Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
LUTC PKT 02-01-1999
February 1, 1999 5:30 pm City of f=ederal Way City Council Land Use/Transportation Committee MEETING AGENDA City Full Council Chambers 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 3. PUBLIC COMMENT (3 minutes) 4. COMMISSION COMMENT 5. BUSINESS ITEMS A. Redondo Firs Final Plat Action Barker/10 min B. Procedures for Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan Action Clark/20 min C. Heritage Woods Final Plat Action Harris/20 min D. 21 st Ave SW from SW 334th St to SW 336th St Action Perez/] 0 min Pedestrian Facilities Project - 100% Design and Authorization to Bid E. 1999 Street Overlay List Action Miller/15 min F. 1999 Landscape ROW Maintenance Contract Action Miller/5 min G. Other — Second Meeting in February 6. FUTURE MEETING AGENDA ITEMS SWManagement/Dept of Ecology Ordinance & Adult Entertainment Regulations Manual Package RTA Process Open Cut of ROW vs Boring Northwest Church Channelization Request Endangered Species Act Update 7. ADJOURN Committee Members: City Staff: Phil Watkins, Chair Greg 11oore, Director, Community Development Services Jeanne Burbidge Sandy Lyle, Administrative Assistant Mary Gates 253.661.4116 I: \LU -IRAN ST EB I LUT. AGN January 4, 1999 5:30pm City of Federal Way City Council Land Use/Transportation Committee SUMMARY City Hall Council Chambers In attendance: Committee members Phil Watkins (Chair), Mary Gates and Jeanne Burbidge; Council Member Linda Kochmar; Director of Community Development Services Greg Moore; Public Works Director Cary Roe; Deputy Director of Community Development Services Kathy McClung; Street Systems Engineer Ken Miller; Assistant City Attorney Bob Sterbank; Senior Planner Margaret Clark; Contract Planner Diane Sheldon; Administrative Assistant Sandy Lyle. 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 5:30pm by Chairman Phil Watkins. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the December 7, 1998, meeting were approved as presented. 3. PUBLIC COMMENT There was no public comment on any item not listed in the agenda. 4. COMMISSION COMMENT There was no additional comment from any of the City Commissions. 5. BUSINESS ITEMS A. Wetland/Stream Inventory Update - Diane Sheldon, Contract Wetland Biologist, reported that the Wetland/Stream Inventory was nearly complete within the City's boundaries. There are more and larger wetlands than previously believed. Residents in the Potential Annexation Areas (PAA) of the City are somewhat resistant to the idea of the study vs. mostly positive reaction from citizens inside the City limits. The greatest obstacle to completing the study is the existing stream definition and stream field conditions. Ms. Sheldon recommended flexibility in City code to future development and individual projects. The importance of continuing to study streams is linked directly to the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The Committee confirmed the value of stream information gathered through this survey. They directed Ms. Sheldon and her staff to continue as long as funds are available. In the interim, City staff will pursue available grants to facilitate the continuation of the stream inventory. B. SW 312th & 14th Avenue SW Pedestrian Proiect Final Accep a ce - The Committee accepted as complete and recommended approval of the Pedestrian Walkway Project at SW 312th Street and 14th Avenue SW to the City Council at the January 19,1999, meeting. The final construction contract amount with Seitsinger Construction, $98,445023, was $18,077.44 below the original budget of $116,522.67. C. SW 340th & Hoyt Road Final Design/Authority to Bid - The final design of the SW 340th & Hoyt Road improvement project was forwarded to the City Council's January 19, 1999, meeting with a recommendation to approve. Improvements will include the addition of sidewalks and C -curbing to prevent motorists from driving the wrong way in the left turn lane. It was noted that as long as the project books remain open, mitigation funds can be applied. D. Code Amendment to Adopt Process for Yearly Comprehensive Plan Amendments - The Committee reviewed the Planning Commission recommendation on the code amendment defining the process to change the Comprehensive Plan annually. There was discussion about whether to charge a fee for groups petitioning for annexation. It was decided to come back to the LUTC at a later time on this issue. Some language changes were made. It was decided that one time only, Comprehensive Plan updates would be accepted for Spring of 1999 and worked on during the Summer Starting in the Fall of 1999, updates would be accepted in the Fall of each year for review and consideration after the first of the following new year. E. Update on Planning Commission Work Plan - The Committee reviewed the Planning Commission work plan as directed at the previous meeting. They moved work on the Endangered Species Act and Wellhead Protection forward in the schedule to coincide more closely with work taking place on similar issues in the legislature. They also called for a future study session on Sign Code only. The Committee then m/s/c the recommendation of approval of the Work Program as amended to the City Council. 6. FUTURE MEETINGS The next meeting will be held at 5:30pm in City Council Chambers on Monday, February 1, 1999. 7. ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 7:05pm. I: \LU-TRANS\JAN4LUT. SUM CITY OF FEDERAL WAY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES MEMORANDUM DATE: January 25, 1999 To: City Council Land Use/Transportation Committee Councilmember Phil Watkins, Chair FROM: 4��reory Moore, AICP, Director of Community Development Services CONTACT: Deb Barker, Associate Planner RE: Final Plat of Redondo Firs — King County File No. S90P00002; Federal Way File No's: ILA90-PP18 & SUB 98-0001 I. SUMMARY OF APPLICATION Final plat approval of the plat of Redondo Firs, a subdivision of six single family lots on 3.75 acres. An "A" list item under the King County/Federal Way Interlocal Agreement, the preliminary plat of Redondo Firs was originally approved by the Federal Way City Council on May 4, 1993, as a seven lot subdivision. The plat of Redondo Firs is located north of South 277th Place at 21 st Place South in Federal Way. King County zoning for the site at the time of application was Suburban Residential (SR -7200). II. REASON FOR COUNCIL ACTION The final decision for all final plats rest with the City Council in accordance with Federal Way City Code (FWCC) Section 20-134(b) (Supplement #4). Bringing this matter before the City Council Land Use/Transportation Committee for review and recommendation prior to the full council is consistent with how land use matters are currently processed by the city. III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION City of Federal Way staff has reviewed the final plat of Redondo Firs for compliance with SEPA conditions, preliminary plat conditions, and all applicable codes and policies. All applicable codes, policies, and conditions have been satisfactorily met. Staff recommends approval to the council. IV. PROCEDURAL SUMMARY May 4, 1993 Preliminary plat approval granted by Federal Way City Council. December 23, 1997 Engineering approval granted. March 31, 1998 Final plat application submitted January 8, 1999 Final plat application determined complete. February 1, 1999 City Council Land Use/Transportation Committee meeting. Land Use/Transportation Committee forwards a recommendation to the full City Council. February 16, 1999 City Council meeting. - Pursuant to Section 20-136 of the Federal Way City Code, the City Council shall consider the application at a public meeting. V. DECISIONAL CRITERIA Pursuant to FWCC Section 20-136, the City Council may approve the final plat application only if all criteria of FWCC Section 20-134(b) (Supplement #4), are met. Findings contained in the staff report to the City Council and by reference in the draft resolution indicate that the application is consistent with these criteria. L:\PRMSYS\D0CUNffiNTSUB98 00.0BLUTCMEMO.DOC Page -2- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF REPORT REQUEST FOR FINAL PLAT APPROVAL REDONDO FIRS King County File No. S90P0002 Federal Way File No's: ILA90-PP18-SUB & SUB98-0001 I INTRODUCTION Date: January 20, 1999 Request: Request for Final Plat Approval for Redondo Firs Description: Redondo Firs is a proposed subdivision of six single family lots on 3.75 acres. It was originally approved by the Federal Way City Council on May 4, 1993, per Resolution 93-140 (Exhibit A) as a seven lot subdivision (Exhibit B, Approved Preliminary Plat of Redondo Firs). King County zoning for the site at the time of application was Suburban Residential (SR -7200). Lot sizes on the final plat (Exhibit C, Final Plat of Redondo Firs) average about 27, 000 square feet. Access for the subdivision is proposed via 21 st Place South through the Laurelwood development (Exhibit C, Final Plat of Redondo Firs). All roads and sidewalks within the proposed subdivision have been constructed, storm drainage facilities have been installed, and water and sewer lines are in. Owner: Chuck Holcolm, Jr. 6312 Madrona Drive Tacoma, Washington 98422 (360) 754-4700 Engineer: Schupe Holmberg Baima & Holmberg Inc. 100 Front Street Issaquah, WA 98027 (425) 392-0250 Location: The site is located north of South 277th Place at 21 st Place South, in Section 33, Township 22 North, Range 4 East, WM, King County (Exhibit D, Vicinity Map). Sewage Disposal: Midway Sewer District. Water Supply: Lakehaven Utility District Fire District: Federal Way Fire Department School District: Federal Way, No. 210 Report Prepared By: Deb Barker, Associate Planner II HISTORY AND BACKGROUND A Resolution of the City of Federal Way, Washington, approving the final plat of Redondo Firs designated as King County File No.S90P0002/Federal Way File No's. ILA90-PP18 and SUB98-0001 is enclosed (Exhibit E). The application for the subdivision of Redondo Firs was filed with King County on February 1, 1990, prior to the incorporation of Federal Way. This proposal is an "A" List item under the King County/Federal Way Interlocal Agreement. Therefore, the City of Federal Way is responsible for reviewing Redondo Firs pursuant to King County plans, regulations, and codes in effect at the time of the preliminary plat application. The preliminary plat of Redondo Firs consisting of seven single-family residential lots on 3.75 acres (Exhibit B), was granted approval by the City of Federal Way on May 4, 1993, per Resolution 93-140 (Exhibit A, pages 1-3) based on the findings, conclusions, and recommendations contained in the April 5, 1993, Hearing Examiner report, as adopted by reference. During engineering review, it became evident that access to lot #7 would not be possible. Lot #7 was incorporated into Tract A, and the lot number reduced to six. The applicant applied for final plat approval on March 31, 1998. Redondo Firs is an "A" List item being processed under the City of Federal Way/King County Interlocal Agreement. As per RCW 58.17.170 and Division 7 of the Federal Way City Code (FWCC), the council is charged with determining whether the proposed final plat conforms to all terms of the preliminary plat approval, and whether the subdivision meets the requirements of all applicable state laws and local ordinances which were in effect at the time of preliminary plat approval. Staff Report Page -2- Redondo Firs/SUB98-0001 City of Federal Way staff has reviewed the final plat of Redondo Firs for compliance with preliminary plat conditions and all applicable codes and policies. All applicable codes and policies and plat conditions have been satisfactorily met. Staff recommends final plat approval to the council. The remainder of this staff report addresses how the applicant has fulfilled the conditions of preliminary plat approval. III COMPLIANCE WITH PRELIMINARY PLAT CONDITIONS Hearing Examiner Condition #1 — The plat shall comply with all platting provisions of Title 19 of the King County Code (King County Subdivision Ordinance). Response — This condition has been met. (Based on review of the file, an inspection of the site, and conditions as outlined in this staff report, staff has made the determination that the applicants have complied with the platting requirements of King County Title 19, Subdivision Code). Hearing Examiner Condition #2 — The area and dimensions of all lots shall meet the minimum requirements of the SR 7200 zone classification. Response — All lot sizes meet and exceed the minimum requirements of King County Section 21.08.080 "Lot Area." This condition has been met. Hearing Examiner Condition #3 — All persons having an ownership interest in the subject property shall sign on the face of the final plat a dedication which includes the language set forth in King County Council Motion No. 5952 except as modified for the City of Federal Way. Response — This language has been included under DEDICATION on Sheet 3 of 3 of the Final Plat (Exhibit Q. The Title Report shows certain parties as having ownership interest in the property. The required signature blocks are provided under the dedication language on Sheet 3 of 3 of the final plat (Exhibit C). Signatures of all parties having ownership interest will be provided on the final plat mylar prior to signing by the Mayor and other department heads, and recording with King County. This condition has been met. Hearing Examiner Condition #4 — A developer extension agreement must be entered into between the applicant and the Federal Way Water and Sewer District for the water system. Response — In an October 27, 1998 letter, Lakehaven Utility District (formerly Federal Way Water and Sewer District) the district accepted the final plat (Exhibit F). This condition has been met. Staff Report Page -3- Redondo Firs/SUB98-0001 Hearing Examiner Condition #5 — Approval shall be obtained from the Midway Sewer District for the sewer system. Response — In a November 23, 1998 letter, Midway Sewer District has accepted the final plat (Exhibit G). This condition has been met. The recorded sewer easement will be provided prior to plat recording. Hearing Examiner Condition #6 —The applicant must obtain final approval from the King County Health Department. Response — All lots will receive water from the Lakehaven Utility District and all lots will receive sewer service from Midway Sewer District. There are no facilities which require service or approval by the King County Health Department. Hearing Examiner Condition #7 — The applicant must obtain the approval of the City of Federal Way for the adequacy of the fire hydrant, water main, and fire flow standards. Response — On November 30, 1998, the Federal Way Fire Department verified that hydrant is adequate and facilities are in service. This condition has been met. Hearing Examiner Condition #8 — In lieu of providing an approved turnaround for emergency vehicle access for lots #5 and #7, the applicant may request that the subject residences to be constructed on these two lots be sprinkled. Response — This condition has been met with the elimination of lot #7 and the plat note for lot #5 indicating that a sprinkler system is required for the residence on lot #5. Hearing Examiner Condition #9 — An uninventoried Class III wetland exists on the site of the proposed subdivision. The following conditions shall be satisfied with respect to this wetland: a. The uninventoried wetland and stream feature that have both been field surveyed shall be protected by a 25 foot buffer and shall be designated as a Native Growth Protection Easement (NGPE). Response — This condition has been met. b. The NGPE shall be located within a separate tract and shown on the approved engineering plans and recorded on the final plat. Response — This condition has been met as the NGPE's have been located within separate tracts—Tracts A and B. Staff Report Page 4- Redondo Firs/SUB98-0001 c. An additional 15 foot building setback line (BSBL) shall be delineated adjacent to the NGPE, shown on the approved engineering plans, and recorded on the final plat. No improvements or intrusions except a biofiltration swale shall be allowed within the BSBL. Response — This condition has been met with the depiction of the 25 foot BSBL on the Sheet 1 of 3 and BSBL language on Sheet 3 of 3 of the final plat (Exhibit C). d. The plan shall mitigate the potential impact of the human intrusion into the wetland by providing permanent fencing (refer to condition #13). Response — This condition has been met with the fence note on Sheet 1 of 3 of the final plat (Exhibit C). Hearing Examiner Condition #10 — The following statement shall be shown on the approved engineering plans and recorded final plat: Building Setbacks and Native Growth Protection Easements Structures, fill, and obstructions (including, but not limited to decks, patios, outbuildings, or overhangs beyond 18 inches) are prohibited within the building setback line (BSBL) and restricted floodplains (if applicable), and within the Native Growth Protection Easement(s) as shown. Dedication of a Native Growth Protection Easement (NGPE) conveys to the public a beneficial interest in the land within the easement. This interest includes the preservation of native vegetation for all purposes that benefit the public health, safety and welfare, including control of surface water and erosion, maintenance of slope stability, visual and aural buffering, and protection of plant and animal habitat. The NGPE imposes upon all present and future owners and occupiers of the land, subject to the easement, the obligation, enforceable on behalf of the public by King County, which permission must be obtained in writing from the King County Building and Land Development Division or its successor agency. Before and during the course of any grading, building construction, or other development activity on a lot subject to the NGPE, the common boundary between the easement and the area of development activity must be fenced or otherwise marked to the satisfaction of the City of Federal Way, or its successor agency. Response — This condition has been met per language on Sheet 3 of 3 of the final plat (Exhibit C, Building Setbacks & Native Growth Protection Easements). Staff Report Page -5- Redondo Firs/SUB98-0001 Hearing Examiner Condition #11 — At the time of recording of the final plat, the NGPE shall be dedicated to a Homeowners Association or other workable organization in order to provide for its ownership and continued maintenance. Response — This condition has been met per Note # 4 on Sheet 2 of 3 of the final plat (Exhibit C). Hearing Examiner Condition 412 — The Declaration of Protective Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions of the Homeowners Association shall be reviewed by the City of Federal Way prior to recording to ensure that adequate provisions are made for ownership and maintenance of the NGPE and other open space areas. Response — This condition has been met with per language in the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions for Redondo Firs Homeowners Association. Hearing Examiner Condition #13 — A five foot tall fence must be installed at the edge of the wetland buffer/NGPE at the time that a dwelling is constructed on the adjoining lot or ownership of that lot transferred to the first owner occupant. This fence must be constructed of such material which would allow visibility if the NGPE from the lots. Response — This condition has been met with the fence note on Sheet 1 of 3 of the final plat (Exhibit C). Hearing Examiner Condition #14 — Final plat approval shall require full compliance with drainage provisions set forth in the 1990 King County Surface Water Design Manual. Compliance may result in reducing the number and/or location of lots as shown on the preliminary approved plat. The following conditions represent portions of the manual and apply to all plats: a. Federal Way Public Works Department approval of the drainage and roadway plans is required prior to any construction. Response — Engineering plan approval was granted on December 23, 1997. b. A separate Erosion and Sediment Control (ESC) plan for this project shall be submitted with the drainage and roadway plans. The plan shall show the limits of the area to be cleared during construction of the roads and the installation of drainage improvements and utilities, and provide a schedule of construction. The plans shall include provisions for protecting exposed soils from weathering by wind or rain by covering piles of soil with tarp. Due to erosion hazard and the presence of wetlands on-site, clearing shall be limited only to those areas required for construction of roadways and utilities. Prior to any Staff Report Page -6- Redondo Firs/SUB98-0001 clearing or grading, a boundary delineation acceptable to the City of Federal Way shall be provided between lots and areas designated as NGPE. Said boundary delineation shall remain in place until a dwelling is constructed on the lot or ownership transferred to the first owner -occupant at which time a five foot fence meeting the requirements of Condition # 13 shall be constructed. Response — The TESC plans approved on December 23, 1997 depict this requirement. c. Retention/detention (R/D) and biofiltration facilities shall be located in separate tracts and dedicated to the City of Federal Way, unless located within improved City of Federal Way rights-of-way. Access for maintenance shall be provided to all facilities. This will require a 15 -foot access roadway to all manholes (R/D). Tract C (biofiltration and maintenance tract) shall be a minimum of 45 feet wide. The detention system shall be designed to accommodate the 100 year 24-hour storm event with a maximum release rate of approximately 70 percent of the 2 -year 24-hour predeveloped storm. Response — The retention/detention facilities are located in a separate tract (Tract Q. All manholes are located within the roadway with the exception of CB #3 and CB #4 which are located within a 20 foot easement located on lots #4, #5, and #6. Access to this area is by a 20 foot access drainage easement, and lot #5. This condition has been met. d. Prior to recording of the final plat, those portions of the retention/detention facility necessary to control the flows discharging from the site shall be constructed and operational. Response — This condition has been met. All storm drainage facilities have been constructed and are functioning. e. Oil/water separation facilities shall be provided at each point of permanent storm drainage release from the site so contaminants do not enter natural drainage features. In addition to oil/water separators, the applicant is required to provide biofiltration prior to discharge of stormwater into any sensitive area (e.g. streams, wetlands, lakes, etc.). Such biofiltration includes 200 feet of broad, flat -bottom, grass -lined swales, or equivalent systems. Response — Oil/water separation facilities have been designed and approved as part of engineering review (Exhibit H, Sheet 4 of 5) of the approved engineering plans. Biofiltration has been provided. f. Drainage outlets (stub -outs) shall be provided for each individual lot, except for those lots approved for infiltration by the City of Federal Way. Stub -out shall be shown on the engineered plans and shall conform to the following: Staff Report Page -7- Redondo Firs/SUB98-0001 1) Each outlet shall be suitably located at the lowest elevation on the lot, so as to service all future roof down spouts and footing drains, driveways, yard drains, and any other surface or subsurface drains necessary to render the lots suitable for their intended use. Each outlet shall have free-flowing, positive drainage to an approved stormwater conveyance system or to an approved outfall location. Response — Drainage outlets have been installed for each lot in compliance with this condition. Infiltration feasibility will be determined on a lot by lot basis at the time of building permit application, per Note 17 on Sheet 2 of 3 of the final plat (Exhibit C). This condition has been met. 2) Outlets on each lot shall be located with a five -foot -high, 2 x 4 inch stake marked "storm." The stub -out shall extend above surface level, be visible, and be secured to the stake. Response — The stub outs have been installed to the satisfaction of the city. 3) Pipe material shall conform to under drain specifications described in KCRS 7.04 and, if non-metallic, the pipe shall contain wire or other acceptable detection feature. Response — The pipe materials installed are to the satisfaction of the city. 4) Drainage easements are required for drainage systems designed to convey flows through more than one lot. Response — This condition has been met per drainage easements shown on Sheet of 3 of the Final Plat (Exhibit C) and per Notes No. 7, 8, and 9 on Sheet 2 of 3 of the final plat (Exhibit C). 5) All individual stub -outs shall be privately owned and maintained by the lot home owner. Response — Note No. 2. "Downspout Note" on Sheet 3 of 3 of the final plat (Exhibit C) addresses this condition. g. In some cases, on-site infiltration systems may be accepted for detention for the lots depending on soil conditions. To determine the suitability of the soil for infiltration systems, a soils report that includes percolation tests and a soil log taken at six-foot minimum depth shall be submitted by a professional engineer, or soil specialist. This shall include, at a minimum, information on soil texture, depth to seasonal high water and the occurrence of mottling and impervious layers. The report shall also address Staff Report Page -8- Redondo Firs/SUB98-0001 potential down gradient impacts due to increased hydraulic loading on slopes and structures. Soil permeability data obtained from the design of the septic system may be used for the drywell retention system, provided data is submitted verifying that no impervious layer exists within six feet of the soil surface. If the soils report is approved, the infiltration system shall be installed at the time of the building permit. A note to this effect shall be placed on the map page of the recorded document. The drainage plan and the recorded document shall indicate each lot approved for infiltration. Response — Wherever possible, infiltration shall be utilized unless determined not to be feasible as verified by soil logs. Note #17 of Sheet 2 of 3 of the final plat (Exhibit C) addresses this condition. h. A downstream analysis shall be included with the drainage plan. This analysis must extend for a minimum distance of/4 mile from the point of release of each now discharging from the site. The analysis must address any existing problems with flooding capacity, overtopping, scouring, sloughing, erosion, or sedimentation of any drainage facility, whether natural or man-made. Probable impacts due to construction of the project must also be addressed with respect to these same concerns. Where this analysis reveals a more restrictive situation, more stringent drainage controls than would otherwise be necessary for a project of this type may be required. These controls may include additional on-site rate and/or volume controls, off site improvements, or a combination of both. Any off-site improvements will require the approval of all affected property owners. Response — A level I drainage analysis prepared by Triad Associates, Inc. (January 1990) was submitted with the Technical Information Report (TIR) on November 1, 1996. More stringent requirements were not necessary. i. Current Standard Notes and Erosion Sedimentation Control (ESC) notes, as established by the City of Federal Way Public Works Department, shall be placed on the engineered plans. Response — This condition has been met as per language on Sheet 5 of 5 of the approved engineering plans (Exhibit 1). j. The following notes shall be provided on the map page of the recorded document: "All building down spouts, footing drains and drains from all impervious surfaces such as patios and driveways shall be connected to the approved permanent storm drain outlet as shown on the approved construction drawings on file with the City of Federal Way Public Works Department under project #ILA-90-0018SUB. This plan shall be submitted with the application of any building permit. All connections of the drains must be constructed and approved prior to the final Staff Report Page -9- Redondo Firs/SUB98-0001 building inspection approval." Those lots that are designated for, "Individual lot infiltration systems, shall be constructed at the time of the building permit and shall comply with plans on file at the Public Works Record Center." Response — This language has been provided on Sheet 3 of 3 of the final plat (Exhibit C). Hearing Examiner Condition #15 — Prior to final plat approval, a pro rata share of $5,808 shall be contributed by the developer towards the cost of project number 3323, a project to improve the flooding problem at South 272nd Street and South Star Lake Road. Response — Pro rata share payments were made on January 13, 1998. This condition has been met. Hearing Examiner Condition #16 — All construction and upgrading of public and private roads shall be done in accordance with King County Road Standards established and adopted by Ordinance No. 8041 (1987 King County Road Standards). Response — The roadway was installed to the satisfaction of the city. Hearing Examiner Condition #17 — 21 st Place South shall be designed and constructed to Sub Access Street standards with 36 foot sections, in order to match the existing street configuration to the south. This street shall have vertical curb, gutter, and sidewalks along both sides. Response — 21 st Place South was constructed to a sub access street standard. Hearing Examiner Condition #18 — Planter islands (if any) within the cul-de-sacs shall be maintained by the abutting lot owners. This shall be stated on the face of the final plat. Response — Planter islands were not constructed with the plat. Hearing Examiner Condition #19 — Easements shall be provided for all utilities not located within public right of way. The width of the easements for the individual utilities shall be approved by the respective utility provider. These easements shall be clearly labeled on the face of the final plat. Response — Sewer utility easements are shown on the face of the plat, and have been approved by the Midway Sewer District. All Lakehaven Utility District facilities are located within the public right of way. Hearing Examiner Condition #20 — A ten foot utility easement shall be provided along the front ten feet of all lots and tracts adjacent to the proposed streets. The following statement shall be noted on the face of the final plat: Staff Report Page -10- Redondo Firs/SUB98-0001 Easement Reservations An easement is hereby reserved for, and granted to, any public utility and their respective successors and assigns, under and upon the front ten feet parallel with and adjoining the street frontage of all lots and tracts, in which to install, lay, construct, renew, operate, and maintain underground pipe, conduit, cables, and wires with necessary facilities and other equipment for the purpose of serving this subdivision and other property with utility service together with the right to enter upon the lots at all times for the purposes herein stated. These easements entered upon for these purposes shall be restored as near as possible to their original condition. No utility lines shall be placed or permitted to be placed upon any lot unless the same shall be underground or in conduit attached to a building. Response — Utility easements are provided for in each lot and tract. This language has been provided in note form on Page 3 of 3 of the final plat (Exhibit C). Hearing Examiner Condition #21 — Prior to final plat approval, a fee of $8,269 shall be paid to City of Federal Way Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department to mitigate potential impacts on area parks. Response — Mitigation fees were paid on November 23, 1998. This condition has been met. Hearing Examiner Condition 422 — All development activities shall be designed and constructed in accordance with recommendations and conclusions contained in the March 1, 1991, Geotechnicial Investigation prepared by Dennis Joule for the proposed development, as required by the Public Works Director and Building Official. Supplemental geotechnical analysis and recommendations may be required by the Public Works Director and Building Official during development of the site. Response — This has been done to the satisfaction of the Public Works staff. Hearing Examiner Condition #23 — The applicant shall work with Puget Power to install a street light on-site. Response — A street light is installed at the cul-de-sac. Hearing Examiner Condition #24 — Prior to final plat approval, legal access shall be provided to lot #7, or the lot shall be designated as open space and dedicated to the Redondo Firs Homeowners Association, or the applicant may sell the proposed lot to an abutting property owner. In the event that the applicant decides to sell the proposed lot to an abutting property owner, the applicant would submit a Boundary Line Adjustment application to the City of Federal Way for their review and approval prior to the recording of the final plat. Staff Report Page -11- Redondo Firs/SUB98-0001 Response — Lot #7 has been eliminated and is now incorporated into tract A, NGPE, and is dedicated to the homeowners association per Note 4 of Sheet 2 of 3 of the final plat (Exhibit Q. IV DECISIONAL CRITERIA Pursuant to Section 20-134(b) of the Federal Way City Code (Supplement #4), if the City Council finds that the following criteria have been met, the City Council may approve the final plat for recording: CRITERION #1— The final plat is in substantial conformance to the preliminary plat. Response — This criterion has been met. CRITERION #2 — The final plat is in conformity with applicable zoning ordinances or other land use controls. Response — This criterion has been met. CRITERION #3 — All conditions of the Hearing Examiner and/or City Council have been satisfied. Response — This criterion has been met. CRITERION #4 — All required improvements have been made and maintenance bonds or other security for such improvements have been submitted and accepted. Response — This criterion has been met. All road and storm drainage improvements have been constructed. In addition, all water and sewer lines have been installed. Adequate bonding is in place with the city, Lakehaven Utility District, and Midway Sewer District. CRITERION 45 — All taxes and assessments owing on the property have been paid. Response— Prior to being recorded, the plat is reviewed by the King County Department of Assessments to ensure that all taxes and assessments have been paid. V CONCLUSION Based on a site visit, review of the final plat maps, construction drawings, and the project file, staff has determined that the application for final plat approval for Redondo Firs meets all platting requirements of RCW 58.17.070, King County Title 19, and Section 20-134 of the Federal Way City Code (supplement #4). A recommendation of final plat approval is therefore being forwarded to the City Council for your approval. Staff Report Page -12- Redondo Firs/SUB98-0001 EXHIBITS Exhibit A Resolution 93-140 — City of Federal Way Preliminary Plat Approval of Redondo Firs with Accompanying Hearing Examiner Report Exhibit B 8'/2 x 11 Reduced Copy of Approved Preliminary Plat of Redondo Firs Exhibit C 8'/2 x 11 Reduced Copy of Final Plat Map of Redondo Firs (three pages) Exhibit D Vicinity Map for Redondo Firs Exhibit E Final Plat Resolution of the City of Federal Way Approving the Final Plat of Redondo Firs Exhibit F Correspondence from Midway Sewer District Exhibit G Correspondence from Lakehaven Utility District Exhibit H 8'/2 x 11 Reduced Copy of Approved Engineering Plans for Redondo Firs L:\PRM SY S\DOCUMENTISUB98_00. 0 I \STAFFRPT. DOC Staff Report Page -13- Redondo Firs/SUB98-0001 RESOLUTION NO. 93-140 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON, APPROVING WITH CONDITIONS THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF REDONDO FIRS, KING COUNTY BUILDING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT FILE NO. S90P0002 (FEDERAL WAY FILE NO ILA -90 -0018 -SUB). WHEREAS, the applicant, Chuck Holcom, Jr., applied to King County for preliminary plat approval to subdivide certain real property consisting of 3.75 acres located at South 278th Street, east of Pacific Highway South and north of South 277th Place into seven (7) single family lots; and WHEREAS, subsequent to the application, but prior to the Hearing Examiner hearing on the preliminary plat, the City of Federal Way incorporated; and WHEREAS, an interlocal agreement between the City of Federal Way and King County requires that the City make decisions on the preliminary plat application using Federal Way procedures and King County substantive criteria; and WHEREAS, the Federal Way Land Use Hearing Examiner held a public hearing on March 23, 1993, concerning the preliminary plat of Redondo Firs; and WHEREAS, at the conclusion of said hearing the Federal Way Land Use Hearing Examiner issued its Findings, Conclusions, Conditions, Recommendations and Decision on April 5, 1993; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Federal Way is the governmental body now having jurisdiction and d authority to pass EXHIB0 Ei PAGEOF.Itcoptpy upon the approval, denial or modification of the conditions of said preliminary plat using the substantive criteria of the King County Codes; and WHEREAS, the City Council having considered the written record and Recommendation of the Hearing Examiner, pursuant to Chapter 20 of Federal Way City Code, Chapter 58.17 RCW and all other applicable City Codes; NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Findings of Facts, Conditions and Conclusions. The Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations of the Federal Way Land Use Hearing Examiner issued on April 5, 1993, following a hearing held on March 23, 1993, which included a recommendation to approve the preliminary plat of Redondo Firs subject to certain conditions, are hereby adopted as the Findings, Conclusions and Conditions of the City Council. Section 2. Application Approval. Based upon the Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations of the Federal Way Land Use Hearing Examiner, as adopted by reference by the City Council set forth hereinabove, the preliminary plat of Redondo Firs, Building and Land Development File No. S90P0002 (Federal Way File No. ILA -90 -0018 -SUB) is hereby approved subject to the Conditions contained in the Recommendation of the Federal Way Land Use Hearing Examiner Report for this matter dated April 5, 1993, attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated by this reference. 2 FXHINT, A LIA Resolution No. 93-140 1 r-,GEz.-0E-L;L- Section 3. Conditions of Approval Integral. The conditions of approval of the preliminary plat are all integral to each other with respect to the City Council finding that public use and interest will be served by the platting or subdivision of the subject property. Should any court having jurisdiction over the subject matter declare any of the conditions invalid, then, in said event, the proposed preliminary plat approval granted in this resolution shall be deemed void, and the preliminary plat shall be remanded to the Hearing Examiner for the City of Federal Way to review the impacts of the invalidation of any condition or conditions and conduct such additional proceedings as are necessary to assure that the proposed plat makes appropriate provisions for the public health, safety and general welfare and other factors as required by RCW Chapter 58.17 and applicable County and/or City ordinances, rules and regulations and forward such recommendation to the City Council for further action. Section 4. Effective Date. This resolution shall be effective immediately upon passage by the Federal Way City Council. RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON, THIS 4th DAY OF May , 1993 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY MA OR, ROBERT STEAD ATTEST: CITY CLERK---MAURSEft M. SWANEY; CMC A- 3� ACE 3 CF:T Resolution No. 93-140 APPRO ED AS TO FORM: C ATTORNEY, CAROLYN A. LAKE FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: April 28, 1993 PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: May 4, 1993 RESOLUTION NO. 93-140 Kathleen Ireso Iredondo; firs 4 SAG EOF...�. BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY IN THE MATTER OF THE ) APPLICATION OF: ) CHUCK HOLCOM, JR., FOR ) PROPOSED PLAT OF REDONDO FIRS ) Approval of Preliminary Plat ) KING COUNTY FILE #S90P0002 FILE #ILA -90 -0018 -SUB FWHE #93-1 RECOI`gI[ENDATION I. SUMMARY OF APPLICATION Redondo Firs is a proposed subdivision of 3.75 acres into seven (7) single family lots with access proposed to be off of 21st Place South and Pacific Highway South (Exhibit A). Lot sizes range from 12,400 to 31,950 square feet with an average lot size of 15,061 square feet. There is a Class III Wetland in the west -central portion of the site. The proposal falls within a suburban residential (SR -7200) zone. II. PROCEDURAL INFORMATION At the hearing the following presented testimony and evidence: 1. Margaret Clark, Senior Planner, City of Federal Way 33530 -1st Way. South, Federal Way, WA 98003 2. Andy King, Triad Associates 11415 NE 128th Street, Kirkland, WA 98034 3. Ron Garrow, Senior Development Engineer, City of Federal Way 33530 -1st Way South, Federal Way, WA 98003 At the hearing the following exhibits were admitted as part of the official record of these proceedings: 1. Staff Report with Exhibits a. Preliminary Plat Map b. Vicinity Map C. Mitigated Determination of Non-Significanc XHIBIT PAGE -6 OF ExHOT "A" REDONDO FIRS PRELIMINARY PLAT KING COUNTY FILE #S90P0002 FILE #ILA -90 -0018 -SUB; FWHE #93-1 PAGE 2 d. Preliminary Plat Map e. Environmental Checklist f. Letter from Federal Way Public Schools dated 12/23/92 g. Communication from Pat Kettenring, Fire District, dated 12/31/92 h. Community Development Technical Review Committee Report from Federal Way Water and Sewer dated 12/31/92 i. Letter from C. Gary Schutz, Wetland/Forest Ecologist, dated 5/26/91 j. Vicinity Map k. Geotechnical Investigation 1. King County Road Adequacy Standards (KC Code 21.49) M. Location Map of Sidewalks Relative to Existing Bus Stops n. City Department of Community Development Technical Committee Report dated 4/18/91 o. King County Certificate of Water Availability P. King County Certificate of Sewer Availability q. Seattle -King County Department of Public Health/Environmental Health Services Application for Preliminary Health Department Subdivision Approval r. King County Council Motion #5952 dated 3/26/84 2. Applicant's Proposed Revisions to Staff Conditions 3. Copy of Applicable King County Road Standards IIT. FINDINGS 1. The applicant has a possessory ownership interest in a 3.75 acre parcel of property located at the terminus of South 278th Street in north Federal Way, north and east of the single family residential subdivision of Scarbrough Divisions 1 and 2. The site is east of Pacific Highway South and north of South 277th Place. A preliminary plat application was filed approximately one month prior to the effective date of the formation of the City of Federal Way and, therefore, this preliminary plat is considered under King County plans, regulations, and codes in effect on the date of application (February 1, 1990). Both the King County and Federal Way Zoning Codes classify the site for single family residential dwellings on minimum 7,200 square foot lot sizes. 2. The applicant is proposing a single family residential plat consisting of seven (7) lots, with a minimum lot size of 12,400 square feet and maximum lot size of 31,950 square feet, with an average lot size of 15,061 square feet. On October 9, 1992, the City of Federal Way, as lead agency, issued a Mitigated Determination of Non -Significance (MDNS) and no appeals were filed. AHIBIT DAG E_.(o OF.LY. REDONDO FIRS PRELVAINARY PLAT KING COUNTY FILE #S90P0002 FILE #ILA -90 -0018 -SUB; FVVHE #93-1 PAGE 3 3. The topography of the site is hilly and a stream flows from southwest to northeast across the western portion of the site. Slopes around the stream are as steep as twenty-five (25%) percent. The U.S. Soil Conservation Service -King County Soil Survey, establishes that the soils on the site are Alderwood Gravelly Sandy Loam with some areas of Everett Gravelly Sandy Loam. In addition, the applicant commissioned a geotechnical study of the site, which was prepared by Dennis Joule, P.E., and submitted on March 1, 1991. The geotechnical report establishes that the slopes exhibit no evidence of instability, and that if recommendations contained in the report are followed, both the existing slopes and the slopes created during construction should remain stable. A condition in the MDNS agreed to by the applicant is that all recommendations of the geotechnical report be complied with during development of the site. Furthermore, an erosion and sedimentation control plan will be prepared by the applicant and reviewed by the City to ensure compliance with King County Ordinance #4938 and the 1990 Surface Water Manual. The soil types, geotechnical report, and future review will assure that no adverse impacts will occur due to erosion, and that the soils are adequate to allow development of the site as proposed. 4. An intermittent stream flows from the southwest to the northeast and there is an associated Class III Wetland located on the western portion of the site. The Class, III Wetland is the least valuable of all wetlands and in 1990 King County required a twenty- five (25) foot wetland buffer and a fifteen (15) foot building setback line from the buffer. The stream will be protected from stormwater impurities by a grass -lined biofiltration Swale. The conditions of approval requiring compliance with the King County Surface Water Design Manual and the erosion sedimentation control plan are sufficient to protect the intermittent stream and associated wetland. 5. Due to past logging activities, the majority of the site is forested upland dominated by mature deciduous trees with scattered second and third growth conifers. The wetland and intermittent stream border is characterized by big leaf maple, red alder and other trees associated with salmon berry understory. A site visit by staff establishes that there are no threatened or endangered species on site and that the riparian corridor is an isolated natural drainage area influenced by stormwater run off flows due to recent development. The twenty-five (25) foot native buffer is satisfactory to protect existing plants and wildlife within the corridor. 6. The plat map reveals that six (6) lots are proposed east of the wetland and corridor and will access the extension of South 278th Street, which will be known as 21st Place South. Lot seven (7) is on the west side of the corridor and at present has no access. If legal access cannot be provided, the lot must either be designated as open space or sold to a surrounding property owner. REDONDO FIRS PRELEgINARY PLAT KING COUNTY FILE #S90P0002 FILE #ILA -90 -0018 -SUB; FWHE #93-1 PAGE 4 7. The site will generate approximately seventy (70) average daily trips, sixty (60) of which will utilize 21st Place South, with the remaining ten (10) trips onto Pacific Highway South (assuming access is provided to lot seven (7)). A traffic impact study is not required due to the light traffic volume and no change in level of service at any street intersection in the immediate vicinity. The plat road will be constructed to 1987 King County standards. The roads serving the plat are adequate. 8. Students residing in the plat will attend schools operated by the Federal Way School District, which will finance needed facilities by using a combination of construction bonds, impact fees, and State matching funds. The applicant will provide sidewalks on both sides of 21st Place South, extending into the bulb of the cul-de-sac. School bus stops located in the vicinity are accessed by sidewalks at present, thus adequate provision is made for schools and for the safety of children walking to bus stops. 9. The applicant is not providing neighborhood parks, but has agreed to pay the sum of $8,269 to the City of Federal Way in order to mitigate impacts on existing open space and recreational facilities. The applicant has, therefore, made appropriate provisions for parks and recreation. 10. The Federal Way Water and Sewer District will provide both potable water and fire flow to the site. The sewer service will be provided by the Midway Sewer District, which has provided a Certificate of Sewer Availability. Adequate provision is made for water and the satisfactory disposal of sanitary waste. 11. The storm drainage system will be designed in conformance with the 1990 King County Surface Water Design Manual. An infiltration system is proposed to collect run off generated by roof and footing drains. Run off from impervious road surfaces will be detained in an underground detention pipe and released at predevelopment rates into a grass -lined biofiltration Swale located in Tract C, which parallels the riparian corridor. Storm drainage run off from the site will contribute to an existing flooding problem on South 272nd Street and South Star Lake Road. The MDNS requires the applicant to contribute a prorata share of $5,808 to rectify the flooding problem. The applicant will design the plat storm drain system to accommodate the one hundred (100) year/twenty- four (24) hour storm event with maximum release rate of approximately seventy (70%) percent of the two (2) year/twenty-four (24) hour predevelop rate. The proposed storm drain system and off site mitigation funds make adequate provision for plat storm drainage. 12. The 1985 King County Comprehensive Plan designates the site as Urban. The proposed subdivision is not in conflict with the policies of the King County Comprehensive Plan. X HIBIT—A—r PAGE a OF REDONDO FIRS PRELEMNARY PLAT KING COUNTY FILE #S90P0002 FME #ILA -90 -0018 -SUB; FWHE #93-1 PAGE 5 The proposal is also located within the Federal Way Community Planning Area, which designates the project area as single family with a recommended density of between four (4) and nine (9) dwelling units per acre. Since this plat is proposed at a density of less than two (2) dwelling units per acre, it is substantially less than the recommended density. 13. The only issue unresolved between staff and the applicant is whether rolled curbs or vertical curbs should be provided on the plat road. The applicant desires to provide rolled curbs to match the existing curbs on streets in the Scarbrough division. Public Works desires a vertical curb and gutter section, which provides a more difficult obstacle for cars to overcome to get onto a sidewalk. The applicant's reason for requesting rolled curbs is for continuity and to provide more flexibility for driveway cuts. The King County Road Standards of 1987 allow a choice of vertical or rolled curbs. It is the Examiner's opinion that since this site is a new subdivision and not a part of the Scarbrough division, it should be developed in accordance with present standards as much as possible. The lots surrounding the cul-de-sac are quite narrow (25 feet) and rolled curbs may not adequately define the driveways. In addition, children generally play within cul-de-sacs and on dead end streets. For safety purposes, the vertical curbs should be required. 14. The Federal Way Zoning Code provides that preliminary plat applications are reviewed under Process III. Under this process, the Hearing Examiner makes a recommendation to the Federal Way City Council, which will then make the final decision as to approve or disapprove the proposed plat. Prior to making a recommendation, the Examiner must find that the specific Process III decisional criteria are met. Findings required on each criteria are hereby made as follows: a. The project is consistent with the King County Comprehensive Plan and the Federal Way Community Plan, both of which recommend relatively high density single family residential for both the area and the site. b. The project may not be consistent with all applicable provisions of the Federal Way Zoning Code, but is consistent with all applicable provisions of the King County codes in effect on the date of submission of the completed plat application. The plat complies with Title 19 of the King County Subdivision Ordinance,'RCW 58.17 and the SR 7,200 Zoning District. C. Assuming the applicant complies with conditions of approval contained in the MDNS and hereinafter, the public health, safety and welfare will be protected. EXF9@BIT h PAGE q OFA._ REDONDO FIRS PRELLMEIVARY PLAT KING COUNTY FILE #S90P0002 FILE #ELA-90-0018-SUB; FNVHE #93-1 PAGE 6 IV. CONCLUSIONS The applicant has established that the proposed preliminary plat of Redondo Firs is consistent with the King County Comprehensive Plan, the Federal Way Community Plan, the SR 7,200 zone, Title 19 of the King County Subdivision Ordinance, all other applicable King County codes and policies, and RCW 58.17.110. This proposed preliminary plat makes appropriate provisions for open spaces, drainage ways, streets, alleys, other public ways, water supplies, sanitary waste, parks, playgrounds, sites for schools and school grounds, and considers all other relevant facts, including sidewalks and other planning features that assure safe walking conditions for students who walk to and from school. The proposed preliminary plat of Redondo Firs will. serve the public use and interest by providing an attractive location for single family residential development in the north portion of the City of Federal Way and should be approved by the Federal Way City Council, subject to the following conditions: 1. The plat shall comply with all platting provisions of Title 19 of the King County Code (King County Subdivision Ordinance). 2. The area and dimensions of all lots shall meet the minimum requirements of the SR 7,200 zone classification. 3. All persons having an ownership interest in the subject property shall sign on the face of the final plat a dedication which includes the language set forth in King County Council Motion No. 5952 (Exhibit R) except as modified for the City of Federal Way. 4. A Developer Extension Agreement must be entered into between the applicant and the Federal Way Water and Sewer District for the water system. 5. Approval shall be obtained from the Midway Sewer District for the sewer system. 6. The applicant must obtain final approval from the King County Health Department. 7. The applicant must obtain the approval of the City of Federal Way for the adequacy of the fire hydrant, water main, and fire flow standards. 8. In lieu of providing an approved turnaround for emergency vehicle access for Lots five (5) and seven (7), the applicant may request that the subject residences to be constructed on these two lots be sprinkled. 9. An uninventoried Class III Wetland exists on the site of the proposed subdivision. The following conditions shall be satisfied with respect to this wetland: H181T Pr PAGE OF� REDONDO FIRS PRELMNARY PLAT KIl\ G COUNTY FILE #S90P0002 FILE #ILA -90 -0018 -SUB; FWHE #93-1 PAGE 7 a. The uninventoried wetland and stream feature that have both been field surveyed shall be protected by a twenty-five (25) foot buffer and shall be designated by as a Native Growth Protection Easement (NGPE). b. The NGPE shall be located within a separate tract and shown on the approved engineering plans and recorded final plat. C. An additional 15 -foot Building Setback Line (BSBL) shall be delineated adjacent to the NGPE and shown on the approved engineering plans and recorded final plat. No improvements or intrusions except a biofiltration Swale shall be allowed within the BSBL. d. The plan shall mitigate the potential impact of the human intrusion into the wetland by providing permanent fencing (Refer to Condition #13). 10. The following statement shall be shown on the approved engineering plans and recorded final plat: "Building Setbacks and Native Growth Protection Easements Structures, fill and obstructions (including, but not limited to decks, patios, outbuildings, or overhangs beyond 18 inches) are prohibited within the building setback line (BSBL) and within the Native Growth Protection Easement as shown. Dedication of a Native Growth Protection Easement (NGPE) conveys to the public a beneficial interest in the land within the easement. This interest includes the preservation of native vegetation for all purposes that benefit the public health, safety, and welfare, including control of surface water and erosion, maintenance of slope stability, visual and aural buffering, and protection of plant and animal habitat. The NGPE imposes upon all present and future owners and occupiers of the land, subject to the easement, the obligation, enforceable on behalf of the public by the City of Federal Way, to leave undisturbed all trees and other vegetation within the easement. The vegetation within the easement may not be cut, pruned, covered by fill, removed, or damaged without express permission from the City of Federal Way, which permission must be obtained in writing from the City of Federal Way Department of Community Development or its successor agency. - -9IBIT A" P EOF REDONDO FIRS PRELEVHNARY PLAT KRI�G COUNTY FILE #S90P0002 FILE #LILA-90-0018-SUB; FNVHE #93-1 PAGE 8 Before and during the course of any grading, building construction, or other development activity on a lot subject to the NGPE, the common boundary between the easement and the area of development activity must be fenced or otherwise marked to the satisfaction of the City of Federal Way or its successor agency." 11. At the time of recording of the final plat, the NGPE shall be dedicated to a Homeowners Association or other workable organization in order to provide for its ownership and continued maintenance. 12. The Declaration of Protective Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions of the Homeowners Association shall be reviewed by the City of Federal Way prior to recording to ensure that adequate provisions are made for ownership and maintenance of the NGPE and other open space areas. 13. A five foot tall fence must be installed on the edge of the wetland buffer/NGPE at the time that a dwelling is constructed on the adjoining lot or ownership of that lot transferred to the first owner -occupant. This fence must be constructed of such material which would allow visibility of the NGPE from the lots. 14. Final plat approval shall require full compliance with drainage provisions set forth in the 1990 King County Surface Water Design Manual. Compliance may result in reducing the number and/or location of lots as shown on the preliminary approved plat. The following conditions represent portions of the Manual and shall apply to all plats: a. Federal Way Public Works Department approval of the drainage and roadway plans is required prior to any construction. b. A separate Erosion and Sediment Control (ESC) plan for this project shall be submitted with the drainage and roadway plans. The plan shall show the limits of the area 'to be cleared during construction of roads and the installation of drainage improvements and utilities, and provide a schedule of construction (construction sequence). The plans shall include provisions for protecting exposed soils from weathering by wind or rain by covering piles of soil with tarp. Due to erosion hazard and the presence of wetlands on-site, clearing shall be limited only to those areas required for construction of roadways and utilities. Prior to any clearing or PAGEOF-a. REDONDO FIRS PRELIlVIINARY PLAT KING COUNTY FILE #S90P0002 FILE #ILA -90 -0018 -SUB; n HE #93-1 PAGE 9 grading, a boundary delineation acceptable to the City of Federal Way shall be provided between lots and areas designated as a NGPE. Said boundary delineation shall remain in place until a dwelling is constructed on the lot or ownership transferred to the first owner -occupant at which time a five foot fence meeting the requirements of Condition #13 shall be constructed. C. Retention/detention (R/D) and biofiltration facilities shall be located in separate tracts and dedicated to the City of Federal Way, unless located within improved City of Federal Way rights- of-way. Access for maintenance shall be provided to all facilities. This will require a 15 -foot access roadway to all manholes (R/D). Tract C (Biofiltration and Maintenance Tract) shall be a minimum of 45 feet wide. The detention system shall be designed to accommodate the 100 -year 24-hour storm event with a maximum release rate of approximately 70 percent of the 2 -year 24-hour pre - developed storm. d. Prior to recording of the final plat, those portions of the retention/detention and biofiltration facilities necessary to control the flows discharging from the site shall be constructed and operational. e. Oil/water separation facilities shall be provided at each point of permanent storm drainage release from the site to prevent contaminants from entering the natural drainage features. In addition to oil/water separators, the applicant is required to provide biofiltration prior to discharge of stormwater into any sensitive area (e.g. streams, wetlands, lakes, etc.). Such biofiltration includes 200 feet of broad, flat -bottom, grass -lined swales or equivalent. f. Drainage outlets (stub -outs) shall be provided for each individual lot, except for those lots approved for infiltration by the City of Federal Way. Stub -outs shall be shown on the engineered plans and shall conform to the following: 1) Each outlet shall be suitably located at the lowest elevation on the lot, so as to service all future roof downspouts and footing drains, driveways, yard drains and _any_o G E-OF_LYL. REDONDO FIRS PRELE"INARY PLAT KING COUNTY FILE #S90P0002 FILE #iILA-90-0018-SUB; FWHE #93-1 PAGE 10 surface or subsurface drains necessary to render the lots suitable for their intended use. Each outlet shall have free-flowing, positive drainage to an approved stormwater conveyance system. 2) Outlets on each lot shall be located with a 2"x4" stake marked "storm." The stub -out shall extend above surface level, be visible and be secured to the stake. 3) Pipe material shall conform with underdrain specifications described in KCRS 7.04 and, if non-metallic, the pipe shall contain wire or other acceptable feature detectable from the surface. 4) Drainage easements are required for drainage systems designed to convey flows through more than one lot. 5) All individual stub -outs shall be privately owned and maintained by the lot home owner. g. In some cases, on-site infiltration systems may be accepted for detention for the lots depending on soil conditions. To determine the suitability of the soil for infiltration systems, a soils report that includes percolation tests and a soil log taken at 6 -foot minimum depth shall be submitted by a professional engineer, or soil specialist. This shall include, at a minimum, information on soil texture, depth to seasonal high water and the occurrence of mottling and impervious layers. The report shall also, address potential down gradient impacts due to increased hydraulic loading on slopes and structures. If the soils report is approved, the infiltration systems shall be installed at the time of the building permit. A note to this effect shall be placed on the face of the final plat map. The drainage plan and the final plat map shall indicate each lot approved for infiltration. h. A downstream drainage analysis shall be included with the drainage plan. This analysis must extend for a minimum distance of '/. mile from the point of release of each flow discharging from the site. The analysis must address any existing problems with flooding, capacity, overtopping, scouring, sloughing, erosion, or sedimentation of any drainage facility, whether, nakA A GE ILi OF i REDONDO FIRS PRELIlViINARY PLAT KING COUNTY FILE #S90P0002 FILE #H,A-90-0018-SUB; FWHE #93-1 PAGE 11 made. Probable impacts due to construction of the project must also be addressed with respect to these same concerns. Where this analysis reveals a more restrictive situation, more stringent drainage controls than would otherwise be necessary for a project of this type may be required. These controls may include additional on-site rate and/or volume controls, off-site improvements, or a combination of both. Any off-site improvements will require the approval of all affected property owners. i. Current Standard Notes and Erosion Sedimentation Control (ESC) notes, as established by the City of Federal Way Public Works Department, shall be placed on the engineered plans. j. The following note shall be placed on the face of the final plat map: "All building downspouts, footing drains, and drains from all impervious surfaces, such as patios and driveways, shall be connected to the permanent storm drain outlet as shown on the approved construction drawings on file with the City of Federal Way Public Works Department under Project #ILA -90 -0018 -SUB: This plan shall be submitted with the application of any building permit. , All connections of the drains must be constructed and approved prior to the final building inspection approval. For those lots that are designated for individual lot infiltration systems, the systems shall be constructed prior to certificate of occupancy and shall comply with plans on file." 15. Prior to final plat approval, a pro rata share of $5,808 shall be contributed by the developer towards the cost of Project Number 3323, a project to improve the flooding problem at South 272nd Street and South Star Lake Road. 16. All construction and upgrading of public and private roads shall be done in accordance with the King County Road Standards established and adopted by Ordinance No. 8041 (1987 King County Road Standards). 17. 21st Place South shall be designed and constructed to Sub Access Street standards with thirty-six (36) foot sections, in order to match the existing street configuration to the south. This street shall have vertical curb, gutter and sidewalks along both sides. 18. Planter islands (if any) within the cul-de-sacs shall be maintained by the abutting lot owners. This shall be stated on the face of the final plat.- p �j P F-Ji-IOF =- REDONDO FIRS PRELIMINARY PLAT KNG COUNTY FILE #S90P0002 FILE #ILA -90 -0018 -SUB; FNVHE #93-1 PAGE 12 19. Easements shall be provided for all utilities not located within public right of way. The width of the easements for the individual utilities shall be approved by the respective utility provider. These easements shall be clearly labelled on the face of the final plat. 20. A ten foot utility easement shall be provided along the front ten feet of all lots and tracts adjacent to the proposed streets. The following statement shall be noted on the face of the final plat: "Easement Reservations An easement is hereby reserved for, and granted to, any public utility and their respective successors and assigns, under and upon the front ten feet parallel with and adjoining the street frontage of all lots and tracts, in which to install, lay, construct, renew, operate, and maintain underground pipe, conduit, cables, and wires with necessary facilities and other equipment for the purpose of serving this subdivision and other property with utility service, together with the right to enter upon the lots at all times for the purposes herein stated. These easements entered upon for these purposes shall be restored as near as possible to their original condition. No utility lines shall be placed or permitted to be placed upon any lot unless the same shall be underground or in conduit attached to a building." 21. Prior to final plat approval, a fee of $8,269 shall be paid to City of Federal Way Parks and Recreation Department to mitigate potential impacts on area parks. 