LUTC PKT 08-06-2012August 6, 2012
5:30 .m.
City of Federal Way
City Council
Land Use/Transportation Committee
City Hall
Council Chambers
MEETING AGENDA
Electronic
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. PUBLIC COMMENT (3 minutes)
3. COMMITTEE BUSINESS
Topic Title/Description
A. Approval of Minutes: ]uly 2, 2012
B. 21� Ave SW at SW 336"' St Intersection
Improvements — 85% Design Status Report
C. Code Amendment to FWRC regarding Residential
Open Space Standards in the City Center Core
and City Center Frame
D. Selection Process — 2012 Comprehensive Plan
Amendments
4. OTHER
Presenter Page
LeMaster 2
Roberts 6
Action
or Info
Action
Action
Shull 8 Action
Conlen 57 Action
Council
Date Time
N/A 5 min.
Sept. 4, 2012 5 min.
Consent
Sept. 4, 2012 10 min.
Ordinance
1� Reading
Sept. 4, 2012 10 min.
Ordinance
Public Hearing
5. FUTURE MEETINGS/AGENDA ITEMS:
The ne� September 3, 2012 LUTC meeting has been cancelled in observance of Labor Day and rescheduled
for Monday, September �oc, 2012 at 5:30 p.m. in City Hall Council Chambers.
6. AD]OURN
Committee Members City Staff
Bob Celski, Chair Cary M. Roe, P.E., Director of Parks, Public Works and Emergency Management
Jeanne Burbidge, Member Dar�ene LeMaster, Administrative Assistant II
Susan Honda, Member Z53-835-2701
G. I LUTCILUTCAgena�as and Summ�es 10I11B-06-2011 LUTCAr�enda.�c
July 2, 2012
5:30 PM
City of Federal Way
City Council
Land Use and Transportation Committee
City Hall
City Council Chambers
MEETING SUMMARY
Committee Members in Attendance: Committee Chair Bob Celski and Committee member Susan Honda; Committee
member Jeanne Burbidge was excused.
Councilmembers in Attendance: Councilmember Linda Kochmar
Staff in Attendance: Director of Pazks, Public Works and Emergency Management Cary Roe, Deputy Public Works
Director Marwan Salloum, City Traffic Engineer Rick Perez, Street Systems Project Engineer John Mulkey, Principal
Planner Margaret Clark, Planning Manager Isaac Conlen, Assistant City Attorney Peter Beckwith, and Administrative
Assistant II Darlene LeMaster.
1. CALL TO ORDER
Committee Chair Celski called the meeting to order at 5:32 PM.
2. PUBLIC COMMENT
There was no public comment.
3. BUSINESS ITEMS
Forward
Topic Title/Description to Council
A.
B.
Approval of the June 4, 2012 LUTC Minutes
Committee approved the June 4, 2012 LUTC minutes as presented.
Moved: Honda Seconded: Celski Passed: Unanimously, 2-0
N/A
S 344 Way at Weyerhaeuser Way S Intersection Improvements — 100% Design Status July 17, 201�
Report Consent
Street Systems Project Engineer John Mulkey presented information on this item. There was no
public comment.
Committee Member Honda asked what the objection was from Weyerhaeuser. Mr. Mulkey
explained that Weyerhaeuser's concern is that the project construction and acquisition of
property for right of way may negatively affect the Weyerhaeuser property sale. Status of the
Weyerhaeuser property sale as of this date is unknown.
Chair Celski asked about traffic collision history at the subject location. City Traffic Engineer
Perez reported that the subject intersecrion has not historically been a high collision intersection.
Mr. Perez explained that staff forecasted traffic for this location to include future development
and additional traffic volume, resulting in the subject intersection being over capacity with a
potential higher collision rate. This project is a proactive step to conect the overcapacity
Pa
Land Use/Transportation Committee Page 2 July 2, 2012
C.
D.
�
forecast. Chair Celski asked if the design for this project was done in-house or by a consultant.
Mr. Mulkey stated that design was done by a consultant.
Committee forwarded Option #1 as presented.
Moved: Honda Seconded: Celski Passed: Unanimously, 2-0
10 Ave SW at SW Campus Drive Intersection Improvements — 100% Design Status July 17, 201�
Report Consent
Street Systems Project Engineer John Mulkey presented information on this item. There was no
public comxnent.
Committee member Honda said she had pursued an all-way stop on SW 330 St at 6 Ave SW
between the Ridge and Campus Woods neighborhoods in the past. With the proposed project at
10 Ave SW and SW Campus Drive, Committee member Honda recommended staff re-evaluate
her request for this all—way stop. City Traffic Engineer Perez responded that a concurrency
analysis could be used to forecast the potenrial need for an all-way stop at SW 330 St at 6 Ave
SW when traffic volumes warrant it.
Chair Celski asked if the funds from the S 344`� St at Weyerhaeuser Way project could be
redirected to the 10`� Ave SW at SW Campus Dr. Project to help with funding. Deputy PW
Director Salloum stated the available funds from the Weyerhaeuser Way project will be
redirected to other projects in the 2013-2014 Budget process and to the most appropriate project
budgets. Chair Celski inquired about the likelihood of property acquisition for this project.
Deputy PW Director explained at this rime the property owners are not responsive because they
know that the City does not have the funds for project construction. Staff will wait until project
funding becomes available to re-approach the property owners and negotiate property
acquisition.
Committee forwarded Option #1 as presented.
Moved: Honda Seconded: Celski Passed: Unanimously, 2-0
Acceptance of Grant Funding for Transportation Improvement Projects
July 17, 201�
Consent
City Traffic Engineer Rick Perez presented information on this item. There was no public
comment or discussion.
Committee forwarded Option #1 as presented.
Moved: Honda Seconded: Celski
Selection Process — 2012 Code Amendments
Passed: Unanimously, 2-0
Principal Planner Margaret Clark presented information on this item. There was no public
comment. Because of a missed publishing deadline and the public notice requirement for the
public hearing process, this item may not be able to go to Council until the first meeting in
September 2012.
Chair Celski invited a member of the project team to address the committee. The property
owner spoke on behalf of Ron Mitchell (Safety Senior) regarding the proposed zoning to allow
senior housing in the Professional Office (PO) zone. The property owner encourages the City to
become a hub for retired residents and presented his plan for continuing care retirement
community for seniors who can move once to this coxnmunity and will never have to move
again. Safety Senior is presently looking at a 2.5 acre parcel located at S 320�' St and 6�' Ave S
that will contain approximately 76 units.
Committee forwarded Option #1 as amended to forward further consideration of this
request to a public hearing in either August or September 2012.
Moved: Honda Secgnded: Celski Passed: Unanimously, 2-0
July/Aug
2012
Public
Hearing
G:�LUTC\LUTC Agendas and Summaries 2012�7-02-12 Minutes.doc
Land Use/Transportation Committee Page 3 July 2, 2012
F. Selection Process — 2012 Comprehensive Plan Amendments
Principal Planner Margaret Clark presented information on this item. Chair Celski invited the
applicants to address the committee.
(i) Ed Hoit shared the history of his parcel, family owned since 1903 as well as adjacent
parcels now owned by Mr. Cleary and the Ciry (Dumas Bay Park).
Steve Cleary, 3016 SW 300`�` Place, Federal Way — Mr. Cleary owns a parcel adjacent
to Mr. Hoit's property (originally owned by Hoit family). Mr. Cleary as in support of
comprehensive plan amendment for Hoit property as it will assist Mr. Cleary in being
able to develop this properry. Mr. Cleary is requesting to be rezoned for a lot-line
adjustment and is hoping that if Mr. Hoit's parcel is rezoned, he may purchase it and
have a few buildable lots. Committee member Honda asked if utidities were available
on this land. Mr. Cleary stated that power, water and sewer are available to this
parcel.
(ii) Mark Barrett, property owner and requestor of Comprehensive Pdan Amendment
introduced himself and stated he was available to answer any questions from the
committee. There were no questions.
Mark Lindberg — Mr. Lindberg owns the property to the east of Mr. Barrett and is
requesting that Mr. Barrett's rezone request from Single Family — High Density
Residential (RS 7.2) to Multiple Family Residential (RM 3600), be made to his parcel
as well.
(iii) Gil Hulsman spoke on behalf on the Hildebrandt request. Mr. Hulsman stated that he
had just recently received the staff report from the City and that he believes that staff
has misunderstood the project submittal. Mr. Hulsman clarified the applicants desire
to redevelop the subject land.
Jesse Churion - Mr. Churion stated that he and Mr. Hildebrandt purchased the subject
land with the plan to enhance the utilities to the parcel in hope of future development
(commercial development). Mr. Churion would like to work with staff on devedoping
this land into some type ofproject that would be beneficial to all.
Frank Hasbargen, 3591 S 14`� Place S, Federal Way — Mr. Hasbargen likes his
neighborhood and spoke in concern of potential increased in traffic associated with
redevelopment as well as retaining properry values. Mr. Hasbargen is open to cottage
housing development, but does not support thru-way connectivity to development to the
north or other high density, multi family development.
Colleen File-Shiefter — Ms. File Shiefter lives on the property south of the applicant and
is also concerned about the increase in traffic with redevelopment of the subject parcel.
Her street, S 359` St, has a rural feel to it and all neighbors really take pride in
keeping up their homes and gardens. Ms. File-Shiefter doesn't feel the requested
change in zoning would be harmonious to the existing neighborhood and hopes the
committee will support her concerns.
The committee members decided to rescind an initial morion and treat each of the three
comprehensive plan amendment requests as three separate dtems.
Moved: Honda Seconded: Celski Passed: Unanimously, 2-0
Regarding request (i), the Committee members were in conflict with their recommendations for
this amendment request.
Council member Kochmar asked why staff is suggesting the comxnittee recommend against this
request. Ms. Clazk stated that the Ho� request is not consistent with the overall vision of the
June 19, 201:
Consent
G:�LUTC�LUTC Agendas and Summazies 2012`7-02-12 Minutes.doc
Land Use/Transportation Committee Page 4 July 2, 2012
City's comprehensive plan. Ms. Clark also noted that should this parcel transfer ownership at
any point in the future, that future owner would be able to subdivide should the committee allow
this request. As well, Ms. Clark confirmed that a BLA can still be accomplished with two
parcels of differing zoning.
Chair Celski asked the applicants to approach the dais. The applicant and committee members
reviewed the surveyed site plans at the dais. Committee member Honda suggested more notice
be given to surrounding neighbors and that this item be tabled to the next LUTC meeting for
considerarion.
Committee tabled 2012 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Request #1 to the August 6, 2012
LUTC meeting for consideration.
Moved: Honda Seconded: Celski Passed: i7nanimously, 2-0
Committee forwarded 2012 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Request #2 as amended to
include the Lindberg properry to the east to RM 3600.
Moved: Honda Seconded: Celski Passed: Unanimously, 2-0
Committee tabled 2012 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Request #3 to the August 6, 2012
LUTC meeting for consideration.
Moved: Honda Seconded: Celski Passed: Unanimously, 2-0
4. OTHER
None.
5. FUTURE MEETING
The next LUTC meeting will be Monday, August 6, 2012 at 5:30 PM in City Hall Council Chambers.
6. ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 7:05 PM.
Attest:
COMMITTEE APPROVAL:
Darlene LeMaster, Administrative Assistant II
Bob Celski, Chair Jeanne Burbidge, Member Susan Honda, Member
5
G:�.LUTC`,LUTC Agendas and Summaries 201 Z\7-02-12 Minutes.doc
COUNCIL MEETING DATE: September 4, 2012
_. .... _.. _.
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA BILL
ITEM #:
SUBJECT 21 S ` Avenue SW at SW 336`h St Intersection — 85% Design Status Report
POLICY QUESTION Should the Council authorize staff to proceed with design of the 21 Avenue SW at SW 336`�'
Street Intersection Project and return to the LUTC and Council at the 100% design completion for further reports
and authorization?
COMMITTEE Land Use and Transportation Committee
CATEGORY:
� Consent
❑ City Council Business
❑ ' Ordinance
❑ Resolution
STAFF REPORT BY: Brian Roberts, P. E., Street S
MEETING DATE August 6 , 2012
❑ Public Hearing
Other
DEP'[': Public Works
Attachments: Land Use and Transportation Committee memorandum dated August 6, 2012.
Options Considered: __ _
_ . ........._ ............._.......__........................................................................._..............................................�........_................_............._............._..........._......................_...._..._._..._........_......_�.....__....___._._..__..._....._._..__...._._....---�
1. Authorize staff to proceed with the design of the 21 S ` Avenue SW at SW 336`" St Intersection Project and
return to the LUTC and Council at the 100% design completion stage for further reports and
authorization.
2. Do not authorize staff to proceed with finalizing the present design of this project and provide direction to
staff.
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDATION Mayor recommends forwarding Option 1 to the September 4 2012 City Council
Consent Agenda for approval.
MAYOR APPROVAL:
Coucxil
DIRECTOR APPROVAL:
�� co��i
COMM[TTEE RECOMMENDATiON Forward Option 1 to the September 4, 2012 City Council Consent Agenda for
approvaL
Bob Celski, Chair Jeanne Burbidge, Member Susan Honda, Member
PROPOSED COUNC[L MOTION "I move to authorize staf�'to proceed with the design of the 21 Ave SW at
SW 336`�` Street Intersection Project and return to the LUTC and Council at the 100% design completion stage
for further reports and authorization. "
(BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY ClTY CLERKS OFFlCE)
COUNCIL ACTION:
❑ APPROVED COUNCIL BILL #
❑ DENIED 1sT reading
❑ TABLED/DEFERRED/NO ACTION Enactment reading
❑ MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only) ORD[NANCE #
REVISED — 02/06/2006 RESOLUTION #
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
VIA:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
August 6, 2012
Land Use and Transportation Committee
Skip Priest, Mayor
Brian Roberts, P.E., Street Systems Project Engineer
Cary M. Roe, P.E., Director of Parks, Public Works an mergency Management ��/Ll✓'�
21 Avenue SW at SW 336'�' St Intersection — 85% Design Status Report
BACKGROUND
On November 15, 2011, the City Council reviewed design altematives for this project and selected the
traditional intersection improvement alternative of constructing dual left-turn lanes eastbound and westbound
and a right—turn lane westbound. This project will include access control along SW 336`�' Street and also
install a new traffic signal west of the intersection to allow for left turn access into the businesses north and
south of the roadway. Additional work will include utility relocation, storm drainage, paving, curb, gutter,
sidewalk, street lighting, signing, channelization, and landscaping.
The following provides a brief synopsis of the progress on this project to date. Currently, the project design is
approximately 85% complete, which includes the following completed tasks:
• The Topographical Surveys
• Right of Way Plan
• Channelization Plans
• Project Design to 85%
• 1 st Project Open House
• Preliminary Contract Specifications
Ongoing Tasks Include:
• SEPA Review
• Right of Way Requirements (Property Appraisals, Review Appraisals, Negoriation and
Acquisition)
• 2" project Open House scheduled for September 2012
• Project Design to 100%
PROJECT ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES:
Design
ROW Acquisition
2012 Construction Cost
10% Construction Contingency
Construction Management
TOTAL PROJECT COSTS
AVAILABLE FUNDING:
TIB Grant
Budgeted City Funds
Mitig
TOTAL AVAILABLE BUDGET
$ 600,000
650,000
3,300,000
330,000
435,000
$ 5,315,000
$ 3,360,000
1,859,000
109,527
$ 5,3?�8,527
COiTNCIL MEETING DATE: September 4, 2012
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA BILL
ITEM #:
SUS.�c'r: Residential Open Space in the City Center and City Center Zoning Districts
POLICY QUESTION Should the City amend the Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) to reduce the minimum residential
open space requirement from 200 square feet to 100 square feet per unit, add design standards for required open space, and
adopt an optional fea-in-lieu standard for up to 50% of the open space requir�nent?
COMMITTEE Land Use and Transportation
CATEGORY:
❑ Consent
❑ City Council Business
MEETING DATE August 6 , 2012
� Ordinance ❑ Public Hearing
❑ Resalution ❑ Qther
STAFF REPORT BY: Senior Planner, Janet Shull, AICP DEp'1': Community and Economic
_. �_._ �....___._�. __`__.__.�__...__ _.._._�_�_�� DeveloQment __
Background: The Planning Commission Work Program identified this particular amendment to the FWRC as a"high priority"
item. The primary purpose �f the proposed code amendment is to reduce the overall open space requirement for residential
development in the City Center zoning districts to a level that is more conducive to higher intensity, mixed use development. The
Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on July 18, 2012 at the close of which they recommended to the council
approval of the staff recommendation to amend the City Center-Core and City Center-Frame open space requirements.
Attachments: 1) Draft Adoption Ordinance; 2) Staff Report to the Planning Commission with Exhibits A-F; 3) Draft Minutes
of the July 18, 2012, Planning Commission Public Hearing.
Options Considered: 1) Adopt the Mayor's recommendation as shown in the Draft Adoption Ordinance; 2) Adopt the Mayor's
recommendation as further amended by the Ci� 3ZDo not ad�t the .
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDATION The Mayar recommends adoption of the proposed amendments as written in the Draft
Adoption Ordinance. _ ^
.
MAYOR APPROVAL:
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION N/A
COUI1C11
DIItECTOR APPROVAL:
COUllCll
Committee Chair Committee Member Committee Member
PROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION(S):
1 READING OF ORDINANCE (AUGUST 21 2012): "I move approval and enactment of the proposed orddnance. "
(BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE)
COUNCIL ACTION:
❑ APPROVED COUNCIL BILL #
❑ DENIED 1 reading
❑ TABLED/DEFERRED/NO ACI'ION Enactment readiug
❑ MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only) ORDINANCE #
REVISED - 08/12/2010 RESOLUTION #
K:�2012 Code Amendments�Residenrial Open space in CC distsricts\City Council�.Agenda Bill.doc
8
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City of Federal Way, Washington, relating
to open space standards for multi-unit housing in the City Center-
Core and City Center-Frame zoning districts; amending FWRC
19.05.150, 19.100.070, 19.115, 19.225.070 and 19.230.060 (Amending
Ordinance Nos.10-658, 09-610, 09-593, 08-585, 08-583, 07-554, 06-542,
Ob-515, 02-424, 97-291, 96-270, 93-170, 90-43)
WHEREAS, the City recognizes the need to periodically modify Title 19 of the Federal Way
Revised Code (FWRC), "Zoning and Development Code," in order to conform to state and
federal law, codify administrative practices, clarify and update zoning regulations as deemed
necessary, and improve the efficiency of the regulations and th� development review process;
and
WHEREAS, this ordinance, containing amendments to development regulations and the text
of Title 19 FWRC, has complied with Process VI review, chapter 19.80 FWRC, pursuant to
chapter 1935 FWRC; and
WHEREAS, it is in the public interest for the City Council to amend the FWRC related to
open space for multi-unit housing in the City Center; and
WHEREAS, recent proposals for multi-unit, mixed use development have had di�culty
meeting the current open space standards; and
WHEREAS, reducing the minimum requirement for open space will help encourage urban-
scale mixed use development; and
WHEREAS, design guidelines will address the quality of the required open space; and
WHEREAS, a fee-in-lieu option provides for additional flexibility in meeting open space
requirements; and
Ordinance No. 12-
Page 1 of 17
Rev I/10 LU
9
WHEREAS, an Environmental Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) was properly issued
for the Proposal on July 6, 2012, and no comments or appeals were received and the DNS was
finalized on August 3, 2012; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing on these
code amendments on July 18, 2012, and forwarded a recommendation of approval to the City
Council; and
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY,
WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Findin�s. The City Council of the City of Federal Way makes the following
fmdings with respect to the proposed amendments.
(a) These code amendments are in the best interest of the residents of the City and will
benefit the City as a whole because reducing the current open space standard to an amount that is
more in line with urban, mixed use development will help encourage the type of development
envisioned for the city center.
(b) These code amendments comply with Chapter 36.70A RCW, Growth Management.
(c) These code amendments are consistent with the intent and purpose of Title 19 FWRC and
will implement and are consistent with the applicable provisions of the Federad Way
Comprehensive Plan (FWCP).
(d) These code amendments bear a substantial relationship to, and will protect and not
adversely affect, the public health, safety, and welfare.
(e) These code amendments have followed the proper procedure required under the FWRC.
Section 2. Conclusions. Pursuant to chapter 19.80 FWRC and chapter 19.35 FWRC, and
based upon the recitals and the findings set forth in Section l, the Federal Way City Council
Ordinance No. 12-
Page 2 of 17
Rev 1/10 LU
1�
makes the following Conclusions of Law with respect to the decisional criteria necessary for the
adoption of the proposed amendments:
(a) The proposed FWRC amendments are consistent with, and substantially implement, the
following FWCP goals and policies:
EDG4 The City will channel further residential growth into existing
multi-family and commercial-zoned areas, with a particular goal of encouraging
residential development in the City Center.
