the purpose of this Chapter, open space shall be described in the
following categories.
Usable open space: Areas which have appropriate topography, soils,
drainage and size to be considered for development as active recreation
areas.
PAGE.J._OF
Summary of Public Comments from August 16, 2000 Meeting on Cluster Subdivisions
Citizen #1- Are the sensitive areas included in the density calculations? Is the 20% deducted for roads
adequate? How wide are the streets? How long does zoning have to be in place put in cluster
subdivisions? Do you take into consideration endangered species and environmental impacts?
Cluster subdivisions bring in more traffic and crime. The subdivision on 312~ is a drag on the community.
The homes are overpriced so that the property had to be rented or sold with a lease to own. That type of
development does not get the kind of people who are owner-occupied for long. Cluster subdivisions imply
a close/dense area.
Purpose statements should ha~e specific numbers and issues, should not be general.
Zero-lot line is even lower than cluster subdivisions.
Are you trying to improve the community or increase the tax base? Are you getting your data from other
parts of the country?
Citizen #2- Compatibility with adjacent neighborhoods and aesthetics are important. I can accept change
but want to f'md a happy medium. What determines usable open space? How do we f'md out if they go for
a rezone to a higher zone? I am concerned with the possibility of manipu!ating the zoning via changing the
zoning. I question the reasoning of not penalizing people with environmentally sensitive areas.
Citizen #3- I represent residents south of 356th, 21't on the wet and Hwy 99 on the east. This is a semi-rural
area, not a cluster development area. Lots are between 10-15,000 square feet. We create the buffer
between Federal Way and other communities. We have affordable housing and open space and protect
environmentally sensitive areas.
We are concerned about surface water and flooding. What about wildlife and increased traffic, impacts on
schools, crime rate, access to buses and stores. Low-income housing should be close to services. The
wetlands south of 356th are best~lefi with current zoning.
Citizen/14 From Madrona Meadows Homeowners Association. Concerned about access to schools traffic
impacts crime. Would the city partner to ensure good homeowners? Does city follow up on impact to the
adjacent neighborhoods? We need legislation to control these issues.
Citizen #5 Didn't your Comprehensive Plan consider wetlands when the property was zoned? Are cluster
subdivisions SEPA exempt? Don't you look at traffic impacts and drainage during that process? How does
the City comply with GMA housing requirements? Are there any studies, which show that cluster
subdivisions create more crime? Are regular subdivisions required to prohibit renting? Are land prices
going up or down? There is a perception that Federal Way is not doing its share of providing housing.
Citizen #6 Represents Habitat for Humanity. Value of land in south King County is exorbitant. Makes it
tough for fred affordable land. We build owner-occupied housing. Garages would be adverse to his goals.
Citizen #7 Concerned about water drainage. We need to preserve natural ravines, green belts. We need to
work with the natural beauty of the land.
Citizen #8- I am a proponent of cluster subdivisions. I challenge the notion that large homes on large lots
increase the value of the community. Cluster subdivisions create more usable open space. They can be a
carefully planned asset, not a detraction. They are necessary to meet the demands of growth pressure and
allow for growth, while preserving the natural environment.
PC,
Citizen #9- There are lots of misconceptions in understanding cluster subdivisions. The number of units is
contrOlled by the zoning in the area. Cluster allow people to achieve density with site constraints. It is an
incentive to preserve open space and stands of trees. Clusters will not impact schools and traffic and more
than standard subdivisions. School and traffic mitigation fees are applied according to the number of units
built. Usable open space definition could be imprOved. Add more review process for zero-lot line
development.
Federal Way Com~ehensive Plan- Housing
PAGE.J_OF
Table V-I
King County 1999 Annual Income Levels
Affordable Monthly Housin~ Payments (30%) for Rentals by Household Size
Unit Type Studio I Bedroom 2 Bedrooms 3 Bedrooms 4 Bedrooms 5 Bedrooms
#Persons per Household I 2__ 3' 4__ 5_ 6
Upper Income (120% of Median) $52,560 $60,120 $67,560 $75,120 $81,120 .$87,120
Affordable Monthly Payment $1,314 $1,503. $1,689 $1,878 .$2,028 $2,178
Median Income (100% of median) $43,800 $50,100 $56,300 $62,600 $67,600 $72,600
$1,095 $1,253 $1,408 $1,565 $1,690 $1,815
.Low Jncomc.(80% of median) .$35,040 $40,080 $45,040 $50,080 $54,080 $58,080
~$876 $1,126 $1,126 $1,252 $1,252 $1,452
Very'Low Income (50% of median) $21,900 $25,050 $28,150 $31,300 .$33,800 $36,300
$548 $626 $704 $783 $845. $908
Extremely Low Income (30% of $13,140 $15,030 $16,890 $18,780 $20,280 $21,780
median) $329 $376 $422 $470 $507 $545
Notes:'
(1) Thc 1999 Ciw of Federal Way Human Services Comprehensive Plan defines an affordable housing opportunity as rents affordable to households earning less than 50% of median
income.
(2) For ~-ntals, an sffordable monthly payment is defined as a housing, coslJpayment that is no more than 3ff',4 of a household's monthly income. This does no~ include a deduction for
utilities; it assumes that the entire payment goes toward the rent. Example: $ff% of median income for ,, three-person household was $28,150 in 1999. At Ibis income, the family could
afford S794 in
(2) For affoodab~ity calculations, a studio should b¢ affordable to a one-person household; a one-bedroom unit should be affordable to a two-p~srm household; · throeJocdroom unit should
b~ available to · four-pc~on household, and so on.
(4) The ~999 City ~f Fed~ra~ Wa¥ Human ~x4c~$ C~mprehenSive P~an de~n~s an a~rdable ~wnorship ~pp~r~unity as rnic~S a~ordab~¢ t~ househ~dS ~aming ~eS~ than 8~% ~f m~dian
(5) For homcowncrship, an affordable monthly paymcm is defined as a housing cost/payment that is no more than 25% of a household's monthl!e income. This leaves $% of income for taxe-
and insurance.
(6) An affordable home price is approxlmat¢l¥ three tlmes the annual household income. An 80% of median incume for a three-person household was $45~040 in 1999. At this income, th
family could mq'ord to purchase a home costing no more than $135,120.
\
Table V-2
Affordable Housing for Various Income Segments
1999 Housing Process Income Requirements _Typical Occupations with Required Earning Power
,in King County for this Housing Type
.$145,000 Median $47,750 Income Required I full time ($31,800) and 1 half-time public school teacher ($16,000) or 1 full-
Priced Condo after 5% down time university professor or 1 full-time heavy construction worker
$174~000. Home $57,290 Income Required .1 full-time senior police officer or i full-time corrections officer ($39,000) and
after 5% down .1 full-time social worker ($18,400)
$230,000 Median $71,740 Income Required I full-time insurance broker ($47,500) '.~md 1 full-time clothing store employee
Priced Home after 10% down {$23,700) or I full-time aerospace engineer, computer programme, r, or
educational administrator ($70,000-$74,000)
$277,000 Average $86,400 Income Required ~1 full-time assistant bank manager ($43,000) and I full-time public health
Priced Home after 10% down ~nurse ($43,500) or 1 full-time firefighter ($55,000) and I full-time bookkeeper
or dental assistant .{.$31,000)
.$732 per month $29,280 income required I full-time entry-level bus driver ($29,000) or 1 full-time administrative
average rent for.a 2 assistant ($29,0,00) or I full-time grocery clerk ($22,000) and ! part-time child
.bedroom/l bath Unit care worker ($9,000)
~ouree:
Thc October 1999 Jnnual,(ffordable Housing Bulletin published by thc King County Office of Regional Policy and Planning
Note:
~alaries arc estimated based on averages for entry to mid-career careers, unless otherwise specified.
Revised 2000 V-6
OCT~
4--00
Norlan Corporation
Federal Way. WA 98003
Real Estate Services
(206) 92%1902
10~04/O0
Kathy McClung
Community Dcv¢lopmcnt Director
City of Federal Way
33530 !~ Way $.
Federal Way. WA 98003
Ms McClung,
I am unable to attend the October 4, meeting regarding cluster std)divis~ons, and request that this letter be
put in the public record. I am not involved in resldential development, but l do have some concerns over
any diminishing of the ability to do clustering of residential units in Federal Way where site conditions
warfare it.
We are at a point in time where most of the readily developable ,'esidc,dtd land has been utilized and much
of what remains has constraints. Due to tl~e recent and ongoing developmem of' large amounts of'office
space in East Campus, there is an increased demand for housing, I'or thc employees of the businesses tl~at
are filling up that space. This includes many average families who warn m live close to where thcy work.
We nc-cd to include provisions in our zoning codes that allow housing Ia be atibrdable for a broad
spectrum of people. The term "affordable housing" in Pugel S~mnd , includes housing which requires
incomes of $35 - $60,000 per year.
of low income housin8 and increa.sed social prqblems. Thc realltv is ~l~at many of these constrained sites
are expensive to build on~ and clustering will make them feasible t<) build on .- not chcap, i respectfully
request the Planning Commision to consider these factors as pan of their decision making process.
Rob l~ueber ~~
Norlan Corporation
Commercial Real Estate Se~wices
10/04/00 WED 10:22 [TX/I~ NO 63891
P^GE..O_O
FEDERAL NAY CITY COUNCIL
Ee: Cluster Development
near 6th Ave. S.W.