22. All development activities shall be designed and constructed in accordance with recommendations and conclusions contained in the March 1, 1991, Geotechnical Investigation prepared by Dennis Joule for the proposed development, as required by the Public Works Director and Building Official.. Supplemental geotechnical analysis and recommendations may be required by the Public Works Director or Building Official during development of the site. 23. The applicant shall work with Puget Power to install a street light on-site. 24. Prior to final plat approval, legal access shall be provided to Lot 7, or the lot shall be designated as open space and dedicated to the Redondo Firs Homeowners Association, or the applicant may sell the proposed lot to an abutting property owner. In the event that the applicant decides to sell the proposed lot to an abutting property owner, the applicant would submit a Boundary Line Adjustment application to the City of Federal Way for their review and approval prior to the recording of the final plat. LAHIBIT r .-- PAGEOFJ REDONDO FIRS PRELIMINARY PLAT KING COUNTY FILE #S90P0002 FILE ##ILA -90 -0018 -SUB; FWHE ##93-1 PAGE 13 V. RECOAE�MNDATION It is hereby recommended to the City Council of the City of Federal Way that the proposed preliminary plat of Redondo Firs be approved, subject to the conditions contained in the conclusions above. VI. RIGHTS TO RECONSIDERATION AND CHALLENGE Any person who has a right to challenge a recommendation under the Federal Way Zoning Code may request the Hearing Examiner to reconsider any aspect of his or her recommendation by delivering a written request for reconsideration to the Planning Department within seven (7) calendar.days after the date of issuance of the Hearing Examiner's recommendation. The person requesting the reconsideration shall specify in the request what aspect of the recommendation he or she wishes to have reconsidered and the reason for the request. The distribution of the request and the response to the request shall be governed pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Way Zoning Code. Within ten (10) worlflng days after receiving a request for reconsideration, the Hearing Examiner shall notify the persons who have a right to appeal under the Federal Way Zoning Code, whether or not the recommendation will be reconsidered. The Hearing Examiner may reconsider the recommendation only if he or she concludes that there is substantial merit in the request. The process of the reconsideration will be followed in accordance with the Federal Way Zoning Code. The recommendation of the Hearing Examiner may be challenged by any person who is to receive a copy of that recommendation pursuant to FWZC 155.60.6. That challenge, in the form of a letter of challenge, must be delivered to the Planning Department within fourteen (14) calendar days after the issuance of the Hearing Examiner's recommendation or, if a request for reconsideration is filed, then within fourteen (14) calendar days of either the decision of the Hearing Examiner denying the request for reconsideration or the reconsidered recommendation. The letter of challenge must contain a clear reference to the matter being challenged and a statement of the specific factual findings and conclusions of the Hearing Examiner disputed by the person filing the challenge. The person filing the challenge shall include, with the letter of appeal, the fee established by the City. The challenge will not be accepted unless it is accompanied by the required fee. The recommendation of the Hearing Examiner may be challenged whether or not there was a request to reconsider the Hearing Examiner's recommendation. DATED this 5th day of April, 1993. STEPHEN K. CAUSSEAUX, JR., AjknExaminer 1:%F1\CKMSGUMXREFMShAH�� � �� D, '_0- fil l/I(`IAUoO • NI►1A110t1 • XSeYM'P•M11 • wiBMILI3N91�11 NOlowsvm •AINnM OWN r n Shc� oalloa3a '° E " / )q 9 °, IM /MYILII• i •M°yp•�� •� "^""� °: r •; d0 1V id AtlVNIWll3tld r Elm I/ " `\ \ _, SYvBeg�5 Fi 5 lip REDONDO FIRS * A PORTION OF THE SE 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4. - OF SEC 33, TWP 22 N, RNG 4 E. WAL w�'•.. CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON S 865D'lf [ SrXR(R[0.) 26Y19, 13180' 1314.41VFCUNO OL I.P. N CASE r a - C '6C16p I8C• (%IBYM I1-13-96) SCAL&4%W- iiTSMOM TTimilml- 3. Kr �� - ... � ;�'• 25 700 �" �..a,•' . 5 YT wONUSA T f CASE _,• �; r _ A vuo REbwe & CAP 3,9 AD!? 4 r /�•' - . 16C-'♦OwlI1lEflli Ali AA110AR0 10114"AAi `'A1,6 w - CASTCONC YOM81EI17t • F w LNE SCI/4, '�••- - Z MW,/4 S N'SV '.E 61&94 DEW S B,JfoO't 97181 w '¢ n`.L ,�•. . w � ••• •, 7474 xi ` �- - 1E3YT-SQ NOl[ 140' PRIVATE ENT-sm p S 887')0'-[ 387'l!Y .0.c PARCO. •.• ;kyr;;' V :Sr, .::.. — ; J. + �-•L - SER ..44' *! A•y, $ art $112 mm W ( �1 EASEYDIT SEE NOTE 0 11.808 RR• s FOUNO A/C 3 0.16' [ 17.311 ♦ -29100 aF• Y PRIVATE / (AmMMT pQ1AMIolt M, ♦9�&Ty'4.• IV O•� t �. - •r. 173.1f':4r (3 13c71 i, /a• a "1 # J TRACT 'A' : �, '.1 KALPg:8 f 's ['/0' vwN11E sE.rn ,s,B.a. NIR:... S��A•h �`L—`•Esk1r--SM Nore 11 10. PATvAX SCLR SIT •\. '•yy- . t �„ ♦ i/ ! _ 4 gr _ `J SEF 11011 it a 9� ~•b e `� CJ �fa♦T�( ^ �''� 6°9y r1 r ' •1� t}'. OR 1S B5�'� _ d ' = (P�UBLLIICA)YIAG[ N 81 . W S " A Q 9S iS J L 'A b♦ S r. t4_367.9c t : 1:3,: /� y P t ° s. 4�5. ,; M f• 149.37 117,19 187.18 2c00 75,61 +T' —4�; TM .. ROUND R/C S 89'49679 E 92&10 OEEO S eS3fY6' C 679.04 Y- .,. - (b LS 21601 _ _.}� 0.� 'S8 N,NYIIN T TAIL FID4.L 70 1 4 w ON M MESiGLY PRCiERTY UNE OF LOTS 3. 4. 0 5 6ETMM•gitl TIO[ LOTS LOTS AND TRACT V. ES / +? 1 t Q, E+ 7 y��!'�1Iy�L• SBUILMO SMACKS AND NAT11( GROWTH PRO7EClM EASIDOXIS NOTES ON SHEET J. r z / NOTE r T _ A 1Ic96CF 571101 f; 81 REO!•!D Rill .:,:�, ..- .. .., ..... ..:... .. .... 11111:20899 0111078 y t. Ei ` CURVE.-TABLE ` N0.' O.J R2&w. 7fi•� CI 68AOM M2aQ Q / \ p 07,SY 50.00 2%40 f' 3 C3 ' 34'61'531 • xib0 21.60 A T \ C4 "4va'oY xioe MW. CO-- - 3r2IPW - 80.08 -... -33i: C9 ri:l,1f xiDv_ 33.34 a( CT 50.00 - 64" .� , _MI { LINE, TABLE'.. " .oto• 8L N O63Y4C i,,^: ''r. i L3 sffit2P'W. ',�•• L3 .., - `Y Lf N- PREPARED 1Y- �° d 'w►: RESUB Balma & Holm etg Inc. R . � r gg� rscEsccsS a av t ss .r loo 88ONT e5mili, mm ' m6YAs 1801 (4881NIM Jm i �oEs S90P OV. F.W,, NO ILA-9Q-MIS—SIJ898-0001' �••• a99n6 mAVR► sn• t . c Kkae59 • r;:I z • i ♦. REDONDO ::FIRS A PORTION OF THE SIE. 114 'OF THE NW .1/4, - _ OF SEC 33, TWP 4.2 -N,- RNG 4 E, W.M. 1, CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, KING COUNTY, WA8NINGTO N "L PLAT NOTES '04NONMOHT CONTROL SHOWN FOR THIS SADINSILW W13 ACCOMPLISHED BY FIELDTRAVERSE UTILIZING A LIM BET 30 TKOOGUTt WIN AN NIEORAL CLEC14AC DISTANCE MEASURING UNIT. INE WEAR AND AmO LAR'CLONME OF ME TIAVEW MET OR C X33= ENE STANDARDS R WAC 172-13D-000. ti1 pion M6e Or oI,RCOM37RYC71ON:w my LOT WMs s11BO1NsoN, sNR-CUT w1gT 4lvAIip13 PO. PERM DRAINAGE AND SM IT1RY ISEWER 01192 E VER M BY THE INDIVIDUAL LOT WADER OR yMID1 *411h= 1K BLRE FROM THE A10POBED HOUSE. v PLAT 401116RCT TO COVDUNIS CONDITIONS AW4EFMIC11OUS CONTAINED N RISIRWpIT'ECORDm . ANDER RECORDING, No. SGDNCE*wG 711E REOONIDO Ms MQEOMERS' ASSOOAnO1). ' • 4. . NUC, A AND B ARE N.CAE. TRACTS AND ARE HERO DEDICATED To TK'REDONDO FMS HOMEOWNERS' .. ASSOCIATION TOM -TK PURPOSES Or. OIMDR911P ANE T9sCDIC MAINTENANCE. S. TRACT C 4 A WJC WATER DETENTION TACT AND C BO MA KEN ACE TO THE CRY OF ITDEETE WAY FOR JK dDNSATUCIION. RECONSTRUCIION.:OPERATO. u1O MAINTENANCE OFA STORM WRIER DETENTION rA131RY. 1 W L VORTICAL DATUM: ELEVATION OATW AS N.C.A.S. BD13-W ( IS NORM RM OF MONUMENT CASE AT '. INTERSECTION OF 21ST PSE. S AND S ZTTTI PL ELEVATION - 3AL20 FEET LOT 245 SUBiCT 70 A PRIVATE DRAINAGE EASENEMTDI THE BENEFIT OF LOT 1. t c L EDT 7 A�9BELT'10 A PRIVATE DRAIIIAE.EASEMDr DR M. BENEFIT OF LOTS 1 AND 2 L, 144IS ABBiLT'70 A PRIVATE DRAINAGE EABEMEM7 1 TME BENEFIT OF LOTS 1. 2. AND 1 ti?2 i 70.-:101 015 visa .fro PRIVATE ETER JASEM 17 FTF ENE IWIT OF LOT S. J ' It, TOT 4 19 ASLRLT TO A PRIVATE SEER CASDIDR FR INE BENEFIT 'OF LOTS S MD 6. - 4. SIL -.:LOT 2 A'•SIB$T TO A'MIrvATE SEWER EASEMENT RF Tit BENEFIT OF LOT 1. -Tl IDT B 4 %"Cr 70 A"MVAIE SMR.CASElO1T F6F'1E BORQIT Or LOTS 1 AND 2 :14. 7RAGT V IS SL4JWF TD A PRIVAtEjAW VSD EW -CR IW KMEFTT OF LDTS T. <OC i h Y'�1; .:1s �L3+4AIL'LOT �IB�S. 17AK m1 STAMM WIN A i2-OOi By EHNM NEBAR AND YELLOW PLASTIC L•... YY'lIM®1 t'N 1:Y•T1SY" NO AIBR36 IWTAC 9EET5 Ra 9SET. TK STREET WARD PROECTDN .: s"SIE AMEMLIDTI1tS HAVE BED, MARKED AT MOO OF TE CONCRETE VERTICAL VIAY 9TTH A DRILLED N •OLZ IND'A LEAD r TACK SET. PL.RT CORNERS ARE NRIIID BY 2' .IBM PIRE TILLED NTN CONCRETE . . W ADDRESSIC!L 940M EEREGN WERE 0NO DED 4Y THE OR's FEDERAL WAY PRIM 10 YOU PLAT RECORDING BID AE'SUBLECT 70�/71=L EACII LATS: WORM u -K CONFIRMED MY TIE CITY Pm TO INE. COaswOY.DF Tc DHIeLMc a MAT tOT G`M�+• 47. •FLlBAT014hijiJIV WILL BE W M MCN A LD" # LOT )A9f AT -TIE .IME OF Rtam POUT . IL 'IRE EASIER. WC PURPOSE OF TE EASEMENT WL- •0 ESTABLISH A TEMPORARY Cp147WC110N EN . EASEMT 10 EaSMUCT A SLOPE AND `A VERMANEW 71SE1ElT FOR SAID SLOPE THE SLOPE WAS WELDED TO ACCOMODATE CRADPIC OF THE ROADWA"EPNRNO TITS SUBDIVISION. (RSC. N0. 97080.50631) FOUND MIC (VISTIED 11-13-96) BASIS OF BEARING 5 8670.19• E 283295• (EC.) 2632.99' (M) 1316.50' - sr;,H, •7,T. tt� _ - z --; S 667700' E FOUND EX. I.P. N CASE•+ A;.t'- • �•:: `l7,,. "�`, IFGAL DESCRIPTION _ 1317.76' PARCEL A •' T" - TUT ►ORTIH OF 1K IIOIIMEST Q)AR70I TTI 1K SDURHEABTA71Ak1Q /� t� •. i THE N THEST WAR1R a 7C110N 33. 70WNB11i.77*ORM XMQE 4 EDUNW. WASHM010RL =BOOM 10 EAST. RRC -. .- FO BOIWKIL: IOR.E KIIMNO AT THE NORTHWEST DOMINION OF II x � - SOUTH MS6'DO' EAST ALONG TK TDRY, t!E')OILR'S00077��EEii A 7,j' W TNEAWE PONE E-EOBBBII.,.61BM4S mIfTMRIY ROU1Mi/>iEB' wA,;.'I - EAR AIDING SAD NORM {ME BMf6 PRET A \,E.WORMABT WENEOF: THENCE SWM OM425'.CAST ALOE *9 EAST 09 Or SAY . SUBDIVISION: 311" FEET: .TEIICE MORIN 46.46'79'IMMI ID z. FEET TO A POINT FROM WHICH TIE'•TIUE POW OF-KYIM6C 46MS no oz 00.1147`.EST: THENCE NORTH T101Y4Y':EST FRAM W N 11E �. F� RST LRE OF SAD 9U901VI9OH..22 BRT,71i TME BOBNT�OF --_V.k HN+ " BEOMNNO (ENO NN099/ AS A PARY OF .1RA CIL IEDNDO iO0E15. .0 ..:.� ADDING TO 3K UNRECORDED PLAT). LESS THE NORTH 167 FET OF TIE RESP 76T -FEET. +1•Ivy.; 1319.03' _ ,PARCEL B 659.52' Y -�• THE WEST 30 FEET OF THE SOUTHEAST DUARIER OF THE, NORTHWEST WAR_TDI. . L'e' OF SECTION 33, TOWNW 22 NORM. RANGE V EAST. TEM.. N IIIc -. -•;T `• ' -.COUNTY WASHINGTON. -EXCEPT INE SOUTH W33 FEET THEREOF. 146 'LIAE...i.w�w a_.L=•;2L=:'i:... _ ,t:.7`•, Ta; y'. L 1316.50' - sr;,H, •7,T. - z --; S 667700' E FOUND EX. I.P. N CASE•+ A;.t'- • �•:: `l7,,. "�`, (VISITED 11-13-96) _ 1317.76' i x � W �e cG .,a z. no oz 1319.03' 639. 659.52' 146 'LIAE...i.w�w a_.L=•;2L=:'i:... _ ,t:.7`•, Ta; 1316.50' 1316.49' - z --; S 667700' E 3'8977W E 6x67, 666.67, 1317.76' i W �e r z. no oz 1319.03' 639. 659.52' Ex MIC B N E7S44' W ((NVISITED a-RVELI SECTION NW 1/4 SEC 33 TW 22 K W40 4 F� WAL N.Ts RESEREMFC PLAT -01 SCAMORMA. IV. 62 VOL 132• PASS 47 t AS MC - MONUMENTS AE STANDARD HOC COUNTY CONCRETE MONUMENTS N CAST MON CASES. .E5 590P0002 F. N0. ILA -90-0018-51898-0001_, .: �� i. .. a.i. :Hi-' ... ...'ftp' .... it'b:v193. '.i..T!^•'�.: rRerAREn $81iti'18 � 2R OT#t B' 179 BENT an" ,DOER 1RAYN >tri _- pECI�J, tri Y.*O ZTIDTB ,WUE:f�tmofEl � f'l4G E f OF3- ..,_ VICINITY" MAP REDONDO FIRS �u r $ - ALTA'ATER 757 ST '^ STATE PARK i?Z" .c. 11 2E a n S� 61 N SZ a 2 � S 26Z < < 263 ST ST ..0°060 � ~ •No?n ^a ' '-� n �O✓DY NT c o S 168 ST Qo = S n Conte -D-1 Lo • ornoby Sly w i W N ^ ` 99 EXITS <270 ST < _ - - o 4 G S 272 L) S .' .a` i 1 SITE t _ 7 ° Slrr S 276 Si a s��♦r Star Lake w '^ S 276 fJ S to } E '" 1 i< <\ N 5 779 ST 4� < SNae e d < City Limilsy '? s i s 2so R aA�Oti a^ S > 280 ST < s 2IT O S= ST C r S'f < Bt.iQCnfar{ S pp cy S 723 ti 0. < ST O ♦ > C, -� P—d 0 °�o srs ti 4 N N zsa ST ^r264� ST e° $ 284 o T s res �" S 285 ST z 1st `p5 S 286 Ssr z les 5� Tho.*+os a r a `s6 M. to R Q 86r m Jeffers £ N : N s n z 2e) sT f,.> N _ H.S. S y88 s ze> R s ifsa v 3,� ` les Sr > Sr H N N SW m 3 5 H S 2 3 ST $� 9TC. 7 TtT a s/ < 292 c.l z ti sr S T H s 791 ST SW 94TH 5> S 294 ST s as '1 S 294 P N s Ta S P ~ �+. ^�4 �i h cW 206 i ti ry S 795 3 3 ^ ^ SW 297 ST � S 296 ?L o6 'off �a 7a3 s E \ � Q� Q � "' h SW 298 ST ^ 3 S 2 4 �� zw >r d n CA4tLZOT a < i L� 2» r.,+ '> o S? JaO vii < zeS.yy 9� 4 525 a 298 76 .� ,b'•� S 299 s zn ti ti,a! v 57 :DEL ry SW 3COy ST >< n .t < > z Si S H 300 S} r < < ry S n �`J < SJOO N w ST N V SW 301 ST p sm 3 s, )01 sr S' S T N sa s m S 302 S > 300 S 5W 302 PL < :r srxL :. 0 ' a ry I z G n o N _ » ,, < s JS N sw 304' �^ zT n 3w sr N.�,� ^ S T S Jq7 t 3 ` S 304 z N SW 304 S In 305 ST S 305 ST In ST Q Sk'306 T s �+ ✓� �+ v+ 1^ In 306 ST » zsos > a S 305 PL Steel o �.t' S7 b h ♦ ,t, ry n n n v+ _ > Lake oLa k. J� s »> sr 1 an red -0S 308 ST i<AL1> oJ/ TL i S� J > >•~r N G `/- < S \09 °'t < Woy N - N - 'Np N o `t `nci� I ,° 5� zor S 31 PL .5f H, S. S 10,5 5<' w 1 -�J - 312 ST < S >i •T j17 N ,r ♦°t Mti+-.vr a <.t�" s s,s S 313 <CT < 1`�e• M s•e see 0W 31 ST s ms ^� �» `0 s ;a , 5 315 ST •,,'�.e, MIRROR < �r/ - 317 <r 15 f� o ♦ ti s'. e: `,s (�^ =5` a a5 317 57 Fede Y320 ST r> v N 3.0 ST RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON, APPROVING THE FINAL PLAT OF REDONDO FIRS, KING COUNTY FILE NO S901`0002, FEDERAL WAY FILE NOS. ILS90PP18-SUB AND SUB98-0001. WHEREAS, the preliminary plat for Redondo Firs, King County File No S90P0002, Federal Way File Nos. ILA90-PP 18 -SUB & SUB98-0001 was approved on May 4, 1993, by Federal Way Resolution No. 93-140; and WHEREAS, the applicant has satisfied all of the conditions set forth in Resolution No. 93-140 and in the April 5, 1993, Recommendation of the Federal Way Hearing Examiner; and WHEREAS, the applicant has submitted the application for final plat for Redondo Firs within the required time of receiving approval for the above -referenced preliminary plat; and WHEREAS, City of Federal Way Department of Community Development Services staff have reviewed the proposed final plat for its conformance to the conditions of the preliminary plat and the Federal Way Hearing Examiner, and their analysis and conclusions are set forth in the January 25, 1999, Staff Report; and WHEREAS, the Land Use/Transportation Council Committee considered the application for final plat of Redondo Firs at its February 1, 1999, meeting and recommended approval by the full City Council; and WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed and considered the Staff Report and the application for final plat of Redondo Firs prior to and during the Council's February 16, 1999, meeting; Res. # , Page EXHIBIT E PAGE.LOF ± NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Findings of Fact, Conditions, and Conclusions. The final plat for Redondo Firs, King County File No S90P0002, Federal Way File Nos. ILA90-PP18-SUB and SUB98-0001 is in substantial conformance to the preliminary plat and is in conformance with applicable zoning ordinances or other land use controls in effect at the time of the substantially complete application. 2. Based on, inter alia, the analysis and conclusions in the Staff Report, and on the City Council's review of the application for final plat, the proposed subdivision makes appropriate provision for the public health, safety, and general welfare, and for such open spaces, drainage ways, streets or roads, alleys, other public ways, transit stops, potable water supplies, sanitary wastes, parks and recreation, play grounds, and schools and schoolgrounds as are required by City Code or are necessary and appropriate, and provides for sidewalks and other planning features to assure safe walking conditions for students who only walk to and from school. 3. The public use and interest will be served by the final plat approval granted herein. 4. All conditions as listed in the Federal Way Resolution No. 93-140 and the conditions in the April 5, 1993, Recommendation of the City of Federal Way Hearing Examiner, have been satisfied, and/or satisfaction of the conditions have been sufficiently guaranteed by the applicant as allowed by Federal Way City Code Section 22-133. Res. # , Page 2 EXHIBIT 6 - PAGE OF 5. All required improvements have been made and sufficient bond, cash deposit, or assignment of funds have been accepted, or will be accepted, prior to recording by the City of Federal Way as financial guaranty for maintenance of all required plat improvements. 6. All taxes and assessments owing on the property being subdivided have been paid, or will be paid prior to recording the final plat. Section 2. Application Approval. Based upon the Findings of Fact contained in Section 1 above, the final plat of Redondo Firs, King County File No S90P0002,City of Federal Way File Nos. ILA90-PP18-SUB and SUB98-0001 is approved, subject to satisfaction of the maintenance conditions that are required by the city. Section 3. Recording. The approved and signed final plat, together with all legal instruments pertaining thereto as required pursuant to all applicable codes, shall be recorded by the applicant in the King County Department of Records. All recording fees shall be paid by the applicant. Section 4. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause, or phrase of this resolution should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause, or phrase of this resolution. Section 5. Ratification. Any act consistent with the authority and prior to the effective date of the resolution is hereby ratified and affirmed. Res. # , Page 3 EXHIBIT PAGE .30F ._ Section 6. Effective Date. This resolution shall be effective immediately upon passage by the Federal Way City Council. RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON, this day of , 1999. ATTEST: CITY CLERK, N. CHRISTINE GREEN, CMC APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATTORNEY, LONDI K. LINDELL FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: RESOLUTION NO: L: \PRMSYS\DOCUMENT\SUB98_00.0I \RESOLUTN. DOC Res. # , Page 4 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY MAYOR, RONALD GINTZ EXHIBIT E PAGE...OF--�L. \' • 4 Commissioners — r, JACK W. HENDRICKSON �r GEORGE LANDON • VINCE H. KOESTER MIDWAY SEWER DISTRICT PO Box 3487 • Kent WA 98032-0209.3030 S 240 St November 23, 1998 Board of Commissioners Midway Sewer District RE: Developer Extension 98-4 Redondo Firs Gentlemen: I certify that on this date the sanitary sewer extension for the above referenced project is 100% complete and that all of the requirements of the Contract for this project have been met by Charles D. Holcolm. Very truly yours, Marc Montieth Field Representative Manager KEN J.KASE (206)824-4960 FAX NO. (206)878-2692 1112 1 t � akehave� T TPLITY DIST�C October 27, 1998 Charles D. Holcom, Jr. 6312 Madrona Drive NE Tacoma, WA 98422 Re: REDONDO FIRS Agreement # 96-346 Dear Mr. Holcom: LAKEHAVEN UTILITY DISTRICT 31627 -1st Avenue South • P.O. Box 4249 • Federal Way, Washington 98063 Seattle: 253-941-1516 • Tacoma: 253-927-2922 • Fax: 253-839-9310 The District has received all closing documentation and has completed a satisfactory final inspection of the referenced project for compliance with Lakehaven Utility District standards for construction of water distribution systems. This project is hereby accepted for operation and maintenance by the District. Maintenance Bond No. 5927265 shall be maintained in force for a period of one year from this date of acceptance and until the District gives written notice of release, pending satisfactory results of the one-year maintenance inspection. Said bond has been previously submitted for the project the amount of $5,000.00 . If the actual costs incurred by the District within the one-year maintenance period exceed the amount held on deposit following reconciliation of the project account and/or completion of the one-year maintenance inspection, you will be invoiced accordingly. Such invoice shall be paid prior to release of the Maintenance Bond. Any funds remaining in the account will be refunded following said maintenance inspection. Please call Brian Asbury, at (253) 946-5407, if you have any questions or need additional information. Sincerely, �' �- -e - -,- -�' '--, �;; , '- ? '--, ", Bertram L. Ross, P.E. Water Operations and Engineering Manager BLR/BIA/bia b RECEIVE BY ?!nkAVUN7V DEVELOPMENT DFP" R i`MT c: Tom Redding — Baima & Holmberg, Inc., 100 Front Street South, Issaquah, WA 98027 Lt. Brozek — King Co. FD #39 OCT 2 9 W8 King County — DDES Deb Barker — City of FW Inspection — LUD Finance — LUD Field Operations — LUD Tom Jovanovich Dick Mayer Donald L.P. Miller MM IT Beverly J. Tweddle Commissioner Commissioner CommissionerMAE OF Corn er 4L {� _ E ie d 4,�E :Y . e• asn Ywar rx M X070 Y MYYY W O®7 aaa - ae a xaoa No -u A f AaYwa-YfU0 a a 7KILL1ND3 IYlNOZIiiOl1 sau oama3dr0 ye�r I-- k ! s 9 N e - w o.m� w rox mwa w-xbr ri ie W V• mi•a onmi wxm w w mina t �� -�` nNsc xxat�-txt--t• n WWtr mr.a n.rmY um w of mtYa t QYnO r a...� wOia+iwnri� 03.0 p!y FSS 4L {� _ E ie d 4,�E :Y . e• asn Ywar rx M X070 Y MYYY W O®7 aaa - ae a xaoa No -u A f AaYwa-YfU0 a a 7KILL1ND3 IYlNOZIiiOl1 sau oama3dr0 ye�r I-- k ! s 9 N e - w o.m� w rox mwa w-xbr ri ie W V• mi•a onmi wxm w w mina t �� -�` nNsc xxat�-txt--t• n WWtr mr.a n.rmY um w of mtYa t QYnO 'aUl B19gwloH '8 owleB At YYYYQII a...� wOia+iwnri� 03.0 4L {� _ E ie d 4,�E :Y I I. a J c Ul � r S G p!y FSS W tl_ s 8 a¢ pB�re Qa G DEa����` x _ SEN 1 p[ Y 8Ep$¢g%�YY � 23 ii Y [! lei ¢11 _ 7 A g.3jgMT1p8iz 18 p I- ` I q yY 6 W �€•1[!111, g1. = i i i q��i¢ pp z 15 ix� HV 0 V a 1mi .li oar uYts aw.er. / � �;4g¢a . ♦a..r a �R! l96� EXHIBIT ; } DAGE_.L_:OF , 11 ulna[ g� 3 I I. a J c Ul � r S G p!y 9 0 V a 1mi .li oar uYts aw.er. / � �;4g¢a . ♦a..r a �R! l96� EXHIBIT ; } DAGE_.L_:OF , 11 ulna[ g� 3 I I. J c Ul � r S 0 V a 1mi .li oar uYts aw.er. / � �;4g¢a . ♦a..r a �R! l96� EXHIBIT ; } DAGE_.L_:OF , 11 ulna[ g� 3 i rt Ryy i P i °n aQa� .R iMd P+ 8a b r�r; g a�a 4.o d hr F a $YE z $ si dig,`a tlyg a :� is gK d' a3Y k R gLL "5gk 3a ak a 6 xsq a?a � 15 g ¢a3 r W11 YPl f§ € bII �k Yew ap. is YE 3 �a��uE� b.�§ �• Y yt e U P da tl ap.gs a b tlBP �r 3 agpg rd a"yy Ensu 3 9€1 �Ffi I ..: d.. i .d� ii!iI � .a? �dA'sXI:x . a ^ob cie .i E N g Mole Gi apo@l lggc M R sk O1 g Y ` d '� I >♦ � li�� ys � tl�g E"Rg�gx 4 E ekM h D�@X+ igK fit 4bn4itl$ y pi i if rg€ be aiik °r. 5 $ I r Ming n° 4 h$ �E$ i 5p�: @ q b p R� b2�� i e whg X1. MIN tlb @�Ei pp � �t 7� 4� i��i��i i E3:��� H 3S� P ; R, @g i gY k pt° pspsitlppa "■gx4 gFgp{°'@R a$ �$ B°� iM �Ye=� `8- P a i s Sit MR, W9 �ff91 "i 1 .e: i�x�� N ebi�i r; ae ^R ±K3R r��WHO, �� z� ±8^ W ;^. 1 +M - ilt 1+a1 Ya+ tlartle. 1<.IIOur was lOYe r.0 a, C tl 0 A i A tl 0 6 • C tl 9] A I O tl i SlIV13Q 7 3-I.iOild ANUM AM Sat! OdNoa38 R ^ � - i 4 � e i � -a-: � Oq w/Of/f� dM swq]II ,.m w tl, OENL c i,7 • s, [=Kf-. I'1 CD NLL.wb InUn f a cu.na-aY 5 'out BjegwlOH 12 ewleg ,u aroa ii a Y103'IOFI M3fHi7 ona i rt Ryy i P i °n aQa� .R iMd P+ 8a b r�r; g a�a 4.o d hr F a $YE z $ si dig,`a tlyg a :� is gK d' a3Y k R gLL "5gk 3a ak a 6 xsq a?a � 15 g ¢a3 r W11 YPl f§ € bII �k Yew ap. is YE 3 �a��uE� b.�§ �• Y yt e U P da tl ap.gs a b tlBP �r 3 agpg rd a"yy Ensu 3 9€1 �Ffi I ..: d.. i .d� ii!iI � .a? �dA'sXI:x . a ^ob cie .i E N g Mole Gi apo@l lggc M R sk O1 g Y ` d '� I >♦ � li�� ys � tl�g E"Rg�gx 4 E ekM h D�@X+ igK fit 4bn4itl$ y pi i if rg€ be aiik °r. 5 $ I r Ming n° 4 h$ �E$ i 5p�: @ q b p R� b2�� i e whg X1. MIN tlb @�Ei pp � �t 7� 4� i��i��i i E3:��� H 3S� P ; R, @g i gY k pt° pspsitlppa "■gx4 gFgp{°'@R a$ �$ B°� iM �Ye=� `8- P a i s Sit MR, W9 �ff91 "i 1 .e: i�x�� N ebi�i r; ae ^R ±K3R r��WHO, �� z� ±8^ W R .& _ A _ A EXHIBIT }t k i �f lit g[b R .& _ A _ A EXHIBIT NSA I ruaNr A. .Z. At NAWW a A SMU CONM1 *oul BjeqwloH 19 owleg .- --.-I WMIN mom: hi I� Ail In 'HI 66 �j W, W-1 fig' ii w 1,'?x 4i� A't I A, Eli fi!§E gig A Ar. A iq I s lie 91Pp Arg m AVA I w4la Ei I lilt j 21 st PL S. 0 C.) LU SE LU 4 zo uj M IL 9x 9L Ld w 3; 9): LAI Z 0. in 2f 0 o SC LU 91Pp Arg m AVA I w4la Ei I lilt j 21 st PL S. As 5,- LU SE LU 4 zo uj M IL 9x Ld w 9): Z 0. 2f 0 o LU 12 91Pp Arg m AVA I w4la Ei I lilt j 21 st PL S. CITY OF FEDERAL WAY MEMORANDUM January 27, 1999 TO: Land Use/Transportation Committee (LUTC) FROM: Gregory D. Moore, AICP, Director of Community Development Services Margaret H. Clark, AICP, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Follow-up to January 4, 1999 Land Use Transportation Committee Meeting -- Procedures for Amendment of Comprehensive Plan I. BACKGROUND During the LUTC's January 4, 1999 meeting, the LUTC requested certain follow-up in terms of clarifying code language and also requested that staff call various cities to determine whether cities were charging fees for pre -annexation comprehensive plan and zoning designations. This memorandum summarizes staff's response. 2. CODE LANGUAGE CLARIFIED (Please refer to Exhibit AA for these changes. New deletions are shown as 9trikeout and redlitted and new additions are shown as double underline Section 22-520 has been amended to provide that only in calendar year 1999 would there be two deadlines for accepting applications for comprehensive plan amendments. There would be an April 30th deadline for accepting requests for comprehensive plan amendments to be processed in calendar year 1999 and a September 30th deadline for amendments to be processed in calendar year 2000. For all other years, the deadline for applications would be September 30th for amendments in the following calendar year. 2. Section 22-521 has been amended to provide consistency with the changes in Section 22- 520 relating to the April 30, 1999 deadline for accepting comprehensive plan amendment requests for 1999. Also, language has been added to clarify who would be notified of the yearly amendment process. Section 22-523 has been amended to provide consistency with the changes in Section 22-520 relating to the April 30, 1999 deadline for accepting comprehensive plan amendment requests for 1999. Also Criteria Numbers 3 and 8 have been modified in response to LUTC's and the legal department's comments. 4. Section 22-542 has been amended to add the word local to those agencies to be notified during the 60 -day comment period before final action on the adoption of the comprehensive plan is taken by city council. This section has also been modified to clarify that only those agencies who submitted written comments will be sent a copy of the adopted comprehensive plan. RESULTS OF CALLS TO OTHER CITIES RELATING TO FEES FOR PRE- ANNEXATION COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING DESIGNATIONS. The following table summarizes what selected cities charge for site-specific comprehensive plan amendments and pre -annexation planning and zoning. Most cities charge a fee for site-specific comprehensive plan amendments, but not for annexations. Of those cities called, only the City of Puyallup charges a fee for annexations. The City of Puyallup has already assigned comprehensive plan designations for land within their Potential Annexation Area, and if a change in the established comprehensive plan designation is requested with the annexation, an additional fee beyond the annexation fee is imposed. Only the City of Tukwila charges the applicant for preparation of the legal description in the absence of any other annexation -related fees. Jurisdiction Is there a charge Is there a charge for Is there a separate If there is no charge for site specific annexations? charge for assigning for an annexation, comprehensive a comprehensive who pays for the legal plan plan designation and description? amendments? zoning to a property proposed for annexation? City of Kent $500 plus $10/acre No No City City of Tukwila $1400 No No Applicant City of Tacoma No No No City City of Seattle No No No City City of Auburn No No No City City of Burien $1950 No No City City of Puyallup $1200 $3000; their PAA is N/A N/A already planned. If there is a request for a change in plan designation, the site specific plan amendment fee of $1200 is charged City of Bellevue $618 plus $85/hr No No City 0a 4. OTHER COMMENTS For background purposes, the original packet provided to you for the January 4, 1999 meeting has been included. Exhibits Exhibit AA Proposed Amendments to City Code with LUTC's changes Exhibit BB December 30, 1998 Memorandum to the LUTC Exhibit A December 2, 1998 Planning Commission Report Exhibit B Proposed Amendments to City Code with Planning Commission changes Exhibit C November 25, 1998 Planning Staff Report Exhibit D December 2, 1998 Planning Commission minutes I:\AMNDPROC\PROCMEMO.LT2/January 27, 1999 3 ARTICLE IX. PROCESS VI REVIEW* *Cross reference(s)--Requirements for drainage review, § 21- 87; power and jurisdiction of the planning commission, § 22-59; amendments to the zoning regulations to be processed under the process VI procedure, § 22-216; amendments to the comprehensive plan to be processed through process VI review procedures, § 22- 236; comprehensive plan, § 22-236 et seq.; legislative rezoning, § 22-276 et seq.; amendments, § 22-216 et seq.; legislative rezoning of certain districts to be under process VI review, § 22-276. Sec. 22-516. Purpose. Various places in this chapter indicate that certain proposals to amend the zoning map through a legislative rezone, amend the text of this chapter, or amend the comprehensive plan must be reviewed and decided upon using process VI. This article describes process VI. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(160.05), 2-27-90; Ord. No. 91-112, § 1(160.05), 12-3-91; Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1-97) Sec. 22-517. Initiation of proposals. A proposal that will be reviewed using this article may be initiated by the city council or council committee, or requested by the planning commission, city staff, or any interested person, including applicants, citizens, hearing examiners, and staff of other agencies. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(160.10), 2-27-90; Ord. No. 91-112, § 1(160.10), 12-3-91; Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1-97) Cross reference(s)--City council, § 2-26 et seq.; planning commission, § 22-56 et seq. EXHIBIi.�,A__._ 1 PAGEOF1i_ Sec. 22-518. Docket The Department of Community Development Services shall maintain a docket of all changes to the comprehensive plan or development regulations and proposed by interested persons (including development applicants, citizens, hearing examiners, and/or other agencies and staff). See -22 518. Sec 22-519. Compliance with State Environmental Policy Act. The State Environmental Policy Act applies to some of the decisions that will be made using this article. The director of community development services shall evaluate each proposal and, where applicable, comply with the State Environmental Policy Act and with state regulations and city ordinances issued under authority of the State Environmental Policy Act. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(160.15), 2-27-90; Ord. No. 91-112, § 1(160.15), 12-3-91; Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1-97) See. 22 519. Sec 22-520. City council review. A. Docketed Amendment Requests. The city council shall review all requests docketed with the department of community development services initiated .....i-si a eeM ri-ehensive pq concurrently, on an annual basis and consistent with RCW 36.70A.130(2). As part of such annual review, the Council shall review all requests received prior to September 30 of the calendar year „fG e. Requests submitted after September 30 shall be considered during requests received prior to April 30, and shall consider and act upon those amendments durincr 1999. B. Other Amendments. The city council shall review city -initiated changes to the text of the comprehensive plan concurrently with docketed amendment requests. The city council may also review or amend 2 EXHIBIT AA PAGE OF -11- the comprehensive plan whenever an emergency exists to resolve an appeal of the comprehensive plan or amendments thereto, or in other circumstances as provided for by RCW 36 70A 130(2)(a) The city council may also review city -initiated changes to the text of this chapter, or to the city's zoning map from time to time at the council's discretion. C. Additional Information. The city council may request, through the City Manager, that the department of community development services or any other department of the city provide any information or material on the proposal(s), consistent with section 22-531. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(160.20), 2-27-90; Ord. No. 91-112, § 1(160.20), 12-3-91; Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1-97) Cross reference(s)--City council, § 2-26. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(140.25), 2-27-90; Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1- 97) Sec. 22-521. Timing of Filing; Notice. Sixty days prior to September 30 in each calendar year, the City shall notify all -rte persons who submitted docket forms 30, the City shall notify all persons whose comprehensive plan amendment reauests were not considered during the 1998 amendment process. Notice shall also be given as follows: (1L Public Notice notifying the public that the amendment process has begun shall be published in the City's official newspaper. (2L Notice shall be posted on the official city public notice boards. (3)_ A copy of the notice shall be mailed to other local newspapers. 3 EXHIBIT AA PAGE0F1&_ 901 Community Development Services may be directly affected by changes to the comprehensive plan shall be sent a copy of the notice In determining who may be affected by comprehensive plan changes, the Director may rely on written correspondence indicating an interest and received after September 30 of the previous year. Sec. 22-522. Application. (aZ Who may aRz213fAny person may personally or through an agent apply for a site-specific comprehensive plan designation change with respect to property he or she owns. In addition, any person may, personally or through an agent request changes to the text of the comprehensive plan or development regulations codified in this chapter. (b) How to ap121y. An applicant must complete a docket form prepared by the City. An applicant seeking a site-specific plan or zoning designation change shall also file the information specified in Section 22-478 with the department of community development services. (c) The director of community development services shall have the authority to waive any of the requirements of this section, if in the director's discretion, such information is not relevant or would not be useful to consideration of the proposed amendment. (d) Fee. There is no fee for this initial application. After the prioritization process, applications to be considered during the amendment process shall submit the fee established by the City. Sec. 22-523. Criteria for prioritizing flan amendment requests. After September 30, but prior to adopting any docketed amendment requests, the City Council shall hold a public hearing and select those docketed amendment reauests it wishes to consider for adoption. In 1999 only, selection shall occur after EXHIBIT,_�_ PAGE1� �F�_ April 30, but 'prior to adoption of docketed amendments. The City Council shall consider the following criteria followina a public hearing in selecting the comprehensive plan amendments to be adelress considered during the upcoming cycle: (1Z Volume of requests received. A large volume of requests may necessitate that some requests be reviewed in a subsequent year. (2) order of requests received. (3) Study of the same area or issue during the last amendment process if conditions in the immediate vicinity have not significantly chanaed so as to make the reauested chanae within the public interest. (4L Amount of analysis necessary to reach a recommendation on the request. If a larcae scale study is required, a request may have to be delayed until the following year due to work loads, staffing levels, etc. (5Z Consistency of the proposed amendment with the overall vision of the comprehensive plan. (6Z Whether the proposed amendment meets existing state and local laws, including the Growth Management Act. (7Z Available incorporation into planned or active projects. (8L In the case of text amendments or other amendments to coals and policies, Wwhether the request - benefits a selected group versus the City as a whole. The Council's decision to consider a proposed amendment shall not constitute a decision or recommendation that the proposed amendment should be adopted nor does it preclude later Council action to add or delete an amendment for consideration EXHIBIT PAGEOFJS_ Sec. 22-524. Preapplications required. All applicants seeking an amendment to comprehensive land use designations of the official comprehensive plan (site- specific requests) must aipply for a pre -application conference with the City's Development Review Committee (CDRC). See. 22 525. Sec. 22-525 Legislative rezones. A legislative rezone is a rezone that meets the following criteria: a. It is initiated by the city; and b. It includes a large number of properties which would be similarly affected by the proposed rezone. All other rezones not meeting the above criteria are treated as quasijudicial rezones and are reviewed and decided upon using process V. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(130.10), 2-27-90; Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1- 97) See. 22 521. Sec. 22-526 Criteria for approving a legislative rezone. The city may decide to approve a legislative rezone only if it finds that: (1) The proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan; (2) The proposal bears a substantial relation to public health, safety, or welfare; and (3) The proposal is in the best interest of the residents of the city. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(130.20), 2-27-90; Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1- 97) 6 EXHIBIT- -AA-PAGEOF1'i_ See. 22 522. Sec. 22-527 Map change. If the city approves a legislative rezone it will give effect to this decision by making the necessary amendment to the zoning map of the city. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(130.25), 2-27-90; Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1- 97) See. 22523. Sec. 22-528. Zoning text amendment criteria. that: The city may amend the text of this chapter only if it finds (1) The proposed amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; (2) The proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to public health, safety, or welfare; and (3) The proposed amendment is in the best interest of the residents of the city. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(135.15), 2-27-90; Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1- 97) See. 22 524. Sec. 22-529. Factors to be considered in a comprehensive plan amendment. The city may consider, but is not limited to, the following factors when considering a proposed amendment to the comprehensive plan: (1) The effect upon the physical environment. (2) The effect on open space, streams, and lakes. (3) The compatibility with and impact on adjacent land uses and surrounding neighborhoods. (4) The adequacy of and impact on community facilities including utilities, roads, public transportation, parks, recreation, and schools. EXHIBI°T--AA_ PAGEOF�_ (5) The benefit to the neighborhood, city, and region. (6) The quantity and location of land planned for the proposed land use type and density and the demand for such land. (7) The current and projected population density in the area. (8) The effect upon other aspects of the comprehensive plan. For site-specific comprehensive plan amendments, the provisions of Section 22-488(c) shall also apply. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(140.15), 2-27-90; Ord. No. 97-291, 9 3, 4-1- 97) See. 22 525. Sec. 22-530. Criteria for amending the comprehensive plan. that-. The city may amend the comprehensive plan only if it finds (1) The proposed amendment bears a substantial relationship to public health, safety, or welfare; and (2) The proposed amendment is in the best interest of the residents of the city. (3) The proposed amendment is consistent with the requirements of RCW 36.70A and with the portion of the city's adopted plan not affected by the amendment. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(140.20), 2-27-90; Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1- 97) The—eity shall rem-ew the —eeiipehensive- plan to dete ne--€ ____1 ehanges--ai-e-Elesiral5le- nefflei-e than enee a year. he--e3tp` fray airse-review er affiend the eefaprehensive plan .i,............., an efaergeney 8 EXHIBIT r DAGE-A-OFM See. 22 527. Sec. 22-531 Official file. (a) Contents. The director of community development services shall compile an official file containing all information and materials relevant to the proposal and to the city's consideration of the proposal. (b) Availability. The official file is a public record. It is available for inspection and copying in the department of community development during regular business hours. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(160.25), 2-27-90; Ord. No. 91-112, § 1(160.25), 12-3-91; Ord., No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1-97) See -22-528. Sec 22-532. Notice. Notice provisions under this section shall be followed for both the public hearing during which all requests for changes to the zoning map, zoning text, and the comprehensive plan are prioritized, as well as the public hearing held on individual requests. (a) Contents. The director of community development services shall prepare a notice of each proposal, for which a public hearing will be held, containing the following information: (1) The citation, if any, of the provision that would be changed by the proposal along with a brief description of that provision. (2) A statement of how the proposal would change the affected provision. (3) A statement of what areas, zones, or locations 9 EXHI FC U _ PAG EOF1.�.. will be directly affected or changed by the proposal. (4) The date, time, and place of the public hearing. (5) A statement of the availability of the official file. (6) A statement of the right of any person to submit written comments to the planning commission and to appear at the public hearing of the planning commission to give comments orally. (b) Distribution. The director of community development services shall distribute this notice at least 14 calendar days before the public hearing as fe ,.•_s following the procedures of Sec 22-521 In addition the procedures of Section 22-481 shall be followed for site-specific requests regarding notification of adjacent property owners posting of the site (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(160.30), 2-27-90; Ord. No. 91-112, 1(160.30), 12-3-91; Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1-97) See. 22--529. Sec. 22-533. Staff report. (a) General. The director of community development services shall prepare a staff report containing: (1) An analysis of the proposal and a recommendation on the proposal; and (2) Any other information the director of community development services determines is necessary for consideration of the proposal, consistent with section 22 S24 22-530. Ex�r I A _ 10 DAGE_I&OFj3- (b) Distribution. The director of community development services shall distribute the staff report as follows: (1) A copy will be sent to each member of the planning commission prior to the hearing. (2) A copy will be sent promptly to any person requesting it. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(160.30), 2-27-90; Ord. No. 91-112, 1(160.30), 12-3-91; Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1-97) See. 22 539 Sec. 22-534. Public hearing. (a) Generally. The planning commission shall hold public hearings on each proposal, consistent with section ire= 22-536, unless the city council elects to hold its own hearings on the proposal in which case planning commission review pursuant to this article shall not be required. (b) Open to public. The hearings of the planning commission are open to the public. (c) Effect. Except as provided in subsection (a) above the hearing of the planning commission is the hearing for city council. City council need not hold another hearing on the proposal. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(160.40), 2-27-90; Ord. No. 91-112, § 1(160.40), 12-3-91; Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1-97) See. 22-531. Sec. 22-535. Material to be considered. (a) Generally. Except as specified in subsections (b) and (c) of this section, the planning commission and city council may consider any pertinent information or materials in reviewing and deciding upon a proposal under this article. (b) Exclusion. Except as specified in subsection (c) of this section, the city may not consider a specific site plan or project in reviewing and deciding upon a proposal under this process. r AA PAG E_1L®F_l�.__ (c) Exception for environmental information. If a proposal that will be decided upon using this article is part of a specific project, the city may consider all information pertaining to SEPA environmental review and submitted under section 22-5-18 22-519 in deciding upon that proposal. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(160.45), 2-27-90; Ord. No. 91-112, § 1(160.45), 12-3-91; Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1-97) See. 22 532. Sec 22-536. Electronic sound recordings. The planning commission shall make a complete electronic sound recording of each public hearing. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(160.50), 2-27-90; Ord. No. 91-112, § 1(160.50), 12-3-91; Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1-97) See. 22 5-33. Sec. 22-537. Public comment and participation at the hearing. Any interested person may participate in the public hearing in either or both of the following ways: (1) By submitting written comments to the planning commission either by delivering these comments to the department of community development services prior to the hearing or by giving them directly to the planning commission at the hearing. (2) By appearing in person, or through a representative, at the hearing and making oral comments. The planning commission may reasonably limit the extent of oral comments to facilitate the orderly and timely conduct of the hearing. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(160.55), 2-27-90; Ord. No. 91-112, § 1(160.55), 12-3-91; Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1-97) See. 22 534. Sec. 22-538 Continuation of the hearing. The planning commission may, for any reason, continue the hearing on the proposal. If, during the hearing, the planning commission announces the time and place of the next public 12 rm" EXHIm a PAGE�?.pFJ.�_ hearing on the proposal and a notice thereof is posted on the door of the hearing room, no further notice of that hearing need be given. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(160.60), 2-27-90; Ord. No. 91-112, § 1(160.60), 12-3-91; Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1-97) See. 22 535. Sec. 22-539. Planning commission --Recommendation. (a) Generally. Following the public hearing, the planning commission shall consider the proposal in light of the decisional criteria in sections 22--5221 22-526 or &2-3- 528 or -5� 530, and take one of the following actions: (1) If the planning commission determines that the proposal should be adopted, it may, by a majority vote of the entire membership, recommend that city council adopt the proposal. (2) If the planning commission determines that the proposal should not be adopted, it may, by a majority vote of the members present, recommend that city council not adopt the proposal. (3) If the planning commission is unable to take either of the actions specified in subsection (a)(1) or (a)(2) of this section, the proposal will be sent to city council with the notation that the planning commission makes no recommendation. (b) Modification of proposal. The planning commission may modify the proposal in any way and to any degree prior to recommending the proposal to city council for adoption. If the planning commission fundamentally modifies the proposal, the planning commission shall hold a new public hearing on the proposal as modified prior to recommending the proposal to city council for action. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(160.65), 2-27-90; Ord. No. 91-112, 1(160.65), 12-3-91; Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1-97) EXHI E'A 13 P/'% t.�1 ----�---- See. 22 536. Sec. 22-540. Same --Report to city council. (a) Generally. The director of community development services shall prepare a planning commission report on the proposal containing a copy of the proposal, along with any explanatory information, and the planning commission recommendation, if any, on the proposal. (b) Transmittal to city council. The director of community development services shall transmit the planning commission report to the city manager for consideration by city council. (c)Distribution. The director of community development services shall promptly send a copy of the planning commission report to any person requesting it. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(160.70), 2-27-90; Ord. No. 91-112, 1(160.70), 12-3-91; Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1-97) See. 22 537. Sec. 22-541. City council action. (a) General. Within 60 days of receipt of the planning commission report by the city manager, the city council shall consider the proposal along with a draft ordinance prepared by the city attorney, appropriate to enact or adopt the proposal. (b) Decisional criteria. In deciding upon the proposal, the city council shall use the decisional criteria listed in the provisions of this chapter describing the proposal. (c) City council action. After consideration of the planning commission report and, at its discretion, holding its own public hearing on the proposal, the city council shall by majority vote of its total membership: (1) Approve the proposal by adopting an appropriate ordinance; (2) Modify and approve the proposal by adopting an appropriate ordinance; (3) Disapprove the proposal by resolution; or 14 PAGE_ (4) Refer the proposal back to the planning commission for further proceedings. If this occurs, the city council shall specify the time within which the planning commission shall report back to the city council on the proposal. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(160.75), 2-27-90; Ord. No. 91-112, 1(160.75), 12-3-91; Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1-97) Sec. 22-542. Transmittal to State At least 60 days prior to final action being taken by the City Council, but not prior to the close of the planning commission public hearing and transmittal of planning commission recommendation to the LUTC, the Washington Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development (DCTED) and other interested affected local and state agencies, King County and surrounding jurisdictions shall be provided with a copy of the amendments in order to initiate the 60 -day comment period. All other parties previously notified shall be again notified that the draft amendments of the comprehensive plan are available on request on a cost recovery basis. No later than 10 days after adoption of the comprehensive plan, a copy of the adopted comprehensive plan shall be forwarded See. 22 538. Sec. 22-543. Appeals. The action of the city in granting, modifying or denying an amendment to this chapter or to the comprehensive plan may be reviewed by the Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board pursuant to RCW 36.70A. (Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1-97) Secs. 22 539 22 343 22-544-22-545 Reserved. I:\AMNDPROC\PROC6LTC.3/January 27, 1999 15 PAGE 1' F Ib CITY OF FEDERAL WAY MEMORANDUM December 30, 1998 TO: Land Use/Transportation Committee (LUTC) FROM: Gregory D. Moore, AICP, Director of Community Development Services Margaret H. Clark, AICP, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Procedures for Amendment of Comprehensive Plan I. BACKGROUND The City of Federal Way presently does not have a formal adopted procedure for considering annual amendments to the comprehensive plan. Therefore, the City Council directed staff to prepare a code amendment to set up a process. The attached Planning Commission report dated December 2, 1998 (Exhibit A) addresses this process. In general, the process is based on procedures which were used in the most recent comprehensive plan update with some minor changes proposed to bring it into compliance with state law. Attached as Exhibit B are the proposed changes to the Definitions Section -- Article I and Article IX-- Process VI. Review with strikeettts (proposed deletions) and underline (proposed additions). In addition, those portions of Article VIII. Process V Review, which are referenced in the proposed revisions, are included. For background information purposes, the original staff report, dated November 25, 1998 (Exhibit C), since modified to include the Planning Commission's recommendations, is also attached. II. REASON FOR COUNCIL ACTION The procedures for the annual amendments to the comprehensive plan are proposed to be included in FWCC, Article IX. Process VI Review. Pursuant to city code, any amendments to the comprehensive plan, comprehensive plan designations map, or zoning text must be approved by the City Council based on a recommendation from the planning commission. III. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION As shown in Section IV -- Procedural Summary of this staff report and reflected in Exhibit D -- December 2, 1998 Planning Commission minutes, the planning commission conducted a public hearing on the procedures for amendment of the comprehensive plan on December 2, 1998. After conclusion of this hearing, pursuant to FWCC, Section 22-535, the planning commission considered the proposed amendments in light of the decisional criteria outlined in Section V of this report and by a majority vote of the entire membership, recommended that the city council adopt the code amendment to set up procedures to amend the comprehensive plan as outlined in Exhibit B.' 'The planning commission recommendations are shown as sttikeettt (deletions) and underlined (additions). EXHIBIT -- PAGE_1_0F3---- IV. PROCEDURAL SUMMARY December 2, 1998 Planning Commission Public Hearing January 4, 1998 LUTC Meeting V. DECISIONAL CRITERIA Sec. 22-523. Zoning Text Amendment Criteria The city may amend the text of Chapter 22- Zoning only if it finds that: (i) The proposed amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; The proposed amendment complies with language in Chapter 1 -- Introduction of the Comprehensive Plan which states The City will update this Plan annually in order to keep this document current with the community's vision and the City Council's policy direction. In addition to updating chapters, such as Capital Facilities, the public will also be notified that a comprehensive plan amendment will be taking place. Individual requests will be considered during the annual update process. (2) The proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to public health, safety and welfare; The amendments to the zoning text is being proposed to provide for an orderly and predictable process to be followed in the annual update of the comprehensive plan. and (3) The proposed amendment is in the best interest of the residents of the city. The proposed amendment will result in increased public participation in the comprehensive planning process and provide predictability by notifying residents of the City on the timing of the comprehensive plan update process. VI. COUNCIL ACTION Pursuant to FWCC, Section 22-537(c), after consideration of the planning commission report and, at its discretion, holding its own public hearing, the city council shall by majority vote of its total membership take the following action: Approve the proposal by ordinance; 2. Modify and approve the proposal by ordinance; 2 EXHIBiTAL--- PAGE--2 OF-�-- Disapprove the proposal by resolution; or 4. Refer the proposal back to the planning commission for further proceedings. If this occurs, the city council shall specify the time within which the planning commission shall report back to the city council on the proposal. Exhibits Exhibit A December 2, 1998 Planning Commission Report Exhibit B Proposed Amendments to City Code Exhibit C November 25, 1998 Planning Staff Report Exhibit D December 2, 1998 Planning Commission minutes I:\COMPAMND\PROCMEMO.LTI/December 30, 1998 -�� PAGES3-- CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT December 2, 1998 Procedures for Amendment of Comprehensive Plan A. INTRODUCTION The City of Federal Way presently does not have a formal procedure adopted for considering annual amendments to its adopted comprehensive plan. Therefore, the City Council directed staff to prepare a code amendment to set up a process. The report is organized in two parts. The first part lays out the authority under state law for the annual comprehensive plan amendment process and the second part summarizes the proposed amendment process for the City of Federal Way. In general, the process is based on procedures which were used in the most recent update with some minor changes proposed to bring the process into compliance with state law. Attached are the changes to the Definitions Section -- Article I and Article IX-- Process VI. Review with strikeouts (proposed deletions) and underline (proposed additions). In addition, those portions of Article VIII. Process V Review, which are referenced in the proposed revisions, are included. B. BACKGROUND/AUTHORITY FOR PROCESS I. AUTHORITY RCW 36.70A.130(2)(a) has set up the following requirements for each county and city planning under the Growth Management Act (GMA) Proposed revisions or amendments to the comprehensive plan must be considered by the City Council no more than once per year except under the following circumstances: (i) The initial adoption of a subarea plan; (ii) The adoption or amendment of a shoreline master program; (iii) The amendment of the capital facilities element of a comprehensive plan that occurs concurrently with the adoption or amendment of a county or city budget; (iv) In the case of an emergency; (v) To resolve an appeal of a comprehensive plan filed with a growth management hearings board or with the court. EXHIBIT PAG E Vj;: As part of the yearly update, all proposals shall be considered by the governing body concurrently so that the cumulative effect of the various proposals may be ascertained II. DOCKETING PROCESS RCW 36.70A.470. Project Review -- Amendment Suggestion Procedure -- Definitions. gives authority for the docketing process. Docketing means compiling and maintaining a list of suggested changes to the comprehensive plan or development regulations in a manner that will ensure such suggested changes will be considered by the county or city and will be available for review by the public. This code section states that if during project review, a county or city planning under the GMA identifies deficiencies in plans or regulations, the identified deficiencies shall be docketed for possible future plan or development regulations. Therefore, each county or city planning under the GMA is required to include in its development regulations a procedure for any interested person, including applicants, citizens , hearing examiners, and staff of other agencies, to suggest plan or development regulations. The suggested amendments shall be docketed and considered on at least an annual basis consistent with the provisions of RCW 36.70A.130.' Deficiency in a comprehensive plan or development regulations refers to the absence of required or potentially desirable contents of a comprehensive plan or development regulation. III. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION REQUIREMENTS RCW 36.70A.130(2)(a) requires each county and city planning under the Growth Management Act (GMA) to establish and publicize a public participation program identifying procedures on the process to amend or revise the adopted comprehensive plan. RCW 36.70A.140 Comprehensive Plans --Ensure Public Participation, requires each county or city planning under GMA to establish and broadly disseminate to the public a public participation program identifying procedures providing for early and continuous public participation in the development and amendment of comprehensive land use plans and development regulations implementing such plans. The adopted procedures shall provide for broad dissemination of proposals and alternatives, opportunity for written comments, public meetings after effective notice, provision for open discussion, 'RCW 36 70A. 130(2) states that the comprehensive plan shall be updated no more than once per year except under certain circumstances. However, RCW 36.70A.470 requires the comprehensive plan to be updated on at least a yearly basis to address requests or concerns that are docketed. The latter would pertain to such changes as requests for comprehensive plan redesignations from applicants or other changes to the comprehensive plan originating from outside of the City. EXHIBIT fit Ij . communication programs, information services, and consideration of and response to public comments. RCW 36.70A.035 Public Participation -- Notice Provisions, requires reasonable notice of any proposed revisions or amendments to the comprehensive plan be given to property owners and other affected and interested individuals, tribes, government agencies, businesses, and organizations. Examples of reasonable notice include: Posting the property for site-specific proposals; Publishing notice in a newspaper of general circulation in the county, city, or general area where the proposal is located or that will be affected by the proposal; 3: Notifying public or private groups with known interest in a certain proposal or in the type of proposal being considered; 4. Placing notices in appropriate regional, neighborhood, ethnic, or trade journals; and 5. Publishing notice in agency newsletters or sending notice to agency mailing lists, including general lists or lists for specific proposals or subject areas. If the City Council chooses to consider a change to an amendment to a comprehensive plan after the opportunity for review and comment has passed under the City's procedures, an opportunity for review and comment on the proposed change shall be provided before the City Council votes on the proposed change. An additional opportunity for public review and comment is not required if: 1. An environmental impact statement (EIS) has been prepared for the pending resolution or ordinance and the proposed change is within the range of alternatives considered in the EIS; The proposed change is within the scope of the alternatives available for public comment; The proposed change only corrects typographical errors, corrects cross- references, makes address or name changes, or clarifies language of a proposed ordinance or resolution without changing its effect; The proposed change is to a resolution or ordinance making a capital budget decision pursuant to the adopted comprehensive plan. The proposed change is to a resolution or ordinance enacting a moratorium or interim control. EXHIBIT ORAG C. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT PROCESS GENERAL The Procedures for Amendment of the Comprehensive Plan shall be added to Article IX Process VI Review. Proposed amendments to the comprehensive plan shall be accompanied by any development regulations or amendments to development regulations necessary to implement the proposed amendments. II. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION REQUIREMENTS Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.035. Public Participation -- Notice Provisions, the City shall create and maintain a list of parties, agencies, organizations, and adjacent jurisdictions with an interest or who may be affected by changes to the comprehensive plan. III. DOCKET FORM Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.470. Project Review -- Amendment Suggestion Procedure -- Definitions, the City shall prepare a docket form to be used for any interested person, including applicants, citizens, planning commission, city staff and staff of other agencies to submit proposed changes to the comprehensive plan. Docket forms may be submitted at any time of the year; however, those forms requesting changes to the comprehensive plan and submitted after September 30 of each year will not be considered until the following year (see below). Docket forms shall specify application requirements. IV. DEADLINE FOR SUBMITTING REQUESTS FOR AMENDMENTS TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The deadline for submitting requests for amendments to the comprehensive plan shall be September 30th of every calendar year. V. HOW TO PROPOSE AN AMENDMENT Sixty days prior to September 30, the City shall notify all parties who submitted docket forms since the last amendment cycle. Notice shall also be given as follows: Public Notice notifying the public that the amendment process has begun shall be published in the City's official newspaper. 2. Notice shall be posted on the official city public notice boards. A copy of the notice shall be mailed to other local newspapers. 4. All parties, agencies, organizations, and adjacent jurisdictions with an interest, 4 EXHIE-o"' � yr� PAG E. L____� �"� F .__ _.._.. _. or who may be affected by changes to the comprehensive plan shall be sent a copy of the notice. VI. SITE SPECIFIC REQUESTS Site-specific requests for amendment of comprehensive plan designations or for preannexation comprehensive plan designation and zoning must meet the application requirements of FWCC, Section 22-478.2 VII. SELECTION PROCEDURE After the deadline for accepting requests, the City shall prepare a summary of all requests to be presented to the Land Use Transportation Committee (LUTC) for determination of which requests should be considered during the upcoming amendment process. The LUTC shall consider the following criteria in selecting the comprehensive plan amendments to be addressed during the upcoming cycle: 1. Volume of requests received. A large volume of requests may necessitate that some requests be reviewed in a subsequent year. 2. Order of requests received. Study of the same area or issue during the last amendment process. 4. Amount of analysis necessary to reach a recommendation on the request. If a large scale study is required, a request may have to be delayed until the following year due to work loads, staffing levels, etc. Consistency of the proposed amendment with the overall vision of the comprehensive plan. 6. Whether the proposed amendment meets existing state and local laws, including the Growth Management Act. Available incorporation into planned or active projects. Whether the request benefits a selected group versus the City as a whole. 2Applications for pre -annexation comprehensive plan designation and zoning will only be accepted if the City has accepted a 10 percent petition on the annexation request. PAGE -S OF 7 VIII. REVIEW OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS 1. After a decision is made on the comprehensive plan amendments to be considered in the upcoming cycle, the City shall notify all applicants as to the status of their request for consideration. 2. Pre -application Conference -- All applicants seeking an amendment to comprehensive land use designations of the official comprehensive plan (site- specific requests) must apply for a pre -application conference with the City's Development Review Committee (CDRC). Pre -applications cost $300, which is a non-refundable fee, but which will be credited to the formal comprehensive plan amendment fee of $564 plus $56 per acre. There is presently no adopted fee in the City's fee schedule for pre -annexation comprehensive plan designation and zoning. In order to encourage annexations to the City, the planning commission recommends that no new fee be adopted. At the pre -application conference, the City will discuss the proposed amendment's consistency with applicable city policies and comprehensive plan goals and policies. After the pre -application conference is completed, if the applicant decides to pursue the comprehensive plan amendment, the remaining portion of the comprehensive plan amendment fee must be paid. State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA Review) -- The City will prepare a SEPA determination. 