EDP6 The City will develop zoning, permitting, and potential financial
incentives that encourage prioritized development consistent with comprehensive
and subarea plans and orderly phased growth.
EDP14 The City will continue to utilize design guidelines to enhance the
urban environment to retain and attract businesses and residents.
HP8 Consider the economic impact of all development regulations on
the cost of housing.
HG3 Develop a Comprehensive Plan and zoning code that provide
flexibility to produce innovative housing solutions, do not burden the cost of
housing development and maintenance, and diversify the range of housing types
available in the City.
CCG7 Encourage housing opportunities in mixed residentiaUcommercial
settings. Promote housing opportunities close to employment.
CCG13 Focus new growth, with resultant increasing demands for
infrastructure and transportation in the City Center, specifically the core area.
Allow for higher intensity uses for efficient use of land.
Ordinance No. 12-
Page 3 of 17
Rev I/10 LU
11
CCP3 Continue to support land use regulations that allow the higher
intensity development expected over the next 15 to 30 years.
CCP8 Provide incentives to encourage residential development in the
City Center core area.
CCP10 Continue to develop land use regulations that encourage the frame
area to accommodate higher-density residential uses accompanied by
residentially oriented retail and service uses.
(b)The proposed FWRC text amendments bear a relationship to the public health, safety,
and welfare because the text amendments retain the requirement for on-site open space for multi-unit
development within the city center. While the amount of open space is proposed to be reduced, this
reduction better relates to the type of residential units that will likely be de�eloped within the urban core
setting.
(c) The proposed FWRC text amendments are in the best interest of the residents of the City
because the reduction in on-site open space required for multi-unit housing in the city center will
remove an existing barrier to construction of residential development within the city center,
thereby more readily accommodating future population growth in the city center. Additional
residents in the city center will help support the local businesses and cultural attractions that the
city wants to attract and retain.
Section 3. FWRC 19.225.070 is hereby amended to read as follows:
Ordinance No. 12-
Page 4 of 17
Rev 1l10 LU
12
19.225.070 Multi-unit housing.
The followin uses shall be ermitted in the ci center core (CC-C) zone sub'ect to the re ulations and notes set forth in this section:
USE ZONE CHART
z DIRECTIONS: FIRST, read down to find use ... THEN, across for REGULATIONS
� Minimums
� � Re uired Yards � ZONE
w � � � � o � � �, CC-C
a �; � o b � :�'° '��
USE w w a w v� w x� a a SPECIAL REGULATIONS AND NOTES
Multi-unit Process II None Multi-unit 70 ft. or Multi-unit 1. The city may, using process III, modify required yazd, height, lot coverage, and other site design and dimensional
housing housing: same as 200-ft. housing: requirements for a proposed development that meets the following criteria:
(stacked Possible these regulations 1.7 per unit a The proposed development will be consi3ent with the adopted comprehensive plan policies for ihis zone; and
dwelling Process for ground floor See notes b. The proposed development will be consistent with the applicable design guidelines; and
units) III use 1 and 5 See note 16 c. The street, uuli6es, and other infrastructure in the area are adequate to support the proposed development.
Senior citizen or 2. Chapter 19265 FWRC contains regulatior►s regazding home occupations and other accessories, facilities and activities
Senior citizen See note special needs Mixed use associated with this use.
or special 1 housin : development, 3. No setback is required adjacent to rights-of-way for senior citizen and special needs housing, when publicly visible
needs 20 ft. 5 ft. 5 ft. senior citizen streetscape amea►ities, as defined in Chapter 19.�-13 Q5.190 FWRC, are located alongthe right-of-way; the siting and
housing See notes i, 3, and special design of which shall be approved by the director.
(stacked �d 9 needs 4. Multi-unit housing and accessory residential uses may be located onthe ground floor of a stmcture only as folbws: (a)
dwelling housing: ground level space hat spans at least 80% of tlie length ofthe principal commercial fa�ade, as determined by the
units) Determined director, is occupied with one or more other uses(s) aliov�ed in this zone; and (b) ground level space that spans at least
on a case-by- 60% of the length of all other stree�facing facades is occupied with one or more other use(s) allowed in this zone; and
case basis (c) all ground level nonresidential space(s) have a minimum floor-to-ceiling heigtt of 13 ft. and an average depih of 30
ft., but in no case less ihan 15 ft. However, stacked senior citizen or special needs housing may stand alone.
5. Building heigM may be increased from the permitted outright height of 70 ft. to 200 ft. in exchange for providing
publicly visible streetsc�e amenities, as defined in Chapter �-1-319.05.190 FWRC, along ihe right-of-way; the siting
and design of which shall be approved by the director.
6. The subject property must provide fesreaEienal usable open space in a total amount equal to at ►east �88 100 sq. ft. per
dwelling unit and may include private �en spaces such as yards, patios, and balconies, as well as common o�en spaces
a�s such as lp azas• playgrounds, recreation rooms, rooftop terraces, p-patches, pools, active lobbies, and atriums. �y
'A
minimum of 25% of the usable open space provided must be common open space All eli�ible usable o�en �ace shall
also meet the rey�srements specified in FWRC 19.115.115. A fee-in-lieu payment may be u6lized for up to 50% of the
usable oQen space as specified in FWRC 19.115.115.
Continued
Process I, II, RI and IV aze described in For other information about parking and parking areas, see Chapter 19.130 FWRC.
Chapter 19.55 FWRC,
Chapter 19.60 FWRC, For details of what may exceed this height limit, see FWRC 19.110.050 et seq.
Chapter 19.65 FWRC,
Chapter 19.70 FWRC respectively. For details regazding required yards, see FWRC 19.125.160 et seq.
r
w
Ordinance No. 12- Page S of 17
Rev 1/10 LU
19.225.070 Multi-unit housing. (Continued)
USE ZONE CHART
z DIRECTIONS: FIRST, read c�own to find use ... THEN, across for REGULATIONS
p Minimums
F� Re uired Yards �
� � y ZONE
� o �
W '� CC-C
a �a � � o� ��,
. � � �
� � o � :d � '� � � � SPECIAL REGULATIONS AND NOTES
USE rx a .a w v� w x v� oG a
7. No maximum lot coverage is established Instead, the buildable area will be determined by other site development
requirements, i.e., required buffers, pazking lot landscaping, surface water facilities, etc.
8. For comm�mity design giridelines that apply to the projec; see Chapter 19.115 FWRC.
9. For landscaping requirements that apply to the project, see Chapter 19.125 FWRC.
10. For sign requiremenu that apply to the project, see Chapter 19.140 FWRC.
11. Refer to Chapter 19.265 FWRC to determine what ott►er provisions of this chapter may apply to the subject property.
12. For provisions that relate to the keeping of animals, see Chapter 19.260 FWRC.
13. Single-story buiidings may not exceed a tdal ground floor area of 16,000 gross sq. ft., unless approved under the
provisions of FWRC 19.110.080, or approved by the director for minor additions suoh as entry structures, lobbies, seating
or dining areas, bay windows, a�►d similar features; provided that such addition(s) shall not exceed 1,000 sq. ft. per
building in any one consecufive 12-month period
14. No more than 16,000 sq. ft. of new singl�story construction may occur on a subject propedy, excluding increases
approved under tt►e provisions of FWRC 19.110.080 and minor additions approved by the director under note 13.
15. Multiple-story buildings are not subject to notes 13 and 14; provided that each floor contains at least 75% of the gross
sq. ft. of the floor below it and contains a principal use(s) permiued in this zone.
16. Required parking may be reduced under the provisions of FWRC 19.130.020(3)(a), (b), (c), and (d).
Process I, II, III and IV aze described in For other information about pazking and parking areas, see Chapter 19130 FWRC.
Chapter 19.55 FWRC,
Chapter 19.60 FWRC,
Chapter 19.65 FWRC, For details of what may exceed this height limit, see FWRC 19.110.050 et seq.
Chapter 19.70 FWRC respectively. For details regazding requ'ved yazds, see FWRC 19.125.160 et seq.
r
�
Ordinance No. 12- Page 6 of 17
. Rev 1/10 LU
Section 4. FWRC 19.230.060 is hereby amended to read as follows:
19.230.060 Multi-unit housing.
The followin uses shall be ermitted in the ci center frame (CC-F) zone sub'ect to the re ulations and notes set forth in this section:
USE ZONE CHART
DIRECTIONS: FIRST, read down to find use ... THEN, across for REGiJLATIONS
v, Minimums
p � Re uired Yards ;
ZONE
E"� ° a
� � a � � ° � � � CC-F
�' ���> �' o b � �� ��
USE � �; a ,° w" v� w x� r� a SPECIAL REGULATIONS AND NOTES
Mu16-unit Process II None MuIU-unit housing: 70 ft. Mu1G-unit 1. The city may, using process III, modify required height, yazd, landscape and other site design and dimensional requirements for a
housing same as these or housing: proposed development that meets the following criteria:
(Stacked Possible requirements for 85 ft. 1.7 per unit a. The proposed development will be consistent with the adopted comprehensive plan policies for Uus zone; and
dwelling units) ProCess round flooT use b. The proposed development will be consistent with the applicable design guidelines; and
III c. The sVeet utilides and other infrastruchue in t6e azea are adequate to support the proposed development.
Senior citizen or See notes See note 17 2. Multi-unit housing and accessory residential uses may be located on the gound floor of a strucbue only as follows: (a) ground level
Senior Cltizen speCial needs 1, 4, and space Wat spans at least 60 percent of the length of the principal commercial fapade, as detemuned by the director, is occupied with one
and special See note housing: 5 Mixed use or more other uses(s) allowed in this zone; and (b) gound level space that spans at least 40 percent of the length of all other street-facing
needs housing 1 20 ft. 5 ft. 5 ft. development, facades is occupied with one or more other use(s) allowed in this zone; and (c) ail ground level noaresidential space(s) have a minimum
(Stacked See notes l, 5, 8, and sCnio[ Citizen floor-to-ceiling height of 13 ft. and an average depth of 30 ft., but in no case less than 15 ft. Stacked senior citizen or special needs
dwelling units) 1 p and special housing may stand alone.
tteeds 3. FWRC 19265.010 et. seq., contains regulations regazding home occupations and ot6er accessories, facilities and activities associated
housing: "" �`s use.
4. Building height may be increased from the permitted outright tieight of 70 ft. to 85 ft. in exchange for providing publicly visible
Determitted streetscape amenides, as deSned in Chapter �9:-1-�� 19.05.190 FWRC, along the right-of-way; the sifiug and design of which shall be
on a CaSe-by- approved by We director.
Case basis 5. Structures on property that adjoins a residential zone shall be set back a minimum of 20 ft. from the property line adjacent to the
residential zone. The height of structures shall not exceed 30 ft. above average building elevation when located between 20 ft. and 40 ft.
from the adjacent residentially-zoned property line, and �all not exceed 40 ft. above average building elevation when Iceated between
40 ft. and 100 ft. from such property line.
6. The subject property must provide reereaEieaal usable open space in a total amount equal to at least �99 100 sq, ft. per dwelling unit
and may include private ocen spaces such as yards, patios, and balconies, as well as common ocen spaces ereas such as p�azas.
playgrounds, recreation rooms, rooftop terraces, p-patches. pools, active lobbies, and atriums.
'. A minimum of 25% of the usable open soace �rovided must
be common open space All elieible usable ooen space shall also meet the reguirements specified in FWRC 19 115 115 A fee-in-lieu
�t�on is available for uu to 50% of the usable open �pace as speciSed in FWRC 19 115 115
Continued
Process I, II, III and IV aze described in For other informarion about parking and pazking areas, Chapter 19.130 FWRC.
Chapter 19.55 FWRC,
Chapter 19.60 FWRC,
Chapter 19.65 FWRC, For details of what may exceed this height limit, see FWRC 19.110.050 et seq.
Chapter 19.70 FWRC respectively. For details regazding required yazds, see FWRC 19.125.160 et seq.
Ordinance No. 12- Page 7 of 17
. Rev 1/10 LU
19.230.060 Multi-unit housing. (Continued)
The followin uses shall be ermitted in the ci center frame (CC-F) zone sub'ect to the re ulations and notes set forth in this section:
USE ZONE CHART
DIRECTIONS: FIRST, read down to find use ... THEN, across for REGULATIONS
v� Minimums
p o Re uired Yards � Z�NE
�
� � 3 N � � � � � CC-F
�' ���> �' o b � � ���
USE a � a a w v� a x� a a SPECIAL REGULATIONS AND NOTES
7. No maximum lot coverage is establisLed. Instead, the buildable area will be determined by other site development requirements; i.e., buffers,
parking lot landscaping, surface water facilities, etc.
8. No setback is required azljacent to rights-of-way for senior citizen and special needs housing, when publicly visible streetscape amenities, as
defined in Chapter 19.115 FWRC, are located along the right-of-way; the siring and design of w6ich shall be approved by the director.
9. For community design guidelines that apply to the project, see FWRC 19.115 FWRC.
10. For landscaping requirements that apply for the project, see Chapter 19.125 FWRC.
11. For si� requirements that apply to the project, see FWRC 19.140 FWRC.
12. Refer to FWRC 19.265.010 et seq. to c�termiue what other provisions of this c6apter may apply to t6e subject property.
13. For provisions that relate to the keeping of animals, see FWRC 19.260.010 et seq.
14. Single-story buildings may not exceed a total ground floor area of 16,000 gross sq. ft., �mless approved under the provisions of FWRC
19.110.080, or approved by the director for minor additions such as entry structures, lobbies, seating or dining azeas, bay windows, and similar
features; provided that such addition(s) shall not exceed 1,000 sq. ft. per building in any one consecutive 12-month period.
15. No more than 16,000 sq. ft. of new single-story consiruction may occur on a subject property, increases approved under the provisions of
FWRC 19.110.080 and minor additions approved by the director under note 14, above.
16. Muldple-story buildings aze not subject to notes 14 and 15, above; provided that each floor contains at least 75 percent of the gross sq. ft. of the
floor below it and contains a principal use(s) permitted in this zone.
17. Required parking may be reduced under the provisions of FWRC 19.130.020(3)(a), (b), (c), and (d).
Process I, II, III and N aze described in For other information about pazking and parking areas, see Chapter 19.130 FWRC.
Chapter 19.55 FWRC,
Chapter 19.60 FWRC,
Chapter 19.65 FWRC, For details of what may exceed this height limit, see FWRC 19.110.050 et seq.
Chapter 19.70 FWRC respectively. For details regazding required yards, see FWRC 19.125.160 et seq.
r
rn
Ordinance No. 12- Page 8 of 17
Rev 1/10 LU
Section 5. FWRC 19.115 is hereby amended to add a new section to read as follows:
19 115 115 Desi.gn criteria for residential usable o�en space and fee-in-lieu ovtion.
The followin�guidelines a�lv to residential usable o�en space that is develoved vursuant to FWRC
19.225.070 and 19.230.060.
(1) COMMON OPEN SPACE• All common o�en �ace proposed under this section shall meet the
definition of "o�en space common" as set forth in this title and all of the followin� criteria:
(a) In order to be credited toward total residential usable open space common onen snace must be
a minimum of 225 s� ft and have a minimum dimension of 15 ft The inclusion of additional conti�uous
oven space areas that have smaller dimensions but enhance the use and enjovment of the overall lar�er
�ace mav be credited toward the overall minimum usable onen space requirement subiect to director
�proval.
�b) Indoor common areas such as recreation/workout rooms swimmin�pools, and �atherinQ
spaces that meet the criteria of this section mav be counted as common open space subiect to the criteria
in this section.
�c) The common o�en space shall be readilv visible and accessible from structure(sl with entries
to residential units.
(d) T'he common o�en space shall not be located on a�halt or gra� vel pavement or be adiacent to
unscreened �arking lots chain-link fences or blank walls and mav not be used for narkin�, loadinQ, or
vehicular access.
(el Pedestrian access wa�s shall onlv be counted as common open space when the pedestrian path
or walkwav traverses a common �en s�ace that is 15 ft. or wider.
�fl The common o�en space shall be sufficient� designed and appointed to serve as a maior focal
�oint and ag thering,�place Common open �aces shall include a si�nificant number of nedestrian-oriented
features furnishin�s and amenities tvnically found in �lazas and recreational open space such as seatin� or
Ordinance No. 12-
Page 9 of 17
Rev 1/10 LU
17
sitting walls li�hting weather protection special paving landscaping and trash recevtacles. In addition.
the common open s�ace � should provide one or more si�nificant visual or functional amenities such as a
water feature fire�lace and/or artwork and should allow for active uses such as phvsical exercise.
children's play area ag thering area for group social events and p-patch or other �ardenin� activitv.
�2) PRNATE OPEN SPACE• In order to be credited toward total residential usable oven svace,
�rivate �en s�ace must be a minimum of 48 sq ft and have a minimum dimension of 6 ft.
�3) PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE OPEN SPACE� Publicl�accessible open spaces vrovided on site
may be credited toward the minimum residential usable open space requirement as lon� as the ouen
�ace is directly accessible to and available to residents for their use Only the portion of the nublic onen
�ace directiv accessible to and available to residents for their use mav be credited toward the residential
usable �en s�ace requirement.
(4) FEE IN LIEU OPTION• A fee-in-lieu pavment may be rrtade to satisfv un to 50% of the
residential usable open space requirement for the devel�ment of public parks and recreation
improvements Fee-in-lieu acce�tance shall be at the discretion of the Parks Director after consideration
of the citv's overall �ark plan and the qualitv location and usability of the open space that would
otherwise be �rovided on the�ro�ect site If the citv determines that a fee-in-lieu is anvropriate, a navment
of an equivalent fee-in-lieu of the rec�uired o�en s�ace shall be made.
The fee in-lieu of open space shall be calculated based on the most recent assessed value of the
subject pro�erty or an a�praisal conducted b�a state-certified real estate aunraiser. If the anulicant offers
to �av fee in lieu of open space and if the citv acce�ts the offer the amount shall be determined based
upon the square foota�e of o�en space that otherwise would have been required to be nrovided,
multinlied by the then current market value ner sc�uare foot of the property Bv choosin� the fee-in-lieu
�tion the a�plicant a�rees that the city will not be restricted to using the fees in the vark comurehensive
�lannin� area that the subject �roperiy fa11s within and that thev mav be used for nark and recreation
im�rovements in any of the�ark comprehensive planning areas that serve the Citv Center-Core and Citv
Ordinance No. 12-
Page 10 of 17
Rev 1/lOLU
18
Center-Frame zoned areas. See also FWRC 19.100.070.
Section 6. FWRC 19.100.070 is hereby amended to read as follows:
19.100.070 Timing of fee payments.
Various sections of this Code require payment of fees to mitigate direct impacts of the development
approval. Notwithstanding those fees eligible for deferment pursuant to subsections (1)(b), (11(c)• and
(3)(b) of this section, the following describes when such fees shall be calculated and paid:
(1) Open space fee-in-dieu.
(a) As provided in FWRC 18.55.060 and 19.115.115, a �4 fee-in-lieu of open space may be made
to satisfy open space requirements at the discretion of the parks director and shall be calculated and paid
at the time of plat recording for residential land divisions or prior to building permit issuance for
multifamil, d�o�ments in the city center-core and citvi center-frame zonin� districts, unless deferred as
noted below. The fee shall be calculated based upon the square footage of open space which otherwise
would have been required to be provided multiplied by the subject property's assessed or appraised value.
(b) For those residential land divisions vested prior to July 2, 2015, open space fees-in-lieu may
be deferred, but shall be paid no later than the closing of sale of each individual house or five years from
deferment of the fee, whichever is earlier. Covenants prepared by the city shall be recorded at the
applicant's expense on each lot at the time of plat recording to enforce payment of deferred fees. The fee
shall be calculated at the time of plat recording and divided equally among all newly created lots. The fee
shall be calculated based upon the square footage of open space which otherwise would have been
required to be provided multiplied by the subject property's assessed or appraised value. As consideration
for the ability to defer open space fee-in-lieu payments beyond plat recording, the applicant agrees to
waive the right to interest and/or a refund if payment is not expended within five years of collection.
�) For multifamilv developments in the city center-core and citY center-frame, oaen snace fees-
in-lieu m� be deferred but shall be paid no later than the completion of construction and prior to receipt
Ordinance No. 12-
Page 11 of 17
Rev I/10 LU
19
of certificate of occupanc ��/a�roval to occu�Y for each floor or each buildin�phased, or five vears
from the recordin� of the deferment covenants whichever is earlier. Covenants prepared by the citv shall
be recorded at the a�plicant's expense ,�rior to buildin� vermit issuance to enforce pavment of deferred
fees The fee shall be calculated at the time of recordin�of the covenants and shall be divided equallv
amon�all residential units within the project The fee shall be calculated based upon the square foota�e of
open space that otherwise would have been required to be �rovided multi�lied by the subject propertv's
assessed or a�praised value As consideration for the abilit�! to defer o.pen s�ace fee-in-lieu payments
beyond building�ermit issuance the a�licant agrees to waive the right to interest and/or a refund if
pavment is not expended within five vears of collection.