We bought our five acers in 1947 on Taylor Rd. (6th Ave.) a
dead end road off of Libo Rd. (356th). We moved here from
5~ilton where we lived between two busy streets. Our boys
were in grade school at that time, and we wanted a.place for
them to grow up in. 5~y husband built our house with used
materials that was all we could get at that time. We set
our house about 300 ft. from the road and platted fruit trees
in the front. Soon a young couple moved into the five acers
to th~ south of us and another family built on the acerage to
the north . Aome time later a new family bought and built
on the five acres accross the street. All wanted ~he~quiet
/'~ and peace to bring up a family. When our boys were
grown gnd graduated from Federal Way High, and graduated from
the UW and Bellin~ham, we built a smaller house for the two
of us and had the acerage divided. There are now three
houses on the acerage that we all enjoy. From our back
deck we have cedar, fir ,hemlock., madrona, alder dogwood,
birch(we planted) cascara, mountain ash, and many shrubs.
WE pick wild blackberries and red huckelberries. We like ~he
wooded area.in the back. It|s a way of life we enjoy. There
are no crowed cluster homes in the area. Children ride their
bikes on the street, families jog, roller bl;ade , walk
their dogs, and enjoy ourd way of life. Building cluster
homes in the area would change all that. Traffic would be a
problem, low cost homes would bring in people we would not
want to cope with. Please concider our wishes and out, way of
life. We would like to spend our late years in peace and
harmony with our neighbors.
Acouple of eighty.~year olders,
Leonard and Harriet Hills
H. C. I~lills
36404 61h Ave. SW
Federal Way, WA 98023-7217
riends o£ the yleb°s' Wefland
PO Box 24971, Federal Way, WA 98093
September 20, 2000
Board of Directors
Jim Cron, President
Bill Morton, ¥1ce-l'residea{
Betty Cron, Secretary
Julie Braun& Treasurer
Bennett
Mark Freeland
Jim Hamilton
Legal ~
Eide & Vogel
Jim Harris
Senior Planner
City of Federal Way
33530 1~t Way S.
Federal Way, WA 98063-9718
Dear Mr. Harris:
The following represents the comments of the Friends of the Hylebos Wetlands
regarding the city's proposed cluster subdivision code amendments (00-104413-
00-SE). Friends of the Hylebos Wetlands is a nonprofit conservation
organization based in Federal Way, Washington and dedicated to the
conservation of the West Hylebos Wetlands and the preservation and restoration
of the Hylebos Creek Watershed.
The original ordinance was intended to enable landowners with onsite sensitive
areas to build to allowable density while protecting wetlands and sensitive areas
and adding to the open space available to local residents. While these are worthy
goals, we believe the ordinance and proposed amendments fail to satisfy all
three goals, l'~amely, wetlands and streams are left vulnerable under the
proposed amendments.
Wetlands and streams are not isolated eCOsystems but parts of larger ecological
communities that extend beyond 50-foot, 100-foot, and even 200-foot buffers.
Many species that utilize wetlands also depend upon surrounding upland
environments for habitat and food and other life requirements. When
disconnected from the surrounding upland environments, these systems may
lose much of their biological function, even though buffers have protected their
physical area and stormwater controls have, at least partially, protected their
hydrology.
Amphibians are an excellent example. Most amphibian species use wetlands for
breeding and spawning (and juvenile rearing) during a brief period of the year.
During the rest of the year, though, they reside in surrounding upland forests.
Without the upland forest, the wetland become virtually useless to amphibians
(and to many other species, since amphibians are a cornerstone species in
wetland food webs). Simple wetland buffer areas are typically inadequate to
provide sufficient upland habitat for amphibians.
Whether a property contains a wetland or stream is developed as a cluster
subdivision or at a lower density, the aquatic environment suffers from the loss
of surrounding uplanck The duster subdivision code does not address this
biological fact However, it could, and in our opinion, should do so.
E×HIB,T
PAG .....
This is especially important, as several of the current cluster applications have occurred in the
area east of 21~t Ave. S. and south ofS. 356~. Wetlands in this area are implicated in the health
of the biologically rich Spring Valley area and the West Hylebos Creek and West Hylebos
Wetlands.
Currently, the 15 percent set-aside provision is directed to be utilized for useable open space.
The set-aside, however, represents a potential upland habitat resource for onsite wetlands or
streams.
If the set-aside is configured on a site to be connected with wetlands or streams, then it has the
added value of providing the necessary upland habitat that will help preserve the biological
integrity of sensitive areas as,sociated with cluster subdivisions.
In addition, the set-aside should be placed in the context of habitat on neighboring properties. In
particular, the ordinance should provide direction to attempt to preserve wildlife corridors that
maximize the ability of wildlife species to travel between wetland areas.
While this will place some limits on the type of human use allowable in the cluster set-asides, it
will enable the city to satisfy its goal of protecting ecologically important wetland resources.
We believe the city staff should revisit the proposed amendments to consider ways to incorporate
the need to preserve upland habitat in the cluster subdivision ordinance.
In addition, the staff report for the proposed amendments notes that the 20 percent road set aside
is typically not fully utilized for roads. We further recommend that staff study whether there are
additional opportunities to include unused area from the road set-aside for a habitat/open space
set-aside.
Friends of the Hylebos Wetlands welcomes the opportunity to engage city staff in further
discussion on this issue. I ma? be reached at 253-874-8270 if there are any questions about the
content of these comments.
Yours truly,
Chris Carrel
Executive Director
FRC,,?I ' PO~LL HOME ~UILDERS FI:IX NO. : 206-@24-9031~ $~-p. 18 2000 08:41l:~1 P2
P_O L- HOM_ES
EXHIBIT .....
PAGE.. OF
September 13, 2000
Ms. Kathy McClung
Planning Depamncnt
City of Federal Way
33530 l*tWay South
Federal Way; WA. 98003
R.e: Cluster Subdivisions
· Dear Ms. McCiung,
Unfortunately, I am unable to attend the September 20~ Planning Commission meeting.
However, i wanted to communicate some .of the ideas.we have, as a local developer that ·
has worked within the City of Federal Way for over thirty years·
Our COmpany has designed and created many different types of homes and ~ommunities.
The stated vision of our company is to '~create homes that 'are ct place of joy. love,
security, harmony, order, m~pport and shelter. Home is a place of respect for the
individual It is aplace ofrefi~ge, a safety net. ~' With that vision firmly in place we have
worked in many cities, and jurisdictions creating homes and communities for people.
For any city to be a viable place to live and WOrk it must have a diverse mix of housing
styles and price ranges. While it is human nature to want to only associate with people of
ones.perceived class, it is\a fact oflife'th~k there are all different types ofpe0ple in fliis
world and' all of them de'serVe.a place to live.
It is our.belief that the only way to create.a mix ofh0Using is by offering a variety of
zoning options so that developers'can build different types of housing. A city must have
what we would call "standard zoning", but they.must also have either a PUD ordinance
or something Similar to your "Cluster" ordinance. These ordinances allow developers
the flexibility to create housing types that meet different housing needs·
Having a mix. of housing.producL either 'through "Clu'ster or PUD" zoning does not cause
in.creased crime or decrease housing'v.al.!4es. In.f/~ct, it does quite the opposite. It has
been proven that planned developments actually increase property values and decrease
crime.
We would offer as an examPle Our 'project Huntington Park, located in Des Moines,
Washington. Huntit~gton Park. was.built under~ PUD ordinance. At the time of
development the surrounding'neighbors prote~te~l that our new homes would cause traffic
problems, higher ct:line, decreased property values etc. Today, twenty five years later,
22528 Mm'inc View D,'iv¢ South - P.O- Box 98309 * Des Moincs. Washin~on 98198 * (206) g24-6224 - FAX: (206) 824-5797
IK)WELIIB 121 K3 '
09/18/00 MON 06:37 [TX/RX NO 6176]
Pf~J~LL HO~ BUILDERS FP~ NO. : 20G-824-90~0 S~p. 18 ~00 08:41AM P~
EXHIBIT_ _
quite the opposite has been proven. Crime is lower than the surrounding area and
housing values are h!~gher. It might be beneficial for the council to see this project
I cared at South 24g Street and Marine V~ew Drive South in Des Moines.
Powell Homes believes that for any city to be economi~lly and socially successful it
must be diverse, To be diverse' it is imperative that the City provide for different types of
housing. By keeping and improving the Cluster Code the City of Federal Way can
accomplish this,
Thank you for your time and I look forward to seeing you at the next meeting.
President '
09/18/00 MON 08:37 [TX/RX NO 61761
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
VIA:
SUBJECT:
December 4, 2000
Phil Watkins, Chair
Land Use and Transportation Committee (LUTC)
Kathy McClung, Interim Director of Community Development Services
Margaret H. Clark, AICP, Senior Planner
Rick Sepler, Principal, Madrona Planning & Development Services
David M~nager
Planning Commission Recommendation - Crime Prevention Through Environmental
Design Code Amendments
I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
The 2000 Planning Commission Work Program included the task of incorporating Crime
Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) guidelines into Federal Way City Code
(FWCC) Chapter 22, in order to provide for a higher degree of public safety. To prevent duplication
and to promote consistency, the Planning Commission's recommendation is that the CPTED
principles be incorporated into the existing Community Design Guidelines (FWCC Article XIX)
(Exhibit A). This alternative proposes the inclusion of the key principles associated with CPTED
within the code.
CPTED principles would be implemented as part of the design and construction of a project. The
applicant would be required to demonstrate that the proposal conforms to the CPTED principles of
Natural Surveillance, Access Control, and Ownership by using a checklist prepared by the City or
responding in writing demonstrating how each key principle has been met (Exhibit B). The
Checklist will not be adopted as part of the Code, but will be used as a handout; therefore, it can be
changed in the future as the need arises.
In determining the best approach to implementing the CPTED principles and guidelines, the
Planning Commission reviewed three alternatives - Alternatives 1, 2, and 3. Due to their bulk, only
a summary of these alternatives is being included in the packet. However, copies are being
provided in their entirety in the City Council Conference Room, and upon request copies can be
provided to individual LUTC members)
J Two binders containing these three alternatives, labeled Exhibits C, D, and E are available in the Council
Conference Room.
