Planning Comm PKT 07-18-2012July 18, 2012
7:00 p.m.
City of Federal Way
PLANNING COMMISSION
City Hall
Council Chambers
AGENDA
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Apri14, 2012 _
. _ 4. AUDIENCE COMMENT
. 5. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT '
: 6. COMMISSION BUSINESB
• PUBLIC HEARING
Proposed Zaning Code Amendments Related to Open Space
Standards for Multi-Unit Residential DevelopmentWithin the City
Center-Core and City Center-Frame Zoning Districts
7. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS
8. ADJOURN
Commissioners
Merle Pfeifer, Chair
Lawson Bronson
Tom Medhurst
Tim O Neil
Hope Elder, Vice-Chair
Wayne Carlson
Sarady Long
K:�Planning Commissio�1201241genda 07-18-12.doc
City Staff
Patrick Doherty, Director of Communiry & Economic Development
Isaac Conlen, Planning Manager
Margaret Clarl� Principal Planner
E. Tina Piety, Administrative Assistant
253-835-2601
wivw. ci�ofl'ederahvaKcom
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
PLANNING COMMISSION
April 4, 2012 City Hall
7:00 pm. C o un cil Chambers
MEETING MINUTES
Gommissioners present: Me�le Pfeifer, Tom Medhurst, Wayne Carlson, Lawson Bronson� and Sarady
Long. Commissioners absent: Hope Elder and Tim O'Neil (excused). Staff present: Planning Manager
Isaac Conlen, Contract Planner Jim Harris, Assistant City Attorney Peter Beckwith, and Administrative
Assistant II Darlene LeMaster.
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Pfeifer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES .
. The minutes of March 7, 2012, were approved as presented. �
AUDIENCE COMMENT .
None
, ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
Planning Manager Conlen stated the second meeting of April (Apri1 18) has been canceled.
,
. �
COMMISSION BUSINESS `
PUBLIC HEARING - Proposed zoning code amendments related to change of use and nonconforming
development standards, and review process for minor improvements and improvements to
developed sites.
Contract Planner Harris delivered the staff report. These are business friendly amendments. The proposed
amendments are to several sections of the zoning code and can be as follows:
— Modify the review process for minar exterior building modifications;
— Modify the review process for improvements to developed sites;
— Modify the review process for change of use;
— Eliminate a section of the nonconformance standards that require site upgrades when there is
a change of use; and
— Amendments to zoning use charts related to change of use.
Commissioner Medhurst asked how minor improvements (as opposed to substantial improvements) are
defined. He understands that it will be done by square footage, but are there other criteria, such as impact,
dollars spent, eta Contract Planner Harris stated that in E�ibit A, page 3 of 6, minor improvement is
defined by gross floar area. Commissioner Medhurst is concerned that a developer could spend a lot of
money and make substantial improvements within the required gross floor area for a minor improvement.
Contract Planner Harris noted that an additional criterion for a minor improvement is that it must be
exempt from SEPA requirements. Commissioner Medhurst's example may not be exempt from SEPA
requirements and therefore, would not meet the definition of a minor improvement.
K:�Planning Commission�201luvfeeting Summary 04-0412.doc
Planning Commissicn Minutes Page 2 Apri14, 2012
Commissioner Medhurst asked if a tenant moves into a multi-tenant building and over the years takes
over almost a11, ar all, of the building would that trigger improvements, or woii[d they be exempt under
the proposed code. amendment. Planning Manager Conlen replied that if it is no� a change of use, they
would not need to do anything. If it is a change of use, it would trigger the city's review process.
The proposed process to determine if a tenant is a change of use would take place during the business
registration process (since there is no building or land use permit requirement). If it is determined to be a.
change of use, lan�l use review would be triggered. Otherwise, no additional review would be required.
The current process requires a land use review (with commensurate fees) in order to determine if it is a
change of use. The proposed process will take less time and cost.
There was discussion about SEPA categorical exemptions and how they relate to the proposed code
amendments. There was also discussion of how change of use is dealt with differently from a tr�c trip
generation perspective. This is addressed in a different section of the code.
Commissioner Bronson asked what type of substantial improvements to a site would require land use '�` ``'
review process IIl or IV: Contract Planner Harris replied that a substantial improvement is any
improvement above the 25% or 2,000 square feet of gross floor area. It is the use that triggers the land use
process required. Some uses have more impact, such as a gravel batch plant, and therefore are required t6 �� `
go through a more intense land use review of process III or IV.
The hearing was apened for public comment.
Sam Pace, Seattle/King County Realtors — He feels the proposed amendments are an important
step in the right direction. He is encouraged by the effort to simplify the process. The current
process is more subjective than objective. With the proposed amendments, one must still meet
requirements for parking, setbacks, etc. He believes the proposed amendments strike a good
balance. He feels that with the current economic environment, it is important the city is able to
concentrate its xime and resources on what is most important. T'he proposed amendments will
allow the city to take issues that are relatively minor, treat them as minor, and still maintain
needed protections. The proposed amendments will create predictability for the private sector and
will save them money. This is likely to encourage investors to make more investments in the city.
Public comment was closed. Commissioner Carlson moved (and it was secondea� to recommend approval
of the proposed code amendments as supplemented by the new Exhibit B and presented by staff. There
was no further discussion. The motion passed unanimously. The public hearing was closed.
ADDITIONAL BUSINESS
None
ADJOURN
Chair Pfeifer adjourned the meeting at 7:06 p.m.
K:�Planning Canmission�2011Vvieeting Summary 04-04-12.dce
� ��uu�� ���
@III ��Uiii�
.
.�„► � z'�
�
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Amendments to Federal Way Revised Code (FVYRC)
Chapter 19.05, "Zoning and Development in General," Chapter 19.100,
"Mitigation of Development Impacts," Chapter 19.115, "Community Design
Guidelines," �hapter 19.225.070, "Multi-Unit Housing - City Center-Core,"
and 19.230.060, "Multi-Unit Housing - City Center-Frame"
File No.12-12109-00-UP
Public Hearing of July 18, 2012
L BACKGROUND
: In recent years, the City of Federal Way has received dev�lopinent proposals for high-rise, mixed-
use development within the City Center, specifically the City Center-Core (CGC): In these cases,
the application of the minimum 200 square feet per unit of usable open space resulted in a required
open space area that exceeded the size of the building site. The current open'space requirement is
inconsistent with the type of higher density; mixed use development envisioned for a thriving urban
center. The requirement of 200 square feet per unit is higher than what is typically required in other
cities that allow high-rise, mixed-use development.
In 2010, staff reviewed the open space requirements for the Community Business (BC) zoning
district and the Planning Commission r�ommended 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 development. The City Council 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 CGC 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 Commission is being asked to review the proposed changes to Federal Way Revised
Code (FWRC) 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 AMENDMENTS
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 yuality over quantity 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 File 12-102109-00-UP
July 18, 2012, Ptanning Commission Public Hearing Page 1 of 4
usable open space, including rooftop terraces, private balconies, indoor spaces, and a fee-in-lieu
opti�n for up to 50% of the open space requirement.
In developing the proposed amendments, staff reviewed the urban open space development
standards of other cities that allow for high rise mixed use develapment. In addition, a good
summary of open space requiremeuts 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 sections provide summaries of each of the propos�d code amendments. The
proposed text is enclosed in Exhibits A-E.
Proposed Code Amendments
1. Recommended modification to Multi-Unit Use Zone Charts for CC-C and CC-F
zoning districts.
This proposed amendmentwould reduce the usable open space requirement from a
minimum of 200 square feet per unit ta 1-0O 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, leaving little to no open space a�ailable �t the ground leve�. In this type of
development, usable open space is often provided by a combination of: open space at ground
level or above parking structures; balconies; roof top terraces; 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 eligible 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 quality and
usability 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 ma7cimum 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
`�
3. Recommended modifications to FWRC 19.05.150, "Detinitions."
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 FWRC 19.140.070, "Mitigation of Development
Impacts."
