The URL can be used to link to this page

LUTC PKT 11-03-1997 ~ City of Federal Way City Council Land Use/Transportation Committee November 3, 1997 5:30 pm City Hall Council Chambers AGENDA 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 3. PUBLIC COMMENT (3 mimute limit) 4. BUSINESS ITEMS A. Subdivision Code At):lendment Action Largen/McClung/45 min B. Affordable Housing Action Largen/McClung/15 min C. SWM Emergency Pump Purchase Action Prattl5 min D. SeaTac Phase II - 30% Status Report Action Pratt/5 min E. Enchanted Parks Annexation Info Clark/15 min F. DOT/Narrows Bridge Committee Action Roe/5 min G. Street Litter Pickup Contact Action Miller/5 min Term Extension H. Streets Maintenance. Contract Action Miller/5 min Term Exte"ion/I998 I. Street Sweeping Contract Term Action Miller/5 min Extension for 1998 5. ADJOURN Committee Members: Phil Watkins, Chair Ron Gintz Mary Gates City Staff: Greg Moore, Director, Community Development Services Sandy Lyle, Administrative Assistant 253.661.4116 I: \LU- TRANS\NOV3LUT .AGN City of Federal Way City Council Land Use/Transportation Committee October 20, 1997 5:30pm City Hall Council Chambers SUMMARY In attendance: Committee members Phil Watkins (Chair)and Ron Gintz; Mayor Skip Priest; Council Member Hope Elder; Director of Community Development Services Greg Moore; Deputy Director of Community Development Services Kathy McClung; Public Works Director Carr Roe; Assistant City Attorney Bob Sterbank; Street Systems Manager Ken Miller; Surface Water Manager Jeff Pratt; Street Systems Manager Rick Perez; Principal Planner Greg Fewins; Senior Planner Margaret Clark; Water Quality Program CooØWator Dave Renstrom; Engineering Plans Reviewer Julie Venn; Planning Consultants Don Largen and Scott Williams; Administrative Assistant Sandy Lyle. 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 5:38pm by Chairman Phil Watkins. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the September 15, 1997, Pteeting were approved as presented. 3. PUBLIC COMMENT There was no public comment on items dther than those included in the agenda. 4. BUSINESS ITEMS A. Subdivision Code Amendment - A sþmary of the amendments to the Subdivision Code being considered include subdivisions (long plats), short subdivisions (short plats), binding site plans, open space requirements, and planned residential developments (pRD). Fql1owing a staff presentation, the committee asked for a copy of the map of 206 remainig development parcels. Dorui1d Barovik spoke about a rezone of his property at 35929 Pacific Highway South in order to build a Planned Residential Development (pRD) as proposed in the Subdivision Code amendment. A discussion of short plats was followed by the request that staff provide the cost differences between short and long plats. Preservation of the 15 % fee-m.-lieu was important to the Committee, even for a subdivision of four lots or less. Dave Kaplan emphasized the imporþmce of preserving open space. The Committee was willing to consider clustered units, elimination of zero lot lines IU)d a reallocation of other design factors with an emphasis on affordable house points. Staff will return to the Cotn:hrittee's November 3, 1997, meeting with language that supports FWCC 20-311 (k), affordable housing, and draft la$guage for FWCC 20-312 (c), which ties the open space fee-in-lieu to use in the vicinity of the subdivision. A tour Will be scheduled for the Council to view, in the surrounding area, many of the development concepts proposed in this code amendment. Further discussion of the Subdivision Code amendment will occur at the November 3, 1997, m~ing. B. Wildwood Final Plat - The final pla~ for Wildwood Estates has been reviewed for compliance with preliminary plat conditions and all applicable codes $1d policies. It is recommended that a 20-foot buffer required by the Zoning Code in effect at the time of preliminary plat approval be removed in favor of a 10-foot buffer with fence. Barry Fisher, owner of the project at 21st Avenue:SW and SW 307th Street briefly discussed the lO-foot fenced buffer replacing the wider buffer required by the earlier ~ode. The Committee m/s/c recommendation of approval to City Council at its November 5, 1997, meeting. ' C. Metro Service Chan¡:e for June - St¥ember Metro service changes implemented in Federal Way were outlined by staff. Other changes, previously pl4nned for February, 1998, will take place, instead, in June, 1998. Committee Member Gates will monitor those cJl1anges and ask appropriate questions. I D. 30 % Desi~ Awroval for South 30fth Street!MilitaJ::y Road - This roadway and intersection at South 304th Street and Military Road is very congested a pþak traffic periods due to the l[!ck of a left turn lane on Military Road. The roadway will be widened and left turn lanes Iind shoulders installed. There will be a mast-arm traffic signal and lighting and the intersection will be lowered at South 304th Street and 28th Avenue South to provide improved site distance. Due to the close proximity of this project to St~l Lake, a shoreline permit is required. The Committee m/s/c recommendation of approval to Council at the NovembeJi' 5, 1997, meeting of the 30% design plans and authorization to proceed with right- of-way acquisition for the widening project at Military Road South and South 304th Street. E. 1998 Ri~ of way T .andscape Maintfnance Contract - The Committee m/s/c recommendation of approval to publicly bid the 1998 Right of Way Landscape Maintenance Contract. The contract for right of way landscape maintenance includes South 312th, 32Oth, 288th, 348th and 336th Streets; Southwest 32Oth Street and 21st Avenue SW; 1st Avenue and 1st Way South; and Library Lane. The scope of work will be increased at South 348th Street to include the median/landscape strip next to the ttitck stop. IT bids received are within budget, results will be forwarded to Council in February for award. F. Sidewalk Jnwrovements - At its Junf! 17, 1997, meeting the City Council awarded the 1997 Sidewalk Replacement Project to Kodo Construction. The project is complete, and final costs were less than the original contract amount resulting in total savings of $22,742.S5. These savings allow for additional sidewalk work, if authorized. The Committee m/s/c recommendation of approval to approve executing a Change Order to add Schedule C, Decatur (25th Avenue SW, SW 319th Street to SW 32Oth Street, portions of SW 319th Street and 24th Avenue SW to 25th Avenue SW) and Schedule D, SW 328th Str¥t (SW 328th Street, 35th Avenue SW to 36th Avenue SW). G. West H;ylebos Riparian Habitat Graqt - The Surface Water Management Division is proposing to pursue one or more sources of supplementary funding for restoration of salmon spawning habitat on the West Hylebos Creek. During 1998 a habitat and geotechnical investigatilon and topographical survey are proposed to identify specific stream improvements, provide preliminary cl!esign and engineering cost estimates, and complete the SEPA checklist. The Committee m/s/c recommendation of approval to the Council for staff to apply for state and/or federal grant funding in support of the West Hylebos Riparian Habitat Acquisition and Improvement project. H. City Center Street L\~tin¡: - The CQmmittee approved a staff request to establish a downtown theme/themes and hire a consultant to develop the theme/theniles. The purchase of decorative street lighting cannot be accomplished prior to Council arriving at consensus about Ute future "look" of Federal Way. The theme/themes would incorporate the use of street trees, furniture and street ligh1!s and provide a draft plan to approve and/or amend. I. Comprehensive PIan/ZODiD¡: Reqpe~ - Pro Refril:eration - Jim Vander Giessen, President of Pro Refrigeration, Inc., requesting Comprehensive Plan, Zo~g Map and permitted land uses chart changes for 1636 South 333rd Street. Pro Refrigeration assembles and sells water chiller systems. A suitable location in Federal Way has been found into which the company can expand, but the pr~perty is not zoned for such a use. The Committee m/s/c approval of Pro Refrigeration to move through the PJanning Commission process for requesting a zoning change. 5. FUTURE MEETINGS , The next meeting will be held on Novenf>er 3, 1997 at 5:30pm in City Council Chambers. 6. ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 7:55pm. I: \LU- TRANS\OCf20LUT. SUM I T E R N MEMO 0 E To: From: Subject: Date: F F c Land Use/Transportation Committee (LUTC) Phil Watkins, Chair Mary Gates Ron Gintz Greg Moore, AICP ~ Director of Commu~ty Development Services Proposed Subdivision Regulation Changes October 29, 1997 Attached is an October 28, 1997, :response from Don Largen, Planning Consultant, on issues raised at the October 20, 1997, L~d Use/Transportation Committee meeting. A map will be provided at the meeting responding to the question of available residential parcels for development. Also included are materials submiltted with the packet at the October 20, 1997, meeting. I:\SUBDIV.MEM OCT-28-97 TUE 16:30 P, 02 Planning and Hearing Examiner s,rv1ces McConnell/Burk~, Incorporated 10604 N.E. 38th Place S1Jite 227 I Kirkland, Washington 98033 (206) 827-6550 FAX; 889-0730 MEMORANDUM October 28, 1997 To: Federal Way Land Use & Transportation Committee From: Don Largen, Planning Con~ultant Subject: Proposed Subdivision Regulation Amendments ..................................."...................,................................¡...................................-.............................................-..........................,............".....................,.......... At the October 20, 1997 meeting ~ Committee raised several questions and issues regarding the proposed subdivision code amendcl.ents. Be1ow are the items the Committee reql1este.d (hat st~\ff address for the next meeting. . 1. The cost of a short plat versus a long plat is as follows: Short Plat =: $1,333 Long Plat = $3,412 The difference in cost is $2,07~. All other associated fees are about the same bel ween the two permits. I 2. A copy of the County.Wide PI~nning Policies for King County relative to affordable housing is attached to this memo. I I 3. The following change is made ~ clarify that resubdívided parcels must meet the 15% lJpcn space requirement if the previous division originaHy required less. ARTICLE III. DESIGN CRITERIA* (b) All reßidential subdivisions shall be required to provide open space in the amount of 15 percen~ of the gross land area of the subdivision site, ar ii ~he oi~e i~ fiv~ aere3 or less ;i,R-Sil!e, ðl'l?li.::.:mts may Qee]f, alterna~-:ive RlethaâG at JP:l'0v.4-êiine the re~ir€ã (¡pel'!. Sl?ðee as 19crmiti1¡<~~ .!3cctie'fi 1.9.-41 e~ eeE!.. if aee~~b-],Q ~e t>he city; EXCl::p'r in those cases whe~e a previous division of land me~ a lesser .Ç!.P~.r!'- space requirement. the rasubdivided parcels need only l?Eovide open 9va~e to t~-~. amount necessary t_o..!!'.ec~ the 15% minimum. 4. The Committee requested changes in the bonus program for PRDs. Below we have eliminated the zero lot line andiclustered units bonuses and reallocated thc credits lo affordable housing units and housing diversity. 10/28/97 111E 16:34 I [TX/RX NO 6320] OCT-28-97 TUE 16:31 P,03 The 40% density increase is reached by utilizing the following density bonus desigh factors: Design Factor Mix of housing types Modulated buíldipg facades Variation in Roo~f Lines Pedestrian/Bicycle Trail If it connects to off-site Public access to: vista or viewpoint Lake or stlream Retention of native vegetation Utilization of natural drainage Enhanced or increased sensitive Affordable housing uni~s Bonus Density % 13 4 3 3 trail system 4 area buffers 3 3 5 4 3 15 5. Language in proposed Section 10-312(c) would allow a fee-in-lieu payment Lo be made for open space at the discrction of the Parks Director under certain criteria. The concern etpresscd by the Committee was that these monies should be used to provide parks am! open space in the same gcnera1 vicinity in which the subdivision making the paymem is l()ca\l.~d. This raises the question of how to define the boundary of this 'general vicinity' wilhout being arbitrary. There appear to be ù1ree reasonable choices the Cily could usc; (a) The City establishes eight Park Planning Areas within the Park Comprehensive Plan. Five are located west of 1-5 and the oLher three on the east sidc. Using these Park Planning Areas has the advantage of tying fec-in-lieu payments to eSlé.Iblishcd boundaries that are specific to the provision of park and open space resources. The disadvilntagl: may be that these Park Planning Areas are 1argcr than what the Committee had in mind. (b) The service area boundaries for the elementary schools might also be used. There arc 21 elemcmary schools in the c,ily, which means these boundaries would encompass smaller areas than the Park Planning Areas. The advantage to using ~chool service i.m~i.LI) is that they generally correspond to a neighborhood scale and are reçognized for olher funding purposes. The disadvantage may be that the service areas may be small clIough that in some cases there may be no sites suitable for the use of the fee-in-lÏcu payment funds. (c) The other option would be to use the National Parks and Recreation Association (NPRA) standards for park service areas. The NPRA standard for Neighborhood Parks is a service area with a V2 mile radius and would be the one most corresponding 10 i.\ neighborhood sized area. The disadvantages [0 this would be that there arc no identified bound¡¡rics, making monitoring and implemcnring of where the fee-in-lieu payments are to be used difficult for City staff, and that the specific area within the 1f2 mile radi\.ls may not contain sites suitable for parks or open space. 6. The Committee suggested that 5hort plats of 4 lots or less be reQuired to make a fec-in-licli paymcnt for open space rather than having an on-site open space requirement. Legal starr has rese(~rchcd this issue and the RCW is çlçur that a fce-in-lieu paymcnt musL b~ used in conjunction with the option of providing on-site dedication of opcn space. The underlying 10/28/97 TlŒ 16:34 [TX/RX NO 6320] OCT-28-97 TUE 16:31 P.04 issue was whether or not we would get any quality on-site open spaces within short plats of 4 or less lots. The CommiLtee's position was that all subdivisions regardless of sìi'..e should contribUte in some manner to providing open space resources. Leaving the CUITCIll open space requirements for short plats in place and allowing for a fee-in-lieu paymcnt could address both issues. 7. The Committee also suggested three different levels of review and approval for different sized plats. This was in response to the recommendation to raise the number of lots qualifying for a Sh011 plat from 4 to 9. The concern raised was that the public would nol have input to the process for plats of5 to 9 lots. since the short plat process is aúminis[l'ativl:. The Committee suggested a public hearing requirement for plats of 5 to 9 lots, but not require a final plat approval. This can be done, but it still requires raising the number of lots rro!TI 4 to 9. The RCW requires a final plat approval process for long plats; the City does not have the option of waiving this requirement. To eliminate this requirement for plats of 5 to 9 lolS they must be eligible for the shOlt plat process. We can add language that would establish the public heating requirement for plats of 5 to 9 lots within the short plat regulations. This raises the issue of who conducts the hearing and who would hear an appei.l\'? At prescnt long plats are approved based Q11 a hearing examiner recommendation and city council decsjon. Appeals of the council decsion are made LO superior court. Assuming the cÜy council wil1 conduct the public hearing, then the appeals could be handled two ways; appeal to superior COUlt, or appeal to hearing examiner and then to court. 8. The Committee heard testimony regarding allowing the use of the proposed PRO regulations in the SE zoning districts. Staff and I have discussed this and we agree that there may be situations where the use of a pRo in the SE zone makes sense. This would be parlicul;,\rly [rue in situations where a parcel is largely constrained by sensirive areas. Our recommendation at this point would be to include the use of PRDs in the SE zoning districts. 9. Finally, a letter submitted to th~ City by Mr. Scholes raises a good point. As proposed we would be allowing a fee-in-lieUi payment for open space for a standard subdivision, but would not for a PRD. The effect could be to make the PRD option less attractive and undermine the incentive to use the PRO optio~. 10/28/97 TlŒ 16:34 [TX/RX NO 6320] N CC-10 CC-11 CC-12 .. Tn ceptual map of open space systems contained in the 1988 King Co Open Space Plan shall be u the Pia". ning basis for regional open space lands and dors. All jurisdictions ¡ will wor1< coope . I to revise and supplement this map to di e protection of these valua,\ resources throughout ounty. All jurisdictions shall ate, maintain and fled. ull range of regulatory a nd preservation tools available to ere- td the regional open space system . has been cooperatively identi- VI. urisdictions shall develop ,coordinated level-of-service standards for the p open spaces. , Affordable Ho\,lsing Adequate housing, for all economic segments of the population, is a basic need of King County's resident.. and an issue of Countywide concern. Affordable ho~ng needs must be addressed by local governments working in cooperation with the private sector and nonprofit housin, agencies. The Growth Management Act requires 'çountywide Policie... to address parameters for the distribution of affordable housing, including housing for ,all inco~e groups. This complex issues require... adequate in/onnation regarding cur- rent housing resources and housing ne~ds, which is being developed for comprehensive plan housing elements, as well as in-depth discussion of values and ~oritie... for housing development. ( Providing sufficient land for housing d~elopment is an essential step in promoting a.ffòrdable housing. Affordable housing can be encouraged by zoning ¥ditional land for higher residential densities. which helps provide needed' capacity for growth, reduces land development cost per unit, and allows for lower cost construction types such. as attached dwellings. Higher density ho~ng includes a range of housing types: small-lot single family. attached single family, mobile home parks, apartments'(11ld condominiums. In addition, zoning changes that pennit additional housing in established areas, such as accessory:units, carriage houses. and residences built above commercial uses, increase ,affordable housing opportunities. FW-28 AH-1 All jurisdictions shall provide for a diversity of housing types to meet a variety of needs and provide for housing oppcttunities for all economic segments of the population. All jurisdictions shall cooperatively establish a process to ensure an equitable and rational distribution of low- income and affordable housing throughout the County in accordance with land use policies, trans- portation, and employment locations. All jurisdictions' shall plan for housing to meet the needs of all economic segments of the popula- tion. Each jurisdiction s~all specify, based on the projected number of net new housing units anticipated in its comprehensive plan, the estimated number of units which will be affordable for the following income sesJnents: Zero to 50 percent of the Countywide median household income, 50 to 80 percent of medi~n, 80 to 120 percent of median, and above 120 percent median. The estimates for housing affordable to households below 80 percent of median-income shall be con- sistent with Countywide objectives for low and ,moderate income housing in policy AH-2. The es- timated number of units tor each income segment shall be reported to the Growth Management Planning Council following adoption of the comprehensive plan, for the purpose of Countywide monitoring of capacity for housing development. . . I , Within the Urnan Growt~ Area, each jurisdiction shall demonstrate its ability to accommodate st" ficient, affordable housing for all economic segments of the population. Local actions may include 36 ( AH-2 zoning land for development of sufficient densities, revising development standards and pennitting procedures as needed tel> encourage affordable housing, reviewing codes for redundancies and inconsistencies, and providing opportunities for a range of housing types, such as accessory dweliing units, manufactured homes, group homes and foster care facilities, apartments, townhouses and attached single family housing. All jurisdictions shall share the responsibility for achieving a rational and equitable distribution of affordable housing to m~et the housing needs of low and moderate-income residents in King 'County. The distribution of housing affordable to low and moderate-income households shall take into consideration the nqed for proximity to lower wage employment, access to transportation and human services, and the adequacy of infrastructure to support housing development; recognize each jurisdiction's past and current efforts to provide housing affordable to low and moderate- income households; avoid over-concentration of assisted housing; and increase housing oppor- tunities and choices for low and moderate-income households in communities throughout King County. Each jurisdiction shall give equal consideration to local and Countywide housing needs. A. Existing Needs fo~ Affordable Housing Each jurisdiction shall participate in developing Countywide housing resources and programs to assist the large number of low and moderate-'ncome households who currently do not have affordable, appropriate housing. These Countywide efforts! will help reverse current trends which concentrate low-income housing opportunities in certain communitie$, and achieve a more equitable participation by local jurisdictions in low income housing development and Services. Countywide efforts should give priority to assisting households below 50 percent of median-income that are in greatest need and communities with high proportions of low and moderate income residents. ( By October, 1994, the Growth Management Planning Council or its successor shall appoint elected. and com- munity representatives to develop rjecommendations for providing low and moderate-income housing and related services. Within one year the committee shall recommend to the Growth Management Planning Councilor its successor. . New Countywide funding søurce(s) for housing production and services, and a plan to establish this funding within three years; , Participation by local goverlnments, including appropriate public and private financing, such that each jurisdiction contributes on f~ir share basis; and Objectives for housing and I related services, including measurable levels of housing production and costs to provide necessary !related service. . Countywide programs should provi~e the following types of housing and related services: 1. 2. 3. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. B. Low-income housing development, including new construction, acquisition, and rehabilitation; Housing assistance, such * rental vouchers and supportive services; Assistance to expand the ciipacity of nonprofit organizations to develop housing and provide housing related services; Programs to assist homeleSs individuals and. families; Programs to prevent homellessness; and Assistance to low and moderate-income home buyers. Future Needs for Affordable Housing Each jurisdiction shall specify the range and amount of housing affordable to low and moderate-income households to be accommodated io its comprehensive plan. Each jurisdiction shall plan for a number of housing units affordable to househOlds with incomes between 50 and 80 percent of the County median household income that is equal to U7 percent of its projected net household growth. In addition, each juris- diction shall plan for a number of housing units affordable to households with incomes below 50 percent of median income that is either 20 percent or 24 percent of its projected net household growth. For this housing, 37 ,"c', the target percentage shall be determined using the Affordable Housing Job/Housing Index developed using Census-based infoonation, which is; contained in Appendix 3. ( Each jurisdiction shall show in its comprehensive plan how it will use policies, incentives. regulations and programs to provide its share of hoUsing affordable to low and moderate-income households. Each juriSdic- tion should apply strategies which it ideteonines to be most appropriate to the local housing market. For example, units affordable to low and moderate income households may be developed through new construction, projects that assure long-teon affordability of existing hoU$Ïng, or'accessory housing units added to existing structures. Local actions: may include: a. Identifying the costs to develop and preserve subsidized houSing and other low-cost housing not provided by private dev~lopment in the local housing market, and identifying sources of funding; b. Revising land use regul$tions as needed to remove any unreasonable requirements that may create barriers to siting Ind operating housing for special needs groups. Special needs housing . serves persons, who, by! virtue of disability or other circumstances, face difficulty living inde- pendently and require stIIpportive services on a transitional or long-term basis; and ' c. Adopting land use incentives programs or other regulatory measures to encourage private and nonprofit development Small, fully built cities and towns thaJ are not planned to grow substantially under Growth Management Act may work cooperatively with other Nrisdictions and/or subregional housing agencies to meet their housing targets. In areas identified as city e,çpansion areas, King County and cities should plan cooperatively for affordable housing development and preservation. AH-3 AH-4 AH-5 Each jurisdiction shall ev~luate its existing resources of subsidized and low-cost non-subsidized housing and identify hou$ing that may be lost due to redevelopment, deteriorating housing condi- tions, or public policies ort actions. Where feasible, each jurisdiction shall develop strategies to preserve existing Iow-in~me housing and provide relocation assistance to low-income residents who ,may be displaced. ( The Growth Management Planning Councilor its successor shall identify ways to expand technical assistance to local jurisdiÇtions in affordable housing techniques. Technical assistance should" include project case studies and model ordinances covering such topics as development and financing of nonprofit ho~sing, provision of housing-related services, incentives programs for affordable housing, regulations that encourage well-designed higher density housing, improvements to develo~ent peonit processing and standards to reduce development costs, and public education and invQlvement. The Affordable Housing Task Force Report, dated March 1994 contains a summary of actions that local governments may use to encourage affordable housing. All jurisdictions shall monitor residential development within their jurisdiction and determine annually the total number of new and redeveloped units receiving permits and units constructed, housing types, developed densities and remaining capacity for residential growth. Housing prices and rents also should be reported, based on affordability to four income categories: Zero to 50 percent of median income, 50 to 80 percent of median, 80 to 120 percent of median, and above 120 percent of median. King County shall report annually Qn housing development, the rate of housing cost and price inereases and available residential capacity Countywide in its annual growth reporting. , The Affordable Housing ~nd Data Technical Forums, which are comprised of city and County staff and private housing induStry representatives, shall develop a uniform approach for monitoring housing permit activity, ~nstruction, and afford ability. Where feasible, the Affordable Housing and Data Technical Forums shall consider collècting statistics such as: housing units receiving building permits by income category, total units constructed by income category, low and moder- ate-income housing acquired or preserved, households receiving rental assistance, and other local housing activities. In ad~ition where feasible, planning and monitoring'for affordable housing ( should use the median hOusehold income for King County indexed by household size, published' annu~lIy by the U.S. Department-of Housing and Urban Development. Calculations of affordable 38 ( ( house prices should assume standard Federal Housing Administration lending criteria and mini- mum down payments. AH-6 Every five years, beginning in 1999, the Growth Management Planning Councilor its successor organization responsible ~or monitoring growth management implementation shall evaluate achievement of Countywide and local goals for housing for all economic segments of the popula- tion. The Growth Management Planning Councilor its successor shall consider annual reports prepared under policy AH-5 as well as market conditions and other factors affecting housing development. If the Gro~h Management Planning Councilor its successor determines that housing planned for any economic segment falls short of the need for such housing, the Growth Management Planning Cbuncil or its successor may recommend additional actions. As part of its evaluation, the Growth Management Planning Councilor its successor shall review local performance in meeting low and moderate income housing needs. The basis for determining local performance shall be a jurisdiction's participation in Countywide or subregional efforts to address existing housing ¡needs and actual development of the target percentage of low and mod- erate-income housing units as adopted in its comprehensive plan. In establishing planning targets to address future afforda1Þle housing needs, it is recognized that success will be dependent in part upon regional factors be)iond the control of any single jurisdiction. Anyone jurisdiction acting alone, or even in concert ¡with other local governments, mayor may not be able to achieve its tar- gets in these policies, de$pite its best efforts. Success will require cooperation and support for affordable housing from Ute state, federal and local governments, as well as the private sector. The significant role of the market must also be recognized. In determining performance the Growth Management Planning Councilor its successor shall therefore use reasonable judgment, and also shall consider toese market and other factors, as well as action taken to encourage development and preseNation of low and moderate-income housing, such as local funding, devel- opment code changes, a~d creation of new programs. VII. tiguous anq Orderly Development and Pro . Urba rvices to Such Development Chapter II, "Land Use Patte, " contaillS policies for phasing development wit hi e Urban Growth Area. An integral component of the phasing process e~ng that development is accomp . by a full range of urban services. Equally important is ensuring that in . cture improvements are not vided in advance of development which could undennine the Countywide develdpm ttem. This chap, provides policies which support phasing within the Urban Growth Area and ensure the intefrity 0 Countywi and development pattern. FW-29 FW-30 Jurisdictions shall ident" I e services needed to act1 constructing neede rv ces shall be identified. Protection 0 ublic healUt and safety and the environment shall iven high priority in decision- making ut infrastruct~re improvements. County residents in both an and Rural Areas shall hav asonable access ~ a high-quality drinking water source meeting a ederal and State . king water requireme.,ts. Management and operation of existing on-site ic systems shall not result in adverse imp,cts to public health or the environment. . FW-31 General Policies To ensure that land use is accompanied!with the maximum possible use of existing facilities and cost-effective service provisions and extensions. and to encoUrage development of strong, interrelated communities. policies are needed which integrate a full range of urban services with land-use planning and environmental protection. Urban service 39 OCT-28-97 TUE 16:35 I '114~6 P,09 : : AtfeNP\)( 3 ' MfOJU)ABJ,.E HOUSING JOBSlHOUSING INDEX no JobsIHqusiD¡ Index wu de\leJoped by the AtfDnlable Housin¡ TecbDiaI Yonan u . WI)' to IdjlØt hoUlin¡ 1arp" bue4 on IIKh Jarilåiatiaas ~B ;oncentrations of low-cost bouslq and tow-WIle cmplo)mont. A Low. W age tabs Indax grater tha . Ind¡('..,.... that the proportion of lower WIp emplD)acftt is pealer IIIIn Ihe count)' I~ei . Low-COSI HouslnJ IndIX pcmcr,lhIb one _8rs8 tbII lb. proportion of JoWtr cost houing i. 1m than thi counry average. De J~uinl ~ ill campu8d by ØluJttplymg Chi jobl and h0U5lnalnciexes. ,olethll". ~ ' ' Polley AH-~ establishes pJannml tar$ctS for hoaing 8ffordabl~ to hoUJOho1d.t with mcDmn hetween 0 U1~ so pClrcem'oftJj.~ count)' median bmamtl. auc4 on the JQbllHou.in¡ lnda,j&afÌøictíans sljouJd. plan,for ~ nsambcr of uniu tJiaE is .ither 20 or 24 peroarIt of projected net new bøusinl UDa. IS follows: JobllHouliDg In. putar - 011': 24 pcr;cat. JoISslHousin¡1ndcx 1111 ~. ani: 20 pe~ent. JurildJctiol'l for which lDda ld nat be lIamputld I own 8& NA : ~O "~!'. "'" . l '- \..- ~ .t 'lIIs~~n" 'h~~/rtOü~¡Ñ-60-' & ~ ~ "-:I : ;.: r;:'" . it Algøna ft' ...',... ' :" 73 0.85 408 0.61 0.52 "" '..i.~.,,~¡" ul)ur" . '.~.J'!f;~'~ 5- D.B3 8,245 0.85 0.54 I _.,.'~.,' f¡ NA NA 3 NA B~wcAns . ...:.:'. 20.74 BelJWU8 ,,' '-~:'~: ~7, 1.08 12,801 1.39 1.50 B lack Diamond .;i~ '59 '.28 259 o.~ 0.93 , , . ':f) Bothell ..,~ 1,191 1.19 1.704 1.2 1.43 Car!nation . .84 0,85 248 0.81 0.88 Clyt" HiU .. .31 0.52 21 ' 26.07 ., 3.58 De Moines 1.1564 1.27 4.473 0_74 0.84 Du~1I .58 0.87 22S 1.74 1.51 En~mclaw 1~174 1.17 2.108 O.BS 0.78 Fet1eral W.y a~3B4 1.26 '4,107 ,0.5 1.12 Hunts Pðlnt. : 0 0' "1 14.14 NA . I Issaquah 1.1676 . 1.17 . 1,594 1.01 1.18 Kent 8.067 0.78 11.526 0.89 0.64 Kír~land . S.~12 1.17 S.ess 1.17 1.31 La~e Foreet Pk. iSS4 1.28 251 2.98 3.81 Medina .2S 0.81 54 10.87 9.71 M.tcer Island 1."7 1.11 1 ,'2'Z1 3.21 3.58 Milton N'" NA T7 1.08 NA No~mandy Park 1352 ,.~ 488 2.aB 3.30 Nor;th Bend !508 1.15 695 0.84 0.87 Pacific 1147 C.BS 1,107 0-67 0.&7 Redmond 7.!216 0.96 5.103 1.34 1.29 Re~ton 9~675 0.71 ",889 0.75 0.58 SeaTac 4~497 0.9'1 6.528 D.ES 0.83 Seønle 129,/451 . 