(2) Regional stormwater facility fee-in-Zieu. Developments may be able to utilize stormwater detention
in one of the city's regional stormwater facilities based on an area fee-in-lieu established by the city. Fees
are used for construction cost recovery and shall be paid at the time of plat recording for residential land
divisions and prior to building permit issuance for commercial and multifamily developments.
(3) Transportation impactfee. Unless the use of an independent fee calculation has been approved, or
unless a development agreement entered into pursuant to RCW 36.70B.170 provided otherwise, the fee
shall be calculated and paid per the following:
(a) For residential land divisions, fees shall be calculated and paid at the time of plat recording.
For unplatted single-family residential lots, commercial and multifamily developments, fees shall be
calculated based on the impact fee schedule in effect at the time a completed building permit application
is filed and paid prior to permit issuance. For a change in use for which no building permit is required, the
fee shall be calculated and paid based on the impact fee schedule in effect on the date of an approved
change of use.
Ordinance No. 12-
Page 12 of 17
Rev 1/10 LU
2�
(b) For residential land divisions and unplatted single-family residential lots, the transportation
impact fee may be deferred, but shall be paid no later than the closing of sale of each individual house.
Covenants prepared by the city to enforce payment of the deferred fees shall be recorded at the
applicant's expense on each lot at the time of plat recording for residential land divisions and prior to
building permit issuance for unplatted single-family residential lots. The fee shall be calculated based on
the impact fee schedule in effect on the date of payment of the impact fee.
(Ord. No. 10-658, § 6, 5-18-10)
Section 7. FWRC 19.05.150 is hereby amended to read as follows:
19.05.150 O definitions.
"Occupant" means a person that legally occupies a structure or property.
"O�ce use" means a place of employment providing services other than production, distribution, sale
or repair of goods or commodities, and includes but is not limited to: medical, dental or other health care;
veterinary, accounting, legal, architectural, engineering, consulting or other similar professional services;
management, administrative, secretarial, marketing, advertising, personnel or other similaz personnel
services; sales offices where no inventories or goods are available on the premises; real estate, insurance,
travel agent, loan companies, brokerage or other similar services. The following uses are specifically
excluded from the definition of "office": banks, savings and loan companies and similar financial
institutions.
"O�ce zones " mean the PO, OP and CP-1 zoning districts.
"O�cial notification boards of the city" means the bulletin boards in the public areas of City Hall and
other public locations as designated by city council.
"On-site hazardous waste treatment and storage facilities " means facilities which treat and store
hazardous wastes generated on the same property or geographically contiguous properties, which may be
Ordinance No. 12-
Page 13 of 17
Rev t/10 LU
21
divided by public or private right-of-way if the entrance and exit between the properties is at a crossroads
intersection and access is by crossing as opposed to going along the right-of-way.
"Open house " means an event held at a specific location, that is open to the public, and where the
event holder remains in attendance during the event.
"Open record hearing" means a hearing that creates the city's record of decision for an application or
appeal through testimony and submission of evidence and information, under procedures prescribed by
the city's hearing examiner or the city council. An open record hearing may be held prior to the city's
decision on an application, or as part of an appeal.
"Open space " , �
'. means an area of land that is valued for natural
processes and wildlife for aQricultural production for active and �assive recreation and/or for nrovidin�
other public benefits In certain cases open space mav refer to both outdoor and indoor spaces that
�rovide active or �assive recreational amenities for a devel�ment's occupants or users.
"Open �ace common " means open space which is normall�utilized bv the occupants of a building or
ro e
"Open space, private," means ee�te� open space, the use of which is normally limited to the
occupants of a single dwelling
"Open space, public," means open space owned by a public agency and mainta.ined by it for the use
and enjoyxnent of the general public.
"Ordinary high water mark" means, on lakes, streams and tidal waters, that mark found by examining
the bed, banks, or shore and ascertaining where the presence and action of waters are so common and
usual, and so long continued in ordinary years, as to mark upon the soil or land a character distinct from
that of the abutting uplands with respect to vegetation. Where the ordinary high water mark cannot be
found by mark, the ordinary high water mark shall be the line of inean higher high tide for salt water and
the line of inean high water for fresh water. In any stream where neither mark nor mean high water can be
Ordinance No. 12-
Page 14 of 17
Rev 1/10 LU
`�i
found, the channel bank shall be substituted. In braided channels and alluvial fans, the ordinary high
water mark or substitute shall be located so as to include the entire stream feature.
"Outdoor" means not contained within a building.
"Outdoor storage " means any material or item (including vehicles), being stored for or awaiting sale,
lease, processing or repair and not enclosed within a building.
"Outdoor storage containers " means new or used prefabricated metal or steel enclosures used for the
accessory storage of supplies, equipment, inventory, goods, commodities, or construction-related
materials; or temporary offices for active construction sites; designed without an axle or wheels; and
capable of being mounted on a chassis or bogie for movement by truck, trailer, railcar, or ship. T'his
definition includes, but is not limited to, cargo, shipping, and freight containers; and excludes typical
residential accessory buildings or structures such as garages and storage sheds; garbage and recycling
containers; containers mounted on a truck or in some stage of transport; structures used or designed to be
used as living facilities, and portable moving containers as defined in this chapter. See FWRC 19.125.180
and 19.125.190.
"Owner" means, in reference to real property, the person or persons holding fee title to the property as
well as the purchaser or purchasers under any real estate contract involving the real property.
(Ord. No. 09-610, § 3(Exh. A), 4-7-09; Ord. No. 09-593, § 24, 1-6-09; Ord. No. 08-585, § 3(Exh. A), i 1-4-08; Ord.
No. 08-583 § 3(Exh. A), 10-21-08. Code 2001 § 22-1.15.)
Section 8. Severabilitv. 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 any other
persons or circumstances.
Ordinance No. 12-
Page 15 of 17
Rev ]/10 LU
23
Section 9. Corrections. The City Clerk and the codifiers of this ordinance are authorized to
make necessary corrections to this ordinance including, but not limited to, the correction of
scrivener/clerical errors, references, ordinance numbering, section/subsection numbers and any
references thereto.
Section 8. Ratification. Any act consistent with the authority and prior to the effective date of
this ordinance is hereby ratified and affirmed.
Section 9. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be effective five (5) days after passage and
publication as provided by law.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Federal Way this day of
, 20_
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
MAYOR, SKIP PRIEST
.r
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK, CAROL MCNEILLY, CMC
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
CITY ATTORNEY, PATRICIA A. RICHARDSON
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
PUBLISHED:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
ORDINANCE NO.:
Ordinance No. 12-
Page 16 of 17
Rev 1/IOLU
24
K:�2012 Code Amendments�Residential Open space in CC distsricts\City Council\072312 Ordinance.doc
Ordinance No. 12-
Page 17 of 17
Rev 1/10 LU
25 �
� "� ��III�� �Irl� IU�I�I '��� ♦ �
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Amendments to Federal Way Revised Code (F`'�JRC)
Chapter 19.05, "Zoning and Development in General," Chapter 19.100,
"Mitigation af Development Impacts," Chapter 19.115, "C�mmunity Design
Guidelines," �hapter 19.225.070, "Multi-Unit Housing - City Center-Core,"
and 19.230.060, "Multi-Unit Housing - City Center-Frame"
�'ile No. 12-12109-00-UP
Public Hearing of July 18, 2012
I. BACICGROUND
- In �reeentyears, the City of Federal Way has receiVed dev�lopmeiit proposals for h'igh-rise, tnixed-
use.devetopment within the City Center, specifically tlie City Center-Core (CGC}. In these cases,
the application of the minimum 200 square feet per unit of usabl� o��n space resulted in a required
open space area that' exceeded the size of the building site. The cunent open space requirement is
inconsistent with the type of higher density, mixed use develapment envisioned for a thriving urban
center. The requirement of 200 square feet per unit is higher than what is typically required in otfier
cities that allow high-rise, mixed-use development.
In 201A, staff reviewed the open space� requirements for the Community Business (BC) zoning
district and the Planning CommisSion recommended a reduction from 300 square feet per unit to
150 square feet per unit due to similar circumstances where multi-unit housing is only allowed in
mixed use devetopment. The City Counci} adopted the proposed change to open space in the BC
zone. With the BC code amendment; there is currently a lesser open space requirement in the BC
zone than in the CC-C and CC-F zones. As anticipated, development intensity is greater in the CC
zones and it makes sense to consider a reduction to the open space requirement in the CC zones.
The Planning Gommission is being asked to review the proposed changes to Federal Way Revised
Code (FWRG) Title 19 (Exhibits A-E�, and forward a recommendation to the City Council's Land
Use/Transportation Committee (LUTC) and City Council. This proposed code revision is listed as a
"High Priority" in the Planning Commission's 2012 work program.
II . ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED CODE AMEIVDMENTS
The proposed amendments to the FWRC Title 19, "Zoning and Development Code," would reduce
the minimum amount of required on-site open space. In addition, design guidelines for the on-site
open space are proposed that would emphasize quality over yuantity and help ensure that on-site
open space is usable. The design guidelines allow for a range of spaces that can be counted as
FWRC Code Amendments — Open Space in CC zones
July 18, 2012, Planning Commission Public Hearing
File 12-102109-00-UP
Page 1 of 4
26
usable open space, inc}uding rooftop terraces, private balconies, indoor spaces, and a fee-in-lieu
opti�n for up to 50% of the open space requirement.
In d�veloping the proposed amendments, staff reviewed the urba� open space development
standards of other cities that allow for high rise mixed use development. In addition, a good
sum.mary of open space requirements in other local cities is contained in a paper prepared for the
Municipal Research and Services Center (MRSC) by Bob Bengf�rd of MAKERs (Exhibit F�.
The following sectians provide summaries of each of the proposed code amendments. The
pro�osed text is enclosed in Exhibits A-E.
Proposed Code Amendments
1. Recommended modification to Multi-Unit-Use Zone Charts for CGC and CC-F
zoning districts. ,
This proposed amendmentwould reduce the usable open space requirement from a
nninimum of 200 square feet per unit to 100 square feet per unit, or one half of the current
requirement. The proposed reduction is more in line with mixed use high rise development.
In higher density urban developments there are typically multiple uses along with structured
parking, teaving littte to no�open s�3aee�avazlable at the ground le�e�: In this type of
development, usable open space is often provided by a combination of: open space at ground
level or above. parking sttvctures; balc.onies; roof top terxaces; and sometimes indoor
recreation or gathering spaces. Along with the proposed reduction in total open space, the
use zone charts refer to a new section in the "Community Design Guidelines" chapter of
Title 19 that specifies considerations and options for etigible usable open space, including a
fee-in-lieu option for up to 50 percent of the required open space (Exhibits A and B).
2. Recommended modifications to FWRC 19.115, `°Community Design Guidelines," to
add a new section that provides design guidelines for residential usable open space for
multi-unit housing in the CC-C and CC-F zones.
In reducing the overall open space standard, emphasis should be placed on quaIity and
usabiiity of the open space provided. For that reason, a new section in Chapter 19.115,
"CommuniTy Design Guidelines," is proposed. This section provides recommended
minimum sizes and dimensions for private and common open space areas to be considered
"usable." It also specifies when on-site public open space provided for the benefit of all site
users and the general public may be credited toward the residential open space requirement.
The design guidelines specify the types of amenities that should be included in common
open spaces to make them engaging, and provides a suggested range of appropriate
activities, including recreation, gathering places, play areas, and gardens.
To provide additional flexibility, a fee-in-lieu program is proposed. A maximum of 50% of
the total open space requirement may be met with the fee-in-lieu option in order to ensure
there is always usable open space available on-site. The fee will be calculated based on the
assessed or appraised value of the land where the project is situated, and the fees collected
will be expended on park facilities within the parks planning areas that coincide with the
city center zoned areas (Exhibit C�.
FWRC Code Amendments — Open Space in CC zones
July 18, 2012, Planning Commission Public Hearing
File 12-102109-00-UP
Page 2 of 4
27
3. Recommenc3ed modifications to FWRC 19.05.150, "Definitions."
This proposed amendment modifies the current definitions of "open space" and "private
open space," and adds a new definition for "common open space." The intent of these
modifications is to make the definitions more consistent with the way they are referenced
throughout Title 19 (Exhibit D}.
4. Recommended modifications to FVVRC 19.100.070, "Mitigation of Development
Impacts: '
The last proposed code amer�dment in- conjunction with the modification to on-site open
space in the city center zones is to the "Mitigation of Development impacts" section. This
modification specifies the timing of payment of fces-inrlieu for o.pen space related to
residential development in the city center, It also provides a. provision for deferring the fee-
in-lieu payment to the time the units are occupled, similar to that provided for residential
subdivisions (Exhibit �.
II . PROGEDURAL SUMMARY
6/29/12: Public Notice oF7/18/12 Planning'Commissi:on.public hearing published and posted
7/6/l2: Issuance of Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) pursuant to the State Environmental
Policy Act (SEPA)
7/20/12: End of SEPA Comment Period
8/3/12: End of SEPA Appeat Period
III. PUBLIC COMMENTS
No comments were received as of the date of.this report.
IV. REASON FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
FWRC Chapter 19.80, "Process VI Council Rezones," establishes a process and criteria for zoning
code text amendments. Consistent with Process VI review, the role of the Planning Commission is
as follows:
1. To review and evaluate the proposed zoning code text regarding any proposed amendments.
2. To determine whether the proposed zoning code text amendments meet the criteria established
in FWRC 19.80.130.
3. To forward a recommendation to the City Council regarding adoption of the proposed zoning
code te� amendments.
FWRC Code Amendments — Open Space in CC zones
July 18, 2012, Planning Commission Public Hearing
File 12-102109-00-UP
Page 3 of 4
28
V. DECISIONAL CRITERIA
FWRC Chapter 19.80.130 provides criteria for zoning text amendments. The following section
analyzes compliance of the proposed zoning:text amendments with the criteria provided by this
chapter. The city may amend the text of the FWRC only if it finds that:
1� The proposed amendments are consistent with the applicable provisions o# the
comprehensiWe plan.
The proposed FWRC text amendments are consistent with the following Federal Way
Comprehensive Pla�z (FWCP) policies and goals:
EDG4 The Ciry will channel further residential growth into existing multi family
and commercial-zoned areas, with a particular goal of encouraging
residential develop�nent in t�ie City Center.
EDP6 The �ity will develop zoning, permitfing, and potential financial incentives that
encourage prioritized development consistent with comprehensive and subarea
plans and orderly phased grnwth,
EDPl4 The Cit}� wi11 continue to utilize. design guidelines to enhat�ce the urban
environmen� to retain and atiract businesses and r. esidents.
HP8 Consider the economic impact of all.development regulations on the cost of
housing.
HG3 Develop a Comprehensive Plan and zoning code that provide flexibility to produce
innovative housing solutions, do not burden the cost of housing development and
maintenanee, and divers� the range of housing rypes available in the City.
CCG7 Encourage housing opportunities in mixed residential/commercial settings.
Promote housing opportunities close to empdoyment.
CCG13 Focus new growth, with resultant increasing demands for infrastructure and
transportation in the �'ity Center, spec�cally the core area. Aldow for higher
intensiry uses for efficient use of land.
CCP3 Contir�ue to support land use regulations that allow the higher intertsity
development ezpected over the next IS to 30 years.
CCP8 Provide incentives to encourage residential devedopment in the City Center core
area.
CCPIO Contitrue to develop land use regulations that encourage the frame area to
accommadate higher-densiry residential uses accompanied by residentially
oriented retail and service uses.
2. The proposed amendments bear a substantial relationship to public health, safety, or
welfare.
FWRC Code Amendments — Open Space in CC zones
July 18, 2012, Planning Commission Public Hearing
File 12-102109-00-UP
Page 4 of 4
29
The proposed FWRC text amendments bear a substantial relationship to the public heaith, safety,
and welfare because the text amendments retain the requirement for on-site open space for
multi-unit development within. the city center. While the amount of open space is proposed �o be
reduced, this reduction better ��elates to the type of residential units that will likely be develc�ped
within the urban core setting.
3. The proposed amendments sre in the best interest oF the residents of the city.
The proposed FWR.0 text amendments are in the best interest of the residents of the oity because
the reduction in on-site open s.pace required for multi-unit housing in the city center wi11 remove
an existing barrier to construction of residential development within the city center, thereby,
more readily accommodating future population growth in the city center. Additional residents in
the city center will help support the local businesses and cultural attractions that the city wants to
amact and retain.
V. STAFF RECOMM�NDATION
Based on the ,a.bove: staff.analysis and decisional criteria staff recommends tliat the following
amendments to FWRG Title l9, "Zoning and Development Code," be recommended for approval to
the Land Use/Transportation Gomxnittee (I..UTC) and City Council.
1, Modifications to FWRC 19.225.070, 19.230.060, 19.05.150, and 19.100.070, and the addition
of FWRC 19.11:5.XXX, as identified in Exhibits A-E.
�+ XHIBITS
Exhibi[ A — FWRC 19.225.070, Modifications to Use Zone Chart: CGC "Multi-Unit Housing"
Exhibit B — FWRC 19.230:060, Modifications to Use Zone Chark: CC-F "Multi-Unit Housing"
Exhibit C— FWRC 19.115.XXX, New Section in Chapter 115 "Community Design Guidelines"
Exhibit D — FWRC 19.05.1 S0, Modifications to Defittitions of "Open Space," "Common Open
Space," and "Private Open Space"
Exhibdt E— FWRC 19.100.070, Modifications to "Mitigation of Development Impacts"
Exhibit F— MRSC Paper on High Density Open Space by Bob Bengford ofMAKERs
FWRC Code Amendments — Open Space in CC zones
July 18, 2012, Planning Commission Public Hearing
File 12-102109-00-UP
Page 5 of 4
30
19.225.070 Multi-unit housing.
The following uses shall be permitted in the
z DIREC
O
F
� N
�
� o
W 0.
a � 3
'� ::
USE a �
housing
read down to find
�
� � o�
o � .v � �, �
a w � x s�
ne Muiti-unit 70 ft. or
housing: same as 200-R.
these regulations
for ground floor See notes
use 1 and 5
Senior citizen See note
or speciai l
�enior cmzen or
specialneeds
w """""� See notes 1, 3,
� (stacked and 9
dwelling
EXHIBIT A
center core (CGC) zone subject to the regulal
USE ZONE CHART
�
�
�
��
a. �e
cG a
and notes set forth in this
ZONE
CC-C
SPECIAL REGULATIONS AND NOTES
Multi-unit 1. The ciry may, using process III, modify required yard,height, lot coverage, and other site desi� and dimensionai
housing: requirements for a proposed development that meets the following criteria:
t 7 per unit a The proposed developmenTwill be. coasisent with the sdopted comprehensive plan policies for diis zone; and
b. The proposed developmentwiTl be. consistent with the applicable design guidelines; and
See note 16 a'The street, utilifies, and oifier.infrastructure in.the area are adequate to support the proposed development.
2. Chapter 19.265 FWRC contains, rogulatio� regarding home occupations and other aecessories, facili6es and activities
Mixed use associated with this use.
development, 3. No.setback is required adjacent-to. rights-of-way for senior citizen and special needs housing, when publiciy visible
senior citizen streetscape amwities; as defined in Chap2er i9.�-F-S 05.190 FWRC, are located along the right-of-way; the siting and
and special design of which shall he approved b}� the director.
needs 4. Multi-unit housing,and accessory r�sidentiatuses may bo locaud onthe gound floor of a suucture only as foltows: (a)
housing: ground level space �at, spans at leasf 80'�0 of the length of the piincipal commercial fa�ade, as determined by the
Determined director is occupied wifh one or more other uses(s) alloHed in this zone; end (b) ground tevel space that spans at least
on a case-by- 60°/a of the length of aU other street facing facades is occupied with one or more other use(s) allowed in this zone; and
case basis (c) a11 ground level nonresidenial space(s). �eave a mi4imum floor-to-ceiling heigti of 13 ft. and an average depth oY 30
ft., but in no case less ittan 15 ft. However; stacked senior citizen or special needs housing may st�d alone.
5. Building height'may, bC increased from thepermitted outrighf height of 70 8: to 200 ft. in exchange for provit5ng
publicty visible streetsc�e amenities, as defined in Chapter �S 19.05.190 FWRC, along the right-of-way; the siting
and design of which ghall be approved by the director.