4. Public Hearing by Planning Commission -- After the SEPA process has been completed, a staff report, summarizing the proposed changes to the comprehensive plan will be forwarded to the planning commission for a public hearing. The Planning Commission public hearing shall be noticed pursuant to FWCC, Section 22-528. Notice (as amended under B.5 above to meet the public participation requirements of RCW 36 70A. 035). In addition, the sites will be posted for the site-specific requests and property owners within 300 feet shall be notified. For site specific requests, the decisional criteria in FWCC, Section 22- 488(c) shall apply. Discussion by the LUTC -- After the close of the planning commission public hearing, the planning commission's recommendation and findings shall be forwarded to the LUTC. 6. Action by City Council -- After the LUTC has completed their review, their recommendation will be forwarded to the full Council for their consideration at a public meeting. 7. Transmittal to the State -- At least 60 days prior to final action being taken by the City Council, but not prior to the close of the planning commission public 6 Ox PAGE �-�-----�- hearing and transmittal of planning commission recommendation to the LUTC, the Washington Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development (DCTED) and other interested affected state agencies, King County and surrounding jurisdictions shall be provided with a copy of the amendments in order to initiate the 60 -day comment period. All other parties previously notified shall be again notified that the draft amendments of the comprehensive plan are available on request on a cost recovery basis. No later than 10 days after adoption of the comprehensive plan, a copy of the adopted comprehensive plan shall be forwarded to DCTED and those agencies who commented on the draft comprehensive plan for an additional 60 day comment period. IX. NEW DEFINITIONS "Docket" (noun) means the list of suggested changes to the comprehensive plan maintained by the Community Development Services Department. "Docket" (verb) means to record with the department a suggested change to the comprehensive plan. I:\COMPAMND\AMNDPROC.LTF/December 30, 1998 7 EA%-FHIBITjA-- I /-A 4011 P,AGE 7 OF 07 ARTICLE I. IN GENERAL Sec. 22-1. Definitions. The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this ..chapter, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning: Day care facility shall mean the temporary, nonresidential care of persons in a residence or other structure on a regular, recurring basis. Dedication shall mean the deliberate appropriation of land by its owner for public use or purpose, reserving no other rights than those that are compatible with the full exercise and enjoyment of the public uses or purpose to which the property has been devoted. Development activity shall mean any work, condition or activity which requires a permit or approval under this chapter or the city's building code. Development permit shall mean any permit or approval under this chapter or the city's building code that must be obtained before initiating a use or development activity. Docket (noun) shall mean the list of suggested changes to the comprehensive plan maintained by the Community Development Services Department. Docket (verb) shall mean to record with the department a suggested change to the comprehensive plan. EXHIE311-3---, 1 PSG. ARTICLE IX. PROCESS VI REVIEW* *Cross reference(s)--Requirements for drainage review, § 21- 87; power and jurisdiction of the planning commission, § 22-59; amendments to the zoning regulations to be processed under the process VI procedure, § 22-216; amendments to the comprehensive plan to be processed through process VI review procedures, § 22- .236; comprehensive plan, § 22-236 et seq.; legislative rezoning, § 22-276 et seq.; amendments, § 22-216 et seq.; legislative rezoning of certain districts to be under process VI review, § 22-276. Sec. 22-516. Purpose. Various places in this chapter indicate that certain proposals to amend the zoning map through a legislative rezone, amend the text of this chapter, or amend the comprehensive plan must be reviewed and decided upon using process VI. This article describes process VI. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(160.05), 2-27-90; Ord. No. 91-112, § 1(160.05), 12-3-91; Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1-97) Sec. 22-517. Initiation of proposals. A proposal that will be reviewed using this article may be initiated by the city council or council committee, or requested by the planning commission, city staff, or any interested person, including applicants, citizens, hearing examiners, and staff of other agencies. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(160.10), 2-27-90; Ord. No. 91-112, § 1(160.10), 12-3-91; Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1-97) Cross reference(s)--City council, § 2-26 et seq.; planning commission, § 22-56 et seq. EXHIBIT T PAGE 2 X20 Sec. 22-518. Docket The Department of Communitv Development Services shall maintain a docket of all changes to the comprehensive plan or development regulations and proposed by interested persons (including development applicants, citizens, hearing examiners, and/or other agencies and staff). ,Seen 518. Sec 22-519. Compliance with State Environmental Policy Act. The State Environmental Policy Act applies to some of the decisions that will be made using this article. The director of community development services shall evaluate each proposal and, where applicable, comply with the State Environmental Policy Act and with state regulations and city ordinances issued under authority of the State Environmental Policy Act. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(160.15), 2-27-90; Ord. No. 91-112, 1(160.15), 12-3-91; Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1-97) See. 22 519. Sec 22-520. City council review. A. Docketed Amendment Requests. The city council shall review all requests docketed with the department of community development services initiated ..-.,.i.,...-..„} to this ai-tiele as part ef the annual update—ef t}e—eity=s eek ehensive- concurrently, on an annual basis and consistent with RCW 36.70A.130(2). As part of such annual review, the Council shall review all requests received prior to September 30 of the calendar year in which review occurs. Reauests submitted after September 30 shall be considered during the followincr calendar year. B. Other Amendments. The citv council shall review citv-initiated chancres to the text of the comprehensive plan concurrently with docketed amendment requests. The city council may also review or amend the comprehensive plan whenever an emergency exists, to resolve an appeal of the comprehensive plan or amendments thereto, or in other circumstances as provided for by RCW 36.70A.130(2)(a). E ��GE_3_��20 The city council may also review city -initiated changes to the text of this chapter, or to the city's zoning map, from time to time at the council's discretion. C. Additional Information. The city council may request, through the City Manager, that the department of community development services or any other department of the city provide any information or material on the proposal(s), consistent with section 22-531. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(160.20), 2-27-90; Ord. No. 91-112, § 1(160.20), 12-3-91; Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1-97) Cross reference(s)--City council, § 2-26. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(140.25), 2-27-90; Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1- 97) Sec. 22-521. Timing of Filing; Notice. Sixty days prior to September 30 in each calendar year, the City shall notify all parties who submitted docket forms during the previous amendment cycle. Notice shall also be given as follows: (1L Public Notice notifying the public that the amendment process has begun shall be published in the City's official newspaper. (2Z Notice shall be posted on the official city public notice boards. (3Z A copy of the notice shall be mailed to other local newspapers. (4Z All parties, agencies, organizations, and adjacent jurisdictions with an interest, or who may be affected by changes to the comprehensive plan shall be sent a copy of the notice. 3`- Sec. 22-522. Application. (a) Who may aj�plX. Any person may, personally or through an anent, apply for a site-specific comprehensive plan or zonin designation change with respect to property he or she owns. In addition, any person may, personally or through an agent, request changes to the text of the comprehensive plan or development regulations codified in this chapter. (b) How to apply. An applicant must complete a docket form ..prepared by the City. An applicant seeking a site-specific plan or zoning designation change shall also file the information specified in Section 22-478 with the department of community development services. (c The director of community development services shall have the authority to waive any of the requirements of this section, if in the director's discretion, such information is not relevant or would not be useful to consideration of the proposed amendment. (d) Fee. There is no fee for this initial application. After the prioritization process, applications to be considered during the amendment process shall submit the fee established by the City. Sec. 22-523. Criteria for prioritizing elan amendment requests. The City Council shall consider the following criteria in selecting the comprehensive plan amendments to be addressed during the upcoming cycle: (1Z Volume of requests received. A large volume of requests may necessitate that some requests be reviewed in a subsequent year. (2) Order of requests received. (3L Study of the same area or issue during the last amendment process. (4) Amount of analysis necessary to reach a recommendation on the request. If a large scale EXHIlIBIT-2-- A PIIGE-S OF,2.-O-- study is required, a request may have to be delayed until the following year due to work loads, staffing levels, etc. _(5) Consistency of the proposed amendment with the overall vision of the comprehensive plan. (6Z Whether the proposed amendment meets existing state and local laws, including the Growth Management Act. (7L Available incorporation into planned or active projects. _(8) Whether the request benefits a selected _group versus the City as a whole. The Council's decision to consider a proposed amendment shall not constitute a decision or recommendation that the proposed amendment should be adopted nor does it preclude later Council action to add or delete an amendment for consideration. Sec. 22-524. Preanplications required. All applicants seeking an amendment to comprehensive land use designations of the official comprehensive plan (site- specific requests) must apply for a pre -application conference with the City's Development Review Committee (CDRC). See-.. 22 525. Sec. 22-525 Legislative rezones. A legislative rezone is a rezone that meets the following criteria: a. It is initiated by the city; and b. It includes a large number of properties which would be similarly affected by the proposed rezone. All other rezones not meeting the above criteria are treated as quasijudicial rezones and are reviewed and decided upon using process V. 5 � � HiJ _ PA( t (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(130.10), 2-27-90; Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1- 97) - See 2252 . Sec. 22-526 Criteria for approving a legislative rezone. The city may decide to approve a legislative rezone only if it finds that: (1) The proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan; (2) The proposal bears a substantial relation to public health, safety, or welfare; and (3) The proposal is in the best interest of the residents of the city. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(130.20), 2-27-90; Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1- 97) See. 22-r522. Sec. 22-527 Map change. If the city approves a legislative rezone it will give effect to this decision by making the necessary amendment to the zoning map of the city. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(130.25), 2-27-90; Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1- 97) See. 22-523. Sec. 22-528. Zoning text amendment criteria. that: The city may amend the text of this chapter only if it finds (1) The proposed amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; (2) The proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to public health, safety, or welfare; and (3) The proposed amendment is in the best interest of the residents of the city. '%ff 08 �„ � i.. . li (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(135.15), 2-27-90; Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1- 97) - See .22-524. Sec. 22-529. Factors to be considered in a comprehensive plan amendment. The city may consider, but is not limited to, the following factors when considering a proposed amendment to the comprehensive plan: (1) The effect upon the physical environment. (2) The effect on open space, streams, and lakes. (3) The compatibility with and impact on adjacent land uses and surrounding neighborhoods. (4) The adequacy of and impact on community facilities including utilities, roads, public transportation, parks, recreation, and schools. (5) The benefit to the neighborhood, city, and region. (6) The quantity and location of land planned for the proposed land use type and density and the demand for such land. (7) The current and projected population density in the area. (8) The effect upon other aspects of the comprehensive plan. For site-specific comprehensive plan amendments, the provisions of Section 22-488(c) shall also a-oply. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(140.15), 2-27-90; Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1- 97) See. 22 52-5. Sec. 22-530. Criteria for amending the comprehensive plan. The city may amend the comprehensive plan only if it finds rA that: (1) The proposed amendment bears a substantial relationship to public health, safety, or welfare; and (2) The proposed amendment is in the best interest of the residents of the city. (3) The proposed amendment is consistent with the requirements of RCW 36.70A and with the portion of the city's adopted plan not affected by the amendment. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(140.20), 2-27-90; Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1- 97) d—Pie. 9-o-4 3, S2(149.2S), z,2L799; oz d-. `de�rz9z�B, 4T 4-7+ See. 22527.Sec. 22-531 official file. (a) Contents. The director of community development services shall compile an official file containing all information and materials relevant to the proposal and to the city's consideration of the proposal. (b) Availability. The official file is a public record. It is available for inspection and copying in the department of community development during regular business hours. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(160.25), 2-27-90; Ord. No. 91-112, § 1(160.25), 12-3-91; Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1-97) See. 22 528. Sec 22-532. Notice. Notice provisions under this section shall be followed for both the public hearing during which all requests for changes to the zoning map, zoning text, and the comprehensive plan are prioritized, as well as the public hearing held on individual requests. (a) Contents. The director of community development services shall prepare a notice of each proposal, for which a public hearing will be held, containing the following information: (1) The citation, if any, of the provision that would be changed by the proposal along with a brief description of that provision. (2) A statement of how the proposal would change the affected provision. (3) A statement of what areas, zones, or locations will be directly affected or changed by the proposal. (4) The date, time, and place of the public hearing. (5) A statement of the availability of the official file. (6) A statement of the right of any person to submit written comments to the planning commission and to appear at the public hearing of the planning commission to give comments orally. (b) Distribution. The director of community development services shall distribute this notice at least 14 calendar days before the public hearing as felle s. following the procedures of Sec. 22-521. In addition the procedures of Section 22-481 shall be followed for site-specific requests regarding notification of adjacent property owners posting of the site. 9 If 7 (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(160.30), 2-27-90; Ord. No. 91-112, § 1(160.30), 12-3-91; Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1-97) See. 22 529. Sec. 22-533. Staff report. (a) General. The director of community development services shall prepare a staff report containing: (1) An analysis of the proposal and a recommendation on the proposal; and (2) Any other information the director of community development services determines is necessary for consideration of the proposal, consistent with section 22 524 22-530. (b) Distribution. The director of community development services shall distribute the staff report as follows: (1) A copy will be sent to each member of the planning commission prior to the hearing. (2) A copy will be sent promptly to any person requesting it. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(160.30), 2-27-90; Ord. No. 91-112, § 1(160.30), 12-3-91; Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1-97) See. 22 539. Sec. 22-534. Public hearing. (a) Generally. The planning commission shall hold public hearings on each proposal, consistent with section 22 531 22-536, unless the city council elects to hold its own hearings on the proposal, in which case planning commission review pursuant to this article shall not be required. (b) Open to public. The hearings of the planning commission are open to the public. 10 PAGE -it 2 - (c) Effect. Except as provided in subsection (a) above, the hearing of the planning commission is the hearing for city council. City council need not hold another hearing on the proposal. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(160.40), 2-27-90; Ord. No. 91-112, § 1(160.40), 12-3-91; Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1-97) See -22 531. Sec. 22-535. Material to be considered. (a) Generally. Except as specified in subsections (b) and (c) of this section, the planning commission and city council may consider any pertinent information or materials in reviewing and deciding upon a proposal under this article. (b) Exclusion. Except as specified in subsection (c) of this section, the city may not consider a specific site plan or project in reviewing and deciding upon a proposal under this process. (c) Exception for environmental information. If a proposal that will be decided upon using this article is part of a specific project, the city may consider all information pertaining to SEPA environmental review and submitted under section 22 S18 22-519 in deciding upon that proposal. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(160.45), 2-27-90; Ord. No. 91-112, § 1(160.45), 12-3-91; Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1-97) See. 22 532 Sec 22-536. Electronic sound recordings. The planning commission shall make a complete electronic sound recording of each public hearing. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(160.50), 2-27-90; Ord. No. 91-112, § 1(160.50), 12-3-91; Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1-97) See. 22 533. Sec. 22-537. Public comment and participation at the hearing. Any interested person may participate in the public hearing in either or both of the following ways: PAu � Z OF 2.0, (1) By submitting written comments to the planning commission either by delivering these comments to the department of community development services prior to the hearing or by giving them directly to the planning commission at the hearing. (2) By appearing in person, or through a representative, at the hearing and making oral comments. The planning commission may reasonably limit the extent of oral comments to facilitate the orderly and timely conduct of the hearing. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(160.55), 2-27-90; Ord. No. 91-112, § 1(160.55), 12-3-91; Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1-97) Se-. 22 Sec. 22-538 Continuation of the hearing. The planning commission may, for any reason, continue the hearing on the proposal. If, during the hearing, the planning commission announces the time and place of the next public hearing on the proposal and a notice thereof is posted on the door of the hearing room, no further notice of that hearing need be given. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(160.60)1 2-27-90; Ord. No. 91-112, § 1(160.60), 12-3-91; Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1-97) See. 22 535. Sec. 22-539. Planning commission --Recommendation. (a) Generally. Following the public hearing, the planning commission shall consider the proposal in light of the decisional criteria in sections 22--521 22-526 or rr2-3- 528 or T92S 530, and take one of the following actions: (1) If the planning commission determines that the proposal should be adopted, it may, by a majority vote of the entire membership, recommend that city council adopt the proposal. (2) If the planning commission determines that the proposal should not be adopted, it may, by a majority vote of the members present, recommend that city council not adopt the proposal. 12 PAG 3 'eN Z . (3) If the planning commission is unable to take either of the actions specified in subsection (a) (1) or (a) (2)' of this section, the proposal will be sent to city council with the notation that the planning commission makes no recommendation. (b) Modification of proposal. The planning commission may modify the proposal in any way and to any degree prior to recommending the proposal to city council for adoption. If the planning commission fundamentally modifies the proposal, the planning commission shall hold a new public hearing on the proposal as modified prior to recommending the proposal to city council for action. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(160.65), 2-27-90; Ord. No. 91-112, § 1(160.65), 12-3-91; Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1-97) See. 22-536. Sec. 22-540. Same --Report to city council. (a) Generally. The director of community development services shall prepare a planning commission report on the proposal containing a copy of the proposal, along with any explanatory information, and the planning commission recommendation, if any, on the proposal. (b) Transmittal to city council. The director of community development services shall transmit the planning commission report to the city manager for consideration by city council. (c)Distribution. The director of community development services shall promptly send a copy of the planning commission report to any person requesting it. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(160.70), 2-27-90; Ord. No. 91-112, § 1(160.70), 12-3-91; Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1-97) See. 22 5537. Sec. 22-541. City council action. (a) General. Within 60 days of receipt of the planning commission report by the city manager, the city council shall consider the proposal along with a draft ordinance prepared by the city attorney, appropriate to enact or adopt the proposal. 13 if E'Amsn- (b) Decisional criteria. In deciding upon the proposal, the city council shall use the decisional criteria listed in the provisions of this chapter describing the proposal. (c) City council action. After consideration of the planning commission report and, at its discretion, holding its own public hearing on the proposal, the city council shall by majority vote of its total membership: (1) Approve the proposal by adopting an appropriate ordinance; (2) Modify and approve the proposal by adopting an appropriate ordinance; (3) Disapprove the proposal by resolution; or (4) Refer the proposal back to the planning commission for further proceedings. If this occurs, the city council shall specify the time within which the planning commission shall report back to the city council on the proposal. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(160.75), 2-27-90; Ord. No. 91-112, § 1(160.75), 12-3-91; Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1-97) Sec. 22-542. Transmittal to State At least 60 days prior to final action being taken by the City Council, but not prior to the close of the planning commission public hearing and transmittal of planning commission recommendation to the LUTC, the Washington Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development (DOTED) and other interested affected state agencies, King County and surrounding jurisdictions shall be provided with a copy of the amendments in order to initiate the 60 -day comment period. All other parties previously notified shall be again notified that the draft amendments of the comprehensive plan are available on reauest on a cost recovery basis. No later than 10 days after adoption of the comprehensive plan, a copy of the adopted comprehensive plan shall be forwarded to DCTED and those agencies who commented on the draft 14 PA comprehensive plan. See. 22 538. Sec. 22-543. Appeals. The action of the city in granting, modifying or denying an amendment to this chapter or to the comprehensive plan may be reviewed by the Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board pursuant to RCW 36.70A. (Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1-97) Secs. 22 539—x-545 22-544-22-545 Reserved. I:\COMPAMND\PROC6LTC.2/December 30, 1998 15� t PAGE IIP OF ARTICLE VIII. PROCESS V REVIEW - QUASI-JUDICIAL REZONES* Sec. 22-478. Applications. (a) Who may apply. Any person may, personally or through an agent, apply for a decision regarding property he or she owns. (b) How to apply. The applicant shall file the following information with the department of community development services: (1) A completed application, with supporting affidavits, on forms provided by the department of community development services; (2) Two sets of stamped envelopes, and a list of the same, labeled with the name and address of all current owners of real property, as shown in the records of the county assessor for the subject property, within 300 feet of each boundary of the subject property; (3) A copy of the county assessor's map identifying the properties specified in subsection (b)(2) of this section; (4) A vicinity map showing the subject property with enough information to locate the property within the larger area; (5) Any information or material that is specified in the provision of this chapter that describes the applied - for decision; (6) All information specified in section 22-32; and (7) Any additional information or material that the director of community development services determines 1 El"&'A"lh4v,,-��,*,,,),,iL�,----3--"'---.'�-� PAS' is reasonably necessary for a decision on the matter. (c) Fee. With the application the applicant shall submit the fee established by the city. The application will not be accepted unless it is accompanied by the required fee and meets the requirements of section 22-32 and this section relating to what constitutes a complete application. (Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1-97) Sec. 22-481. Notice. (a) Contents. The director of community development services shall prepare a notice of each application containing the following information: (1) The name of the applicant, the project name (if applicable), the date of application, and the date of the notice of application. (2) The street address of the subject property or, if this is not available, a locational description in nonlegal language. Except for notice published in the newspaper of general circulation in the city, the notice must also include a vicinity map that identifies the subject property. (3) The citation of the provision of this chapter describing the requested decision and to the extent known by the city, any other permits which are not included in the application. (4) A brief description of the requested decision, a list of the project permits included in the application, and, if applicable, a list of any studies requested under RCW 36.70A.440. (5) The date, time, and place of the public hearing. (6) A statement of the availability of the official file. (7) A statement of the right of any person to submit written or oral comments to the hearing examiner regarding the application. (8) A statement that only persons who submit comments to the hearing examiner or specifically request a copy of the original decision may appeal the hearing examiner's decision. (9) The identification of existing environmental documents that evaluate the proposed project and the location where the application and any studies can be reviewed. (10) A statement of the preliminary determination, if one has been made at the time of notice, of those development regulations that will be used for project mitigation. (b) Distribution. The director of community development services shall distribute this notice at least 14 calendar days before the public hearing as follows: (1) A copy will be sent to the persons receiving the property tax statements for all property within 300 feet of each boundary of the subject property. (2) A copy will be published in the newspaper of general circulation in the city. (3) A copy will be posted on each of the official notification boards of the city. (c) Public notification sign. The applicant shall erect at least one public notification sign which complies with standards developed by the department of community development services. This sign shall be located on or near the subject property facing the right-of-way or vehicle access easement or tract providing direct vehicle access to the subject property. The director of community development services may require the placement of additional public notice signs on or near the subject property if he or she determines that this is appropriate to provide notice to the public. (d) Timing. The public notification sign or signs must be in place at least ten calendar days before the public hearing and removed within seven calendar days after the final decision of the city on the matter. (Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1-97) Sec. 22-488. Recommendation by the hearing examiner. (c) Decisional criteria. The hearing examiner shall use the following criteria for quasi judicial rezones: (1) The city may approve an application for a quasi- judicial nonproject rezone only if it finds that: a. The proposed rezone is in the best interest of the residents of the city; and b. The proposed rezone is appropriate because either: i. Conditions in the immediate vicinity of the subject property have so significantly changed since the property was given its present zoning and that, under those changed conditions, a rezone is within the public interest; or ii. The rezone will correct a zone classification or zone boundary that was inappropriate when established. C. It is consistent with the comprehensive plan; d. It is consistent with all applicable provisions of the chapter, including those adopted by reference from the comprehensive plan; and e. It is consistent with the public health, safety, and welfare. E-'X0H1B1T-2L- 4 PA —24�F In CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PLANNING STAFF REPORT Prepared by Margaret H. Clark, AICP, Senior Planner November 25, 1998 Procedures for Amendment of Comprehensive Plan A. INTRODUCTION The City of Federal Way presently does not have a formal procedure adopted for considering annual amendments to its adopted comprehensive plan. Therefore, the City Council directed staff to prepare a code amendment to set up a process. The report is organized in two parts. The first part lays out the authority under state law for the annual comprehensive plan amendment process and the second part summarizes the proposed amendment process for the City of Federal Way. In general, the process is based on procedures which were used in the most recent update with some minor changes proposed to bring the process into compliance with state law. In addition, in certain places, staff has not made a specific recommendation but has posed questions or provided alternatives for the commission's discussion and deliberation. Attached are the changes to the Definitions Section -- Article I and Article IX-- Process VI. Review with strikeattts (proposed deletions) and underline (proposed additions). In addition, those portions of Article VIII. Process V Review, which are referenced in the proposed revisions, are included. B. BACKGROUND/AUTHORITY FOR PROCESS I. AUTHORITY RCW 36.70A.130(2)(a) has set up the following requirements for each county and city planning under the Growth Management Act (GMA) Proposed revisions or amendments to the comprehensive plan must be considered by the City Council no more than once per year except under the following circumstances: (i) The initial adoption of a subarea plan; (ii) The adoption or amendment of a shoreline master program; (iii) The amendment of the capital facilities element of a comprehensive plan that occurs concurrently with the adoption or amendment of a county or city budget; (iv) In the case of an emergency; EXHIDE31T C F'AG E I : (v) To resolve an appeal of a comprehensive plan filed with a growth management hearings board or with the court. As part of the yearly update, all proposals shall be considered by the governing body concurrently so that the cumulative effect of the various proposals may be ascertained II. DOCKETING PROCESS RCW 36.70A.470. Project Review -- Amendment Suggestion Procedure -- Definitions. gives authority for the docketing process. Docketing means compiling and maintaining a list of suggested changes to the comprehensive plan or development regulations in a manner that will ensure such suggested changes will be considered by the county or city and will be available for review by the public. This code section states that if during project review, a county or city planning under the GMA identifies deficiencies in plans or regulations, the identified deficiencies shall be docketed for possible future plan or development regulations. Therefore, each county or city planning under the GMA is required to include in its development regulations a procedure for any interested person, including applicants, citizens , hearing examiners, and staff of other agencies, to suggest plan or development regulation amendments. The suggested amendments shall be docketed and considered on at least an annual basis consistent with the provisions of RCW 36.70A.130. Deficiency in a comprehensive plan or development regulations refers to the absence of required or potentially desirable contents of a comprehensive plan or development regulation. III. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION REQUIREMENTS RCW 36.70A.130(2)(a) requires each county and city planning under the Growth Management Act (GMA) to establish and publicize a public participation program identifying procedures on the process to amend or revise the adopted comprehensive plan. RCW 36.70A.140 Comprehensive Plans --Ensure Public Participation, requires each county or city planning under GMA to establish and broadly disseminate to the public a public participation program identifying procedures providing for early and continuous public participation in the development and amendment of comprehensive land use plans and development regulations implementing such plans. The adopted procedures shall provide for broad dissemination of proposals and alternatives, opportunity for written comments, public meetings after effective notice, provision for open discussion, communication programs, information services, and consideration of and response to public comments. 2 EXHIMT C rIAGE Z OF RCW 36.70A.035 Public Participation -- Notice Provisions, requires reasonable notice of any proposed revisions or amendments to the comprehensive plan be given to property owners and other affected and interested individuals, tribes, government agencies, businesses, and organizations. Examples of reasonable notice include: Posting the property for site-specific proposals; 2. Publishing notice in a newspaper of general circulation in the county, city, or general area where the proposal is located or that will be affected by the proposal; 3. Notifying public or private groups with known interest in a certain proposal or in the type of proposal being considered; 4. Placing notices in appropriate regional, neighborhood, ethnic, or trade journals; and 5. Publishing notice in agency newsletters or sending notice to agency mailing lists, including general lists or lists for specific proposals or subject areas. If the City Council chooses to consider a change to an amendment to a comprehensive plan after the opportunity for review and comment has passed under the City's procedures, an opportunity for review and comment on the proposed change shall be provided before the City Council votes on the proposed change. An additional opportunity for public review and comment is not required if: 1. An environmental impact statement (EIS) has been prepared for the pending resolution or ordinance and the proposed change is within the range of alternatives considered in the EIS; 2. The proposed change is within the scope of the alternatives available for public comment; The proposed change only corrects typographical errors, corrects cross- references, makes address or name changes, or clarifies language_ of a proposed ordinance or resolution without changing its effect; The proposed change is to a resolution or ordinance making a capital budget decision pursuant to the adopted comprehensive plan. The proposed change is to a resolution or ordinance enacting a moratorium or interim control. C. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT PROCESS GENERAL The Procedures for Amendment of the Comprehensive Plan shall be added to Article IX. Process VI Review. Proposed amendments to the comprehensive plan shall be accompanied by any development regulations or amendments to development regulations necessary to implement the proposed amendments. II. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION REQUIREMENTS Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.035. Public Participation -- Notice Provisions, the City shall create and maintain a list of parties, agencies, organizations, and adjacent jurisdictions with an interest or who may be affected by changes to the comprehensive plan. III. DOCKET FORM Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.470. Project Review -- Amendment Suggestion Procedure -- Definitions, the City shall prepare a docket form to be used for any interested person; including applicants, citizens, planning commission, city staff and staff of other agencies to submit proposed changes to policies of the comprehensive plan. Docket forms may be submitted at any time of the year. IV. SITE SPECIFIC REQUESTS Site-specific requests for amendment of comprehensive plan designations, including any requests for pre -annexation comprehensive plan designation and zoning, may be submitted (docketed) at any time of the year.' V. HOW TO PROPOSE AN AMENDMENT Sixty days prior to the deadline for submitting requests for comprehensive plan amendments, the City shall notify all parties who submitted docket forms since the last amendment cycle. Notice shall also be given as follows: Public Notice notifying the public that the amendment process has begun shall be published in the Tacoma News Tribune, the City's official newspaper. Notice shall be posted on the official city public notice boards. 'Applications for pre -annexation comprehensive plan designation and zoning will only be accepted if the City has accepted a 10 percent petition on the annexation request. PIA __4 - "' F3 3. A copy of the notice shall be mailed to other local newspapers. 4. All parties, agencies, organizations, and adjacent jurisdictions with an interest, or who may be affected by changes to the comprehensive plan shall be sent a copy of the notice. uestion: Should the City specify a deadline every year for submitting requests for comprehensive plan amendments? Table 1 at the end of the staff report lists selected neighboring jurisdictions and compares how each jurisdiction addresses this question. The advantage of specifying a deadline for annual requests for amendments to the comprehensive plan is that the timing of the process will be predictable. The disadvantage is that other code amendments on the yearly work program may not have been completed by the scheduled time for the start of the annual comprehensive plan amendment process). For site specific requests, the application requirements of FWCC, Section 22-478 shall apply. VI. SELECTION PROCEDURE Present practice is for all site-specific requests to be taken to the Land Use Transportation Committee (LUTC) for a recommendation on whether they should be included in the comprehensive plan amendments.' The yearly work program which includes comprehensive plan amendments is taken to both the LUTC and City Council. (Question: Should all proposed amendments be taken to both the LUTC and the City Council for prioritizing and inclusion in the upcoming yearly cycle or just to the LUTC?) After the deadline for accepting requests, the City shall prepare a summary of all requests to be presented to the Land Use Transportation Committee (LUTC) and/or City Council (depending on the answer to the previous question) for determination of which requests should be considered during the upcoming amendment process.' The LUTC and/or City Council shall use the following criteria in selecting the comprehensive plan amendments to be considered during the upcoming cycle: 1. Volume of requests received. A large volume of requests may necessitate that some requests be reviewed in a subsequent year. 2. Order of requests received. 2This does not include housekeeping amendments initiated by the city or other agencies . PA a J %G E__ 0 F3LAJ Study of the same area or issue during the last amendment process. 4. Amount of analysis necessary to reach a recommendation on the request. If a large scale study is required, a request may have to be delayed until the following year due to work loads, staffing levels, etc. Consistency of the proposed amendment with the overall vision of the comprehensive plan. Whether the proposed amendment meets existing state and local laws, including the Growth Management Act. Available incorporation into planned or active projects. VII. REVIEW OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS After a decision is made on the comprehensive plan amendments to be considered in the upcoming cycle, the City shall notify all applicants. Pre -application Conference -- All applicants seeking an amendment to comprehensive land use designations of the official comprehensive plan (site- specific requests and non -housekeeping amendments) must apply for a pre - application conference with the City's Development Review Committee (CDRC). Pre -applications cost $300, which is a non-refundable fee, but which will be credited to the formal comprehensive plan amendment fee of $564 plus $56 per acre. There is presently no adopted fee in the City's fee schedule for pre -annexation comprehensive plan designation and zoning. (Question: Should a fee be charged for requests for pre -annexation comprehensive plan designation and zoning of property and if so, should the fee be the same as for site-specific requests?) At the pre -application conference, the City will discuss the proposed amendment's consistency with applicable city policies and comprehensive plan goals and policies. After the pre -application conference is completed, if the applicant decides to pursue the comprehensive plan amendment, the remaining portion of the comprehensive plan amendment fee must be paid. State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA Review) -- The City will prepare a SEPA determination. Public Hearing by Planning Commission -- After the SEPA process has been completed, a staff report, summarizing the proposed changes to the comprehensive plan will be forwarded to the planning commission for a public hearing. The Planning Commission public hearing shall be noticed pursuant to snnn��." MR PAGE�(_`) F�W_ FWCC, Section 22-528. Notice (as amended under B.5 above to meet the public participation requirements of RCW 36.70A.035). In addition, the sites will be posted for the site-specific requests and property owners within 300 feet shall be notified. For site specific requests, the decisional criteria in FWCC, Section 22- 488(c) shall apply. Discussion by the LUTC -- After the close of the planning commission public hearing, the planning commission's recommendation and findings shall be forwarded to the LUTC. 6. Action by City Council -- After the LUTC has completed their review, their recommendation will be forwarded to the full Council who will adopt the amendments in a public meeting. Transmittal to the State -- At least 60 days prior to final action being taken by the City Council, but not prior to the close of the planning commission public hearing and transmittal of planning commission recommendation to the LUTC, the Washington Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development (DOTED) and other interested affected state agencies, King County and surrounding jurisdictions shall be provided with a copy of the amendments in order to initiate the 60 -day comment period. All other parties previously notified shall be again notified that the draft amendments of the comprehensive plan are available on request on a cost recovery basis. No later than 10 days after adoption of the comprehensive plan, a copy of the adopted comprehensive plan shall be forwarded to DCTED and those agencies who commented on the draft comprehensive plan for an additional 60 day comment period. VIII. NEW DEFINITIONS "Docket" (noun) means the list of suggested changes to the comprehensive plan maintained by the Community Development Services Department. "Docket" (verb) means to record with the department a suggested change to the comprehensive plan. C PAGE����t� TABLE 1 COMPARISON OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT FEES AND DEADLINES FOR SUBMITTING APPLICATIONS EVERY YEAR JURISDICTION FEE FOR SITE- FEE FOR OTHER DEADLINE FOR SPECIFIC AMENDMENTS YEARLY AMENDMENTS AMENDMENT City of Federal Way $564 plus $56/acre $564 except for To be determined housekeeping amendments for which there is no fee King County $1500 None January 15th for Hearing Examiner's Report to be forwarded to the Metropolitan King County Council on site- specific requests and September 30th for other amendments City of Seattle None None Changes on a yearly basis but appears to fall towards the end of January or February of each year City of Tacoma None None March 31 st City of Tukwila $1025 $700 December 31st City of Kent $500 plus $10/acre None September 1st l:\C0MPAMNDWMNDPR0C.2/November 25, 1998 3The City of Tacoma does not accept site-specific requests as part of the comprehensive plan amendment process; any requests for rezones are processed through the rezoning process. ARTICLE I. IN GENERAL Sec. 22-1. Definitions. The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this chapter, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning: Day care facility shall mean the temporary, nonresidential care of persons in a residence or other structure on a regular, recurring basis. Dedication shall mean the deliberate appropriation of land by its owner for public use or purpose, reserving no other rights than those that are compatible with the full exercise and enjoyment of the public uses or purpose to which the property has been devoted. Development activity shall mean any work, condition or activity which requires a permit or approval under this chapter or the city's building code. Development permit shall mean any permit or approval under this chapter or the city's building code that must be obtained before initiating a use or development activity. Docket (noun) shall mean the list of suggested chancres to the comprehensive plan maintained by the Community Development Services Department. Docket (verb) shall mean to record with the department a suggested change to the comprehensive plan. 11 T G 1 DAG "¢, ARTICLE III. AMENDMENTS DIVISION 2. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN* *Cross reference(s)--Amendments to these provisions must be reviewed and decided using process VI, § 22-516. Sec. 22-236. Applicable process. The city will use process VI described in sections 22-516 through 22-530 to review and decide upon a proposal to amend the comprehensive plan. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(140.10), 2-27-90; Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1- 97) Cross reference(s)--Process VI review requirements, § 22-516 et seq. Secs. 22-237--22-255. Reserved. Editor's note --Ordinance No. 97-291,.§ 3, adopted April 1, 1997, deleted §§ 22-237--22-239. Formerly, such sections pertained to factors to be considered in amendment, criteria for amendment, responsibility to review and derived from Ord. No. 90- 43, §§ 2(140.15, 140.20, 140.25), 2-27-90. 2 PALGEF3#_ ARTICLE VIII. PROCESS V REVIEW - QUASI-JUDICIAL REZONES* *Editor's note --Ordinance No. 97-291, § 3, adopted April 1, 1997, amended §§ 22-476--22-498 to read as herein set out as new §§ 22-476--22-498. Formerly, such sections pertained to process III review and derived from Ord. No. 90-43, §§ 2(155.05--155.110), 2-27-90. Cross reference(s)--City council, §,2-26 et seq.; hearing examiner, § 2-81 et seq; requirements for drainage review, § 21- 87; power and jurisdiction of the hearing examiner, § 22-84; quasi judicial rezoning of certain districts to be under the process V review requirements, § 22-2S6 et seq. Sec. 22-476. Administration. This article describes process V. Under process V, the hearing examiner will hold a public hearing and based on the record of that hearing make a recommendation to city council, which will then decide upon the application. (Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1-97) Sec. 22-477. Types of rezones. (a) There are two types of quasi judicial rezones as follows: (1) Nonproject related. A quasi-judicial rezone will be treated as nonproject-related if: a. The proposed rezone is initiated by the city and the subject property is not owned by the city; or b. The proposed rezone is from one single family residential zone classification to another single family residential zone classification. 3:_ C (2) Project related. A quasi judicial rezone will be treated as project -related when it does not meet the requirements of subsection (a)(1) of this section. All project related rezones require a specific development proposal for the subject property. (Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1-97) Sec. 22-478. Applications. (a) Who may apply. Any person may, personally or through an agent, apply for a decision regarding property he or she owns. (b) How to apply. The applicant shall file the following information with the department of community development services: (1) A completed application, with supporting affidavits, on forms provided by the department of community development services; (2) Two sets of stamped envelopes, and a list of the same, labeled with the name and address of all current owners of real property, as shown in the records of the county assessor for the subject property, within 300 feet of each boundary of the subject property; (3) A copy of the county assessor's map identifying the properties specified in subsection (b)(2) of this section; (4) A vicinity map showing the subject property with enough information to locate the property within the larger area; (5) Any information or material that is specified in the provision of this chapter that describes the applied - for decision; (6) All information specified in section 22-32; and (7) Any additional information or material that the director of community development services determines 4 is reasonably necessary for a decision on the matter. (c) Fee. with the application the applicant shall submit the fee established by the city. The application will not be accepted unless it is accompanied by the required fee and meets the requirements of section 22-32 and this section relating to what constitutes a complete application. (Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1-97) Sec. 22-479. Compliance with State Environmental Policy Act. The State Environmental Policy Act applies to the decisions that will be made using this article. The director of community development services shall evaluate each application and, where applicable, comply with the State Environmental Policy Act and with state regulations and city ordinances issued under the authority of the State Environmental Policy Act. (Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1-97) Sec. 22-480. Official file. (a) Contents. The director of community development services shall compile an official file on the application containing the following: (1) All application materials submitted by the applicant. (2) The staff report. (3) All written comments received on the matter. (4) The electronic recording of the public hearing on the matter. (5) The recommendation of the hearing examiner. (6) The electronic sound recording and minutes of the city council proceedings on the matter. (7) The decision of city council. 5 Xn 6.1 ��� (8) Any other information relevant to the matter. (b) Availability. The official file is a public record. It is available for inspection and copying in the department of community development services during regular business hours. (Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1-97) Sec. 22-481. Notice. (a) Contents. The director of community development services shall prepare a notice of each application containing the following information: (1) The name of the applicant, the project name (if applicable), the date of application, and the date of the notice of application. (2) The street address of the subject property or, if this is not available, a locational description in nonlegal language. Except for notice published in the newspaper of general circulation in the city, the notice must also include a vicinity map that identifies the subject property. (3) The citation of the provision of this chapter describing the requested decision and to the extent known by the city, any other permits which are not included in the application. (4) A brief description of the requested decision, a list of the project permits included in the application, and, if applicable, a list of any studies requested under RCW 36.70A.440. (5) The date, time, and place of the public hearing. (6) A statement of the availability of the official file. (7) A statement of the right of any person to submit written or oral comments to the hearing examiner regarding the application. MIM 6 �A �` G .. (8) A statement that only persons who submit comments to the hearing examiner or specifically request a copy of the original decision may appeal the hearing examiner's decision. (9) The identification of existing environmental documents that evaluate the proposed project and the location where the application and any studies can be reviewed. (10) A statement of the preliminary determination, if one has been made at the time of notice, of those development regulations that will be used for project mitigation. (b) Distribution. The director of community development services shall distribute this notice at least 14 calendar days before the public hearing as follows: (1) A copy will be sent to the persons receiving the property tax statements for all property within 300 feet of each boundary of the subject property. (2) A copy will be published in the newspaper of general circulation in the city. (3) A copy will be posted on each of the official notification boards of the city. (c) Public notification sign. The applicant shall erect at least one public notification sign which complies with standards developed by the department of community development services. This sign shall be located on or near the subject property facing the right-of-way or vehicle access easement or tract providing direct vehicle access to the subject property. The director of community development services may require the placement of additional public notice signs on or near the subject property if he or she determines that this is appropriate to provide notice to the public. (d) Timing. The public notification sign or signs must be in place at least ten calendar days before the public hearing and removed within seven calendar days after the final decision of the city on the matter. EHE- C PACS (Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1-97) Sec. 22-482. Staff report. (a) Contents. The director of community development services shall prepare a staff report containing the following information: (1) All pertinent application materials. (2) All comments regarding the matter received by the department of community development services prior to distribution of the staff report. (3) An analysis of the application under the relevant provisions of this chapter and the comprehensive plan. (4) A statement of the facts found by the director of community development services and the conclusions drawn from those facts. (5) A recommendation on the matter. (b) Distribution. At least seven calendar days before the hearing, the director of community development services shall distribute the staff report as follows: - (1) A copy will be sent to the hearing examiner. (2) A copy will be sent to the applicant. (3) A copy will be sent to each person who has specifically requested it. (Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1-97) Sec. 22 -483. -Open record hearing. (a) General. The hearing examiner shall hold an open record hearing on each application. (b) open to public. The hearings of the hearing examiner are open to the public. 8 A r, n v� - C U 110 � N ti AGE^j-J;C),Cj (c) Effect. The hearing of the hearing examiner is the hearing for city council on the application. (Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1-97) Sec. 22-484. Electronic sound recording. The hearing examiner shall make a complete electronic sound recording of each public hearing. (Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1-97) Sec. 22-485. Burden of proof. The applicant has the responsibility of convincing the city that, under the provision of this article, the applicant is entitled to the requested decision. (Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1-97) Sec. 22-486. Public comments and participation at the hearing. Any person may participate in the public hearing in either or both of the following ways: (1) By submitting written comments.to the hearing examiner, either by delivering these comments to the department of community development services prior to the hearing or by giving these directly to the hearing examiner at the hearing. (2) By appearing in person, or through a representative, at the hearing and making oral comments directly to the hearing examiner. The hearing examiner may reasonably limit the extent of oral comments to facilitate the orderly and timely conduct of the hearing. (Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1-97) Sec. 22-487. Continuation of the hearing. The hearing examiner may continue the hearing if, for any reason, he or she is unable to hear all of the public comments on PAG the matter or if the hearing examiner determines that he or she needs more information on the matter. If, during the hearing, the hearing examiner announces the time and place of the next hearing on the matter and a notice thereof is posted on the door of the hearing room, no further notice of that hearing need be given. (Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1-97) Sec. 22-488. Recommendation by the hearing examiner. (a) Generally. After considering all of the information and comments submitted on the matter, the hearing examiner shall issue a written recommendation to the city council. (b) Timing. Unless a longer period is agreed to by the applicant, the hearing examiner must issue the recommendation within ten working days after the close of the public hearing. (c) Decisional criteria. The hearing examiner shall use the following criteria for quasi judicial rezones: (1) The city may approve an application for a quasi- judicial nonproject rezone only if it finds that: a. The proposed rezone is in the best interest of the residents of the city; and. b. The proposed rezone is appropriate because either: i. Conditions in the immediate vicinity of the subject property have so significantly changed since the property was given its present zoning and that, under those changed conditions, a rezone is within the public interest; or ii. The rezone will correct a zone classification or zone boundary that was inappropriate when established. C. It is consistent with the comprehensive plan; d. It is consistent with all applicable provisions of 10 ril the chapter, including those adopted by reference from the comprehensive plan; and e. It is consistent with the public health, safety, and welfare. (2) The city may approve an application for a quasi- judicial project related rezone only if it finds that: a. The criteria in subsection (1) above are met; and b. The proposed project complies with this chapter in all respects; and C. The site plan of the proposed project is designed to minimize all adverse impacts on the developed properties in the immediate vicinity of the subject property; and d. The site plan is designed to minimize impacts upon the public services and utilities. (d) Conditions and restrictions. The hearing examiner shall include in the written recommendation any conditions and restrictions that the examiner determines are reasonably necessary to eliminate or minimize any undesirable effects of granting the requested rezone. (e) Contents. The hearing examiner shall include the following in the written recommendation to city council: (1) A statement of facts presented to the hearing examiner that supports his or her recommendation, including any conditions and restrictions that are recommended. (2) A statement of the hearing examiner's conclusions based on those facts. (3) A statement of the criteria used by the hearing examiner in making the recommendation. (4) The date of issuance of the recommendation. 11 EXHIBIT G (f) Distribution of written recommendation. The director of community development services shall distribute copies of the recommendation of the hearing examiner as follows: (1) After the hearing examiner's written recommendation is issued, a copy will be sent to the applicant, to each person who submitted written or oral testimony to the hearing examiner, and to each person who specifically requested it. (2) Prior to the meeting where city council considers the application, a copy will be sent to each member of city council. The director of community development services shall include a draft resolution or ordinance that embodies the hearing examiner's recommendation with the copy of the recommendation sent to each city council member. (Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1-97) ARTICLE IX. PROCESS VI REVIEW* *Cross reference(s)--Requirements for drainage review, § 21- 87; power and jurisdiction of the planning commission, § 22-59; amendments to the zoning regulations to be processed under the process VI procedure, § 22-216; amendments to the comprehensive plan to be processed through process VI review procedures, § 22- 236; comprehensive plan, § 22-236 et seq.; legislative rezoning, § 22-276 et seq.; amendments, § 22-216 et seq.; legislative rezoning of certain districts to be under process VI review, § 22-276. Sec. 22-516. Purpose. Various places in this chapter indicate that certain proposals to amend the zoning map through a legislative rezone, amend the text of this chapter, or amend the comprehensive plan must be reviewed and decided upon using process VI. This article describes process VI. 12 EXHHBIT C (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(160.05), 2-27-90; Ord. No. 91-112, § 1(160.05), 12-3-91; Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1-97) Sec. 22-517. Initiation of proposals. A proposal that will be reviewed using this article may be initiated by the city council, council committee, planning commission, or any interested person, including applicants, citizens, hearing examiners, and staff of other agencies. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(160.10), 2-27-90; Ord. No. 91-112, § 1(160.10), 12-3-91; Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1-97) Cross reference(s)--City council, § 2-26 et seq.; planning commission, § 22-56 et seq. Sec. 22-518. Docket The Department of Communitv Development Services shall maintain a docket of all proposed changes to the comprehensive plan. Proposed amendments to the comprehensive plan may only be submitted on docket forms prepared by the City and may be submitted by any interested person, including applicants, citizens, planning commission, city staff and staff of other agencies at any time of the year. See. 22 518. Sec 22-519. Compliance with State Environmental Policy Act. The State Environmental Policy Act applies to some of the decisions that will be made using this article. The director of community development services shall evaluate each proposal and, where applicable, comply with the State Environmental Policy Act and with state regulations and city ordinances issued under authority of the State Environmental Policy Act. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(160.15), 2-27-90; Ord. No. 91-112, § 1(160.15), 12-3-91; Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1-97) See. 22-519. Sec 22-520. City council review. The city council shall review all requests initiated pursuant to this article concurrently as part of the annual 13 EXHIBIT PAGE2L_OF_39 update of the city's comprehensive plan. The city council may request that the department of community development services or any other department of the city provide any information or material on the proposal(s), consistent with section 22-531. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(160.20), 2-27-90; Ord. No. 91-112, § 1(160.20), 12-3-91; Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1-97) Cross reference(s)--City council, § 2-26. Sec. 22-521. Responsibility to review the comprehensive plan. The city shall review the comprehensive plan to determine if any changes are desirable no more than once a year. The city may also review or amend the comprehensive plan whenever an emergency exists, or to resolve an appeal of the comprehensive plan or amendments thereto. The city may also consider amendments more frequently than once every year pursuant to RCW 36.70A.130(2)(a). (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(140.25), 2-27-90; Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1- 97) Sec. 22-522. Timing of Filing; Notice. Sixty days prior to the deadline for submitting requests for the yearly cycle of comprehensive plan amendments, the City shall notify all parties who submitted docket forms since the last amendment cycle. Notice shall also be given as follows: (1Z Public Notice notifying the public that the amendment process has begun shall be published in the Tacoma News Tribune, the City's official newspaper. (2) Notice shall be posted on the official city public notice boards. (3) A copy of the notice shall be mailed to other local newspapers. (4) All parties, agencies, organizations, and adjacent jurisdictions with an interest, or who may be affected by changes to the comprehensive plan 14� ��GE2i= shall be sent a copy of the notice. Sec. 22-523. Application. (a)- Who may apply Any person may, personally or through an agent apply for a decision regarding property he or she owns (b) How to apply. The applicant shall file the following information with the department of community development services: _1j_ A completed application with supporting affidavits on forms provided by the department of community development services; (2Z A copy of the county assessor's map identifying the properties specified in subsection (b)(2) of this section; (3) A vicinity map showing the subject property with enough information to locate the property within the larger area; (4L Any information or material that is specified in the provision of this chapter that describes the applied - for decision; (5)_ All information specified in section 22-33; and (6) Any additional information or material that the director of community development services determines is reasonably necessary for a decision on the matter. (cZ The director of community development services shall have the authority to waive any of the requirements of this section for proposed amendments which are not site-specific or when, in the director's discretion, such information is not relevant or would not be useful to consideration of the proposed amendment. (d) Fee. There is no fee for this initial application. After the prioritization process, applications to be considered during the amendment process shall submit the fee established by the 15 ISI W C PAG E -"OF -j City. Sec. 22-524. Criteria for prioritizing plan amendment requests. The City Council shall use the following criteria in selecting the comprehensive plan amendments to be considered during the upcoming cycle: (1) Volume of requests received. A large volume of requests may necessitate that some requests be reviewed in a subsequent year. (2) Order of requests received. (3) Study of the same area or issue during the last amendment process. (4) Amount of analysis necessary to reach a recommendation on the request. If a large scale study is required, a reauest may have to be delayed until the following year due to work loads, staffing levels, etc. (5)_ Consistency of the proposed amendment with the overall vision of the comprehensive plan. (6L Whether the proposed amendment meets existing state and local laws, including the Growth Management Act. (7L Available incorporation into planned or active projects. The Council's decision to consider a proposed amendment shall not constitute a decision or recommendation that the proposed amendment should be adopted nor does it preclude later Council action to add or delete an amendment for consideration. See. 22--529. Sec. 22-525 Legislative rezones. A legislative rezone is a rezone that meets the following 16 Ex�ao�i� C criteria: a. It is initiated by the city; and b. It includes a large number of properties which would be similarly affected by the proposed rezone. All other rezones not meeting the above criteria are treated as quasijudicial rezones and are reviewed and decided upon using process V. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(130.10), 2-27-90; Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1- 97) See. 22 521: Sec. 22-526 Criteria for approving a legislative rezone. The city may decide to approve a legislative rezone only if it finds that: (1) The proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan; (2) The proposal bears a substantial relation to public health, safety, or welfare; and (3) The proposal is in the best int.erest of the residents of the city. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(130.20), 2-27-90; Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1- 97) See. 22 522. Sec. 22-527 Map change. If the city approves a legislative rezone it will give effect to this decision by making the necessary amendment to the zoning map of the city. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(130.25), 2-27-90; Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1- 97) IIT 17 UPAGE. See. 2 2 523. Sec. 22-528. Zoning text amendment criteria. that: The city may amend the text of this chapter only if it finds (1) The proposed amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; (2) The proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to public health, safety, or welfare; and (3) The proposed amendment is in the best interest of the residents of the city. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(135.15), 2-27-90; Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1- 97) See. 22 524. Sec. 22-529. Factors to be considered in a comprehensive plan amendment. The city may consider, but is not limited to, the following factors when considering a proposed amendment to the comprehensive plan: (1) The effect upon the physical environment. (2) The effect on open space, streams, and lakes. (3) The compatibility with and impact on adjacent land uses and surrounding neighborhoods. (4) The adequacy of and impact on community facilities including utilities, roads, public transportation, parks, recreation, and schools. (5) The benefit to the neighborhood, city, and region. (6) The quantity and location of land planned for the proposed land use type and density and the demand for such land. (7) The current and projected population density in the area. 18 H S T C PAGE U0 .3-q (8) The effect upon other aspects of the comprehensive plan. For site-specific comprehensive plan amendments, the provisions of Section 22-488(c) shall also apply. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(140.15), 2-27-90; Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1- 97) See. 22 525. Sec. 22-530. Criteria for amending the comprehensive plan. that: The city may amend the comprehensive plan only if it finds (1) The proposed amendment bears a substantial relationship to public health, safety, or welfare; and (2) The proposed amendment is in the best interest of the residents of the city. (3) The proposed amendment is consistent with the requirements of RCW 36.70A and with the portion of the city's adopted plan not affected by the amendment. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(140.20), 2-27-90; Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1- 97) (Greg. Nem 9 4 S 2 (, . 5) , 27 99; Gid. Ne. 9 7 2 9 1, S 3, 4 4: See. 22 527. Sec. 22-531 Official file. EXHISI-,7, C 19 PA >J (a) Contents. The director of community development services shall compile an official file containing all information and materials relevant to the proposal and to the city's consideration of the proposal. (b) Availability. The official file is a public record. It is available for inspection and copying in the department of community development during regular business hours. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(160.25), 2-27-90; Ord. No. 91-112, § 1(160.25), 12-3-91; Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1-97) See. 22 528. Sec 22-532. Notice. Notice provisions under this section shall be followed for both the public hearing during which all requests for changes to the zoning map, zoning text, and the comprehensive plan are prioritized, as well as the public hearing held on individual requests. (a) Contents. The director of community development services shall prepare a notice of each proposal, for which a public hearing will be held, containing the following information: (1) The citation, if any, of the provision that would be changed by the proposal along with a brief description of that provision. (2) A statement of how the proposal would change the affected provision. (3) A statement of what areas, zones, or locations will be directly affected or changed by the proposal. (4) The date, time, and place of the public hearing. (5) A statement of the availability of the official file. (6) A statement of the right of any person to submit written comments to the planning commission and to 20 HII appear at the public hearing of the planning commission to give comments orally. (b) Distribution. The director of community development services shall distribute this notice at least 14 calendar days before the public hearing as fe„ following the procedures of Sec 22-522 In addition the procedures of Section 22-481 shall be followed for site-specific requests regarding notification of adjacent property owners posting of the site (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(160.30), 2-27-90; Ord. No. 91-112, § 1(160.30), 12-3-91; Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1-97) See. 22 529. Sec. 22-533. Staff report. (a) General. The director of community development services shall prepare a staff report containing: (1) An analysis of the proposal and a recommendation on the proposal; and (2) Any other information the director of community development services determines is necessary for consideration of the proposal, consistent with section 22-524. (b) Distribution. The director of community development services shall distribute the staff report as follows: (1) A copy will be sent to each member of the planning commission prior to the hearing. (2) A copy will be sent promptly to any person requesting it. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(160.30), 2-27-90; Ord. No. 91-112, § 21 IE Xf IIT 1(160.30), 12-3-91; Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1-97) See. 22 530. Sec. 22-534. Public hearing. (a) Generally. The planning commission shall hold public hearings on each proposal, consistent with section 22-531 22-534. (b) Open to public. The hearings of the planning commission are open to the public. (c) Effect. The hearing of the planning commission is the hearing for city council. City council need not hold another hearing on the proposal. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(160.40), 2-27-90; Ord. No. 91-112, § 1(160.40), 12-3-91; Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1-97) See. 22 531. Sec. 22-535. Material to be considered. (a) Generally. Except as specified in subsections (b) and (c) of this section, the planning commission and city council may consider any pertinent information or materials in reviewing and deciding upon a proposal under this article. (b) Exclusion. Except as specified in subsection (c) of this section, the city may not consider a specific site plan or project in reviewing and deciding upon a proposal under this process. (c) Exception for environment information. If a proposal that will be decided upon using this article is part of a specific project, the city may consider all information submitted under section 22 S18 22-519 in deciding upon that proposal. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(160.45), 2-27-90; Ord. No. 91-112, § 1(160.45), 12-3-91; Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1-97) See. z 532. Sec 22-536. Electronic sound recordings. The planning commission shall make a complete electronic sound recording of each public hearing. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(160.50), 2-27-90; Ord. No. 91-112, § 22 EXHID,,-t� IC PAGE►, -_3 -3y 1(160.50), 12-3-91; Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1-97) Seems 22 533. Sec. 22-537. Public comment and participation at the hearing. Any interested person may participate in the public hearing in either or both of the following ways: (1) By submitting written comments to the planning commission either by delivering these comments to the department of community development services prior to the hearing or by giving them directly to the planning commission at the hearing. (2) By appearing in person, or through a representative, at the hearing and making oral comments. The planning commission may reasonably limit the extent of oral comments to facilitate the orderly and timely conduct of the hearing. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(160.55), 2-27-90; Ord. No. 91-112, § 1(160.55), 12-3-91; Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1-97) See. 22-53r Sec. 22-538 Continuation of the hearing. The planning commission may, for any reason, continue the hearing on the proposal. If, during the hearing, the planning commission announces the time and place of the next public hearing on the proposal and a notice thereof is posted on the door of the hearing room, no further notice of that hearing need be given. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(160.60), 2-27-90; Ord. No. 91-112, § 1(160.60), 12-3-91; Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1-97) See. 22-535. Sec. 22-539. Planning commission --Recommendation. (a) Generally. Following the public hearing, the planning commission shall consider the proposal in light of the decisional criteria in sections 22 S21 22-526 or S23 528 or S2S 530, and take one of the following actions: (1) If the planning commission determines that the proposal 23 EH�_ C should be adopted, it may, by a majority vote of the entire membership, recommend that city council adopt the proposal. (2) If the planning commission determines that the proposal should not be adopted, it may, by a majority vote of the members present, recommend that city council not adopt the proposal. (3) If the planning commission is unable to take either of the actions specified in subsection (a)(1) or (a)(2) of this section, the proposal will be sent to city council with the notation that the planning commission makes no recommendation. (b) Modification of proposal. The planning commission may modify the proposal in any way and to any degree prior to recommending the proposal to city council for adoption. If the planning commission fundamentally modifies the proposal, the planning commission shall hold a new public hearing on the proposal as modified prior to recommending the proposal to city council for action. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(160.65), 2-27-90; Ord. No. 91-112, § 1(160.65), 12-3-91; Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1-97) See. z2--536. Sec. 22-540. Same --Report to city council. (a) Generally. The director of community development services shall prepare a planning commission report on the proposal containing a copy of the proposal, along with any explanatory information, and the planning commission recommendation, if any, on the proposal. (b) Transmittal to city council. The director of community development services shall transmit the planning commission report to the city manager for consideration by city council. (c) Distribution. The director of community development services shall promptly send a copy of the planning commission report to any person requesting it. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(160.70), 2-27-90; Ord. No. 91-112, § 24 P� E_ 1(160.70), 12-3-91; Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1-97) See. 22 537. Sec. 22-541. City council action. (a) General. Within 60 days of receipt of the planning commission report by the city manager, the city council shall consider the proposal along with a draft ordinance prepared by the city attorney, appropriate to enact or adopt the proposal. (b) Decisional criteria. In deciding upon the proposal, the city council shall use the decisional criteria listed in the provisions of this chapter describing the proposal. (c) City council action. After consideration of the planning commission report and, at its discretion, holding its own public hearing on the proposal, the city council shall by majority vote of its total membership: (1) Approve the proposal by adopting an appropriate ordinance; (2) Modify and approve the proposal by adopting an appropriate ordinance; (3) Disapprove the proposal by resolution; or (4) Refer the proposal back to the planning commission for further proceedings. If this occurs, the city council shall specify the time within which the planning commission shall report back to the city council on the proposal. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(160.75), 2-27-90; Ord. No. 91-112, § 1(160.75), 12-3-91; Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1-97) Sec. 22-542. Transmittal to State At least 60 days prior to final action being taken by the City Council, but not prior to the close of the planning commission public hearing and transmittal of planning commission recommendation to the LUTC, the Washington Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development (DOTED) and other interested affected state agencies, King County and surrounding 25 WeEAi��==y PAGE --3,J ��' .. J q jurisdictions shall be provided with a copy of the amendments in order to initiate the 60 -day comment period. All other parties previously_ notified shall be again notified that the draft amendments of the comprehensive plan are available on reauest_on a cost recovery basis. No later than 10 days after adoption of the comprehensive plan, a copy of the adopted comprehensive plan shall be forwarded to DCTED and those agencies who commented on the draft comprehensive plan. Sec. 22-543. Appeals. The action of the city in granting, modifying or denying an amendment to this chapter or to the comprehensive plan may be reviewed by the Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board pursuant to RCW 36.70A. (Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1-97) Secs. 22 539 22-544--22-545. Reserved. 26 EXHIBIT. SUMMARY Commissioners present: Robert Vaughan (Chair), Dean Greenough, Jim Sempek, Bill Drake, John Caulfield, Karen Kirkpatrick, and Eric Faison. Commissioners absent: none. Alternative Commissioners present: Hope Elder and Adebola Adekoya. Alternative Commissioners absent: Ed Soule and Sophia McNeil. Staff present: Deputy Director of Community Development Services Kathy McClung, Code Compliance Officer Martin Nordby, Senior Planner Margaret Clark, and Administrative Assistant E. Tina Piety. Chair Vaughan called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of November 18, 1998, were approved. AUDIENCE COMMENT None. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT Ms. McClung gave an update on code amendments. The shoreline amendments were adopted by the City Council at their December 1, 1998. At the same meeting, they chose to delay the Weyerhaeuser annexations and comprehensive plan to their next meeting. Also, the fee ordinance was adopted, so land use and building permit fees will increase (this is the first increase in five years). The Non -Residential Design Guidelines went to the November 23, 1998 Land Use/ Transportation Committee (LUTC) meeting. They made a change to one sentence. It will go to the City Council in January. The LUTC will discuss the Planning Commission work program in January. The next Planning Commission meeting is not scheduled to occur until February. COMMISSION BUSINESS— Public Hearing: Parking on Residential Lots, Noise and Construction Hours, and Civil Citation Authority The Public Hearing was opened at 7:10 p.m. Mr. Nordby gave the presentation. He stated that he had incorporated the changes requested by the Planning Commission at their November 18, 1998, workshop. Some discussion was held regarding the monetary penalty for civil citations. Regarding the time limitation for compliance set by the hearing exal he paragraph just above ilo, the commission feels it is to rigid and asked to al> PAGE /OFA Planning Commission December 2, 1998 2 the hearing examiner to choose the number of days (it is set for 14 days). For Section 1-20 (page 12), the commission requested that a time limit be sent for when a refund from the city must be paid. There was no public testimony. It was m/s/c (no nays) to accept the staff recommendation as amended. The Public Hearing was closed at 7:35 p.m. Public Hearing: Procedures for Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan The Public Hearing was opened at 7:40 p.m. Ms. Clark gave the presentation. This amendment formalizes the process for the yearly comprehensive plan updates. Ms. Clark had three questions that she requested commission input. The first was, "Should the City specify a deadline every year for submitting requests for comprehensive plan amendments?" The advantage to a deadline is that the public would know when requests for amendments are due. The disadvantage is that the city may not be ready to consider amendments at the deadline time. The commission discussed the issue and concluded that a specific date should be set. They selected September 30. The second question was, "Should all proposed amendments be taken to both the LUTC [Land Use/Transportation Committee] and the City Council for prioritizing and inclusion in the upcoming yearly cycle or just to the LUTC? After much debate is was m/s/c (one opposed) to send the proposed amendments to just the LUTC. The staff report includes a set of criteria the LUTC shall use in selecting the amendments to be considered. The commission requested that a criteria be added that deals with projects that have, or would have, high public interest. The staff will research this issue. The third question was, "Should a fee be charged for requests for pre -annexation comprehensive plan designation and zoning of property and if so, should the fee be the same as for site-specific requests?" The commission is concerned a fee could be a barrier to people seeking to annex, and therefore, do not want a fee charged. There was no public testimony. It was m/s/c (no nays) to approve the staff recommendation as amended. The Public Hearing was closed at 8:37 p.m. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS None. AUDIENCE COMMENT None. ADJOURN It was m/s/c to adjourn the meeting at 8:40 p.m. K:\CONIMON. AMADMIN I\PLANCO.\1\1202985. WN) rlmlp H I M% r 1 ,e CITY OF FEDERAL WAY MEMORANDUM DATE: January 26, 1999 To: City Council Land Use/Transportation Committee FROM: 4 �Gregory Moore, AICP, Director of Community Development Services CONTACT: Jim Harris, Senior Planner RE: Final Plat of Heritage Woods Division 2 — Federal Way File No. SUB98-0003 I. SUMMARY OF APPLICATION Schneider Homes Inc. is requesting final plat approval of Heritage Woods Division 2, a 66 lot division of the 111 single family lot Heritage Woods Preliminary Plat. This division will complete the Heritage Woods plat. The site is located on the west side of Military Road, generally between South 282nd and 284th Streets. The City of Federal Way granted approval of the 111 single family lot preliminary plat of Heritage Woods per City Council Resolution 92-122 on October 20, 1992. Included in Resolution 92-122 is an intent to rezone 29.5 acres of the site from RS 9.6 to RS 7.2 upon completion of the final plat. A portion of Division 1 was rezoned to RS 7.2 concurrent with City Council approval of Division 1 final plat, in February 1997. The attached staff report addresses how the applicant has fulfilled conditions of preliminary plat approval referenced in Resolution 92-122. 11. REASON FOR COUNCIL ACTION As required by RCW 58.17.110, and Section 20-136 of the Federal Way City Code -- (FWCC), prior to approving a final plat the council is charged with determining whether the final plat substantially conforms to all terms of the preliminary plat approval, and whether the subdivision meets the requirements of all applicable state laws and local ordinances which were in effect at the time of preliminary plat approval. Pursuant to FWCC Section 22-298, if the applicant completes development of the property in conformance with the resolution of intent to rezone and the approved site plan, then the city shall make the zone classification change approved in the resolution. The lots in Heritage Woods Division 2 have been developed in accordance with the resolution of intent to rezone, and meet the minimum standards of the RS 7.2 zoning district.. City Council Land Use/Transportation Committee January 26, 1999 Page 2 Bringing this matter before the City Council Land Use/Transportation Committee for review and recommendation prior to a decision by the full council is consistent with how land use matters are currently processed by the City of Federal Way. III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION City staff has reviewed the final plat of Heritage Woods Division 2 for compliance with SEPA conditions, preliminary plat conditions, and all applicable codes and policies. All applicable codes, policies, and conditions have been satisfactorily met. Staff recommends approval to the City Council. IV. PROCEDURAL SUMMARY Jan 14, 1991 Application for preliminary plat is filed with the City of Federal Way. Jan 10, 1992 Application to rezone a portion of the site from RS 9.6 to RS 7.2 is filed with the city. Apr 8, 1992 Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance is issued by the city. Jun 1, 1992 Public Hearing on Preliminary Plat application and rezone application by the city's Hearing Examiner. Jun 16, 1992 Recommendation of preliminary plat approval and rezone approval issued by the Hearing Examiner. Jun 23, 1992 Request for Reconsideration of Hearing Examiner decision filed by the City of Federal Way Public Works Director. Oct 2, 1992 Hearing Examiner issued Decision on Reconsideration granting request for reconsideration in part and denying in part. Oct 20, 1992 Federal Way City Council approved Preliminary Plat and project related rezone application. Oct 17, 1995 Hearing Examiner issues a one year extension to the Heritage Woods Preliminary Plat. Sep 3, 1996 Final plat application submitted for Heritage Woods Division 1. Sep 20, 1996 City of Federal Way grants fifth year administrative extension, to expire on City Council Land Use/Transportation Committee January 26, 1999 Page 3 October 20, 1997, based on 1995 amendment to RCW 58.17.140. Feb 10, 1997 City Council Land Use/Transportation Committee reviews and recommends approval for final plat and project rezone for Heritage Woods Division 1. Feb 18, 1997 City Council reviews and approves final plat and project rezone for Heritage Woods Division 1. Sep 11, 1997 Hearing Examiner grants one year extension to preliminary plat approval to expire on October 20, 1998, unless a final plat is submitted. Jul 31, 1998 Schneider Homes applies for Division 2 final plat approval. V. DECISIONAL CRITERIA Pursuant to FWCC Section 20-136(b), the City Council approves the final plat application if all criteria of FWCC Section 20-136(b) are met. Findings contained in the staff report to the City Council and in the draft resolution indicate that the application is consistent with these criteria. Additionally, pursuant to FWCC Section 22-298, the City Council approves the zone reclassification from RS 9.6 to RS 7.2 if the applicant completes development of the property in conformance with the intent to rezone. This criteria has been met, as Division 2 meets the standards of the RS 7.2 zoning district and is consistent with the approved preliminary plat. V1. COUNCIL ACTION A resolution approving the final plat for Heritage Woods Division 2 is attached to the staff report. An ordinance reclassifying a portion of the site from RS 9.6 to RS 7.2 is also attached to the staff report. After consideration of the staff report and recommendation, the City Council approves the plat for recording and approves the zoning reclassification by a -- majority vote of its membership if the City Council finds that all criteria outlined in RCW 58.17.110, FWCC Section 20-136, and FWCC Section 22-298 have been met. The applicant has requested the City Council to suspend council rules to adopt the rezone ordinance in one reading and condense the ordinance enactment time to five days from publication. (Exhibit G to Staff Report, January 18, 1999, Letter from Kenneth Peckham to Phil Watkins). L:\PRMSYS\DOCUMENT\SUB98-00.01\LUrCSUMM.DOC DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF REPORT Request for Final Plat Approval and Rezone Approval HERITAGE WOODS DIVISION NO. 2 Federal Way File No. SUB98-0003 I INTRODUCTION Date: January 26, 1999 Request: Request for final plat approval and zone map change RS 9.6 to RS 7.2, for Heritage Woods Division No. 2. Description: Heritage Woods Division 2 is a proposed subdivision including 66 single family lots. Division 2 comprises the completion of the Heritage Woods Preliminary Plat of 111 single family lots on 41 acres. The 111 lot Heritage Woods Preliminary Plat was granted approval by the Federal Way City Council on October 20, 1992, per Resolution 92-122. Included in Resolution 92-122 is an intent by the City Council to rezone 29.5 acres of the site from RS 9.6 to RS 7.2. Access for Division 2 is from Military Road at South 282nd and South 284th Streets. All required roads, sidewalks, storm drainage facilities, sewer lines, and water lines within Division 2 have been constructed. Owner: Schneider Homes, Inc. 6510 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite No. 1 Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 248-2471 Engineer: Dennis Alfredson, P.E. Schneider Homes, Inc. _ 6510 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite No. 1 Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 248-2471 Location: Along the west side of Military Road between South 282nd and South 284th Streets; in Section 33, Township 22 North, Range 4 East, W.M, King County (see Exhibit A — Vicinity Map). Sewage Disposal: Lakehaven Utility District Water Supply: Lakehaven Utility District Fire District: No. 39 — King County School District: No. 210 — Federal Way Report Prepared By: Jim Harris, Senior Planner II HISTORY AND BACKGROUND Heritage Woods Division 2 is a proposed subdivision including 66 single family lots on approximately 15 acres (Exhibit B — Division 2 Final Plat Map). Division 2 is the completion of the Heritage Woods Preliminary Plat of 111 single family lots on 41 acres (Exhibit C — Preliminary Plat Map). The 111 lot Heritage Woods Preliminary Plat was granted approval by the Federal Way City Council on October 20, 1992, per Resolution 92- 122 (Exhibit D — Resolution 92-122). During the engineering design and review phase, the developer chose to construct the project in two phases. Division No. 1, the first phase, has been constructed and received final plat approval on February 18, 1997. The remainder of the preliminary plat was to have been constructed and have a final plat application submitted by October 20, 1998, or the remainder of the preliminary plat and project related rezone would expire. The current developer, Schneider Homes, Inc., purchased Division 2 from the original developer, Parklane Ventures, in 1997, and has completed the plat improvements. The application for final plat approval was submitted on July 31, 1998, consistent with code provisions to submit for final plat by October 20, 1998. A proposed Resolution of the City of Federal Way, Washington, to approve the final plat of Heritage Woods Division 2 is attached (Exhibit E — Final Plat Resolution). Zoning for the 41 acre site at the time of preliminary plat application was RS 9.6 for the eastern 29.5 acres, and RS 7.2 for the western 11.5 acres. Included in Resolution 92-122 is an intent to rezone the easterly 29.5 acres of the site from RS 9.6 to RS 7.2, upon final plat approval. The eastern portion of Division 2 is currently zoned RS 9.6 and the attached ordinance will reclassify this eastern portion to RS 7.2, consistent with the intent to rezone. Lot sizes on the Division 2 final plat range from 7,201 square feet to 13,348 square feet, with the average size being approximately 8,220 square feet. Staff Report Page -2- Heritage Woods/SUB98-0003 . _ ...._ 1 A proposed ordinance to rezone a portion of Heritage Woods Division 2 from RS 9.6 to RS 7.2 is also attached (Exhibit F — Rezone Ordinance). The developer applied for final plat approval for Division 2 on July 31, 1998. Improvements for Division 2 are now substantially complete. Pursuant to RCW 58.17.110 and Section 20- 136 of the Federal Way City Code (FWCC), the City Council is charged with determining whether: 1) the proposed final plat conforms to all terms of the preliminary plat approval; 2) if the subdivision meets the requirements of all applicable state laws and local ordinances which were in effect at the time of preliminary plat approval; 3) if all taxes and assessments owing on the property have been paid; and, 4) if all required improvements have been made or sufficient security has been accepted by the city. City of Federal Way staff has reviewed the final plat of Heritage Woods Division 2 for compliance with preliminary plat conditions and all applicable codes and policies. All applicable codes, policies, and plat conditions have been met or financially secured as allowed by FWCC Section 20-135. III COMPLIANCE WITH PRELIMINARY PLAT CONDITIONS The following lists conditions of preliminary plat approval and SEPA conditions in the same order referenced in Federal Way City Council Resolution 92-122 and the SEPA Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance, respectively. Required improvements have been completed or financially secured as allowed by FWCC Section 20-135. Pursuant to Section 20.130.30 of the Environmental Policy Ordinance, all mitigation measures of the April 8, 1992, determination of nonsignificance are incorporated by reference as conditions of this approval. Failure to comply with the mitigation measures shall constitute grounds for suspension and/or revocation of this approval. Staff Response: See comments in Section IV of this memo regarding compliance with SEPA conditions. 2. Approval of this proposed preliminary plat is subject to approval of rezone application number RZ92-0001. In the event that rezone application number RZ92-0001 is _ modified or denied, any action to approve this preliminary plat shall be deemed invalid and a new public hearing required. Staff Response: The ordinance for rezoning a portion of the site is attached and must be adopted concurrently with approval of the final plat application for Division 2. 3. To the maximum extent feasible, existing natural vegetation shall be utilized within all landscape buffer areas as required by the Director of Community Development Staff Report Page -3- Heritage Woods/SUB98-0003 Services. As proposed, the applicant will provide a 15 -foot -wide buffer of native vegetation (Native Growth Protection Easement [NGPE]) along the rear of lots adjoining the north, south, and west property lines of the site. Staff Response: This condition has been met. With the exception of areas approved for clearing and grading, natural vegetation has been left to the extent feasible, or replanted as appropriate. The rear of the lots abutting the west and south site perimeter have a 15 foot wide NGPE. Note 10 on sheet 8 of the final plat map identifies clearing and building limitations in the NGPE. The city has also conducted an inventory of trees and vegetation in the NGPE for future reference. 4. Prior to final plat approval, lot number 59 shall be reconfigured to be located entirely outside of any required 100 foot wetland setback area. Staff Response: This condition was met with the recording of Heritage Woods Division 1. Prior to final plat approval, all proposed usable open space shall be dedicated to the city as required by the Parks Director. As proposed, the applicant will construct tennis court facilities as approved by the Parks Director. As proposed, the applicant will erect a sign or monument regarding `Old Military Road' as approved by the Parks Director. Staff Response: This condition was modified by approval of a Process I review. The revised condition reads as follows: Revised Condition #5: The developer will construct a minimum improvement of a 140 foot by 200 foot irrigated, soil amended lawn area graded and seeded to Parks Department standards, and 12 park trees. $50, 000.00 shall be expended for construction and material and the developer shall provide records at no cost to the city of all labor, materials, and equipment associated with the park development. Additional park amenities will be constructed by the developer if any of the $50, 000.00 budget remains after the lawn area and trees are installed. The Parks Department will provide the park improvement design of the lawn area, trees, and irrigation system at no cost to the developer. The developer will also erect a sign or monument regarding `Old Military Road' as approved by the Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Services Department Director. Prior to final plat approval of Heritage Woods Division 1, the developer shall post a $50, 000.00 bond to ensure construction of the improvements. The open space tract shall be dedicated to the City of Federal Way with recording of Heritage Woods Division 1, and the park improvements shall be completed by the developer within 12 months of recording of Division 1, or by recording of Division 2, whichever is first. Staff Report Page -4- Heritage Woods/SUB98-0003 Staff Response: The condition has been met. Tract A was constructed and dedicated to the public with recording of Division 1. 6. No general site clearing or grading shall occur on or within 25 feet of geologically hazardous areas located on lots 52, 53, 56, 57, and 59. Any building construction located within these sensitive areas or setbacks shall be by piling or pier type foundation construction as required by the Building Official, to minimize grading and disturbance within the geologically hazardous area. Upon completion, all disturbed areas shall be replanted as required by the Building Official. Staff Response: This condition has been modified; see conditions 6A, 613, 7A, and 7B below. 7. Individual homeowners for lots 52, 53, 56, 57, and 59 shall be responsible for providing the city with services of a qualified professional engineer for purposes of reviewing and inspecting pier or piling type residential construction located within geologically hazardous areas, as required by the Building Official. Staff Response: This condition has been modified see conditions 6A, 6B, 7A, and 7B below. 6A. The landscape plan prepared by Schneider Homes (January 4, 1998) must be revised to include a mixture of evergreen and deciduous trees planted at 10 to 15 feet on center in a triangulated pattern. The proposed groundcover must be planted at 18 to 24 inches on center (not 10 feet as proposed), to achieve 100 percent cover within three years of planting. Shrubs shall be planted at 5 to 10 feet on center. The landscaping plan must be revised and approved by the Community Development Services Department prior to issuance of the grading permit. Staff Response: The condition has been met by installation of some of the landscaping and financial guaranteeing the remaining landscaping. The landscape plan has been approved, and the majority of the plant materials installed. However, due to the recent wet weather conditions, and the slope of the subject area, the remainder of the planting will occur when weather permits, by June 1, 1999, as required by the Director of Community Development Services. The developer has provided a financial guarantee in the amount of $3,648.00, which is 120 percent of the estimated cost of completing the landscaping as identified on an undated estimate by Valley Green Farms, on file with the Department of Community Development Services. 613. Future houses for each lot (60 - 66) shall have a foundation designed by an engineer licensed in the State of Washington. A note to this effect shall be on the final plat map. Staff Report Page -5- Heritage Woods/SUB98-0003 Staff Response: This condition has been met by note 5 on sheet 8 of the final plat. 7A. All recommendations in the April 14, 1998, report by Golder Associates shall be implemented through the fill and grade project, including construction observing and testing, observing removal of the loose fill, subgrade preparing, installing of drainage blanket, structural fill compaction testing, rockery construction observing, and submitting field reports to the Public Works Department. Additionally, the geotechnical engineer shall submit to the city's Public Works and Community Development Services Departments a closing report that the project was completed in conformance with approved plans and complies with the design engineer's analysis and recommendations. Staff Response: This condition has been met. The field reports and closing report stamped by a professional engineer have been submitted to the city. 7B. Any future construction behind the building envelope which is beyond minor landscaping (such as retaining walls, home addition, and shed construction), shall be designed by a geotechnical engineer at the owner's expense and approved by the City of Federal Way prior to beginning construction. The city may also require the homeowner to pay for services of the city's geotechnical consulting engineer to review any plans. A note to this effect shall be placed on the final plat map. Staff Response: This condition has been met. A note has been included on the final plat map, and the building envelopes for lots 60 - 66 have been included on sheet 7 of the final plat. 8. The developer shall be responsible for providing the city with services of a qualified professional engineer for purposes of reviewing and inspecting any street or utility work located within geologically hazardous areas, as required by the Public Works Director. Staff Response: This condition has been met through the construction of Division 1. 26th Avenue South and 25th Place South, and associated utilities were constructed within small portions of geologically hazardous areas. The developer provided the services of a testing laboratory to verify compaction of the roadway subbase and crushed rock courses during construction. _ 9. Due to potential erosion hazard and impacts to environmentally sensitive areas, clearing shall be limited only to the months of April through October. Staff Response: This condition has been met. Site clearing and grading were generally limited to occur between April and October. Exceptions have been approved to allow clearing and grading between October and April when weather conditions were favorable. Staff Report Page -6- Heritage Woods/SUB98-0003 10. Retention/detention facilities used to control runoff from the site to off-site drainage courses shall be located in a surface water tract to be dedicated to the city at the time of final plat approval, as required by the Public Works Director, unless located within improved City of Federal Way rights-of-way. All retention/detention facilities shall be landscaped to provide a visual buffer from surrounding properties. A landscape plan shall be submitted for approval by the Director of Community Development Services prior to issuance of construction permits. Staff Response: This condition has been met. Final acceptance and dedication of the surface water system improvements in Tract E were deferred until the construction of and final plat approval for Division 2. Note 10 on Sheet 5 of 7 of Division 1 Final Plat requires that Tract E be conveyed to the City of Federal Way via a Statutory Warranty Deed upon completion of Division 2. A Statutory Warranty Deed has been prepared by the applicant, reviewed, and approved by the city, and will be recorded concurrent with the recording of the Division 2 final plat. An approved plan for buffering the storm drainage facilities was implemented with Division 1 construction. 11. Prior to final plat approval, those portions of the surface water facilities necessary to retain/detain, convey, and treat the flows discharging from the site shall be constructed and operational. Staff Response: This condition has been met. The Surface Water Pond was completed during the construction of Division 1. During the past two years, the pond has been operational and appears to function effectively. 12. A 15 -foot gravel access shall be provided along the entire length of each biofiltration swale for maintenance as required by the Public Works Director. The biofiltration swale and gravel access shall be located in a surface water tract to be dedicated to the city prior to final plat approval. Staff Response: This condition has been met. A 15 -foot -wide gravel access to the biofiltration swale serving the development has been constructed. 13. In some cases, on-site surface water infiltration systems may be suitable for use on individual lots depending on soil conditions. This type of system shall be used where suitable. To determine the suitability of the soil for infiltration systems, a soils report that includes percolation tests and a soil log taken at six foot minimum depth shall be submitted by a professional engineer, or soil specialist This shall include, at a minimum, information on soil texture, depth to seasonal high water, and the occurrence of mottling and impervious layers. The report shall also address potential down gradient impacts due to increased hydraulic loading on slopes and structures. If the soils report is Staff Report Page -7- Heritage Woods/SUB98-0003 approved, the infiltration systems shall be installed prior to occupancy of the residence. A note to this effect shall be placed on the face of the final plat map. The drainage plan and the final plat map shall indicate each lot approved for infiltration. Staff Response: This condition has been met. A soils analysis was completed as part of the design work for the plat infrastructure; the analysis found the soils to be poor in infiltration potential. As such, positive storm drainage connections to the piped storm drainage system were provided for each lot for Divisions 1 and 2, and a note to that effect has been provided on the final plat map. 14. Existing on-site surface water ponds shall be retained as part of the storm drainage system and shall be utilized as a one -cell wet pond for treatment of runoff prior to entering the detention facilities or biofiltration swale. Discharge into the pond shall be oriented to maximize the retention and settlement times of the water in the pond. The pond shall be located in a surface water drainage tract to be dedicated to the city prior to final plat approval, as required by the Public Works Director. Staff Response: This condition has been met. The existing on-site pond has been incorporated into the storm drainage system as a one -cell wet pond. Routing of the storm water has been designed to maximize the retention time and treatment effectiveness in the pond. The pond is located within Tract E, along with the other associated storm drainage facilities. Note 10 on Sheet 5 of 7 of Division 1 Final Plat requires that Tract E be conveyed to the City of Federal Way via a Statutory Warranty Deed upon completion of Division 2. A Statutory Warranty Deed has been prepared and will be recorded concurrently with the recording of the Division 2 final plat. 15. A geotechnical report shall be prepared by a licensed geotechnical engineer to address recommended designs for proposed roadways. The report shall detail soil and groundwater conditions. Recommendations to ensure integrity of future roadways shall be subject to review and approval by the Public Works Director. Staff Response: This condition has been met. GeoTech Consultants, Inc., prepared a report titled "Pavement Design Recommendations" on May 8, 1995, related to proposed street improvements in the plat. The report provided detailed soil and groundwater conditions. Further pavement design for Military Road South was _ provided by Jaegar Engineering in April, 1996. The design and plans were reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department 16. A temporary paved turn -around will be constructed at the westerly end of 25th Place South in accordance with Section 2.07 of the King County Road Standards. Sidewalks shall be constructed to extend through the temporary turn -around area. Temporary easements shall be provided and shall be placed on the face of the final plat as required by the Public Works Director. Staff Report Page -8- Heritage Woods/SUB98-0003 Staff Response: This condition was met with recording of Division 1. 17. A 10 -foot utility easement shall be provided along the front of all lots and tracts located adjacent to the proposed street rights-of-way as required by the Public Works Director. Staff Response: This condition has been met. A 10 -foot utility easement has been accommodated by Easement Provisions and Reservations note on sheet 1 of the final plat map. 18. Applicant is required to construct Military Road South to a three -lane configuration with curb, gutter, sidewalk, and bike lanes on both sides of Military Road. Staff Response: This condition has been met. In 1994 and 1996, the applicants requested modifications to requirements along Military Road South. Specifically, the requests were to reduce the width of sidewalk along the west side of Military Road; eliminate the landscape median within the left-hand turning lane; eliminate the bicycle path, curb, gutter, six -foot -wide landscape strip and eight -foot -wide sidewalk along the east side of Military Road; and widen the easterly side of Military Road an additional five feet to create a shoulder. Pursuant to Resolution 92-122 (resolution granting preliminary plat approval), minor modifications may be granted subject to Process I procedures. After issuing public notification and considering all information related to the request, the city Public Works Department issued a decision on May 24, 1996. The city granted modifications related to improvements along the east side of Military Road only. As such, Military Road was constructed to include three lanes of travel, a bike path, vertical curb, gutter, and concrete sidewalk on the west side only, and asphalt wedge curb and eight -foot -wide asphalt shoulder along the east side (to provide for pedestrian and bicycle circulation). IV SEPA CONDITIONS 1. All development activities shall be designed and constructed in accordance with recommendations and conclusions contained in the June 19, 1990, "Report of Geotechnical Investigation," (prepared by Geotechnical Services for the proposed development), as required by the Public Works Director and Building Official. Supplemental geotechnical analysis and recommendations may be required by the Public Works Director or Building Official for development activities located within sensitive areas. Staff Response: This condition has been met. The subdivision improvements were developed in accordance with geotechnical recommendations. The Public Works Department approved engineered plans for construction of the subdivision improvements. Staff Report Page -9- Heritage Woods/SUB98-0003 2. The Public Works Director may require that trees, shrubs, and groundcover be retained within clearing, grading, and construction limits (except where necessary for installation of approved improvements), or may require replacement of vegetation in disturbed areas until future home construction occurs. Staff Response: This condition has been met. A clearing limits plan and erosion control plan were designed by a licensed engineer and approved by the Public Works Department, and implemented during construction. 3. Lot 59 shall be reconfigured to be located outside of the 100 -foot setback of adjacent wetland areas, or an easement shall be recorded against the lot to preclude homeowner use and development of all lot area located within the required 100 foot setback, prior to recording of the final plat. Staff Response: This condition was met with recording of Division 1. 4. A final wetland mitigation plan shall be approved by the Director of Community Development Services prior to beginning any on-site construction work associated with the subdivision. The plan shall include the following information: a. Mitigation plan including the following elements: 1) Environmental goals and objectives, including public access and buffer measures. 2) Performance standards. 3) Detailed construction plans. 4) Timing. 5) Monitoring program for a minimum of five years. 6) Contingency plan. 7) Performance bonding in an amount of 120 percent of the costs of implementing each of the above elements. b. Mitigation shall be designed to improve the functions and values of impacted wetland and setback areas, and shall include the following minimum replacement ratios for each acre impacted: 1) For forested wetlands with at least 20 percent of the surface area covered by woody vegetation greater than 20 feet in height, the replacement ratio shall be a minimum of 3:1. 2) For scrub -shrub wetlands with at least 30 percent of its surface covered by woody vegetation less than 20 feet in height as the uppermost strata, the replacement ratio shall be 2:1. 3) For emergent wetlands with at least 30 percent of the surface area covered by erect, rooted, herbaceous vegetation as the uppermost vegetative strata, the replacement ratio shall be 1.5:1. Staff Report Page -10- Heritage Woods/SUB98-0003 4) The replacement ratio for all other wetlands shall be 1.25:1. Staff Response: This condition been met. See additional staff comments under sub items 4(c) and 4(d), below. A wetland mitigation, creation, and enhancement plan was approved by the city prior to issuance of final construction plans for the subdivision improvements. c. All required wetland mitigation improvements, except monitoring, shall be completed and accepted by the Director of Community Development Services prior to submitting the final plat for final approval. In any event, all mitigation work shall be completed within six months from the time wetland or wetland setback areas are initially disturbed through related subdivision construction activity. Staff Response: This condition has been met by installing wetland mitigation improvements and financially guaranteeing the remaining wetland mitigation. The original wetland creation plan for the Heritage Woods Preliminary Plat was required to construct approximately 34,000 square feet of wetland area. On October 28, 1998, Schneider Homes submitted a wetland monitoring report which identified approximately 11,600 square feet of the wetland creation area failed to develop wetland conditions. In response to the failure in the wetland creation area, Schneider Homes has prepared a Supplemental Wetland Creation Plan for Heritage Woods, revised January 22, 1999, by Kucinski Consulting Services. Schneider Homes has provided a financial guarantee for the amount of $32,000, to assure implementation of the Supplemental Wetland Creation Plan. The supplemental plan must be implemented by March 31, 1999, or as allowed by the Director of Community Development Services, based on weather conditions. d. The applicant shall pay for services of a qualified professional selected and retained by the city to review the wetland mitigation plan and other relevant information, conduct periodic inspections through the construction phase, issue a written report to the Director of Community Development Services stating the project complies with requirements of the mitigation plan, and conduct and report to the director on the status of the monitoring program. Staff Response: To date, this condition has been met. The applicant has paid for the services of the city's consulting wetland biologist to this date. Schneider Homes has also paid for the city's review of two additional two years of wetland monitoring as described in item 4(c) above. Prior to final plat approval, the applicant shall construct downstream drainage improvements identified in the December 20, 1991, "Preliminary Drainage Analysis" (prepared by Jaeger Engineering for the site), as required by the Public Works Staff Report Page -11- Heritage Woods/SUB98-0003 Director. In lieu of constructing these improvements, prior to final plat approval and at the discretion of the Public Works Director, the applicant may pay $60,696.00 as their pro -rata contribution towards implementation of these improvements. Staff Response: This condition was met with recording of Division 1. 6. All homes located within this subdivision shall be properly sound insulated to achieve a level of 45 Ldn within general habitable space and 40 Ldn within bedrooms, consistent with the Uniform Building Code and other regulations, as required by the Building Official. Staff Response: This condition will be implemented during permitting and construction of homes. The condition has been met by note #20 on sheet 8 on the final plat. 7. Any development within designated open space areas shall be designed and constructed, as required by the Director of Community Development Services, to protect and enhance wildlife habitat to the maximum extent feasible. This effort may include, but is not limited to, revegetation and restoration of disturbed areas, retention and/or replacement of significant vegetation, and use of vegetation or other features which provide habitat for native wildlife species. Staff Response: This condition has been met. Landscaping of the Military Road frontage has been completed, and the remaining landscaping behind lots 60 - 66 is financially guaranteed for completion by June 1, 1999, as discussed in item 6A above. 8. Beyond required frontage improvements, the applicant shall construct Military Road South widened to four lanes with provisions for bicycles, sidewalks, signal modifications, illumination, street trees, and property acquisition from I-5 to South 288th Street, as required by the Public Works Director, prior to final plat approval. In lieu of constructing these improvements, prior to final plat approval and at the discretion of the Public Works Director, the applicant may pay $11,600 as their pro - rata contribution towards implementation of these improvements. Staff Response: This condition has been met. The developer was allowed to pay a pro -rata contribution in lieu of constructing street improvements beyond the frontage _ of the site. The amount paid for Division 1 was $4,756.00 which is 41 percent of the $11,600. The amount paid for Division 2 was $6,844.00 9. Prior to final plat approval, Military Road South shall be paved from the north and south termini of the required right-of-way improvements abutting the site with tapers to match into the existing pavement improvements. The tapers shall be provided as approved by the Public Works Director. Staff Report Page -12- Heritage Woods/SUB98-0003 Staff Response: This condition has been met. The Required Military Road improvements associated with Division 2 have been installed. 10. Prior to final plat approval, a north bound left turn lane on Military Road South at the intersection with South Star Lake Road shall be designed and constructed, as required by the Public Works Director. Staff Response: This condition has been met. A north bound left turn lane at the intersection of Military Road South and Star Lake Road has been designed and constructed to the approval of the Federal Way Public Works Department. 11. Prior to final plat approval, the applicant shall coordinate with Federal Way and King County the modification of the signals at South 288th Street and South 272nd Street, respectively, through adjustments in timing and phasing to mitigate the LOS F operations of the intersections, as required by the Public Works Director. Staff Response: This condition has been met. In conjunction with Division 1 and 2, the need for coordination has been met by installing conduit along the site's frontage on Military Road South to provide for future signal interconnect between South 288th Street and South 272nd Street. Current LOS analysis of the intersection of South 288th Sheet and Military Road is LOS D, not F, therefore modifications of the signal timing or phasing are not required as directed by the Public Works Director. The intersection of South 272nd and Military Road is under the jurisdiction of King County. King County has indicated that the 1992 proposed signal modifications are not desired by the county and requested the condition be waived by the Public Works Director. 12. Prior to final plat approval, the applicant shall design and construct a traffic island and signage at the intersection of South 284th Street/Military Road South to route westbound traffic from South 284th Street right only onto Military Road South, as required by the Public Works Director. Staff Response: This condition has been met. The traffic island and signage has been installed at South 284th Street and Military Road South. 13. Prior to final plat approval, the applicant shall prepare and submit for approval and recording a Transportation Management Plan (TMP) that is acceptable to METRO and the City of Federal Way Public Works Director. Staff Response: This condition has been met. The widening of Military Road South serves, in part, as mitigation for the anticipated traffic increase from the plat. The site is served by METRO along Military Road South. The applicant constructed a concrete Staff Report Page -13- Heritage Woods/SUB98-0003 pad along Military Road to serve as a bus stop waiting area and for the possible location of a future bus shelter. A TMP was provided to METRO and Federal Way during the review and approval of Division 1. 14. A minimum ten -foot -wide paved or concrete pedestrian path shall be constructed from 23rd Court South to 22nd Avenue South, prior to final plat approval, as required by the Public Works Director. The entire path shall be provided for general public use by means of dedication, easement, or other acceptable mechanism. Staff Response: This condition was completed with Division 1. V DECISIONAL CRITERIA Pursuant to Section 20-136 of the Federal Way City Code, if the City Council finds that the following criteria have been met, the City Council may approve the final plat for recording: 1. The final plat is in substantial conformance to the preliminary plat. Staff Response: This criterion has been met, as the conditions of preliminary plat and SEPA mitigation have been met or financially guaranteed. 2. The final plat is in conformity with applicable zoning ordinances or other land use controls. Staff Response: This criterion has been met and/or financially guaranteed, subject to the approval of the ordinance rezoning a portion of the site from RS 9.6 to RS 7.2. The plat meets the zoning standards for the RS 7.2 zoning district. 3. That all conditions of the hearing examiner and/or city council have been satisfied. Staff Response: This criterion has been met as noted in the staff comments above. 4. That the public use and interest shall be served by the establishment of the subdivision and dedication by determining if appropriate provisions are made for, but not limited to, the public health, safety, general welfare, open space, drainage ways, streets and roads, alleys, other public ways, transit stops, potable water supplies, sanitary wastes, parks and recreation, playgrounds, schools and school grounds and shall consider all other relevant facts, including sidewalks and other planning features that assure safe walking conditions for students who only walk to and from school. Staff Response: This criterion has been met. The final plat and rezone are consistent with applicable zoning and subdivision regulations, and ensures the public health Staff Report Page -14- Heritage Woods/SUB98-0003 safety, and welfare is protected. The plat infrastructure has been installed and adequately bonded as discussed above. That all required improvements have been made and maintenance bonds or other security for such improvements have been submitted and accepted. Staff Response: This criterion has been met. All road and storm drainage improvements for Division 2 have been constructed or financially guaranteed. In addition, all water and sewer lines for Division 2 have been installed and approved by Lakehaven Utility District. Adequate bonding is in place with the city and Lakehaven. 6. That all taxes and assessments owing on the property being subdivided have been paid. Staff Response: Prior to being recorded, the plat is reviewed by the King County Department of Assessments to ensure that all taxes and assessments have been paid. VI CONCLUSION Based on site visits, review of the final plat maps, construction drawings, and the project file, staff has determined that the application for final plat approval for Heritage Woods Division 2 meets all platting requirements of RCW 58.17.110 and Section 20-136 of the Federal Way City Code. Landscaping and wetland mitigation financial guarantees have been provided to assure completion of plat conditions. The project has been developed in conformance with FWCC Section 22-298 regarding project related rezones, and Resolution 92-122 regarding the intent to rezone a portion of the site. A recommendation of final plat approval and zoning reclassification is therefore being forwarded to the City Council for your approval. VII EXHIBITS Exhibit A Vicinity Map for Heritage Woods Exhibit B 8`/2 x 11 Reduced Copy of Final Plat Map of Heritage Woods Division 2 Exhibit C 8'/2 x 11 Reduced Copy of Approved Preliminary Plat of Heritage Woods Exhibit D Resolution 92-122 — October 20, 1992, City of Federal Way Preliminary Plat _ Approval of Heritage Woods. Exhibit E Final Plat Resolution of the City of Federal Way, Washington, Approving the Final Plat of Heritage Woods Division 2. Exhibit F Rezone Ordinance Reclassifying Zoning for a Portion of Heritage Woods Division 2 from RS 9.6 to RS 7.2. Exhibit G Letter from Kenneth Peckham, Schneider Homes, to Phil Watkins, January 18, 1999. L:\PRMSYS\D0CUMENT\SUB98 00.03\LUTCRPT.DOC Staff Report Page -15- Heritage Woods/SUB98-0003 i 1 :t Acd RR �J 'Art)_ 1 nor 1 term n iC s rnrM f 34 R�A S• PARK IAMQAAtiN� s (still 2 2b4Tm TIfL f ]ft TM K 7 fim ' N! VIS IN tT'*-f mAv, WOOpS EXHIBIT -A' PAGE- 1_OF �_ HERITAGE WOODS DIVISION 2 VO I- IF-- Portions of the N.E. 1/4, S.W. 1/4 and S.E.1/4, Sec. 33, Twp. 22 N., Rge. 4 E., W.M. City of Federal Way, King County, Washington A replat of Tracts 'G', 'H', and 'J', Herdage Woods Division 1 LEGAL DESCRIPTION APPROVALS TRACTS G. H & J, HERITAGE WOODS DIVISION 1, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES VOLUME 179 OF PLATS, PAGES 76 THROUGH 83, INCLUSIVE, IN KING COUNTY. WASHINGTON. EXAMINED AND APPROVED THIS ____ DAY OF 19_ DEDICATION DIRECTOR, CITY OF FEDERAL WAY KNOW ALL PEOPLE BY THESE PRESENTS THAT WE, THE UNDERSIGNED OWNERS OF INTEREST IN THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS LAND HEREBY SUBDIVIDED, HEREBY DECLARE THIS PLAT TO BE THE GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION OF THE SUBDIVISION MADE HEREBY, AND 00 HEREBY DEDICATE TO THE USE OF THE PUBLIC FOREVER ALL EXAMINED AND APPROVED THIS __- DAY OF , 19_. STREETS AND AVENUES NOT SHOWN AS PRIVATE HEREON AND DEDICATE THE USE THEREOF FOR ALL PUBLIC PURPOSES NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THE USE THEREOF FOR PUBLIC HIGHWAY PURPOSES, AND DIRECTOR. CITY OF FEDERAL WAY ALSO THE RIGHT TO MAKE ALL NECESSARY SLOPES FOR CUTS AND FILLS UPON THE LOTS SHOWN HEREON W THE ORIGINAL REASONABLE GRADING OF SAID STREETS AND AVENUES, AND FURTHER FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL DEDICATE TO THE USE OF THE PUBLIC ALL THE EASEMENTS AND TRACTS SHOWN ON THIS PLAT FOR ALL PUBLIC PURPOSES AS INDICATED HEREON. INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO PARKS, OPEN SPACE, EXAMINED AND APPROVED THIS _ DAY OF _ _ , 19_. UTILITIES AND DRAINAGE UNLESS SUCH EASEMENTS OR TRACTS ARE SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFIED ON THIS PLAT AS BEING DEDICATED OR CONVEYED TO A PERSON OR ENTITY OTHER THAN THE PUBLIC, IN - WHICH CASE WE DO HEREBY DEDICATE SUCH STREETS, EASEMENTS, OR TRACTS TO THE PERSON OR MAYOR, CITY OF FEDERAL WAY ENTITY IDENTIFIED AND FOR THE PURPOSE STATED. KING COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF ASSESSMENTS FURTHER. THE UNDERSIGNED OWNERS OF THE LAND HEREBY SUBDIVIDED. WAIVE FOR THEMSELVES, EXAMINED AND APPROVED THIS __ DAY OF _ _ , 19_ THEIR HEIRS AND ASSIGNS AND ANY PERSON OR ENTITY DERIVING TITLE FROM THE UNDERSIGNED, ANY AND ALL CLAIMS FOR INJURY OR DAMAGES AGAINST THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY. ITS SUCCESSORS AND - ASSIGNS, WHICH ARE BASED UPON THE DESIGN, ESTABLISHMENT, CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION, OR KING COUNTY ASSESSOR DEPUTY KING COUNTY ASSESSOR MAINTENANCE OF ROADS ANO/OR DRAINAGE SYSTEMS WITHIN THIS SUBDIVISION, OR UPON IMPROPER ACCOUNT NUMBER DESIGN. ESTABLISHMENT OR FAILURE TO OPERATE OR MAINTAIN ROADS AND/OR DRAINAGE SYSTEMS WITHIN THIS SUBDIVISION. FNWrCE DMSION CER'T>FICATE FURTHER, THE UNDERSIGNED OWNERS OF THE LAND HEREBY SUBDIVIDED, AGREE FOR THEMSELVES. I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT ALL PROPERTY TAXES ARE PAID, THAT THERE ARE NO DELINQUENT SPECIAL THEIR HEIRS AND ASSIGNS TO INDEMNIFY AND HOLD THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, ITS SUCCESSORS AND ASSESSMENTS CERTIFIED TO THIS OFFICE FOR COLLECTION AND THAT ALL SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS ASSIGNS, HARMLESS FROM ANY INJURY OR DAMAGE, INCLUDING ANY COSTS OF DEFENSE, CLAIMED BY CERTIFIED TO THIS OFFICE FOR COLLECTION ON ANY OF THE PROPERTY HEREIN CONTAINED, DEDICATED PERSONS WITHIN OR WITHOUT THIS SUBDIVISION TO HAVE BEEN CAUSED BY. (1) ALTERATIONS OF THE AS STREETS, ALLEYS OR FOR OTHER PUBLIC USE ARE PAID IN FULL. GROUND SURFACE. VEGETATION. DRAINAGE, OR SURFACE OR SUB-SURFACE WATER FLOWS WITHIN THIS SUBDIVISION; OR (2) BY DESIGN, ESTABLISHMENT, OPERATION, CONSTRUCTION, OR MAINTENANCE OF THIS _ DAY OF __ _ , 19— THE ROADS AND/OR DRAINAGE SYSTEMS WITHIN THIS SUBDIVISION; OR (3) BY IMPROPER DESIGN, FINANCE DIVISION ESTABLISHMENT, OR CONSTRUCTION, OR FAILURE TO OPERATE OR MAINTAIN THE ROADS AND/OR DRAINAGE SYSTEMS WITHIN THIS SUBDIVISION. _ MANAGER, FINANCE DIVISION DEPUTY THIS SUBDIVISION, DEDICATION, WAIVER OF CLAIMS AND AGREEMENT TO HOLD HARMLESS IS MADE WITH THE FREE CONSENT AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DESIRES OF SAID OWNERS. SURVEYOR'S CERTMATE _ I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAT OF HERITAGE WOODS DIVISION 2 IS BASED UPON AN ACTUAL BY: GERALD E. SCHNEIDER, PRES. KEYBANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, I SURVEY AND SUBDIVISION IN SECTION 33, TOWNSHIP 22 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M., THAT THE � HNEIOER HOMES, INC. A NATIONAL BANK COURSES AND DISTANCES ARE SHOWN CORRECTLY HEREON. THAT THE MONUMENTS WILL BE SET BY, AND THE LOT AND BLOCK CORNERS WILL BE STAKED CORRECTLY ON THE GROUND AS CONSTRUCTION AS LENDER ONLY IS COMPLETED AND THAT I HAVE FULLY COMPLIED WITH THE PROMSIONS OF 714E PLATTING REGULATIONS. A �• STATE OF WASHINGTON JAMES M. BROWN, P.L.S., CERTIFICATE No. 34134 o a�N y DALEY-MORROW-POBLETE, INC. )SS 1215 CENTRAL AVENUE SOUTH. SUITE 133 COUNTY OF ) '^ KENT, WA. 98032 GERALD SCHNEIDER E(253) 854-9344 ISCERTIFY THAT I THE PERSON WHOAW OR HAVE PARED BEFOREEACTORY ME. ANDESAIDNCE PERSONTACKNOWLEDGED THAT (HE/SHE) g34134 F SIGNED THIS INSTRUMENT, ON OATH STATED THAT ((HE/SHE) WAS AUTHORIZED TO EXECUTE THE �4l LAIN INSTRUMENT AND ACKNOWLEDGED IT AS THE —P ESI EN OF _SCHNEIDER HOMES. INC, _ ou+cx I= lnoo TO BE THE FREE AND VOLUNTARY ACT OF SUCH PARTIES FOR THE USES AND PURPOSES MENTIONED IN THE INSTRUMENT. DATED_— EAS A MT RE96iVA1IONS SIGNATURE OF AN EASEMENT IS HEREBY RESERVED FOR AND GRANTED TO PUGET SOUND ENERGY, U.S. WEST NOTARY PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY, ANY CABLE TELEVISION COMPANY AND THEIR RESPECTIVE SUCCESSORS MY APPOINTMENT EXPIRES AND ASSIGNS, OVER, UNDER AND UPON THE EXTERIOR TEN FEET PARALLEL WITH AND ADJOINING THE THE STREET FRONTAGE OF ALL LOTS IN WHICH TO INSTALL,LAY, CONSTRUCT, RENEW, OPERATE AND MAINTAIN UNDERGROUND PIPE. CONDUIT. CABLES AND WIRES WITH NECESSARY FACILITIES AND OTHER EOUIPMENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF SERVING THIS SUBDIVISIONAND OTHER PROPERTY WITH ELECTRIC, TELEPHONE AND OTHER UTILITY SERVICE TOGETHER WITH THERIGHT TO ENTER UPON THE LOTS AT ALL TIMES FOR THE PURPOSES HEREIN STATED. THESE EASEMENTS ENTERED UPON FOR THESE PURPOSES SHALL BE RESTORED AS NEAR AS POSSIBLE TO THEIR ORIGINAL CONDITION BY THE UTILITY. STATE OF WASHINGTON ) NO LINES OR WIRES FOR THE TRANSMISSION OF ELECTRIC CURRENT OR FOR TELEPHONE USE OR CABLE 55 TELEVISION SHALL BE PLACED OR PERMITTEDTO BE PLACED UPON ANY LOT UNLESS THE SAME SHALL COUNTY OF ) BE UNDERGROUND OR IN A CONDUIT ATTACHED TO A BUILDING. I CERTIFY THAT I KNOW OR HAVE SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE THAT IS THE PERSON WHO APPEARED BEFORE ME. AND SAID PERSON ACKNOWLEDGED THAT (HE/SHE) SIGNED THIS INSTRUMENT, ON OATH STATED THAT (HE/SHE) WAS AUTHORIZED TO EXECUTE THE FE-CORDING CERTIFICATE INSTRUMENT AND ACKNOWLEDGED IT AS THE OF FILED FOR RECORD AT THE REOUEST OF THE FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL THIS DAY OF TO BE THE FREE AND VOLUNTARY ACT OF SUCH PARTIES FOR THE USES AND PURPOSES MENTIONED 19_ , AT MINUTES PAST _—M. AND RECORDED IN THE INSTRUMENT. DATED_IN VOLUME OF PLATS. PAGES _ RECORDS OF KING COUNTY. WASHINGTON. _ _ SIGNATURE OF DIVISION OF RECORDS AND ELECTIONS NOTARY PUBLIC MY APPOINTMENT EXPIRES MANAGER SUPERINTENDENT OF RECORDS COMMUNITY D VEELOPMENNTBDEPART" DRANAGE RESTRICTIONS SEE NOTES ON SHEET 8 OF 8 STRUCTURES, FILL, OBSTRUCTIONS, OR IMPROVEMENTS OF ANY KIND (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO JAN 2 6 1999 DECKS, PATIOS, OUTBUILDINGS, SHEDS, OR OVERHANGS) SHALL NOT BE PERMITTED BEYOND THE BUILDING SETBACK UNE OR WITHIN THE DRAINAGE EASEMENTS. ADDITIONALLY, GRADING SHALL NOT 'LOWED WITHIN THE DRAINAGE EASEMENTS AS SHOWN ON THIS PUT UNLESS OTHERWISE APPROVED CBLETE, NC. TING BY THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT. E 01rIM WASHINGTON 98032 PORTTON OF S.W. X S.E. 1/4, 53)854-9 44 (F 8683 RESTRICTIONS SEC. 33, T-22N. R-4E, W.Y. p NO LOT OR A PORTION OF A LOT IN THIS PLAT SHALL BE DIVIDED AND SOLD OR RESOLD OR OWNER- 1warT' SHIP CHANGED OR TRANSFERRED WHEREBY THAT OWNERSHIP OF ANY PORTION OF THIS PLAT SHALL BE LESS THAN THE AREA REOUIRED FOR THE USE DISTRICT IN WHICH IT IS LOCATED. Q D EN0 WEFVW - YNO SUB 91-0001 +SUB 98-0003 SHEET 1 of 8 "" "" YT215 HERITAGE WOODS DMSM 2 Portions of the N.E. 1/4, S.W. 1/4 and S.E.1/4, Sec. 33, Twp. 22 N., Rge. 4 E., W.M. City of Federal Way, King County, Washington A replat of Tracts 'G', 'H', and 'J', Heritage Woods Division 1 TRACT C TRACT F 43 �Z� 44 C t/• ,f as SFC 33'22-4 O` 42 �" 7900 SF PER RAT SCARBOROUGH DIV. 2 NERITACE WOODS �•W OF '4,�yi �cA VO4 132/47-44 DMSION 1 '! T� 711.74 '�. TRACT 41 al 11312 SFS S4 55 58 57 58 59 44• 36 TRACT B Nm�3 n w T�IIOOAO mpt 411.26' 35 — 37 40 15 29 30 31 ae7� 2o2ooso�4.r46.