The last proposed code amendment 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 fees-in-lieu for open 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 occupied, similar to that provided for residential
subdivisions (Exhibit E).
II.
PROCEDURAL SUMMARY �
6/29/12: Public Notice of 7/18J12 Planning _Commission public hearing published and posted
7/6/12: Issuance of Determination of Nonsignificance (DNSj pursuant to the State Environmental
: Policy Act (SEPA)
7/20/12: End of SEPA Comment Period
8/3/12: End of SEPA Appeal 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 text 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
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:
l. The proposed amendments are consistent with the applicable provisions of the
comprehensive plan.
The proposed FWRC text amendments are consistent with the following Federal Way
Comprehensive Plan (FWCP) policies and goals;
EDG4 , The City ivill 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 develnp zoning, permitfing, and potential financial incentives that
encourage prioritized development consistent with comprehensive and subarea
plans and orderly�hased growth.
EDP14 The City will continue to utilize design guidedines 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.
�
1
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 divers� the range of housing rypes avaidable in the City.
CCG7 Encourage housing opportunities in mixed residential/commercial settings.
Promote housing opportunities close to empdoyment.
CCG13 Focus new growth, with resudtant increasing demands for infrastructure and
transportation in the City Center, specifically the core area. Allow for higher
intensity uses for e�cient use of land.
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.
CCPIO 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.
2. The proposed amendments bear a substantial relationship to public health, safety, or
welfare.
FWRC Code Amendments — Open Space in CC zones File 12-102109-00-UP
July 18, 2012, Planning Commission Public Hearing Page 4 of 4
The proposed FWRC text amendments bear a substantial relationship to the public health, safety,
and welfare because the text ainendments retain the requirement for on-site open space for
multi-unit development withir� the city center. While the amount of open space is proposed:�o be
reduced, this reduction better i�elates to the type of residential units that will likely be develc�ped
within the urban core setting.
3. The proposed amendments are in the best interest of t6e residents of the city.
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 rerinove
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.
V. STAFF RECOMM�NDATION
Based on the .above staff analysis and decisional criteria,. staff recommends that the following
amendments to FWRC Title 19, "Zoning and Development Code," be recommended for approval"to
the Land UsefTransportation Committee (LIJTC) and' City Council.
1. Modifications to FWRC 19.225.070 19.23�.060, 19.OS.150, and 19.100.070, and the addition
of FWRC 19.115.XXX, as identified in Exhibits A-E.
ExHiBiTs
ExhibitA — FWRC 19.225.070, Modifications to Use Zone Chart: CGC "Multi-Unit Housing"
Exhibit B— FWRC 19.230:060, Modifications to Use Zone Chart: CC-F "Multi-Unit Housing"
Exhibit C— FWRC 19.115.XXX, New Section in Chapter 115 "Community Design Guidel'mes"
Exhibdt D— FWRC 19.05.150, Modifications to Definitions of "Open Space," "Common Open
Space," and "Private Open Space"
Exhibit E— FWRC 19.100.070, Modifications to "Mitigation of Development Impacts"
Exhibit F— MRSC Paper on High Density Open Space by Bob Bengford of MAKERs
FWRC Code Amendments — Open Space in CC zones File 12-102109-00-UP
July 18, 2012, Planning Commission Public Hearing Page 5 of 4
19.225.070 Multi-unit housing.
EXHIBIT A
The followin uses shall be ermitted in the ci center core (CGC) zone sub'ect to the re ulations and notes set forth in this section:
USE ZONE CHART
z DIRECTIONS: FIRST, read dow� to find use ... THEN, across for REGULATIONS
O _ . _ _
.,, Minimums
� o Re uired Yards � Z�NE
W � � � � o � � � CC-C
a g � v � � °°
• Q. � � C y � .� V � � . .
USE �: � .°� w � w x� rr a SPECIAL REGULATIONS AND NOTES
Multi-unit Process II None MuIU-unit 70 ft. or Multi-unit 1. The city may, using process III, modify required yard, 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 J 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 a The street, utilities, and other infrastructure in.the area are adequate to support the proposed development.
Senior citizen or 2. Chapter 19.265 FWRCcontains regulatio� regarding home ocwpations and other accessories, facilities and activities
Senior citizen See note special needs Mixed use associated widi 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 publiciy visible
needs 20 ft. 5 ft. 5 ft. senior citizen streetscape amenities, as defined in GhapYer 19.-1-1-� 05.190 FWRC, are located alongthe right-of-way; the siting and
housing See notes 1, 3, and special design of which shall be approved by the director.
(stacked �d q needs 4. Multi-unit housing,and accessbry residential uses maybe located onthe ground floor of a sUucture only as follows: (a)
dwelling housing: ground level space Eiat spans at least 80%0 of the length of the principal commercial faFade; as determined by the
units) Determined director is occupied with one ar more other uses(s) allowed in this zone; and (b) ground level space that spans at least
on a case-by- 60% of the length of all other street facing facades is occupied with one or more other use(s) allowed in this zone; and
case basis (c) all ground level nonresidenfal space(s) have a minimum floor-to-ceiling heig}d of 13 ft. and an auerage dep� of 30
ft., but in no case less ihan 15 R. Howeuer, stacked senior citizen or special needs housing may stand alone.
5. Building height may be increased from the permitted outright height of 70 ft. to 200 ft. in exchange for providing
publicly visible streetscape amenities, as defined in Chapter -1-9:-1-�319.05.190 FWRC, along the right-of-way; the siting
and design of which shall be approved by the directoc
6. The subject property must provide resreaFiepal usable open space in a total amount equal to at least �99100 sq. ft. per
dwelling unit and may include private ouen spaces such as yards, paiios, and balconies, as well as common onen suaces
a�eas such as plazaS. playgrounds, reaeation rooms, rooftop tGrcaces, D_DBtch�,s, pools, active.lobbies, and_atriums. t�»y
'A
minimum of 25% of the usable oaens oace arovidedmust be common ooen suace All elieible useble onen snace
shall also meet the reauirements soecified in FWRC 19115 XXX A fee-in-lieu aavment mav be utilized for ua to
50% of t6e usable ooen snace as saeciSed in FWRC 19.115.XXX.
Continued
Process I, II, III and IV aze described in For other information about parking and parking azeas, 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 regarding requued yards, see FWRG 19.125.160 et seg.
K:�2012 Code AmendmentsUtesidentiai Open space in CC distsricts�Planning Commission�exhibit A 19-225•070.Mulfi-Unit Housing-revised.6.doc
19.225.070 Multi-unit housing. (Continued)
��
USE ZONE'CHART
z DIRECTIONS: FIRST, read down to find use ... THEN, across for REGULATIONS
p Minimums
.„
F� Re uired Yards
� y y ZONE
� � �
o � rr / - r
s l.l.�l_.
W
w �
x �3 °� � °� ��,
� v = �
� � o � :� � � � � � SPECIAL REGULATIONS AND NOTES
USE �a a w r� u: xv� xa
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 community design guidelines that apply to the projec; see Chapter 19.1 I S FWRC
9. For landscaping requirements that apply to the project, see Chapter 19.125 FWRC.
10. For sign requirements that apply;to the project, see Chapter 19.140 FWRC.
11. Refer to Chapter 19.265 FWRC to determine wha[ 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 F WRC.
13. Single-story buildings may not exceed a total ground floor area of 16,000 gross sq. ft., unless approved under the
provisions of FWRC 19.110.08Q or appTOVed by the director for minor additions such as entry 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.
14. No more than 16,OOp sq. ft. of new single-story construction may occur on a subject property, excluding increases
approved under the provisions of F WRC 19.110.080 and minor additions approved by the director under note 13.
15. Multiple-story buildings aze 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) permitted in this zone.
16. Required pazking may be reducad under the provisia�s of FWRC 19.130.020(3)(a), (b), (c), and (d).
Process I, II, III and IV are described in For other information about parking and parking azeas 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, For details regarding required yazds, see FWRC 19.125.160 et seq.
Chapter 19.70 FWRC respectively.