The following alternative approaches to facilitating the CPTED process were reviewed by the
Planning Commission:
The proposed amendments have been prepared in a "line-in/line-out'' format, with ztrikeeutz
(proposed deletions) and underline (proposed additions) indicated.
Alternative 1 - (Exhibit C) This alternative was presented to the Planning Commission during their
October 18, 2000 public hearing. All of the principles, guidelines and development standards for
review were incorporated into the code.
Alternative 2 - (Exhibit D) This alternative was also presented to the Planning Commission during
their October 18, 2000 public hearing. This approach incorporated the more prescriptive portions
(can be enforced) of the development standards in the code and laid out those that were more of a
recommendation into a checklist.
Alternative 3 - (Exhibit E) This alternative was presented to the Planning Commission at the
November 15, 2000 continuation of the public hearing. This alternative acknowledges that for the
most part, CPTED standards are performance-based and as such are often difficult to integrate into
a prescriptive municipal code. Therefore, this alternative proposes the inclusion of the key
principles associated with CPTED within the code and the applicant would be required to
demonstrate that the proposal conforms to the CPTED principles either by using a checklist
prepared by the City or responding in writing demonstrating how each key principle has been met.
The checklist will not be adopted as part of the code, but will be used as a handout. This was the
preferred alternative of the Planning Commission. It is being forwarded to the LUTC for their
discussion and recommendation to the full Council as Exhibits A and B.
II. REASON FOR COUNCIL ACTION
FWCC Chapter 22, Article IX -- Process VI Review, establishes a process and criteria for FWCC
text amendments. Consistent with Process VI review, amendments to the FWCC text must be
approved by the City Council based on a recommendation from the Planning Commission.
III. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
As discussed below in Section IV-- Procedural Summary of this staff report and reflected in
Exhibits F and G- October 18 and November 15, 2000, Planning Commission Minutes, the
Planning Commission conducted public hearings on the proposed text amendments to the FWCC
regarding incorporation of CPTED guidelines. The Planning Commission received no written public
comments regarding the proposed amendments.
The Planning Commission considered the proposed FWCC text amendments in light of the
decisional criteria outlined below in Section V of this report. By a unanimous vote of the Planning
Commission (5-0), the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council adopt the Zoning
Code text amendments as amended by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission
City of Federal Way LUTC Report
Planning Commission Recommendation
Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design Code Amendments
December 4, 2000
Page 2
recommended draft, which identifies the proposed text amendments is attached as Exhibit A.
IV. PROCEDURAL SUMMARY
October 18, 2000
Planning Commission Public Hearing
November 15, 2000
Continuation of Planning Commission Public Hearing
December 4, 2000
LUTC Meeting
V. DECISIONAL CRITERIA
FWCC Section 22-528 provides criteria for zoning text amendments. The following section
analyzes the compliance of the proposed zoning text amendment regarding incorporation of CPTED
principles with the criteria provided by FWCC Section 22-528.
The City may amend the text of the FWCC only if it finds that:
1. The proposed amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive
plan;
The proposed FWCC text amendments regarding CPTED principles are consistent with, and
substantially implement, the following Comprehensive Plan goals and policies:
LUG1 Improve the appearance and function of the built environment.
LUP 4 Maximize efficiency of the development review process.
LUP 6 Conduct regular reviews of development regulations to determine how to
improve upon the development review process.
2. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relationship to public health, safety, or
welfare;
CPTED principles, design guidelines, and performance standards will be used during project
development review to identify and incorporate design features that reduce olSportunities for
criminal activity to occur. This will have a direct relationship to the public health, safety, and
welfare.
and
3. The proposed amendment is in the best interest of the residents of the city.
The proposed FWCC text amendment should result in reduced crime rates associated with
persons and property, which is in the best interests of the residents of the city.
City of Federal Way LUTC Report
Planning Commission Recommendation
Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design Code Amendments
December 4, 2000
Page 3
VI. COUNCIL ACTION
Pursuant to FWCC Section 22-541, after consideration of the Planning Commission report and, at
its discretion holding its own public hearing, the City Council shall by majority vote of its total
membership take the following action:
1. Approve the proposed Zoning Code text amendment by ordinance;
2. Modify and approve the proposed Zoning Code text amendment by ordinance;
3. Disapprove the proposed Zoning Code text amendment by resolution; or
Remand the proposed Zoning Code text amendment back to the Planning Commission for
further proceedings. If this occurs, the City Council shall specify the time within which the
Planning Commission shall report back to the City Council on the proposed Zoning Code text
amendment.
Exhibits
Exhibit A
Exhibit B
Exhibit C
Exhibit D
Exhibit E
Exhibit F
Exhibit G
Planning Commission's Recommendations to Incorporate CPTED Principles into Article
XIX -- Community Design Guidelines
Crime Prevention through Environmental (CPTED) Checklist
October 18, 2000 Staff Report to the Planning Commission, which includes Alternative 1
(Not included as an attachment/Can be found in binder in Council Conference Room)
Alternative 2 CPTED Amendments (Not included as an attachment/Can be found in
binder in Council Conference Room)
November 15, 2000 Staff Report to the Planning Commission, which includes Alternative
3 (Not included as an attachment/Can be found in binder in Council Conference Room)
Minutes of the October 18, 2000 Planning Commission Meeting
Minutes of the November 15, 2000 Planning Commission Meeting
152000 Code Amendments\CPTED\120400 Report to LUTC.doc/I 1/28/00 3:38 PM
City of Federal Way LUTC Report
Planning Commission Recommendation
Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design Code Amendments
December 4, 2000
Page 4
ARTICLE XIX. COMMUNITY DESIGN GUIDELINES
Sec. 22-1630. Purpose.
The purpose of this article is to:
(a) Implement Community Design Guidelines by:
Adopting design guidelines in accordance with land use and development
policies established in the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan and in accordance
with Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) Guidelines.
Requiroing minimum standards for design review to maintain and protect
property values and enhance the general appearance of the city.
(3)
Increasoin__g flexibility and encouragoing creativity in building and site design,
while assuring quality development pursuant to the comprehensive plan and the
purpose of this article.
(4)
Achievoing predictability in design review, balanced with administrative
flexibility to consider the individual merits of proposals.
(5)
Improveing and expanding pedestrian circulation, public open space, and
pedestrian amenities in the city.
(b) Implement Crime Prevention through Environmental Guidelines (CPTED) principles by:
(1)
Requiring minimum standards for design review to reduce the rate of crime
associated with persons and property., thus providing for the highest standards of
public safeW.
(2)
CPTED design principles are functionally grouped into the following three
categories:
ao
Natural Surveillance. This focuses on strategies to design the built
environment in a manner that promotes visibility of public spaces and
areas.
Access Control This category focuses on the techniques that prevent
and/or deter unauthorized and/or inappropriate access.
Co
Ownership. This catego .ry focuses on strategies to reduce the perception
of areas as "ownerless" and, therefore, available for undesirable uses.
(3)
CPTED principles, design guidelines, and performance standards will be used
during proiect development review to identify and incorporate design features
that reduce opportunities for criminal activity to occur. The effectiveness of
CPTED is based on the fact that criminals make rational choices about their
targets. In general:
Page
The greater the risk of being seen, challenged, or caught; the less likely
they are to commit a crime.
b. The greater the effort required, the less likely they are to commit a crime.
The lesser the actual or perceived rewards, the less likely they are to
commit a crime.
(4)
Through the use of CPTED principles, the built environment can be designed and
managed to ensure:
a. There is more chance of being seen, challenged, or caught.
b. Greater effort is required.
c. The actual or perceived rewards are less; and
d. Opportunities for criminal activity are minimized.
(Ord. No. 96-271, § 3, 7-2-96; Ord. No. 99-333, § 3, 1-19-99)
Sec. 22-1631. Administration.
Applications subject to community design guidelines and Crime Prevention through
Environmental Design (CPTED) shall be processed as a component of the governing land use process,
and the director of community development services shall have the authority to approve, modify, or deny
proposals under that process. Decisions under this article will consider proposals on the basis of
individual merit and will encourage creative design alternatives in order to achieve the stated purpose and
objectives of this article. Decisions under this article are appealable using the appeal procedures of the
applicable land use process.
(Ord. No. 96-271, § 3, 7-2-96; Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1-97; Ord. No. 99-333, § 3, 1-19-99)
Sec. 22-1632. Applicability.
This article shall apply to all commercial, office, and industrial development applications in
commercial zones subject to FWCC 22, Zoning, which were submitted for review after July 1, 1996, and
shall apply to cemmerc'~a! and ;.nsfitufiena! uses in residenfia! zenes any non-single family residential
development application in any zone, residential uses ;.n cemmercia! zenes and mu!fifami!y uses which
were was submitted after January 25, 1999. CPTED guidelines and performance standards shall also
apply to all previously described applications above, including community facilities and public parks
submitted after the effective date of these amendments (Date to be filled in). CPTED guidelines and
performance standards shall not apply to proiects that have received preapplication review prior to the
effective date of the amendments. Proiect proponents shall demonstrate how each CPTED design
principle is met by the proposal, or why it is not relevant by either a written explanation or by responding
to a checklist prepared by the city. Subject applications for remodeling or expansion of existing
developments shall meet only those provisions of this article that are determined by the director to be
reasonably related and applicable to the area of expansion or remodeling. This article in no way should be
construed to supersede or modify any other city codes, ordinances, or policies that apply to the proposal.
(Ord. No. 96-271, § 3, 7-2-96; Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1-97; Ord. No. 99-333, § 3, 1-19-99)
Page 2
Sec. 22-1633. Definitions.
(1)
Active Use(s) means uses that by their very nature generate activity, and thus
opportunities for natural surveillance, such as picnic areas, extracurricular school
activities, exercise groups, etc.