1.02 , 34,526 0.87 '0.. Sk~kQm ish N~, NA 72. 0.63 NA ShQqualmie 1444 - 1.18 426 0.74 '0.87 Tu~ila 1 O.~15 C.BS (,258 0.65 0.5$ . Yarrow Point 0 17 11.2 NA Citi;.. . 1.00 232,410 0.91 0.91 Un inc. KC: 1.03 86.775 '.32 1.36 KC rrOTAL 1.00 299,185 1.00 1.00 10/28/97 TIlE 16: 34 [TX/RX NO 6320] Sour'e~ Kine Coutu)' PlanniIIS;md Commanity DIveIoprM:IIr DMIion, 1993. I . I Noœs f . 1, LÒw-fage jobs arc estPnatr:d ~ing PUpl Sound llesiOD8l Council emplO)'l11cnt data for fiYO lectors, - c;olly~d &0 lo~r in=mc qllltlilc houl.balds. Kin! Colliit)' P_inland Community Develop.fU" 1992. 2. Pr~ion Oflow-wapjabs retatiw ~O the cauftty lvenp. 3. Rsdttl housinl URia with rutllelS than $700 per month, pllD OWDod bcNsina units valued at )ossman $100,000. in J,'O d9JIIr8. 1990 CcasUJ. I I . 't. rrl;JpO,rtíon or low-çolt hotlliDl Rlltive to the ~ount)' average. s. Low.~aBe jobS index (2) multiþlied by the low-COlt housing iJldex (4). ! I 10/28/97 TlŒ 16:34 [TX/RX NO 6320] .. , ," ",'".., , '. .'. MEMO FROM: Land Use and Traþsportation Committee Dl' rector 'IJM Kathy McClung, DØputy CDS OCTOBER 14, 1997' .. . TO: DATE: .' REi Subdivision Code~PRD ordinance/Subdivision signs . I' .. .:,', '. Attached is the Plánning:cþmmission recommendation for changes to the Subdivision Code. Lndluded in the recommendation are Planned Residential Development requlatioÌ1s which, .~:ll<?W . development to increase density when certlãin amenities' ~r.è:,'ad~'ed. to the development. The Plannin~ Commission coriductedpublic hearings on June 4 and 18th and AU$1st 20th. Don Largen, consultant from McConnell Burke will pres~nt the subdivision code changes and PRD ordinance to the committee. , Also attached is an analydis and code language recommendations for subdivision signs. I [will be making that part of the' presentation to you. If I lean provide additional information or if you have questions priqr to the meeting, please let me know. Attachments: 1. Planning commission Fi~dings 2. Draft Ordinance r .. I 3. Staff Report' I . 4. Subdivision Sign analY~ls I f . .-. ., ..-:- .-, ,....--. CI~Y OF FEDERAL WAY Pl~nning Commission , DATE: TO: - FROM: SUBJECT: September 9, 1~97 CITY COUNCIL' ROBÈRT VAUGHAN ~ CHAIR PLANNING COMMI~SION RECOMMENDATION - SUBDIVISION REGULATION UPD~TES ! ------------------~----~t~~--------~----------------------------- -, ' , ' I. BACKGROUND , -.', '- . - The Federal Way comprehInsi ve plan contain:s' ,.goals and policies that encourage innovat' e residential development to address issues such as neighbo hood character, housing diversity, and appropriate in-fill dev~lopment. Techniques including planned residential developments~ zero lot lines, smaller lots, density bonuses, incentives, cltp.stering, and others are suggested for consideration. I I Currently, the City's s4bdivision regulations provide little in the way of flexibility I in site development and design, For example, while there arei existing provisions to allow clustering of units within subdivi~ions, there are virtually no incentives to do so. I I I . I City staff has ident~fied several provisions within the subdivision regulations tor review and possible amendments. The intent is to further the City's goal of accommodating growth through in-fill developm~nt. ! t ~ I II, PLANNING COMMISSION PROC~ I The Planning Commission reld public hearings on June 4, June 18, and August 20, 1997. ! The City's consultant and City staff provided the Commission] with an overview of issues and draft regulatory provisions. : The hearings were attended by several members of the public,! one of which is a local developer. Written testimony was r:lrovided by two of the attendees. The hearings were devoted ~o a section-by-section review of the recommended regulatory ~anguage contained in the June 4, 1997 consultant staff report. I I i consultant I and City staff have prepared draft regulation arendments and a draft planned residential ordinance, tþe provisions of which are to be included I i I I i I I I I I I The City's subdivision development 1 ,,' ',..-" r,'".-o-,..'.""':"'o:."",""',,'----."-""",. ".",.,'"","-,N,"'= Subdivisiþns Code. I in Chapter 20, this document, The drafts are attached to III. SUMMARY OF AMENDMENTS 0 ' The following list summatize the major code amendments rèviewed by the Commission during þhis code revision process. I Subdivisions (Long P~ats) a. Th~ number of: JIo..,ts requiring a long plat process is ralsed from S'tþ'10. , A new Divislorir9 is added to Artic~e~ II to provide a , I process for theivacation of approveqOlongplats. A preliminary plat certificaiè '.~',will., be required with the submitted application. ' ' . .. I Short Subdlvlsl0ns (ßhort Plat) , The number of ~ots qualifying for a short plat process (i.e. administ~ative review) is raised from 4 lots to 9. : I Provisions are þdded to allow for the alteration and/or vacation of an FPproved short plat. A party owning I or having interests in adjoining short plats shall uti~ize the long plat review process. I Binding Site Plans. 1. b. c. 2. a. b. c. 3, a. b. c. 4. Open a. b. c. .J'J , I Condominiums, -~nufactured home parks, and recreational vehicle parks ~e required to use the binding site plan process. I' I Condominiums h~ving an approved binding site plan are exempted from: the general subdivision (long plat) process requir~ents. A new section ts added to allow for the alteration of approved bindi~g site plans. I Space Requiremants i A fee-in-lieu fayment is allowed at the discretion of the Parks Dire!ctor instead of providing on-site open space. I I Open space reckuirements for short subdivisions of 4 lots or less a~e eliminated. Open space retirements do not apply to resubdi vided parcels if the met the open space requirements at the time of the or.ginal plat. I I i 2 ,. ......""" .""".'..'.'~""':.'\'....~¡.~".~.".n)o(tl"'~' d. The Parks Direqtor may alter the open space percentage requirements on a' case-by-case basis under certain criteria. 5. . Planned Residential Developments (PRO) I A new section is ad4ed to Chapter 20 to provide for.~he use of Planned Resideþtial Developments in creating new residential subdivi~ions. The pertinent provisions are ås follows: : I Minimum .~ract ~~~e for a PRO is 2 acres. A rnaxim~ densíity' increase' of 40% is.allowed on the net tract area' a~ter deducting street rights-of-way, environmenta~i sensitive ar~a~J~~Giüsive of buffers), and the requ~r 15% of opeI.l ßP?îc~.....~' .:. The 40% densitr increase i~' ;43~~h~d by utilizing the following dens~ty bonus design factors: Design Factor: . Bonus Density % I I Clustered units I I Mix of housing t~es Modulated buildin~ facades I variation in ROOf~Lines pedestrian/Bicycl. Trail If it conne ts to off-site ~rail system Public access to: vista or vi~wpoint 3 Lake or str~am 3 Retention of natiie vegetation 5 Utilization of na~ural drainage 4 Enhanced or incre4sed sensitive area buffers 3 Affordable housin~ units 10 I Lot coverage prOVi~ion in Chapter 22, Zoning Code, is amended to clarify hat lot coverage is C.alculated based on the net lot area af er the deduction of an access easement IV. PLANNING COMMISSION FIND~NGS & RECOMMENDATIONS The Planning Commission ~ases its recommendation of adoption of I the proposed amendments I to the FWCC relative to subdivisions based on the following f~ndings: . I Whereas, the Clty'S future growth will occur in the form of in-fill developmen~ on remaining vacant lots and larger I ! a. b. Zero lot lines 3 5 10 4 3 3 4 6. 1. ~ 3 4. 5. ;i=. 2. nonparcelized tracts~ and Whereas, existing t;. ~ision re~lations 00 =t foster flexible and innov tive approaches to site design and housing development; ¡and i .' Whereas, the propost.d amendments are consistent ,wit:h the provisions of the and Use and Housing chapters of the Comprehensive Plan. /. . Whereas, the~ Feder#L Way SEPA responsible official has issued a Dec1ara~ïò~' of Nonsigr1ificance on April 27, 1997 i and I. , I I. " Whereas, the propos~d code amendmerit~'. ~öuld not adversely affect the public he+lth, safety or welfare. I I ' I ¡ 3. Robert Vaughan, Chao Federal Way Planning Corom ssion 4 . , ." ... '.' "... '" .'.'"..... ... I ORO,NANCE NO. . I AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL AY, WASHINGTON, AMENDING CHAPTER 20 OF THE FEDERAL WAY SUBDIVISION CODE, ADOPTIN SPECIFIC- AMENDMENTS AND ,: ADDING NEW R GULATIONS FOR THE USE OF- PLANNED RESIDE TIAl DEVELOPMENTS. .' . . " .' , . , " A. WHEREAS amendmJnts to the 'Federäl~á/.~~.'code (FWCC) text are authorized pursuant to FWCC Jections 22-216 and 22-21; pursuant to Process IV I . i I I I I B. WHEREAS the Fedrral Way City Council has considered "proposed changes to the FWCC regarding ~pecific subdivision regulations; and I WHEREAS the Fed~ral Way City Council, pursuant to FWCC 22-517, . i . having determined the Propos8;1 fo be worthy of lègislative consideration, referred the I Proposal to the Federal Way Pla~ning Commission as a priority item for its review and I I I I I I WHEREAS the Feder/al Way Planning Commission, having considered the review; and C. recommendation; and D. Proposal at public hearings durinm 1997 on June 4, June 18, and August 20 pursuant to FWCC Section 22-523, and all public notices having been duly given pursuant to FWCC Section 22-521; and E. WHEREAS the public was given opportunities to comment on the Proposal during the Planning Commission review; and ORD# I PAGE 1 J , """""""""""~"Y'",'","'i...,~,.,OWor....hU.~ F. WHEREAS the City of; Federal Way SEPA responsible official has issued a Declaration of Nonsignificance on April 27, 1997; and G. WHEREAS following the public hearings, the Planning Commission . . submitted to the Land Use and Transportation Committee of the Ci~,: Council its recommendation in favor of proposed zoning text amendments adding sections to the FWCC as noted previously; and., ~ . '. H. WHEREAS the Fede~al Way Land Use'. aod,(r~ansportation City Council '. . Committee met on , 19$7 to consider the recomme9dation of the Planning - . Commission and has moved to forward the Proposal, with amendments, ,to the full City Council; and I. WHEREAS there was 'sufficient opportunity for the public to comment on the Proposal; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIl- OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOt;.LOWS: Section 1. Findinqs. Affeir full and careful consideration, the City Council of the City of Federal Way makes the following findings with respect to the Proposal and the proposed amendments to the Federal Way City Code ("FWCC"): 1. The Federal Way Oity Council adopted the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan in order to comply with the state's Growth Management Act; and 2. The Federal Way Comprehensive Plan contains policies that call for the amending of subdivision regulations to promote innovative and flexible standards in the design and development of new residential subdivisions; and .J \ ORD# , PAGE 2 ":"'."""';""'.:.¡.:..:.::~';:<::; 3. The Federal Way SEP A responsible official has issued a Declaration of Nonsignificance on April 27, 1997; and 4. The proposed code amendments would not adversely affect .~he public health, safety or welfare; and 5. The Planning Gomf1)1~ssion, following notice thereof as required by RCW . . : 35A.63.070, held publiC" hearirig~ 'on the proposed regulatory amendments and has considered the testimony, written comments, and- n'latenal from the public by and through said hearings. Section 2. Conclusions. Pursuant to FWCC Section 22-217 and based upon the Findings set forth in Section 1, the Federal Way City Council makes the following Conclusions of Law with respect to the decisional criteria necessary for the adoption of the Proposal: 1. The Proposal is coPlsistent with the following Comprehensive Plan goals and policies: A. LUP16 Revise existing land use regulations to provide for innovation and flexibility in the design of new single family developments and in- fill. B. LUP19 Consider special development techniques (e.g. accessory dwelling units, zero lot lines, lot size averaging, and planned unit developments) In single family areas provided they result in residential development consistent with the quality and character of existing neighborhoods. C. LUP20 Preserve site characteristics that enhance residential development (trees, watercourses, vistas, and similar features) using site planning techniques such as clustering, planned unit developments, and lot size averaging. ORa # I PAGE 3 J D. LUP24 Multiple'family residential development should be designed to provide privacy and common open space. Variations in facades and roof lines should be used to add character and interest to multiple family developments. E. LUP25 Encourage the establishment of street patterns anti . amenities that encourage walking, bicycling, and transit u~e. F. HP14 Amend development regulations to encourage superior design' and a gr~f1ter diversity of housing types and costs through such techniquès. as incentives, ìnclusionary zoning, planned unit developments, density bonuses, and transfer of development rights. " G. HP15 Consid~r zero lot line standards'within planned unit developments to "create higher density singlé family neighborhoods with large open ~þace areas. 2. The Proposal bears ~ substantial relationship to the public health, safety and welfare because it implements policies aimed at increasing housing diversity and availability, and promotes site sensitive development to protect the environment and neighborhood character. Section 3. Amendme'nt. The Federal Way Zoning Code, Chapter 20, is amended to provide as set forth in Attachment A which is attached and by this reference is incorporated herein. Section 4. The provisions of this ordinance are declared separate and severable. The invalidity of any clause, sentence, paragraph, subdivision, section, or portion of this ordinance or the invalidity of the application thereof to any person or circumstance, shall not affect the validity of the remainder of the ordinance, or the validity of its application to other persons or circumstances. j! GAD # J PAGE 4 .- ._..-..-...",...u_..-<~",..~-<._,.~J_',"'- .) Section 5. Ratification. Any act consistent with the authority and prior to the effective date of this ordinance is hereby ratified and affirmed. . ' Section 6. -Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and b~: in force five (5) days from the time of its final passage. as provided by law. day of , .. . , PASSED ,by the City'Council of the City of Federal Way this , ,,1995. . , - -, '.. . . CITY OF FEQËRÄL-.WA Y . .', ': - ," . MAYOR, MAHLON S. PRIEST ATTEST: CITY CLERK, N. CHRISTINE GREEN. CMC APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATTORNEY, LONDI K. LlNOELL FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO. ORa # I PAGE 5 l' --- "-, ""'"""'.'-""""'" ATTACHMENT A Article I. In General. Sec. 20-:1.. Definitions .' Binding site plan shall mean a plan drawn to scale proce~sed in accordance with the provisions of this chapter and RCW SB.!? Binding site plans are divisions of land for sale or ground lease for commercial er , indust~ial, manufactured home parks, and condominium uses. - -'.. . -~ ' J- . Short subdivision shall mèan the division or redivision of land into ~ nine or less lots, tracts, parcel,s-; sites, or divisions for the purpose of sale, lease, or transfer -.ip.cluding divisions of land into lots or tracts which are one~one hundred twentieth of a section of land or larger, or five acres or larger if the land is not capable of desc'ription as a fraction of a section of land, PROVIDED, that for purposes of computing the size of any lot under this section which borders on a street or road, the lot size shall be expanded to include the area which would be,bounded by the center line of the road or street and the side lot lines of the lot running perpendicular to such center lot line. Subdivision shall mean the division or redivision of land into ~ ten or more lots, tracts, parcels, sites, or divisions for the purpose of sale, lease, or transfer including divisions of land into lots or tracts which are one~one hundred twentieth of a section of land or larg~r, or five acres or larger if the land is not capable of description as a fraction of a section of land, PROVIDED, that for purposes of computing the size of any lot under this section which border$ on a street or road, the lot size shall be expanded to include the area which would be bounded by the center line of the road or street and the side lot lines of the lot running perpendicular to such center lot line. Article II Plats DIVISION 4. BINDING SITE PLANS* ---------- *Cross reference(s)--Site plan reVlew procedure, §22-361 et seq. - ,'.'.. :-"-".':""~".,"'n' .. state 1aw reference(s)--Binding site plans, RCW 58.17.035. ---------- Sec. 20-61. Subdivisions requiring binding site plan. Division of any land for sale or lease which is classified for commercial, business, office, or industrial developm~nt, ~ which is to be developed as condominiums or manufactured home park shall be required to obtain an approved binding site plan in accordance with this and other ordinances of the city. ~ .. ~ . ). . ". . Sec. 20-68. Alteration of binding site plan~ . . ". . Alteration of an approved binding sité...p.;L~. shall follow the same process and requirements set forth in this division for the approval of a binding site plan. DIVISION 5. SHORT SUBDIVISION PLATS Sec. 20-81. Application ~d review process. The general procedure for processing an application for a short subdivision consists of the f9llowing steps; PROVIDED, however, that this gener~l procedure shall not apply if at the time of application the ~roposed short subdivision is either simultaneously owned or has been owned within the previous five years by an owner of, or a person having substantial financial interests in, a contiguous lot, parcel, tract or short plat, in which case the application procedures governing Division 6, (Preliminary Plats), of this chapter shall apply: Sec. 20-108.5. Alteration and vacation of short plats. (a) Alteration of an approved short plat shall follow the same review process used to create a short plat as set forth in Sec. 20-81; EXCEPT that when an alteration involves a public dedication, the alteration shall be processed as provided in Division 9.. (b) Vacation of an approved short plat shall follow the process established as follows; EXCEPT that, when a vacation involves a public dedication, the vacation shall be processed as provided in Division 9. (1) An optional preapplication conference between the proponent and city staff to discuss the circumstances and reasons for the vacation as set forth in Sec. 20-82. s 2 .'., ... "." ";'.~~'- (2) Review of the short, subdivision vacation application to determine whether or not the application is complete and acceptable for fil~g. An application for vacation shall include the following: (a) An application for approval of a short subdivision vacation . shall be made to the department of conununïty development services upon forms furnished by the city. Applications shall be made by the owner or owners of the parcel or parcels Qf all property encompassed by the application or by duly authorized agent. The owner or owners of a 1 par~~'s to be included must join in or be represented" in. the. application. . (b) The appliéa4ion shall inGlude'~even prints of the approved short subdivision and accomp~ied by statement setting forth the reasons for va¿ation~ (3) Approval, approval.with conditions, or denial of the short subdivision vacatiqn by the director of the department of community developm~nt services. (4) Filing of the short subdivision vacation in the office of the county division of records and elections. Division 6. Preliminary Plat Sec. 20-110. Content and foDm of application (8) Preliminary plat certificate not less than 90 days old from a licensed title ins~rance company. ~ Additional information as required at the discretion of the director of conununity development services. Division 9. Vacation of Subdivisions Sec. 20-250. Plat vacatio~ application. When any person is interested in the vacation of any subdivision that person shall submit an application to request the vacation to the city. (a) Signatories. The application shall contain the signatures of the majority of those persons having an ownership interest of lots, tracts, parcels, sites or division in the subject subdivision or a portion to be vacated. If the subdivision is subject to restrictive covenants which were filed at the time of approval of the subdivision, and the application for alteration would result in the violation of a covenant, the ,{ .! 3 application shall contain an agreement signed by all parties subject to the covenants providing that the parties agree to terminate or alter the relevant covenants to accomplish the purpose of the vacation of the subdivision or portion thereof. (b) Completed application defined. A completed application shall be as required for preliminary plats, pursuant to FWCC section 20-107. , Sec. 20-251. Acceptance d£ application, routing. (a) Upon submittal"' of a . c:)Íqpleted application for vacation of plat, the department of'-. 'Orninunity development services shall transmit at least one copy of the application-for vacation for review and recommendation to each- of t'þ.e.f.o):-lqwing:' - . . (1) Public works department; (2) Lakehaven utility District and/or City of Tacoma Public Utility Department and/or other utility district, as appropriate: (3) Federal Way Fire Department: (4) County department .of public health, if septic systems are proposed for sewage disposal: (5) Federal Way School District #21.0: and (6) Building division; (7) Other individuals .or jurisdictions as deemed appropriate by the director. (b) An application for plat vacation shall not be accepted for filing for the purpose of official processing until: (1) The director of community development services determines that the applicant has paid all fees and submitted all documents and information as required herein to permit a full public hearing on the merits of the application: and Sec. 20-252. Process for review and notice of public hearing. (a) Upon confirmation by the director of community development services that the plat vacation application is complete the application shall be proGessed and reviewed following the procedures defined in Section 20-109 et seq. (b) Notice of the hearing shall be mailed to the appropriate city or county officials if their proposed plat vacation lies within . "."".., 4 one mile of the adjoining city or county boundary, and to all agencies or private compadies pursuant to section 20-251(a) herein. (c) All notices required in this section shall clearly describe in layperson's terms the 9ature of the request, the locatipn of the proposal, the date, t~e and location of the. hearing, ånd address and telephone nuffiQer where additional information may be obtained relative to the application. Sec. 20-253. Report. to he~~ing examiner; review. (a) No less than sève~ dåys'prior to' the date of the public hearing, the department .0ß community development services shall submit to the hearing examiner a Writteri...repòrt summarizing the application for plat vacation. The repòrt:.:sna:l;r. contain, in addition to the requirements in section 20':"111',. et seq., the following information: . . . (1) All communications from other agencies or individuals relating to the apdlication which were received in time to be included in the report to the hearing examiner. (2) A list of recommenqations from the department of community development servicas, department of public works, and other appropriate departments relating to plat vacation approval. (b) The hearing examiner shall review the application in accordance with the procedures stipulated in Article VII, Process IV Review. Sec. 20-254. City council review, action. City council review of hearing examiner recommendations on applications for plat alterations shall be limited to the record of the hearing examiner, oral comments received at the public meeting (so long as such comments do not raise new issues or information not contained in the examiner's record) and the hearing examiner's report. Division 10. Planned Residential Developments (PRD) Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. 20-301 20-302 20-303 20-304 20-305 20-306 20-307 Purpose. Minimum size. Permitted uses. Preapplication conference. Preliminary PRO - Procedures Final PRD - Procedures PRD public services availability. .j j 5 """""'."""."""""...;';;:'" .. Sec. 20-308 Sec. 20-309 Sec. 20-310 Sec. 20-311 Design criteria - Generally. Desi~n criteria - Required open space. Design Criteria - Bonus Density Increases Design criteria - Streets. . ' Sec. 20-301 Purpose. " A planned residential development CPRD) is an alternative to conventional land use :t:"egulations, combining use, density and site plan consideration~':.. into a, single process. A planned residential develqpment'ñas the following purposes: . ' " . . Ca) To permit greater fléxibility and cons~quently more creative and imaginative site 'd~sign than is'~ gép.erally 'possible under conventional subdivision and zoning regul~tions¡' Cb) To promote more economical and efficient use of the. land while providing a harmonioùs variety of housing choices, a higher level of city attractiveness and quality and preservation of scenic open space¡ and (c) To encourage developments which will provide a desirable and stable environment in harmony with that of the surrounding area. Cd) To provide flexibility in site development in order to preserve and protect open spaces and environmentally sensitive areas. Sec. 20-302 Minimum. size. The minimum contiguous area of a PRD project is two (2) acres. Sec. 20-303 Permitted uses. A planned residential development may include any uses permitted outright in the underlying RS or RM residential zone where the PRD is locate4, subject to the criteria established in this chapter. Sec. 20-304 Preapplication conference. A preapplication conference shall be required for a PRD application as stipu:tated in Article XX (Preapplication Conference) . Sec. 20-305 Preliminary PRD - Procedures The procedures, process, and requirements for a Preliminary PRD shall be the same as those set forth in Article II, Division 6, Preliminary Plats, Sec. 20-109 through Sec. 20-130. J 6 Sec. 20-306 Final PRD - Procedures The procedures, process, and requirements for a Final PRO shall be the same as those set ~orth in Article II, Division 7, Final Plats, Sec. 20-131 through Sec. 20-137. .. . PRD~public. services availability. . .1 ., . (a) PRD approval~' are 'ñòt'to be granted unless such facilities as water lines, sewer lines and streets exist or are immediately planned in sufficient. quantity' to .s~ice.. the . proposed new development. PRD projects shall be .£o¡úcatedwith respect to schools, parks, playgrounds and other public facilities that they shall have access in the same degree as would development in a form generally permitted fn the area; PROVIDED, that a PRO may be approved if, alternatively: (1) The developers will wrovide private utilities, facilities or services approved by he public agencies which would normally provide such util ties, facilities or services as substituting on an equivalent basis and assure their satisfactory continuing operation and maintenance permanently or until equivalent pÞblic utilities, facilities or services are available. Sec. 20-307 Sec. 20-308 Design criteria - Generally. (a) The design criteria ~stablished within this article shall be used as a guide for an applicant to follow in developing a preliminary and final PRD! development plan. (b) These criteria shall also be used as the basis .for recommendation and decisions regarding density increases within a PRD. Sec. 20-309 Design criteria - Required open space. (a) For the purpose of this article, provided as described in Section 20-155. (b) All PRDs shall be required to provide open space on-site in the amount of 15 percent of the gross land area of the PRD site; except that a fee-in-lieu payment may not be substituted for this requirement. open space shall be ¡.' 7 , -, '.", (c) Any combination O'f open space types may be used to accomplish the total minimum area required to be reserved as described in Section 20-155. Sec. 20-310 Design criteria - Density Increases ~. A maximum densit i crease of up to 40% for PRDs located in RS and RM zoning distric s may be permitted according to the partial percentage incre~ses for designated design criteria set forth in Sec. 20-3J.1. The: increases"are additive, but in no case may they exceed 4qJ6 in t'CDtå:l. B. The density ihcreas~s will be app¡ied.to the net parcel or tract area remaining aft r subtracting, :tb:e, , foll'owing: 1. dedicated publ c rights-of-way'i' :and..:' " 2. environmental It sensitive areas (exclusive of required setbacks) as s~t .forth in Chapter 18, Article ,II; and 3. required 15% o~en space as set forth in Article III, Sec. 20-155. Sec. 20-311 Design Crtteria - Bonus Density Increases The allowable number of welling units as calculated in Section 310(B) may be cumulative y increased as follows: A. Three percent (3%) inc~ease in dwelling units if twenty percent (20%) or more pf the proposed dwelling units are developed with zero lot lines; , B. Ten percent (10%) incrßase in dwelling development features a; distinct mix of residences, attached s~ngle units from and apartments are ex~ples of housing not include some of every type; units if the housing types. Single duplexes to townhouses types. The mix need C. Five percent (5%) increase in dwelling units if twenty-five percent (25%) or more of the dwelling units are clustered in distinct functional groupings; D. Four percent (4%) increase in dwelling units if the development utilizes modulated building facades on multiple unit structures. E. Three percent (3%) increase in dwelling units if the development utilizes variation in roof lines on multiple unit structures. F. Three percent (3%) increase in dwelling units if distinct pedestrian/bicycle trails and paths are incorporated into the 2f 8 ".. '.. c. .".....~.",..".",.".""'.,-:m development, a four pe~cent (4%) increase if the trails/paths connect to an off-site 'trail system; G. Three percent (3%) incpease in dwelling units if significant general public access 1s provided to a vista or veiwpoint, or a lake or stream; . .' .H. Five percent (5%) increase in dwelling units if the project plan provides for and ~ssures a substantial retention of native ground cover, b~:hes, and trees; I. Four percent (4%) incr.$$e in dwelling units if on-site drainage control utili~es existing natur~ldrainage ways drainage retention featiures and/or drainage 'and drainage retention facilities ape designed to:rèsemble natural features; .'. . and J. Three percent (3%) inc~ease in dwelling units if a environmentally sensit~ve area buffer is increased in horizontal distance by:at least twenty-five feet or in total area by at least ten PEjrcent (10%), or the buffer is . enhanced/rehabilitated such that its functional value is greater than its predevelopment condition; K. Ten percent (10%) incr~ase in dwelling units if at least ten percent (10%) of the p~oposed dwelling units are affordable to low income individuals :as defined in the Countywide Planning policies for King County. Sec. 20-31.2 Design cri~eria - Streets. A. In addition to those :criteria established in Section 22-1477 right-of-way width and sþreet roadway widths may be reduced by the public works director upon a finding that the plan for the PRD provides for the separation of vehicular and pedestrian circulation patterns and provides for adequate off-street parking facilities. ARTICLE III, DESIGN CRITERIA* (b) All residential subdivisions shall be required to provide open space in the amount :of 15 percent of the gross land area of the subdivision site, or if the :Jite i:J five .:lcre:J or le:J:J in :Jize, .:lpplic.:lnt:J m.:lY :JecJ\J .:lltern.:ltive method:J of providing the required open :Jp.:lce .:l:J permitted by :Jection 19 41 et :Jeq., if .:lceept.:lble to the city; ~XCEPT that short subdivisions of four or less lots and resubdivided parcels where open space requirements were met at the time of a previous plat are exempt from this r 9 .' ._.....-..........~,,--.. d requirement. Except for PRDs a fee-in~lieu. payment may be to satisfy open space requirements at the discretion of the parks director after consideration of the Citr's overall park plan, quality, location, and service area of the open space that would otherwise be provided within the project. The fee-in-lieu of open spa~e shall be calculated on fifteen percent (1~%) of the most recent' -assessed value of the property. In the absence of an as.sessment, the market value shall be based on an appraisal conducted by a MAI certified appraiser or another professional appraiser approved by the pa-rks director. ) . ". . . . . . (c) Any combination óf open space t~~~ .ma~be used to accomplish the total area required to .þe':r.eserved' as follows: Open Space % of Gross Land CategoJ:y. Area Usable 10% minimum Conservation No maximum or minimum Buffer 2 % maximum Constrained 2 % maximum An administrative alteration of the open space category percentage requirements within the above categories may be made by the parks director on a case-by-case basis, but in no case shall the combination of categories total less than 15%. Review and approval of such cases shall be based on the following considerations: 1. The change in percentåge requirements would result in a superior open space plan than could be accomplished under the standard percentage requirements. 2. The availabili~y and types of open space located within the immediate area. 3. The presence on-site of environmental features that are unique or rare or of local importance. 4. The opportunities for the significant views and creation of points of interest. preservation public access of to 5. The relationship of the proposed open spaces to the City's park plan. i 10 -.--..-. ..0.-- ---- CHAPTER 22 Zoning Article XIII. Supplementary District Regulations Division 1. Generally Sec. 22-955. Calculating lot coverage. (a) General. Except as specified in subsection (b) of this section, the area of all structures, pavement and any other impervious surface Jon the:- sÜbject property will be calculated as a percentage of totallot.~rea, exclusive of the area of any recorded access easements, in determining CPffipliance with maximum lot coverage required in tJ/lis chapter.. . If:. the subj ect property contains more than one use, the maximum lot coverage requirements for the predominant use will apply to the entire development. fJ II '\ ' , ..' ',."'