K:�2012 Code Amendments�Residential Open space in CC distsricts�Planning Commission\exhibit A 19•225-070 Multi-Unit Housing-revised.6.doc
_
EXHIBIT B
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 �ONE CHART
DIRECTIONS: FIRST, read down to find use ... THEN, across for REGULATIONS
m Minimums
p o Re uired Yards � ZONE
� a
� � � CC-F
�' � � °� ��
� .� 3 " . c ,_ ,
C7 Q.•� �' o b � ;ob �' o,:�e
usE a � a � w �n o4 x� x a SPECIAL REGULATIONS AND NOTES
Muld-unit Process II None Multi-unit housing: 70 ft. Multi-unit 1. The city may, using process III, modify tequired height, yard, landscape and other site design and dimensional requirements for a
housing Sante as tltese or housing: proposed development that meets the following criteria:
(StaCked Possible requitements for 85 ft. 1.7 per unit a. The proposed development will be consistent with the adopted comprehensive plan policies for this zone; and
dwellittg units) Process round floor use b. The proposed developmentwill be consistent with the applicable design guidelines; and
III Senior citizen or See ttotes See note 17 a The street utilities and other infrastructure in the azea are adequate ro support the proposed development.
2. M�Iti-unit housing and accessory residential nses may be located on Che gound floor of a structure only as follows (a) ground level
Senior citizen speciai needs 1, 4, attd space tha[ spans a[ least 60 percent of the length of the principal commercial faqade, as determined by the director, is occupied with one
and Special See note housin : 5 Mixed use or more other uses(s} allowed in this zone; and (b) ground 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) all ground level nonresidential space(s) have a minimum
(staCked See notes 1, 5, 8, and Senior citizen floor-to-ceiling height of 13 ft. and an average depth of 30 ft., but in no case less than I S ft. Stacked senior citizen or special needs
dwelling units) 10 and special housing may stand alone.
needs 3. FWRC 19265A10 et. seq., contains regulations regazding home occupations and other accessories, facilities and activities associated
with this use.
housing: 4. Building height may be increased from the permitted outright height of 70 ft. to 85 ft. in exchange for providing publicly visible
Determined streetscape amenities; as defined in Chapter �-9:-�}3 19.05.190 FWRC, along the right-of-way; the siting and design of which shall be
ott a Case-by- approved by the director.
C1Se 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-mned property line, and shall not exceed 40 ft. above average building elevation when located between
40 ft. and 100 ft. from such property line.
6. The subject property must provide reereeEiegal su able open space in a total amount equal to at least �96100 sq. ft. per dwelling unit
and may include private one° spaces such as yards, patios, and balconies, as well as common ooen soaces ereas such as In azas.
playgrounds, recreation rooms, rooftop terraces, o-ostches. pools, active lobbies, and atriums.
. A minimum of 25% of the usable ooen soace arovided
must be common ooen space. All elieible usable ooen soace s6a11 also meet t6e reauirements soecified in FWRC 19 115 XXX A
fee-in-lieu ootion is available for uo to 50% of the usable ooen soace as soecified in FWRC 19 115.XXX.
Continued
Process I, II, III and IV aze described in For other information about pazkin� and parking areas, Chapter 19.1,30 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, For details regazding required yards, see FWRC 19.125.160 et seq.
Chapter 19.70 FWRCrespectivel .
K:�2012 Code AmendmrntsVtesidentiel Open space in CC distaricta�Planning Commission�Exhibit B 19-230.060 Mulb-Unit Housing-revised.b.doc
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 Yazds � Z�NE
a �° a L w �° � CC—F <
� �'3 � � °� ��
C7 �a. •� u' c a� �.;ob � ��.:�
USE � a� a w � a x� r� a SPECIAL REGULATIONS AND NOTES
7. No manimum lot coverage is established. Instead, the buildable area will be determined by other site development requirements; i.e., buffers,
pazking lot landscaping, surface water facilities, etc.
8. No setback is required adjacent 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 siting and design of which shall be approved by the director.
9. For community design guidelines that apply to the project, see FWRC 19:1 IS FWRC.
10. For landscaping requirements that apply for the project, see Chapter 19.125 FWRC.
I 1. For sign requirements that apply to the project, see FWRC 19.140 FWRC.
12. Refer to FWRC 19.265.010 et seq. to detertnine what other provisions of this chapter may apply ro 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 rotal ground floor azea of 16,000 gross sq. ft., unless approved under the provisions of FWRC
19.110.080, or approved by the director for minor addipons such as enhy 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 construction may occur on a subject property, increases approved under the provisions of
FWRC 19.110.080 and minor addidons approved by the director under note 14, above.
16. MulHple-story buildings aze not subjec[ to notes 14 and 15, above; provided tha[ each floor contains at least 75 percent of the gross sq. ft. of the
floor below it and contains a principal use(s) pem�itted 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 IV are described in For other information about parking and pazking azeas, see Chapter 19.130 FWRC.
Chapter 19.55 FWRC,
Chapter 19.60 FWRC,
Chapier 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 ef seq.
K:�2012 Code AmendmentsVtesidentiel Open space in CC distsrictslPtanning Commission�Exhibit B 19-230-060 MuIU-Unit Housing-revised.6.doc �. � � �
EXHIBIT C
Federal Way Revised Code
Title 19, Chapter 115, "Community Design Guidelines"
19.115.XXX DesiEn criteria for residential usable oaen space and fee-in-lieu option. :
pursuant to FWRC 19.225.070 and 19.230.060.
(1) COMMON OPEN SPACE All common open space proposed under this section
shall meet the definition of"onen space, common" as set forth in this title and all of the
followinE criteria: _
(a) In order to be credited toward tatal residenfial usable ouen space, common open
suace must be a minimum of 225 sa ft and h�ve a minimum dimension of 15 ft The "
inclusion of additional contieuous onen space areas that have smaller dimensions, but
enhance the use and enioyment of the overall lar��r space, mav be credited toward the
overall minimum usable ouen space repuirement subiect to director approvaL
(b) Indoor commo�t areas such as recreation/workout rooms, swimmine pools, and
�athering spaces that meet the criteria o�this section mav be counted as common open
space subiect to the criteria in this section.
(c) The common oaen.space shall be readilv �isible and accessible from structure(s)
with entries to residential units. �
(d) The common onen space shall not be located on asphalt or Eravel pavement, or
� � ��� ha ar�i�nan+ +n nnenrnnnnil nnrlrinrs Ir�+o �nhn{r_liwlr fnrnne nr hlnnlr ca»l�e s�nr� m�v nn+ hP .� .� .
used for parkin�,loadin�, or vehicular access.
(e) Pedestrian access wavs shall onlv be counted as common onen space when the
pedestrian path or walkwav traverses a common open space that is 15 ft. or wider.
(� The common onen suace shall be sufficientiv desi�ned and appointed to serve as a
maior focal aoint and �atherin� place. Common open spaces shall include a siEnificant
number of aedestrian-oriented features, furnishinES, and amenities tvpicallv found in plazas
and recreational onen snace, such as seafin� or sittin� wa1ls, lightinE, weather urotection,
special Aavin�, landscapin�, and trash receatacles. In addition, the common open space(s)
should provide one or more si�nificant visual or functional amenities such as a water feature,
fireplace, and/or artwork. and should allow for active uses such as qhvsical exercise,
children's plav area, �atherin� area for�roup social events, and p-patch or other EardeninS
activi .
(2) PRIVATE OPEN SPACE: In order to be credited toward total residentiat usable
o�en_space, private open space must be a minimum of 48 sq ft. and have a minimum
dimension of 6 ft.
(3) PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE OPEN SPACE: Publiclv accessible open suaces
provided on site mav be credited toward the minimum residential usable oaen space
repuirement. as IonE as the onen snace is directiv accessible to and available to residents for
their use. Onlv the uortion of the public onen space directiv accessible to, and available to
residents for their use mav be credited toward the residential usable oaen saace
repuirement.