6. The subject property must provide �esreat�esel usable open space in a total amount equal to at least 388100 sq. ft. per
dwelling.unit andmay. inclyde private ocen spaces such as yards, patios, and balconies, as weD as common open soaces
ar�as such as plszas. playgrounds, recreation rooms, rooftopterraces, A_D$tCkgs,,poo]s,.active.Lobbies, and,atrinms, tk�+y
'A
Rocess I, IT, Q[ and N are described in � For other information about parking end packing areas, sea Chapter 19.130 FWRC.
Chaptu� 19.55 FWRC,
Chapter 19.60 F WRC, Pa details of what may exceed this height limit, seo FWRC 19.110.050 et saq.
Chaptor 19.65 FWRC, For details re m uired ards, see FVVRC 19:125.160:ot soq
Chapter 19 70 FWRC respactively B�Td� 8�9 Y
K:�2012 Code AmendmenalResidenriel Open apaco in CC disrsrias�Yianning Commieaion�cFubit A I9-225-070 Mul6-Unit Hauing-rovised.6.doe
w
N
19Z25.070 Multi-unit housing. (Continued)
USE
� ll1KEC"
O
�
F
C�7 �
W b �.
a �s
.� >
a�
m to tma use
ums
Yar�
�
�
�
�
.� w 'v��i a�G
USE ZONE'CHART
across for REGiJLATIONS
�
o� ��
_ °°
«� �_ �
� �
� h � 0.
ZONE
CC-C
SPECIAL REGULATIONS AND NOTES
7. No maximum lot coverage is established. Instead; the buildable area will be determined by other site development
requirements, i.e., required buffers, parking lot landscaping, surface water facilities, eta
8. For community design g�delines that appty to: the projecS see Chapter 19:115 FWRC.
9. Foi landscaping requiremenu that aQ.ply to:the project, see Chapter 19.125 FWRC.
10. For sign requirements that apply. to ihe project, sse Chapter 19.140 FWRC.
11. Refer to Chapter 19.265 EWRC to determine what other provisions of this chapter may apply to the subject property.
12. For provisions that relate to the keeping of animals, see Chapter 19.260 FWRC.
13. Single-story buildings may not exceed a tatal ground floor area of 16y000 gross sq. R, unless approved under the
provisions of FWRC 19. T 10.080, or appFoved by the d'irector for minor additions such as entry structures, lobbies, seating
or dining areas, bay windows, and similar featuies; provided that such addition(s) shall not exceed 1,000 sq. ft. per
bwiding in any one consecutive 12-month period
14. No more than 16,000 sq. R, of new singla�story construction may occur on a.subject property, excludingincreases
approved tmder the provisions of FWRC.19.1111.080 aad minor additions approved by the director under note 13.
15. Mulriple-storp buildings are not subject to.aotes l3. and 14; provided that each floor contains at least 75% of the gross
sq. ft. of the floor below it and contains a principal use(s) permitted in this zone.
16. Required parking cnay be reduced under the provisions of FWRC 19.130.020(3)(a), (b), (c), and (d).
Process ], II, III and IV are descnbed in
Chapter 19.55 FWRC,
C6apter 19.60 FWRC,
Chapter 19.65 FWRC,
ChaDter 19.70 FWRC respectively.
For other information about parking and parking areas, set Ehapter 19.130 FWRC.
For details of what may acceed tliis height limit,'see F WRC 79.110.050 et seq.
For details regazding required yards, see FWRC 19.125.160 et seq.
K:�Z072 Cade Amendments�Residrntid Opan spue in CC distsrias�Planning Commiesionlachibit A 19-225-070 Mui6-Unit Housing-revisad.6.doc
E)(HIBIT �
19.230.060 Multi-unit housing.
The followin uses shal] be ermitted in the ci center frame (CC-F) zone sub'ectto the re ulations and notes set forth in this section:
USE ZONE C�IART .
DIRECTIONS: FIRST, read down to find use ... THEN, across for REGULATIONS
v1 Minimums
p " Re uired Yazds
E „ � � Z��
,. ^ a
' � 3 � � ° 3 :� � C�-F
; �- � � � � �,� �X
USE � a a ,� w v� a x� a a SPECIAL REGLTLATIONS 9ND NOTES
Mul6-unit IProcess II
Possible
uniu) Process
III
Senior citizen
and special Sce note
w needs housing t
W (stacked
dwelling units)
Multi-unit h0using: 70 ft. Multi-unit 1. Thc city may, using process III, modify ra►uired height, yard, landscape and other site design and dimensional requ'uements for a
Ssme as these or housing: PT�sed development that meets t6e following criteria:
requirementS fOr 85 ft. 1.7 per unit a� The proposed:development will be consistent with the adoptad comprehensive plan policies for tlris zone; aad
outtd fl00r USe b. The proposed developmentwill be cansistent with the applicable design guidelines; and
c The street utiliNes and ottter infrastru6Nre in tlie area are adequate ro suppoR the proposed development.
Senwr cmzen or
specia! needs
housin :
20 ft. 5 ft. 5 ft.
See notes 1, 5, $, and
1Q
SCe nOtes See note 17 Z, Multi-unit housing and accessory residenfial uses may be located on the ground floor of a structure only as follows: (a) ground level
1, 4, 8nd space thaz spans at least 60 percent of the le�gtli of the principal commercial faqade, as determincd by the director, is occupied with one
5 MiXed use or more other uses(s) allowed in this ione; and (b) ground level spacethaz spans atleast 40 percent of the length of all other street-facin�
development, facades is occupied with one or more other'use(s) allowed ie this zone; and (c) all ground level nonrosidential space(s) have a minimum
senior citizen floor-to-ceiling height of 73 ft and en avera�eidepth of 30 ft., but in no case less than 15 ft. Stacked senior ci6zen or special needs
and Special housing may stand alone.
n6eds 3• FWRC 19:265.010 et. saq.,'contains regulations regarding hrnne occupadons and otha eccessories, facilities and activities associated
with this use.
hOUSing: 4. Building height may be increased fromtNe peruiitted outright height of 90 ft. tp 85 ft. in exchange for providing publicly visible
Determined streetsoape arnenities, as defined in Chapter �9-H-S 19.05.190 FWRC, al�g the right-of-way; the siring and design of which shall be
An a CaSe-by- approved by thc director.
ca5e basis 5. Structures on propeRy xhat adjoins a residendal zone Shall be setb8ek a minimum of 20 ft: from the property line adjacent ro the
residential wna. TLo- 6eight of struaures shall not excaed 30 ft, above average building elevation when located bstween 20 ft and 40 ft.
firom the adjacenf rasidentially-zoned property line, and shall not exceed 40 R. above average building elevation when loceted between
40 ft and 100 ft. from such property line.
6. The subject property must provide Aeereatienel usable open'space in a total emount equal to at least �80 0}�f sq. ft. per dwelling unit
and may include privaze ODen spaces such asyaTds; patios, and balconies, as well as comman o oea soaces eraes such as Ig azas.
alavvrounds. recroation rooms, rooftop terraces, a-nauhes: pools, aaive lobbies, and atriums. - -. ...
Process I, R, III and IV are descriDed'in �— For other information about parking and pazking areas, Chapter 19•1,30 FWRC.
Chapcer 19.55 FWRC,
Chapter 19.60 FWRC, For details of what may exceed this height liaut, sa FWRC 19.110.050 et seq.
Chapter 19.65 FWRC, g� ����$ ngerding reqaired yards, see FV✓RC 19.125.160 et seq.
Cha ter'L9.70FWRCrespectivel .
K:�Y012 Code AmendmentaVtesidentid Open spece in CC distrricts�Planning Commiwla��Exdibit B 19-230�060 Multi-i]nit Houeing-rovisod.6.doe
19.230.060 Multi-unit housing. (Continued)
W
�P
The followin uses shall be ermitted in the ci center frame (CC-F zone sub'ect to the re lations and notes set forth in this secrion:
USE ZONE CHART
DIRECTIONS: FIRST, read down to find use ... THEN, across for REGULATIONS
m Minimums
p o R uired Yards � ZO �
Q °�
s r
.� a" d ° o�' 'O �' Ci.—F
p ,�� ; � � �e
C� o. �� � c u, 'ea � �� '
USE a a� ,g w � � x� a n�. SPECIAL REGULATIONS AND NOTES
7. No roaximum lut coverage is established Instead, the buildable area will be deterntined by other site devalopment requiremenu; i.e., bu�'ers,
pazking lot landscaping, surface water facilides, etc.
8. No setback is required adjacent to rights-of-way for senior citizen and special needs housing, when publidy visible sueetscape amenities, as
defined in Chapter 19. U 5 FWRC, are located along the right-of-way; the sidng and design of which shall be approved by the director.
9. For community design guidelines that apply to the projecF see FWRC 19:115 FWRC.
10. For landscaping requirements Shat apply for the project, see C6aptw 19.125 FWAC.
I 1. For sign requirements that apply ro the project, sae FWRC 14:140 FVJRC.
12. Refer to FWRC 19165A10 et seq, to delermine what other provisions of thia: chapter may appty to the subject property.
13. For provisions that relate to the keeping of animals, see FWRC 19.260.010 et seq.
14. Single-story buildings may not exceed a tot� groand floor azea of 16,000 goss sq. ft., unless approved underthe provisions of FWRC
l9: R0.080, or approved by the director for minor addirions such as enhy structures,lobbies, seating or dining areas, bay windows, and similar
features; provided that such addition(s) shall not exceed 1,000 sq, ft. per building in any one consecutive 12-month period.
I5. No more than 16,000 sq. ft. of new single-story conshuction may occur on a subject propeAy, incr�ses approved under t6e provisions of
FWRC 19.110.080 and minor addidons approved by diediroctor under note 14, above.
16. Multiplo-story buildings are not subject to notes l4 and 15, above; providad that each Hoor contains at least �5 percent of the gross sq. ft. of d�e
floor below it and contains a pnncipal use(s) peimitted in this 2one.
17: Required parkuig may be reduced under che provisions of FWRC 19.130.020(3)(a), (b), (c), and (d).
Process I, II, IR and IV are describad in For othu information about parking and parking areas, see Chapter 19.130 FWRC.
Chapter 19.55 FWRC,
Chapter 19.60 FWRC, For details of what may exceed this height limit, see FWRC 19.1 ] 0.050 et seq,
Chapter 19.65 FWRC,
Cbapt� 19:70 FWRG tmspectively. For details rogarding requirod yazds, see FWRC 19�125.166 efseq.
K:�2012 Code Amendments��Ruidentiel Open spus in CC distsrictdPlanni� CommissionlExhibit B 19-230.060 Muld•Unit Hauci�-rcvised.6.doc
EXHlBIT C
Federal Way Revised Code
Title 19, Chaptex 1�15, "Community Design Guidelines"
requirement, as lon� as the open space is directiv accessible to and available to residents for
their use Onlv the aortion of the public onen space directiv accessible to, and availabfe to
residents for their use mav be credited toward the residential usable open space
rep uirement.
35
(e) Pedestrian access wavs shall oniv be counted as common open svace when the
pedestrian path or walkwav traverses a common open snace that is 15 ft. or wider.
(� The common open snace shall be sufficientiv desi�ned and appointed to serve as a
maior focal point and gatherin� nlace Common open suaces shall include a si�nificant
children's ptav area, gathering area for group social events, aud n-patch or other sardenine
activi .
(2) PRNATE OPEN SPACE• In order to be credited toward total residential usabte
open space, private ouen suace must be a minimum of 48 sa. ft. and have a minimum
ie discretion of the Parks
,.. _._- � —�_ --•
36
(4) FEE-IN-LIEU OPTION: A fee-in-lieu navment mav be made to satisfv un to 50% of
the residential usable open space requirement for the development of publac parks and
EXHIBIT D
�'ederal Way Revised �'ode
Title 19, Chapter 10a, "Mitigation of Development Impacts"
19.100.474 Timing of fee payments.
Various sections of this Code require payment of fees to mitigate direct impacts of the development
approval. Notwithstanding those fees eligible for deferment pursuant to subsections{1)(b) and
(3Xb) ofthis sectiori, the following describes when such fees shall be calculated and paid:
(1) Open space fee-in-lieu
(a) As nrovided in FWRC 18.55,060 and 19.I15.XXX, a# fee_in-lieu of open space may be
made to satisfy open space reyuirements at the discretion of the parks director and shall be calculated and
paid at the time of plat recording for residential land divisions, or prior to building permit issua�►ce for
defei-red as noted below. The fee shall b� calculated based upon the square footage of open space whicli
otherwise would have been required to be provided muhiplied by the subject property's assessed or
appraised val.ue.
(b) For those residential land divisions vested ptior ko July 2, 2015, open space fees-in-lieu may
be deferred, but shall be paid no later than the c(osing of sale of each individual house or five years from
deferment of the fee, whichever is earlier. Covenants prepared by the city sha1T be recorded at`the
applicant's expense on each lot at the trme of plat record'ing to enforce payment of deferred fees. The fee
shall be calculated at the time of plat recording and divided equally among all newly created lots. T'he fee
shall be calculated based upon the syuare footage of open space which otherwise would have been
required to be provided multiplied by the subject property's assessed or appraised value. As consideration
£or the ability to defer open space fee-in-lieu payments beyond plat recording, the applicant agrees to
waive the right to interest and/or a refund if payment is not expended within five years of collection.
(cl For multifamilv developments in the citvi center-core and citvi center-frame, open space
fees-in-lieu mav be deferred, but shall be naid no later fhan the completion of construction and
prior to receint of certificate of occupancv/apuroval to occapv for each floor or each building if
phased, or five vears from the recordin� of the deferment covenants, whichever is earlier.
Covenants arepared bv the citv shall be recorded at the applicant's exuense, prior to building
permit issuance, to enforce pavment of deferred fe�s. The fee shall be calculated at the time of
recordine of the covenants and shall be divided equallv amone ali residential units within the
proiect. The fee shall be calculated based upon the square footage of o[►en sqace that otherwise
permit issuance, the applicant a�rees to waive the ri�ht to interest and/or a_refnnd if payment is not
expended within �ve vears of collection.
(2) Regional stormwater faciliry fee-in-lieu. Developments may be able to utilize stormwater detention
in one of the city's regional stormwater facilities based on an area fee-in-lieu established by the city. Fees
are used for construction cost recovery and shall be paid at the time of p[at recording for residential land
divisions and prior to building permit issuance for commercial and multifamily developments.
(3) Transportation impact fee. Unless the use of an independent fee calculation has been approved, or
unless a deveiopment agreement entered into pursuant to RCW 36.70B.170 provided otherwise, the fee
shall be calculated and paid per the following:
37
(a) For residential land divisions, fees shall be caiculated and paid at the time of plat recording.
For unplatted single-family residential lots, commercial and multifamily developments, fees shall be
calculated based on the impact fee schedule in effect at the time a completed building permit application
is filed and paid prior to permit issuance. For a ehange in �use for which no building permit is required, the
fee shall be calculated and paid based on the impact fee schedule in effect on the date of an approved
change of use.
(b) For residential land divisions and unplatted single-farnily residential lots, the transportation
impact fee may be deferred, but shall be paid no later thar4 the closing of sale of each individual house.
Covenants prepared by the city to enforce payment of the':deferred fees shail be recorded at the
applicant's expense on each lot at'the time of plat recording for residential lartd' divisions and prior to
building permit issuance for unplatted single-family residential lots. The fee shalI be calculated based on
the impact fee schedule in effect on the date qf payment of the impact fee.
(Ord. No. 10 § 6, 5 8
38
EXH1BiT E
Federal Way Revised Code
Title 19, Chapter 5, "Zoning and Development in General"
19.05.150 O definitions.
"Occupc�nt" means a person that legall� occupies a structure or property.
"�ce t�se " means a place of employment providing services other than production, distribution, sale
or repair of.:.goods or commodities, and includes but is not limited to: medical, dental or other health care;
veterinary, accounting, legal, architectural, engineering, consulting or other similar professional services;
management, administrative, secretarial, marketing, advertising, personnel or other similar personnel
services; sa�es offices where no inventories or goods are. available on the,premises; real estate, insurance,
travel agent, loan companies, brokerage or other similar services. The following uses are specifically
excluded from the definition of "office": banks, savangs and loan companies and simitar financial
institutions.
"�ce zones " mean the PO, OP and CP-1 zoning districts.
"O�cia1 notification boards of the city" means,the bulletin boards in the public areas of City Hall aad
other public locations as designated by. cit� council:
"On-site. hazardous waste treatment and storage facilities" means.faciaities which treat and store.
hazardous wastes generated on the same: properfy ar geographically contiguous properties, which may be
divided by public ox private right-of-way if the entrance and exit between the properties is at a crossroads
intersection and access is by crossing as.,opposed to going along the right,of-way.
"Open house" means an event held at a spec#fic location, that is open to the public, and where the
event holder remains in attendance during the euent.
"Open record hearing" means a hearing that creates the city's record of decisian for an apQlication or
appeal through testimony and submission of evidence and information, under procedures prescribed by
the city's hearing examiner or the city council. An open record hearing may be held prior to the city's
decision on an app[ication, or as part of an appeal.
"Open space " , . ,
. means an area of land fhat is valued for natural
occupants of a single dwelling ^--'�••�'a; � ���,
"Open space, public," means open space owned by a public agency and maintained by it for the use
and enjoyment of the general public.
"Ordinary high water mark" means, on lakes, streams and tidal waters, that mark found by examining
the bed, banks, or shore and ascertaining where the presence and action of waters are so common and
usual, and so long continued in ordinary years, as to mark upon the soil or land a character distinct from
that of the abutting uplands with respect to vegetation. Where the ordinary high water mark cannot be
found by mark, the ordinary high water mark shall be the line of inean higher high tide for salt water and
the line of inean high water for fresh water. In any stream where neither maxk nor mean high water can be
found, the channel bank shall be substituted. In braided channels and alluvial fans, the ordinary high
water mark or substitute shalt be Iocated so as to include the entire stream feature.
"Outdoor" means not contained within a building.
39
"Ouen space, common," means open space which is normallv utiYized bv the occuuants of a
buildin� or propertv.
"Open space, private," means � open space, the use of which is normally limited to the
"Outdoor storage " means any material or item (including vehicles), being stored for or awaiting sale,
lease, processing or repair and not enclosed within a building.
-"Outdoor storage containers " means new or wsed prefabri�ated metal or steel enclosures used for the
aqcessory storage of supplies, equipment, inventory, goods, commodities, or construction-related
materials; or temporary offices for active construction sites; designed without an axle or wheels; and
capable of being mounted on a chassis or bogie for movement by truck, trailer, railcar, or ship. This
ciefinition includes, but is not limited to, cargo, shipping, and freight containers; and excludes typical
r�sidential accessory buildings or structures such as garages a�id storage sheds; gazbage and recy�ling
containers; containers mounted on. a Uuck or in some stage of iransport; structures used or designed to be
used as living facilities, and portable moving containers.as de�ned in this chapter. See FWRC 19..125.180
and 19.125. t90.
"Owner" means, in reference to real property, the person or persons holding fee title to the -property as
well as the purchaser or purcKasers under any real estate contract involving the real property.
(Ord. No. 09-610, § 3(Exh. A), 4-7-09; Ord. No. 09-593, § 24, 1-6-09; Ord. No. 08-585, § 3(Exh. A), 11-4-08; Ord.
No. 08-583 § 3(Exti. A), 10-21-08. Code 2001 § 22-1.15.)
40
Yianning Advisor,tanuary 2UI2
Page 1 of 13
_ __
Ct�unlci�al �tes��rch and �efvi:c�s C�nt�r af'UV'ashin�ton
W�rk�rsg T��tt��r fe�r E�cc�►tt�enee is� Lc�at G�r�+rnment
�'���i1tl�lg A�l�'�s�!I'
MRSC has joined with Phil Olbrechts, Attorney, Olbrechts and Associates, PLLC, Pat Dugan, Duaan
Consulting Services, Anindita Mitra, founder of CREA Affitiates LLC, and Bob Bengford, Partner
MAKERS, to bring you fihe "Planning Advisor" articie series on planning and growth management
issue affecting Washington Locai Governments. The "Planning Advisor" will feature a new article each
month with timely information and advice you can use.*
Post a comment �
Provic�ing for Usable Open Space for Multifamily
Developments
]anuary 2012
By Bob Bengford AICP, MAKERS
This is the second of two articles discussing regulatory strategies to address two challenges to
creating compatible and livabte inflll development. The flrst article, pubiished in February 2011,
discussed strategies for protecting existing neighborhoods from the impacts of new development.
This article describes concepts for providing usable open space in new multifamily residences.
Introd�ction
Smart growth principles call foc the development�of more intense mixed-use centers at
transportation hubs or other strategic locatior�s plus muitifamlly infitl in neighborhood c�ntets.
Demographic changes tn concert with fuel costs are increasing the demand for compact. multifamily
housing in Western Washington and throughautthe coun.try. With rising fand costs, cities are Flnding
it increasingiy difficult to create new parkland to serve this `increased density. 'Thus, it's beeoming-
increasingty important for cities to updaEe regutations to provide for usabie on-site open space
associated wittt muttifami[y development.