."""~W--:'~~~~""~"~~~~~~~~U.:'::~I(~" -;-,. "', CITY'OF FEDERAL WAY Planning Commission . . DATE June 4. 1997 APPLICANT City of Federal Way . ' PROPOSED ACTION ). '.text Amendmènts to Chapter 20. of Federal Way . City Code {Subdiv~,si<?ns.> '.. .. , , STAFF REPRESENTATIVE Don Largen. AICP Planning Consultant , . McConnelYBurke. Inc. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission tIse this report as basis upon which the Commission develops a recommendation of proposed Subdivision regulation amendments for City Council oonsideration. - I. INTRODUCTION Several items have been identified and prioritized by the City Council for completion during its 1997 Planning Commission work program. One of these tas~s is a review and update selected portions of the City's Subdivision regulations. II. BACKGROUND In January of 1994 City staff identifi,ed a list of topics within the Subdivisions regulations' that needed to be addressed to either bring the code into compliance with State , provisions, make them consistent with other city codes, or that would make them more helpful to staff and applicants and more applicåble to the City's development context. Staff has since reviewed the subdivision regulations for consistency with State laws and other City codes. Most recently the subdivision regulations have been updated to comply with the State legislative requirements for regulatory reform (ESHB 1724). The remaining items on the list relate to making the subdivision regulations easier to use and more directly applicable to Federal Way. This list has been partially prioritized and reviewed again to make sure these items still need review. j"J . .. .' ~::.;~~':';..:l::"¡~;'..¡~..-~¿""'" -. .. III. ISSUES & ALTERNATIVE$ The topics to be addressed fall into six general categories. Each of these issues contain several review items, with. each item dealt with separately and provided with a staff recommendation. Relationsh~ps between discussion items are also indicated. A. SUBDIVISIONS (LONG PLATS) Subdivisions or long plats are orne of the mechanisms by which tracts of land are divided into individual b4i1ding lots .or parcels. Under current City code a subdivision process (as opposed to a short subdivision) is required for divisions of land into five lots J. or greater. The subdivision process consists of two major parts. . . The first step is approval of a preliminary plat. Typieally,. a. preliminary plat is meant to be general in nature and does not include detailed engineering specifications. In most cases preliminary plats establish the overall layout of the subdivision, indicating the proposed street network, general: layout of blocks. and lots, preliminary .Iocation of utilities, open spaces and sensitive areas, and other major elements of the subdivision. These are reviewed to ensure conformance with City zoning and engineering standards. This step is important in that many of the improvements (e.g. stfeets and sidewalks) become public and will later be taken over and maintained by the City. The second step is approval of a final plat, which is more specific as to the precise locations of utilities, public and private .easements, actual number and configuration of individual lots, etc. Approval of ~ final plat is usually granted only after substantial completion or installation of the public improvements that were indicated on the preliminary plat. Final approval1s required before property within the subdivision can be transferred or building permits i$sued. 1. PRELIMINARY PLATS The issue raised regarding preliminary plats is whether or not they can or should be processed administratively. An administrative review process does not. require a public hearing. Under the current code, the hearings examiner holds a public hearing on a preliminary plat and then provides a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council then makes the final decision based on the established public record. Appeals of a Council decision are filed in King County Superior Court. Our conversations with staff suggest that the Council may wish to retain final approval of preliminary plat applications. This is clearly appropriate in those instances where concerns are raised by adjoining property owners and where the subdivision is of a scale that could significantly affect the surrounding area. However, there are likely to be instances where a subdivision i$ modest in size, meets all City standards, and does not raise the concerns of surrounding property owners. In these cases an administrative review process might be a better use of City resources and time, and would also help meet the requirem$nts of ESHB 1724. ( 2 . .. '-""""'.'~-.".:....."..~~:.","",:,:-~ '. One way to do this is to incre~se the minimum number of lots requiring along subdivision application. The Revi~ed Code of Washington (RG\^,) 58.17.095 gives the City legislative authority to increase the number of lots, tracts, or parcels to be regulated as short subdivisions to a maximum of nine. The short subdivision process is administrative so by increasing the number 'of lots qualifying as a short s.ubdivision more subdivisions will be reviewed ,administratively. This approach appears particularly suited for Federal Way since muct) of the future growth will be in-fill development and would presumably involve smaller subdivisions. . .. RECOMMENDATION: .' Make -the following modification to Chapter 20: 1) Raise the minimum number of lots requiring a long'subdivišiòn from Slots to 10 lots in Article I, Section 20-1 Definitions. (Note: this will al.so require changing the definition of Short Plat). . An additional approach the Planning Commission may wish to consider would be to have an administrative review of preliminary plats. RCW 58.17.020 allows for the administrative review of preliminary plats upon adoption of an ordinance to that effect. The ordinance must allow for appropriate notification of surrounding property owners, provide a comment period, and allow any effected party the ability to request that a public hearing be held. The Gity rraay also establish a threshold number of lots above which a public hearing would be required. For example, theGity could provide for an administrative review of preliminary plats containing from 10 to 30 lots within Article II, Division 6. This would include. the requirements from RCW 58.17.020, particularly the following provisions: . a. Within at least 10 days notice of the application shall be published and mailed to all property owners within 300 feet of the proposal and notice shall be posted in five conspicuous places around the proposal.' b. Any person may provide 'r'ritten comment on the proposed subdivision with 21 days after publishing notice of application. c. A public hearing shall be held if any person files a request for'a hearing within 21 days of the publishing of the notice of application. d. A public hearing may also be initiated by the City. The key features of this approach .are that it establishes a threshold above which an administrative review is not an optidn (Le. 30 lots) and allows for a public hearing in the event an effected party requests one. Note that even though a preliminary plat may be reviewed administratively the final plat approval would still rest with the City Council. i 3 ..'; ...:...' .~'~.~:::;~'2::::Z~~':':::'::i~:t,};-~7'~-.5 .. " 2. TITLE REPORT WITH PREUMlrtlARY PLAT One of the items included on thei list of coda updates was to include a title report as a required application item for a preliminary plat. The recent code updates relative to regulatory reform did not addres~ this item. The purpose of this requirement ~ould' be to disclose at the beginning of the process whether or not some or all of the property to " be subdivided is encumbered by ownership issues, deed restrictions, co~enants, etc. In some cases knowing this information at the outset could enable the City to require that project sponsors resolve any civil legal issues before committing limited staff time to the review of the proposal. J. RECOMMENDATION: Add ~hß. following submittal requirement to Chapter 20, Division 6, Section 20-119(c}:" ... '. " A complete and accurate title report, dated no more than 90 days prior to the application date, detailing all eincumbrances, liens, covenants, restrictions, parties with interests, or any other .egål commitm~nt that is attached to the subject property(s). 3. LONG PLAT AlTERATlONsNAcþATlON Current City regulations do allow for the revision of long plats, but are silent as to the process for vacation of an appro"ed long plat. If a long plat alteration involves the relocation of driveways to streets~ external to the plat or there is an increase in the number of driveways, then the plait alteration process is the same as that required for preliminary plats: initial review by staff, staff report "to hearings examiner and a public hearing, examiner recommendatíorh to city council, and then city council approval. The basic issue is whether or not th~ plat alteration process can or should be made administrative. RCW 58.17.215 provides the ~,asic procedural framework for the alteration of subdivisions. In general, if the proposed alteration involves a short plat or is considered a boundary line adjustment and does not create any additional lots, then the alteration may be reviewed and approved adrininistratively by the planning director. Beyond that it appears that State law does not all<t>w for the administrative alteration of long plats. If the intent of making plat alterations administrative is to make more efficient use of . City resources and time, then it appears that any reduction in the number of subdivisions permits that have to go through a full public review process would be a move in the right direction. Convertsations with staff suggest that it is really the smaller subdivision applications where an administrative review process would best benefit both city staff and applicants. . The City's subdivision alteration pr<)cedures already provide for as much administrative review as is allowed under State law. The exception may be the threshold ¡'. " 4 '. , ",'" ." """.,---."",,',_!~C,,:'...:..c~:-"~:u..." ,."",,~~,;;<,-,';.u. . ," requirements relative to the relocation of driveways to streets external to the subdivision. These could be eliminated, but the rationale of requiring public review of alterations that would impact surrdunding streets is a sound one and we would not recommend changing those threshølds. The one change that could be made to allow for more opportunity to administratively review alterations to smaller plats wo':!ld be to raise the number of lots qualifying for short subdivision review from 4 lots to 9 rots. . This would mean that all plats having fewer than 10 lots could be altered adminis~f<itively. RECOMMENDATION: Increase ,the number of" lots that qualify as a short ~ subdivisJQ.n to a total of 9. (see also issue B.1 in the following '. section). .:. ." . ,>, . As to the vacation of plats the' RC~ does not appèar,to'~lIow for the administrative review and approval of long plat yacations. This is also true for short plats if the vacation involves some public dedi<IÞation, such as a street. However, the City has no mechanism for plat vacation in its current regulatJons. RECOMMENDATION: Create a 'ew Division 9 in Article II of Chapter 20 entitled Plat Vacations. Base the procedures for plat vacation on RCW 58.17.212. ' B. SHORT SUBDIVISION (SHORT PtAT) A short subdivision is currently d~fined under City code as a division of land that creates four or fewer individual (ots. The current process for short subdivisions provides for. an administrative review and approval by'the planning director, which includes review by affected utility Rroviders. The. decision by the planning director is appealed to the hearings examiner~ It should be noted that even though the approval process for short subdivisions is a~ministrative the planning director must still review the proposed short plat relative to uftderlying City design and development standards. 1. INCREASE NUMBER OF LOTS One issue is whether to increase the allowed number of lots created under the short plat process. State law (RCW 58.17) allows a jurisdiction to raise the number of lots to . nine. The advantage to raising the number of lots would be to allow for administrative review of smaller plats. This is r~~ated to the discussions under subdivisions above where the intent would be to streamline the City's overall subdivision processes. Another consideration is that future growth within the City will be largely from in-fill development and likely involve the $ubdivision of smalle~ parcels or tracts. If such in-fill development meets City standards and has the effect of implementing the growth ., 5 ,....:..' "-,-,..."","""".i~..-.j"';""'"""""",,,,,," '. .. strategy of the comprehensive pl.n, then administrative review of smaller subdivisions would be an appropriate mechani$m fot furthering the goals of the plan. RECOMMENDA1l0N: Change! the number of lots from 4 to 9 in the definition of short subdivi$ions in Article I, Section 20-1 Definitions. . ' 2. OWNERSHIP OF CoNllGUOUSI!SHORT PIJ\TS . ' The issue here is that it is techniqajly possible for a single individual or organization to own contiguous parcels ând over: tme develop these parcels under a short plat process rather than use the long subdi"-'ision process. This poses a problem from the perspective of trying to plan for 'orderly incre,mental ,gr9~h. and the provision of public services and utilities since it allow$ for 'Ieap-frogl developmønt. The Cit}ls current code structure is silent except for nOt allowing an exemption' for alteration of a short subdivision if it is owned by the owner of a contiguous lot or parcel. The reasoning for the alteration of contiguously. owned short subdivisions should also apply to their creation. In other words, the effect of developing several contiguously owned short subdivisions has thei same overall impact as the development of a long subdivision and should be subject to public review. - RECOMMENDA 1l0N: Add thØ following language to the end of the opening sentence in SectiQn ~0-81: ... PROVIDED, however, that this!: general procedure shall not apply if the proposed short subdivision Is either simultaneously owned or has been owned within the previous five years by an 'owner of, or a person having substantial financial interests in a contiguous lot, parcel, tract or short plat at the time of application; in which case the application prbcedures governing Division 6, Preliminary Plats, shall apply., . . The five year figure is used herel' since it is consistent with the period of time used for the completion of subdi~isions and limitations on the use of the short subdivision process found in RCW 58.17. We should note that in our experience we have not seen an ordinance that deals directly with contiguous ownership 3. SHORT PLAT ALTERATlONSN~CA1l0N Alteration or vacation of short plats! is provided for in RCW 58.17.060. The RCW states that the City shall establish an administrative process for the review and approval of short plat applications, and the alt$ration or vacation of same. The issue here is what would be an appropriate process. . J 6 -"----,,,---""-'.""'-.'h..__..--...- ----,'-'-',.... , :.:-:.:" " The City's subdivision regulations do not appear to specify a process for either the alteration or the vacation of a shorït subdivision. Since the current short plat approval process is administrative it may make sense to simply utilize the existing process for the review of short plat alterations and vacations. RECOMMENDATION: - Add short plat alterations and vacations to Division 5 óf Article II ~n Chapter 20. This can be done either by adding two new sections at the end of the Division 5 or by incorpor4ting the words 'alteration' and 'vacation' into the .. opening..~tions of Division 5. . J' , . -, . ' c. PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELPPMENTS (PRD) One of the items on the code updaJe list is to consider instituting a 'Planned Residential Development (PRO) process. The:! current subdivision regulations attempt to introduce some flexibility in residential plat layout by allowing a ,developer to cluster dwellings into one area of the parcel, with the intent of preserving open space and generally lessening the impacts of the development. 11ft practice the clusteñng provisions have not worked well since there are essentially no incentives to encourage their use; for exa,mple the applicant is given no more lots tfuan what is allowed under a standard subdivision process. There are also few guidelines relative to site design. A PRO provides more flexibility and discretion in site design and layout than the typical subdivision process. A PRO proQess offers incentives, usually density bonuses, for such things as open space, improved pedestñan cirqulation, building clusteñng, building design, etc. It allows a more flexible approach to accommodating site features such as slopes, wetlands, streams, and p~blic areas. A PRO can also allow for innovative solutions to issues regarding impaCts to adjacent properties and uses. At the heart of a PRO process are the incentives provided to encourage innovative and sensitive development. The City has been interested in encouraging the clustering of dwellings as a means to lesser) the impact of new residential development on surrounding areas and preserve l'1atural features. A density bo.nus; is not currently utilized for a clustered subdivision, but should be considered for a project if clustering is used. However, clustering by itsel~ is no guarantee of the type of development the City may want. The provision and quality of open spaces, building layout and orientation, pedestrian amenities, protection of sensitive areas, and other items contribute to quality development and could be included in a bonus system. We have provided staff with a draft set of PRO regulations, which include the following recommended standards and bonuses. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt ai: set of PRO regulations that establish the following standar~s and bonus system: :1-' 7 ................_....:...'- . ....' .."... ...... ;,.....--.:.:'~'~'¡,:¡.~.;':':'¡'"j;::,,<;j-,~.~.:':"~::';".-::;,::.::,.~~:~.;j;~1" .. ., PROCESS. PRDs sh2lI be reviewed as referenced iq Arlicle II, Division 6, Preliminary Plat, and Division 7, Final Plat. MINIMUM SIZE. The minimum contiguous area of a! PRD project shall be two acres. . ' We have rarely seen PRD o~ances with less than a two acre minimum. On tracts less than two acres there,is often ~Qt.enough space for flexibility in lot locations,lot configurations, access' and m~gfu1 protection of environmental features. We suggest this minimum since the siZe ~pþears to fit with the in-fill growth pattern of the City. . '. '. , DESIGN CRITERIA - GENERALLY. (a) The design criteria estab~hed within this article shall be used as a guide for an applicant to follow in developing a f['Pjiminary' and ~ PRD pian. (b) These criteria shall also be used as the basis for recommendation and decisions regarding density increases within .. PRD. DESIGN CRITERIA - REQUIRED OPEN SPAC:E. (a) For the purpose of this atlicle, open space shall be described and provided in all PRDs as referenced in Arti:1e ill Section 2O-155(a) through (f). Note also the discussions concerning open space requirements on page II, section 'E' of this report. DESIGN CRITERIA - SINGLE-FAMILY PRDs. (a) Lot size. A maximum reduction of 25 percent for minimum lot size for PRDs located in single-family RS residential zones may be permitted according to the following partial reductions for designated design criteria. The reductions are additive, but in no case may they exceed 25 percent in total. Thd: exact amount of each partial reduction is de~ermined by the planning director. The primary incentive for usingiithe PRD approach in a single family zone is the ability to create more lots than i$ allowed in a èonventiona1 subdivision. The greater the percent reduction in tot size the more lots are created. However, the Comprehensive Plan has a goal of preserving the character of single family neighborhoods. The maximum Jot reduction allo~ed should not be so great as to introduce density that is not coIT.patible with the surrounding neighborhoods. A 25% reduction is suggested here because larger reductions produce lot sizes that are less than the lot size of the next higher density zoning district, which may not be compatible with existing nei~hborhoods. J! 8 .. - ......:.. ..:...,. :... . . ...' .'.-. ....'. . . - :,::,,::,::,:.::;:"~'.::~: .:';:'~: :,....., ::::.t~'" (1) A maximum reduction of 6 .þercent may be granted ü at least 2S percent of the gross land area of the PRD site is reserved as opec. space pursuant to the guidelines set forth in section 20-155. An!iadditional reduction of 3 percent (9 percent cumulative) may be granted ü at least 3~ percent is reserved as open space; (2) A maximum reduction of t percent may be granted ü unusual or siguificant site features such as views, watercoun;es, wetlands or other natural characteristics åre enhanced or incorporated ur.,to the PRD design; (3) A maximum reduction of 5 !!percent may be granted by the use of existing trees and mature vegetation or innovative landscaping methods for streetscapes,. open spaces, or recreational" areas; a~d: ~. (4) A maximum r~uction of7' percent may be granted by the inclusion offeatures such as variation in building ~*backs, use of materials co.nsistent. with surrounding neighborhoods, clusteriIÌg of buildings, zero lot Iin~ .~~ en~-efficient siting. The design criteria are the basis' upon which lot siZes.~ decreåsed and more lots created. The percentages given iabove are similar to many codes we have worked with and are suggested as a s~ng point Each of the percent figures gives a numerical weight to each of the design categories ånd are intended to reflect the relative importance of each. DESIGN CRITERIA - MULTI-FAltfiLy PRD~ (a) Density increase. A density increase of 30 percent greater than that permitted by the underlying zoning may be allowed fur PRDs located in multi-family (RM) residential zones according to the following partial ~ensity increases for designated design criteria. The density increases are additive, but ~ no case may they exceed 30 percent in total The exact amount of each partial density incr~e is detennined by the review authority. (1) A maximum reduction of 6 percent may be granted ü at least 2S percent of the gross land area of the PRD site i$ reserved as open space pursuant to the guidelines set forth in section 20-155. An additional reduction of 3 percent (9 percent cumulative) may be granted if at least 3S! percent is reserved as open space; (2) A maximum reduction of 11 percent may be granted if unusual or significant site features such as views, watercourses,. wetlandS or other natural characteristics are enhanced or incorporated i~to the PRD design; (3) A maximum reduction of S percent may be granted by the use of existing trees and mature vegetation or innovtttive (andscaping methods for streetsca.,pes, open spaces, or recreational areas; and (4) A maximum reduction of 7 percent may be granted by the inclusion of features such as variation in building setbacks, use of materials consistent with surrounding neighborhoods, clustering 06 buildings, zero lot lines, or energy-efficient siting. (5) A maximum increase of 5 percent may be granted if a variety of housing types is provided, such as duplexes, tourp(exes attached single family, town houses, etc. (b) Required perimeter buffer zdne. A minimum 30 foot buffer zone must be provided for any PRD of multifamily structurþ; in the RM zone that is adjacent to a RS or SE zoning district. The buffer zone must be kept free of buildings, structures or parking areas and, J~ 9 ,. ""':.:':'::'7-:~.~'::.::~"'."::-~".:':'~~- . . ,. must be landscaped, screened or :protected. by natural features so that adverse effects on surrounding areas are minimized. . DESIGN CRITERIA . STR.EETs. (a) Right-of-way widtl1 and sþet roadway widths may be reduced, especially where,it is found that the plan for the PRI) provides for the separation of vehicular and pedestrian . circulation patterns and providqç for adequate off-street parlång facilities as d~med appropriate by the public works ~tor. . D. ). BINDING SITE PlANS . ", , . . . .', . ' A binding site plan is another waYlof legally laying .out':ãJ)(.I.'de~elopif1g a parcel. They have typically been used for dev~loping commercial' and industrial sites, but can be utilized for mobile home and recreatiol1al vehicle parks, and condominium developments as allowed under RCW 58.17. It is a somewhat streamlined subdivision process in that it assumes strict compliance with the underlying zoning and, as such, is often processed administratively. It can differ from a subdivision in se~eral ways. The land is often held in one ownership and parceled as leaseholds rather than for sale. Internal roadways and utility corridors are more likely to be privately ma¡ntained instead of being dedicated to the City. A binding site plan may not necess~ri/y divide the larger parcel into separate lots, but rather may simply locate the different uses and major features in relation to each other. There are typically no incentives $uch as density bonuses or height increases in a binding site plan process. . The issues raised regarding binding site plans are 1} to review for appropriate process, 2} add provisions for their alteratioli, 3} allow this process to be used for condominiums, mobile home and recreational vehiçle parks, and 4) clarify that these regulations are for ground leases only. . J In the recent code amendments Irelative to regulatory reform the City adopted an administrative review process, e~sentially utilizing the same process as for short subdivisions. Since City staff has j~st recently addressed this issue we have no further recommendation. RCW 58.17.040 allows for a binding site plan process to be used for condominiums, mobile home and recreational parks. The City simply needs to add these uses to the binding site plan process. RECOMMENDATION: Make thf3 following changes to Chapter 20: 1) Article II, Division 4, Section ?O-61: Add condominiums, manufactured home parks, and recreational vehicle parks to ~he list of uses requiring a binding site plan. 'Í 10 .'..:. '::".~:.::.:::.:::~.-.~:~.::;':.':~:::.:-;'-.:i '. 2) Article I, Section 2()'3 Exem~tions: Add condominiums having an approved binding site plan to the list of exempti~ns. . I 3) Article I, Section 2()'1 Definitions: Clarify that a binding site plan applies to ground leases only. (Note: The same change should be made to the definitions of Short Subdivision and Subdivision also in Section ~O-1) . . Current City regulations are silent r~garding the alteration of an approved binding si~e plan. Since the recently proposßd approval process for a binding site plan is administrative based on the short s~bdivision process, then it appears to makes sense to utilize that process for ~Iteratiqn~~t . . . , RECOMMENDATION: Adda' n~ section; 20-66 Alte~tion of Binding Site Plans ,to Division 4 ¡which states that alteration~ of an approved binding site plan shall follow the same pròcess as stipulated for short subdiyisions in section 20-81. E. OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS SE?veral questions have been rais~d relative to open space requirements within the subdivision processes: 1) Should fee-in-lieu payments appl~ to long plats? A fee-in-lieu payment would allo'-1\' a developer to. make a monetary contribution to a fund rather than provide open.space within the subdivision itself. City regulations do not now provide for fee-in-lieu cqntributions for subdivisions with lots greater than 5 acres. One factor to consider is that suþdivisions can vary dramatically in size. Requiring open space in a relatively smalll subdivision may not create a quality community space. In addition, if a communitY has an overall park and open space plan there is the question of how the open sp~ces created in subdivisions fit into. the plan. Many communities have found that by ¡requiring open spaces in all subdivisions they have ended up with many disparate pieces that do not fit into a larger open space framework. Allowing for the option of makin~ a fee-in-lieu payment does provide for somewhat. greater flexibility and City controll as to where and what kind of open space and park resources get developed. RECOMMENDATION: 1) AlloW for a fee-in-lieu payment to be made at the discretion: of the parks director after consideration of the City's park plan, quality, location and service area of the open spacþe that would otherwise be provided within the project. The fee-in-lieu of open space shall be calculated on 15% of th~ most recent assessed value of the property. In r.J [ [ ,,' '"'.'" .'<~'.~:."~,-:_": :~~::':::::-. ::::.::,.,~ )", t, the absence of an assessment, the market value shall be based o~ an' appraisal conducted by a MAl certified appraiser1 or another professional appraiser approved by the parks dir,ctor. 2) Elimi,.ate the requirement for open space within short subdivisions. . ' 2) Should large lot subdivisions (1i acre lots) have open space requirements? An open space requirement i~ irt~nded to provide for adequate public open space within subdivisions.Someonet owning a 1 acre residential lot is unlikely, to be suffering from a lack of.ope'n $pß.ce opportunities. If in the'future the zoning for that area were to change, then open space would be p(oyidød Dased on the land being divided into smaller sized urban rots. ", '. ',,'::': :'. "'-'.' RECOMMENDATION: Do not inçlude open space requirements in the review and approval of subdivisions' having 1, acre lots or larger. 3) Should open space dedications I apply to resubdivided parcels if the dedication was previously met? " In a number of communities ¡any time new lots are created the open space requirements apply, regardless ~f whether the original division met the requirements in effect at the time. HowevElr, these communities also employ an impact fee structure which lends itself to b~ing administered on a per lot basis. Federal Way does not use impact fees for parks and open space, so provision of open space is accomplished through the subd1ivision standards As pointed out in #1 above this can be a problematic approach. However, this question is stat~d in terms of dedications of open space. If the original plat dedicated an actu~1 tract of land, .then it is unlikely that a functionally sized tract would remain for further open space dedication. This of course would depend on lot sizes within the plat, but in most cases requiring an additional land dedication upon the division of several of the lots will likely be impractical. RECOMMENDATION: 00 not i~pose open space dedications on resubdivided parcels if a dedication had been made at the time of the previous plat. 4) Should the categories relative tq how open space is calculated be changed? The categories of open space used in the subdivision regulations do not appear to require any modification. Other codes we have worked with or reviewed have similar categories. Some codes use terms such a 'improved open space' or 'passive' versus 'active' recreatiön areas, but there is no inherent advantage of using certain terms or definitions over others. This open space classification system .If [2 . ,"- "._".,:':.:.~'o:'.'~:~;:;2;:':::-,::~-_.:;-- appears adequate for Federal \Nay's purposes. We are not aware of any other issues relative to these open sp~ce categories. and do not recommend any change in these categoñes. at this time. : A related consideration would ~e whether or not to allow for the alteration of the percentages of open space typ$s on an individual basis. A particular subdivision may have a preponderance of one type of open space opportunity and riot be able to meet the open space requirements in the other categories. In such ca~es it may be in the City's best interests to rpodify the percentages in order that the open space type that is there can 'be fully ~Ç<þQmmodated by allowing the applicant to count that one type in meeting thi3ir open s~ace requirement. . '. One approach would be to allo~ for the administr:ative alte~tion of the open space type percentages by the parks ditector based on somegeneOral criteria. RECOMMENDATION: Allow for the administrative' alteration of the open space category p~rcentage requirements on a case-by-case basis. Review of: such cases would be performed by the parks director ttnd would be based on the following consideratJons: , . 1. Th~ change in percentage requirements would result in a superiþr open space plan than could be accomplished under the ~tandard percentage requirements. I 2. The availability and' types of open space located within the in,mediate area. 3. Thd presence on-site of environmental features that are unique br rare or of local importance. 4. Th~ opportunities for the preservation of significant views and <þreation of public access to points of interest. 5. Th~ relationship of the proposed open sp~ces to the City's park plan. ;Î r 13 .--"". . "".": """::~.;:;.:;:..:.::..¡:;.;:.;......";.,,,.,~- 0((.. . F. Flag (Panhandle) Lots Panhandle or flag lots are lots that ~re created such that the access to a public street is over a long nafTOW extension of tt)e lot. Staff has raised several questions and are seeking clañfication on several issuþs relative to flag lots. 1. MEASURING LOT WIDTH ." Subdivis"ion regulation Section 20-1þ2(C) states that all lots should abut a p"ublic street. The question raised is if a long narrow lot were subdMded would it be creating one or more flag. lots? If that WEfi"e true~~+, would lot wiçfth be measured? ~ . i . It is unlikely that flag lots would be~pproved under a long .subdivision or PRO process. However, there are situations on 41der larger lots wh"eré ."theråis sufficien.t space to subdivide, but the lot is relatively n4fTow. In these situatioris.~ag lots might be created to provide access to a public stre~t, however we Figure 1 . have rarely seen situations wh$re there are 'nested' flag lots. Access could ju$t as easily be . accomplished via an easement acr9ss the front lot or across an already established flag lot access. This would eliminate the need for th~ 'pole' portion of a flag lot. In cases where such lots are create4 measuñng lot width should be done behind the pþint where the 'pole' of the flag lot extends out (rom the main body of the lot. ' RECOMMENDATION: Do not allow more than one flag lot to be create~ out of any given narrow parcel of ~and. If multiple I~ts can be creat d the remaining, interior lots shall þe given easements across the flag i lot to provide a~cess to public streþts. sS L4 Lot A Lot Width - - - LotB +- -Lot B Access LotC . . Street .. "..'