;
�
�
(4) FEE-IN-LIEU OPTION: A fee-in-lieu pavment mav be made to satisfv up to 50% of
the residential usable ouen space requirement for the development of publac aarks and
recreation impravements. Fee-in-lieu acceptance shall be at the discretion of the Parks
Director after consideration of the citv's overall park plan, and the pualitv, location, and
usabilitv of the open space that would otherwise be provided on the proiect site. If the city
determines that a fee-in-lieu is appronriate, a pavment of an epuivalent fee-in-lieu of the
required open space shall be made.
The fee-in-lieu of onen suace shall be calculated based on the most recent assessed value
of the subiect nropertv, or an anaraisal conducted bv a state-certified real estate appraiser.
If the apUlicant offers to pay fee in lieu of oqen space and if the citv accepts the offer, the
amount shall be determined based upon the sauare footage of oven space thatotherwise
would have been required to be provided, multiplied by the then-current market value per
square foot of the proAeMV. Bv choosin� the fee-in-lieu option, the applicant agrees that the
citv will not be restricted to usin� the fees in the park comprehensive planninE area that the
subiect nroneMv falls within; and that thev mav be used for park and recreation
improvements in anv ofthe nark comprehensive ptanninE areas that serve the City Center-
Core and Citv Center-Frame zoned areas. See also FWRC 19.100.070.
EXHIBIT D
Federal Way Revised Code
Title 19, Chapter 100, "Mitigation of Development Impacts"
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 xb)" (1)(c), and
(3)(b) of this section, the following describes when such fees shall be calculated and paid:
(1) Open space fee-in-lieu.
(a) As Arovided in FWRC 18.55.060 and 19115.XXX, a 74 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 buildin� permit issuance for '.
multifamilv developments in the citvi 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 whiGh-
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 enfarce 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.
(c) For multifamilv develonments in the citvi center-core and citvi center-frame, open space
fees-in-lieu mav be deferred, but shall be uaid no later than the comuletion of construcNon and
prior to receipt of certificate of occunancv/approval to occupv for each floor or each building if
phased, or five vears from the recordin� of the deferment covenants, whichever is earlier.
Covenants urepared bv the citv shall be recorded at the applicant's exuense, arior to buildin�
permit issuance, to enforce pavment of deferred fees. The fee shall be calculated at the time of
recordin� of the covenants and shall be divided epuallv amon� all residential units within the
proiect. The fee shall be calculated based upon the square foota�e of open space that otherwise
would have been reauired to be nrovided multiplied bv the subiect propertv's assessed or app_raised
value. As consideration for the abilitv to defer open space fee-in-lieu pavments bevond building
permit issuance, the aqqlicant a�rees to waive the riEht to interest and/or a refund if pavment is not
expended within tive vears of collection.
(2) Regional stormwater facility 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 plat 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 development agreement entered into pursuant to RCW 36.70B.170 provided otherwise, the fee
shall be calculated and paid per the following:
(a) Far 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.
(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}
EXHIBIT E
Federal Way Revised Code
Title 19, Chapter 5, "Zoning and Development in General"
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 ofgoods 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; sales offices where no inventories orgoods are available on the premises; real estate, insurance,
travel agent, loan eompanies, brokerage or otl�er 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 notafication 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 properfy or geographically contiguous properties, which may be
- 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 th� 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 far 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 " , ,
.,'�:�'� •.°+°r �°�„^+ „°-���'°+° :„*^ *'�° ,„ a°� , •�: „ ^ �^;'^. means an area of land that is valued for natural
processes and wildlife, for a�ricultural aroduction, for active and passive recreation, and/or for
providinE other public benefits. In certain cases. open space mav refer to both outdoor and indoor
sqaces that provide active or qassive recreational amenities for a development's occupants or users.
"Oaen snace, common," means oqen space which is normallv utilized bv the occupants of a
buildin� or propertv.
"Open space, private," means se�teH 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 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 mark 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 shall be located so as to include the entire stream feature.
"Outdoor" means not contained within a building.
,
1
"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. This
ciefinition includes, but is not limited to, cargo, shipping, and freight containers; and excludes typical
residential accessory buildings or structures such as garages a�3d storage sheds; garbage and recy�ling
eontainers; 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), 11-4-08; Ord.
No. 08-583 § 3(Exh. A), 10-21-08: Code 200i § 22-1:i5.)
I �
(
I
Ylanning Advisor January 2012
Page 1 of 13
�� A+tunicip�►1 �e�e�r�h and �ervie�s ��nter c�f �ashin�c�n
,,,�,,,,,,�„ i��rk�r�g Tag�th�r f��- Eacc�tle�rr�ce 9r� l.c�! Gt�vernm�e�nt
����'1'1ltlilg �l�v��l�l"
MRSC has joined with Phil Olbrechts, Attorney, Olbrechts and Associates, PLLC, Pat Dugan, Dugan
Consulting Secvices, Anindita Mitra, founder of CREA A�tiates. LLC, and Bob Bengford, Partner,
MAKERS, to bring you the "Planning Advisor" artide series on planning and growth management
issue affecting Washington Local Governments. The "Planning Advisor" will feature a new article each
month with timely information and advice you can use.*
Post a comment
Provic�ig for Usable Open Space for Multifamily
Developments
January 2012
By Bob Bengford AICP, MAKERS
This is the second of two articles discussing regulatory strategies to address two challenges to
creating compatible and livable infill development. The first article, published 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.
Introduction
Srnart growth principies call for the development�of more intense mixed-use centers at.
transportation hubs or other strategic locations plus multifamily infill in neighborhood centers.
Demographic changes in concert with fuel costs are increasing tMe demand for compact multifamity
housing in Westem Washington and throughout the country. With rising iand costs, cities are finding
it increasingly difficuit to create new parkland to serve this lncreased density. Thus, it`s becoming-
increasing�y important for cities to update regulations to` provide for usabie on-site open space
associated with multifamily development.
This article examines:
• The goals and benefits of providing on-site muitifamily open space
• Research and resources
• Notable challenges in providing on-site open space
• A comparison in fiow a few`Washington cities regulate open space
• Lessons learned/considerations
The goals and benefits of providing on-site mulfiifamily open space
�WI�T �'
http://www.mrsc.org/focus/pladvisor/p1a0112.aspx 7/I O/2012
Planning Advisor January 2012
Page 2 of 13
A reasonable goal for any city should be to provide residents with access to usable open space for
recreation and leisure activities. While this is important for ail age groups, usable open space is
particulariy important for children. On-site open space associated with residential development
brings a number of other benefits toward creating heaithy and livable communities. Below is a
sample of some of the more notable bene�ts:
• Health benefits - pathways and recreational facilities such as play areas, swimming pools,
and fitness centers promote increased physicai ac�tivity. Balconies and common areas aiso offer
opportunities for gardening and growing a small amount of herbs, fruit, and/or vegetables;
• Enhanced residentiat setting,- this includes an increase in light and air to dwelling units
surrounding the common open spaces and enhanced views from units. Where landscaped open
spaces are visible from the street or adjacent properties, they bring obvious enhancements to the
community's character as well. Courtyard spaces can also offer increased privacy through the
strategic con�gurations and the placement of windows and landscaping;
• Environmental benefits - ground levei and courtyard spaces and even rooftop decks offer .
opportunities for trees and plants which consume carbon dfoxide and help to reduce stoRnwater
runoff; .
• Social benefits - well-designed common open spaces provide increased opportunifies for' -
social interaction with neighbors; '
• Safety - common open spaces that incorporate CPTED principles (Crime Prevention Through
Environmental Design) increase the number of "eyes on the space" by ailowing families to keep an
eye out on chiidren and for residents to be on the lookout for crime; and
• General functional benefits - spaces such as baiconies can provide a wide range of other
functional benefits to residential living. This can include a space to hang-dry clothing, space to
barbecue, or conduct certain cleaning or other activities 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 deve%pment in Issaquah Highlands provide for multip/e functions. This
includes recreational benefits, visual amenities, increased solar access to adjacent units, and low
impact deve%pment techniques used in the common areas help to manage stormwater impacts from
the deve%pment on the site.