^'- 64 1 SD - 33 4 38 L�2o.D0 Ad136D6' i 14 32 8 99 ,'-k-T LA16J� I 28 t Ne8 _27w g R Ne833. 7•w 63 i p0 126.63• a 2,M 9L127.00' R�7�.lF r u 13 20 R %,i I a LX OO R -2W 62 27 , 21 r 7 L COW 917777 9 n ; TRACT J 12 28 ^/. 2219 li 8 �.� x8070 8 DIV. 1 6 L-4"Ir ,E/hy 23 W�� oo o. HERITAGE % `'""� 60 W r 11 25 • VOL 179/ 7 88 5 790.7 SF � 24 17 18 9 hVW43W 2 7127 71q i 7264 SF 32 7201 SF 18 f i� 4 i 45 ►IOOOT .0 O 1D �22aj50" 56.60 5 ID 'f•r o I E-40.56 z� „s q WS 9 I I7SF 7205 Sr 15 r �_16 11 3 3' ` I I 5 12 2 SLa _ III, 7I 7203 SF I 7205 SF 14 13 13; - p� 5 13 p.Mar u L47.N •� I 28 I L-3770' 7105 SF TRACT A �ar I I27 I 7 L-O&W TRACT E UNE• SE 1/4, SEC 33 T 22-N. R4 -E, W.M. TRACT D / / rM 4r / Dow / 4 1 72M SF pp 2 B4 I I p &-072446' �`y� W •_ 56 E 10.449 SF / 4 1 7205 SF I p L�-.aa0 �` 55 nsSM SF � 2 Awotu'36' 3 ZS wATfA EAY11017 �. 54 e770 SF 72 90 SF 1 172 5 s 91EEN1' e OF_ I79" SF ata SF / / -( ^ / 1 IIDAO• / \ 7465 SF 3 /b 869SF 45 YYY I 35 ���'�~ \ / �j/'.t� 4 713638 SF 7201 5< 52 //,yyy`tj• aws sF IJ cd;71323 790o SF 7209SF 7695: /' '' v 5 j 6519 sF 6413 v Fx. VATS ORAN1. EASEMENT 57 7265 �. 7316 $F 654 I (sEE Kol rb. n. T e a e 7651 SF 37 1" 73a SF r 5 C SF try i .1so . SF \ 7x TRACT G n�SF c 0615 q / 4 • 7 / •: O / 699 72399 SF 6797 SF 4 726SF / 653 i 852SF ne9 40 .p 7229 SFt • I 89 % $ 20 7x6 v na s< , GRAPHIC SCALE < 6931 u •� 9 •-I �I, � tE�..^� � \10.706 SF / lao 0 50 lao 200 38 I ,/ II sE6 "° \ 8501 SF 4r f4TH - * A \--7 N WIDE PERMANENT IANDSCAK DIFFER ( IN n=) 15 M (SEE NOTE N. IA, WEI e OF e) 1 Io6E - 100 R SWI SF tl 10 al / 10,WI u 13.348 SF j2 1OfAN 35 14 e1% u --- PER --- 94EET 8 HERBAGE Ow OOS ON. 1 OF 12,a33 SF 6%flu 9%9 SF 9136 SF 6197 8 (SEE SHEET a OF D) 4• VOL n9/78-63 L-- ---— — — -- — $ / SLEDNIBMOR — 19 18 DeA / a r w: wn SECTION 33, T -22K R -4E, WJA 365 20 I © p• DALEY•-MOFiiOW-POBLEZE, IVC. 0 "m arw PACIFIC 7EUU40C A TEIFCRAPH COMPANY 1215 CENTRAL AVENUE SOUTH. SUITE 133 NORTH ND' 3 07W PECORONC N•A 1657062 A 1901119 < KENT. WASHINGTON 98032 X6115 83 LAURELWOO Des/6G I N ff 3. t _ s•FioN/I 1 STEaE Sao' Q Bif'1Q I IQ SUB 91-0001 -t- SUB 98-0003 SHEET 2 OF s ITS 2000 pL y�� 97215 26 3W 99 HERITAGE WOODS DIVISION 2'"° Portions of the N.E. 1/4, S.W. 1/4 and S.E. 1/4, Sec. 33, Twp. 22 N., Rge. 4 E., W.M. City of Federal Way, King County, Washington A replat of Tracts 'G', 'H', and 'J', Heritage Woods Division 1 ( 0-8506'49' TRACT D 0-0610'54' R-25.00' TRACT A R-35000' L-37.14' WOODS DIV . t L=37.76' A-028'48' / HERITAGE R-718.39 VOL. 179/76-63 N64'44 '46'E L-106.32' 50.00' 1�$ N%B •� � / V 17 R=300.00 Np j -- LANDSCAPE AND ENTRY SON EASEMENT ry tg3• 5, 6 s1• 1 f�� L=53.00' o r W 3 N N3622'32'E 56 �� 62.00' C, o .4i SO . O bb h N 4• / 55 o / ?8�L �� V R-°3so oo' w 110�2'M42'35' i p 2 Nh M % ?S L-55.66' 4 R I y0 R-25.00' ''44e0.= y$. / -44.82'e=205370 s2R2.0250e=08.4121=123?o' R125.00L=45.00' a=09'2595" ENCONS7RU�CO. / '� - L=18.96' R=125.00' AS TED b =01.0037` JB, / ,\ O� L=20.55• JL`f• 1 5/99 y0' R-350.00' 7J OS, 49 2144' �, =7h 59 g ,y`Y L=6.17' 3QB w 1 ` 502 0.00 L>10. L>10 ..6j. of- �s.o 06 y �^O 3 `50• / OO 40 �N N t4 e=90'00'00" R 2 R=75.00'44 S\J,• 9g.=39.27' . CT by 7550 �B. /,yp S, Z L=77.70JB 1B w tib D• k' 1J6,�. o 4 / 46 •, by 8 tis / Z� 47 (>' „Y'Y `ZJ �B• / S 20' NDE PERMANENT LANDSCAPE BUFFER w £ o e=9oroo'oo QO• k / (SEE NOTE N. 14, SHEET 8 OF 8) o gry1 R=25.00• Nv ry by / L=39.27' �Y N56'31'59'E 2 ti ti •j ��pp f 5.07 �s ��Q 45 ry0 2!yn" 6d' NS*3j• 5 /pA, �� 0,�. QQ 48 56 9 tJ�• G e=06'29'14' %1. /�3' 00 �/L` 6°'/ 2B. B 9R=475 00• S • L=53.78' 25 o° 6 a 96 be �. (�4 S• ,�cQ' NSI. / �` 5 SOS 9. R e=0'12'25" g b R=525.0 00 Zhh R=1 .00 475' ��a L=38.98'' L=.QO. Av j h• ti �/ 43 99 � 84.62' � b HYDRANTN 7 ry� GRAPHIC SCALE 14 EASEM T =06.'42 SQ $� R=475 '3 SEE DETAIL A R=57 22' / ,f. // So 25 So Iso A-0"5'33- SHEET 8 OF 6 42 a L=74.00' / 11-325.00 T i oe )n. L-45.46' ~ t h e=118.41'26' b�. R=25.00' L-38.70' .10 y. / � 9 / 9ECTM 33 , T M R -4E• WM N i p OO k" \ HERITAGE MOODS DN. VOL 179/76-83 u= a:80'4848" �1 Y�,QQ S� / R=35.2625 • 9s Bio?� ! �(�, ( 5 i3 / FO'� Z R:25.00 ' e-04'4144' 0 O / , .,, / e=90'48'33"/ O STANDARD KING COUNTY MONUMENT O Q ,(��' J IN CASE. FOUND. TYPICAL L=43.03'0 \ O. Q9lT'7 L-39.62% STANDARD KING COUNTY MONUMENT IN CASE. SET. TYPICALB ER P-9/TYPICAL LADSCAPE k ENTRY 2U SIGN EASEMENT 11 ��• f 10 O(R) PAD- -P ROCKERY EASEMENT SQ 'y5 . . _ (P) PUT OF HERITAGE MOODS DMSION 1 (SEE DETAIL RICHT) ��� 69 �• PER PLAT OF (C) CALCULATED -- - - - - �Q B' HERITAGE WOODS DN. 1 129.89' ye -75 '44'35" VOL. 179/76-83 N8878'51'W 258.74' R=2500' 3.0 � q r 15' NAn%f GROWTH �>•sv� (SEE SHEET 6 OF 6) PROTECTION EASEMENT 20* LANDSCAPE EASEMENT 00 N49'E p, CO. (SEE NOTE Na 1Q 7.67' SHEET 6 OF 8) 7.67' -21S'28'W 30.95' re. sr xoT vNu a754475' N2017'19'IN R-2100' o.es' / 30.28• �� L-33.os �� 1A' SN T DAL EY-�AOT,ALFiF10W so-POBLETE' NJC 3 / N48KENT p pp 'w ' /'� Iq4' 98032 PHONE: (251)854-9144N(FAX 854-6663 N52'07' 34 N8818'51,11 23.14' 0.65' 3 .^ q 91194 C a� NOt'41'O9"E '18.51'00 •PUip FF/SiEaE' SJ! Q INZE mm SUB 91-0001 + SUB 98-0003 15 2SHEET S.1 3 OF 8 DTYil:411 �.M2p0 -� Irw 97215 26 HERITAGE WOODS DMION 2 VOLI° Portions of the N.E.1/4, S.W. 1/4 and S.E.1/4, Sec. 33, Twp. 22 N., Rge. 4 E., W.M. City of Federal Way, King County, Washington A replat of Tracts 'G'; 'H', and 'J', Heritage Woods Divislon 1 y�rOODS DIV. 1 TRACT A HERITAGE VOL. 179/76_83 , N8936'02'W *w 12Q, 69.23' �1d9' 62,9 �N N j N35'22'E 56 < s SOr ?e A-5724'46' i N 55 m £ r57 R-50.00' 3 i 54 p L '° S.N._ A=2037'34` A=20'37.34' 58 .� ONS £ A-08'41'7,1` R-125.-9 R-125.00' R=125.00 L=45.00 • '� FOR,gET 3 OF 8 1=45.00' p-121C 15- " 5EE S1KET } 9 /SEE NOTE No. BL'�T V . HYDRANT L=18.96' R-125.00' 2 SHEET a LS of a=64.0413' SEEASEMENT9 A50� L-20.55• =so.o'0 SHEET a of e ��' Ja, 559_ � 2 1N L-55.91' L: p "� S• W ¢27•� A-90,00,00,0' A-5971'4 R=39275.0R-75.00' L.' LR77' L=77.70'35 k A=403849 4J_SC' S• _ / Q` C, 52 R-550.00: R=112.50, L 1-76.46 0, o, 46 Z P SOH 6800 y > f ;� 9• ry 'o". A� . E N 47 a A=9000'00 5 +' N q 44 A=34'22'44 06 a •"" " R=25.00' h. 36 ON o N6A �1 R=50.00• I 3° n. "�O� L-39.27' O" -1 L=J0.00' lC°iD i f P'�,,o•�. p�yOO o1?6. U 8'4410'93 00d�-'''£• �k �N,56'3I'S9E 10'13'22R=548 507• SJ45 7.59' L=1631' =35133 839' 51 L=30? O�B, +y'`6�6 9S• 2790A '4' ry�70S'h . 27"!L�1Y/00'•$5 647 L=5LL.p }�Nf 2" ary� oo g? �46:iR• W'''zz pJ3N96�'q-i>>y�- , ~`Jm-m'+ ` 4 YO 7J7 1b, OSN74'30'34E A=1072'25` �g'O8.0L 1'0 �SAR-525,00' -525.00' 1017R-475 0 L=38.98, N8853'W 5;15 2 5b.43P L-84T y 146.2 Nj.33E 7 5.9EASEMENT 4'4Y3O SEE BE 242 R08553'3SHEET =572' =475.'0 P L7A-04439 R-525 41 R'1/ � ?o• / 47 L-45.48' X p P R=475.00' A-88'41.26" rat. A-1915.05" o - f L-74.x' R-25.00' \ R=250.00' i I z A-06'33'13' L-38.70' ;r �\ 1=84.00' R=291°0`• R-543-47&030 ,448n9-19� \ 'S° �6\�\ 70• '1' ��•cP c L-8 GO' GRAPHIC SC ALE9 9039 SO• S So tooIq �R=202e>JpL L-zt.as' °a4T3526' IN rm) A-15'42AT1'8" I-09'26'0-�N N�A+-04'41'44'o\eB / OO1 Ince - Bo It R=525.00 O>QR=300.00L-86.49' R=525.00• 0.0 R-25.00 L-82.23' A-09'45'38`A=09341A-09'57.06' y,L=39.62/ MERIDIAN 8=300.00' .' L-.11R=300.00' A=0210'51" PER PUT OF 51' R=300. HERITAGE 1.1L=50.1L-52.11R=300.00'15 1-11.42' "LANDSCAPE�NTRY WOODS D N1 10I79/76-63 � o a N K•" £ NAOYE CROWM PROTECOON EASEMENT u 'O 16 b 14 0 ^ 13 N 12 - 126.00' 129.8' A-75'44'35 SECTM 3�"r 22K R-�. W.M. r_ v,E $ _o N88'18 51'W 258.74' R=zs.00/ ` ' HERITAGE WOODS DIVA PLAT VOL 179/76-93 16.12' z' U, 20' PERMANENT SEWER AND WATER EASEMENT L=}3.0$' �v !p 2 60.00' CREATED By HERITAGE WOODS DIV. I •--- NATVf (itOWTH PROTEZ�110N l EA NOO55'531W 20' LANDSCAPE EASEMENT 77.36 56.69' 70.91'01 66.13' ROCKERY EASEMENT 0.85• O STANDARD KING COUNTY MONUMENT N88'36'23'W 4i1.2T (SEE DETAIL MICW7 W CASE. FOUND. TYPICAL 77 s STANDARD KING COUNTY MONUMENT •Pa ,q IN CASE. SET. TYPICAL O• / A REBAR((M/PLS229e2/SET/TYPMx NATIVE GROWTH PROTECTION EASEMENT = N49'23'24'E �O �* (1/2 ETER X 24' LONG) (SEE NOTE No. 10. SHEET 6 OF 6) 7.67' °O• (R) RADNL I R Y 7• (F)TAX LOT NUMBER N88'18'S1'W N,2,52a 1 4 1 p I] 3D.9s rl 87.03' A-75'"33'N2037'19'W Kr4 R-25.00' 30.2a' r L-33.05' (SEE SHEET a OF e) U N48'W12'W srr Dor jX SUBJECT TO AN EASEMENT TO PAORC 29.00' TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY r AS LOCATED AND STAKED' BY THE N5207'34W M• oa r- o�oW-POBLE, WC. TELEPHONE COMPANY. Nae,B'51"W REG No.s 1857062 k 1901219 23'14 H8818'51-W 0.85• = p1 S//, �• 1215 CENTRAL AVENUE SOL1T14, SUITE TSS KENT, WASHINGTON 96032 25.1 2' 4r PHONEIM N01.41'09'E O 15.x8' : (•� N 84134 p ,>,``• 'Ii FFISICR,. Jp Q SUB 91-0001 f SUB 98-0003 SF EET 4 OF 8 OPs E4 14 TT.:000 97215 26 ,W4 99 HERITAGE WOODS DMSM 2 Portions of the N.E. 1/4, S.W. 1/4 and S.E. 1/4, Sec. 33, Twp. 22 N., Rge. 4 E., W.M. City of Federal Way, King County, Washington A replat of Tracts 'G', 'H', and 'J", Heritage Woods Division 1 WE SHEET 6 OF 6 I t5' 10 110.00' o I I sl N$sr56'n---,w-,II-1 NIIW I 25 �N II 8Aeo WEEMETRp ASNWATER EA SEE ETaSHEE8ON =64'04'13" NATIVE GROWTH PROTECTION SEE 8 oI, 50-00 -p•PS .` EASEMENT (SEE NOTE No. 10 N88'56'1 7"W Npp Sf'�W _ =55.91' SHEET 8 OF 8) UJ k 110.00' ^ {� M iv�4� L Ii N88'S6'17"W I d 0.001 w �12,i p=%0'31.44" _M I 1.25 \ AIR VAC /'(^p- w L- 50-70' - 45 MM�.[ I A-00'20.05" ^ ASSEMBLY 35 Y-`�•7Q• L= .77 "1 EASEMENT '"1 IIIIJJJJ `P LlT Ra 300.00' a SEE OETAL 8 0 p=40'38'49 �38'.Sb 3� L=1.75' R-50.00' R-112.50, C I I 23.75 25' '0 SHEET a 6F 6 z L=76.46 N8916'22'00 R 11 N88'56'17'W R 52 L=35.47' 25' 1 25• 110.00' 0A-10'44.35" i". gA5A(" p=34 -22-44- C; R=30bR000• .' 50 .0'23 L=62L-30. vGI p=1380'4916'3 9•• Oe 4 10'13'22'00 R=50.00 S9'03• ' l E (R) p23'34'14' 7.59' ? p=3519'33 L=16.32' N79' \ R==250.00' R R=50. 2• -98.48' O N L=30. 44 51N p o rn HII1 9p=10/'495�'• 1"a sSHEHYDRANToA N69 5N.0O0p50 ►�Se?J, W27° 9h o o Jwf 459 R EASEMENT 22 =e\aa 37 � GRAPHIC g SCALE 4 N7430.3E m 10.17• 50 0 25 so too 1) R-20 00 L=84.00' ,k1. 00 •TB'yy. 43l Q I6 N69.0 f 95,d+, oke p9 '.•`O. 4G 82 wN8853' "W 4.3p 34 E ( IN PEEL ) Q a a h0 0ivF p-15'42'10 \ 46.2 N753 B2 1 inch = 50 N. O 4466 R=300.00• CEJ`•38 43 r L=82.22• o o z 110'I �r2 n1 \OJ. R=250.00' ao' O 0e O L=84.00• •� :'� p p MERIDIAN ?OO, k p=121'SZ 08 2h 8 O w 41 PER PUT OF 0 0 'w�^1 CO n I ? L-53.00 0 1 o HERITAGE WOODS DIV. 1 20 L=53.18' ry " T o £ VOL. 178/76-e3 '` p=19'15'05' o uii o1y G�• R=250.00' 2 v N)6•17, p=40'06'37" p=31'30'30' 4, L=84.00' p-7 15.04" 17"g, R=50.00' R=50.00' ,O'I /,�` R=2 00• StWxym CIW OF 11 R L=35.00' L=27.50• 2.70• L=a .00' RECTION 33 T-2214 R -4E, WA( 36 I zlo p-121'52'08' N PER PUT OF < R=53.08' \0p TSL 273. 5' u: _ 11ERRAOE woods ay.t VOL 179/76-83 p=40'06'30" I �l019 R=50.00' p=3, 30'30 S-28 4T .PL N '� I =1= L'}5.00' S R=50.00' p=15'42'18" < Rl O• L=27.50' R=300.00' >_I L-82.23' R-09.45'38' A-09'57'06' 0 STANDARD KN10 COUNTY MONUMENT g R=300.00' IN CASE, FOUND, TYPICAL }jf' A=40.06'28" HS R:300.00' R:300.00• I X76 09 p 40'06'26 ,5 _ L=5,.1,' L-50.11 L=52.11' • 14 CASE. KING TYPICAL MONUMENT 10 �7 R=50.00' R=50.00' sib = z ►+ CASE. SET. trPCx L=35.00' L-35.00' 79 9• Q� `> O o 6 REBAyCAP/P1522962CAL R 50.00'23 z •72• k 'O o; (" oIAMETER z 2/4= (� L-35.00' 'm, �, a (R) RADIAL 3 5 i 18 " 14 n (E)TAX LOT NUMBER ah `gym. .'� on 13 �f NI ;� 17 :.4 16 JA�12 te•L___ ^ 16.12•. NATIVE--- - - - - _ _ + (SEE SHEET 6 of B) '"- 92.85'116.98• CROS 67.39' PROTEC554 77.36'---- E'` T 88'36'23'W 56.69• 70.91' N�! 411.27' N8818'51'W 3 4 SUBJECT TO AN TELEGRAPH TO PACING 2 0 1 9 1 8 87.03' *ASLTELEPCAT AND T STAKED' Y THE Y *AS PHONE 140 STAKED' BY THE 1 41 RE'ECCNNo' .: 165°571P7066a 1901219 NATIVE GROWTH PROTECTION EASEMENT (SEE NOTE No. 10 SHEET 8 OF 8) LAURELWOOD NORTH NO. 3 �. SAL R INC. VOL. 83/59 j 1215 CENTRAL AVENUE SOUTH. SUITE 133 ENTi 96032 PHONE: (253)854-9344N(FAX)854-6663 .^�, ♦ 94 p iA' fi fFlSlta� o! V.12E SUB91-000,-4•" SUB 98-0003 SHEET 5 of 8 J.20M----s___�y 28 �•y I '° I TRACT A ISI N8856117"W 110.00• ; I WOODS DIV. 1 4 N Im Kj rI 27 p WATERMETER N Q H HERITAGE 79 76-83 W. UNE SE t/4, VOL' 1 / SEC 33. T 22-N, R4 -E, W.M. p n II I �LDEaT e�� N8I10. 7'00 Ilo.00 N N8936'02'W 69.23' I WI W >° ISI 26 NI s z A-57-2446' R-5000 ' lz�3 1 T g (- N8856'17"W °.°°' - l . . Z L-50.10' �} -10 NIIW I 25 �N II 8Aeo WEEMETRp ASNWATER EA SEE ETaSHEE8ON =64'04'13" NATIVE GROWTH PROTECTION SEE 8 oI, 50-00 -p•PS .` EASEMENT (SEE NOTE No. 10 N88'56'1 7"W Npp Sf'�W _ =55.91' SHEET 8 OF 8) UJ k 110.00' ^ {� M iv�4� L Ii N88'S6'17"W I d 0.001 w �12,i p=%0'31.44" _M I 1.25 \ AIR VAC /'(^p- w L- 50-70' - 45 MM�.[ I A-00'20.05" ^ ASSEMBLY 35 Y-`�•7Q• L= .77 "1 EASEMENT '"1 IIIIJJJJ `P LlT Ra 300.00' a SEE OETAL 8 0 p=40'38'49 �38'.Sb 3� L=1.75' R-50.00' R-112.50, C I I 23.75 25' '0 SHEET a 6F 6 z L=76.46 N8916'22'00 R 11 N88'56'17'W R 52 L=35.47' 25' 1 25• 110.00' 0A-10'44.35" i". gA5A(" p=34 -22-44- C; R=30bR000• .' 50 .0'23 L=62L-30. vGI p=1380'4916'3 9•• Oe 4 10'13'22'00 R=50.00 S9'03• ' l E (R) p23'34'14' 7.59' ? p=3519'33 L=16.32' N79' \ R==250.00' R R=50. 2• -98.48' O N L=30. 44 51N p o rn HII1 9p=10/'495�'• 1"a sSHEHYDRANToA N69 5N.0O0p50 ►�Se?J, W27° 9h o o Jwf 459 R EASEMENT 22 =e\aa 37 � GRAPHIC g SCALE 4 N7430.3E m 10.17• 50 0 25 so too 1) R-20 00 L=84.00' ,k1. 00 •TB'yy. 43l Q I6 N69.0 f 95,d+, oke p9 '.•`O. 4G 82 wN8853' "W 4.3p 34 E ( IN PEEL ) Q a a h0 0ivF p-15'42'10 \ 46.2 N753 B2 1 inch = 50 N. O 4466 R=300.00• CEJ`•38 43 r L=82.22• o o z 110'I �r2 n1 \OJ. R=250.00' ao' O 0e O L=84.00• •� :'� p p MERIDIAN ?OO, k p=121'SZ 08 2h 8 O w 41 PER PUT OF 0 0 'w�^1 CO n I ? L-53.00 0 1 o HERITAGE WOODS DIV. 1 20 L=53.18' ry " T o £ VOL. 178/76-e3 '` p=19'15'05' o uii o1y G�• R=250.00' 2 v N)6•17, p=40'06'37" p=31'30'30' 4, L=84.00' p-7 15.04" 17"g, R=50.00' R=50.00' ,O'I /,�` R=2 00• StWxym CIW OF 11 R L=35.00' L=27.50• 2.70• L=a .00' RECTION 33 T-2214 R -4E, WA( 36 I zlo p-121'52'08' N PER PUT OF < R=53.08' \0p TSL 273. 5' u: _ 11ERRAOE woods ay.t VOL 179/76-83 p=40'06'30" I �l019 R=50.00' p=3, 30'30 S-28 4T .PL N '� I =1= L'}5.00' S R=50.00' p=15'42'18" < Rl O• L=27.50' R=300.00' >_I L-82.23' R-09.45'38' A-09'57'06' 0 STANDARD KN10 COUNTY MONUMENT g R=300.00' IN CASE, FOUND, TYPICAL }jf' A=40.06'28" HS R:300.00' R:300.00• I X76 09 p 40'06'26 ,5 _ L=5,.1,' L-50.11 L=52.11' • 14 CASE. KING TYPICAL MONUMENT 10 �7 R=50.00' R=50.00' sib = z ►+ CASE. SET. trPCx L=35.00' L-35.00' 79 9• Q� `> O o 6 REBAyCAP/P1522962CAL R 50.00'23 z •72• k 'O o; (" oIAMETER z 2/4= (� L-35.00' 'm, �, a (R) RADIAL 3 5 i 18 " 14 n (E)TAX LOT NUMBER ah `gym. .'� on 13 �f NI ;� 17 :.4 16 JA�12 te•L___ ^ 16.12•. NATIVE--- - - - - _ _ + (SEE SHEET 6 of B) '"- 92.85'116.98• CROS 67.39' PROTEC554 77.36'---- E'` T 88'36'23'W 56.69• 70.91' N�! 411.27' N8818'51'W 3 4 SUBJECT TO AN TELEGRAPH TO PACING 2 0 1 9 1 8 87.03' *ASLTELEPCAT AND T STAKED' Y THE Y *AS PHONE 140 STAKED' BY THE 1 41 RE'ECCNNo' .: 165°571P7066a 1901219 NATIVE GROWTH PROTECTION EASEMENT (SEE NOTE No. 10 SHEET 8 OF 8) LAURELWOOD NORTH NO. 3 �. SAL R INC. VOL. 83/59 j 1215 CENTRAL AVENUE SOUTH. SUITE 133 ENTi 96032 PHONE: (253)854-9344N(FAX)854-6663 .^�, ♦ 94 p iA' fi fFlSlta� o! V.12E SUB91-000,-4•" SUB 98-0003 SHEET 5 of 8 J.20M----s___�y HERITAGE WOODS DMSION 2 Portions of the N.E.1/4, S.W. 1/4 and S.E.1/4, Sec. 33, Twp. 22 N., Rge. 4 E, W.M. City of Federal Way, King County, Washington A replat of Tracts 'G', 'H', and 'J', Heritage Woods Division 1 1� 26 23 N86'39 24 E 51.29' 11 25 24 17 8136'36,w 11212' ,5 ,s /17913,� 31 I I N81.28' 3•E 23.75 25' i.28' p=08.3x'25"�=09'43'06"1i� R=250.D0' '4 l I A=07'22'3 " L 41.j5 L-42.40' 16 R=296.75' 31 lo O1 10 I L-38.47' 32 .' /y N88'56'17"W14 3.75 25' o n 110.00' N88'56'1 7-W WATER METER I�CO O Im I EASt)AENT ' 11O.Go' 15 N SEE OETNL 8 O Q I� SHEET 6 of e N - v NO3°0747E q C' g i 30 I 33 e�2- 55.69 C a N88'56'1 7"W O 110.00' SEE EAN8a'S6't s�'E1 n r 7`W 8 LLI TT 3 6 DO F 6 WATER METER _ EASEMENT.6 h O S' w I SEE DETAIL14 e ILI SHEET 6 OF 8o I 5 15' N88'56.1 rW $) Ib 1IF 110.00,no.' 28 h �I NW5617•W O�� 0� GRAPHIC SCALE o ^ 500 25 so ,00 N A�1 (1N rnr ) N88'56'17"W [;_, '1 1 Inch = SO !L NATIVE GROWTH PROTECTION I 110.00 t��aVV0 - -EMENT (SEE NOTE No. 10 o I �I. 27 'oma - G" PER RVU7N OF 'T 8 OF 6)N <I ER HER,TAGE WOODS DIV. T WATMETER m Q 4 e I Z EASEMENT l 1 �¢� VOL 179/76-83 SEE DETAIL 8 N88'56'irW \ «777 N SHEET 8 OF 6 N89�36'02 W 110.00' I a to W I 26viyl�' TRACT A ° I � -5 A-5724'46' 3 I N88-W17•W zI R-50.00' 110.00' L-50.10' -iR I I 25 5 ' 8. WATER EASEMENT b l I SEE E+T - 9IE N01 C'F�e 6 8 SHEET.6 O< 8 Cl) w I I N88'56 17 w no.00 110.00' w MQ'S a6 C I I N81.25'7"W n � 45 ` 124 1.2s AIR -VAC lOg�4, W $ u I I R-00'20005" '° I ,n y,EET 6 OF 6 �� o '�° �-40'38'49" S. 283RD PL. R-300.00' ui SEE ,)ETAR 8 50.00' [CI.� l04 N89 -16 -22 -WI R 23.75' 25' N88'56'17"W R Z 52 R=35.47' [� Z I 108.76' 25'125' 110.00' o j TO 0-10'44'35 is � AA (• p=3422.44" PO R W 23 f� R-30 33, T -2W000' �"' q k'1 O6 R-50.00' SECTION L -56.25t 36 'ON N6 113 L-30.00' RrrACE WOOPER DS D LAT F 179/76-63 R �-23'34'14" f 1013'22"W q a 7�.75B '9 ' 79S9'03 250 R:98.8' 95 OS144 9C ; N6 HYDN EAEEM• N2p~��• �^�o ° /L KING COUNTY MONU1rtM EE 3 F 5• N CASEFOUND. TYPICAL C IN CASE SET, TYPICAL 22 1-5.00SHEET8O STANDARDKING COUNTY MONUMENT 0=1915'050 RE(&1R/G/52k �)zxR=2 m E /E91 J 8 L - N69•p95� y�/,WAOE �p�Yr N9n;0C� s6 g 'IY (R) RADIAL 38 4 3' S I10I 20 0 39 40 (SEE SHEET B OF 6) T. , �J SEE SHEET 5OF8 DAL.EY—MOFlHOW—POBLETE— NC. 1215 CENTRAL AVENUE SOUTH. SUITE 133 KENT, WASHINGTON 98032 PHONE: (253)854-9344 (FA%)854-6663 SUB 91-0001 + SUB 98-0003 SHEET 6 OF 8 HERITAGE WOODS DMSION 2 Portions of the N.E.1/4, S.W. 1/4 and S.E. 1/4, Sec. 33, Twp. 22 N., Rge. 4 E., W.M. City of Federal Way, King County, Washington A replat of Tracts 'G', 'H', and •J', Heritage Woods DNIsion t 43 TRACT C TRACT F O 44•� 42 41 N340920'W 5 36 78.74' f3.74' 65 \\ \ \ 12 5 A-tt56'44' 3 7 40 R-200 00' N N� SEWER EASEMENT BY HERITAGE WOODS DIV. 1 TRACT E NY L-41.70' 64 D=05'43'46' 3 p R=200.00' A-18'2436' V L-20.00'� -6 , j A-41'36'()8' L 64.4.2` 00' / t L6' 120.34' I;r 39 R-200.00' p nro L-145.34' 63 I 1.w R-200 002' {� _ N, --0—�_ 34p4, 23' L1 73 �v EV70ti 14 .7S - a 'w �' 7 ` \ V3 �-70'00'31• A_ 000' ' \ y' L-61,100 q'1. R-25.00' °� L-61.10 o L-30.55 \�'ora$�. ab ���61 8 6 A 2%31'28• R-61. '-I- L-94.12' ,i R-300. �, j L-144.12' as `N66� \\ 60 25 D=04'12'22' \ 5 R=300.00' \ 9 L=22.02' j N17'S'43•W 37.91''A X 45 4 :\ 10 TRACT A 11 3 25• 25 SUB 91-0001 + SUB 98-0003 SFEET 7 of 8 GRAPHIC SCALE 50 0 25 50 100 EASEMENT ( DT 31= ) YAWS DIV. , I lab - 50 tL MERIDIAN PER PUT OF HERITAGE WOODS DIV 1 TRACT D VOL 179/76-83 OUEDNG ENVELOPES (TMJ .r Mn vNn DA 1215 PHOT r`Nq 541p-.� sfio frtsTtaE SJe r4( LA90 Inee.p�f E4Y,fY 14 1m 7000 97215 BUBDNOON OP SECTION 33, T -22K R -4E, W11A. PER PIAT OF HERITAGE WOODS DIVA VOL 179/76-W O STANDARD KING COUNTY MONUMEW N CASE. FOUND. TYPICAL 0 STANOARD KING COUNTY MONUMENT N CASE. SET, TYWCAL 6) R(1%2/D / &222I96ZnEr/TYPr& IddNNGG (R) Pray 1 (SEE s11EEr a or e) �3 HST g E LAND HERITAGE WOODS DMSION 2 Portions of the N.E. 1/4, S.W. 1/4 and S.E. 1/4, Sec. 33, Twp. 22 N, Rge. 4 E., W.M. City of Federal Way, King County, Washington A repiat of Tracts 'G', 'H', and 'J', Heritage Woods Division 1 NOTES 1. CONTROLLING BOUNDARY DATA WAS OBTAINED BY OPEN AM CLOSED FIELD TRAVERSES, EMPLOYING CONVENTIONAL TRAVERSE PROCEDURES USING A TOPCON 2110 THEODOLITE WITH INTEGRAL DISTANCE IN MEASURG METER. ALL MEASUREMENTS ARE N U.S. SURVEY FEET. 2. ALL INFORMATION REGARDING RECORD EASEMENTS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS THAT MAY AFFECT THE DUALITY OF TITLE OF THE SUBDIVISION SHOWN HEREON WAS OBTAINED FROM PACIFIC NORTHWEST TITLE COMPANY OF WASHINGTON, INC. PUT CERTIFICATE ORDER No. 340744, DATED OCTOBER 19, 1998. 3. LOT ADDRESSES SHOWN HEREON WERE PROVIDED BY THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PRIOR TO THIS PLAT RECORDING AND ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE EACH LOTS ADDRESS WILL BE CONFIRMED BY THE CITY PRIOR TO THE OCCUPANCY OF THE DWELLING ON THAT LOT. 4. TRAVERSE CLOSURES FOR THIS SUBDIVISION EXCEED THE REAUREMENTS OF WAC 332-130-090. ESTAENSHIMENT OF LOT CORNERS 15 BY RADIAL SURVEY PROCEDURE. WTH INDEPENDENT MEASUREMENTS. S. FUTURE HOUSES FOR EACH LOT (6G-68) SHALL HAVE A FOUNDATION DESIGNED BY AN ENGINEER LICENSED IN THE STATE OF WASHINGTON. 6. ANY FUTURE CONSTRUCTION 80400 THE APPROVED BUILDING ENVELOPE OF LOTS 60 THROUGH 66 INCLUSIVE, WHICH IS BEYOND MINOR LANDSCAPING SUCH AS RETAINING WALLS, HONE ADDITION, AND SHED CONSTRUCTION, SHALL BE DESIGNED BY A GE07ECHMCAL ENGINEER AT THE OINER'S EXPENSE AND APPROVED BY THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PRIOR TO BEGINNING CONSTRUCTION/. THE CITY MAY ALSO REQUIRE THE HOMEOWNER TO PAY FOR THE SERVICES OF INC CITYS GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTING ENGINEER TO RENEW ANY PLANS, 7. A NON-EXCLUShE EASEMENT IS HEREBY RESERVED FOR AND GRANIED TO ANY PUBLIC AND/OR FRANCHISE UTILITY AND THEIR RESPECTIVE SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS, AM THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, UNDER AND UPON THE FRONT 10 FEET PARALLEL WITH AND ADJOINING TE STREET FRONTAGE OF ALL LOTS AND TRACTS N WHICH TO INSTALL, LAY, CONSTRVCT, RENEW, OPERATE AND MAINTAIN UNDERGROUND PIPE, CONDUIT, CABLES, WIRES, WATER METERS AND FIRE HYDRANTS WITH NECESSARY FACILITIES AM OTTER EOXNPMENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF SERVING THIS SUBDIVISION AND OTHER PROPERTY WITH ELECTRIC, CABLE TV, TELEPHONE. GAS AND OTHER UTILITY SERVICES TOGETHER WITH THE NWT TO ENTER UPON THE LOTS AND TRACTS AT ALL TIMES FOR THE PURPOSES HEREIN STATED, TIE EASEMENTS ENTERED UPON FOR THESE PURPOSES SHALL Be RESTORED AS NEAR AS POSSIBLE 70 THEIR GNGINAL CONIpTON. NO UTILITY LINES SHALL BE PLACED OR PERMITTED TO SE PLACED UPON ANY LOT OR TRACT UNLESS THE SAME SHALL BE UNDERGROUND OR N CONOUMT ATTACHED TO A BUILDING 8. AN EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT IS HEREBY IRREVOCABLY RESERVED FOR AND GRANTED TO LAKEHAVEN U TIUW OTHERDISTRICT FOR SO LONG AS IT, OR MY ASSIGN OR OTR SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST, SHALL OWN AND MAINTAIN THE UTILITIES REFERENCED HEREIN UNDER AND UPON THE AREA SHOWN ON THE PUT AND DESCRIBED HEREIN AS "WATER EASEMENT' OR 'SEWER EASEMENT' TO INSTAU, MAINTAIN. REPLACE, REPAIR AND OPERATE WATER AND SEVIER MANS AND APPURTENANCES FOR THIS SUBDIVISION AND 07HER PROPERTY. E TOGETHER WITH TRIGHT TO ENTER UPON SAID EASEMENTS AT ALL TINES FOR 1HE PURPOSE STATED. NO BUILDING, WALL, ROOKERY, FENCE. TREES OR STRUCTURE OF ANY HND SHALL BE ERECTED OR PLAN NOR SHALL MY FILL MATERIAL BE PLACED WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF SAID EASEMENT AREA NO EXCAVATION SHALL BE MADE WITHIN THREE FEET OF SAID WATER OR SEVER FACILJ71ES AND THE SURFACE LEVEL OF THE GROUND WIHN THE EASEMENT AREA SHALL BE MAINTAINED AT 1HE ELEVATION AS CURRENTLY EXISTING. GRANTOR ADDITIONALLY GRANTS TO TIE GRANTEE, THE USE OF SUCH ADDITIONAL AREA IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO SAID EASEMENT AREA AS SHALL BE REQUIRED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION. RECONSTRUCTION. MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION OF SAD WATER OR SEVER FACILITES. THE USE OF SUCH ADDITIONAL AREA SHALL BE HELD TO A REASONABLE MNRIIIM AND BE RETURNED TO THE CONDITION EXISTING IMMEDIATELY BEFORE THE PROPERTY WAS ENTERED UPON BY THE GRANTEE OR ITS AGENTS. IN ADDITION TO THE OTHER RESTRICTIONS HEREIN, GRANTOR SINAL NOT CONVEY TO A MRD PARTY MY EASEMENT OR OTHER RIGHT OF USAGE N THE EASEMENT AREA; EXCEPT THOSE PERPENDICULAR CROSSINGS NECESSARY FOR OTHER UTILITIES TO ACCESS THE UNITY EASEMENT SITUATED AF 'T TO SAID EXCLUSIVE WATER MAN EASEMENT AND SEPARATED THEREBY FROM THE PUBLIC F -WAY. PROVIDED SAID CROSSINGS ARE HELD TO A REASONABLE MINIMUM. 9. 50' TEMPORARY WATER AND SEWER EASEMENT SHOWN ON SHEET 1 OF 8 OF HERITAGE WOODS DIVISION 1, VOLUME 179 OF PUTS. PAGES 76 THROUGH 83 SPECIFIES 'SEVER AND WATERMAN EASEMENT TO BE VACATED WHEN 26TH AVE. S. BECOMES PUBLIC R/W DURING RECORDING OF DIVISION Y. 10. "NATIVE GROWTH PROTECTION EASEMENT (FICK) ARE AREAS WHERE NO VEGETATION AND/OR TREES ARE TO BE WT AND/OR REMOVED, EXCEPT THOSE WHICH ARE DEAD, DYING. DISEASED, OR CONSIDERED A POTENTIAL SAFETY HAZARD. ANY VEGETATION ANO/OR TREE REMOVAL N THE NPE REQUIRES THE PRIOR APPROVAL OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT. NO STRUCTURE MALL BE CONSTRUCTED AND/OR LOCATED IN A NGPE EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZEDBY THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES'. Il. A PRIVATE NON-EXCUJSVE DRAINAGE EASEMENT IS DEDICATED TO THE HOME OWNER'S ASSOCIATION AND ADJACENT LOTS ACROSS THE REAR PORTION OF LOTS 19 THROUGH 31, INCLUSIVE, AS SHOWN ON THE PUT MM SHEETS 5 AND 6. 12, LOTS WITHN THIS PUT ARE SUBJECT TO HERITAGE WOODS ONAON 1 PROTECTIVE COVENANTS. CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS AS DETAILED IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED UNDER RECORDING No. 970W60163. 13. LOTS 1 THROUGH 10 INCLUSIVE. SHALL HAVE NO CIRECT VEHICULAR ACCESS TO OR FROM MILITARY ROAD. I& FENCING SHALL BE PLACED ON THE BACK OF LOTS 1 THROUGH 10 INCLUSIVE. 7WENYY (20) FEET E INSIDE THE MILITARY ROAD PROPERTY UNE; TAREA BETWEEN THE FENCING AND 111E MILITARY ROAD PROPERTY LINE TO BE DESIGNATED AS A 20 -FOOT WIDE PERMANENT LANDSCAPE BUFFER 15. N SOME CASES, ON-SITE SURFACE WATER INFILTRATION SYSTEMS MAY BE SUITABLE FOR USE ON INDIVIDUAL LOTS DEPENDING ON SOL CONDITIONS. MS TYPE SYSTEM SHALL SE USED MERE SUITABLE- TO UITABLETO DETERMINE THE SXTABIUTY OF THE SOL FOR INFILTRATION SYSTEM$ A SOILS REPORT THAT INCLUDES PERCOLATION TESTS AND A SOIL LOG TAKEN AT 6 -FOOT MINIMUM DEPTH SHALL BE SUBMITTED BY A PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER. OR SOL SPECIALIST. THIS SHALL INCLUDE, AT A MINIMUM. INFORMATION ON SOIL TEKRAW, DEPTH TO SEASONAL HIGH WATER AND THE OCCURANCE OF MOTTLNC AND IAPERVOUS LAYERS THE REPORT SHALL ALSO ADDRESS POTENTIAL DOWN GRADIENT IMPACTS DUE TO INCREASED HYDRAULIC LOADING ON SLOPES AND STRUCTURES. IF THE SOILS REPORT IS APPROVED, THE INFILTRA7ION SYSTEMS SHALL BE INSTALLED PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY OF THE RESIDENCE. I& ALL BUILDING DOWNSPOUT$ FOOTING DRAINS AND DRAINS FROM ALL IMPERVIOUS SURFACES SUCH AS PATIOS AND DRIVEWAYS SHALL BE CONNECTED TO THE APPROVED PERMANENT STORM DRAIN OUTLET AS SHOWN ON THE APPROVED CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS ON FILE WTH THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (F.W.P.W.D.) UNDER PROJECT Na SUB92-0005 AND ALSO SEE 91-0001. THIS PLM SHALL BE SUBMITTED WITH THE APPLICATION FOR ANY BUILDING PERMIT. ALL CONNECTIONS OF THE DRAINS 7HA7 MUST BE CONSTRUCTED AND APPROVED PRIOR TO THE FINAL BUILDING INSPECTION APPROVAL ALL INDIVIDUAL SB -OUTS SMALL BE PRIVATELY OWNED AND MAINTAINED BY THE LOT OWNER ALL STORMWATER CONVEYANCE FACIUTES FROM INDIVIDUAL LOIS TO TRUE CATCH BASINS N THE STREETS SHALL BE OWNED AND MAINTAINED BY THE INDIVIDUAL LOT OWNERS 17. A GEOTECHNICAL/SOILS REPORT SHALL BE SUBMITTED WITH EACH OURDNG PERMIT APPLICATION FOR ANY LOTS CONTAINING SLOPES IN EXCESS OF TWE14TY PERCENT. 18. DURING THE COURSE OF CONSTRUCTION OF ANY LOT WITHIN MS SUBDIVISION, SNB -OUT INVERT EIEVADRAINAGE AND /OR SANITARY SEWER N$ FOR STORM DRAINAGE SHALL BE VERNED BY THE RMYO UAL LOT BUILDER OR OWNER TO PROVIDE THE NECESSARY SLOPE FROM THE PROPOSED HOUSE 19. ALL REAR LOT AND TRACT CORNERS HAVE BEEN STAKED WITH 1/2 -NCH BY 24 -NCH REBAR AND PLASM CAP MARKED "LS 22962'. CORNERS ABUTTING STREETS HAVE ALSO BEEN MARKED AT THE BACK OF THE CONCRETE CURB NTH A RAMSET NAIL AT THE S7REETWARD PROJECTION OF IRE LATERAL LOT LINE BETWEEN THE LOTS. 20. ALL HOMES LOCATED WITHIN THIS SUBDIVISION SHALL BE PROPERLY SOAR INSULATED TO ACHENE A LEVEL OF 45-LDN WHIN GENERAL HABITABLE SPACE AND 40-LDN WTHN BEDROOMS CONSISTENT WIN 7HE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE AND OTHER REGULATIONS, AS REWIRED BY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL. 21. FOR THOSE LOTS THAT HAVE BEEN FILLED DURING SUBDIVISION CONSTRUCTION. THE HEIGHT OF FUTLRF STRUCTURES SHALL BE MEASURED CONSISTENT WITH CITY CODE DEFINITION OF AVERAGE BUILDING D 1 (EXCEPT L07S 60 - 66). MS REOURES HEIGHT MEASUREMENT FROM THE GROUND ELEVATION F ANY CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY AS FOUND ON THE CIVIL ENGINEERING PUNS BY JAEGER E NG GATED APPROVED BY THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY ON APRIL Z2, 1996, AND ON FINE NTH THE CI,. 22. LOTS EO - 66 ARE SUBJECT TO THE TERMS OF THE HEARING EXAMINER APPROVAL OF THE HEIGHT VARIANCE ON FILE NTH TIE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY UNDER FILE No. LOP495-0001 SUB 91-0001 -f- SUB98-0003 o-im;dI- > VOL /PG. HSR PA NORTH CT F CpPMY ATCERTIF)CATE ORDER N 340)44. OAlEO: OCTOBER 19. 1998 1. EASEMENT AND THE TEAMS AND CONOIRONS REFERENCED THERM. INCLUDING BUT NOT UNITED TO, THE FOLLOWING: GRANTEE: PACRIC TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY PURPOSE: RIGHT TO ERECT AND MAINTAIN POLES, WIRE AND FIXTURES APPURTENANT TO ELECTRIC POWER TRANSMISSION LINES AREA AFFECTED,. PORTION OF TRACT *G* RECORDED;APRIL 15, 1924 M AUGUST L, 1924 RECORDING Na 1857062 k 1901219. RESPECTIVELY 2. EASEMENT AM THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS REFERENCED THEREIN. INCLUDING OUT NOT UNITED TO. THE FOLLOYMG: GRANTEE PUGET SOUND POWER a LIGHT COMPANY, A WASHINGTON CORPORATION PURPOSE AN UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM MFA AFFECTED: THE CENTFRLNE OF GRANTEE'S FACILITIES AS CONSTRUCTED OR TO BE CONSTRUCTED. EXTENDED OR RELOCATED DATED: AUGUST 31. 1986 RECORDED: AUGUST 2. 7996 RECORDING Na 9608020625 "EASEMENT AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS REFERENCED THEREIN. INCLUDING BUT NOT UNITED TG THE FOLLOWING: GRANTEE WASHINGTON EP NATURAL GAS COMPANY, US WEST TELHONE COMPANY, AND TO TELEVISION CABLE COMPANY PURPOSE: UTMJ71 S AREA AFFECTED, A RIGHT-OF-WAY 10- EET N WDM R HAVING 5 ET OF SUCH WIDTH ON EACH ADE OF A CENTERLINE DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: THE CENTERLINE OF GRANTEE'S FACILITIES AS CONSTRUCTED OR TO BE CONSTRUCTED, EXTENDED OR RELOCATED RECORDED: AUGUST 2. 1996 RECORDING Na 9WM20529 4. RESERVATIONS AND EXCEPTIONS CONTAINED IN DEED FROM NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY: RESERVING AND EXCEPTING FROM SAD LANDS SO MUCH OR SUCH PORTIONS THEREOF AS ARE OR MAY BE MINERAL LANDS OR CONTAIN COAL OR NON, AND ALSO THE USE AND THE RANT AND TITLE TO THE USE OF SUCH SURFACE GROUND AS MAY BE NECESSARY FOR MINING OPERATIONS AND THE FOCHT OF ACCESS TO 9" RESERVED AND EXCEPTED MINERAL LANDS. INCLUDING LAM CONTAINING COAL OR IRON FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXPLORING. DEVELOPING AND WORKING THE SAME AREA AFFECTED: PORTION OF TRACT 'C AND 01HER PROPERTY RECORDING Na 209726 k 266278 HOLE: NO EXAMINATION HAS DUN MADE TO DETERMINE THE PRESENT RECORD OWNER OF THE ABOVE MINERALS, OR MINERAL LANDS M AAPPURTENANT RIGHTS THERETO, OR TO DETERMINE MATTERS MAOI MAY AFFECT THE LANDS OR RIGHTS SO RESERVEO. WATER METER, AIR VAC ASSBM3LY APD HYDRANT EASEMENT DETAILS NO SCALE STREET M A R G L N STREET MARGIN DECAL A MAL B ALL ANDES SHOWN THUS ARE 90 (R) RADIAL srN. NT vNR Y. DALEY-MORROW-POSLETE NC. 14 G As nEy 1215 CENTRAL AVENUE SOUTH, SUITE 133 WASHINGTON 98032 y PHON 1 6663 s 4, 54154 %- siD FPJSTONE SJ? Q OPENER LAPD I LAAO SHEET 8 OF 8 1N FEH xo6D---------- Far I 97215 26 JAN 99 pc• i. Z. x �} �t��_ 1 !! t N C� C� 1a �kz. otv� C E G i JJJ��tu2?4,y O IN W W W "y ? V C U � z� ' �g� � b � J0000�Wu2Q D� gg Eli �00000000� 2 2t 2 2 2 pc• i. Z. x a� N C� C� i N a uj ce 1r . a rr r�;'i 1. .Y � ,f i` 'g�� 'ter•<'� u � QyCL �, .'� � ''+. • ' X - i!�1� rpt' 7 ,: ? 1, vp w 16 . Os --1 � I T Hbma7 D;eaa4 CF .� Q 7 1 } =lie P D8 7 inili fill iNg tIiei RESOLUTION NO. 92_122 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON, ESTABLISHING AN INTENT TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 29.5 ACRES OF THAT SITE, LOCATED BETWEEN 288TH AND 248TH STREETS, WEST OF MILITARY ROAD, WITHIN THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, FROM SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RS 9.6) TO SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RS 7.2) (RZ-92-001), APPROVING A PRELIMINARY PLAT OF AN 111 LOT SUBDIVISION TO BE LOCATED ON A SITE CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 41 ACRES IN SIZE, AND COMMONLY KNOWN AS HERITAGE WOODS. WHEREAS, the applicant, Parklane Ventures has a possessory ownership interest .in a 41.9 acre parcel of property located on the west side of Military Road immediately south of its intersection with South Star Lake Road and Interstate 5 overpass; and WHEREAS, the western 12.4 acres of the site are presently zoned RS 7.2, while the eastern 29.5 acres are presently zoned RS 9.6; and WHEREAS, the applicant is requesting a zoning reclassification for the eastern 29.5 acres to RS 7.2, and is additionally requesting to subdivide the entire site into 111 single-family residential lots (commonly known as Heritage Woods), pursuant to Federal Way Preliminary Plat Application SUB -91-000-1; and WHEREAS, the property to be rezoned is legally described as contained in Exhibit A attached hereto; and WHEREAS, applicant has applied for a project specific rezone, wherein the City shall evaluate the applicant's specific r development proposal for the subject property as part of the EXHIBIT decision on the rezone; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Federal Way Zoning Code 130.30, a project related rezone is processed according to Process III described in Chapter 155 of the Federal Way Zoning Code; and WHEREAS, after all proper notice requirements, a public hearing was held on the project specific rezone and. Preliminary Plat Application on June 1, 1992; and WHEREAS, the City of Federal Way Hearing Examiner, having heard public testimony and reviewed all written comments and evidence presented, issued a Recommendation on Rezone and Preliminary Plat Application on June 16, 1992; and WHEREAS, the Hearing Examiner recommended that the request for rezone classification from RS 9.6 to RS 7.2 and the preliminary plat approval for Heritage Woods, Federal Way Preliminary Plat Application SUB -91-0001, be approved subject to, the conditions contained in the Recommendation on Rezone and Preliminary Plat Application; and WHEREAS, on June 23, 1992, a Request for Reconsideration of the Examiner's Recommendation was timely filed by the Public Works Director for the City of Federal Way; and WHEREAS, the Request was distributed to parties of record in accordance with Federal Way Zoning Code §155.65(2) on June 23, 1992; and WHEREAS, responses were received from the applicant on June 30, 1992, which were also circulated to parties of record; and -2- EXHIBIT D PAGE_2—OF_s.._. WHEREAS, pursuant to Federal Way Zoning Code §155.65(6), the Examiner accepted the Request for Reconsideration, but limited the scope of the Reconsideration to four issues; and WHEREAS, ori October 2, 1992, the Examiner issued a Decision on Reconsideration wherein the Request for Reconsideration was granted in part and denied in part; and WHEREAS, there have been no challenges to the Examiner's Recommendation and Decision on Reconsideration; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Findings of Fact and Conclusions. Pursuant to Federal Way Zoning Code 155.75, the City Council has considered the application and, after full consideration of the entire matter on the record before the Hearing Examiner, including the Examiner's Recommendation -and the Decision on Reconsideration, the City 6 Council hereby adopts by reference the Findings of the Federal Way Land Use Hearing Examiner as contained in the Examiner's Recommendation and Rezone on Preliminary Plat Application, and as modified by the Decision on Reconsideration; both documents which are attached hereto as Exhibits A and B; NOW, THEREFORE, Section 2. Criteria to Rezone. The City Council adopts by reference the findings of specific criteria which an applicant must meet in order to obtain a zone reclassification pursuant to Federal Way Zoning Code 130.60, as contained in the Recommendation on Rezone and Preliminary Plat Application, Finding No. 23 (a), (b) , (c) , (d) and (e) . -3- EXHIBIT. 0 PA 3 QF�o Section 3. Application Approval. The Preliminary Plat Application SUB -91-0001 for the subject 41.9 acre, located between 280th and 284th Streets, west of Military Road, in the City of Federal Way, and commonly known as Heritage Woods, is approved as evidenced by the City Council's adoption of this Resolution of Intent to Rezone which shall permit the applicant herein to subdivide and develop the subject property, pursuant to the plans on file with the City for this application; and the zoning reclassification of the 29.5 acres of property legally described in Exhibit A from RS 9.6 to RS 7.2 is approved asa project specific rezone. The approval for this project related rezone shall be subject to the development of this property in conformance with the plans on file with the City, SUB -91-0001, and is further subject to ( .those Conditions 1 through 18, as contained in Examiner's Recommendation on Rezone and Preliminary Plat. Application, dated June 16, 1992, and adopted by reference herein. Section 4. Conditions of Approval. Approval of the Heritage Woods preliminary plat and the project related rezone is further subject to the additional Condition contained in the Decision on Reconsideration of the Examiner dated October 2, 1992, which shall require as part of this development that curbs, gutters, sidewalks and bike paths shall be required on both sides of Military Road adjacent to this project. -4- EXHIBIT...„_.._, PAGE_-�-OF Section 5. SEPA Conditions Incorporated by Reference. Pursuant to Section 20.130.30 of the Environmental Policy Ordinance, all mitigation measures of the April 8, 1992, Mitigated Determination of Non -Significance are incorporated by reference as condition of this approval, except Condition No. 8 shall be modified to reflect that the required lane improvement shall be three lanes, rather than five; and in addition, the Applicant's alternative pro -rata contribution contained in Section 8 shall be adjusted accordingly. Failure to comply with mitigation measures shall constitute grounds for suspension and/or revocation of this approval. Section 6. Effect of Approval. The effect of the approval of this preliminary plat application and project related rezone shall be to allow the applicant, subject to all applicable codes and ordinances, to develop the subject property in conformance with this Resolution of Intent to Rezone and pursuant to the preliminary plat application SUB -91-0001 approved as part of this Resolution. Section 7. Zoning Map Chancre. At such time as the applicant completes development of the subject property in conformance with this Resolution of Intent to Rezone and, in conformity with Preliminary Plat Application SUB -91-0001 approved as part of this resolution, the City Council shall, by ordinance, make the zone reclassification to the Zoning Map as approved herein. -5- HIBIT _. D ..._ P k s OF3 . J Section 8. Future Minor Modifications. Following the adoption of this Resolution of Intent to Rezone, the applicant may apply for minor modifications to Preliminary Plat Application SUB - 91 -0001 pursuant to Federal Way Code 130.70 and by use of Process I procedure, described in Chapter 145 of the Federal Way Zoning Code, and based upon the criteria therein. Section 9. Major Modifications. Following the adoption of this resolution of intent to rezone, any major modification to the Preliminary Plat Application SUB -91-0001 shall be reviewed pursuant to Federal Way Zoning Code Chapter 130.75 and using the. provisions of Chapter 130.55 through .75 as if it were an application for a new quasi-judicial project related rezone. Section 10. Time Limitations. The applicant shall complete the development of the subject property in conformance with this Resolution of Intent to Rezone and.in conformance with the Preliminary Plat Application SUB 91-0001 within three (3) years of the date of the adoption of this Resolution, pursuant to Federal Way Zoning Code 130.80.1. Section 11. Rezone Map Chancre. Upon completion of this project in full compliance with -this Resolution of Intent to Rezone and in conformance with Preliminary Plat Application SUB -9I-0001 as on file with the City of Federal Way, the City shall give effect to" the rezone by adopting an ordinance which shall amend the zone classification on this Zoning Map for the property described in Exhibit A herein from RS Single -Family Residential 9.6 to RS Single -Family Residential 7.2. R 7; Section 12'. Conditions of Approval Integral. The conditions of approval of the preliminary plat and the project related rezone are all integral to each other with respect to the City Council finding that the public use and interest will be served by the rezone and the subdivision of the subject property. Should any court having jurisdiction over the subject matter declare any of the conditions invalid, then, in said event, the proposed preliminary plat approval and rezone granted in this resolution shall be deemed void and the preliminary plat and notice of intent to rezone shall be remanded to the Hearing Examiner for the City of Federal Way to review the impacts of the invalidation of any condition or conditions and to conduct such additional proceedings as are necessary to ensure that the proposed plat makes appropriate provisions for the public health, safety and welfare and other factors as required by RCW Chapter 58.17 and applicable City ordinances, rules, regulations, and shall such recommendation to the City Council for further action. Section 13. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this resolution should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or phrase of this resolution. Section 14. Effective Date. This resolution shall be effective immediately upon passage by the Federal Way City Council. -7- EXHIBIT 0 AGE_1._._QF 3.6 RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON, this 20th day of October , 1992. CITY OF FEDERAL WAY -1�1" MAYOR," Joel_ Nwy-s ATTEST: i C r CITY CLERK, MAUREEN M. ANEY, CMC APPROVED AS TO FORM: ti CITY XTTORNEY, CAROLYN A. LAKE FILED IITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: RESOLUTION NO. 92-122 la\kathleer\reso\parklane.res October 20, 1992 October 20, 1992 IPAGE-L_01: 30 EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION .HE EAST 412.5 FEET OF THE NORTHEAST OUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST OUARTER OF SECTION 33. TOWNSHIP 22 NORTH. RANGE 4 EAST. W.M., IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. EXCEPT THE SOUTH 15 FEET OF THE EAST 82.5 FEET OF SAID SUBDIVISON. PARCEL C THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHWEST OUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST OUARTER OF SECTION3. TOWNSHIP 22 NORTH. RA -43E 4 EAST. W.M.. IN KING COUNTY. WASINGTON. DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGIIINING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SUBDIVISION, THENCE N53.34'G4'E 773.45 FEET. THENCE S58`42'16'E 654.03 FEET, THENCE S44.15'44'W 207.55 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SUBDIVISION , THENCE ON SAID SOUTH LINE N88 c3'<1'W 1036.71 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. EXCEPT.THAT PORTION THEREOF LYING WITHIN THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PARCEL BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAIq NORTHEAST OUARTER, THENCE N53'3r04-E 773.45. FEET, THENCE S58'12". 6-E 6S4.03 -FEET. S44.15'44 -W 134.87 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. THENCE CONTINUING S44'15'44"W. A DISTANCE OF 72.68 FEET TO THE SOUTH UNE OF SAID NORTHEAST OUARTER, THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE N88-23-41 -)Y. A DISTANCE OF 350 FEET. THENCE N41'15'44"E, A D:S T"CE OF 240 FEET, THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING ALSO KNOWN AS A PORTON LCT 6 REDONDO HEIGHTS UNRECORDED. ARCEL D THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHWEST OUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST OUARTER OF SECTION 33. TOWNSHIP 22 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST. W.M., IN KING COUNTY. WASHINGTON. DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGIN -NTNG AT THE SOUTHEAST OUAR i tR OF SAID SUBDIVISION. THENCE N&8'23'41 -W ALO!:G SOUTH LINE THEREOF 2.-4.34• FEET THENCE N44.15'4A c 251.70 FEET. THENCE So1.10'12'E ALONG EAST LINE OF SAID SUBDIVISION 216.74 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. REDONDO HEIG'iTS. UNRECORDED LOT SA TOGETHER WIT}{ ALL APPURTENANCES. HEREDITAMENTS AND TENEMENTS. ALSO KNOWN AS LOT SA LESS COUNTY ROAD OF. REDONDO HEIGHTS L'NRE-:ORDED. PARCEL E TriAT ?ORTION OF THE SOUTHWEST OUAR i ER OF THE NORTHEAST OUARTER OF SECTION 33. TOWNSHIP 22 NORTH. RANG=- 4 EAST. W.M. IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID NORTHEAST OUARTEP, THENCE N53'3.4 C.VE 773.45 FEET. THENCE S56'4!"6 -E 654.03 FEET. $44.15'44-W 134.87 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. THENCE CONTINUING S44 -,!;'44'W. A DISTANCE OF 72.68 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID NORTHEAST OUARTER. THENCE ALONG SAID SOU T ii LINE N88.23'41'W. A DISTANCE OF 350 FEET. THENCE N44.15'44•E. A DISTANCE OF 240 FEET. ThENCE SOUTHEAS iERLY TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING ALSO KNOWN AS A PORTION OF LOT 6 REDONDO HEIGHTS UNRE(ARDED. C��IITAINS 41.866 ACRES MORE OR LESS. EXHIBIT 9 PAGE_ I OF 3... CITY OF FEDERAL WAY OFFICE OF THE HEARL\G EX k- EL -ER In Re the Application of Parklane''entures, Inc. Exhibit B FILE : SUB 91-0001; RZ-92-0001 FNM 92-4 For Rezone and Preliminary ) Plat Approval of tbat tract ) RE C 0 \ LN M1\ -D A TIE 0\ 0\ R—Z0NE:—N-D of land known as Heritage Woods ) PRELLNMNZA..,RY PLAT APPLICATION I. BACKGROUND A -N -D SLNL ARY OF APPLICATION T: e is P;-oposi"g Ceve':op'-nt,-,t Ci a 111 lei S:%gla- iai,'-1V -:'eEo .::?_'cl 1T7cGdiu0;1, i}iZ c�p�. Cc�-li iS ��OSL"l� i0 IeJ:,e'u-,4 �cS:er;y 29.E cC:�S of ii.' S::e i:Cia �S 9.6 (Ci7�ie Family Re:S:denUal) to 7.2 El. PROCE.DLR4LL�tOR'�L4TI0 HeanL Dale: JL• 1, i99j D� sioa Date: 161 ..t the 1;'ui ;� u�:. i011C'�t3 prestnte:d ttstir;w y z ,3 evift G`: 1.) Gres Fe's * s, S --Mor P a.:s,er, City of \',%ay 33530 - 1st Way South, Fe e. �l WEy, WA 98003 2.) Tirn'l'..I.,ei, TSG: :c E:,'_,�pwl, C,:}' Cf 17 --"-Ml a-, :33530 - 1 st Way Sou---�, Fe:er zl Way, WA 98003 3.) Joel Haggard, Anorney at L, --w (L -i P .'calf of AD ECZ=. ) 1515 71'\f Build-nQ, Sea.t.'e, W. -IN. 98101 ".) Roy li,:o�, rzrt��ane Ver,~ , es 31620 - 23rd Avenue Sou -h, Fe:fe,—,-1 Way, WA 98003 5.) Don Can, Da -\-id Evans & A sso,: a:es, L;,c. l5 - 1Huh Avc ue S.E., 3d -?le; e, NNIA 95004 6.) Da]c O;nn, Tec:hniczl S&n-ices 15559 S.E. 67�� Place, Eelievue, WA 9SO06 EXHIBIT—L. =S-25 ` llit<ry Road Way, WA PARKLAI._,\E \'E\-rl:RESiHERJTAGE WOODS FELE > SUB -91-0001; RZ-92-0001 FWH E FILE n 92--1 PAGE 2 8.) Don Fountain, Federal 1'r'2y School District 31405 - 18th Avenue South, FederGl Way, \'TA 950003 9.) Pat Byrne 28216'Mili:a-y Road South, Fed-e.—cd Way, W.A, 9St?03 10.) H. David Kaplan :0240 - 27La Avenue Sou -h, Fede,—Gl Way, NVA : SC►J3 11.) Craig wa :er 2539 South 279th Placr, Fe6tr-a Way, W.". 0,8063 12.) Dan Kolosky 27841 - 25Ci Drive South, Fede:Gl \'ray, WA 95 03 13.) Ca olyn Lake, Aching Cit`f A:',om—.y, City of Fe e_Gl ;'ray 33530 - 1 st Way Sown, Fe e: Gl Way, WA 98C►03 At uhe heath --he f0Ltok r.g exEbit s we.e ac~aS o4L of :e of cial :�.cerd e t`:ese i t✓1 p.eceedi;:gs: I.) Stiff Re_r-,or,. A.) c- { p_ 11C —no:l z7.d P'.,t 'M= s (' 1 S'?.' cc - -r _ Ex --- Ex—J-iner only) B.) _ Vicinity'%sap C.) Legal.Descripdon D.) Sub -Liu ZQJZmlj \; 1a? E.) Com-munications Received on SEP. -- F.) April 8, 1992 E.,-ivium,-JJ,~Je i'Lal DeLe ,-,,,aSna :U.o-i of G. August 28 1990 "iVtOan r d DG'.r,-/rllnG'".on, Il::pa�.t 155CS�:J�e:lt G.�:Q Conap:u.-cl 'INC6Saton' Report prepared by David E\-a,.S a_Id nSSCC:a:CS (copy provided to I -ear—)- Examiner oniv) H.) Wetla,-id Analysis Req„iied by S=io,-.s 50.35 aid 50.160.4 )1\;ZC (adopted 2/27/90) I.) June 19, 1990 'Reao,t of Geotxhnical p,e a e:d by Geote,chi-ical Sen -ices (copy p;o•:idea to IJearr:g Exp:^i.-:er on -IN.) J.) Geotechnical .knalysis Required by S -'.ion 80. 05.1 F\\ Z K.) January 10, 1992 'Si;;37c ;It T7= Survey' P:epzred by David Evans and Associates (copy to Hezring Exa HIB,T L.) Pro�•ided ;.: er o:,r. e r a � Ja,.uary 10, 1991 L-.spex;uon Report of Ob ,-,LedM.- Dc\'?d E\'ZT1S 6 and ADJ,\.iG:LJ (Copy pr0\':C'Cd 't7 }-.e: PARKL..�.\E VE\TURES;HERITAGE WOODS FILE rSL-B-91-0001; RZ-92-0001 F V -HE FU_F. V92-4 PAGE 3 \L) 1990 Port of Seattle Part 150 \Toise Exposulre'„ap N.) Draft 1996 Pert of Seaitle Part 150 Noise Ex—_s' re M,ap 0.) December 1990 'T;�f;ic Ir::pact Analysis' by D -'.:d Evans and Associates (copy provided to Hearing Exa.:iri 'tr o;,ly) P.) Fede. -.1 Way Water and Se-xer District a7.d H,I-hlirre N Ja,er Disuict Ce;,it;czt.es of Walzr and Sewer Avail abLty Q.) Dectmber 20, 1901 'pre!,mi ary L,mi :g — lysis' Y7c'ewi '•:)y htger Engin Ing (copy pleN;ced to FCaring Ex�;ui:�r R.) jan- i -y 11, 19:1 '.k. sis of Recre: mon and Open Space Ir, tact' prep_ed by David Eva -:s and Associat s (copy p, ld-;t3 to Pear_ -g Examiner only) S.) Janna, -y 8, 1992 Hiis o, -:cal Sc,:.iety of Fece.:i `,'ray Leiser T.) 7a_,uary 11, 1991 'School Access and Sc;:o'01 !:::pact .ti:,alys=s' p:erg cd by David Eva: -.,s and (copy plav:Ced to .1—Itz ng -r o ly) 2.) T. -tier florin Cheryl. ��''O1J andJohn Spengler 3.) 1990 ADT SubmdUed by. Til—in Miller 4.) Existii:g Wide--iing ?.Ices Si )„ri%?' by lire Nf i`r 5.) 1991 King COt:nty 1 i �--isi0, motion Pla.-i 6.) T_ --r ?lo n and '•sirs. -Bush /.) 3INFe.T,O Of A:LOr—,reV Joel HasgaA, 8.) Leiter floor E;ologist J. Macklin, s b:r-_:ped by Rob F'hi-on floni Rob FI -on to 1-_ezying E::m.-:er 10.) Lzater floor F111 da Sm in 11.) Tv, --o oversea -ds st.'bim-LLtd by ?]ase Ofi-in 12.) L _uer f ror-n Kenneth Haimii,on 13.) Lager 1.o, -n H. David ap'a.-i 14. Lv wr from 1,C chisel a,)d Ia-:ice roe e -r 15.) Copy of Park and 0�n Space ?iia? s b, -r i'.ed b•; a.-> closky _ _ 16.) ti'-itr',er rroi.es Of Jolin Spnvkr and Cteryl NIrr:lt'•o-,w 17.) Mamo from Greg Fewins to HeLTir a ,rrir,er, c :ed 613192 1S.) 1- a;,6-vviinen faxed responste of Aity. Tc'_ -1 Hagga+d ,o Exhir';t 17 II7. FLN-DINGS OF FACT 1. T r.e applicant has a possessory o'x•nel s ;ip ir,terest in a 41.9 acre pa; cel of pr ope; y located on the,,•est side of 'MIlitzry Road i..,:,re-diately so: �n of its intersection with Sou!h S,L2x L, -Le -Road a;id the Lterstzte 5 over -pass. The 32 4 acres a;e lesenJy zo;red RS 7.2, w', le the e:�'cm, 29.5 zcres ale presemiy zoned 1 � pylic- D is le.Suesi nlg a :one---classi is ion for �;e eas'w;-n 29.5 zcres :o R d s", C' 6' Of ;e e, Lc site .:ao 111 sii-.g?e-fa_,-:�y no's. I P.L_RKLA_XE VE..\TURESiliER1TAGP, WOODS FILE RSUB-91-0001; 87192-0001 F\NM FII.E #92-4 PAGE 4 2. The norlheas.er;l portion of the p;GY3stj rezo:e arca is h ez':ily imrzcted :.idt sensii.ive ers, incicdmg :L"eJandS and p'D. es. T:.0 app;'J:c:; t h:s p:�rCSci i0 y:OizCt L:ZSz alt -as by providing subsuznt,al buffering and zo deve!op;.:ent s id ae-as. The zpp):ca;-t has elected to request a rezone io RS 7.2 zs orl,-Sed to clt:s'�::-g e development '„h:ch is Lllowed under Ute Federzl Wzy Zn'..-? co-_*'-' as a ?:E:_:'.S Cf Tim reCuCed stioacks and lot S:zts i� %-c :J L'1 2 Cl'=S:e7e_d developmnent Could accomm-C�_:z iOXi:%a'elj' -he c_ -C �:'S:ij 2.55 lolls Y i::2� as iS -req- este applica-it iil lu';e rezOne request. 3.1P. e' :eli„- ^:Zl'Y -!at ^Z7 s: o -,;,-S _=C_ Cst_j "cC�CSSCS O.^ __� _�. _'f I i ci C0j -I "�.�4::d Si.,-.�.t znd 25`.L -i C'ui-t. L: Z2;f:-L:C'i Z Sij ;-O--;d _l �.ZCr sm;-Lh.) dead. -ends at LLe no- 7 OT:i)' Lr:.. it iS Z :�C�Z d u i .*-:S rc.-;d 'rO'_'':d be ex! cr:Ccd L•'?O d.tve 'opmieza Of plopt t f i0 iht io.�l ch :j S also 7A:irz:d CS 7.2 A 11 10S.i'1 i;e Dlat :'^:ill acc:.SS Or"O i3ii.eAnal plat rCZGS h Gi �e COi:iiStilGd :n 2 C CuIZI pZaCI 'vYii-1 C' 1-de- saCs. A. SuroL din- properLes :--10 cue _o -s zoi:`.._i'• R.S 5.0, RS 7.2, and 9.6. Al,�:--cept 29.5 cCrZ -D'uC-=.!, alil GI L:C Wiest of '_M*tl:l_ar1 Rczd in 'a-: i:nn-eCizte Ci.°��'ty is ZC::: CS 7.2 CI -R'S Q :.-G_;=:= .0 C.7 --St Gt':CSS Road a -re zo',_�d RS D.S. -.-lS-S ue GC'�ciG� C` Si\.'ly :_7 Si :El -fu:. ly =eS:dC i'cl d'+:.Li1�S, excz t for a C.--u-Ch nO n-erst Of ir:e 5. a3C~Z»se Of =:e CiCv,?Ctia ':ice':_,”:CS on �: t:�s, � e Lpt� r. t l'.L7 i�C:Q::v^ G St1;Gy buy David fn!anS and AssGCiZss, Y,c., :i'ic1 pietaC-a Z .:::,ZCt a5ScSS:,:ei:l c=:d CGriC:.p%: ...iii�Z O.I" ;cam::'t c�:ed .�.__t:St 2S, iS O �1=`'�'u t 1G). .`i CO-ipieiead 'c7p-liC uC:l i0I 'UhIt:Cz�o::C Z':d S:JCiViS:01'•:ZS ..e•d on S: :C:?.yell 2-11 1991, udvested t:rder Se:i:C 80.1,x.2 of ierWLC ado ' r'ebrL:zry 27, 1590. The weilu:ds re?0 t '::ZS cCGL'icicy Z::3 CG%ez-0y prepZ=-zJ in ZCCOrdanx-e � i' h -Sald S?C;0:1. Tr.•e rC OTt CS_b!'si:es _ at _:.t:C a:e sixt-_'lLnd-s Z=:u a d :oL.i1;-.a 1.51 ac -es 0:1 'th-_ Silly. FO_%r Of, u.e six '•'�Ct:ands Z_t Cons:de:td i0 G: :c�L':Z:�.�� ':+zi!2T.dS, and 101_l 1.43 zc:cs. ; p:c i:,:::ely zc:eS c -,C3 ':: a �zc:ed or diS�lzced by the proposed deve107m,ent; .25 zciCs be 'Mpzc',td by u..- '. idei Li g Of Military Re -2d SOJi7 an i;:e b, -='Z.7 Ge by ;e CO-:SSuCL: Of he 7;0 S bCi`'1S:O .� very smLl "0-u: ol Of ilie 1,'eu�,a �.'i!l bC i:i,_ ZC'`] by excavzuon v.O ii,S c»ci]Oil Oi 3 rCL?L' Tej S Jllicly S-t'h'CI 1::C '::P1C,l i:cS ri0 0.}- er : .7—Onab;e?',)YS:G:1 :C.:-: :Oil On Lhc Site. pj-opcse,d Lot 59 is lo<..ate�J wi hin the mcu;red setback :;om a weulz_nd, z"rid must be reconfigured. 6. T`.e apliC._-:t's -A-e-? i7,ds exY,.;tr:eY`-:J a co.-,ct—cZ-I ,,,1:* c"t, )tcrezz'on of .06 ares of '^O -es' _ ��d eaha-cene-.t of. "'ClIz-nd i ��i =t, anJ ei� �lCc e;•t C•t .,S zees of Weil d O_i:erp Ezdor' QC �lf' PARKL:L\E VENTURESiI F-RITAGE WOODS FILE #SUB -91-0001; RZ-92-0001 F\\13 E FILE n92-4 PAGE S proposed conceptual mitigation plan will result in a net loss of wedand function and value. In addition, the plan does not provide measures for controlling or encouraging public access into or from sensitive wetland areas. However, these elements \.iil be considered In u e finalinlUgai]0i1 pia'1 required by the CO.,dit?0^S con+tined In clic Kitieatcd Deter,:::nation of Non-SigniilCar,ce. The appiica�.t has agrtzd to all co,,diUOnS in the'.NIDMS. Conditions required'unrough theenvi.ronment_1 review process adec.WaielY address '•\'eLcpd ;::,pacts aSScciated wi"i uiiS proposed Ce\'1-1•0p .%e..t. %. Tht Site has a Outside Redondo/-\ !on charinel as �t f0i t.1 L7 tine Fcdeml NV -ay Cor„pre,; e.,si\•e P':rn (FV, CP). HoAever, u,e pei'�JO:1 Of u:C S?ie subject t0 u�s eesi-nation is t -':e to-:.•er elevation -.%.Inca CC,_' nS Open wa:er Pcj-ds and wetla=nd aicas and is proposed to be pro.—ted as all-rtv:-o7,rler,tzdJy serls_Li\•e 'tie.?. T ie prOpv^Scd design Of u e SUbdlviSi0;7, 'Including pIOiG i C:1 Of this poi -Lion 02 the Sl:e IS co:lsiste nt wiu'1 Policy INE -10, FVrCP, which advises Lhe C:.' -,y t0 1 i-ut develop,;:e t L"1 acii\°� GOL'Ifer re;.harSeu eas. . 8. ',,e: applicant corn ir' ssioncd 2 due i0 S:e D sloreS arra •yet]ands on t -he site (Ex1dbit 11). T:,ereport revealed Lhat with the ex ceptioa of the -,ver Lrjds and Ste --7 SIOp. areas there are no unusual Condi ions On -0it Site. 0 SiErdl,ca:it Eto-twai,ical :-Im-,zcis related t0 design and constrocti0:1 Of .:i,pr0\'e:;,eniS wii it e.:v:rOn ii e t,:-1ly Se: 5:: \': we1.1and areas exve-c. Le:d. Thee aoalicart will be recti red to me~t all rtc-dim,;,eudationS con?ed L -i he geo-te�� :ic1 ren ii w;,ich tie applicable to development wiiiiii 25 fese t of geoleRiCa}iY hazardous meas. The City n:ay iso require u,,: cppiScc=,t t0 ;6 _Z tie sen -ices of a rlOfeSSiOu-cl enZ--"j eI and retain -i Or �epl-ccv '� egetau 9.Davd EvarS and Associates, T -,-)C., pelio„ned a "Sl�iLi:Ca^:t `:� SiJdy” in r:�_'u” tay 1:'a? (T: ,I:ibit 1K). Sl;b_�uent to the date of said stu8y pie appl cant increased L`:e a7.o*Lc;t Of op --n Space iron 11.06 acres to 12.13 acres. F\VZC S----,L:o:t 90.15.3 Itq--ohes 25 ,o of all exist:;,,- signinc j t trt:�,s be maintained or replace:: on he, site. The project proposed will r,,e:t -,-us regLire,;,enc and a !:al <_-=rii:cant t-ee report \�;tl be r,b,-.ur1.rd 4 ilh One anal cons, ,ict,on plans. Development -!z.;-,s for tach individual lot mill be re\•iewed for possible prott: tion of a6diuo;:21 tre~s. 10. FWZC Section 16.2S0 requires b -,;;;-els from arte;;al streams or establis`,ed adjacent land uses. The applicant proposes to satisfy this re,Uirement by providing a 20 -foot %vide landscap-:d bU;fer along Mi :JU y Road South. The zpp1:c_,.t also proposes to r- ainl in l5 -fejt of vegetatio;l along the rez.r property IL -)-,s of lots adjoining the no, Win, south 2 --id Wiest property li� es. At the hez,-i;:o, in responding to tie request r BMr�, th-c�- applicant agreed to extEnd '"'It buffer to Lot al. PACE OF 3�...: PARKL.-,\E VENTURES/HERITAGE IVOODS FME = P.kR_KLA E VE.\TL-R.ESIIERITAGE N1'OODS FILE Y SUB -91-0001; R.Z-92-0001 FWHE FILE n 9''-4 PAGE 7 manual in 1990 which requires irnp7overnents such as surface '.;•iter detention, bio- ;ilti tion and oill•,vater sepai-tion. T;:e appl;ca.;.t's r:opoc-1 etc :s of said manual. 16. The original road bed of "Old '_Nlihl ry Road" is lo= -!(-,d v.i :n the plat boundaries. \' H(_— this road has military historical sicrilficance, it is not identified as having a Sly;illriCu.t h]S1Cr:Ca). v -clue. Tree aprl:ca.-'.t i a✓�, i O',+e1'er, 1'C`� - r:ly Gyre: d s0 pl=i.'. a pel;,�a~.e t marker identifying the location of 'Old Military Read.` 17. David Evans and Associates, Inc., piepa,ed a "school aeons a -.d school is )pact 2.palysis" (F-:ribit 17). - Tris report es:ablis.-its t_ at �rp.e::-;z:ely 93 s: -°dens '.%Ul reside L -i tire- develop„ient upon its completion. ��T.o:�ever, bass� upon a --i Che number of lots, the Federal Way School Distl-ict c_:Ic lat_-s that appy o:_- �na:ely 74 students will reside il-1 the development. The school disu ct s_tes that tl-je incrcas.: i_z tine number of students is rrdtiRa`,ed through tl]e us-- of consu`ilc.:oa bonds, impact ----s, and S12 a rna' * ",-ice fLndS�. 1 ne D1Sli1Ct 1S COi)C'_ilned a'JO''i t :e aC 'SS O. 5`'!C- J'�:2-'i lh'L-1 ��e-i1.. School. Witbout appropi?ate pedesu`:L-1 P2&,5 s hcol-ace C::'r:en ','+'Ould be• :e —q' i—rt'd t0 wall: along 14idtai"y Road South and Sooi)h S i Lake Road. nhest :OadS are high sp5z7J1, 13 h-voiiii7e a.uieraalS and h'ould p^,L S'c _ c- -e � � r c "r:.iiiCa:� Cy.�cr t0 C.�d:epi. 1,.., 'c1.rJC�:t has acre d t0 P70 -Vide a ' 1 -1 i:0`1 22nd Av_-I-It 0� d P _ pe.:estrt.� a S _� '0 2:,r �,-` •, Co ll SO:.u1, 'Jet':r w;l Los 35 and M: L-1 addi:s0.1Uje appl'Ca::t has a�'. �:i t0 0:01 i ' i d e a pat-, %v ay along ube lo•..a4;o.I Of the ' t' t o Ly t t• ewer i�ne ilOu�1 u,e'o =?„�St --0 DC7 C'I u: �_at t;':1:Ch 1; prol'ide a much sho,—,,eI ?auh to Che sc 011. 18. A si�m-ficzi7t issue reg,ardL,g Cie i:rie:`r:eta O.l Of the F--*erJ- W --y Zo ing Code, u�e Federal way Conn reheisive Plan and-Tit]e 22 - p �- � '� Y P of � .. F.,.::.:�.11�'ay Ci�y Code re::,ins unxesolvm. The City Public Wo; -.s Di:wtOr has deters :ed UhEt trio aD?ilCant MLIst improve Military Road Sou -01i to a l-n'e-lane 10ad-, ay with CLivs, side'.;ails and bike pa—Uhs On both sides Gloi)j isle Sit,?'s enuZ ffron ge. Ti D re ,oI bases decisioa On FWZC SwLon 110.25, the, City OI Ft6t;al','r'ay'sC`'_,:�'I Kx-Yea.r Tr--ansporinioa IM-ProVem, tnt PrOaia_m CM), '-'C— � Co_ -,t,' �1e iOJ? T:c.r c-' —:on Ne.dd•s and .; s lull :sr Report (unpublished as yet). Ther�ui7e,;,est for the of roadway is based on existi-ng and projected t-MlIfiC leads, a.,d the ne:: for sa_ —_I ,;l�.g move-ments. Tne applicant states that FWZC Scxdoa 110.25 rust be read i conjunction wit] -i the comprehensive plant and Titk 22. %Vhtl those st�tions - 7e-, d together the applicant argues that it is uhe code's intent t0 r;qui7e the applicant i0 ,::ii,s�te 1raJ7iC l;,,paCiS caused by this development, and that the U -Z- 11c impact a:,.-'ys;s (prepa e.d by David Evans do Associates, Exhibit 10) establishes that a threti-Ja .e .-o-d %vi -h curb, gutter, side':. - and bile path on the west s:Ue is s f cient to r u�ga._ t�'7,c impacts frcm this s bdivision. E H11031 ' O P JU-KLA, E VE.\TURESMERITJIGE WOODS FELE 'SLB -91-0001; RZ-92-0001 DN7HE FILE n92-4 PAGE 8 19. The existing average daily traffic on Military Road adjoining the project site is 16,500 vehicle trips. In the evening peak hour there are 1,388 .-chic;-- trips. Upon development of this site, traffic on MiEt2ry Road • •ill be increased by 1,135 vehicle trips per day, L -)d 118 vehicles the evening pezk hour. Said Cai:::LS i0 a 6.856 daily incre--se, and a 9.8% pe -A hour increase. 20. The applic--nt ass�r'ts that IMilitary Road at this location is a coileclor ulerial since the Com, pre hensive Pla.-t map reflex is it as such. 1?oN--ever, ZC C':alt 1:0-1 ir'entifes Minor u tCr7als as !laving avera`e dally trZ-1- iC VO31-1;,ieS dei � "'_.l 8,COO -e:iCl� trip$ rer dzy and O'G"�0 veiilCle trips per Csy, whlereLS jhava d1-4--iy traffic volumes of bei e: -;t 3,000 and 9,WO vel�icla :rips r r dLy. M -i -Or 2 1z-%als are defLned e^tc- ~ GS "Li'�G-�.Ga1�11iu i�.ity rOG(��'Gys c�Ol L7%n.t1:�1g comm. tillllY C+.J'i :+-J J� LJJl7 JLl.1L l7 'C.S, 'r1, Ci ets as collu-tor a.; to-Jals are defined as 'iriu4-COI, ?sulky rCcd•:: a}'S COrmect_ng residential ne7-qhborhOOCS ti':L'1 C7ii _"n1:n71y centers and facl-IlUes." l;O _1 :; 5 Of road �e va=�'-�y Conlr011ed '.:7i-1 i:,1i 'ien:t cCCrSS t0 abuitira aS-� Ur01 u,e ab0:'e defm lions 41d uaffic volumnes, Nffituy Road SO4L7 is a 7 -,,L -.or aiter:al. lha Co,mlprehensive r1an map iS a cerjer-a:,2zd map v,.-h'c t identi-:-S �e:,Gicliy �+l iC t road's are ri:lCi_Dal allft 1S, CO itz- for ut?%alS, arld ,mfi,or ai,C.i:is. Ho -:;-ver, bhe S1wific C1aSSifi Cat7Gn Criiril2 is IOu:1d LZ FWZC Ch aft 110-1. l::� �::7Sii:,g il"-c3i=C \'O1L':^:.0 Oft >I;tal-y Road SOui_'i greatly exCetd-s &Je traff.0 volumes s= `.d Gr a Collector Z Beii -,, and fa.Js within U,-- aveJcEe dLIAY u`cfiJC Volumes 01 a r—,ilor utehal. 21. the -%!� $ CAnt_h:S siiC OIi Si.:: ucli7C ii l:ii�ation Mt 1:7:ts \+'i�C.R uiie a.�ir1:Cu':t }:ai agre:T'd t0 lneasLres are as fOLiov:S. a.) Co,nujbi'tir'.g S11,65,03 as i'S pro-ict2 COnti:J �vl tC%re=d 7,:.riC1'L^.:�i tS LZ Military Road from I-5 to South 28801 Sur:-- L; b.) V- ZI:tzry Road SOui}r fiord L'le not�Z and soup ]-i •yT:' 1 of tht r li'uEd iJ-ght-oi-way improvements abu;tJ-Jg t',e site; C.) Coi:Su`uCu1S a nos ibo7u,-,d left t1i.,i1 lay,.' on ', `L- - _ry Road So'ot-z at Ul,,G L^'�rSr; uG;l with Star I---ke Road; d.) coordinating with the City and !Gills Cotir,ty to modify ill-- sic -,?Js at SOUL} 288th Strut and Soit3h 272nd Streit; e.) dcsicn and COnSu- a a uaf c islu1d a:,d s:=ase at the L711--rse•Cuon Of South 2841uh Stre tj!�IiLtary Road Sou -,h :a westbound ti-afric from Soa,h 2 .x`► S-ert richt only o. -,,,o ?cad So-,;"; f-) prep:._:-- and sub—,,.:t for appo-val a tr�,sr'ERA idiT q'at i� accP.ptM'c able to ' o and dht City. PAGE._.1.1._0F_- 3 a._ I PARKLA.\-E `'EENTL-RES>HERITAGE WOODS FILE nSUB-91-0001; RZ-92-0001 F HE FILE R92-4 PAGE 9 The applicant disa-grees with Finding of Fact :Y]2 in the NI D\S which states that FWZC Section 110.25 requires the construction of a five -lute arteria] road section along the plat frontage with Military Road South. 22. Concerns raiS2 by speakers at Lhe i,eaHn- io incIude ir)c a:icz.,1•s traf11C eXpert 2nd ciiizzn,s Of Ljie area were addre-m t0 Lie 2 vt-)a;-e mad se•: i_cn re -uirernent. Testimony L-idical-ea that Military Road is basically a v o-la:e road for s en ire length, ei:cept for lnterSCCtiOnS Where it is widened i0 lit ILT,eS. Widening N1:lit_ry Road t0 f'id'e lanes -vill Crz :e anur,neceSS��' s'.