.._.~_..._":';...:....~'. Ol~ 2. SETBACKS ON FLAG lOTS The issue here is basically how tq detennine which are the front, rear, and side yards I on flag lots, We I have dealt with this issue ir!l several client communities and there is really ~o good specific fonnula or criteria that covers alii potential flag lot . I configurations and relationships ~o adjacent lots, What we have done is use a generëllized approach to establishing setbacks ~at relies; Qq . the arrangøment of the yards on adjacen~. lots. Ir~l~gèneral where the yards of a subject lot abut side yarqs of adjacent lots, then those yards are the subject lofs side yards; and. where it abuts front or rear yards I on adjacent lots, those yards on the subject lot be~ome the front or rear yards. FigUl'e 2 Rear ......... """"" "'" ..... "'r'" """"'" Lot A "'" ......,....... """'" ............ ...., Rear .. ........... """'" ..,.... ......... . ". LotB .. ............ ........... """"" .... Rear .. ........... ...... .... .......... ...... RECOMMENDATION: Utilize i the following approac~ in detennining the yard$ on flag lots: LotC """"""""""""""""""" The front yard of a flag lot shall ~e that yard which is adjacent to where the 'pole' I portion of the 'Iot connects with the main portion cpt the loti UNLESS it in the judgment of the pla~ning director the arrangement at setbacks on acljacent surroundit:1g lots clearly suggest a differen.t y4trd arrangement. Street CALCULATING LOT SIzE/LoT C<þVERAGE RELATIVE TO EASEMENTS I I Staff is looking for clarification on how to measure lot coverage where there are lots with reciprocal access easements¡ This question has been asked in terms of two panhandle lots, but this would ap~ly to any easement situation. This is not strictly a subdivision issue, but is related. ' 3. , , . Calculation of lot coverage is foundlin the zoning code Section 22-955. It states: ¡ "A vehicular access ease~ent or tract that serves more than one lot will not be used in determini~g compliance with the maximum lot coverage requirement of this chapte~.. Our experience with other codes s~ggests that the intent of this language is to calculate lot coverage exclusive of the area pf a recorded a~cess easement. In other words, lot coverage will be calculated after th$ area of the easement is deducted form the total lot area. .\ ~ [5 ., ...., c'_:"_::":;~~~~"{'~::':':'~:==l':.~'æ . .. <. RECOMMENDATION: I Amend ISection 22-955 to state that lot coverage is calculatJd based on the net lot area after the deduction of the area þf an access easement. .' I v. CONCLUSIONS . . i These recommendations are intented to address the issues raised by staff on certain specific items in the subdivision re ulations. It is not meant as a comprehensivå update since the City has recently gone. rough an update to several portions of its code. These recommendations should: .8rovide a means for clarifying and streamlining the overall subdivision process. . "'.:' . . . ", ..IT 16 , . . [8H6 ON ~/Y.L] :5J .. .. ... .....'. '.':'_""':'~"";".~""A_...._:"~",:,~j~;¿;',,,;~;ít~~'"~~. lZ=OlllRL L6/6Z~SO :>rap uraJT " rteutnf" ltCSuumuGU UC::VC::Wf'(I<:(U ~~6~C<"'" I I : SUBDIVISIONS Article #J#. fllanncd Residential Developments I I I P $C. Mi . mum size. P . tttd uscs. icañon conferenœ.. C formancc with applicable codes and standards. , imilwy PRD - Application Corm and content. . ..." "ary PRO - Acocptancc of application: tOutìÍ1g. . 'p~ .' inary PRD - Tunc limiradon for approval or disapproval. . Pic' . al)' PRD - Completion of.en~w policy process. Pc . . ary PRO - Process for review, . . - . iminary PRD- Officialfile:.,' '.,,:.- iminary PRD - Notice ofappUcation. . "minary PRO - Notice of public hCarlng. P . " ary PRO - Rcpott to heañng examiner; review. imilWJ PRD - Public'hearing. Pre imin8IY PRD - Electronic sound recording. " . ary PRO - Burden of proof. iminæy PRD " Public comments and parocipation at tbe, heañn~ P iminary PRD - Continuation of thc hearing. iminary PRD - Recommendation by rho heañng examinClr". ilninaxy PRD - City council review, action. P iminaxy PRD - Notice of decision. $. minary PRD - Judicial revicw. iminary PRD - Duration of approvaL Fi PRD - Fonn and content. . Ftqal PRO - Administrative review. Fi~al PRD - Planning commission review" Fi¥ PRD - City council action. P"~a1 PRO - Appeal of city coucH d~ion. Fi '11 PRD " Amendments. BIding permit issuance. struction start and completion limits. R 'cw during construction. P D public services availability. . gn criteria - Generally. sign crit.ocia - Required open space. .ign criteria - Single-family PRDs. D sign critoria - Multi-family PROs. D ign crittria - Str~ts. Sec. 20-301 See. 20-302 Sec. 20-303 Sec. 20-304 See.. 20-305 See. 20-306 See. 2Ó-307 Sec. 2,0-308 . Sec. 20-309 Sec.2()..310 Sec. 20-311 See. 20-312 Sec. 20-313 Sec. 20-314 See.. 20-315 Sec. 20-316 See.. 2()..317 Sc.c. 20-318 Sec. 20-319 See. 20-320 Soc. 20-321 See. 20-322 Sec. 20-323 SeC. 20-324 S~ 20-325 See. 2().326 Sec. 20-327 Sec. 2()..328 Sec. 20-329 See. 20-330 Sec. 20-331 Sec. 20-332 See. 20-333 Sec. 20-334 Sec. 20-335 S~e. 20-336 Sec. 20-337 Sec. 20-338 Sec. 20-339 Chapter 20 .' 3/26/97 I .... "'..-- ..... -. ...." -". . .... ... .. .".. ." .;...:..:;:<~;,..~~~;:':'~.ü~'im..~~~~mír' [RLt6 ON DI/U] I Tl:OT OHL L6~l/SO ~WJJ VI"1' - C I UICU "C'><UC#""" ,uc:.rc:.<vI'U""'" .'~6--'~'~ I I Sec. 20-301 Purpose. I I A planned rcsidðntinl development (P~) is .an a!tem<ttivc to conventional land use rþgulations. combining u.o¡c. density and site plan considet!atlons into a singk process. A pl~nn~ residential dfelopment has dlC. following purpose-..: I I (a) To permit greater tIaibility and co17ucnui morc creative and imaginative site dc..c:i than is generally possible und~rConventional subdi . 'on and 7.oning regulations: I (b) To promotc more economical and ~t1ï.ciC?nt use of the land white providing a lJarmoniou.c¡ !varid.y of housing choices. a higher level of city a~vcness and quality and preservation of scenic open'sr; and (c) To encourage developments which w~U provide a dc..o¡irable and stable environment in h~ny with that or the sulTounding are'd. ! I . (d) '[(I provide ficxibility in site develfpment in ordcr to preserve and protect open s~aces and environmentally sensitive areas. ! See. 1.0-302 Mitúmum size. . I TI1C minimum eomiguc)\L<; area of a PRDI project is two acrc.c:. ' See. 20-303 Permitted uses. , I A planned residential development may. i1;cIUde any tLo¡cs penniuoo outright in the underlying !':identiaI zone where the PRD is located, subject to e cõteria established in this chaprer. ; I , Preapplication conferenc*- I Por the purposes of expediting applic4tions and reducing PRO development costs, before lfiling any applicncion for n PRO. the prospective appt~cant shall submit to (he director of community dclvclópment services preliminary plans and sketches and! basic site infonnation for consideration and advice re~rding the relation of ilie proposnl to general de~tlopmental objectivcs and city polieic.o¡. AClcr revi~w of the preliminary plans by thc director. a pre*pplcialion conference will he held to discuss land use, 4itc design. rcquircd impr('lVcmenL" and eonfonnance! with the comprehensive plan, zoning ordinance and ~hdiviSion . code. The diree(Or may request the Iluendan of oilier staff members (\{ (he prcapplication COl1~ ence. A written rccol'd of the prcapplieation eouferenÞe shaH be ~ívcn (( (he applican£ within 30 cale:ndar da.rs after (he I See. 20-304 JI .. mccúng with me applicant. and a copy shall be retained on file for future rcfco:nce. Confonuance with applicable œdes and standards. All applications for prelÎminary and. .(mal Pro) CtpþfO\'4I shall be in confotmanCC with the zöning code and official 7.onin~ of the city. !n the evCI1{ an nmcndment to the zoning code and/or 'a change in (he ~ning maps is required to assure ~ conformance., . . lItc dîrcctor of community development sccviccs shaU require that the appropriatc applicarioDS for such change be submitted so (hat such requests may be . considercl coIlCtlIrerÌtly.. '. See. 20-305 . .. .. . '. -.'. .' See. 20..306:. - : . . ~imÍtull:Y PRD - Application tofItÌ and content. (a) ~ an applicant has. a pccspplicadon conference. tho applicant may file an application for preliminary PRD. The preliminary PRO applica1ion shall be tiled with the department or community development services on forms fumished,by the city. Applications shall be made by the owner or owners of the parcels of all propecty encompassed by the application or by a duly authorized agent or agcnls~ The owner Or owners of all parcels to be included must join iñ or be rcproscntcd in the application. An applicant may ~,;ubmit applicadons for preliminary and final PRD approval simultaneously. rROYIDED. all infonnaúon required pursuant to article is submItted.. (b) The application for preliminary PRO shaH be accompanied by the following information: (I) A legal description 'dnd map of ùte property drawn to scale which shaU include: the land are:!. within the PRD, the use zoning classific.1.tion of the designated :1re<1., the zonc classification and u.o;c of aU abuuing districts within three hundred feel of dle subject property. and aU public and private rights-of-way and casements bounding and intersecting the designated area which arc proposed to be continued. created, relocated and/or abandoned; (2) A title search performed for (he property(s); . (3) A PRD plan, drawn at a scale of nOf Ie..~s than one inch per two hundred feet, and :1 written description of the proposed developmcnL The PRD pl:1n and/or the description shall show or stipulate the gencral location. arrangement, ~xte(\~ and chltntctcr for the following whero applicable: 3/26/97 2 EO '(1 ol.nr (1\11 ""-Q7--lIfll . ~........,:;;.,....i::":;~~;;Ù'...i.;~:.",...(;>.i;;.,',..ii:') i . (g LtG ON Dl/ll] tZ ~?~J ~£ J~~~(j~..........,..- ...,.. 'U~l""-- ..-()-.- i I I ß. Adjacent S~(S and nlleys; I b. (.and u."cs by (";pc. including the i gross n<:reagc or square footage of each ~sed U$C; c. Structures or building envelopes bæ. of use, maximum height of . maxim\tm gross 1100r area for cacb 1 use, and land coverage of bui1d~ and impervious area..~ I I d- Rcsidential densities by housing type amd maximum number of dWelling units;: -1 . . ", . c. Interior streets and drivè:s-. '. I f. Parking, loading and outdoor stò~~ and acce...." thereto. incluómg for: storngc of bolltS. campetS. tral1 and rccrcation vehicles; . I I g. Public nnd pñvate open and recféation space; I I h. Landscaped ar~ incluámg ~icat materials; I I. Buffer areas and fencing including ~se and timing of con."t.ruction; I I I Pcd<;strian circulation; : J. k. I proposed .utiliti~ I I , I I I m. Dimcnsions of separations ~tWeen buildings, streets and other featUres; i I n. {.and dcdications and public improveþtents; o. Areas subjl.'"Ct to flooding, retc.ntio~ areas and surface drainage; I I p. Location. size and lighting of signs; ¡ q. Treatment of sound, vibraûon.1 glare, radiation, fumcs, and heat emissio~ which will cX,tt:nd boyond the zone lot; and I I r. Other dements such as arcbttectural concepto;, building elevations. I facade treatments, and exterior building +terials a~ ncccssury to est."\blish how the ~oposed PRO uses and structures relate I to the neighboring property. I I (4) Appliçntiol\ for a sub:!tantial developme~t permit if required by the shoreline ma.c;ter program ordinance: . I Existing and c..'\Scments: School sites; and [. Jj (5) Application to alter or pcrfonn wad.: in an '~vironmentaJ]y sensitive area if required by City ordinance; (6) SEPA cnvironmæw checklist pursuant CO me Bnvironment31 Policy Ad.; (1) A written &tatancnt generally dc$çnòing the proposed PRD and the mar1cct whiCh. it is - intended toe serve: its re1alioQSbip to the comprehensive plan; and how theÍKOposcd PRD is to relate to die use of neighboring property; (8) Slli1Ct11Cn[ of the applicant's intentions with . regard to the future $clling or leasing of nil or pornons o~ the . PRO. such as land areas. dwelling units, etc.: (9) A c)cvê(OpmCnt schedule showing the approximate date of proposed construction and whethec or not the project is intended to be devcJoped in phases. U me PRD is to 'be developed in phases. a phasing plan is requited. The phasing plan shall be submiu.cd for the toW project visualized by the applíCanL Th~ phasing plan shall identify the geographic arëa of each phase and shall present a broad but cohesive and complcte overview of the project. Pcc1iminary PRO applications for ec1Ch PRO pba.t;C shall includc all materials requited by subsoction (b)- afthis section; (lO)Othec information dccmœ necessary by the director of community development saviccs to evaluate the preliminary PRD application. The request for additional information must be made in writing to the applicant wiÚtÎn tWCQty-eight calendar days after the submisSion of the preliminary application. (c) The director of community development services may waive any information required by subsection (b) of this section on the basis that ,the in[ormation is not necc....."ary ta It review of the proposOO PRD. Such waiver shall be in writing and shall specify the teasons for such waiver. Prefiminary PRD - Acccptancè of appllcation¡ routing. (a) Within 28 calendar days of receiving an app1ication for preliminary PRÐ, the city must determine whether the appli~tian is completc. A checklist for determining complete applications is available through the department of community development services. If the city dcems the application to be compktc, a Letter of Comp1ctcncss must be. issued prior to (he 28 day deadline. [f the city See. 20-307 3/26/97 J . . - ... .-'... :;':"._">'_'~-",-,._.._.--.:.. '.. a. . ..-'. ::." "-". '::."...::: :::'::-:.:::;~::;.~i;t.'i1;-J.t,,'....~¡-j""~~':ì:-¡~t . . lZ=OT ßH.I ~'-.I./ _.~. I' . 1 L!/6fŒ~,--:--- - -'-'~I"'---- ---"'-.-... ..- I (8H6 ON DI/Y.I.] determines [he application to be incomp(c Ihc city shtdl notify the applicant of wind needs fO be itted for a complete application. In this' Written dcc:em,ination. the city shall aU identify, to cxtCQt known [0 the city, the oilier agencies ofl ,SWð or federal government that may have juñ.~i 'on over some aspect of tbe proposed development adi 'ty, Wid1Ín fourteen calendar days after an ap ¡cant~- submitted the. additional information idcntifi by the city as being necessary for a complete appIi 'lion. the city shull nodCy the applicant whcfhcr the app 'c8don is complete or whcdler additi~nal inti.. 'on is ncccsswy- . ." .-. /. (b) A project pennit applica~on is cø Ieee for pucposcs of dlis section when ¡tmeets d1;y's p ural submission requirements and is sufficient for nbnucd pro<:cüing even though addicional woonatto may be required or project modifications may be u dertakcn subsequently. A determinacion of compte èss sha11 not preclude ilie city from reque.~ng ditionaf information orstl1dlcs either at the time of the orice of Complclencss or sub~ent1y if new Infor . on is required or subStantial changes in the propos action OCC~ I (c) Upon submitl.:l1 of a completed Pre1inü~' PRD application. the department of cooununity de ., t~ment services shall truru¡mlt at [east one cop. of the npplication for review and recomIl1Ondation each of d1C following: ! 1 1 (1) Public works d6pacunent; (2) Parks department; (3) School District No. 210; (4) I..akchavcn Utility District and City o~,' Tacoma public utility department, if nccessart' utilities wi I! be provided by the City of Tacomat (5) Fire District #39; and 1 (6) Utility companies proposed to I provide . dcclrÍciry. telephone. natUral ga$. cable television, and solid waste collection- I I, (d) A preliminary pRD application Shal~" not be deemed complete and accepted for filing' for Ihe purposc of official processing until: I I' (I) 111<: director of community developme~..t services determines that the applicant has pai, all fees Md suhmiltcd all documents and info ation as required herein to permit a full publi hearing upon (he merits of the application; and i Jj (2) The diroctor of conununity development services has received a notice of availability from the Lake1távco Utility District and. City of Tacoma public utilities department for sewer and water. a.~ appropriaIc. . . \ nL\S Prcliminary PRO - Timè Ii~(atlon aD o.v- . \ for approval 01' disapprovaL \ c '. A compl~ preliminary PRD appUéati shall be approved, disapproved. or resumed to applicant Cor modification or correction within 18 calcndardays fto~ date of filing thcrco~ . unless the applicant consents (0 an extension of such time period: PROVIDED. that thê180'.day period shall not include . ::rn. .~~t, ~~ .~I~~e:vt~~= '~4'f'VtV-.""~(~ltQJd: ;;r;;.-¿,s' . I -t': r Ue ,.. ~, t~ M.a ~o~~ ~minnry D - roomPletio!W environmental policy process. A preliminary Ptm appncåtion will not. be 8Chcduled for public hearing until the State Environmenlal Policy Act review process has been completed- If- there is an appeal of t~e threshold dcl.Cmlination, the appeaJ hcarin,g shall be held simultaneously with the public hearing in front of the hearing examiner on the preliminary PRD application. Said hearing dtall be scheduled witfûn 90 days from the date of the appeal or the thre$hold detennination. See. 20-308 Preliminary PRD - Process tor review, Upon eonfirmacion by the director of community development services that the. preliminary PRO application is complete and that aU pertinent requirements of the. Environmental Policy, section 18-26 et sec¡- have been fulfilled. the application shall - be process:éd and reviewed. See. 20-310 See. 20~311 Preliminary PRD . Official file. (a) ContcrU. The director of community development services ¡¡hall compilc an official file on the application containing the following: (1) All apptication material!: !:ubmitlcd by the applicant; (2) The staff report; (3) An wriuen comments received on the matter; (4) :me electronic recording of the public hearing On the matter; 3/26/97 4 SO'r{ n7'nr nil' 1(' ('7 "'" .'.' ......:.. ::l::'¡;;:::::;::~~'~'¡;~,;,':::-~T.:::-:~T . . (gH6 ON DI/Y.LJ TZ: 0'[ fllLL L6/6Z 'SO U""P VI"J" - ¿ ....... "'.....~~..._. <;"-'-'-r"--- ---0--'- , I' I (5) TIlc recommendation of rbe hcañng ~ec; (6) 11lC clccU'onic sound rc:cording and nünutes of the city council proceeding.s on the ma~ (1) The decision of city council; and I I (8) Any other information relevant (0 the matfcr. (b) Ayallabilicy. The official file is a PUb~'C~rd. It is available fat" inspccdon and copying! in the department of community development SC[VÍ during regular business hours. : . ~ PrelimInary P~D - Noti~ ô~. npplicafion.' . . ! (a) Contcnts.. Within 14 days of the tcr of Complcteness .being i~ued, the director of CO ",unity development services shall prepare and publish. noticé of application wilhin the local newspaper ofgcncca1 circulation. The notice o.f application shaD co . tho following: , , ( I) The name of the npplicant and. if appUc4ble. the projoct namo; : i (2) The street address of the subject Pt'~y or. if lhis is not available, a locational dcscri tion in nonlegal language. Except for notice p. blishcd in the official newspaper of the city, (fl.. nodce must also include a vicinity map that i entifies the subject property:' !. i (3) 'nle citation of the provision of this cl1aptcr describing thc applied-for decision:' i ! (4) A ?:icr verbal description of the rf¡ue:¡ted decision; ! (5) A list of the project pennits includ1 in the application; ! (6) A list of all required smdies submiUcd iwith the . application; ! (7) 11\c date of application. the date of the þotiC:C of compl~tion of the application, and the dtte of the - ~O/ notice of me application; i ,J\\~W . '\ (8) A statement that. notification of th~ public ..) ^ hc~ring date will occur ~proximatelyl 14 days . ~ "" I poor to thc scheduled heaong date; ! ~.\.1..- . 1 â' (9) A statement of thc availability of the omcial file; I (10) A SU\(cm~nt of the right of any person ~o submit written comments to the hearing cxa~ner and appear at the public \tearing of th4 homing examiner to give comments orally; and! I See.. 20.312 " j. (II)A !\t8.[Cmcot Iha1 o.nly persOIlS who submit wriuen or oral comments to lite hearing examiner may challenge the recommendaûon of the he.añng c:xamin~r. (b) Dislriburion. The director of community development £ervicœ shall distribute this notice as follows: . . (1) A copy wiUcbc sent to dle persons receiving the property tax statements for all property within 300 fe<;{ of each boundary of the subject property; (2) If the owner 1)( the property which is proposed Cor the PRD owns another parcel, or parce1s. of proper,ty ~ich. lie adjacent to £be property, notice ot: applicaûOQ sholl be given to owners of propcrt.Y'loéated within 300 feel of any portion of the boundaries of such adjacently located parcels of property ownod by the owner of the property proposed to be in the PRD; (3) A copy shaH be mailed to appropriate city or county officials if the proposed PRD lies within one mile of an adjoining city - or county boundary; (4) A copy shall be mailed lo all parties listed in Section 20-307(c); (5) Notice shall be mailed to dle state dep:u1mCnt of transportation if the proposed PRD abuts a state highway; (6) A copy will be published in the official newspaper of the city; :md (l) A copy will be posted on eaeh of lite official notifica.ûon boards of the city and at public libraries within the city. (c) Public nocificacion sign. The. applicant shall erecl at least one public notification sign which complies with standards developed by the department of conununity development services. This sign shan he localcQ on or near the subject propel1Y facillg tha right-of-way or vehicle access casement or tract providing direct vehicle access to subject property. The director of conununity development scrvic~s may' require the placcll1cn{ of additional public notice sign.'I on or near the subj&l propcrt.y if he or ~he determines that this is appropriate to provide notice to the public. " '¡- ~ (d) Tìming. 11\e public notification sign or sibrns must be in place at least 14 calendar days after the Letter of Completenc.<;s has been issued. and removed within seven calendar days after the final decision of me city Qn the matter. 3/2ó1<J7 5 n,.nl nIl' "... ""7 "'" , . [g He ON: TII/llJ Tz:or OHI L6/6/S0 "'~JJ ~'"7' 0 . - .- ..w...-...- -~.- ,....-.- --ð--'- .. ,','. ."'ò'" ,;.,;,1;'<...,i,;;.; ,~:;.,;".¡.:~>.:;-,~:~~'¡:~il;" ¡ I Prclirnínary PRO - Notice +r public hcarin~ ! (n) C()rtt~nt.r. Atlcast 14 caIendnr da~ p~or to rite dale of the public hearing. the director of ~mmunity . development 5ccviccs shall distõbute a PUbIiC~' oticc in c.<;scntiully the same form as the nolice of ap , Headon, c¡(ccptthat a public hearing date will be schoo led. (b) Distribution. The public nolÍcc shall ~ mailed (0 aU þCr5ons and agencies who received dt~ oñginaI notice of applk-ation. In addition. ~ person spccificu1ly requesting Eo be notified or who ~þmittcd comm~nts as a ces~lt of the notiCe of appliE7~~n, shall be notified at this time. ), ' ,or I (c) Public noriflc(ltwn sign. lOe d'~' 01" of communitY development servioos shalt have. changes , made to die HIhr", notification ,ign or SÍJI1I', ted at the time of notice of application to reflect an ,changes in the applicution. including the &eb.eduled d' of the public hearing. ! . (d) Tmung. TIte public notification sign 'or signs must be removed within seven calendar days Mer dte final decision of the citY on the mattor. : ¡ Sec. 20-313 , I Preliminary PRD - Report ~o hearing examiner. review. I ¡ (a) No less than seven days pñor to the d.e of the public l1eétt"Îng. the department of !' unity developmcllt ¡ervicc... shall submit to the' hearing examiner a written rcport: summarizing the.ap .lication. The rcport shall contain che following informa on: , (I) AU p~inenc applicarion materials. : I (2) An analysis of the application under chq relevant provisions of this chapter and the compþcnsive plan, I " (3) ^ statement 0[. the facts found by the d~rector of community development services þd the conclusions drawn from chose facts. ! ¡ (4) A notice of availability from lhe 4tœhaven Utility District and City of Tacomþ. public utilities department a... appropriate. ! (5) All conununicmions from olher ngcþcies or individuals relating to (he appliC8.ti~n which were received in lime to be include~ in the report. to the hearing exanúner. ¡ I (6) A list of rccol'mnendalions from lhe d1parcment of community development services. d4,.partmcnt of public works nnd ocher appropriate departmcnts rela.Üng co a!rcralÍoos coo~idons of PRO approval. I ¡, " See. 20-314 ss (1) A copy of lhe declaration of Donsignificance. mitigated declacation of nol1$Ígnificaoce. draft ~nvironmental impact statement and final environmental impact statement... along with a list of any required mitig'dtion mca.<;uccs issued by the ~nsibte official. (b) The heocing examiner shall review thc pce1imimuy PRO for compliance with this artièlc and odter applicable ordinances or rcgulatio~ of the city. See. ZQ-315 Preliminary PRD -Public hcaribg. (a.} GarcraL The hearing examiner shall hold a public hearing on each application. (b) Optm to, publk.' . The hearings of the nearing cx.amincrarc o~n'(OdlC public. (c) Effect 1'he hc:åring of the hearing exc"uniner is the open ICC9rd hearing foe city council on the application. The city council shaH nat hold another open record hearing on Ihe applicaùon. Preliminary PRD - Elec,tropic sound recording. The hearing. ex..'U1Úncr shan make a complete olcc(ronic sound recording of each public hearing. See. 20.316 PI-climinary PRD - Burden of proof. The "wlicant has the responsibility of convincing the citY that, under the provision of article. the ~\pplicant is entitled to the requested decision. See. 20.317 Prcliminnry PRD - Public comments and participation at the hearing. Any person may participate in' dle public hearing in either or both of me fonowing ways: (1) By submitting written commenls (0 lhe hearing examiner. either by delivering thesc conunents to the de~ent of community development services prior to lhe hearing or by giving these directly to thc hearing examiner at tlte boaring. (2) By appearing in person, or through a rcprcsðntaÜvc. at the hearing and making oral COl1Unel1(S directly to the hearing examiner. The hearing examiner may reasonably limit the extent of oral comments to fJ.cilit3.le the orderly and timely conduct of the hearing. See. 20-318 3/261Y7 6 /,O.d r7~n[ nIl' 1(',-~7-WU II II II I I IZ:OI aRL L6/6ll0 .:,roJJ urClfl - rt zt<:stat:nncu uC:lI(;copm",'" ^"'5"'"'wn:c . , (RLt6 ON . nUll) I 1 Preliminary PRD - Continuapon of tha hcañng. Ii l11C hèafing examiner ml1Y continue dtc h~"..." ng .if. for any reason, he or she is unable to ñcar aD, of the public commcnls. on die matter or if the 'ng exnmincr dclcnnines that he or she needs, morc information on the matter. If, during the hcañþg, the hearing examiner announces the time and plaoc' õf the next hearing on Lhe matter and a notice thcfooC is posted on the door of the hcañng room. no ¡rurther notice of that hearing nced be given. , . i . I .. -I" ,PrelimlnaryPRD-, '....i' Recommendation by fh~ h~g exnnúne~ 1 (11) Gent!rcllly. After con.~dcriog aU ~f Ihe inCOnl1<"\tion" and comment<; subnñUCd on dtc ~Ct, (be hearing examiner shall issue a wciuCQ tCCOtnmCfdation to the city council. I . I (b) Tuning. Unless a (onger period is ~y agreed (0 by the applicant and Ule hearing ex . ere tlte hc."\fing examiner must issue the recomme ion not later than ten working days following concl . ion of all cestimony and hcnrings. , I (c) Dcd.donal critc:ria The hearing exnmin~hal1 use the following criteria in reviewing the prel "tI31)' PRD and may recommend approval of the prel . ary PRD to dlC city council if. "I ( 1) it is consistcnt with the comprehensive pl~; I (2) It is Conj;jstent witlt aU applicable pro~ons of this chapter, including those adop~ by reference [rom the comprehensive plan: I (3) It is con."islcl1( with public health, saft" and welfare: I I (4) Il is consistent with design criteria con~ncd in this article; and, ¡ (5) [t is consistent with tbe developmatt s~cIards listed in sections 22- . I. - I Cd) Collditions and resrricrioll.s. The fl caring examiner shall include in thc wriUen rccomme ..dacions any t:onditions and rosuictions that dIe e aminer determines are reuscmably necessary to eHm ate or minimize any unùcsirable effects of gran~ng the applicõ.\tiun. 1 I (c) CntlU:ms. The hearing examiner shaUl include the following in the wriHen recommendation (o! the citý council: I See. 20.319 Sc~ 20.320 j'J : ~.. :".:':.~i;/,;: ::-::¿~\:~:;";J.~" (1) A statement of facts pres~ntod to the hearing examinor dud. supports his or her rccommcndaIioc, including any condiûon..<; and. ccstrictions dlat are recommended. (2) A staremcnt of the hearing cxumincr's conclusions based on lho.'\C facL". ." (3) A statCQlCD[ of aiteña u.<;ed by tlic bearing examinee in making the recomme~ation" (4) The date of issuance of the recommendation. (f) Disrriburion of written rccomnu:ndation. The di~ of community development services shan dis(rÎbufC copies of the recommendation of lhe hearing examiner as follows: ' . ". '(I) wI!hin Jwo working days after the hcañng examincr~s .~en recommendation is issued a copy will be $CQt co the applicant. each person who submitted written or oral testimony to the. . hearing examiner, and each person who &pecificaIly requested it. (2) Prior to !he public meeting where city council considers we hearing" examiner's recommendation. a copy will be senl La each member of the city 'council The director of community development services shall include a draft re,<;olution that embodies dIe heating examiner's recommendation with a copy of the recommendation. Sec. 20-321 Preliminary PRD - City council review, action. (n) Following receipt of the final report and recommendations of the hearing examiner. a date sha1l be set for a public meeting before the city council. (b) The city council review of the preliminary PRD application shall be limited to the record of Ule hearing before the hearing examinee and'the hearing examiner's written report and for compliance with review criteria set forth in section 20-320. (c) After considering the recommendations of the bearing examiner. the city council may adopt or [cj~ the heming examiner's recommendations based on the record cstablishod at the public hearing. If, after considering tIle maITee at a public meeting, the city council deems a change ìn the hearing examiner"s recommendation approving or disapproving the preliminmy PRD is nece~~ary, (he city council shaH adopt its Own r~commendations nnd approve or disapprove (he prdiminary PRD. 3/26/97 7 -,~ ~. ",... ,~ ~~ "'" . -..- . - (gLt6 ON DrIll) TZ:OT OBI L6/6Z ÇO ...-p """"J' - ~ ~~. ~ ...........~....~. ",,~.~'vY"-'- "-6-'~'~ ~ ",',-,.'.. , '.-.' ¡, :,'.:,:-";'1" I I (d) As part of the final review. (be city coun~il may require or approve n minor modification ,to the preliminary PRD if the city dctamincs that diC.ChangC will not incrca..'\e any adverse impacts or und' irable cffc:cts of dtc project and that the change d e... not significantly alter the projoct. ! I I I Prcli~iDary PRD - Notice o~ dedsioa. . I (a) (;rnf!raL Following (be (11181 dCCiSiOJ1~lb.Y the city council. the director' of community devcl pment services ~i1aU prepare . noâce~ of the citÿ' , final decision on the application. /- - ,-., ,- . .' , I (b) Disrribution. WÎdiin ten wodång da~ '4tCl" thc city council's dccision is made, the, d~[Or of emnmunily dcVelopment secviccs shall d' Ute a c(Jpy.ofthc notice of the final decision as follow : (1) A copy wiU be ~t to the applicant; I - (2) A copY wiU be scnt to any person who SUt'. milled written or ora[ COl1U11CnCS to the earing examiner. D.nd (3) A copy will be SCl\t to each person ~o hac.. specifically requested it. I I I See. 20-323 Prclimin~ PM. JudicIal eYÏew. The action of lhe city in granting or den' ing an application under (his article may be reviewed suant to UIC standards );et forth in RCW 36.7QÇ.13 in dIe King County ¡¡upeñor court. 1åe land use petiú n must be filed within 21 calendar days after the final 1 nd use dcci5ian OfÚl~ city. See. 20-322 I I Preliminary PRO - Duratio~ of approval I I (a) Approval or lhe preliminary PRO by ~e city council sh:1l1 include all conditions. restñctio~. and olher requirementS adopted by the council as~Part of approval. City council approved of a prdimin PRD :;hall not com;titule approval for land cl . jng or grading. vegetation rcmoval. or any other a tivities which oÚ1erwìse require permits from the city. I (b) Prior to construction of improvements øur¡:uant to preliminary PRO approval. engineering dra:~ngs [or puhlic improveme(\(s shall be submitted for rev cw and aflprov~( lo lhe department of public works nd £he Lakchavcn Utility Dis(riet or City of Tacom. public utilities depanmcnL No constrUction or site w rk shall be pcrfunncd unlit final opprovo.1 of all utilitY plans. including storm drainage:. the. payment of aU gertinem , I I Sec. 20-324 fees. and the submittal of performance and maintenance secuñties as may be required. , (c) Prcliminary PRD approval shall expire 24 months from the date of city council approval unless substantial progress has bocn made toward complction of the entice PRD, or the initial phase of dIe PRD, if the pce1iminary approval included phasing. In th~ event the applicant has not made substantial progress towurd complction of the PRO. the applicañt ¡ñay requèst an extension from the planning director. The reque...t for cxten.~on must be submiUt:d 10 lite dc:partmc:nt of community development sccvices at lcast 30 days prior to the expiration date of the pre1iminaxy PRD. (d) In consideñng wh~er to gnmt the extension. -the planni~g director shall coIL..ïda whether conditions in the vicinity of the PRD have ch:Ìngcd to a sufficient degree siñce initial approval to wan-anl reconsideration of the preliminary PRD. . If the planning director deems such reconsidemtioß is WZIITaßtcd, Ii, public hearing snaIl be scheduled and advertised in tf.ccoroancc with procedures for a prclinùnary PRD. . Sec. 20-325 Final PRD - Form and content. (a) The applicant shall file with the department of community development services a final PRD plan containing in a detailed fonn the. infonnation icquircd in for the preliminary PRD application. (b) The final PRO plan must. prosön( aU of (he information required for the preliminary PRD in a finalized, detailed form. This inc1udc.