What are the Challenges to Providing 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 sates income. However, the typical con�guration of residential buildings on
city biocks neariy aiways leaves ptenty of left-over space to accommodate courtyard spaces between
buildings and building wings. For constrained infill sites where generously sized courtyards may not
' '� i tt��N1�+�
.
http:/Jwww.mrsc.org/focus/pladvisor/p1a0112.aspx 7/10/2012
Planning Advisor January 2Q12
Page 3 of 13
be possibie, a combination of balconies, rooftop decks, and/or indoor common open space may be
• Cost. The cost of designing and building the open spaces affect the bottom line of
developments in two ways.A Yes, they do add costs to development, but they also fielp to bring in
revenue in terms of sales and/or increased rentai rates due to the amenities they create for
residents. Ultimately, open spaces don't need to be expensive. The usability of open spaces is often
best determined by the basic configuration of spaces and the relationship of units, windows, building
walls, and simple landscaping elements. Much of this comes from thoughtful design rather than
expensive materials and furnishings.
� Maintenance. This is a critical factor in the long term usability of common open spaces. While
there are obvious costs associated with maintenance, the'design of open spaces can heip 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 costs of the development, just as other amenities factor into the rents that residents
are wiiling to pay to live in particular developments.
What other Literature is Out There on Multi�amily Open Spa�e?
While much has been wrltten about pubiic open space, literatt,n�e on the-benefits of prlvate on-site
open space is surprisingiy hard to find. The most common source of information availabie is withi�
municipal design guidelines and standards. But outside of brief intent statements, guidelines, and
graphic examples, an in-depth discussion on the benefits and characteristics of multifamily open
spaces are most often left to books and literature.
Some notable sources of information on ftie design and/or benefits of multifamily open space
include:
• Housing as if Peop/e Mattered and Peop/e Places (Cooper Maxkus and others). These
two books - especially Housing as if People Mattered - are the best and most extensive studies of
private residential open space that I've found. While the photo examples and graphics feel a littie
outdated, the contents and design guidelines, which touch on the full range of open space issues, are
still spot on. Both books place a strong emphasis on the special needs of families with chiidren.
• Site P/anning (Lynch and Hack). This classic includes excellent guidance on housing design
and discusses outdoor space needs for residents, notably for children and teenagers (which they
note are often forgotten in housing deslgn). The book states that "it is better to distribute a varied
set of piay opportunities in many locations rather than to concentrate them in one area." Lynch and
Haek discuss the importance of balancing visibility with privacy and the unique needs of individual
housing types.
• Pattern Language (Alexander, Ishikawa, Silverstein). OAnother classic, this book
includes a wealth of ideas in creating livable environments. It includes chapters on the various
housing types, the needs of different age groups and families, and the design of a wide range of
outdoor spaces associated with housing.
• Form-Based Codes (D. Parolek, K. Parolek, and Crawford). This includes a brief section
on internal open space and<provides guidance oR courtyard design. The authors consider appropriate
dimensions based on sotar access and adjacent buitding heights and whether the courtyard is on the
ground or on a podium over parking.
There are surely other resources Ghat I haven't stumbled upon - therefore please comment if you
recommend another.great resource on multifami{y open space design/needs.
Comparing how Pacific Northwest Cities Regulate Multifamily
Open Space
httpJ/www.mrsc.org/focus/pladvisor/p1a0112.aspx 7/ 10/2012
Planning Advisor January 2Q12
Page 4 of 13
As part of writing this article, I wanted to take a closer look at how some western Washington
communities regulated internal multifamily open space. This ultimately included Seattle, Tacoma,
Bellevue, and Redmond. Each city's approach differs somewhat from the others. Aiso, all four cities
recently updated at least some of their appiicable standards.
Since each city has a variety of zones that aliow for muitifamily 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 amount of open space
required, design-related requirements, applicable design review process, and finally some comments
and observations.
Comparing Multifamily Open Space Requirements
city
Seattle Tacoma Bellevue Redmond
Housing Type - Apartments (single purpose multifamily uses)
Applicable Lowrise zones R-3 - R-5 zones and R-10-30 zones, R-12 to R-30
zones? commercial zones
Standards Open spaoe s�ndards Usable yard space plus Multifamlly play area Speciflc open space
influenang plus setbacks, density setbacks; minimum lot size, standards plus stand�rds plus setbadcs,
amount and limit, parking, floor area parking, density limit (R-4L setbacks, density limit, landscaping, parking, lot
type of open �atio (FAR), building/ zone only), a�d landscapi�g parking, lot coverage, coverage, and impecvious
space fac,ade width limits 8� standards impervious area, surface standards
Green Factor provisions greenscape standards
(front yard), and
landscape standards
Open space Li zone: 300sf common 10% of the lot size (R zones Emphasis on childre�'s Minimum 20% of lot
required/un� open space/unit - but not C zones); piay areas - 800sf/10
(average) C-zones - 109�0 of site not units plus 50sf/unit
covered by buildings must above 10 units
L2-4 zones: be landscaped
25% of the bt area as
open space at ground
level - except 50°r6 can
be balconies/decks for
1..3-4 zones
Required Common open space - Usable yard space - min 15' 800sf min size and All yards + decks and
standards for min 10' dimension and dimension; May not be in min. dimension of 25'; porches may count as
open space 250sf area; may be in front yard; May be any Design standards on open space provided they
front, side or rear yard; combination of private & accessibility, amenity have minimum 15.'
Balcony/deck - min 6' shared space ' elements and dimensions; For multi-lot
dimension + 60sf area separation from auto developments, standard
areas can be applied for whole
development
Design Design review required No existing design No deslgn guidelines 25% of open space for
guidelines/ for projects over certain guidelines or review process or other design review large devebpments must
review process size threshoid or for (although MAKERS recently process fvr the R-zone be as common open
projects seeking design conducted a s�dy for development space; I�cludes guidelines
departures examining options for city for common open space
to consider) and la�dscaping design;
Design review process f�or
all multifamily
http://www.mrsc.org/focus/pladvisor/p1a0112.aspx 7/10/2012
Page 5 of 13
Seattle
Comments New code generally
and redutes the amount of
observations open space required -
but has a greater
emphasis on the
design/usability of the
space; Recent increase
in "green factor"
requirements is more
challenging/ costly to
Tacoma
Bellevue
Redmond
Other than dimensionai
standards noted above,
there are no standards/
guidance for multifamily
open space in the standard
commercial zones
Housing Type - Apartments (higher intensity mixed-use zones)
Applicable ( Commercial zones
zones
reviewed
Variou5 Mixed-Use Center
districts
Standards Amenity area plus
influencing setbacks, density limit,
amount and floor area ratio, parking,
type of open and green factor
space provisions
Open space Commer+cial zones: 5%
required/unit of residential floor area
(amenity area)
Required red open space -
design min 10' dimension and
standards for 250sf area; Fro�t, side
open space or rear yards OK;
Balcony/deck - min 6'
dim. + 60sf area; Must
not be enclosed;
Rooftop space not
counted as ame�ity area
Design Design review required
guidelines/ „ for projects over certain
review process size threshold or for
, projects seeking design
departures
Yard space standards pius
density minimum, parking,
mass reduction standands,
and lan�lscapi�g standards
100sf/unit yard space
Recently updated: 100% of
space may be common yard
space - min 15' dimension
+ other design standards;
Balconies up to 50%
required yard space - at
least 35sf and min 4'
dimension;
Rooftop deck up to 25% of
yard space in mixed-use
bulldings
No existing design
guidelines or review process
(although MAKERS recently
conducted a study for
examining options fo� city
to consider)
Unique in that focus is
only on children's play
areas; No mention of
balconies or other
usable open space
provisions.