This articie examines:
• The goals and benetits of providing on-site multifamily open space
• Research and resources
• Notable cfiallenges in providing on-site open space
• A comparison in'how a few Washington cities regulate open space
• Lessons learned/considerations
The goals and benefits of providing on-site multifa�nily open space
��� �
http://www.mrsc.orglfocus/pladvisor/p1a0112.aspx 4� 7/IO/2012
Planning Advisor January 2012
Page 2 of 13
_ �o-��abF�open-space-€o�- .
recreation and leisure activities. While this is important..for ali age groups, usable open� space is -
particularly important for chiidren. On-site open space associated with residential development
brings a number of qther benefits toward creating healthy and li�able communities. Belo.w is a
sample of some of the more notable benefits:
• Health bene�ts - pathways and recreational faci{ities such as ptay areas, swimming pools,
and fitness centers promate increased physical activity. . Balconies and common areas also offer
opportunities for gardening and growing a small amount of herbs, fruit, and/or vegetables;
• Enhanceci tesi.dential<�etting�:- Chis includes an increase in iight and alrto dwelling units
surrounding the commo�r open spaces.and,enhanced vier�us fram units. Where• Candscaped open
spaces are visible from the str.eet or adjacent pcoperties, Chey bring obvious enhancement�s to the
cammunity's character as welf. Courtyard spaces can also offer increased priVacy-through the
strategic conftgurations and the placement.of windows and landscaping;
• Enviranmental benefits - ground level and courtyard spaces and even rooftop de�ks off.er
opportunities for trees and plants which consume carbon dioxide and help to reduce stormwatec
runoff; .
•� Social benefits - weii-designed common open spaces provide increased opportunifies for
sociaf interaction with net.ghbors; `
• Sataty - common open spaces that incorporate CPTED principtes (Crime Preventlon Through
Environmentai Design) increase the number of "eyes on the space" by altowing families to keep an
eye out on chitdren and for residents to be on the lookout fo� crime; and
..
• General functionai benefits - spaces such as balconies can provide a wide range�of otf�er
functional bernefiEs to resldential living. This can include a space to hang-dry cEothing, space to
barbecue, or conduet certain c(eanirrg or otheractiuities that are difficult to do indoors.
The common open spaces at the coordinated Z-home (first net zero energy multifamily development
in the country) and YWCA development in Issaquah Highlands provide for multiple functions. This
inc(udes recreational bene�ts, visual amenities, increased solar access to adjacent units, and /ow
impact deve%pment techniques used in the common areas help to manage stormwater impacts from
the development on the site.
What are the Challenges to Provicling Usable Open Space?
Below are the challenges that are most often cited to providing usable on-site open space.
• Lack of space. This challenge is most notable on smaller sites in heavily urbanized areas
where land costs are high. Developers can argue that carving out open spaces reduces the
opportunity for rental or saFes income. However, the typicai confi'guration of residentiai buildings on
city biacks nearly always leaves plenty of left-over space ta accommodate courtyard spaces between
buildings and building wings. For constrained infitl sites where generously sized courtyards may not
� _ �'���t�x�
� 42
http://www.mrsc.or�/focuslpiadvisor/plaQ112.aspx 7/10/2412
Planning Advisor January 2012
Page 3 of 13
be possibie, a combination of balconies, rooftop decks, and/or indoor common open space may be
. . ,
_ s�en . - -
_ _. _....._. .:
• Cost. The cost of deslgning and building the open spaces affect the bottom line of
developments in two ways.A Yes, they do add costs to devetopment, but they also help to bring in
revenue in terms oF sales and/or increased rental rates due to the amenities they create for
res+dents. lltttmatety, open spaces don't need to be expensive. The usability of open spaces is often
best determined by the basic conflguration of spaces and the relationshi� of units, windows, tzuiiding
walls, and simpie landscaping elements. Much of this comes from thoughtful design rather than
expensive materiais and furnlshings.
• Maintenance. This is a criticat factor in the iong term usability of common Qpen spaces. While
there are obvious costs associated with maintenance, the'design of apen spaces can help to reduce
ongoing maintenance costs. Where residents have good access to the open spaces and frequently
use them, there's a certain amount of self-maintenance that occurs. But maintenance needs to be
built into the cosks of the development, just as other amenities factor into the rents that residents
are witling to pay to live in particular developments. �
'4V'hat other Literature is Out There on 1V�u1#ifam�y Open Space?
While muct� Mas been written about public open space, titerature on the°bene�ts of private on-slte
open space is surprisingiy hard to find. The most common source of information avallabie is within
municipal design guidelines and standards. But outside of brief intent statements, guidelines, and
graphic examples, an 1n-depth discussion on the benefits and characteristics of muftifamNy open
spaces are most often 1eft to books and literakure.
Some notable sources af information on t�tie design and/or benefits of multifamily open space
include•
• Housing as ifPeop/e Mattered and Peop/e Places (Cooper Markus and othe�s). These
two books - especialiy Housing as If Peop/e Martered - are the best and most extensive studies of
private residentiaf open space that I've found. While the photo examples and graphics feel a little
outdated, the contents and design guidelines, which touch on the fuU range of open space issues, are
still spot on. Both books piace a strong emphasis on the special needs of families wifh chiidren.
• Slte P/anning (Lynch and Hack). This classic inciudes excellent guidance on housing deSign
and discusses outdoor space. needs for �esidents, notably for children and teenagers (which they
note are often forgotten in housing design). The book states that "it is better to distrlbute a varied
seC of play opportunities in many tocations rather than to concentrate them in one�area." Lynch and
Hack.discuss the importance of balancing visibility with privacy and the unique needs of indiyidual
housing types.
• Pattern Language (Alexander, Ishikawa, Silverstein). AAnother classic, this book
inciudes a weaith of ideas in creating liva6le environments. It includes chapters on the various
housing types, ttre needs of dlfFerent age groups and famities, and the design of a wide range of
outdoor spaces associated with housing.
* Form-Based Codes (D. Parolek, K. Parolek, a nd Crawford). This includes a br�.ef sectio�
on internal open space anc! provides guidance on courtyard design. The authors consider approprlate
dimensions based an salar access and adjacent building heights and whether the courtyard is on the
ground or on a podlum over parking.
There are surely other resources that I haven't stumbled upon - therefore please comment if you
�ecommend another great resource on muitifamily open space design/needs.
Comparing how Facific Northwest Cities Regula#e Mul#ifamily
Open Space
., tc
http://www.mrsc.org/focus/pladvisor/p1a0112.aspx 43 7/lU/2012
Planning Advisor January 2Q12
Page 4 of 13
communities regufated internal multifamily open space. This uitimately included Seattle, Tacoma,
Bellevue, and Redmond. Each city's approach differs somewhat from the others. Also, all four cities
recently updated at least some of their applicable standards.
Since each city has a variety of zanes that allow Por multifamily housing, I've divided the following
chart into the segments - by housing type: apartments (single purpose), apartments in a dense
mixed-use setting, and townhouses, For each city, the chart addresses the amo�nt of open space
required, design-related requirements, applicable design review process, and finally some comments
and observations.
Comparing Multifamily Open Space Requirements
Gty
Seattfe Tacoma 8eilevue Redmond
Housing Type - Apartments (single purpose muiti€amily uses)
App4icable Lowr(se zones R-3 - R-5 zones artd R-10-30 aor�es, R-12 to R-30
zones? commercial zones
Standards Open space standards Usable yard space plus Multifamily play area Specific open space
influenGng pius setbacks, density setbacks; minimum lot size, standards pius standards pius setbacks,
amount and ilmit, parking, floor area parking, density limit (R-4L setbacks, density limit, landscaping, parki�g, (ot
type of open ratio (FAR), but{di�g/ zone only), and landscaping paricing, lot coverage, coverage, and impenrious
space fac,ade width limits 8e sta►�dards impervious area, surface standards
Green Factor provisions greenscape Standards
(frontyard), and
landscape standards
Open space Li zone: 300sf commo� 10% of the lot size (R zones Emphasis on chiidren's Minimum 2d% of lot
required/un� open space/unit - but not C zones); play areas - 800sf/10
(arrerage) C-zones - 10% of site not units plus 50sf/unit
covered by buildings must above IO units
L2-4 zoriess belandscaped
25% of the !ot area as
open space at ground
level - except 50°k can
be balconies/decks for
L3-4 zones
Required Common open space - Usabie yard space - min 15' 800sf min size and All yarcis + decks and
standards for min 10' dimension and dimension; May not be in min. dimension of 25'; porches may count as
open space 2505f area; may be in front yard; May be any Design standards on open space provided they
front, side or rear yarcl; combination of private 8� accessibility, amenity have minimum 15'
ealcony/deck - min 6' shared space elements and dimensions; For multl-lot
dimension + 60sf area separation from auto developments, standard
areas can be applied for whole
development
Design Design review requlred No existing design No design guidelines 25% of open space for
guidelines/ for projects over certain guidelines or review process or otherdesign review targe deVelopments must
review process size threshold or for (although MAKERS recentiy process for the R-zone be as common open
projects seeking design conducted a study for development space; Indudes guidelines
departures examining opqons for city for common open space
to consider) and landscaping design;
Design review process for
• all multffamily
44
http://www.mrsc.org/focus/pladvisor/p1a0112.aspx 7/10/2012
Planning Advisor January 2012
Seattfe
Comments New code generaliy
and reduces the amount of
observadons open space required -
but has a greater
emphasis on the
design/usability of the
space; Recentincrease
in "green factor'
cequirements is more
chatlenging/ costly to
appUcants
Tacoma
Other than dimensional
standards noted above,
there are no standards/
guidance for muitifamily
open space in the standard
commercial zones
Beilevue
Unique in that focus is
only on chiidren's play
areas; No mention of
balconies or other
usable open space
pravisions.
Page 5 of 13
Redmond
For citywide standards,
biggest emphasis on
vaNety of site and buitding
Housing Type - Apartments (higher intensity mixeci-use zones)
App{ic�ble Commer+cial mnes Various Mixed-Use Center powntowm m�es and Downtown zones, Overlake
zones districts Bet=lted corridor zones Village zones
reviewed (new) "
Standarcls
influencing
amount and
type of open
space
Open space
reqnired/unit
Required
design
standardsfor
open space
Amenity area plus
setbacks, density limit,
floor area ratio, parking,
and green factor
Commercial zones: 59'0
of res7dential floor area
(amenity area)
Yard space standards plus
density minimum, parking,
mass reduction standards,
and lan�scaping standards
1005f/unit yard space
Floor ar� ratlo (FAR),
max floorplate
standards, tower
stepback pro-visians,
sidewaiW buiieling
relatfonship, parking.
and FAR bonus
incentive provisions
(some refate to
outdoor open space)
No spedfic
requirement tor
Downtown or the Bel-
Red Corridor
Mintmum open space
standards, parlcing,
setbacks and max floo�
area ratio standards
Downtown - 100sf
common open space/unit
+ min 50sf private open
space/unit; Overiake -
6.25°k of gross residential
Floo� area as open space
.snareu open space -
min 1U' dimension and
250sf area; Front, side
or rear yards OK;
Balcony/deck - min 6'
dim. + 60sf area; Must
not be endosed;
Rooftop space not
counted as amenity area
aesign Deslgn review required
guidetines/ for projects over certain
review process size threshotd or for
projecks seeking design
departures
Recently updated: S00% of
space may be common yard
space - min 15' dimension
+ other design standards;
Balconies up to 50°10
required yard space - at
least 35sf and min 4'
dimension;
Rooftop deck up to 25% of
yard space in mixed-use
buildings
No existing design
guldelines or review proc+ess
(alkhough MAKERS recenUy
candacEed a study for
examining options for city
to consider)
There are sEandards 8�
guidelines for public
open spaces for
DowFltown and the Bel
-Red Corridor, but no
standards or
guidelines fnr private
ope� space for
muttifamily uses (no
mention of balconies,
for instance)
Yes, Chere are
guldelines and an
administrative design
review process, but
again no guidance for
private open space for
multifamily uses
Downtown - up to 100%
of required open space can
be common, at least 200sf
in area, min 12'
dimensions;
Qy� - up to 100'/0 of
required open space can
be common, but up to
50% can be p�ivate and�or
rooRop open spac�
Design review for al{
multifamily; There is more
design guidance for open
spaces in Overiake, than
for powntown - except
the� are specific
courtyard dimensional
standards for downtown
http://www.mrsc.org/focus/pladvisor/pla0t 12.aspx 45 7/10/2012
Planning Advisor January 2012
Seattie
Comments Recent update reduces
and amount of open space
observatlons but places more
emphasis on design
quality, usability
Tacoma
c�ty
Updated standards
addressed some serious
regulatory short�mirtgs;
City wifi probably give it
some time during poor
economy and see how new
developments work out
before creating a new
design review program
Housing Type: Townhouses
Applicabie Lowrise zones
zo�es?
Bellevue
Private open space
isn't direct{y
addressed at a�l; The
focus is more oa
maximum building
forms, street/
sidewalk relationship,
and incentives for
pubiic open space
R-3 -R-S zones; Mixed-use R-10 - R-30 zones
zones
Standards Open spaoe sta�dards Usable yard space plus There are no
in�uencing plus setbacks, denslty setbadcs� minimum lot size, standards specific to
amount and limit, floor area rallo, and density limlt townhouses - see
type of open green factor, and open space standards
space building/ fac,ade width referenced above for
Umits apartments in
multifamily zones
Open space 300sf private ground:
required/un� levei space (avg) with
min dimensions of 10'
10% of the lot size (n R-
zones;
200sf/unit yard space in MX
zones
Required Space must be directly
design accessibte to unit; For
standards for sloping lots, decks can
open space qualify as ground leve!
space
Usabie yard space - min 15'
dimension; may not be in
front yard
Design Administredve deslgn No existing design
guidelines/ review required for alf guidelines or review process
review process townhouses; Process (although MAKERS recentiy
may altow some conducted a study for
flextbility In the amaunt examining options for city
and design of open to consider)
space
Cornments Updated' standards and
and administrative design
observations review process provide
greater Flexibility than
old standards and focus
more on the quality of
open space
New townhouse standards
in MX zones addressed
serious shortcomings, but
the R-3-S zones outside of
MX centers still lack open
space skandards/guidance
The setbacks and tot
coverage provlsions
will be most influentiat
for townhouses f other
than basic market
conditions); The piay
area provision ensures
that there will be
some common open
space
Page 6 of 13
Redmond
It is i�terestlng to see
somewhat different open
space approaches betvveen
Downtown and�dveriake
(pefiaps the timing -
Overiake Staodards are
newer - h� something to
do with it). Downtown's
specifie standards for
minimum courtyard wldth
are unique, amongst the
four cities reviewed here
R-12 to R-30 zones, plus
Uowrttown & Overlake
Zones
There are no standards
specific to townho�ses -
s� open space standards
referenced above fnr
apartments In multifampy
zones.
For Uowntown -
Townhouses with at least
200sf of private open
space and minimum
dimension of 10' are
exempt from common
open space standards.
The 20% open space with
min. 15' dimen5ions seem
very restrEctive and
challenging; Planner ]eff
Churchill noted that there
isn't a bt of undeveloped R
-12-30 zon� land left in
the city
46
httn://www.mrsc.orS/focuslnladvisorlula0112.asox 7/10/2012
Planning Ac�visor Ianuary 2012
Page 7 of 13
Comments and �Observations on Regulatory Research
Seattle
With by far the largest pool of development test cases in Washington and the most intensive
muitifamity zoning code update pracess, the Inclusion of Seattie in this study is essential. I met with
Mike Podowskt, the City's Land Use Policy Supervisor, to talk about this artfcle, the City's recent
update, and some lessons learned. Mike reiterated that is was important for the new code to add
more Flexibili .ty while enhancing the design criteria and making some refinements to the review
process (notably for townhouses). Llke Seattle's new code, he suggested my research table above
compare different open space requirements based on the type oP housing. He was also curious about
research on the beneflts of providing for open space.
Seattte's new code substantlaily reduces the amount of required open space in many cases, but adds
greater emphasis on the quality and usabiliry of the open space. I talked about the new code with
architect Radim Biazej (Caron Architects), who is familiar with both the old and new codes. Radim
reiterated Chat the added fl:exibility in the code regarding open space dimensions makes the code
much easler to work with. For example, he indicated that the opportunity to provide up to 50�/0 of
the usabie open space on the roof was an attractive opporEunity. He's found that such rooftop spaces
are most desirabie for residents in the more urbanized settings due to the view potentiat and sense
of privacy. �
, •a.
The City's previous code (up to 2008) hac��bastcally no open space staindards. As a result, there are a
number of developments (particulariy in the greater downtown area) that provide no open space or
poorly designed open space. As part of a citywide NDesign Review Project," I had a chance to work
with the City (with MAKERS) to examine the shortcomings and propose sofutions. This project
included the foUowing components�
• A study on the establishment of a design review program. The project reviewed numerous
examples and identified a number of optional approaches that might work forTacoma.
• Updatl'ng the deslgn standards for the various mixed-use zones (adopted 2008).
Without a special design review process in place, there was a strong desire to adopt prescriptive
standards to address open space and other design shortcomings. While this approach offers less
design flexibility, the standards offer a number oP choices in how their requirements can be met. The
newly adopted standards are reflected in the chart above in the city's mixed-use center zones only.
0
Bellevue's regulatory approach stands out as the most unique of the four communities particularly
because the city has very few estabiished standards for private open space in multifamily
developments. The city's design standards and guidelines for the most densely developed areas
(Downtown and the Bel-Red Corridor) place much greater emphasis on providing publicly accessible
open spaces - in addition to providing guidance for the form and character of development. Other
specific comments and observations:
• The recent Bel-Red Corridor Design Guidelines are the most recent guidelines project
undertaken by the city, and thus represent the latest in thlnking about urban design in the city. The
Be!-Red code emphasizes form-based standards and includes an extensive density bonus system
that includes incentives for public open space. The guidelines include numerous photos of acceptable
and unacceptable design examples addressing streetscape efements, building form/character and
design details, but they don't specificaily address private residential open space. Pefiaps with the
approach in emphasizing high quality streetscape and public open space, there is a reduced need to
regulate the amount and type of private internai open space for multifamily?
http://www.mrsc.org/focus/pladvisor/p1a0112.aspx 47 7/10/2012
Planning Advisor January 2012
Page 8 of 13
� As a Bellevue resident, I often explore new jogging routes all over downtown. I've found that
downtown's super btock configuration ofEen leaves a considerabie amount of land for public open
space, given the natural (and/or regulatory. ) limitations on tower floor-plates and the extent of
underground parking. Or, perhaps this open space is the resuit of the city's policies, guidelines and
standards? Likely, it's a combinaC(on of both.
• Most apartment/condo developments in downtown appear to have a good mixtur.e of Internat
open spaces inciuding baiconies, ground level plazas, upper level courtyards over parking decks
(there are many), some lntema! recreational space, and some roof top decks (at least that I know
about). the smaller infiil mid-rlse developFnents appear to have the smailest amount of open space -
a situation common in nearly all urban centers in the region.
• Emii King, the city's Strategic Planning Manager, noted that perhaps there was a reduced need
for on-site private open space within developments that are adjacent to pubiic parks pr plazas (and I
agree). He mentioned projects adjacent to the Downtown Park and the smaller Ashwood Park and
Plaza as good examples.
-s. .�.
Fi'�ving. met wlth planner 1eff`Churchill several times over the past couple yeacs, I was aware that
Redmond was in th. e midst of a major zoning code update. and had recent}y adopted new zoning and
design standards for the Overiake area. Additionat observations and comments;
• The open space standards fo� the multifamfly zones focus primarily on landscaped ground lev�l
open space. ]eff noted that these are essentially suburban type standards, but that very little
developabie land in these zones remains. -°:�
• The courtya'rd dimensionai standards for powntown are noteworthy for their ability to enhance
the desirability and usabtlity of such spaces.
• The Downtown open space standards inciude a"fee in lieu of" open space option, but only for
up to 50�/0 of the required common open space.
Some Lessons Learned
First of all, it's obvious that individual regulations need to suit the unique needs of the community.
By this, I mean a combination of tocal market demographics and unique community characteristics
and goals. Some keys in crafting approaches for regulating and designing multifamily open space
incfude:
• Recognize different needs for different hous irtg types. Townhomes and other ground
based multifamily housing types have different needs than apartment buiidings with stacked flats.
Regulations need to reflect those inherent differences.
• Invotve local developers, designers, and buitders. It's always important to talk with the
locat development community to find out what's working and get them involved in any process to
update development standards.
• Bigger is not necessarily better. Commun(ties requiring an excessive amount and/or sizes
of open spaces can actualiy discourage development by impacting the viability of development. The
problem is compounded when there isn't adequate design guidance Porsuch spaces. I've found it
more effective to work with the community in providing guidance in designing usable open spaces
and determining the amount of usable open space necessary for tivable developments and given
reasonable development objectives.