~ ¡¡iLa plans sufficient for recording and enginccñng drawings. AU schemåcic plans presented in (he preliminary PRO plan stage must be prcsöntcd in their detailed Corm. Any items not submitted during the preliminary PRO stage mu.~t be reviewed, and any final platS and public dedication documents shall. also be submiUed al this time, (e) For PRDs which are phasèd. a phasing plan'mall be required. The phasing plan shan de...cribo the general boundarie.~ of each phase and the expected date at which a detailed si(c plan will be submíued for each phase. PROVIDED, however, no project to be developed in phases may exceed five years from the time thc phasing plan is submitted. See. 20-326 Final PRD - Administrative review. The applicant(s) shaLL submit the final development plan lo the director of community development services [or review. If the application meets the minimum requirements as set forth in this chaplcr find is in subscantiaI compliance with (be approved preliminary iJ 3/26/<)7 8 60 'd 22: O! nil!. J_6-62-A\:JW I I, 1 I L'!Z!~f~o_.----- --'-'-r'--- --0------- I . . (8Lt6 ON nI/Y.Ll IZ:OI fUll. ~-JJ ~'-J' PRO development plan, it shall be submiu to dle hearing examiner. The finat PRD developm nt plan shull he deemed sufficiently cor.sistcnt dt dt6 preliminary PRD development plar.. PRO ED. n,ooification by the applicant docs not involve 1 change of one or more of the following: ~i (a) Violate any provisions ofdús chapter; ,I (b) Vary the lot Krell. rcquicemcnts by mori an five pcrccnt~ (e) Involve a reduction of more than five the area reserved for open space; .~ (d) Increase the tarat groul)d area cò;i.~ by buildings by mOr6 (}tan two percent; . ,. (f) Increase density or number of dwelling nits by more tban five percent: and, (g) Change in points of vehicular and/or +' trian access. . ! . II Fin~ PRD - Hcañng ---Jer review. CADI&l (a) The hearing examiner. upon rccciVing~e final PRO development plan and rcconuncndaüons m the director of community development scrn ' shan examine such plan and detcnnine whether it 'nfonns to the approved preliminary PRD developmen~, Ian. If there ic; any significant discrepancy, the tanning commission may permit the applicant to revise c plan and resubmit it as a final development plan thin 90 days; I (b) If the hearing examiner find.. that ilia f¡fal PRD development plan substanliaUy conforms to the . approved preliminary PRD development p an, the ~ ~nl\ftiRg ~Qmmi¥"i"n shall make written find ngs and conclusions recommending approval to the city council. If the -ploolting cQmmisrkm docs not rcc mmend upproval of a final development plan. its specific reasons (or disapproval shall be stated in wc' . ng and made part of the public record as well as pr+nted to the applicant; I I (c) The hearing examiner shall t' ake a r~9Q1mendadon on the final development pl. within ~ C<\lcndar days after the official da it has received the plan from the director of co unity development services. . I I I Final PRO - City council a4tion. I Following formal acceptance, the finb.' I PRO dcvclopmcot plan shall be transmitted to r me: city I I I I I s~c. 20-327 Sec. 20-328 ,j 3/26/97 . .. '; ;,:.;~;;,;:,:.";;.~:s;,~,<,:,,.. CQuncil for final approval. modification or rejection. A{\provals subject to modifications or conditions shall be ngreed to in writing by thc applicant before fonnal acœpcanœ. . Final PRD . Appatl or city couna1 decision. . . The decision approving or disappto,!ing any finnl PRD shall be reviewable pursuanl lo thè standards set forth in RCW 36.21c.130 before (he King County superior CQurt, Standing to bring the action is limited to tlt~ following parties: (1) The applicant or owner of the property on which the,.PR:D. û(V~oposcd; (2) MY 'property owner within 300 feet of the proposal: and . (3) Any proPertY owner who deems him or herself aggñevcd thacby and who will suffer direct and . substantial impacu from the proposed PRD. See. 20.329 ,~ See. 20-330 Final PRD - A mcndlnentci. (a) Minor changes of lot lines or the combination of lots if no new lots arc created or minor changes in location. siting and height of buildings and structurc... . may be authorized by the director of community development services if required by engineering or other ~tances not foreseen at the time the final PRO was approved. No change aulhon7.cd by this subsection may cause any of tho following: (l) A change in the use or charact.cc of the development; -' (2) An incrc3Sc in the overall coverage of slrUcluros; (3) An increase in [he intensity of use; (4) An increase in the number of access poinl" and problems of traffic circulation, (5) An increase in the problems of public utilities; (6) A ~uction in approved open space; (1) A reduction of off-street parking and loading space; and (8) A reduction in required pavement widlhs. (b) AU other changes in use or re.'\rrangement of lots. blocks and building tracts. or any changes in the provision of common open space and changes other than listed in subsection (n) of this section. must be made through a new preliminary and final PRO. 9 . .0 [9Lt6 ON :ru/ll] rz:or OBI L6/6Z gO -"IUJJ '-'(".I' - T lUlu, ... ........,uç",«-« ......c.rc."'J'mc.... "'6-'~'~ .. .0.. ._.~:-:,.::::.:";'";~.;~"t\',~.t~¡;;;..':w.{"..-::::>;;....~. I I Sec. 20-331 ßuHding permit Issuance. F: After n<..'Ccssary aetio.ns by the city council ch as =unlô.. sile pi""" and pia'" bonding pemù~. .y be is$ucd and construction may begin. . I Sec. 20-332 Construction start and comdletion limits, -I If no construction has begun in tho PRD . . 24 monlhs from d\e approval of the final P and recording of d\c documcnts. the approval I lapse and he of no further effect except.,that the city. uncU. b:I..'icd on the recommendation of the ... r of community development sccvicd. upon Sho. 'ag of good cause by !.he apptican(, may extend r two perio(l.. of 12 months each the time for -nning construction. Requests for extensions mu.<;t filed with tha director of conununity de\o-clopmcnt 1 least thirty days prior to the expiration of the pcnnit approval. Upon the expiration of sueb an cxI -ones). the final PRO shall become nun and void. an a new one shall be required for ::my PRO developmen on the subject property. See. 20-334 PRO public services availab ity. (n) The purpose of this section is to a.<;s that PRD approvals arc not granted unless such fuci itics as water lines, sewer lines and streets exist or are immedialcly planned in sufficient quantity tOt.SCCViCC the £Imposed new development. PRO projects hall be so localcd with respect to schools, parks, play rounds und other pubIic facilities that they shall have a cess in the :ml1lc degree as would development in. form generally pennitted in the area; PROVIDED~ that a PRD may be approved if. alternatively:: (I) TIle. d~velopers will provide pñvatc ~úliùcs, facilities or services approved by Utel public agencies which would normally provi4e such utHitie$. fa.cilitie.~ or services as substinftÏßg on an equivalent basis and assure their sati~factory continuing opcration and mai~enancc permanently or ut\til equivalent pubHe ~lililies. r"cilitics or services are available, or ! (2) TIle developcŒ will make provision, a<4eptable to the city, for otTscl1ing any added ne~ public eost Or early commitment of pub1i4 funds l1~cc.<;siL."'1tcd by such development, or I (3) The city is able to make such detc~n3.tions through eXperts acceptable to it :md at t~.. cost of the d~velopers. considering thc diff, cc in ¡¡nticipatcd public installatioCl. opera nand Sf lMintenal1CC COSt.'I, and the difference in anticipated public revenue. (b) PRD projects shan he :\0 located wilh. ~-pcct to major street!; and highways or otber tranSportation facilities that they shall provide direct ~ to such facilities without creating traffic al.oog minor streets in re.~dentia1 nclghbochoods outSide the PRD- .Major ønd minor $trccIS arc dcfmed in the section 22-1525. . 4 .. See:. 20-335 Desicn criteria - GencraUy. . (a) The de.qgn criteria e.'itablishcd within this article shan be U$cd as a guide for an applicant to follow in developing a preliminary and final PRD development plan. . '. (b) Tiíésccriteña shall also be used as the basis for recomm.cñdation. and... decisions reg;arding density increases within a PRD. See:. 20-336 Design crltcña - Required open space. (a) For the purpose of this article, Open sIJace shall be described in the following etttegories: - (1) Usable open spac~- Areas which have nppropñate topography, soils, drainage and size to be considered for development as active rccrcaúon areas. (2) Conservation opt!tt. spact:. Areas containing special natural Or physical amenities or environmentally sensitive reatures. úle conservation of which would benefit ;'\uITounding properties or the community a..'i a whole. Such areas may include, but are not limited to, stands or large trccs. view corridors or view points. creeks and streams. wetlands and marshes, ponds and Ialè:c.<¡, or areas of historical or archaeological importance. Conservation open space and usable open space may be. but are not always, mutUally inclusive. (3) Buffu open .<¡pace. Areas which nre primarily intended to provide separation between properties or between properties and streetS. Duffer open space may. but dues nol I:llways. conl.ttin usable op~n spaee or conservation open space. (4) Severely collsrrain~d open ~'paCf!. Areas Dol included in any or the ahovc categories which. clue to physical characteristics. arc impractical or unsafe for development. Such ar~as may 3/26/97 10 ( ( °d (Ie:: 0 ¡ nHJ }.6-62-^BI~ I I 'I [gL~6 ON YH/Y~] IZ:OI~fiRLJ L6/6Z1~O i I include but are not limited to StOOp rock cscacpmcncs or areas of unstable soils. I . (b) All PROs shaH be required to pmviJc open space in the amoulu of 15 pecœnt of the gr~ land arca of the PRO sitc. i I (c) Any combination of open slh'l.ce typcs~.. ay be UJ;cd to accompli...h lite tolal minimum area ired to be re...crvcd as follows; . . . ,""0"'h'h,:.J.'_'3'¡iA- . :"..d...,...,:..,......w..:...,~ I Open sp.,ce category Percent of gross lafd area I Usable 10% minimwn -I ~ Conservation No maximum or" minimum Buffer 2% maximum Constrained 2% maximum i I I Design criteria.. Single-famil(ý PRD~ ! (a) Lot si2.1! and setback!¡ rt:ducrio1L A -mum reduction of 25 percent for minimum lot - and tðqUiréd setbacks for PROs located in single family (RS) residential zones may De pcrmiucd acCO ing to lhe following partial reductions for designated design criteria. The rcduelÌons arc additive, but in 0 case may they exceed 25 pcrcenr in toraL The cxact mount of each pzU1ia/ reduction is detormincd by the view «ulhority-- See. 20-337 (I) A maximum reduction of 6 percënt ay be grunted if at least 25 percent of thc gro land area of the PRO site is reserved OLe¡ ope pursuant to the guidelines set forth in 20-336(c). An additional reduction of3 (9 percell[ cumulative) may be g..mtod if 35 porcc:.nt is reserved as open space; (2) A maximum reduction of 7 percent granrcd if advantage is taken or cohan nchieved of unu.<:ual or significant sjtc f¡ such as views, watercourses, wetlands 0 naturdl chantclcrisries; I (3) ^ maximum reduction of 4 percent 1a'l be granted by {he use of existing lanelse:! ing or innovative IMdscaping methods for !:crcccseapcs. open spaces. plazas or rcc~üonal urca.<;; and I (4) A maximum reduction of 5 percent ~aY be gralH<:d by {he inclusion of features s ch as variation in building setbacks. harmoni us use I i I i 3' 3/261Y7 ? [ . (f of materials, clustering of buildings energy-efficient siting. or Sec. 20-338 Design cñtcri2. - Multi-family PRDs. ;)-0 a D<:nsit increas~. A ~eusit.Y in~e o@ erccn( grea(~; than that pcmutted by the underlymg 7.01\ y be allowed for PRD:! loc.atcd in mullÌ- family (RM) rcsidcntiaI zones according to d1C following partial density increases for desi,gnated design criteria. 111e eJensity in e add" , ut áO in no case may they exceed 30 percent' tomL The exact amount of each paffla nslty increase is de£ennined by rhe review l1urhority. (1) Amàxinimn increase úf 6 percent may be granted if åt least 25 percenl of the gross land area of the PRD site is reserved as Open :,pace pun.'WU1t to the gdidclincs scl forth in seedon 20-336(c). An additional reduction of 3 percent (9 percent cumutaIive) may be. granted if at least 3S percent is reserved as open space: (2) A maximum increase of 7 percecr may be granted if ndvanl:ige is taken or enhancemonl is achieved of unusual or signific.'U1t site feature.<; such as views, watercourses, wetlands or other natural characteristics; (3) A maximum increase of 4 percent may be gïdJ1lcd by the use of existing landscaping or innovative landc;caping method<; for srreerscnpes, open space..". pla"lo'\S or recre..~(ional 3rCas; (4) A ma:timum increa.<;e of 5 percent may be grantcd by the inclusion of features such as vaIialion in building selbacks, hannonious use of materials, clustering of buildings or e:nc.rgy-cfficicn( siting; and (5) A maximum iner=.c;c of 5 percent may be gïdntcd if II. variety of housing types is provided. (b) Required per¡m~ter buffer lone- A minimum 30 foot buffer zone must be provided for any PRD of multifamily stIUclures in the RM that is adjacent to a RS or SE zoning dh;trict. The buffer zone mu.e¡t be kept free of buildings or structures and must be landscapc<1. scrccnëd or protected by natura! fea{urcs so {hat adverse effects on sutTounding area... are minimi7..ed. Scc. 20-339 Design cñtcria - Streets. (n) Right-of-way width and street roadway widths may be reduced by {he public works director upon a 1/ r7.(11 (1111 1("' ("', "'" I I [8H. ON DIIYL] ~l:.9.!,,1!!!~. L~/.!!Y.~___~---~--~. I finding (hat lite plan for rhe PRD provides flc ~c scpantlion of vehicular and pedesrñan ci~ation pal~s and provides for adequate off-$trccl Pf'dng fac:hllcS. I I ! .-.'-"-.".' .._......._---..o__.----~~~.;..._-,,-...~-~ . . . . .~ . . f '0:.. . '" .. . . /2 jJ' 3/26/97 EI .d SZ:OI nHl L6-6Z-AUU o. . . ".'.0. "-..0"..',--,-,,-,,-----,--.,,- staff Analy is of Subdivision Signs Since the last LUTC meetin the staff has completed a detailed analysis of existing subdi ision signs. Several will be conforming with some small adjustments to the code. Others need several small adjustments 0 the code. The following is a~ analysis of the signs with the Council decision points in bold. Subdivision names are piov'ded as examples within the various proposals. AL. ) Change existing subdiVi~io may be mounted to decorati architectural features". T proposal only: * Adelaide Forest Estates * Redondo Highlands * Viewpointe at Redondo * Viewpointe at Redondo * Campus Estates * Campus Estates * Campus Estates * Campus Estates * Rosella Lane * Stafford Green * Redondo Highlands * Redondo Highlands * Pleasant Hill * The Ridge 2413 * The Ridge 2404 * Barclay Place * Barclay Place * Ridgewood * Ridgewood * Campus Highlands * Campus Highlands * Campus Highlands * Alderbrook . .. sign language to include "wall. signs e walls, fences ¡ "or' other e following 23 ~signs require this 2.POLE SIGNS PROPOSAL: Change existing subdivisio sign language to include "pole signs". Size and height re uirements remain the same. Six signs require this amendment onl : * Wedgewood West * Wedgewood West * Westbury * Sunridge * Birchwood * Randall Lane .: J 3 EDE N P Change existing subdiwï signs". Size and height require this amendment * Marine Hills l 4 E N PR P AL: The current code allo~5 restricted to 32 squar square feet can be use language is changed to per entrance with no approved gnQ second SL of 50 square feet the * Rosella Lane-fence * The Ridge 2412-fence * The Ridge 2403-fence * Alderbrook-fence * Marine Hills-pedes ~ ion sign language to include "pecii:estal requirements remain the same. T-WŒ signs nly: two signs per entrance... Signs are:: feet and if t'W«) signs are used GILly 32 between them. If the subdivision .£ign "Sign area is restricted to 50 square feet e sign exceeding 32 square feet". Tf above at entrance allowed to be a comb2ination ollowing 5 signs would be in comp~ance: 5. SETBACK PROPOSAL: When the subdivision signs were inventDried, city staff approximated the setbë ks using the utility poles, sidew~ks and other public improvemer ts as a guide. Based on that es¡--'lTlate, the following signs ar on the right aÍ way line or do ncJL meet the 5 foot setback liD: The other amendments they need 3Ie in parenthesis. * Redondo Crest (fence) * Adelaide Forest Est<=. es (fence and 5.€cond sign) * 2 Mar Cheri signs (p Ie sign) * 2 Twin Lakes signs « ence) * Birchwood (pole sigrn) * The Ridge (fence) If the Council wishes 0 address signs within the setbacX: area, the following two alte natives are suggested: A. To Section 22-335 ~ nconforming Siçns (f) extension ~~ exemption from amorti::: tion period (4) decisional crite::~a add: (h) subdivision signs - ithin the setb~ck area may be cocsidered for exemption from the amortization period if the sign~. meets the other size, type ~ d height requi::€ments, complies ~~th sight distance requirements nd there is no other feasible lcc3tion for the sign. lj B. To subdivision sign s ction, under location, add: "Subject property setback five fe t minimum unless attached to a fence or architectural feature in which case it can be within the setback area with the Public Wor s Director's approval." Alternative A would reso ve all signs on or within the setþack line. Alterative'B woul only resolve the signs attached.to fences or architectural eatures. 5. RIGHT OF WAY PROPOSAL: At the time of the sign 'nyentory, the sign crew used the same public improvements list d'above to estimate the right of way line. Based on this cri-eria, the following appear to be in the right of way: The other endments they need are in parenthesis. * 2 Twin Lake signs (fen e and second sign). -, . * 2 Stonebrook signs (fe ce) " * The Ridge 2411 (fence) * Campus Woods (pole sig * 2 Decatur Glen signs ( *'sunridge (pole and see result of recent improve * Evergreen Estates (pol * Village Park (pole sig * 2 Country Village sign ) edestal signs) nd sign) appears ents on 21st sign) ) (architectural to be in R/W as a feature) If the Council wishes to provide an alternative for future or existing subdivision sig s so that they can be located in right of way when there is no ther feasible location, the following is offered as code language: ' Add to subdivision signs', location: "The Public Works Director may approve signs within the Right of Way when no other good alternative exists. The ign must meet all other sign requirements and must no pose a sight distance problem. The Homeowner's Association ust execute an agreement to incur all costs and liabilities sh uld the City need the right of way for improvements." 6. OTHER NON-CONFORMING The following signs have conforming and vary subs recommend that they be p meet the code. * Birchwood- pole sign, * century Palisades- pol and height by 17 feet. * 2 Westway signs- pole each. UBDIVISION SIGNS multiple reasons for being non- antially from the current code. We ocessed for replacement with signs that at at primary entrance sign and exceeds are by 112 square feet igns and exceed area by 12 square feet ,\' ~.. To: From: Subject: Date: Land Use and Transportation Committee Kathy McClung Deputy CDS Director Affordable Housing October 28, 1997 MEMORAHDUM Attached is the Planning Commission recommendation for changes to the Affordable Housing Code. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on October 1, 1997. Attachments: 1. 2. 3. Planning Commission Findings Draft Ordinance Staff Report . OCT-23-97 THU 11:24 P.,O2 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY Planning Commission DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: October 27, 1997 CITY COUNCIL ~ ROBERT VAUGHAN, CHAIR PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION UPDATES - ZONING CODE ----------------------------------------------------------------- 1. BACKGROUND The Federal Way Comprehensive Plan contains goals and policies that encourage the provision of housing that is affordable to all segments of the City's population. Techniques including reducing regulatory barriers for siting of special needs housing, participation in assistance programs, requiring residential projects to include affordable units, exempting affordable housing from certain permit fees and other development expenses are suggested for consideration. The City's staff and consultant has reviewed City actions relative to affordable housing over the last several years and have compared those actions to the goals and policies set out in 'the comprehensive plan. They have identified several provisions for review and possible amendment. The intent is to further the City's goal of introducing and maintaining affordability in the City's housing stock. II. PLANNING COMMISSION PROCESS The Planning Commission held a public hearing on October 1, 1997. The City's consultant and City staff provided the Commission with an overview of issues and draft regulatory provisions. The hearing was at tended by several members of the public. 'rhe hearing was devoted to a review of City actions aimed at encouraging affordable housing and the recommended regulatory language contained in the September 23, 1997 consultant staff report. The City's consultant has prepared draft regulation amendments. The drafts are attached to this document. 1 10/23/97 TEl! 11:28 [TX/RX NO 6245] OCT-23-97 THO 11:24 P.O3 I I I. SUMMARY OF AMENDMENTS The following list summarizes the major code amendments reviewed by the Commission during this code revision process. 1. Require new multiple family or mixed use projects involving 25 dwelling units or more to provide affordable dwelling unit:::;. 2. Establish density bonuses for providing affordable dwelling. units as follows: a) Multiple family/Mixed use development: One bonus market rate unit for each affordable unit included in the project: up to 10% above the maximum number of dwelling units allowed in the underlying zoning district. b) Single family subdivisions: In the RS-35, RS-15, RS-9.6, and RS-7.2 zoning districts those lots in a new subdivision which are proposed to contain affordable dwelling units may be reduced in area by up to 20%; provided that the overall number of dwelling units in the subdivision may not exceed 10% of the maximum number of units allowed in the underlying zoning district. c) Duration: An agreement in a form approved by the City must be recorded with King County Department of Records and Elections requiring affordable housing units which are provided under the provision of this section remain as affordable housing for the life of the proj ect. This agreement shall be a covenant running with the: land, binding on the assigns, heirs and successors of the applicant. 3. Repeal Special Regulation #4 in Section 22-831, which requires ownership by a hospital and a location in conjunction with a hospital. 4. Add a new Section 22-836, Convalescent Centers and Nursing Homes, to the OP zoning district use charts. 5. Repeal all code provisions and references relative to hardship accessory dwelling units, ,IV. PLANNING COMMISSION FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS The Planning Commission bases its recommendation of adoption of the proposed amendments to the FWCC relative to affordable housing based on the following findings: 1. Whereas, the City's comprehensive plan stipulates proposed actions to encourage the delivery of affordable housing to all economic segments of the population; and 2 10/23/97 THU 11:28 [TXlRX NO 6245] OCT-23-97 THO 11:25 P.04 2. Whereas the proposed amendments are consistent with the provisions of the Housing chapter of the Comprehensive Plan. 3. Whereas, the Federal Way SEPA responsible official has issued a Declaration of Nonsignificance on August 30, 1997; and 4. Whereas, the proposed code amendments would not adversely affect the public hea¡th, safety or welfare. Robert Vaughan, Chai Federal Way Planning Commission 3 10/23/97 THlT 11:28 [TX/RX NO 6245 ] .OCT-23-97 THO 11:25 P,D5 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON, AMENDING CHAPTER 22, ZONING CODE, REPEALING SPECIFIC PROVISIONS AND ADDING NEW REGULATIONS FOR THE INCLUSION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS. A. WHEREAS amendments to the Federal Way City Code (FWCC) text are authorized pursuant to FWCC Sections 22-216 and 22-217 pursuant to Process IV review; and B. WHEREAS the Federal Way City Council has considered proposed changes to the FWCC regarding specific zoning regulations; and c. WHEREAS the Federal Way City Council, pursuant to FWCC 22-517, having determined the Proposal to be worthy of legislative consideration, referred the Proposal to the Federal Way Planning Commission as a priority item for its review and recommendation; and D. WHEREAS the Federal Way Planning Commission, having considered the Proposal at a public hearing during 1997 on October 1 pursuant to FWCC Section 22- 523, and all public notices having been duly given pursuant to FWCC Section 22-521; and E. WHEREAS the public was given opportunities to comment on the Proposal during the Planning Commission review; and F. WHEREAS the City of Federal Way SEPA responsible official has issued a ORD# PAGE 1 10/23/97 THU 11:28 [TX/RX NO 6245] OCT-23-97 THU 11:26 P,D6 Declaration of Nonsignificance on August 30, 1997; and G. WHEREAS following the public hearing, the Planning Commission submitted to the Land Use and Transportation Committee of the City Council its 'recommendation in favor of proposed zoning text amendments repealing and adding sections to the FWCC as noted; anc~ H. WHEREAS the Federal Way Land Use and Transportation City Council Committee met on , 1997 to consider the recommendation of the Planning Commission and has moved to forward the Proposal, with amendments, to the full City Council; and I. WHEREAS there was sufficient opportunity for the public to comment on the Proposal; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. FindinQs. After full and careful consideration, the City Council of the City of Federal Way makes the following findings with respect to the Proposal and the proposed amendments to the Federal Way City Code (IIFWCC'1): 1. The Federal Way City Council adopted the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan in order to comply with the state's Growth Management Act; and 2. The Federal Way Comprehensive Plan contains policies that call for the provision of affordable housing to all segments of the population; and 3. The Federal Way SEPA responsible official has issued a Declaration of Nonsignificance on August 30, 1997; and ORD# , PAGE 2 10/23/97 THl111:28 [TX/RX NO 6245] OCT-23-97 THU 11:26 P.07 4. The proposed code amendments would not adversely affect the public health, safety or welfare; and 5. The Planning Commission, following notice thereof as required by RCW 35A.63.070, held a public hearing on the proposed regulatory amendments and has considered the testimony, written. comments, and material from the public by and through said hearing. Section 2. Conclusions. Pursuant to FWCC Section 22-217 and based upon the Findings set forth in Section 1, the Federal Way City Council makes the following Conclusions of Law with respect to the decisional criteria necessary for the adoption of the Proposal; 1. The Proposal is consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan goals and policies: A. HP23 Require a portion of new housing on sites of significant size to be affordable to low income households. Ensure that affordable housing is not concentrated in particular neighborhoods by setting a percentage limit to the number of affordable housing units that can be included in new housing developments. B. HP24 Ensure that any new affordable housing remains affordable. C. HP29 Consider delaying, deferring, or exempting affordable housing from development fees, concurrency requirements, payment of impact fees. off-site mitigation, and other development expenses that do not compromise environmental protection or public health. safety, and welfare¡ or constitute a nuisance. 0, HP38 Foster and support services that are not concentrated in particular neighborhoods by setting a percentage limit to the number of affordable housing units that can be included in new housing developments. The Proposal bears a substantial relationship to the public health, safety 2. ORD# , PAGE 3 10/23/97 THlT 11:28 [TX/RX NO 6245] OCT-23-97 THO 11:26 P.D8 and welfare because it implements policies aimed at increasing housing diversity and affordability. Section 3. Amendment. The Federal Way Zoning Code. Chapter 22, is amended as set forth in Attachment A which is attached and by this reference is incorporated herein. Section 4;. The provisions of this ordinance are declared separate and severable. The invalidity of any clause, sentence, paragraph, subdivision, section, or portion of this ordinance or the invalidity of the application thereof to any person or circumstance, shall not affect the validity of the remainder of the ordinance, or the validity of its application to other persons or circumstanèes. Section 5. Ratification. Any act consistent with the authority and prior to the effective date of this ordinance is hereby ratified and affirmed. Section 6. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force five (5) days from the time of its final passage, as provided by law. day of PASSED by the City Council of the City of Federal Way this ,1997. CITY OF FEDERAL WAY MAYOR, MAHLON S. PRIEST ATTEST: ORD # , PAGE 4 10/23/97 THU 11:28 [TX/RX NO 6245] OCT-23-97 THU 11:27 CITY CLERK, N. CHRISTINE GREEN, CMC APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY A TIORNEY, LONDI K. LINDELL FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: "ORDINANCE NO. ORD# , PAGE 5 P.09 10/23/97 THU 11:28 [TX/RX NO 6245] OCT-23-97 THO 11:27 P, 10 ATTACHMEN'l A ARTJ:CLE XI.. DiSTRICT REGULATIONS DIVISION 3. SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RS) Repeal: Section 22-633. Accessory hardship dwelling unit. DIVISION 9. OFFICE PARK COP) Repeal~ Special Regulation #4 in section 22-831. Convalescent CeRtero, Nuroing Homes. Hospitals;- Section 22-836. Convalescent Centers, Nursing Homes. (see attached use chart) AR'l':ICLE X:IJ:J:. SUPPLEMEN'l'ARY D:ISTRJ:CT REGULA'l':IONS DIVISION 1. GENERALLY Section 22-966. Affordable housing regulations. (a) Purpose. To provide affordable housing to the citizens of Federal Way and to comply with the Growth Management Act and the Countywide Planning Policies for King County, (b) Affordable housing defined. "Affordable housing" means dwelling units that are offered for sale or rent at a rate that is affordable to those individuals and families having incomes that are 80% or below the mediañ county income as'- 'established in the Countywid~- Planning Policies. --. .-- (c) Multiple family developments. New multiple family or mixed use projects involving 25 dwelling units or more are requi~ed to provide affordable dwelling units as part of the project. Projects includin~ affordable dwelling unit~._.~~y exceed the maximum allowed number of dwelling units as follows: (1) One bonus market rate unit for each affordable unit included in the pr~jectí up to 10% above the maximum number of dwelling units alloweè!r in the underlying zonin,g... ~.istrict. (d) single family developments. New single farnilx developments in the RS-35, RS-15, RS-9.6, and RS-7.2 zo~~.r:~ districts have the option of providing affordable ._~w~.~.ling units 10/23/97 THl111:28 [TXlRX NO 6245] Uvl-¿j-~I IHU 11:¿~ P. 11 as part of the project. Projects includin~ affordable dwelling units may reduce minimum lot size as follows: (1) Those lots in a new single family subdivision which are proposed to contain affordable dwelling units may be re?uced in area b~ up to 20%; provided that the overall nu~ger of dwelling units in the subdivision may not exceed 10% of the maximum number of uni ts allowed in the underlying zoning , ..- district. ~---- (e) Duration. An agrèement in a form ap~roved by the City must be recorded with King County Department of Records and Elections requiring affordable dwelling units which are prõvided under the provisions of this section remain as affordable housing for the life of the project. This agreement shall bê a covenant running with the land, binding on the assigns, heirs and .. ..--- successors of the applicant. . 10/23/97 TOll 11:28 [TX/RX NO 6245] See. 22-836. Convalescent Centen, Nuning Homes. The following uses shall be permitted in the office park (OP) zone subject to the regulations and notes set forth in this section: USE ZONE CHART DIRECTIONS: FIRST, read down to fmll use. .. TIlEN, across for REGULATIONS MINIMUMS Convalescent centeß, nursing homes. Site plan review. Possible Process I. See Note 1. ~ rI) 3 None. ~ ~ î ~ rI) ¡:¡ ffi ~~ h rI) ~ Ii gjø.. ~ ~ USE '0 00 ~ ... 9 ~ = ~ rI) § ~; 0'> gjgj REQUIRED YARDS ~ See Note 4. 25' 35' 50' 2(1 2(1 2(1 2(1 2(1 2(1 35' above average !Determined on building elevation. a casc-byoQlSC See Noles I &; 5. basis. See See. 22-1376 ct scq. SPECIAL REGULATIONS AND NOTES I. If approved 1hroogh Process I, the height of a structure may cxcccd 35' above average building elevation to a maximum of 55', if all of the following criteria are met: a. The additional height is IICCCSS8I)' to accommodate the particular use cooductcd in the building. and b. The subject property docs not adjoin a residential zone; and c. Each required yard abutting the structure is increased I' for each l' the structure exceeds 35' above average building elevation; and d. The incrcascd height will not block views designated by the COIDJ'I"hcnsivc plan; and e. The incrcascd height is consistent with goals &; policies for the area of the subject property asl established by the comprehensive plan. 2. Front yard setback: 25' ifenlly is visible from ROW. andfrontfacadc is 15% glass; 35' iflandscapc buffer and storm water facilities located in the front yard; or 5(1 if parking and driving areas are located in the front yard. 3. lJndrr this section, this use may include accessory retail sales facilities which utilize no more than 5% ~~~area~~ I 4. The subject property must be designed so that any truck parking. loading and maneuvering areas; areas \\bere noise ~ outdoor uses and activities may occur; and vents and similar features are located as! far as possible from any residential zone. 5. If any portion of a structure on the subject property is within 100 feet of a residential zone, then that portion of the structure shall not exceed 30 feet above average building elevation. 