Downtowm m�es and
B�et-lted corridor z,�nes
(new)
Floor area ratio (FAR),
max floorplate
standards, tower
stepback pro-visions,
sidewally building
relationship, parking,
and FAR bonus
incentive provisions
(some relate to
outdoor open space)
No spedfic
requirement for
Downtown or the Bei-
Red Corridor
There are standards �
guidelines fnr public
open spaces for
Downtown and the Bel
-Red Corridor, but no
standards or
guidelines fur private
open space for
muitifamily uses (no
mention of balconies,
for instance)
Yes, there are
guidelines and an
administrative design
review process, but
again, no guidance for
private open space for
multifamily uses
For citywide standar+ds,
biggest emphasis on
variety of site and building
design
Downtown zones, Overiake
Village zones
Minimum open space
standards, parking,
setbacks and max floor
area ratio standards
Downtown - 100sf
common open space/unit
+ min SOsf private open
space/unit; Overlake -
6.25% of gross resldential
Floor area as open space
Downtown - up to 100%
of required ope� space can
be common, at least 200sf
in area, min 12'
dimensions;
�v� - up to 100% of
required open space can
be common, but up to
50% can be private and/or
rooftop open spac�
Design review for ail
multifamily; There is more
oe
design guidance for open
spaces in Overlake, than
for powntown - except
there are specific
courtyard dimensional
standards for downtown
http://www.mrsc.org/focu�pladvisor/p1a0112.aspx 7/10/2012
Planning Advisor January 2012
Seattle
Tacoma
c�ty
Bellevue
Comments Recent update reduces
and amount of open space
observations but places more '
emphasis on design
quality, usability
Updated standards
addressed some serious
regwlatory shortcomings;
City wilt probably give it
some time during paor
economy and see how new
developments work out
before cneatlng a new
design review program
Housing Typee Townhouses
AppUcabie Lowrise zones
zones?
Private open space
isn't directly
addressed at ail; The
focus is more on
maximum building
forms, street/ ;
sidewalk relationship,
and incentives for
public open space
R-3 -R-S zones; Mixed-use R-10 - R-30 zones
zones
Standards Open spaoe standards Usabie yard space plus There are no
inFluencing plus setbadcs, density setbadcs minimum lot size, standards specific to
amount and limit, floor area ratio, and density limit townhouses - see
type of open green factor, and open space standards
space building/ fac,ade width referenced above for
Iimlts apartments in
multifamily zones
Open space 300sf private ground
required/un� level space (avg) with
min dimensions of 10'
10% of the lot size in R-
zones;
200sf/unit yard space in MX
zones
Required Space must be dlrectly
design accessible to unit; For
standards for sloping lots, decks can
open space qualify as ground level
space
Usable yard space - min 15'
dimension; may not be in
front yard
Design Administrative design No existing design
guidelines/ review required for all guidelines or review process
review process townhouses; Process (aithough MAKERS recently
mey allow some conducted a study for
flexibility in the amount examining options for city
and design of ope� to consider)
space
Comments Updated standards and
and administrative design
observations review process provide
greater flexibility than
old standards and #ocus
more on the quality of
open space
New townhouse standards
in MX zones addressed
serious shortcomi�gs, but
the R-3-S zones outside of
MX ce�ters stilllack open
space standards/guidance
The setbacks and lot
coverage provisions
will be most influential
for townhouses (other
than basic market
conditions); The play
area provision ensures
that there will be
some common open
space
httu://www.mrsc.ore/focus/oladvisor/n1a0112.asnx
Page 6 of 13
Redmond
It is interesdng to see
somewhat different ope�
space approaches between
Downtown and OveHake
(pefiaps tMe timing -
Overiake Standards are
newer'- has something to
do with it). Downtown's
specific standards for
minimum �urlyard width
are unique, amongst the
four cities reviewed here
R-12 to R-30 zones, plus
Downtow� 8c Overlake
Zo�es
There are no standards
specific to townho�ses -
see open space standards
referenced above for
aparOments in multifamily
zones.
For powntown -
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' dimensior� seem
very restrlctive and
challenging; Planner Jeff
Churchill noted that the�e
isn't a bt of undeveloped R
-12-30 zoned landleft in
the city
7/1�/2012
Planning Advisor January 2012
Comments and Observations on Regulatory Research
�
Page 7 of 13
With by far the largest pool of development test cases in Washington and the most intensive
multifamily zoni�g code update process, the inclusion of Seattle in this study is essential. 1 met with
Mike Podowski, the City's Land Use Policy Supervisor, to taik about this article, the City's recent
update, and some lessons learned. Mike reiterated that is was important for the new code to add
more flexibitity while enhancing the design criteria and making some refinements to the review
process (notably for townhouses). like Seattle's new code, he suggested my research table above
compare different open space requirements based on the type of housing. He was aiso curious about
research on the benefits of providing for open space.
Seattie's new code substantiatly reduces the amount of required open space in many cases, but adds
greater emphasis on the quality and usability of the open space. I talked about the new code with
architect Radim Blazej (Caron Architects), who is familiar with both the old and new codes. Radim
reiterated that the added flexibility in the code regarding open space dimensions makes the code
much easier to work with. For example, he indicated that the opportunity to provide up to 50% of
the usable open space on the roof was an attractive opportunity. He's found that such rooftop spaces
are most desirable for residents in the more urbanized settings due to the view potential and sense
of privacy.
. . �.
The City's previous code (up to 2008) had`basicaily no open space standards. As a result, there are a
number of developments (particularly in the greater downtown area) that provide no open space or
poorly designed open space. As part of a citywide "Design Review Project," I had a chance to work
with the City (with MAKERS) to examine the shortcomings and propose solutions. Thls project
included the following components:
• A study on the estabiishment of a design review program. The project reviewed numerous
examples and identified a number of optional approaches that might work for Tacoma.
Updating the design standards for the various mixed-use zones (adopted 2008).
Without a speciai 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 of 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.
G3�I[:�Tf�
Bellevue's regulatory approach stands out as the most unique of the four communities particulariy
because the city has very few established standards for private open space in multifamily
developments. The clty's design standards and guidelines for the most densely developed areas
(Downtown and the Be1-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
spec�fic comments and observations:
• The recent 6el-Red Corridor Design Guidelines are the most recent guidelines project
undertaken by the city, and thus represent the latest in thinking about urban design in the city. The
Bel-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 elements, building form/character and
design detaiis, but they don't specifically address private residential open space. Perhaps 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 internal open space for multifamily?
http://www.mrsc.org/focus/ptadvisor/plaOl 12.aspx 7f 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 block configuration often leaves a considerable 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 result of the city's policies, guidelines and
standards? Likely, it's a combination of both.
• Most apartment/condo developments in downtown appear to have a gaod mixture of internal
open spaces including balconies, ground levef plazas, upper levef courtyards over parking decks
(there are many), some internal recreational space, and some roof top decks (at feast that I know
about). The smalier infill mid-rise developments appear to have the smallest amount of open space -
a situation common in nearly ali urban centers in the region.
• Emil King, the city's Strategic Pianning Manager, noted that perhaps there was a reduced need
for on-site private open space within developments that are adjacent to public parks or plazas (and I
agree). He mentioned projects adjacent to the Downtown Park and the smailer Ashwood Par and
Plaza as good exampies.
Redmond
FI'�ving met vuith planner Jeff ChurchiU several times over the past couple,years, I was aware tfiat
Redmond was in themidst of a major zoning code update and had recently adopted new zoning and
design standards for the Overlake area. Additional observations and comments:
• The open space standards for the multifamily zones focus p�imarily on landscaped ground level
open space. Jeff noted that these are essentially suburban type standards, but that very little
developable land in these zones remains. -�
• The courtya'rd dimensional standards for powntown are noteworthy for their ability to enhance
the desirability and usability of such spaces.
• The Downtown open space standards include a"fee in lieu of" open space option, but oniy 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 local market demographics and unique community characteristics
and goals. Some keys in crafting approaches for regulating and designing multifamily open space
include:
• Recognize different needs for different hous ing 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.
• Involve local developers, designers, and builders. It's always important to talk with the
local development community to �nd out what's working and get them involved in any process to
update development standards.
� Bigger is not necessarily better. Communities requiring an excessive amount and/or sizes
of open spaces can actually discourage development by impacting the viability of development. The
problem is compounded when there isn't adequate design guidance for such spaces. I've found it
more effective to work withthe community in providing guidance in designing usable open spaces
and determining the amount of usabte open space necessary for livable developments and given
reasonable development objectives.