Arcade: A linear pedestrian walkway that abuts and runs along the facade of a
building. It is covered, but not enclosed, and open at ali times to public use. Typically,
it has a line of columns along its open side. There may be habitable space above the
arcade.
Awning: A rooflike cover that is temporary or portable in nature and that projects from
the wall of a building for the purpose of shielding a doorway or window from the
elements.
Canopy: A permanent, cantilevered extension of a building that typically projects over
a pedestrian walkway abutting and running along the facade of a building, with no
habitable space above the canopy. A canopy roof is comprised of rigid materials.
Common/Open Space Area means area within a development, which is used primarily
by the occupants of that development, such as an ent .ryway, lobby, courtyard, outside
dining areas, etc.
Natural Surveillance means easy observation of buildings, spaces, and activities by
people passing or living/working/recreating nearby.
Parking structure: A building or structure consisting of more than one level, above
and/or below ground, and used for temporary storage of motor vehicles.
Plaza: A pedestrian space that is available for public use and is situated near a main
entrance to a building or is clearly visible and accessible from the adjacent right-of-
way. Typical features include special paving, landscaping, lighting, seating areas,
water features, and art.
Public on-site open space: A space that is accessible to the public at all times,
predominantly open above, and designed specifically for use by the general public as
opposed to serving merely as a setting for the building.
(-7-)(l 0)
Right-of-way: Land owned, dedicated or conveyed to the public, used primarily for the
movement of vehicles, wheelchair and pedestrian traffic, and land privately owned,
used primarily for the movement of vehicles, wheelchair and pedestrian traffic; so
long as such privately owned land has been constructed in compliance with all
applicable laws and standards for a public right-of-way.
(11) Sight line means the line of vision from a person to a place or building.
(-8-)(12)
Streetscape: A term in urban design that defines and describes the character and
quality of a street by the amount and type of features and furnishings abutting it. Such
features and furnishings may include trees and other landscaping, benches, lighting,
trash receptacles, bollards, curbing, walls, different paving types, signage, kiosks,
trellises, art objects, bus stops, and typical utility equipment and appurtenances.
Page 3 ' f '
Surface parking lot: An off-street, ground level open area, usually improved, for the
temporary storage of motor vehicles.
Transparent glass: Windows that are transparent enough to permit the view of
activities within a building from nearby streets, sidewalks and public spaces. Tinting
or some coloration is permitted, provided a reasonable level of visibility is achieved.
Reflective or very dark tinted glass does not accomplish this objective.
(Ord. No. 96-271, § 3, 7-2-96; Ord. No. 99-333, § 3, 1-19-99)
Sec. 22-1634. Site design: all zoning districts.
(a) General criteria:
Natural amenities such as views, significant or unique trees, creeks, riparian corridors,
and similar features unique to the site should be incorporated into the design.
(2)
Pedestrian areas and amenities should be incorporated in the overall site design.
Pedestrian areas include but are not limited to outdoor plazas, arcades, courtyards,
seating areas, and amphitheaters. Pedestrian amenities include but are not limited to
outdoor benches, tables and other furniture, balconies, gazebos, transparent glass at
the ground floor, and landscaping.
(3)
Pedestrian areas should be easily seen, accessible, and located to take advantage of
surrounding features such as building entrances, open spaces, significant landscaping,
unique topography or architecture, and solar exposure.
(4)
Project designers shall strive for overall design continuity by using similar elements
throughout the project such as architectural style and features, materials, colors, and
textures.
(5)
Place physical features, activities, and people in visible locations to maximize the
ability to be seen, and therefore, discourage crime. For example, place cafes and food
kiosks in parks to increase natural surveillance by park users, and place laundry
facilities near play equipment in multiple family residential development. Avoid
barriers, such as tall or overgrown landscaping or outbuildings, where they make it
difficult to observe activity.
(6)
Provide access control by utilizing physical barriers such as bollards, fences,
doorways, etc., or by security hardware such as locks, chains, and alarms. Where
appropriate, utilize security guards. All of these methods result in increased effort to
commit a crime, and therefore, reduce the potential for it to happen.
(7)
Design buildings and utilize site design that reflects ownership. For example, fences,
paving, art, signs, good maintenance, and landscaping are some physical ways to
express ownership. Identifying intruders is much easier in a well-defined space. An
area that looks protected gives the impression that greater effort is required to commit
a crime. A cared for environment can also reduce fear of crime. Areas that are run
down and the subject of graffiti and vandalism are generally more intimidating than
areas that do not display such characteristics.
Page 4
(b) Surface parking lots:
(1)
Site and landscape design for parking lots are subject to the requirements of FWCC
Article XVII.
(2)
Vehicle turning movements shall be minimized. Parking aisles without loop access are
discouraged. Parking and vehicle circulation areas shall be clearly delineated using
directional signage.
(3)
Driveways shall be located to be visible from the right-of-way but not impede pedestrian
circulation on-site or to adjoining properties. Driveways should be shared with adjacent
properties to minimize the number of driveways and curb cuts.
(4)
Multi-tenant developments with large surface parking lots adjacent to a right-of-way are
encouraged to incorporate retail pads against the right-of-way to help break up the large
areas of pavement.
(5) See Section 22-1638 for supplemental guidelines.
(c) Parking structures (includes parkingfloors located within commercial buildings):
(1)
The bulk (or mass) of a parking structure as seen from the right-of-way should be
minimized by placing its short dimension along the street edge. The parking structure
should include active uses such as retail, offices or other commercial uses at the ground
level and/or along the street frontage.
(2)
Parking structures which are part of new development shall be architecturally consistent
with exterior architectural elements of the primary structure, including roof lines, facade
design, and finish materials.
(3)
Parking structures should incorporate methods of articulation and accessory elements,
pursuant to Section 22-1635(c)(2), on facades located above ground level.
(4)
Buildings built over parking should not appear to "float" over the parking area, but
should be linked with ground level uses or screening. Parking at grade under a building is
discouraged unless the parking area is completely enclosed within the building or wholly
screened with walls and/or landscaped berms.
(5)
Top deck lighting on multi-level parking structures shall be architecturally integrated
with the building, and screened to control impacts to off-site uses. Exposed fluorescent
light fixtures are not permitted.
(6)
Parking structures and vehicle entrances should be designed to minimize views into the
garage interior from surrounding streets. Methods to help minimize such views may
include, but are not limited to landscaping, planters, and decorative grilles and screens.
(7)
Security grilles for parking structures shall be architecturally consistent with and
integrated with the overall design. Chain link fencing is not permitted for garage security
fencing.
(d)
(e)
(f)
(8) See Section 22-1638(c)(4) for supplemental guidelines.
Pedestrian circulation and public spaces:
(1)
Primary entrances to buildings should be clearly visible or recognizable from the right-of-
way. Pedestrian pathways from rights-of-way and bus stops to primary entrances, from
parking lots to primary entrances, and pedestrian areas, shall be accessible and should be
clearly delineated.
(2)
Pedestrian pathways and pedestrian areas should be delineated by separate paved routes
using a variation in paved texture and color, and protected from abutting vehicle
circulation areas with landscaping. Approved methods of delineation include: stone, brick
or granite pavers; exposed aggregate; or stamped and colored concrete. Paint striping on
asphalt as a method of delineation is not encouraged.
(3)
Pedestrian connections should be provided between properties to establish pedestrian
links to adjacent buildings, parking, pedestrian areas and public rights-of-way.
(4) Bicycle racks should be provided for all commercial, developments.
(5)
Outdoor furniture, fixtures, and streetscape elements, such as lighting, free standing
signs, trellises, arbors, raised planters, benches and other forms of seating, trash
receptacles, bus stops, phone booths, fencing, etc., should be incorporated into the site
design.
(6) See Section 22-1638for supplemental guidelines.
Landscaping: Refer to FWCC Article XVII for specific landscaping requirements and for
definitions of landscaping types referenced throughout this article.
Commercial service and institutional facilities: Refer to FWCC Section 22-949 and Section 22-
1564 for requirements related to garbage and recycling receptacles, placement and screening.
(1)
Commercial services relating to loading, storage, trash and recycling should be located in
such a manner as to optimize public circulation and minimize visibility into such
facilities.
Service yards shall comply with the following:
Service yards and loading areas shall be designed and located for easy access by
service vehicles and tenants and shall not displace required landscaping, impede
other site uses, or create a nuisance for adjacent property owners.
bo
Trash and recycling receptacles shall include covers to prevent odor and wind
blown litter.
Co
Service yard walls, enclosures, and similar accessory site elements shall be
consistent with the primary building(s) relative to architecture, materials and
colors.
Page 6
Chain link fencing shall not be used where visible from public streets, on-site
major drive aisles, adjacent residential uses, or pedestrian areas. Barbed or razor
wire shall not be used.
(2) Site utilities shall comply with the following:
Building utility equipment such as electrical panels and junction boxes should be
located in an interior utility room.
Site utilities including transformers, fire standpipes and engineered retention
ponds (except biofiltration swales) should not be the dominant element of the
front landscape area. When these must be located in a front yard, they shall be
either undergrounded or screened by walls and/or Type I landscaping, and shall
not obstruct views of tenant common spaces, public open spaces, monument
signs, and/or driveways.
(g) Miscellaneous site elements:
(1) Lighting shall comply with the following:
Lighting levels shall not spill onto adjacent properties pursuant to FWCC Section
22-954(c).
bo
Lighting shall be provided in all loading, storage, and circulation areas, but shall
incorporate cut-off shields to prevent off-site glare.
Light standards shall not reduce the amount of landscaping required for the
project by FWCC Article XVII, Landscaping.