6. No maximmn lot coverage is established. Instead, the buildable area will be dctennincd by other site development requirements, i.e., required buffers, paOOng lot landscaping. SUlÍacc water facilities. etc. 7. For community design guidelines that apply to the project, see Article XIX. 8. For landscaping requirements that apply to the project, see Article XVII. 9. For sign requirements that apply to the project, see Article XVIIl. 10. Rcferto See. 22-946 ct scq. to dctcnninc what other provisions of this chaptcrmay apply to the subject property. -L. For other infonnation about parking and paOOng areas, see § 22-1376 ct scq. See Notes 2 &; 8. Process I, IT and ill arc described in §§ 22-386-22-411, 22-431-22-460, 22-476-22-498 rcspcctively. Site Plan Review is described in §§ 22-361-22-369 For details of what may exceed this height limit, see § 22-1046 et scq. For details rcgardingrcquircd yards, see § 22-1131 ct scq. (Ord. No. 96-270, § 5, 7 -2-96) [O88S ON nI/X.L] tC: IT C"\ L61.t?;160 ( CITY OF FEDERAL WAY Planning Commission DATE September 23, 1997 APPLICANT City of Federal Way PROPOSED ACTION Text Amendments to Chapter 22 of Federal Way City Code relative to Affordable Housing. STAFF REPRESENTATIVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION Don Largen, AICP Planning Consultant McConnell/Burke, Inc, Staff recommends that the Planning Commission use the attached review of the Affordable Housing Policies as basis upon which the Commission develops a recommendation of proposed zoning code amendments for City Council consideration. IN1'RODOCTION A null1bcr of items have been idenrified and prioritized by the City Council for Planning Commission review and recommendation during 1997. One of these items is a review of City policies that encourage affordable housing and respond to GMA mandates. BACKGROUND The GrowLh Management Acr (GMA) stipulated Lhat each jurisdiction must address the issue of affordable housing. In particular the Act states that a city's compl'chensive plan must encourage the availability of affordable housing to all economic segments of the community, GMA places cities in a challenging position telãtive to issues of housing affordabHity. On the onc hand GMA is intcnded [0 preserve those elements of the region which define and contl"ibutc to our overall qua[Üy of life. Continued urban sprawl is considered unacceptable under GMA from the srtmdpoint of: 1) efficient and cost effective provision of urban infrastructure and human services, and 2) protection of our region's natural setting and enVii"OilmetHs. 1n rcsponsë, cities and counties have established urban growth boundaries to contain new development and have adopted environmental regulations to protect areas sensitive to development. 1 20 'c! nr. r r noM J t" h J ,."... _.."..,~:_--.-~ CO88S ON ßIX~) tc: II (' L6/t6l60 ( This action in addition to regulations effecting developable land is likely to constrain the supply of urban lé.U1d over time and. if cconomic principles are correct, this wm increase the cost of Urbtln lund and ultimately housing prices. This is exacerbated by the fact that the Pl1get Sound rcgion has a growing and prosperous economy compared to a great many other places in the country. More people are choosing to live here. which places yet a greater demand on a limited supply of urban land and drives housing costs higher. Maintaining housing affordabllity for a)) segments of the population and providing affordable housing to meet increased demand becomes very problematic in the face of these market realities. t.' ~ .fì What constitutes 'affordability' was established by the Growth Management Planning Council (GMPC) during the formation of the Countywide Planning Policies through recommendations from the Affordable Housing Technical Forum. which contained representatives from most jurisdiction::; in [he county. It is not considered affordable if a household is spending more than 30% of its gross income on housing, Issues of affordability were then defined in terms of two broad economic segments of the population: those with incomes 50% to 80% (moderate income) of the County median household income and those whh incomes below 50% (low income) of the county median. The Countywide Policies establish affordable housing targets for each jurisdiction: of the total forecasted number of new dwelling units. 17% should be affordable to modcnHe income households and 24% should be affordable to low income households. Cities can take two types of actions to deal with this issue: regulatory and programmatic. Rcgulatory actions could include changes in development regulations to al1ow smaller lOts and higher densities, offering housing development incentives. establishing minimum affordabHily requirements for large projects. and different permitting requirements for certain types of housing. Programmatic actions could include housing funding and subsidies, participation in regional housing organizations. and creating or supporting local housing assistance programs. The Housing chapter of the City's 1995 Comprehensive Plan analyzes thcse issues and establishes the City's policy framework. The polìcie.s outline both regulatory and programmatic actions [he City should take in order to address this issue and meet the requirements of GMA and lO be consistent with the Countywide Policies. The City has undertaken a number of these policy recommendations. The purpose of this report is to review the actions the City has taken over the last two years relative to [he policies contained in the Comprehensive Plan and to recommend additional specific actions. Where a particular policy has not been implemented a recommendation is made as to what might be an appropriate City action. REVIEW OF HOUSING POLICIES We have reviewed the Affordable Housing goals and policies found on pages Vl3 - VIS in the City's Comprehensive Plan. We have also reviewed recent actions cuken by the City to implement These policies. These include zoning amendments, updated permit processes, and financinl participation in several housing programs. We have also reviewed the zoning code for consistcncy in dealing with affordabiliry issues. 2 EO'¿ ¡C'¡¡ n~M !Q_h/-J~C [O88S ON ~/Y.LJ tC : TT ('\ L6/t~/60 ( The chart in Attachment IN summarizes the affordable housing policy review. The left hand column lisfS (he goals and policies as they appear in the Comprehensive Plan. The right hand column lists those City actions taken that reflect a specific policy. As can be seen from the chart it appears that a majority of the policies are being implemented by the City through participation in various progrdtns and through amendments to the development regulations- In fact, the City has begun imp1ementing all of the more programmatic affordable housing policies and has demonstrated a commitment to make these efforts on-going. There arc four policy statements that the City has not clearly addressed. All four deal with the provision of new affordable dwelling units (policies HP23, HP24. HP29, and HP38). NEW AFfORDABLE HOUSING UNITS Policies HP23, HP24, HP29. and HP38 all relate to providing affordable housing units in new residential developments. In conjunction, these policies seek to: a) require affordable units in significant sized new development~, b) ensure they are not conccnrrated in one area by establishing a percentage limit for each development, and c) ensure that the affordable units created stay affordable. If the City is going (0 require affordable units in new developments, then there should be some type of bonus system in place to compensate for the loss of market rate units. Thjs is typically done with density increases, usually equating to more unit') in multiple family projects and smaller lots sizes in single family subdivisions. Another approach would be to make providing affordable unir$ optional with itlCêh.tíves such as those described above. However. our experience suggests that making it an option rather than a requirement rarely generates any new affordable units- For example. Bellevue originally required affordable units in new developments and under that provision approximaLely 125 units were developed over several years. A new city council changed that provision making it optional and since that time no new affordable units have been created. RECOMMENDATION: Require affordable units in new residential 'developments under the following provisions: A. Affordable housing units shan be required in: 1. new multiple family or mixed u~c projects that have 25 or more proposed units, and 2. new single family subdh-isions that 2S or more platted lots. B. Density bonu.o¡es for affordable units will be as follows: 1. M\dliple Family Development: One bonus market rate unit for each affordab1c unit included in the project; up to 15% above the maximum den~ity allowed in the underlying zoning district. 2. Sincle Family De,.-clopment: Those lots which are proposed to contain affordable units in a new subdivision may be reduced in area by up to 20% of 3 170 'd 7~:II n~M IR-Þ7-rl~~ CO88S ON :nI/X~] tc=n f'--'~ L,6/H/60 ( the minimum lot area required by the underlying zoning district; except that this provision does not apply to projects in the RS 5000 zoning district; and provided that the ovcrnU density of the subdhision does not e.'I(ceed 15 % of the maximum permitted in the underlying zoning district. C. Duration: An agreement In a form approved by the City must be recorded with King County Department of Records and Elections requiring affordable housing units whidt arc provided under the pro\ision of this section remain as a1'Cordable housing tor the life of the project This agreement shall be a covenant running \\ith the land. binding on the assigns. heirs and successors of the applicant. ZONING REVIEW An underlying goal of the City's affordable housing strategies is to increase [he housing choices available throughout the City. This often means allowing different types of housing to be built in more locations, Often zoning requirements have unintended barriers to being able to provide more locations orrnixing of differing housing types. . Recognizing this the City has taken several steps to increase affordable housing choices and locations through zoning modifications. Amendmencs include the foHowing: . Adoption of an acccssory dweUing unit ordinance which allows an additional unit on existing single family properties with development suidelines, The Comprehensive Plan forecasts that up to 1,700 accessory units could be developed over the next twency years. It is assumed that many of these units will be affordable, Rcmoved (he c~quircment for ground floor retail for seniol' housing projects in the City Center zone. This has resulted in 385 senior housing units in the City Center; 300 of which arC: nffordablc. . The City is also currently reviewing subdivision code amendments that also address affordable housing availability. The proposed amendments include Úle following: . Establishing a Planned Rcsidential Development (PRD) process which include provisions for: a. zero lot lines b. smaller lot sizes c. mixed housing types d, use of density bonuses. Reduction of certain open space requirements in smaIler subdivisions. This reduces costs and !>hould allow for an increase in housing supply. Allowing the short plat process to be used for projccts having up to nine lots (formerly four). This slreamlines permitting and reduces costs. . . The Ciry Council has idcmified anothcr regulatory barrier for possible change or deletion. In the OP zoning district, convalescent centers and nursing homes are allowed only if they are: a) on or 9O'd 4 Z£:II G3M L6-ÞZ-d3S [O88S ON Xtl/X.l] tC:TT """'M ( L6/H/60 ( adjacent to a property containing a hospita1, and b) arc owned and operated by the hospital. In order (0 allow for more flexibility in locating convalescent centers in this particular zone, these Lwo provisions could be removed and convalescent centers and nursing homes be made a separate line item in the use charts in the OP zoning district. RECOMMENDATION: A. RCl)cal Special Regulation #4 in Section 22-831, which requires ownership by a ho!ipital and a location in conjunction with a bOSl»itaJ. B. Add a new Section 22-836, Convalescent Centers and Nursing Homes, to the OP zoning district use cha.rts, In reviewing the zoning code there is a provision for 'hardship accessory dwelling units', By definition a hardship accessory dwellinguflit requires a demonstration of a healLh conditIon that r~quirðg ån individual reside on the same property as the care giver, usually a family member. This provision pre-dates the City's most recent mnel1dmentS all owing accessory dwelling units in generaL There is a clause in the hardship accessory unit provisions that require the unit be rerr~oved after there is no longer a need to provide care to the person on-site. There js no such 'sunset' clause in the more recent accessory dweIling unit regulations. Adoption of the reèent accessory dweJljng unit regulations make the foroleT 'hardship' unit regulations obsolete; moreover, they may conflict with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan relative to long term affordability. RECOMMENDATION: Repeal 011 code provisions and references relative to hardship accessory dwelling units. CONCLUSION In the two years since adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, the City has taken substantive steps to implement the affordable housing policies. This has been achieved through on-going participation in several housing assistance and maintenance programs and through several proposed and acrual amendments to the City's development regulations. This review has identified a few additional steps the City can take to implement their policies and ensure that the issue of affordable housing continues to be a priority in the. City's growth. 5 90 '¿ EE:!! a~M )R-Þ~-~~S [OBB!; ON :nI/X~] L6/t6/60 tC: II ('\ Attachment A ( 1995 COMPRWI£NSIVE PLAN POUCIES (pg. V13-VI5) CIT\' A<'ïION HG4 Develop a range of affordable housing opportunities for low incomc groups consistent with Countywide Planning Policies and the needs of Ihe community. ------------------------------------------~------------------- HP2t ('ron,orc (air housing :ao;o;c:.ss 10 all persons without disailmnalion.. . 1996 Hum.'n Sc:rvlce$ Plrm: conm!ns ~ommcndarlons tot ine~¡in¡ bowoing eholce;S Cor :a bm.,d runge ot Qrc:u1ll$t:lnCC!l, . Enforcement of' existing CIty. Stø.te., and PcdcraTl\nri-dIscrimlnlLtion IjLWS. .1;; - th'cc~p~sfv"è -pi;;; -.ï; -r;, ¡;ï --- -- residentlPl capacity ofrhe city ",,"c""'¡s me household r:araet nu1,'tI established ill the CounrywlcJc Policies. ., i ï ¡;"2"2 .' ;;':~':;;'~ ~;; ;¡;ï b Ÿ ë~;;; ~ÿ;'i J;P i~-;rdng p 711 clcs, ~ In ~"7u mcl-;;;~' i~d;;p ply -=-ïíhi-;-- rh" City to accommodate 17 pcro:t1t of die City's projCCÞ::d net household gruwrb for rhose m:.Jcing :;0 to 80 porçenr of Kin¡: OIunty"s mcdi:m incoIDe and 24 ~t mukins less than SO percent of medlnn Income. "Hj~23--;R:~;i;;i~';.¡;;;~¡~;;~t.;~w hou!ling on sites of sig;;¡fi~~t si%C to be ~ordllbl~-t-;;ï;;:;'-- inenmc hollsclluld~. . [¡nsun: that afford.\blc: housing Is Dol c:onccotnited In p:utlcular neighborhoods by ~"uing a pc:rc:cnUlgc limit to the numbu of AffonJ"ble housing unhs that c;u¡ be included in new housing developments. -------.---------".---..-'-'.'.. -- Nu Acrlon . .....,-.... ...." ................ .....- -- ---"--'..-----------"'.'-- .-....---..-. ....--------------.-- ------.....-.. ."'-.-.. ..-. H1'24 Ensure thut ony new affordable housing remains affordablo, No Actiun ...Í:ïp25.'^ïi;;~;;;;;;¡-;~"e~~g.;-,;;;~.T~~;¡¡~¡:;;t;-~-¡;g ir¡ ;;;¡~-;;~i;;¡-;;';;~;;;;;¡d~lï-'.-' Th:;ëilý~~ïy all~;,-,7.~;;;;f';;ñ;~d-"..'.. c:onrOl'l1I ro allllpplicl1ble Fedcml, State, and lo..-ul rcquiremçnts And is cuUlpilúble with homes on indivlduallocs in re~identilll zone!! the chnrncrcr of rhe surrounding neighborhood. wlrh design critcrilL . "ii- P 26 . . ï; . ~~d:; . i~ .; ;; ;¡;;; ;ï~'~~6n g "a fë~;'¡; ¡;;ï;; ';:'1 n ¡'ïhc ci;ÿ -;h~~ i;j -~~;d~~~-; ~ï~;;;'.- - .-- ..~ i~ iI~g .~üfa~ iëdT\;;~;;' - ¡;¡.¡~'~" .....-.. ... m"nllractul~dhurne pW'1cs In cxl!ltlng loc:luOftS. However. new manufactured horne aHowed to be maÏntainexl. (.oç¡¡t<:u "'nly in pnrb will flOt be pctm¡ued. nor will cl'ansion of exisûng park& be .!lowed. the RS 5.0 :wnins distric:!. .. H .ñ7' "p; ~ ~ ~ i¡ '~;':g-::. .~ ~ -;;" .;:;~ ¡';j;;;:;¡ ;¡-.¡;;- vc I 0 p~hi -;~ ~¡;;;;';;Iï;;~¡;i ~d;;i iÿ.j;" ';;;;';¡'- ..~¡"š tin ïi. ;;id~ïï:J ¡;;-:iëkët"likdy r;;¡:;; ~. .. .. on lIel building area. new development co be 01 (he IDtUlimum IIlIowed dénshy. 'ï:¡¡;2.š.'.Ë;ï;i:;~.I;~d-';~:'Š~~'b:~;;dï~~;ï;;;;~~; to assist iitfi~;;;ncl~g~ïl:~~;¡;ï;h~~~¡;g:'.'."'.' Ent:ollr¡¡gc e(pilmlon ofhomc ownership options through meh rncalt5 lIS fiCHt dme hollle buyer progr:un~. housinG coopcr"atlves, lc::1$e.pur<:hllSC ownen:hip. alld oLh"r housing Illodcls. . .¡; ;;~¡d ë(i(Üñëii jig"w. iïi; "iiöiñë - š ítë.ri~ jitå'¡ ii ,.... which providc., :lSsist!\nee lO finot limo hor\1~. buyertõ, Home buyer cduc:>tion nnd down pnymcnr assisrnnce are provided. .ìïp"2"9'" ë":;; ~~'i d ~.~ 'd~i ; ÿi~ ~ï;:. ¡¡~.é ~;;¡;;- g~~~ ~x-; m piï~ g'; ëi~;;¡;;¡;1 ~"h;;~;iï~g "ê~';'d;~ ~¡ ~¡;;;~.~'f~~':" - ..... -,., -' - .. .... -... -.. - - - ........ .. -,. ..,.... - .. .... ....... .. .-.. concurrcncy rcqlli('Cmcllts. payment ofimpnCf (",.e¡. off-she mh:ig<1rion. nnd oth"r No Action dc~clopu"'nt elt1Cn!!c!l char do not eumpcomlse environmenrPl protection or public he"IIIt, saft:ly.lUld w..:lrarc, or consûrule a nuisance. ".:ir 3Ö" š'~i;¡;;;;: .i~ ~ï;;';~~;¡rü~~(~."ih;;¡ï;:;;¡dc-reiiëë t~.;ill~~bït¿~:;d-¡~~i~'~~ë~' -..... ...- - 'This W¡U;;';::-;;;:;¡;-;ñSü r: h fis~;;.;;;;;-b~f~¡;;""" housing. tbe County Council at S(MI!¡ Lcgislalun:. ., ¡:¡jij. ï.j d;; ~ iifÿï~'~-¡~~öj;~ï~(jü$¡j;~. ;;~-;;;;t~t';;~ÿï;ï ö;l':¡;;¡;;'~~d~;i;;P;~;;;;;- ;... ...., ......, dereriorating huu.sing conditions. De"~lop stralCgics that seek to pn:¡;ervc existing low in"Ulllc housing. and rhor seek to provide rcToc:¡tion tlSSislnnce to hou$eholds rhat """ dis(llnecd:>.' " rcsulr of such activltics. .........................-..,..............................-...,.......................--.-...,......,............................,.......,.................,.... Hrn Anuuillly monitor rc~idcn(inl development to dercrmine the toral nun,bcr of lIew 6.nd redevc¡,'pcJ units r"civing pcrmirs and units cnn.'rnlcted. housing type.., developed dclisiti".. and rcmnjning c.pacity for residentil) srowth for a\1 income levels and 1I<.."Cds. ".. w~-;¿ÿ' ï ;~;cÏ~-i ~~Î>~~.;;.;':;.;;~ i;;~ ~......... provides moncy to home ownel'$ fOr winor 1'epai~ und m:únfennl\C", . Cnnfrncrs rhrough King Cnunry to provide fullu" for hnu!!lng rcpnirt for low:1nd moderate income housing. .'Th;..a ï:; . ¡;t~ ~.i d~.~ .~ .ÿc;; iÿ' 'ù.p ïJ;;i~' ~. ¡¡;~ - K ¡ ~ g'" Count)' Bencltrnarlc Progl":lm, which monitors region.,1 bou~ing .upply. Performed chrough review of permil!!. No foml:t1 monitoring progrnm in place. . '.HP:\:; '" i ~ ; ~~~¿¡:';' ';;;;;;'~.;;;;;'dï;;¡.,;.~. ~~';;~i;;;~i¡;;;;-';(¡;;;¡;í¡cl~ë;;;"-;;;~-~;';';¡; ¡; .~ri~ ;;;~-d~~~i~¡;;;~~-;";". '"Ã;;;;;;;;;;;; ;;d.~7~.d.;¡;~;;~'h ~~¡~~'¿r:;¡ ¡¡iIŸ'" .. . m_._- to minimi7.c hou~ing cosrs whc:revc:r possible or prlLetielible. scrviœ connections and through GMA conculTency ~cqtlirerncnls. LO'd ~~:rr n~M JR-Þ?-~~~ [Oggg ON ~/X~] te:n ( .l.6/H/60 ( Attachment A Has Develop n range of housIng opportUnItIes [bat meet the requirements ofpcoplc with special housing needs, including the elderly, mentally ill, victims of domestic abusc, and porsons with dcbilitnûvc conditions or injuries. ------------------------------------------~-------------------- HI>34 Remove eX1stinB rcjJulalory burieD to silin8 special needs housing 10 avoid The pcnnittin; pcocc~~ fur vllriou.~ speci».l !:onCC:IlII-.alioll ¡¡lid to e,&sure uniform dh1rlblllìon throughoul ».II rcsldcndal and mixed ncc:ds housing is now udminillrdlive. with u$C zones. subJccl (0 pccformance slôUIdatds that prole<:l residenlial BlIIenily. ensure dcvclopmcnl srnndi!fds am! ¡,:uidcJines. proper :access. and m:IÏnt:lin design sl:md:ards. Guidelines in.:lude a required 1,000' ~[I8f11rion from similnr fncilitiCf, .. .- - - - ...-.... - -.. - - - - - - -- - - - - - ---.--- -- - --... '." -...- - ... "'"-' -- -" - -- -, - ..,- - ,---- -.. -.. - -- - - .-. - - - -- - - - - - --- - - .. HP35 Review permit :applicalions (or special needs housing in <:I""e c:oonlinulion ,.,jib sCI'VÍcc A norml>! part of Ihe pe"ni, proCCS$ locql1jrcs providers and me CII)"s Human Services progrnm. drlLlÌlcd di~cl"5un= of me service to be provide<!. and requires thul providers u.re appmprb.lcly licensed. ".lïp)6"^~~'¡';~ï:;;;¿ì~:';~¡;;;.;;i;';iï~~;';~d;;¡ë¡;;ip;~~p;.; oblain funding and support. . ^S$isúT';-¡:~~~¡¡~gi~~~¡:;;;;;;;;;~~t;.r~ï<¡"¿g.._. County Hou.ing Au\hority l",its localed in Ihc City. . Pruvidcs funds to lhe Emller Sc:lIs SocietY to modlCy unlß for people wllh diS:JbIllUcs: ..H'pj:;'(!~~'~;~-ili;i~";~;;U-~"šp~~¡åi nccd;~;;~gi;'p;~-;i;i;d.;ï~hoUt discñmination. ^ssis~d in"r;;;d¡~g'2'~~¡¡;;.¡~.(h~'Ãïõš'-"-."'.. Iiollsing l'1'Ojecl. HG6 Develop emergency shelter and transitional housing facilities for [he homclc!ôs. ------------------------------------------------------------- HP311 Po~'er :mll Jõupport JlCrvic:es rlt:O'lJrc nol conc<:nrcnrcd in p.micolar neighborhoods by ""lIin¡:" l"="""n"It.:~ limit II) Ihe number of IIrrurJnbl~ housing uni... thltl can be No Action included in new housing developmentö. . ¡;n; ÿ j ~;ëa 'C\'-~; j ¡~gí~.lh;' - ë~;¡;;¡¡;g' Ñ;;i ;;;; ~k- -. to purc:h:1le 4 c:ondominiull> u\ilS. wilh 11 another recommended for J 998, for [fangjrionnI hou.,ing. ....-.........-..-..-.-..-.-.--......-....--.....--....-..-.....-.............'.'..'.'_00'...."'..-.---'.----------- -"""'---.'....".."""""'."'.""..............,......-............. H>40 Conlinue: 10 pcrmÍl emergency Ilnd tr:msilion:¡\ homdess C:u:ilities within !he City. The;e rl\cililÌe~ ~ IIIlowcd outright in residenlitd :wnes Wi long os me number of people Ilccommod:'\led is no more !hnn five people, , . 'j.j'P 4 ï - Ë~ ~~; ii;; ~'~ÿ' ~hcl; ~';"; ~d'; ;;;~;¡~ ï ;; ~;ï ïl-O~~¡ ~g ..; h ~ ~ i"d ï;~. ;~ g ~; ¡; ;~~ït;;. ~~ cld ~ ~ ~~ ¡;;;;¡ ~ ~". ,. c;; ~ ~;;;;u.;;T; ;~.. ¡~. ¡;; ¡;¡ ~i ~;i' i ¡; ;:;; ~ iiii ëi~~' Ü Š ë'~ ¡::~... (Or «><:ililie$. l\\i(il;:l\l<: impõlcr ull stltroumling uses. CtUiurc !hIlt such housing is properly 1.000' SepilCl\lÌun tC'quircmcnt. Development mttlmgcd. nnd avoid significnnt impl1cls on exÏ5ling residenûal neighbomoods. slandlU'd.!: eonlrol facility tlcvelopJlwnt. .. îï ¡; 3;;' . C ~~ ;';¡i~;-';; -ë ii ÿ'; ..:iï;; ;;;~ lilted wh ~ ~~;:~ ~~;;; ¡ ih d;~' Ci ~:-~ïi;;;;-";;'~;:;~;----'- I'rogr:un :ond other shelter providers Coordinate and integrate [he City's program with othcr area housing and sQ-vÎce providers, ------------------------------------------~------------------- Hr42 I'ulici.... ¡\IIU ",gulilti"l1~ rchllcd lO ufforùubie housing should be eonsi"lenl with The go..ls ..nu 1'0lici~ Set furlh in the Counlywide Ilnd Inulll-eounty policies, Compn:h.:nsive Plan "n'" the Human Services Pilln a.re eomistt:r¡r wilh regional housing pollcics, Has .. ï ï ¡;:; ; .. Ïi.~.¡;:¡; i ¡ ~h' ~ i1:~:;.; i~~ Ï ¡ ~ ;;.;;¡ ;; Ï<i ~ ~ 'ë ~~~~ÿ .;.;;ï~; ¡; ~~.~.~;. . ~ i; ¡~~';~.~;;;~. ~';d ';: ~d" , ... "".' .:rcarc holl~ing opponunities for low income and special needs householda. and d.:vc:lop I' ho..sing prognun thu.t addresses issue.< eommon throughOUl the c1\ti!'l rc¡!lOn. . 'Th-;;'êTi;: '¡;;: .¡;~: g~¡;;'~-i.;;;;~i~;';;~;;ï .;¡ih'.' ..,..... Killg Counly un housing is~ues. Severn) of Ihe progr:>.n\O dc~criu.:ú in Ihis lable are impl~lnenled whh the Colllny. "ï-j? :W'.:~ ~hj;;;;~. ;~. ~ ~;;j ¡;¡bi ¡I;;; .;;f'f~ ~~:.p;~'i~-i.p;ï~ ¡;;. ili~ï;~;¡ ~~¡¡:;;;.;:;;d.~;;-:j¡~'~¡;;¡~;~' ;;¡ ~.. .... "sï':;~'¡:';'~"ë;;;;;ï;æ hë¡;si ~~.pi ;;;;' -;;";;;' ;;J ~¡;l~d".'" ho"$in¡: ~~us aSS«>SlIIenl for Ihc City ø.nd region to ensure m:.r policy is based IIPOII ô1 ju.1 2 Yelll'5 Ilgo it m~y be roo 5001110 upd"l~ rnrìon:lJ cvlliunlinn or "ousing needs and priorili~. the housing n~ds O$$CSSInCnl. ... ~ï¡;^~-' ï;'~;;;;~' ~q~; i;.;bï~';.;:d ;~;¡~.~;;¡ .:11 ;';;¡ ï;~;¡ ~~ .'~rï ~:::;¡;:~.~.;;;';;;d.;;ff~ ;ð~ ¡;i~.h;;'~ ¡~g'..'.".'."'" " Th~" .ë~.;;~ ~ ;;;¡;~~~ i~~' ¡;i~';;;;~id~~~ i;;'p;"ï~.lï ï'" .. Ibroughoullhc rcgion Ihat is compatible with II",J use. ImnsputtJlIion. and employmenl re~u(¡l(ions use lu"l\lion..1 crircri" cor¡SiStCl\l lo.::,tlions. with equil:tble regional dislribution. -. 2 90 'd ÞE:II 01M )R-Þ~-rl1~ CITY OF FEDERAL WAY MEMORANDUM DATE: October 29, 1997 TO: Phil Watkins, Chair Land U seIT ransportati on Commi ~ \ Jeff Pratt. Surface Water Manager ~ \j SWM Emergency Pump Purchase FROM: RE: Background: During the budget cycle for the 1997/1998 Biennial Budget, Council appropriated $35,000.00 for use in the purchase of a large diesel powered water pump. The pump is intended for use in the emergency response and flood control activities of the Surface Water Management division. Bids have been solicited and received for the two major components of the purchase: the pump/engine, and the pump trailer. Two bids were received for the pump/engine: Vendor Prime Equipment Granich Engineering Bid Amount $22,851.21 $25,847.00 The Prime Equipment pump did not meet the advertised specification and was eliminated from consideration. Three quotes were received for the trailer: Vendor VR Sales Signal Trailer Sales Freeway Trailer Sales QyQœ $3,578.37 $3,637.01 $4,045.35 VR Sales is the lowest responsive, responsible bidder at $3,578.37. The low responsive and responsible bidder for each is: Total $25,847.00 $ 3,578.37 $29,425.37 Pump/ engine Trailer Granich Engineering VR Sales Recommendation: Staff recommends award of the bid to the lowest bidders on each of the major components. Staff requests that the committee forward this item to the City Council for their consideration during the November 5, 1997 meeting. IP k:1utc\buypump.lut CITY OF FEDERAL WAY MEMORANDUM DATE: October 30, 1997 TO: Phil Watkins, Chair Land Use/Transportation commitx,\ \ Jeff Pratt, Surface Water Manager \~ SeaTae Mall Detention Phase n - 30% Design Status Report FROM: RE: Rackuound: As you are aware, the above referenced project is budgeted and under design with construction intended for 1998. However, due to various problems associated with property acquisition Phase IT construction is likely to be delayed until 1999. Recall that Phase I of the referenced project is the already designed and approved improvements which begin at approximately S333rd Street and terminate in a large regional storm water control pond to be constructed upon the Belmor Mobile Home Park property. Phase I construction is scheduled to begin in the late spring of 1998. Phase IT of the proposed project improvements consist of replacing and up sizing approximately 3,700 feet of 18-to 48-inch-diameter interconnected pipeline between South 324th Street and South 316th Street. This pipeline system conveys flows originating as far north as S.3l2th Street and services approximately 237 acres of intensely developed properties in the City Center core and frame SeaTac Mall and SeaTac Plaza. Phase IT improvements also contemplate conversion of the large non functioning storm water retention/detention, located in the southeastern comer of the SeaTac mall property, to a water quality facility. The following provides a brief synopsis of the progress on the phase IT project to date. Currently, the project design is estimated to be thirty-percent complete. Included in this estimate are the following completed tasks: . The topographic surveys . The Geotechnical Investigation . The Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) . SEP A preparation and project permitting . Preliminary layout and design Ongoing tasks include: . Facility design for both the upgrading of the existing conveyance systems and converting of the existing SeaTac Mall detention basin to a water quality treatment facility. . Property negotiations Two issues which have a major budget impact have recently come to light. The first issue involves a pipe alignment modification requested by the owners of SeaTac Mall. The alignment modification will facilitate construction of a large multistory parking facility on the east side of the Mall. Unfortunately, the proposal will increase the cost of the City's project by an estimated $130,000.00. Another issue which has presented itself recently involves contamination of the subsurface soil and water in the vicinity of S32Oth Street and the Mall's easternmost entrance. The contamination was discovered during the subsurface investigation activities associated with the project. The contamination consists of pollutants normally associated with underground storage tanks used for fueling operations. We have notified the Department of Ecology, ARCO, and the Mall owners and are currently working with them to resolve the issue. At this point the estimated cost of the cleanup necessary for the project to move forward is approximately $350,000.00. Note that the both the costs associated with the realignment and the costs associated with cleanup have the potential to be recovered from parties other than the City. However, for purposes of this presentation the project budget status report includes both scenarios, Le., costs not recovered and costs recovered: PrQject Element Cost Comments Planning and Design $ 300,000 Construction $2,628,000 includes 20 % contingency and $130,000 realignment cost Construction Management $ 200,000 Total $ 350,000 $3,478,000 Hazardous Waste Cleanup Appropriated Budget $2,827,835 Budget shortfall without cost recovery $ 650,165 $ 170,165 assumes 130,000 + 350,000 = $480,000 recovered from others Budget shortfall with cost recovery Staff is not requesting a budget adjustment at this time. Rather, we suggest that the above estimated costs will likely be refined as the design, the mutual agreements, and the extent of contamination are further refined. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the committee authorize staff to proceed with design and property negotiations returning to the committee at the 85 % design completion stage for further reports and authorizations. cc: Project File Day File K:\SWM\PROmcrS\SBAT AC\PHASBß3 .LUT DATE: TO: FROM: RE: CITY OF FEDERAL WAY MEMORANDUM October 29, 1997 City Council Land Use/Transportation Committee Phil Watkins, Chair Margaret H. Clark, AICP, Senior Planner Status Report on the Enchanted Parks Annexation The following is a status report on the Enchanted Park annexation per Chairman Watkins' request. I. II. BACKGROUND In February of 1995, the City of Federal Way received a 10 percent petition to annex certain property. The area within the ten percent petition is generally bounded by SR 161 (Enchanted Parkway), Interstate 5, and the existing City of Milton limits (Exhibit 1). On March 21, 1995, the City Council held a public meeting at which the council accepted the 10 percent annexation petition and authorized the circulation of the 60 percent petition. At that meeting, it was decided that a Concomitant Zoning Agreement (CZA) would be utilized for the Enchanted Park property. This agreement was intended to allow for flexibility while protecting the environment. The remainder of the properties would utilize the interim zoning and comprehensive plan designation process. During the comprehensive plan adoption process which culminated with the adoption of the City of Federal Way Comprehensive Plan in November 1995, all properties covered by the ten percent petition were given permanent comprehensive plan designations and as part of the adoption of the August 1, 1996 City of Federal Way Zoning Map, the properties were pre-zoned. The Enchanted Park property was pre-zoned Office Park 4 (OP4) and the remainder of the properties were pre-zoned residential Suburban Residential (SE), Single Family Residential (RS 7.2), and multi-family RM 3600 (Exhibit 2). However, no development standards were established for the OP4 zoning classification within the city zoning code. A sixty percent petition received on October 27, 1997 covered only that area north of 369th Street (Exhibit 3). FUTURE TIMING AND PROCESS Please refer to the attached timeline for future timing and process for the annexation (Exhibit 4). City Council Land Use/Transportation Committee October 29, 1997 Page 2 III. MAJOR POINTS OF THE CONCOMITANT The Concomitant includes the following major points: 1. It covers all existing development within the developed area of the park shown on Exhibit 5. All new development will be subject to regulations in effect at the time of project application. 2. It proposes the upgrade of perimeter landscaping around the existing developed area (Exhibit 6). 3. It proposes to include a 11.47 acre parcel in the south to be developed as a parking lot with approximately 1,100 parking spaces. 4. Drainage improvements included within the concomitant will Improve existing drainage conditions on-site. 5. It proposes that for any expansion, modification or relocation of existing commercial recreational facilities or addition of new commercial recreational facilities, within the developed area shown on Exhibit 5, there would be no requirement to meet FWCC, Article Iv. Nonconformance. 6. A baseline of 2,000 parking spaces will be retained at all times. As additional development is proposed, parking based on city requirements will be added. 7. Signs except the 75 foot free-standing sign will be subject to the amortization provisions of the sign code and a new provision will be included which allows one regional high prome freestanding sign. City Council Land Use/Transportation Committee October 29, 1997 Page 3 IV. MAJOR POINTS OF THE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS FOR THE OP4 ZONE 1. It sets up development standards upon which new development will be based, except as agreed to in the concomitant agreement. 2. It uses the existing Office Park (OP) zone as a basis for permitted uses and development standards and adds the following permitted uses!: A. Regional Commercial Facility B. Hotels on a parcel not to exceed five acres C. Restaurants D. Retail sales not to exceed 100,000 square feet, except there would be no restrictions on retail on Parcel Q (Please refer to Exhibi~ 7 for location of Parcel Q). E. Caretaker Residence F. Accessory Uses G. Temporary Uses 3. It allows one regional high profile freestanding sign meeting certain standards. 