• Encourage a range of open space types. This is particulariy important for apartment
buildings. Visible common open spaces such as courtyards a�e typically the most important open
space resources, but other types of open space shoutd be encouraged.
http://www.mrsc.or�/focus/pladvisor/p1a0112.aspx 7/10/2012
Ylanning Advisor January 2Q 12 Page 9 of I 3
■ Balconies provide a usable private open space resource where residents can barbecue,
, ime
that residents typically spend on balconies is smali, it's,noteworthy to consider how
balconies can allow greater daylight into units and hetp to expand the perceived living space
within the unit. The book Housing as if People Mattered suggests that the minimum size of a
balcony to be functionally usefui is 60 square feet with no dimension less than 6 feet.
■ Rooftop decks are becoming an increasingly important resource for infill multifamily
developments in heavily urbanized areas. These spaces are more likely to be used where
they feature good views, feature a range of amenities, and include design features that
enhance accessibility and safety.
■ Pea �atches are a feature that should be incceasingiy encouraged, in response to a renewed
interest in the local food movement. However, the location, design, and management of pea
patches are very important to ensure they can be effectively used and maintained. To be
sure, they are likely to be used by only a fraction of residents, but they can serve as a visual
(and even social) amenity for other residents.
■ Children's Rlay areas should always be considered and be required to some extent in larger
developments. Like nearly all open space types, visibility to/from adjacent dwelling units is
criticaL
■ Indoor recreational areas shoutd aiso be an option to meet a portibn of the total intemal
open space needs for the development (but not ail of ►t) of infiil housing tjrpes in rnore
intensir�e urban areas. These spaces�st�ould� be s{��cifically designed for recreationai activitFes
and be housed in accessible and visible areas.
■ Woonerfs might also be considered as a usable open space resource in townhouse
developments. A woonerf is a Dutch term for a street that is designed equally for
pedestrians and automobiles - typically where there is special paving in a curbless design
integrated with trees and other I�ndscaped elements that can also function as a playcourt.
• Consider reduced on-site open space needs for developments adjacent to public
parks. "Adjacent" is the key word, as it's the direct visibility and accesslbility that provtde the link.
• Test the standards. Consider both existing (if applicable) and prospective multifamily
development examples 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 difficult or costly to meet?
• Provide exampies - both good and bad. Photos and other graphic examples are heipful for
developers, staff, and other participants in the development review 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
library of compieted projects that they can share with prospective applicants when needed.
http://www.mrsc.org/focus/p(advisor/p1a0112.aspx 7/10/2012
Common Open Space Examples
Planning Advisor January 2012
7/10/2012
Page 10 of 13
These open spaces above are both built over parking decks - the landscape e%ments help them
function as a green roof while providing for visuai and functional amenities to the surrounding units.
The left example above f�om Bainbridge Island integrates large existing trees into a relatively large
"commons" while the �ight 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 walls and elevation
change between the open space and the dwelling units reduce its attractiveness.
http://www.mrsc.org/focus/pladvisor/p1a0112.aspx
Planning Advisor January 201 Z Page I 1 of 13
Attractive rooftop open space (left) and a pea patch example (right). The pea patch is at the Alycone
Apartments in South Lake Union, Seattle. It's situated on an upper level deck, but visible from
dwelling units on both sides, very accessible, and receives ample morning and afternoon sunlight.
When i visited the development last year, there was a waiting list for �esidents to get one of the
small plots. You can see the rain bar�els 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 complex uses the pea patch as a marketing tool (see for yourself) and it has become a popular
social activity for residents.
Townhouse Examples
http://www.mrsc.org/focus/pladvisor/p1a01 l2.aspx
7/10/2012
It's obvious that 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
Fage 12 of 13
These townhouses include usable semi private front yard open spaces, while the left example adds
balconies for each unit that help to expand the living area of the units.
These townhomes were provided with far too little open space amenities. There is basical/y no
setback in the rear yard, while the long asphalt driveways can be viewed as a wasted opportunity
(move building c%se� to street and p�ovide some usable open space in the back). Also, the balconies
appear much roo narrow to invite use.
Resources/Links
All of the books referenced above can be found on Amazon.com or check with your favorite book
retailer. Other notable resources:
• Seattle land use code. Notable sections: SMC 23.45.016 (lowrise open space requirements),
SMC 23.47A.024 (residential amenity areas), and for the city's design guidelines, go to the following
link: DesiQn Review Program Applicant's Tooibox: Desian Guidelines
• Tacoma land use code. See 13.06.300(g) for Mixed-Use Center District yard space standards.
• Bellevue land use code. For the Bel-Red Design Guidelines, see Section 20.25D.150. For
Downtown, see Chapter 2U.25A.
• Redmond's new zoning code. Notable chapters are 21.08 (residential regulatlons), 21.10
(downtown regulations), 21.12 (Overlake regulations), and 21.36 (open space). See Articie III for
detailed design standards.
Other notable codes/guidelines addressing residentiai open space:
http://wwv�.mrsc.org/focus/pladvisor/p1a0112.aspx 7/1 U/2012
Page 13 of 13
•, Portland has a number of great resources inctuding the 1998/2D08 Community Design
• Everett's Core Residentiaf Development and Design Standards; go to Section 33G.060 for open
space.
���i`�III�i� r�F�L'���1'
Pat Dugan has a unique combination of experience in both planning and public flnance, spanning 35
years. As a planner, he has been a pianning director in two cities (Auburn 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 officer in four public agencies
including the Cities of Auburn and Lynnwood, and the Snohomish County Public Works Department.
He has written extensively on financing capital facility programs and on public finance for planners.
Pat now offers planning and public �nance consulting services and in his own firm, Dugan Consulting
Services in Everett and can be reached at consuit.dugan(a�verizon.net.
Anindita Mitra, AICP is the Founder of CREA Affiliates, LLC a planning and urban design consultancy
that focuses on creating awareness of unsustainable practices, and offers a platfotm for affected
parties to openly communicate and collaborate to arrive at creative sustainable solutions. She ls also
one of the Co-Chairs of the Climate and Sustainability Initiative of the Washington Chapter of the
American Planning Association. Anindita's current interests include the development of sustainable
master pians and streetscape designs; establishing sustainable community indicators and their
integration into comprehensive plans and governance; identifying creative solutions directing
communities towards energy-independence; preparing communities for the chailenges potentially
brought upon by the Climate Change phenomenon; and advancing the integration of transit and non-
motorized travel solutions into community land use planning. She has worked throughout the United
States for both the public and private sectors.
Phil Olbrechts is a member of Olbrechts and Associates, PLLC. His practice focus is upon land use,
real property and municipal law. He currently serves as hearing examiner for eight municipalities and
city attorney for three cities. He represents both public and private parties and has made hundreds
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 firm. Bob's
community design work encompasses all transects, from urban downtowns and transit-oriented
development to rural area planning. Since joining MAKERS 13 years ago, Bob's specialty has been
helping communities craft usable development regulations and design guidelines. The combination of
growing up in a sprawling Orange County (CA) track home subdivision, reviewing development plans
against antiquated and inconsistent codes in rurai Bonner County (ID), and working with a great
mentor at MAKERS (John Owen) have helped Bob recognize the critical importance of good
development regulations and design guidelines in shaping vital and healthy communities. As a
resident of Bellevue, Bob has been active in various community planning issues. He's also an active
four-season bicycie commuter, hiker, gardener, and urban explorer.
ar�+��+etue� • osa��r =urh�
*The Articles appearing in the "Planning Advisor" column represent the opinions of the authors and
do not necessa�ily reflect those of the Municipal Research and Services Center.
http://www.mrsc.org/focus/pladvisor/pla0t 12.aspx 7/10/2012
�istorica[
aed
e�r� WVay
Properties within the City of Federal Way built in 1950 or before: 546
Properties built in 1920 or earlier: 28
Examples Uf Potential Federal Wav landmark status proaerties:
Camp Kilworth Rotary Lodge, Boy Scouts of America
Dumas Bay Retreat, City of Federal Way
Steel Lake Annex, City of Federal Way
Steel Lake Annex Barn, City of Federal Way
Federal Way High School, Federal Way School Board
Ray Rogers Home, Private Residence
New Lumber and Hardware, Private Business
Al Holz Garage, Private Business
Eugene Loher, Private Business
Robert Verzani Home, Private Residence
RCW 36.70A.020
Planning goals.