�'�tl i::rOL'£n i;'e Co:,,,i,`.iriiy Si.,. ai to SR99. SRS9 an I-5 Lit des!CZed for h'.ga volum-Ct`::0"��:-� �.;rC. Unsafe t;O-G:"O_s :•i:l be crew:yd by consti-icur:g a short iivt-lane road L;:30;1, '.;•=Licit AU ,_C2_1 _:at �ui'sc will ,: ov-_ frorZ a % o -lane con-igur-atiorl t.0 five 1L"les t,en bac: to two lanes. Ve tales will race to get a',ead Of o htr vehicles to hava beit.er ccr,.,Ss to Lhe itcf::C _'--t 2t so,.: -I HEI -1 Si..::.rt. Funhelmore, wider g N-111t2sy Road -,;—M adversely inlp ct ::oases on both sides of Lha cacti. 23. Fti'rZC S&c-u:o 1 130.60 s_=tS foi-0i the cr:'_-na ,+Mali a_n a plicant must i::eet :--I older to Oqt=?-1 a zone re;lass; r:ca-. 0n. h_:ti. `s =e:q-L':_r1-by c.r'd sem-- o.1 a_e hereby :,%ade as f0.i0"vs: a.) The `•rOpOSed rezo::e is i -Z &,t best interest o i .$ City. 7rt addition to Cevelop:ng Lie sit-- in aCCO7CL'lc, w•itZ zi! City codes a^d reaulat':ons, uht appiica .i is Yr 0•:iGir.j LI;..CSt i%T-JC: uiv Gpv:i Spew leu_ ed by crpi:Ccv.a codes, and is c,,-;s=ciL':g a doubly terir%3s court oil 4.1 "acres and d _dicz&.g the; improve= Cm -along �:it'1 i::e acreage t0 t:i� City. FuliLhelm.Ore, the applicant is bTJffering ex;s ''.7 adjoinall- deVe)Or„ ier,'s, mtwiing 2Tid restori g stnsitive areas, a_,d p:cv dirg'a'a.l:,�vay'u S to e -st safa a=ss t0 schools. b.) The rezone will cOr7ec t a zone ClasSiitca%On or zone boundary that •,vas ii,appropi,at.: whea establ si,ed. The siut :s lC•: zed w7'u':in Lhe su urlba_n residential Ju -)d use Classii7Cati0- OI ie c0 ";y: _ :e:,sib e'. r�oLh RS 7.2 and RS 9.6 single- ami.ly zones aye allow•ab'.e %vithin il'3s classiricadon. The proper'jes 2dloLning the sot th a. -id `.; est of e site are cur7ertly zoned RS 7.2. The size itseif is split -zoned, w=in app.-wimately 30% being zoned RS 7.2. T m RS 9.6 properties zie located e=.st of ?Military Road, with tie smai tr lots sizes 0-1 i,e %vest side of %i3lit2iy Road. The zone reti)zssii:caters %ould alio : c07.pLrable density and development standards t -'Lo ,shout Late entire sire. As apolic._rt has the ep, m 0f clus,�rir.g tl:e sub :�;s:0 �a ,o o� Z dens:,y .�..,Ich is co-Tii—a :,.:o e RS 7.2 �. o t 3a PARKLANE VF-NTL-RES/HERITAGE WOODS FILE nSLB--91-0001; RZ-92-0001 F WH E FILE ""92-4 PAGE 10 c.) The proposed project complies u:Lh the Fedei-:1 Way Zoning Code in 211 respect . d.) The site plan is designed to minimize all adverse ;:-::pacts on develop d prope, ues hi the i,ini,ediate vicLZity. e.) The site plan is desilgned to Tndr, mizt iiiip-C-s •Jpon pu'b�'c s:.I1'ices L-nd L 1;ieeS. LiJ C-Ct, i3O i,7:p'cCtS .0 p bL'C sefti'iC.'S have been ;tier,_;?ed. 24. 1, e applicant had two community me:tifigs u7d a4Mressed conce,i,S raised by Su,iOL'ndU:g resiC,eilLS. These conct-M, Lncluded tr- iic,' 'LtQliie r'cC? t, prOt�:LOn Ofi: sensitive areas, existing dick:age problems, 2ind the lack of p-uks. The site is located approximately 1.25 miles ftorn the nearest locd park. I-owever, &,,a appLcant cannot be required.d to sell i=,e sit-- to the City, nor the City be ice: 3= to 7ur6hase 0--s Site for a Dark. - Iv. CONCLUSIONS 1. In the circuli ion s�bcL:IOn Of the Fed-eicl N"Jay Corn pre'e„sive Pla.-i ih, 1,01-lo1+ ;:g st.-te-meniz a_e ,Made on pages 29 and 30: "Ti–Z,9c i7npacts cre-atrd by deyelopments should be imiigated by tht developer. On the Oyler hand, e);ist ng traffic decicie-ncies S:,ould be addr'essc�d on a broad. --r scale, inclidung mitigation by L},e City of Federal ,I: ay. I;,.pro`'ements to tipe znSportation system inn Fedeizl Way should be r:� -:d 2 -=id des;-ned iz reCional conte:.t ....” Policy T-12 of the comprehensive plan states ;hat the City s iould "re�Lire ,iiitigation of di-rect 'Lr-anspor',ztion impacts create:; by new development." T ;e cornpre; ensive pla-t conte.;,plates i -)at developerS N;7:M Ed -&CSS Uht di eat i7-.5PaCt_S Of Pa -7 -6C -')ZX deveiopmtrt.on uht public road system, while regional and exis5rg problems -would be addressed by the City. 2. FWZC Section 16.300.30 requires that a1 steets abuzzii.g a p-oposed subdivision be { improved in 2ccord2nce with Chapter 110 of the Feder -Z-1 \;'ay Zoning Code. F1VZC Section 110.05 establishes the requirements for the improvements an applicant mmust make wi�hm rights-of-way adjacent to the p;olvsed subdivisio.). FW ��� 10 25(1) Stales as '10130 v s: 9 PACE l9 0F jo PARKL:..1-E VENTURES/HERITAGE NVOODS FELE rSLB-91-0001; R.,92-0001 F\`rHE FILE n92-4 PAGE 11 enerel - The Development Standards portion of charts 110-1 and 110-2 establish the improvements that must be inst2iled, basad on the classification of the various rights-of-way witi:in the City. The zppLcant shall, consistent \vial &,,e provisions of this Chapter, install all improvements esl2blished in Chair 110-1 and 110-2 along the entire frontage and wid- h of ezc 1 right-of-vvay, ewher alleys, that abuts the subject prop`riy." Chart 110-1 allows three -lane, four -lane, or five -lane minor a: Arial roads. There are no tests Or guidance Srt fOrL) in std chart, i0 identify wi c0,er a _ .e �, four or l ve-IL-e road is appropriate for a develop;neit. As prey L �.'� i0 Sly si�.e, that developers sho-uld be responsible -�> e " r ... far ,:,i%_aut.� _ �'. i::raCtS oI ---heir c•.:n development. Ln addition, Title 22 of 0he Feceial Way City Cod.-- is entitled "'ale ,ods to ' L--U:gate Develop:,,en t Impacts." SG.uon 22.10 states i=:at it is -ts;e purpost Of 1.'13S S—_tion to "provide 2temaiiVes for prOsY�---tive develop-rs of land wIill?n t -he Cii'f t0 ,rugate ti,e diect impacts &,at have be—en s_,pecC.=1117 iG : tlf:e-d by u,e City as a cOnstquenc: Of proposed developTne;;t." Lncl„ eed wi ' * .... acts :deny "ed i'1 Sa_d uon are s' Ls, alleys, a_ -3d o'er pubic ways. S�:.tioa 22:50 stales, , tcie_ in aitt as `011o`vs: ap_._oval for a proposed developmtn t sha_1 review a_n a'? ~ ' :-1 '-+- 1 p �car,t s propoSzl fc: :�i:Eat:-, Q � any direzt impacts ..... No official or body s :alI ap_ .ove a developm--n- t un]tss p,rG'�iSiOriS Lave bP..erl ,iaue t0 ,�.i`ga:e ice:,�:.'� Cu.:.t i...pacts u at a=L con_r-equencts of such develo- meat." 3. The Fede�zl Way Comprehensive Pia,), Chap= I10 of iL.e F e:-,-1 \� ay Zon ,Q Code S , arid Title 22 of ;e Fe eral Way City Code -lust e ' - sist ' � i` b,. rid it._et:,Cr and can i er;:�} i possible. Ln reading these sections iogeiher., Ch-- 110-1 p.-o•ices 211c,—natives of three, feu-, and five -lane roads for „ inOr The CO,T,7r�J: ;,$i�'e Dlan and Title 22 provide guidance t0 u•1e Public NVor S Dire --tor as i0 which tiv'idi-i should be reeui:ed be -_5 -1 upon the G1I L JnipaciS of Lriz del-el0p:;,ent 01 t:,- a:_:sung road Sys' --m, L -i i:js case Military Road South. Such Ln:erpre'Lat:�on is c0::sis1,e-t U. ctv 59 'Vqn. ADD. 886 (1990); Cobb v. Snot:o-mish County 64 \tin ADD 451 (1991), and Unlirnite�j v. KCtsao County �0 Wn App. 723 (i08S1. 4. applicant's t,ufic study provides trZfi--:c Counts acid a level of sen-icr Lnalysis for the number of lanes required for NL'litary Road Sou-Lh foilo• :U -1g developrmert of this pro ect. The t -affic study establishes uh2t a road is more tra_n adequate to handle tr- c in each direction, plus vehicles tt:rur.; :eft at each plat access. The anJ)•sis establis�-,ed z-1 LOS E for both plat 2ccesses onto Military Road SOL'_ . PcEX+1 stLdy rer;or;,,ed by the tr2- fic c-ly les d PAGE.26 I)Py 30 PA_ K A.\E VE\TL-RE.SiHE.R1TAGE 11'OODS FILE #SLB -91-0001; RL -92-0001 F11WE FILE #92-4 PAGE 12 evening peak, hour •xhich do not provide ade ua'.c time for t1:,;,ing movements. Lei the morning peal; hour only 9 minutes Fere unavailable for left vj-ms. There are adequate gaps for left tum movements. The en ;ineer used 7 se -c -ones as am ZdegUa:e gap for turning movements. These gaps are ca::s`d by the pla!oon:ng of cats from nearby trcf c Signals. The tI-Ziic engineer recornmiended a curb, guutter, Sid'•e 2i1-, and bike: las-,e along ;e west frontage, plus a center tum px'ret for each plat access. Fis op:n:o:i was &.at n0 curb, gutter, sidewalk 2.nd bL:e p20i wa-s required ori ire --t.s:de, as it wou'd not serve this development: 1. T?iL' PL•bL'c NNtOr>;S ✓lig: Or e:d not C- lege :O Ui:JJ.. S`�G;�, v_I ' ,?'S Ge�.iS:Oii & :e.^^Elie the five -la.-_ road O:i tl`uiic 2 eT,S, ijrn cvem.e.,nts aie2S of ti:e City, the. King County Trcnsp•OliViuOn ntz:ds rep -o , arid the City's tririspoIia.-L-io.1 2_':d i:Tiproveme:.t pla-n. The TIP, 1;'i ie not a SLbs-u':'.t :Ci i::'- CO?:D:ei:ei:Si\'t.- plan, is adop'1--d by the City of Federal Way City Council. 1-_o�e� er, L:e TIP is d -L—, Wd toward 1 public System -wide Lmnspllnation pizir1ung and net6s. it is not coric4tTn ed with direct r)at impacts 0I plivatt l,:e 11P does not Consider ire Sp :fic i:m:pcci_S 02 etch develoament in deter:, min e r 1 L"f 1T:pr0�'e�e iiS. For eXci:I .: if i:0e a�DLCc.)I had requested a do,,; -Ti zone t0 ridj-.-innum l -acre lot sues FOr _. iOSe Of cevclop n- :�T;CneiteS" ulCl thus GeYelOpin g i,e Si:e in:0 pOSSiuiy �O Or _0 Sim:�le'ia?:..:y r:.SiG�P.i:"c! homes, under Iht 11? znd KL-jg COL':, y 11z -ins of aton, _tpo i .::e w Q_ld S`ill be mouiied to im—D ove ��L::a-y Rcad Soi?ih to :1ve l2^..`.s. :,:7e' lam, base L'?Oii L7e appllc7.'it's u`u::c SiUdy and sp-ticii?c Y, E:^'D:t A to E;:: --':t 7 of Oris reco.d,'M?i_:Ay Road SOL u'Z Lonl- L:Ie p7o;et.l '..1.:.1 0pe1Git adez"'I ,Gly '.+:t,'i a U w iG:,a. cross Se`"tioii wlui cuib, glliwr, Sidewalk -L -id b---ke path on tiie west Side follo':.,Lng, Cevelopmvit OI &dS Site. 1r1,pr01'i.ng 11112,-Y Road Sou -0i to 2 L LG�v-lL.v 5: ::u 01 arorg i.7e entice plat . ont.age will 1iliiig'cte the Ci=a;I i7 -,,pacts of uciiic crectt:i by Ce\'elop:aent. 6. T.,le propo_szd prelimidnary plat of Ire, -i t. Ce Wc��?s is con, sist.:.-t a --)d compatible Oh-_ goals and obje�n*ves Of the City 01 F e`•eral 1Vay CorT'. rclie 'S:"'e PIZ;) 2i"d _:e City Of Fede,—al Way Zoning Code, as v.'e11 as 001er apY) Cable GO: eS. !I 0'le applicant cOmP1.)eS with the reco m:r tnd—ed cond:tiom of pre: -J7, ral'y plat ap=:ovZ-J, L -id L:e cot:di''U:Ons COnt2In d L -a the NF;dQatedDetel;,.i ;a'?O.l Of :ATO^,-S:�rti i _'. �, �,e Oro -os-] �:''_'l corn.pi j, wish the Fmcr--1 Way Subdivision Cove, as a'e1 aS o:i;er of;:cial land use controls of Fele; al Way. 7. Tyle proposed 17iC!� ,llnu'y plat Of 1-:ei,ge 1VCw�dS 'mazes arY:Orrlaie }r0\'iSiO lS :or Lhe public he --101' Surety, and genes al we);are, open Spaces, d— c1 .ac.nvays, S'u e: is ai:d roads, transit stops, po+wb:e Fater supplies, sL-litary w? -Sic, p ark -S L: -,d : e` i cations, playgiounds, schoo)s and school grounds, :ncludino S:and O er p:=-- r. r -� - '•= assure Safe Nva: 3ng c.One.i' Ons for SiU& S 10 10 a: -,d f70771 Sc -:C' ). of He, ce %' &3o s S rvc i'Ic uS -,d PA 30 P,5,RKL.-' \-E ti-E.N-TURESMER1TAGE 1ti'OODS FILE rSUB-91-0001; RZ-92-0001 F\VHE FLLE 02-4 PAGE 13 location for single-family residential development, while at t�-_ saJ;le time protecting and preserving sensitive areas and open spaces. 8. The proposed rezone from RS 9.6 to RS 7.2 is consistent i:'l the. suburban residential lard us.e classification of the City of FeLer--,l Way Cornprc:;e;,sive Pian, and imez s aR r;,quirements of Chap:_ -r 130 of ht Federal Way Zoning Code. V. RECO�E\ZENDAT10N£ Itis hereby re—commended 0,at the request for zone re.lassificacon f:o:n RS 9.6 to RS 7.2 and .Cr pre?i„il.nary plat approval Or 'ALIE1J �e \�rGt�is De approvco, subject t0 i%e f0llO:L'i%g LO11diLOnS. A. PR_ELBM ARY PLAT APPLICATION \O. SLB -91.-0001 1. PurSuu,t to swtion 20.130.30 of the Environ,nental Policy OrdLnance, all ruuQauon :ne.su:es of lht r"-.pr:l 8, 1992 r... Gated deter—ndna'ion of nonsigiulfcarict ale ir,corpo:Cted by reference, as C.O`d:uons of this appio\'al. Failure to comply •with 41e Fd,,igauoil ,:,ea_sures sal consiltule ground -S for c'.1cptilssiol andvior revo•„cuon Of i~i s cp.x-oval. 2. Or t iS prOpOC;d prel:ilinary plat is S' bj —_:t :0 approv.21 Cr ieLOrJe app CcuO t Hari„ Jer RZ-92-CG?O1. LI Lie event illat 1.77, e appy ca:io:l rJLJ::'er RZ- 92-0D01 is mc-6ified or de-21jad, any action 1.0 approve his preliminary plat shall be C.,e : :-,. '=d a%d a ..e:: Yubl;c hear-na 3. To extent feaSiblc, eni5::ng n2mrcl Shad be u'ili-- k'iutiL`.n all landscape buffer areas as requued by i'.c Director Of Community DeVeloDrinent. In addition i0 Lie re aired i::ei,iy foot '.tide buffer loccie�d 210 NU try Road South, the app'lcant 'nD proviC(-- 2 i7fte:tn foot w:Ldt buffer of rauve vegetaLon aloe- O)t rear of lots adjoi,^,inz U,e nor-vh, south 2j -,d ',est boundaries Of the s: ie. AJl perlrneutr buiier aicas 5':a1 be ider,urJed on the plat ri,ap and restrrned fro,.i 7C.Mova1 Of vegetaiion exc. pt as may be authoii� by ,he Director of Co.m.—munity Development. 4. Prior to final plat appro'.-al, lot number 59 shall be reconfigured to be located eriurely outside of any rcqui.-ed IN foot we-Jand se'',ack a;ez. 5. Prior to final plat appioval, 21 proposed us: --blit o -n space designated as T,2ct A shall be dedic.atJi�_d to the City as required by Che Pairs Director. As proposed, i;;e applic�lt Fill cons7uct trnriis court faciLfies ar )aw nn Dire�.tor. As proYos�, t -)C app: ca ,t "A•ill erect a."1 i:,:e ire ;cga,di, g 'O'.d \i,!*I=Y Ro2j' as a;pr:ovcA by tee ?- k.s r. �� OF PARKLANE VE.\TL-RESMEMAGE i`'OODS FILE=fSLB-91-0001; RZ-92-0001 F\VI E FLLE ;92--3 PAGE 14 6. No general site clearing or grading shall occur on or within 25 feet of geologically hazardous areas located on lots 52, 53, 56, 57 and 53. Any building construction located within these sensitive 2reas or setbacks shall be by pilins or pier type foundation construction as required by L e Building Official, to ,elm -iizc grading andisturbance Y,-:thL-i the geolog]caiiy }i?sc'rdOUS area. Upon completion, ell disturbed areas shall be replanted as required by the Building 0-1116 2L This condition shall be placed on the face of the plat prior to final plat approva]. 7. Lndividial homeowners for lots 52, 53, 56, 57 and 53 s: :--Il be resrol:sible for provieirg U} e City wit:1 services of a qualified professional e gi'neer !,Or purposes of revie'wLng and iilspc-.ctmg pier or piLing t)w Izimu-ti sid ial consCtiOn located ed lri geologically hazardous "leas, as :e uijed by the Du>>d;ng OI ici 1. 1'3s. conditon shall be placed on the face of the plat prior to final plat approval. 8. l rte developer sha!1 be responsible for providi� ie,- City with sei-'ices of a qu 41Led professional engineer for pu'iposes of reviev, ? and ins,,\ --ti. ]g any stre:.t or ud?ity work located w-iti-tin geologically h-72 do -us areas, zs retired by LIm Public Works Official. 9. Due to poier:tal erosion l:aza:d 2j)d impacts to eil%:on.mt: a-_Ky axe: --,S, Clear' -:g s:i'c11 be 13m,ited On ly 't0 _')e mo,i:hs of Aprl October. 117. Retenboilidetention facLifts used to control. rlinofI Iloni the site to off-site Gia:l:age courses shall be loc-z,ed L°1 a Su 1! = water `act to be de ,cated to t -_ City at the time of final plat approval as required by t ,e Public Works D:re-_-tor, unless Ionated within improved City of Fedei-al Way r;gh is-of-�:.'ay. All_ reter,aldet oner,tion facilities shall be landscaped to p.-ovide a visual buffer ftom surrounding properties. A landscape plan shall be submij-z fd for approval by -lhe Director of Community Developmtrit. p;;or to issu:--rcr of construciion pe:-riits. 11. Prior to final plat approval, Lhose poi JOns of 1 -he water facilites r:—,.: -Ssary io re'tain/detain, convey, and Treat the ilo`.'s 'ford Life site shall be constructed and ope.ational. 12. A 15 -foot gravel access shall be' provided along ,he entire length of eacli bioliltm6on swale for maintenance as required by .e Public \',`orfs Direcnor. The biofilt-etion swale and gravel access shall be loc::ted in a surf ace water tract to be dedicated to the City prior to final plat approvi. EXHIBIT____,D . PAGE ,Q3 O 3O PARKLANE VENTURES/HERITAGE WOODS FILE ,SUB -91-0001; RY,92-0001 FLAME FILE x`92-4 PAGE 15 13. In some cases, on-site surface water in;iltrztion systems may be suitable for use on individual lots depending on soil conditions. This 7 system shall be used v. -here suitable. To dete,- ;Brie the suitability of the soil for infiitration systems, a soils report that includes percolation tests a_nd a sol log tat:en at 6 -foot z niinum depute shall be sub, v�.;:a by a p:ofessio;:zl e-:gmevr, or soil specialist. This shall include, at a minimum, information on sail texture, depth to seasonal high water and the occur—,vice of „ondins and i,%fi loos Dyers. Tile report Sl all also address potential down gradient i;,,racs c e to increased hydrat:L•c load:.-- On SIODes 'c: -,d Strictures. 1f u"t SOUS report iS ap prON'ed, t t ir!?1! . ct;On systems shat be ins `teed prier t.o oxupa,ncy 0LLrit _es'Ce; ct. A mote to tails e e -,ace Of tht Kral l ' _ " ;'- plan effect sr:2ll b p,ac,.d on Lel prat ...ao T;.� e:G� Gge 1,.G.n a_nd the final plat .,lap sha!1 !-idicai—c etch lot approved -Gr inf-i umtion. 14. ExistLng on-siie suii"cce water '-Dne-s shL'l be :e_ -td as pail OI t"e S+01 --i1 drainage system and shall be ut lined as a one -well .or treat:;,ent Or rsunoif prior t0 entering the detention fac1itieS or biolili=<Le:, S'wa'e. DiScllarge i.':to lire -,>o-,.d shall be Oric.ited to maxim; -z-- the retention and s_-701 e-ei t 6 m, e 02 i;,e'.:'ater Li the pond. The pored shall be 14:,ated i,n a st?iac' 'Fater d: inane —L -act to be Ciedica:ed to the City pr,Or t0 final plat app a`ov' 1, as : ed by Lie PLblic `'Forks 17?s e�iOr . 15. A geo`eermicz-1 repoil si:ail be prepa_ed by a Lctnsed gtote.:l`sLul engineer to address re--om-nended desigr.s for xo>Osed roadways. The report Shall de ail soil and groundwaier conditions. Rtco menCauons to ensure integrity oI future roadways shall be subje:t to review and approval by e Public \i'oAL3 Director. 16. A t.ei,t r- y paved tu,i,-around 'Mill be constructed at i`;e westerly end Of 25th Place South L-1 accordance with Sr --tion 2.07 of t -'le {i:g County Road Stu,dards. Sidewalk shall be consti-uct.ed 1.0 extend trough the t-.;-:ro:Gry tun, -around area. Temporary easements shall be provided and S;;all be p'.Gced On the, ;ace of the final plat as re ;uired by. the Pubhc Works Dire._nor. 17. A 10 foot utility easeme, t shall be provided along tit front of all lots a-ld LCcls located adjacent to propos:d stre-t rg;; PARKLANE VF-ES/HERITAGE WOODS FILE nSUB-91-0001; RZ-92-0001 FtiNTiE FILE #92-4 PAGE 16 B. REZOiti-E APPLICATION \O. R2^92-0001 1. Pursuant to Section 20.130.30 of t.tte Environnne;,:al Policy Ordinanc. , all mitigation measures of the April 8, 1992 , —i6gated determinariezz of nonsigni icance �e incorpor-�ted by reference as CG ditio;,s of this app.-�azl. Failure to comply with the rni6gation measures s 21t cons' -3 !e. grounes for suspenso:t and/or revocation of -6-)3s approval. 2. Approval of this propos: rezone is subject to approval of prelimi.^a�- 7=3at application number SUB -91-0401. Ln vie event Chat prelkmnary plat applicz5oa number SUB-9I-COOl is d.-- , any action to a:,p-ove L. s :eza:e sir '7- b -- deemed i;jvalid and a n0_ p:blic lieari: g required. 3. T e Resolution of L-itent to Prezone s%a!I provide i':_i Ohe O e-)' !irl:e t. Of FVZC Section 156.1dO is extended to coincide whin . e cu:2_cri of plat apprcval spwIne_J undEr FIVZC Swtion 16.120, aLlo-.% a li Li. D.4 i ED TIES 16TH DAY OF TUNE, + 0_102. K. CALSS'ALX, -TeuL ► 1L•._:iCl V7. RIGHTS TO RECONSIDERS 710N;kN_ CHALLENGE Any person who has a r-:git to challenge a 7e on-i-,,e:,dation under &re Ft eral ay Zoning CD6e Tnay request the, He&,ng F7:ailln?r to reconsider a7sy L�.t Oi iiS Or 1 0_r t;E;COMMCi]GGL,=-- buy deliverr-i.ng a writ'�en request for re:;onside:cuon to Lie Pla.:nu:g D�7 it:.:e,":= :+i_hi:i 5eti>eM- (/) calendar da;'s af`ler the date of issuance of O,e Hewing Exa;niner's re:_ -o ;,r-,lenGaJo7. requestLng the. reconsideicdOn shad si> -iry ki the request What E57 wi OI L:0_ Ie: ornl, erie��OZ he or she wishes to have itconsideieas a alid the reoa for -,he reLLest. 1!-.0_ �isujbui_01 0-F iie reuest and Ltie response to t_i',e request Shall be governed pursi_.,_-t t0 L`0_ p:CvSC::S C ile Federal Way Zoning Code. With,Un tta (10) working days a rr retia it ::g a rec o-st Ser reconsideration, the He&=Exan-uner shall notify the persons ; ho `ave a Fiight to appta1 `-nder the Fe6eral \Vay Zoning Code, wh, tther or not tie re.:orn„ endat;oa will be reronsidere6. 1 he Hearing Examiner may re -consider the rea,;.nenca:io t only if he or she co:,clt des that i.�-y is substantial merit in the request. The pro: -ass of &,e reconside,-anon be folJo'.ve�f i -i 2cc,orda*ice \•ith the Feral Way Zoning Code. The ri--ommi endaLea of Che may be challenge by a.y person v ho is to re: ei%e a copy of that : e; on^�=dation Les-: to FWZC 1».60.6. That challenge, in the fo,,, of a lener of challe.-C::, r.E eTEj .o i7e Q Pla.-uiina DepLi-t-mer.t \%-:Lin Lys t ;ss of PA KLAINE VENTL-RES/HERITAGE WOODS FME rSUB-91-0001; RZ-92-0001 FNN7aE FTLE #92-4 PAGE 17 Examiner's recommendation or, if a request for reconsideration is filed, then within fourieen (14) caJendar days of either the decision of the Hearing Ex2 =cr denying the request for reconsideration or the reconsidered recommendation. The letter of challenge must contain a clear reference to the matter being challenged and a stzt.ement of J-jr- sp�cific factual findings and conclusions of the Hearing Examiner disputed by the person filing the- challenge. The person flung the challenge sha' Lnclude, with the le.wr of appeal, the few esizbL•shed by the City. The appeal will not be accepted unless it is accomnpariied by the regt::red fee. The recommendation of the Hearing Examiner may be challengewhether or not there was a request to re:onsider the Hearin; Examiner's recommendztion. V EXHIBIT—2. PAGE 26 OF- Exhibit C BEFORE THE HEARIITG EXAMNER OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY In Re the Application of ) Parldane Ventures, Inc. ) FILE #SUB 91-0001; RZ,92-0001 FNNIHE #92-4 For Rezone and Preliminary ) Plat Approval of that tract ) DECISION ON RECONSIDERATION of land known as Heritage Woods ) On July 8, 1992 the Examiner ordered a second hearing to address issues raised by the City of Federal Way in its request for reconsideration (FWZC 155.65)(6). The Examiner requested that the applicant and the City address four specific issues which were set forth in the order on request for reconsideration. Based upon the testimony received at the public hearing and additional exhibits made part of the record herein, decisions on each of the four issues are hereby made as follows: 1. What is the role of the Federal Way Hearing Examiner in reviewing a zone reclassification and preliminary plat request? Zone reclassification requests and preliminary plat applications are both Process III actions under the City of Federal Way codes (FWZC 16.90. 10 and 130.30). Federal 'Way. Zoning Code Section 155.35 requires that the Examiner hold a public hearing on each Process III application. Section 155.35(3) provides as follows: "Effect - The hearing of the Hearing Examiner is the hearing for City Council on the application. City Council need not hold another hearing on the application." The Hearing Examiner is therefore sitting on behalf of and in the place of the City Council to review each requirement -of each City agency. 2. `'fiat review authority, if any, does the Hearing Examiner have over requirements imposed by the Public Works Director? As previously stated, the Hearing Examiner is sitting in the place of the City of Federal Way City Council, and has the same authority as the Council to review requirements imposed by the Public',Morls Director. The Examiner's review, however, is in the nature of a recommendation to the City Council, which is free to accept or reject the said recommendation. In addition, FWZC 16.100.20 specifically requires the Examiner to review preliminary plats for compliance with the subdivision ordinance "and any other applicable ordinances or regulations of the City and RCW 58.17 ...." Furthermore, the City Council has set forth decisional criteria which the Examiner must apply in rendering a recommendation. (F\VZC 155.75(4)) Section 155.75(4)(B) requires that the Examiner recommend approval only if the project is consistent .with 211 applicable provisions of the Code, including those adopted b m the Comprehensive Plan." Therefore, the Examiner, sitting in place of th® r..l3lust_.D..�,,. PRELIAffNARY PLAT OF HERITAGE WOODS DECISION ON RECONSIDERATION F1NM #92-4 PAGE 2 determine whether the Public Works Director is properly interpreting the Cityof Federal Way Zoning Code, Subdivision Ordinance, and any other applicable ordinances or regulations of the City. 3. May the Public Works Director impose requirements for road improvements (or other improvements) which are in excess of direct plat impacts? Does the Examiner have the authority to review the Director's determination as to required improvements to mitigate direct plat impacts? There are generally two types of regulatory codes. One type of code, such as the Uniform Building . C(>de, establishes specific standards for construction. Other examples of specific -standards include, but are not limited to, landscape requirements, sidewalk construction standards to include minimum widths and heights above right-of-wpy, standards for utility construction to include a requirement of underground utilities, street lighting, and road construction standards such as construction materials, trench backfill and restoration, and survey monuments: T'ne Public Works Director may require road construction within the City to adhere to the specific standards regarding the t)pr of pavement, drainage standards, the depth and nature of road beds, t -)-p-- of traffic control device, and pavement markings. Departures from these specific standards should be reauestted through a variance procedure. The s..,:ond type of regulatory code -rants the Public Works Director authority to make decisions regarding mitigation of development impacts. Examples of development impact decisions would be as in this case, whether a minor arterial should be three lanes, four lanes, or five lanes. Other development impact decisions include, but are not limited to, deter mina whether an applicant's project generates the need for a traffic signal, channelization, or other improvements nec essary to mitigate traffic circulation and safety. These determinations are subject to review by the City Council, and thus by the Hearing Examiner at a preliminary plat hearing. - The requirement for road improvements is a specific plat impact derision which is subject to review at a public hearing. In requiring road improvements, the Public Works Director is guided by Title 22 and the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan, which do not allow imposing requirements in excess of direct plat impacts. Therefore, the Public Works Director should not impose requirements for road improvements which are in excess of direct plat impacts. The City Council, and therefore the Hearing Examiner, have authority to review the Director's determination as to whether required improvements exceed direct plat impacts. 4. Is a five -lane roadway section along the frontage wa=ted? What criteria are used in determining whether or not a five -lane roadway section is .van -anted? Do the direct traffic impacts of this proposal require the five -lane roadway section, as opposed to a three- or four -lane roadway section? EIBIT PAG E -�O O F,: 0 PREL11MURX PLAT OF HERITAGE WOODS DECISION ON RECONSIDERATION nNrHE x'92-4 PAGE 3 Following exhaustive presentations by both the City and the applicant's traffic engineer, the Examiner is convinced that a five -lane roadway section along the frontage is not warranted. The reasons for this determination are as follows: 1. According to the City, the average speed of 85% of the vehicles travelling on Military Road is 46 miles per hour, 6 miles above the posted speed limit. It would not seem that the capacity of Military Road is a significant problem if a large percentage of the traffic is exceeding the posted speed limit. 2. In determining that a five -lane road section is rewired, the City has relied upon traffic studies from the City of Bellevue, the State of Florida, and the City of Federal Way Transportation Improvement Program for 1993-2003. The applicant has based its assertion that a three -lane section is satdsfactory upon an* exhaustive specific study of ( Military Road including traffic gaps; historical traffic increases over the past five to seven years; arrival and departure counts at the peak hours; the spread of the evening peak hour; and estimated trip distributions. The City's requirement was based upon general studies as opposed to the applicant's exhaustive, specific study of Military Road. 3. South of 272nd Street, Milital-y Road is St,-iped for two tr-zfic lanes with 6 -foot gravel or asphalt shoulders, open -ditch din nage, and 40 mile -per -hour posted speed limit. Traffic signals are presently located at the intersections with South 272nd Street, South 288th Street, South 304th Street, and South 320th Street. All other intersections are controlled by stop signs. At the intersection of South 272nd Street, Military Road is widened for three lanes northbound and two lanes southbound. At South 288th Street, Military Road is widened to allow for three lanes northbound and southbound. At South 304th Street no turning lanes are provided on Military Road. At South 320th Street, Military Road is widened to allow for three lanes northbound and southbound. It dors not appar reasonable to require the widening of Military Road to a five -lane road section between major intersections for a short distance. The road would change from Mo lanes to five lanes back to two lanes, and then eventually to three- lanes at a major intersection. Such could create safety hazards by encouraging drivers to attempt passing in a short distance. 4. Substantial portions of both sides of Military Road are already developed and it is unlikely that other five -lane road sections could be required in the future. MAMBIT PAGE 21 0-F-30- f PREL5ffNARY PLAT OF HERITAGE tiVOODS DECISION ON RECO\SIDERATION n'4'HE #92-4 PAGE 4 S. The Federal Way Transportation Improvement Program for 1993-2003 sets forth 34 major capital street improvements, commencing with 1992 and ending with 2002. The widening of Military Road from Interstate -5 (south) to Interstate -5 (north) is listed as Project Number 28, and is scheduled to commence in 2001 with most construction performed in 2002. No widening projects are scheduled for Military Road for ten years. It is simply not reasonable to base the requirement for a five -lane road section on a currently unfunded project, which may or may not occur ten years from now. There are no specific requirements for curbs, gutters, sidewalks, and bike paths on both sides of streets that have been, or%% -ill be, constructed or improved within the City. Chart 110-1 requires sidewalks, but does not specify that they should be on both sides of the road. However, the two accesses on to Military Road, coupled with the increased trJ- fic, will adversely impact bicyclists and pedestrians on the east side of Military Road; therefore, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, and bike paths.should be required on both sides of said road. DECISION' The Request for Reconsideration in this mister is hereby GR_A_N= Dq PART and DER-IF_D rT PART. DATED THIS 22ND DAY OF OCTOBER 1992. STEPHEN K. CAUSSEAUX, Hearingxar,iner RIGHTS TO RECONSIDERATIONT A'D'D CHALLENGE The recommendation of the Hearing Examiner may be challenged by any person who is to receive a copy of that recommendation pursuant to F\VZC 155.60.6. That challenge, in the form of a letter of challenge, must be delivered to the Planning Department within fourteen (14) calendar days after the issuance of the Hearin° Examiner's recommendation or, if a request for reconsideration is filed, then within fourteen (14) calendar days of either the decision of the Hearing Examiner denying the request for reconsideration or the reconsidered recommendation. The letter of challenge must contain a clear reference to the matter being challenged and a statement of the specific factual findings and conclusions of the Hearing Examiner disputed by the person filing the challenge. The person filing the challenge shall include, with the letter of appeal, the fee established by the City. The appeal will not be accepted unless it is accompanied by the required fee. The recommendation of the Hezring Examiner may"whether or not there was a request to reconsider the -Hearin- Examiner's recom lk.0— P"GE 3o OF 3o RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON, APPROVING THE FINAL PLAT OF HERITAGE WOODS, DIVISION 2, FEDERAL WAY FILE NO. SUB98-0003. WHEREAS, the preliminary plat for Heritage Woods, Division 2, City of Federal Way File Nos. SUB91-0001 and SUB92-0005 was approved subject to conditions on October 20, 1992, by Federal Way Resolution No. 92-122; and WHEREAS, the applicant has satisfied all of the conditions set forth in Resolution No. 92-122 and in the June 16, 1992, Recommendation of the Federal Way Hearing Examiner; and WHEREAS, subsequent to obtaining preliminary plat approval, the applicant has separated the plat of Heritage Woods into Division 1 and Division 2; and WHEREAS, the Heritage Woods Division 1 has received final approval and is recorded in Volume 179 of Plats, at Pages 76 through 83, inclusive, records of King County, Washington; and WHEREAS, the applicant submitted the application for final plat for Heritage Woods, Division 2, within the required time of receiving approval for the above -referenced preliminary plat; and WHEREAS, City of Federal Way Department of Community Development Services staff have reviewed the proposed final plat for its conformance to the conditions of the preliminary plat and the Federal Way Hearing Examiner, and their analysis and conclusions are set forth in the January 26, 1999, Staff Report; and Res. # , Page 1 EXHIBIT PAGE- OF_�..., WHEREAS, the Land Use/Transportation Council Committee considered the application for final plat for Heritage Woods, Division 2, at its February 1, 1999, meeting and recommended approval by the full City Council; and WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed and considered the Staff Report and the application for final plat of Heritage Woods Division 2 during the Council's February 2, 1999, meeting; NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY HEREBY AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Conditions and Conclusions. The final plat for Heritage Woods, Division 2, City of Federal Way File No. SUB98- 0003 is in substantial conformance to the preliminary plat and is in conformance with applicable zoning ordinances or other land use controls in effect at the time of submittal of the substantially complete application. 2. Based on, inter alia, the analysis and conclusions in the Staff Report which are adopted herein by reference, and on the City Council's review of the application for final plat, the proposed subdivision makes appropriate provision for the public health, safety, and general welfare, and for such open spaces, drainage ways, streets or roads, alleys, other public ways, transit stops, potable water supplies, sanitary wastes, parks and recreation, play grounds, and schools and school grounds as are required by City Code or are necessary and appropriate, and provides for sidewalks and other planning features to assure safe walking conditions for students who only walk to and from school. Res. # , Page 2 EXHIBIT PAGE a OF_!____ 3. The public use and interest will be served by the final plat approval granted herein. 4. All conditions as listed in the Federal Way Resolution No. 92-122 and the conditions in the June 16, 1992, Recommendation of the City of Federal Way Hearing Examiner, have been satisfied, and/or satisfaction of the conditions have been sufficiently guaranteed by the applicant as allowed by Federal Way City Code Section 20-135. 5. All required improvements have been made and sufficient bond, cash deposit, or assignment of funds have been accepted as guaranty for maintenance of all required plat improvements, including financial guarantees to implement the Supplemental Wetland Creation Plan by Kucinski Consulting, revised January 22, 1999, to be implemented by March 31, 1999, and to implement completion of the required landscaping behind lots 60 - 66 by June 1, 1999, as identified in the January 26, 1999, Staff Report. 6. All taxes and assessments owing on the property being subdivided have been paid, or will be paid prior to recording the final plat. Section 2. Application Approval. Based upon the Findings of Fact contained in Section 1 above, the final plat of Heritage Woods Division 2, City of Federal Way File No SUB98-0003 is approved, subject to satisfaction of the maintenance conditions identified in the staff report and as required per applicable codes and policies. Section 3. Recording. The approved and signed final plat, together with all legal instruments pertaining thereto as required pursuant to all applicable codes, shall be recorded by the applicant in the King County Department of Records. All recording fees shall be paid by the applicant. Section 4. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause, or phrase of this resolution should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or Res. # Page 3 EXHIBIT PAGE 3 OF ._ unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause, or phrase of this resolution. Section S. Ratification. Any act consistent with the authority and prior to the effective date of the resolution is hereby ratified and affirmed. Section 6. Effective Date. This resolution shall be effective upon passage by the Federal Way City Council, and upon the effective date of Ordinance No. , rezoning a portion of the property in Heritage Woods Division 2. RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON, this day of '1999. 0 ATTEST: CITY OF FEDERAL WAY MAYOR, RONALD GINTZ CITY CLERK, N. CHRISTINE GREEN, CMC APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATTORNEY, LONDI K. LINDELL FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: RESOLUTION NO: LAPR.MSYS\D0CUMEN1-\SUB98 00.03\RESOLUTN.DOC Res. 9 , Page 4 EXHIBIT E PAGE-OF__L___ ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON, REZONING A PORTION OF AN APPROXIMATELY 15 ACRE SITE GENERALLY LOCATED BETWEEN SOUTH 282ND AND SOUTH 284TH STREETS, WEST OF MILITARY ROAD, WITHIN THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, FROM SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RS 9.6) TO SINGLE- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RS 7.2), (REZ92-0003). WHEREAS, the applicant, Schneider Homes, Inc. has a possessory ownership interest in three parcels of property comprising approximately 15 acres, located on the west side of Military Road immediately south of its intersection with Star Lake Road and Interstate 5 overpass; and WHEREAS, the northern approximately 26.5 acres of the property is known as Heritage Woods Division 1, recorded in the records of King County in Volume 179, Pages 76-83, is presently zoned RS 7.2; and WHEREAS, approximately seven acres of the total 15 acres of Heritage Woods Division 2, City of Federal Way File No. SUB98-0003 is presently zoned RS 7.2, while the eastern approximately eight acres are presently zoned RS 9.6; and - WHEREAS, the applicant is requesting a zoning change (application No. REZ92-0003) for the eastern eight acres, and is additionally requesting to subdivide Heritage Woods Division 2 into 66 single-family residential lots (a portion of the subdivision commonly known as Heritage Woods), pursuant to Federal Way Application Nos. SUB91-0001, SUB92-0005 and SUB98- 0003; and WHEREAS, the property to be rezoned in Heritage Woods Division 2 (Division 2 Property) is__ legally described as: That portion of Tracts G, H, & J, Heritage Woods Division 1, according to the Plat thereof recorded in Volume 179 of Plats, Pages 76, through 83, inclusive, and located in the NE, SE, and SW 1/4's of Section 33, Township 22N, Range 4E, W.M. in King County, Washington. Ordinance No. Page I EXHIBIT PAGE __�1- OF WHEREAS, the applicant in 1992 applied for a project rezone, wherein the City evaluated the applicant's specific development proposal for the subject property as part of the decision on the rezone; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Federal Way City Code Section 22-296, a project related rezone is processed according to Process V described in Section 22-476 of the Code; and WHEREAS, after all proper notice requirements, a public hearing was held on the specific rezone and Preliminary Plat Application on June 1, 1992; and WHEREAS, the City of Federal Way Hearing Examiner, having heard public testimony and reviewed all written comments and evidence presented, issued a recommendation on Rezone and Preliminary Plat Application on June 16, 1992; and WHEREAS, the Hearing Examiner recommended that the request for rezone classification from RS 9.6 to RS 7.2 (application No. REZ92-0003) and the preliminary plat approval for Heritage Woods, Federal Way Preliminary Plat Application Nos. SUB91-0001 and SUB92-0005 be approved subject to the conditions contained in the Recommendation on Rezone and Preliminary Plat Application; and WHEREAS, Heritage Woods Division 2 has been constructed and financially guaranteed in compliance with the preliminary plat approval, and Chapter 20 of the Federal Way City Code; and WHEREAS, the City Council, on October 20, 1992, preliminarily approved the project related rezone pursuant to the Intent to Rezone in Federal Way City Council Resolution 92-122; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Criteria to Rezone. The City council makes the following Findings of Fact -- pursuant to Federal Way City Code Section 22-489(e): 1. The project related rezone is in the best interests of the residents of the City. The applicant is developing the site in accordance with all City codes and regulations. Also, the applicant is buffering existing adjoining developments, protecting and restoring sensitive areas, and providing walkways to ensure safe access to schools. i Ordinance No. Page 2 EXHIBIT PAGE �! OF.__�__, 2. The proposed rezone is appropriate because the rezone will correct a classification or zone boundary that was inappropriate when established. The site is located within the suburban residential land use classification of the applicable comprehensive plan. Both RS 7.2 and RS 9.6 single family zones are allowable within this classification. The properties adjoining the south and west, and Division 1 to the north are currently zoned RS 7.2. Division 2 is split zoned, with approximately 45 percent being zoned RS 7.2. The RS 9.6 properties are generally located along the eastern portion of the site. The requested zone classification would allow comparable density and development standards throughout the entire site. 3. The project related rezone is consistent with the Federal Way City Code in all respects. The City's Community Development Review Committee has reviewed the proposal in relation to all zoning code requirements and regulations. As proposed and recommended by City staff, the Heritage Woods Division 2 final plat and rezone complies with all applicable codes and regulations. 4. The site plan of the proposed project is designed to minimize all adverse impacts on developed properties in the immediate vicinity of the subject property, The potential for adverse impacts resulting from the proposed development was considered through the environmental review process. Measures to minimize or eliminate identified adverse impacts were required through that process. 5. The site is designed to minimize impacts upon public services and utilities. In conjunction with required offsite improvements, streets and utilities within this area are adequate to serve the development. No impacts to public services have been identified. Section 2. Findings of Fact. The City Council of the City of Federal Way adopts the Findings of Fact contained in the Hearing Examiner's June 16, 1992, Recommendation on Rezone and Preliminary Plat Application, attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference. The applicant has constructed and financially guaranteed Heritage Woods Division 2 in conformance with the Intent to Rezone in Resolution 92-122, and the preliminary plat approval. Section 3. Rezone. The Heritage Woods Division 2 (Division 2 Property) is located generally between South 282nd and 284th Streets, west of Military Road, and within the City of Ordinance No. Page 3 NHIBIT F PAG E SOF Federal Way is hereby rezoned from Single -Family Residential (RS 9.6) to Single -Family Residential (RS 7.2), and subject to those conditions contained in the October 2, 1992, Decision of the Hearing Examiner on Reconsideration attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by this reference. Section 4. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause, or phrase of this ordinance should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any section, sentence, clause, or phrase of this ordinance. Section 5. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be effective five days after passage and publication of an approved summary consisting of the title hereto. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY this day of 1999. ATTEST: CITY OF FEDERAL WAY MAYOR, RONALD GINTZ CITY CLERK, N. CHRISTINE GREEN, CMC APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATTORNEY, LONDI K. LINDELL FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO.: Ordinance No. Pa;e 4 L:\PILMSYSWCUMENTISUB98 00.03\0RDINANC.DOC EXHIBIT F PAGE n„']I schneider homes, inc. 6510 Southcenter Boulevard* Suite #1 *Tukwila, WA 98188•(206) 248-2471 *FAX (206) 242-4209 January 18, 1999 Phil Watkins, Chair Land Use/Transportation Committee City of Federal Way 33530 1" Way South Federal Way, WA 98003-6210 Re: Ordinance Approving Final Plat of Heritage Woods Division No. 2 City File No. SUB98-0003 Dear Mr. Watkins: It is my understanding that your committee will review our final plat application for the referenced project on February 1, 1999 before moving it before the full Council on February 2, 1999. Mr. James Harris shared with us in a January 7, 1999 letter that the City Council is required to approve an ordinance re- zoning the property to RS 7.2. He further stated that an ordinance requires two separate meetings before the full City Council, unless the City Council chooses to suspend the rules and condense the ordinance reading into one meeting. Since the typical time frame for ordinance enactment is 30 days from adoption, for the sake of expediency, we request that the required ordinance for the re -zone be condensed into one single reading, and the enactment time for that ordinance be reduced from 30 to 5 days. I believe the applicant for Heritage Woods Division One, Parklane Ventures was successful in obtaining approval of a similar request when they were attempting to record Heritage Woods Division One. We are quite anxious to move this project forward, and would appreciate any effort that will allow us to reduce the normal waiting period for ordinance enactment. We have numerous families anxiously awaiting the start of their new homes, and we want to do all that we can to insure the home's completion in the shortest acceptable time period. If there is anything more we need to do to further insure approval of our request for a condensed reading is granted, please do not hesitate to calf me at (206) 248-2471. SinyCfely, Kenneth E. Peckham Schneider Homes, Inc. Cc: Greg Moore, City of Federal Way James Harris, City of Federal Way EXHIBIT. G PAGE__. OF? SC -NN E1 245 PS CI!�OF `� DATE: January 28, 1999 TO: Phil Watkins, Chair Land Use and Transportation Committee FROM: Richard Perez, City Traffic Engineer fir SUBJECT.- 21"Avenue SW at SW 334" Street Traffic Signal and Sidewalk Improvements - 100 % Design Approval and Authorization to Bid BACKGROUND The 21" Avenue SW at SW 334' Street Traffic Signal and Sidewalk Improvements Project was jointly funded by grants from the Transportation Improvement Board Pedestrian Facilities Program for $100,000, the Community Development Block Grant for $44,652, and matching City funds for $35,348, at a total estimated cost of $180,000. This project will install a traffic signal which allows for a safe pedestrian crossing between the YMCA and Westway neighborhood. The project will also fill the existing sidewalk gaps on the east side of 211 Avenue SW between SW 334' Street and SW 336' Street, and consolidate the existing emergency signal south of SW 334`h Street with this proposed signal. The project is approximately 100% designed and the necessary right-of-way acquisition/easements have been purchased. An Open House will be held in February 1999 to provide project notification and proposed schedule information. The current cost estimate is $226,000, which is $46,000 higher than the budgeted amount. As the City's recent bid experience reflects, construction costs have escalated tremendously in the past year. In addition, staff anticipated that the right-of-way necessary for the construction of sidewalks would be donated rather than requiring acquisition. The table below breaks out the difference in budgeted amounts: Item Budget Estimate Current Estimate Design $30,000 $20,400 Right -of -Way $0 $8,400 Construction $135,000 $179,300 Contingencies $15,000 $17,900 TOTAL $180,000 $226,000 Staff proposes to transfer funding from the following accounts to provide the additional funding for this project: Traffic Division Unappropriated CIP: $12,500 Streets Division Small Works Budget (1998): $10,000 Streets Division Structures/Sidewalk Budget (1998): $12,000 Balance from the SW 312`h Street & 14`h Ave SW Pedestrian Improvement Project: $11,500 TOTAL $46,000 RECOMMENDATION Place the following items on the February 16, 1999 Council Consent Agenda: 1) Approve the 100% design plans for the 211 Avenue SW at SW 3341 Street Traffic Signal and Sidewalk Improvements Project; 2) Approve the transferring of funds to the project as described above; and 3) Authorize staff to proceed with bidding the project. RP:jg K:\LUTC\1999\21SW334.WPD City of Federal Way memorandum Date: January 27, 1999 To: Phil Watkins, Chair Land Use/Transportation Committee From: Ken Miller, Street Systems Manager Pearl Kronstad, Streets Engineer Subject: 1999 Asphalt Overlay Program - Preliminary Project List Back.,around: Public Works Staff has developed a list of recommended streets for the 1999 Asphalt Overlay Program. The total budget for the program is $1,877,936, and is comprised of the following: 1998 Carryforward $ 237,000 1999 Budget $ 573,035 1999 Structures Budget $ 100,000 Street Utility ax $ 967,901 Total Funding Available $1,877.936 The streets were selected using the City's pavement management system and were verified by field reconnaissance. The following is a preliminary list of projects to be included in the 1999 Asphalt Overlay Program. The costs shown are estimated, and will be refined once the design of each schedule is completed. A more detailed list of streets and a project vicinity map are attached for your information. Schedule A Ninelake Park $ 210,402 Schedule B Soundcrest $ 478,854 Schedule C South 330'hStreet $ 102,063 Schedule D Mirror Lake $ 237,594 Schedule E Twin Lakes $ 287,171 Schedule F Twin Lakes 2 $ 371,709 Schedule G Southwest Campus Drive $ 186,646 Schedule H Highline Savings $ 111,315 Schedule I Lakota Junior High $ 57,656 Schedule J Weyerhaeuser Way $ 222,248 Subtotal Project Costs $1,893,949 Construction Administration and 10% Construction Contingency $ 290,000 Total Estimated Program Cost $2,183,949 The estimated cost of $2,183,949 is a preliminary figure used for estimating purposes only and includes construction administration, 10% construction contingency, in-house design, inspection, printing and advertising. The project will be awarded within the overlay budget of $1,877,949.00. The $100,000.00 from the Structures budget is for the City's annual Sidewalk Replacement Program, and will cover the costs associated with the replacement of substandard wheelchair ramps, repairing existing curb, gutter, and sidewalks within the overlay project area. The inclusion of the Weyerhaeuser Way area (Schedule J) as proposed in the Overlay Program will be dependent on the timing of utility infrastructure extensions and road work associated with the Quadrant development projects in Weyerhaeuser's East Campus area. Public Works will continue to coordinate with Quadrant to avoid conflicts of timing and prevent repetitive work within the public right of way. In light of the coordination efforts, Weyerhaeuser requested that the City accelerate the timing of the wye intersection project (So 336``' and Weyerhaeuser Way) identified on the City's current TIP (see attached) in order to improve the intersection consistent with the timing of development activity. To that end, and in accordance with LUTC and City Council direction (see attached recommended project/grant submittal list), the Public Works Department and Weyerhaeuser Corp have submitted a joint application for funding to assist with the intersection improvements. Since Quadrant will be required to make improvements to the roadway section as well as the pavement surface for portions of Weyerhaeuser Way, staff is requesting approval to utilize a portion of the Asphalt Overlay Program funding that otherwise would have been spent on overlaying these same portions of Weyerhaeuser Way as the City's match, or contribution, toward the wye intersection improvements. The amount of the City's match will depend on the success of the grant applications, and the mitigation collected from Quadrant projects in East Campus. In any event, the Weyerhaeuser Corp has agreed to match the City, dollar -for -dollar, in contributions towards the wye intersection improvement project (see attached letter from Weyerhaeuser Corp). Once the list of streets for the overlay program is approved by Council, staff will begin final design. The anticipated date for advertising is May, 1999, with construction beginning in June. Recommendation Staff requests that the Committee recommend approval and place the following items on the February 16, 1999 City Council meeting consent agenda: 1) Approve the list of streets for the 1999 Asphalt Overlay Project; 2) Authorize staff to bid the 1999 Asphalt Overlay Project and return directly to the City Council for award if the bid s received are within budget; 3) Authorize staff to utilize a portion of the 1999 Asphalt Overlay Project funding for the Weyerhaeuser Way Schedule as the City's match toward the wye intersection improvements. K ALUTC\ 1999\99OLPLS T. W PD 2-1-99 LUTC MEETING Preliminary List For The 1999 Asphalt Overlay Program Vicinity Map /V Proposed Projects Preliminary 1998 Asphalt Overlay Project List Schedule A. Ninelake Park 7 PL S From 8 AVE S to S 327th ST 8 AVE S From S 320th ST to 7 PL S 8 CTS From S 326th ST to CS S 9 AVE S From S 321st ST to 7th PL S 9 PL S From CS W to S 327th ST 10 AVE S From S 3.20th ST to S 325th ST 10 AVE S From S 326th ST to S 327th ST 10 PL S From S 323rd ST to S 327th ST S 321 ST From 9th AVE S to 10th AVE S S 322 ST From 10th AVE S to EOR E S 323 ST From 10th AVE S to 10th PL S S 324 PL From CS W to 10th PL S S 325 ST From 7th PL S to 10th PL S S 326 ST From 7th PL S to 10th AVE S S 327 ST From 7th PL S to 10th PL S Schedule B. Soundcrest 4 AVE S From 130'N of S 316 PL to EOR S 5 AVE S From CS N to S 317 ST 5 AVE S From S 317 ST to S 318 PL 6 AVE S From S 314 ST to PAVEMENT BREAK 6 AVE S From PAVEMENT BREAK to S 316 PL EAVES From CSN to S 318 PL 6 AVE S From S 318 PL to S 320 ST 7 AVE S From S 312 ST to S 314 ST 7 AVE S From S 316 PL to S 318 ST 7 PL S From CS N to CSS 8 AVE S From S 312 ST to S 320 ST 9 AVE S From CSN to S 314 ST 9 AVE S From S 316 ST to S 317 ST 10 AVE S From S 312 ST to S 318 TH 11 PL S From W AVE S to S 313 ST 12 PL S From 13 AVE S to S 315 ST 13 AVE S From S 312 ST to EOR S S 313 ST From 7 AVE S to CSN S 313 ST From W AVE S to 13 AVE S S 314 ST From 6 AVE S to 10 AVE S S 315 ST From EOR E to EOR W S 315 ST From EOR W to 13 AVE S S 316 PL From 4 AVE S to 7 AVE S S 316 ST From 8 AVE S to 9 AVE S S 316 ST From 10 AVE S to 13 AVE S S 317 ST From 5 AVE S to 7 AVE S S 317 ST From 7 AVE S to EOR E S 318 PL From 4 AVE S to 7TH AVE S S 318 ST From 8 AVE S to 10 AVE S S 319 PL From S 318 ST to CS Schedule C. South 330th Street 20 AVE S From S 330 ST to 20 AVE S From PAVEMENT BREAK (WIDTH) to 21 AVE S From S 331 ST to S 330 ST From PACIFIC HWY S to S 331 ST From 20 AVE S to S 332 ST From 20 AVE S to S 333 ST From S 333 ST From S 333 ST From PACIFIC HWY S to PAVEMENT BREAK (WIDTH) to PAVEMENT BREAK (WIDTH) to Schedule D. Mirror Lake PAVEMENT BREAK (WIDTH) S 336 ST S 332 ST 20th Avenue South 21 AVE S 21 AVE S PAVEMENT BREAK (WIDTH) PAVEMENT BREAK (WIDTH) 24 AVE S 2 AVE S From 1 PL S to CS S 3 AVE S From S 297 ST to 301 ST 3 PL SW From DASH POINT RD to 304 ST SW 4 AVE S From S 297 ST to S DASH PT 4 PL SW From CSN to SW 304 ST 6 AVE SW From DASH PT RD SW to CSN 6AVESW From SW 302 ST to SW 304 ST 7AVESW From SW 304 ST to SW 302 ST 9 AVE SW From SW 298 ST to SW 300 ST S 297 ST From 3 AVE S to 4 AVE S S 299 ST From CS W to 3 AVE S S 300 ST From CS W to 4 AVE S S 301 ST From CS W to 4 AVE S SW 298 ST From 8 AVE SW to 10 AVE SW SW 302 ST From DASH PT RD SW to 7 AVE SW SW 303 PL From CS E to 6 AVE SW Schedule E. Twin Lakes 24 AVE SW From SW 323 ST to CSN 28 AVE SW From SW 320 PL to SW 322 ST 32 AVE SW From 31 AVE SW to 32 AVE SW 32 PL SW From CS N to SW 33 PL 33 AVE SW From 32 AVE SW to SW 323 ST 33 AVE SW From SW 327 ST to 32 PL SW 34 AVE SW From SW 333 ST to EOR N 42 AVE SW From SW 327 PL to SW 328 ST 42 PL SW From SW 328 PL to SW 329 PL 43 PL SW From SW 321 ST to SW 323 ST 44 PL SW From CS S to CSN 45 PL SW From EOR to SW 323 ST 46 PL SW From CS N to SW 323 ST SW 320 PL From 26 AVE SW to 28 AVE SW SW 320 PL From 43 PL SW to CS W SW 321 PL From 43 PL SW to CS W SW 323 ST From CS E to HOYT ROAD SW SW 327 PL From 33 AVE SW to 35TH AVE SW SW 327 PL From SW 328 ST to 42 AVE SW SW 327 ST From 33 AVE SW to 35 AVE SW SW 328 CT From CS W to SW 328 PL SW 328 PL From 39 AVE SW to 39 PL SW SW 329 CT From 33 AVE SW to CS W SW 329 PL From 42 PL SW to CSN SW 329 ST From 33 AVE SW to 35 AVE SW SW 330 ST From 33 AVE SW to CS W SW 331 PL From 36 AVE SW to 38 AVE SW SW 331 ST From 33 AVE SW to CS W SW 332 ST From 33 AVE SW to CS W SW 333 ST From 33 PL SW to 35 AVE SW O f" O O r Oi (D r O O (n m rn�a0Ln (D O O O n O O O O r O O O O r Oi O O r (O Cl) (O V O O 0 � LONr-w Cl) O O 0 (h (n L6 o O 0 Oi N 0 O 0 O r 0 O 0 O 'IT N 0 O M (rn rOonIcoc�0(n0rnLnn r 0 O O O r(D 0 O o N 0 O r- O 0 O 0 Oi r 0 O 0 N (D 40 0 O 0 LO N rl 0 O 0 00 CO r 0 O 0 O O P6 0 O 0 (O O cl 0 O 0 O r- 0 O 0 LO rl C7 00 O 00 O N ^ (D n r 00 (h C. O O O O O O r- O 0000 O W (00 V) m O N N O M0) r cl O cl r - d 0 CM C\j N O 000 O Cl) O O O OLfi . N t0 (Y O O N r O) CO t0 O O O O O O O m O O 7 N co O 00 O O O O O O O O) (D O r O O 41 00 (n O NO 7 (O N N 0li 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 010 O O N (q 0 0 0 — 1:1 O O O O (OM O O (O O O O O T N 0 N co N (N7 coO 000cliO r- OV cl O M omo U Qm N cn N � N E c 2 � d m w 7 H Z m L ' N E H o 3 S L (3n 'Ir CN CO r 0 N l� tl1 N N W Q W 7 Ln g 5 > C mm A C N C � .�U y O tl N E N M U �. N > 0 U 7 E = O 7 •Op o = m C � .�. O E c v v 3 C: (n m C 9 •p N C!n l0 Q N L N 2 7 N 0 Z NC, Q b Q V 3 Q? L Q m L> 3 rNi c r i U) m m U) t m y rn¢¢ S'' cc Q lA (n f%1 L C S 7 Q O Q cc (n L cm V 'O M (n m N (n (n (n L (n Q v O N tt coID (n Q E ) b > M O m (n N t •• (n Q (n 0 m (n N Q Q m M0 Q > a) m (n L ® l� L 0: Q (� S (n — L 3 L N N L fn ® fn CD N ® 3 (n (n Q ¢ (n L in cn (n (n ' (n (n N cn N (n (n � L_ L C' � L t � L L $ L > N (p W N (h Q O Q 0I 011 n7 ltl O (D S O (O O O a0 Q ch M co m '- _ O cc N Q N Q coN (! Cc M m Q7 Q M M M co H 3 (n (n (n (n co (7 N (n N N (n (n y (n (n (n (n (n (n fn N (n N c0 d' (O t0 r` 00 0 O r N M V' l(i O Oy r r N N N N N r r O T 1 l0 CL 0 Cl) a W m d N W 0 U m 0 E. m z° CL F- rn rn rn MEETING DATE: December 1, 1998 ,TEM, V141� CITY OF FEDERAL WAY City Council AGENDA ITEM SUBJECT: 1999 Grant Applications for Transportation Improvement Projects --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------.............------.........--------------------..............------------------------.........------ CATEGORY: BUDGET IMPACT: —X—CONSENT _ORDINANCE _BUSINESS _HEARING FYI RESOLUTION _STAFF REPORT _PROCLAMATION _STUDY SESSION OTHER Amount Budgeted: $ Expenditure Amt: $ Contingency Reqd: $ ATTACHMENTS: Memorandum to the Land Use and Transportation Committee ................................................................................................................................................................................................ SUMMARY/BACKGROUND: Grant applications are being accepted for federal (TEA -21) and state (TIB) funding. Applications are required by December 15, 1998 for the Hazard Elimination Program and January 4th and 15th, 1999 for all other grant programs. Staff has reviewed the grant scoring criteria for each grant program with respect to the projects on the City's currently adopted Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). Attached for your reference is the current TIP. The memorandum attached identifies the proposed funding sources for each project. The amounts shown for the City's match are conservative estimates and could fluctuate based on each project's competitiveness statewide. Development impact fees collected for these projects are included in the amounts shown for the City's match. CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: At its November 23, 1998 meeting, the Land Use and Transportation Committee added BPA Trail Phase III to the attached list and recommended approval and placing the list on the December 1, 1998 City Council consent agenda. .............................................................................................................. ......... CITY MANAGER RECOMMENDATION: C�yN ............................................................................................................... APPROVED FOR INCLUSION IN COUNCIL PACKET: MP (BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERK'S OFFICE) COUNCIL ACTION: v # APPROVED ) COUNCIL BILL # _DENIED 1st Reading _TABLED/DEFERRED/NO ACTION Enactment Reading ORDINANCE # k:\council\agdbi11s\1998\grantapp.99 RESOLUTION # CITY OF C� Fripool- DATE: November 19, 1998 TO: Phil Watkins, Chair Land Use and Transportation Committee FROM: Cary M. Roe, Public Works Director SUBJECT: 1999 Grant Applications for Transportation Improvement Projects/REVISED Background Grant applications are being accepted for federal (TEA -21) and state (TIB) funding by December 15, 1998 for the Hazard Elimination Program and January 15, 1999 for all other grant programs. Staff has reviewed the scoring criteria for each grant program with respect to the projects on the City's currently adopted Transportation Improvement Program. Attached for reference is the current TIP. The listing below identifies the proposed funding sources for each project. The amounts shown for the City's match are conservative estimates and could fluctuate based on each project's competitiveness statewide. Development impact fees collected for these projects are included in the amounts shown for the City's match. SR 99: S 312 Street - S 324th Street Add HOV lanes (right of way, construction) Federal Surface Transportation Program (40%) $ 3,358,200. State Urban Arterial Trust Account (40%) $ 3,358,200. City Match (20%) $ 1,679,000. $ 8,395,400. SR 99 @ S 330th Street Signalization, pedestrian improvements (construction) Federal Hazard Elimination (49.3%) $ 160 000. State Pedestrian Facilities Program (already obtained) $ 100,000. City Match (20%) $ 65,000. $ 325,000. S 288th Street @ SR 99 Add left -turn lanes (design, right of way, construction) State Urban Arterial Trust Account (80%) $ 892 200. City Match (20%) $ 223,100. $ 1,115,300. Land Use and Transportation Committee November 18, 1998/REVISED Page 2 S 312th Street @ 14th Avenue S Signalization (design, construction) State Pedestrian Facilities Program (80%) $ 100,000. City Match (20%) $ 25,000. $ 125,000. S 336th Street @ Weyerhaeuser Way S Signalization or Roundabout (design, construction) Federal Hazard Elimination (46.2%) $ 300,000. Weyerhaeuser Contribution (26.9%) $ 174,350. City Match (26.9%) $ 174,350. $ 648,700. BPA Trail Phase III Multimodal trail from Campus Drive to SW 356th Street (right of way, construction) TEA 21 (86.5%) $ 1,217,920. City Match (13.5%) $ 190,080. $ 1,408,000. Total Amounts Federal Grants $ 5,036,120. State Grants $ 4,524,750. Weyerhaeuser Contribution $ 174,350. City Match $ 2,356,530. $12,091,750. Recommendation Staff recommends that the Committee approve the above listed federal and state grant applications and forward to the December 1, 1998, City Council meeting for consideration. CMR\RAP:Jg cc: Public Works Managers Grant Files Roe Working File Day File k:\Iutc\1998\grantap2.99 1-28-99; i:30PM;Wey Business Serv. AWeyerhaeuser January 14, 1999 Mr. Cary M. Roe, P.E. Public Works Director City of Federal Way 33530 1" Way South Federal Way, WA 98003-6221 RE: Traffic Safety Issues Weyerhaeuser East Campus Dear Cary: ;253 9243797 # 1/ 1 Corporate Headquarters Tacoma WA 98477-0001 Tel (206)924 2345 As we have discussed for many months, please be advised that Weyerhaeuser Company, in accordance with the concomitant pre -annexation agreement of April 1994, is prepared to share equally, that is dollar for dollar, with the City of Federal Way in the cost of the mitigation of the referenced traffic safety issues. More specifically, the design and construction of a mutually acceptable reconfiguration and or signalization of the intersection of Weyerhaeuser Way South and SW 3361 Street. Should you have questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to call. Since ely, Ed Reed Region Facilities Manager cc: Judd Haverfield 01/28/99 THU 14:36 [TX/RX NO 80501 DATE: January 26, 1999 TO: Phil Watkins, Chair Land Use/Transportation Committee FROM: Ken Miller, Street Systems Manager SUBJECT: 1999 Right -of -Way Landscape Maintenance Contract Renewal Background The City has contracted with Myers Master Lawn Care for right of way landscape maintenance services since March, 1998. Myers was the low bidder in 1998 in the amount of $99,892.30; the next low bidder was Whirlwind Services in the amount of $109,673.32. The amount available for this contract was $95,000.00 and to award within budget, the "additional maintenance hours" were reduced from 400 to 155 hours per year ($91,204.30 for base services plus $3,795.70 "additional hours"). The contractor has requested a 1.5% contract increase for 1999 based upon additional labor and equipment costs (see attached letter, note amounts in letter do not include sales tax). This 1.5% increase, or $1,425.00, would result in a total contract cost of $96,425.00 ($85,241.59 base services, $3,547.54 additional hours, and $7,635.87 sales tax ) , which is still lower than the second low bid received a year ago and within the approved budget of $96,900.00. Myers has become familiar with the City, has developed a good working relationship with staff and citizens, and very few complaints regarding their landscape work have been received. Recommendation Staff requests the Committee forward to the February 16, 1999 Council meeting and place on the consent agenda: 1. Approve the $1,425.00 increase to the Myers Master Lawn Care 1998 Right -of -Way Maintenance Landscape Contract; 2. Approve renewing the 1998 Right -of -Way Maintenance Landscape Contract in the amount of $96,425.00 for 1999. 3. Authorize the City Manager to execute the contract. KM:Jg Attachment K:\LUTC\1999\rowmamt.mcm JAN -25-99 MON 01:31 P.01 MYERS MASTER LAWN CARE AND CONSTRUCTION PO Box 1057 Enumclaw WA, 98022 (360) 802-5141 To: City of Federal Way Public Works Dept. Att'n.: Ken Miller Dear Ken; January 22, 1999 We request a 1.5% cost of living increase for the 1999 City Right of Ways Landscape Maintenance Contract, to cover the increased cost of machinery, machinery repairs, and labor costs. The 1998 RFB #98-100 Base Price was $ 83,981.86 not including extra hours. Labor 1.5% = 1.259.73 �' would bring base price to $ 85,241.59. We request $ ?d,?