� Encourage a range of open space types. This is particularly important for apartment
buiidings. Visible common open spaces such as courtyards are typicaily the most important open
space resources, but other types of open space should be encouraged.
48
httv:/Iwww.mrsc.or�/focus/pladvisorlvla0112.aspx 7I10/2012
Yianning Advisor Jaauary 2012 Page 9 of 13
■ Balconies provide a usable Private open spa.ce resource where residents can barbecue,
:
_....::�r_ea�t�c�ai� ' r - - • � �
__ tYP Y P _
that residents icail s end on baiconies is smail, it's.noteworthy to consider how
balco.nies can ailow gceater daytight into units and help to expand the perceived living space
within the unit. The book Housing .as �f Reople Mattered suggests that the minlmum size of a
balcony to be functionally usefut is 60 square feet with no dimension tess than 6 feet. :
■ Rooftop decks are becoming an increasingty, important re�ource for infill multifamily
developments in heavi{y urbanized areas. These spaces a"re more likely to be used where
they feature good views, feature a range of amenities, and In.clude design features that
enhance accessibility and safety.
■ Pea at� ches are a feature thafi shouid be incr.easing{y encouraged, in response to a renewed ;
interest in Ehe local food movement. However., the location, design, and management of pea
patches ace very 'important to ensure they can be effectively. used and maintai'ned. To be i
sure, they are ltkely to be used by only a fraction of resldents, but they can serve as a visuai
(and even social) amenity for other residents.
■ Children's f�ay areas shouid always be considered and be required to some extent in larger
developments. Like nearly a11 open space types, visibility to/from adjacent dweNing units ls `
critical � `
■ Indoor recreationai areas should also be an option to meet a portibn of the total internal �
open space needs for the development (but not all of it) of inflll housing types in rnore ?
intensive urban areas. The�e spaces�sF�outd�be specifically designed for recreational activities �
and be housed in accessibte anct visible areas.
■ Woonerfs mighC also be constdered as a usabie open space resource in townhouse
developments. A woonerF is a Dutch term for a street that is deslgned equally for '
pedestrians and automobiles - typically where there is special paving in a curbfess design '
integrated with trees and other I�,ndscaped elements that can also function as a playcourt. '
• Conseder reduced on-site open space needs for developments adjaCent to public
parks. "Adjacent" is the key'word, as iYs the direct visibtlity and accessi6ility �fiat provide the link.
• Test the standards. Consider both existing (if applicable) and prospective rnultifamily
development exampFes that meet other zoning standards to determine different ways that
developers might choose to meet the standards. Assume the worst case scenario - is it good
enough? On the other hand, are the requirements overly difficuit or costly to meet?
• Provide examples - both good a nd bad. Photos and other graphic examples are heipful for
developers, staff, and other participants in the development revlew process. I've found the bad
examples to be just as helpful as the good ones. I also suggest to communities to build a photo
Ilbrary of completed projects that they can share with prospective applicants when needed.
http://www.mrsc.org/focus/pladvisor/p1a0112.aspx 49 7/lU/2012
Common Open Space Exarnples
Planning Advisor January 2012
These open spaces above are both built over decks - the landscape elementshelp them
function as a green roof while providing for visual and functional amenities ro the surrounding- units.
The left examp/e above from eainbr�idge Island integrates large existing trees into a relatrvely large
"commons" whi/e the right example in downtown Bellevue doubles as usable public open space, as
there is a coffee shop to the left.
Obviously bad examples. The space on the left offers no amenities other than grass area - and the
slopes reduce the usability of the space for informal recreation. The large blank wal/s and elevation
change between the open space and the dwelling units reduce its attractiveness.
50
http://www.mrsc.or�/focus/pladvisorlpla0112.aspx 7/10/2012
P'Ianning Advisor January 20I �
Attractive roo(top open space (left) and a pea patc% example (right). The pea patch is at the Alycone
Apartments in South Lake Unron, Seattle. It's situated on an upper level deck, but visible from
dwe/ling units on both sides, very accessible, and receives ample morning and aftemoon sun/ight.
When i visited the deve%pment last year, there was a waiting list for residents to get one of the
smal! plots. You can see the rain barrels in the background, which include rain water from adjacent
roofs and provide a water source for gardeners. The complex also provides basic tools for residents.
The cornplex uses fhe pea patch as a marketing toa! (see for,yoursel�7 and it has become a popular
social activity for residents.
Townhouse Fxamples
http://www.mrsc.org/focus/placivisor/p1a01 i2.aspx 51 7/10/2012
It's obvious thar these courtyards are much too narrow to function as usable open space. The design
severely limits the direct sunlight available to the space and also reduces the solar access and
privacy to the adjacent units.
Other Open Space Examples
Planning Advisor January 2012
These townhomes were provided with far too little open space amenities: There is basically no
setback in the rear yard; .while the long asphalt driveways can be viewed as a wasted opportunity
(move building closer to streeC and provide some usable open space in the back). Also, tlie balconies
appear much too na�row to invite Lse.
Resources/Links
Ali of the books referenced above can be found on Amazon.com or check with your favorite book
retailer. Other notable resources:
• Seattle (and use code. Notable sections: SMC 23.45.016 (lowrise open space requi�ements),
SMC 23.47A.024 (residential amenity areas), and for the city's design guidelines, go to the following
link: Desian Review Program Applicant's Tooibox• DesiQn Guidelines
• Tacoma land use cocie. See 13.06.300(g) for Mixed-Use Center District yard space standards.
• S��evu� jand use code. For the Bel-Red Design Guidelines, see Section 20.25D.150. For
Downtown, see Chapter 20.25A.
• Redmond`s new zoning,code. Notabie chapters are 21.08 (residential regulations), 21.10
(downtown regulations}, 21.12 (Overiake regutations), and 21.36 (open space). See Article III for
detailed design standards.
Other notable codes/guidelines addressing residentiai open space:
http://wwvy.mrsc.org/focus/pladvisor/p1a0112.aspx
52
7/10/2012
These townhouses include usabie seml' private front yard apen spaces, while rhe lett example adds
balconies for each unit that he% to exPand the living area of the units.
rtannuig Advisor January 2U 12
Page 13 of 13
• Portland has a number of great resources inetuding the 1998/2008 Community Design
��►ideli-�e . _:....._ -°— _...
• Everett's Co�e Residential Development and Desi�n Standards; go to Section 33G.060 for open
space.
�'���iili�l� r�L�Y�S�f
Pat Dugan has a unique combination of experience (n bo.th planning and pubiic finance, spanning 35
years. As a planner, he has been a planning director in two cities {Aubum and Burien), and two
regional planning agencies in Oregon and Washington; and was a planning manager in Goleta,
California. In public finance, Pat has served as the chief financial offtcer in four pubtic agencies
including the Cities of Auburn and Lynnwood, and the Snohomish County Public Works Department.
He has written extensively on financing capitai facility programs and on public flnance for planners.
Pat now otfers planning and pubiic finance consuiting services and in hIs own firm, Dugan Consulting
Services in Everett and can be reached at consult.duganC�verizon.net.
Anindita Mitra, AICP is the Founder of CREA A�iiates, LLC a planning and urban deslgn consuttancy
that focuses on creating awareness of unsustainable practices, and offers a pla.tfo� for af€ected
parties.to openly communicate and coHabarate to arrive at creative sustainabie solutions. She Is also
one of the Co-Chairs of the C�imate and Sustalnability Initiative of the Washington Chapter of the
American Planning Association. Anindlta's current interests include the development of sustainable
master plans and streetscape deslgns; establishing sustainable community indicators and their
integration lnto comprehensive pians and governance; identifying creative solutions directing
communities towards energy-independence; preparing communities for the challenges potentially
brought upan by the Climate Change phenomenon; and advancing the integration of transit and non-
motorized travel solutions into community land use pfanning, She has worked throughout the United
States for both the public and private sectors.
..
Phii Olbrechts is a member af Olbrechts and Associates, PLLC. His practice focus is upon land use,
reat property and municipai law. H� currentiy serves as hearing examiner for eight municlpalities and
city attorney for three cities. He represents both public and private parties and has made fiundreds
of presentations and on land use law throughout the State of Washington.
Bob Bengford, AiCP, is a Partner with MAKERS architecture, planning and urban design �irm. Bob's
community design work encompasses afl transects, from urban downtowns and transit-oriented
develapment to rurat area planning. Since joining MAKERS 13 years ago, Bob's specialty has been
heiping communitles craft usabie development regulations and design guidelines. The combination of
growing up in a sprawling Orange Caunty (CA) track home subdivision, reviewing devefopment plans
against antlquated and inconsistent codes in rural Bonner County (ID), and working with a great
mentor at MAKERS (7ohn Owen) have helped Bob recognize the critical importance of goad
development regulations and design guidelines in shaping vital and healthy communities. As a
resident of Bellevue, Bob has been active in various community pianning issues. He's also an active
four-season bicycle commuter, hiker, gardener, and urban explorer.
� � ��
*The Articles appearing in the "Planning Advisor" cofumn represent the opinions of the authors and
do not necessarlly reflect those of the Municipal Research and Services Center.
http:llwww.mrsc.orglfocus/pladvisor/p1a0112.aspx 53 7/10/2012
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
PLANNING COMMISSION
July 18, 2012 City Hall
7•00 p m Council Chambers
MEETING MINUTES
Commissioners present: Merle Pfeifer, Lawson Bronson, Wayne Carlson, and. Tim O'Neil
Commissioners absent: Tom Medhurst, Hope Elder, and Sarady Long (all excused). Staff present:
Planning Manager Isaac Conlen, Senior Planner Janet Shull, Assistant City Attorney Peter Beckwith, and
Administrative Assistant II Tina Piety.
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Pfeifer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of April 4, 2012, were approved as presented
AUDIENCE COMMENT
Diana Noble-Gulliford, Federal Way Historical Society President — She noted that research and
adoption of an ordinance addressing historic preservation is on the Planning Commission's 2012
Work Program and she presented the Commission with some background on the issue. She gave
the Commissioners a handout where it was noted that research shows that 546 properties within
the City of Federal Way were built in 1950 or before and 28 were built in 1920 or earlier. Some
examples of potential Federal Way landmark status properties include the Federal Way High
School, Camp Kilworth Rotary Lodge, Dumas Bay Retreat, and the Robert Verzani Home. She
stated there are many others. She commented that one of the primary benefits of a historical
preservation program is that owners of designated landmark properties would be eligible to apply
for a variety of incentive programs for preservation. A historical preservation program would
implement the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan's policies.
A discussion was held regarding Federal Way High School being a potential Federa.l Way
landmark. It was noted that Federal Way Public Schools is considering demolishing the school
and replacing it with a new one. It was noted that portions of the school could be preserved. The
entire building does not necessarily have to be preserved if it is declared an historical landmark. It
would depend upon the landmark preservation policies adopted by the city. Developing these
policies will be part of the proposed code amendment.
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
None
K:�Planning Commission�201 t�feeting Summary 07-18-t2.doc
54
Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 July 18, 2012
COMMISSION BUSINESS
PUBLIC HEARING — Proposed Amendments Related to Open Space Standards for Multi-Unit
Residential Development Within the City Center-Core and City-Center Frame Zoning Districts
Ms. Shull delivered the staff report. The proposed amendment will reduce the minimum amount of
required on-site open space for residential development in the City-Center Core (CC-C) and City-Center
Frame (CC-F) zoning districts. In addition, it includes design guidelines that will emphasize quality over
quantity and help ensure the on-site open space is usable. It will modify the open space definitions to
make them more consistent with the way they are referenced throughout the code. Finally, it will add the
option of a fee-in-lieu for open space related to residential development in the CC zones.
Currently, the code requires a minimum of 200 squaze feet of usable open space per unit of residential
development. Reviews of recent development proposals for high-rise, mixed-use development has shown
that this requirement results in a required open space area that exceeds the size of the building site. Staff
recommends that the amount of required usable open space be reduced to a minimum of 100 square feet.
Ms. Shull stated that in 2010, the City Council approved the recommended reduction of usable open space
area in the Community Business (BC) zoning districts from 300 square feet per unit to 150 square feet per
unit due to similar circumstances. This resulted in a lesser open space requirement in the BC zone as
opposed to the CC-C and CC-F zones. It is anticipated that development in the CC zones is more intense
than the BC zone and therefore, it makes sense to consider a reduction to the open space requirement in the
CC zones.
A new section is proposed for Chapter 19.115 that will provide recommended minimwn sizes and
dimensions for private and common open space areas to be considered "usable." The proposed section
will allow for common (such as gyms, pools, and gathering spaces), private (balconies, etc.), and publicly
accessible open space (when directly accessible to residents) of particular dimensions. Common open
space areas will be required to provide amenities that will make them engaging and will allow for active
use (such as child play areas). In addition, the proposed new chapter will allow a fee-in-lieu option for a
maximum of 50% of the total open space requirement. The fees will be used for park facilities within the
parks planning areas that coincide with the CC zoned areas.
Commissioner O'Neil asked what percentage of the open space must be public access. Ms. Shull replied
that the open space is intended for the residents and does not necessarily have to be accessible to the
public. Commissioner O'Neil expressed his concern that if a developer chooses the fee-in-lieu option, the
money may not be used in a way that is directly beneficial to the residents. Commissioner O'Neil
expressed his concern that if the open space is to benefit the residents he is uneasy with the option of a
fee-in-lieu which will go to a park that may not benefit the residents.
Commissioner Bronson stated he finds the proposed definitions confusing and asked for clarification. Ms.
Shull replied that the city has a number of different types of open space and the definitions are staff
attempts to capture them all. Commissioner Bronson asked what the reason is for choosing 100 squaze feet.
Mr. Shull replied that staff used the Municipal Research and Services Center of Washington (NIlZSC)
report titled, "Providing for Usable Open Space for Multifamily Developments," that is an e�ibit to the
staff report. The report compares the open space requirement for various cities in Washington. Staff also
researched comparable cities outside of Washington. Some cities used a percentage of gross square
footage, but staff felt this would be difficult to implement. Commissioner Bronson expressed his concern
that the 100 square feet is not based on objective data, but he recognizes that objective data may not exist.
Commissioner Carlson expressed his concern about the aesthetics of the buildings. He suggested that a
certain percentage (say 10%) of the open space be required to be on the ground level. Commissioner
O'Neil agreed and stated what he is missing is how this proposal fits into the overa.11 vision for the city
K:�Planning Commission�2011�ieeting Summary 02-22-12.doc
55
Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 July 18, 2012
center. He is concerned that not requiring a percentage of open space on the ground level could result in
the city center looking and feeling like a"closed compound." Ms. Shull replied that currently the code
does not require that residential open space be provided on the ground level. The proposed amendment is
not intended to address the issue of public open space, but rather private, residential open space (some of
which can be public open space}.
Commissioner Bronson expressed concern that the option of a fee-in-lieu will not meet the intent of the
proposed code amendment to provide open space for the residents of the building. Other Commissioners
agreed with him. Ms. Shull explained that staff wanted to give developers the flexibility of the fee-in-lieu
in cases where they are not able to meet the open space requirement on-site. Mr. Conlen commented that
it is expected that developers will choose the fee-in-lieu option only as a last resort. Mr. Beckwith
commented that state law requires that fee-in-lieu payments provide a direct benefit to those making the
payment and that the funds be spent within five years of receipt. The Commissioners agreed that this is
acceptable. �
Commissioner Bronson moved (and it was secondea� to recommend approval of the staff's
recommendation as stated on page 5 of the staff report. There was no further discussion. T'he motion
carried unanimously.
The public hearing was closed.
ADDITIONAL BUSINESS
The ne� Planning Commission meeting will be August 15, 2012, or September 5, 2012, at 7:00 p.m. in
the Council Chambers. It will be a public hearing regarding parking.
ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at 8:15 p.m.
K:�Planning Commission�2011�Ivieeting Summary 02-22-12.doc
56
COUNCIL MEETING DATE: September 4, 2012
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA BILL
ITEM #:
SUB,TECT: Selection Process — 2012 Amendments to the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan (FWCP)
POLICY QUESTION: Shauld the Hoit and/or Hildebrandt requests for comprehensive plan amendment be moved
forward for further evaluation?
COMMITTEE: Land Use/Transportation Committee (LUTC)
CATEGORY:
❑ Consent ❑ Ordinance
0 City Council Business ; . � Resolution
MEETING DATE: August 6, 2012
� Public Hearing
❑ Other
STAFF REPORT BY: Planning Managez, Isaac Gonlen DEPT: Community & Economic Development
Attachments: Exhibit A) July 31, 2012, staffreport to the LUTC; Exhibit B) July 2, 2012, LUTC staffreport; and Exhibit
C) Revised Hildebrandt request email.
Background: At the July 2 2012, �,UTC meeting,, the committee considered three camprehensive plan annendment
requests. At ,that.meeting, the Barrett request was moved farward and the Hoit and Hildebrandt requests were tabled for
further discussion at the August 6`� meeting. Following the July 2° meeting, staff met with both applicants. Based on new
information provided in regard to the Hoit request (availability of urban services) we are now recommending that request go
forward for further consideration. The applicant on the Hildebrandt request has revised the proposal and now seeks to go
from RS 15.0 single-family zoning to RS 5.0 (or alternately RS7.2) single-family zoning. We are continuing to recommend
that this request not go forward as it is inconsistent with surrounding zoning and the city's comprehensive plan. Please see
the attached memo (Exhibit A) for a more detailed evaluation. Also see staff report from July 2 LUTC meeting (Exhibit B)
for a full description of the original comprehensive plan amendment requests and staff analysis. ,
Options Considered: 1) Concur with the Mayor's recommendarion; 2) Do not concur with the Mayor's recommendation.
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDATION: That Site-Specific Request # 1(Hoit) go forward for further review and Site-Specific
Request #2 (Hildebrandt} not be considered further because it is not consistent with the comprehensive�i.
MAYOR APPROVAL:
Council
DIRECTOR APPROVAL:
Councit
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: I move to fonvard the Mayor's recommendation to the September 4, 2012, City
Council meeting for a public hearing.
Bob Celski, Chair Jeanne Burbidge, Member Susan Honda, Member
PROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION "I move approval of the Mayor's recommendatio "
(BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE) _
COUNCIL ACTION:
❑ APPROVED COUNCIL BILL #
❑ DENIED 1 reading
❑ TABLED/DEFERRED/NO ACI'ION Enactment readiog
❑ MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only) ORDINANCE #
REVISED-08/12/20(0 RESOLUTION #
57
K:\Comprehensive Plan\2012 Comprehensive Plan\Selection Process\LUTC\8_6_LUTC Agenda Bill.docx
} � �����
4i I 1F Ll1f� �•,_ ��dP�jN 1rv��s�`
���
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
�XHIBIT
July 31, 2012
Bob Celski, Chair
Land Use/Transportation Committee (LUTC)
Patrick Doherty, Directar of Community and Ecoriomic Development
Isaac Conlen, Planning Manager
Selection Process — 2012 Comprehensive Plan Amendments
MBETING DATE: August 6, 2012
I.
POLICY QUESTION
Should the Hoit and/or Hildebrandt comprehensive plan amendment requests be moved forward
for further consideration? .
�
C�
III.
BACKGROUND
At the July 2, 2012, LUTC meeting, the committee considered three comprehensive plan
amendment requests. At that meeting, the Barrett request was moved forward and the Hoit and
Hildebrandt requests were tabled for further discussion to take place at the August 6` meeting.
Following the July 2 LUTC meeting, staff met with both applicants. New information regarding
the Hoit request was provided to staff. The applicant on the Hildebrandt request has revised the
proposal and now seeks a comprehensive plan amendment from Single Family, Medium Density
to Single Family, High Density and rezone from RS 15.0 single-family zoning to RS 5.0 single-
family zoning (or alternately, RS 7.2 zoning along with code amendment to allow zero lot line
development�.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS REQiJESTS
Following is a summary ofthe two citizen-initiated comprehensive plan amendments under
consideration at the August 6, 2012, LUTC meeting.
2012 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS
(i) File No. I1-103859-UP — Request from Edward Hoit for a comprehensive plan amendment
and rezone of 1.82 acres (parcel # 112103-9131) located to the west of Dumas Bay Park from
Single Family — Low Density Residential and Suburban Estates (SE, one unit per five acres)
to Single Family — Medium Density Residential and RS 15.0 (one unit per 15,000 square feet)
(Attachment A — Hoit Vicinity Map).