(2)
Drive-through facilities such as banks, cleaners, fast food, drug stores and service
stations, etc., shall comply with the following:
Drive-through windows and stacking lanes are not encouraged along facades of
buildings that face a right-of-way. If they are permitted in such a location, then
they shall be visually screened from such street by Type III landscaping and/or
architectural element, or combination thereof, provided such elements reflect the
primary building and provide appropriate screening.
The stacking lane shall be physically separated from the parking lot, sidewalk,
and pedestrian areas by Type III landscaping and/or architectural element, or
combination thereof, provided such elements reflect the primary building and
provide appropriate separation. Painted lanes are not sufficient.
c. Drive-through speakers shall not be audible off site.
d. A bypass/escape lane is recommended for all drive-through facilities.
e. See Section 22-1638(d) for supplemental guidelines.
(Ora. No. 96-271, § 3, 7-2-96; Ora. No. 99-333, § 3, 1-19-99) £XH! BIT~
PAGE_ _OF
Page ?
Sec. 22-1635. Building design: all zoning districts.
(a) General criteria:
(1)
Emphasize, rather than obscure, natural topography. Buildings should be designed to
"step up" or "step down" hillsides to accommodate significant changes in elevation,
unless this provision is precluded by other site elements such as stormwater design,
optimal traffic circulation; or the proposed function or use of the site.
(2)
Building siting or massing shall preserve public viewpoints as designated by the
Comprehensive Plan or other adopted plans or policies.
(3)
Materials and design features of fences and walls should reflect that of the primary
building(s).
(b)
Building facade modulation and screening options, defined: All building facades that are both
longer than 60 feet and are visible from either a right-of-way or residential use or zone shall
incorporate facade treatment according to this section. Subject facades shall incorporate at least
two of the four options described herein; except, however, facades that are solidly screened by
Type I landscaping, pursuant to Article XVII, Landscaping, may use facade modulation as the
sole option under this section. Options used under this section shall be incorporated along the
entire length of the facade, in any approved combination. Options used must meet the
dimensional standards as specified herein; except, however, if more than two are used,
dimensional requirements for each option will be determined on a case by case basis; provided
that the gross area of a pedestrian plaza may not be less than the specified minimum of 200
square feet. See Section 22-1638(c) for guidelines pertaining to City Center Core and City Center
Frame.
(1)
Facade modulation: Minimum depth: 2 feet; Minimum width: 6 feet; Maximum width:
60 feet. Alternative methods to shape a building such as angled or curved facade
elements, off-set planes, wing walls and terracing, will be considered, provided that the
intent of this section is met.
(2)
Landscape screening: 8 Eight foot wide Type II landscape screening along the base of
the facade, except Type IV may be used in place of Type II for facades that are
comprised of 50 percent or more window area, and around building entrance(s). For
building facades that are located adjacent to a property line, some or all of the underlying
buffer width required by Article XVII, Landscaping, may be considered in meeting the
landscape width requirement of this section.
(3)
Canopy or arcade: As a modulation option, canopies or arcades may be used only along
facades that are visible from a right-of-way. Minimum length: 50 percent of the length of
the facade using this option.
(4)
Pedestrian Plaza: Size of Plaza: Plaza square footage is equal to one percent of the gross
floor area of the building, but it must be a minimum of 200 square feet. The plaza should
be clearly visible and accessible from the adjacent right-of-way.
Page 8
(c) Building articulation and scale:
Building facades visible from rights-of-way and other public areas should incorporate
methods of articulation and accessory elements in the overall architectural design, as
described in paragraph (2) below.
(2)
Methods to articulate blank walls: Following is a non-exclusive list of methods to
articulate blank walls, pursuant to FWCC Article XVII Section 22-1564(u) and Section
22-1635(c)(1), above:
a. Showcase, display, recessed windows;
b. Vertical trellis(s) in front of the wall with climbing vines or similar planting;
Co
Set the wall back and provide a landscaped or raised planter bed in front of the
wall, with plant material that will obscure or screen the wall's surface;
do
Artwork such as mosaics, murals, decorative masonry or metal patterns or
grillwork, sculptures, relief, etc., over a substantial portion of the blank wall
surface. (The Federal Way Arts Commission may be used as an advisory body at
the discretion of the planning staff);
Architectural features such as setbacks, indentations, overhangs, projections,
articulated cornices, bays, reveals, canopies, and awnings;
Material variations such as colors, brick or metal banding, or textural changes;
and
Landscaped public plaza(s) with space for vendor carts, concerts and other
pedestrian activities.
(3) See Section 22-1638(c) for supplemental guidelines.
(Ord. No. 96-271, § 3, 7-2-96; Ord. No. 99-333, § 3, 1-19-99)
Sec. 22-1636. Building and pedestrian orientation: all zoning districts.
(a) Building and pedestrian orientation:
(1)
Buildings should generally be oriented to rights-of-way, as more particularly described in
Section 22-1638. Features such as entries, lobbies, and display windows, should be
oriented to the right-of-way; otherwise, screening or art features such as trellises,
artwork, murals, landscaping, or combinations thereof, should be incorporated into the
street-oriented facade (does not apply to residential zones).
(2)
Plazas, public open spaces and entries should be located at street comers to optimize
pedestrian access and use.
(3)
All buildings adjacent to the street should provide visual access from the street into
human services and activities within the building, if applicable.
Page9
(4)
Multiple buildings on the same site should incorporate public spaces (formal or
informal). These should be integrated by elements such as plazas, walkways, and
landscaping along pedestrian pathways, to provide a clear view to destinations, and to
create a unified, campus-like development.
(Ord. No. 96-271, § 3, 7-2-96; Ord. No. 99-333, § 3, 1-19-99)
Sec. 22-1637. Mixed Use residential buildings in commercial zoning districts.
(a)
Ground level facades of mixed-use buildings that front a public right-of-way shall meet the
following guidelines:
(1)
Retail, commercial, or office activities shall occupy at least 20 percent of the gross
ground floor, area of the building (unless exempt from this requirement by FWCC district
zoning regulations).
(2) If parking occupies the ground level, see Section 22-1634(c).
(3)
Landscaped gardens, courtyards, or enclosed terraces for private use by residents should
be designed with minimum exposure to the right-of-way.
(Ord. No. 96-271, § 3, 7-2-96; Ord. No. 99-333, § 3, 1-19-99)
Sec. 22-1638. District guidelines.
In addition to the foregoing development guidelines, the following supplemental guidelines apply
to individual zoning districts:
(a) Professional Office (PO), Neighborhood Business (BN), and Community Business (BC):
(1)
Surface parking may be located behind the building, to the side(s) of the building, or
adjacent to the right-of-way; provided, however, that parking located adjacent to the
right-of-way maximizes pedestrian access and circulation pursuant to Section 22-
1634(d).
(2)
Entrance facades shall front on, face, or be clearly recognizable from the right-of-way;
and should incorporate windows and other methods of articulation.
(3)
Ground-level mirrored or reflective glass is not encouraged adjacent to a public right-
of-way or pedestrian area.
(4)
If utilized, chain-link fences abutting public rights-of-way shall utilize vinyl-coated
mesh and powder-coated poles.
For residential uses only:
(4-) 5_(~ Significant trees shall be retained within a 20-foot perimeter strip around site.
Landscaped yards shall be provided between building(s) and public street(s). Parking
lots should be beside or behind buildings that front upon streets.
(b)
(4)(7)
Parking lots should be broken up into rows containing no more than ten adjacent
stalls, separated by planting areas.
Pedestrian walkways (min. 6 feet wide) shall be provided between the interior of the
project and the public sidewalk.
Lighting fixtures should not exceed 20 feet in height and shall include cutoff shields.
This shall not apply to public parks and school stadiums.
(-9-)0o)
Principal entries to buildings shall be highlighted with plaza or garden areas
containing planting, lighting, seating, trellises and other features. Such areas shall be
located and designed so windows overlook them.
(!0)(! 1) Common recreational spaces shall be located and arranged so that windows overlook
them.
(! !)(.!2) Units on the ground floor (when permitted) shall have private outdoor spaces adjacent
to them so those exterior portions of the site are controlled by individual households.
All new buildings, including accessory buildings, such as carports and garages shall
appear to have a roof pitch ranging from at least 4:12 to a maximum of 12:12.
(!3)(14) Carports and garages in front yards should be discouraged.
The longest dimension of any building facade shall not exceed 120 feet. Buildings on
the same site may be connected by covered pedestrian walkways.
(!5)(16)
Buildings should be designed to have a distinct "base", "middle" and "top" The base
(typically the first floor) should contain the greatest number of architectural elements
such as windows, materials, details, overhangs, cornice lines, and masonry belt
courses. The midsection by comparison may be simple. (Note: single-story buildings
have no middle.) The top should avoid the appearance of a flat roof and include
distinctive roof shapes including but not limited to pitched, vaulted or terraced, etc.
Residential design features, including but not limited to entry porches, projecting
window bays, balconies or decks, individual windows (rather than strip windows),
offsets and cascading or stepped roof forms shall be incorporated into all buildings.
Window openings shall have visible trim material or painted detailing that resembles
trim.
Office Park (OP), Corporate Park (CP), and Business Park (BP):
(1)
Surface parking may be located behind the building, to the side(s) of the building, or
adjacent to the right-of-way; provided, however, that parking located adjacent to the
right-of-way maximizes pedestrian access and circulation pursuant to Section 22-1634(d).
(2)
Buildings with ground floor retail sales or services should orient major entrances, display
windows and other pedestrian features to the right-of-way to the extent possible.
(3)
Ground-level mirrored or reflective glass is not encouraged adjacent to a public right-of-
way or pedestrian area.
Page :1. :1.
(c)
(4)
If utilized, chain-link fences abutting public rights-of-way shall utilize vinyl-coated mesh
and powder-coated poles.