The following goals are adopted to guide the development and adoption of comprehensive plans and development regulations
of those counties and cities that are required or choose to plan under RCW 36.70A.t�t7. The following goals are not listed in
order of priority and shall be used exclusively for the purpose of guiding the develapment of comprehensive plans and
development regulations:
(1) Urban growth. Encourage development in urban areas where adequate public facilities and services exist or can be
provided in an efficient manner.
(2) Reduce sprawl. Reduce the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling, low-density development.
(3) Transportation. Encourage efficient multimodal transportation systems that are based on regional priorities and
coordinated with county and city comprehensive plans.
(4} Housing. Encourage the availability of affordable housing to a11 economic segments of the population of this state,
promote a variety of residential densifles and housing types, and encourage preservation of existing housing stock.
(5) Economic development. Encourage economic development throughout the state that is consistent with adopted
comprehensive plans, promote economic opportunity for a11 citizens of this sta.te, especially for unemployai and for
disadvantaged persons, promote the retention and expansion of existing businesses and recnutment of new businesses,
recognize regional differences impacting economic development opportuniiies, and encourage growth in areas experiencing
insufficient economic growth, a11 within the capacities of the state's natural resources, public services, and public facilities.
(6) Property rights. Private property sha11 not be taken for public use without just compensation having been made. The
property rights of landowners sha11 be protected from arbitrary and discriminatory actions.
(7} Permits. Applications for both state and local government permits should be processed in a timely and fair manner to
ensure predictabiliry.
— (8) Natural resource industries. Maintain and enhance natural resource-based industries, including productive timber,
agicultural, and fisheries industries. Encourage the conservation of productive forest lands and productive agric.ultural lands,
and discourage incompatible uses.
(9) Open space and recreation. Retain open space, enhance recrea.tional opportunities, conserve fish and wildlife habitat,
increase access to natural resource lands and water, and develop parks and recreation facilities.
(10) Environment. Protect the environment and enhance the state's high quality of life, including air and water quality, and
the availability of water.
(11) Citizen participation and coordination. Encourage the involvement of citizens in the planning process and ensure
coordination between communities and jurisdictions to reconcile conflicts.
(12) Public facilities and services. Ensure that those public facilities and services necessary to support development shall
be adequate to serve the development at the time the development is available for occupancy and use without decreasing
current seivice tevels below locally established minimum standards.
(13 I�'istoric preservation. Identify and encourage the preservation of lands, sites, and struetwes, that have tustorical or
ar logical significance.
(2002 c 154 § 1; 19901st ex.s. c 17 § 2.]
REGIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROGRAM
King County is working with cities throughout the county to provide landmark
designation and protection services. This cooperative approach to preserving our
region's iustory and character has many benefits:
• compliance with growth management requirements for historic preservation
• cost efficient delivery of professional services
• preservation and enhancement of significant aspects of local history
• protection and enhancement of key elements of community character
• access to incentives for property owners
• access to state and federal funding sources for preservation
• basis for tourism development programs
These services are provided through the County's Historic Preservation Program, located
in the Department of Natural Resources and Parks, via an interlocal agreement between
King County and the participating city. Services include, but are not limited to,
designation and proteetion of significant historic and cultural properties. Additional
services may include preparing nomination applications, conducting survey and inventory
of historic properties and maintaining the inventory data, developing and unplementing
design guidelines, and assisting with preservation planning, or other preservation-related
work, all of which are at the City's option.
The County is required by state law to receive full reimbursement for these services;
however, grants from the State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation are
available to defray much of the cost to cities.
.�-> One of the primary benefits of the program is that owners of designated landmark
properties in the city are eligible to apply for a variety of incentive programs including
property tax reductions, low interest loans, brick-and-mortar grants, and technical
assistance from qua.lified preservation professionals.
To date, half of the cities in King County participate in this cost efficient and effective
program. For more information contact Julie Koler, Preservation Officer at 206.296.8689
or by email at julie.koler@kingcounty.gov
FWCP — Chapter Twro, Land Use
�- 2.111NCENTIVES
In certain designadons, incentives allowing more development than otherwise permitted
should be used to encourage features that provide a public benefit and/ar contribute to the
mitigation of growth impacts. For example, development in the City Center that provides
common open space or affordable housing uruts, may gain additional floors or a reduction
in the number of parking stalls. In a+ddition, in order to encourdge development in the City
Center, the City has adopted a Housing Tax Exemption for multiple family housing and a
Planned Action 5EPA for a portion of the City Center. Incentives can plag an important
role in the development of the Ciry Center and must be substantial enough to influence
market conditions by making them auxactive to the development community.
Policies
LUP189 Develop incendves to encourage desired development in commercial areas,
especially in the City Center Core and Frame.
LUP190 Consider incentives for desired muitiple-family residential development
(townhouses, duplexes, etc.).
2.12 HISTORIC RESOURCES
Historic preservation involves the identification, maintenance, renovation, and reuse of
buildings and sites important to a community's history. Buildings or sites may be associated
with a particular style or peri� in the community's past, or with historic or significant
histaric events ar persons. Historic preservation to date has largely been undertaken by the
Historical Society of Federal Way. Historic preservation is listed as the 13�` goal in the GMA
which encourages jurisdictions to, "Identify and encourage the preservation of lands, sites,
and structures, that have historical or archaeological significance:'
Goal
LUG15 Use historic resources as ara important element in the overall design of the City.
Policies
LUP191 Identify vista points and landmazks such as major trees, buildings, and land
forms for preservation.
_;..,.� LUP192 Develop a process to designate historic landma�c sites and structures. Use
developer incentives or other mechanisms to ensure that these sites and
structures will continue tA be a part of the community.
__ Revised 2007. 2006 ComPrehensive Plan M�endm�t II-52
FWCP — Chapter Two, Land Use
LUP193 Recognize the heritage of the communiry by naming (or renaming) parks, streets,
and other public places after major figures and/or events.
—� LUP194 Zoning should be compatible with and conducive to continued preservation of
historic neighborhoods and properties.
--� LUP195 Safeguard and manifest Federal Way's heritage by preserving those sites, buildings,
structures, and objects which reflect significant elements of the City's history.
.—� LUP196 Catalog historic sites using the City's geographic information system.
> LUP197 Undertake an effort to publicly commemorate histaric sites.
LUP198 The City shall continue to work with the Historical Society of Federal Way
towards attainment of historic resource policies.
2.13 IMPLEMENTATION
The following actions are recommended to implement the policy direction outlined in this
chapter. Implementation will occur over time and is dependent on resources available to the
City and community. The following items are not listed in order of importance or preference.
Establish Comprehensive Planning and Zoning for Potential Annexation Area
A PAA Subarea Plan and Annex�ution Feasibility Stucfy was prepared in 2003. This Study
provides the City with needed direction relating to future annexadons and growth.
Planning for this area pursuant to WAC 365-195 requires a considerable planning effort
and policy development.
Residential Cade Revisions for Mnitiple Family
Residential code revisions to implement design standards for multiple-family residential
development were adopted in late 1998.
Subdivision Code Revisions
Amendments to the subdivision code have been adapted to bring the code into compliance
with state law and recent state legislation. Revisions to the subdivision code have provided
platting options for single-family development, such as clustering and z�ro lot line
development
Area Rezone
Following adogdon of the 1995 FWCP, a new zoning map was prepared and adopted to
support the comprehensive plan designations. This update included some site specific
requests for changes to comprehensive plan designations.
_ Revised 2007, 2006 Con'iPrehensive Plan M�endrr�t ►b53