Land Use/Transportation Committee (LUTC) Meeting Date: August 6, 2012
Selection Process — Comprehensive Plan Amendments 58 Page 1 of 3
(ii) File No. 11-103962-UP (Revised) – Request from Isaac Hildebrandt for a comprehensive
plan amendment and rezone of 1.18 acres (parcel #292104-9071) located at 1320 South 359�'
Street from Single Family– Medium Density Residential and RS 15.0 (one unit per 15,000
square feet) to Single Family – High Density and zoning of RS 5.0 (one unit per 5,000 square
feet) (or alternately, RS 7.2, one unit per 7,200 square feet) (Attachment B– Hildebrandt
Vicinity Map).
VI. STAFF ANALYSIS
A. Site-Specific Request #1– Hoit
As detailed in the July 2, 2012, I.UTC staff report (attached as Exhibit B of this agenda item
for reference) when staff first evaluated the Hoit request it was determined to meet all
selection criteria with the exception of Criterion #2—consistency with the overall vision of
the comprehensive plan. At that time, staff did not support the request because the
comprehensive plan states that the Suburban Estates (SE) designation (current designation of
subject property) is intended to, "...retain larger lots in order to avoid development pressure
on or near critical areas." The Hoit property is impacted by three critical areas: wetland and
wetland buffer, stream and stream buffer, and steep slopes. The comprehensive plan
language; hawever, goes on�to say that, ":..upon provision of urban services, such as water
and sewer, an increase in de�►sity may be warranted."
The applicant has since provided additional information that has caused us to change our
recommendation. Specifically, the fact that a new sewer project will be bringing sewer
service to the neighborhood (confirmed by Lakehaven Utility District). Additionally, a newly
upgraded, looped water system was just constructed in the neighborhood to replace the
outdated system previously in place. Lastly, we do not believe the rezone would result in an
increase in development intensity or density and thus, is consistent with the intent of the
comprehensive plan to limit development pressure on properties subject to critical areas.
In light of this additional information, we feel the request to rezone the property to RS 15.0 is
consistent with the comprehensive plan and would recommend it be selected for further study.
B. Site-Specific Request #2 – Hildebrandt
As detailed in the July 2, 2012, LUTC staff report (attached as Exhibit B of this agenda item
for reference), when staff first evaluated the Hildebrandt request it was determined to meet alI
selection criteria with the exception of Criterion #2—consistency with the overall vision of
the comprehensive plan. The request to extend multi-family zoning into the medium density
single-family neighborhood was not felt to be consistent with comprehensive plan policies
intended to protect the characteristics of single-family neighborhoods.
Following the July 2° LUTC meeting, staff met with the applicant's representative and he
subsequently revised the requested comprehensive plan amendment request. The new request
is that the parcel be rezoned from RS 15.0 to RS 5.0 (or alternately RS 7.2).
Staff continues to find the request to be inconsistent with the comprehensive plan for the
following reasons:
Land Use/Transportation Committee (LUTC) Meeting Date: August 6, 2012
Selection Process — Comprehensive Plan Amendments 59 Page 2 of 3
a) If approved, the subject parcel would be the only parcel in the neighborhood zoned RS
SA (or RS 72);
b) The zoning would be inconsistent with surrounding properties;
c) The rezone may be considered a"spot-zone,"' which is a legally disfavored type of
zoning in Washington State;
d) The rezone would primarily serve a private interest rather than the public good; and
e) There is no rational basis for changing the designation of the subject property while
maintaining the designation(s) of the surrounding lots.
IX. MAYOR'S RECOMMENDt1TION
:
A. Site-Specific Request #1— Request from Edward Hoit for a comprehensive plan amendment
and rezone of 1.82 acres (parcel #112103-9131) located to the west of Dumas Bay Park from
Single Family — Low Density Residential and Suburban Estates (SE, one unit per five acres)
to Single Family — Medium Density Residential and RS 15.0 (Single Family, one unit per
I S,OOQ square feet).
Mayor's Recommendation —The Mayor recommends that the request go forward for further
review because it meets all selection criteria.
Site=Speeific-Request #2 — Request from Isaac Hildebrandt for a comprehensive plan
amendrnent and rezone of 1.18 acres (parcel #292104-9071) located at 1320 South 359�'
Street from Single Family — Medium Density Residential and RS 15.0 (one unit per 15,000
square feet) to Single Family — High Density and RS 5.0 (one unit per 5,000 square feet) (or
alternately RS 72, one unit per 7,200 square feet).
Mayor's Recommendation —The Mayor recommends that the request not go forward for
further review because it is not consistent with surrounding zoning or the comprehensive plan.
XI. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A- Vicinity Map of Site-Specific Request #1 — Hoit
Attachment B— Vicinity Map of Site-Specific Request #2 — Hildebrandt
Attachment C— Aerial Photo of Site-Specific Request # 1— Hoit
Attachment D— Aerial Photo of Site-Specific Request #2 — Hildebrandt
K�\Comprehensive PIan�2012 Comprehensive Plan\Selection ProcessU.UTC1Stat�'Report to [he L[JTC.dce
� The reasons for invalidating a rezone as an illegal spot zone usually include one or more of the following: (1) the rezone
primarily serves a private interest; (2) the rezone is inconsistent with a comprehensive plan or the surrounding territory; or (3) the
rezone constitutes arbitrary and capricious action. Each situation must be determined on its own facts and it is not always easy to
determine conciusively whether a rezone would constitute an illegal spot zone.
Land Use/Transportation Committee (LUTC) Meeting Date: August 6, 2012
Selection Process — Comprehensive Plan Amendments 60 Page 3 of 3
,,
�.�
� �f `� Pal d@s
�� `�..� Rec�i
CentQr
C�
� �w
���
rn
r
t `'
��
n .
x � e.
X ' r
` s+�.
SE
---
,
; 7 i....
� � �I
/'�'���. `.�
� �
\\�!�1r►� �
.,� �
-.�� �
���
�-...
� �
�
. 9
� F
/ I
, �RS 15.0
._�
"' �
5 �
e
�
�..e .
RS7.2
� �
�. i
I
�
�
� �
/
' � �
�
�
—
City of Federal Way
2012
Site Specific Requests
for Comprehensive Plan and
Zoning Designation Changes
Hoit
Site Specific Request #1
Exhibit
Legend
; Site Specific Request
Buildings
Streets
Streams (City Survey)
��� �
���; � Wetlands (1998 City Survey)
Q Associated Stream Buffer
� Associated Wetland Buffer
� Zoning Boundary"
Note: An asterix (*) next to a zoning
designation indicates the property is
govemed by a development agreement.
�
N 0 250 500
� Feet
cirr oF
Federal Way
This map is accompanied by no warranties,
and is simply a graphic representation.
City of Federal Way
2012
Site Specific Requests
for Comprehensive Plan and
Zoning Designation Changes
HOIt
Site Specific Request #1
Exhibit
Legend
Site Specific Request
Streams (City Survey)
��`��;'��,� Wetlands (1998 City Survey)
�. ��
Q Zoning Boundary*
Note: An asterix (') next to a zoning
designation indicates the property is
governed by a development agreement.
�
N 0 250 500
Feet
dTY OF
Federal Way
This map is accompanied by no warranties,
and is simply a graphic representation.
. - CE
` RM2400
��
�,� RS 1 .0
ana
qp: 1
S 356TH ST
CE
____ _,� ,
R 15.
2921049071
S 359TH ST
RS 15.0
� • ■
►�,
'.
_. � City of Federal Way
-. 2012
Site Specific Requests
for Comprehensive Plan and
Zoning Designation Changes
�
,
_ y.
a, �����
H '
.., � � y ...
S 359TH ST
,
Baptist - �;' :
Church `
RS 15.0 -=��- S 15.
- {
, i'�a7��.0
� Todd Beamer � �
High School �'
� . . - '�• w J1 � . .
<� �,
�x �. ,;
. :�
�
Hildebrandt
Site Specific Request #3
Exhibit
Legend
Site Specific Request
. Wetlands (1998 City Survey)
� Zoning Boundar�"`
Buildings
Streets
Note: An asterix (") next to a zoning
designation indicates the property is
governed by a development agreement.
�
N 0 250 500
Feet
CITY OF
,�,,,,, Federal Way
This map is accompanied by no warranties,
and is simply a graphic representation.
City of Federal Way
2012
Site Specific Requests
for Comprehensive Plan and
Zoning Designation Changes
Hildebrandt
Site Specific Request #3
Exhibit
Legend
Site Specific Request
Streams (City Survey)
� Wetlands (1998 City Survey)
� Zoning Boundar�"'
Note: An asterix (*j next to a zoning
designation indicates the property is
governed by a development agreement.
�
N 0 250 500
Feet
cirr oc
� Federal Way
This map is accompanied by no warranties,
and is simply a graphic representation.
�.
#
�° ��� _.� � � , � .
DATE:
To:
FROM:
S UBJ ECT:
June 25, 2012
Bob Celski, Chair
Land Use/Transportation Cornmittee (LUTC)
EXHIBIT
Patrick Doherty, Director of Community and Economic Development
Mazgaret H. Clark, Principal Planner
Selection Process — 2012 Comprehensive Plan Amendments
MEETING DATE: 7uly 2, 2012
I.
II.
1 [!.
POLICY QUESTION
Which of the citizen-initiated site-specific requests for comprehensive plan amendments should
City of Federal Way staff research further`?
BACKGROUND
The Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) xequires the city to accept applications for amendments
to the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan (FWCP) text and map on an annual basis. The city
received three requests in September 2011.
Pursuant to FWRC 19.80.080, after the September 30`� deadline for accepting applications and
following an LUTC recommendation, the City Council shall ho(d a public hearing and select
those docketed amendment requests it wishes to move to the Planning Commission for further
consideration.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN A(v1ENDMENTS
Chanaes and updates to t{�e comprehensive plan are divided into text changes to chapters of the
comprehensive plan and requests for changes to comprehensive plan designations and zoning for
specific parcels, which would resu(t in changes to the Comprehensive Plan Map and Officiai
Zoning Map.
Following is a summary of the three citizen-initiated comprehensive plan amendments received in
September 2011 (2012 Co�l�prehensive Plan Update).
2012 COMPREHENSiVE P�..�N ANIENDMENTS (Exhibit A— C vmposite Map)
(i) File Na l 1-1 03 859-t1P — Request from Edward Hoit for a comprehensive plan amendment
anc! rezone of 1.82 acres (parce! #112103-9131) locatecl to the west of Dumas Bay Parf: fron�
Single Famity — Lo��- C?e�lsity Residential and Subur�>��t i:states (SE, one unit per f�ve acresl
---- -------- _ _
----__
! and Use/Transportation Committee 1 i t�[�(' � Meeting Date: July 2. 2�►t 2
S�I��tiun Process—Comprehensive Pta�t ;�k;i�Eidments 65 F'�'�� ��`r �
to Single Family— Medium Density Residential and RS 15.0 (Sing(e Family; one unit per
15,000 square feet) (Exhibit B— Vicinity Map).
�
V.
VI.
(ii) File No. 11-103895-UP — Request from Mark Barrett for a comprehensive�lan amendment
and rezone of 035 acres (parcel #785360-0008) located at 1836 South 308 Street from
Single Family — High Density Residential and RS 7.2 (Single Family, one unit per 7,2Q0
square feet) to Multiple Family Residentiai and RM 3600 (Multi-Family, one unit per 3,600
square feet) (Exhibit C— Vicinity Map).
(iii)Fite No. 11-103962-UP — Request from Isaac Hildebrandt for a comprehensive plan
amendment and rezone of 1.18 acres (parcel #2921U4-9071) located at 1320 South 359`"
Street from Single Family— Medium Density Residential and RS 15.0 (Single Family, one
unit per I5,000 square feet) to Multiple Family Residential and RM 2400 (Multi-Family, one
unit per 2,400 square feet) (Exhibit D— Yicinity Map).
REASON FOR COUNCIL ACTION
Pursuant to FWRC 19.08.050, Process VI, "Council Rezones," the City Council is required to
review all requests concurrently. The first step in the process is a public hearing by the council, at
which time the council selects those amendment requests it wishes staffto research further.
PROCEDURAL SUMMARY FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT SELECTION PROCESS
July 2, 2012
July 17 2012
LUTC Meeting — A summary of all requests will be presented to the LUTC
for a recommendation on which requests should be considered further.
City Council Public Hearing — The City Council shall determine which
requests should be considered further.
BACKGROUND AAID STAFF ANALYSIS — SITE-SPECIFIC REQUESTS
A composite map showing the location of the site-specific requests to be presented for selection is
attached as Exhibit A.
A. Site-Specific Request #1— Aoit
1. Summary
File Number:
Parcel No.:
Address:
Location•
Size:
Existing Land Use:
Applicant/Owner:
Existing
Comprehensive Plan:
EsisEing Zoning:
�
I 1-103859-U P
112103-9131
None
East of SW 308"' Sd43'� Ave SW and west of Dumas Bay Park
1.82 acres
Vacant
Edward Hoit
Single Family— Low Density Residential
Suburban :.�states (SE, one unit per f��� acres)
Land Use(Transp��nation Committee (LUTC) Mee�ine Date:luty 2, 2012
Setection Process - Cu�ctpreh�nsive Plan Amendments 66 Page 2 of 8
Requested
Comprehensive Plan:
Requested Zoning:
2. Reason for the Request
Single Family — Medium Density Residentia(
RS 15.0 (Single Family, one unit per 15,000 square feet)
The land is presently vacant and has both a Class I Wetland and a Major Stream on-site.
The com6ination of the 200-foot wide wetland buffer and the 100-foot stream buffer
leaves very little if any buildable land. In addition, the parcel does riot have direct access
to the adjacent right-of-way to the west. The owner, Mr. Hoit, has owned the parcel for
over 25 years and is requesting the rezone to make it consistent with the RS 15.0 zoning
to the west, thereby making it a more marketable parcel.
3. Surrounding Zoning & Land Use (Exhibit E— Aerial Map)
Zoning Land Use
North Suburban Estates (SE, one unit Single-Family Residential
per five acres)
South Suburban Estates (SE, one unit City Park
per five acres)
East Suburban Estates (SE, one unit City Park
per five acres)
West RS 15.0 (Single Family, one unit Single-Family Residential
per 15,000 squaze feet)
B. Site-Specific Request #2 — Barrett
1. Summary
File Number:
Parcel No.:
Address:
Location:
Size:
Applicantf4wner:
Existing
Comprehensive Plan:
Existing Zoning:
Requested
Comprehensive Plan:
Requested Zoning:
2. Reason for the Request
11-103895-UP
785360-OQ08
1836 South 308` Street
South of South 3U8� Street and west of 19`� Avenue South
0.35 acres
Mark Barrett
Single Family — High Density Residential
RS 7.2 (Single Family, one unit per 7,200 square feet)
Multiple Family Residential
RM 3600 (Multi-Family, one unit per 3,600 square feet)
There is a single family house on the site. The►•e are dupiexes to the west, south, and
southeast across 19` Avenue South. The applicant is requesting Multi-Famity zonina in
order to build duplexes, which would be consistent with the adjacent uses.
3. Surroancling Zoning & Land Use (Exhihit F,4c:1-iul �b1ap)
I and Use/`['ransportation Commirtrr ( I,UTC) - Meetine t�ate: Jul� 2. 20! 2
Sclection Process—Comprehcn�i.c Plan Amenaments (7 P��� '°`g
Zoning Land Use
North RS 7.2 (Single Family, one Church and Singte-Family Residential
unit per 7,200 square feet)
South RS 7.2 (Single Family, one Duplexes
unit per 7,200 square feet)
East RS 7.2 (Single Family, one Single-Family Residential and Duplexes
unit per 7,200 square feet)
West � l 800 (Multi-family, one Duplex
unit per 1,800 square feet)
C. Site-Specific Request #3 — Hildebrandt
1. Summary
File Number:
Parcel No.:
Address:
Location:
Size:
Applicant:
Agent:
Owners:
Existing
Comprehensive Plan:
Existing Zoning:
Requested
Comprehensive Plan:
Requestecf Zoning:
2. Reasou for the Request
11-103962-UP
292104-9071
1320 South 359`� Street
North of South 359`�' Street and west of 16�' Avenue South
1.18 acres
Eric Hildebrandt
Isaac Hildebrandt
Eric Hildebrandt and Jesse Cherian
Single Family — Medium Density Residential
RS 15.0 (Single Family, one unit per 15,000 square feet)
Multiple Famity Residential
RM 2400 (Multi-Fami(y, one unit per 2,400 square feet)
There is a single family home on this parcel. Land uses to the east, west, and south are
single-family resiclential. The applicants own the two parcels to the north of the subject
property, which are 16.63 acres in size. They wou(d iike to build a multi-family complex
on the northern parcels and use the subject parcel for additional access and as a utiiity
easement.
3. Surrounding Zoning & Land Use (Exhibit —.4eria! Map) G
Zoning Land Use
North RM 2400 (Multi-Family, one Vacant and Manufacturing Plant
unit per 2,400 square feet)
Sauth RS 15.0 (Singte Family, one ���jle-Family Residential
unit per I5,000 square feet)
East RS 15.0 (Single Family, one Single-Family Residential
� unit per 15,000 square feet) �
Land Use/Transportation Committre (LUTC) Meetine Date: luh 2_ 2012
Selection Process — Compreh�nsi� e Pian Amendments g$ Pati� 4 of 8
West RS 15.0 (Single Family, one Single-Family Residentiai
unit per 15,000 square feet)
VII. SELECTION CRITERIA
FWRC 19.80.080 contains criteria for selecting amendments forfurther consideration.
A. Criterion #1— Whether the same area or issue was studied during the last amendment process
and conditions in the immediate vicinity have significantly changed so as to make the
requested change within the public interest.
Response to Criterion #1—
Request Response
Site Specific Reguest #1— This issue was not studied during the last amendment process, or
Hoit during any previous amendment cycle.
Site Specific Request # 2— This issue was not studied during the last amendment process, or
Barrett during any previous amendment cycle.
Site Specific Request # 3— This issue was not studied during the last amendment process. Th
Hildebrandt two parcels to the north, which are also owned by the applicants,
were rezoned from Commercial Enterprise (CE) to Multi-Family
(RM 2400) as part of the 2010 Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Process.
B. Criterion #2 — The proposed amendment is consistent with the overall vision of the
comprehensive plan.
Response to Criterion #2 —
Req uest
Response
Site Specific Request #I — Changing the designarion of this parcel from Suburban Estates
Hort (SE) to Single Family — High Density Residential (RS I5.0) would
not be consistent with the overall vision of the comprehensive plan.
The existing SE designation for the subject parcel is consistent
with the vision of the comprehensive plan to retain targer urban
lots on or near critical areas in order to avoid development
pressure. The comprehensive plan states that there are two notable
locations that meet this criterion: Spring Valley, located in the
southern portion of the city; and along Puget Sound near Dumas
Bay in the vicinity of Camp Kilworth and the Palisades Retreat
properry. This property is west of and abuts Dumas Bay Park.
Si[e .Specifrc Request # 2 —
f3trrretf
i
Designating this parcel as multi-family is consistent with Land Use
Policy L[JP23, which is supportive of locating multiple-family
development where transportation and capital facifities
improvemen[s are available. All utilities are avaiiable to the site. In
addition. the parcet is adjacent to South 308` Street, a minor
collector, �vhich is intended to connect higher density areas to the
arterial system. The proposed amendment would also allow '
developmenr of the site to be consistent with acljacent land uses.
Land [ isei"i Cummittee (LUTC) Meering Date: .luly 2, 2012
Selectioi� Pr��cc��. l.'r Plan Amendmznts 69 Page 5 of 8
Request � Response
Site Specifrc Reqa�est # 3— This request is not consistent with the comprehensive plan policy
Hildebrandt to preserve and protect Federal Way's single-family neighborhoods
(LUG3).
G Criterion #3 — Whether the proposed amendrnent meets the existing state and local laws,
including the GMA.
Response to Critepion #3 — None of the proposed amendments, if adopted, would be in
conflict with local or state laws if subsequent development of the parcels are in compliance
with local and state regulations, including the FWRC and State Environmental Policy Act
(SEPA).
D. Criterion #4 — In the case of text amendments, or other amendments to goals or policies,
whether the request benefits the city as a whole versvs a selected group.
Response to Criterion #4 — Not applicable. The requests are site-specific requests and not
requests for text amendments.
If the request meets the criteria set forth in subsections above, it shall be further evaluated
according to the following criteria:
E. Criterion #1— Whether the proposed amendment can be incorporated into planned or active
projects.
Response to C'riterion #1— If the City Council determines that these requests shoutd be
analyzed further, they can be incorporated into the 2012 Planning Commission Work Program.
F. Criterion #2 — Amount of analysis n.ecessary to reach a recommendation on the request. If a
large-scale study is required, a request may have to be delayed until the following year due to
workload, staffing levels, etc.
Response to C'riterion #2 —None of the requests require a targe-scale study.
G. Criterion #3 — Vo(ume of requests received. A large volume of requests may necessitate that
some requests be reviewed in a subsequent year.