For non-single family residential uses only:
(-4-) 5~ Subsections 22-1638(a)(4)--(16) shall apply.
City Center Core (CC-C) and City Center Frame (CC-F):
(1)
The City Center Core and Frame will contain transitional forms of development with
surface parking areas. However, as new development or re-development occurs, the
visual dominance of surface parking areas shall be reduced. Therefore, surface parking
areas shall be located as follows:
ao
The parking is located behind the building, with the building located between the
right-of-way and the parking areas, or it is located in structured parking; or
b. All or some of the parking is located to the side(s) of the building; or
Some short-term parking may be located between the building(s) and the right-
of-way, but this shall not consist of more than one double-loaded drive aisle, and
pedestrian circulation shall be provided pursuant to Section 22-1634(d).
Large retail complexes may not be able to locate parking according to the above
guidelines. Therefore, retail complexes of 60,000 square feet of gross floor area
or larger may locate surface parking between the building(s) and the right-of-
way. However, this form of development shall provide for small building(s)
along the right-of-way to break up and reduce the visual impact of the parking,
and pedestrian circulation must be provided pursuant to Section 22-1634(d). For
purposes of this guideline, retail complex means the entire lot or parcel, or series
of lots or parcels, on which a development, activity or use is located or will
locate.
(2)
Entrance facades shall front on, face, or be clearly recognizable from the right-of-way;
and should incorporate windows and other methods of articulation.
(3)
Building facades that are visible from a right-of-way and subject to modulation per
Section 22-1635(b), shall incorporate facade treatment as follows:
ao
The facade incorporates modulation and/or a landscape screening, pursuant to
Section 22-1635(b); and
bo
The facade incorporates an arcade, canopy or plaza; and/or one or more
articulation element listed in Section 22-1635(c)(2); provided that the resulting
building characteristics achieve visual interest and appeal at a pedestrian scale
and proximity, contribute to a sense of public space, and reinforce the pedestrian
experience.
(4)
Drive-through facilities and stacking lanes shall not be located along a facade of a
building that faces a right-of-way.
Page 3.2
(d)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
Above grade parking structures with a ground level facade visible from a right-of-way
shall incorporate any combination of the following elements at the ground level:
a. Retail, commercial, or office uses that occupy at least 50 percent of the building's
lineal frontage along the right-of-way; or
b. A 15-foot wide strip of Type III landscaping along the base of the facade; or
c. A decorative grille or screen that conceals interior parking areas from the right-
of-way.
Facades of parking structures shall be articulated above the ground level pursuant to
Section 22-1635 (c)(1).
When curtain wall glass and steel systems are used to enclose a building, the glazing
panels shall be transparent on 50 percent of the ground floor facade fronting a right-of-
way or pedestrian area.
Chain-link fences shall not be allowed. Barbed or razor wire shall not be used.
For non-single family residential uses only:
Subsections 22-1638(a)(4)--(16) shall apply.
For all residential zones:
(1)
(2)
Commercial and .n ............ Non-residential uses: Subsections 22-1638(a)(4)--(9) and
(12)--(16) shall apply.
~,a,,mc~,;h,..............., Non-single family, residential uses: Subsections 22-1638(a)(4)--(16) shall
apply.
(Ord. No. 96-271, § 3, 7-2-96; Ord. No. 99-333, § 3, 1-19-99)
Sec. 22-1639. Design criteria for public on-site open space.
The following guidelines apply to public on-site open space that is developed pursuant to the
height bonus program established in FWCC Article XI, Division 8.
Open space developed under this section should be located so that it:
(1)
Abuts a public right-of-way, or alternatively, is visible and accessible from a
public right-of-way;
Is bordered on at least one side by, or is readily accessible from, structure(s) with
entries to retail or office uses; housing, civic/public uses, or another public open
space; and
Is situated for maximum exposure to sunlight.
Page ]. 3
(2)
Open space site design and configuration must meet a majority of the following
guidelines:
The gross area of the open space does not incorporate any other site elements
such as setbacks, landscaping, buffers, paving, or storm drainage facilities, that
would otherwise be incorporated into site design without exercising the open
space option;
The gross area of the open space encompasses at least 2.5 percent of the lot area,
up to a total aggregate square footage of 25,000 square feet.
Co
The open space area must be clearly visible and accessible from the adjacent
right-of-way;
d. The primary area is at least 25 feet in width;
A minimum of 15 percent of the total area of the open space is landscaped using
Type IV landscaping or other landscaping alternative; and
The open space may not be used for parking or loading of commercial vehicles.
Commercial vehicle loading areas abutting the open space must be screened by a
solid, site obscuring wall.
(Ord. No. 96-271, § 3, 7-2-96; Ord. No. 99-333, § 3, 1-19-99)
120400 Alt D from PC to LUTC/Last printed I 1/28/2000 07:55 AM
Page
EXHII !T
PAG L_J_ ":-
Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) Checklist
The following checklist has been prepared to provide guidance and assistance in regard to
the integration of CPTED principles into proposed project designs. The purpose of the
checklist is to assist a project proponent in identifying and incorporating design strategies
which implement the CPTED principles identified in Section 22-1630, Federal Way City
Code (FWCC).
CPTED principles, performance standards and strategies are used during project
development review to identify and incorporate design features, which reduce
opportunities for criminal activity to occur. The effectiveness of CPTED is based on the
fact that criminals make rational choices about their targets. In general:
(1)
(2)
(3)
The greater the risk of being seen, challenged or caught, the less likely they are to
commit a crime,
The greater the effort required, the less likely they are to commit a crime,
The lesser the actual or perceived rewards, the less likely they are to commit a
crime.
Through use of CPTED principles, the built environment can be designed and managed
to ensure:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
There is more chance of being seen, challenged or caught,
Greater effort is required,
The actual or perceived rewards are less, and
Opportunities for criminal activity are minimized.
CPTED Design Principles:
CPTED design principles are functionally grouped into three categories:
(1)
(2)
(3)
Natural Surveillance. This category focuses on strategies to design the built
environment in a manner which promotes visibility of public spaces and areas.
Access Control. This category focuses on the techniques that prevent and/or deter
unauthorized and/or inappropriate access.
Ownership. This category focuses on strategies to reduce the perception of areas
as "ownerless" and therefore available for undesi~:able uses.
How to use this Checklist:
This checklist has been prepared to assist in identifying appropriate strategies to
incorporate CPTED design principles into proposed projects in Federal Way. The
guidelines included in this checklist expand on the principles found in FWCC Section 22-
1630.
Page I
It is recommended that the principles be reviewed initially to identify the approaches
used to implement CPTED. Subsequent to this initial review, this checklist should be
reviewed to identify additional strategies, which may be applicable for a proposed
project. Not all strategies are applicable to all projects. In addition, the CPTED
principles may be addressed through strategies that are not listed.
Checklist Design:
The checklist has been organized in the following manner:
Functional Area
Specific design element
addressed by CPTED principles
Performance Standard of~
What is the desired outcome
applying CP TED principles to
this functional area ~
Strategy
Technique which can be used
to implement CPTED principles
Check Box ~
Indicate by checking this box if
this strategy has been used in the
proposed project
Strategy Write-in ~
This section can be used to write
in
a strategy which is not ~
specifically listed but is
employed in the project .
Process Applicability
Indicates when in the review
process the identified guideline
shouM be assessed
Section and ~t Functional Area Evaluation
Performance Performance Standard for Agency
Standard Use Only
Strategy
1 Ap~lieabie during Si~ Plan Review
O' Applicable during Building Pexmit Review
Sec~X'~ Natural Surv¢iUance
I 1.1 "~Blind Comers ~Conforms
L4void blind corners in pathways and parking lots. __Revise
JA
Comments:
~-. Pathways should be direct. All barriers along
pathways should be permeable (see through)
including landscaping, fencing etc. ·
Consider the installation of mirrors to allow users to
see ahead of them and around corners_,. O
Site Plan and Building Permit Review:
Certain guidelines and techniques are best applied during different points in the review
process. To assist in facilitating CPTED review, guidelines which are best considered
during site plan review are indicated with a "l" symbol. Guidelines which are most
appropriately applied during building permit review are indicated with a "O" symbol.
Page II
Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) Checklist
Directions:
Please fill out the attached checklist to indicate which strategies have been used to
implement CPTED principles in your proposed project. Please check all strategies which
are applicable to your project for each of the numbered guidelines. You may check more
than one strategy for each guideline.
Your responses will be evaluated by City Staff, and will be integrated into the Site Plan
and/or Building Permit review process.
Section and ~/ Functional Area 'Evaluation
Performance Performance Standard for'Agency
Standard 'Use Only
strategy .....
· Applicable during Site Plan Review
O Applicable during Building Permit Review
Section 1.0: Natural SUrveillanCe
1.1 Blind Corners .Conforms
Avoid blind corners in pathways and parking lots. ~i$~'
.Co~ents:
[--]Pathways should be direct. Ail barriers along
pathways should be permeable (see through) ...
including landscaping, fencing etc. · .. :.
[-] Consider the installation of mirrors to allow users to
see ahead of them and around corners. O
[--]Other strategy used: '" ."