�per hour on ----,extra hours Labor up to Limit (Budget) of contract. Any questions about this proposal please call (360) 802-5141. Thank you, we look forward to working with you for another year. Sincerely, ,-D - w - M Dennis W. Myers 01/25/99 MON 13:27 [TX/RX NO 79801 January 4, 1999 5:30 pin City of Federal Wav Citv Council Land lase/Transportation Committee MEETING AGENDA City Hall Council Chambers I . CALL TO ORDER 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 3. PUBLIC COMMENT (3 minutes) 4. COMMISSION COMMENT S. BUSINESS ITEMS A. Wetland/Stream Inventory Update Information McClung/15 min B. SW 312th & 14th Avenue SW Action Miller/5 min Pedestrian Project Final Acceptance C. SW 340th & Hoyt Road Final Design/ Action Miller/ 10 min Authority to Bid D. Code Amendment to Adopt Process for Yearly Action Clark/20 min Comprehensive Plan Amendments E. Update on Planning Commission Work Plan Action Moore/Clark/20 min 6. FUTURE MEETING AGENDA ITEMS SWManagement/Dept of Ecology Ordinance & Adult Entertainment Regulations Manual Package RTA Process Open Cut of ROW vs Boring Northwest Church Channelization Request Endangered Species Act Update 7. ADJOURN Committee Members: City Staff: Phil Watkins, Chair GregtLloore, Director, Community Development Services Jeanne Burbidge Sandy Lyle, Administrative Assistant Mary Gates 253.661.4116 I: \LU-TRANSUAN4LUT. AGN December 4, 1998 5:30ptn City of Federal Way City Council Land Use/Transportation Coinmlttee SUMMARY City Hall Council Chambers In attendance: Committee members Phil Watkins (Chair), Mary Gates and Jeanne Burbidge; Council Member Linda Kochmar; Director of Community Development Services Greg Moore; Public Works Director Cary Roe; Street Systems Engineer Ken Miller; Traffic Engineer Rick Perez; Assistant City Attorney Bob Sterbank; Senior Planner Margaret Clark; Traffic Analyst Sarady Long; Administrative Assistant Sandy Lyle. 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 5:35pm by Chairman Phil Watkins. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the November 23, 1998, meeting were approved as presented. 3. PUBLIC COMMENT 4. COMMISSION COMMENT There was no additional comment from any of the City Commissions. 5. BUSINESS ITEMS A. 1999 Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) Contract with King Coun - The Committee m/s/c recommendation of approval of the CTR professional services agreement with King County Metro and forwarding of the agreement to the December 15, 1998, City council meeting. The CTR professional services agreement is totally funded by state CTR grants, and the amounts vary based upon the number of affected employers within the City. Based upon the twelve affected worksites, the City of Federal Way will receive a total of $24,339 in 1999, of which $23,866 would be contracted with King County Metro. B. SW 336th Street Construction Contract final Acceptance - The Committee m/s/c recommendation of approval to accept the R. W. Scott Construction, Inc., SW 336th Street Improvement Project, in the amount of $1,890,882.00, as complete. This is $186,432.56 below the $2,077,314.56 (including contingency) budget that was approved by the City council on July 15, 1997. C. Lloyd's Street Maintenance Contract Extension - As part of the adopted 1999/2000 Biennial Budget, the Public Works Department was authorized to proceed with the formation of a streets maintenance crew. Consistent with the transition plan, it will be necessary to extend the existing Lloyd Street Maintenance contract through the first quarter of 1999. Afterwards, Lloyd's will expand snow and ice removal operations with Lakehaven Utility District's decision to terminate the Interlocal Agreement for snow and ice removal. The Committee m/s/c recommendation of approval of a three month contract extension through March, 1999, with Lloyd Enterprises for continuation of basic street maintenance services in the amount of $120,000, and for snow and ice removal services in the amount of $10,000. D. Planning Commission Work Program - The 1999 Planning Commission Work Program was discussed for informational purposes. Issues that effect the entire community were rated at higher importance than those that interest a single group. Issues mandated by law were also at the top of their priorities. The Endangered Species Act (ESA) is such an example. The top priorities were determined to be Adult Entertainment Uses, Sign Code Amortization, Miscellaneous Critical Code amendments, and the 1999 Comprehensive Plan Update. The Committee recommended that related work program items be addressed concurrently. Staff will return to a future meeting with a revised list of work program items in priority order for discussion and approval. 6. FUTURE MEETINGS The next meeting will be held at 5:30pm in City Council Chambers on Monday, January 4, 1999. 7. ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 6:30pm. I: \LU-TRANS\DEC7LUT. SUM m�lCITY OF -=•- E� DATE: December 18, 1998 TO: Phil Watkins, Chair Land Use & Transportation Committee FROM: Ken Miller, Street Systems Manager i -A - SUBJECT: SW 312' Street/14" Avenue SW Pedestrian Walkway Project Project Acceptance and Retainage Release BACKGROUND Prior to release of retainage on a Public Works construction project, the City Council must accept the work as complete to meet State Department of Revenue and State Department of Labor and Industries requirements. The above referenced contract with Seitsinger Construction, is complete. The final construction contract amount is $98,445.23. This amount is $18,077.44 below the $116,522.67 (including contingency) budget that was approved by the City Council on August 11, 1998. Staff will be present at the January 4, 1999 Land Use & Transportation Committee meeting to answer any questions the Committee may have. RECOMMENDATION Place the following item on the January 19, 1999 City Council Consent Agenda for approval: 1. Acceptance of the Seitsinger Construction, SW 312`'' Street/14`h Avenue SW Pedestrian Walkway Project, in the amount of $98,445.23, as complete. cc: Cathy Rafanelli, Management Services Project file AG 98-164 Day file K:\LUTC\1998\SW312FNL.MEM DATE: December 29, 1998 TO: Phil Watkins, Chair Land Use/Transportation Committee FROM: Ken Miller, Street Systems Manager SUBJECT: SW 340th Street and Hoyt Road SW Intersection Improvements 100% Design Approval and Authorization to Bid BACKGROUND The SW 340th Street and Hoyt Road SW Intersection Improvement project design is complete. This project will widen Hoyt Road SW at the intersection of SW 340th Street to include left turn lanes, bike lanes, add a traffic signal, and improve street lighting. Construction is scheduled for April 1999. The project is funded as follows: Funding Available Oil Rebate Grant $ 200,000.00 City of Tacoma Interlocal Agreement 40,000.00 Mitigation 85,000.00 City Funds 91.000.00* Total $ 416,000.00 Expenditures Construction Contract $ 286,335.21 10% Construction Contingency 28,633.52 Construction Administration 12,316.76 Design Engineering 85,343.89 Printing and Advertising 1,500.00 WSDOT + Oil Rebate Grant Administration 1,618.00 Total Expenditures $ 415,747.38 * $33,000.00 of this amount is part of the proposed 1999 Capital Project funds; the remaining $58,000.00 was budgeted in 1998. There is a Chevron gas station being constructed at this intersection and a proposed commercial development. Project schedules are being coordinated to minimize conflicts between the intersection improvements and the development work. Staff is also continuing to work with the final property owner at this intersection to secure a permanent easement for this project. Staff will make a presentation to the Committee on the project at the January 4, 1999 meeting. Place the following items on the January 19, 1999 City Council Consent Agenda for approval: 1. Approve the final design for the SW 340th Street and Hoyt Road SW Intersection Improvements Project; 2. Authorize staff to proceed with bidding the project. Bids will be brought directly to the City Council for award of the construction contract if bids received are within budget. KM:kcm cc: Project File Day File K:\LUTC\ 1998\340@HOYT. BID CITY OF FEDERAL WAY MEMORANDUM December 30, 1998 TO: Land Use/Transportation Committee (LUTC) FROM: Gregory D. Moore, AICP, Director of Community Development Services Margaret H. Clark, AICP, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Procedures for Amendment of Comprehensive Plan I. BACKGROUND The City of Federal Way presently does not have a formal adopted procedure for considering annual amendments to the comprehensive plan. Therefore, the City Council directed staff to prepare a code amendment to set up a process. The attached Planning Commission report dated December 2, 1998 (Exhibit A) addresses this process. In general, the process is based on procedures which were used in the most recent comprehensive plan update with some minor changes proposed to bring it into compliance with state law. Attached as Exhibit B are the proposed changes to the Definitions Section -- Article I and Article IX-- Process VI. Review with strikeattts (proposed deletions) and underline (proposed additions). In addition, those portions of Article VIII. Process V Review, which are referenced in the proposed revisions, are included. For background information purposes, the original staff report, dated November 25, 1998 (Exhibit C), since modified to include the Planning Commission's recommendations, is also attached. II. REASON FOR COUNCIL ACTION The procedures for the annual amendments to the comprehensive plan are proposed to be included in FWCC, Article IX. Process VI Review. Pursuant to city code, any amendments to the comprehensive plan, comprehensive plan designations map, or zoning text must be approved by the City Council based on a recommendation from the planning commission. III. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION As shown in Section IV -- Procedural Summary of this staff report and reflected in Exhibit D -- December 2, 1998 Planning Commission minutes, the planning commission conducted a public hearing on the procedures for amendment of the comprehensive plan on December 2, 1998. After conclusion of this hearing, pursuant to FWCC, Section 22-535, the planning commission considered the proposed amendments in light of the decisional criteria outlined in Section V of this report and by a majority vote of the entire membership, recommended that the city council adopt the code amendment to set up procedures to amend the comprehensive plan as outlined in Exhibit B.' 'The planning commission recommendations are shown as sttikeeet (deletions) and underlined (additions). IV. PROCEDURAL SUMMARY December 2, 1998 Planning Commission Public Hearing January 4, 1998 LUTC Meeting V. DECISIONAL CRITERIA Sec. 22-523. Zoning Text Amendment Criteria The city may amend the text of Chapter 22- Zoning only if it finds that: (i) The proposed amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; The proposed amendment complies with language in Chapter 1 -- Introduction of the Comprehensive Plan which states The City will update this Plan annually in order to keep this document current with the community's vision and the City Council's policy direction. In addition to updating chapters, such as Capital Facilities, the public will also be notified that a comprehensive plan amendment will be taking place. Individual requests will be considered during the annual update process. (2) The proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to public health, safety and welfare; The amendments to the zoning text is being proposed to provide for an orderly and predictable process to be followed in the annual update of the comprehensive plan. and (3) The proposed amendment is in the best interest of the residents of the city. The proposed amendment will result in increased public participation in the comprehensive planning process and provide predictability by notifying residents of the City on the timing of the comprehensive plan update process. VI. COUNCIL ACTION Pursuant to FWCC Section 22-537(c), after consideration of the planning commission report and, at its discretion, holding its own public hearing, the city council shall by majority vote of its total membership take the following action: Approve the proposal by ordinance; 2. Modify and approve the proposal by ordinance; 2 Disapprove the proposal by resolution; or 4. Refer the proposal back to the planning commission for further proceedings. If this occurs, the city council shall specify the time within which the planning commission shall report back to the city council on the proposal. Exhibits Exhibit A December 2, 1998 Planning Commission Report Exhibit B Proposed Amendments to City Code Exhibit C November 25, 1998 Planning Staff Report Exhibit D December 2, 1998 Planning Commission minutes I:\COMPAMND\PROCMEMO.LTI/December 30, 1998 3 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT December 2, 1998 Procedures for Amendment of Comprehensive Plan A. INTRODUCTION The City of Federal Way presently does not have a formal procedure adopted for considering annual amendments to its adopted comprehensive plan. Therefore, the City Council directed staff to prepare a code amendment to set up a process. The report is organized in two parts. The first part lays out the authority under state law for the annual comprehensive plan amendment process and the second part summarizes the proposed amendment process for the City of Federal Way. In general, the process is based on procedures which were used in the most recent update with some minor changes proposed to bring the process into compliance with state law. Attached are the changes to the Definitions Section -- Article I and Article IX-- Process VI. Review with strikeetts (proposed deletions) and underline (proposed additions). In addition, those portions of Article VIII. Process V Review, which are referenced in the proposed revisions, are included. B. BACKGROUND/AUTHORITY FOR PROCESS I. AUTHORITY RCW 36.70A.130(2)(a) has set up the following requirements for each county and city planning under the Growth Management Act (GMA) Proposed revisions or amendments to the comprehensive plan must be considered by the City Council no more than once per year except under the following circumstances: (i) The initial adoption of a subarea plan; (ii) The adoption or amendment of a shoreline master program; (iii) The amendment of the capital facilities element of a comprehensive plan that occurs concurrently with the adoption or amendment of a county or city budget; (iv) In the case of an emergency; (v) To resolve an appeal of a comprehensive plan filed with a growth management hearings board or with the court. 2. As part of the yearly update, all proposals shall be considered by the governing body concurrently so that the cumulative effect of the various proposals may be ascertained II. DOCKETING PROCESS RCW 36.70A.470. Project Review -- Amendment Suggestion Procedure -- Definitions. gives authority for the docketing process. Docketing means compiling and maintaining a list of suggested changes to the comprehensive plan or development regulations in a manner that will ensure such suggested changes will be considered by the county or city and will be available for review by the public. This code section states that if during project review, a county or city planning under the GMA identifies deficiencies in plans or regulations, the identified deficiencies shall be docketed for possible future plan or development regulations. Therefore, each county or city planning under the GMA is required to include in its development regulations a procedure for any interested person, including applicants, citizens , hearing examiners, and staff of other agencies, to suggest plan or development regulations. The suggested amendments shall be docketed and considered on at least an annual basis consistent with the provisions of RCW 36.70A.130.' Deficiency in a comprehensive plan or development regulations refers to the absence of required or potentially desirable contents of a comprehensive plan or development regulation. III. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION REQUIREMENTS RCW 36.70A. 130(2)(a) requires each county and city planning under the Growth Management Act (GMA) to establish and publicize a public participation program identifying procedures on the process to amend or revise the adopted comprehensive plan. RCW 36.70A.140 Comprehensive Plans --Ensure Public Participation, requires each county or city planning under GMA to establish and broadly disseminate to the public a public participation program identifying procedures providing for early and continuous public participation in the development and amendment of comprehensive land use plans and development regulations implementing such plans. The adopted procedures shall provide for broad dissemination of proposals and alternatives, opportunity for written comments, public meetings after effective notice, provision for open discussion, 'RCW 36 70A. 130(2) states that the comprehensive plan shall be updated no more than once per year except under certain circumstances. However, RCW 36.70A.470 requires the comprehensive plan to be updated on at least a yearly basis to address requests or concerns that are docketed. The latter would pertain to such changes as requests for comprehensive plan redesignations from applicants or other changes to the comprehensive plan originating from outside of the City. PAGE A JON� 7 communication programs, information services, and consideration of and response to public comments. RCW 36.70A. 035 Public Participation -- Notice Provisions, requires reasonable notice of any proposed revisions or amendments to the comprehensive plan be given to property owners and other affected and interested individuals, tribes, government agencies, businesses, and organizations. Examples of reasonable notice include: Posting the property for site-specific proposals; 2. Publishing notice in a newspaper of general circulation in the county, city, or general area where the proposal is located or that will be affected by the proposal; Notifying public or private groups with known interest in a certain proposal or in the type of proposal being considered; 4. Placing notices in appropriate regional, neighborhood, ethnic, or trade journals; and 5. Publishing notice in agency newsletters or sending notice to agency mailing lists, including general lists or lists for specific proposals or subject areas. If the City Council chooses to consider a change to an amendment to a comprehensive plan after the opportunity for review and comment has passed under the City's procedures, an opportunity for review and comment on the proposed change shall be provided before the City Council votes on the proposed change. An additional opportunity for public review and comment is not required if: An environmental impact statement (EIS) has been prepared for the pending resolution or ordinance and the proposed change is within the range of alternatives considered in the EIS; The proposed change is within the scope of the alternatives available for public comment; The proposed change only corrects typographical errors, corrects cross- references, makes address or name changes, or clarifies language of a proposed ordinance or resolution without changing its effect; 4. The proposed change is to a resolution or ordinance making a capital budget decision pursuant to the adopted comprehensive plan. The proposed change is to a resolution or ordinance enacting a moratorium or interim control. EXHIBIT PAGE " _7_�� C. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT PROCESS GENERAL The Procedures for Amendment of the Comprehensive Plan shall be added to Article IX. Process VI Review. Proposed amendments to the comprehensive plan shall be accompanied by any development regulations or amendments to development regulations necessary to implement the proposed amendments. II. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION REQUIREMENTS Pursuant to RCW 36.70A. 035. Public Participation -- Notice Provisions, the City shall create and maintain a list of parties, agencies, organizations, and adjacent jurisdictions with an interest or who may be affected by changes to the comprehensive plan. III. DOCKET FORM Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.470. Project Review -- Amendment Suggestion Procedure -- Definitions, the City shall prepare a docket form to be used for any interested person, including applicants, citizens, planning commission, city staff and staff of other agencies to submit proposed changes to the comprehensive plan. Docket forms may be submitted at any time of the year; however, those forms requesting changes to the comprehensive plan and submitted after September 30 of each year will not be considered until the following year (see below). Docket forms shall specify application requirements. IV. DEADLINE FOR SUBMITTING REQUESTS FOR AMENDMENTS TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The deadline for submitting requests for amendments to the comprehensive plan shall be September 30th of every calendar year. V. HOW TO PROPOSE AN AMENDMENT Sixty days prior to September 30, the City shall notify all parties who submitted docket forms since the last amendment cycle. Notice shall also be given as follows: Public Notice notifying the public that the amendment process has begun shall be published in the City's official newspaper. 2. Notice shall be posted on the official city public notice boards. A copy of the notice shall be mailed to other local newspapers. 4. All parties, agencies, organizations, and adjacent jurisdictions with an interest, 0 PAGEA0,--J or who may be affected by changes to the comprehensive plan shall be sent a copy of the notice. VI. SITE SPECIFIC REQUESTS Site-specific requests for amendment of comprehensive plan designations or for preannexation comprehensive plan designation and zoning must meet the application requirements of FWCC, Section 22-478.2 VII. SELECTION PROCEDURE After the deadline for accepting requests, the City shall prepare a summary of all requests to be presented to the Land Use Transportation Committee (LUTC) for determination of which requests should be considered during the upcoming amendment process. The LUTC shall consider the following criteria in selecting the comprehensive plan amendments to be addressed during the upcoming cycle: Volume of requests received. A large volume of requests may necessitate that some requests be reviewed in a subsequent year. Order of requests received. Study of the same area or issue during the last amendment process. 4. Amount of analysis necessary to reach a recommendation on the request. If a large scale study is required, a request may have to be delayed until the following year due to work loads, staffing levels, etc. Consistency of the proposed amendment with the overall vision of the comprehensive plan. Whether the proposed amendment meets existing state and local laws, including the Growth Management Act. Available incorporation into planned or active projects. Whether the request benefits a selected group versus the City as a whole. 2Applications for pre -annexation comprehensive plan designation and zoning will only be accepted if the City has accepted a 10 percent petition on the annexation request. rr iw ` 4; ' � _ ■ VIII. REVIEW OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS After a decision is made on the comprehensive plan amendments to be considered in the upcoming cycle, the City shall notify all applicants as to the status of their request for consideration. 2. Pre -application Conference -- All applicants seeking an amendment to comprehensive land use designations of the official comprehensive plan (site- specific requests) must apply for a pre -application conference with the City's Development Review Committee (CDRC). Pre -applications cost $300, which is a non-refundable fee, but which will be credited to the formal comprehensive plan amendment fee of $564 plus $56 per acre. There is presently no adopted fee in the City's fee schedule for pre -annexation comprehensive plan designation and zoning. In order to encourage annexations to the City, the planning commission recommends that no new fee be adopted. At the pre -application conference, the City will discuss the proposed amendment's consistency with applicable city policies and comprehensive plan goals and policies. After the pre -application conference is completed, if the applicant decides to pursue the comprehensive plan amendment, the remaining portion of the comprehensive plan amendment fee must be paid. State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA Review) -- The City will prepare a SEPA determination. 4. Public Hearing by Planning Commission -- After the SEPA process has been completed, a staff report, summarizing the proposed changes to the comprehensive plan will be forwarded to the planning commission for a public hearing. The Planning Commission public hearing shall be noticed pursuant to FWCC, Section 22-528. Notice (as amended under B.5 above to meet the public participation requirements of RCW 36.70A. 035). In addition, the sites will be posted for the site-specific requests and property owners within 300 feet shall be notified. For site specific requests, the decisional criteria in FWCC Section 22- 488(c) shall apply. Discussion by the LUTC -- After the close of the planning commission public hearing, the planning commission's recommendation and findings shall be forwarded to the LUTC. Action by City Council -- After the LUTC has completed their review, their recommendation will be forwarded to the full Council for their consideration at a public meeting. Transmittal to the State -- At least 60 days prior to final action being taken by the City Council, but not prior to the close of the planning commission public r EXMB1T_A___ PAGE -6 hearing and transmittal of planning commission recommendation to the LUTC, the Washington Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development (DCTED) and other interested affected state agencies, King County and surrounding jurisdictions shall be provided with a copy of the amendments in order to initiate the 60 -day comment period. All other parties previously notified shall be again notified that the draft amendments of the comprehensive plan are available on request on a cost recovery basis. No later than 10 days after adoption of the comprehensive plan, a copy of the adopted comprehensive plan shall be forwarded to DCTED and those agencies who commented on the draft comprehensive plan for an additional 60 day comment period. IX. NEW DEFINITIONS "Docket" (noun) means the list of suggested changes to the comprehensive plan maintained by the Community Development Services Department. "Docket" (verb) means to record with the department a suggested change to the comprehensive plan. I:\COMPAMND\AMNDPROC.LTF/December 30, 1998 7 EXHIBIT-k- PJ ARTICLE I. IN GENERAL Sec. 22-1. Definitions. The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this chapter, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning: Day care facility shall mean the temporary, nonresidential care of persons in a residence or other structure on a regular, recurring basis. Dedication shall mean the deliberate appropriation of land by its owner for public use or purpose, reserving no other rights than those that are compatible with the full exercise and enjoyment of the public uses or purpose to which the property has been devoted. Development activity shall mean any work, condition or activity which requires a permit or approval under this chapter or the city's building code. Development permit shall mean any permit or approval under this chapter or the city's building code that must be obtained before initiating a use or development activity. Docket (noun) shall mean the list of suggested changes to the comprehensive plan maintained by the Community Development Services Department. Docket (verb) shall mean to record with the department a suggested change to the comprehensive plan. ARTICLE IX. PROCESS VI REVIEW* *Cross reference(s)--Requirements for drainage review, § 21- 87; power and jurisdiction of the planning commission, § 22-59; amendments to the zoning regulations to be processed under the process VI procedure, § 22-216; amendments to the comprehensive plan to be processed through process VI review procedures, § 22- 236; comprehensive plan, § 22-236 et seq.; legislative rezoning, § 22-276 et seq.; amendments, § 22-216 et seq.; legislative rezoning of certain districts to be under process VI review, § 22-276. Sec. 22-516. Purpose. Various places in this chapter indicate that certain proposals to amend the zoning map through a legislative rezone, amend the text of this chapter, or amend the comprehensive plan must be reviewed and decided upon using process VI. This article describes process VI. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(160.05), 2-27-90; Ord. No. 91-112, § 1(160.05), 12-3-91; Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1-97) Sec. 22-517. Initiation of proposals. A proposal that will be reviewed using this article may be initiated by the city council or council committee, or requested by the planning commission, city staff, or any interested person, including applicants, citizens, hearing examiners, and staff of other agencies. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(160.10), 2-27-90; Ord. No. 91-112, § 1(160.10), 12-3-91; Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1-97) Cross reference(s)--City council, § 2-26 et seq.; planning commission, § 22-56 et seq. EXHIBIT' T PAGE ---Z, 0 Sec. 22-518. Docket The Department of Community Development Services shall maintain a docket of all changes to the comprehensive plan or development regulations and proposed by interested persons (including development applicants, citizens, hearing examiners, and/or other agencies and staff). See. 22 518. Sec 22-519. Compliance with State Environmental Policy Act. The State Environmental Policy Act applies to some of the decisions that will be made using this article. The director of community development services shall evaluate each proposal and, where applicable, comply with the State Environmental Policy Act and with state regulations and city ordinances issued under authority of the State Environmental Policy Act. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(160.15), 2-27-90; Ord. No. 91-112, 1(160.15), 12-3-91; Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1-97) See -22 539. Sec 22-520. City council review. A. Docketed Amendment Requests. The city council shall review all requests docketed with the department of community development services initiated pu -sua } t e-this--azzre l e as pai-t ef the -annual update—ef- the —ewe aefagi-ehensive- q concurrently, on an annual basis and consistent with RCW 36.70A.130(2). As part of such annual review, the Council shall review all requests received prior to September 30 of the calendar year in which review occurs. Requests submitted after September 30 shall be considered during the following calendar year. B. Other Amendments. The citv council shall review citv-initiated chanaes to the text of the comprehensive plan concurrently with docketed amendment requests. The city council may also review or amend the comprehensive plan whenever an emergency exists, to resolve an a-ppeal of the comprehensive plan or amendments thereto, or in other circumstances as provided for by RCW 36.70A.130(2)(a). 2 The city council may also review city -initiated changes to the text of this chapter, or to the city's zoning may, from time to time at the council's discretion. C. Additional Information. The city council may request, through the City Manager, that the department of community development services or any other department of the city provide any information or material on the proposal(s), consistent with section 22-531. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(160.20), 2-27-90; Ord. No. 91-112, § 1(160.20), 12-3-91; Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1-97) Cross reference(s)--City council, § 2-26. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(140.25), 2-27-90; Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1- 97) Sec. 22-521. Timing of Filing; Notice. Sixty days prior to September 30 in each calendar year, the City shall notify all parties who submitted docket forms during the previous amendment cycle. Notice shall also be given as follows: (1L Public Notice notifying the public that the amendment process has begun shall be published in the City's official newspaper. (2) Notice shall be posted on the official city public notice boards. (3) A copy of the notice shall be mailed to other local newspapers. (4) All parties, agencies, organizations, and adjacent jurisdictions with an interest, or who may be affected by changes to the comprehensive plan shall be sent a copy of the notice. Sec. 22-522. Apmlication. (a) who maX apply. Any person may, personally or through an agent, apply for a site-specific comprehensive plan or zoning designation change with respect to property he or she owns. In addition, any person may, personally or through an agent, request changes to the text of the comprehensive plan or development regulations codified in this chapter. (b) How to apply. An applicant must complete a docket form prepared by the City. An applicant seeking a site-specific plan or zoning designation change shall also file the information specified in Section 22-478 with the department of community development services. (cZ The director of community development services shall have the authority to waive any of the requirements of this section, if in the director's discretion, such information is not relevant or would not be useful to consideration of the proposed amendment. (d) Fee. There is no fee for this initial application. After the prioritization process, applications to be considered durina the amendment process shall submit the fee established by the City. Sec. 22-523. Criteria for prioritizing plan amendment requests. The City Council shall consider the following criteria in selecting the comprehensive plan amendments to be addressed during the upcoming cycle: (1Z Volume of requests received. A large volume of reauests may necessitate that some requests be reviewed in a subsequent year. LL Order of requests received. (3L Study of the same area or issue during the last amendment process. (44) Amount of analysis necessary to reach a recommendation on the request. If a large scale EXm IIBIT '-3 a ff I& -'f 0"' FF22 00 PIIGE--S-- study is required, a request may have to be delayed until the following year due to work loads, staffing levels, etc. (5) Consistency of the proposed amendment with the overall vision of the comprehensive plan. (6) Whether the proposed amendment meets existing state and local laws, including the Growth Management Act. (77) Available incorporation into planned or active projects. (8)_ Whether the request benefits a selected group versus the City as a whole. The Council's decision to consider a proiposed amendment shall not constitute a decision or recommendation that the proposed amendment should be adopted nor does it preclude later Council action to add or delete an amendment for consideration. Sec. 22-524. Preapplications required. All applicants seeking an amendment to comprehensive land use designations of the official comprehensive plan (site- specific requests) must apply for a pre -application conference with the City's Development Review Committee (CDRC). See. 5. Sec. 22-525 Legislative rezones. A legislative rezone is a rezone that meets the following criteria: a. It is initiated by the city; and b. It includes a large number of properties which would be similarly affected by the proposed rezone. All other rezones not meeting the above criteria are treated as quasijudicial rezones and are reviewed and decided upon using process V. 5 E "A' H I E3 P It (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(130.10), 2-27-90; Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1- 97) See. 22 . Sec. 22-526 Criteria for approving a legislative rezone. The city may decide to approve a legislative rezone only if it finds that: (1) The proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan; (2) The proposal bears a substantial relation to public health, safety, or welfare; and (3) The proposal is in the best interest of the residents of the city. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(130.20), 2-27-90; Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1- 97) See=- 2 522: Sec. 22-527 Map change. If the city approves a legislative rezone it will give effect to this decision by making the necessary amendment to the zoning map of the city. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(130.25), 2-27-90; Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1- 97) See. 2262-3. Sec. 22-528. Zoning text amendment criteria. that: The city may amend the text of this chapter only if it finds (1) The proposed amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; (2) The proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to public health, safety, or welfare; and (3) The proposed amendment is in the best interest of the residents of the city. E.s ," OB I (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(135.15), 2-27-90; Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1- 97) See. 22 524. Sec. 22-529. Factors to be considered in a comprehensive plan amendment. The city may consider, but is not limited to, the following factors when considering a proposed amendment to the comprehensive plan: (1) The effect upon the physical environment. (2) The effect on open space, streams, and lakes. (3) The compatibility with and impact on adjacent land uses and surrounding neighborhoods. (4) The adequacy of and impact on community facilities including utilities, roads, public transportation, parks, recreation, and schools. (5) The benefit to the neighborhood, city, and region. (6) The quantity and location of land planned for the proposed land use type and density and the demand for such land. (7) The current and projected population density in the area. (8) The effect upon other aspects of the comprehensive plan. For site-siecific comprehensive plan amendments, the provisions of Section 22-488(c) shall also apply. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(140.15), 2-27-90; Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1- 97) nee.''�T Sec. 22-530. Criteria for amending the comprehensive plan. The city may amend the comprehensive plan only if it finds 7 that: (1) The proposed amendment bears a substantial relationship to public health, safety, or welfare; and (2) The proposed amendment is in the best interest of the residents of the city. (3) The proposed amendment is consistent with the requirements of RCW 36.70A and with the portion of the city's adopted plan not affected by the amendment. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(140.20), 2-27-90; Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1- 97) (9i -el. Ne. 99 43, -S 2(4:49.25), 2 z7 99; Vi=El. Ne. A' 9 4 291, S 3, 4 4: Sir 527. Sec. 22-531 Official file. (a) Contents. The director of community development services shall compile an official file containing all information and materials relevant to the proposal and to the city's consideration of the proposal. (b) Availability. The official file is a public record. It is available for inspection and copying in the department of community development during regular business hours. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(160.25), 2-27-90; Ord. No. 91-112, 1(160.25), 12-3-91; Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1-97) a--3 �. �_... ��..F G LJI,n See. 22 528. Sec 22-532. Notice. Notice provisions under this section shall be followed for both the public hearing during which all requests for changes to the zoning map, zoning text, and the comprehensive plan are prioritized, as well as the public hearing held on individual requests. (a) Contents. The director of community development services shall prepare a notice of each proposal, for which a public hearing will be held, containing the following information: (1) The citation, if any, of the provision that would be changed by the proposal along with a brief description of that provision. (2) A statement of how the proposal would change the affected provision. (3) A statement of what areas, zones, or locations will be directly affected or changed by the proposal. (4) The date, time, and place of the public hearing. (5) A statement of the availability of the official file. (6) A statement of the right of any person to submit written comments to the planning commission and to appear at the public hearing of the planning commission to give comments orally. (b) Distribution. The director of community development services shall distribute this notice at least 14 calendar days before the public hearing as fe„ ews e following the procedures of Sec. 22-521. In addition the procedures of Section 22-481 shall be followed for site-specific requests regarding notification of adjacent property owners posting of the site. 9 PAGE 1 0F ?A (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(160.30), 2-27-90; Ord. No. 91-112, § 1(160.30), 12-3-91; Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1-97) See. 22 529.- Sec. 22-533. Staff report. (a) General. The director of community development services shall prepare a staff report containing: (1) An analysis of the proposal and a recommendation on the proposal; and (2) Any other information the director of community development services determines is necessary for consideration of the proposal, consistent with section 22 5244- 22-530. (b) Distribution. The director of community development services shall distribute the staff report as follows: (1) A copy will be sent to each member of the planning commission prior to the hearing. (2) A copy will be sent promptly to any person requesting it. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(160.30), 2-27-90; Ord. No. 91-112, § 1(160.30), 12-3-91; Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1-97) See. 22 330 Sec. 22-534. Public hearing. (a) Generally. The planning commission shall hold public hearings on each proposal, consistent with section 22 31 22-536, unless the city council elects to hold its own hearings on the proposal, in which case planning commission review pursuant to this article shall not be required. (b) Open to public. The hearings of the planning commission are open to the public. 10 EXaffI� PAGE (c) Effect. Except as provided in subsection (a) above, the hearing of the planning commission is the hearing for city council. City council need not hold another hearing on the proposal. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(160.40), 2-27-90; Ord. No. 91-112, 1(160.40), 12-3-91; Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1-97) See -22 5531. Sec. 22-535. Material to be considered. (a) Generally. Except as specified in subsections (b) and (c) of this section, the planning commission and city council may consider any pertinent information or materials in reviewing and deciding upon a proposal under this article. (b) Exclusion. Except as specified in subsection (c) of this section, the city may not consider a specific site plan or project in reviewing and deciding upon a proposal under this process. (c) Exception for environmental information. If a proposal that will be decided upon using this article is part of a specific project, the city may consider all information pertaining to SEPA environmental review and submitted under section 22218 22-519 in deciding upon that proposal. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(160.45), 2-27-90; Ord. No. 91-112, § 1(160.45), 12-3-91; Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1-97) See. 22 532. Sec 22-536. Electronic sound recordings. The planning commission shall make a complete electronic sound recording of each public hearing. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(160.50), 2-27-90; Ord. No. 91-112, § 1(160.50), 12-3-91; Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1-97) Seer 533. Sec. 22-537. Public comment and participation at the hearing. Any interested person may participate in the public hearing in either or both of the following ways: 11 B6� PAGE )1.0F d, (1) By submitting written comments to the planning commission either by delivering these comments to the department of community development services prior to the hearing or by giving them directly to the planning commission at the hearing. (2) By appearing in person, or through a representative, at the hearing and making oral comments. The planning commission may reasonably limit the extent of oral comments to facilitate the orderly and timely conduct of the hearing. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(160.55), 2-27-90; Ord. No. 91-112, § 1(160.55), 12-3-91; Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1-97) See. 22 534. Sec. 22-538 Continuation of the hearing. The planning commission may, for any reason, continue the hearing on the proposal. If, during the hearing, the planning commission announces the time and place of the next public hearing on the proposal and a notice thereof is posted on the door of the hearing room, no further notice of that hearing need be given. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(160.60), 2-27-90; Ord. No. 91-112, § 1(160.60), 12-3-91; Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1-97) See. 22-535. Sec. 22-539. Planning commission --Recommendation. (a) Generally. Following the public hearing, the planning commission shall consider the proposal in light of the decisional criteria in sections 22--521 22-526 or rS2'3r 528 or S2S 530, and take one of the following actions: (1) If the planning commission determines that the proposal should be adopted, it may, by a majority vote of the entire membership, recommend that city council adopt the proposal. (2) If the planning commission determines that the proposal should not be adopted, it may, by a majority vote of the members present, recommend that city council not adopt the proposal. 12"Im A;�r (3) If the planning commission is unable to take either of the actions specified in subsection (a) (1) or (a)(2)* of this section, the proposal will be sent to city council with the notation that the planning commission makes no recommendation. (b) Modification of proposal. The planning commission may modify the proposal in any way and to any degree prior to recommending the proposal to city council for adoption. If the planning commission fundamentally modifies the proposal, the planning commission shall hold a new public hearing on the proposal as modified prior to recommending the proposal to city council for action. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(160.65), 2-27-90; Ord. No. 91-112, § 1(160.65), 12-3-91; Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1-97) See.22Sec. 22-540. Same --Report to city council. (a) Generally. The director of community development services shall prepare a planning commission report on the proposal containing a copy of the proposal, along with any explanatory information, and the planning commission recommendation, if any, on the proposal. (b) Transmittal to city council. The director of community development services shall transmit the planning commission report to the city manager for consideration by city council. (c)Distribution. The director of community development services shall promptly send a copy of the planning commission report to any person requesting it. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(160.70), 2-27-90; Ord. No. 91-112, § 1(160.70), 12-3-91; Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1-97) Dee. 2-2-77 . Sec. 22-541. City council action. (a) General. Within 60 days of receipt of the planning commission report by the city manager, the city council shall consider the proposal along with a draft ordinance prepared by the city attorney, appropriate to enact or adopt the proposal. 13 r'`'n) PACE (b) Decisional criteria. In deciding upon the proposal, the city council shall use the decisional criteria listed in the provisions of this chapter describing the proposal. (c) City council action. After consideration of the planning commission report and, at its discretion, holding its own public hearing on the proposal, the city council shall by majority vote of its total membership: (1) Approve the proposal by adopting an appropriate ordinance; (2) Modify and approve the proposal by adopting an appropriate ordinance; (3) Disapprove the proposal by resolution; or (4) Refer the proposal back to the planning commission for further proceedings. If this occurs, the city council shall specify the time within which the planning commission shall report back to the city council on the proposal. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(160.75), 2-27-90; Ord. No. 91-112, § 1(160.75), 12-3-91; Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1-97) Sec. 22-542. Transmittal to State At least 60 days prior to final action being taken by the City Council, but not prior to the close of the planning commission public hearing and transmittal of planning commission recommendation to the LUTC, the Washington Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development (DOTED) and other interested affected state agencies, King County and surrounding jurisdictions shall be provided with a co -y of the amendments in order to initiate the 60 -day comment period. All other parties previously notified shall be again notified that the draft amendments of the comprehensive plan are available on reauest on a cost recovery basi No later than 10 days after adoption of the comprehensive plan, a copy of the adopted comprehensive plan shall be forwarded to DCTED and those agencies who commented on the draft 14 _ IE-21PAW 1 /'19...'` - comprehensive plan. See. 22 538. Sec. 22-543. Appeals. The action of the city in granting, modifying or denying an amendment to this chapter or to the comprehensive plan may be reviewed by the Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board pursuant to RCW 36.70A. (Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1-97) Secs. 22 539 22 545 22-544-22-545 Reserved. I:\COMPAMND\PROC6LTC.2/December 30, 1998 15 IE. II IF PAGE OF ARTICLE VIII. PROCESS V REVIEW - QUASI-JUDICIAL REZONES* Sec. 22-478. Applications. (a) Who may apply. Any person may, personally or through an agent, apply for a decision regarding property he or she owns. (b) How to apply. The applicant shall file the following information with the department of community development services: (1) A completed application, with supporting affidavits, on forms provided by the department of community development services; (2) Two sets of stamped envelopes, and a list of the same, labeled with the name and address of all current owners of real property, as shown in the records of the county assessor for the subject property, within 300 feet of each boundary of the subject property; (3) A copy of the county assessor's map identifying the properties specified in subsection (b)(2) of this section; (4) A vicinity map showing the subject property with enough information to locate the property within the larger area; (5) Any information or material that is specified in the provision of this chapter that describes the applied - for decision; (6) All information specified in section 22-32; and (7) Any additional information or material that the director of community development services determines 1 PAG EAT_ is reasonably necessary for a decision on the matter. (c) Fee. With the application the applicant shall submit the fee established by the city. The application will not be accepted unless it is accompanied by the required fee and meets the requirements of section 22-32 and this section relating to what constitutes a complete application. (Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1-97) Sec. 22-481. Notice. (a) Contents. The director of community development services shall prepare a notice of each application containing the following information: (1) The name of the applicant, the project name (if applicable), the date of application, and the date of the notice of application. (2) The street address of the subject property or, if this is not available, a locational description in nonlegal language. Except for notice published in the newspaper of general circulation in the city, the notice must also include a vicinity map that identifies the subject property. (3) The citation of the provision of this chapter describing the requested decision and to the extent known by the city, any other permits which are not included in the application. (4) A brief description of the requested decision, a list of the project permits included in the application, and, if applicable, a list of any studies requested under RCW 36.70A.440. (5) The date, time, and place of the public hearing. (6) A statement of the availability of the official file. (7) A statement of the right of any person to submit written or oral comments to the hearing examiner regarding the application. (8) A statement that only persons who submit comments to the hearing examiner or specifically request a copy of the original decision may appeal the hearing examiner's decision. (9) The identification of existing environmental documents that evaluate the proposed project and the location where the application and any studies can be reviewed. (10) A statement of the preliminary determination, if one has been made at the time of notice, of those development regulations that will be used for project mitigation. (b) Distribution. The director of community development services shall distribute this notice at least 14 calendar days before the public hearing as follows: (1) A copy will be sent to the persons receiving the property tax statements for all property within 300 feet of each boundary of the subject property. (2) A copy will be published in the newspaper of general circulation in the city. (3) A copy will be posted on each of the official notification boards of the city. (c) Public notification sign. The applicant shall erect at least one public notification sign which complies with standards developed by the department of community development services. This sign shall be located on or near the subject property facing the right-of-way or vehicle access easement or tract providing direct vehicle access to the subject property. The director of community development services may require the placement of additional public notice signs on or near the subject property if he or she determines that this is appropriate to provide notice to the public. (d) Timing. The public notification sign or signs must be in 3 lit PAGE'AGE- - -A. L .. place at least ten calendar days before the public hearing and removed within seven calendar days after the final decision of the city on the matter. (Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1-97) Sec. 22-488. Recommendation by the hearing examiner. (c) Decisional criteria. The hearing examiner shall use the following criteria for quasi judicial rezones: (1) The city may approve an application for a quasi- judicial nonproject rezone only if it finds that: a. The proposed rezone is in the best interest of the residents of the city; and b. The proposed rezone is appropriate because either: i. Conditions in the immediate vicinity of the subject property have so significantly changed since the property was given its present zoning and that, under those changed conditions, a rezone is within the public interest; or ii. The rezone will correct a zone classification or zone boundary that was inappropriate when established. C. It is consistent with the comprehensive plan; d. It is consistent with all applicable provisions of the chapter, including those adopted by reference from the comprehensive plan; and e. It is consistent with the public health, safety, and welfare. EXHIB"'IT-a 1'A , A. CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PLANNING STAFF REPORT Prepared by Margaret H. Clark, AICP, Senior Planner November 25, 1998 Procedures for Amendment of Comprehensive Plan INTRODUCTION The City of Federal Way presently does not have a formal procedure adopted for considering annual amendments to its adopted comprehensive plan. Therefore, the City Council directed staff to prepare a code amendment to set up a process. The report is organized in two parts. The first part lays out the authority under state law for the annual comprehensive plan amendment process and the second part summarizes the proposed amendment process for the City of Federal Way. In general, the process is based on procedures which were used in the most recent update with some minor changes proposed to bring the process into compliance with state law. In addition, in certain places, staff has not made a specific recommendation but has posed questions or provided alternatives for the commission's discussion and deliberation. Attached are the changes to the Definitions Section -- Article I and Article IX-- Process VI. Review with strikers (proposed deletions) and underline (proposed additions). In addition, those portions of Article VIII. Process V Review, which are referenced in the proposed revisions, are included. BACKGROUND/AUTHORITY FOR PROCESS AUTHORITY RCW 36.70A.130(2)(a) has setup the following requirements for each county and city planning under the Growth Management Act (GMA) 1. Proposed revisions or amendments to the comprehensive plan must be considered by the City Council no more than once per year except under the following circumstances: (i) The initial adoption of a subarea plan; (ii) The adoption or amendment of a shoreline master program; (iii) The amendment of the capital facilities element of a comprehensive plan that occurs concurrently with the adoption or amendment of a county or city budget; (iv) In the case of an emergency; EXHIBIT G PAGE 1 C��__�_Yi (v) To resolve an appeal of a comprehensive plan filed with a growth management hearings board or with the court. 2. As part of the yearly update, all proposals shall be considered by the governing body concurrently so that the cumulative effect of the various proposals may be ascertained II. DOCKETING PROCESS RCW 36.70A.470. Project Review -- Amendment Suggestion Procedure -- Definitions. gives authority for the docketing process. Docketing means compiling and maintaining a list of suggested changes to the comprehensive plan or development regulations in a manner that will ensure such suggested changes will be considered by the county or city and will be available for review by the public. This code section states that if during project review, a county or city planning under the GMA identifies deficiencies in plans or regulations, the identified deficiencies shall be docketed for possible future plan or development regulations. Therefore, each county or city planning under the GMA is required to include in its development regulations a procedure for any interested person, including applicants, citizens , hearing examiners, and staff of other agencies, to suggest plan or development regulation amendments. The suggested amendments shall be docketed and considered on at least an annual basis consistent with the provisions of RCW 36.70A.130. Deficiency in a comprehensive plan or development regulations refers to the absence of required or potentially desirable contents of a comprehensive plan or development regulation. III. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION REQUIREMENTS RCW 36.70A.130(2)(a) requires each county and city planning under the Growth Management Act (GMA) to establish and publicize a public participation program identifying procedures on the process to amend or revise the adopted comprehensive plan. RCW 36.70A.140 Comprehensive Plans --Ensure Public Participation, requires each county or city planning under GMA to establish and broadly disseminate to the public a public participation program identifying procedures providing for early and continuous public participation in the development and amendment of comprehensive land use plans and development regulations implementing such plans. The adopted procedures shall provide for broad dissemination of proposals and alternatives, opportunity for written comments, public meetings after effective notice, provision for open discussion, communication programs, information services, and consideration of and response to public comments. 2 EXHIBIT C PAGE 2 OFJir� RCW 36.70A.035 Public Participation -- Notice Provisions, requires reasonable notice of any proposed revisions or amendments to the comprehensive plan be given to property owners and other affected and interested individuals, tribes, government agencies, businesses, and organizations. Examples of reasonable notice include: Posting the property for site-specific proposals; Publishing notice in a newspaper of general circulation in the county, city, or general area where the proposal is located or that will be affected by the proposal; 3. Notifying public or private groups with known interest in a certain proposal or in the type of proposal being considered; 4. Placing notices in appropriate regional, neighborhood, ethnic, or trade journals; and 5. Publishing notice in agency newsletters or sending notice to agency mailing lists, including general lists or lists for specific proposals or subject areas. If the City Council chooses to consider a change to an amendment to a comprehensive plan after the opportunity for review and comment has passed under the City's procedures, an opportunity for review and comment on the proposed change shall be provided before the City Council votes on the proposed change. An additional opportunity for public review and comment is not required if: An environmental impact statement (EIS) has been prepared for the pending resolution or ordinance and the proposed change is within the range of alternatives considered in the EIS; 2. The proposed change is within the scope of the alternatives available for public comment; The proposed change only corrects typographical errors, corrects cross- references, makes address or name changes, or clarifies language of a proposed ordinance or resolution without changing its effect; 4. The proposed change is to a resolution or ordinance making a capital budget decision pursuant to the adopted comprehensive plan. The proposed change is to a resolution or ordinance enacting a moratorium or interim control. EXH1131T-_C PAGE_J OF*f__ C. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT PROCESS GENERAL The Procedures for Amendment of the Comprehensive Plan shall be added to Article IX. Process VI Review. Proposed amendments to the comprehensive plan shall be accompanied by any development regulations or amendments to development regulations necessary to implement the proposed amendments. II. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION REQUIREMENTS Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.035. Public Participation -- Notice Provisions, the City shall create and maintain a list of parties, agencies, organizations, and adjacent jurisdictions with an interest or who may be affected by changes to the comprehensive plan. III. DOCKET FORM Pursuant to RCW 36.70,4.470. Project Review --Amendment Suggestion Procedure -- Definitions, the City shall prepare a docket form to be used for any interested person, including applicants, citizens, planning commission, city staff and staff of other agencies to submit proposed changes to policies of the comprehensive plan. Docket forms may be submitted at any time of the year. IV. SITE SPECIFIC REQUESTS Site-specific requests for amendment of comprehensive plan designations, including any requests for pre -annexation comprehensive plan designation and zoning, may be submitted (docketed) at any time of the year.' V. HOW TO PROPOSE AN AMENDMENT Sixty days prior to the deadline for submitting requests for comprehensive plan amendments, the City shall notify all parties who submitted docket forms since the last amendment cycle. Notice shall also be given as follows: Public Notice notifying the public that the amendment process has begun shall be published in the Tacoma News Tribune, the City's official newspaper. 2. Notice shall be posted on the official city public notice boards. 'Applications for pre -annexation comprehensive plan designation and zoning will only be accepted if the City has accepted a 10 percent petition on the annexation request. PAGE�.�F�f _ A copy of the notice shall be mailed to other local newspapers. 4. All parties, agencies, organizations, and adjacent jurisdictions with an interest, or who may be affected by changes to the comprehensive plan shall be sent a copy of the notice. uestion: Should the City specify a deadline every year for submitting requests for comprehensive plan amendments? Table 1 at the end of the staff report lists selected neighboring jurisdictions and compares how each jurisdiction addresses this question. The advantage of specking a deadline for annual requests for amendments to the comprehensive plan is that the timing of the process will be predictable. The disadvantage is that other code amendments on the yearly work program may not have been completed by the scheduled time for the start of the annual comprehensive plan amendment process). For site specific requests, the application requirements of FWCC, Section 22-478 shall apply. VI. SELECTION PROCEDURE Present practice is for all site-specific requests to be taken to the Land Use Transportation Committee (LUTC) for a recommendation on whether they should be included in the comprehensive plan amendments.' The yearly work program which includes comprehensive plan amendments is taken to both the LUTC and City Council. (Question: Should all proposed amendments be taken to both the LUTC and the City Council for prioritizing and inclusion in the upcoming yearly cycle or just to the LUTC?) After the deadline for accepting requests, the City shall prepare a summary of all requests to be presented to the Land Use Transportation Committee (LUTC) and/or City Council (depending on the answer to the previous question) for determination of which requests should be considered during the upcoming amendment process.' The LUTC and/or City Council shall use the following criteria in selecting the comprehensive plan amendments to be considered during the upcoming cycle: Volume of requests received. A large volume of requests may necessitate that some requests be reviewed in a subsequent year. Order of requests received. 2This does not include housekeeping amendments initiated by the city or other agencies . PAGE -5 0F3Lq_ 3. Study of the same area or issue during the last amendment process. 4. Amount of analysis necessary to reach a recommendation on the request. If a large scale study is required, a request may have to be delayed until the following year due to work loads, staffing levels, etc. 5. Consistency of the proposed amendment with the overall vision of the comprehensive plan. 6. Whether the proposed amendment meets existing state and local laws, including the Growth Management Act. 7. Available incorporation into planned or active projects. VII. REVIEW OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS After a decision is made on the comprehensive plan amendments to be considered in the upcoming cycle, the City shall notify all applicants. 2. Pre -application Conference -- All applicants seeking an amendment to comprehensive land use designations of the official comprehensive plan (site- specific requests and non -housekeeping amendments) must apply for a pre - application conference with the City's Development Review Committee (CDRC). Pre -applications cost $300, which is a non-refundable fee, but which will be credited to the formal comprehensive plan amendment fee of $564 plus $56 per acre. There is presently no adopted fee in the City's fee schedule for pre -annexation comprehensive plan designation and zoning. (Question: Should a fee be charged for requests for pre -annexation comprehensive plan designation and zoning of property and if so, should the fee be the same as for site-specific requests?) At the pre -application conference, the City will discuss the proposed amendment's consistency with applicable city policies and comprehensive plan goals and policies. After the pre -application conference is completed, if the applicant decides to pursue the comprehensive plan amendment, the remaining portion of the comprehensive plan amendment fee must be paid. State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA Review) -- The City will prepare a SEPA determination. 