1 The existing King County zoning for the site is Regional Business (RB) which allows a wide range of comparison retail, wholesale, service and recreational/cultural uses with compatible storage and fabrication uses, serving regional market areas. 1:\ENCHTEDW\BRIEFLUC.WPD/October 30, 1997 V I ,(/) w > <C -' (l ~ s .-- w > <C RE:CËI e- FtB 2 3 95 0 .-- cD (f) .-- 364 Way U1 w > « co N E s ~e, ~o~ 'I, City of .}. ~ "r \; (y C:; ---- ~l - I ! B ........... . ~ . --- .", a -, S 0 S - ! MliltO~~IBIT 1-. GE 1- OF -1 ORIGH\IALPA .."" ~.:~~ -" . 1 ~ ~ --'" I ..-- I ~.. 1 .1_- .,. i¡J~) ~,.. ~ S. 36Oth ! en uj ~ £ CO N Nt If.o 4'" ./ () o"r ~4:' ~ I::: i;:! ~ - - ---.,- - - "--.--~I Milton -- -"1 I I I --- ---------.- KIng Count)' ---------,-- PIerce Count)' II i PAGE 1.. OF :1. Proposed Enchanted Park Annexation To the City of Federal Way ~ final configuration of thls.propOSed annexation is subject to change. For any annexation. signatures representing at least 60% of the assessed value must be gathered. .. . Legend: .. . . .... .. .. City of Federal Way Enchanted Park Annexation Area .. . Vicinity Map ~ale: 1 to 6480 1 Inch equals 540 Feet 0 Map Date: May 19, 1997. City of Federal Way, 33530 First Way S, Federal Way, WA 98003 (253) 661-4000. IT 3 PAGE i OF .1 ~ f4 .«1'~ ~ ~ = GIS DIVISION This map is intended for use as a graphical represontation ONLY The City of Federal Way makas no . warranty as to its accuracy. ;g~ G):c m- ID ~- -I 0 -nIL. ~ 10/28/97 SEP A Issued 2/9/97 BRB Makes a Decision Annexation Complete "NOI - Notice ofIntent "BRB - Boundary Review Board I:\ENCHTEDWlTlMELINECCI/OclOber 30. 1997 --+ +- BRB Review (45 Days) 11/01/97 Public Notice for 11/13/97 CC/PC public hearing published in Federal Way News & Tacoma Tribune 12/26/97 NOI* to BRB* Enchanted Park Annexation Project Time line --+ 11/03/97 LUTC Briefing Circulate 60% Petition +- ( 12/16/97) Council Holds 2nd Hearing on zoning, holds public hearing on 60% petition, votes whether to accept 60% petition then votes on Annexation Ordinance --+ +- 11/12/97 SEP A Comment Period Complete ! 11113/97 LUTC/PC holds 1 st Hearing on zoning at Special Meeting. '" '" ",' ,: ?>j~ "," "j, ,0 ;. ¡ ii if :>, ¡'; :5 ;, ¡z EW :~ m :'; , .X ~-.J -. 0- .-+0 I~ J) Ii! " if Ì!' jf! ~ ",: !!ì .:¡ ,- ',ilí; , m¡ ;~ii I ',:' ., !¡i¡ e \,., v "'" z'" £; ~¡; ~,z 0 ~ ~ . ,/"\ ~' l ../ ~I/ /"/" z'! /". ,/,//" ! ,/,/ v,,/ "1' ¡"! ~ ; ,/ .Ý/, ,I, 'I .11 / /" ", ", I ,_, / ',I' (: ':s"'" ' " '. \ . ì ,I I " ""II,fÎj"~,r.-/J!\",,',:,\,I,, ", '," '\"~""'" ~I" '---- --l',j,¡i ,," "," !"\:","" " ... "/-"'\.\", /1 '.. I I/!""" "" ,'. . """"'LV /' ll. ~/"\~r\ ':,!..,:~\~: \ "':,:~:1:~L_-......-¡;~-,,/ 1,';://;",' , /IJU , ~J;::Yl{~~":,'f.~,i\~lJ./íJJ.- ':<' ",/[<,' i'Œ""'t..'-J.!",:~,-'>--"-"'J/¡- !,,' ",'?t ' ",,/,;. J':ffiì'~"',,-,-"/"'!""':/'~\ t, /i:;",~~)=\~,,j~tC,! )1"', ~I~,~,"" / /,: J :;\ '*\--;:')"<>j1~~j(¡:-:i,=:¡;~~~ ,'i i,/ 1,/ I j ',I L-I'~::;~\-œ<'~)(\ ì (1;'w i fLJ 1 4"\\:,:, ! llh-----N !I".,,',lk '",/ l'\ 1(1"'" / /'\,~,~J - \\,,,': ;:Ij 1I"'::-fJ41ì -It! )r-:r,;I~i ¡{,v;: / ,V"~-> -~',;:>J!, (jb¡'\~jd~ /l(êJ'\,:" Ji! I(f) I,,",;' : l'",""I'~\-é:"",1 ~""\q),:,, /Iì!iml 'i"""",",':¡! ~"l@, '" II .:7-; :, Il'J(," -- _J ¡~,;mif ~ ",,; 'IL. - ", ' /I :idjll' ". ,j I '\," /\jllili!' . ¡ \::~'~;::I~~~~~, r@, Å-. rJl1~ } / ,',:"'" ,,'! " > / \ \<./r"\ C J >,'\\...o--!~ ~ II 01-"1,, - 'J o!!}¡'\l/'v/'~",~J . If/I; r,' IA/c,2' o"",~f'I!ì] \ , ,I,t! I~ í ¡ ii' ¡It, ,,' L)~~,:;c:r)~;¡~~}~~œl \ ,~ /' ~,,'~H; I "IJ, /1 ¡i,__! t,) i :,jr; I¡"',\'-l--- '/i'~~"I"", i,',! ' 1/ ! ¡ ~ 'Ai', ,/ u: ~ 1111' (.J, f'ETJ [/ 'i /~-¡:~! f9' ~~;J:-"-~',~~u'J,~.r...(n<' ¡ ~'?3 Ii ! /,( i,",!, 5 I./~"<"" ~-",~"",r-'n_- "\ \\(I!) o'-~ .. ¡!Ilr:E II "(/"~/;/-I-;f'<I"~\ ::"1'+- I ! ¡~, ill]" I-;:i~tji-I~' I "!>\\ I::, I \~ ill /!/ 10 /~~~ ~i\ I \:\, ~\{o, - / 'r-r-¡/-=--«'," 4,",,"','" :¡,J, ",ïi:",\, I@',"\""i,:","" ~"" /1 ! I ï -7,',~,",-"'~ ! ,~'; \,. I \ \, I:~; ',c-, , (/ ' / , ! I!1J'" \ ~-:~ --- i '\ ~ D 'L '\ ¡" II , ;/ .i,~,,(,i,~:,'.r~~)',','!~,:~~@:!\,\"\,, i i!",r~ll[",IL~!~;~j~',~(;/ 1- I ¡.1. I ,m!! ,;~, : ~'t\\\ ~ )" I j ') ¡ 'i:,lf~--"-, Ilti, ;;",;;'<~\~, ))'" ~.), ~v,~\ J ~\ " : I! tj:i_,-~,~ i ! F/1!~) \ '-"_1 h-, ,)', : ) 'I ! i :' ~ , ,ell u"'/' V,' \':"~/1 i.-', '; ""'-"'" 'Ii ¡ " , /',' ,."."""..",~,::~,.,,-'O~\~,~.,,"i\&,~,I,;'i,',:,~"t",<",l¿!",',"',1,1".""."',,\,,,',',',',.1 '~l " 'I, ,: ¡ r' f'-;:'- ~Fe .\\ \\ '\ '~~,-:,'t~---'~,><, ' .J!'/ ) I! ',C] !" \" ,,0 '.,j----"~"'-------' / L i:it! c 't Ii ,,'; ~ I( .', nj. ..: / ;-;11:1--"-" ,'I\T7j¿ "',1 11:1 , !":~,'::-- ,,~j~¥:, ...:~~-~~~~,::~,,~cl iiil. / ¡!, ';'" 'Ii! :- : 'k, ,; 1 ! II ir, ' -- "'~i ,! , L.J :'1 ------' ! ~ 'I I '~ . , , -", u II :t P .1 \ , \, \ , '., / XHIBIT ~GE î 5 OF -1 v \.....I '"," , :ifÞ , ì. ~ I,;,,¡ '6' '!I:¡¡ g~ i:F~' Û ¡;j,!!¡ 1~ ¡j~m \Ç) 4: :¡¡¡Hi ø ~¡; ,,~ ;;! ~.~ /.c1~~ ~i /<.....",' ,/'\ : ,,',\ ~ I /', /, ,', ~i ¡ 4",,/, ~/""/,~,/,:,/,, ~t'. \.~\'((~,\\" :', S:;;/, \ .<\\, 'I 'I <;"::-<"\." \',!~\ ,Ii '/"'/"""'¡"""" \"/"," I' ,. it ';::;', ':;;; ,\', ,- -, \ j- ,- , 'I V':\" '-. '. "',' I ' '::::, "'\: "\ "\ ",\\. PAAŒLY \:", \, c", ""', ~/I \: L-.... .I nt", \\'::::'~>.I\>':t'&.\ \<\ -'~;..-j .' J\!:>.....~\ " ',' ,',' ..J;;II II \\ 'í" ,/ hl'~\ ",',""'<"" ,d."", \\' ) / . 112;"--':""""1 ¡> "'>'-, " I ~~C::>-:_"ç:! "'!' II)'>;.. ::, ,í '~""---'EÌ\\'I"I :'F.~"','~p \' /: / ¡ ¡!!,\...-'::"Pl~L'\,;::;~~J"íi~. I 'J'\::C:'-:, ' ~"""/I " "::' /""'."'-:',¡,~ CJ,', ~~'"~'~~ffl-~"'1!!,, 'Ý",,~ , '"',,,~,'~, :,',1 ;: :' / :\ ¡ A-~~---l~-----,,;¡ ~:", fj \i ,;<\-\) il " ;\ ' -----<\" C~ '\, ~<.. i "i ,; I-: '\": :/,,! \\\' .J~~";\, {,r.l 'r-<'" II"~ ii-,', ; "':0, II, ~ l, ¡~".BJ, \~ \ ~., A ,:'>::0,"; : \:'<i; /f! I ',~ , ,j~<::"-¡n:'::~,!l, ~~ 'tf~{ \:;c, 0: ! ,-;1 'I' '" l,: C'! , '~ \ ¡: /~' I It.li.,,; f-:\ I, ,,- :::", ill /¡IF!,""""""""""" !,",-{~!/,'~,.,~~_j"'~ " ,',~,:,~,\'\~-:~ (1' Lli'!,I"!'1 '=-'---t" ,," _,0, - " ,¡ß ~ lff." ii, 1",:111?', , i"".'ll1r"ì"",-",'n~\\@C',',",~,'',..~" ~ J,',"" 7,';,J'I,~ "', " i,w',I, >1.', °l(("" ~~; cbi,,'~ J,?', I~{1 7[ i hi!' f/' ~ . '0 u rV = !,.',""r¡~, /, /# ~"";;;" ~ i,.', ~r(,;;>~~lc,=) /~...,. , l~,' '! ,ll" /, ",,/' '\.J}il '\, , ~.l,l" "7'CJ .' / V//' j \> \. \\ W -;:' , W/,I >I!~,~ ' \\ 1;"\ )\\ "",,- <::) i/ c/ " t~J/ì--':'Çf{=- \\ ~ u ',----- :'Il~ "';, j"""",>"".Y,""", -- ",,/ /I",I"',',((,:,~,:l:,.:b"",:L;¡t,,,'-,¡,:~\,',\"',,, I \"Jr_liliill_,_,'~~~":~¡ 'Ii ~ ~l, ' ! .I / ).è'(~,.; . .~:~~ ~ ',;.- i j /Ii ~/ /1""':""'., ,"",N,'(-¡"..r;~,~- ','7-', ~t'\j\ ~ ", ", 'I J,.bL ' ~ ..:- -'" fJ"" "'Xv' '," Go) i'+\ \ I 0 ~ -'-:-::- i.;;, ¡\'\'D}o, iil.,jl ! I, ¡' { .~ ~",~.. .;,i;¿~' &5ì ';\\': 0))1 I I ':I, ',',.f~:é, '--,_'F,~.,,'-'J, l~,,~'I:,\" "'-,,1, ;(~f,5!c*.., '~,.~,',-,-,-.""".-,'¿;/, '."".., ", ',', //"'i,,,,; , ïR i I'i, " : .,' II ii ....'~:, ," ..,~" 'I' ,<¡¡?,~ ~~ 9 I :-',f"~,,,'~',,_~,~, '-c) ,.j,¥,~\I:7" r.,:.=,'.~":Z.,',,,'~, _!",.".¡.:,-,~ II," 1\\-,: \!,I,;, , j,_,I,r~,-,.,' ~,[,','¡~ ¡[,H,; i ~'.'~fV,-,.~,' '---C7"-) --C:)"Ç) 'l' ,,',l', i' II ¡ ~:. J~ -F :-=1~c' -~;=- =1 ,t'L~ ;' ", '~"r I " iill\i],~ ~ -'ice]! ' Ii, , 0 ¡'{ '~,j), ~ ,Ji,,---~:- :! f:~L'--_-D[] 0 (J) - ----~~---- - un- ---- ::¡~-, :': ~ - """ L ~!~ q~;~ '" t \I ',;¡J " u' n ", '(p, !i¡~_' ì~ .~;, !i 1, x , 'Ì> u' '~ ~: ;~ J . r ! Æ ~ \' > '" ~ -t':; ~ - , VI , . ~ ~-~ ~ ¡ ',' n." ~ ;:, :\ ~ ' ~; ,'i~- t" - ¡ 3: ~,'¡ ~ ¡ ':~I; ~ ~ h ~ ; .1,; ~ ~ VI ;,,\ r" ~ IT! U U ~ .. Z ,f' :: ~ t- , > , Z ç ¡¡: 0 > ~ ~ ", ø EJð I'm :, >< ;;~ 0-, -. 0- .-+- ." -L J Æ v 1', II I '\ ,\ ')\ , \, 1'\ J ;>, it I N,/ frY' / I ¡ . ---L '/ / \ IBIT PAGE 1. ~ OF 1 ( ( ( ;g~ Q::J: m- ìtD ¡ - ! ~ .... 10 "TII-J . O'OOT '-"C>OCUI! ....... ...". - ,....., . FOOT ICAUH FÐOCIE .... .~ U"."'IT""" .......,... . . ~ ¡ !! 20 FOOT .......,... ....... """ - TNEs. . O'OOT ........ F!NŒ .... -- ........",.., YEOn"""" LOCATlONS IN ALL AREAS ARE APPROXJMATE AIID ARE HOT INTENDED TO UMIT lHE LDCATlal Of' SUCH USES ENO-I.ðNTEP PARKS AN-IEXATla-I ENC"'ANTED PARKS. INC. 3h2ØI ENC...ANTED PARKWAY SOUT'" FEDERAL WAY, WA ~3 """1O"" MR TODD 5UC...AN 12ØbJ6bl-6ØØð DlEVlElOPMIEN T ACTiV~T~ES ~~~.~.~?it J I ------'--"", , :¡:-_._--~- --:: - -::.. -=. ::: -=== - :::;::- -:=-. "?: ~ DATE: October 31, 1997 TO: Phil Watkins, Chair Land Use & Transportation Committee Cary M. Roe, Public Works Director ~ FROM: SUBJECT: SR16/Tacoma Na"ows Bridge Toll/Formation of Local Involvement Committee Background The Washington State Department of Transportation is soliciting the appointment of elected officials to the SR 16/Tacoma Narrows Local Involvement Committee (LIC). According to the information provided by the WSDOT, the LIC's purpose is "to advise them on ~atters related to the November 3, 1998 advisory election" when registered voters within a proposed boundary will be asked to register their support or opposition for tolls on the SRl6/Tacoma Narrows Bridge. The attached information from the WSDOT provides further detail on this issue. Staff will be present at the November 3, 1997 meeting and will seek guidance on this issue. CMR:jg attachments k:\lutc\narrows.br ...,. 'l1li\ ,',:'¡ImI¡:' i<ij"\"J"~" "~-¡!~ : cr¡¡, ,,;..m.';"",\Í., ,'.',.' ,S~'W.,~,;\~'t>~1Ilk,," ,'" " J ' "'"" ,'" '.'I"ïr.,t",I\,..", ""~"""",'~~.:r ,:~!,~" Ii\, '~q,.': :X';'f,"':":::':';'~""':~"i,~,.,.~,I;:::--,'.;':"'":/,~t""". ',~',.l'>':'"<;J" .. ',";',:, .,,;',\¡;':'~...J,I¡<f't.t.;';'~'Ir., :\" ".,""""".. , ',:!:,::,"" ,::"",:":,;",.,,,.':,::.,..ji~;~~:,:'~:';\l~~í:>¡¡r~Y",,; ...,;.A:F" ",~~{:i')' -:'\~;'~...' ;:,.' '".' " ::..' ',' '., ':", lJ~i'l.{:f~'lii'~l'Ì,1;.,re'~:~~"\~~';ð;' ~~~'.!'I1.1t"'"" '~J:::I,i¡¡~' ,; ,. C,' . ',' ",:",W':,~~:. \'I-?IV.{~",""'({r:.¡f';.~:t¡¡,..' ;~u,,~,.; ";';I(~" """"',,' " .t!.::,;.~.,:,~,;,.~.¡.~~.:"i';'~!..~t~IP~ "'..,:..~;."" , ,,', ,,~æ~',.;,:,~, . ~~])iJßLIC ])IUV,ÄTK'INITIÃT,IV~ ~~::;:,~ . "::ikl~~,"'" ',", ..~,'.",r.'."""',)'$...,.,~..",.,.,~t'!I""', '\'¡}'~.di.~:'" ": .. .,:,",.',~,~,',¡rf.,,',;',:':"'~ ;, ~; ,,' , ~OOÄL]NVQ.Ç'., '~~I~J!!~QI\fM~1W;~E '. '" '!'~~&:"";~", "" .~:' , ',:, ' ,', !li" ,,"'i\':"'~,:r:)}";:'!';""I:n',"':',:,:'!~,""'~., .)r' ", \',: 'r, .-.,~, ~....: '\ .., ,,'!l.~(!.'{\,¡~:"'>'~: "'.~'iI¡ ~:'<]...¿,:~{"',,'~,'.(t:':;"I:'.'X,~" ':'~,:,.'::~:,,':'~,,~"';f~' it,: "~:"":'."'('¡'¡Y",M<"'~/\."., ""';.~. .!'..';1ì!1'¡¡;;~}~"'J'.ft-':.: :~'..;;}'.."1i';'~~ ",', ,,' .""r:','" 'i' ",,' """':"")' t" , ,,', '" ,\..,.,'" .:,/:} ::;:~::.;.i~;I"~".~"';J~~,i~,t,,;~J.~~::, ,:,.,.,,;,,:;.~i,.~./':'~,.:' " PURlOSE,.... " '" ,',',': ':!:"}r."~~:f. ~ ..~ø:,:!::~1f;:.. f(.",:",:,,:~j#lr~i.~f.~,:~,. . :"?,~"':!'/.f.:,, , , ," ."" ""¡".'.j""':~""""';""'~"'~~'.":,,,,"..',cil""."g'~ ,!I~e',Pu,b~,jç I~.rivate L~cal Involvement COm~~~}~~~ f?~~~~:~:~~.~4!i~~~!'}~~~š p~~Jec~,. IS refe~rcd)o as the ~Jocallnvolvcmcnt C()'rym,~ttç,,91~Wi~~)~~~.IE~~<;rc~ted l;1,n.?er'::':.'~~\;;1 Revis~9 C~de, ~rWashington (R~~) ~?~~.~.~~2~~~.(~)~~1.~rrr.~;~~~~f~rJ.~~,'q~:~f~9~~~vÅ~~ Washll1gton Swte Department of lransportatlon{WSDOT) on~matters,re]ated:to'the' ).~':."'~.~' exc~ution :ofthc advisory cIe~tion:I;~TI1ë:~~pii'ri1cJÿ"fd~¿~ibri~tt;íh~~~&cin.;itte'e':~â¡'~"1c.Ç-:]') '~~, makc r~c,ommend~tion~ based upon p~~lic..ëon~?~cn~ ~,n~'~~~~~~{,~'eOg~áp!liè}?Oli~d~y,: ~or :~~>:~:¡ , the advls()~y eJection and 2) make rccommenda,tlons on a'proJ~c.tßcscr~phon that'ls !, ' " . '>' " prèpåfþ(iby;WSDOT and presented to 'citizc'ilS iJi the â,fTeCt~Ø 'p}õjèd 'àf,ca prior tÓ ti~c ;". :, r.~i;:;'!~, .el~f1tß#...t;l'þis i~lf()rm~tiOl~ ~\'il~ ,ùso b~.usc~ for ~e::vot~r~~~p~Wrhlcì,.~hichïs p,~~parc,d. b~'¡~~~:':~~~:.~,~~,;\! :.. ìl1e,§ecretary of Statc's OHlcc 111 coordmatlon wlth'cou~ty, clccho,ns staff:,' '" ,-, ,: ,.t~~:;I.<!i",{ ,/ :"";' ,,', "':'~;r..:"" '¡~,,::.':"':.,f';:,"'¡'~).,;',' LICMEMBEnSIIII- ;"";0', :~:' '. '.~ ;""",:.:,~!: c' :'~. '~>~~::~;\~i~~;}~' City and County Elected Officials::",jJ:;,:,.',;,ß:%H!\;;:<,f?f:,,'f :' ,.',.' " ,',' ,:,:",>;~,::." ~.\::~~'" , The law allows for city andc9~tyjUrisdictioÍ1sthatliéin\vlîÔ1~;.. \:ili'p~'Withiñ'ari\!1(!:,:':r'¡':;i~~)~i,~'t?~;;:: affected projectarea to appoiritope. elected,çfficialtoserveoiJ.'ih~?tHífunlttee.Thes&,~:A:)~r(" elected ,officials'shall be appointed bya'In~jõcltyiÖfthè membêiš{øtthé~èityor cðÙntY:!:":¡~'/,/Jiji~~;¡, ::::: ;:::~PS formed 10 SDP:::~O:~:::se Ihe p~;~! ":Z; ..:;";;~¥~~~ ¡ The county legislative authorities from counties that lie in wholthjr inpårtofthe"~ffebted ¡¡'ì:(í;~)~":¡;~~¡"";fi;;E;V'\' project area may appoint two representatives each from organizations formed to support or '",.' ¡ '" ,,' oppose the proposed pJ;oject, if any groups exist. ' " r ;; For the purpose of appointments to the LIC, the proposed project is defined as: "capacity improvements across the Narrows that will be fmanced withtolls." Groups may form' , around any issue related to this proposed project, and it is,the county's responsibility to decide which groups should be represented on the LIC from ,their jurisdiction. The statute, contemplates that the county may validate these organizations in any manner they chose. ¡. ~J Note: There are two alternatives currently under study for an Environmental Impact, Statement (EIS) that provide additional capacity across the Tacoma Narrows Bridge and SR 16 corridor. One alternative involves double decking the existing bridge. The second alternative is a new parallel bridge south of the existing bridge. A new lane in each direction from the vicinity of Cedar Street to the vicinity of Purdy is also being studied in conjunction with these two alternatives. Both of these alternatives are proposed to be funded by tolls. The third alternative under study is "no action" or no "build" related improvements. If the third alternative were to be selected by WSDOT/Federal Highway Administration (FHW A) as the "preferred alternative" under State Environmental Policy ActlNational Environmental Policy Act (SEP AlNEP A), then it would not be necessary to conduct an advisory election. 'ie i , ~ I:. :/ ',' :~ f '" !¡ ? October 23, 1997 ",,' ,"' .' f. , ;;. [ ~ ~ ~ \' } :J October 23, 1997 DATE: October 29, 1997 TO: Phil Watkins, Chair Land Use & Transportation Committee ~ r Ken Miller, Street Systems Manager FROM: SUBJECT: Street Sweeping Contract Extension for 1998 Background The 1997 Street Sweeping was rebid in December 1996 and the contract was awarded to Action Services, Inc. in the amount of $64,954.20. Street sweeping services have been provided to the City for approximately nine months. We have received a few complaints regarding the service, however, staff feels that the problems have been resolved by increased communications with the drivers. The contractor has requested a 3%, or $1,948.63, increase for 1998 due to the quantity of material generated and the resulting increase in disposal costs (please see attached letter). The original contract amount of $64,954.20, plus the 3% requested increase of $1,948.63 equals a total of $66,902.83 for 1998 street sweeping services. Note that the new contract amount is still $5,879.57 below the second low bid received in December 1996 of $72,782.40. Recommendation Staff requests the committee forward the following staff recommendations to the November 18, 1997 City Council for its consideration: 1. Approve extending the Action Services, Inc. contract term for street sweeping services through December 31, 1998; 2. Approve an increase in compensation of$I,948.63 (3%), for a 1998 total of $66,902.83; 3. Authorize the City Manager to execute the contract amendment. KM:jg attachment cc: Contract File Day File k: \1utc\suweqJ. 98 OCT-29-97 WED 10:31 AM ACTION*SERVICES*CORP. F AX NO. 1 360 373 9711 P. 1 "Isn't it time you got Actton ?" Ac£fon ServJccs Copur3L.iun ~'o Fe", .LUJ HI,",~,.~I"rl V!A. ~(:~1' ().C.,,! ;7.;)';-. . I-;"Y ';-¡-Tl1 OCTOBER 23. 1997 CITY OP FEDERAL WAY 33530 1ST WAY S FEDERAL WAY, W A 98003 ATIN: KEN MILLBR RR: STREET SWEEPING CONTRACT EXfENSION DEAR SIR, AT nus TIME. WE WOULD LIKE TO REQUEST A CONt1lACT EXI'ENSION TO PROVIDE snmIT SWEEPING SEll VICES TO 111£ crry OF FEDERAL WAY FOR 1998. WB ARE ALSO ASKING THAT YOU CONSIDER. AN INCREASE OF 3%. WHICH WOULD TOTAL $1.948.63 PER YEAR. WE HAVE FOUND 11IA T nŒ AMOUNT OF S'I1lEET W AfrŒ TO BE DISPOSED OF HAS EXCEEDED OUR EXPECTATIONS. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS. PLEASE CONTACT THIS ornCR AT YOUR CONVENIENCE, WE LOOK FORWARD TO CON'1'1NUJNG OUR. CONTRACT WID! FEDERAL WAY. TONY Do SANDEFUR 10/29/97 WED 10:48 [TX/RX NO 6335] DATE: October 28, 1997 TO: Phil Watkins, Chair Land Use/Transportation Committee FROM: Ken Miller, Street Systems Manager ~~ SUBJECT: 1998 Street Maintenance Contract Background The City has contracted with Lloyd Enterprises, Inc. to provide street maintenance services since March, 1994. The current contract expires December 31, 1997, at which time the City can either extend the contract with Lloyd's, rebid the contract, or choose to hire its own in-house crew to perform those services. The 1997 road maintenance contract for Lloyd's services is $484,637.36 for labor and equipment, plus $37,000.00 for materials for a total of $521,637.36. Through initial discussions with Lloyd I s, that amount will increase by 8 % to provide the same services for 1997 due to increased labor costs (see attached letter and documentation). The contractor has not increased equipment and fixed costs just the labor, the new contract total would be $563,338.36 (which includes $317,061.00 for labor, $177,758.40 for equipment and $68,518.96 for fixed costs which covers yard rental/storage, rock, waste disposal, and other materials needed to maintain the right of way). The benefits of having an in-house crew provide road maintenance services are long-term cost savings, better customer service, and ability to provide flexibility in terms of work tasks and schedules. However, in order for the City to provide its own crew, the City would have to incur initial start-up costs for equipment, and the purchase and development of a maintenance yard for storage. There is currently no budget available to cover these initial start up costs. When originally bid in 1994, the second low bidder amount was $481,000.00. Assuming an inflation rate of 4% per year, that same bid in 1998 dollars would be $562,702.00. At that rate, Lloyd's would be higher by $636.03, including the proposed 8% increase for labor in 1998. Rebidding the project would likely result in an increased contract amount, and would also cost the City approximately $3,500.00 for advertising and printing costs, as well as staff time. Lloyd Enterprises, Inc. has provided road maintenance service to the City for the past four years, and has become familiar with the City and its processes. They have developed a good rapport with citizens and City staff. Staff therefore recommends that the most cost effective and efficient option for road maintenance services at this time, is to negotiate and extend the current contract with Lloyd Enterprises, Inc. for 1998. Recommendation 1. Authorize staff to extend the term of the existing Lloyd Enterprises, Inc. contract through 1998 and increase the total contract amount to $563,338.36; which includes $317,061.00 for labor, $177,758.40 for equipment and $68,518.96 for fixed costs. 2. Forward to the November 18, 1997 City Council meeting for approval, and place on the consent agenda. KM\km Meeting date: November 3, 1997 cc: Maintenance Contract File Day File k:\1utc\rd98mai.mem Fill Dirt, Gravel Crushed Rock, Top Soil Lloyd Enterprises, Inc. 2102 South 341 st Place P.O. Box 3889, Federal Way, WA 98063-3889 FAX: 838-0103 PHONE: 874-6692/927-0416 LLOYD I * 238 OB Dump Trucks and Trailers Loaders and Dozers October 20, 1997 City of Federal Way Attn: Ken Miller 33530 151 Way So. Federal Way, WA 98003 RE: 1997/1998 Road Maintenance Contract Dear Mr. Miller, Lloyd Enterprises, Inc. would again like to be servicing your Road Maintenance Contract for the up coming 1997/1998 season. Another year has gone by in our working relationship for which the success of this project is still continuing to grow and evolve. The cost of doing business hampers our position in maintaining a level from one year to the next without some type of increase for services provided. Specifically in the area of prevailing wage benefits. We must do everything in our power to maintain this standard for our qualified employees. Previously, the cost of the increase of the prevailing wages and benefits have not been entirely recapped from the City of Federal Way. Since the start of this contract the wages and benefiits have gone up. At this time we are requesting the following contract adjustment to cover the increase in prevailing wages: 1. Contract Labor - Lead Person Maint. II Maint. I Overtime SUBTOTAL CONTRACT LABOR - 2000 Hrs. x - 4000 Hrs. x -2000 Hrs. x $42.11P.H.= 84,215.00 $40.16 P.H. = 160,650.00 $33.55 P.H. = 67,096.00 = 5.100.00 $ 317,061.00 2. Service Equipment - NO INCREASE $ 177,758.40 3. Fixed Costs NO INCREASE $ 68,518.96 TOTAL CONTRACT $ 563,338.36 Increase in total cost of contract is 8% or $41,701.00. Lloyd Enterprises, Inc. is looking forward to continuing this project. If we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, I~~< Randy Lloyd Vice President City of Federal Way Maintenance Contract Analysis of Costs and Profit - Labor 10/20/97 lABOR 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Total LEI Plus Projected Base Wage FICA FUTA SUTA Fringe Indust Hourly Projected Billing Rate Description (hourly) (L&I Req) Insurance Cost of 15% O/H&P To City labor (coI7)x.15* (co I 7+8) Analysis Using Washington State Prevailing Wage Rates For Public Contracts: Lead Person 25.06 1.92 0.20 1.08 6.83 1.53 36.62 5.49 42.11 MW II (operator) 23.56 1.80 0.19 1.01 6.83 1.53 34.92 5.24 40.16 MW I (laborer) 20.88 1.60 0.17 0.90 4.72 0.91 29.17 4.38 33.55 15% 15% Markup Lead Person 2,000 X 42.11 = $ 84,215 Maintenance II 4,000 X 40.16 = $ 160,650 Maintenance I 2,000 X 33.55 = $ 67,096 Overtime $ 5,100 $ 317,061 * A markup of 15% on labor costs is 5% less than the allowable 20% markup for overhead & profit specified in the 1996 Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge, and Municipal Construction. State of Washington DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRIES Prevailing Wage Section - Telephone (360) 902-5335 PO Box 44540, Olympia, WA 98504-4540 Washington State Prevailing Wage Rates For Public Works Contracts . The PREVAILING WAGES listed here include both the hourly wage rate and the hourly)rate o(tring~ ' " benefits. On public works projects, workers' wage and benefit rates must add to not les'~ thä'n1IiTs"'-'---." total. A brief description of overtime calculation requirements is provided.on the Benefi~ Cod~Key. KING COUNTY Effective 08-31-97 ***************************************************************************************************************** Classification ASBESTOS ABATEMENT WORKERS JOURNEY LEVEL BOILERMAKERS JOURNEY lEVEL BRICK AND MARBLE MASONS JOURNEY lEVEL CABINET MAKERS (IN SHOP) JOURNEY LEVEL CARPENTERS ACOUSTICAL WORKER CARPENTER CREOSOTED MATERIAL DRYWALL APPLICATOR FLOOR FINISHER FLOOR LAYER FLOOR SANDER MilLWRIGHT AND MACHINE ERECTORS PILEDRIVERS, BRIDGE DOCK & WARF CARPENTERS PILEDRIVERS, DRIVING, PULLING, PLACING COLLARS AND WELDING SAWFILER SHINGLER STATIONARY POWER SAW OPERATOR STATIONARY WOODWORKING TOOLS CEMENT MASONS JOURNEY LEVEL DIVERS & TENDERS DIVER DIVER TENDER DREDGE WORKERS ASSISTANT ENGINEER ASSISTANT MATE (DECKHAND) BOATMEN CRANEMAN ENGINEER WELDER LEVERMAN, HYDRAULIC MAINTENANCE MATES OILER DRYWALL TAPERS JOURNEY LEVEL Page 1 PREVAILING WAGE (See Benefit Code Key) Over Time Holiday Nate Code Code Code 1M 50 1R 5N 1M 5A $25.60 $33.38 $30.76 $11.71 $29.85 $29.69 $29.79 $29.69 $29.82 $29.82 $29.82 $30.69 $29.69 $29.89 $29.82 $29.82 $29.82 $29.82 1M 50 1M 5D 1M 5D 1M 50 1M 50 1M 50 1M 50 1M 50 1M 50 1M 50 1M 5D 1M 5D 1M 5D 1M 50 1N 5D 1M 5D 8A 1M 5D 1N 5D 8L 1N 5D 8L 1N 5D 8L 1N 50 8L 1N 50 8L 1N 50 8L 1N 5D 8L 1N 50 8L 1N 50 8L 1J 5A $30.62 $63.77 $31.81 $29.02 $28.58 $29.02 $29,07 $29.07 $29.46 $28.58 $29.02 $28,66 $29.80 KING COUNTY Effective 08-31-97 ***************************************************************************************************************** (See Benefit Code Key) Over PREVAILING Time Holiday Note Classification WAGE Code Code Code HEATING EQUIPMENT MECHANICS MECHANIC $18.45 1J 5A INDUSTRIAL ENGINE AND MACHINE MECHANICS MECHANIC $15.65 INDUSTRIAL POWER VACUUM CLEANER JOURNEY LEVEL $9.07 INLAND BOATMEN DECKHAND $18.15 1K 50 ENGINEER-DECKHAND $19.77 1K 50 OPERATOR $20.55 1K 50 INSPECTION/CLEANING/SEALING OF SEWER & WATER SYSTEMS BY REMOTE CONTROL CLEANER OPERATOR, FOAMER OPERATOR $9.73 GROUT TRUCK OPERATOR $11.48 HEAD OPERATOR $12.78 TECHNICIAN $6.25 TV TRUCK OPERATOR $10.53 INSULATION APPLICATORS JOURNEY LEVEL $27.21 1M 50 IRONWORKERS JOURNEY LEVEL $31.42 1B 5A LABORERS ASPHALT RAKER $26.08 1M 50 BALLAST REGULATOR MACHINE $25.60 1M 50 BATCH WEIGHMAN $20.92 1M 50 CARPENTER TENDER $25.60 1M 5D CASSION WORKER $26.44 1M 50 CEMENT DUMPER/PAVING $26.08 1M 50 CEMENT FINISHER TENDER $25.60 1M 50 CHIPPING GUN (OVER 30 LBS) $26.08 1M 50 CHIPPING GUN (UNDER 30 LBS) $25.60 1M 50 CHUCK TENDER $25.60 1M 5D CLEAN-UP LABORER $25.60 1M 50 CONCRETE FORM STRIPPER $25.60 1M 5D CONCRETE SAW OPERATOR $26.08 1M 50 CRUSHER FEEDER $20.92 1M 5D CURING LABORER $25.60 1M 5D DEMOLITION, WRECKING & MOVING (INCLUDING CHARRED MATERIALS) $25.60 1i/ 50 DITCH DIGGER $25.60 1M 50 DIVER $26.44 1M 50 DRILL OPERATOR (HYDRAULIC, DIAMOND) $26.08 1M 50 DRILL OPERATOR, AIRTRAC $26.44 1M 50 OUMPMAN $25.60 1M 50 FALLER/BUCKER, CHAIN SAW $26.08 1M 50 FINAL DETAIL CLEANUP (Le., dusting, vacuuming, window cleaning; NOT $18.60 1M 50 construction debris cleanup) FINE GRADERS $25.60 1M 50 FIRE WATCH $25.60. 1M 50 FORM SETTER $25.60 1M 50 GABION BASKET BUILDER $25.60 1M 50 GENERAL LABORER $25.60 1M 50 GRADE CHECKER & TRANSIT PERSON $26.08 1M 50 Page 3 KING COUNTY Effective 08-31-97 ***************************************************************************************************************** (See Benefit Code Key) Over PREVAILING Time Holiday Note Classification WAGE Code Code Code MACHINISTS (HYDROELECTRIC SITE WORK) MACHINIST $16.84 METAL FABRICATION (IN SHOP) FITTER $15.86 LABORER $9.7.8 MACHINE OPERATOR $13.04 PAINTER $11.10 WELDER $15.48 MODULAR BUILDINGS CABINET ASSEMBLY $11.56 1 ELECTRICIAN $11.56 1 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE $11.56 1 PLUMBER $11.56 1 PRODUCTION WORKER $9.26 1 TOOL MAINTENANCE $11.56 1 UTILITY PERSON $11.56 1 WELDER $11.56 1 PAINTERS JOURNEY LEVEL $23.88 2B 5A PLASTERERS JOURNEY LEVEL $30.71 1R 5A PLA YGROUND & PARK EQUIPMENT INSTALLERS JOURNEY LEVEL $8.42 PLUMBERS & PIPEFITTERS JOURNEY LEVEL $38.26 1B 5A POWER EQUIPMENT OPERATORS ASSISTANT ENGINEERS $28.29 1T 50 8L BACKHOE, EXCAVATOR, SHOVEL (3 YO & UNDER) $30.75 1T 50 8L BACKHOE, EXCAVATOR, SHOVEL (OVER 3 YO & UNDER 6 YO) $31.19 1T 50 8L BACKHOE, EXCAVATOR, SHOVEL (6 YO ANO OVER WITH ATTACHMENTS) $31.69 1T 50 8L BACKHOES, (75 HP & UNDER) $30.39 1T 50 8L BACKHOES, '(OVER 75 HP) $30.75 1T 50 8L BARRIER MACHINE (ZIPPER) $30.75 1T 50 8L BATCH,PLANT OPERATOR, CONCRETE $30.75 1T 50 8L BELT LOAOERS (ELEVATING TYPE) $30.39 1T 50 8L BOBCAT $28.29 1T 50 8L BROOMS $28.29 1T 50 8L BUMP CUTTER $30.75 1T 50 8L CABLEWAYS $31.19 1T 50 8L CHIPPER $30.75 1T 50 8L COMPRESSORS $28.29 1T 50 8L CONCRETE FINISH MACHINE - LASER SCREED $28.29 1T 50 8L CONCRETE PUMP-TRUCK MOUNT WITH BOOM ATTACHMENT $30.75 1T 50 8L CONCRETE PUMPS $30.39 1T 50 8L CONVEYORS $30.39 1T 50 8L CRANES, THRU 19 TONS, WITH ATTACHMENTS $30.39 1T 50 8L CRANES, 20 - 44 TONS, WITH ATTACHMENTS $30.75 1T 50 8L CRANES, 45 TONS - 99 TONS, UNDER 150 FT OF BOOM (INCLUDING JIB $31.19 1T 5D 8L WITH ATACHMENTS) CRANES, 100 TONS - 199 TONS, OR 150 FT OF BOOM (INCLUDING JIB $31.69 1T 50 8L WITH ATTACHMENTS) Page 5 r;f""+<"""'..::" -' :' \. W'.,,',,""" ,.!,~' ----'- J I ¡ i \ J ! ,j } ¡ ¡ I I I , 1996 Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge, and Municipal Construction English ~ wr- Washington State ...,/1 Department of Transportation ~ American Public Works Association ~ Washington State Chapter MEASUREMENT AND l' A YM" LASORElI1ENT AND PAYMENT ~,~ 1-09 Certain payment items appearing in these Specifications may be modified in lb. plans and proposal to include: ' 1. The words "For Structure," "For Concrete Barrier," "For Bridge," etc. with tht intent of clarifying specific use of the item; or 2. The words "Site (Site Designation)," with the intent of clarifying where specific item of work is to be performed. ¡ ,. Modification of payment items in this manner shall in no way change the intent ofth ' specifications relating to these items. t I 1-09.4 Equitable Adjustment ! Thc equitable adjustmcnt providcd for elsewhere in the contract shall be determined 1 in one or more of the following ways: I 1. If the parties are able to agree, thc price will be determined by using: . a. Unit prices, or . b. Other agreed upon prices; ¡ 2. If the parties can not agree, the price will be determined by the Engineer using: I a. Unit prices, or I b. Other means to establish costs. The following limitations shall apply in determining the amount of the equitable, adjustment: ~ 1. The equipment rates shall be actual cost but shall not exceed the rates set fOrth ~ in the AGCIWSDOTEquipment Rental Agreement in effect at the time the work I is performed as referred to in Section 1-09.6, and 2. To the extent any delay or failure of performance was concurrently caused by tho CO""",;", A,ooo, ood tho Co"""t,,- tho Co"""", ,h,l1 bo ,",inod 10 t. a time extension for the portion of the delay or failure of performance concur. f rently caused, provided it make such a request pursuant to Section 1-08.8; l however, the Contractor shall not be entitled to any adjustment in contract price,! 3. No claim for anticipated profits on deleted, terminated, or uncompleted work I will be allowed. r 4. No claim for consequential damages of any kind will be allowed. f 1-09.5 Deleted or Terminated Work ¡ The Engineer may delete work by change order as provided in Section 1-04.4 or may I terminate thc contract in whole or part as provided in Section 1-08.10(2). When thd contract is terminated in part, the partial termination shall be treated as a deletion change ~ order for payment purposes undcr this section. ¡ Payment for completed items will be at unit contract prices. I When any itcm is deleted in whole or in part by change order or when the contract is terminated in whole or in part, payment for deleted or terminated work will be made as .¡ follows: 1. Payment will be made for the actual number of units of work completed at the ¡ unit contract prices unless the Engineer determines the unit prices arc inappro. ¡ priate for the work actually performed. When that determination is made by the ., Engineer, payment for work performed will be as mutually agreed. If the parties cannot agree the Enginecr will determinc the amount of the equitable adjustment I in accordance with Section 1-09.4; ¡ ¡ ! Page 1-88 1-\1/ Z Payment for partially completed lump sum items will be as mutually agreed. If . the parties cannot agree, the Engineer will determine the amount of the equitable adjustment in accordance with Section 1-09.4; 3 To the extent not paid for by the contract prices for the completed units of work, . the Contracting Agency will pay as part of the equitable adjustment those direct costs necessarily and actually incurred by the Contractor in anticipation of performing the work that has been deleted or terminated; 4 The total payment for anyone item in the case of a deletion or partial termination . shall not exceed the bid price as modified by approved change orders less the estimated cost (including overhead and profit) to complete the work and less any amount paid to the Contractor for the item; 5. The total paymcnt where the contract is terminated in its entirety shall not exceed the total contract price as modified by approved change orders less those amounts paid to the Contractor before the effective date of the termination; and 6. No claim for damages of any kind or for loss of anticipated profits on deleted or terminated work will be allowed beeause of the termination or change order. Contract time shall be adjusted as the parties agree. If the parties cannot agree, the Engineer will determine the equitable adjustment for contract time. Acceptable materials ordered by the Contractor prior to the date the work was terminated as provided in Section 1-08.10(2) or deleted as provided in Section 1-04.4 by the Engineer, wiII either be purchased from the Contractor by the Contracting Agency at the actual cost and shall become the property of the Contracting Agency, or the Contracting Agency will reimburse the Contractor for the actual costs connected with returning these materials to the suppliers. i.O9.6 Force Account , If the contract calls for work or materials to be paid for by force account, payment amounts will be determined as shown below. 1. For Labor. The Contracting Agency will reimburse the Contractor for labor and for supervision by foremen dedicated solcly to the particular force account item of work (but not for supervision by general superintendents or general foremen). The Engineer will compute the labor payment on the basis of these four factors: a. Weighted Wage Rate. The Weighted Wage Rate combines: . (I) the current basic wage and fringe benefits thc Contractor is required and has agreed to pay, (2) Federal Insurance Compensation (FICA), (3) Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA), and (4) State Unemployment Compensation Act (SUCA) A Weighted Wage Rate shall be computcd for eaeh classification of labor used. This rate shall reflect the Contractor's actual cost. It shall neithcr exceed what is normally paid to comparable labor nor fall below the minimum requircd by Section 1-07.9. If the Engineer authorizes overtime, thc Weighted Wage Rate shall be determined on the same basis. Page 1-89 -~---- 1-09 ---"'. 2. . MEASUREMENT AND PA YMEN'}' I -\ b. Travel Allowance and Subsistence. This includes the actual costs of l allowances for travel or subsistence paid to employees in the course of their! work on the item. This reimbursement will be made only if such allowances j are required by a regional labor agreement or are normally paid by the ¡ Contractor to comparable labor for performing other work. ! c. Industrial Insurance and Medical Aid Premiums. The Contracting Agency \ will reimburse Contractor-paid premiums for Marine Industrial Insurance ¡ for State of Washington Industrial Insurance, and Medical Aid Premium; r which become an obligation of the Contractor and are chargeable to the ¡ force ac~ount ~ork. T~e Contracting ~gency will not pay the ~~~ctor \ t~~edlcal AId premIums that arc paid by thc employecs. - d. }>.,.