Conform~
1.2 Site and building layout. __
Allow natural observation from the street to the use, Revise
from the use to the street, and between uses .__NA
CommentS:
For Non- [] Orient the main entrance towards the street or both
single Family streets on corners. ·
Development:
[-] Position habitable rooms with windows at the front
of the dwelling. ·
DRAF1~
Page l FTM ,~ ~-'-~Prepared~November O0
Section and x/ Functional Area Evaluation
Performance Performance Standard for Agency
Standard Use Only
Strategy
I Applicable during Site Plan Review
t~ Applicable during Building Permit Review
[__] Access to dwellings or other uses above
commercial/retail development should not be from
the rear of the building. []
[--] Offset windows, doorways and balconies to allow
for natural observation while protecting privacy. []
For [] Locate main entrances / exits at the front of the site
Commercial / and in view of the street. []
Retail /
Industrial and
Community
Facilities:
[~1 If employee entrances must be separated from the
main entrance, they should maximize opportunities
for natural surveillance from the street. []
[--] In industrial developments, administration / offices
should be located at the front of the building. []
For Surface ~ Avoid large expanses of parking. Where large
Parking and expanses of parking are proposed, provide
Parkin~ surveillance such as security cameras. []
Structures:
[--] Access to elevators, stairwells and pedestrian
parkingpathwaySarea.Sh°uld[] be clearly visible from an adjacent
[-] Avoid hidden recesses. []
[--] Locate parking areas in locations that can be
observed by adjoining uses. []
For Common / [-~ Open spaces shall be clearly designated and situated
at locations that are easily observed by people.
Open Space
Parks, plazas, common areas, and playgrounds
Areas: should be placed in the front of buildings. Shopping
centers and other similar uses should face streets. []
[] Other strategy used:
DRAFF CPTED Checklist
Bared: 17 November 2000
Section and x/ Functional Area Evaluation
Performance Performance Standard for Agency
Standard Use Only
Strategy
· Applicable during Site Plan Review
e Applicable during Building Permit Review
1.3 Common/Open Space Areas and Public On-Site Conforms
Open Space Revise
Provide natural surveillance for common/open NA
space areas. Comments:
[--] Position active uses or habitable rooms with
windows adjacent to main common/open space
areas, e.g. playgrounds, swimming pools, etc., and
public on-site open space. ·
[--1 Design and locate dumpster enclosures in a manner
which screens refuse containers but avoids providing
opportunities to hide. ·
l--] Locate waiting areas and external entries to
elevators/stairwells close to areas of active uses to
make them visible from the building entry, e
[] Locate seating in areas of active uses. ~
[--] Other strategy used:
1.4 Entrances .Conforms
Provide entries that are clearly visible. Revise
NA
~_~omments:
[--] Design entrances to allow users to see into them
before entering. ·
[--] Entrances should be clearly identified. (Applicable
during Cert!ficate o_f Occupancv Inspection).
[~ Other strategy used:
DRAFT CPTED Checklist
~..t~h_3r~ r,~., , 8Prepared: 17 November 2000
Section and x/ Functional Area Evaluation
Performance Performance Standard for Agency
Standard Use Only
Strategy
· Applicable during Site Plan Review
e Applicable during Building Permit Review
1.5 Fencing Conforms
Fence design should maximize natural surveillance Revise
from the street to the building and from the building NA
to the street, and minimize opportunities for Comments:
intruders to hide.
[--[ Front fences should be predominantly open in
design, e.g. pickets or wrought iron, or low in
height. O
[-] Design high solid front fences in a manner that
incorporates open elements to allow visibility above
the height of five feet. O
[] If noise insulation is required, install double-glazing
at the front of the building rather than solid fences
higher than five feet. O
[] Other strategy used: : :
1.6 Landscaping __Conforms
Avoid landscaping which obstructs natural Revise
surveillance and allows intruders to hide. __NA
COmments:
[--]Trees with dense low growth foliage should be
spaced or their crown should be raised to avoid a
continuous barrier. ·
[--]Use low groundcover, shrubs a minimum of 24
inches in height, or high-canopied trees (clean
trimmed to a height of eight feet) around children's
play areas, parking areas and along pedestrian
pathways. ·
[~] Avoid vegetation that conceals the building entrance
from the street. ·
[-] Other strategy used:
DRAFT CPTED Checklist
.~ l~_.r~ n ~ ~,-- ~pared: 17 November 2000
Section and ~/ Functional Area Evaluation
performance Performance Standard for Agency
Standard Use Only
Strategy
· Applicable during Site Plan Review
e Applicable during Building Permit Review
1.7 Exterior' 'Lighting Conforms
Provide exterior lighting which enhances natural Revise
surveillance. (Refer to FWCC Section 22-1635(g)(1) NA
for specific lighting requirements.) C--omments:
[--] Prepare a lighting plan in accordance with
Illuminating Engineering Society of America
(IESA) Standards which addresses project lighting
in a comprehensive manner. Select a lighting
approach that is consistent with local conditions and
crime problems. ·
[--] Locate elevated light fixtures (poles, light standards,
etc.) in a coordinated manner that provides the
desired coverage. The useful ground coverage of an
elevated light fixture is roughly twice its height. ·
[--] For areas intended to be used at night, ensure that
lighting supports visibility. Where lighting is placed
at a lower height to support visibility for pedestrians,
ensure that it is vandal-resistant, e
~-1 Ensure inset or modulated spaces on a building
facade, access/egress routes, and signage are well lit.
[--] In areas used by pedestrians, ensure that lighting
shines on pedestrian pathways and possible
entrapment spaces. O
~] Place lighting to take into account vegetation, in its
current and mature form, as well as any other
element that may have the potential for blocking
light. O
[--] Avoid lighting of areas not intended for nighttime
use to avoid giving a false impression of use or
safety. If danger spots are usually vacant at night,
avoid lighting them and close them off to
pedestrians, o
1-'-1Select and light "safe routes" so that these become
the focus of legitimate pedestrian activity after dark.
DRAFT CPTED Checklist
[~a~'t'~ n" ~ ' ~ ~pared: 17 November 2000
Section and x/ Functional Area Evaluation
Performance Performance Standard for Agency
Standard Use Only
Strategy
· Applicable during Site Plan Review
(~ Applicable during Building Permit Review
[] Avoid climbing opportunities by locating light
standards and electrical equipment away from walls '
or low buildings. O
[-'-1Use photoelectric rather than time switches for
exterior lighting. {9
[--] In projects which will be used primarily by older
people (retirement homes, congregate care facilities,
senior and/or community centers, etc.) provide
higher levels of brightness in public/common areas.
~] Other strategy used:
1.8 Mix of Uses ~Conforms
In mixed use buildings increase opportunities for Revise
natural surveillance, while protecting privacy. NA
Comments:
[~] Locate shops and businesses on lower floors and
residences on upper floors. In this way, residents can
observe the businesses after hours while the
residences can be observed by the businesses during
business hours. ·
[~] Include food kiosks, restaurants, etc. within parks
and parking structures. ·
[--IOther strategy: used
1.9 Security Bars, Shutters, and Doors ' Conforms
When used and permitted by building and fire codes, _Revise
security bars, shutters, and doors should allow NA
observation of the street and be consistent with the ~omments:
architectural style of the building.
~] Security bars and security doors should be visually
permeable (see-through). {3
DRAFF CPTED Checklist
Page 6
Prepared: 17 November 2000
Section and ~/ Functional Area Evaluation
Performance Performance Standard for Agency
Standard Use Only
Strategy
· Applicable during Site Plan Review
e Applicable during Building Permit Review
[__] Other strategy used:
Section 2.0 Access Control
2.1 Building Identification . :Conforms
Ensure buildings are clearly identified by street _Revise
number to prevent unintended access and to assist _~NA
persons trying to find the building, comments:
1~ Street numbers should be plainly visible and legible
from the street or road fronting the property, e
[] In residential uses, each individual unit should be
clearly numbered. In multiple building complexes,
each building entry should clearly state the unit
numbers accessed from than entry. In addition, unit
numbers should be provided on each level or floor.
~] Street numbers should be made of durable materials,
preferably reflective or luminous, and unobstructed
(e.g. by foliage). ~
[~] For larger projects, provide location maps (fixed
plaque format) and directional signage at public
entry points and along internal public routes of
travel. ~
[~ Other strategy used:
2.2 Entrances Conforms
Avoid confusion in locating building entrances. --Revise
NA
Comments:
[--I Entrances should be easily recognizable through
design features and directional signage. ·
I~ Minimize the number of entry points. ·
DRAI~ CPTED Checklist
Prepared: 17 November 2000
Section and ~/ Functional Area Evaluation
Performance Performance Standard for Agency
Standard Usc Only
Strategy
· Applicable during Site Plan Review
(~ Applicable during Building Permit Review
[] Other strategy used:
2.3 Landscaping Conforms
Use vegetation as barriers to deter unauthorized Revise
access. NA
Comments:
[--]Consider using thomy plants as an effective barrier.
[--]Other strategy used:
2.4 Landscaping Location. [ Conforms
Avoid placement of vegetation that would enable ReVise
access to a building or to neighboring buildings. __NA
Comments:
[--] Avoid placement of large trees, garages, utility::
structures, fences, and gutters next to second story
windows or balconies that could provide a means of
access. ·
[] Other strategy used:
2.5 Security Conforms
Reduce opportunities for unauthorized access Revise
Comments:
I--IConsider the use of security hardware and/or human
measures to reduce opportunities for unauthorized
access. (Applicable during Certificate of Occupancy
Inspection).
[-] Other strategy used:
DRA[rF CPTED Checklist
Prepared: 17 November 2000
Section and 'x/ Functional Area Evaluation
Performance Performance Standard for Agency
Standard Use Only
Strategy
· Applicable during Site Plan Review
e Applicable during Building Permit Review
2.6 Signage Conforms
Insure that signage is clearly visible, easy to read ___Revise
and simple to understand. NA
C-~mments:
[-] Use strong colors, standard symbols and simple
graphics for informational signs, e
For Surface [] Upon entering the parking area provide both
Parking and pedestrians and drivers with a clear understanding of
Parking the direction to stairs, elevators and exits. ~
Structures:
[--] In multi-level parking areas use creative signage to
distinguish between floors to enable users to easily
locate their cars. O
[~ Advise users of security measures that are in place
and where to find them i.e. security phone or
intercom system. O
[] Provide signage in the parking area advising users to
lock their cars. ~
I~ Where exits are closed after hours, ensure this
information is indicated at the parking area entrance.