4. Public Hearing by Planning Commission -- After the SEPA process has been completed, a staff report, summarizing the proposed changes to the comprehensive plan will be forwarded to the planning commission for a public hearing. The Planning Commission public hearing shall be noticed pursuant to PAGECD!F 3 4.__ FWCC, Section 22-528. Notice (as amended under B.5 above to meet the public participation requirements of RCW 36 70A. 035). In addition, the sites will be posted for the site-specific requests and property owners within 300 feet shall be notified. For site specific requests, the decisional criteria in FWCC, Section 22- 488(c) shall apply. Discussion by the LUTC -- After the close of the planning commission public hearing, the planning commission's recommendation and findings shall be forwarded to the LUTC. Action by City Council -- After the LUTC has completed their review, their recommendation will be forwarded to the full Council who will adopt the amendments in a public meeting. Transmittal to the State -- At least 60 days prior to final action being taken by the City Council, but not prior to the close of the planning commission public hearing and transmittal of planning commission recommendation to the LUTC, the Washington Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development (DCTED) and other interested affected state agencies, King County and surrounding jurisdictions shall be provided with a copy of the amendments in order to initiate the 60 -day comment period. All other parties previously notified shall be again notified that the draft amendments of the comprehensive plan are available on request on a cost recovery basis. No later than 10 days after adoption of the comprehensive plan, a copy of the adopted comprehensive plan shall be forwarded to DCTED and those agencies who commented on the draft comprehensive plan for an additional 60 day comment period. VIII. NEW DEFINITIONS "Docket" (noun) means the list of suggested changes to the comprehensive plan maintained by the Community Development Services Department. "Docket" (verb) means to record with the department a suggested change to the comprehensive plan. 7 PAGEOFJ4- TABLE 1 COMPARISON OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT FEES AND DEADLINES FOR SUBMITTING APPLICATIONS EVERY YEAR JURISDICTION FEE FOR SITE- FEE FOR OTHER DEADLINE FOR SPECIFIC AMENDMENTS YEARLY AMENDMENTS AMENDMENT City of Federal Way $564 plus $56/acre $564 except for To be determined housekeeping amendments for which there is no fee King County $1500 None January 15th for Hearing Examiner's Report to be forwarded to the Metropolitan King County Council on site- specific requests and September 30th for other amendments City of Seattle None None Changes on a yearly basis but appears to fall towards the end of January or February of each year City of Tacoma None' None March 31 st City of Tukwila $1025 $700 December 31st City of Kent $500 plus $10/acre None September 1st I:\COMPAMNDWMNDPROC.2/November 25, 1998 3The City of Tacoma does not accept site-specific requests as part of the comprehensive plan amendment process; any requests for rezones are processed through the rezoning process. EXHIBIT C PAGE OF ARTICLE I. IN GENERAL Sec. 22-1. Definitions. The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this chapter, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning: Day care facility shall mean the temporary, nonresidential care of persons in a residence or other structure on a regular, recurring basis. Dedication shall mean the deliberate appropriation of land by its owner for public use or purpose, reserving no other rights than those that are compatible with the full exercise and enjoyment of the public uses or purpose to which the property has been devoted. Development activity shall mean any work, condition or activity which requires a permit or approval under this chapter or the city's building code. Development permit shall mean any permit or approval under this chapter or the city's building code that must be obtained before initiating a use or development activity. Docket (noun) shall mean the list of suggested changes to the comprehensive plan maintained by the Community Development Services Department. Docket (verb) shall mean to record with the department a suggested change to the comprehensive plan. EXH I I IT G 1 PAGE.»�17 43 ARTICLE III. AMENDMENTS DIVISION 2. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN* *Cross reference(s)--Amendments to these provisions must be reviewed and decided using process VI, § 22-516. Sec. 22-236. Applicable process. The city will use process VI described in sections 22-516 through 22-530 to review and decide upon a proposal to amend the comprehensive plan. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(140.10), 2-27-90; Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1- 97) Cross reference(s)--Process VI review requirements, § 22-516 et seq. Secs. 22-237--22-255. Reserved. Editor's note --Ordinance No. 97-291, § 3, adopted April 1, 1997, deleted §§ 22-237--22-239. Formerly, such sections pertained to factors to be considered in amendment, criteria for amendment, responsibility to review and derived from Ord. No. 90- 43, §§ 2(140.15, 140.20, 140.25), 2-27-90. EXHIBIT --C- 2 PAGEAD OF4_ ARTICLE VIII. PROCESS V REVIEW - QUASI-JUDICIAL REZONES* *Editor's note --Ordinance No. 97-291, § 3, adopted April 1, 1997, amended §§ 22-476--22-498 to read as herein set out as new §§ 22-476--22-498. Formerly, such sections pertained to process III review and derived from Ord. No. 90-43, §§ 2(155.05--155.110), 2-27-90. Cross reference(s)--City council, §.2-26 et seq.; hearing examiner, § 2-81 et seq; requirements for drainage review, § 21- 87; power and jurisdiction of the hearing examiner, § 22-84; quasi judicial rezoning of certain districts to be under the process V review requirements, § 22-256 et seq. Sec. 22-476. Administration. This article describes process V. Under process V, the hearing examiner will hold a public hearing and based on the record of that hearing make a recommendation to city council, which will then decide upon the application. (Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1-97) Sec. 22-477. Types of rezones. (a) There are two types of quasi judicial rezones as follows: (1) Nonproject related. A quasi-judicial rezone will be treated as nonproject-related if: a. The proposed rezone is initiated by the city and the subject property is not owned by the city; or b. The proposed rezone is from one single family residential zone classification to another single family residential zone classification. 3 C PAGE A_� (2) Project related. A quasi judicial rezone will be treated as project -related when it does not meet the requirements of subsection (a)(1) of this section. All project related rezones require a specific development proposal for the subject property. (Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1-97) Sec. 22-478. Applications. (a) Who may apply. Any person may, personally or through an agent, apply for a decision regarding property he or she owns. (b) How to apply. The applicant shall file the following information with the department of community development services: (1) A completed application, with supporting affidavits, on forms provided by the department of community development services; (2) Two sets of stamped envelopes, and a list of the same, labeled with the name and address of all current owners of real property, as shown in the records of the county assessor for the subject property, within 300 feet of each boundary of the subject property; (3) A copy of the county assessor's map identifying the properties specified in subsection (b)(2) of this section; (4) A vicinity map showing the subject property with enough information to locate the property within the larger area; (5) Any information or material that is specified in the provision of this chapter that describes the applied - for decision; (6) All information specified in section 22-32; and (7) Any additional information or material that the director of community development services determines 4 XHIL-M C PSG E L_: p� is reasonably necessary for a decision on the matter. (c) Fee. With the application the applicant shall submit the fee established by the city. The application will not be accepted unless it is accompanied by the required fee and meets the requirements of section 22-32 and this section relating to what constitutes a complete application. (Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1-97) Sec. 22-479. Compliance with State Environmental Policy Act. The State Environmental Policy Act applies to the decisions that will be made using this article. The director of community development services shall evaluate each application and, where applicable, comply with the State Environmental Policy Act and with state regulations and city ordinances issued under the authority of the State Environmental Policy Act. (Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1-97) Sec. 22-480. Official file. (a) Contents. The director of community development services shall compile an official file on the application containing the following: (1) All application materials submitted by the applicant. (2) The staff report. (3) All written comments received on the matter. (4) The electronic recording of the public hearing on the matter. (5) The recommendation of the hearing examiner. (6) The electronic sound recording and minutes of the city council proceedings on the matter. (7) The decision of city council. 5 EXHIMI" C PAGE_OF�� (8) Any other information relevant to the matter. (b) Availability. The official file is a public record. It is available for inspection and copying in the department of community development services during regular business hours. (Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1-97) Sec. 22-481. Notice. (a) Contents. The director of community development services shall prepare a notice of each application containing the following information: (1) The name of the applicant, the project name (if applicable), the date of application, and the date of the notice of application. (2) The street address of the subject property or, if this is not available, a locational description in nonlegal language. Except for notice published in the newspaper of general circulation in the city, the notice must also include a vicinity map that identifies the subject property. (3) The citation of the provision of this chapter describing the requested decision and to the extent known by the city, any other permits which are not included in the application. (4) A brief description of the requested decision, a list of the project permits included in the application, and, if applicable, a list of any studies requested under RCW 36.70A.440. (5) The date, time, and place of the public hearing. (6) A statement of the availability of the official file. (7) A statement of the right of any person to submit written or oral comments to the hearing examiner regarding the application. (8) A statement that only persons who submit comments to the hearing examiner or specifically request a copy of the original decision may appeal the hearing examiner's decision. (9) The identification of existing environmental documents that evaluate the proposed project and the location where the application and any studies can be reviewed. (10) A statement of the preliminary determination, if one has been made at the time of notice, of those development regulations that will be used for project mitigation. (b) Distribution. The director of community development services shall distribute this notice at least 14 calendar days before the public hearing as follows: (1) A copy will be sent to the persons receiving the property tax statements for all property within 300 feet of each boundary of the subject property. (2) A copy will be published in the newspaper of general circulation in the city. (3) A copy will be posted on each of the official notification boards of the city. (c) Public notification sign. The applicant shall erect at least one public notification sign which complies with standards developed by the department of community development services. This sign shall be located on or near the subject property facing the right-of-way or vehicle access easement or tract providing direct vehicle access to the subject property. The director of community development services may require the placement of additional public notice signs on or near the subject property if he or she determines that this is appropriate to provide notice to the public. (d) Timing. The public notification sign or signs must be in place at least ten calendar days before the public hearing and removed within seven calendar days after the final decision of the city on the matter. PAGE F� (Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1-97) Sec. 22-482. Staff report. (a) Contents. The director of community development services shall prepare a staff report containing the following information: (1) All pertinent application materials. (2) All comments regarding the matter received by the department of community development services prior to distribution of the staff report. (3) An analysis of the application under the relevant provisions of this chapter and the comprehensive plan. (4) A statement of the facts found by the director of community development services and the conclusions drawn from those facts. (5) A recommendation on the matter. (b) Distribution. At least seven calendar days before the hearing, the director of community development services shall distribute the staff report as follows: (1) A copy will be sent to the hearing examiner. (2) A copy will be sent to the applicant. (3) A copy will be sent to each person who has specifically requested it. (Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1-97) Sec. 22-483. Open record hearing. (a) General. The hearing examiner shall hold an open record hearing on each application. (b) Open to public. The hearings of the hearing examiner are open to the public. 8 E X H 1 g 95 171" � PAGE- (c) Effect. The hearing of the hearing examiner is the hearing for city council on the application. (Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1-97) Sec. 22-484. Electronic sound recording. The hearing examiner shall make a complete electronic sound recording of each public hearing. (Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1-97) Sec. 22-485. Burden of proof. The applicant has the responsibility of convincing the city that, under the provision of this article, the applicant is entitled to the requested decision. (Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1-97) Sec. 22-486. Public comments and participation at the hearing. Any person may participate in the public hearing in either or both of the following ways: (1) By submitting written comments to the hearing examiner, either by delivering these comments to the department of community development services prior to the hearing or by giving these directly to the hearing examiner at the hearing. (2) By appearing in person, or through a representative, at the hearing and making oral comments directly to the hearing examiner. The hearing examiner may reasonably limit the extent of oral comments to facilitate the orderly and timely conduct of the hearing. (Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1-97) Sec. 22-487. Continuation of the hearing. The hearing examiner may continue the hearing if, for any reason, he or she is unable to hear all of the public comments on 9 EXH1►iC RAG A7"-+-'3## the matter or if the hearing examiner determines that he or she needs more information on the matter. If, during the hearing, the hearing examiner announces the time and place of the next hearing on the matter and a notice thereof is posted on the door of the hearing room, no further notice of that hearing need be given. (Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1-97) Sec. 22-488. Recommendation by the hearing examiner. (a) Generally. After considering all of the information and comments submitted on the matter, the hearing examiner shall issue a written recommendation to the city council. (b) Timing. Unless a longer period is agreed to by the applicant, the hearing examiner must issue the recommendation within ten working days after the close of the public hearing. (c) Decisional criteria. The hearing examiner shall use the following criteria for quasi judicial rezones: (1) The city may approve an application for a quasi- judicial nonproject rezone only if it finds that: a. The proposed rezone is in the best interest of the residents of the city; and b. The proposed rezone is appropriate because either: i. Conditions in the immediate vicinity of the subject property have so significantly changed since the property was given its present zoning and that, under those changed conditions, a rezone is within the public interest; or ii. The rezone will correct a zone classification or zone boundary that was inappropriate when established. C. It is consistent with the comprehensive plan; d. It is consistent with all applicable provisions of 10 EXE .11 PAG EJ.9 , - 3 the chapter, including those adopted by reference from the comprehensive plan; and e. It is consistent with the public health, safety, and welfare. (2) The city may approve an application for a quasi- judicial project related rezone only if it finds that: a. The criteria in subsection (1) above are met; and b. The proposed project complies with this chapter in all respects; and C. The site plan of the proposed project is designed to minimize all adverse impacts on the developed properties in the immediate vicinity of the subject property; and d. The site plan is designed to minimize impacts upon the public services and utilities. (d) Conditions and restrictions. The hearing examiner shall include in the written recommendation any conditions and restrictions that the examiner determines are reasonably necessary to eliminate or minimize any undesirable effects of granting the requested rezone. (e) Contents. The hearing examiner shall include the following in the written recommendation to city council: (1) A statement of facts presented to the hearing examiner that supports his or her recommendation, including any conditions and restrictions that are recommended. (2) A statement of the hearing examiner's conclusions based on those facts. (3) A statement of the criteria used by the hearing examiner in making the recommendation. (4) The date of issuance of the recommendation. 11 EXHIBIT PAGEj-4 0FJ#- (f) Distribution of written recommendation. The director of community development services shall distribute copies of the recommendation of the hearing examiner as follows: (1) After the hearing examiner's written recommendation is issued, a copy will be sent to the applicant, to each person who submitted written or oral testimony to the hearing examiner, and to each person who specifically requested it. (2) Prior to the meeting where city council considers the application, a copy will be sent to each member of city council. The director of community development services shall include a draft resolution or ordinance that embodies the hearing examiner's recommendation with the copy of the recommendation sent to each city council member. (Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1-97) ARTICLE IX. PROCESS VI REVIEW* *Cross references) --Requirements for drainage review, § 21- 87; power and jurisdiction of the planning commission, § 22-59; amendments to the zoning regulations to be processed under the process VI procedure, § 22-216; amendments to the comprehensive plan to be processed through process VI review procedures, § 22- 236; comprehensive plan, § 22-236 et seq.; legislative rezoning, § 22-276 et seq.; amendments, § 22-216 et seq.; legislative rezoning of certain districts to be under process VI review, § 22-276. Sec. 22-516. Purpose. Various places in this chapter indicate that certain proposals to amend the zoning map through a legislative rezone, amend the text of this chapter, or amend the comprehensive plan must be reviewed and decided upon using process VI. This article describes process VI. 12 ExHIE3fi�._ PAGEOFJV- (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(160.05), 2-27-90; Ord. No. 91-112, § 1(160.05), 12-3-91; Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1-97) Sec. 22-517. Initiation of proposals. A proposal that will be reviewed using this article may be initiated by the city council, council committee, planning commission, or any interested person, including applicants, citizens, hearing examiners, and staff of other agencies. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(160.10), 2-27-90; Ord. No. 91-112, § 1(160.10), 12-3-91; Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1-97) Cross references) --City council, § 2-26 et seq.; planning commission, § 22-56 et seq. Sec. 22-518. Docket The Department of Community Development Services shall maintain a docket of all proposed changes to the comprehensive plan. Proposed amendments to the comprehensive plan may only be submitted on docket forms prepared by the City and may be submitted by any interested person, including applicants, citizens, planning commission, city staff and staff of other agencies at any time of the year. See. 22 518. Sec 22-519. Compliance with State Environmental Policy Act. The State Environmental Policy Act applies to some of the decisions that will be made using this article. The director of community development services shall evaluate each proposal and, where applicable, comply with the State Environmental Policy Act and with state regulations and city ordinances issued under authority of the State Environmental Policy Act. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(160.15), 2-27-90; Ord. No. 91-112, § 1(160.15), 12-3-91; Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1-97) See. — 19. Sec 22-520. City council review. The city council shall review all requests initiated pursuant to this article concurrently as part of the annual 13 EXHIBIT PAGES update of the city's comprehensive plan. The city council may request that the department of community development services or any other department of the city provide any information or material on the proposal(s), consistent with section 22-531. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(160.20), 2-27-90; Ord. No. 91-112, § 1(160.20), 12-3-91; Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1-97) Cross reference(s)--City council, § 2-26. Sec. 22-521. Responsibility to review the comprehensive plan. The city shall review the comprehensive plan to determine if any changes are desirable no more than once a year. The city may also review or amend the comprehensive plan whenever an emergency exists, or to resolve an appeal of the comprehensive plan or amendments thereto. The city may also consider amendments more frequently than once every year pursuant to RCW 36.70A.130(2)(a). (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(140.25), 2-27-90; Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1- 97) Sec. 22-522. Timing of Filing; Notice. Sixty days prior to the deadline for submitting requests for the yearly cycle of comprehensive plan amendments, the City shall notify all parties who submitted docket forms since the last amendment cycle. Notice shall also be given as follows: (1) Public Notice notifying the public that the amendment process has begun shall be published in the Tacoma News Tribune, the City's official newspaper. (2L Notice shall be posted on the official city public notice boards. () A copy of the notice shall be mailed to other local newspapers. 4) All parties, agencies, organizations, and adjacent jurisdictions with an interest, or who may be affected by changes to the comprehensive plan 14 PAGE I%-%.0 �' shall be sent a coly of the notice. Sec. 22-523. Application. (a) Who may apply. Any person may, personally or through an agent, apply for a decision regarding property he or she owns. (b) How to apply. The applicant shall file the following information with the department of community development services: (1) A completed application, with supporting affidavits, on forms provided by the department of community development services; (2) A copy of the county assessor's map identifying the properties specified in subsection (b)(2) of this section; (3L A vicinity map showing the subject property with enough information to locate the property within the larger area; (4) Any information or material that is specified in the provision of this chapter that describes the applied - for decision; (5) All information specified in section 22-33; and (6) Any additional information or material that the director of community development services determines is reasonably necessary for a decision on the matter. (c) The director of community development services shall have the authority to waive any of the requirements of this section for proposed amendments which are not site-specific or when, in the director's discretion, such information is not relevant or would not be useful to consideration of the proposed amendment. (d) Fee. There is no fee for this initial application. After the prioritization process, applications to be considered during the amendment process shall submit the fee established by the is EXHIBIT C PAG EB F-- -q Sec. 22-524. Criteria for prioritizing plan amendment requests. The City Council shall use the following criteria in selecting the comprehensive plan amendments to be considered during the upcoming cycle: (1Z Volume of requests received. A larae volume of requests may necessitate that some requests be reviewed in a subsequent year. (2) Order of requests received. (3)_ Study of the same area or issue during the last amendment process. (4)_ Amount of analysis necessary to reach a recommendation on the reauest. If a large scale study is required, a request may have to be delayed until the following year due to work loads, staffing levels. etc. (5) Consistency of the proposed amendment with the overall vision of the comprehensive plan. (6) Whether the proposed amendment meets existing state and local laws, including the Growth Management Act. (7) Available incorporation into planned or active projects. The Council's decision to consider a proposed amendment shall not constitute a decision or recommendation that the proposed amendment should be adopted nor does it preclude later Council action to add or delete an amendment for consideration. See. 22 529. Sec. 22-525 Legislative rezones. A legislative rezone is a rezone that meets the following 16 EXHIBIT PAGEOF-3*_. criteria: a. It is initiated by the city; and b. It includes a large number of properties which would be similarly affected by the proposed rezone. All other rezones not meeting the above criteria are treated as quasijudicial rezones and are reviewed and decided upon using process V. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(130.10), 2-27-90; Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1- 97) See. 22--521. Sec. 22-526 Criteria for approving a legislative rezone. The city may decide to approve a legislative rezone only if it finds that: (1) The proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan; (2) The proposal bears a substantial relation to public health, safety, or welfare; and (3) The proposal is in the best interest of the residents of the city. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(130.20), 2-27-90; Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1- 97) See. 22 Sec. 22-527 Map change. If the city approves a legislative rezone it will give effect to this decision by making the necessary amendment to the zoning map of the city. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(130.25), 2-27-90; Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1- 97) EXHIBIT C 17 PAGE-4-10Fj See. 22 52 3. Sec. 22-528. Zoning text amendment criteria. that: The city may amend the text of this chapter only if it finds (1) The proposed amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; (2) The proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to public health, safety, or welfare; and (3) The proposed amendment is in the best interest of the residents of the city. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(135.15), 2-27-90; Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1- 97) See. 22 524. Sec. 22-529. Factors to be considered in a comprehensive plan amendment. The city may consider, but is not limited to, the following factors when considering a proposed amendment to the comprehensive plan: (1) The effect upon the physical environment. (2) The effect on open space, streams, and lakes. (3) The compatibility with and impact on adjacent land uses and surrounding neighborhoods. (4) The adequacy of and impact on community facilities including utilities, roads, public transportation, parks, recreation, and schools. (5) The benefit to the neighborhood, city, and region. (6) The quantity and location of land planned for the proposed land use type and density and the demand for such land. (7) The current and projected population density in the area. 18 EXHIBIT (8) The effect upon other aspects of the comprehensive plan. For site-specific comprehensive plan amendments, the provisions of Section 22-488(c) shall also apply. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(140.15), 2-27-90; Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1- 97) See. 22525.Sec. 22-530. Criteria for amending the comprehensive plan. that: The city may amend the comprehensive plan only if it finds (1) The proposed amendment bears a substantial relationship to public health, safety, or welfare; and (2) The proposed amendment is in the best interest of the residents of the city. (3) The proposed amendment is consistent with the requirements of RCW 36.70A and with the portion of the city's adopted plan not affected by the amendment. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(140.20), 2-27-90; Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1- 97) 44+ Se -e-22 527. Sec. 22-531 Official file. EXHI I ' C 19 PAG E -2-70F it (a) Contents. The director of community development services shall compile an official file containing all information and materials relevant to the proposal and to the city's consideration of the proposal. (b) Availability. The official file is a public record. It is available for inspection and copying in the department of community development during regular business hours. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(160.25), 2-27-90; Ord. No. 91-112, § 1(160.25), 12-3-91; Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1-97) See. 22 525. Sec 22-532. Notice. Notice provisions under this section shall be followed for both the public hearing during which all requests for changes to the zoning map, zoning text, and the comprehensive plan are prioritized, as well as the public hearing held on individual requests. (a) Contents. The director of community development services shall prepare a notice of each proposal, for which a public hearing will be held, containing the following information: (1) The citation, if any, of the provision that would be changed by the proposal along with a brief description of that provision. (2) A statement of how the proposal would change the affected provision. (3) A statement of what areas, zones, or locations will be directly affected or changed by the proposal. (4) The date, time, and place of the public hearing. (5) A statement of the availability of the official file. (6) A statement of the right of any person to submit written comments to the planning commission and to 20 EXHIBIT � PAGE �� appear at the public hearing of the planning commission to give comments orally. (b) Distribution. The director of community development services shall distribute this notice at least 14 calendar days before the public hearing as fe ,...ws following the procedures of Sec. 22-522. In addition the procedures of Section 22-481 shall be followed for site-specific requests regarding notification of adjacent property owners posting of the site. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(160.30), 2-27-90; Ord. No. 91-112, § 1(160.30), 12-3-91; Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1-97) See. 22 529. Sec. 22-533. Staff report. (a) General. The director of community development services shall prepare a staff report containing: (1) An analysis of the proposal and a recommendation on the proposal; and (2) Any other information the director of community development services determines is necessary for consideration of the proposal, consistent with section 22-524. (b) Distribution. The director of community development services shall distribute the staff report as follows: (1) A copy will be sent to each member of the planning commission prior to the hearing. (2) A copy will be sent promptly to any person requesting it. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(160.30), 2-27-90; Ord. No. 91-112, § 21 EXHIBIT" C PAGE_ . 1(160.30), 12-3-91; Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1-97) See. 22 530— Sec. 22-534. Public hearing. (a) Generally. The planning commission shall hold public hearings on each proposal, consistent with section 231 22-534. (b) Open to public. The hearings of the planning commission are open to the public. (c) Effect. The hearing of the planning commission is the hearing for city council. City council need not hold another hearing on the proposal. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(160.40), 2-27-90; Ord. No. 91-112, § 1(160.40), 12-3-91; Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1-97) See. 22 331. Sec. 22-535. Material to be considered. (a) Generally. Except as specified in subsections (b) and (c) of this section, the planning commission and city council may consider any pertinent information or materials in reviewing and deciding upon a proposal under this article. (b) Exclusion. Except as specified in subsection (c) of this section, the city may not consider a specific site plan or project in reviewing and deciding upon a proposal under this process. (c) Exception for environment information. If a proposal that will be decided upon using this article is part of a specific project, the city may consider all information submitted under section 22 S18 22-519 in deciding upon that proposal. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(160.45), 2-27-90; Ord. No. 91-112, § 1(160.45), 12-3-91; Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1-97) See. 22 532. Sec 22-536. Electronic sound recordings. The planning commission shall make a complete electronic sound recording of each public hearing. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(160.50), 2-27-90; Ord. No. 91-112, § 22 EXHI51 C 1(160.50), 12-3-91; Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1-97) See 22 533. Sec. 22-537. Public comment and participation at the hearing. Any interested person may participate in the public hearing in either or both of the following ways: (1) By submitting written comments to the planning commission either by delivering these comments to the department of community development services prior to the hearing or by giving them directly to the planning commission at the hearing. (2) By appearing in person, or through a representative, at the hearing and making oral comments. The planning commission may reasonably limit the extent of oral comments to facilitate the orderly and timely conduct of the hearing. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(160.55), 2-27-90; Ord. No. 91-112, § 1(160.55), 12-3-91; Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1-97) See. 22 534. Sec. 22-538 Continuation of the hearing. The planning commission may, for any reason, continue the hearing on the proposal. If, during the hearing, the planning commission announces the time and place of the next public hearing on the proposal and a notice thereof is posted on the door of the hearing room, no further notice of that hearing need be given. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(160.60), 2-27-90; Ord. No. 91-112, § 1(160.60), 12-3-91; Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1-97) See. 22-535. Sec. 22-539. Planning commission --Recommendation. (a) Generally. Following the public hearing, the planning commission shall consider the proposal in light of the decisional criteria in sections 22 521 22-526 or 52'Y 528 or 52S 530, and take one of the following actions: (1) If the planning commission determines that the proposal 23 EXH'FriO U C PAGE _'_' should be adopted, it may, by a majority vote of the entire membership, recommend that city council adopt the proposal. (2) If the planning commission determines that the proposal should not be adopted, it may, by a majority vote of the members present, recommend that city council not adopt the proposal. (3) If the planning commission is unable to take either of the actions specified in subsection (a)(1) or (a)(2) of this section, the proposal will be sent to city council with the notation that the planning commission makes no recommendation. (b) Modification of proposal. The planning commission may modify the proposal in any way and to any degree prior to recommending the proposal to city council for adoption. If the planning commission fundamentally modifies the proposal, the planning commission shall hold a new public hearing on the proposal as modified prior to recommending the proposal to city council for action. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(160.65), 2-27-90; Ord. No. 91-112, § 1(160.65), 12-3-91; Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1-97) See. 22 536. Sec. 22-540. Same --Report to city council. (a) Generally. The director of community development services shall prepare a planning commission report on the proposal containing a copy of the proposal, along with any explanatory information, and the planning commission recommendation, if any, on the proposal. (b) Transmittal to city council. The director of community development services shall transmit the planning commission report to the city manager for consideration by city council. (c) Distribution. The director of community development services shall promptly send a copy of the planning commission report to any person requesting it. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(160.70), 2-27-90; Ord. No. 91-112, § 24 EXHISH PAG Ela 1(160.70), 12-3-91; Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1-97) See. 22 537. Sec. 22-541. City council action. (a) General. Within 60 days of receipt of the planning commission report by the city manager, the city council shall consider the proposal along with a draft ordinance prepared by the city attorney, appropriate to enact or adopt the proposal. (b) Decisional criteria. In deciding upon the proposal, the city council shall use the decisional criteria listed in the provisions of this chapter describing the proposal. (c) City council action. After consideration of the planning commission report and, at its discretion, holding its own public hearing on the proposal, the city council shall by majority vote of its total membership: (1) Approve the proposal by adopting an appropriate ordinance; (2) Modify and approve the proposal by adopting an appropriate ordinance; (3) Disapprove the proposal by resolution; or (4) Refer the proposal back to the planning commission for further proceedings. If this occurs, the city council shall specify the time within which the planning commission shall report back to the city council on the proposal. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(160.75), 2-27-90; Ord. No. 91-112, § 1(160.75), 12-3-91; Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1-97) Sec. 22-542. Transmittal to State At least 60 days prior to final action being taken by the City Council, but not prior to the close of the planning commission public hearing and transmittal of planning commission recommendation to the LUTC, the Washington Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development (DOTED) and other interested affected state agencies, King County and surrounding 25 PAGE -3 -4 L"- 3� jurisdictions shall be provided with a copy of the amendments in order to initiate the 60 -day comment period. All other parties previously notified shall be again notified that the draft amendments of the comprehensive plan are available on request on a cost recovery basis. No later than 10 days after adoption of the comprehensive plan, a copy of the adopted comprehensive plan shall be forwarded to DCTED and those agencies who commented on the draft comprehensive plan. See. 22 538. Sec. 22-543. Appeals. The action of the city in granting, modifying or denying an amendment to this chapter or to the comprehensive plan may be reviewed by the Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board pursuant to RCW 36.70A. (Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1-97) Secs. 22539 22-544--22-545. Reserved. 26 EXHIBIT G LAG �.0F_j--- - a City of Federal Way PLANNING COMMISSION December 2, 1998 City Hall SUMMARY Commissioners present: Robert Vaughan (Chair), Dean Greenough, Jim Sempek, Bill Drake, John Caulfield, Karen Kirkpatrick, and Eric Faison. Commissioners absent: none. Alternative Commissioners present: Hope Elder and Adebola Adekoya. Alternative Commissioners absent: Ed Soule and Sophia McNeil. Staff present: Deputy Director of Community Development Services Kathy McClung, Code Compliance Officer Martin Nordby, Senior Planner Margaret Clark, and Administrative Assistant E. Tina Piety. Chair Vaughan called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of November 18, 1998, were approved. AUDIENCE COMMENT None. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT Ms. McClung gave an update on code amendments. The shoreline amendments were adopted by the City Council at their December 1, 1998. At the same meeting, they chose to delay the Weyerhaeuser annexations and comprehensive plan to their next meeting. Also, the fee ordinance was adopted, so land use and building permit fees will increase (this is the first increase in five years). The Non -Residential Design Guidelines went to the November 23, 1998 Land Use/ Transportation Committee (LUTC) meeting. They made a change to one sentence. It will go to the City Council in January. The LUTC will discuss the Planning Commission work program in January. The next Planning Commission meeting is not scheduled to occur until February. COMMISSION BUSINESS— Public Hearing: Parking on Residential Lots, Noise and Construction Hours, and Civil Citation Authority The Public Hearing was opened at 7:10 p.m. Mr. Nordby gave the presentation. He stated that he had incorporated the changes requested by the Planning Commission at their November 18, 1998, workshop. Some discussion was held regarding the monetary penalty for civil citations. Regarding the time limitation for compliance set by the hearing exa ' X paragraph just above #0, the commission feels it is to rigid and ask( i[Whe to all PAGEOF3. Planning Commission December 2, 1998 2 the hearing examiner to choose the number of days (it is set for 14 days). For Section 1-20 (page 12), the commission requested that a time limit be sent for when a refund from the city must be paid. There was no public testimony. It was m/s/c (no nays) to accept the staff recommendation as amended. The Public Hearing was closed at 7:35 p.m. Public Hearing: Procedures for Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan The Public Hearing was opened at 7:40 p.m. Ms. Clark gave the presentation. This amendment formalizes the process for the yearly comprehensive plan updates. Ms. Clark had three questions that she requested commission input. The first was, "Should the City specify a deadline every year for submitting requests for comprehensive plan amendments?" The advantage to a deadline is that the public would know when requests for amendments are due. The disadvantage is that the city may not be ready to consider amendments at the deadline time. The commission discussed the issue and concluded that a specific date should be set. They selected September 30. The second question was, "Should all proposed amendments be taken to both the LUTC [Land Use/Transportation Committee] and the City Council for prioritizing and inclusion in the upcoming yearly cycle or just to the LUTC? After much debate is was m/s/c (one opposed) to send the proposed amendments to just the LUTC. The staff report includes a set of criteria the LUTC shall use in selecting the amendments to be considered. The commission requested that a criteria be added that deals with projects that have, or would have, high public interest. The staff will research this issue. The third question was, "Should a fee be charged for requests for pre -annexation comprehensive plan designation and zoning of property and if so, should the fee be the same as for site-specific requests?" The commission is concerned a fee could be a barrier to people seeking to annex, and therefore, do not want a fee charged. There was no public testimony. It was m/s/c (no nays) to approve the staff recommendation as amended. The Public Hearing was closed at 8:37 p.m. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS None. AUDIENCE COMMENT None. ADJOURN It was m/s/c to adjourn the meeting at 8:40 p.m. K:\COt t\ION. ADW D\IFN I \PLANCO\1\ 1202985. W PD EXHIBIT -I.... RAG E 0 F,L- CITY OFC` vv r-ry MEMORANDUM December 28, 1998 To Land Use/Transportation Committee (LUTC) FROM: &Gregory D. Moore, AICP, Director of Community Development Services %, t Margaret H. Clark, AICP, Senior Planner SUBJECT: 1999 POTENTIAL CODE AMENDMENTS The first part of this memorandum (A.1) addresses the timing of code amendments that have already gone to the Planning Commission and will be coming to the Land Use/Transportation Committee (LUTC) in early 1999. This is followed by work items that are not required to go to the Planning Commission but that can go directly to the LUTC and City Council, and related long range planning tasks requiring response according to state law (A.2). Non -code amendment items which are not part of the Planning Commission work program are being included because if they are to be accomplished, they will require staff time and will need to be prioritized relative to code amendments that will be going to the Planning Commission. The second part of the memorandum (B) lists code amendments anticipated to be heard by the Planning Commission in 1999. Based on feedback received at the December 7, 1998, LUTC meeting, staff has taken a first cut at prioritizing these amendments. Exhibit 1 is the time line for work program items. Exhibit 2 is a description of work program items. We are looking for direction on prioritizing all three work areas noted above. 1999 Potential Code Amendments December 28, 1998 Page 2 A. LAND USE ISSUES AND RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS 1. CARRY OVER CODE AMENDMENTS TO BE CONSIDERED BY LUTC AND CITY COUNCIL IN EARLY 19991 (a) Formal Process for Yearly Comprehensive Plan Amendments — Scheduled for the January 4, 1999 LUTC meeting. (b) Code Compliance -Related Items — Tentatively scheduled for the January 18, (Holiday) or February 1, 1999, LUTC meeting. (c) Sensitive Areas — Tentatively scheduled for the either the first or second LUTC meeting in March. 2. OTHER LONG-RANGE PLANNING PROJECTS' (a) Height Bonus Program. (b) Consultant analysis for planning in the Potential Annexation Area (PAA). (c) Changes to Federal Way City Code (FWCC), Chapter 18, Environmental Policy. (d) Track and inventory Buildable Lands. B. PLANNING COMMISSION SCHEDULE and 1. Adult Entertainment Uses. 2. 1999 Comprehensive Plan Update. 3. Sign Code. 4. Transportation Impact Fees. 5. Miscellaneous Code Amendments. 6. Telecommunications Ordinance. 7. Annexation/Development Agreements. 8. Group Homes Type I. 9. Endangered Species Act (ESA). 10. Wellhead Protection. I: TOCUMENTTODEHISTA/December 28, 1998 IPlease refer to Exhibit 1 for proposed time line and Exhibit 2 for a description of these items. 2Depending on the in-house expertise and need for in-house experience, some, all, or portions of each code amendment may be done by in-house staff or assigned to consultants. r h U_ ) N O 0. a � cc w x o 3 a u Y lab �F o w 0 z a n b .°a C bb RS x U U a L U � R O cG cd Uo o G > a U cn F U -- cv ri U_ O 0. cc w x o 3 a u Y lab �F o w 0 z a n .°a C bb RS x U U F O — N M \ ) \ \ d 0 § / R / 0. k \ o \ z •a / 2 \ a $ g .§ ) 2 k § \ � \ 3 / 2 � b 2 � 2 � k § ) � m 2 * � ^ @ t a ± f u ] c 2 § a 2 \ k § B 7 \ % < 7 @ ƒ @ < O Q & $ \ ) \ \ d 0 § / R / 0. EXHIBIT 2 DESCRIPTION OF 1999 CODE AMENDMENTS December 28, 1998 A. LAND USE ISSUES AND RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS 1. CARRY OVER CODE AMENDMENTS TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE LAND USE/ TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE (LUTC) AND CITY COUNCIL IN EARLY 1999 a) Formal Process for Yearly Comprehensive Plan Amendments Set up a formal process on how to handle yearly requests for comprehensive plan amendments. This will include how to apply; including key dates and timing of applications. b) Code Compliance Related Items i) Address the number of junk cars/storage of vehicles on lots. ii) Provide Code Compliance Officers authority to issue civil citations. iii) Address the differences between Federal Way City Code (FWCC), Sections 22-1006 and 10-26 as they relate to hours of heavy equipment operation and associated noise. c) Sensitive Areas This code amendment is intended to create a wetland classification system to differentiate between various classes of wetlands, also to allow buffer averaging, and to require increased buffer widths where warranted. The amendment is also intended to review the definitions of streams relative to artificial water courses and to generally update city code relative to recent change in state and federal regulations. 2. OTHER LONG-RANGE PLANNING PROJECTS a) Height Bonus Program Adopt guidelines to allow increased height in the City Center (CC) zone if open space or plazas are provided. This was part of the non-residential code amendments that were never implemented. These guidelines must go to City Council for approval. b) Consultant Analysis for Planning in the Potential Annexation Area (PAA) Provide comprehensive plan designations and zoning for area within the city's potential annexation area. In 1998, the City Council appropriated $7,000 to determine how much consulting help would be needed to accomplish this task. We will be hiring a consulting firm to determine how much consulting help would be required to plan and zone the PAA. Potential Tasks Include: i) Update the parcel base for the PAA. ii) Coordinate with King County on existing development activity within the PAA. iii) Compare and analyze existing King County comprehensive plan designations and zoning with potential Federal Way designations and zoning. iv) Inventory existing land uses within the PAA (can be collected from King County Assessor's data). v) Conduct meetings with neighborhood groups and home owners' associations. vi) Inventory the existing street system (may be available from King County at some level). vii) Collect traffic data (may be available from King County at some level). viii) Traffic modeling based on impact of changes. 1. Expand level of data of existing traffic model within the PAA. 2. Calibrate and run model under existing situation. 3. Run model based on new land use designations. 4. Analyze model results. ix) Adopt street classification system for the PAA. x) Once adopted, change the text of the comprehensive plan, update all maps and zoning code. c) Changes to FWCC, Chapter 18, Environmental Policy Incorporate recent changes to state law and make other changes to ensure consistency with FWCC, Chapter 22, Zoning. An example of a change in response to state law would be the creation of a planned actions category which allows environmental review earlier in the planning process (in conjunction with comprehensive plan elements or master plans), with abbreviated review at the project permit level. Also address other housekeeping items such as making changes to bring Chapter 18 into compliance with ESHB 1724. d) Track and Inventory Buildable Lands Develop a program to track single family, multifamily development and commercial development as well as creation of single family lots on a yearly basis. This process is intended to compare anticipated growth against actual development over time to determine whether there is enough suitable land to accommodate expected growth for the 20 year planning period, and whether urban densities are being achieved. B. PLANNING COMMISSION SCHEDULE' 1. Adult Entertainment Uses This will include a review of existing regulations and proposed amendments. 2. 1999 Comprehensive Plan Update This is the annual update to the comprehensive plan. Please note that a more formal process for how updates to the comprehensive plan will occur has been prepared and will be presented to the LUTC in early 1999. 3. Sign Code The following list of housekeeping amendments to the sign code has been identified: a) Pump Topper Signs — The Hearing Examiner recently ruled that signs on top of gas pumps were allowed, however, there are presently no limits on size or numbers for these signs. b) Normal Maintenance — The current provisions need clarification on intent and appears to be overly restrictive. c) Fifteen Acres Subject Property — Clarification is needed to determine if a site which is a minimum of 15 acres in size but part of a larger subject property is entitled to its own medium profile sign and whether it can be separate from the subject property. d) Clarify that the pole remaining after a sign has been removed also constitutes a sign. e) Set expiration period for sign permits. f) Research an amendment to allow A frame signs, not located within the right of way for new businesses for up to six months. g) Research an amendment to allow free-standing informational signs for uses such as schools, churches, and day cares located in residential zones. h) Clarify whether government signs must obtain a sign permit. i) Clarify, revise or add certain definitions, e.g., differentiate between a canopy and awning; define commercial messages, grand opening. Also add criteria for canopy/awning signs. 'Depending on the in-house expertise and need for in-house experience, some or all, or portions of each code amendment may be done by in-house staff or assigned to consultants. j) Clarify the following Exemptions —FWCC, Section 22-1599(c): i) Address ID's — Does the exemption fall under residential zones or commercial? ii) Balloons — No definition of display. iii) Construction signs: 1. Should we allow advertizing like "We're coming soon..."? 2. Allow a 30 day permit prior to building permit issuance if it is new business with tenant improvement or building permit? iv) Directional signs: 1. Do not have a maximum height or design criteria. 2. The exemption does not match the definition. v) Fuel signs: 1. Should 20 percent logos be established on each panel? 2. Businesses would like to combine their fuel sign with their allowed monument without losing the allowed signage for fuel or for their one monument sign. vi) Instructional signs: There is no size limit or type. vii) Warning signs: There are no limits on number or size. k) Permit Requirements —FWCC, Section 22-1599(a): i) Fees CID's — Clarify whether there should be separate fees for each tenant in order to allow tracking of a business which needs to have a sticker. ii) Final inspections — There is nothing in the code that says they must pass a final inspection. We can issue an order to pass a final, but the code does not allow for access to provided at the time of inspection, therefore, structural, electrical, and planning inspections are limited. 1) Research an amendment to establish guidelines for nonconforming subdivision signs in rights of way. m) Research an amendment to define cabinet signs vs. individual channel letters. The sign area is different for the two distinct types of signs and thus there should be a definition for each. n) Clarify whether building mounted signs should include all items allowed under code (FWCC, Section 22-160][B][1]). There appears to be a conflict as canopy and awning are listed as building mounted signs in this section, however, this section also allows all building mounted signs to be electrical and by definition canopy/awning means a non -electrical sign. o) Clarify whether the definition for instructional or information sign should parallel the criteria to be set for residential zones. Examples are schools, churches, day cares, etc. p) Pedestal sign and pole signs. There is an incorrect code reference; change to Section 22-1601(C) Figures 6 & 7. Also monument has no reference. q) Sign, sign area, and sign face should be consistent. Definition of sign needs more clarity. What constitutes one sign vs. two signs. How far apart can they be to be considered one if individual letters are used together with a cabinet or separately? 4 r) Research an amendment whether architectural embellishments should be added to definitions. s) Roof sign: A little vague. t) Clarify wall signs. Wall signs cannot project more than 24" from a wall or building and ca not have copy of the sides or edges. (What if it is a projecting sign? How far can it project? What if it is a canopy or awning?) u) Research an amendment to add definitions and criteria for menu boards. v) Correct FWCC, Section 22-1599 which has subsections (a), (b), and (c), then skips (d), and has (e), (f) & (g). w) Prohibited signs: i) Vehicle signs need clarity. ii) Consider adding off-site signs as prohibited, ...unless otherwise specified in FWCC, Section 22-1599(c)(2)(u) or FWCC, Section 22-1600, Table 1, "Community service event or civic event." (Off-site sign has definition already.) x) FWCC, Section 22-1600 Residential Zones Tables I & 2: i) Extend sales/event to 60 days? FWCC, Section 22-1600 Table 1. ii) Wall sign allowances. 1. Not consistent with requiring seven percent. 2. Clarify whether one wall sign is allowed for each business; can we use FWCC Section 22-1602(b) to make that determination? 3. A variety of sign types are allowed. The maximum number allowed does not specify whether only one of the choices are allowed or if one of each is allowed. For example, if pedestal and monument type signs are allowed, does it mean that one pedestal and one monument would be allowed for each frontage, etc? iii) Multi family Complex, FWCC, Section 22-1600 Table 2. Is allowed in an RS zone, but signs for multi -family complexes in residential zones only allow a two square foot sign. Change multi -family complexes identification to include RS zones. iv) Recreation clubhouse or area, FWCC, Section 22-1600 Table 2. One sign is allowed for each street frontage providing direct vehicle access, yet the location specifies that there is a five foot setback from the subject property. This means that an entire subdivision would be allowed a sign at each entrance into the subdivision. (Mar Cheri wants a swim lessons sign at the entrances to its subdivision.) v) Allow day cares signs in residential zones with some conditions. y) Freestanding signs, FWCC Section 22-1601(a): i) High profile: Tenant directory or kiosk signs do not have design standards set. Clarification is needed on whether to allow pole signs for these. ii) Low profile: 1. Tenant directory or kiosk signs do not have design standards set. Is the intent to allow pole signs for these? 2. Combined sign package: Clarify what is the correct process to be used. 5 z) Building mounted signs, FWCC, Section 22-1601(B): i) Center identification signs. Research a code amendment to include the interpretation which was done for hillside plaza to allow all businesses who have a multi -use or multi -tenant complex one additional center identification sign per building. If there are no freestanding signs within the subject property, the center or plaza shall be granted a maximum of two building mounted center identification signs. The additional sign(s) shall not exceed seven percent of the exposed building face to which it is attached and shall not exceed a sign area of 240 square feet, per FWCC Section 22-1601(B) & (C). ii) Sign area transfer FWCC Section 22-1601(B)(4). The last paragraph needs clarification and also needs to specify whether the seven percent threshold is to be maintained aa) Clarify sign area multipliers FWCC Section 22-1602(C) to specify whether all three criteria have to be met in order for the sign area be increased by 25 percent. ab) Research an amendment to add kiosk or tenant directory signs to construction standards. ac) Landscaping, FWCC Section 22-1602(D): i) Clarify the meaning of vegetation as used in this section. ii) Clarify whether vegetation needs to be a certain percentage of the total area required. iii) Clarify if a certain percentage is required, within what proximity does it need to be? ad) Clarify Appeals, FWCC Section 22-1604, including whether fees are required in order to file an appeal. ae) Nonconformance: i) Extension or exemption from amortization FWCC, Section 22-3350. 1. Are fees to be accessed? 2. Clarify which process should be used. The existing one appears overly restrictive. ii) Loss of legal nonconforming sign status, FWCC Section 22-3350. Abandonment or business cessation FWCC Section 22-3350(3). This section and the definition of abandoned does not appear to be consistent with the recent amendments to the nonconformance section. iii) Sign alterations: 1. Clarify whether the change to one nonconforming sign should trigger loss to all nonconforming signs on the site. 2. There is no trigger for a business who wishes to add a sign if they have nonconforming signs on site. In other words, you can have nonconforming signs on site and still propose to add a conforming sign without triggering the loss of the other nonconforming signs. (af) Simplify requirements for applicants to obtain sign permits by utilizing more fully information in the existing city sign inventory. rel 4. Transportation Impact Fees Prepare a Transportation Concurrency Ordinance and/or Traffic Impact Fee Ordinance. 5. Miscellaneous Code Amendments a) Public Parks: i) Research an amendment to allow for an increase in the maximum height requirements for sports field lighting, flag poles, and other structures such as back stops associated with sports fields. Alternatively, due to the increased height needed for these structures, a variance from the allowable maximum heights would be necessary. ii) Research an amendment to the land use chart to provide for a case by case basis (with guidelines) for landscaping requirements for public parks. This is to provide for flexibility because parks by their very nature already have significant landscaping. b) Process: i) Amend FWCC, Section 22-354. Interpretations to clarify under what situations a written interpretation versus Process I is appropriate. ii) Clarify the process to handle appeals of administrative interpretations. Also clarify the references to appeals of administrative interpretations using Process IV (Hearing Examiner), i.e., whether this means that appeals of administrative interpretations should be processed like a Process IV application or whether they should be handled like appeals of Process IV decisions. iii) Clarify the differences between the process to handle interpretations vs. inquires. iv) Research an amendment to allow divisions of parcels in a commercial zone by either platting or a binding site plan. v) Clarify the land use process for tenant improvements and minor expansion of buildings. When the HB 1724 amendments were adopted, the process for tenant improvements and minor expansion of buildings was inadvertently omitted. In the interim, staff has addressed this through interpretation. c) Other Miscellaneous: i) Research an amendment to exempt recreational vehicles parked within an enclosed structure from the height and length limits of FWCC, Division 11. ii) Research an amendment to limit the size of residential garages by setting a maximum size in relationship to the principal structure or as may be regulated by the Uniform Building Code. iii) Clarify FWCC, Section 22-723 related to the requirement that there may only be one gas station at any intersection in the Neighborhood Business (BN) zone and FWCC, Section 22-754 related to the requirement that there may not be more than two gas stations at any intersection as these sections apply to gas stations that are part of and accessory to a convenience store. iv) Clarify definition of height. The present definition is complicated and difficult to administer. v) Research an amendment to the maximum height requirements in order to address the height of power poles in the rights of ways. Alternatively, a variance from the allowable maximum heights would be necessary. vi) Address the differences between FWCC, Sections 22-1425 and Use Zone Charts 22-796 and 22-814 regarding height allowances for above grade parking facilities. FWCC, Section 22-1425 specifies 135 feet and 100 respectively in the CC -C and CC -F zones, whereas, Use Zone Charts 22-796 and 22-814 specifies 45 feet and 35 feet respectively. vii) Incorporate interpretations from the Interpretation Notebook that staff has had to keep over the years. These are relatively straight forward and are not major policy issues. viii) Add a provision for canceling incomplete subdivision applications if a substantial period of time has elapsed without the applicant responding to city requests for additional information. ix) Clarify what constitutes vesting of a project, i.e., building permit vs. site plan approval. x) Research an amendment to site containers for emergency preparedness on school sites. xi) Research an amendment to allow schools including satellite schools in Business Park (BP) and Office Park (OP) zones. xii) Research an amendment to allow expansion of a nonconforming residential use in a non-residential zone. xiii) Research an amendment to decrease side yard requirements in existing mobile home parks in order to allow the siting of larger mobile homes and manufactured homes. xiv) Research an amendment to the existing Land Surface Modification provisions to remove any discrepancies between this provision and recent state law changes to the Forest Practices Act. d) Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design: This proposed amendment is a result of training provided to Community Development Services, Police, and PARCS staff. Examples of ways to reduce crime include the following: i) Well lit pedestrian, parking, activity, and service areas. ii) Pedestrian routes without blind corners. iii) Low fences and see through landscaping. iv) Building entrances visible from public streets or places. 6. Telecommunications Ordinance a) How should temporary/mobile towers (cell on wheels) be regulated? b) Modify definition of a minor facility to match existing technology and clarify under what conditions they may be collocated on existing structures and buildings. c) Assess and identify requirements and process for locating telecommunications facilities within public rights of way. d) Clarify criteria in FWCC 22-649 for allowing Personal Wireless Service Facilities. 7. Annexation/Development Agreements a) Clarify the existing process for concomitant agreements to include development agreements., The Growth Management Act (GMA) provides for the use of development agreements whereby an applicant and the City may enter into a development`agreement, which would lend certainty to a project by setting out the rules up -front with which a project must'comply. b) Clarify process and specify criteria for annexations in Chapter 19, Article 3, Annexation. 8. Group Homes Type 1 Clarify process for siting Group Homes Type I. Presently, the'FWCC is silent as to the locations or standards for these types of uses. 9. Endangered Species Act (ESA) Adopt code amendments to bring the FWCC into compliance with the mandates pertaining to endangered species that are the result of the 1999 legislative session and the ESA Statewide Salmon Recovery Strategy. 10. Wellhead Protection Adopt the provisions relating to wellhead protection that comes out of the Lakehaven Utility District work and/or supplement. The LUTC agreed to put this code amendment on hold until the Lakehaven Utility District has completed their study. IADOCUMENT KDLISTA/De ember 28, 1998