~flì~T:f~?!it;The Contr~ctin~ Agency will pay the Contr~ : pertenrof'the sum ofthe costs hsted m a, b, and c above to cover project overhead, general company overhead, profit, and any other costs incurred. \~p~,~~~~ri~~:rhe Contracting Agency will reimburse actual invoice cost for Contractor-supplied materials. This cost includes actual freight and express chargcs and taxes as described in Section 1-07.2 provided that these costs have not bcen paid in some other manner under the contract. A deduction will be made ¡ for any offered or available discounts or rebates if the Contracting Agency has I provided the Contractor with the means to comply with the provisions allowing! the discount. The Contracting Agency will then add 15)~.ercent of the balance I to cover project overhead, general company overhea~rofit, and any other cost! of supplying materials. t To support charges for materials, the Contractor shall provide the Engineer with valid copies of vendor invoices, including freight and express bills. If invoices are not available formaterials from the Contractor stocks, the Contractor ¡ shall certify actual costs by affidavit. / I[ If claims for materials costs are too high, inappropriate, or unsupported by satisfactory evidencc, the Engineer may determine the cost for all or part of the materials. When determined in this manner, the cost will be the lowest current t wholesale price from a source that can supply the required quantity (including ¡ delivcry costs). [ The Contracting Agency reserves the right to provide materials. In this! case, the Contractor will recei ve no payment for any costs, overhead, or profit. ¡ ~qw:~t. !he approval 0: the Engi~cer shall. be required for the selection of macnll1e-poWB-tools or equlpmcnt pnor to their use on force account. The payment for any machine-power tools or equipment shall be made according to the current AGC/WSDOT Equipment Rental Agreement which is in effcct at the timc the force account is authorized. The rates as set forth in the Rcntal Rate Blue Book (as modified by the current AGC/WSDOT Equipment Rental Agreement) are the maximum rates allowable for equipment or modern design and in good working condition. These rates shall bc full compensation for all fucl, oil,lubrication, repairs, maintenance, and all other costs incidental to furnishing and operating the equipment except labor for operation. Thc Contracting Agency will ad ,12 '.ent to equipment costs to cover project ovcrhead, general company over cad excluding equipment overhead included in the Rental Ratc Blue Book), and profit. 3. Page 1-90 ~ r I I i MEASUREMENT AND P A YlVlENT :..-- 1-09 Current copies of the Rental Rate Blue Book and the AGC/WSDOT Equipmcnt Rental Agreement will be maintained at each District office of thc Department of Transportation and at each of the offices of the Associated General Contractors of America (in Seattle, Spokane, Tacoma, and Wilsonville, Oregon) where they are available for inspection. 4. Force Account Mobilization. Force account mobilization is defined as the preparatory work performed by the Contractor including transportation of tools , equipment, and personal travel time (when included in a bargaining agreemcnt). The Contracting Agency may pay for mobilization of equipment and labor if the force account item is not an item included in the original contract proposal or such other contract items as may be included in the special provisions as being eligible for reimbursement for mobilization. Off-site work in prcparation for the travel to the project, costing $300 or less will not be paid. The Contracting Agency will not pay for mobilization for off-site prcparatory work for forcc account items under any circumstances unless the Contractor specifically makes a rcquest in writing in advance of any such mobilization work. The written request shall include an estimate for mobilization costs involving off- site preparatory work and the basis for reimbursement. The approval of thc Engineer will be required prior to commencing the mobilization for all forcc account. To the agreed final amount of mobilization for force account shall be added an amount equal to 15 percent of that sum for all other costs, including project overhead, general company overhead, and profit. 5. Sub~o.~,~:as~The subcontractors will be .allowed a»p~r~ent markup of thc ~s"'fèomputed from 1,2,3, and 4 for ll1surance,~&O tax, and bonding. 6. Contractor Marku~ Subcontractors. When work is performed on a forcc a~as~ÿ*'áppiõ~~ntractors, the Contractor will be allowed an additional markup equal to 5 percent of the total cost computed for 1,2,3,4, and 5 for all administrative c~sfs: 7. Insurance, B&OTax, and Bonding. The Contractor will beallowedan additional markup equal to 5 percent of the total cost computcd for 1,2,3,4,5, and 6 for insurance, B&O tax, and bonding. The payments provided above shall be full payment for all work done on a force account basis. Thc payment shall cover all expcnses of every naturc, kind,àn9 description, including all overhead expenses, profit, occupational tax and any other Fcdcral or State revenue acts, prcmiums on public liability and property damagc insurance policies, and for the use of small tools and equipment for which no rental is allowed. . No claim for force account shall be allowed except upon writlcn order by the Engineer prior to the performance of the work. No work shall be construed as force account work which can be measured under the spccifications and paid for at thc unit prices named in the contract. The amount and costs of any work to be paid by force account shall be computcd by ,the Engineer, and theamount certified by the Enginecr shall bc final as providcd in Section 1-05.1. " The Contractor's wage, payroll, and cost records pertaining to work paid for on a force account basis shall be open to inspection or audit as provided in Section 1-09.12. I j !¡ t T II '" II . ~ 'I , ,I i I; -'I i( ,¡' ¡ I /; I Page 1-91 - DATE: October 29, 1997 TO: Phil Watkins, Chair Land Use & Trnnsportation Committee ~tJ\ Ken Miller, Street Systems Manager Rob Van Orsow, Solid Waste/Recycling Coordinator FROM: SUBJECT: Litter Control Contract Extension through 1998 Background Vadis Northwest recently submitted the attached letter which states their positive interest in renewing their contract with no increase in cost for litter control which expires December 31, 1997. The contract's scope of work directs Vadis to perform a variety of low-skilled and semi- skilled operations in addition to maintenance of the City's right of ways. This flexibility provides labor cost savings to the City while at the same time providing useful employment to specially challenged individuals. Service is scheduled so that the Vadis crew regularly removes litter and debris from all major right of ways and assists with clean-up of surface water management facilities during the summer months. Based on feedback from the Streets and Surface Water Maintenance Supervisors, the work provided by Vadis represents an excellent value. The number of litter and debris complaints handled by the City has declined markedly since the service was initiated four years ago. Recommendation Staff requests the committee forward the following staff recommendations to the November 18, 1997 City Council for its consideration: 1. Approve extending the Vadis contract term for Litter Control through December 31, 1998 with no increase in compensation; 2. Authorize the City Manager to execute the contract amendment. KM:jg attachment cc: Contract File Day File k:\lutc\98vadia.mem MEMO 10/8/97 RFCEP1ED r:~' ; TO: Ken Miller City of Federal Way f.'EDEl~.\L\'.'.Y':'1" ,~"ï.'. ." .~ Am,/:;,;:; .,.¡ FROM: Becky Raplee ~~ Vadis Northwest rg RE: Contract Renewal Vadis Northwest is not requesting an increase in the Service Agreement which currently exists between Vadis and the City of Federal Way. We would like to continue our current relationship and renew our Agreement, but for this year, continue to bill our current amount of $3864.00 monthly, We sincerely appreciate our ongoing relationship with the City of Federal Way and look forward to another year. We also value the quality employment made available to people with developmental disabilities through our alliance, Please contact me should you have any questions or comments. br 1701 ELM STREET. SUMNER. WASHINGTON 98390-2112 PHONE: (253)863-5173. FAX: (253)863-2040. TOO: (253)863-4508 City of Federal Way City Council Land Use/Transportation Committee November 3, 1997 5: 30pm City Hall Council Chambers SUMMARY In attendance: Committee members Phil Watkins (Chair), Mary Gates and Ron Gintz; Mayor Skip Priest; Director of Community Development Services Greg Moore; Deputy Director of Community Development Services Kathy McClung; Public Works Director Cary Roe; Assistant City Attorney Bob Sterbank; Street Systems Manager Ken Miller; Surface Water Manager Jeff Pratt; Principal Planner Greg Fewins; Senior Planner Margaret Clark; Administrative Assistant Sandy Lyle. 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 5:35pm by Chairman Phil Watkins. 2. APPROV AL OF MINUTES The minutes of the October 20, 1997, meeting were approved as presented. 3. PUBLIC COMMENT There was no public comment on items other than those included in the agenda. 4. BUSINESS ITEMS A. Subdivision Code Amendment - Staff presented responses to questions on the subdivision code revisions raised by the Committee at the November 3, 1997, meeting. Clarifications were made regarding costs of short vs. long plats, the definition of affordable housing, 15% open space, and Planned Residential Developments. The Committee directed that PRD provisions be dropped and that provisions to allow more flexibility in subdivisions be brought back to the Committee at the November 17, 1997, meeting. B. Affordable Housin~ - The Committee m/s/c recommendation of approval to the Council at the November 18, 1997, meeting of the Affordable Housing zoning code updates as recommended by the Planning Commission. Special mention was made that Section 22-836 requiring ownership and location of convalescent centers by hospitals was revised. A new Section 22-836 added convalescent centers and nursing homes to the OP zoning district use charts as a freestanding permitted use.. C.SWM Emer~ency Pump Purchase - Bids have been received for the pump intended for use in the emergency response and flood control activities of the Surface Water Management division. The Committee m/s/c recommendation of approval to the Council of the pump bid to Granich Engineering in the amount of $25,847.00 and for the trailer to haul the pump to VR Sales in the amount of $3,578.37. D. SeaTac Phase n - 30% Status Report - The Committee m/s/c recommendation of approval to Council at its November 18, 1997, meeting for continuation of the design and property negotiations of the SeaTac Mall Detention Phase n project. This pipeline system conveys flows originating as far north as South 312th and 316th Streets to the Regional Storm Water Storage Facility at South 336th/Kitts. Presentation to the Committee will take place again at the 85% completion stage. E. Enchanted Parks Annexation - Staff provided a status report on the 65-acre Enchanted Parks annexation. Provisions of the concomitant agreement were discussed including amending the zoning code. Also discussed were the time line of OP4 zoning changes, landscaping that would be completed in three phases, signage, a plan for present and future parking needs and drainage improvements. The Committee was pleased that negotiations on the scope of the project were progressing. F. DOT/Narrows Brid~e Committee - The Committee felt that issues facing Federal Way were numerous enough to choose not to participate in the SRl6/Tacoma Narrows Local Involvement Committee (LIe). They m/s/c recommendation to Council at its November 5, 1997, meeting to respectfully bow out of a matter they felt was a state or Pierce County issue. G. Street Litter Pickup Contact Term Extension - The Committee mls/c recommendation of approval to Council at its November 18, 1997, meeting for extension of the Vadis contract for street litter pickup through December 31, 1998, with no increase in compensation. The service, initiated four years ago has reduced the number of litter and debris complaints handled by the City. H. Streets Maintenance Contract Term Extension/I998 - The Committee forwarded their recommendation for approval to Council at the November 18, 1997, meeting of the 1998 Street Maintenance Contract with Lloyd Enterprises, Inc. Lloyd Enterprises has provided road maintenance service to the City for the past four years and has become familiar with the City and its processes and does a good job. Rebidding the contract would likely result in an increased contract amount as well as costing the City advertising and printing costs and staff time. The new contract total would be $563,338.36, including $317,061.00 for labor, $177,758.40 for equipment and $68,518.96 for fixed costs (yard rental/storage, rock, waste disposal, and other materials needed to maintain the right of way). 1. Street Sweepin¡: Contract Term Extension for 1998 - The Committee m/s/c recommendation of approval of the Action Services, Inc. street sweeping contract extension for 1998 to the Council at its November 18, 1997, meeting. The contractor has requested a $1,948.63 (3%) increase for 1998 due to increased disposal costs for the additional amount of material generated. The new contract amount totals $66,902.83 5. FUTURE MEETINGS The next meeting will be held on November 17, 1997 at 5:30pm in City Council Chambers. 6. ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 7:50pm. I:\LU- TRANS\NOV3LUT.SUM DATE: October 31, 1997 TO: Phil Watkins, Chair Land Use & Transportation Committee Cary M. Roe, Public Works Director ~ FROM: SUBJECT: SR16/Tacoma Narrows Bridge Toll/Formation of Local Involvement Committee Background The Washington State Department of Transportation is soliciting the appointment of elected officials to the SR 16/Tacoma Narrows Local Involvement Committee (LIC). According to the information provided by the WSDOT, the LIC's purpose is "to advise them on ~atters related to the November 3, 1998 advisory election" when registered voters within a proposed boundary will be asked to register their support or opposition for tolls on the SR16/Tacoma Narrows Bridge. The attached information from the WSDOT provides further detail on this issue. Staff will be present at the November 3, 1997 meeting and will seek guidance on this issue. CMR:jg attachments k:\lutc\narrows.br RECEIVED ~ ::7: Washington State ./1 Department of Transportation Sid Morrison SecrGtary af Transportation Transportation Building 0 C T 2 7 1997 P.O. Box 47300 CITY CLERKC"o Olympia WA 98504-7300 ;::s OFFICE . CITY OF FEDERAL WAY October 23, 1997 The Honorable Mahlon Priest Mayor City of Federal Way 33530 1st Way South Federal Way, WA 98003-6210 Dear Mayor Priest: On September 5, we sent you an invitation to appoint an elected official from your jurisdiction to participate in the SR 16/Tacoma Narrows Local Involvement Committee. We have not heard from you as to whether your jurisdiction will be represented on the committee formed to advise Washington State Department of Transportation on matters related to an advisory election scheduled for next fall. Enclosed you will find some of the information previously sent to you. If you do not wish to make an appointment to this committee, I would appreciate a brief note indicating your decline. Correspondence may be faxed to me at (360) 664-2770 or you may respond by mail. If you do wish to make an appointment, we are planning for the first meeting on November 7 and would like to transmit materials to the committee members prior to that date. Please call me at (360) 664-2911, if you still wish to make an appointment for this committee so that we can make the appropriate arrangements. Thank you for your attention and assistance in the matter. Sincerely, Rhonda Brooks, Project Manager Public Private Initiatives Program Transportation Economic Partnerships RB:nr If'; ~' t. ;"~~1~r~~~~~~~~,?} , " 't,!" : *:t}~r~f~:(";',::,~:~:~t:;:,;:>'::: "": tY :"¿""'" ~:t~""~,:~\""",, "'..~~,':., ", ,':;~,::~,:,"",~.' ~~:~,:'~",~~"r~;,",:,{,~~' :,~,' .:':>::~":""::"::,~,:""'\' , , ., "',', , :~-1..:Jt,y '.," '~~';~;~~~':Pi.iBLICI)I~iy,~1.'EINITIATIVFS{,:;';,,: ,:".~~"~i,', .,,\",':,~ :;;.;:~:'~" ~r- ....~.!!\þ,~,I,.,.I~ ,.,.j. J, "/' '~,".: .'..' '..,' ,,::'}~:t) ~~, , ',~ ,I ;EQCALJNVO[Y.EMENT,COMMITTEE!ft1 '. %',tiJ(""~. ,~',,"':; ;::';'":/~;r:~ "1; "':~;:",~I!:'.r"~""~\,,,::,~.'},:~.,('.:.;:,,'" ':.: " ','¡,1)"!' " :'. , .. ",:/ ' ..::".'"~,,:,"".'o,,.~, ;:,;i,'.""¡:"', ' "",.o¡;t',¡', " ':"',~"~:~.. '¥.' ..~!r.;":;f~;.:,., ',' : ,.: " , " '," ,', ,'.. ì~;t:~.~,,: "',"j~i!~~ P,URP.OSE~P:,~::i:,~~~,:,~~!, ", ,~:, ",' ': " , "", ',", '"" .".':'~'~.f~~~y. , ,~~'~};¡,:~¡ ,:iJi~~~Ü~'~rivat~'Lo~al Jl1volv~ment .con1:~i~i'~e 1or 1he SR 16f1'ac,oin,' a Narrows proj~ët'.,' ,~,:::'î~;~t::~ r';','iit( '" 18f11'~;CI':.p'%~';i8I"~I:(: "'" ,,' ".. ' \".e.. ...\:" ..m::. .' . 'i~;:;'i :1:~s~.~:refen~e,(Uo.as tlle,Local Involvement Coìni~l,i~tee,(T.IC). Thc LIC l,",S,.:c realcd under .; :~::':r!,i~1'f..~~$.~' ,~,~,::; t"":~ '~ '1.R.~"'C"é:I' , fW~' f' (RCW) 47 46'0306 () Th 'f I I IC ' d '. '""'~I'¡¡':~'" !~.¡¡¡ , ~'j:!~«, ~~'¡L,~~~~j...~,~,.~",,~sl1ngton " ,.' '".:~ a,: ~purposeo:.(1le.j Is10a ~I~~,:'~;;" ~~;:'5~';~ , ,~:,,¡,~~~:. '~, ;¡IkY.~]1II1£1PN'~t~1e pcp~~rLment,of ,J rans~~rL.atlo~'(\VS~.o1) 011 matteJ:'srelatcd to the '.',~' , . ~~~. ~~~~t;.~:~ :::f;~~~~:4=~~}?C~e~~,~!~,9h~ advi~ory election. ,Th,e 1\\:0 primary functions'ofthè committee are to 1)' "~o.¡. ::. ~. :\, : : ~':~f~/,~;;~+"~~}~R:~Sr~f:S~~!u~Cnd~lion~ based upon public comI~lcnt on the i~nal geo~ap~lic bou~déJ!Y for :".~j;' ., ,!;~,~: ,~'.;~" "qtJ.~~~~~~t]~"~VI~,Ory electIOn and 2) make reco~l1mendatl()ns on a proJect descnpllon that IS '~~.,,! :~ ~':;~1rj~",~,~~~~~~~~~pg~~~;~~ ~~DOT a~d prc.sentcd 10 citizen.s in the affected pro.icct~re~ pri.or 10 the" "."\~'~:-;. ?~,', ~",~Y\i' ';,,:;~~: <!'~~:,i",~!7¥.t~~~1.,(,] Ill,S Il1:orm:1110~ will. also be .USC? for ~he, voter's pam~hlet, which IS prepared, by ':~~." :;:!fi.~:. ,~. 7' . .:' : I :,:'. ",~ ,.'i 1l~~}~e,cre1arY.of State s OfIicc 111 coordInation with county elections sta.fT. "'~:~:~;,'~',' .1:-~".,;' ~ , , , ,",..,' '."'~": " , ' . ,',', , , , . ,.' :;,t..,':LIc.MEMßERSHIP," ,:', ' ";,~;':,'. ,I ' " " " , , . :.::' c. ' :'.¥i;~i;;c~l~;FÄ~i,;fA;',CitY:"aÌ1dCoulltyElected~;OffiCials<i ,,;,,"f~r;:", ¡if(.~¡':;;O";"(' .. ,', ':~"\'~""(" .C., "';:~;JV',:,.a:11~~~W 'àllowsfor cityátÎd ~t¿ITnty.jurisdictiôns#hatlie in'whole orin part withiri an'(;:;~)!':' " " )/.';~j;;}.n/;~~~g~;~!ç~piÓjeciarea toappoin{,()p.e~lected'òffïcialto"serve on the committee. ' These~j~~, .'""'~3~':",)~~,:{f~<:~l~9.!~~{Pí:ftclal~'ish~W, beappoii1t#d9y~majÓIity"ofthe members of the city or countyiJ ,:t:í",t.tf legislätiveauthoritý" ',' ,i'" ,,' ", ,>A" ',' ':.iw'"'f}:>l,..,;;¡""::,,,,,' ,"".' """ , 'i,,\ "M~mb~rs from groups formed to support or oppose the project" " " , , " The county . legislative 'authorities from countiés that lie in whole or in part of the affeêted project area may appoint two representatives each from organizations fonnéd to support or: oppose the proposed p~oject, if any groups exist For the purpose of appointments to the LIC, the proposed project is defined as: "capacity improvements across the Narrows that will be fmanced,with tolls." Groups may fonn ' around any issue related to this proposed project, and it igibe county's responsibility to!' decide which groups should be represented bn the LIC frolIl;théir jurisdiction. . The statute contèmplates that the county may validate these organizations in any mannertheychose;: t " ~ " :1 Note: There are two alternatives currently under study for an Environmentallmpact¡:{:': Statement (EIS) that provide additional capacity across the Tacoma Narrows Bridgeånd " ' SR 16 coITidor. 'One alternative involves double decking the existing bridge, The seêond alternative is a new parallel bridge south of the existing bridge. A new lane in each'\hi..' direction from the vicinity of Cedar Street to the vicinity of Purdy is also being studied in conjunction with these two alternatives. Both of these alternatives are proposed to be;! funded by tolls. The third alternative under study is "no action" or no "build" related improvements. If the third alternative were to be selected byWSDOT/Federal Highway Administration (FHW A) as the "preferred alternative" under State Environmental Policy':~'> ActlNational Environmental Policy Act (SEPA/NEPA), then it would not be necessary to"""~:. conduct an advisory election. . October 23, 1997 SCHEDULE OF MEETINGS , The first meeting of the LIC is scheduled for,9:00 a.m. - 3:00 p.m:, on November Gig Harbor. LIGmembers will be notified by mail of the exåct location,alongwith: meeting materials. At the first meeting there will be a project orientation for thecmembeis and the establisluIJ.entofLICmeeting procedures. , , ,', ; , " ' A second meeting is scheduled forN~vember24,1997 ;:. tinl'eand announced. ,The purpose of this meeting is to review boundaryandtoinake a reconimendation toWSDOT onahy changestò .. There will be two additional meetings oftheLIC which will be scheduled in April and ' May, 1998 to reviewa'project description that is prepared by WSDOT.",The exacttimeS;" and locations will bè announced. ' " .' MEETING PROCEDURES LIC meetirigs are ,open to the public. WSDOT will announce the appointments to the Committee and the time and place of the first meeting after October 20, 1997. No public comment is planned for,the first meeting, however, the LIC may wish to consider public comment at future meetings. All materials, transcripts, etc. are available to the public. . ~ ~ October 23, 1997 .', ." , . ~', ,',',;,:~.3' " "":~':""" ,> ,,' \'. ,,:'\',,¡,:} , ' "~'i(~~:~~i~.'~rst meeting, WSDOT will rcqtl~,st.~~ãttheLICestaþÜ~~,:âfew1pfócedufêi~;{~~t" . ,.~j,~ëeting location, public participation àtthe' meetings,fornlatused tomÍike a\,'i8.¡,\,,')~i:¥ :. ':i~tf~~~.~I~eI~dation, or ,~~y oth~r matter id7~~!~e~:~y..tb.e.LIC!ås,'~ong as itis within the i~te,~(t,,' '~'i'~~pqhe p~rposc of the COITI1l11ttec and adn:).imstratIveIYPosslble~¡:?":' ", ",:".!~~J~~j ,:":. :,,~: ':;.;" .';. ,\/,;,\.","<",.~:i'¡::;,-;:¡ ",,\,;(-:, : "'."'~,'.;,::..t :¡: f~:;A~~Y,~"I~,p! .ëN~bl ~shed by adm.i n istrati \:e;~I~'~~';~eqUi~~~~n~;'~8:F~~:~ommittee proce?ur~1~~,:~ ':~~~J?I~~~~,'~!~hm,,30 days orthe first mecllllg{j~t:t":\~~,f:.~î,f':' .:,~/"i~,':" ":".,~~~.~,f/.,,:?;; .." "';'Y1',,;,y '",' , ,,:/",\'.¡,'!' ,'. . ".>;::-. :.. '::"'~~;L' ]"C'~ I~E"COI\1MENI)A.I'I(')NS" ',}~,'.\,',~J1,~','/:;,',J,),î" '»::;,',;"'~':!),'"/",,.,,',¿,,.,"','.,',,',,'," ' .~" " .~ :;",'~'¡¡,,3!~ , ,'~V."\. ,I? J . ~"""r:!".'.'"f:,\""",: "':;',"':. ' ";""'oi " j~~T.h,~','LIC,:\~n(dcv~lop iIS own method of'pr¿yid~gt~~ôl1l111ên?iátiòns to the Department;.,t"~'i~;<" ,.~.,' p~o:vided that ~II decisions of the LIC shallb~,madeby~asiIiiple~inajority of the LIC "~:' "( ','..:;~;~ ,...membeis.'~A 'simple l11éJjoritv is defined as.'fift)' percent of the members plus one member" ":;"~¡\., of the LIe' committee. \VSÓOT will suggesf~;êve~al:mêansfodhe committee to consider. "";:,~~~,~~i , , , ,,",," ""',, ", ""'::\3:/Ä~ ", . 'i:.' \~~4 " '<'~;' " , ;1 October 23, 1997 City of Fcdera1 Way City Council I..and Use/Transportation Committee October 20, 1997 5: 30pm City Ha1l Council C'.hamhcr~ SUMMARY In attendance: Committee members Phil Watkins (Chair), Mary Gates and Ron Gintz; Mayor Skip Priest; Director of Community Development Services Greg Moore; Deputy Director of Community Development Services Kathy McClung; Public Works Director Cary Roe; Assistant City Attorney Bob Sterbank; Street Systems Manager Ken Miller; Surface Water Manager Jeff Pratt; Principal Planner Greg Fewins; Senior Planner Margaret Clark; 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 October 20, 1997, meeting were approved as presented. 3. PUBLIC COMMENT There was no public comment on items other than those included in the agenda. ~ 4. BUSINESS ITEMS A. Subdivision Code Amendment - Staff presented responses to questions on the subdivision code revisions raised by the Committee at the November 3, 1997, meeting. Clarifications were made regarding costs of short vs. long plats, the definition of affordable housing, 15 % open space, and Planned Residential Developments. The Committee directed that PRD provisions be dropped and that provisions to allow more flexibility in subdivisions be brought back to the Committee at the November 17, 1997, meeting. B. Affordable Housine - The Committee m/s/c recommendation of approval to the Council at the November 18, 1997, meeting of the Affordable Housing zoning code updates as recommended by the Planning Commission. Special mention was made that Section 22-836 requiring ownership and location of convalescent centers by hospitals was revised. A new Section 22-836 added convalescent centers and nursing homes to the OP zoning district use charts as a freestanding permitted use.. C. SWM Emer¡:ency Pump Purchase - Bids have been received for the pump intended for use in the emergency response and flood control activities of the Surface Water Management division. The Committee m/s/c recommendation of approval to the Council of the pump bid to Granich Engineering in the amount of $25,847.00 and for the trailer to haul the pump to VR Sales in the amount of $3,578.37. D. SeaTac Phase n - 30% Status Report - The Committee m/s/c recommendation of approval to Council at its November 18, 1997, meeting for continuation of the design and property negotiations of the SeaTac Mall Detention Phase n project. This pipeline system conveys flows originating as far north as South 312th and 316th Streets to the Regional Storm Water Storage Facility at South 336th/Kitts. Presentation to the Committee will take place again at the 85% completion stage. E. Enchanted Parks Annexation - Staff provided a status report on the 65-acre Enchanted Parks annexation. Provisions of the concomitant agreement were discussed including amending the zoning code. Also discussed were the time line of OP4 zoning changes, landscaping that would be completed in three phases, signage, a plan for present and future parking needs and drainage improvements. The Committee was pleased that negotiations on the scope of the project were progressmg. F. DOT/Narrows Bridee Committee - The Committee felt that issues facing Federal Way were numerous enough to choose not to participate in the SRl6/Tacoma Narrows Local Involvement Committee (LIe). They m/s/c recommendation to Council at its November 5, 1997, meeting to respectfully bow out of a matter they felt was a state or Pierce County issue. G. Street Litter PickQp Contact Term Extension - The Committee m/s/c recommendation of approval to Council at its November 18, 1997, meeting for extension of the Vadiscontract for street litter pickup through December 31, 1998, with no increase in compensation. The service, initiated four years ago has reduced the number of litter and debris complaints handled by the City. H. Streets Maintenance Contract Term Extension/I998 - The Committee forwarded their recommendation for approval to Council at the November 18, 1997, meeting of the 1998 Street Maintenance Contract with Lloyd Enterprises, Inc. Lloyd Enterprises has provided road maintenance service to the City for the past four years and has become familiar with the City and its processes and does a good job. Rèbidding the contract would likely result in an increased contract amount as well as costing the City advertising and printing costs and staff time. The new contract total would be $563,338.36, including $317,061.00 for labor, $177,758.40 for equipment and $68,518.96 for fixed costs (yard rentalIstorage, rock, waste disposal, and other materials needed to mAin~jn the right of way). I. Street Sw~pine' Contract Term Extension for 1998 - The Committee m/s/c recommendation of approval of the Action Services, Inc. street sweeping contract extension for 1998 to the Council at its November 18, 1997, meeting. The contractor has requested a $1,948.63 (3%) increase for 1998 due to increased disposal costs for the additional amount of material generated. The new contract amount totals $66,902.83 5. FUTURE MEETINGS The next meeting will be held on November 17,1997 at 5:30pm in City Council Chambers. 6. ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 7:50pm. i I: \LU- TRANS\NOV3LUT.SUM City of Federal Way City Council Land Use/Transportation Committee October 20, 1997 5:30pm City Ha11 Council Chambers SUMMARY In attendance: Committee members Phil Watkins (Chair), Mary Gates and Ron Gintz; Mayor Skip Priest; Director of Community Development Services Greg Moore; Deputy Director of Community Development Services Kathy McClung; Public Works Director Cary Roe; Assistant City Attorney Bob Sterbank; Street Systems Manager Ken Miller; Surface Water Manager Jeff Pratt; Principal Planner Greg Fewins; Senior Planner Margaret Clark; 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 October 20, 1997, meeting were approved as presented. 3. PUBLIC COMMENT There was no public comment on items other than those included in the agenda. ~ 4. BUSINESS ITEMS A. Subdivision Code Amendment - Staff presented responses to questions on the subdivision code revisions raised by the Committee at the November 3, 1997, meeting. Clarifications were made regarding costs of short vs. long plats, the definition of affordable housing, 15 % open space, and Planned Residential Developments. The Committee directed that PRD provisions be dropped and that provisions to allow more fleX1òility in subdivisions be brought back to the Committee at the November 17, 1997, meeting. B. Affordable Housin~ - The Committee m/s/c recommendation of approval to the Council at the November 18, 1997, meeting of the Affordable Housing zoning code updates as recommended by the Planning Commission. Special mention was made that Section 22-836 requiring ownership and location of convalescent centers by hospitals was revised. A new Section 22-836 added convalescent centers and nursing homes to the OP zoning district use charts as a freestanding permitted use.. C. SWM Emer~enc.y Pump Purchase - Bids have been received for the pump intended for use in the emergency response and flood control activities of the Surface Water Management division. The Committee m/s/c recommendation of approval to the Council of the pump bid to Granich Engineering in the amount of $25,847.00 and for the trailer to haul the pump to VR Sales in the amount of $3,578.37. D. SeaTac Phase IT - 30% Status Report - The Committee m/s/c recommendation of approval to Council at its November 18, 1997, meeting for continuation of the design and property negotiations of the SeaTac Mall Detention Phase n project. This pipeline system conveys flows originating as far north as South 312th and 316th Streets to the Regional Storm Water Storage Facility at South 336tblKitts. Presentation to the Committee will take place again at the 85% completion stage. E. Enchanted Park<; Annexation - Staff provided a status report on the 65-acre Enchanted.Parks annexation. Provisions of the concomitant agreement were discussed including amending the zoning code. Also discussed were the time line of OP4 zoning changes, landscaping that would be completed in three phases, signage, a plan for present and future parking needs and drainage improvements. The Committee was pleased that negotiations on the scope of the project were progressing. F. DOT/Narrows Brid~e Committee - The Committee felt that issues facing Federal Way were numerous enough to choose not to participate in the SRl6/Tacoma Narrows Local Involvement Committee (LIC). They m/s/c recommendation to Council at its November 5, 1997, meeting to respectfully bow out of a matter they felt was a state or Pierce County issue. G. Street Litter PickQp Contact Term Extension - The Committee m/s/c recommendation of approval to Council at its November 18, 1997, meeting for extension of the Vadiscontract for street litter pickup through December 31, 1998, with no increase in compensation. The service, initiated four years ago bas reduced the number of litter and debris complaints handled by the City. H. Streets MaintenllnC'.6 Contract Term Extension/I998 - The Committee forwarded their recommendation for approval to Council at the November 18, 1997, meeting of the 1998 Street Maintenance Contract with Lloyd Enterprises, Inc. Lloyd Enterprises bas provided road maintenance service to the City for the past four years and bas become familiar with the City and its processes and does a good job. Ret>idding the contract would likely result in an increased contract amount as well as costing the City advertising and printing costs and staff time. The new contract total would be $563,338.36, including $317,061.00 for labor, $177,758.40 for equipment and $68,518.96 for fixed costs (yard rental/storage, rock, waste disposal, and other materials needed to mll1nt.8Ïn the right of way). 1. Street Sweepin~ Contract Term Extension for t 998 - The Committee m/s/c recommendation of approval of the Action Services, Inc. street sweeping contract extension for 1998 to the Council at its November 18, 1997, meeting. The contractor bas requested a $1,948.63 (3%) increase for 1998 due to increased disposal costs for the additional amount of material generated. The new contract amount totals $66,902.83 5. FUTURE MEETINGS The next meeting will be held on November 17, 1997 at 5: 3Opm in City Council Chambers. 6. ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 7:50pm. ~ I: \LU- TRANS\NOV3LUT.SUM City of Federal Way City Council Land Use/Transportation Committee September 3, 1997 5:30 pm City Hall Council Chambers AGENDA 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 3. PUBLIC COMMENT (3 minute limit) 4. BUSINESS ITEMS A. 1996 Asphalt Overlay Final Approval Action Miller (S min) B. Nonconforming Code Revisions Street Improvements Water Quality Info Info Miller (30) Pratt (15 min) C. King Conservation District/ Regional Needs Assessment Info Pratt (15 miD) D. Subdivision Signs E. South 336th/Kitts Regional Storage Action Facility Slope-Repair Bid Award Pratt (5 min) 5. ADJOURN Committee Members: Phil Watkins, Chair Ron Gintz Mary Gates City Staff: Greg Moore, Director, Community Development Services Sandy Lyle, Administrative Assistant 661-4116 I:\LU- TRANS\SEP3LUT .AGN