[] Other strategy used:
Section 3.0 Ownership
3.1 Maintenance Conforms
Create a "cared for" image Revise
Co~ents:
~-] Ensure that landscaping is well maintained, as per
Section 22-1569, in order to give an impression of
ownership, care, and security. (Ongoing).
[] Where possible design multi-unit residential uses
such that no more than six (6) to eight (8) units share
a common building entrance. ·
DRAIeI' CPTED Checklist
E~,tr ~_r~ ~ r"~age9 ~ Prepared: 17 November 2000
Section and ~/ Functional Area Evaluation
Performance Performance Standard for Agency
Standard ', Use Only
Strategy
· Applicable during Site Plan Review
e Applicable during Building Permit Review
[] Other strategy used:
3.2 Materials Conforms
Use materials, which reduce the opportunity for Revise
vandalism. NA
Comments:
l--] Consider using strong, wear resistant laminate,
impervious glazed ceramics, treated masonry
products, stainless steel materials, anti-graffiti
paints, and clear over sprays to reduce opportunities
for vandalism. Avoid flat or porous finishes in areas ·
where graffiti is likely to be a problem, e
[--]Where large walls are unavoidable, refer to Section
22-1564(u) regarding the use of vegetative screens.
[--]Common area and/or street furniture shall be made
of long wearing vandal resistant materials, and
secured by sturdy anchor points or removed after
hours. O
[-] Other strategy used: · '...:
DRAFT CPTED Checklist Page 10 Prepared: 17 November 2000
EXHIBIT C
October 18, 2000 Staff Report to the Planning Commission, which includes Alternative 1
(Can be found in binder in Council Conference Room)
EXHIBIT D
Alternative 2 CPTED Amendments
(Can be found in binder in Council Conference Room)
EXHIBIT E
November 15, 2000 Staff Report to the Planning Commission, which includes, Alternative 3
(Can be found in binder in Council Conference Room)
October 18,2000
7:00 p.m.
City of Federal Way
PLANN1NG COMMISSION
Regular Meeting
CityHall
Council Chambers
MEETING SUMMARY
Commissioners present: Robert Vaughan (Chair), l lope Elder, Eric Faison, Nesbia Lopes, and William
Drake. Colnmissioners absent: Karen Kirkpatrick and John Caulfield. Guests present: None. Staff
preseni: Community Development Services Deputy Director Kathy McClung, Interim City Attorney Bob
Sterbank, Senior Planner Margaret Clark, Consuhant Rick Sepler, Crime Prevention/Public Information
Officer Mark Harreus, and Administrative Assistaut E. Tina Piety.
Chair Vaughan called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
AI>PROVAL OF MINUTES
None.
AUDIENCE COMMENT
None.
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
Ms. McClung announced that this is Chairman Vaughan's last meeting after seven years of service. Ms.
McClung thanked him for his dedication and Chairman Vaughal~ thanked the staff and Commission for
their support and work.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
At 7:10 p.ln., Clmirman Vaughan announced that the Colnmission would recess to an Executive Session
to discuss potential litigation under RCW 42.30,110(1 )(i), for about 10 minutes. The meeting reconvened
al 7:20 p.m.
Public ltearing - Adult Retail Uses Code Amendments
The public hearing opened at 7:20 p.m. Ms. McChmg gave the staff presentation. When this code was
amended in 1999, the amendments did not include excluding noncontbrming residential uses from the
1,000-1bot restriction. The amendment changes that. The City is looking at noncontbrming residential
uses difl~renlly because they will not bo a long-standing usc: eventually they will become commercial.
Thc amendment claritScs current practice. There was no public testimony. It was m/s/apln'oved (no
nays) t~ accept the staff recommendation and lbrward it on lo thc l,and risc/Transportation Commitlce.
Thc public hearing was closed at 7:30 p.m.
Planning Commission Page 2 October 18, 2000
Public Hearing - Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) Code Amendments
The public hearing was opened at 7:30 p.m. Ms. Clark introduced Rick Sepler, Principal Planner, from
Madrona Planning & Development Services. Mr. Sepler gave the staff presentation. CPTED is a means
for communities to lower crime. It is used during the planning stage of a new development, usually as
part of design guidelines. There are three key concepts to CPTED: Natural Surveillance, Access Control,
and Ownership.
Many communities adopt performance-based standards, which are helpful, but not specific enough to be
prescriptive. The first staff report (Alternative A) is performance based and includes prescriptive
standards in the code. After further research, the staff developed Alternative B (handed out at the
meeting), which includes the principles in the code with the standards in a checklist. It is stafffs intent to
prepare a merger of the two styles to bring back to the Commission.
Officer Harreus commented that CPTED would produce a nice looking neighborhood. They would help
Police and Fire by requiring highly visible addresses. Currently, it is very difficult to locate some of the
addresses in this City. The Commission inquired if CPTED could be required of existing buildings? The
staff will research this issue. They asked Officer Harreus if there is a priority of CPTED design
principles. He replied that increased lighting is a high priority. Staff is considering adding a lighting plan.
The Commission likes the idea of a checklist. It would allow developers an easy way to check if they are
meeting the code. They also agree that address numbers on buildings need to be enlarged. They asked if
number 14, on page 17, conflicts with the recent cluster subdivision code amendments. Staff replied that
it appears to and they will research the issue. The Commission asked about allowing rustproof paint
instead of requiring only vinyl coating for chain link fences. Staff will research.
Discussion was held that these amendments are micro managing and could be cost prohibitive. Staff
replied that CPTED usually does not cost much more. They are not aesthetic in nature, but rather health
and safety issues. Officer Harreus commented that apartment complexes that meet CPTED statistically
have lower crime rates. The Commission suggested that the staff add data to back up their claims. Staff
suggested that codifying the data is not a good idea because it changes. They suggested adding it to the
checklist as background information.
It was m/s/approved (no nays) to continue the public hearing to November 15, 2000, at 7:00 p.m. in the
City Council Chambers.
ADDITIONAL BUSINESS
Currently, the City has received five applications for the Commission (deadline is October 20). Officer
Harreus announced that the City would be presenting a CPTED training school on October 26 and 27. In
addition, a Crime-Free Multi-Housing course will be offered December 12 and 13.
AUDIENCE COMMENT
None.
ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at 8:40 pJn.
K:\CD Admin Files~PLANCOlv~200OkMeeling Summary 10-18-O0.dodLast printed I 1/02/20~0 11:39 AM
EXHIBIT
PAGE_ __OF
November 15, 2000
7:00 p.m.
City of Federal Way
PLANNIN(; COMMISSION
Regular Meeting
MEETING SUMMARY
Commissioners present: Hope Elder, Eric Faison, Nesbia Lopes, John Caulfield, and Dave Osaki.
Commissioners absent: Karen Kirkpatrick and Bill Drake. Guests present: Bill May. Staff present: Senior
Planner Margaret Clark, Consultant Rick Sepler; Administrative Assistant Sandy Lyle.
Commissioner Caulfield was elected Temporary Chair and called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes from the September 20, 2000, October 4 & 18, 2000, meetings were approved as presented.
AUDIENCE COMMENT
Bill May asked the names of the new Commissioners. Bill Drake and Nesbia Lopes were reappointed.
Dave Osaki and Dini Duclos (alternate) are the new members.
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
Margaret Clark encouraged each Commissioner to attend the Land Use/Transportation Committee
meeting on Monday, Novemmber 20, 2000, at 5:30 pm in City Council Chambers. Included on the
agenda will be the Cluster Subdivision Code Amendments and the 2001 Planning Commission Work
Program
COMMISSION BUSINESS
The Commission elected Karen Kirkpatrick Chair. Vice-Chair is John Caulfield.
Public Hearing - Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) Code Amendments
The public hearing was opened at 7:30 p.m. Ms. Clark introduced Rick Sepler, Principal Planner, from
Madrona Planning & Development Services. Mr. Sepler continued the Public Hearing on Crime
Prevention through Environmental Design standards. He presented Alternative D, which acknowledges
that CPTED standards are performance-based and are often difficult to integrate into a prescriptive
municipal code. Alternative D proposes the inclusion of the key principles associated with CPTED
within the code. These principles would be implemented as part of the design and construction of a
project. The applicant would be required to demonstrate that the proposal conforms with the CPTED
principles either by using a checklist prepared by the City or responding in writing demonstrating how
each key principle has been met. The checklist will not be adopted as part of the code, but will be used
as a handout.
Chair Caulfield closed the Public Hearing at 7:45 pm. Commissioners discussed Alternative D.
Consensus was unanimous in favor of this version of the Code Amendment. They m/s/c
recommendation of approval of Alternative D. They especially liked the checklist idea as a tool to
implement the code. ~'~ ...... 6
t
Planning Commission Page 2 November 15, 2000
ADDITIONAL BusINEss
The pending sale of the Evergreen Truck Stop to the OPUS Group was discussed briefly. Ms. Clark
answered questions about the upcoming Planned Action SEPA, which, once complete, should streamline
the planning process in the City Center. She also mentioned the zoning process planned for the Potential
Annexation Areas (PAA). Commissioner Lopes suggested that a Federal Way 101 Course would be
helpful whereby the State of Washington comes in and teaches a short course in planning. Chair
Caulfield requested some special recognition be planned for Robert Vaughn, immediate past Planning
Commission Chair, for his many years of distinguished service to the Commission and the City.
AUDIENCE COMMENT
Bill May commented that it seems to him that there are a sufficient number of big-box grocery stores
existing in Federal Way and that he sees no need for more.
ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at 8:00 p.m.
K:\CD Admin Files~PLANCOM~000XMeeting Summary 1 I-I 5-00.doc./Last printed 11/27/00 1:34 PM