Response to Criterion #3 — Only three requests were received for the 2012 Comprehensive
Plan Amendment Cycle.
H. Criterion #-� — Order of requests received.
Response to Criteriorr #4 — The requests were received in the following order:
l. Hoit
2. Barcett
3. Hildebrai�dt
Land Lse/Transpurtation Commi��ee (Lt�TC} ------ ------ Meeting l?aie��fuly 2. 2012
Selection Process — Comprchen.i-. � Plan �lmendments 70 Page 6��f 8
VIII. COUNCIL ACTION
IX.
X.
Pursuant to FWRC 19.80.080(4), based on its review of requests according to the criteria in
Section VII of this staff report, the City Council shall determine which requests shall be further
considered for adoption and shall forward those requests to the Planning Commission for its
review and recommendation. The council's decision whether to consider a proposed amendment
shall not constitute a decision or recommendation that the proposed amendment should be
adopted, nor does it preclude later council action to add an amendment for consideration.
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDATION
A. Site-Spec�c Request #1— Request from Edward Hoit for a comprehensive plan amendment
and rezone of 1.82 acres (parcel #112103-9131) located to the west of Dumas Bay Park from
Single Family — Low Density Residential and Suburban Estates (SE, one unit per five acres) to
Single Family — Medium Density Residential and RS 15.0 (Single Family, one unit per 15,000
square feet).
Mayor's Recommendation —The Mayor recommends that the request not go forward for
further review because it does not conform to the comprehensive plan.
B. Site-Specific Request #2 — Request from Mark Barrett for a comprehensive plan amendment
and rezone of 035 acres (parcel #785360-0008) located at 1836 South 308�' Street from Single
Family — High Density Residential and RS 7.2 (Single Family, one unit per 7,200 square feet)
to Multiple Family Residential and RM 3600 (Multi-Family, one unitper 3,600 square feet).
Mayor's Recommendation — The Mayor recommends that the LUTC forward the proposed
amendxnent request for consideration by the Plannina Commission, LUTC, and City Council.
G Site-Specific Request #3 — Request frorn Isaac Hildebrandt for a comprehensive plan
amendment and rezone of 1.18 acres (parcel #292104-9471) located at 1320 South 359`" Street
from Single Family— Medium Density Residentia( and RS 15.0 (Single Famity, one unit per
15,000 square feet) to Multiple Family Residential and RM 2400 (Multi-Family, one unit per
2,400 square feet).
Mayor's Recommendation —The Mayor recommends that the request not go forward for
further review because it does not conform to the comprehensive plan.
LAND USE/TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The LUTC forwards tl�e recommendation to the full Council as follows:
I . Hoit Request
a)
b)
That the request go forward for further consideration.
That the request not go forward for ft�rther consideration.
Land Use/Transportatiun Comrninrr r I f) T'C`� Meeting (�ate: iuh ?_ 2012
Seiection Process—Comprehcrz�i�c i'ian rlrnendments 71 ('<���e 7ot�8
APPIZOVAL OF COMMITTEE REPORT:
Bob Celski, Chair Jeanne Burbidge, Member Susan Honda, Member
2. Barrett Request
a) That the request go forward for further consideration.
b) That the request not go forward for further consideration.
A'E'PRO�'AL OF EOMMITTEE RE�?RT:
Bat� Celski Chair �eann� Burbidge, Member �us�i �ontta, Ivlecnber
3. Hildebrandt Request
a) That the request go forward for further consideration.
b) That the request not go forward for further consideration.
APPR(}YAL QF COMNIITTEE REPE���':
Boh �elski Chair ` 7e�nne Burbidge, Member St�sar� I�o
XI. LIS'r o� ExH i siTs
Exhibit A Composite Map
Exhibit B Vicinity Map of Site-Specific Request #1 —Hoit
Exhibit C Vicinity Map of Site-Specific Request #2 —Barrett
Exhibit D Vici►tity Map of Site-Specific Request #3 — Hildebrandt
Exhibit E Aerial Photo of Site-Specific Request # 1— Hoit
Eachibit F Aerial Photo of Site-Specific Request #2 — Barrett
Exhihit G Aerial Photo of Site-Specific Request #3 — Hildebrandt
K:\Comprehensive PIan12012 Comprehensive PlaniSelection Process�LtJ I�C�Staff RepoR to the LUTC.doc
--------- -- -_ _ _
Land lJse/'franspi?rta[ion C�ummittee (LUTC)
Setection Proces> - C:�rnpr�hensive Plan Amendmen�s '72
�da. Member
�Iretin� (3ate: 3uly 2, 2012
Page 8 of 8
Abbey Ro�d
July 27th, 2012
Federal Way City Hail EXHIBIT
ATTN: �
• Isaac Conlen
• Margaret Clark
33325 S'" Avenue South
PO Box 9718
Federal Way, WA 98063-9718
RE: OT-179, City of Federal Way File No.11-103962-UP, 2012 Comprehensive Plan Amendments
Request for and of Hildebrandt Request for Parcel #: 292104-9071,
Dear Isaac and Margaret,
The following information is provided as a follow up to the Land Use And Transportation Committee
meeting of 8 July 2012 and my follow up meeting with City Staff on 25 July 2012 in regards to Ciry of
Federal Way File No. 11-103962-UP, 2012 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Request for and of
Hildebrandt Request for Parcel #: 292104-9071,
The following information is provided to modify and support the Master Land Use Application of 24 Sept
2�11 for 2012 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Request for and of Hitdebrandt Request for Parcel #:
292104-9071 (See Atkached).
Please accept this information in general to change the following:
Proposed Amendment.
Modify / Change the proposed requested Comprehensive and Zoning change as follows:
Comprehensive Plan Requested Chanae:
From: Single Family - Medium Density Residential
Q Single Family - High Density Residential
Zoning Requested Change:
From: Single Family - High Density Residential (RS-15)
To: Single Family - High Density Residential RS 5.0 (That allows "0" Lot line
Development)
Alternate to: Single Family - High Density Residential RS 72 (If the code was changed to
allow "0" Lot line Development)
Abbey Road Group Land Development Services Company, LLC
PO Box 1224, Puyallup, WA 98371
Phone:253-435-3699 Fax:253-446-3159
www.abbc�oadgrou p.com
Please accept this information as a modification / Change and supportive documentation in regards to the
City of Federal Way File No. 11-103962-UP, 2012 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Request for and of
Hildebrandt Request for Parcel #: 292104-9071
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at (253) 435-3699 x1516.
Sincerely,
.,
Gi Hu sma
CEO - Director of Land Development Services
Abbey Road Group Land Development Servfces Company, LLC
253-435-3699 Phone
253-446-3159 Fax
GiL Hu/smannCcDAbbe yRoadGroup. com
www. abbevroadgroua.com
Attachments:
o Zoning Request Modification Summary and Support / Justification Document
o Area Vicinity Aerial Map
o Site Area Vicinity Aerial Map
o City of Federal Way Site Area Comprehensive Map
o City of Federal Way Site Zoning Map
74
City of Federal Way Comprehensive Plan Amendment (Update I AdJustment)
Request for Hildebrandt Parcel #: 292104-9071,
File No.11-103962-UP, 2012
27 July 2012
SUBJECT: Zoning Request Modification Summary and Support / Justification Document
Proaosed Amendment.
Comprehensive Plan reauested Chana�_
From: Singie Family - Medium Density Residential
To: Single Family - High Density Residential
Zoninq Reauested Chanae:
From: Single Family - High Density Residential (RS-15)
TQ Single Family - High Density Residential RS 5.0 (That allows "U" Lot line
Development)
Alternate to: Single Family - High Density Residential RS 7.2 (If the code was changed to
allow "0" Lot line Development)
SUPPORT FOR THE AMENDMENT
The pro�osed area that the parcel is located in as no transition zone between commercial / Multi Familv
on the north and the medium density Residential to the south,
Also the zoning itself is the original zoning that was in place p�ior to the full area infrastructure being i�
placed (Roads, Water, Sanitary).
Additionally the area itself consists of high use areas of non residential homes and lots, "A Church, A
High School, A City storage Faciiity / Yard and additional adjacent Multi Family Developments to the east
and proposed to the north".
As stated and indicated above there is no transition zone established for this area.
The comarehensive Plan states that:
Housing is a basic need and a major factor in the quality of life for individuals and families. An
adeauate supply of affordable attractive and functional housina is fundamental to achievina a
sense of communitv. The central issue related to land use is supplying enough land to
accommodate projected growth for a range af incomes and households. Presently, housing is
provided primarily in single-family subdivisions or multiple-unit complexes. This plan devises
strateaies to increase housing o�tions and choices. The Land Use chapter advocates changes to
current development codes to increase flexibility in platting land and encourage housing as pa�t of
mixed-use developments in commercial areas. The latter provides an opportunity to locate
housing closer to employment and shopping, and to create affordable housing.
75
The demand for and development of single-family housing is expected to continue for the
foreseeable future. Single-family developrnent wi�l occur as in-fill development of vacant lots
scattered throughout existing neighborhoods and as subdivisions on vacant tracts of land. To
address future housing needs, the Land Use chapter encourages new techniques for developing
single-family subdivisions. Such fechniques inefude clusfering, planned unit deve/opments, Iot
size averaging, cottage housing, zero !ot line development, accessory dwelling units, and special
needs housing.
• To address future housing needs, the Land Use chapter encouraaes new techniques for
developing sin4le-family subdivisions. Such technic�ues include clustering, planned unit
developments, lot size averaging, cottage housing, zero lot line develo�ment, accessory dwelling
units, and special needs housing. (See actual code full text below)
• Single Family High Density residential designations are Iocated within close and convenient
�roximity to neic�hborhood business centers, areas of existinq or future emqloyment, a it, and
existin4 urban infrastructure and services. Future Single Family High Density development should
have good access to collector and arterial streets. (See actual code full text below)
• Goal LUG3.1 Provide wide ranae of housincr densitiss and types in the sinale-familv
Desrgnafed areas.
• Policies - LUP16 Revise existina land use reaulations to provide for innovation and flexibilitv in
the desian of new sinale-family devefopments and in-fi1L - LUP19 Consider snecial development
techniques (e.g., lot size averagina cottape housina and planned unit developmentsl in single-
famity areas, provided they result in residenfia! development consisfent with the qualrfy and
character of exisfing neighhorhoods.
Analvsis Overview:
In review of the area and the code we believe the above and following not only supports the
propose zoning change from Single Family - Medium Density Residential to Single Family - High
Density Residential for this lot but also we believe that the city should look at esfablishing a
transition zone between the Multi Family Zoning to the North and East and the Single Family -
Medium Density Residential to the south of South 359'" Street by establishing a transition zone of
High Density Single Family Residential SF 7.2 or SF 5.0 between the RM 2,400 Multi Family
zoning on the North of the area and the Medium Density Residential RS 15,000 density to the
south of this area. Allowing for a transiting of RM 2,400 to High Density Single Family Residential
SF 7.2 or SF 5.0 to Medium Density Single Family RS 15.
"*As a reminder, Singte Family - High Density Residential is Not Multi Family Development
Questions to Consider per the Comprehenslve Plan Process:
1. QUESTION:
o Was the same area or issue studied during the last amendment process and / or
conditions in the immediate vicinity significantly changed so as to make the requested
change within the Public interest?
ANSWERS:
o This area has not been studied in the last 5 plus years.
o This area has changed in the past 5 plus years because of the adjacent zoning being
changed last year.
o The site area now has complete infrastructure
76
o Transit has moved closer ta the site in the last 5 plus years
o Adjacent retailed has moved closer to the site over the last in the last 5 plus years
o A new proposed I— 5 Connection is moving closer to the site this year.
� •
o Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the overall vision of the
comprehensive pian.
ANSWERS:
Yes as stated in the Comprehensive Plan: The demand for and development of single-
family housing is expected to continue for the foreseeable future. Single-family
development will occur as in-fill development of vacant (ots scattered throughout existing
neighborhoods and as subdivisions on vacant tracts of land. To address iuture housing
nesds, the Land Use chapter encourages new techniques for developing single-family
subdivisions. Such techniques include clustering, planned unit developments, !ot size
averaging, cottage housing, zero lot line developmenf, accessory dwelling units, and
special needs housing.
3. QUESTION:
o Whether the proposed amendment meets existing state and local laws, including the
Growth Management Act.
ANSWERS:
o Yes, The demand for and development of single-family housing is expected to continue
for the foreseeable future. Single-family development will occur as in-fill development of
vacant lots scattered throughout existing neighborhoods and as subdivisions on vacant
t�acts of land.
4. QUESTION:
o In the case of text amendments or other amendments to goals or policies, whether the
request benefits the city as a whole versus a selected group.
ANSWERS:
Yes — The proposed amendment provides for a transition zone between zoning uses and
density's as is throughout the city and also as identified in the City code. And the request
meets the demand for and development of single-family housing based on the expected
increase need for the foreseeable future. Single-family development will occur as in-fill
development of vacant lots scattered th�oughout existing neighborhoods and as
subdivisions on vacant tracts of land. To address future housing needs, the Land Use
chapter encourages new techniques for developing sfngle-family subdivisions. Such
techniques include clustering, planned unit developments, !ot size averaging, cottage
housing, zero lot line development, accessory dwelfing units, and special needs housing.
5. QUESTION:
o If the request meets the criteria set forth in 1-4 above, it shall be further evaluated
according to the following criteria:
ANSWERS:
77
o Yes.
6. QUESTION:
o Whether the proposed amendment can be incorporated into planned or active projects
ANSWERS:
o In is our understanding the proposed amendment can be incorporated into planned
or active projects of the City Staff.
7. QUESTION:
o Amount of analysis necessary to reach a recommendation on the request. If a large-scale
study is required, a request may have to be delayed until the following year due to
workloads, staffing leveis, etc.
ANSWERS:
o In is our understanding the requested study's can be incorporated within the
availability work Plan of the City Staff?
8. QUESTION:
o Volume of requests received. A large volume of requests may necessitate that some
requests be reviewed in a subsequent year.
ANSWERS:
o In our understanding the request volume(s} is within the availability work Plan of
the City Staff.
Comprehens[ve Plan Support Information:
The following information is taken from the City of Federal Way's Comprehensive Plan in support of this
request.
• Single Family - Medium Density Residential RS 35,000 & 15,000
• Single Family - High Density Residential RS 9600, 7200, 5000
• Mulkiple Family Residential RM 3600, 2400, 1800
Residential Areas
Single Family
Federal Way is known for its quality single-family neighborhoods. This section contains goals and policies
that will shape future development and protect or improve the character and livability of established
neighborhoods. The demand for and development of single-family housing is expected to continue for the
foreseeable future. Single-family development will occur as in-fill development of vacant lots scattered
throughout existing neighborhoods and as subdivisions on vacant tracts of land. To address future
housing needs, the Land Use chapter encourages new technfques for developing single-family
subdlvlsfons. Such techniques include clustering, planned unft developments, lot size averaging,
cottage housing, zero lot llne developmen[, accessory dwelling units, and specia! needs housing.
78
Single Family Medium Density
The Single Family Medium Density designation creates urban lots with a density range of one to three
dwelling units per acre to avoid developing on or near environmentally sensitive areas. The Single Family
Medium Density designation can be found along the Puget Sound shoreline and south of South 356th
Street, both east and west of SR 99. Lot sizes of 35,000 and 15,000 square feet provide for a transition in
density between land designated as Single Family High Density Residential and Single Family Low
Density Residential. Some areas designated as Single Family Medium Density Residential still lack urban
services and infrastructure. Upon provision of urban services, such as water and sewer, an increase in
density may be warranted. The relatively large lot sizes along the Puget Sound shoreline areas are
appropriate due to geological features including steep slopes and landslide hazards commonly
associated with marine bluffs. As with the Single Family Low designation, the Single Family Medium
designations south of South 356th are located in the West Branch Hylebos Creek Sub-Basin. As noted in
the Single Family Low Density description, this sub-basin contains a number of environmentally sensitive
areas. This area of lower density zoning occurs on both the east and west sides of 1 st Avenue South.
However, there are major environmental land ownership differences between the two areas. The area
east of 1 st Avenue South is characterized by the Hylebos Wetlands and associated streams. In addition,
there are many parcels that are either publicly owned or are intended as wetland mitigation for
development elsewhere in the drainage basin. Therefore, based on the relative absence of environmental
constraints and the future availability of public services in the area west of 1 st Avenue South, an increase
in density may be warranted.
Single Family High Density
A majority of the single-family residential land in the City is designated as Single Family High Density.
Urban densities of approximately 4.5, 6.0, and 8.7 dwelling units per acre in the RS 9.6, RS 7.2, and RS
5.0 zoning districts respectively, provide for a range of housing densities. Single Family Hlgh Denslfy
residential designations are /ocated within c/ose and convenient proximity to neighborhood
business centers, areas of exPsting or future employment, fransit, and existing urban
infrastructure and services. Future Single Family High Denslty developmenf should have good
access to collector and arterial streets.
Goal
• LUG3 Preserve and protects Fedsra! Way's sing/e-family neighborhoods.
LUG3.1 Provfde wide range of housing densities and lypes in the single-family designated
areas.
Policies
• LUP14 Maintain and protect the character of existing and future single-family Neighborhoods
through strict enforcement of the City's land use regulations.
• LUP15 Protect residential areas from impacts of adjacent non-residential uses.
• LUP96 Revise existfng land use regulations to provide for innovation and flexibl/!ty In the
deslgn of new sfngle-family developments and in-ff!!.
• LUP17 Encourage the development of transportation routes and facilities to serve single-family
neighborhoods. Special attention should be given to pedestrian circulakion.
• 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.
79
LUP19 Consider specla/ development techniques (e.g., !ot slze averaging, cottage
housing, and planned unl! developments) in sJngle-famfly areas, provlded they resu/t ln
resfdentfal development consistent wlth the quality and characfer of ex�st/ng
nelghborhoods.
• LUP20 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.
Abbey Road Group land Development Services Company, LlC
PO Box 1224, Puyallup, WA 98371
Phone:253-435-3699 Fax:253-4463159
www.abbeyroadgroup.com
80
�
�
Legend:
Comprehensive Plan Designatians
� ' Cily Center Core
� � '` Cny Centsr Frame
� Communfly Du�mess
� Comnerdei E�Gtrprise
Commerdal�Recreatlon
�;,q Corporale Park
i' ` j Multi�Famiy
� ": � Neighborhood Commerdal
Of�w Pe�fc
4 , < ` ^� Parks and Opcn Spece
Professlonat O`ficc
Slnflle Famih/, �ow Dansity
3Yp�e Fam7g tAe�um Uensity
6fn�e Family, High De.rt4try
City of Federal Way
83
•� '�.,
,.;
.�� ,
..
�
;;�
,
�
.
a :, �
� �; . l
� �
:;�� , +
1 .• (
r
� �
� � �� �
t� 6' � !
�r`'; �
#� �
�, � �
� v
`t , �
' r �
�
F+ �,,•
��
ji {z
- �
4� � ..
a � 1.
� t
ti;:�'�
� �
. �, :�,�
* �
' �o
�-rSrt��r4�rY,c��� t �; Q.
f���t�, ti ;�
' �; �
-�- �-•
Comprehensive Plan
fedo�ai Way Zon6rg Dasignatians:
f�mmsrrlal7nrtes
�'� % BC -Ccmm�mhy Buskieu
Bt1- t�eighharhocd BusMess
� CE-CtmmatcislEnttrptisa
h&irad•Uso Zones
, i CG Ciry CerAer Core
CF - City Cc�to� Framo
AfWN•FsmiN2rvn.a
RA11800 • 1 Ul� f 1,800 $Quare F6e1
RM2400 • 1 Unk f 2.A00 SWxe Faet
RI�C3�00 . 1 UnR I 3p00 5G�cve Feet
p(R6A Ll7IB8
���: � CP.1- Carpo.qto Pxk
O.'' - OFioe Paitt
. . � O?-1 • 0flica Park 1
"' `# O?•2 . (bYttA PaAt 2
°�:� O?-3 • ORlca Pa�k 3
. ��e 0��4 � pTica VaA �
� � �- PO-Pr•�tessbial04'r.e
,�s f�+� 2mas
RSib.O • 1 UnR! 15.000 Square Feat
K335A - 7 IInR t 35,7]� &p�are Fe�l
RSiA-1 Ua4l 5,000 Squara Faet
RS72 -1 Uot / 720D Cquere Feat
R89b - I Unt! 8,800 Spuere Feel
tiF . 7 Unh I 6 A^�f�:
City of Federal Way
Zoning
84
r !�
��� k�
100� �,
�
� �
% y , �
��
� �
,n
� �
�� �
4
'{ `"' g ' -`a..
+ �F_`
:� a
,
.
�� ' r
,,
,
�
,
,.� ;.
; r
f
,
:� ,
�, , �
r ,
- .
��, �
, ,
}
�
�
�
.